True. He mentions throughout that fascism is littered with internal contradictions that it has no interest in reconciling rationally.

It most certainly is, how can a group they disparage simultaneously be weak and subhuman, while also having lots of power and "controlling the world"?

It's similar to how Redpillers would explain how women, who they believe to be less intelligent than men (among other deficiencies) are still able to dominate society: through lies and manipulation and controlling the media, etc.

It's remarkable how much the narrative stays the same whether the enemy is women, or Jews, or people of color.

One obvious answer (not ascribing to the theory, just playing devil's advocate) is through deception and manipulation.

A group is weak, so it resorts to manipulation and deceiving , and thus gains power over stronger more "pure" groups don't stoop down to these tactics.

"A group is weak, so it resorts to manipulation and deceiving"

And yet the "superior" group isn't smart enough to evade or detect this effectively.

Well, superior could mean morally better, more hardworking, etc - so could be equally smart or even more, but might not be cynical enough to even think someone could do this kind of thing.

The superior group is not meant to be "superior" in every aspect -- only to the aspects that matter for the values of those defining it.

Oddly, this is a common trope in a lot of popular media, where heroes are often noble and strong, whereas their opponents are weak but cunning. (Various "Batman" movies have such plots, where Batman is almost brought low by the scheming of physically weak adversaries.)

Hi @md_ Remeber 3 weeks ago I replied to you that you are a tech guru and I had like to be friends with you. I am a computer scientist too. My email address is [email protected] Would you mind if I say hi to you from time to time?

Sort of having an esthetic and being willing threaten people, throw them in prison, to exile, or kill them over it.

Yes. This is the essential flaw in utopianism. Utopias always feature a foundational philosophy, an aesthetic as you describe it, and it has yet to be demonstrated that there exists any non-trivial example which everyone could agree is the "best."

To reach utopia the ends always justify the means, which in the past has resulted in trying to fit a population to an ideology. It's next to impossible to reverse the two, engineering an ideology that fits us, but very likely a target that we never stop working towards no matter the consequences along the way.

We seem to believe that reaching utopia will satisfy some ultimate survival need or help us reach some higher unforeseen goal, otherwise why would we commit such damaging acts against our own species in pursuit of it?

> ends always justify the means

Read The Prince in high school. Took me 15 years to come up with a short appropriate response.

In civil society the means are your ends.

If the means you use to bring your utopia into the world are violent and ruthless then your utopia is also going to violent and ruthless. Not much of a utopia.

Yes, I agree, this is the point I wanted to make, that trying to fit a population to an ideology will cause the means to be violent and ruthless because in the eyes of the ruling class it is justified.

This brings us back to the parent comment where they mentioned this modern idea that mastery over human nature is possible. I think our understanding of human nature is still naive, especially in this relatively new environment with a global level of instant communication. We'll see more flawed aesthetics come into popularity based off a false sense of human nature.

Exactly. See also the Futurists, a strong influence to Fascism.

>Ironically, totalitarianism is itself a product of modernism: the idea that you can premeditate a "perfect" society and then bring it about at scale, by force.

That is quite true. However, in the modern era we also have more pragmatic, moderate forms of liberalism that recognize that striving for perfection actually makes things worse than settling for imperfect but workable solutions.

Or we have been willing to admit to ourselves that our view of perfection was flawed and that these forms of liberalism are a better step in the direction towards our ultimate goal, whatever that may be.

No, leading liberal thinkers like Burke and Berlin have been perfectly clear that perfection is not possible. In fact, the whole US Constitution is a set of compromises based on the belief that human nature will always be imperfect. My impression is you don't know much about liberal political philosophy.

You're right, I haven't read much about liberal political philosophy, I was trying to reason this based on intuition and experience and I 100% agree that concessions about human nature need to be made.

I shouldn't have used the term perfection, as I didn't mean it in the short-sighted, self-serving and ideological form, rather than in the sense of our ultimate goal of how to best organize the human race despite our imperfections.

Is there a term for that objective, perhaps harmony? I'm going to do some reading of what "perfection" means from a political philosophical sense as the definition I came up with let me down in my response.