Which minorities would be targeted in a Second Third Reich?

[noname223]

Right-wingers have the talking point Hitler was actually a leftwinger, a communist. Alice Weidel (AfD) said that in an online stream with Elon Musk. It is utter bullshit. Communists were killed in concentration camps in the Third Reich.

The answer to the question in the title might depend where the Third Reich is implemented. And it might depend who would build a second third Reich. It doesn't look like people with a genuine leftwing ideology would do that. Even if the two dimensional axis of politics is obsolete. With his trade war Trump is in certain way anti-capitalism. And the Trump camp is divided into techno feudalists like Musk and nationalists like Bannon. It is ironic both figures of these divided camps unite that both of them did the Hitler salute.

I think the targets would be trans people, migrants, non heterosexual people, people with diverse genders, mentally ill, unemployed, mentally disabled, body disabled people. I am not sure whether they would go after all Jews. Maybe against some? This question is very sensitive to discuss where I live but I condemn all antisemitism.

I think in Germany antisemitism is on the rise since the actions of the Netanjahu government against the Palestinian people. This probably applies to most countries in the world. And its a big issue. In Germany and in many many countries Jews would also be on the target list. But the US case confuses me.

I am not sure where the Trump administration positions itself on this spectrum. A friend of mine called Trump an antisemite. He said it is weird that some Israelis express love for Trump only because he might be able to free the hostages. I asked him which antisemetic statements he referred to. I know there are probably a lot of statement where Trump implied or outright said how powerful Jews are. Actually, I did some research. There even is a wikipedia article about Trump and antisemitism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_antisemitism
I am not sure whether I would consider Trump an antisemite. There are people in his administration who did a lot of antisemitic things. Like Bannon or Musk with their Nazi salute.

In order to do research I stumbled on this article posted by the pro-Israel Jerusalem Post Glenn Greenwald mentioned it. I think this article massively backfires. This article rather leads to more antisemitism and I wonder what the journalists have thought when they created this list.

50 Most Influencers Jews 2025 | The Jerusalem Post

50 Most Influencers Jews 2025

www.jpost.com

I didn't know that but Stephen Miller, Howard Lutnick, Stephen Witkoff are Jewish. There is probably a way longer list with fundamental Christians within the Trump administration.

I am just confused whether the Trump administration is actually antisemitic or not.

Parts of the right are turning against Israel like MTG. There were clearly antisemitic statements by Charlie Kirk. I was surprised that they are not more widely known. There is this bogus conspiracy theory that the Israeli government killed him for these statements.

Charlie Kirk said the following and I quote:

FIrst quote: "Jewish donors have been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits. This is a beast created by secular Jews and now they're coming for Jews, and they're like, "What on Earth happened?""
"And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits, it's the movies, it's Hollywood, it's all of it."

Second quote: "Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years."
[…]
"Until you cleanse that ideology from the hierarchy in the academic elite of the West, there will not be a safe future. I'm not going to say Israel won't exist, but Israel will be in jeopardy as long as the Western children, children of the West, are being taught, with primarily Jewish dollars, subsidizing it, to view everything through oppressor oppressed dynamic. Until you shed that ideology, you will not be able to build the case for Israel, because they view Israel as an oppressor."


I think it stunning that some commentator don't consider these statements antisemitic. The trope of cultural marxism.

I cannot understand how people like Stephen Miller with Jewish heritage can ally with groups who have an agenda overlapping with Neo-Nazis and white Nationalists. Maybe he even is one? Who knows? It might be illegal to call him that where I live.
So glad my account will be now part of Palantir security checks now. Lol.

I think the term 4th Reich could confuse people. This is why I said Second Third Reich.

 

[Dejected 55]

People like Trump are hard to peg, because... he may or may not be racist, but certainly has said and done racist things. Same for anti-semitic. BUT... Trump has supported Democrats quite a bit before he ran as a Republican. Trump and his "team" are mostly just testing the waters to see what is popular enough to run with OR divisive enough to distract, and that's where they go. It's hard to truly tell what he really believes because I think he is the kind of person who would happily accept money from a Jewish man to hate whatever that man wanted... then five minutes later... happily accept money from a Klan member to hate Israel. I don't think he has any morals or really cares about right/wrong or good/evil as long as he gets his way and can go after his perceived enemies.

As for a new third reich... If they are truly of that mold, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't target all the minorities they ever did before. Only the whitest whites who are straight and CIS would be mostly safe... and only then if you didn't dissent and express any compassion for others who were being excluded.

The tricky part is... IF one of these exclusionist movements ever succeeded in purging all the "undesirables"... I think we'd start to see then fragment and suddenly being whitey mcwhite wouldn't be enough, there would become other requirements... and they would continue to pare down the population.

It's hard to accept any differences once you establish that it is okay to eliminate anyone different from you.

 

[MyShadow]

People like Trump are hard to peg, because... he may or may not be racist, but certainly has said and done racist things. Same for anti-semitic. BUT... Trump has supported Democrats quite a bit before he ran as a Republican. Trump and his "team" are mostly just testing the waters to see what is popular enough to run with OR divisive enough to distract, and that's where they go. It's hard to truly tell what he really believes because I think he is the kind of person who would happily accept money from a Jewish man to hate whatever that man wanted... then five minutes later... happily accept money from a Klan member to hate Israel. I don't think he has any morals or really cares about right/wrong or good/evil as long as he gets his way and can go after his perceived enemies.

As for a new third reich... If they are truly of that mold, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't target all the minorities they ever did before. Only the whitest whites who are straight and CIS would be mostly safe... and only then if you didn't dissent and express any compassion for others who were being excluded.

The tricky part is... IF one of these exclusionist movements ever succeeded in purging all the "undesirables"... I think we'd start to see then fragment and suddenly being whitey mcwhite wouldn't be enough, there would become other requirements... and they would continue to pare down the population.

It's hard to accept any differences once you establish that it is okay to eliminate anyone different from you.

The fact that this is a topic of conversation is just another reminder that we have gone backward as a species. Now, with extremism on all sides, it's just a matter of time before someone escalates the game and turn their belief system into a practical system of eliminating their perceived enemies. But, unlike the past, we now have an effective means to eliminate millions of people within minutes and so-called leaders crazy enough to utilize them.

Apparently, we have not learned from history and that ignorance will engineer our own extinction.

 

[Dejected 55]

The fact that this is a topic of conversation is just another reminder that we have gone backward as a species. Now, with extremism on all sides, it's just a matter of time before someone escalates the game and turn their belief system into a practical system of eliminating their perceived enemies. But, unlike the past, we now have an effective means to eliminate millions of people within minutes and so-called leaders crazy enough to utilize them.

Apparently, we have not learned from history and that ignorance will engineer our own extinction.

People are a funny lot when you think about it.

On the one hand, we strive to make it easier to kill more people with a single blow... but we also make it so that it can be done from a great distance. Think about that.

IF every war had to be fought hand-to-hand... maybe with clubs or something too... but no guns, bow & arrow, missiles, planes, etc... I feel like we would have evolved into a more peaceful species over time.. Why? Because as twisted and evil as we can be... we also clearly mostly don't have a taste for it up-close. Discounting the outlier serial killers... most murders are crimes of passion and relatively rare. Most people do avoid violence if it is up-close.

But bow & arrows, catapults, guns, planes, and so on... to biological and nuclear weapons... we haven't just developed more effective ways to kill greater numbers of people in a single stroke... but we made a conscious effort to be able to do it from a distance, where we don't have to see it... can tell ourselves to feel less guilty because you didn't stare a man in the eyes while you killed him. Most healthy people, no matter how much bravado they have, really really don't want to see that up close.

Even people who had to kill to defend themselves, from an assault or in those times of war where close-up still happens... those people can know they were 100% in the right to kill in self-defense... but they struggle with it. But if you can shoot the guy in the dark who is 10+ feet away from you? It's a little easier... and if you can drop a bomb and wipe out a country and never see any of the people you killed... becomes REALLY easy.

So... it's weird... We have a bloodthirsty nature, but we don't want to admit it. We want to hide from it ourselves and do it by pushing a button. But... is that because of our kinder nature where we really wish we didn't have to kill? OR is it even more evil of us to want to kill efficiently and not be bothered with it? Hard to say. Psychology can make a case for it either way I think.

 

[MyShadow]

People are a funny lot when you think about it.

On the one hand, we strive to make it easier to kill more people with a single blow... but we also make it so that it can be done from a great distance. Think about that.

IF every war had to be fought hand-to-hand... maybe with clubs or something too... but no guns, bow & arrow, missiles, planes, etc... I feel like we would have evolved into a more peaceful species over time.. Why? Because as twisted and evil as we can be... we also clearly mostly don't have a taste for it up-close. Discounting the outlier serial killers... most murders are crimes of passion and relatively rare. Most people do avoid violence if it is up-close.

But bow & arrows, catapults, guns, planes, and so on... to biological and nuclear weapons... we haven't just developed more effective ways to kill greater numbers of people in a single stroke... but we made a conscious effort to be able to do it from a distance, where we don't have to see it... can tell ourselves to feel less guilty because you didn't stare a man in the eyes while you killed him. Most healthy people, no matter how much bravado they have, really really don't want to see that up close.

Even people who had to kill to defend themselves, from an assault or in those times of war where close-up still happens... those people can know they were 100% in the right to kill in self-defense... but they struggle with it. But if you can shoot the guy in the dark who is 10+ feet away from you? It's a little easier... and if you can drop a bomb and wipe out a country and never see any of the people you killed... becomes REALLY easy.

So... it's weird... We have a bloodthirsty nature, but we don't want to admit it. We want to hide from it ourselves and do it by pushing a button. But... is that because of our kinder nature where we really wish we didn't have to kill? OR is it even more evil of us to want to kill efficiently and not be bothered with it? Hard to say. Psychology can make a case for it either way I think.

Imagine if we took that initiative and intelligence to find a method to cure disease or end homelessness or poverty.

 

[Dejected 55]

Imagine if we took that initiative and intelligence to find a method to cure disease or end homelessness or poverty.

Exactly. I mean, technically we've mostly solved hunger by accident but we choose not to... Most studies show we waste more food than is needed to feed people who are starving. The largest reason the food goes to waste is lack of interest to build infrastructure to move the food to where it needs to be and people who resist feeding people who aren't "earning it." And you can even allow for selfishness in that regard if you want, but the simple truth for those people is that they are already paying for the food that could feed everyone... it's just going to waste instead of being eaten. We've also, sadly, seen recent instances of food going to waste intentionally rather than being allowed to distribute for "reasons" or whatever.

But poverty requires something like Universal Basic Income and a desire to lift everyone up for the good of all... that's a tough sell though it shouldn't be.

Disease is tricky... because on the one hand some things take time no matter how much we care. On the other, there are lots of profits in regular treatments instead of a single cure for many diseases... and companies are going to resist that kind of thing. Drug companies in particular.

Yeah, though, we could focus on things that would benefit everyone instead of things that benefit only a few or directly kill many... that requires a paradigm shift in humanity that I don't think we are ready for... just another in my pile of reasons why I don't want to be here anymore.

 

[MyShadow]

Exactly. I mean, technically we've mostly solved hunger by accident but we choose not to... Most studies show we waste more food than is needed to feed people who are starving. The largest reason the food goes to waste is lack of interest to build infrastructure to move the food to where it needs to be and people who resist feeding people who aren't "earning it." And you can even allow for selfishness in that regard if you want, but the simple truth for those people is that they are already paying for the food that could feed everyone... it's just going to waste instead of being eaten. We've also, sadly, seen recent instances of food going to waste intentionally rather than being allowed to distribute for "reasons" or whatever.

But poverty requires something like Universal Basic Income and a desire to lift everyone up for the good of all... that's a tough sell though it shouldn't be.

Disease is tricky... because on the one hand some things take time no matter how much we care. On the other, there are lots of profits in regular treatments instead of a single cure for many diseases... and companies are going to resist that kind of thing. Drug companies in particular.

Yeah, though, we could focus on things that would benefit everyone instead of things that benefit only a few or directly kill many... that requires a paradigm shift in humanity that I don't think we are ready for... just another in my pile of reasons why I don't want to be here anymore.

Humans are a stupid species