Translate

Thursday, 6 October 2011

National Socialism = One-Party State = National Government

It is possible to argue that National Socialism just means a one-party state which is a ruder way of saying National Governmnt (which Britain had during WW2). Frank Field proposed this as recently as 2008 in The Guardian.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/08/government-debt-gilt-sales

In my view Nazism can be clearly distinguished from National Socialism.

National Socialism, an ideology of nationalism with a stated concern of the working classes, is generic.

Nazism - the failed anti-semitic German version - is nation-specific.

Libya was National Socialist, and so was the Soviet Union. China remains National Socialist.

Singapore however is only a de facto one-party state because although in practice a one-party state, it actually allows other parties to exist, a bit like the UK, which is a bunch of parties with different names but with policies indistinguishable from each other.  (De facto means in practice though not in law.)

I am arguing that a de jure one-party state would be better. (De jure means in law.)

This does not mean no more elections, it just means NO MORE WHIPPING. It means that Peter Bone MP's House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill would in effect have come into force, because every vote would be a FREE VOTE.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9096000/9096136.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9584000/9584782.stm
This means that MPs can vote according to their consciences, convictions and principles, where found.

The rights of members of this Only Party would be fiercely and rigorously protected. This means their right to free speech would actually exist, unlike now, when to criticise the leader of their party would mean demotion or expulsion.

Is anyone still with me so far?

I am saying that National Socialism does not have to be racist, anti-semitic or xenophobic or aggressive to its neighbours. It is basically whatever you have successfully argued is in the National Interest and get to the majority of the members of this only party to vote for.

Remember, it was through this mechanism that allowed China to dump Communism and embrace Capitalism, without a counter-revolution. It can be done and has been done.

I propose that we dump Nanny Statism and embrace Libertarianism by means of National Socialism, because fewer laws and lower taxes, ie a Smaller State, would be in the National Interest.  

I also propose that only those who pay a minimum of tax get to vote, to immediately disenfranchise the Slut Single Mums and their useless welfare scrounging probably criminal bastards.

This has already been proposed by Ian Cowie of the Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010127/a-tax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/

No comments: