>>7782The Jewish Question was a question about 19th century nationalism. There are no more "questions" regarding who is in one nation, and there really never were. That was some German race-theory, and in any event, the Jewish Question was settled - German Jews were subject to the German nation, whatever the racism of the Germans, and the Germans chose to make everyone get with the program because they're assholes, rather than any necessity or the idea being good. Jews did not want to be Germans, did not want anything to do with "Germany", and said as much, but they had to go to German schools and be pushed into compliance with German laws. Then, if they actually did that, it didn't count, because of German bigotry which reinforced Jewish bigotry, which tells you how ruinous and stupid the German institutions were in the first place, and how running schools like that should never have been encouraged.
Nothing about this by the way is a "racial quality", like Germans literally are encoded to organize their society like this. But, the "German race" as we know it was locked in by these institutions. Before, they were warring states, and while there was a German group and concept of Germany, nobody believed a German race had anything to do with political unification in the way it was insinuated. The French became the French because they shared one quality - rule under a single sovereign and shared obligation for mass conscription, which led to democratization as a current in France, which led to the concept of a nation in the genuine sense. Germans were a race, a culture, and a nascent nation, but it was a nation that rejected democratization - a nation that was, from the outset, parodic in its constitution. Had Germany not been fucktards about democracy and liberty, did not have the toxicity of the Hegelians hobbling their thought - and many Germans were smart enough to see that this sucked, whether they were poor or rich - you could have had a German nation, and very likely you'd have a greater European polity form out of internationalism. For a time, a "United States of Europe" was suggested as a path to peace and world federation, because that was the great idea of those who wanted this to not suck. But, their hatred of the people, and this sick infatuation with aristocracy, did it in, and they have themselves to blame. The British encouraged this stupidity in every way they could, but there were no great riots against the ruinous ideology and institutions. Those institutions only had to select for the monstrous, and we have been stuck with that ever since. With those institutions and a few advances in warmaking technology, the balance of power shifted. Where mass armies made nations possible, the new order of technocrats and expensive weapons platforms were built specifically to destroy democracy - to destroy all concepts of the nation. To go that far required destroying everything that made this apparatus possible, and this must be declared "progress".
It's not a uniquely German question, for the same ideas exist in Britain, in America, and around the world, in some fashion. They were exported as a model to emulate. Why, I will never know, but certain assholes have a fascination with creating human failure.
How could it have been different? I don't think that was possible for humans. Not in the long run, not with what they were up against and what was worked out before 1914. The only possibility that this didn't suck would have been if, instead of doing full eugenism, everyone in 1991 said "hey, wait, these people who poisoned us for generations are actually shit and their theories don't actually make a master race", and we could finally cease doing this. That is what I dreamed would happen in my naive days, thinking that there were enough people who had some interest in anything else. But… no. That's not what humans are, and I was told to give up that hope many times. It is my fault for dismissing that as pigheaded, when they were trying to tell me, this was already litigated. It's stupid, pointless, and wholly unnecessary.
History does not move inexorably in the way the theories insist, but it is clear by now - and I saw this in the past 15 years - that the rulers have gamed everything, and operate with a very different theory than the "grand narrative" given for public consumption. It would be difficult for us to replicate this approach, since it relies on specialized knowledge and those whose profession is to control the world. We have lives to live, while for those who operate the machinery, this is their job, organized in a monopoly specifically focused on maintaining this lockout. That lockout is why we are going through any of this. Otherwise, the likely result would be globalization, some world federation - it would be anti-democratic due to what humanity chose, but humanity did not need democracy to live. That was not enough for the rulers, though. All they ever wanted was to see us suffer, and so, here we are. Anyone who believed that turns into something good by the benevolence of rulers was either delusional or an asshole. But, I'm an ass, because I thought there was enough self-interest, and rulers liked having slaves and relative tranquility. It was only after 2008 that it was clear they just hate us that much, and none of them ever had a particularly good excuse or any expectation that this turns into anything. All they think about is "getting ahead", and the sick thing is, that was really the "null state" for humans.
It's not doomed forever necessarily, but any future worth living in would have to rise from something that doesn't exist now and won't exist as an aim of most people. It won't come into existence by necessity. Necessity drove some adaptation, but nothing can adapt to what's coming for the world. When they do kill us off for good, and they will either kill us off or we will be so defeated that we are no longer relevant, all they will find is their own foul hearts, and nothing to show for it. Humanity refused any concept of a world that could be different without radical changes, and any idea that would move in that direction is automatically inadmissible, insane, "retarded", and deemed evil, while pointless malice, struggle, and cruelty are self-evident and considered "smart". No matter what happens, humans are locked into that, with no other idea in the world with any serious currency. Arguably, it would be correct to not allow humanity to "win" on such terms, because that will encourage them to do even worse things as their means to impose them arise. I don't think it will be relevant, because most of humanity is done with "humanity" as anything to work with. I really don't think humanity will want to live at all. They've seen enough, and if this is what humans are going to be, suicide before adulthood will be the normal experience, and those who live will be left with nothing but a few baubles and their smugness. Smug will not sustain a society. It can sustain an empire as long as it can destroy all rivals, but no one would want to live around that or encourage any part of that. So, those who live will find they do not much at all, less and less. How this plays out depends on the survivors and what they do with what remains. In the best case scenario, humanity would find a "way out", but that will only apply to the impasses that are foreseen now, and we can extrapolate further to the kinds of things that would have to happen as maintenance of this thing that comes out the other end (assuming eugenics doesn't truly last forever, in which case, there is nothing to aspire to and we all should self-terminate and think nothing of it, and that's not interesting since it's a simple prescription and self-evident). My guess is part of the solution is that humans will depart from the sense of self and being that was imposed by the present society, which was always artificial and never served our actual existence, and this will be irrevocable. It will not return to a "human standard", because that standard never existed in the way that was naively presumed, nor is that standard one we would want to go back to. Most of us really wanted security and nice food - not "pleasure" in a vague sense, but simple things like "not being raped and tortured for bullshit", which were too much to ask in our time despite being very cheap and requiring no great theory or anything but rulers letting us live out our lives. I wanted to believe we could do this, we'd all die off without reproducing and self-termination would become the predominant type of death when the despair really set in, and that would be enough. We were already dying before eugenics began. That simply wasn't enough for them, and the flipside of population control is that the rulers really can't control RE-population - they can't force people to breed in a world they don't want to be part of it, which means only selfish sadists are prolific breeders and family life is not tenable, which the sadists encourage to select for more of their own - and that is really the quality that was valued, rather than anything meritorious or desirable.
I expect future humanity will first disavow nearly all of its history up until the breaking point, seeing it as monstrous behavior not to be repeated, and then the aims of humans start to diverge from anything we can predict. What comes out of that is anyone's guess, but they will not regard appeal to nature as any sort of argument. They would likely acquire a better understanding of themselves.