DS9 - Tribunal

[CharlesPhipps]

I still say that "proud boys" sounds like something a toddler would say after going to the potty by himself the first time.

The name comes from the Aladdin Musical about Aladdin disappointing his mom.

I shit you not.

This is a real thing.

[Darth Wedgius]

GeyICE, how do you define fascism? I haven't heard much in the way of authoritarianism from the right, and I heave heard it from the left.

Fascism also is supposed to have the individual function primarily as a servant of the nation. The right I know of is individualist.

I also have not heard the right decrying diversity. I have heard the right decrying some specific moves toward diversity. Wanting people to achieve positions by merit is not anti-diversity, it's anti-diversity-hires. Are you capable of understanding the difference?

I've also seen nobody worshipping statues. But you being dishonest is nothing new. Moving on.

How do you define fascism? Flag-waving? Really?

[GreyICE]

GeyICE, how do you define fascism? I haven't heard much in the way of authoritarianism from the right, and I heave heard it from the left.

I'll use America as the example, see if this rhetoric rings any bells.

Fascism is the doctrine of the extreme nationalist state - the state not as a servant of the people, or a necessary evil, but instead the state as a higher purpose. Not just the name of where you live, or a culture, but an ideal to strive for - to become more American, to embody the spirit of America, as an ideal, and a higher calling, and the source of morality. Fascism is a fusion of spiritualism and materialism - the nation is both an object of veneration, and serving the fascists makes this abstract nation better. Fascism does not set aside religion, but co-opts it. Like everything in fascist society, religion becomes an agent of the state. The state chooses what religious displays are appropriate, and destroys other religions actively (fascism also rejects atheism and agnosticism).

The fascist vision of nationalism is that the fascist state is no longer a location or a people. It is a spiritual ideal that is greater than simply a location, and thus justifies damage to the physical location in the name of furthering the spiritual ideal. America, not as a land mass in the continent of North America, or the 330 million people living here, but America as an ideal to strive for, even if some of those people get sacrificed or land gets damaged along the way. Because of this, you can make America "more American" - in fact Fascists will often decry that their country is not "American enough" despite that being tautologically false (America is the maximum amount of America anything can be). To a fascist this makes sense though, because what it means is "the nation and people of America do not embody these 'American ideals'" (and naturally we, the fascists, shall fix this).

Fascism preaches rugged individualism for the self. That every man's life is a struggle (fascism is quite sexist) and that strong men overcome the struggle. Strong men become the implement for winning the struggle - morally, physically, and intellectually, they become the ideal fascist man. They fight to overcome, they look down on those who are weaker, they disdain an easy life and reserve nothing but scorn for those who seek it. This self-made strong man willingly joins with other strong men to make a strong state.

Facists bring this struggle outwards as well. Fascism is pro-use of force, pro-military. The fascist state is a strong state, ready and willing to use military power to project itself and protect its identity. Fascists view war as having a grim nobility - that it is the great crucible of the spirit, and that the strongest and the bravest emerge from there.

Fascism vocally and explicitly rejects what it sees as "Marxism". Specifically, it rejects any notion that well being can be measured by happiness, that inequity of material goods is a problem, and that there is any issue with the idea of classes. To be higher class is to be more deserving, because you worked harder. If the hard work does not reward the fascist, it is because Marxists/Socialists/Jews/Immigrants have conspired to steal that success away from the American, the man who embodies the ideals of America, who works hard and who struggles, and who has earned those rewards. If hard work does reward the fascist, it is their due.

Fascism is the embrace of this absolute, total being of "America" as a mission, as a goal, as an ideal, as a purpose, and as a state. It is the ultimate totalitarian ideal. Your identity should be American, your goals should be American, your life should be American, your morality should be American.

A central narrative to fascism is that when the state is not this, the state has been robbed of its greatness - by Marxists, by liberals, by Jews. And the fascist must retake this greatness, and return the nation to its absolute root, so that everyone knows how American it is.


This sound like anyone? In any parts?

Edit: Trump's July 4th Speech, a brilliant example.

THE PRESIDENT: We gather tonight to herald the most important day in the history of nations: July 4th, 1776. At those words, every American heart should swell with pride. Every American family should cheer with delight. And every American patriot should be filled with joy, because each of you lives in the most magnificent country in the history of the world, and it will soon be greater than ever before. (Applause.)

...

Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children.

AUDIENCE: Booo —

THE PRESIDENT: Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our Founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities. Many of these people have no idea why they are doing this, but some know exactly what they are doing. They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive. But no, the American people are strong and proud, and they will not allow our country, and all of its values, history, and culture, to be taken from them. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-south-dakotas-2020-mount-rushmore-fireworks-celebration-keystone-south-dakota/

Lets look at this:

"Many of these people have no idea why they are doing this, but some know exactly what they are doing. They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive. But no, the American people are strong and proud, and they will not allow our country, and all of its values, history, and culture, to be taken from them. (Applause.)"

But... "these people" are "the American people." Both groups are American, right? Unless "America" is something other than a nation and a people - unless America is a collection of morals, values, and ideals, a philosophy and a faith, a value system that is greater than the nation and the people.

You see what I mean, I do hope.

[Ixthos]

If I may, I am not an American and in general I try to avoid politics, but I have been reading this thread and I hope I can express something that is my own concern in all of this.

Firstly, just to note an important point, I don't think the core issue with fascism is that "everything" about it is bad, but rather that it is built on both flawed ideas and evil assumptions, so that even the elements within it that are "noble" are corrupted by their context - ideas such as national unity and being strong are good, but when combined with racism and jingoism they become evil, not because national unity etc. is evil but because it is being used as a justification for things that are. Every fascist loves - or thinks they love - their nation, but not everyone who loves their nation is a fascist, and indeed those who are not fascist and love their nation would argue that it is the fascist who doesn't really love their nation, for if they do why would they be trying to destroy it.

That same issue then comes into Antifa. Antifa has the stated goals of stopping fascism, but at the same time we have to remember that fascism, as you noted GreyICE, was trying to stop communism / Marxism. Two final points to note with fascism is that not everyone who called themselves a fascist, or who held fascist-like ideas agreed with or held every view, or even knew about the full depth of how far the others in their group or who held similar views would go, that is they believed fasicsm would make their nation better, but didn't realise what that would entail. The second is that any ideology based on opposition of the "other", whatever the other might be, tends to attract demagogues who can further inspire that fear or anger within its members, and lose control of whatever may be restraining it.

The fear I hear is that Antifa is going down the same path. How many members of an antifascist rally research who they are opposing, or even know the ideas espoused by the person or group they are boycotting or marching against? And, knowing that the fascists in the past - and the fascists of today - were violent, how many are already prepared to fight, or even eager?
Many or even most Antifa probably are genuenly gentle and caring and friendly people, but as Terry Pratchett said, the IQ of a mob is that of its least intelligent member divided by the total number of people in the mob.

When preventing violence - and expecting to have to fend off violence - is used as a justification for violence, hasn't Antifa done the exact same thing as the leaders of the fascist groups did, driving otherwise ordinary people to violence against communists, "stop them before the communists kill us"? When being labelled fascist is something that someone who isn't a fascist is called by a group, the rest agreeing without checking, and then being treated as such, hasn't Antifa become - not fasicst - but the same root problem that made fasicsm the evil that we know? The fear of the other, because the other is dangerous. Fear of their words because their words will lead to violence against those we care about, and a challenge and change to how life currently is or how life should be, so if it looks like they are going to be violent, be violent first? After all, has Antifa ever gone after or tried to silence someone who demonstrably wasn't a fascist, or even anything like a fasicst?

The average member of Antifa is an ordinary person. Just like those first few people who were lead astray by fascist demagogues. What makes Antifa immune?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

When preventing violence - and expecting to have to fend off violence - is used as a justification for violence, hasn't Antifa done the exact same thing as the leaders of the fascist groups did, driving otherwise ordinary people to violence against communists, "stop them before the communists kill us"? When being labelled fascist is something that someone who isn't a fascist is called by a group, the rest agreeing without checking, and then being treated as such, hasn't Antifa become - not fasicst - but the same root problem that made fasicsm the evil that we know? The fear of the other, because the other is dangerous. Fear of their words because their words will lead to violence against those we care about, and a challenge and change to how life currently is or how life should be, so if it looks like they are going to be violent, be violent first? After all, has Antifa ever gone after or tried to silence someone who demonstrably wasn't a fascist, or even anything like a fasicst?

The average member of Antifa is an ordinary person. Just like those first few people who were lead astray by fascist demagogues. What makes Antifa immune?

Not quite. There's a stark difference here in that Fascism is in an establishment position of power while Antifa is not. It's not the price of something that's outrageous it's a combination of that and precisely how much of it you have to buy. Fascism is pretty much everybody in the US forced to buy a house and pay mortgage for the rest of their lives to the government that owns the industry by the time it gets back to private hands through regulation and red tape. Antifa is more akin to exploiting public land. Not quite the same.

[Ixthos]

When preventing violence - and expecting to have to fend off violence - is used as a justification for violence, hasn't Antifa done the exact same thing as the leaders of the fascist groups did, driving otherwise ordinary people to violence against communists, "stop them before the communists kill us"? When being labelled fascist is something that someone who isn't a fascist is called by a group, the rest agreeing without checking, and then being treated as such, hasn't Antifa become - not fasicst - but the same root problem that made fasicsm the evil that we know? The fear of the other, because the other is dangerous. Fear of their words because their words will lead to violence against those we care about, and a challenge and change to how life currently is or how life should be, so if it looks like they are going to be violent, be violent first? After all, has Antifa ever gone after or tried to silence someone who demonstrably wasn't a fascist, or even anything like a fasicst?

The average member of Antifa is an ordinary person. Just like those first few people who were lead astray by fascist demagogues. What makes Antifa immune?

Not quite. There's a stark difference here in that Fascism is in an establishment position of power while Antifa is not. It's not the price of something that's outrageous it's a combination of that and precisely how much of it you have to buy. Fascism is pretty much everybody in the US forced to buy a house and pay mortgage for the rest of their lives to the government that owns the industry by the time it gets back to private hands through regulation and red tape. Antifa is more akin to exploiting public land. Not quite the same.

I can't speak to that, I don't know enough about American politics or enough details of world history to say whether or not that assessment is correct, though I do know that, in England for example, fascism was promoted by non-government groups, and if I remember what I have heard correctly they were seen to be dangerous, but tolerated because they tried to counter communism. Perhaps I am wrong on that front, I don't know. Nevertheless, the distinction you noted doesn't seem to represent an immunity that would prevent Antifa and its members succumbing to the same types of corruption members of other groups who are willing to turn to violence have fallen to, the corruption that turns ordinary people into those willing to outright assault and kill those who aren't actually members of the group it is dedicated to fighting even while thinking they haven't drifted from their mandate.

[GreyICE]

That same issue then comes into Antifa. Antifa has the stated goals of stopping fascism, but at the same time we have to remember that fascism, as you noted GreyICE, was trying to stop communism / Marxism. Two final points to note with fascism is that not everyone who called themselves a fascist, or who held fascist-like ideas agreed with or held every view, or even knew about the full depth of how far the others in their group or who held similar views would go, that is they believed fasicsm would make their nation better, but didn't realise what that would entail. The second is that any ideology based on opposition of the "other", whatever the other might be, tends to attract demagogues who can further inspire that fear or anger within its members, and lose control of whatever may be restraining it.

The fear I hear is that Antifa is going down the same path. How many members of an antifascist rally research who they are opposing, or even know the ideas espoused by the person or group they are boycotting or marching against? And, knowing that the fascists in the past - and the fascists of today - were violent, how many are already prepared to fight, or even eager?
Many or even most Antifa probably are genuenly gentle and caring and friendly people, but as Terry Pratchett said, the IQ of a mob is that of its least intelligent member divided by the total number of people in the mob.

First of all, how many of these "antifa" actually exist. I live in Seattle, which presumably should be a hotbed of them, yes? I attend protests, etc. I've never met one. They're a boogeyman. Proud boys? They have rallies. They came to Seattle and beat some people up, flashed guns. They had a march in our park. I've never even argued they're a particularly large organization, but they're certainly a real one. I don't think "the Antifa" are any more real than the Satanists who were infesting our schools, corrupting our youth, and filling our media with symbols in the 90s. You've fallen for a Satanic panic. Do you think the 75 year old Catholic protester who fell and hit his head is part of this nebulous "antifa"? Do you think that people who want to reform our police departments are "antifa"?

In that they are anti-fascist, yes. The Satanic panic was stirred up by religious groups who were afraid America was becoming more secular, and wanted to bind wavering religious (the "Sunday Christians") to their cause. They wanted to show them Satan was everywhere, like they believed, and in the process they started seeing Satan everywhere. What group wants you afraid of the anti-fascists?

Second, Fascism is most certainly an inherently awful ideology. Inherently. "All morality flows from the state". And not the state as "the nation and people", but The State, an abstract ideal. The highest moral good, the greatest compliment, is that you're "an ideal American". The most scathing insult is "un-American". Spirituality, material life, everything reshapes into polar lines defined by that vision.

Once you've surrendered your moral compass to that all-devouring ideal state, what is possible? What is good? What the avatar of The State tells you is good. What is evil? What the avatar of The State tells you is evil. What is allowed, what is forbidden, the state defines all of it. To be a fascist is to accept that this ideal is greater than you, and that you can have no moral code except in context of the state.

Nevertheless, the distinction you noted doesn't seem to represent an immunity that would prevent Antifa and its members succumbing to the same types of corruption members of other groups who are willing to turn to violence have fallen to, the corruption that turns ordinary people into those willing to outright assault and kill those who aren't actually members of the group it is dedicated to fighting even while thinking they haven't drifted from their mandate.

This is what I want you to understand, because it's very clear you don't grasp it. A follower of fascism hands over his moral compass to "the State". To be a fascist is to have no morality outside this all-encompassing idea. Any group, ANY ONE, where they encourage each member to have their own moral compass is inherently more resistant to corruption than fascism, because fascism begins at a place most people would tell you is already corrupt!

When you've given away your moral compass and you can measure only by how close or how far something is away from being "American", regardless of what that action is in any objective sense, you can justify anything. Torture? Fine. Extrajudicial killings? Fine. Planting evidence on suspects? Fine. Subverting the legal system? Fine. The only thing that should be illegal is things that are "anti-American", so if someone is a criminal, but was "American", they should be pardoned, in fact they should have never been charged in the first place! However anyone who is un-American is already a criminal, you just need a reason to lock them up (silly due process, the fascists will get rid of that when they're in charge - once you're convinced the person is un-American, they're guilty. Of what? Who cares).


Imagine being angry that there's an international court that might try members of the military who committed war crimes - war crimes - and it might be applied to your military. You know. People who committed war crimes. But did they do it in the name of America? Well they're not crimes at all then, are they? That's fascist thinking for you.

[Ixthos]

GreyICE, I understand and I agree with you. As I said though, I'm not American, so I have no idea what demographics of activity one would expect in America. My issue is the same one you noted - I agree with you that "morality flows from the state" is wrong and dangerous. Evil, even. Yet do you also agree that that same danger could also exist if you replace "un-American" with "fascist"?

Again, I don't have a stake in this debate, only in trying to make sure that everyone is on the same page.

[GreyICE]

GreyICE, I understand and I agree with you. As I said though, I'm not American, so I have no idea what demographics of activity one would expect in America. My issue is the same one you noted - I agree with you that "morality flows from the state" is wrong and dangerous. Evil, even. Yet do you also agree that that same danger could also exist if you replace "un-American" with "fascist"?

Again, I don't have a stake in this debate, only in trying to make sure that everyone is on the same page.

Could the same danger exist if we replaced "fascist" with "pedophile" or "rapist"? Is it dangerous to be anti-pedophilia? Are you worried about the anti-rapists raging out of control? Have you ever stopped to ask "are people who want to diddle kids and people who want to stop those people actually morally the same"?

The danger is not thinking that some things are bad. I think many things are bad. The danger is not in opposing them. I oppose many things. And I really hope you do as well. The danger is signing away your morality, handing the reigns of it over to a "higher authority" and being granted absolution. The moral blank slate - anything you say or do in the name of the cause is approved if the representative of your higher power says it's approved. You're not a moral agent, you're just following orders.

I agree that uninformed backlash can also be dangerous. Do you see my explanation of fascism? Do you think it's uninformed? I can, very clearly, show you that many elements of the right wing in America have been using fascist rhetoric, and that Trump in particular uses fascist rhetoric all the time. For fucks sake, look at what I wrote, look at the speech I quoted.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

When preventing violence - and expecting to have to fend off violence - is used as a justification for violence, hasn't Antifa done the exact same thing as the leaders of the fascist groups did, driving otherwise ordinary people to violence against communists, "stop them before the communists kill us"? When being labelled fascist is something that someone who isn't a fascist is called by a group, the rest agreeing without checking, and then being treated as such, hasn't Antifa become - not fasicst - but the same root problem that made fasicsm the evil that we know? The fear of the other, because the other is dangerous. Fear of their words because their words will lead to violence against those we care about, and a challenge and change to how life currently is or how life should be, so if it looks like they are going to be violent, be violent first? After all, has Antifa ever gone after or tried to silence someone who demonstrably wasn't a fascist, or even anything like a fasicst?

The average member of Antifa is an ordinary person. Just like those first few people who were lead astray by fascist demagogues. What makes Antifa immune?

Not quite. There's a stark difference here in that Fascism is in an establishment position of power while Antifa is not. It's not the price of something that's outrageous it's a combination of that and precisely how much of it you have to buy. Fascism is pretty much everybody in the US forced to buy a house and pay mortgage for the rest of their lives to the government that owns the industry by the time it gets back to private hands through regulation and red tape. Antifa is more akin to exploiting public land. Not quite the same.

I can't speak to that, I don't know enough about American politics or enough details of world history to say whether or not that assessment is correct, though I do know that, in England for example, fascism was promoted by non-government groups, and if I remember what I have heard correctly they were seen to be dangerous, but tolerated because they tried to counter communism. Perhaps I am wrong on that front, I don't know. Nevertheless, the distinction you noted doesn't seem to represent an immunity that would prevent Antifa and its members succumbing to the same types of corruption members of other groups who are willing to turn to violence have fallen to, the corruption that turns ordinary people into those willing to outright assault and kill those who aren't actually members of the group it is dedicated to fighting even while thinking they haven't drifted from their mandate.

Basically all I think I can say to most of that is fair enough. Though I find your paragraph to allude to a value judgement that seems neither here nor there. We usually judge these kinds of matters by account of what actions or ideas a person puts forth as they impact the public. What makes for a crucial facet of that, as I was saying earlier, is the power differential. If you're making value judgements like that then it is breaking down when you're comparing individuals with at best systemic impact to organizations that are completely absorbed into and are executating the system itself.