rottingleaf

What targets? In modern war you'll very rarely see an enemy combatant in the range of usual small arms.

Who am I to stand on your path

While how we should view it is shown in "Idiocracy", Azimov's "Foundation", 20-17 BBY era of Star Wars EU. And in fuckload of other fiction showing use of too complex blackbox interconnected technology as Troyan horse by some enemy. And, of course, if some people here have read real science fiction, then in Lem's books and stories.

Standard combat roles, ahem, are not about small arms today. They are about FPVs and small artillery.

Real life is a bit more practical.

Good relationship between family and politics is - you do disagree with your family, and you do pick different sides in politics, the more different the better. But in the end the part of the family that supported the winning side pulls up the other part of the family.

It's more of a survival tactic. I'm not sure if you really know how this works.

Democrats are a political corporation of the CPSU kind. Their "integrity" is too strong. They never say anything that can be used against them. They never do anything that can be used against them. They grow their power steadily. They appear competent and they are, there's no doubt in that.

It looks professional and strong, and humans are attracted to strength.

I'm just saying that if there's a part of population frightened to shit over such a strong faction getting presidency for another 4 years, they are going to vote for anyone other than them, and with a two-party system - yes, for Trump.

I dunno. I'm part Armenian and part Jewish. Trump threatens both, one with possible enslavement and destruction, one with further moral corruption. Harris in words does not.

But at the same time I have a historical example - the 1996 election in Russia, where Yeltsin's campaign had "vote or you'll lose" as its slogan, his opposition consistent of very unpleasant people - a bunch of communists, fascists and traditionalists, with seemingly nothing in common other than the enemy, and the choice was much like you have between Harris and Trump now.

Only, as we now know, Yeltsin's victory was a bridge leading to Putin's coming to power.

TLDR, there's also a sharp dichotomy between those who understand that the awesome strength asking for their vote will not serve them, they will serve it, and those who don't. And I guess those who can't decide between these two criteria will still vote for one of the sides, because they'll feel they have to do something.

I'm glad I'm not a US citizen, because I personally don't know how I would decide between these two.

OK. I just meant that one can demand that as a sign of respect or something. With a sufficient degree of narcissism.

Marcus Aurelius apparently has found a way

Maybe you are right. I'm thinking about the wrong kind of autistic people right now.

Disney stuff doesn't count for me.

The "Death Star" novel does.

Not really, a good fascist should be always ready to fight for their place in the sun, on all levels, their collective included. There's no rightful domination there, or right per se, but there is fighting and the resulting domination of the strongest. So if you disobey and lose, you have contributed to fascism to the best of your ability. If you disobey and win, you are the most virtuous fascist. Apathy is the worst crime there. It's the "jungle" ideology in some sense.

It would be fine if not for the fact that it doesn't contribute anything to the human, just describes the basic level and how to succeed there, but there are better levels.

Still I think it's important to deeply understand fascism and how it's not all evil, because we must understand why and when it's in demand. It's an ideology of chaotic life and violent evolution, and the demand for it arises when more gracious alternatives erode, and nothing around is certain other than one's will to fight.

Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum" is a wonderful book deeply exploring fascist aesthetic, by the way.

The issue with fascist followers (an important word) is that it doesn't take anything to pretend to be a fascist, while being a submissive slave in fact.

I actually find it funny how if you remove NAP from anarcho-capitalism, it can become both classical fascism and classical anarchism, with the difference being in what people of these ideologies want from the future, not the rules these ideologies impose.