You are right to some extent but you need to realise those fascist brown/black nationalists (which I don't know who you are talking about) became fascist as a rebuttal to the idea of white superiorty and they had good reasons to support their claims cause look how many genocides whites have committed against black and browns on the basis of racial superiorty. While I don't remember black and browns committing genocides on the basis of racial superiorty against whites.
Prof. Flowers, a black foid is an example. Also the event I told you about that happened in Haiti when after the rebellion they killed the whites, the administrators, and the children and the foids.
The rebbutal part is indeed correct, but isn't it the same as the fascism of whites who became fascist because their reaction is to immigrant crime rates? Isn't their reaction coming from something noble, a protest against something evil?
The way nazis see jews is honestly what the whites were to blacks (today too but not as harsh).
We controlled (and now too but with a lesser extent) the world
We raped women on plantations
We spread the faith we possesed.
We used you in slave labour (now its the companies, we enable it not have it as law)
We tought you our language
We opressed every aspect of what made your indentity.
etc.
Like, I said it many times before, but the communism of tommorow is the black man's fascism. Why? Because we didn't yet intelectually achieve the knowledge what to do with fascism that has a true claim to back itself up, I would even argue we mind end up creating a seperate word for it if we find it and judge it to be alright (hell, we have it already in some cases, because black nationalism can't be treated like white nationalism, or else you'll get destroyed by the woke mob. Yet the words used just create tons of confusion, they were used worngly to sign a idea that is different, its stupid. What's the term or word for a symetric worldview? Or are blacks incapable of thinking like whites? Pintless virtue singalling snucking into politolog and being toxic.)
My point here is that the beginning does not matter. It leads to the same ideological outcome, because the journey your thoughts go through meet at the same crosspoint which end in one thing common for the paths. If people care to strangle fascism, then regardless of the basis the fascism starts from, by principle it is a "fascism", you need to weed it out.
The beginning only makes us empathethic. This makes us lower the punishment or do nothing to punish. Its why when you explain something, people say you defend it, because understading something summons you to look at it differently (maybe you just wanted to correct people who missunderstood and their attack has no cause? Maybe you wanted them to attack with a better reason, but you got labeled as an apologist), with the new data gotten you change your stance. Most people do it because feel obligated to do it, not because the data justifies changing your stance. I can perfectly understand why someone steals, yet, the act was commited and if its jail time its jail time indicriminate of the reason.
For me the act has moral value defining the sentence.
I approach fascism the same way. Fascism has for me a value defining my relationship with it.
Perceived/fake motivation or true foudation does not matter to me. What's the difference in me being scared if I meet a real monster or a prankter dresses up up as one and uses technology and a set up enviroment and technology? I'll run away in both cases. There's a responsibility to treat the source. If I burn my toast, I don't eat charcoal I set the time/power lower or buy myself a new toaster if its broken.
Yes, there was injustice, yes there were crimes, yes it was for a long time, yes the consequences are still felt by you today, something caused by evil and yet the practical manifestation of that evil is not fixed (legitimate frustration - yes) so many times yes.
It feeds of the concept that you inherited the right of revenge people before you had. You inherited the right for revenge for the conditions of today, but the right to fight back with proportional strength and action is not available anymore because that circumstance is not present.
But I'm decadent in my fight, I don't actually believe in anything. To me, it doesn't matter. If ultimately the only way is to reverse engineer the past into today and this way we become "even" then ok. Let it happen. It'd be nice if I died before it because living like that would be horror.
Most things always got fixed or corrected as we shifted our attention there, thus resources, because of tragedy. Like, how many times were new regulations introduced only in response to an tragic event? Always. Nothing ever came from pure dialetic discussion. So fuck it, let non-white fascism reign supreme.
There is a problem, inteligent people see it, propose stuff, people think its bs, the problem reaches critical mass, people die or get hurt, it reaches the media, the people who talked about it earlier get their names written in
bold or
italics in articles.
But tell me brocel. Would you kill me as a white man to generally hurt the group by depriving it of one its members, that is white people?