I am from a broken family and it is true, we need a good family system. A broken family leads to broken children and destroys societies in the long run.
@@suebotchie4167 How? We have the evidence. Single mothers are terrible for children while single fathers are as good, in some aspects possibly even slightly better than couples. Thats what the data shows.
@@suebotchie4167 NO it would NOT!!! ALL 6 of my siblings were raised by my father...after our mother LEFT!! HE was the better parent....women lie...God said so in His Word from the very beginning!! And ALL 6 of us have had successful lives with successful families and children and grandchildren....BECAUSE of our great upbringing by our father!! NOT much from our self-absorbed mother.
One of my favorite House MD episodes "all parents screw up all children". Some do in such small ways the kids are able to get through life well enough, others are really destructive, a long and complicated scale.
The more I look around, the more I just see a lot of broken people breaking other people. I glad to see by yours and Huang's comment I'm not the only one. Our desire to bend over backwards to "rehabilitate" criminals and give them repeated chances comes at the cost of enabling them to create exponentially more victims, many of which go on to become likewise perpetrators.
I myself was a Socialist at one point. My parents supported me when I went into further education. I did work and contribute towards my own food. But back in my mind I really wanted to become Independent and work full time and move away from my parents. At the time I was really Altruistic I had low self esteem and poor social skills. I was co-dependent on the needs of others. Growing up I saw my Mum as a Saint and my Dad a disciplinary. I had a good childhood but parents were dysfunctional they still kinda are. I worked in a Public sector job and a Corporate job. It just showed me how people pray on altruistic people. I'm a good hard working person but do attract more narcissistic type of people because of my Altruism. I watched your Public vs Private video and listened to Thomas Sowell which made me try working elsewhere working in IT but now working in Security. I do believe I became Socialist because of my state education and environment brought up in the North East of Britain which is more a left-wing socialist part of the country. And also has a lot of deprivation and lack of opportunities. Over time I've became more Independent and more understanding of psychology, finance, entrepreneurship, relationships. I watch videos like yours which helped me try different things and have a growth mindset instead of a fixed mindset I had. I now work for myself. I own my house and car now. I try to work away as much as possible I've experienced better environments and more opportunities. And also better people!
That's a good redemption story, thank you for sharing. It's great to hear you're working for yourself and having your life in order! And it's true that the people who remain socialist have that fixed mindset and never truly become successful in life. Yet, they can't see it.
Amazing self assessment, thank you for sharing! (I was also raised & state educated in the North of England but I now reside in the USA 🇺🇸 where I lead a bougie life. I doubt I would have the same lifestyle ⛳️ 🏊 🌴 if I had stayed in Yorkshire 😂😂😂)
@@TheImperatorKnight theres nothing in the core of altruism that says youre less worth than others, or a bad person... where do you even come up with this from? tryl ooking at some altruism forum for one second and see how much people believe theyre terrible persons... what are you even talking about?? and what does socialism and altruism have in common? theyre directly opposed as socialism leads to the worst results for the average human in a society...
@wasdwasdedsf there's nothing wrong with altruism as an action and virtue, but he clearly explains in the beginning of the video how going too far with the concept destroys a person's image of themselves and others. The problem with many religious groups is that they teach the altruism without teaching the deeper concepts of how God wants our actions to be voluntary and from the heart, not forced on us by shallowly explained strict rules.
It took me 64 years to realize how bad parenting is way, way, way more prevalent than good parenting. You would think that providing your children with love, warmth and support are things you naturally provide them with but it’s tragically not the case. I’m really naive….
Not sure that's correct. You may just be noticing the bad examples more because they can become very destructive, and negative things grab our attention fiercely.
@@RafaelDolfe-qm6ll you do have a point that bad examples tend to stick out more. Many of my close friends did have, as far as I can make out, happy childhoods with good parents but…the majority of bad parenting victims were people I got to know intimately through having relationships with. In most cases this is when very dark places get to be shown.
Most people in general are naive when it comes to bad parenting. In fact most people will just write off as “oh they are doing their best”. Or oh “it’s for your own good”. No, absolutely not, bad parents deserve to be called out and told they are bad parents. Other wise we are all condoning the abuse of children.
@@cristianluna5568 Haven't you heard, it's not abuse, it's "character building experiences", and when those fail I guess the child was just born rotten, the parents did nothing wrong and were loving in their own way! It's all a big Cluster B circus of drama and people keep getting sucked into it even if they aren't disordered themselves.
As much as I love hearing people bash Marx, it was heartbreaking hearing how his family suffered because of him. The dude was truly a worthless POS, and it astounds me that THIS was the guy whose ideas affected half the world.
Yes I'm sitting here wondering exactly how an essay from someone so worthless and with no credentials, experience, or anything to show from his life at all became so popular and held in such high academic regard
@@ashleycnossen3157it appeals to people who have a high opinion of their own intellect but don’t feel they can “compete” or produce or don’t feel they should HAVE to compete or produce due to their intellect.
Dont forget Chen Duxiu, founder of the CCP and first to publish Mao in his New Youth magazine. Also had a domineering father and abusive confucian teacher, became a social darwinist, and then a Leninist. He pioneered the philosophy of the "four olds", and a vanguardist "period of tutelige for the Chinese people" meant to break them of their peasent conditioning. After being expelled from his own party, he reverted to confucianism and lamented his involvement in a movement that annihilated traditional Chinese culture.
They are hating peasants so much aren’t they? No warlord was so cruel to peasants. The most hardworking, most beneficial people for society. The ones who were feeding them.
Confucius is perennially apt. The role of the family, and of language, in keeping a people on the 'straight and narrow' - and what happens when either are no longer sound and rooted in reality - is as relevant to what we see around us as ever.
And they act like capitalism is the one full of contradictions 😂 There’s no better phrase to apply to marx than “allergic to work” it was clearly everyone else’s fault he was perpetually broke regardless of having never got a job and no matter how much free money he got from everyone around him
@@RashaMattBlais.. so pretty much like our current govt then. How /do/ people come to resent those who work ? How did they think all their comforts got made ?
There's an interesting nuance in that Hitler and Stalin, although avoiding employment in the mainstream economy, were not completely opposed to effort. Hitler served dutifully in the army, and worked tirelessly as a political campaign leader until obtaining power. Stalin was a very hard worker as party general secretary and dictator.
Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were, by any definition, extremely active workaholics to the point of damaging their own health. They had virtually no private lives and lived for their work. It just happened to be politics or academic study. This video's thesis is pretty stupid.
A great WWII vet and teacher I had in school once told us in the 8th grade, that 20th century marxist revolutionaries came from journalism or education backgrounds. He elaborated by saying they observe and teach but revolutionaries never participate in real "labor" until power can be gained from it such as political or military power. He had some good takes on this subject and it fascinated me as a kid. He was a WW2 vet who lost his right foot in the war but when he was discharged he went back to school to teach history. He was a hard but very fair man. He called all of the "revolutionaries" mama's boys and he had a deep distain for Mao and all socialist ideas!
@@BLOODYMESSI4H Oh he was a great guy! He told us the German's and Italians were socialists when all other history teachers said they were not. But he actually fought them so he had a first hand knowledge. He made us learn the American revolution, the 2 world wars and the entire Cold War over the 8th grade year in history and it was so much fun. He passed away in 2001 right before 9-11! HE would hate the state of the world right now.
These men are the perfect depiction of narcissism. Their upbringing is a perfect recipe for creating narcissists or codependents, depending on the personality type.
Yeah I am only partway into the video but Tik missed the mark a bit. He is going on about altruism but it was clear these guys are narcs like you said. Not real atruism but performative. Goodness used like a suit that you put on for a party.
You're describing a metastatic form of Christian virtue ethics. They go to far and forget that in order to love your neighbor you must also love yourself. Meaning if you don't respect yourself you can't really respect others.
The other matter is that there's an element of putting God first too. Altruism has a flaw in that there's a selfishness in seeing the result. Putting God first yields no earthly result that we can prove. Altruism won't lead to humility the way true Christianity does.
@@damian_cross This is an issue among alot of Protestants, Alot of them ignore ancient Christian meanings of basic christian virtues. If you read about the old Church fathers, the apostles, or even texts from monastics, you will be shocked how mutch more spirtual and indepth they go. In the teachings of Chirst, and even go to deep details through the whole bible, and Traditions. But when you read about protestant founders, and their views. Its eather missing the point, undiciplined radicaliam, or lack of spirituality to bigin with, or ignoring ancient Traditions. And worst of all, even removing Books from the bible.
@@thatwhitewolf5222 True. I found more interest reading abojt Orthodoxy and Catholicism thinking than Protestant Thought. Heck. I even learned why "Pray for us" became ingrained in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It actually comes from Early Christian Persecution when they hid in Catacombs. It was how they saw that those who died or Martyred are still part of the Church. And that was asking them to pray of them on Earth. Once I learned this I realized that no. Iconoclasm that the Protestants did was throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater.
a monster created by plutocrats, grandson of rabbis, never stepped foot in a factory or smelled the sweat of the proletariat married with the millionaire Jenny, in 1843, or rather, the daughter of the aristocrats of the Westphalen house. As we can see, Moses Mordechai's greatest love, , was indeed Capital and money.
Wonderful video, but as a Christian, I think a reasonable amount of altruism is a positive thing, as long each altruistic act is the individual's choice. Government mandated altruism (i.e. socialism) is pure evil masquerading as good. For example, if a surgeon chooses to perform a life-saving surgery for free on a person who can't afford it, I would argue that's a good thing, but if you made a law forcing all sugeons not to charge more than $20 for any operation, that would be a disaster. Soon there would be no surgeons, and therefore no surgeries for anyone. Most of society's ills can be solved with more freedom, not less.
I think the problem is extreme altruism to the point of shame and guilt. Survival instinct causes us to want to take care of ourselves. Extreme altruism causes guilt over this, so a mental schism happens. The socialist deludes themselves into holding self righteous opinions that are simultaneously self serving. This tortured existence is destructive to themselves and everyone around them
@@BlueSpirit006 Altruism is different from being a doormat or feeling forced (by you) to do what you dont want to do, or to accept what harms your being or denigrates you, or injures your dignity. Altruism is joyously helping and benefiting others out of sincere love, and a warm and kind selflessness. The more you give in this loving manner, the more fulfilled you are (not empty). But to truly love others, you must first love, accept and acknowledge yourself as God's beloved child. You might have misunderstood Christianity, unfortunately (I made this mistake when I was young). Knowing that you are God's beloved child who will inherit His Kingdom, only makes you more confident in yourself. Knowing that He will always forgive you, and eternally love you, makes you feel safe and accepted. Sure, you have to do your best not to commit sin, because sin distances you from God. But it is not God who distances from the sinner, but the sin itself creates the distance. However, God always sends you His grace, help and insights to support you in the path and to help you overcome your flaws and weaknesses. You have a Father and Best Friend always at hand, and always caring and forgiving. Therefore, you are never lonely or unloved, you always have His ever present company, encouragement and affection. On the other hand, the one whispering those thoughts of self-hate and inadequacy is the devil. He wants you to feel undeserving of God and therefore to distance yourself from Him. It is evil to self-hate. Why? Because you are God's peak of Creation, and even His own beloved son/daughter. If you hate yourself you are hating God's masterpiece, His own child. The devil really loves inciting this feeling on humans, so they destroy themselves. The devil wants to harm or hurt God where it would affect Him the most: His children. Do not listen to him. Embrace God's love and acceptance. Do your best to stay away from sin, and when you fail, repent, ask Him to forgive you, and simply try again, but without fear or dread. Trust God. He knows who you are and that you are trying. He is not a tyrant, but the total opposite: all loving, compassionate and forgiving. Let God set you free once and for all (from the lies and deception of the devil, as He did with me). I wish you the very best! 🙏 💕
@@luzclara3855 I know, I agree with you. But helping others is what makes me feel alive, makes me feel like a human. Being in a monastery or a church makes me feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. I hate myself because I have failed God too many times and haven’t been a great Christian either (in terms of reading prayers and attending services). I’m Eastern Orthodox, so we are more somber or strict because the world is a mess for us and we have no place in it because it is filled with infidelity and hate.
@signorasforza354 I know. Still, his claims are so outrageous, and he is such an obviously ignorant and borderline batshit crazy source that it strains credulity that soo many supposedly intelligent people fall for it....
@@marksharp3990 Those intelligent people are frauds themselves, morally corrupted people or people with psychological problems because of bad upbringing. Every time I was having a discussion with an “intelligent” communist, in the end they were praising, justifying, denying or minimizing all horrendous stuff commies did and were slandering their opponents and victims with ridiculous lies. Cummunism is a religion for thugs.
@sepijortikka Well, the labor theory of value for one. Another being the hilarious claim a all powerful state will ever give up that power and "whither" away.
Look at the propaganda coming out of Hollywood. All designed to damage family life. Look at how men(fathers) are demonised. Look at posh kids at campuses zero in on the evils of their own country's past but ignore the present day evils of other countries. And 100 wars worldwide at this moment, but which one do they protest?
Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were, by any definition, extreme workaholics, to the point of damaging their own health. They had virtually no private lives and lived for their work. This video's thesis is pretty stupid, and just.. pandering.
Yes! Most radical leftists from the 60s came from comfortable upper class or upper middle class backgrounds and never had to work their way through college. It's definitely a pattern.
I sat down intending to listen to a portion but ended up listening to the end. This is a supremely well researched and presented lecture of serious quality! I am already a subscriber but I forwarded this to a handful of friends who have an interest in non-fiction. Proud to be a sponsor of your products on Patreon!
Psychologically, it's always the same: Envy, victimization, a sense of entitlement, under-responsibility, ultimately vulnerable narcissism. It is often a defensive reaction caused by narcissistic injury when a reality shock causes the artificial victim identity to shake. Psychologically, it is a fear of "becoming" behind socialism, due to learned helplessness in childhood. Strong conditioning, moral standardization through shaming and validation-dependent behavior. It is simply extremely mentally unhealthy to have such mental models and not to question them. The mental place of origin is the antidote: focus only on the things you can change in your life instead of sacrificing around and placing responsibility on external sources. The state, God and society are substitutes for the parents who messed things up. This is the biggest socio-psychological catastrophe of our time.
@@neilreynolds3858 Theyll be forced to either way. Reality always delivers the mail. So either do it now, or let it build up more and suffer greater later on.
Capitalism is the same in essence but manifests differently: "I'm not good enough as I am, so I have to earn Daddy's approval by making lots of money and crushing my enemies in the market." Capitalism would collapse if people loved themselves unconditionally, because they would no longer feel the need to strive for wealth - only to have "just enough" - which would likely lead to a distributist economy.
In my teens and throughout my 20s most of my friends were girls. In my early 30s I started learning more about politics and slowly discovered that I disagreed with socialism and Marxists. Because of this I lost almost all of those female friends. It helped me see the reality of feminism which was the straw that broke the camels back
Have you seen the Fiamento Files here on TH-cam? I also thought that feminism was about equality and that if I didn't agree with it, I'd be considered to be against women. Vile stuff that ideology is
@@PinkTorpedo909 I was in my 20s in the 90s, and I remember all the trendy white girls became "wiccans" to be hip and "rebel against patriarchy". My, how far things have gone.
Wow! A channel that discusses what I, as a retired psychotherapist, have been thinking for a very long time. Subscribed. Envy (externalised as justified hatred) plays a huge part in politics as well.
If everyone was radically altruistic there wouldn't be a functioning society - if everyone was radically selfish there wouldn't be a moral society. (most character traits require balance)
Neither extreme would be a functional society. Pure altruism is suicidal and gets nothing done in the long term. Pure selfishness would be a chaotic hyper violent society due to no cooperation and constant conflict of every sort.
This is why the eastern philosophies don’t suffer from nearly the same tragedy as western ones. While western philosophies are rooted in an incessant obsession with good and evil and each existing independently of the other, in addition with a goal of reaching some sort of perfect good, eastern philosophies tend to be more grounded and accept the realities of the world as they are. While good is valued, it is not elevated into some extreme and that is the base concept of the so called “yin and yang”, and the emphasis on balance.
@@Nakuke3You have to be extremely ignorant of Eastern history to say their philosophies caused "no tragedy". I mean, if you think Christian altruism is too radical, you should check out Jainism.
Even Georges Sorel is the son of a businessman. In the fact, the only one with some claim of being a pleb and a socialist is Emiliano Zapata, and it so happens that the Mexican revolution seems to be the only major revolution without an aristocratic stint (yes, I do consider the October revolution a rebellion of the aristocratic "professional workers")
Don't talk shit, bro. Emiliano Zapata wasn't a pleb; he actually had property. We could put him between middle class and high middle class by contemporary standards. He WASN'T a socialist at all; he was very skeptical and aggressive towards the idea of land redistribution as the marxists proposed He was CATHOLIC reactionary in his roots, his movement was motivated by the management and organization of land that the Crown of Spain had established in the indigenous communities, torn down with the masonic and traitor government of liberals in the XIX century leaded by the traitor Benito Juarez. His image has been used by the stupid socialists who, as always, take idols and heroes who have nothing to do with socialism. The lack of their own true heroes motivates this narrative and propaganda. Pancho Villa in the other hand has humble origins and a more though childhood, son of plebs, no studies, no education, no property at all, And again he as well was very antisocialist, in fact Pancho Villa has more in common with fascist and nationalist views. He was anti yankee, anti chinese, and he also had antisemitic views.
Not really. A slew of communist militants as well as party / state leaders hailed from humble circumstances, to say the least. Foremost amongst them N. S Khrushchev. Along with Walter Ulbricht, Ernst Thalmaan, Earl Browder, Maurice Thorez, Harry Pollitt, Francisco Largo Cabellero, Doleres Ibarurri, Janos Kadar, Josip Broz Tito, Nicolae Caecesku(sic), Wladislaw Gomulka,..the list is nigh on interminable…
@@tyvamakes5226 He was originally going to be a priest (idk about his father). He wrote poems under a pseudonym and became a local sensation for his poems. Then, when he became a socialist, he put his life on the line for the revolution, robbing banks to raise funds, and then being sent to forced labour camps for this.
Can you not see the humour, sub text, the irony, dare I even mention the love, behind the remark? Of course it was a bad trade deal, this is a Joke since it wasn't a trade deal. And can you bear the idea that her family were rather fond of Carlo? Go and read a bloody biography by yourself instead of cherry picking quotes to support your prejudices.
I discussed this night after night with a friend of mine (who was a devoted Freudian and psychoanalist) for years and years. This is just scratching the surface, you'll find there's a lot more to this "Psychologically predictable Socialists" hypothesis than you might think at first. Such as the suppression of sexual desires, the looking/need for fatherly confirmation, and other "offbeat" hehaviour being a core-part of the "socialist psyche". And no, it's not a coincidence that hordes of socialists are against the "white cisgender male", in fact this is a core idea in their worldview... No idea if they are aware of it themselves though! Man this is gonna catch a lot of Flak...
As an ex-socialist myself, I can say they're probably not aware of any of what I said in the video. Also, just to point out, Freud and Carl Jung were both Hermeticists. After learning this fact, I no longer view their opinions so highly.
@@TheImperatorKnightthe enemy of gnostics is both orthodoxy or catholicism(protestantism doesn't count,it emulates some of their points,especially the rapture crowd).
I've known 2 committed socialists that I've talked to a lot over decades and gotten to know well. And, no, they have no idea that there's a psychological and developmental aspect to their beliefs. They think they're rational and anybody who doesn't agree with them must be stupid. The first was an only child whose mother spoiled the hell out of him and his father told him to be a Man. He thought that having a penis was good enough. He found a menial job where he only had to work a couple of hours a day and his boss let him spent the rest of the day reading. He complained bitterly about the job and his boss. He wanted to be an intellectual but he hated writing. It cut into his drug taking. He thinks that most people are stupid. The other one had a good father but she hated her mother. She has Mother Derangement Syndrome: Anything her mother is for she has to be against. She had to raise her kids by herself so she had to have a series of minimum wage jobs where she felt like she was being exploited by capitalism. All the evils of the world were the fault of capitalists. She loves Marx and she had the Vision while living on the streets of San Francisco during the Summer of Love. Dugs were involved. She's deeply unhappy and thinks most people are stupid. She most wants to be recognized as a great artist. In both cases it was obvious that they became socialists because of family dynamics but neither could see it. They're both trying to get revenge on what they feel is a cruel world.
@TIK - and yet you've utterly fallen into Freud's trap. "Family problems "of some conceivable kind, strict parenting with physical abuse, as well as profound religiousness, missing or absent parent(s), were all not only very common, but might under a wider sense be said to have been the norm. Depending on how wide you make the goalposts, anybody could have some kind of problem. These people were not lazy by any measure... I am just personally very disappointed in this showing, TIK. Hope you get out of this rabbit hole before you end up thinking it's all about penises or their height or some such nonsense :).
I contribute nothing to society yet I feel that it is unfair that I do not reap the same rewards as those who do contribute are getting. At the same time, my existence is entirely dependent upon the charity of my family and friends or the obligations of the government to provide for all of its citizens a basic standard of living. My conclusion, I am faultless in my plight of poverty and powerlessness and the system is to blame for my inability to succeed. My lack of effort is just a symptom of a society that does not reward its best and brightest, as I certainly consider myself to be amongst that class.
My follow-up to that is: A considerable number of the people that adhere to the ideology of socialism have deluded themselves into believing that merely existing is grounds for being provided for. They lack the critical thinking ability to recognize that if everyone acted as they did, society would collapse because nobody would produce anything. At the same time, if the rewards for contributing are no better than rewards for not contributing, that disincentivizes people from working. Why should I be working when I'm no better off than those who don't? The crucial step in transitioning from a capitalist to a socialist society is equalizing the standard of living for the welfare class and the working class. This demoralizes the working class to such a degree that they see any change at all as an improvement of the status quo.
@@Subzeropole I think they know that people would stop producing if they didn't have to provide for themselves, but it goes back to what you said about them thinking of themselves as intellectually superior. They think they're the only ones clever enough to figure out they can just sit on their ass all day and get a free handout, because the rest of us dummies would be out working to provide for them.
It's interesting to see that there was one socialist leader who didn't avoid work and had a family life which was actually pretty decent from all accounts: *Tito* Maybe it's a coincidence, but he's also considered by most to be the least evil of all the old communist leaders.
I believe that the pattern is still there though. He was raised Catholic, was separated from his parents, lost the faith etc. I'd need to look at him in more depth though to be sure.
Stalin certainly didn't avoid work. He was in a forced labour camp in Siberia, after risking his life for the revolution, by robbing a Tsarist bank to raise funds.
Tito is often praised in the former Yugoslavia because the working class actually lived pretty well and had good opportunities in life, even better than today in some areas.
As someone who grew up in an athiest household I could never understand the edgy athiest anti christian thing. I could never put a finger on it. Over time I began to understand that they weren't athiests at all, they were just upset with their parents to much older ages than is reasonable. The same as almost all of these boys.
My dad was an atheist. He didn't like being told that doing whatever he wanted to do was wrong. It was amusing to be taken to church on Sunday and then listening to my dad tell me why it was all BS afterwards.
Maybe you wouldn't call me an "edgy athiest[sic] anti christian", but I can assure you that I am very definitely a conclusional atheist, and absolutely opposed to the filth that is christianity. I paid close attention to the sermons I heard twice every Sunday throughout my formative years, and I have read a lot since then, both by christians and by atheists, in addition to even more material on TH-cam, including people who are showing where christians got their ideas from. Hint: it should far more be called Greco-Roman than "Judeo-christian". Maybe the real problem is that your parents were too lazy to look into / teach you about christianity?
@@stephannaro2113 yeah being anti-theist isn't "edgy atheism" when you actually know how destructive religion can be (and frequently is), and it most certainly is not entirely a bunch of bitter believers coping about there being no god, although there are a lot of those too.
A great study on the topic, TIK. You asked in he video if someone else has ever spotted this pattern before. I can tell that the late Antonio Escohotado has mentioned several times something very similar: most communists lived on their mother's money. Also, many of them had an awakening to socialism when their parents told them "do you think we are rich? because we aren't (any more)". I think you forgot Fidel Castro, who checked most boxes but, maybe, the religious one. I've heard several times that most communists were brought up by women, that praissed the intelligence of the "child god" in excess.
On the Stalin part, some of the Russian biographers have stated that Stalin was the Georgian version of a Mafia family Boss, hence the nickname Koba (Georgia's Robin Hood) his exploits were well documented as a gangster, but instead of him being a gangster the marxist historians have turned him into some revolutionary figure instead of what he was the Lucky Luciano of Russia, the Boss of all bosses. This is why Stalin NEVER let the NKVD/KGB crack down on the night businesses of the Vory/Bratva (Russian Mafia) during his reign. If he had to crack down on one of them it is well documented that after Stalin took power, a central element of his brutal rule was the network of Gulag labor camps. Stalin turned to the professional brotherhood of criminals, called vory, to be the foremen and guards who kept them in line. Stalin lived in lavish apartments and lived like a Mafia boss but his rise to power came from a fear of his circle of friends and allies not just in the Kremlin but on the streets. Stalin controlled the, party, the communist political world and the underworld at the same time. For a 5 foot 2 inch tall man with 1 good arm and a slight limp he was feared like no other (no one should have feared Stalin in a fight he was a TINY disabled man) yet the entire class of intellectuals in the Bolshevik party feared him enough to never really cross him! The Mafia (Vory) were so intertwined with Russian politics and the system that after the fall of the USSR it was the VORY that became the oligarchs of Russia and took over Russia in the 1990s. Stalin's fingerprints are still ALL over Russia to this day!
Not only Vory(aka robbers) but Vory and KGB. Criminals and kgb are two foundations of ruzzia. That’s why they love cummunists. Because cummunists love thugs.
As most of the revolutionaries, if there was no funding from secret services of foreign powers, the fighters for a better and more just world resorted to burglary, robbery and extortion. Stalin was quite skilled and qualified in these activities. So was the Polish National hero - Pilsudski - another revolutionary against the Russian Tzar and a far worse dictator than the absolute monarch.
Its funny that you say that, in one of my discussions with my friend we often talked of how the soviet union was run like a mafia and everyone was some sort of boss or lieutenant of a criminal gang. We assumed that this was the case because of the lack of institutions , or how politics work in general in authoritarian regimes but soviet Russia specifically was run a lot like a mafia. I mean its one thing to jail , purge and execute political opponents but the way comrades killed other comrades in cold blood when their position was threatened or even perceived to be threatened was outlandish. Also note that other authoritarian regimes like tsarist Russia or hitler's Germany usually jailed people and only executed them when they actually committed crimes , if for example you critised the gorvement you would be in jail or custody as hitler did to journalists or the tsar. In soviet Russia and in communist regimes in general only the idea of being anticommunist could lead to your death. Another thing is that the non deathly punishments were harsh to the point that they were constructed in a way as to send a message , the same way mexican cartels or other criminal organisations operate. I just can point exactly if it is like a mafia or excessive "religious" zealotry or both its crazy . Even in democracies , every time a left wing gorvement is elected ,you can always expect political arrests ,censorship , violence to political opponents, lawfare, destruction of characters, vilification of a certain group of people etc... And the funny thing is all that violence and political capital is lost without any meaningfull change taking place,as if they like to just torture people cause of hate and no other end... Evil right wingers by comparison are like children in the playground . Even when you get authoritarian right wing regimes most of the time the punishments are something like jailings and beatings out of frustration as if they try to discipline an unruly child , while the left ones are vicious and unforgiving .
Neutrally calling it "parental issues" instead of mere "father issues" is a step in the right direction. In detail the elements that stand out are 1) neglect / absence 2) an enabling, at worst oedipal parent (usually the mother), equal to "anti-authoritarian" parenting styles - the overt tyrant (usually the father) seems to be optional and seems to lead to the same outcome as the absent father. I would understand why someone would surmise "but then it's mommy-issues!", however, the other parent is supposed to compensate for such errors. Also the rule of thumb "Narcissists beget narcissists" needs to be considered. The term is better understood as "emotional immaturity" imho.
Lutherans are taught that justification comes from faith/scripture alone. The Catholic Church that they were rebelling against taught that justification came from faith/tradition (works). I have noticed that this is a big deal with protestant people I met.
it is a pretty important doctrinal difference. Though the altruism described as part of Lenin's upbringing is neither lutheran, catholic, or christian altogether.
And Orthodox see Catholics as the first protestants, becuse they rebeled against the old system, with thr papacy and Filioque. When we see that both these things where not the first 1000 years a thing.
Iam a protestant... but the problem becomes when u demand others see things u see them. Even though i KNOW iam right i dont force it on others or see their points as invalid. Its not the way of life people choose, but how much they make it other peoples problems.
Thank you for this excellent, comprehensive study! I appreciate the effort you undertook to inform us of the background information on these individuals that have contributed to the innumerable deaths and sufferings of so many people and nations.
I once had someone ask me in disbelief "how can you understand economics if you haven't read Karl Marx". It was a few years back, so I had no answer at the time other than he didn't seem to be relevant to any economics that I had ever met. Now I know why.
His artwork was brilliant. Iv got a copy of his painting of the Virgin Mary and child. It's brilliant. Iv saw seen many of his paintings. They are brilliant.
I have not red demons but the Social democrats or the Marxists used it as inspiration, at least Stalin but I assume the other prominent ones did as well.
Dostoyevsky himself was a property of government after amnesty. Russian empire was a collectivist country without any property rights. Everything was belonging to tzar. Even thoughts. No laws, no court, private property, no rights. Only obedience and serfdom.
A "true" altruist works to be able to provide, to be able to give. These egoists were only concerned with their image and delusions. They didn't give of themselves, they only took and gave of others.
I don't think anyone minds if other people are altruistic. At worst its likely only to damage their own lives. The problem is that they want other people to behave as they do. When altruism is enforced by the government by taxation its simply another form of oppression. That's the difference between someone standing in the corner with a coin box and someone who jangles their coin box and blocks your way into the supermarket.
"I think I've said enough about this idiot." No you haven't. Seven hour TIK lectures about the rotten compulsions of socialism should replace Seven hour lectures about diversity equity and inclusion in university campuses. Can't wait until you crack open another video in this style on Democracy and maybe one on "Third-Positionism" even if the latter may be redundant in some areas. Mankind has been forced to bite deeply from the fruits of these botched post-enlightenment "ideas" for too long.
*Let me guess, roast me if I'm wrong:* Born into enormous wealth, never worked a day in their lives, got by by being hall-of-fame level mooches/leeches.
Mostly born into some middle class wealth, maybe upper, or watched Dad climb out of lower class and perhaps some helped with Dad's family business or farm. TIK sees Altruism. I'm not 100% familiar with Ayn Rand's definition of altruism, but she means a dark version of that, and towards extremes or elusive perfection. (Another disagreement that I have is that almost everyone in those days grew up in a religious household. I think even the peasants, but that was probably different for the literate middle class. Yet not everyone became a hate-filled frustrated altruistic socialist. I also think hard fathers were the norm in those days. Life was much harder for everyone.) Perfectionism, a neurotic obsession, coupled with the inability of Self to achieve final perfection (because that doesn't exist), coupled with resentment of others who fail to meet one's demands for perfection, is fertile soil for self hatred and hatred of everybody else. "I am brilliant and everyone else is stupid and evil. Or is it the opposite, I am stupid and evil but everybody else can function okay. Well f__k them all. F__k me too." (I just thought of Kurt Cobain hating himself for the alleged reason that the rock music he invented wasn't _absolutely_ original and non-derivative.) I see resentment about "injustice", projected onto others, a ridiculous sense of entitlement, unearned, and an egotistic desire to be king of the world. Another Objectivist channel, focusing more lately on Israel, describes Palestinians and Hamas as altruistic. How? A LITTLE BACKGROUND: This Is despite the fact that the entire philosophy of Hamas, rooted in the words of Muhammad about killing Jews and stealing from the Jewish religion, to declare himself the final and most superior prophet, with a direct connection to God, and a life of stealing from caravans and extorting other kings and leaders, Hamas is all about destruction of Israel yet NOT one word in their 1988 Manifesto about creating a state called Palestine. (The Palestinian movement, its "father" Al-Husseini, a top Intelligence officer appointed directly by Hitler, REJECTED that option of establishing an independent Arab state, since at least 1936.) So what does that have to do with altruism? The objectivists say that their willingness or eagerness to DIE, to have their children and grandchildren DIE, to reclaim the honor of Arabs (the group or Umma), and to fulfill Allah's commands via Muhammad, is seen by objectivists as the ultimate in Self-Sacrifice. But it's really extreme selfishness, from a different angle. I see Self sacrifice as more like giving a beggar $1 or a few, giving an annoying friend without a car a ride to a meeting or to run errands, working overtime for money during a work crisis, arguing in favor of Zionism with no pay, after having spent years arguing against it in favor of social justice. Blecch! 🤮 Not as a lifelong crusade to kill or try to cause injury to enemies who disrespected Allah, and to continue to do so despite the factor of high risk of death.
Stalin - Born into a peasant family in Georgia - Worked in a Siberian work camp after robbing a bank under the Tsar, in order to give funds for the revolution. Not a mooch or leech, worked in the background of the communist party as secretary, and was voted in because everyone appreciated his role. If we look at Trotsky, we'll notice something different. - Born into a fairly wealthy family, could probably call it middle class. - Did not work in labour as far as I know, but did revolutionary agitation, even in 1905 - Not really a mooch/leech, but actually organised when Lenin wasn't there. Not respected as much due to his argumentative nature. Lost the Soviet Leadership and kept trying to destabilise the nation, sent to Kazakhstan, still kept doing it, so sent to other places, where he kept doing it, so he got kicked out again and again, until ending up in Mexico and was assasinated by an ex-Trotskyist (rumoured to be in the NKVD, however there was no evidence so far.)
7:32 i unfortunately went through this chart minus the religious upbringing part. I undid the hatred of reality and capitalism, but still working on the laziness and fear of independence. Wish me luck.
Kinda sad that a father who had no education wanted his kids to be educated were exposed to radical ideas. 12:31 man.... I assume this many parents fears right now.
@anthroimperzia3927 Voting? Hows democracy any different from communism, with the means of production of even law, defense and justice publicly owned, some of the most important things and as such the most important to remain fully within the free/black market only.
Funny enough there was a video on Teddy Rosevelt’s upbringing recently and all I was thinking was “huh it feels like the opposite of TIK’s videos where a leader actually did hard work, had loving parents and understood being independent
@@tempejklhe attacked corruption and monopoly. That is pro capitalist. He made money through writing, not taking bribes as do modern progressive politicians.
@@tempejkl He fought against monopolies. Not businessmen per se. He tried to be one himself in his ranching venture, and did make money as a writer with an enormous output. Nothing like the leftist politicians who somehow become filthy rich without producing anything.
I will start by saying I appreciate TIK’s work and find great value in what he does. I had a gut feeling TIK was going to bring up Ayn Rand as the antithesis to “altruism”. I must say, I disagree with TIK’s analysis. None of the Socialist leaders were altruistic. Altruism is voluntarily being in the service of others. It does not mean hating the material world and it does not involve force. I would argue that they had a god complex, and wanted to force a bastardized version of altruism on everyone else. They were self-serving to the core. I would also argue that the Socialists had an external locus of control. They would not take responsibility for their actions and always had to blame others. This runs counter to the internal locus of control, daily reflections, and admittance of wrong-doing that are taught in most religions.
You cannot be a socialist without being altruistic. Socialism requires altruism, since the "equality" principle is based upon it. Altruism is all about helping others. The question is: why are others in need of help? Because the system (capitalism) is bad. Material reality does not provide equality, and this, material reality is bad, and we must overcome it by coming together and helping our fellow men via the collective (the state). This, altruism is against material reality ("nature") and the free market. This is the reason they blame others, like you said. They think that men who are left to their own devices will devour each other like a swarm of rats. Therefore, other men are the problem in their eyes. That's why they call for a socialist "New Man".
@@TheImperatorKnightyou’re identifying a lot of specific phrases with specific ideas instead of what those specific ideas represent and it kinda shows the whole hypocrisy of your TH-cam channel. You make a lot of claims, you bring up a lot of points, but your dunning Kruger wins out in the end. As does mine.
@@TheImperatorKnight I'll take tanks or philosophy or economics - anything but TIK's psychoanalyses. He's a smart guy with a wide base of knowledge, but this one is finally well outside his scope. I think there's confirmation bias. People who are intellectually misled into being socialists can and do come from all backgrounds, and are often passionate workaholics (indeed like both Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler). TIK's not only going against his own individualist position (apparently unknowingly?) - by diminishing personal agency, but if he goes down this Freudian rabbit hole he'll end up thinking it's all about height or penis size or whatever.... :D
I think the analysis is much simpler. All these tyrants, especially Hitler and Stalin had comparatively poor backgrounds both in wealth and parenting. But while a rich "son-of-someone" still knows it is all about power and money for the sake of themselves, these outsider people got some feeling about idealism seeing power and money as means to really change the world. The lazy rich guy only wants to have power and money for being able to maintain his lazy rich lifestyle forever and thus is harmless in terms of revolutionary potential, essentially he wants the things to stay the same as he knows them. The idealistic poor guy wants power and money to take revenge on the world for his upbringing and all the violence he has encountered from the society during his childhood.
Indeed. And Jesus's criticisms of it were primarily aimed at the very same corrupt intentions of chasing an outward appearance of generosity and overall "righteousness" that we see among "altruists." "Virtue-signaling", in modern parlance. He never advocated for creating hierarchical systems to take up the burden of charity, and the Parable of Talents is explicitly capitalist in principle and describes the very Pareto distribution that socialists have been waging ideological war against.
It's also forbidden in actual Christianity. Unfortunately, TIK, as good as he is, hasn't studied the subject enough. The whole "he had a religious upbringing, therefore he became a socialist" thing is a bit silly, since EVERYONE had the identical religious upbringing back then, and 99.9999% of those with "religious upbringings" didn't become revolutionary socialists.
@@historyandhorseplaying7374 And most of those who are Lutheran were in German-speaking areas. Which... yeah there's like a 50% chance they would have been Lutheran at the time in that case.
I think Mussolini was probably one of the few authoritharian leaders who had a good relationship with his father to the point of taking his socialist ideas from him. Then there is Enver Hoxha who cared more for his uncle Hysen (or Baba Çeni) than his own father Hysen who was a timid imam to the point that he got accustomed to call him "uncle" and never father.
Hi Tik, I greatly enjoyed this video because I feel that, in part, your analysis is describing myself. I was on track to becoming useless socialist intellectual with delusions of grandeur due to my upbringing as well. All the elements were there: the religious household, the feeling of superiority towards people doing menial labor (this was also instilled into me at home), engaging in the study of useless intellectual subjects with no connection to reality etc. Eventually I was able to see the socialist promises for what they were: lies. Leaving home at a relatively early age and even moving to a different country greatly contributed to the necessity and inevitability of becoming independent and making money etc. Currently raising three kids and teaching them the importance of self interest. Great work with the channel! P.S James Valiant of the Ayn Rand Center UK wrote an interesting book about the origins of Christianity: 'Creating Christ'. In my opinion it helps explain the excessive Altruism found specifically in Christianity. You should really check it out.
Este video me abrio los ojos completamente a realidades que no entendia, pero me hacian corto circuito. Ahora todo me hace sentido. Lo que dice el video es 100%, es un video liberador. Lo he estudiado por varias horas, y tome apuntes, no quise perderme de un detalle.
One thing they all abandon from their protestant upbringing, or maybe never had cause they were spoiled rich kids, is the protestant work ethic,and sence of individual responsibility.
Inre altruism, the problem with Objecivism as an antidote is that it is as extreme in the opposite direction. Objectivism holds that ANY self-sacrifice on one's part is bad, even of the mildest kind. Philosophical extremes are the problem with so much of what ails the world.
Your couldn't express more truth I had quite a hard childhood with an absent and psychologicaly violent father and an extrêmement loving but destroyed mother. Despite good student habilities I had to struggle à lot against myself to go further my rebel instinct and even time has passed and I started my own company now, I still struggle terribly against my lazyness and lack of discipline. Fortunalely I m good in what I do but it's an everyday struggle.. the refusal of well beeing not to betray my victimal mother against my capitalist father is still present as a reflex in my everyday life. I m seeing a therapist to keep my life together but your conclusions helped me a lot more today than the hour I spent from 7pm to 8pm with him... thank you TIK, you're awesome !
There's a book called "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" by Nathaniel Branden that you may want to check out. It has helped me personally, and by the sounds of it I think you will get something from it too. A lot of psychology has been based on the works and Freud and Jung, both of whom were Hermeticists. Thus, in my opinion (and it is just an opinion), a lot of therapists are ill equipped to deal with real-life issues. It therefore falls upon our shoulders to do the majority of the work to figure ourselves out. For me personally, I have have found the works of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff's books on Objectivism extremely helpful, even if at first it doesn't seem like they should be. The negative stigma they have delayed me from looking into them, and I regret that. There's no point in building a house on sand - you've got to have a good philosophical foundation, otherwise it's a fruitless endeavour.
@@TheImperatorKnight Freud seems to have only superficially copied from Yoga. The 3-level system for example (It, Ego, Superego is Manas, Ahamkhara, Buddhi) is way more sophisticated and intricate in its comprehension. Buddhi, which Buddhists seek to cultivate to see reality as objectively as possible for one, is not remotely understood like that in the West. Instead "Reason" is at the same time called harsh and inhumane by the Gnostics and their derivatives, while also claiming to be the only ones to have "Reason"; likely in that endless "wolf in sheep's clothing" ruse. The Enlightenment thus had to fail because it was not led by "Reason" but instead a lot of irrational socialist gobbledigook. A lot of the Hermeticism/Gnosticism goes further back than Orphicism from what I can tell. There are mentions/complaints about "dialectic sophists who confuse government, to the detriment of the people" ascribed to Konfuzius and Laotse in the 6th century BC in ancient China. Respective books are still later in the stack of books to my right. I'll get there eventually. My first hint about that I had read in a foreword of a not so great translation of the Tao te King by Victor von Strauß. Looking further into Yoga, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, of which the latter is incomprehensibly ancient, Gnosticism/Hermeticism seems like a direct heresy as the simple product of the limitations of the Narcissistic mind. The Demiurge becomes a necessity for the human mind, especially the emotionally immature, seeks to anthropomorphize everything by default for a more digestible world-model. Hence these ill formulations of, for example, "evolution does" or "evolution wants", ascribing an active will to a passive process. The emotionally immature (narcissist), who totally has figured everything out and knows what God wants and is just helping on the way to accelerate it all towards the paradisical, utopian conclusion, insists to mess around with systems that should not be messed around with by the minds of children, for each time it has spelled doom for humanity (Labour Theory of Value, Lysenkoism, a certain anti-biological ideology currently wrecking academia, which Stanislaw Lem already described as a goal of the Communists, in his "Star Diaries and Memoirs of Iyon Tichy"; highly recommended read, no matter the lacking quality of the English translation). For protocol: In Taoism, as far as I understand it, there is no creator with a will, there is no plan or intent, the whole thing just "is". The creation-source therefore also has no name and there is no point in worshipping it, and everything just comes from it and returns to it eventually. The word "tao" is effectively just a placeholder. Taoism is passive. But the emotionally immature narcissists cannot comprehend passivity, they are never satisfied without having something concrete they can rebel against and take its place in a childish, almost animalistic, game of dominance hierarchy in the tribe. Hence, they need all this demiurge and material prison nonsense. In the system of Taoism, all things Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Socialism, Narcissism as a whole, is only ticking the boxes of "Yin" (the overt, dark, female, taking, destroying) and none of its opposites ("Yang"). Therefore a "whole" can never be achieved through these incomplete limited lenses that the immature mind that has no Buddhi can provide. Likewise the entire idea of Alchemy seems to be a heresy of these older systems describing mere "interrelatedness of the elements", no magical spells, just a metaphorical help to, for example, understand that when one organ (ie lungs (metal)) being afflicted (water in them) indicates a weakness of another organ in the relation-cycle (heart (fire)) being too weak. Which is exactly what happens in conditions like heart inflammation. Treating the symptom of the water in the lungs is not enough, for the root cause of the symptom lies elsewhere, and the heart needs to be strengthened (ie by a pacemaker). Laugh about TCM as you wish, for most of it is charlatanery nowadays, but the foundation is a mere product of observation and building a usable model. Western School Medicine as well has a great foundation, yet big pharma sells us a lot of placebos with only negative side effects to amortize their deadend research and keep the machine going. At its core, these things are eerily the same. But what does the alchemist do with that old model? S/He anthropomorphizes, adds more magical thinking, lust for power, and thus believes to be able to truly manipulate and invoke the elements by themselves and cast magic. It's nonsense. We also find connections all the way back to descriptions in the Sumerian Pantheon about these personality style interactions, but that's a topic for another time. I'll only mention that the symbolism in that ancient religion seems to have morphed through time and manifested in various religions and ideologies seen to this day, and considering which gods are represented by that is as telling, and congruent, with TIK's video here, as it gets. Suffice to say, it's all checking the boxes of "Yin".
While I am unable to speak to 'altruism' of the many religions my own person experience has be always been to be charitable with your (spare) time but never ever just give away your labors, that was considered to be an unhealthy and self-defeating act.
TIK used Ayn Rand’s definition which is why Altruism is being cast in such a negative light. Who was one of the most anti-altruistic people ever to live. In short a dictionary should have been used to define Altruism, not a political thinker who completely opposes the idea.
This is actually a trend I observed with not so much Socialists but Dictators generally. All had terrible relationships with parent(s). Which is why we must strengthen families
Someone did a study of the paternal relationships of the 100 or so most cited feminists, and couldnt find many that had a good relationship with their father.
Great video. My only potential contention with the whole ‘dislike of responsibility or laziness’ aspect, is the fact that individuals like Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini etc. became leaders, individuals like Stalin for example had been a terrorist gangster kingpin and lived quite dangerously as such both with the law and rivals, which is naturally stressful. And he not only became a leader, but probably the epitome of absolutism, I’d wager that even the most authoritarian of absolute monarchs could only dream of the power that Stalin had centralised around himself. But apart of that absolutism is the fact he was constantly working, for example in I believe one of your Stalingrad related videos, it’s noted that Stalin at one point worked 22 hours in a single day. So, and I could be wrong but, it doesn’t seem apparent to me that Stalin was lazy considering that leadership is naturally the most responsible and taxing of jobs, or perhaps Stalin’s desire for power overrided his initial laziness, allowing him to ‘grow up’ in a perverted sense. Again with Mussolini, instead of becoming a recipient of a regime he became its conductor, naturally a stressful, taxing position, once again with Lenin and then the moustache man himself, inheriting positions that were not only constant but lifelong. Perhaps the same idea I have with Stalin applies for them too. To an unproductive recipient, a socialist regime is an ‘ideal’, but why would that unproductive recipient become a leader which is the job that naturally takes on the most ‘productive’ and responsible aspect.
True, TIK's definition is kind of self-defeating. He argues that all socialists have been bums, but those socialist dictators took huge responsibilities and had a heavy workload. Lenin's political work was so taxing that he suffered a stroke, Hitler spoke about how his duty to the country had destroyed his health.
What "work" did they do exactly? I reckon they mostly likely delegated most of their responsibilities, and were more of an overseer than anything else. Just as it is now with modern politicians that have others writing their speeches, policies, legislation etc. Ambitious, but they do lack work ethic, and being in government gives them the opportunity to make massive gains while doing the least.
@@die1mayer they didn’t take responsibility, they were committing atrocious human experiments and were failing horribly but their actions were justified by their zealots. Even now they are justifying all disgrace and cringe with plain lies and manipulations.
Good point. I think the laziness and lack of responsibility is only when it's "real" work. They were very excited to work as hard as they could for their own purposes - writing theory, doing revolutionary activity, and the later controlling of the state for Lenin. But when it came to having a normal job whose purpose wasnt to control or gain control, then they were not keen on it.
I dont know, I come from a very disfunctional upbringing, a father who was super abussive, a mother who was a saint, and I later became a Christian. None of that made me hate myself or hate others, nor love others more than myself. I have never felt a need to become a socialist. I could clearly see the good and the bad at home, knew I needed to work at some point, got married, moved to the states (Im from a US territory, US citizen from birth, just in case😉) Always thought we needed to help each other, but not to the point of self destruction, I still think that way. I think today's marxists and socialists, specially in the US are a bunch of braddy, spoilled, attention seekers who love or hate themselves too much, and hate others too, who have never had any needs because most of them are affluent. The comparison with people from today and people from a century ago should never be made. We are not the same kind of people and motivations are not the same neither. True religion doesn't damage people, people damage themselves!!
In the book you often cite "Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism by Joshua Muravchik " when he got on to how Marx was looked after by Engels and his Children did the same. In fact when Uncle Engels went to the shadow realm they lost their means of survival. And even went voluntary went to the shadow realm.
I agree with this statement so much. "I think, therefore I am." has brought so much destruction to the modern world. The truth is always "I am, therefore I think."
Sorry, but I don't see the altruism you are talking about. Quite the opposite, I see a distinct lack of it. They may have used "serving the public altruistically" to justify their ideologies' grasp for power and to excuse their hatred towards others. However, most of them were pure narcissists, caring for nobody, not even their families. Engels was the only one on your list who genuinely cared for someone. "Normal" Christian altruism (regardless of whether it is Lutheran, Calvinist, or Catholic) - stemming from "love thy neighbor as thyself" - doesn't lead to self-hatred. It doesn't place one above the other but rather puts both on the same level. There is even historical literature associating the rise of Protestantism with a rise in productivity, which contradicts the idea of fear of independence and laziness. I often like your videos and agree with most of your points, but this time, making out altruism as the problem doesn't hold up. Their self-hatred has other roots.
No, I think it makes sense. If you believe that being altruistic unconditionally is good, then what does that make everyone who isn't completely altruistic?
@@trollerjakthetrollinggod-e7761 'what does that make everyone who isn't completely altruistic?' Not perfect, like everybody else. The train of thought that you imply doesn't fit at all. It's part of Christian believe that no human is perfectly good, but that we are ALL sinners unable to be truly good by ourselves and that we are in need of the grace of God for redemption. Redemption theology is particularly Lutheran by the way. That someone believes he himself is perfect while others are not (and even expendable) contradicts Christian teaching completely. The socialist mentality of tying to create some kind of heaven on earth, no matter how many victims that requires, lacks any altruism.
@@lars9925 "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", look at it this way. Socialists believe that people who have lots of money are bad and must actively give it away to every underprivileged individual they pass in order to redeem themselves. It's also important to note that the idea that we are all sinners in need of redemption is completely rejected by socialists, who believe that everyone is inherently good and it's just capitalism and hierarchy that makes them bad.
@@trollerjakthetrollinggod-e7761 Well, Socialists believe that people who have lots of money have to be FORCED to give it away (and the formerly rich have to be further punished). And the money shouldn't go directly to any underprivileged people but to the all powerful state that will distribute it 'fairly'. Socialist redemption is not gained by any material goods but buy loyalty to the party. You can have a luxurious life if you work for the 'cause'. I agree with your 2nd point. Socialist thinking arises from a (distorted) sense of justice, but not on an individual level, it's purely on the collective level. Everything can fall victim to the perceived greater good. Altruism on the other hand happens on an individual level, it has to do with personal sacrifice and being kind to an individual.
This was a wonderful video, excellent educational and enlightening. Some of this I learned in college but nothing like this. No sugar coating. Thank you for sharing.
Seeing how many people with the same traits tend to come from better places than the people they claim to defend, represent and to share bad experiences (aside from losing relatives and such) my take is that it is something that appears in those people to a certain extent too
I know people with autism who's addictive behavior caused harm to children. The reality is, people are not perfect. And this is exactly why Communism never worked and can never work. They completely ignore the psychology of people and believe everything is upbringing, whereas things like autism clearly has genetic components. Also, it is quite ironic- I know a lot of Russians and to this day most of them suffer from mental issues because of WW2 and then Communism. It is obvious that trauma is past on to children in some form. It is our task as parents to be aware of this and minimize its influence.
Think of it as Venn diagrams or logic. All zebras have stripes but not everything with a stripe is a zebra. So a significant number of despots have the same personality failures but not everyone with that type of personality problem goes on to be a despot.
I had issues with my dad, but it forced me to embrace reality and I eventually became a capitalist. These people had better fathers, but became socialists. It really comes down to how you deal with the problems of your life.
@@JaimeWarlock Ha ha I guess your Dad didn't lecture you on the virtues of self-sufficiency and capitalism. If he had you might of ended up a socialist. Alternatively there are some people, not very many, who can analyse the situation for themselves without reacting against their parents.
ING TOTAL BRILLIANT, your research is absolutely spot on, and explains why all modern societies have collapsed under the weight of socialism, thank you so much for your time and effort to present this information to us. Wow,I am truly reeling over the bedrock of destabilisation of the parental and religious influence on these monsters 😮
"A pattern in *ALL* socialist childhoods". I think that there are quite a lot of exceptions. Ho Chi Minh comes immediately to mind. Ernesto "Che" Guevara lacks most of these events or characteristics. So do the previous and present leader of the DPRK. Fidel and Raul Castro both miss a few of these events and characteristics, as does Gorbachev. In addition, your "Altruism to World Hate" philosophical path appears flawed, in my view, as many socialists and non-socialists alike have not taken such path when presented with and/or experiencing altruism.
I haven't found that altruism per se leads to socialist or totalitarian inclinations, not in the people I know. I know lots of hard-working Christians and Jews who are both ambitious and generous, as well as religiously unaligned people with similar traits. The dangerous kind of altruism is the sort that expects EVERYONE ELSE to be altruistic without being altruistic oneself. For if one is going to behave in an altruistic manner, one has to do things for others or give them stuff, and this requires work, and in real practical life, it requires one to be pretty much self-supporting, both so that one isn't having to take from others and so that one has something to give to others. -- I think that Romantic utopianism is dangerous, and I think that one of the advantages of the Judeo-Christian tradition is that it locates the perfect domain as other-worldly. (Plato's domain of the forms was similarly other-worldly.) As a general rule, I think it's important to keep ideal notions distinct from one's understanding of the real world. -- Another ideology that fails to keep this straight is scientism, which is implicit in Marxism and in the insanity that is the WEF.
This video left out the influences culture has on people whether they work or not whether they are literate or not. China for example and even today- honour there ancestors- are subject to their parents at any age etc. same with German Cambodia and it’s culture and expectations. Nothing functions in a vacuum. Don’t think-generally speaking these people were lazy as they worked and went to jail for their ideas. The WW1 was left out as such a huge influence it had on the world and Ideas. These people were Psychopaths
This guy is a great example of why they tell people human nature is a series of absolutes. It keeps them blaming eachother. He opposes altruism because he thinks it's an all encompassing 'identity' rather than just a simple act. He has been given a personified version of altruism to fight against. This doctrine, which was sold to him as a route toward 'liberty', is why politicians, businesses, churches, NGOs, international bankers, and all the other 'legal persons' around the world can act in self interest without any real contest. Because 'it's just the way it is, and will always be'. And so it stays.
You are right not all giving has a philosophical construct behind it, it might just be a whim. However on the philosophy of altruism you are a perfect example of what is wrong with it. Re "politicians, businesses, churches, NGOs, international bankers, and all the other 'legal persons' around the world can act in self interest without any real contest". There is nothing wrong with self-interest. That is the basis of most moral actions. Most people accept that there is a hierarchy of responsibilities. You don't owe everyone the same. There is no obligation to those with whom you have no connection.
Individual and collective need aren't opposites though. They are logical certainties. Warring between the two as absolutes is a fight that will never, can never, and was never supposed to be won.
@@UnnamedPodcast_Uprising "Individual and collective need aren't opposites though". In principle no, in practice the main method of socialism is to tax individuals for collective purposes, with everything classified as a "need".
Interestingly, the New Testament was key to the affirmation of the individual as a distinct entity. However, the individual has agency and responsibility. When you define 'Altruism', it is the sort of construction popularized by Ayn Rand. It fits into a Hegelian dialectic, which creates a convenient strawman.
I had to read Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" several times to really understand where she was coming from, but ultimately it made sense to me. To her, a selfish man should seek sobriety over drunkenness because sobriety has greater value to him. She was multi-lingual, so maybe she misunderstood some of the nuances of the English language.
Stefan Molyneux has been talking about the role of parenting in bringing out tyranny for about 15 years, and has written several books about Peaceful Parenting. I can't recommend him enough
Your ordered analysis appears from the footnote to be based on Ayn Rand’s definition of altruism. Why? Her definition is not only not the leading one, it is not a common definition of altruism. Yours is a lovely analysis but you miss a critical factor now greatly emphasized by modern psychologists: emotional intelligence. Books are written on it so I won’t explain it here. Suffice it to say that all these hadn’t the foggiest notion of how to handle or even identify their own troublesome inner emotions of fear and anger. Thus, they repressed, denied, and projected them outward upon the world. Cock sure that their view of the world was totally correct, they never explored how their own emotions within were driving them. Fear converted to anger converted to rage easily converts to violence. And that to war and genocide.
I dislike the semantics game so to speak in a basic form The problem with modern capitalism is that corporations have paid off daddy government so there is next to zero antitrust legislation ENFORCEMENT This is why we have a small handful of corporations and “stakeholders” that now collude to own everything I truly wish that people would include this fact when they attack “capitalism” because it’s the reason why it’s failing When Blackrock has: $10,000,000,000,000 in wealth = OF COURSE capitalism is going to fail If you have intact families that own small businesses = a much healthier system We are now back in the 20’s with robber barons all over again
Yup. Sometimes I almost regret reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in high school. Makes things a lot harder sometimes. Who the fuck is John Galt?x
So true it hurts.. I was some kind of socialist as young person and had poor relationship with parents and later had an absent father. My morals have indeed shifted as well as the view on the "demon" called socialism. I was weak and lost and not until in my late 30s I got more independent and my eyes saw things in a different light you might say. I abandoned religion, I voted differently, I actually began to genuinely care more for others but began encouraging and coaching friends rather than spoil them with money and concrete help. "Help to self help" you could say. Still my journey has not ended yet but watching and listen to Tik is like completing a puzzle and you begin to see the over arching order of society. Capitalism is like life with different shades from white to black while socialism is a black hole that at first glance was a shining gloria. In hindsight I wish I would have seen it earlier but what can you do... at least I did not destroy the life of others in the same way as all these infamous socialists.
Finally someone analised this! I always thought about this ever since I read The Demons by Dostoievski. As someone who used to be quite left leaning, with an negative father figure, I really did find myself in this sadly. The positive Christian model my grandparents gave saved me but I will say this: as a woman I felt more inclined towards forgiveness and finding reasons for why my father and primary school teacher were so terrible to me: they lived under communist Romania. My brothers on the other hand, are still very resentful towards our father amd towards mamy male figures in their life. They worked hard and never avoided hard work though. We all loved working and we still do although we feel still unable to have a more self reliant, antreprenorial spirit. Good analisis thank you! My father used to say in the 90's that it is not the communists who will turn out to be the worst but their children. Present day Romania is a proof of that sadly.
Altruism and feminisation of men - that's very interesting. It's practically a slam dunk as to the social problems in the West these days, there is an epidemic of fatherless children, which is very sad, and an all-round misunderstanding of the importance of fathers (they seem to be viewed as financial support and nothing else).
Funny enough, when I was watching your video based lenin before the revolution, this video and so I clicked on this rather quickly. Have a video suggestion, can you talk about the concept regarding nationalism and how it differs from patriotism? The reason for this is because it helps explain why the First World War started the way it did, but also for WW2 as well, since the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, and the Japanese Empire are all nationalists. What do you think?
I find this question so interesting that I'm writing an essay on it. I would share with you, but... it is in Spanish as this is my mother language. Anyway, my thesis is that patriotism and nationalism are, not only different, but OPPOSITE. Patriotism is the natural feeling of love and gratefulness we all (should) have to our family, society, town, neighbourhood and country. While nationalism is the ellaborate ideology we use to justify xenophobia.
@@FaramirGL I'd honestly say that Nationalism is just the expression of the tribal instincts that are hardwired into us. There is always going to be the us and the them. Patriotism is a yardstick by which you can measure someone's devotion to their particular 'team'.
I think of you look back at his previous videos you'll find your answer. Nationalism wasn't the cause of WW1 or 2. It was a mixture of failing institutions, economics, faulty philosophies, and power dynamics of the ruling classes of those prospective countries. Nationalism, (identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations), doesn't push nations to start wars with other nations. Reason is simple- by attacking another nation you would destroy a portion of your own economy and pollute your culture with the defeated enemy- provided you won, of course- worse if you lose.. Germany, Italy, and Japan were way more than just nationalists. Their belief in a racial spirit that, being infused within and justified by the state, gave them a justification to dominate and take from others and then putting those others to work for their state. This is not nationalism, it is a perverted religion of the state. A more simplistic way to look at it- Nationalist- Whatever is good for my people is good for my country. Religious Statist- Whatever is good for the state serves the people (because the state and the people are "spiritually mixed" according to their stupid religion).
TIK seems to have gone down an Ayn Randian rabbithole here. Quit the pop psychology and stick to war and economics. A wise quote: 'We all like gossip-except, perhaps, for people with psychiatric disorders. It is easier and more enjoyable to talk about the character of those who decide policies than about the policies themselves. What should economic policy be? Can one think of a more boring subject? But the personality or character of those who make it, always for the most discreditable of reasons, is endlessly interesting, an inexhaustible source of undisciplined speculation.'
Are you denying the identified pattern? Did all of these socialists not have religious upbringings, an altruistic morality system, parental issues, and a fear of independence that resulted in indolence?
@@TheImperatorKnight Yes I do. Your talk is an exercise in procrustian reductivism. Just about everybody had a religious upbringing in those days. Rand has also led you astray on altruism. You should read Adam Smith on this subject. Nor were many of them indolent (a word you stress wrongly); they worked hard on their revolutionary activity. Independence? They went their own way with a vengeance. Also, we only have Hitler's word on his father.
I agree with a lot of this, but I disagree that "altruism" is a sufficient enough explanation for the excesses of socialism. The vast majority of the world believes in one altruist philosophy or another... but uniquely socialism is so brutal.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
I am from a broken family and it is true, we need a good family system. A broken family leads to broken children and destroys societies in the long run.
Or we could award custody by default to fathers with very rare exceptions.
@Neuromancerism which would only result in more abused and or abandoned children.
@@suebotchie4167 How? We have the evidence. Single mothers are terrible for children while single fathers are as good, in some aspects possibly even slightly better than couples. Thats what the data shows.
@@suebotchie4167 Meanwhile, virtually all single mothers are deadbeats demanding others pay for their choice to be single mothers.
@@suebotchie4167 NO it would NOT!!! ALL 6 of my siblings were raised by my father...after our mother LEFT!! HE was the better parent....women lie...God said so in His Word from the very beginning!! And ALL 6 of us have had successful lives with successful families and children and grandchildren....BECAUSE of our great upbringing by our father!! NOT much from our self-absorbed mother.
Most of the evils in this world stem from poor parenting.
Hurt people hurts people
One of my favorite House MD episodes "all parents screw up all children". Some do in such small ways the kids are able to get through life well enough, others are really destructive, a long and complicated scale.
Then the worst times are ahead of us.
The more I look around, the more I just see a lot of broken people breaking other people. I glad to see by yours and Huang's comment I'm not the only one. Our desire to bend over backwards to "rehabilitate" criminals and give them repeated chances comes at the cost of enabling them to create exponentially more victims, many of which go on to become likewise perpetrators.
Karl Marx's family actually seemed pretty good.
“Socialism has a record of failure so blatant
... that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
―
Thomas Sowell, Economist
What do you mean by socialism? Socialism is basically just resistance to the global Anglo empire… now Moscow has a better living standard than London
@@701delbronx8 Yeah, Moscow is a poster of Russia. Look what other Russian cities are like.
@@701delbronx8 socialism does not mean anti anglo or anti anglo imperialism have you even read a book before?!
@@701delbronx8No... just no.
@@701delbronx8 Moscow or Russia aren't even socialist anymore and are doing good because they abandoned it lmao
I myself was a Socialist at one point. My parents supported me when I went into further education. I did work and contribute towards my own food. But back in my mind I really wanted to become Independent and work full time and move away from my parents. At the time I was really Altruistic I had low self esteem and poor social skills. I was co-dependent on the needs of others.
Growing up I saw my Mum as a Saint and my Dad a disciplinary. I had a good childhood but parents were dysfunctional they still kinda are.
I worked in a Public sector job and a Corporate job. It just showed me how people pray on altruistic people. I'm a good hard working person but do attract more narcissistic type of people because of my Altruism. I watched your Public vs Private video and listened to Thomas Sowell which made me try working elsewhere working in IT but now working in Security.
I do believe I became Socialist because of my state education and environment brought up in the North East of Britain which is more a left-wing socialist part of the country. And also has a lot of deprivation and lack of opportunities.
Over time I've became more Independent and more understanding of psychology, finance, entrepreneurship, relationships. I watch videos like yours which helped me try different things and have a growth mindset instead of a fixed mindset I had. I now work for myself. I own my house and car now. I try to work away as much as possible I've experienced better environments and more opportunities. And also better people!
That's a good redemption story, thank you for sharing. It's great to hear you're working for yourself and having your life in order! And it's true that the people who remain socialist have that fixed mindset and never truly become successful in life. Yet, they can't see it.
Amazing self assessment, thank you for sharing! (I was also raised & state educated in the North of England but I now reside in the USA 🇺🇸 where I lead a bougie life. I doubt I would have the same lifestyle ⛳️ 🏊 🌴 if I had stayed in Yorkshire 😂😂😂)
@@TheImperatorKnight theres nothing in the core of altruism that says youre less worth than others, or a bad person... where do you even come up with this from?
tryl ooking at some altruism forum for one second and see how much people believe theyre terrible persons... what are you even talking about??
and what does socialism and altruism have in common? theyre directly opposed as socialism leads to the worst results for the average human in a society...
@wasdwasdedsf there's nothing wrong with altruism as an action and virtue, but he clearly explains in the beginning of the video how going too far with the concept destroys a person's image of themselves and others. The problem with many religious groups is that they teach the altruism without teaching the deeper concepts of how God wants our actions to be voluntary and from the heart, not forced on us by shallowly explained strict rules.
legendary comment
It took me 64 years to realize how bad parenting is way, way, way more prevalent than good parenting. You would think that providing your children with love, warmth and support are things you naturally provide them with but it’s tragically not the case. I’m really naive….
Not sure that's correct. You may just be noticing the bad examples more because they can become very destructive, and negative things grab our attention fiercely.
@@RafaelDolfe-qm6ll you do have a point that bad examples tend to stick out more. Many of my close friends did have, as far as I can make out, happy childhoods with good parents but…the majority of bad parenting victims were people I got to know intimately through having relationships with. In most cases this is when very dark places get to be shown.
i know when i was a young fellow back in the late '80's early '90's there were lots of girls that wanted a welfare baby. It was a career choice
Most people in general are naive when it comes to bad parenting. In fact most people will just write off as “oh they are doing their best”. Or oh “it’s for your own good”. No, absolutely not, bad parents deserve to be called out and told they are bad parents. Other wise we are all condoning the abuse of children.
@@cristianluna5568 Haven't you heard, it's not abuse, it's "character building experiences", and when those fail I guess the child was just born rotten, the parents did nothing wrong and were loving in their own way!
It's all a big Cluster B circus of drama and people keep getting sucked into it even if they aren't disordered themselves.
As much as I love hearing people bash Marx, it was heartbreaking hearing how his family suffered because of him. The dude was truly a worthless POS, and it astounds me that THIS was the guy whose ideas affected half the world.
He was a parasite to society like all of them. They couldn't care less about the workers or the paysanery.
"worthless POS" is the most apt description of Marx yet. TY
Yes I'm sitting here wondering exactly how an essay from someone so worthless and with no credentials, experience, or anything to show from his life at all became so popular and held in such high academic regard
@@ashleycnossen3157it appeals to people who have a high opinion of their own intellect but don’t feel they can “compete” or produce or don’t feel they should HAVE to compete or produce due to their intellect.
@debblouin So it appeals to people just like him, huh evil begets evil then doesn't it.
Dont forget Chen Duxiu, founder of the CCP and first to publish Mao in his New Youth magazine. Also had a domineering father and abusive confucian teacher, became a social darwinist, and then a Leninist. He pioneered the philosophy of the "four olds", and a vanguardist "period of tutelige for the Chinese people" meant to break them of their peasent conditioning. After being expelled from his own party, he reverted to confucianism and lamented his involvement in a movement that annihilated traditional Chinese culture.
They are hating peasants so much aren’t they? No warlord was so cruel to peasants. The most hardworking, most beneficial people for society. The ones who were feeding them.
And that's the lesson: never let a zealot gain power. Never ever.
@@signorasforza354No, they didn't. That's why they kicked him out of the party.
@@tempejkl didn’t ask a cummie
Confucius is perennially apt. The role of the family, and of language, in keeping a people on the 'straight and narrow' - and what happens when either are no longer sound and rooted in reality - is as relevant to what we see around us as ever.
A worker’s paradise designed by people who never worked.
Not just people who never worked - people who resented work and resented people who DO work.
The labour party ,,,full of academics ,
And they act like capitalism is the one full of contradictions 😂
There’s no better phrase to apply to marx than “allergic to work” it was clearly everyone else’s fault he was perpetually broke regardless of having never got a job and no matter how much free money he got from everyone around him
@@RashaMattBlais.. so pretty much like our current govt then.
How /do/ people come to resent those who work ? How did they think all their comforts got made ?
What could possibly go wrong?
There's an interesting nuance in that Hitler and Stalin, although avoiding employment in the mainstream economy, were not completely opposed to effort. Hitler served dutifully in the army, and worked tirelessly as a political campaign leader until obtaining power. Stalin was a very hard worker as party general secretary and dictator.
I had visions of them getting on famously, watching westerns together and plotting the demise of the russian people...
Say what you will about Stalin and Hitler,
But you can’t accuse them of being lazy.
Unfortunately lol xD
Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were, by any definition, extremely active workaholics to the point of damaging their own health. They had virtually no private lives and lived for their work. It just happened to be politics or academic study. This video's thesis is pretty stupid.
stalin was a bank robber.
The vast majority of social problems could be solved by having good fathers at home.
Problem is there are not that many good dads out there
Starting to see why the commies pushed feminism as one of their first vectors of attack?
Such as life.
Starting to see where feminism fits into all this?
@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 One of the worst ideologies to plague mankind.
A great WWII vet and teacher I had in school once told us in the 8th grade, that 20th century marxist revolutionaries came from journalism or education backgrounds. He elaborated by saying they observe and teach but revolutionaries never participate in real "labor" until power can be gained from it such as political or military power. He had some good takes on this subject and it fascinated me as a kid. He was a WW2 vet who lost his right foot in the war but when he was discharged he went back to school to teach history. He was a hard but very fair man. He called all of the "revolutionaries" mama's boys and he had a deep distain for Mao and all socialist ideas!
This reminds me of that scene from Starship Troopers where Michael Ironsides explains the state.
Your teacher was based AF
@@BLOODYMESSI4H Oh he was a great guy! He told us the German's and Italians were socialists when all other history teachers said they were not. But he actually fought them so he had a first hand knowledge. He made us learn the American revolution, the 2 world wars and the entire Cold War over the 8th grade year in history and it was so much fun. He passed away in 2001 right before 9-11! HE would hate the state of the world right now.
And the guy was factually incorrect just like this insane video
@@tidakada7357 Always amusing to see socialists out themselves.
This is honestly the BEST breakdown of collectivist figureheads I’ve ever seen. Thank you Sir 👍🏼🥂
These men are the perfect depiction of narcissism.
Their upbringing is a perfect recipe for creating narcissists or codependents, depending on the personality type.
Exactly narcissists
Trump is a narcissist and is not a socialist
A lot like most American presidents. 😂 Greed Greed Greed.
Yeah I am only partway into the video but Tik missed the mark a bit. He is going on about altruism but it was clear these guys are narcs like you said. Not real atruism but performative. Goodness used like a suit that you put on for a party.
@@SevPlays They wanted altruism to come their way.
You're describing a metastatic form of Christian virtue ethics. They go to far and forget that in order to love your neighbor you must also love yourself. Meaning if you don't respect yourself you can't really respect others.
very true
The line is 'love thy neighbour as thyself'.
The other matter is that there's an element of putting God first too. Altruism has a flaw in that there's a selfishness in seeing the result. Putting God first yields no earthly result that we can prove. Altruism won't lead to humility the way true Christianity does.
@@damian_cross
This is an issue among alot of Protestants, Alot of them ignore ancient Christian meanings of basic christian virtues.
If you read about the old Church fathers, the apostles, or even texts from monastics, you will be shocked how mutch more spirtual and indepth they go. In the teachings of Chirst, and even go to deep details through the whole bible, and Traditions.
But when you read about protestant founders, and their views. Its eather missing the point, undiciplined radicaliam, or lack of spirituality to bigin with, or ignoring ancient Traditions. And worst of all, even removing Books from the bible.
@@thatwhitewolf5222
True. I found more interest reading abojt Orthodoxy and Catholicism thinking than Protestant Thought.
Heck. I even learned why "Pray for us" became ingrained in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It actually comes from Early Christian Persecution when they hid in Catacombs. It was how they saw that those who died or Martyred are still part of the Church. And that was asking them to pray of them on Earth.
Once I learned this I realized that no. Iconoclasm that the Protestants did was throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater.
My goodness, Karl Marx is a monster
Correct, he was an average socialist.
"Capitalists of the world will remember my carbuncles!".
He was an exceptional Socialist.@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231
a monster created by plutocrats, grandson of rabbis, never stepped foot in a factory or smelled the sweat of the proletariat married with the millionaire Jenny, in 1843, or rather, the daughter of the aristocrats of the Westphalen house. As we can see, Moses Mordechai's greatest love, , was indeed Capital and money.
@@LoganLS0 that's like being an exceptionally tall midget.
Wonderful video, but as a Christian, I think a reasonable amount of altruism is a positive thing, as long each altruistic act is the individual's choice. Government mandated altruism (i.e. socialism) is pure evil masquerading as good. For example, if a surgeon chooses to perform a life-saving surgery for free on a person who can't afford it, I would argue that's a good thing, but if you made a law forcing all sugeons not to charge more than $20 for any operation, that would be a disaster. Soon there would be no surgeons, and therefore no surgeries for anyone. Most of society's ills can be solved with more freedom, not less.
As St Paul said, "“Let each of you look not ONLY to his own interests, but ALSO to the interests of others.”
I think the problem is extreme altruism to the point of shame and guilt. Survival instinct causes us to want to take care of ourselves. Extreme altruism causes guilt over this, so a mental schism happens. The socialist deludes themselves into holding self righteous opinions that are simultaneously self serving. This tortured existence is destructive to themselves and everyone around them
@@iamalphalimI’m a Christian and my altruism has gone too extreme because I have tremendous self-hatred.
@@BlueSpirit006 Altruism is different from being a doormat or feeling forced (by you) to do what you dont want to do, or to accept what harms your being or denigrates you, or injures your dignity. Altruism is joyously helping and benefiting others out of sincere love, and a warm and kind selflessness. The more you give in this loving manner, the more fulfilled you are (not empty). But to truly love others, you must first love, accept and acknowledge yourself as God's beloved child. You might have misunderstood Christianity, unfortunately (I made this mistake when I was young). Knowing that you are God's beloved child who will inherit His Kingdom, only makes you more confident in yourself. Knowing that He will always forgive you, and eternally love you, makes you feel safe and accepted. Sure, you have to do your best not to commit sin, because sin distances you from God. But it is not God who distances from the sinner, but the sin itself creates the distance. However, God always sends you His grace, help and insights to support you in the path and to help you overcome your flaws and weaknesses. You have a Father and Best Friend always at hand, and always caring and forgiving. Therefore, you are never lonely or unloved, you always have His ever present company, encouragement and affection.
On the other hand, the one whispering those thoughts of self-hate and inadequacy is the devil. He wants you to feel undeserving of God and therefore to distance yourself from Him. It is evil to self-hate. Why? Because you are God's peak of Creation, and even His own beloved son/daughter. If you hate yourself you are hating God's masterpiece, His own child. The devil really loves inciting this feeling on humans, so they destroy themselves. The devil wants to harm or hurt God where it would affect Him the most: His children. Do not listen to him. Embrace God's love and acceptance. Do your best to stay away from sin, and when you fail, repent, ask Him to forgive you, and simply try again, but without fear or dread. Trust God. He knows who you are and that you are trying. He is not a tyrant, but the total opposite: all loving, compassionate and forgiving. Let God set you free once and for all (from the lies and deception of the devil, as He did with me). I wish you the very best! 🙏 💕
@@luzclara3855 I know, I agree with you. But helping others is what makes me feel alive, makes me feel like a human. Being in a monastery or a church makes me feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. I hate myself because I have failed God too many times and haven’t been a great Christian either (in terms of reading prayers and attending services). I’m Eastern Orthodox, so we are more somber or strict because the world is a mess for us and we have no place in it because it is filled with infidelity and hate.
How the hell did anyone take Marx seriously?!
People believe frauds. They do crazy things when you promise them some free cookies.
@signorasforza354
I know. Still, his claims are so outrageous, and he is such an obviously ignorant and borderline batshit crazy source that it strains credulity that soo many supposedly intelligent people fall for it....
@@marksharp3990 Those intelligent people are frauds themselves, morally corrupted people or people with psychological problems because of bad upbringing. Every time I was having a discussion with an “intelligent” communist, in the end they were praising, justifying, denying or minimizing all horrendous stuff commies did and were slandering their opponents and victims with ridiculous lies. Cummunism is a religion for thugs.
@@marksharp3990What of his claims were "outrageous"?
@sepijortikka
Well, the labor theory of value for one. Another being the hilarious claim a all powerful state will ever give up that power and "whither" away.
Laziness and poor parenting. There's the pattern
There is a reason honor thy father and mother is so important.
Laziness stems from poor parenting there not equal issues
Look at the propaganda coming out of Hollywood. All designed to damage family life.
Look at how men(fathers) are demonised. Look at posh kids at campuses zero in on the evils of their own country's past but ignore the present day evils of other countries.
And 100 wars worldwide at this moment, but which one do they protest?
Uh, H*tler was literally the opposite of lazy
Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were, by any definition, extreme workaholics, to the point of damaging their own health. They had virtually no private lives and lived for their work. This video's thesis is pretty stupid, and just.. pandering.
You know this basically explains a large chunk of the modern leftists
Yes! Most radical leftists from the 60s came from comfortable upper class or upper middle class backgrounds and never had to work their way through college. It's definitely a pattern.
The reason studying REAL history is crucial....
Never met an actual working class leftist before, most of them are more conservative or libertarian while most leftists are middle to upper class.
@@coke8077You've just outed yourself as someone who doesn't talk to working class people. Funny.
Yes because modern leftists are closet Marxists
I sat down intending to listen to a portion but ended up listening to the end. This is a supremely well researched and presented lecture of serious quality! I am already a subscriber but I forwarded this to a handful of friends who have an interest in non-fiction. Proud to be a sponsor of your products on Patreon!
Psychologically, it's always the same: Envy, victimization, a sense of entitlement, under-responsibility, ultimately vulnerable narcissism.
It is often a defensive reaction caused by narcissistic injury when a reality shock causes the artificial victim identity to shake.
Psychologically, it is a fear of "becoming" behind socialism, due to learned helplessness in childhood.
Strong conditioning, moral standardization through shaming and validation-dependent behavior. It is simply extremely mentally unhealthy to have such mental models and not to question them. The mental place of origin is the antidote: focus only on the things you can change in your life instead of sacrificing around and placing responsibility on external sources. The state, God and society are substitutes for the parents who messed things up.
This is the biggest socio-psychological catastrophe of our time.
I don't think there is an antidote. How many people can admit that they wasted their life?
@@neilreynolds3858 Theyll be forced to either way. Reality always delivers the mail. So either do it now, or let it build up more and suffer greater later on.
Sounds like the “children of Woke” 😅
The fact you were able to post this on this type on video is great. My comment would be scrubbed immediately
Capitalism is the same in essence but manifests differently: "I'm not good enough as I am, so I have to earn Daddy's approval by making lots of money and crushing my enemies in the market." Capitalism would collapse if people loved themselves unconditionally, because they would no longer feel the need to strive for wealth - only to have "just enough" - which would likely lead to a distributist economy.
In my teens and throughout my 20s most of my friends were girls. In my early 30s I started learning more about politics and slowly discovered that I disagreed with socialism and Marxists. Because of this I lost almost all of those female friends. It helped me see the reality of feminism which was the straw that broke the camels back
How is feminism different then how you viewed it in the past?
Or if I'm misunderstanding can you please expand
@@tylermorrison420 I was total normie, I honestly thought it was about female empowerment. This was also a very artsy clique, the witchy tattoo girls
Feminism = pear shaped socialism in comfortable shoes
Have you seen the Fiamento Files here on TH-cam? I also thought that feminism was about equality and that if I didn't agree with it, I'd be considered to be against women. Vile stuff that ideology is
@@PinkTorpedo909 I was in my 20s in the 90s, and I remember all the trendy white girls became "wiccans" to be hip and "rebel against patriarchy". My, how far things have gone.
Wow! A channel that discusses what I, as a retired psychotherapist, have been thinking for a very long time. Subscribed. Envy (externalised as justified hatred) plays a huge part in politics as well.
If everyone was radically altruistic there wouldn't be a functioning society - if everyone was radically selfish there wouldn't be a moral society. (most character traits require balance)
Yet their altruism seems selfish to me
Neither extreme would be a functional society. Pure altruism is suicidal and gets nothing done in the long term. Pure selfishness would be a chaotic hyper violent society due to no cooperation and constant conflict of every sort.
This is why the eastern philosophies don’t suffer from nearly the same tragedy as western ones. While western philosophies are rooted in an incessant obsession with good and evil and each existing independently of the other, in addition with a goal of reaching some sort of perfect good, eastern philosophies tend to be more grounded and accept the realities of the world as they are. While good is valued, it is not elevated into some extreme and that is the base concept of the so called “yin and yang”, and the emphasis on balance.
@@Nakuke3You have to be extremely ignorant of Eastern history to say their philosophies caused "no tragedy".
I mean, if you think Christian altruism is too radical, you should check out Jainism.
Even Georges Sorel is the son of a businessman.
In the fact, the only one with some claim of being a pleb and a socialist is Emiliano Zapata, and it so happens that the Mexican revolution seems to be the only major revolution without an aristocratic stint (yes, I do consider the October revolution a rebellion of the aristocratic "professional workers")
Don't talk shit, bro. Emiliano Zapata wasn't a pleb; he actually had property. We could put him between middle class and high middle class by contemporary standards. He WASN'T a socialist at all; he was very skeptical and aggressive towards the idea of land redistribution as the marxists proposed
He was CATHOLIC reactionary in his roots, his movement was motivated by the management and organization of land that the Crown of Spain had established in the indigenous communities, torn down with the masonic and traitor government of liberals in the XIX century leaded by the traitor Benito Juarez.
His image has been used by the stupid socialists who, as always, take idols and heroes who have nothing to do with socialism. The lack of their own true heroes motivates this narrative and propaganda.
Pancho Villa in the other hand has humble origins and a more though childhood, son of plebs, no studies, no education, no property at all, And again he as well was very antisocialist, in fact Pancho Villa has more in common with fascist and nationalist views. He was anti yankee, anti chinese, and he also had antisemitic views.
Not really. A slew of communist militants as well as party / state leaders hailed from humble circumstances, to say the least. Foremost amongst them N. S Khrushchev. Along with Walter Ulbricht, Ernst Thalmaan, Earl Browder, Maurice Thorez, Harry Pollitt, Francisco Largo Cabellero, Doleres Ibarurri, Janos Kadar, Josip Broz Tito, Nicolae Caecesku(sic), Wladislaw Gomulka,..the list is nigh on interminable…
What about Stalin?
@@tempejkl Wasn't his early life quite cleric, being raised by a local church father?
@@tyvamakes5226 He was originally going to be a priest (idk about his father). He wrote poems under a pseudonym and became a local sensation for his poems. Then, when he became a socialist, he put his life on the line for the revolution, robbing banks to raise funds, and then being sent to forced labour camps for this.
Jenny Marx after she dumped her fiance to get with Karl: "This has been the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever."
Nah. He made her tingle downstairs. All that counts.
Can you not see the humour, sub text, the irony, dare I even mention the love, behind the remark? Of course it was a bad trade deal, this is a Joke since it wasn't a trade deal. And can you bear the idea that her family were rather fond of Carlo? Go and read a bloody biography by yourself instead of cherry picking quotes to support your prejudices.
I discussed this night after night with a friend of mine (who was a devoted Freudian and psychoanalist) for years and years. This is just scratching the surface, you'll find there's a lot more to this "Psychologically predictable Socialists" hypothesis than you might think at first. Such as the suppression of sexual desires, the looking/need for fatherly confirmation, and other "offbeat" hehaviour being a core-part of the "socialist psyche".
And no, it's not a coincidence that hordes of socialists are against the "white cisgender male", in fact this is a core idea in their worldview... No idea if they are aware of it themselves though!
Man this is gonna catch a lot of Flak...
As an ex-socialist myself, I can say they're probably not aware of any of what I said in the video.
Also, just to point out, Freud and Carl Jung were both Hermeticists. After learning this fact, I no longer view their opinions so highly.
@@TheImperatorKnightthe enemy of gnostics is both orthodoxy or catholicism(protestantism doesn't count,it emulates some of their points,especially the rapture crowd).
I've known 2 committed socialists that I've talked to a lot over decades and gotten to know well. And, no, they have no idea that there's a psychological and developmental aspect to their beliefs. They think they're rational and anybody who doesn't agree with them must be stupid.
The first was an only child whose mother spoiled the hell out of him and his father told him to be a Man. He thought that having a penis was good enough. He found a menial job where he only had to work a couple of hours a day and his boss let him spent the rest of the day reading. He complained bitterly about the job and his boss. He wanted to be an intellectual but he hated writing. It cut into his drug taking. He thinks that most people are stupid.
The other one had a good father but she hated her mother. She has Mother Derangement Syndrome: Anything her mother is for she has to be against. She had to raise her kids by herself so she had to have a series of minimum wage jobs where she felt like she was being exploited by capitalism. All the evils of the world were the fault of capitalists. She loves Marx and she had the Vision while living on the streets of San Francisco during the Summer of Love. Dugs were involved. She's deeply unhappy and thinks most people are stupid. She most wants to be recognized as a great artist.
In both cases it was obvious that they became socialists because of family dynamics but neither could see it. They're both trying to get revenge on what they feel is a cruel world.
Well, capitalism is really the same coin. Yes, millions died under communism. However millions died under the white supremacist capitalism.
@TIK - and yet you've utterly fallen into Freud's trap. "Family problems "of some conceivable kind, strict parenting with physical abuse, as well as profound religiousness, missing or absent parent(s), were all not only very common, but might under a wider sense be said to have been the norm. Depending on how wide you make the goalposts, anybody could have some kind of problem. These people were not lazy by any measure... I am just personally very disappointed in this showing, TIK. Hope you get out of this rabbit hole before you end up thinking it's all about penises or their height or some such nonsense :).
So well stated. I really appreciate your analysis and the level of detail you provide. Thank you for your hard work sir.
I contribute nothing to society yet I feel that it is unfair that I do not reap the same rewards as those who do contribute are getting. At the same time, my existence is entirely dependent upon the charity of my family and friends or the obligations of the government to provide for all of its citizens a basic standard of living.
My conclusion, I am faultless in my plight of poverty and powerlessness and the system is to blame for my inability to succeed. My lack of effort is just a symptom of a society that does not reward its best and brightest, as I certainly consider myself to be amongst that class.
The honest inner monologue of every socialist.
My follow-up to that is: A considerable number of the people that adhere to the ideology of socialism have deluded themselves into believing that merely existing is grounds for being provided for. They lack the critical thinking ability to recognize that if everyone acted as they did, society would collapse because nobody would produce anything. At the same time, if the rewards for contributing are no better than rewards for not contributing, that disincentivizes people from working. Why should I be working when I'm no better off than those who don't? The crucial step in transitioning from a capitalist to a socialist society is equalizing the standard of living for the welfare class and the working class. This demoralizes the working class to such a degree that they see any change at all as an improvement of the status quo.
@@Subzeropole I think they know that people would stop producing if they didn't have to provide for themselves, but it goes back to what you said about them thinking of themselves as intellectually superior. They think they're the only ones clever enough to figure out they can just sit on their ass all day and get a free handout, because the rest of us dummies would be out working to provide for them.
👍👍
I mean, they were all clearly talented. Nobody will make a videos about you in 100 years and you will be lucky if any of your descendants mention you.
It's interesting to see that there was one socialist leader who didn't avoid work and had a family life which was actually pretty decent from all accounts: *Tito*
Maybe it's a coincidence, but he's also considered by most to be the least evil of all the old communist leaders.
I believe that the pattern is still there though. He was raised Catholic, was separated from his parents, lost the faith etc. I'd need to look at him in more depth though to be sure.
Stalin certainly didn't avoid work. He was in a forced labour camp in Siberia, after risking his life for the revolution, by robbing a Tsarist bank to raise funds.
Tito is often praised in the former Yugoslavia because the working class actually lived pretty well and had good opportunities in life, even better than today in some areas.
As someone who grew up in an athiest household I could never understand the edgy athiest anti christian thing.
I could never put a finger on it. Over time I began to understand that they weren't athiests at all, they were just upset with their parents to much older ages than is reasonable. The same as almost all of these boys.
My dad was an atheist. He didn't like being told that doing whatever he wanted to do was wrong. It was amusing to be taken to church on Sunday and then listening to my dad tell me why it was all BS afterwards.
Maybe you wouldn't call me an "edgy athiest[sic] anti christian", but I can assure you that I am very definitely a conclusional atheist, and absolutely opposed to the filth that is christianity. I paid close attention to the sermons I heard twice every Sunday throughout my formative years, and I have read a lot since then, both by christians and by atheists, in addition to even more material on TH-cam, including people who are showing where christians got their ideas from. Hint: it should far more be called Greco-Roman than "Judeo-christian". Maybe the real problem is that your parents were too lazy to look into / teach you about christianity?
@@stephannaro2113 yeah being anti-theist isn't "edgy atheism" when you actually know how destructive religion can be (and frequently is), and it most certainly is not entirely a bunch of bitter believers coping about there being no god, although there are a lot of those too.
@@hckr_-gh7se People who are bitter that YHWH doesn't exist... sheesh!
Many self-proclaimed athiests get into what is called a secular religion i.e a cult..
A great study on the topic, TIK. You asked in he video if someone else has ever spotted this pattern before. I can tell that the late Antonio Escohotado has mentioned several times something very similar: most communists lived on their mother's money. Also, many of them had an awakening to socialism when their parents told them "do you think we are rich? because we aren't (any more)". I think you forgot Fidel Castro, who checked most boxes but, maybe, the religious one. I've heard several times that most communists were brought up by women, that praissed the intelligence of the "child god" in excess.
On the Stalin part, some of the Russian biographers have stated that Stalin was the Georgian version of a Mafia family Boss, hence the nickname Koba (Georgia's Robin Hood) his exploits were well documented as a gangster, but instead of him being a gangster the marxist historians have turned him into some revolutionary figure instead of what he was the Lucky Luciano of Russia, the Boss of all bosses. This is why Stalin NEVER let the NKVD/KGB crack down on the night businesses of the Vory/Bratva (Russian Mafia) during his reign. If he had to crack down on one of them it is well documented that after Stalin took power, a central element of his brutal rule was the network of Gulag labor camps. Stalin turned to the professional brotherhood of criminals, called vory, to be the foremen and guards who kept them in line. Stalin lived in lavish apartments and lived like a Mafia boss but his rise to power came from a fear of his circle of friends and allies not just in the Kremlin but on the streets. Stalin controlled the, party, the communist political world and the underworld at the same time. For a 5 foot 2 inch tall man with 1 good arm and a slight limp he was feared like no other (no one should have feared Stalin in a fight he was a TINY disabled man) yet the entire class of intellectuals in the Bolshevik party feared him enough to never really cross him! The Mafia (Vory) were so intertwined with Russian politics and the system that after the fall of the USSR it was the VORY that became the oligarchs of Russia and took over Russia in the 1990s. Stalin's fingerprints are still ALL over Russia to this day!
Not only Vory(aka robbers) but Vory and KGB. Criminals and kgb are two foundations of ruzzia. That’s why they love cummunists. Because cummunists love thugs.
Comintern was functioning just like mafia.
Mafia and communist are two wings on the same bird
As most of the revolutionaries, if there was no funding from secret services of foreign powers, the fighters for a better and more just world resorted to burglary, robbery and extortion. Stalin was quite skilled and qualified in these activities. So was the Polish National hero - Pilsudski - another revolutionary against the Russian Tzar and a far worse dictator than the absolute monarch.
Its funny that you say that, in one of my discussions with my friend we often talked of how the soviet union was run like a mafia and everyone was some sort of boss or lieutenant of a criminal gang. We assumed that this was the case because of the lack of institutions , or how politics work in general in authoritarian regimes but soviet Russia specifically was run a lot like a mafia. I mean its one thing to jail , purge and execute political opponents but the way comrades killed other comrades in cold blood when their position was threatened or even perceived to be threatened was outlandish. Also note that other authoritarian regimes like tsarist Russia or hitler's Germany usually jailed people and only executed them when they actually committed crimes , if for example you critised the gorvement you would be in jail or custody as hitler did to journalists or the tsar. In soviet Russia and in communist regimes in general only the idea of being anticommunist could lead to your death. Another thing is that the non deathly punishments were harsh to the point that they were constructed in a way as to send a message , the same way mexican cartels or other criminal organisations operate. I just can point exactly if it is like a mafia or excessive "religious" zealotry or both its crazy . Even in democracies , every time a left wing gorvement is elected ,you can always expect political arrests ,censorship , violence to political opponents, lawfare, destruction of characters, vilification of a certain group of people etc... And the funny thing is all that violence and political capital is lost without any meaningfull change taking place,as if they like to just torture people cause of hate and no other end... Evil right wingers by comparison are like children in the playground . Even when you get authoritarian right wing regimes most of the time the punishments are something like jailings and beatings out of frustration as if they try to discipline an unruly child , while the left ones are vicious and unforgiving .
Neutrally calling it "parental issues" instead of mere "father issues" is a step in the right direction.
In detail the elements that stand out are 1) neglect / absence 2) an enabling, at worst oedipal parent (usually the mother), equal to "anti-authoritarian" parenting styles - the overt tyrant (usually the father) seems to be optional and seems to lead to the same outcome as the absent father. I would understand why someone would surmise "but then it's mommy-issues!", however, the other parent is supposed to compensate for such errors. Also the rule of thumb "Narcissists beget narcissists" needs to be considered. The term is better understood as "emotional immaturity" imho.
Lutherans are taught that justification comes from faith/scripture alone. The Catholic Church that they were rebelling against taught that justification came from faith/tradition (works). I have noticed that this is a big deal with protestant people I met.
it is a pretty important doctrinal difference. Though the altruism described as part of Lenin's upbringing is neither lutheran, catholic, or christian altogether.
And Orthodox see Catholics as the first protestants, becuse they rebeled against the old system, with thr papacy and Filioque. When we see that both these things where not the first 1000 years a thing.
Iam a protestant... but the problem becomes when u demand others see things u see them. Even though i KNOW iam right i dont force it on others or see their points as invalid. Its not the way of life people choose, but how much they make it other peoples problems.
The faith/scripture alone doctrine gives permission to be idle. Why strive to be better when you can piggy back off Jesus's goodness?
@@emmap1159 Why do you think you can offer any goodness without Jesus?
Thank you for this excellent, comprehensive study! I appreciate the effort you undertook to inform us of the background information on these individuals that have contributed to the innumerable deaths and sufferings of so many people and nations.
I once had someone ask me in disbelief "how can you understand economics if you haven't read Karl Marx". It was a few years back, so I had no answer at the time other than he didn't seem to be relevant to any economics that I had ever met. Now I know why.
😂
To me the more I learned of and read Karl Marx, the less I understand how people think he was correct.
He managed to develop an interesting veneer of authority
@@haraldbredsdorff2699, which books have you read?
@@Μελίνα-σ1ν Communist manifesto and das capital.
Quick look at Hitlers artwork it looks technically no worse than painters I saw at art college.
His artwork was brilliant. Iv got a copy of his painting of the Virgin Mary and child. It's brilliant. Iv saw seen many of his paintings. They are brilliant.
He was better than most I've seen.
@@Occident. If you have to say "brilliant" that many times, it indicates that you don't really believe what you're saying.
@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 Isn't art brilliant! It is like pictures you can hang on your wall and then look at them ! Brilliant!
He was completely self taught. If he would have had formal training he could have gone far
They really were characters out of "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
I have not red demons but the Social democrats or the Marxists used it as inspiration, at least Stalin but I assume the other prominent ones did as well.
Dostoyevsky himself was a property of government after amnesty. Russian empire was a collectivist country without any property rights. Everything was belonging to tzar. Even thoughts. No laws, no court, private property, no rights. Only obedience and serfdom.
@@signorasforza354 So thats why communism took over so easily, it was basicly the same thing
@@Jamespwickstromw Exactly. Even now russians don’t have any ideological or psychological dissonance in praising empire and ussr at the same time.
@@Jamespwickstromw You are right. Even now russians don’t feel any contradiction when they praising empire and ussr in the same time.
Dude you are the man! I miss having documentaries on TH-cam again. Thank you so much for this work!
A "true" altruist works to be able to provide, to be able to give.
These egoists were only concerned with their image and delusions. They didn't give of themselves, they only took and gave of others.
Plus they always see themselves as the victims, as the poor. I've never seen a socialist give to charities, never.
I don't think anyone minds if other people are altruistic. At worst its likely only to damage their own lives. The problem is that they want other people to behave as they do. When altruism is enforced by the government by taxation its simply another form of oppression. That's the difference between someone standing in the corner with a coin box and someone who jangles their coin box and blocks your way into the supermarket.
"I think I've said enough about this idiot."
No you haven't.
Seven hour TIK lectures about the rotten compulsions of socialism should replace Seven hour lectures about diversity equity and inclusion in university campuses.
Can't wait until you crack open another video in this style on Democracy and maybe one on "Third-Positionism" even if the latter may be redundant in some areas.
Mankind has been forced to bite deeply from the fruits of these botched post-enlightenment "ideas" for too long.
TIK probably read this and thought "damnit he's right, I'm not done"🤣
Re-return?🙊
And yet, you would watch those 7 hours on a device made in a socialist (communist) country 🤣😁
@@aleksazunjic9672 And you watch this video on TH-cam which is a capitalist corporation 😂😂
@aleksazunjic967 nah my phone is made in south Korea and that is not socialist
*Let me guess, roast me if I'm wrong:*
Born into enormous wealth, never worked a day in their lives, got by by being hall-of-fame level mooches/leeches.
You forgot sponges.
Mostly born into some middle class wealth, maybe upper, or watched Dad climb out of lower class and perhaps some helped with Dad's family business or farm.
TIK sees Altruism. I'm not 100% familiar with Ayn Rand's definition of altruism, but she means a dark version of that, and towards extremes or elusive perfection.
(Another disagreement that I have is that almost everyone in those days grew up in a religious household. I think even the peasants, but that was probably different for the literate middle class. Yet not everyone became a hate-filled frustrated altruistic socialist. I also think hard fathers were the norm in those days. Life was much harder for everyone.)
Perfectionism, a neurotic obsession, coupled with the inability of Self to achieve final perfection (because that doesn't exist), coupled with resentment of others who fail to meet one's demands for perfection, is fertile soil for self hatred and hatred of everybody else. "I am brilliant and everyone else is stupid and evil. Or is it the opposite, I am stupid and evil but everybody else can function okay. Well f__k them all. F__k me too."
(I just thought of Kurt Cobain hating himself for the alleged reason that the rock music he invented wasn't _absolutely_ original and non-derivative.)
I see resentment about "injustice", projected onto others, a ridiculous sense of entitlement, unearned, and an egotistic desire to be king of the world.
Another Objectivist channel, focusing more lately on Israel, describes Palestinians and Hamas as altruistic. How?
A LITTLE BACKGROUND:
This Is despite the fact that the entire philosophy of Hamas, rooted in the words of Muhammad about killing Jews and stealing from the Jewish religion, to declare himself the final and most superior prophet, with a direct connection to God, and a life of stealing from caravans and extorting other kings and leaders, Hamas is all about destruction of Israel yet NOT one word in their 1988 Manifesto about creating a state called Palestine. (The Palestinian movement, its "father" Al-Husseini, a top Intelligence officer appointed directly by Hitler, REJECTED that option of establishing an independent Arab state, since at least 1936.)
So what does that have to do with altruism? The objectivists say that their willingness or eagerness to DIE, to have their children and grandchildren DIE, to reclaim the honor of Arabs (the group or Umma), and to fulfill Allah's commands via Muhammad, is seen by objectivists as the ultimate in Self-Sacrifice.
But it's really extreme selfishness, from a different angle.
I see Self sacrifice as more like giving a beggar $1 or a few, giving an annoying friend without a car a ride to a meeting or to run errands, working overtime for money during a work crisis, arguing in favor of Zionism with no pay, after having spent years arguing against it in favor of social justice. Blecch! 🤮
Not as a lifelong crusade to kill or try to cause injury to enemies who disrespected Allah, and to continue to do so despite the factor of high risk of death.
Two outta three brother. Good call for the most part.
Never met a communist with callouses on there hands, yet they expect a guy like me to blindly obey them.
Stalin - Born into a peasant family in Georgia
- Worked in a Siberian work camp after robbing a bank under the Tsar, in order to give funds for the revolution. Not a mooch or leech, worked in the background of the communist party as secretary, and was voted in because everyone appreciated his role.
If we look at Trotsky, we'll notice something different.
- Born into a fairly wealthy family, could probably call it middle class.
- Did not work in labour as far as I know, but did revolutionary agitation, even in 1905
- Not really a mooch/leech, but actually organised when Lenin wasn't there. Not respected as much due to his argumentative nature. Lost the Soviet Leadership and kept trying to destabilise the nation, sent to Kazakhstan, still kept doing it, so sent to other places, where he kept doing it, so he got kicked out again and again, until ending up in Mexico and was assasinated by an ex-Trotskyist (rumoured to be in the NKVD, however there was no evidence so far.)
How abuse and neglect in childhood can lead to cluster B personality disorder for those so inclined.
None of them were neglected.
7:32 i unfortunately went through this chart minus the religious upbringing part. I undid the hatred of reality and capitalism, but still working on the laziness and fear of independence. Wish me luck.
Good luck m8
TIL I have all the hallmarks of a socialist dictator
Good thing I hopped on the capitalism train as soon as I could.
Good luck. Rooting for you.
I feel you brother
You can do it
Kinda sad that a father who had no education wanted his kids to be educated were exposed to radical ideas. 12:31 man.... I assume this many parents fears right now.
Goverments are teaching gay sex for kids nowadays
@anthroimperzia3927 Voting? Hows democracy any different from communism, with the means of production of even law, defense and justice publicly owned, some of the most important things and as such the most important to remain fully within the free/black market only.
@anthroimperzia3927can you define “good parent”
Funny enough there was a video on Teddy Rosevelt’s upbringing recently and all I was thinking was “huh it feels like the opposite of TIK’s videos where a leader actually did hard work, had loving parents and understood being independent
... Damn
And Teddy cracked down on corporations and fought against capitalist businessmen. Your point is?
@@tempejklhe attacked corruption and monopoly. That is pro capitalist. He made money through writing, not taking bribes as do modern progressive politicians.
@@tempejkl He fought against monopolies. Not businessmen per se. He tried to be one himself in his ranching venture, and did make money as a writer with an enormous output. Nothing like the leftist politicians who somehow become filthy rich without producing anything.
An incredible and insightful analysis Tik, thank you.
I will start by saying I appreciate TIK’s work and find great value in what he does.
I had a gut feeling TIK was going to bring up Ayn Rand as the antithesis to “altruism”. I must say, I disagree with TIK’s analysis.
None of the Socialist leaders were altruistic. Altruism is voluntarily being in the service of others. It does not mean hating the material world and it does not involve force.
I would argue that they had a god complex, and wanted to force a bastardized version of altruism on everyone else. They were self-serving to the core.
I would also argue that the Socialists had an external locus of control. They would not take responsibility for their actions and always had to blame others. This runs counter to the internal locus of control, daily reflections, and admittance of wrong-doing that are taught in most religions.
You cannot be a socialist without being altruistic. Socialism requires altruism, since the "equality" principle is based upon it.
Altruism is all about helping others. The question is: why are others in need of help? Because the system (capitalism) is bad. Material reality does not provide equality, and this, material reality is bad, and we must overcome it by coming together and helping our fellow men via the collective (the state).
This, altruism is against material reality ("nature") and the free market. This is the reason they blame others, like you said. They think that men who are left to their own devices will devour each other like a swarm of rats. Therefore, other men are the problem in their eyes. That's why they call for a socialist "New Man".
@@TheImperatorKnight You didn't actually respond to what the other commenter said - you just reiterated your own view.
@@TheImperatorKnightyou’re identifying a lot of specific phrases with specific ideas instead of what those specific ideas represent and it kinda shows the whole hypocrisy of your TH-cam channel. You make a lot of claims, you bring up a lot of points, but your dunning Kruger wins out in the end. As does mine.
1 hour video? COUNT ME IN!
First! Congrats!
Up next: 1 hour of TANKS 🤟
@@TheImperatorKnight I'll take tanks or philosophy or economics - anything but TIK's psychoanalyses. He's a smart guy with a wide base of knowledge, but this one is finally well outside his scope. I think there's confirmation bias. People who are intellectually misled into being socialists can and do come from all backgrounds, and are often passionate workaholics (indeed like both Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler). TIK's not only going against his own individualist position (apparently unknowingly?) - by diminishing personal agency, but if he goes down this Freudian rabbit hole he'll end up thinking it's all about height or penis size or whatever.... :D
@@TheImperatorKnight great replacement video when??
I think the analysis is much simpler. All these tyrants, especially Hitler and Stalin had comparatively poor backgrounds both in wealth and parenting. But while a rich "son-of-someone" still knows it is all about power and money for the sake of themselves, these outsider people got some feeling about idealism seeing power and money as means to really change the world. The lazy rich guy only wants to have power and money for being able to maintain his lazy rich lifestyle forever and thus is harmless in terms of revolutionary potential, essentially he wants the things to stay the same as he knows them. The idealistic poor guy wants power and money to take revenge on the world for his upbringing and all the violence he has encountered from the society during his childhood.
Another brilliant, well thought out video. Thank you Tik.
Judiasm's attitude to altruism isn't the same as Christianity. While charity is encouraged "Self Immolation" for the sake of others is forbidden.
Indeed. And Jesus's criticisms of it were primarily aimed at the very same corrupt intentions of chasing an outward appearance of generosity and overall "righteousness" that we see among "altruists." "Virtue-signaling", in modern parlance. He never advocated for creating hierarchical systems to take up the burden of charity, and the Parable of Talents is explicitly capitalist in principle and describes the very Pareto distribution that socialists have been waging ideological war against.
Judaism is a form of Satanism. There is no denying of that . Veil from the temple was torn from top to bottom.
It's also forbidden in actual Christianity. Unfortunately, TIK, as good as he is, hasn't studied the subject enough. The whole "he had a religious upbringing, therefore he became a socialist" thing is a bit silly, since EVERYONE had the identical religious upbringing back then, and 99.9999% of those with "religious upbringings" didn't become revolutionary socialists.
@@historyandhorseplaying7374 And most of those who are Lutheran were in German-speaking areas. Which... yeah there's like a 50% chance they would have been Lutheran at the time in that case.
@@professorhaystacks6606 Yep and if they'd grown up in Bavaria they'd likely have had Catholic religious upbringings, like everyone else too.
I think Mussolini was probably one of the few authoritharian leaders who had a good relationship with his father to the point of taking his socialist ideas from him.
Then there is Enver Hoxha who cared more for his uncle Hysen (or Baba Çeni) than his own father Hysen who was a timid imam to the point that he got accustomed to call him "uncle" and never father.
Hi Tik, I greatly enjoyed this video because I feel that, in part, your analysis is describing myself. I was on track to becoming useless socialist intellectual with delusions of grandeur due to my upbringing as well. All the elements were there: the religious household, the feeling of superiority towards people doing menial labor (this was also instilled into me at home), engaging in the study of useless intellectual subjects with no connection to reality etc.
Eventually I was able to see the socialist promises for what they were: lies. Leaving home at a relatively early age and even moving to a different country greatly contributed to the necessity and inevitability of becoming independent and making money etc. Currently raising three kids and teaching them the importance of self interest.
Great work with the channel!
P.S James Valiant of the Ayn Rand Center UK wrote an interesting book about the origins of Christianity: 'Creating Christ'. In my opinion it helps explain the excessive Altruism found specifically in Christianity. You should really check it out.
Thank you for sharing your story, and for the book recommendation! I'll check it out
Este video me abrio los ojos completamente a realidades que no entendia, pero me hacian corto circuito. Ahora todo me hace sentido. Lo que dice el video es 100%, es un video liberador. Lo he estudiado por varias horas, y tome apuntes, no quise perderme de un detalle.
Important backstory information in this video, thanks for sharing!!
One thing they all abandon from their protestant upbringing, or maybe never had cause they were spoiled rich kids, is the protestant work ethic,and sence of individual responsibility.
While catholics and orthodox have a sense of collective responsibility. Hmm.
Inre altruism, the problem with Objecivism as an antidote is that it is as extreme in the opposite direction. Objectivism holds that ANY self-sacrifice on one's part is bad, even of the mildest kind. Philosophical extremes are the problem with so much of what ails the world.
Extremely well said, Sir! Hats off to you
Your couldn't express more truth
I had quite a hard childhood with an absent and psychologicaly violent father and an extrêmement loving but destroyed mother.
Despite good student habilities I had to struggle à lot against myself to go further my rebel instinct and even time has passed and I started my own company now, I still struggle terribly against my lazyness and lack of discipline. Fortunalely I m good in what I do but it's an everyday struggle.. the refusal of well beeing not to betray my victimal mother against my capitalist father is still present as a reflex in my everyday life. I m seeing a therapist to keep my life together but your conclusions helped me a lot more today than the hour I spent from 7pm to 8pm with him... thank you TIK, you're awesome !
There's a book called "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" by Nathaniel Branden that you may want to check out. It has helped me personally, and by the sounds of it I think you will get something from it too.
A lot of psychology has been based on the works and Freud and Jung, both of whom were Hermeticists. Thus, in my opinion (and it is just an opinion), a lot of therapists are ill equipped to deal with real-life issues. It therefore falls upon our shoulders to do the majority of the work to figure ourselves out.
For me personally, I have have found the works of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff's books on Objectivism extremely helpful, even if at first it doesn't seem like they should be. The negative stigma they have delayed me from looking into them, and I regret that. There's no point in building a house on sand - you've got to have a good philosophical foundation, otherwise it's a fruitless endeavour.
@@TheImperatorKnight Freud seems to have only superficially copied from Yoga. The 3-level system for example (It, Ego, Superego is Manas, Ahamkhara, Buddhi) is way more sophisticated and intricate in its comprehension. Buddhi, which Buddhists seek to cultivate to see reality as objectively as possible for one, is not remotely understood like that in the West. Instead "Reason" is at the same time called harsh and inhumane by the Gnostics and their derivatives, while also claiming to be the only ones to have "Reason"; likely in that endless "wolf in sheep's clothing" ruse. The Enlightenment thus had to fail because it was not led by "Reason" but instead a lot of irrational socialist gobbledigook.
A lot of the Hermeticism/Gnosticism goes further back than Orphicism from what I can tell. There are mentions/complaints about "dialectic sophists who confuse government, to the detriment of the people" ascribed to Konfuzius and Laotse in the 6th century BC in ancient China. Respective books are still later in the stack of books to my right. I'll get there eventually. My first hint about that I had read in a foreword of a not so great translation of the Tao te King by Victor von Strauß.
Looking further into Yoga, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, of which the latter is incomprehensibly ancient, Gnosticism/Hermeticism seems like a direct heresy as the simple product of the limitations of the Narcissistic mind. The Demiurge becomes a necessity for the human mind, especially the emotionally immature, seeks to anthropomorphize everything by default for a more digestible world-model. Hence these ill formulations of, for example, "evolution does" or "evolution wants", ascribing an active will to a passive process. The emotionally immature (narcissist), who totally has figured everything out and knows what God wants and is just helping on the way to accelerate it all towards the paradisical, utopian conclusion, insists to mess around with systems that should not be messed around with by the minds of children, for each time it has spelled doom for humanity (Labour Theory of Value, Lysenkoism, a certain anti-biological ideology currently wrecking academia, which Stanislaw Lem already described as a goal of the Communists, in his "Star Diaries and Memoirs of Iyon Tichy"; highly recommended read, no matter the lacking quality of the English translation).
For protocol: In Taoism, as far as I understand it, there is no creator with a will, there is no plan or intent, the whole thing just "is". The creation-source therefore also has no name and there is no point in worshipping it, and everything just comes from it and returns to it eventually. The word "tao" is effectively just a placeholder. Taoism is passive. But the emotionally immature narcissists cannot comprehend passivity, they are never satisfied without having something concrete they can rebel against and take its place in a childish, almost animalistic, game of dominance hierarchy in the tribe. Hence, they need all this demiurge and material prison nonsense.
In the system of Taoism, all things Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Socialism, Narcissism as a whole, is only ticking the boxes of "Yin" (the overt, dark, female, taking, destroying) and none of its opposites ("Yang"). Therefore a "whole" can never be achieved through these incomplete limited lenses that the immature mind that has no Buddhi can provide.
Likewise the entire idea of Alchemy seems to be a heresy of these older systems describing mere "interrelatedness of the elements", no magical spells, just a metaphorical help to, for example, understand that when one organ (ie lungs (metal)) being afflicted (water in them) indicates a weakness of another organ in the relation-cycle (heart (fire)) being too weak. Which is exactly what happens in conditions like heart inflammation. Treating the symptom of the water in the lungs is not enough, for the root cause of the symptom lies elsewhere, and the heart needs to be strengthened (ie by a pacemaker).
Laugh about TCM as you wish, for most of it is charlatanery nowadays, but the foundation is a mere product of observation and building a usable model. Western School Medicine as well has a great foundation, yet big pharma sells us a lot of placebos with only negative side effects to amortize their deadend research and keep the machine going. At its core, these things are eerily the same.
But what does the alchemist do with that old model? S/He anthropomorphizes, adds more magical thinking, lust for power, and thus believes to be able to truly manipulate and invoke the elements by themselves and cast magic. It's nonsense.
We also find connections all the way back to descriptions in the Sumerian Pantheon about these personality style interactions, but that's a topic for another time. I'll only mention that the symbolism in that ancient religion seems to have morphed through time and manifested in various religions and ideologies seen to this day, and considering which gods are represented by that is as telling, and congruent, with TIK's video here, as it gets. Suffice to say, it's all checking the boxes of "Yin".
Just so you know, I read out and responded to your comment in my latest video th-cam.com/video/Oe5NezWbQbs/w-d-xo.html
While I am unable to speak to 'altruism' of the many religions my own person experience has be always been to be charitable with your (spare) time but never ever just give away your labors, that was considered to be an unhealthy and self-defeating act.
TIK used Ayn Rand’s definition which is why Altruism is being cast in such a negative light. Who was one of the most anti-altruistic people ever to live. In short a dictionary should have been used to define Altruism, not a political thinker who completely opposes the idea.
This is actually a trend I observed with not so much Socialists but Dictators generally. All had terrible relationships with parent(s). Which is why we must strengthen families
Someone did a study of the paternal relationships of the 100 or so most cited feminists, and couldnt find many that had a good relationship with their father.
@@elLootogonna see a lot of feminists and dictators in the next 50 years 😂
@@elLootowhere can I find more info on that?
Really interested.
This video is so good that I am getting addicted. I can't stop watching as it fascinates me!!!
Great video. My only potential contention with the whole ‘dislike of responsibility or laziness’ aspect, is the fact that individuals like Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini etc. became leaders, individuals like Stalin for example had been a terrorist gangster kingpin and lived quite dangerously as such both with the law and rivals, which is naturally stressful. And he not only became a leader, but probably the epitome of absolutism, I’d wager that even the most authoritarian of absolute monarchs could only dream of the power that Stalin had centralised around himself.
But apart of that absolutism is the fact he was constantly working, for example in I believe one of your Stalingrad related videos, it’s noted that Stalin at one point worked 22 hours in a single day. So, and I could be wrong but, it doesn’t seem apparent to me that Stalin was lazy considering that leadership is naturally the most responsible and taxing of jobs, or perhaps Stalin’s desire for power overrided his initial laziness, allowing him to ‘grow up’ in a perverted sense.
Again with Mussolini, instead of becoming a recipient of a regime he became its conductor, naturally a stressful, taxing position, once again with Lenin and then the moustache man himself, inheriting positions that were not only constant but lifelong. Perhaps the same idea I have with Stalin applies for them too. To an unproductive recipient, a socialist regime is an ‘ideal’, but why would that unproductive recipient become a leader which is the job that naturally takes on the most ‘productive’ and responsible aspect.
True, TIK's definition is kind of self-defeating. He argues that all socialists have been bums, but those socialist dictators took huge responsibilities and had a heavy workload. Lenin's political work was so taxing that he suffered a stroke, Hitler spoke about how his duty to the country had destroyed his health.
What "work" did they do exactly? I reckon they mostly likely delegated most of their responsibilities, and were more of an overseer than anything else. Just as it is now with modern politicians that have others writing their speeches, policies, legislation etc. Ambitious, but they do lack work ethic, and being in government gives them the opportunity to make massive gains while doing the least.
@@die1mayer they didn’t take responsibility, they were committing atrocious human experiments and were failing horribly but their actions were justified by their zealots. Even now they are justifying all disgrace and cringe with plain lies and manipulations.
Good point. I think the laziness and lack of responsibility is only when it's "real" work. They were very excited to work as hard as they could for their own purposes - writing theory, doing revolutionary activity, and the later controlling of the state for Lenin. But when it came to having a normal job whose purpose wasnt to control or gain control, then they were not keen on it.
What do John Wick and Hitler have in common? They both had their dog killed and both extracted a terrible revenge.
I dont know, I come from a very disfunctional upbringing, a father who was super abussive, a mother who was a saint, and I later became a Christian. None of that made me hate myself or hate others, nor love others more than myself. I have never felt a need to become a socialist. I could clearly see the good and the bad at home, knew I needed to work at some point, got married, moved to the states (Im from a US territory, US citizen from birth, just in case😉) Always thought we needed to help each other, but not to the point of self destruction, I still think that way. I think today's marxists and socialists, specially in the US are a bunch of braddy, spoilled, attention seekers who love or hate themselves too much, and hate others too, who have never had any needs because most of them are affluent. The comparison with people from today and people from a century ago should never be made. We are not the same kind of people and motivations are not the same neither. True religion doesn't damage people, people damage themselves!!
Thank you, sir! Eagerly await more.
In the book you often cite "Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism by Joshua Muravchik " when he got on to how Marx was looked after by Engels and his Children did the same. In fact when Uncle Engels went to the shadow realm they lost their means of survival. And even went voluntary went to the shadow realm.
I reject the Dictatorship of Guilt. I am, therefore I think.
As you should.
Who is John Galt?
That is such a deceptive statement. Do you know what it really means?
I agree with this statement so much. "I think, therefore I am." has brought so much destruction to the modern world.
The truth is always "I am, therefore I think."
@@WolfeTone17-98 are you tarded?
Sorry, but I don't see the altruism you are talking about. Quite the opposite, I see a distinct lack of it. They may have used "serving the public altruistically" to justify their ideologies' grasp for power and to excuse their hatred towards others. However, most of them were pure narcissists, caring for nobody, not even their families. Engels was the only one on your list who genuinely cared for someone.
"Normal" Christian altruism (regardless of whether it is Lutheran, Calvinist, or Catholic) - stemming from "love thy neighbor as thyself" - doesn't lead to self-hatred. It doesn't place one above the other but rather puts both on the same level.
There is even historical literature associating the rise of Protestantism with a rise in productivity, which contradicts the idea of fear of independence and laziness.
I often like your videos and agree with most of your points, but this time, making out altruism as the problem doesn't hold up. Their self-hatred has other roots.
using altruism to feed the narcissism of oneself
No, I think it makes sense. If you believe that being altruistic unconditionally is good, then what does that make everyone who isn't completely altruistic?
@@trollerjakthetrollinggod-e7761
'what does that make everyone who isn't completely altruistic?' Not perfect, like everybody else. The train of thought that you imply doesn't fit at all.
It's part of Christian believe that no human is perfectly good, but that we are ALL sinners unable to be truly good by ourselves and that we are in need of the grace of God for redemption. Redemption theology is particularly Lutheran by the way. That someone believes he himself is perfect while others are not (and even expendable) contradicts Christian teaching completely.
The socialist mentality of tying to create some kind of heaven on earth, no matter how many victims that requires, lacks any altruism.
@@lars9925 "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", look at it this way. Socialists believe that people who have lots of money are bad and must actively give it away to every underprivileged individual they pass in order to redeem themselves. It's also important to note that the idea that we are all sinners in need of redemption is completely rejected by socialists, who believe that everyone is inherently good and it's just capitalism and hierarchy that makes them bad.
@@trollerjakthetrollinggod-e7761
Well, Socialists believe that people who have lots of money have to be FORCED to give it away (and the formerly rich have to be further punished). And the money shouldn't go directly to any underprivileged people but to the all powerful state that will distribute it 'fairly'. Socialist redemption is not gained by any material goods but buy loyalty to the party. You can have a luxurious life if you work for the 'cause'.
I agree with your 2nd point.
Socialist thinking arises from a (distorted) sense of justice, but not on an individual level, it's purely on the collective level. Everything can fall victim to the perceived greater good.
Altruism on the other hand happens on an individual level, it has to do with personal sacrifice and being kind to an individual.
This was a wonderful video, excellent educational and enlightening. Some of this I learned in college but nothing like this. No sugar coating. Thank you for sharing.
Seeing how many people with the same traits tend to come from better places than the people they claim to defend, represent and to share bad experiences (aside from losing relatives and such) my take is that it is something that appears in those people to a certain extent too
Nothing makes me believe in physiognomy more than seeing pictures of Lenin and Trotsky
I met some workaholic capitalists who had in the young years issues with their fathers. Not sure if this is very conclusive but still interesting.
Indeed but it is how one responds to the adversities of upbringing though.
I know people with autism who's addictive behavior caused harm to children.
The reality is, people are not perfect. And this is exactly why Communism never worked and can never work. They completely ignore the psychology of people and believe everything is upbringing, whereas things like autism clearly has genetic components.
Also, it is quite ironic- I know a lot of Russians and to this day most of them suffer from mental issues because of WW2 and then Communism.
It is obvious that trauma is past on to children in some form. It is our task as parents to be aware of this and minimize its influence.
Think of it as Venn diagrams or logic. All zebras have stripes but not everything with a stripe is a zebra. So a significant number of despots have the same personality failures but not everyone with that type of personality problem goes on to be a despot.
I had issues with my dad, but it forced me to embrace reality and I eventually became a capitalist. These people had better fathers, but became socialists. It really comes down to how you deal with the problems of your life.
@@JaimeWarlock Ha ha I guess your Dad didn't lecture you on the virtues of self-sufficiency and capitalism. If he had you might of ended up a socialist. Alternatively there are some people, not very many, who can analyse the situation for themselves without reacting against their parents.
Well, Tik, this is one of your best! 10 thumbs up! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
The one saving quality of Mondays! It’s TIK day! 😁😁
💀Hatred creates the worst monsters...💀
Like Netanyahu.
@@Occident. And bush and obama and biden and clinton and bush sen. and reagan and etc.....
@@veryunusual126 sure cummies.
So does lust as much as pride.
@@signorasforza354funny- considering much of what you have, wear, eat, use, or affiliate with is probably made at least in part by China..
I noticed the same pattern. Thank you for digging into this. As always, good work! 👍
ING TOTAL BRILLIANT, your research is absolutely spot on, and explains why all modern societies have collapsed under the weight of socialism, thank you so much for your time and effort to present this information to us. Wow,I am truly reeling over the bedrock of destabilisation of the parental and religious influence on these monsters 😮
"A pattern in *ALL* socialist childhoods". I think that there are quite a lot of exceptions.
Ho Chi Minh comes immediately to mind. Ernesto "Che" Guevara lacks most of these events or characteristics. So do the previous and present leader of the DPRK. Fidel and Raul Castro both miss a few of these events and characteristics, as does Gorbachev.
In addition, your "Altruism to World Hate" philosophical path appears flawed, in my view, as many socialists and non-socialists alike have not taken such path when presented with and/or experiencing altruism.
True, my take is that it is a politically motivated message with cherry picked examples and definitions.
il sung or his son
I haven't found that altruism per se leads to socialist or totalitarian inclinations, not in the people I know. I know lots of hard-working Christians and Jews who are both ambitious and generous, as well as religiously unaligned people with similar traits. The dangerous kind of altruism is the sort that expects EVERYONE ELSE to be altruistic without being altruistic oneself. For if one is going to behave in an altruistic manner, one has to do things for others or give them stuff, and this requires work, and in real practical life, it requires one to be pretty much self-supporting, both so that one isn't having to take from others and so that one has something to give to others.
-- I think that Romantic utopianism is dangerous, and I think that one of the advantages of the Judeo-Christian tradition is that it locates the perfect domain as other-worldly. (Plato's domain of the forms was similarly other-worldly.) As a general rule, I think it's important to keep ideal notions distinct from one's understanding of the real world.
-- Another ideology that fails to keep this straight is scientism, which is implicit in Marxism and in the insanity that is the WEF.
This video left out the influences culture has on people whether they work or not whether they are literate or not. China for example and even today- honour there ancestors- are subject to their parents at any age etc. same with German Cambodia and it’s culture and expectations. Nothing functions in a vacuum. Don’t think-generally speaking these people were lazy as they worked and went to jail for their ideas.
The WW1 was left out as such a huge influence it had on the world and Ideas.
These people were Psychopaths
probably should have said socialist revolutionaries
This guy is a great example of why they tell people human nature is a series of absolutes. It keeps them blaming eachother.
He opposes altruism because he thinks it's an all encompassing 'identity' rather than just a simple act. He has been given a personified version of altruism to fight against.
This doctrine, which was sold to him as a route toward 'liberty', is why politicians, businesses, churches, NGOs, international bankers, and all the other 'legal persons' around the world can act in self interest without any real contest. Because 'it's just the way it is, and will always be'. And so it stays.
You are right not all giving has a philosophical construct behind it, it might just be a whim. However on the philosophy of altruism you are a perfect example of what is wrong with it. Re "politicians, businesses, churches, NGOs, international bankers, and all the other 'legal persons' around the world can act in self interest without any real contest". There is nothing wrong with self-interest. That is the basis of most moral actions. Most people accept that there is a hierarchy of responsibilities. You don't owe everyone the same. There is no obligation to those with whom you have no connection.
Individual and collective need aren't opposites though. They are logical certainties. Warring between the two as absolutes is a fight that will never, can never, and was never supposed to be won.
@@UnnamedPodcast_Uprising "Individual and collective need aren't opposites though". In principle no, in practice the main method of socialism is to tax individuals for collective purposes, with everything classified as a "need".
@@alanrobertson9790 In the socialist system there are no taxes though 🤔.
@@UnnamedPodcast_Uprising If the State owns everything then its possible to disguise the taxes but the result is the same.
Interestingly, the New Testament was key to the affirmation of the individual as a distinct entity. However, the individual has agency and responsibility. When you define 'Altruism', it is the sort of construction popularized by Ayn Rand. It fits into a Hegelian dialectic, which creates a convenient strawman.
I had to read Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" several times to really understand where she was coming from, but ultimately it made sense to me. To her, a selfish man should seek sobriety over drunkenness because sobriety has greater value to him. She was multi-lingual, so maybe she misunderstood some of the nuances of the English language.
Thanks for the time you spent
Stefan Molyneux has been talking about the role of parenting in bringing out tyranny for about 15 years, and has written several books about Peaceful Parenting. I can't recommend him enough
My fave he did was on R vs K selection theory and how it relates to political affiliation
Your ordered analysis appears from the footnote to be based on Ayn Rand’s definition of altruism. Why? Her definition is not only not the leading one, it is not a common definition of altruism. Yours is a lovely analysis but you miss a critical factor now greatly emphasized by modern psychologists: emotional intelligence. Books are written on it so I won’t explain it here. Suffice it to say that all these hadn’t the foggiest notion of how to handle or even identify their own troublesome inner emotions of fear and anger. Thus, they repressed, denied, and projected them outward upon the world. Cock sure that their view of the world was totally correct, they never explored how their own emotions within were driving them. Fear converted to anger converted to rage easily converts to violence. And that to war and genocide.
Communists call fascists right-wingers and capitalists fascists, when they are both just different varieties of the same thing.
I dislike the semantics game so to speak in a basic form
The problem with modern capitalism is that corporations have paid off daddy government so there is next to zero antitrust legislation ENFORCEMENT
This is why we have a small handful of corporations and “stakeholders” that now collude to own everything
I truly wish that people would include this fact when they attack “capitalism” because it’s the reason why it’s failing
When Blackrock has:
$10,000,000,000,000 in wealth = OF COURSE capitalism is going to fail
If you have intact families that own small businesses = a much healthier system
We are now back in the 20’s with robber barons all over again
Brilliant analysis again. Thank you
So Tik has been reading Ayn Rand I guess
Something I recommend for all.
He mentioned re ently finding out about their writing fairly recently..
Yup. Sometimes I almost regret reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in high school. Makes things a lot harder sometimes. Who the fuck is John Galt?x
@@frankmueller2781 I can't say I'm a total fan but I've read her stuff and yes I think she has her points and should be read.
Who is John Galt?
So true it hurts.. I was some kind of socialist as young person and had poor relationship with parents and later had an absent father. My morals have indeed shifted as well as the view on the "demon" called socialism. I was weak and lost and not until in my late 30s I got more independent and my eyes saw things in a different light you might say. I abandoned religion, I voted differently, I actually began to genuinely care more for others but began encouraging and coaching friends rather than spoil them with money and concrete help. "Help to self help" you could say. Still my journey has not ended yet but watching and listen to Tik is like completing a puzzle and you begin to see the over arching order of society. Capitalism is like life with different shades from white to black while socialism is a black hole that at first glance was a shining gloria.
In hindsight I wish I would have seen it earlier but what can you do... at least I did not destroy the life of others in the same way as all these infamous socialists.
Collection of Rolce Royce cars owned by Lenin dont look altruistic to me😏
In practice altruism means redistributing your wealth, not theirs.
Finally someone analised this!
I always thought about this ever since I read The Demons by Dostoievski.
As someone who used to be quite left leaning, with an negative father figure, I really did find myself in this sadly. The positive Christian model my grandparents gave saved me but I will say this: as a woman I felt more inclined towards forgiveness and finding reasons for why my father and primary school teacher were so terrible to me: they lived under communist Romania. My brothers on the other hand, are still very resentful towards our father amd towards mamy male figures in their life. They worked hard and never avoided hard work though. We all loved working and we still do although we feel still unable to have a more self reliant, antreprenorial spirit.
Good analisis thank you!
My father used to say in the 90's that it is not the communists who will turn out to be the worst but their children. Present day Romania is a proof of that sadly.
Altruism and feminisation of men - that's very interesting. It's practically a slam dunk as to the social problems in the West these days, there is an epidemic of fatherless children, which is very sad, and an all-round misunderstanding of the importance of fathers (they seem to be viewed as financial support and nothing else).
Funny enough, when I was watching your video based lenin before the revolution, this video and so I clicked on this rather quickly. Have a video suggestion, can you talk about the concept regarding nationalism and how it differs from patriotism? The reason for this is because it helps explain why the First World War started the way it did, but also for WW2 as well, since the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, and the Japanese Empire are all nationalists. What do you think?
I find this question so interesting that I'm writing an essay on it. I would share with you, but... it is in Spanish as this is my mother language.
Anyway, my thesis is that patriotism and nationalism are, not only different, but OPPOSITE.
Patriotism is the natural feeling of love and gratefulness we all (should) have to our family, society, town, neighbourhood and country. While nationalism is the ellaborate ideology we use to justify xenophobia.
Certainly would be a good discussion.
@@FaramirGL That's an interesting take on it. Thanks. And good luck with your thesis. 👍
@@FaramirGL I'd honestly say that Nationalism is just the expression of the tribal instincts that are hardwired into us. There is always going to be the us and the them. Patriotism is a yardstick by which you can measure someone's devotion to their particular 'team'.
I think of you look back at his previous videos you'll find your answer. Nationalism wasn't the cause of WW1 or 2. It was a mixture of failing institutions, economics, faulty philosophies, and power dynamics of the ruling classes of those prospective countries. Nationalism, (identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations), doesn't push nations to start wars with other nations. Reason is simple- by attacking another nation you would destroy a portion of your own economy and pollute your culture with the defeated enemy- provided you won, of course- worse if you lose..
Germany, Italy, and Japan were way more than just nationalists. Their belief in a racial spirit that, being infused within and justified by the state, gave them a justification to dominate and take from others and then putting those others to work for their state. This is not nationalism, it is a perverted religion of the state. A more simplistic way to look at it-
Nationalist- Whatever is good for my people is good for my country.
Religious Statist- Whatever is good for the state serves the people (because the state and the people are "spiritually mixed" according to their stupid religion).
TIK seems to have gone down an Ayn Randian rabbithole here. Quit the pop psychology and stick to war and economics. A wise quote: 'We all like gossip-except, perhaps, for people with psychiatric disorders. It is easier and more enjoyable to talk about the character of those who decide policies than about the policies themselves. What should economic policy be? Can one think of a more boring subject? But the personality or character of those who make it, always for the most discreditable of reasons, is endlessly interesting, an inexhaustible source of undisciplined speculation.'
Are you denying the identified pattern? Did all of these socialists not have religious upbringings, an altruistic morality system, parental issues, and a fear of independence that resulted in indolence?
@@TheImperatorKnight Yes I do. Your talk is an exercise in procrustian reductivism. Just about everybody had a religious upbringing in those days. Rand has also led you astray on altruism. You should read Adam Smith on this subject. Nor were many of them indolent (a word you stress wrongly); they worked hard on their revolutionary activity. Independence? They went their own way with a vengeance. Also, we only have Hitler's word on his father.
@@micksherman7709 until you make an hour long refutation dense with sources, you've got nothing lol
@@tear728 Try common sense, duh.
Great video thank you that's why I support you, because I think the work you're doing is very important.
I’m just on the Marx part and my mind is blown. wtf. Damm
This man describes altruism as a form of self-hatred. Weird interpretation of Unselfishness.😂
Altruism is an extreme form of behaviour. A balanced person does things for others and for themselves.
Great work as always!
I agree with a lot of this, but I disagree that "altruism" is a sufficient enough explanation for the excesses of socialism. The vast majority of the world believes in one altruist philosophy or another... but uniquely socialism is so brutal.
Altruism in religion doesn't seem to be making the world better either. How many people have the Christians, Muslims, and Hindus killed?
Maybe though this is my thinking. Altruism taken to the utmost insane conclusion