Is Fascism Inevitable in the Future of the West?

[Purgatio]

... You do realize visual indicators, like patches or flags or shit, exist, right?

Like, Xeno, I know you're smarter than this.

But what if you were protesting with fascists, wearing a swastika, shouting "Gas the Kikes, race war now!", and someone thought you were a fascist!

---

That's funny, fascists and neo-Nazis use the same excuse when one of their own commits violence. Forgive me if I'm sceptical of how convenient this 'explanation' is. It barely qualifies as a defence.

Yes, fascists often infiltrate the Judeo-Bolsheviks who run the banking system. They have learned all the secrets of the International Jew.

---

Despite such intelligence gathering, there are some cases where Antifa gets it wrong. Stop pretending that that never happens.

I'm not. I'm disputing this persistent belief that anti-fascists go around beating up random people for the lolz.

---

Random guy kicks me in the shins =/= ANTIFA rally turns violent and attacks innocent people

You think there are people who commit random acts of violence. Yeah, there are, that's how the world works. Maybe they'll be doing it because they think you're a fascist. Maybe they'll be doing it because they think Momo told them to.

Its how the world works, but that doesn't mean I have to support it or give it moral endorsement. You are morally obligated to condemn organisations like ANTIFA as the violent and dangerous hate group that it is, notwithstanding that violence is common in the world.

Theft is common. Theft is also wrong, see?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Not when the violence inflicted by ANTIFA is so rampant and so indiscriminate that this is not a problem that can be fixed unless you condemn ANTIFA itself and support the efforts of the rest of society to suppress this dangerous and cancerous gang masquerading as a social movement

Even extreme problems can be fixed.

Few people do endorse genocide, yet antifa attacks many.

While Fascism itself doesn't necessarily endorse genocide, Fascism's still fucked up and an otherwise fine target.

Few people endorse Fascism either.

[Ostroeuropa]

... You do realize visual indicators, like patches or flags or shit, exist, right?

Like, Xeno, I know you're smarter than this.

But what if you were protesting with fascists, wearing a swastika, shouting "Gas the Kikes, race war now!", and someone thought you were a fascist!

If you think fascists should be subjected to violence, get it banned by the law. Make your case to the public about how fascism is inherently violent in itself and have them ban it.

There is no acceptable punitive violence except that sanctioned by the public. None.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

But what if you were protesting with fascists, wearing a swastika, shouting "Gas the Kikes, race war now!", and someone thought you were a fascist!

If you think fascists should be subjected to violence, get it banned by the law.

So much this.

[Torrocca]

Even extreme problems can be fixed.



While Fascism itself doesn't necessarily endorse genocide, Fascism's still fucked up and an otherwise fine target.

"Fucked up" is an entirely subjective opinion. I find lots of political opinions "fucked up" - libertarianism, social conservatism, religious fundamentalism, Marxist-Leninism, communism, socialism, but I'd never think of attacking any of them for disagreeing with them unless they inflicted violence first. That's what it means to live in a civilised society.

Fascists and their friends, such as Nazis, are an existential threat to me and all sorts of people of hundreds of different racial, religious, ethnic, cultural, gender, and sexual backgrounds. None of those, barring Marxism-Leninism, are existential threats to anyone.

[Neu Leonstein]

Wow.

Look, here's something to think about for the people on this thread who aren't fans of fascism.

Is a discussion about the justifications of supposed antifa thugs the topic of the thread? Is that discussion something that is likely to further the cause of exposing fascist tendencies for what they are in the eyes of the average voter, in order to inoculate them against voting for candidates that are likely to push us in that direction? Is it something that is likely to defend the Overton window against the language and memes used by white nationalists?

No? Then why the fuck are you participating in making this discussion about antifa?

You really need to get smarter about how political communication is done in the 21st century.

[Elletolis]

The case for the death penalty isn't founded on arbitrary and irrational hatred, racism is. I'd argue that's false equivocation.

Beyond that, fascist have shown that they don't opt for legal change because they genuinely believe in its merits, but because its the best way to consolidate power till they can force non legal change (Night of the Long Knives).

Beyond even that, I don't give a shit about the legal system if its actively allowing situations that violate my most basic and fundamental morals.

You asked what the positive legal distinction was, and I'm explaining what the difference is. In the same way as a Marxist campaigning for property confiscation is not "conspiracy to commit theft", Nazis campaigning for ethnic cleansing is not "conspiracy to commit murder". That's not how the law works.

Never asked for the legal distinction. I was commenting on how strange it is that people are fine with the the principle of punishing people who wish to inflict future suffering when it is on an individual level, but then turn around and bring up irrelevant points when talking about the same principles on the societal level.

Though I will admit the comment was vague enough to allow for misinterpretation.

[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.

"Fascism" and "security, safety, comfort, quiet, automation, stability, order, convenience, et cetera" do not mix together.

I said "offer" not "guarantee".

[Torrocca]

Even extreme problems can be fixed.



While Fascism itself doesn't necessarily endorse genocide, Fascism's still fucked up and an otherwise fine target.

Few people endorse Fascism either.

I'd say "few" is pretty subjective.

[Ifreann]

But what if you were protesting with fascists, wearing a swastika, shouting "Gas the Kikes, race war now!", and someone thought you were a fascist!

---

Yes, fascists often infiltrate the Judeo-Bolsheviks who run the banking system. They have learned all the secrets of the International Jew.

---

I'm not. I'm disputing this persistent belief that anti-fascists go around beating up random people for the lolz.

---

You think there are people who commit random acts of violence. Yeah, there are, that's how the world works. Maybe they'll be doing it because they think you're a fascist. Maybe they'll be doing it because they think Momo told them to.

Its how the world works, but that doesn't mean I have to support it or give it moral endorsement. You are morally obligated to condemn organisations like ANTIFA as the violent and dangerous hate group that it is, notwithstanding that violence is common in the world.

Theft is common. Theft is also wrong, see?

But it isn't a violent and dangerous hate group. It isn't an organisation. It isn't a group at all. It certainly isn't an acronym. I told you this already.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Fucked up" is an entirely subjective opinion. I find lots of political opinions "fucked up" - libertarianism, social conservatism, religious fundamentalism, Marxist-Leninism, communism, socialism, but I'd never think of attacking any of them for disagreeing with them unless they inflicted violence first. That's what it means to live in a civilised society.

Fascists and their friends, such as Nazis, are an existential threat to me and all sorts of people of hundreds of different racial, religious, ethnic, cultural, gender, and sexual backgrounds. None of those, barring Marxism-Leninism, are existential threats to anyone.

So get it banned by the law then. None of this is is a justification for vigilantism, lack of due process, and so on.

[Purgatio]

"Fucked up" is an entirely subjective opinion. I find lots of political opinions "fucked up" - libertarianism, social conservatism, religious fundamentalism, Marxist-Leninism, communism, socialism, but I'd never think of attacking any of them for disagreeing with them unless they inflicted violence first. That's what it means to live in a civilised society.

Fascists and their friends, such as Nazis, are an existential threat to me and all sorts of people of hundreds of different racial, religious, ethnic, cultural, gender, and sexual backgrounds. None of those, barring Marxism-Leninism, are existential threats to anyone.

A poor person on Medicaid who is on life-sustaining medical treatment would argue a libertarian is an existential threat to his existence. As an LGBT person, I consider most religious fundamentalists and social conservatives existential threats to my existence. As you point out, authoritarian Marxism-Leninism is an existential threat to alleged members of the 'ruling class'. If this is your metric for when you can punch people in the face, you are essentially support carte blanche for violence in politics and the demise of peaceful discourse.

[Ostroeuropa]

Fascists and their friends, such as Nazis, are an existential threat to me and all sorts of people of hundreds of different racial, religious, ethnic, cultural, gender, and sexual backgrounds. None of those, barring Marxism-Leninism, are existential threats to anyone.

A poor person on Medicaid who is on life-sustaining medical treatment would argue a libertarian is an existential threat to his existence. As an LGBT person, I consider most religious fundamentalists and social conservatives existential threats to my existence. As you point out, authoritarian Marxism-Leninism is an existential threat to alleged members of the 'ruling class'. If this is your metric for when you can punch people in the face, you are essentially support carte blanche for violence in politics and the demise of peaceful discourse.

Almost every argument they throw out is justification for violence against feminists.

[Torrocca]

Fascists and their friends, such as Nazis, are an existential threat to me and all sorts of people of hundreds of different racial, religious, ethnic, cultural, gender, and sexual backgrounds. None of those, barring Marxism-Leninism, are existential threats to anyone.

A poor person on Medicaid who is on life-sustaining medical treatment would argue a libertarian is an existential threat to his existence. As an LGBT person, I consider most religious fundamentalists and social conservatives existential threats to my existence. As you point out, authoritarian Marxism-Leninism is an existential threat to alleged members of the 'ruling class'. If this is your metric for when you can punch people in the face, you are essentially support carte blanche for violence in politics and the demise of peaceful discourse.

Are any of those groups advocating for outright genocide against people who were born the "wrong" way?

[Purgatio]

Its how the world works, but that doesn't mean I have to support it or give it moral endorsement. You are morally obligated to condemn organisations like ANTIFA as the violent and dangerous hate group that it is, notwithstanding that violence is common in the world.

Theft is common. Theft is also wrong, see?

But it isn't a violent and dangerous hate group. It isn't an organisation. It isn't a group at all. It certainly isn't an acronym. I told you this already.

That argument is as disingenuous as the people who point out the KKK doesn't exist as an official organisation anymore but exists as a disaggregated bunch of other organisations like the Imperial Klans of America. Its a distinction without a difference. ANTIFA has proven itself to be a dangerous and violent bunch, hence why they are worthy of contempt and legal suppression and opposition, for the sake of all our safety and the rule of law itself.

[Ostroeuropa]

A poor person on Medicaid who is on life-sustaining medical treatment would argue a libertarian is an existential threat to his existence. As an LGBT person, I consider most religious fundamentalists and social conservatives existential threats to my existence. As you point out, authoritarian Marxism-Leninism is an existential threat to alleged members of the 'ruling class'. If this is your metric for when you can punch people in the face, you are essentially support carte blanche for violence in politics and the demise of peaceful discourse.

Are any of those groups advocating for outright genocide against people who were born the "wrong" way?

Advocating genocide is in itself illegal in most countries and does not need to be subjected to vigilante justice. What you're proposing is assaulting people politically adjacent to those who do so.

[Purgatio]

A poor person on Medicaid who is on life-sustaining medical treatment would argue a libertarian is an existential threat to his existence. As an LGBT person, I consider most religious fundamentalists and social conservatives existential threats to my existence. As you point out, authoritarian Marxism-Leninism is an existential threat to alleged members of the 'ruling class'. If this is your metric for when you can punch people in the face, you are essentially support carte blanche for violence in politics and the demise of peaceful discourse.

Are any of those groups advocating for outright genocide against people who were born the "wrong" way?

Maybe not genocide in the sense of the Holocaust, but most social conservatives and religious fundamentalist support the forced assimilation of an entire community of people (the LGBT community) and coercing them through the violent force of the law to erase and purge everything distinctive about ourselves, similar to how cultural and linguistic majorities in history have committed cultural genocide by violently forcing cultural minorities to erase and purge everything distinctive about their community (their religion, their language, their rituals).

EDIT: My point being, even then, I don't believe as an LGBT person I have a right to punch social conservatives and religious fundamentalists for that reason. Because I don't believe inchoate thoughts alone can ever justify violence.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Few people endorse Fascism either.

I'd say "few" is pretty subjective.

It's a relative term sure, but relative to the general western population, it's accurate.

[Ifreann]

But what if you were protesting with fascists, wearing a swastika, shouting "Gas the Kikes, race war now!", and someone thought you were a fascist!

If you think fascists should be subjected to violence, get it banned by the law. Make your case to the public about how fascism is inherently violent in itself and have them ban it.

There is no acceptable punitive violence except that sanctioned by the public. None.

It's not punitive. It's preventative. It's intended to disrupt fascist attempts at recruitment and organisation. And it makes them look like whiny little babies, which doesn't really help their "Ubermensch" facade.

[Ostroeuropa]

Are any of those groups advocating for outright genocide against people who were born the "wrong" way?

Maybe not genocide in the sense of the Holocaust, but most social conservatives and religious fundamentalist support the forced assimilation of an entire community of people (the LGBT community) and coercing them through the violent force of the law to erase and purge everything distinctive about ourselves, similar to how cultural and linguistic majorities in history have committed cultural genocide by violently forcing cultural minorities to erase and purge everything distinctive about their community (their religion, their language, their rituals).

Richard Spencer also does not advocate murder. He explicitly dismisses the idea. He favors mass deportation. Most of the modern far-right major figures do.

The holocaust is mostly a logistical feat. The technical challenges of killing 6 million people amounted to:

1. Adequately transporting them to the camps
2. The camps themselves
3. Mass murder
4. Body disposal

Each extra stage slowed previous stages.

The gas chambers could operate at 50,000 kills a day, however that is far too high a number for body disposal methods of the time to cope with, so they were limited to between 1000 and 4000 a day.

With a turnover of 1000 to 4000 a day, that meant room in the camps could only handle 1000 to 4000 incoming prisoners per day.

Removing the body disposal element means the holocaust could have been completed in about 1/10th of the time it took, at the cost of a mountain of dead bodies. Removing the mass murder element greatly increases the speed and capacity of the operation.

A UK version of the far-right gave a speech about;
"A plane can leave heathrow every minute."

Our logistical capabilities have only improved since the 40s. Transporting millions of people from one destination to another has only gotten easier and cheaper.

This ofcourse all ignores that it would be met with resistance, as well as violent overreach by the people doing the rounding up, packing into carts to head to ports/airports, and so on, as well as how the policy is not desirable in and of itself.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you think fascists should be subjected to violence, get it banned by the law. Make your case to the public about how fascism is inherently violent in itself and have them ban it.

There is no acceptable punitive violence except that sanctioned by the public. None.

It's not punitive. It's preventative. It's intended to disrupt fascist attempts at recruitment and organisation. And it makes them look like whiny little babies, which doesn't really help their "Ubermensch" facade.

Hows that working out for you guys?
Besides which, i'm all too familiar with how this no platforming/violence shenanigans is used mostly to entrench dominant narratives and lie about people who threaten them rather than against fascism in particular.

The MRM was subjected to this treatment and just called fascists to justify disrupting their organizations and so on.

[Purgatio]

If you think fascists should be subjected to violence, get it banned by the law. Make your case to the public about how fascism is inherently violent in itself and have them ban it.

There is no acceptable punitive violence except that sanctioned by the public. None.

It's not punitive. It's preventative. It's intended to disrupt fascist attempts at recruitment and organisation. And it makes them look like whiny little babies, which doesn't really help their "Ubermensch" facade.

Getting punched doesn't make a person a weakling. I'm sorry, but if that's the way you think, that's majorly messed up. When I see videos of the Myanmese government forcing Rohingya out of their homes, I don't think "what a bunch of inferior weaklings", I feel sorry for them as victims of violence. Like, I'm sorry, when I saw Richard Spencer get punched in the face, my reaction wasn't "what an inferior Untermensch he is", I felt bad for him. Because getting punched fucking hurts, I can't help but empathise. ANTIFA violence just isn't politically productive if your aim is opposing fascism.

[Purgatio]

Maybe not genocide in the sense of the Holocaust, but most social conservatives and religious fundamentalist support the forced assimilation of an entire community of people (the LGBT community) and coercing them through the violent force of the law to erase and purge everything distinctive about ourselves, similar to how cultural and linguistic majorities in history have committed cultural genocide by violently forcing cultural minorities to erase and purge everything distinctive about their community (their religion, their language, their rituals).

Richard Spencer also does not advocate murder. He explicitly dismisses the idea. He favors mass deportation. Most of the modern far-right major figures do.

The holocaust is mostly a logistical feat. The technical challenges of killing 6 million people amounted to:

1. Adequately transporting them to the camps
2. The camps themselves
3. Mass murder
4. Body disposal

Each extra stage slowed previous stages.

The gas chambers could operate at 50,000 kills a day, however that is far too high a number for body disposal methods of the time to cope with, so they were limited to between 1000 and 4000 a day.

With a turnover of 1000 to 4000 a day, that meant room in the camps could only handle 1000 to 4000 incoming prisoners per day.

Removing the body disposal element means the holocaust could have been completed in about 1/10th of the time it took, at the cost of a mountain of dead bodies. Removing the mass murder element greatly increases the speed and capacity of the operation.

A UK version of the far-right gave a speech about;
"A plane can leave heathrow every minute."

Our logistical capabilities have only improved since the 40s. Transporting millions of people from one destination to another has only gotten easier and cheaper.

This ofcourse all ignores that it would be met with resistance, as well as violent overreach by the people doing the rounding up, packing into carts to head to ports/airports, and so on, as well as how the policy is not desirable in and of itself.

Does he actually? I was always under the impression that Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor supported the 'ethnic separatism' and 'racial segregation' model of carving out a white-only nation within American territory, rather than violently ejecting non-whites from the entire continent. I could be wrong about this.

[Ifreann]

It's not punitive. It's preventative. It's intended to disrupt fascist attempts at recruitment and organisation. And it makes them look like whiny little babies, which doesn't really help their "Ubermensch" facade.

Hows that working out for you guys?

Me? I'm not involved. But it's working pretty well for anti-fascists.

Besides which, i'm all too familiar with how this no platforming/violence shenanigans is used mostly to entrench dominant narratives and lie about people who threaten them rather than against fascism in particular.

The MRM was subjected to this treatment and just called fascists to justify disrupting their organizations and so on.

This would be the movement that has produced multiple spree shooters, yes? Man, wonder what was up with people wanting to infiltrate and disrupt them.

---

It's not punitive. It's preventative. It's intended to disrupt fascist attempts at recruitment and organisation. And it makes them look like whiny little babies, which doesn't really help their "Ubermensch" facade.

Getting punched doesn't make a person a weakling. I'm sorry, but if that's the way you think, that's majorly messed up.

It's not about whether it's true, it's about how it's counter to the fascist narrative of their superiority. It's hard to seem like the master race when the supposedly weak and inferior anti-fascists just knocked you on your ass.

When I see videos of the Myanmese government forcing Rohingya out of their homes, I don't think "what a bunch of inferior weaklings", I feel sorry for them as victims of violence. Like, I'm sorry, when I saw Richard Spencer get punched in the face, my reaction wasn't "what an inferior Untermensch he is", I felt bad for him. Because getting punched fucking hurts, I can't help but empathise. ANTIFA violence just isn't politically productive if your aim is opposing fascism.

It's not always useful, which is why it isn't always used. Anti-fascists are aware that liberals will sympathise with the poor maligned Nazis who would kill them all, given the chance.

And really, what is up with the all-caps?

[Purgatio]

Getting punched doesn't make a person a weakling. I'm sorry, but if that's the way you think, that's majorly messed up.

It's not about whether it's true, it's about how it's counter to the fascist narrative of their superiority. It's hard to seem like the master race when the supposedly weak and inferior anti-fascists just knocked you on your ass.

When I see videos of the Myanmese government forcing Rohingya out of their homes, I don't think "what a bunch of inferior weaklings", I feel sorry for them as victims of violence. Like, I'm sorry, when I saw Richard Spencer get punched in the face, my reaction wasn't "what an inferior Untermensch he is", I felt bad for him. Because getting punched fucking hurts, I can't help but empathise. ANTIFA violence just isn't politically productive if your aim is opposing fascism.

It's not always useful, which is why it isn't always used. Anti-fascists are aware that liberals will sympathise with the poor maligned Nazis who would kill them all, given the chance.

And really, what is up with the all-caps?

1) With respect to the white supremacists who claim whites are superior owing to physical strength and dominance, then yes, I suppose that's true. But people like Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer and David Duke tend to emphasise claims that whites have higher IQs than blacks and Hispanics, or are more innovative/have made more cultural contributions to the globe than other races. Punching them in the face does nothing to counter or undermine that narrative of superiority. If you want to counter those views, you have to debate them and prove them wrong with facts and argumentation.

2) In what possible context will it ever be useful? As I've pointed out and you've agreed, when I see someone getting maced, punched, kicked or hit, I feel bad for them because you can't help but empathise with someone suffering physical pain and injury. I'm sure I'm not the only one who reacts that way. So in what possible context or scenario can handing free political ammunition and public sympathy to your fascist opponents ever be useful to your anti-fascist political cause?