Is Fascism Inevitable in the Future of the West?

[Torrocca]

More like it was appointed to power by a broken Republic built in a country where anti-Semitism had been the cultural norm for centuries.

What I'm saying is that if you grant government the power to go after Nazis, those granted powers will soon be used to go after Communists as well.

... Except I didn't say that.

[Purgatio]

Yes, no, and maybe so. It all depends on the context and situations/values that any certain "Western nation" currently holds. I could never see, say, an Ireland, Norway, or Iceland descending into authoritarianism and fascism - but there are also Western Nations such as Hungary, Poland and the US that are either going through democratic backsliding or are having the framework for this backsliding being set into place.

Edit: I'm referring more to authoritarianism and not actual fascism. Apart from wannabe fascists like Bolsonaro or Salvini, I really don't see a large trend towards full fascist governance anywhere in the west in the near future.

Non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority of the US in 2045. Whites in the UK will be a minority in 2066. You can argue all you want that this doesn't matter and race is only skin-deep and we are all God's children and all the other typical platitudes, but it won't change the fact that human beings are inherently tribalistic, we form communal connections and forge a group identity based on visible, stark and obvious distinguishing features, and the biggest of this phenotypical physical appearance, in the form of race. When massive demographic changes are foisted on societies ill-suited to handle them, the result is lack of social cohesion and a massive social backlash from the racial group that feels threatened, alienated and displaced in their own country. As long as these demographic changes continue, white support for fascist movements in these countries will increase until fascism becomes inevitably popular.

[Purgatio]

What I'm saying is that if you grant government the power to go after Nazis, those granted powers will soon be used to go after Communists as well.

... Except I didn't say that.

No, you just want to celebrate and endorse a group that has inflicted arbitrary, capricious and wildly-discretionary violence on any group it individually deems 'fascist'. If you give a government the arbitrary power to detain whoever they deem dangerous, don't be surprised when they detain perfectly innocent people. And in the same vein, when you give moral support to a non-State entity to punch, attack and throw Molotov cocktails at whoever they deem 'fascist', in their own personal judgment, don't be surprised when they start attacking harmless, innocent and defenceless individuals.

[Elletolis]

First they came for the Nazis and I did not speak up because I was not a Nazi.

Then a right wing government was elected which came for the Communists.

Whoops.

More like it was appointed to power by a broken Republic built in a country where anti-Semitism had been the cultural norm for centuries.

I'm not super knowledgeable about the topic, so correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the numerous armed uprisings by communist* following the abdication of the Kaiser what caused a reactionary sentiment in Germany that set it towards the right (and eventually Nazi-ism)? I mean, organized street violence tends to frighten people, and people tend to vote away from politics that they're afraid of.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremen_Soviet_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic

[Arkhane]

The day that there are no more political divides and extremes is the day that fascism wins. The west is the freeiest, most tolerant, accepting and mindful of human rights today compared to the previous centuries combined. The west is so non-fascist it has begun to entertain micro-political ideas in unprecedented levels to the point that it yielded a HUGE spectrum of branching political and social perspectives and opinion from the traditional ideologies to the most wackiest and craziest extreme.

Is it safe? Not really, for such a wide range of freedom will always carry the risk of two extremes clashing.

Is it Fascism? No. It's the opposite, because Fascism offers security, safety, comfort, quiet, automation, stability, order, convenience and many more that OP wishes to have in society today. Though I cannot fault OP for wanting those.

Fascism offers many things, but the one thing it will not offer is freedom.

[Torrocca]

... Except I didn't say that.

No, you just want to celebrate and endorse a group that has inflicted arbitrary, capricious and wildly-discretionary violence on any group it individually deems 'fascist'. If you give a government the arbitrary power to detain whoever they deem dangerous, don't be surprised when they detain perfectly innocent people. And in the same vein, when you give moral support to a non-State entity to punch, attack and throw Molotov cocktails at whoever they deem 'fascist', in their own personal judgment, don't be surprised when they start attacking harmless, innocent and defenceless individuals.

Better to have an Anti-Fascist punching a Fascist in the face than a Fascist breaking out the guns and pulling a Christchurch or somesuch other event.

More like it was appointed to power by a broken Republic built in a country where anti-Semitism had been the cultural norm for centuries.

I'm not super knowledgeable about the topic, so correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the numerous armed uprisings by communist* following the abdication of the Kaiser what caused a reactionary sentiment in Germany that set it towards the right (and eventually Nazi-ism)? I mean, organized street violence tends to frighten people, and people tend to vote away from politics that they're afraid of.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremen_Soviet_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic

They were one thing that helped to fuel reactionaryism, but by no means were they the only thing. The Jews were pretty much blamed for the get-go as backstabbers post-WWI.

[Purgatio]

No, you just want to celebrate and endorse a group that has inflicted arbitrary, capricious and wildly-discretionary violence on any group it individually deems 'fascist'. If you give a government the arbitrary power to detain whoever they deem dangerous, don't be surprised when they detain perfectly innocent people. And in the same vein, when you give moral support to a non-State entity to punch, attack and throw Molotov cocktails at whoever they deem 'fascist', in their own personal judgment, don't be surprised when they start attacking harmless, innocent and defenceless individuals.

Better to have an Anti-Fascist punching a Fascist in the face than a Fascist breaking out the guns and pulling a Christchurch or somesuch other event.

You know you can oppose both, right? That's how the rule of law works. Assault is bad. Assaulting a Nazi is bad. Assaulting a racial minority is bad. Assaulting an anti-fascist is bad. Assaulting people is bad. Why is this so difficult.

[Torrocca]

Better to have an Anti-Fascist punching a Fascist in the face than a Fascist breaking out the guns and pulling a Christchurch or somesuch other event.

You know you can oppose both, right? That's how the rule of law works. Assault is bad. Assaulting a Nazi is bad. Assaulting a racial minority is bad. Assaulting an anti-fascist is bad. Assaulting people is bad. Why is this so difficult.

I'd personally say punching a person because they believe other people should be genocided is much more morally correct than punching a person because they were born with a different color of skin than me. Legality be damned.

[Purgatio]

You know you can oppose both, right? That's how the rule of law works. Assault is bad. Assaulting a Nazi is bad. Assaulting a racial minority is bad. Assaulting an anti-fascist is bad. Assaulting people is bad. Why is this so difficult.

I'd personally say punching a person because they believe other people should be genocided is much more morally correct than punching a person because they were born with a different color of skin than me. Legality be damned.

This is a ridiculous 'thoughtcrime' approach to other human beings. Someone who holds Nazi beliefs doesn't deserve to be punched unless he actually inflicts violence on a racial minority and you're acting directly in defense of that victim. Otherwise you can't punch people for holding abstract, violent beliefs. I believe in the death penalty for murderers and rapists - can a rapist punch me in the face for holding 'violent' thoughts and supporting 'violent' policies? Marxists and Communists believe in violently seizing my family's property, assets and equities, am I entitled to punch them in the face for their violent beliefs against my family?

[Torrocca]

I'd personally say punching a person because they believe other people should be genocided is much more morally correct than punching a person because they were born with a different color of skin than me. Legality be damned.

This is a ridiculous 'thoughtcrime' approach to other human beings.

Fine by me. They always have the option to not be Nazis.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is a ridiculous 'thoughtcrime' approach to other human beings.

Fine by me. They always have the option to not be Nazis.

Okay, so let's do a thought experiment.

I say you are a fascist and I have the right to assault you. Go ahead and convince me otherwise.

[Torrocca]

Fine by me. They always have the option to not be Nazis.

Okay, so let's do a thought experiment.

I say you are a fascist and I have the right to assault you. Go ahead and convince me otherwise.

I'd say to prove it.

[Purgatio]

This is a ridiculous 'thoughtcrime' approach to other human beings.

Fine by me. They always have the option to not be Nazis.

So why stop there. If you think a Nazi just or simply thinking about genocide without committing it means he's lost the right to not be punched, why not mutilate him? Why not rape him? Murder him? After all, he's thinking about genocide, and genocide's worse than all those things. Has he lost all his legal rights in your eyes?

I noticed you didn't address my other examples btw.

[Ostroeuropa]

Okay, so let's do a thought experiment.

I say you are a fascist and I have the right to assault you. Go ahead and convince me otherwise.

I'd say to prove it.

In what sense and to what standard? By what process?

[Torrocca]

Fine by me. They always have the option to not be Nazis.

So why stop there. If you think a Nazi just or simply thinking about genocide without committing it means he's lost the right to not be punched, why not mutilate him? Why not rape him? Murder him? After all, he's thinking about genocide, and genocide's worse than all those things. Has he lost all his legal rights in your eyes?

I noticed you didn't address my other examples btw.

Ah, yes, lemme just stoop down to the Nazi's level and torture them instead. Good idea. Totally grand.

[Big Jim P]

This is a ridiculous 'thoughtcrime' approach to other human beings.

Fine by me. They always have the option to not be Nazis.

People also have the right to defend themselves against unprovoked attack. The kinds of attacks Antifa is prone to. Especially against mis-identified "fascists".

[Purgatio]

So why stop there. If you think a Nazi just or simply thinking about genocide without committing it means he's lost the right to not be punched, why not mutilate him? Why not rape him? Murder him? After all, he's thinking about genocide, and genocide's worse than all those things. Has he lost all his legal rights in your eyes?

I noticed you didn't address my other examples btw.

Ah, yes, lemme just stoop down to the Nazi's level and torture them instead. Good idea. Totally grand.

So you're able to understand that mutilating, raping and murdering Nazis is stooping to their level, but you don't think punching a Nazi who hasn't inflicted violence on anyone....isn't stooping to his level?

[Arkhane]

Okay, so let's do a thought experiment.

I say you are a fascist and I have the right to assault you. Go ahead and convince me otherwise.

I'd say to prove it.

What do you mean we have to prove ourselves? We're just following your motto "Fascism isn't discussed, it's destroyed!"

We believe you are a fascist and that is enough.

[Big Jim P]

Okay, so let's do a thought experiment.

I say you are a fascist and I have the right to assault you. Go ahead and convince me otherwise.

I'd say to prove it.

Too bad people are bashing fash with no evidence that they are fascists (let alone proof), other than they disagree with the anti-fascists.

[Ostroeuropa]

Fine by me. They always have the option to not be Nazis.

So why stop there. If you think a Nazi just or simply thinking about genocide without committing it means he's lost the right to not be punched, why not mutilate him? Why not rape him? Murder him? After all, he's thinking about genocide, and genocide's worse than all those things. Has he lost all his legal rights in your eyes?

I noticed you didn't address my other examples btw.

Much like the "Privilege+Power" folk have merely used ideological rationalizations and a threat narrative to justify being repulsive and abusive to whites and males, anti-fascists utilize a bogus theoretical framework to absolve themselves of responsibility not to be violent. It is about finding an excuse to indulge in an exhilarating and predatory behavior by finding a target where they can obfuscate that fact about their behavior.

They are, in personality terms, the same type of folk who would have joined the Nazis, or the Klan, and so on. It is less about politics and more about indulgence. The politics provides the means to excuse the indulgence. Given a socially acceptable excuse, they indulge. That's my evaluation anyway.

It is important to understand the anti-fascist.
It is not that they hate, but they are in love with their hate.

[Torrocca]

I'd say to prove it.

In what sense and to what standard? By what process?

By proving whether or not I subscribe to Fascist ideology. Should be simple enough, since you can quite easily find Neo-Nazis right out in the open when they're doing shit like political rallies at Charlottesville.

[Purgatio]

I'd say to prove it.

What do you mean we have to prove ourselves? We're just following your motto "Fascism isn't discussed, it's destroyed!"

We believe you are a fascist and that is enough.

Fuck the rule of law, right? Fuck due process. Let's turn to an anarchistic moral panic where an angry lynch mob of ANTIFA thugs can point the finger at anyone they want and punch them, no consequences, no accountability. Just unrestrained arbitrary violence.

[Torrocca]

I'd say to prove it.

What do you mean we have to prove ourselves? We're just following your motto "Fascism isn't discussed, it's destroyed!"

We believe you are a fascist and that is enough.

Nah, simple belief's not enough, shockingly.

[Genivaria]

I'd say to prove it.

In what sense and to what standard? By what process?

In the interests of defending Freedom of Conscience I support some aspects of fascist thought but I'd never tolerate outright genocide.

[Torrocca]

Ah, yes, lemme just stoop down to the Nazi's level and torture them instead. Good idea. Totally grand.

So you're able to understand that mutilating, raping and murdering Nazis is stooping to their level, but you don't think punching a Nazi who hasn't inflicted violence on anyone....isn't stooping to his level?

Morally speaking? Nah. I'm not the one aiming to genocide people for who they were born as.