...Anyways, narratives persisting through society, especially through mass media, reinforce the idea at this time that fascism was a problem that came and went, and was defeated by a rosy image of the united forces of capitalism and socialism, which is a repainting of history that hides the reality that the bourgoisie tolerated fascism until it was a threat to itself. Guattari points out that while there was a group of bourgoisie who were external to fascism, critical of its instability and ability to stir desire in the masses, that international capitalism was willing to tolerate its presence until there were other means to control class struggle. The union was not to "save democracy" but to respond to a catastrophic political failure whose runaway libidinal spiral was so dangerous that "the planet was seized by a crisis that seemed like the end of the world".
He says that the reason why leftist alternatives in Italy and Germany failed was because they offered no alternative to this release of desire. In comparison, oftentimes the answer given is that fascist states are able to produce more immediate answers to political crisises in the short term, in contrast "with the powerlessness of the socio-democratic governments of the Weimar Republic". What these explanations fail to understand is the fact that fascism, through its ability to release the desire of the masses, was a huge threat to capitalism, even a bigger threat than the October revolution. The threat came from the fact that fascism triggered a mass "death instinct" in the masses. Basically, by reterritorializing onto a fascist leader, state and society, the masses removed themselves from a reality that they hated - they'd literally rather have a society that destroys itself than be forced into dominant meanings.
But through this process, fascism recaptures this desire back into a new set of dominant meanings through its theatre of hysteria, which results in its own internal instability. Guattari states that fascist meanings emerge from a "composite representation of love and death, of Eros and Thanatos now made into one". Nazi Germany was so obsessed with death that it was obsessed even with its own death - to the point that it continued to fight in the war for years after it effectively had been lost. In comparison, Stalinism was much more stable.
Capitalism, in comparison to fascism, tries to molecularize and alienate workers while tapping into their "potentiality for desire". It installs its program on all social stratifications in such a way that it entirely codes the individual's perspective of the world. Capitalism tries to avoid large scale social movements and regulates itself through the state, and tries to contain breakout conflicts by confining issues to economic and localized territories.
Stalinism in comparison placed the power of the party over the military/police ect. (in contrast to fascism, where they are relatively on the same level), overcoding the machines of power and placing the masses under control, including the international proletariat. The failure of Stalinism is a result of its inability to adapt to the "molecularization of the work force" - in other words, capitalism's ability to encroach more and more into more tight spaces. Essentially, over time, various failures in the party to control this repression allowed the other social machines to gain more power over time, destabilizing the power in the party. This forced the political question back down to the subject of the particular, which allowed capitalism to integrate into communist parties through its molecularization. This destabilized Stalinism and caused it to effectively collapse. Even though at the time of the writing it still existed in smaller organizations like parties and unions, it operates on the older socio-democratic model and doesn't account for revolutionary releases of desire like May 1968.
With the collapse of Stalinism as competition, the capitalist system needs to develop new forms of totalitarianism. It needs to deal with new problems like racism, sexual repression, the oppression of the mentally and physically disabled, prisons, immigration ect., and to deal with these problems it will repress everything that can't be contained into economic objectives. Guattari explains that fascism is trying to root itself in any structure that is trying to adapt desire for the profit economy.
Yep...this is the Democratic Party today all right...
Basically, by reterritorializing onto a fascist leader, state and society, the masses removed themselves from a reality that they hated - they'd literally rather have a society that destroys itself than be forced into dominant meanings.
...unable to force everyone into its' "woke" meanings (a reality they hated: Post-colonial white guilt-pride).
The Labour and Tory Party's are D-E-A-D. Reform is the only party offering an "escape", "line-of-flight" and "re-territorialization" for ALL the people of the UK.
They're all impaled upon the post-colonial white guilt-pride "woke molecule" as well. And like Oedipus before them, they've blinded themselves to the knowledge with Jocasta's brooches.
The guy in the video is clearly angry because media won't show him the hate he craves. How sad. This is definitely fascism @@
Young White males never do this kind of thing @@
Incel (a portmanteau of "involuntary celibate") is a term associated with a mostly online subculture of people (racially diverse, but mostly white, male and heterosexual), who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, and who may blame, objectify and denigrate women and girls as a result. [end]
Mystere: 🔺says the white china booger sugar boofer🔺
That's you? You're pointing to my comment, but I assume you included the pointers by accident. Given that I've never boofed or used cocaine. So you must be talking about your own experiences.
btw, that this happened is no surprise. I'm talking about the strong reinforcement of the delusions of rightturds like Minus and Mystere. d0n0ld "won" the election, which "proves" that The People want White Male Supremacy. Including enough minorities that d0n0ld was able to successfully steal it. Turds like Candace Owens. White men running the show is the "natural order", as explained by Minus.
Nietzsche explored the concept of "ressentiment" (a form of resentment or hostility) and its role in shaping morality, arguing that it often underlies what appears as selfless acts like charity, which he viewed as stemming from a desire to undermine those perceived as superior. Here's a more detailed explanation:
Ressentiment: Nietzsche used the term "ressentiment" to describe a chronic feeling of resentment or hostility, often directed towards those who are perceived as having power or status, and stemming from a sense of weakness or inferiority.
Nietzsche's Critique of Charity: Nietzsche questioned the motives behind acts of charity, suggesting that they might be rooted in ressentiment, rather than genuine compassion.
"Slave Morality": Nietzsche argued that "slave morality" arises from ressentiment, where those who feel powerless or inferior create a value system that devalues the very qualities they envy in those they resent, such as strength, power, and success.
Example: He believed that Christian morality, with its emphasis on humility and compassion, could be seen as a manifestation of ressentiment against the perceived "master morality" of those who are powerful and successful.
Not a Universal Condemnation: It's important to note that Nietzsche wasn't advocating for cruelty or a complete rejection of empathy, but rather a critical examination of the underlying motivations behind certain moral and social behaviors.
Focus on Self-Overcoming: Nietzsche's philosophy ultimately emphasized the importance of self-overcoming and embracing one's own strengths, rather than succumbing to ressentiment and seeking to undermine others.
People may have been convinced by rightturd propaganda that Democrats were "pushing down" these things on them, but they never have and never will. Because "DEI hatred" and "energy suicide" are both imaginary.
Minus: I'm sure you prefer euphemisms for punishment like "enlightenment" and "(re)education that "cancels" those noncomplicit victims of your pogroms
And White Supremacists (such as yourself) are "victims" of the civil rights movement. Turd-2 is trying to roll back as much of that as they are able to as well :(
Get over yourself Derv. The Civil Rights Movement ended in victory in 1965. Stop trying to pat yourself on the back for finally acknowledging the fact a century later, cuz Republicans started the movement in 1865....
Minus: Republicans started the movement in 1865...
...then disavowed the efforts of past republicans by embracing the Southern Strategy. The republican party has been moving toward a full embrace of White Supremacy ever since. The transition is now complete, with the election of an explicitly racist president. d0n0ld ran on White grievance and is actively instituting a White Supremacist agenda. Your strategy of pointing to the past to distract from/excuse your party proudly donning White hoods (maga hats) is entirely transparent.
rolling back DEI and woke = republicans kicking and screaming.
The "myth" of the political inversion. Upsidasium! All to feel good about yourselves for finally coming to your senses, and to "externalize" their guilt. White guilt-pride. On steroids.
It's not a myth, it's reality. Proven by your selection of the Orange Turd, who is unquestionably a White Supremacist. Also, those people are all dead. I have no guilt whatsoever for what people who are dead did. Even if they identified as Democrats. If this was true, why wouldn't a majority of African Americans vote republican? As opposed to it being the other way around...
Copilot: The Southern Strategy is not a myth -- it’s a well-documented political tactic used by the Republican Party, particularly during Richard Nixon’s 1968 presidential campaign, to appeal to white voters in the South by exploiting racial tensions. This strategy involved using coded language like "states' rights" and "law and order" to signal opposition to civil rights progress without overtly endorsing racism.
As for the Democratic Party ... the party underwent a significant transformation during the mid-20th century, aligning itself with civil rights and progressive policies. This shift contributed to the political realignment in which many white Southern Democrats became Republicans, while Black voters increasingly supported Democrats. [end]
Many switched parties? Name them. Can you name more than 3 Democratic politicians who became Republicans? Can you point to voter roll changes from (D) to (R)?
from Google's AI: Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party. The progressive notion of a Dixiecrat switch is a myth.
Wikipedia: Studies show that some Southern whites during the 1960s shifted to the Republican Party, in part due to racial conservatism. Majority support for the Democratic Party amongst Southern whites first fell away at the presidential level, and several decades later at the state and local levels. link.
Me: Racist Democratic Congressional politicians were voted out, retired or died and then were replaced by republicans. Is that an assumption that holds water?
Copilot: Yes, that assumption does hold water when looking at the broader historical context. After the Civil Rights Movement and the Democratic Party's embrace of civil rights legislation, many white Southern voters began shifting their allegiance to the Republican Party. This realignment didn't happen overnight but unfolded over decades, as older, more conservative Democrats (including Dixiecrats) either retired, were voted out, or passed away. Their successors, both voters and politicians, increasingly identified with the Republican Party, which had adopted a platform appealing to conservative and racially resentful sentiments through strategies like Nixon's Southern Strategy.
This gradual shift explains why the South transitioned from being a Democratic stronghold (the "Solid South") to a Republican-dominated region. The realignment was less about individual politicians switching parties en masse and more about a generational and ideological transformation. [end]
Your argument oversimplifies what happened ON PURPOSE.
Copilot: An oversimplified argument often falls under the logical fallacy of oversimplification or reductive fallacy. This occurs when a complex issue is reduced to a single, overly simplistic explanation, ignoring important nuances or contributing factors. In the case of the blogger's argument, dismissing the broader historical realignment of Southern voters based solely on whether Dixiecrats switched parties is a classic example of oversimplification -- it overlooks the gradual ideological and demographic shifts that occurred over decades. [end]
If Mystere's IQ were really in the 140 to 160 range (as he claims) he could present a better "argument" than "Dervish snorts more of Hintern Bidet's sloppy seconds of white china booger sugar crack again". At least ONCE in a while. But he never does. The reason? His IQ is obviously very low.
46 comments:
Unveiling and praising it? It seems you are quite happy that rightturd fascism is on the rise around the world.
🔺says the white china booger sugar boofer🔺
Derpish is a white chinaman.
Derpy snorts Sloppy Joe seconds after JoeJoe boofs Hunter's white china booger sugar and passes gas.
Left-Liberal Fascist Totalitarianism is the New "Right"
...Anyways, narratives persisting through society, especially through mass media, reinforce the idea at this time that fascism was a problem that came and went, and was defeated by a rosy image of the united forces of capitalism and socialism, which is a repainting of history that hides the reality that the bourgoisie tolerated fascism until it was a threat to itself. Guattari points out that while there was a group of bourgoisie who were external to fascism, critical of its instability and ability to stir desire in the masses, that international capitalism was willing to tolerate its presence until there were other means to control class struggle. The union was not to "save democracy" but to respond to a catastrophic political failure whose runaway libidinal spiral was so dangerous that "the planet was seized by a crisis that seemed like the end of the world".
He says that the reason why leftist alternatives in Italy and Germany failed was because they offered no alternative to this release of desire. In comparison, oftentimes the answer given is that fascist states are able to produce more immediate answers to political crisises in the short term, in contrast "with the powerlessness of the socio-democratic governments of the Weimar Republic". What these explanations fail to understand is the fact that fascism, through its ability to release the desire of the masses, was a huge threat to capitalism, even a bigger threat than the October revolution. The threat came from the fact that fascism triggered a mass "death instinct" in the masses. Basically, by reterritorializing onto a fascist leader, state and society, the masses removed themselves from a reality that they hated - they'd literally rather have a society that destroys itself than be forced into dominant meanings.
But through this process, fascism recaptures this desire back into a new set of dominant meanings through its theatre of hysteria, which results in its own internal instability. Guattari states that fascist meanings emerge from a "composite representation of love and death, of Eros and Thanatos now made into one". Nazi Germany was so obsessed with death that it was obsessed even with its own death - to the point that it continued to fight in the war for years after it effectively had been lost. In comparison, Stalinism was much more stable.
...more
Capitalism, in comparison to fascism, tries to molecularize and alienate workers while tapping into their "potentiality for desire". It installs its program on all social stratifications in such a way that it entirely codes the individual's perspective of the world. Capitalism tries to avoid large scale social movements and regulates itself through the state, and tries to contain breakout conflicts by confining issues to economic and localized territories.
Stalinism in comparison placed the power of the party over the military/police ect. (in contrast to fascism, where they are relatively on the same level), overcoding the machines of power and placing the masses under control, including the international proletariat. The failure of Stalinism is a result of its inability to adapt to the "molecularization of the work force" - in other words, capitalism's ability to encroach more and more into more tight spaces. Essentially, over time, various failures in the party to control this repression allowed the other social machines to gain more power over time, destabilizing the power in the party. This forced the political question back down to the subject of the particular, which allowed capitalism to integrate into communist parties through its molecularization. This destabilized Stalinism and caused it to effectively collapse. Even though at the time of the writing it still existed in smaller organizations like parties and unions, it operates on the older socio-democratic model and doesn't account for revolutionary releases of desire like May 1968.
With the collapse of Stalinism as competition, the capitalist system needs to develop new forms of totalitarianism. It needs to deal with new problems like racism, sexual repression, the oppression of the mentally and physically disabled, prisons, immigration ect., and to deal with these problems it will repress everything that can't be contained into economic objectives. Guattari explains that fascism is trying to root itself in any structure that is trying to adapt desire for the profit economy.
Much like its' Stalinist model before it, the Democratic Party has collapsed.
Yep...this is the Democratic Party today all right...
Basically, by reterritorializing onto a fascist leader, state and society, the masses removed themselves from a reality that they hated - they'd literally rather have a society that destroys itself than be forced into dominant meanings.
...unable to force everyone into its' "woke" meanings (a reality they hated: Post-colonial white guilt-pride).
The Labour and Tory Party's are D-E-A-D. Reform is the only party offering an "escape", "line-of-flight" and "re-territorialization" for ALL the people of the UK.
...and without the UK to lead it, the EU is doomed as well.
They're all impaled upon the post-colonial white guilt-pride "woke molecule" as well. And like Oedipus before them, they've blinded themselves to the knowledge with Jocasta's brooches.
:P
No.
^^Blind Man^^
The guy in the video is clearly angry because media won't show him the hate he craves. How sad. This is definitely fascism @@
Young White males never do this kind of thing @@
Incel (a portmanteau of "involuntary celibate") is a term associated with a mostly online subculture of people (racially diverse, but mostly white, male and heterosexual), who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, and who may blame, objectify and denigrate women and girls as a result. [end]
I'm not blind to your hate. I'm very aware of it.
Mystere: 🔺says the white china booger sugar boofer🔺
That's you? You're pointing to my comment, but I assume you included the pointers by accident. Given that I've never boofed or used cocaine. So you must be talking about your own experiences.
btw, that this happened is no surprise. I'm talking about the strong reinforcement of the delusions of rightturds like Minus and Mystere. d0n0ld "won" the election, which "proves" that The People want White Male Supremacy. Including enough minorities that d0n0ld was able to successfully steal it. Turds like Candace Owens. White men running the show is the "natural order", as explained by Minus.
So why do you punish them with your hate?
Hate-Love of the particular are just two sides of the same coin that rage between Apathy and Love/ Hate of the All.
aka - fascism.
It's merely a function of scale from sub-atomic-atomic-molecular
...it all ends up in the molecule.
It proves that most people don't want the DEI hatred and energy suicide that Democrats were pushing down on everyone.
A message for flailing Democrats...
...freedom of association. Not socially engineered association.
...with Left-determined Oedipal categories of historical victimhood and race.
aka - an ideologically determined political patronage and reward system.
coupled with "Kill Elon Musk (techno-hope)" Green Energy Doomerism...
The political cannabilism of Cormack McCarthy's "The Road".
...born of ressentiment:
from Google AI:
Nietzsche explored the concept of "ressentiment" (a form of resentment or hostility) and its role in shaping morality, arguing that it often underlies what appears as selfless acts like charity, which he viewed as stemming from a desire to undermine those perceived as superior.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Ressentiment:
Nietzsche used the term "ressentiment" to describe a chronic feeling of resentment or hostility, often directed towards those who are perceived as having power or status, and stemming from a sense of weakness or inferiority.
Nietzsche's Critique of Charity:
Nietzsche questioned the motives behind acts of charity, suggesting that they might be rooted in ressentiment, rather than genuine compassion.
"Slave Morality":
Nietzsche argued that "slave morality" arises from ressentiment, where those who feel powerless or inferior create a value system that devalues the very qualities they envy in those they resent, such as strength, power, and success.
Example:
He believed that Christian morality, with its emphasis on humility and compassion, could be seen as a manifestation of ressentiment against the perceived "master morality" of those who are powerful and successful.
Not a Universal Condemnation:
It's important to note that Nietzsche wasn't advocating for cruelty or a complete rejection of empathy, but rather a critical examination of the underlying motivations behind certain moral and social behaviors.
Focus on Self-Overcoming:
Nietzsche's philosophy ultimately emphasized the importance of self-overcoming and embracing one's own strengths, rather than succumbing to ressentiment and seeking to undermine others.
People may have been convinced by rightturd propaganda that Democrats were "pushing down" these things on them, but they never have and never will. Because "DEI hatred" and "energy suicide" are both imaginary.
Minus: So why do you punish them with your hate?
I never have.
...as were the laws and regulations that mandated them... LOL!
I'm sure you prefer euphemisms for punishment like "enlightenment" and "(re)education that "cancels" those noncomplicit victims of your pogroms...
Minus: I'm sure you prefer euphemisms for punishment like "enlightenment" and "(re)education that "cancels" those noncomplicit victims of your pogroms
And White Supremacists (such as yourself) are "victims" of the civil rights movement. Turd-2 is trying to roll back as much of that as they are able to as well :(
Get over yourself Derv. The Civil Rights Movement ended in victory in 1965. Stop trying to pat yourself on the back for finally acknowledging the fact a century later, cuz Republicans started the movement in 1865....
...and your political group (Democrats) fought it, kicking and screaming the whole way.
Minus: Republicans started the movement in 1865...
...then disavowed the efforts of past republicans by embracing the Southern Strategy. The republican party has been moving toward a full embrace of White Supremacy ever since. The transition is now complete, with the election of an explicitly racist president. d0n0ld ran on White grievance and is actively instituting a White Supremacist agenda. Your strategy of pointing to the past to distract from/excuse your party proudly donning White hoods (maga hats) is entirely transparent.
rolling back DEI and woke = republicans kicking and screaming.
The "myth" of the political inversion. Upsidasium! All to feel good about yourselves for finally coming to your senses, and to "externalize" their guilt. White guilt-pride. On steroids.
Monsters making monsters....
It's not a myth, it's reality. Proven by your selection of the Orange Turd, who is unquestionably a White Supremacist. Also, those people are all dead. I have no guilt whatsoever for what people who are dead did. Even if they identified as Democrats. If this was true, why wouldn't a majority of African Americans vote republican? As opposed to it being the other way around...
Copilot: The Southern Strategy is not a myth -- it’s a well-documented political tactic used by the Republican Party, particularly during Richard Nixon’s 1968 presidential campaign, to appeal to white voters in the South by exploiting racial tensions. This strategy involved using coded language like "states' rights" and "law and order" to signal opposition to civil rights progress without overtly endorsing racism.
As for the Democratic Party ... the party underwent a significant transformation during the mid-20th century, aligning itself with civil rights and progressive policies. This shift contributed to the political realignment in which many white Southern Democrats became Republicans, while Black voters increasingly supported Democrats. [end]
Dervish snorts more of Hintern Bidet's sloppy seconds of white china booger sugar crack again.
Many switched parties? Name them. Can you name more than 3 Democratic politicians who became Republicans? Can you point to voter roll changes from (D) to (R)?
Didn't think so. All narrative, no substance.
from Google's AI:
Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party. The progressive notion of a Dixiecrat switch is a myth.
Wikipedia: Studies show that some Southern whites during the 1960s shifted to the Republican Party, in part due to racial conservatism. Majority support for the Democratic Party amongst Southern whites first fell away at the presidential level, and several decades later at the state and local levels. link.
Me: Racist Democratic Congressional politicians were voted out, retired or died and then were replaced by republicans. Is that an assumption that holds water?
Copilot: Yes, that assumption does hold water when looking at the broader historical context. After the Civil Rights Movement and the Democratic Party's embrace of civil rights legislation, many white Southern voters began shifting their allegiance to the Republican Party. This realignment didn't happen overnight but unfolded over decades, as older, more conservative Democrats (including Dixiecrats) either retired, were voted out, or passed away. Their successors, both voters and politicians, increasingly identified with the Republican Party, which had adopted a platform appealing to conservative and racially resentful sentiments through strategies like Nixon's Southern Strategy.
This gradual shift explains why the South transitioned from being a Democratic stronghold (the "Solid South") to a Republican-dominated region. The realignment was less about individual politicians switching parties en masse and more about a generational and ideological transformation. [end]
Your argument oversimplifies what happened ON PURPOSE.
Copilot: An oversimplified argument often falls under the logical fallacy of oversimplification or reductive fallacy. This occurs when a complex issue is reduced to a single, overly simplistic explanation, ignoring important nuances or contributing factors. In the case of the blogger's argument, dismissing the broader historical realignment of Southern voters based solely on whether Dixiecrats switched parties is a classic example of oversimplification -- it overlooks the gradual ideological and demographic shifts that occurred over decades. [end]
If Mystere's IQ were really in the 140 to 160 range (as he claims) he could present a better "argument" than "Dervish snorts more of Hintern Bidet's sloppy seconds of white china booger sugar crack again". At least ONCE in a while. But he never does. The reason? His IQ is obviously very low.
Post a Comment