"She accuses people of white supremacy for not posting about Gaza, for mourning the death of someone she didn’t like, and for daring to use their platforms for things other than regurgitating her exact political priorities."
No, she is exposing selective empathy and how that is clearly rooted in systemic racism. Why can people stomach watching thousands of children torn to pieces and starved to death for two years but then cry when one man is shot? There’s a clear explanation that lies in the colour of their skin and who people deem to be deserving of life.
“When you insist that everyone perform the same grief, speak the same politics, and obey the same moral framework—or else—you are describing the very foundations of authoritarian rule.”
So we’re in agreement then that the administration revoking visas for those speaking out in support of Palestine or those who have made light of Charlie Kirk’s death is demonstrating the government’s authoritarian rule and the foundations of fascism? To fight fascism you say we need to “stop silencing people for not parroting your beliefs” but that’s exactly what the government is doing - on a much more serious level than someone on Substack.
It means nothing to say the US “was founded on principles that reject the core tenets of fascism” - that is not the reality now. So I’ll take your advice and stop to ask “wait is any of this actually true?”.
I’m not conflating the two things - I’m calling out the confusion of an article that on the one hand says we need to zoom out and realise “the United States was founded on principles that reject the core tenets of fascism” whilst also highlighting that “rigid ideological conformity, censorship and punishment of dissent” (which the gov are demonstrating as you’ve just agreed) are tenants of fascism.
I understand that this article is not to debate whether the US government is fascist or not but if you’re writing an article where you are saying you have a better understanding of this ideology than others, then you need to recognise these contradictions and not just display examples that serve your purpose, or you are doing the same thing that you are criticising others for. You say “we need people who understand context” and the context of the current and real political landscape (not what it was founded on) should not be ignored.
maybe you missed the part where i was responding to a very specific article — an article which did not address or even mention the whataboutisms you’re bringing up now
Please, for everyones sake, read and absorb Ellas comments, she's smashed it and has fully called you out - note: without being aggressive and mean!! (like yourself to a lot of us) - it's okay to get things wrong.
Maybe, as a white cis-woman from California (?), don't try and tell people what fascism is "bitch" (gross title btw) whilst ignoring the current shit show firework display mess that is America.
It's not simply a matter of them being 'different teams' - it's a matter of one being extremely violent, oppressive and far-right and the other.. not being those things.
Why are you so resistant to acknowledge that? You realise how incredibly reductive and dangerous that is?
I was going to reply, but Ella was much more eloquent and logical in her reply.
Then I thought, what the hell, even a less organized voice is still a voice.
To Ella’s characterization of the original story:
"She accuses people of white supremacy for not posting about Gaza, for mourning the death of someone she didn’t like, and for daring to use their platforms for things other than regurgitating her exact political priorities."
You replied:
“No, she is exposing selective empathy and how that is clearly rooted in systemic racism. “
Yes. That’s exactly what she said, you just used the cultural Marxist sanitized words to make it sound like it’s worse:
Mourning the death of someone she didn’t like -> Selective Empathy
White Supremacy -> Systemic Racism
Honestly - it’s the same thing she did! She was just as selective, as any reference to 10/7 was minimal and obligatory. And calling positions racist simply because some parties have different cultural backgrounds is silly. Half of Israeli Jews are from the same region. Most Palestinians are Egyptian or Jordanian in ancestry. But by crying “racism!” you think you can avoid having to engage with the actual arguments, but you can’t. No one who doesn’t already see things your way isn’t buying it, and no one who doesn’t is convinced just because you called it racist, when thinking people see that it’s much more nuanced than that.
“Why can people stomach watching thousands of children torn to pieces and starved to death for two years but then cry when one man is shot?”
One might ask, Why can people stomach watching over a thousand innocent people get raped, mutilated, and kidnapped intentionally and then for two years, not return the hostages that were taken merely as pawns?
If all you can do is count numbers of casualties and ignore all the detail, like how it compares to other conflicts, how much Israel does to mitigate civilian casualties, and then fail to propose ANY solution that can let Israelis live without fearing for the next Hamas attack, then you’re simply buying all the stories from one side and trusting all the other stories are lies, and serving as a useful idiot who refused to question the crap you’re being fed.
Critical thinking isn’t repeating mindless slogans or jumping on bandwagons because your friends do, it’s actually seeking to understand and then asking better questions.
This piece gives me hope. I wouldn't have the energy to try to talk some sense and middle ground to emotionally charged people. As someone else commented, the people who most need to read it probably won't. Unfortunately I feel there's less and less space for actually discussing ideas, and points of view. Morals are so turned upside down. While the reality is more about multiple shades of grey, people continuously force it into a black and white, that's why the puzzle will never come together. I feel some relief to know that some people like you have the energy to talk through this, because I don't.
Thanks for the comment, Nathalia. I really don't have the energy, if I'm being honest. But I read that piece this morning and felt sick to my stomach seeing practically no pushback to it. I published this less than an hour ago and I've already lost 100 subscribers and there's already one lunatic in the comments saying they're happy Charlie Kirk is dead. I guess that gives me "energy" or "conviction" or whatever we want to call it... knowing there is so little tolerance for dissent and so few people actually want to engage with ideas, especially when they don't match their own beliefs, is just awful. I want to talk about fun things... but it doesn't feel right to stay silent on this. I like your puzzle analogy though—feels impossible for it to come together when everyone just shouts from their side, while being violently attached to their identity politics and virtue signals. I hate how much misinformation is floating around out there... I guess I'll do the little bit I can to help remedy that. Idk *sigh*
I think it's kind of okay and cool and encouraged to not like anything that's extreme far-right, a threat to our safety as a society, and something that puts vulnerable groups and minorities at severe risk.
P.s. you're the one that's been aggressive in the comments replying to people with opinions that you 'don't like or agree with' - you're a walking contradiction.
As defined by founder Benito Mussolini, Fascism is “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” but also “fascism is the melding of corporate & political power.” Fascism can be described as communism with a capitalist veneer. The differences are only by degrees; under Communism The State owns both the means of distribution & production, there are no individual rights nor right of property. Under Fascism, The State dictates the means of production & distribution while nominally leaving both in private hands, usually big corporations which is why Fascism is often referred to as “corporatism”. The corporations get a free hand as long as they abide by what The State mandates. A good example of this is China today; they were full fledged Communist from 1949 to about the mid to late ‘70’s but decided they liked money so they morphed into a Fascist state. There are no individual or property rights under Fascism either so with a huge supply of slave labor, the Chinese govt has been making $$ hand over fist these last few decades. Both are based in Marxism & both are on the left side of the political spectrum.
Ms Tyler is correct however, today “fascism” has devolved into meaning “anything I don’t like or agree with” from the masses.
Congratulations. This informative, nuanced and otherwise excellent piece might have begun with "Dear Stargate" as it was written precisely for malicious ignoramuses who couldn't produce an original thought if it was that or take a bullet to the jugular.
I don’t defend rapists, murderers, or fascists, but I do not believe the death penalty is right. So no,I’m not happy when a man has to be killed, even if he was a bad man.
And yes, I don’t want to live in a world where everyone I disagree with is going to be killed just because we are different.
Another example: I strongly condemn what Hamas did on October 7. But I also strongly condemn the idea that the entire population of Gaza, deserves to die from starvation/ bombing/ genocide.
That’s what she’s talking about: being on the “good” side doesn’t mean being cruel to people on the opposite side because there is no opposite side.
We have different ideas. Are they criminals? In some ways, yes. Do they have blood on their hands? Also yes. But I don’t want to be happy with theirs on mine.
Hamas' goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. If you have a better idea than what Israel is doing to defend itself, please enlighten us.
Because millions of Arab Muslims live in peace in Israel.
It's only Hamas/Palestinians who refuse to do so.
Have you ever asked yourself why Palestinians aren't allowed refuge in Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia?
The short answer is: Because when allowed asylum in those countries, they rebelled against those governments and even staged an attempted coup in Jordan.
Hello, I picked this example because it’s the one she chose. I just mean that everything has nuance and deserves debate, even if you don’t agree with the other side.
If you’d like to talk about it, feel free to message me privately my perspective isn’t black and white.
There is such a thing as people on hormones who are conservative - but anyways, they were brought up in a strict Republican family and before having a dramatic change of mind. I would argue that his aggression and violence came from his Republican upbringing. That shit doesn't just go away overnight just because their mind decided they wanted to now be on the left. Those values run deep and I believe that's where their desire to shoot came from - being surrounded by intense Republicans most of their life. It's pretty interesting to see how they utilised their upbringing to facilitate their actions
Whoa, Stepf, I’m reading these comments and I’m blown away by some people’s intellectual inability to grasp the lucid, unemotional—yet compassionate—idea that demanding anyone to accept—and, more brutally, champion—whatever you believe, is morally repugnant, intellectually indefensible, and the breeding ground for said Facism. And that celebrating anyone’s death via bullhorn is implicitly, and ironically, celebrating your own. BRAVO! You are a distinct, thoughtful presence, a flash of sunlight dispersing a smug smog of complicity and ignorance.
I really don't know what else to call it, other than "ignorance" as you just pointed out. It's a lot of mental gymnastics and justifications, but at the end of the day, no one is really refuting what I've said—only that I'm not in alignment with them. They continue to double-down on their insane rhetoric and some have even continued to celebrate Charlie's death *in these comments*
Idk how Charlie did it because some people just feel impossible to talk to. Thanks for the kind response, Ariane.
Normally I'd block someone like you but I'm gonna go ahead and let everyone see how unhinged you all are. To everyone reading this—yes, people out there really do think like this. Despicable, low IQ, unthinking, non-building nobodies.
I have a hard time fathoming what it’s like to be doing what you love—- an open, intellectually sound discourse of ideas—yet be maligned by the reactionary minds of personalities who have no idea they’re growing in the wrong direction: small and shut down. My hope is that you have more us listening to balance it out. Your voice matters, Stepf!! 💕
I highly recommend you read it SLOWLY, again. Because this comment shows that you either a) can't understand plain English, or b) continue to read through a filter so heavy and weighed down by bias that you, practically speaking, can't read.
Notice how all your responses rely on calling me stupid, accusing me of not being able to read for example. That's kinda lame and not a great argument for why you should support fascists
Notice how none of your comments engage in good faith or actually address ideas mentioned in the essay. No one called you stupid—you made that claim yourself. I don't think anyone disagrees though.
"Fascism is a political ideology rooted in AUTHORITARIAN ULTRANATIONALISM, CENTRALIZED STATE CONTROL, MILITARIZATION OF SOCIETY, and SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT. It demands CONFORMITY, ELEVATES THE STATE OVER THE INDIVIDUAL, and ERADICATES POLITICAL OPPOSITION."
Then you say "If everyone's a fascist, no one is — The word has lost its teeth. And not because it's outdated, but because people like this author have turned it into a catchall insult for "anyone who disagrees with me. But the ugly truth these people don’t seem to want to face is that fascism thrives on forced conformity."
I understand what you're saying. Fascist! Grammar Nazi! Everything I don't like is Hitler! These type of terms get thrown around a lot. But a word "losing teeth" doesn't change its set definition. It simply means people have been over-applying or misapplying it.
The essay you’re critiquing might do this, but you also do it throughout your piece:
"The insistence that silence is violence, that neutrality is complicity, that individual sovereignty is fascist, and that failing to speak your language of politics makes you a threat to democracy, is not resistance. That’s called tyranny (cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control)."
Insistence itself is not tyranny. Tyranny is defined as “government by a ruler or small group of people who have unlimited power over the people in their country or state and use it unfairly and cruelly". You have bent the word "tyranny" here to describe someone saying things you don't agree with.
You then categorise the type of writing you're critiquing is “structurally fascist”, which is physically impossible according to your own definition of fascism because no essay could ever enact "authoritarian ultranationalism, centralized state control, militarization of society, and suppression of dissent." An essay might PROMOTE the ideas of fascism or work towards fascistic ends but it cannot execute them. Another example of calling the author's work “fascist” because you disagree with it.
Later, you say:
"The real threat to democracy is the one you can’t see. It isn’t pilates moms. It isn’t green juice. It isn’t people who didn’t share your infographic on social media. It’s the erosion of meaning. The cheapening of words like "fascism" and "genocide" and “white supremacist” until they mean nothing at all. The normalization of emotional coercion as discourse. The ritual shaming of people who choose silence over virtue signaling."
Unfortunately, you participate in the erosion and cheapening of every word you hold as an example and others:
- You misused the term fascism multiple times according to your own, set definition in ways I’ve described intimately already.
- You state, “identity politics isn’t about truth. It’s about emotional leverage.” You are aware that identity politics is a lens in which analyse structural injustice and figure out to how to exist in a society where people have different experiences. You are cheapening it by suggesting that, because some people might use it for “emotional leverage”, that identity politics itself is about emotional leverage. This is like me saying “free speech is about the right to insult people” just because people use their free speech to insult people.
- You’ve cheapened the term “white supremacist” by reducing people who have grievances with Kirk’s history of dog-whistle racism, overt racist comments and promotion of White Replacement Theory as “Mourning a white man becomes white supremacy”. That does both him and the attempt to properly categorise his conduct a disservice.
- The UN Commission of Inquiry announced that Israel is committing a genocide. You identify that “conformity” is a tenet of fascism but you call the author a hypocrite for not condemning Hamas, which reads like a selective outrage of your own but not only that, suggests she must conform to your condemnations if she wants to speak about global violence. Unlike the author, YOUR suggestion of conformity is in support of a MILITARIZED SOCIETY (Israel requires all its citizens to serve in the IDF) that SUPPRESSES OF DISSENT (Pro-Palestinian voices across the world have been deported, fired, and expelled and jailed for their support) and ERADICATES POLITICAL OPPOSITION (the UN and ICC confirmed genocide of Indigenous Palestinian community).
To summarise: you betray the title of your “essay” throughout or perhaps the title is simply autobiographical. You dictate the terms of what “fascism” is then you abandon those terms whenever you want to condemn the author for acting in a manner you dislike or writes something you don’t agree with. You undermine your own credibility by suggesting that fighting fascism means that you should “stop redefining words to fit your narrative” while, at the same time, you redefine words like “insistence” in an essay as “tyranny” or certain types of writing as “structurally fascist” or that identity politics as “emotional leverage”. You cheapen words like “fascism” and “genocide” and, by your own admission, this makes you “the real threat to democracy”. I don’t want to be wholly negative, so I’d like to conclude by pointing out one final thing you’ve only got sort-of right. Fascism is allergic to open dialogue... But only once it is realised. In order to establish itself and grow, fascism adores open dialogue. It revels in the ability to spread its tenets, capitalising from off the fear, hate, shame, nihilism, selfishness, lack of empathy, and general confusion that permeates through public life. And once its sewn enough discord in the stage of “open dialogue”, once it gets to a place where it can take its mask off—it closes ranks. It militarises its society–dispatching soldiers to keep the peace in the streets. It fans the flames of ultranationalism and demonises immigrants and foreigners. It suppresses dissent in schools, college campuses. It demands conformity from its citizens through government-mandated acts of coercion. It strips people of their freedoms. Silence might not be violence, but those leading the fascistic charge find silence useful because silence is not resistance. So yes, fascism is allergic to open dialogue. But fascism doesn’t look like fascism straight away. There's a slow march towards it.
Thank you for writing this and directly addressing her claims. I’m in a PhD program right now (for literature) and, unfortunately, no one is talking about this. Some of the technically MOST educated are the ones redefining the word. Reading your piece was a breath of fresh air and I hope to see more people (myself included) take a stand about what words actually mean and how they affect people.
The attempt to redefine words is one of the most maddening parts of all of this to me. It's one reason I will never stop calling a spade a spade. The more people who let it slide, the worse it becomes down the road, and the harder it will be to undo.
You have crossed the rubicon and will now be subjected to irrational and incoherent discourse from the indoctrinated jacobins that cannot tolerate any dissent or apostates. Unsubscribing is a gift. Your accurate revelation brings an important clarity to a failed narrative. May your influence win new followers. Thank you for the courage to be honest.
It really is self-filtering. I just hate the idea of building another echo chamber, but I can't control what other people do. Such is life, I suppose. Thanks for your note.
So grateful that people like you exist! Saying what needed to be said! And I agree, these are the people who have created a bubble around them, and they only allow people who say "YES! YOU GO GIRL! WE WILL PUT AN INSTAGRAM POST ABOUT IT TOO!" inside that bubble....the moment someone do critical thinking and have the courage to say "NO...ACTUALLY WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHATS GOING ON", the moment somone goes against their idealogy, they will outright term that person as right wing or in India case it's anti nationalist.
They ignore the power of discourse and listening to the Opposition side (they think it's the Opposition side, I think we are just people with different opinions), and exactly, the freedom of speech that they demand so much by putting on Instagram story...they themselves throw it down the drain.
Agreed—we must listen to what other people think to understand how they think. Unfortunately so many people simply want to live in an echo chamber and never have their views challenged.
Wish I could subscribe 100 times! It boggles my mind that at the core of this labeling of fascism those doing the labeling have changed the definition and blamed what they are doing on the others.
It is classic narcissist behavior.
And why?
For power.
The sheep at these colleges that Charlie spoke to have just been going along with the flow. And Charlie fought back by exposing truth and facts that the narrative didn't tell you. Things that the media didn't tell you.
Those unsubs are your literal and moral badges of honor, for standing on logic and truth.
I try never to do drop someone else's post in comments section, but this one from Dr. Spier, is the complimentary sauce to the meal you've prepared here.
The left is a cult, and it always has been.
In the past this wasn't so clear, because the cultural waters were muddied. Holly-weird factored enormously into that obfuscation. However, just as in any radical movement, group or cult, escalation is unavoidable and always reaches a point where the majority of the masses can't avoid seeing the manipulation, capture and destruction, staring them in the face.
Dr. Hannah Spier, does a great job of explaining the mechanisms at work, that we (those not captured by this derangement) can see quite clearly.
Reading this gives me a bit of a nostalgic feeling for when I really believed we could maintain a liberal society. I have a similar history to yours, believing what I was told until the insanity of it was too much to hold together in my head anymore. Now I'm definitely what most people would consider a far right maniac, because I think the only solutions we have realistically available to us are pretty drastic and ugly. Hope I'm wrong, I appreciate what you're doing.
Seems like many of us have woken up recently—it started for at the end of 2017/early 2018 but lately I’ve just been pushed to the brink. I guess we can only hope more people open their eyes soon too…
What a thoughtful piece, and it's earned at least one subscriber back. I'm looking forward to reading more of your wild bare thoughts. I don't believe we'll necessarily agree about everything, but then again, I know I learn best when I talk to real people who have taken time to develop an opinion through insight into their own bias.
Thanks Linda. I don’t think there’s anyone on earth who I agree with 100% of the time, but I hope we can explore similar ideas and find middle ground. Welcome :)
"She accuses people of white supremacy for not posting about Gaza, for mourning the death of someone she didn’t like, and for daring to use their platforms for things other than regurgitating her exact political priorities."
No, she is exposing selective empathy and how that is clearly rooted in systemic racism. Why can people stomach watching thousands of children torn to pieces and starved to death for two years but then cry when one man is shot? There’s a clear explanation that lies in the colour of their skin and who people deem to be deserving of life.
“When you insist that everyone perform the same grief, speak the same politics, and obey the same moral framework—or else—you are describing the very foundations of authoritarian rule.”
So we’re in agreement then that the administration revoking visas for those speaking out in support of Palestine or those who have made light of Charlie Kirk’s death is demonstrating the government’s authoritarian rule and the foundations of fascism? To fight fascism you say we need to “stop silencing people for not parroting your beliefs” but that’s exactly what the government is doing - on a much more serious level than someone on Substack.
It means nothing to say the US “was founded on principles that reject the core tenets of fascism” - that is not the reality now. So I’ll take your advice and stop to ask “wait is any of this actually true?”.
You’re conflating two different things:
1. Cultural coercion—demanding moral performance from everyone, or else.
2. State punishment for speech—which I also oppose.
The essay I critiqued was doing #1. That doesn’t get a free pass just because you agree with the cause.
If you think both things are bad (censorship and moral obedience tests), congrats—we're on the same side.
If you only object when the “wrong” team does it, then you’re not anti-fascist. You just want different boots on different necks.
I’m not conflating the two things - I’m calling out the confusion of an article that on the one hand says we need to zoom out and realise “the United States was founded on principles that reject the core tenets of fascism” whilst also highlighting that “rigid ideological conformity, censorship and punishment of dissent” (which the gov are demonstrating as you’ve just agreed) are tenants of fascism.
I understand that this article is not to debate whether the US government is fascist or not but if you’re writing an article where you are saying you have a better understanding of this ideology than others, then you need to recognise these contradictions and not just display examples that serve your purpose, or you are doing the same thing that you are criticising others for. You say “we need people who understand context” and the context of the current and real political landscape (not what it was founded on) should not be ignored.
maybe you missed the part where i was responding to a very specific article — an article which did not address or even mention the whataboutisms you’re bringing up now
Please, for everyones sake, read and absorb Ellas comments, she's smashed it and has fully called you out - note: without being aggressive and mean!! (like yourself to a lot of us) - it's okay to get things wrong.
Maybe, as a white cis-woman from California (?), don't try and tell people what fascism is "bitch" (gross title btw) whilst ignoring the current shit show firework display mess that is America.
well done :)
It's not simply a matter of them being 'different teams' - it's a matter of one being extremely violent, oppressive and far-right and the other.. not being those things.
Why are you so resistant to acknowledge that? You realise how incredibly reductive and dangerous that is?
reducing wellness influencers to fascists might be one of the most reductive things i’ve ever heard—but you’re right, you got me
They are when they support literal fascists, which are the wellness influencers the article is talking about <3
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If an extreme far-right racist misogynistic nationalist isn't fascist... I honestly have no idea where we are at in this world. Feeling sorry for you
I was going to reply, but Ella was much more eloquent and logical in her reply.
Then I thought, what the hell, even a less organized voice is still a voice.
To Ella’s characterization of the original story:
"She accuses people of white supremacy for not posting about Gaza, for mourning the death of someone she didn’t like, and for daring to use their platforms for things other than regurgitating her exact political priorities."
You replied:
“No, she is exposing selective empathy and how that is clearly rooted in systemic racism. “
Yes. That’s exactly what she said, you just used the cultural Marxist sanitized words to make it sound like it’s worse:
Mourning the death of someone she didn’t like -> Selective Empathy
White Supremacy -> Systemic Racism
Honestly - it’s the same thing she did! She was just as selective, as any reference to 10/7 was minimal and obligatory. And calling positions racist simply because some parties have different cultural backgrounds is silly. Half of Israeli Jews are from the same region. Most Palestinians are Egyptian or Jordanian in ancestry. But by crying “racism!” you think you can avoid having to engage with the actual arguments, but you can’t. No one who doesn’t already see things your way isn’t buying it, and no one who doesn’t is convinced just because you called it racist, when thinking people see that it’s much more nuanced than that.
“Why can people stomach watching thousands of children torn to pieces and starved to death for two years but then cry when one man is shot?”
One might ask, Why can people stomach watching over a thousand innocent people get raped, mutilated, and kidnapped intentionally and then for two years, not return the hostages that were taken merely as pawns?
If all you can do is count numbers of casualties and ignore all the detail, like how it compares to other conflicts, how much Israel does to mitigate civilian casualties, and then fail to propose ANY solution that can let Israelis live without fearing for the next Hamas attack, then you’re simply buying all the stories from one side and trusting all the other stories are lies, and serving as a useful idiot who refused to question the crap you’re being fed.
Critical thinking isn’t repeating mindless slogans or jumping on bandwagons because your friends do, it’s actually seeking to understand and then asking better questions.
Thank you
This piece gives me hope. I wouldn't have the energy to try to talk some sense and middle ground to emotionally charged people. As someone else commented, the people who most need to read it probably won't. Unfortunately I feel there's less and less space for actually discussing ideas, and points of view. Morals are so turned upside down. While the reality is more about multiple shades of grey, people continuously force it into a black and white, that's why the puzzle will never come together. I feel some relief to know that some people like you have the energy to talk through this, because I don't.
Thanks for the comment, Nathalia. I really don't have the energy, if I'm being honest. But I read that piece this morning and felt sick to my stomach seeing practically no pushback to it. I published this less than an hour ago and I've already lost 100 subscribers and there's already one lunatic in the comments saying they're happy Charlie Kirk is dead. I guess that gives me "energy" or "conviction" or whatever we want to call it... knowing there is so little tolerance for dissent and so few people actually want to engage with ideas, especially when they don't match their own beliefs, is just awful. I want to talk about fun things... but it doesn't feel right to stay silent on this. I like your puzzle analogy though—feels impossible for it to come together when everyone just shouts from their side, while being violently attached to their identity politics and virtue signals. I hate how much misinformation is floating around out there... I guess I'll do the little bit I can to help remedy that. Idk *sigh*
The only lunatics here are the folks defending dangerous fascists like mr Kirk :)
Define fascist.
They define fascist as "anything I don't like or agree with"
I think it's kind of okay and cool and encouraged to not like anything that's extreme far-right, a threat to our safety as a society, and something that puts vulnerable groups and minorities at severe risk.
P.s. you're the one that's been aggressive in the comments replying to people with opinions that you 'don't like or agree with' - you're a walking contradiction.
As defined by founder Benito Mussolini, Fascism is “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” but also “fascism is the melding of corporate & political power.” Fascism can be described as communism with a capitalist veneer. The differences are only by degrees; under Communism The State owns both the means of distribution & production, there are no individual rights nor right of property. Under Fascism, The State dictates the means of production & distribution while nominally leaving both in private hands, usually big corporations which is why Fascism is often referred to as “corporatism”. The corporations get a free hand as long as they abide by what The State mandates. A good example of this is China today; they were full fledged Communist from 1949 to about the mid to late ‘70’s but decided they liked money so they morphed into a Fascist state. There are no individual or property rights under Fascism either so with a huge supply of slave labor, the Chinese govt has been making $$ hand over fist these last few decades. Both are based in Marxism & both are on the left side of the political spectrum.
Ms Tyler is correct however, today “fascism” has devolved into meaning “anything I don’t like or agree with” from the masses.
Congratulations. This informative, nuanced and otherwise excellent piece might have begun with "Dear Stargate" as it was written precisely for malicious ignoramuses who couldn't produce an original thought if it was that or take a bullet to the jugular.
I don’t defend rapists, murderers, or fascists, but I do not believe the death penalty is right. So no,I’m not happy when a man has to be killed, even if he was a bad man.
And yes, I don’t want to live in a world where everyone I disagree with is going to be killed just because we are different.
Another example: I strongly condemn what Hamas did on October 7. But I also strongly condemn the idea that the entire population of Gaza, deserves to die from starvation/ bombing/ genocide.
That’s what she’s talking about: being on the “good” side doesn’t mean being cruel to people on the opposite side because there is no opposite side.
We have different ideas. Are they criminals? In some ways, yes. Do they have blood on their hands? Also yes. But I don’t want to be happy with theirs on mine.
Hamas' goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. If you have a better idea than what Israel is doing to defend itself, please enlighten us.
Because millions of Arab Muslims live in peace in Israel.
It's only Hamas/Palestinians who refuse to do so.
Have you ever asked yourself why Palestinians aren't allowed refuge in Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia?
The short answer is: Because when allowed asylum in those countries, they rebelled against those governments and even staged an attempted coup in Jordan.
Hello, I picked this example because it’s the one she chose. I just mean that everything has nuance and deserves debate, even if you don’t agree with the other side.
If you’d like to talk about it, feel free to message me privately my perspective isn’t black and white.
Woowww. We need more brains like yours. Neutral and nuanced and rational and real. Bravo.
🤍
You can be nuanced and rational without defending oppressive and violent natured fascists, Clementine! <3
Violent natured fascists...you mean like the Charlie Kirk shooter, those who encouraged him, and those who celebrated after?
The shooter was a far-right man :) He's just as bad my dude. Fuck the shooter and fuck Charlie Kirk
He has a t-girl SO. Definitely not far right. Nice try though.
There is such a thing as people on hormones who are conservative - but anyways, they were brought up in a strict Republican family and before having a dramatic change of mind. I would argue that his aggression and violence came from his Republican upbringing. That shit doesn't just go away overnight just because their mind decided they wanted to now be on the left. Those values run deep and I believe that's where their desire to shoot came from - being surrounded by intense Republicans most of their life. It's pretty interesting to see how they utilised their upbringing to facilitate their actions
I completely understand you desire to distance your leftist ideology from this despicable person, but so sorry: He's one of yours.
This is hardly neutral lol
What, exactly, makes it not neutral? Use your words.
I charge $250 to educate white people
Shucks. What a loss for white people!
Yep. As evidenced.
Sadly, "evidenced" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Whoa, Stepf, I’m reading these comments and I’m blown away by some people’s intellectual inability to grasp the lucid, unemotional—yet compassionate—idea that demanding anyone to accept—and, more brutally, champion—whatever you believe, is morally repugnant, intellectually indefensible, and the breeding ground for said Facism. And that celebrating anyone’s death via bullhorn is implicitly, and ironically, celebrating your own. BRAVO! You are a distinct, thoughtful presence, a flash of sunlight dispersing a smug smog of complicity and ignorance.
I really don't know what else to call it, other than "ignorance" as you just pointed out. It's a lot of mental gymnastics and justifications, but at the end of the day, no one is really refuting what I've said—only that I'm not in alignment with them. They continue to double-down on their insane rhetoric and some have even continued to celebrate Charlie's death *in these comments*
Idk how Charlie did it because some people just feel impossible to talk to. Thanks for the kind response, Ariane.
Normally I'd block someone like you but I'm gonna go ahead and let everyone see how unhinged you all are. To everyone reading this—yes, people out there really do think like this. Despicable, low IQ, unthinking, non-building nobodies.
So so funny to wake up in a world where people who are against Nazis / extreme far-right ideologies are unhinged
I have a hard time fathoming what it’s like to be doing what you love—- an open, intellectually sound discourse of ideas—yet be maligned by the reactionary minds of personalities who have no idea they’re growing in the wrong direction: small and shut down. My hope is that you have more us listening to balance it out. Your voice matters, Stepf!! 💕
BRAVO! This article reinforced sympathy for fascists
I highly recommend you read it SLOWLY, again. Because this comment shows that you either a) can't understand plain English, or b) continue to read through a filter so heavy and weighed down by bias that you, practically speaking, can't read.
Notice how all your responses rely on calling me stupid, accusing me of not being able to read for example. That's kinda lame and not a great argument for why you should support fascists
Notice how none of your comments engage in good faith or actually address ideas mentioned in the essay. No one called you stupid—you made that claim yourself. I don't think anyone disagrees though.
Damn, with every post you just get cooler and cooler.
You set the definition of fascism:
"Fascism is a political ideology rooted in AUTHORITARIAN ULTRANATIONALISM, CENTRALIZED STATE CONTROL, MILITARIZATION OF SOCIETY, and SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT. It demands CONFORMITY, ELEVATES THE STATE OVER THE INDIVIDUAL, and ERADICATES POLITICAL OPPOSITION."
Then you say "If everyone's a fascist, no one is — The word has lost its teeth. And not because it's outdated, but because people like this author have turned it into a catchall insult for "anyone who disagrees with me. But the ugly truth these people don’t seem to want to face is that fascism thrives on forced conformity."
I understand what you're saying. Fascist! Grammar Nazi! Everything I don't like is Hitler! These type of terms get thrown around a lot. But a word "losing teeth" doesn't change its set definition. It simply means people have been over-applying or misapplying it.
The essay you’re critiquing might do this, but you also do it throughout your piece:
"The insistence that silence is violence, that neutrality is complicity, that individual sovereignty is fascist, and that failing to speak your language of politics makes you a threat to democracy, is not resistance. That’s called tyranny (cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control)."
Insistence itself is not tyranny. Tyranny is defined as “government by a ruler or small group of people who have unlimited power over the people in their country or state and use it unfairly and cruelly". You have bent the word "tyranny" here to describe someone saying things you don't agree with.
You then categorise the type of writing you're critiquing is “structurally fascist”, which is physically impossible according to your own definition of fascism because no essay could ever enact "authoritarian ultranationalism, centralized state control, militarization of society, and suppression of dissent." An essay might PROMOTE the ideas of fascism or work towards fascistic ends but it cannot execute them. Another example of calling the author's work “fascist” because you disagree with it.
Later, you say:
"The real threat to democracy is the one you can’t see. It isn’t pilates moms. It isn’t green juice. It isn’t people who didn’t share your infographic on social media. It’s the erosion of meaning. The cheapening of words like "fascism" and "genocide" and “white supremacist” until they mean nothing at all. The normalization of emotional coercion as discourse. The ritual shaming of people who choose silence over virtue signaling."
Unfortunately, you participate in the erosion and cheapening of every word you hold as an example and others:
- You misused the term fascism multiple times according to your own, set definition in ways I’ve described intimately already.
- You state, “identity politics isn’t about truth. It’s about emotional leverage.” You are aware that identity politics is a lens in which analyse structural injustice and figure out to how to exist in a society where people have different experiences. You are cheapening it by suggesting that, because some people might use it for “emotional leverage”, that identity politics itself is about emotional leverage. This is like me saying “free speech is about the right to insult people” just because people use their free speech to insult people.
- You’ve cheapened the term “white supremacist” by reducing people who have grievances with Kirk’s history of dog-whistle racism, overt racist comments and promotion of White Replacement Theory as “Mourning a white man becomes white supremacy”. That does both him and the attempt to properly categorise his conduct a disservice.
- The UN Commission of Inquiry announced that Israel is committing a genocide. You identify that “conformity” is a tenet of fascism but you call the author a hypocrite for not condemning Hamas, which reads like a selective outrage of your own but not only that, suggests she must conform to your condemnations if she wants to speak about global violence. Unlike the author, YOUR suggestion of conformity is in support of a MILITARIZED SOCIETY (Israel requires all its citizens to serve in the IDF) that SUPPRESSES OF DISSENT (Pro-Palestinian voices across the world have been deported, fired, and expelled and jailed for their support) and ERADICATES POLITICAL OPPOSITION (the UN and ICC confirmed genocide of Indigenous Palestinian community).
To summarise: you betray the title of your “essay” throughout or perhaps the title is simply autobiographical. You dictate the terms of what “fascism” is then you abandon those terms whenever you want to condemn the author for acting in a manner you dislike or writes something you don’t agree with. You undermine your own credibility by suggesting that fighting fascism means that you should “stop redefining words to fit your narrative” while, at the same time, you redefine words like “insistence” in an essay as “tyranny” or certain types of writing as “structurally fascist” or that identity politics as “emotional leverage”. You cheapen words like “fascism” and “genocide” and, by your own admission, this makes you “the real threat to democracy”. I don’t want to be wholly negative, so I’d like to conclude by pointing out one final thing you’ve only got sort-of right. Fascism is allergic to open dialogue... But only once it is realised. In order to establish itself and grow, fascism adores open dialogue. It revels in the ability to spread its tenets, capitalising from off the fear, hate, shame, nihilism, selfishness, lack of empathy, and general confusion that permeates through public life. And once its sewn enough discord in the stage of “open dialogue”, once it gets to a place where it can take its mask off—it closes ranks. It militarises its society–dispatching soldiers to keep the peace in the streets. It fans the flames of ultranationalism and demonises immigrants and foreigners. It suppresses dissent in schools, college campuses. It demands conformity from its citizens through government-mandated acts of coercion. It strips people of their freedoms. Silence might not be violence, but those leading the fascistic charge find silence useful because silence is not resistance. So yes, fascism is allergic to open dialogue. But fascism doesn’t look like fascism straight away. There's a slow march towards it.
Thank you for writing this and directly addressing her claims. I’m in a PhD program right now (for literature) and, unfortunately, no one is talking about this. Some of the technically MOST educated are the ones redefining the word. Reading your piece was a breath of fresh air and I hope to see more people (myself included) take a stand about what words actually mean and how they affect people.
The attempt to redefine words is one of the most maddening parts of all of this to me. It's one reason I will never stop calling a spade a spade. The more people who let it slide, the worse it becomes down the road, and the harder it will be to undo.
You have crossed the rubicon and will now be subjected to irrational and incoherent discourse from the indoctrinated jacobins that cannot tolerate any dissent or apostates. Unsubscribing is a gift. Your accurate revelation brings an important clarity to a failed narrative. May your influence win new followers. Thank you for the courage to be honest.
It really is self-filtering. I just hate the idea of building another echo chamber, but I can't control what other people do. Such is life, I suppose. Thanks for your note.
You give me hope as well. Yes the delusion is so grand with this fascist rhetoric is exhausting. Thankful for you.
So grateful that people like you exist! Saying what needed to be said! And I agree, these are the people who have created a bubble around them, and they only allow people who say "YES! YOU GO GIRL! WE WILL PUT AN INSTAGRAM POST ABOUT IT TOO!" inside that bubble....the moment someone do critical thinking and have the courage to say "NO...ACTUALLY WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHATS GOING ON", the moment somone goes against their idealogy, they will outright term that person as right wing or in India case it's anti nationalist.
They ignore the power of discourse and listening to the Opposition side (they think it's the Opposition side, I think we are just people with different opinions), and exactly, the freedom of speech that they demand so much by putting on Instagram story...they themselves throw it down the drain.
Again, thank you for writing this!
Agreed—we must listen to what other people think to understand how they think. Unfortunately so many people simply want to live in an echo chamber and never have their views challenged.
THIS! Every single word of this. You capture it all so perfectly and eloquently. This should be required reading.
I appreciate it, Daniella 🤍
Wish I could subscribe 100 times! It boggles my mind that at the core of this labeling of fascism those doing the labeling have changed the definition and blamed what they are doing on the others.
It is classic narcissist behavior.
And why?
For power.
The sheep at these colleges that Charlie spoke to have just been going along with the flow. And Charlie fought back by exposing truth and facts that the narrative didn't tell you. Things that the media didn't tell you.
Thankfully the truth is making a comeback.
Thanks, Kevin. The truth will always win in the end.
Hell ya girl this was bomb
🤜🤛
So very well done!
Those unsubs are your literal and moral badges of honor, for standing on logic and truth.
I try never to do drop someone else's post in comments section, but this one from Dr. Spier, is the complimentary sauce to the meal you've prepared here.
The left is a cult, and it always has been.
In the past this wasn't so clear, because the cultural waters were muddied. Holly-weird factored enormously into that obfuscation. However, just as in any radical movement, group or cult, escalation is unavoidable and always reaches a point where the majority of the masses can't avoid seeing the manipulation, capture and destruction, staring them in the face.
Dr. Hannah Spier, does a great job of explaining the mechanisms at work, that we (those not captured by this derangement) can see quite clearly.
https://substack.com/@psychobabblewithspier/p-173846188
Thanks for this. I’ll definitely check out Hannah’s piece!
Reading this gives me a bit of a nostalgic feeling for when I really believed we could maintain a liberal society. I have a similar history to yours, believing what I was told until the insanity of it was too much to hold together in my head anymore. Now I'm definitely what most people would consider a far right maniac, because I think the only solutions we have realistically available to us are pretty drastic and ugly. Hope I'm wrong, I appreciate what you're doing.
Seems like many of us have woken up recently—it started for at the end of 2017/early 2018 but lately I’ve just been pushed to the brink. I guess we can only hope more people open their eyes soon too…
What a thoughtful piece, and it's earned at least one subscriber back. I'm looking forward to reading more of your wild bare thoughts. I don't believe we'll necessarily agree about everything, but then again, I know I learn best when I talk to real people who have taken time to develop an opinion through insight into their own bias.
Thanks Linda. I don’t think there’s anyone on earth who I agree with 100% of the time, but I hope we can explore similar ideas and find middle ground. Welcome :)