Comments by "Voryn Rosethorn" (@vorynrosethorn903) on "What do REAL Fascists actually believe?" video.

  1. His ideals were certainly liberal ones, as with the French revolutionaries, as he saw it the enemy classes were impeding the advent of communism and the utopia of liberalism. Also he made many very liberal social changes, most of which didn't last long as they worked about as well as those we suffer under.
    4
  2. It's called divide and rule, it was literally a part of colonial administration, you act as a cohesive group, you break them up and play them against each other. Simple strategy really. Very effective though.
    4
  3. Left wing, right wing only exist within a liberal framework. It breaks down when applied to other religious systems (traditional Christianity either, it rejects most of the precepts of both sides) rather than a choice between conservative liberalism or radical liberalism. By creating a dichotomy they manage to bring people into their moral assumptions by acting within them.
    3
  4. It is actually slightly more complicated than the belief system of these people in a vacuum. These guys were obviously bouncing off the ideas of the enlightenment but also the plans and worldview of evangelical Christianity (which believes the resurrection of Israel is necessary for the resurrection of Christ, other Christians disagree to put it mildly) and the prophesy of Jews themselves, which include ideas of the messiah being a world conqueror (part of the reason they rejected Jesus was him not fulfilling this interpretation, he claimed to offer the conquest of death through the salvation of the soul, rather than the dominance of a people as was hoped, especially in the context of the time) and the idea that the people's of the world would intermix and be ruled by the chosen people. Of course the degree to which this is taken seriously or actively facilitated varies, but these projects are certainly real to some people and it is reasonably widely known in ideological circles that they are. Of course this is not getting into other groups like freemasons, socialists of every shape and size, fabians and the groups spoken of in this video from also having all sorts of goals, plans and nonsense. Also Christians would largely agree with the critique of liberalism, though they would say that the focus is ones obligations to others and the social networks they live within, as well as of course a Christian life. They would say that one should be loyal to the justly constituted authorities (which was the Roman emperor for a lot longer than one would think) but would not have the same pre-conditions before that, to them a Hungarian loyal to the Hapsbergs is much more justifiable than one loyal to a nationalist conception of the state, as to Christians the state is an extension of the patriarchal authority of God, and thus a King is father to a people if he takes on the responsibilities of fatherhood, irrespective of if he speaks the same language or is of those people. This is one of the reasons why Europe was for so long so localised and mixed, it was not the role of the state to act as the representation of a single people just as it wasn't for a single class, though religion was more controversial.
    2
  5. I mean both come from liberalism, but to deifiy a people or nation is not really the solution, it is merely to fabricate a new religion, one that has little connection to anything beyond the material (in this case the people rather than class or money).
    1
  6. I highly recommend Darryls lecture called prodigal sons, it is very relevant to understanding Nietzsche and why he appeals to certain people in such a profound way, it does this by contrasting him with Dostoevsky. I recommend the one hour version, it is excellent and manages to compress almost everything that is said in the longer version.
    1