Fascism + Solutions

[ShenLung]

WW1 for example was jealously... the British Empire could see the development of Germany and its growing power (economics / tech etc)... and decided to take out the competition... They wanted to maintain their world domination... and have til this day.

 

Initially Germany nullified the threat... Britian wasnt too happy about that... + Rothchild Banking family saw an opportunity to profit from the war... $$$$$$$$ heavily backed Britain and drew USA into the game

 

History is written by the victors

 

I feel that each nation that got involved did so out of their own self interest. Allow me a moment to make the case:

Prior to the great war, the european nations maintained peace through a patchwork of mutal defense alliances and the percieved balance of powers. When the Austrians suffered an unpardonable insult in Bosnia (Serbia, or the influence of Serbia being blamed) the force of the alliances were set in motion. Any nation unwilling to honor their previously arranged allience would suffer a loss in esteem, as no one would be able to believe the worth of their diplomatic offerings .. self interest.

 

When the Kaiser's forces proceeded to enter Belgian territory, Britain could have ignored their commitment to Belgium, but the long term cost of doing so was something that she could not afford do. Certainly there were other opportunities and interests involved, things that may have made the descision easier so to speak, but there was, in the nature of the pre war alliances the seeds of future conflict. Consider the terms of the central power's surrender, and how, in the pursuit of 'punishing' Germany, the stage was set for a more monsterous political power to come into play.

 

Conflicts lead into conflicts: The set of alliances that were in place before the first world war came into existance because of prior conflicts going back centuries that I don't want to discuss in detail - it makes my head hurt! Across the Atlantic ocean, in the western hemisphere, concern over seemingly endless European wars, the escapades of Napolean in particular, and the sovereign power's response to them in general, brought about the 'Monroe doctrine', a determination to not permit the European nations to solidify power in the west, in the hopes that such horrors could be prevented from coming to American shores. Excercise of this doctrine came about with the reletively brief Spanish American war ... it keeps on going, and going.

 

Breaking the cycle ...

I don't believe that more force and more control is going to do the trick.

 

(edit)

Sarejvo was in Bosnia, the region being in a state of flux

after the cease fire in the balkan wars, just one year previously.

Edited January 10, 2013 by ShenLung

[eye_of_the_storm]

ya... as said before things aren't so simple...

[ralis]

Chris Hedges comments on fascism, at 6:10 min. plus. This is for those that fail to understand the fascist movement here in the U.S. The first part he comments on; dishonest journalism i.e, so called journalists representing political ideologies.

 

Wilhelm Reich's analysis on the repressed armored individual with an undgrounded mystical ideology is an excellent study on this. The armored individual is a product of authoritarian abusive family values.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Psychology-Fascism-Wilhelm-Reich/dp/0374508844

 

http://www.whale.to/b/reich.pdf

 

 

Edited January 10, 2013 by ralis

[ShenLung]

It is ironic that Hedges could decry journalistic dishonesty while engaging in it at the same time. Clearly he wants the audience to percieve the worst aspects of one political camp, with the only reasonable solution being the embracing of it's "opposite". However, if one is honestly examining the political parties with first principles one finds that both camps wind up goose stepping at the end of the day.

 

An excerpt from a post in the Model for a doable anarchy thread:

 

"The Anarch/Totalitariat spectrum is not the only consideration when contemplating political thought - and it IS political; any time we discuss the relationships between persons and groups of persons, we are discussing politics.

Nearly everyone in the USA is either familiar with, or has at least heard of the left wing/ right wing political diagram, and often associate left or right with one or the other of the two major political parties. This view is, of course, quite wrong, for when we begin to really examine what these political entities DO, it is obvious that there should be more axis in the diagram.

In addition to the Anarch/Totalitariat spectrum, there is a Moralistic/Hedonistic spectrum, and an Individualist/Collectivist spectrum.

Examining the two major parties based upon the x,y, and z axis of the more complete political diagram, we find one party to be tending towards Totalitarianism, Hedonism, and Collectivism. The other party tends towards Totalitarianism, Moralism, and slightly less so than the first, but still Collectivism. This does not look like two seperate political entities with radically different viewpoints, but more like one party with two faces.

WIth this realization, we can readily comprehend that we will not be the beneficiaries of greater liberty from either face of this system, for they are both tending more and more towards Totalitarianism. A new system must be brought forth, but there are problems with how it can be constituted, and how it can be deployed."

 

Media groups are no longer content to simply report the news, they now filter the news, selecting which stories to run that they feel will support their opinions, and the formation of opinion, to the point of spoon-feeding ideas to the public has become the main concern. The vast majority of the public, the electorate, is not adept in critical thinking. Critical thinking is not a skill that is developed in the public educational system, perhaps by design. Sensing an inherent 'wrongness' in the media establishments, they run away to other sources of information, and fall into the arms of other opinion-makers; the trap is complete.

[ralis]

It is ironic that Hedges could decry journalistic dishonesty while engaging in it at the same time. Clearly he wants the audience to percieve the worst aspects of one political camp, with the only reasonable solution being the embracing of it's "opposite". However, if one is honestly examining the political parties with first principles one finds that both camps wind up goose stepping at the end of the day.

 

 

.

 

You missed my point being at 6:10 he discusses fascism in the video. Instead you attack the messenger.

Edited January 10, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

Shen Lung,

 

Have you read Reich's work? Do you understand what Hedges was referring to about the fusion of Christianity and Nationalism?

[ShenLung]

You missed my point being at 6:10 he discusses fascism in the video. Instead you attack the messenger.

 

There is no attack, I am truely sorry that you have chosen to percieve that there is one. I watched the video, observed his attempt to paint a select group of people as facist, without acknowledging the facism of the opposing groups. There are people going about constantly pointing fingers at each other, calling 'fascist', and then embracing the same sickness, embodied in another. Perhaps he is sincere, but misled, or perhaps he is shilling; when the outcome is the same, there is no difference, objectively.

 

Instead of finding fault and assigning blame, I feel that more progress can be made by embracing the spirit of individual responsibility, and benevolent voluntary participation in community, with no need for an external force to 'make' us be better people.

 

> The welding of a corrupted vision of christianity to national socialist ideals in the attempt to make use of people's faith to transfer power is practiced quite extensively, and not merely by those who take up the right hand side of the false political spectrum. As I pointed out before: there are not two parties, only an illusion propogated to ensure the supremacy of one party, that being the national socialist party, who's sole goal in governance is CONTROL. I have not read Reich's work, but to be perfectly fair, I doubt that he has read mine, either. I shall look into it.<

[eye_of_the_storm]

Fascist as insult

 

Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word,^[52] often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum.^[53] George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'".^[53] Richard Griffiths argued in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times".^[23] "Fascist" is sometimes applied to post-war organisations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term "neo-fascist".^[54]

Contrary to the common mainstream academic and popular use of the term, Communist states have sometimes been referred to as "fascist", typically as an insult. Marxist interpretations of the term have, for example, been applied in relation to Cuba under Fidel Castro and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh.^[55] Herbert Matthews, of the New York Times asked "Should we now place Stalinist Russia in the same category as Hitlerite Germany? Should we say that she is Fascist?"^[56] J. Edgar Hoover wrote extensively of "Red Fascism".^[57] Chinese Marxists used the term to denounce the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet Split, and likewise, the Soviets used the term to identify Chinese Marxists.^[58]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[eye_of_the_storm]

 

Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing ^[1]), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass.^[2][3]

Origins and concepts

 

There is no explicit mention on where doublespeak's primary concepts came from. However, doublespeak might possibly have certain concepts taken from George Orwell's book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Although there is no mention of Doublespeak in Nineteen Eighty-Four, it has been argued that the term is a combination of two concepts - Doublethink and Newspeak which are original to his work.^{[5][unreliable source?]} Comparisons have been made between Doublespeak and Orwell's descriptions on political speech from his essays Politics and the English Language in which "unscrupulous politicians, advertisers, religionists, and other doublespeakers of whatever stripe continue to abuse language for manipulative purposes".^[6]

Edward S. Herman, political economist and media analyst, has highlighted some examples of doublespeak and doublethink in modern society.^[7] Herman describes in his book, Beyond Hypocrisy the principle characteristics of doublespeak;

What is really important in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.

^[8]

 

In his essay "Politics and the English Language", George Orwell observes that political language serves to distort and obfuscate reality. Orwell’s description of political speech is extremely similar to the contemporary definition of doublespeak;

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, ...

^[9]

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Doublespeak

Edited January 11, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

Third Position

 

Fascism promotes such economics as a "third position" alternative to capitalism and Marxism, as fascism declares both as being obsolete.^[172] Such an economic system, is variously termed by fascists as "national corporatism", "national socialism" or "national syndicalism".^[22]

 

Benito Mussolini spoke of this as a "Third Alternative" in 1940 upon Italy's entry into World War II, saying:

This conflict must not be allowed to cancel out all our achievements of the past eighteen years, nor, more importantly, extinguish the hope of a Third Alternative held out by Fascism to mankind fettered between the pillar of capitalist slavery and the post of Marxist chaos.

—Benito Mussolini, 1940.

^[172]

Fascism officially advocates resolution to domestic class conflict within a nation to secure national solidarity.^[8] However fascism publicly favours proletarian culture due to its association with economic production and claims that proletarians as producers must have a dominant role in the nation.^[9] It deplores bourgeois culture for having an unfit sedentary lifestyle and for its individualism that fascism views as inconsistent with virile nationhood.^[173][174] Fascism claims that cultural nationalization of society emancipates the nation's proletariat, and promotes the assimilation of all classes into proletarian national culture.^[8] While fascism opposes domestic class conflict, fascism believes that bourgeois-proletarian conflict primarily exists in national conflict between proletarian nations versus bourgeois nations.^[175]

 

Fascism denounces capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor its support of private property that fascism supports; but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation.^[173] Fascism denounces Marxism for its advocacy of materialist internationalist class identity that fascism regards as an attack upon the emotional and spiritual bonds of nationality and thwarting the achievement of genuine national solidarity.^[176]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[eye_of_the_storm]

When the Gov Media outlets are talking about fascism what they are really talking about is communism.

 

It is important to make the distinct otherwise people are going to get lost... The Gov is communist... they push this fascist idea (playing on peoples ignorance) in order to further promote their communist agendas.

 

These basic things below

 

> Autarky is the quality of being self-sufficient. Usually the term is applied to political states or their economic systems. The latter are called closed economies.^[1] Autarky exists whenever an entity can survive or continue its activities without external assistance or international trade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky

 

> Nationalist

 

> Homogeneous population

 

> Ethics / Morality / Spiritual Vitality

 

(Fascism did not promote Christianity - The aim was to return to "Paganism" / Native folk traditions / Nature)

 

= Fascism

 

The USA is not one of these things.

 

The very opposite really

 

> Globalist / Internationalist ... relying heavily on trade (exploitation) + warfare

 

> Heterogeneous population (Multicultural)

 

> Hedonist ( Mainstream Media = Vile ... Fascism would never have allowed for the rubbish broadcast 24/7 in the USA and other British colonies)

 

> Promotion of atheism (+ abortion + materialism + decadence)

Edited January 11, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

A few interesting points...

 

Strangely enough thanks to the Internet we are all beginning to see the real reasons for WW2

Hitler inherited a nation of starving disposed people and a country deep in debt owing billions in repatriations....so what did he do?

 

He bypassed the banks and created his own currency called "Labour Treasury Certificates", measured not against gold, but against units of labour.

He allowed the banks to print deutchemarks, but the people traded in Labour Treasury certificates, valuable in Germany but valueless elsewhere!

 

Here is how some see it

 

In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:

 

“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.”

 

Here is how Churchill saw it,

 

"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore. .. (The Second World War - Bern, 1960)

 

“Hitler took over the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones. He took over the machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the people. Can you possibly imagine what would have come if this had infected a number of other states?” C. G. Rakovsky,

 

Probably why the Libertarian party (for who debt free money advocate Bill Still is standing) have had republican candidate gary Johnson along with a large amount of funding foisted upon them. Obviously Still or the libertarian party for that matter wont win, but could, like UKIP here, be a thorn in the side of the globalists.

 

http://www.housepric...howtopic=175588

 

///

 

"We made a monster, a devil out of Hitler. Therefore we couldn’t disavow it after the war. After all, we mobilized the masses against the devil himself. So we were forced to play our part in this diabolic scenario after the war. In no way we could have pointed out to our people that the war only was an economic preventive measure."

- US foreign minister James Baker (1992)

 

"Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were envy, greed and fear."

- Major General J.F.C. Fuller, historian, England

 

"We didn’t go to war in 1939 to save Germany from Hitler...or the continent from fascism. Like in 1914, we went to war for the not lesser noble cause that we couldn’t accept a German hegemony over Europe."

- Sunday Correspondent, London (17.9.1989)

 

"The enemy is the German Reich and not Nazism, and those who still haven’t understood this, haven’t understood anything." – Churchill’s chief counselor Robert Lord Vansittart (as said to foreign minister Lord Halifax, September 1940)

 

World War 1

"Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain."

- Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)

 

World War 2

"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

 

"Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US - General Robert E. Wood)

Edited January 11, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ralis]

A few interesting points...

 

Strangely enough thanks to the Internet we are all beginning to see the real reasons for WW2

Hitler inherited a nation of starving disposed people and a country deep in debt owing billions in repatriations....so what did he do?

 

He bypassed the banks and created his own currency called "Labour Treasury Certificates", measured not against gold, but against units of labour.

He allowed the banks to print deutchemarks, but the people traded in Labour Treasury certificates, valuable in Germany but valueless elsewhere!

 

Here is how some see it

 

In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:

 

“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.”

 

Here is how Churchill saw it,

 

"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore. .. (The Second World War - Bern, 1960)

 

“Hitler took over the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones. He took over the machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the people. Can you possibly imagine what would have come if this had infected a number of other states?” C. G. Rakovsky,

 

Probably why the Libertarian party (for who debt free money advocate Bill Still is standing) have had republican candidate gary Johnson along with a large amount of funding foisted upon them. Obviously Still or the libertarian party for that matter wont win, but could, like UKIP here, be a thorn in the side of the globalists.

 

http://www.housepric...howtopic=175588

 

///

 

"We made a monster, a devil out of Hitler. Therefore we couldn’t disavow it after the war. After all, we mobilized the masses against the devil himself. So we were forced to play our part in this diabolic scenario after the war. In no way we could have pointed out to our people that the war only was an economic preventive measure."

- US foreign minister James Baker (1992)

 

"Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were envy, greed and fear."

- Major General J.F.C. Fuller, historian, England

 

"We didn’t go to war in 1939 to save Germany from Hitler...or the continent from fascism. Like in 1914, we went to war for the not lesser noble cause that we couldn’t accept a German hegemony over Europe."

- Sunday Correspondent, London (17.9.1989)

 

"The enemy is the German Reich and not Nazism, and those who still haven’t understood this, haven’t understood anything." – Churchill’s chief counselor Robert Lord Vansittart (as said to foreign minister Lord Halifax, September 1940)

 

World War 1

"Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain."

- Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)

 

World War 2

"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

 

"Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US - General Robert E. Wood)

 

Every one of your points are out of context. Further, John Frederick Charles Fuller who you quote, was a well known fascist and anti Semite! He belonged to Sir Oswald Mosely's British Union of Fascists. I have studied history extensively and am not easily fooled.

 

I would suggest quoting scholars that have written extensively from the historical records. Records that were extant after the war and are available for research to anyone. Furthermore, confusing fascism with communism is a critical error. Both ideologies are well defined and anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills can know the difference.

 

Quoting opinions from other forums is not in anyway conducive to good debate.

Edited January 11, 2013 by ralis

[eye_of_the_storm]

what is the difference?

Edited January 11, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ralis]

what is the difference?

 

Difference between communism and fascism? You don't have a clue? You started this thread and yet have some right wing media propaganda telling you as to what fascism is.

Edited January 11, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

Here is one place to start. As you can see there are distinct differences.

 

http://www.diffen.co...nism_vs_Fascism

Edited January 11, 2013 by ralis

[eye_of_the_storm]

I just wanted to know what your opinion was is all

[eye_of_the_storm]

regardless of ^^ all that...

 

that does seem like a good solution... in terms of the banking problem etc ?

Edited January 11, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ralis]

I am stating facts as to what fascism is, which are not my opinions. Kershaw is the eminent scholar on fascism. I would highly recommend his excellent scholarship.

 

http://www.amazon.co...rds=ian kershaw

 

http://www.amazon.co...rds=ian kershaw

Edited January 11, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

regardless of ^^ all that...

 

that does seem like a good solution... in terms of the banking problem etc ?

 

 

 

 

 

In what way are you equating the banking problem with fascism?

Edited January 11, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

regardless of ^^ all that...

 

that does seem like a good solution... in terms of the banking problem etc ?

you'll probably have to ask him for his little black book of "acceptable sources" because quoting from anything not in that little black book will immediately be dismissed as false propaganda - nevermind what the words actually say, its gotta be from the correct lineage of sources, otherwise your argument is automatically null and void. Long live L-R dichotomy!

[Birch]

" Long live L-R dichotomy! "

 

I thought one of the many good things about Taoism was the way it includes yin within yang and vice-versa (OT I also came across a bhuddist teaching that criticized Taoist 'dualism' of hard opposites and I thought that was very bad form).

 

As before with the 'human vs animal' idea (to which there were some excellent replies IMO - worth looking at for the implications relative to actual intent of actions towards human 'animals') are communism and fascism opposites? Are they at 30 degree angles sharing same general direction of intent?

[joeblast]

yeah, there was some sarcasm in the false dichotomy reference. while they may be opposites on some odd scale, on the Anarchy vs totalitarianism scale, they're pretty darn close and on the same side.

[Birch]

yeah, there was some sarcasm in the false dichotomy reference. while they may be opposites on some odd scale, on the Anarchy vs totalitarianism scale, they're pretty darn close and on the same side.

 

How about a neat sarcasm-less analysis of the above JB? I think it's important for people to 'get' things like this without getting caught out. I wouldn't even know where to start, however:-(

[zerostao]

 

 

 

we are the world that we create