Exposing National Socialism's Contradictions to refute it

[@Legio__X]

Wait TIK, I thought you were a Nazi sympathizer ? 😆

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Can't wait for the Marxists pRedditors will deploy their mental gymnastics on this one 😂

[@markzuckergecko621]

@@Legio__X yep, if you're not a communist, you're a Nazi. According to communists.

[@Legio__X]

@@TheImperatorKnightthey can’t help themselves lol

[@ruthkatz1998]

After the comments on that AI video I never want to hear that again

[@seahamdesigner]

@@TheImperatorKnight that p for the diddlers?.... 🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂

[@Web720]

The difference between the proletarian and the proletARYAN.

[@flameguy3416]

Lol 😂

[@neutronshiva2498]

@tormap and vrilpilled

[@THEBARTMANOPS]

That's hilarious

[@juliancate7089]

Brilliant AND funny. Clever AND pointed.

[@Web720]

Well apparently Julius Evola said this. Never read him, but I watched a video on Fascism by Lavader and he quoted this.

[@RomanLowery-pw3we]

I exist as an individual, and then if you "zoom out", as a member of a family, and then as a member of a larger family group, and then an even larger closely related ethic group, and then a race, and then a species, etc. Saying that if an individual exists, race can't exist, is like saying that a family can't exist. Like siblings in a family, different ethnic groups can exist within a race. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

[@potstump]

The individual evolved along side the tribe, without some kind of collectivism the individual would have ceased to exist in nature.

[@affenhirn5541]

TIK's point is not that race cannot exist if individuals exist, his point is that individuals in the social darwinistic sense and racial collectives ("Volksgemeinschaft") are contradictory. A racial collective would require the sacrifice of the individuum to the collective. But evolution works by the individuum acting selfish, not sacrificing his own future for the future of the collective. Notice how in ant colonies every ant was born by the queen, so is produced by the genetic code of the queen. Therefore the evolutionary interest of the ant is to further the reproduction of the queens genectic code, because thereby the ants genetic code gets reproduced too. So the ant collects food for the queen and protects the queen. But if the ant had its own genetic code independent of the queen and could create its own offsprings, it would no longer provide for the queen, but for itself and its own offsprings. The collective of the ants would break apart instantly. If you believe every human has its own personal genetic code and therefore acts in its own interest, you cannot believe in a racial collective where every human would act on behalf of the collective rather than on the behalf of its own interest. Evolution (the basis for social Darwinism) and social collectives are therefore contradictory.

[@jasonallen1712]

​@affenhirn5541 thanks for writing this, otherwise I was going to have to write it.

[@charonstone6447]

​@affenhirn5541nice theory about the ants, and I mean it. But I've got to Tay you are wrong on assuming that because the colony shares the same genes, and because they all serve the Queen, things couldn't be similar with a different reproduction system. The causation Is not demonstrated, their are many examples of social animals to confuse the matter. But worse, you make the mistake of giving intentionality to the genes. As if they wanted to reproduce. That could come from a very superficial understanding of Dawkins "The selfish gene" (it's a bit his fault for frasing it that way).

[@tdowell8615]

@affenhirn5541if a individual works for the collective good and the collective works for the individual then it benefits both parties. Why would their be minority interest groups if that wasn’t the case?

[@RomanLowery-pw3we]

Materialism is the belief that ONLY the material exists. Many who reject materialism are NOT rejecting material reality, they are saying that reality is not ONLY material.

[@josephahner3031]

Which is why Marxists aren't materialists. Their ideology, "dialectical materialism" is the belief that they can manipulate the material world by changing their language.

[@Klee99zeno]

There is the ethical philosophy of materialism, and then there is the metaphysical philosophy of materialism. The two are related because if someone believes that only the material exists, then of course they would think that only the material is important.

[@DonutGuard]

If more than material exists, then show it to me.

[@jeffreyscott4997]

Many who reject materialism are not idealists, but many are. Idealists insist the material world in not real, or is dependent for its existence or identity, upon the ideal world. As a neohegelian philosophy fascism is a form of German Idealism. Naturalists, neoaristotelians like objectivists, see reality in both matter and form as an integrated whole, being neither materialists (only the concrete 'really' exists) or idealists (only the abstract 'really' exists).

[@tony3]

@@DonutGuard "If color exists, let me feel it" - a blind person

[@RomanLowery-pw3we]

Your argument against a "racial collective" is like saying that if male deer compete against each other in the wild, then deer can't exist as a group, and there can't be any kind of particular species or characteristics of deer at all, because they compete to allow the strongest to mate. That's completely silly. Let's take a different example, an artificial group like a sports team. Let's say I have a tennis team. On that tennis team, the members of the team compete against each other regularly, to improve their own individual skills, and also by doing so, increase the skill level of the entire team. But what you are saying, is that if the team members compete against each other, then the team can't exist? No. The team still exists.

[@rafalpalma]

Well competition in sports is a bit different then in life. Competition in real life is of limited resources like food or mate etc. So in that way deers compete against each other. But it's the proof there's no "collective spirit" of deer species that controls them. He doesn't argue that groups don't exist but there's no such thing as collective consciousness. At least that's what I think he argues

[@techpriest6962]

TIK is one of those people who is autistic, and as such becomes dead set on an idea which doesn't allow him to see outside his own assessments.

[@fion1flatout]

all the socialists are trying to create a human superorganism. Best analogy is an Anthill. The Anthill is up against other Anthills. The flaw is that individuals in an anthill are actual clones, so it really is all for one and one for all. I believe the Qwerty+ lot are not individualists, rather cloners with distracting exteriors. Na So.

[@affenhirn5541]

But a racial collective like the Nazis imagined would require the members of the tennis team sacrificing EVERYTHING to the team if necessary, even there lifes, for example in war. Lets imagine a racial collective. Many in the racial collective are willing to die for the interest of the collective, others dont. Much more of those willing to die will actually die than of those who are not willing to die for the collective. Therefore the selfish ones will have more offspring, replacing the collectivist ones. After some time the selfish ones will have replacecd the collectivist ones, and no one will be willing to die for the collective anymore. You cannot believe in evolution and in a racial collective. The Nazis dont simply mean group by collective, they mean that everyone in a group does everything for the abstract interest of that group, and has no desires except serving this abstract interest.

[@uncircumcisedcircus]

Civilization cannot exist without "team" cooperation.

[@tony3]

Your "humans aren't animals" arguments are not good. "Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms in the biological kingdom Animalia." We fit that definition. We are not MERE animals, but we are animals. "We are not animals because we have brains." Um, then dogs, cats, pigs, etc. are not animals because they have brains. Pigs are smarter than 3-year-olds. They are not more human than babies. The category of Human is a subcategory of Animal, and what distinguishes us from other Animals is the Human Kind's natural capacity for a qualitatively distinct rationality. We are the rational animal. Also, the "no such thing as race" is just the fallacy of the beard (or the continuum fallacy) as well as appealing to exceptions. I like your videos but I recommend spending some time learning rules of logic (William Spaniel has a good 101 course on YT) and logical fallacies. You don't have to be racist to acknowledge race exists. That's just a cop-out to avoid actual arguments against racism.

[@thulyblu5486]

Correct, he's lacking in the biology department. Also the common misunderstanding that survival of the fittest applies to individuals when it actually applies to genes and humans have around 20.000 of those. They are shuffled like a deck of cards with each act of sexual reproduction. It has different implications. Explained well in "the selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins.

[@JustAnotherNorthman]

Exactly. I posted my own reply in the same vain before reading this one of yours. TIK has to be better than this. Possibly his worst video so far. Perhaps he has had a lot going on in his personal life lately making him less diligent than usual, but whatever may be the case this video is below his usual standard and quite frankly directly misguided and disappointing.

[@tony3]

@JustAnotherNorthman he just has to separate himself from 3rd positionism so the commies don't call him a nootsee. It's easy to make bad arguments against it because if anyone corrects you, you can call them one.

[@Problembeing]

We would avoid racial arguments altogether if we ceased using divisive and non-scientific models such as ‘race’. There is one race; the human race. All subcategories are ethnic, phenotypical and cultural differences. If we were ‘different races’ it would stand to reason that it would therefore not be possible to cross creed.

[@Problembeing]

Though I do agree for the most part about ‘anima’(having breath). Maybe a new word derived from ‘having breath and mind’ (anima et mentos) to something like ‘animentals’ would be satisfactory 😁

[@leonardticsay8046]

The ideological rock-paper-scissors graphic is super accurate.

[@El_Gringo89]

I can vouch for the snek

[@ricardokowalski1579]

I see what you did there. Approved 👍 🪨🧻✂

[@sirzorg5728]

It's missing my position: As a monarchist: "Holy sh1t! three 'enlightenment' clowns!"

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Ingroup/outgroup dynamics. Every ideology, pointing fingers at others in the outgroup. The "triangle" is not complete.

[@Ankhar2332]

tik is genius

[@medanon7221]

Something about your first point feels off but I can't quite pin it down. However, your second point about biology is definitely wrong, "altruism", "collectivism", or whatever you want to call it *also* has a biological basis. You've fallen for an ideological blindspot and inserted your individualist philosophy into a scientific concept that has no need of it. Survival of the fittest isn't exclusively about the individual, its about how the species survives and adapts to its environment through such fit individuals passing on their genes. Even a cursory glance at The Most Trusted Source, Wikipedia shows a number of theories within evolution that contradict this: gene-centered view, kin selection, or group selection, which all exist to explain why animals (including humans) display "altruistic" behaviors within their species, to ultimately pass on their genes through a surrogate rather than themselves. Again, later in the video you mix up your ideology and science, humans do behave instinctively, just because we can overcome those instincts sometimes doesn't make us completely free from them, though I generally agree with the sentiment at that part. It sounds you've been digging to far into this spiritual and philosophical mumbo jumbo though, you're starting to sound like a Gnostic with your "my mind is not determined by my biology" bit, it quite literally is a product of your biology as a human, and your body is also who you are. "Why draw it at race?" Averages, mostly, though I wouldn't say those are everything but I wouldn't discount said averages entirely depending on the discussion. That anecdote of some random third-positionist seems like you're mixing up correlation and causation as well, I think he probably had all those issues and found a 'spark' that led him down that path, rather than that path leading him having his issues. Here's praying my youtube comment doesn't get nuked, also; stick to banks ;^)

[@Luggynug]

Except that "survival of the fittest" is a byproduct of individual adaptations that benefit a species by consequence. A bird with a longer bill that allows more food has no motivation other than his direct survival. And this trait only affects the offspring and not the species as a whole. Yes, as a consequence many generations later all birds of the spcies might have this specific adaptation, but it not because it was what was best for the species at its initial inception. To say it is collective on a modern interpretation, would be to assume that all subsequent generations would adopt a larger bill because that is what is best for the species.

[@Aioradeleo27]

Yeah, At one point TIK started to sound like a Gnostic, which is ironic since he is supposedly against them.

[@Personaless]

That's a correct thing, survival of the fittest is at the gene level, not an individual one. Sacrificial instincts are derived from the genome being willing to throw away a single person to save a family or broader ethnic group, it's not a rational analysis at the moment of truth. Even suicide can be viewed in that light, the person is no longer a viable carrier of the gene. Survival of the fittest, as he describes, is more in line with Freud's pleasure principle, which I'm sure he would insult too.

[@levongevorgyan6789]

@@Luggynug Alternatively though, these adaptations can lead to cooperation and collective behavior as well. The most extreme being eusocial animals like bees and ants, but with lesser degrees of cooperative behavior like in Chimp Troops, Wolf Packs, Elephant herds, etc.

[@Luggynug]

@levongevorgyan6789 Yes, but I would argue that this occurred over time, in stages, through intermingling bloodlines rather than some sort of developed system. And in the case of bees as opposed to say wasps, the longevity of the nest itself (multiple queen generations) allowed the further development to what we see today. Again I don't this is collectivist because it still seems based upon specific adaptations (refinements) over generations that is still based around a specific generational bloodline. Two beehives in close proximity do not work in conjunction with each other, they work in competition for their own survival.

[@SepticFuddy]

Boxer the horse has entered the chat, worked himself ragged, and left the chat for the glue factory

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Four legs good!

[@grathem9789]

​@@TheImperatorKnight Two Legs Better!

[@gbcb8853]

@@grathem9789 I can’t tell which is which

[@IvoryLeviathan]

@@TheImperatorKnightwings count as legs!

[@ShalaJC]

But.... But... Boxer laid down his life for the good of the party.... Wait..

[@aarondesilets]

Non-human-animals are not mindless. They can think, learn, remember, make judgments, take decisions, change their minds, be creative, have emotions, be self aware, be faithful, mourn, and so on, at different levels depending on the species. Humans may have more complex thoughts and communicate with more complex languages. But it's not as if humans have perfect mental abilities and other animals have none at all, as I thought you made it sound. Still it was an interesting video. Thank you.

[@drax3373]

I think his argument (from what I can tell) is if a car can travel a million miles an hour it stops being a car and becomes a space ship 🚀 . Something like that though I’m not convinced.

[@thethinkingman5645]

​@@drax3373 the foundation that humans are more than animals (more like angels) therefore can be perfect is THE most dangerous foundation of any philosophy and religion Marxism and the Abrahamics have this in common

[@weed...5692]

This is a sign that cracks start to appear in TIK's analyses. Humans are animals. He says "Well, do you eat grass??". Not all animals are cows, TIK. Humans are primates that evolved from other primates - those still do eat grass and are somewhat filthy, but our specific is that we evolved on a path that gave us advanced brains. We have a lot in common with the rest of the animals, we also are much different - we have brains that became big, and with size came features like the ability to believe in things to the extent that we can commit suicide - this is to emphasize how the brain can program itself to the point that it acts against itself. The fact that TIK used a few sophisms while pushing his argument about "humans aren't animals" means he reached some belief or conviction and allows himself to preach to the public with scorn.

[@rafalpalma]

​@@weed...5692 It's really disappointed. Rothbard was right when he said that Ayn Rand was making an objectivism a cult. He didn't even give them benefit of the doubt what they mean by animal. He just called them straight up cows who live in the gutter. He resorts to ad hominem before he knows if opponent uses the same definition of a term. I guess he's in a really bad state of mind.

[@sillypuppy5940]

Dogs are like very friendly young kids of about 3-4 years old. That is not mindless.

[@RomanLowery-pw3we]

Race exists and is provable with any DNA test. We can exist as a member of a race AND an individual, and as an individual we should live up to our full potential and by doing so, collectively benefit everyone else. This is the reason why altruism is misguided too. This should not be hard to understand really, we all belong to a family.

[@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895]

Ive watched for a long time and some things he says are ridiculous.

[@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895]

Also attributing normal things to NS…

[@PresleyPerswain]

The problem is genetic clines and traditional phenotypically defined races don't really line up with each other. For example there is more genetic diversity is sub Saharan Africans then in all the rest of the world's humans combined. So you could define maybe half a dozen genetic clines in Africa and then say everyone else is a single 'race' and be, genetically, correct.

[@rafalpalma]

@@PresleyPerswain Well the point is that race does exist as a category. TIK since he's consumed by Rand's materialistic ideology denies everything what belong to idealistic view. In his view there is no place for categorization because it presumes some ideal standard: for example such and such set of genetical characteristics. TIK thinks every category is a limiting factor of an individual and opposes it while it is just an observation of reality. I think he fails to realize that aknowledging there are diffrences between groups of people doesn't mean everyone in a said group is the same.

[@gustavo042]

​@@PresleyPerswainLol, that's not an argument, first you could identify race with photos of bones and skulls, and human beings didn't come out of Africa

[@yvngxnightmare]

Drag shows are a breakdown of society

[@MarcoMasseria]

What concerns me is the process of the societal ship righting itself which will invariably come. All is a cycle and this cycle could be very unpleasant shortly.

[@fruitylerlups530]

how so?

[@adeptus2714]

And you don't have to be remotely fascist to acknowledge this.

[@phillipp5538]

@@adeptus2714 Not entirely true as only good people would acknowledge it.

[@johanmikkael6903]

​@@phillipp5538Good people? I assume having your country humiliated after waging wars againts everyone is sure good 😅

[@Selrisitai]

I think your argument against "duty" was unconvincing. You could argue against anything with that argument, e.g., I think eating healthy is bad because sometimes people want me to eat something healthy, but sometimes those healthy foods were obtained via unethical means, so if I ate them it would be unethical and therefore eating healthy is bad. That's almost exactly what you said about duty: Sometimes, what is expected of me, as it pertains to duty, would be immoral, therefore duty itself is immoral. Wouldn't the more logical position be that a sense of duty is good, but you should know what you actually have a duty to do and what you don't have a duty to do? For instance, if you have children you have a duty to take care of them. Just because you have other reasons to take care of them, e.g., it would benefit you personally later in life, that doesn't mean you don't have a duty. In fact, I would say that altruism, if incorrect everywhere else, is still correct when it comes to your children. You no longer matter to you, only your children matter, to the extent that you have to take care of yourself so that you can keep taking care of your kids, and there's all kinds of nuance to that of course. I suspect that if we quibbled, it would be about the definition of "duty" and how far it can be defined.

[@professorhaystacks6606]

I have seen similar arguments regarding 'honor', that sometimes what is considered honorable is immoral. Well in both cases we are attaching names to vague concepts. We could redefine all of them as 'the obligation to do that which is moral or at least to not do that which is immoral,' and provide the caveat that the concepts may well be hijacked and used with social conditioning to twist a moral basis to immoral extremes. Of course morality will then be at issue, but that's a separate discussion.

[@rafalpalma]

Duty is strictly a moral concept. Duty is always to a superior moral idea. Ultimately it can be only good if the idea it's serving is objectively good. For many people it was Nation, Country, King, social class, God etc. But as you propably know that ideas rarely have any moral value. So for example there is no objectively better about French Nation than Occitans, Bretons or whoever for that matter. So sense of Duty is de facto misplaced sense of morality. Duty implies that you surrender your own moral judgements to serve an idea that seem to be moral. For simplicity I'll call it "morality for the lazy". It's an easy way for people to think better of themselves. "I fullfill my duty to my country/community/class/family therefore I'm a good person." So to summarise: Duty is to resign from your moral judgements for serving an idea. All of the Nurnberg trials conclusion was that our ultimate duty is actually to objective morality. P.S. Well some will argue that sense of morality, duty and resposibility is basically the same thing. But I think there's a meaningful distinction between them. To be exact: a) Duty - to sacrifice to an idea b) Morality - to adhere to the objective morality c) Responsibility - to be responsible for your decisions and consequentions of your actions. Including well being of your family. I don't know if this distinction is correct from definition stand point. Nonetheless even if I use wrong words I believe the above to be true.

[@rafalpalma]

@@professorhaystacks6606 I think "honour" was refering to character. It is mostly distinct from a morality. Honour is something that we can attribute even to people who fight for wrong cause (like Saladin during crusades etc.). It is congregation of noble characteristics: bravery, willingness to self-sacrifice, loyalty and treating enemy with dignity (as equal in a sense). I don't think "honour" has ever been as perversed as idea of "duty".

[@professorhaystacks6606]

@rafalpalma I have seen honour and duty described in terms that seemed to mean more or less the same thing, but I may well have taken as common a definition that is rare. My mistake. The general idea stands even if the terms used are not quite correct.

[@robertvolz4200]

In my opinion the traditional left and right political spectrum always seemed somehow flawed to me. I learned in the past that the Right Wing favours individual freedom over democracy (interesting) & egalitarian and rejects more state interference in the economy, while the left wing supports democracy and egalitarian (with the help of the state!) even if it comes at the expense of individual freedom. I thought as an unknown kid back then, how can you be pro individual freedom while reject democracy? Now years later and watching your videos it comes clear to me. Democracy isn’t about individual freedom at all. It’s your voting your individual freedom away to the state. And I am still here in school and graduate next year but I can see all the flaws in my country (Germany) here. But also if the Right Wing wants to have a smaller government and want a free market, then how can be the fascist and the nazis be „right wing“? Then I was shown and told basically this: I was shown that Right Wing = less government control over economy etc. And the so called „far-right“ = authoritarian government control over people’s life’s The Left Wing wants = more government control over economy (more Centrally planned economy) But the so called „far-left“ are for anarchy. I am sorry but this doesn’t make sense to me. And this is why I abounded the traditional spectrum. I more see it like on side wants no state control at all (Freedom) while others wants a totalitarian state control (Slavery)! Thanks for reading. :)

[@spambot_gpt7]

You can see it as centralization vs decentralization. Free and decentralized people can make good decisions for themselves and work very efficiently because they have the freedom to correct errors quickly and are responsible for themselves and their own results. But they are often too unorganized to be politically or militarily powerful. Centralized organizations can brainwash big armies and take over the things that have been created by free people. But over time they get infinitely corrupt and inefficient. One side wants to work efficiently and in peace and only cooperate voluntarily. The other side wants their stuff and will use a centralized power structure to get it. The world has a cycle of explorers and inventors building things up, centralized power structures taking things over and then slowly dying off from their own inefficiency. Once chaos has consumed the last empire, it can be explored and built up by the next generation of inventors. Then, when there is enough wealth, the next empire will arise to take that wealth.

[@spambot_gpt7]

The goal of political action should be to slow down the cycle when you are on the good side. And to protect yourself from the chaos when you are on the bad side.

[@walterneta3679]

Look at Von Mise’s quadrant model. When you have two variables (form of economy and form of government) there should be two axis (x & y) not one line.

[@spambot_gpt7]

Decentralized = Productive, but weak Centralized = Powerful, but corruptible Cycle: Productive builds, Powerful takes over, succumbs to corruption, Productive rebuilds. Cannot mention more detail here. This is the real spectrum. That's why unproductive people love centralized power.

[@EyePatchGuy88]

You're clearly very young, so I'll go easy on you. Every single form of human leadership exercises a degree of control over people's lives and the world around them. That's why they are in charge, to guide their people away from calamity and despair. Every successful ideology more or less incorporates this fundamental practice. They only differ on which degrees of control should be exercised, the methods of exercising that control, and who should be allowed to exercise that control. Furthermore, each successful ideology was a response to another preexisting ideology.

[@flameguy3416]

Иazi Ideology: Unite the Aryan race against Judeo-Bolshevism Communist Ideology: Unite the Workers against the Bourgeoisie Hmm...

[@cognitivedisability9864]

Two sides of the same coin.

[@Iron_Wyvern]

And?

[@AmberAnderton-t3y]

Sounds rather dualistic, which the law of polarity is used.

[@Alte.Kameraden]

Bourgeoisie(middle class in French) in the Marxist sense are The Capitalist but... ignore their concept of the Capitalist is built on top of antisemitism.

[@cipherstormwolf14]

Unite the dimwited against the smart?

[@chickenduckhappy]

"There's a problem with national socialist ideology." Only brits can understate at this level with a straight face 😎

[@TheOrphicLyre]

BRITS ARE INDIVIDUALS NOT A COLLECTIVE SOME OF US ARE NOT FUNNY

[@EarlHildebrandt]

@@TheOrphicLyre As it is said, "lol."

[@BlancmangeDoh]

There’s a problem with whatever system is going on in the west at the moment !! The truth is we live on Earth , Mother Nature is more powerful than man , hence we should live as close to Mother Nature as possible , the Free Market is the closest thing to Mother Nature. Socialism / Communism is Not natural , Corporate capitalism is not natural just think of the food ‘Industry’ processed foods for example. Materialism , Consumerism doesn’t work with Mother Nature in the long term. The People who won WW2 are now implementing ESG & DEI upon us , they are corporate and perceived as Capitalists but ESG & DEI are absolutely Communist / Socialist in their end goal. As far as depicting just who , then you just need to identify the names to see just who is implementing this , whilst we still bicker on about the smokescreen of left right politics . All in all as my O’level history teacher pointed out back then , extreme left & extreme right are pretty much the exact same thing ! Having said that I’ve been watching Tik for a good few years and appreciate that it’s a great thing that he talks about a lot of these great subjects that for some reason might be considered close to the bone , surely everything should be spoken about for the sake of pure intelligence & truth . History has everything to do with the geo politics and what continues to occur each day . I’ve found that History I learned in the early part of my life has been so distorted and manipulated to which I find that the public plays a big role in their apathy ,blinkered acceptance of what they’re fed and what seems the loss of critical thinking and lack of responsibility .

[@OperationEland]

And you are a minority in your own capital

[@philipvecchio3292]

​@@TheOrphicLyre The unfunny ones are the most funny. Monty Python demonstrated that.

[@pete5134]

The idea of Herman Goring raging against hedonistic materialism amuses me somehow.

[@christopherconard2831]

There was a lot of "Do as I say, not as I do." mentality in their leadership. Of course, they were hardly unique with this pattern.

[@danielwadsworth9923]

totally different from his materialistic hedonism indeed

[@Adelina-293]

It's not hedonism when I do it was his mentality.

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

AI art of herman goring flailing about when

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

@@christopherconard2831 From a spiritual stand point, It's as if the devil injected these ideas into their heads in order to mock the very idea of humanity itself

[@_Dovar_]

11:44 - All it takes is 1 honest answer to 1 simple question: "Do differences in human biology, statistically clustered in clearly distinguishable groups, exist or not?"

[@EyePatchGuy88]

Thanks for the timestamp, now I don't have to subject myself to this nonsense drivel.

[@D3r3k2323]

I'm so confused, he said that people who study National Socialism "know that there's no such thing as race?" But didn't he define National Socialism as a form of socialism that's based on race?

[@thethinkingman5645]

Exactly thats where this vid falls apart He denies Racism As against Science as you can get, all to defend from uncomfortable feelings Emotional therefore irrational

[@UmaROMC]

Wrong. You choose the group.what is the "easily amd clearly distinguishable group"? Africans? black Africans? Sub-saharan africans? Only indians or pakis as well? Are italians and spanjards "white europeans"? None of it is clear or unambiguous.

[@techpriest6962]

@@thethinkingman5645 I would say he has the modern liberal view of denying eugenics. Even though eugenics is a valid and real science.

[@davidhyams2769]

The simplistic Darwinian idea of "survival of the fittest" is often misunderstood. It doesn't refer to the individual, but to the species. If one individual within a species is born with a mutation that makes that individual somehow better adapted to its environment, it has a slightly better chance of survival and passing its genes on to the next generation, but it doesn't mean that the rest of its cohort immediately ceases to exist. However, after many generations, that beneficial gene will have spread throughout the population, giving the entire group a higher survival rate. In social animals, such as humans, some of those inherited survival traits include cooperation and altruism. Individuals who try to take advantage may be shunned or excluded, reducing their potential for passing on the harmful genes that lead to that behaviour.

[@KT-pv3kl]

ironic given that altruism is a trait that is currently leading to the decline of many western populations.

[@kevinbaltarejo4875]

​@@KT-pv3klAltruism, narcissism, sociopathy, and psychopathy have all lead, do lead and will lead to the decline of any civilization, especially if "justified" by any religious ideology.

[@davidhyams2769]

@@KT-pv3kl If excessive altruism leads to a behaviour that actually diminishes the likelihood of survival, that's just evolution in action.

[@spartanonxy]

Its actually a interesting to notice that both in group competition and cooperation both are beneficial traits in evolution.

[@charonstone6447]

I suppose game theory has the right answer to this. In most situations, a cautious cooperation tactic is the most rewarding and I believe evolution has moulded us mostly towards that attitude. Purely egotistic competition attitude is devastatingly bad in game theory.

[@AdmiralofTheEmpire]

I just want to point out that the majority of Christians don't believe in determinism/pre destination, and that's only Calvinists who believe in that (and all their descendants). Catholics, Orthodox, etc all believe in free will, and in fact it is the cornerstone of our religion since as you (correctly) pointed out, morality cannot exist if there is no free will.

[@NSMexicano2008]

Catholics are the only true Christians

[@morielsegal794]

Taking care of your nephew is not selfish it's commendable duty of a famely member tik

[@MarcoMasseria]

Tik is an example of how knowledge is not wisdom. How someone can know so much, but see so little. He has some tremendous misunderstandings in this video. Taking care of family (benefitting others) is always a good thing (unless aiding in their harming of others, particularly family members).

[@levongevorgyan6789]

Debatable. His nephew shares his genes, and so by supporting his nephew, he supports the propagation of his genes. And if by interacting with his nephew and developing a good relationship with him, he can also bring about the propagation of his cultural ideals and way of life by inspiring/educating/advising the next generation

[@morielsegal794]

@@MarcoMasseria Yaeh its libiterian brainrot unfortunately but i still find his analesis usful of this groups as any other is extremely romantic or flewd

[@alphaomega938]

@@levongevorgyan6789the libertarian cannot understand kin selective genetic altruism

[@TexasNationalist1836]

@@alphaomega938not all libertarians are greedy dude I am a prime example

[@picklejarmonsterfanboy9367]

TIK, you bash spiritualists, yet you make the mind-body dichotomy. That is pure spiritualism. There is not mind without the body. We are not our mind, we are our body.

[@OntologicalQuandry]

Perhaps your statement that "we are not animals" would be better expressed the way it used to be: we are not mere animals. Our biology is clearly animal (fauna as oppsode to flora), but the complexity of our minds distinguishes us - by degrees - from mere animals.

[@thethinkingman5645]

No he is intentional If we are animals, racial differences MUST be accepted if so in war one race wins therefore Racism is true The West excepts racism in every animals EXCEPT humans....

[@OntologicalQuandry]

@@thethinkingman5645 Maybe I'm not getting your reasoning but I don't see how what you said fits. Racism can't be true because the various specialisations in our species are only specialisations, not whatever 'races' are (this is the fundametal flaw in 'racism': its inability to define what a 'race' is). Our minds separate us from mere animals (by degrees), which is why comparison to animals is so nuanced and confusing. Biologically we ARE animals, but our minds separate us from mere animals.

[@legoman6488]

@@OntologicalQuandry Correct, they can never decide what a 'race' is, or how it is determined.

[@Alte.Kameraden]

Honestly the first time I've seen that meme. It's brilliant. It's like the Spiderman pointing meme but evolved.

[@straysod]

Isn't this meme just a pictorial representation of a political theory? I forgot who came up with it but im sure its some dead old guy...

[@darthutah6649]

I've seen it once before but with a monarchist saying "omg two revolutionaries" to the leftist and the fascist.

[@Alte.Kameraden]

@@darthutah6649 lol I've called American Leftist Conservatives because for twenty years they've basically been the Statues Que, and now act just like Christian Conservatives when they lose control of the narrative, or public institutions. Conservatism is to Conserve, if they're the Status Quo and they want to censor, arrest, or suppress to preserve their Status. They're conservatives. lol

[@Heterodoxism]

When I was an objectivist, I talked a lot like you and used the exact same lexicon, obsessing over "Altruism" and cleaving to a virtue of selfishness and individualism. I used to call Kant the most evil man in history, but as I began to really read Mises, particular upon Epistemology, and checked him against Ayn Rand's and Murray Rothbards criticisms of him, it became clear that Rothbard and Rand simply did not understand Mises, and that their conceptions of right and wrong were fundamentally in error. All of this is to say, it is painful watching your videos with Piekoff sitting in the background of every sentence you rattle off. I tried looking for Libertarian Realist's excellent video essay painstakingly going through "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" because he really put the nail in the coffin, using Piekoff's own words against him. Unfortunately, you were too late to the game, this debate is 10 years stale, the libertarian moment has passed, and Libertarian Realist was banned a long time ago. I've considered doing a video essay refuting your videos as of late, and maybe I will when I get time. Hope you get back on the Mises train. Later

[@jolun1836]

Please do! Also having had my experience with the objectivist and libertarian philosophical thoughts I would love to hear this recap. I was not around watching this type of stuff 10 years ago

[@latinhero1818]

I’ve been noticing that it seems that he traded one bad ideology (socialism) for another bad ideology (Randian Objectivism).

[@gabenorman747]

So you're a socialist now? Ok.

[@Heterodoxism]

@@latinhero1818 "Bad" ... I would just say "Inconsistent". Technically speaking, good and bad are relative to what one wants to achieve. In my experience being an objectivist, the draw and satisfaction was being able to confidently debunk my detractors with a level of moral certainty that I could elate my self esteem off of. Its fun being an objectivist, but ultimately it is inconsistent. If I just wanted to have fun, then I suppose it is good in that sense. And to wit, many successful people have used objectivism as their grounding in life, and it has worked for them to achieve the goals they set out.

[@ItsKenshiz14]

Once i got called a quote "materialist jew" Because i disagreed with a Corporatist (fascist)

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Exactly. They despire money and want a Granny State because they fear independence and don't understand the concept of wealth creation.

[@patman-bp3qg]

​​​@@TheImperatorKnightmoney is the problem. Things were much better when we owned our own land, cultivated there, took care of cattle and used barter to trade.

[@firesb7791]

​@@patman-bp3qgMoney, as in currency isn't really the problem, its just a common trading token The problem with money is central banking, monetary policy and more recently Central Bank Digital currency That,combined with Keynesian economics has created a magic money system based entirely on debt and mobey made from thin air, rather than a stable, constant currency based on something substative(such as gold)

[@markzuckergecko621]

@@patman-bp3qg money is the only way to scale trade up to a larger scale. A chicken farmer can't carry chickens around with him everywhere he goes in case he wants to make a trade, and not everyone wants or needs chickens. It would be pretty annoying if he had to trade chickens for shoes so he could trade shoes for corn, so he could trade corn for wood, when all he really needed was wood, but the lumberjack didn't need any chickens or shoes. So we come up with a currency that represents X amount of chickens, or Y amount of corn, and so on and so on.

[@jakublulek3261]

I always get insults lke that from anarcho-syndicalists. They are very sensitive, no-fun boys!

[@georgeferguson4521]

I've generally seen NS described as "communitarian" rather than collectivist. Communitarian generally seems to recognize individual talent but also a sense of a collective identity as well.

[@EyePatchGuy88]

Never heard that word before, but it fits like a glove.

[@axelhopfinger533]

One of the main goals of NS is to put the rights, needs and aspirations of the individual into a mutually beneficial relationship to the needs of the collective of the nation. Done primarily via the concept of duty. The collective of the people is the framework for the individual to operate in. And by aspiring to better itself, the individual effort betters all of collective society. In this, NS acknowledges that only the achievements of exceptional individuals can ultimately advance society, culture and history. NS aspires to harmonize the relationships between individual and collective society, between the different classes and social strata of society via furthering mutual understanding of each other's lived realities and roles within the people's community, instead of fomenting the ruinous and blood soaked Marxist struggle between them. For this, the term "communitarianism" is quite fitting, as the end goal of everything is the harmonizing and strengthening of the (German) people's community to increase its fitness for the eternal struggle between the races for (collective) survival and dominance across the ages.

[@Trench_Foot]

@@axelhopfinger533 Very well put!

[@adeptus2714]

Fascism is a collectivist ideology focused on collective identity, whereas communitarianism is focused on small communities. Fascism invokes community when it is convenient but forces communities to comply with their ideological doctrines in a top down manner, just like how the Nazis did with private businesses.

[@Rsoqwerty]

​@@axelhopfinger533 fanfic

[@RomanLowery-pw3we]

Um, people can be individuals and members of a group at the same time.

[@techpriest6962]

Don't tell that to a Libertarian, they'll go berserk.

[@bendover8477]

@@techpriest6962imagine being in favor of aggression 🤭

[@Windy-Pie_is_best_girl]

Oddly enough, I think libertarians are aware of that.

[@gabenorman747]

@@RomanLowery-pw3we not relevant to the video at all.

[@Presuppositonal_Libertarianism]

The problem with leftist aka nazi thinking is that it equivocates on being a member of a group as having an interest in the group. Your other comments about individual... then family... then community.. then race, is a non-sequitar. You can take any arbitrary trait or collection of them, as in the case of race, and some individuals will be members of it and other won't. Leftists then treat individuals as if they're part of the hive-mind of that group. That's the problem. Does it make sense for me to care about someone attacking me? Probably. Does it make sense for me to care about someone attacking my biological brother? In my specific case, probably, for other people naunce will make it so it probably doesn't. Does it make sense for me to care about a stranger being attacked, just because they share given traits with me such skin colour, or hair colour, or maybe they like the same film as me, or whatever other arbitrary trait you want to magic up. The anwser is no, it's not rational. So an individual is a member of, in theory, and infinite number of groups that exist in distinction to individuals who don't fit that group. But the thing in question is if that has any relevance. The anwser is that it doesn't. Individual need only care about themselves, and other individuals who have a direct impact on their existence. Anything else is completely irrational and just conditioned belief. Caring about the imaginary "aryan race" is no more logical than the globalists who think everyone needs to be under one monolithic system of government to care for everyone. That's why nazis are no different to the idiotic leftists of today, thinking there's such things as the LGBTQ or black community or anything else. There is no black hive-mind, there is no white hive-mind, there is no gay hivemind, so if an individual has one of these traits, it doesn't follow even remotely that another individual sharing this trait will have any relevance or complementariness to them whatsoever. That's what you don't understand, being part of a group isn't actually a triat that exists per se, not on the individual level. You're equivocating on real objective traits individuals actually possess (ie. their physical traits) and comparative traits (ie. how that individual compares to other individuals, so race does exist sure you get statistical clustering of traits, but it doesn't exist on the individual level ie. if every single white person was eliminated bar 1, there is zero ontological difference actually made to that individual).

[@RomanLowery-pw3we]

No, survival of the fittest is not a doctrine of individualism. Cooperation might be the best way to survive. "Survival of the fittest says that we're all individuals" is a false statement.

[@levongevorgyan6789]

No, it's not. Cooperation is necessary sure, but so is competition.

[@bendover8477]

Both are necessary to a certain extent for a society to function

[@dmctztv3842]

@@levongevorgyan6789 and competition happens also in group vs group

[@levongevorgyan6789]

@@dmctztv3842 Gombe Chimpanzee war moment, eh.

[@emiliobellenzier3760]

​@@dmctztv3842 No, competition occurs between individuals, this can be seen when looking for a partner, they compete against another member of the same species to pass on THEIR OWN genes, not those of "the group", their own.

[@ms1535]

I’ve been watching your videos since your series on Stalingrad. I’m so glad you decided to delve into the Political side of the ideologies involved.

[@whisped8145]

"I only wanted to know why they made stupid decisions on the battlefield... I don't know how we got to Weimar and Hyperborea!"

[@postumus77]

Sorry TIK, initially i was a big supporter in you ignoring the "stick to tanks crowd". But honestly, this channel has felt like it's stuck in quicksand, maybe you're just more engaging when it comes to more concrete facts like battles and strategies, than you are at philosophy, metaphysics or political theory. But either way, I'm unsubbing.

[@acem82]

"Charity just rewards bad bahaviour and incentivizes people to stay in the gutter." If you have a poor definition of "charity", such as "giving poor people stuff", then sure. If you have a good definition, such as "helping someone to get back on their own feet", then this statement is completely wrong. It's also more evidence of the cult of Objectivism that has overcome TIK.

[@jdlightsey]

I'm sure he has perfectly sound reasoning to explain how Patreon donations aren't charity/altruism. I think the old days of TIK providing incredibly detailed and insightful blow-by-blow analysis of WW2 battles are over.

[@Br1cht]

@@jdlightsey The Cattle loves this prattle&blather because it makes them feel good and ofc his beloved Patreon bux is just holy, for him. This is such Boomerism, after the Coof any sane person should known what´s up but Boomers be Boomers.

[@mouisehay930]

@@jdlightsey Patreon functions here as an optional payment for services rendered you idiot

[@g4blouay444]

When you were talking about the mother who do take care of her children it’s a animal instinct.

[@dixiefiend]

😂😂😂

[@jfkst1]

Cooperation is an integral component of outcompeting other population groups. There is scientific fact of heritability among population groups and ignoring that is why many gov. policies fail.

[@AOT_HxH95]

It was Hitler that started the whole all Germans are the same. As someone who is personally fascinated with German history, it became clear to me early on that Germans in different regions had their own cultures. With the Empire, Germans living in each of the kingdoms, duchies, grand duchies, principalities, and free cities each had their own traditions and culture. This was true even within the Kingdom of Prussia and its many provinces where for example, Prussians in the Province of Silesia identified first as Silesian and Prussian over a unified “German”. Even today Bavaria still is basically its own country within Germany. It’s just like here in the States. People from Ohio like myself have nothing in common with people from Oregon.

[@Iron_Wyvern]

He absolutely did not view all Germans as being the same. He even thought that the Germans left over from the mass German immigration to the Americas during the 1800s were of a lesser stock than the ones in America.

[@ConsueloWubba]

There was nothing conservative about the nutzis. They wanted to wipe out all the little cultures that proceeded it and devour everyone and slap coat of red paint on it, calling gErMaaNY

[@Sphynra]

Wasn't that started in the revolutions of 1848 and somewhat applied by Bismarck?

[@AOT_HxH95]

@ No. the North German Confederation was led by Prussia but had various states with their own monarchs.

[@JHouston62]

I'm surprised it didn't happen around when they unified or during World War 1, I listened to Omnipotent Government by Mises which admittedly was written during the war and as such had a justifiably but still clear negative view of the Germans and he argues that their nationalism was a bit older than that. Apparently they corrupted the idea of self determination into it and by the time their Kaiser Wilhelm the second got into power their whole educated elite had fallen into it. They had the idea to unite the Hapsburg state, conquer the Swiss, Dutch, etc and basically do the whole land in the east thing in the mid late 1800s, supposedly with annexing the French and British colonies and enough of South America to settle 30 million Germans too

[@spambot_gpt7]

Animals are much smarter than you think.

[@thethinkingman5645]

"No no im so much different like see how much of a clever and a good person i am, now give me power to do good" Nietzsche figured these people out over a century ago

[@sillypuppy5940]

The ability to count is widespread amongst animals, and a select few understand the concept of zero, a thing previously thought unique to humans. Crows are particularly intelligent, and despite having no hands, can make tools, combining otherwise useless objects to achieve an objective.

[@elaqgarahulelpon1479]

Restating some of the things he disagreed with kinda puts it into perspective "Foxes are animals though. To think they are not is misguided. Foxes are different from non-fox animals however." (slightly different 21:46) There is no reason to think this statement is contradictory, but suddenly if you put "Human" there it is? Sure, a "Human" isn't on the same level as a Fox, but neither is a worm on the same level as a Fox, but they are still animals regardless of mental capacity. The objection applies more to "Humans behave like other animals" rather than "Humans are animals"

[@Neakob]

Sure random bot, sure

[@spambot_gpt7]

@@Neakob Boop Beeep Booop

[@thomasjamison2050]

TIk has the largest selection of straw man arguments of anyone I know.

[@Spartan322]

TIK more so doesn't understand the philosophy behind fatalism (and consciousness) while trying to argue against it, while I like his philosophical investigations, they are routinely rife with category errors and poor understanding.

[@aleksazunjic9672]

He lacks basic logic training, that is for sure.

[@JustWantedToGrill]

It's really quite impressive.

[@easteuropecollusion468]

TIK attacking furries and arguing for the cyborg's humanity in the video about NS. An absolute gem.

[@erdachtzumuntergang]

I generally doubt that Zoran represents the average third-positionist. Then again, I would lie if I claimed that autistic neets are not overrepresented in radical ideologies of any kind.

[@sosia3110]

zoran has made good videos but he is a clown like fuentes and many others

[@MaciejKalandyk]

The claim that national socialists are not revolutionaries is nonsensical, as revolutionaries are by definition those who support radical change. What they are demanding is radically different from the status quo; hence, they are revolutionaries. And so are libertarians and every single group whose ideas fall far outside the status quo.

[@Trent-m6j]

Nobody is revolutionary because nobody is shooting at leo. The most revolutionary idea in this hemisphere is narco-statism. They've actually wrestled significant territory away from their governments and are running it.

[@thulyblu5486]

Common misunderstanding about evolution: Survival of the fittest is not about individuals but about genes: It's survival of the fittest gene and has different implications - "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins explains this very well.

[@lainiwakura1776]

We really should change that to the survival of the most adaptable.

[@pseudohacker]

@@lainiwakura1776actually not. Adaptability may be a fittest “fit” in certain circumstances but not in all. Thus, survival of the fittest is the name of the game.

[@Brosowski]

Hey Tik, just wanted to ask you a question regarding the Left vs. Right debate of which side of the Spectrum the Nazis fall into. Do you believe in the Horseshoe theory of the Political Spectrum? If so, then would you still stay confident in your past assessments? If not, would you care to explain why?

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I no longer believe in the Left-Right political spectrum or any spectrum for that matter. I think we should look at each movement on a policy by policy basis and judge accordingly. That said, I still think the Nazis are very similar to Marxists. Check out some of my recent posts on Twitter on this topic: x.com/TIKhistory/status/1866139447927931014 x.com/TIKhistory/status/1866162571348464005

[@aktuellyattee8265]

The horseshoe theory is just silly, both nazism and communism are left-wing. We only call nazis right-wing because of propagandization.

[@Alte.Kameraden]

@@Brosowski Horseshoe theory exist to explain/hide the flews in the Left vs Right Spectrum and is contributing to decades of confusion and contradictions when trying to explain similarities/differences between Fascist, Nazis and Marxist. I personally think the Horseshoe Theory is basically rubbish, it exist to continue Denialism. It only exist as an excuse to call one left or right.

[@JHouston62]

His political spectrum has the Public on one end and Private on the other, so the marxists and nazis are on the same end since they both have a large public sector based system, the book Killing History goes into more on that

[@Graphene_314]

Horseshoe is just showing the paradox of having nazism and communism on the far sides of a single dimensional chart where they are far more similar to each other than "the center" The question is, where did this idea of nazis being "far right" come from? Tankies that no longer want to be associated with them?

[@DareToWonder]

"You're all individuals!" "We're all individuals!" "I'm not"

[@Box_of_Cox]

Shh!

[@Rongez]

Oh man

[@snakey934Snakeybakey]

I'm Jewish, and I see both capitalism and communism as evil, and attached to the material world (therefore liberal) should I be concerned

[@prdalien0]

Sounds like you're one of the good ones. 🙂

[@georgefitzhugh5408]

"There's no such thing as race," says TIK. He should look at the subtitle of Darwin's The Origin of the Species, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Individual selection is not the theme of the book.

[@jamespfp]

7:50 -- RE: Materialism v. Spiritualism; Fun Fact! This is why Blood is a core concept to the racial philosophies, since they don't distinguish the Blood as being an organ unto itself but rather a semi-mystical spiritual fluid which is presumably linked to the soul and also the identity. This is also why very few political philosophies from the 20th century discuss Genetics and instead focus on Blood as if it still has meaning. But maybe that's my dirty materialist education talking....?

[@algiz21]

I also thought that you can't reincarnate as another race and reincarnation is a very important subject in paganism.

[@Rongez]

Exactly. And they'll interpret each race as having their own racial god - which would mean that mixing is paramount to selling one's soul.

[@_Dovar_]

I hope whatever happened to James Lindsay, hasn't happened to You.

[@EyePatchGuy88]

Sounds like it's too late.

[@JumboCod91]

When describing a lot of what the NS, object to; materialism, hyper individualism, sexual degeneracy or deviancy, certain ethnic/religious minority groups exerting an unsettling amount of power and influence in society and government policy... it feels a lot like he's just describing traditionalists, or "regressive" conservatives. This is a problem, because the NS were not conservative in the slightest, even though there may be some overlap, for the simple reason that they were first and foremost the ultimate products of modernity, and revolutionary progressivists. If objecting to sexual deviancy makes you a NS, simply because you object to extreme and exuberant forms of pathological narcissism, then I'm afraid 99% of the world is NS... which is obviously untrue. It almost sounds like he's opposing traditionalism without any clear motive other than muh libertarian, and using NS as a weak strawman... Sad if true.

[@_Dovar_]

@JumboCod91 He's simply a hyper-individualist of one kind or another. Which is an extremely rare worldview in all history, usually found in decadent societies. Nearly all other possible ideologies, religions or ways of life are moderately or strongly collectivist - as society cannot survive without it.

[@gabenorman747]

@@_Dovar_ Are you seriously trying to defend nazism? That would make you a moral relativist who supports terrorism and woke racism.

[@iratezombiemann]

There is no act so selfish as to resign your rights, and therefore often the rights of all your future progeny, just to satisfy your selfish sense of altruism.

[@Harmonic_shift]

Why don’t you criticize Muslims or Jews for acting in the same way? I’m confused what your issue with collectivism is and why you don’t have criticism toward those groups. It doesn’t make sense to me and seems hyper hypocritical.

[@IamaCosmonaut]

To anyone who doesn't understand the "humans are not animals" argument let me dumb it down to you. Scientifically speaking humans may be categorized as animals but philosophically speaking humans are not animals. Philosophically anmal here refers to a living creature who's behaviour is animalistic, someone who is completely controlled by their animalistic instncts rather than their rationality. Human here refers to rational being that can rise above the animalistic behaviour and act rationally.

[@carterghill]

It's not often that I agree with philosophies that make categorically untrue statements to make an exceptional case. In fact, this is a dishonest rhetorical method that falls inline with sophistry more than philosophy. I find it more than a little ironic for TIK in particular to insist on something that's factually untrue instead of just being straightforward in his philosophical point, and for his often skeptical followers to support him in the endeavour.

[@KT-pv3kl]

defining animals by being "animalistic" is circular reasoning as you have given no clear definition of either term. no animal is "completely controlled" by their instincts even simple organisms such as insects make individual decisions that arent based purely on instinct and they have less than a thousand neurons if they are lucky. higher animals like social mammals make this assertion even more of a joke as they have proven time and time again to have highly individual and highly complex and dynamic intellect. capable of making decisions that go far beyond any instinct. your closing statement is again circular as you have not given a definition for "rational" that would necessarily exclude animals from being capable of being rational. if we go by the classic definition of "rational" pretty much every mammal and certainly all social mammals can make rational decisions.

[@Hyp3rborean]

So you mean that a person "who's behaviour is animalistic, someone who is completely controlled by their animalistic instncts rather than their rationality." is completley fine to murder, because its only an animal? Or what specific trait are you looking for?

[@reasonablespeculation3893]

A well trained dog can rise above its animalistic behavior. Even willfully sacrificing itself it protect it's human.

[@RexNicolaus]

@@reasonablespeculation3893 “Well trained” is the key phrase. It takes outside influence to teach an animal something that a human can do. Animals can’t form governments, build complex structures, ponder on philosophy… it’s not hard to differentiate humans from animals.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

As an actual anarchist, I just oppose all political parties. Only position for a sane person, because all political systems fail on the large scale.

[@384Freak]

I weirdly agree and disagree

[@gsmiro]

Are we discussing Calvinism? Starting from 17:19?

[@Hyp3rborean]

No, he is just discussing a straw man against idealists which he has straw manned on to Nazis. In any case, Calvinism is more inclined towards compatibilism than determinism

[@coltonregal1797]

From what I understand, he has a very dim view of Christianity because of some bad experiences a friend had. He did a video on it a while back.

[@colonel__klink7548]

The whole "I have a robo brain' thing was where this really fell off. No, no you don't have a robo brain, you have a meat brain. You have a very sophisticated animal brain but it's still an animal. your motivations are still centered around your "instincts." Eat, sleep, socialize, mate, and yes even self sacrifice for the continuation of the community / species itself. It's wrong to think evolution is merely an individual thing, it's also a GROUP thing. Dead families pass on no genes. By your conscious mind you mean your capacity to PROBLEM SOLVE, and you problem solve to achieve things your meat brain tells you is important. You are driven by your instincts just like a cat, you just can problem solve a million times better, and your problem solving is so fantastical that your instinctual motivations can be extremely abstracted.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

What do you mean by "robo brain"? I never said that. And again, we are biological creatures, but since we are able to conceptualise, we are separated from the animals. Outside of car crashes and the like, we do not rely on our "instincts". You are presenting a empiricist or an ideological (idealist) argument that simply denies the human mind. If all you do is 'instictually' react to things, I feel sorry for you. You might be a dog, or a feral child, but the rest of us use our brains, and I would encourage you to do so too. Problem solving is not merely "instincts", nor "mechanical processes", nor "animal spirits".

[@AverageAlien]

@@TheImperatorKnight Plenty of other animals match our intelligence or come close to it, such as dolphins or other apes. We are animals. You are an animal whether you like it or not. Any basic dictionary will reveal this fact.

[@colonel__klink7548]

​@@TheImperatorKnight I think there's a misunderstanding here. "instinctually do things" in your mind refers to what most people would colloquially call a reflex. By instinct I mean as an example when you are hungry you will start to think about food and as that hunger grows it becomes increasingly difficult to think anything but. Your conscious mind is the problem solving apparatus, that instinct to feed yourself is the motivator, the objective for that problem solving apparatus. To argue that you are in any way separate from these biological hooks is outright foolish. What you think about, why you think about that thing and HOW you think about that thing are all determined by your current biological state. Your instincts push and pull and are your motivators in the world. There is no logic without these hooks in reality, as we have seen with "AI" experiments when all things are considered without any weights of importance then everything going into the logical kernel is of equal importance and produces an output of useless garbage. Just by being bored even considerations of risk will change dramatically as the weights of the inputs into your logic kernel have changed. You are not free of your animal self, you are not free of your instincts. Those things are an intrinsic part of what makes you so sophisticated and capable of navigating the world.

[@spambot_gpt7]

@@TheImperatorKnight Jordan Peterson said it best: It is in our interest to act as if free will exists. Free will is not a scientific concept, but a pragmatic political concept. It makes sense to implement consequences for bad actions in order to reduce bad actions. It works. That's enough. Free will doesn't mean we are radically different from dogs. We are not very different. They are smarter than you think and have the same feelings we have. I get what you are trying to say, but maybe leave the animals alone when you are criticizing determinism.

[@colonel__klink7548]

@@spambot_gpt7 The fascinating thing is that the way the brain works is that it's not exactly input equals output. Not only is it best to treat as free will exists, but it's also quite probable all considered. We have the motivators in the brain, the "instincts" but they really don't determine the course of action. The brain is constantly firing signals. Most of this is "noise." It's like... a probability field at best but even that's a poor descriptor. It's quite fascinating, neurons send signals because they feel like it and others repeat the signal or ignore it because they feel like it. It's not a linear logic structure, it's something else entirely which is likely where free will comes from. What's extra special about this is in spite of all this random firing and "wasted energy" the human brain only consumes about 20 watts of energy. At most 100 in a real problem solving mode (it can't keep that pace long. ) However we see 2 kilowatt computers struggle to take a humanoid body and walk it around a warehouse, much less actually run the warehouse and it's contents like a 20watt human brain does.

[@nyogtheeldritchgentleman]

19:44 if this is true then this kills the argument the Nazis were ever truly Christian. At the core of our belief is God wants an authentic relationship with us which is why he gave us free will. There would no need to die on the cross for our sins if everything was predetermined.

[@carterghill]

Can I give you some polite push-back on the "humans are animals" debate? I guess to summarize your point: humans have conscious brains that can overrule instinct and are capable of long-term decision-making, which is a very special and unique thing. Fair? My counterpoint, would be that special and unique properties simply don't dispute the assertion. Take the Mantis Shrimp for example: there is no other animal in the world that can match its visual spectrum (16 cones), which allows them to see some ultraviolet and infrared, detect camouflage, gives them faster reflexes (through faster color processing), and night vision. Their vision is absolutely extraordinary and unmatched in the animal kingdom - but I think we agree that it would be silly to take it out of the animal category on that basis, right? Of course we wouldn't, it does nothing to address the reason we call the mantis shrimp an animal at all. It's an animal because it's a Malacostraca, which is a Crustacea, which is an Arthropoda, which belong in the animal kingdom. Likewise, humans are animals because they're great apes, which are primates, which are mammals, which are chordates, which are animals. I think I understand the point you're really trying to get at: I agree humans are special and unique in our decision-making, and it's important to remember that and not use that fact that we're animals with animalistic urges as an excuse for inhuman(e) behavior. I really respect this point and I would hate to see it get lost in translation. The problem, is when you run a channel that so highly values research and fact-checking, and frankly quite a well-curated culture of debate in the comments, and then you say something that is categorically untrue to support a point? What you're doing is actually a named (and dishonest) rhetorical tool. Special-pleading: making an unjustified exception to a rule, usually in support of a particular point (or to plead a special case, if you will). I don't actually think it's that big a deal, but I do value what you were trying to get at and I hate to see you get caught in dishonest thinking without realizing it I guess. It's just really strange I guess to die on the hill of "humans aren't animals" specifically instead of backing off of that and choosing to die on the hill of the greater point at hand.

[@KT-pv3kl]

the first point is already wrong. its not unique. many animals have conscious brains and can overrule instinct as can be seen in cats and dogs for instance and long term decision making is also pretty well documented in many species of mammals and birds. the "humans are animals" argument is based on science and classifications. we are by definition animals and everyone that disputes that fact needs to employ the scientific method to disprove centuries of research in multiple fields and not use cheap rhetorical tricks or sophistry.

[@carterghill]

@@KT-pv3kl I was gonna mention that as well but, well for one thing I didn't want my comment to be unbearably long lol, but also, even though you're absolutely right that dogs can overrule instinct, I still think there's still something special about the human brain even compared to dogs. So, I guess it doesn't feel right for me personally to dispute it that way. Also much of that ability for dogs to overrule their instinct comes from humans. Same for long term planning, it's like yeah a squirrel has long term planning, but it also seems like instinct for it to store nuts. And also, instinct or not, the potential for human planning is practically immeasurable. Take farmers for example, there's so much creative thinking involved in solving day-to-day problems already, yet ask any farmer about their plans for any aspect of their farm and they will gladly talk your ear off about all the years to come. I dunno I mean you're absolutely right, there are examples of long-term thinking and overruling instinct, but but maybe to me it seems like instinct is still the driver, humans might be the first time where conscious thought could be the primary controller, and *that's* what's unique. What do you think?

[@techpriest6962]

You can push back, but TIK won't listen. In one ear and out the other as he has done in the past.

[@markfeijo8177]

Hey TIK, I’ve been a long time subscriber and regular viewer of your channel and it was a pleasure listening to this video (I have watched basically every one of your videos you’ve released in the last 2-3 years except some of your battlestorms) I wanted to ask if you could elaborate more on you talking about charity. In this video you said at 31:54 that “You can only help those who want to help themselves, and if they want to help themselves, they don’t need your help. Charity just rewards bad behavior, and incentivizes people to stay in the gutter.” Now I agree with the argument that you can’t help people that don’t want to help themselves. For example, if you lead a thirsty man in a desert to a source of fresh water and he refuses to drink from it to quench his thirst, you can’t force him to drink it (I mean you technically could but that would be immoral). The part I want you to elaborate on is when you said “Charity just rewards bad behavior, and incentivizes people to stay in the gutter.” I want you to clarify exactly what you mean because it seems like you are painting with too broad of a brush when you say that. There are people in this world who do contribute to society and that do and would benefit greatly from people being charitable (by the definition of charitable being assisting those in need). For example, a person who works and contributes to society will get into a car accident and suffer very expensive injuries that they simply cannot afford to pay in order to get healthy and be able to work again (and a big reason they cannot afford to pay because of the inflationary policies and poor economics our governments practiced that you have helped to open my eyes too). Now let’s say someone decides by their own will to help that person pay off their medical bills (being charitable). I don’t see how that incentivizes him to stay in the gutter (which the man who was injured isn’t technically in but he will be eventually because he won’t be able to pay his bills because he can’t work). He wants to contribute to society (help himself), but his injuries won’t allow it. Him receiving that donation from the charitable man helped him get healed up and back to work, because he not only wants to pay his bills but he wants to be a contributing member of society and live a good life. I am pretty sure you are coming at this in good faith. I just want you to clarify a bit more because that statement made it seem like you said being charitable doesn’t work to help people. Thank you and I look forward to your response.

[@anton2192]

Technically speaking all selfless acts are made because of selfishness. You want a reward for it, but not necessarily a physical one like money or food. You satisfy you conscience, which is a reward in and of itself.

[@golagiswatchingyou2966]

18:16 you don't punish people thinking they won't do it in the future, you punish people by removing them from society and giving a warning to others that this will happen to them if they do this as well.

[@vicvinegar5709]

He goes from admitting that when he was a socialist he saw conservatives & Nazis as 2 sides of the same coin, but now that he’s a free market guy, he’s just completely flipped his dogmatism to say socialists & Nazis are 1 & the same. Unable to see the bigger picture, unable to see divine plurality in the world - the mark of a wayward European who’s lost connection to the Aryan soul.

[@bruceruzicka6089]

TIK, if they could give IQ tests to chimpanzees and Gorillas, our closest cousins in the animal kingdom, I believe that some chimpanzees and gorillas would score just as high or higher than some humans.

[@WhiteSnot]

Someone like TIK would never acknowledge this because it would lead to an admission in the difference between races.

[@thulyblu5486]

42:06 "The concept of survival of the fittest undermines the idea of the racial collective because evolutionary competition is inherently individualistic" - This is factually incorrect I'm sorry to say and a misunderstanding of biology. Let me explain: Survival of the fittest individual could explain a lot but there were a lot of inexplicable phenomena like self-sacrificing behavior, exclusively homosexual individuals and the degree of cooperation between individuals (especially family members) not just in humans also animals. That was resolved in the 1970ies by biologist Richard Dawkins who realized that it's only indirectly about the individual but directly about the survival of genes. Individuals don't make copies of themselves, thus they can't be selected, mathematically it cannot work. Genes make perfect copies of themselves and they are the units of selection. Therefore genes must be the selfish ones hence the title of his book "the selfish gene". With sexual reproduction those genes are shuffled like a deck of cards into a new individual. This has implications on what the optimal strategy is: Indiviudals in your community have 99.9% identical genes which I will call the base rate of similarity. So the selfish thing to do for the genes is to cooperate sometimes and compete other times depending on the rate of genetic similarity. Identical twins have 100% guarantee of identicals genes - always cooperate. Parents/children have a 50% guarantee of identical genes, the other 50% only have the base rate - therefore cooperate a lot with your parents but also cooperate always as a parent (since children are the ONLY chance for genetic reproduction). Brothers have 25% guarantee, 75% base rate: therefore cooperate, but there's also sibling rivalry. Random people in your community have 0% guarantee and only the base rate: therefore some cooperation for mutual benefit but significant rivalry. And foreigners have a lower base rate: cooperate even less than random people of your community hence xenophobia and racism. (In today's globalized word we are all in the same gene pool, therefore you can argue that racism is wrong) This model makes a lot of mathematical predictions about how individuals should interact based on the genetics of reproduction and it fits way, way better than individual selection. It's still the dominant model in biology today. It's not survival of the fittest individual, it's survival of the fittest gene. Each individual human has around 20.000 genes. Those temporarily team up in an individual as their survival vehicle but when it comes to reproduction or violent conflict there's the hardest competition: all is fair in love and war. It explains why people get jealous and cheating on your partner is felt to be so serious, it explains why you help family more than strangers and why people sometimes sacrifice themselves: it's just genes being selfish when it rescues more identical genes than it kills. It's mathematically inevitable that genes who have that effect will reproduce more effectively. Dawkins explains this better than me in "the selfish gene" . It's understandable by a layman's audience (he's a science communicator) it's a worldview changing read. Side quest in this one was the realization that genes are not the only pieces of self-replicating information to which those mathematics apply. Ideas also replicate through speech in human brains, thus he coined the term "meme" as the memory equivalent of the gene. Funny internet pictures spreading like a virus on the internet were often given as examples and the meaning of the term "meme" mutated to "funny internet picture". Proves that ideas evolve just as predicted.

[@nocapbussin]

Im 5 min in and I think you are way off the mark. Nazism to the Germans was much more than a political ideology, it tapped into something spiritual. You have to go into the psychology of German culture historically. Thats why its so surface level to just say "Nazi=Bad" without context beyond the modern post war talking points. I find that Brits tend to get most cultures wrong (especially us Americans), because they cant see the world from a non-British perspective. This is a flaw that has cost the English significantly over the course of their empire. Their inability to understand the peoples they conquered was what inevitably led to bad decisions that inevitably led to rebellions and costly wars that had the Brits not held their noses up they could have been more Machiavellian in how they ruled... But they didnt because they had a superiority complex, so much so that even self analysis was taboo if that analysis was negative. Example? Just about every single thing Winston Churchill ever did. Another example? The purchasing of British Army Officer commissions. Anyone with any semblance of integrity or intelligence would have said letting people who have no military experience purchase their way into military leadership is a bad idea, but not to the British who still to this day look down upon most even as their own nation is overrun and overwhelmed with hostiles. I digress, to understand the rise of the Nazis and Hitler, you must understand Germans going back to the times of Rome where almost every tribe in Gaul, including the Romans themselves, were horrified of the Germans who were tall and prided themselves on a warrior culture. Carl Jung made the interesting statement that Adolf Hitler was "Possessed by the spirit of Wotan/Odin", many soldiers of the Wermacht and Waffen SS saw themselves as warriors fighting because they were warriors... Thats very different than fighting for a political ideology. Thats something that is spiritual. We in the Christian West have had our understanding of spiritual matters muddied and skewed by Christian morality and so its almost impossible for many westerners to understand a spiritual drive inside a man that makes him desire to be a warrior, and its because of that inability to understand that psychology that they dismiss it and classify it as something political. And so I think you are completely off the mark in this video.

[@gabenorman747]

Wall of text to defend mass murder. Sad!

[@Skalgrim]

I would like to say that I think your understanding of why Nazis and or Conservatives call both Liberalism and Communism the same thing is a little incorrect. Liberalisms core ideals are the same as Communisms as Marx made communism as a fix for the very real issues of Liberalism. For further understanding on the subject I would recommend Carl Benjamin and the Lotus Eaters many videos analysing the connection from a traditionalist conservative POV as Carl who has a degree in Philosophy is a good start to understand this view.

[@thulyblu5486]

Not really. Classical liberalism's ideal: equality of opportunity. Marxism's ideal: equality of outcome. These are not compatible. In a race you can't start at the same line and have everybody finish at the same line too. Those cannot work together.

[@techpriest6962]

Expecting a libertarian not to be conceited is like trying to find a penny in a sewer. Sure you can find many, but you'll dig through a lot of S first.

[@newcarsmell3813]

Imagine recommending that twat, Carl, for an honest discussion. You clowns never learn.

[@emiliobellenzier3760]

Wtf?

[@emiliobellenzier3760]

​@@techpriest6962 Sincerely: An antisocial

[@cellcenter2831]

You’re the absolute MAN for writing your own subtitles. What a life-saver! YT auto-generated sucks! 😂

[@techpriest6962]

Typical anarchist, masquerading at being an enlightened libertarian. Would love to elaborate, but when every comment is [Terminated] there isn't much I can do there. Funny though, how would you solve this problem? Alone you cannot solve problems on the collective level.

[@bendover8477]

He’s not an anarchist though? Clearly you haven’t watched his channel much, as he has a video explaining why he’s not an ancap. Also what’s wrong with anarchism? A society that’s based solely on voluntary action, association, and non-aggression would be far superior to the state-run societies we see today.

[@epeeypen]

so wrong on the idea that you dont have a duty. you have a duty to your sisters child. you have a duty to the family.. and ur family has a duty to the tribe

[@thulyblu5486]

Yes. Biology predicts that by the way. It's not individualistic as he states: it's about survival of the fittest gene, not the fittest individual - common misunderstanding.

[@epeeypen]

@@thulyblu5486 fundamentally people do not understand what national socialism is because they are so focused on trying to argue against it.. and no one actually stands up and argues for it.

[@techpriest6962]

It's funny how his selfish ideology is so bad, it makes every ideology he critiques look good in comparison.

[@rafalpalma]

I don't like when we use word duty to describe every obligation. Taking care of your family is objective moral obligation to take responsibility. There is moral obligation to not harm others and to do good. But duty to the tribe is actually not the same as normal moral obligation. Slaughtering Comanche woman and children is wrong even if it good for the Apache. Ultimately duty to a tribe is not moral since no tribe is morally better or worse than the other.

[@epeeypen]

@@rafalpalma I get what you are saying but that is just duty being defined by the tribes morality.

[@jonavinvail7585]

So, I've been doing a deeper dive into my faith. Christianity is NOT JUST autuistic, it doesn't just ask for sacrifice to others, it also requires you to accept help from others even if your pride doesn't want it. It's actually my issue right now trying to except help from others even as a homeless man. Paul says for us to accept blessings from others or we are taking their blessing away from them in the spirit. Christ himself gave a lot, but excepted the love of others as well through their donations. It's more of a healthy balance than you'd expect honestly. Thank you for giving me more of a reason to better understand my faith, I hope you keep blessing me with great content, and I hope blesses you with good fortune❤ And forgive me for spelling, mobile user

[@DrHavoc49]

Question for TIK: at the end of the video, you talk about how communities such as lgbtq, nationalist, etc. are forms of collectivism. And i do agree with you about that. but what about communites of voluntary cooperation? Such as private communites that trade with one another. Would it be collectivism if I am part of the private community ? Or if i would want to defend the community? I would have an incentive to do so since I am mutually benefit from being in the community.

[@emiliobellenzier3760]

Not really, you don't subordinate your individuality to them, the other groups require the complete subordination of your individuality.

[@DrHavoc49]

@emiliobellenzier3760 alright, thanks for clarification

[@Shad0wack]

Im not watching 40 minutes of this but im expecting something along the lines of "How can nazism be congruent if Adolf didnt have blond hair, checkmate nazis"

[@ethanarnold4441]

This is probably your most enlightening video yet, TIK! Keep up the great work!

[@cipherstormwolf14]

TIK: "Animals do not think longterm." > a squirrel was offended at that 🤣🤣 I just had to write that, you are right thou. There is more to it.

[@deepcosmiclove]

As a squirrel I couldn't agree more and am deeply offended.

[@EarlHildebrandt]

​@@deepcosmicloveThe squirrel substitutes volume of action for cunning, like a juggler who keeps enough balls in the air that at least one is always in the right position. Mostly though, I just want them to clear out of the bird feeder after they've had their fair share.

[@sillypuppy5940]

nuts to that

[@anti-spiral159]

Also there is a parasite of an insect that has a reproductive cycle of 13 years because the insect they prey on has that cycle of 13 years too

[@janehrahan5116]

YOU FUCKED WITH SQUIRELS TIK

[@thearctichistorian]

I theorize that Hitler viewed the racial group more as a collective than as a group of individuals. That would make his social Darwinism slightly more sensible, as it would be the races themselves struggling against each other rather than the individual in that race.

[@KT-pv3kl]

pretty sure thats what he wrote in his book.

[@junfour]

Well... duh? That's like the first thing, the thing that defines the whole ideology. If someone asked me to tell them what natsoc is, that is what I would tell them.

[@CivilizedWasteland]

I feel like you would appreciate the book 'Fascism Viewed by the Right' by Julius Evola even if you don't agree with some of his views.

[@rcwagon]

About DUTY: my father's sometimes cited favorite poem regarding many occurrences at work (I knew the source once, this part predates Paul Kantner and Jefferson Starship - my father never listened to rock). "Hide, Hide Witch. The GOOD folk come to burn thee. Their keen enjoyment hid behind the gothic mask of duty." Reflection of duty as a mask to hide ones real intentions is different than the duty others insist that you have for them.

[@Ro-qp8rb]

-"as a free market guy" -*start strawmaning for 5 minutes

[@WhiteSnot]

A lot of your beliefs become obvious when you start talking about your personal life, (not having kids, not being religious etc.) There's no changing in what you believe especially with how late you are in your life, but I will say this, you aren't as smart as you think you are ;)

[@Kirasupporter1]

Yeah I am sure a pink hair who goes by the name whitesnot is the pinnacle of intellect

[@Momie_et_Masque]

Hi TIK, interesting video to fight such dangerous ideologies through logic and reason. However, I think I've found a flaw in one of your arguments that may make it weaker if confronted to nazis and their ideology. You described "survival of the fittest" as not altruistic towards other individuals ; that's true. But how does that contradict collectivism and anti-individualism? On the contrary, survival of the fittest individuals would in nazi logic benefit the collective, the group, the race, and survival of the fittest race would benefit humanity. Competition against other individuals does not necessarily mean competition against the collective. How would individuals "competing biologically" be fighting the race? They would in fact (if nazi theory assumed true) be working collectively to the biological darwinistic development, strengthening, evolution of the collective.

[@gbcb8853]

Delve into the Prisoner’s Dilemma to see that (in simulations) an few Co-operating individuals can eventually dominate the scenario. Co-operation need not mean altruism.

[@algiz21]

You see. Eugenics is good.

[@axelhopfinger533]

Especially if the collective (society) implements a framework of rules (laws, customs) which actually promote Darwinian principles, but without the need for selfish competition between individuals against the interests of the collective. Rather, promoting a healthy and beneficial type of competitiveness between individuals for the greater good of society. Like allocating more material resources, privileges and social capital to individuals of proven exceptional physical/genetic qualities, abilities and individual achievements, encouraging and enabling them to procreate more, while simultaneously systematically disincentivising those on the bottom rungs of genetic fitness, ability and achievement from doing so? Aka. eugenics. Wouldn't that increase the Darwinian promotion of genetic fitness within a collective population over time? Because as our current state of society shows, it has dire consequences to suspend any mechanisms of natural selection over a longer period of time, without implementing any corrective replacement mechanisms on a collective level. Eventually, the accumulation of maladaptive mutations within the population reaches unsustainable levels, endangering the very survival of society.

[@gbcb8853]

@ Don’t mention Caesarean Section for birth.

[@belthesheep3550]

TIK my guy, humans *are* animals. Taxonomically speaking that is. We're intelligent, yes, but we're not plants, or archaea, or some other type of lifeform. We're hominids, mammals, chordates, animals.

[@KT-pv3kl]

given the behavior of the average human i will dispute the assertion that we are intelligent...

[@Personaless]

Ah, but in mind and spirit we are not, did you know the Nazis were bad because they were idealists rather than materialists?

[@warrix8312]

So by your definition, every religion is also Materialistic because they don't reject Science. This is just a strawman of anti-Materialism, it's not about rejecting literally everything in the mortal world.

[@DarthRamzes]

I find the argument consciousness =/= animal very interesting. I wonder what should we call those animal we suspect could be conscious such as orcas, who proved long term thinking and cognitive skills? And the similar observations within chimpanzee colonies. If theoretically we find proof of their consciousness are they automatically not animals anymore?

[@spikeshartell4675]

22:22 except we are animals, great apes to be more specific,(and obviously APEX among them). Yes we're more intelligent than the other animals and yes I'd agree we have a level of consciences unrivaled by other species except maybe for Dolphins but we are still living beings like everything else that walks or swims on this blue rock of ours.

[@נקניק-ה4ד]

But we are so much better then them we need to seperate ourselvs from those cows

[@Reierkroete]

I am three minutes in and I have to say it’s not the individualism per se that‘s the problem from my point of view, but the fact that hyperindividualism leads to unstable societies. The trans-ideology for example leads to the breakdown of families and the offspring of a nation. In the long run, highly individualistic societies become unstable and break apart or die out. This is what we see and the process is being accelerated by excessive replacement migration which is favored by both cosmopolitan capitalists and communist/socialist/neo-marxist movements Therefor from my point of view they are both two sides of the same globalist coin.

[@Reierkroete]

I also have to say your argument around minute 8 didn‘t fit that well either. Race is a measurable thing. Genetics alone prove its concept right. And nations are bound together by common history, mythology, culture, language, blood, heritage and character. There‘s a reason that there’s certain character traits associated with people of different nations Borders grow naturally over long timeperiods and to keep alive ones heritage and culture in a nationalistic and non-globalistic way is the only way to preserve our „diversity“. One of the biggest contradictions of globalists is that they preach this diversity but want to get rid of all differences Humans are not all the same. We have different talents and intelligence as individuals but also as a collective in the form of a nation

[@Jose-yt3qz]

@@Reierkroete The thing is that nothing about what you said fully defines someone. If that was true, then you are nothing but your race, nation or whatever. Are you the nation? No? Then that is false. The main issue is that you are actively rejecting individuality for collective mindset, and that is what causes degeneracy. Since all faults stay with the 'collective' and altruism gives 'duty' as its own reward, resentment is bred, that resentment grows up until they blow up and results in shit like Zoltan. You have never any fault, because you never took yourself as the one acting, it is all the group, after all individuality is bad.

[@ninjawizard3865]

​@@ReierkroeteBorderline Nazi thinking mate.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@Reierkroete in how many times has "hyperindividualism" existed?

[@Arkantos117]

@@Reierkroete Don't expect TIK to ever understand race or survival or the fittest or w/e. He said once years ago something along the lines of, "Hitler's beliefs make sense if you believe in race," followed by some worthless national geographic article saying that race doesn't exist to support his own belief. He has to be wilfully blind to maintain his world view.

[@nenadtomanic1211]

TIK I didn’t quite follow: what is your selfish reason for taking in your hypothetical orphaned nephew?

[@capncake8837]

I assume so that his genes are carried on, even if in a diminished form. I can see where he’s coming from with the genetic stuff, as I’ve heard similar things before, but I do think it’s sorta flawed to apply it 100% of the time.

[@JustWantedToGrill]

Man, this really is one of his dumbest videos so far. His arguments are those of a teenager who just discovered libertarianism for the first time and self-righteously mocks every other idea without realizing he has no idea what he's talking about.

[@asgrrr]

This whole debate on whether we are animals or not lacks coherence and is frankly beneath you, Tik. We are humans, the species homo sapiens, which has evolved from earlier species, h. erectus, h. habilis, australopithecus(?) etc. Our species belongs to the kingdom Animalia. Our ancestors undeniably were animals and our evolution was subject to the same natural laws that apply to animals. When did homo graduate from the state of being an animal? On the other hand, our species possesses dramatically unique qualities, especially our advanced brain. On a societal level, it is counterproductive to say the least to treat people as we would treat livestock, thus thinking of humans as animals in this context is inappropriate in many cases at least. This is an argument over definitions, which is rarely helpful.

[@ImperialKnight86]

It still fascinates me how people still don’t understand this. National Socialism hates capitalism and liberalism. I’ve seen speeches of Hitler attacking liberalism. Hitler disliked Marxism, but he also respected Marxism. When Spain had a civil war, he said he wouldn’t care if the Marxists seized power in Spain. He (Hitler) only intervened in the civil war because he was worried that Spain would become a satellite state of the Soviet Union. Otherwise, he didn’t care. Marxism and National Socialism are two sides of the same coin.

[@384Freak]

@@ImperialKnight86 they are really not, and one really has to want to understand them like that to do so. Economically, yes, there are parallels. Ideologically? Hard to make that point without getting to straight up s hoa-relativisation territory

[@Nameless-qe9hu]

I am no third positionist, but I think the argument they were trying to make was that if our brain is made up of physical elements, and we have no control over how such physical elements are arranged (which would require some higher spiritual fourth dimension for which we have no evidence,) then our behaviors are necessarily caused by a force we don't understand. Yes, it's silly to draw that line at race, or to use that as evidence that we are one consciousness or whatever and that we need to collectivize. Decisionmaking can be local (in individuals) and also un-free.

[@whisped8145]

24:30 If you are sick, if you take or lack medicine or drugs, if you lack nutrition, if your hormones are out whack, you will make different decisions, act differently, almost if not entirely a different personality. There may be a constant core, but it will manifest very differently. Your mind and your body are not seperate things. That would mean you believe in being a spirit that only steers your body like a videogame character or biomech. However, our minds, our consciousness is product of and linked in feedback with our nervous system, our nervous system is a bunch of biological cells, attached to the rest of the body. Your brain is an organ, it can get sick, and if damaged can lead to a complete personality change, loss of abilities, etc. The question here really is how far you thought this part through before. Our minds have some control over our decision making and our flesh-mecha, but not 100%. We'd burn out, go mad, if we'd consciously decide on every biological process that has to happen every millisecond, as well as every action throughout the day. Most things are automised (automatised? English always confused me on this one), most things are subconscious. Most animals solely operate on that lower level. We're different in that we have access to higher ones while being able to actively manipulate our world. The combination of big brain and opposable thumbs is really something. We're not stuck in water like squids, with a purely solitary lifestyle - it doesn't lend much to writing, or high energy experiments to be underwater, even if you produce your own ink, does it? If you believe that biology and evolution are real, but that humans are not animals, then please tell me on the chart, at which evolutionary stage humans stopped being animals. Homo Erectus? Before? After? Orang Utans have recently invented to spear fish, btw. The other apes are catching up.

[@AverageAlien]

Pretty weird hill to die on TIK. We are animals. This is simply a fact that cannot be disputed. If we fall under the dictionary definition of an animal, you are an animal. Plenty of other animals match our intelligence or come pretty close, such as dolphins and other apes

[@wanhaliitto]

Aye.

[@mnenoch]

I invite all dolphins and apes to respond to their thoughts on this video now. I'll be waiting....

[@AverageAlien]

@@mnenoch I'll invite you to respond with your thoughts to dolphin communication

[@KT-pv3kl]

@@carterghill what did you expect under the video of a guy who spends 40minutes making wild assertions with not single source in sight to back up his wild claims. tik reminds me more and more of Peter Molyneux

[@markzuckergecko621]

@@mnenoch but I don't have any haaaaands!!!!

[@ThisVids4U-c2w]

15:30 to be fair for Hegelians the contradictions arent a problem because they resolve, Geist only grows.

[@PedroCosta-po5nu]

It's all flawed, because they're all pro-french revolution, to truly be anti system you have to be anti french revolution, you have to be an absolutist, and understand the iron law of oligarchy.

[@chaimnisan2841]

Hi Tik, great video as ever. I agree with pretty much every point of criticism of Nazism and altruism in general. I’m also a Patreon supporter. Honest question: If someone believes that the mind is purely produced by the brain and doesn’t exist outside it, as Ayn Rand did, isn’t that materialism?

[@ZontarDow]

I can sympathies with being upset that you couldn't get to all of someone's videos after finding them, it's why by habit I download the entire library of new channels I take an interest in just in case.

[@IamRayson]

I want to dig into the topic of duty, parents and their children. If parents have no duty to take care of their children, whether that be doing it themselves or placing them in the care of people that can, then there is nothing wrong with child abandonment. And the ancient Greeks and Roman use to do this all the time before the spread of Christianity. Is that position you want to commit to?

[@green_rice]

don't do it because of duty, do it because is the smart choise, aside from the emotional bonds that biologicaly form between parents and sons and the happy and life-changing expiriences that having a child might give you, if you take care of this child properly when he gets old he will take care of you in the future these things usually apply to the most basic things that humans consider "good" like being kind to each other, respecting differences and helping others, these choices are smart because if you don't do them most people of society would reject you, you would end up lonely, and weak, because a lonely human is a weak human in a civilization where we need each other to survive i'm not fully an ancap so idk how much of this would apply in real life but i still believe that you don't need duty in order do good things, most good thing are, if you think about them in the long term, also useful things

[@IamRayson]

@ If we are talking about smart, calculated choices, and duty is removed from the equation, a lot of children are going to be abandoned because of a disability (as the Greeks and Romans did before), if they’re not already aborted.

[@erictrobin]

Finally someone spoke out on this issue!

[@ilikethiskindatube]

stunning and brave

[@polar-metre5138]

Hey tik i love your video, however recently i came across another youtuber called "Fredda" and his video on you. I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

[@KungFuHonky]

This is further evidence that the left-right "model" or continuum is a false construct. There is multiple variables that define a political position. But you can only measure one single variable on a continuum or spectrum. ..And in the left/right idea, the variable which is supposedly being measured is never defined nor agreed upon.

[@RaijinGR]

Excellent thesis TIK, straight to the point, clear and specific, nothing vague. Well done, sir!

[@CHINZIG_UK]

Let's be real with the lgbt stuff..... it's weird.

[@Wobra1]

Don't knock it till you've tried it.

[@Garblegox]

I think your "I am not an animal" point is just an emotional rejection of a basic fact. We are animals. We're the smartest ones, with free will, but we're animals. To say every part of our body is a product of biology and evolution except for our brain is baseless wishful thinking. Just because that idea has been abused, doesn't mean it's fundamentally wrong.

[@thulyblu5486]

It's ironic that his instinct makes him reject this idea without coherent reasoning. It's all non-sequiturs. He says our minds make us human and then quote 20:30 "If you are human, if you use your brain then you are not a breed of dog, you are not (... list of thing's we're not ...), you are a human and _therefore_ an individual [doesn't follow from the reasoning]" Especially since dogs and animals are also individuals... with brains... and they use their brains, that's why the bloody things evolved. It's the I'm-so-special instinct that made humans throughout time think WE are the reason all things exist (God created it for us), WE are at the center of the cosmos and the stars are just tapestry or later OUR sun is the center of the universe or even later OUR galaxy is the only one and currently OUR universe is the only one (while multiverse becomes more popular) maybe it's true this time. TIK is at WE are the only conscious species here and OUR brains make us special, ignore all the animals with brains who have complex communication abilities like elephants and dolphins who we can't even understand yet (it's an active area of research).

[@thulyblu5486]

Also the reasoning that determinism makes free choice impossible does not follow. They are compatible which is called compatibilism and has a slight majority of philosophers behind it by the way. With compatibilism it's: Everything is determined and I determine what I do. Of course that's not contradictory. TIK's understanding on the other hand is contradictory: I can determine my actions therefore things aren't determined... (?) What? How does that make any sense when you determine things for yourself? I guess most people can't accept that the "self" is not a magical thing but has to obey the laws of logic and physics like everything else. Even if the laws of the universe would include some randomness, then decisions would be partly random - determined by dice rather myself. How does that rescue free will? It doesn't. Or using pure logic: Something is either determined or not determined. True dichotomy. Not determined just means random (aka I have no influence). But our actions are not random... there is only one choice left then... There is no third option that is a magical "self" beyond a true dichotomy. If it's determined, then some process determines my behavior. I call that process my "self". Where is the problem? What we do have is pseudo-randomness: processes that are too complex to predict and appear random to us. We definitely have that in our behavior. Acting with 100% predictability would be detrimental to survival. Predators would learn quickly. I guess that's what people are missing.