US publisher of pro-fascist books revealed as military veteran | South Dakota - eviltoast

The Guardian has identified a trainee nurse and reported US air force reservist called Bailey Ross as the proprietor of a white nationalist publisher in South Dakota.

Ross was also a paid-up member of a white nationalist organization that marched at Charlottesville while enlisted in the United States Coast Guard.

Ross’s company, Agartha Publishing, is part of a wave of extremist publishers using mainstream e-commerce platforms such as Amazon to sell lavishly repackaged fascist and anti-communist books.

  • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I actually hold this view. Time and again fascists have infected societies the world over and because capitalism thrives on oppressing some people (usually minorities and immigrants), fascists have been happy to have capitalists simply point a finger to the soon to be opressed, and the military and police, themselves beneficiaries of capitalism, are incentivized to go along.

    • joe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, I see now. Capitalism.

      Do you consider yourself an extremist?

      • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think the general society I live in today would consider my viewpoints extreme, but I would not label myself an extremist, no. I don’t think most people think their own ideologies as being extreme.

        • joe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isn’t society in general the best judge of what is or is not extreme, considering that, as you say, it’s a relative description?

          • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That depends on whether “best” is moral, which are often conflated as being the same thing. Antifascists were considered extremists in Nazi Germany and Italy by the general society, but for hopefully obvious reasons, you can see that Antifascism was a moral and logical response rooted in the survival of those they were persecuting.

            • joe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t recall bringing up morality at all. My question still stands.

              • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                My apologies, my previous statement was an implication and was not explicit.

                I think that any form of thought or activity that lies outside of the acceptable norms of a society can be painted as extremism by the majority with disastrous results, and thusly the results are so abhorrent to conclude that society is NOT the best judge of what is extremist or not because calling something extremism or someone extremist often connotates moral judgment on said actions or persons.

                I would dispute that you can’t disect moral judgent from the invocation of the term extremism.

                Btw, if I were you, I would next point out that if my claim that society is not the best judgement of extremism, then ask then who or what is?

                To which I would respond that we should throw out the term as it actually just refers to those who want changes to society that upset the paradigm under which it is founded.

                My opinion is that a society that is based on inclusivity as its core value is probably better than the one we have right now. With the following caveats:

                Said society would need to have an addendum that it need exclude those who would tout exclusivity and violently express the necessity of exclusivity in preferential treatment of one group over another. This society would have to fundamentally acknowledge that speech, left unchecked, can be violent even by inference.

                I genuinely await your rebuttal.

                • joe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What are your thoughts on capitalism in your utopian society? Are they allowed?

                  • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’d like to take a brief reprieve here and field a question of my own, which is simply what are your thoughts on my arguments thus far?

                    As I said before I genuinely await your rebuttal. I don’t just want to have the ball punted back to me.

                    Im happy to field your most recent question regarding the role of capitalism in my hypthetical “utopian” society, as you put it, but I am curious to hear what objections you might have given the ammo I’ve fed you thus far.