Aesthetic surgery center tacoma wa

The term "cosmetic plastic surgery" refers to operations that are done to make someone look better. Some people may need to change the shape of their bodies, get rid of signs of ageing like wrinkles or bald spots, or look younger again. Dr. Dushyanth Kalva does the best plastic surgery in Hyderabad, and you can talk to him at Inform Clinics. He provides a range of aesthetic treatments for the body, the face, and the hair. These include mommy makeovers, hair transplants, rhinoplasty, gynecomastia, lip augmentation, liposuction, and many others.

When it comes to interior design, the modern interior design style is one of the most popular choices among designers. Modern interior design is known for its sleek and clean lines, minimalism, and focus on functionality. It's a style that has evolved over the years, and today it encompasses a wide range of elements that contribute to its unique and contemporary look. In this blog post, we will explore some of the key elements of modern interior design.
Clean lines and minimalism
One of the defining characteristics of modern interior design is its clean lines and minimalism. This means that there are no frills, fuss, or unnecessary ornamentation in modern design. Instead, the focus is on simplicity and functionality, with each element in the room having a specific purpose.
Use of neutral colors
Modern interior design typically uses neutral colors such as black, white, gray, and beige. This color palette creates a calming and sophisticated atmosphere that's perfect for relaxing after a long day at work.
Use of natural materials
Modern interior design often incorporates natural materials such as wood, stone, and metal. These materials add texture and depth to the room, creating a warm and inviting atmosphere.
Focus on functionality
Modern interior design is all about functionality. Each piece of furniture and décor serves a purpose and is carefully chosen to ensure that it's not only aesthetically pleasing but also practical and functional.
Use of technology
Technology plays a significant role in modern interior design. From smart home systems to entertainment centers, technology is seamlessly integrated into the design to create a comfortable and convenient living space.
Statement lighting
Lighting is an essential element of modern interior design. Statement lighting fixtures such as chandeliers and pendant lights are often used to create a focal point in the room and add a touch of elegance.
Geometric shapes and patterns
Geometric shapes and patterns are prevalent in modern interior design. From patterned rugs to geometric wallpaper, these elements add visual interest and create a sense of structure and order.
Open floor plans
Open floor plans are another hallmark of modern interior design. They create a sense of spaciousness and allow for easy flow between different areas of the home. This design style is perfect for entertaining guests and families with young children.
In conclusion, modern interior design is all about creating a space that's functional, sleek, and visually appealing. By incorporating clean lines, neutral colors, natural materials, and statement lighting, Flipspaces can create a modern look that's both timeless and sophisticated. Whether you're renovating your home or starting from scratch, these key elements will help you create a modern interior design that reflects your style and meets your needs.

Dr. Mohit Vij is a renowned best orthopaedic surgeon with over 12 years of experience.He is widely regarded as the best ortho doctor in punjab and ortho doctor in ludhiana providing comprehensive care and treatment for a wide range of orthopaedic conditions. Dr.Mohit Vij has successfully treated countless patients,using advanced surgical techniques and state-of-the-art equipment to ensure optimal outcomes.His dedication to patient care and his commitment to staying up-to-date with the latest advancements in orthopaedics have earned him a reputation as a trusted and respected physician in the field. Contact Dr.Mohit Vij today for the best orthopaedic care in punjab and ortho doctor in ludhiana.
http://www.drmohitvij.com/
best doctors for orthopedic,orthopedic center near me,best ortho doctor in punjab,best ortho doctor in ludhiana,hip replacement surgeon,hip replacement surgery cost,orthopedic hospital near me,best joint replacement surgeon in india,knee replacement in punjab,ortho doctor in khanna,best hip replacement surgeon in india,best knee replacement surgeon in punjab,

I will start this out saying I work for a paycheck. While I love helping patients and making a difference, if I could get paid to not have a job i’d love that..
I currently work as a fertility case manager for a very busy clinic. I’ve been here for years and have done various roles in the practice including the surgery center and certain embryology/lab projects. I enjoy the work as well as my colleagues, the docs, and the patients. It’s definitely a nice rewarding desk job with limited face to face patient interaction. We were doing a great remote rotation that started with COVID where we worked from home ~every other week and had the option to be remote here and there if needed since the job can be done at home. The schedule is M-F, PLUS weekends (usually 1 weekend every 2-3 months) and one holiday a year. There is no option for part time work or switching to 4 10’s and this is non negotiable.
They recently cut down the remote aspect of the job by a LOT (now is 4 days a month, which we do not get to choose and is pre scheduled by our boss) and increased how many weekends we are expected to work a year. The work life balance at this place is kind of rough due to the work never ending, no opportunity for part time, if you take PTO you come back to extra work to catch up on, and when you work a weekend even with flex days you usually work 7-12 days in a row that week. When I’m off I am leaving stuff for the next day and the work is never “finished” per say other than triaging priority stuff for the day. The volumes are crazy high and it’s very very busy! I probably have well over a hundred patients who i manage at this point.
I am feeling quite burnt out mostly because I hateeee the 5 day workweek after being an inpatient nurse for years and getting a taste of that sweet sweet 3 12’s life. I do NOT want to go back to bedside, however, so I compromised and took this job as the work is rewarding and I love wonens and repro health. When i started there was only 1-2 weekends a year and the volumes were very manageable, it was a pretty chill job to be honest and still had a small company feel. Nowadays it’s so chaotic I peruse indeed like it’s facebook and I think I want a change…
I have an interview for an outpatient PACU ASC position that is one saturday a year, no sundays, and 3 10 hr shifts. The schedule sounds perfect and it’s a literal 5 minute commute which is great… I like what I do in fertility and PACU wouldn’t be as rewarding but I think it would be good to maintain my nursing skills and sanity, since working 3 days a week would improve my work life balance a lot.. I don’t see many cons other than losing seniority and missing my wonderful team and patients. I don’t even know if i’ll get this job but need to reflect on what I want before a potential offer!!
Anyone have advise/experience on switching from a specialty you enjoy to something that you may not be as passionate about but would significantly increase your personal time outside of work?? I think my perfect situation would be to stay on per diem at the fertility clinic if they would let me (potentially wouldnt but i’d hope with my seniority and skills they would) and take the PACU gig…

The development of capitalism in the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, the rise of the bourgeoisie, the invasion of the world historical arena by this new class with a clear desire to take power into its own hands caused a number of phenomena not only of economic and political, but also of cultural and ideological nature.
England was the first to embark on the path of bourgeois development. In England, earlier than in other countries, there was a grandiose social explosion. And this era put forward in it a number of brilliant, brilliant researchers and poets – Bacon, Shakespeare, Milton, Hobbes and other thinkers, who reached unusually radical forms of crushing all the foundations of the previous society. A little later, France, in the footsteps of England, entered the same road and, preparing its Great Revolution, put forward a galaxy of amazing people whom the bourgeoisie could be proud of if it had not later renounced the best that was in their teaching. Here we see Voltaire’s corroding mockery, and the grandiose heart-warming, romantic rebellion of Rousseau against all the foundations of civilization and class order in the field of feelings, and a group of encyclopedists who, shaking with crushing blows the entire building of the old culture, laid the foundation for a new world outlook and a new society, recognized as “rational” and “normal”.
But if in England and France of the epoch of the bourgeois revolution there was no shortage of thinkers and poets, then the center of the movement of the bourgeoisie still belonged to politicians-practitioners. In these countries we have a “plebeian”, in the words of Marx, manner of completing the movement of the bourgeoisie: the heads of the kings were chopped off, the old aristocracy was dispersed, the internal boundaries between estates and principalities were erased, the laws were changed and the foundations of bourgeois democracy were laid with tremendous determination and consistency.
A wave of counter-revolution later tried to destroy what had been won, but nevertheless deep traces of the first bourgeois conquests remained, and the entire character of the further development of Europe depended on these grandiose events.
Things were different in Germany. In his remarkable book on the history of German philosophy and religion, Heine was the first to note this peculiarity with extraordinary sensitivity.
By the time a young bourgeois culture was rapidly developing in the West, Germany already had a certain stratum of the bourgeoisie and a group of bourgeois intellectuals who could not remain alien to what was being done outside Germany. But it was still a backward country. The German bourgeoisie did not have any significant masses who could support their leaders. And Heine notes with amazing insight that in Germany, deprived from the very beginning of the opportunity to act practically, the process of sublimation begins. Social activity, which is not expressed in action, is refracted into fantasy, into artistic images that are transmitted in music, books and paintings, into wonderful patterns of all kinds of ideological positions. This, too, is the creation of bourgeois culture, this also lays the foundation for the struggle against the old order, against old ideas, but this struggle is waged only with words, ideological weapons. German thinkers of that time were characterized by a distrust of immediate activity, of practical work as such. They are inclined to understand the very essence of the world, to understand the very essence of man in an idealistic way – the work of fantasy, intense thought is especially dear to them, it is through it that they lived.
Can we conclude from this that if in Germany the young bourgeoisie turned out to be weaker and more disorganized than anywhere else, then in its own field, in the field of ideology, it scored irreproachably brilliant successes? No, the matter is not so simple; the point is not only that Germany turned out to be a country of “thinkers and poets” and not a country of fighters and action.
When I noted the idealism inherent in the self-consciousness of German thinkers, I pointed out a thing that was unhealthy from our point of view, from the point of view of the proletariat, but not only that: the ideologists of the German bourgeoisie could not develop freely in general, even in the area in which activities were available to them – even their artistic creations are infected with the spirit of a certain backwardness, remain captive to the order that existed in Germany and differed greatly from the order that existed in other Western European countries.
Engels, in his article The Position of Germany, writes about the German bourgeoisie: By uniting with the people, they could overthrow the old government and rebuild the empire, as the English middle classes did in part between 1640 and 1688. and as the French bourgeoisie did at that time. But the middle classes of Germany have never possessed such energy, never claimed such courage; they knew that Germany was only a dung heap, but they felt good in this mud, because they themselves were dung and felt themselves warm, surrounded by dung. And further: It was one rotting and decaying mass. Nobody felt good. Crafts, trade, industry and agriculture were reduced to the most insignificant proportions. Peasants, traders and artisans experienced a double oppression: a bloodthirsty government and a poor state of commerce. The nobility and princes found that their income, despite the fact that they squeezed everything from their subordinates, should not lag behind their growing expenses. Everything was bad, and general discontent prevailed in the country. There was no education, no means of influencing the minds of the masses, no freedom of the press, no public opinion, no significant trade with other countries; everywhere there is only abomination and selfishness; all the people were imbued with a low, servile, vile huckster’s spirit. Everything was rotten, hesitated, was about to collapse.
The only hope for better times was seen in literature. This shameful political and social era was at the same time the great era of German literature. Around 1750, all the great minds of Germany were born: the poets Goethe and Schiller, the philosophers Kant and Fichte, and twenty years later, the last great German metaphysician Hegel. Every remarkable work of this era is imbued with a spirit of protest, indignation against the entire German society of that time. Goethe wrote Goetz von Berlichingen, a dramatic eulogy to the memory of the revolutionary. Schiller wrote The Robbers praising the generous young man who has declared open war on the whole of society. But these were their youthful works. Over the years, they lost all hope. Goethe limited himself to the most daring satyrs, and Schiller would have fallen into despair if he had not found refuge in science, especially in the great history of ancient Greece and Rome. By them you can judge everyone else. Even the best and strongest minds of the people have lost all hope for the future of their country.
Here is a general description of the position of these great men, among whom Goethe was the greatest.
Lenin taught us that there are two paths to the development of capitalism: the American path of development is the most decisive path in which capitalism flourishes rapidly and is able to mobilize large masses, sweeping all the rot of the past from its path, and another path, which was fatal for Goethe. Lenin called the Prussian path – characterized by the fact that the pressure of the growing bourgeoisie cannot destroy the dirty dams of feudalism and seeps through them somehow, the bourgeoisie does not have the masses who are able to wage a civil war with those who hinder the development of society, and as a result leaders, even the best, even the most perspicacious, the noblest, are forced to compromise with the ruling class; the clergy and nobility remain at the head of society, while the bourgeoisie, content with individual concessions, adapts, supports them. Goethe can also be called a victim of this path. His immense fame testifies to the fact that he did not become a victim in the end.
We know what the mature bourgeoisie brought with it to mankind and what the overripe bourgeoisie brings with it now – there is little good in this. But at the beginning of the movement, the thinkers of the young bourgeoisie, as Engels correctly noted, sometimes even jumped beyond the boundaries of the interests of their class. It is in the interests of their class, wishing to attract the sympathy of huge masses to it, that they say that the cause for which they are fighting is the “people”, that the life of people in the old regime is the accumulation of stupidity, that history until this day was nonsense, but that it will be so until the primacy of reason is proclaimed, when everything begins to illuminate the mind, everything will change and all torment will go into the past. True, with its further development, the victorious bourgeoisie by no means fulfills the promises of its bold thinkers. It is not the thinkers who come to the fore now, not poets or even politicians, but those who are the basis of the bourgeoisie – industrialists, merchants, and later bankers. They develop to astonishing limits the exact science and the technique, which is grandiose in scope, based on it. But at the same time, as Marx says, they unfold a cynical, naked mercantile spirit, they banish all traces of the past revolutionary romanticism, openly raise the question of a lord and, moving along the road of accumulating more and more wealth, ruthlessly trample human beings. The exploiting essence of the bourgeoisie is becoming more and more evident, and at the same time the antipode of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, is growing. The bourgeoisie is betraying its old ideals. It replaces the red banner with a pink one, then a pink one with an orange one, and finally comes to a black reaction. It goes farther and farther backwards and again stretches out its hand to the nobles and priests. Now these latter are not the gentlemen who enjoy the support of the bourgeoisie; now the bourgeoisie is the master, resorting to the support of the classes that have lost their primacy. But all this creates in the imperialist world approximately the same reactionary mishmash that we see at the beginning of capitalism, which develops along the Prussian path. Now these sufferings appear from the overmaturity of capitalism, and then their reason was its immaturity, the slow pace of its development, imposing a stamp of painful inhibition on the creativity and life of thinkers.
All the features of the beginning of the Prussian path of development of bourgeois society to the greatest extent affected Goethe. There was not a single thinker, not a single poet of that time who with such force experienced the young, creative bourgeois principle, the spring of a new class, like Goethe.
A brilliant illumination of Goethe’s personality in its internal contradiction was made by Engels in his article German Socialism in Verse and Prose: In his works, Goethe has a dual attitude towards the German society of his time. He is hostile to it; it is repugnant to him, and he tries to escape from it, as in “Iphigenia” and in general during the Italian journey; he rebelled against it, like Goetz, Prometheus and Faust, showered it with the bitter mockery of Mephistopheles. Or, on the contrary, he makes friends with it, makes peace with it, as in most of his “Tame Xenia” and in many prose works, glorifies it, as in “Masquerade”, protects it from the historical movement pressing on it, especially in all his works, where he talks about the French Revolution. The point is not that Goethe supposedly recognizes only certain aspects of German life, in contrast to other aspects that are hostile to him. Often this is only a manifestation of his various moods; there is a constant struggle between the genius poet, to whom the squalor of his environment inspired disgust, and the cautious son of a Frankfurt patrician, or a Weimar secret adviser, who sees himself compelled to conclude a truce with it and get used to it. So Goethe is now colossally great, now petty, now he is a recalcitrant, mocking genius despising the world, now a cautious, contented, narrow philistine. And Goethe was unable to overcome the German squalor; on the contrary, it conquers him; and this victory of misery (misere) over the greatest German is the best proof that it cannot be defeated “from within” at all. Goethe was too universal, too active in nature, too flesh to seek salvation from squalor in Schiller’s flight to the Kantian ideal; he was too shrewd not to see that this flight ultimately amounted to a substitution of grandiloquent squalor for flat squalor. His temperament, his strength, all his spiritual direction pushed him towards practical life, and the practical life that surrounded him was pitiful. Goethe was constantly confronted with this dilemma: to exist in a living environment that he had to despise and yet be chained to it as the only one in which he could act. The older he got, the more the mighty poet, de guerre lasse, receded before the minor Weimar minister. We do not reproach Goethe, as Boerne and Menzel do, for the fact that he was not liberal, but for the fact that at times he could be a philistine; we do not reproach him for the fact that he was not capable of enthusiasm in the name of German freedom, but for the fact that he sacrificed his aesthetic feeling to the philistine fear of every great modern historical movement; not for the fact that he was a courtier, but for the fact that at the time when Napoleon was cleaning the huge Augean stables of Germany, he could with solemn seriousness deal with the most insignificant deeds and menus plaisirs of the most insignificant German court. In general, we do not make reproaches either from a moral or from a party point of view, but perhaps only from an aesthetic and historical point of view; we do not measure Goethe on a moral, political or “human” scale. We cannot imagine Goethe here in connection with his entire era, with his literary predecessors and contemporaries in his development and in life. We therefore confine ourselves to stating a fact.
But if Goethe was so polluted both aesthetically and in everyday life and politically, if he was so immensely captured by prejudices, then should we not say to the bourgeoisie: Goethe is yours, we have nothing to do with him, bury him, as you wish – let the dead bury the dead, and Goethe belongs to your world, the world of the dead?
Engels did not look at Goethe that way; he not only unconditionally calls Goethe the greatest of Germans, but, since this article was written against Gruen, against the philistine praise of Goethe, Engels adds: If we considered Goethe only from one side, then this is exclusively the fault of Herr Gruen. He does not at all portray Goethe in terms of his greatness. He is in a hurry to slip past everything in which Goethe is really great and brilliant.
In various places Engels points directly to the greatest achievements of Goethe. For example, Engels, in his article The Position of England, speaking about Carlyle, simultaneously speaks about Goethe: Goethe was reluctant to deal with “God,” he says, from this word he felt uncomfortable; he felt at home only in the human, and this humanity, this liberation of art from the shackles of religion, is precisely the greatness of Goethe. In this respect, neither the ancients nor Shakespeare can compare with him. But this perfect humanity, this overcoming of religious dualism, can be grasped in all its historical significance only by those who are not alien to the other side of German national development – philosophy. What Goethe could only express directly, that is, in a certain sense “prophetically”, is now developed and proven in the latest German philosophy.
No, in no case can we say to the bourgeoisie: Goethe is yours. Goethe belongs not only to the bourgeoisie, he in some way belongs to us.
How did this man develop and what did he bring with him? Here, like a lighthouse, the characteristic given by Engels shines.
What is this Sturm und Drang of young Goethe? All who saw Goethe in a circle of agitated young people who were disgusted by the surrounding squalor, who no longer wanted to live in a stinking darkness, who wanted to reveal, perhaps, not entirely clear dreams and realize them in life, all those who saw Goethe in a circle of these people, they speak of him as a brilliant phenomenon among secondary phenomena. He was a man physically, morally and mentally gifted to such an extent that everyone who approached him noted his exclusivity and remained fascinated by him.
On behalf of his generation, which called itself the generation of geniuses, Goethe, a true genius, posed a gigantic task for himself and for others. This task was not political, but purely individual: to develop all the possibilities hidden in a person.
This is the criterion by which it is possible to compare different social systems, orders and structures. Marx says that the social system is higher, which makes it possible to maximize all the possibilities inherent in man. Marx understands this in the most democratic way: the possibilities inherent in every person are inherent in all of humanity. For Goethe, perhaps this thought had a more aristocratic connotation, but not so much as to make it completely distant from the one expressed by Marx.
At the time of his eagle youth, in all the fullness of his energy, Goethe says that nothing excites him more than the church chant Veni, Spiritus, creator (Come, creative spirit): I know that this is not an appeal to God, this is an appeal to a person and especially to that person who is gifted with creativity; a creatively gifted person is a leader, an organizer. And a little later, Goethe says:
Why did I yearn to find the way to go If not to brothers afterwards to show?
Perhaps Goethe knew Kant’s definition of genius. For him, genius realizes everything as something natural, arising from his own individual essence, but what he realizes becomes an example and a law for others. We, possessing a Marxist analysis, can say that geniuses – deeply gifted people – form earlier than their class as a whole, what it needs, and their thoughts spread at lightning speed, become an instrument of self-knowledge of the masses. That was Marx, that was Lenin, and Goethe wanted to be that. But there was no class in Germany that could support him. Goethe felt very well that in the era preceding the French Revolution, the ideal was not destined to be realized, so that society would not interfere, but would help the development of a creatively perfect personality. He even has a presentiment that such outstanding personalities will certainly be defeated, will fall victims. He creates Prometheus, Mahomet and finally Werther – works that are, as it were, a recognition of the almost obsessive thought that there is no other way out of this catastrophe than death.
Everything in you sounds, and everything in you trembles, And feelings are darkened, and it seems to you – you proceed and you don’t, And everything around you is spinning in the night And you are more and more in your inherent feeling You embrace the whole world – then a person dies.
Death turns out to be enlightenment, death turns out to be the apotheosis. Why? What is this, mysticism? No, this is not mysticism. If from the greatest bourgeois poet Shakespeare, Goethe learned to a large extent such an understanding of life that it is not important to be happy, it is not important to be a winner, it is important to be great, it is important to live with such feelings, thoughts, to meet in life and create such events in it, oh which one could say: this is genuine life, full of activity, the greatest energy – then from another bourgeois thinker, from Spinoza, Goethe learned the knowledge of nature.
For Goethe, nature was everything, a single whole in which all parts are connected in some harmony. But more than Spinoza, Goethe had the idea that this “everything” is constantly being improved, that the processes that take place in the world make sense, because this matter, which has infinite possibilities and realizes them in its contradictory development through the action of separate parts on each other, constantly moves forward, to the better, to its highest development. This idea of development was generally at the heart of German idealism. And besides, Goethe assimilated matter as an unusually gifted artist; it was for him a combination of colors, sounds, smells, efficiency, pleasures, that is, it spoke to him through the unusually bright fabric of the most lively experiences. And he felt that being part of this whole was wonderful. He was perfectly aware that it is wild and ridiculous to oppose oneself as a part of the whole, one’s personality to this enormous light, this self-contained matter. But how to achieve this whole, how to break through to this whole through society, through that German society, which Engels spoke of as a rotting dung heap? It is impossible to break through, and Goethe is ready to admit the thought that there is no other gateway to nature as soon as death. In Ibsen’s Peer Gynt there is such an image: a man meets the Smelter, and the Smelter says: I collect buttons that have no loops and throw them back into the crucible, that is, people who are not needed for anything, death throws back into the flow of matter, because it is necessary to take into the alteration what has failed. And Goethe is a diamond button, and it has a magnificent loop, but there is nowhere to sew it; the caftan is useless. Therefore, despite the fact that it is not lower, but higher than reality, he longs for death. He himself did not die. He wrote only Werther – a thing that exposed the idea of death that shook the world and plunged many into the ranks of suicides. But Goethe himself remained at a dead end, at a crossroads, not knowing what to do.
And then the nobility in the person of Duke Karl-August of Saxe-Weimar offered Goethe an alliance. A lot of inaccurate and superficial things are said about this alliance. Meanwhile, this was the greatest event in the life of Goethe, and he thought for a long time before making this decision, that is, abandoning the role of the leader of the bourgeoisie. He knew that here he would have to grovel, to be in the position of a cheerleader, an entertainer, a maitre-d’hotel, to become the main clerk of his master, in essence, an ordinary one. When he went to the nobles, people like the republican thinker and poet Klopstock stopped shaking hands with him. Goethe foresaw this, but he did not know how else to live. A force bubbled in him that pushed him to creativity, to activity, to pleasure, and the nobility told him: come to us, we will make room, we will give you a place among us, you will be von Goethe, you will have money.
Goethe leaned towards this proposal, and here is his second downfall. The first downfall, which consisted in the fact that Goethe ceased to be a revolutionary-minded leader, was, in essence, fatal. For in what was then Germany the leaders lacked the masses. Now the question was posed, how to save your own life, to save it for the future? And this was done through the well-known self-sale to the ruling class of the nobility. And here the most terrible thing happened to Goethe, as Engels says, that one fine day he woke up in the arms of people like Gruen, that he allowed himself to be passed off as one of the main pillars of the reactionary philistine order of dark Germany.
Engels says about this: “History took revenge on Goethe for the fact that he renounced her every time he found himself face to face with her, but this revenge is not the yapping of Menzel nor the narrow polemic of Boerne. No,
Just as Titania in the land of fairy magic Found Nick Bottom in her arms, (Goethe, Warnung),
so one morning Goethe found Herr Gruen in his arms.”
Regarding Goethe’s alliance with the nobility, they say that this elevated Goethe, that from an agitated, unbalanced youth he came to real maturity. They call him happy, his destiny is ideal. And Goethe himself said about himself to Eckermann: They say that I am a happy person, but when I look back, I see an infinite number of renunciations, an infinite number of refusals from what I wanted. I see continuous work, and only occasionally is my path illuminated by a ray that resembles happiness. And so from the very beginning to the very end.
This was said by a man eighty years old, and he was speaking the truth, because these golden chains turned out to be heavy. From the very beginning, when Goethe arrives in Weimar, he makes a farce out of his own Werther for the sake of a new environment. He goes to Frau Stein literally in training, and Frau Stein pulls out of his wings all the feathers that seem to her insufficiently courtiers. She seeks to squeeze him into the framework of an ordinary courtier, and in this court life of Goethe, it must be said, shameful pages come across.
True, Goethe was incredibly exhausted and after a while was torn from Weimar. Almost without asking permission, he travels to Italy to get some fresh air.
A great man, a great burgher, who did not live in such a burgher society in which he could breathe freely, aspires to nature and society, but to the society of the past.
In Italy, Goethe finds the great remnants of Greece and the Renaissance of the great burgher eras, eras whose art skillfully portrays beautiful people, full of self-confidence, full of pagan passion and brought back to normal in the sense that their consciousness of their strength makes them calm and majestic.
Goethe creates an artificial world around him, but modern society buzzed his ears with reminders that he needed to return to Weimar. Goethe thinks of returning with disgust.
At this time, Goethe wrote his terrifying play Torquato Tasso. This play is not terrifying because its hero, an Italian poet, goes crazy. This play is terrifying in its intention, which consists in portraying a gifted, passionate, natural person, a real person who is brought closer to the court for talent, and he suddenly dares to consider himself not only a privileged jester, but a person equal to aristocrats and fall in love with one of the princesses. For this comes thunder and lightning, for this comes complete destruction, and moral destruction, because the princess also treats the poet’s love as if a monkey had proposed to her.
But this is not the main tragedy either. In this play there is Antonio, all of whose wisdom can be perfectly put into the words of the Russian proverb: “the cobbler should stick to his last.” And so Goethe comes to the conclusion that Antonio is a sage, that he is a bearer of real morality, and Torquato Tasso is a bearer of tragic guilt. He writes this in order to prove to himself: know, Goethe, your last, do not go where it is not necessary, do not go into the reformers of society, do not dream of putting things in your own way. You must know how to renounce: that is real wisdom.
And despite the fact that Goethe took the path of compromise, when he returned to Germany, almost everyone turned away from him. At court they hissed at him for leaving Weimar and thereby showing his contempt. The feminine Frau Stein writes first a novel, and then a play against Goethe, and Brandes, one of Goethe’s biographers, says that never did a jealous woman who hated her great lover write a book so slanderous and dirty. True, friendship with Schiller, another bourgeois genius, partly supported Goethe (this is not the place to talk about Schiller, although he had a certain meaning for Goethe).
From that time on, especially after the death of Schiller, Goethe covered himself with a cloak of majestic superiority, put on an Olympian mask on his face.
Goethe at this time is surprised: where is that eagle, that genius, which, like fire, soared upward? This majestic and calm man, whose muscles will not flinch? But this is also a deceiving mask. At this time, trembling all over, Goethe says: I cannot write a tragedy. It would drive me crazy! He hears Beethoven’s sonatas, he weeps in a darkened room and becomes almost Beethoven’s enemy. He says: If such music were performed by a large orchestra, it would destroy everything around it.
Engels says that the older Goethe got, the more he turned into a narrow Geheimrat. But Engels did not know some of the documents according to which we see the forces opposing this process. Even in the gray-haired Goethe, you can find out how much strength he buried in himself and how it sometimes bubbled in him.
Here’s what we can tell about it: after the expulsion of Napoleon, a reaction began, the princes sought to deprive the people of all those conquests which they claimed as a result of the liberation war.
Goethe was shocked by this sight, for which we now have direct indication. The physician Kieser tells of an evening on December 13, 1813, which he spent with Goethe: I came to him at six o’clock in the evening. I found him alone and unusually agitated, downright inflamed. I spent two hours with him and still did not understand him well. He unfolded broad political plans and asked for my participation; I was downright frightened of him. He seemed to me like a Chinese dragon. He was angry, powerful, roaring. His eyes were full of fire, his face was flushed, words were often lacking, and he replaced them with violent gestures.
But it is impossible to get from poor Kieser what these plans were. He only says that Goethe condemned the injustices accumulated over the centuries.
However, the next day, Goethe talked to a more advanced and intelligent man, Professor Luden. Apparently plans of active protest against the prepared reaction in view of their complete impracticability were not an option for Goethe. But this time we see what made Goethe so extremely excited: Maybe you think that the great ideas of freedom, the people, the fatherland are alien to me? These ideas are part of our being. Nobody can get away from them. But here you are talking about the awakening, about the rise of my German people. You claim that he will not allow the freedom that he bought so dearly, sacrificing his wealth and life, to be snatched from his hands. But did the German people wake up? The dream was too deep, and the first shake can not bring them to their senses. Don’t ask me anymore. The foreigners’ proclamations about us, I myself find excellent. Ah, ah, a horse, a horse – half a kingdom for a horse!
But they did not give him a horse. He was given half a kingdom, “half a grand duchy” was given, but he was not given a horse to lead some great political attacks. Goethe’s Napoleonophilia, however, was noticeable to everyone. He was quite clearly aware that Napoleon was not only an enemy of the fatherland, but that he was bringing with him a higher order. Ludendorff, the “Grand Marshal”, says that Goethe should be branded for not being a French-eater enough, but it is interesting that Madame Ludendorff published a book in which she claims that all great Germans were killed by Jews or Freemasons: in particular, Schiller was poisoned by the Freemason Goethe. This stupid and dirty book was sold in cultured Germany in thirty thousand copies. Already on this one can conclude that “righteous Germany” there is far from unconditional admiration for Goethe and shows a rather strange “critical” attitude towards him.
Of course, Goethe’s politics is the weakest side of his activity. Much closer to us is Goethe the philosopher, scientist and poet. But still, for the political characterization of Goethe, one more significant addition must be made.
By the end of his life, Goethe had already begun to notice the internal contradictions that the development of bourgeois society brings with it. He deeply loved work, loved technology, loved science. It was not these strengths of the bourgeoisie that repelled him; he was repelled by the mercantile spirit and the chaos that the bourgeoisie brought with it. Therefore, he tried to draw for himself a system in which the planned principle would triumph and where free and working people would be united in a labor union. This is reflected in the last part of the great dramatic poem Faust. These famous lines are very often quoted, but it is not superfluous to cite them again, for they show how Goethe goes beyond the borders of his century:
The last result of wisdom stamps it true: He only earns his freedom and existence, Who daily conquers them anew. Thus here, by dangers girt, shall glide away Of childhood, manhood, age, the vigorous day: And such a throng I fain would see,– Stand on free soil among a people free Then dared I hail the Moment fleeing: “Ah, still delay–thou art so fair!” The traces cannot, ot mine earthly being, In asons perish, –they are there!– In proud fore-feeling of such lolty bliss, I now enjoy the highest Moment–this!
Only the one who really creatively assists people, who does not yearn for peace, but fights for the victory of life in word and deed, who resists the forces that are trying to fetter them, only he can say that he has lived his life fruitfully.
So, Goethe the thinker and Goethe the poet are much closer to us and much more important than the politician. True, even in the field of socio-political work of Goethe, the progressive burgher-citizen always affects. Nevertheless, the revolt of the young bourgeoisie against the old world is felt much more strongly in the poetry and philosophy of Goethe.
The colossal power of his music, his images, comes from the youth of the class. As a rule, those who wake up to the creativity of the advanced class have a freshness of perception; they, like Adam, call everything with new names, they create their own language, they become a reservoir of everything that a renewed person can and should perceive. And Goethe says:
Love, hate, fear, tremble, Shudder to the core Life can embitter But without this it would be rubbish.
Goethe’s strength, activity, vitality do honor to the bourgeoisie, which gave birth to this eagle’s youth, but on the other hand, Goethe’s life is dishonorable to the bourgeoisie insofar as it constrained and limited his youth, and since it could never and under no circumstances fulfill the program of this youth.
As a poet, Goethe also has the ability to express what he feels with extraordinary power in images. Speaking about this, he characteristically puts suffering in the first place among all experiences: If an ordinary person falls silent in grief, then some deity gave me the strength to tell all my sufferings.
For a long time we will understand Goethe’s work, because now the time has come to understand it for real.
Above are some wonderful quotes from Engels, where he appreciates the deeply revolutionary character of Goethe’s philosophical concept.
I want to end my article with one philosophical letter from Goethe. This is one of the brightest, deepest pages that have ever been written. I cannot but share the joy that has seized me more than once these days. I feel myself in happy unanimity with close and distant, serious, active researchers. They acknowledge and assert that something unsearchable must be accepted as a prerequisite and an assumption, but that then no boundary can be set for the researcher himself; And do I have to accept myself as an assumption and a prerequisite, although I never know how I actually work? Do I not study myself incessantly, never gaining an understanding of myself and others, and nevertheless boldly moving further and further? So it is with the world: let it lie before us beginningless and endless, let the distance be boundless, impenetrable near; but this is so, and yet – let them never determine how far and how deeply the human mind is able to penetrate into its secrets and into the secrets of the world.
In this sense, I propose to accept and interpret the following cheerful lines:
“Into the inside of nature-” Oh you philistine! “Penetrates no created spirit.” Only may you not remind Me and my kind of this word Just don’t remember! We think: place for place We are inside. “Happy he, to whom she Only shows her exterior shell.” Nature has neither kernel nor shell, She is all at once. You should above all test yourself, If you are kernel or shell.
“Happy is the one to whom she only reveals the outer shell. I have been hearing this for sixty years, I scold, but I repeat myself thousands and thousands of times: she gives everything generously and willingly; nature has neither a kernel nor a shell, it is all at once; better test it well: you yourself are a kernel or a shell.” (The words in quotation marks are from a poem by the physiologist and poet Albrecht Haller).
It is clear what a philosophical mood, belief in knowledge, belief in an unlimited human mind is ours. As soon as the bourgeoisie begins to stop in its development, to decay, it departs from a realistic, creative and vigorous worldview.
We cannot fail to be analysts, to understand carefully and critically what the centuries of the past have left us, for they almost never give anything that would be acceptable to us in an integral form. The works of past cultures contain, along with the treasures, a lot of all kinds of rubbish that we must discard and separate. This is what we are doing now with Goethe. And we see that after that not only the best part remains of him, but also an essential part – that which was the most essential in Goethe himself.
They can also call Goethe an Olympian, stick all sorts of reactionary labels to Goethe’s forehead, but against them the voice of the proletariat is already rising, which is building a new world and which is arranging its own terrible judgment over the exploiting society and its culture.
Yes, the social revolution, which, as Marx said, may last for tens of years, is a terrible judgment, and not only because this revolution overthrows the enemies of the people in the social struggle, but because it is a judgment on the living and the dead.
Those who worked in former times, those prophets of our movement, who stood facing the rising sun that illuminate us now, are passing before the judgment of the proletariat, which is building a new life.
Before the court of the proletariat are representatives of other classes who have stepped over the boundaries of their class consciousness, created programs that this class could not fulfill and which another class is destined to fulfill.
As on the great fresco of Michelangelo stands the mighty figure of the proletarian, who overthrows what was considered great – here are the fragments of royal crowns, bankers’ gold, false laurels, etc., and on the other side those rise, the memory of which will not be erased for centuries.
This proletarian, political, cultural and artistic court addresses Goethe as follows: You must take off your gilded Saxe-Weimar livery, your mask of Olympic serenity must melt, because we know that beneath it lies a great man and a great sufferer. Leave what is imposed on you by the squalor of your time: you yourself know that from this you will only become better, much higher and much brighter. Enter eternity with those who contributed to the real rise of human society.
This is the meaning of the words of our teachers: the proletariat is the faithful heir of the great thinkers and great classical poets of young Germany, and among them, of the one who may be the greatest – Johann-Wolfgang Goethe.

She’s the backbone and the heart of my family and my very best friend. She has been the center of my dad’s universe for almost 50 years. Debulking surgery didn’t work because the scans didn’t show the extent of disease in her liver. Now three treatments into chemo and it’s not working either. I’m devastated, terrified, numb, and exhausted. I had just started a new life with a new job and a new partner across the country when she got diagnosed. Now I feel like I’m stuck in purgatory because no amount of anticipatory grief can prepare me for the real thing. I find myself wishing for it all to end quickly so we can start “actually” grieving. But of course I don’t want to lose my mom. I’m just so scared for her, and for my whole family. Any words of wisdom or support would be appreciated. Thanks.

scholars have moved toward the minimalist 'new consensus' refined by Roger Griffin: 'the mythic core' of fascism is 'a populist form of palingenetic ultranationalism.' That means that fascism is an ideology that draws on old, ancient, and even arcane myths of racial, cultural, ethnic, and national origins to develop a plan for the 'new man.'" Griffin himself explored this 'mythic' or 'eliminable' core of fascism with his concept of post-fascism to explore the continuation of Nazism in the modern era. Additionally, other historians have applied this minimalist core to explore proto-fascist movements.
Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser argue that although fascism "flirted with populism ... in an attempt to generate mass support", it is better seen as an elitist ideology. They cite in particular its exaltation of the Leader, the race, and the state, rather than the people. They see populism as a "thin-centered ideology" with a "restricted morphology" that necessarily becomes attached to "thick-centered" ideologies such as fascism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus populism can be found as an aspect of many specific ideologies, without necessarily being a defining characteristic of those ideologies. They refer to the combination of populism, authoritarianism and ultranationalism as "a marriage of convenience".
Robert Paxton says: "[fascism is] a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." Roger Eatwell defines fascism as "an ideology that strives to forge social rebirth based on a holistic-national radical Third Way", while Walter Laqueur sees the core tenets of fascism as "self-evident: nationalism; social Darwinism; racialism, the need for leadership, a new aristocracy, and obedience; and the negation of the ideals of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution."
Historian Emilio Gentile has defined fascism as "a modern political phenomenon, revolutionary, anti-liberal and anti-Marxist, organized in a militia party with a totalitarian conception of politics and the State, an activist and anti-theoretical ideology, with a mythical, virilistic and anti-hedonistic foundation, sacralized as a secular religion, which affirms the absolute primacy of the nation, understood as an ethnically homogeneous organic community, hierarchically organized in a corporate state, with a bellicose vocation to the politics of greatness, power and conquest aimed at creating a new order and a new civilization".
Racism was a key feature of German fascism, for which the Holocaust was a high priority. According to The Historiography of Genocide, "In dealing with the Holocaust, it is the consensus of historians that Nazi Germany targeted Jews as a race, not as a religious group." Umberto Eco, Kevin Passmore, John Weiss,[page needed] Ian Adams,[page needed] and Moyra Grant stress racism as a characteristic component of German fascism. Historian Robert Soucy stated that "Hitler envisioned the ideal German society as a Volksgemeinschaft, a racially unified and hierarchically organized body in which the interests of individuals would be strictly subordinate to those of the nation, or Volk." Kershaw noted that common factors of fascism included "the ‘cleansing’ of all those deemed not to belong – foreigners, ethnic minorities, 'undesirables'" and belief in its own nation's superiority, even if it was not biological racism like in Nazism. Fascist philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by one theoretical commonality: all traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities.
fascist government proposed the creation of workers' councils and profit-sharing in industry, although the German authorities, who effectively controlled northern Italy at this point, ignored these measures and did not seek to enforce them.
A number of post-World War II fascist movements described themselves as a Third Position outside the traditional political spectrum. Falange Española de las JONS leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera said: "[B]asically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile."
Fascist as a pejorative Main article: Fascist (insult) The term fascist has been used as a pejorative, regarding varying movements across the far right of the political spectrum. George Orwell noted in 1944 that the term had been used to denigrate diverse positions "in internal politics": while fascism is "a political and economic system" that was inconvenient to define, "as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist,'"[emphasis added], and in 1946 wrote that "...'Fascism' has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable."
Despite fascist movements' history of anti-communism, Communist states have sometimes been referred to as fascist, typically as an insult. It has been applied to Marxist–Leninist regimes in Cuba under Fidel Castro and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. Chinese Marxists used the term to denounce the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet split, and the Soviets used the term to denounce Chinese Marxists and social democracy, coining a new term in social fascism.
In the United States, Herbert Matthews of The New York Times asked in 1946: "Should we now place Stalinist Russia in the same category as Hitlerite Germany? Should we say that she is Fascist?" J. Edgar Hoover, longtime FBI director and ardent anti-communist, wrote extensively of red fascism. The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s was sometimes called fascist. Historian Peter Amann states that, "Undeniably, the Klan had some traits in common with European fascism—chauvinism, racism, a mystique of violence, an affirmation of a certain kind of archaic traditionalism—yet their differences were fundamental ... [the KKK] never envisioned a change of political or economic system."
Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times."[page needed][clarification needed] "Fascist" is sometimes applied to post-World War II organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term neo-fascist. To
Yugoslavia, attempts to bring Yugoslavia into civil war by supporting Croat and Macedonian separatists to legitimize Italian intervention and making Albania a de facto protectorate of Italy, which was achieved through diplomatic means by 1927. In response to revolt in the Italian colony of Libya, Fascist Italy abandoned previous liberal-era colonial policy of cooperation with local leaders. Instead, claiming that Italians were a superior race to African races and thereby had the right to colonize the "inferior" Africans, it sought to settle 10 to 15 million Italians in Libya. This resulted in an aggressive military campaign known as the Pacification of Libya against natives in Libya, including mass killings, the use of concentration camps and the forced starvation of thousands of people. Italian authorities committed ethnic cleansing by forcibly expelling 100,000 Bedouin Cyrenaicans, half the population of Cyrenaica in Libya, from their settlements that was slated to be given to Italian settlers.
Hitler adopts Italian model
choreography of mass bodies. But whereas official communist art "aims to expound and reinforce a utopian morality", the art of fascist countries such as Nazi Germany "displays a utopian aesthetics – that of physical perfection", in a way that is "both prurient and idealizing".
According to Sontag, fascist aesthetics "is based on the containment of vital forces; movements are confined, held tight, held in." Its appeal is not necessarily limited to those who share the fascist political ideology because fascism "stands for an ideal or rather ideals that are persistent today under the other banners: the ideal of life as art, the cult of beauty, the fetishism of courage, the dissolution of alienation in ecstatic feelings of community; the repudiation of the intellect; the family of man (under the parenthood of leaders)."
Criticism Fascism has been widely criticized and condemned in modern times since the defeat of the Axis powers
Fascism has been criticized for being ideologically dishonest. Major examples of ideological dishonesty have been identified in Italian fascism's changing relationship with German Nazism. Fascist Italy's official foreign policy positions commonly used rhetorical ideological hyperbole to justify its actions, although during Dino Grandi's tenure as Italy's foreign minister the country engaged in realpolitik free of such fascist hyperbole. Italian fascism's stance towards German Nazism fluctuated from support from the late 1920s to 1934, when it celebrated Hitler's rise to power and Mussolini's first meeting with Hitler in 1934; to opposition from 1934 to 1936 after the assassination of Italy's allied leader in Austria, Engelbert Dollfuss, by Austrian Nazis; and again back to support after 1936, when Germany was the only significant power that did not denounce Italy's invasion and occupation of Ethiopia.
After antagonism exploded between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy over the assassination of Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss in 1934, Mussolini and Italian fascists denounced and ridiculed Nazism's racial theories, particularly by denouncing its Nordicism, while promoting Mediterraneanism. Mussolini himself responded to Nordicists' claims of Italy being divided into Nordic and Mediterranean racial areas due to Germanic invasions of Northern Italy by claiming that while Germanic tribes such as the Lombards took control of Italy after the fall of Ancient Rome, they arrived in small numbers (about 8,000) and quickly assimilated into Roman culture and spoke the Latin language within fifty years. Italian fascism was influenced by the tradition of Italian nationalists scornfully looking down upon Nordicists' claims and taking pride in comparing the age and sophistication of ancient Roman civilization as well as the classical revival in the Renaissance to that of Nordic societies that Italian nationalists described as "newcomers" to civilization in comparison. At the height of antagonism between the Nazis and Italian fascists over race, Mussolini claimed that the Germans themselves were not a pure race and noted with irony that the Nazi theory of German racial superiority was based on the theories of non-German foreigners, such as Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau. After the tension in German-Italian relations diminished during the late 1930s, Italian fascism sought to harmonize its ideology with German Nazism and combined Nordicist and Mediterranean racial theories, noting that Italians were members of the Aryan Race, composed of a mixed Nordic-Mediterranean subtype.
In 1938, Mussolini declared upon Italy's adoption of antisemitic laws that Italian fascism had always been antisemitic. In fact, Italian fascism did not endorse antisemitism until the late 1930s when Mussolini feared alienating antisemitic Nazi Germany, whose power and influence were growing in Europe. Prior to that period, there had been notable Jewish Italians who had been senior Italian fascist officials, including Margherita Sarfatti, who had also been Mussolini's mistress. Also contrary to Mussolini's claim in 1938, only a small number of Italian fascists were staunchly antisemitic (such as Roberto Farinacci and Giuseppe Preziosi), while others such as Italo Balbo, who came from Ferrara which had one of Italy's largest Jewish communities, were disgusted by the antisemitic laws and opposed them. Fascism scholar Mark Neocleous notes that while Italian fascism did not have a clear commitment to antisemitism, there were occasional antisemitic statements issued prior to 1938, such as Mussolini in 1919 declaring that the Jewish bankers in London and New York were connected by race to the Russian Bolsheviks and that eight percent of the Russian Bolsheviks were Jews.
In popular culture American folksinger and songwriter Woody Guthrie is quoted by fellow singer and songwriter Pete Seeger as having said: "Fascism comes along when the rich people get the generals to help them stay in power." Seeger himself remarked that "The first country a fascist dictator conquers is his own country. Then he aims at other countries."

scholars have moved toward the minimalist 'new consensus' refined by Roger Griffin: 'the mythic core' of fascism is 'a populist form of palingenetic ultranationalism.' That means that fascism is an ideology that draws on old, ancient, and even arcane myths of racial, cultural, ethnic, and national origins to develop a plan for the 'new man.'" Griffin himself explored this 'mythic' or 'eliminable' core of fascism with his concept of post-fascism to explore the continuation of Nazism in the modern era. Additionally, other historians have applied this minimalist core to explore proto-fascist movements.
Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser argue that although fascism "flirted with populism ... in an attempt to generate mass support", it is better seen as an elitist ideology. They cite in particular its exaltation of the Leader, the race, and the state, rather than the people. They see populism as a "thin-centered ideology" with a "restricted morphology" that necessarily becomes attached to "thick-centered" ideologies such as fascism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus populism can be found as an aspect of many specific ideologies, without necessarily being a defining characteristic of those ideologies. They refer to the combination of populism, authoritarianism and ultranationalism as "a marriage of convenience".
Robert Paxton says: "[fascism is] a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." Roger Eatwell defines fascism as "an ideology that strives to forge social rebirth based on a holistic-national radical Third Way", while Walter Laqueur sees the core tenets of fascism as "self-evident: nationalism; social Darwinism; racialism, the need for leadership, a new aristocracy, and obedience; and the negation of the ideals of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution."
Historian Emilio Gentile has defined fascism as "a modern political phenomenon, revolutionary, anti-liberal and anti-Marxist, organized in a militia party with a totalitarian conception of politics and the State, an activist and anti-theoretical ideology, with a mythical, virilistic and anti-hedonistic foundation, sacralized as a secular religion, which affirms the absolute primacy of the nation, understood as an ethnically homogeneous organic community, hierarchically organized in a corporate state, with a bellicose vocation to the politics of greatness, power and conquest aimed at creating a new order and a new civilization".
Racism was a key feature of German fascism, for which the Holocaust was a high priority. According to The Historiography of Genocide, "In dealing with the Holocaust, it is the consensus of historians that Nazi Germany targeted Jews as a race, not as a religious group." Umberto Eco, Kevin Passmore, John Weiss,[page needed] Ian Adams,[page needed] and Moyra Grant stress racism as a characteristic component of German fascism. Historian Robert Soucy stated that "Hitler envisioned the ideal German society as a Volksgemeinschaft, a racially unified and hierarchically organized body in which the interests of individuals would be strictly subordinate to those of the nation, or Volk." Kershaw noted that common factors of fascism included "the ‘cleansing’ of all those deemed not to belong – foreigners, ethnic minorities, 'undesirables'" and belief in its own nation's superiority, even if it was not biological racism like in Nazism. Fascist philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by one theoretical commonality: all traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities.
fascist government proposed the creation of workers' councils and profit-sharing in industry, although the German authorities, who effectively controlled northern Italy at this point, ignored these measures and did not seek to enforce them.
A number of post-World War II fascist movements described themselves as a Third Position outside the traditional political spectrum. Falange Española de las JONS leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera said: "[B]asically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile."
Fascist as a pejorative Main article: Fascist (insult) The term fascist has been used as a pejorative, regarding varying movements across the far right of the political spectrum. George Orwell noted in 1944 that the term had been used to denigrate diverse positions "in internal politics": while fascism is "a political and economic system" that was inconvenient to define, "as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist,'"[emphasis added], and in 1946 wrote that "...'Fascism' has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable."
Despite fascist movements' history of anti-communism, Communist states have sometimes been referred to as fascist, typically as an insult. It has been applied to Marxist–Leninist regimes in Cuba under Fidel Castro and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. Chinese Marxists used the term to denounce the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet split, and the Soviets used the term to denounce Chinese Marxists and social democracy, coining a new term in social fascism.
In the United States, Herbert Matthews of The New York Times asked in 1946: "Should we now place Stalinist Russia in the same category as Hitlerite Germany? Should we say that she is Fascist?" J. Edgar Hoover, longtime FBI director and ardent anti-communist, wrote extensively of red fascism. The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s was sometimes called fascist. Historian Peter Amann states that, "Undeniably, the Klan had some traits in common with European fascism—chauvinism, racism, a mystique of violence, an affirmation of a certain kind of archaic traditionalism—yet their differences were fundamental ... [the KKK] never envisioned a change of political or economic system."
Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times."[page needed][clarification needed] "Fascist" is sometimes applied to post-World War II organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term neo-fascist. To
Yugoslavia, attempts to bring Yugoslavia into civil war by supporting Croat and Macedonian separatists to legitimize Italian intervention and making Albania a de facto protectorate of Italy, which was achieved through diplomatic means by 1927. In response to revolt in the Italian colony of Libya, Fascist Italy abandoned previous liberal-era colonial policy of cooperation with local leaders. Instead, claiming that Italians were a superior race to African races and thereby had the right to colonize the "inferior" Africans, it sought to settle 10 to 15 million Italians in Libya. This resulted in an aggressive military campaign known as the Pacification of Libya against natives in Libya, including mass killings, the use of concentration camps and the forced starvation of thousands of people. Italian authorities committed ethnic cleansing by forcibly expelling 100,000 Bedouin Cyrenaicans, half the population of Cyrenaica in Libya, from their settlements that was slated to be given to Italian settlers.
Hitler adopts Italian model
choreography of mass bodies. But whereas official communist art "aims to expound and reinforce a utopian morality", the art of fascist countries such as Nazi Germany "displays a utopian aesthetics – that of physical perfection", in a way that is "both prurient and idealizing".
According to Sontag, fascist aesthetics "is based on the containment of vital forces; movements are confined, held tight, held in." Its appeal is not necessarily limited to those who share the fascist political ideology because fascism "stands for an ideal or rather ideals that are persistent today under the other banners: the ideal of life as art, the cult of beauty, the fetishism of courage, the dissolution of alienation in ecstatic feelings of community; the repudiation of the intellect; the family of man (under the parenthood of leaders)."
Criticism Fascism has been widely criticized and condemned in modern times since the defeat of the Axis powers
Fascism has been criticized for being ideologically dishonest. Major examples of ideological dishonesty have been identified in Italian fascism's changing relationship with German Nazism. Fascist Italy's official foreign policy positions commonly used rhetorical ideological hyperbole to justify its actions, although during Dino Grandi's tenure as Italy's foreign minister the country engaged in realpolitik free of such fascist hyperbole. Italian fascism's stance towards German Nazism fluctuated from support from the late 1920s to 1934, when it celebrated Hitler's rise to power and Mussolini's first meeting with Hitler in 1934; to opposition from 1934 to 1936 after the assassination of Italy's allied leader in Austria, Engelbert Dollfuss, by Austrian Nazis; and again back to support after 1936, when Germany was the only significant power that did not denounce Italy's invasion and occupation of Ethiopia.
After antagonism exploded between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy over the assassination of Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss in 1934, Mussolini and Italian fascists denounced and ridiculed Nazism's racial theories, particularly by denouncing its Nordicism, while promoting Mediterraneanism. Mussolini himself responded to Nordicists' claims of Italy being divided into Nordic and Mediterranean racial areas due to Germanic invasions of Northern Italy by claiming that while Germanic tribes such as the Lombards took control of Italy after the fall of Ancient Rome, they arrived in small numbers (about 8,000) and quickly assimilated into Roman culture and spoke the Latin language within fifty years. Italian fascism was influenced by the tradition of Italian nationalists scornfully looking down upon Nordicists' claims and taking pride in comparing the age and sophistication of ancient Roman civilization as well as the classical revival in the Renaissance to that of Nordic societies that Italian nationalists described as "newcomers" to civilization in comparison. At the height of antagonism between the Nazis and Italian fascists over race, Mussolini claimed that the Germans themselves were not a pure race and noted with irony that the Nazi theory of German racial superiority was based on the theories of non-German foreigners, such as Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau. After the tension in German-Italian relations diminished during the late 1930s, Italian fascism sought to harmonize its ideology with German Nazism and combined Nordicist and Mediterranean racial theories, noting that Italians were members of the Aryan Race, composed of a mixed Nordic-Mediterranean subtype.
In 1938, Mussolini declared upon Italy's adoption of antisemitic laws that Italian fascism had always been antisemitic. In fact, Italian fascism did not endorse antisemitism until the late 1930s when Mussolini feared alienating antisemitic Nazi Germany, whose power and influence were growing in Europe. Prior to that period, there had been notable Jewish Italians who had been senior Italian fascist officials, including Margherita Sarfatti, who had also been Mussolini's mistress. Also contrary to Mussolini's claim in 1938, only a small number of Italian fascists were staunchly antisemitic (such as Roberto Farinacci and Giuseppe Preziosi), while others such as Italo Balbo, who came from Ferrara which had one of Italy's largest Jewish communities, were disgusted by the antisemitic laws and opposed them. Fascism scholar Mark Neocleous notes that while Italian fascism did not have a clear commitment to antisemitism, there were occasional antisemitic statements issued prior to 1938, such as Mussolini in 1919 declaring that the Jewish bankers in London and New York were connected by race to the Russian Bolsheviks and that eight percent of the Russian Bolsheviks were Jews.
In popular culture American folksinger and songwriter Woody Guthrie is quoted by fellow singer and songwriter Pete Seeger as having said: "Fascism comes along when the rich people get the generals to help them stay in power." Seeger himself remarked that "The first country a fascist dictator conquers is his own country. Then he aims at other countries."

USE THIS FORMATTING [email protected]$1
Total Price: $150
Make and Model: Kizer Yorkie
Timestamp and Vid
Price Justification: Beat up modded one sold for $110; $159 new
Escrow: N/A
Description: PLEASE BE THOROUGH. EXPLICITLY STATE ALL ISSUES : I got this bad boy just to practice Cerakoting on and I think it came out great. Finish isn't perfect, so be aware, but aside from some very minor aesthetic issues it is perfect. Never cut or carried by me, but I did disassemble to do the Cerakote with a black base and teal accents. Action is excellent, blade centered, and drops shut easily. Cleaned and lubed with KPL and a tiny bit of blue loctite on the pivot only. Includes box and goodies.
International shipping: No

PayPal Info: [REDACTED]
​
Tip BlobAndHisBoy
Number of vacant slots: 0
Number of unpaid users: 0
Number of unpaid slots: 0
This slot list is created and updated by The EDC Raffle Tool by BlobAndHisBoy.
1 Glock45owner PAID
2 Glock45owner PAID
3 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
4 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
5 Jesse060408 PAID
6 Glock45owner PAID
7 sw0352 PAID
8 SipthisInsipidly PAID
9 skatepunk88 PAID
10 Glock45owner PAID
11 ImQsq PAID
12 SipthisInsipidly PAID
13 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
14 skatepunk88 PAID
15 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
16 ImQsq PAID
17 Glock45owner PAID
18 ImQsq PAID
19 SipthisInsipidly PAID
20 Jesse060408 PAID
21 lizmiliz PAID
22 Jesse060408 PAID
23 Federal_Meal6265 PAID
24 anonywatch932 PAID
25 Glock45owner PAID
26 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
27 SipthisInsipidly PAID
28 Federal_Meal6265 PAID
29 SipthisInsipidly PAID
30 SipthisInsipidly PAID
31 sw0352 PAID
32 Abedzzz PAID
33 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
34 skatepunk88 PAID
35 ImQsq PAID
36 anonywatch932 PAID
37 skatepunk88 PAID
38 SipthisInsipidly PAID
39 Glock45owner PAID
40 Jesse060408 PAID
41 ImQsq PAID
42 Jesse060408 PAID
43 SipthisInsipidly PAID
44 ImQsq PAID
45 skatepunk88 PAID
46 anonywatch932 PAID
47 Glock45owner PAID
48 skatepunk88 PAID
49 Jesse060408 PAID
50 anonywatch932 PAID
51 SipthisInsipidly PAID
52 SipthisInsipidly PAID
53 SipthisInsipidly PAID
54 Glock45owner PAID
55 ImQsq PAID
56 Glock45owner PAID
57 sw0352 PAID
58 Glock45owner PAID
59 lizmiliz PAID
60 skatepunk88 PAID
61 lizmiliz PAID
62 lizmiliz PAID
63 Abedzzz PAID
64 SipthisInsipidly PAID
65 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
66 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
67 SipthisInsipidly PAID
68 lizmiliz PAID
69 Federal_Meal6265 PAID
70 SipthisInsipidly PAID
71 SipthisInsipidly PAID
72 Jesse060408 PAID
73 ImQsq PAID
74 lizmiliz PAID
75 SipthisInsipidly PAID
76 skatepunk88 PAID
77 SipthisInsipidly PAID
78 skatepunk88 PAID
79 skatepunk88 PAID
80 skatepunk88 PAID
81 ImQsq PAID
82 lizmiliz PAID
83 Abedzzz PAID
84 Federal_Meal6265 PAID
85 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
86 Jesse060408 PAID
87 Glock45owner PAID
88 Abedzzz PAID
89 SipthisInsipidly PAID
90 lizmiliz PAID
91 skatepunk88 PAID
92 ImQsq PAID
93 Jesse060408 PAID
94 skatepunk88 PAID
95 sw0352 PAID
96 Glock45owner PAID
97 Glock45owner PAID
98 skatepunk88 PAID
99 skatepunk88 PAID
100 SipthisInsipidly PAID
101 Glock45owner PAID
102 SipthisInsipidly PAID
103 lizmiliz PAID
104 anonywatch932 PAID
105 Glock45owner PAID
106 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
107 lizmiliz PAID
108 SipthisInsipidly PAID
109 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
110 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
111 Glock45owner PAID
112 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
113 SipthisInsipidly PAID
114 SipthisInsipidly PAID
115 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
116 Jesse060408 PAID
117 skatepunk88 PAID
118 Federal_Meal6265 PAID
119 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
120 lizmiliz PAID
121 Glock45owner PAID
122 ImQsq PAID
123 Glock45owner PAID
124 ImQsq PAID
125 skatepunk88 PAID
126 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
127 Glock45owner PAID
128 ImQsq PAID
129 sw0352 PAID
130 ImQsq PAID
131 ImQsq PAID
132 Glock45owner PAID
133 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
134 SipthisInsipidly PAID
135 ImQsq PAID
136 skatepunk88 PAID
137 ImQsq PAID
138 Glock45owner PAID
139 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
140 ImQsq PAID
141 skatepunk88 PAID
142 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
143 Abedzzz PAID
144 skatepunk88 PAID
145 ImQsq PAID
146 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
147 Ivankasbuttplug PAID
148 ImQsq PAID
149 SipthisInsipidly PAID
150 Glock45owner PAID

37, HER2+. On the home stretch of my TCHP and getting the ball rolling on surgery. BMX.
After suffering with uncomfortably large breasts since my teenage years, I'm opting to go flat. I've read up a lot on aesthetic flat closure on Not Putting on a Shirt, and my oncological surgeon is actually on their board of physicians, so she's super supportive of my decision. She recommended that I meet with the plastic surgeon she usually works with. I was super relieved that up until that point I'd received no pushback for my decision. I was feeling great and confident.
Fast forward to today. I met with the plastic surgeon. Right off the bat he wasn't the most friendly doctor, but I know bedside manner has nothing to do with talent, so I just kind of rolled with it.
Now, I'm 5'3" with a curvy build and I've put on weight since my diagnosis so my belly is a bit more prominent than it usually is. I am by no means severely obese, and while I've never been "skinny" I feel at my most healthy and confident when I'm around 155lbs.
Right from the get-go I got the feeling that he was trying to steer me away from going flat because of my weight and fears of me looking disproportionate. He said going flat is ok for skinny women because they "don't have a lot to begin with" (first red flag, obviously not always true), and that due to my large breasts and BMI I would likely be concave. He then asked if I had a fear of implants (second red flag) and I told him no, I just don't feel the need to have breasts anymore. He was hard to read, but my partner and I both got the feeling that he wasn't totally happy with that answer.
He went on to tell me that "heavy people" like me achieve better results with the goldilocks method as opposed to AFC. I'd done my research beforehand and knew what goldilocks entailed, but had mostly seen it on women who wanted to keep breast mounds, which I do NOT. I have no problem with using the method to "pad out" any concavity and avoid dog-ears, but I do not want any semblance of hanging breasts, even tiny ones. The surgeon said that the result could be anything from a slight convexity to "something like an a-cup". That was the third red flag.
Last of all I asked if he had any pictures of his work in similar situations and he said yes but he'd only be able to show me at my pre-op appointment. I thought that was kind of weird, too.
Am I worrying too much? I want to believe that this surgeon will respect my wishes to not have any "over-hang" or tangible boob of any kind. Especially since he was recommended by a surgeon on the board for Not Putting on a Shirt. His surgical plan makes sense to me, it's just that the general vibe I got from him concerned me. I tried to let most of what he said about my weight (and also my droopy breasts) roll off my back, but the whole visit left me feeling kind of ashamed. I didn't expect that.
Nevertheless, he seemed knowledgeable and experienced, if a little condescending.
TL;DR Does anyone have any experience with going the goldilocks route to achieve a flat chest? Should I worry that my plastic surgeon might leave me with more boob than I want? I don't even know how I'd begin to go about the process of a second opinion, especially since I love my oncological surgeon and this just seems to be the plastics guy she works with.
I just want things to go literally and figuratively smoothly! Experiences? Thoughts?

I'm currently sitting around 265lbs, peaked at 275lbs maybe 2 months ago. I've always been overweight as long as I can remember, and it has always affected my life negatively in every way imaginable. But it wasn't until my mid-20s that I finally got fed up and decided to do something about it. At that time I lost a lot of weight (for me) and got down from 290lbs to 215lbs over the course of about 2 years, but it required an insane amount of willpower and basically hijacking my brain to not want to eat all the time. I counted calories religiously, I was at the gym three days a week lifting and doing cardio, I cut out tons of things from my diet (caffeine, red meat, starches...) and made sure every single meal was loaded with protein and fiber. I did it completely right and was rewarded for it. But it wasn't sustainable! As soon as I went back to a sort of normal lifestyle, even watching what I ate or still going to the gym for half the time, the weight just kept coming on in phases where I would gain 10lbs, plateau for like a year, and then put on another 10lbs.
And now it's been about 12 years since I was my lowest adult weight. Obviously, I've developed HBP, insulin resistance, arthritis, sleep apnea and a bunch of other minor aches and pains related to just being obese. I'm not even 40 and I'm dealing with these things, I can't imagine how much worse they're going to get.
So my wife encouraged me to look into gastric bypass or sleeve surgery, which I was eligible for. I spent about a year going through the process of getting approved, which included meeting with a shrink, a nutritionist, a cardiologist, a pulmonologist and the surgeon. But I'm torn. I know that doing the surgery would 100% alleviate all of these issues and easily get me back to that weight or better. But I am so scared by the process of having to spend the rest of my life permanently changed by it. I don't like the idea of having to take vitamins every day to keep myself from being malnourished, I don't like the idea of potentially getting very sick if I eat the wrong foods, I don't like the idea of not being able to have a drink without falling on my ass drunk from a couple sips, and all of the other stuff. I have heard so many people say that it was the best thing they ever did getting the surgery, but I'm still scared.
I ended up going to a medical weight loss center instead about 2 months ago. They prescribed me metformin and told me to go onto a low glycemic diet and exercise everyday, with a projected weight loss of about 30lbs by like the end of the year. They said they couldn't give me anything else because insurance wouldn't cover it and they didn't feel that I needed it, so I started them metformin and I felt great for the first few weeks. But now that I've acclimated to it, my body is in this weird spot. I've lost about 10lbs basically doing nothing except light exercise. I don't have hunger pangs like at all anymore, I no longer wake up immediately wanting breakfast and I'm usually okay with skipping lunch or dinner. I just don't feel as hungry and honestly certain foods kind of repulse me now. But I still have cravings for things like sugar, particularly things like ice cream or cookies which I wouldn't even have really been going for before taking this med but now sometimes it feels like it's the only thing that satisfies me. I also crave really fatty foods, like peanut butter or cheese, but I don't really want saucy things anymore like when my wife makes pulled pork or chili. Salads are way better tasting than I used to be, and I've noticed a lot of veggies are far saltier than I remember them being. But yeah, it's a weird experience. And I'm starting to plateau again, just bouncing back and forth between the same 5 lbs up or down for the past 2 weeks.
I'm kind of at this moment or impasse where I don't know what the next step is. Because now I feel that my eating habits are completely thrown off by this medication, but I don't know any other path forward besides making the huge sacrifices like I did in my twenties or just sucking it up and getting the surgery. Unlike my 20s I now have two kids and a wife who works in opposite shift, so I'm the parent at home with the kids most of the time. So my schedule is pretty much completely dedicated to them. I don't know where I could slot in going to the gym three days a week and I definitely don't know if it's even economically feasible to start eating the way that I did but also still having all the regular foods that the rest of the family wants. I'm torn because I don't want to die young but I'm worried that nothing is going to work unless I just got the surgery at this point in my life
TLDR My weight has always fluctuated my entire life and now I have the option of getting surgery or continuing to take metformin, which is sort of working. I'm torn because I want to get to a healthy weight but have a lot of reservations about surgery and just basically need a pep talk or somebody who has actually done this journey to give me good advice.

hehehe it's my turn to make the Just Had Top Surgery post. Give me something to talk about while I'm laying tf down