Was fascism really that bad? [amontadillo's fascistic hideout]

Users who are viewing this thread

Danik said:
I wonder if the cultural liberalists would have as much influence in the modern World, if they weren't able to use the fascists' atrocities of the past century to justify their ideology.

Well, you got other examples then World War 2 and fascism one could use on that front (I personally, while I am fairly liberal and culturally tolerant to a point, am not what you'd consider a total liberal/libertarian.) could use what is considered backwards cultural practices of highly religious nations, the apartheid and racial segregation of the United States and other nations and other civil rights issues across the globe as a means to justify progressive policies and liberal and culturally tolerant thinking.

Personally I don't mind multiculturalism because I come from a nation of immigrants and quite frankly I get annoyed when there is too much saturation of any culture, as it means I have to actually be assimilated into a culture I may not agree with. But thankfully in my country I can be an Atheist, a Christian, a Muslim, Hindu, Communist, Jew, Liberal, Conservative, native, African, Caucasian, Arab, Latino, Asian or even a fascist (although obviously its not really praised here) if I want to be without having to entirely conform. Yeah there is some legal things you have to abide by and basic laws but I don't have to be absorbed into a dominant majority culture. Quite frankly I don't see the need for it.

If you want to associate yourself with a national identity I find its more effective to do it via the nation's founding principles and tenets; which I certainly do. Canada was founded upon order and good government, and a fairly progressive minded society.

Now my definition of what good government and how said order may differ then what was setup, but I believe myself to be fairly patriotic in my own right, as I do have care and concern for my nation and its citizenry's well being.

And one of my biggest gripes with fascism is that, I cannot feel welcomed or be a patriotic citizen if I do not belong to the specific cultural background it glorifies; what if I am an immigrant and I agree to the nation's founding principles but im not of it's native/majority race and its a fascist state? I am marginalized merely due to my cultural background, even though I hypothetically as an immigrant may agree to its principles.

I just find it stagnating, and there is a reason why there is very few to no fascist nations left on the planet anymore. Socialist nations still exist and actually are quite numerous, as are capitalist nations and democratic, as well as authoritarian ones. All in different shades and forms too.

But fascism I can say has gladly died out for the most part in terms of actually leading nations, but it is making concerning returns due to economic crisis, which is when fascists are at their height of popularity- a party that promises rejuvenation while also directing blame on immigrants and other minorities becomes popular as it gives people hope and a place to direct their anger at. And as disturbing as that is that's the reality behind fascist platforms, and it definitely works in terms of gaining momentum and popularity amongst an embittered people. Its fear mongering and using the emotions of the mob at its best; without actually catering to the mob.

What's the difference between the founding principles of the USA and of Canada, f.e.?
Also, I thought nation-states are based more on culture and traditions (and a "genetic" continuation of them) rather than "principles".
Bluehawk said:
Canada's founding principle is that it isn't the USA. All else is secondary.


NikeBG said:
What's the difference between the founding principles of the USA and of Canada, f.e.?
Also, I thought nation-states are based more on culture and traditions (and a "genetic" continuation of them) rather than "principles".

America's founding principles or motto is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness- or essentially, a republic with a free market economy without too many government impedements. The US and its founding ideals were stemmed from English and Dutch traders and the ideas of John Locke; and they generally fear any governmental domination.

While in Canada, Canada's founding principles was starkly different-

Canada's motto is peace, order, and good government, good government having been at one point welfare. Essentially, a confederation that respects the rights of its members and ensures that peace, security is maintained while appealing the needs of the general populace. Fairly generic/ duh no **** goal of every gov't nearly but that's what it is.

Canada focused on the welfare of its people, good management and government and order and security. We wanted a safe nation to live in from witnessing the chaos down south as well as having a good support system settling a hostile, cold and bitter frontier. Canada also had wars between the French and English and the natives used to fight amongst each other all the time;
(Huron and Haudenasaunee for example ALWAYS fought bloody wars between each other.) 

And needless to say such an environment propogated the need for a good government and a social system that was caring of its citizens, unlike in America which they saw fit that they needed economic freedom and means to expand their own enterprise without hindrance.

Our origins as nations also varied, America bit off its own umbilical cord more or less through violent revolt, we just asked nicely after years of colonial rule.

And these attitudes were reflected even with how we treated immigrants. Canada was very leniant and tolerant and allowed many different cultural groups to migrate here and keep their own customs while obeying our law and also receiving some support from the gov't, while the United States encouraged immigrants to come to their country and adopt their culture and mindset to make their own fortunes and rise and fall on their own.

As for nations, the principles of a nation is often dictated or influenced by the changing cultures and progression of anthropological changes and movements in a country as well as economic conditions, but generally speaking nation states and ethnicity are two different things in my eyes. You can change your nationality- you can attach yourself to any nation you want provided you agree or fit into its conditions and principles. A nation by definition just means a group of people with collective/shared interests, traits and agree to live under a shared set of principles. Its why a lot of ethnic groups sometimes consider themselves a nation. A nation state on the other hand is a nation with an established government, and often rules a body of territory.

While on the other hand, you cannot change your ethnicity. You can adopt other cultural practices but that is more or less assimilation happening then.

I'll put it this way- with nations the principles of a nation is not always dictated by culture and ethnicity, but it can be influenced by it. Just as much as culture and ethnicity can be influenced by principles. You can have both influenced by each other but neither of them are always attached.

Edit: A good example of where different principles existed in a shared culture-

Ancient Greece had several city states with varying styles of government even though they had a universal religion and accepted culture, for the most part, amongst each other. You had despotism's, monarchies, democracies, theocracies and a whole load of different types of societies yet they all had similar cultural practices and ethnic similarities.
Hmm, most interesting. I didn't know there's such a big difference between the principles of Canada and the US (which makes me like Canada even more, btw). Though, on the other hand, do countries in the Old World have founding principles? I can't really think of any (besides our parliament's motto I mentioned before) for my own country...

As for nation-states, I didn't mean it in the modern sense of a nation, but rather in the one from the age of Nationalism (considering we're talking about it in the context of fascism). The Merriam-Webster definition is still fitting though: "a form of political organization in which a group of people who share the same history, traditions, or language live in a particular area under one government" - again an accent on common history, traditions and/or language.
Old world wise the modern nations are indeed founded upon principles. Take France for instance-

Equity, Liberty and Fraternity- established at their revolution. Of course beforehand their principles differed but that was because they were under a different government, but due to new ideals and socio-economic conditions the French changed their outlook almost entirely which had a wide effect over Europe and arguably, the world.

Its the same as, when Italy adopted fascism, it inspired a lot of fascist upheaval and states to model after it due to the socio-economic conditions of Europe at the time, even though a Croatian, Italian and a German may differ greatly in their culture, they setup similar governments because they had rateable conditions. (plus Nazi Germany kinda enforced their ideal too but you get the point.)

Overall a nation's principles might not be outright stated all the time, but the attitudes of a nation's government can be analyzed and accurately summed up to an extent: Its just you have to actively look into the behaviour and mindset of that nation's leadership, government and the general consensus on politics and economic modes to determine that.

As for fascism I find it fairly stagnating in the sense it adopts a set of principles that is very hostile to outsiders and is very introverted in terms of how it treats itself- it may be (and often is) expansionist, aggressive and often times even imperialistic upon other nations; but its also very scrutinizing of its own self in where it wants to refine a singular image to promote unity and cohesion within its own ranks.

Variety is weakness in the eyes of a fascist because it means less unity, and thus less control that the majority or selected ethnicity/national group has over the nation state, and a fascist government's aim is complete and utter control of its nation state to better the conditions of its nation as a whole. Even if its at the expense of perceived 'outsiders' and other nations. Fascists do not want differing groups, opinions and mindsets then their own otherwise they lose power. And they neutralize those enemies through scapegoating mostly.

I just find fascism to be an inherently self destructive and stagnating system due to that. It cannot survive without enemies, and once the state runs out of external enemies, it turns internally. Once every scapegoat has been blamed and killed off, who do you have left to defer your own faults and problems on? Only you. And that's when the stark realization comes in that all of that ruthlessness towards others didn't work after all, and did not solve you or the state's problem. 

How many regimes and wars are you accrediting to that phrase? More people died in Auschwitz than in the Reign of Terror. Any major power in WW1 lost more men than all of Europe lost in the Napoleonic Wars.

If we're talking high scores, Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch! should win the dream trip to Hawaii, all expenses paid.
BerserkerRezo said:
Liberté, égalité, fraternité, These words caused more blood to be spilled in europe than ever.
Yeah, that's a bit of hyperbole as Bluehawk pointed out. Bloody at the time, sure, but their results have been eclipsed in the 20th century.
Don't apologise for being off topic.
I think any sensible discussion is better than some of the on topic crap that certain apologists brought up a few pages back.

I think that the exact wording may differ from era to era, or with the fashion of the day, but the IDEA that "you, the majority, can take from the privileged by force and feel OK about it" has resulted in more deaths than anything bar old age.
Whether it's the republicanism of the Roman nobles who overthrew the Kings, or the half-promised and never delivered protection for any Kurd or Marsh-Arab Iraqi who would rise up against Hussein in 2000, the agitator's temptations have a lot to answer for....
Pic attached, for everyone who cried "persecution complex" or other nonsense. And of course, for those pesky supposed "mods" who take the little authority they're given upon an online forum very seriously and claim I "broke the rules, that's why I got a warning" or some other nonsense.
Once again, you're proven wrong.

And since we have a hot-pocket, edgy, 27 year old try-hard going out of his way to mute me for 10 days, it proves quite openly that I've been (that's right) silenced for my opinions.

Seriously, Rev, who are you trying to impress? If I got to 27 and had that much of a manchild mentality I'd off myself. But then again, personal standards isn't something you smell of, so yeah.

Since "gore" and "triple posting" wasn't enough, you went straight to the infallible "racist", as if that's the ultimate thing you can say to end an argument. Not to mention you have no evidence whatsoever of that accusation, but that's another story.

As for Jhessail, indeed, this is not the kind of stupidity you see on your day-to-day. Because not only you have proven to have the limitations of a Downy with assburgers, but also the reading comprehension of a dog.
Re-read your first post directed at me. Then come back. Or better yet, don't.

As for Comrade, sorry m8, this was promising but it's not worth it. If you want to talk about this, we'll have to do it somewhere else. Obviously this place is quite limited for someone who doesn't have the same views as the Admins, so it's not worth it.
Also, m8, you're Canadian. You're a nice guy, but let's be quite honest here and put it as it is: you've only seen Communism on books and Cuba. You didn't see its effects directly, neither in first-hand or second-hand. I understand that your views won't shift, but we've got to make it a crucial point. We're currently living in something a Communist could only describe as a Lumpenproletariat, so ther's that too.

NikeBG, gypsies aren't Europeans. They are Indians of origin and background and even after generations amongst us you save one in a million.
As for the rest, I'll still take a criminal European over a non-European one. I trust you have better chances of rehabilitating, helping or supporting a man with a European background and his country when compared to say, an Arab.

As for you, Amman de Stazia, you can quit projecting your "bully" analogy. Seriously, I see a lot of rage behind that statement, were you bullied as a kid? Are you still bullied?
Besides the obvious projection coming from a sad corner of your life, you have no idea of what kind of "Fascist" (did I really say I was one, though?) I am.

As for your "arguments", you make a lot of assumptions. But unlike Comrade, I'm not interested in debating with you, because all your "arguments" come from a "what if" perspective fueled by distaste towards authority. Apparently authoritah that bullied you.

And a big, sound, thick "I told you so" middle finger for the rest of you, especially the ones saying "well, uhm, ur not bein silencd, ur just braekin da forum rules xD". If you want to further talk about this nonsense with which I've been whiping the floor with you, I'm afraid it's not possible to be done in this Forum. Meaning I'll stick to non-controversial subjects.

I'm done with this topic. Goes into my ignore list.

P.S: Amontadillo, you're still a chronic mouthbreather.

Gylve said:
And since we have a hot-pocket, edgy, 27 year old try-hard going out of his way to mute me for 10 days, it proves quite openly that I've been (that's right) silenced for my opinions.
No, you've clearly been silenced for being a twat.
I fear that by banning Gylve I have become a part of the fascist system he so vehemently abhorred.

Which is awesome.

I'll have the usual betting pool open within the next couple of hours, standard odds on how long it'll take him to create a dupe, where he'll make his first complaint post, and how long it takes him to get re-banned.
Top Bottom