1. Powerful, often exclusionary, populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible”
leader who never admits mistakes.
2. Political power derived from questioning reality, endorsing myth and rage, and promoting lies.
3. Fixation with perceived national decline, humiliation, or victimhood.
4. Oppose any initiatives or institutions that are racially, ethnically, or religiously harmonious.
5. Disdain for human rights while seeking purity and cleansing for those they define as part of the nation.
6. Identification of “enemies”/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Imprison and/or murder opposition and minority
group leaders.
7. Supremacy of the military and embrace of paramilitarism in an uneasy, but effective
collaboration with traditional elites. Government arms people and justifies and glorifies violence as “redemptive”.
8. Rampant sexism.
9. Control of mass media and undermining “truth”.
10. Obsession with national security, crime and punishment, and fostering a sense of the nation under attack.
11. Religion and government are intertwined.
12. Corporate power is protected and labor power is suppressed.
13. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts not aligned with the narrative.
14. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Loyalty to the leader is paramount and often more important than competence.
15. Fraudulent elections and creation of a one-party state.
16. Often seeking to expand territory through armed conflict.
I don’t get it. Even the Soviet Union used money. Simply paying for stuff isn’t necessarily capitalism? Or are you suggesting Anthropic should be state-owned?
Using money as a medium to facilitate exchange of goods and services is not capitalism. Abandoning one of your core principles in the pursuit of money, or more charitably because not doing so means your competitors will make more money and overtake you in the marketplace is an outgrowth of capitalism
In the Soviet Union the reasons might have been "to beat the Capitalists", "for the pride of our country" or "Stalin asked us to and saying no means we get sent to Siberia". Though a variant of the last one may well have happened here, and the justification we read is just the one less damaging to everyone involved
As a person living on the border between New Mexico and Colorado on land that borders reservations and who drives past the site of a residential school pretty regularly, I completely agree.
There are modern European states refounded after the Allies pursued a deliberate and calculated policy of ethnic cleansing to ensure Germans would never be a problem again - in some cases going from 25% of the population prewar to 1% afterwards, with mass violence and rape included. Ethnic cleansing is only really frowned upon when you lose, or when you win so hard it's a convenient virtue signal and disapproval doesn't threaten the status quo.
Yes, it's definitely true the USSR engaged in forced population transfers and genocides, but I'm talking about the Allied (not just USSR) policy for Germans outside of the then-newly-defined German borders, since the USSR on its own is generally considered a 'bad' guy. The US and UK supported and endorsed what happened in this case.
Can we not politicize historical events? This is not historically controversial. The Czechoslovak President literally called it the "final solution" to their German problem. Or do you just want more examples? There are plenty.
Doesn’t have to be evil to be disastrous. Misaligned is plenty enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence
reply