661
"Contrary to a 'horseshoe' theory, the evidence reveals increasing antisemitism moving from left to right."
(64.media.tumblr.com)
Hersh, Eitan; Royden, Laura (25 June 2022). "Antisemitic Attitudes Across the Ideological Spectrum" Political Research Quarterly.
doi:10.1177/10659129221111081
Not to be defending Fascists, but those you describe are the Nazi style ones.
Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece too had Fascist dictatorships and those pretty much did not care about Jews or minorities and whilst they were all autoritarian and happy to use state violence for oppression and suppression of dissidents, the only ones who did anything close to systematical murder were the ones in Spain in their early days and their targets were mainly those they deemed "Communists".
By comparison Zionists are more murderous than all of those 4, though not as much as the Nazis, and consider and treat a whole different ethnic group as "human animals" than the Nazis did.
In fact the use of specific ethnicities for Fascism in that table is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist with a very specific slant on who their "good" ethnicities and "bad" ethnicities are: even without going into the whole Israel thing, just look at Modi in India to see Fascism in action whithout the perpetrators being White or the victims Jews.
Or, maybe, they're just using the most well-known instance of fascism in history as a concrete example, in order to not overcomplicate the message. Jumping to accusations of racism at the slightest suspicion is not gonna help anyone.
If you're obcessed with the race of the people involved, you're probably a racist.
Describing Fascism as something that only victimizes a specific ethnicity - Jews, curiously forgetting other Nazi-victimized ethnicities like Roma, not to mention non-ethnic groups such as those with disabilities - is also a long running hasbara strategy of Zionists to portray themselves as impossible to be Fascists, all the while behaving as such to quite an extreme level, something extra poignant right now when they're in the middle of committing Genocide.
Even if all that was just the product of naivety of the author rather than something else, to limit one's description of Fascism to only Nazis is an insult to people who lived under other Fascist dictatorships, something which just so happens to include me - just because the dictator in my homeland "only" had censorship, a secret police, political prisioners, forced labour of the natives in the "colonies" in Africa and kept the country incredibly poor except for the 9 families of the Regime, doesn't mean that shit wasn't Fascism because he was "equal opportunity" when it came to the ethnicity of the people he oppressed and exploited.
(PS: Also, thinking that it's the race of a person that makes them behave one way or another is the very dictionary definition of racism. It's quite irrelevant which race you think are "goodies" and which are "badies" - it's the thinking that it's the race that makes people "goodies" or "badies" that's racism)
The simplest explanation for somebody only seing the race angle of Fascism, only the Nazis and only a specific ethnicity they victimized when there is at least one other that they equally victimized (the Roma) is racism.
They're doing the standard reverse racism charge, because you see, noticing racism is actually the real racism.
In the English speaking world, anti-white racism isn't really a thing.
Some people will swear up and down that it is, but those people think racism is just a set of attitudes towards a race of people, and not a deeply entrenched system of oppression against entire swathes of society.
Racism is seeing race as what makes people "goodies" or "badies". The "good" races and "bad" races in your thinking being different from those of mid and early XXth century racism in Western nations is wholly irrelevant for asserting that thinking like that is being a Racist.
The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of "good" and bad "races", it's somebody who thinks it's not race that makes people be "good" or "bad".
It's pretty telling that your entire defense of somebody else assigning race as cause of certain behaviours is to say that indeed for certain races, race is the cause of that behaviour and presume that the denial of that by others is due to the specific race which was said to be "badies".
Please show me where I said white people were the bad people.
It's not a long comment I made so it shouldn't be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
Yeah, you're right on that point: you're dividing people into behavioural groups using "English speaking world" as identity tag rather than a race.
So the prejudice you voiced was using "geographical area of birth defined by language spoken" to presume unrelated characteristics of people, rather race.
It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by "geographical area of birth".
Please tell me where in my comment I said anyone were bad people because of their "geographical area of birth".
It wasn't a very long comment I made so it shouldn't be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
Please tell me where in my comment I said that you said "anyone were bad people because of their 'geographical area of birth'”.
It wasn’t a very long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
Put those two together, in context, like you might do if you could read things, understand them and infer basic meaning, and that's actually very clearly what you were saying.
In case you can't follow it because for example you are trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you said: you said I divided people into good and bad by race, then you corrected yourself and said my prejudice was based on geography. That prejudice was clearly established as believing in good and bad people.
You're right, that really wasn't hard, because you absolutely did say that.
You clearly don't have anything honest to say or you'd have said it. You're 0 for 3 on actually saying something that makes sense yet. I don't hold out hope for future comments.
You're pressuming that was about you rather than me making the counter-point to the posture you were supporting.
It's funny that you repeatedly demanded me to point an exact statement and yet when faced with an equal demand, it was fine for you to "infer" meaning, though that was previously not fine for me to do.
It's called a double standard.
Curiously and having in good faith taken that original riposte of yours (before you repeated it again, in slogan-like fashion) about me having unfairly infered something about your statement, I actually apologized for that since I had indeed presumed too much.
Well, at least it's well beyond doubt (certainly you exhausted the original benefit of the doubt) to me that you are not making points in good faith and what drives you in this exchange is something else than a desire for an open and fair discussion, so you do you an I'll do me.
Motherfucker you came at me with a challenge to a position that I clearly didn't have, and your "apology" was obviously a snide attempt to make a second equally ridiculous accusation.
You also said I "voiced prejudice". (EDIT: In fact, you called it an "accusation", your words, so it wasn't some academic detached notion that you were attacking, it was my conduct directly) Now, if that's meant to mean something other than you accusing me of racism or whatever "geographical" prejudice is, go for it. Explain yourself.
I never said anything prejudicial towards any group. Once again, if I did, fucking show it. Explain your working.
So far I am working off of vague insinuations and technical "well ackshually"s from you. If you have something to say, fucking say it.