- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
I came across an, in my opinion, very interesting opinion piece by a German blogger [A], published very recently, and I would like to hear more thoughts on the matter. The text raises some interesting points that I honestly haven't come across anywhere else.
For your convenience, I've translated it myself as follows:
For your convenience, I've translated it myself as follows:
The Fourth Reich Is Coming
For 25 years, I have been trying to figure out what is actually happening in this country.
And, in these 25 years, I finally came to a point where I believe to understand it.
I have frequently written that the Nazis, the NSDAP, were anything but this singular point in history that they are often presented as, but, instead, merely a brief flash of a counter position to communism, who were scouted like a boy group and got plagiarized, especially by the communists.
The line of "national socialists" across Mussolini, Hitler, Franco was anything but a counter position to socialism/communism as the labels "right wing" and "left wing" (are supposed to) suggest, because they themselves were socialists, but rather a war of brothers spawned out of a dispute on whether nations and country borders should be kept or not. It's got the vibe of the dispute of the Albrecht brothers regarding whether cigarettes should be sold, which led to the split into Aldi Nord and Aldi Süd. Or the dispute between the Dassler brothers whether to join the Nazis, after which the company broke off into Adidas and Puma. Sometimes, those who are identical except for a detail become the fiercest enemies - a war of brothers.
The similarity between Nazis and communists is often striking. In the Berlin Stasi prison there once was an exhibit on architecture, showing how similar Nazi and communist architecture was, basically direct plagiarizations.
It is always claimed that leftists are the Nazis' enemies, but they systematically aren't. Leftists only hold it against Nazis that they were nationalists and prevented West Europe from being overtaken by communism. If you look close enough, you notice that leftists genuinely envy and imitate the Nazis in many ways. The Nazis were better-organized and had more media competence, fancier uniforms, and more discipline than the communists back then and Antifa today. I've been writing for years that, to me, it looks like the leftists want to inherit and imitate what the Nazis did, using exactly that which the Nazis copied from the communists [sic], because they did it more effectively and systematically.
It is always claimed that communists/socialists and Nazis are diametrical opposites, but as I described so often, they both seem the same to me and only differ in parameters. And like I described, I believe that this is based on the same brain structures and the same archaic, evolutionary developed behaviors. I believe communists and Nazis are identical in almost every way.
And that is why I believe that leftists - whether consciously or subconsciously - imitate and copy the Nazis. Leftists, sociologists, communists dissected the Nazis very thoroughly, know their methods, know how they worked. But, they warn - I often criticized this when it came to Holocaust exhibits - not against their methods, but their symbols. Swastika. Brown uniforms. Boots and so on. Even though Antifa is hardly any different. Different logo, black instead of brown.
Meanwhile, I am convinced that they are repeating after the Nazis, just with a few differences:
- In place of "national socialism", an "international socialism" without borders, a global and pervasive socialism. No more foreign country to flee to.
- There is another artificial better race, but instead of the blonde-blue Aryans of the Nazis, they are creating a new mix, a mixed human for which they - a proven and propagandistically usable fact - melted all people and genes of this world to create an artificial human that can't dissociate from anybody and that nobody can dissociate from, to be worldwide.
But it is not merely, and this, to me, is extraordinarily important to recognize and to understand, not about socialism no longer being national and rejecting borders. It is about melting together this mixed human in a way that nobody can dissociate from it, because every country, every people is "represented" in this mix.
That is why there is a mass importation of people here. They are the baking ingredients of the big human mixture cake. That is why everything needs to be "inclusive" and why they're throwing money at people so that as many of them come as quickly as possible.
And that is also the reason why they are so islamophilic and why they want to have as many Muslims as possible. In this project, Muslims are the toughest, biggest, and most closed-off nut.
And this leads to something that is not self-evident and not easy to understand:
We always perceive politics as the destruction of the West, as a threat to our civilization, as an Islamic invasion. It is all of these things, but not just that. It is also an attack against Islam. Its goal is the destruction of Islam. Because, like with every other genetic or ethnic group, it is about breaking its ability to dissociate, in biological terms, to trick its immune system by playing up how Muslim you are.
In other words: Islam can dissociate itself from the West, the Christians, the whites, the infidels, the crusaders, and so on, and it is very effective and very stable in doing so. You won't be able to crack the Quran, you simply can't get past the distinction between believers and infidels. But if you flood Europe with Muslims, this defense mechanism, this - hated by the leftists - race, identity, national behavior is disabled.
From the amygdala's point of view: Their friend-or-foe recognition is being taken away from them. The option of dissociating from Europe is taken away from Muslims.
It's not about tolerance and wokeness, they are just means to an end, merely tactics and not strategy.
It is about building an emulsifier of peoples. Normally, watery and fatty liquids, hydrophilic and lipophilic, or hydrophobic and lipophobic, cannot be mixed. But if you add an emulsifier, the border lines get torn, allow them to be mixed into an emulsion.
To this end, they build the omni-tolerant, the multi-woke, the gender-fluid mixed human, the superset of all characteristics, as a kind of human whom nobody can dissociate from because there is no characteristic with which you can differentiate yourself from it. No matter whether Muslim or Amazon Indian, whether man or girl or everything in between, no matter what skin color, language and origin, nobody in the world is supposed to be able to differentiate themselves and dissociate from this omni-compatible mixed human.
It is similar to the search for the universal artificial blood that can be supplied to people of all blood groups without triggering a rejection reaction.
They want to build the kind of human, the Neo-Aryan, who isn't "better" than others, like with the Nazis, but who is compatible with everybody, who nobody can differentiate themselves from. No Indian can say "me Indian, you paleface". No black person can say "I'm black, you're white". And no Muslim can say "I'm a believer, you're an infidel". And especially, which is why this gender nonsense exists, nobody can say "I'm a man, you're a woman". And nobody can say "I'm an engineer, you're stupid" either. They are systematically sanding off all characteristics to mix together an omni-compatible universal human that nobody can dissociate from. Not even "I'm an analphabet, you're educated".
Many people like talking about the Islamic invasion of West Europe. Yes, that is true, that is what's happening right now.
But the bigger plan is the invasion of socialism into Islamic countries. And that requires taking away the Muslims' ability to dissociate themselves from us.
The wolf in sheep's clothing.
Somebody once said that leftists and Muslims are each other's useful idiot. The question is who of the two wins in the end.
And thus we are facing an agenda that is mostly identical to that of the Nazis, with the goal of building a society based on an artificial miracle race. Only with the differences:
- The Nazis didn't want the whole world. They were happy with "German Reich" plus expansion.
- The Nazis didn't want global homogeneity. They didn't want to fundamentally abolish countries and ethnicities.
- The Nazis' Aryan was - in their eyes - an extraordinarily capable, beautiful, flawless human, indistinguishably [sic] better than others according to their imagination.
The leftists' Neo-Aryan is not good, it's not supposed to be (it would be distinguishable in that case), but its main characteristic is that every attempt to distinguish it fails, and nobody is able to dissociate and distinguish from it. No matter where it goes, it's supposed to be perceived as belonging there. With the purpose of neutralizing country borders and nations.- If you were lucky, you could flee from the Nazis to another country. According to today's ideas, there is nothing left to flee to.
I am convinced that the Fourth Reich isn't coming, but that we're already in the midst of it, and that all the "anti-fascists" are currently doing exactly the things they learned from the Nazis.
Years ago I have already written that they're replaying the 1918/19 revolution and that they want to repeat it with a 100 year delay, only this time with the "right" result. And that they make use of the methods of the Nazis. But in the meantime, I believe that they are building something like the Third Reich - but worldwide.
The leftists' islamophilia has always been confusing to me, but this idea of "consuming" Islam to defeat Islam (to advance socialism) makes a lot of sense. I mean, there is good and accurate analysis from a libertarian perspective of why the Left allies with Palestine against Israel, but that doesn't explain the pervasive islamophilia.
Also, this tricking of the defense mechanism might sound stupid at first, you might think "of course I'll be able to distinguish between friend or foe regardless of how they appear", but even people who aren't part of the current dominant force (such as right-wingers) make the same mistake. I've had several conversations with committed and fervent conservatives who claimed that some, for instance, ethnic German is infinitely more German than a non-biological German could be. Even if you tell them "but this ethnic German is indoctrinated with communist propaganda and this foreigner will be infinitely more culturally and socially German", they argue that the former is infinitely more valuable than the latter.
One very important aspect which this opinion piece doesn't look at is the conflict between statists and non-statists (i.e. those who (tacitly) favor the state and those who oppose it). In my personal opinion, the conflict of the state versus mankind is the biggest threat and problem that mankind is facing right now, and has been facing for millenia. Every cultural, every social, every national, every religious, every aesthetic conflict or dispute is superseded by the existence of the state as a monopolistic parasite and destroyer of mankind. The author seems to be making the implicit argument that mankind is being engineered into being an obedient statist, but he's seemingly ignorant of the fact that opposition to the state itself is becoming more formal and more widespread almost every minute.
That, however, raises questions of how much a resistance can be made across ethnic, cultural, national borders (these borders which are currently being destroyed).
Who knows, statist versus non-statist might be the last remaining criterion according to which a dissociation is possible.
Also, this tricking of the defense mechanism might sound stupid at first, you might think "of course I'll be able to distinguish between friend or foe regardless of how they appear", but even people who aren't part of the current dominant force (such as right-wingers) make the same mistake. I've had several conversations with committed and fervent conservatives who claimed that some, for instance, ethnic German is infinitely more German than a non-biological German could be. Even if you tell them "but this ethnic German is indoctrinated with communist propaganda and this foreigner will be infinitely more culturally and socially German", they argue that the former is infinitely more valuable than the latter.
One very important aspect which this opinion piece doesn't look at is the conflict between statists and non-statists (i.e. those who (tacitly) favor the state and those who oppose it). In my personal opinion, the conflict of the state versus mankind is the biggest threat and problem that mankind is facing right now, and has been facing for millenia. Every cultural, every social, every national, every religious, every aesthetic conflict or dispute is superseded by the existence of the state as a monopolistic parasite and destroyer of mankind. The author seems to be making the implicit argument that mankind is being engineered into being an obedient statist, but he's seemingly ignorant of the fact that opposition to the state itself is becoming more formal and more widespread almost every minute.
That, however, raises questions of how much a resistance can be made across ethnic, cultural, national borders (these borders which are currently being destroyed).
Who knows, statist versus non-statist might be the last remaining criterion according to which a dissociation is possible.