Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[TheReal_ND]

Purely ancedotal, but most of the Germans in their teens and 20s that I’ve talked to either don’t care about their history with Nazism or love exploiting it for jokes/talking about the period. Plenty of them are just fascinated by the period like most other history buffs. A lot of families also have documents from those eras like the ancestry certifications to verify your Aryan blood.

I’d say there is a pretty big cultural divide between the parent of Germans today and their kids. Maybe it’s the internet and the constant Nazi jokes seen everywhere, but it feels like younger generations of Germans are totaly desensitized to the guilt machine. Could also just be a rebellion against the attitude and expectations of their parents who seem to constantly flaggelate themselves for their own parent’s/grandparent’s crimes.

This is purely based on conversations with the 20ish Germans I’ve seen in my life though, so maybe I just attract a strange group of people.

My experiences online runs the gamut between, complete cucks and people that think Hitler did nothing wrong except not gassing the jews.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Probably because they’ve been shamed into submission, thanks to the actions of their grandparents. It will still be a while, before anyone thinks of Germany without thinking of Nazis.

Which sucks, because it’s one of the greatest nations on earth. Extremely well run, beautiful food, people, culture. I’d love to live there.

Ok, this might be a wall of text, but anyway.

Germany aren't wallowing in shame of WW2 anymore, and there's been quite some time since they did. They are afraid of a pop cultural perception of nazism, which is why they're trying to distance themselves from former deeds, while not fully acknowledging the whole German part of nazism, and how the cultural framework of Germany made nazism possible to rise there.

Keep in mind, nazism had its roots in an ideology, and a lot of popular theories among intellectuals at the time. Fascism gained traction in Italy, while eugenics and race theories were primarily a Swedish thing. Germany, and a lot of western europe today have managed to distance Germany from nazism, even in WW2. You'll see the arguments everywhere, especially from Germans: "Germany were led astray by a poisonous gang of madmen", "Hitler didn't win the election, but flaws in the system made him seize power", "Most Germans weren't nazis", so on and so on. A common denominator is how most people today differentiate Germany and Nazism to an extremely high degree, as if they're unrelated.

So, we get the whole story about the unfair Versaille treaty, economic despair, a former great nation thrown into disarray, fear of communism, and then the nazis entered, and are treated as a catalyst, unrelated to German culture, and how they've managed to turn the whole deal into a murder machine of an empire.

I think that approach is wrong. If the Germany-apologists were correct in their assumptions, we'd see nazism earlier in Europe, and it gaining considerable traction in other countries too. Especially in Sweden, since that's where the Himmler-esque parts of nazism had its roots. It was a great nation, turned into a shadow of its former glory, being threatened by communists. Nazism should grow into a movement in Sweden in the late 1800s, the same time national romanticism were a huge deal in Scandinavia. But it didn't. Sweden had gone through everything Germany had gone through, in the previous century, yet they didn't evolve into a nazi state. They instead evolved into a well functioning democracy. The great depression hit other countries, which had also been weakened by the great war. Great Britain didn't fall for nazism, or even fascism. The US didn't. France didn't. Sure, fascists, and even nazis were being talked about, and they were more popular after the depression than before, but they were still really small. Except in Germany. Other countries even evolved into fascist states in the early 1900s. Italy, Spain, Portugal, but they never took the whole step out into full retard nazism.

Nazism grew big in Germany, not because of propaganda, economic despair, being humiliated in a war, or some rotten eggs getting into government by random chance. Nazism grew big in Germany because Germany is rotten to the bone. It had been rotten long before nazis were a deal, and it's rotten now that they've no longer have any nazis. The Einsatzkommando weren't alone in their atrocities. Even the Imperial army massacred villages in WW1, although the static nature of that war made the murder of innocents pretty rare, they did show their true colors already then. And the murder wasn't really wanton either, just like in WW2, they had a clear plan and goal with them, basic human rights be damned. They simply wanted to be as brutal as possible, so they'd make the war as short as possible. They didn't like doing it, but they did it anyway. Just as a lot of German SS troops had to be drunk to keep on slaughtering slavs and jews, and eventually had to resort to gas chambers for the final solution. But they kept doing it.

Forced sterilization and eugenics happened in Sweden and Norway too, and continued until the seventies. But germans were even euthanizing children early on. It started with a mother petitioning Hitler for doctors to kill her kid. The people wanted it, because those "lesser people" were a parasite on the Volk.

German culture makes for cooperative people, that are easy to lead. And ambitious people, that makes qualified leaders. But they weren't then, before, or now a people that recognize the inherent value of a human. They realize nazis are bad, because WW2 killed 6 million jews + countless slavs, political opponents and other people. But try to get them to understand how it's wrong to infringe on another individual's rights, and you'll never really succeed. It's all a cost-value analysis to them. Go to war with France? Nothing about the moral dilemma of war, just "Can we win, and if so, what do we gain?". Eugenics? "Does it work?".

If they'd won the war, they'd realize in time it was wrong. "But necessary". These people will throw any human right out the window, as long as they deem it "necessary for the greater good". And when it turns back on them, they'll change policy. But they'll never really change. Munster was not an isolated event, nor nazism, nor the thirty years war. And don't get me wrong, Norway, Sweden and Denmark has a lot of the same vulnerability as Germany to fall for any of these things, which is why it's so important to not join together. Switzerland is small enough to not fall.

But have enough germanics under the same flag, under the same cause, whatever the flag or the cause. And you're going to have a bad time. It might not be nazis the next time in Europe. But it will for sure be Germans.

Interesting, and plausible.

Explain why you believe Germans, as a people, would be more desensitized to human suffering, or focused on efficiency, though.

And is efficiency necessarily a bad thing to focus on?

[Otern]

Interesting, and plausible.

Explain why you believe Germans, as a people, would be more desensitized to human suffering, or focused on efficiency, though.

And is efficiency necessarily a bad thing to focus on?

I don't think they're desensitized to human suffering. They're people, they have basic human emotions too. It's why they transitioned to gas chambers and Kapos rather than the Einsatzkommando when they really had to increase the targeted murder of 11 million innocent civilians.

But they're ideologically removed from the individual in the degree most other western nations view the individual. And don't get me wrong, the Nordic people are somewhat more removed from the individual concept than for example the French, or the British too, and that's why we kept doing forced sterilization way into the seventies.

And it's not necessarily a bad thing to focus on, a lot of good stuff come out of this frame of mind. The Nordic prison system comes to mind. It just works better than the prison systems in France, Britain, and particularly the US. It's efficient, open to quick change, and reasonable.

I absolutely believe there will be a next Holocaust in Europe in the next 60 years. Not the jews this time. But Muslims. And it's going to happen out a perceived necessity. Britain will not do it, neither will France, or Spain, or even quasi fascist Italy. But when the Germans notice they can "improve" Europe, or Germany by targeting muslims, they'll change their view on non western immigration. And they'll change to an extreme degree, with many small steps in quick succession. They'll get the people on board with it. Most not agreeing, but also not offering resistance of any kind. There will be a small resistance, about as powerful as the German communists in the twenties, thirties and seventies, or the nationalists from the nineties on to today.

Ask most Germans on human rights, and they'll never get the concept of natural rights. Freedom of speech is necessary because otherwise you'll get something worse, they'd say. Same with freedom of religion. But once the German people can be convinced limitations on those rights will improve the society, they'll throw it out, without resistance. Germans do not accept basic human rights as inherent, but as a tool to improve society. And it's this frame of mind that's dangerous. Because when society can no longer be improved that way, it no longer has any place in society. Their constant move towards order, efficiency and stability gradually erodes the concept of the individual, to such a degree they'll always be in danger of moving towards totalitarianism.

And it's not the German people, as a race that makes this dangerous. It's the German culture. Italy and Spain also fell to fascism. But Franco had to be really careful in how far he went, once he got in power, because he were opposed by the Spanish to different degrees at all times when he were in power. The Italians rebelled against Mussolini, and deserted the fascist cause in large numbers when bullets started flying. But the German collectivism, focus on duty towards any powerstructure they're a part of, made a lot of Germans fight heroically for a cause they didn't believe in. But they still fought, because they were honorable Germans. You also saw it in Eastern Germany. The Soviet Union never managed such a control over their people, with the same amount of informants, active and passive support from the general public.

Basically, the German culture makes them prone to authoritarianism, in many forms. And they'll be prone to it in the future too. The German culture values agreeableness, order, and rationality to a too high degree. It's great for small nations, but not for big ones. Big ones will end up in a position where they can abuse their power, to reach a goal, and when that goal is achievable, they'll go for it, means be damned.

[Hastur]

Do you have this movie on Netflix in the US? We do on Netflix Nordic.



It's quite funny. It shows how far they have come when they can imagine having Hitler coming back and make fun of current German society be having him react to the state of things.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Interesting, and plausible.

Explain why you believe Germans, as a people, would be more desensitized to human suffering, or focused on efficiency, though.

And is efficiency necessarily a bad thing to focus on?

I don't think they're desensitized to human suffering. They're people, they have basic human emotions too. It's why they transitioned to gas chambers and Kapos rather than the Einsatzkommando when they really had to increase the targeted murder of 11 million innocent civilians.

But they're ideologically removed from the individual in the degree most other western nations view the individual. And don't get me wrong, the Nordic people are somewhat more removed from the individual concept than for example the French, or the British too, and that's why we kept doing forced sterilization way into the seventies.

And it's not necessarily a bad thing to focus on, a lot of good stuff come out of this frame of mind. The Nordic prison system comes to mind. It just works better than the prison systems in France, Britain, and particularly the US. It's efficient, open to quick change, and reasonable.

I absolutely believe there will be a next Holocaust in Europe in the next 60 years. Not the jews this time. But Muslims. And it's going to happen out a perceived necessity. Britain will not do it, neither will France, or Spain, or even quasi fascist Italy. But when the Germans notice they can "improve" Europe, or Germany by targeting muslims, they'll change their view on non western immigration. And they'll change to an extreme degree, with many small steps in quick succession. They'll get the people on board with it. Most not agreeing, but also not offering resistance of any kind. There will be a small resistance, about as powerful as the German communists in the twenties, thirties and seventies, or the nationalists from the nineties on to today.

Ask most Germans on human rights, and they'll never get the concept of natural rights. Freedom of speech is necessary because otherwise you'll get something worse, they'd say. Same with freedom of religion. But once the German people can be convinced limitations on those rights will improve the society, they'll throw it out, without resistance. Germans do not accept basic human rights as inherent, but as a tool to improve society. And it's this frame of mind that's dangerous. Because when society can no longer be improved that way, it no longer has any place in society. Their constant move towards order, efficiency and stability gradually erodes the concept of the individual, to such a degree they'll always be in danger of moving towards totalitarianism.

And it's not the German people, as a race that makes this dangerous. It's the German culture. Italy and Spain also fell to fascism. But Franco had to be really careful in how far he went, once he got in power, because he were opposed by the Spanish to different degrees at all times when he were in power. The Italians rebelled against Mussolini, and deserted the fascist cause in large numbers when bullets started flying. But the German collectivism, focus on duty towards any powerstructure they're a part of, made a lot of Germans fight heroically for a cause they didn't believe in. But they still fought, because they were honorable Germans. You also saw it in Eastern Germany. The Soviet Union never managed such a control over their people, with the same amount of informants, active and passive support from the general public.

Basically, the German culture makes them prone to authoritarianism, in many forms. And they'll be prone to it in the future too. The German culture values agreeableness, order, and rationality to a too high degree. It's great for small nations, but not for big ones. Big ones will end up in a position where they can abuse their power, to reach a goal, and when that goal is achievable, they'll go for it, means be damned.

There are plenty of other cultures that are prone to authoritarianism - pretty much any of them can be moved in that direction. You make them sound much more like 1950s Americans, than anything foreign/different from the rest - ideal citizens. In fact, you might be right, that compliant citizens are incredibly dangerous - especially when I think of Asian cultures and history...

Now, why would German culture be more geared toward authority? The 30-years-war? Prussian military discipline? Something else innate to German culture?

[Otern]

There are plenty of other cultures that are prone to authoritarianism - pretty much any of them can be moved in that direction. You make them sound much more like 1950s Americans, than anything foreign/different from the rest - ideal citizens. In fact, you might be right, that compliant citizens are incredibly dangerous - especially when I think of Asian cultures and history...

Now, why would German culture be more geared toward authority? The 30-years-war? Prussian military discipline? Something else innate to German culture?

True, there are other cultures with similarities. Asian countries are prone to it due to their collectivism. But the particular mix of meritocracy, obedience, authority, rationality and orderliness of the German culture is what makes them extremely prone to Nazism, and other extreme forms of fascism. Asian cultures have done horrendous stuff, and the collectivism is what made a lot of it possible. But it's not entirely similar to nazism. They had obedience, authority, but not the same degree of meritocracy as the Germans have had. Russia, China and Japan didn't really manage to exploit the skills of the reluctant followers, Nazi Germany did.

Prussian military discipline is not the reason nazism grew. But the cultural advantages that made Prussian military discipline possible, are the same that made nazism possible to grow. The Nazis were most popular in the north, in Prussia. But the north is not everything. They managed to get over 99% of the votes supporting Anschluss in Austria, with over 99% voter turnout. The North leads, the South follows. Yes, they were massively influenced by propaganda, didn't have a free press, and were a fascist country since 1933. So, while not following what we today would consider a proper democratic process, the Austrians as a whole, definitely supported joining Hitler's Germany.

It's not the "single german culture" that makes them dangerous. But the mix of the different German cultures. Meritocracy, radicalism, aggression in the north. This makes for great leaders, achievements, drive, and the ability to think new. Combined with the corporatism in the south, obedience, rationality, good work ethic, conservative values. These are the followers. And you need both of these cultures for nazism to "work". The night of the long knives were Hitler's way of taking on the radical elements he didn't agree with, to consolidate the support from the moderates and conservatives. It was his way of taking socialism out of national socialism. And it worked.

The problem with Germany, compared to other European nations, is that you can actually make extreme fascism/nazism work with the people living there. Mussolini tried, but he only had the followers, the leaders were incompetent, only in it for themselves, a plutocracy, rather than a meritocracy. It failed from within. Then the public started to feel it, and find a rather peaceful solution to end it. (Yes, hanging Mussolini from the light poles is peaceful in European context). It's pretty much how every southern European fascist state has failed. Greece, Spain, Italy. But Germany had to be steamrolled from all sides to make the public yield.

So, when Germany clearly wants to take the lead of the New Europe again, I'm worried. Because they will be efficient, popular, rational, and if a situation arises where throwing human rights out the window is perceived to be the rational choice; they will do so without blinking. One small goose step at the time.

[TheReal_ND]

Le Monde Caught Changing Headlines to Protect Moslems

Diversity Macht Frei
April 4, 2018

Here we see two headlines for the same article in Le Monde.

The first reads: “The disturbing radicalism of young Muslims”

This was then changed to: “The disturbing radicalism of a minority of young people”

The article itself reported on a survey of 7000 school pupils, aged 14-16.

One quarter of secondary school pupils questioned do not completely condemn the attacks against Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan, 80% think religions cannot be mocked, 68% think the media haven’t told the whole truth about the 2015 attacks, one third think it is “acceptable in certain cases to participate in a violent action to defend your ideas”.

Source

26% of these pupils were Muslim in what was presented as a representative survey. Does this mean a quarter of all French people residents of France in that age group are Muslim?

[Smitty-48]

There are plenty of other cultures that are prone to authoritarianism - pretty much any of them can be moved in that direction. You make them sound much more like 1950s Americans, than anything foreign/different from the rest - ideal citizens. In fact, you might be right, that compliant citizens are incredibly dangerous - especially when I think of Asian cultures and history...

Now, why would German culture be more geared toward authority? The 30-years-war? Prussian military discipline? Something else innate to German culture?

True, there are other cultures with similarities. Asian countries are prone to it due to their collectivism. But the particular mix of meritocracy, obedience, authority, rationality and orderliness of the German culture is what makes them extremely prone to Nazism, and other extreme forms of fascism. Asian cultures have done horrendous stuff, and the collectivism is what made a lot of it possible. But it's not entirely similar to nazism. They had obedience, authority, but not the same degree of meritocracy as the Germans have had. Russia, China and Japan didn't really manage to exploit the skills of the reluctant followers, Nazi Germany did.

Prussian military discipline is not the reason nazism grew. But the cultural advantages that made Prussian military discipline possible, are the same that made nazism possible to grow. The Nazis were most popular in the north, in Prussia. But the north is not everything. They managed to get over 99% of the votes supporting Anschluss in Austria, with over 99% voter turnout. The North leads, the South follows. Yes, they were massively influenced by propaganda, didn't have a free press, and were a fascist country since 1933. So, while not following what we today would consider a proper democratic process, the Austrians as a whole, definitely supported joining Hitler's Germany.

It's not the "single german culture" that makes them dangerous. But the mix of the different German cultures. Meritocracy, radicalism, aggression in the north. This makes for great leaders, achievements, drive, and the ability to think new. Combined with the corporatism in the south, obedience, rationality, good work ethic, conservative values. These are the followers. And you need both of these cultures for nazism to "work". The night of the long knives were Hitler's way of taking on the radical elements he didn't agree with, to consolidate the support from the moderates and conservatives. It was his way of taking socialism out of national socialism. And it worked.

The problem with Germany, compared to other European nations, is that you can actually make extreme fascism/nazism work with the people living there. Mussolini tried, but he only had the followers, the leaders were incompetent, only in it for themselves, a plutocracy, rather than a meritocracy. It failed from within. Then the public started to feel it, and find a rather peaceful solution to end it. (Yes, hanging Mussolini from the light poles is peaceful in European context). It's pretty much how every southern European fascist state has failed. Greece, Spain, Italy. But Germany had to be steamrolled from all sides to make the public yield.

So, when Germany clearly wants to take the lead of the New Europe again, I'm worried. Because they will be efficient, popular, rational, and if a situation arises where throwing human rights out the window is perceived to be the rational choice; they will do so without blinking. One small goose step at the time.

The French were the aggressors all along, the Germans were simply defending themselves, the French caused all the problems, the Germans simply became reactionary to being attacked by the French over and over.

Napoleon I attacked and subjugated the Prussians, Napoleon III provoked the Franco-Prussian War, the French Republic sided with the Russian Czar attacking the Germans, the French imposed the harshest terms at Versailles, and the French declared war on Nazi Germany, not the other way round.

If the British had just stuck to minding India and the Far East instead of trying to save the Franco-Russian aggressors from themselves, there never would have been any wars of British Hegmonic Succession in the first place, and so no Jewish-Bolshevik Conspiracy therein, the Germans didn't make the Nazis, the Entente Cordiale did, before the Entente Cordiale crushed them on behalf of the Russians, the Germans were the most humane and civilized of them all.

If we had been attacked from all sides, starved to the brink by a Wall Street funded blockade, suffered two million killed, four million wounded, lost three quarters of a million civilians on top, then had our nation subjugated even though we never actually capitulated on the battlefield, and were then pummeled in rapid succession by the Treaty of Versailles followed by the total collapse of the Wiemar Republic in the Great Depression? We'd have all been Nazis too.

Why was Hitler popular? He jumped started the economy out of the ditch, threw off the shackles of reparations, took back the territories lost at Versailles nary a shot fired, and was the bulwark against the looming menace of Stalin and the Bolsheviks, simple as that, if Anglo-Americans had been in that situation, we would have been all for it, sieg heil.

[ssu]

Why was Hitler popular? He jumped started the economy out of the ditch, threw off the shackles of reparations, took back the territories lost at Versailles nary a shot fired, and was the bulwark against the looming menace of Stalin and the Bolsheviks, simple as that, if Anglo-Americans had been in that situation, we would have been all for it, sieg heil.

Reminds me what my grandfather, a WW2 vet who fought also the Germans in Lapland, had views about the whole thing: If Hitler would just have stopped after Czechoslovakia and wouldn't have gone after Poland. Before that there indeed was a lot of understanding of Hitler's policies. Today with historical hindsight we think differently.

[Smitty-48]

What the fuck was Poland? Nobody gave a shit about Poland, sold the Czechs down the river, what's a few Poles on top? Half the Poles sided with the Nazis, the Poles were collaborators, why did we blow the world up for the Poles again?

If the Entente Cordiale hadn't staked its reputation on balderdash Peace In Our Time, they could have just got out of the way and let the Germans fight Stalin, as had been the plan all along.

If, in that moment, everybody could have been briefed as to what was coming? If the French knew, that France would fall, for Poland? If the British knew, that what was left of the Empire would fall, for Poland?

Sayonara, Poland, you're not worth blowing the whole Kibbutz over.