Defining “Gleichschaltung” (and a bit of a change) 

mate,most dont even understand basic economy,poolitics or the difference between right/lefting,its pretty disturbing how little people actually know about things. and dont be arsed trying to convince a marxist,because they simpley do not wanna know your side of the argument. ive tried it countless times,they refuse to even remotely listen. and they put TIK's vids away as either a nazi sympathisant,''extreme right''history altering or some other lame excuse they offen dont even say why they refuse which is even more pathfetic.

Honestly the 5 hour video got me to pass my history class to such a degree that my teacher failed everyone else once he was convinced that the Nazis were socialists and everyone was being lied to. These videos are great resources

💯👍

@@UmbraBree Most Impressive.

TIK, what you have done made you immortal. And you are still younger than 40

Excellent. Wars have long echos, said someone. War is a dragon with a long tail.

Thank you for your comment! Yeah I was a little skeptical of the people saying it was just an electrical term, or that we shouldn't interpret it within the historical context. That's why I made a comment about that in the video. We must remember though that the (German) Rankenean school of history says "just stick to the facts bro" and disallows interpretation, so they're shutting down their critical thinking and just looking at things literally, which is problematic to say the least.

@@TheImperatorKnight Even more, sticking to the literal meaning in this way is outright stupid and criminally careless. Human communication is only up to 10% the exact word, the rest is Subtext, wich certain people disregard, but it is important for understanding what was really meant. Willful ignorance, perhaps?

I would agree with your explanation. Also a good example of the word is the term "Gleichschaltung" of the press, still used today. It means that all the press is reporting in the same narrativ usually controlled by one institution. Which did happen in Nazi Germany and the institution, in this case the state, was controlled by Göbbels. I think there should be thousands of sources available how Göbbels controlled the press and I think even in German history books used in schools the term is"Gleichschaltung der Presse"

​@@TheImperatorKnight Yeah, one of those ideas (just stick to the facts) which defeats itself in light of how things work in the real world. Truth is objective, and facts are absolute - but our knowledge of truth and facts is anything but, so it's not a trivial matter to decide what is a fact and what isn't. History would be easy if we could just stick to the facts. There would never be any disagreement if things were that obvious.

Genau so isses! Grüße

This. I absolutely agree.

“Most people would rather die than think and many of them do!” -Bertrand Russell

DadA - Maybe you have come to one of my big conclusions. The HARDEST thing for almost anyone to ever do it to change their mind about something that they have deeply invested in, ideologically, economically, physically. To do so amounts to acknowledging that they have wasted their life on the wrong thing. They then tend to double down on stupid. The better, and evidently rare, way to look at it is this: no man can re-live his past. It's best to make the most of now and the remaining years of one's life. Will it be acknowledgement of truth or holding on to lies? On a different note, but one with a slight connection, I have come to re-think something on capitalism. More accurately, I applied independent thought based on history, reason, morality and the inescapable nature of human affairs to the topic. Too often capitalism is viewed as an artificially constructed system, opposed to, but concocted in the way that some socialist systems are. While I am an enemy of socialism in any of it's varieties, I am not actually a champion of capitalism. I am a champion for freedom, individual liberty that requires self-government based on a working moral compass. Now ultimate freedom and free-market economics, independent ownership of many things is quite idealistic, I fully acknowledge. Communism, of course, is the contrasting impossible ideal. Human nature is what makes either one impossible. What capitalism therefore is, as I now see it, is what happens when freedom, liberty, respect for the individual and his property, is the goal. The ideal does not happen. Capitalism happens, and while less than perfect, it's the closest next best thing, which is why it works. The closer it is to freedom, the better it works. In contrast, we see what attempts to achieve communism has produced, the greatest atrocities, brutality, misery and suffering in the history of the world. Sadly, something about human nature makes the lie attractive to those who don't know any better. The longer a person lives believing the socialist lies, the harder it usually is for them accept the truth even when it smacks them in the face.

And if you apply my understanding (above) to the topic of NAZI Germany socialist or private, then it serves as another clear proof that the NAZIs were socialist. Ok, maybe they weren't as socialistic in a few legalistic details as some other places, but the NAZI regime was pretty far extreme into the socialist zone by most accounts. One merely needs to make a list of liberties open to someone living in a free society and check YES or NO for NAZI Germany. The checks are almost all 'NO's' all the way down.

"why capitalism is wonderful" I like it, and appreciate the sentiment, BUT I think that if we're honest, capitalism and liberty are imperfect, like pretty much any other human invention, and THAT is maybe the hardest pill for idealists and utopians to swallow: they are "hard-wired" to reject imperfection, and to try to impose what some sort of imaginary "perfection" they have created or adopted in their own image onto the world to replace the imperfection of reality. I think that the best we have to offer on freedom and individuality is that, yes, it's not perfect, bad things can happen, you might save your money and then discover one day you've lost it all to a fire or theft or a bad investment or whatever, and there will be no intricate, highly-regulated government safety-net to save you, BUT you still have the freedom to work as hard as you want at your own pace on what interests you to save it back up without having to worry about a government micro-managing every decision you make and controlling every aspect of your life to manage your minimum rations and your mandatory decisions while preventing you from ever achieving anything more than the bare minimum needed to keep you alive as part of the state's great plan, and thus an imperfect freedom is always better than the authoritarian, centrally-planned, idealistic alternative. And much the same thing could be said of crime, or any of the other problems that quite admittedly can happen to you when you - and the people around you - are free to fail, free to make mistakes, free to do stupid or even evil things: there's a reason why the most free civilizations still temper their own liberty with limited laws, rules, government, etc., and some of the greatest debates within free civilizations come down to how much law and government is too much, or not enough, to protect the most vulnerable members of that civilization, because liberty is better than the alternative, but not without its own problems, the same problems that authoritarianism would claim to be the perfect solution to, if only the authoritarians could get control of the problem... In a way, I'm reminded a bit of the general frustration that idealist utopians have with science - the real stuff, not the stand-in "The Science" used to support authoritarianism: real science will admit to its shortcomings - science doesn't have an answer for everything, it doesn't know everything, it can't solve every problem, it's not always the best philosophical tool for every job, and it can be wrong, often. The beauty of science isn't that it's infallible and omniscient and omnipotent, but rather that science is capable of admitting its faults, of saying so and making corrections when it is wrong, of saying "I don't know" or "there are things science cannot do and problems science cannot solve, and that is one of them", that it can be questioned and in fact welcomes the challenge of questioning. "The Science", a mockery of science used in support of authoritarianism, is a different animal altogether: a utopian, idealist creature that cannot be questioned, because its authority cannot withstand questioning; it cannot admit mistakes, because its authority cannot withstand a show of weakness; it cannot admit to things it cannot know or cannot do, because its authority cannot withstand the appearance of not being omniscient and omnipotent. And, "The Science" cannot admit to the viability of competitive alternatives like religions and other philosophies, because its authority cannot withstand competition. (Ironically, "The Science" has far more in common with philosophies explicitly based in faith, than it does with actual science, and suffers from all the the problems of inflexible and intolerant dogma that the religions it sets itself up as the enemy of, even though as philosophies, there's nothing inherently incompatible between science and religion, until authoritarian dogmatism is applied! And it's no surprise that "The Science" tends to go hand-in-hand with various flavors of "scientific" idealized, utopian socialism, which seem to in turn thrive on propagandistic pseudo-science derived from "The Science"....) What I mean is that I don't think you're ever going to sway idealists and utopians to the wonders of imperfect liberty, any more than you're going to sway people who cling to authoritarian pseudo-science to the wonders of imperfect science and/or religion, because idealists and utopians are all too aware of of the imperfections of liberty, capitalism, genuine science, religion, and so on, and have completely rejected them in favor of the delusion that there's something perfect that can replace them all, and they know what that perfect alternative is: one that offers them the comfort of knowing everything, having the power to do everything, of being incapable of failure or mistakes, of being free from corruption and mischief. They cannot see the wonders of an imperfect liberty, any more than they can see the bloodsoaked horror, incompetence, corruption, and failure of their brand of authoritarianism: they'll always pursue that illusion of the perfection of "True [Authoritariansim]" well into the grave and beyond in complete denial of even its most monstrous shortcomings, while rejecting completely its imperfect alternative for its shortcomings in complete denial of any of the good that can and has been experienced in a state of unplanned, ungoverned, unstandardized, unrationed, unregulated liberty....

I was going to make the same comment

yeah im starting to realize that as well about the horse comment. you can tell them everything but if they dont wanna listen,well thats it really.something ive encountered a lot while in argument with a socialist

Well said. Also appreciate the help from the native German speakers and other commenters.

Yeah in the comments in previous videos I've been using the line "you can lead a socialist to evidence but you cannot make him think"

@@TheImperatorKnight i had a discussion last night with a online friend of mine. who is a socialist. i tried to convince her that marx,uncle adolf,MOA was indeed socialisme. she told me that the foundation of her political party should not be slapped anymore based on its foundation (which was communist moaist) and yes shes a anti capitalist. yet if you bring up that that argument is actually anti semitic,you get crickets or plain denial. i,m about to give up on trying to knock some sense in them because they simpley do not wanna listen to a other view than themselfs. they only want their opinion comeing form your mouth. even if its a moderate. and in my opinion that shows once more how intolorant socialisme actually is. my way or no way.

more and more so. Look at the world!

I completely agree. I think this is probably more important than TIK's other content just in terms of impact. Hammer it hard and often.

This little topic runs deep in determining people's intuitive responses to the terms "left" and "right." More broadly, it determines how people make sense of "liberal," "radical," "Marxist," "socialist," etc, on one hand, and "conservative" and "capitalist" on the other. And "classical liberal" is pretty confusing as to whether it applies to liberal democracies, democratic republics, or even conservatism (as is the case in the U.S. more than Europe). -- There are a lot of phenomenological considerations that enter into how we should understand socialism vis-a-vis human nature and the nature of minds in the world, but I just don't have the energy to go into them here. You're welcome, tldr crowd.

@@grizzlygrizzle: Agreed. This has been a long time in coming. Most Americans are still laboring under what I consider a false dichotomy between our two dominant political parties. To me the left/right spectrum is a smokescreen. The real spectrum is authoritarian to liberal. If you're in favor of controlling people's lives, big central government, massive military footprints, heavy industrial regulation, fiat money, and all the rest then you're on the authoritarian side. If you're for free markets, small government, a small but formidable defensive posture, replacing taxation with voluntarism, religious freedom, lifestyle freedom, and these sorts of things then you're on the liberal side. I'm hopeful that during this decade people will start seeing political ideology and pragmatics through this lens. Showing how the first few decades of the 20th century showcased the meat-grinder horrors of socialism in its various forms is necessary. We can't allow the left to continue to distance their radicals' various flavors of socialism from the best examples of it in practice. TIK history is doing an amazing service by making it easier for intellectuals to respond to anyone of the left who is still open to listening. And help wake up people who are undecided or within reach.

Certainly. Even in American Highschool, at least when I was in it, it's taught that Hitler/Nazis were 'on the right.' So we have millions and millions of young adults being indoctrinated to believe a lie, and to associate 'the right' of the political spectrum with Nazis. Then they get sent to college and have a wheelbarrow load Leftist Ideology dumped right into their brains. Then they either become activists or get jobs and become an activist there. There's this mystique notion it seems, that every white conservative is also a secret racist. I can't help but think 'The Lie' is part of that too.

Me too @TIKhistory. I have learned more from your 5 hour Hitler's socialism video, than I did years of secondary school history and social studies.

Well put brother. My same experience.

Very well and succintly said. DOUG out

Aren't you meant to be fighting Vashtorr?

Ur denying history when u say that Hitler was a socialist

@@antifacho9294 prove it

@@SupremeGrand-MasterAzrael just ask the german industry if the 2nd world war was bad for them? The free market depends on war, war to make money from guns, war to open up new markets for them to exploit

@@SupremeGrand-MasterAzrael Hitler wouldn t have gone far without the support of the german capitalists. And besides that, who controlled/controlls the media? Is it the people? Or is it the capitalist class? Who are the gatekeepers? Bruh, no one is born a socialist, Hitler was the solution of the German elites for the class striggle. With the fight of the german people, the elites responded with fascism

"Your Public Vs Privet video changed my friend from being a raging marxist." Oh wow! Awesome! Do you know what exactly made him change? Like, what part made him realise?

​@@TheImperatorKnight what can you tell me about Ehestandsdarlehen?

​@@6uck25ou a matrimonial loan? My advice, keep the wedding humble and spend on the honeymoon.

@@wtice4632 I’d say keep the honeymoon humble as well and use the funds towards the purchase of a property…

I just realized I used that exact phase in the last week in a lecture in my own field. TiK on the brain I suppose.

I just asked my German wife how she would define it and she used about your same words.

What is it that makes Germans mash a whole bunch of words together like that?

hammer everything under one ideology! And they are doing it again. Look out the window! cheers

​​@@johnwolf2829 because German is a literal/descriptive language. When they do not have a word for something they combine words that describe said "thing." Like a Regenschirm = Umbrella in English but when directly translated means Rain (Regen) Shield (schirm). ie the two words Regen and Schirm Literally describes the use of the "thing."

@@Alte.Kameraden brilliant, thank you, I’ve been trying to learn how to describe this as a nouveau Deutsch speaker to other English speakers

We were good at sticking to tanks? Just kidding. The great good news is that the hiatus in the Stalingrad Battle Storm series has helped our good friend TIK to recover his enthusiasm. Goodness knows at this point in the Stalingrad story it is all so sad. So many Soviet and so many Axis soldiers dying in horrible conditions and the military objectives are still elusive. The great thing about TIK History is the application of Austrian theory subjectivity to history. All history and all value is subjective. It makes the Popperian search for truth more sensible.

Two new videos every week would be hotter then an flak 88 during the battle of berlin

I thought I'd had a lost weekend.

I had to look at the calendar to make sure I didn't have 4 more days of monotonous hell in front of me.

@@openeroftheway8596 fuck the tanks

Now that you mention it, I think that attracting the hardliners to do their hardliner thing actually isn't a bad thing: if you need examples of exactly the sort of thing that led to all of the greatest political, social, and economic disasters of the 20th century, you need only bring up a subject like this, and the hardliners will crawl out of the woodwork to gleefully provide the examples: any flavor of socialism demands its adherents to completely reject reality before they can properly adopt socialism as their philosophy, and if we still need to see what that looks like, the hardliners will gladly show us by telling us that every brand of socialism that has ever been tried is "not True Socialism", yet still needed to be tried anyway as if they were "True Socialism", because, apparently, the only difference between the likes of Stalinism, Maoism, Not-See-ism, or Fascism, and "True Socialism", is just trying it a little harder, forever and ever.

same

That's what I like most about the TIKHistory channel; like or dislike, agree or disagree, he has opened up numerous topics for people to discuss that go beyond WW2. History isn't just the past; its the present AND the future as well. I also like that TIK encourages debate and civil disagreement, and I am hoping that there will be a historian in the future who would become willing to engage in civil disagreement with TIK, in particular on TIK's hardline stance against Socialism (he honestly really is hardline against it, and I don't agree with that). As he says himself, history lies in the heart of the debate, and I hope he would be as willing as I am to listen to arguments for SOME (not all) Socialist policies that are/were arguably necessary or even positive, such as Hong Kong's government controlling housing and land in Hong Kong instead of leaving it to the free market, or the debate on whether utilities (water and electricity) should be nationalised or privatised.

Wie Unterrichtete ein Sozialistischer Staat wie die DDR überhaupt über Nationalsozialismus ohne das die Kinder denken das ist doch genau was unsere Regierung macht?

same

This is what's getting to me. The dialectic and postmodernist emotionalism (I refuse to call it "logic") triumphs over everything else. So, no matter how much evidence you present, no matter how solid your argument is, you automatically lose. It's a logical fallacy of epic proportions. You can 100% prove that fire is hot, and somehow still lose. It's stupid.

​@@TheImperatorKnightMarxism is a forever machine, A closed loop. a forever revolution you might say?

@@TheImperatorKnight Do a video on their dialectics, I think nobody can fully understand this problem without diving into such an important part of their motivations.

Yeah, this is only a "quick" video really, but a necessary one I think

@@TheImperatorKnight I’m not a native German speaker, and I am not fluent, but I can read German pretty well, so this debate has been fascinating for myself personally. Your effort level in these projects continues to be remarkable and notable.

Kyle's story certainly red pilled a lot of people.

I think the Ohio crisis definitely have pushed the "lite" socialist out of their, how do I put this elegantly, normie mind. At least for the Ohioans.

"you can't pull someone out of socialist thinking" Yeah, this is a hard lesson I've only just learnt... I feel bad for not being able to help them, but I've got to let it go.

The thing that bugs me is that the state (Wisconsin) let the anarchist destroy public property for 3 nights and only shut it down when someone dared to defend private property,... Then the state went after that guy.

@@hansbuechi3411 That is literal insanity. Typical Marxists, they are determined to cure everyone of materialism by destroying anyone that fights to defend property rights. Meanwhile, criminals that are so greedy that they are willing to steal anything they can get their hands on get a free pass. Armageddon, where is they sting?

Yeah, that's probably a good way of putting it

There is a positive aspect to it. 'We're on the same wavelength' isn't said by a person with a gun to his head. Seems to me Gleichschaltung has a strong coercive aspect to it. Maybe 'everyone _had better_ get on the same wavelength... or else' better expresses the malignant nuance.

@@gagamba9198 Such wicked impositions are typically sold with the kind of innocent language you describe. "It's for the children," "Tolerance," "Anti-hate," etc.

I just got to the end and man you are a gold dime of a man. It takes guts to say that oneself is in the process of growing and not knowing. I tip my hat. Now for the topic: I believe the topic that you set out to fight is massive in scope. Like you said you could focus son English facists, the Italians etc. i am not saying this is a bad idea, on the contrary, you‘ll definitely dig up interesting information, but in my humble opinion, you are trying to fight a djinny, without destroying the lamp. I am probably biased but the videos that made the highest impacts on me were the ones about Marx Antisemitism and the Public vs private video. If I am attacking this Bephomot of an idea (which I am doing constantly because university’s are leftist s*itshow) I am trying to fight the root of the philosophical idea: socialism -> Marxism -> post structuralism (modernism) Todays post modernists are the ones rejecting the national socialists of old. And if you think about it, it makes sense. You are trying to pin them on objective reality, while they pin reality on the personal sufist experience. I think a video like „a case for objective truth“ would be cool, also knowing that this may leave the topic of history and would be more applicable to todays culture and movement. Thanks for the time you took reading this, I hope I did not waste it.

Also a video on cuban socialism would be interesting. Thanks for the content.

You're absolutely right. However, I've heard that a lot of Reddit accounts are actually bots, and I'm wondering if a lot of the "critics" I've responded to on here are actually real people. Sometimes they're so incredibly unintelligent that they don't even pass the Turing Test. Is that because they are human, but are stupid beyond belief? Or is it because they're bots with pre-programmed sayings and behaviours. One example I can give is that almost every socialist counters me by saying "TIK thinks the Roman Empire is socialist!" They all repeat this as if it's some sort of "gotchya!". But is this really the case? Not a single one of them has ever stopped and thought about whether what they're saying makes sense. In this case, I just respond back with: "Did the Roman Empire have social ownership of the means of production?" And obviously, the answer is 'no'. So "my definitions" don't say that the Roman Empire is socialist, and yet every single one of these socialists repeat this line. Where did they all learn to say this? It seriously makes me wonder if they're bots.

@@TheImperatorKnight Yeah. It's possible. I think it's unlikely they are bots though. It's people who barely think about philosophy, politics and economics. They are extremely sure the of the school system, mainstream media, and mainstream experts because they hold power. I think they have a warped might equals right thing and simply because it's what's in power it can't be wrong. It's extremely primitive and child like. I had a guy read through my reddit history and say "This is coming from a guy who believes roads are socialist" Totally ignoring what I said in my argument against someone else. Truly the best thing we can do as people who believe in free markets is try to get a movement going, convince enough people so that we can either secede or change the system in place. The internet is the printing press on steroids times a thousand. You are making a difference. Thanks TIK.

Thank you! What made you come to that conclusion too?

@@TheImperatorKnight You, Joe Rogan, Jordan B. Peterson, Strong Successful Male, Tim Pool, Better Bachelor, and other minor RU-vidrs who are trying to criticize the authoritarians. Thanks to you and Timcast, the terms Left and Right only divide and conquer.

@@aceknowledgable9403 I realise that the terms Left and Right (and "capitalism" plus "socialism") divide and conquer. I now only refer to myself as a "free market guy" for this reason. I also don't call myself a "Right-winger" anymore. Oh, and if you like those guys, I think you'd like Rollo Tomassi and Aaron Clarey, if you haven't watched them already.

@@TheImperatorKnight I think that another thing you should do is make a video on feminism and prove that it's always been about hating men, I think that the denialism of feminisms true nature is just as bad as the denialism of the nature of socialism. start with the writings of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Emmeline Pankhurst's terrorism (and move onto the 1970s and beyond), and explain that just because "the patriarchy" was bad doesn't mean that the feminists were good because real life often has no heroes or villains, just two dogs fighting over a bone.

@@TheImperatorKnight I've heard and seen Rollo Tomassi so I'll give Aaron Clarey a go and see. Thanks!

Thanks, i have currently learnt that most off ww1 ww2 history we have been taught was skewed, as the victor's write the history books. Watch the Greatest story Never told by Dennis Wise

what about the parallels of the covid measures and totalitarianism? Cheers

Very well said.

Good idea on comparing their policies! It's a shame you've only managed to shake them, but not get them to change. If you do manage to gre through, let me know how you managed it because I'm still open to the idea that it's possible, even if I'm not going to actively try to do it now.

same

Social Democracy is just watered down fascism, which is just watered down socialism. On a simple left-right scale it would just go ever so slightly to the middle. However it is more on the left end than it is "at the middle" of the spectrum. What we are looking at is far-left to left ideologies and systems, that are seen as center. With those few center left ideologies being seen as far-right. The middle and right positioned ideologies, systems and philosophies are basically cut off.

I'd say that's about right 👍

The country is Germany, you want the workers to be who?