Communism - Humans are products of economic conditions and class, so seize the means of economic and class production to fashion new, perfected humans through a "spiritual" eugenics program.
Nazism - Humans are products of racial conditions and race, so seize the means of racial production to fashion new, perfected humans through a "spiritual" eugenics program.
NB: The concept of "spiritual eugenics" is important here, even while the Nazis practiced it literally (physically, exoterically). Their real ambition was nakedly Ayran-spiritual with the foundation of man, to them, being located in the race/blood. To the Nazis, Aryanism was both physical and spiritual ("nature and freedom").
Physical (exoteric) eugenics seeks to selectively breed people to be superior. Yes, the Nazis were interested in this. Spiritual (esoteric) eugenics seeks to create the right kind of new human being by a variety of means, which can include physical (exoteric) eugenics practices.
Physical (exoteric) eugenics is practiced by selecting people for breeding (or culling from the gene pool) according to physical traits (including, perhaps, intelligence).
Spiritual (esoteric) eugenics is practiced by selecting people for breeding (or culling from the gene pool) according to their capacity to accept and embody the spiritualist worldview (or ideology) of the exalted idealist program in control of the project.
That is, spiritual (esoteric) eugenics is a deliberate project of removing from the gene pool and/or killing every individual who cannot be brainwashed and who won't believe the idealists' bullshit.
Thus, Communists try to make everyone Communist and purge (cull) everyone who can't be "reeducated" or "ideologically remolded." People who can be turned into socialist drones and fanatics are maintained. Similarly, Nazis exalt the ideologically (and physically) identified racial Aryan Superman and purge (cull) everyone who can't express those supreme values. The Holocaust is the direct result of the fact that the Nazis believed that Jews represented maximum racial, race-spiritual, and spiritual pollution and must be culled.
In both cases, the State and its ideology have an ideal for what humanity is supposed to be and a eugenic selection program is run according to who can be the ideal man in their ideal system. That's the role of "worldview" in these systems, and the operators of these systems are conscious of this and deliberate about it.
In both cases, it is some kind of "heroic," "self-sacrificial," and collectivist "duty" that is being selected for. People aren't being bred to be stronger, faster, smarter, etc., but more compliant and fanatical.
When we say that Communism and Nazism are like two brothers (in a broader extended family of evil, tbh), this is the deeper reason why. This is what their projects are ultimately about:
Identifying the "means of production of man" and seizing control of them to perfect and complete man according to their own ideological visions of what man is and was always supposed to be.
Compare this with the Judeo-Christian perspective of the "means of production of man" to understand why those religions, Judaism and Christianity, are so deeply hated by these Satanic psychopaths: Imago Dei. Each individual man is uniquely produced by God, which is a "means of production" that cannot actually be seized. Every attempt is a wicked mockery. Every attempt is rank evil.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From my Woke Encyclopedia, an explanation of the "friend-enemy distinction" of Carl Schmitt, which is the Woke political logic. Link at the end!🧵
(1/13) The friend-enemy distinction refers to the cornerstone object of the political and judicial philosophy of a German theorist named Carl Schmitt, who wrote a number of works of right-wing political philosophy and thought before becoming such an enthusiastic Nazi in 1933, just after Adolf Hitler took power, that he earned the informal title “the Crown Jurist of the Third Reich.”
Though most of his significant political thinking was done both before and after he was a Nazi, during the years when he was a part of Hitler’s National Socialist movement and Party, he contributed strongly to the legal theory that justified the Nazi “total state,” including writing the 1933 piece that gets rendered in English as “The Legal Basis for the Total State,” which is significantly based upon the friend-enemy distinction.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(2/13) Schmitt’s thought is primarily of interest on the Woke Right, where he is a favored thinker and model political mind. He is vigorously forwarded for a handful of his political concepts, perhaps most visibly his “friend-enemy distinction” as the essential criterion of what makes politics political. This idea is first presented and developed in full detail in his 1927/32 book The Concept of the Political.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(3/13) For Schmitt, what makes the politics political is the distinction between (public) friend and (public) enemy, where enemies are defined as those who are interested in destroying one’s way of life and friends are defined as those who are willing to band together in its defense.
Schmitt specifically compares the essential nature of this distinction in politics to the distinction between good and evil in morality, beautiful and ugly in aesthetics, and profitable versus non-profitable in economics.
That is, politics is only political to the degree that it recognizes the possibility of factions that exist in mutual enmity underwritten by the potentially existential threat of violence. Of course, that means that Schmitt believes the essential criterion of politics is war, which he reveals also in part by making his point by completing the identity contained in von Clausewitz’s famous remark that “war is politics by other means.”
All radical movements find themselves in a pinch: they can only really advance when people don't know their true intentions, but they can only really advance by going public with what they're doing. It's an intrinsic dilemma that only rare figures in rare circumstances can win.
Mamdani is a good example of a rare figure (extremely good at presenting himself disingenuously while looking real) in rare circumstances (terrible primary opponent, then running against a terrible combination of Cuomo/Sliwa, then still not winning by huge margins).
The primary reason NYC got Mamdani isn't something to do with the electorate, the climate, or anything else. Mamdani, with tons of weird money, ran a very strong campaign (rare figure) in very weird circumstances, most of which were candidate-specific, not conditional.
Fun fact: If you had a time machine and could go back in time to this day in 2019 but couldn't take any physical evidence with you, you could not convince almost anyone to take the Woke Left threat seriously and would get mocked and yelled at for trying, even by friends.
Your left-leaning friends (if you have any) would make fun of you for not getting it. Your right-leaning friends would laugh at you for making a mountain out of a molehill. No one really understood there was a serious problem with the Woke Left until after summer 2020.
The reason I know this is because I was there and doing this full time already by that point in my life.
Introducing to you two of the "intellectual" Woke Right's favorite contemporary thinkers: Patrick Deneen (left) and R.R. Reno. Here, they demonstrate their inability to see what is plainly in front of them—a Marxist insurgency through Leftist elitist capture—because of their preference for theories of cultural rot and decay.
These kinds of theories about why we are where we are aren't just dangerous misdiagnosed; they're also self-flattering humblebrags, saying in effect, "things got bad because everyone went to shit except people like us who are better than that." Typical Woke virtue signaling except in "modest" conservative form.
Yes, they are popular with Woke Right propagandists.