comfy

When things get extreme they get similar.

'Extreme' is a vague word, but when you're talking about communism and fascism (or more generally 'far-left' and 'far-right' ideology), that's a false generalization known as 'horseshoe theory'.

There are many clear counter-examples when talking about communism, like the entire school of anacho-communist ideologies and the existing societies stemming from them (including the Zapatista territory in Mexico with a population of around 360,000, or the FEJUVE federation in Bolivia, or the many anarchist communes around the world).

As for the more authoritarian versions (Stalinist, Maoist and related ideologies), despite their strong one-party systems, they are still extremely different to fascist ideologies in their goals and how they use their strong state to achieve them. To say 'they are the same in many respects' would apply just as equally to liberal capitalist states like the USA and allies, with their infamously militarized police, constant wars and imperial militarism, strong cult of nationalism (for the US, it's centered on the Founding Fathers), mass imprisonment and state interference in bodily autonomy.

Nice resource, thanks for finding it for us!

There was a similar investigation in... I want to say Australia and their current major neo-Nazi org. An undercover infiltrator was able to film an older member admitting to being a higher-up manager in a casino earning six-figures and discriminating against employees based on race. Afterwards they got fired. You can also find various antifascist blogs where they publish dox of neo-Nazis and often you see them getting fired as a result.

Remember: this causes real, material damage to their operations. Some try to buy rural property to use for training or buy places to use as 'active clubs', some will use hire cars/trucks and some will want to fund core members to be full-time activists, so taking away their income makes this all harder.

If I remember correctly, the admin (a US Lolbertarian) finally closed it down, among other reasons, when they realized the resident nazis there were not just joking to troll da libs and actually believed the things they were saying about 'jewish shapeshifters'. They wanted a free speech haven, and so they got the people we collectively told to shut up.

Why would it? It seems like it would just be similar to the circlejerk forums they've have for decades, alienated from the mainstream and unable to normalize their ideas and recruit so easily.

They hide their faces because antifascists put in the effort to let the community know who they are. Many a fascist has lost a six-figure job or been kicked out of home, so they're scared alright.

I don't know about this group specifically ('Blood Tribe') although most neo-Nazi orgs have one or a few leaders, perhaps ex-military, but are primarily recruiting nerdy alienated teens who spend most of their time online. There are leaked Patriot Front training videos and if you haven't already seen their Philadelphia march, they did crumble like a burnt cookie when the community came out and started punching them back into their U-Haul vans.

Not sure how it would go with guns, but I have little faith in them fighting off more than just spraying a few bullets into a crowd.

should

Well, who is going to do it? (if you aren't already, get organized!)

I don’t understand why they have no fear of this at all.

Most people don't want to go to prison or be shot. Even in WWI there were many trenches who organically decided not to shoot each other. So the odds that someone would just open fire are small, even if real. That's also why armed antifascists are also comfortable enough to provide defense at marches and events.

It's a tough two-sided situation, because open-carry laws were what allowed the Black Panthers to defend people against police.

This time, the problem isn't the guns but that Nazis are there and comfortable enough to get together and hold them. If there were no guns, it would still be a problem, they just make it worse.

I don’t believe that fascism can be defined as an ideology, because fascists aren’t ideologically coherent.

It very clearly can't be one coherent ideology, just like liberalism isn't, just like communism isn't. I'm definitely not trying to claim even those individual types (e.g. Italian Fascism, Nazism) are consistent, internally logical, or any of that. Rather, there are common themes, ideas and features which group them together and distinguish them from other ideologies. These groups form a model of relationships between values, ideas and behaviors.

The reason I bring historical circumstance into this is because this model acknowledges attributes like militarism and class collaboration as core components of fascism, with the implied question: why did militarism and class collaborationism take hold in some cases (where a fascist regime rose) and not in others (where it fizzles or is defeated)? Historical factors like World War I and the subsequent wave of communist uprisings are related to why fascist ideologies were developed and were supported by many ex-military and bourgeois. And that is why the conservative racist chauvinism in the neoliberal US and Europe is taking remarkably different shapes to the fascist movements of the 1920s, despite those similarities which guide your definition all being present.

An example of this is neo-Nazi movements like Patriot Front and their international equivalents, which do not receive the blessing of the owning class, which are floundering and failing worse than the British Union of Fascists. There are reasons why they can't replicate the same political strategy and tactics as they did before, and some of those reasons are because we now have different environmental factors. They can't recruit defeated ex-servicemen en masse, so they now primarily recruit vulnerable alienated nerdy teen boys. They can't yet (and often don't want to) earn the blessing of the bourgeoisie at scale because the populations have shifted in a more progressive direction. So then we see neo-Nazi 'Siege' tactics emerge, which are inspired by late-1800s Propaganda of the Deed anarchist tactics, and that is not going well for them either.

Then, we have White Nationalist and/or Christian Nationalists as politicians and billionaires. They often don't want militarism or have military values. They probably don't want class collaboration (because they're winning in the class struggle). So like their goals, their tactics and strategies will overall differ to the fascist movements, despite the shared chauvanism.

If you have suggestions on how to adjust or change the definition, it would be helpful.

I worry that it is too broad, discarding what makes fascist movements unique. I believe the part about violence is ultimately redundant, as I assume systematic chauvinism itself makes individual violence and violent repression likely. The definition, in my view, is really just describing a strategy of using chauvinistic hierarchy, and I don't understand why that is special enough to be called 'fascism', if anything that will just trivialize fascist movements and make the word itself banal, since for example xenophobic chauvinism is a strategy used by almost all governments worldwide, and which does lead to domestic violence.

Carl and the Aqua Team make their position on piracy very clear.

https://inv.us.projectsegfau.lt/watch?v=MCTlcJMCSpM

Don't know why you'd give a joke answer at all, but there's nothing wrong with unsweetened yogurt (e.g. greek) on potato. Put chives on there, maybe some zataar. Or use it to offset a chilli sauce, make a barbecue sauce creamy. I'd even just have it by itself on fries.