Hersh, Eitan; Royden, Laura (25 June 2022). “Antisemitic Attitudes Across the Ideological Spectrum” Political Research Quarterly.
doi:10.1177/10659129221111081
Remember kids, it’s not hypocrisy to be intolerant of the intolerant. They have broken the social compact and are therefore no longer protected by it.
Im just a tad disappointed that according to this graphic fascism (which isnt exactly the same as nazism but whatever) is strictly a white issue.
Which, if you look at the world, clearly isn’t the case. Fascism is everywhere.
Nobody is ever considering how the whites feel 😤
Uh oh, angry angry whites! Keep the Tiki torches at home depot, fellas.
Sigh.
Nazism isn’t the same as fascism. Nazism does care about your ethnicity. Fascism does not.
But whatever.
No need to sigh, your points are salient and valid
You’re not the smartest guy in the room, I think most people understand that.
I don’t think you understand that you’re white knighting (haha) for white people like they need protecting or something, like that’s the concern here.
It sounds like you don’t give a shit about countering fascism, you give a shit about defending white people.
Just be mindful that you’re in an echo chamber environment here.
Or don’t, keep fighting the fight for the whites 💪
Have you ever heard of Japanese fascists? Or Jewish fascists? Any race can be fascist.
Oh wow, that’s crazy. White people too though right?
So you’re saying White Fascists Matter?
Yes, that’s what “any race” means.
This is playing down the actual behavior of fascists in a very careless way.
-
They do not just kick out minorities, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!
-
They do not just jail dissenters, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!
-
They do not just “say no” to Jews, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!
Not to be defending Fascists, but those you describe are the Nazi style ones.
Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece too had Fascist dictatorships and those pretty much did not care about Jews or minorities and whilst they were all autoritarian and happy to use state violence for oppression and suppression of dissidents, the only ones who did anything close to systematical murder were the ones in Spain in their early days and their targets were mainly those they deemed “Communists”.
By comparison Zionists are more murderous than all of those 4, though not as much as the Nazis, and consider and treat a whole different ethnic group as “human animals” than the Nazis did.
In fact the use of specific ethnicities for Fascism in that table is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist with a very specific slant on who their “good” ethnicities and “bad” ethnicities are: even without going into the whole Israel thing, just look at Modi in India to see Fascism in action whithout the perpetrators being White or the victims Jews.
is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist
Or, maybe, they’re just using the most well-known instance of fascism in history as a concrete example, in order to not overcomplicate the message. Jumping to accusations of racism at the slightest suspicion is not gonna help anyone.
They’re doing the standard reverse racism charge, because you see, noticing racism is actually the real racism.
In the English speaking world, anti-white racism isn’t really a thing.
Some people will swear up and down that it is, but those people think racism is just a set of attitudes towards a race of people, and not a deeply entrenched system of oppression against entire swathes of society.
Racism is seeing race as what makes people “goodies” or “badies”. The “good” races and “bad” races in your thinking being different from those of mid and early XXth century racism in Western nations is wholly irrelevant for asserting that thinking like that is being a Racist.
The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.
It’s pretty telling that your entire defense of somebody else assigning race as cause of certain behaviours is to say that indeed for certain races, race is the cause of that behaviour and presume that the denial of that by others is due to the specific race which was said to be “badies”.
Please show me where I said white people were the bad people.
It’s not a long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
Yeah, you’re right on that point: you’re dividing people into behavioural groups using “English speaking world” as identity tag rather than a race.
So the prejudice you voiced was using “geographical area of birth defined by language spoken” to presume unrelated characteristics of people, rather race.
It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by “geographical area of birth”.
Please tell me where in my comment I said anyone were bad people because of their “geographical area of birth”.
It wasn’t a very long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
-
I just want to point out that not all fascists are Nazis. Can I point that out without getting crucified?
I will clarify that if you’re any kind of fascist, you’re a trash person, doubly so for Nazis specifically… But not all fascists are Nazis. Which the OP chart seems to imply.
To drive my point home, I’ll quote Wikipedia: fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Nowhere in there does it say that fascists are anti-Semites, nor white supremacist. Those ideologies are generally attributed to specific fascist ideologies… Eg. Nazis.
Let’s not sugar coat what people are. If they’re Nazi fucks, let’s call them Nazi fucks.
And if they aren’t, don’t call them Nazis. For example I strongly disagree with the term “grammar nazi” that English speaking people sometimes use for people who point out grammatical flaws in comments or articles - that may sensitise people to view the term lightly, not taking it seriously when someone seriously is a nazi. Apart from that it’s a cruel joke towards the people who suffered under the nazi regime or died fighting it.
I agree with this. We need better terms.
Nazis were such a heinous and specific evil that we probably shouldn’t do anything that could lighten that term. At all.
The part that makes me sad is that they appropriated the symbol of the swastika, and made it into a visage of hate and oppression. It’s a religious symbol for luck.
I don’t think that reputation is changing anytime soon.
The Nazis destroyed a lot, and corrupted so many things by association.
Is antifa extreme left?
according to some yes, but according to normal people though, antifa is just people who don’t want nazis around them, which should be everyone?
The fact that there is a “Yes” in the violence box (regardless of target) makes them violent extremists. Besides, from what I’ve seen, plenty of antifa folk will use violence and vandalism against people unrelated to the supposed target group.
do you think WWII was won without violence mate? If nazis could be reasoned with there wouldn’t be a war in the first place. You can’t turn the other cheek to nazis, it’s just not an option, you either fight back or you die.
That’s a terrible comparison. The same can be applied to any state with an aggressive foreign policy - or violent group intent on assailing a legitimate, elected government.
Political violence instead tends to fuel and enlarge these sorts of radical, violent movements, ultimately worsening the situation even further. The antidote is de-legitimizing their entire strategy by enforcing non-violence on an institutional level, a peaceful transfer of power. This shows the general populace that the most dangerous thing in the room is in fact the violent extremist, who needs to be locked up the moment they break the social contract of non-violence.
“enforcing non-violance” and how do you propose we do that?
Makes them violent extremists
Only if you believe that any violence is extreme. I would disagree, punching fascists is fairly centrist and enjoys broad support.
what I’ve seen, plenty of antifa folk will use violence and vandalism against people unrelated to the supposed target group.
That is besides the point. You can be against facists and also against Nestle at the same time.
“Centrist” only if you use the sense of a median popular political position, which isn’t really what it means. Self-described centrists are actually conservative and tend to be weirdly* okay with Nazis.
*weird if you don’t understand the link between capital, the state, conservatism and fascism
I do, and where I live being the first to throw a punch towards anyone for almost any reason is generally frowned upon.
The reason that violence is dangerous in this context is that it can allow a violent minority to oppress and subjugate a majority. By removing it from society in general and de-legitimizing its use the influence of these sorts of people can be effectively minimized.
Centrists are currently overseeing a genocide right before our eyes and telling us that the fascists would be worse so we just have to suck it up and vote for them.
Centrists are violent extremists
I will believe in horseshoe theory when a fascist moves so far right that they accidently create a stateless, moneyless utopia.
Memes that come with citations? Now that’s how you shitpost.
Fascist definition: Anyone I disagree with. That’s some solid research conrade.
You should host a course titled:
How to identify yourself as a fascist 101
Also, fuck off, fascist.
Also, fuck off, fascist.
Thanks for proving my point.
Yes? Let’s not make this thread too, make your argument and let me reply, this is no irc chat.
No, this is airing dirty Nazi laundry. Say Nazi shit, get called a Nazi.
I’ve usually heard horseshoe theory referring to tankies/authoritarian communists, not anti fascists.
My dad swears up and down that antifa are the real nazis. I think this would be a response to that type of thing.
Is your dad in this thread? I think I just replied to him.
Black isn’t a colour.
Remember not to feed the trolls, people.
Never bought paint before, eh?
Black is the absence of light and therefore not a colour.
But it is a shade.
Light isn’t color. Color is exclusively in your head. It’s a mental construct.
Pigments dude…
Black is every single color at once in pigment.
White is every single color at once in light.
That’s not black, that’s a mix of every colour.
MIT engineers made a ‘black’ using vertically aligned carbon nanotubes but it’s only 99.995% of the way to being a true black.
Is purple a colour?
Yes but it is one of the lesser colours like orange.
Lol I guess we have a hierarchy of colors now
Uh, yes? ‘Blue and green reign supreme’ as the saying that I just made up goes
Horseshoe theory is dumb, but it’s really just an observation of the loudest ideologies on the far left and far right, which both happen to be authoritarian. Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system. And it’s true that real-world instances of both Fascism and Communism have been authoritarian, and so they share some things in common. It isn’t a particularly nuanced or deep understanding, but it is true that authoritarian forms of gov’t are authoritarian. The difference lies in the details. Communists used authoritarianism against capitalists and the nobility, and fascists used it against minorities. Horseshoe theory conflates “authoritarianism” with extreme Left and Right-wing ideologies. This contrasts against anarchism (and by extension the broad anti fascist movement), of course, which is extremely anti-authoritarian (hence why horseshoe theory completely falls apart here).
Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.
Why is this only necessary at the extremes? I don’t want to accept the current system I live under, but I’m coerced into complying with it through force (police).
I’d argue that: 1) what is extreme changes over time, 2) a system of government being extreme de facto means it will have less support; the more support it has, the less extreme it is by definition, 3) the less support a system of government hass, the more force will be required to maintain it.
I am also under a system of government that is oppressive and monopolizes violence, but if the government had less popular support, I fully believe it would proportionally ramp up the oppression and violence. In fact, I’d argue that it’s currently happening in the US.
I don’t know that I agree with your definition of extreme. On the one hand, there’s popularity of various ideas, and on the other, there’s how much the idea differs from the way things are currently done. It’s possible for an idea drastically different from the status quo to be popular, but it would still be considered extreme because of how big of a change it would be.
Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.
Do you consider anarchists and anarchocommunists to be extremists? Or authoritarian?
Extremists? Sure - they are, by definition, as they are outside of normal, status quo political ideologies. Authoritarian? No of course not. Anarchists are anti-authoritarian. I’m only saying that past communist states (namely PRC and USSR) have been authoritarian and fascist states have also been authoritarian.
Obviously modern neoliberal states are also authoritarian, but the classic horseshoe is almost exclusively applied to fascism and communism. Since it is incoherent as a political theory, I’m sure you could apply it similarly to any polar opposite ideologies and come up with something they share in common.
You might want to consider that those who call themselves leftist may not actually be leftist.
For instance, “Nazi” is short for “national socialist”. They are clearly right wing, however, if you pay attention to their actions.
So-called socialist states are generally deeply repressive and that is not left wing. They were better at branding than the Nazis, but for instance the USSR neutered the soviets - the workers’ councils after which the state was named - very soon after taking power. The state owned rhe means of production, not the workers. It was state capitalist. After that workers had to strike just like under any other capitalist regime, and they were brutally repressed by the state.
Under no honest description of socialist does that qualify. So they failed on both the “Soviet” and “Socialist” parts of their name.
Horseshoe theory is just capitalists happily buying into the USSR and other state capitalists’ self mythology about being socialist because it’s good propaganda to scare the workers they rule over into believing that there is no alternative to neoliberalism’s stochastic brutality.
If we understand “Leftism” to be about a relationship to the means of production - namely one in which the workers/plroletarian class owns the means of production - then the USSR certainly was socialist/leftist to a significant degree.
Since leftism is about that relationship to the means of production, that also means that a government can be both Leftist and Authoritarian. We can discuss to what degree an ideal leftist government should be “authoritarian”, but that is less a conversation about the economic aspects of leftist political ideology and more about the political philosophy around personal freedoms, freedom of speech, etc. - none of which are completely cut & dry.
One could easily argue that some degree of “authoritarianism” is necessary to protect greater freedoms at the expense of lesser ones - that could be a coherent pro personal freedom and pro authoritarian argument. One could also argue that the anarchist conception of personal freedom is doomed to fail without an “authoritarian” power hierarchy to protect those freedoms. All I’m saying is the question of to what degree the power of the state should be limited is by no means answered.
Ownership means having power, having control, over the thing you own.
An authoritarian government that maintains control over the means of production, no matter how much they nominally “belong” to the workers, inherently alienates the workers from having power and therefore from ownership. In that sense it is state capitalist.
You cannot have it both ways unless you change the meaning of words like “own”, or “authority”. Your own description of leftism precludes authoritarian methods.
Thing is left right isn’t much of a line, no matter what shape it is.
The right is a point, they’ll get behind a populist and go to jail for them.
The left is a scattered mess of disagreeing elements who hate each other almost as much as they hate the far right.
And of course they both hate the dreaded “liberals”.
Everybody hates gormless morons that don’t believe in nothing at all.
Someone hasn’t listened to anti fa and modern communists talk about jews
What do they say? Because I am a lifelong antifascist and communist and we love Jewish people but shun Zionism, maybe you have conflated the two.
As a Antifascist and AnSynd I am Jewish :3
You deaf? Or just in denial.
So what you’re saying is you can’t answer their question.
Edit: check their post history, they’re obviously a troll
No. You all just have what brains you have, so far in fantasy land, common sense sounds like trolling. Like it’s 2024 and yall think communism is an option. FFS, you huys talk about pattern recogntion and trustin the sciencem, try readin a fucking book and not dieregarding the repeated results.
Yeah, so all you have is shit you read. Brilliant.
-John McMurray, “Totally not a Troll Guys”
I can’t tell - do I need to read a book or live on the coast? Message unclear.
Try both, it’ll definitely expand your horizons
I mostly only hear good things about Jews from the left. I hear a lot of negative thoughts on Israel (which does not represent jews, and are just a state) and zionism. Most jews are no Israeli and/or Zionist. Many Israeli jews aren’t in favor of the current government, their actions, or zionism either. There is a clear distinction between the three, and only being against one is anti-semetic.
Yeah…heard this one before. Anyone says anything unpleasant is suddenly right wing.
No. Just when someone says something against Israel, Zionism, or in favor of Palestine it isn’t anti-semetic.
stay on topic
The topic of your strawman? Yeah, sure… that seems reasonable.
Jews or Israel? They aren’t the same and saying they are is unironically antisemitic.
Did I stutter? If I meant Israel, I would have said so. Why do people have this much trouble with direct statements? I generaly suspect they want multiple paragraphs to dissect because they can’t find what they need in concise statements.
I think this anti fascist stuff is retarded but I don’t think that’s true. Care to explain?
Could YOU care to explain? Do you have some issue with antifascism?
The concept is cool but the youth of America is just doing it as a fad. Obviously I don’t like fascism but I dislike so called anti fascists way more lol
People against Nazis are worse than Nazis, is literally what you are saying.
Not what I said but thanks for making my point. You and anyone else anti fascist adjacent are so whack 🤣
Okay let me be more accurate, sorry. You said you dislike people that call themselves antifascist more than people who murder Jewish people and queers.
Sure bud 🤣🤣🤣
Lived on the coast a long time, listened to people talk.
“I heard a racist guy once, pretty sure he was antifa!”
Just cause you’ve never left your fucking basement, doesn’t mean others haven’t hung out with the hippies, burners and crazies in Portland, Vancouver, Seattle and LA for years
You know what’s worse than being a basement dweller? It’s being unaware that you’re vulnerable to propaganda, being unaware that you’re an emotional creature and your brain doesn’t try to make sense, it tries to connect stories and ideas to explain why you’re feeling what you feel.
In other words, you can be a smart person and easily influenced into positions that either are not your own, or not even connected to reality just because you had a feeling once validated by someone saying the right thing at the right time and you don’t question the story that you start piecing together in your head.
So the question you would need to always ask yourself, is what is it that you feel that you need to cling to such cynical and hateful stereotypes to the extent of even invalidating or denying the testimony of others who are directly contradicting your obviously exaggerated tales of “listening to hippies talk about jews.”
You are describing a personal experience and because it validates some feeling you already had, it feels like a real evaluation of the broader world. Other people who do this include: scientologists, flat-earthers, modern nazis, cult members and generally people who just go through life angry and miserable and blaming that misery on others. Don’t be a pawn to others or your own brain, have some control over your narratives.
Just cause you’ve never left your fucking basement,
So you freely and openly make up assumptions and lies about people based on whether or not they agree with you, and you expect me to believe you totally met a bunch of hippies at Portland, Vancouver, Seattle and LA. For years. You hang out with hippies all the time. Can’t leave your house without bumping into a hippie that introduces themselves to you with “I’m Antifa and I hate Jews!”
Well, it’s pretty plain you’ve never been to Portland.
I live in Portland, you’re full of shit.
Never claimed I had. Good thing all the racist Antifa love in Portland. Keeps them all contained.
You’ve got to be trolling. No one, I mean NO ONE is this stupid.
i guess you don;t own a mirror
I did, but your mom stole it after I fucked her.
Don’t be bitter. Be better!
Well SHIT son, you lived on the COAST??
Well that shit changes everything, I had no idea you overheard things out on the coast, I mean I was here ready to talk about crime stats and systemic inequality and the USA’s history with civil rights, but here is a person who heard some stuff out on the coast! I guess I should reconsider everything and stop supporting efforts to squash nazis in an industrial nazi-squashing machine.
Yeah, so all you have is shit you read. Brilliant.
Am i that much more extreme for thinking that the best solution for Nazis isn’t discriminating against them but educating people to respect so Fascist ideal can no longer take hold?
I know of intolerance for the intolerant, I’ve spread that message myself i am just no longer convinced that burying the problem into private conversations only (Which should be absolute free speech unless you want some sort of police control inside your home) is tackling the problem at the source.
My wish is to eradicate this ideology once and for all not to hide it like we try to do with homeless in rich neighborhoods.
Education is better and preferred but ocne5 the Nazis are in the street they’ve already taken hold and need to be uprooted before we can go back to educating it away.
Once there in the in the streets and are expressing their hostility toward others it becomes self defense to push back.
Nazis should be either
-
spouting their shit in private so their social circle gets the message that their guy is sick and probably needs therapy.
-
in therapy where no speech is taboo and the goal is to improve themselves.
-
in public, not expressing their shit because there starting to understand that its wrong, therapy is long term ongoing progress.
Where they definitively shouldn’t be and i would regard as a hostile act.
- marching down the streets in group with firearms.
-
It’s so frustrating to see something like this and realize that an increasing number of people align their views with the anti-fascists, thinking they are the “good guys”, without seeing the inherent hypocrisy of the beliefs they hold. On paper the anti-fascists portray themselves as accepting, but the reality is quite the opposite. Generally speaking they are authoritarian pricks who will label anyone who disagrees with them as racist or bigoted simply to undermine their point of view. No idea should be above criticism.
I think privileged white people are the largest problem in society these days. I think violence should only be used as a last resort to self defense. I prefer minorities because I find them to be hard working with strong family values. I think freedom of speech only works if it is universal (especially extending to those I disagree with). I’m not entirely sure what classifies as a “dissenter”. I have tremendous respect and appreciation for Jewish culture and the way in which they build community. And yet I have been called a fascist/racist/bigot many times online because I respectfully find the actions and beliefs of ANTIFA abhorrent.
If you scream down viewpoints you don’t like rather than seek to understand, if you use violence to intimidate, if you seek to wield power to destroy your political enemies, then YOU are the bad guys. ANTIFA does all of these things then hides behind the ruse of being “anti-fascists” because they are cowards and are no better than the fascists they claim to fight against.
Ah yes, big Antifa.
Meaning what exactly?
Not OP, but you’re saying they’re authoritatian when it’s patently a decentralized, anti-authoritarian and leaderless movement. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what anti-fascists are.
No offence, but it sounds like your views are largely shaped by more right-leaning media’s depictions of antifa.
You get me.
I feel like we’re gonna need a lot of citations here.
Hey look it’s a fascist.
While I don’t agree with the op, you’re kind of proving their point…
It’s more like this:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
- MLK
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
I don’t personally like to pretend to be civil with people who do not extend the same courtesy, even if they are ignorant of their own contradictions. Good friends tell people they are wrong when they need to be told.
What specific thing did I say that makes me a fascist?
