Gabranth

Continuation of the topic regarding the superiority of Europeans and the delusions of communists

29 posts in this topic

Quote

Except that's not true at all, is it? Don't tell me you're that naive. Fascists don't settle for letting people live in peace, fascists seek to exterminate whole groups of people. That is a core difference between the far-left and the far-right; we would let you be if you give up your ways, but you want to see us all dead.

Anti-humanistic? Compared to what, you and the far-right? You people are the ones that seek to enslave the individual to the state and the glory of the nation as a whole. Communism is the most humanistic ideology there is because we seek the establishment of an economic system in which everyone's basic needs are covered, freeing up their time to pursue their dreams and desires, and develop themselves as human beings. You want people to be cogs in the machine that is the state, we want all states to end so that people can truly be free. I don't need peace from you. There is nothing you can do to harm me, in any way. You cling to your claims of strength when in fact your beliefs are rooted in fear and weakness. What do I have to fear from someone so afraid of the changing world around them? No, I do not want peace. Not until the world is red.

 

Your entire point here is an oxymoron

Quote

Fascists don't settle for letting people live in peace, fascists seek to exterminate whole groups of people. That is a core difference between the far-left and the far-right; we would let you be if you give up your ways, but you want to see us all dead.

 
Quote

No, I do not want peace. Not until the world is red.

pick one mate.

Anyway, let's diagnose this from the start. Yeah, fascists don't allow people to live in peace because life is an eternal struggle under fascism, living in peace would be tantamount to giving up on the struggle, giving up on the movement etc. To make sure everyone is on board with the movement, all dissenters must be purged so the movement may act in total unison, unlike the discordant democracy we see today. Night of Long Knives, Holocaust, IG pogroms, Stalinist purges, whatever you want to call it, its all an aspect of making sure that the people in the nation think on the same terms, so that the nation may act as a single entity. A corporation, if you will, where the people are cells, workplaces are organs and the state is the body that ties it all together. Similarly, under marxism you require a new socialist man that gives all and takes what is needed to sustain him, no? You must change the way people think and act in order to make them fit within the guidelines of the new socialist man. If people aren't meeting their quotas, what happens?

Quote

Anti-humanistic? Compared to what, you and the far-right?

Whatever you want to say, peoples own ideology will always be the most humanistic according to them, so I fear we won't ever find common ground here but I'll give it a go anyway. Communism is anti-humanistic because it is solely materialistic and fails to address the finer points of existence - spirituality, belonging and merit. Your ideology only values labour, only values what people can give to the commune and themselves. Marx even said himself that under communism people would have no need of religion because the land they live in would be utopia, am I wrong? People would have no need of anything that isn't of material value to sustain them. I'm getting off-topic here anyway, the point is that communism doesn't address the quirks of existence, it relies on people accepting naught but material value. 

Quote

You people are the ones that seek to enslave the individual to the state and the glory of the nation as a whole.

Calling service enslavement is a gross representation of the blessing it is to work for something greater than the self, namely other people. I'm sure you can agree with that, what with your mindset being totally dedicated to nothing but the people. Would it be so bad to work to make the nation better, to make the people whole? Only a communist would say yes, I suppose.

Quote

Communism is the most humanistic ideology there is because we seek the establishment of an economic system in which everyone's basic needs are covered, freeing up their time to pursue their dreams and desires, and develop themselves as human beings.

 

Aye, any ideology that seeks the betterment of human beings is one I approve of, that is why I aim towards fascism. Fascism seeks the establishment of an organisation (the state) that allows for the people to be bettered and fulfilled under it, seeking to provide for everyone's basic needs too. But instead of this organisation seeking to allow people to waste away their lives doing as we do when we have free time (really, who learns to play piano in their free time? Dude, what are we doing now?), it seeks to put everyone in a position to benefit the nation and lift the nation to new heights of spiritual and physical fulfillment. Namely, working.

Quote

You want people to be cogs in the machine that is the state, we want all states to end so that people can truly be free.

Free from what? Free to do what? The test of free will is an existential challenge of the human condition, which puts forth the option to either succumb to our base desires and vices, making man no better than an advanced animal, or to overcome them and become something more than human. The test is a conscious choice to either follow or reject the truth, which is the only choice that matters. The choice between the multitude of lies is qualitatively irrelevant as they are all equally wrong. Free will is a test, we are given the option to do wrong as a challenge, the lies are enticing and satisfy our most base and immediate urges, but we are meant to reject all lies and follow the truth. We are given the option to do wrong so that we may choose to do right. Modern man believes that he cherishes freedom, when in reality he only cherishes the freedom to do wrong, and if presented with the expectation to do right, he lashes out, akin to a child, with protests of his freedoms being infringed upon, complaining about fatalism - at the notion of there only being one correct path, which, for him, denies the existence of free will. 

Fascism prizes real freedom, the freedom to do right, to conscientiously reject falsehoods and their trappings that lead men to degeneration and ultimate extinction. Yet it is this message the "free" world attempts to silence. Modern man fails the test of free will and imposes the freedom to do wrong on future generations. Fascism seeks to liberate those generation give them the freedom to do right.

Quote

I don't need peace from you. There is nothing you can do to harm me, in any way. You cling to your claims of strength when in fact your beliefs are rooted in fear and weakness.

My beliefs are rooted in the need to clean this filthy world of all its plagues and blights. To say fascists have evolved out of fear is plain stupid. Do you think any fascist is scared of their opposition? Absolutely not, our entire value system demands no fear and no quarter. Our opposition to anyone who isn't a fascist comes out of a need to purge non-fascists because we must have a clean nation, and a clean world. 

I'll post more later

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time you !@#$ try that, you kill a bunch of people in a futile attempt to take over, and then you get killed for being the evil !@#$ you are.  Why not consider not being evil !@#$, wasting other peoples gift of life by killing them, and wasting your gift of life by deservedly getting killed?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Think bigger? Your kind are the people who cling to their nations, their cultures, not realizing that time will inebvitably turn it all to dust. You are short-sighted and only seek what benefits you, now. Everything you ever held dear about your country, your culture, moral values, will all be forgotten. Who is to say which nations, which cultures will exist 500 years from now? 1000 years? 5000? You have no right to accuse me of thinking small. The only history, the only culture, the only race and civilization that matters, is that of humanity as a whole. And even that, the billions of people that have existed, exist and will exist in the future, will eventually become nothing.

3

Here we can see the petty nihilism of the typical communist. "it is all for naught", they say, "Nothing you do matters since we will all die". To say such a thing flies in the face of all we fascists seek to maintain and preserve, our legacy and impact as a people and culture is not exemplified by one person or event, but a culmination of all things that shape the people and the world as a whole. Aye, perhaps we cling to them for no other reason than the men and women who came before us did it also, as our traditions and cultures might be nothing but stupidity and superstition, but that isn't the point of our shared history. It is to celebrate the accomplishments of those men and women, to praise them for the fact that they managed to live and give life to us, so we might do the same for the future. Abandoning worthless tradition is akin to letting go of the past as a useless remnant, but that misses the point entirely. Fascists? Short-sighted? Please. Rome wasn't built in a day and it lasted longer than anything else to date. We seek not to partake in decisions that do not benefit the people and the nation as a whole, including the unborn. It is a mighty aspect, that we provide for those that we cannot provide for now, as they do not exist now. It wasn't called the thousand year reich for nothing, you know. The cultures that will exist thousands of years from now are the ones that people seek to preserve, it is really that simple. The values that we believe in and the things we do to progress that will be the pinnacle of our civilisation and therefore will be preserved in a millennia or more. Sure, our humanity will not last forever, eventually, we will evolve - in which way does not matter - but making sure we have the correct value system going into the future will allow for us to thrive. We will not fully grasp our destiny by the current whims of the people or by thinking about how we might be better off today. It takes a will to think about the coming age and to think in low time. Sure, we will either die out or evolve beyond recognition, whether artificially or not. I'd prefer the latter, but I know there are plenty who would prefer to live in total decadence and contribute to the death of our species. 

Quote

0.5% is 150 million genetic differences, yes. But you do realize how percentages work, yes? All those differences are minuscule and meaningless. In comparison, the similarities are far more prevalent. 99.5% similar. As you said, billions of similarities. A man living in Seoul and a man living in Rome can be more genetically similar than two men living on the same street in Tokyo. The differences are not meaningful and make no actual difference in capability or intelligence.

 

Yes, indeed, but the point still stands. We share much of our DNA with other things, and that .5% turns out to be very divergent considering we share 96% of our DNA with chimps, as you chose to ignore. is the 4% difference between man and ape minuscule and meaningless? By evolutionary standards, yes, but thinking in high time we can clearly see there are many differences between man and ape. Billions of similarities, but millions of differences, don't forget that. We are not all the same, and that ought to be treasured. Our differences, which there are many of, must be respected. I fear you neither treasure nor respect this, and are therefore blinded by your own ideology to see the differences in mankind. Our differences are not skin deep, but different completely to one another at the genetic level. We are not all equal, and we never will be. We are different to the core. That does not mean it is impossible to treat everyone equally, but you cannot equally expect the same out of everyone.

Quote

You have essentially made my point for me. The success of people in the northern hemisphere is mainly the result of being lucky. Fortunate. Any group of people would have flourished had they had access to the same resources people had/have in the northern hemisphere. Therefore, there is no basis for seeing cultures or people in the northern hemisphere as being inherently better than people anywhere else. We were just lucky.

 

No I didn't make your point for you, you said that white people are wealthy through exploitation, not pot luck. Even in other continents there are plenty of domesticatable animals, but the peoples chose not to domesticate them. No aboriginal society managed to tame Dingoes, Emus or Wallabies despite them being quite suitable for domestication. I'll post more stuff later today's been busy :P

Edited by Gabranth
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, early stage Communism and late-stage Fascism look remarkably similar.

I think the key divergence there is the focus on inclusiveness versus exclusiveness. Fascism tends to fuel itself on nationalistic ideas. Communism fuels itself on inequality.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Efficiency? Why would we hate efficiency? We despise capitalism because of how inefficient it is at providing for the world's masses. How inefficient it is at evenly distributing income.

 

You hate efficiency because it turns the proletariat into a "cog in the machine" that can be replaced on a whim in capitalism if their work is not profitable enough. The first thing to take a pay cut is the workers, am I wrong? That is an injustice, I share that view. Don't think me some shill for capitalism. Yes capitalism has provided men and women the ability to accrue more wealth than they could possibly spend both in their lifetime and a few generations after whilst people are homeless, dying and in poverty, I'll cede on that too, but I don't think that the new ideal of taking it all and dedicating it all to the commune it is the answer, after all, that is essentially what taxes are, and they are brutally inefficient. Eventually, the wealth created will not be enough to satiate the many injustices that require attention in this world. That is just how scarcity goes. We might have the ability to feed everyone twice over and give everyone fresh water, clothe them and treat them, but food gets spoiled, water goes rancid and drugs get stolen and hoarded, or worse yet - abused. I share your sentiment, no one deserves to be born into a world of squalor.

Quote

Conspiracy? It's no conspiracy. That's just how capitalism works. The people who don't or barely work, who just inherit and own, the capitalists, are parasites. They make their wealth on the backs of the working masses. It is an openly acknowledged fact that capitalism is causing a massive increase in income and wealth inequality. It's what capitalism does, it's what it's meant to do. Why do you think we live in a world where the wealthy, who sit at the top of their corporate hierarchies, earn fat bonuses while the people who work for them only earn a fraction of what they make, despite doing the absolute majority of the work? Why do you think that wealthy and influential have worked so hard for decades to convince people that communism is the devil? It's not because they care about you and yours. It's because they know it's a threat to their power and wealth, which they seek to maintain above all else. Even the welfare of the planet is less important than their position and power. Clearly, you just don't know all that much about how the capitalist mode of production functions.

 

Aye, they are parasites, but what is the point in toiling if the fruits of your labour are taken and distributed to the undeserving? My children ought to take something from my estate when I die. When I put my name on something, my last name comes first. 100% inheritance tax is a more unjust means of creating a just end. Those that manage to amass wealth by simply owning are parasites too, that is another sentiment shared by us. If you don't believe me, I can give you a direct quote.

What changes, if any, will Fascism make in the law with regard to inherited wealth?

Fascism does not recognise the principle of reward without service. Hereditary wealth, therefore, will not be permitted unless service is given in return. This need not necessarily take the form of productive service. Public service may be given in return for the privilege of hereditary wealth. It is right that a man should be able to work not only for himself but for his children. It is wrong that the children should be able to live in idleness on the wealth which others have created. Service must be given equivalent to the reward enjoyed. Hereditary wealth which is not justified by service will revert to the State.

On 20/01/2018 at 4:18 PM, kosmokenny said:

Every time you !@#$ try that, you kill a bunch of people in a futile attempt to take over, and then you get killed for being the evil !@#$ you are.  Why not consider not being evil !@#$, wasting other peoples gift of life by killing them, and wasting your gift of life by deservedly getting killed?

Swearing doesn't articulate your point any better, but I know what you're trying to say. I will point you towards any political shift in history as a counterpoint. From Tribalism to Empire, Catholicism to Protestantism, Monarchy to Democracy and from then to Communism itself requires all dissenters to be dealt with in the harshest manner. In order to secure the ideology, men and women with arms must be ready to protect it. Fascism is not unique in this, it just makes it central to the philosophy. Did the French and American revolters not have to kill many monarchists in order to secure their ideals? The Bolsheviks killing class traitors and such? You will find wherever there is change, there is bloodshed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Big Brother I suppose I ought to ping you since you wouldn't be getting notifications :P

14 minutes ago, Holton said:

Ironically, early stage Communism and late-stage Fascism look remarkably similar.

I think the key divergence there is the focus on inclusiveness versus exclusiveness. Fascism tends to fuel itself on nationalistic ideas. Communism fuels itself on inequality.

Fascism is not totalitarian, but it can be – not because that is its nature, but because totalitarianism can be a tool. Fascism can also be in this same sense anarchistic, because it can likewise use anarchy as a tool. Trying to classify fascism as totalitarian is once again abstract classification. The ‘system’ that fascism offers society is no system, which denotes the artificial, fabricated nature of that organization, but rather the Organic State, one that is fully compliant to truth and thus is as nature itself: organic, where everything works in harmony.

It is used to socialize a new generation of people that would then be able to carry on in the Organic Society with no need for a totalitarian structure. Until that new generation is ready it is also used to protect that process of forces, within as well as without, from stopping this new generation from arising.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gabranth said:

@Big Brother I suppose I ought to ping you since you wouldn't be getting notifications :P

Fascism is not totalitarian, but it can be – not because that is its nature, but because totalitarianism can be a tool. Fascism can also be in this same sense anarchistic, because it can likewise use anarchy as a tool. Trying to classify fascism as totalitarian is once again abstract classification. The ‘system’ that fascism offers society is no system, which denotes the artificial, fabricated nature of that organization, but rather the Organic State, one that is fully compliant to truth and thus is as nature itself: organic, where everything works in harmony.

It is used to socialize a new generation of people that would then be able to carry on in the Organic Society with no need for a totalitarian structure. Until that new generation is ready it is also used to protect that process of forces, within as well as without, from stopping this new generation from arising.

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

 

I think what you're envisioning is an indoctrinated right-wing democracy or anarchy. Fascism, by it's definition, is totalitarian.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not participating in this. Didn't even read it. I assume it's all just fascist drivel and ill-conceived criticism that will do nothing to change my mind on anything. It is pointless and you have wasted your time. Heads up, if you want to have an actual, rational and objective discussion about something, you might not want to be so obviously biased starting in the thread title itself. At least pretend you have an inkling of an open mind.

Anyway, fragile fascist cowards only deserve the wall, communism will always win.

-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Big Brother said:

Yeah, I'm not participating in this. Didn't even read it. I assume it's all just fascist drivel and ill-conceived criticism that will do nothing to change my mind on anything. It is pointless and you have wasted your time. Heads up, if you want to have an actual, rational and objective discussion about something, you might not want to be so obviously biased starting in the thread title itself. At least pretend you have an inkling of an open mind.

Anyway, fragile fascist cowards only deserve the wall, communism will always win.

Oh, I implore you, I even conceded a few points!

1 minute ago, Holton said:

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

 

I think what you're envisioning is an indoctrinated right-wing democracy or anarchy. Fascism, by it's definition, is totalitarian.

Sure, if you want to base your entire view of an ideology around a dictionary definition and not any literature, lectures or any inkling of intelligent thought and theory then go ahead. By definition, you have a surface-level idea of the philosophy you're attempting to argue

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gabranth said:

Oh, I implore you, I even conceded a few points!

Sure, if you want to base your entire view of an ideology around a dictionary definition and not any literature, lectures or any inkling of intelligent thought and theory then go ahead. By definition, you have a surface-level idea of the philosophy you're attempting to argue

So help me understand then? lol 

Give me some literature that will enlighten me about the need for fascism in the world. 

Edited by Jeremy Graham
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gabranth said:

I'm not arguing you can't build from your own thoughts... Just to call an anarchist right-wing society "fascism" is just intellectually dishonest. But you're right, I haven't spent much time delving into fascist literature :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gabranth said:

It's funny how in the Mussolini reading it explicitly tells you that the reason they are publishing it is so people know that the ideology is, for a lack of a better word, something nobody should follow:

"As our web site makes very clear, we are totally opposed to ideas such as racism and religious intolerance.  However, in order to combat such evils, it is necessary to understand them by means of the study of key documentary material.  For a more detailed statement of our publications standards click here."

But sure, I'll get reading. The 26 point manifesto seems like typical fascist thinking, nothing special there. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Holton said:

I'm not arguing you can't build from your own thoughts... Just to call an anarchist right-wing society "fascism" is just intellectually dishonest. But you're right, I haven't spent much time delving into fascist literature :P

https://www.amazon.com/Anarcho-Fascism-Nature-Reborn-Jonas-Nilsson/dp/9188667200

People nowadays do a lot of thinking and not a lot of doing

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gabranth said:

You hate efficiency because it turns the proletariat into a "cog in the machine" that can be replaced on a whim in capitalism if their work is not profitable enough. The first thing to take a pay cut is the workers, am I wrong? That is an injustice, I share that view. Don't think me some shill for capitalism. Yes capitalism has provided men and women the ability to accrue more wealth than they could possibly spend both in their lifetime and a few generations after whilst people are homeless, dying and in poverty, I'll cede on that too, but I don't think that the new ideal of taking it all and dedicating it all to the commune it is the answer, after all, that is essentially what taxes are, and they are brutally inefficient. Eventually, the wealth created will not be enough to satiate the many injustices that require attention in this world. That is just how scarcity goes. We might have the ability to feed everyone twice over and give everyone fresh water, clothe them and treat them, but food gets spoiled, water goes rancid and drugs get stolen and hoarded, or worse yet - abused. I share your sentiment, no one deserves to be born into a world of squalor.

Aye, they are parasites, but what is the point in toiling if the fruits of your labour are taken and distributed to the undeserving? My children ought to take something from my estate when I die. When I put my name on something, my last name comes first. 100% inheritance tax is a more unjust means of creating a just end. Those that manage to amass wealth by simply owning are parasites too, that is another sentiment shared by us. If you don't believe me, I can give you a direct quote.

What changes, if any, will Fascism make in the law with regard to inherited wealth?

Fascism does not recognise the principle of reward without service. Hereditary wealth, therefore, will not be permitted unless service is given in return. This need not necessarily take the form of productive service. Public service may be given in return for the privilege of hereditary wealth. It is right that a man should be able to work not only for himself but for his children. It is wrong that the children should be able to live in idleness on the wealth which others have created. Service must be given equivalent to the reward enjoyed. Hereditary wealth which is not justified by service will revert to the State.

Swearing doesn't articulate your point any better, but I know what you're trying to say. I will point you towards any political shift in history as a counterpoint. From Tribalism to Empire, Catholicism to Protestantism, Monarchy to Democracy and from then to Communism itself requires all dissenters to be dealt with in the harshest manner. In order to secure the ideology, men and women with arms must be ready to protect it. Fascism is not unique in this, it just makes it central to the philosophy. Did the French and American revolters not have to kill many monarchists in order to secure their ideals? The Bolsheviks killing class traitors and such? You will find wherever there is change, there is bloodshed.

No there isn't. The Soviet Union turned capitalist peacefully. Germany turned nazi peacefully, as far as the transition between governments went. America fought a half assed war of independence, but Canada and Australia didn't. All your stupid argument is justifying is self-defense claims when people wake up and start killing you !@#$. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gabranth I have some questions for you based on the "Squire's Tale" - I've skimmed it, so maybe I'm missing things that have been answered in the book:

  • If you think the 'predator and prey' analogy is valid, and believe fascists are simply following this 'natural' truth, how would fascists envision the formation of the State? The State was constructed to move humanity away from what's commonly known as the short and brutish life of animals - and hence a social construct by nature (as in, it wasn't 'natural'). So if you think that social constructs are basically 'lies' that deceive us from the natural truth, and you want to return to the 'predator and prey' type of human society, how do you see the modern state coming to existence? 
  • Can fascists be wrong about their beliefs? Since clearly the 'fascists' claim monopoly over the natural truth and everyone else is just fabricating the truth, the book basically shuts down all potential attempts to argue against fascist ideas, since they can say "You've been misguided" or "You don't know the truth like we do" without actually having to do any explaining.

  • Since it's a 'predator eat prey' world you envision, and the weak and unproductive need to be weeded out, there must be a natural criterion that is the absolute 'truth' to evaluating who is 'strong' and 'productive', and who is not. What is this natural criterion? Can you tell me what it is?
  • "You’re right that not all Jews – or all members of any group – will conform to stereotypes 100% of the time. Or even most of the time. But imagine you’re in the jungle, and come across a tiger. Will you be scared? Of course! Most tigers, most of the time, won’t attack you, either because they’re scared of humans, or because they’re not hungry at the time, or for a myriad of other reasons. But isn’t it the right reaction to be careful around it? Isn’t that the right choice to protect yourself and others you care about?" The book gives no other reason to hate the Jews other than these BS analogies that make no sense. Actually, 80% of the book seems to be 

    "Of course, stereotypes are not accurate - and most members of the group will not conform to stereotypes. But gosh, I do hate all the Jews, I'm out to get all of them!" <-- This just sounds dumb. 

    The book intentionally uses the 'tiger' analogy to make it difficult to say no to 'defending yourself' from potential threats. But this is just a common propaganda technique to justify discrimination and violence using fear. Why are Jews associated with tigers? If they are 'naturally evil', what are the ways in which Jews have been proven to be 'naturally evil'? 

  • The book claims that 'Jews have been driven out of many countries - Jews are clearly the problem' tries and justify why the Jews are evil. How does this logic hold up? Korea has been invaded to be colonized by the Chinese for centuries, and was conquered by the Japanese for 30 years. Are Koreans the problem in this scenario? Are we somehow provoking these other countries to attack us? Clearly, there must be other more complex, but more accurate and contextual explanations, both in the Jewish and Korean cases? 
Edited by Jeremy Graham
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kosmokenny said:

No there isn't. The Soviet Union turned capitalist peacefully. Germany turned nazi peacefully, as far as the transition between governments went. America fought a half assed war of independence, but Canada and Australia didn't. All your stupid argument is justifying is self-defense claims when people wake up and start killing you &#33;@#&#036;. 

The Soviet Union turned capitalist after 50 years of proxy war, Germany turned Nazi after a decade of, essentially, civil war between communist revolutionaries and the freikorps and their pals. Australia and Canada are neither independent nor ideologically adverse to England. Both nations still have the Queen as head of state and still run a parliamentary democracy. Your entire point is moot

@Jeremy Graham I'll get to your points in a few hours, busy atm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I unpack this, I want to say that it was good of you to have a look at some of the resources I provided, you've done more to understand the subject than a lot of other people care to and I commend you on that Jeremy.

7 hours ago, Jeremy Graham said:

If you think the 'predator and prey' analogy is valid, and believe fascists are simply following this 'natural' truth, how would fascists envision the formation of the State? The State was constructed to move humanity away from what's commonly known as the short and brutish life of animals - and hence a social construct by nature (as in, it wasn't 'natural'). So if you think that social constructs are basically 'lies' that deceive us from the natural truth, and you want to return to the 'predator and prey' type of human society, how do you see the modern state coming to existence? 

 

The state was constructed to allow the prey to act on equal footing to the predator - for the inferior to think and act on the same level as the superior. In that regard, the modern purpose of the state is wholly unnatural and fascists seek to create a society in which people may live and work as they were made, uninhibited by the overbearing state or the inferior to drag them down. You'll find that a lot of others have different opinions, but the fact of the matter remains - the modern usage of the state is used unjustly. The book eludes to the fact that the 'organic state' depends on the people of which the state consists. You'll find most neo-fascists find the role of the government to not fulfill its purpose today, which is to serve the race at large, James Mason and Commander G. L. Rockwell spoke extensively about this stuff if you want to read more. Multiculturalism and the demographic shift of wealthy nations has made this task near impossible, and fascists would prefer any society to be made up homogenously to serve that goal, otherwise, you will always have second-class citizens - an oppressed and an oppressor race, such as whites and blacks in America as a quick example. In order to avoid that there must be racial separation, everyone must have their own land, own laws, own system of government and, by extension, own family in their racial heritage. The book goes through that. I think of strayed away from the question a bit... I wouldn't call society a social construct, that is some Stirner type shit as we can see societies form in social animals so, by extension they are natural, but not as we see them today. The social order we have today is based on a lie, but society itself is not a lie.

7 hours ago, Jeremy Graham said:

Can fascists be wrong about their beliefs? Since clearly the 'fascists' claim monopoly over the natural truth and everyone else is just fabricating the truth, the book basically shuts down all potential attempts to argue against fascist ideas, since they can say "You've been misguided" or "You don't know the truth like we do" without actually having to do any explaining.

As truthseekers, fascists can never be wrong. To say so would be to say that the truth is wrong, and that is a lie. People are not fabricating truths, they create lies in order to deceive for their own personal gain. It might be hard to wrap your head around at first, it was for me, but as a whole, fascists may change their positions, yes, but it is very rare since the truth cannot be altered, only that the initial positions of those men and women were based on fabrications themselves, so they cannot rightly call themselves fascists. 

7 hours ago, Jeremy Graham said:

"You’re right that not all Jews – or all members of any group – will conform to stereotypes 100% of the time. Or even most of the time. But imagine you’re in the jungle, and come across a tiger. Will you be scared? Of course! Most tigers, most of the time, won’t attack you, either because they’re scared of humans, or because they’re not hungry at the time, or for a myriad of other reasons. But isn’t it the right reaction to be careful around it? Isn’t that the right choice to protect yourself and others you care about?" The book gives no other reason to hate the Jews other than these BS analogies that make no sense. Actually, 80% of the book seems to be 

2

Analogies make a difficult concept simpler to learn, and that's what the book aimed to be - a learning tool for the uninitiated. I can't go into the JQ on the forums as I'll no doubt be warned or banned or the Feds will come after me or something, but there are plenty more resources on it. The book goes over how innate physical traits can be present in different ethnic groups as a result of evolution, and similarly how traits and personality characteristics and behaviours may be inherited as well, using gypsies as an example. It's a popular thought, that some groups are predisposed to doing certain things rather than others, Jews' natural tendencies do not serve the race at large but the individual or quite simply, the Jew. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jeremy Graham said:

The book intentionally uses the 'tiger' analogy to make it difficult to say no to 'defending yourself' from potential threats. But this is just a common propaganda technique to justify discrimination and violence using fear. Why are Jews associated with tigers? If they are 'naturally evil', what are the ways in which Jews have been proven to be 'naturally evil'?

 

Yes, of course, you have everything to fear from a people that do not have the nations' interests first. By extension, they do not have your interests first. They have Israel's interests first, their corporations' interests first, their synagogues interests first and even themselves first. Everything that isn't you, the races or the interests of the nation first. Jews are not associated with tigers but used comparatively as a natural warning, we are scared of tigers naturally because they may harm us in the same way we should be wary of all of the 'other' as they may exist to harm us. Your definition of evil is different to mine, and anyone else's and the nature of the Jew can be considered normal if your scope allows for that. Me, not so. In that way, I can't prove they are evil since your sense of good and evil is different, but unjust acts by my accord include: blood ritual circumcision, false flag attacks on jewish owned property, having one opinion regarding what's best for the national interest while having a wildly different opinion for Israel, the accumulation of wealth through owning rather than earning, the creation of the fractional reserve banking system, usury and therefore wage slavery, general acts of degradation to the nation, including the promotion of pornography and media which attack national interests, and finally, their attitude toward unbelievers of Judaism. 

8 hours ago, Jeremy Graham said:

The book claims that 'Jews have been driven out of many countries - Jews are clearly the problem' tries and justify why the Jews are evil. How does this logic hold up? Korea has been invaded to be colonized by the Chinese for centuries, and was conquered by the Japanese for 30 years. Are Koreans the problem in this scenario? Are we somehow provoking these other countries to attack us? Clearly, there must be other more complex, but more accurate and contextual explanations, both in the Jewish and Korean cases? 

The difference is that war is inevitable between nations. Think of it as gate-crashing a party. Jews, on the other hand, were invited in but subsequently removed due to their behaviour. Think of that as you will. At no point were the Koreans invited to Japan or China only to be removed. Koreans always had a natural right to their de jure land, and they earned their position as 2 nations through fire and blood. It just doesn't compute with me. No one blames Korea for being invaded, that is just a result of imperial ambitions on the sides of Japan and China, but the same cannot be said for Jews.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe 'Jews' are the issue here. Jews are just a random X race, that can be substituted for pretty much anything. 

Fascist, but perhaps more specifically, National Socialist political philosophy focuses on the need for hyper-nationalist unity among a so-called "volk." Nazi political scientist Carl Schmidt is the preeminent proponent of this theory and directly extends from the "organic state" idea. According to Schmidt, conflict - be it at a personal, community, national, or international level - is inevitable. Thus, Gabranth's quote:

17 hours ago, Gabranth said:

The difference is that war is inevitable between nations. 

The need for homogeneity (be it racial and/or political) is directly correlated to this idea that a unified hyper-nationalist state WILL be in conflict and will ALWAYS be in conflict with someone or something, be it a domestic internal enemy based on race, religion, or political affiliation (Jews) or a nation state. Ironically, the philosophy's roots can be traced to Karl Marx's economic theories. All individuals existing within the organic state are therefore instruments of its will, tools which serve the state. And the individual MUST serve the state, because of the threat of the "other" is superlative and always existential. Thus, this line here:

17 hours ago, Gabranth said:

"... we are scared of tigers naturally because they may harm us in the same way we should be wary of all of the 'other' as they may exist to harm us."

Thus, we need to get rid of Jews, because they will (at the very least) hinder us in our next inevitable conflict against an existential threat. Thus, we need to have a single, homogeneous body politic that obeys the commands of the state. Thus, the individual must lose individuality and become a cell of the organic state. 

 

 

Here is the problems associated with this dangerous political ideology:

1. By being a cell of the organic state, you are assigned a value. Your existence has a purpose within the state, and therefore, individuals are created (think of the child planning in 1930s Germany) to serve the state. By definition, a human being (with its own free will and consciousness) whose purpose is only to serve the state means that should this person stop serving the state (or is designated by the state as being "uncooperative"), it is acceptable and necessary to dispose of them. Thus, this political system inherently degrades human value as numbers on a chart, cogs in a wheel and grants the state (or whoever controls the state) power of life and death over its "cells."

2. This theory assumes inherently that conflict is inevitable. But not only is this conflict inevitable, it is existential. Losing the conflict means that everyone dies, and is therefore the driving force for co-opting the individual into the state. The problem with this theory is that it's not true. The last 80 years are perhaps one of the most peaceful times in world history, next to the Age of Augustus in the west and the Han Dynasty in the east, despite the inception of globalization and multiculturalism during this time. Furthermore, even if there was war, war only destroyed the state, not the actual body politic. Evidence? There are still Germans running around, contrary to what Hitler said would happen if the Soviet Union won the war. This political ideology requires that the state have over-exaggerated enemies (real or fabricated) in order to have the individual cells believe that their existence is tied with the state, and that if the state perished, the entire body politic perished with it. 

3. Unadulterated violence. Ironically, the philosophy claims to be peaceful (and thus the Janist symbol for the Nazis). The claim is that the state is self-defensive, and that because conflict is inevitable, the state must always be prepared to defend itself from the dangerous, cruel world out there. The problem is, if there are no enemies of existential proportion, this philosophy dissolves. Thus, the state must create enemies. People who don't conform to our political beliefs? Enemies. People who practice a different religion? Enemies. People who have a different color of skin than the majority of us? Enemies. By fabricating enemies, the state condones violence against enemies. Furthermore, it condones ANY ACTION necessary to destroy the great evil. What does losing a few thousand human lives mean, if the great evil that threatens our existence is destroyed? Why shouldn't we strip some people of their rights if it means our enemies are defeated? Any cruelty, any dehumanization is okay so long as the evil is defeated. 

 

 

History has proven Schmidt wrong. The social constructs that distinguishes one individual from another, or one nation state from another is just that: social constructs. At the end of the day, it's all just lines of sand. The state does not create us, we create the state. Therefore, the state has a predefined purpose to serve us, not the other way around. 

Edited by Caecus
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2018 at 6:27 PM, Gabranth said:

The Soviet Union turned capitalist after 50 years of proxy war, Germany turned Nazi after a decade of, essentially, civil war between communist revolutionaries and the freikorps and their pals. Australia and Canada are neither independent nor ideologically adverse to England. Both nations still have the Queen as head of state and still run a parliamentary democracy. Your entire point is moot

@Jeremy Graham I'll get to your points in a few hours, busy atm

Irrelevant to why they collapsed, wholly exaggerated, false, false, false, irrelevant other than ceremonially, and irrelevant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Caecus said:

I don't believe 'Jews' are the issue here. Jews are just a random X race, that can be substituted for pretty much anything. 

Jews are a special case since historically they have not had a land to call their own until recently. In that regard, they must be discussed differently in comparison to other races since others have had lands to call home. 

10 hours ago, Caecus said:

Fascist, but perhaps more specifically, National Socialist political philosophy focuses on the need for hyper-nationalist unity among a so-called "volk." Nazi political scientist Carl Schmidt is the preeminent proponent of this theory and directly extends from the "organic state" idea. According to Schmidt, conflict - be it at a personal, community, national, or international level - is inevitable.

Aye, as long as there are multiple parties then there will be conflict, be it class, gender, race or whatever else constitutes a difference in interest. In that regard, Fascism and its derivatives seek to end such conflicts by dedicating all demographics to the advancement of the 'volk' - the race belonging to the nation-state - rather than individual demographics and interest groups. Therefore, nations may live side-by-side without qualms with one another so long as they tend to their own people and advance the nation.

10 hours ago, Caecus said:

The need for homogeneity (be it racial and/or political) is directly correlated to this idea that a unified hyper-nationalist state WILL be in conflict and will ALWAYS be in conflict with someone or something, be it a domestic internal enemy based on race, religion, or political affiliation (Jews) or a nation state. Ironically, the philosophy's roots can be traced to Karl Marx's economic theories. All individuals existing within the organic state are therefore instruments of its will, tools which serve the state. And the individual MUST serve the state, because of the threat of the "other" is superlative and always existential.

 

You're starting to get off track here. The need for homogeneity stems from the tribalist aspect of the human psyche and satiates its need for a united family in the volk. Fascism doesn't seek to find conflict or create conflict, as it allows for each demographic to have their own community in which they may serve themselves and each other. However, the people must be united in mind (Fascist), body (National Socialist) and spirit (Legionnaire), that much is true, and opponents of the people must be purged or find another community to call their own. The economic theory aspect is rather wrong, as Marx indicates that identifiable traits in humans are irrelevant (as Big Brother puts so eloquently) so long as the class divide is removed humans will live in perfect harmony. Although this is mainly a social aspect, fascists see this refusion as a way to blind people from the realities of humans to naturally associate themselves with ideas above materialism, which Marx thought of as the primary aspect of conflict. All individuals existing within the organic state live as they would normally do. Your perspective regarding Fascism is wrong in this regard - the state exists to serve the race at large, not the other way around. 

10 hours ago, Caecus said:

Thus, we need to get rid of Jews, because they will (at the very least) hinder us in our next inevitable conflict against an existential threat. Thus, we need to have a single, homogeneous body politic that obeys the commands of the state. Thus, the individual must lose individuality and become a cell of the organic state.

 

Quite rightly. The single homogenous body politic decides the fate of the nation, not the state. It just so happens that the state and people are aligned in their thought. The losing of individuality is ultimately the loss of the ability to distinguish yourself from your fellow man through the peddling of lies. The opinions each person hold are all equally untrue as their opinion is based on ignorance, whilst the truth comes from nature - the formation of the organic state. Everyone in the state is exposed to the truth and wholly embraces it, and are united under it.

10 hours ago, Caecus said:

By being a cell of the organic state, you are assigned a value. Your existence has a purpose within the state, and therefore, individuals are created (think of the child planning in 1930s Germany) to serve the state. By definition, a human being (with its own free will and consciousness) whose purpose is only to serve the state means that should this person stop serving the state (or is designated by the state as being "uncooperative"), it is acceptable and necessary to dispose of them. Thus, this political system inherently degrades human value as numbers on a chart, cogs in a wheel and grants the state (or whoever controls the state) power of life and death over its "cells."

The cell does not complain about its lack of worth when compared to the organ or tissue. The cell simply understands its purpose to provide for the body. The cell understands its value as necessary to the advancement of the body. A cell which does not act in the manner that is was created then becomes cancerous and must be removed. Is it not necessary to remove cancer, since it spreads and ultimately results in the death of the body? The same is true for the organic state. The political system understands and validates the innate worth of each of its cells, its people. It does not degrade the people simply because the state is larger and more important, but cells collectively are equally important and make up the body. The volk makes up the state, and it is the state's purpose to provide for the people. A cell without nourishment is useless. It is a symbiotic relationship - one cannot exist without the other. 

10 hours ago, Caecus said:

This theory assumes inherently that conflict is inevitable. But not only is this conflict inevitable, it is existential. Losing the conflict means that everyone dies, and is therefore the driving force for co-opting the individual into the state. The problem with this theory is that it's not true. The last 80 years are perhaps one of the most peaceful times in world history, next to the Age of Augustus in the west and the Han Dynasty in the east, despite the inception of globalization and multiculturalism during this time. Furthermore, even if there was war, war only destroyed the state, not the actual body politic. Evidence? There are still Germans running around, contrary to what Hitler said would happen if the Soviet Union won the war. This political ideology requires that the state have over-exaggerated enemies (real or fabricated) in order to have the individual cells believe that their existence is tied with the state, and that if the state perished, the entire body politic perished with it. 

2
2

Losing the conflict means exposing your people to lies, and ultimately resulting in the death of their will and spirit - close but no cigar. The last 80 years were wracked with war just the same as any century, the Cold War resulted in plenty of proxy wars that were much more devastating due to modern equipment in comparison to the past. The only reason war hasn't broken out between major powers is the threat of nuclear hellfire - commanders now fear for their lives as bombs kill indiscriminately unlike bullets and the boys behind firearms. The men who declare war now have their own lives to fear by declaring war, a problem not shared by Kings and Generals of the past. Had the nuke not been invented, do you think a worldwide conflict between NATO and the Eastern Bloc would not have been inevitable? As for your comments regarding the death of the state resulting in the death of the volk, I'd like to point towards some of the now-Polish territories that once belonged to Germany. Those areas were once populated by Germans. Do you not think that if Germany had been fully partitioned by the Eastern Bloc that a great ethnic cleansing would have occurred? The death of a nation results in the death of the people. Countries cannot abide having losers continue to thrive in lands that do not belong to them. Only in this recent age of democracy, multiculturalism and 'freedom' has this truth been undermined because special interests have something to gain by allowing the weak to continue living despite not having any natural right to.

10 hours ago, Caecus said:

Unadulterated violence. Ironically, the philosophy claims to be peaceful (and thus the Janist symbol for the Nazis). The claim is that the state is self-defensive, and that because conflict is inevitable, the state must always be prepared to defend itself from the dangerous, cruel world out there. The problem is, if there are no enemies of existential proportion, this philosophy dissolves. Thus, the state must create enemies. People who don't conform to our political beliefs? Enemies. People who practice a different religion? Enemies. People who have a different color of skin than the majority of us? Enemies. By fabricating enemies, the state condones violence against enemies. Furthermore, it condones ANY ACTION necessary to destroy the great evil. What does losing a few thousand human lives mean, if the great evil that threatens our existence is destroyed? Why shouldn't we strip some people of their rights if it means our enemies are defeated? Any cruelty, any dehumanization is okay so long as the evil is defeated. 

 

Violence in and of itself is not a problem. Only when it gets to the point of injustice is any ideology dangerous. Self-defence is necessary, is it not? The U.S, after all has named its military department the 'department of defense' despite the fact the last time it was invaded was a hundred years ago, and has invaded dozens of countries since. People find the prey to be the just position as people view a reaction to be just, rather than an action in and of itself. Thus is why the Casus Belli exists, to prove a just war, that it is in self-defense. Modern states do just as you say, fabricating enemies all around us. Fascists? Enemies. Radical Islamists? Enemies. And so on. It is not unique to Fascism, Fascism is simply honest about the governing philosophy around enemies. You're trying to box me in here, though. Fascists are not inherently war-mongering. Indeed, the BUF sought peace in Europe, but it was the classic parties who sought war with Germany. Germany did not seek war, it sought the repatriation of lands lost due to war and to stop the ethnic cleansing of Germans in the area. Now the only place that ethnic Germans live is in Germany, perhaps rightly, but this result did not come through migration. It came through cleansing. If there was a great evil, would you not commit everything you had to destroy it? What is the point in a half-assed attempt at destroying something which wholly seeks your destruction? Seems a bit counter-intuitive if you ask me. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kosmokenny said:

Irrelevant to why they collapsed, wholly exaggerated, false, false, false, irrelevant other than ceremonially, and irrelevant.

If you honestly think that the arms race between the U.S and the U.S.S.R and the overall effort it took to spread communism was irrelevant in the collapse of the U.S.S.R I've got news for you. The Nazis rose to power after an attempted coup, a communist revolution and the worst economic catastrophy ever. Hardly peaceful. Australia and Canada are federated and still a part of the commonwealth, and, again, are not ideologically adverse to England. The nations have similar laws, similar ethnic makeup and similar governing philosophies. That is not false. Trust me, I'm Australian. Regardless of whether you think it is irrelevant or not it is a fact that the Queen is still head of state. England, Australia and Canada are all Parliamentary Democracies with a Constitutional Monarch as head of state. If you think that the three nations are ideologically different then you have missing brain cells. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gabranth said:

Jews are a special case since historically they have not had a land to call their own until recently. In that regard, they must be discussed differently in comparison to other races since others have had lands to call home. 

I meant that any group could be substituted here. Any "other."

7 hours ago, Gabranth said:

Aye, as long as there are multiple parties then there will be conflict, be it class, gender, race or whatever else constitutes a difference in interest. In that regard, Fascism and its derivatives seek to end such conflicts by dedicating all demographics to the advancement of the 'volk' - the race belonging to the nation-state - rather than individual demographics and interest groups. Therefore, nations may live side-by-side without qualms with one another so long as they tend to their own people and advance the nation.

But by your own fundamental belief that conflict is inevitable, there is no pan-ultimate condition where nations may live side-by-side without qualms. This philosophy justifies the violence it takes to create a peaceful coexistence by claiming a peaceful coexistence is impossible. 

7 hours ago, Gabranth said:

You're starting to get off track here. The need for homogeneity stems from the tribalist aspect of the human psyche and satiates its need for a united family in the volk. Fascism doesn't seek to find conflict or create conflict, as it allows for each demographic to have their own community in which they may serve themselves and each other. However, the people must be united in mind (Fascist), body (National Socialist) and spirit (Legionnaire), that much is true, and opponents of the people must be purged or find another community to call their own. The economic theory aspect is rather wrong, as Marx indicates that identifiable traits in humans are irrelevant (as Big Brother puts so eloquently) so long as the class divide is removed humans will live in perfect harmony. Although this is mainly a social aspect, fascists see this refusion as a way to blind people from the realities of humans to naturally associate themselves with ideas above materialism, which Marx thought of as the primary aspect of conflict. All individuals existing within the organic state live as they would normally do. Your perspective regarding Fascism is wrong in this regard - the state exists to serve the race at large, not the other way around. 

Am I? I am claiming that Fascist and Nazi philosophy is entirely in service of the state. Who designates what is a united mind? Who designates what is a united body or spirit? It is the state. The state sets the definition, and the people must conform with it. If the state exists to serve the "race," why is it that the organic state has control over what is considered part of the volk, and what is the "other" that is cancerous? My point is, the state has overwhelming power over the individual here (and in line with the organic state, the body should have control over the cells). By having this power over the individual, dissent is no longer acceptable, and public debate on policy dies. Only the state decides policy then. 

7 hours ago, Gabranth said:

The cell does not complain about its lack of worth when compared to the organ or tissue. The cell simply understands its purpose to provide for the body. The cell understands its value as necessary to the advancement of the body. A cell which does not act in the manner that is was created then becomes cancerous and must be removed. Is it not necessary to remove cancer, since it spreads and ultimately results in the death of the body? The same is true for the organic state. The political system understands and validates the innate worth of each of its cells, its people. It does not degrade the people simply because the state is larger and more important, but cells collectively are equally important and make up the body. The volk makes up the state, and it is the state's purpose to provide for the people. A cell without nourishment is useless. It is a symbiotic relationship - one cannot exist without the other. 

But a cell doesn't have free will and consciousness. By comparing human beings to an organism without consciousness, it is inherently degrading. By forcing the needs of the state onto the people and shaping the people and body politic to the needs of the state by removing what the state defines as "others," the state dictates the purpose of man, when man's existence precedes essence. And when man's essence precedes existence, man is disposable. A state which decides the disposability of its citizens is not a state cares and provides for the people. 

8 hours ago, Gabranth said:

The death of a nation results in the death of the people. 

But even you must admit, there are Germans still around today. In fascist philosophy, it is necessary to convince the people that their existence is tied with the state in order for the state to maintain power and support over the people. Again, that is simply not true. When the 3rd Reich collapsed, Germans didn't just disappear from existence. Hell, one would argue that Germans today are better off than any other national group out there. If the people understand that they can exist without the state, then they are free to choose whether or not the state exists, giving power to the people over the state and not the other way around. 

Generally speaking, I'd avoid debating historical facts with you, since we obviously have a very different view of "ethnic cleansings of Germans" before 1939. So I'll try and stick to empirical evidence that is more difficult to deny. 

8 hours ago, Gabranth said:

Violence in and of itself is not a problem. Only when it gets to the point of injustice is any ideology dangerous. Self-defence is necessary, is it not? The U.S, after all has named its military department the 'department of defense' despite the fact the last time it was invaded was a hundred years ago, and has invaded dozens of countries since. People find the prey to be the just position as people view a reaction to be just, rather than an action in and of itself. Thus is why the Casus Belli exists, to prove a just war, that it is in self-defense. Modern states do just as you say, fabricating enemies all around us. Fascists? Enemies. Radical Islamists? Enemies. And so on. It is not unique to Fascism, Fascism is simply honest about the governing philosophy around enemies. You're trying to box me in here, though. Fascists are not inherently war-mongering. Indeed, the BUF sought peace in Europe, but it was the classic parties who sought war with Germany. Germany did not seek war, it sought the repatriation of lands lost due to war and to stop the ethnic cleansing of Germans in the area. Now the only place that ethnic Germans live is in Germany, perhaps rightly, but this result did not come through migration. It came through cleansing. If there was a great evil, would you not commit everything you had to destroy it? What is the point in a half-assed attempt at destroying something which wholly seeks your destruction? Seems a bit counter-intuitive if you ask me. 

That's the problem. There is no "great evil." By believing the world is black and white, you inherently allow for justification of terrible things. Take any superhero movie: when space aliens invade earth, they take over a hospital. Because aliens are the ultimate evil, it is justified to destroy the hospital and innocent people in there so long as the evil is destroyed. The "great evil" justifies the slaughter of innocents. Furthermore, the definition of "great evil" is controlled by the state, by controlling who is defined as "other." Communists are the great evil, Jews are the great evil. Therefore, we can drag children from their homes and put them in camps because the state demands total unity against the great evil. Therefore, we can exterminate the people who the state defines as "others" because it will save us from the "great evil."

Perhaps the greatest difference between fascism and American democracy is that the people in American democracy (in principle, it's a bit grey in practice, unfortunately) chooses its leaders, and therefore chooses whether or not the state exists. At any point, the people can choose (through their choice of leader) to amend laws and alter the very substance of the state to their purpose. Americans can choose whether or not the state provides social welfare. Americans can choose how the state defines citizenship. Americans can choose to what extent the state interferes in their lives. Furthermore, that choice is reinforced constantly through election cycles, to confirm the will of the people repeatedly over time. In fascism, the state shapes the people. It chooses the definition of "others," and demands the rights of man in exchange for security against the state designated "others."

 

I guess the crux of the argument comes in whether or not you think fascism allows the people to shape the state, and not the other way around. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

Just a quick reminder that antisemitic content violates the forum guidelines' section on racism. Please refrain from such discussion or this topic will be locked.

Carry on.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now