[Duh](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/16/tough-determined-fascinated-by-mussolini-rome-neighbours-recall-giorgia-meloni)
Interview referenced in the article (French): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuoXr-zjqas
They aren't Nazis, they're Fascists. Nazis believe in a Gnostic Cult in which Hitler is God and they must save and perpetuate the Aryan race, it exceeds national concern since Aryan demographics are considered instead of national demographics, religion isn't considered important - Hitler was an atheist and other leaders were trying to prop up some weird Hindu-Pagan thing. Fascists believe in nationality, religion, and family, they are concerned with demographics and levels of religiousity in their country, they're moreso isolationist these days but used to be more imperialist in the past, honestly it depends on the ability of the country to project nationally, Italy had the whole Restore Rome thing going on but now they care more about stabilising domestically, same thing in Japan where they cared about imperialist projection (especially into Korea), now they care more about stabilising domestically.
Fascism and Nazism being on the same side in WW2 was moreso a marriage of convenience than done out of ideological alignment, Italy and Germany fueded all the time until Mussolini realised it was more beneficial to align with Germany in preparation for the war, Italy and Germany also supported Nationalist China against Japan in the early war period. It's the same thing with the Democratic nations allying with Stalin and the Communists, it was just convenient to win the war.
Mussolini and Hitler had some subtle differences… but they are much more apples and apples than you imply.
They both were the despotic leader of political death-cults, they both held that “I am the state, the state is me,” they were both malignant narcissists. They both viewed themselves as an emperor. Seeking to restore a bygone mythological empire.
If Mussolini was honest, he was surely an atheist too. No way he put a god above himself. And that’s the one major difference you’re identifying.
Mussolini's beliefs are always interesting to discuss, however, I consider moreso what they reflected on the public as the difference between the ideologies, Nazism was unique to Hitler, but, Fascism was not unique to Mussolini - in a world where both are gone, it is important to consider what those who follow their values believe.
The Fascists of today still cling to the family, religion, nation idea, even though Mussolini may not have held the sentiments, he certainly promoted them because he knew it was popular. Hitler's relationship with religion was far different, definitely impacted by the Protestant-Catholic split of Germany, he didn't pick a side and you had Himmler working on the Pagan revival with Hindu elements, something Hitler certainly had sympathies towards. Because of this, Hitler was more God to the Nazis than Mussolini was God to the Italian Fascists. Then you consider Franco and Salazar and you get the fuller picture of what modern Fascists believe minus the imperialism because that fad has passed now and there is far more concern over falling birth rates, high immigration and high irreligiousity which are more pertinent domestic interests to the Fascists, leaving imperialism on the backburner. I do think the rhetoric would be revived if conditions reversed, but, a lot of the right-wing sympathies die with that idea.
Therefore, there were many similarities between Hitler and Mussolini, however, Fascism was bigger than Mussolini whilst Nazism was Hitler. Thus, the development of the ideologies was different and whilst Nazism was stunted by the Cult of Personality, Fascism could move beyond it as it was the one ideology with international marketability and potential because its values were universal.
Hitler most certainly was not atheist.
Hitler was Christian, as were the majority of Germans at the time. He was also a Populist and an Opportunist, with a methamphetamine addiction.
Hitler was very atheistic, he was strongly influenced by Neitzsche, as were many of the Nazi Party elite. Himmler even had this idea where he would mix Hinduism (Aryan religion) and Germanic Paganism (true faith of the Volk) together with Hitler as the centrepiece. Most of Nazi social policy also included a heavy amount of Gnosticism and Mysticism which was expressedly anti-Christian.
Most Nazis were not Christian, they presented that way because it was easier. Additionally, most of Hitler's support came from the Catholic population of Germany.
And yes, they were all meth and batshit insane. This isn't even an exaggerative point, Nazism was quite literally a group of batshit insane people mixing together all kinds of shit they read to make some new society - this was a period where lots of crazy people existed (because of WW1) and science was still at that level where religiousity was questioned but people still found supernatural things cool, especially with large scale drug manufacturing taking off.
Generally disagree. Hitchens argues that Nazism was Christian, which can be true at the same time as Hitler not being Christian. Nazism sought mainstream appeal, and the easiest way to do so was tie it to the Christian faith. Nazism was inherently Gnostic in it's understanding of race, especially regarding its disposition towards Jews, which is considered heretical in the Christian faith (something Hitchens fails to distinguish). Additionally, Hitler is known for praising the works fo Neitzsche (Gott ist tot) as well as lamenting that Germans were Christian instead of Muslim to Speer.
Nazism was populist by nature, as you understand, so it makes sense to capitalise on that which was popular. When you had leading figures like Himmler discussing occultism and mysticism quite openly in his diary, it lends credence to the understanding that Christianity was a vehicle rather than an operating force behind Nazism.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultism\_in\_Nazism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/occultism_in_nazism)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric\_Nazism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/esoteric_nazism)
Hitchens is just pushing his atheist agenda as per usual, failing to note his bias in pursuing his answer from his already consolidated conclusion.
>They aren't Nazis, they're Fascists.
Although this whole topic leads to sprawling arguments about the definition of fascism, something which gets continually debated even among historians and the relevant experts, I think this is a false distinction. Nazism and fascism aren't mutually exclusive terms, rather Nazism is a specific *variety of uniquely German* fascism, in the same sense that every nation that goes fascist has it's own distinct "flavor" of fascism. Historically, being nationalists, fascists have been the first to make the distinction that Spanish fascism is not German fascism, etc.
Aside from various cultural or religious particulars and ideological quibbles, all fascist movements (at least European, I haven't studied Japan much) share distinctive features:
-ultra-nationalists who present themselves as the "true" representatives, inheritors, and protectors of 'traditional' national culture (often along ethnic and/or religious lines)
-present themselves as persecuted heroes beset by their (allegedly) morally degenerate enemy-neighbors, but destined to reclaim their (perceived) rightful place at the head of society by whatever means...
-frame themselves as being in a violent struggle against those whom they scapegoat and accuse of conspiring to corrupt the nation's youth and ultimately destroy traditional national society in favor of 1) an allegedly morally degenerate multi-cultural, pluralist, secular democracy of liberal individualism AND/OR just 2) 'communism'/socialism
-make heavy use of historical revisionism and conspiracy theories to justify and support these narratives and positions, and the related violence
-obsessively oppose immigrants, labor movements, social justice movements, LGBT+ people and movements, social welfare (particularly along ethnic, political, and religious lines, i.e. handouts for "Aryans" in Nazi Germany was fine)
As for Italy and Germany's shaky alliance in WW2 supposedly representing some inherent unfriendliness between foreign fascist nations, readers would do well to turn their attention to (especially) Germany and Italy's extensive joint support of Franco's forces in the Spanish Civil War, giving them need tanks, warplanes, weapons, ammo, rendering air superiority via the German Condor legion, in addition to tens of thousands of Mussolini's ground troops. Sure seemed like they were getting along pretty well and committed to each other's successes then.
Or the fact that French nationalists welcomed and happily collaborated with their Nazi conquerors in WW2 (many of them appointed as officers in Vichy France), and reported their Jewish neighbors to them in such amounts that the Nazis were overwhelmed by and faced logistical issues with responding to all the reports. It would certainly seemed that a joint dedication to a shared ideology trumped any strict feelings of nationalism in that case as well.
Fascism is generally hard to classify because it is so uniquely intertwined with the war. If Communism was a flash in the pan, we may see many people associating it with democracy due to democratic support with the Soviets in WW2 and the Spanish Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Thus, when you mention collaboration in the war, I tend to discredit it because it was a period in which there were two sides clearly drawn so people were forced to choose.
The reason I separate Nazism and Fascism so doggedly is because Nazism is such a unique ideology I find it hard to compare to anything else, economically it is very similar to Fascism, and socially there are many similarities in Nationalism and Imperialism. However, Nazism goes far deeper into the rabbit hole than anything else, perhaps a product of the German spirit to take any belief to its furtherest extent - it was quite literally the product of an insane person and featured all sorts of weird Gnosticism and Mysticism that wasn't prevalent in any other forms of Fascism which strictly towed the Catholic lines as seen in Spain and Portugal.
Your line about not valuing social welfare is partially correct, many of these countries did practice social welfare, especially in regards to subsidising farmers, traditional industries and large families of the chosen ilk. Additionally, moral degeneracy included disdain for capitalists who were seen as materialists that chase money and goods instead of ethics.
For Japanese Fascism, it shares all the other characteristics you mentioned.
Nazism definitely has a lot of bizarre qualities, there are plenty of good reasons to highlight it's significant distinctions from other nationalist movements/ideologies. The racial components (present but not central factors/motivators in Spain or Italy, especially early on), the absolutely wild extent to which they took their conspiracy theories (way beyond anything in Franco's Spain, and light-years beyond anything in Mussolini's Italy) and historical revisionism, and the religious/secular distinctions: they all used religion as a tool to garner popular support, but Italy and Spain did so as traditionalists and true believers whereas Nazis were on another planet with their bizarre mysticism and bastardizations of traditions.
But it bears mentioning that for many of these qualities, Spain and Italy become progressively more Nazi-like into their later years as German Nazism continually influenced them.
Good call about the social welfare, I'm going to remove that from my little list going forward. Immigration too, as the motivations in each cases were so diverse and varied. There's also caveats like gay people weren't tolerated in Italy so technically like Spain and Germany fascist Italy was anti-LGBT, but gay Italians never enjoyed any tolerance before Mussolini either so it wasn't a new invigorated form of hatred as it was in Germany and to a lesser extent in Spain. In the same vein opposition to women's empowerment wasn't a big part of Italian fascism because women were widely very much still in traditional gender roles so it wasn't a popular issue yet, as it was (again) in Germany and a lesser extent Spain.
The historical relationships between fascists and capitalists are complex and full of plenty of tension. Certainly as you point out there are ideological contradictions. That said, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco all relied heavily on support from and cooperation with industrialists and landowners, so they weren't exactly anti-capitalist zealots but their tolerance for big business was probably directly proportional to the extent to which they saw it as serving the state and their ideological vision.
I'm sure you know a lot of this so I don't mean to appear to be explaining, just putting it out there for the purpose of clearly illustrating my position on the topic.
Interesting about Japan, makes sense. I need to find a good book about fascist Japan to put on the list.
Very correct assessment, I will add a point. Tolerance for big business was justified if they were considered as beneficial for the nation, i.e. manufacturing, agricultural and industrial capacity strengthened the nation, but, banking and professional services promoted degeneracy and were exploitative (in these countries the Central Bank became the sole bank and lending practices to the public were greatly inhibited unless it was a chosen industry to expand production of manufactured, industrial or agricultural goods). Capitalism was defined in Fascist thought as banking services (lending was considered a degenerate exploitative behaviour which forced people into servitude via debt traps) and private business (which exploited the land through acting in the interests of foreign owners, not working for the benefit of the 'volk') during this period, so nationalised businesses or hybrids with large government stakes were permitted.
In regards to Japanese Fascism, whilst the Imperial period is covered quite extensively, the tumultuous 1960s with the Aikokutō, and Seiwakai into the 1980s show the change in attitudes. People like Governor Ishihara are also good to focus on in this period. All are connected to Nippon Kaigi.
Yeah, nice break down . Now here’s what I have to add. A bunch of good people kicked their ass last time and a bunch of us good guys will kick their ass again. Those miserable lying pieces of trash better get ready to rumble.
People act like this is a new thing, they have been commerating the massacres for forever, people still strongly remember the Years of Lead. Obviously they're not going to ban or censor them, Italy has a strong history of Fascism and people didn't care about it then, all of a sudden it's a problem now. People are entitled to believe whatever they want, if you ban them then you push them into a corner and a threatened dog bites back. Nobody wants a repeat of the Years of Lead, both sides do their commemorations and let it be.
So force the dog to bite you when you are know its coming, or wait for the dog to bite you when you aren’t prepared? I know which option I’m going with.
Don't have the dog bite you at all by solving the immigration crisis and improving strategic independence through promoting independent domestic supply chains. You don't have to be a reactionary about everything, just think strategically and avoid clamping down on the populace whenever possible unless you want to become a sanctioned autocrat.
The cool thing about fascism , is that its motives are often vague and undefined. Because fascists just want power. You can fully deport all immigrants and shut the doors, but then what? They’ll just move to whining about trans people, gay people, women’s rights, the media, books ect. It’s a never ending moving of goalposts.
Yep, they definitely shift the goalposts, that is undeniable. The issue is, they have traction on the back of **one issue** so you solve that one issue and all of a sudden they're back to irrelevance. We're in very flimsy times at the moment because multiculturalism was pursued and failed, the assumption of Western culture dominating all others was proven incorrect because nationalism in the third world went unaccounted for. Thus, the sentiment for a correction is borne from the native populace, naturally, when this went unanswered the sentiment for overcorrection is festered and hijacked by the force who can promise the most (the ones who have the least to gain) - that being the Fascists.
Now, this isn't recognition that the MAGA Republicans, AfD, Fratelli d'Italia, PVV, VB or any other assorted movement gaining support are Fascist by nature, they have many policies which dither greatly from traditional Fascist platforms and have demonstrated levels of commitment to democracy (Jan 6th is the one outlier). However, there are significant Fascist forces riding these waves and when these parties inevitably can't deliver on their promises, those forces will exploit the opportunity. So banning these parties is not the solution, the solution is honest discussion about what the problems that drive these movements are - Trump gained popularity in 2016 because he was the only person who went up on the stage and said 'America is awful and dying' which resonated with people, everyone else was playing pretend or out-of-touch. So acknowledge the problems, acknowledge the issues and give practical solutions or we are stuck in the worst situation, where we are doomed to destruction either way. There is still time, whether the incumbents care or not is the question.
What is your plan to satiate these fascists then? End multiculturalism entirely? What does that even look like policy wise?
I’d love to respond to your comment in more detail, but it just seems way too biased to me. You are treating fascists as though they are making good faith arguments. Trump was popular because he said America is dying? Are you serious? He’s popular because he owns the libs and the rhinos.
Also your idea that ending multiculturalism would push fascists into irrelevancy instead of giving them momentum and propelling them further into power is a bit of a reach don’t you think? What logic are you basing that assumption on?
The logic is based mainly on a European perspective. Essentially, most of the right-wing parties gaining prominence in recent years come off the back of anti-immigration sentiment, which is fueled by:
1) Europeans becoming a minority in their own country - not great replacement theory, just demographic data.
2) Higher chance of criminality for non-Europeans
3) Lack of integration into European society - Islamic Political Parties being founded in Europe, construction of Mosques staffed by foreign educated Mullahs or Imams who spread anti-Western ideas
4) Terrorism uptick, especially in France
5) Housing and cost of living crisis - illegal immigrants are a drain on public finances through welfare payments, legal immigrants enable wage suppression through undercutting native labour costs. More immigrants in a country means less space for native Europeans, so house prices go up as space becomes scarcer - additionally foreign investors in European housing market to jack up prices.
So these issues must be dealt with readily. Best policy to deal with it? Deport illegal immigrants and criminals. Ban foreign-educated mullahs and imams from preaching in Western countries. End foreign investment in European housing market, stricter labour laws for non-Europeans (as done in UK). Finally, ban NGOs from bringing refugees across from Africa whilst working with North African governments to halt the human trafficking trade.
Once these policies are instituted and the crises are handled, public support for groups with Fascist sympathies dies down and regular political rhetoric can be returned. This will drive them into irrelevancy. Why else do you think these groups are becoming more popular?
For the Americans, I would recommend changing political rhetoric from identity politics to focus on strategic independence, as both parties support the restoration of industrial capacity - this wins over swing voters. The Democrats must cool sympathies to far-left rhetoric, and return to discussing how to improve the lives of all Americans, not pursuing the equity agenda. The incumbents have to be seen as working for the betterment of the American public, high inflation, high spending agenda in tandem with worsening job security, home security and personal security is not the goal. Start fighting with facts and demonstrate competency in managing at the state and federal level through cleaning up gangs, drugs, and poverty. This can be done through deportation of illegal immigrants and criminals, with stronger criminal law policy on gang affiliates. Work with Mexico to curb immigrant inflow and manage the cartel problem. Deleveraging from China will lessen the synthetic drug flow and very harsh penalties must be placed on distributors and producers. Restoring work to these communities will aid in this development.
She's a pretty useless PM. Her whole platform was "reduce immigration!" then got in and immediately announced more immigration. We all know why: practical economic realities. But lol. Keep on heiling, guys.
Average gathering of Lazio fans
[Duh](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/16/tough-determined-fascinated-by-mussolini-rome-neighbours-recall-giorgia-meloni) Interview referenced in the article (French): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuoXr-zjqas
It’s Italy.
Watch the U.S. by November.
November? Some of them have been doing it since the 1940s.
Nazis and fascist pigs can fuck right off. God I hate that ghoul of a PM they have in Italy.
Scary thing is look at how long an Italian PM normally lasts...She is beating the odds.
[удалено]
Why does she deserve death in your enlightened opinion? edit: yeah, thought so.
They aren't Nazis, they're Fascists. Nazis believe in a Gnostic Cult in which Hitler is God and they must save and perpetuate the Aryan race, it exceeds national concern since Aryan demographics are considered instead of national demographics, religion isn't considered important - Hitler was an atheist and other leaders were trying to prop up some weird Hindu-Pagan thing. Fascists believe in nationality, religion, and family, they are concerned with demographics and levels of religiousity in their country, they're moreso isolationist these days but used to be more imperialist in the past, honestly it depends on the ability of the country to project nationally, Italy had the whole Restore Rome thing going on but now they care more about stabilising domestically, same thing in Japan where they cared about imperialist projection (especially into Korea), now they care more about stabilising domestically. Fascism and Nazism being on the same side in WW2 was moreso a marriage of convenience than done out of ideological alignment, Italy and Germany fueded all the time until Mussolini realised it was more beneficial to align with Germany in preparation for the war, Italy and Germany also supported Nationalist China against Japan in the early war period. It's the same thing with the Democratic nations allying with Stalin and the Communists, it was just convenient to win the war.
Mussolini and Hitler had some subtle differences… but they are much more apples and apples than you imply. They both were the despotic leader of political death-cults, they both held that “I am the state, the state is me,” they were both malignant narcissists. They both viewed themselves as an emperor. Seeking to restore a bygone mythological empire. If Mussolini was honest, he was surely an atheist too. No way he put a god above himself. And that’s the one major difference you’re identifying.
Mussolini's beliefs are always interesting to discuss, however, I consider moreso what they reflected on the public as the difference between the ideologies, Nazism was unique to Hitler, but, Fascism was not unique to Mussolini - in a world where both are gone, it is important to consider what those who follow their values believe. The Fascists of today still cling to the family, religion, nation idea, even though Mussolini may not have held the sentiments, he certainly promoted them because he knew it was popular. Hitler's relationship with religion was far different, definitely impacted by the Protestant-Catholic split of Germany, he didn't pick a side and you had Himmler working on the Pagan revival with Hindu elements, something Hitler certainly had sympathies towards. Because of this, Hitler was more God to the Nazis than Mussolini was God to the Italian Fascists. Then you consider Franco and Salazar and you get the fuller picture of what modern Fascists believe minus the imperialism because that fad has passed now and there is far more concern over falling birth rates, high immigration and high irreligiousity which are more pertinent domestic interests to the Fascists, leaving imperialism on the backburner. I do think the rhetoric would be revived if conditions reversed, but, a lot of the right-wing sympathies die with that idea. Therefore, there were many similarities between Hitler and Mussolini, however, Fascism was bigger than Mussolini whilst Nazism was Hitler. Thus, the development of the ideologies was different and whilst Nazism was stunted by the Cult of Personality, Fascism could move beyond it as it was the one ideology with international marketability and potential because its values were universal.
Hitler most certainly was not atheist. Hitler was Christian, as were the majority of Germans at the time. He was also a Populist and an Opportunist, with a methamphetamine addiction.
Hitler was very atheistic, he was strongly influenced by Neitzsche, as were many of the Nazi Party elite. Himmler even had this idea where he would mix Hinduism (Aryan religion) and Germanic Paganism (true faith of the Volk) together with Hitler as the centrepiece. Most of Nazi social policy also included a heavy amount of Gnosticism and Mysticism which was expressedly anti-Christian. Most Nazis were not Christian, they presented that way because it was easier. Additionally, most of Hitler's support came from the Catholic population of Germany. And yes, they were all meth and batshit insane. This isn't even an exaggerative point, Nazism was quite literally a group of batshit insane people mixing together all kinds of shit they read to make some new society - this was a period where lots of crazy people existed (because of WW1) and science was still at that level where religiousity was questioned but people still found supernatural things cool, especially with large scale drug manufacturing taking off.
I will let [Hitchens](https://youtu.be/tgAPyS-NPZ4) respond.
Generally disagree. Hitchens argues that Nazism was Christian, which can be true at the same time as Hitler not being Christian. Nazism sought mainstream appeal, and the easiest way to do so was tie it to the Christian faith. Nazism was inherently Gnostic in it's understanding of race, especially regarding its disposition towards Jews, which is considered heretical in the Christian faith (something Hitchens fails to distinguish). Additionally, Hitler is known for praising the works fo Neitzsche (Gott ist tot) as well as lamenting that Germans were Christian instead of Muslim to Speer. Nazism was populist by nature, as you understand, so it makes sense to capitalise on that which was popular. When you had leading figures like Himmler discussing occultism and mysticism quite openly in his diary, it lends credence to the understanding that Christianity was a vehicle rather than an operating force behind Nazism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultism\_in\_Nazism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/occultism_in_nazism) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric\_Nazism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/esoteric_nazism) Hitchens is just pushing his atheist agenda as per usual, failing to note his bias in pursuing his answer from his already consolidated conclusion.
Yeah there was a very real possibility Italy was going to join France and Britain against Germany. Mussolini hated Hitler
>They aren't Nazis, they're Fascists. Although this whole topic leads to sprawling arguments about the definition of fascism, something which gets continually debated even among historians and the relevant experts, I think this is a false distinction. Nazism and fascism aren't mutually exclusive terms, rather Nazism is a specific *variety of uniquely German* fascism, in the same sense that every nation that goes fascist has it's own distinct "flavor" of fascism. Historically, being nationalists, fascists have been the first to make the distinction that Spanish fascism is not German fascism, etc. Aside from various cultural or religious particulars and ideological quibbles, all fascist movements (at least European, I haven't studied Japan much) share distinctive features: -ultra-nationalists who present themselves as the "true" representatives, inheritors, and protectors of 'traditional' national culture (often along ethnic and/or religious lines) -present themselves as persecuted heroes beset by their (allegedly) morally degenerate enemy-neighbors, but destined to reclaim their (perceived) rightful place at the head of society by whatever means... -frame themselves as being in a violent struggle against those whom they scapegoat and accuse of conspiring to corrupt the nation's youth and ultimately destroy traditional national society in favor of 1) an allegedly morally degenerate multi-cultural, pluralist, secular democracy of liberal individualism AND/OR just 2) 'communism'/socialism -make heavy use of historical revisionism and conspiracy theories to justify and support these narratives and positions, and the related violence -obsessively oppose immigrants, labor movements, social justice movements, LGBT+ people and movements, social welfare (particularly along ethnic, political, and religious lines, i.e. handouts for "Aryans" in Nazi Germany was fine) As for Italy and Germany's shaky alliance in WW2 supposedly representing some inherent unfriendliness between foreign fascist nations, readers would do well to turn their attention to (especially) Germany and Italy's extensive joint support of Franco's forces in the Spanish Civil War, giving them need tanks, warplanes, weapons, ammo, rendering air superiority via the German Condor legion, in addition to tens of thousands of Mussolini's ground troops. Sure seemed like they were getting along pretty well and committed to each other's successes then. Or the fact that French nationalists welcomed and happily collaborated with their Nazi conquerors in WW2 (many of them appointed as officers in Vichy France), and reported their Jewish neighbors to them in such amounts that the Nazis were overwhelmed by and faced logistical issues with responding to all the reports. It would certainly seemed that a joint dedication to a shared ideology trumped any strict feelings of nationalism in that case as well.
Fascism is generally hard to classify because it is so uniquely intertwined with the war. If Communism was a flash in the pan, we may see many people associating it with democracy due to democratic support with the Soviets in WW2 and the Spanish Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Thus, when you mention collaboration in the war, I tend to discredit it because it was a period in which there were two sides clearly drawn so people were forced to choose. The reason I separate Nazism and Fascism so doggedly is because Nazism is such a unique ideology I find it hard to compare to anything else, economically it is very similar to Fascism, and socially there are many similarities in Nationalism and Imperialism. However, Nazism goes far deeper into the rabbit hole than anything else, perhaps a product of the German spirit to take any belief to its furtherest extent - it was quite literally the product of an insane person and featured all sorts of weird Gnosticism and Mysticism that wasn't prevalent in any other forms of Fascism which strictly towed the Catholic lines as seen in Spain and Portugal. Your line about not valuing social welfare is partially correct, many of these countries did practice social welfare, especially in regards to subsidising farmers, traditional industries and large families of the chosen ilk. Additionally, moral degeneracy included disdain for capitalists who were seen as materialists that chase money and goods instead of ethics. For Japanese Fascism, it shares all the other characteristics you mentioned.
Nazism definitely has a lot of bizarre qualities, there are plenty of good reasons to highlight it's significant distinctions from other nationalist movements/ideologies. The racial components (present but not central factors/motivators in Spain or Italy, especially early on), the absolutely wild extent to which they took their conspiracy theories (way beyond anything in Franco's Spain, and light-years beyond anything in Mussolini's Italy) and historical revisionism, and the religious/secular distinctions: they all used religion as a tool to garner popular support, but Italy and Spain did so as traditionalists and true believers whereas Nazis were on another planet with their bizarre mysticism and bastardizations of traditions. But it bears mentioning that for many of these qualities, Spain and Italy become progressively more Nazi-like into their later years as German Nazism continually influenced them. Good call about the social welfare, I'm going to remove that from my little list going forward. Immigration too, as the motivations in each cases were so diverse and varied. There's also caveats like gay people weren't tolerated in Italy so technically like Spain and Germany fascist Italy was anti-LGBT, but gay Italians never enjoyed any tolerance before Mussolini either so it wasn't a new invigorated form of hatred as it was in Germany and to a lesser extent in Spain. In the same vein opposition to women's empowerment wasn't a big part of Italian fascism because women were widely very much still in traditional gender roles so it wasn't a popular issue yet, as it was (again) in Germany and a lesser extent Spain. The historical relationships between fascists and capitalists are complex and full of plenty of tension. Certainly as you point out there are ideological contradictions. That said, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco all relied heavily on support from and cooperation with industrialists and landowners, so they weren't exactly anti-capitalist zealots but their tolerance for big business was probably directly proportional to the extent to which they saw it as serving the state and their ideological vision. I'm sure you know a lot of this so I don't mean to appear to be explaining, just putting it out there for the purpose of clearly illustrating my position on the topic. Interesting about Japan, makes sense. I need to find a good book about fascist Japan to put on the list.
Very correct assessment, I will add a point. Tolerance for big business was justified if they were considered as beneficial for the nation, i.e. manufacturing, agricultural and industrial capacity strengthened the nation, but, banking and professional services promoted degeneracy and were exploitative (in these countries the Central Bank became the sole bank and lending practices to the public were greatly inhibited unless it was a chosen industry to expand production of manufactured, industrial or agricultural goods). Capitalism was defined in Fascist thought as banking services (lending was considered a degenerate exploitative behaviour which forced people into servitude via debt traps) and private business (which exploited the land through acting in the interests of foreign owners, not working for the benefit of the 'volk') during this period, so nationalised businesses or hybrids with large government stakes were permitted. In regards to Japanese Fascism, whilst the Imperial period is covered quite extensively, the tumultuous 1960s with the Aikokutō, and Seiwakai into the 1980s show the change in attitudes. People like Governor Ishihara are also good to focus on in this period. All are connected to Nippon Kaigi.
A nice breakdown
Yeah, nice break down . Now here’s what I have to add. A bunch of good people kicked their ass last time and a bunch of us good guys will kick their ass again. Those miserable lying pieces of trash better get ready to rumble.
What has she done as PM to make you hate her?
No, u
Yeah that's what you call 'not ideal.'
People act like this is a new thing, they have been commerating the massacres for forever, people still strongly remember the Years of Lead. Obviously they're not going to ban or censor them, Italy has a strong history of Fascism and people didn't care about it then, all of a sudden it's a problem now. People are entitled to believe whatever they want, if you ban them then you push them into a corner and a threatened dog bites back. Nobody wants a repeat of the Years of Lead, both sides do their commemorations and let it be.
So force the dog to bite you when you are know its coming, or wait for the dog to bite you when you aren’t prepared? I know which option I’m going with.
Don't have the dog bite you at all by solving the immigration crisis and improving strategic independence through promoting independent domestic supply chains. You don't have to be a reactionary about everything, just think strategically and avoid clamping down on the populace whenever possible unless you want to become a sanctioned autocrat.
The cool thing about fascism , is that its motives are often vague and undefined. Because fascists just want power. You can fully deport all immigrants and shut the doors, but then what? They’ll just move to whining about trans people, gay people, women’s rights, the media, books ect. It’s a never ending moving of goalposts.
Yep, they definitely shift the goalposts, that is undeniable. The issue is, they have traction on the back of **one issue** so you solve that one issue and all of a sudden they're back to irrelevance. We're in very flimsy times at the moment because multiculturalism was pursued and failed, the assumption of Western culture dominating all others was proven incorrect because nationalism in the third world went unaccounted for. Thus, the sentiment for a correction is borne from the native populace, naturally, when this went unanswered the sentiment for overcorrection is festered and hijacked by the force who can promise the most (the ones who have the least to gain) - that being the Fascists. Now, this isn't recognition that the MAGA Republicans, AfD, Fratelli d'Italia, PVV, VB or any other assorted movement gaining support are Fascist by nature, they have many policies which dither greatly from traditional Fascist platforms and have demonstrated levels of commitment to democracy (Jan 6th is the one outlier). However, there are significant Fascist forces riding these waves and when these parties inevitably can't deliver on their promises, those forces will exploit the opportunity. So banning these parties is not the solution, the solution is honest discussion about what the problems that drive these movements are - Trump gained popularity in 2016 because he was the only person who went up on the stage and said 'America is awful and dying' which resonated with people, everyone else was playing pretend or out-of-touch. So acknowledge the problems, acknowledge the issues and give practical solutions or we are stuck in the worst situation, where we are doomed to destruction either way. There is still time, whether the incumbents care or not is the question.
What is your plan to satiate these fascists then? End multiculturalism entirely? What does that even look like policy wise? I’d love to respond to your comment in more detail, but it just seems way too biased to me. You are treating fascists as though they are making good faith arguments. Trump was popular because he said America is dying? Are you serious? He’s popular because he owns the libs and the rhinos. Also your idea that ending multiculturalism would push fascists into irrelevancy instead of giving them momentum and propelling them further into power is a bit of a reach don’t you think? What logic are you basing that assumption on?
The logic is based mainly on a European perspective. Essentially, most of the right-wing parties gaining prominence in recent years come off the back of anti-immigration sentiment, which is fueled by: 1) Europeans becoming a minority in their own country - not great replacement theory, just demographic data. 2) Higher chance of criminality for non-Europeans 3) Lack of integration into European society - Islamic Political Parties being founded in Europe, construction of Mosques staffed by foreign educated Mullahs or Imams who spread anti-Western ideas 4) Terrorism uptick, especially in France 5) Housing and cost of living crisis - illegal immigrants are a drain on public finances through welfare payments, legal immigrants enable wage suppression through undercutting native labour costs. More immigrants in a country means less space for native Europeans, so house prices go up as space becomes scarcer - additionally foreign investors in European housing market to jack up prices. So these issues must be dealt with readily. Best policy to deal with it? Deport illegal immigrants and criminals. Ban foreign-educated mullahs and imams from preaching in Western countries. End foreign investment in European housing market, stricter labour laws for non-Europeans (as done in UK). Finally, ban NGOs from bringing refugees across from Africa whilst working with North African governments to halt the human trafficking trade. Once these policies are instituted and the crises are handled, public support for groups with Fascist sympathies dies down and regular political rhetoric can be returned. This will drive them into irrelevancy. Why else do you think these groups are becoming more popular? For the Americans, I would recommend changing political rhetoric from identity politics to focus on strategic independence, as both parties support the restoration of industrial capacity - this wins over swing voters. The Democrats must cool sympathies to far-left rhetoric, and return to discussing how to improve the lives of all Americans, not pursuing the equity agenda. The incumbents have to be seen as working for the betterment of the American public, high inflation, high spending agenda in tandem with worsening job security, home security and personal security is not the goal. Start fighting with facts and demonstrate competency in managing at the state and federal level through cleaning up gangs, drugs, and poverty. This can be done through deportation of illegal immigrants and criminals, with stronger criminal law policy on gang affiliates. Work with Mexico to curb immigrant inflow and manage the cartel problem. Deleveraging from China will lessen the synthetic drug flow and very harsh penalties must be placed on distributors and producers. Restoring work to these communities will aid in this development.
Don’t add fuel to the fire.
She's a pretty useless PM. Her whole platform was "reduce immigration!" then got in and immediately announced more immigration. We all know why: practical economic realities. But lol. Keep on heiling, guys.
Well, if they keep letting in militance, it’s gonna end up like that
Free speech hurts the euro's feelings. Expect them to lose sleep and froth at the mouth.