human communication ergo intelligent understanding

quote:
On the other hand, I heard it argued in the movie The Counterfeiter that individualism - a focus on personal survival - "is what makes Fascism work." Because individuals were concerned primarily with self preservation, he suggested, the Nazis had no need to fear popular revolt in their camps, ghettos, etc.

============================
my response:

If we're both trying to read from the same dialogue (verbatim) that you also presented: I'm reading it based on my own interpretation of what it appears to illustrate.

My idea of it (as it reads) is that "individualism" because it's a focus bases personal survival as the one true human desire that drives us - is what makes fascism work - therefore primal-instincts (i.e. self-preservation etc.) as the author suggested as were the Nazis incurred for it's domination. There's a glaring discrepancy that seems to weigh without any sort of collateral. There is an issue which needs be attached in order to effectively present the nature of identifying that definition of individualism. For the most part I do agree with that idea in its context. However, the void risks undermining the true element of fascist thought, being, in repeating the same kind of individualist ideology in reality speaks in favor of "individuals without rights". I fear that would be left undetected if not corrected properly.

======================

I gather that we can agree on one thing amidst merks fallacy, imperialist ideology may be a type of argument which has held American's idea of democracy together. What imperial dynamics involve whether it be a psuedo-totalitarian manner of thinking, I'd suggest that America in its history has combined the democracy they live with a make-shift version of colonial rule. I have no idea why merk keeps insinuating a slippery slope and bases it entirely on accusing someone else along the line of treason. It's too absurd to digest.