If every conservative and (true) liberal told the following story, wokeness would be gone in a flash:
In 1933 in Germany, the revolutionary German Lives Matter movement (GLM) came to power in an ad hoc cooperation with Antifa, against the moderate center. In the same year, the Congress was set on fire, and GLM blamed Jewish domestic terrorists. The fire was used to remove freedom of speech and civil liberties and allowed GLM to become the dictarorial party to govern.
GLM suffered from Jew Derangement Syndrome. They believed that Germans, which we may refer to as People of Cologne (POC), were oppressed by evil Jewish Supremacists who ruled through systemic racism againt POCs. These rich Jews had Jewish privilege and was party in a system of greed called capitalism, which GLM referred to as Jewish Economy.
GLM were one of the pioneers of Cultural Marxism. They were socialists, but rather than organizing their revolution around class, they focused on racial identity. Thus, they were the first intellectual movement known as identity politics. They invented what we now know as critical race theory, which states that one particular racial group — Jews — are systemically racist against People of Cologne.
GLM had a dream of returning to a mythical state of greatness: German Wakanda. They were not very fond of borders and citizenship. In fact, they actively tried to remove the rights from Jewish citizens and instead they had open borders for other People of Cologne living in exile outside Germany.
GLM demonized Jews to the point that they were not only persecuted, their stores were not only destroyed during the Night of Broken Glass, but they were genocided in gas chambers in the ultimate act of social justice.
Only after this genocide, did Germans wake up to the reality that they had been part of a death cult. After World War II, the so-called Frankfurt School liked many of the ideas of GLM but didn’t like the genocide. They, therefore, found a way to define the socialist leftist GLM as “far right extremism” and then proceeded to copy all their ideas and give them the names we know today: critical race theory, white supremacy, white privilege and identity politics. They changed the labels and they changed the group from Jews to Whites, and the result is a resurgence of Nazism in America.
I believe Bill is wrong that we need to drop labels because the labels are tainted. That’s a passive aggressive thing to do, and it is very conservative. Labels are important and they need to be fought for. Conservatives and liberals should join together against the neo-Nazi movement of identity politics and critical race theory. What is needed is to use labels as an active tool.
Calling the left communists will not work because the left likes communism. Why would they object to that? No, there is a reason that they ousted Nazism from the left and it is because they didn’t like it. They don’t like being called Nazis (who does?) and that is the correct label for them, but it has to be done in the manner above by describing the Nazis as the German Lives Matter movement.
Every time anyone on the left brings up white supremacy, the response should always be “oh, so you are a nazi then?” If they object or confused explain to them that it was Hitler who pioneered critical race theory and identity politics. They are literally pushing Nazism.
If conservatives AND liberals did this, we could have our labels back again, and get rid of wokeness once and for all, but it will ONLY work if the right works together in unison to label all the wokeness by its true name: Nazism.
24 replies on “The German Lives Matter movement”
As I read this all I can think of is “he who fails to learn from history is bound to relive it”
I feel like i’m watching a bad rerun of a horrible show
True. Now, use this story to prevent a rerun.
Very good points, I will use this in my conversations with the ill informed !
Actually “GLM” blamed Communists for the fire, not Jews. They even had a very Aryan communist all lined up for framing, a Dutchman whose name escapes me at the moment. They used the extraordinary powers resulting from the state of emergency to outlaw all other political parties. Hunting Juden was almost an afterthought in the power grabbing strategy. So successful was the “woking” of Deutschland that they were then able to eliminate the Jews at their leisure.
“Actually “GLM” blamed Communists for the fire, not Jews.”
Hitler saw the Communists, and Social Democrats, and Capitalists as Jewish front ends.
This is brilliant.
This is theoretically a good approach. But it is to longwinded. If you say that the nazis are the national socialist then you can actually use it in a conversation. And then you will have a conversation on the definition of socialism. As long as you are solid with that discussion you won.
But your thing includes a specific sort of historical knowledge. And that doesn’t really work too well emotionally. Or do you think that it is convincing, if all the information in a conversation come from the person you fundamentally disagree with?
I guarantee you 100% that calling the woke crowd peddlers of Nazi ideology is going to work VERY WELL emotionally. I strongly disagree that this is too complicated. Every time someone brings up any white supremacy/privilege/systemic racism point, you can reply “Oh, so you’re a Nazi then? Read Mein Kampf. These are the ideas that Adolf Hitler promoted.” When they say “HUH!????” You answer with the story outlined in my post, and you can pick and choose from it to fit the conversation. If they bring up “white supremacy” you say “Hitler was suffering from Jew Derangement Syndrome, and he thought that Jews were systemically racist and oppressing Germans. He dedicated his life to combating Jewish privilege and capitalism, which he called Jewish economy.” This is not complicated.
I guess then you are just better at communicating than I am.
I AM a good communicator, and that is why I wrote this story as simple as I did. Anyone who is deeply familiar with the concepts of systemic racism, white privilege and supremacy would be horrified when they hear the similarity to Nazism.
If you say so.
I’m not so sure anyone would be “horrified” simply because they’re not going to hear the message the way it was sent. After all, they’re “good” people constantly validated by incessant signalling of their own virtue.
The Nazis knew what they were doing, they knew they were scapegoating. They knew that scapegoating worked. If you had pointed that out to Goering, Bormann , Himmler etc. their reply would have been “Scapegoating? Jah? Und vas ist your point?”
That said, your point is well aimed and hits the mark precisely. When dealing with a Leftist droning on about white privilege etc. a perfect, succinct, direct retort would be …
“Ah, Scapegoating! Brilliant tactic, just like the Nazis did with the Jews!. Worked great didn’t it? At least for a while …”
No, no, you don’t get it. This is not “scapegoating, just like the Nazis.” Nope. Scapegoating is not uniquely Nazi. Demonizing one race as uniquely evil supremacists and blaming them for being oppressors is uniquely Nazi. THIS makes the woke crowd Nazis, not “like Nazis.” They are intellectually speaking Nazis. It’s not an analogy. It’s not a similarity.
Furthermore,we don’t care about the very very tiny minority of people who are consciously evil. We are interested in reaching the vast majority of people who believe they are on the side of good because they fail to realize they are in bed with evil. It is THOSE people for whom this strategy is effective.
No, no, you don’t get it. Nope. I didn’t say that the Nazis were the only people in all of history to successfully create a scapegoat and use it to vault themselves to power. I didn’t say the Nazis are unique. It’s a fairly common trick throughout history.
BTW, I don’t know what dictionary you use but in Merriam Webster the word “similarity” is defined as “a comparable aspect” with synonyms of “likeness, alikeness and comparability” so that nonsense about it not being an analogy but a similarity is semantically null. You contradicted yourself when you said it’s not “like” but is “a similarity”.
It doesn’t matter if the scapegoating is accomplished by “Demonizing one race as uniquely evil supremacists and blaming them for being oppressors …” or by any other means. The means isn’t the prime mover, the scapegoating is. Unless you’re going to argue that the Balkan wars where we all got used to the term “ethic cleansing” as a synonym for “genocide” were perpetrated solely by real, no-shit Nazis.
Etc. I could name more examples, like the Armenian and Rwandan genocides in which no Nazis were involved — but the point is clear enough as it is.
So are we going to call the “woke” post-modern, neo-Marxist Left Ottoman or Hutu now?
You’re using “Nazi” all wrong if you think that the Nazis are unique in blaming another race, creed or tribe for real or imagined oppression. It’s a very, very old trick.
The “woke crowd” aren’t Nazis, hell I wish they were. It would be a lot easier to take them to task for the stupid, destructive things they’re doing. That they use some of the tactics that Nazis used, like scapegoating, makes them “like Nazis”. They are not the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei … They’re potentially something worse.
If you call those who constitute “the vast majority of people who believe they are on the side of good because they fail to realize they’re in bed with evil” — Nazis … They’ll just laugh at you, or me, or whoever says such a silly thing.
Because in their minds they already KNOW they’re “good people” and they will not step off their pedestal just because you call them Nazis. They will not give up the thing that makes them believe they are superior to their political adversaries just because you point out the obvious similarities to past evil regimes.
People tried that with the real Nazis back in their day and the Nazis just smirked that superior little German smirk and shoved them into gas chambers …
“Fritz! What you’re doing is evil!”
“Ja, ja, into ze “showers” mit du. Schnell!”
If reason, logic and sound thinking where the answer here, if comparisons to historic events were tactically and strategically effective, they wouldn’t have become what they now see as “wonderful” people, people you call Nazis, in the first place.
There’s a LOT more at work here than the unlikely coincidence that a whole lot of otherwise good people just tripped and fell into bed with evil all unawares.
Right now the leaders of that “vast majority of people who believe they are on the side of good because they fail to realize they are in bed with evil …” is trying to consolidate, solidify and finalize their ultimate power over the rest of us, who happen to be the vast majority of Americans. Including the woke crowd. Going around trying to paint swastikas on them will aid them in that infamous goal.
There are still an awful lot of moderate and even a few conservative Democrats left in this country. Many of them will vote Democrat out of sheer habit and stubbornness. They’re “hereditary Democrats”. A lot of people don’t understand the depth of the crisis we’re in now, they think of this as more like the rivalry between two college football teams and their team just won the trophy.
Even worse, thanks to confirmation bias they’re all watching CNN, NBC, CBS etc. and they’re being bombarded with propaganda telling them it’s not only OK to hate us, if they don’t they’re in jeopardy of losing their “good person” status.
Many of those are willing to overlook what they consider mere “warts” on their beloved Party but they are still deep-down real Americans. If and when things get bad enough they’ll come around and do the right thing. Unless people like you start calling them Nazis that is. Not “like Nazis” but “Nazis”.
It’s one thing to point out that someone is doing something similar to a known and infamous evil. It’s a whole ‘nother critter to label them with that evil.
That means that the most fruitful tactic would be to point out and not ignore the evil that makes those intentionally evil leaders like Nazis.
I can think of about 8,000 union workers right off hand that had any one of them voted for Biden would right now this minute be susceptible to that kind of messaging. There are 3,000 non-union workers from the same job on the Keystone Pipeline that would be likely candidates to spread the message too.
That’s just in the first two weeks of the Biden Administration and I’m not talking about 11,000 potential voters, I’m talking about 11,000 people who should have a fire lit under them to start preaching the gospel of Freedom and Liberty. If anyone knows any of those people this is a very good time to talk to them and get them talking to other people. Those are the people we need to reach, they are the people we should be targeting for some good ol’ fashioned down-home American pie.
But if you call them Nazis, or say they’re too stupid to know they’ve been in bed with evil … You’re do more harm than good. By a lot.
So no, you do not have the killer argument here and I strongly advise people not to follow your recommendation.
Your reply shows me that you are a quite knowledgeable guy, but you are not familiar with the art of persuasion. Persuasion is not about delivering facts but HOW you do it. The most persuasive way to deliver facts is through a really really good story — a narrative. That is why the Bible has had such staying power. Powerful stories conveying powerful messages in narrative format.
If all you got from what I said was that you should brand your opponents as Nazis, then you didn’t get it. Read my initial post once more. I tell a story. I weave in facts into the story and use modern terms instead. By turning it into a story where the words have been modernized (and thereby connecting it to modern history), the message takes on a far more powerful meaning.
It wasn’t Karl Marx’ “Das Kapital” that brought him fame and moved the masses, it was his Communist Manifesto. If you read it, you will see that he presents it in narrative form, thereby amplifying its power.
Now some specific comments:
“You contradicted yourself when you said it’s not “like” but is “a similarity”.”
You misread me. I said the exact opposite:
“THIS makes the woke crowd Nazis, not “like Nazis.” They are intellectually speaking Nazis. It’s not an analogy. It’s not a similarity. “
“Because in their minds they already KNOW they’re “good people” and they will not step off their pedestal just because you call them Nazis.”
Yes, of course, and you can say that about the Nazis too. They KNEW they were “good people.” Hitler called for national unity too. Mussolini’s Fascist party was called “The Party of National Unity.”
I don’t care about the small percentage of woke people who are deliberately and knowingly evil. Their power derives entirely from the vast majority of people who believe themselves to be good people. Those good people need to be woken up from their hallucination and realize that they are participating in evil. That’s the purpose of narrative. They are trapped inside a narrative (which is very powerful) and only a counter-narrative can get them out of it.
No one is going to sit and listen to your whole “bible”. You can make up “narratives” all day long, they won’t work on people not predisposed to listen to them.
As for your self-congratulating “art of persuasion”, you didn’t persuade me and I bothered to read what you had to say. If it didn’t work on me, who is predisposed to look for validity from the right … It sure as heck isn’t going to work on people who aren’t receptive to begin with.
I don’t think you’re as good at persuasion as you think yourself to be.
It’s not that “all I got was to brand people Nazis”, it’s that the core argument in your narrative does that. You must think everyone else is pretty stupid if you believe they won’t realize that, then tune you out the instant that realization occurs.
“No one is going to sit and listen to your whole “bible”.”
I know from personal experience that a lot of people do. Not all, of course, but enough that it would make a huge difference if this was the leading narrative of the right.
“As for your self-congratulating “art of persuasion”, you didn’t persuade me and I bothered to read what you had to say.”
It doesn’t work on all people. You strike me as having developed a high degree of cynicism with regards to the people on the left. That cynicism is a showstopper for any kind of persuasion.
“It sure as heck isn’t going to work on people who aren’t receptive to begin with.”
I promise you, lots of people on the left are infinitely more receptive than you are. Most people who identify as leaning left (e.g. a typical Democrat voter), has little to no interest in politics, they pay little attention to anything or anyone and they mostly live in an information bubble without knowing it. Those people are just ordinary people who happen to vote Democrat. They are highly suscetpible to persuasion.
“It’s not that “all I got was to brand people Nazis”, it’s that the core argument in your narrative does that.”
Again, that is a far too cynical reading that doesn’t take into account the power of narrative. Being able to present a cohesive story has a lot of weight to it. Now, suppose you were in an “racial sensitivity training class”, and you were surrounded by lots of ordinary people who are not really interested in politics, but are forced to listen to some leftist calling white people racist. The audience of the narrative is not HER, but the people that have to listen to her drivel.
Here is an example:
Lady: “white people have white privilege…”
You: “That sounds a lot like the German Lives Matter movement in the 1930s who said that Jews had Jewish privilege.”
Lady: “That’s different we are talking about white supremacy and systemic racism.”
You: “Ah, just like the German Lives Matter. They said that Jews were systemically racist and that they wanted to find Jewish supremacy.”
Lady: “No, we are talking about racial justice.”
You: “Yes, racial justice was the number one cause of GLM. Read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and you will see that he devotes several chapters to racial justice for the Aryan race. He spends a lot of time preaching critical race theory and identity politics.”
Lady: “No, by a system of whiteness we mean a capitalist system that favors whites.”
You: “Hitler called capitalism a Jewish economy that favors Jews.”
Lady: “We are not talking about that, but rather of national unity based on equity and inclusion.”
You: “Mussolini’s party was called “The Party of National Unity.” The word “fascism” literally translates to unity. Hitler wanted equity and inclusion too, and in order to achieve that, Jewishness had to be eradicated.”
I promise you that those people who are not so knowledgeable about these things who are listening to it will have their interest severely peaked by this. If you insist that Hitler was the pioneer of critical race theory, racial justice and identity politics, you will have sown a seed of concern that will grow every time they hear it. If ALL of the right said this EVERY TIME they talked on TV or in conversations, then at some point the message would sink in.
I’ve tried to be civil, I’ve tried to be nice. That’s over now …
Wow, do you even read your own words? You just circled back to EXACTLY the essence of what I said to you the first time about comparing scapegoating white people being exactly like the Nazis scapegoating Jews.
To which you replied “No, no, you don’t get it. Nope.”
The difference is that I did it in a short paragraph and you took several to arrive at the same place.
I use a lot of words sometimes to get my point across but here’s a newsflash for you there Sport — Using more words isn’t in itself a tactic for persuasion. Unless you’re just trying to wear the other person down to get them to agree with you. If you do that, they’re going to nod, walk away and go immediately back to their original position. Because that kind of thing doesn’t work.
I think you’re a bit too much in love with your own words.
I also don’t give a flying rat’s distal alimentary exhaust vent for your “promises” and “guarantees”. What, do you think I was born yesterday or some such nonsense? Promises and guarantees are appeals to a non-existent authority, YOU. That’s a logical fallacy that if you were half as persuasive as you think you are, you’d know about.
It’s the same when people say “trust me”. That’s a huge red flag in a discussion. If they were trustworthy, they wouldn’t have to say so. It would be apparent and obvious. When they’re not they try to convince you they are by saying “trust me” or “I promise you”, “I assure you”, or “I guarantee that …”. That’s a used car salesman’s tactic. There’s no way to assure the validity of such a promise and that makes you completely unpersuasive. It’s a cheap verbal trick.
Good luck with trying to set up a conversation with anyone where it works out in your favor as well as the faux dialog you provided for an example too. That works in fiction and it’s called “Deus ex machina” where the author is literally the “god in the machine” but fiction is not real life. People don’t just fall into verbal ambushes like you “promise” that they will.
Whatever.
I hope people read our exchange. They need to do that to see that you don’t want to discuss anything, you just want to argue. You’ve contradicted yourself multiple times trying to “one up” the things I was pointing out. That’s a sure sign of insecurity.
You seem to think you’re some sort of expert lecturing me, and other people in here. You’re not, you’re no more expert than most of us and quite a lot less than a large percentage here. It appears that you have not yet realized that the people who are members here are not stupid.
In fact, people in general of any political persuasion are not necessarily stupid. That’s a fallacy of the Left, who think that any plausible narrative works on everyone because everyone is too stupid to see what they’re doing.
That’s exactly what you’re doing with this cockamamie bullshit story about “German Lives Matter” and substituting “GLM”, a thinly veiled reference to no-shit Nazis isn’t going to have the effect you seem to think it will. And you want to send forth multitudes of Conservatives armed with that hogwash? It’s embarrassing to the Right that you not only think we’d do such a silly thing, but that you think we’d believe it would work. You mean to tell us all you really, truly can’t see how pathetic that is?
Look back up this page. Every person who posted something complimentary to you, you preened over. The rest of us that tried to actually discuss your post with you or make some point about your “theory” you condescended to and you even had the unmitigated balls to tell me I “didn’t get it” when YOU in essence if not in exact phraseology said the exact same thing. At this point it’s obvious you don’t even know that you did that and will no doubt try to pull even more semantically null rabbits from your hat in an effort to gainsay the obvious. Go ahead, you do an amazing job of nullifying your own position.
Here’s another newsflash, Sport, those people who have read what you said and haven’t pointed the faults out as I have done — Just can’t be bothered to waste time disagreeing with your nonsense. I happen to have the time and the will. If you’re half as smart as you think you are, you’ll learn a positive lesson from our exchange. I’m not going to hold my breath.
There’s a saying that applies here, an old adage that goes —
“Don’t try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.”
Whether true of you or not, to me you sound like a stoner sitting around puffing his weed* who believes that he has just experienced the moment of supreme enlightenment — That opened to him the secrets of the universe. Never realizing that his newfound amazing wisdom is to the rest of us nothing but the pot talking. *
Insert “mind expanding” substance of your choice.
… and with that, I’m done wasting my time on your ridiculous, gigantic, overblown opinion of yourself. If and when we converse again, show some respect because you are insulting to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. If you can’t do that, then don’t bother. Have a nice day anyway.
No, no, no, you STILL don’t understand. I don’t blame you because I am making a subtle point and for someone who sees things through certain theoretical/ideological filters will not be able to pick up anything that does not fit that filter. It’s normal and common.
There is a HUGE difference between “scapegoating” and saying that one particular race is systemically racist and that has created for itself a system of privilege for its own race based on a philosophy that this race is superior. That’s NOT just scapegoating. Scapegoating is saying: “something bad happened and it is group X’s fault” even though they are not to blame. There’s no racial justice in there, no concept of systemic racism, privilege and supremacy. Get it? You can’t reduce a philosophy of cultural Marxism down to scapegoating. If you do that, you miss the whole point.
YYSSW. I didn’t read this, and I’m not going to read it. Talking to you is a waste of time. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and granted you the courtesy of my time and all you did was insult my intelligence. The courtesy is rescinded, the benefit of the doubt withdrawn. Anything else you say to me will simply be a waste of YOUR time, which seems fair to me in turnabout.
Apparently on top of everything else you don’t understand, you don’t get the meaning of “I’m done with you” either. Kinda slow on the uptake there Sport.
You are a damaged person. I feel sorry for you. Hopefully you can heal so that you can be useful to yourself and to the fight we all need to contribute to secure our liberty.
YYSSW.
I shall plan to do this from now on.
Please keep me updated on your success with it.