Is Fascism Inevitable in the Future of the West?

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Some of the discourse is very accurate. Carl Schmidt and his observations on the nature of capital P Politics are very eye opening.
(That Politics is nothing more than the designation of in-groups and out-groups.).

The reason the west is in such a clusterfuck is that our neoliberal elite have the same Politics and merely disagree on politics. (inane minutia.).

[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.

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.

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

Exactly, the people in ANTIFA are actually striking similar to the neo-Nazis they love to hate so much, at least in terms of worldview and ideology. ANTIFA and neo-Nazis display the same hatred of the rule of law, the same hatred of due process and accountability, the same disdain for centralised institutions and the State's monopoly of power subject to legal checks and balances and transparent law-making, and they share their opponent's love of arbitrary and capricious violence, and the right to label your opponents and randomly decide who is your enemy and what punishment they should receive, no questions asked. The only difference is one labels their enemies 'Jewish Marxists' and the other labels their enemies 'fascists' but their fatalistic and violent approach to the rest of the world is exactly the same.

[Arkhane]

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.

Tell that to ANTIFA then.

[Big Jim P]

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.

Only if the violence is directed at you. If some other innocent is believed to be a fascist, then bash away, right?

[Torrocca]

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.

>"The people who oppose genocide and authoritarianism and ethno-supremacism would join the genocidal, authoritarian, entho-supremacists!!1!"

Good fucking God lmao, your shitty takes are getting hotter and hotter.

Nah, simple belief's not enough, shockingly.

Tell that to ANTIFA then.

... You do realize I've already argued against them attacking non-Fascists in this very thread, correct?

[Purgatio]

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.

You are inflicting violence on someone who's inflicted violence on no one. All he has are abstract thoughts in his head. Don't get me wrong, if a Nazi inflicts violence or tries to inflict violence on a minority, go ahead and stop him with violence. That's self-defense and private defense of others. But punching someone for thinking 'violent thoughts' or supporting 'violent ideologies' is ridiculous. Again, Marxists and Communists want to violently seize my family's estate and coercively grab my parents' equities and assets. Am I justified in punching them in the face for the 'thoughtcrime' of thinking and supporting violent policies? Am I defending my family and parents when I do so? No, I'm inflicting unprovoked violence on peaceful people whose only fault is 'thinking violent thoughts' in abstract without hurting anyone.

[Torrocca]

Nah, simple belief's not enough, shockingly.

Only if the violence is directed at you. If some other innocent is believed to be a fascist, then bash away, right?

Nope, actually. Shockingly enough, I'm talking about actual Fascists and actual Neo-Nazis and the like, not Joe Schmoe waving an American flag on the streets shouting some patriotic slogans or whoever.

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

You are inflicting violence on someone who's inflicted violence on no one. All he has are abstract thoughts in his head. Don't get me wrong, if a Nazi inflicts violence or tries to inflict violence on a minority, go ahead and stop him with violence. That's self-defense and private defense of others. But punching someone for thinking 'violent thoughts' or supporting 'violent ideologies' is ridiculous. Again, Marxists and Communists want to violently seize my family's estate and coercively grab my parents' equities and assets. Am I justified in punching them in the face for the 'thoughtcrime' of thinking and supporting violent policies? Am I defending my family and parents when I do so? No, I'm inflicting unprovoked violence on peaceful people whose only fault is 'thinking violent thoughts' in abstract without hurting anyone.

Yeah, nah. I'm not gonna wait until after somebody attempts Holocaust 2.0 (or, much more simply, a hate-charged murder against some sort of minority) to take action.

[Genivaria]

I remember I saw an article shortly after the Charlottesville tiki party where a man was assaulted with a razor blade while trying to get in his car, because someone mistook him for a neo-nazi because he was bald.

[Purgatio]

Only if the violence is directed at you. If some other innocent is believed to be a fascist, then bash away, right?

Nope, actually. Shockingly enough, I'm talking about actual Fascists and actual Neo-Nazis and the like, not Joe Schmoe waving an American flag on the streets shouting some patriotic slogans or whoever.

You are inflicting violence on someone who's inflicted violence on no one. All he has are abstract thoughts in his head. Don't get me wrong, if a Nazi inflicts violence or tries to inflict violence on a minority, go ahead and stop him with violence. That's self-defense and private defense of others. But punching someone for thinking 'violent thoughts' or supporting 'violent ideologies' is ridiculous. Again, Marxists and Communists want to violently seize my family's estate and coercively grab my parents' equities and assets. Am I justified in punching them in the face for the 'thoughtcrime' of thinking and supporting violent policies? Am I defending my family and parents when I do so? No, I'm inflicting unprovoked violence on peaceful people whose only fault is 'thinking violent thoughts' in abstract without hurting anyone.

Yeah, nah. I'm not gonna wait until after somebody attempts Holocaust 2.0 (or, much more simply, a hate-charged murder against some sort of minority) to take action.

Fine, I'd rather not wait for the Marxist and Communist folks to get in power and violently seize my family's wealth. So I'm allowed to randomly punch Marxists in the face on the street, by your logic?

[Torrocca]

I remember I saw an article shortly after the Charlottesville tiki party where a man was assaulted with a razor blade while trying to get in his car, because someone mistook him for a neo-nazi because he was bald.

You sure you're not thinking about this case?

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

>"The people who oppose genocide and authoritarianism and ethno-supremacism would join the genocidal, authoritarian, entho-supremacists!!1!"

Good fucking God lmao, your shitty takes are getting hotter and hotter.

Tell that to ANTIFA then.

... You do realize I've already argued against them attacking non-Fascists in this very thread, correct?

You've avoided the point.
I'm saying the people who throw out ideological garbage to excuse extrajudicial violence against people, would join whatever popular fad that allows them to do that.

The words they speak aren't sincere, they are excuses to indulge in a behavior they enjoy and find compelling, the commission of violent acts against others. Because they are aware they cannot act this way en masse, they are forced to pay lip service to civilization and peace by acting like there is some massive threat posed by their victims that justifies extrajudicial violence.

The nazi ideology is garbage excuse making.
Your ideology is garbage excuse making.

[Purgatio]

I remember I saw an article shortly after the Charlottesville tiki party where a man was assaulted with a razor blade while trying to get in his car, because someone mistook him for a neo-nazi because he was bald.

ANTIFA literally attacked two Mexican-American Marines in Philadelphia because they 'looked' like they belonged to the Proud Boys (https://taskandpurpose.com/antifa-attack-mexican-marines)

The indecency and stupidity of these thugs truly knows no bounds

[Torrocca]

Nope, actually. Shockingly enough, I'm talking about actual Fascists and actual Neo-Nazis and the like, not Joe Schmoe waving an American flag on the streets shouting some patriotic slogans or whoever.



Yeah, nah. I'm not gonna wait until after somebody attempts Holocaust 2.0 (or, much more simply, a hate-charged murder against some sort of minority) to take action.

Fine, I'd rather not wait for the Marxist and Communist folks to get in power and violently seize my family's wealth. So I'm allowed to randomly punch Marxists in the face on the street, by your logic?

That's a false equivalence right there, famalam. Communists and most Marxists (Marxist-Leninists and Co. aside) aren't calling for some sort of genocide or what-have-you.

[Purgatio]

Fine, I'd rather not wait for the Marxist and Communist folks to get in power and violently seize my family's wealth. So I'm allowed to randomly punch Marxists in the face on the street, by your logic?

That's a false equivalence right there, famalam. Communists and most Marxists (Marxist-Leninists and Co. aside) aren't calling for some sort of genocide or what-have-you.

But they want to violently and coercively strip my family off all their property. And I'm allowed to act in self-defense of my liberty and my property. In the same way as if a thief tries to take my computer, I'm allowed to shove him away in self-defense. By your logic, however, I shouldn't have to wait for the Marxist to seize power to implement his policies before using violence. I should act 'preventatively' by punching him in the face before he gets the chance to commit armed robbery on my family. I'm just 'defending' my family from theft and armed robbery, yes?

[Torrocca]

>"The people who oppose genocide and authoritarianism and ethno-supremacism would join the genocidal, authoritarian, entho-supremacists!!1!"

Good fucking God lmao, your shitty takes are getting hotter and hotter.



... You do realize I've already argued against them attacking non-Fascists in this very thread, correct?

You've avoided the point.

Your point's an utterly fucking stupid one with no bearing in reality.

[Ostroeuropa]

You've avoided the point.

Your point's an utterly fucking stupid one with no bearing in reality.

Deriving pleasure from dehumanization and violence against those you dehumanize isn't a common trait among the groups we're discussing?

[Torrocca]

That's a false equivalence right there, famalam. Communists and most Marxists (Marxist-Leninists and Co. aside) aren't calling for some sort of genocide or what-have-you.

But they want to violently and coercively strip my family off all their property.

Define property.

And I'm allowed to act in self-defense of my liberty and my property.

First, define property and then I'll answer this accordingly.

In the same way as if a thief tries to take my computer, I'm allowed to shove him away in self-defense. By your logic, however, I shouldn't have to wait for the Marxist to seize power to implement his policies before using violence. I should act 'preventatively' by punching him in the face before he gets the chance to commit armed robbery on my family. I'm just 'defending' my family from theft and armed robbery, yes?

So, from this, I'm assuming you mean your home and the belongings inside it, yes?

Read some Communist theory because, my God, this is atrociously bad and entirely contrary to the reality of Marxist and Communist thought.

[Genivaria]

You've avoided the point.

Your point's an utterly fucking stupid one with no bearing in reality.

His point being that you can't genuine fascists from non-fascists and you're ducking the point.

[Torrocca]

Your point's an utterly fucking stupid one with no bearing in reality.

Deriving pleasure from dehumanization and violence against those you dehumanize isn't a common trait among the groups we're discussing?

Who said there's pleasure derived from violence or dehumanization involved here, or even dehumanization? I'd rather not do violence against anyone, but Nazism and Fascism are existential threats to me so, yeah, I think it's morally fine to punch people who subscribe to either ideology.

Your point's an utterly fucking stupid one with no bearing in reality.

His point being that you can't genuine fascists from non-fascists and you're ducking the point.

Shockingly, you actually can distinguish Fascists from non-Fascists.

[Purgatio]

But they want to violently and coercively strip my family off all their property.

Define property.

And I'm allowed to act in self-defense of my liberty and my property.

First, define property and then I'll answer this accordingly.

In the same way as if a thief tries to take my computer, I'm allowed to shove him away in self-defense. By your logic, however, I shouldn't have to wait for the Marxist to seize power to implement his policies before using violence. I should act 'preventatively' by punching him in the face before he gets the chance to commit armed robbery on my family. I'm just 'defending' my family from theft and armed robbery, yes?

So, from this, I'm assuming you mean your home and the belongings inside it, yes?

Read some Communist theory because, my God, this is atrociously bad and entirely contrary to the reality of Marxist and Communist thought.

Just because a Communist believes property is a social construct and wishes to abolish it as a social and legal concept, cannot disguise the reality and underlying nature of what he wants to do to me - use the coercive power of the State to strip me and my family of our present peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Yeah, you can coat it with pretty language all you want, 'abolishing the concept of property', 'supporting personal property over private property', 'changing the relations of production' blah blah blah, but that's all Orwellian language that disguises the inherently violent and coercive nature of what is being proposed.

[Torrocca]

Define property.



First, define property and then I'll answer this accordingly.



So, from this, I'm assuming you mean your home and the belongings inside it, yes?

Read some Communist theory because, my God, this is atrociously bad and entirely contrary to the reality of Marxist and Communist thought.

Just because a Communist believes property is a social construct and wishes to abolish it as a social and legal concept, cannot disguise the reality and underlying nature of what he wants to do to me - use the coercive power of the State to strip me and my family of our present peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Yeah, you can coat it with pretty language all you want, 'abolishing the concept of property', 'supporting personal property over private property', 'changing the relations of production' blah blah blah, but that's all Orwellian language that disguises the inherently violent and coercive nature of what is being proposed.

Jesus, this hot take is getting worse.

No, for fuck's sake, "Seize the Means of Production!" doesn't Goddamn mean Communists are going to steal your home and all the toothbrushes inside of it.

[Korasta]

The far-right goes by many names and facades, but openly fascist regimes that hark back to the early 20th century? Nada. The world burned because of our blunders. We're not likely to forget that just yet.

[Purgatio]

Just because a Communist believes property is a social construct and wishes to abolish it as a social and legal concept, cannot disguise the reality and underlying nature of what he wants to do to me - use the coercive power of the State to strip me and my family of our present peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Yeah, you can coat it with pretty language all you want, 'abolishing the concept of property', 'supporting personal property over private property', 'changing the relations of production' blah blah blah, but that's all Orwellian language that disguises the inherently violent and coercive nature of what is being proposed.

Jesus, this hot take is getting worse.

No, for fuck's sake, "Seize the Means of Production!" doesn't Goddamn mean Communists are going to steal your home and all the toothbrushes inside of it.

That's literally what happened during agricultural collectivisation in the Soviet Union. The seizure of farm animals, property and land and transfer to collectives and kolhozy communes.

[Genivaria]

Deriving pleasure from dehumanization and violence against those you dehumanize isn't a common trait among the groups we're discussing?

Who said there's pleasure derived from violence or dehumanization involved here, or even dehumanization? I'd rather not do violence against anyone, but Nazism and Fascism are existential threats to me so, yeah, I think it's morally fine to punch people who subscribe to either ideology.

His point being that you can't genuine fascists from non-fascists and you're ducking the point.

Shockingly, you actually can distinguish Fascists from non-Fascists.

Glad to hear it, how?

[Holy Tedalonia]

Given the political anti-fascist climate. Its doubtful they'll make a return unless said nations undergo some civil war that breaks said nations up in various polticial factions