Fascists are hugely capitalizing on the anti-Islam anger of Christians

All over I see racists coming out of the woodwork from after the Paris terror attack yelling things like "Europe for Europeans!", every video I have seen of this has been flooded to the top with racist comments and those comments are by far the most popular. In vice news they did a story on Fascists in Germany doing an anti-Islam march about a month or two ago, the more angry people get at Islam the more they unfortunately turn to the opposite extreme, Fascism. They are literally fighting Extremism with Extremism, a very deadly combination. We must remember, this is exactly what the Nazi's did in WWII, they capitalized on the anger the Germans after WWI and used immense propaganda to take advantage of it. When the economy is bad and people are dying from war or terrorism, people get angry and desperate, and when people get angry and desperate they turn to extremist ideologies like Fascism unfortunately. A Fox News host was saying they dont want to hear anymore leftist nonsense about police militarization, he says literally they should "OVER militarize the police" and said the police should walk around in the streets with machine guns out to deter bad guys As I said, people are angry and turning to extremist ideology, and fascist propaganda stations like Fox News are only making it worse. To be fair though, they had a libertarian girl I believe and she said "You want to live in a police state?" but the Fox host immediately countered with "Its not a police state, its a safe state!" exactly as any Fascist would have said in response.

[video=youtube;_bI-E-sbJEA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bI-E-sbJEA[/video]


Its up to the left wing to counter-balance this rise of right wing Fascist extremism or else things will tumble out of control very quickly.

 

Opposing genocide level mass immigration and the replacement of enlightened Western culture with primitive barbaric Arab fascism (Islam) is "extremism"? IMHO it's completely reasonable.

BTW you understand that Fascism is an economic system with no connection to race or religion.

 

So much semantics and propaganda I dont know where to begin.

Lets start with the obvious, "genocide level mass immigration" this is literally Klan talk, it is racist fascists who run around saying immigration is genocide on the white race blah blah blah

You say it fascism has no connection to race or religion, but you just called Islam "Arab Fascism" You yourself attributed Islam it to a race even though its a religion not exclusive to any race, than get mad when I say racist fascist christians? The fact there are racist fascist Christians doesnt mean I dont also believe there are racist Fascist Muslims, both of you exist and you are both utterly ridiculous and dangerous. You guys are so much alike you dont even realize











[video=youtube;GqgyTm4vV_w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqgyTm4vV_w[/video]

 

You should know that calling a statement "racist fascism" isn't a counter argument. Yes, we are seeing genocide level mass immigration and population replacement.

And I used "fascism" as you understood it to mean ethnic nationalism.

The "no difference" argument fails to take into account that only the West is being displaced.

 

We would save so much time if you just man up and admit what you are, a racist fascist. Brewskier and AmericanNationalist have done this and just ask them I respect them for manning up and standing up for what they believe so we can have actual debates about it, you on the other hand are playing semantics dodging the fact of who you are.

 

I guess the point of this thread is to label European preservationists "racist fascists". I don't see any other point to the OP.

I guess it would be helpful if you could define both words.

Oh I forgot "extremist" which you use 5 times in the OP.

 

"European preservationist" is a fancy way to say "white supremacist", even Bill O'Reilly admits this,

[video=youtube;JpoTRVyTTgE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpoTRVyTTgE[/video]

David Duke tries to claim the same thing as you, he just cares about "European Heritage" and O'Reilly calls him out for what he is, a white supremacist, and he says he is just trying to avoid it which is entirely true, and credit to O'Reilly for pointing this out and condemning it. Credit to any right winger who does the same.

 

But if you try to counter-balans the rise of the 'right wing' you make the 'left wing' and 'right wing' both stronger, because that will lead to an increment of a political / revolutionary struggle.

To only way to counter 'fascism' (tyranny included, which is common in history) and terror is to reduce emotional level of a society. Which can only be done by reducing the spread of fear / emotions.
Every reply on a political or terror event is once again amplifing the spread of emotions (through mass communication internet forums, look at the forum you are currently on, a lot of spread of emotion is going on, that is the reason why terrorism and/or tyranny will prevail, and society become totalitarian)

A clear example; the phrase 'power to the people' will not lead to power to the people, but will lead to power to the 'fascists', because it is an emotional phrase (btw the term 'fascist' too)

Reducing emotional state of society (in each individual) is the only way out of this dark era.
Societies with rising (in the end high) emotional state and a lot of chaos, will become totalitarian in the end.

France is also heading in that direction (Italian and
French are more emotional cultures, so they can be the first that are going to lose their freedom.
When a NATO member has become totalitarian (and forms a threat to other NATO members), all others have to stop such regimes, and that can lead to a new kind of 'balkanisation' in Europe.

 

So you can't define any of the meaningless name calling in your OP and switch to the victim blaming truth inverting "supremacist", about a random new subject? Huh?

 

I agree with most of this, but authoritarianism is very rare on the left wing which is why I think people should move father to the left along with decreasing emotions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism#Right_and_Left
"right wing beliefs are associated with less integrative complexity than left wing beliefs. People with moderate liberal attitudes had the highest integrative complexity in their cognitions.[18]
There have been a number of other attempts to identify "left-wing authoritarians" in the United States and Canada. These would be people who submit to leftist authorities, are highly conventional to liberal viewpoints, and are aggressive to people who oppose left-wing ideology. These attempts have failed because measures of authoritarianism always correlate at least slightly with the right. However, left-wing authoritarians were found in Eastern Europe [19] There are certainly extremists across the political spectrum, but most psychologists now believe that authoritarianism is a predominantly right-wing phenomenon.[20]

 

Good job backing yourself up with the leftist Wikipedia. What next? Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality?

 

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

 

No, the left is just as authoritatian as the right, they just exercise it in different aspects of peoples' lives.

Take New York for example.
Yes, gay marriage is legal, and you can get medical weed. They are more liberal in those areas.
Instead, they try to dictate people health and diets, banning soft drinks over a certain size, and other such things. This is still facsism, even if it helps people.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
"Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism.[24] Each form of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.[25][26]"

There is no single definition of Fascism, as there is no single definition of Socialism, or most political ideologies.

 

Well done. So how is it a meaningful imputation? Can't you explain your objections in precise language? And it wouldn't be so bad if you could even define what you mean by it. I guess you don't even know.

 

The difference between the two is equality, fascists take away freedom to consolidate power and militarize the country, communists take away freedom to bring equality, economic and political.

"To test this model, Milton Rokeach and his colleagues used content analysis on works exemplifying nazism (written by Adolf Hitler), communism (written by V.I. Lenin), capitalism (by Barry Goldwater) and socialism (written by various socialist authors).
Multiple raters made frequency counts of sentences containing synonyms for a number of values identified by Rokeach, including freedom and equality, and Rokeach analyzed these results by comparing the relative frequency rankings of all the values for each of the four texts:
In excerpts from...
Socialists (socialism) — Freedom ranked 1st, Equality ranked 2nd
Hitler (Nazism) – Freedom ranked 16th, Equality ranked 17th
Goldwater (capitalism) — Freedom ranked 1st, Equality ranked 16th
Lenin (communism) — Freedom ranked 17th, Equality ranked 1st"

 

Generalizations exist for a reason, our brains specialize heavily in pattern seeking and most people have seen the patterns of fascism, which usually manifests itself in the form of racist white Christians angry at "others", so when I say fascism most people naturally know thats what im talking about and there is no need explaining the entire history of fascism every time I talk to somebody.

 

Why shouldn't they be racist, fascist and angry?

 

Are you saying they should?

 

It's just that you kind of failed to explain why Europeans opposing their genocide and culture destruction are "racist, fascist, extremist supremacists" while Muslim invaders aren't so I'm trying to pick your brains from another angle. And if you clearly define the terms of your question I'll happily answer, even though you failed to answer mine (again).

 

Uh...I'll take compulsory health care and social security over being dragged off to prison because I once supported those things any day. You are making minor inconveniences equivalent to occasions of long imprisonment or death, acting as if being denied a big soda is the same a people being beaten or killed in the street. That isn't just silly to the point of insanity, it's dangerous to everybody.

 

How is this immigration "genocidal"? Is there some sort of magical execution going on where one person is killed for every immigrant let in or what?

 

Genocide does not have to involve killing under UN definition. Any policies which result in at least partial significant population replacement count.

 

The original post of this thread reads like a satire of a stereotypical anti-racist slactivist, merely trying to use the R-word as much as possible. It is not even worth responding to.

Back in reality, the "worst" thing that will happen if these so-called "fascists" get their way is that immigration will be much more strictly regulated. Oh, the horror! I am sure Hitler is trembling in his unknown grave! Such genocide! lol

And the stupidest thread of the week award goes to..