Is Fascism Inevitable in the Future of the West?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The far right needs a revival, but not in the form of fascism. People have seen what fascism has done, therefore they will not repeat their actions in the same exact way, only slightly different.

I mean, variants such as Strasserism and National Syndicalism do still exist, and in the US, the right-libertarians are also a thing.

I reject the label of "far-right" as we are usually not what people think of when the term "far-right" is used, except in cases where a Hoppean ancap goes off the rails. It would put us all in the same category as deplorable neo-Nazis.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Okay, social leftist.

That comment seems to convey ignorance of my political positions, and what leftist politics is.

[Purgatio]

as human beings, we naturally identify with people who look like us, have stronger blood and genetic ties with us, that's how we draw our sense of identity, belonging and communal association. Rather than try and go against human nature, we should be preventing the racial demographic changes which result in this type of inevitable social backlash.

I identify more with liberals* of other races than I do with white conservatives. Even if you're the same race as me, the fact that you're even making this statement proves I have less in common with you than with pretty much any racial minority.

*In the American sense of the word.

Well I'm not the same race as you, and the fact that I think human beings are racial and tribal in nature does not mean I deny the existence of other means of identification. Yes, obviously you'd identify with people who think like you, I don't deny that. But on top of that, appearance, phenotype, blood and genes form an indelible bond with others that is built into our way of thinking and how we view the world. Why do so many people in America demonise Hispanic immigrants and don't seem to care very much about white immigrants into the US who are just as capable of stealing their jobs? Why do we have people in the UK like Tommy Robinson demonising South Asian and Arab Muslims for terrorism when there are white criminals in the UK too? Because, we naturally identify with communities that look like us, appear like us, share similar physical traits that distinguish us from other races and peoples. Again, this isn't my own personal opinion, its vindicated by how people across Europe are acting right now in response to massive demographic changes, as well as Putnam's famous 'hunkering down' thesis in relation to multi-racial societies.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

(e.g. threatening violence when an unbeliever draws Muhammad)

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/78/141

Fair enough. That doesn't change the fact that Muslims constantly threaten to, and do, kill people who depict Muhammad. Even if they are advised to be slow to anger- and this is a good thing -they aren't. En masse. We're talking entire populations: just ask Asia Bibi after she cracked a joke about Muhammad while giving a Muslim a cup of water.

(like a "right" to wear a beard that neither the Qu'ran nor Hadiths explicitly require)

https://sunnah.com/urn/629840

I stand corrected on this specific issue. Thank you for pointing it out. Is this the Bukhari Hadith? I was under the impression that the only Hadith uniformly agreed as authentic was the Bukhari Hadith.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I mean, variants such as Strasserism and National Syndicalism do still exist, and in the US, the right-libertarians are also a thing.

I reject the label of "far-right" as we are usually not what people think of when the term "far-right" is used, except in cases where a Hoppean ancap goes off the rails. It would put us all in the same category as deplorable neo-Nazis.

Most right-libertarians are actually relatively tame (i.e. mostly minarchists) unlike what AnCap memes suggest.

If anything, they’re also relatively socially progressive, albeit in a "You Do You" angle.

[Torrocca]

Fascism is völkisch, but that doesn't make it socialist. And really, you think social change away from the gentry means socialism? You understand that capitalism is not a synonym for feudalism, don't you?

---

Was the First Amendment repealed with my noticing? That anti-fascists might mistake you for a fascist doesn't mean you don't have free speech. Someone might mistake you for a Muslim and throw you in front of a train(as happened to a Sikh man), that doesn't mean you don't have freedom of religion.

What?

I'm sure you would not support Richard Spencer, I didn't say that you do. I just said that if he took power in America then you really wouldn't have free speech, the right would cease to exist in law, you would be facing not individual violence, but state suppression, the danger would not be getting harassed or punched, it would be getting disappeared, Nacht und Nebel.

I am not saying anything about you here. I am not saying anything about the right in general, not about conservatives. I'm just contrasting fascists and anti-fascists. Try not to get triggered.

I think I misread one word in the last sentence of your other post, and thus thought it was a jab at me. I didn't get pissed about you explaining differences. Not that I support these antifa folks anyway. They still unjustifiably suppress free speech of non-fascists in some cases, and fascists being worse while in power still does not change that. I'm not comparing you to fascists after all.

Good thing your beloved Constitution only prevents the government from suppressing speech, then.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I think I misread one word in the last sentence of your other post, and thus thought it was a jab at me. I didn't get pissed about you explaining differences. Not that I support these antifa folks anyway. They still unjustifiably suppress free speech of non-fascists in some cases, and fascists being worse while in power still does not change that. I'm not comparing you to fascists after all.

Good thing your beloved Constitution only prevents the government from suppressing speech, then.

Good thing the criminal code covers assault, no matter who does it.

[Torrocca]

Good thing your beloved Constitution only prevents the government from suppressing speech, then.

Good thing the criminal code covers assault, no matter who does it.

TIL'd assault = a government-sanctioned violation of the first amendment

Hmmmm

Also, it'd be battery, not assault.

[Ifreann]

What I was saying is that it is unnecessarily restricting free speech of non-fascists. And I have limited free speech apparently, because if I even carry a national symbol and unfortunately encounter these terrorists, I would be suppressed. Thanks for proving you don't care about free speech when it is your compatriots suppressing it. Also, the idea that I would support - or not mind - Richard Spencer abolishing free speech is moronic at best. Just because I don't support your groups hooliganism does not mean I have sympathies for Richard Spencer, not that he will gain power anyway.

Don't even bother. He/she/xir isn't here for any actual debate; just to snipe and claim victory before the first verbal punch is thrown, and flee the moment its claims are challenged. It will argue semantics while ignoring all historical record, then turn around and claim that any statement even attributed to someone reportedly connected to a fringe internet forum that's been accused of supporting the Nazis means that anyone who ever scrolled past that forum on Google must be Hitler.

These are all common tactics of the armchair totalitarian moralist.

As I have said, you can refer to me as "he" or "him", as grammatically appropriate. If remembering those pronouns is too difficult for you, I have them in my sig below all of my posts. If taking note of that is too difficult for you, you can just use my username. I know it can be a challenge for anglophones to spell from memory, it not being an English word, but it's beside all of my posts and appears in the quote tag when you quote me, and adding an f or dropping an n will still be intelligible.

---

Don't even bother. He/she/xir isn't here for any actual debate; just to snipe and claim victory before the first verbal punch is thrown, and flee the moment its claims are challenged. It will argue semantics while ignoring all historical record, then turn around and claim that any statement even attributed to someone reportedly connected to a fringe internet forum that's been accused of supporting the Nazis means that anyone who ever scrolled past that forum on Google must be Hitler.

These are all common tactics of the armchair totalitarian moralist.

'xir'. Ho ho very droll. I shall use this ironically in such situations.

I'd advise against it, deliberately misgendering posters is against the rules. Trolls were insisting on calling trans women "him" or trans men "her", got very tiresome.

---

I haven't seen a single person who unironically told people to call them "xi/xir," ever.

You mean xi/xir is an actual thing? Sweet suffering Jesus. Well, just another day in 2019 I suppose. I hope the Mullahs put us out of our misery soon and nuke us.

Fascism was started by people who hated the progress that liberalism and Marxism brought. Also, they used socialism in a very different way than what it means and were often attacked by actual socialists. Then, they killed the socialists. The socialists won against the fascists at the time.

But it was still socialism. It belongs in that collectivist camp. It has nothing to do with traditionalism and conservatism.

Have you ever heard of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, the Institute for Sexual Science? It was a private research clinic in Weimar Germany. As I understand it the Weimar republic had the same sorts of laws against homosexuality that most places back then, but they also tended to have lots of other things to worry about and basically left the gays alone. This institute pioneered modern understandings of gender and sexuality, the director coined the term "transsexualism" and they performed the first modern gender reassignment surgeries, which made it absolutely radical in the 1930s.

That's their research papers being burned by the Nazis, along with other "un-German" materials. Of course, Hitler held on to the member lists. I'm sure you can guess why.

The book-burnings and killings? You can certainly say that that's not conservative or traditionalist. But the opposition to acceptance of LGBT people, to the promotion of contraception and women's emancipation? That sure as shit isn't progressive or liberal. Conservatives are still at that today.

---

Fascism is völkisch, but that doesn't make it socialist. And really, you think social change away from the gentry means socialism? You understand that capitalism is not a synonym for feudalism, don't you?

---

Was the First Amendment repealed with my noticing? That anti-fascists might mistake you for a fascist doesn't mean you don't have free speech. Someone might mistake you for a Muslim and throw you in front of a train(as happened to a Sikh man), that doesn't mean you don't have freedom of religion.

What?

I'm sure you would not support Richard Spencer, I didn't say that you do. I just said that if he took power in America then you really wouldn't have free speech, the right would cease to exist in law, you would be facing not individual violence, but state suppression, the danger would not be getting harassed or punched, it would be getting disappeared, Nacht und Nebel.

I am not saying anything about you here. I am not saying anything about the right in general, not about conservatives. I'm just contrasting fascists and anti-fascists. Try not to get triggered.

I agree with you about Richard Spencer, but what I don't see how is how Spencer theoretically suppressing free speech where he and the NPI folks in power is a point of contrast with anti-fascists. Anti-fascists are not in favour of free speech in any sense of the word. Throwing Molotov cocktails, smashing windows and destroying cars as an act of violent protest, not to mention punching people you disagree with on the street, is a clear attempt to make the people who express views you dislike feel unsafe in public spaces. That's not supporting free speech in any sense of the word.

It's supporting free speech in that keeping Nazis out of power by thwarting them when they try to recruit and promote themselves and organise, even if that means punching some of them, will keep Nazis from eliminating free speech entirely. Kinda like preserving life by shooting someone dead.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

TIL'd assault = a government-sanctioned violation of the first amendment

I remember admitting that the two are not on par. I can still be against hooliganism while admitting that.

[Torrocca]

TIL'd assault = a government-sanctioned violation of the first amendment

I remember admitting that the two are not on par. I can still be against hooliganism while admitting that.

>TFW being against Fascism = hooliganism

[Ostroeuropa]

I remember admitting that the two are not on par. I can still be against hooliganism while admitting that.

>TFW being against Fascism = hooliganism

To whom do we appeal a decision to enforce violence against someone because they are a fascist?

What process is there to ensure justified use of violence?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I remember admitting that the two are not on par. I can still be against hooliganism while admitting that.

>TFW being against Fascism = hooliganism

I said Antifa attacking non-fascists was hooliganism. I even cited some sources of this happening in a previous post. Unsurprisingly, hooligans don't always distinguish groups of people they don't like or view as current enemies.

[Purgatio]

I agree with you about Richard Spencer, but what I don't see how is how Spencer theoretically suppressing free speech where he and the NPI folks in power is a point of contrast with anti-fascists. Anti-fascists are not in favour of free speech in any sense of the word. Throwing Molotov cocktails, smashing windows and destroying cars as an act of violent protest, not to mention punching people you disagree with on the street, is a clear attempt to make the people who express views you dislike feel unsafe in public spaces. That's not supporting free speech in any sense of the word.

It's supporting free speech in that keeping Nazis out of power by thwarting them when they try to recruit and promote themselves and organise, even if that means punching some of them, will keep Nazis from eliminating free speech entirely. Kinda like preserving life by shooting someone dead.

This is overkill in the extreme. You expect me to believe that unless ANTIFA punches Nazis, smashes windows, cuts tyres and throws Molotov cocktails in Berkeley, Nazis are gonna take power in the US and start rounding up Muslims and Hispanics into concentration camps and the only way to save their lives is by going around inflicting violence on people you disagree with? Yeah, no, sorry, talk about using an anvil to smash an M & M.

[North German Realm]

It's supporting free speech in that keeping Nazis out of power by thwarting them when they try to recruit and promote themselves and organise, even if that means punching some of them, will keep Nazis from eliminating free speech entirely. Kinda like preserving life by shooting someone dead.

This is overkill in the extreme. You expect me to believe that unless ANTIFA punches Nazis, smashes windows, cuts tyres and throws Molotov cocktails in Berkeley, Nazis are gonna take power in the US and start rounding up Muslims and Hispanics into concentration camps and the only way to save their lives is by going around inflicting violence on people you disagree with? Yeah, no, sorry, talk about using an anvil to smash an M & M.

I mean, the best option would be what Germany used to do: Hunt them down and arrest them for being against the common good, but when the state can't get its shit together, the people must.

[Purgatio]

>TFW being against Fascism = hooliganism

To whom do we appeal a decision to enforce violence against someone because they are a fascist?

What process is there to ensure justified use of violence?

Agreed 100%, the point of the rule of law is to lay down generally-applicable and certain rules, to provide protection and stability in human relations. We have laws against assault and battery which are generally-applicable to everyone, and individuals don't have a right to self-judge for themselves who should be protected from assault and who shouldn't. Everyone has a different opinion on who 'deserves' to be punched and who doesn't, the entire rule of law would be undermined the moment we start giving individuals the right to be above the law and 'self-judge' on matters like this.

[Purgatio]

This is overkill in the extreme. You expect me to believe that unless ANTIFA punches Nazis, smashes windows, cuts tyres and throws Molotov cocktails in Berkeley, Nazis are gonna take power in the US and start rounding up Muslims and Hispanics into concentration camps and the only way to save their lives is by going around inflicting violence on people you disagree with? Yeah, no, sorry, talk about using an anvil to smash an M & M.

I mean, the best option would be what Germany used to do: Hunt them down and arrest them for being against the common good, but when the state can't get its shit together, the people must.

When you speak of arresting people for being against the common good, do you mean ANTIFA, neo-Nazis or Muslims and Hispanics? Sorry in context in response to what I wrote its just ambiguous which of the three categories ur referring to, and I don't wanna make a wrong assumption.

[Torrocca]

>TFW being against Fascism = hooliganism

I said Antifa attacking non-fascists was hooliganism. I even cited some sources of this happening in a previous post. Unsurprisingly, hooligans don't always distinguish groups of people they don't like or view as current enemies.

Okay, sure, I agree there. They shouldn't attack non-Fascists.

[North German Realm]

I mean, the best option would be what Germany used to do: Hunt them down and arrest them for being against the common good, but when the state can't get its shit together, the people must.

When you speak of arresting people for being against the common good, do you mean ANTIFA, neo-Nazis or Muslims and Hispanics? Sorry in context in response to what I wrote its just ambiguous which of the three categories ur referring to, and I don't wanna make a wrong assumption.

I meant fascists
Man why do I keep writing shit that can be misinterpreted

[Purgatio]

I said Antifa attacking non-fascists was hooliganism. I even cited some sources of this happening in a previous post. Unsurprisingly, hooligans don't always distinguish groups of people they don't like or view as current enemies.

Okay, sure, I agree there. They shouldn't attack non-Fascists.

Or fascists. They shouldn't be attacking anyone. We have a centralised justice system for a reason.

[North German Realm]

Okay, sure, I agree there. They shouldn't attack non-Fascists.

Or fascists. They shouldn't be attacking anyone. We have a centralised justice system for a reason.

... A centralized justice system that specifically guards fascists while they're waving tiki torches and shouting slurs against every single minority in the country while attacking non-fascist protests. Yeah I'm not gonna leave that to the centralized justice system.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

>TFW being against Fascism = hooliganism

To whom do we appeal a decision to enforce violence against someone because they are a fascist?

What process is there to ensure justified use of violence?

There isn't any. That's why reporters have been harassed, and why a liberal was attacked over carrying an American flag, on American soil.

[Purgatio]

When you speak of arresting people for being against the common good, do you mean ANTIFA, neo-Nazis or Muslims and Hispanics? Sorry in context in response to what I wrote its just ambiguous which of the three categories ur referring to, and I don't wanna make a wrong assumption.

I meant fascists
Man why do I keep writing shit that can be misinterpreted

Haha its fine, the point of a forum is to write quickly and often in shorthand, it makes sense. And in response, I should say that the argument 'if the State doesn't do it people need to organise and do it' is very dangerous from a rule of law perspective, we have a State and a justice system so that we can impose generally-applicable rules, regulations, rights and obligations, to provide stability and predictability in our relations with one another. That whole ordered system is undermined if individuals start deciding they have the right to decide for themselves which people have the protection of the law and which persons don't.

[First American Empire]

It's supporting free speech in that keeping Nazis out of power by thwarting them when they try to recruit and promote themselves and organise, even if that means punching some of them, will keep Nazis from eliminating free speech entirely. Kinda like preserving life by shooting someone dead.

This is overkill in the extreme. You expect me to believe that unless ANTIFA punches Nazis, smashes windows, cuts tyres and throws Molotov cocktails in Berkeley, Nazis are gonna take power in the US and start rounding up Muslims and Hispanics into concentration camps and the only way to save their lives is by going around inflicting violence on people you disagree with? Yeah, no, sorry, talk about using an anvil to smash an M & M.

You literally have a Fasces on your flag. Why should we trust anything you have to say on how to oppose Fascism?

[Torrocca]

Okay, sure, I agree there. They shouldn't attack non-Fascists.

Or fascists. They shouldn't be attacking anyone. We have a centralised justice system for a reason.

Not everything that's morally correct is legally correct. As it is, the justice system (at least in America) does nothing to prevent the rise of Fascism and its shittier offspring, like Neo-Nazism.