When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

[fkizz]

The (new) left wing, in their wealthy comfortable positions with cushy jobs, discriminate the Working Class, the Proletariat, simply because they are White Proletariats, they get demonized by the (new) left wing.

What would happen after this routinely happens would be obvious.

[Coughdrop addict]

The (new) left wing, in their wealthy comfortable positions with cushy jobs, discriminate the Working Class, the Proletariat, simply because they are White Proletariats, they get demonized by the (new) left wing.

What would happen after this routinely happens would be obvious.

That is completely false. Liberals have always been for the benefit of the working class. That's why liberals pushed for laws for a minimum wage, a forty-hour work week, an end to child labor, compulsory schooling, paid leave, sick days, and safety standards for workers and for consumer products. And you will never find a single line in any of those laws that reads "except for white people".

[Abdülmecid I]

You haven’t given me any evidence thst he’s a fascist beyond saying he supports coups, homophobia, and eugenics. None of that makes someone a Fascist. It makes them an ultra-authoritarian. I don’t like the guy but if you want to argue against him don’t contort the (nowadays useless) meaning of the word ‘Fascist’. Well, that and the Guardian says so. Give me some relevant qualitative similarities between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Bolsonaro’s ideology that would make him a Fascist. Does he want to overthrow liberal democracy, approve of political violence, desire autarky, hyper-militarism, anti individualistic, ethnonationalist, anti-Liberalism, anti-Conservatism, anti-Communism, is he revolutionary.

The relevant links have already been provided. Bolsonaro has expressed his wish to overthrow democracy, has criticized the junta for torturing, instead of murdering, the dissidents, believes that maroons are inherently inferior and that the majority should dominate the minority and has encouraged his groupies to shoot at the supporters of the Worker's Party, thus not only approving of, but also advocating for political violence. His admiration for flagellation and sterilisation of the undesirables has already been underlined. Granted, he doesn't tick the box of autarky, but that doesn't disqualify him from being a fanboy of fascism, especially considering how neither fascism nor any of its offshoots is marked by any coherence regarding the economy. I can't think of any other ideology that combines all these features, Aexodus.

[The spartan]

You’re gonna have to tell me where those articles prove he’s fascist, because I read them, and the thing they all seemed to talk about was Bolsonaro saying he would ‘jail red outlaws’ aka leftists. I do believe he is referring to Lula who was jailed on corruption charges. Again, imprisoning (or murdering and the like) political opponents is practiced by many different political groups and isn’t unique to Fascism.

There are important signifies that I think are fair to judge people by to help determine if they are a Fascist or not. They are usually: Radical, rather than Conservative, so, dismissive of limiting institutions; ultra-nationalistic; pro-totalitarian and autocracy; and push for an autarkic (nationally self-sufficient) economic policy. It's not uncommon to see promotion of traditional social (or ethnic) hierarchy mixed in there as well. If the person in question is matching a lot of these platforms, it may be fair to call them a Fascist.

[Heathen Hammer]

First, support for fascism is not minimal as you can see from the scource I provided. It's spreading through Europe riding a wave of economic catastrophe for the majority of its population. So, no. Secondly, no - Bolsonaro isn't the Latin American 'Reagan' and to even suggest this is beyond ridiculous. It also speaks volumes on how you want to present conservatives in your argumentation - conservatives don't want their opposition murdered, beaten up, whipped or otherwise mistreated. They just want things to keep going as they always have and begrudgingly give in to any new thing.

Second, again you are incorrect. While there are a lot of idiots left and right of the spectrum tossing terms around casually (and these are the ones mostly broadcasted since outrage sells and the media are on to us), this thread is not this case. And when you have a person like Bolsonaro who openly glorifies the fascist juntas of the past and claims that they needed to kill 3o,ooo more people to 'save the country' you bet your sweet ass I am going to call this man a fascist. The problem is, either through ignorance of what this term means or intentionally, you don't.

Then links you used just prove my point - as media is desperately trying to portray growing opposition to status quo as "rise of fascism" to discredit any criticism by implying that being unhappy with current state of things is somehow fascistic. It is not. Media in this case is just propaganda tool for elites, not more, and using it as authority on the matter is not in good faith.
As for Bolsonaro - he likes the "tough guy talk" but aside from provoking radical neo-marxists with edgy statements he hasn't really done anything that would remotely bring him closer to conventional definition of fascism.

[Kritias]

Then links you used just prove my point - as media is desperately trying to portray growing opposition to status quo as "rise of fascism" to discredit any criticism by implying that being unhappy with current state of things is somehow fascistic. It is not. Media in this case is just propaganda tool for elites, not more, and using it as authority on the matter is not in good faith.
As for Bolsonaro - he likes the "tough guy talk" but aside from provoking radical neo-marxists with edgy statements he hasn't really done anything that would remotely bring him closer to conventional definition of fascism.

Of course! The media are elite propaganda. I suspect that the academic community is also equally compromized so giving you an academic source on how Brazil has descended into fascism [2] will also be met with the same level of suspicion by you. So, what's left as a legitimate source? Your opinion? My opinion? Alternative media, perhaps? Blogs? Breitbart? The Fox News? The fact is you shunning indescriminately media from around the globe as propaganda because it doesn't support your world view just shows your distrust of the medium of information, and how you got to the ideas you peddle here.

And no - Reagan never said any of the many horrifying things Bolsonaro said. So he's not Brazilian 'Reagan' or the Brazilian 'Churchill' as Bolsonaro envisions himself. He's just a fascist politician. And a textbook one at that.

[Bob69Joe]

The (new) left wing, in their wealthy comfortable positions with cushy jobs, discriminate the Working Class, the Proletariat, simply because they are White Proletariats, they get demonized by the (new) left wing.

What would happen after this routinely happens would be obvious.

Trust me, the Clintons, Bushes, Obamas, are all proletariat themselves. It's only what happens after 50+ years of reducing every standard to succeed in your job. Each of them is only surviving for so long on the inheritance of their family, the time of partisan politics is seriously used up now. There is no future for politicians unless they aggressively promote anti-democratic ideology. Hierarchy of Europe's feudal past seems preferable to the realists.

It's not uncommon to see promotion of traditional social (or ethnic) hierarchy

There is nothing strange in preferring to be with people most like you.

[The spartan]

There is nothing strange in preferring to be with people most like you.

This has nothing to do with my post, regardless of your, uh, 'interesting' take on who "people most like you" are. Fascists commonly have a strong interest in traditional social (and ethnic) hierarchies; whether you think that is a good thing doesn't change if it is true or not.

[Bob69Joe]

This has nothing to do with my post, regardless of your, uh, 'interesting' take on who "people most like you" are. Fascists commonly have a strong interest in traditional social (and ethnic) hierarchies; whether you think that is a good thing doesn't change if it is true or not.

You explain that social and ethnic hierarchies are ideals of fascists. Social hierarchies existed in European kingdoms for the reason that the most successful families that survived hundreds of generations were given the wealth and power by the other "lesser" families who were only to come into the play at a later scene. This is the organic upspringing of a people, the ones anyone should wish to be most likened to, IF they are even of the genetic lineage of that people.

You need to explain what an ethnic hierarchy is, for I don't think such a thing exists. Unless you meant an ideology of supremacy.

[The spartan]

You explain that social and ethnic hierarchies are ideals of fascists.

No, I said they put an emphasis on traditional social hierarchies; i.e. traditional roles for women as home makers, dismissing of cultural progressiveness, emphasis on origin myths, etc etc. This is to contrast it with Communism, which was partially there to do away with traditional social hierarchy. So Communists would be supporting a woman going out and becoming a self-determining laborer while Fascists would support a woman being part of a family unit fulfilling traditional female roles.

And that is just one dynamic of Fascism, Conservatives are also interested in traditional social hierarchy but are obviously not Fascist. Just because some person may support any given of the platforms I mentioned doesn't automatically make them a Fascist. If somebody finds themselves agreeing with most or all of the platforms, then it starts to become a lot more indicative.

You need to explain what an ethnic hierarchy is, for I don't think such a thing exists. Unless you meant an ideology of supremacy.

It's essentially supremacy; the idea that certain ethnicities are intrinsically superior to others and have a rightful place above the others. Ethnic mythos is commonly referenced by Fascist to promote the idea of intrinsic ethnic superiority. This is the stuff that allowed Fascists to do more of their most heinous crimes against humanity.

[Heathen Hammer]

Of course! The media are elite propaganda. I suspect that the academic community is also equally compromized so giving you an academic source on how Brazil has descended into fascism [2] will also be met with the same level of suspicion by you. So, what's left as a legitimate source? Your opinion? My opinion? Alternative media, perhaps? Blogs? Breitbart? The Fox News? The fact is you shunning indescriminately media from around the globe as propaganda because it doesn't support your world view just shows your distrust of the medium of information, and how you got to the ideas you peddle here.

And no - Reagan never said any of the many horrifying things Bolsonaro said. So he's not Brazilian 'Reagan' or the Brazilian 'Churchill' as Bolsonaro envisions himself. He's just a fascist politician. And a textbook one at that.

I think the confusion lies in you assigning legitimacy of sources based on how it corresponds with your own views. Any media that says something you agree with it automatically credible, and visa versa. A convenient stance, but not the most intellectually honest one. And if your views allign with views of the elites, it is quite easy to just ignore any criticisms that would stem from rather rational assumption that there might be some collusion between the elites and mainstream media owned by the same elites.
In any case, in reality so far we haven't really noticed Bolsonaro doing anything that would put him within the conventional definition of "fascism". The main problem is his disregard for environment - ironically typically a liberal trait.

[Bob69Joe]

On environment:

LEFTist environmental spasms are motions of fear mongering, for power grabs and profit, like all their headlines designed to capture outrage and direct it. Bolsonaro isn't going to take any ideological stance against LEFTism FOR the environment. He's only going to put his effort in organizing people to a goal. Remember, Brazil is still a ********.

Third World methods: Slash-and-Burn agriculture
https://qz.com/1692804/fires-in-the-...y-intentional/

The battle for a direction toward the future is between ideologues and realists. The impact of overpopulation is only going to diminish through non-intervention in disasters of famine, pestilence, and weather. It's only going to happen, and each death will be totally personal, not affecting anyone but those who are being present at the time and then, it's over. I'm not being crazy fascist or whatever, I'm also not being crazy LEFTist and saying send them all to the First World. A sane human being, those still left on the Earth containing a Soul, will understand this. "Humanity," the globalist bandwagon, is very, very sick and dying rapidly. Palliative care for the passing of human beings from living is our only mission. Most of our attempts at being present in their passing will be pushed back with feral aggression and any order of hospitality will resemble the medieval.

Now, we look at the above, and we must determine for ourselves, each of us as individuals but also as who do we belong to and how or why we should be anywhere but with our own. The missions to demonstrate an order that can grasp the difficulty of the inevitable(and inenviable), but to also procure in the minds of those suffering such conflicts a direction toward the future for their own people, must only be an appeal to the intuition of traditional society(immanent/living/breathing knowledge), which is unique to each people, not an ideology, or any of our own methods that we employ at home; but that after the crises are settled, no longer will the First World nations import the distracted fallacies of individual autonomy dressed in educated/bureaucratic ideology of methods which can work on anyone(tabula rasa), which has certainly been the mission of democracy since Napoleon. This isn't a stance of supremacy. First World nations have lost sight of reality, which is why the disasters ahead are present. What we can offer after the dust settles, is the same eternally recurring theme in all human conscience, which is only an adaptation to present life for as long as successfully as possible, success not measured by universal standard. If man wishes a view to the stars, then we must turn off the lights, as a quaint contradiction to our myths of progression.
_____
Napoleon was becoming an adult in a time of the greatest crisis to him and his nation, which was a manufactured crisis. It may not have resembled democracy at its inception, but if democracy was to become its outcome, then how do we have faith in individuals? Individuals-as-the-highest-measure-of-a-groups-goals, an inherent contradiction. If we are thinking, then we are bypassing the only true thought required to have rest and activity. This, or that, may oppose the other, but they are necessary for a system. My advice is to depart completely from mainstream dialogue. The nations are indeed corrupt and it is individuals alone who are clambering for their escape through that tiny hole in the sky.

[fkizz]

Then links you used just prove my point - as media is desperately trying to portray growing opposition to status quo as "rise of fascism" to discredit any criticism by implying that being unhappy with current state of things is somehow fascistic. It is not. Media in this case is just propaganda tool for elites, not more, and using it as authority on the matter is not in good faith.

It's a case of "mandatory hapiness" - either you are happy with things or maybe, maybe you are a fascist.

Of course it isn't this binary, but current propaganda plays with such themes.

Trust me, the Clintons, Bushes, Obamas, are all proletariat themselves. It's only what happens after 50+ years of reducing every standard to succeed in your job. Each of them is only surviving for so long on the inheritance of their family, the time of partisan politics is seriously used up now. There is no future for politicians unless they aggressively promote anti-democratic ideology. Hierarchy of Europe's feudal past seems preferable to the realists.

They aren't proletariat. They are among the wealthiest and most powerful dynasties on the plant. You could say they once were proletariat, but currently not the case.

[Bob69Joe]

Measure of wealth, not its use, and the ambition to seize power, not its use, is to be our epitaph of our mythological wars for equality on our way to a civilizational collapse of warlords and tyrants.

Instead of insisting on the egalitarian ideology of having every individual conform to socializing as the only way to ascend to a limited role propelled by mass assembly, European man's honor was bound in the fates of individuals not our perceptions of them. Clinton is bound to be a slave for the rest of his life, so goes the nature of the tyrant's hold on control.

[fkizz]

Either way, the Clinton's are not Proletariat, sorry.

[Bob69Joe]

They are and they are not. How about that? Let's believe this life we live is extraordinary, good, beautiful, and true.

[Knight of Heaven]

That is completely false. Liberals have always been for the benefit of the working class. That's why liberals pushed for laws for a minimum wage, a forty-hour work week, an end to child labor, compulsory schooling, paid leave, sick days, and safety standards for workers and for consumer products. And you will never find a single line in any of those laws that reads "except for white people".

The disconnect between the Liberals and the working class is a known issue, and it isn't exactly new either. At least in America isn't. There is nothing false about it. It exists now, and it has been existing for a while.

Btw the modern left wing rhetoric coming even from elements of the center left, has a lot of anti white bias, mostly it is influenced by academic spheres,this days, where identity politics is all the rage. Naturally in such dynamic white people are viewed with a innate privilege and oppressive disposition, where everyone else that isn't white is naturally unprivileged, and being oppressed. Such is one of Manny facets of such rhetoric, the model is used for other identity markers like gender and Sexual identity or orientation as well. All of those in vogue right now.

It's essentially supremacy; the idea that certain ethnicities are intrinsically superior to others and have a rightful place above the others. Ethnic mythos is commonly referenced by Fascist to promote the idea of intrinsic ethnic superiority. This is the stuff that allowed Fascists to do more of their most heinous crimes against humanity.

Yes that would be the historical lesson to have.

Although i do think what we got today in our societies, is more of a nativist identitarian ideology, a counter movement of the multicultural globalism of the modern world if you will, then actually a ideology of racial supremacy.

Imo.

[Diocle]

I'd like to remind here that in Piazzale Loreto hanging upside down alongside Benito Mussolini there was also Nicola Bombacci, an Anarco-Marxist, co-founder of the Communist Party of Italy in 1921.

wiki-source

In 1919 Bombacci became secretary of the PSI (Italian Socialist Party) and " in the general election in the same year he led the socialists to their best result ever; the PSI won the election with 32.3% and became the first party by votes and seats." Bombacci was an intimate friend of Benito Mussolini " He was expelled from the Communist Party in 1927 for embracing a pro-Fascist position.From 1927 onwards Bombacci became an open Fascist, although he never officially joined the National Fascist Party." (and I can assure you that it was not an easy decision in those years).

" From his days in the Socialist Party as a fellow Massimalisti, Bombacci was a friend of Mussolini. In the La Verità journal in 1936, Bombacci confessed "his adhesion to Fascism but also to Communism” writing: “Fascism has made grandiose Social Revolution, Mussolini and Lenin, Soviet and Fascist corporate state, Rome and Moscow. Several stands already taken had to be rectified, we have nothing of which to ask pardon for as both in present and past we are impelled by the same ideal: the triumph of work.”

Bombacci ended his life shot by partisans and his cadaver was subsequently strung up in Piazzale Loreto on 28 April 1945.

Now the point is this: was Bombacci a Communist, or better, a Leninist, who decided that in his opinion the best way to support the interests of the working class was a strict alliance with Fascism? Or was he just a Fascist with a glorious revolutionary past?
If we are able to find an answer to this question, we are also close to find an answer to the main question implied by this thread: what actually is/was the Fascist Movement?
Or we are able to understand the intimate nature of Fascism and of Fascists, or we are condemned to repeat and replay again and again silly platitudes about Trump and his supposed Fascism, without understanding anything of what happened in those years and about what is happening today.

[Abdülmecid I]

In my opinion, the relationship between communism and fascism will be more accurately determined, by examining the political affiliations not of the body hanging next to the Duce, but of those responsible for ensuring that Mussolini and co. will spend their last moments together. Of course, the history of the fascist movement in its birthplace, the Kingdom of Italy, accurately illustrates its origins, goals and deeply reactionary nature. Mussolini's band firstly rose to prominence thanks to its unexpected success in crushing the socialist and communist strikes of the Biennio Rosso, despite the police's dismal failure, which sealed their reputation as reliable defenders of the status-quo against the threat posed by Marxist revolutionaries. The March on Rome prompted the monarchy and the financial-political elites of the country to ally with Mussolini, with the objective of desicively defeating the Communist opposition. Truth be told, although Mussolini favoured state interventionism in the economy, despite his earlier endorsement of free trade and laissez-faire, his fascist squads continued to attack the labour movement, as, for instance, the Turin massacre of 1922 demonstrates.

The career of other far-right ideologies, like German Nazism, reveal a similar strategy of combining a superficially radical rhetoric with a later close cooperation with the local establishment, with their common enemy being Communists. The recipe for their victory is their appeal to apolitical masses, usually composed of small shopowners, veterans or even farmers, who are willing to resort to brutal violence against their adversaries, real or imaginary.
Nowadays, thankfully the aforementioned alliance has not occurred, presumably because the economy is not in the terrible conditions of post-war Italy or the aftermath fo the 1929 Depression. Moreover, at least since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Communism and any other Marxist offshoot holds a negligible influence, with its advocates not even being capable of getting admitted into their national Parliaments. There are some potential examples, like Bolsonaro's Brazil, where the current president collaborated with judicial officials, with the aim of invalidating the candidacy of his primary antagonist, but, with the exception of provocative remarks, neither is Bolsonaro's administration fascist nor is Lula anywhere near Bolshevism.

[Diocle]

In my opinion, the relationship between communism and fascism will be more accurately determined, by examining the political affiliations not of the body hanging next to the Duce, ..

Abdul, we are not speaking of a common body of a common man, we are talking of Nicola Bombacci, he was among the founders of the Communist Party of Italy in 1921 with Gramsci, Bordiga, Fortichiari, Misiano and Terracini!!!!



He was a damn Leninist, Abdul! During his life he met Lenin, he was at Moscow when everything happened, he was a sincere Communist but also a sincere Fascist, because in his view, after the failure of the Revolution in Russia, Germany, Italy and Europe, the only way to save the interests of the workers, was supporting the new program of the Fascist Party, founded on a strong national basis and a strong social coverage of masses' needs against the interests of globally based usurers, stateless speculators and monopolist capitalist associations, cartels, syndicates and trusts in search of slaves all over the world.

If we flatten our interpretation of Fascism on the nauseating Stalinist (for this very reason, false and mystifying) version of the story, focused on the rhetoric of the Fascist squads in service of capitalists in bowler hat and Astarkan coat, we renounce to understand why then and now, millions workers decided/decide to vote to support socialist movements based on a strong concept of nation and an effective self defense of the workers all over the world.