Nationalism, Socialism, Marxism

[Smitty-48]

Like for example. Some people use the term White Nationalist as some kind of description for what they believe in. A Nation, it can be demonstrated, is a group of people that rally around a central ideal to effect policy within a geographic area. This is why white nationalists are defacto terrorists. They subscribe to unity around a race within the same geographic boundary as the United States, or really any other country, some of which have multiculturalism as a specific law.

America was White Nationalist until the Vietnam War.

Vietnam split the nation, to include the left turning against the white.

The Vietnam schism is a leftist revolution.

[TheReal_ND]

Nations are not people who rally around a central idea, otherwise chess clubs, religions, and ComiCon nerds would be nations.

I'm paraphrasing but essentially yes, it's a core of people in unity within a geographic boundary that agree upon basic governance.

American nationalism is really a pipe dream. There is no longer a core of people with shared traditions. For example, the last few customers I had were Haitian, Portuguese, African American, Hindu Indian, and El Salvadoran. This to me does not a Nation stock make.

[TheReal_ND]

Occasionally I work with Vietnamese, one time a Japanese, occasionally Africans, many different kinds of of middle easterners, and my bosses are Israeli. You name the country, they are from there and in my city doing business.

Huh. I guess business is our core unity. This is fascism!

[DBTrek]

Yeah, that’s a big factor in the dissolution of “great” America. Huge influx of people from different cultures (aka not Americans). Then there’s the half of Americans that decided “Fuck capitalism, fuck meritocracy, fuck Judeo-Christian morality, fuck work, fuck everything previous generations deemed admirable. We’re going to vote that losers are now winners, and demographics trump performance”.

Leaves classical Americans with less than half the population in a democratic republic. Nearly game over. Only thing holding it together is team non-American is often too busy to vote, and team fuck America is too lazy to turn out in full force.

But the day is coming where the numbers will be so lopsided they’ll only have to turn out a tiny portion of their vote to win every time.

[Zlaxer]

...But the day is coming where the numbers will be so lopsided they’ll only have to turn out a tiny portion of their vote to win every time.

Wait....Wuh?


NOTICE TO FORUM - ZLAXER IS NOT HOLDING DB HOSTAGE AT GUNPOINT.


Where is Harry now?

[Speaker to Animals]

[GloryofGreece]

We already have corporate fascism. The government allows big tech, which they shower with money, to censor political conversations in the modern public square. The biggest pushers of trans LGBT and pedophilia rights in politics read like the fortune 500. That isn't democratic. This is in fact fascism. We live under corporate fascism but not for the reasons you are used to hearing.

Bingo.

Lucid and true.

[DBTrek]

Neither lucid, nor true.

Facebook, Google, and Twitter aren’t “the public square” any more than AM radio or the NYT is. They are privately held companies free to implement whatever (legal) policies they like. They answer to shareholders, not the vote of US citizens.

Suggesting that private companies operating according to their own (legal) rules is tantamount to fascism is ignorant. It indicates the speaker has zero grasp on the difference between private and public ownership.

[Martin Hash]

No, Nuke nailed it. The Left has recognized that the only way to limit Free Speech is through private companies, do that’s where they are putting their efforts. Corporate Fascism is exactly what this is, just like Nuke suggested. You rely on a technicality for your argument. You’re advocating that the phone company can censor your calls.

[DBTrek]

“Facebook censors me. Fascism.”


Much has been written about what constitutes fascism, NDs definition doesn’t comply with any of the diverse definitions. In fact, it runs contrary to many of the accepted definitions, see - single state party, “contempt for the weak”, cult of tradition, machismo, warrior spirit, total dedication to the nation, anti-Marxist, implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, etc, etc.

None of that is reflected in Silicon Valley virtues, none of that is what we’re seeing coming from the tech giants.

What’s with the redefinition of terms zeitgeist going on at the MHF?