fascism in America?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Yeah, well, it's pretty obvious what you need to hide.

Did you really think anyone would be fooled by this thinking man's white supremacist act you've got cooking?
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by promethean75 »

Are you a white person, AJ?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Gary Childress »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:56 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:03 pm There is no Jewish conspiracy that runs the world - that's a luntaic conspiracy theory.
Let me state and restate again so that my intentions are clear: I am essentially a researcher of the ideological and intellectual backgrounding of the idea-structures that inform our present. I want to know why people think and believe those things they think and believe. So, my endeavor is not to present an interpretive model and insist that it is the right one, or a good one (or a bad one or an evil one) but rather to try to understand why it is that people develop and hold to the ideas and perceptions they have.

To do this -- I think even someone like you so involved in the state of mind I am critiquing could relatively easily understand what I try to do -- it requires approaching things with an open mind. In order to understand a viewpoint or an ideology that is foreign to you, you have to put your a priories aside, to the degree that you are able to, and examine the viewpoint of that other person (or group, or culture, or nation, or period of time in history, etc.).

But one thing that you cannot do, or put another way the thing that it is better not to do, is to enter your investigation with pre-established conclusions. Let me make a small correction: one can certainly enter a study with pre-conceived ideas but when one does this the result will not be, say, honest historical work, but rather historical polemic or something along those lines. So on one side you have *honest historical research* and on the other *contrived historiography* which conceals, to one degree or other, the range of assumptions one seeks to assert or impose.

Now, I am far more interested in how it is that those who do assert Jewish conspiracy develop their view, and cobble their view together, than I am in entering into the debate to oppose their views or to deny it or correct it. The debate, the opposition, the contradiction, those are all valid activities (if they are conducted honestly) but that is not my object. My object is to research why people think what they think. So on one pole there is, say, state-generated propaganda (which we all are aware of and recognize) and on another hand there are private ideas and theories held by individuals which are (as I suggest) interpretive.

One of the things I gained from researching conspiracy theory -- a good source is Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (Univ. of California, 2003) -- is that all conspiracy theory is interpretive. If that is true then the following question must be: On what information are such theories based? And what methods are used to gain the information?

The contrasts here are extreme. On one hand their are wild and free-wheeling interpretations based on phantasy, or mystic revelation, or a rumor that runs like wild-fire, or views and ideas that are introduced by others who often remain invisible, but who influence how people think and see (take for example the asserted machinations of Russian propagandists working through bots and dummy-sites that were said to influence the US presidential elections).

The topic of *disinformation* is large and important indeed.

My assertion is that in our present there are people and entities (institutions if you will) that fight ruthlessly to get hold of your mind and to steer it to specific interpretive models. My suggestion is that time and energy be spent in examining these tactics and methods.

So with that said -- and I try to keep it relatively brief -- I want to suggest to you that you examine some of the material (I can only provide a tiny amount of course) that informs the opinions and perception and the *interpretive model* of those who you identify as believing the notion of a Jewish conspiracy that runs the world.

Notion was deliberately chosen and has this sense:
no·tion (nō′shən)
n.
1. A belief or opinion: had an old-fashioned notion of what qualities were most important in a mate.
2. A mental image; an idea or conception: Do you have any notion of what I'm referring to? See Synonyms at idea.
3. An impulse or whim: I suddenly had the notion of walking by the river.

[Middle English nocioun, concept, from Latin nōtiō, nōtiōn-, from nōtus, known, past participle of nōscere, to get to know; see gnō- in Indo-European roots.]
My idea is that people require interpretive theories in order to locate themselves, literally, in the Cosmos. This is undeniable when religious structures are examined. But here I am talking about interpretive theory that, generally, runs against a 'standard view' or an 'accepted view' for which the counter-interpretive view is an antidote or a protection-against.

Now, in the following video there are Jews and Jewish sources (some Christians as well) who explain their notion of Jewish conspiracy. Again I will restate why I am presenting this to you: So that you can see where *they* (those of Charlottesville) are getting these ideas. My interest is not in resolving the question, or fighting about it (or bickering about it), but simply in providing information as to why these people, some people, have the ideas they have.

Why do these people (in this case religious Jews and some religious Christians) have the idea that they do have? What is the next question once it has been established that they do have these ideas. Do I make them have these ideas? No. Is pointing out that they do have these ideas wrong or morally suspect? No. But surely the ideas that they have can be examined.

My object is to help you to understand why it is that those you mentioned (the fellows in Charlottesville) have the ideas that they do have. What is done about that and how we organize our perception of them, that is another issue.
There is nobody trying to fill up America with brown people to replace the white people - that's another silly conspiracy thery (or part of the same one).
This is actually another topic. We will have to leave it aside for the moment. But the question should be: Why do those who have this idea actually have it? On what is the perception based, etc.
What do you think of this statement from Noam Chomsky? https://chomsky.info/wp-content/uploads/20040917.pdf
Noam Chomsky: Moral codes . . . You can find things in the traditional religions
which are very benign and decent and wonderful and so on, but I mean,
the Bible is probably the most genocidal book in the literary canon.
The God of the Bible—not only did he order His chosen people to
carry out literal genocide—I mean, wipe out every Amalekite to the
last man, woman, child, and, you know, donkey and so on, because
hundreds of years ago they got in your way when you were trying to
cross the desert—not only did He do things like that, but, after all,
the God of the Bible was ready to destroy every living creature on
earth because some humans irritated Him. Thatʼs the story of Noah.
I mean, thatʼs beyond genocide—you donʼt know how to describe
this creature. Somebody offended Him, and He was going to destroy
every living being on earth? And then He was talked into allowing
two of each species to stay alive—thatʼs supposed to be gentle and
wonderful.
Chomsky seems to be criticizing God here. I mean, is the God mentioned above a God worthy of the total allegiance of every human being on Earth? Or, if this God truly exists, do we even have a choice as to whether or not to support it?
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by promethean75 »

what's coming is what i relate you now, and none of this is conspired by anyone. It's simply a natural dynamic.

in the future females won't even become pregnant and will have their babies grown in a vat. there will be far fewer monogamous nuclear family units in the first world countries, but people will still form partnerships for tax purposes and steady companionship, etc. homosexual populations will increase a bit but the vast majority of people will remain heterosexual polygamists.

but child rearing laws would stay the same. a mother with or without her reproductive partner (who contributes the sea men) would be obligated to care for the child financially and act as its legal guardian, etc.

so it won't be that bad, u guys. weird, but that's just from out 2022 perspective and sense of normality.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by promethean75 »

and don't think for a second that chicks in the year 2100 will care anything about that maternal beauty of natural child birth hippy nonsense. what concerns us now more than ever, and what will concern those of the future... a driving force so vital to our consumerist societies that it is almost fundamental to its existence... that of the the self conscious private citizen obsessed with its own hot bod.

there will be so much pressure to be hot that women wouldn't dare risk a physical pregnancy and ruin themselves. once we get this repeal of RvW crap straightened back out, we'll begin again in that direction. more and more freedom for women and men to be and maintain a hot bod while living a fulfilling family life at the same time.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Gary Childress wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:52 pm
Noam Chomsky: Moral codes . . . You can find things in the traditional religions
which are very benign and decent and wonderful and so on, but I mean,
the Bible is probably the most genocidal book in the literary canon.
The God of the Bible—not only did he order His chosen people to
carry out literal genocide—I mean, wipe out every Amalekite to the
last man, woman, child, and, you know, donkey and so on, because
hundreds of years ago they got in your way when you were trying to
cross the desert—not only did He do things like that, but, after all,
the God of the Bible was ready to destroy every living creature on
earth because some humans irritated Him. Thatʼs the story of Noah.
I mean, thatʼs beyond genocide—you donʼt know how to describe
this creature. Somebody offended Him, and He was going to destroy
every living being on earth? And then He was talked into allowing
two of each species to stay alive—thatʼs supposed to be gentle and
wonderful.
Chomsky seems to be criticizing God here. I mean, is the God mentioned above a God worthy of the total allegiance of every human being on Earth? Or, if this God truly exists, do we even have a choice as to whether or not to support it?
In regard to Chomsky, and having read many of his books and essays, there is not a metaphysical bone in his body and he describes himself as 'a child of the Enlightenment', so invested in rational, intelligible categories. His primary education was in yeshivas however and yet it has always seemed to me that if he absorbed anything from Judaism it was in the vein of social justice. Obviously, he has little conventional Jewish identity, is not a Zionist and within traditional Jewish communities he is often described as a 'self-hating Jew'.

Given his orientation the idea of God, the idea of a controlling or directing entity, would be inconsiderable. So while he does say that there are many beautiful or constructive admonitions in Judaism and the Torah, it is obvious that the God depicted is the depiction of a lunatic. I am unsure how anyone else (except among the religiously faithful) could see it differently.

Possibly if Chomsky were pressed on the matter he would say that the Voice of God is handled by a priest-class and is their invention. So Chomsky, unless there is some hidden aspect to his personal belief I am unaware of, would define himself as an atheist. I doubt that such metaphysical speculation holds any real interest at all for him. It is simply no part of his focus.

Chomsky in the largest picture is a critique of power and power-dynamics. In any case that is a sort of reduction I have found useful. At one point I concluded that he was a sort of Machiavellian in the sense that he is very good at seeing directly into the issue of power and power-dynamics. He sees such things in their rawest forms and strips away the stories of justification through which power defends what power does. He sees all political systems as power-management systems in which an élite holds power and attempts to justify that through rhetorical summersaults.

Within traditional Judaism (and you might have noticed this if you did watch the video I presented with snippets of Orthodox Rabbis expounding on their visions of the destiny of Jews as those chosen by God for a specific mission in this world) the idea of the Amalekites is a central one. If you follow the thrust of the Story it is symbolically clear: all who oppose or block the Jewish Project (as defined by those religious men who represent, of course, the priest-class) are not just enemies but representations of a metaphysical force that opposes the establishment of Judaic supremacy. This was and is the entire purpose of Judaism. That is what being a chosen people means. God is the director behind the scenes and yet enmeshed with all scenery (history). And there is a 'project' which is being brought to fruition and culmination.

The very curious thing in all of this is to see modern Christian Zionism in the light of this notion of terrestrial project. The Christian Zionists support of the Jewish Zionists and the reconquest of Judea is, literally, seen just as the first conquest was portrayed (that by Joshua in the book of Joshua). It is a reenactment and an act that is sponsored and approved by god (obviously). The events of the 20th century, and the re-founding of Israel, have reenergized Jewish historical ambition (if I can put it in this way) and, in the minds of the religious, the idea of the culmination of the Jewish historical project. That involves re-securing Judea and expanding it to what is known as Greater Israel:

Image

The Third Temple will be rebuilt and offerings and sacrificial religious life will resume. The Christian Zionists see themselves as 'God's helpers' in bringing these circumstances about. And the reason they can do this is because they believe in what is known as dispensationalism: two dispensations: one for the Gentiles and one for the Jews. It must be understood that *original Christianity* defined itself as a New Dispensation which excluded Jews and, in one sense, specific Jewish historical destiny. So when Jesus of Nazareth gave up his spirit:
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
The Hebrew dispensation ended, and the rending of the temple cloth, the earthquake, and eventually the expulsion (again) from Judea which led to the Jewish Diaspora, all of this was 'divine punishment'. But it is important to realize that, from a Christian/Catholic perspective the authority of the Hebrews came to an end. Jews as 'the chosen' were superseded. (This the doctrine of supersessionism).
Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology is a Christian theology which asserts that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ has superseded or replaced the Mosaic covenant exclusive to the Jews. Supersessionist theology also holds that the universal Christian Church has succeeded ancient Israel as God's true Israel and that Christians have succeeded the ancient Israelites as the people of God.
As recently as 1943, Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Mystici corporis Christi:

By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. ... [O]n the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees and fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.
So the Christian story runs like this: The Jewish dispensation ended when, 'at the foot of the cross', Jews rejected the Messiah. And with the rejection of the Messiah, and this inevitably, Jews were left within a 'project of rebellion'. That is to say that it was conceived that if one did not accept the Messiah and his project (for the world, for humanity) that one could not be else but a rebel and a revolutionary. This was certainly the way that the idea of Hebrew rejection of the Messiah was understood. It really could not be taken in any other way given the metaphysical predicates within the idea-system.

The Jewish High Priests Annas and Caiphas did say: “If you come down from the cross, we will accept you as our Messiah.” But Jesus of Nazareth, of course, resolved to stay up there. But at a metaphysical level, of course, he did 'come down' but only be remaining true to his mission.

Turning back to the idea of harem:
Herem or cherem (Hebrew: חרם, ḥērem), as used in the Tanakh, means something given over to Yahweh, or under a ban, and sometimes refers to things or persons to be utterly destroyed. The term has been explained in different and sometimes conflicting ways by different scholars. It has been defined as "a mode of secluding, and rendering harmless, anything imperilling the religious life of the nation", or "the total destruction of the enemy and his goods at the conclusion of a campaign", or "uncompromising consecration of property and dedication of the property to God without possibility of recall or redemption". It is translated into Latin as devotio, a word used for human sacrifice, and into Greek as anathema, which was a sacrifice to the Gods.

There is a related verb, heḥərîm (החרים), meaning "to treat as ḥērem", or "destroy utterly".
Joshua "carries out a systematic campaign against the civilians of Canaan — men, women and children — that amounts to genocide." In doing this he is carrying out herem as commanded by Yahweh in Deuteronomy 20:17: "You shall not leave alive anything that breathes". The purpose is to drive out and dispossess the Canaanites, with the implication that there are to be no treaties with the enemy, no mercy, and no intermarriage. "The extermination of the nations glorifies Yahweh as a warrior and promotes Israel's claim to the land," while their continued survival "explores the themes of disobedience and penalty and looks forward to the story told in Judges and Kings."  The divine call for massacre at Jericho and elsewhere can be explained in terms of cultural norms (Israel was not the only Iron Age state to practice herem) and theology (a measure to ensure Israel's purity as well as the fulfillment of God's promise),  but Patrick D. Miller in his commentary on Deuteronomy remarks, "there is no real way to make such reports palatable to the hearts and minds of contemporary readers and believers."
I believe that we need to see that the notion of the evolution of the world, and the transformation of the world, is a Core Idea that operates within the Occidental canon. Even if one is outside of religious belief (like Chomsky) nevertheless, and likely because we all absorb metaphysical ideas at a foundational level (a perceptual and thus a metaphysical level) that we can't help but see the unfolding of reality in these ways. It is curious to realize that Nietzsche confronted this notion with his idea of Eternal Return. Not an evolutionary or culminating view of the unfolding of reality but a series of recurring circles.

But Chomsky, in many ways, and given his moral predicates, sees the world as coming to a fruition according to a 'design'. He sees language as *innate* in human beings and something that it genetic. Similarly, I have presumed he sees the fruition of history (in a socialistic world-civilization?) as also 'genetic'.
Last edited by Alexis Jacobi on Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

double
Last edited by Alexis Jacobi on Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

double post
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by iambiguous »

Here we go again...?

'Soon after the F.B.I. searched Donald J. Trump’s home in Florida for classified documents, online researchers zeroed in on a worrying trend.

Posts on Twitter that mentioned “civil war” had soared nearly 3,000 percent in just a few hours as Mr. Trump’s supporters blasted the action as a provocation. Similar spikes followed, including on Facebook, Reddit, Telegram, Parler, Gab and Truth Social, Mr. Trump’s social media platform. Mentions of the phrase more than doubled on radio programs and podcasts, as measured by Critical Mention, a media-tracking firm.

Posts mentioning “civil war” jumped again a few weeks later, after President Biden branded Mr. Trump and “MAGA Republicans” a threat to “the very foundations of our republic” in a speech on democracy in Philadelphia.

Now experts are bracing for renewed discussions of civil war, as the Nov. 8 midterm elections approach and political talk grows more urgent and heated.'
New York Times

In other works, back to the media accounts of how, post January 6th, there were endless stories of how the attack on the Capitol Building was just the tip of the iceberg. That in the coming weeks and months violent attacks would be exploding from coast to coast.

Instead, virtually nothing.

Same thing now? Is it all more about the media itself fanning the flames in order to attract readers and subscribers?

And then of course the part where even if the attacks -- the "civil war" -- unfolds as predicted it can all be linked to "semi-fascism" in America.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

It came to my attention that the election loss of D. Trump was by 21,000+ votes. Had he got that amount or slightly more he’d have won.

What is the term to describe the type of machinations that were successfully used to stop his election? They say that suppressing the Biden family’s involvement in illegality and the Hunter Biden laptop lies may have influenced the Biden turnout. But there were many other actions as well (that have been alluded to but not proved).

So the assertion “the election was stolen” is not so outrageous. What if that was the case? Could it ever be proved?

If it was stolen that indicates a civil-government illegality of proportion. A desperate act by a régime they call “the deep state”: intelligence operatives, deeply situated political figures, tech companies, news distribution outlets. The “ruling structure”.

Certainly a civil crisis is at hand. But isn’t the issue that one is not allowed to describe it as a corrupt series of actions? And that those who do so are dangerous insurrectionists undermining democracy?

What actually happened? Who can report on this honestly? Was the riot therefore “justified” at least on some level (even though totally ill advised)?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by iambiguous »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 pm It came to my attention that the election loss of D. Trump was by 21,000+ votes. Had he got that amount or slightly more he’d have won.
Where does this number come from?

https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers

'The Popular Vote

'Biden won 81,283,098 votes, or 51.3 percent of the votes cast. He is the first U.S. presidential candidate to have won more than 80 million votes. Trump won 74,222,958 votes, or 46.8 percent of the votes cast. That’s more votes than any other presidential candidate has ever won, with the exception of Biden. (Third-party candidates picked up 1.8 percent of the votes cast.)'
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:56 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 pm It came to my attention that the election loss of D. Trump was by 21,000+ votes. Had he got that amount or slightly more he’d have won.
Where does this number come from?

https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers

'The Popular Vote

'Biden won 81,283,098 votes, or 51.3 percent of the votes cast. He is the first U.S. presidential candidate to have won more than 80 million votes. Trump won 74,222,958 votes, or 46.8 percent of the votes cast. That’s more votes than any other presidential candidate has ever won, with the exception of Biden. (Third-party candidates picked up 1.8 percent of the votes cast.)'
Perhaps the information I got is wrong. I am uncertain. I read it and it surprised me.

As you know it is not in our system the total number of votes, but electoral votes. And that depends on winning, or losing, particular states. My understanding is that the votes in 3 states were as close as I wrote (21,000 more or less) to have won in those states, and to have got those electoral votes.

PS: I am also of the opinion that -- eventually -- the details of how Biden pulled off such a win will become known. I know there have been numerous theories and rumblings, which have not convinced me, but I have a hunch that someday it will be made plain. Though I could be wrong of course. I have no way of knowing!
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:07 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:53 am Why not do 3 at once? Why not do those 3?
They are absurd conspiracy theories are they not?
The alien theory you can safely dismiss.

So too the flat-earth theory.

The Shoah narrative has some fictional elements which are still contested. But the general picture (the destruction of European Jewry) is a certainty.

The manipulation of historical narrative is simply put par for the course.

So each theory (your term) would need to be examined one by one. Our view of history has been tweaked and molded. But I assume you know this.
As per your boast in the "Christianity" thread, you must now be ready to explain what "The Shoah narrative has some fictional elements which are still contested."

In case you forget that proffer, here's a reminder:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 5:33 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 5:15 pm Or you could have answered the question without demanding a bilbiography of anyone who dares question you.

But achingly sad wriggling in order to avoid answering questions is the key skill that you and Immanuel Can share. And that was the point I was making for Seeds, so .... kinda point made really isn't it?
Your “question” was not genuine. It was of the “do you still beat your wife” variety. To have engaged in an answer would be to agree with your assertion (that I ‘deny’ the Shoah).

Don’t conflate IC and myself.

There is no genuine question that he might ask, or that you might ask (here on this thread and topic) that I would not make a sincere effort to answer.

Why don’t you find a way to engage with the topic at hand?
So, in youer words, and without frivolous demands for exotic bibliography.... What does this actually mean...?

The Shoah narrative has some fictional elements which are still contested.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: fascism in America?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Why is this subject of interest to you?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: fascism in America?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

You could answer the question.
Post Reply