Is this how fascism looks like?

Is this how fascism looks like?

Character limits are probably fascist as well. Character limits are probably fascist as well.Character limits are probably fascist as well. Character limits are probably fascist as well

Made me think

What's the point of this shit.

Everything is fascist when you look at it long enough.


Zizek said so and he's like the sherlock holmes of anti-fascism.

They all run from the nazis in the end though.

read Bordiga

Didn't Žižek make the point that this movie was an excellent portrayal of exactly the opposite of what you'd expect from the physical conception and ideology of the Nazi regime, a rendering of ideology within the edifice of some simple representation of truth. He means to suggest the irony that the self-representation of the national-socalists was exactly this: Folksy, traditional, laborious, and pious. The forces of the fascist regime are those of functionaries and bureaucrats, cosmopolitans and the like; akin much to the nazi image of the Jew. The point of course being a rehabilitation of the distaste of the international and the dichotomy between essential values, while portraying the display of resistance of "völkisch democracy" against the yoke of Nazi oppression. We have thus reconstituted our own conception of the threatening subject that means to deprive us of our "natural rights" while also absolving traditionalisms and the like as an integral part of the democratic subject. We keep our fears and wants, unperturbed by their shocking contiguous nature with those of the ideological "enemy" : the German fascist

So its like those theories about how movies that have blonde, beautiful and athletic villains and measly, bookish and scrawny victims are jewish/cultural marxist in their ideology.

No. Because likely, all the art you enjoy would be destroyed. These pictures and movies would only exist as propaganda. The nude form would be banned, artists jailed, authors shot, and cities patrolled, all worse than the Soviet Union. If you think the USSR was bad, be thankful that the reactionary Europe lost.

Well, depends who is watching - that's where the corollaries come from. But for a fascist, whose cathexis is some amalgam of racial or national hatred, yeah I could definitely see them trying to read that into it. From our point of view, our being some sort of western ideology, the quintessential Soviet is almost indistinguishable from that of the Nazi, as easy as the standard liberal reading of the Nazi and Soviet democide as merely two faces of some totalitarian disturbance - Most if not all bullshit of course, but hey, that's never stopped anyone before

For example, even Van Gogh's Stary Night was considered "degenerate art" in reactionary Europe, owning copies would make you seem suspicious, many reproductions were burned.

If you really think fascism is all a fun time for the superior race, you are mistaken. Notice the similarities now and then. Today all you do is hear Holla Forums complain about "degenerate art", it's no different than it was. Artists were kidnapped and shot, or left in prison to rot. This was the opposite in the USSR, where the arts flourished.

The reactionary wishes to protect the culture he once lusted to burn. Fascism is a pox on culture, fascism is a disease, a reactionary plague that wishes to self destruct their culture and create something new they say was old. Then it was music, theater, writing, and art. Imagine what it might be now.

Fascism does not protect the flow of culture and art and music, it disrespects it. It destroys it. Fascism does not ''protect" culture it destroys it into something that never existed before, a parody.

There is a difference though, nobody wants to live in a dingy tenement shared by 20 people and work 14 hour shifts in a satanic mill, not even communists. Nazi's don't care about their alpine peasant communes being deprived of DaDa and jazz, and I don't think most of people caught up in nazi land would do either.

I think this is why for people like Zizek fascism is the all-permeating corruption, nestling itself in bambi and the sound of music, its the enemy inside, the eternal aryan.

Well I mean it IS an objectively shit painting, and art like it should be banned for the sake of promoting actually non-shitty art.

My point exactly. None of you should gain power. You are stupid and you are cretins.

Alright, what irks me about cultural theorists is that they judge their own method of conjecture through free association as tinfoil paranoia when emulated by others. If the sound of music can be taken as fascist due its idealization of rural germans, then works of culture that criticize völkischness can be taken as (cultural) bolshevist.
This really depends on what one takes as quintessential, ideologically they weren't merely two faces of totalitarianism, while in the character of their instruments they were. Both relied on grim men who'd gladly do bad things, the capos and NKVD henchmen came from the same stock; thugs and officers. Stalin's favorite and most trusted agent was a former tsarist officer, not a dyed in the wool marxist who fully understood and agreed with the party line.


We're coming for your deviantart too.

Literally who?

Something tells me you think someone menstruating is also "art"

Are you saying that Van Gogh is the same? That they should all be burned as they intended to do? Van Gogh is at all similar? They are in different galaxies, what the fuck are you talking about?

But what about the art where they just shit on the canvas.

No, that's what communism looks like.

It's pointless to post in this, as, in all likelihood, the thread will die before you see this, but
I would say quite to the opposite, the philosophy here is not to assert a fundamental illusory potential to all other ideologies to which critique of them would be the solution. That would, in all fairness, be as much a sophist solution as any - considering, we'd sacrifice meaningful action in the wake of adopting the appropriate "philosophical" stance of reaction to whatever the existing order may be. In that way, we've neglected to understand that such critique is properly useless if rendered outside of a material discourse (cue Marxism blah blah), but most important to remember is not the use of art as only propaganda in an anti-memetic sense, in that real life will imitate art as a sort of space onto which we can produce the conjecture and self-experienced cordons of our material ideology (that of capital), but also as a frame that must always exist, within reason, as a means to be open to all interpretations - of course connected to the first point. So rather than some monistic critique that asserts a certain nature to a work, I feel it all the more imposing that the work exists as an undefined (open to all values, like a variable - assuming that it falls within the particularities or multiplicities of the set in which it is interpolated.) So I think it all too naive to note the Sound of Music a work of fascist aesthetic, rather I think it is precisely a work of anti-fascism, not in its leftist context, but an attempted desublimation of the rural idealized character from its horizon within the Nazi ideology and back within the order of capital.
Here, I agree with you - not on some fundamental avarice or misanthropy - but of their necessity within the ideological order to preserve its sublime character

Isn't Rammstein left wing? They did a song called Links 2 3 4 which was literally inspired by the Einheinsfrontlied.

No, it's how Austria looks like.