Former dialectic here, the trick is using emotional manipulation to override your higher reasoning skills. The Amygdala overrides the cortex in situations of fear or pleasure.
Sometimes you have to wake up from what appears to be a beautiful dream, if it is all in you head, it might just be a fantasy and we occasionally have to address reality.
It has been my claim for 40 years now, that Leftism - regardless of what names are used to label it - requires it's adherents and practitioners to be self-righteous and sanctimonious. Being both is absolutely necessary to be a Leftist. The psychological roots of self-righteousness and sanctimony is narcissism. Every Leftist I've every known personally or known about, was a self-righteous, sanctimonious narcissistic prick who saw/sees himself or herself as a crusader for Leftist virtue. So as unpleasant it might be, I'm saying that you were one of those people. One can't manipulate your emotions to override your reason if you don't already view your emotions as moral and necessary in the first place. I'm glad you've had your awakening, but YOU were the reason you were a Leftist.
I've never been a dialetic, but I think I got a way to sorta dismantle their idea that "the mind makes the world" by dissolving the distinction between material and ideal. As in, it doesn't matter if you call it ideal, or material, the rules don't change.
They also share the natural predisposition to war and alienation, with fascism, nazism, islam etc. Especially with those practical and moral treats/gains of theirs.
It's called "casuistic sophistry," in English. In another language, it's called "Bilbul." But discussing the historical roots of this rhetorical technique would be hatespeech.
I was born in Soviet Union and Communism was a religion and Lenin was as Jesus Christ. We had to learn about Lenin, read books about him even in primary school. Schoolchildren were called grandchildren of Lenin. Crazy times 😂
Marx christ wood and wei led us to This Perfect Day Wood wei marx and christ all but wei were sacrificed Christ wood wei and marx gave us lovely schools and parks Wei marx christ and wood made us humble, made us good.
The West has something similar. "Democracy" is a socio-political belief system, hardly different than any of the state religions from history. They believe in 'democracy', the "political and legislative processes," and a hierarchical system of 'equality'; just like the Romans believed in the "blessings and justice" of Jupiter, Juno and Mars. Just like communists believe in the "glory of the revolution" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat." It's all a lie, designed to keep people in servitude. See, "Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion", by David Gelernter.
This changed in time, in true dialectic fashion. By the late 1970s, when yours truly advanced to Leninist Indoctrination 101, it already became a laughing stock. No one took it seriously, especially the teachers (my experience may be skewed though, because I attended a Jewish school - yep, these things existed in the Soviet Union).
@jmi I was ten years old when Soviet Union collapsed , but I remember all those stories about Lenin we learned as kids, and how we gonna build paradise on Earth with the help of communism :)
This is the exact reaction I came away with when I read Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. It has all the hallmarks of a religion. This is why the Soviets hated the presence of the Orthodox Church or any religion that was not Marxism and why they promoted "science museums". 12 million Orthodox Christians died as a result of the purges against the church.
From the evi website: Voegelin dedicated his life to the study of widespread political violence and the devastation that results when totalitarian ideologies that closely resemble religions foster the notion that pursuing the creation of utopias on Earth is achievable and worth any cost, including death.
'Religion is the opiate of the masses. (Except our religion which is not a religion - even though underneath the pretentious jargon it is exactly the same as a religion on every level.)' They were so opposed to traditional religion because they were fighting over the same turf.
the same reason as to why they wanted to replace the family, with the state... at this very moment, they are trying to do just that, here in the US, make the population dependent on the government, and replace the family with themselves.
I saw an interview years ago of an elderly German Catholic woman who grew up before and during Nazi rule. She recalled Hitler becoming chancellor and the next time she attended Catholic mass, a large portrait of Hitler was placed in front of the alter. She said her parents cried when they got home.
@@marley606 Mark Twain is a pen name, though, so Mark Twain doesn't exist, so it is Clemen's quote. I guess I failed at conveying the irony or whatever it is that I was trying for last comment.
Just got out of this cult a month ago. What a relief life has been since. I want to spend the rest of my life defeating it as now I feel betrayed, I feel like I was tricked. I was a Marxist-Leninist. I praised Stalin, Mao, the Kims, all of them under the guise of "critical support." I fell in deep but I'm glad I got out. I want to now go into law and politics and urge something must be done about the radicalization of the younger generation. Now that I'm out I have begun to recognize dialetics in the rhetoric of progressives and it scares me. I got into it in the beginnings of COVID, the isolation from society and my growing interest in ideology was prattled on by this intense anxiety and depression that overwhelmed me. The riots of 2020 was a major push into the deep-end as I was close to downtown and I saw my city on fire while all alone in my home. Prior to the lockdown I was warning people about COVID and no one believed me. I had gained this arrogance that everyone was wrong except me, that I was the predictor of the future. I had a psychotic breakdown over the course of three months in the summer where I believed Lucifer was communicating with me but after reading some more of Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, I had replaced Lucifer with communism. I "dropped religion." And at this point it is hard to describe what it is like once you adapt the ideology. I was ideologically blindsighted. I could not comprehend the logic behind capitalism, I could not understand life itself. It had put up such a barrier in the way I thought that I sincerely could not comprehend formal logic. It is ironic in that materialism rejects metaphysics, but it replaces God with the vanguard party. The rapture is revolution. It is the greatest eugenics project. Cull the disbelievers, forever. I believed that capitalists were lying about everything. People were misinformed, that the families of victims were just idiots. The famine wasn't on purpose, it was the fault of the Kulaks, sanctions and America caused everything, there was no idol. That's why there is a cult of personality in communist societies, Stalin is the logic of reality. It's scary stuff. It was brainwashing. It is the epitome of moralization and "rules for me, not for thee." Materialism always explained the misfortune of communists, but never explained the evil behind capitalists. They were just evil for evil's sake. But what got me out was my university professor in my final year of college, in my class about Darwinism and its effects on society and history. My professor and I had similar beliefs, we analyzed history in the similar ways, but I could feel this ideological gap between us. He was able to fill in the blanks. I could apply the "logic" of dialetics like a parrot. But he could come up with new thoughts. In discussing colonialism, my professor brought up cultural relativism. He said that it was being weaponized to moralize history, and he raised a hypothetical to a classmate of mine who disagreed. "If you were Cortez and you saw the native people sacrifice a human being in front of you, you would not simply stand there. You would want to end the brutality." And he was right. I put myself in Cortez' shoes, and it all clicked. Reading more of Darwin and comparing him with Herbert Spencer and later learning that Marx loved Spencer made me launch out of the ideology. It took months, primarily aided by studying for the LSAT and learning formal logic. Thank god for that. And after months of these thoughts stirring around in my head I came to the realization that Spencer and Marx were the same in that they wanted mankind to control evolution. But like eugenics, communism failed. The pull of evolution and our underlying animalistic behaviors can't keep the act for long. It's like flipping a coin. The more times you get heads in a row, the chance to get tails grows. You can't keep getting heads forever. At some point you will get tails. It's guaranteed. Now I'm just in the center. It's about evidence to me now, not ideology. I don't want to stray into another ideology again. But after this realization I am just so happy to know that I'm an American citizen and I've been allowed to fall into such a shitty rabbit hole. I would've never understood how evil, corrupt, vicious, all encompassing that communism is. It is the ideological version of the black death, fascism incarnate. And now I want to do all I can for America to win the battle against communism, against fascism, by all means necessary.
Im sorry you went through that, but if you were praising mao or stalin, i wouldnt call that comunism or marxism in anything but name. Thats basically fashism pretending to be comunism, just like how the nazis were " the nacionalist socialist party" but the first thing they did was kill of all the actual socialists who oposed their hatefeilled ideology. An ideology is not the lable, but the values. Idk if you are aware, but the way you are speaking now is quite ideological. There is no escaping ideology 1st of all, because an ideology for a human is a like an operating system, so better chose an ideology that suits you, rather than thinking that you dont have one. This guy here misrepresents marxism utterly, he doesnt even engauge with its concepts. The misunderstanding he has is that he thinks that every every conunist and leftist suports mao, stalin and lenin- they dont. The comunist left has varaous factions, most of which consider stalin and mao vile and evil people, who at best, made a lot of stupid mistakes that caused famins, and at worst, did genocides in the case of stalin. Nevertheless, beeing an anti-comunist, is in of itself an ideology. You wanting to erradicate it only makes me wonder how? Do you want to kill the people who believe it? I doubt it. But if you do, how would you be any different from the ideology of stalin and mao, oe hitler? One thing is neglected in most ideologies, and that is that people can have shi* politics, but in reality be perfectly good people. As well as the fact that different people take different elements from even the same ideology, so its best in my view to treat people as individuals, rather than as homogenous groups. I cant blame you for what you went through, not only bevause i went through the same tankie phase ( yes, some leftists/comunists/anarchists and so on call leftists like the ones you were " tankies" as a pejorative, because the type of leftist that suports stalin, also supports war and violence and this kind of thing) This looks like you are jumping from one extreme to the next before considering that you can take parts you like from one ideology, and other parts you like from another, and make yourown blend. I recomend you a youtuber which tends to get some controversy, but in my view, for the most part has the most balanced leftist views, and its Vaush. On the other hand, if you want to understna marxist concepts and a critique of capitalism, then richard wolf explains that very well. The problem is that if you dont like comunism, you are difinately not going to like capitalism either, because it too, to this day causes death and suffering, so knowing why it does what it does, unfortunatelly, or fortunatelly, to critique capitalism, you need something that comes out of the marxist tradition, because marxism was primerally a system for critiquing capitalism. This religion stuff, idk, i dont worship marx, tho i use some of his concepts that make sence to me. Leftism is sopposed to be about love, acceptance, tolerance, creativity, comunity, passifism, rehabilitative justice, authonomy, freedom and so on. So if it doesnt have those values, its more than likely not leftism. Have a good day
I love the subjects which you have been addressing lately which touch on how some of these political ideologies and worldviews are de facto extremely destructive religions, or how political ideologies seem to be repackaged Gnosticism. I’m so happy that you are also aware of the works of others such as James Lindsay on the subject. Thank you so much and keep going in this direction!!!
Demunsereeuw's book on Marx & Marxism has a particularly relevant chapter called "Obfuscation through complication". It discusses precisely how the dense language style is used to obfuscate contradictions, logical errors, flaws in the reasoning, etc.
Or you simply cannot understand it, because it is poorly translated into English, where English is the main issue at all, because it lacks a lot os aspects in human thinking, therefore is cannot expressed through that language and meaning gets lost. It seems that English is the language of obscuring things from public and delude people ...
@@brucetucker4847 maybe when you could read German and understand it, then there weren't such things as OP said. The academia in the USA barley existed ever.
@@SchmulKrieger If what you say is true, then only Germans should be allowed to read Marx because otherwise he would not be understood or misunderstood (and that's why the Russian and Chinese communists didn't establish communism but dictatorship maybe?). Really? "Those who disagree with Marx, fail to understand him; and those who do, are wise men able to fathom the master." Please. Marx contradicted himself all the way. For instance, his materialistic determinism - that it is the economic base that determines the superstructure - stands in total opposition to his famous exclamation: "philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point is to change it." This means that Marx believed it was the philosopher's duty to change the world -- with ideas, not with economic factors. Thus he negated his own theory of economic determinism by insinuating that philosophers (ideas) *can* change the world. But the Marxist will say: "oh, Marx's determinism shouldn't be understood in such a narrow, pedestrian, literal way, you don't understand him," and proceed to dilute Marxian determinism to such an extent that it barely means anything anymore... Which is the point Demunsereeuw makes, and I think is a very good observation: Marxism is so ambiguous in nature that it can always evade criticism, but in the act of evading criticism, it always sacrifices a part of itself, that is to say: its advocates can only defend Marxism by sacrificing a part of Marxism. For instance: you claim that Marx can only be understood correctly in German ("it cannot be expressed through that [other] language") thus sacrificing a part of your ideology by saying that understanding it correctly is exclusive to Germans (or maybe German-speaking, provided - I assume - they have the same linguistic affitity with the language as do the native speakers).
the word politics is goes back to the old Greek word ''polis'' which translates to ''city state / citizenship'', a broad definition of politics would be; that which is of concern to state and citizens, and as it is questions of morality are of great importance to the citizens, after all who wants to live in a shithole. Knowing this background, they make the claim that everything done in public, with influence on the state, is by definition political. This TIK guy is someone who read the works of smart people and not getting the ideas because he thinks some German is going to write his philosophical work, thinking about how it will translate and sound a hundred years later into a different language for some dork who could not even be bothered to learn latin or greek to read classical philosophy.
So because you assume that he doens't know how to read the native language, therefore, he cant possibly understand? Is this because you believe that translators everywhere doctored that 100 or 1000 year old literature?@@nocomment3294
This is something that once it's seen cannot be unseen. James Lindsey, and now you TIK, are doing the important work of elucidating this reality for those willing to listen. Thank you, and keep up the wonderful work!
Now you have to take it to them and throw down. You need to learn the magic and wheeled it with authority, knowing that it’s false, and that you have truth on your side. We literally have to master their tricks, and use them against them at this point.
Wow, you only had to listen to this twice to understand it. I'm listening now, and I figure 3 or 4 times at least. But, Tic asked us what we want and we said this!
I read Das Kapital when I was in middle school and was so lost that I gave up and came to the conclusion that I needed to wait until I was older. Now I’m older and have a much greater understanding of economics and philosophy and Das Kapital still loses me. Thanks for confirming my suspicion that it’s just nonsense.
It is an early misunderstanding of eventual capitalism. Capitalism in the early mid 1900s was not really capitalism.yet. Mercantilism, noble charters, imperialism and land feudalism (bond labor) was still very common and most of it called itself "capitalism". Many of Marx examples were either under capitalized ventures or still merchantiles. The new socialist/communists started to splinter off 1895 to 1930 as most of Marx predictions had not come true. He wasn't an economist or a proper philosopher...he was an identity editorial journalist. Basically a columnist.
@@STho205yep the early capitalists were actually not wanting a free market but monopoly. And now the post-moderns that claim to be opposed to capitalism will be used by the old-timey monopolists who hold power over corporations the lower class commies think they are gonna rebel against while depending on their power.
The one thing Lindsay seems to have stayed away from is the very thing that you point out eloquently. That is the ideological similarities between Fascism, Communism, and National Socialism which are all rooted in the same belief.
Demo-liberalism isn't a wholly different kind of an animal, either. All of these ideologies originate in the French Revolution and in the myth of the "noble savage" - negation of the reality of the human nature.
Liberalism is far superior though, as it doesn't require a a stack of bodies to uphold the balance of power. Lindsay doesn't dare to scare away his alt-right following.
@@_Dovar_ every type of ideology can be turned into a cult since with enough skill and coverage you can convince any people of everything also the only thing that is inate to humans is our adaptability, every crime has been a virtue and every virtue a crime and the idea of human nature changes every few centurries to the direct opposite so there are ideologies that just dont work out and some that do
I used to be really deep into these ideologies when I was young. They’re basically a language game that appeals to lonely people with a weak sense of self, you get an exhilarating feeling of being set apart from and looking down on the normies, speaking in a special jargon, having a clearly defined enemy. If you look at internet culture today, you’ll see that modern communists and 3P are the ones really deep into ‘ironic memes’, and irony is all about playing around with double meanings and ambiguity, in group and out group dynamics. In the end though, it’s unsatisfying, if you want to be liked for who you are rather than as an instrument. Great video btw, love your work
I suspect if you aren’t retired then about 6 years ChatGPT will make many a socialist and all this eyerolling at what is admittedly word games will give way to socialist advent.
A valiant effort. But a favorite quote of mine goes something like, "You cannot use reason to convince someone to abandon an opinion they did not adopt through reason.
You can't argue the priest into deconverting, but you can shake the faith of nominal believers and arm others with the tools to do the same. Either way, trying to throw some sand in the gears is better than coming up with reasons not to bother:
Former dialectic: the mindset is one of *disillusionment at reality*. It all boils down to that, and subsequently anything derived from this is insane - not in touch with reality. Disillusionment at the state of reality necessarily leads to abstraction from that reality, and you can piece together where it goes from here (not doing so myself for brevity, also you might come up with some ideas along the way if you try and piece things together yourself). Btw, it would be nice if you organised your thoughts on this broad topic and made a 4 hour video 😅 this is something that’s absolutely fascinating. I will say I don’t think you can be quite so clear-cut in treating eg Kant, followed by Hegel, followed by etc as priests of religious lineage, and I reckon you’d agree, but it does look like the essence of this Greek (originally Zoroastrian?) religion as revived by German idealism was maintained. Finally I want to say when I get some more money I’ll become a supporter, you’re up there with the highest quality educational - frankly scholarly - channels on the internet let alone RUclips. Much love ❤
This should be of interest for piecing things together @TheImperatorKnight, I’m pasting from Wikipedia: In the third essay ("What Do Ascetic Ideals Mean?") from his 1887 book On the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche discusses what he terms the "ascetic ideal" and its role in the formulation of morality along with the history of the will. In the essay, Nietzsche describes how such a paradoxical action as asceticism might serve the interests of life: through asceticism one can overcome one's desire to perish from pain and despair and attain mastery over oneself. In this way one can express both ressentiment and the will to power. Nietzsche describes the morality of the ascetic priest as characterized by Christianity as one where, finding oneself in pain or despair and desiring to perish from it, the will to live causes one to place oneself in a state of hibernation and denial of the material world in order to minimize that pain and thus preserve life, a technique which Nietzsche locates at the very origin of secular science as well as of religion. He associated the "ascetic ideal" with Christian decadence.
“The truth is that communism *HAS* worked everywhere it’s been tried” this gem should be taught in schools. Which is to say: It can’t ever create utopia but it will only create misery so every time it’s been tried and it created misery, it worked.
He's not completely wrong, but he got the intention part of it completely wrong. The goal isn't to kill people, the goal is to synthesize a new form of government that does work from the resulting information learned from the Government and social issues created in the wake of their Marxist project when tried in reality. This same lineage can be understood from the Frankfurt School of Economic theories attempts to understand the failures of the Marxist Experiment in Soviet Russia, as well as their attempt, with the CIA, to DeNazify post War Germany. I implore you not to trust Tik, however. The man is not well meaning. He seems to be lying for ideological reasons, in my opinion.
@@Redeemed.of.YHVH.thru.Christ Less then 20 million a year due to capitalism. I don't think any system is advanced as capitalism when it comes to death toll.
@bastiat4855Yes, just as with all “successful” societal structures, even those people choose to live under. Unless the vast moronic hordes spontaneously become much smarter(lol), this will continue in perpetuity.
I have highly intelligent friends who have been, or were, part of this cult for 45 years now ! Many have managed to escape, and the ones who remain all have some kind of issue from their young life. Most went into teaching and social work. The word will be spread 😔. Yikes.
It’s staggering how easily fertile, bright, young minds can be poisoned with this type of indoctrination. Look at the unbelievable number of deaths attributed to this type of rule. Look at the testimonies of those who have escaped it. Look at the proven lies after lies about what it is and isn’t. Subterfuge and propaganda and powerful tools, and they are leading us all to our doom. I’d rather perish in the dust than to surrender to such horrors.
It happened to be Peterson where I heard the explanation that merit for competence is the _least_ corrupt mode of organizing society, rank, wealth, and _earned_ privilege. Communists disagree with merit and skill, but if they took it to sports in America, which is Black-dominated, they would want superstars chopped down in talent, hobbled so non-athletes could win, and they would demand that the low earning athletes incomes be made equal to the high performers. White Marxists probably already discuss proposals that competitive Athletics be abolished, but that wouldn't be very popular among their target base. (We already saw Colin K describing himself as a slave to White basketball owners.) The point being that competent professionals, whether electricians or doctors or programmers or mechanics or cashiers or business owners GENERALLY RISE while incompetent ones don't. To the extent this is normal, it is also justice. Marxists want to flip that so the LEAST competent and LEAST talented are in charge of running everything. But even Marxists are clever enough to know that illiterate masses were unlikely to turn the USSR into a global powerhouse Empire, so they picked the Vanguard of educated Marxists actually run operations of the Dictatorship allegedly "of the PEOPLE".
I read James Lindsay’s book a year ago called “Race Marxism” where he broke down the Gnostic/Hermetic origins of Marxism/Hegelian dialectic, he’s been discussing this for like 4 years and everyone is finally catching on he was right about what CRT and wokeism really is.
This is just the Christian version of hitlers "elders of zion" propaganda. I mean crt is literally a school of law and wokeism isn't even a thing, if you can't attach it to sociology, psychology and social systems then don't talk about it.
Gnostic Christianity/Hermeticism is not inherently bad though, all knowledge is neutral, it depends on how the knowledge is utilized and expressed. To think something evil is not evil, but to think an evil thought and then act upon it is. When someone understands these ideas and others don't have the slighest clue, they can be inverted and utilized for evil, instead of good, and nobody will even know what's happening. The Roman Universal Church knew this well when they established their dogmatic structure, inverting The Christ and turning it into a form of psychological control over the population rather than a tool of common understanding and enlightenment. What others know that you do not can be used against you.
I was taught many of these concepts at a surface level in public school. I was always hung up with practical and logistical questions and would always wonder why they didn’t seem to care if something was correct or had good outcomes. This really illuminates the reason my questions were usually met with frustration and abrupt conversation ending actions. Thank you!
@@zogwort1522 What do you mean by "negating the existence of contradictions"? How is that "magical thinking" unless you're absurdly proposing Hegel believed that contradictions didn't exist?
@@zogwort1522 I'm not going to defend Hegel's idealism, but contradictions being "just a stage in an autonomous process that reveals itself to our small minds through time" doesn't sound like contradictions not existing, nor being dismissed as "an illusion" (if specific contradictions are tied to specific stages and *have* to exist in accordance with said stages, then even if one knows the autonomous process one will still have to reckon with these contradictions.)
For better or worse I believe in free association and voluntary exchange. If I'm willing to engage in a quip pro quo and both parties are satisfied without coercion well, that's their business.
@@Oldkekistani That's nice! Now what happens when you run into someone who doesn't share your beliefs? Because free association implies forced association and voluntary exchange also implies some exchanges are involuntary. See you wouldn't need to put in the modifier if you just believed in association and exchange. That's why things are said to be at least dialectical having two sides. Lets say you sitting on a bench and someone comes by and sits next to you. Is that not free association? but was it a voluntary exchange? Does it now make a difference who owns the bench? You the other person or an unknown third party? What if you get up and leave who's bench is it then? In fact the benches location and your relationship to the other person play a big role in a simple act of sitting on a bench in whether it is considered socially acceptable for the person to sit next to you on the bench in the first place.
Once people get the essence of reading this crap by trying to avoid to choke on all the BS that is involved I beg to understand how after so many failures it still hasn't gone down the drain.
As someone born and raised in a nation consumed by the virus of Communism, I instinctively recoil at the mention of the word dialectic. Word salad disguised as profundity.
I used to think dialectic is stupid, but then I realised that Hegel actually made a very astute observation. Something turns into its opposite by the virtue of its internal nature, thesis interacts with an antithesis, and then the opposite is sublated - it emerges on a higher level, even if it was seemingly suppressed. That's the dialectical approach. For example, fight with oppression turns into oppression, or with slavery turns into slavery, let's take the woke as an example: The woke think they have completely rejected slavery, yet they also want an utopia, and their utopia where there is no oppression requires that they are also not oppressed by the need to work, hence they need somebody to work for them - a slave. So slavery reemerges here, a seeming denial of all forms of oppression requires oppression. Let's take another example: individualism and collectivism. An extreme individualist should join a collective, because pursuing a collective's goals would mean also pursuing his own goals. On another take, an extreme individualist would want to enslave everybody else, and convince them they are working for the good of a collective, while in fact they are working for his benefit. That is taken from TIK's previous video - people trying to convince you you should work for the collective just want you to work for their benefit, that was his argument, so they are extreme individualists. Libertarianism is full of dialectical contradictions and syntheses by the way. Or in general, an extreme position turns into its opposite, and that comes from within, it is very dialectical. For example the most extreme unregulated free market capitalism turns into monopolies and destruction of the free market. Or the most extreme opposition to modern leftism turns into a support of it, because that is the only way to destroy it - by leading it to its logical conclusion. Hegel intended the dialectics to be applied to everything by the way. Not so sure about that, but one cannot deny the basic observation of thesis evolving because of its internal structure.
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 fascists and communists don't hate each other because of their ideological differences, they hate each other because of their ideological similarities. They both want complete control and dominance over society, socialism in any form can only exist if everyone is a socialist, and if can't convince them, you have to force them, and if you can't force them, you have to kill them. That's how socialism works. So fascism and communism can't both exist in the same place at the same time.
Hi TIK, I have a bone to pick with you. I have been watching your videos for years (and in the past I have been a bit critical on some of your videos). Before you, I used to watch other history videos (I had watched every episode of the Battlefield series). Recently, I went back and watched an episode of Battlefield. It used to be perfectly fine. But now, it is a shallow poorly researched video (with obvious errors). Because you have set the bar so high on your examination of history, I have become very spoiled. This led me to think about the history courses I took in college. A full semester college course is 45 hours of study. Anyone of your Battlestorm series can be turned into a full semester college level course on the topic (with an adjustment of time to fit the 45 hours). Your economic and political videos can be turned into a full semester courses on those topics as well. You have a gift for this. Don't give up. Also, You have done an outstanding job on the Stalingrad Battlestorm series (I have watched every episode, most of them multiple times). I look forward to you completing the series, but not at the cost of your health or sanity. Keep up the outstanding work. Paul
I was a communist in my late teens and very early 20s. I bought into it because I already was somewhat of a dialectic and I bought into that, because I noticed that the technological progress would eventually lead to full automation where human work is not needed. I also noticed that companies are buying each other up, getting bigger and bigger. Extrapolating both developments 50, 100, 200 years in the future, I saw it as a great threat that eventually everything humanity needs to survive, would be owned by one group or one guy who has absolute power. Collectivizing the means of production seemed like a jolly good idea to tackle that problem. I was under the illusion that a democratic implementation of communism would be possible. After a while, I noticed from where the wind blows. Meaning, it became obvious to me, that the way my comrades were thinking about things would lead 1. to the same thing communism has always led to, and 2. to the same thing I was trying to prevent in the first place. So after reenacting the Monty Python People's Front scatch for a few times, I started questioning my belief system.
"Collectivizing the means of production" in hands of the few was always the end goal of both communist and "free market" ideologues . What is a common ground between these two seemingly sharply opposite groups ? What is the synthesis of this thesis and antithesis ? 😁 Well, if you look closely, you will notice that both Marx and Rand (Mordechai and Rosenbaum) belong to a certain ethnic group we are not supposed to mention 😆
@user An obvious answer would be that these concepts were simply popular ideas in the Germany of the time, and that National Socialism was simply a kind of Gnosticism that adopted the language and symbolism of the Germans of the time.
@user Hitler incorporated racial purity ideas because of the influence the idea of the theosophical root races had on the Thule Society where Hitler got his ideas from. You've got to look back to Blavatsky.
Hi! Can you help me understand a part of the video. It seems to me that when having the contradiction 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 the synthesis would be 4 because 5 cannot hold in the material world. What am I missing.
Often these ridiculous ideas fail when out to the test. For example: leftist ideology: give endless money to the poor and there will be no more poor. The truth: there are more homeless people than ever riding the free gravy train. Or: give the state enough power through socialism and you will achieve communist utopia! The truth: utopia never comes. But it doesn’t stop them from believing it because on the surface it sounds nice, that’s why they use word games, to make it sound so morally right, so honorable, that the horrible result must be because you didn’t do the thing enough, it just needs more funding. The state needs more power. Then it will come about! That’s hell why it’s insanity. Like he said they hold two conflicting viewpoints in their head. How about queer gender threory? There is nothing inherent to males and females, only what society tells them. The truth: some men may act more feminine, but they are men. Only women can have babies. We needed and women to stay what they are so we have a functioning society. And changing your gender leaves you with a lifetime of medication to stay alive and not be in pain and makes you infertile.
@@anisamokrane2008 I would say apply that sense to a real world example, in the concept of gender. At the claim that gender is a construct, they are presented with the challenge of biological sex- and thus the compromise is the splitting of the two terms into meaning separate things. Sense of identity is not part of the material world
Thank you, Tik. Yours is one of the most succinct explanations of the Marxist/socialist/fascist cults, I’ve ever heard. Especially when given in the context of the times in which they were developed.
I think people believe in marxist or hegelian dialectics because it's a rationalization of history that puts you in a very comfortable situation which gives you the answer to most of the problems. Same happens to other ideologies but marxist fall into this many times.
This is just rancid atheists not owning their shit. James Lindsay is an atheist. TIKhistory is an atheist. All 'woke'/neo-Marxists/cultural-Marxists are atheists. Marxists are atheists. Maoists are atheists. Nazis are atheists. James Lindsay and TiKhistory want YOU to believe that atheism is religion. They want you to believe that atheist communist ideology is a religion. They want you believe that atheist fascist ideology is a religion. They are full on attempting to discredit religiosity. They are hyper-subversive individuals.
@@elLooto no, then it were the solution a priori to the issue or problem, which isn't, the problem comes a priori. It's a method of analysing where the problem occurs and trying to find a solution for it, while solution doesn't mean, what you might think. Solutio can also mean to loose something, or to equalise, as the solution in an equation, that's why it is called solution. 5 + 5 = 10 , the two sides each 5 are solved as 10 and 10 is what 5 + 5 means. The issue here is simply when 5 does not stand for simply the numerical 5 but rather clouds, 5 clouds plus 5 clouds can solve into one sole cloud, or three or anything. It's what Gauß talked about, the mathematician. But I guess Anglophones are simply the dumbest people on earth. Even their inventions are made prior by other nationalities but claiming they did it.
No, they believe it for the exact same reason you accept bombing innocent children overseas = bringing them Freedom & the Free Market: you _want to_ believe it.
I recall my high school government teacher(1974) explaining how the Continental Congress of 1787 formulated the U.S. Constitution via thesis-antithesis-synthesis. It was many years later I recognized the Hegelian dialectic and the fallacy of her lesson (Hegel having been born in 1770). I don’t think it was malicious but she had probably picked this idea up from a University professor with Marxist views.
Marxists always try to capture educational institutions. They also try to ban any alternative education system so they can indoctrinate the future generations.
Kant montisque and rossaue all born between 1600-1700 all used a variation of the dialectic in their philosophy, particularly their political and ontological works. I think the important lesson can be summed up in the phrase "there's nothing new under the sun." This is a refitting of old ideas. The difficult thing is that the idea of thesis antithesis and synthesis has some truth. The reality is that the world is complicated. Therefore, there is rarely a right answer, but there are tradeoffs. Synthesis between these opposite options tends to lead to better outcomes. This exists for ideas and everything else but maybe most easily seen in art and fashion. The use of contrast and harmony to create beauty which is by definition true.
It's probably much older than Hegel or even Kant and better understood as problem, reaction, solution. If the rulers want to guide the people toward a particular solution they create the problems to get them there.
At age 17 I abandoned Catholicism, and became a born again athiest. At age 19, leaning left I considered Marxism, and concluded that having escaped one religion, it made no sense to embrace a new one. I am 71 now, I made a lot of dumb decisions when I was young, not becoming a Marxist was one of the few I got right.
I am sorry for you. Even at 71 you can still study the Catholic faith, read the Gospel, and find joy in it. I thank God daily that I never stopped being a Catholic. I studied my faith and deepened it throughout my life, and never regretted it. The idea that atheism is, by principle, closer to science and helps being intelligent while the Christian faith is the exact opposit, is a mere prejudice. The irony is that people who believe that they are superior because they have rejected Christianity, never understood the Gospel, do not even know exactly what is in it, and in fact are not superior at all. Being an atheist by principle (I do not mean that everybody should be a Christian : that would be contrary to the freedom of intelligence) is a mere primitiv leftist fashion, mistaking itself with a superiority of consciousness - exactly like all forms of leftism. In order to develop one's intelligence, one must have at least some respect and understanding for "the unknown". I think that Catholicism is far superior to other forms of religion, and that it can be prooven rationaly, but that is another question.
Gramsci should be brought up eventually. He's lets say absolutely bonkers. But is so important in modern socialist circles. He's primarily why you see so many Groups trying to create an identity out of thin air, and why terms like hegemony is often thrown around.
@@legendarymarston9174 Gramsci believed the reason the Working Class rarely sided with the Revolution in his day Italian laborers sided with the Fascist on mass for example, was because they were raised in a bourgeois society. That they'd have to create generations raised in a NEW society to check and overcome the bourgeoisie because without doing so the Marxist will never gain popular support. Basically he's the reason Marxist went pseudo underground and actively brainwash the youth in the modern mis-educational system. Want to know why Activist target the young rather than the adults? Blame Gramsci. He came to the realization that they would always fail unless they raise the youth to be anti-captialist.
We are haunted by ghosts of thinkers who were so daft they flunked out of the 19th century but persistent enough to ruin the 20th... Too many "influential" "philosophers" to count, poseurs who sprung up just as the old masters all died. We'll never be rid of them.
Tik, the videos you have made since your break are BY FAR the most interesting that I think you have ever produced. So much food for thought and introducing me to Lindsay and Voegil; just brilliant. Thank you so much for what you are doing and I am really enjoying the multi part examination of the dialectic religion and it’s influence on history. It’s just blowing my mind in the way that great academic discovery does! Thanks so much! Never stop!
Agreed! I am absolutely a military historian first and foremost but ideas are one of the biggest drivers of the world, so therefore to not understand it is to not have an important pillar of the understanding of history, and understanding how ideas and faiths originate is a fascinating insight into the human condition
I just remember when being in the university, in my history degree, that the marxist or pseudo-marxist teachers, and they were a quite numerous group, cited Marx or marxist concepts as revealed truth. "Amen".
It’s amazing how similar the comments on this video “I used to think like this, it was damaging to me” are almost identical to the comments on videos deconstructing Christian fundamentalism.
The deep dive into an ideology or theology to show its inconsistencies is always interesting, but the truism “ignore what they say, watch what they do” works to identify cult like behavior of any kind. I saw a comment on this video, identifying Islam as a “heresy” too. What about the Protestants? Surely they are heretics too? And the Russian Orthodox Church? Doesn’t this all lead to the same place? (I have the one true faith, all others are deluded heretics.)
Very good contribution, thank you. I've been tossing and turning the subject in my head for a long time and have come to very similar conclusions. People have to be made aware of this, otherwise they will fall for this dialectic. Kind Regards from Germany.
I’m just reading through the comments and seeing yours without a response is a shame. Having studied related topics for a long time, I think it’s important that your sharing is appreciated. Thanks from the United States. 🇺🇸 🇩🇪
This was the single most eye-opening video I've seen in my life. Thank your this content. It explains everything and ties together everything I've known about the enemy over the years. Very good content.
I'm a Marxist and I have no idea what this guy is blabing, all this is just some stupid liberal/right-wing propaganda. This guy need to get laid, this is just sad.
That last bit about cultish language is actually quite interesting. It applies to other aspects of life beyond cults. Even detecting manipulative behavior, especially language, exhibited by some people. Whether it is to appear to others as victims, shift the blame, etc. manipulative language in personal relationships of all sorts has the same effects.
As a fan of Metal Gear Solid, doesn't this sound familiar to a codec call famous in MGS 2?: "Rose: Raiden, you seem to think that our plan is one of censorship. Raiden: Are you telling me it's not!? Rose: You're being silly! What we propose to do is not to control content, but to create context. Raiden: Create context? Colonel: The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards the development of convenient half-truths. Just look at the strange juxtapositions of morality around you."
"And apparently these people can hold contradictions in their heads at the same time, which is strange to me. It's literally insane." Sounds a lot like double think to me, suppose that is what the dialectic is? Double-plus good description.
No. It's not. Dialectics means simply to unveil contradictions through pro and con speech (analysis), which TIK here did, it was simply dialectics, even when I consider he had still a lot of contradictions made.
@@Jargoed simple: Marx asks Proudhon: you define property as robbery, how do you define robbery then? Proudhon: you simply don't want to understand me, Mr. Marx. Marx: so a robbery robs the property of someone else, what does he rob - the robbery? Proudhon: hahahaha, as I said, you don't understand words. 😩 And Marx is right, Proudhon is a charlatan.
At first I was disappointed that you steered somewhat away from WW2 and towards politics and religion but damn it, this is just as interesting as your work on WW2. Great work TIK!
The problem is that the Second World War cannot be understood without addressing the crisis in politics and religion that caused it. Fundamental to that is the Marxist cult of socialism.
It’s so crazy because I naturally steered clear of these topics when I was a teen. Always hearing about them but never really looking through them. Listening to this now if I had been just the least bit curious they would’ve gotten me. That’s crazy to think about. How easily I would’ve been sucked into a cult.
@@KyleCox404 Aesop's Fables talk about talking animals as well, but I doubt you'd criticize their legitimacy. Scriptures are interpreted in many ways, often poorly, but, on the whole, most people get the message of "Love God your creator and sustainer and love your neighbor as yourself" from Scripture. Comparing a believe system that teaches love of God and your fellow man with one that teaches that young men and women getting their genitals chopped off is a good idea is insane. Your argument is flaccid. If you don't let go of your bitterness, it will eventually consume you.
@@Willie_Wahzoo You missed my point. Relegion like Christianity or in the case of this guy, some stupid liberalism is also a cult and a lot bigger one at that. So it's funny that idiots here think Marxism is a cult, when they are a part of bigger cult, that is a lot more dangerous that Marxism will ever be.
@@KyleCox404What does Christianity have to do with anything that was said? It seems like go to response to someone who criticizes something, such as Marxism in this case. Randomly bringing up Christianity in order to mock or insult the Bible and those who follow Christ serves no purpose.
@@vladtheinhaler8940 He is selectively portraying one ideology as "bad" yet ignores another that is 1000x times worse, that's why. Come on dude, are you really that stupid?
My cousin studied history in college. When he told me I said "Ah, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." He shook his head and said, "Actually that's bullshit. You're doomed to repeat history no matter how much you study it." That caught me off guard, so why study history then? He said, "To survive it."
That is the flaw of Homo Sapiens. Sometimes, we don't learn. But we know that. And I know that. What I want to know is how much will humanity as a whole learn from it?
This is so informative. It feels like we are searching for the correct diagnosis for society's ills. We thought that we had found the illness when we analysed concepts like fascism, communism and even wokeism but they are all apparently symptoms of deeper, even more fundamental convictions. It's scary how these destructive ideologies linger in every day politics but my hope is that people who have lived in relative freedom from oppression at least have the capacity to push this back yet again. But it will require people to demonstrate integrity, which is always in short supply.
@@BusinessWolf1 Not at all, and we should expect many more to follow. Because what separates us from previous societies duped into authoritarian revolutions is that we have had a taste of living free for so long that if we are about to lose it, we will desperately want it back. Call that a white pill if you will.
Какая идеология заставила США уничтожать коренное население Америки? Торговать рабами? Какая идеология заставляла европейцев захватывать колонии? Эти расисты и империалисты на словах были либералами, только они боролись за свою свободу и свою собственность, лишая других людей свободы и собственности. Кто же заклеймит такую идеологию?
I told someone I was reading the great reset and Klaus says nothing and except stating the bleeding obvious, trying to scare you, giving himself a hard on ranting about chaos and death and it reminded me of (how you explained) Mein kampf. Apparently I wasn't wrong.
@patientlywatching7775 OH come on dude, that's not fair to Bond villains. Bond villains are cool, interesting, and don't need to have their adult diapers changed, everytime their aging bowels give out in the back of their Rolls Royce.
@@patientlywatching7775 Yes the W3|=mis gnostic cult. They even preach immortality by the year 2029. Read _The Age of Spiritual Machines_ Scab's day job is an event organizer and can collect all the billionaires of the world "to make it so". Seriously, that book is a timeline for the next 100 year all based on scientific principles. What else can a person who can buy anything in the entire world want? Immortality. Seriously, they're all in their 80's. That would explain their fanaticism. Spengler said that civilization was quest for immortality.
TIK you are so good to us. Thank you for sharing your understanding with us. I found your channel studying WW2 content but I've learned so much more in the process.
TIK, I truly find your work entertaining but more importantly, useful. Its such an admiration of mine for your work and the impact that it has, that I just hate the fact that its influence is limited to an audience who speaks English, especially since I sometimes want to use some of your work for an argument but can’t reproduce it since it’s in a foreign language (example: National Socialism is Socialism with racial traits). And I can’t help but to wonder if you have considered to start do develop content for a Spanish speaking audience. It is a dream of mine that I hope to see come true, and would love to contribute to it if necessary (Am a college student in economics and with some of my studies having been done in the US).
There was an anecdote in one of the comment sections in Timcast, where the commentor was asking a socialist if the ideology was incapable of being flawed. The socialist denies this, saying it can be flawed. But when pressed for an example, the commentor was sidelined for presenting a bad faith argument. What interest me, is that there is a certain moment where a cultist goes from being within common sense to 0% critical thinking. You can tell from the paraphrase that the socialist was rational all the way up to the question of examples.
That in itself, might have been a dialectical method. "Socialism is both flawed and flawless, therefore we shall synergize the two to create a better socialism." In saying that, perhaps he honestly believed in it, and when pressed, would say that both were true.
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin I would say socialism is theoretically flawless (just like capitalism is theoretically flawless) it is just that flaws develop as it is put into practice. And these flaws are then compounded as solutions that are also flawed are put into place, until you are left with a system just as broken (in different ways) as what you started with.
@@bludfyre i would genuinely say socialism is flawed. Brain surgeons time being as valuable as a shoe polisher is a flaw. No amount of unconsenting people are going to subscribe to that. And its implementation in states is always without consent.
I am always interested in what those talking about cultist" and the shift from "common sense to 0% critical thinking" make of the requirement for faith?
I call them the cult of babel, like the myth of the tower of babel. It makes sense with their objective of reaching heaven/utopia on earth. If you recall the punishment for their hubris, the obsession with diversity, inclusivity, and equity is really fitting.
@@deriznohappehquite Division was the cure. Therefore, an obsession with inclusivity is in a very real sense an attempt to reinitiate the Babel revolution.
The punishment was losing the single unifying language. They were given different languages which splintered them into different groups and eventually different cultures. The obsession with all this Diversity, equity, and inclusion is reunification as a single ‘voice.’ Diversity counters culture, equity counters class, and inclusion counter other ideas; all for the reunion. Then revolution to clear the culture and people in the way and as new man, united, they rebuild the tower/utopia/ heaven society. Collectivism is an old religion - is really all i am adding to the discussion.
Actually, myth of tower of Babel was created to enslave humanity. Tower was in no way perfect, but supposed "god" was afraid of it. Why ? Because Jehovah is not a god. It is more of Jewish tribal demon. If you look at his works (killing of children, plagues, and general destruction ) you would notice that. Thus, this demon was afraid of what humanity could accomplish.
I would love to talk to you over a beer, or whatever you drink, and just calmly, sincerely debate this. I can absolutely see how Marxism and Marx himself can be interpreted this way. I’m not outright denying every point made here. It’s indeed an ideology, a very tenacious one. And as with many stubbornly held beliefs, it can clearly be dangerous. Catastrophic. That said, there are still many points made here that don’t ring true to me. I would write an essay addressing each of them, but I doubt the crowd in these comments (and perhaps you) would care to read it or take it seriously. Anyway, thank you for putting so much time and work into this channel in general. There’s a lot of topics you cover better than anyone else, and I guess that’s why this one bothered me. Hard to reconcile it in my mind with the rest. Of course, I may be under a cultish religious delusion so…there’s that. ✌🏻
I am an ex-marxsist....got attracted at teenage due to sweet concepts like equality, welfare, each for everyone, non-exploitaton,...etc. It worked like a relegion (kind of semitic /abrahamic relegion)....while in college I was like a pentecostal lunatic....thinking about dialectical ideology, eminent collapse of capitalism, upcoming class war...etc Miss those wasted years 😂😂😂😂
As an cictizen under communist regime from the I was born, let me share this secret to you guys living in non communist regime countries: Communism is for its citizens, not for communist officials. You should do a research about all those sweet-spot properties in CA, WA and I'm sure you'll find out a lot of them belong to communist officials from vietnam and china.
My friends from HS were like the Jack Mormons of Pentacostals. Thry invited my Mom to like a banquet event. There she referenced a recent Late Night with Letterman. The Mother and her daughter asked nicely, to forcefully for her to go to the bathroom with her. Then away from the group told my Mom, "Thry don't know we watch TV."
Yes, it's totally made up that the capitalists all over the world fund dictators and death squads in the third world to extract resources from them at a cheaper price. That's not at all out in the open. You were so delusional for believing those historical facts
"I was an ex-marxisit".....so you are back to being a marxist now????? Or maybe you want to say that you used to be a marxist and now you are an ex-marxist????
He claimed to be against the Bolsheviks (probably because they were mostly Jewish fellas). He praised Marx's economic analysis, he just had a different solution.... but solutions to caricatures are always doomed to fail. Edit: Just for clarification; when I mentioned Hitler's solution, I'm referring to his economic one, not his "Final" one 😅, though I understand there was a link between the two ("...capitalism was the Jews' idea..." - That failed painter fella we're talking about)
The "25 Points of National Socialism" is very similar to Marx's "10 Planks of Communism" with the addition of *Kill all Jewish people* tacked on. Marx only wanted to "Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels"
It's socialism all the way down....Research about zoroastrianism and what tips saying makes ... also makes sense about national bolsheviks talking about annihilating the human race if they don't win..in order to gbecome God...these cults are DEEPLY DISTURBING....
Btw, gnosticism and hermeticism are NOT the same. They are in the same general bubble of mystery cults, but unlike hermeticism, gnosticism is actually somewhat comprehensible. Plus hermeticism has atlantis.
I honestly thought TIK was going to get blasted for this video like no other he has produced. I have to say that this audience is pretty solid and many of the comments bear that fact. Very nice that most of the discourse is civil and people are actually responding with thought and ideas instead of lashing out with name calling and muck raking..
The communist fad ended a year ago or so. Just like all fads it comes and goes. We’re going to go through a conservative fad soon as the rebound, but that will end eventually as well and the next NewThing™️ will come.
I've been telling people for years that we're all living in a real life, real time Horror movie. Might not be as "flashy" as a horror picture, but we're living in it nevertheless. Glad I watched this video. It's the "missing piece" of the equation that I had been looking for, for years. These lunatics must be stopped somehow.
All of history has been a horror movie, I really don't think this particular instant is any more or less horrendous than any other in our collective human past. Because we're actually experiencing it appears to be worse, but that's a silly illusion, I think. THIS real life and real time is a horror show? Bro, we live in air conditioning and eat until we're sick. Yeah, THAT is a horror show, but of a different kind than I think you intend to mean.
@@iObeyJesus Qualify that statement. Sin has gotten worse? Define sin, and then tell me how it's gotten worse. Abominable acts? Half the history of the Bronze Age Levant is nothing but abominable acts.
I dare to say I've studied this topic albeit in polish language. It is all true, but there is one issue: these philosophical notions attack the very process of cognition. As a result, the society, which exists in physical reality, detaches itself-regulating processes from reality. This renders the society unable to respond to changing environmental conditions, until a physical form of de-conflicting resets the perception of reality, also called 'war'. The issue we have right now, is that the concept of money, or exchange of it, has become so immensely metaphysical, that is it without reflection in physical reality, due to all sorts of stocks, swaps, IT, luxuries, etc, that we are no longer able to respond to the changes. This puts as in a late pre-war period by collective state of mind itself. The reasons will be found.
@@patientlywatching7775 that happens as well, but I know from experience people can genuinely have good intentions, and be deceived into thinking a system or cult is the best possible answer. Deception is a nasty business. The deceived don't know they are deceived. Yes, there are always signs that something isn't right. However, without humility people literally can not escape. When you ask a logical question, you'll often find people will respond in a few consistent ways. They will deflect, gaslight, lash out and attack you, be prideful and condescending. This is because our brain has defense mechanism that kicks in when the foundation of our worldview is threatened. Anything that rises to the level of cult or false religion is an idol, and functions as the foundation by which we judge and measure everything, it is the filter through which we view the world. I dont know if you've ever been through that experiance but its extremely stressful, and feels like the earth has literally fallen out from under you. Likely why philosophy calls this a "foundation." To admit to yourself you were so wrong about something that seemed so obvious and was so fundemental, or/and that you could be so easily deceived, leads to questions of, what else am I wrong about. If you have humility you can make it through as uncomfortable as it is to experiance. In society we now value pride, which is the antithesis of humility. For the proud it is nearly impossible for them to actually see and grasp what your saying. They know they are right, and no evidence can change that. Their defense mechanism is in high gear and they will behave illogically, defending themselves and that foundation. Does that make sense?
Why would you use dialectics for something like 2+2=4 or 5? There’s no reason to maintain and synthesize a contradiction between a true and a false statement. Contradictions like that are for things that happen as a result of the existence of inherently contradictory interests: a cheetah and a gazelle both want to live, neither is “better” or “more important” than the other, they are both fully correct and justified in their desire to live, and they contradict each other. That’s the kind of contradiction where you have to hold both in your head simultaneously because they both exist and neither one is wrong. 2+2=5 is just obviously wrong so there’s no reason to try and synthesize it with 2+2=4.
Hey TIK, Been a viewer of your content for a good while now. Really enjoy your presentation style and incisive thinking. I find this debate you have ongoing with these various ideologues fascinating. I do think you may have some philosophical concepts a little confused but I enjoy watching your thought evolution as you encounter more information. Keep it up and keep posting on this topic. I do really think you lack a very important philosopher in your understanding of NSDAP/SS ideology. This is of course is Nietzsche. If you look into his work and battle w/ Hegel about "struggle" then you will have a better understanding of Hitler's use of the term in M.K. There is a huge debate about whether Nietzsche would have approved of Hitler or not? Hitler kept a bust of N. on his desk in the Reich Chancellory, I believe? N. uses "struggle" as one of the core concepts of his philosophy. The "Triumph of the Will" is a direct over to N. and his concept of the "Uber-mensch." There is a pretty good book called "N. and the Nazi's," I believe? His living sister was a darling of National Socialism and she reedited a lot of her brother's work to make it appear he meant something like the NSDAP/SS in his ideology. This is also robustly rejected by many who have a much different interpretation of what N. was talking about. Whether or not N. would have approved of the Third R., he does employ early Evolutionary thought, Darwinian evolution, as a central tenet in his strictly 'Materialist' philosophy, but it can also be argued that he later on did open up to a possible supernatural aspect of his belief system. He often talks about a survival of the 'fittest'/strongest or superior 'Will' over lesser inferior people. Whether he meant individuals or whole groups is debated. However he was fiends with Wagner for a time, before they had a bad break, and N. did talk about the Jews, and their relationship to other groups, through history and framed it as a competition. I think he does leave it ambiguous, however, whether he is praising the Jews or defaming them, instead claiming he is just telling it like it is w/o moral judgement bc he does not believe in traditional Judeo-Christian moralities. Anyway,...enough....sorry to go on so long. Just check it out for yourself because I think it will fill in a lot of missing pieces for you? Cheers!
Thank you for this cut to the chase analysis. James Lindsay's well researched output has helped me a lot, but the priest behind the curtain analogy and the synthesis explanation are most helpful.
Thank you TIK, for yet another interesting topic. I'm excited to watch this video and explore your views and thoughts. I very much appreciate you for posting this video!
Brilliant. I never really understood Kant or Hegel until you explained them. Now I understand the seemingly self destructive behavior of woke corporations. This is one of the best videos I have ever seen. I rarely watch anything longer than ten minutes.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t understand Kant or Hegel either…. If you’re actually interested in understanding their thought, continue your RUclips journey. There are some legit philosophers here and there, as opposed to ideologically driven pretenders.
@@zogwort1522: Thanks for the engagement, I suppose, but I have no idea what you mean by “both” here. My sole point was that this particular video isn’t going to help anyone understand Kant, Hegel, or Marx.
I do understand what it’s like to be in a cult. They use obscure language and jargon to make one curious and confused, so one thinks, “I have to gain access to the inner circle before I actually understand what the message is. In the meantime I will pretend that I understand, so I can get access and acceptance.”
As of former member of the Cult of Marx (December 2019-June 2021) I am so happy to hear that there are other former members of this cult speaking out against it.
What i’m scared of is the fact that there’s a huge gnostic/hermetic awakening happening on tiktok and other platforms right now and it seems to be preparing the spirit of the masses for the coming gnostic totalitarian government
@@IsmailofeRegimeIt's apt, just cause he joined for that reason, doesn't mean it isn't a cult of some sort. The people who actually read and understand theory and the pawns who don't. Ironically, Tik is the one of the 1%er for actually reading Marx's theory which many leftist/Marxist don't.
@@Web720 As someone who has read plenty of Marx, Engels, and Lenin (I'm willing to bet considerably more than Tik), I see no basis for calling Marxism a "cult" except as a meaningless insult.
Read Max Stirner's ''The Unique and It's Property', the first book to ever make Marx sweat. Stirner used Hegel's dialectic in order to abolish the dialectic into nihilism. Claiming that the dialectic ultimately becomes a 'nothing' out of which the individual creates himself at each instance. The dialectic of Stirner was more of a joke for all those who believed in the dialectic in his time. It also talks about the religion of ''Humanity'', the priests of humanity. Stirner anticipated Nietzsche in 1844 and pretty much claimed that communism is the last metamorphosis of religion. He called these illusions, ''Spooks'' or ghosts. That man's brain was haunted by these spooks. Interesting book I think, if you include it in your anti-dialectical analysis. For Stirner, it did not matter whether dialectics was true or not, the result would still be an egoism, or what he called the ''Unique''
Glad I watched this! I’ve been checking out many documentaries about cults, politics, history of religion, etc lately, and I’ve come to conclude basically most all group concepts could be said to be cults of one kind or another. Language and imagery groupings that give us a sense of a realty. Fascinating.
Communism works every day at each persons home. And socialism works mega corporations as they use socialist central planed economic model simular to Soviet union to function. So yeah Communism and Socialism work, we live it every day. I assume this guy doesn't have market economy at home.
@@KyleCox404 Tell me you have no clue of what communism and socialism are without telling me. 🤣🤣🤣Put your children in concentration camps for not laboring for the good of the state, do you? Shoot them if they don't parrot the party line? Seize the means of production and centralize its distribution while ignoring your children's and spouse's needs? Well done, Comrade! Your brainwashing is complete - welcome to the ranks of the Useful Idiots!
@@KyleCox404Marx, Engels, and many of their modern followers are anti-family. Marx and Engels write in The Communist Manifesto: Abolition of the family! [...] On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
@@KyleCox404 the main objective of both isms is to do away with believing in God; instead the children of men becoming a monolith and placing value and ideals into the development and glorification of the group only.
I wanted to say to Tik, I graduated with a degree in Religious Studies from NC State University around 2010. I always pondered why people do the insane, illogical, and self defeating things they do in the name of so-called "Progressivism" Fast forward to ~2015. I began formulating a theory based not on primary source canons, Pass Crapital, or Mein Schafft, but on 100% observation, conversation, "study material" as I tried to "educate myself" (very difficult by the way, it's hard to "play the role" of true believer for more than 2 years to absorb and study their worldview perspective) on their bargain-bin Magical Mystery Manifesto. The MMM is far from appetizing. I have been trying to format all my observations together and then compare the base Canon (books like "White Fragility"), sacred space demarcation ("safe spaces"), clergy, laity (activists and "teachers" vs "the masses"), original sin concept (simply "privilege"), Atonement (the end goal of being "Woke"), and many many more crappy things making me wish I could get a Lobotomy and a shower, but my brains are already scrambled and I've taken 2 showers today but I never feel clean. Wokeness Is A RELIGION. That's my thesis statement so far. I hope to God somebody else sees it too.
Логическое мышление - редкое явление. Отвергнув религию, люди не становятся полностью логичными, непредвзятыми, объективными. Просто они верят в лозунги. Профессор Зиновьев пришел к парадоксальному выводу: чтобы идеология изменила мир, она должна быть массовой, но история показывает нам, что даже самые люди эпохи не понимали ее событий! Корень проблем демократии: людей много, но все понимают, что служит пользе нации; доверчивые дураки могут оказаться в большинстве.
It is also written in an odd way because it is meant to emulate a "living" word. Depending on what perspective you are reading it- it's meaning changes.
Cannot recommend the movie "Hail Ceasar" enough. While it's a so-so film, it does a wonderful job of exposing how people who fancy themselves "intellectuals" get wrapped up in and entrapped by the false premise that "the dialectic" is a scientific/rigorous process when it's little more than a weak thought experiment.
I've seen this in religion. Personally, I'm a Christian, but I've seen videos and people deconstructing their own faith and building it back up in a progressive way. Truly terrifying really. Not sure if you're religious or not, but wanted to share my worldview at least to this comment.
@@TheCrayonMan529 It's not surprising that many would do so. It happened before in Israel, that so many kings would lead Israel astray, only for a prophet to either lead them back to repentance or pronounce judgment into exile. Often times, they don't have deep enough roots, or maybe they had experienced something terrible from someone who was ostensibly a believer. As evil as National Socialism and Communism are, they see these as the "Great Satan" rather than the flesh and the forces of darkness itself as such, with those ideologies being outgrowths. Unity is not what a Christian should strive for above all,but rather submission to the will of God as revealed by Christ Jesus. Marx always hit upon alienation, and somehow these people believe if they could just borrow a little bit from Marx et all, they could reach the lost. Michael O'Fallon(Sovereign Nations) put it well when he mentioned that the attempt by forces like the World Economic Forum to co-opt The Church meant people had to "deconstruct" their faith in accordance with those ideas.With that said, all attempting to co-opt the bride of Christ will face accountability from God and especially those who were charged with leading the flock.
@@TheCrayonMan529 Yes me too, pleasure to meet you brother. Respect for sharing your faith, I'm Christian but don't like to force it on people. Like how Tolkien did to his friend C.S Lewis, he never forced it on him and it was only when Lewis starting asking him why he believed what he believed. I'm a huge fan of Tolkien and he definitely knew what cults were capable of left unchecked. Turns us into Gollum.
@@IrishTechnicalThinker That's really how I am. I'm not going to force my faith on people. I live my life the way Christ has taught me, which I hope will open their eyes. When the time is ready for them, I am here.
I don't watch all your videos, but the was the very best I've ever seen. Not for high quality graphics or amazing military analysis. Just for pure, essential information that everyone in the world needs. I'd love to see more work like this Added: reading the comments, it seems like you have a lot of cultists in your audience.
This is something I have never heard before. This is necessary information for living, and I am so grateful to you for this presentation. I am listening from Mississippi, and I hope every good blessing for you.❤️ Subscribed, Liked, Shared.
Brilliant lesson in understanding what seems to be going on right now. I am a catholic - and I could never understand exactly why communism itself was regarded as an ‘error’ in principle when - as far as I knew - it was about sharing and equality amongst all the people. I could see that it doesn’t work out as this in practice, but I thought it was a decent principle. Now I understand that it is evil! And communism’s relentless pursuit of Christianity makes sense. If you only wanted happy people sharing their things with others less fortunate, then as long as religions were okay with that, they’d be no threat. But instead you need obedient slaves who will jump off a cliff when you want them to. Nowadays we see Christianity and moral values under attack, and threats of famine, huge fires and floods being engineered, and of course the pandemic and it’s deadly solution. All falls into place. Evil, stupid b@$t@td$. Sorry about my language.
The reason religion was a threat wasn't because of religious sentiment or ideals by any means. It stems from the history of society over time and how the church has essentially been a critical component of the state. Fuedal aristocracies were maintained by the church, the order of heirarchy in that being the lords financed the church and the church would oversee the relations of the serfs to their lords. The majority of social issues were solved in church anyways (church's can be a great place of community and a reminder of how community can look) so it simply made sense that the "public meeting space" worked to some degree to maintain some kind of civility for the current society. Revolution being almost unheard of (or even a means of analyzing what to replace what you had with if you threw it over) the local populations sought to find meaning and purpose as well as resolution to their daily lives and didn't dwell on large complex ideas of social changes but rather upheld "traditions" that the church held, created, and passed down. Those traditions being a mirror of the relations of the time, because like I said, the everyday people under serfdom saw salvation through God as a way out of their suffering, not a change in the relations of fuedalism. So think of this, when a peasant woman would have say, spoken out of line or intervened in her husband's affairs, it was the church that maintained the policy and implementation of punishment on the women who were "out of line". The same goes for the passing of property (men could only own, and they oversaw all matters of their properties) or the selling of children into marriage. They all function as the key components of fuedalism, i.e. male dominated society in which all property was owned and maintained through law, once the primary source if property (land) had been divided up the remaining population simply worked the land through a form of land rent tenancy (they were required to work their whole lives in order to live on the land and in order to grow their own food). The system was maintained in a way that since no other men could acquire land the men owned the family, in which their wives were property they could produce children with to later sell into marriage to combine their property with another's families (women were a more valuable commodity at the time because they produced a continuation of the family, therefore the property of that family could grow). The end result in this being, the church played a major role in determining and upholding all of these relations (still does but it's drastically more diverse and less integrated into the government....for now). The issues with men claiming their wives need to be "submissive" may not have a state that supports them the same as it did 500 years ago but that doesn't change that the religious idea of female subservience isn't an issue when your goal is to put women on equal Footing as men and there are religious leaders who uphold that as socially necessary today as it was then. The only problems communists have with religious institutions in history is the church officials being a part of a class whose goal is to maintain oppressive social constructs. The subjugation of blacks was maintained by churches in alot of countries and the church pastors had slaves themselves. The issue isn't church as a meeting place. It's not an issue with faith. It isn't an issue with believing in God or seeking salvation, it's an issue of how historically and currently, churches will still have leaders within them who have a vested interest in not losing their position or wealth (think Joel osteen being told he can't privately own a mega church, I'm sure his public speeches would become more "anti sharing and defending God's glorious church" instead of any real conversation of bringing church back to the people )
I grew up in a country governed by a Communist Party, and it was my primary school history teacher who first told me (told the class as a whole) that I should read the Bible. An uncle of mine had a degree in theology and had trained for priesthood (we're Orthodox) and he married a woman who was a member of the Communist Party. I'm mentioning these facts from my own personal experience because the idea that communists are inherently and invariably hostile to religion simply isn't true. The best example of a harmonious blend of Christianity and communist thought I know of is Liberation Theology as it was practised in South America before the Vatican cracked down on it. A direct result of that reactionary and unwise Vatican move is the tremendous growth of Evangelical churches and missions to South America.
@@vaska1999 Communism-theoretically, ideologically, and historically-opposes God and all forms of religion. From the time of Karl Marx to today, communism is based on the abolition of religion. In 1844, Marx wrote, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” He compared religion with opium because he believed that religion, like a drug, provides at best temporary relief from pain and suffering. For Marx, man created religion to survive life’s hardships. This famous quote is more than a summary of Marx’s views of religion and God. Marx was an avowed atheist, and he denied the existence of a divine being or God. This denial stands as a major cornerstone of Marx’s outlook, in which religion is a symptom of the evil bourgeois society. He predicted that communism would eliminate the need for religion: once freed from capitalist oppression, people would no longer need the illusory relief they sought in artificial faith. In its place, Marx believed that ‘human self-consciousness’ would, through the abolition of the capitalist society, remove the causes for alienation and suffering. Vladimir Lenin agreed with Marx: “’Religion is the opium of the people’-this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion.” Lenin then expanded upon Marxism with the argument that all religion is a tool used by the bourgeois to repress the working class. The Marxist-Leninist outlook drove the decision to formally institute anti-religious policy at the Russian Communist Party’s Eighth congress in 1920. Here, the Bolsheviks decided, “As far as religion is concerned, the RCP [Russian Communist Party] will not be satisfied by the decreed separation of Church and State.” Rather than wait for the creation of a communist society to make religion unnecessary (as Marx believed), Lenin would actively seek to destroy it. This policy has served as the foundation for decades of religious persecution in the Soviet Union and the rest of the communist world.
@@vaska1999No political party has the market cornered on Christian beliefs, and despite each side’s religious rhetoric, faith-based endorsements, and passionate attempts to secure Christian voters, neither has God’s best interests at heart. Political parties are tasked with many things, but carrying out the Gospel isn’t one of them. Yet Christians continue to fall into the sinful temptation of limiting the practice of their faith according to their political beliefs, and they’re often only willing to follow Jesus up to the point where it’s agreeable to their partisan ideologies. Followers of Christ must realize that the Kingdom of Heaven will never be fully realized through worldly governments or carnal politics, but rather through the love of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. And according to the Bible, we can tell what the fruits of this type of Godly kingdom look like: joy, peace, happiness, self-control, charity, grace, forgiveness, justice, hope, and love. Christianity then becomes compromised by ideas, propagandas, and agendas, Jesus’ example of freedom is exchanged for control, his hope exchanged for fear, his love exchanged for hate, and his divinity exchanged for idolatry. Christianity then becomes compromised by ideas, propagandas, and agendas that have little to do with Jesus and more to do with gaining dominance over our political and worldly enemies-and even our non-enemies, those the Bible refers to as our neighbors. When this happens, Christianity turns into something that looks nothing like the Christ it claims to worship.
Interesting stuff. I saw Lindsey’s videos a few weeks ago. I have a minor in philosophy for my undergrad degree and one his talks made me think of my experience trying to read and understand Hegel, and just generally coming away with a sense of confusion. After watching Lindsey’s videos, I looked up some of the essays that are available online. When I read Voegelin’s essay, “On Hegel - A Study in Sorcery,” it all made sense. Having read some of the gnostic writings I realized that is exactly what Hegel is doing. It also explained why reading Marcuse left me with the same sense of ‘What is going here…’ I had with Hegel and some of Marx’s ramblings. Couple this with the realization how Gnosticism sits behind the foundational theories of psychology (Freud/Jung) it’s frightening to think how much this has influenced our modern society’s conceptions of everything from economics, to history, to gender.
[The Gnostic] influence has been so extensive that if you attempt a philosophical, political or theological discussion today, with virtually any person on the planet, you will quickly discover that the other person’s ideas will be entirely grounded in Gnostic mythology. Modernity has become the most successful Gnostic myth in history.
@sdrc92126 I mean sure if your just going to conflate any separation from Christian mythology in history as just inherently gnostic. I can do the same "everybody who has thoughts about any field in society or sciences is simply a sorcerer and their ideas are rooted in dark magic" there you go.
@@karlmarx7511 I think the difference is the Christian myth is clearly differentiated as ‘religious.’ Whereas the anthropological conceptions and theories undergirding psychology, sociology, economics, etc are labeled as ‘scientific’ and thus have a veil of secular authority. But if they are rooted in gnostic circular reasoning, they are no less religious and should be understood in those terms as well. This is clearly evident in Freudian theory, which had enormous impacts on the gender/sex ‘studies’ of Kinsey and Money who subsequently gave a veneer of scientific authority to the ideas that have shaped the US for the last 60yrs.
@@aceknowledgable9403 Some antisemite BS, I guess. I don't want to join, so I don't care. In the end, these self proclaimed YT preachers often reveal themselves as antisemites. Spoiler alert: He also has his own dictionary. Read Viktor Klemperer, Stephen Hassan and Paul Watzlawick. And If you truely want to learn about dialectics, read Adorno and Horckheimer. Good luck.
I love your videos about gnosticism. There is something I don't get about the importance of "synthesis" though, because it is contradictory with the moment you said "and no matter how many times their theology goes wrong, they'll not change it". "Synthesis" can also be seen as an healthy habit to nurture in order to don't fall for "gnostic priests". If you use "synthesis" you'll mix the ideas of the "gnostic priests" with the ideas of other people, undermining by half the power of the "gnostics priests". If you do synthesis again, the power of the "gnostics priests" would only be about 25% of their original power. Then, another synthesis : 12,5% ... and so on. I don't expect an answer from TIK but if someone have an answer it would be nice from you.
The hegelian synthesis in dialectics is between two contradictions. It's why the left uses so many oxymorons and behave like the thing they denounce. The Hegelian Alchemical process is synthesising two contradictions and the product is meant to a refined version of both of those things. Capitalism is turned into an oxymoronic "mixed economy" that forces the contradiction of Socialism onto it. Marx believed this would produce Communsim and utopia on earth. The reality is all Socialism turns to Fascism and Fascism is the true synthesis. Capitalism gets dissolved and the resulting product is just Socialism with the appearance of Capitalism.
Bravo. Your perspective on Lyndsay's work has been very helpful to me in furthering my understanding of dialectical mysticism. This is important work you are doing. Please keep it up.
An important aspect of understanding the dialectic is understanding how Hegel and Aristotle's definitions of IDENTITY differ. Aristotle said that everything is what it must be. Hegel turned it on its head and said a thing is defined by what it is NOT. If I handed you a closed box and asked you to name what was inside, you might open the box and look. WRONG! Hegel would look at the entire universe first and tell you what is missing. Whatever is missing from the universe must be what is in the box.
That's like the difference between proving that 2+2=4 through simple mathematic, and trying to prove that 2+2=4 by proving that all other ways of proving it in the universe don't by elimination. (2+1 doesn't equal 4, 5×5 doesn't equal 4, 4÷12 doest equal 4, etc...to infinity...) One is sane and rational, the other is insane and moronically irrational. Only an academic could ponder such insane and irrational ideas without understanding how insane and irrational those ideas are.
I became an atheist at a young age after years of learning to question everything you are just told to accept. I started opposing socialism and communism because once you start questioning it, it falls apart. I don't oppose the idea of piety and forgiveness of catholicism (the religion I grew up in), the same way I don't oppose the idea of worker's rights... That's a ridiculous notion. I simply oppose the institutions that thrive preacing about those things while not practicing them... You can be good and moral without embracing religion, the same way you can be fair and fight inequality without embracing communism.
@@pe137isf Your basket of apples is hardly apt. Apples lack rights or agency. They can't be taught logic that makes them more resistant to decay. Decomposition is a one-way process. Good and bad are unambiguous; you'll find very little disagreement on what fruit is and isn't 'rotten', and why one shouldn't eat it. There's nothing immoral about discarding bad fruit. I could go on. My point is that collectivist teachings depend upon catchy metaphors like this that quickly crumble upon even the slightest scrutiny. While many might agree humans are emotionally fragile creatures, I would argue that the dangers occur both individually AND collectively. Furthermore, I'd even go further and say that the latter is more of a concern. One mustn't always lean on the conventional wisdom, the state, "the people", "collective mind", or other collectives as blindly trusting them have historically led to idea stagnation, echo chambers, mob mentality, and manipulation by bad actors. Circling back to your metaphorical rotten basket- it may have started from an infected individual, but it spread more quickly *because* of the collective proximity- not in spite it. Note that I'm not saying to outright shun cooperation with these institutions either, but rather finding a healthy middle ground between autonomy and enchainment- combined with critical thinking- helps build immunity from harmful memetic diseases; preventing (ie- with healthy skepticism) is easier than proselytizing.
@@pe137isf But the collective also needs to lean on the individual. America's greatest strength is in encouraging the individual to have free expression, out of which great strides can be made for the individual and the collective.
This is brilliant. Every time I have encountered “The Dialectic” my eyes have glazed over and I just couldn’t continue. You have increased my understanding and gained my admiration.
Thank you so much for this video. I appreciate the effort it takes to research and produce these videos but they really are invaluable to many minds out there who know something isn't right but have been starved of the historical context to make sense of it. Many forget that among the chattering classes early last century, fascism was quite acceptable until the war and then we had a moment similar to the one we have today when we quickly forgot we ever liked the Russians... gnosticism is clearly rife among our Elites. will share wldely.
Dialectic is a method of argument or discussion that emphasizes the exchange of opposing ideas to arrive at a deeper understanding or truth. It has roots in ancient philosophy, particularly in the works of Socrates and Plato, and has been further developed by later thinkers like Hegel and Marx. Key aspects of dialectic include: 1. **Thesis and Antithesis**: As mentioned earlier, dialectic often involves the presentation of a thesis (an initial idea) and an antithesis (an opposing idea). This clash of ideas is central to the dialectical process. 2. **Synthesis**: Through the conflict between thesis and antithesis, a synthesis emerges. This synthesis reconciles the two opposing sides and leads to a new understanding or viewpoint. 3. **Dynamic Process**: Dialectic is not a static debate; it is a dynamic process where ideas evolve through dialogue and confrontation. Each synthesis can become a new thesis in ongoing discussions. 4. **Application**: Dialectical thinking is used in various fields, including philosophy, politics, and science, to explore complex issues and develop comprehensive solutions. 5. **Critical Thinking**: Dialectic encourages critical thinking and open-mindedness, as it requires individuals to consider multiple perspectives and engage in constructive dialogue. Overall, dialectic serves as a powerful tool for exploring complex ideas and fostering intellectual growth.
Former dialectic here, the trick is using emotional manipulation to override your higher reasoning skills. The Amygdala overrides the cortex in situations of fear or pleasure.
So tell me, please, when I beat you with a pan, did I cause it or the pan?
@@SchmulKrieger touche
Sometimes you have to wake up from what appears to be a beautiful dream, if it is all in you head, it might just be a fantasy and we occasionally have to address reality.
It has been my claim for 40 years now, that Leftism - regardless of what names are used to label it - requires it's adherents and practitioners to be self-righteous and sanctimonious. Being both is absolutely necessary to be a Leftist. The psychological roots of self-righteousness and sanctimony is narcissism. Every Leftist I've every known personally or known about, was a self-righteous, sanctimonious narcissistic prick who saw/sees himself or herself as a crusader for Leftist virtue. So as unpleasant it might be, I'm saying that you were one of those people. One can't manipulate your emotions to override your reason if you don't already view your emotions as moral and necessary in the first place. I'm glad you've had your awakening, but YOU were the reason you were a Leftist.
I've never been a dialetic, but I think I got a way to sorta dismantle their idea that "the mind makes the world" by dissolving the distinction between material and ideal.
As in, it doesn't matter if you call it ideal, or material, the rules don't change.
"Marxists share your vocabulary but they don't share your dictionary."
I'm nicking that bastard.
They also share the natural predisposition to war and alienation, with fascism, nazism, islam etc. Especially with those practical and moral treats/gains of theirs.
James Lindsay is well on his way to succeeding in making a Marxim to English dictionary, we needed one.
I believe that is a James Lindsay quote.
It’s all ‘aufheben’.
It's called "casuistic sophistry," in English.
In another language, it's called "Bilbul." But discussing the historical roots of this rhetorical technique would be hatespeech.
I was born in Soviet Union and Communism was a religion and Lenin was as Jesus Christ. We had to learn about Lenin, read books about him even in primary school. Schoolchildren were called grandchildren of Lenin. Crazy times 😂
Marx christ wood and wei led us to This Perfect Day
Wood wei marx and christ all but wei were sacrificed
Christ wood wei and marx gave us lovely schools and parks
Wei marx christ and wood made us humble, made us good.
The West has something similar. "Democracy" is a socio-political belief system, hardly different than any of the state religions from history.
They believe in 'democracy', the "political and legislative processes," and a hierarchical system of 'equality'; just like the Romans believed in the "blessings and justice" of Jupiter, Juno and Mars. Just like communists believe in the "glory of the revolution" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat." It's all a lie, designed to keep people in servitude.
See, "Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion", by David Gelernter.
This changed in time, in true dialectic fashion. By the late 1970s, when yours truly advanced to Leninist Indoctrination 101, it already became a laughing stock. No one took it seriously, especially the teachers (my experience may be skewed though, because I attended a Jewish school - yep, these things existed in the Soviet Union).
@jmi I was ten years old when Soviet Union collapsed , but I remember all those stories about Lenin we learned as kids, and how we gonna build paradise on Earth with the help of communism :)
For the TIK "individualism" is a religion and Alisa Zinovjevna Rozenbaum (so called Ayn Rand) is Messiah 😄
This is the exact reaction I came away with when I read Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. It has all the hallmarks of a religion. This is why the Soviets hated the presence of the Orthodox Church or any religion that was not Marxism and why they promoted "science museums". 12 million Orthodox Christians died as a result of the purges against the church.
From the evi website: Voegelin dedicated his life to the study of widespread political violence and the devastation that results when totalitarian ideologies that closely resemble religions foster the notion that pursuing the creation of utopias on Earth is achievable and worth any cost, including death.
'Religion is the opiate of the masses.
(Except our religion which is not a religion - even though underneath the pretentious jargon it is exactly the same as a religion on every level.)'
They were so opposed to traditional religion because they were fighting over the same turf.
the same reason as to why they wanted to replace the family, with the state... at this very moment, they are trying to do just that, here in the US, make the population dependent on the government, and replace the family with themselves.
@@sdrc92126 achieving utopia at any cost, including deaths? That is pure liberal democracy.
@@xisotopex Cult indoctrination. Young global leaders. Hiller yutes
I saw an interview years ago of an elderly German Catholic woman who grew up before and during Nazi rule. She recalled Hitler becoming chancellor and the next time she attended Catholic mass, a large portrait of Hitler was placed in front of the alter. She said her parents cried when they got home.
I had the same feeling when I saw the picture of the "rainbow" flag hanging on the White House.
@@aspensulphateReally??? It's incredible how you see these two things as equivalent. You kinda sound like a coward
@@aspensulphate These Nazis respect only one flag and it's not ours
And when I see the American flag next to the pulpit.
@@Project-pq1qhboth of the above make my blood run cold and worry for my grandchildren!
"The more i learn about people, the more i love my dog" -Mark Twain
Dogs are man-made mutants, you would not even have dogs without people.
The more I learn about Mark Twain, the more I like Samuel Clemens.
@@J.Green-Rx But that is him though lmao
@@marley606
Mark Twain is a pen name, though, so Mark Twain doesn't exist, so it is Clemen's quote.
I guess I failed at conveying the irony or whatever it is that I was trying for last comment.
@@J.Green-Rx yeah exactly you're right i wonder why he went under that name. Samuel Clemens is a nice name why did he go by Mark Twain
Tik: Are ya'll with the cult?
Cultist: It's not a cult. Its a dialectical science ending opression and ushering in utop-
Tik: Yep, this is it.
King of the Hill has aged like wine
The biggest opiaceum of the people, especially the most rich: communism.
Lmao
Diversity is another cult and so is lgbt
Lmfao, I just watched that episode the other day.
Just got out of this cult a month ago. What a relief life has been since. I want to spend the rest of my life defeating it as now I feel betrayed, I feel like I was tricked. I was a Marxist-Leninist. I praised Stalin, Mao, the Kims, all of them under the guise of "critical support." I fell in deep but I'm glad I got out. I want to now go into law and politics and urge something must be done about the radicalization of the younger generation. Now that I'm out I have begun to recognize dialetics in the rhetoric of progressives and it scares me.
I got into it in the beginnings of COVID, the isolation from society and my growing interest in ideology was prattled on by this intense anxiety and depression that overwhelmed me. The riots of 2020 was a major push into the deep-end as I was close to downtown and I saw my city on fire while all alone in my home. Prior to the lockdown I was warning people about COVID and no one believed me. I had gained this arrogance that everyone was wrong except me, that I was the predictor of the future. I had a psychotic breakdown over the course of three months in the summer where I believed Lucifer was communicating with me but after reading some more of Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, I had replaced Lucifer with communism. I "dropped religion."
And at this point it is hard to describe what it is like once you adapt the ideology. I was ideologically blindsighted. I could not comprehend the logic behind capitalism, I could not understand life itself. It had put up such a barrier in the way I thought that I sincerely could not comprehend formal logic. It is ironic in that materialism rejects metaphysics, but it replaces God with the vanguard party. The rapture is revolution. It is the greatest eugenics project. Cull the disbelievers, forever. I believed that capitalists were lying about everything. People were misinformed, that the families of victims were just idiots. The famine wasn't on purpose, it was the fault of the Kulaks, sanctions and America caused everything, there was no idol. That's why there is a cult of personality in communist societies, Stalin is the logic of reality. It's scary stuff. It was brainwashing. It is the epitome of moralization and "rules for me, not for thee." Materialism always explained the misfortune of communists, but never explained the evil behind capitalists. They were just evil for evil's sake.
But what got me out was my university professor in my final year of college, in my class about Darwinism and its effects on society and history. My professor and I had similar beliefs, we analyzed history in the similar ways, but I could feel this ideological gap between us. He was able to fill in the blanks. I could apply the "logic" of dialetics like a parrot. But he could come up with new thoughts. In discussing colonialism, my professor brought up cultural relativism. He said that it was being weaponized to moralize history, and he raised a hypothetical to a classmate of mine who disagreed.
"If you were Cortez and you saw the native people sacrifice a human being in front of you, you would not simply stand there. You would want to end the brutality." And he was right. I put myself in Cortez' shoes, and it all clicked. Reading more of Darwin and comparing him with Herbert Spencer and later learning that Marx loved Spencer made me launch out of the ideology. It took months, primarily aided by studying for the LSAT and learning formal logic. Thank god for that. And after months of these thoughts stirring around in my head I came to the realization that Spencer and Marx were the same in that they wanted mankind to control evolution. But like eugenics, communism failed. The pull of evolution and our underlying animalistic behaviors can't keep the act for long. It's like flipping a coin. The more times you get heads in a row, the chance to get tails grows. You can't keep getting heads forever. At some point you will get tails. It's guaranteed.
Now I'm just in the center. It's about evidence to me now, not ideology. I don't want to stray into another ideology again. But after this realization I am just so happy to know that I'm an American citizen and I've been allowed to fall into such a shitty rabbit hole. I would've never understood how evil, corrupt, vicious, all encompassing that communism is. It is the ideological version of the black death, fascism incarnate. And now I want to do all I can for America to win the battle against communism, against fascism, by all means necessary.
Introverts emotionally and intellectually thrived during C19 lockdowns. Extroverts and public entertainment junkies just went flipping nuts.
I got OUT during COVID. A friend said, "It's a grieving process". She was right. A certain dream has died.
My best advice is, live the best life you possibly can. That's the sweetest revenge.
Live long and prosper.
Have a nap and then go for a nice walk in nature.
Im sorry you went through that, but if you were praising mao or stalin, i wouldnt call that comunism or marxism in anything but name.
Thats basically fashism pretending to be comunism, just like how the nazis were " the nacionalist socialist party" but the first thing they did was kill of all the actual socialists who oposed their hatefeilled ideology.
An ideology is not the lable, but the values.
Idk if you are aware, but the way you are speaking now is quite ideological.
There is no escaping ideology 1st of all, because an ideology for a human is a like an operating system, so better chose an ideology that suits you, rather than thinking that you dont have one.
This guy here misrepresents marxism utterly, he doesnt even engauge with its concepts.
The misunderstanding he has is that he thinks that every every conunist and leftist suports mao, stalin and lenin- they dont.
The comunist left has varaous factions, most of which consider stalin and mao vile and evil people, who at best, made a lot of stupid mistakes that caused famins, and at worst, did genocides in the case of stalin.
Nevertheless, beeing an anti-comunist, is in of itself an ideology.
You wanting to erradicate it only makes me wonder how?
Do you want to kill the people who believe it?
I doubt it. But if you do, how would you be any different from the ideology of stalin and mao, oe hitler?
One thing is neglected in most ideologies, and that is that people can have shi* politics, but in reality be perfectly good people.
As well as the fact that different people take different elements from even the same ideology, so its best in my view to treat people as individuals, rather than as homogenous groups.
I cant blame you for what you went through, not only bevause i went through the same tankie phase ( yes, some leftists/comunists/anarchists and so on call leftists like the ones you were " tankies" as a pejorative, because the type of leftist that suports stalin, also supports war and violence and this kind of thing)
This looks like you are jumping from one extreme to the next before considering that you can take parts you like from one ideology, and other parts you like from another, and make yourown blend.
I recomend you a youtuber which tends to get some controversy, but in my view, for the most part has the most balanced leftist views, and its Vaush.
On the other hand, if you want to understna marxist concepts and a critique of capitalism, then richard wolf explains that very well.
The problem is that if you dont like comunism, you are difinately not going to like capitalism either, because it too, to this day causes death and suffering, so knowing why it does what it does, unfortunatelly, or fortunatelly, to critique capitalism, you need something that comes out of the marxist tradition, because marxism was primerally a system for critiquing capitalism.
This religion stuff, idk, i dont worship marx, tho i use some of his concepts that make sence to me.
Leftism is sopposed to be about love, acceptance, tolerance, creativity, comunity, passifism, rehabilitative justice, authonomy, freedom and so on.
So if it doesnt have those values, its more than likely not leftism.
Have a good day
It amazes me just how many dots you are able to connect when pointed in a direction. Keep it up TIK, we need more people like you in the world.
I love the subjects which you have been addressing lately which touch on how some of these political ideologies and worldviews are de facto extremely destructive religions, or how political ideologies seem to be repackaged Gnosticism. I’m so happy that you are also aware of the works of others such as James Lindsay on the subject. Thank you so much and keep going in this direction!!!
This video was particularly needed and it comes in a perfect situation, very interesting to reason with.
You love to see Tik's work.
@@dusk6159 yes indeed.
Sounds like thy are trying for a _Tower of Babel_
yeah religion can be very altruistic and the cult uses the altruistic people pretty much like worker ants.
"Trust the science."
Demunsereeuw's book on Marx & Marxism has a particularly relevant chapter called "Obfuscation through complication". It discusses precisely how the dense language style is used to obfuscate contradictions, logical errors, flaws in the reasoning, etc.
This is extremely common in academia as well. Did Marxism get this from academics or did academics get it from Marxism? Yes.
Or you simply cannot understand it, because it is poorly translated into English, where English is the main issue at all, because it lacks a lot os aspects in human thinking, therefore is cannot expressed through that language and meaning gets lost. It seems that English is the language of obscuring things from public and delude people ...
@@brucetucker4847 maybe when you could read German and understand it, then there weren't such things as OP said. The academia in the USA barley existed ever.
@@SchmulKrieger If what you say is true, then only Germans should be allowed to read Marx because otherwise he would not be understood or misunderstood (and that's why the Russian and Chinese communists didn't establish communism but dictatorship maybe?). Really?
"Those who disagree with Marx, fail to understand him; and those who do, are wise men able to fathom the master."
Please.
Marx contradicted himself all the way. For instance, his materialistic determinism - that it is the economic base that determines the superstructure - stands in total opposition to his famous exclamation: "philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point is to change it."
This means that Marx believed it was the philosopher's duty to change the world -- with ideas, not with economic factors. Thus he negated his own theory of economic determinism by insinuating that philosophers (ideas) *can* change the world.
But the Marxist will say: "oh, Marx's determinism shouldn't be understood in such a narrow, pedestrian, literal way, you don't understand him," and proceed to dilute Marxian determinism to such an extent that it barely means anything anymore... Which is the point Demunsereeuw makes, and I think is a very good observation: Marxism is so ambiguous in nature that it can always evade criticism, but in the act of evading criticism, it always sacrifices a part of itself, that is to say: its advocates can only defend Marxism by sacrificing a part of Marxism.
For instance: you claim that Marx can only be understood correctly in German ("it cannot be expressed through that [other] language") thus sacrificing a part of your ideology by saying that understanding it correctly is exclusive to Germans (or maybe German-speaking, provided - I assume - they have the same linguistic affitity with the language as do the native speakers).
We can see this used in real time when you ask a "progressive" "What is a woman?"
This is why they do not hesitate to say “Everything is political” to them it really is
They're admitting that they're constantly seeking power. Everything they do is in service to their obsessive quest for power.
the word politics is goes back to the old Greek word ''polis'' which translates to ''city state / citizenship'',
a broad definition of politics would be; that which is of concern to state and citizens, and as it is questions of morality are of great importance to the citizens, after all who wants to live in a shithole.
Knowing this background, they make the claim that everything done in public, with influence on the state, is by definition political.
This TIK guy is someone who read the works of smart people and not getting the ideas because he thinks some German is going to write his philosophical work, thinking about how it will translate and sound a hundred years later into a different language for some dork who could not even be bothered to learn latin or greek to read classical philosophy.
So because you assume that he doens't know how to read the native language, therefore, he cant possibly understand? Is this because you believe that translators everywhere doctored that 100 or 1000 year old literature?@@nocomment3294
Almost like a religious "war for souls"
Then they flip it and say “why are you making this political? This is just basic human rights.”
TIK, never stop covering ideological topics. You have a gift. We need that gift
The gift of comedy, of self-parody
Only James Lindsay himself is better at doing these deep dives.
Careful anon. You're eerily looking a little culty with that kind of talk around TIK...
This is something that once it's seen cannot be unseen. James Lindsey, and now you TIK, are doing the important work of elucidating this reality for those willing to listen. Thank you, and keep up the wonderful work!
Agreed. Unfortunately many are not willing to listen.
Andrew Tate kinda does the same in his own way
Now you have to take it to them and throw down. You need to learn the magic and wheeled it with authority, knowing that it’s false, and that you have truth on your side. We literally have to master their tricks, and use them against them at this point.
Here is a great video that outlines how to throw down with these gnostic cult members ruclips.net/video/x1zXFbLkfGM/видео.html
@Beeruz Chrysler > 'Revolutionary'
Freudian slip, commie.
This is the first time I've watched a half-hour video on political theory twice through consecutively. Great stuff. Illuminating - and horrifying.
Wow, you only had to listen to this twice to understand it.
I'm listening now, and I figure 3 or 4 times at least.
But, Tic asked us what we want and we said this!
@@jonhelmer8591 on my 3rd time haha
. ... *_ouTSane_* )-|+( *U* )+|-( *_iNSane_* ;;;; -- ;;; *ALL -- `r⚫Nd mIgHty SAnE* .. |-| .. *craZy **_IS=AS_** LAzY , **_is_** CRAzY* .. |&| .. " ""History *4* hysteria"" "
Maybe that because it doesn’t say anything
Read the True Believer by Eric Hoffer.
I read Das Kapital when I was in middle school and was so lost that I gave up and came to the conclusion that I needed to wait until I was older. Now I’m older and have a much greater understanding of economics and philosophy and Das Kapital still loses me. Thanks for confirming my suspicion that it’s just nonsense.
Or you are just an idiot lmao
Similar experience here, because it's rubbish.
It is an early misunderstanding of eventual capitalism. Capitalism in the early mid 1900s was not really capitalism.yet.
Mercantilism, noble charters, imperialism and land feudalism (bond labor) was still very common and most of it called itself "capitalism".
Many of Marx examples were either under capitalized ventures or still merchantiles. The new socialist/communists started to splinter off 1895 to 1930 as most of Marx predictions had not come true.
He wasn't an economist or a proper philosopher...he was an identity editorial journalist. Basically a columnist.
So much "philosophy" is nonsense. Thus the majority of the writers of it do not actually love wisdom.
@@STho205yep the early capitalists were actually not wanting a free market but monopoly. And now the post-moderns that claim to be opposed to capitalism will be used by the old-timey monopolists who hold power over corporations the lower class commies think they are gonna rebel against while depending on their power.
The one thing Lindsay seems to have stayed away from is the very thing that you point out eloquently. That is the ideological similarities between Fascism, Communism, and National Socialism which are all rooted in the same belief.
Demo-liberalism isn't a wholly different kind of an animal, either.
All of these ideologies originate in the French Revolution and in the myth of the "noble savage" - negation of the reality of the human nature.
@@_Dovar_ It’s worth noting that wild animals can act pretty evil. When you introduce wealth, animals tend to be kinder and behave more good.
Liberalism is far superior though, as it doesn't require a a stack of bodies to uphold the balance of power.
Lindsay doesn't dare to scare away his alt-right following.
@@_Dovar_
every type of ideology can be turned into a cult
since with enough skill and coverage you can convince any people of everything
also the only thing that is inate to humans is our adaptability, every crime has been a virtue and every virtue a crime and the idea of human nature changes every few centurries to the direct opposite
so there are ideologies that just dont work out and some that do
@@deriznohappehquite Yep. Vicious predators that like to torture small creatures for fun will sit on your lap and purr if you give them food.
I used to be really deep into these ideologies when I was young. They’re basically a language game that appeals to lonely people with a weak sense of self, you get an exhilarating feeling of being set apart from and looking down on the normies, speaking in a special jargon, having a clearly defined enemy.
If you look at internet culture today, you’ll see that modern communists and 3P are the ones really deep into ‘ironic memes’, and irony is all about playing around with double meanings and ambiguity, in group and out group dynamics.
In the end though, it’s unsatisfying, if you want to be liked for who you are rather than as an instrument.
Great video btw, love your work
Great explanation!
I suspect if you aren’t retired then about 6 years ChatGPT will make many a socialist and all this eyerolling at what is admittedly word games will give way to socialist advent.
"Dialectics love parody, but hate comedy"
@Beeruz Chrysler Yeah, difference is though, "TIK supporters" aka fans of reality and common sense, are backed by facts
Perfect for kids since they don't have a full developed sense of self until at least late teens or later
A valiant effort. But a favorite quote of mine goes something like, "You cannot use reason to convince someone to abandon an opinion they did not adopt through reason.
I first heard it as "you cannot reason a person out of a position they didnt reason themselves into"
You can't argue the priest into deconverting, but you can shake the faith of nominal believers and arm others with the tools to do the same. Either way, trying to throw some sand in the gears is better than coming up with reasons not to bother:
Ah, that explains why TIK is so stubborn in his faith about "evil communism"
Unfortunately yes, but you might save others from falling into the same Trap.
@vantuz8264 faith? Please present evidence that communism isn't evil.
Former dialectic: the mindset is one of *disillusionment at reality*. It all boils down to that, and subsequently anything derived from this is insane - not in touch with reality. Disillusionment at the state of reality necessarily leads to abstraction from that reality, and you can piece together where it goes from here (not doing so myself for brevity, also you might come up with some ideas along the way if you try and piece things together yourself). Btw, it would be nice if you organised your thoughts on this broad topic and made a 4 hour video 😅 this is something that’s absolutely fascinating. I will say I don’t think you can be quite so clear-cut in treating eg Kant, followed by Hegel, followed by etc as priests of religious lineage, and I reckon you’d agree, but it does look like the essence of this Greek (originally Zoroastrian?) religion as revived by German idealism was maintained. Finally I want to say when I get some more money I’ll become a supporter, you’re up there with the highest quality educational - frankly scholarly - channels on the internet let alone RUclips. Much love ❤
This should be of interest for piecing things together @TheImperatorKnight, I’m pasting from Wikipedia:
In the third essay ("What Do Ascetic Ideals Mean?") from his 1887 book On the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche discusses what he terms the "ascetic ideal" and its role in the formulation of morality along with the history of the will. In the essay, Nietzsche describes how such a paradoxical action as asceticism might serve the interests of life: through asceticism one can overcome one's desire to perish from pain and despair and attain mastery over oneself. In this way one can express both ressentiment and the will to power. Nietzsche describes the morality of the ascetic priest as characterized by Christianity as one where, finding oneself in pain or despair and desiring to perish from it, the will to live causes one to place oneself in a state of hibernation and denial of the material world in order to minimize that pain and thus preserve life, a technique which Nietzsche locates at the very origin of secular science as well as of religion. He associated the "ascetic ideal" with Christian decadence.
“The truth is that communism *HAS* worked everywhere it’s been tried” this gem should be taught in schools. Which is to say: It can’t ever create utopia but it will only create misery so every time it’s been tried and it created misery, it worked.
It worked exactly as it’s intended to work, and hundreds of millions of innocent people died as a result.
@@Redeemed.of.YHVH.thru.Christ lets get those numbers up!!!
He's not completely wrong, but he got the intention part of it completely wrong. The goal isn't to kill people, the goal is to synthesize a new form of government that does work from the resulting information learned from the Government and social issues created in the wake of their Marxist project when tried in reality.
This same lineage can be understood from the Frankfurt School of Economic theories attempts to understand the failures of the Marxist Experiment in Soviet Russia, as well as their attempt, with the CIA, to DeNazify post War Germany.
I implore you not to trust Tik, however. The man is not well meaning. He seems to be lying for ideological reasons, in my opinion.
@@Redeemed.of.YHVH.thru.Christ Less then 20 million a year due to capitalism. I don't think any system is advanced as capitalism when it comes to death toll.
@bastiat4855Yes, just as with all “successful” societal structures, even those people choose to live under. Unless the vast moronic hordes spontaneously become much smarter(lol), this will continue in perpetuity.
I have highly intelligent friends who have been, or were, part of this cult for 45 years now ! Many have managed to escape, and the ones who remain all have some kind of issue from their young life. Most went into teaching and social work. The word will be spread 😔. Yikes.
Yikes
It’s staggering how easily fertile, bright, young minds can be poisoned with this type of indoctrination. Look at the unbelievable number of deaths attributed to this type of rule. Look at the testimonies of those who have escaped it. Look at the proven lies after lies about what it is and isn’t. Subterfuge and propaganda and powerful tools, and they are leading us all to our doom. I’d rather perish in the dust than to surrender to such horrors.
By definition, a highly intelligent person would not fall for such claptrap.
It happened to be Peterson where I heard the explanation that merit for competence is the _least_ corrupt mode of organizing society, rank, wealth, and _earned_ privilege.
Communists disagree with merit and skill, but if they took it to sports in America, which is Black-dominated, they would want superstars chopped down in talent, hobbled so non-athletes could win, and they would demand that the low earning athletes incomes be made equal to the high performers.
White Marxists probably already discuss proposals that competitive Athletics be abolished, but that wouldn't be very popular among their target base. (We already saw Colin K describing himself as a slave to White basketball owners.)
The point being that competent professionals, whether electricians or doctors or programmers or mechanics or cashiers or business owners GENERALLY RISE while incompetent ones don't.
To the extent this is normal, it is also justice. Marxists want to flip that so the LEAST competent and LEAST talented are in charge of running everything. But even Marxists are clever enough to know that illiterate masses were unlikely to turn the USSR into a global powerhouse Empire, so they picked the Vanguard of educated Marxists actually run operations of the Dictatorship allegedly "of the PEOPLE".
@@goodyeoman4534Very sound refutation of Marx
I read James Lindsay’s book a year ago called “Race Marxism” where he broke down the Gnostic/Hermetic origins of Marxism/Hegelian dialectic, he’s been discussing this for like 4 years and everyone is finally catching on he was right about what CRT and wokeism really is.
Lindsay has it nailed. 👍
This is just the Christian version of hitlers "elders of zion" propaganda. I mean crt is literally a school of law and wokeism isn't even a thing, if you can't attach it to sociology, psychology and social systems then don't talk about it.
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's Occult Roots of Nazism is worth a read.
Gnostic Christianity/Hermeticism is not inherently bad though, all knowledge is neutral, it depends on how the knowledge is utilized and expressed. To think something evil is not evil, but to think an evil thought and then act upon it is. When someone understands these ideas and others don't have the slighest clue, they can be inverted and utilized for evil, instead of good, and nobody will even know what's happening. The Roman Universal Church knew this well when they established their dogmatic structure, inverting The Christ and turning it into a form of psychological control over the population rather than a tool of common understanding and enlightenment. What others know that you do not can be used against you.
CRT and Wokeism contradict Marxism. CRT and Wokeism are clearly capitalist.b
I was taught many of these concepts at a surface level in public school. I was always hung up with practical and logistical questions and would always wonder why they didn’t seem to care if something was correct or had good outcomes. This really illuminates the reason my questions were usually met with frustration and abrupt conversation ending actions. Thank you!
@@zogwort1522 What do you mean by "negating the existence of contradictions"? How is that "magical thinking" unless you're absurdly proposing Hegel believed that contradictions didn't exist?
@@zogwort1522 I'm not going to defend Hegel's idealism, but contradictions being "just a stage in an autonomous process that reveals itself to our small minds through time" doesn't sound like contradictions not existing, nor being dismissed as "an illusion" (if specific contradictions are tied to specific stages and *have* to exist in accordance with said stages, then even if one knows the autonomous process one will still have to reckon with these contradictions.)
For better or worse I believe in free association and voluntary exchange. If I'm willing to engage in a quip pro quo and both parties are satisfied without coercion well, that's their business.
@@Oldkekistani That's nice! Now what happens when you run into someone who doesn't share your beliefs? Because free association implies forced association and voluntary exchange also implies some exchanges are involuntary. See you wouldn't need to put in the modifier if you just believed in association and exchange. That's why things are said to be at least dialectical having two sides. Lets say you sitting on a bench and someone comes by and sits next to you. Is that not free association? but was it a voluntary exchange? Does it now make a difference who owns the bench? You the other person or an unknown third party? What if you get up and leave who's bench is it then? In fact the benches location and your relationship to the other person play a big role in a simple act of sitting on a bench in whether it is considered socially acceptable for the person to sit next to you on the bench in the first place.
Once people get the essence of reading this crap by trying to avoid to choke on all the BS that is involved I beg to understand how after so many failures it still hasn't gone down the drain.
As someone born and raised in a nation consumed by the virus of Communism, I instinctively recoil at the mention of the word dialectic. Word salad disguised as profundity.
I used to think dialectic is stupid, but then I realised that Hegel actually made a very astute observation. Something turns into its opposite by the virtue of its internal nature, thesis interacts with an antithesis, and then the opposite is sublated - it emerges on a higher level, even if it was seemingly suppressed. That's the dialectical approach.
For example, fight with oppression turns into oppression, or with slavery turns into slavery, let's take the woke as an example: The woke think they have completely rejected slavery, yet they also want an utopia, and their utopia where there is no oppression requires that they are also not oppressed by the need to work, hence they need somebody to work for them - a slave. So slavery reemerges here, a seeming denial of all forms of oppression requires oppression.
Let's take another example: individualism and collectivism. An extreme individualist should join a collective, because pursuing a collective's goals would mean also pursuing his own goals. On another take, an extreme individualist would want to enslave everybody else, and convince them they are working for the good of a collective, while in fact they are working for his benefit. That is taken from TIK's previous video - people trying to convince you you should work for the collective just want you to work for their benefit, that was his argument, so they are extreme individualists. Libertarianism is full of dialectical contradictions and syntheses by the way.
Or in general, an extreme position turns into its opposite, and that comes from within, it is very dialectical. For example the most extreme unregulated free market capitalism turns into monopolies and destruction of the free market. Or the most extreme opposition to modern leftism turns into a support of it, because that is the only way to destroy it - by leading it to its logical conclusion.
Hegel intended the dialectics to be applied to everything by the way. Not so sure about that, but one cannot deny the basic observation of thesis evolving because of its internal structure.
@@werrkowalski2985just sounds like projection. The anti fascists must act like fascists to eradicate the fascists etc.
Dialectical Behavioral Therapy is now the dominant form of therapy in the US.
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 fascists and communists don't hate each other because of their ideological differences, they hate each other because of their ideological similarities. They both want complete control and dominance over society, socialism in any form can only exist if everyone is a socialist, and if can't convince them, you have to force them, and if you can't force them, you have to kill them. That's how socialism works. So fascism and communism can't both exist in the same place at the same time.
@@werrkowalski2985 war on poverty.
Hi TIK,
I have a bone to pick with you.
I have been watching your videos for years (and in the past I have been a bit critical on some of your videos).
Before you, I used to watch other history videos (I had watched every episode of the Battlefield series).
Recently, I went back and watched an episode of Battlefield.
It used to be perfectly fine.
But now, it is a shallow poorly researched video (with obvious errors).
Because you have set the bar so high on your examination of history, I have become very spoiled.
This led me to think about the history courses I took in college.
A full semester college course is 45 hours of study.
Anyone of your Battlestorm series can be turned into a full semester college level course on the topic (with an adjustment of time to fit the 45 hours).
Your economic and political videos can be turned into a full semester courses on those topics as well.
You have a gift for this.
Don't give up.
Also, You have done an outstanding job on the Stalingrad Battlestorm series (I have watched every episode, most of them multiple times).
I look forward to you completing the series, but not at the cost of your health or sanity.
Keep up the outstanding work.
Paul
I was a communist in my late teens and very early 20s. I bought into it because I already was somewhat of a dialectic and I bought into that, because I noticed that the technological progress would eventually lead to full automation where human work is not needed. I also noticed that companies are buying each other up, getting bigger and bigger. Extrapolating both developments 50, 100, 200 years in the future, I saw it as a great threat that eventually everything humanity needs to survive, would be owned by one group or one guy who has absolute power. Collectivizing the means of production seemed like a jolly good idea to tackle that problem. I was under the illusion that a democratic implementation of communism would be possible. After a while, I noticed from where the wind blows. Meaning, it became obvious to me, that the way my comrades were thinking about things would lead 1. to the same thing communism has always led to, and 2. to the same thing I was trying to prevent in the first place. So after reenacting the Monty Python People's Front scatch for a few times, I started questioning my belief system.
Thank you for sharing. Is there anything you can think of that would have helped you question things sooner?
"Collectivizing the means of production" in hands of the few was always the end goal of both communist and "free market" ideologues . What is a common ground between these two seemingly sharply opposite groups ? What is the synthesis of this thesis and antithesis ? 😁 Well, if you look closely, you will notice that both Marx and Rand (Mordechai and Rosenbaum) belong to a certain ethnic group we are not supposed to mention 😆
@user An obvious answer would be that these concepts were simply popular ideas in the Germany of the time, and that National Socialism was simply a kind of Gnosticism that adopted the language and symbolism of the Germans of the time.
@user Hitler incorporated racial purity ideas because of the influence the idea of the theosophical root races had on the Thule Society where Hitler got his ideas from. You've got to look back to Blavatsky.
@@aleksazunjic9672 You know about tikkun olam?
As a former member of the leftist cult, this is an excellent explanation. Thank you, comrade!
Well this is proof that tik IS reaching people.
Hi! Can you help me understand a part of the video. It seems to me that when having the contradiction 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 the synthesis would be 4 because 5 cannot hold in the material world. What am I missing.
Often these ridiculous ideas fail when out to the test. For example: leftist ideology: give endless money to the poor and there will be no more poor. The truth: there are more homeless people than ever riding the free gravy train.
Or: give the state enough power through socialism and you will achieve communist utopia! The truth: utopia never comes.
But it doesn’t stop them from believing it because on the surface it sounds nice, that’s why they use word games, to make it sound so morally right, so honorable, that the horrible result must be because you didn’t do the thing enough, it just needs more funding. The state needs more power. Then it will come about!
That’s hell why it’s insanity. Like he said they hold two conflicting viewpoints in their head.
How about queer gender threory? There is nothing inherent to males and females, only what society tells them. The truth: some men may act more feminine, but they are men. Only women can have babies. We needed and women to stay what they are so we have a functioning society. And changing your gender leaves you with a lifetime of medication to stay alive and not be in pain and makes you infertile.
@@anisamokrane2008 I would say apply that sense to a real world example, in the concept of gender. At the claim that gender is a construct, they are presented with the challenge of biological sex- and thus the compromise is the splitting of the two terms into meaning separate things. Sense of identity is not part of the material world
I'm a proud faascist
Thank you, Tik. Yours is one of the most succinct explanations of the Marxist/socialist/fascist cults, I’ve ever heard. Especially when given in the context of the times in which they were developed.
The only thing I'd change in your comment is the 's' at the end of the word "cults", because those are indeed the SAME cult!
Democracy and liberalism is a religion too, btw.
I think people believe in marxist or hegelian dialectics because it's a rationalization of history that puts you in a very comfortable situation which gives you the answer to most of the problems. Same happens to other ideologies but marxist fall into this many times.
"gives you the answer" -- should have been written between commas.
It is a solution in search of a problem, thats why its always the answer to every problem.
This is just rancid atheists not owning their shit. James Lindsay is an atheist. TIKhistory is an atheist. All 'woke'/neo-Marxists/cultural-Marxists are atheists. Marxists are atheists. Maoists are atheists. Nazis are atheists. James Lindsay and TiKhistory want YOU to believe that atheism is religion. They want you to believe that atheist communist ideology is a religion. They want you believe that atheist fascist ideology is a religion. They are full on attempting to discredit religiosity. They are hyper-subversive individuals.
@@elLooto no, then it were the solution a priori to the issue or problem, which isn't, the problem comes a priori. It's a method of analysing where the problem occurs and trying to find a solution for it, while solution doesn't mean, what you might think. Solutio can also mean to loose something, or to equalise, as the solution in an equation, that's why it is called solution. 5 + 5 = 10 , the two sides each 5 are solved as 10 and 10 is what 5 + 5 means. The issue here is simply when 5 does not stand for simply the numerical 5 but rather clouds, 5 clouds plus 5 clouds can solve into one sole cloud, or three or anything. It's what Gauß talked about, the mathematician. But I guess Anglophones are simply the dumbest people on earth. Even their inventions are made prior by other nationalities but claiming they did it.
No, they believe it for the exact same reason you accept bombing innocent children overseas = bringing them Freedom & the Free Market: you _want to_ believe it.
I recall my high school government teacher(1974) explaining how the Continental Congress of 1787 formulated the U.S. Constitution via thesis-antithesis-synthesis. It was many years later I recognized the Hegelian dialectic and the fallacy of her lesson (Hegel having been born in 1770). I don’t think it was malicious but she had probably picked this idea up from a University professor with Marxist views.
Marxists always try to capture educational institutions. They also try to ban any alternative education system so they can indoctrinate the future generations.
I mean, the confederate form of government had been tried (AofC), so what can you call a Federal form besides a synthesis of the former and monarchy?
& when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail
Kant montisque and rossaue all born between 1600-1700 all used a variation of the dialectic in their philosophy, particularly their political and ontological works. I think the important lesson can be summed up in the phrase "there's nothing new under the sun." This is a refitting of old ideas. The difficult thing is that the idea of thesis antithesis and synthesis has some truth. The reality is that the world is complicated. Therefore, there is rarely a right answer, but there are tradeoffs. Synthesis between these opposite options tends to lead to better outcomes. This exists for ideas and everything else but maybe most easily seen in art and fashion. The use of contrast and harmony to create beauty which is by definition true.
It's probably much older than Hegel or even Kant and better understood as problem, reaction, solution. If the rulers want to guide the people toward a particular solution they create the problems to get them there.
The fact they are trying to predict the future with their unscientific climate modells confirms what you are saying.
At age 17 I abandoned Catholicism, and became a born again athiest. At age 19, leaning left I considered Marxism, and concluded that having escaped one religion, it made no sense to embrace a new one. I am 71 now, I made a lot of dumb decisions when I was young, not becoming a Marxist was one of the few I got right.
atheist*, Gosh, probably you are a Murican.
I am sorry for you. Even at 71 you can still study the Catholic faith, read the Gospel, and find joy in it. I thank God daily that I never stopped being a Catholic. I studied my faith and deepened it throughout my life, and never regretted it. The idea that atheism is, by principle, closer to science and helps being intelligent while the Christian faith is the exact opposit, is a mere prejudice. The irony is that people who believe that they are superior because they have rejected Christianity, never understood the Gospel, do not even know exactly what is in it, and in fact are not superior at all. Being an atheist by principle (I do not mean that everybody should be a Christian : that would be contrary to the freedom of intelligence) is a mere primitiv leftist fashion, mistaking itself with a superiority of consciousness - exactly like all forms of leftism. In order to develop one's intelligence, one must have at least some respect and understanding for "the unknown". I think that Catholicism is far superior to other forms of religion, and that it can be prooven rationaly, but that is another question.
You sound just like a 71 year old guy I worked for in the late 80s. Never follow anything that ends in an ism was his last advice to me.
May Mary Most Blessed guide you during your departure.
So, what the f**k are you now, then?
Gramsci should be brought up eventually. He's lets say absolutely bonkers. But is so important in modern socialist circles. He's primarily why you see so many Groups trying to create an identity out of thin air, and why terms like hegemony is often thrown around.
Huh, I never heard of him before.
@@legendarymarston9174 Gramsci believed the reason the Working Class rarely sided with the Revolution in his day Italian laborers sided with the Fascist on mass for example, was because they were raised in a bourgeois society. That they'd have to create generations raised in a NEW society to check and overcome the bourgeoisie because without doing so the Marxist will never gain popular support.
Basically he's the reason Marxist went pseudo underground and actively brainwash the youth in the modern mis-educational system.
Want to know why Activist target the young rather than the adults? Blame Gramsci. He came to the realization that they would always fail unless they raise the youth to be anti-captialist.
We are haunted by ghosts of thinkers who were so daft they flunked out of the 19th century but persistent enough to ruin the 20th... Too many "influential" "philosophers" to count, poseurs who sprung up just as the old masters all died. We'll never be rid of them.
It's not surprising because he wrote his stuff while in prison. And his manuscripts were being read by his wardens.
Not just Gramsci, but George Lukac, Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer, etc.
Tik, the videos you have made since your break are BY FAR the most interesting that I think you have ever produced. So much food for thought and introducing me to Lindsay and Voegil; just brilliant. Thank you so much for what you are doing and I am really enjoying the multi part examination of the dialectic religion and it’s influence on history. It’s just blowing my mind in the way that great academic discovery does! Thanks so much! Never stop!
lindsay is a buffoon
I found out about Lindsey and his colleagues a few years ago and they do such a good job of explaining what I and others were seeing unfold.
As a former Marxist this was an absolute banger of a video. I can't say how many times Ive dealt with this bullshit from Marxists.
How was it possible to be so dumb?
This is endlessly more interesting than grinding over the details of the war. This is the more interesting bigger picture
Agreed!
I am absolutely a military historian first and foremost but ideas are one of the biggest drivers of the world, so therefore to not understand it is to not have an important pillar of the understanding of history, and understanding how ideas and faiths originate is a fascinating insight into the human condition
I just remember when being in the university, in my history degree, that the marxist or pseudo-marxist teachers, and they were a quite numerous group, cited Marx or marxist concepts as revealed truth. "Amen".
Karl Marx was unarguably correct in most of his observations.
You denying this out of self righteousness doesn’t change objective truths.
And that group has only become bigger. These are also the people behind the climate cult.
@@gmodrules123456789 Then they would cite what he cited, treating the concepts as the beginning and not the priest.
It’s amazing how similar the comments on this video “I used to think like this, it was damaging to me” are almost identical to the comments on videos deconstructing Christian fundamentalism.
The deep dive into an ideology or theology to show its inconsistencies is always interesting, but the truism “ignore what they say, watch what they do” works to identify cult like behavior of any kind.
I saw a comment on this video, identifying Islam as a “heresy” too. What about the Protestants? Surely they are heretics too? And the Russian Orthodox Church? Doesn’t this all lead to the same place? (I have the one true faith, all others are deluded heretics.)
0:31 “Das Crapital” lmfao. Love it
Very good contribution, thank you. I've been tossing and turning the subject in my head for a long time and have come to very similar conclusions. People have to be made aware of this, otherwise they will fall for this dialectic. Kind Regards from Germany.
I’m just reading through the comments and seeing yours without a response is a shame. Having studied related topics for a long time, I think it’s important that your sharing is appreciated. Thanks from the United States.
🇺🇸 🇩🇪
This was the single most eye-opening video I've seen in my life. Thank your this content. It explains everything and ties together everything I've known about the enemy over the years. Very good content.
I'm a Marxist and I have no idea what this guy is blabing, all this is just some stupid liberal/right-wing propaganda. This guy need to get laid, this is just sad.
That last bit about cultish language is actually quite interesting.
It applies to other aspects of life beyond cults. Even detecting manipulative behavior, especially language, exhibited by some people.
Whether it is to appear to others as victims, shift the blame, etc. manipulative language in personal relationships of all sorts has the same effects.
As a fan of Metal Gear Solid, doesn't this sound familiar to a codec call famous in MGS 2?:
"Rose: Raiden, you seem to think that our plan is one of censorship.
Raiden: Are you telling me it's not!?
Rose: You're being silly! What we propose to do is not to control content, but to create context.
Raiden: Create context?
Colonel: The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards the development of convenient half-truths. Just look at the strange juxtapositions of morality around you."
"And apparently these people can hold contradictions in their heads at the same time, which is strange to me. It's literally insane."
Sounds a lot like double think to me, suppose that is what the dialectic is? Double-plus good description.
Cognitive dissonance. It's incredibly common.
No. It's not. Dialectics means simply to unveil contradictions through pro and con speech (analysis), which TIK here did, it was simply dialectics, even when I consider he had still a lot of contradictions made.
@@SchmulKrieger what are you saying 😭
@@Jargoed simple: Marx asks Proudhon: you define property as robbery, how do you define robbery then? Proudhon: you simply don't want to understand me, Mr. Marx. Marx: so a robbery robs the property of someone else, what does he rob - the robbery? Proudhon: hahahaha, as I said, you don't understand words. 😩 And Marx is right, Proudhon is a charlatan.
I think they're just liars. The same as a woman who pretends to be in love with a guy just because he gives her stuff and she doesn't have to work.
Watching this again for like the 4th time. By God, the script, flow and information are so excellent. This is a masterclass lecture.
At first I was disappointed that you steered somewhat away from WW2 and towards politics and religion but damn it, this is just as interesting as your work on WW2. Great work TIK!
The problem is that the Second World War cannot be understood without addressing the crisis in politics and religion that caused it. Fundamental to that is the Marxist cult of socialism.
Its very apt, since WW2 happens in the context of these ideas gaining preeminence and directing their societies.
Except the fact that what he covers is wrong.
@Shania Paige. 🙄. Do tell Shania. What is he wrong about?
@@shaniapaige4846 The cult speaks.
It’s so crazy because I naturally steered clear of these topics when I was a teen. Always hearing about them but never really looking through them. Listening to this now if I had been just the least bit curious they would’ve gotten me. That’s crazy to think about. How easily I would’ve been sucked into a cult.
Me: Are you with the cult?
Tik: It's not a cult. Its a religion based on 2000 y. o. book, that talks about talking snakes
Me: Yep, this is it.
@@KyleCox404 Aesop's Fables talk about talking animals as well, but I doubt you'd criticize their legitimacy.
Scriptures are interpreted in many ways, often poorly, but, on the whole, most people get the message of "Love God your creator and sustainer and love your neighbor as yourself" from Scripture.
Comparing a believe system that teaches love of God and your fellow man with one that teaches that young men and women getting their genitals chopped off is a good idea is insane. Your argument is flaccid.
If you don't let go of your bitterness, it will eventually consume you.
@@Willie_Wahzoo You missed my point.
Relegion like Christianity or in the case of this guy, some stupid liberalism is also a cult and a lot bigger one at that.
So it's funny that idiots here think Marxism is a cult, when they are a part of bigger cult, that is a lot more dangerous that Marxism will ever be.
@@KyleCox404What does Christianity have to do with anything that was said? It seems like go to response to someone who criticizes something, such as Marxism in this case. Randomly bringing up Christianity in order to mock or insult the Bible and those who follow Christ serves no purpose.
@@vladtheinhaler8940 He is selectively portraying one ideology as "bad" yet ignores another that is 1000x times worse, that's why. Come on dude, are you really that stupid?
If humanity could only learn from it's past.
Doesn’t help when the past is twisted to fit the current narrative
My cousin studied history in college. When he told me I said "Ah, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." He shook his head and said, "Actually that's bullshit. You're doomed to repeat history no matter how much you study it." That caught me off guard, so why study history then? He said, "To survive it."
That is the flaw of Homo Sapiens. Sometimes, we don't learn. But we know that. And I know that. What I want to know is how much will humanity as a whole learn from it?
Dude. They don't even recognise "fascism" when they are killing freespeech. I am very pessimistic about our species.
"Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana
This is the most interesting podcast on the Internet... Thank you for your time and knowledge ❤
Браво ТИК ! Користиш чињенице зарад истине. Одличан си.👏👏👏
"Well done TIK! You use facts for truth's sake. You are great"
This is so informative. It feels like we are searching for the correct diagnosis for society's ills. We thought that we had found the illness when we analysed concepts like fascism, communism and even wokeism but they are all apparently symptoms of deeper, even more fundamental convictions.
It's scary how these destructive ideologies linger in every day politics but my hope is that people who have lived in relative freedom from oppression at least have the capacity to push this back yet again. But it will require people to demonstrate integrity, which is always in short supply.
So then is it any surprise that jordan peterson got into politics, when he deals with archetypes and fundamentals of the mind professionally?
@@BusinessWolf1 Not at all, and we should expect many more to follow. Because what separates us from previous societies duped into authoritarian revolutions is that we have had a taste of living free for so long that if we are about to lose it, we will desperately want it back. Call that a white pill if you will.
Какая идеология заставила США уничтожать коренное население Америки? Торговать рабами? Какая идеология заставляла европейцев захватывать колонии? Эти расисты и империалисты на словах были либералами, только они боролись за свою свободу и свою собственность, лишая других людей свободы и собственности. Кто же заклеймит такую идеологию?
I don't know... people today seem fairly gullible.
@@aspensulphate So trick them with the truth!
I told someone I was reading the great reset and Klaus says nothing and except stating the bleeding obvious, trying to scare you, giving himself a hard on ranting about chaos and death and it reminded me of (how you explained) Mein kampf. Apparently I wasn't wrong.
Klaus is a true Bond villian.....a psychopath if there ever was one. I detest the W.E.F.
Bingo!
@patientlywatching7775 OH come on dude, that's not fair to Bond villains. Bond villains are cool, interesting, and don't need to have their adult diapers changed, everytime their aging bowels give out in the back of their Rolls Royce.
@@patientlywatching7775 Yes the W3|=mis gnostic cult. They even preach immortality by the year 2029. Read _The Age of Spiritual Machines_
Scab's day job is an event organizer and can collect all the billionaires of the world "to make it so". Seriously, that book is a timeline for the next 100 year all based on scientific principles. What else can a person who can buy anything in the entire world want? Immortality. Seriously, they're all in their 80's. That would explain their fanaticism. Spengler said that civilization was quest for immortality.
Every time someone follows a German with a book and a big idea, millions die. This has happened twice, and almost thrice.
TIK you are so good to us. Thank you for sharing your understanding with us. I found your channel studying WW2 content but I've learned so much more in the process.
TIK, I truly find your work entertaining but more importantly, useful. Its such an admiration of mine for your work and the impact that it has, that I just hate the fact that its influence is limited to an audience who speaks English, especially since I sometimes want to use some of your work for an argument but can’t reproduce it since it’s in a foreign language (example: National Socialism is Socialism with racial traits). And I can’t help but to wonder if you have considered to start do develop content for a Spanish speaking audience. It is a dream of mine that I hope to see come true, and would love to contribute to it if necessary (Am a college student in economics and with some of my studies having been done in the US).
Same but for french, that’d be really interesting to have a translation initiative at some point
Another wonderful cinematographic dissertation on politics, my friend. Hear, hear! 🍻
Nothing like getting a video you actually want to watch on your lunch break!
Seeing videos that reference James Lindsay gives me hope.
Wow. Loving these last few video's you've done TIK, this was very fascinating. Stalin wrote books, get outta town!... Had no idea he did tbh.
There was an anecdote in one of the comment sections in Timcast, where the commentor was asking a socialist if the ideology was incapable of being flawed. The socialist denies this, saying it can be flawed. But when pressed for an example, the commentor was sidelined for presenting a bad faith argument.
What interest me, is that there is a certain moment where a cultist goes from being within common sense to 0% critical thinking. You can tell from the paraphrase that the socialist was rational all the way up to the question of examples.
Tim Pool is an idiot, and you watching him makes you as much of a cultist as the people you criticize.
That in itself, might have been a dialectical method. "Socialism is both flawed and flawless, therefore we shall synergize the two to create a better socialism." In saying that, perhaps he honestly believed in it, and when pressed, would say that both were true.
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin I would say socialism is theoretically flawless (just like capitalism is theoretically flawless) it is just that flaws develop as it is put into practice. And these flaws are then compounded as solutions that are also flawed are put into place, until you are left with a system just as broken (in different ways) as what you started with.
@@bludfyre i would genuinely say socialism is flawed.
Brain surgeons time being as valuable as a shoe polisher is a flaw. No amount of unconsenting people are going to subscribe to that. And its implementation in states is always without consent.
I am always interested in what those talking about cultist" and the shift from "common sense to 0% critical thinking" make of the requirement for faith?
I call them the cult of babel, like the myth of the tower of babel. It makes sense with their objective of reaching heaven/utopia on earth. If you recall the punishment for their hubris, the obsession with diversity, inclusivity, and equity is really fitting.
The sin of the Tower of Babel was not “inclusivity”. It was human pride; in Claiming that a crappy ziggurat was in any way comparable to God.
He isn't implying the inclusivity is the sin.
He is implying it is the punishment.
@@deriznohappehquite Division was the cure. Therefore, an obsession with inclusivity is in a very real sense an attempt to reinitiate the Babel revolution.
The punishment was losing the single unifying language. They were given different languages which splintered them into different groups and eventually different cultures. The obsession with all this Diversity, equity, and inclusion is reunification as a single ‘voice.’ Diversity counters culture, equity counters class, and inclusion counter other ideas; all for the reunion. Then revolution to clear the culture and people in the way and as new man, united, they rebuild the tower/utopia/ heaven society. Collectivism is an old religion - is really all i am adding to the discussion.
Actually, myth of tower of Babel was created to enslave humanity. Tower was in no way perfect, but supposed "god" was afraid of it. Why ? Because Jehovah is not a god. It is more of Jewish tribal demon. If you look at his works (killing of children, plagues, and general destruction ) you would notice that. Thus, this demon was afraid of what humanity could accomplish.
I would love to talk to you over a beer, or whatever you drink, and just calmly, sincerely debate this.
I can absolutely see how Marxism and Marx himself can be interpreted this way. I’m not outright denying every point made here. It’s indeed an ideology, a very tenacious one. And as with many stubbornly held beliefs, it can clearly be dangerous. Catastrophic.
That said, there are still many points made here that don’t ring true to me.
I would write an essay addressing each of them, but I doubt the crowd in these comments (and perhaps you) would care to read it or take it seriously.
Anyway, thank you for putting so much time and work into this channel in general. There’s a lot of topics you cover better than anyone else, and I guess that’s why this one bothered me. Hard to reconcile it in my mind with the rest.
Of course, I may be under a cultish religious delusion so…there’s that. ✌🏻
it seems so ridculous its like financially incentivized over any true honest analysis
I am an ex-marxsist....got attracted at teenage due to sweet concepts like equality, welfare, each for everyone, non-exploitaton,...etc. It worked like a relegion (kind of semitic /abrahamic relegion)....while in college I was like a pentecostal lunatic....thinking about dialectical ideology, eminent collapse of capitalism, upcoming class war...etc
Miss those wasted years 😂😂😂😂
As an cictizen under communist regime from the I was born, let me share this secret to you guys living in non communist regime countries:
Communism is for its citizens, not for communist officials.
You should do a research about all those sweet-spot properties in CA, WA and I'm sure you'll find out a lot of them belong to communist officials from vietnam and china.
My friends from HS were like the Jack Mormons of Pentacostals.
Thry invited my Mom to like a banquet event. There she referenced a recent Late Night with Letterman.
The Mother and her daughter asked nicely, to forcefully for her to go to the bathroom with her. Then away from the group told my Mom, "Thry don't know we watch TV."
Yes, it's totally made up that the capitalists all over the world fund dictators and death squads in the third world to extract resources from them at a cheaper price. That's not at all out in the open. You were so delusional for believing those historical facts
"I was an ex-marxisit".....so you are back to being a marxist now????? Or maybe you want to say that you used to be a marxist and now you are an ex-marxist????
where does marx advocate for equality or welfare?
I am very glad you chose to pursue more than just historical subjects TIK. These are invaluable videos.
I’ve always found it funny that as much as Hitler claimed to be against Marx, the two men are much more similar than different. Great video as usual .
He claimed to be against the Bolsheviks (probably because they were mostly Jewish fellas). He praised Marx's economic analysis, he just had a different solution.... but solutions to caricatures are always doomed to fail.
Edit: Just for clarification; when I mentioned Hitler's solution, I'm referring to his economic one, not his "Final" one 😅, though I understand there was a link between the two ("...capitalism was the Jews' idea..." - That failed painter fella we're talking about)
The "25 Points of National Socialism" is very similar to Marx's "10 Planks of Communism" with the addition of *Kill all Jewish people* tacked on. Marx only wanted to "Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels"
Just competing different visions of the same monster - socialism.
It's socialism all the way down....Research about zoroastrianism and what tips saying makes ... also makes sense about national bolsheviks talking about annihilating the human race if they don't win..in order to gbecome God...these cults are DEEPLY DISTURBING....
@@Si_Mondo Hitler argued in a book co-authored with his mentor Eckart that Bolshevism started with Moses, i.e. that it was intrinsic to Judaism.
Btw, gnosticism and hermeticism are NOT the same. They are in the same general bubble of mystery cults, but unlike hermeticism, gnosticism is actually somewhat comprehensible.
Plus hermeticism has atlantis.
They are the same, same results.
@@Christusvinci you are only jumping on lindsay's gnostic hate train because, like him, youre not man enough to admit its the Js
I honestly thought TIK was going to get blasted for this video like no other he has produced. I have to say that this audience is pretty solid and many of the comments bear that fact. Very nice that most of the discourse is civil and people are actually responding with thought and ideas instead of lashing out with name calling and muck raking..
Oh there are those in here doing the name calling thing... But yes, I'm grateful that most of my audience are good people.
The communist fad ended a year ago or so. Just like all fads it comes and goes. We’re going to go through a conservative fad soon as the rebound, but that will end eventually as well and the next NewThing™️ will come.
He sets the format
@@jeremias-serus human nature doesn't change
@@BeeruzChrysler x to doubt
I've been telling people for years that we're all living in a real life, real time Horror movie. Might not be as "flashy" as a horror picture, but we're living in it nevertheless. Glad I watched this video. It's the "missing piece" of the equation that I had been looking for, for years. These lunatics must be stopped somehow.
Perhaps a Marxist horror movie.!!
why would it be stopped god said it will be a day of judgement, you have to save yourself and as many as u can .
All of history has been a horror movie, I really don't think this particular instant is any more or less horrendous than any other in our collective human past. Because we're actually experiencing it appears to be worse, but that's a silly illusion, I think. THIS real life and real time is a horror show? Bro, we live in air conditioning and eat until we're sick. Yeah, THAT is a horror show, but of a different kind than I think you intend to mean.
@@MrMojoRisin13 as far as abominable acts and sin has gotten worst
@@iObeyJesus Qualify that statement. Sin has gotten worse? Define sin, and then tell me how it's gotten worse. Abominable acts? Half the history of the Bronze Age Levant is nothing but abominable acts.
Saw you respond to James Lindsey the other day thanking him and this is the result. Well done, far better than I could’ve put it.
I dare to say I've studied this topic albeit in polish language. It is all true, but there is one issue: these philosophical notions attack the very process of cognition. As a result, the society, which exists in physical reality, detaches itself-regulating processes from reality. This renders the society unable to respond to changing environmental conditions, until a physical form of de-conflicting resets the perception of reality, also called 'war'.
The issue we have right now, is that the concept of money, or exchange of it, has become so immensely metaphysical, that is it without reflection in physical reality, due to all sorts of stocks, swaps, IT, luxuries, etc, that we are no longer able to respond to the changes. This puts as in a late pre-war period by collective state of mind itself. The reasons will be found.
Where most of the lost children of Atom see that event as simple war and devastation, we see creation and unification in Atom's Glow.
Beatifully explained, son of Cuban Regufees here, and may I say you are spot on!
You’re so right that the murders are not mistakes.
There is a cognative dissonance present in every cult member. Hopefully more people wake up.
People are, but far too many remain willfully and comfortably ignorant to the evil playing out around them.
@@patientlywatching7775 that happens as well, but I know from experience people can genuinely have good intentions, and be deceived into thinking a system or cult is the best possible answer. Deception is a nasty business. The deceived don't know they are deceived. Yes, there are always signs that something isn't right. However, without humility people literally can not escape. When you ask a logical question, you'll often find people will respond in a few consistent ways. They will deflect, gaslight, lash out and attack you, be prideful and condescending. This is because our brain has defense mechanism that kicks in when the foundation of our worldview is threatened. Anything that rises to the level of cult or false religion is an idol, and functions as the foundation by which we judge and measure everything, it is the filter through which we view the world. I dont know if you've ever been through that experiance but its extremely stressful, and feels like the earth has literally fallen out from under you. Likely why philosophy calls this a "foundation." To admit to yourself you were so wrong about something that seemed so obvious and was so fundemental, or/and that you could be so easily deceived, leads to questions of, what else am I wrong about.
If you have humility you can make it through as uncomfortable as it is to experiance. In society we now value pride, which is the antithesis of humility. For the proud it is nearly impossible for them to actually see and grasp what your saying. They know they are right, and no evidence can change that. Their defense mechanism is in high gear and they will behave illogically, defending themselves and that foundation.
Does that make sense?
Why would you use dialectics for something like 2+2=4 or 5? There’s no reason to maintain and synthesize a contradiction between a true and a false statement. Contradictions like that are for things that happen as a result of the existence of inherently contradictory interests: a cheetah and a gazelle both want to live, neither is “better” or “more important” than the other, they are both fully correct and justified in their desire to live, and they contradict each other. That’s the kind of contradiction where you have to hold both in your head simultaneously because they both exist and neither one is wrong. 2+2=5 is just obviously wrong so there’s no reason to try and synthesize it with 2+2=4.
Hey TIK,
Been a viewer of your content for a good while now. Really enjoy your presentation style and incisive thinking. I find this debate you have ongoing with these various ideologues fascinating. I do think you may have some philosophical concepts a little confused but I enjoy watching your thought evolution as you encounter more information. Keep it up and keep posting on this topic.
I do really think you lack a very important philosopher in your understanding of NSDAP/SS ideology. This is of course is Nietzsche. If you look into his work and battle w/ Hegel about "struggle" then you will have a better understanding of Hitler's use of the term in M.K. There is a huge debate about whether Nietzsche would have approved of Hitler or not? Hitler kept a bust of N. on his desk in the Reich Chancellory, I believe?
N. uses "struggle" as one of the core concepts of his philosophy. The "Triumph of the Will" is a direct over to N. and his concept of the "Uber-mensch." There is a pretty good book called "N. and the Nazi's," I believe? His living sister was a darling of National Socialism and she reedited a lot of her brother's work to make it appear he meant something like the NSDAP/SS in his ideology. This is also robustly rejected by many who have a much different interpretation of what N. was talking about.
Whether or not N. would have approved of the Third R., he does employ early Evolutionary thought, Darwinian evolution, as a central tenet in his strictly 'Materialist' philosophy, but it can also be argued that he later on did open up to a possible supernatural aspect of his belief system. He often talks about a survival of the 'fittest'/strongest or superior 'Will' over lesser inferior people. Whether he meant individuals or whole groups is debated. However he was fiends with Wagner for a time, before they had a bad break, and N. did talk about the Jews, and their relationship to other groups, through history and framed it as a competition. I think he does leave it ambiguous, however, whether he is praising the Jews or defaming them, instead claiming he is just telling it like it is w/o moral judgement bc he does not believe in traditional Judeo-Christian moralities.
Anyway,...enough....sorry to go on so long. Just check it out for yourself because I think it will fill in a lot of missing pieces for you?
Cheers!
Thank you for this cut to the chase analysis.
James Lindsay's well researched output has helped me a lot, but the priest behind the curtain analogy and the synthesis explanation are most helpful.
Let’s get these two together!
Thank you TIK, for yet another interesting topic. I'm excited to watch this video and explore your views and thoughts. I very much appreciate you for posting this video!
Brilliant. I never really understood Kant or Hegel until you explained them. Now I understand the seemingly self destructive behavior of woke corporations. This is one of the best videos I have ever seen. I rarely watch anything longer than ten minutes.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t understand Kant or Hegel either…. If you’re actually interested in understanding their thought, continue your RUclips journey. There are some legit philosophers here and there, as opposed to ideologically driven pretenders.
lol how could expect to understand anything if your attention span is less than ten minutes?
you should try reading a book
@@zogwort1522: Thanks for the engagement, I suppose, but I have no idea what you mean by “both” here. My sole point was that this particular video isn’t going to help anyone understand Kant, Hegel, or Marx.
I do understand what it’s like to be in a cult. They use obscure language and jargon to make one curious and confused, so one thinks, “I have to gain access to the inner circle before I actually understand what the message is. In the meantime I will pretend that I understand, so I can get access and acceptance.”
very good way of putting it
Yeah, something that definitely DOES NOT HAPPEN in capitalism or church.
As of former member of the Cult of Marx (December 2019-June 2021) I am so happy to hear that there are other former members of this cult speaking out against it.
Funny how fanatics can raise a cult from anything.
What i’m scared of is the fact that there’s a huge gnostic/hermetic awakening happening on tiktok and other platforms right now and it seems to be preparing the spirit of the masses for the coming gnostic totalitarian government
"Cult of Marx" is such a dramatic term for "I thought Karl Marx was pretty cool I guess for less than two years before deciding he wasn't."
@@IsmailofeRegimeIt's apt, just cause he joined for that reason, doesn't mean it isn't a cult of some sort.
The people who actually read and understand theory and the pawns who don't.
Ironically, Tik is the one of the 1%er for actually reading Marx's theory which many leftist/Marxist don't.
@@Web720 As someone who has read plenty of Marx, Engels, and Lenin (I'm willing to bet considerably more than Tik), I see no basis for calling Marxism a "cult" except as a meaningless insult.
That's a lot to be absorbed. For the most part you simplified it into understandable bits.
Well done and keep up the good fight.
Read Max Stirner's ''The Unique and It's Property', the first book to ever make Marx sweat. Stirner used Hegel's dialectic in order to abolish the dialectic into nihilism. Claiming that the dialectic ultimately becomes a 'nothing' out of which the individual creates himself at each instance. The dialectic of Stirner was more of a joke for all those who believed in the dialectic in his time. It also talks about the religion of ''Humanity'', the priests of humanity. Stirner anticipated Nietzsche in 1844 and pretty much claimed that communism is the last metamorphosis of religion. He called these illusions, ''Spooks'' or ghosts. That man's brain was haunted by these spooks. Interesting book I think, if you include it in your anti-dialectical analysis. For Stirner, it did not matter whether dialectics was true or not, the result would still be an egoism, or what he called the ''Unique''
Glad I watched this! I’ve been checking out many documentaries about cults, politics, history of religion, etc lately, and I’ve come to conclude basically most all group concepts could be said to be cults of one kind or another. Language and imagery groupings that give us a sense of a realty. Fascinating.
Communism works every day at each persons home. And socialism works mega corporations as they use socialist central planed economic model simular to Soviet union to function. So yeah Communism and Socialism work, we live it every day. I assume this guy doesn't have market economy at home.
@@KyleCox404 Tell me you have no clue of what communism and socialism are without telling me. 🤣🤣🤣Put your children in concentration camps for not laboring for the good of the state, do you? Shoot them if they don't parrot the party line? Seize the means of production and centralize its distribution while ignoring your children's and spouse's needs?
Well done, Comrade! Your brainwashing is complete - welcome to the ranks of the Useful Idiots!
@@KyleCox404Marx, Engels, and many of their modern followers are anti-family. Marx and Engels write in The Communist Manifesto:
Abolition of the family! [...] On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
All culture comes from cult.
@@KyleCox404 the main objective of both isms is to do away with believing in God; instead the children of men becoming a monolith and placing value and ideals into the development and glorification of the group only.
Another onion layer peeled away in this fascinating series! Thank you Tik! Your work is impeccable.
It's great stuff!!
@@natmanprime4295 it is! I've been doing a bit of a deep dive into the channel @TikHistory linked to as well. Fascinating.
I wanted to say to Tik, I graduated with a degree in Religious Studies from NC State University around 2010.
I always pondered why people do the insane, illogical, and self defeating things they do in the name of so-called "Progressivism" Fast forward to ~2015. I began formulating a theory based not on primary source canons, Pass Crapital, or Mein Schafft, but on 100% observation, conversation, "study material" as I tried to "educate myself" (very difficult by the way, it's hard to "play the role" of true believer for more than 2 years to absorb and study their worldview perspective) on their bargain-bin Magical Mystery Manifesto. The MMM is far from appetizing.
I have been trying to format all my observations together and then compare the base Canon (books like "White Fragility"), sacred space demarcation ("safe spaces"), clergy, laity (activists and "teachers" vs "the masses"), original sin concept (simply "privilege"), Atonement (the end goal of being "Woke"), and many many more crappy things making me wish I could get a Lobotomy and a shower, but my brains are already scrambled and I've taken 2 showers today but I never feel clean.
Wokeness Is A RELIGION.
That's my thesis statement so far. I hope to God somebody else sees it too.
Логическое мышление - редкое явление. Отвергнув религию, люди не становятся полностью логичными, непредвзятыми, объективными. Просто они верят в лозунги. Профессор Зиновьев пришел к парадоксальному выводу: чтобы идеология изменила мир, она должна быть массовой, но история показывает нам, что даже самые люди эпохи не понимали ее событий!
Корень проблем демократии: людей много, но все понимают, что служит пользе нации; доверчивые дураки могут оказаться в большинстве.
@@ФёдорМартыненко-ш1зDemocracy is a fools errand.
Going by your word salad, your brain is certainly scrambled.
It is also written in an odd way because it is meant to emulate a "living" word. Depending on what perspective you are reading it- it's meaning changes.
Cannot recommend the movie "Hail Ceasar" enough. While it's a so-so film, it does a wonderful job of exposing how people who fancy themselves "intellectuals" get wrapped up in and entrapped by the false premise that "the dialectic" is a scientific/rigorous process when it's little more than a weak thought experiment.
"Evil cannot create, it can only imitate what good has already created and corrupt it." J.R.R Tolkien. Cults are just religion but corrupted.
I've seen this in religion. Personally, I'm a Christian, but I've seen videos and people deconstructing their own faith and building it back up in a progressive way. Truly terrifying really.
Not sure if you're religious or not, but wanted to share my worldview at least to this comment.
Just like "A.I.". Hmmmm......
@@TheCrayonMan529 It's not surprising that many would do so. It happened before in Israel, that so many kings would lead Israel astray, only for a prophet to either lead them back to repentance or pronounce judgment into exile. Often times, they don't have deep enough roots, or maybe they had experienced something terrible from someone who was ostensibly a believer.
As evil as National Socialism and Communism are, they see these as the "Great Satan" rather than the flesh and the forces of darkness itself as such, with those ideologies being outgrowths. Unity is not what a Christian should strive for above all,but rather submission to the will of God as revealed by Christ Jesus. Marx always hit upon alienation, and somehow these people believe if they could just borrow a little bit from Marx et all, they could reach the lost.
Michael O'Fallon(Sovereign Nations) put it well when he mentioned that the attempt by forces like the World Economic Forum to co-opt The Church meant people had to "deconstruct" their faith in accordance with those ideas.With that said, all attempting to co-opt the bride of Christ will face accountability from God and especially those who were charged with leading the flock.
@@TheCrayonMan529 Yes me too, pleasure to meet you brother. Respect for sharing your faith, I'm Christian but don't like to force it on people. Like how Tolkien did to his friend C.S Lewis, he never forced it on him and it was only when Lewis starting asking him why he believed what he believed. I'm a huge fan of Tolkien and he definitely knew what cults were capable of left unchecked. Turns us into Gollum.
@@IrishTechnicalThinker That's really how I am. I'm not going to force my faith on people. I live my life the way Christ has taught me, which I hope will open their eyes. When the time is ready for them, I am here.
I don't watch all your videos, but the was the very best I've ever seen. Not for high quality graphics or amazing military analysis. Just for pure, essential information that everyone in the world needs. I'd love to see more work like this
Added: reading the comments, it seems like you have a lot of cultists in your audience.
This is something I have never heard before. This is necessary information for living, and I am so grateful to you for this presentation. I am listening from Mississippi, and I hope every good blessing for you.❤️ Subscribed, Liked, Shared.
Brilliant lesson in understanding what seems to be going on right now. I am a catholic - and I could never understand exactly why communism itself was regarded as an ‘error’ in principle when - as far as I knew - it was about sharing and equality amongst all the people. I could see that it doesn’t work out as this in practice, but I thought it was a decent principle. Now I understand that it is evil! And communism’s relentless pursuit of Christianity makes sense. If you only wanted happy people sharing their things with others less fortunate, then as long as religions were okay with that, they’d be no threat. But instead you need obedient slaves who will jump off a cliff when you want them to.
Nowadays we see Christianity and moral values under attack, and threats of famine, huge fires and floods being engineered, and of course the pandemic and it’s deadly solution. All falls into place. Evil, stupid b@$t@td$. Sorry about my language.
The appealing parts of communism are the elements that trick people into believing in it. A proletariat is appealing but, historically, unsustainable,
The reason religion was a threat wasn't because of religious sentiment or ideals by any means. It stems from the history of society over time and how the church has essentially been a critical component of the state. Fuedal aristocracies were maintained by the church, the order of heirarchy in that being the lords financed the church and the church would oversee the relations of the serfs to their lords. The majority of social issues were solved in church anyways (church's can be a great place of community and a reminder of how community can look) so it simply made sense that the "public meeting space" worked to some degree to maintain some kind of civility for the current society. Revolution being almost unheard of (or even a means of analyzing what to replace what you had with if you threw it over) the local populations sought to find meaning and purpose as well as resolution to their daily lives and didn't dwell on large complex ideas of social changes but rather upheld "traditions" that the church held, created, and passed down. Those traditions being a mirror of the relations of the time, because like I said, the everyday people under serfdom saw salvation through God as a way out of their suffering, not a change in the relations of fuedalism. So think of this, when a peasant woman would have say, spoken out of line or intervened in her husband's affairs, it was the church that maintained the policy and implementation of punishment on the women who were "out of line". The same goes for the passing of property (men could only own, and they oversaw all matters of their properties) or the selling of children into marriage. They all function as the key components of fuedalism, i.e. male dominated society in which all property was owned and maintained through law, once the primary source if property (land) had been divided up the remaining population simply worked the land through a form of land rent tenancy (they were required to work their whole lives in order to live on the land and in order to grow their own food). The system was maintained in a way that since no other men could acquire land the men owned the family, in which their wives were property they could produce children with to later sell into marriage to combine their property with another's families (women were a more valuable commodity at the time because they produced a continuation of the family, therefore the property of that family could grow). The end result in this being, the church played a major role in determining and upholding all of these relations (still does but it's drastically more diverse and less integrated into the government....for now). The issues with men claiming their wives need to be "submissive" may not have a state that supports them the same as it did 500 years ago but that doesn't change that the religious idea of female subservience isn't an issue when your goal is to put women on equal Footing as men and there are religious leaders who uphold that as socially necessary today as it was then. The only problems communists have with religious institutions in history is the church officials being a part of a class whose goal is to maintain oppressive social constructs. The subjugation of blacks was maintained by churches in alot of countries and the church pastors had slaves themselves. The issue isn't church as a meeting place. It's not an issue with faith. It isn't an issue with believing in God or seeking salvation, it's an issue of how historically and currently, churches will still have leaders within them who have a vested interest in not losing their position or wealth (think Joel osteen being told he can't privately own a mega church, I'm sure his public speeches would become more "anti sharing and defending God's glorious church" instead of any real conversation of bringing church back to the people )
I grew up in a country governed by a Communist Party, and it was my primary school history teacher who first told me (told the class as a whole) that I should read the Bible. An uncle of mine had a degree in theology and had trained for priesthood (we're Orthodox) and he married a woman who was a member of the Communist Party. I'm mentioning these facts from my own personal experience because the idea that communists are inherently and invariably hostile to religion simply isn't true.
The best example of a harmonious blend of Christianity and communist thought I know of is Liberation Theology as it was practised in South America before the Vatican cracked down on it. A direct result of that reactionary and unwise Vatican move is the tremendous growth of Evangelical churches and missions to South America.
@@vaska1999
Communism-theoretically, ideologically, and historically-opposes God and all forms of religion. From the time of Karl Marx to today, communism is based on the abolition of religion. In 1844, Marx wrote, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” He compared religion with opium because he believed that religion, like a drug, provides at best temporary relief from pain and suffering. For Marx, man created religion to survive life’s hardships. This famous quote is more than a summary of Marx’s views of religion and God. Marx was an avowed atheist, and he denied the existence of a divine being or God. This denial stands as a major cornerstone of Marx’s outlook, in which religion is a symptom of the evil bourgeois society. He predicted that communism would eliminate the need for religion: once freed from capitalist oppression, people would no longer need the illusory relief they sought in artificial faith. In its place, Marx believed that ‘human self-consciousness’ would, through the abolition of the capitalist society, remove the causes for alienation and suffering.
Vladimir Lenin agreed with Marx: “’Religion is the opium of the people’-this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion.” Lenin then expanded upon Marxism with the argument that all religion is a tool used by the bourgeois to repress the working class. The Marxist-Leninist
outlook drove the decision to formally institute anti-religious policy at the Russian Communist Party’s Eighth congress in 1920. Here, the Bolsheviks decided, “As far as religion is concerned, the RCP [Russian Communist Party] will not be satisfied by the decreed separation of Church and State.” Rather than wait for the creation of a communist society to make religion unnecessary (as Marx believed), Lenin would actively seek to destroy it. This policy has served as the foundation for decades of religious persecution in the Soviet Union and the rest of the communist world.
@@vaska1999No political party has the market cornered on Christian beliefs, and despite each side’s religious rhetoric, faith-based endorsements, and passionate attempts to secure Christian voters, neither has God’s best interests at heart.
Political parties are tasked with many things, but carrying out the Gospel isn’t one of them.
Yet Christians continue to fall into the sinful temptation of limiting the practice of their faith according to their political beliefs, and they’re often only willing to follow Jesus up to the point where it’s agreeable to their partisan ideologies.
Followers of Christ must realize that the Kingdom of Heaven will never be fully realized through worldly governments or carnal politics, but rather through the love of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. And according to the Bible, we can tell what the fruits of this type of Godly kingdom look like: joy, peace, happiness, self-control, charity, grace, forgiveness, justice, hope, and love.
Christianity then becomes compromised by ideas, propagandas, and agendas, Jesus’ example of freedom is exchanged for control, his hope exchanged for fear, his love exchanged for hate, and his divinity exchanged for idolatry.
Christianity then becomes compromised by ideas, propagandas, and agendas that have little to do with Jesus and more to do with gaining dominance over our political and worldly enemies-and even our non-enemies, those the Bible refers to as our neighbors. When this happens, Christianity turns into something that looks nothing like the Christ it claims to worship.
Interesting stuff. I saw Lindsey’s videos a few weeks ago. I have a minor in philosophy for my undergrad degree and one his talks made me think of my experience trying to read and understand Hegel, and just generally coming away with a sense of confusion. After watching Lindsey’s videos, I looked up some of the essays that are available online. When I read Voegelin’s essay, “On Hegel - A Study in Sorcery,” it all made sense. Having read some of the gnostic writings I realized that is exactly what Hegel is doing. It also explained why reading Marcuse left me with the same sense of ‘What is going here…’ I had with Hegel and some of Marx’s ramblings. Couple this with the realization how Gnosticism sits behind the foundational theories of psychology (Freud/Jung) it’s frightening to think how much this has influenced our modern society’s conceptions of everything from economics, to history, to gender.
Everything in society is ideology
[The Gnostic] influence has been so extensive that if you attempt a philosophical, political or theological discussion today, with virtually any person on the planet, you will quickly discover that the other person’s ideas will be entirely grounded in Gnostic mythology. Modernity has become the most successful Gnostic myth in history.
@sdrc92126 I mean sure if your just going to conflate any separation from Christian mythology in history as just inherently gnostic. I can do the same "everybody who has thoughts about any field in society or sciences is simply a sorcerer and their ideas are rooted in dark magic" there you go.
@@karlmarx7511 I think the difference is the Christian myth is clearly differentiated as ‘religious.’ Whereas the anthropological conceptions and theories undergirding psychology, sociology, economics, etc are labeled as ‘scientific’ and thus have a veil of secular authority. But if they are rooted in gnostic circular reasoning, they are no less religious and should be understood in those terms as well. This is clearly evident in Freudian theory, which had enormous impacts on the gender/sex ‘studies’ of Kinsey and Money who subsequently gave a veneer of scientific authority to the ideas that have shaped the US for the last 60yrs.
It is an ancient struggle, Christ versus antichrist. The heirs of Simon Magus popped up time again over the millennia.
Once again, TIK, thank you so much for defining Dialecticism, a word added to my vocabulary AND hopefully the English dictionary.
But he explains it wrong to manipulate you. He wants to get you to Join his cult.
@@HermunthrudaWaldheim and which cult would that be?
@@aceknowledgable9403 Some antisemite BS, I guess. I don't want to join, so I don't care.
In the end, these self proclaimed YT preachers often reveal themselves as antisemites.
Spoiler alert: He also has his own dictionary.
Read Viktor Klemperer, Stephen Hassan and Paul Watzlawick.
And If you truely want to learn about dialectics, read Adorno and Horckheimer.
Good luck.
@@HermunthrudaWaldheimhe’s a capitalist how the fuck is he anti-Semitic 😂. You people are so brainwashed.
I love your videos about gnosticism. There is something I don't get about the importance of "synthesis" though, because it is contradictory with the moment you said "and no matter how many times their theology goes wrong, they'll not change it".
"Synthesis" can also be seen as an healthy habit to nurture in order to don't fall for "gnostic priests". If you use "synthesis" you'll mix the ideas of the "gnostic priests" with the ideas of other people, undermining by half the power of the "gnostics priests". If you do synthesis again, the power of the "gnostics priests" would only be about 25% of their original power. Then, another synthesis : 12,5% ... and so on.
I don't expect an answer from TIK but if someone have an answer it would be nice from you.
The hegelian synthesis in dialectics is between two contradictions. It's why the left uses so many oxymorons and behave like the thing they denounce. The Hegelian Alchemical process is synthesising two contradictions and the product is meant to a refined version of both of those things. Capitalism is turned into an oxymoronic "mixed economy" that forces the contradiction of Socialism onto it. Marx believed this would produce Communsim and utopia on earth. The reality is all Socialism turns to Fascism and Fascism is the true synthesis. Capitalism gets dissolved and the resulting product is just Socialism with the appearance of Capitalism.
Bravo. Your perspective on Lyndsay's work has been very helpful to me in furthering my understanding of dialectical mysticism. This is important work you are doing. Please keep it up.
An important aspect of understanding the dialectic is understanding how Hegel and Aristotle's definitions of IDENTITY differ.
Aristotle said that everything is what it must be. Hegel turned it on its head and said a thing is defined by what it is NOT.
If I handed you a closed box and asked you to name what was inside, you might open the box and look. WRONG! Hegel would look at the entire universe first and tell you what is missing. Whatever is missing from the universe must be what is in the box.
That's like the difference between proving that 2+2=4 through simple mathematic, and trying to prove that 2+2=4 by proving that all other ways of proving it in the universe don't by elimination. (2+1 doesn't equal 4, 5×5 doesn't equal 4, 4÷12 doest equal 4, etc...to infinity...)
One is sane and rational, the other is insane and moronically irrational.
Only an academic could ponder such insane and irrational ideas without understanding how insane and irrational those ideas are.
“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan
👍
technically correct
*Record needle scratch.*
Delenn said something like that in Babylon 5 too.
"Every man and woman is a star"
-Aleistre Crowley
Nah
The call is dogmatism which is capitalism
Dialectics is the opposite
I became an atheist at a young age after years of learning to question everything you are just told to accept.
I started opposing socialism and communism because once you start questioning it, it falls apart.
I don't oppose the idea of piety and forgiveness of catholicism (the religion I grew up in), the same way I don't oppose the idea of worker's rights... That's a ridiculous notion. I simply oppose the institutions that thrive preacing about those things while not practicing them...
You can be good and moral without embracing religion, the same way you can be fair and fight inequality without embracing communism.
@@pe137isf Your basket of apples is hardly apt. Apples lack rights or agency. They can't be taught logic that makes them more resistant to decay. Decomposition is a one-way process. Good and bad are unambiguous; you'll find very little disagreement on what fruit is and isn't 'rotten', and why one shouldn't eat it. There's nothing immoral about discarding bad fruit. I could go on.
My point is that collectivist teachings depend upon catchy metaphors like this that quickly crumble upon even the slightest scrutiny.
While many might agree humans are emotionally fragile creatures, I would argue that the dangers occur both individually AND collectively. Furthermore, I'd even go further and say that the latter is more of a concern. One mustn't always lean on the conventional wisdom, the state, "the people", "collective mind", or other collectives as blindly trusting them have historically led to idea stagnation, echo chambers, mob mentality, and manipulation by bad actors. Circling back to your metaphorical rotten basket- it may have started from an infected individual, but it spread more quickly *because* of the collective proximity- not in spite it.
Note that I'm not saying to outright shun cooperation with these institutions either, but rather finding a healthy middle ground between autonomy and enchainment- combined with critical thinking- helps build immunity from harmful memetic diseases; preventing (ie- with healthy skepticism) is easier than proselytizing.
@@pe137isf But the collective also needs to lean on the individual. America's greatest strength is in encouraging the individual to have free expression, out of which great strides can be made for the individual and the collective.
Amen
No one is good, which is why Jesus Christ had to come to Earth, to save us from our sins. We can't save ourselves in that respect.
Yes, but you cannot justify your morality.
This is brilliant. Every time I have encountered “The Dialectic” my eyes have glazed over and I just couldn’t continue. You have increased my understanding and gained my admiration.
I bet, he and you still don't know what "dialectics" is, but good for you that you think you are smart now.
@@KyleCox404 then enlighten us
@@nemrody7828 Other people aredy explaind it, search other comments, to much to explain to simpeltons, may as well talk to wall.
@@KyleCox404 My guess is that you have some experience here. Talking to walls, that is.
Thank you so much for this video. I appreciate the effort it takes to research and produce these videos but they really are invaluable to many minds out there who know something isn't right but have been starved of the historical context to make sense of it. Many forget that among the chattering classes early last century, fascism was quite acceptable until the war and then we had a moment similar to the one we have today when we quickly forgot we ever liked the Russians... gnosticism is clearly rife among our Elites. will share wldely.
Dialectic is a method of argument or discussion that emphasizes the exchange of opposing ideas to arrive at a deeper understanding or truth. It has roots in ancient philosophy, particularly in the works of Socrates and Plato, and has been further developed by later thinkers like Hegel and Marx.
Key aspects of dialectic include:
1. **Thesis and Antithesis**: As mentioned earlier, dialectic often involves the presentation of a thesis (an initial idea) and an antithesis (an opposing idea). This clash of ideas is central to the dialectical process.
2. **Synthesis**: Through the conflict between thesis and antithesis, a synthesis emerges. This synthesis reconciles the two opposing sides and leads to a new understanding or viewpoint.
3. **Dynamic Process**: Dialectic is not a static debate; it is a dynamic process where ideas evolve through dialogue and confrontation. Each synthesis can become a new thesis in ongoing discussions.
4. **Application**: Dialectical thinking is used in various fields, including philosophy, politics, and science, to explore complex issues and develop comprehensive solutions.
5. **Critical Thinking**: Dialectic encourages critical thinking and open-mindedness, as it requires individuals to consider multiple perspectives and engage in constructive dialogue.
Overall, dialectic serves as a powerful tool for exploring complex ideas and fostering intellectual growth.