How to know what is real

[Judge]

If a person is willing to scale out so far in their understanding if history that they ignore the true nature of warfare on the ground, I'm pretty sure it must look all kinds of heroic.

That's what made some personalities' oratory so dangerous to society. Imagine the mentality of someone who was deadly serious about such beliefs. Should we accept their sincerity or condemn it?

"Armies for the preservation of peace do not exist; they exist only for the triumphant exertion of war."

-Adolf Hitler

 

[Jumpinbare]

"Armies for the preservation of peace do not exist; they exist only for the triumphant exertion of war."

-Adolf Hitler

Consider the source. I'm not impressed with Schicklegruber's (his birth surname) opinion.

 

[Judge]

Consider the source. I'm not impressed with Schicklegruber's (his birth surname) opinion.

Most people wouldn't be. But if you were German and survived World War One, it was often a very different matter considering he had the right words at the right time for the right audience. A deadly combination.

Keeping in mind that Hitler's manifesto was never meant for non-Germans. A basic reason for him to successfully sue then-publisher Alan Cranston (future senator of California) for publishing his "Mein Kampf" in English.

 

[Jonn]

Not Russian "fascism", but outright Leninism which applied an elitist model by a single leader that Marx never contemplated beyond a dictatorship of the proletariat. Not a party apparatus and bureaucracy with a single leader at the top.

Worse still later a single leader (Stalin) who would purge his own party of anyone who opposed him on virtually any issue. Particularly Leon Trotsky who steadfastly remained a proponent of global socialist revolution that Stalin wanted no part of.

Totalitarianism isn't confined to fascism. It can fundamentally exist on either poles of the political spectrum. As for authoritarianism, that can potentially happen along all points of the political spectrum. Particularly where corruption plays a major role in a society no matter what ideology may or may not be predominant.

An important aspect of the extreme right is their hallmark signature of using a democracy as a catalyst to gradually seize power, as opposed to the extreme left inciting a violent revolution with a favorable outcome.

Yet in American political culture they use terms like "radical" this or that, not to truly define opponents, but only to disparage them. When the common denominator of real extremism often comes down to whether they condone "a means justifying an end". Those very few who may be willing to operate outside the law and/or an existing constitution.

Talking about political systems.
Interesting.