|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On May 29 2025 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 10:53 Sermokala wrote:
The Real Ivory position is to simply state "yeah lets just relocate them that'll solve the problem" and then convince yourself that's the smart position to have. Applying "Reward or Punish" to what you do isn't being up your own ass its realizing that people see situations and learn from them. If you tell the world that if you abuse a population enough to where they have no good options the world will reward you for taking the population of people you don't like off your hands. You're teaching people that the problem with genocide isn't that its inherently evil, its that you're doing it too fast, do it slowly and you're okay.
The Ivory position is to see that "gee just removing the population will solve the problem, to end the suffering now in one super duper bad thing is good because long term you're preventing greater suffering". You're not offering a solution no matter how brave you think you are by offering Patrick square-level logic of "just push it somewhere else".
If we take you seriously for the first moment, where do you relocate the Palestinians to? How do you propose relocating them? What do you think will happen when they get to this promised land for them? I've had plenty of great conversations with you, so I'd like to try to convince you I'm not just spewing overly-theoretical nonsense. Time does not wait for moral solutions. Just like how if we were to spend too long pondering a real life trolley problem, eventually the trolley would just run over a bunch of people. So while I do agree it is good to hold firm against any immoral or overly tragic approaches to Israel vs Palestine, I think we all agree Palestinians and Israelis will always loop back to deadly conflict if left to their own devices. Whoever someone chooses to blame for that conflict, we ought to all agree lives continue to be ended prematurely while diplomats discuss what ought to be done. Next, the world is continuing to devolve into chaos and conflict all around the world. World powers have always had their eyes on Israel and Gaza, but resources are sometimes limited. Part of the reason Assad lost his grip on Syria is the fact that Russia was stretched thin in Ukraine. Imagine a situation where Europe continues to become more focused on Ukraine, the US mostly steps aside, and other conflicts begin to build. There could be a time where way less international spy agency eyes are on Israel/Gaza and it could lead to Hamas acquiring weapons they've been kept from so far. Plenty of people within Hamas would love to get their hands on some kind of bio weapons, a dirty bomb, or other major weapons. When we let the conflict go on forever, we are creating more opportunities for something to go catastrophically wrong. A rare opportunity for Hamas coinciding with an intelligence failure could result in someone within Hamas deciding they have nothing to lose and managing to sneak a terrible weapon into Israel. If Hamas managed some terrible attack that killed 50,000 people, Israel would definitely kill every Palestinian within 48 hours. I recognize this scenario would require a few separate things to go wrong, but its worth keeping in mind plenty of people within Hamas would love to make something like that happen. I imagine even Iran tries to make sure they never pull off something like that. And even if this vague scenario never isn't very likely, lesser versions are more possible. October 7 did happen and a deeply tragic number of Palestinians have died and suffered because of it. I think people aren't recognizing times in history when the worst really did happen. The US did indeed bomb Japan. 9/11 did indeed lead to a horrific number of people all across the middle east dying. These things happened despite theoretically more peaceful solutions existing. We as humans have a really big incentive for conflicts to end because it eliminates the possibility of horrific events. If Japanese leadership realized the nukes would just keep dropping until they surrendered, I guarantee they would have. Our world in its current form may indicate we have the luxury of pushing this out and waiting for a better outcome. But history has shown us the world can change rapidly and situations we never thought were possible can happen. And so just for the sake of making my point entirely clear: Yes, it absolutely is possible for Israel to decide to kill every single Palestinian in the most inhumane bombing/siege campaign ever seen. Its also possible for a lesser version of that to exceed any human harm of relocation. I think it is both ignorant and lacking in compassion to not recognize the possibility of Israel killing all Palestinians.
I think this is kind of missing the part where Israel, by allowing Hamas to be financed and by focusing their security forces on the West bank, hell, even actively ignoring warnings from their own soldiers manning the posts next to Gaza warning them that something big is coming, warnings from Egyptian secret service, by allowing a god damn music festival walking distance from the fence made October 7th as horrific as it was.
These are all documented failures of Israel's security states, that, of course doesn't make what Hamas did any less horrific, but to use the severity of the attack as an justification for killing disproportionate amount of civilians as revenge while the same regime was responsible for dropping the ball incredibly hard and making the attack the worse in history is something that seems extremely fucked up to me.
|
On May 29 2025 16:24 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2025 13:40 Billyboy wrote:
There needs to be a Zionist equivalent for Muslims. There is, it's called ISIS and the whole world agreed that what they were doing in ME was so fucked up that a war was prosecuted against them. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan the international community had no issues with it, those insane religious fanatics who raped and pillaged their way through Syria and Iraq trying to make their Caliphate were universally condemned. Well, sometime around the start of this war many American politicians and generals tried to tell Israel to heed the lessons of US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel's response is that they would rather go with WW2 as an analogy and take their lessons from there: https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/637054/World/Mena/US-military-advisers-invoke-lessons-of-Iraq-in-urging-Israelis-to-avoid-all-out-ground-assault-in-Gaza
'Islamism' is political islam, so i would say that is the equivalent of zionism.
Whatever Israel does goes beyond beliefs into actions. Its the equivalent of ISIS but there isn't a specific word for zionism that refers to the violent execution of zionist ideas, so I would say that is where language is missing.
Islamist, jihadist, etc. there's plenty of words that describe the various gradations of muslim extremism. There's only one word for Jewish extremism and it describes way too many things and makes it really hard to be specific.
|
By definition, Zionism is "a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel."
Settlers are the worse of the Zionists, the people who they represent in Israel's power structure are the worse elements openly calling for ethnic cleansing and genocide, I see basically no difference between them and leadership of ISIS or Hamas, I mean Ben Gvir is a proud to be a violent terrorist and he's Israel's security minister.
This is why I detest anyone who spews the "anti zionism is anti semitism" bullshit, I love Jews, I met and worked with plenty of them, when I was a wee kid playing a WC3 custom map "Battle for middle earth" I played on a "pro" team and I was an alternate for a dude from Israel, he was quite a bit older then I was and he thought me everything about playing this position and a lot of general gaming advice, he and others helped me, through forums bring my English to a non-embarrassing level, the guy went to do his mandatory military service and I never heard from him again.
I still think about that guy, did he die, did he just lose his passion for games? What would have happened if he lived in a state that was ruled by people who want to co-exist instead of people who want to conquer.
There are even flavors of Zionism, not all of it is expansionist, there are plenty of Zionists who would welcome a two state or one state solution, who understand that the only way to peace and prosperity in Palestine is co-existence, unfortunately those are not the ones we focus our attention on, same, most attention from Palestinians go to Hamas, interestingly, both of these things are encouraged and pushed by Israel's propaganda machine.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24796 Posts
Quite a good watch that one. A bit rage-inducing at times but Theroux is very good at getting people to let their guard down
|
On May 29 2025 16:35 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2025 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On May 28 2025 10:53 Sermokala wrote:
The Real Ivory position is to simply state "yeah lets just relocate them that'll solve the problem" and then convince yourself that's the smart position to have. Applying "Reward or Punish" to what you do isn't being up your own ass its realizing that people see situations and learn from them. If you tell the world that if you abuse a population enough to where they have no good options the world will reward you for taking the population of people you don't like off your hands. You're teaching people that the problem with genocide isn't that its inherently evil, its that you're doing it too fast, do it slowly and you're okay.
The Ivory position is to see that "gee just removing the population will solve the problem, to end the suffering now in one super duper bad thing is good because long term you're preventing greater suffering". You're not offering a solution no matter how brave you think you are by offering Patrick square-level logic of "just push it somewhere else".
If we take you seriously for the first moment, where do you relocate the Palestinians to? How do you propose relocating them? What do you think will happen when they get to this promised land for them? I've had plenty of great conversations with you, so I'd like to try to convince you I'm not just spewing overly-theoretical nonsense. Time does not wait for moral solutions. Just like how if we were to spend too long pondering a real life trolley problem, eventually the trolley would just run over a bunch of people. So while I do agree it is good to hold firm against any immoral or overly tragic approaches to Israel vs Palestine, I think we all agree Palestinians and Israelis will always loop back to deadly conflict if left to their own devices. Whoever someone chooses to blame for that conflict, we ought to all agree lives continue to be ended prematurely while diplomats discuss what ought to be done. Next, the world is continuing to devolve into chaos and conflict all around the world. World powers have always had their eyes on Israel and Gaza, but resources are sometimes limited. Part of the reason Assad lost his grip on Syria is the fact that Russia was stretched thin in Ukraine. Imagine a situation where Europe continues to become more focused on Ukraine, the US mostly steps aside, and other conflicts begin to build. There could be a time where way less international spy agency eyes are on Israel/Gaza and it could lead to Hamas acquiring weapons they've been kept from so far. Plenty of people within Hamas would love to get their hands on some kind of bio weapons, a dirty bomb, or other major weapons. When we let the conflict go on forever, we are creating more opportunities for something to go catastrophically wrong. A rare opportunity for Hamas coinciding with an intelligence failure could result in someone within Hamas deciding they have nothing to lose and managing to sneak a terrible weapon into Israel. If Hamas managed some terrible attack that killed 50,000 people, Israel would definitely kill every Palestinian within 48 hours. I recognize this scenario would require a few separate things to go wrong, but its worth keeping in mind plenty of people within Hamas would love to make something like that happen. I imagine even Iran tries to make sure they never pull off something like that. And even if this vague scenario never isn't very likely, lesser versions are more possible. October 7 did happen and a deeply tragic number of Palestinians have died and suffered because of it. I think people aren't recognizing times in history when the worst really did happen. The US did indeed bomb Japan. 9/11 did indeed lead to a horrific number of people all across the middle east dying. These things happened despite theoretically more peaceful solutions existing. We as humans have a really big incentive for conflicts to end because it eliminates the possibility of horrific events. If Japanese leadership realized the nukes would just keep dropping until they surrendered, I guarantee they would have. Our world in its current form may indicate we have the luxury of pushing this out and waiting for a better outcome. But history has shown us the world can change rapidly and situations we never thought were possible can happen. And so just for the sake of making my point entirely clear: Yes, it absolutely is possible for Israel to decide to kill every single Palestinian in the most inhumane bombing/siege campaign ever seen. Its also possible for a lesser version of that to exceed any human harm of relocation. I think it is both ignorant and lacking in compassion to not recognize the possibility of Israel killing all Palestinians. I think this is kind of missing the part where Israel, by allowing Hamas to be financed and by focusing their security forces on the West bank, hell, even actively ignoring warnings from their own soldiers manning the posts next to Gaza warning them that something big is coming, warnings from Egyptian secret service, by allowing a god damn music festival walking distance from the fence made October 7th as horrific as it was. These are all documented failures of Israel's security states, that, of course doesn't make what Hamas did any less horrific, but to use the severity of the attack as an justification for killing disproportionate amount of civilians as revenge while the same regime was responsible for dropping the ball incredibly hard and making the attack the worse in history is something that seems extremely fucked up to me.
I suppose my point remains the same regardless of what went wrong with Oct7. Regardless of how or why it happened, I am sure every single person who sympathizes with Palestinians will agree it was a gigantic net-negative for Palestinians. And after that mess, if anything comparable were to happen again, I think that's completely and totally lights out for Palestinians. People are going too far out of their way to pretend tragedy isn't possible.
|
It is a scary truth that Netanyahu personally benefits from Hamas and that Hamas (and all Iranian proxies) benefit from anything awful Netanyahu and his group do. Hate feeds hate.
Also, to the zionist discussion, this is what AI says it is, and it is not defined anything like ISIS.
Zionism is a nationalist movement that supports the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state in Israel, also known as the Land of Israel. It's a complex ideology with roots in late 19th-century Europe, aiming to create a national home for the Jewish people due to widespread antisemitism and persecution. A Zionist is someone who supports the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland and the existence of the State of Israel.
Key aspects of Zionism:
Nationalism:
Zionism views Judaism as a nationality, not just a religion, and believes Jews are entitled to their own state.
Self-determination:
It advocates for the right of Jews to have a state where they can live freely and safely, free from persecution.
Return to Zion:
Zionism draws on the historical and religious connection of Jews to Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.
:Modern Movement
While rooted in historical Jewish aspirations, modern Zionism emerged in the late 19th century, gaining momentum in response to pogroms and the growing threat of antisemitism.
Different Forms:
There are various forms of Zionism, including secular, religious, and political Zionism.
Important Considerations:
Not synonymous with Judaism:
While many Jews are Zionists, not all Jews support the ideology or the policies of the State of Israel.
Historical Context:
Zionism emerged in response to historical persecution and discrimination against Jews.
Complex Relationship with Palestine:
The rise of Zionism and the establishment of Israel have had significant consequences for the Palestinian people, leading to ongoing conflict and political tensions.
Antisemitism and Ani-Zionistm:
The term "Zionist" is sometimes used as a derogatory label, and anti-Zionism, the belief that the Jewish people do not have the right to a national home, is sometimes used as a form of antisemitism.
|
Northern Ireland24796 Posts
I’m sure the AI knows what it’s talking about.
'Islamism' is political islam, so i would say that is the equivalent of zionism.
Whatever Israel does goes beyond beliefs into actions. Its the equivalent of ISIS but there isn't a specific word for zionism that refers to the violent execution of zionist ideas, so I would say that is where language is missing.
Islamist, jihadist, etc. there's plenty of words that describe the various gradations of muslim extremism. There's only one word for Jewish extremism and it describes way too many things and makes it really hard to be specific.
I think what Jock was getting at is there isn’t the graduation of language to differentiate. A peacenik who thinks there should be a Jewish state and they should co-exist with others in the area, and a hardliner whose views really aren’t that distinguishable from ISIS, well in the absence of additional, accepted terminology they’re still both Zionists right?
Hence you end up in territory like ‘anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism’. The anti-Zionist may just be referring to the latter, the offended party may think it encompasses the former.
That’s even setting aside the rather atypical nature of Zionism in the first place and how valid it is. I think it’s justifiable in the wake of the Holocaust and wider anti-Semitism, for the record. I don’t think it’s especially justifiable on religions auspices
|
Jock was on the money as he often is. This is why when people say things like they hate all Zionists they are likely misusing the word, or could be anti-Semitic. And why anti-Semitics like to use the word for cover. There should really be another word.
|
Canada11340 Posts
ISIS and Zionism are not equivalent (nor Nazism as is sometimes also claimed in some quarters), not in what they are nor in their methodology. (Although Trump giving carte blanche to Netanyahu is disastrous. Netanyahu needs to be ousted in their Knesset but October 7 gave new life to the hardliners.)
ISIS tried to carve out a caliphate within the Muslim world, claiming all other Muslim regimes in the region were compromised and that only they were faithfully carrying out Allah's teachings. It is fundamentally a tyrannical religious regime that revelled in displaying the deaths of their enemies: prisoners burned in cages, videos of beheadings, etc.
People are trying to reframe Zionism as a ethno-religious supremacist ideology that requires extermination of the indigenous population but that is simply not true.
It is true now that the source of the most heinous views come from the religious settlers (as far as I've seen.) However, Zionism isn't a religious movement at its core. As far as I can tell, Herzl and the early Zionists were largely opposed by the religious Jews in Europe as they largely believed that the Jews could not return to Israel until the arrival of the messiah. The idea was far more popular amongst socialist secular Jews.
Zionism generally came out of a despair of ever integrating in Europe. The Dreyfuss affair was the tipping point for Herzl- if France, the most progressive and educated nation within Europe still harboured so much rampant anti-Semitism what hope was there in assimilation to avoid persecution? Considering he was writing fifty years before the holocaust, I think in many ways Herzl's despair was prescient.
So Zionism at its heart has been the belief that the Jews should seek to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz Israel secured under public law. The messy part was in the intervening years other groups had made the lands their home and under no circumstance wanted a Jewish majority (or even a large Jewish plurality) in the region leading to the ongoing struggle to this day.
But if Zionism is defined as the belief that the Jews should have their own country, or in other words self-determination in the land of Israel, you get like 80-90% support amongst American Jews (if I recall the polling correctly.)
edit. Yeah, in Pew Research, 45% of American Jews consider caring about Israel as essential part of what being Jewish means to them and 37% say it is very important but not essential. Only 16% said it was not too important or not at all.
This is why Jews have a hard time seeing the difference between saying one is anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. The majority of Jews are Zionist in the classical sense. I doubt very many would recognize the modern reframing of Zionism as what they mean by it although I wouldn't be surprised if those who are opposed do so using the modern reframed definition. This, however, has nothing to do with approval of the current Israeli government which that same poll put 54% of American Jews thinking Netanyaha's administration was either only fair or poor. That was five years ago and I imagine that opinion on Netanyahu has changed and not likely positively.
|
Thank you very well worded.
Also, this is why some people think so many in Israel are evil, because when they self identify as Zionist they are talking about the actual definition not the one floating around now.
|
Saying that ISIS is an equivalent of Zionism is definitely taking it a step too far, however, the equating "anti-Zionist = anti-Semitic" is doing the same thing, at the very least. I believe that my second comment on this topic gave enough caveats to show that I don't really hold both of them as the same.
I see anti-Zionism in Muslims as, in large majority a consequence of how Israel was founded and how it's been persecuting it's relationship with Palestinians, of course, there are other factors but I do believe that you can, as a secular Palestinian be staunchly anti-Zionist given what it means for your people without being anti-Semitic at all.
In the same vain, as a Croatian I get that many of the people who were older and more aware of war and suffered more consequences might be anti-Milošević or anti-Serbian (in the "great Serbia" sense) without being anti-Orthodox Christians.
In the same way, I'm not anti-Semitic, anti-Jew or even anti-Israel, I'm anti-Nethyanahu and anti-Smotrich, but the longer Israeli people allow this to continue the more I understand people who are anti-Israel.
|
On May 28 2025 02:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 02:44 PremoBeats wrote:On May 28 2025 01:31 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 23:27 Jankisa wrote:
I understand that this is kind of a "realpolitik" discussion forum, but given the world wide trend of rising nationalism and basically every other "ism" I think we would all be in a better place if we tried to remind ourselves that we are talking about human beings, on all sides of every conflict.
I'll be the first to admit that I fail at that with internal and sometimes external caricaturisation of people I find detestable due to what and who they support and what kind of arguments they have, but I really, really try to always remember that we are all humans with biases and we are all shaped by our environments and people around us, both online and offline and so are all the people and countries we discuss shit about.
I've seen too many people, from public intellectuals I admired to good friends that I just can't deal with anymore because of their flattening of these things to a point where they talk about whole populations like they are cattle, it's extremely sad and depressing and it doesn't bode well for the future of the world that this is what's happening and no one seems to give a fuck. Feel you there. Personally I try to wear both hats as it were. An advocacy for the world as I’d like to see it in accordance with certain values of mine, and that realpolitik hat hey it ain’t always like that. Certainly imperfectly! It’s not really a problem I have on this forum, elsewhere a big issue I find is that those ‘realists’ and ‘pragmatists’ are really anything but. ‘Israelis and Palestinians can’t peacefully co-exist because Islam bad’ for example is not a remotely realist position, it’s just myopic bias masquerading as such. Say, Kwark’s analysis may be rather bleak in its articulation, but it’s not lacking in its factoring in of relevant multifaceted components, nor claiming it’s anything but a FUBARED set of affairs. One’s mileage may of course vary but I’m 100% fine with that. Stuff I see elsewhere, far less so and just outright depressing Is anyone here actually expressing the opinion that Israelis and Palestinians can't coexist because of Islam? To quote myself ‘It’s not really a problem I have on this forum elsewhere…’
My bad... skipped the most important word: "not".
Jankisa wrote:
These are all documented failures of Israel's security states, that, of course doesn't make what Hamas did any less horrific, but to use the severity of the attack as an justification for killing disproportionate amount of civilians as revenge while the same regime was responsible for dropping the ball incredibly hard and making the attack the worse in history is something that seems extremely fucked up to me.
To be fair, revenge is your interpretation. The official goals have been to bring back the hostages, end Hamas and kill Sinwar as the mastermind of October 7th. Israel has killed Sinwar and around 200 of the 251 hostages have been brought back (44 of these deceased). Some 20 are still probably still alive. In exchange, around 2700 Palestinians prisoners, of which over 100 served life sentences and over 50 committed terrorist attacks.
But the issue is Hamas. It is probably an impossible task to get rid of them entirely (and even if one succeeds, how will a Gaza that doesn't possibly foster something worse be established) but Bibi and Gallant have made it clear, that the complete retrieval of the hostages does not mean an end to the war.
I wonder what the international community will do, if the disproportionality continues to rise; after all, it is one aspect of international humanitarian law.
The civilian-to-soldier-casualty rate has probably worsened since a couple of months, despite the silent downward correction by the MoH in the thousands or the reducing of numbers by the UN from 14.5k to 7.8k child fatalities. It would still be in the same area as similar conflict zones though, despite losing some ground since some months prior.
And I agree. Being anti-Zionist as a Palestinian does not necessarily mean you are anti-semitic. But remember, that other Muslim nations attacked Israel the day it was proclaimed and continue to fight for the liberation of their holy land to this very day. And doesn't it come down to semantics when your nation and your people will get slaughtered not for being Jews, but for being Zionists? I get the differentiation but I don't really think Jihad gives a fuck, especially the one from countries that have killed Jews before 48...
EDIT: Read Falling's comment under this one after posting mine... +1 and exactly the reason why internal and external religious fundamentalism are a necessary part when discussing a solution.
|
Canada11340 Posts
The conflation I am thinking of is what occurs in the West. And if you are opposed to something that 80-90% of the people believe to what extent are you not opposed to them as if not for a self-determined Israel, then becoming swallowed by the surrounding Muslim majority is that terribly pro-Jews?
But Palestinian opposition is straightforward and understandable. You are opposed to the belief that displaced your people historically and are opposed to the bombs and expulsion presently.
The conflation in the larger Muslim world is less easy to explain as it looks to me a lot more anti-Jew. What have the Iraqi Jews to do with the Israeli Jews that they would be on the receiving end of persecution post-declaration of Israel's Independence? And then when we find the persecution in Iraq predates the establishment of the Jewish state... well.
Granted, it wasn't as bad as eastern European pogroms, but it was bad enough that as soon as they had a location to flee to, the Jews across the Muslim world pretty much up and left. So anti-Zionism in the larger Muslim world, likely leans into anti-Semitic territory. And some don't even try to hide it, like the Houthis: Death to Israel. Curse be upon the Jews.
Not Curse be upon the oppressor Zionist Jews in Israel. Just your average, ordinary curse upon all Jews everywhere.
|
I'll say one thing and then you'll never see me again around here:
Zionism is just another flavor of fascism. It is inherently the same as Nazism, only applied to Jewish people. This is a fact, and if you don't know this fact then you've been successfully bamboozled by pro-Zionist propaganda.
Peace, I'm out.
|
On May 30 2025 15:53 Magic Powers wrote:
I'll say one thing and then you'll never see me again around here:
Zionism is just another flavor of fascism. It is inherently the same as Nazism, only applied to Jewish people. This is a fact, and if you don't know this fact then you've been successfully bamboozled by pro-Zionist propaganda.
Peace, I'm out.
I don't think that's right at all tbh.
It can be.
That's the point I'm making. Some zionists just believe that the Jewish people should have a state and that's all. Others think that means exterminating huge numbers of muslims and creating a hellhole dystopia for the locals to starve in. It can be fascist, but it can just be common sense too.
This is just another version of 'Islam is a death cult'. Oversimplified into meaninglessness.
|
United States42421 Posts
Nazism is a specific thing. Like Nazism loves to apply Darwinistic principles to anything and everything whether or not it makes sense. Why make any decision when you can instead make two duplicate efforts and see which prevails. Nazism likes to get weird and mystical about blood and soil and so forth. Nazism is obsessed with eugenics and ancestry. Both can be not nice but Nazism isn’t just not nice, it’s also super weird.
|
On May 30 2025 16:13 KwarK wrote:
Nazism is a specific thing. Like Nazism loves to apply Darwinistic principles to anything and everything whether or not it makes sense. Why make any decision when you can instead make two duplicate efforts and see which prevails. Nazism likes to get weird and mystical about blood and soil and so forth. Nazism is obsessed with eugenics and ancestry. Both can be not nice but Nazism isn’t just not nice, it’s also super weird.
To be fair its a little confusing because at first he says 'another flavour of fascism' and then he says 'identical to nazism' which are two contradictory ideas.
I think he may have turned up just to say something real bad about Israel tbh.
|
Alright, since I apparently overestimated the present knowledge of some people regarding the history and nature of fascism, here's a list of examples of fascism.
https://helpfulprofessor.com/examples-of-fascism/
Nazism is a flavor of fascism, it's not the only form of fascism. There are dozens, probably hundreds of ways fascism can be done.
Even Mussolini's fascism wasn't set in stone. Due to Hitler's influence he eventually followed similar ideals of a nation's blood, which was previously not part of his ideology. Blood is absolutely not essential in the fascist ideology.
The reason why Zionism isn't listed should be fairly obvious. People's heads explode when they realize that a country of victims can, at the same time, also be a country of perpetrators. But Zionism fits the bill perfectly. It is fascism in all but name, just as Nazism is also fascism in all but name. If you truly understand Zionism, then you understand fascism.
History lesson over. Peace, out.
|
On May 30 2025 17:01 Magic Powers wrote:Alright, since I apparently overestimated the present knowledge of some people regarding the history and nature of fascism, here's a list of examples of fascism. https://helpfulprofessor.com/examples-of-fascism/Nazism is a flavor of fascism, it's not the only form of fascism. There are dozens, probably hundreds of ways fascism can be done. Even Mussolini's fascism wasn't set in stone. Due to Hitler's influence he eventually followed similar ideals of a nation's blood, which was previously not part of his ideology. Blood is absolutely not essential in the fascist ideology. The reason why Zionism isn't listed should be fairly obvious. People's heads explode when they realize that a country of victims can, at the same time, also be a country of perpetrators. But Zionism fits the bill perfectly. It is fascism in all but name, just as Nazism is also fascism in all but name. If you truly understand Zionism, then you understand fascism. History lesson over. Peace, out.
The ignorance you portrayed months ago is now explained by these utterly ridiculous two last posts.
The link you posted leans heavily on the Nazi example and post WW-II understanding of fascism. But there is no single, universally agreed-upon definition of the term though. Two schools of thought exist: Typologies (like your link) or scholarly/ideological historical definitions.
Nazism and fascism are distinct ideologies although they overlap in methods and outcomes. We can go on and on about the origins and differences of both ideologies which are completely distinct, but I don't have the time right now.
Equating Zionism two any of the two is moronic without comparison and intellectually appalling.
I am able to identify the ad hominems in my reply by myself, but at times, things need to be called out for what they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
