• 0 Posts
  • 337 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle




  • Why did Netanyahu sacrifice Israelis to refuse multiple ceasefires and hostage exchanges?

    …but more relevantly, for the 4th time, you genocide defending piece of shit, why did Israel fund Hamas’ displacement of the secular moderates with predictable results?

    There’s a reason you’re refusing to answer the question - it’s perfectly clear that Netanyahu is willing to sacrifice Israeli lives if it means that he can kill more Palestinians. You keep stating the obvious in an incredulous tone because you don’t have an alternative explanation - there isn’t one. You tell us you see the truth, then get all shy about it.

    Go cheer for more dead Israelis, ya antisemitic piece of shit.







  • The PLO were in power, Israel knew who Hamas were, and funded their rise to power (for what reason other than to manufacture the pretext for this genocide?), they also created and maintained the conditions that would motivate and justify violent resistance, so yes - Israel are responsible for Hamas.

    In maintaining the horrible conditions I pointed to, Israel further motivated people to push back by any means necessary while giving them as little as possible to live for.

    You don’t get to tell us you want peace as you defend a genocide. You don’t get to tell us about atrocities as the IDF gleefully document dozens per day, and you don’t get to tell the people you’re genociding that they’re wrong.

    With that all clarified, what would justifiable Palestinian self-defence look like, and do those principles apply equally to Israel?



  • How about Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s.

    Oh look - a New York Times reporter saved us the trouble. Turns out that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat (who also corroborated this statement).

    …there’s that, and the whole military occupation to maintain an apartheid state in an open air concentration camp, the decades-long annexation campaign. You’ll be surprised to learn that people find that kind of thing upsetting.




  • When very charitably, at least 12 of Eco’s 14 signs of Ur fascism has been checked off along with the dictionary definition, this is a pretty weak argument - Where do you get your meaning of words if it’s not based on the dictionary or on something’s traits?

    Deregulation and the outsourcing of state power to complicit, newly empowered commercial interests is standard within fascism, and pushing that power from notionally democratic direct government control to undemocratic businesses that have an interest in preserving the government that removed their guardrails and handed them all that power is undeniably authoritarian. Would you make the argument that company towns aren’t authoritarian or centralised because it’s not government power?

    Excessive debt is indeed a driver of authoritatian policy for better or worse, but fascism isn’t the only flavour of authoritarianism. Similarly, company towns tend to thrive in small government environments, and are historically incredibly authoritarian. That’s not a good thing.


  • Oh - my mistake - you think you’re not supporting fascism… It’d be quaint if it weren’t for the consequences.

    Fascism is characterised by the merging of state and commercial interests, not a strong centralised authority in a beuracratic sense. Let’s run the list, shall we?

    “The cult of tradition”, characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.

    Check.

    “The rejection of modernism”, which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.

    Check.

    “The cult of action for action’s sake”, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.

    Check.

    “Disagreement is treason” – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.

    Big check.

    “Fear of difference”, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.

    That couldn’t be Trum- CHECK.

    “Appeal to a frustrated middle class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.

    Check.

    “Obsession with a plot” and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson’s book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.

    Check.

    Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”. On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.

    Check.

    “Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy” because “life is permanent warfare” – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.

    Ukraine/Palestine - soft check.

    “Contempt for the weak”, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.

    Check.

    “Everybody is educated to become a hero”, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, “[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.”

    Soft check, but that’s clearly firming up.

    “Machismo”, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold “both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality”.

    Check.

    “Selective populism” – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of “no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people”.

    Check.

    “Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

    Check.

    I’ve got bad news for you…