Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

 What do you think the Republican defense will be when an agent shoots down one of the detained migrants?

Same defense they always use when law enforcement shoots an unarmed brown person 

something something something as a result, the officer reasonably feared for his life and engaged the suspect with lawful use of force. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

something something something as a result, the officer reasonably feared for his life and engaged the suspect with lawful use of force. 

Does that mean we can lawfully shoot Trump because we reasonably fear that we may be nuked because he may start World War III?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a lack of knowledge of how things work in US politics around here... To understand US politics there are three things you need to understand.

1: The US is a corporate oligarchy. It might of begun as a constitutional republic, but it began morphing is to a corporate oligarchy after the American Civil War. The people who hold the power in the US are heads of corporations and banks. Politicians are allowed to remain in power so long as they support the banks and corporations that put them in power. You can thank lobbying for allowing this to happen. Always keep this in mind and the way politicians act will make perfect sense, rather than idiotic or contradictory as they appear.

2: There is no "right" nor "left" among politicians. Politicians will argue over trivial things to garner certain voting blocs, but they will unanimously agree on things that expand the power and influence of themselves and their masters. Tell me, what is the difference in a $100M loan for education, or a $100M loan for the military? Politically speaking none. $100M is being added to the debt either way, and the bank is making money off interest. The politicians are satisfied they get some money for their pet project to cater to a voting bloc, the corporate oligarchs are satisfied they just made more money off of either loan interest, or via selling the resources for said projects. The loser is whoever is left with the tab which is, because income tax is used as collateral for national bonds, the tax payer. Money is power, the transfer of capital is a transfer of power, always remember that.

3: The US is structured as a republican form of government. I use the term republican in it's intended use, not in reference to the political party. This is in stark contrast to forms of government such as monarchy or autocracy (which frequently overlap). So what is it about this that makes it crucial to understanding US politics? It's crucial because it effects the behavior of politicians. Unlike a monarch who is not elected, in for life, quite literally owns the nation, and usually has supreme authority, elected representatives must get themselves elected, have limited time in power, have no real stake in the nation, and do not hold supreme authority. Because of this they will cater to lobbyists to get elected, not dedicate themselves to their cause because there is not enough time to accomplish anything due to bureaucracy, and not care about the repercussions of their actions because they can always blame another party, or move out. I am not advocating for monarchy (there is plenty to say *against* it), I only used it as an example to point out the flaws in the republican/democratic system, and why politicians will always ignore who they claim to represent and will always sell their people and nation out. Just look at the amount of duel-citizens within congress.

 

With this in mind what does it say about the state of the US? I hope I have at least made it clear enough that the things being bickered about is nothing but show, and no matter who gets elected, you shouldn't expect anything to change. In the US change only happens when people's behavior force the corporate oligarchs to change their actions (this is also the reason they attempt to manipulate public behavior). The most successful one party system is disguised as a two party system, giving the people an illusion that they decide. That one party is corporations and banks.

 

EDIT: Grammar

Edited by Camus The Dark Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

2: There is no "right" nor "left" among politicians. 

There is. But the quirk of it here is that America doesn't have a real political left

Our rightwing is the fascists
Our center-right is extreme nationalism
Our center is classic conservatism
Our center-left are ideologically non-committal institutionalism and establishmentarians
And our leftwing is...Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders... 

(Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on any objective political compass are barely left of center)

This is a quirk of the way our form of democracy purposely skews towards over-representation or rural countryside populations. Which tend to be: smaller, more ethnically homogeneous, lower educated, more religious, and more rigidly traditionalist in their thinking + more suspicious of 'outsiders' and fearful of change.

While purposefully under-representing the values and policy preferences of more diverse and populace metropolitan areas. 

I've talked about this before; this skewing moreso than the monetary interests or the lobbying or the power of corporate oligarchy (i.e. things every wealthy industrialized nation have going on) is really the core, unique feature of America's political dysfunction. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, left-wingers by their nature have a skepticism for hierarchies and power structures (until you go the authoritarian path, which is more telling than left vs right most of the time). It's not really a wonder that they've never held real political power in the US since like FDR. Liberals (and by extension the Democrats) are often called the left-wing in the US incorrectly.

9 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

Tell me, what is the difference in a $100M loan for education, or a $100M loan for the military? Politically speaking none. $100M is being added to the debt either way, and the bank is making money off interest. The politicians are satisfied they get some money for their pet project to cater to a voting bloc, the corporate oligarchs are satisfied they just made more money off of either loan interest, or via selling the resources for said projects. The loser is whoever is left with the tab which is, because income tax is used as collateral for national bonds, the tax payer. Money is power, the transfer of capital is a transfer of power, always remember that.

I think anyone could argue that the funding for education would be far more beneficial than adding another dump on top of an already bloated military. Funding is about priorities. The bigger part of that is that the former would never happen, because it doesn't benefit those groups. If there existed an education-industrial complex, then maybe so.

The biggest problem with the Republicans is that they are socially conservative on top of being corporatists, an ideology I find uniquely morally reprehensible. I find it hard to agree with the sentiment that Republicans are the same as Democrats when Republicans have an extra layer of shit on top of not being interested in serving anything other than corporate interests.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

There is. But the quirk of it here is that America doesn't have a real political left

Our rightwing is the fascists
Our center-right is extreme nationalism
Our center is classic conservatism
Our center-left are ideologically non-committal institutionalism and establishmentarians
And our leftwing is...Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders... 

(Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on any objective political compass are barely left of center)

This is a quirk of the way our form of democracy purposely skews towards over-representation or rural countryside populations. Which tend to be: smaller, more ethnically homogeneous, lower educated, more religious, and more rigidly traditionalist in their thinking + more suspicious of 'outsiders' and fearful of change.

While purposefully under-representing the values and policy preferences of more diverse and populace metropolitan areas. 

I've talked about this before; this skewing moreso than the monetary interests or the lobbying or the power of corporate oligarchy (i.e. things every wealthy industrialized nation have going on) is really the core, unique feature of America's political dysfunction. 

You don't seem to understand what right wing is if you think the US is right wing (I'm certainly not arguing it's a leftist utopia either, just that it sure as hell isn't a right wing one). Tell me, before I continue, how much political and religious literature have you read? This needs to be clarified so I can understand if it's only based on what you see on mainstream TV/websites, or if you understand the concepts and history the original authors intended, and how said ideologies have changed over time, for a variety of reasons. I also stated religious literature because not even that long ago, only a few hundred years, religion and politics were one and the same, and modern political ideologies still have traits from the religion of their founders. I am also curious where you have lived, obviously not addresses, but I mean environments. Have you lived exclusively in cities? Rural areas? etc. before continuing I will give a couple corrections that should probably be made.

1: Fascism isn't "right-wing" inherently. This thought process is caused by the political spectrum, which I hate, because it boils everything down to a black and white issue, which politics aren't. What if someone is a big supporter or welfare for the people, however they also believe said people should be homogeneous? What are they? Their beliefs contradict each other on a political spectrum stand point, yet in reality can coexist. Centrist? I'm not so sure because those are pretty big issues to be "middle of the road" on. This is further warped because when someone says fascist, people immediately think of the NSDAP due to, well obvious reasons. People fail to pull back and look at the entire ideology because of this. The traits of fascism, according to the fascists themselves, is nationalism (usually associated with the right), collectivism (usually associated with the left), authoritarianism (can be either), a regulated economy (usually associated with the left), and the view that the strong should rise to the top (usually associated with the right).

2: Corporatism is essentially fascism, but the role of the one "on top" is reversed. Under fascism corporations answer to the state and are forced to work whatever the state wishes. This is why Germany was able to create and repair as quickly as they did between the fall of the Wiemar Republic and the start of WW2. The Nazis diverted all corporate activity towards state projects. Corporatism is the same, only the state answers to corporations, which I have gone over in my last post. Compare that to a capitalist or communist society, where as in a capitalist one the state has minimal to no involvement (certainly not the US even though we like to parade around we are capitalist), and a communist one where the state owns everything. This is why people will refer to it as "corporate fascism" sometimes.

I feel I must point this out because the US functions similar to a fascist society because it is corporatist, but it's certainly not some right-wing utopia. I eagerly await your response so I can better understand why you have the conclusions you do.

Quote

 

I think anyone could argue that the funding for education would be far more beneficial than adding another dump on top of an already bloated military. The bigger part of that is that the former would never happen, because it doesn't benefit those groups. If there existed an education-industrial complex, then maybe so.

The biggest problem with the Republicans is that they are socially conservative on top of being corporatists, an ideology I find morally reprehensible. I find it hard to agree with the sentiment that Republicans are the same as Democrats when Republicans have an extra layer of shit on top of not being interested in serving anything other than corporate interests.

 

My point is the debate should not be which is better, but rather that should a $100M loan should be taken out at all, regardless of what it's going to. Politicians love to present options A and B, ones they have created, but they will never present alternatives because it's not in their interest. Even if it's their "enemy" or "rival" getting the money, it is still beneficial to them. Think of it as heads I win tails you lose.

 

Education vs. military is another debate, I only used them because it's a stereotypical issue, not to get involved in that, but I'll leave one comment for the sake of fairness. US education needs to be evaluated and overhauled, throwing more money at it and hoping for the best is not going to fix a fundamentally broken system. That's all I will say for that, it's another debate for another time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tryhard said:

The biggest problem with the Republicans is that they are socially conservative on top of being corporatists, an ideology I find uniquely morally reprehensible. I find it hard to agree with the sentiment that Republicans are the same as Democrats when Republicans have an extra layer of shit on top of not being interested in serving anything other than corporate interests.

To me the Democrats and Republicans aren't very similar because the Republican party is very...unique while the Democrats are just a regular party. 

Even if we ignore Trump then the Republicans are still ''unique'' and had already been so during the Obama era if not before that. Being pro business, fiscally conservative or being cautious about social progress  has its place in the political system even if it aren't particularly sympathetic positions to take. A welfare state is expensive as are any forms of social security or healthcare so in some ways its even good for the system that there are parties that argue the cost for these things shouldn't be too expensive for the state. Deciding whether you want to give more money to the poor or build a new aircraft carrier is at least a somewhat valid discussion  because money is finite. With social progress one could argue that conservative parties prevent a country from changing so quickly that it causes disruption. 

But republicans aren't like that. They don't seem to be against healthcare for any monetarily or constructive reasons but they are against it because its existence ideologically offends them. And that's downright weird if you consider that almost the entire civilized world has some sort of healthcare program for the sick or welfare for the poor. The republicans are ensuring America has to fight a battle that the rest of the world already won decades ago. And in many social developments is the same. Rights long considered normal or at the very least not overly controversial are deeply offensive to Republicans. And in this I've always found them to be an incredibly alien party. The Tories are often accused of despising the poor but at least I can understand the motives behind a lot of the things they say and do. But Republicans spending the entire Obama administration hyperventilating about the incredibly tame Obamacare was just bizarre. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

To me the Democrats and Republicans aren't very similar because the Republican party is very...unique while the Democrats are just a regular party. 

But republicans aren't like that. They don't seem to be against healthcare for any monetarily or constructive reasons but they are against it because its existence ideologically offends them. And that's downright weird if you consider that almost the entire civilized world has some sort of healthcare program for the sick or welfare for the poor. The republicans are ensuring America has to fight a battle that the rest of the world already won decades ago. And in many social developments is the same. Rights long considered normal or at the very least not overly controversial are deeply offensive to Republicans. And in this I've always found them to be an incredibly alien party. The Tories are often accused of despising the poor but at least I can understand the motives behind a lot of the things they say and do. But Republicans spending the entire Obama administration hyperventilating about the incredibly tame Obamacare was just bizarre. 

 

The Republican party of the US is composed of Demagogues and idiots who still believe they're the party of Lincoln, plain and simple. Rand Paul just blocked the 9/11 fund that Jon Stewart pressured to go to a vote. His argument? It is additional spending that isn't paid for. Where the FUCK was this when 1.5 TRILLION Tax cut was being passed? They panicked and created mass hysteria when there was someone looking to shoot Republicans but the more you look into these fools, the more you'll see they bring that shit upon themselves. 

If someone kills Trump and they're a supporter of any Democrat or anyone outside of the Republican Party, you would have the country goaded into another Civil War by White Nationalists, Republican Politicians and Right Wing media.

If someone kills Trump and that person happened to be a Trump supporter who felt betrayed by him, you would have all the aforementioned right-wing parties looking to find a way to pin it to the "socialists".

The Republicans simply do not want a representative Democracy for a government as they understand that they're only becoming more and more unpopular, they just want to have their way and they'll submit to a dictatorship if it shares their ideology. The establishment Democrats on the other hand, spend too much time calculating how many Trump supporters they'll "lose" if they were to use their power like Republicans did under Obama. They have to become an endangered species.

 

 

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

3: The US is structured as a republican form of government. I use the term republican in it's intended use, not in reference to the political party. This is in stark contrast to forms of government such as monarchy or autocracy (which frequently overlap). So what is it about this that makes it crucial to understanding US politics? It's crucial because it effects the behavior of politicians. Unlike a monarch who is not elected, in for life, quite literally owns the nation, and usually has supreme authority, elected representatives must get themselves elected, have limited time in power, have no real stake in the nation, and do not hold supreme authority. Because of this they will cater to lobbyists to get elected, not dedicate themselves to their cause because there is not enough time to accomplish anything due to bureaucracy, and not care about the repercussions of their actions because they can always blame another party, or move out. I am not advocating for monarchy (there is plenty to say *against* it), I only used it as an example to point out the flaws in the republican/democratic system, and why politicians will always ignore who they claim to represent and will always sell their people and nation out. Just look at the amount of duel-citizens within congress.

 

Yes, join us my child

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Yes, join us my child

Judging by the name and signature, I am assuming you mean the monarchists? Monarchy has a decent track record (insane monarchs were an exception to the rule, which is why they are the few remembered, instead of the other hundreds who weren't crazy), but I am not sure if I would want to live in one. Realistically speaking I don't think the current system will last much longer, so I suppose time will tell in the end. Perhaps my opinion will change over time, it certainly has this past decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

You don't seem to understand what right wing is if you think the US is right wing (I'm certainly not arguing it's a leftist utopia either, just that it sure as hell isn't a right wing one). Tell me, before I continue, how much political and religious literature have you read?  

Have you? Because all your posts read like your primary sources are hot take youtube video essays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

1: Fascism isn't "right-wing" inherently.

Yes. Yes it is.

Extreme rightwing authoritarianism built around an ethno-nationalist myth of national greatness arising from racial/cultural purity, and some subversive outgroup being the reason why so great a nation built by so great a people has so many problems.

The target group is deemed subversive and defined as adverse to the interests of the nation.

The general population is whipped into a patriotic frenzy against them. 

The central purpose for which the authoritarian state becomes more and more authoritarian and wields greater and greater power is persecution of the target group.  As the law defines the target group as lacking some form of legal status to live and work in the general population, such that they can be targeted for the mere 'crime' of their physical presence. 

The fascist state claims ever-expanding police powers to enforce its 'law.'

Pervasive nationalistic propaganda glorifies 'law enforcement' and dehumanizes the target group and spreads the idea that supporting their persecution is your patriotic duty if you love your country and want it to be great again.

The evermore cruel and inhumane treatment of the target group  is normalized as regular law-and-order + celebrated as serving the national interest. 

For European Fascism it was 'The Jew'  
For American Fascism now its the Central American Migrant

Thats what Fascism is.

Its inherently rightwing in the sense that ethno-nationalism is a far right ideology.

There is no such thing as "left-wing fascism"

Extreme leftwing authoritarianism holds that the state should grow more and more authoritarian and gain greater and greater police powers to advance a far left ideology of confiscating private wealth + maintaining government control of resource distribution.

We call that totalitarian communism.

20 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

2: Corporatism is essentially fascism

No. No it is not.

When people tell me I am using the term fascism too loosely to describe Donald Trump and his politics my response is always: You know I am not playing fast-and-loose with the term because I'll be the first one to call bullshit when the term is used incorrectly, as it so often is, as a synonym for something that the user doesn't like rather than as a descriptor for literal fascism. 

...and this is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about...

A fascist state may(and often will be) one that is also a corporate oligarchy.

But corporate oligarchy in-and-of-itself is not the essential characteristic of fascism. 

 

20 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

the US functions similar to a fascist society because it is corporatist

The US today functions as a fascist society, but not for the reason you have stated. 

It functions as a fascist society because it holds in the popular lexicon of mainstream political thinking that migrant populations are responsible for the nation's crime, corruption, and economic dysfunction. 

...that laws criminalizing their mere physical presence in the country + the inhuman cruelty with which they are being treated under pretext of law enforcement serves some nationalistic greater good...

...that federal agents should have ever-expanding authorization to raid their communities, arrest them at their jobs and in their schools, haul them off to Prison Camps, separate their families, and hold them under whatever unsanitary and unnecessarily degrading conditions they see fit to inflict as punishment for them being in this country...

...and that advocacy for their rights + criticism of their treatments is a betrayal of one's countrymen--i.e. "Real Americans"--who will be made to suffer crime and corruption and economic hardship if such ever-expanding authoritarian police powers are not exercised against 'The Illegals.' 

It does not function as a fascist society because it is corporatist. 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the most you can say about fascism is that economic policies are largely irrelevant

the biggest care of a fascist state economically is making sure that factories are producing weapons for war and the facade of taking care of 'their own' (the Aryans) as opposed to the subhumans, even if this is just a lie and the 'pure blooded' are treated poor as well (because a fascist always wants to exploit others to do the dirty work).

economics is not necessarily a strong principle that is held by fascism - if it serves best to be a corporatist, then that is what will happen. if it serves best to have state-controlled businesses, that will be what happens. the bigger emphasis is outward aggressive policy and inward scapegoats and ultranationalism.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

1: Fascism isn't "right-wing" inherently.

Have you read Shirer, man? It don't sound like you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tryhard said:

the most you can say about fascism is that economic policies are largely irrelevant

the biggest care of a fascist state economically is making sure that factories are producing weapons for war and the facade of taking care of 'their own' (the Aryans) as opposed to the subhumans, even if this is just a lie and the 'pure blooded' are treated poor as well (because a fascist always wants to exploit others to do the dirty work).

economics is not necessarily a strong principle that is held by fascism - if it serves best to be a corporatist, then that is what will happen. if it serves best to have state-controlled businesses, that will be what happens. the bigger emphasis is outward aggressive policy and inward scapegoats and ultranationalism.

This is an important point that is often overlooked; the Nazis, for instance, pursued an utterly contradictory policy whose only rationale was building the wehrmacht, and in Russia many Fascists actually adopt the aesthetics and, presumably, economics of the USSR; if under Communism the nation was strongest, Communists we shall be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Have you? Because all your posts read like your primary sources are hot take youtube video essays. 

The majority of said Youtube essays come *because* people read the literature. If curious, in regards to this subject, The Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels), The Doctrine of Fascism (Benito Mussolini), Das Kapital (Karl Marx), ~65% of Mein Kampf (Adolf Hitler), Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R (Joseph Stalin), to name a few. I have a fascination with political and military history and the ideologies that fuel them, so it should be no surprise that the first half of the 20th century is a massive point of interest. If it's something that interests you as well I recommend starting with "100 Questions About Fascism" by Oswald Mosley because it's a manifesto, thus it's short (only ~40 pages) and a good introduction for an English speaker (Mosley was British, so no potential translation shenanigans), or if you want to hear the communist PoV first you should start the Communist Manifesto, which is also short (~45 pages) though this one is obvious.

12 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yes. Yes it is.

Extreme rightwing authoritarianism built around an ethno-nationalist myth of national greatness arising from racial/cultural purity, and some subversive outgroup being the reason why so great a nation built by so great a people has so many problems.

The target group is deemed subversive and defined as adverse to the interests of the nation.

The general population is whipped into a patriotic frenzy against them. 

The central purpose for which the authoritarian state becomes more and more authoritarian and wields greater and greater power is persecution of the target group.  As the law defines the target group as lacking some form of legal status to live and work in the general population, such that they can be targeted for the mere 'crime' of their physical presence. 

The fascist state claims ever-expanding police powers to enforce its 'law.'

Pervasive nationalistic propaganda glorifies 'law enforcement' and dehumanizes the target group and spreads the idea that supporting their persecution is your patriotic duty if you love your country and want it to be great again.

The evermore cruel and inhumane treatment of the target group  is normalized as regular law-and-order + celebrated as serving the national interest. 

For European Fascism it was 'The Jew'  
For American Fascism now its the Central American Migrant

Thats what Fascism is.

Its inherently rightwing in the sense that ethno-nationalism is a far right ideology.

There is no such thing as "left-wing fascism"

Extreme leftwing authoritarianism holds that the state should grow more and more authoritarian and gain greater and greater police powers to advance a far left ideology of confiscating private wealth + maintaining government control of resource distribution.

We call that totalitarian communism.

No. No it is not.

When people tell me I am using the term fascism too loosely to describe Donald Trump and his politics my response is always: You know I am not playing fast-and-loose with the term because I'll be the first one to call bullshit when the term is used incorrectly, as it so often is, as a synonym for something that the user doesn't like rather than as a descriptor for literal fascism. 

...and this is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about...

A fascist state may(and often will be) one that is also a corporate oligarchy.

But corporate oligarchy in-and-of-itself is not the essential characteristic of fascism. 

 

The US today functions as a fascist society, but not for the reason you have stated. 

It functions as a fascist society because it holds in the popular lexicon of mainstream political thinking that migrant populations are responsible for the nation's crime, corruption, and economic dysfunction. 

...that laws criminalizing their mere physical presence in the country + the inhuman cruelty with which they are being treated under pretext of law enforcement serves some nationalistic greater good...

...that federal agents should have ever-expanding authorization to raid their communities, arrest them at their jobs and in their schools, haul them off to Prison Camps, separate their families, and hold them under whatever unsanitary and unnecessarily degrading conditions they see fit to inflict as punishment for them being in this country...

...and that advocacy for their rights + criticism of their treatments is a betrayal of one's countrymen--i.e. "Real Americans"--who will be made to suffer crime and corruption and economic hardship if such ever-expanding authoritarian police powers are not exercised against 'The Illegals.' 

It does not function as a fascist society because it is corporatist. 

 

Just wow... have you actually read the works of fascists? Or are you parroting common accusations? Because it sounds like the latter. Would be like I said making people starve was part of communist policy (which if you have ever read communist literature, you will know it isn't) Also let me make it clear I was not saying it was a leftist ideology either (because your response sounds like you thought I did). You, well people in general, must stop thinking in this left right paradigm and learn to look up. It's a method of control, and has been for centuries at this point.

As for your brilliant fascism analysis... You are conflating fascism with Nazism, admittedly a form of fascism that Hitler put a racial spin on. It's something damn near everyone seems to do, however that was not an aspect of the base ideology, for example fascist Italy and Spain didn't give a damn about ethnicity so long as you swore absolute loyalty to the state, if you read any fascist literature you would of known this. You are right however, about the method Nazi Germany used to fuel the flames of the antisemitic fire that began *during* World War One. However this leaves the question, if these fascist traits are as pervasive in US culture as you claim, why is it still socially unacceptable to support them? Why does the mainstream media not propagate them? If it were as bad as you said, the news would be doing nothing bad trash talking "traitors" who speak in favor of migrants, and constantly saying what an amazing leader Trump is for wanting to build a wall and deport the lot of them, and it would be socially acceptable to say whatever the negative sentiment you wanted. If you think that is the case, then take a look at an *actual* alt-right group (voat, stormfront, etc.) and tell me if Western society on a large scale supports the sentiment you find there.

You also still haven't answered my questions. You are under no obligation to, but I figured it would of been insightful.

11 hours ago, Karimlan said:

Have you read Shirer, man? It don't sound like you have.

I'll take it from the sources over someone analyzing it five decades later when it already has an established stigma, perhaps I will get to these sorts of writings at some point.

2 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

This is an important point that is often overlooked; the Nazis, for instance, pursued an utterly contradictory policy whose only rationale was building the wehrmacht, and in Russia many Fascists actually adopt the aesthetics and, presumably, economics of the USSR; if under Communism the nation was strongest, Communists we shall be.

I'll agree to disagree here, the wehrmacht had a huge emphasis due to the upcoming clash between the communists and fascists (people were aware it was going to happen since the 20s), but there were a lot of other programs that were focused on. National socialism didn't live out it's natural life due to being defeated and dismantled, so we can only speculate about it's fate had it, or at least it's financial system, ran it's full course. Nazi Germany used a labor back currency to both avoid loans from central banks, and avoid attracting the attention of it's neighbors, this has not been tried again, so it remains speculation at best.

Also what Russian fascists? The communists had taken the nation over by the mid-20s and it was single-party. The side that opposed the communists during the Revolution remained loyal to the tsar, so if anything were monarchists (though I would say the majority of them were just anti-communist, rather then tsarist), or do you mean fascist groups in modern Russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

Just wow... have you actually read the works of fascists? Or are you parroting common accusations? Because it sounds like the latter. Would be like I said making people starve was part of communist policy (which if you have ever read communist literature, you will know it isn't) Also let me make it clear I was not saying it was a leftist ideology either (because your response sounds like you thought I did). You, well people in general, must stop thinking in this left right paradigm and learn to look up. It's a method of control, and has been for centuries at this point.

Italian people on the right and even those calling themselves Fascists during the Mussolini years literally said "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century". But I digress on this one as there always seem to be people arguing otherwise on the matter of whether or not Fascism is inherently right-wing or not despite most scholars agreeing that it is and the people embracing the ideology embracing it as such...

1 hour ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

However this leaves the question, if these fascist traits are as pervasive in US culture as you claim, why is it still socially unacceptable to support them? Why does the mainstream media not propagate them? If it were as bad as you said, the news would be doing nothing bad trash talking "traitors" who speak in favor of migrants, and constantly saying what an amazing leader Trump is for wanting to build a wall and deport the lot of them, and it would be socially acceptable to say whatever the negative sentiment you wanted. If you think that is the case, then take a look at an *actual* alt-right group (voat, stormfront, etc.) and tell me if Western society on a large scale supports the sentiment you find there.

I don't believe the intent was to say that more than half the country supports Fascism when he says the US operates like it. It is true that Immigration seems to be a top issue to the population with the Republican voters buy into the immigration fear-mongering seeing it as harmful to the country, as many as 60% of them and Trump's support among them appears to float at 90%. The US operates more like a fascist society and an oligarchy primarily through those in power, the politicians and law enforcement. If you look at the common people, it's a different story when you look outside Republican voters, Democrats and Independents reject Fascism and desire Democracy but everyone (including some Republican voters) believe that the politicians are just bought out and they are.

The party most responsible for the "subtle" Fascist elements of the US is primarily the Republican party. Those motherfuckers simply do not believe in the system of government that was established in the country's founding as they're currently doing everything in their power to corrupt the system into their favor because THEY KNOW they're the more unpopular party of the 2 that have any chance of winning elections and they have no interest in changing their platform. The quickest way to demonstrate this point is the Gerrymandering, specially after the recent Supreme Court ruling with a Republican being famously quoted saying "I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats, So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country". Couple that with the voter suppression that's primarily aimed at nuking votes from non-whites, criminalizing abortion and marijuana despite their constant preaching of being for "smaller government, deregulation" and being the first people looking to jump into another pointless war with Iran and you've got a party with the fascist tendencies of being anti-democracy and anti-liberalism, nationalist authoritarian goals for non-whites and promotion of violence by dragging us into another pointless and turning a blind eye to all the right-wing extremist murder that's been increasing under Trump.

As for your question, there's 2 things to look at: The Mainstream media and the people.

The Mainstream media is hesitant in calling out anything bad on the right because right-wingers will be the snowflakes they claim the liberals to be and bitch about being called out for their bullshit and their leadership being horrible. Norm Ornstein has been calling it out how the Republican party has gone to shit and how the Mainstream media is aiding them with their trying so hard to be a neutral spectator as briefly mentioned here. They won't call Trump a Fascist any time soon because they'll always be afraid of the backlash from the right-wing. Hell they're still afraid of calling him a racist (barring a few exceptions) and waiting for the N-word tape to come out. Right-wing media on the other hand, is basically what you just described as your expectation for what you think the Mainstream media would be doing if Fascism were pervasive in the US in your view. Right-wing media like Fox News and Breitbart do everything in their power to demonize the political spectrum that's again Trump by fear mongering about Socialism so bloody much that your average Trump fan doesn't even know the meaning of the word and when they're not demonizing the other side, they're kissing Trump's ass for shit he is doing that they demonized Obama for.

Then there's the people. On one side, you have Republican voters that are primarily made up of the Southerners that hated Civil Rights act and switched to the Republican party after the party switch in the 60s (as well their kids). Many of these people are simply content with just voting against things that benefit non-whites. There's a book that compiles interviews from right-wingers with some people having said they're happy to oppose Obamacare simply because it's Obama's policy. Republican voters of today primarily have Fox News as their source and given how much that network have butchered the term Socialism and how they'll never call Trump a fascist, it's safe to say these voters would follow Fascist leadership not realizing they're doing so. Hell, there's some cultists out there not even hiding how much they want Trump to become the dictator he yearns to be.

On the other side, non-Republicans, including in this thread, don't want to start putting labels like Trump the fascist to avoid becoming the same thing as Fox News and the word Socialist. In the past I've said that I don't think Trump is a white nationalist... I'm not so sure about that anymore after his recent use of the KKK slogan "Love it or Leave it".

As for actual alt-right groups like Stormfront and such, I've lurked in those and have seen their posts and there's been leaked Discord chats of them talking about how the GOP is the "White Man's party". Much like the current GOP leadership, they don't care about maintaining the system of government that the founding fathers established and would rather see it gone and replaced with whatever works to have Whites as the rules of the countries and non-whites to be either removed from the country or treated as second class citizens. The racists and far-right groups are calling the GOP their party, I don't have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

The majority of said Youtube essays come *because* people read the literature. If curious, in regards to this subject, The Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels), The Doctrine of Fascism (Benito Mussolini), Das Kapital (Karl Marx), ~65% of Mein Kampf (Adolf Hitler), Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R (Joseph Stalin), to name a few. I have a fascination with political and military history and the ideologies that fuel them, so it should be no surprise that the first half of the 20th century is a massive point of interest. If it's something that interests you as well I recommend starting with "100 Questions About Fascism" by Oswald Mosley because it's a manifesto, thus it's short (only ~40 pages) and a good introduction for an English speaker (Mosley was British, so no potential translation shenanigans), or if you want to hear the communist PoV first you should start the Communist Manifesto, which is also short (~45 pages) though this one is obvious.

Sooo... What? Is this an admission that all you're saying is rehashed from youtube videos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

I'll agree to disagree here, the wehrmacht had a huge emphasis due to the upcoming clash between the communists and fascists (people were aware it was going to happen since the 20s), but there were a lot of other programs that were focused on. National socialism didn't live out it's natural life due to being defeated and dismantled, so we can only speculate about it's fate had it, or at least it's financial system, ran it's full course. Nazi Germany used a labor back currency to both avoid loans from central banks, and avoid attracting the attention of it's neighbors, this has not been tried again, so it remains speculation at best.

 Also what Russian fascists? The communists had taken the nation over by the mid-20s and it was single-party. The side that opposed the communists during the Revolution remained loyal to the tsar, so if anything were monarchists (though I would say the majority of them were just anti-communist, rather then tsarist), or do you mean fascist groups in modern Russia?

Yes I do. I'm talking about the Nazbols, who are a meme ideology everywhere but Russia.

Unknown.png.2e2ddbfe428b18ec526c2c48f45940fc.png

We can only speculate, but most serious historians who have speculated have come to the conclusion that the regime would have collapsed from unsustainable economics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

I'll take it from the sources over someone analyzing it five decades later when it already has an established stigma, perhaps I will get to these sorts of writings at some point.

You're referring to a different Shirer altogether (if ever there was one). Since you've named your sources, I'll name mine. Do take note that I put time in and actually read the thing, as opposed to perusing a bunch of CliffsNotes in video form.

Edited by Karimlan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

The majority of said Youtube essays come *because* people read the literature.

...and yet still amounts to entertainment channels posing as scholarship, quoting unintelligibly for others what they have not understood themselves. Passing of their own misconceptions of scholarly work as dogma...
 

11 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

You also still haven't answered my questions.  

You mean your demand to know what I've studied and where I've lived that qualifies me to speak my own thoughts, without citing to someone else's work for persuasive authority???

- 4 Years Political Science undergrad with concentrated areas of study in Western Political Theory (Aristotle and Socrates through John Stuart Mill and Howard Zinn), Economic Theory (Adam Smith through John Maynard Keynes), Gender Theory (Susan B. Anthony through Camille Paglia), History of World Markets, History of Religion & Moral Theory, History of Law Enforcement and State Police Powers (Recommended Reading: Prosperity & Violence, by Robert Bates), and statistical analysis      

-3 Years Law of Law School, with elective concentration of studies in Holocaust Law and Legal History of the Fascist State. 

(PRO TIP:  Judge them by what they do. Not by what they say. The Statutes, Court Opinions, and Executive Orders from that era paint a much better picture of what fascism was and how it operated than something like the written works and public speeches of Mussolini, glowingly explaining why fascism is great and why everyone should be a fascist. You have missed something crucial if you have just read fascist literature and taken their self-professed statements of what they are at face value, without remembering that one of the core features of fascism is pervasive state propaganda)   

-Residing in a community right on the border of where the urban/suburban population of the Philadelphia metropolitan area meets the countryfolk population of the Pine Barrens and farmlands of Southern New Jersey. Interact with + familiar with both.   

 

9 hours ago, eclipse said:

This is not a thread to come in and teach the unwashed masses.

Was that directed at me? I dunno if that was directed at me.

I'll stop if it was.

I have some more choice words for him if it wasn't. 
_____


EDIT

Also, add that North Carolina Rally where the President of the United States stood smug-faced in front of throngs of supporters chanting "Send her back! Send her back!" at an elected Congresswoman born outside the United States to the list of examples as to how America is now operating as a fascist country.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, eclipse said:

This is not a thread to come in and teach the unwashed masses.

Much like the response Shoblongoo made as I was typing this post up, you probably should of said who it was directed it. If it was me, what can I say? I came back to the site for other reasons (FE4 related), noticed the topic title, read some of it, and decided it would be interesting to throw something in to break the monotony of it.

8 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Italian people on the right and even those calling themselves Fascists during the Mussolini years literally said "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century". But I digress on this one as there always seem to be people arguing otherwise on the matter of whether or not Fascism is inherently right-wing or not despite most scholars agreeing that it is and the people embracing the ideology embracing it as such...

I don't believe the intent was to say that more than half the country supports Fascism when he says the US operates like it. It is true that Immigration seems to be a top issue to the population with the Republican voters buy into the immigration fear-mongering seeing it as harmful to the country, as many as 60% of them and Trump's support among them appears to float at 90%. The US operates more like a fascist society and an oligarchy primarily through those in power, the politicians and law enforcement. If you look at the common people, it's a different story when you look outside Republican voters, Democrats and Independents reject Fascism and desire Democracy but everyone (including some Republican voters) believe that the politicians are just bought out and they are.

The party most responsible for the "subtle" Fascist elements of the US is primarily the Republican party. Those motherfuckers simply do not believe in the system of government that was established in the country's founding as they're currently doing everything in their power to corrupt the system into their favor because THEY KNOW they're the more unpopular party of the 2 that have any chance of winning elections and they have no interest in changing their platform. The quickest way to demonstrate this point is the Gerrymandering, specially after the recent Supreme Court ruling with a Republican being famously quoted saying "I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats, So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country". Couple that with the voter suppression that's primarily aimed at nuking votes from non-whites, criminalizing abortion and marijuana despite their constant preaching of being for "smaller government, deregulation" and being the first people looking to jump into another pointless war with Iran and you've got a party with the fascist tendencies of being anti-democracy and anti-liberalism, nationalist authoritarian goals for non-whites and promotion of violence by dragging us into another pointless and turning a blind eye to all the right-wing extremist murder that's been increasing under Trump.

As for your question, there's 2 things to look at: The Mainstream media and the people.

The Mainstream media is hesitant in calling out anything bad on the right because right-wingers will be the snowflakes they claim the liberals to be and bitch about being called out for their bullshit and their leadership being horrible. Norm Ornstein has been calling it out how the Republican party has gone to shit and how the Mainstream media is aiding them with their trying so hard to be a neutral spectator as briefly mentioned here. They won't call Trump a Fascist any time soon because they'll always be afraid of the backlash from the right-wing. Hell they're still afraid of calling him a racist (barring a few exceptions) and waiting for the N-word tape to come out. Right-wing media on the other hand, is basically what you just described as your expectation for what you think the Mainstream media would be doing if Fascism were pervasive in the US in your view. Right-wing media like Fox News and Breitbart do everything in their power to demonize the political spectrum that's again Trump by fear mongering about Socialism so bloody much that your average Trump fan doesn't even know the meaning of the word and when they're not demonizing the other side, they're kissing Trump's ass for shit he is doing that they demonized Obama for.

Then there's the people. On one side, you have Republican voters that are primarily made up of the Southerners that hated Civil Rights act and switched to the Republican party after the party switch in the 60s (as well their kids). Many of these people are simply content with just voting against things that benefit non-whites. There's a book that compiles interviews from right-wingers with some people having said they're happy to oppose Obamacare simply because it's Obama's policy. Republican voters of today primarily have Fox News as their source and given how much that network have butchered the term Socialism and how they'll never call Trump a fascist, it's safe to say these voters would follow Fascist leadership not realizing they're doing so. Hell, there's some cultists out there not even hiding how much they want Trump to become the dictator he yearns to be.

On the other side, non-Republicans, including in this thread, don't want to start putting labels like Trump the fascist to avoid becoming the same thing as Fox News and the word Socialist. In the past I've said that I don't think Trump is a white nationalist... I'm not so sure about that anymore after his recent use of the KKK slogan "Love it or Leave it".

As for actual alt-right groups like Stormfront and such, I've lurked in those and have seen their posts and there's been leaked Discord chats of them talking about how the GOP is the "White Man's party". Much like the current GOP leadership, they don't care about maintaining the system of government that the founding fathers established and would rather see it gone and replaced with whatever works to have Whites as the rules of the countries and non-whites to be either removed from the country or treated as second class citizens. The racists and far-right groups are calling the GOP their party, I don't have to.

I hate the right/left paradigm since it boils down all debate and argument in to a black and white issue, which is unproductive as the past dozen or so posts have proven. Though for the sake of argument I will use it in this post. I'm not even defending fascism. I am against authoritarianism which, by necessity, it must be. I just noticed a lot of people are ignorant of it's aspects and was attempting to educate, but seems nobody will hear of it. Oh well, such a shame.

Because I have studied it I can however explain it's appeal to the right. Fascism appeals to the right because of it's emphasis on traditional values, nationalism, and it's anti-communist stance (and as should be obvious, communism is abhorred by the right) the mindset behind the ideology is a "strength through unity" sort of idea (to boil it down to the most simplistic of it's explanations), whatever that may be, in the case of Nazi Germany is was racial, while a place like Italy had a more civic take on it, just to name the big two. Without some homogeneous trait among the entire population (whatever that might be), it wouldn't work, which is why it must purge those who do not conform. However there are other traits that the right would not find appealing, such as it's collectivist nature, but that was qualm people in the 20s and 30s deemed tolerable because the destruction of communism was their main priority.

As for the alt-right, perhaps during the election when they were hoping he was the second coming of Adolf Hitler, but the majority of them despise Trump and the republicans now because he pledged support for Israel and has *not* done the horrific things some claim (they would *like* to see non-whites rounded up and shipped out, or worse), they see him as a traitor because of that. The non-extremist ones seem to be the only group who still like him. If the US was truly fascist (in the traditional sense), Antifa protests (or similar) would be gunned down by the state.

3 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Sooo... What? Is this an admission that all you're saying is rehashed from youtube videos?

How on Earth did you derive that? I don't watch Youtube very often and when I do it's usually for humorous/gameplay videos. My point was that perhaps said people you speak of reached the conclusions they did because they actually read the literature. Are you projecting or something? Or are you afraid reading literature by it's founders/followers will challenge your held beliefs? Have you never once asked yourself why these ideologies became popular in the early 20th century?

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

Yes I do. I'm talking about the Nazbols, who are a meme ideology everywhere but Russia.

Unknown.png.2e2ddbfe428b18ec526c2c48f45940fc.png

We can only speculate, but most serious historians who have speculated have come to the conclusion that the regime would have collapsed from unsustainable economics. 

Alright you meant modern Russia, yeah I have heard of it before. You hadn't stated the time period, so I wasn't 100% sure. I am in agreement with the majority, I think the 3rd Reich's economy wouldn't of lasted, I just find it an interesting topic to think about.

47 minutes ago, Karimlan said:

You're referring to a different Shirer altogether (if ever there was one). Since you've named your sources, I'll name mine. Do take note that I put time in and actually read the thing, as opposed to perusing a bunch of CliffsNotes in video form.

I looked it up and it seems there is an older one (the one you speak of, I assume) from ~1960, certainly a better choice as the stigma was nowhere near as strong at that point, I will be sure to look in to it. Also I never once claimed I read nor watched a video of cliffnotes about it. I outright said I have not read a book of his.

 

Since there was another reply I was typing (Shoblongoo) this that I don't want to restart the post I'll just past reply to it here... As I said earlier in the post, I don't really watch Youtube stuff, so I have not seen the people he speaks of, I was just presenting a potential explanation. Also good to hear it, I wasn't asking for specifics, more just experience, I was curious because (for one example) I have quite frequently encountered people who have lived in a rural/urban area who have the mindset the entire world is like their respective region. I grew up in a moderate sized town in Mass, lived in city later (Boston) and now the middle of nowhere (population ~550) so it's been fascinating to witnesses ideological differences.

I'm also a subscriber to "actions speak louder than words" but talking about the actions of the leaders of the early 20th century is... difficult, for lack of a better term, on a site like this due to certain rules, it's impossible to talk of them objectively without some rule being broken (For example, if I gave a reason for an event happening, some might read it as an excuse and report. Despite the fact reasons and excuses are two very different things), so it's limited to ideological talk, otherwise you will be branded a troll, racist, etc. by someone offended, which people *will* attempt to use against you, I have been using forums and message boards long enough to know that.

Also I would love to hear said choice words within what rules allow (well I would like to hear them all, but I know things have to be kept tame on this site), because it sounds like I am giving off the wrong impressions. I am not easily offended so let loose with whatever you feel you can within the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

As for the alt-right, perhaps during the election when they were hoping he was the second coming of Adolf Hitler, but the majority of them despise Trump and the republicans now because he pledged support for Israel and has *not* done the horrific things some claim (they would *like* to see non-whites rounded up and shipped out, or worse), they see him as a traitor because of that. The non-extremist ones seem to be the only group who still like him.

I don't know about that, as I would say the likes of Richard Spencer and David Duke are pretty extreme.

What do you mean about the alt-right not supporting Trump anymore? Everything I've seen suggests that they still do.

They at the very least know that their position is unpopular and it's unlikely they are going to get everything they want. But the fact is, that they specifically supported Trump because they believed him to take them to the nearest possible stop on their ideological train. 

Even most of the ones who are deeply anti-semitic acknowledge that they can overlook that in favour of building the wall or some dumb shit.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...