TLDR: liberalism == fascism
Rule based order is fascism, lets not kid ourselves that it can be done in any other way.
Now whether or not liberalism can function without rule based order isn't addressed in the video so... zzzzzzzz.
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
1 points (50.8% liked)
Videos
5665 readers
6 users here now
Neat vids from youtube or wherever. Rules later
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Fascists took their cues from liberal projects. The non-mythological components of the times they were pining for were just liberalism 30-80 years prior, before advances in imperialism and the rise of socialists. The things they actually planned and attempted were to cut a larger piece of imperislist pie for themselves using the same basic mechanisms of the dominant imperial powers.
Both Italian fascists and Mazis took inspiration from the British Empire and its colonies, particularly settler colonies. Concentration camps developed by the Brits were the inspiration for those used by the Nazis, as were apartheid systems. The Nazis took further inspiration from the United States in its settler colonial genocide of indigenous Americans, using this to form Generalplan Ost, to largely depopulate Slavic states and turn them into apartheid settler colonies for German "Aryans". They also used America's anti-black racism as inspiration for their own apartheid plans, though they rapidly gave up on having a "one-drop rule" for Jewish people because so many Germans would have been in violation of it.
By this I mean that liberalism is, itself, a horrific thing and should have enough negative weight on its own. Fascists tried to copy liberals and do a superfast version of it centered on their nationalism. It's not that liberals are fascists. They are who fascists wish they were, just swapping ethnicities and nationalities and some aesthetics. The higher crimes have been done by liberalism.
This is an important concept because fascism, generally speaking, no longer exists. Neonazis exist. Reactionary governments exist. But fascism essentially died in WWII. What we see today is just the return to liberalism and the reaction it creates and supports. Liberals gladly incorporated fascists back into their formations, especially the anticommunist ones. Stable liberalism is an ideology of genocide, ethnic supremacy, deprivation, conquering. All of these horrors we want to call modern fascism are liberal ideologically.
fascism doesn't need democracy to exist. I'd argue that the only things it needs to exist is rule based order.
The rules-based order is just US-dominated liberalism.
Public service: the video this YouTube account uploaded before this one is titled “The Tiananmen Square ‘Massacre’ Never Happened”.
Remember folks, check your sources.
I watched it. Was well sourced. Never knew there was a full video of the tank man moment and the person blocking the tank was blocking it from driving away from the square. And climbed into the tank.
All the sources are available for free on his Patreon btw for those wondering. Basically every sentence is sourced lol; very useful.
Interesting that there's "new information" after deep faking videos become increasingly easy...
The tank man video has been available for a very long time, liberals just never actually watched it. They just got shown short clips and then got told a narrative about how he was fighting a tank and lost.
This is how capitalist propaganda works. The propagandized don't even realize it's happening. They just hear a narrative and internalize it, with the propagandists knowing the targets will never actually investigate the veracity. He'll, they know that a ton of their targets will even reflexively defend the propaganda line and attack those who did end up questioning it and investigating!
Every person you see calling someone else a Russian not is doing this, for example.
The full video has existed for a long time. It was filmed by western journalists.
You are free to check out Hakims video on it. The comments you are making are addressed in it.
That video and its title are both correct and it is historical revisionism to say otherwise.