Monday, November 11, 2013

Standard progressive view of Alex Jones turns into the material of satire where one is supposed to believe that civil libertarians are seeking to centralize power like fascists or progressives.

[quote="Pete Tar, post: 75070, member: 481"]So it's only fascism if it's aligned or part of the current structure, but it can't be fascism if it's opposed to it?
His opposing a current power structure doesn't mean he wouldn't impose his own version of it with his own in-group if he could.
(speculation only and not saying he would).[/quote]

How would that be possible if he wants to keep power and guns decentralized?  In what possible scenario would Jones be able to centralize power unless he totally changes his political philosophy and therefore discredits himself? 

So far we seem to have a progressive theory that just because he stands in opposition to the DHS that "Doesn't mean he wouldn't actual join with them to try to begin creating lists of people guilty of hate speech while trying to take their guns.... in my vivid imagination."  Meanwhile back in reality it's generally progressives, the SPLC and other Zionists or dual citizens trying to use terrorism and hatred as an excuse to centralize power over others.  And they're prone to violating the First and Second Amendments, not Jones.

[quote]There were corporate and state structures before fascism was instituted in Germany. So it was once an 'outsider' view.[/quote]

They became more powerful and tribal/racist due to Darwinian pseudo-science combined with their collective reaction to the work of the international bankers and eventually the tribalism/racism behind "Judea Declares War on Germany" too.  The same thing is happening in Greece because Goldman Sachs and Talmudists ignited some fires there but the traditional reaction of Jews is to blame anti-Semitism while failing to hold Jews accountable for anything.  Ironically Jones doesn't have anything at all positive to say about the Golden Dawn, so that's another reason to note that it's unlikely that he is a fascist. 

A fascist could be looked on as a person that rejects claims about being a chosen or superior race and instead says something like:  "No, we are the chosen tribe."

But like Jones, I don't have any use for claims of tribal supremacy and so forth either way.  What were the reasons that Jones and I are supposedly like fascists, again?  We should go through them within more of a factual framework instead of relying on "theories" that seem to be based on a progressive worldview.  (Sorry to take the hopium.)

With respect to the claim that fascists necessarily supported traditional gender roles (?????), therefore Jones is "in many ways" like a fascist:[ex]Konrad Heiden (1945, p. 235) went further and described homosexuality as being pervasive and indeed institutionalized within the S.A. movement and its predecessors: “The perversion was widespread in the secret murderers’ army of the post-war period and its devotees denied that it was a perversion. They were proud, regarded themselves as ‘different from the others,’ meaning better.” This is perhaps not surprising, since so many of the leaders of the S.A. were open homosexuals…
(American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, No. 5, Mar., 1982
Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries
by Christie Davies :1057-1038)

Later in the 1930s, the régime levelled similar accusations against the army Chief of Staff, Werner von Fritsch, who would not comply with nazi policies, against Catholic clerics in order to bring the Church into disrepute so that its influence in education and the youth movement would be reduced, and against branches of the independent youth movement. The pragmatic position of certain nazis in power seems evident from the fact that Röhm was not the only homosexual in the nazi movement, and that before his liquidation homosexuality seems to have been tacitly tolerated in the SA and the Hitler Youth.
(Medicine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany
by Harry Oosterhuis
Journal of Contemporary History,
Vol. 32, No. 2. (Apr., 1997), :187-205)[/ex]And so forth.  I suspect that you're going to need some rather elaborate theories to try to incorporate historical facts into some of the crackpot theories that have been proposed here about the nature of fascism and why it emerges.

Theoretical perspectives on the facts:[ex]Why was it then, since we were completely non-party, that our purely scientific Institute was the first victim which fell to the new regime? 'Fell' is, perhaps, an understatement for it was totally destroyed; the books from the big library, my irreplaceable documents, all the pictures and files everything, in fact, that was not nailed down or a permanent fixture was dragged outside and burned. What explanation is there for the fact that the trades union buildings of the socialists, the communist clubs and the synagogues were only destroyed at a much later date and never so thoroughly as our pacific Institute? Whence this hatred, and, what was even more strange, this haste and thoroughness?The answer to this is simple and straightforward enough—we knew too much.It would be against medical principles to provide a list of the Nazi leaders and their perversions. One thing, however, is certain—not ten percent of those men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal...
(The Memoirs of a Sexologist
(New York: 1954) pp. 429 ff)

According to the chief psychiatrist at Nuremberg, Douglas M. Kelley, only two of the twenty-two major defendants were without 'vices'...
(Journal of Modern History,
Vol. 47, No. 2, Jun., 1975
Psychohistorical Perspectives on Modern German History
By Peter Loewenberg :239)[/ex]  Actually that last reference was referring to a fact or a bit of gossip, depending on your perspective.  So back to the facts, if the Nazis were generally a bunch of conservatives that supported traditional gender roles then why didn't they have any problem with homosexuality and non-traditional forms of sexuality being practiced in their ranks?  Not only did they not have a problem with it, they defended it:  [ex]...the brown-shirted S.A. never became much more than a motley mob of brawlers. Many of its top leaders, beginning with its chief, Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts. Lieutenant Edmund Heines, who led the Munich S.A., was not only a homosexual but a convicted murderer. These two and dozens of others quarreled and feuded as only men of unnatural sexual inclinations, with their peculiar jealousies, can.
An organization, however streamlined and efficient, is made up of erring human beings, and in those years when Hitler was shaping his party to take over Germany’s destiny he had his fill of troubles with his chief lieutenants, who constantly quarreled not only among themselves but with him. He, who was so monumentally intolerant by his very nature, was strangely tolerant of one human condition—a man’s morals. No other party in Germany came near to attracting so many shady characters. As we have seen, a conglomeration of pimps, murderers, homosexuals, alcoholics and blackmailers flocked to the party as if to a natural haven. Hitler did not care, as long as they were useful to him. When he emerged from prison he found not only that they were at each other’s throats but that there was a demand from the more prim and respectable leaders such as Rosenberg and Ludendorff that the criminals and especially the perverts be expelled from the movement. This Hitler frankly refused to do. "I do not consider it to be the task of a political leader," he wrote in his editorial...
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer
(Simon and Schuster) 1990 :120,121-122) [/ex]

What was the list of other things that make "paleoconservatives" or Jones and I "in many ways" like fascists or Nazis, again? 

I have little use for simplistic stigma words but if they are to be used then there's probably more of an argument that American progressives are "fascists," given their increasingly toxic brew of nationalism in the name of national security combined with the way they're promoting corporatism in the name of trying to give people healthcare. There again, I don't have much use for the game of pin the tail on the Nazi.   That's a complex issue (Including the way it came to be in a dialectic with other forms of racial supremacy and tribalism in Zionism.) that can't be reduced to stigma words.

No comments: