Fascists riot in Albuquerque

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Sorn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The real protesters packed up and went home before the rioters showed up, so of course the media is having a great time misrepresenting them as violent.

https://progressnownm.org/2016/05/25...w-on-the-news/

Basically, there were two protests, but only the one that gives the impression that the protesters are needlessly aggressive, radical, and probably not the type you want to associate with has really made the news.

(I will now go back to ignoring all of you.)

I guess the news was handing out Mexican flags also? This is avoiding the issue and trying to recast this as who is the aggressor. I dont know about you but a bunch of foreign freeloaders who are up in arms waving foreign flags because they support a lefty (most of them do) who promises free shit is reason enough to vote for the other guy.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you have read any Giovanni Gentile then you would begin to understand that fascism is not an "idea". Fascism is an actualism. It can come in any form. Its a swift and singleminded action for the good of a collective. It rose during the 20s and 30s because the cultures where it was embraced were threatened by international communism(jewry).

Some have called fascism an extreme form of propertarianism. Not sure if I agree with that but I guess its used to distinguish fascism from other forms of "collectivism". I think the difference in the fascist form of collectivism as opposed to the communist variety is that fascism recognizes the role of the individual in the overall health of the society and its institutions where as communism stamps out individuality to erase "class" distinctions. Fascism recognizes class distinctions. Take the role of women for example. USSR women = cogs in a machine/NSDAP women = vital aspect of the culture and recognized for that role.

Your description of Fascism is really just an oligarchy. You also say that fascism is an extreme form of capitalism but if you have ever actually studied the writings of actual fascist then you would see that they hold capitalism in contempt as well. Thats why they feel the need for a strong centralized authority to protect the citizens from capitalism(among other things) while maintaining property rights hence the earlier nod to propertarianism. The Nazis saw how the ((((money interest)))) were overwhelmingly led by one faction of society *cough*47% of the 1% these people comprise*cough* and how that system they controlled and used to enslave other nations. They outlawed usury which is how capitalism is corrupted. It bothers me when people try to say that Fascism is extreme capitalism.

A more sober view than the post you quoted.

Facist and communist regimes are similar in their methods of control. In practical reality there isn't a lot of difference between the two (Hitler once said Stalinism was just "red facism"). But the theory behind the two are completely different. One is about achieving the closest thing to real equality. The other is about state strength, empowering the country at the expense of others.

Facism is closely related to racism. I had a libertarian professor once said the main difference between facism and communism was that facism also had racism. Ultimately I don't agree with him, but in practical reality there is something to it.

Ultimately this kind of stuff usually devolves into some BS semantic argument though.

Edit: The reason american liberals and conservatives always fuck up there understanding of facism -- is because they don't understand that there isn't a big "goverment vs free market" dichomity in the German intellectual tradition. They never really bought into that "the economy" (which exists independent of society) in mass as much as they have here. To Hitler, the economy wasn't a big theater of ideological warfare. Most Germans agree some government and some market is good.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A more sober view than the post you quoted.

Facist and communist regimes are similar in their methods of control. In practical reality there isn't a lot of difference between the two (Hitler once said Stalinism was just "red facism"). But the theory behind the two are completely different. One is about achieving the closest thing to real equality. The other is about state strength, empowering the country at the expense of others.

Facism is closely related to racism. I had a libertarian professor once said the main difference between facism and communism was that facism also had racism. Ultimately I don't agree with him, but in practical reality there is something to it.

Ultimately this kind of stuff usually devolves into some BS semantic argument though.

Edit: The reason american liberals and conservatives always fuck up there understanding of facism -- is because they don't understand that there isn't a big "goverment vs free market" dichomity in the German intellectual tradition. They never really bought into that "the economy" (which exists independent of society) in mass as much as they have here. To Hitler, the economy wasn't a big theater of ideological warfare. Most Germans agree some government and some market is good.

Internationalist have corrupted the concept of racism and misuse it. Now anything associated with nationalism is deemed racist because it is an exclusive ideaology. Progressivism is largely internationalist and also controls education and the media so you end up with this perversion . I find most communist to have been the most brutal and dehumanizing regimes. Their outlook that everyone be equal means there is no room for diversity and no one escaped the "State" .Their inclusiveness is only a ploy to gain the most support seeing as minorities and the poor outnumber any other groups.

Most "fascist" were nationalist and so their concerns were national. This idea of projected racism is kind of laughable. Hitlers "aggression" was the reclaiming of stolen territory. Then your Illuminati used all of this against him and made him a boogeyman to accomplish the founding of their international organizations that rule the world today.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A more sober view than the post you quoted.

Facist and communist regimes are similar in their methods of control. In practical reality there isn't a lot of difference between the two (Hitler once said Stalinism was just "red facism"). But the theory behind the two are completely different. One is about achieving the closest thing to real equality. The other is about state strength, empowering the country at the expense of others.

Facism is closely related to racism. I had a libertarian professor once said the main difference between facism and communism was that facism also had racism. Ultimately I don't agree with him, but in practical reality there is something to it.

Ultimately this kind of stuff usually devolves into some BS semantic argument though.

Edit: The reason american liberals and conservatives always fuck up there understanding of facism -- is because they don't understand that there isn't a big "goverment vs free market" dichomity in the German intellectual tradition. They never really bought into that "the economy" (which exists independent of society) in mass as much as they have here. To Hitler, the economy wasn't a big theater of ideological warfare. Most Germans agree some government and some market is good.

I wanted to readdress the issue of fascism and racism. I would be interested to know what your professors basis for this is. To my knowledge only one ethnocentric fascist state has existed. Mussolini rejected Hitler's racial views. Francoist were Catholics and so have an inherent degree of universalism. Milosoevic's reign was ethnocentric but I am unsure of just how much "fascism" there was there since I haven't studied the issue as much. I think fascism has become a misnomer.

Now if as I said before its because of the nationalism that is as I said owed to the exclusivity of the ideology however depending on the cultural makeup of a country you could be a fascist nationalist without being a racist (see the above).

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wanted to readdress the issue of fascism and racism. I would be interested to know what your professors basis for this is. To my knowledge only one ethnocentric fascist state has existed. Mussolini rejected Hitler's racial views. Francoist were Catholics and so have an inherent degree of universalism. Milosoevic's reign was ethnocentric but I am unsure of just how much "fascism" there was there since I haven't studied the issue as much. I think fascism has become a misnomer.

Now if as I said before its because of the nationalism that is as I said owed to the exclusivity of the ideology however depending on the cultural makeup of a country you could be a fascist nationalist without being a racist (see the above).

He used to have extensive video available on youtube. For some reason, it recently vanished. All that is left is his first class to epistemology...you can get a feel for the guy if nothing else.

https://vimeo.com/88210640

Other than that, all I know is he is a tea party activist, but has kind of a green anarcho bend or some weird shit. I think he has some Native American ancestry that bread a distrust of government and welfare into him. He is an atheist now, but wasn't always.

I think we tend to consider all these ethnocentric(sometimes violent) groups that pop up in US/Europe fascist. That is why the label is associated with racism. Fascism might not need to be racial in theory, but for some reason it is in practice.

But you bring up an interesting point about Mussolini and Spain. Hitler probably would say that Mussolini was just a blowhard and not a fascist and our historians/sociologists would probably agree with him. But this might be a matter of spectrum. With more extreme fascism being more often racist and lesser forms being simply authoritarian. Asian governments can be seen as a fascist governments on the lesser end of the spectrum.

[maerilith]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://youtu.be/TzJNuxl467s
Best vid on it, of what few there are. Ain't no "protesters" though, just fascists rioting in the streets. People want to riot and shut down free speech? That's fascism. And they point fingers at others calling them fascists, while they themselves are the only ones practicing fascism.

I don't care what politician it is they do this to, Bernie, Hillary, Donald, even Red Ted, fascism is fascism. Waving foreign flags, burning the US flag, throwing bottles, rocks, fire bombs, smashing cars, spraying pepper spray, assaulting a peaceful political rally to disrupt it, is not protesting, it's fascist rioting.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What, you been saving the gif links I post? this one posted at Pok3& like last week if I recall. Aww I have a gif fan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Jimjam]

I'm going to go with how the London Riots were reported and say this is a teaparty down with the 1% event.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm going to go with how the London Riots were reported and say this is a teaparty down with the 1% event.

the London riots are and will not be reported on.

not sure where you are