Connection Webs

If I had to choose the single most important thing that I learned this year, I think the connection webs can best summarize it. Beyond the factual connections, the connection webs that we constructed at various points throughout the year and on both of our finals encouraged us to look for patterns throughout history. By creating these connections between ostensibly unrelated historical events, I found that history does repeat itself. Similarly, in the extremism essay, I synthesized knowledge of various extremist groups and interpreted the factors that allowed them to become so popular, finding that each of the distinct events were spurred on by equally miserable circumstances. Also, what's that other word we mentioned this year? Nationalism, maybe? The idea of finding connections throughout history is useful in explaining why our world has become the way it is today, but the most compelling part is that this knowledge can be used to relate our understanding of common historical themes to the modern world and current events so that we can influence the shape of the future.

Algeria and Iran

The Algerian Revolution and the Islamic Revolution in Iran were both ultimately unsuccessful because the governments that they created gave rise to political instability in a situation much like the one that the revolutions sought to free themselves from. After the Algerian Revolution, there was a constant struggle for power between political parties, and there still exists a huge divide between the French and the Algerians and Western culture and Islam. Similarly, Iran's Islamic Revolution produced a theocratic state and dictatorship, and people still live in constant fear of the government. In both revolutions, the idea of religion plays a huge role in determining the state of the new nation. In Algeria, the divide between religions makes it difficult to find unifying principles, and in Iran, the hopeful theocratic government slowly crumbled as the religion become intertwined with the declining political state. Although the Algerian revolution produced divisions within society that led to unrest, the Iranian Revolution seems to have created a tension between the government and its own people through ignorance of civil rights.

Iran

What rights are Iranian citizens supposed to have?

Although many sources present the situation as, "the police opened fire on innocent, peaceful protestors," public protests are banned, and according to the law, the protest was illegal. Of course, that isn't to say that any of this is necessarily fair. Many believe that Iran limits on human rights are completely unreasonable. In addition to the ban on public protests, it is criticized for it's excessive and undeserved political executions, restrictions on the press, and discrimination against women that is explicitly in written law.

Where's the UN?

As we've seen, the United Nations seems to talk about lofty ideal but never follows through with them. A general statement from an Iranian representative to the UN suggests that, more than an inert force, nations simply gather under the pretense that they are all working towards the same goal. A portion reads, "All of them [menaces to the international community], ranging from drugs, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, to injustice, poverty and environmental degradation have one common ingredient... They affect us all." Even Iran seems to acknowledge the problems in the world, many of which the country possesses, but it continues without change in policy. Still, the UN doesn't seem to take any action, and fronting a goal of peace works as well internationally as hopeful nations trying to change the world.

Is This Iran?

What about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made so many people protest about unfairness?

How does the government operate? To what extent does it suppress its people?

How do Iranians generally feel about the government?

Stalin's NKVD and the Gulag

Robespierre and the Reign of Terror

German fascism and the concentration camps

Bengali nationalists during the Bangladesh Liberation War

From all that I understand, it seems like the police shooting of protestors was not completely unnecessary and unjust but a vicious act against human rights in general. First, in a society that agrees to operate under a democracy, at the very least, people deserve the right to have a say in their leaders, free of the blatant fraud committed during last June's election. In addition, people were protesting, but the police immediately killed many in order to break up the protests. It seems like they are controlling people with nothing more than brute force and scaring the Iranian people into submission. As illustrated (no pun intended) by the cartoon, there are people who still fight for their rights but do so in secret. It seems like something has to change; people realizing that they are being cheated by their own government, peace can never be achieved.

I Feel Like Dinesh D'Souza

I'm initially inclined to argue that everything, culture included, is subjective. There is no definite ruling on one thing being "good" or "bad," "better" or "worse." Because no person is uninfluenced by biases, it seems as though there is no quantifier for one culture being superior over another. However, a culture exists because of the people who brought it to life. It survives because there are people who maintain it. It makes sense then that culture relies on its people. Since a culture seeks to benefit its people, it provides a clear way to measure its success relative to others: how happy people are living under the culture and how satisfied they are with it. People are the root of all cultures and civilizations, and people live for happiness, constantly striving to better their own life. A culture that does not impede people in their search for personal satisfaction - or better yet, a culture that improves itself to allow its people to be happy - is a superior culture in this sense. Perhaps arbitrary quantifiers such as power, wealth, or possessions seem to be the primary goal, but these are all forms of bringing happiness to the people living with the culture.

I almost completely disagree with this statement. As a country that is indeed biased to themselves has every right to judge another country in whatever way it pleases. Assuming that we are speaking from the country's point of view rather than the global perspective, a country can disagree with another's way of life relative to their own. Nothing prevents a country from doing this, especially when another country poses a potential threat to the well-being of another. The only part I agree with is that these judgments cannot be based on an outsider's perspective. As in any other situation, with inadequate information, facts can be portrayed inaccurately. In this case, a country's opinion, while perfectly valid, would be based off of false evidence. As I argued above, these quantifiers mean nothing if a country's people are unhappy. However, with a country, the consequences are far more severe. With low nationalism, countries will fall apart more easily from the inside. People do not care about political, economic, or scientific facts; people care about their individual lives.

Cold War Rivalries

Rather than a traditional war in which one country's military is directly pitted against another or even the morphed trench warfare of the first world war, the Cold War was a war that took place on all other fronts. Primarily consisting of the rivalry between the USSR and the United States, each country aimed to spread it's ideals - the battle between democracy and communism. In addition, the constant threat of nuclear warfare emphasized the "cold" nature of the war. While the tensions were always high, it was truly the rivalry that defined the war.

The mounting pre-WWI tensions in Europe were very similar to those of the Cold War. For years, the Central Powers were striving for imperialistic domination over its surrounding nations. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the chain of retribution by allies and rivals illustrated that competition between nations could result in the immediate snapping of national tensions. It could be said that Ming Dynasty China's competition between itself and the rest of the world was a sort of rivalry. At a point, China decided to shut itself off to foreign influence because it believed that, due to technological and cultural advancement, it was so advanced of a society that no other nation could possibly be better than it. Similarly, the US and Russia both struggled to prove themselves more advanced in a war based on national superiority. After the self-fueled Meiji Restoration and the corresponding surge in nationalism in Japan, Japan believed itself superior to China. Japan invaded China many times, culminating in the Rape of Nanking, in which the Japanese captured the Chinese capital of Nanking, slaughtered its people, and raped its women. Unlike the rivalry between the US and Russia, Japan had a significant advantage over China, and while building tensions played a factor, their wars were based on physical decimation of the enemy.

Student Council? Earth Week?

Although uniting the nations of the world under a common goal of peace seems like a good idea in theory, the United Nations fails in the execution of the lofty moral guidelines that it champions. As a humanitarian organization, the UN appears completely philanthropic based on the official statements that they make about social injustice (genocide, violence against women) and seems, as a judge, a very powerful conscience to the world. However, it quickly becomes clear that the UN is more like a discussion about what should happen ideally; it lists the steps that need to be taken, but it refuses to take the initiative to make that happen. It seems like (rather appropriately this week) a student council candidate declaring passionately that the ice cream machine should be returned or that we should have more days that start late. Since their promises are clearly overambitious, it's almost expected that they fail to deliver. The same comparison can be made with environmental awareness groups (look at that...) who discuss the issues with the world that need to be fixed, but in the scheme of things, they hold no power over that workings of our vast planet. In official statements by the Security Council, the group of people that supposedly has the potentially to regulate other countries' actions, the opening sentence of each paragraph always seems to be, "The Security Council reiterates," 'The Security Council is alarmed," "The Security Council reaffirms," "The Security Council welcomes." Never is it stated, "The Security Council does." They only seem to look onto the actions of the outside world and either give the the thumbs up of affirmation or shake their head in disapproval. Articles, such as the recent earth day article, do seem like a community service organization, announcing ideals but never following through. The UN has the right idea, but their professed task to maintain absolute peace, freedom, and justice in the world is inherently impossible.

UN Charter

1) The main goal of the United Nations is to universally promote freedom and justice to create an peaceful global environment. By uniting as one with this common cause, individual countries and their people can thrive without threats constantly looming over their head as was the case in both world wars. The United Nations declares that it has the power to keep other countries under control by suppressing any acts that they deem disrupt the global peace as a unified word of the law. However, this only focuses on international affairs, and they will not meddle in internal conflict in a single nation. It is stated that all members of the UN will be equal. Five countries are permanent members of the Security Council, which makes decisions regarding the well-being of the world, and ten members are temporarily elected to fill the fifteen positions. The International Court of Justice enforces the UN's goals of peace and freedom by acting as an international conscience.

2) The UN seeks to learn from the previous world wars and prevent anything from happening again on that scale by advocating for and enforcing peace and freedom. By essentially establishing an international police force, the UN ensures that no single nation has the possibility of "pulling a Germany," or turning power-hungry and expanding at the cost of other countries and their people. In addition, the UN seeks to maintain the status quo so that no extreme changes can occur and threaten the balance of peace. It does this by deciding on a set of moral guidelines and forcing the world to adhere to them. The Security Council consists of five permanent members in order to keep the power within their hands, allowing no room for other nations to usurp them and change the UN's principles. By keeping the pivot point of these nations, they secure their places as leaders of the world while still permitting other nations to have a voice, however temporary.

3) The primary problem with the charter lies in the appointment of permanent members to the Security Council. These nations are basically declaring that they are model nations - or they strive for positions of permanent influence - and don't allow equal representation while it is clearly stated that "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." In addition, there is the question of whether it is right to establish a moral code for the world. In the end, they are trying to maintain the status quo, but while maintaining the status quo may help protect world peace, it displays the centralization of power in the UN. Although it is said that it is for the greater good of the countries of the world, it forces other nations to conform to the laws that they set down.

The Holocaust

Since Europe is such a large but connected landmass, and the Germans possessed enough force to gradually spread throughout it, Germany was able to maintain control over the killings in its land without having to worry about enemies attacking from the sides. As illustrated by the World War II overview map, after Germany began to swallow up surrounding countries, it quickly moved into Poland, intimidated other surrounding countries into alliance, and quickly invaded France. Essentially, Germany had completely secured the entire continent, except for Britain which was an isolated island. With such a broad expanse of land and railroad systems running throughout it, Germany eliminated potential boundaries that come with controlling a continent in addition to making it relatively impenetrable from the outside. This also made it extremely difficult for anyone to immigrate from Germany in order to escape the Nazis' persecution. As shown by the voyage of St. Louis, people wanting to escape had to go to extreme measures and travel overseas to another country who would accept them. Even then, they were not accepted and forced back to Europe, where the Nazi party was rapidly gaining more power.

The Holocaust Museum displays a history of the Holocaust and memorializes it by retelling the horrors of the event. The museum clearly holds the view that genocide should never happen again like the Holocaust, which is a completely valid viewpoint given the its severity. However, the bias does show, from the negative light that the subject is constantly shown in to the inflation of less significant events - the Voyage of St. Louis made the consequences seem much more severe than reality - to the details that are presented - gloomy images and death counts. Again, this is the consensus that the general public has come to, but the museum does assume that people believe that the Holocaust is a touchy issue that we all deeply regret. The museum intends people to feel this regret by painting this negative picture of the Holocaust. At some rate, it is very difficult not to have this bias, but it doesn't interfere with the basic way the Holocaust is perceived or the facts that are taught. I believe that it does qualify as a monument because it commits the Holocaust to public memory as an atrocious crime against humanity, with an intended bias, regardless of the form that it's in.

Monument Questions

Part One - Martyred Intellectuals Memorial

When was this memorial built?

Where is the memorial located?

Why did the Pakistani army decide to target intellectuals specifically?

What events led to Operation Searchlight?

What tensions still exist, if any, between Bangladesh and Pakistan?

Part Two - Rosie the Riveter Memorial

Who created/funded the creation of this memorial?

What is the significance of the builder choosing this design over a statue of Rosie?

What effect did Rosie the Riveter poster have during WWII?

Is there a reason that this memorial was constructed in California?

The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb

When the war was a day-to-day reality and an ever-present danger, it's completely understandable that the American public would turn to such a serious decision as the atomic bombs. However, fifty years later when the war provoked frenzy has cooled, what remains is the devastating truth that we completely wiped out two cities and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. As expressed in the NBC video, it may have been a decision that saved lives in the long run, but is it right to cause this magnitude of destruction? I believe that NBC aired this piece now because people have had the chance to understand the full consequences of the atom bomb, and it expressed that, at the very least, it was not a decision that the country is proud of. While the event itself can never be effaced from history, we can still acknowledge that it is something that is difficult to live with by reminding ourselves of the moral dilemma.

The Home Front

In my initial post, I asked how World War II affected the home front. As I had already suspected, the war had affected America at home, but I had no idea how drastically the environment had been changed. Since most of the nation's men were fighting overseas, women were called on to join the workforce. In a famous propaganda poster, Rosie the Riveter is pulling up her sleeve in a pose with her muscles flexed, encouraging, "We can do it!" The American industry boomed during World War II due to the vastly increased rate of weapons production, and with it came a very welcome recovery from the depression of the thirties. In fact, the spirit of the time even called for marginalization of unnecessary production not related to the war. For example in 1941, three million cars were manufactured, but throughout the war, there were only one hundred and thirty nine. Car and machinery companies instead began to focus their efforts on engines, ships, guns, tanks, and trucks. Because of the people's determination to serve their country, the United States' total production for the war was about equal to the production of the rest of the world during the same time period.

In addition, the absence of the country's men often left women in charge of a household alone. The war ultimately turned the stereotypical American woman's role to the supporter of the family. Over 350,000 women joined the military in various divisions. Citizen were asked to collect scrap metal that could be used to build armaments, and kids often scoured the street for cans or rubber tires. At the same time, rationing began which basic essentials were limited, and luxuries were out of the question. In total war, everyone and everything seemed to be constantly directed towards the war effort in an act of support and patriotism.

Munich Reconsidered

Our leaders who created the Munich Agreement claim that they are preserving peace between their nations and Germany for years to come. However, this could not be further from the truth. Rather than acting as the final step in peace negotiations, letting Germany proceed with these injustices will be the first step in Germany's climb to power.

In the final agreement - an agreement that only three other European leaders decided to ratify - there is no consideration for the rights of humans. For non-Germans living in Czechoslovakia, there is no clause that even mentions their evacuation, and nothing prevents the Germans from turning to violence. Because the Germans control the plebiscites, a majority of people who would make a difference are not given the right to vote on the decision. The only party that this injustice benefits is the Germans in their rise to power.

And this certainly does not fosters peace and friendly relations between our countries. Chamberlain champions the agreement as though it is peace itself, but this is only an act of temporary appeasement. Germany is allowed to expand its boundaries again through this unjust annexation. But Germany will not stop there when the rest of Europe, evidently, will allow it much more. How many more restrictions does Germany wish to free itself of? Is this the end of tension between nations or the signal of the Germany's militaristic rise to power once again?

The Munich Conference

Sometimes sacrifices need to be made for a greater cause. When a hostile tension exists between nations, the primary goal should be to restore peace and right everything that has been wronged. For this reason, the Munich Agreement is a great success not only for our nation but for the well-being and peace of Europe as a whole.

Admittedly, we feel a slight, uneasiness regarding the terms of the agreement. The non-German people of Czechoslovakia are not explicitly guaranteed protection in the evacuation. In addition, Czechoslovakia's leader is not given any say in the matter, and the plebiscites can be held wherever seems advantageous for the German. It could also be said that this agreement is made by leaders of only four countries. However, these leaders from across Europe understand the needs of their country, they all have reached an agreement, and the conclusion seems satisfactory to everyone.

Furthermore, the ultimate goal of the agreement is what drove the conference in the first place. Whereas the Treaty of Versailles only increased tensions between Germany and the rest of Europe, this can be seen as a final act that promises peace throughout the years to come. By reversing some of the restrictions that were placed on Germany, we can appease them and begin to rebuild friendly relations. Never again will Germany have need to go to war, and European will have the chance to thrive. As Neville Chamberlain confidently stated, "I believe it is peace for our time."

WWII

Things I know about World War II

The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending the war with Japan.

Nazi Germany under Hitler tried to create the perfect Aryan race, in the process sending mainly Jews (also disabled people, gypsies...) to concentration camps.

Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Axis - U.S. and others...

Allies - Germany, Japan...

Things I want to know about World War II

How the certain alliances formed

What began WWII

The effect WWII had on the home front

Animal Farm

Something that interests me is the multitude of methods that the pigs use, especially Squealer, to influence public opinion towards Napoleon's rule regardless of how corrupt he has become. Because the farm animals are mainly terrified by the idea of Mr. Jones's return and support their own "perfect equality" among animals, the pigs find it especially easy to convince them that every action is taken to preserve the integrity of their new political structure. Whenever the facts seem to falter, the pigs justify their actions by warning them that they definitely don't want Mr. Jones back. In addition, any inconsistencies that happen to pop up are smoothed over when Squealer insists that this was how things always were or that everything is for the good of Animal Farm. When the pigs took to sleeping in bed, the commandments mysteriously changed overnight, and the animals couldn't doubt it after Squealer had explained that the pigs are the ones doing the brain power. When Napoleon seized power by chasing Snowball out, it was put forth that Snowball, who had so sensibly led them, was no more than a traitor. Similarly, the communist propaganda, speeches, and public opinion were guided by the goal of perfect communism and the fear of tyrannical capitalism. Because many people were initially faithful that they would eventually reach the perfect society that they had imagined, they followed this idea and overlooked minor problems. Essentially the idea boiled down to the simple, "Four legs good, two legs bad," that was always chanted at the opportune moments. No one can disagree with the ultimate goal, so it seems impossible to point out a flaw when the leaders, and seemingly everyone around you, believe in this illusion.

Another thing that's interesting is how Orwell portrays Stalin through Napoleon and the workings of his corrupt government. From the beginning, Napoleon is a spiteful, malicious character, which we clearly see when Napoleon chases Snowball out with his vicious hounds. These dogs represent the NKVD, who would execute dissenters with Stalin's word and strike fear into others so that no one would speak out against them. Napoleon also began to hypocritically gain power within his institution by stating that the pigs, who kept the entire system in order, needed more privileges, an extra hour of sleep, lodgings inside the house, and special food. Similarly, Stalin and the vanguard were responsible for teaching communism and ensuring that the rest of the society was in order. By doing this, they also took extra privileges by placing themselves above the rest of a society in which everyone was supposedly equal.

Fascism and Communism

Although fascism and communism both share the common goal of uniting the people of a nation in order to fortify it as a whole, the two forms of government arrive at the idea from completely different directions; communism intends to empower its population while fascism takes advantage of it. According to communist ideals, a perfect communist society seems to be based off of the premise that the people of the working class, the majority of the population, are united by a common existence. Krupskaya mentions "the same conditions of labor," "bonds of class solidarity," and "common experiences." A communist society is supposed to indivisible because like people are working together towards the same goal. Fascism also believes that strength comes in numbers, but they believe this with a condescending undertone. The Nazi party rose at an opportune time of political chaos and won over the public opinion, making anyone who disagreed with them an outsider. The Nazis used this overwhelming majority to assert themselves as a world power. Fascism also believed in the inequality of people and that the majority could not be correct, which supported the governments' political structure. In this way, fascism's ultimate goal of expansion and conquest is the driving force behind their actions, and the unification of its people is merely a tool to help them achieve it.

Even though the the intention behind the two forms of government may be conflicting, their appearance to the people of their respective countries was very similar. Both presented a hope for the future after the difficulties that arose from World War I. Communism and fascism enticed people with promises that their country would soon lead them to greatness again, and the lives of those who followed them would be greatly improved. This attractive sense of unity and fitting in with everyone around you was extremely appealing, and this is what compelled so many to turn to these as salvation from their troubles.

French Revolution and Russian Revolution

Strayer boldly argues that the Russian Revolution was modeled after the French Revolution. However, it's extremely unlikely that any Russian revolutionaries took it as their inspiration because the people of Russia were concerned with their own daily worries and the declining quality of their day to day life, not the grievances that pushed people to act in a very foreign country centuries ago. The Russian people, weakened due to the war, began to protest the state of the nation demanding improvements. Food was scarce, the winter was cold, workers were paid meager salaries, shops were boarded up, and the Provisional Government failed to solve the problems within the nation. Protests, violence, and the formation of trade unions occurred because each person realized how terrible their life was becoming, and they wanted to take whatever action they could to restore it. Strayer's myopic argument fails to address the fact that people are concerned with their own welfare. People don't base political action on knowing that a line of action has worked in the past. Revolutions occur as a reaction to certain circumstances.

Although the two seem to be unique incidents created by the needs of the particular country at a specific time, many parallels appear when the two are juxtaposed. True, both revolutions involved the massive working class rebelling against their controlling powers due to their respective injustices impressed upon them by higher powers. Both revolutions carried with them the unheard of ideals to form an improved society. The French Revolution implemented the blooming Enlightenment ideals, and Russia followed the lead of Lenin's communism. Although the Russian Revolution was spurred on by their government's inadequacy whereas the French Revolution rebelled against a strict unfairness in representation, both formed new governments based on the reverse of the failed old government. While the French Revolution was not necessarily a direct influence on the Russian Revolution, there are definitely similarities. Because the old ideas caused the nation to crumble, it was believed that by taking the opposite route, the people of the nation would be able to embrace a brand new way of life.

Cabaret Theses

Berlin - In Berlin during the Great Depression, the ubiquitous poverty and fear of communism set the people of Berlin up for Nazi influence.

Nearly all of the characters were poor, but Sally epitomized those who had no wealth. Although (or perhaps because) she lived in a small apartment, she would do anything to get it or to feel like she was wealthy. For this reason, she lets the rich man take him around because his presence exudes wealth, and he showers gifts upon her. Other people who were just as poor turned to the cabaret to forget about their poverty for a moment, illustrating how readily people would turn to something, anything, other than this. We saw communist political posters all over the wall, but all of them had been vandalized or torn apart which shows the public's collective hatred of communism. Both of these illustrate how the public's hate of one thing that push them naturally towards any other alternative that is within reach.

The Nazis - Because of the Nazis' popularity - especially among the youth - in addition to their violence, the growing majority was able to silence any dissent and turn those who were reluctant into submissive followers.

In an earlier segment of the movie, a man who kicked a Nazi out of the cabaret for asking for donations was secretly beat up in order to eliminate those who were willing to go against them. Another form of influence that the Nazis used was shown in the scene where the Nazi boy begins to sing. He sings a song with lyrics intended to empower the Nazi party, and while the enthusiastically supportive youth first begin to stand up and sing along, everyone feels obliged to sing along once more people begin to stand up, in fear of being singled out. Whether people wanted to or not, if they didn't, they would exist in the uncomfortable minority, so they made a simple decision to go along with everyone else.

Cabaret - In the movie, the cabaret presents a farcical exaggeration of the horrors that exist outside of the cabaret's escapist sanctuary.

The movie makes it obvious that the cabaret's shows mirror the events occurring in Berlin through the abrupt cuts between the parallels. However, the cabaret exists as a self-aware parody, and it lightens the actual events so as to turn people's heads away from the real problems.

Taliban Op-Ed

When looking at the overall result of their actions, the Taliban resemble fascists in many ways. They both champion traditional, paternalistic societies in order to increase efficiency in achieving their goals of conquest. They are certainly both aggressive powers that are intent on seizing power and control. Fascists’ goals of mass expansion coupled with their forceful execution prompted a response from other nations, and the Taliban’s threats shock the nation into submission. However, the Taliban cannot be fascists because fascists combine military strength with the intent of creating a superior society while the Taliban assert their dominance indiscriminately, with the sole intention of being in control.

Whereas a fascist nation directs its force outwards to assert their dominance, Taliban is preoccupied with dissent from within. Through radio broadcasts and bombings, the Taliban scares its people into submission. It only takes a moment to realize that the people who the Taliban control are not by any means willing supporters. They obey because they have to, and some even protest by disregarding the word of the Taliban, as in the case of a school continuing to operate after it had been officially closed down. The only reason they consent to living in a society that saps away their freedom is because of the Taliban’s constant threats. Clearly, there is no majority and rather a division of people in power and people who are pressured under that power. It appears as though the Taliban regards their own population as opposition and it is they who receive the majority of the Taliban’s force. Unlike fascists who attempt to unify their own people towards national superiority by promising to pave the way, the Taliban are plagued by their blind need for supremacy even if it comes from power over their own people.

In addition, while both fascists and the Taliban can be seen as traditional and paternalistic, there is a huge difference in terms of motivation and execution. The Taliban’s paternalism stems from its traditional and radical religious beliefs that govern its society. However, a true fascist nation believes that traditionalism and paternal superiority should not stem from doctrine, but rather the goal of creating a superior society, a superior race. Fascists do not discriminate against people within their own society like themselves and instead attempt to weed out those who do not fit their description of the perfect human being. In a sense, the Taliban and fascists move in completely different directions, in that the Taliban move backwards and tenaciously hold on to old ideals while fascists insist on forward motion.