>>You're right. I listened to my German Jewish
elders who survived I believe a proactive response
is not only appropriate it's necessary.
occur to you that if, as you claim, it's
okay for a person to attack another
simply because of what they THINK, or
merely say, that >>somebody
reading what YOU say here might very
well come to the same conclusion: That
it's okay to attack (kill?) you simply
because >>you say it's okay to
attack people solely because of what
they thought or said.
>You can THINK whatever you like. But
promulgating it is not the same as thinking it.
but TALKING about something is a kind of
"promulgating" it, too.
Right. Nazis have no right to be espousing the extermination of
people because of ethnic or other fate-of-birth traits alone.
You can think whatever you fucking well like but once you try to
spread it, you become susceptible to public opinion, and the general
sentiment among most people in the US and Europe is DIE NAZI DIE!
Whether the public is confused and vote for one is a completely
different issue. You're seeing the backlash now.
hypothesizing a series of continued
attacks, without specific examples. How
often do such attacks actually occur?
And when >>they do occur, are
they actually the fault of "a nazi" or
"a fascist"? Or, did they occur
because somebody who didn't like nazis
or fascists >>decided to attack
the people they labelled as that?
>The 'attack' is existential... Eternal, as
Umberto Eco suggested.
speak in a kind of jargon that I think most people
(including myself) don't understand.
Existential has a definition, So does Eternal. Look it up if you
don't understand the 'jargon'.
>You keep going back to people's so-called
'labeling'. If the label fits the definition...
In your mind, it might. Problem is, it's
only your own mind.
You use the word "Labelled" to describe something that's
well-defined. Humans "Label" things. As long as the 'label' fits
the well-defined definition "Label" is simply a loaded word.
see a problem with the labels nazi and
fascist. I strongly suspect that people
who heavily use those labels use them
merely to refer >>to others who
Conservative or very conservative.
>Conservatives aren't Fascists or Nazis, nor,
according to traditional definition of political
conservative, can they be. Fascism is extremism
Sorry you missed the point. Problem is, you are
being too literal.
ROTF. Absolutely! If you want non-literal discuss this with someone
Functionally, a Communist bullet will
kill a person just as dead as a Fascist bullet will.
Don't get too caught up in these labels,
particularly thinking that they have precise
definitions. To YOU, they might, but I think most
people see totalitarian regimes as similarly
Dead by firearm is dead but Totalitarian is not necessarily Fascist.
Stalin wasn't Fascist. Fascism is a throwback. A 'return to the days
of yesteryear... "Make America Great ... Again". Traditionalism. No
matter the society's traditions. Read Eco. And yes Totalitarianism
is dangerous, but not as dangerous as the IDEOLOGY of Fascism
combined with a totalitarian state. Benign (or at least
non-malignant) totalitarianism is possible. Monarchies tend to be
that. Fascism is never benign no matter what political system it
People they desire to attack. (It's
much easier to attack people if you can
lump them with other people whose guilt
or undesirability is already
there any reliable way to distinguish a
mere "conservative" from a "fascist"?
I wish you'd
have been able to answer this question.
See the bottom where you essentially reiterate this ...
seems to be a circular definition: It
refers to "right-wing", but doesn't
explain why (other than common usage)
"fascism" is thought to be "right wing".
under the impression that 'traditional'
fascism involved government control (but
not ownership) of the means of
production. But >>Socialism, I
thought, amounted to heavy taxation of
the means of production, which is
tantamount to government control, too.
And >>Communism might simply be
labelled a form of extreme Socialism.
So why isn't "fascism" merely seen as
being another form of "Socialism"?
>Refer to Umberto Eco. Fascism is an ideology, a
reactionary ideology without politics. It
but does it 'shape-shifts' into Socialism and
Communism, as well? I think so: Functionally, I
think of extreme regimes of 'the left' and of 'the
right' as functionally identical. Don't talk as if
"the right wing" is somehow especially dangerous,
compared to "the left wing".
I answered in the follow up. Fascist Socialism is possible. As a
matter of fact most national government who call themselves
Socialist are in some way Fascist... Fascism and Communism, as I
mentioned about Anarchism, are contradictory.
thinking that you can justify
physically attacking people just
because they have thoughts, or express
ideas, that you don't like. Lest
>>they decide that it's okay to
do the same thing to you. "Golden
I'll reiterate my main point "they decide that it's okay to do the
same thing to you" even if you've never done, nor have any interest
in, "Doing a thing" to them. That's why proactive, 'preventative' if
you will, response is an imperative.
>My point IS that Fascists and Nazis, by their
very existence, have made the decision "that it's
okay to do the same thing to you"... Even if
>you've never had one bad thing to say about them
or harmed them in any way except their deluded
self-perceived harm because, lets say, >you're
black, or Jewish.
You are utilizing a lot of history,
including very old history,
Those who don't learn from it are condemned to repeat it. Someone a
lot wiser than me said that.
for the specific purpose of trashing
people today, and based nearly solely on YOUR CHOICE
to apply these labels to them. I still want to hear
from you a definition that actually helps a person
to distinguish between "a conservative" and a
A conservative holds traditional values but they ARE mutable in
relation to change of times. For instance a conservative understands
that the internet wasn't part of the founders of the US
understanding and modifying laws to 'compensate' for that doesn't
necessarily go against conserving the constitution in some 'pristine
state'. With Fascism it's NEVER mutable and if the internet
interferes with their tradition in any way it is eliminated. Just as
surely as they'd eliminate a Jew or a Gypsy or any other scapegoat.