Toni Morrison's Ten Steps Towards Fascism:

Also sounds like Donald Trump's methodology.

>Just like fascists are a scapegoat among Commies.
Who came first, the radical Left or fascists?

Commies.

Depends on, when do you think Radical leftism started?
Fascism is a bit more specific as the ideology clearly started between the two world wars (Unless I am mistaken) while you can say that the Anarchists of the 19th century were radical leftists.
In Germany it was rather clearly the lefties though, a lot of support for the Nazis came from them being a force of order among lefties (Or at least the less disorderly one) where the radical left began starting revolts as early as 1919.

Exactly
This list is a list of steps toward totalitarianism
It has nothing to do with fascism in particular

I don't think Toni Morisson knows what fascism is.

She has some vague familiarity with Hitler and Nazi Germany and assumes that's fascism.

It is, in part, but not nearly the whole picture.

If you look at facist leaders and their political ideologies, across different nationalities and continents, what you will see are a form of government vaguely similar with the following features:

-There is a cult of personality surrounding the one principal leader of that nation
-They all portray some intermediate-strong level of nationalistic tendencies (but then again, what government actually doesn't?)
-Economic policies are often left-wing and socialist in nature
-Totalitarian government control, meaning no political parties aside from one government entity
-Structured more or less like a military

In that regard, fascism isn't really all that different than dictatorships, and in fact many dictatorships display fascist tendencies. There's variations of 'fascism' as much as there's variations of any political ideology.

Do you think it's possible to say that while the Communists in Russia can be called revolutionaries the ones in Germany should rather be called hooligans, or at least those after the revolution of 1919? I am thinking about how those in Russia generally had the support of a much bigger part of the population than those in Germany. The Commies in Germany seems to have been less interested in attacking the state and creating their own than attacking right wing Hooligans.

>The Commies in Germany seems to have been less interested in attacking the state and creating their own than attacking right wing Hooligans.
It depends on individual cases. Communism in Weimar Germany was bound up with the USSR's geopolitical interests in many ways. How many fat acceptance activists are interested in genuinely revolutionary activities? How many of them identify as socialists or Communists? How many of them are just interested in having an identity that accompanies their emotions? Complicated questions.

Leftism is a trojan horse for fascism

ITT: Butthurt Rightists.

Could've just simplified it to: "Turn some people or something into a boogeyman."
It doesn't really describe facism as a political structure anyway.

>facism as a political structure
It isn't a political structure. It's a state of mind.

Russia is headed towards being a fascist state now with a cult of personality centered around Putin. It was inching along until 2014 and the Ukraine shit, now it's in massive hyperdrive. If you want a real, living example of how fascism is implemented, look at contemporary Russia.

inb4 butthurt vatniks

May I ask what a woman who has spent the bulk of her career writing about the experience of African Americans is doing commenting on a political movement that never had any significant influence in America?

Profiting

>Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way.

-George Orwell

Every second day there's a thread like this, usually asking for a definition of fascism, stop posting these same threads constantly it's getting a bit old, if people are genuinely curious they should read the archive, 'Fascism' in its true original forms cannot and does not exist in the world today, owing to the origins and goals of the movements which came to label themselves fascist.

China is already a Fascist state in function
also by that definition all dictatorships/monarchies are fascist

Idk but LOGH is GOAT.

>1. Construct an internal enemy, as both focus and diversion.

salon.com/2015/12/22/white_men_must_be_stopped_the_very_future_of_the_planet_depends_on_it_partner/

>2. Isolate and demonize that enemy by unleashing and protecting the utterance of overt and coded name-calling and verbal abuse. Employ ad hominem attacks as legitimate charges against that enemy.

theguardian.com/society/2002/jul/03/raceintheuk.comment

>3. Enlist and create sources and distributors of information who are willing to reinforce demonizing process because it is profitable, because it grants power and because it works.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies

>4. Palisade all art forms: monitor, discredit or expel those that challenge or destabilize processes of demonization and deification.

gamasutra.com/blogs/DevinWilson/20140828/224450/A_Guide_to_Ending_quotGamersquot.php

>5. Subvert and malign all representatives of and sympathizers with this constructed enemy.

theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/jan/31/iron-man-white-male-geek-culture-fantasy-science-fiction

>6. Solicit, from among the enemy, collaborators who agree with and can sanitize the dispossession process.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckservative

>7. Pathologize the enemy in scholarly and popular mediums; recycle, for example, scientific racism and the myths of racial superiority in order to naturalize the pathology.

livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

>8. Criminalize the enemy. Then prepare, budget for and rationalize the building of holding arenas for the enemy-especially the males and absolutely its children.

marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

>9. Reward mindlessness and apathy with monumentalized entertainments and with little pleasures, tiny seductions: a few minutes on television, a few lines in the press; a little fun, a little style, a little consequence.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/27/sexists-are-scared-of-mad-max-because-it-is-a-call-to-dismantle-patriarchies

>10. Maintain, at all costs, silence.

reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2sya8r/can_someone_explain_the_context_behind_listen_and/

What the fuck are comments like this supposed to mean?
Hasn't everyone on Veeky Forums heard of Giovanni Gentile by now?

A toast to democracy!

>distilling fascism from its historical and social context

kek

Once one understands politics (every single form of it) are just a struggle for power for economic groups, intellectuals, military and religions, you realize whatever the outcome, the normal folk will be simply be used as pawns that nobody gives one shit about.

It's an awfully simplistic approach, but God damn it, the common populance deserves some fucking respect and truth. Can we ever hope for a form of politic that doesn't simply view people as useful idiots or "sheep"?

Every single human being deserves to be respected as one. Just acknowledge they are people and not some fucking tool to be used and disposed.

Let's hope automatization through AI forces us as a species to have a deep fucking look into ourselves.

Yang: A nation doesn’t create individuals by cellular division. Instead, it is individuals with autonomous intent who gather to establish a nation. In a democratic society, it is axiomatic as to which one is the master and which the servant.

Inquisitor Negroponty: Axiomatic, eh? My understanding is rather different. Humans are social creatures. Nobody can live alone, and thus the nation holds indispensable value to the people.

Yang: Really? People may need societies, but they don’t necessarily need “nations.”

Negroponty: Well, I’m surprised. You’re a pretty radical anarchist.

Yang: No, but you could say I’m a veganist. Although as soon as I look at a delicious meat dish, I break my commandments at once.

We'll either go full Dune or full Culture someday if we don't annihilate ourselves. It'll be fucking grand.
Either a galactic civilization run by humans with astounding mental and physical capacities that have managed to replace the functions computers serve in modern industrial society, or a galactic civilization in which information technology actually makes central planning and hierarchical life compatible with genuine εὐδαιμονία.
Or nothing.

>Yang: A nation doesn’t create individuals by cellular division. Instead, it is individuals with autonomous intent who gather to establish a nation. In a democratic society, it is axiomatic as to which one is the master and which the servant.

>Inquisitor Negroponty: Axiomatic, eh? My understanding is rather different. Humans are social creatures. Nobody can live alone, and thus the nation holds indispensable value to the people.

>Yang: Really? People may need societies, but they don’t necessarily need “nations.”

>Negroponty: Well, I’m surprised. You’re a pretty radical anarchist.

>Yang: For you.

In LOGH you find that no matter the system you live in what is really important are the people and ideals behind them, the 3 nations in it are both representations of Western civilisation. As long as the Rule of Law, citizen armies and separation of powers we are good to go.

I think the West never truly realizes how unique we fucking are since ancient Greece compared to the rest of the world.

I always thought that when Yang says that Vegan thing means he is just stating he is a realist, and we must adapt to survive.

I think it's a subtle dig at the way his government is behaving. The ideals of the FPA are supposed to be superior, but as is shown in the series, the individuals acting in their place are incompetent and corrupt enough that this isn't important. In the end, people in the Empire have better welfare, a more effective form of government, and more qualified people running that government. Yang was smart enough to know that anarchy is the natural state of things, and that he was only serving the Alliance because of the place he was born. He could just as easily have been a great admiral for Reinhard in different circumstances and it wouldn't have made him feel bad.

Partly I agree with you, but Yang believed in Democracy. The Empire was pretty fucked up place before Lohengramm shows up, and the progressive FPA was clearly a better place to be.

Yang knows shit evolves and as people, nations exit because of a reason and if that reason no longer exist they disappear.
Civilisations and Goverments die but Culture and Knowledge survives.
Yang: Even if you look at a mountain, if you only look at it from one direction, you can’t grasp the whole…Embodiments of evil don’t exist other than in television dramas…Maybe history will classify us not as good but as the evil camp…people aren’t strong enough to endure the recognition that they’re evil. Therefore, believing in their own righteousness, they fight to force their views on other people.

Julian: There’s no such thing as absolute righteousness?

Yang: That’s right. So, Julian, if you go to Phezzan, try to see the difference between their idea of righteousness and ours. That wouldn’t be a bad experience for you. Compared to that, the rise and fall of nations pales in significance. That’s the truth.

Julian: Even the rise and fall of the Free Planets Alliance?

Yang: Right. I hope the nation lasts long enough for me to collect all my benefits after I retire. But if you look at it from historical perspective, the Free Planets Alliance was born as the antithesis of Rudolf Von Goldenbaum’s ideals.

Julian: Right.

Yang: Constitutional government against totalitarianism, progressive democracy against intolerant despotism. Well, advocating such things, because they came to be put into practice as well, and if the Rudolf-like things are denied and buried by Prince Lohengramm, there’ll be no special reason why the Alliance should continue. Look, Julian. Just as people sometimes die, nations aren’t eternally indestructible things, either. The entities called nations are no more than simple tools. If you remember just that fact, maybe you can maintain your perspective.

>The Empire was pretty fucked up place before Lohengramm shows up, and the progressive FPA was clearly a better place to be.
It was progress that led to the decadence of the Republic, though. It's all a vicious cycle. Republican ideals always become perverted in time, as do autocracies. The FPA failed to properly reform as it needed to, which combined with its military defeats (caused, in part, by the zealous pursuit of Republican ideals beyond their ethical and rational limits in relation to the rights and desires of citizens and the limitations of the state.

youtube.com/watch?v=78juY_OcxrI

Of course this isn't to say that Rudolf dindu nuffin, only that Reinhard is basically a demigod.

The goal of the battle was not to inflict cruelty. But righteousness and faith are most bloodthirsty. In order to bring about those high principles they chant about, those in command must burn countless men alive, and smash them body and limb. But as long as those in command are far from the battlefield, they must continue to insist that righteousness and faith are more important than human lives. If one were to be able to draw a line between Prince Lohengramm and those unworthy rulers, it would be that he often stands foremost at the front line. As for Yang Wenli, it would be the guilt that he feels so keenly at causing so much death.

Are The Pacific and Band of Brothers as good as or better than LotGH? Honestly, it was the most moving war saga I've ever encountered. I want to give some other classics a chance now.

Moving war saga?

Sure. Read the Iliad.

Its the west and its weirdness encapsulated by a masterful poet.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aofPdMbXzUQ

I can't say for sure, but I think Yang's admiration for Reinhard not only showed how terrible the FPA politicians were, but to also show Yang's historian side. Despite his allegiance to democratic ideals, he can't help but feel like he's witnessing history in the making watching the spectacular rise of Reinhard.

And in that same vein as an observer, he can't bring himself to truly change history like Schenkopp wants him to. He knows the Empire under Reinhard has become more altruistic than even the FPA, but he still fights on because democracy, not matter how imperfect it is, will always be more favorable to Yang than even the most benevolent dictatorship. Instead, he just fights the battles he's ordered to like a good boy and waits patiently for his pension.

The Pacific does a better job at showing the effect of combat on the individual.

youtube.com/watch?v=r8U9NB0OIlk

Yang knew it, thats why he did not kill the Reinhard.

He left everything in place, he even left Iserlohn as a symbol for democratic rule, because he knew its seed would probably infect the enlightened Empire.
Reinhard: Is democracy such a great thing? Didn’t the Galactic Republic give birth to Rudolf and his Galactic Empire? Wasn’t the one who delivered your beloved nation into my hands your own ruler, chosen by the free will of the people of the Alliance? Democratic rule is a body chosen by its citizens in free will which subsumes the power and spirit of self.

Yang: if you could pardon my rudeness, your excellency, your words are as if the value of fire should be denied, simply because arson exists.

Reinhard: Hmm, that may be true, but wouldn’t you say the same applies to dictatorship? you cannot deny the efficiency of government by a strong leadership simply because tyrants do exist.

Yang: I can.

Reinhard: How?

Yang: The right to violate the rights of the people belong to the people. In other words, when the people gave power to Rudolf von Goldenbaum, or to an incomparably smaller man like Job Trunicht, the responsibility belongs to the people. It belongs to on one else. Thats the important point. The sin of dictatorship is that the people can push off the failures of government onto one man. Compared to that cardinal sin, the accomplishments of a hundred wise rulers seem small. In addition, your Excellency, a ruler as great as you is exceedingly rare. It’s only natural that your accomplishments and your failures also stand out.

“Perhaps in this universe, there exists a solitary, absolute truth. Perhaps it clarifies every question. But that’s beyond the reach of these short hands.”

Who the fuck is Toni Morrison and where does she get this shit from?

>she
that's all you need to know right there

This must be what it was like among the Japanese high command during WWII
>[retarded idea]
>We can't do that!
>but Muh Nippon, muh Emperor
>They do it

this only happens to people predisposed towards PTSD, my grandpappy said it wasn't bad unless you got wounded of course

Is LoGH really that good? I've always seen it thrown around and I've recently found myself in a show hole

This has nothing to do with fascism, it's just a propaganda technique.

I can think of like a dozen ways these strategies have been used in recent history from all over the political spectrun.

it's a masterpiece, but it's not for everyone. I loved it

Its good but very long and if you like constant action or animay tiddies this isn't the show. The shows strong suit is political intrigue and it dumps it constantly through dialogue.

the Earth Cult section was a bit shit

It starts slow, but yeah its pretty good.

Its not perfect, but fuck I have never seen nothing quite like it in anime. Watching thousands of battleships in a dance of death while Ravel plays in the background is nice.
And like GITS its expertly written.

Its a lot like a documentary. Actually some episodes are precisely a documentary.

In fact its a lot like Dune in that it spoils everything, but somehow when it happens you still feel the punch.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BThzxoeDeo

the start is the best part
its downhill once Yank dies

bump

It sounds more like liberals.

Noice tips man, lets see if it works.
t. Mao

stop repeating what you profs tell you

Yeah, I've always thought one of the defining points of fascism was its focus on nationalism backed by a strong military force.

No, you're thinking of nationalism.

It sounds like whatever you want it to be because it's overly broad and generalized and thus all is fascism in the eyes of the socialist.

Fuck off. Fascism is an ideology about loving your country and your countrymen and being willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good.

If anything this strawman ideology of "fear and hate and silence" far better conforms to modern liberals and their hatred of Europeans and Christianity and their nonstop efforts to silence all who disagree.

Its incredibly cringeworthy, all of these "steps to facism" types of lists that moronic pseudo-intellectual socialists love to put out.

1. Fascism bad
2. Fascists are hateful
3. Fascists mean

I can't imagine the type of person who would uncritically just read this drek and allow it to influence their worldview.

Presumably, they read it while sipping their latte at a Starbucks while studying for their Humanities major.

>muh libruls meme

Because there's the issue of fascism historically turning against sectors of it's own people, rather than being straight out nationalist and inclusive of all citizens. Things you can't change, or assimilate become a defining factory to if you share that national identity. Even Mussolini couldn't hold out.

There's also the fact that is a form of identity politics, one that promote homogeneity in a universal national identity. Diversity between identities is mostly found on the international level.

Yet in the past Facists have turned on their own countymen because they were a different race.

Yes, its a central idea of nationalism that a government should represent a nation. One nation's government shouldn't represent another nation, as they have different ethics and values.

Just like the Americans interned Japanese and Germans during ww2?

A disloyal alien group who attempted to overthrow the country in 1918, should by any sane person be treated with suspicion.

>Yes, its a central idea of nationalism that a government should represent a nation. One nation's government shouldn't represent another nation, as they have different ethics and values.
That's not what I'm saying.

If you use military force to enforce homogeneity within your borders because of friction, what is the solution to friction between two nation states with different identities?

You are often also redefining national identity into something much more tangible for use as a political tool. It's not necessarily a naturally and organically developed identity, and it is often going to disenfranchise people.

>>muh libruls meme
Calling something a meme doesn't mean its not true. Modern liberals are basically a hate group. Except they hate "the oppressor" AKA the descendents of an entire continent, so it's justified to them (you).

>Just like the Americans interned Japanese and Germans during ww2?
Done with wartime powers, and the supreme court admitted it violated rights. It only upheld it was justified to suspend rights during war.

>A disloyal alien group who attempted to overthrow the country in 1918
This is the literally logic of a BLM retard. Hurr, cops are mostly white, kill all whitey.

Please go back to your echobox to further reinforce your conditioning.

National identity is defined by the people of the nation. People who can agree on a common set of values and goals and with a common heritage.

When there is friction between the two, the right thing to do is to determine the course of resolution that is fair and just and settle peacefully. Just like with any country. How do democracies like the USA or commie countries like China or the old USSR settle friction? Are you implying they only use kind words while fascists are the cause of all wars because having a group of people who share your ideals means you want to kill everyone else?

>5. Subvert and malign all representatives of and sympathizers with this constructed enemy.

Go back to /pol/.

Go back to /lgbt/, you are cranky and need more tranny porn to masturbate to t make you feel relaxed

>1. Construct an internal enemy, as both focus and diversion.

White hetero males

>2. Isolate and demonize that enemy by unleashing and protecting the utterance of overt and coded name-calling and verbal abuse. Employ ad hominem attacks as legitimate charges against that enemy.

'Check your privilege cis-male oppressor'

>3. Enlist and create sources and distributors of information who are willing to reinforce demonizing process because it is profitable, because it grants power and because it works.

Reddit and Tumblr

>4. Palisade all art forms: monitor, discredit or expel those that challenge or destabilize processes of demonization and deification.

'Why should we listen to/read/look at things made by old white guys'

>5. Subvert and malign all representatives of and sympathizers with this constructed enemy.

SJWism in general

>6. Solicit, from among the enemy, collaborators who agree with and can sanitize the dispossession process.

'I'm not a SJW, but...'

>7. Pathologize the enemy in scholarly and popular mediums; recycle, for example, scientific racism and the myths of racial superiority in order to naturalize the pathology.

The Frankfurt School, women's studies, sociology, etc.

>8. Criminalize the enemy. Then prepare, budget for and rationalize the building of holding arenas for the enemy-especially the males and absolutely its children.

See divorces

>9. Reward mindlessness and apathy with monumentalized entertainments and with little pleasures, tiny seductions: a few minutes on television, a few lines in the press; a little fun, a little style, a little consequence.

See TLC

>10. Maintain, at all costs, silence.

See Tumblr, Twitter, 'discrimination' laws, etc.

>Hurr there's a disloyal fifth column
>Better ignore it
The head-in-the-sand approach to governance that liberals love.

>Toni Morrison
who
gives
a
fuck

>National identity is defined by the people of the nation. People who can agree on a common set of values and goals and with a common heritage.
Not in any force of extremely centralized fascism focused on a strongman.

>When there is friction between the two, the right thing to do is to determine the course of resolution that is fair and just and settle peacefully. Just like with any country.
Mostly because they aren't just using military force to get what they want. You ever notice how those dictators in Africa and the Middle East like to start wars, and the solution is often times to bring more war.

>How do democracies like the USA or commie countries like China or the old USSR settle friction?
USSR, there was this thing called the cold war you know. There was lots of friction. It was kept in tentative check by nuclear deterrence. It was only resolved with the dissolution of the USSR. Do you want to give every country nukes?

China is resolved with globalism. It really is, China is trade partners with everyone, and that interconnection is both how and why they aren't completely belligerent.

>Are you implying they only use kind words while fascists are the cause of all wars because having a group of people who share your ideals means you want to kill everyone else?
I'm not implying that. I'm implying that Fascim is less well equipped for resolve friction peacefully because of the weight and momentum of propaganda based irrational identity politics.

>le white people are oppressed meme
End yourself in the next 5 minutes

>Not in any force of extremely centralized fascism focused on a strongman.

>Hurr durr if I call him a strongman that means he's a bad man.

In what way is Hitler of Mussolini a "strongman"? They are powerful political figures, yes. Mussolini wasn't even absolute in power. He was deposed by Italy's moldy old king FFS.

Neither did they seize power through physical force, like Lenin or, hell, George Washington, but were put into power when (in Mussolini's case) the King saw how much support the people gave Mussolini; and (in Hitler's case) he was elected by vote.

So what the hell do you mean exactly when you use language that makes it seem like they are some sort of feudal lord or autocrat?

>Muh propaganda identity politics
Deal with the propaganda and identity politics inherent in your "free democratic" country right now, and then complain about propaganda and identity politics in 1930s.

Do you not know what a strongman is?

>Deal with the propaganda and identity politics inherent in your "free democratic" country right now, and then complain about propaganda and identity politics in 1930s.
Literally, your solution is replace them with your own brand of identity politics.

>Do you not know what a strongman is?
It's a colloquialism. By definition, it means a weightlifter.

If you define it as a "political leader who uses threats of force" then it essentially means -literally- every leader of a great power in history.

>Literally, your solution is replace them with your own brand of identity politics.
There are forms that are more valid than others.

>We, the people, belong to a thousand-year old culture, and share this view
is more valid than
>Gibsmedats, whites are the devil

Are you really that incapable of googling what a strongman is?

>going full /pol/
Not even worth discussing.

>In the 19th century, the term strongman referred to an exhibitor of strength (before strength sports were codified into weightlifting, powerlifting etc., becoming actual athletic competitions) or circus performers of similar ilk who displayed feats of strength.

It sounds like strongmen are pretty admirable fellows, capable of great deeds.

>going full /pol/
"All I have to do is mention /pol/ and that means I don't have to justify why a disorganized riot is more relevant than the will of the people of an ancient culture."

>gibsmedat meming
No, that's why it's not worth discussing. You've clearly established you won't be intellectually honest, and you're just going to meme, irregardless of the facts.

Found the Sorosposter