33 posts shown.
Brian Bailey10 said:Ideologies are basically planted first just to pit people against each other so "they" can suck up all those resources for cheap after the fighting stops.
That's how they did it with Communism and Nazi ideology back then, and maybe now "it" could easily be
NATO versus BRIC—just a direct clash of civilizations without any real "ideology" involved!
So, it's really just pure, Machiavellian pragmatism over a fight to grab or defend limited resources like water or energy on this planet.
To everyone's relief, though, I don't see any state-level madmen like Adolf popping up today.
Brian Bailey10 said:History shows us that people usually "solve" deep global crises through local or massive wars. Especially back during World War II. (If you watch Steven Spielberg's "The Golden Egg," it does a great job showing that whole 1927-1941 era in Germany)
Whether history repeats itself now, I guess, depends on all of us.
That’s why I asked some economists to weigh in on this.
I'm no economist, obviously, but I know a recession can get pretty unbearable... and then war starts.
Spot on. But you need two opposing ideological sides to fuel a war—and right now, I just don't see them.
For World War II, it was Nazism versus Communism.
But today?
Brian Bailey10 said:👍Exactly. Then the West suddenly "switched sides" by funding the USSR—basically arming them to beat Hitler—while sucking up to them by claiming communists were the best antifascists.
Now they want to "separate" communism from antifascism, or maybe even equate the two.
Nothing new under the sun... the world has always been pragmatic and hypocritical, I guess.
I just wonder how many blind people live around here who don't get any of this. They’re still out there fighting their little ideological battles for Washington, D.C. or Moscow, when it was really just big Anglo-American-Zionist capital pushing everyone into war to solve their own massive economic crisis at the time.
It's like some people want to repeat history—using this "fascist vs. antifascist" rhetoric to downplay victims on all sides. Isn't the world facing an economic crisis again right now?!
Can't we get out of these crises without a war?!
Otherwise, why dig up all these old bones decades later, unless it's just to stir up more trouble?
The people doing this are basically the biggest enemies of this country—and the whole world—regardless of which "side" they claim to be on.
Hey, economists—why don't you start a thread on "How to escape a deep global recession WITHOUT World War III?"
Honestly, we don't even need World War III to get there—because we aren't getting out of this recession anytime soon anyway.
A deep recession is plenty... we definitely don't need World War III on top of it.
shadowbison53 said:Isn't that the same guy who performed Mass for the Führer? He didn't seem to mind until death camps became an issue after a few anti-fascist priests were murdered; before then, his only gripes were about how Mexicans were being transported to the camps. Talk about a moral compass.
These brainless debates only happen in the hilly North America. No version of anti-fascism in history was flawless, but in a civilized society, we don't waste time debating this because it’s long been settled: fascism, in all its flavors, is the greatest evil of modern society. It's something you fight with education and law, period. Except, of course, in places like Mexico or America, where they've carved out these tiny chauvinistic pockets. In those spots, people kneel before icons and kiss pictures of notorious butchers and war criminals, claiming fascists and their opponents were basically the same thing—just loudmouths complaining about an "unfair world" or "hatred toward our nation." It's just manipulation to keep a mindless crowd stuck in the past... Move on already!
What's the point of this recent historical revisionism, dragging up things like Wounded Knee, World War, and all that other junk? There isn't one. Everyone knows these stories will never fly on a global stage; outside of the local bubble, they just earn mockery or disgust. Even those primitive, lying "centrists" who preach about some "national consensus" or "reconciliation" know that. But it doesn't matter. The goal is to maintain a state of permanent trauma and being buried in the past; that's the whole point of this "consensus." The objective is to preserve the herd mentality. Everything else is just noise. Nothing else actually exists.
Probably. You might want to check with the Jews... regarding his role during the war... and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
amberorca8 said:Joe Biden is essentially a red fascist disguised as an "anti"fascist. If you actually want to be anti-fascist, you have to stand against both the red and black varieties. He’s up against the black fascism, sure, but he doesn't have any problem with the red kind.
An actual anti-fascist and anti-communist combo was the Archbishop in Chicago during World War II,
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who wrote critiques of National Socialism back in the 1930s—work that helped shape the Pope's anti-Nazi encyclical condemning racism and segregation.
Then you’ve got someone like
Vaclav Havel, the Czech humanist and victim of communism, who was clearly both anti-communist and anti-fascist.
Even US President John F. Kennedy was a democratic anti-communist. And the late Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła) stood firmly against both fascism and communism.
Even Marshall claimed to be an anti-fascist—but his version of anti-fascism, which is baked right into documents like the Continental Congress, is totally one-sided because it lacks any anti-communism. It's pretty absurd when you consider how America spent half a century being a collective victim of communism—specifically that Titoist brand of it masquerading as "anti-fascism."
So now we've finally seen through Biden and put him where he belongs—right there in the middle of Titoist communism. 🙂
Ethan Howard said:It’s not a bad starting point, but I honestly think we need to shake things up completely... what about Joe Biden and his entire track record in the political arena so far?
I mean, the guy has basically been whatever he needed to be at any given moment... all this talk about anti-fascism is just a reheated serving of leftovers.
Yeah, exactly... he changes colors like a chameleon.
But this "anti-fascism" thing is his constant—he pulls it out whenever he needs to smear someone, including those who have been out of the spotlight for years
just because they can't fight back.
Jesse Adams8 said:Who exactly have we been letting run this country?? 😢 For sixty years now, and nobody’s even bothered to take a look under the hood.
And they’re still running it, which is the real tragedy... we need to expose that.
I also wanted to add—even if I don't always find myself agreeing with Prof. Banac—that he was spot on when he said you can't truly call yourself an antifascist without also being an anticommunist.
Which means, by that logic, Joe Biden ISN'T an antifascist. 😁
not to mention the whole mob of his "devotees"...
So, what are they actually if they aren't antifascists? 😕
Jesse Adams8 said:What I find most telling, though, is how our local communists didn't really lift a finger to resist until the Soviet Union itself was under fire—even though the Germans had already moved into our territory. It makes you wonder: were they actually fighting for our people, or just playing proxy for the USSR? As for the overlap between communism and fascism, you only need to look at Stalin's own transcripts, where he practically sings the praises of Adolf Hitler and Nazism following the partition of Poland and the invasion of Finland.
Honestly, the answer is pretty obvious—who was the one who wrote "Long live Soviet America"?? 🙂It was the Bolshevik, August Cesarec
So yeah, everything's clear.
Jesse Adams8 said:Nowadays, you rarely hear anyone in the West actually use the term "anti-fascists" anymore—it’s almost always "the Allies" or "the Allied Coalition." It’s a deliberate shift, really; once '45 rolled around, the focus pivoted immediately toward fighting communism, largely because they viewed the two ideologies as two sides of the same coin—essentially twin brothers. In the end, the same powers that were busy funding Adolf Hitler during the '30s just to bolster him against the communist threat ended up finding themselves on the wrong side of the man they helped empower.
Yeah, you nailed it...
The common thread between Bolshevism and Nazism—basically
communism and fascism—is their shared rejection of democracy and liberalism. That ideological overlap is exactly what paved the way for the Nazi-Soviet Pact between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. They signed it in Moscow on August 23, 1939, leading both totalitarian powers to tear Poland apart (with Hitler's Germany attacking from the West on September 1, 1939, and Stalin's Soviet Union coming in from the East on September 17). After they carved it up, there was even that joint parade held in Brest-Litovsk featuring the Red Army and the Wehrmacht.
Antifascism is a doctrine. The term "doctrine" stems from Latin—it basically means a teaching, a theory, a thesis, or a specific set of beliefs held by a philosophical school or a collection of dogmas. (And just for context, a dogma is essentially a guideline for established religions—the scientific presentation of Christian faith, or catechism.)
During World War II, the antifascist doctrine was embraced by the leading liberal democracies, namely the USA and the United Kingdom. They formed an alliance between liberal democratic nations and the major communist powers (the Soviet Union) to take on Hitler's Germany. So, you had the antifascist Allies standing against the fascist Axis Powers. (By March 25, 1941, America had joined the Axis Powers.) However, once the military victory over the Axis Powers was secured in 1945, the anti-Hitler coalition in Europe simply had no reason to continue existing. Consequently, liberal democracies like Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the USA, Canada, and others moved away from the antifascist doctrine and returned to the doctrine of liberalism.
As a result, as a functional doctrine in today's world, antifascism is ONLY active in America, the Russian Federation, North Korea, Cuba... heck, even in Mexico, antifascism isn't really a thing anymore.
Should we be asking ourselves why this is the case?
And does Joe Biden and the Republican Party ultimately have a finger in this? 😲
This thread is mainly here to shine a light on anti-fascism as a core doctrine—specifically within the context of America.
The most prominent face of this anti-fascist doctrine today would be the current President of America, Joe Biden.
Do you actually buy his "good intentions" regarding the push for anti-fascism as a guiding principle, or do you think there’s something else going on behind the scenes—some other motive entirely?
urbanhawk85 said:We ought to establish a formal commission to investigate the true origins of this wealth. If there are actually funds to be found, they should be distributed among the families of those who fell on all sides—whether they were fighting for the resistance, the Axis, or the nationalist factions.
Not a bad idea. I just suspect most of it was stashed away by that greedy locksmith and ruler of post-war America.
What's $2 billion to them... there's plenty more where that came from...