There are more of us than there are of them

[Commodore]

The idea of a militia defeating the US military would be silly unless the military themselves revolted, split, or the government lost control

Which is a distinct possibility. I remember when I was in, there was a pretty strong sentiment among soldiers that in the event we would have to choose between the government and the people, we'd choose the people. There is also still a lot of state loyalty among soldiers as well. So if a potential rebellion resulted from state secession like the last time, a lot of soldiers from the rebelling states would likely side with their state over the federal government.

Even without military support though, a rebellion does actually have a decent shot of inflicting enough casualties to force a government surrender. There are around 1.3 million total active duty military personnel in the US. There are an estimated 62.7 million gun owners in the US. So if just roughly 2% of all gun owners manage to get just a single kill shot on a soldier, that's the entire US military wiped out.

 

[Patine]

OK boomer

@Cloud_Strife, you have done a very good job on these forums of villainizing yourself, misrepresenting your own plight and cause in the worst possible way, alienating more people because of your conduct and attitude personally than would EVER hate because of your demographic and starting massive smear campaigns, slander, and attempted character assassination, and declaration by fiat (and utter lack of information - and complete lies and dissemination) of being "Fascist sympathizers," of people (like me) who actually agree with your cause, just for trying to add some realism to your distorted point-of-view or pointing out, pragmatically, immense flaws in your proposed solutions, as well as the gross and immense overuse of very specific, narrowly-defined, and very contextual socio-political labels like "Fascist," or "Nazi," which, by proper definition, only a very small percentage of Americans actually could truly be called adherents of (and, for all of his horrible flaws, not even including Donald Trump himself - whose style of publicly attacking his opponent your own disingenuous smear campaign resembles, actually, though). I want to make clear, I don't hate you @Cloud_Strife, and I empathize for the unjust treatment of those not comfortable, or even finding it unbearable, in their own skin and physical gender they were born as, even though you've arbitrarily just declared I don't in your smear campaign - that doesn't change me personally - but you're approach to advocate for, and portraying, your plight is just plain atrocious. Perhaps you should consider this, and maybe reconsider how you deal with people. Some free advice there - and given with no malice.

 

[Patine]

Which is a distinct possibility. I remember when I was in, there was a pretty strong sentiment among soldiers that in the event we would have to choose between the government and the people, we'd choose the people. There is also still a lot of state loyalty among soldiers as well. So if a potential rebellion resulted from state secession like the last time, a lot of soldiers from the rebelling states would likely side with their state over the federal government.

Even without military support though, a rebellion does actually have a decent shot of inflicting enough casualties to force a government surrender. There are around 1.3 million total active duty military personnel in the US. There are an estimated 62.7 million gun owners in the US. So if just roughly 2% of all gun owners manage to get just a single kill shot on a soldier, that's the entire US military wiped out.

There's also the question that the U.S. would not likely not use big guns tactics like carpet bombing on an internal insurgency, for obvious reason.

 

[bernie14]

Except they're not, because they still exist. As usual, this is a key example as to why analogies suck. You're literally comparing the taming of a wild species (by another, for the benefit of the latter) to diluting a dangerous ideology within a particular species.

Also, @bernie14: there are no "bad" (or even "good") bees. "good" and "bad" are human concepts; not bee concepts.

Hence, all the ? and " "

If I'm paranoid then you are surely complacent and blasé.

Then again you do not have to endure the same crap I do so of course in your deeply privileged mind I come across as paranoid but I forgive you for that, I absolve you of your sin.

Thanks cloud but i am agnostic

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: I have said this a number of times. You may disagree with a post, but you ATTACK THE POST, NOT THE POSTER! Am I getting through here? Because if I am not, there will be some thread bans coming. I won't say this again.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Zardnaar]

You would think the fact that a fascist, reactionary neo-nazi killing 50+ people in his own country, one of the worst terrorist attacks/mass killings in New Zealand's history, would be enough to wake him up to these facts, but it seems even that doesn't bother him.

Edit:

Also note though, how strident he is against the "threat" of the SJW, compared to their right-wing "equivalents", the latter have an actual body count, the former do not.

I'm frankly tired of people straight up dismissing threats to others existences just because they aren't personally impacted by them, it's disgusting, it's gross and it's the same sort of attitude that encourages, allows and facilitates further abuse of children, minorities, women and even straight, white cismales.

Being polite to these people isn't working nor is entertaining their magical, out of touch with reality thinking. Perhaps the only way we can truly change society is to shame them until they learn differently.

I wasn't dismissing the threat. The article I linked to in my old thread said the threat was increasing. The language they saw on underground sites was getting more violent and extreme

So SJWs think they've done good, they fought the good fight and deplatformed the Nazis but they're just less visible and more extreme.

You collect some woke point online and think you've done good but you've increased the threat and escalated the violence. And made it harder for the people monitoring them to keep an eye on things.

But hardcore SJWs are not rational because they're extremists. Anything that conflicts with their predetermined opinion is dismissed or justified in some headache inducing way.
Own goal much?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So SJWs think they've done good, they fought the good fight and deplatformed the Nazis but they're just less visible and more extreme.

But probably in the long run less numerous, due to being tipped off of their recruiting platforms.

 

[Patine]

I wasn't dismissing the threat. The article I linked to in my old thread said the threat was increasing. The language they saw on underground sites was getting more violent and extreme

So SJWs think they've done good, they fought the good fight and deplatformed the Nazis but they're just less visible and more extreme.

You collect some woke point online and think you've done good but you've increased the threat and escalated the violence. And made it harder for the people monitoring them to keep an eye on things.

But hardcore SHWs are not rational because they're extremists. Anything that conflicts with their predetermined opinion is dismissed or justified in some headache inducing way.
Own goal much?

As I said to @Cloud_Strife, the words "Nazi," and "Fascist," are highly overused. There's almost certainly a very small minority of people who could honestly be called adherents of such ideology in the modern day. In fact, there is not truly, on a level of a singular socio-political label, a uniform movement, or demographic, even, behind the hate that targets @Cloud_Strife, or anyone else. Hate and bigotry are not actually generated by, or the products, of socio-political ideologies - though many such movements capitalize upon them for ulterior motive, they do not generate or create them. Such hatreds and bigotries always have deep-rooted, sociological baggage, often going back centuries (or more), and some hard to trace in their origins. Focusing solely on targeting socio-political groups (and lumping people in with such groups by slanderous fiat inappropriately, and misdefining overusing the terms, to boot, and) is not a solution to these issues AT ALL, because the root problems will remain - practically intact - if such tactics are the focus.

 

[Zardnaar]

But probably in the long run less numerous, due to being tipped off of their recruiting platforms.

Apparently they're just using more subtle methods to recruit, less extreme public stuff and then direct recruits to private groups etc.

Or person to person contacts on social media.

They can't really organise on a larger scale and keep splintering. The various leaders all want to be der fuhrer.

As I said to @Cloud_Strife, the words "Nazi," and "Fascist," are highly overused. There's almost certainly a very small minority of people who could honestly be called adherents of such ideology in the modern day. In fact, there is not truly, on a level of a singular socio-political label, a uniform movement, or demographic, even, behind the hate that targets @Cloud_Strife, or anyone else. Hate and bigotry are not actually generated by, or the products, of socio-political ideologies - though many such movements capitalize upon them for ulterior motive, they do not generate or create them. Such hatreds and bigotries always have deep-rooted, sociological baggage, often going back centuries (or more), and some hard to trace in their origins. Focusing solely on targeting socio-political groups (and lumping people in with such groups by slanderous fiat inappropriately, and misdefining overusing the terms, to boot, and) is not a solution to these issues AT ALL, because the root problems will remain - practically intact - if such tactics are the focus.

I know fighting it out on social media will help.

Same thing driving people towards extremism is the same as the 1930s-economic distress. You'll always have the fringe elements but if everyone's to busy living the good life.....

 

[Traitorfish]

So SJWs think they've done good, they fought the good fight and deplatformed the Nazis but they're just less visible and more extreme.

Do you believe that the NSDAP would have been more dangerous if Hitler had not been appointed to the Chancellorship?

Do you think that there some other factors which made mainstreaming Nazis in the 1920s a bad idea, while today it is a good idea?

Would you rather walk near a hive of killer bees or hybrids? The center doesn't more toward the fascists, the fascists move toward the center. A member of the KKK has a certain level of racism. What happens when he works for a corporation that frowns on racism and some of his fellow employees are the people he doesn't like?

Maybe he doesn't change, or maybe as his interaction with 'non-racists' increases he starts thinking to himself that he still hates black people (or fill in the blank) but he's on better terms with individual black people. They become the conduit for diluting his racism. I doubt more libertarians are becoming alt right than the other way around, seems the libertarian population remains relatively stable.

That isn't "integrating" racism. It is, fairly explicitly, repressing racism. What you seem to be calling for is not making space for racist ideas, but for racist people, with the intention of convincing, pressuring, or shaming them into masking or abandoning their racist ideas. This still assumes a strict intolerance of racist remarks and behaviour, only that people committing this behaviour will not be immediately ostracised.

In the analogy killer bees are dangerous ideas and how they're 'bred' out of existence

I'm not pretending that your analogy made sense.

Well, you assumption on people being born or made in some manner or another makes as much sense to me as human/bee analogies and concepts of "good and bad"

I really don't understand where you're going with this.

 

[Gorbles]

Hence, all the ? and " "

Well, hopefully I cleared that up for you, though you're free to ask further if you want.

As I said to @Cloud_Strife, the words "Nazi," and "Fascist," are highly overused. There's almost certainly a very small minority of people who could honestly be called adherents of such ideology in the modern day. In fact, there is not truly, on a level of a singular socio-political label, a uniform movement, or demographic, even, behind the hate that targets @Cloud_Strife, or anyone else. Hate and bigotry are not actually generated by, or the products, of socio-political ideologies - though many such movements capitalize upon them for ulterior motive, they do not generate or create them. Such hatreds and bigotries always have deep-rooted, sociological baggage, often going back centuries (or more), and some hard to trace in their origins. Focusing solely on targeting socio-political groups (and lumping people in with such groups by slanderous fiat inappropriately, and misdefining overusing the terms, to boot, and) is not a solution to these issues AT ALL, because the root problems will remain - practically intact - if such tactics are the focus.

Do you have any amount of sources for any amount of the claims you've made here?

Specifically:

• How is "Nazi" overused? Who by? Who are unfairly maligned, preferably with specific examples?
• The same as the above, but for "fascist". Easier to answer, it's thrown around a bit more.
• How do you define such an ideology, and its adherents (in order to call it a small minority)? Specifically so this can be argued further, without ambiguity.
  
• What evidence do you have to assert that socio-political ideologies do not generate hatred or bigotry? Because there are several historical (and modern) examples that would disagree, from literally the Third Reich (being a socio-political identity) all the way to modern China and its ongoing purge of the Uyghurs? These hatred and prejudices may have roots in earlier times, or use roots founded in earlier times, but the also revive and maintain them for a specific end (literally, there are papers on how the Nazi Party did this with German Jews).

Really, just any support for your overly-broad dismissal of anybody's concern of the word "fascist" would be appreciated, because all you ever seem to do is downplay them (while playing up activities of the left-wing, extreme or otherwise).

For example, you recently claimed Trump's White House wasn't inherently fascist, or even adherent to fascist ideology. This was before the news of Stephen Miller (being a relatively central and undeniably influential member of said White House) broke r.e. his white nationalist beliefs. Do you not think that contradicts your ongoing assertion?

One last question:

• Why do you focus on the raw numbers; i.e. "a very small minority", instead of examining their respective position(s) in society and their impact on culture as a consequence? Miller, again, being a fair citation here.

 

[Patine]

• Well, hopefully I cleared that up for you, though you're free to ask further if you want.

Do you have any amount of sources for any amount of the claims you've made here?

Specifically:

• How is "Nazi" overused? Who by? Who are unfairly maligned, preferably with specific examples?
• The same as the above, but for "fascist". Easier to answer, it's thrown around a bit more.
• How do you define such an ideology, and its adherents (in order to call it a small minority)? Specifically so this can be argued further, without ambiguity.
  
• What evidence do you have to assert that socio-political ideologies do not generate hatred or bigotry? Because there are several historical (and modern) examples that would disagree, from literally the Third Reich (being a socio-political identity) all the way to modern China and its ongoing purge of the Uyghurs? These hatred and prejudices may have roots in earlier times, or use roots founded in earlier times, but the also revive and maintain them for a specific end (literally, there are papers on how the Nazi Party did this with German Jews).

Really, just any support for your overly-broad dismissal of anybody's concern of the word "fascist" would be appreciated, because all you ever seem to do is downplay them (while playing up activities of the left-wing, extreme or otherwise).

For example, you recently claimed Trump's White House wasn't inherently fascist, or even adherent to fascist ideology. This was before the news of Stephen Miller (being a relatively central and undeniably influential member of said White House) broke r.e. his white nationalist beliefs. Do you not think that contradicts your ongoing assertion?

One last question:

• Why do you focus on the raw numbers; i.e. "a very small minority", instead of examining their respective position(s) in society and their impact on culture as a consequence? Miller, again, being a fair citation here.

• I do. Nazis were as hostile to Capitalism as they were to Socialism/Communism, and believed in a form of Third Way economics. Capitalism rules the modern First World Right-Wing (and a lot more of it's Left-Wing than ever admit to it).
• Nazis and Fascists believed in "all for the State, all for the Leader," and discouraged personal liberties and rights of, even of the dominant "ethnic-state" majority. Right-Wing Americans, and growing Right-Wing movements in other First World Nations, value at least their liberties, property right, freedom of speech, ownership of weapons and self-defense, etc. (all anathema beliefs of Fascism and Naziism, in fact). They fact that most of them don't stand up for the liberties of those of other demographics is indeed a big, fundamental problem in society, but one completely independent of Fascist/Nazi thinking.
• Fascists and Nazis are utterly hostile to the electoral process. The modern First World Right-Wing validate themselves through it.
• This one applies specifically to the Trump Administration, and, I admit, is not universally applicable, but he's harped on so much, I think it's a good point. Fascism and Naziism are built on a foundation of foreign conquest, expansion, and occupation of foreign nations - "lebensraum." Trump, for all his horrible and wretched qualities as President, is the least hawkish U.S. President after Herbert Hoover. In fact, Hillary Clinton's campaign was the one saying more military intervention abroad was likely.

There are some very good, glaring, unignorable, and fundamental differences and incompatibilities between Fascism and Naziism and modern First World Right-Wing thinking. Now, to make very clear, so there's no misunderstandings, I am NOT defending, promoting, supporting, or being an apologist for modern First World Right-Wing thing - it has many very socially, politically, and economically destructive and detrimental aspects all it's own, and is a definite problem today. My point is that lazily and thoughtlessly just slapping on an old label that is not applicable is counter-productive in dealing with what is really is, and distorts the whole viewpoint of everything from the get go.

 

[bernie14]

.....I really don't understand where you're going with this.

Schizophrenics are not born that way

 

[AmazonQueen]

• I do. Nazis were as hostile to Capitalism as they were to Socialism/Communism, and believed in a form of Third Way economics. Capitalism rules the modern First World Right-Wing (and a lot more of it's Left-Wing than ever admit to it).
• Nazis and Fascists believed in "all for the State, all for the Leader," and discouraged personal liberties and rights of, even of the dominant "ethnic-state" majority. Right-Wing Americans, and growing Right-Wing movements in other First World Nations, value at least their liberties, property right, freedom of speech, ownership of weapons and self-defense, etc. (all anathema beliefs of Fascism and Naziism, in fact). They fact that most of them don't stand up for the liberties of those of other demographics is indeed a big, fundamental problem in society, but one completely independent of Fascist/Nazi thinking.
• Fascists and Nazis are utterly hostile to the electoral process. The modern First World Right-Wing validate themselves through it.
• This one applies specifically to the Trump Administration, and, I admit, is not universally applicable, but he's harped on so much, I think it's a good point. Fascism and Naziism are built on a foundation of foreign conquest, expansion, and occupation of foreign nations - "lebensraum." Trump, for all his horrible and wretched qualities as President, is the least hawkish U.S. President after Herbert Hoover. In fact, Hillary Clinton's campaign was the one saying more military intervention abroad was likely.

There are some very good, glaring, unignorable, and fundamental differences and incompatibilities between Fascism and Naziism and modern First World Right-Wing thinking. Now, to make very clear, so there's no misunderstandings, I am NOT defending, promoting, supporting, or being an apologist for modern First World Right-Wing thing - it has many very socially, politically, and economically destructive and detrimental aspects all it's own, and is a definite problem today. My point is that lazily and thoughtlessly just slapping on an old label that is not applicable is counter-productive in dealing with what is really is, and distorts the whole viewpoint of everything from the get go.

They were opposed to capitalism but found it easy to work with industry. They weren't some point of mid-point between capitalism and socialism.

 

[Patine]

They were opposed to capitalism but found it easy to work with industry. They weren't some point of mid-point between capitalism and socialism.

Nazi wartime industry was completely different in nature than the "military-industrial complex," Eisenhower warned about on his leaving the White House. To capsulate the point, the Executive President of Messerschmitt did not dictate terms through bribery, lobbying, or political coercion to Hitler, like the Board of Directors of Haliburton did to George W. Bush.

 

[Gorbles]

• I do. Nazis were as hostile to Capitalism as they were to Socialism/Communism, and believed in a form of Third Way economics. Capitalism rules the modern First World Right-Wing (and a lot more of it's Left-Wing than ever admit to it).
• Nazis and Fascists believed in "all for the State, all for the Leader," and discouraged personal liberties and rights of, even of the dominant "ethnic-state" majority. Right-Wing Americans, and growing Right-Wing movements in other First World Nations, value at least their liberties, property right, freedom of speech, ownership of weapons and self-defense, etc. (all anathema beliefs of Fascism and Naziism, in fact). They fact that most of them don't stand up for the liberties of those of other demographics is indeed a big, fundamental problem in society, but one completely independent of Fascist/Nazi thinking.
• Fascists and Nazis are utterly hostile to the electoral process. The modern First World Right-Wing validate themselves through it.
• This one applies specifically to the Trump Administration, and, I admit, is not universally applicable, but he's harped on so much, I think it's a good point. Fascism and Naziism are built on a foundation of foreign conquest, expansion, and occupation of foreign nations - "lebensraum." Trump, for all his horrible and wretched qualities as President, is the least hawkish U.S. President after Herbert Hoover. In fact, Hillary Clinton's campaign was the one saying more military intervention abroad was likely.

There are some very good, glaring, unignorable, and fundamental differences and incompatibilities between Fascism and Naziism and modern First World Right-Wing thinking. Now, to make very clear, so there's no misunderstandings, I am NOT defending, promoting, supporting, or being an apologist for modern First World Right-Wing thing - it has many very socially, politically, and economically destructive and detrimental aspects all it's own, and is a definite problem today. My point is that lazily and thoughtlessly just slapping on an old label that is not applicable is counter-productive in dealing with what is really is, and distorts the whole viewpoint of everything from the get go.

• Incorrect. The Nazi Party was a mess of contradictory personalities, but it was born out of the right-wing post-WW1 sentiments (this is mainly how Hitler gathered the sympathy he did). Various high-ranking members held different positions on capitalistic principles and their relative uses. This also might be a problem with the bullet points, but I'm seeing no evidence for people that apply the label at their leisure.
• Fascists don't have an implicit belief in a figurehead. I guess you could argue they're prone to it, with nationalism being a running theme. That said, there doesn't have to be an implicit belief in the state or leadership. To use the Third Reich as an example, for some Nazis there were, but for others it was simply the rule of fear, as well as the cultural incentives, that kept them in line. This divide between believers and dutiful members of the Party ran all the way up to the higher echelons of the Party. Fascism is a separate thing (relatedly, but separate), which is why I asked separate questions of them. I'm not interested in arguments where they're ran parallel, because you appear to be presenting them as synonymous. The Third Reich was a fascist regime, but not all fascist regimes are / were the Third Reich.
• I'm assuming at this point you're simply defining the differences, which is fair, but you're not really defining any differences. I really can't emphasise it enough - you can't treat "fascism" and "Nazism" interchangeably when discussing modern fascism (and also Neo-Nazis, but I'm not as well read-up on their modern incarnations). Also, again, massive historical references to how Hitler used the democratic apparatus of the Weimer Republic to assume control. Sure, they ended it - in the end, but they used it for as long as was convenient. I shouldn't have to point out this is exactly what Cloud and others have been telling you for quite some time - you just don't believe it's that bad. I mean this in good faith - you don't seem to assume it's anywhere near that bad.
• No it wasn't! Look at fascism in Mussolini's Italy. It trended that way, sure, but it was in no way comparable to Hitler's war machine. The focus on land was often a distraction, or prop to aid issues at home (see Ethopia - the overriding claim was to avenge defeat at Adwa, whereas Hitler was far more concerned with simply taking territory, previous justification be damned). Notably, he did this after achieving popular support at home. Mussolini's peak came far later, in the late 30s, and was quite a spectacular tumble from that point on.

When people often say "Nazi", the "Neo" is implied. They're not necessarily their exact historical parallels. We agree on that, but the problem here I think stems from you using fascist and Nazi interchangably, and in turn perceiving those of us who use those labels (myself included) with the same degree of flux, or overlap.

Fascism isn't a specific, ironclad thing. Much like democracy isn't. There are a number of implementations, permutations, variations, you name it. Nazism is specifically more defined, and Neo-Nazis too. However the modern right wing still has a lot of them, even to the extent they argue over the best approach in the eyes of the public. You shouldn't view Nazis as a historical thing, nor should you view fascism as the same thing it was 60 to 70 years ago.

It's not an old label. It has evolved with the times (and honestly hasn't needed to evolve that much). This thinking, that it's an old label to apply to now-archaic regimes, is how we get things like people unironically calling the authoritarian fear-based dictatorship in China "Communist". It's presented as that, sure. But it's still an authoritarian dictatorship with a large focus on racial purity, which speaks to more similarities with something like the Third Reich, than, say, Marx's teachings, or even something a country like America (yet). The past repeats itself, and the biggest problem we have is people insisting certain words and phrases belong in the past, where they're not to be disturbed. That does a disservice to history, in my opinion.

 

[Patine]

• Incorrect. The Nazi Party was a mess of contradictory personalities, but it was born out of the right-wing post-WW1 sentiments (this is mainly how Hitler gathered the sympathy he did). Various high-ranking members held different positions on capitalistic principles and their relative uses. This also might be a problem with the bullet points, but I'm seeing no evidence for people that apply the label at their leisure.
• Fascists don't have an implicit belief in a figurehead. I guess you could argue they're prone to it, with nationalism being a running theme. That said, there was no implicit belief in the state or leadership. For some Nazis there were, but for others it was simply the rule of fear, as well as the cultural incentives, that kept them in line. This divide between believers and dutiful members of the Party ran all the way up to the higher echelons of the Party. Fascism is a separate thing (relatedly, but separate), which is why I asked separate questions of them. I'm not interested in arguments where they're ran parallel, because you appear to be presenting them as synonymous. The Third Reich was a fascist regime, but not all fascist regimes are / were the Third Reich.
• I'm assuming at this point you're simply defining the differences, which is fair, but you're not really defining any differences. I really can't emphasise it enough - you can't treat "fascism" and "Nazism" interchangeably when discussing modern fascism (and also Neo-Nazis, but I'm not as well read-up on their modern incarnations). Also, again, massive historical references to how Hitler used the democratic apparatus of the Weimer Republic to assume control. Sure, they ended it - in the end, but they used it for as long as was convenient. I shouldn't have to point out this is exactly what Cloud and others have been telling you for quite some time - you just don't believe it's that bad. I mean this in good faith - you don't seem to assume it's anywhere near that bad.
• No it wasn't! Look at fascism in Mussolini's Italy. It trended that way, sure, but it was in no way comparable to Hitler's war machine. The focus on land was often a distraction, or prop to aid issues at home (see Ethopia - the overriding claim was to avenge defeat at Adwa, whereas Hitler was far more concerned with simply taking territory, previous justification be damned).

When people often say "Nazi", the "Neo" is implied. They're not the same thing. We agree on that, but the problem here I think stems from you using fascist and Nazi interchangably, and perceiving those of us who use those labels (myself included) with the same degree of flux, or overlap.

Fascism isn't a specific, ironclad thing. Much like democracy isn't. There are a number of implementations, permutations, variations, you name it. Nazism is specifically more defined, and Neo-Nazis too. However the modern right wing still has a lot of them, even to the extent they argue over the best approach in the eyes of the public. You shouldn't view Nazis as a historical thing, nor should you view fascism as the same thing it was 60 to 70 years ago.

It's not an old label. It has evolved with the times (and honestly hasn't needed to evolve that much). This thinking, that it's an old label to apply to now-archaic regimes, is how we get things like people unironically calling the authoritarian fear-based dictatorship in China "Communist". It's presented as that, sure. But it's still an authoritarian dictatorship with a large focus on racial purity, which speaks to more similarities with something like the Third Reich, than, say, even America (yet). The past repeats itself, and the biggest problem we have is people insisting certain words and phrases belong in the past.

I don't think you get the point of what I'm saying really. My core point is that modern First World Right-Wing is very different than Fascism and Naziism (except for a tiny minority), and just lazily and thoughtless slapping an old label for simplicity, forced continuity, denial of fundamental change, lack of perspective, and to draw an emotional response that is not fully appropriate is not productive, is an impediment to any meaningful solution, is a denial of reality, and is just plain hidebound. It is effectively analogous to when Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck call Social Progressives, "Communists," which I do believe is just as bad, and just as much of a problem. I mean in the 1920's to 1940's, the two main blocs were not Traditional Monarchists vs. Nationalist Reformers like from 1848 until the end of WW1 - things had changed greatly. Thus, why can't you accept fundamental, base-level change has once again re-defined the socio-political paradigm? You don't seem at all as stupid or uneducated in your posts, so why are so resistant to accepting that things have changed greatly, and old labels just slapped on like that are not appropriate or productive?

 

[Zardnaar]

• Incorrect. The Nazi Party was a mess of contradictory personalities, but it was born out of the right-wing post-WW1 sentiments (this is mainly how Hitler gathered the sympathy he did). Various high-ranking members held different positions on capitalistic principles and their relative uses. This also might be a problem with the bullet points, but I'm seeing no evidence for people that apply the label at their leisure.
• Fascists don't have an implicit belief in a figurehead. I guess you could argue they're prone to it, with nationalism being a running theme. That said, there doesn't have to be an implicit belief in the state or leadership. To use the Third Reich as an example, for some Nazis there were, but for others it was simply the rule of fear, as well as the cultural incentives, that kept them in line. This divide between believers and dutiful members of the Party ran all the way up to the higher echelons of the Party. Fascism is a separate thing (relatedly, but separate), which is why I asked separate questions of them. I'm not interested in arguments where they're ran parallel, because you appear to be presenting them as synonymous. The Third Reich was a fascist regime, but not all fascist regimes are / were the Third Reich.
• I'm assuming at this point you're simply defining the differences, which is fair, but you're not really defining any differences. I really can't emphasise it enough - you can't treat "fascism" and "Nazism" interchangeably when discussing modern fascism (and also Neo-Nazis, but I'm not as well read-up on their modern incarnations). Also, again, massive historical references to how Hitler used the democratic apparatus of the Weimer Republic to assume control. Sure, they ended it - in the end, but they used it for as long as was convenient. I shouldn't have to point out this is exactly what Cloud and others have been telling you for quite some time - you just don't believe it's that bad. I mean this in good faith - you don't seem to assume it's anywhere near that bad.
• No it wasn't! Look at fascism in Mussolini's Italy. It trended that way, sure, but it was in no way comparable to Hitler's war machine. The focus on land was often a distraction, or prop to aid issues at home (see Ethopia - the overriding claim was to avenge defeat at Adwa, whereas Hitler was far more concerned with simply taking territory, previous justification be damned). Notably, he did this after achieving popular support at home. Mussolini's peak came far later, in the late 30s, and was quite a spectacular tumble from that point on.

When people often say "Nazi", the "Neo" is implied. They're not necessarily their exact historical parallels. We agree on that, but the problem here I think stems from you using fascist and Nazi interchangably, and in turn perceiving those of us who use those labels (myself included) with the same degree of flux, or overlap.

Fascism isn't a specific, ironclad thing. Much like democracy isn't. There are a number of implementations, permutations, variations, you name it. Nazism is specifically more defined, and Neo-Nazis too. However the modern right wing still has a lot of them, even to the extent they argue over the best approach in the eyes of the public. You shouldn't view Nazis as a historical thing, nor should you view fascism as the same thing it was 60 to 70 years ago.

It's not an old label. It has evolved with the times (and honestly hasn't needed to evolve that much). This thinking, that it's an old label to apply to now-archaic regimes, is how we get things like people unironically calling the authoritarian fear-based dictatorship in China "Communist". It's presented as that, sure. But it's still an authoritarian dictatorship with a large focus on racial purity, which speaks to more similarities with something like the Third Reich, than, say, Marx's teachings, or even something a country like America (yet). The past repeats itself, and the biggest problem we have is people insisting certain words and phrases belong in the past, where they're not to be disturbed. That does a disservice to history, in my opinion.

You're basically justifying being able to label anyone you like as a fascist.

As Patine said modern right wing politics even with the rascism isn't actually fascist but when you label a conservative for example as a fascist no surprise it offends them.

It doesn't help overall situation is Patines main point. It's helping drive people into their camps and throw up barricades.

In the 30s for example a lot of conservative s sided with fascism because the Communists were also using violence and Western Europe was full of white Russians so they knew enough to not want a bar of communism.

Not saying the extreme left is a pack of Stalinists but the effect of driving people to pick sides is the same.

 

[Gorbles]

@Zardnaar

I didn't justify anything, if that's the amount you're not going to read my posts please don't be surprised if I don't bother with a serious answer. Bonus points for going "modern conservatives aren't fascist because it's an inaccurate label" and then put "extreme left" and "their effect is similar to Stalinism" in the same blooming sentence

I guess silly labels are okay when you use them?

I don't think you get the point of what I'm saying really. My core point is that modern First World Right-Wing is very different than Fascism and Naziism (except for a tiny minority), and just lazily and thoughtless slapping an old label for simplicity, forced continuity, denial of fundamental change, lack of perspective, and to draw an emotional response that is not fully appropriate is not productive, is an impediment to any meaningful solution, is a denial of reality, and is just plain hidebound. It is effectively analogous to when Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck call Social Progressives, "Communists," which I do believe is just as bad, and just as much of a problem. I mean in the 1920's to 1940's, the two main blocs were not Traditional Monarchists vs. Nationalist Reformers like from 1848 until the end of WW1 - things had changed greatly. Thus, why can't you accept fundamental, base-level change has once again re-defined the socio-political paradigm? You don't seem at all as stupid or uneducated in your posts, so why are so resistant to accepting that things have changed greatly, and old labels just slapped on like that are not appropriate or productive?

Because we don't have better labels. You're the one claiming that "fascist" isn't appropriate anymore, but why isn't it? It's a pretty general descriptor for a type of government (or its adherents; the people who either directly want to see it in, or are happy with seeing it in). It's fine to recognise historical baggage, but you also need to be able to see modern parallels, regardless of the difference in implementation.

I disagree with your core point, basically. The way in which fascism is advanced has changed. The ways in which people are radicalised to believing it could be a functioning form of governance has changed (less so in some respects; a lot of it still involves nationalistic fervour and an often loosely-defined fear of the Other, whoever or whatever that Other may be). But that doesn't mean it isn't fascism.

Sure, we're not going to get an exact repeat of historical events. Not in the same way. But fascism, and people who believe in that kind of rule, are very much alive and trying to (or succeeding in, depending on where you sit) erode what you would consider Western democratic norms. I mean, all labels are for a sake of convenience. Look at Australia. It's lumped in by proxy with Western or otherwise English-speaking first-world nations, but it's in Oceania! It's not precisely accurate, but folks generally get what you mean. Outside of an academic paper, or a scenario where that kind of accuracy matters, nobody's really going to quibble with you equating the two.

 

[Patine]

@Zardnaar

I didn't justify anything, if that's the amount you're not going to read my posts please don't be surprised if I don't bother with a serious answer. Bonus points for going "modern conservatives aren't fascist because it's an inaccurate label" and then put "extreme left" and "their effect is similar to Stalinism" in the same blooming sentence

I guess silly labels are okay when you use them?


Because we don't have better labels. You're the one claiming that "fascist" isn't appropriate anymore, but why isn't it? It's a pretty general descriptor for a type of government (or its adherents; the people who either directly want to see it in, or are happy with seeing it in). It's fine to recognise historical baggage, but you also need to be able to see modern parallels, regardless of the difference in implementation.

I disagree with your core point, basically. The way in which fascism is advanced has changed. The ways in which people are radicalised to believing it could be a functioning form of governance has changed (less so in some respects; a lot of it still involves nationalistic fervour and an often loosely-defined fear of the Other, whoever or whatever that Other may be). But that doesn't mean it isn't fascism.

Sure, we're not going to get an exact repeat of historical events. Not in the same way. But fascism, and people who believe in that kind of rule, are very much alive and trying to (or succeeding in, depending on where you sit) erode what you would consider Western democratic norms. I mean, all labels are for a sake of convenience. Look at Australia. It's lumped in by proxy with Western or otherwise English-speaking first-world nations, but it's in Oceania! It's not precisely accurate, but folks generally get what you mean. Outside of an academic paper, or a scenario where that kind of accuracy matters, nobody's really going to quibble with you equating the two.

You know, about 300 years ago, all of the currently extant and used socio-political labels didn't exist. Basically, the point being, just because a more appropriate label is already present mean falling back on old labels that are not appropriate, but arbitrarily declaring "they're all we have, so we're going to use them, everyone will accept, and we'll force them into definition," is awe-inspiringly retrograde and, actually, quite Paleoconservative thinking. No, like has been done numerous times before, you create a new label to name a new phenomenon. I had thought that was already self-explanatory and well-known.