The Normalization of The New Normal Reich
BY PGF
2 years, 4 months ago
Via WRSA, The New Reich is not what we were told it would be. The “NeoNazi” far right threat we’re constantly warned about has all been projection, as the Left is well known for that Modis Operandi; they are the New Reich.
These symbols and rituals are more than just the window dressing of the New Normal Reich. They are how our new “reality” is being created and maintained. The masses are like actors being forced to emotionally invest in the “reality” of an absurdist stage play. The more they repeat the performance, the more convincing the fictional “reality” becomes, regardless of how patently absurd it is … and it is becoming more and more absurd.
Yes, it’s a religion. It is built on the vapor of faith in a thing that can only produce misery. The bosses of the New Reich know how destructive their plans will be; you are the virus.
And these are just a few recent examples. I don’t think I need to provide an exhaustive list. At this point, you are either well aware and capable of facing what’s happening, or you’re not, in which case you are telling yourself whatever you need to tell yourself in order to pretend that what is happening isn’t happening.
The New Reich is not LARPing. Being in a disarmed country, those folks have got to be kicking themselves.
|
|
On July 25, 2022 at 7:15 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “Via WRSA, The New Reich is not what we were told it would be. The “NeoNazi” far right threat we’re constantly warned about has all been projection, as the Left is well known for that Modis Operandi; they are the New Reich.”
One of the greatest and most-pernicious historical lies of the 20th century has been that fascism is a phenomenon of the political right and that therefore communism and fascism are polar opposites. This characterization is a bald-faced lie whose beginnings are explained below.
All of the early fascists, including its acknowledged founder, Italian strong-man Benito Mussolini, considered their movement to be the final and best-refinement of socialism. Mussolini, like most of the other early fascists, had been a committed socialist prior to the the birth of the new movement.
In Germany, too, fascism had evident roots in socialism: “Nazi” is an acronym of the the German term for “national socialism,” i.e., Nationalsozialismus.
The similarities between the two ideologies drew Stalin and Hitler together during the 1930s, not just the fact that both the USSR and Germany were pariah nations at the time.
Hitler and Stalin were fast friends for a period of years, before betraying one another. They and their respective systems fought arguably not because they were so different and opposed, but because they were so alike and that the two dictators needed to settle once and for all whose system was the stronger.
The lie that communism and fascism were opposites is thought to have begun in post-war East Germany, whose intelligence service and secret police (Stasi) took pains to distance themselves from their former comrades now in West Germany facing them over Iron Curtain. Ultimately, these agents provocateurs were successful in implanting their lie in sympathetic western circles such as the universities and schools and in the counter-culture movement. It was to prove to be one of their most-successful psy-ops during that era.
The truth of the matter is that fascism and communism alike lie on the hard left of the political spectrum charting the size, scope and power of governments. At the right most extreme is not fascism, but anarchy, the complete absence of government. As one moves more and more leftward, government gets larger and more-powerful, becoming authoritarian and finally dictatorial. By the time one reaches fascism and communism, which are neighbors, the government is all-powerful and exhibits naked tyranny.
One final fallacy needs to be put to rest: Skeptics will often claim that it is impossible for a given government or polity to be fascist and communist at the same time. This is precise inversion of the truth, which is that fascist-communist hybrids are not only possible, but common. A case in point is the government of Barack Obama, which had numerous characteristics of both forms of tyranny.
Mussolini claimed to the end of his life that he wished that his creation had been named “corporatism” instead of fascism, for the seamless manner in which it merged the corporation and the state.
On July 25, 2022 at 8:56 pm, PGF said:
@GB61, A better definition of anarchy would be helpful. The current definitions range from ‘no formal government’ to ‘the absence of law’ to ‘rule outside of the law.’ Is not the US in anarchy, its government ruling outside the constraints of its charter?
The US is undoubtedly corporatist, with the most prominent companies writing the laws of the land.
On July 25, 2022 at 11:05 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ PGF
Re: “A better definition of anarchy would be helpful. The current definitions range from ‘no formal government’ to ‘the absence of law’ to ‘rule outside of the law.’ Is not the US in anarchy, its government ruling outside the constraints of its charter?”
Your query lies outside the scope of my remarks, which were intended to compare national socialism and other forms of fascism with communism.
To clarify, imagine a continuum along a line which is bisected in the middle. To the furthest extreme right, lies the absence of government, which is one of the definitions of anarchy. All the way to the other extreme is the total presence of government, i.e., a society in which everything is controlled by or influenced by an all-powerful government. This is where we would place tyrannical governments and police states, including those found under communism and fascism.
In other words, a line or continuum upon which the relative size/presence of government are charted and compared. A simple but useful tool.
Part of the problem of the term “anarchy” is that political scientists and historians attach specific meanings to the term, which don’t always match up with those in common usage. “Anarchy” in common usage is often used to mean any form of chaos, regardless of political affiliation.
And in the late 1800s, there was a period of European history characterized by frequent assassinations, acts of arson, bombings and the like. Some historians term this “The Age of Anarchy,” and those committing the acts were termed “anarchists” regardless of where they fell on the political spectrum.
So, it is easy to see that the word has been used and misused to such an extent that confusion sometimes happens. Returning to my original remarks, if it would help you, substitute “the absence of government” instead of the word “anarchy.”
And to put our friends at ease who might be concerned by the use of the word I was not making reference to that period of 19th century history or the individuals carrying out those acts. Different kind of anarchy.