61–70 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Few white people are calling for genocide. And referring to anything less than that as Nazism is just a sleight of hand meant to disparage.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ Genocide is a characteristic of one major fascist regime. It is not a characteristic of all of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Few white people are calling for genocide. And referring to anything less than that as Nazism is just a sleight of hand meant to disparage.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ Genocide is a characteristic of one major fascist regime. It is not a characteristic of all of them.
Who becomes a cog in the surveillance capitalistic machinery? Me, it turns out. Is it because I am unhappy and insecurity? Yeah maybe I suppose. It's not that I'm seeking revenge or domination. More that I just don't have enough fucks to give left over to care about anyone else. Staying alive takes full concentration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't get that from the article at all. I think this sentence in the last section of the article is the central point: > Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. That Nazism is a product of cruelty, unhappiness, and insecurity. Fascism is about dominance. About being a part of the group to which the other is subordinate. Which is something that appeals to people who are deeply bitter, delight i…
> Fascism is about dominance. About being a part of the group to which the other is subordinate. This is utterly correct. > Which is something that appeals to people who are deeply bitter, delight in suffering (of their own or others), or lack a sense of self-identity. This is absurd, and does not follow from the first part. Here's the truth (and you do get this from the article) : anyone who rises a lot in the world…
If the SJW's taught me anything it's that the people loudest yelling that they're the good people would be the first people to go nazi. It wouldn't be the same nazi's nowadays - their uniforms would be different, their slogans would be different, the group they scapegoat all their problems on would be different.
But they'd still be plowing through imprisoning and killing people who fit into their nearly arbitrary category not caring what kind of people they actually are because "their group is the reason why bad things happen!".
They'd simply go on their facebook feed, be told who they should hate this week, and gleefully post about how they're being put in camps to slowly die, all the while convinced they were doing the right moral thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It literally starts by saying it’s not a racial thing.
First paragraph: "I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, ..." [emphasis added]
"I think young D over there is the only born Nazi in the room. Young D is the spoiled only son of a doting mother. He has never been crossed in his life. He spends his time at the game of seeing what he can get away with. He is constantly arrested for speeding and his mother pays the fines."
If you actually read the article in its entirety, it's pretty clear from both her misuse of the words 'born' and 'biological factors' that Dorothy Thompson, unlike Nazis, is refering environmental factors and not genetic ones. Misuse of those words are the only flaws I see in what's otherwise a good article that feels sadly still relevant today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I definitely agree that removing responsibility likely allows/causes people to participate in horrible things it should also be remembered that "at the end of the war" they knew they were on the losing side and probably looking to minimize their own role in that side.
This sounds like basic opportunism... fits well in line with OPs comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First paragraph: "I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, ..." [emphasis added] > Fourth paragraph: "Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature." It's obvious that she's talking about upbringing rather than genetics, despite the word choice. You're being way too…
There is no charitable interpretation possible for "born Nazis."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no charitable interpretation possible for "born Nazis."
She says repeatedly that Nazism is not genetic but is potentially rooted in the earliest upbringing. When she talks about "young D," "the only born Nazi in the room," she says a lot about his upbringing and nothing whatsoever about his heritage. That's what "born" means to Dorothy Thompson. The word "born" is clearly an awkward choice--perhaps it worked better in the idiom of 1941--but you're not doing any good by ig…
Your interpretation of the word "born" is bizarre. She is repeatedly describing someone's Nazism to be directly caused by biological breeding and processes (such as feeding, physical training, or Neanderthal brains).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ Genocide is a characteristic of one major fascist regime. It is not a characteristic of all of them.
Genocide is a characteristic of every totalitarian regime, notably including every communist regime, which are almost always excluded from these discussions.
The regimes don't set out to conduct the genocide, that's not their initial purpose. It's a tool that they use. For fascists and Nazis the genocide and politicide is a consequence of their strong in-group/out-group philosophy. The Nazis didn't take over Germany to kill the Jews, they ostracized, murdered, and eventually committed genocide against the Jews in their efforts to take over Germany (and other territories as they expanded).
Communists used genocide less as a tool to direct their people's anger and more as a political tool to control a territory. Ukraine as an example. They didn't convince the Russian people that Ukrainians were an enemy that needed to be wiped out. They (USSR) permitted the famine to be so destructive so as to reduce the Ukrainian efforts for independence, and to make room for Russians to be moved in (or they took advantage of the opportunity to do this last part), further reducing the Ukrainian identity.