Facism

[S.A. Boggs]

Fantastic post, 'Trax. In hindsight we understand that it was a false choice, specifically set up to look a certain way. The correct answer is to not choose evil at all and to find an alternative.

Good and evil is in the eye of the beholder unfortunately. I support some of the President's policies, not all. I find the policies of the NSDWP repugnant to the nth degree, less so of the Republican party. There are many Democrats who have left their party because of the strong veer to the left, not of their liking. Locally the only ones support the left are imported college students with their utopian ideas which don't work. Every year a student tries to reinvent the wheel, especially those who get elected to the city council.
Sam

[togor]

Exactly how were Germans in 1932 supposed to obtain that hindsight? However, the choice they faced at the time was NOT a false one--either the Nazis or the Bolsheviks (backed by the USSR) were going to prevail, & "to not choose evil at all" is an absurd evasion of the historical reality; the ONLY alternative was the Weimar Republic, and it had already failed miserably! Individual Germans had the "alternative" of leaving the country, if they had money enough to do it, but was that possible for the entire population?

Those were not the only choices. In the last days of the republic they went back to the polls again and again as different factions competed for voters and the results remained inconclusive. Meanwhile back room intrigues went on that affected the landscape, such that saying the Nazis triumphed and Communists came in a close second glosses over much of what happened. In any event it is fair to observe that what appeared to be the lesser of two evils turned out to be by far the greater. Which reinforces the point that rather than choose evil, one should invest their energies towards the good.

[Mark in Ottawa]

In modern practice, a fascist is anybody who is winning an argument with a liberal

[Roadkingtrax]

In modern practice, a fascist is anybody who is winning an argument with a liberal

That may have indeed been the OPs original point, but any honest broker knows that the act of suppression through fascist means is by no means restricted to one side of the debate. It happens at the extreme ends of the political spectrum, regardless of viewpoint.

[TSimonetti]

Those were not the only choices. In the last days of the republic they went back to the polls again and again as different factions competed for voters and the results remained inconclusive. Meanwhile back room intrigues went on that affected the landscape, such that saying the Nazis triumphed and Communists came in a close second glosses over much of what happened. In any event it is fair to observe that what appeared to be the lesser of two evils turned out to be by far the greater. Which reinforces the point that rather than choose evil, one should invest their energies towards the good.

I think his point still stands, There was no crystal ball or inevitability of the far greater evil of Fascism over Communism at the time. In fact, many Progressive Statists in the US were enthralled by National Socialism and Fascism in the 20's and 30's, especially Mussolini's Fascism, which they saw as perhaps a better path to socialism. Throw in the ultra nationalism and anti-semitism and anti-communism that was prevalent all over Europe at the time, combined with the destructive nature of the Versailles Treaty, and had it not been Hitler, it would have been some other form of state controlled national socialism.

Let's not miss the forest for the trees here as well. Communism under Stalin and Mao were qualifiable, horrific, evil regimes, the argument that they were not totally on par with the evils of National Socialism in Germany may have just been due to a perfect storm of events and characters intervening to make it so.

[TSimonetti]

But seriously, if we were to consider the different political movements in the US today, and look for one that features a powerful singular leader with a mass following who simultaneously allies himself with the ownership class, while advancing a very nationalist political agenda, then which movement best fits that bill?

FDR was all of these things, and his supreme court was cowered into agreeing with him at almost every turn. His Presidential excesses eventually started to scare members of his own party and they joined in enacting term limits for Presidents. By contrast Trump is hardly a powerful leader when he is consistently being neutered by the Courts and opposed by members of his own leadership in the GOP. Simply rolling back regulatory edicts and executive orders of a prior administration is not an example of executive power or overreach. Nationalism was never automatically a dirty word when JFK or Eisenhower was President and it should not be one today.

[Vern Humphrey]

I think his point still stands, There was no crystal ball or inevitability of the far greater evil of Fascism over Communism at the time. In fact, many Progressive Statists in the US were enthralled by National Socialism and Fascism in the 20's and 30's, especially Mussolini's Fascism, which they saw as perhaps a better path to socialism. Throw in the ultra nationalism and anti-semitism and anti-communism that was prevalent all over Europe at the time, combined with the destructive nature of the Versailles Treaty, and had it not been Hitler, it would have been some other form of state controlled national socialism.

Let's not miss the forest for the trees here as well. Communism under Stalin and Mao were qualifiable, horrific, evil regimes, the argument that they were not totally on par with the evils of National Socialism in Germany may have just been due to a perfect storm of events and characters intervening to make it so.

I remember seeing a televised interview (made about 1960) of a man who was a young teenager when Hitler came to power. He talked about the drama and excitement, the parades and so on. He wanted to join the Nazis -- but he couldn't because he was a Jew!

Nazism was insidious -- it was presented in a very attractive package that distracted people from the evil under the surface. And it eerily resembled what's taking place now, with the Antifa brownshirts suppressing their political opponents with force.

[clintonhater]

Which reinforces the point that rather than choose evil, one should invest their energies towards the good.

Don't repeat that childish platitude again without explaining how it would have been done. By remaining neutral, not voting for either party? By voting for some minor party candidate who had no chance of winning? By making yourself a martyr during some street riot? Leaving the country would work, but what else?

[Vern Humphrey]

This is another narcissistic trait -- refusal to accept reality, and substituting imagination. The world is real, me lads, and actions have consequences. You can't defeat evil with platitudes, no matter how much you wish you could.

[TSimonetti]

Don't repeat that childish platitude again without explaining how it would have been done. By remaining neutral, not voting for either party? By voting for some minor party candidate who had no chance of winning? By making yourself a martyr during some street riot? Leaving the country would work, but what else?

No matter how anyone tries to justify it, there was simply nothing moral or ethical about choosing a third party candidate over Trump in 2016, if that would have led to Hillary winning the Presidency.

[Vern Humphrey]

No matter how anyone tries to justify it, there was simply nothing moral or ethical about choosing a third party candidate over Trump in 2016, if that would have led to Hillary winning the Presidency.

Remember the rule -- who will not vote for the lesser of two evils automatically votes for the greater of those two evils.

[togor]

Don't repeat that childish platitude again without explaining how it would have been done. By remaining neutral, not voting for either party? By voting for some minor party candidate who had no chance of winning? By making yourself a martyr during some street riot? Leaving the country would work, but what else?

Russia still beckons for you CH if you feel like leaving.

But anyways, knowingly choosing evil is choosing evil. One can be a Moral Relativist about it like Vernon or Boggs (odd for a Bible man to do that, BTW), but the mark is made on the soul. If your point is that finding a choice that comes from the good in the soul is sometimes hard to find or hard to do, then all I can say is....since when hasn't it been that way?

Regarding the closing days of the Weimar republic, recall that Hitler was brought into the government when the Nazis were a decided minority in the Reichstag and cabinet. The other parties thought in this way they had corralled him and now he would begin to act responsibly. Little did they understand the cunning of the Nazi leader, or appreciate what it meant that Goering was in charge of the Prussian police straight away. But not for the tragic miscalculations of those other non-Communist German politicians, history takes a different course. And in the ensuing years, add the miscalculations of the defeatist French and appeasing British and short-sighted Poles to the list of shame.

[clintonhater]

But anyways, knowingly choosing evil is choosing evil.

When there's no realistic third choice (except leaving the scene), that's the only course of action; but choosing what you think is the lesser of the 2 evils is morally superior to doing nothing but mouthing futile platitudes.

[togor]

When there's no realistic third choice (except leaving the scene), that's the only course of action; but choosing what you think is the lesser of the 2 evils is morally superior to doing nothing but mouthing futile platitudes.

There you introduce a false third choice: two evils or platitudes. Not a Christian or even a believer in any form, from what I can see. At least you don't go about saying God made you believe the things you do about gays or non-whites.

[S.A. Boggs]

There you introduce a false third choice: two evils or platitudes. Not a Christian or even a believer in any form, from what I can see. At least you don't go about saying God made you believe the things you do about gays or non-whites.

Without being a Believer, how can you honestly understand what Christianity is? There are many atheist who know Holy Scripture much better then I do, they lack the belief so what they know is meaningless as it is for you. I can hand you a book on flying, you can quote it front and back does that mean I trust you to fly me in an aircraft. As a non-believer you know nothing about Eternal Reality only the Alpha and Omega. As such, there is no way you and I cannot have a spiritual conversation on Christianity in any form. Without the meaning, the words you mouth is without form. I am a Christian, I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and that Christ died on the Cross so that I won't have to. Christ is willing to do the same for you Togor, it is so easy to become a Christian.
Sam