People really should familiarize themselves with the Nazi party’s rise to power. Hitler and his party spent over a decade campaigning on making Germany great again by restoring the status quo of an earlier time. They were going to get rid of all the failed liberal/marxist/socialist policies that made the country weak. They would protect the traditional family unit. They would change immigration policies to get you your job back. They would stop sending money to foreign countries when it should be spent in Germany.
As the years went on, political disagreements in the German government led to a standstill while the economy declined. While the people’s quality of life decreased, politicians squabbled instead of passing bills. Hitler and his party argued a rule by decree would bypass the bureaucracy. They knew what needed to be done, and it was those pesky leftists in government that prevented it from happening!
The Nazis would get their way. Hitler would be appointed dictator and Germans were happy he could finally deliver on his promises. Anyone who said otherwise would be killed as an enemy of the people. Oh yeah! They were going to kill people. Did they not mention that before? Whoopsies!
And maybe also familiarize themselves with the story of Ossietzky. For 6 years, he, Tucholsky and other authors tore the - then slowly rising - Nazi party a new one every week in their magazine. They found them part threatening, part hilarious, certainly completely unable to govern.
Well, the Nazis did eventually rise to power; Tucholsky had seen the writing on the wall and had gotten out of Germany, urging Ossietzky to do the same. He refused, was soon taken into custody and tortured. Arguably, at this point in time, this sort of blatant Nazi terror was still considered despicable. To lend him visibility and get him out of internment, an unprecedented campaign to award him the Nobel Peace Prize was started - and succeeded in 1936, the year of the Summer Olympics in Berlin. Alas, it was too late; he died after receiving it, still in custody.
(EDIT: in hindsight) Hitler’s reaction was entirely predictable: He barred any German from accepting a Nobel Prize ever again.People really should familiarize themselves with the Nazi party’s rise to power.
On the one hand, I think there’s an impulse to take deep dives into every Beer Hall Putsch and Reichstag Fire, in an effort to glean patterns of fascism that were particular to that time and place. If you’re waiting for the next big western dictator to have a tiny mustache and a vegan diet, it seems like you’re fixating more on the ascetics of history than the material conditions. The end result is looking for Weird Dudes In Politics and asserting their particular brand of dressing, acting, or talking strangely is a hallmark of their fascist politics. And if you’re not weird enough, you’re not a Real Fascist. Trump’s a fascist but Nicki Hailey is fine, because Trump’s a big wet dude and Hailey is comparatively normal.
On the other, I see a very knee-jerk impulse to credit anything vaguely popular or broadly appealing as “creeping fascism”. That quickly gets us to “BLM is Fascism!” and “YouTube Moderators are Fascism!” and “Everyone I Don’t Like Is Hitler!” I’ve seen more than a few conservative Op-Eds asserting that DSA is Fascist because they’re a form of National Socialism. I’ve both Ukraine and Russia denounced as Fascist, both Hamas and Israel denounced as Fascist, both Cuba and America denounced as Fascist, both California and Texas, etc, etc… and it quickly seems to boil down to “Anyone with a police/military doing something I don’t like is Fascism”.
While the people’s quality of life decreased, politicians squabbled instead of passing bills. Hitler and his party argued a rule by decree would bypass the bureaucracy. They knew what needed to be done, and it was those pesky leftists in government that prevented it from happening!
Okay, but this is something I see from every political angle. Whether its Democrats saying we need to “Mint the Coin” to override obstruction on the Debt Ceiling and “Pack the Court” to undo the conservative majority on the bench or its a Texas/Florida governor asserting state sovereignty to push through school privatization or a new round of border enforcement, the desire to bully past political bottlenecks created by the opposition is a tale as old as Two-Party Politics.
Also, not particularly unusual for people to use the term “Communist” when describing any opposition movement, whether its Trumpian Russo-philes or Biden-esque SJWs.
To quote a particular manifesto
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
So this isn’t unique to fascism, unless we want to describe American politics as grossly fascist from end to end.
Anyone who said otherwise would be killed as an enemy of the people. Oh yeah! They were going to kill people. Did they not mention that before? Whoopsies!
That is, again, the end game of any government with sufficient will-to-power. When push comes to shove, the prevailing state government enforces its dictates through violence. And, again, this country is rife with state violence. It wasn’t as though the Weimer Government was above killing people. Hell, its not as though the current German government is above killing people.
I think it’s great everyone is under the microscope when it comes to authoritarian rule. You’re right that the eccentric get targeted more than the corporate straitlaced ones. Packing the court with loyal judges is bad no matter who is doing it, nor for what reason. The fact that this is seen as the only way to fix problems is a problem in itself. It absolutely should be called out. The growing trend of not being allowed to criticize liberal politicians because it helps conservative politicians is terrible. All politicians should be criticized.
I strongly disagree all governments will kill if they’re given unlimited power. They might cause death by mismanagement, but it’s a special kind of government that actively executes people. Still though, no government should have unlimited power. The people in charge change. There is no guarantee a benevolent dictator will be succeeded by someone who is benevolent, but only by someone who is a dictator. Governments should be productive, but centralizing power has never lead to great outcomes in the long term. I do think the US government is becoming increasingly centralized in the name of eliminating roadblocks. Executive orders and Supreme court rulings are becoming the favourite way of changing laws and that’s a dangerous precedent.
Packing the court with loyal judges is bad no matter who is doing it
Well this is a bit ironic coming from someone who thinks that all governments with “sufficient will-to-power” will move onto murdering political opponents
all governments with “sufficient will-to-power” will move onto murdering political opponents
Name one that hasn’t.
Well, that’d depend on what exactly you mean with “will-to-power”
As the years went on, political disagreements in the German government led to a standstill while the economy declined. While the people’s quality of life decreased, politicians squabbled instead of passing bills. Hitler and his party argued a rule by decree would bypass the bureaucracy. They knew what needed to be done, and it was those pesky leftists in government that prevented it from happening!
This is exactly also what Pierre Poillievre is promising with “Common sense politics”. all why being obstructionist to the government and stopping action for the last 10 years.
I’m confused, why did you replace GOP with Nazis, Trump with Hitler, and US with Germany? Other than that, yeah you described exactly what we’re dealing with right now.
(It’s a “joke”) :(
deleted by creator
Looking at the US right now, I think Mr. Rosen misjudged that last part.
Honestly it really does seem like he was way too optimistic about how fucking horrible conservatives are, and how much of their ideology is simply about being able to hurt others for no other reason than enjoyment.
It’s getting pretty bad everywhere; in Finland we have multiple literal neo-Nazis in the current government, for example.
You missed the point. Fascism doesn’t arrive looking like Nazis. But it eventually starts to look like them. The German people during WWII weren’t unaware of the mass transport and concentration camps. They knew, but by that time they were either conditioned to support it or feel unable to do anything to stop it.
Rosen’s quote, then. Must not be interpreted as in, fascism just arrived to the US proposing these horrible things. As most of the world will tell you, fascism installed in the US as early as the XIX century. The Nazis took cues from the US actions to create their extermination programs. It’s just that the US hadn’t started their full metamorphosis in full until the 80’s. It was always focused against particular groups of individuals or specific outsiders, and was very slow with their own people unless they belong to a marginalized community. It’s just now that they openly promote the atrocities, but they have been doing them for two centuries. But most people were blind to them, because fascism arrives as your friend.
You missed the point.
I can read you know. I didn’t miss the point, I disagreed with it
fascism installed in the US as early as the XIX century.
There’s some debate over the history of fascism but fascism was not “installed” in the US in the 19th century; it was barely even making inroads in Europe, its birthplace.
The Nazis took cues from the US actions to create their extermination programs. It’s just that the US hadn’t started their full metamorphosis in full until the 80’s
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that the US was fascist. The US genocide of indigenous peoples was not a fascist project, it was a colonial one. You seem to be of the opinion that committing atrocities is fascist and fascism is committing atrocities, which is understandable given that fascism inevitably leads to brutality. But for example, I’d hardly call FDR a fascist, but he put Asian Americans in concentration camps and (while knowing about the holocaust) refused entry to Jewish refugees. Likewise, Japan looked to US for inspiration for its expansionism, but Japan wasn’t fascist: it was imperial.
I do think Rosen is mistaken, or at least this quote is misleading on this part. The Nazis were talking about exterminating Jews before they got into power. But they were also focusing hard on the “friendly” points and downplaying the uglier ones whenever dealing with moderate audiences.
It started with colonialism and the revo was just a redirection of illl will.
Yup. here too in Canada.
The leader of the opposition, and several of his party members were found cohorting and publicly hanging out with neo-nazi’s and insurrectionists.
They then paraded their only token Jewish MP in the party to get up in parliament and claim that the CPC can’t be nazi’s / racist since She’s a Jew. (Meanwhile, I’m from her community, and her community HATES her for being a violence spewing anti-nonjew asshole, who has been encouraging Jewish parents to arm themselves against the islam/palestinian threats to their children in Canada). the fact that a Jewish person seems perfectly ok to ignore and lie about her own party members meeting with NeoNazi’s should tell you that for her, it’s about power and she’s willing to use our heritage for that power.
Seriously: Look up MP Melissa Lantsman history. She’s one of the most Vile human beings I’ve sadly met.
Yeah: the (increasingly non-moderate) Republican base eats that up - they want to hurt people.
Yep, same here in Finland too.
Moderate conservatives don’t really exist anymore, if they ever did. Seems like reich-wingers have just been waiting for an excuse to go full fash
They’re called liberals now in the USA. And many aren’t moderate.
Yeah, the Centre Party here has been hemorrhaging voters to a right wing extremist party that has several actual neo-Nazis in it
And the CPC in Canada is licking their chops and trying to copy them
Maybe, and I for certain people I totally agree. But I also think certain media outlets work really hard to make sure their audience is afraid of nearly everything. Because of that, these folks are in constant fight-or-flight mode and ready to kick, punch, or shove anything and everything that makes them feel slightly uncomfortable.
Go look up what corporations own the media. Hi look up Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, Ed Bernays (The Century of Self is a great doco).
I totally agree, but that’s not freedom of speech. Accredited news outlets are required by law to provide the truth. They can be sanctioned, or charged with libel or slander.
Fascism arrives as your friend (if you’re an ignorant asshole)
Certainly no shortage of those
A near-endless supply, unfortunately.
Human stupidity, the gift that keeps on taking
Be wary of any politician who tells you they can cure all your problems.
They can’t and they won’t. They’re just saying what you want to hear to gain power.
Beware of censorship as well. Empower your government to silence your enemies, and it won’t be long before they silence you too.
On the other hand let your ‘enemies’ talk without consequences and then you’ll have Murdoch media everywhere.
Let them talk. It’s their right. It’s our right to stop listening.
Yeah sure.
And what are you going to do about the morons who keep listening to it?
Play whack-a-mole with paranoid cunts after they shoot at vehicle in wrong driveway, or after they try to burn down planned parenthood?
Censorship is a slippery slope. Truth is not empirical. Lawyers professionally manipulate the appearance of facts, and judges use opinions to determine validity. Start censoring some, and soon enough you’ll be censored as well. There’s a reason why freedom of speech is part of the first right in the Bill of Rights. It wasn’t foresight, it was experience.
Truth is not empirical.
yes it is and where it cannot be proven with 100% certainty, the scientific principles applied to truth will at least get you as damn close to it as possible.
This statement reads like you want the right to replace reality with your own and say whatever you want without consequences.
That’s not reality and you need to grow up
I think you misunderstand the point. No one is asking for legislation against stating the sky isn’t blue. When a general idea, such as “hate speech” is made illegal, the definition can be manipulated by those in power to do so. That’s exactly how past governments control the narrative of the citizens to their liking. All they need is our permission to tell us what is, and is not, acceptable to say.
Welcome to participating in society, where you are expected to work alongside your neighbour, not against them.
our government is supposed to be there to define these lines, in conjuction with the will of the people AND the limits of the courts.
Theres’ valid argument about some parties abuse. But thats where a robust parliament with multiple different houses can help.
But at the end of the day, if you let hate speech fall under the pervue of freedom of speech and take an absolutist approach to freedom of speech, you will inevitably, lose tolerance as the intolerant will eliminate the tolerant. We have seen this enough times to know that free speech absolutism is a joke, and why it’s not the rule of most countries.
Thanks for the most lukewarm takes. Now say something about what’s happening in the real world.
Let’s say legislation is passed to allow censorship of language. What if that power is transferred to a leader who chooses to use it for their own interests? Now that not only infringes on freedom of speech, but freedom of the press. Governmental control of the press is how you make a dictator.
Instead of telling about what the government shouldn’t do, why don’t you tell us about what the government should do to deal with misinformation and stochastic terrorism?
I completely agree that we should not stand for intolerance.
Meet speech with speech. Meet action with charges.
Problem is with speech is that speech itself IS action.
You might not see it or feel it if you’ve never really been a marganlized group, but even speech itself can be harmful, especially when it spreads. At some point, there must be a line where it is not ok to say those things.
For example: Some white supremacist walking around with a swatstika flag might seem like a nothing to you and you might just htink the person is an idiot (they are). But to me, that is a symbol that says “I want you, your family, and your heritage murdered violently, and I don’t care how its done”
In addition, your premise assumes good faith on the part of the intolerant, and that they are probably just that way and will change with evidence. This is not true. Many intolerant know that they are intolerant and don’t care. And nothing will change that. Arguing with them is what they want since it gives them a platform to repeat their vile hatred.
Again: There MUST be a line in the sand where society and the social contract say “This is not acceptable and you will not be permitted to participate”, or eventually it creeps and spreads.
Nazism (ack, a godwin myself) didn’t just start as Germany’s preffered viewpoint. Hitler was ostracized for it early on, but many free speach absolutists took the exact same approach with him, until he was able to convince enough people who before would keep quiet, to support him and his causes.
Speech is not action, but I agree it can lead to action. Actions are held accountable by law.
I absolutely agree that speech can be harmful, and harmful language should not be tolerated. It should be met with resistant speech or ignored. Social mores are not legislated, but agreed upon by society as a whole. If it’s a location where you are required to listen, such as employment, there are already laws in place to protect you from harmful language.
I assume no good faith from intolerant people. I do not expect them to change their mind. By meeting their ignorance with truth, you can provide the listeners with a contrasting view.
I suggest you read about historical dictatorships and authoritarian control of speech to understand the potential dangers of empowering your government to determine acceptable speech. It may seem like a good idea at first, but all it takes is someone you adamantly disagree with to take office with that power and everything changes.
Speech is not action
Yes it is. And this is why the Free speech absolution argument fall flat on it’s face.
Speech is Action.
Speech encourages Action
Speech is powerful. There’s a reason why there’s the old saying “The pen is mightier than the sword”. Words are the most influence action we have.
I’ve responded to you enough. the fact you’re going to sit and defend peoples right to hate speech implies to me that you have some of these opinions yourself that have been called out for and you want to defend your right to say them.
So, On that assumption, I don’t think you and I have a further need to talk.
Make you feel proud…
It love bombs you and tells you that the problems are all going to get better if we go back to how things used to be
“Things will get better, we just have to get rid of those pesky foreigners and left-wingers who ruined this country”
Fascism and Communism are very similar, especially when they deal with those who disagree. The lessons from the 20th Century fail to be learned.
no. What you are referring to is authoritarianism, which can happen in just about every single political system that is abused. Even Capitalism/Democracy can be subject to Authoritarian rules.
Bob Altemyer referred to then as right wing authorizations. Wrote a short book about it. It’s free online, of his own volition.
