So to use violence then? Because the thing with fascism is that there are exactly 0 instances of fascist regimes existing peacefully. Not a single one. Fascism requires violence to work. It unites people in hatred of minority groups. The reason Putin is still waging war today despite having lost several hundred thousand troops, most of Russia’s armoured vehicles, a third of their strategic bomber fleet, half the black sea navy, and almost all international trade is because if he stops then his loyal followers will no longer fall in line. He needs to frame NATO as being the reason people’s lives are shit. Hitler needed to vilify the Jews because without a scapegoat he wouldn’t be able to get people to rally behind him. Pol pot and Stalin used academics as their scapegoats. But the common thread here is that fascism requires the persecution of one or more minority groups to survive. So yeah violence is the only option when dealing with fascists the only real choice is whether it’s done to the fascists or someone who hasn’t done anything wrong and just wants to live their life in peace.
Comparing NATO to Jews is absurd and you should know that. You might be able to convince me that Russia is a fascist regime, as I am not as familiar with their country, but I would not agree that America is currently under a fascist regime.
Carl Schmitt literally wrote the book on fascism as an ideology. Hell, he was even in the Nazi Party, sort of like the Curtis Yarvin of his time. Which is interesting because Yarvin kind of idolizes Schmitt and quotes him frequently. Being in the Nazi Party didn’t last very long, though, as he was forewarned that soon he was to be ousted from his role in the Party, as the regime no longer had need of philosophers, and he was also concerned that he would be outed as a Hegelian.
“I’m gonna stay angry and uncompromising, just like I planned.”
If you were in charge of Britain in the second world war, how would you have handled the rise of nazi Germany?
The exact same way it was, which is to withhold violence unless you or an ally you have sworn to defend is attacked.
So to use violence then? Because the thing with fascism is that there are exactly 0 instances of fascist regimes existing peacefully. Not a single one. Fascism requires violence to work. It unites people in hatred of minority groups. The reason Putin is still waging war today despite having lost several hundred thousand troops, most of Russia’s armoured vehicles, a third of their strategic bomber fleet, half the black sea navy, and almost all international trade is because if he stops then his loyal followers will no longer fall in line. He needs to frame NATO as being the reason people’s lives are shit. Hitler needed to vilify the Jews because without a scapegoat he wouldn’t be able to get people to rally behind him. Pol pot and Stalin used academics as their scapegoats. But the common thread here is that fascism requires the persecution of one or more minority groups to survive. So yeah violence is the only option when dealing with fascists the only real choice is whether it’s done to the fascists or someone who hasn’t done anything wrong and just wants to live their life in peace.
Comparing NATO to Jews is absurd and you should know that. You might be able to convince me that Russia is a fascist regime, as I am not as familiar with their country, but I would not agree that America is currently under a fascist regime.
Not comparing NATO to the Jews just pointing out that they’re both scapegoats.
Carl Schmitt literally wrote the book on fascism as an ideology. Hell, he was even in the Nazi Party, sort of like the Curtis Yarvin of his time. Which is interesting because Yarvin kind of idolizes Schmitt and quotes him frequently. Being in the Nazi Party didn’t last very long, though, as he was forewarned that soon he was to be ousted from his role in the Party, as the regime no longer had need of philosophers, and he was also concerned that he would be outed as a Hegelian.