a theory on why nazism is such a sensitive subject

Post Reply New Topic

I have been speculating for some time that the reason Nazism is such a sensitive subject is because those in power do everything they can to prevent people from looking into what they are really doing and what's really going on. That they themselves more or less have adopted Nazism but a populace that is ignorant and confused is more easily controlled so they make everybody believe that Nazism is horrible and it was defeated. And also because they want to keep it to themselves, dumbing everybody down with leftist ideologies so that they remain in a subjugated state. Just a hypothesis.

Thoughts?

I also think there are other dimensions of this, such as metaphysical dimensions. For example I think that leftist policies serve the same role as Christianity, and basically is synonymous with Christianity. Which in my current view is about people being enlightened through the suffering they inflict upon themselves by failing.

What causes you tho think that those in power have more or less adopted Nazism?

I must admit that I'm no expert on Nazism, but I'm thinking based on what I know. Many things cause me to think that those in power might have more or less adopted Nazism. In the book Economics In One Lesson is described various theories about the negative secondary effect of leftist policies. I would think that based on that, when you have knowledge of that, you could impose these policies onto a population for the purpose of achieving those secondary effects, thereby weakening that population, subjugating it. When this is done in such a manner that it encompasses almost the entire perceived universe of those people they would think it was almost all-encompassing, even though it wasn't, because there was something outside of the reality bubble which rarely shone through to the inside of the bubble.

In his books including Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (1976) and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (1974), British and American economist, historian and writer Antony C. Sutton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton wrote about how American corporatists helped finance both the Russian Revolution and Nazi Germany. Several current economists consider the current world economy developing into a communist-model governance at local levels while enjoying a fascist-model governance at the international level.

This topic is very related to what I theorized about in the thread "division offense/defense=illusion?". What I mean is that in a world that is extremely interconnected, which is the consequence of advanced technology, the line between offense and defense becomes very blurred, perhaps even meaningless. I can illustrate it with something from biology, which I'm not an expert in either. A cell living in water has a cell membrane, and the membrane is full of little tubes, pumps, connecting the outside of the cell with the inside. Because of the effects of osmosis the pumps in the cell membrane have to counter that effect to prevent the cell membrane and the cell at large from being damaged.

You can see the solvent particles as opposing forces in war. If the pressure is constantly rising inside the cell the solvent particle concentration is increasing, there is a net influx of solvent particles from the outside into the cell, because the cell can't pump out particles as efficiently as they are being pushed in. The cell will explode.

If I'm not mistaken there is movement of particles through the membrane even when the pressure is equal on the inside and the outside, due to diffusion.

So it works similar to a reversible chemical reaction.

Now I would like to use the cell and the movement of particles through the cell membrane as an analogy for Nazism. Considering that the division between offense and defense is blurred to the point of virtual meaninglessness, any entity with power over another has to use all kinds of subversion tactics to remain in power. This might include twisting the minds of the subjugated population in various ways, shaping their ideas and world view etc. You influence the content of children's books and movies, what books are on the shelves of the public library, what magazines are on the shelves of the corner store etc. And if the people are unable to see through the deception due to lacking intelligence, they'll follow it until they begin to suffer from it, and that suffering will make them see through the deception. It can even be argued that until someone has the ability to see the truth of something, they will reject it and oppose it by their own force no matter how much you present it to them. And at one point you might not have any choice but to let them do what they decide to do based on their own desire, even though you know that they will suffer. You can only give them a message so many times before you have to hide if they keep spitting you in the face and stomping on your papers, following their own desire regardless of what you say. So you make them believe that they themselves are in control and that they're doing the right thing. If a child wants to touch the stove and keeps screaming constantly and nothing you say or do makes them change their mind, you might let them touch the stove once to learn.

I have Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, but have only read a bit in the beginning. I think I will buy the other book also.

Interesting. Do you have any names of those economists or any sources? I think that possibly some form of fascism has always been what the system is, and that we have it today just disguised as democracy. I have been thinking about this in relation to this video:



To quote Edward Bernays:



My personal opinion is that it is both inevitable and necessary to have this, greater minds controlling lesser minds, because people will do what they think is right even when they do something they wouldn't have done had they had greater minds. And if they had had greater minds they'd have a different role in society, and shouldn't have done the same thing.

Another thing that interests me is to think about how much of this potential concealment of truth that I spoke about is due to a deliberate effort to conceal truth, and how much is due to difference in intelligence alone? Because if you're not intelligent enough it doesn't matter how much you have the truth in plain sight all day long, it will be meaningless to you. And how much of the oppression is due to the oppressor deliberately oppressing, and how much is due to the oppressed failing to do what's best for him due to his own lacking intelligence. When you think about it it's possible that oppression in some cases might be a natural consequence of how the world is constructed, and inevitable. It might even be the case sometimes that the oppression in a system is the least possible amount, that the oppressors might have decreased the oppression if they could, but that they really can't, i.e. they're doing the greatest good for the greatest number to their fullest potential. I'm not saying it is that way, but I find it an interesting hypothesis.

Opinions on Hitler and Mussolini were pretty positive when they first took office, this is true afaik and I think there are a lot of aspects of fascism that our governments had at the time and have since adapted just not in name. Liberalism was in dire straights all across the world in the 1930s, individualism and laissez-faire capitalism were being washed away by "men who get things done." The point to me is that the Germans weren't so uniquely evil, our country isn't immune to evil and we should always be vigilante paralleling their path. We can't tell ourselves "it can't happen here", there were many people in Germany that thought the same thing and these weren't uneducated people. Germany was at the forefront of world culture and it fell.

Financial-trends forecaster, Gerald Celente, believes that the U.S. economy is now very much fascist. I searched but can't find any of his statements about the idea the populations are controlled with communism while the economy remains fascist. I will keep looking. I believe that Joel Skousen has compared the current apparent influences of the economic models, too. Meanwhile, it isn't difficult to see that the American citizenry is expected to receive SNAP food benefits, unemployment cash benefits, housing allowances, surplus cheese and free cellular telephones while the corporate class is still realizing stratospheric government contracts and bloated salaries while jobs, housing and personal savings are destroyed by conveniently timed economic bubbles.

Indeed. The American Business Plot of 1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot showed how fascism responded to the election of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. "It" not only can happen here, it tried to happen here and, luckily, failed. This time, both extremes have taken a decidely more incremental approach to their work.

There is that saying "to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize". But maybe it can in some cases be "to learn who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to praise".

A lot of Nazi methodology has definitely been replicated world over. Evil as he was, Goebbels was a genius in terms of propaganda. That said, I wouldn't go as far as to accuse all world governments of having adopted a national socialist agenda.

The idea of a global, blended economic system was discussed last year by former congressional chief of staff Lew Rockwell with Alex Jones http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/no_a ... r-of-peace where they agreed that the new economic model appears to be communistic at the bottom while fascistic at the top of the financial food chain.

Exactly. Now imagine Joseph Goebbels combined with American propagandist Edward Bernays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays . Bernays popularized women smoking tobacco, the bacon-and-eggs breakfast and even helped the "successful overthrow (see Operation PBSUCCESS) of the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzman." Nice guys, both.

I have been struggling to understand Muslim and Nazi philosophy, which in my view are very similar. I have been philosophizing about it. Muslim philosophy for example, I wrote a relatively long piece on that in my language, but haven't translated it. I might write some of the thoughts here if I remember them, but right now my blood sugar is low due to me neglecting that part of existence once again, so I have to drag myself out and eat something. But I think that when I look at what I have written in this thread I might have moved one step forward in understanding Muslim philosophy. In short, one of the problems I see with Islam and fascism is that the Earth has limited resources, or rather a problem with implementing those ideologies for all people. But when you take into account that fascist ideology might morph over time into more abstract forms, more subtle forms, invisible if you will, in the fashion I have described in this thread then that adds a whole new dimension to Islam in my view. Also the decline of the West probably is very connected to this. I think there are many dimensions of this thing I've written about in this thread, such as spiritual. On a planet with limited resources you can't have right wing policies for everyone everywhere. Like you can't have every family in Africa, India and China having the same standard of living as the average American. One interesting aspect of this discussion is tax rate, which is much lower in developing countries. When you have that big government that you have in the West people become alienated and depressed, and birth rates go down. So those people will not even want to live according to Muslim philosophy a lot of times, because they are too mentally inhibited. Well, just some rambling, gonna eat now, will think more about this.

Benevolence is usually correlated with low level of enlightenment and/or intelligence. Indigenous people in the rain forest don't harm anyone, they don't build atom bombs in their shelters.