the nazis consequently didn't really have a problem with immigration, as not many minorities were interested in moving to nazi germany, but were rather trying to stop people from fleeing.
Thursday, December 11, 2025
for a substantive period of their rule, the nazis actually banned emigration because they wanted to enslave the inferior races. no escaping; that's not fair.
at
11:16
the nazis at no point ever argued that immigration was ruining european society.
in fact, the nazis were very pro-muslim and built military alliances with the muslim world, across the middle east. the most obvious answer, a common hatred of jews, is the most correct one, but there are a number of angles.
it is true that the arabs were in revolt against the british, which is how arabs usually explain the situation today, but that doesn't explain the nazi alliances with muslim groups in eastern europe, or with turkey.
one of the few intellectual sources in nazi "theory" is edward gibbon, who claimed the roman empire (the first reich, which nazism was trying to rebuild) fell because it embraced christianity, which made the romans weak. gibbon contrasted that to the arab societies, which remained militant because they converted to islam. the contrast was between the slave-morality christians and the master-morality muslims, and gibbon decided the muslims were superior to the christians because they did not have a slave morality (to interject somewhat anachronistic language). gibbon argued that the first reich would have survived if it had converted to islam and the nazis picked up on that and tried to model their militarist christian society on muslim culture. does that sound like what donald trump is saying?
the basis of nazi expansion was that the aryan race was superior and therefore needed more space, liebensraum. the inferior slavs, the russians, were to be exterminated to make more space for the aryans. does that sound like what donald trump is saying?
what trump is saying is that the europeans are weakly, inferior and in the process of being colonized by stronger races, including the arabs. he's disappointed by this, but he's not arguing in favour of white supremacy, but rather in favour of white inferiority. it's essentially the exact opposite position taken by the nazis.
trump is therefore abandoning europe as inferior weaklings not worthy of an alliance with america and seeking to build alliances with stronger, more dominant societies that are not in decline, like the russians and the arabs.
there is some truth to trump's position. europe is clearly in decline. immigration is more of a result of that decline than a cause of it. the major cause of european decline has been it's acceptance of it's role as a us client. europe is weak precisely because america decided it ought to be weak, because it identified it as it's only serious competitor.
is europe still worth protecting? it's less clear. the resources are dwindling, and they've become an import-reliant economy. they're no longer the global centre of research or education. if europe thinks it's still worth protecting, it should make the argument a little more forcefully.
but, this is not nazism; this is the exact opposite of nazism.
factually, i think he's incorrect. europe is actually still recovering from world war two. the immigration will dry up when the wealth collapses and europe will be able to refocus on itself again when that happens.
at
10:46
a million dollar fast track around an h1b wouldn't be a policy i'd have come up with.
but i'm having difficulty criticizing it.
at
07:41
this looks psychotic on it's face, but it's a form of progressive taxation.
trump is an asshole, no doubt, and some of his policies are horrific. he's neither as polarizing or as substantive as a napoleon, a stalin or a genghis khan, and i hope he doesn't get there. but future historians may have some difficulty with this guy.
is this...conservative?
right-wing?
it kind of almost seems a little...
wait for it.
SOCIALIST.
at
07:38
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)