Fascist authoritarianism as opposed to what other kind of authoritarianism - socialist, communist, woke? Does fascism resonant w/ cancel culture?
Fascist is such a throw away, historically empty word. Have you read any revisionist history? Do you realize the fascists were the good guys in WW2? It was the freedom-loving democracies that were supporting the totalitarian Soviet Union. It was they who engineered the NWO not the fascists.
Ah yes, the immediate ad hominem "have I read, do I know." At 76 , I'd be pretty sure I've read you under the table. In two bloody languages. il fascismo è chiaro dalle parole di Mussolini. Una collusione tra il governo e i corporazioni. Which we've had in the west for quite some time. Go back to the closing moments of WWI for some better insights between Bolsheviks and "freedom-loving democracies", aka the our world view is always right interventionists. Essentially a battle of subterfuge and outright hostility between groups of narcissist exceptionalists. i.e., human cretins.
Oh two languages. Wow you're smart! Who can speak two languages!? Talk about subterfuge - ever heard of the Koch brothers secret network? You know Charles Koch arguing that it was best that nobody really should know who is actually running a society? Talk about secrecy - right-wing Koch brother Libertarian assholes took the fucking cake for secrecy.
And the Koch family spent millions BIG MONEY CORRUPTING the US government. The political candidates the Koch's supported were not INDEPENDENTS, but the majority REPUBLICAN whack jobs - including the wingnut SCOTT WALKER. The LIBERTARIAN KOCH NETWORK was behind a multitude of anti Global Warming political campaigns, played a key role in making sure Americans have been fucked for decades now with corporatized, for profit Healthcare - unlike the rest of the civilized Western world where Healthcare is Universal and part of the PUBLIC GOOD. The Koch Network played THE LEADING role in eviscerating the tax base of the US government - with untold trillions of tax breaks given to the obscenely top 1% Americans, and huge tax breaks to corporations and wallstreet even as these same corporations and Wallstreet continued to make record PROFITS decade after decade while ordinary American workers waited for it all to TRICKLE DOWN into their wages and their standard of living - and the workers are still waiting for the TRICKLING. The Koch brothers were ANTI-UNION up the kazoo.
You want to talk about HUMAN CRETINS. Thy name is KOCH BROTHERS. Fuck the Koch brothers and the CATO Institute and fuck AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY - and all the rest of the bullshit government corrupting phony THINK TANKS, along with the 100+ million dollars Kochs spent on extreme CORRUPT right-wing candidates that fucked over our US government to the point where we no longer have a working government. And that was their goal all along. And the BIG LIE that Libertarians were doing it all for the good of the country. Horseshit - it was all for the MONEY. Their own self-serving greed - and a working US government FOR THE PEOPLE stood in their way - so they bought the US government, they CORRUPTED IT with their big money. That's what it was about. That's what it's always been about: MONEY and GREED.
Not trying to go ad hominem. I'd really like to know if you've read historical revisionism. Your casual reference to fascism didn't evoke deep understanding of WW2 to this 78 yo. And then spouting off in Italian didn't add anything but braggadocio. Are we to think oh, he speaks Italian therefore ... ? Don't be so defensive. Maybe English is a second language for you. That might explain why I'm not understanding where you're coming from.
In "Tyranny of Words" Stuart Chase refers to a little experiment he did back in 1937:
"More important than trying to find meaning in a vague abstraction is an analysis of what people believe it means. Do they agree? Are they thinking about the same referent when they hear the term or use it? I collected nearly a hundred reactions from friends and chance acquaintances during the early summer of 1937. I did not ask for a definition, but asked them to tell me what 'fascism' meant to them, what kind of a picture came into their minds when they heard the term. Here are sample reactions:
Schoolteacher: A dictator suppressing all opposition.
I like this, thank you, as it shows how there was no consistent definition of the term even when there were active proponents making the news. When I say the Fascists were the good guys in WW2, I'm not referring to the politico-economics that the Axis Powers employed and advocated (technically only Italy was fascist), but simply their nationalistic authoritarian style v the Allies as liberal democracies and the USSR as a revolutionary totalitarian regime.
OK in English, but a translator would've told you that by Mussolini's definition of Fascism, we've had it in the US since the big 19th century capitalist barons decided that government should always bend to their wishes. UK/US collaboration at the end of WWI, at the urging of these barons, led to a post-Versailles military attempt to thwart the Bolsheviks, and perhaps formed one of the roots of how the Soviet Union reacted to Hitler in seeking that Stalin-Hitler madmen pact, prior to the USSR's finally mobilizing against the Nazis. Hence, any reference to Fascismo isn't casual. It's a reference to the original source and an extension to its manifestations that predate Hitler and Mussolini. I'm trying to be more rigorous, rather than confusing it with any old form of authoritarianism, as is often done these days, which is what I sense you're trying to guard against.
I appreciate this more reasonable, less emotive explanation for your stated views. But now that I better understand where you're coming from, I see your sense of history is flawed because it passes over Jewish Power and its intervention into world events as if it didn't exist. Who were the Bolsheviks, who controlled the USSR, who egged the UK and US into WW2, what promise was made to found Israel, and looking back, who seeded the 19th century robber barons, who seized control of the Fed to insure they kept control of America's money power? Who is still calling the shots in the US, UK, Germany where politicians fawn over Bibi like he's a shining light and example of a new Churchill? Finally who did Churchill owe money to that kept him in line to Zionist wishes?
You think you're rigorous, but your version of historiography is full of kosher approved holes. That's why you need to read some revisionist history.
You're right that my knowledge is somewhat thin about the various kvosts (Georgian etc.) in the circa 1917 USSR power struggle and the exact role played by Churchill, but that was a side discussion, hardly central to the Libertarian issue, where simply my image of a Individual actually true to Lib principles would be Ron Paul, while others kept trying to ridiculously shove the Koch Brothers down my throat. But I'm interested in filling in the gaps in my understanding of that history, particularly one that's not "kosher approved". How about suggesting a source?
It was your other critic who cited the Libertarian issue. I was strictly critiquing from a revisionist p.o.v. As an aside I will add that Ron Paul was someone I liked during his tenure. Maybe I even voted for him once.
When it comes to WW2 revisionist history, Mike King's The Bad War is the easiest to tackle. Unfortunately it's banned by Amazon. The style is not academic, which may or may not appeal,so be forewarned. There are other historians and other publications more intellectually demanding. The Barnes Review is also an easy read magazine, which began w/ WW2 criticism, but now covers the gamut of controversial historical events.
Fascist authoritarianism as opposed to what other kind of authoritarianism - socialist, communist, woke? Does fascism resonant w/ cancel culture?
Fascist is such a throw away, historically empty word. Have you read any revisionist history? Do you realize the fascists were the good guys in WW2? It was the freedom-loving democracies that were supporting the totalitarian Soviet Union. It was they who engineered the NWO not the fascists.
Ah yes, the immediate ad hominem "have I read, do I know." At 76 , I'd be pretty sure I've read you under the table. In two bloody languages. il fascismo è chiaro dalle parole di Mussolini. Una collusione tra il governo e i corporazioni. Which we've had in the west for quite some time. Go back to the closing moments of WWI for some better insights between Bolsheviks and "freedom-loving democracies", aka the our world view is always right interventionists. Essentially a battle of subterfuge and outright hostility between groups of narcissist exceptionalists. i.e., human cretins.
Oh two languages. Wow you're smart! Who can speak two languages!? Talk about subterfuge - ever heard of the Koch brothers secret network? You know Charles Koch arguing that it was best that nobody really should know who is actually running a society? Talk about secrecy - right-wing Koch brother Libertarian assholes took the fucking cake for secrecy.
And the Koch family spent millions BIG MONEY CORRUPTING the US government. The political candidates the Koch's supported were not INDEPENDENTS, but the majority REPUBLICAN whack jobs - including the wingnut SCOTT WALKER. The LIBERTARIAN KOCH NETWORK was behind a multitude of anti Global Warming political campaigns, played a key role in making sure Americans have been fucked for decades now with corporatized, for profit Healthcare - unlike the rest of the civilized Western world where Healthcare is Universal and part of the PUBLIC GOOD. The Koch Network played THE LEADING role in eviscerating the tax base of the US government - with untold trillions of tax breaks given to the obscenely top 1% Americans, and huge tax breaks to corporations and wallstreet even as these same corporations and Wallstreet continued to make record PROFITS decade after decade while ordinary American workers waited for it all to TRICKLE DOWN into their wages and their standard of living - and the workers are still waiting for the TRICKLING. The Koch brothers were ANTI-UNION up the kazoo.
You want to talk about HUMAN CRETINS. Thy name is KOCH BROTHERS. Fuck the Koch brothers and the CATO Institute and fuck AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY - and all the rest of the bullshit government corrupting phony THINK TANKS, along with the 100+ million dollars Kochs spent on extreme CORRUPT right-wing candidates that fucked over our US government to the point where we no longer have a working government. And that was their goal all along. And the BIG LIE that Libertarians were doing it all for the good of the country. Horseshit - it was all for the MONEY. Their own self-serving greed - and a working US government FOR THE PEOPLE stood in their way - so they bought the US government, they CORRUPTED IT with their big money. That's what it was about. That's what it's always been about: MONEY and GREED.
Not trying to go ad hominem. I'd really like to know if you've read historical revisionism. Your casual reference to fascism didn't evoke deep understanding of WW2 to this 78 yo. And then spouting off in Italian didn't add anything but braggadocio. Are we to think oh, he speaks Italian therefore ... ? Don't be so defensive. Maybe English is a second language for you. That might explain why I'm not understanding where you're coming from.
In "Tyranny of Words" Stuart Chase refers to a little experiment he did back in 1937:
"More important than trying to find meaning in a vague abstraction is an analysis of what people believe it means. Do they agree? Are they thinking about the same referent when they hear the term or use it? I collected nearly a hundred reactions from friends and chance acquaintances during the early summer of 1937. I did not ask for a definition, but asked them to tell me what 'fascism' meant to them, what kind of a picture came into their minds when they heard the term. Here are sample reactions:
Schoolteacher: A dictator suppressing all opposition.
Author: One-party government. 'Outs' unrepresented.
Governess: Obtaining one's desires by sacrifice of human lives.
Lawyer: A state where the individual has no rights, hope, or future.
College Student: Hitler and Mussolini.
United States senator: Deception, duplicity, and professing to do what one is not doing.
Schoolboy: War. Concentration camps. Bad treatment of workers. Something that's got to be licked.
Lawyer: A coercive capitalistic state.
Teacher: A government where you can live comfortably if you never disagree with it.
Lawyer: I don't know.
Musician: Empiricism, forced control, quackery.
Editor: Domination of big business hiding behind Hitler and Mussolini.
Short story writer: A form of government where socialism is used to perpetuate capitalism.
Housewife: Dictatorship by a man not always intelligent.
Taxi-driver: What Hitler's trying to put over. I don't like it.
Housewife: Same thing as communism.
College student: Exaggerated nationalism. The creation of artificial hatreds.
Housewife: A large Florida rattlesnake in summer.
Author: I can only answer in cuss words.
Housewife:The corporate state. Against women and workers.
Librarian: They overturn things.
Farmer: Lawlessness.
Italian hairdresser: A bunch, all together.
Elevator starter: I never heard of it.
Businessman: The equivalent of the NRA.
Stenographer: Terrorism, religious intolerance, bigotry.
Social worker: Government in the interest of the majority for the purpose of accomplishing things democracy cannot do.
Businessman: Egotism. One person thinks he can run everything.
Clerk: Il Duce. Oneness. Ugh!
Clerk: Mussolini's racket. All business not making money taken over by the state.
Secretary: Blackshirts. I don't like it.
Author: A totalitarian state which does not pretend to aim at equalization of wealth.
Housewife: Oppression. No worse than communism.
Author: An all-powerful police force to hold up a decaying society.
Housewife: Dictatorship. President Roosevelt is a dictator, but he's not a fascist.
Journalist: Undesired government of masses by a self-seeking, fanatical minority.
Clerk: Me, one and only, and a lot of blind sheep folowing.
Sculptor: Chauvinism made into a religious cult and the consequent suppression of other races and religions.
Artist: An attitude toward life which I hate as violently as anything I know. Why? Because it destroys everything in life I value.
Lawyer: A group which does not believe in government interference, and will overthrow the government if necessary.
Journalist: A left-wing group prepared to use force.
Advertising man: A governmental form which regards the individual as the property of the state.
I like this, thank you, as it shows how there was no consistent definition of the term even when there were active proponents making the news. When I say the Fascists were the good guys in WW2, I'm not referring to the politico-economics that the Axis Powers employed and advocated (technically only Italy was fascist), but simply their nationalistic authoritarian style v the Allies as liberal democracies and the USSR as a revolutionary totalitarian regime.
OK in English, but a translator would've told you that by Mussolini's definition of Fascism, we've had it in the US since the big 19th century capitalist barons decided that government should always bend to their wishes. UK/US collaboration at the end of WWI, at the urging of these barons, led to a post-Versailles military attempt to thwart the Bolsheviks, and perhaps formed one of the roots of how the Soviet Union reacted to Hitler in seeking that Stalin-Hitler madmen pact, prior to the USSR's finally mobilizing against the Nazis. Hence, any reference to Fascismo isn't casual. It's a reference to the original source and an extension to its manifestations that predate Hitler and Mussolini. I'm trying to be more rigorous, rather than confusing it with any old form of authoritarianism, as is often done these days, which is what I sense you're trying to guard against.
I appreciate this more reasonable, less emotive explanation for your stated views. But now that I better understand where you're coming from, I see your sense of history is flawed because it passes over Jewish Power and its intervention into world events as if it didn't exist. Who were the Bolsheviks, who controlled the USSR, who egged the UK and US into WW2, what promise was made to found Israel, and looking back, who seeded the 19th century robber barons, who seized control of the Fed to insure they kept control of America's money power? Who is still calling the shots in the US, UK, Germany where politicians fawn over Bibi like he's a shining light and example of a new Churchill? Finally who did Churchill owe money to that kept him in line to Zionist wishes?
You think you're rigorous, but your version of historiography is full of kosher approved holes. That's why you need to read some revisionist history.
You're right that my knowledge is somewhat thin about the various kvosts (Georgian etc.) in the circa 1917 USSR power struggle and the exact role played by Churchill, but that was a side discussion, hardly central to the Libertarian issue, where simply my image of a Individual actually true to Lib principles would be Ron Paul, while others kept trying to ridiculously shove the Koch Brothers down my throat. But I'm interested in filling in the gaps in my understanding of that history, particularly one that's not "kosher approved". How about suggesting a source?
It was your other critic who cited the Libertarian issue. I was strictly critiquing from a revisionist p.o.v. As an aside I will add that Ron Paul was someone I liked during his tenure. Maybe I even voted for him once.
When it comes to WW2 revisionist history, Mike King's The Bad War is the easiest to tackle. Unfortunately it's banned by Amazon. The style is not academic, which may or may not appeal,so be forewarned. There are other historians and other publications more intellectually demanding. The Barnes Review is also an easy read magazine, which began w/ WW2 criticism, but now covers the gamut of controversial historical events.