The Birth of American Fascism

When the left unjustly characterizes someone as "racist" or "nazi", due to their own irrational and hyperbolic misrepresentation of reality, it does so even when obvious truths or sensible things are spoken.

Haiti for example being a "dump", is considered by some as a racist statement. even if factual, and even when it has nothing to do with the race of Haitians.

The leftist mischaracterizes this statement for a few reasons.

1. To maintain cultural egalitarianism – necessary for materialistic dialectics as the driving force of society.

2. Due to fear of the "rise of racism" (hence, the need delegitimize speech)

or 

3. To shelter these "disadvantaged", "marginalized", or "oppressed" people from the idea that their low-level quality of life can stem from something which is not oppression (Perhaps their culture?). 

or, 

4. To warn each other (Western speakers) as to what is permitted and not, as a form of self-protection by signaling acceptable political alignment.

All this to prevent us and others from expressing the fact that cultures are more achieving than others - by doing so actually stifling truth and progress.

The fact is that brown and black people move to western countries because they know the truth that their white caretakers deny speaking or thinking of. And the fact is that very rarely is it the opposite (that whites move to Africa). Why would one avoid stating this fact? Just like people from the iron curtain moved to the west and very few moved the other way.

Part of the reason is that denying reality becomes a utility when it serves a pre-existing ideology or paradigm. The concept of “race”, like that of “class”, is a concept that is utilized within a mental structure that sees it as existing.

Thus, speaking of more achieving or less achieving cultures will render the three unrealistic.  And will render any other form of speech, outside these contexts’ problematic – or as they say – racist. Hence the political speech must be on the one hand conscious of the gap and inequality, but also egalitarian from a revolutionary-politically beneficial standpoint. Hence the faculty of measurement must subdue itself to this political-social view of the world.

Hence, the only race-centered or cultural-centered rhetoric allowed is one that speaks of unjust exploitation which is counter-natural. But since a culture or race may never be seen in an advanced VS failing paradigm. And since advancement VS falling are a result of a post-revolutionary and egalitarian order which is reached after the oppressed is redeemed, one must keep in mind all these relations as part not of objective reality, but as moments of fulfillment on a historical journey.

This refusal to see things as they are, i.e., seeing cultures and races as merely a product of oppressed vs oppressor dynamics, working within some redemptive-revolutionary timeline, and enslaving all political-comparative or cultural-comparative thoughts/speech to this mystical paradigm, shows a nihilistic approach which prefers to see the object of socialist salvation as oppressed rather than risk seeing him as simply failing. For seeing him as failing may mean that he escapes our definition of existing within the context of exploitation. Hence, he may become humanized outside our paradigm. He may escape our ideal and reach some form of outer-ideological realization. He may wish to buy into capitalism. He may not define himself by being under someone else.

When I describe him as being part of a failing collective, he can see himself in competition with me. Without a need to resent anyone. A need related to the sense of enslavement and servitude which arises when using the oppressor VS oppressed speech.

Hence, it is not important to protect the third world from racism when policing speech between we, and between we and him, as much as it is in fact important to keep it within a framework of structural victimhood in relation to, we, and in relation to himself.

But perhaps there's something deeper. Perhaps the need to police how we refer to other countries, or cultures, comes less from true sensitivity to others, and more as a form of consolidation towards our fellow countrymen -.?

i.e to liberate the oppressed, we, the oppressors, must first recognize that just as he needs to be defined by a strict form of political self, we also must be strict with our own definition, of what we, the oppressors, are.

Yes.

For being that we care about the third world, do we not wish to have an organized truth rather than have them somehow exposed to a part which is not oppressing? making him lose the plot? It is obvious that at this point, we need to brainwash ourselves for us to brainwash him. which is basically racism of low expectations towards him, and self-flagellation or self-lobotomizing towards us?

Thus, the leftist puts the evil "racist" under the same category of controlled speech and referencing, that it tries to prevent the "racist" from putting others under. Thus the “racist” is turned into a dissenter as the oppressed who refuse to see themself as oppressed.

All this by the power of words alone. by stifling upon free categorization of words and Free speech.

The reason why blaming one collective for the disadvantage of another is good, and why arguing the quality of one culture or race VS the other is oppression - is because one is counter-revolutionary and the other gives hope for revolution. And this can occur not in a realistic world, but only in a platonic imaginative world that reality is used to choregraph.

America's left is platonistic because it believes that all categories of discernment and all categories of reason, and judgment, are inappropriate, if they do not rehash or convey the existing evils as they are seen, as a result, of an unfulfilled ideal society, not being implemented enough through class/race revolution.

Hence if words are uttered outside the historic-social role they have, in creating the ideal just society, those words are marked as evil/racist, and the person uttering them must himself be no less than a Nazi/Fascist.

This is a type of thought paradigm that basically makes the legitimacy of speech contingent on political utility. This is basically tyranny. This is made possible by limiting the legitimacy of critique to pre-identified categories with pre-selected meanings, which are real and true, and which are prescribed value, only as they function as part of an egalitarian catharsis ideal.  My problem with the left asking us not to say or think certain things, and not to say them out loud, in order not to de-stabilize the role of the actors, and their function, within the structure of political destiny and truth, is that once we accept not saying things out loud, not only do we turn society into a panopticon, but we create a mechanism of self-censorship, making it impossible for us to know whether or not we are any closer to the truth by which we were even willing to censor others, and ourself in the name of.

We ourselves became the same object of oppression we claimed the third world/workers or what not are – we ourselves are ignorant of the coming or not of the redemptive moment – we ourselves now cannot prove to be fully conscious or free.

Which is antithetic to not only a vibrant democracy – but humanism itself.

In a way, we take from Plato class, idealism, but unlike him, where a philosopher is always free to think and speak, here we actually wish to dethrone, ourself and immerse not in the “good” but in “equality”, we do not lead all the classes to the light, but rather we wish to immerse ourselves within them, to overcome all distinction between the oppressive and oppressed, yet at the same time, to do that we come down to the oppressed and let him rise to us,. And perhaps even after silencing speech, the biggest blasphemy, the greatest sin (racism) is denying their ability for that to happen. And realizing this whole speech-police were in vain. In doing so, we also lose our own authenticity by creating a mechanism of self-censorship which triggers a process of alienation from oneself, for the goal of becoming holistic with others, based on a predetermined speech pattern – is emasculating and degenerate – the price of self-dehumanization.

This self-policing in a name of an unachievable ideal, that is at times rigid and unnatural, that seems imposed by the left seeking to impose a structural right and wrong that entails no sense of fulfillment happened in a Germany that already lacked an individualistic tradition, that has been already susceptible to platonistic thought.

In America, the land of the individual, the left not only “did all of the above”, but it did also so as it eroded, this sense of individual self in America, while policing speech, and while making people way easier to move freely and identify as rigid categories – and not as selves. not within an open society, but within some class/race carousel.

As a unit that sees legitimation in experiencing the world through the lens of guilt, privilege, blame or shame – not as humans under a godly calling. Similar trends have shown themselves in Weimar's Germany to lead to an extreme eruption of counter-radicalism from the right, which seemed to fracture those structures (in Weimar, the democracy itself, believing it was already contaminated by Marxism), and to create a real choregraphed collective.

And here now in America the extreme right is rising because of this exact leftist phenomenology, and for them trump, Is nothing more than general Ludendorff.

It's clear that when the left calls people names in order for them not to talk about obvious things that are not really "offensive" but actually factually true, what happens is that this suppression, especially when based on lies, will lead, to an implosion, which itself may have some truth to it, in its initial rebellion, but which will also may contain lies, now that the left has already itself normalized lies for its own structural-revolutionary goals.

That's what happened in Germany.  The left in Germany created Hitler by not allowing people to speak their mind. That's not me. That's Hannah Arendt saying....

The suppression coupled with oppressed vs oppressor paradigm, will lead either to leftist utopia revolution, population replacement (to fill the ever-changing class structure and reach egalitarianism) or to an orgy of violence – or all the above.

In that sense, Marxism, as a form of a more dynamic re-enacted Platonism, which sees the ultimate good in the lower classes, and calls for a straight line between all categories, once they are re-enacted, and acted upon, is always a cycle of violence to maintain a structure of society, or a paradigm of speech, or a constant set of values – reaching a catharsis in a unknown moment – or until a right-wing or liberal counter-revolution (the nature of the new post-Marxian regime will likely depend on how much people’s mindset has been misused and their “nature” and “character” is free and brotherly to begin with).

Moving between conditions that will forever leave us suppressed in a masochistic way or aggressive in a sadistic way – creating a society that seems like a neurotic mother, caretaking, but never really sees you as a subject in an empathetic way. Hence no wonder why the third Reich wished to sell the “healing” idea, of the Reich as a great all loving mother.

When we are silent about true data or observations, we demand others to be so too. When doing that, discourse dies, and the ability to discern true and false is lost. People in turn become susceptible to propaganda being the only thing keeping this fake societal coercive blob intact/sensible. well, that, the economy, and fear of prison. When the economy goes down – better hope the policemen are liberals, and the opposition not madmen.

Fascism rises from the left silencing and stripping men from authenticity and freedom via accusation and subjugation telling them what is real is not real. Forcing them to maintain a realization of ideal victimhood, which once realized to be false, leads people to turn themselves into master’s over those who told them all are victims or that rather victimization is an ideal state.

In the sence, there’s no doubt that Marxism was more catholic than Nazism, which only took the structural form of a feudal-vassal absolutist state. Without the deification of victims. Even thought it did worship, like all Catholics, some form of blood-connection.

The unattainable fusion of all classes will end, and the more plausible goal of a removal of some (which anyways happens in Marxism.) will commence.

In that sense, Hitlerism, besides being a uniquely German phenomena, may teach us what counter-Marxism can become in a society with no liberal tradition (Germany/Italy). Or with a liberal tradition eroded (USA). The moral is to avoid Marxist rhetoric and weltanschauungs at all costs. And for the American left to confess its Marxian sins if it wishes to halt the right-wing surge. Or face the rise of the Woke-Right in America, created as an alternative platonistic house of lies, with a bit more sensibility (apart the large part of antisemites) than that of the left.

The moment we normalized silencing others, we essentially claimed moral superiority, believing it is moral and entirely acceptable to silence human beings. That is the point at which, whether we realize it or not, we have created a standard of tyranny that is meant to be accepted by real human being – and not those that exist within our imaginary hierarchy and structures.

After that point, in order to "vent" out our stress, we decided some classes were allowed to be criticized (Whites on the left, Jews/blacks on the right), and others are not (Whites on the right, Blacks on the left), we also decided that the political program itself, based on the idea of oppressor VS oppressed is also beyond limits.

What is the Woke-right without it being oppressed by the left?

And what is the left without a fear of being oppressed or exploited by the ever-changing cultural economic demons of capitalism and colonialism?

Because we bought into a program that is itself beyond real critique, constantly entailing silencing of one another (a echo chamber which every idealism needs to function). We made it necessary to create some people that we can speak freely about our need to silence and redeem ourselves and the world from - by which, all limitations, hyper-sensitivity, and negativity will vanish – we will be full human only by their demise. We have enslaved our humanity to our oppressors. We have become Cain.

We fight the people that we can say anything about, just like we dare not those who we cannot say anything against (Until the time comes). We now start looking for that Habel to affirm our justice. We are not really satisfied with the cleansing from suppressive Marxism, from any suppressive heterodoxy. We must struggle further. We have chosen the path of purity. We have chosen the path of collective will and truth which purifies. Then why antisemitism? Because once we defeat the Marxian structure, we must defeat those who created it, we have been contaminated by the Marxian need for the enemy. And after that what? But of course, world domination – just to finally redeem ourselves from the possibility of the creation of a future enemy. And what about the possibility of human beings? We gave that up the moment we decided that communism or class theories were worth entertaining. And we entertained them because we never heard the call of a covenant of God. We turned our enemy into that voice. Without hearing a voice that transcends the fake pharaoh who pretends to be a liberator (marx)

And once we accepted a standard of tyranny, we lost the ability to claim that our views are either falsifiable or ethical.

The essence of liberalism lies in the ability to argue without resorting to violence. The opportunity of reading god in a way that is not authoritarian. Hence the importance the old  Testament gives the use of economic means, not as a form of violence, but rather a form of power that remains voluntary, distinct from the coercive force of non-republican, non-covenant based governmental power.