Fascist or Republican?

[Al B. Sure!]

not to sound... what's the word? but this thread was about me

there's a number of crucial differences between fascism and american conservatism. both are socially conservative and at least marginally free market capitalist but beyond that...

fascism is irreligious (actually being existentialist), is not opposed to social programs, supports Keynesian fiscal policy, supports corporatist capitalism, supports a strong gov't especially with respect to security and defence, is nationalistic, and has an aggressive, unilateral foreign policy.

as we know, the GOP has at times been somewhat supportive of the above (Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind) but mostly not.

what option do i have? will the GOP represent me more fully, as some people claim or am i stuck with picking the closest option availible (the GOP)?

[chequita guevara]

Your options are: sell out your principles and vote GOP or stick to your guns and vote American Nazi Party (or whichever little nutter roup suits your fancy).

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
Note: see the first reply in the thread

What, you mean I have to read the whole thread?

Hey, it was worth doing even if all it did was get a rise out of you...

[Al B. Sure!]

Nazi party? but i'm not racist.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Nazi party? but i'm not racist.

So? If you're gonna let one little difference seperate you from them, then how can you justify voting GOP? Course, it's not like they'd let you in the party. You're worse than a mud person. You're a product of miscegination!

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran:

how many times have i heard liberals decry that conservatives are just bullies... that conservatives claim to be moral (socially conservative) but just want to impose their own views and their own will on others by any means? that conservatives are just the powers that be, the strong, trampling on the poor and weak (women, minorities, the poor, etc.)?

sounds like social conservatism and nietzsche might have similarities...

and anyway nietzsche though often called the great Amoralist shouldnt be seen as against morality. morality to him was the rule of your own will which on a society level translates to the rule of the strong-willed. if the strong wish to ban abortion and stress abstinence and whatever else, so be it. Nietzsche wouldn't have a problem with such social conservatism as long as it was reached through the proper means, not through any claims of divine inspiration.

[chequita guevara]

That sounds like the opposite of Nitzsche.

[Al B. Sure!]

So? If you're gonna let one little difference seperate you from them, then how can you justify voting GOP?

it's more than a little difference, you silly man.

[Al B. Sure!]

Nietzsche also had the problem of him exaggerating to prove a moderate point... his first writings on Greek tragedy really epitomize this. His over-all point was that for a culture to flourish, it must equally embrace both the ordered, civilized culture of Apollo and the chaotic creativity of Dionysius. But because he felt (probably justly) that Apollo had so dominated modern culture and the raw creativity of Dionysius had been ignored, he had to bring attention to the positives of Dionysius and prove that Apollo wasn't perfect. if one skims through his words, one could easily believe that Nietzsche was opposed to the ordered culture manifested in Apollo while in fact, if the work is taken on a whole, Nietzsche was arguing for an equal balance between the two...

same goes for Nietzsche's ideas of the body vs. reason. Reading selectively, one only notices the exaggeration of his points and so thinks Nietzsche was immensely anti-intellectual while in fact he felt that the body was so ignored and reason so elevated to a divine status that he had to exaggerate the importance of one and say why the latter wasn't so great.

Nietzsche was trying to prove a point that was completely alien to many people at the time. when someone is trying to argue such a point, he necessarily has to over-argue his case.

and i can not re-iterate enough that nietzsche didn't take issue with social conservatism. he took issue with religion, much as i do.

to claim your beliefs are based on divine revelation given to some ancient is immensely ignorant... to put yourself, your life, and your fate in the hands of God and not be charged with the existentialist spirit of invictus is damaging... Nietzsche didn't take issue with the laws or even the following of the laws. he took issue with the lawmaker and why those who followed the laws did so. it was all for the wrong reason.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That sounds like the opposite of Nitzsche.

Sounds exactly like Nietzsche to me.

Nietzsche was a fascist.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not sure whether you are trying to rile up the libs here.

If so, you've succeeded brilliantly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

how many times have i heard liberals decry that conservatives are just bullies... that conservatives claim to be moral (socially conservative) but just want to impose their own views and their own will on others by any means? that conservatives are just the powers that be, the strong, trampling on the poor and weak (women, minorities, the poor, etc.)?

Like Che said, sounds like the total opposite of Nietzche. His will to power was extrodinarily individualistic. He would be horrified in the social conservative 'superman' putting his morality upon others (after all, 'truth' is a natural concept and the strong imposing morality on the weak would be trying to perpetuate a 'slave morality').

If anything Nietzsche would have hated social conservativism, as he was anti-religion and believed in that our drives were important to realize, which social conservatism seems to want to push down (preaching abstinence, for one).

He is also a moral skeptic, believing that no ethical statement cannot be proven to be true, and are just mere interpretations rather than fact. A social conservative probably wouldn't like that sort of relativism.

As for nationalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche

It is worth noting that Nietzsche's thought largely stands opposed to Nazism. In particular, Nietzsche despised anti-Semitism (which partially led to his falling out with composer Richard Wagner) and nationalism, took a dim view of German culture as it was in his time, and derided both the state and populism. He was also far from being a racist, believing that the 'vigor' of any population could only be increased by mixing with others. In "Twilight of the Idols," Nietzsche says, "...the concept of 'pure blood' is the opposite of a harmless concept."

As for the idea of the "blond beast," Walter Kaufman has this to say: "The 'blond beast' is not a racial concept and does not refer to the 'Nordic race' of which the Nazis later made so much. Nietzsche specifically refers to Arabs and Japanese, Romans and Greeks, no less than ancient Teutonic tribes when he first introduces the term...and the 'blondness' obviously refers to the beast, the lion, rather than the kind of man."

While some of his writings on "the Jewish question" were critical of the Jewish population in Europe, he also praised the strength of the Jewish people, and this criticism was equally, if not more strongly, applied to the English, the Germans, and the rest of Europe. He also valorised strong leadership, and it was this last tendency that the Nazis took up.

[Sava]

Speer, you my gangsta ni66g66a

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Sounds exactly like Nietzsche to me.

Nietzsche was a fascist.

wrong- look at Imran's post.

[Al B. Sure!]

once again...

and anyway nietzsche though often called the great Amoralist shouldnt be seen as against morality. morality to him was the rule of your own will which on a society level translates to the rule of the strong-willed. if the strong wish to ban abortion and stress abstinence and whatever else, so be it. Nietzsche wouldn't have a problem with such social conservatism as long as it was reached through the proper means, not through any claims of divine inspiration.

and i can not re-iterate enough that nietzsche didn't take issue with social conservatism. he took issue with religion, much as i do.

to claim your beliefs are based on divine revelation given to some ancient is immensely ignorant... to put yourself, your life, and your fate in the hands of God and not be charged with the existentialist spirit of invictus is damaging... Nietzsche didn't take issue with the laws or even the following of the laws. he took issue with the lawmaker and why those who followed the laws did so. it was all for the wrong reason.

what we call social conservatism, if reached upon by the right way, would be in keeping with Nietzsche.

all your post did was say he wasn't a racist or pro-german... am i a racist? am i pro-german? no on both accounts yet i'm still a fascist. really, imran, what was the point of that quote and your bolding?

you said...

If anything Nietzsche would have hated social conservativism, as he was anti-religion and believed in that our drives were important to realize, which social conservatism seems to want to push down (preaching abstinence, for one).

exactly. he was anti-religion... Nietzsche was actually quite reactionary on a few things such as women... he also favoured abstinence because he felt that the re-absorption of semen into the blood contributed to a feeling of power, making the would-be superman feel more confident and in control. I quote...

"The reabsoption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, among the Brahmins)."

Yes, Nietzsche favoured abstinence, but not for any "because God said so" reason.

He is also a moral skeptic, believing that no ethical statement cannot be proven to be true, and are just mere interpretations rather than fact. A social conservative probably wouldn't like that sort of relativism.

and Nietzsche would also say that despite there being moral perspectivism, one must still treat his own interpretation of the world as an absolute. it is for that reason that all must impose or try to impose their will upon the world... but it must always be for the right reason... not for God or because God commanded it but because I commanded it.