NationStates Jolt Archive

Since nobody has learnt their lesson from the first time, and since everything is back to the way it was when I first wrote this message, I'm re-iterating.:

Okay. I've been meaning to put this up ever since after I said something nice about General Franco I was called a nazi. Also, everyone seems to be calling certain mods nazis, and when they argue back it's just made worse.

Yes, I am a Fascist. If by Fascist you mean that I believe that the state is more important then the people who make up the state, and that democracy is a foolish experiment that in recent years, in Africa and Asia especially, we have found doesn't work and should have been eliminated years ago.

Under no circumstances am I apologising for Hitler. Hitler was an abberation, a freak of nature whose only relationship to Fascism was that he was a Totalitarian. He polluted the minds of the world against what was otherwise a respectable political medium.

Fascism is more Authoritarian then Totalitarian.

Nazism and and Fascism are not the same thing. Nazism was, and sadly is, a ridiculous mystical offshoot of Fascism.

A Police State would be a Fascist nation. A 'let's kill every one we don't like in order to distract the populace from our own evil' state is a Nazi nation.

I appreciate the fact that some of you are too foolish/brainwashed-into-democracy to appreciate this fact.

((Carefully reasoned arguements only, the last sentence is not to be taken at face value))

This remains true. I'm willing to explain further, if necessary, but I'm trusting that while I actually posted more explaining materials in the original thread, I don't need to go back to them and copy them here. Yes, it is a bit poorly written, but go past that and look at the content.

If everyone wants, I'll write up a new one.

Do we even have any of either here? I mean, outside the hyperbolic accusations, of course. I've never seen any. :?

Do we even have any of either here? I mean, outside the hyperbolic accusations, of course. I've never seen any. :?

Well... we have Nazi Duetschland Alliance.

Personally, I'm more of a statist than a fascist, but trying to explain that is a load of trouble. I've seen a few fascists around, yeah.

what about Nazi Duetshland Axis? i seen him a little.

what about Nazi Duetshland Axis? i seen him a little.

"I've seen him around a bit", did you mean? Whatever. Anyway, it doesn't matter if there are any around, I just want people to understand that there is a difference.

as in ive seen his name on a couple of posts.

what about Nazi Duetshland Axis? i seen him a little.

"I've seen him around a bit", did you mean? Whatever. Anyway, it doesn't matter if there are any around, I just want people to understand that there is a difference.
I think we get it. But most of the Fascists we get on here are best described as neo Nazis.
This comes with all this business of pigeon holing people. You can contrary to popular belief be a caring fascist.
The thing that amazes me is that it appears universally accepted that democracy is the best form of government. We have a number of oil rich countries where they are not democratic and the native population is very well looked after. Brunei for example.
The Catholic Church could be described as benevolent dictatorship.
Why if we help out a nation does the west need to force democracy on them?
Is democracy compatible with their culture, we don’t appear to give a stuff either way. We do it therefore it must be best for everyone.

well no one is going to admit that the political system they want or
support is "bad".

while the idea of a place for everyone and everyone in his place
has some merit to it. It does become too restrictive there
are a lot of square pegs out there.

But im not sure that the state is more important than individuals.

Personally im an anarchist i dont think that states are necessary or
even desireable. Groupings of people are good at supporting each
other but dont require states to exist i think NGO probably do more
good in the world than governments do.

as far as a fascist state being good, whatever that is, can it possibly
be? nazi germany, mussloini, stalinist russia, mao pol opt, the bjp in
india governments in nigeria, indonesia zimbabawe a list that goes on
and on on the other side of the ledger you have

malaysia and singapore which to all intents and purposes are one
party states but how visible are malays in singapore, and malaysia
has suffered badly from corruption in the past.

giving people power is invariably a mistake the temptation to exploit
it for the individual with the power is too great.

you get the odd good leader tito and bolivar spring to the top of my head.
but they are a very rare exception.

Singapore is a perfect example of a working state, thank you. And having been to Singapore, I can tell you that the Malays are everywhere.

However, the opinion of an anarchist is meaningless to me.

EDIT: Especially one who I needed to find a translator for, even though he was theoretically writing English.

I agree with your main point that fascism and zazism are not equivalents.

Mussolini claimed to have "invented" fascism, and readily threw in his lot with Hitler, while Franco was far too shrewd.

But I still believe that fascism is a barren ideology.

To me, the state exists purely to provide services to the individuals within it.

To make the state superior to the individual is an aberration.

I agree with your main point that fascism and zazism are not equivalents.

Mussolini claimed to have "invented" fascism, and readily threw in his lot with Hitler, while Franco was far too shrewd.

But I still believe that fascism is a barren ideology.

To me, the state exists purely to provide services to the individuals within it.

To make the state superior to the individual is an aberration.

truth.

So no coruption in a democracy then?
Just because we have a few bad examples of a political system does not mean it is not workable. Every dog and all that twadle.
It's like saying vegitarians are bad because Hitler was one, or they are good because Gandi was.

I agree with your main point that fascism and zazism are not equivalents.

Mussolini claimed to have "invented" fascism, and readily threw in his lot with Hitler, while Franco was far too shrewd.

But I still believe that fascism is a barren ideology.

To me, the state exists purely to provide services to the individuals within it.

To make the state superior to the individual is an aberration.

...hang on... Those are the exact same... Ah, good. I'll just go back and get my old response.

You might say that facism is an abberation. But the species only survives by working together as a whole.

Even the Roman Empire displayed fascism. In fact, most great empires were. The state exists to further the ends of the people within. It doesn't matter what people want. All that matters is what people need.

the best description of democracy i've ever heard was (i think) said by former MP Tony Benn who claimed it (democracy) was "the worst form of government ever devised, except for all other forms of government ever devised."
Agreed, 'the people' have elected some shocking leaders through the democratic process (George W. Bush anyone?), and this process has had it's fair share of cheats (again George...) but by and large the premiers and other electee's selected do a good job (choose from Mandela, That Indian chap who prevented a mass famine, Lloyd George, Bevan, Lincoln, etc. etc.).
The problem with facism (as you describe it) is that people like the idea of having a vote! the idea that through passive action we can change the way our country is run is very appealling, to me at least.

I think the main question one needs to ask is, "How do I make sure the best person or people to be in power makes it into power." I can readily attest to the fact that the democratic system is inefficient at best, highly corruptable at most. I can also say that someone placed over me without my input at all frequently produces someone who cares little at all for me, and everything for maintaining his/her power. And no one in power, well... maybe if everyone cared for others as much as they cared for themselves.

Frankly, I don't see either democracy, anarchy or fascism being very good choices, I just wish I could think up something better.

Singapore is a perfect example of a working state, thank you.

A working state maybe, but one in which long hair or chewing gum is an arrestable offence. I'd rather live in a place where people are more important than economics and wealth.

However, the opinion of an anarchist is meaningless to me.

Let me get this straight: in a thread designed to stop people from instantly dismising facism as nonsense, your gong to instantly dismiss another political stance? How hypocritical can you be....

EDIT: Especially one who I needed to find a translator for, even though he was theoretically writing English.

I could understand it fine. Sure, there was a lot of incorrect grammer, but so what? It doesn't make the post unintelligable. Or is your brain just uncabable of understanding opposing political viewpoints?

Tony, Churchill said that. I have a compilation of his quotes here.

Utopio, people are important in Singapore. And long hair on men should be a punishable offence. I've visited Singapore, and I've never seen a more ordered society.

Also, I'm dismissing anarchism because it's against all common sense, and also because technically it isn't a political idealogy. It's the lack of organisation of any form.

No, I'm serious. I understood very little in that post. As far as I'm concerned, it is unintelligable. A person who writes like that doesn't have an opinion which needs to be heard.

I agree with your main point that fascism and zazism are not equivalents.

Mussolini claimed to have "invented" fascism, and readily threw in his lot with Hitler, while Franco was far too shrewd.

But I still believe that fascism is a barren ideology.

To me, the state exists purely to provide services to the individuals within it.

To make the state superior to the individual is an aberration.

...hang on... Those are the exact same... Ah, good. I'll just go back and get my old response.

You might say that facism is an abberation. But the species only survives by working together as a whole.

Even the Roman Empire displayed fascism. In fact, most great empires were. The state exists to further the ends of the people within. It doesn't matter what people want. All that matters is what people need.

And on that very point we disagree my friend.

What people want does matter, and matters considerably more than what someone else decides they "need" or "is good for them".

Democracy, as with all systems, has its faults and its weaknesses. But its greatest strength is the ability to readily and non-violently dismiss leaders who it no longer cares for.

This scenario is impossible in fascism, or indeed, in any of the totalitarian or authoritarian systems.

There is no point in having a state unless it is to provide for the welfare of its components, in other words to provide services to them. A state cannot exist as a thing apart.

And a democratic society is as organised as a fascist one. One only has to look at how the US was able to focus its talents and strengths during WW11 to achieve incredible economic, manufacturing and technological advancements while in direct competition with fascist or totalitarian regimes that were unable to match it it any way.

Democracy is imperfect, as is man. Fascism is the organisation of the antheap or the beehive, and as inhuman.

Sorry just a question regarding your initial post Roania, are you seriously suggesting that Franco did not kill and mistreat his political opponents?

SG, I respect your convictions. But in a situation where what people want is more important than what they need, there are severe problems.

The United States entered the war after being attacked. If they had taken action against Japanese imperialism in the 1930s, they wouldn't have been. Thus, American democracy was the direct antecedent of the Pearl Harbour attack.

France was weakened by its own multi-party democracy and the rivalries inherent within.

Also, how many people in the United States vote? 30%? Less? Hardly rule of the majority. Finally, I must call foul on your deeming Fascism inhuman. It's very human. I leave it to you to find out why.

RW, that was 7 months ago. I'm not sure what I meant when I implied that, if indeed I was. I'm just too lazy to write up a whole new post.

Okay. I've been meaning to put this up ever since after I said something nice about General Franco I was called a nazi. Also, everyone seems to be calling certain mods nazis, and when they argue back it's just made worse.

Yes, I am a Fascist. If by Fascist you mean that I believe that the state is more important then the people who make up the state, and that democracy is a foolish experiment that in recent years, in Africa and Asia especially, we have found doesn't work and should have been eliminated years ago.


Fair enough that you think Democracy doesn't work. Thats your opinion- but why choose fascism as an alternative? Why not some other un-democratic philosophy, such as Marxist-Leninism?


Fascism is more Authoritarian then Totalitarian.

Not mutually exclusive. Margaret Thatchers government was Authoritarian but not Totalitarian, while Pinochets was both. They describe different things-
Authoritarianism- A Political Ideology (of sorts)
Totalitarianism- A way of enforcing a Government on a (usually) unwilling people.


Nazism and and Fascism are not the same thing. Nazism was, and sadly is, a ridiculous mystical offshoot of Fascism.

No, Nazism was a sub-set of Fascism, just as Democratic Socialism and Stalinism are sub-sets of Marxism.


A Police State would be a Fascist nation. A 'let's kill every one we don't like in order to distract the populace from our own evil' state is a Nazi nation.

Nope. 'Nazi' is simply a term that describes someone who supports the aims and objectives of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Stalin lead a 'let's kill every one we don't like in order to distract the populace from our own evil' state, but he wasn't a Nazi.


I appreciate the fact that some of you are too foolish/brainwashed-into-democracy to appreciate this fact.

Yes, its US who are the brainwashed ones. I blame the gays.

:idea: The state exists to serve the people

Occasionally with fascism you can get a benevolent dictator, if you will, and the populace will be well cared for. But simply because you can point to that country and say "they have a good system there" doesn't mean it's the BEST system. And the best system is what we should be looking for, not just a good one.
Incidentally, I don't recall from my history classes there ever being a referendum on whether or not the U.S. should take action against Japanese imperialism.

Jello Biafra, I meant that the strength of US public opinion, which was unanimously isolationist (And was supported by isolationist legislation, thank you very much), forced them back from stopping the Japanese.

And again, Texastambul (interesting name you got there), the state exists to further the means and goals of the people.

Also, I'm dismissing anarchism because it's against all common sense,

ha! talk about projection.

and also because technically it isn't a political idealogy. It's the lack of organisation of any form.

and that's just completely and utterly false.

Yes, I am a Fascist. If by Fascist you mean that I believe that the state is more important then the people who make up the state...

If you believe that the state is more important than the people that make up the state, then you must also believe it is justifiable to destroy part of the state in order to save the rest of it (- imagine a parallel to amputating a gangrenous limb or a malignant cancer, if you will).

Thus under fascism it becomes acceptable, but regrettable, when the state must destroy some of the people that comprise it, in order to maintain its own statehood.

Given that you can never know if you would be one of the people who would be 'excised' if trouble arose, does it still make sense to support fascism?

Occasionally with fascism you can get a benevolent dictator, if you will, and the populace will be well cared for. But simply because you can point to that country and say "they have a good system there" doesn't mean it's the BEST system.

and then there is the tiny problem that your only options are to pray that your dictator will only be somewhat evil or get involved with armed insurrectionist groups. because its not like you can easily take away all that power from somebody once they've got it.

I make the case that Monarchism is the best system. A strong King or Emperor supported by a council of nobles is at the top of the hierarchy, and an elected body handles day to day affairs. The King/Emperor would be idolized by the people, and militarism would also be prominent. A real world example of this system would be the German Empire of 1871-1918.

Also, I'm dismissing anarchism because it's against all common sense,

ha! talk about projection.

and also because technically it isn't a political idealogy. It's the lack of organisation of any form.

and that's just completely and utterly false.

What does it say for Franco that he had trouble putting down an opposition which had a "lackof organisation of any form"? :wink:

I make the case that Monarchism is the best system. A strong King or Emperor supported by a council of nobles is at the top of the hierarchy, and an elected body handles day to day affairs. The King/Emperor would be idolized by the people, and militarism would also be prominent. A real world example of this system would be the German Empire of 1871-1918.

ah yes, a fun time had by all

...

What does it say for Franco that he had trouble putting down an opposition which had a "lackof organisation of any form"? :wink:

oooh, burn

ah yes, a fun time had by all
What exactly do you mean by this?

What exactly do you mean by this?

let's just say that you would have probably found me firmly on the side of the german revolution.

What exactly do you mean by this?

If the 14-18 war is one of the products of the best kind of government, then I would hate to see what the worst can produce.

Singapore is a perfect example of a working state, thank you.

A working state maybe, but one in which long hair or chewing gum is an arrestable offence. I'd rather live in a place where people are more important than economics and wealth.


FYI Long hair on men is not an arrestable offence in Singapore. And RE the chewing gum thing- bringing it into the country for personal consumption is not illegal, bringing it into the country for sale is. Get your facts right- the average person in Singapore probably recieves about as much "oppression" as the average person in the USA. Admittedly it ain't Europe but it still works.

A real world example of this system would be the German Empire of 1871-1918.
You must be joking. Have you ever read a history book? So the system which almost unilaterally provoked the First World War is our ideal state? :roll:

I'm teetering on the Statist/Fascist line. I'm really not sure. I'm backing off of fascist somewhat, but I still admire mussolini.....


....it's just that my new political crush is on Ataturk, and I'm not quite sure what he is (besides awesome).

let's just say that you would have probably found me firmly on the side of the german revolution.

You have an Ally here! But it would have even been better if the SPD had stopped pussyfooting around the former elites and made it a proper revolution! Sorry by the way, did not se your post when I posted my last one...

Have you ever read a history book?

...depends on which history book you read :wink:

Singapore is a perfect example of a working state, thank you.

A working state maybe, but one in which long hair or chewing gum is an arrestable offence. I'd rather live in a place where people are more important than economics and wealth.


FYI Long hair on men is not an arrestable offence in Singapore. And RE the chewing gum thing- bringing it into the country for personal consumption is not illegal, bringing it into the country for sale is. Get your facts right- the average person in Singapore probably recieves about as much "oppression" as the average person in the USA. Admittedly it ain't Europe but it still works.

Pot to kettle.

Get your facts right.

http://www.discoverabroad.com/Singapore/LivingAbroad/Law.htm

Chewing gum

As an extension of the "no littering" mantra, the import, sale and possession of chewing gum is banned. You are also not allowed to bring in chewing gum for your own consumption. In short, no chewing gum whatsoever.



Although the law has recently been eased allowing some companies to actually sell chewing gum.

And upon realising that Anglo-Scandinavia must know more than that sodding website, because he is actually from Singapore...I'll just sit in the corner and poke myself in the eye.

Thankyou.

...depends on which history book you read :wink:[/quote]
fair enough. I'm talking about any reputable historian rather than Mr. "the Holocaust never happened they all made it up" lunatic.

But it would have even been better if the SPD had stopped pussyfooting around the former elites and made it a proper revolution!

indeed

Imperial Germany was not solely responsible for the first world war. A combination of all the nationalistic and militaristic sentiments in all teh European nations lead to the war. The assasination of F. Ferdinand only gave everyone an excuse to fight each other. Germany was dragged into the war by the alliance with Austria. In fact, the Kaiser attempted to stop the war. Even during the war, when Germany offered peace, the greedy allies refused and sacrificed millions of their troops so they could invoke the revolting treaty of Versailles. In fact, one can almost blame the allies for the Nazi problem, because if the Kaiserreich had survived, Hitler would have stayed a bad painter and nothing more. The Imperial German system also demonstarted great effectiveness in the war, considering Germany held of England and France, and Russia essentially by herself(admittedly Austria also helped against the Russians) and only started losing AFTER the USA was manipulated by the treacherous allies into joining the war. Hoch der Kaiser!

http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/webpages/Adler_Deutsches-Reich.gif

Okay. I've been meaning to put this up ever since after I said something nice about General Franco I was called a nazi. Also, everyone seems to be calling certain mods nazis, and when they argue back it's just made worse.

Yes, I am a Fascist. If by Fascist you mean that I believe that the state is more important then the people who make up the state, and that democracy is a foolish experiment that in recent years, in Africa and Asia especially, we have found doesn't work and should have been eliminated years ago.

Under no circumstances am I apologising for Hitler. Hitler was an abberation, a freak of nature whose only relationship to Fascism was that he was a Totalitarian. He polluted the minds of the world against what was otherwise a respectable political medium.

Fascism is more Authoritarian then Totalitarian.

Nazism and and Fascism are not the same thing. Nazism was, and sadly is, a ridiculous mystical offshoot of Fascism.

A Police State would be a Fascist nation. A 'let's kill every one we don't like in order to distract the populace from our own evil' state is a Nazi nation.

I appreciate the fact that some of you are too foolish/brainwashed-into-democracy to appreciate this fact.

((Carefully reasoned arguements only, the last sentence is not to be taken at face value))

This remains true. I'm willing to explain further, if necessary, but I'm trusting that while I actually posted more explaining materials in the original thread, I don't need to go back to them and copy them here. Yes, it is a bit poorly written, but go past that and look at the content.

If everyone wants, I'll write up a new one.

Are you in Favour of Nepotism? I agree with you. From an Analytical point of view, The currect model of the Republic along with this
Neo-Consumerism is pretty bad. But As a Citizen Im glad I live in one.
I'm less likely to be oppressed If I try to excercise any freedoms.

And upon realising that Anglo-Scandinavia must know more than that sodding website, because he is actually from Singapore...I'll just sit in the corner and poke myself in the eye.

Thankyou.

And thank you. Don't worry- it's a common error. I just don't know why the "ban on long hair" is still kicking around the rumour mill. That law was passed in the early 70's and lifted soon after.