Contrary to common believes, that a fascist society must visually similar to what been portrayed in a WW2 movie, a real fascist society now days hides behind layers of outlooks that makes them look normal. People in a fascist society may work a well-paid job in a clean glassy high-rise, and their government and law might be structured like a normal one. The most obvious difference between a fascist society and a normal society is probably how the society create and changes it's laws, which is complex to observe even in a normal society. This is the reason why so many people couldn't believe it when they're already in one.
"There is no effort ... I mean they do all the scientific research, but they never investigate how to communicate with them, how to have peaceful solution... their society thrive on the need of an enemy. And they have all these space ships and faster than light travel, they made all this advancements, but it's a fascist society that just breeds his bread for war." (11:07)
> People in a fascist society may work a well-paid job in a clean glassy high-rise
Just like under fascism in Italy and Germany. Most people would spend their attention on work and entertainment, often avoiding discussing politics and ignore dissenting voices outside of the overton window.
1. The article is Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism".
2. A parent post implies that "normal" society has actually become Fascist without us realizing it, and starts talking about how you can't go outside the Overton Window.
3. Post to which I replied says you can probably be perfectly happy in such a society, until you come to understand your situation, at which point you are "red pilled" (though refused to spell out, as that is unsayable).
Nowhere in the above is there any discussion of gender, women, trans issues, or feminism, except maybe very indirectly, insofar as "Notes on Nationalism" comes from an era with (and is partly a discussion of) Fascism, and Fascism is often said to be misogynistic.
Anyway, let's take a step back. This whole thread was saying, basically, that mainstream "liberal" society/politics is "the real fascism" and that people need to get "red pilled". I'm spelling out what's going on in the thread, not supporting it.
The term red pill comes from The Matrix where the non-subtle metaphor is "want to know the truth? Take the red pill". There was no need to censor the term if that was the meaning.
A group of people, often considered misogynists or anti-feminists, who think they have a secret truth about dating women, also use the term.
There is also the subtle metaphor of The Matrix, that the redpill actual refers to transitioning into women. The color was choosen because in the 90s estrogen hormone therapy were literally red pills in the 90s.
"Gnostic" as in hidden knowledge -- "You're really in the Matrix!" Surely that's what "red pill" is about(?); that's the film reference.
Though asterices could perhaps be a dog whistle too: "Only my desired recipients understand." A dog whistle of taboo gnosis.
(When you go to an art gallery you hear lots of dog whistles: The text describing each piece is full of strange word-patterns. Often the repetition or gratuitous insertion of an unexpected word, e.g. "bodies", often as a double- or triple- entendre. The cant(ations) are easy to notice, once you dwell on the strangeness and ask yourself: "Why are they talking like that?")
I suppose gnosis tends to live outside the Overton Window, thus would go hand-in-hand with dog-whistles. Related, the groups with this "knowledge" tend to have developed their own (incompatible) moralities -- and indeed, induction to such a group involves violation of the conventional morality (think killing a random person to enter a gang). "You can't leave us now; among the Others you'll feel guilt."
So these three go together: Gnosis, dog-whistles, and "righteous sin". I suppose the last one develops last.
Hmm, I see it currently happening. Everything is fine, until you step over certain line and then mob of self-righteous evil people descent and at least attempt to ruin your life... The left truly never changes...
The Man in the High Castle adaption by Amazon was fantastic in this. The Nazi cities were beautiful. They were orderly, clean, everyone was well dressed and nice. Infrastructure was top notch and there were only very small hints that something was off. It was the type of NIMBY paradise that the rich Californians would kill for.
What I have found to be a fantastic guiding principle for fascism in the West is the saying of a Peruvian dictator: "for my friends: anything, for my enemies: the law!". We're seeing this right now as the West has completely re-written the rules of The Game for the sake of hurting Russia and Russians. Going to be an interesting decade as the world re-shapes to adjust for the rule change and the West likely becomes more of an authoritarian fascist totality.
No one was interested in hurting the Russians until they invaded Ukraine. And nothing about this makes me suddenly think of my country as the good guys or makes any of the issues with my country any better.
Not OP, but I wonder is he is having the same feeling I am on this whole Ukraine situation.
Below is a paste from a conversation I had with a close group of friends:
I feel sorry for Ukrainians. I can't help but shake the feeling that they are being used as a pawn for the US to drain the military resources of Russia.
I would guess that, the optimal outcome from the neocon/neolib perspective is for Russia to rubblize Ukraine over a period of months to a year, all they while the west says "woe is me", and supplies equipment to decimate Russian armor and aircraft.
This makes Russia the indisputable bad guy for the atrocities committed against Ukraine, all the while the west has clean hands in decimating Russia's military power.
The end result is hundreds of thousands to millions of dead Ukrainians that the neocons will shed crocodile tears over.
Only cost them a few hundred million dollars to do hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to Russia.
If there was any legitimate desire to have Russia back off, they would be offering terms such as guaranteeing that Ukraine would never enter NATO as part of a treaty, lifting of sanctions, etc, contingent on a full withdrawal.
Russia was invited to NATO in the Partnership for Peace program.
And invading a country without provocation and which was elected democratically is kind of the reason for a defensive alliance in the first place.
Furthermore with Russia being a defacto dictatorship it becomes hard to deal with the actual position of the Russian people (who aren’t allowed to protest or have free media or vote)
After all that, there is still the Russia–NATO Council that was established in 2002 for handling security issues and joint projects.
I believe you, yet western countries refused to discuss that very topic few weeks ago when Russia demanded that NATO was not extended further. Frankly, as a mere western Europe citizen, arguably living far away from russian borders, I could not care less about NATO extension. I feel more threatened by the war mongering in the west than by the russian army, and I suspect many other people feel the same. Yet this opinion is not represented at all in the western "democracies".
There are several layers of propaganda, and you point to only one of them.
1) The propaganda for West is that "power balance" shit story. US citizens are distant enough to believe this is rational PoV. (it is not)
2) The propaganda for russians is that Ukraine is a failed state, has no legitimate govt, makes undercover nukes and nazis use ukrainian people as hostages. (all of this is lie)
3) The propaganda for Ukraine is that Russians and Ukrainians are literally "brothers", more "brothers" than ukrainians and poles. Everyone speaking russian language is part of Russia. (clear manipulation)
We Ukrainians don't like this propaganda and don't want live under Putin's (or any other non-democratic) regime. If US (and Europe) feels we can help them achieve their goals, we are fine with that. Because it aligns with our national goals -- make Russia weak, or even make it disappear from global map.
Not arguing that point. He made the decision to invade, he has agency of his own and is responsible for his actions.
My point is that if people think his Nazi and NATO talk is bullshit, call it by offering terms that completely neutralize those points.
It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be in NATO, trust us." It's a completely different thing to say, "Ukraine will never be in NATO, here is a legally binding treaty stating so, contingent on X actions by Russia."
> It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be in NATO, trust us."
No one ever said that. Ukraine is going to be in NATO if they want to be in NATO. The claim that Ukraine would eventually be admitted to NATO is not the bullshit.
The bullshit is that NATO is offensively directed at Russia; the only reason Russia isn't in NATO and covered by its defensive shield (Russia joined the onramp Partnership for Peace program in 1994) is that Putin decided he didn't want it to be, made known-unacceptable demands to bypass the accession process, was rebuffed as he knew he would be, and used that as a reason to stop any work toward joining.
"There is no effort ... I mean they do all the scientific research, but they never investigate how to communicate with them, how to have peaceful solution... their society thrive on the need of an enemy. And they have all these space ships and faster than light travel, they made all this advancements, but it's a fascist society that just breeds his bread for war." (11:07)
This cuts really deep.