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
By LUDWIG L. LENZ
(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]
[...]
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.
