Translate

Wednesday, 3 April 2013

I think therefore I am a fascist

Fascism attacks the whole complex of democratic ideologies and rejects them both in their theoretical premises and in their applications or practical manifestations. Fascism denies that the majority, through the mere fact of being a majority, can rule human societies; it denies that this majority can govern by means of a periodical consultation; it affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who cannot be levelled by such a mechanical and extrinsic fact as universal suffrage.

I am afraid I agree. Indeed, I am myself the Creator of this Page at
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Why-not-have-a-one-party-state-if-it-makes-more-sense/353471931432677

I am also in favour of narrowing the franchise to taxpayers only, to deprive degenerate, parasitical and promiscuous Spinster Single Mums with illegitimate variously fathered feral offspring https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379 of the franchise, unless they pay a minimum of tax.   http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010127/a-tax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. 

Isn't this what all states in fact do?

"Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon, but when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State."

This sounds fair enough to me, or we would be held to ransom by the unions, our Prime Ministers forced to have beer and sandwiches meetings with union barons or else be expected to suffer wildcat strikes and the three day week.

"State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management."

This also sounds fair enough to me and is reminiscent of the British East India Company.

"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism – born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it."

I cannot deny the truth of these words.  Tory and Labour MPs who voted for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, regime-change in Libya and Syria would also appear to subscribe to this doctrine too.

Oh dear.  It does appear that I am a fascist, after all.   Perhaps most people are, at heart.  Only liberals and feminists feel threatened about coming clean about this for some reason.

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

Is Fascism just another word for social conservatism?

Can social conservatism survive without the existence of religion?

If religion is about promoting social conservatism, are all the Abrahamic faiths fascist?

Did you know that the liberal judiciary has declared Judaism to be sexist and racist?  http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/dec/16/jewish-school-loses-appeal

Did you know that the liberal judiciary seeks to invalidate marriage contracts made between Muslims?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179041/You-use-sharia-law-divorce-deal-Muslim-hospital-consultant-told-pay-ex-wife-maintenance-despite-claims-owes-Islamic-rules.html#ixzz21phRZsOo

Did you know that liberals can barely hide their contempt of Christians?   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8226444/The-Christians-who-felt-discriminated-against.html

Liberals and feminists fear and hate those who are socially conservative and seek to demonise them with the terms "sexist" and "homophobic" who would be guilty of "hate crime" if they say things that make them hated by liberals.  It is a curiously totalitarian concept.  Even if you wouldn't dream of prosecuting anyone who hated you you would still be found guilty of "hate crime" if you made a liberal feel hatred towards you.

Hate crime is of course thoughtcrime in the pure Orwellian sense, but most people are so dumbed-down now by the degeneracy of SSM-parenting and SSM-education that they do not recognise thoughtcrime when they see it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

What is thoughtcrime but being told one must not exercise the mind's ability to discriminate?

If you are a socially conservative atheist you might even be called fascist.  If you are a social conservative for religious reasons then you are a religious extremist.

That is why liberals and feminists seek to demonise those who are against gay marriage as being "homophobic".  The term homophobia implies that it can be irrational to fear people who promote homosexuality. However, it is obvious that being tolerant of homosexuals and those who promote homosexuality has caused, for example,




Perhaps it is time for all who might be called Fascist to embrace the word and own it, in the same way that homosexuals have taken over the word "queer" and "gay" and make it sound like a good thing?

However, just because we call ourselves Fascist does not mean we have to start WW3.  Indeed, most people who are  labelled Fascist or religious extremists are in fact peaceniks who never wanted to go to war over Iraq and Afghansitan nor did we want to intervene in Libya or Syria, because we cannot see how it serves the long term British national interest to do so.

It after all the liberal political establishment who are the militaristic Zionists who want to bomb Iran, which makes no sense at all.  It is possible that the liberal establishment have had their minds rotted after so many generations of feminism and sexual liberation that their minds have gone the same way as a sufferer of syphilis who has lost his mind in the way described at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_paresis_of_the_insane

No comments: