Would you accept the creation of a de-militarized fascist state?

[mrt144]

Meh, yet another Westerner who is ignorant of uncomfortable reality... to the point of ignoring parts of the post he would like judging by his bias stances.

That everyone sucks as much as Russia but we lie to ourselves about it? You're right.

 

[Ferocitus]

And Baltic republics remained racist through all the decades to these days. The closest to a Fascist state. And not militarized by itself, being occupied

My nephew went to Lithuania to visit my relatives about 5 years ago.
He has a longish beard and wore a long black coat, and a sort of Homberg-like hat, so
he looked vaguely goth, vaguely Jewish (although he isn't).
Several times while walking along train platforms in Vilnius and Kaunas, groups
of young men shouted out "Zhydas!" and gave nazi salutes. Very strange and
disturbing.

The standard of debate about the killing of Jews in Lithuania during WW2 tends
to centre on whether 94%, 95% or some other percentage were eliminated. The
immorality, or question of reparations, or atonement never arises. For some
reason they always manage to get the debate back to percentages, and that the
perpetrators have been wrongly accused of the atrocities because estimated
percentages are incorrect by 1% or 2%.

 

[Perfection]

Would you accept the bachelor hood of a married man?

Im sorry but asking me to contemplate a demilitararized fascist state is resulting in some serious does not computes

 

[EgonSpengler]

Those on the Right and those who describe themselves as moderate often insist that fascists are well within their rights to express their views under freedom of speech. But you know an oft-forgotten right that was established in the last century? The right to self-determination.

Currently, fascists, neo-Nazis and alt-righters feel persecuted by the larger community, so they might want to have their own safe space where they can be free to practice what they believe and be who they are without reservation - something like a Fascist Reservation, perhaps.

Now, of course, more liberal neighbours would understandably be leery of having a well-armed fascist state near them, so the denizens are allowed only to have whatever weapons they can legally own as personal property. Furthermore, lets assume the territory they have would be landlocked so there's no real need to have any meaningful foreign relations outside of the country that ceded territory to them (it might be easier to think of this country as the USA). People would need proper documentation to travel in and out of the territory, though. Of course, inside, they would essentially be self-governing and it would be difficult to police what goes on on a day-to-day basis (lynchings, outright discrimination, and what have you), but naturally those who do not want to be inside would be relocated before the establishment of the state.

So, as a freedom-loving person, would you accept the creation of such a state?

I wouldn't believe and/or trust fascists, so I guess in that sense I wouldn't accept it. I don't see American neo-fascists as having a "live and let live" ideology. If they did, the United States would already be close to their ideal country, and forming a collective of privately-owned land would be all they'd need. Here and there, you can actually buy whole towns - I think there was a small, decommissioned Army base for sale in Pennsylvania, for example - but their persecution complex would catch up with them. Any period of peace would crumble under the weight of their delusions sooner or later, even if it wasn't a deliberate ruse (and I wouldn't trust them any further than I can throw them). We've already heard them shouting "blood and soil." A peaceful coexistence simply isn't in their nature as a political entity.

 

[luiz]

North Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia are de-militarized...?

Are you bad at following hypotheticals?

Sorry I missed your reply.
No, I got your hypothetical. My point was that something worse than you describe already exists - highly militarized and sovereign fascist states. So if a bunch of fascists managed to form a de-militarized state by free association, my reaction would be "meh". Of course, I would not give up one inch of my own country for fascists to form their own state. But then again, I wouldn't give it up for commies, libertarians, or anyone else either.

 

[FriendlyFire]

In Russia, National socialism is the best form of socialism

 

[warpus]

So, as a freedom-loving person, would you accept the creation of such a state?

No, because eventually America would probably invade and bring us freedom.

Since we won't have a military, they will probably be very tempted to.

 

[red_elk]

America doesn't invade Canada not because Canada has army - they just don't realize you are actually a separate country.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

In Russia, National socialism is the best form of socialism

Did you know many of them were/are sponsored by the Western money? Like through politized non-profit organizations (now closely watched by the government to prevent such things) or like paid directly by the so honest Western journalists (e.g., the well-known Tesak, who is jailed right now once again)?

Let's have a deal. For each neo-Nazi/ultra-right you find in the Russian authorities, I pay you $10. And for each neo-Nazi/ultra-right I find in the Ukrainian or Baltic authorities, you pay me $10.

If you find a Russian analogue of Azov Battalion, I pay you $100, but if not you pay me $200.

We'll take a period of the last three years for both, to include those, who already retired or deceased.

Any blah-blah-blah or being mute as an answer on this post or denying the deal is considered 1) failing to be truthful and reliable, 2) being biased about Russia and being protective of pro-NATO neo-Nazis.

 

[aelf]

Would you accept the bachelor hood of a married man?

Im sorry but asking me to contemplate a demilitararized fascist state is resulting in some serious does not computes

I wouldn't believe and/or trust fascists, so I guess in that sense I wouldn't accept it. I don't see American neo-fascists as having a "live and let live" ideology. If they did, the United States would already be close to their ideal country, and forming a collective of privately-owned land would be all they'd need. Here and there, you can actually buy whole towns - I think there was a small, decommissioned Army base for sale in Pennsylvania, for example - but their persecution complex would catch up with them. Any period of peace would crumble under the weight of their delusions sooner or later, even if it wasn't a deliberate ruse (and I wouldn't trust them any further than I can throw them). We've already heard them shouting "blood and soil." A peaceful coexistence simply isn't in their nature as a political entity.

Indeed. But assuming one believes that fascists have the right to express violent ideas, surely one would think that it's better to contain the problem by allowing them to express and practice their ideology in a separate space safely (for everyone else, that is). Unless one is under a strange delusion that fascists will forever stick to non-violent means of expressing their violent ideology. And even if one believes that, surely a champion of freedom can't deny a group of people the right to self-determination.

I guess I'm trying to see if there is a realistic and coherent moderate stance on this. Or are moderates simply blowing hot air about freedom to make themselves feel good?

Sorry I missed your reply.
No, I got your hypothetical. My point was that something worse than you describe already exists - highly militarized and sovereign fascist states.

It's really not about trying to imagine the worst state possible.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Indeed. But assuming one believes that fascists have the right to express violent ideas, surely one would think that it's better to contain the problem by allowing them to express and practice their ideology in a separate space safely (for everyone else, that is). Unless one is under a strange delusion that fascists will forever stick to non-violent means of expressing their violent ideology. And even if one believes that, surely a champion of freedom can't deny a group of people the right to self-determination.

I guess I'm trying to see if there is a realistic and coherent moderate stance on this. Or are moderates simply blowing hot air about freedom to make themselves feel good?

I'm not sure neo-fascists are strict isolationists, but I don't think strict isolationism is viable anyway, so it's a moot point. How self-sufficient are the Amish, I wonder? Another moot point, because I don't think neo-fascists want to be Amish, I bet they want their Korean televisions and German beer and "American-made" trucks that are half Canadian, just like the rest of us. I don't think neo-fascism is a realistic or coherent ideology, I think it's petulant and harebrained, so giving them a place where they can try to have their cake and eat it too is never going to be realistic or coherent. If fascism were merely petulant and harebrained, I'd say "whatever blows your skirt up", but unfortunately it's also aggressive.

Freedoms of expression and self-determination both have pragmatic limits.

 

[Lexicus]

I guess I'm trying to see if there is a realistic and coherent moderate stance on this. Or are moderates simply blowing hot air about freedom to make themselves feel good?

I think a better thought exercise is to ask at what point violence becomes acceptable in response to the activities of fascists. Is it when they've killed one person? When they've killed a hundred thousand? A million?

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think a better thought exercise is to ask at what point violence becomes acceptable in response to the activities of fascists. Is it when they've killed one person? When they've killed a hundred thousand? A million?

I agree. Fascism is one of the reasons I think pacifism wouldn't work as a political ideology. That said, I also think the responsible use of violence includes self-limiters. For example, I'm in favor of having police authorized to use force, but only with proper training, oversight and accountability, and I'm firmly against the death penalty.

 

[luiz]

I think a better thought exercise is to ask at what point violence becomes acceptable in response to the activities of fascists. Is it when they've killed one person? When they've killed a hundred thousand? A million?

You could replace that with Islamism, anarchism, communism, or any other ideology that has gotten violent over the years. What's so special about fascism? It certainly isn't the most dangerous ideology we're facing nowadays, unless you consider Islamism a form of fascism (Islamists just killed 15 civilians in Barcelona and 2 in Finland, but CFC prefers to obsess about the imminent fascist take over of the world).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

North Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia are de-militarized...?

Are you bad at following hypotheticals?

In this case, it's hard to imagine what the alleged hypothetical actually looks like in practice or even functions as a state day to day.

 

[Lexicus]

You could replace that with Islamism, anarchism, communism, or any other ideology that has gotten violent over the years. What's so special about fascism? It certainly isn't the most dangerous ideology we're facing nowadays, unless you consider Islamism a form of fascism (Islamists just killed 15 civilians in Barcelona, but CFC prefers to obsess about the imminent fascist take over of the world).

I disagree. Fascism is far more dangerous to the West than Islamism has ever dreamed of being.

 

[luiz]

I disagree. Fascism is far more dangerous to the West than Islamism has ever dreamed of being.

The death toll of the last couple decades strongly disagrees with you there.
And note that Islamism is a yet far bigger threat to the Middle East and Africa, where it is conducting real, Nazi-like genocides. How you think that is a lesser threat than a few dozen losers wielding tiki torches is beyond me.

 

[Lexicus]

The death toll of the last couple decades strongly disagrees with you there.

Well, that's just it- Islamists might kill me (the chances are exceedingly low, and in fact living in the US I have a higher chance of being killed by extremists I'll go ahead and lump under "fascist" because it's the same thing you're doing with the "Islamists"). Fascism seems to be a sort of inherent strain of modern Western culture, and I'm much more afraid of waking up one day in a fascist state than in an Islamist one - perhaps that's not true for you, though as @Ajidica has pointed out since you evidently believe that throwing a roll of tape at someone qualifies as "fascism" it's not surprising that you would scoff at the threat to, quite literally, everything worthwhile posed by fascists and fascism.

And note that Islamism is a yet far bigger threat to the Middle East and Africa, where it is conducting real, Nazi-like genocides. How you think that is a lesser threat than a few dozen losers wielding tiki torches is beyond me.

This is more to the point, and I entirely agree with you (except insofar as the current fascist threat to the West of course cannot be dismissed as "a few dozen losers wielding tiki torches - which, incidentally, are far more dangerous weapons than "real" torches since they're full of oil), but it seems to me that "outside the West" is precisely where the concept "Islamism" starts to become a counterproductive conceptual simplification rather than a useful shortcut.

 

[Красный Комиссар]

The fascist state will never be demilitarized. Otherwise it's just a bunch of cosplayers.

But for those wishing to see the fascist state live - I recommend to visit Ukraine. You are not in danger here, positive discrimination exists for the residents of the West.

Have you seen when the realties of minors with tauirovki in the form of swastikas, emblems of SS divisions? I have seen. And I think that they need to be kept in a cage, rather than creating separate states for them.

 

[Bootstoots]

I support this idea, and suggest the French be persuaded to give up the Kerguelen Islands, which will become the new fascist homeland.

Here's a description of the climate/geography. It is perfect for being marginally habitable with extreme winds, constant cloud cover with cold rain mixed with snow, and temps averaging just above freezing all year round. They are large relative to other uninhabited islands, and very, very far away from anything remotely important. They also have rugged topography with lots of mountains and a little central ice sheet, while supplies last.

A new race of Nordic ubermensch can develop based on who adapts well here, in true Social Darwinist fashion. And it will get somewhat more habitable as things continue to warm. Not much more habitable, but maybe just enough to graze sheep or something.