You've been looking in the wrong direction, the dangers are coming from the right.

Nothing to see here folks

https://twitter.com/daithaigilbert/status/1619746991470415873?t=Ki8M1NT9KUgDHjUbTM5SbA&s=19

Shocking listening to Kitty Hollands description of the Ashtown violent attack on radio this morning.

You do know that the phrase "totalitarianism" or "totalitario" comes from Italian writers who wished to describe the traits that defined Benito Mussolini's * Fascist governing. So, therefore, calling the USSR a "totalitarian" state is using a phrase that was coined to describe Fascism.

I didn't say "any other communist regimes". I was talking about the USSR, especially under Stalin. You asked me "Would you agree that the USSR wasn't a fascist state?" Seriously read the bloody posts.

And BTW this isn't "my" opinion, nor my "contention" either. This understanding has been around since the before the Second World War ended. In fact, it was existent during the 1930's. You're making the mistake of assigning way too hard a border between terms that are actually quite fluid. "Totalitarian" isn't a separate descriptor to "Fascist". It was an attempt to describe Fascism. But it has also been used to describe traits within other regimes. In fact, "Fascist" or "Fascism" themselves are very nebulous terms. Orwell struggled in 1944 to accurately pin it down. Ian Kershaw said that trying to describe it was like "trying to nail jelly to a wall". The fact is, is that no two Fascist governments are the same and other governmental systems can employ Fascist traits, just like the USSR did under Josef Stalin.

Again, I'll stress to you, this isn't anything new, nor is it some radical departure from conventional thinking in political science. You're just unable to detach yourself from simplistic and reductive applications of the terms under discussion.

The only thing that's going on here is that you lack the historical understanding involved and are unable to get past basic labelling. When the reality is that those labels are quite shifty and overlapping. You also appear unable to understand what a "trait" is or what "overtone" means.

Into the bargain, a totalitarian state is actually anti-Communist, in that it's the complete opposite of what Marx was writing about. But as we've already established, the USSR never reached a state of Communism. It never managed to get out of Socialism.

Seriously do even a little bit of research into this. It's really quite beyond silly at this point.

*The same Benito Mussolini who once described Josef Stalin as rendering "a commendable service to Fascism" in a 1938 edition of Il Popolo d'ltalia.

Whatever the etymology of the word Totalitarian may be or the traits of Communist regimes and their similarity to Fascist regimes, assigning the statement "fascist overtones" to the USSR appears to be an attempt to absolve left wing radicals of the blame for their negative actions.

It reads like "Communism couldn't be achieved because of the influence of Fascism" (I'm not saying that you said this before you get sore about it).

It appears that Communist misdeeds only occured due to Communist regimes observing the misdeeds of Fascist regimes and taking "inspiration" to brutalize their people from Fascists.

Oddly and if I'm honest quite satisfactorily from my perspective in light of you accusing me of not possessing the required historical knowledge on this subject, Mussolini came to power four years after Lenin Bolsheviks began their Red Terror campaign where they set about killing tens (by some estimates hundreds) of thousands of people in Russia.

If anything the inspiration for mass killings by totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century came from far left, socialist or communist (I know how touchy you are on that one) actions. As well as the other traits you outlined. Communism (or socialism if you prefer) set the standard for totalitarian regimes before the term was even coined.

So far you've been insulting, demeaning condescending and most critically repeatedly and demonstrably wrong. Bravo.

The problem for Kitty Holland is nobody sees her as an unbiased, neutral reporter.

Very telling how theres no concern for the migrants attacked by far right thugs but concern about how it must be proved its not far right and the journalist isnt trustworthy. All very far right traits.

Nobody said taken that position.

The attack was widely condemned and the assertions that the attackers were far right had no basis in reality.

Had there been actual evidence these morons were far right that would be a different story.

Just more point scoring nonsense as usual.

One of these screechy left rants without mentioning that notorious New York landlord, golf club owner, and erstwhile POTUS Donald John Trump are just 'low energy.' RIP keyboard too.

Tell me you've heard of due process without telling me you've heard of due process.

They have to lock threads on boards, this small talk platform, when something hits the Irish courts because of it. The Island is too tiny and its media to close knit, threads both here and reports in the Times can, the law seems to argue, affect the outcome of cases at worst and at minimum limits the already limited jury pool. Yer one probably shouldn't be on the radio discussing it if it does.

Crucially: do you have any evidence anyone filmed the incident?

The waffle confirms that no, in fact, there is no reporting, except innuendos from a new user (welcome), that anyone had a phone out recording when this incident occurred.

A. You don’t know it was a far right incident.

B. You don’t know they were attacked because of their nationality or ethnicity.

Why are you compelled to make things up?

Are videos of the the attack on social media?

How do you know the motive for the attack? The reporter reported a different motive.

I heard two radio interviews with Kitty Holland and read her tweets.

She contradicts herself by saying earlier today that they had photographs of the backs of the attackers. This evening on Newstalk she said they have photos but could not release them because they clearly identify the attackers.

Which is it?

She also stated earlier she was at her car when she saw the men approach the camp. On Newstalk this evening she said she was driving back towards the city centre when she saw the men approaching.

Again. Which is it?