ralis

I am stating facts as to what fascism is, which are not my opinions. Kershaw is the eminent scholar on fascism. I would highly recommend his excellent scholarship. http://www.amazon.co...rds=ian kershaw http://www.amazon.co...rds=ian kershaw

Here is one place to start. As you can see there are distinct differences. http://www.diffen.co...nism_vs_Fascism

Difference between communism and fascism? You don't have a clue? You started this thread and yet have some right wing media propaganda telling you as to what fascism is.

Every one of your points are out of context. Further, John Frederick Charles Fuller who you quote, was a well known fascist and anti Semite! He belonged to Sir Oswald Mosely's British Union of Fascists. I have studied history extensively and am not easily fooled. I would suggest quoting scholars that have written extensively from the historical records. Records that were extant after the war and are available for research to anyone. Furthermore, confusing fascism with communism is a critical error. Both ideologies are well defined and anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills can know the difference. Quoting opinions from other forums is not in anyway conducive to good debate.

Shen Lung, Have you read Reich's work? Do you understand what Hedges was referring to about the fusion of Christianity and Nationalism?

You missed my point being at 6:10 he discusses fascism in the video. Instead you attack the messenger.

Chris Hedges comments on fascism, at 6:10 min. plus. This is for those that fail to understand the fascist movement here in the U.S. The first part he comments on; dishonest journalism i.e, so called journalists representing political ideologies. Wilhelm Reich's analysis on the repressed armored individual with an undgrounded mystical ideology is an excellent study on this. The armored individual is a product of authoritarian abusive family values. http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Psychology-Fascism-Wilhelm-Reich/dp/0374508844 http://www.whale.to/b/reich.pdf

I started reading Radix again and am considering downloading from Audible.com another part of the Radix Tetrad. Attanasio has an awesome imagination.

Major problems today with the site being down for hours.

Did you watch the movie I posted? Rampant nationalism is what I am referring to as what is shown in the movie. Do you read history?

Hilarious? Tell that to the victims of the Jewish genocide! Or the other millions of deaths resulting from the war. Nothing hilarious about it. How old are you? Your moral rambling's about atheism are not part of a discussion on fascism. That does not fit.

Just downloaded it for my Chrome browser. Thanks

There are times when I choose to quote and comment, the quote appears twice. This happens just by clicking on the quote button.

Other points on the 'aesthetics of fascism'. http://www.jstor.org...=21101503564153 http://www.overthink...hrones-fascism/ http://mubi.com/lists/fascist-aesthetics

Then you are misinformed as to what fascism is. There are aspects of; suppressed emotion i.e, rigid conditioning, authoritarianism, rigid character structure i.e, armoring, heartless disregard for others, fervent nationalism etc. These are all aspects of Social Darwinism which is where fascism arises from. Further, there is always the aesthetic aspect which is the visual representation as an instrument of power so as to manipulate the hearts and minds of a nation for any higher cause. Moreover, propaganda was and is a vital part of any will to power. Given your flippant disregard for historical writing, I would suggest reading some before stating trite remarks such as saying that is it hilarious that 'Hitler wanted to rule the world'. That is a common theme of all military adventurists. Napoleon, Alexander etc. The best example of the 'aesthetics of fascism' is the following movie.

I do have adblock.

The right wing here in the U.S. through various forms of propaganda has created the ideology (meme) of the so called rugged individual. However, this delusional concept is used in such a manner as to create followers of nationalistic ideologies that are pro state as opposed to pro individual. Social Darwinism at it's finest!

An introduction on how 'The Third Reich' exploited autarky. http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/autarky.htm

It will take me awhile to research what you have written and later I will comment. While reading about the aesthetics of fascism and in particular how that relates to 'Game of Thrones', I found this piece by Robert Lenkeiwicz. http://www.robertlenkiewicz.org/concept-aesthetic-fascism The concept of aesthetic fascism Robert Lenkiewicz formulated the idea of aesthetic fascism to encapsulate his ideas about what happens when we form an attraction so strong towards another person that we tend to treat them as property. It grew out of his observation of the behaviour of the street alcoholics and addicts who often appear in his paintings, people who “would cut your throat for another drink”, as he put it. Lenkiewicz noticed the deep similarity between this “addictive scenario” and what he called “the falling in love experience”. In evidence, he offered the traumatic experience of jealousy, which he regarded as being identical to the kind of withdrawal symptoms felt by addicts deprived of their drug of choice. He noticed that the obsessive fascination with the beloved person could often lead to acts of ruthlessness and violence. “I often feel,” he said, “that in the most intense romantic scenarios… there is an undertone of ruthless psychopathic expectation, a curious heartlessness. If one had genuine concern for one’s partner then the first thing one would do is leave them.” He was sceptical about claims that in love one ‘cared’ about the other person in a selfless sense, quoting the German philosopher Nietzsche’s pithy expression: “How nicely does doggish lust beg a piece of spirit when a piece of flesh is denied it.” He used the term ‘aesthetic’ to distinguish his idea from psychological or moral theories of behaviour. He believed we were drawn to people because of an innate physical propensity to become intoxicated or entranced “by sensations linking to desire, attraction and jealousy”. Lenkiewicz was unconvinced that such attractions even had much to do with any objective qualities possessed by the other person. “A portcullis has come down at the first glance between yourself and the other and one’s relationship is with that portcullis… one’s own aesthetic vulnerability. Some people are more or less addicted to that aesthetic vulnerability, but believe themselves to be addicted to the other person.” He regarded this as a physiological mechanism; a system of pleasure/pain inbuilt in the human body. He was fascinated by the fact that the visceral, gut feelings reported by jilted lovers, withdrawing addicts or fanatics whose beliefs were threatened, were almost invariably described in exactly the same terms. In this context, Lenkiewicz was employing the common definition of ‘fascism’ as the tendency to deny fully human status to certain kinds of people and to exalt specific others. He felt that “the aesthetic fascism involved in saying ‘I fancy that person; I’m attracted to that person’ is quite often made of pretty unattractive stuff.” This proclivity to focus exclusively on a particular individual struck him as the dark mirror image of the fascistic impulse to persecute the stranger or outsider. Lenkiewicz was therefore very sympathetic with attempts to locate the origins of Fascism (capital F for the political phenomenon) in the physiology of the individual rather than in materialist or economic causes - 'The Mass Psychology of Fascism' by Wilhelm Reich was an important text for him. Lenkiewicz argued that the same aesthetic mechanism was at work in our devotion to philosophical, ethical or ideological convictions. For him it was not a question of right or wrong, what he called “the moral squint”, or even of compelling evidence of truth, but of the relative strength of our attraction to one idea or another. He scarcely accepted therefore that people’s convictions could be changed by rational argument, observing that we seldom have good reasons for holding the beliefs we do. His magnificent private library provided ample evidence of the extraordinary capacity humans have for self-delusion in thrall to fanatical belief systems. The sections on alchemy or the 16th & 17th century witch burning craze showed how the most acute intelligences of the period could hold the most insane beliefs, and be prepared to kill (or die) for them. All too often, certainty precedes atrocity. If that seemed historically remote, he could point to incidents like the disastrous FBI assault on the Branch Davidian sect in Waco, Texas; “one fanatical belief system wiping out another”. The tenor of Lenkiewicz’ ideas—many people thought them cold-hearted or cynical—seemed inconsistent with his amiability and generosity. Surely there was some sort of moral principle in play? He would have none of that. For him it was just a matter of being “attracted to a certain aesthetic package” that inlcuded humane treatment of less advantaged people. He was sympathetic to talk of human rights or the dignity of life but regarded such ideas as “beautiful metaphors, poetry”. Lenkieiwcz believed that a re-evaluation of human behaviour in aesthetic and physiological terms would inevitably aid us in “enjoying life without making a nuisance of ourselves.” Our attraction towards an idea or system of belief doesn’t make it right and nor do our attractions for other people oblige them to respond to our feelings or grant us rights over them. “Once one establishes that it is an aesthetic experience one is undergoing and not something else, then a number of behaviour patterns which lead to obsessive or fanatical behaviour could evaporate.”

Good for you! College is wonderful!

Maybe this will put all the anthropocentric arguments of human primates in proper perspective. Just click on the file to view the phylogenetic tree of life tree.pdf

Are you certain the cat is dead? LOL Haven't read Derrida but Foucault and Deleuze 'Thousand Plateaus' is interesting.

White male property owners were only allowed to vote and were generally slave owners. That perception of blacks as slaves continued and still does in some racist minds today. Further, to allow white business persons to openly discriminate against black people in their place of business in nothing but a display of blatant authoritarianism and social Darwinism. That ideology does not afford minorities the same opportunities as white persons. No one has ever claimed that civil rights laws would change the behavior of racists. That problem is endemic to human primates. The job of governments is to create a fair social order and prevent aberrant behavior. Ron Paul is a promoter of neo-liberalism and neo-feudalism. I did not engage in ad hominem attacks toward you. Racism exists even in your country and you know it. It exists in my country and I don't deny it! Consider for one moment the situation in India with the gang rapes against women that were not prosecuted by law enforcement. Given the demonstrations it appears that laws will be passed and or enforced that may be on the books. Will prosecutions of rapist stop further rapes. No. Laws do not change human behavior. However, these crimes may be reduced by severe sentencing.

Thanks

Here is another crank comment from Ron Paul who has no understanding of the Constitution! Ron Paul has no understanding of human nature and the need for governments to rein in aberrant human behavior. In this case civil rights violations. I am having trouble embedding these videos.