And there's some interesting history that most don't know. American socialism was originally much more like fascism. The source of the Nazi salute may well have been the U.S. The Pledge of Allegiance was devised by a Christian national socialist. See:
You went off track at the outset of your argument by not acknowledging that what was truly odious about Fascism was that its hierarchical racial dogmas about the innate superiority of some humans and the allegedly subhuman essence of other humans produced the most advanced technological mass murder project of its time. The systematic slaughter of 6 million innocent men, women and children because of their Jewish ethnicity was one of the lowest moments in human history. That's the problem with Fascism.
Your essay really requires that grounding at the outset or it can't be taken seriously.
That's too bad, because your deepest point is that progressivism is increasingly equivalent to Fascism, and that's a very strong point. Progressivism has even adopted its own hateful racist hierarchy, and as you correctly observe is rapidly developing the taxonomy and processes of Fascism.
In fact, progressivism is a weird morphing of racist hierarchy with Marxist enforced "equality", a homicidal commitment to hierarchy combined with the elimination of all signs of superiority except the possession of power.
That's a road that leads back to Auschwitz--and the Gulag--and progressivism is building that road. That's your deepest point.
Improbable and vicious racial dogmas and essentialisms, though not intrinsic to fascism (Franco never appealed to them), are one of the traits Fascism SHARES with progressivism.
Look at the struggle-session over "Power+Priviledge" or inherited white guilt... And you find a very bizarre and interesting parallel and preoccupation that simply does not exist in 90+% of other ideologies.
I totally agree with you! That’s why I pointed out that your deepest point is the portfolio of similar elements fascism shares with progressivism. It’s just not possible to say that fascism has virtues progressivism lacks WITHOUT acknowledging that German fascism had wicked, hateful elements that progressivism clearly shares, and that given the horrible criminal outcomes of German fascism we need to be on the lookout for early signs of similar horrible outcomes as progressivism unites with the American Deep State and its visible organ the Democrat Party.
Your thinking is fresh, original and deep and I look forward to your posts, but this time you left out essential context.
Over seven million murdered by the Covid scamdemic, millions dead from the progressive enabled fentanyl poisoning, violent crime waves, proxy wars and "climate change" starvation strategies. Progressive fascists are off to a strong start to outdo their tyrannical predecessors.
Franco wasn't really a fascist, he was a conservative who was averse to much of fascism's political economy. Many of his own Falangists resented him for it, and Hitler and Goebbels despised him for it, calling him a "bourgeoise monarchist".
It's also fair to mention that, as a Leaf, Kulak probably does not even want to touch on the Holocaust, as honest discussion thereof can land one in the big house in the Great Free North. And I do mean honest discussion, not denial. Denying the Holocaust is silly. The beautiful modern progressive twentieth century was the era of governments murdering their people en masse and I don't see why Germany should have missed out.
Don't worry, bud, someday we'll help you through off the soft, lotioned hand of Castreau and unite west Kanunkistan with Alaska and the rockies to form a real country on this continent once again.
The "holocaust" is a hoax in the same way global warming is: a kernel of truth progressivists inflate into an apocalyptic guiltmongering scam to shake down white people. Anyone who calls out the inflation is demonized as a "denier". Stop using enemy terminology; the fact that WW2 casualties included people Germany interned doesn't deserve its own jew-worshipping capitalized title.
Even "kernel of truth" is being generous. The jews were more kindly treated than most during WW2, they were one of the few populations involved in the war whose numbers increased.
Same for global warming, there really isn't any evidence at this point to suggest it's manmade, or a threat in any way.
So by honest discussion you mean your opinion. I'm guessing that stating that only 5,999,999 jews were turned into soap and lampshades is full on denial in your view. It's a curious thing that in many countries you can openly question whether or not the earth is flat and do your own research on the matter to reach your own conclusions, but it's illegal to question the absolute truth that exactly six million jews were stuffed into pizza ovens.
Thats a good point, but I don't think its so clear cut. Take the total acceptance of Nazis in Ukraine by globohomo. It really comes down to hierarchy vs equity as Kulak notes. The absolute government power accompanies a hubris for both ideologies where fascists assume they know nature's hierarchy the progressives are certain nature has no hierarchy. This has the potential to manifest as racism in fascism, but not necessarily. Seems like a good topic for an entirely different article, this one was really good and insightful without trying to explore how racism fits into the picture.
Why must Fascism be defined by racial dogmas? Obviously everyone thinks of the Nazi's as the prototype Fascist regime, however, weren't the Italians and the Spanish Fascists as well, and haven't there been Fascist governments in South America? Liberal Progressives of the 1920's and 30's were very enamored of the European Fascists, even as they dreamed of Eugenic solutions ala Margaret Sanger. So while some Fascists endorsed a racial theory, I don't think that it has been universal. A very good book on this subject is "Liberal Fascists."
"You went off track at the outset of your argument by not acknowledging that what was truly odious about Fascism was that its hierarchical racial dogmas about the innate superiority of some humans and the allegedly subhuman essence of other humans produced the most advanced technological mass murder project of its time"
There's nothing wrong with believing in racism. Anti-racism is immoral and unscientific.
Whose track did she go off exactly? Seems to me she followed her own.
> You went off track at the outset of your argument by not acknowledging that what was truly odious about Fascism was that its hierarchical racial dogmas
No, those were good.
> the most advanced technological mass murder project of its time. The systematic slaughter of 6 million innocent men, women and children because of their Jewish ethnicity was one of the lowest moments in human history
Yes, they were so efficient they managed to find 6 million people who never existed in any record up until that point and then killed them all in the most inefficient and bizarre manners leaving no trace beyond the memoirs of some particularly imaginative jews.
She did not. Italian Fascism had no race based component the opposite actually, nor did Franco’s Spain, nor did the military junta or Portugal. (Both lasting until the 70s might I add. You ever hear stories of the horrors of living in Spain in the 60s, no? Wonder why...)
Nazism is Hitler’s racist perversion of fascism, a very ugly variant of the system. Your ignorance on this is intentional.
Not that I’m a fan of Fascism, but I’m very sick and tired of hearing it used universally in our culture as the definition of evil. Nazism & Communism are tied for that award, fascism can be very different.
The real argument she missed was that Communism ALWAYS becomes fascism or it fails. She’s pointing out how similar current neo-marxists are in their behavior to fascists, but show me the difference between Nazism and China, or Vietnam or the USSR.
All of those countries were/are extremely nationalistic, liquidated minorities, waged expansionist wars, allowed some capitalist elements (the USSR failed because they waited too long to do so). The list goes on...
The point being the similarities she’s pointing out are inherent because Communism means everyone living on communes and that flat out doesn’t work so they fall back to some ugly variant of Fascism after they’ve consolidated power & tested out their retarded theories and watched them fail unbelievably spectacularly so they default back to the closest thing that actually works.
To make something clear here on my position, fascism can very easily become something horribly ugly like NAZISM that’s argument enough against it, but it’s not only disingenuous but in fact deliberately so in many cases to say its the worst possible system. If you had to choose between communism & fascism, fascism is the clear winner. Which I think is the meta point of this article & obviously something I strongly agree with.
As Hitler said, there was very little difference between fascism and communism. The original fascists, the Italians, were non-racialists. The Germans and Japanese, however, were, but that was the only difference between those two types of fascism. Fascism is more effective and efficient than communism because instead killing the capitalists, fascism incorporates them into the government, making an oligarchy. The CCP is a fascist, national socialist system, regardless of what they call themselves, and the U.S. is moving to a fascist state.
Left-progressivism is a feminized fascism. The mainstream liberal left is the overprotective mother; the hard left is the devouring mother.
I think imputing qualities to historical fascism (which can be termed right-progressivism) such as "daring, manliness" gives it too much credit however. In that same list you mention "aggression", which is accurate. Lashing out in violent aggression is the opposite of manly, however, it is the behavior of a disturbed, emotionally unregulated teenage boy. The virtues that leftists hate fascists for are largely posturing, not fascists' true character. This is why leftists also call reactionary libertarians like us who genuinely embody such virtues to a substantial degree "fascists".
One must take care to distinguish between fascism, which is a philosophy of governance, and socialism, which is a system of government. The former places the state before the people (whose purpose is to support the state), and the latter is system which permits private ownership of the means of production while they are controlled by government (as opposed to communism, in which government both controls and owns the means of production). Socialist and communist governments typically have a fascist philosophy of governance, but fascism doesn't require those forms of government. But because socialism/communism is so closely linked, historically, to fascism, it has (wrongly, I believe) become nearly synonymous with those forms of government. However, it is possible for fascism to take hold (as a philosophy of governance) within the framework of other forms of government, it's just that it's rare for that to occur (but easily imaginable).
In summary, fascism should not be confused with socialism/communism. The relationship is merely an artifact of history, and a reflection of the human nature of man when attempting to control a society. A philosophy of individual liberty and personal rights is incompatible with socialism/communism, and is therefore generally insulated from fascistic tendencies. Which is why the erosion of our liberty and rights is so dangerous - such erosion almost always goes hand-in-hand with fascism, even if our form of government maintains its (technically) democratic apparatus for the election of our government officials, and even if it doesn't regress to full-blown socialsim.
Mussolini, Hitler, de Oliveria Salazar, Tojo Hideki, Miloševic, Peron; which are the fascists with benefits? The post and thread are trying awfully hard to sugarcoat fascism. Nationalism and racial, cultural or ethnic purity were more than the manly virtues inherent in fascism. The posting did ignore the negative consequences of these inherent characteristics. The strongman, savior leader was another characteristic. This inevitably led to tyranny and poor economic performance. The majority of those on this thread seem to be so hell bent on rationalizing some sort of reformed fascism that I will tack away to find a more mature, rational and facts based conversation.
Your description of fascism ignores many of the major flaws such as hyper-nationalism, religious intolerance and intimidation through violence. Your description of progressives is guilty of the same problems you describe in the left, painting with a broad brush when a fine one is needed. Until the arguments are refined to specific, evidence based discussions it will be impossible to solve the problems. There is reasonable ground for compromise if we put aside fear mongering and a desire to impose established religion, ethnocentric, static culture and minority, oligarchy or strongman governance. If your faith requires us to establish the late, Christian Roman Empire synthesized with Victorian England, then you have turned your back on the demonstrated benefits of American liberalism.
I am so totally against communism, fascism, socialism, capitalism! I aim for a society of Ethical sovereigns (NO controlmind) with the accounting for Our energy added into a system (as slaves must do) removed, which is the foundational function of all "money" - from trade/barter on up to electronic bits.
No one's sure! I'd heard the name before once suggested as a possiblity
This photo was a meme that took off a few years ago and was making the rounds on right wing twitter "This is what they took from you" type stuff... before disappearing into memory, It was around that time I photoshopped CatEars onto the photo and thought it made the perfect internet meme/hyper-image, then I used it as the basis for a lot of AI generated photos.
the photo's heavily color corrected, distorted and edited.... I kinda felt guilty that I'd taken a real woman's face and image to make AI CatGirl memes out of... but then I saw the original black and white photo months later and the two looked almost nothing alike.
Nice!
And there's some interesting history that most don't know. American socialism was originally much more like fascism. The source of the Nazi salute may well have been the U.S. The Pledge of Allegiance was devised by a Christian national socialist. See:
http://rexcurry.net/
You went off track at the outset of your argument by not acknowledging that what was truly odious about Fascism was that its hierarchical racial dogmas about the innate superiority of some humans and the allegedly subhuman essence of other humans produced the most advanced technological mass murder project of its time. The systematic slaughter of 6 million innocent men, women and children because of their Jewish ethnicity was one of the lowest moments in human history. That's the problem with Fascism.
Your essay really requires that grounding at the outset or it can't be taken seriously.
That's too bad, because your deepest point is that progressivism is increasingly equivalent to Fascism, and that's a very strong point. Progressivism has even adopted its own hateful racist hierarchy, and as you correctly observe is rapidly developing the taxonomy and processes of Fascism.
In fact, progressivism is a weird morphing of racist hierarchy with Marxist enforced "equality", a homicidal commitment to hierarchy combined with the elimination of all signs of superiority except the possession of power.
That's a road that leads back to Auschwitz--and the Gulag--and progressivism is building that road. That's your deepest point.
Improbable and vicious racial dogmas and essentialisms, though not intrinsic to fascism (Franco never appealed to them), are one of the traits Fascism SHARES with progressivism.
Look at the struggle-session over "Power+Priviledge" or inherited white guilt... And you find a very bizarre and interesting parallel and preoccupation that simply does not exist in 90+% of other ideologies.
I totally agree with you! That’s why I pointed out that your deepest point is the portfolio of similar elements fascism shares with progressivism. It’s just not possible to say that fascism has virtues progressivism lacks WITHOUT acknowledging that German fascism had wicked, hateful elements that progressivism clearly shares, and that given the horrible criminal outcomes of German fascism we need to be on the lookout for early signs of similar horrible outcomes as progressivism unites with the American Deep State and its visible organ the Democrat Party.
Your thinking is fresh, original and deep and I look forward to your posts, but this time you left out essential context.
Over seven million murdered by the Covid scamdemic, millions dead from the progressive enabled fentanyl poisoning, violent crime waves, proxy wars and "climate change" starvation strategies. Progressive fascists are off to a strong start to outdo their tyrannical predecessors.
Franco wasn't really a fascist, he was a conservative who was averse to much of fascism's political economy. Many of his own Falangists resented him for it, and Hitler and Goebbels despised him for it, calling him a "bourgeoise monarchist".
It's also fair to mention that, as a Leaf, Kulak probably does not even want to touch on the Holocaust, as honest discussion thereof can land one in the big house in the Great Free North. And I do mean honest discussion, not denial. Denying the Holocaust is silly. The beautiful modern progressive twentieth century was the era of governments murdering their people en masse and I don't see why Germany should have missed out.
Don't worry, bud, someday we'll help you through off the soft, lotioned hand of Castreau and unite west Kanunkistan with Alaska and the rockies to form a real country on this continent once again.
The "holocaust" is a hoax in the same way global warming is: a kernel of truth progressivists inflate into an apocalyptic guiltmongering scam to shake down white people. Anyone who calls out the inflation is demonized as a "denier". Stop using enemy terminology; the fact that WW2 casualties included people Germany interned doesn't deserve its own jew-worshipping capitalized title.
Even "kernel of truth" is being generous. The jews were more kindly treated than most during WW2, they were one of the few populations involved in the war whose numbers increased.
Same for global warming, there really isn't any evidence at this point to suggest it's manmade, or a threat in any way.
So by honest discussion you mean your opinion. I'm guessing that stating that only 5,999,999 jews were turned into soap and lampshades is full on denial in your view. It's a curious thing that in many countries you can openly question whether or not the earth is flat and do your own research on the matter to reach your own conclusions, but it's illegal to question the absolute truth that exactly six million jews were stuffed into pizza ovens.
If you are replying to me then you read my comment exactly backward.
Thats a good point, but I don't think its so clear cut. Take the total acceptance of Nazis in Ukraine by globohomo. It really comes down to hierarchy vs equity as Kulak notes. The absolute government power accompanies a hubris for both ideologies where fascists assume they know nature's hierarchy the progressives are certain nature has no hierarchy. This has the potential to manifest as racism in fascism, but not necessarily. Seems like a good topic for an entirely different article, this one was really good and insightful without trying to explore how racism fits into the picture.
Oy vey
Why must Fascism be defined by racial dogmas? Obviously everyone thinks of the Nazi's as the prototype Fascist regime, however, weren't the Italians and the Spanish Fascists as well, and haven't there been Fascist governments in South America? Liberal Progressives of the 1920's and 30's were very enamored of the European Fascists, even as they dreamed of Eugenic solutions ala Margaret Sanger. So while some Fascists endorsed a racial theory, I don't think that it has been universal. A very good book on this subject is "Liberal Fascists."
Fair point.
"You went off track at the outset of your argument by not acknowledging that what was truly odious about Fascism was that its hierarchical racial dogmas about the innate superiority of some humans and the allegedly subhuman essence of other humans produced the most advanced technological mass murder project of its time"
There's nothing wrong with believing in racism. Anti-racism is immoral and unscientific.
Whose track did she go off exactly? Seems to me she followed her own.
> You went off track at the outset of your argument by not acknowledging that what was truly odious about Fascism was that its hierarchical racial dogmas
No, those were good.
> the most advanced technological mass murder project of its time. The systematic slaughter of 6 million innocent men, women and children because of their Jewish ethnicity was one of the lowest moments in human history
Yes, they were so efficient they managed to find 6 million people who never existed in any record up until that point and then killed them all in the most inefficient and bizarre manners leaving no trace beyond the memoirs of some particularly imaginative jews.
She did not. Italian Fascism had no race based component the opposite actually, nor did Franco’s Spain, nor did the military junta or Portugal. (Both lasting until the 70s might I add. You ever hear stories of the horrors of living in Spain in the 60s, no? Wonder why...)
Nazism is Hitler’s racist perversion of fascism, a very ugly variant of the system. Your ignorance on this is intentional.
Not that I’m a fan of Fascism, but I’m very sick and tired of hearing it used universally in our culture as the definition of evil. Nazism & Communism are tied for that award, fascism can be very different.
The real argument she missed was that Communism ALWAYS becomes fascism or it fails. She’s pointing out how similar current neo-marxists are in their behavior to fascists, but show me the difference between Nazism and China, or Vietnam or the USSR.
All of those countries were/are extremely nationalistic, liquidated minorities, waged expansionist wars, allowed some capitalist elements (the USSR failed because they waited too long to do so). The list goes on...
The point being the similarities she’s pointing out are inherent because Communism means everyone living on communes and that flat out doesn’t work so they fall back to some ugly variant of Fascism after they’ve consolidated power & tested out their retarded theories and watched them fail unbelievably spectacularly so they default back to the closest thing that actually works.
To make something clear here on my position, fascism can very easily become something horribly ugly like NAZISM that’s argument enough against it, but it’s not only disingenuous but in fact deliberately so in many cases to say its the worst possible system. If you had to choose between communism & fascism, fascism is the clear winner. Which I think is the meta point of this article & obviously something I strongly agree with.
Just food for thought.
Kulak, have you read Rothbard's The Progressive Era?
I need too! Been on my list a while
This lecture series is a good listen in the meantime:
https://mises.org/library/1-civil-war-and-its-legacy
I have; highly recommended
As Hitler said, there was very little difference between fascism and communism. The original fascists, the Italians, were non-racialists. The Germans and Japanese, however, were, but that was the only difference between those two types of fascism. Fascism is more effective and efficient than communism because instead killing the capitalists, fascism incorporates them into the government, making an oligarchy. The CCP is a fascist, national socialist system, regardless of what they call themselves, and the U.S. is moving to a fascist state.
Danny Huckabee
Left-progressivism is a feminized fascism. The mainstream liberal left is the overprotective mother; the hard left is the devouring mother.
I think imputing qualities to historical fascism (which can be termed right-progressivism) such as "daring, manliness" gives it too much credit however. In that same list you mention "aggression", which is accurate. Lashing out in violent aggression is the opposite of manly, however, it is the behavior of a disturbed, emotionally unregulated teenage boy. The virtues that leftists hate fascists for are largely posturing, not fascists' true character. This is why leftists also call reactionary libertarians like us who genuinely embody such virtues to a substantial degree "fascists".
One must take care to distinguish between fascism, which is a philosophy of governance, and socialism, which is a system of government. The former places the state before the people (whose purpose is to support the state), and the latter is system which permits private ownership of the means of production while they are controlled by government (as opposed to communism, in which government both controls and owns the means of production). Socialist and communist governments typically have a fascist philosophy of governance, but fascism doesn't require those forms of government. But because socialism/communism is so closely linked, historically, to fascism, it has (wrongly, I believe) become nearly synonymous with those forms of government. However, it is possible for fascism to take hold (as a philosophy of governance) within the framework of other forms of government, it's just that it's rare for that to occur (but easily imaginable).
In summary, fascism should not be confused with socialism/communism. The relationship is merely an artifact of history, and a reflection of the human nature of man when attempting to control a society. A philosophy of individual liberty and personal rights is incompatible with socialism/communism, and is therefore generally insulated from fascistic tendencies. Which is why the erosion of our liberty and rights is so dangerous - such erosion almost always goes hand-in-hand with fascism, even if our form of government maintains its (technically) democratic apparatus for the election of our government officials, and even if it doesn't regress to full-blown socialsim.
Mussolini, Hitler, de Oliveria Salazar, Tojo Hideki, Miloševic, Peron; which are the fascists with benefits? The post and thread are trying awfully hard to sugarcoat fascism. Nationalism and racial, cultural or ethnic purity were more than the manly virtues inherent in fascism. The posting did ignore the negative consequences of these inherent characteristics. The strongman, savior leader was another characteristic. This inevitably led to tyranny and poor economic performance. The majority of those on this thread seem to be so hell bent on rationalizing some sort of reformed fascism that I will tack away to find a more mature, rational and facts based conversation.
Your description of fascism ignores many of the major flaws such as hyper-nationalism, religious intolerance and intimidation through violence. Your description of progressives is guilty of the same problems you describe in the left, painting with a broad brush when a fine one is needed. Until the arguments are refined to specific, evidence based discussions it will be impossible to solve the problems. There is reasonable ground for compromise if we put aside fear mongering and a desire to impose established religion, ethnocentric, static culture and minority, oligarchy or strongman governance. If your faith requires us to establish the late, Christian Roman Empire synthesized with Victorian England, then you have turned your back on the demonstrated benefits of American liberalism.
Best regards,
Bill
Perhaps a tad dated, but I wouldn’t mind giving Timocracy a go.
Why the rise of globohomo values in the military is completely nuts
I am so totally against communism, fascism, socialism, capitalism! I aim for a society of Ethical sovereigns (NO controlmind) with the accounting for Our energy added into a system (as slaves must do) removed, which is the foundational function of all "money" - from trade/barter on up to electronic bits.
I aim for a solutocracy in abundancism:
Abundancism (10 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/abundancism:8?lid=eeff9e0c80138ce03e22d76bcd5f2f873ff46b72
Solutocracy (7 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/solutocracy:c?lid=eeff9e0c80138ce03e22d76bcd5f2f873ff46b72
The Detailed Blueprint (for a Society of Ethical Sovereigns) (7 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/the-detailed-blueprint-vocal-redo:9?lid=eeff9e0c80138ce03e22d76bcd5f2f873ff46b72
Is Money Evil? (14 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/is-money-evil:9?lid=eeff9e0c80138ce03e22d76bcd5f2f873ff46b72
https://substack.com/profile/79262163-kulak/note/c-21376660?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1b6v2r
Can you tell me if it is? I've been deeply curious about this for months
No one's sure! I'd heard the name before once suggested as a possiblity
This photo was a meme that took off a few years ago and was making the rounds on right wing twitter "This is what they took from you" type stuff... before disappearing into memory, It was around that time I photoshopped CatEars onto the photo and thought it made the perfect internet meme/hyper-image, then I used it as the basis for a lot of AI generated photos.
the photo's heavily color corrected, distorted and edited.... I kinda felt guilty that I'd taken a real woman's face and image to make AI CatGirl memes out of... but then I saw the original black and white photo months later and the two looked almost nothing alike.
Wish I could comment with photos.
Oh wait, found both! Made a note of it:
https://substack.com/profile/79262163-kulak/note/c-21376660?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1b6v2r