I agree with this but don't forget the cautionary part of the tale:
The "end of communism" and the collapse of the Soviet Union was not by a long shot the end of corruption or the restoration of society. One of the reasons people say Russia is based today is because they are just ~20 years behind the curve from the collapse and the damages of Communism. They're 20 years behind technologically and 40 years behind culturally. To be clear, I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying they don't have a unique source of "basedness", it's just a delay. Many of the biggest problems Russia faces today (widespread cultural apathy and chronic alcoholism as two examples) are remaining effects of communism that were not successfully fought against and beaten.
The battle isn't won when communism falls, or when the army comes home. The battle between liberty and tyranny is long lasting. Just as we are not defeated today, when we come to victory in the future, it will not be absolute. "Eternal vigilance is the cost of liberty". Likewise, we must never be lulled into a false sense of security - it's that false sense of security more than anything, I think, that brought us here in the first place. When the so-called "greatest generation" returned home from "liberating Europe" (and Japan), the belief was that "freedom won"; all the while the Soviet Union still stood and was already expanding, and members of our own government continued their path towards domination through every route available.
The assassination of Kennedy should probably have been the wakeup call right there, but people still believed they had won and that there couldn't be evil right here at home. Evil was only outside. They were wrong, and for their sloth and ignorance we now pay.
Wait, they are not screwing animals are they?
I hate to break it to you...
Sort of. They dress up in degenerate costumes of animals (stylistically kind of like cartoon animals) and then "do the deed".
While it isn't a requirement to "being a furry", I would be shocked if much more than half of them weren't screwing animals or liked the idea of it.
Your posts are so often fantastic because they're a breath of fresh air from the constant low IQ pro (national) socialist posts everywhere.
When it is in the name you would think people would take note but evidently the socialist propaganda of the past ~80 years has been enough to convince people the group just called themselves that... for no reason whatsoever.
People that bring up stuff like "Well Communist China calls itself a people's republic, but it's clearly not that, so the National Socialists must have done the same thing!" but that argument falls apart for anyone that isn't overtly pro-socialist. Communist China calls itself a Republic to pretend to be one. If socialism is evil, and the national socialist party opposed to it, why the hell would that name be chosen? If they really aren't socialist, it's a lie flat out. If they really wanted to fight socialism, why lie that you are it?
The MAGA crowd doesn't call itself the "Globalist Alliance Party" or something like that. We're opposed to rampant globalism, and while appeasing it might bring us something, it doesn't help us fight it to pretend to be for it.
This leaves the modern national socialist fan essentially two options: Denounce national socialism as socialism and evil, or embrace socialism. At least some of the honest ones I've seen have come to terms with the latter and revealed themselves as the Marxists with a different paint scheme they really are, but so few have in total.
While the importance of clear and well written laws cannot be overstated, I have come to the solid conclusion that there is no amount of law in the world which can preserve liberty. The cause of liberty must be upheld by the people, sometimes at great pain; to inspire such requires cultural and moral integrity.
Conservatives have essentially only lost ground on that front in the last 50+ years. In big part, financial value and so-called "scientific advancement" has become the driving force for a lot of conservatives over the decades, and any sort of cultural work (art, etc.) has broadly been shunned (think about the average reaction of a conservative to the "starving artist" trope). I'm not suggesting conservatives should have embraced such things per say, but instead of running from it, strong alternative culture should have been proposed and celebrated. Ideally that culture promotes conservative values, moral integrity, and general wisdom.
There is no shortage of evidence that Joe is a pedo, but this image is one of the most clear examples of "fake" I have seen in a long time.
Evidence: 1.) Child has no shadow 2.) Biden's hand has improper shadowing 3.) The border where the child was photoshopped in has substantial blurring in parts which do not match the rest of the photo quality. Key location: back of the neck. 4.) The position of the child's feet is higher than that of Biden's; unless his body is substantially twisted (which it is not) his hands should be closer to the camera than the child, yet that is not what is depicted (clearly indicating the child is photoshopped in)
I think a bit of both but also I would like to point out that the claim that more youth turned out has been called into question.
IIRC youth turned up in the same quantity roughly as in 2020, but I think the bigger deal is that other democratic voter categories turned out less, making youth the more prominent category.
And to some extent this just makes sense. As each generation has gone on, polarization has increased. Gen Z looks to be the most polarized generation thus far, with both a net increase in LGBTQ+ identifying people AND a more conservative trend amongst others.
So it would be somewhat natural that the most brainwashed zealots - the youth who they have indoctrinated - would show up in force for any election.
If our side did a better job of reaching young people we'd probably see the same thing in reverse, as there are QUITE a lot of very conservative young zealots that see their peers self destructing, chopping body parts off, etc. and want a return to very traditional living, end of taxation, etc. Unfortunately conservatives often fall prey to generational warfare rhetoric and as such fail and neglect to reach out to and get our young people motivated.
That is a fair point; high schools should be responsible for preparing students for the real world (which they don't either), though I do think colleges should prepare you for a professional career. If that career benefits from a more "well rounded" education then competition between universities should wind up encouraging that. As it stands universities do not really effectively compete, which is causing numerous problems.
Also here is the video I meant to link but evidently forgot to:
It describes essentially what you said and how fascist governments copied policy from communists.
Neither definition you listed conflicts with those I have provided; they also do not go into detail. No advanced political ideology can be sufficiently described in a matter of a few sentences.
Note also that the descriptions here - at least the parts of them which do not pertain to Italy - could fairly readily be applied to any communist state in memory.
The error here is not then necessarily redefining fascism; it is just taking a definition which is too generic. Just as you could describe a "sparrow" as a type of small bird, there is also a scientific definition of that genius that has tons of specific information about its characteristics and what makes it unique, as well as its evolutionary heritage.
And if these definitions you go off of DID disagree with those I provided, then I would assert that it is they, not you, who redefined the word. Certainly that is nothing new to dictionaries these days, since they have in more recent times redefined "vaccine", and "woman". Regardless, I consider original source material best; both of those dictionary definitions were written AFTER Mussolini and co defined modern fascism, I assure you.
If a bird exists for 200 years under a variety of names, and then one day a new name (that had not been applied to a bird before) is given and popularized by someone, that name has no other basis for meaning any other bird. To suggest that "that bird isn't ___, this bird is ___" when no such name had been given to that second bird before is redefining the meaning of the name.
To my knowledge (and at lack of any examples from you), no other ideology in the past has been called "Fascism". The first people to coin that name, and define the ideology as such, were the Italians in the 30s. Anyone who suggests that Fascism is not what was originally defined is trying to redefine it.
Yes, there may have been other names for the same ideology which fascism is designed as following in the past. But that doesn't change the meaning of the word "fascism", it just applies to systems of the past with the same meaning/form.
So your understanding of morality is entirely devoid of context? Interesting.
In the home defense scenario, if you can repel the home invader without shooting them, and they are sufficiently distant, or even imprisoned (before prisons were releasing anyone left of center), would you feel so justified in shooting them in the back?
What about his friends? Say you figure out his identity and go and shoot his friends despite their lack of involvement. Is that just?
Fascism and Socialism both involve the destruction of private property. Your example is retarded because under both you don't even own your own house, so shooting an intruder may be illegal.
Value of liberty, especially liberties to personal property, demand a system of representation as an extension of private property, especially when that property is taxed (not fully owned by you).
Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-SLqdhkvJo
the idea that one is just political while the other is just economic isn't really correct.
Fascism simply lifted Marxist economic policy directly, and leftists have been trying to bury that ever since.
Edited: forgot to include video link
Who are you to redefine fascism? As far as I know (feel free to correct me), the first ideological group to claim the name fascism was Mussolini's party. Yes, what policy is outlined could be compared to and akin to governmental policy of the past, but retroactively redefining fascism after it's conception as something other than what the original meaning was is simply illogical.
As far as Rome goes, yes there were periods of rule in which policy matches that of the now defined fascism, and yes modern fascism is symbolically derivative of Roman imagery and culture. National socialism similarly derived much of its imagery from indo-european iconography (which is at least partially why Ukraine still wears that symbology today; when Ukraine was released from the Soviet Union, they lacked much in the way of national identity to return to as they had been generally a subject of some other nation going back to pagan times, where symbols like the Swastika, Black Sun, Wolfansigel, etc. were all common. Their usage of that iconography is both a rejection of what they perceive as Russian imperialism (or Soviet imperialism) [generally in favor of the most recent time in history in which they were not under Russian rule, when the Germans captured the bulk of modern Ukraine] and a return to the most recent known cultural roots that aren't deeply intertwined with Russia, Poland, or Lithuania (the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth to be precise).
That being said, symbolism is not policy, and the Roman empire, over its centuries of dominance, went through the overwhelming majority of the political spectrum.
Monarchies often bear similarities to Fascism (and socialism for that matter) but "Monarchy" is not a system of policy per say on its own. The UK and many other European nations still have "Monarchies" but many have undergone (or are undergoing) periods of proto-socialism, proto-fascism, and the likes. Policy wise, however, the majority of monarchies of the past followed a system of Feudalism, which bore great similarity to Fascism and Socialism. While the differences between Fascism and Socialism were primarily aesthetic, Feudalism had some deeper differences, mostly revolving around technology and the centralization of government. Feudalism was a rather authoritarian system, but politically still rather decentralized. Sure, the king could go to a vassal and make demands, but if his demands were not backed by the other vassals, it would likely be refused, and could result in war. The state was naught more than an aristocracy of similarly powerful individuals; a sort of democracy of the elites. Socialism (be it fascism, Nazisim, or communism) generally uses modern technologies to enforce much greater centralization of power, and a bastardized market of supply and demand (while feudalism often neglected a care for supply and demand entirely, which is part of what lead to such a high quantity of famine and general lack of wealth among even the elites).
As far as differing aims go, I would like examples (with direct sources, if possible) of the crucial differences in policy. As far as I can see, all sought expansion, total economic and social control, and the global dominance of their brand.
The bedrock of fascism (at least as it has been historically implemented) comes from 'The Doctrine of Fascism' (1932) written by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile (Can be purchased here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1184142.The_Doctrine_of_Fascism) which in overt words, at times, dismisses socialism, but in content often mirrors or matches it. These individuals are essentially the architects of modern fascism, and this writing, as well as speeches and personal letters, show a clear parallel to traditional socialism, albeit with a less socially radical bent and a more faux traditionalist aesthetic (Faux because it pretends to idolize the family unit, but in reality, the state reigned absolute supreme; just as modern socialists idolize minorities while turning them into chattel to the state)
Why then, do socialists and communists vilify fascism and Nazism? Two simple reasons. The socialists and communists of today want to avoid being associated with what has demonstrated to be a highly destructive and authoritarian structure (while implementing many of its tenants in their own favor). The communists of the past - namely Stalin - did not like competition. By branding somewhat differently from each other, each incarnation of socialism - the Soviet Union's Communism, the Reich's "National Socialism", and the Italian "Fascism" was able to take root independently and appeal to their own demographics without subjecting itself to subservience to the stronger "socialist state" (something Italian fascism ultimately failed at).
For an extended argument as to the socialist nature of Fascism and National Socialism, you can view this video, which, unlike many so-called modern "historians", repeatedly dives into direct sources from the times and the architects of these ideologies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-SLqdhkvJo
The recurring challenge with ideological debates tends to be differentiating that which is said (or in theory) and that which is done. Fortunately, Fascism, Socialism, National Socialism, and Communism tend to mirror each other thoroughly in both theory and implementation.
I also want to wrap this up by asserting that this is very obviously not modern communist or socialist propaganda; they distance themselves in word as far as possible from Nazism and fascism.
I also want to be clear that while I agree with the comparison, arguments, and details provided in the linked video, I also don't agree with the wholestead political alignments of its author. So in a very real way, this argument isn't just political bleating from myself, it is a distinct argument made about historical ideology.
The merits of such ideologies are not a part of my argument here, though my presence here is probably enough to suggest that I despise socialism.
Well at this point the box is opened, but yeah the point is if they could have been bankrupted out of they wouldn't have invested in such a shaky premise.
If the banks etc. that were offering their loans had to have confidence in their investments, so many fewer people would be ABLE to go to college (as it should be) and in turn universities would be forced to produce demonstrable results instead of offering shit like gender studies degrees.
At this point, knowing how the banks have repeatedly pulled this grift in everything, the most recent major example being housing/08 - I have no problem saying fuck em and forcing them to eat shit. Debt slavery was antithetical to a lot of the foundational principles of this country which is why almost every other debt offered on an individual level does not have those same conditions. Of course over the last century or so they've found every way to work around those rules they can and that includes universities.
As far as the folks that paid them, I'm not sure. Like I said, it's a shitty situation when you let the cat out of the bag like that. At least it wouldn't be a case of forcing the taxpayers to pay directly for it though.
Except the problem here is that the teachers went on strike and the students were going to be failed because they hadn't been taught anything, despite paying a considerable amount for tuition...
So really, the answer is close to what you said, but swap out students for universities, bullying and discipline for competition and free market economics, and I would agree. Universities have been hoisted into a position of ridiculous power and leverage and they have not ceased to abuse that alongside their economic partners to enslave generation after generation of students to debt that uniquely cannot be bankrupted out of.
Faux conservative media is absolutely adoring driving the generational gap. By turning conservatives against the "stupid youth" they convince them to give up the future generations without a fight, when the future generations are some of the most ripe for the fostering of young people that can restore our civilization and culture with their absolute rage at the state of affairs.
From the people I've spoken to there, the trajectory is not so absolute. You can argue all you want about the validity of the war in Ukraine, but the general sentiment, especially among the younger generation, is similar to the US's sentiment about Vietnam. I don't see them going all neomarxist but I also don't see them going the way Putin talks. Really it looks more like as a populace they're going for 90s and early 2000s US conservatism right now, which is really sort of a faux conservatism. This in combination with the extremely high likelihood that there is probably a huge network of sleeper color revolutionaries means that a decade or less down the line they could very well start radically trending towards neomarxism themselves.
There's a huge distrust of the government there in general (understandably), so I would be careful not to mistake what Putin has said as sentiment of the populace.
Among the more nationalistic people there, as well, there is a strong sense of nostalgia for the Soviet Union. Communism itself isn't exactly the focus of this, but many look back on the USSR as the time when Russia was a competitor on the world stage, and was patriotic and had dominion over its region (kinda like the neo-con 90s/00s interventionism attitude). This itself again isn't a direct demand for communism, but I could see the demographic being harnessed as a ways of bringing about another communist revolution.
Their future is very much up in the air, as is ours.