PROGRESS VS SURVIVAL
Fascists and fascism apologists talk about making sacrifices in order to "secure" survival. Not in order to survive but to "secure" it. What does that mean? Well, it means that they make these sacrifices in order to FEEL SECURE. And what is change and progress and growth if not threats to the feeling of security and stability? In other words, fascism apologists aren't really sacrificing anything. Not for themselves. Rather, they are sacrificing YOUR progress and growth, and YOUR desire for justice ... for the sake of THEIR feelings of security.
Because there is no empirical data whatsoever, and copious counter-examples disproving the notion, that survival and progress are incompatible in any circumstance. There are plenty of revolutions that advanced social progress FIRST in order to ensure survival LATER. China comes to mind. France comes to mind. It is only in the minds of would be Fascists that survival is somehow more important than progress. Because in their minds, progress really doesn't matter in the first place, because progress is NEGATIVE in their minds. When as a matter of empirical fact, progress is NECESSARY for survival.
(Simple example: if we don't progress technologically then in a few million years, an asteroid or super-volcano is going to annihilate the human species. Because Nature is just plain evil like that. Of course, that doesn't stop people from worshiping an evil nature in the least, any more than it stops people from worshiping the evil Jehovah. Or Batman. People seem to just like worshiping Evil.)
The would be fascists will claim that survival while not necessarily more important than progress is nonetheless more urgent. But how can it possibly be more urgent when progress is often a logical prerequisite of survival? Ahh, that's right, for a moment I forgot that most people are incapable of logic. And so by being incapable of logic, their perceptions and their actions are effectively fascistic. Wonderful!
"Helping" poverty is another good one. These people are doing nothing to END poverty. They rather believe ending poverty is impossible. It's why they rarely say "helping end poverty", although some do. I would go so far to say as they don't even believe they are helping poor people, not really. Else why don't they say "helping people in poverty" or "helping poor people"?
No, what they are doing is perpetuating poverty, helping poverty to exist. By papering over it and making it palatable to others, especially to the middle class and the poor, they try to prevent a revolution or other definitive actions that would actually eradicate poverty. I know that if I had a goal it would be to end poverty or eradicate poverty. It would certainly not be "helping" it. It takes some special kind of fucked up person to want to help poverty. But then, there is no shortage of evil-minded retards among the general population. It seems rather that's the overwhelming majority of them.
And if you believe otherwise then I have but a simple question for you: if people really believed that it were desirable to reduce or end poverty, then why would they make not a single goal towards that end? The fact that people are insects does not explain why their hive-mind hasn't come up with a single idea to reduce or end poverty. The fact the overwhelming majority of insects are cattle following the herd who are ultimately following freethinkers, doesn't explain why the freethinkers didn't lead the cattle towards reducing poverty or perhaps why the cattle didn't glom onto reducing poverty as a goal. The only thing that explains the fact of near-universal apathy towards poverty is this ... people like poverty.