Social constructs.

Anyone notice all social liberals now enjoy calling all the facts and theories they don't like a "social constructs"? Where do they get these ideas? It appears to stem from the "life partners" and renowned obscurants Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker.

Social liberals use the fascist card to fight anyone elses opposing ideas. If this fails they shout 'fascist' a bit more and proceed to raise their voice whilst burying their head in the sand. Post 1 is just a preliminary defence mechanism that preceeds all this.

Society is a racial construct.

Construct is a social race

>>2
Indeed, what the fuck about racism is fascist? Just because of one genocide, our name is ruined...

>>5
Fascism is not even racist either, that's Nazism. Mussolini's fascist state was not racist or anti-Semitic, at least not until his alliance with Hitler. Mussolini believed in a superior cultural, not race, and he had high ranking Jews in his party, as well as a Jewish mistress.

>>6
And that goes to show modern day social Liberal ignorance - the fact that many would use that word so seriously and indiscriminantly to anyone who disagreed with them. It makes me damn ashamed to be a liberal.

George Orwell
What is Fascism?
TRIBUNE
1944

Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’

One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian régimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology.

It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is even harder with some of the small states which are describable as Fascist. It is usually assumed, for instance, that Fascism is inherently warlike, that it thrives in an atmosphere of war hysteria and can only solve its economic problems by means of war preparation or foreign conquests. But clearly this is not true of, say, Portugal or the various South American dictatorships. Or again, antisemitism is supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of Fascism; but some Fascist movements are not antisemitic. Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism. But still, when we apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or Japan or Mussolini's Italy, we know broadly what we mean. It is in internal politics that this word has lost the last vestige of meaning. For if you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years. Here I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term ‘Fascist’. I am speaking of what I have seen in print. I have seen the words ‘Fascist in sympathy’, or ‘of Fascist tendency’, or just plain ‘Fascist’, applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:

Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or ‘Fascist-minded’. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: ‘The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism’.

Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist organizations.

Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes, and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a ‘Fascist country’. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.

Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky's own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.

Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively;

War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.

Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term ‘Fascist’ to anyone who wishes for a military victory. The supporters of the People's Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism with Fascism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as ‘Fascist-minded’ or ‘natural Fascists’. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered conducive to Fascism. Before the war, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist phenomena.

Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.

* * *

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

1944

THE END

Here's the story,
Of a lovely lady,
Who was bringing up three very lovely girls.
All of them had hair of gold,
Like their mother,
The youngest one in curls.

Here's the story,
Of a man named Brady,
Who was busy with three boys of his own.
They were four men,
Living all together, but they were all alone-.

Till the one day when the lady met this fellow,
and they knew it was much more than a hunch.
That this group,
Must somehow form a family.
That's the way we all became the Brady Bunch,
The Brady Bunch- the Brady Bunch
That's the way- we became the Brady Bunch.

>>6
yeah, fascist italy had no discrimination at all.

Where do you retards get your history lessons from? Of course Jews weren't the target it Italy (though they did send in ze jews when the Germans asked for them). Just because they were incompetent doesn't mean they weren't trying to do evil.

>>7

So, throwing around the word fascist for fascist Italy is wrong? That's why you're a retarded liberal, I guess...

>>10
I guess didn't read post 7 properly you little fool.

>>11
I guess you didn't read post 10 properly you little fool.

>>12
My omission of a word trumped your gaping logical flaw in the argument losing stakes and your illogical retort reigns supreme. Damn, well that'll teach me.

>>13
You got the correct conclusion, however for wrong reasons, as your failure is due to your general ignorance and lack of reading comprehension, both of which could stem from retardation, but I'm not making any claims.

>>14
Dear me is this turning into some silly insulting match?

I said I hate it when liberals call you a fascist for doing so much as claiming race does exist as more than a social construct when there are more far more accurate and definitive meaning of the word (such as Mussolini's regime), you put 'oh what so Mussolini's Italy can't be called fascist?' in response. Obviously your post is completely unrelated to my first point and consequently void, now fuck off.

>>15
I congratulate you, shouting ``I'm retarded" takes a lot of guts. Your sequence of nonsensical posts exposing your own ignorance ranging from limiting Fascism to Mussolini's regime, to overall ignorance about the subject accomplished that, so I really respect that, not everyone can do it.

>>16
lawd all I was saying is that liberals often misattribute 'fascism' as a means to insult and win arguments the quick and easy way. i honestly don't know where you are pulling your ridiculous conclusions from, where ever did i put i was limiting fascism to mussolini's regime?

it wasn't hard to understand and unlike me you haven't even given proper arguments back, just a series of 'lol no ur wrong' accompanied by some poor insult replies.

this is my last reply, so you can be the big man and have the final word if you want - make it a good one soldier.

>>17
For example, claiming national socialism was not fascism pretty much pointed out how stupid you were, but you chose to kept crying instead of admitting your failure and shutting the fuck up, but I see that you're getting the point, even if a bit slower than normal people, but that's OK.

Construct is a racial society.