Why is Facism the worst? (from an American perspective) | INFJ Forum

Why is Facism the worst? (from an American perspective)

the

Si master race.
Banned
Feb 17, 2009
14,378
8,872
1,112
MBTI
ISTJ
Enneagram
9w1
How come bad politics is always a product of facism? You never hear things compared to a monarchy, which would make more sense I think considering our countries beginnings.
 
must be since we lost over 400,000 members of our military only 70 odd years ago fighting Fascist.
 
Well, probably because fascist nations tend to run toward militarism with a penchant for believing in the "might makes right" mentality of conquest. And they cynical view includes the idea that it also depends on whether or not said fascist nation has something a superpower wants/needs or is moving toward something a superpower wants/needs or somehow is perceived as a threat.
 
If you consider that left wing politics call for more government control and right wing politics call for less government intervention, on that note, fascism is actually a very far left wing ideology. Most people assume that it's right wing given that we associate social conservatism with right wing politics of today, but it's not so. Right wingers want less control of the government but enforce more social controls via religion, culture, and social stratification. Left wingers, on the other hand, want more government control but are more socially liberal.

On the political spectrum, however, modern left and right wing politics are just slightly left off center and really just moderate.

Nazism is commonly classified as fascist, but not everyone agrees with the classification as it was neither left wing nor right wing. While it's true that Hitler was elected by right-wing conservatives (and probably why it's considered right-wing), Nazism as an ideology was actually syncretic-- an assimilation of left and right wing principles that put it outside of the traditional political spectrum.

But anyway, to answer your question, the reason why fascism is so detestable is that it's so far left that it wants total government control and total social control. There are no individual liberties or freedoms, there is only the state and its interests. That is a lot more extreme than monarchy (which is more characterized by being a hereditary rule than anything) because whether it's fascist regime or not would depend on the individual monarch. Fascism, on the other hand, is always about the state. You are Borg. You must be assimilated.

When using the term fascist to describe bad politics, all you're really saying is that the idea you're presenting is rigid and oppressive (likely to a certain group).
 
Last edited:
Left wing does not necessarily mean big government. Certain words such as 'socialism' are used differently in the US to everywhere else in the world

This is done to confuse the US public and it has largely worked. Don't take my word for this. You can listen to US professor of linguistics Noam Chomsky explaining this ie someone who is an EXPERT IN LANGUAGE

[video=youtube;K4Tq4VE8eHQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ[/video]

To understand whats going on its best to throw out anything you've ever been told by the mainstream media...it exists to misslead people
 
Last edited:
Monarchy was part of the fuedal system. This system saw power centralised in an aristocratic class which in turn was centred around the monarch

The aristocrats owned ALL the land across Europe. They built castles from which they dominated their surrounding districts

The other big land owner was THE CHURCH. The church had further offshoots which were military orders which were developed to provide armed and trained soldiers for the crusades.

The church had the role of crowning kings and queens. It often intrigued with powerful people to get who it wanted on various throwns at various times. The church was a kingmaker

The king/queen, the aristocrats and the church were collectively known as 'the three estates'. These three groups all held vast land, wealth and power. They controlled the game.

At the bottom of the heap were the common people. They were generally kept illiterate and used to do menial work. They were often bound to their fuedal overlord; this status was known as 'serfdom'

A new class emerged though through trade. This was the merchant class. Amongst the merchant class were the goldsmiths. The goldsmiths were the first bankers. They would hold peoples gold in safe boxes and they would lend gold out for interest. But the goldsmiths soon realised that no one knew how much gold they had in their safe boxes so they started loaning out more gold then they held in deposit. This was the birth of 'fractional reserve banking'....which is a practise still used by banks today.

The tensions between the merchant class and the old order cause various civil wars an revolutions. Each side realised that to hold onto power it would need to protect its own interests. Secret groups were formed with the purpose of holding onto power and wealth

The church, the royals and the aristocrats entrenched themselves in the military, in the secret services, in the parliaments, in the media and in the secret societies to protect their power and position

These groups merged with the emerging merchant and banking class, often intermarrying with them. The royals and aristocrats had to wage war to keep their power and to do so they borrowed wealth from the merchant/banking class. The bankers also realised that they could make even more money by lending war loans to BOTH sides in a war! Soon the aristocracy and royals were so in debt to the bankers that effectively the bankers owned the country lock, stock and barrel. The bankers convinced the royals that what was needed was athe creation of a central bank, that could control the wealth of the nation. Through this the bankers could then control the interest rates of the country as well as the amount of money in circulation

The most powerful banking dynasty to emerge was the rothschilds. The founder of the dynasty had four sons and he trained them all in banking. he then sent them to open new branches of the family banking houses in the 4 greatest capitals of europe. They did this and all worked together to corner the market in gold.

The new central banking system saw the british economy fail as the bankers sucked all the wealth out of the economy. This meant that the British had to tax their imperial colonies even more. One group of colonies in the americas decided that they did not want to pay all the money they worked so hard for to the central bankers so they took up arms and threw the british government out of the colonies. They then created their own currency called 'colonial script' which they could control the supply of so the central bankers could not create economic crises by alternately making credit cheaply available and then hard to get, causing boom and bust cycles

These colonial rebels then set themselves up as their own country and they wrote a constitution (Britain does not have a constitution to protect itself) to protect itself and future generations from the central bankers

The central bankers however didn't get so powerful by just giving up whenever they suffered a set back. They set their mind to taking control of the new United States of America

The central bankers were a group of families many of which originated in germany. They all did and still do business with each other and they all intermarry with each other. Today they ahve their central office in the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland (which is where the nazis sent their gold for safe keeping)

The bankers used agents to buy up land and businesses in the USA. They set up banking, steel, railway and oil companies in the USA. They knew that people were very suspicious of them so they operated through agents such as J.P.Morgan.

The big aristocratic families of Europe also saw the new USA as a business opportunity and they set up businesses there as well

This new powerful elite began forming companies (corporations) as a way to protect themselves from any business failures. Corporations are granted 'personhood' which gives them the legal status of an actual person, so if the business fails the financial liability falls onto the corporation and not onto the people who set up the company.

Early examples were the East India Company which traded in India. The EIC created private armies of british mercenaries and indian sepoys which it used to invade districts and intimidate rulers.

The EIC would play off the rulers of different districts against each other. It would go to the ruler of one district and say ''who is your enemy? We will help you defeat your enemy but in return we want land, taxes, spices (or whatever)''

Once they had defeated the rulers enemy they would then betray that ruler and take over his district as well. All the while taking over larger and larger areas of land and exerting more taxes from the people.

This same british elite had descended from norman and flemish invaders who invaded Britain. They taxed the native britons as well and many folk lore tales of bandits who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor come from that time.

The East India Company effectively too over India through treachery, violence and intimidation. This is also known as 'piracy' and the british are the most accomplished pirates in human history. In fact many pirates were operating with permission from the royal crown; these were known as 'privateers'.

When the Indians rose up in what the british later called 'the indian mutiny', but what is now being called under revisionism 'the indian uprising' the british crown decided to step in and take control of the situation. The british government got rid of sepoy armies as they had 'mutinied' and they put british soldiers in their place. Over a million indians died in a famine caused by british over taxation whilst Queen Victoria became the 'empress of india'

When i say 'british overtaxation' i do of course mean a british government being controlled by the central bankers. The people behind the corporations meanwhile shrugged and said ''it wasn't me, it was the corporation''

These corporations became the perfect way for the old european elites and the new american elites which grew out of them to take risks without taking any responsibility for their economic failures or their crime against humanity

The british common people meanwhile were working under slave conditions in the mills of the industrial revolution. They were no longer 'serfs' but they were now working long days, with no eductaion or healthcare in dangerous jobs. Life expectancy was low.

The rural communities were gutted as people were driven off the land by the moneyed elite so that they could put sheep on it. The wool from the sheep was then spun in the mills. The british elite then subsidised the british textile industry to make it more competitive.

The indians had always had their own home spun textiles and they could not compete with a subsidised product....a product which was subsidised using the taxes which were taken from the indian people as their country was systematically raped

Ghandi was a lawyer who knew the britsh legal system inside out. he worked in the british colonies in africa and he knew how the system worked. He saw how his countrymen/women were being exploited and how the british workers were being pitted against the indian workers to the detriment of all except the moneyed elites who made bigger and bigger profits.

So Ghandi tried to inspire his countrymen/women to wear their own homespun, traditional clothes and not the clothes of the west so that they would not be sucked into the games of the british moneyed elite. he encouraged INDEPENDENCE and SELF RELIANCE not reliance on the corporations

This is why the Indian spinning wheel is now in the centre of their flag.

In the Uk the british workers were suffering terribly; their condition often being compassionately captured in the work of the writer Charles Dickens who himself had had to live in a 'workhouse' as a boy. Stories such as 'Oliver Twist' come from this time

Throughout this period the elites of europe had all been competing with each other for the new lands which were being discovered all the time around the world. Each sought to create its own empire. These empires clashed all the time and the bankers profited as much as they could from the carnage often funding both sides in the wars which led to conflicts being drawn out even longer than they might....a tactic later used by the USA which funded both sides in the Iran/Iraq war...always keeping a balance of power between the two sides to ensure they both fought themselves to utter destruction.

So the workers began to club together to try and improve their lives. They would share what little resources they had. They formed book clubs so that they could share books. The elite couldn't understand why the writer Robert Burns was able to create the poetry he did when he was just a simple ploughman, but in reality his father had used what small money he could scrape together to club together with some others from his community to get a tutor for their children. The poor crofters were exposed to all the great writers of the past and present and learned to form their own opinions about the bible and current affairs, which may not always have agreed with the church propaganda that was 'preached' to them from the pulpit in the kirk every sunday.

The workers also formed friendly societies, credit unions, cooperatives and trade unions to try and better represent their interests against the heartless profiteering of the moneyed elites. Gradually ideas formed into ideologies but the ideas were old enough for example the 'diggers' and 'levellers' had tried in the 1600's to cultivate unused land for the benfit of the community; they were of course violently suppressed by the elite.

ideologies such as 'communism' emerged where many workers realised that they had nothing to lose but their chains as marx put it. The word communism has been completely missused in the last century and applied to states where a large controlling government manages a centrally planned economy.

This however is NOT communism. None of the so called 'communist' countries ever got past the 'dicatorship of the proletariat' stage to see the true vision where all is held in common and the workers themselves manage the means of production.

'left wing' should not mean big government...that is 'state' socialism not true socialism

The elites began to get worried and they had to give ground at different times to people who were beginning to find more and more of a voice. In fact by the time the first world war came around the workers movements were becoming incredibly strong and looked fit to change the system altogether.

However the elites created a nationalistic conflict which saw workers recruited under their nations flag to fight the workers of another country. This conflict saw millions killed and crippled and it took the wind out of the sails of the workers movements.

The elites did however realise after each world war that they had to give the common people better working conditions or at least be seen to be doing something because they were afraid of what a generation of men trained as soldiers and a generation of women empowered by doing the mens work when they were away at war might do if they got angry

The elite needed their own ideology. In fascism they found their perfect vehicle for the continuance of their power. fascism protects corporations and private wealth under a strong, centrally controlled, police state.

The strong state spies on the workers and uses violence and strict laws to control them whislt the corporations take all their wealth away. The fascist state takes all the publics guns off them and it doesn't want them to be independent or self reliant....it wants them to be reliant on the state and on the corporations that are behind the state

fascism is a government of the corporations and the corporations are simply wealth creating vehicles for the aristocracy, royalty, merchants, bankers and church

This is why the church has ALWAYS supported fascist regimes. That's not to say that everyone in the church has done this. Many brave people from the lower ranks of the church have broken from the churches offical stance to support the workers

Fascism is the end of freedom for workers. Fascism is the rise of the elite and their total domination of the workers. The writer george orwell described this as a jackboot on the neck of humanity forever

So it really all boils down to whether a person beleives that all people have certain rights and should be part of a healthy and sharing community or whether the majority of people should be a slave class working under the powerful elite that wants to know everything they are doing because they live in a paranoid bubble of fear, always terrified that the workers might rebel

Modern workers are not 'serfs' anymore; today they are 'wage slaves'. They might be able to move from one district to the next but in reality they are bound by various restraints such as qualifications, amounts of employment opportunities, connections or lack of them, funds or lack of them etc

As people become more and more dependent on the corporations and less and less self reliant and independent they lose more and more of their personal power to the corporations and the powerful moneyed elite behind them

Monarchy is part of modern fascism. Monarchy is part of the current elite and that is why royalty will attend such exclusive elite meetings as the bilderberg club. The central bankers are moving us closer and closer to the odl system of serfdom which is why some commentators are calling this a drift towards 'neo-fuedalism'

There is however a backlash developing amongst the workers around the world and protests are sparking off all around the world. more and more workers are beginning to understand what their true condition is and feel more motivated to do something about it.

Just as the merchant class rose to get a seat at the top table...now is the time for the workers of the world to rise and claim their seat

''A Mans a man for all that'' (in the Scots toungue)- Robert Burns

Is there for honest Poverty
That hings his head, an' a' that;
The coward slave-we pass him by,
We dare be poor for a' that!
For a' that, an' a' that.
Our toils obscure an' a' that,
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The Man's the gowd for a' that.

What though on hamely fare we dine,
Wear hoddin grey, an' a that;
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine;
A Man's a Man for a' that:
For a' that, and a' that,
Their tinsel show, an' a' that;
The honest man, tho' e'er sae poor,
Is king o' men for a' that.

Ye see yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that:
For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that:
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an' a' that;
But an honest man's abon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their dignities an' a' that;
The pith o' sense, an' pride o' worth,
Are higher rank than a' that.

Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.
 
When you have 1 power hungry paranoid dude controlling and deciding over millions of people, you are doomed to have a failure of a country.
 
[MENTION=1360]TheDaringHatTrick[/MENTION]

I figure that at times, an ideal can be so far left that it wraps back around. Or just plain goes off the chart tangentially.
 
If you consider that left wing politics call for more government control and right wing politics call for less government intervention, on that note, fascism is actually a very far left wing ideology. Most people assume that it's right wing given that we associate social conservatism with right wing politics of today, but it's not so. Right wingers want less control of the government but enforce more social controls via religion, culture, and social stratification. Left wingers, on the other hand, want more government control but are more socially liberal.

I've heard this argument, but it's wrong... I think it's something that was started in the US by people who hate Obama and want to associate public health care with Nazism... I highly doubt that any serious political scientists would accept the idea that fascism is left wing.

The way I understand it, right wingers believe in survival of the fittest and left wingers believe in absolute equality... racism, sexism and the master race are ideas that are far more in line with the right than with the left. Dictatorships/government control is definitely not an exclusively left-wing phenomenon.

I would agree that fascism is probably considered the worst because of WWII... Nazism (most people mean Nazism when they use the word 'fascism') also has a pretty resonant iconography and an aesthetic that has become synonymous with evil and suppression of individuality. Its rise also coincided with the rise of film, which made it easily identifiable for the masses... Genghis Khan was much worse than Hitler, but nobody knows what he sounded like or really looked like, and very few people are willing to pick up a book and read about him. The third reich was also an exclusive society that openly celebrated racism, sexism, and militarism. It's pretty much the polar opposite of western liberal democracy and unlike monarchy, it didn't have a chance to morph into something benign and largely symbolic like the modern monarchy.
 
I honestly don't think the guys who are making all the plays give a damn about left or right. i think they play both ends off against each other and against the middle

I think they create as many categorisations as they can to keep everyone divided

Hitler was funded into power by powerful bankers for example the warburgs who owned banks in both germany and the US. One of the warburg brothers played a founding role in the creation of the US federal reserve and also by industrialists such as the thyssen family

The anscestor of the two Bush presidents was a banker. His name was Prescott Bush and he was caught up in a scandal whereby the bank he was working for was handling nazi assets

Some corporations sold the nazis things for example IBM sold them the machine that was used to record people sent to the concentration camps

One company sold the nazis a fuel additive that the nazi airforce needed for its planes. This additive was shipped to germany through the london branch of the corporation and was then used by the nazis to fly bombers over that then bombed london

I think its really important to understand that the people at the top of the economic pyramid don't care about countries, they don't care about religions, they don't care about left or right political persuasions.....they are completely amoral

They will happily pit one country against another and fund and supply both sides in that conflict. They will happily sell poor people mortgages, rate those mortgages incorrectly as very safe (triple A), package them into bundles and then sell them on to other corporations; then once this is done they will affect the interest rates through the central bank so that those bundles of supposedly financially sound mortgages will blow up like time bombs destroying the global economy. meanwhile they will have reaped massive profits from trading in those toxic derivatives

We are dealing with a different breed of people and i think its because most people still think in terms of religions, countries and left and right that they are not able to see or understand many of the ways in which this group of people are manipulating everyone

Fascism, communism, capitalism and all the other isms are used as tools to control and divide people

Further to that they also distort the meanings of these words so that people can't even communicate with each other over these issues as they have no consensus meaning for them
 
In fascism, the state is more important than the individual.


Everything in the USA is about the individual.
 
In fascism, the state is more important than the individual.


Everything in the USA is about the individual.

People are encouraged to think in selfish and greedy ways by the consumerism ideology but the corporatocracy very much controls the levers of power

The individual is by and large cut out of all the big decisions and also out of the wealth

275px-U.S._Distribution_of_Wealth%2C_2007.jpg
 
Last edited:
I honestly don't think the guys who are making all the plays give a damn about left or right. i think they play both ends off against each other and against the middle

I believe muir is an agent of the cabal sent here to distract us and confuse us regarding the nature and extent of the TRUE conspiracy. If he wasn't, wouldn't the cabal have sent an assassin to silence him already?

They are far more devious than we ever imagined!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nixie
I believe muir is an agent of the cabal sent here to distract us and confuse us regarding the nature and extent of the TRUE conspiracy. If he wasn't, wouldn't the cabal have sent an assassin to silence him already?

They are far more devious than we ever imagined!

It's effective propaganda to espouse overzealous notions of your nation's own sinister intentions so that when you are revealed to have more realistic (however questionable) intentions, some people will assume that ALL criticism is wrongheaded.
 
I believe muir is an agent of the cabal sent here to distract us and confuse us regarding the nature and extent of the TRUE conspiracy. If he wasn't, wouldn't the cabal have sent an assassin to silence him already?

They are far more devious than we ever imagined!

No because i am one of millions of people discussing this stuff online in what the cabal insider Bzrezinski is calling a massed awakening of political consciousness

Besides if they wanted to destroy all evidence of what i've said they would have to kill you too as you also now know
 
Besides if they wanted to destroy all evidence of what i've said they would have to kill you too as you also now know

God, I hope so.
 
have you got anything to contribute to the discussion or are you just here to disrupt the thread?

well then cocka-fucking-doodle-do!

You can say what you like. But other people have the right to disagree with you

So when you do it, it is disagreement? But when I do so, it is disruption, is it?

You have never dealt honestly with another member on this forum in the entire time I've known you. You hold yourself to different standards than what you ask of others. You explicitly break one of the most universal of human morals, which is the golden rule.

You ask of others to consider your argument as plausible and give you the benefit of the doubt, but refuse to do so in kind. You won't so much as acknowledge the possibility that you could be mistaken.

You dehumanize everyone you encounter by simply interacting with them. You claim access to absolute, ontological truth and trivialize and dehumanize any disagreement in ANY form as childish, naive, and completely incapable of the simply ability to question the official story as given and the ability to think critically as a human being.

Its not paranoia if its true

Do you remember when the adults told you that santa claus was real?

It took a while but that perception of reality eventually broke down didn't it? Well there will be others...

One big one we will all have to face upto at some point is a shift in our understanding of the nature of reality itself on a quantum level. It will be like when we learned that the earth was round and not flat

Its going to keep happening to us....we might as well embrace it

You are a tyrant attempting to monopolize absolute truth.

Go fuck yourself.
 
So when you do it, it is disagreement? But when I do so, it is disruption, is it?

You have never dealt honestly with another member on this forum in the entire time I've known you. You hold yourself to different standards than what you ask of others. You explicitly break one of the most universal of human morals, which is the golden rule.

You ask of others to consider your argument as plausible and give you the benefit of the doubt, but refuse to do so in kind. You won't so much as acknowledge the possibility that you could be mistaken.

You dehumanize everyone you encounter by simply interacting with them. You claim access to absolute, ontological truth and trivialize and dehumanize any disagreement in ANY form as childish, naive, and completely incapable of the simply ability to question the official story as given and the ability to think critically as a human being.



You are a tyrant attempting to monopolize absolute truth.

Go fuck yourself.

Just because you say those things doesn't make them true

The difference between me and you is that i debate over the issues where as you just attack the person (ad hominum)

You are still doing it....you are still attacking me and not discussing the issue

Are you even aware that you are doing that?
 
Just because you say those things doesn't make them true

The difference between me and you is that i debate over the issues where as you just attack the person (ad hominum)

You are still doing it....you are still attacking me and not discussing the issue

Are you even aware that you are doing that?

I am incapable of having a discussion with you because YOU set the rules. You set the context. It is akin to trying to play a game of chess with you in which you have complete control over the rules and I have no say in the matter.

Again, go fuck yourself.