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:906 Comments:53
http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm
Poster Comment:
3.966666666666667 You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
#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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?