Title: The F-Scale: How Fascist Are You? Source:
The F Scale URL Source:http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm Published:Jul 9, 2014 Author:Chuck Anesi Post Date:2014-07-09 20:56:37 by X-15 Keywords:None Views:1195 Comments:53
http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm
Poster Comment:
3.966666666666667 You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Well, that, all in all, sucks.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Let me put it this way, I answered "Strongly Disagree" to most all the questions. I question authority especially when authority figures overstep their boundaries. And I am not afraid to do that. I DO NOT respect authority figures who abuse their position of power. I have absolute utter contempt for them and I kind of let them know that too. They are NOT worthy of my respect and honor. Perfect example: Louie Freeh and Janet Reno who authorized the unlawful firing raid using CNS gas on those living in that compound in Waco, Texas which resulted in them getting severely burned to death.
#7. To: Horse, Jethro Tull, Dakmar, X-15, Lod, Cynicom (#6)
Horse, none of those three questions can directly measure an individual's degree of adherence to any form of fascism. The ADL might think so, but they have ulterior motivations. Some comments in order:
An issue much more broad than one's political faction of choice.
There are any number of reasons to want to stay out of war.
Another broad question with a variety of answers and motivations.
The founding fathers would have been accused of being fascists today, and in almost every history class, are treated like NAZIs. Yet they were in favor of limiting authority. The Marxists among us do not want government power to be limited.
More than ever we need an authority-limiting sort of patriot who is willing to unhand the implements of empire from those who have seized it illegitimately. But should this succeed, preferably via constitutional means, the constitution itself will need to be scrapped and reconstructed along the lines of the Swiss confederacy. Any Swiss canton may leave the confederacy at any time it wishes, for example.
I have no problem with a touch of fascism directed at appropriate targets. I'm sure the Confederates would be fascistic to the Union, as Hitler would be to the Bolsheviks. No biggie. I like political diversity.
Life is what happens to you when you are making other plans.
Now, if I only knew what that actually meant in the grand scheme of things.
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” Murray N. Rothbard
The founding fathers would have been accused of being fascists today, and in almost every history class, are treated like NAZIs. Yet they were in favor of limiting authority.
I always ask left wing loons for one single example of Hitler calling for less government, that usually ends any discussion.
I always ask left wing loons for one single example of Hitler calling for less government
According to Pierce, gun control become less onerous in the 1938 legislation. His argument for this view: the German government did not fear its citizens.
Maybe your loons won't listen, though. Loons I know are divided into two camps: gun control is good and it was only fair that Weimar regulations were strict; and the others who want to believe that the German people were naturally decent and just but were forced to follow their leaders. In this second group, gun control is considered fascist, and must have been far stricter than Pierce argues that it actually was.
This is an interesting point to consider: what other liberties were restored for native Germans during the fascist regime? Certainly the economy was a marvel to the world during the global Great Depression. The threat of communist takeover of the government was greatly diminished between 1933 and 1944.
There must have been other benefits. Otherwise the fascists wouldn't have been so popular before the turning point with the Soviets at Stalingrad in early 1943.
The founding fathers would have been accused of being fascists today, and in almost every history class, are treated like NAZIs. Yet they were in favor of limiting authority.
I always ask left wing loons for one single example of Hitler calling for less government, that usually ends any discussion.
A most excellent rebuttal.
The same applies, of course, to any of the left of center "-isms". As I have argued for a very long time there is essentially no real significant difference between a left wing totalitarianism or a right wing totalitarianism. Both are about command and control uff Der Sheople. Which of course is everyone not in the specified control clique.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Any sufficiently advanced evil is indistinguishable from stupidity. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
As I have argued for a very long time there is essentially no real significant difference between a left wing totalitarianism or a right wing totalitarianism.
Let me enumerate some differences for you:
Communism is international, fascism is national.
Communism destroys culture and identity, fascism seeks to restore and enhance it.
Communism destroys order and builds its grip on citizens via chaos, the dialectic; fascism builds on existing order, and strengthens it.
Communism abhors individualism and exceptional achievement; fascism respects and praises individual accomplishments.
Communism breaks down racial and religious identity; fascism relies on such identities to thrive.
Fascism has long been the enemy of international banking; Allied banking often supported international communism.
The death count from these two forms of government alone should tell you that they are different, drastically different. Fascists even if we can believe the accepted numbers are responsible for millions of deaths, primarily among true enemies of the fascist countries in question. The communists are easily responsible for hundreds of millions of indiscriminate deaths.
The linkage or "wrap around" on the political spectrum between the two is a popular ideology among Americans touched by WWII. It's merely antifascist propaganda, and plays into the hands of "moderate" communists and bankers everywhere.
The only true enemy of the world banking order has been called fascist.
A note on #6: there was international banking support for Germany during the 1930s but this was arguably naive except that it fomented an excuse for war, which the bankers wanted anyway.
Live under a right wing fascist totalitarian regime?
OR
A left wing totalitarian regime?
OR
NONE OF THE ABOVE? Which is really what my point is. From the point of view of the ssssssitisun it really makes little difference. Both are repressive and murderous.
The bloody murderous history of communist regimes is monumental. However, that does not mean that the right wing fascists would have been any more compassionate had they held as much power.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Any sufficiently advanced evil is indistinguishable from stupidity. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
However, that does not mean that the right wing fascists would have been any more compassionate had they held as much power.
I say that compassion was the beginning of our downfall. You can see it in the support for illegal immigrant UACs. You can see it in our foreign aid to Israel and other "vulnerable" countries. You can see it in our own welfare system. Most of our wars, including the war on drugs, have been justified out of compassion.
Compassionate? Or do you mean Noblelesse Oblige? Humanism is a scam. Humanists used atomic weapons first. Humanists saw to it that 600,000 Americans would die to impose their notions of justice on the entire union. Humanists argued America into both world wars to "establish freedom," their brand of freedom, on the planet. See the Nietzsche quote at the bottom of this comment.
Power? Both German and Italian fascists had the adoration and support of their own people. That was the source of their power. Communists rose to power on the promise of wealth redistribution but this never materialized. Fear commanded communists, who arguably had less power than the fascists did.
Both are repressive and murderous. Repressive to whom? Bankers, check. Religious extremists, check. Traitors to the nation, check. Neighboring countries occupying or threatening to occupy national territory? Check. Factions such as communists and splinter groups without loyalty, check. Racial groups who had abused their talents to strip communities of value and who had sided with the enemy during the previous war, check. Racial groups that had infiltrated the country without permission, check.
The above examples are from nations at war, in complete desperation to survive against an alliance between anti-colonialist America and communist Russia. One can't expect to have rainbow stew and free bubble up when the world is against you.
The problem with a liberal capitalist society is that money and hollow growth becomes everything, stripping the nation of its values, its morals, its culture, and its vital possessions such as land, mineral rights, labor, and so on. Usury quickly replaces value-generation and real creativity. Corporations and banks are given the ability to survive across human lifespans, opening up the opportunity for systematized corruption and tyranny. The environment is a casualty since quick profits excuse all manner of pollution and resource abuse. Conservation is ridiculed on the basis of moving capital from hand to hand.
A sound answer is a system of social credit where government comprised of nationalist factions overseas the distribution of credit based on strongly held traditions and valuable goals for the future. C. H. Douglas proposed such solutions in early 20th century Britain. It takes the force equivalent of fascism to check the money power, and so for social credit to work there has to be a strong government.
With the "none of the above" solution, I don't find the authority to check the money power. Just eliminating the Federal reserve alone wouldn't prevent its recreation. There has to be an alternative system to what we had established in 1789. We have to learn from our past mistakes.
Then again, I'm open to concrete suggestions. But let me leave you with a quote:
Refraining mutually from injury, violence, and exploitation and placing one's will on a par with that of someone else - this may become, in a certain rough sense, good manners among individuals if the appropriate conditions are present (namely, if these men are actually similar in strength and value standards and belong together in one body). But as soon as this principle is extended, and possibly even accepted as the fundamental principle of society, it immediately proves to be what it really is - a will to the denial of life, a principle of disintegration and decay.
Compassion does not mean one has to be a "Welcome" mat or be devoid of principles. Compassion means caring about your fellows. In short, the "Golden Rule". What is currently going on with illegal immigration, and the multiple, unnecessary, wars in which our nation has become embroiled is not the result of "compassion", but rather the worst motivations of some very mad "leaders".
You do not reason with madmen and madwomen, but nothing requires you to hate or to use any measure of force more than is necessary to protect others. There is nothing complex about this.
Fascist totalitarianism is no less oppressive than a Communist totalitarianism and both are an anathema to liberty.
Holding the madmen and madwomen accountable and removing them from positions of authority is an act of sanity. Fascism as a response to communism is simply one insane group getting after another insane group.
Of course this was a lesson which, prior to "Values Clarification" and "Outcome Based Education", was taught in first grade: "Two wrongs do not make a right." Because communism is a false materialism of the left does not make the false materialism of the "right" (Fascism) any less false.
Nietzsche was, by the way, quite mad and quite wrong. His philosophy was purely one dimensional and centered only around the self derived from a solely egocentric, and malignant, viewpoint. He failed to take into account, as poetically expressed by John Donne: "No man is an Island. ...." His philosophy was materialism at its worst. Because his ill begotten banner fueled diseased offspring makes it no less one dimensional.
As for the vague reference to the generality of "Social Credit" it is an evasion of reality. As is the term "Money Power". It is always, both for good or ill, the result of the actions of individuals. Only the collectivist views society as a thing unto itself and money power as somehow devoid of attachment to individuals. Always, always, always it is individuals who are individually responsible for actions whether beneficent or malign.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Any sufficiently advanced evil is indistinguishable from stupidity. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
As for the vague reference to the generality of "Social Credit" it is an evasion of reality. As is the term "Money Power". It is always, both for good or ill, the result of the actions of individuals. Only the collectivist views society as a thing unto itself and money power as somehow devoid of attachment to individuals.
The term "money power" has long been used by central banking reformers to identify the problem of power flowing into the banks through a system of credit in which the banks win and the rest of the populace loses value. This has gone on longer than the lifespan of any individual. Plenty of non-collectivists use the term "money power."
Compassion is a weakness when it goes further than the deserving. (Or is forced upon the benefactor.) The Golden Rule is used against westerners like a club. Since I'm a pagan, it means nothing to me. It should mean less to Americans than it does. But as such, the Golden Rule will beat Americans nearly to death before they realize that it requires strict definitions. Nietzsche is very clear on this point: to offer benefit to those who aren't your "fellows" (in the strict sense of the word) is foolhardy and self-destructive. I'll trust you not to use an ad hominem attack against this idea.
I differ with you on the question of individual culpability versus the system. If the chairman of the federal reserve decided to be the most righteous figure in central banking history and "reform" the Fed, she would fail because of its laws and bylaws, and the linkage to our entire financial system. In fact, this is what the protest phrase, "End the Fed!" means: replace the Fed with another system. But what? It cannot be done by an individual. It must be done by the authority of a government in reform. How would such a reform be chosen?
C.H. Douglas's Theory of Social Credit is just one one set of proposals for implementing complete reform of the west's debt-driven economy. He proposed that instead of banks accepting the benefit of debt-financing, that the people be paid the dividend instead. This would compensate for cultural contributions to production, and also offset automation eliminating jobs. Ron Paul and others suggest tying the monetary system to metals. Who, in fact, would enforce this?
Finally, I would ask you to be very specific in identifying what the German fascists did that you dislike. Without being small-minded about it, and without attention to petty details such as this or that failure to be compassionate on a small scale, what did the NAZIs do wrong, in your words?
Compassion is a weakness when it goes further than the deserving. (Or is forced upon the benefactor.) The Golden Rule is used against westerners like a club
That is one of the points I thought Nietzsche was making. The other was that Christianity was doomed precisely because of human nature to crush the weak.
The NSWP (nazzies) were never Nietzschean in their philosophy, they were authoritarian collectivists.
There was an interesting article going around a couple months ago positing that fascism was nothing more than a political system created to defeat communism, I am going to go look it up, but if anyone knows please share.
The original article is brilliant. The person that posted it attempts to rebut, but has nothing other that communism is an economic system, fascism is a social system.
The NSWP (nazzies) were never Nietzschean in their philosophy, they were authoritarian collectivists.
Small correction: NSDAP (the German expansion of your English NSWP acronym) called themselves NAUGHT-zees. I agree that no one has ever been truly Nietzschean.
According to a good summary by Michael Kalish, a student of prof. Marcuse's at UCSB: Nietzsche's legacy was misused by his uncredentialed sister Elizabeth, who befriended Adolph Hitler. Hitler in turn, made several massive leaps of interpretive gymnastics to evoke a German superman, and ascribed the weak and sick to the Jewish. In the battle against Bolshevism, Hitler recruited an unwilling Nietzsche in Mein Kampf.
On the other hand, Nietzsche did write that Jews were stronger than Germans, and this was why the weak-minded among Germany's thinkers of the day were antisemitic. His idea of the superman was an ideal, rather than one so readily achieved by a nationalist movement.
The overman or superman concept as applied to German fascism demonstrates how different communism is from fascism: fascism seeks the best and brightest, it encourages competition, and it welcomes adversity as an opportunity to sharpen one's skills and will. Think about the current crop of Marxism we have dominating America today: competition is bad. Everyone should be included. Equality is all. Fraternity is forced. In Bolshevism, the best and the toughest were either cut down to size and enrolled in factory work or killed for being unique. In Maoist agrarianism, intellectuals were sent en masse to farming camps to be reeducated on the priorities of life. The Soviets killed upwards of around 22,000 of Poland's elite thinkers and government officials at the Katyn Forest massacre. Why? Because they were the best. It is widely acknowledged by Baltic and Polish people that the German occupation was far more civilized than the Soviet reoccupation at the end of the war.
The real question for history is what would have happened to Germany without the NAZI resistance to Soviet communism? Britain did not declare war on the Soviet Union when they attacked Poland. Finland got no support when the Soviets attacked them. Even in 1968, Czechoslovakia got no support from the west when the Soviet tanks rolled in.
Perhaps, aside from certain excesses, the German superman was needed at that point in history?
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Any sufficiently advanced evil is indistinguishable from stupidity. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
Scratch a racialist - find a nut (or propagandist).
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Any sufficiently advanced evil is indistinguishable from stupidity. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
"First, both communism and fascism are types of authoritarian rule, where the interests and freedoms of the individual are subordinated to those of the state, ..."
Therein lies the rub. Any further explanation is simply getting into needless complexities.
Fascism is overtly antagonistic to individual liberty.
Communism is covertly antagonistic to individual liberty.
Under Capitalism man exploits man and under Communism (and Fascism) vice versa.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Any sufficiently advanced evil is indistinguishable from stupidity. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
If you watch the history shows, the Germans loved what Hitler was doing with the country. Their lifestyles improved and things were great, until they weren't.
#40. To: Original_Intent, Dakmar, abraxas, Prefrontal Vortex, *antifa* (#38)
Therein lies the rub. Any further explanation is simply getting into needless complexities.
You're flatly stating this without supporting your argument. To summarize, both are bad. No point in thinking about it more. I believe there is a point to thinking about it. If we don't, we're going to continue to be in more and more trouble.
My main point is that we should have stayed out of the world wars, and were brought into them on the basis of lies. Until we face the lies as a country, together, we'll never restore our liberty.
In my opinion:
Before siding with the Soviets and the communists in east/southeast Asia, US had little to fear from the Axis had America remained well-defended but isolated.
The Axis was communism's natural enemy. Given the excesses of Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, and other communists who came after the war, this was a good thing.
Communism was far more expansionist and ruthless as it holds national boundaries and racial/cultural identities in contempt.
For example, we're told that Germany would never stop until it ruled the world. But the first point the Allies chose to declare war was after Germany's Blitzkrieg run to Danzig - then in Poland, a traditional German settlement, and held in German territory before the first world war. Most agree that the Versailles treaty was unfair: the Germans had decided to "correct" it on their own.
Even if you disagree with some of the above, you can see that it's odd that we sided with the Soviets against the Nazis. For example, why didn't Britain declare war on the Soviet union after it attacked Poland from the east?
I think this matters to us very much today.
Looking around America now we see that our antipathy toward the Axis has left us blind to the worst kind of collectivisms: phony capitalism hiding a command economy dominated by the banking system; massive integration of the Frankfurt school in education and media; the breakdown of our founding principles leading to political amnesia. A sort of fake universalism that treats illegal immigrants as our own welfare charges; in fact the entire problem of sealing the border is covered in antifascist rhetoric.
It's fine to talk about restoring our freedom. But it just isn't going to happen because we ask for it. How did that happen in the first place? You'll find Marxist thought, wealth redistribution via monetary policy, and central planning for a forced mufti-ethnic state at the center of that problem. In other words, we're living under the velvet grip of silent communism. Yet liberty activists keep harping about fascism, when it has nothing to do with our problem.