fascism in America?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: fascism in America?

Post by henry quirk »

User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:33 pmThe Big Joke and the Big Lie basically revolving around the assumption that many Republican politicians know that Trump's narrative is basically just bullshit; but they sustain it themselves because they recognize in turn that millions of Trump fanatics among the white working class "masses" and the evangelicals [all voters] really are dumb or ignorant enough not to get the joke themselves. So, in order to win elections themselves, they have to go along with it.
The NYTs, just before and then immediately after Trump's election, purposefully and consciously resolved to use any means necessary to undermine Trump's legitimacy. In fact there was a telling editorial in which the author proposed that, given the danger Trump represented, that journalism and journalists might be ethically required to use *any means necessary* to undermine him. That is, they'd move from being journalists reporting the events of the day dispassionately and journalistically, to ideological activists attempting to mold culture and perspective ("Maoist" operatives) in those directions they determined were the right ones.

It should be pretty clear to all concerned (though I recognize that this is not understood generally) that institutions and empowered individuals, the administrative and intelligence apparatuses, and certainly the so-called tech sector, concentrated their efforts in this direction.

To point this out is not to *support Trump* or to, say, excuse Trump, but rather to point out that concentrations of power and also a global community of interests are threatened by Trump and his brand of nationalism. The best way to understand what that 'brand' desires or how it orients itself would be to examine the discourse of Steve Bannon who seems to have best expressed it (or at least expressed it in a reasoned way).

It seems to me -- attempting to *see things fairly* if that is even possible -- that if there had not been a whole range of deceptive and devious manoeuvres undertaken during Trump's presidency and certainly during the re-election, that Trump could well have won. But I start from this assertion: It was determined that he must not be re-elected, and so any means necessary would be employed and that this was understood to be 'ethical'. Sidney Powell's claims fell flat, obviously, but then there was the telling Time article that, rather gloatingly, described what actually was done. [The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election].
There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.
But none of this is really the point. The point? There are vast power struggles going on behind the scenes but the nature of these struggles tends to remain submerged and to a degree invisible. Power, generally speaking (and truthfully speaking) will use 'any and all means' to gain its objectives.

So one way to see and understand that is to examine how the political establishment at another historical juncture, in collusion with the media establishment, and in collusion with business interests and other interest-concentrations, fought successfully against Sixties Radicalism. The involvement of the US government's political police (the FBI and other security agencies) was revealed and presented. There was, quite literally, a clandestine war waged against the revolutionary underground armies (the Black liberation movement and its various allied movements) as well as the American Indian Movement on the reservations in which the FBI operated as a paramilitary force and a counter-intelligence force. You of all people must be aware of these events.

Now, today, oddly enough, the same forces (described as 'the Deep State') are turned against former conservative power concentrations. That is, elements with the so-called Republican Establishment itself. Now that is something! When the political police and the intelligence establishment is waging that level of struggle you know that the civil and social glue is coming undone.

So the question to be asked is What power-concentration is attempting to defeat and discredit the power-concentration that it recognizes as threatening (what it defines as) its project? And what is that project?

It is with that question that one moves from a superficial and topical analysis of events, and events seen from a relatively partisan perspective, to seeing events and issues from a more removed perspective. My assertion would be that only from that height and distance could the real dynamics be understood.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by iambiguous »

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:34 pmBut none of this is really the point. The point? There are vast power struggles going on behind the scenes but the nature of these struggles tends to remain submerged and to a degree invisible. Power, generally speaking (and truthfully speaking) will use 'any and all means' to gain its objectives.
Many here no doubt have their own rendition of that behind the curtains "deep state".

Here's my own: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... s#p2187045

So, the question then becomes this: under what set of circumstance will the American ruling class decide that fascism or "semi-fascism" is the path best taken? Here, of course, Donald Trump becomes just one more piece -- pawn -- on the board.

Or, rather, so it seems to me. Only "I" have no illusions "here and now" that this frame of mind is any less rooted existentially in dasein than yours is.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Definitions needed for “fascism”
1. or Fascism : a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.
: a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted.
Common themes among fascist movements include: authoritarianism, nationalism (including racial nationalism), hierarchy and elitism, and militarism. Other aspects of fascism such as its "myth of decadence", anti-egalitarianism and totalitarianism can be seen to originate from these ideas.
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 and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:03 pmSo, the question then becomes this: under what set of circumstance will the American ruling class decide that fascism or "semi-fascism" is the path best taken? Here, of course, Donald Trump becomes just one more piece -- pawn -- on the board..
I will share my opinion based on a fair amount of research and direct reading. I will start with the assertion that one of the essences of present problems in the US (and this is true for other countries in Europe) is a demographic issue. So here I will quote Wilmot Robertson who wrote The Dispossessed Majority in 1972 and which was circulated widely in proto-Dissident Right circles:
Is it not incredible that the largest American population group, the group with the deepest roots, the most orderly and most technically proficient group, the nuclear population group of American culture and of the American gene pool, should have lost its preeminence to weaker, less established, less numerous, culturally heterogeneous, and often mutually hostile minorities?

With all due allowance for minority dynamism ... this miraculous shift of power could never have taken place without a Majority "split in the ranks" - without the active assistance and participation of Majority members themselves. It has already been pointed out that race consciousness is one of mankind's greatest binding forces. From this it follows that when the racial gravitational pull slackens people tend to spin off from the group nucleus. Some drift aimlessly through life as human isolates. Others look for a substitute nucleus in an intensified religious or political life, or in an expanded class consciousness. Still others, out of idealism, romanticism, inertia, or perversity, attach themselves to another race in an attempt to find the solidarity they miss in their own.
The picture runs like this: In 1965 the demographic breakdown was about 90% White/European descent 10-11% other. Today the White/European demographic stands at 63% (I quote from memory). As you know there has been a great deal of talk on the issue that in a few years the White majority will become a minority. What brought about this extraordinary change? The 1965 The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart–Celler Act).

Effectively, this resulted in the “displacement’ Robinson refers to and, he and they would say, to a form of social engineering on the political and social body of the US. So, I would say that if you were to identify the interests of a ‘ruling class’ in shaping social and demographic policies, you might have to examine this shift in immigration patterns, and at the same time the engineering of social mores on a vast scale.

Some years later the phrase “Multi-cultural nation” and “Multi-ethnic nation” were terms used to describe the culture and nation being “engineered”. In my own view, one has to examine the reasons why it became necessary to (let’s say) remodel the notion of what America is. The notion of becoming multi-cultural fits into an economic model which serves the interests of elites and elite interests (the ruling class). It is this class that has the wealth and the expertise to mold and remold public opinion.

So I would suggest some idea that both support what you propose but contradict it as well. Clearly, the demographic that supports Donald Trump is grounded in a White, rural demographic, but largely ‘working class’. These are people who are, or were, the class that *built America*. And in truth, put also in their (sometimes dim) perception they are the class that got sold out. Iit is not hard to provide an illustration of this sentiment.

So my suggestion is the examine the sentiments involved in a sense of dispossession. I do not suggest starting from a position of judgment of it — as if to say it is ‘morally wrong’.

Once one grasps the sentiment, it is easier to grasp the political and social processes that have led to the present cultural situation. If “engineering” is considered real, then that engineering of social attitude and mores can be examined in depth. If that interests you (or someone) then examining how the Dissident Right sees this and explains this could help: E Michael Jones The Slaughter of Cities provides an angle through which to view the issue, but seen an presented from a dissident perspective.

Note that these perspectives, these ideas in any form and through any media, are regarded as “fascist” and ‘Nazi-like”. So here I would introduce an idea which generally speaking runs counter to the standard narratives. Now, it has become morally reprehensible to have, to speak, to share and communicate a range of ideas that do not conform to Government policy but really to a policy held by and purveyed by para-governmental entities and agencies. It reflects or shadows one definition of ‘fascism’ (quoted above) but the ideas that it purveys are the *right ideas* and the *socially progressive ideas* of what must be referred to as a regime. How can one fairly describe that regime?

Here, the conversation opens up into difficult territories simply because an open conversation (of the sort the Dissident Right freely engages in) is not allowed on any forum or to be conveyed in any major media. So, that conversation is driven underground. To access it, one has to recur to the sort of sites I referenced earlier.

All the YouTube channels and so many other channels where such ideas were discussed were eliminated in various purges. Who did this? What interests carried it out? I suggest that you will discover that it was (essentially) those that you term ‘the ruling class’. True, there is a popular element (what arises out of the population/demographic) but the expression of it is thwarted by large capital power that has a clear interest in guiding conditions in different directions.

These popular forces or pockets have shown themselves in Europe too: UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Spain, etc. etc. Are they (as the media-systems always say) re-manifestations of fascism? Or re-animations of fascism? That is the term used of course. But my research has indicated that it is (often) true beyond a doubt. The Sweden Democrats do have a connection to former reactionary parties (for example). And the original America First movement was populist and anti-elite and also socially conservative while simultaneously having progressive elements. Very hard to sort all this out.

But then to understand what fascism is, or was, and why it developed, one has to study social conservatism. And social conservatism as a ‘reaction’ to Marxist-Progressive ideological activism. The conversation gets knotty at that point. Is Marxism ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’? Or is it just a tool to engineer social structures toward positive ends? And is social conservatism ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ simply by being social and conservative?

It is very hard to say what comes next in American history. Many things are ‘festering’. Immense divisions show themselves. Civil conflict manifests itself. But who can fairly and accurately see it and describe it without coming from a place of bias?

Finally, I have found Roger Eatwell to be useful for gaining a general platform for understanding populism and the Dissident Right, yet he is obviously set within a general bias (as one can gather from his positions in this talk). I do not myself regard the issues and concerns of the Dissident Right as being ‘conspiracy theories’ or being un-genuine. If Eatwell expressed himself in any other way publicly he would of course be shunned and cancelled. The forces that are set to attack and annihilate dissident opinions and ideas act fast and ‘ruthlessly’.

If you (and others) are not examining the present social and political conflicts from a wider, nuanced perspective, I assert that you will not be able to actually see and understand the phenomena. If you wonder how people, even those of a conspiratorial frame of mind, see their world and form their opinions, one has to examine what they expose themselves to. This means reviewing sites that are *off limits* and repressed by major media and information conveyance systems. They are described as ‘morally reprehensible’ even to review.

It is impossible to gain such rounded, nuanced perspectives if all one has access to is ‘legacy media’ and, I’d also say, generally ‘progressive media’.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 2:14 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:03 pmSo, the question then becomes this: under what set of circumstance will the American ruling class decide that fascism or "semi-fascism" is the path best taken? Here, of course, Donald Trump becomes just one more piece -- pawn -- on the board..
I will share my opinion based on a fair amount of research and direct reading. I will start with the assertion that one of the essences of present problems in the US (and this is true for other countries in Europe) is a demographic issue. So here I will quote Wilmot Robertson who wrote The Dispossessed Majority in 1972 and which was circulated widely in proto-Dissident Right circles:
Is it not incredible that the largest American population group, the group with the deepest roots, the most orderly and most technically proficient group, the nuclear population group of American culture and of the American gene pool, should have lost its preeminence to weaker, less established, less numerous, culturally heterogeneous, and often mutually hostile minorities?

With all due allowance for minority dynamism ... this miraculous shift of power could never have taken place without a Majority "split in the ranks" - without the active assistance and participation of Majority members themselves. It has already been pointed out that race consciousness is one of mankind's greatest binding forces. From this it follows that when the racial gravitational pull slackens people tend to spin off from the group nucleus. Some drift aimlessly through life as human isolates. Others look for a substitute nucleus in an intensified religious or political life, or in an expanded class consciousness. Still others, out of idealism, romanticism, inertia, or perversity, attach themselves to another race in an attempt to find the solidarity they miss in their own.
The picture runs like this: In 1965 the demographic breakdown was about 90% White/European descent 10-11% other. Today the White/European demographic stands at 63% (I quote from memory). As you know there has been a great deal of talk on the issue that in a few years the White majority will become a minority. What brought about this extraordinary change? The 1965 The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart–Celler Act).

Effectively, this resulted in the “displacement’ Robinson refers to and, he and they would say, to a form of social engineering on the political and social body of the US. So, I would say that if you were to identify the interests of a ‘ruling class’ in shaping social and demographic policies, you might have to examine this shift in immigration patterns, and at the same time the engineering of social mores on a vast scale.

Some years later the phrase “Multi-cultural nation” and “Multi-ethnic nation” were terms used to describe the culture and nation being “engineered”. In my own view, one has to examine the reasons why it became necessary to (let’s say) remodel the notion of what America is. The notion of becoming multi-cultural fits into an economic model which serves the interests of elites and elite interests (the ruling class). It is this class that has the wealth and the expertise to mold and remold public opinion.

So I would suggest some idea that both support what you propose but contradict it as well. Clearly, the demographic that supports Donald Trump is grounded in a White, rural demographic, but largely ‘working class’. These are people who are, or were, the class that *built America*. And in truth, put also in their (sometimes dim) perception they are the class that got sold out. Iit is not hard to provide an illustration of this sentiment.

So my suggestion is the examine the sentiments involved in a sense of dispossession. I do not suggest starting from a position of judgment of it — as if to say it is ‘morally wrong’.

Once one grasps the sentiment, it is easier to grasp the political and social processes that have led to the present cultural situation. If “engineering” is considered real, then that engineering of social attitude and mores can be examined in depth. If that interests you (or someone) then examining how the Dissident Right sees this and explains this could help: E Michael Jones The Slaughter of Cities provides an angle through which to view the issue, but seen an presented from a dissident perspective.

Note that these perspectives, these ideas in any form and through any media, are regarded as “fascist” and ‘Nazi-like”. So here I would introduce an idea which generally speaking runs counter to the standard narratives. Now, it has become morally reprehensible to have, to speak, to share and communicate a range of ideas that do not conform to Government policy but really to a policy held by and purveyed by para-governmental entities and agencies. It reflects or shadows one definition of ‘fascism’ (quoted above) but the ideas that it purveys are the *right ideas* and the *socially progressive ideas* of what must be referred to as a regime. How can one fairly describe that regime?

Here, the conversation opens up into difficult territories simply because an open conversation (of the sort the Dissident Right freely engages in) is not allowed on any forum or to be conveyed in any major media. So, that conversation is driven underground. To access it, one has to recur to the sort of sites I referenced earlier.

All the YouTube channels and so many other channels where such ideas were discussed were eliminated in various purges. Who did this? What interests carried it out? I suggest that you will discover that it was (essentially) those that you term ‘the ruling class’. True, there is a popular element (what arises out of the population/demographic) but the expression of it is thwarted by large capital power that has a clear interest in guiding conditions in different directions.

These popular forces or pockets have shown themselves in Europe too: UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Spain, etc. etc. Are they (as the media-systems always say) re-manifestations of fascism? Or re-animations of fascism? That is the term used of course. But my research has indicated that it is (often) true beyond a doubt. The Sweden Democrats do have a connection to former reactionary parties (for example). And the original America First movement was populist and anti-elite and also socially conservative while simultaneously having progressive elements. Very hard to sort all this out.

But then to understand what fascism is, or was, and why it developed, one has to study social conservatism. And social conservatism as a ‘reaction’ to Marxist-Progressive ideological activism. The conversation gets knotty at that point. Is Marxism ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’? Or is it just a tool to engineer social structures toward positive ends? And is social conservatism ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ simply by being social and conservative?

It is very hard to say what comes next in American history. Many things are ‘festering’. Immense divisions show themselves. Civil conflict manifests itself. But who can fairly and accurately see it and describe it without coming from a place of bias?

Finally, I have found Roger Eatwell to be useful for gaining a general platform for understanding populism and the Dissident Right, yet he is obviously set within a general bias (as one can gather from his positions in this talk). I do not myself regard the issues and concerns of the Dissident Right as being ‘conspiracy theories’ or being un-genuine. If Eatwell expressed himself in any other way publicly he would of course be shunned and cancelled. The forces that are set to attack and annihilate dissident opinions and ideas act fast and ‘ruthlessly’.

If you (and others) are not examining the present social and political conflicts from a wider, nuanced perspective, I assert that you will not be able to actually see and understand the phenomena. If you wonder how people, even those of a conspiratorial frame of mind, see their world and form their opinions, one has to examine what they expose themselves to. This means reviewing sites that are *off limits* and repressed by major media and information conveyance systems. They are described as ‘morally reprehensible’ even to review.

It is impossible to gain such rounded, nuanced perspectives if all one has access to is ‘legacy media’ and, I’d also say, generally ‘progressive media’.
And what role do you ascribe to the crafty Jew in all this? Or sorry, not you of course, but the "dissident right".
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by iambiguous »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 2:14 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:03 pmSo, the question then becomes this: under what set of circumstance will the American ruling class decide that fascism or "semi-fascism" is the path best taken? Here, of course, Donald Trump becomes just one more piece -- pawn -- on the board..
I will share my opinion based on a fair amount of research and direct reading. I will start with the assertion that one of the essences of present problems in the US (and this is true for other countries in Europe) is a demographic issue. So here I will quote Wilmot Robertson who wrote The Dispossessed Majority in 1972 and which was circulated widely in proto-Dissident Right circles:
Is it not incredible that the largest American population group, the group with the deepest roots, the most orderly and most technically proficient group, the nuclear population group of American culture and of the American gene pool, should have lost its preeminence to weaker, less established, less numerous, culturally heterogeneous, and often mutually hostile minorities?

With all due allowance for minority dynamism ... this miraculous shift of power could never have taken place without a Majority "split in the ranks" - without the active assistance and participation of Majority members themselves. It has already been pointed out that race consciousness is one of mankind's greatest binding forces. From this it follows that when the racial gravitational pull slackens people tend to spin off from the group nucleus. Some drift aimlessly through life as human isolates. Others look for a substitute nucleus in an intensified religious or political life, or in an expanded class consciousness. Still others, out of idealism, romanticism, inertia, or perversity, attach themselves to another race in an attempt to find the solidarity they miss in their own.
The picture runs like this: In 1965 the demographic breakdown was about 90% White/European descent 10-11% other. Today the White/European demographic stands at 63% (I quote from memory). As you know there has been a great deal of talk on the issue that in a few years the White majority will become a minority. What brought about this extraordinary change? The 1965 The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart–Celler Act).

Effectively, this resulted in the “displacement’ Robinson refers to and, he and they would say, to a form of social engineering on the political and social body of the US. So, I would say that if you were to identify the interests of a ‘ruling class’ in shaping social and demographic policies, you might have to examine this shift in immigration patterns, and at the same time the engineering of social mores on a vast scale.

Some years later the phrase “Multi-cultural nation” and “Multi-ethnic nation” were terms used to describe the culture and nation being “engineered”. In my own view, one has to examine the reasons why it became necessary to (let’s say) remodel the notion of what America is. The notion of becoming multi-cultural fits into an economic model which serves the interests of elites and elite interests (the ruling class). It is this class that has the wealth and the expertise to mold and remold public opinion.

So I would suggest some idea that both support what you propose but contradict it as well. Clearly, the demographic that supports Donald Trump is grounded in a White, rural demographic, but largely ‘working class’. These are people who are, or were, the class that *built America*. And in truth, put also in their (sometimes dim) perception they are the class that got sold out. Iit is not hard to provide an illustration of this sentiment.

So my suggestion is the examine the sentiments involved in a sense of dispossession. I do not suggest starting from a position of judgment of it — as if to say it is ‘morally wrong’.

Once one grasps the sentiment, it is easier to grasp the political and social processes that have led to the present cultural situation. If “engineering” is considered real, then that engineering of social attitude and mores can be examined in depth. If that interests you (or someone) then examining how the Dissident Right sees this and explains this could help: E Michael Jones The Slaughter of Cities provides an angle through which to view the issue, but seen an presented from a dissident perspective.

Note that these perspectives, these ideas in any form and through any media, are regarded as “fascist” and ‘Nazi-like”. So here I would introduce an idea which generally speaking runs counter to the standard narratives. Now, it has become morally reprehensible to have, to speak, to share and communicate a range of ideas that do not conform to Government policy but really to a policy held by and purveyed by para-governmental entities and agencies. It reflects or shadows one definition of ‘fascism’ (quoted above) but the ideas that it purveys are the *right ideas* and the *socially progressive ideas* of what must be referred to as a regime. How can one fairly describe that regime?

Here, the conversation opens up into difficult territories simply because an open conversation (of the sort the Dissident Right freely engages in) is not allowed on any forum or to be conveyed in any major media. So, that conversation is driven underground. To access it, one has to recur to the sort of sites I referenced earlier.

All the YouTube channels and so many other channels where such ideas were discussed were eliminated in various purges. Who did this? What interests carried it out? I suggest that you will discover that it was (essentially) those that you term ‘the ruling class’. True, there is a popular element (what arises out of the population/demographic) but the expression of it is thwarted by large capital power that has a clear interest in guiding conditions in different directions.

These popular forces or pockets have shown themselves in Europe too: UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Spain, etc. etc. Are they (as the media-systems always say) re-manifestations of fascism? Or re-animations of fascism? That is the term used of course. But my research has indicated that it is (often) true beyond a doubt. The Sweden Democrats do have a connection to former reactionary parties (for example). And the original America First movement was populist and anti-elite and also socially conservative while simultaneously having progressive elements. Very hard to sort all this out.

But then to understand what fascism is, or was, and why it developed, one has to study social conservatism. And social conservatism as a ‘reaction’ to Marxist-Progressive ideological activism. The conversation gets knotty at that point. Is Marxism ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’? Or is it just a tool to engineer social structures toward positive ends? And is social conservatism ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ simply by being social and conservative?

It is very hard to say what comes next in American history. Many things are ‘festering’. Immense divisions show themselves. Civil conflict manifests itself. But who can fairly and accurately see it and describe it without coming from a place of bias?

Finally, I have found Roger Eatwell to be useful for gaining a general platform for understanding populism and the Dissident Right, yet he is obviously set within a general bias (as one can gather from his positions in this talk). I do not myself regard the issues and concerns of the Dissident Right as being ‘conspiracy theories’ or being un-genuine. If Eatwell expressed himself in any other way publicly he would of course be shunned and cancelled. The forces that are set to attack and annihilate dissident opinions and ideas act fast and ‘ruthlessly’.

If you (and others) are not examining the present social and political conflicts from a wider, nuanced perspective, I assert that you will not be able to actually see and understand the phenomena. If you wonder how people, even those of a conspiratorial frame of mind, see their world and form their opinions, one has to examine what they expose themselves to. This means reviewing sites that are *off limits* and repressed by major media and information conveyance systems. They are described as ‘morally reprehensible’ even to review.

It is impossible to gain such rounded, nuanced perspectives if all one has access to is ‘legacy media’ and, I’d also say, generally ‘progressive media’.
Here's another more or less "academic" take on all of this:
iambiguous wrote:Maurice Brinton in The Irrational in Politics:

Wilhelm Reich set out to elaborate a social psychology based on both Marxism and psychoanalysis. His aim was to explain how ideas arose in men's minds, in reaction to the real conditions of their lives, and how in turn such ideas influenced human behavior. There was clearly a discrepancy between the material conditions of the masses and their conservative outlook. No appeal to psychology was needed to understand why a hungry man stole bread or why workers, fed up with being pushed around, decided to down their tools. What social psychology had to explain however is not why the starving individual steals or why the exploited individual strikes, but why the majority of starving individuals do not steal or why the exploited individuals do not strike.

Again, we live on a planet where 15% of the richest folks gobble up over 80% of the world's resources...a planet where 3,500,000,000 men, women and children barely subsist on less than $2 a day...a planet where every 24 hours tens of thousands of human beings literally starve to death.

But the wretched of the earth are not exactly rising up to change all this. Why not? Reich's speculation revolved around the use of sexual repression as a tool to engender authoritarian personalities. From a very early age children are taught to repress [or fear or be ashamed of] their natural sexual instincts. And Reich suggests that this is a potent tool for repressing other potentially rebellious behavior as well. After all, if a culture can suppress something as powerful as the sexual libido how hard can it be to mass produce personalities that are [on average] politically docile and conservative in turn?

Whether or not this has any relevance respecting the validity of any particular political agenda is not nearly as intriguing to me as the manner in which Reich was in or around the bullseye regarding the indoctrination that goes on in children...brainwashing that does, for all intents and purposes, create social automatons.

But there is, of course, an important difference between Reich's time and our own. Today the caretakers of our political economy not only seek to repress sexuality in kids but also try to transfigure it into a commodity...or into a potent device to sell other commodities. That creates particularly schizophrenic psychological riptides and all manner of neurotic reprecussions. Sex is everywhere. But seldom has there been a generation that understands it less.

It all unfolds largely below the surface of consciousness. Nothing is actually exposed so as to generate any real discussion about how it all works. And slowly but surely the whole planet is being infected.

More Brinton:

What was it...Reich asked, which in the real life of the oppressed limited their will to revolution? His answer was that the working class was readily influenced by reactionary and irrational ideas because such ideas fell on fertile soil. For the average Marxist, workers were adults who hired their labor power to capitalists and were exploited by them. This was correct as far as it went. But one had to take into account all aspects of working class life if one wanted to understand the political attitude of the working class. This meant that one had to recognize some obvious facts, namely that the worker had a childhood, that he was brought up by parents themselves conditioned by the society in which they lived, that he had a wife and children, sexual needs, frustrations and family conflicts....Reich sought to develop a total analysis which would incorporate such facts and attach the appropriate importance to them.

In other words, Brinton's and Reich's points revolved precisely around the manner in which we view ourselves and the world around us is profoundly situated in dasein. And dasein has a childhood. And this childhood consists of years and years of deep-seated indoctrination. It is not only what you learn about how to live in any particular political economy...but how you acquire a psychological framework, a engrained conditioning hard-wired into your brain such that it becomes extremely difficult to unlearn all the layers of psychological compulsions, intentions, motivations etc. that propel you into the future.

And again it is not really all that important whether they are entirely correct in their analysis; only that they are certainly not entirely incorrect. Many try to "analyze" reality into existence by simply noting how the pieces seem to fit into the larger puzzle. And then by interpreting what that puzzle "means".

Reich however goes a bit further according to Brinton:

In learning to obey their parents children learn obedience in general. The deference learned in the family setting will manifest itself whenever the child faces a 'superior' in later life. Sexual repression----by the already sexually repressed parents---is an integral part of the conditioning process.

According to Reich, the 'suppresion of natural sexuality in the child....makes the child apprehensive, shy, obedient, afraid of authority, 'good', and 'adjusted' in the authoritarian sense; it paralyzes the rebellious forces because any rebellion is laden with anxiety; it produces, by inhibiting sexual curiosity and sexual thinking in the child, a general inhibition of thinking and of critical faculties. In brief the goal of sexual repression is that of producing an individual who is adjusted to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite of all the misery and degradation....the result is fear of freedom, and a conservative, reactionary mentality. Sexual repression aids political reaction, not only through this process which makes the mass individual passive and unpolitical, but also by creating in his structure an interest in actively supporting the authoritarian order'.

Psychologists and psychiatrists have written pages about the medical effects of sexual repression. Reich however constantly reiterated its social function, exercised through the family. The purpose of sexual repression was to anchor submission to authority and the fear of freedom into people's 'character armour'. The net result was the reproduction, generation after generastion, of the basic [psychological] conditions essential for manipulation and enslavement of the masses.


Here again, in my view, it really doesn't come down to whether or not they have hit the bullseye; only that the dart landed somewhere on the board. And my contention is that the analysis of others, in not taking into account factors such as these, aim their dart at the bullseye and don't even manage to hit the wall the dartboard is anchored to historically and ethnologically.

Also, this childhood acculturation is particularly insidious because it is not unfolding in many respects on a conscious level. The ruling class doesn't sit in a conference room somewhere and, from day to day to day, plot this all out. And parents don't huddle in the living room and decide how best to brainwash their kids. Instead, all of this evolves more or less organically as a historical manifestation of political economy. Production revolves around the means of production and in the capitalist political economy that revolves around rationalizing it down to its most basic [and alienating] components.

You need a certain kind of mind to work under these robotic conditions and the "system" sets out to produce them. But all of this is internalized in the minds of most folks as part of the "natural order of things". Few are actually conscious of how this works "in reality"...and thus few self-consciously seek to sustain "the system" on that level. Most simply believe that what they think about the world they live in is the only rational way for the world to be.

What makes things more complex in todays world, however, is, again, that sex has also become an enormously profitable comodity. In fact, Frontline had a rebroadcast of their program on the poronography industry in America. Here you see the classic contradiction coming to a head. During the Reagan era the conservatives wanted to shut the industry down. And almost did. Then the more liberal Clinton administration assumes power and Reno all but shuts down the investigations and prosecutions. Then Bush and Ashcroft assume power and they are all set to revise the draconian clampdown. Only 9/11 intervenes and suddenly the justice Department is forced to shift gears to the Patriot Acts. Another kind of repression. But the crucial fact remains that even though you have the Father Knows Best crowd co-existing [for now] with Hollywood, Eminem and rapworld, the "libertines" barely scratch the surface in their understanding of "sexual freedom". And it is often manifested in misogynist and homophobic ways. In any event, it's all just co-opted into the "entertainment industry" and everything stays right on the surface. And it is right on the surface of pop culture, mass consumption and celebrity that the new gods rule.

Sadly, however, perusing much that comes out of philosophy departments [and venues like this] these days you wouldn't even suspect the above analysis bore any relevance whatsoever to the human condition.
Fascism is everywhere in this assessment.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:08 pm And what role do you ascribe to the crafty Jew in all this? Or sorry, not you of course, but the "dissident right".
No apologies required.

The Dissident Right, with a few exceptions, and some of those exceptions involve Jewish writers who are of the Dissident Right, are Jewish-critical, counter-Jewish (their term), or more or less anti-Semitic -- though the term anti-Semitic is one of those terms far too contaminated to be useful to the sort of analysis I wish to make. Put another way I am unaware of any Dissident Right source that is openly pro-Jewish though there are some who simply do not comment on the so-called Jewish Question.

I did grasp, of course, that you desire to malign me for having an interest in the Dissident Right that is not a priori condemnatory. But this brings up what I think is an interesting issue: there have been defined certain areas where *free thought* is not allowed, and certainly not free speech or free conversation. I am interested in the enforcement mechanisms where free thought/free speech is attacked and inhibited. I have read a great deal of Noam Chomsky's works and it is interesting that he has used the term 'unthinkable thought' for certain ideas and critical positions.

In the Postwar period certain mechanisms or tactics have been used and cemented through which open conversation on various themes have been blocked or curtailed. Obviously, one of these tactics is the use of terms like 'fascist' and 'Nazi' and certainly 'racist'. There is a group of terms. Their function is to cast the positions or ideas of their opponents in an absolutely reprehensible light and, as a result, to shut them down. But it also has to be pointed out that the conventional Right has its own lexicon of hot words that it uses in a similar manner.

Personally, I think these rhetorical tactics should not be used in discourse though I recognize they are very common.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:47 pmFascism is everywhere in this assessment.
My assessment would be somewhat different. Your *seeing* is also obscuration. You desire to see and explain but your seeing is essentially an expression of a wide set of biases. Those biases are, naturally, pretty run-of-the-mill and are more or less those that inform most people, and certainly people positioned (as you seem to be) on the Progressive-Left.

While I very much understand that all ideas that are socially conservative, and all ideas that are socially conservative and reactive, can be described as 'fascistic', I am also aware that fascism itself must be better seen and better understood. It arises as reaction to other currents (Marxian, Marxist-Lenninist, etc.) which were and are understood as viable threats -- and for good reasons. But I do not think that social and political conservatism is necessarily fascist or even fascistic. The use of the term however is poisonous to clear thinking about the issues. Once the hot terms are introduced, conversation becomes mired and then impossible.

And I am not in any sense convinced that the manifestation of right-leaning conservatism in our present is 'fascistic'. For example Giorgia Meloni who, it seems, represents a reactionary movement against 'liberal excesses'.

There is a similar social and intellectual sentiment in the US which is being and will be described as 'extreme right' and 'fascistic' -- all the strongest and most effective rhetorical terms are used. But I think this rhetoric needs to be seen through. Though I do recognize that if someone did see though it they would be seeing more clearly and perhaps more fairly and judiciously. And that that frame of mind itself will be described in negative terms.

So the mood that makes clear headed conversation possible is, in fact, under attack -- in my opinion.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 2:27 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:08 pm And what role do you ascribe to the crafty Jew in all this? Or sorry, not you of course, but the "dissident right".
No apologies required.

The Dissident Right, with a few exceptions, and some of those exceptions involve Jewish writers who are of the Dissident Right, are Jewish-critical, counter-Jewish (their term), or more or less anti-Semitic -- though the term anti-Semitic is one of those terms far too contaminated to be useful to the sort of analysis I wish to make. Put another way I am unaware of any Dissident Right source that is openly pro-Jewish though there are some who simply do not comment on the so-called Jewish Question.

I did grasp, of course, that you desire to malign me for having an interest in the Dissident Right that is not a priori condemnatory. But this brings up what I think is an interesting issue: there have been defined certain areas where *free thought* is not allowed, and certainly not free speech or free conversation. I am interested in the enforcement mechanisms where free thought/free speech is attacked and inhibited. I have read a great deal of Noam Chomsky's works and it is interesting that he has used the term 'unthinkable thought' for certain ideas and critical positions.

In the Postwar period certain mechanisms or tactics have been used and cemented through which open conversation on various themes have been blocked or curtailed. Obviously, one of these tactics is the use of terms like 'fascist' and 'Nazi' and certainly 'racist'. There is a group of terms. Their function is to cast the positions or ideas of their opponents in an absolutely reprehensible light and, as a result, to shut them down. But it also has to be pointed out that the conventional Right has its own lexicon of hot words that it uses in a similar manner.

Personally, I think these rhetorical tactics should not be used in discourse though I recognize they are very common.
You can climb down off that cross now, nobody's impressed. In that video you linked Eatwell is describing the populist right in much the same terms I would .... a bunch of conspiracy theorists. But you accuse him of bias, deny that their stuff is .... ‘conspiracy theories’ or being un-genuine. And you also imply that he might secretly agree but cannot say so because (of course) of some sort of conspiracy to destroy people who say such things.

So you are clearly a conspiracy theorist, You have outed yourself that much already. But it's ok, we have other populist right wing conspiracy theorists already, so you can fit right in. We now just need to work out which is your conspiracy, because you are attempting to camouflage that beneath a stifling layer of eupemisms.

So it's entirely reasonable to seek clarification on whether you are going all in with the jews thing in that conspiracy stuff. Your other sources weren't high quality academics like Eatwell after all, they are notorious anti-semitic authors who accuse the jews of organising a conspiracy to undermine white folks by causing them to intermingle with other races.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:02 pm You can climb down off that cross now, nobody's impressed. In that video you linked Eatwell is describing the populist right in much the same terms I would .... a bunch of conspiracy theorists. But you accuse him of bias, deny that their stuff is .... ‘conspiracy theories’ or being un-genuine. And you also imply that he might secretly agree but cannot say so because (of course) of some sort of conspiracy to destroy people who say such things.
Though someone, in some possible world, must be slightly impressed, no? (Joke).

Having read some of Eatwell's books I like and appreciate him. But he is, obviously, located within a certain posture. His posture, of course, can be seen and described. If you see things in much the same terms as Eatwell that is fine, as far as it goes. But it does not necessarily mean that your view or his view is 'correct' nor bias-free. Eatwell has an audience and sells his books to that audience. And he functions within a certain political climate. The same is true for, say, Jordan Peterson or Candice Owens (or James Lindsay). They carve out a space for themselves and develop a 'product'.

I only say it is wise to see this.
So you are clearly a conspiracy theorist, You have outed yourself that much already. But it's ok, we have other populist right wing conspiracy theorists already, so you can fit right in. We now just need to work out which is your conspiracy, because you are attempting to camouflage that beneath a stifling layer of euphemisms.
Nice one! But you are using a term which is simply too hot. Too contaminated. The function of those terms is to shut down, vilify and influence your readership to adopt the negative view that you operate from. So you hope, I gather, that your term will do your arguing for you?

I am aware of all sorts of different ideas and views. But generally I hold back from 'outright belief' in any of them since, as it is, it is far to easy to be tricked. I assert my frame of mind is a better one than that which you seem to have and to work with.
So it's entirely reasonable to seek clarification on whether you are going all in with the jews thing in that conspiracy stuff. Your other sources weren't high quality academics like Eatwell after all, they are notorious anti-semitic authors who accuse the jews of organising a conspiracy to undermine white folks by causing them to intermingle with other races.
But you did not *seek clarification*. Examine what you wrote. You cast aspersions. Very different.

Again I am aware of the arguments of people like Kevin MacDonald and many others. I am aware of many ranges of idea and opinion that inform the perspectives that people present to be believed and taken seriously. Yet I do not participate here as a broadcaster of my own particular or peculiar opinions. It is more interesting, in my view, to put all perspectives out on the table for examination.

What I think you should notice, or what you could notice, is the a priori positions that you yourself operate from. That is usually how these conversations (on forums) take shape, no? They are not really conversations of any sort at all. They are bicker-sessions and I suppose that such bickering serves a function for those who engage in it. I avoid it altogether though.
But you accuse him of bias, deny that their stuff is .... ‘conspiracy theories’ or being un-genuine. And you also imply that he might secretly agree but cannot say so because (of course) of some sort of conspiracy to destroy people who say such things.
I'd express it differently. I say that all thought, all expression of ideas, are extremely monitored and often curtailed by the forces of the 'politically correct'. How this came about (in our culture and in our present) can and should be examined.

The term 'conspiracy theory' is too contaminated to be of use.

And certainly people who are on the public stage are very aware of what things can be said, and what things cannot be said. One slip-up and -- *poof* -- one's career is ruined. One's books don't sell. One is not invited back. One is 'cancelled'. One is shunned.

Surely you are aware of this, right?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:28 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:02 pm You can climb down off that cross now, nobody's impressed. In that video you linked Eatwell is describing the populist right in much the same terms I would .... a bunch of conspiracy theorists. But you accuse him of bias, deny that their stuff is .... ‘conspiracy theories’ or being un-genuine. And you also imply that he might secretly agree but cannot say so because (of course) of some sort of conspiracy to destroy people who say such things.
Though someone, in some possible world, must be slightly impressed, no? (Joke).

Having read some of Eatwell's books I like and appreciate him. But he is, obviously, located within a certain posture. His posture, of course, can be seen and described. If you see things in much the same terms as Eatwell that is fine, as far as it goes. But it does not necessarily mean that your view or his view is 'correct' nor bias-free. Eatwell has an audience and sells his books to that audience. And he functions within a certain political climate. The same is true for, say, Jordan Peterson or Candice Owens (or James Lindsay). They carve out a space for themselves and develop a 'product'.

I only say it is wise to see this.
So you are clearly a conspiracy theorist, You have outed yourself that much already. But it's ok, we have other populist right wing conspiracy theorists already, so you can fit right in. We now just need to work out which is your conspiracy, because you are attempting to camouflage that beneath a stifling layer of euphemisms.
Nice one! But you are using a term which is simply too hot. Too contaminated. The function of those terms is to shut down, vilify and influence your readership to adopt the negative view that you operate from. So you hope, I gather, that your term will do your arguing for you?

I am aware of all sorts of different ideas and views. But generally I hold back from 'outright belief' in any of them since, as it is, it is far to easy to be tricked. I assert my frame of mind is a better one than that which you seem to have and to work with.
So it's entirely reasonable to seek clarification on whether you are going all in with the jews thing in that conspiracy stuff. Your other sources weren't high quality academics like Eatwell after all, they are notorious anti-semitic authors who accuse the jews of organising a conspiracy to undermine white folks by causing them to intermingle with other races.
But you did not *seek clarification*. Examine what you wrote. You cast aspersions. Very different.

Again I am aware of the arguments of people like Kevin MacDonald and many others. I am aware of many ranges of idea and opinion that inform the perspectives that people present to be believed and taken seriously. Yet I do not participate here as a broadcaster of my own particular or peculiar opinions. It is more interesting, in my view, to put all perspectives out on the table for examination.

What I think you should notice, or what you could notice, is the a priori positions that you yourself operate from. That is usually how these conversations (on forums) take shape, no? They are not really conversations of any sort at all. They are bicker-sessions and I suppose that such bickering serves a function for those who engage in it. I avoid it altogether though.
But you accuse him of bias, deny that their stuff is .... ‘conspiracy theories’ or being un-genuine. And you also imply that he might secretly agree but cannot say so because (of course) of some sort of conspiracy to destroy people who say such things.
I'd express it differently. I say that all thought, all expression of ideas, are extremely monitored and often curtailed by the forces of the 'politically correct'. How this came about (in our culture and in our present) can and should be examined.

The term 'conspiracy theory' is too contaminated to be of use.

And certainly people who are on the public stage are very aware of what things can be said, and what things cannot be said. One slip-up and -- *poof* -- one's career is ruined. One's books don't sell. One is not invited back. One is 'cancelled'. One is shunned.

Surely you are aware of this, right?
So, let's take those chaps who wandered around Chrlottesville with tiki torches shouting "The Jews Will No Replace Us" as an example.
They have a theory that they are very committed to, that a cabal of international jews who run the world wants to replace them (white people specifically) with imported brown people because of reasons we may come back to later.

That's a theory about a global conspiracy. Why not call that a conspiracy theory?
And while we are at it, let's just cover whether you agree it's a really stupid one.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:45 pmSo, let's take those chaps who wandered around Chrlottesville with tiki torches shouting "The Jews Will No Replace Us" as an example.They have a theory that they are very committed to, that a cabal of international jews who run the world wants to replace them (white people specifically) with imported brown people because of reasons we may come back to later.
What I think you are trying to do is to ensnare me, are you not in the controversy that you are setting up? But my approach is different. So rather than take a specific side, and clearly you have a side and moreover an angle that you are working (there is a group of persons on this forum who come from generally the same perspective and ideological situation, right?) I take another angle. But I am not here to sell an orientation. I am here to examine why people believe what they believe and also how they cobble together their operative perspectives. It is an approach much more interesting and compatible with a political philosophy forum, don't you think?

So yes, I acknowledge that there are people who are of the opinion that Jewish influence, generally, is toward demographic inclusion. And I am aware that there are Jewish persons who have expressed their view of things and made it clear where they stand and what they are working toward.

So let me ask you to review this video and, then, square it with what those fellows in Charlottesville said. If you think I am trying to win an argument with a video (!) you are mistaken.

What I am trying to point out, among numerous things I suppose, is that there really is what we can call 'modern progressive activism' that seeks to change the demographics of various countries (as Spectre here makes plain) through various forms of social activism. Now, I suspect that you regard this as *a good thing* or *a necessary thing* or a thing of no consequence? I cannot be sure what you actually think though until you make it clear and plain. I am aware that this is, to speak generally, a tenet of Progressivism in our day. Now, a standard Progressive will say, as perhaps you will say, that such activism to modify demographics is a 'moral good'. (Again I do not know where you stand).

But I am not sure it really is a 'moral good'. Though I do recognize it as a possible choice.

All that I can do is to present a clear case of one specific woman, who defines hereself as Jewish and defines her activism as uniquely Jewish-related (?) as a way of explaining how those fellows in Charlottesville got the idea about what they perceive as a nefarious activity.

So here is the question: Do you regard those people, or any people, as being justified (morally, ethically) on any level if they express opposition to the social activism that Spectre is advocating for?

Will you give a *simple yes or no* or do you have a more elaborate idea to express?
That's a theory about a global conspiracy. Why not call that a conspiracy theory? And while we are at it, let's just cover whether you agree it's a really stupid one.
Wait, Barbara Spectre made specific statements about her activism and what she sees or believes *Jews* are doing or should do. If you or anyone else were to believe her, are they believing a 'global conspiracy'?

Now, there is another video of Biden using the term an unrelenting stream of immigration. He also specifically names his own group (Caucasian) as soon to become an 'absolute minority'.

How do you see these things?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 5:31 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:45 pmSo, let's take those chaps who wandered around Chrlottesville with tiki torches shouting "The Jews Will No Replace Us" as an example.They have a theory that they are very committed to, that a cabal of international jews who run the world wants to replace them (white people specifically) with imported brown people because of reasons we may come back to later.
What I think you are trying to do is to ensnare me, are you not in the controversy that you are setting up? But my approach is different. So rather than take a specific side, and clearly you have a side and moreover an angle that you are working (there is a group of persons on this forum who come from generally the same perspective and ideological situation, right?) I take another angle. But I am not here to sell an orientation. I am here to examine why people believe what they believe and also how they cobble together their operative perspectives. It is an approach much more interesting and compatible with a political philosophy forum, don't you think?

So yes, I acknowledge that there are people who are of the opinion that Jewish influence, generally, is toward demographic inclusion. And I am aware that there are Jewish persons who have expressed their view of things and made it clear where they stand and what they are working toward.

So let me ask you to review this video and, then, square it with what those fellows in Charlottesville said. If you think I am trying to win an argument with a video (!) you are mistaken.

What I am trying to point out, among numerous things I suppose, is that there really is what we can call 'modern progressive activism' that seeks to change the demographics of various countries (as Spectre here makes plain) through various forms of social activism. Now, I suspect that you regard this as *a good thing* or *a necessary thing* or a thing of no consequence? I cannot be sure what you actually think though until you make it clear and plain. I am aware that this is, to speak generally, a tenet of Progressivism in our day. Now, a standard Progressive will say, as perhaps you will say, that such activism to modify demographics is a 'moral good'. (Again I do not know where you stand).

But I am not sure it really is a 'moral good'. Though I do recognize it as a possible choice.

All that I can do is to present a clear case of one specific woman, who defines hereself as Jewish and defines her activism as uniquely Jewish-related (?) as a way of explaining how those fellows in Charlottesville got the idea about what they perceive as a nefarious activity.

So here is the question: Do you regard those people, or any people, as being justified (morally, ethically) on any level if they express opposition to the social activism that Spectre is advocating for?

Will you give a *simple yes or no* or do you have a more elaborate idea to express?
That's a theory about a global conspiracy. Why not call that a conspiracy theory? And while we are at it, let's just cover whether you agree it's a really stupid one.
Wait, Barbara Spectre made specific statements about her activism and what she sees or believes *Jews* are doing or should do. If you or anyone else were to believe her, are they believing a 'global conspiracy'?

Now, there is another video of Biden using the term an unrelenting stream of immigration. He also specifically names his own group (Caucasian) as soon to become an 'absolute minority'.

How do you see these things?
I don't know why you are trying to make out like you are sidestepping some subtle trap here. It should be simple to agree that there is a conspiracy theory, and that two of the people you cited as sources before are peddlers of that conspiracy theory, and the content of that conspiracy theory is that there is a secret plot by jews to replace white people.

There's no point wasting my time with some diversion to some other conspiracy theorist nutter. You are wrong to suppose that I consider that weird fucknut to be doing good work. I don't have the same ethno-nationalist assumptions that you appear to take for granted. All of your racial assumptions in that post are racist though.

Anyway, you are clearly a conspiracy theorist, and you have made it clear that you do believe that white people are being replaced. So the question I am currently asking is whether you blame jews for this?

But also, why not just be ok with people marrying who they want to marry and raising families with no particular regard for racial heritages at all? Like normal people are.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 6:33 pm I don't know why you are trying to make out like you are sidestepping some subtle trap here. It should be simple to agree that there is a conspiracy theory, and that two of the people you cited as sources before are peddlers of that conspiracy theory, and the content of that conspiracy theory is that there is a secret plot by Jews to replace white people.
This is a curious tack.

So Barbara Spectre who defines herself as one engaged in bringing multi-culturalism to Europe, and who defines this as being a Jewish project for which Jews will be resented, and who works under grants provided by the Swedish government to educate people about this project, is a conspiracy theorist?

(Biden of course has formed his opinions through different means and, in any case, is not a Jew).
There's no point wasting my time with some diversion to some other conspiracy theorist nutter. You are wrong to suppose that I consider that weird fucknut to be doing good work. I don't have the same ethno-nationalist assumptions that you appear to take for granted. All of your racial assumptions in that post are racist though.
What is the other conspiracy nutter theory?

Since I cannot know any opinion of yours until I ask you for it, or you reveal it, I would have had no idea how you view what Barbara Spectre said in that video. Now you tell me that you regard her as a weird fuckwit -- but why? If she is not doing good work is she doing bad work?

What ethno-nationalist assumptions are you referring to? What do you mean by ethno-nationalist? What specific racial assumptions are racist? Why?
Anyway, you are clearly a conspiracy theorist, and you have made it clear that you do believe that white people are being replaced. So the question I am currently asking is whether you blame Jews for this?
Blaming an entire people for some specific activity or social stance seems absurd to me. What I think you should be asking is Are there specific Jews who advocate for (in this case) the multi-culturalism that Spectre refers to? And if there are specific Jews who are activists in this area, on what 'philosophy' or set of assumptions or beliefs do they base their activism?

I referred to Spectre because you mentioned those fellows in Charlottesville what chanted "You will not replace us!" and at times "Jews will not replace us!"

At the very least we have discovered two sources for their belief/apprehension that they are being 'replaced'.
But also, why not just be ok with people marrying who they want to marry and raising families with no particular regard for racial heritages at all? Like normal people are.
Actually what you call 'normal people' are an outcome of rather long processes of social engineering. Meaning that there were activists and social engineers whose activism changed how certain peoples felt about the preservation of their ethnic heritage. I assume you are English. Certainly social engineering of social attitudes have been a large part of education processes for 50 years or more.

Is that a 'good'? If you say yes, as I assume you will, then you likely have a social attitude, and possibly a social project, that is similar to that of Spectre. You support her activism therefore or in any case do not have reasons to condemn it. Why do you see her as a fuckwit nutter?

It also has to be said that not all agree that ethnic heritage and its preservation -- as such -- is understood to be something bad or morally wrong. Is it morally wrong in your view for people -- a given people -- to desire to preserve their ethnic heritage?
Anyway, you are clearly a conspiracy theorist, and you have made it clear that you do believe that white people are being replaced.
Let me ask this question. If in 1965 the US was "90% European stock" and it is now "65% European stock" do you think it is fair to use the word 'replaced'? If that is not the right word, what word or term is the right one in your view?
Post Reply