tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 6:09 am
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 3:58 pmThere just isn't enough here for me to trouble with Tillingborn. You will have to engage with the entirety of what I wrote in my past post to you. And if you don't want to -- no problem.
You tell us that your extensive research has given you insight into the American far right and that you only want to help us understand.
Yes, that is a fair encapsulation of what I say. I offer a more expanded version however. I suggest it is best to see the Larger Context of political and social division in the US
as well as in the world (in Europe for example).
I think most of us already understand the themes common to 20th century German national socialism, contemporary American far right goals and every far right movement elsewhere and in between.
You switch here to a sort of group-identity posture here. And you have reduced the concerns of the Dissident Right to being comparable to National Socialism. This is underhanded discourse on your part. "Most of us" refers to a standardized view of history which you rightly assert that most have absorbed and believe. This is why (I think it was in this thread) that I referred to the War Between the States or the Northern War of Aggression (the definition used by Southern patriots). The Standard view is as most can easily recite. But the
actual truth is far more complex and nuanced. If you only have access to the former view, and if it is the view that you learn is *right & good*, this will come about because you have not been exposed
to the alternative view. But that alternative view does exist and it is articulate and coherent.
Similarly, the Postwar Standardized Ideological Model or picture is 'taught in the schools', and we all have absorbed it, and it serves as a base for our declared perceptions, etc. But this view is not necessarily the full truth. There are other dimensions. And these other dimensions *complicate* the standard narrative. I know that you clearly see this, and I know that you will not be able to budge from your present "They are all Nazis!" position.
If that serves you stay with it! The Nazi-reduction is a useful argument tactic that has served generations.
We understand that some people are Nazis.
You are just repeating the a priori you began with, no?
We also understand that some people who hold such views don't like to be called Nazis.
Well that is certainly true! But when the term *Nazi* is used in such a hot rhetorical sense and when it is used to stifle all discussion or the possibility of discussion (this is how you are using it) it can be called out as fallacious.
Call them what you will; racial, cultural, religious or national purists, frightened or angry at what they perceive as a threat to 'their people' and prepared to use violence. These ideas have always been around, all that changes is the apologetics.
This is an 'encapsulation' of your argument, designed to bolster it and tie it up with a bow. Bravo!
The real facts though are very different. And as I say they require being explored from more detached stances.
