DS9 - Tribunal

[GreyICE]

A philosophy isn't an IP. Like lol just lol.

You can't even name a name.

Take your meds, grandpa.

[Darth Wedgius]

Yes it is a political philosophy. So is communism and socialism, doesn't stop people from abusing those terms either. There is a good reason McCarthyism is considered a term and not a positive one, a bunch of people accused of being Commies based on shoddy evidence and outright false accusations, just being accused of being a Communist was enough to get people blacklisted or worse. People today like to accuse the European Union of being Communist (its even got Union in its name) for fishing quotas and social programs. Red-baiting is just as much of a time honored argument as calling someone as fascist.

I can and have pointed out rhetoric from the Republican party and the right wing that is fascist in nature. Not that I am calling fascist, that meets every definition of fascism. The only person who responded to that Trump quote is Darth Wedgius, and his response was "what if fascism was right about The State and they had the right idea all along?"

Their rhetoric is actually, legitimately fascist. Stop pretending otherwise.

You're not even trying to be honest, are you? Here I try to treat you like a rational adult... Well, my mistake, I guess. Not my first.

[Darth Wedgius]

Thank you! Sincerely. Your definition doesn't meet the dictionary's, for example (Merriam-Webster):

The dictionary is not where you find meaning for complex philosophies. Or anything complex really, it's a dictionary. It's meant to be used because you've literally never seen the word before and encountered it for the first time. If this is your first time seeing the word fascism, that is a decent breakdown in only three lines of text.

It's not just that your definition does not match the dictionary's, your definition contradicts the dictionary's. The right generally values individual liberty.

The right, in general, wants economic and political freedom for people. Free speech, economic self-determination, etc. The same things the left isn't in favor of. The left wants the individual harnessed for "the greater good." Supposedly.

I'm using the definition used by people like Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. Who would kind of be experts on it, seeing as how they invented it.

Such as this?

The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...
...
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State.

- Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932

From The Doctrine of Fascism, by Benito Mussolini:

Fascism wants man to be active and to engage in action with all his energies; it wants him to be manfully aware of the difficulties besetting him and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle in which it behooves a man to win for himself a really worthy place, first of all by fitting himself (physically, morally, intellectually) to become the implement required for winning it. As for the individual, so for the nation, and so for mankind (4). Hence the high value of culture in all its forms (artistic, religious, scientific) (5) and the outstanding importance of education. Hence also the essential value of work, by which man subjugates nature and creates the human world (economic, political, ethical, and intellectual).

This flavor of rugged individualism is certainly fascist. The idea of man struggling to win himself a worthy place by becoming the physical, moral, and intellectual paragon that win themselves a worthy place is the fascist ideal. Fascists often see history as a procession of Great Men who are these paragons. These Great Men are part of the ideal of their nation state, paragons to strive towards being.

There seem to be two different thoughts here. One, supported by the quote you gave, is the run of the mill rugged individualism but with further emphasis on education and culture. You seem to call that fascist for some reason, but you don't say why. The other seems to be the idea that outstanding men shaped history.

Myself? I probably identify closest as a Libertarian, although not the typical flavor of "fuck the government, let corporations run everything Blade Runner is our future" AnCap shit. Libertarians differ in an extremely important way. A Libertarian does not give themselves the moral authority to judge your lifestyle (or you the moral authority to judge theirs). As long as you do not impinge upon others freedoms, as long as you are not seeking to cage them, any way you choose to use your freedom is as good as any other. Do you choose to paint pictures? Did you dedicate your life to birdwatching? Write a bestselling novel? Work in a factory? Do custom landscaping and topiary? Work at a convenience store? Strip your clothes off and do sexy dances to bad music?

These are all beyond the moral authority to judge for a Libertarian, because that's how you choose to use your freedom. There is no "winning", there is no "worthy place", there is no "essential value of work", and work certainly shouldn't subjugate anyone or anything. In this way the Libertarian might be the most complete rejection of the ideals of the fascist, because a Libertarian rejects the entire concept their ideology is based on wholesale.

How important is freedom of speech to you? Or freedom to hire by merit?

Well, Trump wants to bring troops home... But I might be being unfair. You might not consider Trump especially guilty of this, but still consider America guilty of it. I wonder if this makes the USSR fascist. or if that would only be in common with other traits.

The USSR had fascist elements, although it's a poor example, mostly because of how fragmented its government was. It's really hard to assign any strong values to the state when Stalin's brand of leadership was raw pragmatism, the NKVD/Party/Army all had separate values (as planned by Stalin), and the entire thing was held together through fear.

Current day China is a good example of a modern fascist state.

So you don't have to be right-wing to be fascist?

Well, Marxism is authoritarian, is it not? But, to be fair, you said that fascism rejects what it sees as Marxism. I do not see widespread belief that richer people are necessarily more deserving. Some people just inherit wealth. Some people are lucky. Ask the average conservative what he thinks of millionaires in Hollywood.

However, it is statistically true that the rich do tend to work longer than average hours, and there is a correlation between IQ and wealth.

Ever noticed how many anti-Semitic conspiracy theories float around about Hollywood? About any businessman who isn't sufficiently "American"? Many people will tell you (ABS is one) that Hollywood is a communist (jewish) institution that pushes Marxist values.

There are the undeserving rich, those who were made so not by American values, but by the shadowy conspiracy that lurks behind the scenes. This enemy explains why anything that is inconsistent about a fascist worldview happens. If something in reality does not match the ideology, it is a result of the conspiracy. The Lugenpresse (literally: lying press) who are owned by the Jews reporting fake news. The conspiracy to push superstar singers and actors with "un-American" values. The money flowing from shadowy Jewish hands (George Soros?).

Did these sources mention Jews, or is that you mind-reading?

This is ever an inevitability in Fascism, because an absolute worldview allows for no grey edges, and yet reality has a pesky way of not behaving as fascists wish it to. Therefore the vast conspiracy - the Jews, the Marxists, the Deep State, the Soros fund, etc. - must be responsible for altering the entire world, so it works this other way. The paradox of the fascist's enemy - so powerful it must be everywhere, but so weak that this "self-made man adhering to strong German/Italian/American values" can defeat them easily.

Russian bots, anyone?

Well, if your morality is not American, maybe America isn't the best place for you?

The United States of America is a land mass, 3.8 million square miles in size. It has many forests, mountains, plains, beaches, deserts, every type of geography you can imagine. You know what it does not have, in all of its 3.8 million square miles? Morality.

The United States is an arbitrary geographical area carved out of a larger continent. It has no morality whatsoever. It cannot. It is inanimate. Inanimate objects simply exist. They are. A sofa has no morality, a lawn chair is not a moral tutor, and neither is some piece of geography.

To assign it some abstract morality and then hold other people to it is the delusion of the fascist mind.

America is not just the land. There is a people involved, and a culture. If it was just the land, why would people risk death to get here?

Yes, when He said "the American people", He didn't mean literally every American.

Of course not. No fascist means "everyone" when they say "the American people". What they mean is "the people who align to the true vision of America, the fascist ideal of the nation state." That's why they're fucking fascists. You can't just have a disagreement, a disagreement means you're not an American, but living on American soil. You're a foreign invader! They can use force to fight off a foreign invader, they can use any tactics they want to. If you can't be re-educated, you're a problem that needs a "solution"

Um... sources? Evidence that this is at all common? I'd like some people to leave, but that's because they want to force change upon me, change I consider unethical.

If you'll indulge my curiosity, do you think "antifacists" mostly use your idea of "fascism" more than the ones that involve authoritarianism?."

Do you think anything I've described is NOT authoritarian?

Most anti-fascists do indeed understand fascism, and can make a distinction between non-fascist authoritarians (like Saddam Hussein, King George III, or present day Saudi Arabia) and fascist groups (ISIS, modern China, North Korea, and plenty of movements in America and parts of Europe). There's a very clear distinction between what I've described here and the House of Saud, for instance.

I didn't ask if they understood fascism. I asked if they use your definition of it.

Yes, much of what you have described is not authoritarian because you didn't mention how force would be used. How is "rugged individualism" authoritarian? How are supposed conspiracy theories authoritarian? How is suggesting a common set of values authoritarian? Where are the prison terms? Where are the fines? Where are the re-education camps, à la Bernie supporters?

[GreyICE]

There seem to be two different thoughts here. One, supported by the quote you gave, is the run of the mill rugged individualism but with further emphasis on education and culture. You seem to call that fascist for some reason, but you don't say why. The other seems to be the idea that outstanding men shaped history.

Lets examine this "run of the mill rugged individualism"

"conceives of life as a struggle in which it behooves a man to win"
"a really worthy place"
"the implement required for winning it"
"the essential value of work, by which man subjugate"

Win. Worthy. Winning. Subjugate.

This isn't the language of an individualist, who believes in the essential self-worth of the individual. This is the language of a conqueror. The fascist "rugged individualist" Is that which overcomes and wins, and in winning subjugates. This has nothing to do with individual self-expression - which the fascist disdains. Rather, this is about proving that you can win, and you have a worthy place.

Is this "run of the mill rugged individualism"? As preached by large sections of the American conservative movement? Yes. As I said, we have a lot of fascist rhetoric in mainstream politics in America. It's perennially popular. Trump and Gul Dukat didn't both pick the same campaign slogan because of coincidence.

And below I clearly distinguish this from an actual individualist.

Myself? I probably identify closest as a Libertarian, although not the typical flavor of "fuck the government, let corporations run everything Blade Runner is our future" AnCap shit. Libertarians differ in an extremely important way. A Libertarian does not give themselves the moral authority to judge your lifestyle (or you the moral authority to judge theirs). As long as you do not impinge upon others freedoms, as long as you are not seeking to cage them, any way you choose to use your freedom is as good as any other. Do you choose to paint pictures? Did you dedicate your life to birdwatching? Write a bestselling novel? Work in a factory? Do custom landscaping and topiary? Work at a convenience store? Strip your clothes off and do sexy dances to bad music?

These are all beyond the moral authority to judge for a Libertarian, because that's how you choose to use your freedom. There is no "winning", there is no "worthy place", there is no "essential value of work", and work certainly shouldn't subjugate anyone or anything. In this way the Libertarian might be the most complete rejection of the ideals of the fascist, because a Libertarian rejects the entire concept their ideology is based on wholesale.

How important is freedom of speech to you? Or freedom to hire by merit?

Don't pull an ABS and Gish Gallop off. Is this really the only response to what I wrote? It's a one sentence aside that's completely tangential to the discussion of fascism.

So you don't have to be right-wing to be fascist?

This is a lousy attempt at a "gotcha" but at least it's on topic (although one sentence). A fascist state is fascist. If you continue to divide the entire world into black/white, left/right you will continue to fail to understand anything. Your thinking isn't even stuck in two dimensions. It's one dimensional. You can either move left, or right.

Take an 8 values test: https://8values.github.io/

This gives you four different axis, four dimensions. It's a simplification as well, but at least it might break you out of your rut.

Did these sources mention Jews, or is that you mind-reading?

Tweet tweet goes the dog whistle.

There we go, nice one sentence response to your one sentence nonsense.

Russian bots, anyone?

Can you string a thought together for longer than a sentence? Turn it into a coherent argument? Because this collection of one liners doesn't even resemble a coherent thought process. If this is how your mind works...

Actually that does explain a lot.

America is not just the land. There is a people involved, and a culture. If it was just the land, why would people risk death to get here?

Three sentences! Yes, you hit the point exactly. There are also people living in America. Since we have established the land has no particular morality, the morality of anyone living in America is... American. Tautologically. That's the only thing it can flow from. An American's morality is American. The land has no morality, so it must be the morality of the people.

Unless you subscribe to the fascist idea of The State as a quasi-religious object of veneration, of course. That's how you can come up with the idea that an American who has neither conspired nor aided a foreign power can "betray their country." That's how you can come up with the idea that an American is un-American and should move out of America because they're not American. That's how they can come up with the crazy idea that someone is a traitor for having a different vision of the future of America than you do.

These notions are ridiculous, except to the fascist mind.

Yes, when He said "the American people", He didn't mean literally every American.

Of course not. No fascist means "everyone" when they say "the American people". What they mean is "the people who align to the true vision of America, the fascist ideal of the nation state." That's why they're fucking fascists. You can't just have a disagreement, a disagreement means you're not an American, but living on American soil. You're a foreign invader! They can use force to fight off a foreign invader, they can use any tactics they want to. If you can't be re-educated, you're a problem that needs a "solution"

Um... sources? Evidence that this is at all common? I'd like some people to leave, but that's because they want to force change upon me, change I consider unethical.

Well, lets quote the leader of the Republican Party, the head of the party currently in charge of the United States of America, a man who speaks for tens of millions of Americans.

But should she lose, we'll have an insurance policy, and we'll get this guy out of office. And that's what they said, and that's what they meant. That's treason. That's treason. They couldn't win the election, and that's what happened. And that's what's happening right now because -- without the "treason" word, I guess -- but that's what's happening now."

"The Democrats new and pathetically untrue sound bite is that we are in a “Constitutional Crisis.” They and their partner, the Fake News Media, are all told to say this as loud and as often as possible. They are a sad JOKE! We may have the strongest Economy in our history, best employment numbers ever, low taxes & regulations, a rebuilt military & V.A., many great new judges, & so much more. But we have had a giant SCAM perpetrated upon our nation, a Witch Hunt, a Treasonous Hoax. That is the Constitutional Crisis & hopefully guilty people will pay!"

Well number one, The Times should never have done that, because really what they've done is, virtually, you know it's treason. You can call it a lot of things. But to think that you have somebody in all of the Cabinet, so many people. You know, they came forward, they're writing editorials. They're all saying, you know, it's gotta be at a fairly low level."

Treason seems to be tossed around pretty casually.

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......

….and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how…. [it's done]

Tells American congresswomen to leave America.

The man that was — I don’t know, you say “roughed up” — he was so obnoxious and so loud, he was screaming — I had 10,000 people in the room yesterday, 10,000 people, and this guy started screaming by himself. And I don’t know, “rough up” — he should have been, maybe he should have been roughed up.

“The audience hit back. That’s what we need a little bit more of”

“Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees”

Hillary wants to shut down energy production. I want to expand it. Lower electric bills, folks! Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.

“These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”

He's a very inspirational speaker: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889

I think this establishes pretty clearly that this has become mainstream political rhetoric.

Now can you finally put to rest your notion that Fascist = Authoritarian? Fascists are a very specific ideology. The House of Saud is extremely authoritarian, but not at all fascist. They don't really care what you believe, as long as you fear them. That sort of authoritarian rule, the rule by fear, is simpler to maintain than a fascist state, but does not have the overwhelming presence of The State. Read Orwell's 1984. There's no big brother in Saudi Arabia, just "if we don't like you sufficiently, we'll shoot you, so stay in line."

By the by, do try to string together some actual paragraphs in responding. Some sort of coherency of thought keeps a conversation alive, by giving an interplay of ideas. Your random interjections are more like an ADD chipmunk running through the room. If you can't string together a paragraph worth of thinking, I don't think it's worth a second of my time.

[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.

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.

There has been a lot of back and forth in this discussion since I was last logged on, and it isn't my intention to try to respond to everything here, especially when I've mainly been trying to focus on one key point, so I will try to keep my response focused to the idea I have been trying to focus on, though I do thank FlynnTaggart for continuing along the general line I was trying to get at. I don't think I expressed myself as well as I could to you GreyICE, and for that I apologise and will try to be clearer.

I have a tendency to write long and rambling responses - as it happens I actually am ADHD, though not a chipmunk - and can get easily distracted. So I will summarise my main focus, which is the key point:

Let us describe four groups. Group A hold a dangerous ideology, and they have members who are prone to violence, but not every member of Group A is violent, though their ideas certainly could destroy society. Group B opposes Group A, recognising the danger in their beliefs, and fears what would happen if Group A ever comes into power - and rightly so. Group C are similar to Group A in some respects, believing in similar things in some ways, but ironically are actually closer to Group B in most others - i.e. Group C are more similar to Group B than to Group A, but nevertheless appear similar to Group A along certain lines. Finally there is Group D, who aren't in general interested in the dynamics of Group A or B and possibly even C, and most members just want to live their lives - as indeed all groups do, though they don't all agree on what living their lives entails.
(Note that for some types of groups it might not be possible for some members to leave or to join - after all, you can't change your beliefs in a vacuum, otherwise one could choose to believe things that run contrary to what one knows - but that is an entirely different discussion and if I go to far along this line I won't finish this post.)

A key point to bare in mind, however, is present in this last point: most members are ordinary people, who if they met one another without disclosing their membership to a group would probably get along just fine, and for some of them they might even be able to get along even if the other did know their group affiliation, though perhaps they will try to get the others to join their group, seeing it as being in the other's best interests, or for society in general.
There are also, however, those in the groups who have an agenda, and will attempt to manipulate those in their group to either become more committed to it - and to them - than they already are, usually by preying on the fears their group has about the other groups. And sometimes those fears are legitimate. Note, however, that this applies across all groups, which are mostly made up of the same people you would meet on the street, and probably are otherwise friendly or share similar ideas. The person with the agenda might not be malicious, but they also might well be motivated by a hatred of another group. Either way, they see value in encouraging their group to see one or more of the others as their enemies.

Group A must be stopped, we are all in agreement. But not everyone who is in Group A is someone who will become violent, and indeed there are those who can be reasoned with, persuaded to leave if shown the right way.
If a member of Group A punched a member of Group B - because they believe Group B's philosophies are dangerous and theirs are not - it would be a crime. And if that member of Group B fought back it would be justified. If a member of Group A began to attack a member of Group B, other members of Group B interviening to stop them would not be a crime. If a member of Group A were to plan to attack a member of Group B, but hadn't yet done so yet clearly was planning to do so, and members of Group B attacked them first, well ... that is far murkier. After all, what methods do they use to stop them? What if And if a member of Group A used a slur against a member of Group B, and Group B responded by assaulting them? Murdering them? Should Group B be allowed to take the law into their own hands? On what authority?
What if it turns out the person they attacked - to harm or to kill, either one - actually WASN'T planning on attacking a member of Group B? What if, in fact, they were actually a member of Group C? Or D? Or even B?
If we replace A with B and B with A, does it now change? Does it matter what Group A's philosophies are, or Group B's?
If a member of Group A broke into the house of a member of Group B and murdered them that would be a crime. If a member of Group B broke into the house of a member of Group A and murdered them, would it still be one? Does it only become a crime once it changed from assault to murder?

If to stop Group A from performing horror Y, Group B commits horror Y on Group A, is there any difference between Group A and Group B now? Oh, certainly in beliefs about whatever makes them a group, and in organisational structure or one's obligations to society and others. But in terms of what they are willing to do to those who are a threat?

NOW TO THE CORE POINT - THIS IS THE POINT TO FOCUS ON
Now let us suppose we have members of Group B who have regularly marched against or worked to stop members of Group A. So they were there is another Group, almost exactly like Group A because they believe in X, an element of the philosophy of Group A. And it was fine for them to attack Group A because Group A are violent thugs who want to violate the rights of everyone, little more than unthinking animals because they believe in Z (with X being an independent belief from Z, to give a trite example much like how Hitler was a vegetarian, but vegetarianism isn't required to be a nazi, nor are veterinarians automatically nazi's. Or how believing that the rich should pay more taxes does not mean one thinks they should all be guillotined (taxes being X, guillotining being Z)). That Group A believes in Z is proof they are monsters, and both they and their historic forebears were violent, especially against Group B and their forebears. And as belief X is so common in Group A means that it MUST flows into belief Z - one cannot hold X without holding Z they reason.
Do you think that the members of Group B are going to check that they are actually marching against or working against or opposing Group A in this case? Do you think they will think they need to change their tactics?

Do you believe people think they need to change tactics when facing "similar" foes? (I am not saying Republicans aren't fascists - I am making no claims as to what they are or aren't. I am not saying Democrats are communists - I am making no claims as to what they are or aren't. I am not even mapping Groups A, B, C, and D to any existing belief. I am saying they can be ANY belief.)

Does the average member of Group B, going to oppose those they have been warned about, check on the beliefs of those they oppose? Will they not see the indignation of Group C being called Group A as proof that Group C actually is Group A, just hiding? And those similar views that Group C has to Group B, why, we don't call people with completely different views heretics, only those who look just enough like us that the differences disgust us.
If members of Group C, knowing what Group B is prepared to do to Group A, the violence they will visit on another whether or not it is justified by the Groups philosophy, whether or not Group A openly attacked first, will Group C not be afraid, and perhaps lash out? Will that not trigger the same behaviours towards Group C that Group B has shown towards A?

What do you think the next step is?

Now let us suppose that members of Group D start to voice concerns. They, standing outside, can see that Group C is actually no as similar to Group A as Group B is. Will Group B think that this is some new faction, or just hidden members or allies of Group A?
If a member of Group B voices concern about the path they are on, well, remember what we said about heretics. Love can turn to hate very quickly, just look at what is happening to celebrities like J. K. Rowling, who was once loved by those who now demand she retract her statements or be raped. Rape threats. I'm not even making that up. Look at Sir Thomas Moore, who was a close friend of Henry but when he would not support his desire to divorce his first wife had him executed. And then the wife he killed Thomas for was executed by him later. A group need not have a formal structure to form cliques and doctrine, and turn on those in the group who question it.

Binary thinking. If you aren't with us you are against us. If you question our opposition to a group then you are part of that group. This isn't abstract, this is human nature. Group B not even checking if they are still fighting Group A or Group C. And anyone who opposes what is done to them surely is secretly a member, regardless of what they say. Lynch them too.

The only cure is individuals keeping hold of themselves, and being warned of the danger of what they can become. And those like this can be found in just about every group. But they do not make up a group by themselves, and they often are the first to be seen as category traitors - because they call for restraint and question the course of a group. Group A will no more tolerate them than Group B will.

Does Group A need to be stopped? If they are guilty of what Group B says they are, then yes. IF. And we will assume Group B is right. Does Group B, on their own authority, have the right to use Group A's tactics to stop them? No. If they do, then they become WORSE than Group A, because Group B claims it has the right to decide another human beings fate by their own beliefs, fuelled not by logic but by distrust and paranoia, all while claiming to have the moral high ground.
If Group B were any other group but one to which we see ourselves as belonging, wouldn't we see them as worse than Group A? After all, at least Group A is honest about what it wants and is willing to do.

I see you agree uniform backlash is dangerous. On that we both agree. Do you disagree with what I have written here?

Those tactics an responses are part of human nature. Consider the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, The Russian Revolution and what happened even to those in the top when they run afoul of the leader, and Coups throughout history. Consider how suspected Communists were treated - real Communists were stopped, yet, but what about those who were not yet labelled as such? This is not unique to fascism. If you aren't entirely on board, and even then, the tactics used against legitimate enemies will be applied.

These things didn't get implanted into the followers of a group whatever their motivations for joining by the group. Those things emerged because they were told it was us versus them, and that if they one they would do worse than kill us. Can you promise that those who are willing to punch the fascists will stop at that? Is that not the same spirit as lynching? All the horrors you described a fascist government would bring, and a fascist would do - let us say they would. How far do you think someone would be willing to go to stop it, considering what humans have done before? And if they have to do those same things to someone who is a threat, do you think they think it isn't worth the cost to do it to members of Group C and Group D? Remember, not everyone who opposes Group B is in Group A, but if someone gets in the way to stopping Group A, do you think the members of Group B will draw a distinction?

In essence: Group A - if guilty of the crimes accused of - deserve to be punched. But not by anyone who hasn't been given the authority AND OVERSIGHT to make sure they punched ONLY members of Group A, and certainly they should not punch members of Group A if they themselves hate anyone who looks like Group A even when they aren't.

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.

I'm not entirely sure I follow you, but I do thank you for your measured reply. Do you mean that individuals who lack power are more moral than those who have power, or that they have less of an impact on society than governments do, or individuals who express support for or opposition to an ideology retain greater diversity than those who are formally part of a system, or something else? I apologise for my confusion.

[GreyICE]

There has been a lot of back and forth in this discussion since I was last logged on, and it isn't my intention to try to respond to everything here, especially when I've mainly been trying to focus on one key point, so I will try to keep my response focused to the idea I have been trying to focus on, though I do thank FlynnTaggart for continuing along the general line I was trying to get at. I don't think I expressed myself as well as I could to you GreyICE, and for that I apologise and will try to be clearer.

I have a tendency to write long and rambling responses - as it happens I actually am ADHD, though not a chipmunk - and can get easily distracted. So I will summarise my main focus, which is the key point:

Let us describe four groups. Group A hold a dangerous ideology, and they have members who are prone to violence, but not every member of Group A is violent, though their ideas certainly could destroy society. Group B opposes Group A, recognising the danger in their beliefs, and fears what would happen if Group A ever comes into power - and rightly so. Group C are similar to Group A in some respects, believing in similar things in some ways, but ironically are actually closer to Group B in most others - i.e. Group C are more similar to Group B than to Group A, but nevertheless appear similar to Group A along certain lines. Finally there is Group D, who aren't in general interested in the dynamics of Group A or B and possibly even C, and most members just want to live their lives - as indeed all groups do, though they don't all agree on what living their lives entails.
(Note that for some types of groups it might not be possible for some members to leave or to join - after all, you can't change your beliefs in a vacuum, otherwise one could choose to believe things that run contrary to what one knows - but that is an entirely different discussion and if I go to far along this line I won't finish this post.)

Snipping for length (I did read all of it) but sorry for the "chipmunks on ADD". It was me being snarky. In truth, I know Darth probably doesn't have ADD and the incessant one-off questions that have little to do with the subject are very deliberate insertions. As you've clearly demonstrated, ADD/ADHD doesn't prevent you from writing a coherent and sensible response in any way. I apologize, it was a stupid idea to toss in an actual disorder for a joke that was probably funnier in my head.

As for what you're written, I don't disagree with it as a hypothetical, but as a factual I have several strong disagreements.

First, Richard Spencer was punched in July, 2017, three years ago now. Three years. And in that time, has there been some epidemic of Nazi-punching violence, or people breaking into homes to murder them? No. The punching has been used as a rhetorical tool, and widely laughed at (because, y'know, it's hilarious) but no actual escalation of violence is occurring here. Check the crime reports, check whatever you want. There is no such thing as "a wave of anti-fascist violence".

Also, you worry about people lumping people unfairly into group A. Why are you not calling out when people are unfairly lumped into Group B?



Because this happens, a lot. The 75 year old man, by the way, is a Catholic, is a pacifist who helps out the community, suffered severe head trauma, and will never again be fully healthy as the result of the actions of the Buffalo PD.

What there is and has been is a lot of violence from the weird conglomeration of crazy that makes up the so-called alternative right, or "alt-right". So I'd offer this alternative breakdown:

Group A: People who preach violence as a solution (to quote Proud Boys founder, "Violence is pretty great") and openly advocate for it. Members of this group are responsible for numerous terrorist attacks on American soil, targeting American citizens. Many people have died or been injured as a result of these attacks.

Group B: A vague conglomeration of people who oppose Group A on the basis of the fact that they're just the worst. They laugh at one of the advocates of violence getting punched, and do use violence as a rhetorical tool, but no wave of terrorism, no murder, nothing like we're seeing from Group A.

Group C: A group of people who support similar causes and use similar rhetoric to Group A, and who Group A openly supports and cheers for. They in turn never seem to fully condemn Group A, and often toss them a bunch of bones. They strongly condemn Group B and want them somehow labeled a terrorist organization, even though suggesting Group B is an organization is a huge stretch. In fact Group C often laughs about how disorganized Group B is before they turn around and call for them to all be labeled a terrorist organization. They think there's probably some people in Group A who are "good people".

Also, they try to lump everyone into Group B, including 75 year old Catholic pacifists, and try to paint all of those people as violent terrorists. Which would seem to give them unlimited license to lump all of their political opponents into "Group B", declare Group B terrorists, and engage in violence (which Group A is already eagerly doing).

Group E,F,G,H,I,J,K: A bunch of people who support other causes, but also think that fascists fucking suck, white nationalists suck, white nationalists shouldn't literally be important officers in our police departments (Bob Kroll, head of the Minneapolis PD Union, is a white supremacist) and think Group C is carrying a lot of water for Group A, and even appears to be okay with Group A being a threat towards "everyone else" as long as they don't attack Group C or D. Since these groups are the frequent targets of both violent rhetoric and actual physical violence from Group A, they see Group A as the threat that they are.

Group D: People who Group C has said "hey, Group A won't attack you. Look at what they hate - black people, liberals, Marxists, Jews, immigrants, socialists, feminists. That's not you, right? You're definitely not any of those things. If you vote for us, they'll definitely see you're not any of those things. All those other groups? Who knows what they'll do? There's so many of them! They might actually be just like Group A only they want to attack you. You can never be too safe, because you should be scared, and we're here to make you safer. Vote for us!"

"Oh and by the way, if you support public health care, you're a socialist. If you support UBI you're a socialist. If you want to house the homeless, you're a socialist. If you want school kids to get free lunches even if they can't afford them, you're a socialist. You know what happens to socialists? Well, it's open season on socialists. Do you really want to be a socialist?"

Does Group D they believe the pitch? I dunno. Some of them seem smarter, some of them definitely aren't. But there now seems to be a lot of things that make you a "socialist" that have literally nothing to do with workers controlling the means of production - the actual definition of socialism.

Group C(heerleader): A vague group of people who are oddly not concerned about Group A despite their long history of domestic terrorism. They're not concerned about Group C, despite their pandering to Group A and their attempts to lump everyone into Group B and justify using violence against Group B.

No, what Group C(heerleaders) stands for is being very, very concerned that Group B is going to cause a wave of violence, despite there ALREADY being a group that is full of violent terrorists and advocates for violence. And despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that Group B is ever going to turn into a wave of terrorism, and CERTAINLY not on the scale of Group A (who does it all the time).

Are some of them Group A pretending to be Group C(heerleader) to signal boost? Yes. Group A is deceptive as fuck. Are some of them Group C ratfucking? Also yes. Group C loves ratfucking. Are some of them naive and misled people who have been listening to Group C's rhetoric and think there's some actual truth to it? Yes, some of them are.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These things didn't get implanted into the followers of a group whatever their motivations for joining by the group. Those things emerged because they were told it was us versus them, and that if they one they would do worse than kill us. Can you promise that those who are willing to punch the fascists will stop at that? Is that not the same spirit as lynching?

Well first, no. Lynching was a very specific type of racism, where you found random black people, blamed them for crimes, and hung them from the neck, then stood around and took pictures of you and your kids with dead black people hanging from trees, and stuck those pictures on postcards. Punching Richard Spencer is punching Richard Spencer. He's still quite alive and able to make long rants about the superiority of the white race over all those mud people.

Can I promise that it stops there? Well, in three years,has it escalated? Where is this wave of violence? Go look at the statistics. The wave of violence is from Group A, the people who preach violence constantly. Are we surprised that their members are violent? Are we surprised when the head of the Virginia KKK drives into protesters in their car? No, no we're not. You're not surprised - so why doesn't group A scare you? They drove their car into protesters! How are you not condemning that?

You shouldn't take my promises. What you should do is look at the evidence. If there was going to be a wake of violence after punching Richard Spencer... where is it? Can you trace it? Because oh boy can I show Group A's violence.

Do you believe the promises of Group C that they can absolutely keep Group A under control and they won't be coming for you? Are you willing to buy in to the contract that to keep Group A away you have to not support their list of causes that Group A wants to kill people for supporting? Do you accept that limitation on your speech and thought for their vague promises of protection?

And if you don't... why the fuck aren't you pissed off at them? Are you okay with Group C controlling what opinions you're allowed to have with the implicit threat of Group A?

[Ixthos]

There has been a lot of back and forth in this discussion since I was last logged on, and it isn't my intention to try to respond to everything here, especially when I've mainly been trying to focus on one key point, so I will try to keep my response focused to the idea I have been trying to focus on, though I do thank FlynnTaggart for continuing along the general line I was trying to get at. I don't think I expressed myself as well as I could to you GreyICE, and for that I apologise and will try to be clearer.

I have a tendency to write long and rambling responses - as it happens I actually am ADHD, though not a chipmunk - and can get easily distracted. So I will summarise my main focus, which is the key point:

Let us describe four groups. Group A hold a dangerous ideology, and they have members who are prone to violence, but not every member of Group A is violent, though their ideas certainly could destroy society. Group B opposes Group A, recognising the danger in their beliefs, and fears what would happen if Group A ever comes into power - and rightly so. Group C are similar to Group A in some respects, believing in similar things in some ways, but ironically are actually closer to Group B in most others - i.e. Group C are more similar to Group B than to Group A, but nevertheless appear similar to Group A along certain lines. Finally there is Group D, who aren't in general interested in the dynamics of Group A or B and possibly even C, and most members just want to live their lives - as indeed all groups do, though they don't all agree on what living their lives entails.
(Note that for some types of groups it might not be possible for some members to leave or to join - after all, you can't change your beliefs in a vacuum, otherwise one could choose to believe things that run contrary to what one knows - but that is an entirely different discussion and if I go to far along this line I won't finish this post.)

Snipping for length (I did read all of it) but sorry for the "chipmunks on ADD". It was me being snarky. In truth, I know Darth probably doesn't have ADD and the incessant one-off questions that have little to do with the subject are very deliberate insertions. As you've clearly demonstrated, ADD/ADHD doesn't prevent you from writing a coherent and sensible response in any way. I apologize, it was a stupid idea to toss in an actual disorder for a joke that was probably funnier in my head.

As for what you're written, I don't disagree with it as a hypothetical, but as a factual I have several strong disagreements.

First, Richard Spencer was punched in July, 2017, three years ago now. Three years. And in that time, has there been some epidemic of Nazi-punching violence, or people breaking into homes to murder them? No. The punching has been used as a rhetorical tool, and widely laughed at (because, y'know, it's hilarious) but no actual escalation of violence is occurring here. Check the crime reports, check whatever you want. There is no such thing as "a wave of anti-fascist violence".

Also, you worry about people lumping people unfairly into group A. Why are you not calling out when people are unfairly lumped into Group B?



Because this happens, a lot. The 75 year old man, by the way, is a Catholic, is a pacifist who helps out the community, suffered severe head trauma, and will never again be fully healthy as the result of the actions of the Buffalo PD.

What there is and has been is a lot of violence from the weird conglomeration of crazy that makes up the so-called alternative right, or "alt-right". So I'd offer this alternative breakdown:

Group A: People who preach violence as a solution (to quote Proud Boys founder, "Violence is pretty great") and openly advocate for it. Members of this group are responsible for numerous terrorist attacks on American soil, targeting American citizens. Many people have died or been injured as a result of these attacks.

Group B: A vague conglomeration of people who oppose Group A on the basis of the fact that they're just the worst. They laugh at one of the advocates of violence getting punched, and do use violence as a rhetorical tool, but no wave of terrorism, no murder, nothing like we're seeing from Group A.

Group C: A group of people who support similar causes and use similar rhetoric to Group A, and who Group A openly supports and cheers for. They in turn never seem to fully condemn Group A, and often toss them a bunch of bones. They strongly condemn Group B and want them somehow labeled a terrorist organization, even though suggesting Group B is an organization is a huge stretch. In fact Group C often laughs about how disorganized Group B is before they turn around and call for them to all be labeled a terrorist organization. They think there's probably some people in Group A who are "good people".

Also, they try to lump everyone into Group B, including 75 year old Catholic pacifists, and try to paint all of those people as violent terrorists. Which would seem to give them unlimited license to lump all of their political opponents into "Group B", declare Group B terrorists, and engage in violence (which Group A is already eagerly doing).

Group E,F,G,H,I,J,K: A bunch of people who support other causes, but also think that fascists fucking suck, white nationalists suck, white nationalists shouldn't literally be important officers in our police departments (Bob Kroll, head of the Minneapolis PD Union, is a white supremacist) and think Group C is carrying a lot of water for Group A, and even appears to be okay with Group A being a threat towards "everyone else" as long as they don't attack Group C or D. Since these groups are the frequent targets of both violent rhetoric and actual physical violence from Group A, they see Group A as the threat that they are.

Group D: People who Group C has said "hey, Group A won't attack you. Look at what they hate - black people, liberals, Marxists, Jews, immigrants, socialists, feminists. That's not you, right? You're definitely not any of those things. If you vote for us, they'll definitely see you're not any of those things. All those other groups? Who knows what they'll do? There's so many of them! They might actually be just like Group A only they want to attack you. You can never be too safe, because you should be scared, and we're here to make you safer. Vote for us!"

"Oh and by the way, if you support public health care, you're a socialist. If you support UBI you're a socialist. If you want to house the homeless, you're a socialist. If you want school kids to get free lunches even if they can't afford them, you're a socialist. You know what happens to socialists? Well, it's open season on socialists. Do you really want to be a socialist?"

Does Group D they believe the pitch? I dunno. Some of them seem smarter, some of them definitely aren't. But there now seems to be a lot of things that make you a "socialist" that have literally nothing to do with workers controlling the means of production - the actual definition of socialism.

Group C(heerleader): A vague group of people who are oddly not concerned about Group A despite their long history of domestic terrorism. They're not concerned about Group C, despite their pandering to Group A and their attempts to lump everyone into Group B and justify using violence against Group B.

No, what Group C(heerleaders) stands for is being very, very concerned that Group B is going to cause a wave of violence, despite there ALREADY being a group that is full of violent terrorists and advocates for violence. And despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that Group B is ever going to turn into a wave of terrorism, and CERTAINLY not on the scale of Group A (who does it all the time).

Are some of them Group A pretending to be Group C(heerleader) to signal boost? Yes. Group A is deceptive as fuck. Are some of them Group C ratfucking? Also yes. Group C loves ratfucking. Are some of them naive and misled people who have been listening to Group C's rhetoric and think there's some actual truth to it? Yes, some of them are.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These things didn't get implanted into the followers of a group whatever their motivations for joining by the group. Those things emerged because they were told it was us versus them, and that if they one they would do worse than kill us. Can you promise that those who are willing to punch the fascists will stop at that? Is that not the same spirit as lynching?

Well first, no. Lynching was a very specific type of racism, where you found random black people, blamed them for crimes, and hung them from the neck, then stood around and took pictures of you and your kids with dead black people hanging from trees, and stuck those pictures on postcards. Punching Richard Spencer is punching Richard Spencer. He's still quite alive and able to make long rants about the superiority of the white race over all those mud people.

Can I promise that it stops there? Well, in three years,has it escalated? Where is this wave of violence? Go look at the statistics. The wave of violence is from Group A, the people who preach violence constantly. Are we surprised that their members are violent? Are we surprised when the head of the Virginia KKK drives into protesters in their car? No, no we're not. You're not surprised - so why doesn't group A scare you? They drove their car into protesters! How are you not condemning that?

You shouldn't take my promises. What you should do is look at the evidence. If there was going to be a wake of violence after punching Richard Spencer... where is it? Can you trace it? Because oh boy can I show Group A's violence.

Do you believe the promises of Group C that they can absolutely keep Group A under control and they won't be coming for you? Are you willing to buy in to the contract that to keep Group A away you have to not support their list of causes that Group A wants to kill people for supporting? Do you accept that limitation on your speech and thought for their vague promises of protection?

And if you don't... why the fuck aren't you pissed off at them? Are you okay with Group C controlling what opinions you're allowed to have with the implicit threat of Group A?

Thank you for your clear and succinct reply. And don't worry - I wasn't actually offended by your reference to ADD/ADHD I did think I needed to point out that I had it in case you wondered why - if my post ended up rambling - it did so.

I need to mull over what you have said. There are very good points in there, with grounding in real world events, so that will take some time to fully consider. I do think I should note two important points though that will hopefully shed some light on my own attitude towards this situation.

Group A and B, and the others, are all abstract ideas as presented, and I was writing about them from the point of view of several historical examples. While Group B can be existing anti-fascist, etc. groups, and Group A fascists, etc., Group B could also be cold-war era American "patriots" with Group A being legitimate communists and Group C and D being those critical of capitalism without necessarily being communists, and the average Joe respectively, who were basically eaten alive by America's paranoia. Group B can even be Republicans going after those who they see as un-American, which can then also be widened from those who want to see America destroyed (no doubt a minority, if they exist at all) to being anyone opposed to Group B's view of what America is - your example of how the current American administration views groups who differ from what they think "American" and "un-American" are. As I'm not an expert on politics and generally try to stay away from those discussions, I tried to be as even handed as possible and talk of abstract ideas and how groups can have certain relationships that make them Group A in some discussions, Group B in others, and so forth.

This last point is probably going to seem completely random to this discussion, but it does tie into it. I am a Christian, and the people who irritate me the most aren't Atheists or Agnostics or Muslims or any other group - though obviously it varies by person. The people who irritate me the most (in general) are fellow Christians. I love them, and this doesn't apply to every one of my Brothers and Sisters, but to those who both are and who claim to be Christian I often find myself in disagreement with. And a large amount of that is actually towards American right-wing Christianity which equates the right with Christianity (though also some irritation with American left-wing Christianity), and which spreads that view throughout the world. They make Christianity a mockery to the world, ignoring what they SHOULD be doing - and I hate that I say "they" and not we in this, because many or most or even all of them are still my Brothers and Sisters.
Why do I say this? Because a Christian's duty isn't to police others outside the Church. It's to make sure that what is inside the Church is running correctly. And I can't even talk to them about it because I'm not a member of any group that they would hear, or in any circles they can hear me in. If that changes then I will do my best to reach them, as indeed I am ashamed I haven't been trying harder to do.
Not that everything they do is wrong, or that I disagree with them on everything. But still, to go back to the group analogy, if I see myself and the Church as being Group C (I can't bring myself to say Group A), it is my duty to make sure that Group C is beyond reproach, to keep it righteous and blameless in the eyes of others, so that if they are attacked by another other Group it can only be on false pretexts. After all, this is what scripture actually says, paraphrasing: "if you are arrested for doing wrong, then you have gained nothing. Instead you must be beyond reproach, respecting those who have power over you and being a good citizen, robbing no one, doing good to everyone, showing kindness to those who hate you. And if you are then arrested or beaten, rejoice, because your reward is great." The Christians who deliberately stir up trouble and break the law ... that is an abomination. Not that Christians should obey every law, but when they break both the nations laws and God's laws, that is something disgusting. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. The Apostles disobeyed the commands from the authorities not to preach the good news, but in every other respect they obeyed the authorities, and encouraged others likewise to do so.

I've gotten off track. To answer you, yes, I oppose Group A, as everyone should (in this case Group A being fascists). I think it is important that everyone in Group A works to make sure it doesn't have whatever corruption makes it a threat, or they will rot with it. Still, ultimately, the only people who the average citizen, not politician or judge, can control is themselves and their own groups, and to make sure their group is doing the right thing. Fascists groups that cloak themselves in Christian garb are like wolves going among sheep. Group C could become Group A, but Group C doesn't have to be.

My intention in discussing this initially was mainly to hopefully make clear the concerns I heard from others about anti-fascist groups, those who are perhaps a little too close to the problem to both see it and articulate it to those they disagree with in a respectful manner. What you have said has given me a lot to think on, and I hope I have made a few good points in this as well. Either way, I still am worried about the use of violent language in general, as that does tend to spiral out of control in the end, what is said becoming the basis of future actions, but ultimately who can say what the future will be. I can understand wanting to be violent to the violent, but I worry about how a consistent attitude of violence will affect one's interactions with others, like the soldiers who have trouble adjusting to civilian life after war. Maybe I am wrong, though better safe than sorry.

Again, thank you for your response. I might not reply again on this topic, I don't know, but I hope you have a great rest of the week! Take care!

[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.

I'm not entirely sure I follow you, but I do thank you for your measured reply. Do you mean that individuals who lack power are more moral than those who have power, or that they have less of an impact on society than governments do, or individuals who express support for or opposition to an ideology retain greater diversity than those who are formally part of a system, or something else? I apologise for my confusion.

Well detail wise yeah you were getting at it at the end. I mean I felt like it was a glaring issue in what you were saying. Really though I'm not certain why there's a moral comparison being made, specifically and particularly speaking.

To say the least, it's not so one-dimensional. Nobody I listen to for instance is trying to determine who's in the right between Antifa and Trump.

And I believe a goal of Antifa for instance is to deflate the signal that the Fascists use, typically via the public infrastructure (though I'm sure like Anonymous wouldn't mind doxxing them etc)... It's not so much violence for the sake of terrorism or even disruption, I think, so much as to stiefel influence over the populous.

[GreyICE]

Thank you for your clear and succinct reply. And don't worry - I wasn't actually offended by your reference to ADD/ADHD I did think I needed to point out that I had it in case you wondered why - if my post ended up rambling - it did so.

I need to mull over what you have said. There are very good points in there, with grounding in real world events, so that will take some time to fully consider. I do think I should note two important points though that will hopefully shed some light on my own attitude towards this situation.

Group A and B, and the others, are all abstract ideas as presented, and I was writing about them from the point of view of several historical examples. While Group B can be existing anti-fascist, etc. groups, and Group A fascists, etc., Group B could also be cold-war era American "patriots" with Group A being legitimate communists and Group C and D being those critical of capitalism without necessarily being communists, and the average Joe respectively, who were basically eaten alive by America's paranoia. Group B can even be Republicans going after those who they see as un-American, which can then also be widened from those who want to see America destroyed (no doubt a minority, if they exist at all) to being anyone opposed to Group B's view of what America is - your example of how the current American administration views groups who differ from what they think "American" and "un-American" are. As I'm not an expert on politics and generally try to stay away from those discussions, I tried to be as even handed as possible and talk of abstract ideas and how groups can have certain relationships that make them Group A in some discussions, Group B in others, and so forth.

This last point is probably going to seem completely random to this discussion, but it does tie into it. I am a Christian, and the people who irritate me the most aren't Atheists or Agnostics or Muslims or any other group - though obviously it varies by person. The people who irritate me the most (in general) are fellow Christians. I love them, and this doesn't apply to every one of my Brothers and Sisters, but to those who both are and who claim to be Christian I often find myself in disagreement with. And a large amount of that is actually towards American right-wing Christianity which equates the right with Christianity (though also some irritation with American left-wing Christianity), and which spreads that view throughout the world. They make Christianity a mockery to the world, ignoring what they SHOULD be doing - and I hate that I say "they" and not we in this, because many or most or even all of them are still my Brothers and Sisters.
Why do I say this? Because a Christian's duty isn't to police others outside the Church. It's to make sure that what is inside the Church is running correctly. And I can't even talk to them about it because I'm not a member of any group that they would hear, or in any circles they can hear me in. If that changes then I will do my best to reach them, as indeed I am ashamed I haven't been trying harder to do.
Not that everything they do is wrong, or that I disagree with them on everything. But still, to go back to the group analogy, if I see myself and the Church as being Group C (I can't bring myself to say Group A), it is my duty to make sure that Group C is beyond reproach, to keep it righteous and blameless in the eyes of others, so that if they are attacked by another other Group it can only be on false pretexts. After all, this is what scripture actually says, paraphrasing: "if you are arrested for doing wrong, then you have gained nothing. Instead you must be beyond reproach, respecting those who have power over you and being a good citizen, robbing no one, doing good to everyone, showing kindness to those who hate you. And if you are then arrested or beaten, rejoice, because your reward is great." The Christians who deliberately stir up trouble and break the law ... that is an abomination. Not that Christians should obey every law, but when they break both the nations laws and God's laws, that is something disgusting. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. The Apostles disobeyed the commands from the authorities not to preach the good news, but in every other respect they obeyed the authorities, and encouraged others likewise to do so.

I've gotten off track. To answer you, yes, I oppose Group A, as everyone should (in this case Group A being fascists). I think it is important that everyone in Group A works to make sure it doesn't have whatever corruption makes it a threat, or they will rot with it. Still, ultimately, the only people who the average citizen, not politician or judge, can control is themselves and their own groups, and to make sure their group is doing the right thing. Fascists groups that cloak themselves in Christian garb are like wolves going among sheep. Group C could become Group A, but Group C doesn't have to be.

My intention in discussing this initially was mainly to hopefully make clear the concerns I heard from others about anti-fascist groups, those who are perhaps a little too close to the problem to both see it and articulate it to those they disagree with in a respectful manner. What you have said has given me a lot to think on, and I hope I have made a few good points in this as well. Either way, I still am worried about the use of violent language in general, as that does tend to spiral out of control in the end, what is said becoming the basis of future actions, but ultimately who can say what the future will be. I can understand wanting to be violent to the violent, but I worry about how a consistent attitude of violence will affect one's interactions with others, like the soldiers who have trouble adjusting to civilian life after war. Maybe I am wrong, though better safe than sorry.

Again, thank you for your response. I might not reply again on this topic, I don't know, but I hope you have a great rest of the week! Take care!

This might be the first time ever someone called one of my replies "succinct". I strive for clarity, but brevity has never been my best attribute. And I'm happy you're not offended, I'd hate to inadvertently insult someone, especially someone I respect (for the people I deliberately insult, you know what you did you wankers).

Believe it or not, I almost brought up religion in my post, because how you were describing A/B/C/D did remind me a lot of how mainstream religious groups, extremist groups, Christians/Catholics/Muslims/Jewish people and the whole complex relationship they have regarding shared beliefs, differing values, and a whole bunch of weird rhetoric. But that's about 2000 years of baggage that could be its own book series (a very, very long book series). And I'm always reluctant to bring it up, because as an agnostic I don't have much of a dog in the fight and can easily offend people through ignorance - most people know far more about their own beliefs than I do, for obvious reasons. So I'd say that the fact you were thinking about it did creep into the post!*

As I've said many times elsewhere, I'll follow the evidence where it leads me, so I'm not scared to call anyone to account, even if they're nominally "agreeing with me". Because honestly someone who is using insane moon logic and 'agreeing with you' is not going to be agreeing with you at some point soon, because... insane moon logic. This doesn't mean going after personal beliefs, it means noting things that are externally wrong (aka non-factual) and internally inconsistent logic.

To that end, I just went and did a search again for crimes of Antifa activists to see if I've overlooked anything. And, it's a pretty slim list. A couple of lists of assault for fist fights during protests, one assault with a weapon (bike lock), an alleged tire slashing, some vandalism and graffiti.

That's it. That's honestly it. That's all I could find. That sampling is not great behavior, but if it's the worst of what happens during multiple protests in the United States over the past five years, then I can't see any grounds to call the entire movement corrupt or anything. Certainly far, far less than the behavior I'd think would be required to label a group a "terrorist organization." I'm willing to change my mind if evidence of antifa "going too far" is provided, but I usually hear it in terms of hypothetical dangers and "what if" scenarios.

To illustrate the difference, at the "unite the right" Charlottesville riot, the antifa surrounded a few historically black churches, with the permission of the reverends, and protected them in case someone tried to burn them down. Apparently some were armed with "sticks". Meanwhile a white supremacist drove his car into a group of protesters and murdered one.

I'm not saying everyone has to condemn white supremacists every time they bring up a concern, but I hope you can sympathize with my annoyance when people look at two political groups in the same country who directly oppose each other, and single out the far less violent one as the one that is terroristic.


And watching Trump and Barr speak is honestly appalling. They think "antifa" organized the George Floyd protests (and the riots, and the looting). You want to know what's funny? I have tons of evidence of cops working with Proud Boys. Tons.

https://apnews.com/12ece8cedbf045259dcddebf619141e7
https://www.insider.com/police-salem-oregon-protesters-stay-inside-curfew-proud-boys-white-2020-6
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/09/17/proud-boys-colorado-state-capitol/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n46tXIJ2-Cc (A separate Denver incident)
https://dcist.com/story/19/07/05/d-c-police-officer-fist-bumps-a-proud-boy-after-clashes-in-front-of-white-house/
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7ged9/chicago-police-are-investigating-an-officer-accused-of-being-a-proud-boy
https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-east-hampton-police-kevin-wilcox-1465692

This is tons of evidence, all across the country, of the cops being affiliated with a far-right group. And the Proud Boys are every bit as violent as "the Antifa".

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/proud-boys-members-sentenced-four-years-prison-violent-clash-antifa-n1070166
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/proud-boys-chat-logs-premeditate-rally-violence-in-leaked-chats_n_5ce1e231e4b00e035b928683

And they're affiliated with multiple people in the political mainstream (or right-wing mainstream). Roger Stone and Ann Coulter both vocally support them. Donald Trump Jr., Ted Cruz, and Devin Nunes have all been photographed with them. This is the relationship between A and C I'm talking about. Not to mention the Proud Boys ties to other far right groups, some of which are far less savory (which is hard to say about a movement whose founder uses the n-word, videotapes himself saying 'heil Hitler' with salute, and has the creed "west is best").

So that's the sort of evidence you leave behind when you actually DO have two movements who are working together the way that Trump claims BLM and Antifa are. Because you can't coordinate action across the entire United States in the age of cell phones without being noted. Some of your actions can be secret, but not all of them, not all of the time. And yet in this age of cell phone, no one has a video of Antifa activists having these secret meetings with BLM protest organizers, that apparently occurred all across the country to create the George Floyd protests.


So, hopefully this is some food for thought as to where I'm coming from, and why I generally dismiss these concerns. We have one very evident cooperation and conspiracy that is happening, cops in police departments across the country working with racist far right groups and joining them while the greater police department shields them from consequence (at best they don't care, at worst they support their racism). And we have one insane conspiracy, that "the Antifa" somehow organized protests, riots, and looting, all from these nebulous shadowy headquarters, all without leaving any evidence.

So I find the actual, present-day cooperation between police and white supremacists (as well as the many affiliations with the greater Republican party) far more worrying and dangerous than I find the idea that someday the Antifa will spiral out of control despite all the evidence that nothing like that has happened.

Hopefully this explains where I'm coming from in a way that's comprehensible, and if you don't agree with, at least I hope you can understand, see the reasons for my point of view, and sympathize with (and my posts elsewhere lay out my viewpoints on fascism, and how I feel political rhetoric in the United States is incorporating fascist rhetoric in an ever-growing degree).


---------------------------------------------------
*As an aside, this is probably off topic, but I would cite my journey from rather militant atheism at age 16 to agnosticism at more than double that as an example of me leaving a movement because I evaluated its behavior. Militant atheists really are similar to the religions they want to replace. Not in spiritual beliefs, but in behavior and thinking, they often replicate the worst parts of organized religion - a disdain and hatred for anyone who isn't a "true believer", a certainty that their goals are just and therefore their actions are justified, a deflection of criticism and introspection by invoking "harming the movement" as a defense, and a tendency towards self-righteousness that allows them to see all their beliefs as correct, and disagreement as "heresy". I'm not surprised a number of them got involved with the alt-right, back when the JREF was a big deal you could already see the tendency.

So yeah, I know EXACTLY what you mean when you say some of your worst disagreements are with people who nominally share the same beliefs as you, but behave as utter tools. A complete lack of empathy, belief in your own righteousness, and inability to behave introspectively are shit no matter what your core beliefs are, and when they're claiming to believe the same things you do but ALSO behaving like that, it's just worse. Give me a Unitarian over that any day.

[Darth Wedgius]

There seem to be two different thoughts here. One, supported by the quote you gave, is the run of the mill rugged individualism but with further emphasis on education and culture. You seem to call that fascist for some reason, but you don't say why. The other seems to be the idea that outstanding men shaped history.

Lets examine this "run of the mill rugged individualism"

"conceives of life as a struggle in which it behooves a man to win"
"a really worthy place"
"the implement required for winning it"
"the essential value of work, by which man subjugate"

Win. Worthy. Winning. Subjugate.

This isn't the language of an individualist, who believes in the essential self-worth of the individual. This is the language of a conqueror. The fascist "rugged individualist" Is that which overcomes and wins, and in winning subjugates. This has nothing to do with individual self-expression - which the fascist disdains. Rather, this is about proving that you can win, and you have a worthy place.

Is this "run of the mill rugged individualism"? As preached by large sections of the American conservative movement? Yes. As I said, we have a lot of fascist rhetoric in mainstream politics in America. It's perennially popular. Trump and Gul Dukat didn't both pick the same campaign slogan because of coincidence.

And below I clearly distinguish this from an actual individualist.

Oh FFS. You don't think some people win and some people lose in life? Seriously? Even by their own definitions of win and lose? That's not the language of the conqueror because it never says anything about subjugating anyone. It never says anything about forcing anyone to do anything. What kind of conquering is that?

Myself? I probably identify closest as a Libertarian, although not the typical flavor of "fuck the government, let corporations run everything Blade Runner is our future" AnCap shit. Libertarians differ in an extremely important way. A Libertarian does not give themselves the moral authority to judge your lifestyle (or you the moral authority to judge theirs). As long as you do not impinge upon others freedoms, as long as you are not seeking to cage them, any way you choose to use your freedom is as good as any other. Do you choose to paint pictures? Did you dedicate your life to birdwatching? Write a bestselling novel? Work in a factory? Do custom landscaping and topiary? Work at a convenience store? Strip your clothes off and do sexy dances to bad music?

These are all beyond the moral authority to judge for a Libertarian, because that's how you choose to use your freedom. There is no "winning", there is no "worthy place", there is no "essential value of work", and work certainly shouldn't subjugate anyone or anything. In this way the Libertarian might be the most complete rejection of the ideals of the fascist, because a Libertarian rejects the entire concept their ideology is based on wholesale.

How important is freedom of speech to you? Or freedom to hire by merit?

Don't pull an ABS and Gish Gallop off. Is this really the only response to what I wrote? It's a one sentence aside that's completely tangential to the discussion of fascism.

It's a test of how libertarian you are, and you dodged it.

For me, I'm fine with people not working. As long as they don't expect anyone else to labor on their behalf. If they inherited money, that's fine. If they live off a GoFundMe, that's fine, too. If they starve to death, well, that's on them.

So you don't have to be right-wing to be fascist?

This is a lousy attempt at a "gotcha" but at least it's on topic (although one sentence). A fascist state is fascist. If you continue to divide the entire world into black/white, left/right you will continue to fail to understand anything. Your thinking isn't even stuck in two dimensions. It's one dimensional. You can either move left, or right.

Take an 8 values test: https://8values.github.io/

This gives you four different axis, four dimensions. It's a simplification as well, but at least it might break you out of your rut.

Did these sources mention Jews, or is that you mind-reading?

Tweet tweet goes the dog whistle.

There we go, nice one sentence response to your one sentence nonsense.

Another dodge. OK, so the anti-Semitism was something you inserted. Someone said something you didn't like, so you substituted the motive you wish they had. Got it.

Russian bots, anyone?

Can you string a thought together for longer than a sentence? Turn it into a coherent argument? Because this collection of one liners doesn't even resemble a coherent thought process. If this is how your mind works...

Actually that does explain a lot.

I was pointing out that conspiracy theories and blaming unseen forces for political setbacks aren't exclusive to the right. But if you need it spelled out, fine.

America is not just the land. There is a people involved, and a culture. If it was just the land, why would people risk death to get here?

Three sentences! Yes, you hit the point exactly. There are also people living in America. Since we have established the land has no particular morality, the morality of anyone living in America is... American. Tautologically. That's the only thing it can flow from. An American's morality is American. The land has no morality, so it must be the morality of the people.

Unless you subscribe to the fascist idea of The State as a quasi-religious object of veneration, of course. That's how you can come up with the idea that an American who has neither conspired nor aided a foreign power can "betray their country." That's how you can come up with the idea that an American is un-American and should move out of America because they're not American. That's how they can come up with the crazy idea that someone is a traitor for having a different vision of the future of America than you do. These notions are ridiculous, except to the fascist mind.

You go back to America just being a geographic area. That's fine. That's your definition. But it would do you well to realize that's not what other people mean. You disregard the idea of an American culture, and, again, you dodge. If it's just the land, why would people risk death to get here?

Yes, when He said "the American people", He didn't mean literally every American.

Of course not. No fascist means "everyone" when they say "the American people". What they mean is "the people who align to the true vision of America, the fascist ideal of the nation state." That's why they're fucking fascists. You can't just have a disagreement, a disagreement means you're not an American, but living on American soil. You're a foreign invader! They can use force to fight off a foreign invader, they can use any tactics they want to. If you can't be re-educated, you're a problem that needs a "solution"

Um... sources? Evidence that this is at all common? I'd like some people to leave, but that's because they want to force change upon me, change I consider unethical.

Well, lets quote the leader of the Republican Party, the head of the party currently in charge of the United States of America, a man who speaks for tens of millions of Americans.

But should she lose, we'll have an insurance policy, and we'll get this guy out of office. And that's what they said, and that's what they meant. That's treason. That's treason. They couldn't win the election, and that's what happened. And that's what's happening right now because -- without the "treason" word, I guess -- but that's what's happening now."

"The Democrats new and pathetically untrue sound bite is that we are in a “Constitutional Crisis.” They and their partner, the Fake News Media, are all told to say this as loud and as often as possible. They are a sad JOKE! We may have the strongest Economy in our history, best employment numbers ever, low taxes & regulations, a rebuilt military & V.A., many great new judges, & so much more. But we have had a giant SCAM perpetrated upon our nation, a Witch Hunt, a Treasonous Hoax. That is the Constitutional Crisis & hopefully guilty people will pay!"

Well number one, The Times should never have done that, because really what they've done is, virtually, you know it's treason. You can call it a lot of things. But to think that you have somebody in all of the Cabinet, so many people. You know, they came forward, they're writing editorials. They're all saying, you know, it's gotta be at a fairly low level."

Treason seems to be tossed around pretty casually.

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......

….and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how…. [it's done]

Tells American congresswomen to leave America.

Yes. Note: didn't force her out, but told her to get out. That's fine. If she her values don't match American values, she should go somewhere else instead of expecting America to change.

A member of the Seattle City Council spoke of a need to overthrow the "racist, sexist, violent, utterly bankrupt system of capitalism." Capitalism has worked far better than anything else that's been tried on a large scale. China and Cuba have both returned to capitalism.

She's free to go to a socialist country, and live there. That way, everybody's happy! Well, if there's a capitalism-free country other than North Korea.

The man that was — I don’t know, you say “roughed up” — he was so obnoxious and so loud, he was screaming — I had 10,000 people in the room yesterday, 10,000 people, and this guy started screaming by himself. And I don’t know, “rough up” — he should have been, maybe he should have been roughed up.

“The audience hit back. That’s what we need a little bit more of”

“Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees”

Hillary wants to shut down energy production. I want to expand it. Lower electric bills, folks! Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.

“These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”

He's a very inspirational speaker: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889

I think this establishes pretty clearly that this has become mainstream political rhetoric.

When the looting starts, the shooting starts. So theft is bad because it's un-American? Really? That's the kind of thing you come up with?

Now can you finally put to rest your notion that Fascist = Authoritarian? Fascists are a very specific ideology. The House of Saud is extremely authoritarian, but not at all fascist. They don't really care what you believe, as long as you fear them. That sort of authoritarian rule, the rule by fear, is simpler to maintain than a fascist state, but does not have the overwhelming presence of The State. Read Orwell's 1984. There's no big brother in Saudi Arabia, just "if we don't like you sufficiently, we'll shoot you, so stay in line."

By the by, do try to string together some actual paragraphs in responding. Some sort of coherency of thought keeps a conversation alive, by giving an interplay of ideas. Your random interjections are more like an ADD chipmunk running through the room. If you can't string together a paragraph worth of thinking, I don't think it's worth a second of my time.

I never said that fascist = authoritarian. Fascism requires authoritarianism. Fascism is a proper subset of authoritarianism. Can you understand that?