Forums / Discussion / General

Fascism lacks a contemporary face, one can see examples of it in the past and what fascists want when looking at terrorist attacks like the one in Norway. I do not think Trump is or was a fascist, but to the Proud Boys and others, he's 'good enough' to be endorsed.

The ultranationalism and racism leads to mass murder of those they disagree with, one can see a different flavour of it in QAnon where supporters wait for the day they can kill their political opponents (mainly liberals and 'communists') and reinstate Trump as president. I personally believe a good chunk of QAnon is a result of astroturfing or sockpuppeting, but that is just something I think. Even then a lot of Americans have always believed in conspiracy theories, like Obama being the anti-christ and black helicopters. People can believe the strangest things when they're driven by fear or desire an in-group.

r/QAnonCasualties on Reddit is a great example of people going off the deep end with gradual radicalisation and mental health problems, and this isn't just a small group of people, the higher estimate (very unlikely, in my opinion) being 15% of Americans believing in some version (or aspects) of the conspiracy.

15%?!

I would say things said on the internet don't mean much, but ever since real life and the internet have started mixing together, I'm not too sure. High level politicians acting out on twitter is a sad example of that. Anders Breivik's and his ilk has celebrated some politicial movements. People who are willing to kill others like that may be coming out of the woodworks. Stalinists or Nazis also aren't necessary to collapse a country however. Simple greed, viciousness, zealotry or in-fighting from those already in power might be enough.

I remember how some Trump supporters were outright salivating at causing the collapse of other countries, including democratic nations like those in NATO and the EU member nations (I hold a grudge against that lot for that), and despite that, ironically enough I think the US is now the most likely to fall apart first.

Rampant extremism, but no political representation as an outlet, decaying infrastructure and services (it's a question of whether Biden will actually implement the promise to update it), social strife, multiple foreign policy failures, 1,500 deaths a day from Covid and medical services overwhelmed and an inequal and monopolistic economy. The list could go on, it's almost only a question of which domino falls firsts to cause a chain reaction. The US now seems as volatile as the Weimar Republic.

Not that everyone else is doing much better. Russia is also at a million dead with 1/3 the population of the US, China is going full totalitarian which may not be enough to contain it's population & India, Brazil and EU are still dealing with Covid. All are also vulnerable to climate change and susceptible to economic issues.

Funny how much of your second paragraph I find my own world view, just going the other way.

Dont have a reddit page of people who went off the deep end over those things to refer to though, because reddit kept baning them.

I suppose reddit in general works just as well for a showcase.

I don't think fascism lacks a contemporary face. I just don't think people know what fascism is to recognize it when they see it. And this is not something that is particularly new. I site George Orwell 1944 article in Tribune on What is Fascism. Specifically:

"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else….By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one -- not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make."

And he's right. He's been spot on nearly 80 years ago on why this is.
Because of WW2, and the Allies' victory in it, fascism, as an ideological position is ignored for it's historic reality as the "enemy" is put forward. An enemy that the capitalist western democracies and the communist socialist states fought alongside against. Despite the fact that historically, during the 30s, Americans looked fondly at Fascists, and Mussolini was a celebrity in the states because the New Deal was very much modeled on Fascist Italy's economic realities. Despite the fact that the USSR had no problem making common cause with Nazi Germany to invade and split Poland apart. Incidentally, not widely known is that the Wehrmacht was literally built by Soviet industry, in secret, throught the 20s and early 30s.

Fascism as an ideology is a branch of Socialism, an honest form of socialism, and it's fundamental difference is that it rejects internationalism for nationalism. Is it no wonder that on any practical level the USSR was not that different than what a Fascist country would be. Because as Mussolini himself put it:

“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

And if we were to sit down and analyze the playing field of all the various factions combating with each other, we kind of start to see, that while non of them entirely fit that definition, some of them come awfully close. And it's not the ones that are being painted as actual fascists.

Nationalism alone does not make fascism. Nationalism, as an ideological idea, is actually a liberal reaction to Imperialism, and Colonialism. After all, the myriad of ethno-nationalist movements of the 19th century we celebrate (Greek Independence from Turkey, as an example) and 20th century (literally de-Colonialism), are inherently, and deeply nationalistic. Which is why I strongly reject the idea that nationalism is a "right wing" position.

Anyway, the Proud Boys are hardly fascistic. They may be nationalistic, but hardly fascistic. Many of them outright reject the idea of having a dominant state. Many are on the "right wing" spectrum of the political spectrum, but in the context of the US, that is a position that wholly rejects government over-reach, which, by the way, the Proud Boys, embrace as a concept. Which is why a chapter of the Proud boys outright marched with the BLM group, against police brutality. And yet the Southern Poverty Center names them such. The Wikipedia article on them calls them neo-Nazis. "wHiTe SuPrEmEcIsTs" despite being led by a non white, and having a massively racially diverse following.

Incidentally it's why I strongly believe that, while they will never admit it, the core belief of many in the environmentalist movement can be called eco-Fascism, that is, using the state apparatus to wholly and fully transform the global ecosystem.

I disagree, but I normally use Umberto Eco's definition of Ur-Fascism for elements which you didn't mention:

1) The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
2) The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
3) The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
4) Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
5) Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
6) Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
7) The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
8) The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
9) Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
10) Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
11) Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
12) Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
13) Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
14) Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”

Any of the above seem familar? They don't have to all be followed, but that's why we can comfortably describe Japanese Religio-Militarist Nationalism, Italy's Monarchical Fascism and Germany's National Socialists (and their obsession with the Jewish) as fascists. Stalinists actually fill out quite a lot of the above.

I think it's a better metric than just state power, which is so broad to make even the Allies under Winston and Roosevelt fascists, and preclude skinheads.

Many Proud Boys are in prison for violence and their leader is now in custody. There's enough videos of that, the above justification does not work after 2020. One of those in prison was for actions against BLM, so how they reconcile that is beyond me, but, Eastern European and French collaborators faught with fanaticisim for the Nazi Regime after all. It wouldn't surprise me if American fascists are diverse. It's the same way that American "diversity" types are blood obsessed.

It doesn't make it any better though, it's similar to the Iraq War. Men and Women of all colour, squealing for the heads of the enemy of the day, with a different ethnic group is an enemy of the day. We could see that with the Sikhs and the Asian assaults, and I remember Mexicans, Germans, French, Russians and Chinese cycle in and out. The US only needs to be done with their current enemy to eventually find a reason to turn on you. Local politics and Media even cycles between America's Whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Native Americans etc..

… I wonder if that's how the US still functions? The rich rule, the rest are divided.
I'd say the Proud Boys are fascists, because an overwhelming amount of the US is fascist. By Umberto Eco's definition.

Using a state apparatus is a way to exclude the US from that scrutiny (whose state is decentralized, as is often proclaimed) except with the way their media, federal, educational and even racial (name for policies that's rare outside of it) policies are set up, a lot of them fit with Ur-Fascism's definition.

It's disturbing actually, looking a the above 14.

It didn't even add Corporatism, which is tenet normally used for fascists for the way German companies and Japanese Zaibatsus participated in fascists regimes (in comparison to being just nationalized in Communist and even Allied nations). Is that why the US (or some Americans at least) fight over the definition? For all the panic about fascism, elements of it already existed. Technically speaking, China is also fascist as well, with their treatment of the Ughyurs and 'national revitalization' they're trying to push.

Fascism is in the shadow of government authoritarianism and the vicious bark "Don't think, just hate". It's already here, we just quibbled on the details and forgot the fundamentals.

TLDR: Proud Boys being diverse fits in with American Fascism. There may even be similar groups built up for different groups, all unified with hate, which is pretty fragile. After all, the Nazis and Japanese infamously had in-fighting with latter's military split between Army and Navy causing them to sometimes not aid each other.

Doesn't really make sense, but it feels like I've had an epiphany of how American society functions. If it's not common values or the flag, it's hate for other groups which is part of the collective whole, as well as "foreign enemies" whoever they are for the US's endless wars.

Endless wars is fascism at it's most basic.

Some of those entries are very wide reaching; encompassing the basic tribalism far more than any specific ideology. Hell, number 12 is factory default for the human male.

If they dont have to follow all of it them to be fascist (or Ur-fascist whatever that is) what's the point of it?

Seems like this would make a good "look this group I dont like could be shoehorned to have a few of these points on them; that makes them a fascist" list.

Also if endless wars is fascism at its most basic; Franco must have been a shit fascist.

That's the point though, that's it's all tribalism. Trying to put white supremacy or antisemitism or state power misses what makes fascism fascism.

A fascist is a schoolyard bully or wannabe. There's nothing more glorious or scary than that, nothing higher, so 12 is a typical asshole.

It requires spotting behavior patterns. Even the fascist regimes or personnel didn't fit all of them, and assigning an arbitrary number defeats the purpose. I liked it, because I had already used it for China, and when I used it for the US? Well, it started to explain the endless wars, and why in popular rhetoric they both glory military power and yet are still in danger.

Sure, if it's used for insincere purposes. You'd have to twist it however, especially for people who are actually anti-war, or who don't behave as listed. As I've said before, it's a pattern of behavior, and singular tendencies don't make one a fascist. But I like it as a personal tool. I find out of all the definitions given, it explains and helps spot patterns of behavior.

There's a lot of myths about fascists, a lot spread by Hollywood. They weren't an efficient machine, they in-fought, they had palace intrigues, they even disagree about economics and industry. Industrialists, Agrarians and Environmentalists existed together, as did the Religious, Occultists and those who hated that superstition.

The one thing that seems common is the brutality of it, when one is a young Japanese or German Recruit. The disrespect of life, the weak, the intellos, the other. In books like Umberto Eco and other people who were in Fascist regimes, that it's basically a society full of bullies.

They're brutal societies.

This is to reply to your edit about Franco. He was a shit fascist, which was for the best, because it seems it meant he wasn't as suicidal a leader. He had opponents, and Spain wasn't the kind of powerhouse which could fight one of the allies after their civil war, let alone the whole of them after WWII.

Reading fascist quotes, they're not subtle about the importance of struggle. Hitler wanted Germany to suicide itself, and Japan nearly did the same until they finally surrendered after being hit by Atomic Bombs.

Seems near-death experiences are the only thing that knock some out of that fervor.

Italy was the original fascist, you know? For a nation which revered strength and action, their record in WWII wasn't great. Then again, when your cities are bombed, and your beautiful heritage risks being blown to rubble, it's difficult to feel as enthusiastic for war.

Vichy France elements were also fascists, and they were extraordinary ineffectual. Plus, their doctrine was on "Travail, Famille, Patrie" or "Work, Familly and Country". Under them France was plundered of it's works, they tore apart families and made slaves of their countrymen, and had a civil war.

The Fascists regimes were all nasty, but Nazi Germany was even more fanatical, and even their own 1000 year Reich collapsed quickly, and they nearly destroyed their country.

A few pages ago you mentioned environmentalists who pollute, and I mentioned religious who sin, Neo-liberals who are unfair and democracy advocates who prop up dictators. Does failure or hypocrisy mean the person isn't an ideologue? Or is it a failure of ideology?

Nah fascists are rightwing, socialists are leftwing. Just cause socialists can be highly authoritarian doesn't mean they are the same philosophy as fascists. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany Hated each other like you said.

Socialism hates hierarchies and tries to remove them (with mixed results) Fascism is all about hierarchies.

Socialism usually embraces political correctness sometimes to an extreme (if sometimes rather hipocritically the Soviet union was really homophobic but still other socialist countries are very PC without a "catch") while fascism in contrast is usually all about being an edgy racist jerk that loves to punch down very anti-PC.

Have you seen the political compass? They are far from each other even when they are both auth.

I feel as if this definition of fascism is much too vague, being hardly an improvement over "fascism is when bully" but with far more words. All but a few of these are broadly applicable to any sort of tribalism. In fact, finding that "an overwhelming amount of the US is fascist" is a good sign that his definition is too vague to be remotely useful. Hell, while reading it, the group that came to mind wasn't the Proud Boys, but Antifa.

The bulk of the issue here is the attempt to tiptoe around the inherent bondage of fascism to the authoritarian state, from which it can't be divorced. If you remove all but the most general conceptions of authoritarianism from fascism, you are left with tribalism, as fascism is so deeply ingrained in authoritarianism that it's quite simply not fascism without it.

Personally, I find it terrifying the characterization that the above point description is applicable to too many. Many of what is described is unacceptable behavior from a person, let alone from a group or government.

If it finds that an overwhelming amount of the US is fascist, then the US should look inwards. It's not the fault of the list, which was written decades ago. In fact, it's pretty much a repetition of textbook 1984, thinking about it. Why is the US somehow immune? I think that's the core of the issue, it didn't look great for the US, and that's unacceptable.

If anything, it tied in well with an earlier paragraph of mine that it's like the Weimar Republic, because I wasn't even thinking of saying the US is fascist when writing that. However, if you think that Antifa applies to, why wouldn't it? I did find the focus on 'violence is necessary, we must act now" to be behavior tendencies one should be careful of. 'Course, the sense of siege of the Proud Boys was palpable too.

Anyone this list could apply to which shouldn't be decryed?

I would say the 14 points is authoritarian. Actual authoritarianism, not some vague "state":

"You're either with us, or against us"; "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide"; "'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities"; "Sacrificing oneself for the country is the highest form of duty".

Add to the constant paranoia about everything in the media, which seeps out in other democracies, the constant requirement of conflict and I might as well add 'might makes right' and 'something something don't insult the country'. The retrograde, the ability to change reality, and make quick traitors of those who disagree? All of that seem right to you?

That's authoritarianism, that's the submission of the individual as the tool of the greater. Those are the tools of control. Bloody hell, we wouldn't recognize authoritarianism like a fish wouldn't recognize water.

Umberto Eco's definition of Ur-Fascism isn't as useful of a definition if you want to describe historic fascism, as opposed to describing a non-liberal totalitarian society, and explicitly from a cultural perspective, not an economic one. The 14 points are too broad and can be just as easily applied across a myriad of other totalitarian, or authoritarian regimes to strictly define fascism alone. examples:

1) Cult of Tradition – Fascism only looked at preserving certain elements of tradition as much as those traditions are transformative of the meta-future, for example, Italian Fascism was obsessed with mythical and historical roots of Rome, but it did so for transformative purposes, it tried to recreate the ideal of the Roman past but wholly rejected the Roman State, and it's traditions (Republicanism for example). Tradition was used only as much as it would service the state, no more no less. Incidentally, few would like to admit that the artistic movement of "futurism", was a brain child of Italian Fascists.

2) Rejection of Modernism – i.e. defined modernism as Enlightenment values, this one is relatively true, but is vague enough to also fit in pretty much the USSR, Maoist China, and every other non-democratic regime into it.

In fact, point 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 can be applied very distinctly to virtually every non-liberal society since the 20th century, including every socialist country that was manifested. So if we're going to go by the definition of Ur-Fascism, then we have to also describe the communist countries as Fascist. Which, by the way, I am not at all against as I truly believe the differences are very small. And one of the differences is 6: appeal to middle class. For socialist regimes it's an appeal to the lower working classes. There is much disdain for the middle classes from socialists, and in practice far more disdain for the middle class than the upper class. ​

And one of the biggest problems with the modern descriptions of fascism like this, and by a lot of people who like to call others fascists, is the complete removal of economic thought which comprise much of fascist ideology. No one ever brings up Italian Corporatism into the discussion, and I dare say because the kind of economic system of Italian Corporatism, i.e., class cooperation rather than class conflict, a collectivist ideology where people's industries (corporate groups) would work together for common interest, doesn't sound that particularly bad.

Anytime some self-described socialist brings up these points I like to highlight that they almost always describe the societies that embrace their economic ideals.

Speaking of which. On Oct 2021:

"Ahmed Rabbani was unanimously cleared for release by the Periodic Review Board (PRB) of Guantánamo on Friday, 22 October.

Rabbani was abducted in Karachi by the Pakistani secret service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) on the 10th of September 2002. It was later revealed that his was a case of mistaken identity, with the ISI believing that he was Hassan Ghul, a Pakistani Al-Qaeda terrorist who himself was eventually handed over to US intelligence in 2004"

https://5pillarsuk.com/2021/10/27/innocent-karachi-taxi-driver-released-from-gitmo-after-17-years/

https://www.thequint.com/news/world/the-world-has-forgotten-me-pakistani-mohammed-ahmed-ghulam-rabbani-wrongly-held-guantnamo-17-years

17 years. The Count of Monte Cristo was comparatively only there for 14 years.

Perhaps, but in identifying "fascist minimum" in the Hodge-podge of what was called fascist ideologies in the 20th century, these cultural definitions work, I think.

If they apply to communist governments? Well, that's the problem of the communist governments, I'd think. Same argument I used for how it applies for the US.

That being said, Corporatism is an important part of it, which is why I mentioned it after the list. Corporatism also regularly used state forces to crush union or non-corporate interests. Or it corrupts those very unions which are supposed to represent workers into an organ of a corporation, a glorified HR. From what I've read of the practical applications, it reduces accountability, more than it increase representation.

It's the epitome of colluding monopolistic public-private melding which would make free-markets cry tears of blood. I despise and fear it.

I'm not a socialist nor a communist, by the way. I may sound like it sometimes, what with my dislike of the upper class, but I would think anyone who believed in Republicanism or Free Markets would agree.

The issue is that Eco's "14 properties" is inherently flawed, at least in the way you're trying to apply it: as a literal checklist of how fascist something is. Eco, however, intended it as a list of things around which fascist may coagulate; the presence of some properties doesn't make something fascist, and real fascism doesn't necessarily have to have all of them. Of course, this means its real-world utility is inherently very limited. This does explain why most of the "properties of fascism" are really just the components of tribalism; while tribalism is very much not exclusive to fascism whatsoever, fascism is one of the most tribalistic ideologies, and extreme tribalism can lead to fascistic thinking.

An "overwhelming amount" of the US isn't fascist, not even the "14 properties" say that. What they say is that the seeds for fascism exist in a large portion of the US population, in the form of petty tribalism curated and fostered by career politicians and corporate media. Very few, however, act upon these seeds that have been planted, and out of those I'd say that even fewer are actually outright fascist, the rest being merely violent and tribalistic.

The "14 properties" aren't all inherently authoritarian, but they are things readily used and exploited by authoritarians for the purposes of power and control. Oftentimes, they've appeared independently before they've become a tool of authoritarians seeking to gain or maintain power. Even the most deliberate of the 14, "newspeak", can happen without it being intentional, due to the power of technology giving us machine-learning programs that can learn to be stupid and overzealous in their censoring of offensive words.

The thing I think is level of degrees. To some extent, this applies, in some small capacity to liberal enlightened governments, and I dare say, any government for it to remain stable. And honestly, the complete absence or reversal of many of these positions is what is causing massive disruptions in our own societies.

For example, let's take number 1: Cult of Tradition. If the anti-fascist view is the total opposite of this, then we are left in a situation where all traditions that hold a nation together are subverted or destroyed. We are seeing that today in many parts of the West where the histories of different nations, their cultural traditions rejected, subverted, removed and it's leading to a greater division between people, it's creating political gridlock, it's festering unrest. What would make France, France if the language of France, it's history, it's cultural contributions completely destroyed? I think the underpinning of any nation is to at least adhere to a certain set of traditions that glue people together to be in a nation to begin with.

I don't know why we need "cultural" definitions of Fascism, when it has an socio economic ideology.
Mussolini defined Fascism, quite well with the quote:
“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

In the Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini:

"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as interests as he coincides with those of the State… It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted it's historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual…Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."
"The Fascist State, as a higher and more powerful expression of personality, is a force, but a spiritual one. It sums up all the manifestations of the moral and intellectual life of a man. It's functions cannot therefore be limited to those of enforcing order and keeping the peace, as the liberal doctrine had it."

Mussolini expressed the position that the State is the Conscience and the Will of it's People manifested.

I think Orwell is absolutely right to say that the reason people have a hard time accepting a definition of Fascism is because there is a lot of admissions they are unwilling to make about their own positions. Especially if you're the type of left-wing progressive self-described "Socialist". You'd not be the first one, by the way, almost every Fascist of the early 20th century was a Socialist who realized that the end goal of socialism, i.e. once socialism is internalized in every element of human life for every single person than the state would dissolve naturally, was wrong. Socialists that realized Marx was wrong either turned to Fascism, or retained the "Socialist" name but created societies that are almost indistinguishable from the Fascist ones.

By the way, I view myself as a Classical Liberal, i.e. I view the State's role in every-day affairs should be minimal. I am pro Market, I am pro free market. I'm not Anarchist, and I'm not even that much of a Minarchist. But I make it a point to understand Fascism for what it is, because it pisses me off when someone who views themselves as libertarian in some sense be accused of being a fascist, just because they may have some "unenlightened" views about people. Why I despise the use of "Fascist" because dare you believe that a nation of sorts should kind of exist.

I think that was what I said in response to Greyblades. It can't be used as a definitive checklist, but it's useful just for seeing tendencies. I agree, especially on the interactions between tribalism and fascism.

Okay, I'll concede that I was hyperbolic, seeds is a better way to describe it. I wouldn't say it's the fault of the population, so much as a media and political infrastructure which seems to thrive on stocking divisions in what seems like an eternal cycle. It's not just in threat of fascism, it has been setup this way for a long time.

Okay, but they are often authoritarian tools. In the event that those show up, it's normally an alarm bell for authoritarianism. Some oppressive social structures also seem to be created almost accidentally.

Can we agree on that?

I'm willing to argue on each on the 14, if you're willing. I think that each is corrosive. There is no 'in moderation'.

1) The issue however is the 'Cult of tradition'. That is different than just tradition.

"Characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction".

It can be seen by the way that the Italian Fascists twisted to their own ends Rome, Japanese re-imagining Samurai as maniacs, even though their later and greatest contributions were as an educated class (a reason of success of the Meiji Restoration).

The cult of tradition is the not the respect of tradition, in fact it's the desecration of it for one's own purposes. One would almost forget that between the Meiji Restoration and WWII there existed a civilian society, overshadowed as it is of an almost caricature of the eternal samurai. The Vichy Regime infamously had a view of the past which was quasi-fictitious.

Fascists do not respect nor preserve a culture. It is another tool for them.
---------------------

You've cited Mussolini, and his past in the socialist party can be seen. However, his writings don't include other characteristics of Nazism and Kokka Shugi. To give the example of why 2 or 10 is important:

“Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.”
Adolf Hitler

“It is not the task of an elementary school to impart a multiplicity of knowledge for the personal use of the individual. It has to develop and harness all physical and mental powers of youth for the service of people and the state. The only subject that has any place in the school curriculum is that which is necessary to achieve this aim. All other subjects, springing from obsolete educational ideas, must be discarded.”
Nazi directive on elementary education, 1940

Now, we can see elements of the subsuming of the self for the usage of the state. But if a group starts to talk about what should be put on the curriculum, and what is useful, what would be the cautionary lesson, the defense using simply economic terms? Where does it also mention the beliefs that will triumph over everything, to a quasi-mystical degree, beyond even morale? Something popular among fascist regimes, to terrifying consequences for the Japanese.

7 is important as well because absurdities can become atrocities, as the full state's force can be used to pursue insanity. The stab in the back myth of Germany, which became a bizarre tale of how other forces had conspired to force a defeat on what was an exhausted German Empire became a basis for pogroms and genocide.

That is why cultural examples is important, because as we learn from the tradition, there are some elements which good can't really come out of. It's tangible too, it's something most people can recognize, in comparison to the formation of corporatism structures.

I would like to point out that Eric Arthur Blair, otherwise known as George Orwell was a socialist, but that is forgotten because Stalinists despise criticism. 'Course the Stalinist attacks on Anarchists is one reason why the Spanish Civil War was won by Franco. So was the French Resistance (actually they were a majority communist, it's why they had so much political power after the war). That being said, many socialists became fascists, and the ideas of collectivism for the whole is central.

The central things they forgot, which I believe is more core than the idea of a state? The importance of the individual, which none of the fascists view as anything but a cog for the state. The importance of internationalism as well. To forget and inverse is their importance is equivalent of a Satanist being an Abrahamic religion, because they do believe in the divine.

How much did they also learn from the Stalinists, or even the Allies? Someone above mentioned how much fascists became a fan of Scandinavian and American racial ideas and hierarchies. How many capitalist businesses who did not compete fairly decide to ally with fascists who would grant them wealth? Simple enforcemenet of their laws, which would grant those companies outsized power, like in the darker reflections of a classical liberal? Or even basic exploitation of others which Britain and France and other colonial powers did.

Fascism is dangerous, because despite protests, they weren't that far from the Allies or the Comintern. I think that idea has popped up quite often, and I couldn't agree more. There's a lot of uncomfortable views on one's position when one faces fascism.

I think my overall point is that modern societies may have missed the point on what made the fascists awful. Certainly, I think the people of the US has a few skeletons they should check, more than just it's statism. A lot of countries do.

As for the Classical Liberal School, what would you define the minimal role of the state? One can see how much one may have also taken from the Neo-liberal school this way, since they have different ideas on what constitutes the minimal role of the state.

I think that while statist policies have a lot to be criticized for, liberals often seem to create similar authorities to function as a state in all but name, or simply rely on assumptions that I think are as dangerously naive as some socialists.

In my opinion, I don't think corporatism is compatible with the Free-market, or even a market. I don't believe in the type of central management required for socialism. It is inefficient and corrupting. I don't believe in the self-regulation of the market, nor of government overreach, nor of these created and enforced corporate groups. There must be a balance, and I believe that an inequal pyramid of wealth reduces consumption, investment, innovation and as a malus also causes social strife. It is an issue, even for non-socialists.

It's the same way societies reliant on slaves and extractive industries cripple their long-term economic potential.

So it seems like the us is in a sort of death spiral with presidencies
we had trump who people generally despised and only voted for that reason
now we seem to be leading to the same thing with biden

Biden is still an improvement

Wtf was the Trump presidency about

20 plus years of republicans promising one thing on the campaign trait only to do the exact opposite once in office.

Just like him

No you just cant stand giving credit to a man you are convinced is worse than hitler.

His base would have settled for him merely pissing off the people who had repeatedly taken them for granted.

The man proceeded to do more to help them in 4 years than any of the Republicans had since bush one in spite of repeated backstabbing and heel dragging by many of those same Republicans in name only, making him a hero to his base

Then the Democrats turned him into a martyr through replacing him with biden, who turned out be everything wrong they spent 5 years claiming trump was, and as it turns out was enabling his son to be even worse.

No refunds.

I have to ask, what exactly has he done to help?
A little info on domestic matters, since all people know more about their country than foreigners.

>His base would have settled for him merely pissing off the people who had repeatedly taken them for granted.

I know. How'd that work out? Happy with how the world is? How's everything is twitter diplomacy?

To go on a small rant, it always pisses me off for how bloody stupid this mentality is. It's always a zero-sum game when it comes down to it, no values changed from the Iraq War.

In my personal experience I've seen very little basis for the stereotype of American friendliness, or industriousness, or anything. Seen plenty of the dishonesty, greed and arrogance that Americans normally accuse towards everyone else however. It's a case of the golden rule. What else do they expect? It's almost a cyclical pattern of dislikes increases dislike.

Americans think the rest of the world has taken advantage of you? This has got to be one of the most pathetic delusions a hegemony has gone through. The US built a world order that benefited them, one where it spies, steals technology and economic opportunities and shifts markets for itself, and then tried (and failed) to destroy it.

Now they're in free-fall in influence. Amateurs, and fucking well deserved.

If there's a lesson to take in this type of politics it's that the EU, US and China, everyone gets and probably deserves the hate they get. The Chinese Wolf Warriors cratered their reputation even more by using the same stupid tactics, So i's good for the world that they're even bigger assholes.

>No refunds

Who asked for one?

You know what's sad? Even with AUKUS, the blocking of taxes of digital giants, and the L on Afghanistan from Biden, I don't miss Trump one bit.

Never gave me a reason to, never gave anyone one I would wager.

In fact, I'd rather not talk about Trump, it's only a way to revive old arguments, and I also expect no reflections.

He's lost, unless he has power again, I see no profit in the whole discussion. Take these topics, even these are less of a dead horse:

China apparently locked down another city.

Russia is still threatening Ukraine.

Inflation is going up for a lot of currencies.

Police in Germany used info from an Anti-Covid App for an investigation.

British politicians flaunting their own Covid restrictions.

No refunds is a reference to a mid election meme where the prodigeous amount of donations that were made to each of the democrats running alongside biden in the democrat primaries. Those donations were rendered wasted by an amazing display of collusion as all but one of the democrats dropped out in quick succession right at the end so as to ensure an underperfoming Biden didnt lose to Bernie Sanders.

Now to the less plesant part:

Americans think the rest of the world took advantage of it because it did, the thing you dont seem to understand is that most americans have no illusions that the world had stolen anything, for they could see that it was merely taking that which was freely offered.

Thier resentment was, and still is, directed squarely at the men of washington who were all to happy to piss away the american dream for kickbacks and see border towns transition from hometown americana to hispanic ghettos for the sake of cheap labour.

The world was incidental, the vengeance was for Washington and Trump was the perfect way to make Washington gnash and wail.

You blame Trump for the state of the world right now? I must have missed the part where Trump magically convinced the majority of world leaders to lock down thier countries over a flu. On the contrary I remember the man didnt even try to lock down his own, outright leaving the decision to the states were the constitution demands.

Hardly his fault half of them were run by closet jackboot enthusiasts.

1. Trump will be haunting the democrats for decades to come dont you worry.

2. I would be suprised if China was doing it for actual covid.

3. Well if anyone was going to be concerned about fighting in russia in winter it'd be the russians.

4. Bye Bye savings.

5. The Stazi never died.

6. Dominic Cummings takes revenge.

Trump is the exact same as every other president since reagan
not everyone who hates trump is some retarded liberal who thinks he's hitler, that's just a way to shut down any criticism

Tell me how he helped anyone

Well, unfortunately the little internal spate with Washington bled over outside of the US. But I'd be a hypocrite to go on even longer, so I'll leave it there.

1) Trump articles in 2030… Or even worse, a Trump or Clinton scion from their respective dynasties. An American War of the Roses.

2) It's the Xi'an, and there's reports of people being without food because of it. 3D Chess to starve provinces of your own, but it's the CCP.

3) Well, all those troops can sit in the cold past Christmas and New Year's if they don't have anything better to do.

4) If there were any anyway.

5) Probably spying even before Covid. Germany may also not be the only one.

6) Boris Johnson's cabinet is all rotten, a surprise to no one, not even the Tories.

The conservatives are due a civil war. Boris's labour-lite routine is running thin and the "all in this together" sympathy he got from his covid bout was turned on its head by the leaking of his lockdown parties.

Dominic Cummings is the main leak suspect, revenge for being kicked out to appease the wets.

I mean.
They kind of are to an extent.
Health Emergency powers give governors near dictatorship like powers, and some governors took massive advantage because of it, i.e. my governor, Governor Newsom in California.

The CDC and other Healthcare institutions like the , which by the way, is not under voter election, has been indirectly given more power over our lives than any other public institution, even the Government. Their recommendations effectively dictate what the government will do: from lockdowns, mandatory masking, attempts at mandatory vaccinations, etc. The government isn't following science, and I'm getting increasingly concerned that neither does the CDC.

I mean. I went as far as to link several prominent studies, including from the WHO itself, and one from Hopkins regarding the efficacy of lockdown and masking mandates. Even pointed out that the Hopkins study, literally predicted exactly what would happen 5 months in advance. Still waiting for at least some sort of response to that one.

It was a lose-lose anyway, if they hadn't gotten said emergency powers the pandemic would be even worse right now (well in theory)

Like I said covid was basically an apocalyptic event you weren't going to come out of it winning one way or another not really

Mitch Mc Connell is such a hypocrite. He called Biden's calls for the abolition of the filibuster "unpresidential" but stood for Trump until the bitter end. What a disgusting asshole

“They kind of are to an extent.
Health Emergency powers give governors near dictatorship like powers”

Because you cannot fix an emergancy without that type of power

>elect cdc members
that is the worst idea I’ve ever heard

you’ll have to give me the link for the mask one, i looked for it and could not find it

And I think we have different definitions on lockdowns because how people can get infected if they cannot leave their homes?

1) Emergency powers should be temporary, not years long.
2) Emergency powers should be executed with the best data and science available, which as I pointed out in an earlier post is what the WHO and John Hopkins also pointed out. This was promptly ignored.
3) The things that people with these emergency powers did could be arguably worse than the actual pandemic. We haven't even calculated to full extent the long term ramifications of economic shut downs to the economy and the lower classes as a whole, we haven't even looked into the long term ramifications of nearly 2 years of our public schools being shut down and remote learning being a poor substitute. Nor have we even begun to talk about the mental health crisis that is emerging out of COVID – with anxiety and depression increasing four fold from 1 in 10 adults to 4 in 10 adults.
4) Emergency powers that were used explicitly to help Hospitals rather than help with people which arguably caused more deaths than necessary.

Yeah, that's perfectly agreeable.

As for other posts…

Biden doesn't feel like a meaningful improvement over Trump. Honestly, it doesn't feel like anything has changed, outside of the absence of mean tweets.

And you can fix an emergency without giving politicians excessive powers. Allowing governors and such to act as dictators hasn't fixed shit, anyway, so why take the risk?

So to tackle this pandemic requires we turn into a dictatorship – a temporary one, but even that is debatable considering that these emergency powers are still in effect, what 2 years down the line? I guess it's perfectly fine to give governors dictatorial power as long as they continue to declare it's a health emergency – right?

My point with the CDC having more power than the government is that these bureaucrats, and that's what they are, are utterly unaccountable to the people they are effectively governing. Our entire economy, our entire way of life has been upturn at the whim of CDC guidelines. Why should t they set policy if they are unaccountable to the people who's policies this effect? Even congress has no power over the CDC, yet the CDC can direct a moratorium on rent? Ordering a no-sail order to cruise ships? Control any industry it wants all in the arbitrary definition of what it considers necessary?

Are they just testing the relatively new powers of authority they got in 2017 over quarantines flexing that bureaucratic muscle eh? Seeing how far they can push it. Even ignore the Supreme Court when they struck down the moratorium as unconstitutional?

At the very least it should be somewhat beholden to the elected body of our representatives, no? Shouldn't congress at least have a say if we can't? Well they can't.

I wrote a very lengthy post 7 days ago with a link to the WHO guidelines in 2019 regarding recommendations and efficacy. The WHO states that the efficacy of masks is moderate, and it has no efficacy in reducing influenza.

That post links to numerous studies, peer-reviewed-studies, from extremely prominent places. Before and after the measures I am speaking about. Convenient isn't it that there was no response to it.

Okay. The rest is understandably less agreeable.

Trump started a trade war, among other measures against us, I'd like to point out, but the absense of mean tweets, and the subsequent media circus does actually take some stress off. Trump is one man, the issue is with the followers who ape any expressed sentiment, often in worse ways. He had a special knack of making things very personal.

The time after 2001 and the subsequent Trump era is still seared in my mind after all. Anyone who can actually speak or write English in my friend group has some form of distrust versus Anglophone countries. Normally it should be the reverse. I think the Germans still go on even more about Grenell trying to meddle in their country.

I keep on talking about the Iraq War, because it feels like the same collective amnesia. The same people who were frothing about sovereignity and who knows what else now act casual. What pisses me off more is that a former IRL friend who went full MAGA tried to get back together during quarantine, as if nothing happened. Our last argument was about how the US could invade to take Greenland. Overly sensitive I know, but that's a fucked up to do an 180 about.

Actually, when I meant the world of today, I meant the way politics was conducted. The tone and all that. The way the pandemic was handled? At this point, I think it's not worth pointing dingers anymore.

If people want to bury the Trump hatchet, then good, but a few months ago someone said people don't understand the depth of the anger of Trump's base, and I wanted to say the same thing.

Now I'll find some other topics to not stay stuck on Trump forever.

In better news, a Dr. Resia Pretorius had announced that her team had found the possible cause of 'Long Covid', the condition where those who had suffered and recovered from Covid still had issues with fatigue, brain fog, muscle or joint pain and the functioning of the sense of smell and taste.

Persistent microclots caused cellular hypoxia, a situation where lack of oxygen preventing the body from functioning properly. People have gotten better by themselves, but if this helps in treatment, then it should help diminish the worse side effects.

One of the main worries of the pandemic was the millions who would be quasi-debilitated by Covid. That staves off one future crisis.

Effectively the time clock for invasion has begun. Be prepared for sudden videos on RT that then get broadcasted on BBC, which then get's casted in US mainstream media of the following:
Nazi tatted Ukrainians being responsible for a crime wave, terrorism, and that the Russians will parade these individuals on camera as much as possible. The goal would be to highlight to those that are ignorant of the historical fact that, yes, Ukrainians had a lot of sympathy for the Nazis, not because they liked the Germans all that much, but because they hated the Russians so much more. And yeah, there is a very lively neo-Nazi presence in Ukraine today, which the Russians will exploit.
The DDOS attack on Friday was a probe, to see if they can blot out communications and internet for a few hours/days. Phase 1 has effectively begun.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/19/1073865837/a-push-to-ban-members-of-congress-from-trading-individual-stocks-gains-momentum

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/congress-stock-trading-ban-gains-steam-with-rare-partisan-unity

A few months ago there was news about the 2020 congressional insider trading scandal, where Senators dumped stocks after a Coronavirus hearing. As of yet there have been no consequences as investigations have ended without charges.

Those involved were a majority Republicans, but quite a few Democrats were participants as well. Nancy Pelosi infamously defended the 'right' of senators to trade stocks like this.

The fact that members of both parties were caught being corrupt may have helped, since there's now talks of a bipartisan bill to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks.

While I 100% support the endeavor. I have questions in how far it can go and how realistically that it can be enforced. Banning the congress members and their immediate families doesn't mean they can have someone else do it for them – especially if have a larger estate. Effectively what I hope is that they make it so upon swearing in, all accounts are declared, their assets and history declared, made publicly available, until the term ends.

I want to be less pessimistic as I realize whining accomplishes nothing but I cant stop thinking about how messed up the economy must be at this point, it was two years of stuff very bad for the economy… Who knows what terrible economic failings we will be seeing in the future

>Chewybunny

Better to be skeptical, anyone clever could find a patsy to do all the insider trading for them. Still, it makes the process far more difficult.

Much more is needed to clean up the corruption that is endemic to many democracies, but this is at least a potential step forward.

>No!!

Billionaires doubled their wealth through this pandemic, this situation has been very good for them. I'm still of the opinion that they funded campaigns which called for lock-downs to be delayed as long as possible, which sacrificed workers for money, but even when everything closed they had a stronghold over digital deliveries.

They win either way.

The situation will keep on getting worse, because greed parasites and destroys the societies it's attached to, and throughout history, it's very rare that inequality and it's issues goes down on it's own. The most common solution is destruction through war or societal collapse, but there could be policy changes.

I think a lot of societies are due some kind of shakup. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just means we're living in uncertain times.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/mystery-brain-disease-new-brunswick-1.6303781

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/neurological-illness-affecting-young-adults-canada

https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/ocmoh/cdc/neuro_cluster.html

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/01/09/how-the-hunt-for-a-mystery-disease-left-patients-angry-and-experts-skeptical-can-new-brunswick-clear-the-air.html

Speaking of new diseases that could make things worse, there's a potential mysterious neurological disease going around in New Brunswick.

Is it caused by environmental factors, and the Irving Group is trying to hush it up? Is it transmissible, as some carers of the afflicted have had the same issues? Is it an animal to human transmission of Deer Wasting Disease? Is it all a coincidence due to eight similar errors in autopsies? Who knows !

OurDeerLeader said earlier that Covid showed that we were completely unprepared for anything more dangerous. It's a bit worrying that there's no more transparency than with China.

I think the key to surviving an even worse epidemic is people at large trusting vaccines, antivaxxers are not helping anyone.

But how you would accomplish that? I really don't know

Eventually we'll just see those who don't take vaccines fall to some presentable disease, but diseases continue to survive and mutate because they always have a host or another infected. "Let the antivaxxers die" isn't a solution, their behavior affects more than themselves.

On the individual level, I think being precautious, getting a vaccine, following hygiene measures such as washing hands and having the good luck to not be in close contact with a super spreader can work. Or at least, I haven't gotten sick so far. These strategies for going through a pandemics aren't new either, my grandmother always made sure we were careful, maybe because she remembered a time when diseases like measles killed people.

Overtime some cultures might just have to relearn or adopt hygienic practices, culture is the reason the spread of covid was slowed in East-Asia after all.

I think making all accounting information of congressional members public domain while they serve their term is the first step. Then any legislation they support that can effect the stock price of stocks they own or would be buying should be readily available to the public – and held in deep scrutiny. Currently they have 3 months to declare their earnings/losses, and in the game of wallstreet that is an entire quarter's worth. It should be real time tracking. And we have the tech for it.

In 2020 I more t han doubled my own wealth too. To be fair I got lucky, I got a severance package and laid off around January of 2020, and coupled with unemployment benefits and stimulus I dropped a ton of money into blue-chip stocks that I knew would rebound as soon as the pandemic was over. I was right.

But, regardless to that, it is extremely note worthy how certain companies, Amazon and big pharma made massive profits from the pandemic. I think it goes into my theory that there are multitudes of different institutions that have to gain from keeping the COVID fear porn alive to this day.

Unforunetly the biggest loser in the pandemic is the small business owner and small landlords. And looking at modern twitter discourse on the so called progressive left, they feel that the fact that the small business owner lost, is a good thing.