Jump to content

What is fascism?


Ken Estes
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

Functionally speaking, the left seems to spend a lot more effect in legislating private lives over the past 20 or so years. 

Are you talking left wing/right wing fiscal legislation? Moral legislation? Religious legislation? If I am a Moslem American and I hear a call for America to be a Christian nation, I'm afraid I would see the right as legislating my private life. If I want to sit at home and toke a joint, I'm afraid I would see the right as legislating my private life. If I am gay and wish to marry my partner of 20 years, I'm afraid I would see the right as legislating my private life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

... while the extreme right demonizes and wants to disenfranchise the left and everyone else who questions the ideals of rugged individualism through the muzzle of a gun. ...

By this definition, Fascism is not Rightist, though- there's individualistic about Fascism, just the groupings that they collectivize people in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Government by all can be extremist. What differentiates extremist power from not extremism is Limits to the Power, either from the dictator or the majority.

Really? Examples please? Left and right extremist governments are most characterized by a small group who govern the majority, ostensibly in order to protect them from themselves, because they don't understand economics, or morality, or religion, or et cetera and need to be protected from the consequences of their ignorance, because, of course, those who govern are an elite who know better, be they of the far left or far right ilk.

Quote

And we want to be precise someone can be extremist and not be a danger: Amish for example, they don't force their believes in others.

Old Order Amish or Amish Mennonites? The two split because the Old Order was seen as an extreme...anyway, Amish is not a form of government, so you are presenting a shaky analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FALightFighter said:

By this definition, Fascism is not Rightist, though- there's individualistic about Fascism, just the groupings that they collectivize people in.

I didn't intend it as a definition, but as an example, part of the problem I think is the pigeon-holing, everything needs to fit in its neat, perfect round or square hole. The middle of the road, where I think most people actually live, is a confused mess rather than a well-defined and regimented bunch of left wing goons or right wing storm troopers. It is the extremism that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

I'm not trying to be argumentative either, but I don't think I need to give an example of something I never said? Left and right wing extremism are opposite sides of the same coin. They are more similar in fact, although the rhetoric they espouse sounds opposite. Both are intensely exclusionary...the extreme left demonizes and wants to disenfranchise the right and everyone else who questions the ideals of collectivist kumbaya , while the extreme right demonizes and wants to disenfranchise the left and everyone else who questions the ideals of rugged individualism through the muzzle of a gun. Neither thinks the "other" should be in governance and both treat the middle of the road as "sheeple" to be led "for their own good". Neither has a firm grasp on reality and both treat people as ideal abstracts to be manipulated, rather than as real - and often intensely flawed - persons.

The "difference" if it is one, is the extreme right directs its appeal to nationalism keying on a rose-colored-glasses view of the "way things were and should be again if we could only get rid of those lefties", while the extreme left directs its appeal to internationalism keying on a rose-colored-glasses view the "way things should be and would be if we could only get rid of those righties". Neither are all that firmly grounded in reality, but instead live in a fantasy world of the way things work.

Nor do I see how European, North American, South American, African, or Asian extreme right or left differ from that reality.

Post of the year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

I'm not trying to be argumentative either, but I don't think I need to give an example of something I never said?

As far as I could tell, you did not say regarding an example of right-wing extremism. I ask because my history of Europe, especially what Europeans consider "right-wing," is sketchy and incomplete at best. IIRC, your British?

Left and right wing extremism are opposite sides of the same coin.

In the U.S., I will respectfully disagree.

They are more similar in fact, although the rhetoric they espouse sounds opposite. Both are intensely exclusionary...the extreme left demonizes and wants to disenfranchise the right and everyone else who questions the ideals of collectivist kumbaya , while the extreme right demonizes and wants to disenfranchise the left and everyone else who questions the ideals of rugged individualism through the muzzle of a gun. Neither thinks the "other" should be in governance and both treat the middle of the road as "sheeple" to be led "for their own good". Neither has a firm grasp on reality and both treat people as ideal abstracts to be manipulated, rather than as real - and often intensely flawed - persons.

I can only accurately and honestly speak about U.S. right and left. From your paragraph above about the left "...demonizes and wants to disenfranchise...who questions the ideals of collectivist kumbaya." Yes this is true, and it is the left -- in the U.S. -- who uses legislation and, imo, the future use of "the muzzle of the gun"  via government, not the individual, to establish said kumbaya.

The lack of a "firm grasp on reality" is the left, as stated earlier regarding Marx and Communism, not the right. In the U.S. the right knows the dangers and lust for power of an all-encompassing government, hence the expression " The government that governs best governs best." The left lusts for this power to control others, while the right does not. 

It is the right, especially the Christian right, that knows that morality and goodness originate with and due to God, not government. This is the most important difference between right and left in the U.S. 

The "difference" if it is one, is the extreme right directs its appeal to nationalism keying on a rose-colored-glasses view of the "way things were and should be again if we could only get rid of those lefties", while the extreme left directs its appeal to internationalism keying on a rose-colored-glasses view the "way things should be and would be if we could only get rid of those righties". Neither are all that firmly grounded in reality, but instead live in a fantasy world of the way things work.

The fantasy world your describing is applicable to the left as they keep moving goal posts and changing word meanings to describe their kumbaya. In the U.S. Communism, Facsism, Nazis, all are describing the same thing; excessive, and as history as proven, deadly physical and immoral governmental control.

Nor do I see how European, North American, South American, African, or Asian extreme right or left differ from that reality.

I do. As stated in earlier posts, the beginning chapter of The Book of Revelation is now open. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but "rugged individualism" does not seem to me like anything not a Totalitarian, even Authoritarian, government, be it right or left wing, would want to tolerate. Especially with US-like gun rights. There are real-life examples galore, from Hitler's Germany, to Lenin's Russia, including Franco's Spain.

There is, of course, the trend to only allow guns to government's friends, in order to keep in check the Opposition.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick said:

As far as I could tell, you did not say regarding an example of right-wing extremism. I ask because my history of Europe, especially what Europeans consider "right-wing," is sketchy and incomplete at best. IIRC, your British?

Dude, if you think I'm British, then you are horribly confused. 😆 I strongly suspect I'm a lot more Yankee than you would think.

European "right-wing" currently include numerous right wing populist movements and historically included the Fascists, Nazis, and old-style absolute monarchies.

 

Quote

In the U.S., I will respectfully disagree.

Okay.

Quote

I can only accurately and honestly speak about U.S. right and left. From your paragraph above about the left "...demonizes and wants to disenfranchise...who questions the ideals of collectivist kumbaya." Yes this is true, and it is the left -- in the U.S. -- who uses legislation and, imo, the future use of "the muzzle of the gun"  via government, not the individual, to establish said kumbaya.

The lack of a "firm grasp on reality" is the left, as stated earlier regarding Marx and Communism, not the right. In the U.S. the right knows the dangers and lust for power of an all-encompassing government, hence the expression " The government that governs best governs best." The left lusts for this power to control others, while the right does not. 

Um, political power derived from the muzzle of the gun is no different if wielded by a left-wing collectivist or by a right-wing rugged individualist.

Quote

It is the right, especially the Christian right, that knows that morality and goodness originate with and due to God, not government. This is the most important difference between right and left in the U.S. 

The fantasy world your describing is applicable to the left as they keep moving goal posts and changing word meanings to describe their kumbaya. In the U.S. Communism, Facsism, Nazis, all are describing the same thing; excessive, and as history as proven, deadly physical and immoral governmental control.

I do. As stated in earlier posts, the beginning chapter of The Book of Revelation is now open. 

Sorry, but you lost me when you started confusing morality with religion and began preaching the wonders of True Belief (TM) over the Evuls of Government Control. Meanwhile, my 97-year old Mom is in a Savannah hospital, getting the best treatment her Tricare socialism can provide, so I'm afraid I'm going to go back to shaking my head - but not commenting - at the inability of extremists to see the extremes to which they so cheerfully go.

Have fun storming the Castle...or is it Capitol?; it is just so hard to keep track. I think the first is done by the Mindless Hordes of Workers Seduced by Communism, while the latter is done by the Mindless Hordes of Rugged Individualists Seduced by Libertarianism. You probably think differently, but I'm fine with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Are you talking left wing/right wing fiscal legislation? Moral legislation? Religious legislation? If I am a Moslem American and I hear a call for America to be a Christian nation, I'm afraid I would see the right as legislating my private life.

Life shows that legislation is a sledgehammer for the left and a claw hammer for the right. 

As a Muslim, your freedom to worship the Islamic religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment. This right is believed by the right, not so much by the left. 

If I want to sit at home and toke a joint, I'm afraid I would see the right as legislating my private life.

Genesis 1:29 B). Just my opinion, but I see no reason not to treat drugs the same as alcohol. 

If I am gay and wish to marry my partner of 20 years, I'm afraid I would see the right as legislating my private life.

The sin of homosexuality is not as gay -- using the traditional use of the word -- as the left would have you believe.  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman only. If you want to call a homosexual life together a civil union I would have no problem with that, but the two are not the same. 

For the U.S., fiscal legislation is mainly a sledgehammer for the left and a small claw hammer for the right. The First Amendment guar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Dude, if you think I'm British, then you are horribly confused. 😆 I strongly suspect I'm a lot more Yankee than you would think.

European "right-wing" currently include numerous right wing populist movements and historically included the Fascists, Nazis, and old-style absolute monarchies.

 

Okay.

Um, political power derived from the muzzle of the gun is no different if wielded by a left-wing collectivist or by a right-wing rugged individualist.

Sorry, but you lost me when you started confusing morality with religion and began preaching the wonders of True Belief (TM) over the Evuls of Government Control. Meanwhile, my 97-year old Mom is in a Savannah hospital, getting the best treatment her Tricare socialism can provide, so I'm afraid I'm going to go back to shaking my head - but not commenting - at the inability of extremists to see the extremes to which they so cheerfully go.

Have fun storming the Castle...or is it Capitol?; it is just so hard to keep track. I think the first is done by the Mindless Hordes of Workers Seduced by Communism, while the latter is done by the Mindless Hordes of Rugged Individualists Seduced by Libertarianism. You probably think differently, but I'm fine with that.

Let me try to combine your last two paragraphs of God vs government. One needs to ask does morality originate from God or government? Do you believe The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost is the high ground of morality or the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial is? I see the later, especially when controlled by the left, as the problem and not the former. 

The lack of morality was not always so. Most of the Founding Fathers were very much supporters of religious faith and education but staunch opponents to organized religion, having grown up in the aftermath of the European civil wars and inquisitions. 

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" President George Washington, September 17th, 1796

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." Noah Webster 

"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." President Thomas Jefferson 

"Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus." Thomas Jefferson, To William Canby, 1813 

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions ubridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams, address to the militia of Massachusetts, 1798. 

"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." President John Adams 

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine....Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court 

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.... the general principles of Christianity." President John Quincy Adams 

"a true American Patriot must be a religious man...He who neglects his duty to his maker, may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public" First Lady Abigail Adams 

"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests." President Andrew Jackson 

"The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion." Abraham Lincoln.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted form of illegitimate government." James Madison

The world has seen secular -- leftist --  government for many years in many places by many people: Marx and Engles, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, The Democratic Party, etc. A review of Western laws and thought show the Bible to be the major influence of these. The Bible is still the number one best seller year after year. Christianity is the one positive influence in every country of the world. People appreciate, love and revere the Bible, while secular-- leftist --  rulers fear it. 

In conclusion, my sincerest prayer that your Mother's recovery is quick and uneventful. 


 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

I'm not trying to be argumentative either, but I don't think I need to give an example of something I never said? Left and right wing extremism are opposite sides of the same coin. They are more similar in fact, although the rhetoric they espouse sounds opposite. Both are intensely exclusionary...the extreme left demonizes and wants to disenfranchise the right and everyone else who questions the ideals of collectivist kumbaya , while the extreme right demonizes and wants to disenfranchise the left and everyone else who questions the ideals of rugged individualism through the muzzle of a gun. Neither thinks the "other" should be in governance and both treat the middle of the road as "sheeple" to be led "for their own good". Neither has a firm grasp on reality and both treat people as ideal abstracts to be manipulated, rather than as real - and often intensely flawed - persons.

The "difference" if it is one, is the extreme right directs its appeal to nationalism keying on a rose-colored-glasses view of the "way things were and should be again if we could only get rid of those lefties", while the extreme left directs its appeal to internationalism keying on a rose-colored-glasses view the "way things should be and would be if we could only get rid of those righties". Neither are all that firmly grounded in reality, but instead live in a fantasy world of the way things work.

Nor do I see how European, North American, South American, African, or Asian extreme right or left differ from that reality.

Coercion is the problem , not the "exclusionary"

What you wrote also means the Left is much worse. You can't escape them in this planet. Maybe not even in others :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Have fun storming the Castle...or is it Capitol?; it is just so hard to keep track. I think the first is done by the Mindless Hordes of Workers Seduced by Communism, while the latter is done by the Mindless Hordes of Rugged Individualists Seduced by Libertarianism. You probably think differently, but I'm fine with that.

See that is your problem. Wanting to be free is not the same of wanting to impose your morality in others.

And the extent, degree of that. The more things you think should force other people to be part of,  the more coercion you need. Index of Coercion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Coercion is the problem , not the "exclusionary"

What you wrote also means the Left is much worse. You can't escape them in this planet. Maybe not even in others :)

I hope you don't think Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mussolini's Fascist Italy, Mao's Communist China, and et cetera did not equally coerce their exclusion?

Sure, but equally it seems impossible to escape the Right...this thread is case in point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

See that is your problem. Wanting to be free is not the same of wanting to impose your morality in others.

See, this is the real issue. I don't have a "problem" and neither do you. What you have is a belief system of government that is a product of many factors, experiences, and assumptions. And I have the same thing.

Nor do I want to impose my morality in others, any more than I want others to impose their morality on me. I try to operate from data, logic, and critical thinking, but like all humans my hind brain tends to short circuit things. My eyes tend to glaze over equally when lectured about morality, religion, and politics, mostly because for most they are faith-based belief systems - near data-less constructs - rather than reasoned thought. Understand, I have no problem with that, but it just isn't my cup of tea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

I hope you don't think Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mussolini's Fascist Italy, Mao's Communist China, and et cetera did not equally coerce their exclusion?

Sure, but equally it seems impossible to escape the Right...this thread is case in point.

I can't escape you. You want me to pay for your morals...  What i find fascinating is that the so called center does not realize it is extremist too in other directions: Global Warming- Green reset - lets forbid ICEs by 2030 , European "Integration", UN-World Government, etc, etc...

When we a arrive to society where the common is variable - a la carte -  and there is possibility of decreasing the intensity of Politics then we can talk about moderates and centrists.

We have more than 100 years of continuous increase in power of Politics in "free world" , so the free world is increasingly less free each year. We have a giant imbalance in last 50 years in political costs:

In 1970 in my country a vaccum cleaner price was bigger than a typical wage. Today is 1/10.

Instead getting a license to modify some house is now several times a median wage.

 

Once again this sea change was made by "centrists and moderates"

For example we don't have a field  "No Vote to Any of Candidates " in any election.

We also don't have any empty seats in Parliaments for those that abstain, or void their votes.

That means that so called Centrists and Moderates don't like to see their power curtailed by lack of quorum.

The No Politics is not recognized by the Politics. Starting with Moderates and Centrists.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Are you talking left wing/right wing fiscal legislation? Moral legislation? Religious legislation? If I am a Moslem American and I hear a call for America to be a Christian nation, I'm afraid I would see the right as legislating my private life. If I want to sit at home and toke a joint, I'm afraid I would see the right as legislating my private life. If I am gay and wish to marry my partner of 20 years, I'm afraid I would see the right as legislating my private life.

Absent laws that force conversion......what's the legal issue? 

There's plenty to observe that the DNC is quite happy to have various drug laws, alcohol limits and prohibitions on tobacco. 

As to marry gay partner of 20 years, that depends. Do you get to force your local church to do something they don't like or do you get to co-habitate and establish them as a legal partner under the law? The latter is where we're at now. The former is what the DNC is pushing hard. 

Also, the left has been pushing on the gay marriage thing without going through the proper channels. Establishing the right without underlying legal basis is the thing. We didn't grant women the right to vote by saying they were men, we granted them the right to vote by amending the constitution. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

 while the extreme right demonizes and wants to disenfranchise the left and everyone else who questions the ideals of rugged individualism through the muzzle of a gun.

Explain how this is manifesting please. Generally speaking the left is seeking to be SURE that someone who's individualistic is made to conform. 

Corporate culture is bending over backwards because the left WILL go nuts at them and so they cater to the woke left. The right is fine with letting folks do what they want to, they have for decades, centuries even. Witness the gay people NOT thrown in prison for decades let alone a century. 
 

Quote

The "difference" if it is one, is the extreme right directs its appeal to nationalism keying on a rose-colored-glasses view of the "way things were and should be again if we could only get rid of those lefties",

But is the right doing this? This doesn't match what a recent survey found. See also the cancel everyone conservative movement that's even reaching into media organizations and the like. 
 

 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion has no place here, it should go to the FFZ, as this is the historical forum and you are commenting on current events.

Just saying.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me insist on the notion that no dictatorship ever wanted all its subjects to be armed, thus the qualification of armed, rough individualists as extreme right is misleading at least. Unless by extreme right one means the most radical in defense of democracy, of course, and I do not see how that could be bad.

On the other hand, secular, classical liberal humanism has its share of genocides in history, from the Vendée massacres to the Cristero War.

Cristeroscolgados.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically speaking, there are certainly sea changes in society, most of which are however part of long-cycle developments. There are usually people who oppose change and want to stay things as (they think) they were - in modern parlance, right-wingers; and those who think change isn't fast and radical enough, AKA left-wingers - though those descriptors don't always fit current conceptions of political positions. Most people in the middle just go with the flow; they might embrace or shake their heads at certain novelties, but not feel strongly enough about the general direction of change to become political combatants for or against it.

Societies always change; it's in human nature to grow, evolve and seek progress. Not least, free thinking drives technological development, which drives social change; but people also think about what is good for the individual and what is good for the community as such. In 1783, the newly-founded United States were probably the most progressive system of government in the world. By today's standards, positions taken for granted then (slavery, women's rights, etc.) are out of the question. The overall development in the Western world has been towards more individual rights and freedoms since Enlightenment, but there have been ebbs and tides in the eternal flow between the competing aims of the common and the individual good.

Frequently yesterday's libertarians have become today's anti-libertarians as they try to push the evolution of their progressive ideas on others. The overall lose sexual mores of the pre-Victorian age, rampant STDs and all, were followed by general uptightness which slowly eroded until the societal upheaval of the younger revolution overthrowing conventions they saw as oppressive in he 1960s; by now there is a trend towards a new prudery, against porn and prostitution, for enforced conventions on sex, ironically pushed by the Left with traditional right-wing arguments: protect women! Protect the children!

Industrialization was initially met with sometimes violent resistance by those (rightfully) fearing a threat to their traditional livelihood, like the Sileasian weaver uprising in 1844; followed by almost unbridled belief in technological progress over the first half of the 20th century, after which a new scepticism about its impact on humanity and the planet emerged in the atomic age. And so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Let me insist on the notion that no dictatorship ever wanted all its subjects to be armed, thus the qualification of armed, rough individualists as extreme right is misleading at least. Unless by extreme right one means the most radical in defense of democracy, of course, and I do not see how that could be bad.

On the other hand, secular, classical liberal humanism has its share of genocides in history, from the Vendée massacres to the Cristero War.

Cristeroscolgados.jpg

Even more: as reservists, Swiss people are required to keep a rifle, military issue, with ammo at their homes. Is Switzerland a Fascist state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bugger. Now have to figure if I am a left wing or right wing fascist.

Can I be a non aligned anarchist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...