And a Holocaust denier to boot. What a weird fellow. Can't say I love the National Front, but if they move to the center and take their followers with them (which isn't assured), that can't be bad.
@Cerberus Yes, but not really. But I mean that they followed the cult of personality, and given his beginnings, who would have thought that he could turn into such a fascist.
The huge parades of their military might, their citziens threatening violence to anyone who opposes them or even dares say that Taiwan is an independent state doesn't constitute glorification?
But the ones that do, who glorify their military strength, who use violence against political opponents, does that equation add up to fascistic lookings?
It has to be about the central ideology, it has to be centred around the glorification of violence and power—which is distinct from the gross abuse of violence and dictatorship.
> Hence, the Doctrine's Weltanschauung proposes the world as action in the realm of humanity – beyond the quotidian constrictions of contemporary political trend, by rejecting "perpetual peace" as fantastical and accepting Man as a species continually at war; those who meet the challenge, achieve nobility.[139] To wit, actual idealism generally accepted that conquerors were the men of historical consequence, e.g. the Roman Julius Caesar, the Greek Alexander the Great, the Frank Charlemagne and the French Napoleon. The philosopher–intellectual Gentile was especially inspired by the Roman Emp…
@RetractedAndRetired I think this is part of the essence of fascism, the core belief that "Man as a species [is] continually at war; those who meet the challenge, achieve nobility".
> Gentile defined Fascism as an anti-intellectual doctrine, epistemologically based on faith rather than reason. Fascist mysticism emphasized the importance of political myths
I think one missing element is that these beliefs have a historical context, and that polities like China (or Japan a hundred years ago) developed similar positions through convergent evolution.
@Cerberus Whenever you come back, I just realized that your definition would include Vikings, Assyrians, and the archaic Greek city states. Is fascism then just a return to and renewal of ancient ideologies?
(Probably even better fitting than the Roman Empire)
> far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
By that definition, China would not be fascist because it's not far-right, even though it uses forcible suppression of opposition and has a strongly regimented society.
So I guess the question in regards to the Roman Empire is: do you consider it far-right?
True. I'd rather see a description of political stances than a label. For example, what is considered "far-left" here in the US isn't viewed that way in Europe.
In general, I like to think that labels are a great place to start but a bad place to stop. They give a quick first impression, but if any nuance is needed, the picture needs more color and detail.
This is probably only something I care about, but the terrible fake Latin in Elder Scrolls Online never ceases to irk me.
Example: There's a player house you can purchase with in-game gold or crown points (which are purchased with real money) called Domus Phrasticus. According to its description, it used to belong to someone called Phrastus before he disappeared (and now it can be yours, nevermind who are you actually buying it from if it isn't him).
But domus phrasticus? Really, Zenimax? As a AAA game studio that makes millions from games, you think they could afford one Latin translator.
@JoonasIlmavirta People can get super hung up on labels, both in not wanting to stray from what they think is appropriate for the label and also just in wanting everything labeled.
When I was a teenager in the 90s it felt like everything went the reverse direction; it was "don't label me" or "I don't want or need a label".
@Adam I don't really like the unconditional "don't label me" message. There are a number of labels you could attach to me, some more and some less justifiably. But if someone wants to know or understand me, then they should be able to look beyond those labels and adjust their first impressions.
As with many other things, the thing that troubles me in the label discussion is lack of nuance and middle ground.
@JoonasIlmavirta I'm not really against labels per se, and they are helpful as a starting point as long as a person doesn't define you purely by the label.
@Adam That is unfortunately common. It is weird, though, how people can pour money in a project and not have anyone check the language.
@Adam That happens pretty easily. Then you can try to quickly describe it by giving some labels near it and underlining that they only point in a general direction.
@Adam It's not entirely unlike what I was taught in an introductory class to linguistics. There is more to a language than its vocabulary, but words themselves are hard to describe as anything substantially different from labels.
@Adam Unless I'm mistaken, it's not supposed to be actual Latin. It's used to bring up the idea of empire, since all those with Latinate-sending names are Imperials.
CONLOQVIVM
CONLOQVIVM