“Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”
I don't think you have a solid grasp of the definitions of "democracy" or "fascism". But you're not alone; most prog/libs have the same problem.There is a remarkably insightful quotation from George Orwell in 1984:
Here's how I interpret it largely:
Those who control the present controlling the past means, those who control the present can control propaganda and education. Think about China wiping things like the Tiananmen Square massacre from history in China.
History can be re-invented. Look at Putin's version of reality about the Ukraine war now: the west installed Nazis to rule Ukraine, developing bio-weapons, planning to use them in a war to destroy Russia, but Putin heroically defended Russia.
China has re-invented Mao's history as something of a maniac, history's greatest killer killing more than Hitler and Stalin combined reportedly, trying to destroy China's culture, into a positive and heroic story.
Right now in the US, we're having a controversy about what history to teach, an issue being called "CRT", with our politics and laws playing a growing role.
Wars, genocides, heroes and villains, history can be greatly altered by "the present". We're a bit less sensitive to this in the west with traditions of 'truth and accuracy', but the point is closer to the tyranny of 1984 or a China how the present can control the past.
The second part of the quote means that people's understanding of history is massive in the policies they'll support for the future. What lessons are learned.
So it's one thing if people have an accurate view of history and learn lessons they apply to policies - another famous saying, from Santanaya about 'those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it'.
But when that history is malleable, is fiction created by propagandists, people can be whipped up to support different policies that change what happens.
The thread title is asking a question showing that either of those options is possible, or others, and are greatly affected by what propaganda wins, what history people learn.
Were the 1950's filled with the US behaving monstrously, destroying democracies and installing tyrants in order to suppress countries for our benefit? Or was the US a champion of freedom against forces of tyranny?
Was Ronald Reagan a revolution for plutocracy to take hold of the US, weakening our democracy, or was he a liberating force ushering in an era of free markets increasing freedom and prosperity?
We're seeing massively different views in the US; trump supporters live in a different reality than Democrats. These differences apply to how people would view history as well, in many case.
People like to think 'history is history', but that's only some history that's not 'partisan' or 'divided'. The moment history touches a 'partisan' topic, it can be far from agreed on.
Looking for an example that's current enough to have partisan issues but still history, the Vietnam war can range from 'leftist traitors against our side', to 'a misguided and evil mass murder of millions of Vietnamese people trying to be free of foreign control'. Nevermind the ever-popular 'who cares' version.
What lessons should be drawn? About the role of domestic protest? About hubris? About 'losing a war because of liberals tying the hands of the military'? And so on. What the view of the history is, and the lessons from it, can radical shirt opinions on future issues.
When this is better appreciated, it helps people to cherish and want to protect the truth all the more, recognizing how critical it is to preventing tyranny.
Give me some examples of this 'fascism' you pretend existed during the Trump years.You really don't know the answer to your question? I guess you were asleep at the wheel during the Trump years.
Not to mention during Jan 6 and during the past 14 months after that, while the Republicans passed a whole bunch of new voter suppression laws in states like TX, GA, and AZ.
When the Republicans take over in Jan 2023, you'll have the answer to your question.
Give me some examples of this 'fascism' you pretend existed during the Trump years.
Which republicans are fascists or are advocating fascism?That's not what I wrote. That's where we're headed. Thanks to the Republican Traitor Party.
Which republicans are fascists or are advocating fascism?
If voting against certification is treasonous, why is there a vote? And which members of congress helped 'plan the insurrection?' And how is that fascism? Why do you post such nonsense?How about the 147 Republicans that voted to overturn Biden's victory on Jan 6?
How about the ones that helped plan the insurrection on Jan 6?
You side with traitors.
If voting against certification is treasonous, why is there a vote? And which members of congress helped 'plan the insurrection?' And how is that fascism? Why do you post such nonsense?
The ones trying to control ideas by banning books and teaching racism in our schools.Which republicans are fascists or are advocating fascism?
None of that is fascism. That is leftist propaganda. Sorry to disappoint you but not agreeing with the left does not make one a fascist. Maybe go educate yourself on what fascism is before making such stupid posts.The ones trying to control ideas by banning books and teaching racism in our schools.
The ones stopping women from having a legal medical procedure in their states.
The ones making--and justifying--death threats.
The ones who either ignore or minimize the insurrection on Jan 6.
The ones normalizing and championing civilians prancing around with AR' s.
That's a start. Those people want fascism, not democracy.
That isnt fascism. Like a good leftist, you have no clue what the word means. You just use it to label anything you dislike or disagree with.Why would they vote that way with no evidence of voter fraud? Because they were unhappy with the election results, so they tried to ignore the will of the voters.
In other words, fascism. You see, even you can get there.
None of that is fascism. That is leftist propaganda. Sorry to disappoint you but not agreeing with the left does not make one a fascist. Maybe go educate yourself on what fascism is before making such stupid posts.
That isnt fascism. Like a good leftist, you have no clue what the word means. You just use it to label anything you dislike or disagree with.
It isnt an example of fascism. You have just been trained to label anything you dont like as fascism.It's an example of fascism. And you can't refute that.
I love it when you self-accuse.Maybe go educate yourself on what fascism is before making such stupid posts.
Then tell me why they did it. And tell me why it isn't fascism. How is ignoring the will of the voters NOT fascism?It isnt an example of fascism. You have just been trained to label anything you dont like as fascism.
Gee...that sounds a lot like Jan 6!I love it when you self-accuse.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
Fascism in America
Words matter. We must call what is happening in the US by its true name.www.opendemocracy.net
Don't forget the ongoing attempts to suppress the vote of anyone who isn't republican and especially those who are brown skinned."forcible suppression of opposition"....like all of those racist Trumpsters attacking the Capitol and trying to kill Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, perhaps?
Of course it is steps toward fascism. I'm fully aware of what fascism is, Fletch.None of that is fascism. That is leftist propaganda. Sorry to disappoint you but not agreeing with the left does not make one a fascist. Maybe go educate yourself on what fascism is before making such stupid posts.
There is a remarkably insightful quotation from George Orwell in 1984:
Here's how I interpret it largely:
Those who control the present controlling the past means, those who control the present can control propaganda and education. Think about China wiping things like the Tiananmen Square massacre from history in China.
History can be re-invented. Look at Putin's version of reality about the Ukraine war now: the west installed Nazis to rule Ukraine, developing bio-weapons, planning to use them in a war to destroy Russia, but Putin heroically defended Russia.
China has re-invented Mao's history as something of a maniac, history's greatest killer killing more than Hitler and Stalin combined reportedly, trying to destroy China's culture, into a positive and heroic story.
Right now in the US, we're having a controversy about what history to teach, an issue being called "CRT", with our politics and laws playing a growing role.
Wars, genocides, heroes and villains, history can be greatly altered by "the present". We're a bit less sensitive to this in the west with traditions of 'truth and accuracy', but the point is closer to the tyranny of 1984 or a China how the present can control the past.
The second part of the quote means that people's understanding of history is massive in the policies they'll support for the future. What lessons are learned.
So it's one thing if people have an accurate view of history and learn lessons they apply to policies - another famous saying, from Santanaya about 'those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it'.
But when that history is malleable, is fiction created by propagandists, people can be whipped up to support different policies that change what happens.
The thread title is asking a question showing that either of those options is possible, or others, and are greatly affected by what propaganda wins, what history people learn.
Were the 1950's filled with the US behaving monstrously, destroying democracies and installing tyrants in order to suppress countries for our benefit? Or was the US a champion of freedom against forces of tyranny?
Was Ronald Reagan a revolution for plutocracy to take hold of the US, weakening our democracy, or was he a liberating force ushering in an era of free markets increasing freedom and prosperity?
We're seeing massively different views in the US; trump supporters live in a different reality than Democrats. These differences apply to how people would view history as well, in many case.
People like to think 'history is history', but that's only some history that's not 'partisan' or 'divided'. The moment history touches a 'partisan' topic, it can be far from agreed on.
Looking for an example that's current enough to have partisan issues but still history, the Vietnam war can range from 'leftist traitors against our side', to 'a misguided and evil mass murder of millions of Vietnamese people trying to be free of foreign control'. Nevermind the ever-popular 'who cares' version.
What lessons should be drawn? About the role of domestic protest? About hubris? About 'losing a war because of liberals tying the hands of the military'? And so on. What the view of the history is, and the lessons from it, can radical shirt opinions on future issues.
When this is better appreciated, it helps people to cherish and want to protect the truth all the more, recognizing how critical it is to preventing tyranny.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?