Creation of Empowerment

Fascism unites people through their insecurities, not their strengths. Our critical culture has bred "confidence issues". Perhaps this is due to the competitive nature of capitalism; perhaps due to the culture of entitlement that identifies the haves and the have nots. Regardless, the current society in America is one which promotes victimization and therefor violence.
When reality clashes with what is purported to be reality, disenfranchisement occurs. When there is talk of a level playing field, but all monetary aid given to school districts for special programs goes to ESL classes, or special ed. classes, the majority comes to know that the playing fied is being leveled against them. When a student isn't being challenged to their full potential because the teacher is stretched too thin by dealing with the students who should have been held back for whatever reason, society fails that student, and that student will either teach himself or ensure that others cannot learn either. Probably through violence. When a teacher neglects to spend time with the student who has no difficulty with the subject matter, that student can become starved for attention, and jealous of whatever group seems to be dominating the teacher's time. As Time is a zero-sum entity, this inequality fractures society, leaving it ripe for fascist agendas.

Perhaps a biblical Job-ism

When comparing Hitler's vision of fascism to Mussolini's, Hitler at least succinctly outlines his critique and vision. He believes in the holiness of natural selection, and that man must aid this process by mating only with men who equal himself. Suffering promotes improvement. Only when he brings his mistaken assumptions about Jews into the mix does he cease for a moment to make rhetorical sense. [I have no clue where the first came from, but once that is established, the rest simply build upon it] He then goes on to outline the supreme lack of logic in his opponents' methods of creating an ideal, 'peaceful' society "we would have to wage wars in order to arrive at pacifism". When the strongest are all that's left, he agrees that this kind of peace might be attainable, but so long as there is suffering to weed out the weak, let the weak suffer. Especially since "all great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning." America travels the path to sure destruction with her new president elect, a prime example of 'defilement of the blood'.

The urge to preserve the species leads men to form governments. As such, the stare is but the "organization of a community of physically and psychologically similar living beings for the better facilitation of the maintenance of their species". The state, however, requires the sacrifice of the individual for the betterment of the species; suffering for improvement!

Yay Anarchism!

Goldman makes some grossly positive assumptions about humanity. She goes back to the social contract theory, and says that 'wealth consists in things of utility and beauty'. People should join together only when they wish to. She assumes that men can protect themselves against injustice. In short, she states that Anarchism empowers the individual in a way that no other ideology does. It one-ups freedom.
I read Ayn Rand extensively, and her concept of creators vs. second-handers comes into play with anarchism as well. In a structured society, people doing what they hate to do will of course make it harder [via 'crime'] for people trying to create beauty. In an unstructured society, people are free to make great things, and trade those for things that other people make. The natural conclusion is that if everybody makes something that they want to make, they will make it well, thereby bringing both happiness and satisfaction to all.

Apropo...

Thought this would be fitting, as tomorrow is Bonfire Night, as well as the day after our election. Burn some effigies. Woo.

And we're starting Anarchism.

...

Like I said, fitting.

Found it at johngushue.typepad.com