|
Which Fascist Said This?
Who said this?
Always before god and the world the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills. … The whole of nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness, an eternal victory of the strong over the weak.
Who is paraphrased here?
The first state to adopt evolutionary ethics would prevail over all others in the struggle for existence. … Extermination and war then became moral goods to eliminate the weak.
And who said this?
The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.
(scroll down)
Answers:
1. Adolph Hitler on April 13 1923 in Munich
2. Wilhelm Schallmayer, co-founder of the German eugenics movement in the early 20th century, paraphrased here.
3. Benjamin Netanyahoo on August 29 2018 at the Negev Nuclear Weapon Center (Also here.)
Also:
It is not just by chance that Netanyahoo sounds like Hitler. Both, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, and Adolph Hitler developed their political awareness around the turn of the century in imperial Vienna. Social Darwinism was the rage of that time. Fascists and Zionists drank from the same poisoned well.
Besides – did you know that Hitler did not want to exterminate the Jews? An Arab made him do that. A Muslim. That is according to one Benjamin Netanyahoo, currently prime minister of the Zionist entity in Palestine:
In a speech before the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, Netanyahu described a meeting between Husseini and Hitler in November, 1941: "Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jew. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, 'If you expel them, they'll all come here (to Palestine).' According to Netanyahu, Hitler then asked: "What should I do with them?" and the mufti replied: "Burn them."
The account is, of course, historically nonsense.
Related:
The administration of the Hindu supremacist Narendra Modi in India launched an arrest campaign to silence its critics. Its demonetization program, a first step to introduce a degressive bank transaction tax, did not achieve the desired results but created an economic mess. Modi's re-election is in danger. The accusations against the arrested people imply, correctly in my view, that the government of India is fascist:
Elgaar Parishad probe: Those held part of anti-fascist plot to overthrow govt, Pune police tells court
@ Posted by: Noirette | Sep 1, 2018 12:01:23 PM | 94
Fascism (and Nazism) are a form of Liberalism. But we need to clarify one of the most persuading Cold War myths: the myth of totalitarianism.
(huge parenthesis alert)
-//-
During the Cold War, a cold warrior called Hannah Arendt published a book (from a CIA editor) that laid out the most famous version of the theory of totalitarianism.
The theory of totalitarianism states that communism and fascism are the sides of the same coin. Arendt’s central argument was that both communism and nazism were brother ideologies because both adopt a central, all-encompassing historical narrative: nazism adopting the narrative of the struggle between the races and communism adopting the narrative of struggle between classes. Yes, she equationed racism to class struggle (which is a false dichotomy, because class struggle is empirically observable towards all written history we have available today, while race war is a modern late 19th Century invention).
Arendt’s totalitarianism theory helped to give birth to modern liberal leftism, more specifically, post-modernism, which states that there’s no “long term narrative” in human history (i.e. there’s no class war; or class war was a random phenomenon of the late 19th-early 20th Centuries) and that there’s no truth: only points of view based on the observer’s immediate observation. Alongside post-modernism, there was, at the same time, a rehabilitation of Christianism, as a part of the ideological war against communism/socialism in the Cold War: that meant a tendence to secularism and reason begun to be reversed in the West from the 70s onwards. Such “imbecilization” process is not new: it happened during the decline of the Roman Empire, during the late Severan dinasty and throughout the crisis of the Third Century and progressed with the reforms of Diocletian, reaching its appex with Constantine and Justinian. This period of time saw the economy of Rome collapse, while Christianism flourished. So yes, everytime society tries to progress, the Western elite calls 911-Christianism to the rescue, it is not new: it is important to notice that, after the French Revolution, the legitimizing narrative was that the Roman Republic was being revived (Napoleon was in love with Ancient Rome, and read all of Caesar’s Commentaries) — what Marx called the “farce” in the Brummaire — and that both the British and the American empires like to mirror themselves with the Roman Empire (and many of modern laws and principles are based on Roman jurists). So, there’s a lot of inspiration there by the Western elites.
But Arendt came out with another very important conclusion: that a totalitarian society cannot desintegrate from within, only from the outside. Put it in other terms, the peoples of totalitarian states can never do a revolution, only be liberated by an alien liberal society. At the time, there was no perspective the USSR would ever go away, and there was plenty of demand to ideologies that legitimized rising military spending and invasions in the Third World.
The Cold War ended and Arendt’s theory was proved wrong: the USSR dissolved over the weight of its own internal contradictions. But the idea that nazifascism and communism were brother ideologies stuck in the West.
-//-
Nazifascism is a mode of liberalism (classic liberalism) because that’s what history shows us: both Hitler and Mussolini were born and created during the apex of liberalism, in liberal countries and received liberal education. Both declared the communists as their main enemies once they got to power. Both economies remained highly decentralized, liberal style, during the WWII. If you take out both lunatic narratives, you wouldn’t be able to discern, e.g., a typical German Aryan family in Berlin from a typical suburban family in the 60s USA.
Communism/socialism both came from classical Social-Democracy (not the post-war version, the original version). Classical Social-Democracy has a very well documented paternity: Karl Marx.
Marx took the term “socialism” from the nowadays so-called “utopian socialists”, a movement from France, whose main intellectual was Proudhon. Those “utopian socialists” come from the old late-feudal artisan class, the class which lost the most with industrialization. Communism (as in communist parties) come from the late 19th Century/early 20th Century schism between the German and Russian Social-Democrat parties. At the time, the German one made a turn to the right (which would culminate, decades later, with it supporting the German bourgeoisie in WWI, a pivotal episode to the rise of Nazism in the 30s), and Lenin, in order to make the ideological differences clear, changed the name to “communist”. So, whatever point of view you adopt, neither communism nor socialism come from liberalism, so it doesn’t even belong to the same branch as nazifascism.
The last “common ancestor” of both Social-Democracy and Liberalism is illuminism. But “illuminism” was not a school or ideology per se, but an umbrella term to designate a significant change in thought after the 16th Century. If you take the concept of Reason as the condition sine qua non to designate something illuminist, then the only extant “child” of “illuminism” today is Marxism.
Posted by: vk | Sep 1 2018 16:54 utc | 99
|
