,
7 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
when time permits will try to share the fun on how political activists and "humanities" academics stretch and shrink "labels" as per opportunity, agenda and degree of shamelessness/hypocrisy they r comfortable with: but for a start use of "fascist/Nazi" will be good to explore!🤣
a sample: if u cite concentration camp/genocide based on ethnicity/eugenics sh** as a feature of Nazism shared with say Brit imperialists, immediate response will be long harangues on why its "inappropriate" to compare: "scale" becomes issue, without justifying the threshold used
disputing how much the other/non-German thugs wr really doing it on state support or individual "aberration", and suddenly the urge becomes to confine "Nazism" geographically and to specific area and specific time.
Yet the same specificity is quickly dropped when calling modern "Hindus" not in Germany, fascist/Nazi for not accepting whitewash by Islamophiles or "neo"-imperialists of western Europe on history of what their fav icons/ideologies/religions did on Hindus or continue to do.
Churchill/Brit state was not Nazi - because they were not "Germans" in between 1920's-1945 who joined National Socialists in Germany, and whatever else they shared in their actions/attitudes on those they thought were inferior/subject races: but Hindus or Indian nationalists
who never joined the Nazi party when it existed, who never had the state power to run systematic genocide or concentration camps to torture and abuse and murder large scale, can be freely abused a s"Nazi/fascist on claims of "shared features".
the very history of the agenda/hate driven near infinite stretching&shrinking of the label "Nazi/fascist" and even the deliberate confusion on the interchangeability of the two -is a fascinating insight into the intellectual impoverishment of political thought over the 20th c.
