lordoflight wrote:I dont agree with Hitler slaughtering all of the jews. But in this day and age you have to have to say everything about Hitler was insane and crazy or else everyone will call you an evil Nazi.
But I don't believe everything about Hitler was crazy. Doesn't mean I want to send all Jews to the ovens. However in this day and age unless you blindly prostrate yourself to whatever is the latest liberal dogma, equality, #timesup, whatever the latest dogma is, you are viewed as some kind of social pariah and all that's wrong with the world, of course on on the "wrong side" of the future in a society that is supposedly approaching "progress".
Progress meaning a McDonalds and Burger King on every corner, trash and litter everywhere, ear-rape music played in all stores, retards viewed as equals to high IQs, etc.
So yes, Hitler did drugs and some stuff about him was crazy. But that is not to say that the liberals, leftists in their purest form are not equally crazy. Everyone is equal supposedly, so everyone is crazy.
Basically it amounts to humans of low-breeding who can't seem to tell the difference between quality and quantity, Americanization. They can't tell the difference between Michael Jackson pop music and modern pop music. It's all equal. A meal at McDonalds they like more than a meal at a health food store. It's just their current (low) level of cognition. A city of dilaption and litter, with decay all around, they can't make the connection to race, because that implies they are an evil Nazi and Hitler. When the underlying thing is that such a primitive mode of thinking thinks in absolutes. Hitler thought in absolutes, same as leftists. When its really just a more sophisticated thing. Not all negro music is garbage music, for instance there was Michael Jackson. And not all whites are higher beings, a lot of whites are trash and garbage people.
Jakob wrote:WW III, you are a disgusting disgrace.
My family barely survived the nazis, its such a disgusting thing to have to read your naive experienceless hollow hearted insults to hard working people.
K: I don't see how "hard working" people fit into your narrative. The Nazi's did put into
concentration camps, communists and gays and liberals and of course, Jews, anyone
who did not fit into their "Aryan" viewpoint of the Germanic people.
WW did state facts.... it is you who are making the false interpretation of it.
He is simply making the comparison between the 1930's fascism and todays'
version of it. Today's version is the GOP "MAGA" and that "MAGA" today
is the same as Nazi's idea of "Aryan" nationalism.
WW has made it clear that he opposes the viewpoint, actions, ideals of the Nazi's
which is why he opposes today's GOP and its "Aryan" ideals of "MAGA".
J: Fucking American Liberals man. They think they can just take anything and make it their own".
K: here you are reading your own version of "MAGA" onto liberals and those people on the
left that you so devotedly wish to put into concentrations camps. Your hatred of liberals
and the left is quite evident.
J: You do not treat such terror as the Nazi reign lightly. Not if you have anything human in you.
K: it is you that lack human feelings. For you wish to have a second revival of
Nazi's concentration camps also with Jews, Gays, Liberals, communist... all those
type of people you hate and wish would be gone.
It is Obama and Hillary Clinton who massacred hundreds of thousands during their reign. But you voted for them. That makes you - a fascist.
K: ummm, facts please. It is a fact that Bush Jr. killed hundreds of thousands in his misguided and
foolish invasion and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Show us where the "DIRECT" actions
of Obama and Clinton massacred hundreds of thousands.
J: May the dead you caused haunt you forever.
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:The past 3 years of living in America have taught me a lot about the rise of fascism in the early 1930’s. The rise of fascism in the early 1930’s have taught me quite a bit about the time we are living in now in America. There are interesting and valid parallels, some of which I will present here.
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:The fascist mentality that rose in 1930’s was not something new though, at any time in history. It is a mentality that has deep roots that extend deep into humanity’s past. This mentality is not something that has disappeared as well, as many would want you to believe when you dare discuss the parallels of fascism in modern history. Of course, this is because they hold a mindset that ultimately will favor fascist hate filled sentiment when push comes to shove.
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I have found that the essence of fascism is hatred and historically it is the hatred of leftism, liberals, and any ethnic minority groups or foreigners that are seen as a threat to the dominant culture of a nation.
attano wrote:I share the view that is a very good post, yet I don’t think you really ‘nail it’.WW_III_ANGRY wrote:The past 3 years of living in America have taught me a lot about the rise of fascism in the early 1930’s. The rise of fascism in the early 1930’s have taught me quite a bit about the time we are living in now in America. There are interesting and valid parallels, some of which I will present here.
Honestly, I am not an expert in this specific field, not even a good amateur at it. I rely mainly on my impressions, don’t have many facts to support my view.
That said, I share your point. This question deserves some scrutiny, viz. if we are currently being caught in the same dynamics that slightly less than 100 years ago spawned the two major fascist regimes in Europe. Here the adjective ‘same’ cannot be taken in its most literal meaning, nevertheless there are ‘forms’ that appear common to both situations.WW_III_ANGRY wrote:The fascist mentality that rose in 1930’s was not something new though, at any time in history. It is a mentality that has deep roots that extend deep into humanity’s past. This mentality is not something that has disappeared as well, as many would want you to believe when you dare discuss the parallels of fascism in modern history. Of course, this is because they hold a mindset that ultimately will favor fascist hate filled sentiment when push comes to shove.
I find correct, as you say, to refer to a deep seated mentality that may become latent, yet not disappear. The question becomes what this ‘mentality’, or ‘mindset’, (or ‘dynamics’, or ‘forms, or whatever word is chosen) may be.WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I have found that the essence of fascism is hatred and historically it is the hatred of leftism, liberals, and any ethnic minority groups or foreigners that are seen as a threat to the dominant culture of a nation.
I don’t think that’s false, yet I don’t think it’s the ‘essence’.
Ultimately, “hatred” is generic. Every ideology includes a “form of intense dislike” (that one way the dictionary defines “hatred”).
Politics, according to Carl Schmitt, is (also) based on creating an enemy («the specific political distinction […] is that between friend and enemy»). Socialists dislike free-marketers, as well as fascists, liberals dislike conservatives, as well as communists... and we can call that “hatred”, I see no problem in that.
I could agree more on hatred for ethnic minorities and foreigners, yet not quite.
All foreigners are not equal in hatred. There were SS divisions composed by (Aryan) foreigners. This quality ladder in foreigners is most probably assumed also by the current alt-right, though usually they don’t dwell on this and argue against mass immigration (which is not necessarily stupid). Mostly, your parallelism between Jews and Hispanics is not correct. There is one peculiar aspect you seem to miss. Your description of Jews may well apply to those in the Pale, but not to Jews in Germany. Those people were so very well integrated in the German society. There were Jew scientists, scholars, artists, politicians, bankers, entrepreneurs. The percentage of Jews in prominent positions in Germany was disproportionate with respect to their actual number in the country, and that’s kind of typical... Antisemitic jokes hinting to that still linger on even after WWII.
*That* was the problem.
The founding myth for the persecution of Jews in Hitler Germany was the stab-in-the-back. It was a conspiracy theory claiming that Germany lost WWI because of a Jews plot. Corroborated by the fabricated Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or by the fact that Marx was Jew (thou not exactly enthusiast about it, but that was irrelevant). A pervasive and obsessive propaganda made sure public opinion held Jews as the culprit of all evils afflicting Germany. Moreover, I guess social envy must have played a role. In the conditions you described, Jews publicly became hostis in urbe.
The deliberate use of conspiracy theory and forgery to back policy is typical of totalitarian regimes . And if you find similarities between this and the Trump Administration or the alt-right modus operandi, well, that’s exactly what I mean.
Anyway, this is to say that hatred is not the essence, I am not arguing that “conspirativism” is (is there a word for that? except ‘paranoia’, ‘conning’, ‘delusion’... ?). It does not specifically belong to fascist regimes, and not even to totalitarian regimes, the US used it before Trump, the Leave campaign in the UK was largely based on a probably concious use of lies.
Actually, thinking over it, “conspirativism” is required in polities still based on the rule-of-law. A dictatorship, wholly autocratic, would not need that, but, unlike what you claim, Fascism is not «totalitarian oppressive absolutism when implemented to the nth degree». Hitler was elected and fascist regimes retained a constitution. And that is why “conspirativism” is in their toolkit in order to justify the “exception”.
“Exception” is also a concept branded by Carl Scmitt and it is when the ‘normal’ law, or even the whole constitutional order is suspended and the simple will of the sovereign becomes the law. And all populists have a most clear idea on who is the sovereign and never stop repeating it: the people. Listen to the Trumps, the Bannons, the Salvinis, the Orbans, the Farages... it is always about what the ‘people’ (Americans, Italians, Hungarians,...) want. This will is assumed to be self-evident and most clear (as in “Brexit means Brexit”), it is just that the mischievous elites and their henchmen in Washington, or Brussels, thwart it.
This is, in my view, the defining trait of Fascism: when it is posited that ‘the people’, or the country, must prevail on the rule-of-law.
I would be tempted to say that Fascism is a declension of the tiranny of the majority, but don’t feel so sure about it. The problem is that ‘people’ is a notion as muddy as ‘people’s will’. In fact fascists, instead of considering ‘people’ as a sum of individuals endowed of political rights, often resort to a quasi-mystical ideal of ‘people’. Nazis used race, populists are oriented towards those sharing Judeo-Christian heritage and values. So, they speak for the people, but ‘people’ are their club, and no one else. Typically they aim at restricting rights to citizenship.
To me this Fascism come-back is only mildly surprising.
You argue that Fascism is a post-traumatic condition of politics, when people broken and vulnerable would give in to the dark side. I don’t exactly oppose to that, undeniably anger and frustration do play a role. Yet isn’t that only the trigger? You said that, in a way, Fascism does not create the mindset, it simply brings it to the fore. One has to wonder if Democracy, the Free World, does not have this mentality in itself, maybe not as a building block, but as a form of offspring. Historically fascist regimes have never had the form of absolutism, they replicated the form of modern democratic states with a constitution, a formal separation of powers, a government, often parliaments... As for the current situation, there is this paradox: populist present themselves as the truest democrats. If populism is degenerate democracy, one has to wonder if this degeneration could be avoided.
Populists hold that all legitimacy comes from the people. And anything on which the people has not direct control is illegitimate. ‘Taking back control’, ‘those unelected bureaucrats’...
Would you argue against that?
In their dreamworld, that unspeakable wonder that is the Italian Five Star Movement would like to promote the whole country to the status of MP, and that anything gets voted, so that nothing can take place without the consent of the people. So one can see how, in their ideal world, a state can dispense with laws, even more so with the interpretation of laws. That is absurd and clearly not feasible, yet is the principle so wrong? Are laws means or ends? And where does the state belong? Means or ends? And if “all men are created equal”, and government has to be “of the people, by the people and for the people”, can we really object?
(I deliberately avoid any discussion on a moral ground).
While I do think populists have a fascist mindset, I can well understand they see themselves as democratic. And there’s very little to do about it, you simply can’t take ‘the people’ out of the equation, not in a Democracy, not in a polity that sees the people as sovereign.
We are, finally, exposed to the consequences of the little white lie, or delusional assumption, that people’s vote is rational and competent. Yet, of all dogmas, this one is hardest to shake. It’s clearly spreading beyond politics, all authorities, all notions of hierarchy are being challenged and undermined on the basis that anyone is entitled to an 'equal' say - truth is the count, no other criterion is acceptable.
You probably fear the establishment of dictatorship, I see the autonomous herd conquering heaven.
Meno_ wrote:Only that yes fascism is far more simple then the juxtaposition.above.
When a democracy is conceived as having an econo-political basis, it transcends any dialectical balance, for the 'rights of man, and instead , presupposes an ideal defonition, which is archaic and symbolically come mystical.
The political - economic spectrum age are toward the economic, that is why currently it has become the saving grace and trump card which defies so. Alled errors in Constitutional interpretation.
It is all about the fear of the crack of light that bemoans the entrance of return of 'socialism'
A crack in a tightly constructed edifice is very paranoid about such things as domino effects. That is why Trump went to see his pal in North Korea.
This is why they are after Mitt Romney, the lone Republican who saw this fear imposed , fascist like falling into line for the 'greater good'.
This is why FDR invoked fear as Nothing but the fear It'sself. The existential exit (no exit) is merely am afterthought, a flight of existence from Being.
But You are right, Being is very heavily fortified and reified , not to feel a critical insecurity , when the threshold of econo-politics sinks below that certain threshold, and only a strength stemming from convincing yet false rhetoric rhetoric can succeed to alley those fears.
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Meno_ wrote:Only that yes fascism is far more simple then the juxtaposition.above.
When a democracy is conceived as having an econo-political basis, it transcends any dialectical balance, for the 'rights of man, and instead , presupposes an ideal defonition, which is archaic and symbolically come mystical.
The political - economic spectrum age are toward the economic, that is why currently it has become the saving grace and trump card which defies so. Alled errors in Constitutional interpretation.
It is all about the fear of the crack of light that bemoans the entrance of return of 'socialism'
A crack in a tightly constructed edifice is very paranoid about such things as domino effects. That is why Trump went to see his pal in North Korea.
This is why they are after Mitt Romney, the lone Republican who saw this fear imposed , fascist like falling into line for the 'greater good'.
This is why FDR invoked fear as Nothing but the fear It'sself. The existential exit (no exit) is merely am afterthought, a flight of existence from Being.
But You are right, Being is very heavily fortified and reified , not to feel a critical insecurity , when the threshold of econo-politics sinks below that certain threshold, and only a strength stemming from convincing yet false rhetoric rhetoric can succeed to alley those fears.
Juxtaposition did not happen - lets be clear, fascism is not equal to hate. But what I was saying is that it is the essence of fascism, hatred leads to fascism, it is the root, the essence.
Antithesis wrote:WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Meno_ wrote:Only that yes fascism is far more simple then the juxtaposition.above.
When a democracy is conceived as having an econo-political basis, it transcends any dialectical balance, for the 'rights of man, and instead , presupposes an ideal defonition, which is archaic and symbolically come mystical.
The political - economic spectrum age are toward the economic, that is why currently it has become the saving grace and trump card which defies so. Alled errors in Constitutional interpretation.
It is all about the fear of the crack of light that bemoans the entrance of return of 'socialism'
A crack in a tightly constructed edifice is very paranoid about such things as domino effects. That is why Trump went to see his pal in North Korea.
This is why they are after Mitt Romney, the lone Republican who saw this fear imposed , fascist like falling into line for the 'greater good'.
This is why FDR invoked fear as Nothing but the fear It'sself. The existential exit (no exit) is merely am afterthought, a flight of existence from Being.
But You are right, Being is very heavily fortified and reified , not to feel a critical insecurity , when the threshold of econo-politics sinks below that certain threshold, and only a strength stemming from convincing yet false rhetoric rhetoric can succeed to alley those fears.
Juxtaposition did not happen - lets be clear, fascism is not equal to hate. But what I was saying is that it is the essence of fascism, hatred leads to fascism, it is the root, the essence.
Hatred leads to fascism, and presumably love leads to liberalism.
Your worldview is cartoonishly simplistic.
Antithesis wrote:I'm not a fascist but, can love of one's family, people, culture and soil not also lead to fascism?
Can class cooperation not lead to fascism?
Conversely, can hatred of one's family, people, culture and soil not also lead to liberalism?
Can class antagonism not lead to liberalism?
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I don't think love of ones family, people culture and soil leads to fascism. Fascism is discriminatory by nature and people full of love do not discriminate.
Mad Man P wrote:WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I don't think love of ones family, people culture and soil leads to fascism. Fascism is discriminatory by nature and people full of love do not discriminate.
That's a mischaracterization... He gave you a limited set of things that were loved.
That in and of itself, is discriminatory... unless you love all things equally you are discriminating between things.
There is no way around discrimination... it is necessary for any degree of preference... hell, it's necessary for any kind of perception.
If I feel love at all and I perceive a threat to the things and the people I love, I will be highly motivated to remove that threat.
This extends into political systems and leaders... I would want systems and people in charge that would preserve and defend what I love.
More than that, depending on my level of conviction in what political means of preservation would and wouldn't work I might consider dissent, at best, a foolish mistake...
But if that dissent persists after the mistakes were corrected, I might begin to see it as a deliberate attempt to put in harm's way, that which I love... a threat
You, right now, are doing just that.
You see "fascism" as a threat to the values and society you believe will best safeguard what you love.
You imagine "fascists" as mentally compromised by pain, loss or other such malady, seeking a scapegoat for their anger and resentment.
That's an easy way you can dismiss their views... but in doing so you are blind to what's really behind it.
You don't know what you're fighting, you don't even know how to guard against becoming the thing you oppose.. much less able to talk someone else off that ledge.
Neurologically sound people do not go out of their way to look for enemies... especially when they themselves or the people they love are suffering.
They look for solutions... and if they are told the solution is to conduct a witch hunt for jews, illegal mexicans, white supremacists or fascists... that's what they do.
To save what they love.
And every single one of them will jibber-jabber about how their side is motivated by love and the other by hate... or some such self-congratulatory drivel.
OMG, the people who are intolerant, like the left and liberals, always think they are tolerant folks. Lefties show up with their boom boxes and microphones, whistles and bullhorns to silence other people's voices in the name of tolerance. Their levels of retardation and insanity is amazeballs.WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Mad Man P wrote:WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I don't think love of ones family, people culture and soil leads to fascism. Fascism is discriminatory by nature and people full of love do not discriminate.
That's a mischaracterization... He gave you a limited set of things that were loved.
That in and of itself, is discriminatory... unless you love all things equally you are discriminating between things.
There is no way around discrimination... it is necessary for any degree of preference... hell, it's necessary for any kind of perception.
If I feel love at all and I perceive a threat to the things and the people I love, I will be highly motivated to remove that threat.
This extends into political systems and leaders... I would want systems and people in charge that would preserve and defend what I love.
More than that, depending on my level of conviction in what political means of preservation would and wouldn't work I might consider dissent, at best, a foolish mistake...
But if that dissent persists after the mistakes were corrected, I might begin to see it as a deliberate attempt to put in harm's way, that which I love... a threat
You, right now, are doing just that.
You see "fascism" as a threat to the values and society you believe will best safeguard what you love.
You imagine "fascists" as mentally compromised by pain, loss or other such malady, seeking a scapegoat for their anger and resentment.
That's an easy way you can dismiss their views... but in doing so you are blind to what's really behind it.
You don't know what you're fighting, you don't even know how to guard against becoming the thing you oppose.. much less able to talk someone else off that ledge.
Neurologically sound people do not go out of their way to look for enemies... especially when they themselves or the people they love are suffering.
They look for solutions... and if they are told the solution is to conduct a witch hunt for jews, illegal mexicans, white supremacists or fascists... that's what they do.
To save what they love.
And every single one of them will jibber-jabber about how their side is motivated by love and the other by hate... or some such self-congratulatory drivel.
Nonsense, Poppers paradox shows us that intolerance towards intolerance is needed.
WendyDarling wrote: OMG, the people who are intolerant, like the left and liberals, always think they are tolerant folks. Lefties show up with their boom boxes and microphones, whistles and bullhorns to silence other people's voices in the name of tolerance. Their levels of retardation and insanity is amazeballs.
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]