deathtokoalas
this is really not surprising, unfortunately. it is just more glaring evidence that the united states has crossed the line and is now a culturally fascist nation. the time when we could speak of americans as peace-loving citizens trapped under the control of the american government is past us. the culture, the society, the prevailing norms, the system of morals - it's all become utterly fascist in character.

the fascist states of the past all collapsed (or were destroyed) before they got to this point.

i would tell america to take a good look in the mirror, but it's too late. america does not see itself as the monster that it is, it sees itself as a pinnacle of power that constructs the right to do as it pleases from it's immense strength.

Adolf
Agreed. The fact that we hero-worship murderers, rapists and thugs that are too naive to see what they are doing and instead just bow down to lick the boot of the politician, who in turn bows down to lick the boot of the CEO, is despicable. The United States has always been fairly fascistic in nature, but it is becoming more and more openly fascist.

deathtokoalas 
fascism is notoriously difficult to define, but i think something that comes pretty clear from it's definition as a society that works like a corporation is that the body politic has to uphold it on some level. that is, because fascism is a total ordering of the state, a truly fascist society has to actually reflect fascist social values rather than merely be the enforcement of those values from the top down. none of the actual fascist states (and america was not organized as anything approaching fascism before the 1930s) were able to reach this point through gramscian conditioning. by unfolding it slowly over several generations, america has really reached the breaking point and tipped over to the other side. 

Adolf
I'd have to agree, completely. To be legitimately fascist any given state has to uphold fascistic values. With the U.S you can clearly see corporate ownership of the media, the state meddling in religious affairs (perhaps not as much as the state would in say, Nazi Germany, but that's because the U.S  has learnt to hide it's more fascistic elements under a bipartisan dichotomy meant to distract the public and consumerism), a near-militarized police force, an extremely ingrained nationalist mentality within the populace, we have to stand up and say the pledge in high schools, c'mon (this is another example of how the U.S's particular strand of fascism is more mental than overt; rather than having your head beat in whilst you are hauled off to jail for defacing "American values", you have an extremely propagandized society that will defend, tooth and nail, there corporate overlords), an institutionally racist police force (whether racism is or is not a facet of fascism in it's non Nazi forms is debatable, but that's a very serious point worth bringing up), propagandized school systems based off a model of schooling SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to make WORKING CLASS INDIVIDUALS NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY, so on and so forth.

As for the U.S not approaching fascism until the 1930's. I also agree with that. My "it has always been fascistic in nature" comment was painting with a broad brush.

West Kagle 
IDK........I think I'll take Cultural Fascism over the Cultural Marxism we've been being force feed the last 20 years.

deathtokoalas 
the perverted vulgar marxism of converted troskyite neo-conservatism that you're referring to is fascism. it was vulgar marxism in germany, and it was vulgar marxism underlying the new deal.

vulgar marxism, as i'm using the term, means "capital using marxist insights into class analysis to further it's own aims". i'm roughly pulling it out of sutton, as it's where i first saw the idea. it's been demonstrated that the bolsheviks were also essentially vulgar marxists. further, various socialists of the period predicted the phenomenon.

the idea of fascism is actually older than this - hobbes describes it pretty much perfectly in leviathan, and he may have been drawing on italian renaissance sources that i'm not aware of. it's not a twentieth century idea, although the technology and economic organization required to actually construct such a system is a product of the industrial era, much as marxism, itself, is.

as an intellectual thing, socialism is largely the exact opposite of fascism. but, in practice, both "fascist" and "socialist" states (with few exceptions) have followed this kind of hegelian path of perverted marxism in seeking absolute state dominance. trying to separate them into distinct strains of thought is likely to produce more confusion than trying to properly understand them as two expressions of the same set of ideas.

but in terms of these colloquial discussions? we're talking about the same thing.

Daniel
you should try decaf, and probably lay off the halucinagens.

deathtokoalas
i only just woke up. i haven't even finished my first cup yet.

"cultural marxism" is a weird term that misunderstands the situation. it comes out of some kind of john birch society penned narrative of the world being secretly run by communists, which is probably the most ridiculous conspiracy theory out there. it's pretty obvious that jfk wasn't shot by a lone nut, even if we're not entirely sure who actually did it. aliens? more likely than not, really. but, the idea that the world is secretly run by communists is just patently ridiculous, as we watch these superpowers butcher millions of people in competition for control over natural resources. it's not cognitive dissonance, it's pure fantasy.

you're not dealing with actual egalitarians, you're dealing with smart capitalists that realize that marx was a smart guy himself and that he made a lot of valid observations that could be used against the working class. engels himself was arguably the first person that realized this. it's led them to engaging in a conscious class war from the top. there's been plenty written about this.

"vulgar marxism" gets the idea across better.

.....but, again, we're talking about the same thing.

West Kagle 
Not really. Simply put, I'm referring to the Cultural Marxism that is prevalent in every corner of our society in this country at the present. It's just an out growth of the dialogue killing political correctness that has held this country hostage for most of my adult life.         ........unless that's what you are calling Cultural Fascism. Then we're on the same page and just differ in what we're calling it (as you refer to at the end of your comment).

deathtokoalas 
it's a small part of it. i've spent some time in activist circles, and i'm willing to concede that there's some valid points brought up by right-wing criticisms of what you're calling "political correctness", although i'm not sure if you're aware of the actual extent this runs to nowadays on the ground in terms of a set of ideas that can be roughly grouped together under the term "critical race theory". there's plenty of like-minded criticism on the left, but it's fighting against something that's becoming rather engrained and borderline systemic. in the sense that it's an idea that is intellectually rooted on the left, but in practice used to uphold a right-wing agenda, it's a type of "vulgar socialism".

the way i've interacted with the term "cultural marxism" (and that i'd prefer be called "vulgar marxism") is a lot bigger than this, though. you're talking of a limited, specific aspect of it.

forzaazzurri101 
You look like a fucking pelican, bitch.

deathtokoalas 
careful, i might bite your head off. 

Adolf
Define political correctness? There's a difference between being socially conscious and supporting liberation movements and being an upright reactionary liberal perpetuating systematic violence with  "politically correct" dialogue (that, in a stroke of sadistically hilarious irony actually worsens the conditions of the people they have a savior-complex over) and typical bullshittery. (Note, I'm using the contemporary American definition of liberal, obviously, not talking about an economic liberal.)

deathtokoalas 
what i said was this:

i've spent some time in activist circles, and i'm willing to concede that there's some valid points brought up by right-wing criticisms of what you're calling "political correctness", although i'm not sure if you're aware of the actual extent this runs to nowadays on the ground in terms of a set of ideas that can be roughly grouped together under the term "critical race theory".

it's often used to stifle debate. it's a trump card. but, that's just the obvious part. i'd argue the problem runs much deeper.

the way activists seem to want to construct organizing is to immediately introduce a racial and gender hierarchy (class is mostly invisible in these situations, except in some extreme cases, like the homeless guy that wants to take part in the assembly) and then actively police it. so you begin by assuming the thing you claim to not want to exist exists, and then go about trying to compensate for it. the problem that creates is that, in context, the assumption that it exists is what actually creates it. once it's created, it does exist, and people start falling in line to it. i mean, you're dealing with a bunch of egalitarian anarchists that explicitly define themselves in opposition to these sorts of things. that hierarchy wouldn't exist if the organizers didn't create it - but they do create it, and then it does end up existing.

all of a sudden, the black woman is defined by her race and gender. she is identifiable that way. she speaks uniquely for other people of her race and gender. she represents her race and gender in the assembly. she needs white men to speak to her more carefully, or even to speak on her behalf, because the system of white oppression makes her unable to speak for herself. it is her identity, and she cannot escape it.

the muslim is defined by his religion. the indigenous activist is defined by her ethnicity. the transgendered person is defined by their gender identification. all represent and speak for their groups analogously.

people become segmented into racial and gender types, expected to express the characteristics of their groups (i.e., hold up to stereotypes), expected to organize with their own because they "share experiences" (self-segregation) and expected to display the weaknesses that the hierarchy places upon them.

that is, it is the enforcement of white hetero-patriarchy on a movement that has come together to combat and abolish it.

of course, when you point that out, you're accused of being blind to privilege. the more cogent and rational your points are, the more blind you are.

the error is of course in constructing a hierarchy of systemic oppression out of a bunch of 20 year-olds that have known each other for a matter of hours and decided to meet in a park to talk about things. that structure doesn't naturally exist, it has to be created and enforced. dude that calls a ga isn't holding a salary or a gun over anybody's head. but, pointing that out is, again, merely denying that it exists.

after you've been through these kafkaesque debates enough, you start to realize you're really dealing with a belief system and you'd might as well be talking to yourself.

it's a problem. a big problem. and it needs some serious academic discourse, because that's where these ideas are ultimately coming from.

Tico o
Death-to-Koalas ? Anything else you want killed ?

deathtokoalas
it'd be nice to get rid of bon jovi once and for all.

John A
are you on acid?

deathtokoalas
it's been a very long time since i've done hallucinogens. it's the kind of thing you mostly grow out of - or become a vegetable on, i suppose.

i'm just going to state the obvious: if you want to respect people that were fighting for freedom (and ultimately lost), you should be spitting in the face of these soldiers (fighting for the interests of the upper classes) and standing on the side of the union activists they slaughtered.

it's true throughout history. workers and soldiers are never on the same side. they can't be.

the soldiers aren't there to protect your freedom, they're there to make sure you never win it.

Timothy
Sport and war have always been connected in some sense. The stadium is the new coliseum. Team sports particularly are ideal screening stations for soldiers. Every cog has a role within the unit, and they drill extensively and create an environment conducive to that soldierly mentality that does as it is commanded without hesitation and eagerly pursues the "honors" and benefits attached to obedience.

deathtokoalas
i think that sports (or games) have historically been more of an alternative to conflict. one could argue that this is the basis of the british parliamentary system.

Timothy
I certainly agree that they may have often been an alternative, or that at least it could be a medium that those same aggressive, competitive energies could be channeled through without bloodshed, but the parallels of say, American football to war are difficult to ignore. They appeal to martial values (regimentation, physical toughness and courage, dogged determination in the face of superior opposition, sacrifice of the self for the benefit of the group, etc. etc.)

I'm not suggesting that team sports are causally linked to war making, but the the correlation of values and psychology is readily observable. 

deathtokoalas
on some level. i remember watching a niners game in the fall of '01 with my dad and having D-FENCE, D-FENCE take on some disturbingly jingoist connotations.

but, might the parallels possibly be used to the advantage of peoples seeking peaceful conflict resolution?

i mean, even the basic historical example of the reds and the blues back in the days of the roman empire is able to demonstrate the possibilities of using sports to diffuse tensions. once in a while, they ended up rioting. but, overall, it kept a level of peace. this is often presented as a distraction tactic, and it's no doubt true that it was, but it's not clear to me that civil war over icons or some other triviality is a better outcome than letting the bastards work it out over kick ball.

ZedNova
We're not fascists, we're warmongers.

This is just typical a sporting event, the stadium is full of rednecks so it's not surprising that they're disturbingly "Patriotic".

deathtokoalas
dammit. you used to be warmongers, now you're fascists...

Adolf
"it's often used to stifle debate. it's a trump card. but, that's just the obvious part. i'd argue the problem runs much deeper."

I agree completely. It seems that in most political conversations I have people get on my case and call me a "social justice warrior," or "over-sensitive freak preaching political correctness," in the U.S being "politically correct" is apparently a bad thing, which is why I tried to distance myself from it in that statement; it seems, like you said, phrases such as "social justice warrior," or "political correctness," are just one size fits all phrases used to throw individuals into convenient little boxes and stifle any and all debate about serious systematic problems; "socially constructed hierarchies and their systematic violence getting on your nerves? you must be a social justice warrior! go back to Tumblr, ya' stupid hipster!"

deathtokoalas 
well, no. what happens - often - is that somebody of colour pulls "privilege" as a trump card to reverse a debate they're losing when they're otherwise obviously wrong, and everybody in attendance realizes it. i've seen it used to silence homeless whites, on a class basis - i've seen homeless whites told by upper class asians that could be hanging out on a golf course to be quiet because they're taking up too much time with their white privilege. it sounds absurd, but racism isn't white; when you give people that kind of power, you shouldn't be surprised when they abuse it.

there's a kernel of ideas in there that have limited applicability in isolated areas, but, like any other tool of power based on characteristics, it gets badly abused in practice.

humans are going to make errors, and we're going to need to learn from them as we do.

what bothers me about the organizing approaches coming out of crt is how obviously predictable the abuses of power that have come out of them should have been. this should have never taken off.

Connor O
im assuming you are from England...

deathtokoalas
canada.

Connor O
Basically the same ideals though... We love guns, and we openly display our love for so. If YOU want to get America to give up its aggressive ways then get Russia and China and the terrorist factions out of the picture. We then will have no need to be so blunt and "cold"

deathtokoalas
in actuality, america always was and still remains the aggressor. i think you've got the right idea, though: america will not stop trying to take over the world until it is conquered and dismantled.

Connor O
not necessarily conquered, but either not aggressing or in a state of indefinite truce. I can assure you that the media portrays all Americans as fat, gun toting Republicans that cant point out Africa on a map. BUT, the majority of us actually don't want war, we just are naturally entertained by the prospect. If we are attacked due to the actions of the few foolish in power, then that is their fault, yet to preserve the way of life that I have today I will do what many seem as a warmongering move to protect MY country.

deathtokoalas
i wouldn't deny you the legitimate right to self defense. unfortunately, if you reciprocate, you're justifying the world's right to gang up on you and tear you down.

there's a certain point where you can't just withdraw and say "ok. you're right. i'm sorry. i'll behave.".

Connor O
The U.S does have an ego, but with certain conflicts in the Middle East etc. Canada, Brittan, France and the majority of NATO did the exact same. The only reason I have guns is to defend myself from the 250 lb. black bears that are on my front porch. The only reason the U.S has guns is to defend its self from the "Black Bears" in our society today. We do not want to be aggressive, but it seems that nobody wants to stop after it has started. Because the train of thought is "then what was all that for?" (By the way, in case you were wondering I am of no political party. I am a Christian Conservative in morals)

deathtokoalas
i don't think the facts support the idea that the united states acts anywhere out of self defense. rather, the united states is an aggressive and militaristic nation that seeks to control the rest of the world for it's own interest, and lashes out at anything that questions it's hegemony.

Connor O
I don't think that the U.S has any intentions of conquering the world :)

deathtokoalas
it's pretty hard to look at their foreign policy and conclude otherwise. it's willful ignorance - in front of you, clear as day, but you choose to ignore it.

Connor O
It may not be ignorance as it is insensitivity  to foreign opinion. America doesn't like to change, but when it does it will be groundbreaking. Unfortunately, with the Second Cold War starting the only way for us to make our foreign policy less aggravating is to seclude ourselves from the world. Frankly when it comes to foreign policy America is edgy and may seem to be immoral sometimes and lenient other times. America has ALWAYS had a tendency of "Invading to prevent invasion" It is not that we don't care or have no concern for those that the foreign policy applies to, but as most nations do, the American government prioritizes its own countries security over that of foreign powers. this is seen as an obtrusive, insensitive act but it needed/needs to happen so that America can continue. It is a problem that ignorance is almost guaranteed in American foreign policy and nobody has changed it. But it is a bigger problem as to what removing all foreign interaction.

deathtokoalas
preemptive invasion has always happened, now. interesting.

american military action has always been expansionist: imperialist. the slave trade and genocide of natives weren't defensive. they weren't defending themselves when they attacked canada, or mexico, with the intent of annexation. their policies in central and south america have never been defensive, but have always been imperialistic. and so it goes in africa, east asia, the middle east - all of it designed to control resources (including humans) and none of it designed as defense.

the cold war was really never about ideology, it was the extension of an anglo-british conflict that went past the great game and crimea all the way back to the napoleonic era, and even further. years and years ago, british writers referred to the issue as "russophobia", which was defined as the fear that the barbaric (translation: half-mongolian) russians would conquer all of europe and send it back to the asiatic dark ages. but, the cold war itself was a conflict over independence, rather than one over ideology. on one side, you had a lot of countries seeking autonomy and sovereignty, and a russian state willing to aid them - sometimes for nefarious reasons, but nonetheless. on the other side, you had an american state willing to use extreme force to uphold it's empire, even while it's allies were moving away from that and accepting the collapse of their empires.

when the soviet union collapsed, the american elite never saw it as the end of anything. they immediately saw it as an opportunity to attack and destroy it's enemy. and, nobody should have expected otherwise - although yeltsin did, to his great discredit and naive foolishness. a pack of wolves does not see the collapsing caribou as the end of the conflict; rather, this is seen as the beginning of the feast.

but, they did not act quickly enough or with enough violence to complete the mission in the time they had before russia could get back on it's feet. worse, they managed to demonstrate that the barbarians are, in fact, they themselves. america is heading towards isolation whether they like it or not. their outbursts on russia are the desperate attempts of an angry mother to scold a teenage son that is much larger than her.

but, america will not accept parity. they will not be merely another voice in a multipolar world. so, they will continue to be excluded from the things that matter as a result of it - which will just further resort them to the use of force.

Connor O
It sounds like you are saying the Russians are going to win the eventual war and that they are better and just. Am I wrong?

deathtokoalas
that's not what i'm saying at all. what i'm saying is that nobody else wants this war that you claim is inevitable, and wouldn't be if it weren't for america's insistence on global domination.

Connor O
America does not want war or global domination. We do want peace but somehow through events things escalate into war.

deathtokoalas 
see, this is clearly the point we disagree on, but i don't think it's a point of opinion. the american strategy is quite clearly to dominate areas it can and create divisions in the areas it can't. it's been the strategy all along. and, i find it hard to believe informed observers can't see it - the orwellian conversion of the department of war to the department of peace is truly mostly wilful ignorance.

the examples are too many to cite, but one of the most obvious ones is this missile shield pointing missiles at moscow. a country truly interested in peace doesn't build offensive weapons directed at the capitals of it's rivals. at best, this system is designed to intimidate; in truth, it's preparation for invasion and dismantlement.

regarding the russians. for a while, it seemed like their certain future was a two way american backed invasion - a nato attack through the ukraine on one side, and a delayed chinese invasion from the other. russian-chinese trade is quite strong. but, it seemed more likely that china would take advantage of a russian collapse than come to it's aid. why trade for oil when you can take it?

the calculation has shifted with the "pacific pivot", which played american cards too quickly. arrogance can be devastating. china has understandably grown distant, and india has rejected plans for it to be a us military base, instead shifting closer to the sco. even australia is uncomfortable with these plans to contain the chinese. and, the us-pushed rearming of japan is a pretty big problem - not just for the chinese, but also for the koreans.

unfortunately, barring an extreme shift in american thinking, this is going to lead to strengthening anti-american alliances. even the germans seem to want out, now. and america is likely to respond the only way it seems to know how to, to ensure it's continued dominance.

the only way out is for america to accept a less dominant position - to reform institutions to be more democratic, to integrate further with the un, etc. but, the elite has been doing the exact opposite, and has shown absolutely no signs of stepping back.

it's come to the point where the russians have enough confidence to step in and stand up for iran. that would have been unthinkable even five years ago. but, they have nobody to blame but their own short-sighted, overly aggressive policies...