Fascism/Communism not just horseshoe - they ARE the same!

Post Reply New Topic

You seem to have some huge gaps in your knowledge, you might want to read up on the history of colonialism before start throwing around statistics. All social organizations have committed atrocities. You are just pointing out the ones that support your arguement.

Not entirely untrue.

Jordan Peterson actually inspired me to go look up the audio book of Gulag Archipelago on Youtube (it's on there in 7 parts) and so last spring I was listening to that at work all day for a while.


I think you might want to grab the Gulag Archipelago audio book on Youtube yourself and double-check that. The mistake that I think you're making is that with Nazism the philosophy was particularly odious and unified in a particular manner. The kinds of moral twisting, bending, and deforming of people you're describing - like the famous photo album of Auschwitz guards and their families having the time of their lives, was a type of moral folding and convolution just as warped and odious as that - just that it lacked a Mein Kampf or a Thule occultism to captivate the imaginations of those who'd relive it later vicariously through books, movies, film, etc. etc.



The more I cover the basis on Lenninism and Stalinism neither is all that different from the other. I think we maybe had this discussion somewhere else but with Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and now Venezuela, we're still looking for a version of this experiment that doesn't end the same way.

As for neo-Stalinists or neo-Lenninists, I just don't think that's looking in the right place. If you remember hearing at all about the raids on the Kulak farmers who were seen as well-off by the peasants who'd be repossessing their property and pretty much doing what they willed to with the property's inhabitants - we've got the same kinds of people right now running around in black masks, waving their black-block, and scratching their necks from methamphetamine use. When I referred to Antifa having a particular Mad Max or Warriors type of flavor I was being quite serious.

Another thing I'm even more serious about - if we ever, at all, in the US, decide that we should permanently ban free speech for nazi's the only even remotely non-odious way of doing such a thing is to have such an absolutely rigid definition of nazi that no one who fell into that category could be, empirically, anything but that and the definition would equally be so air-tight that anyone simply harassing someone right of center like a neoliberal or paleo-conservative could be legally be taken away for stalking or harassment on the clarity of the definition of nazi and that conservative's utter lack of fit in the definition. If the definition has a single drop of political malleability our system's screwed. Even if it doesn't we could still be screwed because if there's a president to revoke one group's freedom of speech permanently there's an active precedent for another group to be handled like that in an emergency, and then another....

We could debate of course whether people of the United States, Canada, Europe, our Australia and New Zealand have a right to free speech, democracy, or even freedom but I would be comfortable anywhere other than the defending side of that equation because I see no alternative to tyranny other than republican democracy on Enlightenment ideals.

I have to raise you the same challenge here - point me to the country where communism unfolded in a benevolent manner. At this point, perhaps in my own ignorance, I'm counting 100% rate of failure and despotism.

Also, since you're identifying colonialism as a risk can you let me know which country we should be keeping an eye on who might be taking the US as empire and pushing those of us they don't either kill with smallpox or kill outright onto reservations? The topic is current concerns regarding ideologies that can end freedom in tragedy if they succeed in the future - not necessarily who's done what to who in history.

funny, you're thinking of banning people from expressing themselves freely- and then wonder how to define the people whom to ban. I'd ban certain ideas, some things that are just sacred, like holocaust denial is a crime in German-speaking countries.
so, there, the neo-nazis march, and the news report, and the cops protect the few neo-nazis from the overwhelming mass of anti-nati demonstrators and it all is quite a bizarre spectacle.

I have to ask myself some hard questions right now because I'm seeing it expressed from several corners that I'm on the wrong side of the argument for defending free speech to the extent that I am.

I do know that there are some curtailments to freedom of speech in the US. For example shouting 'fire' in a theater won't fly, direct incitement of others to violence won't fly, and either demanding overthrow of the government or declaring plans to harm high gov't officials won't fly. OTOH we're very squeamish/timid about putting bans on people or groups of people themselves - mainly because of how our constitution was drafted and the reasons that are often cited as to why freedom of speech was assured the way it is.

I suppose I could offer as well that a significant number of our founding fathers were Freemasons and accordingly we inherited their allergy and distrust for the crown, the torch, and the tiara.