The totalitarian (neo-communist), ILLIBERAL "left" (the New Clerisy/media-tech oligarch alliance) will, instead of seeing that its continued spread is one of the primary causes of reactionary proto-fascism, bear down on attempting to impose failed neo-communist/neo-marxist strategies, even though that will even further strengthen proto-fascism.
Thus, I conclude that leftists are generally stupid and evil.
In "projecting" their stupidity and evil onto their critics, they will shoot themselves in the foot (and probably other body parts).
I'm looking forward to you publishing “In Defense of Proto-Fascism”.
My guess is that
1. as postmodern, ILLIBERAL, totalitarianism ("mean green meme", neomarxism) spreads (Biden's "Ministry of Truth" being the most ridiculous example yet) and as
2. the high-social-trust foundations of modern-rationalist institutions erode due to neoliberal globalism, and as
3. the general regression to pathological "tribalistic" identities continues, [social fragmentation/atomization]
4. there will be a "natural" reaction, similar to how prison gangs form, and
5. that will lead to ethno-nationalist survival strategies (which in the USA, has already shown up as neoconfederate, populist resentment {Trumpism} mutating into broad working class and traditionalist resentment).
Neo-conservatives are already trying to reformulate themselves as "National Conservatives" (Trumpism without Trump), but that seems like more of an example of the right-wing of the PMC looking for a new marketing scheme than any kind of authentic expression of populist, working class resentment.
European fascism, then, was a political response of the European bourgeoisie to the economic recession after 1918, or more directly to the political fear caused by that recession. So, above all, it was anti-communist. This anti-communism was one of the few things that made it international. Other than that and its social base, it was heterogeneous and varied widely from country to country. There were two basic reasons for this heterogeneity. One is historical; the other is structural.
Historically fascism was essentially nationalist. Structurally it was always something of a coalition. Italian fascism and German fascism were necessarily more distinct than Italian communism and German communism would be. Behind the vague term fascism there lie in fact two distinct social and political systems. These are both ideologically based, authoritarian, and anti-parliamentary liberalism. But they are different and the confusion between these essentially different systems is an essential factor in the history of fascism. These two systems can be described as
[] clerical conservatism and
[] dynamic fascism.
Every fascist movement was compounded of these two elements in varying proportions and the variety of mixtures relates in some degree to the class structure of the society involved.
The totalitarian (neo-communist), ILLIBERAL "left" (the New Clerisy/media-tech oligarch alliance) will, instead of seeing that its continued spread is one of the primary causes of reactionary proto-fascism, bear down on attempting to impose failed neo-communist/neo-marxist strategies, even though that will even further strengthen proto-fascism.
Thus, I conclude that leftists are generally stupid and evil.
In "projecting" their stupidity and evil onto their critics, they will shoot themselves in the foot (and probably other body parts).
I'm looking forward to you publishing “In Defense of Proto-Fascism”.
My guess is that
1. as postmodern, ILLIBERAL, totalitarianism ("mean green meme", neomarxism) spreads (Biden's "Ministry of Truth" being the most ridiculous example yet) and as
2. the high-social-trust foundations of modern-rationalist institutions erode due to neoliberal globalism, and as
3. the general regression to pathological "tribalistic" identities continues, [social fragmentation/atomization]
4. there will be a "natural" reaction, similar to how prison gangs form, and
5. that will lead to ethno-nationalist survival strategies (which in the USA, has already shown up as neoconfederate, populist resentment {Trumpism} mutating into broad working class and traditionalist resentment).
Neo-conservatives are already trying to reformulate themselves as "National Conservatives" (Trumpism without Trump), but that seems like more of an example of the right-wing of the PMC looking for a new marketing scheme than any kind of authentic expression of populist, working class resentment.
-----
A classic summary of historical fascism:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060427082453/http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/world/lectures/fascism.html
excerpt:
European fascism, then, was a political response of the European bourgeoisie to the economic recession after 1918, or more directly to the political fear caused by that recession. So, above all, it was anti-communist. This anti-communism was one of the few things that made it international. Other than that and its social base, it was heterogeneous and varied widely from country to country. There were two basic reasons for this heterogeneity. One is historical; the other is structural.
Historically fascism was essentially nationalist. Structurally it was always something of a coalition. Italian fascism and German fascism were necessarily more distinct than Italian communism and German communism would be. Behind the vague term fascism there lie in fact two distinct social and political systems. These are both ideologically based, authoritarian, and anti-parliamentary liberalism. But they are different and the confusion between these essentially different systems is an essential factor in the history of fascism. These two systems can be described as
[] clerical conservatism and
[] dynamic fascism.
Every fascist movement was compounded of these two elements in varying proportions and the variety of mixtures relates in some degree to the class structure of the society involved.
...