#Gleichschaltung

[liedpoesierebscher]

Unterwerfung

Es gibt über einhundert

Definitionen von natürlicher

Intelligenz und keine ist

wirklich alltagsgültig.

Also erschufen die Menschen

künstliche Intelligenzen,

in der Hoffnung, dass diese

alles unter Kontrolle haben

und nicht mehr

an Lebenshürden scheitern.

Die jüngst in Florida

durch die Sicherheitsschranken

der Hightech - Labore

entwichenen Drohnenverbände

haben im Autopilotmodus

ihre Erzeuger und Kontrolleure

(allesamt patentierte Cyborgs)

zu Schwarmsoldaten gleich

geschaltet, um Abweichler und

Intellektuelle auszuschalten.

 So etwas

galt als biotechnisch unmöglich.

[rwpohl]

rolf geissler, dekadenz und heroismus - zeitroman und völkisch-nationalsozialistische literaturkritik, deutsche verlags-anstalt stuttgart 1964

[simplicius-simplicissimus]

„Project 2025“ - the way of the US to autocracy?!

A little history

The Nazis were in fact democratically elected to power in Germany in 1933 (by forming a coalition with another nationalist party) - but as soon as they had got the power, they gradually dismantled democracy and showed their real face and intention. All administrative, legal, political, economic, social and cultural institutions were gradually forced and integrated under the Nazi narrative - this process was called „Gleichschaltung“ (Synchronization).

How did that work?

All vital positions in society were filled with partisans or people in such positions were forced to tell or serve only the Nazi narrative (e.g. the press). The Nazis determined which books, music, films, art and news were allowed and conform to their ideology.

Why did they do that?

A facade of legality was uphold as they established their authoritarian regime. The Nazis understood the need to maintain the “illusion of a democracy” since they knew that their political agenda was so extreme that a majority of the people would never support it on the long run.

„If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent - for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

-Joseph Goebbels

Goals of Project 2025!

The GOP has already been hijacked and turned into a personal cult by far-right extremists. Project 2025 now aims to consolidate the power of the „new GOP“ by „synchronizing“ the state and society - because they know that their extreme ideology and convictions are not acceptable to a majority. All that paves the way to autocracy. Putin, Orban and Erdogan used similar screenplays as well. If you elect anti-democratic forces into power - they will very likely stay there. Game over!!!

More details about „Project 2025“

A fascist, authoritarian, dictator’s dream:

„The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.“

-Plato

Trump knows Project 2025 - it is the agenda of him and his allies - he just doesn’t want to talk about it publicly:

„Christian Nationalism“- one of the driver behind „Project 2025“! Do you want to live under a religious regime like in Iran?

Comment: See Position 11:11 of the video! The first black American president Barack Obama was a „shock“ for those „Christian Nationalists“ (and their racial idea of white supremacy) and radicalized them even more - because they fear being in the minority in the US and thereby losing power.

Democracy in danger:

“And Again - Christians get out and vote! Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years - you know what: It’ll be fixed - it’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

-Donald Trump

The ideology behind “Project 2025” is already a reality at the state level - and this status is protected there by Gerrymandering and voter suppression:

Controlling the independent press:

“Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy.”

-Walter Cronkite

Effects on civil rights (abortion):

Effects on environmental protection:

„Awareness is key. In the absence of information, none of us know what is happening and what could be jeopardizing our health, our water supply, and our planet.“

-Erin Brockovich

[my-life-fm]

[endlich-spricht-es-jemand-aus]

DIE SPRACHPOLIZEI

Sie durchwühlen die Archive, streichen hier, markieren dort. argwöhnisch wie Detektive. Böse Wörter müssen fort ! Denn sie fürchten, daß versteckt ist, in des Worts vertrautem Klang, was politisch nicht korrekt ist, freies Denken, OHNE Zwang. Bücher werden umgeschrieben; heut' ist Pippi Langstrumpf dran ! Morgen suchen sie bei Goethe, was man dort verbieten kann. Ob bei Schiller oder Hegel, ob bei Heine oder Kant: Sicher findet sich ein Flegel, der ein böses Wort verbannt. Ja, sie würden, wenn sie könnten auch die Bibel revidier'n, oder wenigstens verbieten, daraus weiter zu zitier'n ! Selbsternannte Tugendwächter maßen sich ein Urteil an, das man nur noch mit Gelächter und mit Spott quittieren kann.

Laßt Euch nicht den Mund verbieten, Leute, redet wie Ihr wollt ! Auch wenn hochbezahlte Nieten meinen, daß Ihr das nicht sollt !

Uwe Steimle

20:13 bis 21:33

[taunuswolf]

[misfitwashere]

How to Stop Fascism

Five Lessons of the Nazi Takeover

Timothy Snyder

Jul 05, 2024

As the United States hovers at the edge of fascism, the history of Germany can help.

To be sure, Americans have other histories to ponder, including their own.  Some American states, right now, are laboratories of authoritarian rule (and resistance).  The American 1860s and American 1930s reveal tactics authoritarians use, as well as the weaknesses of the American system, such as slavery and its legacy. At those times, though, Americans were lucky in their leadership.  Lincoln and Roosevelt were in office at the critical moments.  And so we lack the experience of the collapse of the republic.

We can certainly learn from contemporary authoritarian success, as in Russia and in Hungary, which I have written about elsewhere.  Yet the classic example of a major economic and cultural power collapsing into fascism remains Germany in 1933. The failure of the democratic experiment in Germany led to a world war as well as the Holocaust and other atrocities.

Yet today a taboo hovers around anything concerning Hitler.  As soon as the collapse of the German republic in 1933 is evoked, American voices commence a fake lament — America is uniquely good so nothing about Nazis can ever apply, and/or Hitler was uniquely evil and so nothing concerning him is relevant.

To be sure, every person and every event is in some sense unique.  But history is precisely the interaction of individuals and situations which, seen in isolation, will appear unique.  The taboo on fascist history shoves people back to a turbulent present, leaving them feeling more helpless. It is an element of the fascist takeover.

The lessons from Germany that I present below are not at all new.  We have been trained by digital media to believe that only what happens right now matters.  But the people who intend to destroy the American constitutional republic have learned from the past.  One of the basic elements of Project 2025, for example, is what the Nazis called Gleichschaltung: transforming the civil service into a fascist nest.

Those who wish to preserve the American constitutional republic should also recall the past.  A good start would be just to recall the five basic political lessons of 1933.

1.  Voting matters.  Hitler came to power after an election which enabled his appointment as head of government.  It is much easier for fascists to begin from within than to begin from without.  Hitler’s earlier coup attempt failed.  But once he had legitimate power, inside the system as chancellor (prime minister), he could manipulate it from within.  In the American system, “voting” means not just going to the polls yourself, but making donations, phone-banking, and knocking on doors.  We are still, happily, at the stage when unglamorous actions can make the difference.

2.  Coalitions are necessary.  In 1932, in the crucial German election, the far left and the center left were separated.  The reasons for this were very specific: Stalin ordered the German communists to oppose the German social democrats, thereby helping Hitler to power.  To be sure, the American political spectrum is very different, as are the times.  Yet the general lesson does suggest itself: the left has to hold together with the the center-left, and their energies have to be directed at the goal rather than at each other.

3.  Conservatives should be conservative.  Which way the center-right turns can be decisive.  In Germany in 1932, conservatives enabled the counter-revolution.  They did not see Hitler and his Nazis as something different from themselves.  They imagined, somehow, that Hitler would preserve the system rather revolutionize it.  They were wrong, and some of them paid for the mistake with their lives.  As in American today, the German “old right” was less numerous than the “new right,” the fascists.  But how the traditionalist center-right acts can very well make the difference.

4.  Big business should support democracy.  In the Germany of the 1930s, business leaders were not necessarily enthusiastic about Hitler as a person.  But they associated democracy with labor unions and wanted to break them.  Seeing Hitler as an instrument of their own profit, business leaders enabled the Nazi regime.  This was, in the end, very bad for business.  Although the circumstances today are different, the general lesson is the same: whether they like it or not, business leaders bear responsibility for whether a republic endures or is destroyed.

5.  Citizens should not obey in advance.  Much of fascism is a bluff — look at our loyal cult, listen to our outrageous language, heed our threats of violence, we are inevitable!  Hitler was good at that sort of propaganda.  Yet to gain power he needed luck and the errors of others.  American fascism, likewise, is far from inevitable.  It too is largely bluff, most of it digital.  The internet is much more fascist than real life, which is discouraging.  But we vote in the real world.  The crucial thing is the individual decision to act, along with others, for four months, a little something each day, regardless of the atmospherics and the polls and the media and the moods.

It’s simple: recalling history, we act in the present, for a future that can and will be much better.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

With his spectacular political instincts, directly after the assassination attempt on his life, Donald Trump told the Secret Service agents surrounding him, “wait, wait”, and raised his fist to the crowd, creating one of the more powerful visual effects of recent times. Right before being swept off stage, he mouthed the words, a message to his supporters, “fight fight.” Fascism is a cult of the leader, who promises national restoration in the face of the supposed threat to the nation of humiliation and destruction by liberals, feminists, LGBT, and immigrants. Treating democracy and its institutions – the press, schools, and the courts - as decadent, weak, and controlled by Marxists, a fascist leader promises to replace them with loyalists to him and his party (a process the Nazis termed “Gleichschaltung”). Despite creating disorder and being themselves utterly lawless, the fascist leader promises to crack down on crime (whether the crime wave is real or imaginary). In the vital framework of Ruth Ben-Ghiat, fascists leaders are typically “strongmen”, whose appeal depends on the desire of the public for a macho leader, who protects the nation’s families from these illusory threats.  Since the inception of the theoretical literature on fascism, theorists have connected this politics to the appeal of the ideology of patriarchy. It is exactly what we are witnessing today. The world has recently seen the situation America faces before, and it should serve as a warning. One month before Brazil’s 2018 presidential election, Jair Bolsonaro, the far-right candidate for the election, was stabbed at a campaign rally. Like Trump, Bolsonaro’s candidacy was based on a politics of strutting masculinity, taking as its targets LGBT and crime, promising to place weapons in the hands in the hands of many more Brazilians. The stabbing increased Bolsonaro’s popularity, and made explicit criticism of him difficult for some time. The U.S. election is further away, but we can expect the dynamics to be similar. As always, the rules are different for Democrats than they are for Republicans. Republicans have directed incendiary rhetoric at former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for years. When Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s 82-year-old husband, was beaten on the head with a hammer by a far-right extremist, it was a source of amusement and fun for some Republicans, including Trump himself. The rules may be different for Democrats and Republicans, but those are the ones by which this game must be played. If Trump is to be defeated, it can only be by honestly adhering to norms and principles that Trump has long since torn down. The Democrats must make the case to voters that the election is a choice between these norms, and permanent rule by an explicitly fascist political party. [...] The nation’s media has been busy normalizing fascism, speaking of a second four year term as if Trump eventually stepping down is not just a possibility, but a certainty. The Democrats must make the case, against a Supreme Court committed to the election of Donald Trump, and a press largely already aligning itself to serve, that the allure of dictatorship should be resisted. Violence only makes this task more difficult.

Jason Stanley for Zeteo News on how the assassination attempt on Donald Trump will make the task of stopping Trump and his fascist regime much more difficult (07.14.2024).

Jason Stanley writes in Zeteo News that the assassination attempt against Donald Trump makes stopping him and fascism much more difficult.

[jgmail]

La «Gleichschaltung» neoliberal

Por Pier Paolo Caserta

Fuentes: Observatorio de la crisis

El capitalismo digital se comporta como un gigantesco vampiro que se alimenta de la libido. En otras palabras en comparación con el capitalismo tradicional, el nuevo tipo de capital no solo extrae plusvalía del trabajo, sino también «de la experiencia humana en su totalidad».

Primero me gustaría intentar sugerir cómo la contrarrevolución digital no debería verse simplemente como un desarrollo del capitalismo financiero. De hecho, ha permitido establecer el nuevo orden digital que, gracias a herramientas de eficacia y omnipresencia sin precedentes, ha desrealizado el «orden terrenal» (Byung-Chul Han, Le non cose) permitiendo que el horizonte individual se rediseñe en su conjunto, prolongando la idolatría del Mercado a través de la Tecnología y el mito de su omnipotencia y relanzando la ideología mercantil justo cuando experimentó un serio revés con la crisis financiera de 2007/8.

De esta manera, el orden digital se ha convertido en la herramienta clave al servicio de una profunda reestructuración antropológica que persigue el poder tecnocrático actual. En la práctica, el orden digital no solo ha permitido aplicar un poderoso apretón, comprimiendo tanto el campo del pensamiento – que el capitalismo digital atrofia colonizando el tiempo de los tecno-sujetos – como el de las alternativas, que para ser adoptadas deben primero ser adoptadas y sobre todo debe ser imaginadas, pensadas, considerada deseable o simplemente posible.

Este es un primer carácter constitutivo del capitalismo digital, que se comporta como un gigantesco vampiro que se alimenta de la libido como destaca Shoshana Zuboff en su libro “Surveillance Capitalism” ( 2019). En otras palabras en comparación con el capitalismo tradicional, el nuevo tipo de capital no solo extrae plusvalía del trabajo, sino también «de la experiencia humana en su totalidad».

Vuelvo a la restricción del campo de alternativas, cuestión central para el desarrollo de mi razonamiento. Carlo Formenti defendió (Guerra y revolución, 2023), siguiendo a Lukács, una lectura no determinista de Marx, ya que «ninguna dimensión del ser social condiciona a las otras sin estar a su vez condicionada por ellas».

Por tanto, si es cierto que las leyes de la economía adquieren un carácter abrumador, sin embargo la estructura económica no determina la conciencia directamente, sino «a través de la totalidad del ser social». Esto significa que la acción subjetiva, no ejerce su capacidad de decisión en sentido absoluto, sino siempre dentro de un campo de alternativas predefinidas.

A partir de este marco, el objetivo es captar y describir cómo, durante los últimos quince años, es decir, con la instalación del capitalismo digital, se condujo al establecimiento del nuevo orden digital, una contrarrevolución digital que ha provocado una severa restricción de el campo de las alternativas disponibles para la acción subjetiva y para política, particularmente para las clases trabajadoras.

Cómo se logró esta vasta persuasión en el Occidente tecnocapitalista; es, en mi opinión, el principal problema al que nos enfrentamos hoy; y esto sólo puede explicarse entrando en la lógica profundamente manipuladora del capitalismo digital, basada en una sofisticada ingeniería conductual. Desde este punto de vista, me refiero, entre otras cosas, a alguno de mis trabajos publicados en las páginas de L’Interformazione.

Aquí me gustaría, en cambio, desarrollar y aclarar un tema unificador: cómo, a través del nuevo orden digital, se está creando una verdadera Gleichschaltung («sincronización») neoliberal. Esto no sorprende, porque constituye una consecuencia coherente de la definición de totalitarismo neoliberal, es decir, una ideología que pretende ocupar todos los espacios de la vida del individuo; así que no nos debería sorprender que hoy los individuos no sean conscientes y tiendan, por el contrario, a creer el horizonte neoliberal, a confiar en él y a identificarse con el sistema, porque esto es inherente al carácter básico del concepto de adoctrinamiento, así es como ocurrió con su arquetipo ideológico bajo el nazismo.

La Gleichschaltung, es decir, la campaña de sincronización de la sociedad, fue lanzada por los nazis en 1933 y duró hasta 1937. Su objetivo era, como sugiere el término, asumir el control total sobre el individuo, así como sobre cada organización y cada aspecto de la vida, con el pretexto de purificar la cultura y la sociedad.

Desde hace algún tiempo existe una Gleichschaltung neoliberal y su realización efectiva se encuentra en una etapa avanzada. Los individuos de masas deben estar alineados, obligados a ajustarse a una ideología funcional al orden mercantil que ha continuado en la tecnocracia neoliberal.

La filiación de un mismo esquema se da dentro de diferentes formas estatales y políticas y convive sin problemas con esta diversidad. El nazismo primero alcanzó el poder, se apoderó de los mandos del Estado y luego lo ocupó y se identificó completamente con él. La élite anglosajona es, sin embargo, transnacional, nómada y ubicua (Jacques Attali, Breve historia del futuro). Los primeros hicieron uso de la represión, los segundos de la promesa de la extensión ilimitada de la libertad individual.

El capitalismo digital constituye la principal herramienta al servicio de la «sincronización» del individuo en la nueva sociedad de masas. Comparado con los totalitarismos del siglo XX, esta no se basa en la represión, sino en la “libertad” y de ahí deriva tanto su eficacia como las dificultades para decodificarla; obviamente se trata de una cierta manera de entender, o más bien de presentar la libertad, dado que las «batallas» en el centro de la ideología neoliberal no son batallas de libertad y la supuesta extensión ilimitada ligada a la posibilidad infinita de manipular al individuo esconde su definitiva reducción a mercancía (Silvia Guerini, Del cuerpo neutro al cyborg posthumano, 2022).

Así la «sincronización» del individuo-masa en el nuevo orden digital hace uso del equipamiento ideológico de la corrección política, del feminismo neoliberal y de la «igualdad de oportunidades», del pensamiento LGBTQ+, del transhumanismo; y también, sin ninguna paradoja, de un «antifascismo» nominalista, despojado de toda conexión con la cuestión social, pregonado por belicistas, atlantistas y libremercadistas, es decir, por aquellos que ritualmente señalan a un enemigo del pasado incluso cuando caminan junto al neo-autoritarismo del presente, como bien hemos podido comprobar una vez más, y de manera más llamativa, con motivo del teatro mediático del pasado 25 de abril.

He aquí, por tanto, los rasgos generales de lo que debe considerarse una verdadera  Gleichschaltung neoliberal y de la que se puede encontrar una pieza más en el crescendo mediático orquestado con motivo del pasado 25 de noviembre ( https://www.lesistenza.info/attpol / orden-del-dia-divide-et-impera-climax-perfetto-25-novembre/ ), que se ha convertido en una fecha inamovible de la liturgia políticamente correcta.

De hecho, la voluntad de moldear al individuo y a la comunidad deriva necesariamente de la noción de totalitarismo liberal. Hoy, los medios materiales (incluida la ideología) utilizados para este propósito no pueden considerarse  misteriosos. Tampoco es casualidad que la corrección política, con su ímpetu moralista, desempeñe una función similar a la del deseo maníaco de purificar la sociedad y la cultura en la Gleichschaltung original, la nazi.

Finalmente, puedo mencionar otro aspecto central en la Gleichschaltung neoliberal, inherente también a su definición y al esquema general, común al modelo y a la copia, de transformación y estandarización del individuo y de la comunidad, es decir, el hecho de que pasa por el adoctrinamiento de los más jóvenes, de los adolescentes, de los preadolescentes e incluso de los niños, a través de la capacidad que adquiere el nuevo orden digital de dirigirse a ellos directamente, saltándose todas las formas y figuras de intermediación social y educativa, pasos que se han ido dando adoptadas para domesticar, neutralizar o deslegitimar.

Cualquiera que haya estudiado el funcionamiento y la lógica en que se basa el capitalismo digital, o simplemente haya observado cuidadosamente sus efectos en la infancia y la adolescencia, se da cuenta de que el orden digital realza la ya inherente tendencia del neoliberalismo hacia la total desconflictualización y desintermediación de la sociedad , llevándolo a la consecuencia final y más radical, es decir, la enrarecimiento, desestructuración y en última instancia anulación de la relación con las figuras de referencia, padres y profesores.

Los padres se sienten distraídos y atomizados a través de las mismas herramientas a las que sus hijos son cada vez más abandonados; estos últimos son atacados permanentemente con campañas mediáticas ad hoc y las contrarreformas escolares los vuelven lo más inofensivos posible.

De esta manera, se ha logrado, y se logra cada vez más, el resultado de anticipar los tiempos e intensificar los efectos de la separación monádica de los individuos, del retraimiento narcisista y de la disolución de los vínculos comunitarios. Además, la tecnocracia neoliberal, culminación de la ideología mercantil, ahora se opone explícitamente a la familia; y tiene uno de sus pilares en la destrucción y colonización de las escuelas públicas.

También en este caso podemos ver cómo el capitalismo digital predispone y amplifica todas las escisiones y formas de desintegración que sus apéndices ideológicos fortalecen y concretan. En este sentido, resultan especialmente útiles las páginas del citado libro de Silvia Guerini dedicadas a la saturación de las escuelas, principalmente en los países anglosajones , con la ideología de «género neutral», que se encuentra en el origen del crecimiento exponencial de los fenómenos de tipo disforia.

En Canadá, el adoctrinamiento sobre la “identidad de género” ha penetrado en las escuelas, como resultado, niños y niñas de hasta 11 años piden usar sus pronombres preferidos y muchos adolescentes se definen como pan-sexuales (….). En Canadá, a los niños y niñas de todas las edades se les enseña que tienen una «identidad de género» y que ésta es más importante que el sexo biológico.

La política escolar prevé la posibilidad de una “transición social” sin que los padres sean informados. Un padre se enteró de que se hacía referencia a su hija con un nombre masculino cuando lo leyó en el anuario de séptimo grado. La condena a 6 meses de prisión y una multa de 30 mil dólares para este padre que se opuso a la administración de bloqueadores a su hija es un precedente significativo, peligroso y preocupante.

En conclusión,  la Gleichschaltung neoliberal debe entenderse a la luz de todos los aspectos y contextos complementarios en los que se arraiga y se hace explícita la reproducción de su ideología.

El nuevo orden digital, que constituye quizás la realización más completa del «capitalismo mágico», mantiene unida y relanza toda la construcción material de la ideología, la lleva a un nivel superior y ofrece al individuo de masa un horizonte trascendente en el que ubicarse, resultando en un severo cierre del campo de alternativas disponibles para la acción subjetiva y política.

Pier Paolo Caserta es profesor de Filosofía e Historia, ensayista independiente, formador y autor en el campo de la lógica.

Fuente: https://observatoriocrisis.com/2024/04/28/la-gleichschaltung-neoliberal/

[gulyas069]

der erste schritt der gleichschaltung ist die vermischung von außen- und innenpolitik

[fridagentileschi]

TOTALITARISMO E BUGIE

“Totalitarismo. Il totalitarismo comincia con il disprezzo per quello che abbiamo. Il secondo passo è: ‘Le cose devono cambiare, non importa come, qualsiasi cosa è meglio di quello che abbiamo’. I governi totalitari organizzano questo sentimento di massa e organizzandolo lo articolano e articolandolo fanno sì che in qualche modo le persone lo apprezzino. Prima le persone si sentivano dire: non uccidere, e loro non uccidevano. Adesso si sentono dire: uccidi, e sebbene pensino che uccidere sia molto difficile, lo fanno perché ormai rientra nel normale codice di comportamento. Imparano chi uccidere, come uccidere e come farlo insieme. È la famosa Gleichschaltung, il processo di allineamento. Sei allineato non con le autorità superiori, ma con il tuo vicino, con la maggioranza. Solo che invece di comunicare con l’altro, adesso sei incollato a lui. E naturalmente ti senti bene. Il totalitarismo fa leva sui pericolosi bisogni emotivi di persone che vivono nel totale isolamento e nel timore dell’altro.

Bugie. Nel momento in cui non abbiamo più una stampa libera, può succedere di tutto. Quello che consente a uno stato totalitario di governare è che le persone non sono informate. Come fai ad avere un’opinione se non sei informato? Se tutti ti mentono sempre, la conseguenza non è che tu credi alle bugie, ma che nessuno crede più a nulla. Questo succede perché le bugie, per loro natura, devono essere cambiate, e un governo che mente deve riscrivere continuamente la sua storia. Quello che arriva alla gente non è solo una bugia, ma un gran numero di bugie, a seconda di come tira il vento della politica. E un popolo che non può più credere a nulla, non può neanche decidere. È privato non solo della capacità di agire ma anche della capacità di pensare e giudicare. E con un popolo così ci puoi fare quello che vuoi”.

Hannah Arendt

[coulsonlives]

If you didn't already know: calling certain kinds of art 'degenerate', 'gross', and/or 'sick' is a nazi/fascist dogwhistle, and it's related to their pro-eugenics narrative.

Here's the deets:

From wikipedia:

The Degenerate Art exhibition (German: Die Ausstellung "Entartete Kunst") was an art exhibition organized by Adolf Ziegler and the Nazi Party in Munich from 19 July to 30 November 1937. The exhibition presented 650 works of art, confiscated from German museums, and was staged in counterpoint to the concurrent Great German Art Exhibition.[1] The day before the exhibition started, Hitler delivered a speech declaring "merciless war" on cultural disintegration, attacking "chatterboxes, dilettantes and art swindlers".[1]Degenerate art was defined as works that "insult German feeling, or destroy or confuse natural form or simply reveal an absence of adequate manual and artistic skill".[1]

Hitler's rise to power on 30 January 1933 was quickly followed by actions intended to cleanse the culture of so-called degeneracy: book burnings were organized, artists and musicians were dismissed from teaching positions, and museum curators were replaced by Party members.[2]

From the holocaust encyclopedia:

When the Nazi Party assumed control in 1933, its leaders began a campaign to align German politics, society, and culture with Nazi goals. This process of Nazification was widespread. The effort became known as Gleichschaltung, the German word for “coordination” or “synchronization.”

The Nazi regime disbanded organizations of every kind. It replaced these groups with state-sponsored, Nazi professional associations, student leagues, and sports and music clubs. To qualify for membership, a person had to be a politically reliable citizen and able to prove “Aryan” ancestry. All others were excluded from these groups and increasingly from the rest of German society.

In September 1933, the Nazis created the Reich Chamber of Culture. The Chamber oversaw the production of art, music, film, theater, radio, and writing in Germany. The Nazis sought to shape and control every aspect of German society. They believed that art played a critical role in defining a society’s values. In addition, the Nazis believed art could influence a nation’s development. Several top leaders became involved in official efforts on art. They sought to identify and attack “dangerous” artworks as they struggled to define what “truly German” art looked like.

The Nazis also claimed that the ambiguity of modern art contained Jewish and Communist influences that could “endanger public security and order.” They claimed that modern art conspired to weaken German society with “cultural Bolshevism.” According to Nazi ideology, only criminal minds could be capable of creating such so-called harmful art. The Nazis called this art "degenerate." They used the term to suggest that the artists' mental, physical, and moral capacities must be in decay. At the time, "degenerate" was widely used to describe criminality, immorality, and physical and mental disabilities.

The campaign to define and control art was shaped by disagreements among leaders. Officials competed for influence within the party and government. In this case, chief Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg clashed with Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels led the Reich Chamber of Culture. As a young man, he had admired prominent avant-garde German artists. He even hoped that a form of “Nordic Expressionism” could become an official Nazi style of art. Rosenberg led a more conservative faction called the Combat League for German Culture. This effort was more aligned with Adolf Hitler’s tastes. Hitler prefered more realistic and classical styles of painting, sculpture, and architecture. Goebbels won this clash with Rosenberg by conforming to Hitler's tastes.

The regime attempted to clarify what “truly German art” looked like in summer 1937. The first annual Great German Art Exhibition opened in Munich at that time. Hitler reviewed selected artworks the month before it opened. He furiously ordered the removal of many examples of German avant-garde art. Goebbels witnessed this outburst and began making hasty plans for a separate exhibition. He intended to define and mock the types of art that the regime considered "degenerate." Hitler approved of the plan. The Nazis began confiscating thousands of artworks from German museums.

Roughly one third of the most valuable confiscated artworks were ultimately sold to enrich the Nazi regime. Another third of the artworks disappeared. Some have reemerged over the years. With few exceptions, none of the works were returned to the museums from which they were taken. German museums have not received financial restitution. In rare cases, some art from private collections was returned to its rightful owners. Several European and American museums still possess artworks taken by the Nazis.

Edit: To the pro-censorship antis who are reblogging this, congrats on missing the point COMPLETELY.

[simplicius-simplicissimus]

How the Holocaust happened - recent German history

„It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Vote or no vote, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country“.

-Hermann Göring

Video:

Transcript of the video:

Comment: The dark chapter of the recent German history is omnipresent in the life of a German: as a subject matter at school, in the news in form of current topics with reference to the Nazi era or on news channels where this recent history is told again and again in reports etc. It almost seems like a kind of “brainwashing” - and has now the effect on many young Germans that they often no longer want to hear it: “That was so long ago - and what do we have to do with the Nazi era?" That's true to a certain extent - but you can only recognize certain negative developments in a society if you are capable of doing so. And this requires knowledge about it. Benjamin Franklin (one of the founding fathers of the USA) was once asked what the USA would be - a republic or a monarchy. He replied: “A republic….if you can keep it!” Ultimately, it is up to the citizens of a republic whether they will live freely or „choose“ (elect) bondage in the truest sense of the word. A republic or democracy is only as good as its citizens, who hopefully think and act wisely, virtuously and democratically.

The founders of the Federal Republic of Germany (the second republic after the first failed “Weimar Republic”) had the following in mind: war should never again originate from German soil and such excesses as in the Nazi era should never occur again in Germany. In addition to the important historical education of its citizens, there is also the so-called “Verfassungsschutz” (Office for the Protection of the Constitution) in Germany, which has the task of identifying radical, violent or anti-democratic movements and, if necessary, banning such movements (in course of a legal process). Freedom of speech and opinion is important in a democracy and that is why the “Verfassungsschutz” is subject to strict parliamentary controls and rules (we also know the negative sides of such an authority like the “Stasi” in the former GDR) - but our history has also taught us that anti-democratic and anti-constitutional tendencies must be recognized early and combated before they become a serious problem in society.

Hitler had already attempted a coup in 1923 and was imprisoned as a result. During his imprisonment he then wrote “Mein Kampf” (My Fight). The Nazi movement learned from its failed coup attempt in 1923 - and then did better later. In 1933, the Nazi Party became the strongest party in Germany - but did not have a majority on its own. Hitler could only come to power in a coalition with another party. The democratic members of that party thought they could control the anti-democratic Nazis - a complete misjudgment. Hitler was in fact democratically elected to power - but as soon as he had got the power, he and his companions gradually dismantled democracy and showed their real face and intention. All social, economic, political and cultural forces were integrated into the unified organization of the Nazi dictatorship - it was called „Gleichschaltung“ (Synchronization). There was no longer any independent and critical public opinion - only the Nazi narrative. The crazy thing about the human brain is that if you tell lies often enough, they become perceived reality for some people. In a previous blog post (search for „way of thinking“) I already reported that human brains can be programmed (conditioned) for the good, but also for the bad. Manipulative and criminal people often exploit this trait for their own purposes. At the state level these are autocrats or dictators. That is why such anti-democrats should never be allowed to come to power in the first place - either because the citizens do not vote for them or because the relevant state authorities prevent this.

The following statements by Joseph Goebbels – a proverbial “wolf in sheep’s clothing” – show how dangerous such people are and what they really think of us. They know human psyche well and know how to manipulate it:

„It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.“

„The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.“

„Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.“

„You can’t change the masses. They will always be the same: dumb, gluttonous and forgetful.“

„The mission of women is to be beautiful and to bring children into the world.“

„As a young person, to already have the courage to face the pitiless glare, to overcome the fear of death, and to regain respect for death – this is the task of this young generation.“ Translation: „Be prepared to be cannon fodder for the interest of your leader.“

It‘s hard to bear watching other civilized societies march towards autocracy. Sometimes you can‘t „let the voter decide“ - since the „normal voter“ often doesn’t see the danger. That's why wise people in the past, who have experienced and managed such dangers personally themselves, built guardrails into our constitutions.

-Simplicius Simplicissimus

[my-life-fm]

» [...] “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech” – hatte der ugandische Diktator Idi Amin 1972 verkündet und damit – vorausschauend – einen Situationsbericht zur Lage der “liberalen Demokratien” im “freien Westen” 50 Jahre später geliefert. Mit Corona und dem Ukrainekrieg wurde die Redefreiheit zwar nicht abgeschafft, in seinem Garten oder den eigenen vier Wänden konnte jeder frei reden – solange es die Nachbarn nicht hörten – mit öffentlicher Rede vor allem in den Medien sah es aber anders aus: der Meinungskorridor des Erlaubten wurde desinifiziert und gekärchert wie nie zuvor. Widerspruch und Kritik wurden schonungslos ausgeblendet, ein rationaler Austausch von Argumenten unmöglich gemacht und wer dagegen Einspruch erhob als Unperson diskreditiert und diffamiert. Wer sich die Freiheit der Rede herausnahm, brauchte danach das sprichwörtliche schnelle Pferd. [...]

so wie die Panikorchester der Großmedien erfolgreich die Angst vor dem “Killervirus” geschürt hatten wurde dann nahtlos auf Panik vor dem “Killerrussen” umgeschaltet – wo zuvor, etwa für “Die Zeit” die “Diskriminierung von Ungeimpften ethisch gerechtfertigt”, wurden nun friedensbewegte Kriegsgegner als “Lumpernpazifisten” (“Spiegel”) verunglimpft und jeder diskreditiert, der für Verhandlungen statt für Waffenlieferungen eintrat. Von freier Diskussion, offenem Austausch von Argumenten keine Spur mehr und wer dennoch den Kopf herausstreckte, wurde niedergemäht. So gelang eine nie dagewesene Formatierung der Massen, die ein kollektives Stockholmsyndrom erzeugten. “Freiheit” musste nicht mehr garantiert werden, weil die Opfer mit denen sympathisierten, die ihnen die elementare Freiheit (Habeas Corpus) nahmen – und auf diejenigen mit dem Finger zeigten, die dagegen protestierten. Dass in einer derart gleichgeschalteten medialen Öffentlichkeit über die aktuellen Kriege – den seit 2014 wütenden Bürgerkrieg in der Ukraine, den russischen Einmarsch im Februar 2022, den der NATO gegen Russland und den die Realität vernebelnden Informationskrieg – nicht “vernünftig”, “sachlich” und “friedensfördernd” debattiert werden kann, liegt auf der Hand. [...]

ist das ein Grund, den Mund zu halten, den Kopf einzuziehen und den Verstand auszuschalten? Und zuzuschauen, wie ein unnötiger und ungewinnbarer Krieg Tag für Tag vorangetrieben wird – mit “fürchterlichen Verlusten”. Da kann nur Bertha von Suttners Ruf “Die Waffen nieder!” das einzig Wahre und Richtige sein! [...] «

[naipan]

„The Palestinian terrorist scarf keffiyeh. The KKK hood of today.“

Bekannt in Deutschland wurde das Tuch durch die StudentInnenenbewegung in den 60ern. Damals wurde es als Symbol für die „Volksbefreiungsbewegungen“ in Vietnam und gegen die Amerikaner getragen. In den 90er Jahren war es dann das „kurdische Volk“, dass um seine Freiheit kämpfte oder eben das „palistinänsische Volk“.

Immer ging es dabei um „das Volk“!

Irgendwie komisch, oder? In Deutschland sprechen heute nur noch (Neo-) Nazis von „Volksbefreiung“ und berufen sich z.B auf den „gerechten Kampf“ des „palistinänsischen Volkes“ gegen Israel, gegen den Staat der Juden und Jüdinnen.

Und auch wenn es ein sehr komplexer Konflikt ist, solltest Du wissen, dass das Tuch, das Du immer noch um den Hals trägst, genau dort seinen Ursprung hat:

Von dem islamischen Mufti von Jerusalem wurde 1936 unter Strafe eingeführt, dass jedeR, der/die anstatt der Kufiya z.B einen europäischen Hut trug, gefoltert oder ermordet wurde.

Dieser Mufti (Amin el-Hussein) der als Verbündeter Hitlers mit ihm Zusammenarbeitete, stand der Muslimbruderschaft nahe. Die Muslimbruderschaft ist eine Organisation, die bis heute den ideologischen und den organisatorischen Kern der islamistischen Bewegung bildet, die den Djihad, den „heiligen Krieg“ gegen alle Nichtmuslime predigt und der Gruppen wie al Qaida oder Hamas angehören. Ihre Mitglieder, zu denen auch Bin Laden und Saddam Hussein gehör(t)en, tragen dieses Tuch und die Inhalte die es vermittelt bis heute.

Diese Gruppe und ihre SympathisantInnen wollen ihren rein islamischen Gottesstaat ohne jede Alternative aufzwingen und rufen damit zum Kampf gegen alles „nicht Islamische“.

Das Tragen des Palituch ist daher ein Ausdruck einer Abkehr vom Westen und seinen Fortschritten wie Menschrechte und Freiheit. Sie wollen, wie die Deutschen vor 60 Jahren, eine Gleichschaltung der Köpfe und die „Ausrottung“ aller Gedanken, die sie in ihrer Agitation gefährden könnten.

Als „Westen“ ist hier neben den EuropäerInnen besonders Israel und die USA gemeint.

Nicht nur für die Hamas, Hisbollah, Bin Laden, Arafat und Hussein gilt/galt einhellig:

„Frieden bedeutet für uns die Zerstörung Israels.“ (Arafat 1980).

Diese Zerstörung wird heute als Terror bezeichnet und auch wenn uns alle der 11. September als letzter großer Terroranschlag im Gedächtnis geblieben ist, so richtet sich der Kampf der Islamisten in Gottesstaaten wie Iran, Syrien und dem Sudan und auch die der palästinensischen Minderheiten in den Autonomiegebieten vor allem gegen die jüdische Zivilbevölkerung. So werden in Selbstmordattentaten auf Schulbusse mit jungen SchülerInnen, Restaurants, Kinos und Diskos seit Jahren fast regelmäßig jüdische Menschen aufgrund ihres Glaubens oder Herkunft getötet. Je mehr – desto besser, denn einen Falschen kann es aus dieser Perspektive nicht treffen.

Hauptsache man erwischt so viele Juden wie möglich.

Diesen Menschen, die auch mit Palitüchern vermummt Touristen entführen und sie vor laufenden Kameras regelrecht schlachten, um Lösegeld für den „Heiligen Krieg“ zu erpressen, bedeutet der Westen und insbesondere Israel: Die Veränderung der Gesellschaft, Individualismus, Eigennützigkeit, Kapitalismus, die Freiheit zu Sagen was mensch denkt und die Wahrnehmung eigener Interessen. Also das, was wir heute als Freiheit bezeichnen.

Aus (radikal) islamischer Sicht werden dort immer noch Menschen aufgrund ihrer Herkunft, Sexualität oder Glauben verfolgt, so werden Emanzipationsbestrebungen von Frauen immer wieder, ähnlich wie in anderen totalitären Herrschaftsregiemen, unterdrückt und Homo- oder Bi-Sexualtiät als Krankheit angesehen. Um diesen vermeintlichen Sittenverfall aufzuhalten, werden neben den Attentaten auf die Zivilbevölkerung auch Propagandaschlachten geführt, bei denen Naziparolen aus dem dritten Reich aufgefrischt werden oder wie zuletzt im Iran antisemitische Konferenzen abgehalten.

Dass die Ziele, die diese „Märtyrer“ in ihrem „Heiligen Krieg“ nicht für diese Welt fordern, sondern fanatisch für das nächste Leben kämpfen, wird in diesem Zusammenhang leicht vergessen. So werden z.B. auch viele Kinder aus (radikal) islamischen Familien entsprechend erzogen. In einem Fernsehbericht der palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde antwortet eine 12jährige auf die Frage, ob sie Rechte für Palästinenser oder das Leben nach dem Tod bevorzugt: „Natürlich ist die Shahada [das islamische Glaubensbekenntnis, hier ist damit der Tod als Märtyrer im Heiligen Krieg gemeint] eine gute Sache. Wir wollen diese Welt nicht, wir wollen das Leben nach dem Tod…“

In diesem Glaubensbekenntnis, das nahezu jedes palästinensische Kind im Alter von 12 Jahren ablegt, heißt es: „Oh Allmächtiger ich möchte gerne ein Shahid [Zeuge=Märtyrerer] werden.“ (International Jerusalem Post, 24.1.2003 (siehe für weitere Quellen auch unten)

Ob Du willst oder nicht, solange Du dieses Tuch trägst, symbolisierst Du damit Dein Einverständnis und Deine Unterstützung des Kampfes gegen Israel und der dortigen seit Jahrtausenden verfolgten jüdischen Bevölkerung und die Mittel mit denen dieser menschenverachtende Kampf geführt wird. Du stellst Dich auf die Seite derer, die den Frauen nicht einen gleichberechtigten Platz in der Gesellschaft zugestehen wollen, sondern die jeden Menschen zwingen, sich den Ansprüchen ihrer/seiner Kultur zu fügen, wie menschenverachtend sie auch immer sein mögen.

Kurz: Du stehst damit auf der Seite von Unterdrückung und Gewalt und nicht auf der von Individualität und Freiheit.

(EDIT: Anmerkung zur Diskussion im Blog weiter unten vom Autor: Selbst PalituchbefürworterInnen wie die „elefantenpage“ die ihr sicher beim googlen gefunden habt sagen, dass das Tuch eine Geschichte und Bedeutung hat. Lediglich die Interpretation ist eine Andere, während wir sagen, dass es den bewiesenen Antisemitismus in der z.B 68er- Bewegung gab wird es von KritikerInnen klein geredet. Das das Tuch in den 30ern vom Mufti von Jerusalem, der ein Freund Hitlers war eingeführt wurde und damit gegen die jüdische und europäische Bevölkerung gehetzt wurde ist auch eine unabstreitbare Tatsache in der Wissenschaft die nur von einigen anders Interpretiert wird, auch das damit automatisch der Freiheitskampf der PalestinänserInnen asoziert wird ist für die alle, die sich mit der Materie befasst haben nicht abzustreiten. Der wesentliche Unterscheid ist, dass wir glauben wenn jemand ( z.B Arafat) sagt: „Frieden bedeutet für uns die Vernichtung Israels“ das durchaus als Hetze gegen Jüdinnen betrachtet werden darf. Einige unterscheiden hier zwischen Antisemitismus und Antizionismus, für uns ist das in diesem (und somit nicht per se) Zusammenhang das gleiche … doch die Diskussion und der Unterschied zwischen AntiZ. und AntiS. ist eine andere die an vielen Stellen im Net und in der Linken betrieben wird.)

Anmerkung der AutorInnen:

„Es ist uns wichtig, den Unterschied zwischen der Religion des Islam und fanatischen Islamisten zu machen. AnhängerInnen des Islams sind nicht automatisch TerroristInnen! (…)

[shyuch]

This society is so goddamn utilitarian. (On an off-topic point though, the opening and ending of this anime is really good)

Immediate comments:

This concept of a crime coefficient reduces you down to your most null state: a statistic. The way you are treated by this society is not determined on your value as a person in the eyes of other people, but your value as a gear of a machine that is applied to a rubric. It does not matter whether you’re a victim or a criminal, the second you are out of line (picture above) you are out. You are no longer a good gear in this clock and you must either go to therapy or die.

To accentuate this point, by reducing you to a primitive form of what you are, combined with the painfully abundant amount of surveillance, we can see the whole structure of a Panopticism ideal play out. You are watched at all times, yet you do not know if you are being watched at this moment. You are a subject to this surveillance for all of your life, and yet it forbids you to rebel, even if there are thousands who think the same as you. The sheer hegemony of this ideal forbids any rebellion among the people, and even more it is not really a sense of Tyranny either, no one person is controlling this power. It’s a looming presence constantly pushing down upon you, making you feel the constant pressure of being watched.

Additionally, have you noticed how immediate things appear to be in this society? The numbers are trusted as gospel. It does not matter what you think; the numbers decide everything. Instead of due process, interrogation, or even asking questions, it seems as if the second you are deemed as any sort of “abnormal” you must be terminated. No questions asked, no hesitation.

Elaboration on Utilitarianism:

Using criminals to pursuit other criminals. Nothing in this society will be wasted. If you are deemed worthy enough, you are essentially recycled into something else for an objective; your bad traits turn into valuable assets for use in the future. Which reminds me of Nazi Germany’s Gleichschaltung. The difference between a utilitarian society and a more liberal society, to me at least, is that in a utilitarian one you are assigned an objective and you must follow that objective without falling out of line. You don’t have your own character development arc, again your worth is dependent on how productive you are as an individual to a machine.

Some Concerns About this Model:

I actually quite like utilitarianism. It can help a state grow a lot, and additionally prevent certain people who don’t want to work from leeching off of the state. However, Psycho-pass’ universe is too extreme.

- If you have been a good citizen since forever, and you do one thing wrong and it ruins the rest of your life, what stops certain people from just saying “f*ck it” and go on a murdering spree?

- Who determines this rubric of a crime coefficient?

The Role of the Internet & Separation of Body:

I feel the internet here conveys an escapism concept. Since you are in this extremely suppresive society, the only thing you can do to escape is journey into the metaphysical world. Notice how the murderer with glasses (Episode 5, forgot his name) would kill the owners of the avatars and possess them as an abstract being. Notice how he cites Plato in his rant right before he dies: Plato believed in a true form (souls) in which the world was run on that was separate from the body. This separation from physicality allows one to discover a truth about themselves unobtainable in the real world. However, just as quickly, it can become delusional and easily manipulated. This murderer was clearly the puppet of someone higher up (could this bring us back to Panopticism?) and he used this thought and this delusion in order to manipulate him to become perfect copies of his delusion, which, in ways, satisfies his need for something meaningful that pertains to himself.

Overall, this anime is refreshingly heavy and I’m enjoying it so far.