What are the most misleading (inaccurate and/or agenda pushing) historical movies ever!? (Poll included)

[Patine]

Ahh, Patine. Two points here. One, it is not true that most of our writings on Sparta were authored by Sparta's enemies. In fact, the key sources on Sparta were written by Athenian aristocrats who were broadly pro-Spartan ("Laconophiles"): Xenophon and Thucydides.

Moreover, the fact that Spartan written sources are so sparse tells us something about Sparta all by itself.

Well, I, myself, am not going to speak with the trope of pretending to have accurate and perfect knowledge of a civilization, who probably was horrible, but how much and in how many ways (and how different from their contemporaries) all-in-all, is debatable. I don't pretend to have information that would, "fill in the banks," either way. I am not Pro-Spartan or Anti-Spartan - to me, they are so long ago, and with so many possible distortions of the narrative, they are academic and historical in a dry way. I certain am not going to make the mistake (yes, MISTAKE) of equating them directly to any modern ideology, leader, or nation - like Fascism or the Taliban - or their opponents such - like to Bernie Sanders. Such comparisons are nothing but semantics for the modern zeitgeist, and, as I said, serve no meaningful or useful purpose.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, I, myself, am not going to speak with the trope of pretending to have accurate and perfect knowledge of a civilization, who probably was horrible, but how much and in how many ways (and how different from their contemporaries) all-in-all, is debatable. I don't pretend to have information that would, "fill in the banks," either way. I am not Pro-Spartan or Anti-Spartan - to me, they are so long ago, and with so many possible distortions of the narrative, they are academic and historical in a dry way. I certain am not going to make the mistake (yes, MISTAKE) of equating them directly to any modern ideology, leader, or nation - like Fascism or the Taliban - or their opponents such - like to Bernie Sanders. Such comparisons are nothing but semantics for the modern zeitgeist, and, as I said, serve no meaningful or useful purpose.

I think they serve the useful purpose of putting something rather remote and abstruse into terms more readily understood, even if something is lost in the translation, as it were. Most people would quickly be lost in a discussion of the agoge or how the Spartiates maintained their relative position in Spartan society. Analogizing Sparta to the Taliban lets me say they were bad dudes without having to get into all the details.

I also think that you're right, Sparta was long ago, but insofar as any people today seem to think Sparta is a positive model for politics or society, I think it's worth pushing back on that. Sparta was a society that produced very little of any worth, a society where about 2% of the population were literally free to rape and murder most of the other 98% and where young members of that 2% were socialized by being brutally and violently abused. This is bad, it was bad even by the poor standards of the classical mediterranean world, and we don't need to shy away from saying so.

 

[Angst]

i don't understand the confusion.

there are plenty of people who identify as libertarians that actively promote nazi ideology. the alt-right today is full of libertarians. these libertarians have a weird relationship with government and rights, since they prefer a small government, but are heinously opposed to progressive ideas, support ideas such as postmodern neomarxism/cultural marxism/whatever, and want the small government very much able to wipe out deplorables. some extreme libertarians, such as the libertines (the bad ones), like the idea of an empowered, unregulated elite on the shoulders of capitalism, specifically so they can be able to abuse as they see fit. libertarians also have a complicated relationship to the military (this goes way past some of the bad libertarians out there.)

the overlap is there. is libertarianism nazism? no. of course not. lexicus is not really making that point. because libertarianism is not inherently that, no. are there libertarians who align with the alt-right and want deplorables wiped out? yes. should they be called nazis? i don't know personally really (that is the identification lex goes by) but it is really suspect how free libertarians feel to align with the harshest of totalitarian systems because they think marxists and blacks and trans people and such are worse. the far left usually dismiss tankies, y'know.

stuff like 300 is ceremonious celebration of some root of western civilization, the overlap here is that libertarians like ancient greeks (even the spartans) and they like big muscly soldiers slaughtering The Great Other en masse. this is why lex clocks it as cryptofascism. don't you like this freedom and free enterprise and rights? let's slaughter the gay monsters. it's hugely ultratraditionalist and patrilineal and fascy, even if it's sprinkled with "it all lead to this Great Era of Freedom"

like, *i like the movie* but it's weird seeing libertarians high five nazis over it - while being completely understandable.

 

[Patine]

I think they serve the useful purpose of putting something rather remote and abstruse into terms more readily understood, even if something is lost in the translation, as it were. Most people would quickly be lost in a discussion of the agoge or how the Spartiates maintained their relative position in Spartan society. Analogizing Sparta to the Taliban lets me say they were bad dudes without having to get into all the details.

No, such terms are not at all useful in evoking such things, really, and lead to distortion and revisionism of history, which is ALWAYS a bad thing (Big Brother in Orwell's, "1984," used deliberate and calculated distortion and revisionism of history and academia as a horrid tactic of control, and modern atrocious dictatorships today, like Norh Korea and Afghantistan, still do). The details should and accurate portrayal should not be eschewed for bad and inaccurate analogs by modern politicization, but instead hammered all the further forth.

I also think that you're right, Sparta was long ago, but insofar as any people today seem to think Sparta is a positive model for politics or society, I think it's worth pushing back on that. Sparta was a society that produced very little of any worth, a society where about 2% of the population were literally free to rape and murder most of the other 98% and where young members of that 2% were socialized by being brutally and violently abused. This is bad, it was bad even by the poor standards of the classical mediterranean world, and we don't need to shy away from saying so.

I do not support the revival or glorification of Spartan virtues (though I, personally, have not come across anyone espousing it in my experience), but the only way it's REAL nastiness can be genuinely portrayed is in and of itself, in it's own context. Bad conflations actually take away from the impact, not reinforcement, in the long term.

i don't understand the confusion.

there are plenty of people who identify as libertarians that actively promote nazi ideology. the alt-right today is full of libertarians. these libertarians have a weird relationship with government and rights, since they prefer a small government, but are heinously opposed to progressive ideas, support ideas such as postmodern neomarxism/cultural marxism/whatever, and want the small government very much able to wipe out deplorables. some extreme libertarians, such as the libertines (the bad ones), like the idea of an empowered, unregulated elite on the shoulders of capitalism, specifically so they can be able to abuse as they see fit. libertarians also have a complicated relationship to the military (this goes way past some of the bad libertarians out there.)

the overlap is there. is libertarianism nazism? no. of course not. lexicus is not really making that point. because libertarianism is not inherently that, no. are there libertarians who align with the alt-right and want deplorables wiped out? yes. should they be called nazis? i don't know personally really (that is the identification lex goes by) but it is really suspect how free libertarians feel to align with the harshest of totalitarian systems because they think marxists and blacks and trans people and such are worse. the far left usually dismiss tankies, y'know.

stuff like 300 is ceremonious celebration of some root of western civilization, the overlap here is that libertarians like ancient greeks (even the spartans) and they like big muscly soldiers slaughtering The Great Other en masse. this is why lex clocks it as cryptofascism. don't you like this freedom and free enterprise and rights? let's slaughter the gay monsters. it's hugely ultratraditionalist and patrilineal and fascy, even if it's sprinkled with "it all lead to this Great Era of Freedom"

like, *i like the movie* but it's weird seeing libertarians high five nazis over it - while being completely understandable.

By proper definition of the ideologies in their narrow and necessary definition to be valid and accurate, the number of, "Nazi," OR, "Marxist," adherents in the modern United States is actually tiny. Liberttarians are much greater in number, as are Progressives (who are not, really, truly and fully, Marxist, but deviate a lot from the ideological line), or Hyper-Nationalists, some going into generic, "Fascist," (but very few, specifically, "Nazi,") viewpoints. Being a dedicated scholar of political science, analysis, and history, reading a LOT of what is on the Internet, from BOTH major sides of the modern zeitgeist, is almost painful...

 

[CaffeineJunkie]

there are plenty of people who identify as libertarians that actively promote nazi ideology.

That is absolute bollocks

the alt-right today is full of libertarians.

Alt-right doesn't equal Nazi. Not by a long shot.

these libertarians... want the small government very much able to wipe out deplorables. some extreme libertarians, such as the libertines (the bad ones), like the idea of an empowered, unregulated elite on the shoulders of capitalism, specifically so they can be able to abuse as they see fit.

Every word of that is not just wrong, but insane.

are there libertarians who align with the alt-right and want deplorables wiped out? yes. should they be called nazis? i don't know personally really (that is the identification lex goes by) but it is really suspect how free libertarians feel to align with the harshest of totalitarian systems because they think marxists and blacks and trans people and such are worse.

Where are you getting these insane ideas? There is not a single libertarian in the world who wants to wipe out black or trans people, or other "deplorables". As for Marxists, throwing them out of helicopters is legitimate self-defense. Moderator Action: Warned for inappropriate behaviour. The_J

libertarians like ancient greeks (even the spartans) and they like big muscly soldiers slaughtering The Great Other en masse.

Wrong again. Libertarians don't even talk about the ancient Greeks, and the only "Great Other" that they want to slaughter is totalitarians... including fascists.

this is why lex clocks it as cryptofascism. don't you like this freedom and free enterprise and rights? let's slaughter the gay monsters.

What in the nine circles of Hell are you talking about? 300 makes no mention of "free enterprise" or "rights", and the only gays mentioned in the movie are the Athenians, who told the Persians to take a hike.

 

[Patine]

i don't understand the confusion.

there are plenty of people who identify as libertarians that actively promote nazi ideology. the alt-right today is full of libertarians. these libertarians have a weird relationship with government and rights, since they prefer a small government, but are heinously opposed to progressive ideas, support ideas such as postmodern neomarxism/cultural marxism/whatever, and want the small government very much able to wipe out deplorables. some extreme libertarians, such as the libertines (the bad ones), like the idea of an empowered, unregulated elite on the shoulders of capitalism, specifically so they can be able to abuse as they see fit. libertarians also have a complicated relationship to the military (this goes way past some of the bad libertarians out there.)

the overlap is there. is libertarianism nazism? no. of course not. lexicus is not really making that point. because libertarianism is not inherently that, no. are there libertarians who align with the alt-right and want deplorables wiped out? yes. should they be called nazis? i don't know personally really (that is the identification lex goes by) but it is really suspect how free libertarians feel to align with the harshest of totalitarian systems because they think marxists and blacks and trans people and such are worse. the far left usually dismiss tankies, y'know.

stuff like 300 is ceremonious celebration of some root of western civilization, the overlap here is that libertarians like ancient greeks (even the spartans) and they like big muscly soldiers slaughtering The Great Other en masse. this is why lex clocks it as cryptofascism. don't you like this freedom and free enterprise and rights? let's slaughter the gay monsters. it's hugely ultratraditionalist and patrilineal and fascy, even if it's sprinkled with "it all lead to this Great Era of Freedom"

like, *i like the movie* but it's weird seeing libertarians high five nazis over it - while being completely understandable.

Germany, as a good example, has a MUCH larger of percentage their current population than the United States who are adherents of Marxism and Naziism, by proper definition, which is not surprising, given it's history, even if they're still radical minorites.

 

[Angst]

That is absolute bollocks

i agree, but that's how they side. so we may not agree on what is bollocks here exactly.

Alt-right doesn't equal Nazi. Not by a long shot.

oh. you're one of those.

alt-right was started as a rebranding of nazism to make it more palletable to a general public (in fact, it was the latest of a number of attempts to rebrand - it was the one that stuck, for now). nazis do that a lot, as their traditional imagery has, for good reason, become a hard swallow for a lot of people. so now it's alt-right, identitarianism, and yes, libertarianism is often also used, including under the alt-right umbrella. importantly to whatever your beliefs may be: whether you think alt-right libertarians is then true identification or a regular fascy coopt is up to you. nazis did it with the socialists back in the day, calling themselves just a socialist or whatever, to get their ideas through. but - crucially - it's just strange how often self-identifying libertarians are gun-toting and very happy about government interference when it comes to dealing with deplorables, and are fine with insane degrees of militarism to ensure what they want. the snake flag and all.

Every word of that is not just wrong, but insane.

"no"

Where are you getting these insane ideas? There is not a single libertarian in the world who wants to wipe out black or trans people, or other "deplorables". As for Marxists, throwing them out of helicopters is legitimate self-defense.

uhhh... ._.

Wrong again. Libertarians don't even talk about the ancient Greeks, and the only "Great Other" that they want to slaughter is totalitarians... including fascists.

it's the modern western relationship with the ancient greeks. it identifies ancient greece as a cultural pillar everything else comes from we like - democracy, freedom, rationality, and yes, free enterprise and such has a underpinning of greek identity and rationalism, regardless of how rational or grounded this relationship actually is. it's not incidental that a lot of very appreciated american architecture has been very neoclassical in style, crucially including a lot of banks. it's not just because they look pretty, it's because "it's us". the identity is in regards to a sense of cultural inheritance and affliation. the spartans are fighting to save western civilization, the synechdoche of it. and, importantly, it's not incidental that frank miller's regular thing is that this freedom has to be protected, so we kinda just have to do a lot of ultraviolence in order to protect all this good stuff we have. all the internal abuses of spartan societies is framed as vindicated because it's, in the end, like the parents of the west.

the story of the 300 soldiers defending greece is not contained to that movie/comic y'know. it's a big part of western identity in quite a few places. same with stuff like tours.

What in the nine circles of Hell are you talking about? 300 makes no mention of "free enterprise" or "rights", and the only gays mentioned in the movie are the Athenians, who told the Persians to take a hike.

xerxes is coded gay to the nth degree. it's a big gay empire. as for the mention of rights or whatever, i refer to the above about ancient greece.

-

i'd like to ask. what do you identify as?

 

[Angst]

By proper definition of the ideologies in their narrow and necessary definition to be valid and accurate, the number of, "Nazi," OR, "Marxist," adherents in the modern United States is actually tiny. Liberttarians are much greater in number, as are Progressives (who are not, really, truly and fully, Marxist, but deviate a lot from the ideological line), or Hyper-Nationalists, some going into generic, "Fascist," (but very few, specifically, "Nazi,") viewpoints. Being a dedicated scholar of political science, analysis, and history, reading a LOT of what is on the Internet, from BOTH major sides of the modern zeitgeist, is almost painful...

eh, i use nazi interchangeably because fascists do. if that's an issue, sure. replace where i write "nazi" with "fascist"

 

[Patine]

eh, i use nazi interchangeably because fascists do. if that's an issue, sure. replace where i write "nazi" with "fascist"

I still don't think the number of dedicated, "Fascists," (or those who even understand the word), and certainly not, "Marxists," are really that common in the United States, today. Modern American Revisionist Hyper-Nationalism (including Trumpsim and, "Alt-Right,"), Libertarianism, and Modern Progressivism are completely new and unprecedented beasts, that do not bear much resemblance, really, to older extremsit ideologies they're often erroneous conflated with. New ideologies should be given new terms, and recognized as such, to allow any rational and respectable discourse on the issue. Using old terms irresponsibily and clumsliy - "putting a square peg in a round hole," if you will - does no service, and only detriment, confusion, degradation, and disingeuity, to any socio-political portrayal.

 

[Angst]

I still don't think the number of dedicated, "Fascists," (or those who even understand the word), and certainly not, "Marxists," are really that common in the United States, today. Modern American Revisionist Hyper-Nationalism (including Trumpsim and, "Alt-Right,"), Libertarianism, and Modern Progressivism are completely new and unprecedented beasts, that do not bear much resemblance, really, to older extremsit ideologies they're often erroneous conflated with. New ideologies should be given new terms, and recognized as such, to allow any rational and respectable discourse on the issue. Using old terms irresponsibily and clumsliy - "putting a square peg in a round hole," if you will - does no service, and only detriment, confusion, degradation, and disingeuity, to any socio-political portrayal.

i understand the appeal fwiw. it's more that fascism is not something that particular to me, it's more of a web of structural denominations, a way of thinking that most people have some access to. like, for - modern, american, revisionist, hyper-nationalism - fascism is both modern (in that fascism is specifically a reaction to liberalism), american (or whatever other country it's tied to), revisionist, and hyper-nationalistic. what's only missing imo is fascism's most important pillar, the ur-myth, which is very much ingrained in these new movements, just replacing norse iconography or whatever with early america. it feels similar to saying marxism isn't communism which is only rarely true (when marx has been used in capitalist theory)

 

[Patine]

i understand the appeal fwiw. it's more that fascism is not something that particular to me, it's more of a web of structural denominations, a way of thinking that most people have some access to. like, for - modern, american, revisionist, hyper-nationalism - fascism is both modern (in that fascism is specifically a reaction to liberalism), american (or whatever other country it's tied to), revisionist, and hyper-nationalistic. what's only missing imo is fascism's most important pillar, the ur-myth, which is very much ingrained in these new movements, just replacing norse iconography or whatever with early america. it feels similar to saying marxism isn't communism which is only rarely true (when marx has been used in capitalist theory)

I'm afraid I don't share your sloppy and slapdash views on poliitcal labelling, and believe such fast-and-loose conflations and throwing down labels by intuition can only do far more harm than good in the long-term (and I believe that harm is already being seen and made manifest because of this socio-political, "Newspeak," - yes, to invoke the Orwellian term - of obviously incorrrect, but strongly defended, misuse of socio-poliitcal terms, by both arbitrary, "sides," (as no division on a level social level involving people REALLY only has two sides - Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, and other Dualist viewpoins are highly sociologocally and psychologically unhealthy for humans ) in the modern discourse).

 

[Angst]

I'm afraid I don't share your sloppy and slapdash views on poliitcal labelling, and believe such fast-and-loose conflations and throwing down labels by intuition can only do far more harm than good in the long-term (and I believe that harm is already being seen and made manifest because of this socio-political, "Newspeak," - yes, to invoke the Orwellian term - of obviously incorrrect, but strongly defended, misuse of socio-poliitcal terms, by both arbitrary, "sides," (as no division on a level social level involving people REALLY only has two sides - Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, and other Dualist viewpoins are highly sociologocally and psychologically unhealthy for humans ) in the modern discourse).

good to hear you're saving the world. people getting beat up will be happy to know whether to use terminology too sloppily about the violators. it's very spiritually important to delineate which aligned symbol the fascist holds up.

and fwiw your neo-manichean stick isn't as compelling as you think it is. i know it sounds cool if you use a term for moral dualism that is esoteric to the mainstream. i get that. but like.

anyways. if you think attributing a structure of thinking to a structure of thinking is Sloppy and Slapdash, i don't know what to tell you. i am still baffled you're supposedly a scholar.

 

[Patine]

good to hear you're saving the world. people getting beat up will be happy to know whether to use terminology too sloppily about the violators. it's very spiritually important to delineate which aligned symbol the fascist holds up.

and fwiw your neo-manichean stick isn't as compelling as you think it is. i know it sounds cool if you use a term for moral dualism that is esoteric to the mainstream. i get that. but like.

anyways. if you think attributing a structure of thinking to a structure of thinking is Sloppy and Slapdash, i don't know what to tell you. i am still baffled you're supposedly a scholar.

Let's be very clear here before using ill-placed self-righteous guilt ttrips. I have never said once that I APPROVE of, do anything but CONDEMN, the excesses, abuses, and crimes committed today in these areas, and my views on THAT were not even ellicited before that cynical presumption was made. I am merely saying that such flawed terms used sloppily in that way will only COMPOUND and WORSEN the problem, and make productive solutions far LESS likely or probable. One has to KNOW who and what they're facing, and understand them, in an appropriate context, and not play a Quixotic knight charging ancient, dead dragons.

good to hear you're saving the world. people getting beat up will be happy to know whether to use terminology too sloppily about the violators. it's very spiritually important to delineate which aligned symbol the fascist holds up.

and fwiw your neo-manichean stick isn't as compelling as you think it is. i know it sounds cool if you use a term for moral dualism that is esoteric to the mainstream. i get that. but like.

anyways. if you think attributing a structure of thinking to a structure of thinking is Sloppy and Slapdash, i don't know what to tell you. i am still baffled you're supposedly a scholar.

Let's be very clear here before using ill-placed self-righteous guilt ttrips. I have never said once that I APPROVE of, do anything but CONDEMN, the excesses, abuses, and crimes committed today in these areas, and my views on THAT were not even ellicited before that cynical presumption was made. I am merely saying that such flawed terms used sloppily in that way will only COMPOUND and WORSEN the problem, and make productive solutions far LESS likely or probable. One has to KNOW who and what they're facing, and understand them, in an appropriate context, and not play a Quixotic knight charging ancient, dead dragons.

"Know your enemy, and your battle is half-won,"

-Sun Tzu, "The Art of War,"

 

[Angst]

Let's be very clear here before using ill-placed self-righteous guilt ttrips. I have never said once that I APPROVE of, do anything but CONDEMN, the excesses, abuses, and crimes committed today in these areas, and my views on THAT were not even ellicited before that cynical presumption was made. I am merely saying that such flawed terms used sloppily in that way will only COMPOUND and WORSEN the problem, and make productive solutions far LESS likely or probable. One has to KNOW who and what they're facing, and understand them, in an appropriate context, and not play a Quixotic knight charging ancient, dead dragons.

i know you're not approving of the violence i mentioned. i'm simply pointing out that concretely, the two i used overlay a lot today, and rigid segmentation of the two (assuming, even, that nazism isn't just basically a subset of fascism), isn't there; the distinction between nazi and fascist aren't as clear-cut as you set them out to be. when approximated, it's because of the existing fuzziness of the movements, the explicit overlay in concrete action, and the shared structure of thinking that gets them there. remember that your original post had issues with me noting it was a way of thinking about the world. you also seem to think alt-right is detached from such a movement when its inception was born out of literal self-identifying neonazis laying the groundwork for the rebranding. the dragons aren't dead, they're in the movement.

segmentation can be meaningful, yes. it is important to know what you're talking about. like, it's important being able to discern and identify the national socialist movement's flag from the swastika, and practically deal with them as two organizations, because they are. but thinking they're then inherently not fascist because... i guess they aren't the og italians? you want to abandon dualism, but it seems to be replaced with a thousandfold boxes (morally empty by default of course, contrary to the... manicheans...), but understanding the human behavior and ways of life that underpin this kind of movement and refusing the similarity - dismissing fuzzy thinking that draw on how these movements structurally sprout - it's not particularly scholarly, and more importantly, it's not particularly functional. it's not just how they self-identify. it's how they act.

i don't run around calling everything i don't like fascist or nazi. the implication that i do that because i identify it is ridiculous. i call literal fascists and nazis that interchangeably, because they basically do. they are not orderly cut up. and i identify fascist structures of thinking when they're there - that does not mean political affliation, it means that the things show up because it's rooted in a part of human behavior. most people have a vein of tribalism, sense of heritage, personal mythology, and protectiveness of who they are. that you then jump from that way that i think to "why are you thinking everything be devils, maaan" is absurd. it's completely disconnected from both how fascists behave (and i know fascists irl) and from how fuzzy thinking is not dualism.

for thread subject, this is why 300 is a subject of this thing. it incorporates a lot of that kind of thinking that most people share, and frames that as righteous for the end that it procures.

 

[Patine]

i know you're not approving of the violence i mentioned. i'm simply pointing out that concretely, the two i used overlay a lot today, and rigid segmentation of the two (assuming, even, that nazism isn't just basically a subset of fascism), isn't there; the distinction between nazi and fascist aren't as clear-cut as you set them out to be. when approximated, it's because of the existing fuzziness of the movements, the explicit overlay in concrete action, and the shared structure of thinking that gets them there. remember that your original post had issues with me noting it was a way of thinking about the world. you also seem to think alt-right is detached from such a movement when its inception was born out of literal self-identifying neonazis laying the groundwork for the rebranding. the dragons aren't dead, they're in the movement.

segmentation can be meaningful, yes. it is important to know what you're talking about. like, it's important being able to discern and identify the national socialist movement's flag from the swastika, and practically deal with them as two organizations, because they are. but thinking they're then inherently not fascist because... i guess they aren't the og italians? you want to abandon dualism, but it seems to be replaced with a thousandfold boxes (morally empty by default of course, contrary to the... manicheans...), but understanding the human behavior and ways of life that underpin this kind of movement and refusing the similarity - dismissing fuzzy thinking that draw on how these movements structurally sprout - it's not particularly scholarly, and more importantly, it's not particularly functional. it's not just how they self-identify. it's how they act.

i don't run around calling everything i don't like fascist or nazi. the implication that i do that because i identify it is ridiculous. i call literal fascists and nazis that interchangeably, because they basically do. they are not orderly cut up. and i identify fascist structures of thinking when they're there - that does not mean political affliation, it means that the things show up because it's rooted in a part of human behavior. most people have a vein of tribalism, sense of heritage, personal mythology, and protectiveness of who they are. that you then jump from that way that i think to "why are you thinking everything be devils, maaan" is absurd. it's completely disconnected from both how fascists behave (and i know fascists irl) and from how fuzzy thinking is not dualism.

for thread subject, this is why 300 is a subject of this thing. it incorporates a lot of that kind of thinking that most people share, and frames that as righteous for the end that it procures.

This viewpoint brings a number of insightful questions to mind:

Are Nation of Islam and their splinter groups (like Gods and Earths) Fascist by this light. Their beliefs and outlook on the world, and disregard for the validity of life and rights of those outside their bailiwick are VERY SIMILAR in nature as far-right-wing groups in the U.S. otherwise, but swapping Black Supremacy and White Hate instead of White Supremacy and Black Hate, and a butchered, malinterepreted, distortion of Islam for ulterior motives instead of a butchered, malinterepreted, distortion of Christianity for ulterior motives, but having similar derisive, bigoted, hateful, and nasty attitutudes toward Jews, Asians, and the LGBTQ community, and a strict Patriarchal viewpoint on society, and showing organization, hierarchy, and rallies that are reminiscent of the groups in Europe in the '20's to '40s?

How can rectify the chaotic, back-biting, mob-rule nature of Trumpists and the Alt-Right when compared to the harsh, military-regimented, machine-like organization of the groups in Europe in the '20's to '40's (when the latter is usually defined as a feature and identifier of Facism as a movement)?

Fascists in the '20's to '40's dictatorships put big corporations under their wing of control, and geared them to serve grand industrial and miliitary endeavours, but without nationalizatiion, like the Communists did. In the modern U.S., big corporations and billionaires bankroll the far-right-wing groups, and have a lot of influence, while OTHER big corporations and billionaires bankroll the Social Progressive groups, and, also, have a lot of influence there.

Though fuzzy on the issue, and giving a lot of unclear, mixed messages and confusing rhetoric, and seeming at times to be ready for preemptive wars that never happen, Trump was, statistically, the least directly militarily aggressive U.S. President abroad since Herbert Hoover. That seems contrary to a supposed, "Fascist," by strict definition.

These questions are not meant as, "gotchas," just food for thought to refine and clarify viewpoints.

 

[Angst]

This viewpoint brings a number of insightful questions to mind:

Are Nation of Islam and their splinter groups (like Gods and Earths) Fascist by this light. Their beliefs and outlook on the world, and disregard for the validity of life and rights of those outside their bailiwick are VERY SIMILAR in nature as far-right-wing groups in the U.S. otherwise, but swapping Black Supremacy and White Hate instead of White Supremacy and Black Hate, and a butchered, malinterepreted, distortion of Islam for ulterior motives instead of a butchered, malinterepreted, distortion of Christianity for ulterior motives, but having similar derisive, bigoted, hateful, and nasty attitutudes toward Jews, Asians, and the LGBTQ community, and a strict Patriarchal viewpoint on society, and showing organization, hierarchy, and rallies that are reminiscent of the groups in Europe in the '20's to '40s?

How can rectify the chaotic, back-biting, mob-rule nature of Trumpists and the Alt-Right when compared to the harsh, military-regimented, machine-like organization of the groups in Europe in the '20's to '40's (when the latter is usually defined as a feature and identifier of Facism as a movement)?

Fascists in the '20's to '40's dictatorships put big corporations under their wing of control, and geared them to serve grand industrial and miliitary endeavours, but without nationalizatiion, like the Communists did. In the modern U.S., big corporations and billionaires bankroll the far-right-wing groups, and have a lot of influence, while OTHER big corporations and billionaires bankroll the Social Progressive groups, and, also, have a lot of influence there.

Though fuzzy on the issue, and giving a lot of unclear, mixed messages and confusing rhetoric, and seeming at times to be ready for preemptive wars that never happen, Trump was, statistically, the least directly militarily aggressive U.S. President abroad since Herbert Hoover. That seems contrary to a supposed, "Fascist," by strict definition.

These questions are not meant as, "gotchas," just food for thought to refine and clarify viewpoints.

didn't presume they were gotchas at all. seemed like questions.

- i don't know nation of islam. from a quick google however i can get the gist of it. it's important when carving out these things to look at things beyond the tribalism and bigotry; the ur-myth is core to fascism, and in spite of being a sadly very leftist and strange term, it's actually a notion most people have. and it may be present in this society. but importantly here, the ur-myth is different from religious motivation. i don't think of the westboro baptist church as fascist, for example. but - i don't know that group. so i'd say it depends on the details.

- i think it's important to note that the fascist european regimes are made out in popular conception to be much more organized than they actually were. i'm not sure of your impression here, it seems wrong, sorry - don't buy into triumph of the will imagery. especially in the beginning, before a real governmental takeover (despite trump's current residue and his contemporary context, he failed), the situation in nazi germany was a bunch of chaotic, back-biting mob rule. remember that hitler was near assassinated and that the night of the long knives happened, an active culling of the chaos they had themselves relied upon to rise through the ranks (which stuff like triumph of the will was a part reaction to, underlining that no actually this isn't a mess, look at all this practiced marching). burning reichstag, whether false flag or not. looking past the early nazi years in particular when contrasting the alt-right movement to the nazis does understanding both a huge disservice. italy sadly i don't know as much about but irt the nazis, reading more into german history and actually dealing with this stuff should make one see more similarities, not less, in the multi-pronged chaos of both political engagements.

- for wars - i don't know, few points here. january 6th failed, so we don't have equal degree of consolidation (trump was dealing with a lot of unrest), the world is different today (western imperialism has become largely nonterritorial), and america was on the way out of i don't even know how many unpopular things going on in the middle east. most of the rhetorical foreign enemies for the alt-right have nukes. i didn't much expect actual overt war to ever happen; understand that the enemy target of fascist violence doesn't have to be geographically foreign. that someone isn't able to declare war on a foreign power doesn't make one not fascist.

 

[Joij21]

for thread subject, this is why 300 is a subject of this thing. it incorporates a lot of that kind of thinking that most people share, and frames that as righteous for the end that it procures.

I thought it was just one of those machismo macho action movies with hardly any subtext other than a pretty basic us vs them narrative so as to show cool use of violence on the silver screen.

I know at the time some people were getting a George Bush sort of Evil Decadent Middle East vs. Glorious and Noble Manly West vibe. It having come out during the heyday on the War on Terror and spawning many proto-memes (many found here even in mods, and many flash games and flash media projects around the web) before meme was used as a word in the context it's used today.

the ur-myth

Don't socialists and marxists have their own ur-myth in the French Revolution, French Radicalism, the Revolutions of 1848, and the Paris Commune of the Franco-Prussian War?

fascism is both modern (in that fascism is specifically a reaction to liberalism)

Is it reacting to liberalism? Or is it reacting to marxist bolshevism and then proclaiming liberalism as too weak to stop the spread of marxist ideas, and too decadent so as to induce an economic collapse which would enable marxists to seize power?

Isn't it not instead socialists and marxist socialists who are reacting to liberalism for it's support of the idea of capitalism?

american (or whatever other country it's tied to

So are you implying a universalist notion to fascism? What point is there in saying it's American when you immediately acknowledge in parenthesis that it can be in whatever country it's tied to? Does it have an original place of origin, like Italy or Germany? Or do you put America in context because you believe it to be some sort of innovator in some kind of pan-fascism? Or are we being semantic and just want to be edgy in order to piss off some American nationalists who you believe are straying too close to fascism?

Is socialism French because of it's ideological origin among French radicals? Is marxist socialism German because of the ethnicity of Marx and Engels? Bolshevism Russian because Lenin was a Russian? Maoism Chinese because Mao was Chinese?

revisionist

Define revisionism. As in being a capitalist roader? A dead end ideology or form of Socialism which inevitably implodes and allows capitalist liberalism to arise again out of the ashes? As in non revolutionary?

How do you know that all the forms of socialism aren't revisionist and thus inevitably implode so as to allow capitalists to return ala the fall of the U.S.S.R.? Is China too undergoing capitalist roadism? Will it be liberal capitalist in the future? Or is it's particular brand of socialism somehow particularly everlasting and therefore revolutionary? How would you know unless it empirically collapsed before your very eyes? Why should anyone assume any socialism is revolutionary?

and hyper-nationalistic

What is hyper-nationalism but just an extra adjective to describe fascism when you already described it could be American which alone would imply the aforementioned? It's basically like mentioning your favorite foods are chips, and noodles, then saying "oh by the way and also CHIPS!"

There are also some brands of socialism which emphasize the nation state in a hyper-nationalistic way. Stalinism's Patriotic War, Juch's total state.

So using your above characteristics to describe fascism you can clearly see how some of the descriptors are hazy, don't always fit, or could easily describe many of the socialist ideologies as well.

 

[Angst]

I thought it was just one of those machismo macho action movies with hardly any subtext other than a pretty basic us vs them narrative so as to show cool use of violence on the silver screen.

I know at the time some people were getting a George Bush sort of Evil Decadent Middle East vs. Glorious and Noble Manly West vibe. It having come out during the heyday on the War on Terror and spawning many proto-memes (many found here even in mods, and many flash games and flash media projects around the web) before meme was used as a word in the context it's used today.

not really sure whether the first sentence was sarcastic or not.

Don't socialists and marxists have their own ur-myth in the French Revolution, French Radicalism, the Revolutions of 1848, and the Paris Commune of the Franco-Prussian War?

uh, no. grouping socialists and marxists like that, i think the group you talk about are essentially modernist. they can sometimes see examples in the past of something that could work, but the better society they see is usually in the future, not the past. fascists are usually antimodernist and want to return to the ur-myth.

Is it reacting to liberalism? Or is it reacting to marxist bolshevism and then proclaiming liberalism as too weak to stop the spread of marxist ideas, and too decadent so as to induce an economic collapse which would enable marxists to seize power?

Isn't it not instead socialists and marxist socialists who are reacting to liberalism for it's support of the idea of capitalism?

as a reaction to liberalism, i mean a reaction to liberalist modern movements from 1700 and onward, where, yes, i guess marx falls under that actually. it's, like, rights, and voting.

what you mean by socialists here is again vague. marxists could be construed as a reaction, but not in the way you want them to be. they are more hegelian in their understanding in history; seeing society as a series of causal steps. in the sense that i push a ball, then sure, the ball is a reaction to me. but it's not a reaction in the sense that fascists are. fascists want to remove what has happened, because they see their society as having been corrupted from some better state. marxists, specifically, see communism as a natural step after capitalism's supposed implosion. marx wasn't as against capitalism as you probably think. he just thought it'd end due to internal contradictions, and that a better society would show up.

So are you implying a universalist notion to fascism? What point is there in saying it's American when you immediately acknowledge in parenthesis that it can be in whatever country it's tied to? Does it have an original place of origin, like Italy or Germany? Or do you put America in context because you believe it to be some sort of innovator in some kind of pan-fascism? Or are we being semantic and just want to be edgy in order to piss off some American nationalists who you believe are straying too close to fascism?

Is socialism French because of it's ideological origin among French radicals? Is marxist socialism German because of the ethnicity of Marx and Engels? Bolshevism Russian because Lenin was a Russian? Maoism Chinese because Mao was Chinese?

What is hyper-nationalism but just an extra adjective to describe fascism when you already described it could be American which alone would imply the aforementioned? It's basically like mentioning your favorite foods are chips, and noodles, then saying "oh by the way and also CHIPS!"

There are also some brands of socialism which emphasize the nation state in a hyper-nationalistic way. Stalinism's Patriotic War, Juch's total state.

So using your above characteristics to describe fascism you can clearly see how some of the descriptors are hazy, don't always fit, or could easily describe many of the socialist ideologies as well.

i'm grouping these together because you need to get off your victimization horse. i was specifically writing "american" in the context of patine's notions of trump's america. as you may note my previous posts were more generally about the west. rest is just bad faith nonsense, at least needs rephrasing for me to be able to answer.

Define revisionism. As in being a capitalist roader? A dead end ideology or form of Socialism which inevitably implodes and allows capitalist liberalism to arise again out of the ashes? As in non revolutionary?

How do you know that all the forms of socialism aren't revisionist and thus inevitably implode so as to allow capitalists to return ala the fall of the U.S.S.R.? Is China too undergoing capitalist roadism? Will it be liberal capitalist in the future? Or is it's particular brand of socialism somehow particularly everlasting and therefore revolutionary? How would you know unless it empirically collapsed before your very eyes? Why should anyone assume any socialism is revolutionary?

revisionist by the idea that the ur-myth, the state that fascist want to return to, is created as a historical point, both arbitrarily dated and made up.

for the rest, it's clear you're asking with the premise that i'm some Big Red Commie, and i'm not. i'm kind of baffled as to why you're this combative against aspirations that i don't actually have.

 

[Patine]

the ur-myth is different from religious motivation. i don't think of the westboro baptist church as fascist, for example. but - i don't know that group. so i'd say it depends on the details.

Nation of Islam is NOT motivated by genuine religious belief. That is a farce and cover to justify an extremist and hateful group, and the rhetoric of their speakers, and their actions and proclaimed ideals, are very transparent for what they are. And, for that matter, so is Westboro in a similar vain. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Quranic or Biblical Scipture (respectively) justifies or backs up the venomous polemics espoused by such groups.

(in that fascism is specifically a reaction to liberalism), american (or whatever other country it's tied to)

Is it reacting to liberalism? Or is it reacting to marxist bolshevism and then proclaiming liberalism as too weak to stop the spread of marxist ideas, and too decadent so as to induce an economic collapse which would enable marxists to seize power?

Liberalism, as well as Moderate Conservativism and Social Democracy, have long been the, "easy targets," and rhetorical, "punching bags," of extremist groups from both distant ends of the Political Spectrum. The, "Weimar Coalition," the parties in Interwar Germany that actually worked toward maintaining the ideal of an electoral Constiutional Democracy with Civil Rights and all - a system that came much later to Germany than it did to the United States, the United Kingdom and some of it's Dominions and France (barring the abortive Revolutions of 1848) was made up of the German Democratic Party - later renamed the German State Party (Liberal), the German People's Party (Moderate Conservative) - not to be confused with the Monarchial Restoriationist German National People's Party that threw in it's lot with the Nazis at the end, the Social Democratic Party of Germany, and the German Centre Party (pragmatic, weak on ideology, but representative of the large Catholic Minority). Both Ernst Thalmann of the Communist Party of Germany, and Adolf Hitler of the Nazis, while at each other's throats, and vewing each other as electoral archenemies, their militias openly clashing in the streets, BOTH condemned and attacked the Weimar Coalition as, "weak," "keeping the nation from advancing and regaining it's strength and power," and, "selling out to the Allies of the Great War," just paraphrasing each other. So, indeed, extremists, of all sorts, from both far ends of the Spectrum, very often target the moderate ideologies as weak, often resulting in chaos.

don't buy into triumph of the will imagery.

I don't, either. But what I refer to was moreso followers being knocked into line, ruthlessly, with dissent harshly punished (which the Night of Long Knives is an EXAMPLE of, not a COUNTER-EXAMPLE). It's nothing to be admired, it just stands in stark contrast to the chaos of Trumpism and the Alt-Right.

 

[Kyriakos]

Sparta, for a time, was the strongest state in Greece, not only due to lands formally in Λ country, but heavy influence on most of the Peloponnese (including Corinth, typically the richest greek polis due to colonization and control of the trade with the majority of Magna Graecia cities). The entire Peloponessian war started, according to Thucydides himself, when Athens seemed to be progressing towards a balance of power with Sparta, so the latter had to move to prevent it.
While comparing ethics/society in Sparta 2600-2300 years ago to anything today is rather ludicrous, it's also quite basic to argue it never was anything of note. Anyway, it used to be as art and thought-centered as the bulk of ancient greek states, before reforms which took it to another direction. It's not by chance that the 'seven sages' (a type of ancient greek 6th century BC list of prominent thinkers) included one from Sparta (among others of his quotes, you'll find the famous "to be laconic is to be philosophical"). To be even included in the same list as Thales, should come with some reverence.

The film, 300, is just for fun and presenting men with pleasant bodies. Neither of those, imo, are to be frowned upon, and they certainly weren't in ancient Greece either