Hersh, Eitan; Royden, Laura (25 June 2022). “Antisemitic Attitudes Across the Ideological Spectrum” Political Research Quarterly.
doi:10.1177/10659129221111081
Remember kids, it’s not hypocrisy to be intolerant of the intolerant. They have broken the social compact and are therefore no longer protected by it.
I was going to joke about some kind of social powder case, but it turns out that compact and contact are synonymous here.
I was going to joke about some kind of social vision correction device that goes on your eyeball, but then I realized you meant contract. ;)
Instructions unclear, stabbed myself in the eye with the things from Prey
Memes that come with citations? Now that’s how you shitpost.
Fascist definition: Anyone I disagree with. That’s some solid research conrade.
You should host a course titled:
How to identify yourself as a fascist 101
Also, fuck off, fascist.
Also, fuck off, fascist.
Thanks for proving my point.
Yes? Let’s not make this thread too, make your argument and let me reply, this is no irc chat.
No, this is airing dirty Nazi laundry. Say Nazi shit, get called a Nazi.
Are you referring to something specific here or just venting? I certainly don’t call anyone I disagree with a fascist, but there are many people in the present society who advocate for fascist ideas. What else should we call them?
Im just a tad disappointed that according to this graphic fascism (which isnt exactly the same as nazism but whatever) is strictly a white issue.
Which, if you look at the world, clearly isn’t the case. Fascism is everywhere.
Nobody is ever considering how the whites feel 😤
Uh oh, angry angry whites! Keep the Tiki torches at home depot, fellas.
Sigh.
Nazism isn’t the same as fascism. Nazism does care about your ethnicity. Fascism does not.
But whatever.
No need to sigh, your points are salient and valid
You’re not the smartest guy in the room, I think most people understand that.
I don’t think you understand that you’re white knighting (haha) for white people like they need protecting or something, like that’s the concern here.
It sounds like you don’t give a shit about countering fascism, you give a shit about defending white people.
Just be mindful that you’re in an echo chamber environment here.
Or don’t, keep fighting the fight for the whites 💪
Yeah, you seem a lot smarter. Good for you.
Have you ever heard of Japanese fascists? Or Jewish fascists? Any race can be fascist.
Oh wow, that’s crazy. White people too though right?
So you’re saying White Fascists Matter?
Yes, that’s what “any race” means.
I will believe in horseshoe theory when a fascist moves so far right that they accidently create a stateless, moneyless utopia.
This is playing down the actual behavior of fascists in a very careless way.
-
They do not just kick out minorities, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!
-
They do not just jail dissenters, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!
-
They do not just “say no” to Jews, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!
Not to be defending Fascists, but those you describe are the Nazi style ones.
Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece too had Fascist dictatorships and those pretty much did not care about Jews or minorities and whilst they were all autoritarian and happy to use state violence for oppression and suppression of dissidents, the only ones who did anything close to systematical murder were the ones in Spain in their early days and their targets were mainly those they deemed “Communists”.
By comparison Zionists are more murderous than all of those 4, though not as much as the Nazis, and consider and treat a whole different ethnic group as “human animals” than the Nazis did.
In fact the use of specific ethnicities for Fascism in that table is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist with a very specific slant on who their “good” ethnicities and “bad” ethnicities are: even without going into the whole Israel thing, just look at Modi in India to see Fascism in action whithout the perpetrators being White or the victims Jews.
is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist
Or, maybe, they’re just using the most well-known instance of fascism in history as a concrete example, in order to not overcomplicate the message. Jumping to accusations of racism at the slightest suspicion is not gonna help anyone.
If you’re obcessed with the race of the people involved, you’re probably a racist.
Describing Fascism as something that only victimizes a specific ethnicity - Jews, curiously forgetting other Nazi-victimized ethnicities like Roma, not to mention non-ethnic groups such as those with disabilities - is also a long running hasbara strategy of Zionists to portray themselves as impossible to be Fascists, all the while behaving as such to quite an extreme level, something extra poignant right now when they’re in the middle of committing Genocide.
Even if all that was just the product of naivety of the author rather than something else, to limit one’s description of Fascism to only Nazis is an insult to people who lived under other Fascist dictatorships, something which just so happens to include me - just because the dictator in my homeland “only” had censorship, a secret police, political prisioners, forced labour of the natives in the “colonies” in Africa and kept the country incredibly poor except for the 9 families of the Regime, doesn’t mean that shit wasn’t Fascism because he was “equal opportunity” when it came to the ethnicity of the people he oppressed and exploited.
(PS: Also, thinking that it’s the race of a person that makes them behave one way or another is the very dictionary definition of racism. It’s quite irrelevant which race you think are “goodies” and which are “badies” - it’s the thinking that it’s the race that makes people “goodies” or “badies” that’s racism)
The simplest explanation for somebody only seing the race angle of Fascism, only the Nazis and only a specific ethnicity they victimized when there is at least one other that they equally victimized (the Roma) is racism.
They’re doing the standard reverse racism charge, because you see, noticing racism is actually the real racism.
In the English speaking world, anti-white racism isn’t really a thing.
Some people will swear up and down that it is, but those people think racism is just a set of attitudes towards a race of people, and not a deeply entrenched system of oppression against entire swathes of society.
Racism is seeing race as what makes people “goodies” or “badies”. The “good” races and “bad” races in your thinking being different from those of mid and early XXth century racism in Western nations is wholly irrelevant for asserting that thinking like that is being a Racist.
The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.
It’s pretty telling that your entire defense of somebody else assigning race as cause of certain behaviours is to say that indeed for certain races, race is the cause of that behaviour and presume that the denial of that by others is due to the specific race which was said to be “badies”.
Please show me where I said white people were the bad people.
It’s not a long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
Yeah, you’re right on that point: you’re dividing people into behavioural groups using “English speaking world” as identity tag rather than a race.
So the prejudice you voiced was using “geographical area of birth defined by language spoken” to presume unrelated characteristics of people, rather race.
It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by “geographical area of birth”.
Please tell me where in my comment I said anyone were bad people because of their “geographical area of birth”.
It wasn’t a very long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
Not quite.
Some fascsist do this, absolutely. Others, to appear moderate, kick out minorities and “just” jail dissenters. Will they eventually start murdering people? Absolutely.
But nearly no fascist nowadays advocates for murder. They must first radicalize the people once in control via salami slicing tactics. If you look for fascists, do not look for people advocating for murder - they will be noticeable enough anyways. Look for those who can be described with the picture in this post.
I think “at the bare minimum” did a lot of heavy lifting.
Didn’t Trump say he would nuke Palestinians?
-
I’ve usually heard horseshoe theory referring to tankies/authoritarian communists, not anti fascists.
My dad swears up and down that antifa are the real nazis. I think this would be a response to that type of thing.
Ask him if he opposes the antifa fascists. When he says yes, call him antifa
My favorite thing in the world is calling him antifa :)
Is your dad in this thread? I think I just replied to him.
Guess where the antifaschistische aktion has it roots…
In 1919, Benito Mussolini united various groups in the then Kingdom of Italy to form the Fasci di combattimento. During the Biennio rosso (1919-1921), the Black Shirts used targeted terror against striking industrial workers, the Partito Socialista Italiano (PSI) and all opposition. As a result, local and regional anti-fascist groups as well as vigilante groups emerged from 1920 onwards, encompassing the entire political spectrum, from Catholics and liberals to socialists and anarchists.
Emphasis by me
In 1921, Mussolini transformed his militia movement into the National Fascist Party. The first armed anti-fascist organization came into being in 1921 with the Arditi del Popolo. It was open to anarchists, communists, social democrats, Christians and bourgeois republicans. However, the leadership of the PSI and the Partito Comunista Italiano (PCI) rejected the League. It remained limited to a few thousand members and a few cities.[3] This was the first organization with an explicitly anti-fascist self-image. Its supporters referred to themselves as antifascisti[4].
Emphasis by me
Arditi del Popolo
It grouped revolutionary trade-unionists, socialists, communists, anarchists, republicans, anti-capitalists, as well as some former military officers
Composed of Italian anarchists, socialists, and communists, the Arditi del Popolo were not supported by leftist parties (neither by the Italian Socialist Party, PSI, nor by the Communist Party of Italy, PCd’I).
Furthermore, the PCd’I ordered its members to quit the organization because of the presence of non-communists in its ranks.[8] The PCd’I organized by themselves some militant groups (the Squadre comuniste d’azione), but their actions were relatively minor and the party kept a non-violent, legalist strategy.
The Antifaschistische Aktion grew in the soil of the SPD and KPD in Nazi Germany (which themselves where not autoritarians or tankies at the time), but it’s roots are older, decidedly anti-authoritarian and open to the entire political spectrum that wanted to fight fascism.
Edit: Antifascism is represented by a red and a black flag. How you could ever think is has anything to do with the authoritarian left when it’s roots are so extremely anarchist is beyond me.
The main job of fascism is to protect capital when the majority of the working population grows disillusioned with capitalism and might get the wrong ideas about socialist revolution and stuff
Look, can’t we just find some common ground and meet in the middle?
…hmm.
Alternatively
…double hmm.
Don’t forget the speech one. Both said no on that one.
The rest I’m on board with.
deleted by creator
I just want to point out that not all fascists are Nazis. Can I point that out without getting crucified?
I will clarify that if you’re any kind of fascist, you’re a trash person, doubly so for Nazis specifically… But not all fascists are Nazis. Which the OP chart seems to imply.
To drive my point home, I’ll quote Wikipedia: fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Nowhere in there does it say that fascists are anti-Semites, nor white supremacist. Those ideologies are generally attributed to specific fascist ideologies… Eg. Nazis.
Let’s not sugar coat what people are. If they’re Nazi fucks, let’s call them Nazi fucks.
And if they aren’t, don’t call them Nazis. For example I strongly disagree with the term “grammar nazi” that English speaking people sometimes use for people who point out grammatical flaws in comments or articles - that may sensitise people to view the term lightly, not taking it seriously when someone seriously is a nazi. Apart from that it’s a cruel joke towards the people who suffered under the nazi regime or died fighting it.
I agree with this. We need better terms.
Nazis were such a heinous and specific evil that we probably shouldn’t do anything that could lighten that term. At all.
The part that makes me sad is that they appropriated the symbol of the swastika, and made it into a visage of hate and oppression. It’s a religious symbol for luck.
I don’t think that reputation is changing anytime soon.
The Nazis destroyed a lot, and corrupted so many things by association.
This very special take on Fascism brought to you by Zionists-R-Us.
(Remember, boys and girls, people from the Jewish ethnicity couldn’t possibly be Fascists).
Colour scheme: blue on white
Am i that much more extreme for thinking that the best solution for Nazis isn’t discriminating against them but educating people to respect so Fascist ideal can no longer take hold?
I know of intolerance for the intolerant, I’ve spread that message myself i am just no longer convinced that burying the problem into private conversations only (Which should be absolute free speech unless you want some sort of police control inside your home) is tackling the problem at the source.
My wish is to eradicate this ideology once and for all not to hide it like we try to do with homeless in rich neighborhoods.
Education is better and preferred but ocne5 the Nazis are in the street they’ve already taken hold and need to be uprooted before we can go back to educating it away.
Once there in the in the streets and are expressing their hostility toward others it becomes self defense to push back.
Nazis should be either
-
spouting their shit in private so their social circle gets the message that their guy is sick and probably needs therapy.
-
in therapy where no speech is taboo and the goal is to improve themselves.
-
in public, not expressing their shit because there starting to understand that its wrong, therapy is long term ongoing progress.
Where they definitively shouldn’t be and i would regard as a hostile act.
- marching down the streets in group with firearms.
The issue is the overuse of the word Nazi. Like the left is throwing at anything to try to make it stick, and we saw how Europe reacted to that. People have issues that are ignore by the ruling powers and we’re left there to fester for so long. From the grooming of Rotherham, to the sexual assault of Cologne, to the countless other instances that are facing EU resident’s life every day. There are issues that are not addressed. And just throwing “nazi” at anyone that try to bring these issues to life is inconsiderate and just circle jerking: “I think that sounds so cool to say Nazi on any random political post on the internet”.
People that solely focus on these “issues” are called “Nazis” because by all objective measures these are rare and inconsequential events that got way over-blown in the media and serve no other purpose than to distract from the real issues in Europe. If you can’t or don’t want to understand that you are either extremely stupid or are indeed a Nazi that is pushing an agenda. These “issues” are not being “ignored” and left “festering” because the real and only issue there are the people that think that these are “issues” aka Nazis.
I am only really talking about individuals with fascist ideologies that refuse to respect and assault the freedoms of others.
You know, “nazis”. The word has evolved a bit since the Wehrmacht i do admit.
-
Guys, regarding white ethnonationalism: the key word here is egregious.
Sure, you got fascists who are not ethnonationalists. Or who are ethnonationalists towards another “race”, such as the Hindutva ideology. However, white ethnonationalists are an egregious example. They exemplify the issue with fascism amazingly well, because they’re the worst of the worst, and they’re extra common.
How come only white people get to be fascist? That’s not very fair. What about China? Aren’t they fascist AF?
Sorry, it’s not from Italy, it’s just sparkling authoritarianism
🤣
You should have seen Japan…
Removed by mod
Don’t let them see the other facts… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Africa
Thing is left right isn’t much of a line, no matter what shape it is.
The right is a point, they’ll get behind a populist and go to jail for them.
The left is a scattered mess of disagreeing elements who hate each other almost as much as they hate the far right.
And of course they both hate the dreaded “liberals”.
Everybody hates gormless morons that don’t believe in nothing at all.
Removed by mod
Horseshoe theory is dumb, but it’s really just an observation of the loudest ideologies on the far left and far right, which both happen to be authoritarian. Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system. And it’s true that real-world instances of both Fascism and Communism have been authoritarian, and so they share some things in common. It isn’t a particularly nuanced or deep understanding, but it is true that authoritarian forms of gov’t are authoritarian. The difference lies in the details. Communists used authoritarianism against capitalists and the nobility, and fascists used it against minorities. Horseshoe theory conflates “authoritarianism” with extreme Left and Right-wing ideologies. This contrasts against anarchism (and by extension the broad anti fascist movement), of course, which is extremely anti-authoritarian (hence why horseshoe theory completely falls apart here).
Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.
Do you consider anarchists and anarchocommunists to be extremists? Or authoritarian?
Extremists? Sure - they are, by definition, as they are outside of normal, status quo political ideologies. Authoritarian? No of course not. Anarchists are anti-authoritarian. I’m only saying that past communist states (namely PRC and USSR) have been authoritarian and fascist states have also been authoritarian.
Obviously modern neoliberal states are also authoritarian, but the classic horseshoe is almost exclusively applied to fascism and communism. Since it is incoherent as a political theory, I’m sure you could apply it similarly to any polar opposite ideologies and come up with something they share in common.
You might want to consider that those who call themselves leftist may not actually be leftist.
For instance, “Nazi” is short for “national socialist”. They are clearly right wing, however, if you pay attention to their actions.
So-called socialist states are generally deeply repressive and that is not left wing. They were better at branding than the Nazis, but for instance the USSR neutered the soviets - the workers’ councils after which the state was named - very soon after taking power. The state owned rhe means of production, not the workers. It was state capitalist. After that workers had to strike just like under any other capitalist regime, and they were brutally repressed by the state.
Under no honest description of socialist does that qualify. So they failed on both the “Soviet” and “Socialist” parts of their name.
Horseshoe theory is just capitalists happily buying into the USSR and other state capitalists’ self mythology about being socialist because it’s good propaganda to scare the workers they rule over into believing that there is no alternative to neoliberalism’s stochastic brutality.
If we understand “Leftism” to be about a relationship to the means of production - namely one in which the workers/plroletarian class owns the means of production - then the USSR certainly was socialist/leftist to a significant degree.
Since leftism is about that relationship to the means of production, that also means that a government can be both Leftist and Authoritarian. We can discuss to what degree an ideal leftist government should be “authoritarian”, but that is less a conversation about the economic aspects of leftist political ideology and more about the political philosophy around personal freedoms, freedom of speech, etc. - none of which are completely cut & dry.
One could easily argue that some degree of “authoritarianism” is necessary to protect greater freedoms at the expense of lesser ones - that could be a coherent pro personal freedom and pro authoritarian argument. One could also argue that the anarchist conception of personal freedom is doomed to fail without an “authoritarian” power hierarchy to protect those freedoms. All I’m saying is the question of to what degree the power of the state should be limited is by no means answered.
Ownership means having power, having control, over the thing you own.
An authoritarian government that maintains control over the means of production, no matter how much they nominally “belong” to the workers, inherently alienates the workers from having power and therefore from ownership. In that sense it is state capitalist.
You cannot have it both ways unless you change the meaning of words like “own”, or “authority”. Your own description of leftism precludes authoritarian methods.
Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.
Why is this only necessary at the extremes? I don’t want to accept the current system I live under, but I’m coerced into complying with it through force (police).
I’d argue that: 1) what is extreme changes over time, 2) a system of government being extreme de facto means it will have less support; the more support it has, the less extreme it is by definition, 3) the less support a system of government hass, the more force will be required to maintain it.
I am also under a system of government that is oppressive and monopolizes violence, but if the government had less popular support, I fully believe it would proportionally ramp up the oppression and violence. In fact, I’d argue that it’s currently happening in the US.
I don’t know that I agree with your definition of extreme. On the one hand, there’s popularity of various ideas, and on the other, there’s how much the idea differs from the way things are currently done. It’s possible for an idea drastically different from the status quo to be popular, but it would still be considered extreme because of how big of a change it would be.
