TheRPGSite

What the tin says, I moved the following response here since it has ZERO to do with gaming.

Quote from: Taggie;1142908really, which of the 14 characteristics of fascism do 'sjw's' hit?

I don't think your Dr is correct but lets see shall we?

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Nationalism?

Fascism: Everything Within the State, Nothing Against the State, Nothing Outside the State. And the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: "people's community").

Unless you claim the state = nationalism you and the Dr. are wrong. SJWs want to abolish the nation state to create a world state so same difference.

SJWs: Demand the state intervenes in order to create a better community.

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Disdain for Human Rights?

YES! Disdain for the right to free expression, free association, self ownership (no private property), self determination.

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Identification of a minority group as the enemies of morality?

Identification of an out group as the enemies of the state and morality in reality, and once again YES. White people, men and straight people, even worst if you're all 3 AND a christian.

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Militarism?

WHY YES! Black militias, armed ANTIFART, etc.

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Sexism?

YEP! Men are the source of all evil.

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Seizure of the media?

Once more YES! Haven't you seen them DEMAND any media that goes against their dogma be deplatformed? And the people working there be sent to re-education camps?

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Protection of Corporate power?

YES, YES, YES! When we plebs dare criticize a corporation that is under their control they jump to it's defense with accusations of Istophobia.

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Obsession with national security?

Obsession with group X security, to the point of seeing natzees everywhere, so yes, after a fashion.

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Linking faith and government?

LOL, YES! You can't be a candidate if you're not a feminist, bend the knee to intersectionalism and suck the dick of BLM.

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Suppression of Unions?

If said unions disagree with their goals? FUCK YES!

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Disdain for intellectualism and the arts?

LOL (have you been living under a rock?) Fucking research papers being retracted because they go against the narrative, Nobel winning profesors expelled from their schools because they sinned against their cult.

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Obsession with crime and punishment?

YES you disingenuous twat! With different "crimes" like: Free Expression "misgendering", subconscious bias, refusing to fuck someone you don't find attractive...

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Cronyism, nepotism and corruption?

YEP, once a corporation/organization has been infiltrated they will only hire people from their cult, they will get in bed with multinational corporations if they toe the party line and will sweep under the rug the crimes of those in the cult if politically convenient.

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Disdain for, and undermining of elections?

Who has spent the last ~4 years trying to undo a democratic election by any means necessary in the USA? Who has spent 4+ years trying to undo a democratic decision to leave the EUSSR in the UK?

Quote from: Taggie;1142908Btw that list is from 2003, by Dr Lawrence Britt.

BTW this is called an appeal to authority.

Discuss.

LOL, this idiot is truly deranged

Quote from: Taggie;1143030you miss spelt paedophile loving white nationalists (aka conservatives and Christians )

Were you summoned from the endless stupidity realm?

Who are the ones trying to normalize pedophilia? Not the Christians and I'm willing to bet neither do the "everything I don't like is degeneracy" white nationalists.

Quote from: Taggie;1143030Antifa have killed exactly no one, so how exactly they are militaristic compared to the frantic masturbation of conservatives to films of mass shooting victims, torture victims from abu gharaid and gitmo, and the dismembered child victims of drone strikes, I don't know.

So I guess all the deaths in the riots are by BLM only. Okay, but being shit at killing people doesn't mean they haven't tried. As for what do conservatives masturbate to... I don't care and I don't think you know what is it.

Guess you were calling out Obomber for all the drone strikes of civilians, minors and USA citizens no?

Quote from: Taggie;1143030don't see any obsession with national security, nor massive empowerment of unaccountable and hyper violent psychotic thugs (aka the police)

No, they don't like the current police, they want THEIR Sharia Police.

Quote from: Taggie;1143030what junk science exactly?  protecting the sciences from being used as a weapon by the malignant conservative death cult, is not junk science, stopping the traitors of the republican party deleting data is not junk science, resisting evil is not junk science.

Which is why the SJWs are against the scientific method... And believe men can menstruate and get pregnant and women can have dicks...

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1143086LOL, this idiot is truly deranged



Were you summoned from the endless stupidity realm?

Who are the ones trying to normalize pedophilia? Not the Christians and I'm willing to bet neither do the "everything I don't like is degeneracy" white nationalists.



So I guess all the deaths in the riots are by BLM only. Okay, but being shit at killing people doesn't mean they haven't tried. As for what do conservatives masturbate to... I don't care and I don't think you know what is it.

Guess you were calling out Obomber for all the drone strikes of civilians, minors and USA citizens no?



No, they don't like the current police, they want THEIR Sharia Police.



Which is why the SJWs are against the scientific method... And believe men can menstruate and get pregnant and women can have dicks...

For SJWs, fascism is a means to an end. The end is to destroy us so they can indulge in their nihilistic hedonism (hedonistic nihilism?) without anyone disapproving.

Greetings!

Taggie seems to especially hate "Conservative Christians". Well, isn't that just too fucking bad! Conservative Christians are the source of all evil?

Get fucked, moron. Taggie is obviously a brainwashed idiot, full of hatred towards Conservative Christians.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It was not surprising to me how closely the SJWs mapped to the definition of Fascism with perhaps the only difference being Nationalism.

SJWs and their protection of the sciences

[video=youtube;vU9wwsy6xXE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU9wwsy6xXE[/youtube]

No point in this thread existing cause Taggie got himself banned.  Pundit gave him the boot.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1143141No point in this thread existing cause Taggie got himself banned.  Pundit gave him the boot.

It's not really about him, but about the premise: Are SJWs fascists?

Greetings!

Yes, SJW's are fascist scum and traitors. Look here what they attempted to do at a Justice Center in Portland. Salty Cracker has hilarious commentary as well!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[video=youtube;OkSYnjzD6LU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkSYnjzD6LU[/youtube]

I don't really think they are, even though there are similarities. As a comparison just like the Norse religion and the Aztec religion both were religions, and both were insane (by today's standards) because of human sacrifice, doesn't mean they're the same religion.

One difference is how far-left socialists kill commerce and innovation with its "redistribution", while fascism doesn't, it's almost like communism snuffs out the human creative spirit. Fascism is much more focused on the militarism and conquest for its own sake, combined with cultural or racial "purity". Those are goals unto themselves in fascism.

Quote from: Trond;1143147One difference is how far-left socialists kill commerce and innovation with its "redistribution", while fascism doesn't, it's almost like communism snuffs out the human creative spirit. Fascism is much more focused on the militarism and conquest for its own sake, combined with cultural or racial "purity". Those are goals unto themselves in fascism.

Because communism is so peace loving and tolerant of differences. Communism is conqestorial in structure as well. It demands perpetual revolution as its mostly a reactionary system with few positive (as in stand for something) values. I don't see you not knowing this your fault. Its more that commies in the USA have worked very very very very very very hard to mask just how militaristic, and imperialistic communism is.
Fascism actually is also totally pro-redistributionism and government controls. Both the Nazzees and the Commies had secret police to root out black markets caused by price controls, and both had effective government monopolies. Communism just did it instantly, while fascists did it slower (Still with guns and violence).

Fascism is to Doctor Pepper what Communism is to Coke. Sure its somewhat different but both are still a soda.

Quote from: Trond;1143147I don't really think they are, even though there are similarities. As a comparison just like the Norse religion and the Aztec religion both were religions, and both were insane (by today's standards) because of human sacrifice, doesn't mean they're the same religion.

One difference is how far-left socialists kill commerce and innovation with its "redistribution", while fascism doesn't, it's almost like communism snuffs out the human creative spirit. Fascism is much more focused on the militarism and conquest for its own sake, combined with cultural or racial "purity". Those are goals unto themselves in fascism.

I would argue fascism does kill innovation, it just takes a bit longer, and I would also argue the SJWs are in favor of cultural and racial "purity", just not in favor of western culture or the white "race".

I think a better way to put it, its not that SJWs are fascists. Its that Fascists are SJWs.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1143156I think a better way to put it, its not that SJWs are fascists. Its that Fascists are SJWs.

Yeah i agree, rather than trying to call them fascist, itd be better for people to get it through their heads that communism always ends up being just as bad.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1143156I think a better way to put it, its not that SJWs are fascists. Its that Fascists are SJWs.

well, Social Justice WAS invented by Nazis after all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkisch_equality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkisch_equality)

Quote from: Shasarak;1143094with perhaps the only difference being Nationalism.

Yeah. Which is why this doesn't really work. Take out the nationalism, and you aren't talking about fascism anymore. Other isms perhaps, but not fascism.

(And no, inter-nationalism doesn't count. That is emphatically the opposite of fascist nationalism)

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1143152Because communism is so peace loving and tolerant of differences. Communism is conqestorial in structure as well. It demands perpetual revolution as its mostly a reactionary system with few positive (as in stand for something) values. I don't see you not knowing this your fault. Its more that commies in the USA have worked very very very very very very hard to mask just how militaristic, and imperialistic communism is.
Fascism actually is also totally pro-redistributionism and government controls. Both the Nazzees and the Commies had secret police to root out black markets caused by price controls, and both had effective government monopolies. Communism just did it instantly, while fascists did it slower (Still with guns and violence).

Fascism is to Doctor Pepper what Communism is to Coke. Sure its somewhat different but both are still a soda.

Much of this is not responding to anything I said. Just because two systems both are militarily aggressive does not mean they're the same (were the Assyrians fascist too?). But fascism is STILL more militaristic.

Yes, both are totalitarian. But they're not the same. Sort of like your soda example which resembles my religion example.

I'll give you this; sure the end effect tends to look similar, but not identical. The similarities are actually despite large differences in philosophy (fascism could actually be said to work in a way communism does not). My grandfather on my mother's side was communist, partially because he wanted the government to give him stuff (he was a bit lazy). Fascists were also around, but their brain washing was a whole different animal. And just like extremist adherents of two DIFFERENT religions, they would have killed each other if the had the chance.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1143153I would argue fascism does kill innovation, it just takes a bit longer, and I would also argue the SJWs are in favor of cultural and racial "purity", just not in favor of western culture or the white "race".

So there's a difference right there.

Quote from: Trond;1143188Much of this is not responding to anything I said. Just because two systems both are militarily aggressive does not mean they're the same (were the Assyrians fascist too?). But fascism is STILL more militaristic.

Based on what? I can't respond to something with no real factual based arguments and just statements based on nothing.
I did not say they where both the same, I said they are near close enough expressions of near identical values. The reason we didn't see a Fascist state collapse into poverty (like would happen based on their economic policies) is because they all imploded before that happened.

What does 'More Militaristic' mean in this context?

If they aren't the same, they are blood relatives.  Their seeming hatred of each other for the means they use to pursue their ends is partly because they are almost incapable of admitting how alike they are, like a couple of antagonistic siblings stuck in the same house.  They are both ideologies that spring from the race to the bottom fever swamp that comprise certain strains of French and German modern philosophy, forged in the out of control policies that have infected both nations from time to time since the French Revolution.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1143196Based on what? I can't respond to something with no real factual based arguments and just statements based on nothing.
I did not say they where both the same, I said they are near close enough expressions of near identical values. The reason we didn't see a Fascist state collapse into poverty (like would happen based on their economic policies) is because they all imploded before that happened.

What does 'More Militaristic' mean in this context?

If they're not the same, then what are we arguing about? Why did you feel the need to argue  my post?
Franco's regime lasted a good while. Same with some South American dictatorships that could be said to be fascist.

As for militarism; Fascism glorifies militarism for its own sake, it's part of their selling point. If given a choice between fascists and communists, the military will usually back the fascists (which is also partly the reason why fascist military tend to be better organized)

One interesting example of how communism kills productivity is the Skoda works in the Czech Republic. They were considered top notch before the war, and continued to produce high quality war materials for the Nazis. When the communists took over the quality tanked rather fast. Buying a Skoda car was an act of desperation (we literally had jokes about them).

Quote from: Trond;1143205If they're not the same, then what are we arguing about? Why did you feel the need to argue  my post?
Franco's regime lasted a good while. Same with some South American dictatorships that could be said to be fascist.

Francos regieme had extreme price controls which led to stagnant markets and black markets which required a secret police to quell. And it became economically stronger after removing all that jazz in the early 60s and becoming more free market and less socialistic. Which is why it lasted longer.

I feel like your splitting hairs to differentiate fascism and communism. Because fascism is a subset of socialism (thats its literal marketting push by musollini). Not all socialists are fascist but all fascists are socialistic.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1143210Francos regieme had extreme price controls which led to stagnant markets and black markets which required a secret police to quell. And it became economically stronger after removing all that jazz in the early 60s and becoming more free market and less socialistic. Which is why it lasted longer.

I feel like your splitting hairs to differentiate fascism and communism. Because fascism is a subset of socialism (thats its literal marketting push by musollini). Not all socialists are fascist but all fascists are socialistic.

Did he try to abolish religion too? One reason for the spread of fascism back in the day was fear of communism, so people never thought of them as the same thing.
I'm "splitting hairs" with real historical examples, even examples I've been close to, and most experts would agree. Anyway I think this "they're really the same" argument isn't really accurate. They often resemble sort of mirror images of each other, mostly because they are both totalitarian.

Quote from: Trond;1143213Did he try to abolish religion too?

No but he did not in any way promote it outside of lip service to remain in power. Gascist dictators rarely value religeon.

To your religeon metaphor: i see it as two competing sects of the same religeon, as opposed to two different ones.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1143214No but he did not in any way promote it outside of lip service to remain in power. Gascist dictators rarely value religeon.

To your religeon metaphor: i see it as two competing sects of the same religeon, as opposed to two different ones.

In the same way that, say, Christianity and Islam are two competing sects of the same Abrahamic religion?

Quote from: Zirunel;1143216In the same way that, say, Christianity and Islam are two competing sects of the same Abrahamic religion?

Ah, I see. That's a reasonable debate to be had. If Fascism and Communism are Christianity & Islamism, or Catholocism & Protestantism.

I argue the latter.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1143220Ah, I see. That's a reasonable debate to be had. If Fascism and Communism are Christianity & Islamism, or Catholocism & Protestantism.

I argue the latter.

I argue Sunni Islam vs. Wahhabi Islam. They are that much alike, and that violently opposed to one another.

Quote from: Trond;1143190So there's a difference right there.

Are you saying that say Irak couldn't ever be fascist because they are against the west and not white?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1143200If they aren't the same, they are blood relatives.  Their seeming hatred of each other for the means they use to pursue their ends is partly because they are almost incapable of admitting how alike they are, like a couple of antagonistic siblings stuck in the same house.  They are both ideologies that spring from the race to the bottom fever swamp that comprise certain strains of French and German modern philosophy, forged in the out of control policies that have infected both nations from time to time since the French Revolution.

It's easier to turn a fascist into a socialist or a socialist into a fascist than to turn any of them into a classical liberal.

And that's because their ideologies are that close to each other.

Lets examine China, would anyone argue they aren't Han-Supremacists? Or that they aren't doing exactly what the Nazis did?

Only "difference" is having a nominal religion or turning the state into the religion and paying lip service to the nation state vs plainly stating it should be abolished and a world state should replace it. And China isn't in favor of that last part, China want's to be the world's Hegemon.

Quote from: RandyB;1143225I argue Sunni Islam vs. Wahhabi Islam. They are that much alike, and that violently opposed to one another.

Yep, two interpretations of the same ideology/religion, but there was a time when Catholicism vs Protestantism would be an apt analogy too.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1143245Yep, two interpretations of the same ideology/religion, but there was a time when Catholicism vs Protestantism would be an apt analogy too.

The Catholic/Protestant violence was as vehement as the Sunni/Wahhabi, once upon a time. But Catholicism and Protestantism are not inimical to Western Civilization. Islam, Fascism, and Communism all are.

Quote from: RandyB;1143246The Catholic/Protestant violence was as vehement as the Sunni/Wahhabi, once upon a time. But Catholicism and Protestantism are not inimical to Western Civilization. Islam, Fascism, and Communism all are.

Yes.  It's the difference between managing to burn everything down in the attempt to have it, versus deliberately burning everything down.  Granted, once the mercenary is at your house with the torch, it doesn't make a lot of difference to you personally.  It does make a difference in the options for reconciliation between the competing mercenaries after they've realized that burning down your house means that it isn't left for them to have.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1143247Yes.  It's the difference between managing to burn everything down in the attempt to have it, versus deliberately burning everything down.  Granted, once the mercenary is at your house with the torch, it doesn't make a lot of difference to you personally.  It does make a difference in the options for reconciliation between the competing mercenaries after they've realized that burning down your house means that it isn't left for them to have.

There's always another house. Until there isn't. At that point, they turn on each other.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1143240Are you saying that say Irak couldn't ever be fascist because they are against the west and not white?

No, I'd say that Iraqis would have to be anti-Iraqi culture, religion, and business in order to be extremist left, and militantly anti-everyone else in order to be fascist.

Quote from: Trond;1143252No, I'd say that Iraqis would have to be anti-Iraqi culture, religion, and business in order to be extremist left, and militantly anti-everyone else in order to be fascist.

But fascists ARE part of the extreme left.

Just not part of the Marxist tribe.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1143264But fascists ARE part of the extreme left.

Just not part of the Marxist tribe.

I don't agree, but whatever, I think you know what I mean. Put "communists" where I said extremist left.

The reason they look so similar is because they reach the same position.  It is the clock/circle of political principle.  If you go far enough to either side you meet, because the end result of both ideas are the same.

They both require absolute control to maintain power, because neither can withstand truly objective scrutiny.  They just differ on starting point and some methods.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1143220Ah, I see. That's a reasonable debate to be had. If Fascism and Communism are Christianity & Islamism, or Catholocism & Protestantism.

I argue the latter.

It could be a fun rabbit hole to go down, and I would argue more for the former than the latter, but I wouldn't waste much effort making my case. I recognize my position would be flawed, even if it were a better fit. It's only an analogy, which makes it both imperfect, and tangential.  

Getting back to fascism, I'll note that some of the people who could be described as "woke" love to cast their opponents as "Nazis" and "Fascists," even though it's a bad fit, their opponents are mostly only conservative or sceptical. It's ridiculous hyperbole, of course.

And frankly, this whole " SJWs are fascists" exercise looks like exactly the same thing. "Fascist" is a bad word, so can we tar our opponents as nasty ol' fascists? But unless the "woke" are way more nationalist than I think, it's a terrible fit and just as bad as describing all opponents of the woke as Nazis.

Quote from: Zirunel;1143271It could be a fun rabbit hole to go down, and I would argue more for the former than the latter, but I wouldn't waste much effort making my case. I recognize my position would be flawed, even if it were a better fit. It's only an analogy, which makes it both imperfect, and tangential.  

Getting back to fascism, I'll note that some of the people who could be described as "woke" love to cast their opponents as "Nazis" and "Fascists," even though it's a bad fit, their opponents are mostly only conservative or sceptical. It's ridiculous hyperbole, of course.

Frankly, this whole " SJWs are fascists" exercise looks like exactly the same thing. "Fascist" is a bad word, so can we tar our opponents as nasty ol' fascists? But unless the "woke" are way more nationalist than I think, it's a terrible fit and just as bad as describing all opponents of the woke as Nazis.

Fascism puts everything at the service of the state.

Unless you think that a state can't exist without a nation (what about the world state the woke want?), it's a difference without real meaning, their methods and end goal are the same.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1143274Fascism puts everything at the service of the state.

Fascism puts everything (including the state) at the service of the national (military) gloire.

EDITED TO ADD: (so the gaseous nationalist rhetoric went. Fascism of course proved to be crap at actually achieving any such thing)

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1143274Unless you think that a state can't exist without a nation (what about the world state the woke want?), it's a difference without real meaning, their methods and end goal are the same.

The state can exist without a nation. But the state without a nation (such as the Austro-Hungarian "multi-ethnic empire" that Hitler grew up in and despised) was precisely the kind of state that fascism abhorred. Fascism had no time for the state without a nation. And it certainly had no time for any "world-state." Good lord, that was the ultimate evil for fascists.

Quote from: Zirunel;1143277Fascism puts everything (including the state) at the service of the national (military) gloire.

EDITED TO ADD: (so the gaseous nationalist rhetoric went. Fascism of course proved to be crap at actually achieving any such thing)



The state can exist without a nation. But the state without a nation (such as the Austro-Hungarian "multi-ethnic empire" that Hitler grew up in and despised) was precisely the kind of state that fascism abhorred. Fascism had no time for the state without a nation. And it certainly had no time for any "world-state." Good lord, that was the ultimate evil for fascists.

Nope, fascism puts everything in the service of the state  "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state".

Nope again, fascists were happy with a world order with no juice, gypsies, etc. and with the "Arian Race" on top.

Now lets change just a few words:

Fascists want a world order with no juice, gypsies, etc. and with the "Arian Race (The Oppressed by those evul juice, gypsies, etc)" on top.
vs
SJWs want world order with no white, straight, Christian, etc. and with the "oppressed (Who are oppressed by those evul white, straight, Christian, etc)" on top.

A difference without a meaning.

I'm more inclined to view SJWs as Stalinists because of their demand the natural world adhere to their ideology, in spite of reality.

But we can have fine tea and a symposium discussing whether they're Nazis or Commies AFTER they are hanging off our spears.

America is burning. Time to bring down the arsonists.

Quote from: Zirunel;1143277And it certainly had no time for any "world-state." Good lord, that was the ultimate evil for fascists.

Then why did it want to conquer the world?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1143316Then why did it want to conquer the world?

The idea of us conquer them only stays appealing until the them start to be seen as part of the us.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1143322The idea of us conquer them only stays appealing until the them start to be seen as part of the us.

Which is why they wanted to do the whole 'Racial cleansing' element.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1143308But we can have fine tea and a symposium discussing whether they're Nazis or Commies AFTER they are hanging off our spears.

America is burning. Time to bring down the arsonists.

I rather be peaceful, but it isn't like they are giving us option.  I pretty much agree with you 100%.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1143339I rather be peaceful, but it isn't like they are giving us option.  I pretty much agree with you 100%.

The worst person to piss off is the man who just wants to be left alone. He knows more than anyone what he has to lose by acting.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1143283Nope, fascism puts everything in the service of the state  "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state".

Nope again, fascists were happy with a world order with no juice, gypsies, etc. and with the "Arian Race" on top.

Now lets change just a few words:

Fascists want a world order with no juice, gypsies, etc. and with the "Arian Race (The Oppressed by those evul juice, gypsies, etc)" on top.
vs
SJWs want world order with no white, straight, Christian, etc. and with the "oppressed (Who are oppressed by those evul white, straight, Christian, etc)" on top.

A difference without a meaning.

Fair enough re the Mussolini quote; Mussolini's fascism was a rather slippery fish and he was sometimes inconsistent and opportunistic in his pronouncements about what the fascist state actually was and how it worked (as he was about everything) but yes he did often focus on the centrality of The State. But even so, The State was not the be-all and end-all, it was largely just the means for achieving military conquest. "The function of a citizen and a soldier" were to him "inseparable" because war was "the normal state of the people." The role of the state was to unify and control an ethnic or linguistically defined nation to achieve military glory. In his case, it was all about reconstituting a glorious new Roman empire and returning his nation, Italy, to its place in the forefront of history. The state, however important, was only a means to that end.

 then you move from Mussolini to a Nazi conception, where "nation" becomes more bound up with "race" than you see with Mussolini. Broadly similar but different in the details, and some of those detail differences end up being huge.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1143332Which is why they wanted to do the whole 'Racial cleansing' element.

Yes. The Nazis, and I would say the Italians as well, never had any notion of conquering the world. But they did want to conquer those whose territory they actually wanted for themselves. At which point they faced the problem of what you do with your enemies once you conquer them. for the Nazis, at least, you could make the case that the "cleansing"approach was reserved for those they didn't want around at all, not even as subject peoples. Then you had the Poles and the Ukrainians, who were to be kept around as serfs. Kept uneducated, they could be tolerated as slaves in the great new Reich, but they could never be part of the Volk, never part of the German nation.

Quote from: Zirunel;1143569Then you had the Poles and the Ukrainians, who were to be kept around as serfs.

Except they weren't. While not as dedicated as the Jewish extermination, the population was pretty much starved and deprived of resources. While it's true that Hitler said allot of conflicting things he stated for a global reich multiple times (And wrote about desiring to conquer the americas).

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1143283Nope, fascism puts everything in the service of the state  "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state".

Nope again, fascists were happy with a world order with no juice, gypsies, etc. and with the "Arian Race" on top.

Now lets change just a few words:

Fascists want a world order with no juice, gypsies, etc. and with the "Arian Race (The Oppressed by those evul juice, gypsies, etc)" on top.
vs
SJWs want world order with no white, straight, Christian, etc. and with the "oppressed (Who are oppressed by those evul white, straight, Christian, etc)" on top.

A difference without a meaning.

I  think this is a bit of a stretch. Of course there's a difference, and you can sometimes spot the personality types before they claim their allegiance. The biggest buzzword for SJWs is "diversity", which they keep hammering everyone with. They fetishisize blacks, browns, and LGBT+ and treat them like babies. The diversity of thought is of course not included, but it is STILL a kind of diversity that fascists generally would not be happy with.

SJWs also do not harp on about a strong man to lead them, which was always a big thing for fascists. Far-left SJWs seriously think that "the people" will lead after the revolution, just like Stalinistic states are led by "the people".  Sure, they did turn into personality-cult dictatorships. Communists fall backwards into dictatorship every time. Yes the philosophy is THAT stupid. I know some of these people.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1143574Except they weren't. While not as dedicated as the Jewish extermination, the population was pretty much starved and deprived of resources. While it's true that Hitler said allot of conflicting things he stated for a global reich multiple times (And wrote about desiring to conquer the americas).

Yes, much of their agricultural output was shipped off to the Reich for the war effort, and a less extreme version of that was envisioned for the future too, but there was no extermination planned, they were to be kept around as subject peoples.

As for the Americas, yes he wanted to be able to project military power as far as the Americas, hence the Amerikabomber program. But no plans for conquest as far as I know.

Quote from: Trond;1143577I  think this is a bit of a stretch.

Yes, I agree. If you want to say "SJWs" are authoritarian, fine. But fascist? No, doesn't work.

They're not exactly the same.

What we call "SWJism" is nothing but cultural Marxism resulting from the dissemination of the works of left-wingers ideologues and philosophers such as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. In America, specifically, you also have the abominable influence and legacy of Saul Alinsky.

But, on the other hand, Fascism and Communist are not, and have never been, enemies. They are both sides of the same coin and they fight for the same things. If anything, they are rivals fighting for the same goals, although they may differ in how to achieve that goal.

Both ideologies are revolutionary, authoritarian, totalitarian, statist and collectivist.

Popular misconceptions aside, both are extreme left-wing (the notion that Nazism and Fascism are "right-wing" was disseminated by English Marxist historians like Eric Hobsbawn and E. P. Thompson in an attempt to distance Nazi-fascism from the left). This is pretty clear to anyone who has read Johann Plenge, Mussolini's "the Doctrine of Fascism", Hitler's "Mein Kampf" or the Nazi Party Platform (also known as the 25-point program).

The slogan "Arbeit macht frei" (Work sets you free), found on the gates of Auschwitz and many other concentration camps is pure Marxism. And if you've read the letters of Marx to Engels you will understand where the Nazis' hate against the Jews comes from.

The main (and perhaps, only) difference is the strong nationalistic* character of both Fascism and Nazism. While Communists (and Anarchists) advocate a class conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeois, Fascists advocated the conflict between proletarian nations and bourgeois nations.

* Note that many left-wing ideologies also have strong nationalistic characteristics and themes: Stalinism, Maoism, Khmer Rouge and Pan-Arabism, to name a few.

In theory, practice and theory are the same thing.  In practice, they aren't.

In theory, Marxists and Nazis are different.  One has an ultimate goal of a global government where in theory anyone can rise to the top to tell everyone else what to do.  The other has an ultimate goal of a particular government that controls the globe where in theory anyone of the approved government can rise to the top to tell everyone else what to do.  In practice, extreme force is going to get used either way, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

"Fascist" is one of those words like "liberal" that has so many meanings it's become meaningless unless you precisely define how you're using the word. One highly influential definition comes from Umberto Eco's 1995 essay, "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt" (http://interglacial.com/pub/text/Umberto_Eco_-_Eternal_Fascism.html), which is an excerpt of his larger article "Ur-Fascism". (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/)

Quote from: Umberto Eco1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.
8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.
12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

(See the essay for more in depth explanations of each of the 14 features.)

Eco is a famous author, and certainly has first hand experience of true fascism -- he grew up in Mussolini's Italy. He doesn't make the mistake of using fascism as a synonym of totalitarianism, or as a simple epithet (e.g. calling the cop who pulled you over a "fascist"), which I think is important. Another important distinction he makes is that fascism isn't a coherent philosophy or movement. It's not socialism, with all its crazy theorists talking about the labor theory or value or new moons. It's not even national socialism, which is a very specific ideology. Some of the 14 points he lists also contradict each other, and that's not a mistake or an inconsistency in the list. Rather, it's a reflection of the nature and source of fascism. It's opportunistic, and perverts rather than displaces its social, political, and national environment.

I think that's an important insight. It's worth remembering that Mussolini was never an intellectual or theorist. He didn't create fascism as a fully thought out set of axioms and ideals, which he then tried to implement. Instead, he worked with what he had, and shifted as needed to adapt to the changing circumstances. Mussolini started as a socialist, and he used that as his framework. But he also adopted elements from extreme nationalism, and whatever suited his ego or the political needs of the moment. Fascism was fluid and inconstant.

But I ultimately think Eco's definition is garbage, because he's defining it too broadly. Fascism is Mussolini, and Franco, and not much else. It's not really a philosophy, or even a specific set of tactics. It's just how a few specific strongmen acquired, maintained, and exercised power. You can't stretch it into an ur-anything, because attempting to differentiate it from dictatorship or totalitarianism in general means you have to draw arbitrary lines and call a random set of attributes "fascism".

It's lot more useful to use a label to precisely define something, and to note specific correspondences, than to apply a meaningless label.

Note Taggie (whom Bugle quoted in the thread's first post) appears to be working off Lawrence Britt's 2003 "The 14 Characteristics of Fascism" (https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html), which is apparently based on Skip Stone's 2002 "Hallmarks of a Fascist Regime". (https://www.hipforums.com/forum/threads/the-14-characteristics-of-fascism.237793/) I'd be inclined to say both are ultimately inspired by Eco's list, but Skip Stone says later in the linked thread that "his [Britt's] and mine are still the only lists of fascist attributes that I know of" as part of his claim that Britt plagiarized him, which makes his petulance risible. In any case, the same critique applies to both, because they are even vaguer and more general than Eco's definition.

Edit: I grabbed my copy of Madeline Albright's Fascism: A Warning, for comparison. I forgot she made a decent point, in the first chapter: She recounted an open discussion with a class of graduate students at Georgetown, where she came to the conclusion that "Fascism should perhaps be viewed less as a political ideology than as a means for seizing and holding power", which echoes what Eco said, and which I largely agree with. They also came up with a list of characteristics that resembles the ones above (charismatic, controls information etc.) -- but ultimately they have trouble differentiating fascism from other forms of authoritarianism. Albright ultimately rejects an academic's attempt to define fascism based on a set of characteristics for a diplomat's intuition, i.e. she uses a variation on the "I know it when I see it" doctrine made infamous in court cases. Which is why I found her book useful for insights into geopolitics, but useless for its purported task of warning against something called "fascism". In practice, Albright's fascism is anything that goes against her neoliberal, globalist, intellectual elitist sensibilities.

A political theorist might disagree, but to me fascism (as a term including National Socialism) has these traits:

-Militarism
-Nationalism
-Anti-democracy
-Reverence for the "strong leader", and "strength" in general
-Reverence or lip-service for national traditions (when these clash with the above points, they are thrown out and it all turns to just lip service). Despite this seemingly weak point, it is actually important; this is the reason why many people who were panicking about the rise of communism turned to the fascists. The fascists never said that the national traditions and culture were "bad" and so they seemed safer to many average people in the first half of the 20th century. For instance, church leaders often backed fascists, while communists put them to the axe.

Quote from: Trond;1144593A political theorist might disagree, but to me fascism (as a term including National Socialism) has these traits:

-Militarism
-Nationalism
-Anti-democracy
-Reverence for the "strong leader", and "strength" in general
-Reverence or lip-service for national traditions (when these clash with the above points, they are thrown out and it all turns to just lip service). Despite this seemingly weak point, it is actually important; this is the reason why many people who were panicking about the rise of communism turned to the fascists. The fascists never said that the national traditions and culture were "bad" and so they seemed safer to many average people in the first half of the 20th century. For instance, church leaders often backed fascists, while communists put them to the axe.

Mao spoke about national traditions in his article "On New Democracy" (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm) in 1940:

Quote from: Mao Tse-tungA splendid old culture was created during the long period of Chinese feudal society. To study the development of this old culture, to reject its feudal dross and assimilate its democratic essence is a necessary condition for developing our new national culture and increasing our national self-confidence, but we should never swallow anything and everything uncritically. It is imperative to separate the fine old culture of the people which had a more or less democratic and revolutionary character from all the decadence of the old feudal ruling class. China's present new politics and new economy have developed out of her old politics and old economy, and her present new culture, too, has developed out of her old culture; therefore, we must respect our own history and must not lop it off.

For instance, he and his successors up to and including Xi showed reverence for some aspects of Confucianism. They even put a statue of him opposite the statue of Mao in Tienanmen Square, just over a decade ago (though they pulled it down not long after, because it's complicated (https://theasiadialogue.com/2015/12/01/official-marxism-vs-new-confucianism-the-story-of-the-vanishing-statue-of-confucius/)). So your definition includes Maoism.

That's an example of why I think "fascism" is a garbage word, meaning anything or nothing. It's become no more than a generic insult that says more about the speaker's politics than anything else.

Quote from: Pat;1144600Mao spoke about national traditions in his article "On New Democracy" (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm) in 1940:


For instance, he and his successors up to and including Xi showed reverence for some aspects of Confucianism. They even put a statue of him opposite the statue of Mao in Tienanmen Square, just over a decade ago (though they pulled it down not long after, because it's complicated (https://theasiadialogue.com/2015/12/01/official-marxism-vs-new-confucianism-the-story-of-the-vanishing-statue-of-confucius/)). So your definition includes Maoism.

That's an example of why I think "fascism" is a garbage word, meaning anything or nothing. It's become no more than a generic insult that says more about the speaker's politics than anything else.

I disagree. Chiang Kai-Shek was much more akin to a fascist than Mao. Communists showed very little reverence for Chinese culture in general; it was a very well documented destruction of the Chinese cultural heritage, and much more so than what fascists did in Spain, Italy or Germany. It also speaks to the difference in appeal; communists tend to be appealing to the people who think that society is bad to the core and that everything should be burned down or turned on its head to fit their view. Fascists usually focus on the "glorious past" much more, and also to point to scapegoats as the reason of why the current state seems less glorious.

The similarities come as afterthoughts, when either communists or fascists realize that their systems (particularly communism) don't work.

Quote from: Trond;1144616I disagree. Chiang Kai-Shek was much more akin to a fascist than Mao. Communists showed very little reverence for Chinese culture in general; it was a very well documented destruction of the Chinese cultural heritage, and much more so than what fascists did in Spain, Italy or Germany. It also speaks to the difference in appeal; communists tend to be appealing to the people who think that society is bad to the core and that everything should be burned down or turned on its head to fit their view. Fascists usually focus on the "glorious past" much more, and also to point to scapegoats as the reason of why the current state seems less glorious.

The similarities come as afterthoughts, when either communists or fascists realize that their systems (particularly communism) don't work.

The bourgeois isn't a scapegoat?

Isn't the bourgeois the reason everything is wrong in socialist/communist thought?

And so you have your "the other".

Don't the fascists think society is fucked? Don't they want to destroy it and burn it down to either return to a glorious past or to build their utopia?

Don't the socialists also want to destroy everything to build their utopia?

Both also require total submission of the citizens, for the greater good and to achieve utopia.

Both also blame "The Other" for the current state of affairs.

Both also were traditionally anti semitic.

Both are also against religion if they can't control it, the fascists want only theirs to exist and the socialist/communist switches to a worship of the state.

Both control the economy
Both are censorious
Both use concentration camps to deal with the undesirables.

Again, you focus on the state as a big difference, it isn't. Their ideologies are so alike it's almost impossible to turn any of them into a liberal but very easy to convert them from fascism to socialism or viceversa.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1144619The bourgeois isn't a scapegoat?

Isn't the bourgeois the reason everything is wrong in socialist/communist thought?

Mostly to the communists, less so to the fascists.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1144619And so you have your "the other".

Don't the fascists think society is fucked? Don't they want to destroy it and burn it down to either return to a glorious past or to build their utopia?

Not really no.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1144619Don't the socialists also want to destroy everything to build their utopia?

Both also require total submission of the citizens, for the greater good and to achieve utopia.

Both also blame "The Other" for the current state of affairs.

Both also were traditionally anti semitic.

Both are also against religion if they can't control it, the fascists want only theirs to exist and the socialist/communist switches to a worship of the state.

Both control the economy
Both are censorious
Both use concentration camps to deal with the undesirables.

Again, you focus on the state as a big difference, it isn't. Their ideologies are so alike it's almost impossible to turn any of them into a liberal but very easy to convert them from fascism to socialism or viceversa.

No I don't focus on the state, because that's the main similarity. You're getting pretty close to just saying "extremists are all the same" which has some truth to it, but there are still different kinds of extremism. They appeal to different people and always have. Say, before any military takeover, in a country with an aristocracy and military leaders, you can bet that there will be more fascists among them than communists. There is a reason why people use two different words.
Take a cultural thing like the opera; fascists typically love it because it reminds them of a glorious past, while communists will often try to destroy it (as in the Chinese opera).

Greetings!

I think that a good piece of Hickory and a stretch of rope works just fine for both Fascists and Communists.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Trond;1144616I disagree. Chiang Kai-Shek was much more akin to a fascist than Mao. Communists showed very little reverence for Chinese culture in general; it was a very well documented destruction of the Chinese cultural heritage, and much more so than what fascists did in Spain, Italy or Germany. It also speaks to the difference in appeal; communists tend to be appealing to the people who think that society is bad to the core and that everything should be burned down or turned on its head to fit their view. Fascists usually focus on the "glorious past" much more, and also to point to scapegoats as the reason of why the current state seems less glorious.

The similarities come as afterthoughts, when either communists or fascists realize that their systems (particularly communism) don't work.

You're the one who had a footnote in your list of fascist qualities, saying the reverence of national heritage bowed to the other principles. That's exactly what Mao did, praising China's rich heritage on the one hand, but forcing it to conform to his other aims. That's not significantly different than Mussolini's alliance with the Catholic church, which was clearly a matter of political expediency rather than principle (it conflicts with the State as everything), and required them to subordinate themselves to his power. It's true that communism is generally atheist and Mussolini talked about the ideal fascist being religious, but he also decried and was utterly oppose to what he repeatedly called the "religion of liberalism". So clearly his definition of "religion" included ideologies (or more, since classical liberalism fails to meet many of the criteria of an ideology), and fascism above all revered the State.

Quote from: SHARK;1144625Greetings!

I think that a good piece of Hickory and a stretch of rope works just fine for both Fascists and Communists.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Amen! The differences between them are academic - intellectual masturbation for obsessives. Each is its own greater evil. Neither is lesser.

Quote from: Trond;1144623Mostly to the communists, less so to the fascists.

  Not really no.



No I don't focus on the state, because that's the main similarity. You're getting pretty close to just saying "extremists are all the same" which has some truth to it, but there are still different kinds of extremism. They appeal to different people and always have. Say, before any military takeover, in a country with an aristocracy and military leaders, you can bet that there will be more fascists among them than communists. There is a reason why people use two different words.
Take a cultural thing like the opera; fascists typically love it because it reminds them of a glorious past, while communists will often try to destroy it (as in the Chinese opera).

you are so close and yet fall short:

Bourgeois = Jews = "The Other" "The oppressor" The one to blame, the scapegoat.

Proletariat = The Arian Race = The inner group = The Oppressed

From there it follows anything done to them is moral. Which is why both committed atrocities against their chosen scapegoat.

You need to go beyond the superficial differences.

Quote from: Trond;1144593A political theorist might disagree, but to me fascism (as a term including National Socialism) has these traits:

-Militarism
-Nationalism
-Anti-democracy
-Reverence for the "strong leader", and "strength" in general
-Reverence or lip-service for national traditions (when these clash with the above points, they are thrown out and it all turns to just lip service). Despite this seemingly weak point, it is actually important; this is the reason why many people who were panicking about the rise of communism turned to the fascists. The fascists never said that the national traditions and culture were "bad" and so they seemed safer to many average people in the first half of the 20th century. For instance, church leaders often backed fascists, while communists put them to the axe.

So, beside the reverence or lip service for national traditions where's the difference?

Militarism? Check
Nationalism? One wants a nation state and the other a world state, so check.
Anti-Democracy? Double check
Reverence for the strong leader? Check

Quote from: Pat;1144630You're the one who had a footnote in your list of fascist qualities, saying the reverence of national heritage bowed to the other principles. That's exactly what Mao did, praising China's rich heritage on the one hand, but forcing it to conform to his other aims. That's not significantly different than Mussolini's alliance with the Catholic church, which was clearly a matter of political expediency rather than principle (it conflicts with the State as everything), and required them to subordinate themselves to his power. It's true that communism is generally atheist and Mussolini talked about the ideal fascist being religious, but he also decried and was utterly oppose to what he repeatedly called the "religion of liberalism". So clearly his definition of "religion" included ideologies (or more, since classical liberalism fails to meet many of the criteria of an ideology), and fascism above all revered the State.

I'd say that the difference IS significant. So significant that the two groups are usually supported by completely different groups of people. For instance, in Spain the church generally supported Franco, while the communists killed priests on sight.

[video=youtube;op6AZ518bf0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op6AZ518bf0[/youtube]

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1144639So, beside the reverence or lip service for national traditions where's the difference?

Militarism? Check
Nationalism? One wants a nation state and the other a world state, so check.
Anti-Democracy? Double check
Reverence for the strong leader? Check

Most of the above are more important in fascism.
militarism; much more important in fascism - the fascists more often have military background
Nationalism; much more important in fascism, one might say it's extremist nationalism. I wouldn't call communism nationalist at all, it's one of many things they glued on when they realized the system was unworkable.  My grandfather was not particularly nationalist, but some of the fascists who hated him were.
Anti-democracy; I might give you this one, but wait a sec; even here the fascist are more extreme. They are overtly and proudly anti-democratic. A Nazi I once argued with literally blamed democracy for almost all the ills in the west. While the communists are, shall we say, more sneaky (or even on the fence). Some of them hate democracy, others love to call themselves "democratic".
Reverence for a strong leader; this is again typical of fascists, and glued on by communists.

Communism is all about equalizing everyone until you're all a gray, sad mass of people (or dead). You could say that communists tend to revert towards fascism to a higher degree, and that's true, but that's because the "system" doesn't work. BUT there is STILL a major difference; fascists don't work for the redistribution of "the means of production" and force virtually everyone to become either a factory worker or farmer the way communists typically do en masse. There's a reason why aristocrats, if they are any of the two, they are usually fascist sympathizers, such as the abdicated Edward VIII in England.

Quote from: Trond;1144642Most of the above are more important in fascism.
militarism; much more important in fascism - the fascists more often have military background
Nationalism; much more important in fascism, one might say it's extremist nationalism. I wouldn't call communism nationalist at all, it's one of many things they glued on when they realized the system was unworkable.  My grandfather was not particularly nationalist, but some of the fascists who hated him were.
Anti-democracy; I might give you this one, but wait a sec; even here the fascist are more extreme. They are overtly and proudly anti-democratic. A Nazi I once argued with literally blamed democracy for almost all the ills in the west. While the communists are, shall we say, more sneaky (or even on the fence). Some of them hate democracy, others love to call themselves "democratic".
Reverence for a strong leader; this is again typical of fascists, and glued on by communists.

Communism is all about equalizing everyone until you're all a gray, sad mass of people (or dead). You could say that communists tend to revert towards fascism to a higher degree, and that's true, but that's because the "system" doesn't work. BUT there is STILL a major difference; fascists don't work for the redistribution of "the means of production" and force virtually everyone to become either a factory worker or farmer the way communists typically do en masse. There's a reason why aristocrats, if they are any of the two, they are usually fascist sympathizers, such as the abdicated Edward VIII in England.

Communists SAY they work for the redistribution, but in practice they don't.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1144644Communists SAY they work for the redistribution, but in practice they don't.

They do. That's why they kill business more quickly than any other ideology I know of.

I would agree with Trond, good at redistributing back to zero.

No one is poor if everyone is poor.

Quote from: Trond;1144616I disagree. Chiang Kai-Shek was much more akin to a fascist than Mao. Communists showed very little reverence for Chinese culture in general; it was a very well documented destruction of the Chinese cultural heritage, and much more so than what fascists did in Spain, Italy or Germany. It also speaks to the difference in appeal; communists tend to be appealing to the people who think that society is bad to the core and that everything should be burned down or turned on its head to fit their view. Fascists usually focus on the "glorious past" much more, and also to point to scapegoats as the reason of why the current state seems less glorious.

The similarities come as afterthoughts, when either communists or fascists realize that their systems (particularly communism) don't work.

Have a laugh: one of the reasons China is so eager to swallow up Taiwan is because when Kai-Shek and his followers retreated there, they also took as much of the Chinese cultural heritage -- documents, artifacts, etc -- as they could carry, because they KNEW Mao was going to go full on Year Zero on the Chinese history.

Quote from: Trond;1144640I'd say that the difference IS significant. So significant that the two groups are usually supported by completely different groups of people. For instance, in Spain the church generally supported Franco, while the communists killed priests on sight.

Franco was strongly Catholic, but Mussolini started as a syndicalist who planned to confiscate church property. He "was a militant atheist at the beginning and later signed the Convention with the Church and welcomed the bishops who blessed the Fascist pennants." (Eco 1995) That's expedience, not an underlying creed. It's clearly not a characteristics of fascism, which has no real characteristics beyond political expediency.

Quote from: Trond;1144642Most of the above are more important in fascism.
militarism; much more important in fascism - the fascists more often have military background
Nationalism; much more important in fascism, one might say it's extremist nationalism. I wouldn't call communism nationalist at all, it's one of many things they glued on when they realized the system was unworkable.  My grandfather was not particularly nationalist, but some of the fascists who hated him were.
Anti-democracy; I might give you this one, but wait a sec; even here the fascist are more extreme. They are overtly and proudly anti-democratic. A Nazi I once argued with literally blamed democracy for almost all the ills in the west. While the communists are, shall we say, more sneaky (or even on the fence). Some of them hate democracy, others love to call themselves "democratic".
Reverence for a strong leader; this is again typical of fascists, and glued on by communists.

Communism is all about equalizing everyone until you're all a gray, sad mass of people (or dead). You could say that communists tend to revert towards fascism to a higher degree, and that's true, but that's because the "system" doesn't work. BUT there is STILL a major difference; fascists don't work for the redistribution of "the means of production" and force virtually everyone to become either a factory worker or farmer the way communists typically do en masse. There's a reason why aristocrats, if they are any of the two, they are usually fascist sympathizers, such as the abdicated Edward VIII in England.

Mussolini drew on the children of the lower middle class, which included the military, and adopted strongman tactics and valued machismo. So yes, they had stronger military ties. But look at how many communist or revolutionary socialist dictators wear military uniforms, and extol the virtues of physical prowess, albeit more aimed at farmers or factory workers. It's just a common tactic among authoritarian leaders.

Communism may be universalist in theory, but it's always nationalist in practice. That's because it would have been really hard, for instance, to convince the German workers of the early 20th century to share their nation's wealth with Kenya. As a result, the international exchange is largely among the intellectuals, with the rank and file members strongly nationalized.

In terms of democracy, there was a shift in socialist tactics in the 20th century. In the early years, like the fascists, they talked about the will of the people, but they really didn't mean anything like democracy. The leaders claimed to represent the people, often battling against democratic institutions. People tend to forget, but Lenin's Bolshevik revolution didn't overthrow the Romanovs, it overthrew the democratically elected government that had overthrown the monarchy. But later communists, Marxists in particular, learned to work within democratic nations by appealing to democratic impulses. But once in power, like all dictators, they just consolidated power, like Chavez and later Maduro.

And "some animals are more equal than others" is more true than "from each according to his ability; to each according to her needs".

Quoting shuddemel from a different thread because it's pertinent

Quote from: shuddemell;1144869And then some people believe they were certainly supporting socialist policies, ala Hitler's 25 point plan...

The 25-point Program of the NSDAP
1.We demand the union of all Germans to form the Greater Germany on the basis of the people's right to self-determination enjoyed by the nations.
2.We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations; and abolition of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
3.We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people and colonization for our superfluous population.
4.None but members of the nation may be citizens of the state. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed may be. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation.
5.Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be regarded as being subject to foreign laws.
6.The right of voting on the state's government and legislation is to be enjoyed by the citizen of the state alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, shall be granted to citizens of the state alone. We oppose the corrupting custom of parliament of filling posts merely with a view to party considerations, and without reference to character or capability.
7.We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to nourish the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) must be excluded from the Reich.
8.All immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be required immediately to leave the Reich.
9.All citizens of the state shall be equal as regards rights and obligations.
10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the whole for the benefit for the general good. We demand therefore:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice of life and property that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment due to a war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. Therefore, we demand ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13.We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts).
14.We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
19.We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
20.The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the state must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the state of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21.The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22.We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23.We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race;b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the state to be published. They may not be printed in the German language;c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications or any influence on them and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
24.We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: "The good of the community before the good of the individual".[13] ("GEMEINNUTZ GEHT VOR EIGENNUTZ" [all caps in original])[14]
25.For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1144880Quoting shuddemel from a different thread because it's pertinent

Yes, this came from a post where a poster claimed that people believe Nazi's were socialists simply because the name includes socialist. This is a rebuttal to that, as it is obvious both the parallels to socialism, Marxism and SJW's directly in their planned and implemented policies. #13 is particularly telling, as the seizure of the means of production by the state is the defining feature of socialism.

Quote from: shuddemell;1144884Yes, this came from a post where a poster claimed that people believe Nazi's were socialists simply because the name includes socialist. This is a rebuttal to that, as it is obvious both the parallels to socialism, Marxism and SJW's directly in their planned and implemented policies. #13 is particularly telling, as the seizure of the means of production by the state is the defining feature of socialism.

Which is actually a decent argument that Nazis aren't fascists at all, because fascism in the ur-Mussolini sense is based on syndicalism. Syndicalism is a form of radical trade unionism, which wants the unions to take action and assert power directly though things like strikes or sabotage. While it's traditionally decentralized and in fact has a strong tradition of resisting things like collective bargaining agreements because they're too bureaucratic, the version that fascism adopted in Italy involved a tripartite model, where the unions, the government, and the employers came together to decide economic policy. Though since fascism is authoritarian, that really meant that the central government had to approve all corporate decisions, from opening a new factory to firing people or setting wages. That's distinct from socialism, where the state simply nationalizes industry. But there's not a huge practical difference between direct ownership and nominal independence, when you're micromanaging decisions either way, so fascism remains a close kin to its parent, socialism. Though in practice, the Nazis didn't nationalize everything, so fascism is still appropriate.

I would tend to agree, from looking at the roots of the Fascist movements. However the current definition of fascism is something along these lines "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." I am sure most leftists hang their hat on the "right-wing" portion of the definition, however that was something progressives tacked on to it when it looked like some of the systems of government that they had gushed over approvingly in earlier years turned into a murderous, corrupt evil regimes. They did this to distance themselves from the folly of their own opinions and pronouncements which proved (like they most always do) to be utopian nonsense which inevitably leads down the path of poverty, tyranny and mass murder. Though apparently it never did end their love affair with an equally onerous system of socialism.

As I pointed out a few posts ago, "fascism" was just a description of how a few authoritarians took power. They were opportunistic and anti-intellectual, and had no consistent ideological underpinnings. For instance, Mussolini was a militant atheist, but then he started talking about how the archetypical fascist was religious, when he reached a deal with the bishops. He was also pro-tradition and wove the monarchy into a nationalist mythology, at least while the crown was too strong to defeat, but he always worked against the king, and when the fascists were strong enough to wrest away his power, they did. That lack of a coherent center is a defining trait. The classic Italian version of fascism, after all, was a mix of extremist ideas adopted from both the left and the right: It had roots in nationalism, syndicalism, and socialism. Thus the idea that fascism is a right and not left wing movement is pure revisionism, and the attempt to use the word "fascist" to describe a general type of movement, instead of using it more narrowly to describe movements directly derived from the original fascists, is patently absurd. Whenever someone tries, "fascism" becomes synonymous with "authoritarian, except for the random collection of authoritarians the current author has specifically excluded".

Quote from: Pat;1144899As I pointed out a few posts ago, "fascism" was just a description of how a few authoritarians took power. They were opportunistic and anti-intellectual, and had no consistent ideological underpinnings. For instance, Mussolini was a militant atheist, but then he started talking about how the archetypical fascist was religious, when he reached a deal with the bishops. He was also pro-tradition and wove the monarchy into a nationalist mythology, at least while the crown was too strong to defeat, but he always worked against the king, and when the fascists were strong enough to wrest away his power, they did. That lack of a coherent center is a defining trait. The classic Italian version of fascism, after all, was a mix of extremist ideas adopted from both the left and the right: It had roots in nationalism, syndicalism, and socialism. Thus the idea that fascism is a right and not left wing movement is pure revisionism, and the attempt to use the word "fascist" to describe a general type of movement, instead of using it more narrowly to describe movements directly derived from the original fascists, is patently absurd. Whenever someone tries, "fascism" becomes synonymous with "authoritarian, except for the random collection of authoritarians the current author has specifically excluded".

Agreed, and well put.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1144880Quoting shuddemel from a different thread because it's pertinent

Political window-dressing. Little different from the "democracy" of the DDR or the DPRK. This "program" was pronounced in 1920, the same year that they decided to add the word"socialist" to the name of the party. At that time any populist party hoping for electoral success in Weimar Germany had to give the nod to socialism, and the Nazis certainly did. But how much it really meant is made clear by what happened in 1934 when they finally had enough political power not to worry about elections. The embarrassing socialist elements that were no longer needed were henceforth ignored. Those prominent Nazis who actually thought "socialism" was part of the program, and yes there were some,  were brutally purged (e.g. Gregor Strasser) or, if they were more easily ignored were sidelined (e.g. Gottfried Feder, and Otto Strasser, who escaped his brother's fate but nevertheless ended up fleeing Germany with a price on his head to preach "national socialism" elsewhere).  The rest got the message that socialism was not and had never been part of the real program.

I would hardly say Nazi control of the means of production, which they did indeed do, is hardly political window dressing.

Quote from: shuddemell;1144969I would hardly say Nazi control of the means of production, which they did indeed do, is hardly political window dressing.

"Nazi control of the means of production" is not a point in the program, not in that form.

Perhaps you are referring to Point 13 : "We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts)."

This might not have been window dressing if it had actually occurred, or even been attempted. But it was not. Civilian production, and even war production, remained almost entirely in the hands of the same old private companies. Nationalization as such never happened, although it is true that the Reichswerke Hermann Göring did build itself up into a huge conglomerate, mostly by absorbing a large percentage (but by no means all) of the industries in the captured foreign occupied territories.

Quote from: Zirunel;1144988"Nazi control of the means of production" is not a point in the program, not in that form.

Perhaps you are referring to Point 13 : "We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts)."

This might not have been window dressing if it had actually occurred, or even been attempted. But it was not. Civilian production, and even war production, remained almost entirely in the hands of the same old private companies. Nationalization as such never happened, although it is true that the Reichswerke Hermann Göring did build itself up into a huge conglomerate, mostly by absorbing a large percentage (but by no means all) of the industries in the captured foreign occupied territories.

There isn't much difference between state ownership of the means of production, which is the definition of socialism, and the state exercising all the rights of ownership while lacking nominal ownership. Nazi socialism isn't socialism in the first sense (with a couple relatively minor exceptions), but the second sense definitely applies. The same is true for Italian fascism and syndicalism. They may not be socialism under the strictest of definitions, but they're certainly covered when the term is used a bit more broadly. If you want to call that something else, like collectivism, that's fine. But regardless of the definition used, they're close kin, and they're all descended from socialist theorizing.

Quote from: Pat;1144990There isn't much difference between state ownership of the means of production, which is the definition of socialism, and the state exercising all the rights of ownership while lacking nominal ownership. Nazi socialism isn't socialism in the first sense (with a couple relatively minor exceptions), but the second sense definitely applies. The same is true for Italian fascism and syndicalism. They may not be socialism under the strictest of definitions, but they're certainly covered when the term is used a bit more broadly. If you want to call that something else, like collectivism, that's fine. But regardless of the definition used, they're close kin, and they're all descended from socialist theorizing.

Except that the Nazi state, at least, did not "exercise all the rights of ownership," at least not in any unusual way. Production of civilian consumer goods remained untouched by state interference, even quite late in the war.

It is true that there was considerable state (Armaments Ministry) interference in war production, mostly in the latter part of the war.  Private companies competed for government contracts, but the successful bidder became something of a slave to the demands of their client (a State Ministry). That could include, if the contractor couldn't produce the quantities required, forcing them to license or sub production to other competitors. Yes, the war materiel industry could kind of resemble the state exercising (some) rights of ownership. But that in no way differed from the ways the western allies dealt with war production.

The kind of control you're describing is not a feature of a fascist economy, or a socialist economy, or a communist economy, or a capitalist economy it's a feature of all of them under a war economy, and was practiced by all combatants.

Quote from: Zirunel;1145002Except that the Nazi state, at least, did not "exercise all the rights of ownership while lacking nominal ownership," at least not in any unusual way. Production of civilian consumer goods remained untouched, even quite late in the war.

It is true that there was considerable state (Armaments Ministry) interference in war production, mostly in the latter part of the war.  Private companies competed for government contracts, but the successful bidder became something of a slave to the demands of their client (a State Ministry). That could include, if the contractor couldn't produce the quantities required, forcing them to license or sub production to other competitors. Yes, the war materiel industry could kind of resemble the state exercising (some) rights of ownership. But that in no way differed from the ways the western allies dealt with war production.

The kind of control you're describing is not a feature of a fascist economy, or a socialist economy, or a communist economy, or a capitalist economy it's a feature of all of them under a war economy, and was practiced by all combatants.

No, it's a feature of a socialist economy. Don't confuse capitalism with the abridgement of capitalism by politicians crying "emergency".

Nazi Germany imposed price and wage controls in 1936, three years before the war started. The government also decided what was produced, how it would be produced, how it was distributed, how much the employers were allowed to take home, and also established the (secret) police state needed to enforce all those rules and stamp out free economic exchanges (the black market). That's not capitalism, it's a form of socialism.

Quote from: Pat;1145003No, it's a feature of a socialist economy. Don't confuse capitalism with the abridgement of capitalism by politicians crying "emergency".

Nazi Germany imposed price and wage controls in 1936, three years before the war started. The government also decided what was produced, how it would be produced, how it was distributed, how much the employers were allowed to take home, and also established the (secret) police state needed to enforce all those rules and stamp out free economic exchanges (the black market). That's not capitalism, it's a form of socialism.

And if you didn't go along, you got shot.  Also a feature of socialism in its fully mature form.

Well, Ackshully

Progressives/SJWs/Radical Liberals/Democrats/Antifa are not Fascists and neither are Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians. This entire argument is absurd and based on so many false principles and assumptions I hardly even know where to start, but I'll try anyway.

First, why does the entire Left and all but the Hard Right call each other "Fascists"? Because of the moral paradigm established after WW2. In WW2 there were essentially three separate ideologies at war - Liberal Democracy, Soviet Communism, and Fascism/National Socialism. The latter lost the military conflict, and was made into a symbol of all that is evil by the two prevailing powers.

"History is written by the winners". In no case does this apply MORE than to the aftermath of WW2. Not only does this apply to the "history" itself, but extends to the very definition of "Fascism" that's found in all academic textbooks. Those definitions were not written by disinterested, objective scholars, but rather by people who were highly political, generally of a Marxist bent. Marxists have a lot of beliefs and use terminology not commonly used outside of Marxist circles, and this is reflected in the official, textbook definitions of Fascism they write.

Of the defeated Axis nations, Fascist Italy was far less important ideologically than National Socialist Germany, so why then the prominence of the term "Fascism"? This is because the Marxists in academia cannot bring themselves to refer to the Third Reich as National SOCIALIST. "Socialist" is their special word, one for which they have their own special meaning, and conceding that Adolf Hitler was a type of Socialist violates their ideology.

The textbook definition of Fascism neither accurately describes the stated ideology it pretends to, nor how those regimes actually functioned.

Not unlike the WW2 era, in America we have essentially three competing ideologies today - Progressivism/Left-Liberalism, Conservatism/Libertarianism/"Classical Liberalism", and Fascism/National Socialism/Third Positionism.

Progressivism/Left-Liberalism is collectivist, authoritarian, and completely opposed to traditional gender roles, Christian morality, Western civilization in general, and White people in particular.

Conservatism/Libertarianism is individualistic, libertarian, and generally passively supportive of  traditional gender roles, Christian morality, and Western civilization.

Fascism/National Socialism is collectivist, authoritarian, and fiercely supportive of traditional gender roles, Christian morality, Western civilization in general, and White people in particular.

SJWs/Antifa are NOT the real Fascists. They're violent, terrible lowlife scumbags, but just because you don't like them doesn't make them Fascists. They are rather a form of neo-Bolshevik. Cultural Marxists less interested in the working class than in cultivating the most exotic, special snowflake sexual identities and fetishizing downtrodden non-White ethnic groups.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145069Not unlike the WW2 era, in America we have essentially three competing ideologies today - Progressivism/Left-Liberalism, Conservatism/Libertarianism/"Classical Liberalism", and Fascism/National Socialism/Third Positionism.

Fascism/Nazism isn't a third position, for all practical purposes it's extinct and has been for 75 years. The split is between the relatively old school big government liberalism and the newer progressivism on the left, and traditional conservatism and nativist populism on the right. Or to split it another way, a big swath of neoliberalism in the center, with socialism and leave-me-aloneism on the two extremes. Libertarians and classical liberals exist, but they're only found in significant numbers on the internet.

Quote from: Pat;1145075Fascism/Nazism isn't a third position, for all practical purposes it's extinct and has been for 75 years.

In governance, in the West, yes. In the arena of ideas, it's alive and well.

Quote from: Pat;1145075The split is between the relatively old school big government liberalism and the newer progressivism on the left,

I see the newer, much more extreme, progressives as the modern form of the old "big government liberalism", with the exception that the old liberals were less actively hostile towards White proles, and they had some degree of respect for freedom of speech, due process, and things like that. Progressives are just liberal extremists.

Quote from: Pat;1145075and traditional conservatism and nativist populism on the right.

No one is interested in Conservative Inc., Ronald Reagan/Mitt Romney style conservatism. It's always been an unnatural combination of evangelical Christians and other social conservatives with economic Free Marketeers. The nativist populist element was sublimated into the social conservative part (think Pat Buchannan), and has since gotten tired of the Mitt Romney vulture capitalists always getting their way and voted for Trump in rebellion. The Republican Free Marketeers for their part have completely abandoned all pretense of social conservatism, and have merged indistinguishably with the neo-Liberals (see the Never Trumpers)

The nativist populists are often called Fascists by their enemies, and not for no reason. Although they don't consider themselves as such (social conditioning being what it is) their instincts and inclinations are far closer to the values pathologized by the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School as the "Authoritarian Personality" aka Fascism.

Quote from: Pat;1145075Or to split it another way, a big swath of neoliberalism in the center, with socialism and leave-me-aloneism on the two extremes.

The Socialism on the Left serves as an extra-legal bludgeon against the leave-me-alones on the Right on behalf of the neo-Liberal order. All the obscure, hipster anarcho-Leninist ideologies they purport to believe in on the far Left is meaningless. They are avid consoomers and defenders of product and the corporations who produce it. Useful idiots. Expendable bioweapons. The leave-me-alones (social conservatives who have retreated into their homes because they've been completely disenfranchised and libertarians who believe it on principle) aren't being left alone. The peaceful rioters are coming to their neighborhoods and shooting their 5 year old sons in the head as they ride their bicycles. When "leave me in peace" is no longer an option, what then?

Quote from: Pat;1145075Libertarians and classical liberals exist, but they're only found in significant numbers on the internet.

I agree, but their views are the only ones that are allowed to be expressed on the nominal Right. Back when Dan Cringeshaw was on Joe Rogan, he was making the standard Conservative/Libertarian argument about why the government just can't force internet platforms to respect free speech, because "they're private companies". Without the willingness to use government force to protect social conservative values, "traditional conservatives" are simply libertarians.

Quote from: Greywolf76;1143671They're not exactly the same.

What we call "SWJism" is nothing but cultural Marxism resulting from the dissemination of the works of left-wingers ideologues and philosophers such as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. In America, specifically, you also have the abominable influence and legacy of Saul Alinsky.

true

Quote from: Greywolf76;1143671But, on the other hand, Fascism and Communist are not, and have never been, enemies.

No one fought the Communists harder than the Fascists, in Spain, in Germany, in Italy, on the Eastern Front. This while the Liberal Democracies of the West were supplying the Soviet Union with the Lend-Lease program.

Quote from: Greywolf76;1143671They are both sides of the same coin and they fight for the same things. If anything, they are rivals fighting for the same goals, although they may differ in how to achieve that goal.

False, but there's not even enough substance there to refute.

Quote from: Greywolf76;1143671Both ideologies are revolutionary, authoritarian, totalitarian, statist and collectivist.

true

Quote from: Greywolf76;1143671Popular misconceptions aside, both are extreme left-wing (the notion that Nazism and Fascism are "right-wing" was disseminated by English Marxist historians like Eric Hobsbawn and E. P. Thompson in an attempt to distance Nazi-fascism from the left). This is pretty clear to anyone who has read Johann Plenge, Mussolini's "the Doctrine of Fascism", Hitler's "Mein Kampf" or the Nazi Party Platform (also known as the 25-point program).

It depends on how you define "Left Wing" and "Right Wing". National Socialism IS Socialism, and might be considered left wing economically, but socially it's far right.

Quote from: Greywolf76;1143671The slogan "Arbeit macht frei" (Work sets you free), found on the gates of Auschwitz and many other concentration camps is pure Marxism.

No it isn't. That doesn't even make sense. It's like saying the Protestant work ethic is Marxism.

Quote from: Greywolf76;1143671And if you've read the letters of Marx to Engels you will understand where the Nazis' hate against the Jews comes from.

And if you've read Mein Kampf you will understand what Hitler thought of Marxism. Anti-Semitism has a long history among dozens of nations in which the Jews have lived, they didn't need Karl Marx's permission to dislike the Jews. If you can list a single source from Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Goebbels, Hess, or any other high ranking member of the NSDAP that positively references Karl Marx, please do so.

Quote from: Greywolf76;1143671The main (and perhaps, only) difference is the strong nationalistic* character of both Fascism and Nazism. While Communists (and Anarchists) advocate a class conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeois, Fascists advocated the conflict between proletarian nations and bourgeois nations.

"Fascists advocated the conflict between proletarian nations and bourgeois nations."
dafuq?

Quote from: Greywolf76;1143671* Note that many left-wing ideologies also have strong nationalistic characteristics and themes: Stalinism, Maoism, Khmer Rouge and Pan-Arabism, to name a few.

It turns out it's really hard to get people excited to support internationalism compared to love of their own country. Go figure.

I hate massive multiquoting, it fragments conversations, so I'm just posting.

Nazism is dead. Fascism is dead. They've gotten a lot of attention because the left has been using them to incite fear in their base and demonize their opponents since Charlotteville, but the actual movement remains on the low end of utterly insignificant.

Progressives evolved from old school big government liberals, but can't be considered just an extreme case because they've flipped 180 degrees on topics ranging from civil rights and due process, and there's been a massive shift towards socialism, towards authoritarianism, and against real diversity (of opinion).

Not sure what you're saying about conservatives, but I see social conservatives as the core base. The populist wing may have once been the religious right, but they've long since been displaced by the Tea Party, which seems to have spawned both the nativist alt-right and the people who just want to be left alone. The free market has never really been a core ethos, which is why the classic liberals and libertarians have always been a poor fit on the left-right axis. But they're an insignificant minority, so nobody cares.

Traditional conservatives aren't authoritarian libertarians. Libertarians are defined by liberal social mores, as well.

Support for the free market has never been popular among the masses, on the left or the right. Support for it comes from the elites, on both sides, which is often dubbed neoliberalism. The problem is this leads to cronyism, as the elites petition the state for favors. Not to mention redistribution to the rich via monetary expansion.

Have you read my posts on fascism? We're using the term very differently, and I strongly reject the attempt to use it as a general category. Though I agree there are authoritarians on both sides of the axis, and that the culture wars are engulfing even those who want nothing to do with them. I think we're heading toward a snapping point. People will eventually have enough.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145079It turns out it's really hard to get people excited to support internationalism compared to love of their own country. Go figure.

It's worth remembering that nationalism is a modern invention. Wasn't that long ago that love of country was an alien concept.

Quote from: Pat;1145174Have you read my posts on fascism? We're using the term very differently, and I strongly reject the attempt to use it as a general category. Though I agree there are authoritarians on both sides of the axis, and that the culture wars are engulfing even those who want nothing to do with them. I think we're heading toward a snapping point. People will eventually have enough.

I've gone back and read your specific posts closely as to better respond.

I am in agreement with you that Fascism should be defined narrowly as to basically just refer to Mussolinism. I was using the more broad conception to be able to engage the "SJWs are Fascist" debate in a way thet went beyond just the labels.

I prefer to multiquote, so I'll continue to do so.

Quote from: Pat;1145174I hate massive multiquoting, it fragments conversations, so I'm just posting.

Nazism is dead. Fascism is dead. They've gotten a lot of attention because the left has been using them to incite fear in their base and demonize their opponents since Charlotteville, but the actual movement remains on the low end of utterly insignificant.

I agree that Fascism is dead. National Socialism otoh is merely supressed.

Quote from: Pat;1145174Progressives evolved from old school big government liberals, but can't be considered just an extreme case because they've flipped 180 degrees on topics ranging from civil rights and due process, and there's been a massive shift towards socialism, towards authoritarianism, and against real diversity (of opinion).

Not sure what you're saying about conservatives, but I see social conservatives as the core base. The populist wing may have once been the religious right, but they've long since been displaced by the Tea Party, which seems to have spawned both the nativist alt-right and the people who just want to be left alone. The free market has never really been a core ethos, which is why the classic liberals and libertarians have always been a poor fit on the left-right axis. But they're an insignificant minority, so nobody cares.

I agree with you about your assessment of conservatives insofar as it applies to the sentiments of the "average" conservative leaning person, in contrast to the bulk of the professional conservative leaders and pundits, who are essentially libertarians with an unquenchable appetite for interventionism.  

Quote from: Pat;1145174Traditional conservatives aren't authoritarian libertarians. Libertarians are defined by liberal social mores, as well.

Support for the free market has never been popular among the masses, on the left or the right. Support for it comes from the elites, on both sides, which is often dubbed neoliberalism. The problem is this leads to cronyism, as the elites petition the state for favors. Not to mention redistribution to the rich via monetary expansion.

I'm in complete agreement.

Quote from: Pat;1145174It's worth remembering that nationalism is a modern invention. Wasn't that long ago that love of country was an alien concept.

Not really. Sure all the academics say that, but it's not true. The expansiveness of what country a person was loyal to has varied over time, but Nationalism is just a more modern form of tribalism, and anyone that says tribalism isn't an inherit part of human nature simply isn't dealing with reality.

Do you think the English and French knights killing each other at Agincourt weren't motivated by nationalism? Do you think the ancient Spartans weren't nationalists? Come on.

Me thinks some people in this thread don't know what a Libertarian is, there can't be an Authoritarian-Libertarian or an Interventionist-Libertarian it goes against the core values of Libertarianism and therefore anyone exhibiting any of those isn't a Libertarian.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145189I've gone back and read your specific posts closely as to better respond.

Appreciated.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145189I agree with you about your assessment of conservatives insofar as it applies to the sentiments of the "average" conservative leaning person, in contrast to the bulk of the professional conservative leaders and pundits, who are essentially libertarians with an unquenchable appetite for interventionism.  

I think "neoliberal" fits better. They're corporatists more than capitalists, and the belief that we can intervene around the world and make things better is the classic arrogance of the central planner, going back to the philosopher kings of Plato's Republic, and only a hair away from the social programs of the New Deal or the Great Society. That's why I think there's a broad swatch of neoliberalism running across the middle of the spectrum, from left to right. They differ on social stances, and their rank and files diverge, but the elites are more alike than unlike. I see almost nothing libertarian.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145189Not really. Sure all the academics say that, but it's not true. The expansiveness of what country a person was loyal to has varied over time, but Nationalism is just a more modern form of tribalism, and anyone that says tribalism isn't an inherit part of human nature simply isn't dealing with reality.

Do you think the English and French knights killing each other at Agincourt weren't motivated by nationalism? Do you think the ancient Spartans weren't nationalists? Come on.

No and no. Sparta was a city-state, which is a different scale. And feudal knights were motivated by loyalty to an individual or a cause, not a nation. It's true they're all based on tribalism, but we were talking about a specific subtype of tribalism, not tribalism in general. In a lot of ways, the modern age itself is defined by the emergence of the nation-state and the ensuing ascendance of nationalism over earlier, more localized types of tribalism. "Us" became an abstraction beyond the level of the immediate community or a person.

Though Agincourt is a borderline case, because the Hundred Years War is one of the seeds that led to a rise in national identification.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1145192Me thinks some people in this thread don't know what a Libertarian is, there can't be an Authoritarian-Libertarian or an Interventionist-Libertarian it goes against the core values of Libertarianism and therefore anyone exhibiting any of those isn't a Libertarian.

This guy gets it.

I'm pretty much a classical liberal or libertarian in terms of actual practice although my actual views are a lot more complicated in the theory.

Quote from: Pat;1145193No and no. Sparta was a city-state, which is a different scale. And feudal knights were motivated by loyalty to an individual or a cause, not a nation. It's true they're all based on tribalism, but we were talking about a specific subtype of tribalism, not tribalism in general. In a lot of ways, the modern age itself is defined by the emergence of the nation-state and the ensuing ascendance of nationalism over earlier, more localized types of tribalism. "Us" became an abstraction beyond the level of the immediate community or a person.

Though Agincourt is a borderline case, because the Hundred Years War is one of the seeds that led to a rise in national identification.

The knights specifically may have been Agincourt may have been primarily motivated by gaining titles and lands, but the common fighting man had a powerful nationalist sentiment. The fervent French Nationalism embodied by Jean d'Arc had very little to do with the common Frenchman's concern with the territorial claims of one aristocratic lord over that of another, but that THE ENGLISH were invaders in OUR country.

You're making the mistake of confusing identification with an existing nation-state with Nationalism per se. That's why I said the parameters, extent, and level of organization of the Nation has varied overtime, but not the underlying reality.

I've lived in Oklahoma for several years, and there were a couple of prominent Native American tribal governments in the area, namely that of the Comanches, the Kiowas, the Apaches, the Chickasha, and the Choctaw. The word "tribe" and "nation" are used interchangeably when referring to these groups. "The Comanche Nation", "The Kiowa Tribe".

"Tribe" and "Nation" are synonymous, the only difference is that the former carries more primitive connotations while the latter is often incorrectly used as a synonym for an organized state. To further understand the actual meaning of the word "Nation", look at its equivalent in ancient Greek - "Ethnos".

Tribe = Nation = Ethnos

Nationalism (as I have just explained it) is the basic/default mode of human society. Other alternatives exist - Imperialism in which multiple nations are brought under the authority of a single power, and Mercantile Cosmopolitanism in which society is constructed to best facilitate commerce, with an emphasis on international trade; but the academic position (which I don't accuse you of holding) that Nationalism was invented by Napoleon, is just false.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1145192Me thinks some people in this thread don't know what a Libertarian is, there can't be an Authoritarian-Libertarian or an Interventionist-Libertarian it goes against the core values of Libertarianism and therefore anyone exhibiting any of those isn't a Libertarian.

My intention wasn't to misrepresent Libertarianism as an ideology, but just to use that label as a shorthand to describe different aspects of the observed values of a different group, namely that neo-Liberals are functionally Libertarians in terms of their economics and social values, but Interventionist/Imperialists when it comes to foreign affairs.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145198The knights specifically may have been Agincourt may have been primarily motivated by gaining titles and lands, but the common fighting man had a powerful nationalist sentiment. The fervent French Nationalism embodied by Jean d'Arc had very little to do with the common Frenchman's concern with the territorial claims of one aristocratic lord over that of another, but that THE ENGLISH were invaders in OUR country.

As I said, the Hundred Year War was one of the seeds leading to the rise of nationalism. And Joan of Arc was a toddler when the battle of Agincourt took place.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145198You're making the mistake of confusing identification with an existing nation-state with Nationalism per se. That's why I said the parameters, extent, and level of organization of the Nation has varied overtime, but not the underlying reality.

I've lived in Oklahoma for several years, and there were a couple of prominent Native American tribal governments in the area, namely that of the Comanches, the Kiowas, the Apaches, the Chickasha, and the Choctaw. The word "tribe" and "nation" are used interchangeably when referring to these groups. "The Comanche Nation", "The Kiowa Tribe".

"Tribe" and "Nation" are synonymous, the only difference is that the former carries more primitive connotations while the latter is often incorrectly used as a synonym for an organized state. To further understand the actual meaning of the word "Nation", look at its equivalent in ancient Greek - "Ethnos".

Nationalism is inextricably linked with the rise of the modern nation-state. You're attempting to define nationalism based on the usage of "nation". They're different words. And the Indian "nations" are a very divergent use of the word.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145198My intention wasn't to misrepresent Libertarianism as an ideology, but just to use that label as a shorthand to describe different aspects of the observed values of a different group, namely that neo-Liberals are functionally Libertarians in terms of their economics and social values, but Interventionist/Imperialists when it comes to foreign affairs.

Neoliberals are significantly different from libertarians on economics and social values. For instance, neoliberals more or less define cronyism, corporatism, and monetary and fiscal intervention, while libertarians decry it; and on the social front, neoliberals tend to be roughly analogous to middle of the road old liberals, while libertarians are usually far more extreme. The two ideologies aren't diametrically opposed, but they have very little overlap.

Boudicia's war against Rome was a Nationalist struggle. The war for Scottish independence was a Nationalist struggle.  The modern nation-state is the logical result of people's tribalistic/Nationalistic impulses.

I'll concede that neolibs are more hands on technocratic when it comes to managing the economy than libertarians believe in, but cronyism, corporatism (in the American, non-Muslim sense), and monopolies are exactly what you get in the absence of government regulations that specifically prevent those things.

As for social issues, the Neoliberal order has imposed the most permissive social values since the Canaanites were sacrificing their children to Moloch. While many prominent Libertarians have been pretty socially conservative in the past, it's obviously not part of the ideology itself.

Boudicia's war against Rome was not a nationalist struggle because there was no nation; England was just tribes. Don't know much about Scotland, but I doubt it was any different.

You have the economics completely sdrawkcab. As long as competitors can freely enter the marketplace, monopolies are unstable. If they try to price their competitors out by selling below production costs, that comes out of their profits, and if they are successful at driving their competitors out of business that means the capital goods from those companies are available to new potential competitors at fire sale prices. Trusts are even less viable, because all members are incentivized to cheat and thereby gain increased market share and profits. The only way monopolies or trusts can be sustained is through government collusion, i.e. legally enforcing member behavior in a trust, or by putting up regulatory barriers to new competitors. Which, due to regulatory capture, happens with every regulatory agency designed to reign in an industry, like how the FTC was captured by the railroads and later the trucking industry. The only way to sustain a monopoly or trust is by government support.

The definition of cronyism is legal or regulatory favors granted to selected industries, companies, or individuals. It exists because of regulation, not because of the absence of regulation. This is tautological.

Certain libertarians argue that slavery should be legal, as long as it is entered into voluntarily. That's more extreme than any neoliberal.

Quote from: Pat;1145262Boudicia's war against Rome was not a nationalist struggle because there was no nation; England was just tribes. Don't know much about Scotland, but I doubt it was any different.

The Iceni were a nation. Tribe = Nation. Just because they lacked a centralized state doesn't mean they weren't a nation. The Kurds are a nation without a state.

Quote from: Pat;1145262You have the economics completely sdrawkcab. As long as competitors can freely enter the marketplace, monopolies are unstable. If they try to price their competitors out by selling below production costs, that comes out of their profits, and if they are successful at driving their competitors out of business that means the capital goods from those companies are available to new potential competitors at fire sale prices. Trusts are even less viable, because all members are incentivized to cheat and thereby gain increased market share and profits. The only way monopolies or trusts can be sustained is through government collusion, i.e. legally enforcing member behavior in a trust, or by putting up regulatory barriers to new competitors. Which, due to regulatory capture, happens with every regulatory agency designed to reign in an industry, like how the FTC was captured by the railroads and later the trucking industry. The only way to sustain a monopoly or trust is by government support.

The definition of cronyism is legal or regulatory favors granted to selected industries, companies, or individuals. It exists because of regulation, not because of the absence of regulation. This is tautological.

Certain libertarians argue that slavery should be legal, as long as it is entered into voluntarily. That's more extreme than any neoliberal.

I find the beliefs that libertarians hold about how things would work in the absence of government regulation to be highly unrealistic. Deregulation is always shown to lead to increased consolidation of wealth. Libertarians will insist this is because this is because of whatever regulations and laws that still exist. The logical conclusion of this thinking is absurd, with leading to memes about McMercenary armies, recreational nukes, and the abolition of all public roads. They tend to be so in love with their ideological model they refuse to acknowledge how things actually work in the real world, but prefer to live in a land of platonic ideals of their own imagining.

The voluntary slavery idea that some libertarians might argue for is predicated on the idea that everyone is free and equal, and thus able to enter into such contracts completely voluntarily. That of course completely ignores the reality of differences in power, wealth, wisdom, experience, cunningness, and everything else that would obviously lead to the wealthy and powerful mercilessly exploiting the poor, vulnerable, naive, and foolish. Common sense just says "no, don't let people do that".

Neo-Liberalism otoh is more sophisticated and less upfront about its methods of slavery and exploitation, hiding them behind terms of service user agreements (that average people have no choice but to agree to if they want to function in this society/economy) always written by and for the far more powerful party, and interest rates. "Well you signed the agreement, a contract is a contract..."

Libertarians seem to me to be honest and idealistic, while neo-Liberals are duplicitous, pragmatic, and cynical.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145277The Iceni were a nation. Tribe = Nation. Just because they lacked a centralized state doesn't mean they weren't a nation. The Kurds are a nation without a state.

Tribe != Nation. I don't think we're going to get any further in this discussion, because you're redefining one word (nation) in an attempt to make an entirely different word (nationalism) mean something other than its commonly accepted meaning.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145277Deregulation is always shown to lead to increased consolidation of wealth.

Most of your paragraph seems to be a rant against libertarians that's unrelated to the discussion, so I cut it. But for what remains, [citation needed]. Because we've seen a major increase in the consolidation of wealth since the 1970s, and it corresponds with a vast growth in the regulatory state.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145277The voluntary slavery idea that some libertarians might argue for is predicated on the idea that everyone is free and equal, and thus able to enter into such contracts completely voluntarily. That of course completely ignores the reality of differences in power, wealth, wisdom, experience, cunningness, and everything else that would obviously lead to the wealthy and powerful mercilessly exploiting the poor, vulnerable, naive, and foolish. Common sense just says "no, don't let people do that".

Neo-Liberalism otoh is more sophisticated and less upfront about its methods of slavery and exploitation, hiding them behind terms of service user agreements (that average people have no choice but to agree to if they want to function in this society/economy) always written by and for the far more powerful party, and interest rates. "Well you signed the agreement, a contract is a contract..."

I wasn't arguing for or against that, I was using it to illustrate that libertarianism is miles away from neoliberalism. The arguments I've seen aren't based on whatever version of equality you're talking about, they're based on the idea that anything people voluntarily agree to is fine.

Though I agree about the balance of power in contracts.

Quote from: Pat;1145278Most of your paragraph seems to be a rant against libertarians that's unrelated to the discussion, so I cut it. But for what remains, [citation needed]. Because we've seen a major increase in the consolidation of wealth since the 1970s, and it corresponds with a vast growth in the regulatory state.

From wikipedia (nb4 "wikipedia")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
"Deregulation is the process of removing or reducing state regulations, typically in the economic sphere. It is the repeal of governmental regulation of the economy. It became common in advanced industrial economies in the 1970s and 1980s, as a result of new trends in economic thinking about the inefficiencies of government regulation, and the risk that regulatory agencies would be controlled by the regulated industry to its benefit, and thereby hurt consumers and the wider economy.

Economic regulations were promoted during the Gilded Age, in which progressive reforms were touted as necessary to limit externalities like corporate abuse, unsafe child labor, monopolization, pollution, and to mitigate boom and bust cycles. Around the late 1970s, such reforms were deemed as burdensome on economic growth and many politicians espousing neoliberalism started promoting deregulation."

I'd like to add that the growth in the regulatory state that you reference hasn't implemented and enforced regulations that would prevent or limit the concentration of wealth (and thus, power).

Quote from: Pat;1145278I wasn't arguing for or against that, I was using it to illustrate that libertarianism is miles away from neoliberalism. The arguments I've seen aren't based on whatever version of equality you're talking about, they're based on the idea that anything people voluntarily agree to is fine.

Though I agree about the balance of power in contracts.

My point was that "voluntarism" is not a solid principle for a society to determine what it should allow. "What if the child consents though?"
It is used to justify a great deal of the exploitation that goes on under neo-Liberalism though.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145253Boudicia's war against Rome was a Nationalist struggle. The war for Scottish independence was a Nationalist struggle.  The modern nation-state is the logical result of people's tribalistic/Nationalistic impulses.

I'll concede that neolibs are more hands on technocratic when it comes to managing the economy than libertarians believe in, but cronyism, corporatism (in the American, non-Muslim sense), and monopolies are exactly what you get in the absence of government regulations that specifically prevent those things.

As for social issues, the Neoliberal order has imposed the most permissive social values since the Canaanites were sacrificing their children to Moloch. While many prominent Libertarians have been pretty socially conservative in the past, it's obviously not part of the ideology itself.

Neoliberalism promotes Moloch worship? LMFAO.

Neoliberalism is every bit as atheistic and secular humanist as the far left, and atheism/secular humanism is worse than "Yahwehism"

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145279From wikipedia (nb4 "wikipedia")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
"Deregulation is the process of removing or reducing state regulations, typically in the economic sphere. It is the repeal of governmental regulation of the economy. It became common in advanced industrial economies in the 1970s and 1980s, as a result of new trends in economic thinking about the inefficiencies of government regulation, and the risk that regulatory agencies would be controlled by the regulated industry to its benefit, and thereby hurt consumers and the wider economy.

Economic regulations were promoted during the Gilded Age, in which progressive reforms were touted as necessary to limit externalities like corporate abuse, unsafe child labor, monopolization, pollution, and to mitigate boom and bust cycles. Around the late 1970s, such reforms were deemed as burdensome on economic growth and many politicians espousing neoliberalism started promoting deregulation."

That's horribly wrong in so many ways. The growth in the number of regulations has been staggering over the last 50 years. At most, the Carter/Reagan/Thatcher "deregulation" held the line instead of cutting it back (and even that's overstating it).

Not only that, but the regulations caused the boom & bust cycles -- recessions were rarer, shorter, and less damaging prior to the rise of the Fed and Keynesian and monetarist policies (cf. Harding's hands off approach to the 1921 downturn, which was over in 18 months despite being a steeper decline than the Great Depression, which lasted until WW2 because of interventionism). The FTC is a classic example of a federal agency designed to regulate an industry that within a few years was captured, and to this day promotes a monopolistic cabal instead of free competition. Child labor was basically over, destroyed by rising wealth, before any regulations were put in place; that's even true in the modern world, where it vanishes once countries reach about $10K in per capita wealth. That's true with most of the improvements in human conditions in the late 19th century.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145279From wikipedia (nb4 "wikipedia")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation

This would be the wikipedia crawling with SJW types as editors? That wikipedia?

Quote from: Doc Sammy;11452832. Neoliberalism promotes Moloch worship? LMFAO. Neoliberalism is every bit as atheistic and secular humanist as the far left, and atheism/secular humanism is worse than "Yahwehism"

"Neoliberalism promotes Moloch worship?"
Yes, unironically. Or it might be more accurate to say that Moloch worshipers promote neo-Liberalism. But the actual claim I made was that "the Neoliberal order has imposed the most permissive social values since the Canaanites were sacrificing their children to Moloch." so even without arguing about the wikileaks emails where Hillary Clinton "jokes" about sacrificing a chicken to Moloch, my assertion was that 21st century neo-Liberal order is the most morally and socially permissive (SJW puritanism aside) since literal pagan times.

Quote from: Pat;1145284That's horribly wrong in so many ways.

I googled - deregulation since the 1970s - and this was the top result
The 1970s and 1980s brought a wave of deregulation. ... The deregulation of transportation and telecommunications that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s succeeded in increasing competition, which lowered consumer prices and increased choices, and provided tens of billions of dollars per year in consumer benefits
With a link to -> https://www.theregreview.org/2019/03/11/dudley-brief-history-regulation-deregulation/

You asked for a citation, I provided one.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1145286This would be the wikipedia crawling with SJW types as editors? That wikipedia?

I already nb4'd citing wikipedia. Sorry, those are the rules.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145290I googled - deregulation since the 1970s - and this was the top result

Googling something and quoting the top dictionary definition doesn't exactly convince me you have any knowledge on the subject.

As I pointed out, there was no overall deregulation. The number of pages in the federal register has increased by more than 44,000 a year, since Carter took office in 1977. A record of 87,012 pages was set in 1980, toward the peak of the Carter "deregulation", which wasn't broken again until 2000. Deregulating oil, telecommunications, and the airlines didn't make a dent in the growth of regulations. The current record is the last year of the Obama administration (97,069 pages in 2016) when he was signing all those executive orders.

https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_the_Federal_Register

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145290"Neoliberalism promotes Moloch worship?"
Yes, unironically. Or it might be more accurate to say that Moloch worshipers promote neo-Liberalism. But the actual claim I made was that "the Neoliberal order has imposed the most permissive social values since the Canaanites were sacrificing their children to Moloch." so even without arguing about the wikileaks emails where Hillary Clinton "jokes" about sacrificing a chicken to Moloch, my assertion was that 21st century neo-Liberal order is the most morally and socially permissive (SJW puritanism aside) since literal pagan times.
.

We should go back to literal pagan times, tbh.

I'd rather have the society depicted in Caligula and the Satyricon than the society depicted in The Crucible that you want or the society depicted in Animal Farm and Brave New World that the Far Left wants.

Atheism is cancer and Yahweh worship has a lot of major issues.

Of the two, it's obvious that the atheism of the neoliberals and leftists is exponentially worse since several good things and major positive contributions to the West have come from Christianity (Catholicism moreso than Protestant or Evangelical traditions) and this cannot be ignored.

I believe that a lot of the more historic positive things brought by the Christian churches were largely thanks to pagan influence from the Greco-Roman and Germanic worlds that were refocused through a Christian lens and put in a Judeo-Christian context.

The philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were adopted by the founders of the Church as time went on.

The influence can also be found in certain customs such as Christmas (derived from the Roman Saturnalia and the Nordic Yule) and Easter (derived from the Germanic Ostara and the Roman Floralia) and arguably Halloween (originally derived from a Catholic holiday, but with influences from both the Roman Lemuria and the Celtic Samhain)

I do not worship Moloch, I worship Jupiter and many other Gods and Goddesses.

Moloch was worshiped by the profligate Phoenicians and Carthaginians, while Yahweh was worshiped by the Israelites.

The modern descendants of the Israelites are the Jews by blood and spiritually their descendants are the Christians and the Orthodox and Conservative Jews.

Both of these faiths are founded on the Torah as the base text, although the former has the New Testament to add upon it while the latter has the Talmud to expand upon it instead.

Muslims also worship Yahweh, but do not claim descent from the Israelite tradition beyond the creation myth and the story of Abraham. They believe that the blessing of the covenant went to Ishmael while the Jews and the Christians believe it went to Isaac.

Degeneracy without faith is worthless.

That is why I find it infuriating when redneck puritan wannabes say that this is a return to pagan times because we're not lynching people for the degenerate sins of celebrating Halloween or burning gays at the stake for merely existing.

This is not a return to pagan "degeneracy" but instead vile secular humanism and brute atheistic Marxist thuggery, and this new society is exponentially worse than either the grand pagan societies of the ancient world or the Judeo-Christian societies that followed.

There are different types of paganism. Don't take it personally Sammy. I wasn't talking about you.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145303There are different types of paganism. Don't take it personally Sammy. I wasn't talking about you.

I know that there are many types and many I am vehemently against (looking at mainly the Wiccans on this one) but given your past history I was worried you were once again painting with a very broad brush.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1145296We should go back to literal pagan times, tbh.

I'd rather have the society depicted in Caligula and the Satyricon than the society depicted in The Crucible that you want or the society depicted in Animal Farm and Brave New World that the Far Left wants.

Atheism is cancer and Yahweh worship has a lot of major issues.

Of the two, it's obvious that the atheism of the neoliberals and leftists is exponentially worse since several good things and major positive contributions to the West have come from Christianity (Catholicism moreso than Protestant or Evangelical traditions) and this cannot be ignored.

I believe that a lot of the more historic positive things brought by the Christian churches were largely thanks to pagan influence from the Greco-Roman and Germanic worlds that were refocused through a Christian lens and put in a Judeo-Christian context.

The philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were adopted by the founders of the Church as time went on.

The influence can also be found in certain customs such as Christmas (derived from the Roman Saturnalia and the Nordic Yule) and Easter (derived from the Germanic Ostara and the Roman Floralia) and arguably Halloween (originally derived from a Catholic holiday, but with influences from both the Roman Lemuria and the Celtic Samhain)

I do not worship Moloch, I worship Jupiter and many other Gods and Goddesses.

Moloch was worshiped by the profligate Phoenicians and Carthaginians, while Yahweh was worshiped by the Israelites.

The modern descendants of the Israelites are the Jews by blood and spiritually their descendants are the Christians and the Orthodox and Conservative Jews. Both are founded on the Torah, although the former has the New Testament to add upon it while the other has the Talmud to expand upon it instead.

Muslims also worship Yahweh, but do not claim descent from the Israelite tradition beyond the creation myth and the story of Abraham. They believe that the blessing of the covenant went to Ishmael while the Jews and the Christians believe it went to Isaac.

Degeneracy without faith is worthless.

That is why I find it infuriating when redneck puritan wannabes say that this is a return to pagan times because we're not lynching people for the degenerate sins of celebrating Halloween or burning gays at the stake for merely existing.

This is not a return to pagan "degeneracy" but instead vile secular humanism and brute atheistic Marxist thuggery, and this new society is exponentially worse than either the grand pagan societies of the ancient world or the Judeo-Christian societies that followed.

Me thinks you don't know what secular humanism means and conflate the "atheists" that converted to the woke cult with it and atheism. Just like you don't know what punk is...

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1145308Me thinks you don't know what secular humanism means and conflate the "atheists" that converted to the woke cult with it and atheism. Just like you don't know what punk is...

I do know what punk is and have the misfortune of knowing that scene overall (at least as it existed in Virginia during the early 2010's) but I think you are right about secular humanism. A lot of woke atheists like to hide behind terms like that.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1145315I do know what punk is and have the misfortune of knowing that scene overall (at least as it existed in Virginia during the early 2010's) but I think you are right about secular humanism. A lot of woke atheists like to hide behind terms like that.

Punks used to wear swastikas to piss of the man while happily beating the shit out of actual Nazis.

Not sure if the Punk Scene got infiltrated by the wokestains.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1145317Punks used to wear swastikas to piss of the man while happily beating the shit out of actual Nazis.

Not sure if the Punk Scene got infiltrated by the wokestains.

They definitely became turbo-woke. If anything, they were probably the first subculture or counterculture to become completely overtaken by extreme leftism.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1145326They definitely became turbo-woke. If anything, they were probably the first subculture or counterculture to become completely overtaken by extreme leftism.

Then they stopped being Punk, since Punk is against conformism and authoritarianism.

Quote from: Pat;1145294Googling something and quoting the top dictionary definition doesn't exactly convince me you have any knowledge on the subject.

The quote I posted as the top google result was positive towards deregulation, yet you reject it as a source that deregulation was even a thing in the 70's and 80's because...reasons I guess. I don't need to memorize the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in depth when it's all easily retrievable on the internet. If that "doesn't convince you" of my knowledge on the subject, I don't care.

Quote from: Pat;1145294As I pointed out, there was no overall deregulation. The number of pages in the federal register has increased by more than 44,000 a year, since Carter took office in 1977. A record of 87,012 pages was set in 1980, toward the peak of the Carter "deregulation", which wasn't broken again until 2000. Deregulating oil, telecommunications, and the airlines didn't make a dent in the growth of regulations. The current record is the last year of the Obama administration (97,069 pages in 2016) when he was signing all those executive orders.

https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_the_Federal_Register

Maybe you missed the part where I posted this.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145279the growth in the regulatory state that you reference hasn't implemented and enforced regulations that would prevent or limit the concentration of wealth (and thus, power).

If you don't see how this is self-evidently true, then feel free to explain why.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145330

Quote from: Pat;1145294Googling something and quoting the top dictionary definition doesn't exactly convince me you have any knowledge on the subject.

The quote I posted as the top google result was positive towards deregulation, yet you reject it as a source that deregulation was even a thing in the 70's and 80's because...reasons I guess. I don't need to memorize the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in depth when it's all easily retrievable on the internet. If that "doesn't convince you" of my knowledge on the subject, I don't care.




Maybe you missed the part where I posted this.



If you don't see how this is self-evidently true, then feel free to explain why.

Self professed lover of the bundles of sticks demanding more socialist policies...

And the truth of the title is revealed.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145290I already nb4'd citing wikipedia. Sorry, those are the rules.

So you were only pretending to be an idiot? Well, I suppose that's better than actually being one.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145330The quote I posted as the top google result was positive towards deregulation, yet you reject it as a source that deregulation was even a thing in the 70's and 80's because...reasons I guess. I don't need to memorize the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in depth when it's all easily retrievable on the internet. If that "doesn't convince you" of my knowledge on the subject, I don't care.

I never said that. In fact, I specifically mentioned 3 industries that were deregulated. What I did say is there was no overall deregulation. Cutting back a few regulations didn't even make a dent in the crazy kudzu growth. It's utterly bizarre how many people many talk about "deregulation" as if the number of regulations plummeted to new and unsustainable lows, because that's a completely false narrative. The number of regulations wasn't cut, in fact they didn't even cut the rate at which regulations were increasing. Using the word "deregulation" to describe the phenomenon is therefore part of a propagandic push, because the "de-" implies something that just didn't happen.

Quote from: Mjollnir (self quoting);1145330the growth in the regulatory state that you reference hasn't implemented and enforced regulations that would prevent or limit the concentration of wealth (and thus, power).

I didn't miss that part, I just didn't address it because that's a whole new conversation. You were trying to deflect the discussion to a new topic, and I wanted to continue talking about the existing one.

It's also a misleading segue, because the growth of the regulatory state tends to increase the concentration of wealth and power, not reduce it. I've addressed some of the reasons already -- regulatory capture, competitive barriers, and cronyism in general -- but there are other factors, like how monetary policy has favored the capital and especially the banking sectors while disfavoring the consumer, and how byzantine complexity favors large established firms. It's a topic that needs more than a simple one-liner.

I do not think they are fascists. I think they are a primitive kind of cult. A leaderless mass of mis-informed hate addicts. Their thought process is very cult like and those who escape or are lucky enough to be cast out have to find out what the truth is.

I thought about calling them a Proto-cult. Lo and behold there is a product called a Protocult and boy did I nail the landing on that one. It (the Protocult) is a disposable waterproof frame with a paper liner for collecting STOOL. I am gonna go ahead and say that is about as close to the definition of the sjw movement as anyone, anywhere can possibly get.

As a side note I can use contractions but my posts were declined. Because when I used quotation marks and apostrophe they were deemed non English.

Quote from: Wiseblood;1145621As a side note I can use contractions but my posts were declined. Because when I used quotation marks and apostrophe they were deemed non English.

I think that could be a problem with the forum software.  I find that clicking on the "Go Advanced" button seems to post fine if you get the non english error.

Quote from: Shasarak;1145625I think that could be a problem with the forum software.  I find that clicking on the "Go Advanced" button seems to post fine if you get the non english error.

Yep. I only get that error message when quoting others, and Go Advanced regularly bypasses it quite nicely.

The Go Advanced workaround is good to know, Shasarak and HappyDaze. I haven't seen the foreign character error in a while, but it was really annoying when it happened.

Quote from: Trond;1144642Most of the above are more important in fascism.
militarism; much more important in fascism - the fascists more often have military background

Not at all. Both put a very strong emphasis on militarism.

During the Cold War years, the Red army and the Soviet Military power were a strong propaganda tool. Red China is doing exactly the same thing nowadays, as is North Korea.

Fidel Castro, for most part of his tenure as Cuba's dictator, was always dressed in military uniform.

Hugo Chávez was a Captain in the Venezuelan army and the armed forces were vital in solidifying his Marxist dictatorship. Also, the "Bolivarian Militia of Venezuela", a paramilitary auxiliary branch of the Venezuelan Army, is crucial into squashing any opposition to the government in the same way the Nazi Party employed its Schutzstaffel (SS).

Quote from: Pat;1144899[...]Thus the idea that fascism is a right and not left wing movement is pure revisionism [...]  

Correct. I mentioned exactly this in my first post in this thread a few pages ago. British Marxist historians, like Thompson and Hobsbawn, came up with this "Fascism is right-wing" BS to distance Communism and Socialism from both Nazism and Fascism.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145079No one fought the Communists harder than the Fascists, in Spain, in Germany, in Italy, on the Eastern Front. This while the Liberal Democracies of the West were supplying the Soviet Union with the Lend-Lease program.

Saying that Communists and Nazi-fascists are enemies just because they fought each other is silly.

They were enemies precisely because they were fighting the same enemy (Capitalism). If you've read Mein Kampf perhaps you will remember that he said the only genuine or acceptable manner of implementing real socialism was the Nazi manner.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145079It depends on how you define "Left Wing" and "Right Wing". National Socialism IS Socialism, and might be considered left wing economically, but socially it's far right.

Not true. Nazi-Fascism is indeed reactionary, but like nationalism, reactionism is found on both ends of the political spectrum.

In fact, I'd argue that all Communists (and all authoritarian ideologies) are reactionary. Any movement that pushes toward centralizing power in the hands of an authoritarian minority is reactionary. As all communists, in praxis, seek a powerful state administered by one of their own, they are by definition reactionary. Socially, reactionaries are adverse to change, obviously, but that doesn't equate reactionism right-wing social principles (i.e. Conservatism).

Because, really, if you think Conservatives are reactionaries you should read more Conservative authors.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145079No it isn't. That doesn't even make sense. It's like saying the Protestant work ethic is Marxism.

And if you've read Mein Kampf you will understand what Hitler thought of Marxism. Anti-Semitism has a long history among dozens of nations in which the Jews have lived, they didn't need Karl Marx's permission to dislike the Jews. If you can list a single source from Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Goebbels, Hess, or any other high ranking member of the NSDAP that positively references Karl Marx, please do so.

Oh, I did read Mein Kampf. And also did read Marx's letters to Engels and some of his other works (not everything, because Marx was a mediocre writer and his sanctimonious rhetoric is as annoying as the carbuncles on his butt).

Please, tell me who is the author of those quotes:

"What, in itself, was the basis of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money."

"Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. [...] The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange."

"Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion, is the real, conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money."

"Only then could Judaism achieve universal dominance and make alienated man and alienated nature into alienable, vendible objects subjected to the slavery of egoistic need and to trading."

The author even proposes a "final solution" by abolishing Judaism: "Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man's individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished."

Do they sound like something coming from Hitler's mouth? Think again, because all of those loathsome quotes were taken from (SPOILER ALERT!) Marx's "On the Jewish Question" (1843).

They have directly influenced Hitler's works. In fact, he uses the same disgusting rhetoric as Marx in Mein Kampf and, just like Marx, he blames both Capitalism and Judaism as the root of all evil in the World.

Quote from: Mjollnir;1145079"Fascists advocated the conflict between proletarian nations and bourgeois nations." dafuq?

Hold on, wait a minute. You've never, ever heard about this!? I mean, for real?? :eek: Holy shit!

The concept of proletarian nations vs bourgeois nations was essential to Fascism and Nazism and was heavily influenced by the writings of Italian philosopher and economist Vilfred Pareto, a staunch critic of capitalism (and a reactionary to the core).

Mussolini frequently denounced bourgeois nations as those "based on the plutocratic rule of the rich and that engaged in oppressive economic exploitation of other proletarian nations such Italy and Great Britain". He referred especially to the United Kingdom as "the fattest and most bourgeois nation in the world".

This will be my last post here, I promise!

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1145296We should go back to literal pagan times, tbh.

I'd rather have the society depicted in Caligula and the Satyricon than the society depicted in The Crucible that you want or the society depicted in Animal Farm and Brave New World that the Far Left wants.

Atheism is cancer and Yahweh worship has a lot of major issues.

Of the two, it's obvious that the atheism of the neoliberals and leftists is exponentially worse since several good things and major positive contributions to the West have come from Christianity (Catholicism moreso than Protestant or Evangelical traditions) and this cannot be ignored.

I believe that a lot of the more historic positive things brought by the Christian churches were largely thanks to pagan influence from the Greco-Roman and Germanic worlds that were refocused through a Christian lens and put in a Judeo-Christian context.

The philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were adopted by the founders of the Church as time went on.

The influence can also be found in certain customs such as Christmas (derived from the Roman Saturnalia and the Nordic Yule) and Easter (derived from the Germanic Ostara and the Roman Floralia) and arguably Halloween (originally derived from a Catholic holiday, but with influences from both the Roman Lemuria and the Celtic Samhain)

You're pretty much correct, Doc Sammy. Western society, as we know it, was built over three "pillars" of Christian morals & ethics, Greek philosophy and Roman law, intermingled and influencing each other.

Eastern Church Fathers even adapted and "baptized" some elements of Greek Philosophy (without fully adopting philosophical rationalism - that's why there has never been any philosophical traditions in Eastern Christian Churches such as we've seen in the West, like Thomism and Scholasticism).

Christmas and Easter, however, are not adaptations of old pagan holidays. There's some influence in some minor aspects of Christmas, for certain (trading gifts probably comes from Saturnalia), but the Nativity was celebrated from at last 200 AD (according to Clement of Alexandria) and the date of December 25th comes, in fact, from an earlier Christian Holiday, Annunciation (celebrated in March 25th - if you count nine months from March 25th you'll get December 25th) which was itself known in the Christian East since the 2nd Century AD.

The same with Easter. The Western name probably comes from an Old Teutonic word ("Estre") mentioned by Saint Bede in his De temporum ratione, which was written in the 8th Century AD. Eastern Christians, however, refer to the feast by its Greek name ("Pascha", which gave bith to the feast's name in many other modern languages) and Christians have been celebrating Pascha since the 1st century.

Anyway, sorry for the off-topic.

Quote from: Greywolf76;1145866Eastern Church Fathers even adapted and "baptized" some elements of Greek Philosophy (without fully adopting philosophical rationalism - that's why there has never been any philosophical traditions in Eastern Christians Churches such as we've seen in the West, like Tomism and Scholasticism).

   Although there was a small group interested in Thomistic thought in Constantinople in the 14th and 15th centuries, before the Ottoman conquest. And Thomas himself draws heavily on the Greek Fathers, especially St. John Damascene.

Quote from: Greywolf76;1145855Correct. I mentioned exactly this in my first post in this thread a few pages ago. British Marxist historians, like Thompson and Hobsbawn, came up with this "Fascism is right-wing" BS to distance Communism and Socialism from both Nazism and Fascism.

Greetings!

Excellent points, Greywolf!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1145874Although there was a small group interested in Thomistic thought in Constantinople in the 14th and 15th centuries, before the Ottoman conquest. And Thomas himself draws heavily on the Greek Fathers, especially St. John Damascene.

Yes, there was. But after the 3rd Palamite synod of 1351 all the interest in Thomistic / Scholastic thought all but faded away among Orthodox Christians. It was examined (and rejected again by the Orthodox) during the Ferrara-Florence Councils.

Quote from: SHARK;1145893Greetings!

Excellent points, Greywolf!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thank you, my friend.

Quote(without fully adopting philosophical rationalism - that's why there has never been any philosophical traditions in Eastern Christian Churches such as we've seen in the West, like Thomism and Scholasticism).

That's most definitely untrue.
We have whole large swath of Christian neoplatonism based exactly in Greek.
It was definitely rationalistic philosophy - in traditional meaning of rationalism. I'd argue more than thomism because thomist thought balance between rationalism and empiricism - while platonic schools rarely dabble with latter. We have Eastern Aristotle adaptation by John of Damascus.

Antiphilosophical tendencies on East, are late Russian resentiment towards West, with disregard for own - or at least for Greek achievements.

QuoteAlthough there was a small group interested in Thomistic thought in Constantinople in the 14th and 15th centuries, before the Ottoman conquest. And Thomas himself draws heavily on the Greek Fathers, especially St. John Damascene.

Not so small. There were plenty of Eastern philosophers who read and used Aquinas, including Palamas who is often shown by antiphilosophical Orthodox of current age as some straight opposition of Thomas.

Quote from: "Greywolf76"....Mussolini frequently denounced bourgeois nations as those "based on the plutocratic rule of the rich and that engaged in oppressive economic exploitation of other proletarian nations such Italy and Great Britain". He referred especially to the United Kingdom as "the fattest and most bourgeois nation in the world".

The "plutocratic rule of the rich" is what we would today call the "global elites" or the "deep state". The British and French empires had indeed become corrupt. Prior to WWI, the British, French, Italians, and Russians had more or less carved up the world between them, such as Morocco to France, Egypt to Britain, Libya to Italy, the Balkans to Russia. The German Reich were the newcomers to the scene and they were a threat to the established World Order. WWI almost started multiple times, such as during the Moroccan crisis when Germany was trying to get a piece of the French pie.

Nazism and Fascism were essentially rebellions against the global elites who had reaffirmed their dominion after WWI. Primitive and violent by American standards, they were eventually to be crushed by the World Order, which carved up the world between the wealthy and decadent liberal democracies of the west and the brutal Communists of the east.

Quote from: ""Greywolf76"Saying that Communists and Nazi-fascists are enemies just because they fought each other is silly.

They were enemies precisely because they were fighting the same enemy (Capitalism). If you've read Mein Kampf perhaps you will remember that he said the only genuine or acceptable manner of implementing real socialism was the Nazi manner.

The Nazis were nationalists, while the Communists were globalists, and that distinction is critical, more so than any other distinction. I know for example that the Estonians preferred the Nazis because they allowed them to fly their own flag, whereas the Soviets demanded that all nations fight under the Soviet flag. Nazi "socialism" was more about Hitler co-opting the businesses of Germany for the purpose of rebuilding the military. Businesses could refuse requests from the government, and they often did because they didn't want to take the risk. Nevertheless, Hitler discouraged small businesses and encouraged large businesses to form monopolies where possible. Nazi "socialism" wasn't really an ideology so much as a failure to understand economics. It is important to understand that Hitler did not have a comprehensive economic plan for Germany, at least not one that was coherent.

Quote from: "Doc Sammy"Atheism is cancer and Yahweh worship has a lot of major issues....

Atheism comes in two major flavors.

The first is more properly called Agnosticism, which is really a fancy word for "ignorant". These are people who don't know what religion is. Often, they are adherents of Scientism, which is the notion that all reality is understandable through empirical thought. This has two major failures: The first is that there is no mechanism for protecting against human nature (this includes mental illness as well as willful psychopathy), which allows corruption to grow and metastasize like cancer; The second is that the human brain is not capable of understanding all the complexities of objective reality, which in some cases can be like a car mechanic trying to perform brain surgery using tools designed for carpentry -- knowledge applied to the wrong area using the wrong tools results in disaster. Religion uses holistic knowledge to craft a broad understanding of reality, even those aspects which we cannot currently grasp consciously, and ameliorates the natural flowering of neuroticism, which can devolve into full blown psychosis.

The second flavor of Atheism is more properly called Satanism. In this version, Christianity is actively hated, whether consciously or unconsciously, and such Atheists actively cultivate doctrines specifically designed as inversions or perversions of Christian values, such as "Gay marriage", "transgenderism", "critical theory", and so on. The salient point is that there is an undercurrent of despite and envy. This is a manifestation of neuroticism.

Quote from: "Doc Sammy"....several good things and major positive contributions to the West have come from Christianity (Catholicism moreso than Protestant or Evangelical traditions) and this cannot be ignored...

"Protestantism" refers to thousands of denominations which are modernized and usually abridged offshoots of Catholicism.

Quote from: "Doc Sammy"....I believe that a lot of the more historic positive things brought by the Christian churches were largely thanks to pagan influence from the Greco-Roman and Germanic worlds that were refocused through a Christian lens and put in a Judeo-Christian context.

The philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were adopted by the founders of the Church as time went on...

Christianity (by which I mean Catholicism) subsumes Classical and tribal paganisms as well as the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. It is more correct to think of Christianity as the current manifestation of an ongoing and evolving mode of thought. One of the major functions of religion is to store the lived experience of a culture in the form of myth and story, so Christianity is the totality of wisdom that we have collected since the beginning of civilization, whereas Classical paganism for example is only the totality of wisdom up to that point in time and excludes everything that we have learned since then. Jesus is a more informed version of the Hero archetype, earlier versions of which are Horus from Egyptian mythology and Marduk from Mesopotamian mythology.

One must be careful not to overly romanticize earlier manifestations of religion. The Oracle of Delphi for example was just a woman who got high sniffing volcanic gasses -- as a point of comparison, imagine world leaders today deciding on whether to go to war based on the ramblings of someone sniffing glue; better perhaps than election fraud, but today we have the capacity to do much better than that. In other words, at our worst we are no better than our younger selves, but at are best we are everything we were and then some.

Quote from: "Greywolf76"Christmas and Easter, however, are not adaptations of old pagan holidays....

Sure they are. Humans were celebrating the equinoxes and solstices tens of thousands of years ago. Probably hundreds of thousands of years ago. However, "evolution" is probably a better word than "adaption", as our understanding of ourselves has become more sophisticated over time.

As individuals, our world view is periodically shattered when we fail at something, and then we have to restructure how we view our reality and reevaluate our goals. This is what "resurrection" means in mythology. It literally mirrors how our brains function on a biological level, and this is the reason that spring has such deep meaning to all humans, in addition to the practical agrarian reasons. Similarly, the winter solstice universally represents death and rebirth, not just physically, but also in terms of how our brains recover from catastrophic failures in life.

Jesus is the Hero that emerges to restore the balance between Order and Chaos, Known and Unknown, when things go wrong, both on a macro (world) level and on a micro (personal) level. Civilizations collapse into corruption and chaos, but also as individuals we can be devastated by depression and despair. Jesus is the Savior, a road map from the intolerable present to the desired future. This concept can be traced all the way back to ancient Mesopotamian religion where Marduk was elected by the gods to fight Tiamat and her monsters of chaos and destruction.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse on November 26, 2020, 05:19:54 AM

Quote from: "Greywolf76"Christmas and Easter, however, are not adaptations of old pagan holidays....

Sure they are.

Especially Christmas, which is straight up syncretizing Saturnalia and a few others here and there.  Easter... a little more fuzzy, and not just because of the rabbits, but that is a different thread.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on November 09, 2020, 03:43:34 PM

Quote(without fully adopting philosophical rationalism - that's why there has never been any philosophical traditions in Eastern Christian Churches such as we've seen in the West, like Thomism and Scholasticism).

That's most definitely untrue.
We have whole large swath of Christian neoplatonism based exactly in Greek.
It was definitely rationalistic philosophy - in traditional meaning of rationalism. I'd argue more than thomism because thomist thought balance between rationalism and empiricism - while platonic schools rarely dabble with latter. We have Eastern Aristotle adaptation by John of Damascus.

Antiphilosophical tendencies on East, are late Russian resentiment towards West, with disregard for own - or at least for Greek achievements.

QuoteAlthough there was a small group interested in Thomistic thought in Constantinople in the 14th and 15th centuries, before the Ottoman conquest. And Thomas himself draws heavily on the Greek Fathers, especially St. John Damascene.

Not so small. There were plenty of Eastern philosophers who read and used Aquinas, including Palamas who is often shown by antiphilosophical Orthodox of current age as some straight opposition of Thomas.

Nope.

Although it's a fact that many Church Father's adopted Aristotle's "framework", they never accepted his metaphysics (or Plato's, for that matter). Much less Plotinus'.

I don't know your sources on the disputes between Saint Gregory Palamas and Barlaam, but Palamas and the hesychast monks actively opposed Tomist / Scholastic philosophy and its influence in the Eastern Orthodox Church. In fact, that was his main dispute with Barlaam of Calabria, who advocated and defended the adoption of such ideas in the East. Palamas denounced Scholastic philosophy in three Synods held in Constantinople in 1341, 1344 and 1347 (these are known as the "Hesychast Synods", and some Orthodox Christians historians, such as John Romanides, regard the 1347 synod as the 10th Ecumenical Council).

I won't reproduce the full texts in here (they are too long and it would be a huge disservice to summarize them), but if you're interested:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspx  -> Explains why Western philosophy is simply not compatible to Eastern Christian theology and has never been adopted. Also mentions the disputes between St. Gregory and Barlaam.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx -> Explains the relationship between Hellenistic philosophy and the theology of Greek Fathers

Also, the confusion between Eastern Christian doctrine and neo-platonism seems very common in American Calvinist (and Protestant, in general) circles since Douglas Jones published his article in Credenda Agenda years ago. This articles helps to elucidate this confusion:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/thema_response.aspx

Quote from: Greywolf76 on November 27, 2020, 10:26:37 AM

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on November 09, 2020, 03:43:34 PM

Quote(without fully adopting philosophical rationalism - that's why there has never been any philosophical traditions in Eastern Christian Churches such as we've seen in the West, like Thomism and Scholasticism).

That's most definitely untrue.
We have whole large swath of Christian neoplatonism based exactly in Greek.
It was definitely rationalistic philosophy - in traditional meaning of rationalism. I'd argue more than thomism because thomist thought balance between rationalism and empiricism - while platonic schools rarely dabble with latter. We have Eastern Aristotle adaptation by John of Damascus.

Antiphilosophical tendencies on East, are late Russian resentiment towards West, with disregard for own - or at least for Greek achievements.

QuoteAlthough there was a small group interested in Thomistic thought in Constantinople in the 14th and 15th centuries, before the Ottoman conquest. And Thomas himself draws heavily on the Greek Fathers, especially St. John Damascene.

Not so small. There were plenty of Eastern philosophers who read and used Aquinas, including Palamas who is often shown by antiphilosophical Orthodox of current age as some straight opposition of Thomas.

Nope.

Although it's a fact that many Church Father's adopted Aristotle's "framework", they never accepted his metaphysics (or Plato's, for that matter). Much less Plotinus'.

I don't know your sources on the disputes between Saint Gregory Palamas and Barlaam, but Palamas and the hesychast monks actively opposed Tomist / Scholastic philosophy and its influence in the Eastern Orthodox Church. In fact, that was his main dispute with Barlaam of Calabria, who advocated and defended the adoption of such ideas in the East. Palamas denounced Scholastic philosophy in three Synods held in Constantinople in 1341, 1344 and 1347 (these are known as the "Hesychast Synods", and some Orthodox Christians historians, such as John Romanides, regard the 1347 synod as the 10th Ecumenical Council).

I won't reproduce the full texts in here (they are too long and it would be a huge disservice to summarize them), but if you're interested:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspx  -> Explains why Western philosophy is simply not compatible to Eastern Christian theology and has never been adopted. Also mentions the disputes between St. Gregory and Barlaam.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx -> Explains the relationship between Hellenistic philosophy and the theology of Greek Fathers

Also, the confusion between Eastern Christian doctrine and neo-platonism seems very common in American Calvinist (and Protestant, in general) circles since Douglas Jones published his article in Credenda Agenda years ago. This articles helps to elucidate this confusion:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/thema_response.aspx

That last is because Protestants dismiss Aristotle out of hand in order to dismiss Roman Catholic theology, Thomism especially. So they try to "discover" a neo-platonism that is compatible with Christianity, and always trip over the Gnosticism inherent in Plato where they don't embrace it outright, because ends and means.

Quote from: Manic Modron on November 26, 2020, 10:52:09 AM

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse on November 26, 2020, 05:19:54 AM

Quote from: "Greywolf76"Christmas and Easter, however, are not adaptations of old pagan holidays....

Sure they are.

Especially Christmas, which is straight up syncretizing Saturnalia and a few others here and there.  Easter... a little more fuzzy, and not just because of the rabbits, but that is a different thread.

Holy shit, man. C'mon. Nobody believes those crazy theories anymore.

Besides, they were invented by Protestant theologian and author Paul Ernst Jablonsky in the 18th century without any historical basis just to dis on Roman Catholics.

Re-read what I've written:

Christmas and Easter, however, are not adaptations of old pagan holidays. There might be some influence in some minor aspects of Christmas, for certain (trading gifts probably comes from Saturnalia), but the Nativity was celebrated from at last 200 AD (according to Clement of Alexandria) and the date of December 25th comes, in fact, from an earlier Christian Holiday, Annunciation (celebrated in March 25th - if you count nine months from March 25th you'll get December 25th) which was itself known in the Christian East since the 2nd Century AD.

In short, the date of Christmas comes from the date of the Feast of thr Annunciation which, in turn, was determined based on the equivalent date in the Julian Calendar of Nissan 25th of the year 33 AD.

The same with Easter. The Western name probably comes from an Old Teutonic word ("Estre") mentioned by Saint Bede in his De temporum ratione, which was written in the 8th Century AD, many centuries after the establishing of the feast.

Eastern Christians, however, refer to the feast by its Greek name ("Pascha", which gave birth to the feast's name in many other modern languages and comes from Hebrew Pesach). Christians have been celebrating Pascha since the 1st century.

The date of Pascha varies accordingly to astronomical phenomena, not calendars, because in the early centuries Christians used different calendars (Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, Julian and Old Armenian, to mention just a few). Thus, to ensure that everyone celebrate on the same date, the feast would be determined by astronomical calculations provided by the Patriarchate of Alexandria.

If anything, Christian Easter has its roots Jewish Passover.

Quote from: Greywolf76 on November 27, 2020, 12:16:03 PM

Quote from: Manic Modron on November 26, 2020, 10:52:09 AM

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse on November 26, 2020, 05:19:54 AM

Quote from: "Greywolf76"Christmas and Easter, however, are not adaptations of old pagan holidays....

Sure they are.

Especially Christmas, which is straight up syncretizing Saturnalia and a few others here and there.  Easter... a little more fuzzy, and not just because of the rabbits, but that is a different thread.

Holy shit, man. C'mon. Nobody believes those crazy theories anymore.

Not Easter so much, because Bede and Jablonski didn't have any good sources and Jablonski definitely wanted to say that Catholics were a super seeecrit Babylonian cult or something ridiculous.  No matter what that image that comes around on Facebook every year says, it isn't a mysterious set of Ishtar rituals.

But yeah, people do believe that ancient Christians pulled holiday traditions from other religious because they did.  It doesn't make those holidays secretly pagan or evil or less Christian or anything.  It just means that people did what people always do and took on traits of their neighbors sometimes.

Christmas and Easter are fun.  They have bits that were taken from non-Christian sources.  They are still Christian holidays and none of the backstory of outside inspiration or outright adoption changes that.  I don't understand either the need to deny it when it happens or the need to use it as if it delegitimizes the whole thing.

If you want to have fun with Protestants, remind them that both Martin Luther and Philip of Melanchthon actively suppressed the writings of Kepler and Copernicus while the Jesuits were looking the data over and nodding reluctantly.

I can't say Jesuits are sane nowadays thanks to the SJW infection and the damage the Catholic Church has suffered (some self-inflicted), but Jesuits used to be very pro-science because the theory was that understanding the universe led to a greater understanding of God -- which is an interesting way to look at it but hey, if it works...

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 28, 2020, 11:01:49 AM
If you want to have fun with Protestants, remind them that both Martin Luther and Philip of Melanchthon actively suppressed the writings of Kepler and Copernicus while the Jesuits were looking the data over and nodding reluctantly.

I can't say Jesuits are sane nowadays thanks to the SJW infection and the damage the Catholic Church has suffered (some self-inflicted), but Jesuits used to be very pro-science because the theory was that understanding the universe led to a greater understanding of God -- which is an interesting way to look at it but hey, if it works...

Martin Luther died in 1546 and Johannes Kepler was born in 1571, so honestly that is a damn good trick to suppress someone not even born for 35 years after you died.

He was voting for Kepler's opponent

Quote from: EOTB on November 29, 2020, 08:11:25 PM
He was voting for Kepler's opponent

I must remember not to read forums while eating soup.

You owe me a new keyboard...

Bitch bitch bitch.

Evidently it was the heliocentric theory in general that was heavily refused by Luther and Philip, prior to Kepler and Copernicus's outstanding work on it. Copernicus's seminal work On The Revolution of the Celestial Orbs had a preface written by Andreas Osiander, because Copernicus knew it'd piss off the Protestants. Kepler also found himself fending off Protestant ire at his writings.

Meanwhile, the Jesuits were more than happy to gather the data and examine it, and later Galileo only got in trouble due to (a) Medici-Borgia political struggles, and (b) you can't call the Pope a dimwit in print, no matter how carefully you polish it.

So wikipedia says "Philipp Melanchthon, a close theological ally of Martin Luther, had arranged for Rheticus to visit several astronomers and study with them. Rheticus became Copernicus's pupil, staying with him for two years and writing a book, Narratio prima (First Account), outlining the essence of Copernicus's theory"

That does not really sound to me like Melanchthon actively suppressing the writing of Copernicus.  The opposite really.

Quote from: Shasarak on November 29, 2020, 09:56:25 PM
So wikipedia says "Philipp Melanchthon, a close theological ally of Martin Luther, had arranged for Rheticus to visit several astronomers and study with them. Rheticus became Copernicus's pupil, staying with him for two years and writing a book, Narratio prima (First Account), outlining the essence of Copernicus's theory"

That does not really sound to me like Melanchthon actively suppressing the writing of Copernicus.  The opposite really.

Shush. PBS and liberal professors who write history books never go into such details like facts! Let him hate protestants or religious folks who don't follow the ways of men. Facts never enter into these kinds of things anyway. Take the History Channel approach and just say "You're wrong, because - ALIENS!"  :P

Quote from: consolcwby on November 30, 2020, 01:53:43 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on November 29, 2020, 09:56:25 PM
So wikipedia says "Philipp Melanchthon, a close theological ally of Martin Luther, had arranged for Rheticus to visit several astronomers and study with them. Rheticus became Copernicus's pupil, staying with him for two years and writing a book, Narratio prima (First Account), outlining the essence of Copernicus's theory"

That does not really sound to me like Melanchthon actively suppressing the writing of Copernicus.  The opposite really.

Shush. PBS and liberal professors who write history books never go into such details like facts! Let him hate protestants or religious folks who don't follow the ways of men. Facts never enter into these kinds of things anyway. Take the History Channel approach and just say "You're wrong, because - ALIENS!"  :P

Facts never enter into these kinds of things anyway. Take the theRPGsite approach and just say "You're wrong, because - MARXISTS!

Sounds pretty fucking stupid, doesn't it?

Quote from: consolcwby on November 30, 2020, 01:53:43 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on November 29, 2020, 09:56:25 PM
So wikipedia says "Philipp Melanchthon, a close theological ally of Martin Luther, had arranged for Rheticus to visit several astronomers and study with them. Rheticus became Copernicus's pupil, staying with him for two years and writing a book, Narratio prima (First Account), outlining the essence of Copernicus's theory"

That does not really sound to me like Melanchthon actively suppressing the writing of Copernicus.  The opposite really.

Shush. PBS and liberal professors who write history books never go into such details like facts! Let him hate protestants or religious folks who don't follow the ways of men. Facts never enter into these kinds of things anyway. Take the History Channel approach and just say "You're wrong, because - ALIENS!"  :P

Actually, I don't hate Protestants any more than I hate anyone else. I just like to tweak noses :)

Who controls the British Pound, who keeps the Metric system down?

Protestants do, Protestants do.

I still think the tale of the Defenstration of Prague is one of the hands-down most fucking hilarious things I've ever heard, even though it led to some of the ugliest warfare seen in Europe until World War 1.

If you dont have a Helicopter then you have to make do with what you do have.

Quote from: Shasarak on November 30, 2020, 10:06:47 PM
If you dont have a Helicopter then you have to make do with what you do have.

Well yeah, but when they tossed the Protestants off the battlements, they survived by landing in a heap of dung left outside the castle.

It might've been less than impressive, but they DID survive, and the Protestants hailed it as a miracle.

Just goes to show: all the details matter. Even where you left the manure :)

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 30, 2020, 06:48:17 AM

Quote from: consolcwby on November 30, 2020, 01:53:43 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on November 29, 2020, 09:56:25 PM
So wikipedia says "Philipp Melanchthon, a close theological ally of Martin Luther, had arranged for Rheticus to visit several astronomers and study with them. Rheticus became Copernicus's pupil, staying with him for two years and writing a book, Narratio prima (First Account), outlining the essence of Copernicus's theory"

That does not really sound to me like Melanchthon actively suppressing the writing of Copernicus.  The opposite really.

Shush. PBS and liberal professors who write history books never go into such details like facts! Let him hate protestants or religious folks who don't follow the ways of men. Facts never enter into these kinds of things anyway. Take the History Channel approach and just say "You're wrong, because - ALIENS!"  :P

Facts never enter into these kinds of things anyway. Take the theRPGsite approach and just say "You're wrong, because - MARXISTS!

Sounds pretty fucking stupid, doesn't it?

Only if you mean Groucho, Chico, Harpo, and Zeppo!  8)