Do you think you will end up in a concentration camp one day if the current political developments go on?

[noname223]

Honestly, recently I think a lot about Nick Fuentes. American politics is often some years ahead compared to German politics.

The AfD is on the rise. It is the far right party in Germany. In East Germany they are above 40% and we in Germany have a proportional electoral system. Not only two parties but many. This means 40% is really fucking high. The German AfD is compared to other far right wing parties in Europe very extreme. Germany is really good at producing Nazis. It is not unlikely they will try to ban the party one day. Many friends of mine are in favor of that. (Some also want to leave the country in case.) I am not fully sure. I am uncertain. But recently I read an article which nudged me a little bit into considering banning the party. But there are also very good counterarguments.

There are people like Björn Höcke. A court ruled he can officially be called a fascist. He wrote a book many years ago. The party was less extreme to that time point. And members of the party AfD were asked whether these quotes read by a reporter were writen in Hitler's Mein Kampf or in Höckes book. And they were unable to differentiate.

Many serious scientists say the current fascist right cannot be compared to what the Nazis did. They will not be the same. And they probably have a point. And maybe it is a little bit panic. But the development isn't good. When I see what Nick Fuentes is arguing for. He says Hitler is based, denies the holocaust, he openly says he hates the poor. And there is a momentum for Fuentes.
And we have to consider. The Nazis lost their hegemony in Germany 1945. So 80 years have passed. And people seemingly have not learned much. People easily forget unpleasant things. History might not repeat but rhymes.

In case I won't kill myself. Which is very uncertain. Or that I don't die of other reason. My resting pulse is scary. Really scared. The benzos fucked up my vegetative system even more. I might be alive in 2050, 2060, or 2070. Honestly, I doubt I will make it to that age. I almost killed myself last year. And my problems don't become less. Quite the opposite.

You know I get the feeling we in the Western world are not winning. Our societies are losing. People are in panic. People fight to survive. And populists take power under such circumstances by blaming scapegoats. They make the problems way worse. They increase the pace of decline and destruction. There are right-wingers that think this is necessary. The system has to be replaced. And these people gain more and more power.

I get the feeling people like me will get blamed at first. I think I would be a major target if Nazis or fascists would take over the country. I am wasting resources. I cannot work. I don't contribute to society. Sadly, barbiturates won't be legal most likely. So I cannot easily put an end to it by myself. I wonder whether I will one day really fucking regret I didn't kill myself in 2025. So far it was rather good I did not take the SN. The police was on their way, I texted my friends out of desperation. I think it was extremely lucky the police arrived before I took the SN. People here in the forum said they had to learn speaking again? I mean some might say not much happened. I don't read as much suicide discussion as in the past. But its Russian roulette. This is my main reason why I have not attempted yet. Personally, my method is still SN because the damage you can get from other methods sound even more horrifying to me.

Back to the topic. I am male, white but mentally very unwell. I literally would break down if I had to work. If someone took away my medication I would get a psychosis within one day. And I guess people in concentration camps don't get their medication.

I just imagined myself naked, humiliated, spit on in a concentration camp. I read scientifical papers on Auschwitz and they said the staff member of Auschwitz played soccer with a dead baby. I know it sounds melodramatic to say this now. Or to do this comparison. We have a long way to go. The radical development are increasing in pace. Noone knows what will be in 50 years. But there are many dystopias. I get the feeling most societies barely learned anything from past genocides. Everything is repeating in different forms. Maybe my analysis is too pessimistic. It might sound like the human race is damned. But this can also be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Libertarian billionaires like Thiel are into transhumanism. They don't want humankind to survive. They want to end the human race. Well some billionaires survivie. And the peasants will be crushed by climate change, and falling societies. So maybe be careful what you wish for. There has to be some hope. But most people I read are highly pessmistic about the state of the country and the state of the world. Me too...

 

[Hvergelmir]

Many serious scientists say the current fascist right cannot be compared to what the Nazis did. They will not be the same.

History is full of horrible things. The third Reich was before the Geneva convention, at a time where the good guys used nuclear weapons on civilian cities.

If Hitler rose to power today, I think things would be very different. He would not be able to contain information, and would have had to account for lots of global progress. I also that Hitler or the NSDAP would have been able radicalize to that extent, in a developed country with modern science.
Their core beliefs relied on deprecated science.

...mentally very unwell. I literally would break down if I had to work. If someone took away my medication I would get a psychosis within one day.

The early 1900s socialist system of my country would have given you the diagnosis "insanity".
They would strip you of your autonomy and voting rights, and lock you up in a ward, where they'd experiment, and drug or lobotomize you. If you were lucky and compliant enough you might have ended up as a factory worker after that.

Please interpret this; not as left vs right, but now vs then. A lot of progress has been made!

...transhumanism. They don't want humankind to survive.

Why is this contradictory to the survival of mankind?

most people I read are highly pessmistic about the state of the country and the state of the world. Me too...

We are in tough times, that's part of it. But there's also a wide stream of propaganda aimed at making people take the problems seriously.
In particular on the left, this propaganda often takes the shape of doomsday prophecies.

If you already do what you reasonably can, you ought to disregard the propaganda. Instead watch the ongoing efforts to regrow deserts, and preserving ecosystems, or the ongoing scientific advances in power generation and conservation.
People are actively working on solving problems, and they are backed by huge amounts of money.

There's no billionaire conspiracy in favor of turning the earth into a barren dessert. While we might disagree on urgency and details, I think it's safe to say that we all care about the planet regardless of individual economical circumstances.

 

[Pluto]

 

[breathingblues]

I can't concentrate on jack, let alone be forced to with other people.

 

[noname223]

Why is this contradictory to the survival of mankind?

Peter Thiel Hesitates When Asked About Human Race Surviva...

Peter Thiel paused when asked if he wants humans to survi...

www.complex.com

Some billionaires think humans are inferior to machines. And humans need to get enhanced or outright replaced by machines. Depending on how transhumanism plays out humankind might change fundamentally in a way we cannot imagine yet.

There's no billionaire conspiracy in favor of turning the earth into a barren dessert. While we might disagree on urgency and details, I think it's safe to say that we all care about the planet regardless of individual economical circumstances.

Look at the cabinet of Trump. They profit privately from ruining the country. The fossil fuel lobby and many billionaires who are invested in this sector benefit from getting rid of environment/climate protection regulations. I don't think all of them care about the planet. Why would they plan to leave the planet otherwise? They know the system isn't sustainable in the way libertarian billionaires want them. Their plan is to rob the masses blind and then leave the population with the mess alone.
One of the biggest lies is that billionaires actually cared about the people. Also Bill Gates doesn't care about the people. No matter how altruistic they posture themselves.

 

[Hvergelmir]

Some billionaires think humans are inferior to machines.

Your source doesn't really support your claim.

It all boils down to how far you're willing to go in order to enhance and support a human.

Look at the cabinet of Trump. They profit privately from ruining the country. The fossil fuel lobby and many billionaires who are invested in this sector benefit from getting rid of environment/climate protection regulations.

It's really a balance between economic prosperity and environmentalism.
The right generally see a lot of value in economic prosperity, and doesn't see any immediate threat from climate issues.
On the other side you have people disregarding the economy in favor of the environment. They see an immediate grave threat from environmental issues, while disregarding the importance of the economy, which keeps starvation and societal collapse at bay.

Both sides generally view things like fusion technology, favorably.
The disagreement is mostly in what sacrifices we want to do in the moment, based on our projections of the future.

It's also not only billionaires who invest in oil - it's a big industry providing a lot of utility.
Politicians abusing their position for power is a separate issue, not restricted to the oil industry. There's similar abuse going on in green environment-friendly projects.

Why would they plan to leave the planet otherwise?

Musk often argues that it's a necessity for resilience. He has a vision of the human race being essentially immortal, as soon as we go interplanetary. He worries about asteroids and super volcanoes, and the like.
Others seem more concerned about the unsustainability of an ever-increasing population. If we want to keep extending lifespans, and giving the elders decent lives, we need larger younger generations to supply them. Eventually we'll have have to either expand our territory, or adopt policies of frugal stagnation.

One of the biggest lies is that billionaires...

You know of a few billionaires, filtered through media.
I don't think you'd make similar sweeping claims about any other socioeconomic group.

They're a mixed bag of people, and they're not all aligned. If they were, you'd see North Korean levels of control and oppression, everywhere. You most definitely wouldn't have free media, able to criticize them.

 

[noname223]

It's really a balance between economic prosperity and environmentalism.

I think that's a lie. Protecting the environment and limiting CO2 emissions help us to maintain our prosperity. There is no contradiction between protecting the environment, regulations to avoid the climate catastrophe and prosperity. The production of green energy is way more efficient in the long run compared to fossil fuel energy. I think it is already a highly competitive energy production in the market. And it will become cheaper and cheaper. This is why countries like the UAE or Saudi-Arabia try to find new ways to make money because they know their old business model is a discontinued model. Moreover, destroying ecosystems comes with high risks to disrupt many economic sectors. Destroying the environment comes with many potential fallouts.

 

[noname223]

Your source doesn't really support your claim.

Thiel is into transhumanism. The source only shows one aspect of his ideology. It is only a small Part of his Worldview.

Musk often argues that it's a necessity for resilience. He has a vision of the human race being essentially immortal, as soon as we go interplanetary. He worries about asteroids and super volcanoes, and the like.

I certainly don't take what Elon Musk says at face value. Why should I trust him?

I don't think you'd make similar sweeping claims about any other socioeconomic group.

Maybe because billionaires are inherently counterproductive for the world. They have a lot of power, are privileged and often abuse their power. Statistically, they cause extreme amounts of CO2 emissions and many of them just were born in the right family and have not earned their wealth.

 

[Hvergelmir]

There is no contradiction between protecting the environment, regulations to avoid the climate catastrophe and prosperity.

In the short run there very clearly is a conflict. A transition is expensive, and hard.
Fuel taxes and power prices are really straining peoples economy around here. People are lowering their indoor temperatures, getting smaller cars, and moving closer to work. Prices for goods have also been increasing steeply, as power and transportation is part of every production chain.

I don't think you can push much harder in a democracy. Even if we can, I'm not telling anyone where to draw the line, just that there's a line, and that people will draw it differently.

I think it is already a highly competitive energy production in the market.

Some of it is competitive. The countries you mention are for example very good locations for solar.
When both economic and environmental gains align, without dubious data interpretations, there is very little opposition - capitalists love that.

In my country we've had mixed results, and issues with voltage drops depending on weather conditions. They even had to fire up oil burning plants to avoid large scale blackouts, at one point.
Many think that it would have been a good idea if we'd kept more nuclear around.

Why should I trust him? [Musk]

Don't trust him, evaluate the argument. What he says in this instance makes sense.
A billionaire utopia on Mars, does not.

Even with the worst imaginable climate predictions for Earth, Mars is still worse - much more challenging.