> The far right's persecution complex is directly tied to their violence and oppression against more vulnerable groups, so when some tech CEO validates that complex needlessly it really is counterproductive and harmful.

The far right has had a persecution complex for decades. It is a self sustaining social phenomenon. Again, there's this extravagant counterfactual claim that if no one materially opposed the nazis, the nazis wouldn't be as nazi as they are, which is such an extraordinary claim that it requires extraordinary evidence which is never provided. It is always stated blithely as some sort of obvious truth.

Nazis have already validated their persecution complexes. They are already fully invested in it. That's what got them to dress up as nazis and march about being a nazi and screaming "jews will not replace us". You're literally just repeating the same argument I called into question as if you have supported it with any new facts.

> Ideological consistency and abstract virtue are things for the far-left/right almost by definition.

Oh god please read a history book [1] [2]. Ideological inconsistency and irrationality are hallmarks of fascism. Both Nazis in Germany and Fascists in Italy constantly changed their beliefs and allegiances. They never at any particular moment had a cogent internally consistent ideology let alone an externally consistent one. The only predictable thing about fascism is it's brutality once it has triumphed over those who oppose it. And, historically speaking (please read a book), that triumph occurs because centrists actively sabotage their opponents and stand aside while they entrench their power.

Like, you literally don't know what you're talking about. That is what's so absolutely frustrating about centrists. They presume that they know either by osmosis, pop history, or the propagandistic pseudo-history that's taught in secondary school how these political movements happen. You actually don't know how fascism works but the ideological structure of the west has put it in your mind that you do know, and you know exactly how to combat it, and that so happens to be milquetoast support for vague principles and the status quo.

It's so frustrating because it's so easy to just pick up a decent secondary source and actually gain a detailed, coherent view of the early 20th century which A) provides a real, actual, empirical model for the behavior of fascism and how it was resisted; and B) a parallel history that can be checked to see what is the same and what is different about material conditions this time around.

Now you might want to completely dismiss me because of my combative tone that clearly confirms to yourself what you already knew: that those damned people who hold to a political position outside the Overton window are a bunch of fatuous lunatics who should be dismissed. But at least look at these books that are written by extremely reputable and rigorous scholars. On many things I think it is obnoxious to dismiss a discussion with a demand that the other be more educated, but on this particular subject I need to make my position clear. I'm only aggressive about this because I think it's the most important conversation of our generation and currently it is an exact repeat of the conversation that led up to the very worst terror in human history. The only ingredient missing that really propelled the Nazis rise to power (they languished for about a decade before they really started picking up steam) is a global economic crisis. I wonder when the next one will come?

As an example of how much events today rhyme with events then, Lügenpresse [3].

[1] Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism. Relatively recent book with universal acclaim from all across the political spectrum, from socialists, liberals, and conservatives.

https://libcom.org/files/Robert%20O.%20Paxton-The%20Anatomy%...

[2] Hanah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism. It's an older book and it has a perspective attractive to centrists that tries to establish common patterns between Stalinism and fascism. That approach is considered more tenuous these days but it's still good scholarship for its historical account of, for example the development of biological racism at the time. Biggest downside is that she does not really consider economic or technological factors as much.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying_press

[4] Bonus link. Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism. Short essay but deep. I like to read it from time to time. Fascism is a paradoxically subtle and brutal thing. Umberto's essay really grasps that.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/