"If you were in Nazi Germany, the statistical probability is overwhelming that you would have been a perpetrator". - JB Peterson
Most people overestimate very much how good they are, or would be. Very few would step up when it means putting yourself and your family on the line.
What's ironic is that the people who are "Nazis" now have the highest probability of opposing Hitler's disastrous populism, had they lived then, because they have dissident personalities.
Behold the eternal normie.
Right? When I say something like “the left is silencing opposition and it’s scary,” someone calls me a nazi for it and I’m like no, I’m literally against the line of tyranny that Nazis, communists, fascists, socialists, and monarchs imposed. It’s the whole point.
I don't have a problem with restrictions on free speech. The purpose of the 1st Amendment was to permit the several states to regulate speech according to their respective state religions. The post- Civil War USA has one state church of Harvard, so I must live overseas to criticize it safely. Jurisdictional arbitrage is the original free speech.
I have never heard a free speech advocate point to a society that actually had free speech, and then say how long its government lasted. Rome certainly didn't have free speech.
Government is a shared illusion, and whatever cannot be criticized will come to rule the minds and bodies of the masses. Free speech is simply abdication by the de jure government in favor of whatever de facto speech code arises in its place. What sort of speech code is viral, I wonder?
Multiple social cycle of history theories agree that the USA's strange experiment with permitting lese majeste heads rapidly towards a bad end. Ultimately the thug who punches you in the mouth if you diss him has more common sense. He knows what follows when chimps hoot.
Freedom of speech requires protection. It must be nurtured and guarded as one of our greatest treasures. Liberty is constantly being threatened. You sound like a wannabe dictator.
Ironically, if you explain to an American conservative that the Constitution is not in fact sacred, but rather, by the very Declaration of Independence, a very dispensable document, and one already destroyed by Lincoln's federalized interpretation thereof, to say nothing of FDR's, then ahistoricus Americanus becomes as outraged as if you had insulted the king in the hearing of a medieval peasant. Thus proving that lese majeste never dies when abolished, but merely migrates to more absurd taboos, such as the proper pronouns for men wearing dresses and wigs. Which, I note, takes us full circle to foppish medieval aristocratic fashion and privilege, milord.
Anacyclosis is not dead but disguised by scale, which requires the organs of a republic to mitigate. The USA's expansion of suffrage to the undocumented and deceased is the apogee of modern democracy, at least until Internet-crypto direct democracy arrives. Thus we behold the madness of demotism, which heralds the return of kings.
Trump, of course, seeks only to revive the Republic. So did pre-Rubicon Caesar.
It didn't work because it couldn't. As Machiavelli observed in his Discourses, nobody has ever figured out that necromantic trick. It always begins with an attempt to revive a loved one, and usually ends in vigorous non-consensual cannibalism. Which is why Augustus had the republic embalmed in state, after carefully removing all its organs.
If I wanted to be a dictator, I would fund libertarian free speech propaganda aimed at the right wing. Then the unprincipled Left would use their freedom to promote subversion to capture the priestly institutions such as media and academia, and use their newfound power to enrich themselves. The resulting looting, from smashing windows to smashing replicable science, would generate so much chaos and destruction that the right and center would insist upon a dictator to restore order.
Then I would merely need to retain my sanity and competence in an insane world, uttering populist bromides that are rightist now but were centrist 50 years ago, while gradually consolidating executive power and imprisoning priestly gangsters.
By the way, dictator is an office of the Roman Republic, similar to a president with emergency powers. I suspect you meant to call me literally Hitler, who was a tyrant after he dispensed with the Weimar Republic. But he was popular, so perhaps "king" is a better name. There were plenty of incompetent kings, after all, and new lines typically rose to power by violence. A tyrant oppresses the majority by the support of a militarized minority, whereas a king defends the people from oppressive elites.
But kings are blessed by the state church! Yes, and Hitler's ascension was blessed by the organs of propaganda and higher thought, the modern cathedral.
Certainly the Kim dynasty of North Korea qualifies as kingly by now, so socialist propaganda is no obstacle to the appellation. That socialist kings usually fail to perpetuate their royal lines is unremarkable, in light of the fact that socialist countries mainly perpetuate bread lines. Caesar's tripartite checklist is bread, circuses and bribed Praetorians. Socialism performs dismally on two out of three. Hence they commonly appear to be humorless military "dictatorships", apopleptic with envy of and paranoid over persecution by the wealthy, wily West. This explains the ludicrous pretense that they are merely republics with extraordinarily stable executive preferences.
But in this usage, "dictator" is merely a euphemism for "tyrant", meant to imply as much by the Associated Press without compromising its veneer of impartiality, which the CIA finds so helpful for programming rubes. Calling every Dear Leader without a crown a "dictator" implies that the arc of history bends towards democratic republics, something even Mr. Fukuyama is now embarrassed to assert. If we simply acknowledged them as kings, they might relax with all the goose-stepping and worry a bit more about bread and sitcoms.
Yarvin solves the terminological problem by settling on "prince", which fits both Machiavelli's book and the Latin "princeps".
Trump is Caesar, pre-Rubicon. He has Caesar's uncanny combination of popularity, excellence and strategy. He lacks Caesar's youth, which reduces the likelihood of him ever crossing the Rubicon. His enemies, those who remain after the dust settles, will likely be content to wait for age to do what assassins could not.
He may succeed in bequeathing the whirlwind to his sons. What could be more quintessentially Boomer than that?