14 steps to Fascism... Look out for Bush's Right Hook!

Originally posted by WindDancer
Interesting...someone read Dr. Lawrence Britt 14 steps. And from what I see they even put Bush name next to the 14 steps. Allow me to make a in depth look at Fascism.

Fascism is a totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini, who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain. The term is derived from the Latin fasces.

A quick definition of Fascism: a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

ETYMOLOGY:
Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle

Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy:

Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.

A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of Social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma.

Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism's rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and "the will."

Now, I hope this post can help you clear out your mind. I really hope....

Has to start somewhere. Obviously it would be impossible to jump straight from democracy to fascism. Nobody's claiming we live in a fascist society, just that we're heading that way.

Hockey> Yeah, I knew we disagreed on that... Ah well, we still agree on a lot of political shit ✅

I believe the Bible all the way in the sense that, "Wow, I can see where this would have applied way-back-when, but we'd really be screwing ourselves over nowadays, not to mention the vast number of people freaking out..."

Speaking of random, does anyone here known what the "Urantia Papers" (or somesuch) are?

And I suppose the liberals have NOTHING to do with the progression of this alleged fascism, only we conservative Bush-supporters.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Nah, that would be taking on Hitler's views, which were firmly rooted in extremist evolutionary beliefs.

No, I don't agree with that--although I would have "back in the day". Morality has declined greatly that if we were to follow those views, most of America would be dead.

Here is where you're not making sense--you are supposed to be a patriotic American. The founding belief that our country was built on is equal rights for all people. This means freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. If you are so obsessed with changing everyone else's patterns of thought to fit your Bible, why are you a typical conformist, conservative American?

EDIT: Hold on--did you just say that you would have approved of killing all gays in Biblical times? Holy shit. Not to mention the fact that you said this not long after saying you believe in equal rights for gays. Christians not hypocritical my ass.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I believe the Bible all the way in the sense that, "Wow, I can see where this would have applied way-back-when, but we'd really be screwing ourselves over nowadays, not to mention the vast number of people freaking out..."

Speaking of random, does anyone here known what the "Urantia Papers" (or somesuch) are?

And I suppose the liberals have NOTHING to do with the progression of this alleged fascism, only we conservative Bush-supporters.

I will say it again--I am NOT a liberal in the typical sense. I am much more liberal than is considered "acceptable" in this country.

If you are so obsessed with changing everyone else's patterns of thought to fit your Bible, why are you a typical conformist, conservative American?

He is removed. And our society is unfit to rule--we suffer from a mental disability known as stupidity.

I will say it again--I am NOT a liberal in the typical sense. I am much more liberal than is considered "acceptable" in this country.

We live in a society that embraces anything and everything. We also live in the greatest nation on the Earth. One or the other should not be.

P.S. And now it's my bedtime 🙂. I bid you all good-day (or night).

Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm not changing anyone else's thoughts. Equal rights are good. Rule by the people is good. But what happens if a ruler becomes unfit for duty?

He is removed. And our society is unfit to rule--we suffer from a mental disability known as stupidity.

What the hell are you even talking about anymore? You DO realize that you just implied you support some kind of fascist dictatorship, don't you?

And yes, you are trying to change other people's thoughts. Or, more accurately, the way they live their lives. I don't like a lot of people's religious beliefs, but I don't go cramming mine down their throats, making them live the way I do, simply because I don't agree with them. That is the most un-American thing you can do. I actually agree with most of the pricipals our founding fathers were trying to establish into law, I just believe we have strayed so far from these original principals that we should hardly be called by the same name.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
I will say it again--I am NOT a liberal in the typical sense. I am much more liberal than is considered "acceptable" in this country.

Same here...you, me, and Tpt make most liberals look conservative.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm not changing anyone else's thoughts. Equal rights are good. Rule by the people is good. But what happens if a ruler becomes unfit for duty?

He is removed. And our society is unfit to rule--we suffer from a mental disability known as stupidity.

Our country NOT accepting liberals? From what skewed viewpoints do you see this? Our country screams at us to be liberal--all the so-called "Hollywood role-models" are liberal; we are taught that murdering babies is OK because we can call it "terminating the pregnancy", we learn that giving handouts to the lazy is the "right" thing to do, we observe all sorts of crap that just should not be.

We live in a society that embraces anything and everything. We also live in the greatest nation on the Earth. One or the other should not be.

Okay... I think you are a little confused. Hollywood "role models" are Democrat kinda liberal. I am NOT a Democrat, for the third time. Maybe if I use a word like "leftist," "extremist," or "commie" (I'm not a true commie, but a lot of people think I am because of their misunderstanding of the word) you'll get what I'm saying? The kind of "liberal" I am is very much looked down upon in this country.

If equal rights are good, then just allow gays to get married. Look at it this way, you are already not completely following the bible because the bible says all gays must be put to death. So since we are already breaking the bible's moral code, why not just give gays the right to marry and then we can focus our time and energy on issues that affect our whole country and not just one oppressed minority.

Our country NOT accepting liberals? From what skewed viewpoints do you see this? Our country screams at us to be liberal

Uh...then why is the term 'liberal' used as an insult equivalent to 'commie'?

OK, one more post...

What the hell are you even talking about anymore? You DO realize that you just implied you support some kind of fascist dictatorship, don't you?

I always know what I mean. And I always mean what I say. The vast ignorance of our country needs to be rectified. At work, I listened to a discussion of politics--not a single person could name the preisdent, vice-president, or their opposition in the upcoming election. Either we learn or we do not rule. Yes, a horrible, unpatriotic, not pro-freedom thing to say.

I am not saying that we need a dictatorship--I'm saying that only people who know about what they speak should be allowed to vote. Scream unpatriotic, anti-American values all you wish.

Believe it or not, the people who you were listening to are in the minority. I agree that these people should not be a part of our political process--I do not agree, however, that they should be prevented from taking part in it, that this should be a law. Besides which, I had no idea what you were talking about, and if you go back and read your post, it did indeed sound like you were supporting what I was talking about.

Originally posted by -=Urot=-
Bush and his neocons are nibbing away at our freedoms like pirahna in slow motion. We don't even notice as the flesh is being stripped off the bones of our constitutional rights because it doesn't affect us immediately or directly, but nonetheless the Bush administration has embarked on a relentless crawl towards fascism right under our noses. Consider the 14 signs carefully.

sounds like the whining is still in full force. Let me let you in on a little secret, freedoms and rights have been fleeting since the sighning of the declaaration of Independence, and the forging of the constitution. Freedoms have been being taken away long before Bush took the helm of this country. It is true that many people dont realize it, because they are delusioned by extreme left or right wing thinking. Kerry owuldnt have done any better. If you think Kerry would have been anymore for the people than Bush is, then you bought a mouth full of shit. Neigther Kerry or Bush would have ended or solved the situation in Iraq, Neigther Kerry or Bush will solve the Enviorment issues, And neigther one will strengthen the Economy. from Kerry's socialized healthcare to Bush's outsourcing, the only way The American Economy will get balanced again is if Americans keep working, which they will. No one knows what stimulates the Economy, They only know that war doesnt help it.

Originally posted by Silver Stardust
Uh...then why is the term 'liberal' used as an insult equivalent to 'commie'?

that started with the raegan Administration. It is very true that Reagan more or less demonized liberals. It has been a vicous down spiral from there, so yes, Republicans are to blame for that one. Which is shame, it is a shame that a country is so split on political views and demands. This causes the two sides to argue at each other, rather than trying to see eye to eye. I havent beeninto politics to long, but i have noticed that the blood between liberals and republicans has become exceedingly worse with each new election through the past four terms in office.

See... there is a confusion here because of wildly varying definitions of the word 'liberal' between the Continents. In fact, a lot of people are ignorant of the meaning 'Liberal' can have. Very odd that SS says that Tpt makes liberals look Conservative, and that RR says that it was Reagan who demonised the term...

... because Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Government in Reagan's day, was the most liberal we've ever had., And if you don't understand that, it's because, as I say, you don't understand the meanings of Liberal. One of her most famous statements was 'I am a Liberal'.

Trouble is, 'Liberal' in the States, and increasingly over here, is becoming synonomous with 'Left Wing'. Which is odd, because the Left Wing has never necessarily been about Liberal Government- often to the contrary.

There is a reason the Lib Dems in this country are seperate from Labour, because here, Liberalism and Left Wing are different. Liberal Government is Government that aims to empower people with choices; Thatcher's Government was Liberal because of her pledge to 'roll back the frontiers of the state'- i.e. to reduce state control in national affairs, basically by privatising everything. She didn't think it was the job of the state to run railways and the electricity boards etc. She thought people should have a choice with everything, a policy the Conservatives still have today. School vouchers are a good example of this- Conservative policy is still to introduce them, on the idea that you shouldn't be forced to enter into the overlording State system of state schools; you should be empowered with the choice to choose a school of appropritate value, hence the vouchers. This is called Liberalism. Likewise, Thatcher gave people the right to buy their own Council homes, rather than have them run by the state, and to take out their own private pension plans, rather than use the State pension...

Our current Labour Government is the opposite of that, as Labour rather tends to be- they may have abandoned the clause that puts the principle of Public Ownership as top priority, but their default is still for the State to dictate/advise the way things are done (hence the 'Nanny State' criticisms it receives). This, again, is an instrument of left wing policy. Their idea is instead of giving people lots of choices, which might all be crap, they should sponsor their own options for people and make them as good as possible. This is all very well and good, but it does not fit the definition of Liberal.

So by its proper defintion, and the way it is still mostly used over here- except by people who only learned their language from the States, or are just too ignorant to know- Left Wing is very opposed to liberalism. Last week, the offiical recommendation was made that anyone who took out a private pension in the last 20 years... should junk it and go back to State ones again. When the Conservatives come back (if that ever happens...), I am sure they will aim to re-liberalise the system.

But in America, as I say, the term has basically come to mean people who want more rights, and that sees to be associated with what the Americans call Left wing, though to be sure that's nothing like what the Europeans call left wing (we'd call your Left Wing Centre-Right, to be honest). Whereas in the UK, Thatcher's Government- very right wing, and often accused of facist tendency, and no lover of gay rights etc.- was what we would call one with a Liberal policy. The association of Liberalism with morals like gay rights and abortion and minority rights simply did not exist.

Off topic, I know, but interesting, seeing as the term has been flying around...

Originally posted by -=Urot=-
Actually if you really think about it Hitler was a Socialist. ^_^

so not fasist.
not regular socialist either.

Gah! What is this re-invention all about? The party name was meaningless, but Hitler was an out and out Fascist of the highest order.

i've been always thinking he was a nazist in the first place.

but party name wasn't toally meaningless, some of thier ideas was not so totally wrong.
they've choosed totally wrong way although.

Yes it was meaningless. It was called 'National Socialist' without any intention of that name meaning ANYTHING other than sounding like it could appeal to both sides of the spectrum. It had nothing to do with their politics at all. It was meaningless.

no it wasn't.
since at the begging of their activity they were planning to increase social-life level of ppl.
later it turned out terrible.