So the party who is aggressively anti-government, wants to use the government to tell people what they're allowed and not allowed to do. Did I get that right?
Fascists are completely outcome-driven. They will have whatever ideals and principles that happens to justify their own supremacy. If they don't want to pay taxes today they will be principled small-government libertarians, if they hate trans people tomorrow they want to have mandatory genital inspections.
They will change their deeply felt principles the very moment it becomes more opportune, they will hold mutually contradictory beliefs and be fine. That is also why civilised liberal debate with fascists is completely pointless. It's disingenuous bullshit all the way through.
Right-wingers have no beliefs except being pro-hierarchy. Everything else is just fluff to achieve a society where they are above you, they can do whatever they want and you have to do as they say. They can say they want "small government" and then turn around and legislate entire groups of people out of existence without even blinking because nothing they say out loud actually matters. They don't believe in words, or reason, or truth.
I think this is useful rhetoric to target at liberals, absolutely. The hypocrisy angle.
I do think that amongst ourselves, we should also recognize that this is how liberal bourgeois class rhetoric has always worked: an embrace of "freedom" that is limited to casting off the bounds of things like feudalism or amorphous governments "telling you what to do", but in fact forces of domination persist and are reinforced by capitalism. Another relevant trope that has been used for ages is to recast oppression as defense, a way to justify and empower the forces of reaction that can't be swayed (yet) by outright hatred. Every progressive cause in the US has been reacted to as an unfair attack on traditional moral values, this is known to be good PR at this point. Slavery, women's suffrage, workers' rights, (partial) civil rights for black people, gay rights, trans rights. The inconsistency was and is always there. None of these things imposed limits on the American public's "personal freedoms". And yet there they were, successfully building campaigns of reaction premisrf on the idea that two people from different races marrying was, in fact, a violence done against you, personally.
Underneath it all, these are just flimsy excuses, mechanisms to hide the monstrosity of the reaction underneath it all. Regardless of when the proponents are cognizant of it, the effect is the same: marginalization of those targeted and cover for the ruling class factions to take action againsy the marginalized. And destruction and fear when they gain ground.
The harder question is what we do about it, irl, to protect ourselves and each other, and in the US that largely depends on where you live. In liberal cities, we need to be joining and working with orgs that materially protect trans people, including trans kids, by providing them with housing, food, school, and travel away from dangerous situations. In more explicitly reactionary areas I'd like comrades to understand that they can do the same thing but will be takinh on significant risk, so i don't want to push anyone in that direction without them understanding that.
So the party who is aggressively anti-government, wants to use the government to tell people what they're allowed and not allowed to do. Did I get that right?
Fascists are completely outcome-driven. They will have whatever ideals and principles that happens to justify their own supremacy. If they don't want to pay taxes today they will be principled small-government libertarians, if they hate trans people tomorrow they want to have mandatory genital inspections.
They will change their deeply felt principles the very moment it becomes more opportune, they will hold mutually contradictory beliefs and be fine. That is also why civilised liberal debate with fascists is completely pointless. It's disingenuous bullshit all the way through.
the conservative premise is that there are some the law should protect and not bind, and some the law should bind and not protect.
deleted by creator
do it, their rage is one of the only source of joy we have left
Right-wingers have no beliefs except being pro-hierarchy. Everything else is just fluff to achieve a society where they are above you, they can do whatever they want and you have to do as they say. They can say they want "small government" and then turn around and legislate entire groups of people out of existence without even blinking because nothing they say out loud actually matters. They don't believe in words, or reason, or truth.
deleted by creator
I think this is useful rhetoric to target at liberals, absolutely. The hypocrisy angle.
I do think that amongst ourselves, we should also recognize that this is how liberal bourgeois class rhetoric has always worked: an embrace of "freedom" that is limited to casting off the bounds of things like feudalism or amorphous governments "telling you what to do", but in fact forces of domination persist and are reinforced by capitalism. Another relevant trope that has been used for ages is to recast oppression as defense, a way to justify and empower the forces of reaction that can't be swayed (yet) by outright hatred. Every progressive cause in the US has been reacted to as an unfair attack on traditional moral values, this is known to be good PR at this point. Slavery, women's suffrage, workers' rights, (partial) civil rights for black people, gay rights, trans rights. The inconsistency was and is always there. None of these things imposed limits on the American public's "personal freedoms". And yet there they were, successfully building campaigns of reaction premisrf on the idea that two people from different races marrying was, in fact, a violence done against you, personally.
Underneath it all, these are just flimsy excuses, mechanisms to hide the monstrosity of the reaction underneath it all. Regardless of when the proponents are cognizant of it, the effect is the same: marginalization of those targeted and cover for the ruling class factions to take action againsy the marginalized. And destruction and fear when they gain ground.
The harder question is what we do about it, irl, to protect ourselves and each other, and in the US that largely depends on where you live. In liberal cities, we need to be joining and working with orgs that materially protect trans people, including trans kids, by providing them with housing, food, school, and travel away from dangerous situations. In more explicitly reactionary areas I'd like comrades to understand that they can do the same thing but will be takinh on significant risk, so i don't want to push anyone in that direction without them understanding that.