lmao
no
I really hope you're just repeating some podcaster or something, because that whole paragraph was a clear result of brain worms.
Time's Up Disbands Entire Board in the Wake of Cuomo Backlash
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
no
I really hope you're just repeating some podcaster or something, because that whole paragraph was a clear result of brain worms.
You're in denial, but you have no actual response. It is not remotely a coincidence that fascism and communism rise and fall together everywhere they exist, they are prescriptively opposites but they are based on the same societal paradigm.
Firstly, at least one of Biden or Trump is closer to fascism, even if that were a hypothetical 0.1/10 and 0.2/10. And if we were to ask which was closer to fascism even if both are some way off, it's still Donald Trump by a comfortable margin.
And I'm not joking. He is well short of a fascist in numerous ways, as I said. But there really are parallels between Trump and the fascist movements of interwar Europe: how he spoke about the world, the attitudes he inculcated and exploited, his autocratic-authoritarian tendencies, attempts to dismantle democratic safeguards, dishonesty, etc. - and in the end, he did encourage and did set a bunch of bully-boys to carry out dramatic political violence.
I understand that, like many people also did in the interwar era, many people such as yourself recoil at this sort of idea. One of the reasons the fascists and like get ahead is because of this unwillingness to believe it is going to go anywhere. The Enabling Act was based on the centre-right thinking Hitler surely wouldn't actually go that far, or the basis of the Paster Niemoller poem, "First they came for...". A sort of complacency: assumption the worst can't happen, tolerance of transgression that facilitates greater transgression, etc.
You need to ask which big business. In fact, some very big businesses supported Trump: he had his own cabal of billionaires and multi-millionaires backing him. He lost a lot of the major players, particularly those more involved with international trade, because he damaged the USA's position on international trade. But when you start looking at things like fossil fuels, real estate, etc. he did very well.
In many cases, he lost them simply because he was so far behind going into the election: businesses are pragmatically buying favours, and there's little point throwing money at a loser. Had he gone into early 2020 about evens with Biden, he'd have received a lot more money off them.
Last edited:
There are parallels between Adolf Hitler and Jesus freaking Christ. You can construct that sort of worthless argument about any two groups or any two people literally ever. That's exactly the sort of thing you're criticizing Gorfias for, pointing to aspects of fascism that correlate to Joe Biden and then acting as though that's a meaningful statement about Biden.
A system worshipping race and nation as the defining factors of human civilization is based on the idea that all conflict comes from class conflict? A system that worships war as “racial exercise” thinks all wars are the result of class conflict? You realize how absurdly stupid that is? Fascism is a fundamentally idealistic movement, not a materialistic one.
Edit: wait, I only read the snippet in quote so I didn’t realize your issue was with the idea that hierarchies are violent. I fucking hate your brand of Catholic so fucking much. Just a bunch of idiots more obsessed with being Roman than Christian, Christendom over Christianity, a church over the Church. Yours is a mission of “civilizing,” your people exchanging in holy places. No heart for the widow or orphan that will not accept their place in your Roman system of patrons and patronage.
Last edited:
You're talking nonsense and not understanding what I'm saying either time. You read it completely backwards.
Yes, thus the edit, because I couldn’t believe that a person would be so invested in the hierarchies of state and capital that have failed us so utterly and thus made the illogical conclusion you know what “class” means. No, you’re a worshipper of phantom idols like Nation and king. My mistake for ever assuming you’ve got even the most basic grounding in reality.
I'm not grounded in your reality, but that's not actual reality. That's communist delusion where society is based in conflict and all hierarchy is tyranny and injustice and benevolence doesn't exist. It's funny to me, if you're going to choose to live in a fantasy world, why would you choose the one that sucks the most?
At least I don’t worship pedophilic institutions like the liberal nation state. At least I’ll never bow to daddy state or some other abomination. Never crucify Christ because the image I built around my abusers called it justice. My issue with “hierarchy” is quite simple, these fuckers aren’t god. They hold no place above or below me and the circumstances that have placed them where they are is entirely arbitrary, not the will of god but the will of men. Go have fun squaring circles.
Even if that's true, they've both done orders of magnitude more good for others than you have.
And orders of magnitude more harm than I have, as well as orders of magnitude more harm than good. Their capacity for good is a product of circumstances that create a far greater capacity for harm and dramatically more incentive to create that harm. Further, none of these are truly accurate statements, as the “good” and “evil” they carry out is ultimately carried out by systems and individuals alien to them but in some service to them (aside from that done in their close relationships which does not bode well for them). Caesar was a womanizing ambitious politician and a rather capable soldier, his legions were conquerors.
Dunno. I suppose someone like Romney benefited as you describe (some big businesses did gain under the Trump economy) but on balance? To the globalists? He was a threat. I think he genuinely sees China as a problem, which to the globalists is a crime worthy of public death.
I'm luke warm on him at this point. He helped the Covid narrative. Why? He knew is economy was a house of cards about to collapse? Maybe. Maybe not.
ITMT on topic: I may be one of the only MRAs that love #Metoo. I have to think very elite men (I call "King Davids") wanted the feminism that in the short term, made it easier for them to get laid at the expense of the social position of what I'd call the "Uriah the Hittites". But I doubt they anticipated #Metoo. I hope they choke on it.
Again, my only gripe in this instance is that I think Cuomo guilty of far worse than boarish behavior, but that's what we focus on.
If that were true, humanity would be extinct. The starting point for humanity in nature is barely scraping by, and society has carried us to a place much, much better than that. It's illogical to think that the structures of society cause more harm than good.
No response was necessary, but I'm in a more polemical mood now so you'll get one anyway.
Capitalism. Communism is a response to the exploitation of workers under capitalism. Fascism is a response (with propaganda funded) by the ruling class (capitalists) to maintain their power in a nominal democracy (that, via working class consciousness, threatens to become a real democracy) by eliminating communists and various other marginalized people that they must demonize because fascism is a necessarily blunt instrument as very few people are going to rise up just to maintain the power of capitalists without any other motivation-- so it must also appeal to the worst paranoid and murderous human impulses for the sake of a broader coalition. Fascists explicitly deny the salience of class conflict. They... well, they sound a lot more like what you implicitly described as your position, to be perfectly honest:
Which is to say "the idea that hierarchies can be cooperative things that help those not at the top of them." That is precisely what authoritarians of all stripes (fascists very much included) believe and, more to the point and yet more clearly, what they want everyone else to believe. This is precisely the basis of their anti-parliamentarism and their regimented approach to organizing the economy.
Advocates of slavery argued that black people do better under slavery. Advocates of segregation argued that black people do better under segregation. Hitler was inspired by both of these instances of idyllic Americana. Hitler negotiated with Imperial Japan; Hitler negotiated with Chamberlain; Hitler negotiated with Stalin (whom he regarded, like every other Russian, as a subhuman). And the idea that fascists are incapable of crass pandering like waving a pride flag is very silly. Very little that a fascist leader does is not crass.
Good and harm are not reducible to population size; judging a leader is not a judgment of settled agriculture or the industrial revolution as the alternatives are not limited to pastoral nomadism or anarcho-primitivism, and neither is any leader (aside from God Emperor Leto Atreides II) responsible for the course of history that resulted in our particular situations.
Slavers have to feed their slaves, yes. This is not the profound insight you seem to think it is.
Because the rest of humanity outside of some order of great men aren’t shit for one thing, and because a system causing suffering doesn’t mean it kills people as a first priority. There are other evils than death.
No, I'm pointing out to Gorfias that in fascism the government placed business firmly under its thumb, but in modern USA, if anything it's the other way round: government is bought out by business. Nor is the relationship of business and government really so fundamental a notion of what fascism is. Nationalist authoritarianism is much, much better. As such, anyone tubthumping nationalism and authoritarianism can merit some sort of pondering about fascism.
I don't "globalists" are really the issue in the way you think. The world is already globalised, and what the USA needs for the future involves a lot of the world. The US was built in no small part on dominating chunks of the world (chiefly Latin America) to ensure the flow of resources and a destination for its industrial products. The Japanese attack on the USA in WW2 reflects this - Japan could not function without resources that were under the control of the USA and European empires, so it decided to achieve self-sufficiency by taking them militarily. That need to have access to things from all over the world for a modern, functioning economy has only grown since WW2.
So globalisation just is. Countries need stuff, lots of it comes from abroad, so countries need ways to get hold of that in the most frictionless and reliable way possible. If a country doesn't want to run a military empire, the alternative is a mass of trade deals - perhaps with international structures like the WTO to help make things run smoothly and resolve disputes. The USA can scrap the WTO and form a load of bilateral trade deals, but it in no way changes the US dependence on the rest of the world for raw and manufactured materials and places to sell its own stuff to in return. Globalisation is just the reality everyone has to deal with, and "globalists" are just the realists dealing with that reality.
China is about money: a huge market that business wants a piece of, and a supplier of cheap goods that business wants to access. Attacking China as Trump did hurts the USA as well, with no guarantee of success - whatever "success" really is. And that's an important question: what is the US aim? A nebulous claim like "China is a problem" does not automatically justify Trump's Cold War 2.0.
I am not convinced that Trump genuinely sees China as a problem, mostly in the sense I don't think he cares that much about anything except himself. I think he started hitting at China because he saw China is recognised as a problem by the institutional machinery of US government. What Trump grasped, in his crude, thuggish mindset and his desire to play to the gallery, was a way to act like the tough guy and surf a wave of public sentiment by creating enemies to stand up to. But Biden too will attempt to constrain rising Chinese influence, just probably much less overtly aggressively, because it is US national interest to keep as much of the world as possible open to the US economy in as favourable a way as possible to the USA.