Re: Sociology of Fascism?

From: Comm (tjsrno_at_spampost.com)
Date: 03/16/05 

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:57:43 GMT

<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110942980.578266.214780@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Comm wrote:
>>
>> haaaaa, Reich said stuff about races?
>
> Not really, but Reich's psychology of fascism does describe
> the role of sexual inadequacy in the oppressor mentality.
> So Birth of a Nation makes a big deal about black men
> marrying white women, when black men during the
> Reconstruction didn't really care either way.

I never saw that movie. Reich is talking about pent up people. Some of what
Reich has to say is similar to the "dark doctrine" stuff on akathartic and
ophionic states of being.
>
>> Hmm, I didn't know that - but then I
>> scanned Reich and most of what he said I knew in my own way (cultural
> >> stuff). Well, I can see a rational reason for fear of such
> intermarriage.
>> People might want their descendents to remsemble themselves and not
>> something else. I can see that.
>
> True, but that mostly applies to the double-standard on
> virginity and adultery.

I don't mean that - and yeah, there is a double standard - but not all
people engage in it.
>
>> Comm:
>> > True. Actually, the typical German didn't know about the
>> > concentration camps, or about the fraudulent elections, even
>> > though Hitler had announced what he was going to do to the
>> > Jews.
>>
>> I don't think they would have cared at all, either. I'm not fauting
>> anyone - it's just human nature. People generally care for their
> own.
>
> Somewhat true. The idea of caring for all of humanity is
> fairly novel. I wonder if they would've cared about the
> intolerable inflation, though.
>
>> > The typical Italian also thought he was free.
>>
>> Freedom is a state of mind - one feels free. If one feels free, one
> IS
>> free. I think that's what Reich was on about. I understand it.
> Some folks
>> think he meant "CHI" when he wrote about orgone. WE have no way to
> know
>> what would have become of Italy or Germany if there was no war. Take
> my
>> parents. What knock on what door? They had no problem under Stalin.
>
>> Everything was fine. Life was easier than before. They came here
> after
>> ww2. Life was VERY HARD, it was like dog eat dog here. And that's
> when the
>> economy was GOOD here!
>
> I don't buy the "state of mind" argument, for freedom or
> poverty.

Poverty and freedom are two separate things. I'm free. The person next
door might not feel free yet that person can do the same things I do. The
thing is - WHAT does he/she want to do? Take AIDS - that's a real cramp on
the freedom of some people. Well, I don't know anyone with it and probably
never will know anyone with it. And if I know so many people - why is it
NOT a cramp on what they do - but IS a cramp on others? From my way of
thinking, they can't control themselves. Not my problem.
>
>> > Orwell described the inevitable result of utopian fantasies
>> > in detail in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
>>
>> That was more like a description of hell. He was also a
> disillusioned
>> Bolshevik if I remember right. My parents LIVED there in that
> society - and
>> it was nothing like 1984. It was EASIER than living here when the
> economy
>> was good.
>
> Of course it wasn't; Oceania was the English-speaking world
> and Latin America. LOL (But yes, Emmanuel Goldstein was
> based on Trotsky.)
>
> Seriously, though, it does describe the result of utopian
> fantasies. Much of Orwell's work follows that theme: If
> someone tells you all your problems will go away if you just
> put him in charge, don't.

Why of course not. I'd only go for it if I was the person in charge :-DDD!
>
> Orwell himself was an anarchosyndicalist. That's Marxism
> without the government. Anarchists view the government and
> Big Business as in alliance against the everyday people.

The problem with Anarchy is that it's a momentary state of social existence.
Give it ONE WEEK and you'll have gangsterism - guaranteed. It's human
nature, Mib. We're primates - even if for one week we all get to wear shark
costumes. We ain't sharks. That would be Hobbesian total war of all
against all, shark eat shark (even in the womb......).

My take is this - we are in for civil war - the stage is set. Here are the
players: outsourcing corporations and pro illegal immigrant people (south
slave states) versus info numbers usa type anti immigration, throw them out
types - abolisionists that want labor laws back. I said it in that article
I gave you url to - that synthetic one about social/religious development.
It's so damned OBVIOUS too.

But fascism - I say think small. It's a bunch of people who are sick of
being bullied, deciding to UNITE once and for all and smash the *** out of
the bullies. That IS fascism. Only make it bigger. Fascist states that
came into existence of their own choice, with smiling very happy people
loving it - were ALL downtrodden before they opted for fascism. I know
what it's like to UNITE a bunch of people that are being harassed - and
SMASH those harassing them. Sure enough, I BECOME their leader. Thing is,
I don't want the job. Mussolini and Hitler did want the job - and the
downtrodden people they united were a lot more people than just a music club
in school, like one I united. The problems really were fixed - UNTIL the
countries got involved in conquest and war. But what if they never did
that? There is such a thing as a benevolent dictator - and people do prefer
that sometimes, over anything else.
>

Quantcast