Under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, the Fascist Party of Italy seized control of the country in 1922 with the “March on Rome.” Before marching on the nation’s capital, Italian fascists committed violent acts across most of northern Italy. The king of Italy, fearing more bloodshed, appointed Mussolini Prime Minister of Italy. No election took place, and the Italian fascists used violent tactics to achieve power.
Spanish fascists came to power through a military coup, after the military leadership did not like the results of the most recent election, and the coup resulted in a civil war lasting from 1936 to 1939.
In Germany the fascist path to power was longer and more complicated for the National Socialists, or Nazis. Hitler attempted to mimic Mussolini in 1923 with the Beer Hall putsch, an attempt to overthrow local authorities. It did not succeed and resulted in a few deaths and the arrest of several Nazis, including Hitler. After the failed coup, the Nazis decided to use the democratic process to take over Germany. Yet not until the election of July 1932 did the Nazis become the largest party in the German Parliament. Despite winning a plurality of votes (37 percent), the Nazis did not receive a majority of the votes needed to form a government. The Nazis refused to join any coalition, which resulted in another election in November 1932. In that election the Nazis again won a plurality but not as large as before (only 33 percent). Despite the loss, the Nazis refused to form a coalition until Hitler was made chancellor, which occurred in January 1933. Once Hitler was chancellor, he ordered another parliamentary election.
In March 1933, the election was held and the Nazis again received only a plurality of the votes (43 percent). This would be the last open election until after World War II, because Hitler decided it would be easier to consolidate power through terror, fear, and even political murders, rather than trying to work with other parties.
So, what’s the pattern? How do fascists take power? First, they are angry with election results or how the country is being run. Then fascists use militant tactics to force the population into supporting, or acquiescing in, their cause, even though most citizens don’t actually support the fascist agenda.
Spidey wrote:I can’t wait until someone comes in here and starts shouting you down…basically proving your point, in the process.
So pointing out how much of a ridiculous [Deleted - Personal Shot] he is somehow proves his point? Equating political protests with fascism? The actual ★■◆●?
Spidey wrote:I can’t wait until someone comes in here and starts shouting you down…basically proving your point, in the process.
So pointing out how much of a ridiculous [Deleted - Personal Shot] he is somehow proves his point? Equating political protests with fascism? The actual ★■◆●?
Violence has no place in real political protest.
. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"- Mao Zedong
Spidey wrote:I can’t wait until someone comes in here and starts shouting you down…basically proving your point, in the process.
So pointing out how much of a ridiculous [Deleted - Personal Shot] he is somehow proves his point? Equating political protests with fascism? The actual ★■◆●?
I didn’t say or imply anything like that, so thanks for making one of my points.
Deliberately attempting to have a thread closed is a form of censorship, and no political protest is not fascism, but sucker punching someone sure is.
Actually, violent protests have suceeded in changing attitudes, governmental policies and even laws in the past. Sometimes the band aid has to be ripped off in order to expose the wound for ALL to see. It's funny how we never learn and that history keeps repeating itself and in the same fashion.
Tunnelcat wrote:Actually, violent protests have suceeded in changing attitudes, governmental policies and even laws in the past. Sometimes the band aid has to be ripped off in order to expose the wound for ALL to see. It's funny how we never learn and that history keeps repeating itself and in the same fashion.
Under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, the Fascist Party of Italy seized control of the country in 1922 with the “March on Rome.” Before marching on the nation’s capital, Italian fascists committed violent acts across most of northern Italy. The king of Italy, fearing more bloodshed, appointed Mussolini Prime Minister of Italy. No election took place, and the Italian fascists used violent tactics to achieve power.
. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"- Mao Zedong
Under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, the Fascist Party of Italy seized control of the country in 1922 with the “March on Rome.” Before marching on the nation’s capital, Italian fascists committed violent acts across most of northern Italy. The king of Italy, fearing more bloodshed, appointed Mussolini Prime Minister of Italy. No election took place, and the Italian fascists used violent tactics to achieve power.
Spanish fascists came to power through a military coup, after the military leadership did not like the results of the most recent election, and the coup resulted in a civil war lasting from 1936 to 1939.
In Germany the fascist path to power was longer and more complicated for the National Socialists, or Nazis. Hitler attempted to mimic Mussolini in 1923 with the Beer Hall putsch, an attempt to overthrow local authorities. It did not succeed and resulted in a few deaths and the arrest of several Nazis, including Hitler. After the failed coup, the Nazis decided to use the democratic process to take over Germany. Yet not until the election of July 1932 did the Nazis become the largest party in the German Parliament. Despite winning a plurality of votes (37 percent), the Nazis did not receive a majority of the votes needed to form a government. The Nazis refused to join any coalition, which resulted in another election in November 1932. In that election the Nazis again won a plurality but not as large as before (only 33 percent). Despite the loss, the Nazis refused to form a coalition until Hitler was made chancellor, which occurred in January 1933. Once Hitler was chancellor, he ordered another parliamentary election.
In March 1933, the election was held and the Nazis again received only a plurality of the votes (43 percent). This would be the last open election until after World War II, because Hitler decided it would be easier to consolidate power through terror, fear, and even political murders, rather than trying to work with other parties.
So, what’s the pattern? How do fascists take power? First, they are angry with election results or how the country is being run. Then fascists use militant tactics to force the population into supporting, or acquiescing in, their cause, even though most citizens don’t actually support the fascist agenda.
Ferno wrote:But I disagree with equating violent protestors with fascists. It's too narrow of a scope.
No it's not- because these fascists (which is EXACTLY what these violent protestors are) at college campuses and on the street are TRYING TO DESTROY FREE SPEECH.
If there is something they don't like- they don't discuss it like civilized human beings...they attack like savage animals- which is all they are.
. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"- Mao Zedong
So what were the demonstrates at UC Berkly who prevented someone they didn't like from speaking? Were they Fascist? Were they criminals when they went on to burn buildings? Peaceful protests are one thing but preventing someone from speaking because you don't like what they are saying is fascism. Still waiting for all those Trump supporters to run amok like the Berkley crowd did.
Liberal speak: "Convenience for you means control for him, free and the price is astronomical, you're the product for sale". Neil Oliver
Leftist are Evil, and Liberals keep voting for them. Dennis Prager
Ferno wrote:But I disagree with equating violent protestors with fascists. It's too narrow of a scope.
No it's not- because these fascists (which is EXACTLY what these violent protestors are) at college campuses and on the street are TRYING TO DESTROY FREE SPEECH.
If there is something they don't like- they don't discuss it like civilized human beings...they attack like savage animals- which is all they are.
I see similar behaviours from the PC/SJW crowd. But right now, we have to be careful with saying they're full-on fascists. They're not quite there - yet. If they show more fascist-like behavoiur, you can be sure I'll call them out for it.
Interesting idea on what happens to public opinion during violent and non-violent protests. Violent protests seem to create a "'circle the wagons' mentality motivated by a concern for safety" and it appears to definitely be counter productive to any cause that people are fighting for, even in the past. I'm seeing that reaction here too, most prominently among the conservatives, but also with the liberals here as well. It does make sense when you think about it, yet Americans keep resorting to it over and over, like violence and destruction are some sort of unhealthy panacea to vent their frustrations.
Perhaps it is unnecessary to point the finger at the country which first dropped bombs and then humanitarian aid.
And then refuses to accept refugees from those countries which they bombed.
You know, I'd love to become a member of Greenpeace or NATO troops (although needs to be very dumb to go for it), or a signalman on the submarine of the USA to fight the Russian democracy, which is different from American democracy.
But guys, firstly, I don't want to be an American fascist without principles and conscience, and secondly, I too love my homeland no matter what.
you know, I came back from New England, and got to this thread. I waited, and waited, but not one person suggested that the violence we see at times is essentially staged for the sole purpose of negating a vastly larger and more significant public protest that was completely peaceful. Anyone who doesn't at least consider that to be a component or even suggest it as a possibility is barking up the wrong tree, IMHO.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
callmeslick wrote:you know, I came back from New England, and got to this thread. I waited, and waited, but not one person suggested that the violence we see at times is essentially staged for the sole purpose of negating a vastly larger and more significant public protest that was completely peaceful. Anyone who doesn't at least consider that to be a component or even suggest it as a possibility is barking up the wrong tree, IMHO.
That's the problem. Those large and peaceful protests DID garner a lot of attention, but when a few of them turned violent, the media zeroed in on them like they were bloody train wrecks, disasters that these media guys know full well people usually love to watch like gladiator sports. Plus, all that violence gets them ratings. Of course, those events stole the oxygen out of everything peaceful that occurred earlier. If it bleeds, it leads. If liberals want action, they'll need large numbers of peaceful protestors constantly in the spotlight and constantly in people's faces in order to stay relevant just to get their message across.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
agreed, and folks are working on just that. Plus, enjoying the massive turnout at the pro-Trump rallies. Got about 55 or so, in NYC, on a weekend, to show up at Trump Tower!!
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
callmeslick wrote:you know, I came back from New England, and got to this thread. I waited, and waited, but not one person suggested that the violence we see at times is essentially staged for the sole purpose of negating a vastly larger and more significant public protest that was completely peaceful. Anyone who doesn't at least consider that to be a component or even suggest it as a possibility is barking up the wrong tree, IMHO.
Yea well…that means all of those people in the dozens of videos I watched where people were attacking Trump supporters must have been predicting the future.
“Hey, there is going to be a peaceful march on Washington after Trump is elected, better fake some violence now.”
sigma wrote:Slick, you obviously did not serve in the army.
I didn't, and that is pertinent to this thread, how?
I was not in the US Army. I was in the Russian army. After training, you will kill a man without the slightest hesitation. That's why don't even need to develop this theme. Sorry
callmeslick wrote:you know, I came back from New England, and got to this thread. I waited, and waited, but not one person suggested that the violence we see at times is essentially staged for the sole purpose of negating a vastly larger and more significant public protest that was completely peaceful. Anyone who doesn't at least consider that to be a component or even suggest it as a possibility is barking up the wrong tree, IMHO.
Yea well…that means all of those people in the dozens of videos I watched where people were attacking Trump supporters must have been predicting the future.
“Hey, there is going to be a peaceful march on Washington after Trump is elected, better fake some violence now.”
I guess we should blast off a few of those Trump supporters who sucker punched a couple of Bernie supporters who where being hauled out of those Trump rallies by his security goons, a couple of those protestors who had handcuffs on and couldn't punch back either.
Plus, I guess you could just ignore all those millions of women who marched in protest all over the world without any violence as well, AFTER Trump was elected too.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
callmeslick wrote:you know, I came back from New England, and got to this thread. I waited, and waited, but not one person suggested that the violence we see at times is essentially staged for the sole purpose of negating a vastly larger and more significant public protest that was completely peaceful. Anyone who doesn't at least consider that to be a component or even suggest it as a possibility is barking up the wrong tree, IMHO.
Yea well…that means all of those people in the dozens of videos I watched where people were attacking Trump supporters must have been predicting the future.
“Hey, there is going to be a peaceful march on Washington after Trump is elected, better fake some violence now.”
really, and that was HOW tiny a fraction of the violent Trump supporters? And, you apparently discount that 2% of the US population marched the day after the inaugural with exactly one arrest, nationwide. why?
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Spidey wrote:Is it really that difficult for you two to get a simple point.
The point is that both sides of the political spectrum, from liberals to conservatives, have resorted to violence to get their point across at one time or another, in the past and during the present, because it's simply the human nature of tribalism and choosing sides. I will agree that young liberals tend to resort to violence more often, but that's due to the vitality and energy of youth. Also, liberals are more willing to change things around and try new ideas, while conservatives usually resist change and try to keep those and old comfortable ideas. I'm also seeing more and more young, and even middle-aged conservatives who are willing to get into a scrap this time around because they're running off that testosterone high from Trump's win. I get the impression Spidey that you believe that conservatives are less guilty of any untoward behaviors when that's far from the truth. Trump is proof of that, so look into the mirror. The reality is that we're all wallowing around in the dirt fighting each other and it's not getting us anywhere but filthy and stinky.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
Tunnelcat wrote:I get the impression Spidey that you believe that conservatives are less guilty of any untoward behaviors when that's far from the truth.
Oh hell no, my point was there is no conspiracy to cover up peaceful protests by “staging violence” and the fact that the violence was there long before the peaceful protest proves it.
I think your preconceived notions have lead you to the wrong conclusion about my posts, on quite a few occasions.
Spidey wrote:Is it really that difficult for you two to get a simple point.
The point is that both sides of the political spectrum, from liberals to conservatives, have resorted to violence to get their point across at one time or another, in the past and during the present, because it's simply the human nature of tribalism and choosing sides. I will agree that young liberals tend to resort to violence more often, but that's due to the vitality and energy of youth. Also, liberals are more willing to change things around and try new ideas, while conservatives usually resist change and try to keep those and old comfortable ideas. I'm also seeing more and more young, and even middle-aged conservatives who are willing to get into a scrap this time around because they're running off that testosterone high from Trump's win. I get the impression Spidey that you believe that conservatives are less guilty of any untoward behaviors when that's far from the truth. Trump is proof of that, so look into the mirror. The reality is that we're all wallowing around in the dirt fighting each other and it's not getting us anywhere but filthy and stinky.
So show us examples of rioting conservative violence to Liberal violence. And do so for recent events and not ages ago.
Liberal speak: "Convenience for you means control for him, free and the price is astronomical, you're the product for sale". Neil Oliver
Leftist are Evil, and Liberals keep voting for them. Dennis Prager
However, I wonder what would have happened with all those diehard Trump tea party supporters if Hillary had managed to win the election by a slim margin of electoral votes while losing the popular vote. Wouldn't Trump be out there bellyaching, stirring the pot and riling up his base claiming that the election was rigged and stolen? They were getting pretty boisterous during his rallies, even to the point of carrying firearms, threatening revolution and punching Bernie supporters. Wouldn't those disaffected gun-toting Trump supporters have, perhaps, resorted to attempting an armed overthrow of a Hillary government? It makes one wonder.....
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
and you haven't, once again(you've done this over several similar incidents) provide a single shred of evidence that the violent folks had the least linkage to either the protest nor any given ideological leaning. I clearly suggested how easy it is, in our society, to gin up a disturbance for the sake of doing so.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
woodchip wrote:TC, all you are posting is maybes or what if's. You still haven't posted any conservative violence like we saw the liberals do at Berkley.
No, I told you the reason. Violence tends to be under the purview of young people, hence demographics. Young people also tend to lean leftie because they're young, idealistic and are willing to fight outside the box for change. So technically, we don't see conservatives get into violent riots because they're older and less prone to violent acts. Probably because they're worn out and too tired to put out the effort to destroy things, which takes energy and the willingness to get arrested.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
woodchip wrote:TC, all you are posting is maybes or what if's. You still haven't posted any conservative violence like we saw the liberals do at Berkley.
nah, you're right, Woody. Right wing violence goes more along this sort of line(from tonight's lead stories, you can go to CNN for full story):
CNN has learned that threats against more than one federal judge involved in hearing legal challenges to Donald Trump's travel ban have resulted in extra protection for those judges. Pamela Brown reports.
peace lovin' folks who aren't the least threat to civil society, huh??? Oh, and please remember to look up that proof of party affiliation, known political leanings of all violent protestors arrested, when you find the time.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Threats towards judges critical of what the administration is doing. That's awful close to trying to coerce a judge to rule a certain way. If it succeeds, it becomes terrorism.
