Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
How can make assertions about the Nazi's true political reality whilst lacking knowledge on their ideology? 
Your entire statement becomes guesswork based on assumptions.
You really can't help but pull the race card, man. We get it, you're white and racist so you think all whites are racists. Damn.
I have some homework for you Logiko, it would benefit you greatly. First of all, you assert that Hitler's Nazi party was not socialist since he goes against what you believe to be the primary principles of socialism. As a result, can you define what the primary principles of fascism are, disconnected from the Nazis? Allow me to assist you:
In the Doctrine of Fascism, 1932, by Benito Mussolini, he stated fascism is: “Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State.”
You're wrong. Fascism is NOT an extreme individualistic framework within it's core concept. You are misunderstanding again, lmfao.
Your entire statement becomes guesswork based on assumptions.
You really can't help but pull the race card, man. We get it, you're white and racist so you think all whites are racists. Damn.
I have some homework for you Logiko, it would benefit you greatly. First of all, you assert that Hitler's Nazi party was not socialist since he goes against what you believe to be the primary principles of socialism. As a result, can you define what the primary principles of fascism are, disconnected from the Nazis? Allow me to assist you:
In the Doctrine of Fascism, 1932, by Benito Mussolini, he stated fascism is: “Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State.”
You're wrong. Fascism is NOT an extreme individualistic framework within it's core concept. You are misunderstanding again, lmfao.
Last edited:
Not really my argument, mate. You're free to your own scepticism and so is Logiko. That does not bother me.
I am stating that for someone like Blax who proselytises about god, how can he consider a follower of the lord the non-evil equivalent of a man who would tear his god down should he exist? A person who actively abhors his own god. It does not track.
He's either lying or coveting the present at the expense of eternity.
Ultimately it throws into question the veracity of everything he claims.
I am stating that for someone like Blax who proselytises about god, how can he consider a follower of the lord the non-evil equivalent of a man who would tear his god down should he exist? A person who actively abhors his own god. It does not track.
He's either lying or coveting the present at the expense of eternity.
Ultimately it throws into question the veracity of everything he claims.
Not necessarily. Leftism is first and foremost about equality, whether that is progressively leading towards it or conserving it. The right is first and foremost about tradition and hierarchy, whether that is conserving the values or progressing back to those values. With this, I'll explain the rest below.
Hitler was not a leftist during his time as equality had nothing to do with his ideology and goals. A nation can have a hierarchy of racists being discriminated against, and those racist could protest to obtain equal rights, making the racists progessives and the non racists conservative by circumstance. The opposite is also true.
Hitler pushed an extreme version of social hierarchy and order as his end goal, believing in racial superiority and purging the undesirables.
With this you're probably seeing why many claim Hitler was a leftist. Both Hitler and Stalin were totalitarian regimes, but the key differences are the goals. Hitler joined hands with capitalist and private owners as long as they cooperate with the state, while as Stalin seized complete control over private institutions. Hitler(and Mussolini) joined hands with popular authority figures like the church, when Stalin completely dismantled them.
Unlike Hitler, Stalin was super paranoid and dealt with exteme political and economic instability, leading to his purges. He wanted the Soviet Union to be an industrialized superpower that can tussle with capitalist nations, and one of his methods to get there was to seize control of absolutely everything(which included labor unions), and then gradually divide the power until his version of communism is realized.
Two leaders can have the exact same model and methods, but the key difference is one's goal is equality for all while the other is racial superiority of the rest, putting them at different ends of the spectrum(just a hypothetical).[/QUOTE]
Hitler was not a leftist during his time as equality had nothing to do with his ideology and goals. A nation can have a hierarchy of racists being discriminated against, and those racist could protest to obtain equal rights, making the racists progessives and the non racists conservative by circumstance. The opposite is also true.
Hitler pushed an extreme version of social hierarchy and order as his end goal, believing in racial superiority and purging the undesirables.
With this you're probably seeing why many claim Hitler was a leftist. Both Hitler and Stalin were totalitarian regimes, but the key differences are the goals. Hitler joined hands with capitalist and private owners as long as they cooperate with the state, while as Stalin seized complete control over private institutions. Hitler(and Mussolini) joined hands with popular authority figures like the church, when Stalin completely dismantled them.
Unlike Hitler, Stalin was super paranoid and dealt with exteme political and economic instability, leading to his purges. He wanted the Soviet Union to be an industrialized superpower that can tussle with capitalist nations, and one of his methods to get there was to seize control of absolutely everything(which included labor unions), and then gradually divide the power until his version of communism is realized.
Two leaders can have the exact same model and methods, but the key difference is one's goal is equality for all while the other is racial superiority of the rest, putting them at different ends of the spectrum(just a hypothetical).[/QUOTE]
Isn't that the Revolutionary France definition?
It feels like the biggest issue here is that we are using a definition that was made for that specific conflict, to define all of humanities politics
Like imagine trying to fit Plato into this system
I would even argue it wasn't even good enough for the Post Revolution France as you saw too many factions who believe in a little bit of both
It feels like the biggest issue here is that we are using a definition that was made for that specific conflict, to define all of humanities politics
Like imagine trying to fit Plato into this system
I would even argue it wasn't even good enough for the Post Revolution France as you saw too many factions who believe in a little bit of both
I think Midnight answered before me:
However, people in Nazi Germany felt inequal to the Jews. Nobody really knew how far things were going to go, but knocking Jews down a peg was something people thought would move towards equality (and then Hitler just outright killed as many as he could). You could argue that there was a movement towards equality through extremism, something a certain user here bangs the drum for all the time.
Of course, it was not equal, but perception is important. For the time, many people considered Hitler to be progressive.
An interesting conclusion. I honestly doubt that Stalin was gunning for 'equality' however. Stalin was like every other dictator in history - his professed goals were a smokescreen for his authoritarian desires. The outcomes are effectively the same. It still begs the question, what is socialism really when every attempt at implementing it leads to problems? And can we really distinguish it from Nazism in that sense?
Naturally, this is me playing devil's advocate to a degree.
However, people in Nazi Germany felt inequal to the Jews. Nobody really knew how far things were going to go, but knocking Jews down a peg was something people thought would move towards equality (and then Hitler just outright killed as many as he could). You could argue that there was a movement towards equality through extremism, something a certain user here bangs the drum for all the time.
Of course, it was not equal, but perception is important. For the time, many people considered Hitler to be progressive.
An interesting conclusion. I honestly doubt that Stalin was gunning for 'equality' however. Stalin was like every other dictator in history - his professed goals were a smokescreen for his authoritarian desires. The outcomes are effectively the same. It still begs the question, what is socialism really when every attempt at implementing it leads to problems? And can we really distinguish it from Nazism in that sense?
Naturally, this is me playing devil's advocate to a degree.
That's why we have the center, and the dozen+ of ideologies to cover the many, many different combinations. Even back in the French Revolution says, to be leftist was simply to be anti-monarchy. Things grow and change overtime.
For me, the real issue is people picking and choosing what should matter, all for the sake of appearing like a good person and distancing themselves from any ideological negative.
For me, the real issue is people picking and choosing what should matter, all for the sake of appearing like a good person and distancing themselves from any ideological negative.
How can make assertions about the Nazi's true political reality whilst lacking knowledge on their ideology?
You're entire statement becomes guesswork based on assumptions.
You're entire statement becomes guesswork based on assumptions.
I'm sorry.. i believe that whitesupremacy is a fundamention for fascism as fascism are simply the tools of colonialism turned inward.
I do not believe all whites are racists per say, I believe that all people in society and all systems in society are racist, just like we are all ableist, sexist, capitalist, sanist, specist, etc. We are not "bad", we are simply the products of our dominations system.
Allow me to quote you umberto Eco who wrote an essay to try to define what fascism was:
I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.
1 - The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of them indulgently accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages — in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.
This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice”; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
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. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italian right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right, in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works by De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge — that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
2 - Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). 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 - Irrationalism also depends on 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. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.
4 - No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. 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. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
5 - Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural 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 - Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why 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. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.
7 - To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. 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. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the U.S., a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.
8 - The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.
9 - For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such a “final solution” implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.
Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.
11 - In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as “Long Live Death!”). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.
12 - Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons — doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.
13 - Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view — one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. 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.
Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples” — “maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism
14 - Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. 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. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.
1 - The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of them indulgently accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages — in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.
This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice”; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
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. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italian right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right, in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works by De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge — that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
2 - Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). 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 - Irrationalism also depends on 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. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.
4 - No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. 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. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
5 - Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural 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 - Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why 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. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.
7 - To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. 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. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the U.S., a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.
8 - The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.
9 - For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such a “final solution” implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.
Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.
11 - In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as “Long Live Death!”). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.
12 - Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons — doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.
13 - Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view — one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. 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.
Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples” — “maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism
14 - Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. 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. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.
Now if you add that to the materialist perspective that I shared, you get a complete definition of fascism.
You are right to notice that. I'm not talking about individualism in the liberal sense (although you could say that in the early stages of fascism, the concept is still relevant). I'm talking about individualism in the pure sense of the word as in the worshipping of absolute competition and self-survival. It's the the notion of will and agency within the framework of the survival of the fittest.
This is what individualism means under fascism. As such, it enters in opposition to any form of collective action as the quest for self-survival and competition is the reason for the glorifiction of the "strong man" narrative. You can seethat applied in its purest form in the show invincible which is based on the critic and deconstruction of this narrative.
Why do you feel the need to question the legitimacy of Blax's values?
"felt", but feeling is not being.
It comes down to what I explained to you about whiteness. That "feeling" is the reason behind everything. It doesn't mean that it is real.
Just like people think it is a progressive things to vote for people like Le Pen.. or Trump.. We all think we are acting "for the greater good". This is why the sentence "hell is paved with good intentions" exist.
But "thinking" is not enough. So how does one can be sure their vision of the world is TRULY for "the greater good of all" and not simply another fascist movement in disguise?
Well.. I believe that we have a tool for that : Ethics.
If we run our vision of the world through the prism of ethics we get to understand ALLLLLL the contextual materialities at play. This gives us a framework to direct our actions. And to uses ethics effectively, there is one simple mantra to keep in mind:
"Who are the marginalized people in my society and what is their life like ?"
Any simple answers to this should be a red flag.
Yes but that is propaganda fed to the people. Hitler believed in Aryan superiority and that Jews were inferior, and pushed that sentiment onto the people. It is really no different than slavery being a US tradition, with supporters believing black people are dangerous if they are not enslaved. There were movements trying to make progress back to slavery.
Also yes that they are views that want equality through extremism, like Leninism which is left wing.
Stalin's goal was equailty, but he believed only he could bring it and didn't trust anyone due to his paranoia. But how can there be equality if there's always someone above giving the orders?
Usually when someone tries to implement socialism, it is through force. Of course, this always lead to great social and economic instability. The almost always leads to a dictatorship where they use violence to bring stability. Hell, for some leftist ideologies, a dictatorship is part of the plan to eventual equality....somehow. The Soviet Union dealt with war, internal power struggle, famine, and sanctions from the West.
Even in nations where socialism was fully implemented and actually made good progress, they didn't last long because the US funded internal coops and sanctions. For the most part, socialism always fails because it isn't allowed to not fail.
I'm simply talking about those who judge things based on their own personal morals, and assume anything that doesn't align must be bad or morally compromised. They tend to place themselves on a pedestal and only care about being perceived as a good person. "Of course Donald Trump is a great and fair man. I wouldn't support him if he wasn’t."
Egocentrism, anti-intellectualism, sunk cost fallacy, there are many.
Bottomline, its when individuals treat their own internal compass as the standard for everyone else, and it often leads to conflict and a failure to recognize different viewpoints.
Also yes that they are views that want equality through extremism, like Leninism which is left wing.
Stalin's goal was equailty, but he believed only he could bring it and didn't trust anyone due to his paranoia. But how can there be equality if there's always someone above giving the orders?
Usually when someone tries to implement socialism, it is through force. Of course, this always lead to great social and economic instability. The almost always leads to a dictatorship where they use violence to bring stability. Hell, for some leftist ideologies, a dictatorship is part of the plan to eventual equality....somehow. The Soviet Union dealt with war, internal power struggle, famine, and sanctions from the West.
Even in nations where socialism was fully implemented and actually made good progress, they didn't last long because the US funded internal coops and sanctions. For the most part, socialism always fails because it isn't allowed to not fail.
I'm simply talking about those who judge things based on their own personal morals, and assume anything that doesn't align must be bad or morally compromised. They tend to place themselves on a pedestal and only care about being perceived as a good person. "Of course Donald Trump is a great and fair man. I wouldn't support him if he wasn’t."
Egocentrism, anti-intellectualism, sunk cost fallacy, there are many.
Bottomline, its when individuals treat their own internal compass as the standard for everyone else, and it often leads to conflict and a failure to recognize different viewpoints.
Because they are contradictory and inconsistent. You call into question the legitimacy of people's values all the time. If he can assert someone as your evil counterpart, and yet you are the one who holds views that violate the most core concept of the religion he allegedly holds as sacrosanct, then he either does not believe what he preaches, or he was sorely mistaken in his original statement.
If it is the former, than how am I to have any trust in anything he proclaims?
You never knew this in the first place, Logiko, stop LARPing.
You feel discriminated against by psychiatry. I could say the same thing. You, the man who upholds self-identification as important, that lived experience and perception is valuable, is suddenly rallying against his own argument.
In addition:
Just because you believe or 'feel' does not make it reality, or, better put in the words of the preeminant scholar of the age: "...but feeling is not being." - Logiko, 26/07/2026 - General Political Discussion, p.3897, post 77,934.
If it is the former, than how am I to have any trust in anything he proclaims?
You never knew this in the first place, Logiko, stop LARPing.
You feel discriminated against by psychiatry. I could say the same thing. You, the man who upholds self-identification as important, that lived experience and perception is valuable, is suddenly rallying against his own argument.
In addition:
Just because you believe or 'feel' does not make it reality, or, better put in the words of the preeminant scholar of the age: "...but feeling is not being." - Logiko, 26/07/2026 - General Political Discussion, p.3897, post 77,934.
Do we have any historical sources, say a diary that proves this, or is this the opinion of scholars?
Amen, brother. I completely agree. I try to establish a view of an objective reality detached that is detached from my personal morals. I accept that outliers exist, and that there are alternative paths, and not all of them are bad.
I feel people are too tribal. They attach themselves to a specific label and define all of their viewpoints through that frame. By making a moral assertion that said label is correct, everything opposing it must be incorrect. Any deviance becomes an attack.
My advice is to detach oneself from specific ideologies and consider each individual component and issue. But that also just gets you called a fence-sitter.
Regardless, I enjoyed our conversation. Cheers.
Amen, brother. I completely agree. I try to establish a view of an objective reality detached that is detached from my personal morals. I accept that outliers exist, and that there are alternative paths, and not all of them are bad.
I feel people are too tribal. They attach themselves to a specific label and define all of their viewpoints through that frame. By making a moral assertion that said label is correct, everything opposing it must be incorrect. Any deviance becomes an attack.
My advice is to detach oneself from specific ideologies and consider each individual component and issue. But that also just gets you called a fence-sitter.
Regardless, I enjoyed our conversation. Cheers.
I'm not in his head but perhaps he simply respects my belief as I respect his.. ?
I've been explaining the same core values of fascism for more than three years....
True. But "feeling" is not enough. Activism based on feeling is the difference between liberal me (5 years ago) and materialist me (now). LIberals activist - as we call them - will consider that "feeling" is all that matter to fight.
But feeling is not enough as "identities" can be used by domination systems like capitalism and imperialism. Look :
This, is what we call "pinkwashing". It is the use of queer struggles BY a system of oppression to "washes" OUT the "politics" of said struggle in order to use it as a form of token of progressism.
THis negates the fact that queer people live in Palestine and Gaza, this negates the fact that LGBTQI+ struggles are fundamentally anti-imperialistic etc. This is the "feeling" used outside of the material and political reality. It's a liberal vision of struggles as in "individualistic".
To counter that, a materialist approach is necessary. Materialism allows us to understand that fights (like antipsychiatry) for me are not simply a question of "feeling oppressed", it's an objective system of domination that we can document, observe and fight within instiutions and political systems.
True again, but I do not only "believe" (this is only a form of respect in the discussion in order not to impose my vision to you), I also know and have scientific datas relatives to the domination systems that I'm talking about.
I've been explaining the same core values of fascism for more than three years....
True. But "feeling" is not enough. Activism based on feeling is the difference between liberal me (5 years ago) and materialist me (now). LIberals activist - as we call them - will consider that "feeling" is all that matter to fight.
But feeling is not enough as "identities" can be used by domination systems like capitalism and imperialism. Look :
This, is what we call "pinkwashing". It is the use of queer struggles BY a system of oppression to "washes" OUT the "politics" of said struggle in order to use it as a form of token of progressism.
THis negates the fact that queer people live in Palestine and Gaza, this negates the fact that LGBTQI+ struggles are fundamentally anti-imperialistic etc. This is the "feeling" used outside of the material and political reality. It's a liberal vision of struggles as in "individualistic".
To counter that, a materialist approach is necessary. Materialism allows us to understand that fights (like antipsychiatry) for me are not simply a question of "feeling oppressed", it's an objective system of domination that we can document, observe and fight within instiutions and political systems.
True again, but I do not only "believe" (this is only a form of respect in the discussion in order not to impose my vision to you), I also know and have scientific datas relatives to the domination systems that I'm talking about.
False. You do not respect his belief if you wish to topple his god AND consider his god immoral. That's called lip service. Without his answer, I can only assume he holds communism above god. I will not object to him feeling this way, but it calls into question the veracity of his faith - and if he can lie about something so sacred, then nothing he says can be trusted.
You have been explaining them wrong.
Such waffle. The Nazi's were able to distribute propaganda to create the same level of action. The Germans did not just act on feeling, but a misconceived view of reality. Much like you are doing.
Because western society colonised gays and trans people, my dude.
You have been explaining them wrong.
Such waffle. The Nazi's were able to distribute propaganda to create the same level of action. The Germans did not just act on feeling, but a misconceived view of reality. Much like you are doing.
Because western society colonised gays and trans people, my dude.