Smedley_buzkill wrote:
You obviously have not given any thought to Fascism, since you have NO IDEA what it is, or what it means. Here is the original explanation of Fascism, given by the original Fascist himself, Benito Mussolini. (You probably don't know who that is,) Actually, it was ghost written by Giovanni Gentile, called "the Father of Fascism." Here is a link, since I'm fairly certain you aren't smart enough or educated enough to find it yourself.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/reading/germany/mussolini.htmYou know, even though we disagree, for a very reasonable price I would be willing to research this stuff for you and save you any further gratuitous exposition of your ignorance. I'll even explain the big words using words small enough for you to understand.
You see, words, especially those dealing with concepts or ideals, have specific meanings and definitions. I hate to pee on your cornflakes,
(well, okay, actually, I kind of enjoy it) but words don't mean what you say they mean or think they mean, just because you think they should.
You obviously have not given any thought to Fascis... (
show quote)
Hey, thanks for the link. I haven’t had time to read the whole thing, but I noticed this paragraph that sure sounds like the current views, and goals of Democrats…
“THE ABSOLUTE PRIMACY OF THE STATE
“The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as " ethical ".
“At the first quinquennial assembly of the regime, in 1929, I said “The Fascist State is not a night watchman, solicitous only of the personal safety of the citizens; not is it organized exclusively for the purpose of guarantying a certain degree of material prosperity and relatively peaceful conditions of life, a board of directors would do as much. Neither is it exclusively political, divorced from practical realities and holding itself aloof from the multifarious activities of the citizens and the nation. The State, as conceived and realized by Fascism, is a spiritual and ethical entity for securing the political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation, an organization which in its origin and growth is a manifestation of the spirit. The State guarantees the internal and external safety of the country, but it also safeguards and transmits the spirit of the people, elaborated down the ages in its language, its customs, its faith. The State is not only the present; it is also the past and above all the future. Transcending the individual's brief spell of life, the State stands for the immanent conscience of the nation. The forms in which it finds expression change, but the need for it remains. The State educates the citizens to civism, makes them aware of their mission, urges them to unity; its justice harmonizes their divergent interests; it transmits to future generations the conquests of the mind in the fields of science, art, law, human solidarity; it leads men up from primitive tribal life to that highest manifestation of human power, imperial rule.
The State hands down to future generations the memory of those who laid down their lives to ensure its safety or to obey its laws; it sets up as examples and records for future ages the names of the captains who enlarged its territory and of the men of genius who have made it famous. Whenever respect for the State declines and the disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies of individuals and groups prevail, nations are headed for decay". Since 1929 economic and political development have everywhere emphasized these truths. The importance of the State is rapidly growing. The so-called crisis can only be settled by State action and within the orbit of the State. Where are the shades of the Jules Simons who, in the early days of liberalism proclaimed that the "State should endeavor to render itself useless and prepare to hand in its resignation "? Or of the MacCullochs who, in the second half of last century, urged that the State should desist from governing too much? And what of the English Bentham who considered that all industry asked of government was to be left alone, and of the German Humbolt who expressed the opinion that the best government was a lazy " one? What would they say now to the unceasing, inevitable, and urgently requested interventions of government in business? It is true that the second generation of economists was less uncompromising in this respect than the first, and that even Adam Smith left the door ajar - however cautiously - for government intervention in business.
“If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government…”