Why Do Fascists Hate Christianity? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14476175
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to have all the power, as fascists do, then the fact that another group (such as Christians) has power is inherently threatening.


Your position is devolving into tautology and word games.

Whether or not something is "inherently" threatening is irrelevant.

Real people have to deal with real threats, and the reality is that groups with power always pose a threat to each other.
#14476177
Saeko wrote:Your position is devolving into tautology and word games.

Whether or not something is "inherently" threatening is irrelevant.

Real people have to deal with real threats, and the reality is that groups with power always pose a threat to each other.


Groups with power do not always pose a threat to each other. At best, you could argue that groups with power always potentially pose a threat to each other, but in reality, the fact that Greenpeace has power to wield the opinions of college age latte drinkers does not threaten me in the slightest. Nor does it threaten me if the Waskaganish Cree have power over their own finances.

To tie it back to the topic, progressive Christians who support human rights may have power in our society, but that does not threaten me. It would, however, threaten a fascist gov't.
#14476184
Pants-of-dog wrote:Groups with power do not always pose a threat to each other. At best, you could argue that groups with power always potentially pose a threat to each other, but in reality, the fact that Greenpeace has power to wield the opinions of college age latte drinkers does not threaten me in the slightest. Nor does it threaten me if the Waskaganish Cree have power over their own finances.

To tie it back to the topic, progressive Christians who support human rights may have power in our society, but that does not threaten me. It would, however, threaten a fascist gov't.


Groups in power only potentially pose a direct threat to each other, but since power is zero-sum, they are always fundamentally at odds.
#14476185
Saeko wrote:Groups in power only potentially pose a direct threat to each other, but since power is zero-sum, they are always fundamentally at odds.


I do not think that power is a zero-sum game.

The invention of computers and the internet, for example, has vastly increased the amount of power individuals have in terms of communicating with each other, but it did not come at anyone's expense. There was no corresponding loss of communication power to account for the gain in power.
#14476200
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think that power is a zero-sum game.


Then you don't understand how it works.

The invention of computers and the internet, for example, has vastly increased the amount of power individuals have in terms of communicating with each other, but it did not come at anyone's expense. There was no corresponding loss of communication power to account for the gain in power.


I think it's important to distinguish power over nature and power over people. The latter is always zero-sum, while the former can be transformed into the latter. Computers were invented to deal with the logistics of military operations, so that's one obvious way in which an invention can exacerbate existing power differentials among people or groups of people.
#14476210
Saeko wrote:Then you don't understand how it works.


Yes I do. You are trying to see power as a fixed quantity within a closed system. You ignore the fact that the system itself is nether closed nor fixed, and is capable of changing the quantity of power in the system

I think it's important to distinguish power over nature and power over people. The latter is always zero-sum, while the former can be transformed into the latter. Computers were invented to deal with the logistics of military operations, so that's one obvious way in which an invention can exacerbate existing power differentials among people or groups of people.


My example still holds. Before the internet, no one had power over indigenous media outlets, because there weren't any. Now there are many and they controlled mostly by indigenous people. The power of indigenous people to control their own media outlets is a power that also had no corresponding loss, because that power never existed before.
#14476215
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Yes I do. You are trying to see power as a fixed quantity within a closed system. You ignore the fact that the system itself is nether closed nor fixed, and is capable of changing the quantity of power in the system//


I said that:

I think it's important to distinguish power over nature and power over people. The latter is always zero-sum, while the former can be transformed into the latter.


Regardless of whether the "system" is closed or fixed or whatever, there is no possible way for two people to each increase their power over the other.

My example still holds. Before the internet, no one had power over indigenous media outlets, because there weren't any. Now there are many and they controlled mostly by indigenous people. The power of indigenous people to control their own media outlets is a power that also had no corresponding loss, because that power never existed before.


See quote above.
#14476219
Saeko wrote:Regardless of whether the "system" is closed or fixed or whatever, there is no possible way for two people to each increase their power over the other.


Sure there is. To use a traditional couple as an example, the man can go out and earn more money, thereby increasing his relative financial power over the woman, while the woman can withhold sex and then increase her sexual power over the man.
#14476225
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure there is. To use a traditional couple as an example, the man can go out and earn more money, thereby increasing his relative financial power over the woman, while the woman can withhold sex and then increase her sexual power over the man.


That's not at all the same thing as both of them increasing overall power over the other, just as it's impossible to put weights on a scale and have it tip in both directions.
#14476241
Sorry, but I just think we will have to agree to disagree about power being (or not being) a zero-sum game.I think that because more people are doing more things more of the time, the amount of power we have is constantly increasing.
#14476505
I identify the rejection of the zero-sum mentality as the most crucial wedge between 'ancient' and 'modern' mindsets. It occurred during the Christian-driven early modern ('Faustian') movement towards 'infinity' in which everything from physics to economics starts being regarded as open, infinite and progressing towards an indeterminate goal (resulting in Newtonian physics, capitalism and liberalism).

Pants-of-dog wrote:My example still holds. Before the internet, no one had power over indigenous media outlets, because there weren't any. Now there are many and they controlled mostly by indigenous people. The power of indigenous people to control their own media outlets is a power that also had no corresponding loss, because that power never existed before.

People making use of the indigenous media outlets would otherwise be required to resort to, say, mainstream ones so these indigenous media outlets would in effect be "siphoning" power off mainstream ones. This can even have a measurable effect e.g. redirection of commercials (loss of revenue). It could potentially result in a new 'world order' just as the liberal media press (which was likewise a power that never existed before) was one of the factors behind the collapse of conservative monarchism.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure there is. To use a traditional couple as an example, the man can go out and earn more money, thereby increasing his relative financial power over the woman, while the woman can withhold sex and then increase her sexual power over the man.

In both cases, each action would be decreasing the rival's power in addition to increasing one's own. Not even 'in addition' works — there is no distinction whatsoever to be made between increasing in X and decreasing in Y.
#14476578
Amanita wrote:I identify the rejection of the zero-sum mentality as the most crucial wedge between 'ancient' and 'modern' mindsets. It occurred during the Christian-driven early modern ('Faustian') movement towards 'infinity' in which everything from physics to economics starts being regarded as open, infinite and progressing towards an indeterminate goal (resulting in Newtonian physics, capitalism and liberalism).


Okay. Do you think Fascists think that power is a zero-sum game?

A wrote:People making use of the indigenous media outlets would otherwise be required to resort to, say, mainstream ones so these indigenous media outlets would in effect be "siphoning" power off mainstream ones. This can even have a measurable effect e.g. redirection of commercials (loss of revenue). It could potentially result in a new 'world order' just as the liberal media press (which was likewise a power that never existed before) was one of the factors behind the collapse of conservative monarchism.


This makes no sense. The mainstream outlets actually have more resources now than ever, because they can use the same new resources that indigenous media uses, and because they are no longer fighting with indigenous people for the traditional resources, they have wider access to that too (i.e more power).

A wrote:In both cases, each action would be decreasing the rival's power in addition to increasing one's own. Not even 'in addition' works — there is no distinction whatsoever to be made between increasing in X and decreasing in Y.


You are confusing the fact that power over others is a relative thing with the idea that power is a zero-sum game. I think.
#14497354
To amalgamate anti-Christianism and anti-clericalism is idiocy or mis-comprehension.

The fascists are anti-clerical because the totalitarian state wants sole control of its citizens.
The Catholic Church in Europe was always fighting with the state for control of the Catholic population.

However at the same time, religion played a huge part in Fascist attitude.
Most fascists believe religion to be essential for citizens and Germany, Italy, and Spain, alongside with Belgium and France fascism, were Christian in nature.
Which goes along with authoritarianism, itself a form of paternalism which is Christian in every sense of the way.

The left wing in Europe is traditionally anti-Christian, especially the communists.
The protector of the church are right wingers and fascists especially.
#14497752
ImperialSun wrote:The fascists are anti-clerical because the totalitarian state wants sole control of its citizens.


Not just that. Fascist values--aggressive statism, striving to dominate, veneration of the Great Man in the real world--are inherently at odds with christian values.

However at the same time, religion played a huge part in Fascist attitude.


I think in the more prominent fascist nations, especially Germany, fascists just inherited christian societies and did their best to promote their own views without alienating too many people, too soon. Bormann certainly had no use for holy joes. Even Mussolini, I understand, was an atheist.


The protector of the church are right wingers and fascists especially.


Either they're not true fascist types or maybe they're just paying lip service to maximize their base of support.
#14546427
Political Interest wrote:I noticed that historically most fascists, including National Socialists were not keen on Christianity. Look at Mussolini who was anti-clerical and only tried to approach the Vatican out of political expediency. Then there was the Nazis who had many anti-Christian ideas held among their ranks. Notable among them was Heinrich Himmler who was anti-Christian and flirted with Buddhism and Islam. Hitler also lamented the fact that Germanic Europe had become Christian because he felt it was too meek.

Today a lot of fascists, including those on PoFo are anti-Christian.

Were there any fascists who had a positive view of Christianity or were they all basically nominal (public) Christians who wanted to go to paganism?

No, there have been movements you could call Fascist that were Christian in orientation, Falange, Brazilian Integralism, the Ustaše and the Iron Guard, for example. The seeming anti-Christian bent is mostly due to Nazism and their bastardized neo-Paganism, it seems, which isn't a fair view of it. Both Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity meld well with Fascism since they are highly hierarchical, promote discipline, promote submission to authority (earthly and otherwise), disdain degeneracy and Christianity already has the goal of creating a superior form of human, among other similarities. Fascism owes a lot to the Roman Empire in certain ways and Christianity inherited the Roman Empire and fanatically imposed homogeneity. The Pagan Romans were "too nice". I don't think that neo-Paganism has anywhere near the correct traits needed to produce a viable form of Fascism. They're living in la-la land and have stupid misconceptions about the alleged "meekness" and "weakness" of Christianity.
#14546662
Saint Frankenstein wrote:The seeming anti-Christian bent is mostly due to Nazism and their bastardized neo-Paganism, it seems, which isn't a fair view of it.


Mussolini was an atheist. If the fascist core had really had its way it would've replaced christianity but they apparently didn't have the stomach to brutally transform society in the manner of Stalin.

Both Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity meld well with Fascism since they are highly hierarchical, promote discipline, promote submission to authority (earthly and otherwise), disdain degeneracy


The core values are poles apart--great worldly ambition and will to power vs otherworldliness and humility, adoration of the Great Man in the real world vs a mythical deity.

Fascism owes a lot to the Roman Empire in certain ways


It is emulative of the Roman Empire at its height when christians were a despised, persecuted minority.


Christianity inherited the Roman Empire and fanatically imposed homogeneity.


In the process ruining it. The western empire didn't survive a century after christianity won out, and was in fact very lucky to last that long. The eastern was even luckier but was essentially gone by about 700 CE.

The Pagan Romans were "too nice".


They were certainly willing to fight for Rome whereas citizens of the new christian west weren't, in the fifth century.


I don't think that neo-Paganism has anywhere near the correct traits needed to produce a viable form of Fascism.


Paganism may be as dumb as christianity. Fascism (or a future ideology) should be based on science and reality.

living in la-la land and have stupid misconceptions about the alleged "meekness" and "weakness" of Christianity.


Christianity is utter bullshit (see e.g. Ehrman's works) and no ideology should be based on that.
#14643762
Bosnjak wrote:Christedom is a religion for Monks, Women, not for Warriors like Islam, or old germanic Paganism


Like all religions, it's for the ignorant, warriors or not...(there have been plenty of christian warriors). My post above should've remained the last in this thread.
#14669968
Bosnjak wrote:Christedom is a religion for Monks, Women, not for Warriors like Islam, or old germanic Paganism


Europe has been subject to wars during the Christian period moreso than in pagan Roman times. Please people check your facts before saying wishful thinking.
#14670041
Renato wrote:Europe has been subject to wars during the Christian period moreso than in pagan Roman times.



Dunno about "moreso" as there were major conflicts even during the Pax Romana. But there was no shortage of conflict--and persecution--in later christian Europe.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]