Maybe self defense would be justified, we'd have to look at the specific situation. But you're being dishonest here, you're not talking about a case where a person is making a credible threat against another, you were describing a situation where a political protest was attacked and broken up by thugs because they disagreed with the political message of said protest.
A protest organized by JQ neo-nazi's seeking to "unite the right" in an attempt to build a base for a serious political movement. A move that strangely looked exactly like what the Nazi's did in the 1920's. These same people pushing their pseudo-science race realism. These same people pushing a global jewish conspiracy. You are dishonestly attempting to portray the "disagreement" between the alt-right and the anti-fascists as a disagreement over the alt-rights political message. You are being very vague about what that political message was. So let me spell it out for you.
"One people, one nation, end immigration," Now, if this were just a Republican rally one could make the argument that this is a simple call to end immigration. It would be a stretch but one could make that argument. But they were not just Republicans. This was a rally put on by white nationalists. "One people," Does not mean the american people, it means white people. "one nation" again means a white nation, "end immigration" does not simply mean no more immigration, it's a first step in a larger political agenda to forcefully deport non-whites. Just like the Nazi Party. If it talks like a Nazi
"Jews will not replace us." Well, that is a very interesting thing to say. Not only was it a talking point ripped right out of Hitlers mouth, but it is nonsense. Given that I don't really see a mass conversion to Judaism, and that it is a laughable idea that the Jews in the US could reproduce at a rate fast enough to make any serious dent in the population statistics. But wait. That's right. These same white nationalists were pushing their utterly bogus white genocide Jewish conspiracy. "A secret cabal of rich powerful Jews are controlling the government from behind the curtain. They are using this power to import brown people into the country and to push race mixing on television corrupting the white youth. They push degenerate rap music, black music! Onto white children. They legalized gay marriage! They *gasp* put gay people on television. And what is the name of this grand Jewish conspiracy? Cultural Marxism! Cultural Marxism comes from the Frankfurt School a Jewish Marxist Collective of social theorists who planned to destroy the west! It's a Jewish Conspiracy! Hitler knew what they were up to and chased them out of Germany!" If it walks like a Nazi.
"Blood and Soil." What makes this interesting is that the phrase "Blut und Boden" was popularized in the 1930's by Richard Darre. Now what makes this particularly interesting is that it is a phrase that has been used by neo-nazi's in the US for a while but tends to be tied to the Aryan Brotherhood most often. It's a Nazi.
You think I am rude for calling you a stupid bitch? Then don't act like a stupid bitch. When a Nazi rally from 1920 plops itself down in the middle of Charlottesville in 2017 and people have a violent reaction because they have read the ending to that novel, they have seen the end of that movie, they have ridden that train to its end. You do not get to sit there and pretend that it was "just a political disagreement". Advocating for forced deportation (political violence), dog whistling Nazi propaganda, and pushing a white ethnostate, talking about implementing eugenics programs, is a credible threat of violence. Violence is always everywhere and at all times ethically justified against Nazi's. If one
SHOULD use violence against Nazi's is another question, but it is always ethically justified. This is because Nazism is constructed around unchangeable innate characteristics and seeks to use violence against those who have no way of gaining said characteristics.
I cannot stop being an octaroon. They can stop being fascists and white supremacists.
You're getting increasingly rude. What views am I parroting exactly. You are the one advocating violence against people who say things you disagree with. You have said again and again that you are anti-authoritarian but if you want to use violence to determine who can have a march or rally and who can't, if you want to use violence to distribute possessions as you see fit - then you are the authoritarian.
Now that I have more time to actually reply.
Parroting talking points. Well you've parroted the white genocide bullshit. You have parroted the anti-white nationalist = anti-white bullshit. And that is two off the top of my head.
Being anti-authoritarian does not mean being a pacifist. I am by and large quite against the use of violence as a rule even when it is justified. In large part this is because I am aware of history and aware of how quickly even the most justified uses of violence can suddenly turn into unjustified and unjustifiable bloodbaths. As a note you seem to be unable to distinguish between "X is Justified" and "X should be done". The fact that an action is justified does not imply the moral imperative that X
should be done, or that X is a good idea. Further you are ascribing a position to me which I did not put forward and which I do not hold. My only claim was that the violence on the part of the counter-protesters was justified ethically. I personally think that the use of violence in that case was a bad idea. Part of warfare is denying the enemy their objectives. While I cannot deny that the results of Charlottesville were positive in so far as it tore the mask off of the Nazi's and helped to drive much of the movement back underground. The results were subpar and ultimately a wash. It would have been far better to goad them into violent action and to soak up the casualties (both injuries and deaths) with a zero retaliation policy firmly in place. The effect would have either have been to destroy all credibility for white supremacy for the next two decades, or to drag the rest of the rats out of their hole. In the latter case they would have been emboldened and a second rally on the heals of the first would have been organized. At the second rally is when prejudicial violence should have been used against the alt-right but only after the alt-right began a physical conflict.
Finally to clarify something which you seem to be confused about. Authoritarianism is characterized by centralized power and limited political freedom. Your primary source of confusion seems to be around exactly what political freedom entails. Political freedom entails freedom from oppression and coercion. Advocating for fascism is advocating for oppression and coercion. no one has political freedom to oppress or coerces. That is not a right. Advocating for a white ethnostate is oppressive and coercive. No one has a right to advocate for an ethnostate. That is not a right. What is a right is the right to stop oppression and coercion. You are standing on your head and telling me I am upside down. This is a common fascist tactic. Opposing authoritarianism is authoritarian. Opposing fascism is fascist. Opposing racism is racist. Defending oneself against a credible threat of violence is offensive violence. To that I say I am not upside down, stop standing on your head.
Yes, I see that you do exactly that below with Eco's 14 traits of fascism.
I provided Umberto's 14 traits because you made the very stupid claim that the definition for socialism was specific and the definition for Nazism was vague. Nazism politically is defined as racial fascism. Thus I provided Umberto's 14 traits to counter your very stupid claim. I have a very specific meaning in mind when I call someone either a fascist or a Nazi.
If I were a Karen, I'd complain to a mod about your flames. I'm not so I just find them amusing. You are indeed advocating offensive violence against people with right wing views. That is what happened in Charlottesville, that is what your Antifa buddies love to do, that is exactly what you are saying that you're for. Violence is alright against people who you disagree with as long as you use the right words to describe your victims.
You just cannot stop lying. I already debunked your bullshit above but you have added to it so let me debunk that too.
There is a difference between saying "one should use violence" and "violence is justified". There is also a difference between saying "Violence is justified against people with right wing views" and saying "Violence is justified against individuals with certain right wing views.". I just think its really funny how reactionaries such as yourself will flipflop between "not everyone on the right is a white supremacist/nationalist/separatist/identitarian/ethnostater/whatever you are calling yourself this week, to "saying violence is justified against white supremacists is justified means your advocating for violence against everyone on the right".
The defining characteristic of a Karen is not talking to a manager, its not even their sex or gender. The defining characteristic of a Karen is that they are entitled little bitches who thinks they should get their way because.
Workers' co-ops are fine as long as they are voluntarily agreed upon. In a free society, any group of people can form a business and run it together as they please. Once you start using violence to decide who gets what, then we have a problem.
Ya for the most part I won't quibble about the details and will state I pretty much agree with this statement.
I'm for decentralizing power,
you are lying and I am about to demonstrate it.
which is why I am a nationalist and believe in states' rights,
bullshit. You are for states' rights because you want to use the law to oppress people and you don't want anyone challenging your bullshit. Your goal is not a libertarian society, but rather to mask your oppression behind warped and twisted libertarian principles. You want to mask racial enclaves behind "Free association" by restricting peoples ability to sell their property to non-whites. You want to be able to restrict individuals from disposing of inherited property as they see fit. You want to gerrymander voting districts to ensure that minorities are not represented in elections. You want your lies, indoctrination, and propaganda to go unchecked.
Local communities are great. I am a strong advocate for building up and being involved with local communities, or to indoctrinate children into pseudo-scientific beliefs. Individuals and communities are responsible for holding each other accountable. This does not mean that local communities have a right to practice discrimination based on innate characteristics.
and the autonomy of those nations and communities.
Autonomy another of those libertarian principles you pervert. You mask your racism behind "autonomy" redefining it so that autonomy only applies to things you like and things you want to do. You want to violate your children's autonomy by manufacturing racist institutions which "protect" them from darkies and queers. In reality you wish to create the appearance of autonomy without the ability for autonomy.
How can you be against authoritarian institutions when you went on a long diatribe about using extremely powerful centralized institutions (education and media) to control how other people's children think?
Because just like there is a difference between saying X is justified and X should be done, there is a difference between saying "X is my ideal vision of how the world should work" and "These are the current conditions which I must operate within". Getting from here to there is a process which is restricted by the material conditions at the time. In principle I do not oppose public education though I strongly oppose how currently operates. In an idealized world people would understand that a rising tide raises all boats and that a general education is necessary and useful to achieve that. At the moment however there are a lot of short sighted people. Additionally public education ought (moral imperative) to teach true things regardless of/and especially if their parents are opposed to it. A parent does not have a right to destroy an individuals mind with a distorted picture of the world and distorted truths about the world. Offspring are not property. The fact that a parents feelings get hurt by their offspring being taught that 1+1=2, that the world is not flat, that it is not 6,000 years old, that gender is a social construct, that sex is bimodal, that colors are not real, that race is not real, that democracy is a good thing, that history is messy, etc, is not something I care about. If the parents want to teach bullshit at home fine. I won't nor do I want to create laws to stop them. Children and youth however do have a right to be exposed to the information their parents are lying to them about and an opportunity to make up their own minds. If what they are taught is wrong then the parents ought to be able to explain why what they are being taught is wrong. You and I both know however that the bullshit reactionaries teach their offspring is bullshit and unless you are able to corrupt their critical reasoning skills they will know it. Remember one of the major changes that I advocate for public education is mandatory Critical Reasoning classes.
Getting rid of the public education system is beyond anyone at this point in time. There are however critical reforms which are necessary for transforming the current system from one which turns out cogs to one which fosters autonomy and independence of thought. The parents wishes matter not at all because, and say it with me, children are not property.
As to media being a centralized institution. Perhaps you forgot that you are talking with a socialist? Someone who advocates for worker ownership of the means of production and democracy in the workplace. YouTube and other social media cites are not centralized institution because that is where the majority of people go to consume their content. What makes them centralized is that they are controlled by a few elites at the top of [insert social media company name here], be that a CEO or the Board of Directors. The near monopoly of new services at this point is all but destroyed. Even the major television and production companies are scrambling not to go under now that user generated content can compete more freely than ever before. But that is not your objection really is it? Your objection is centered around the fact that liberals and leftists are capable of creating content people want to consume en mass, where as reactionary content and those who create it shrinks in favor every year.
The $$$ corporations make off of "woke" movies and shows not only turn outrageous profits showing that people actually want to consume "woke" content, but also creates monetary incentive for companies to keep producing "woke" content. Your problem isn't with the pandering and blatant cash grabs. Your problem is with darkies, queers, and non-traditional (helpless) women being portrayed in media. Your problem is with non-white actors being given leading roles. Your problem is with race mixing being portrayed as normal. Your problem is with queers being portrayed as normal. Your problem is with women being portrayed as autonomous individuals rather than having their identity be submerged in that of a man.
The deep seated irony here is that if you knew anything about the history of the movie and television industry or even the news industry you would know that these changes came about in spite of authoritarian structures intended to prevent just what has happened. The the left and then leftists didn't take over the corporations from the top and impose their will. They took it over by subversion and creating art that sold. The Motion Picture Production Code, The Comic Book Authority, The FCC all were created and enforced by reactionaries to control what content could and could not be produced. All highly conservative institutions at best and more often than not outright reactionary. We won media in spite of insanely wealthy corporations and the might and power of the US government attempting to suppress the left. With obscene and insane restrictions placed on us. We won. With being targeted. We won. With being blacklisted and locked out of media. We won. Sure it took longer. But by suppressing us you only made us stronger.
The saddest part is no matter how many times you attempt to suppress content you don't like you just won't learn. Jazz, Doo-wop , rock, more or less all of nigger culture, all of queer culture, all of leftist culture. Every fucking time. It's like you have never heard of the Streisand Effect. And every single time the niggers, or the kikes, or the queers, or the socialists, or the commies whoever the boogieman of the day is always win. And then you try to appropriate it, and then the cycle starts all over again. Each time we push that window just a little bit further. Each time you try to tame it, change it, make it acceptable to reactionary sensibilities. And we reject your taming of our art and make new art, each time your children are drawn to the new, the living art and move away from the sterilized art.
Art is the one thing fascists and authoritarians hate, because art by its nature is subversive.
A note: "Control other peoples children". Again. Children. Are. Not. Property. You are a temporary custodian who's role is to provide children with the tools to reason such that they are autonomous independent agents, not psychological clones of yourself who in order to hold a correct view must disregard facts. This is you standing on your head again. Only a perverted mind could possibly see teaching children facts and critical reasoning skills as "controlling other people".
How am I against a free marketplace of ideas? I am 100% in favor of free speech, even for people who don't return the favor like you. What have I lied about?
Because as I have explained with education repeatedly you are for the free market place of idea's right up until your idea's don't hold water. Then you seek to protect your children from the facts. You are 100% in favor of free speech but not the responsibility that comes along with that. You don't want free speech you want freedom from the consequences of your speech. You don't give a flying fuck about free speech you want to consume media that validates your emotions. You have lied about being 100% in favor of free speech. What you are 100% in favor of is an echo chamber. And before you do something really stupid and accuse me of living in an echo chamber I will remind you that I started out on the "right", and further that I was a staunch capitalist. I was a full blown Objectivist which is about as not left as someone can get without being a race realist. And I am not talking about your "I read atlas shrugged once" Objectivist. I was deep into philosophy even then.
It is my position that anyone is free to say anything they want whenever they want. They are also free to face the consequences. You want to spread whatever lies you want and face no consequences.
I'm all for people openly stating their positions. I wish you'd just admit for being a totalitarian wannabe tyrant, but you have essentially done so in an extremely inefficient manner.
Again stop standing on your head and telling me I am upside down. Opposing oppression is not oppression. Opposing coercion is not coercion. Opposing authoritarianism is not authoritarian. Opposing totalitarianism does
not make someone a totalitarian. I know you really want that to be the case but that is just not how it works. Seeking to destroy bad/false ideas on the battle field of ideas does not make one a tyrant. Preventing you from creating echo chambers where you can indoctrinate children freely does not make one a tyrant. I know you
feel oppressed because your not allowed to oppress. I know you
feel coerced because you are not allowed to coerce. But baby doll the facts don't care about your feeling. And the fact is that you are a fascist racist.
I care, but I thought that one of the rare things that leftists actually get right is that it can be a problem for a nation to go around the world trying to force their values on other people. The left fights tooth and nail covering up those sorts of attacks carried out by Muslims when they do it in Europe. Maybe you should show your concern for that issue by opposing the open border internationalists who are bringing that extremist culture to Europe as we speak.
The left is not nor has it ever been isolationist. The left recognizes that isolationist policies is what caused nearly every major conflict in history. The left is opposed to military and economic imperialism. This is not the same thing as being in favor of isolationism. Further the left does not "cover up" attacks carried out by Muslims when they do it in Europe. There is nuance involved that I am not going to waste my time explaining to someone who puts feelings over facts. If you are interested I suggest you do research into stochastic effects and how further marginalizing marginalized communities prevents or retards integration.
I'm not anti-science or anti-vac. I am anti-egalitarian though and a race realist depending on how you define it.
One of the things I dislike about English. The you there was the general (you) not the specific (you). A race realist is not someone who believes that haplogroups exist or that there are variations within haplogroups. A race realist is someone who believes in race (which is different than haplogroups) and further believes that there are innate and intrinsic differences beyond standard variations between the races. Race realists believe and/or that A) Race, culture, and nationality are tied together. B) there is meaningful cognitive difference between races (ie IQ/Critical Reasoning), they may also believe that violence and race are tied together.
Where the hell are you pulling this stuff from?
Well lets see... For starters blacks have systematically been fucked over for the past 200+ years. Harmful laws and policies which target blacks continue to be written and enforced. You oppose any and all attempts to mitigate and or undo the damage done to these communities by these laws and policies. On the foreign front, the US has enacted malevolent imperialist polices, corporations have fucked over entire nations to make a buck exploiting both individuals are resources. And you oppose any attempt to mitigate and or undo the damage. So... ya. You have no problem with the rigged system or how many people it fucks over. This completely leaves aside the problems caused by inherited wealth.
I'm for personal freedom, including voluntary association.
Stop lying. You are not for voluntary association. You use voluntary association as a fig leaf to cover up your racist bullshit. Nobody is stopping you from voluntarily associating with anyone you want to. We both know that is not what you mean. What you mean is that you want the right to not have to look at or acknowledge the existence of queers and niggers. You want the right to make sure that your neighbors and your neighbors children cannot sell their property to queers and niggers. You want to create institutions which prevent free voluntary association but to be able to mask it as being pro freedom. You want to create institutions which prevent your children from associating with queers and niggers. You want to create institutions which prevent your children from even the possibility of being exposed to queers and niggers just in case doing so might cause your children to think queers and niggers are people too and they are people just like themselves and the people they know. You want to create coercive institutions intended to penalize harshly anyone who steps outside your arbitrary accepted bounds.
Being against white nationalism doesn't mean that you're anti-white. Most of the members of this forum are against white nationalism but aren't anti-white. Leftists though, are almost always anti-white racists. They think that whites are somehow uniquely evil and need to be opposed. They think that whites advocating for their racial interests is the most evil thing ever and other races advocating for their racial interests is great - you can't have it both ways.
Fuck I hate tumbler. I would absolutely love to blame you for this perception (and it is a perception not a reality). I might even blame you if not for my own personal experience and first hand knowledge of how this perception came to be. I have already linked the mayocide video several times and I strongly suggest you check it out. As someone who once held the belief that the left was mostly made up of anti-white racists I understand exactly where that perception comes from. Most (though not all of it) comes from Black Nationalists and Tankies. Black Nationalists are not left or leftist but are associated with the left because most blacks are on the left. Tankies... there are not words strong enough for what I think of them. Irrational Authoritarian Psychopaths the lot of them is the most mild thing I can think of to say about them. They are "left" by the two axis American standard (which is fucked because the farthest right in American politics is Authoritarian racists {Nazi's} and the farthest left is Authoritarian Socialists {Tankies}). Both of which are minorities of minorities with voices disproportionate to their size. The fact that leftists will Ironically say things that takies and black nationalists say seriously is a major fucking failing on the left. One which we are attempting to correct.
Timestamp 22:48-25:23 is the nuanced view of the left. He recently started his black nationalist arc. He says more or less what I have said above and have said in previous posts only he is applying it to black nationalists not white nationalists.
Back to the leftism vocabulary. The idea of "whiteness" is bullshit. White people have their own unique genetic traits just like any other geographically clustered population. They have committed atrocities against other people, they have been the victims of atrocities. Almost always what determined who was the victim and who was the perpetrator was based on who had the strongest armies at the given time. You hate white people, you just want to use your, lets say dog whistle, to make it sound less odious.
See this is what I meant when I referred to your use of newspeak. Newspeak in 1984 (the origin of the term) was about essentializing and then oversimplifying nuanced ideas. Reactionaries define newspeak as nuance, thus attempting to make the term newspeak a victim of newspeak.
Yes haplogroup R1B does indeed have it's own unique genetic traits. The culture of haplogroup R1B is not however a genetic trait. I do not hate people who belong to haplogroup R1B. I hate people with exclusionary ideologies based around intrinsic traits. Regardless of their skin color or of their haplogroup I hate exclusionary ideologies based around intrinsic traits. My focus tends to be (but is not exclusively) centered around the largest and most immediate source of that ideology locally.
You attempt to use newspeak to conflate two distinct terms in order to justify your position that I hate white people. Even though above I said exactly what I have been saying only this time only refraining from using terms which you find offensive.
Amazingly enough, you said something true.
I have said many true things. That you refuse to recognize that what I have said is true does not make it any less true.
More attempt at newspeak.
That describes me more than you.
You don't hate brown people you just don't want to see them on TV or to live next to them. You don't think brown people are subhuman you just think there are innate genetic differences which make them inferior cognitively. You don't hate brown people you just don't want the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars removing lead from their environment even though it would be a fraction of what the government has spent removing lead from white areas. You don't hate brown people you just want them to leave the US and if they don't leave you want them to be deported back to
africa mexico.
You have advocated using violence against people for saying things you disagree this. That is silencing people.
Yes! Yes! I very much disagree with people who think I ought to be deported or gassed for being an octaroon. I very much and very strongly disagree with people who advocate for state violence against me and people I care about. This isn't "just" a disagreement however and you are lying if you attempt to paint it that way. Hitler didn't start by gassing the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and queers, and others he didn't like. He started by fermenting hate based on intrinsic characteristics. Further and I don't know how many times I have to say it before it sinks in, there is a difference between saying something is justified and saying something should be done. I advocate for the right to self defense. When a mob begin reenacting a seen out of a 1920's Nazi rally. Fuck yes that is self defense.
Yeah, you don't want to silence people, you just want extremely negative consequences (like violence) when they say things you don't like. Sounds like free speech to me.
Firstly free speech laws does not cover threats of harm or of incitement to violence. I would call reenacting a 1920's Nazi rally incitement to violence.
That is what I think, which is why I see everything you advocate as being so dangerous. You do want to stop people from doing what they want. You don't want to force your ideology on them. You do want to use violence to silence dissent. You do...
again with the standing on your head. I advocate using violence in self defense. They are allowed to believe racist bigoted shit all they want, they are free to face the social and financial consequences of their actions. And because you cannot figure it out let me spell it out for you. There is a very real and meaningful difference between dissent and between attempting to bring about an ethnostate by inciting hatred of groups based on intrinsic characteristics.
There we go. That's really vile as are the ways you say you plan on eradicating cultures.
please explain to me what is vile about wanting to see bigoted cultures eradicated? Please explain why wanting to see misogynist cultures eradicated is vile?
How is this a boogeyman? There is a difference between sex and gender. Sex exists and gender (as SJW's define it) does not, which is why the whole "transgender" thing is incoherent. Transsexuality isn't necessarily, at least the claim that someone can be biologically male with a female brain and/or mind (or vice versa) is concrete hypothesis that can investigated.
Well there you go either stupid or lying again. The distinction between sex and gender goes back to the early 1900's and has been widely accepted since the 60's. Gender as the SJW's define it has been defined that way for 60 years by sociology which studies phenomena of culture and society. Sex has been recognized as bimodal for the same amount of time. Bimodal means that it is
not binary. Fun fact. Sex in Sea Horses was one of the primary motivating factors in defining biological sex the way it is currently defined. It also lead to female Sea Horses becoming male Sea Horses and vice versa. Who knew it was Sea Horses that broke our model of sex.
As to gender not existing. I guess punk doesn't exist, or cowboys, or goth, or nerd, or american, or English, or European, or African, or Christian, or Muslim, or, or, or. Hell according to you culture doesn't exist by your logic. There is a difference between saying something is a social construct and saying it doesn't exist. Social constructs exist in so far as any human construct (including sex) can be said to exist. Science is a social construct.
Now setting aside that you just went full truscum on me. Chimerism is a thing. Not only can it be investigated but we have investigated it. Turns out. Yup. We also have no idea how rare it is, only that however rare we thought it was before it's much less rare than we thought. Not exactly common but not as rare as we thought either.
Being transgender is about identity. Just like being cisgender is about identity. You either identify with the gender you are assigned at birth or you do not. If you do not then you are trans. That's how it works. Dysphoria may or may not be involved. The level of dysphoria may vary. What is needed to relieve the dysphoria may vary.
Transpeople get the same benefit I give to everybody - I leave them alone and mind my own business. How they identify, what clothes they wear, and what they do to their bodies is no concern of mine.
Something tells me you are not being entirely truthful here. I cannot exactly say you are lying yet but chances are that you are lying. Given the kinds of positions you have advocated for and that you have hidden your motives behind libertarian principles something tells me you are lying and that your "i leave them alone and mind my own business" is more of the same.
Cultural Marxists exist, regardless of what we decide to call them. They are a duplicitous bunch who like to hide their true intentions and so refuse to take up a label. We can call the movement social justice, intersectionality, or whatever - but it needs a name.
Oh sweetheart. Cultural Marxist is a (1920's) Nazi spook. Marxism is a Jewish plot muhhahahahah. Subversive? Ya. Duplicitous? no. The Frankfurt school was quite open with what it was doing as have been the majority of socialists (law of large numbers and all) when they are allowed to be.
It's not a dog whistle for Jews. Most people who hate SJW's would agree with people like Paul Gottfried or Murray Rothbard, which I do.
Having read everything written by Murray Rothbard I am well aware of what he believed as well as what he wrote about socialism, considering his anti-socialist views informed my own previous view. I hate SJW's (or at least the character) as do a majority on the left. It's why we have been and are actively cleaning them out of our community. We knew they were a problem, we had no idea how big a problem they were. What I do find amusing though is that the anti-sjw's have become the new sjw's. Stare into an abyss and all that.
My feeling actually do care about facts. I think what you meant to say is that facts don't care about my feelings, which would be true and nobody on the right claims otherwise. People who actually say that feelings are more important than facts are the post-modernists on the left.
No darling I said what I meant. Your feelings don't care about the facts. See one of the facts you don't care about is what post-modernism means or entails. It's a buzzword to you meaning that it contains no content. I will give you a hint though. Modernism is characterized by logical positivism. Thus the post in post-modernism is post-logical positivism. You use newspeak because attempting to figure out what post-modernism entails is too much for you. Instead you would rather take second and third hand accounts of what it is and just run with that narrative. I get it. Thinking is hard, especially for reactionaries.
Here we go, copy and pasting Umberto Eco. I honestly don't care what he has to say on the topic. If anybody is going to define fascist, it should probably be a fascist rather than an anti-fascist.
And how exactly do you think he came up with his 14 points cupcake? There is no possible way he read fascist literature from various fascist regimes centering primarily on Italian Fascism and then distilled their general principles out of it. Having actually read fascist literature I have found it a pretty good summary.
Nazism - that is to say the National Socialist German Workers Party - is way more specific than just racist fascism. Of course, I bet we could go down a rabbit hole about how "racism" should even be defined.
Nazism (the driving philosophy of the party) is racial fascism. You are correct though in stating that the German Nazi party is more specific than that. But you reactionaries are never very good at telling the difference between principles and polices. Nazism is principles, Nazi Party Platform is policy (ie the translation of philosophy in practices). Just like The American Nazi Party and all the other Nazi Parties that existed outside of Germany are policy expressions of the philosophy of Nazism. But I get that is difficult for your reactionary mind to comprehend.