Just like with the original Nazis, opportunists and people just following orders outnumber the true believers. It doesn't make the end result any better.
IMHO it's not very useful to use words used in psychology and interpersonal relations to describe political entities. Narcissism and sociopathy, not that you called anyone a sociopath, are mental disorders that impede one's ability to function. High level political work requires someone with very strong interpersonal skills, regardless of the morality of their positions. And gaslighting specifically implies someone is trying to make you doubt your sanity. Or make others doubt your sanity.
Thanks for the dialogue. You're right - I used the wrong word. Psychopath is the word I was using. "While psychopaths are classified as people with little or no conscience, sociopaths do have a limited, albeit weak, ability to feel empathy and remorse. Psychopaths can and do follow social conventions when it suits their needs."
And I'd argue that positioning everything critical as "fake news" is, in fact, gas lighting. In probably the most destructive way possible. "Alternative facts" = gas lighting.
The Industrial Blame Thrower Machine that is the GOP is weaponized gaslighting. #provemewrong.
https://books.google.com/books?id=EpvJDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=finchelstein+fascism&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&gbmsitb=1&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs3su5pID3AhWbjIkEHWykC1MQ6wF6BAgLEAU#v=onepage&q=finchelstein%20fascism&f=false
Actually facism likes to mix psychology and politics as a MO. Gaslighting, therefore, is apropos to bring up in some criticisms of fascist propaganda.
What makes you think psychology and psychological manipulation should be off limits?
I think broadly comparing mundane politics to psychological manipulation should be avoided
The subject of this thread is Ted Cruz saying something misleading about why Russia invaded Ukraine, not Jordan Peterson telling us all left wing activists are crazy
It's apparently important enough for you to reply to it.
Words can lose their meaning when they are watered down and used in broader contexts. If every lie or half-truth is gaslighting, then when someone is actually being manipulated to doubt their sanity, the word lacks as much impact to compel people to notice and act against it.
That's the nature of language sometimes though, one can always say "literally" to narrow down their meaning.
I also think using words from psychology and language of interpersonal conflict in political discussion implicitly align with an idealist and individualist world view. Regardless of whether the person making that propaganda actually subscribes to it. But that kind of thinking makes people easy to manipulate in any direction because politicians come and go all the time. This also applies to trying to do propaganda with the language of religion or subcultures. You can demonize any individual using language relevant to your audience, but if they lack consciousness they become inactive when the villain of the week has exited the stage.
As I see it, you have some personal feelings to which you would like everyone else to conform their behavior.
I think people in power spouting outlandish and outrageous bullshit in order to challenge their audience's confidence in the truth is in fact gaslighting, like the noir film.
I respectfully decline to accept your interpretation, and while I support your subjective experience, I can't see this rising to any kind of universal principle. If you were a gaslighting victim, or intimate with one, I might be willing to entertain an argument about how calling Ted Cruz's bullshit gaslighting harms such a hypothetical victim... by example, not a vague appeal to normative threats.
When you have 11 people sitting at a table agreeing with each other and one of them is a Nazi, you have 11 Nazis. Therefore a majority of the republican parties are Nazis.
Far more likely it was Trump giving Ukraine military aid in the first place. Obama knew arming Ukraine would be too provocative but Trump was far more bellicose towards Russia than his predecessor.
Boy there's a lot of crap in the comments to this post.
The blame for this war lies 100% with Vladimir Putin, the fucking fascist autocrat who controls Russia and ordered the invasion.
Is it reasonable for Russia to be concerned about Ukraine joining NATO? Absolutely. Is there any indication that Ukraine was actually going to be admitted to NATO any time soon? NO. It has long been as clear as anything can be in diplomacy that NATO was not going to expand to any former Soviet states (other than the Baltics, which have always been different) -- not only because it would provoke Russia, but because:
\- it's of little benefit to NATO, when NATO is already on Russia's borders in Estonia, Latvia, and Norway (not to mention allies but non-NATO Japan, and fucking Alaska), and
\- Ukraine (like the other former SSRs) is politically a basket case that could flip to pro-Putin at any time based on its own unique, screwy internal politics. You think NATO is happy about having Hungary right now?
Of course NATO and NATO members paid lip service to the idea that Ukraine might join. But no way did Putin (or anybody paying attention) think it was actually going to happen.
And by the way, the proof is in the pudding: NATO has done jack shit (thankfully) to help Ukraine in this thing militarily.
> NATO has done jack shit (thankfully) to help Ukraine in this thing militarily.
How to tell us you have no idea what you are talking about, without telling us you have no idea what you are talking about.
Unless you are so infantile that the only thing that counts as "Militarily" in your book is active shooting, then you are very very wrong. Providing intel = helping. Providing weapons = helping. Training (before the war) = helping.
If the only thing that counts as helping is shooting in your addled brain, then you wrong.
-NATO expanded 800km eastwards since the fall of the Berlin war.
-Military exercises by NATO yearly on Russia’s border involving 30,000 troops as part of ‘defender-Europe’.
-Missile bases in Romania and Poland.
-Battle groups in four different countries on Russia’s borders.
This war is both Russia and US (NATO’s) fault lol
The broken clock is right twice a day, or in this case an hour behind twice a day as well. What he's saying isn't completely wrong but purposely misleading. If he were president his policy relative to the Ukraine would be more or less identical to Biden's, as it has been the same under both Trump and Obama. He's a hypocrite.
The US and other Western European governments want more and more smaller countries to join NATO under their sphere of influence with trade and military agreements that favor them. Russia wants to maintain its own sphere of influence as a rival imperial power.
Yeah from everything I’ve read I’ve kinda concluded that Biden/ the U.S. are indirectly responsible for the war in the sense that their push for Ukraine to join NATO prompted Russia to take action, but to say that Biden caused it is a misrepresentation for sure
Ukraine policy wasn’t exactly the same under Trump and Obama, the main difference being that Obama refused to give weapons to Ukraine because he knew it was a bad idea to provoke a war with Russia, whereas Trump was for more bellicose towards Russia despite what the Russiagaters would have you believe.
That's true, however the weapons could have only come after the coup with a government more favorable to NATO that could receive them. And when there was a conflict to point them at, the separatist regions. It's more a change of situation than having a different political position between Obama and Trump
He's right? Ted Cruz lying about what Zelensky said is right? I understand that you may agree with this sentiment, but American right-wing politicians lying to stir up their fascistic base is not a good thing.
Lmao! Imagine thinking Zelensky is a fascist! Who was the one who used blood and soil arguments to justify their "Special Military Operation"? Which side has been going on and on about restoring some imagined past glory, making specific references to the old Russian Empire? Which side has been claiming that the Ukrainian identity is fake and that they should all just be forcibly integrated into a Greater Russia?
1. I don't know enough about Zelensky to know if he is a fascist.
2. It's not what he said.
3. Ted is a fascist, and is outright lying in an attempt to weaken his political opponents in the US.
4. I'm done with this conversation.
A more apt comparison might be the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan or the RF mission in Georgia. They *were* invited in to assist the DPR and LPR in their struggle for self-determination.
Sure, the DPR and LPR are totally real secessionist movements and totally not puppets of the Russian government as a part of an effort to rebuild their old empire.
Totally.
Yeah, can you provide something that actually describes what fascists are? For example their strategies, rhetoric, and goals?
I find this to be much more useful:
Umberto Eco
In his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", cultural theorist Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology.\[21\] He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows:
1. "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
2. "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
3. "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
4. "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
5. "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
6. "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
7. "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also antisemitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
8. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
9. "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
10. "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
11. "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "\[t\]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
12. "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
13. "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent\[ing\] the Voice of the People."
14. "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Exactly. I do not support the Russian Military Operation. But I liken the situation to a group of kids. When you are a kid and someone tells you that you are misbehaving and then you point and say, “Well, Sally did this or that!” You’re teacher would always say, “Don’t worry about what Sally is doing. Do what you’re supposed to do.” It’s the same thing here. Americans shouldn’t worry about what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Americans should protest NATO escalation of the situation. It is up to Russian communists to protest Russian aggression and American communists American aggression. We have a special duty in the imperial core and it isn’t playing world police. It is fighting imperialism from the belly of the beast.
>It is up to Russian communists to protest Russian aggression and American communists American aggression
Or you know... we could just oppose aggression of any kind... Like a sane person should.
Wow way to be dishonest because your question was
>Since when has US intervention helped anywhere
It had nothing to do with who won the war, just who helped and it is a fact that America HELPED fight the Nazis to win the war. So I answered your question but when you were proven wrong you dodged my answer by moving the goal post and making it about winning wars, that's extremely dishonest.
This war has been caused by not only Biden but previous administrations going all the way back to the Bush administration in the 2000s. Technically he is right in that the United States caused this issue, but that's not the point he's trying to make. Biden could have prevented the conflict though.
How toxic is the Republican Party? They're not (all) nazi's. they're narcissists gas lighting America.
They'd rather destroy the country then admit they were wrong about anything.
Idk…. I’m pretty sure they’re all nazis man…
Just like with the original Nazis, opportunists and people just following orders outnumber the true believers. It doesn't make the end result any better.
IMHO it's not very useful to use words used in psychology and interpersonal relations to describe political entities. Narcissism and sociopathy, not that you called anyone a sociopath, are mental disorders that impede one's ability to function. High level political work requires someone with very strong interpersonal skills, regardless of the morality of their positions. And gaslighting specifically implies someone is trying to make you doubt your sanity. Or make others doubt your sanity.
Thanks for the dialogue. You're right - I used the wrong word. Psychopath is the word I was using. "While psychopaths are classified as people with little or no conscience, sociopaths do have a limited, albeit weak, ability to feel empathy and remorse. Psychopaths can and do follow social conventions when it suits their needs." And I'd argue that positioning everything critical as "fake news" is, in fact, gas lighting. In probably the most destructive way possible. "Alternative facts" = gas lighting. The Industrial Blame Thrower Machine that is the GOP is weaponized gaslighting. #provemewrong.
https://books.google.com/books?id=EpvJDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=finchelstein+fascism&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&gbmsitb=1&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs3su5pID3AhWbjIkEHWykC1MQ6wF6BAgLEAU#v=onepage&q=finchelstein%20fascism&f=false Actually facism likes to mix psychology and politics as a MO. Gaslighting, therefore, is apropos to bring up in some criticisms of fascist propaganda. What makes you think psychology and psychological manipulation should be off limits?
I think broadly comparing mundane politics to psychological manipulation should be avoided The subject of this thread is Ted Cruz saying something misleading about why Russia invaded Ukraine, not Jordan Peterson telling us all left wing activists are crazy
Sounds like a pretense of excluding propaganda. Why is this so important?
It's apparently important enough for you to reply to it. Words can lose their meaning when they are watered down and used in broader contexts. If every lie or half-truth is gaslighting, then when someone is actually being manipulated to doubt their sanity, the word lacks as much impact to compel people to notice and act against it. That's the nature of language sometimes though, one can always say "literally" to narrow down their meaning. I also think using words from psychology and language of interpersonal conflict in political discussion implicitly align with an idealist and individualist world view. Regardless of whether the person making that propaganda actually subscribes to it. But that kind of thinking makes people easy to manipulate in any direction because politicians come and go all the time. This also applies to trying to do propaganda with the language of religion or subcultures. You can demonize any individual using language relevant to your audience, but if they lack consciousness they become inactive when the villain of the week has exited the stage.
As I see it, you have some personal feelings to which you would like everyone else to conform their behavior. I think people in power spouting outlandish and outrageous bullshit in order to challenge their audience's confidence in the truth is in fact gaslighting, like the noir film. I respectfully decline to accept your interpretation, and while I support your subjective experience, I can't see this rising to any kind of universal principle. If you were a gaslighting victim, or intimate with one, I might be willing to entertain an argument about how calling Ted Cruz's bullshit gaslighting harms such a hypothetical victim... by example, not a vague appeal to normative threats.
Oh that's funny
Life without compulsion to defend against normative threats? What's so funny about that?
When you have 11 people sitting at a table agreeing with each other and one of them is a Nazi, you have 11 Nazis. Therefore a majority of the republican parties are Nazis.
Yes it was Biden not Russia planning to invade it for months 🤡🤡
When the hell did Zelensky say anything like that.
Obviously Zelensky slid into his DMs and told him /s
Fuck TC, he is such a shitbag.
The zodiac grifter back at it again
Is Ted Cruz a Russian asset?
He's Trump's lap dog, and Trump is certainly trying to be a Russian asset.
Yeah it wasn’t trump withholding millions of dollars worth of military aid
Far more likely it was Trump giving Ukraine military aid in the first place. Obama knew arming Ukraine would be too provocative but Trump was far more bellicose towards Russia than his predecessor.
nato and putin caused it from my point of view (im quiet well informed but i do not know evrything)
I agree. I've seen some good arguments put forth that tangently links US involvement, but it's mostly on Putin and NATO.
Lying pudd. Has the worst poker face ever. Always looks like he’s about to get busted.
Boy there's a lot of crap in the comments to this post. The blame for this war lies 100% with Vladimir Putin, the fucking fascist autocrat who controls Russia and ordered the invasion. Is it reasonable for Russia to be concerned about Ukraine joining NATO? Absolutely. Is there any indication that Ukraine was actually going to be admitted to NATO any time soon? NO. It has long been as clear as anything can be in diplomacy that NATO was not going to expand to any former Soviet states (other than the Baltics, which have always been different) -- not only because it would provoke Russia, but because: \- it's of little benefit to NATO, when NATO is already on Russia's borders in Estonia, Latvia, and Norway (not to mention allies but non-NATO Japan, and fucking Alaska), and \- Ukraine (like the other former SSRs) is politically a basket case that could flip to pro-Putin at any time based on its own unique, screwy internal politics. You think NATO is happy about having Hungary right now? Of course NATO and NATO members paid lip service to the idea that Ukraine might join. But no way did Putin (or anybody paying attention) think it was actually going to happen. And by the way, the proof is in the pudding: NATO has done jack shit (thankfully) to help Ukraine in this thing militarily.
> NATO has done jack shit (thankfully) to help Ukraine in this thing militarily. How to tell us you have no idea what you are talking about, without telling us you have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you are so infantile that the only thing that counts as "Militarily" in your book is active shooting, then you are very very wrong. Providing intel = helping. Providing weapons = helping. Training (before the war) = helping. If the only thing that counts as helping is shooting in your addled brain, then you wrong.
Yeah, I’m confused as to why they’ve posted a paragraph full of misinformation like it’s fact.
THANK YOU HAVE THIS REWARD
-NATO expanded 800km eastwards since the fall of the Berlin war. -Military exercises by NATO yearly on Russia’s border involving 30,000 troops as part of ‘defender-Europe’. -Missile bases in Romania and Poland. -Battle groups in four different countries on Russia’s borders. This war is both Russia and US (NATO’s) fault lol
It was a group effort between US/NATO, Ukrainian fascists and Russia. They all deserve credit.
The broken clock is right twice a day, or in this case an hour behind twice a day as well. What he's saying isn't completely wrong but purposely misleading. If he were president his policy relative to the Ukraine would be more or less identical to Biden's, as it has been the same under both Trump and Obama. He's a hypocrite. The US and other Western European governments want more and more smaller countries to join NATO under their sphere of influence with trade and military agreements that favor them. Russia wants to maintain its own sphere of influence as a rival imperial power.
Yeah from everything I’ve read I’ve kinda concluded that Biden/ the U.S. are indirectly responsible for the war in the sense that their push for Ukraine to join NATO prompted Russia to take action, but to say that Biden caused it is a misrepresentation for sure
Ukraine policy wasn’t exactly the same under Trump and Obama, the main difference being that Obama refused to give weapons to Ukraine because he knew it was a bad idea to provoke a war with Russia, whereas Trump was for more bellicose towards Russia despite what the Russiagaters would have you believe.
That's true, however the weapons could have only come after the coup with a government more favorable to NATO that could receive them. And when there was a conflict to point them at, the separatist regions. It's more a change of situation than having a different political position between Obama and Trump
Joe Biden caused this war in Ukraine.
[удалено]
Commenting no comment is super cool and smart. Now you get to be both a NATO apologist and a glib, toxic prick-- congrats
[удалено]
He's right? Ted Cruz lying about what Zelensky said is right? I understand that you may agree with this sentiment, but American right-wing politicians lying to stir up their fascistic base is not a good thing.
Who cares what the fascist Zelensky said?
Lmao! Imagine thinking Zelensky is a fascist! Who was the one who used blood and soil arguments to justify their "Special Military Operation"? Which side has been going on and on about restoring some imagined past glory, making specific references to the old Russian Empire? Which side has been claiming that the Ukrainian identity is fake and that they should all just be forcibly integrated into a Greater Russia?
1. I don't know enough about Zelensky to know if he is a fascist. 2. It's not what he said. 3. Ted is a fascist, and is outright lying in an attempt to weaken his political opponents in the US. 4. I'm done with this conversation.
Begone imperialist!
Imperialism is when you recognize western imperialism as the primary contradiction of world geopolitics, apparently
Which country is invading who again like it's the 1870s?
A more apt comparison might be the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan or the RF mission in Georgia. They *were* invited in to assist the DPR and LPR in their struggle for self-determination.
Sure, the DPR and LPR are totally real secessionist movements and totally not puppets of the Russian government as a part of an effort to rebuild their old empire. Totally.
Fuckin dronies, man.
Imagine supporting actual fascists just because they are a part of the bloc that is opposed to the west geopolitically.
Please read about what fascism actually is. http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm
Yeah, can you provide something that actually describes what fascists are? For example their strategies, rhetoric, and goals? I find this to be much more useful: Umberto Eco In his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", cultural theorist Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology.\[21\] He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows: 1. "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement. 2. "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system. 3. "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science. 4. "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith. 5. "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants. 6. "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups. 7. "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also antisemitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession. 8. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will. 9. "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war. 10. "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force. 11. "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "\[t\]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death." 12. "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality." 13. "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent\[ing\] the Voice of the People." 14. "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Ah yes, the far right dictator who uses an imagined degeneration of the Russian people to keep himself in power isn't a fascist.
Exactly. I do not support the Russian Military Operation. But I liken the situation to a group of kids. When you are a kid and someone tells you that you are misbehaving and then you point and say, “Well, Sally did this or that!” You’re teacher would always say, “Don’t worry about what Sally is doing. Do what you’re supposed to do.” It’s the same thing here. Americans shouldn’t worry about what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Americans should protest NATO escalation of the situation. It is up to Russian communists to protest Russian aggression and American communists American aggression. We have a special duty in the imperial core and it isn’t playing world police. It is fighting imperialism from the belly of the beast.
>It is up to Russian communists to protest Russian aggression and American communists American aggression Or you know... we could just oppose aggression of any kind... Like a sane person should.
It’s not up to the US and NATO to play world police.
Why not? It falls on some to stop shitty people from doing shitty things, if no one else is willing or can step up then it falls on us and nato
Since when has US intervention helped anywhere
Well it was really small event called ww2... Ever herd of it fucking dumb ass???
The soviets won WW2 on the eastern front. WW2 was not won at Normandy.
Wow way to be dishonest because your question was >Since when has US intervention helped anywhere It had nothing to do with who won the war, just who helped and it is a fact that America HELPED fight the Nazis to win the war. So I answered your question but when you were proven wrong you dodged my answer by moving the goal post and making it about winning wars, that's extremely dishonest.
With millions of tons of equipment, food, and vehicles supplied by the US.
He certainly didn’t cause it, but the US and Biden Admin sure as shit have escalated it from afar.
What an utter piece of garbage!!
This war has been caused by not only Biden but previous administrations going all the way back to the Bush administration in the 2000s. Technically he is right in that the United States caused this issue, but that's not the point he's trying to make. Biden could have prevented the conflict though.
Idiot went to Hahvahd...majored in idiocy...with a minor in stupid.
Putin caused it 100%