Tough times to be a fascist

[Tahuti]

Most likely you're emotionally invested in the idea that America is literally the Fourth Reich and must be complained about and its rivals defended at every opportunity. Furthermore, you are emotionally invested in feeling like you are right, as almost everyone is. So when your assertions are disproved and you face the choice of either admitting it or defending the indefensible, you choose the latter. Cognitive dissonance.

Formy just made a new account!

The thread title arguably should be 'Tough times to be one who is called a fascist'.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As I already told you, what you claim and what you do are deeply at odds. You may CLAIM you don't hate Europe, but in-between each of these claims are posts filled with anger, contempt and downright racism toward it.
I'm far to be the only one calling you on your knee-jerk hate of Europe, BTW.

Being of the same race I would be hard pressed to be racist towards Europeans.

Anger? Yeah, I certainly have some of that. The endless efforts to obtain hegemony that have pretty well screwed up the world I live in has ticked me off quite a bit.

Contempt? Some of that for sure. That originates from Europeans like you who consider that hegemony plan to be 'for the good of all'. I always meet condescension with contempt, and don't consider that a flaw.

Hatred...still lacking.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Formy just made a new account!

The thread title arguably should be 'Tough times to be one who is called a fascist'.

One who is called a Fascist is free to demonstrate that they are not, making it not really tough times for them...though that can be difficult if one actually is.

I find it interesting that while the thread wandered pretty far afield into 'aggressive China' and other side shows, the people I consider to be active fascists have been notably absent.

For the record, I would say monarchists are more like quaint anachronisms, and don't consider them fascists.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I don't consider Europe worth mentioning. I think what Traitor Fish said on Great Britain in the rebirth of the British Empire thread applies to varying degrees to the rest of the European Union.

No, we're way smarter down here in Europe, we're parasiting on a parasite on USA!

 

[LoneRebel]

Not really sure about 'aggressive foreign policy'. I'm trying, but I can't recall China involved militarily in anything, or even rattling the saber in my lifetime...vague reaching into the depths...border disputes with India, maybe? And if they are going to get aggressive they sure don't show much planning ahead for it, unless you figure they believe the US will let them.

Please tell me you're joking. This is why I can't take you seriously, even though you otherwise say a lot of things that I would agree with.

I think people from Vietnam, Japan, and the Philippines could enlighten you. Would you care about what they have to say, though? That's another question entirely.

The problem with you is that you're so obsessed with your idea that the US and Israel are fascists that you fail to see that the most fascist countries in the world today, using your own definition of radical authoritarian nationalism, are the likes of China and Russia. Whose actions you refuse to condemn, for some reason, though you are perfectly willing to condemn when it's the US and Israel doing it. Is it because they are enemies of the US and so anything they do is right by default?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Please tell me you're joking. This is why I can't take you seriously, even though you otherwise say a lot of things that I would agree with.

I think people from Vietnam, Japan, and the Philippines could enlighten you. Would you care about what they have to say, though? That's another question entirely.

The problem with you is that you're so obsessed with your idea that the US and Israel are fascists that you fail to see that the most fascist countries in the world today, using your own definition of radical authoritarian nationalism, are the likes of China and Russia. Whose actions you refuse to condemn, for some reason, though you are perfectly willing to condemn when it's the US and Israel doing it. Is it because they are enemies of the US and so anything they do is right by default?

I wasn't actually thinking of operational fascist governments. When I said it was a tough time to be a fascist I meant as an individual. The old 'might makes right and my country is never wrong' line is just getting really hard to hang on to pretty much everywhere.

While there are definitely fascists in the US and Israel, I don't consider either country to have a fascist government. How you determined I am 'obsessed with them being Fascists' I cannot guess. They do both have very strong fascist movements though that bear watching.

China, until it was mentioned here, I don't generally think about much at all, so when it was mentioned I asked about the 'aggressive foreign policy' business. Akka provided references, which I appreciate, but compared to a lot of other nations I don't see them as being aggressive. They certainly are a totalitarian state. I don't have any experience to rate their nationalism. So you might notice I haven't argued against them as a fascist state, just questioned attributing them as 'very aggressive', which wasn't included in the definition I was using anyway. If they are a Fascist state their apparent lack of much interest beyond their own borders and practically nothing beyond their immediate neighbors seems to make it not matter too much.

I think Russia is mostly just a mess. The transition from a fully state administered capitalism to some amalgam of free market capitalism and Keynesian concepts plus some held over portions of central planned state capitalism...with the entire population of decision making age having been born under the state run capitalism model so really having to figure out the rest on the fly...that speaks chaos and the fact they aren't in the middle of a civil war I consider a surprise and a blessing. How long that will hold is totally up in the air, and how their political system will develop along with their economy is as well.

If Akka is a good representation of European Russo-phobia that could be a real problem, but I doubt that he is. Most Europeans I know are much more realistic about conditions and honest about European motives.

 

[bhavv]

Nothing wrong with hating Europe, it sucks just as much as anywhere else.

 

[LoneRebel]

Okay, I was in the middle of typing a rather aggressive response to your earlier comments when you posted this. I'll edit it and tone down the aggression, since you're being more reasonable now.

I just want to say this, though - that as a native of one of the countries being threatened by Chinese expansionism, this is a very serious matter for us, and I think I know better than most people what kind of country we're dealing with.

I wasn't actually thinking of operational fascist governments. When I said it was a tough time to be a fascist I meant as an individual. The old 'might makes right and my country is never wrong' line is just getting really hard to hang on to pretty much everywhere.

Believe me when I tell you that that line would describe the thinking of a lot of Chinese, and probably Russian, nationalists pretty well.

China, until it was mentioned here, I don't generally think about much at all, so when it was mentioned I asked about the 'aggressive foreign policy' business. Akka provided references, which I appreciate, but compared to a lot of other nations I don't see them as being aggressive. They certainly are a totalitarian state. I don't have any experience to rate their nationalism. So you might notice I haven't argued against them as a fascist state, just questioned attributing them as 'very aggressive', which wasn't included in the definition I was using anyway. If they are a Fascist state their apparent lack of much interest beyond their own borders and practically nothing beyond their immediate neighbors seems to make it not matter too much.

If I may, I suggest you think about them a bit more. Considering that there are no major inter-state wars going on right now (unless you count Russia vs Ukraine), mostly just civil wars, China's behavior is indeed very aggressive for this time period.

As for supposed "lack of interest beyond their own borders", isn't that what the territorial dispute is precisely? China has disputes with like 8 or 9 countries, what does that tell you?

At the moment, China does not have the capacity to project its power worldwide, like the US, so they are of course focusing on dominating their neighbors first. But if their military spending continues to increase at double-digit percentage rates every year, they will have global power projection before too long.

Besides, haven't you been reading about the Chinese penetration into Africa? It's pretty much neocolonialism. The Chinese are little different from Westerners in the way they treat Africans.

Here's a good, although admittedly unscientific, way to rate their nationalism. Go to any Youtube video about the territorial disputes. Heck, go to any website that has articles related to China at all, and look at the comments section. You will see the ugliest, most rabid nationalists this side of the NSDAP. In fact I imagine it's what NSDAP members would sound like, if they'd had the Internet back then. Their racism against Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Indians and whichever other nationality whose territory they want to grab at the moment is pretty vicious.

Now, of course the Internet has a way of turning people into s. And one could argue that ultranationalists like these exist for the US as well (or any country for that matter). But the difference is that, for every American nationalist troll, there is an American who disapproves of his country's actions or flat-out hates his country (like you seem to be - no offense). But with the Chinese, there's no opposing voice. I have seen almost no Chinese who will speak out against the nationalists, criticize their government. (While there are plenty of Americans who will do so, such as yourself.) It's not a good sign.

I think Russia is mostly just a mess. The transition from a fully state administered capitalism to some amalgam of free market capitalism and Keynesian concepts plus some held over portions of central planned state capitalism...with the entire population of decision making age having been born under the state run capitalism model so really having to figure out the rest on the fly...that speaks chaos and the fact they aren't in the middle of a civil war I consider a surprise and a blessing. How long that will hold is totally up in the air, and how their political system will develop along with their economy is as well.

If Akka is a good representation of European Russo-phobia that could be a real problem, but I doubt that he is. Most Europeans I know are much more realistic about conditions and honest about European motives.

I'm sorry, but between prosperous, democratic Europe and autocratic, struggling Russia, I find it harder to entertain the notion that the EU are the imperialists here. What does Europe have to gain exactly?

 

[LoneRebel]

Here's the response to your earlier posts.

I did say in my lifetime, which did leave out Tibet. If my own country did not have a significant number of notches in their gun during my lifetime I would be a lot more inclined to hold Tibet against China probably.

Taiwan...Imagine if Ireland told the rest of Great Britain to sod off, and then received arms from a foreign power like the US...how would Great Britain feel? Er...this may not have been the best example. Anyway, as far as I know the closest this conflict has come to being active is that one side or the other uses big speaker towers on an island in the Formosa straight to blast propaganda across the water at the enemy

Oh, there was also the time China bracketed Taiwan with ballistic missiles, kinda like something China's puppet North Korea would do.

As to Japan, the most recent 'conflict' came from a Japanese attempt to claim some islands that have been squabbled over since the dawn of time that have no actual value at all. However if they belonged to Japan some obscure maritime treaty would allow Japan to not only claim territorial water around them but some chunk to make them contiguous with the main territorial water of Japan...thus Japan suddenly 'owns' the primary shipping lane between China and the USA and can charge for right of passage. If China didn't say not just no but heck no, the US would have, no doubt about it. That seems like Japanese aggression to me.

...I don't think countries can charge for shipping through international waters, nor does Japan have any desire to do something so obviously ridiculous. China does want to control the shipping lanes in the South China Sea though, so maybe you should look at them instead.

I'm not as well-informed about the Senkaku dispute as I am about the Spratlys dispute, but I think it's kinda hilarious that China thinks they own the Senkaku islands when it is a known fact that Chinese people didn't even begin to settle on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) until the 17th century. And that was only because Europeans brought them over.

Bottom line, China spends less than a third on defense of what the world's policeman primary thug er, largest spender does, so they can't really be up to anything much.

We have more nuclear arsenal than anyone and still outspend our nearest rival by better than three to one...what does that tell you?

Ah, yeah. The thing about that is, the US military budget isn't increasing anymore (and budget cuts are being proposed), while China's military budget continues to increase by around 15% per year. Estimates suggest that China's military spending will equal America's by 2030 at the latest. That should make you happy, right?

As stated repeatedly, Tibet was before I was born.

I did say something about border squabbles with India, but that's a pretty dim recollection...you call it an actual war? Let me go look...okay, I was a year old, no wonder I missed that...thirty day invasion followed by unilateral ceasefire...fewer casualties than the last 'pacification' of Gaza...50 years of peace since. We could use more of that kind of aggression in the world.

VietNam...three weeks in the spring of 79...I was stoned and missed that one too. Looks nasty though. Seems the Chinese were protecting Cambodia for some reason. Anybody have a clue why no one else helped with that?

It really sounds like Tibet gets a pass because it happened before you were born, doesn't it?

Anyway, you seem to be a bit misinformed about the whole China-Cambodia-Vietnam affair. China wasn't protecting Cambodia, China was protecting the Khmer Rouge. You know, the genocidal government that killed around 2 million out of a total population of 7 million? In addition to annihilating their own people, the Khmer Rouge was also raiding Vietnamese border villages and making threats about invading Vietnam, so the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to topple them, ending the genocide. The KR government was allied to China and China was perfectly willing to ignore their genocidal tendencies. So, yep, China were the bad guys once again.

Korean war was before I was born too, but I seem to recall that the foreign adventurists in that one were occidentals...but as I say, long before I was born so I'm operating on history and legends.

You seem to be a bit misinformed about this too. The short version of what happened in the Korean War is this. North Korea decides to unify Korea by force and invades the South. UN forces, mostly American but with a large multinational contingent from more than 20 countries, arrive to defend the South Koreans from North Korean aggression and push the invaders back. China joins the war on the side of the North, thereby making themselves a party to the North Korean invasion. The combined Communist forces counterattack, invading the South again before being pushed back again. I think you would be hard-pressed to say that anyone but N. Korea and China were the aggressors in that war.

When you say 'compared to America' do you include 'compared to European countries that use American forces as their own aggressive policy implementation, usually contributing troops of their own' as well?

African nations not trying to slaughter their neighbors seem to be exception, not the norm.

India and Pakistan are in a long term nuclear standoff. I am hard pressed to call that 'non aggressive' on either side.

It appears that everyone in the middle east is aggressive.

"China has no intention of launching any military operations because there is no need"...I pretty much consider that the definition of 'peaceful'...aggressive nations launch military operations that aren't needed just because they can.

If I may, some epic mental acrobatics must have been required to call all those countries aggressive and yet somehow say that China is not aggressive.

Okay, no offense, but I've noticed a kind of pattern with you. You're quick to condemn imperialism by the US, Europe, Israel, or any other American allies, but you find all manner of justifications to defend Russian or Chinese imperialism.

So it's not really about the principle, is it? If it were about principles, you would condemn both sides equally, not condemn one side and find excuses for the other side.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Okay, I was in the middle of typing a rather aggressive response to your earlier comments when you posted this. I'll edit it and tone down the aggression, since you're being more reasonable now.

Thanks.

I just want to say this, though - that as a native of one of the countries being threatened by Chinese expansionism, this is a very serious matter for us, and I think I know better than most people what kind of country we're dealing with.

Understood. I might have a hard time grasping Chinese expansionism, but I will try.

Believe me when I tell you that that line would describe the thinking of a lot of Chinese, and probably Russian, nationalists pretty well.

Russia and China both seem to me to have far more to worry about internally than they can spare for expansionism.

If I may, I suggest you think about them a bit more. Considering that there are no major inter-state wars going on right now (unless you count Russia vs Ukraine), mostly just civil wars, China's behavior is indeed very aggressive for this time period.

The US military is still trying to wrap up two disastrous invasions and hasn't really managed to shake off the economic hangover of the cold war...so again unless you put 'very aggressive' in some absolute sense rather than a relative sense I will have a hard time following, but I will be examining it more.

As for supposed "lack of interest beyond their own borders", isn't that what the territorial dispute is precisely? China has disputes with like 8 or 9 countries, what does that tell you?

At the moment, China does not have the capacity to project its power worldwide, like the US, so they are of course focusing on dominating their neighbors first. But if their military spending continues to increase at double-digit percentage rates every year, they will have global power projection before too long.

If they continue defense spending increases of ten percent plus per year...which they have done for two years... it will take them about eight years to double their defense spending. It will take another four years beyond that to triple their current spending...which would then match US defense spending as long as US defense spending doesn't go up in the interval at all. In reality their defense spending growth is barely keeping pace with the growth of their economy, and the growth rate of their economy cannot be sustained over that interval.

Besides, haven't you been reading about the Chinese penetration into Africa? It's pretty much neocolonialism. The Chinese are little different from Westerners in the way they treat Africans.

Here's a good, although admittedly unscientific, way to rate their nationalism. Go to any Youtube video about the territorial disputes. Heck, go to any website that has articles related to China at all, and look at the comments section. You will see the ugliest, most rabid nationalists this side of the NSDAP. In fact I imagine it's what NSDAP members would sound like, if they had the Internet back then. Their racism against Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Indians and whichever other nationality whose territory they want to grab is pretty vicious.

Now, of course the Internet has a way of turning people into s. And one could argue that ultranationalists like these exist for the US as well (or any country for that matter). But the difference is that, for every American nationalist troll, there is an American who disapproves of his country's actions or flat-out hates his country (like you seem to be - no offense). But with the Chinese, there's no opposing voice. I have seen almost no Chinese who will speak out against the nationalists, criticize their government. (While there are plenty of Americans who will do so, such as yourself.) It's not a good sign.

I don't hate America. I am pretty harsh on ultranationalist knuckleheads, hence this thread.

I'm sorry, but between prosperous, democratic Europe and autocratic, struggling Russia, I find it harder to entertain the notion that the EU are the imperialists here. What does Europe have to gain exactly?

Economic growth. China has a huge base of population and is aggressively industrializing, which is producing that gigantic short term growth rate. Economy of scale is absolutely a real thing, so the two economies that are currently larger are very interested in staying larger, no matter who they trample in the process. They are also playing the 'we of course remain fast friends' game while both of them are using every trick they can muster to get the upper hand on each other.

 

[Wastl]

You seem to be a bit misinformed about this too. The short version of what happened in the Korean War is this. North Korea decides to unify Korea by force and invades the South. UN forces, mostly American but with a large multinational contingent from more than 20 countries, arrive to defend the South Koreans from North Korean aggression and push the invaders back. China joins the war on the side of the North, thereby making themselves a party to the North Korean invasion. The combined Communist forces counterattack, invading the South again before being pushed back again. I think you would be hard-pressed to say that anyone but N. Korea and China were the aggressors in that war.

I generally agree with what you say, though I have to add a bit to this part, as China wasn't completely out of the line on this one. Yes, they did end up supporting the aggressor, but it isn't quite as simple as you point it out. When the UN-troops were pushing North Korea back, China warned them not to counter-invade North Korea. They got involved only when the UN-troops ignored that and pushed way past the former line of demarcation.

Now, one can say that the UN-troops would have been within their right to topple a regime that tried to take over another state, even if said state was part of the same people. It's after all what had been done to Germany and Japan. But I think a slight distinction between "joining the aggressor in a war of conquest" and "helping the aggressor staying alive after warning the opposite side not to go too far" has to be made. As small as the difference is.

Doesn't change the fact that China has been extremely aggressive towards everyone in reach, actively working to agitate everyone and making bogus claims to increase its territory. Everyone outside that reach gets a bit of a different treatment, as those nations are needed for trade or to take advantage of.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So it's not really about the principle, is it? If it were about principles, you would condemn both sides equally, not condemn one side and find excuses for the other side.

My principles tend to operate on an individual level.

In the course of events I 'meet' people. If they give a nationalist blanket approval of their nation's behavior I will almost always question it. If they choose to stick up for their government's actions they should expect to be questioned. I tend more to apologize for my government's actions myself. I lost my 'righteous nationalism' somewhere along the way, and have no intent to recapture it.

If there was a 'China does no wrong' nationalist hereabouts I would no doubt be just as afoul of them as I am of our European nationalists and my own burden of USA nationalists. I might defend China against other nationalists who want to use them to distract from their own national issues, but it isn't out of any great love for China. As far as I have seen so far you are the only person here who has any real stake in a conversation about China. That's why I listen to you while I blow off Akka.

I find it very hard to condemn the Palestinians for letting Israel stomp on them, so yeah I'm pretty one sided on that one. If there were someone around spouting rampant anti-semitism and Palestinian Nationalism I'd likely argue with them too though.

 

[Yeekim]

How about "Russia does no wrong" nationalists?
We have several

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How about "Russia does no wrong" nationalists?
We have several

We have a couple. They are such caricatures that I pretty much ignore them. Russians who are thoughtful and willing to examine the situation I have tried to get to know, with some success.

 

[LoneRebel]

Economic growth. China has a huge base of population and is aggressively industrializing, which is producing that gigantic short term growth rate. Economy of scale is absolutely a real thing, so the two economies that are currently larger are very interested in staying larger, no matter who they trample in the process. They are also playing the 'we of course remain fast friends' game while both of them are using every trick they can muster to get the upper hand on each other.

Interesting point. When you say "the two economies that are currently larger", do you mean the US and China, or the US and the EU? Since the EU would be the largest economy in the world if it were one country.

I generally agree with what you say, though I have to add a bit to this part, as China wasn't completely out of the line on this one. Yes, they did end up supporting the aggressor, but it isn't quite as simple as you point it out. When the UN-troops were pushing North Korea back, China warned them not to counter-invade North Korea. They got involved only when the UN-troops ignored that and pushed way past the former line of demarcation.

Now, one can say that the UN-troops would have been within their right to topple a regime that tried to take over another state, even if said state was part of the same people. It's after all what had been done to Germany and Japan. But I think a slight distinction between "joining the aggressor in a war of conquest" and "helping the aggressor staying alive after warning the opposite side not to go too far" has to be made. As small as the difference is.

Doesn't change the fact that China has been extremely aggressive towards everyone in reach, actively working to agitate everyone and making bogus claims to increase its territory. Everyone outside that reach gets a bit of a different treatment, as those nations are needed for trade or to take advantage of.

A very good post. Indeed, that distinction is one that should be made, and I think you for putting it in such a concise, easy-to-understand manner.

Though of course the issue then turns to whether China should have helped North Korea in the first place. China could have let the NK government collapse in the UN counter-invasion, thus sparing North Korea's people decades of privation at the hands of the Kims. But of course, China wouldn't want a US ally right on their border, so...

I've always thought that the reason China intervened was that they thought the US would then go farther and invade China after finishing with North Korea. If so, that's ridiculous. There is no evidence at all that the US planned to cross the Yalu. MacArthur may have wanted to, but Truman fired him just for suggesting it.

My principles tend to operate on an individual level.

In the course of events I 'meet' people. If they give a nationalist blanket approval of their nation's behavior I will almost always question it. If they choose to stick up for their government's actions they should expect to be questioned. I tend more to apologize for my government's actions myself. I lost my 'righteous nationalism' somewhere along the way, and have no intent to recapture it.

If there was a 'China does no wrong' nationalist hereabouts I would no doubt be just as afoul of them as I am of our European nationalists and my own burden of USA nationalists. I might defend China against other nationalists who want to use them to distract from their own national issues, but it isn't out of any great love for China. As far as I have seen so far you are the only person here who has any real stake in a conversation about China. That's why I listen to you while I blow off Akka.

I find it very hard to condemn the Palestinians for letting Israel stomp on them, so yeah I'm pretty one sided on that one. If there were someone around spouting rampant anti-semitism and Palestinian Nationalism I'd likely argue with them too though.

That sounds good. Fair enough.

I used to be a lot more anti-Israel than I am now (and of course even today I still disapprove of a lot of things they do) but it kind of faded. I guess over time I realized what a real danger Islamic fundamentalism is. These are people who truly believe that the entire world needs to be made to follow Islam, by force if necessary. These are people who'd kill me for being Christian, and I'm not even a devout Christian; I'm just nominally one for the most part.

(And now there's good evidence that China and some Muslim countries are getting chummier with each other, natch. After all, they have a common enemy: The West and everything it stands for. They can be one big happy alliance of oppressive anti-Western countries together!)

It's the same with the US. I used to be way more anti-American. And then I realized that, while the US is far from perfect, the alternatives are even worse.

How about "Russia does no wrong" nationalists?
We have several

That we do.

 

[Hygro]

Arg it became a quote war.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Interesting point. When you say "the two economies that are currently larger", do you mean the US and China, or the US and the EU? Since the EU would be the largest economy in the world if it were one country.

EU and US are the two fighting it out at the top. China is about half the size but growing fast. Given their population base they have much greater potential capacity and they currently are in the 'industrialization growth boom' so they have a gigantic growth rate advantage. The EU has 'add a member' growth capability. The US has 'we have been by far the largest economy in the world for most of a century and we don't like any of this one bit' and the greatest destructive capability ever assembled. This is a very volatile situation.

 

[Akka]

I don't hate America. I am pretty harsh on ultranationalist knuckleheads, hence this thread.

If they give a nationalist blanket approval of their nation's behavior I will almost always question it.

Except you're pretty selective in which ultranationalism you notice and the degree you can accept.
For a West European, it only needs to not subscribe to your caricatural view that anything Europe does is evil to be labeled as "ultranationalist". If they're Russians, you'll even defend their support for foreign invasion. Such an objective and even-handed fellow

Don't try to picture yourself as a white knight. You're even more full of prejudices than the people you denounce.

As far as I have seen so far you are the only person here who has any real stake in a conversation about China. That's why I listen to you while I blow off Akka.

In other words, you ignore facts if they are presented by someone you don't like, instead of judging them on their own merit.

 

[jackelgull]

I am curious, where does he defend Russian imperialism?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In other words, you ignore facts if they are presented by someone you don't like, instead of judging them on their own merit.

Nope. I blow you off because your interest in running down China is a transparent 'look at how good Europe is!!!!' comparison test, using a subject you are no more related to than I am. As to 'ignoring your facts', just like I do the pro-Russian caricatures I mostly don't read your posts seriously enough to consider disputing them.