Fascism debate because I'm bored - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15027066
Authority breeds stupidity.

Whenever people are able to rely on coercion, authority and force as the basis of their social, economic or political power, the result is that aptitude more and more ceases to be a requirement to fill that role. Instead such roles are filled by people who can buy into the ready made seats of power, or who can gather enough thugs to seize power, or who brown-nose their way up the hierarchy. And, as such, the result of any system that relies on coercion and authority to enforce the power of certain set positions, is a tendency towards rule by idiots, incompetents, corruption and abuse of power.

So, if you want order, you need competence -- and fascism doesn't give you that, it gives you violently enforced idiocracy. If you want greatness and striving, again, fascism won't give you that -- it will give you corrupt fools abusing their power and stirring up fear of internal and external threats in order to hold on to their power, until their disastrous incompetence leads to society wide collapse from war or slow degeneration.

Furthermore, the concept of nationality is an inconsistent social construct that normally just serves the interests of rulers trying to find a way to manipulate the people they are ruling over. Cultural differences exist, and the rich diversity of our species should be celebrated -- but the mixing of cultures is one of the greatest ways to innovate from what we already have, and is something people have been doing since pre-history, and is the engine that produced the very cultures you wish to preserve.

And if humans are often group minded and irrational (which I agree with), then having one of creatures such as that have absolute power over others is not a solution to that problem.

Discuss.
#15027406
Palmyrene wrote:And if humans are often group minded and irrational (which I agree with), then having one of creatures such as that have absolute power over others is not a solution to that problem.

Discuss.


There are certainly places where one person has absolute power, but I'll never live in one of them.

As such, I don't get to wigged out about it...
#15027410
BigSteve wrote:There are certainly places where one person has absolute power, but I'll never live in one of them.

As such, I don't get to wigged out about it...


Multiple people ruling you isn't better than one person ruling you. At least with one person you know who you need to get rid of. With multiple people it's like a hydra.
#15027411
Palmyrene wrote:Multiple people ruling you isn't better than one person ruling you. At least with one person you know who you need to get rid of. With multiple people it's like a hydra.


Depends how you look at it.

I prefer a system with allows for checks and balances. The system here in the States seems to work pretty good...
#15027414
Palmyrene wrote:Multiple people ruling you isn't better than one person ruling you. At least with one person you know who you need to get rid of. With multiple people it's like a hydra.


I would agree with that, a wise dictator should sleep with one eye open.

I have said elsewhere here, that the U.N should change International Law, to make it a 'defence' in law, to kill a dictator without being subject to legal sanction.

A 'dictator' does not 'rule' by consent of the people, they should be treated as 'outlaws' by the legal system & not enjoy the protection of the same rights afforded to others.

In any other political system, people enjoy certain rights, even if they do not always equate with the Geneva Convention & collectively they can rid themselves of an unwanted government through elections.
A dictator, on the other hand, is like a monarch, think that they have a 'divine' right to rule, neither have 'rights' other than accorded to them by subjection or fascism & both deserve absolute contempt.
#15027415
Nonsense wrote:I would agree with that, a wise dictator should sleep with one eye open.

I have said elsewhere here, that the U.N should change International Law, to make it a 'defence' in law, to kill a dictator without being subject to legal sanction.

A 'dictator' does not 'rule' by consent of the people, they should be treated as 'outlaws' by the legal system & not enjoy the protection of the same rights afforded to others.

In any other political system, people enjoy certain rights, even if they do not always equate with the Geneva Convention & collectively they can rid themselves of an unwanted government through elections.
A dictator, on the other hand, is like a monarch, think that they have a 'divine' right to rule, neither have 'rights' other than accorded to them by subjection or fascism & both deserve absolute contempt.


Why stop at dictators? Why not governments as well? China certainly isn't a dictatorship yet it is arguably very oppressive as is the case for Russia. America can be argued to be the same.
#15027416
Palmyrene wrote:There are no checks and balances in the US. It is but empty rhetoric imo.


In your opinion, yes...
#15027417
Nonsense wrote:
I have said elsewhere here, that the U.N should change International Law, to make it a 'defence' in law, to kill a dictator without being subject to legal sanction.

A 'dictator' does not 'rule' by consent of the people, they should be treated as 'outlaws' by the legal system & not enjoy the protection of the same rights afforded to others.

In any other political system, people enjoy certain rights, even if they do not always equate with the Geneva Convention & collectively they can rid themselves of an unwanted government through elections.
A dictator, on the other hand, is like a monarch, think that they have a 'divine' right to rule, neither have 'rights' other than accorded to them by subjection or fascism & both deserve absolute contempt.


So, you would support the murder of Queen Elizabeth?

Wow...
#15027424
Palmyrene wrote:Fuck monarchs.

Ya know that Prince Henry or William or whatever had sex with kids in Epstein's mansions?


I don't know one way or the other, and neither do you.

I'm hoping Nonsense answers my question...
#15027531
Palmyrene wrote:
► Show Spoiler


Yeah I do. It came up when investigating Epstein.


Provide the evidence you have.

Thanks so much...
#15027549
BigSteve wrote:So, you would support the murder of Queen Elizabeth?

Wow...


WOW! indeed..

:eek: Calm down sunshine, I never made any such suggestion,but I can see how some people read what they will into other people's post, even when it's light years away from what is posted.

In the U.K, we have a 'monarch' as Head of State, who is there to serve the state-not-the state to serve the 'Head' & her rapidly expanding tribe of spoilt kids that have a grossly inflated sense of entitlement by dint of their being 'royal' garbage.

We live in a 'democracy' of sorts, we could rid ourselves, or curtail the privileges of the Head of State to that individual only, the family should be personna non - grata as far as the rest of society is concerned & deprived of every single privilege that they have associated with their situation.
By ridding ourselves of one form of Head of State however, we would have to replace it with another,or perhaps not, as the role of Prime Minister could be adapted to do the job, with some separation from certain duties in that position passed elsewhere.

So, no, there's a world of difference in removing Head's of State, who are not allowed to wield powers formerly associated with King's or Queen's & those of military or fascist dictators & that's the 'difference'.

It always amazes me, how those who wish for a smaller state with lower taxes, also want(& do)to spend more on enlarging the state, along with it's intrusions into our personal lives & expanding military spending.

I guess it's 'double-standards', hypocrisy & all that.

It's always 'funny', how people always fall for it at election times & they can always be bribed if someone else is paying for that bribe.
Last edited by Nonsense on 19 Aug 2019 10:46, edited 1 time in total.
#15027555
Palmyrene wrote:Why stop at dictators? Why not governments as well? China certainly isn't a dictatorship yet it is arguably very oppressive as is the case for Russia. America can be argued to be the same.


It's a question of scale.

There are limits as to the extent any individual can respond, that's where national or international opprobrium , or worse, should be part of the arsenal of tools to bring the necessary changes about, which, ideally, should be done by popular national revolt.

Often, seemingly intractible regimes headed by a dictator or regime, collapse at the flick of a switch when the tide of history washes up on their shore, usually when there are other similar situations subjecting the people to intolerable pressure in other countries within regions around the world, whether that's in S.America, Middle East or Eastern Europe.

In the case of China,like most countries big or small, over many centuries, they have been subjected to internal or external threats or changes by forces beyond the control of it's parts in contesting them.
'Democracy' is not the perfect form of governance, 'elections' are not effective at bringing in changes to countries like China, whose structure is geared only to the state itself through one party & that situation is similar to having a monarchy with 'divine' right's to rule.
China could go a long way towards democratising itself, by devolution from the centre, allowing a multi-party system of governance configured on central unifying principles of defence, security, freedoms of expression & social protection.

It could do the above, yet retain it's coherent strength at the same time, just because China is large, doesn't mean that it is stronger, no matter what it's military strength is, regimes can fail from their internal contradictions.

China has been in existence for a very long time, it is, like most Asian countries, very industrious, very vibrant for a centralised state, due mainly to the reforms & has a very bright future.

It is also a mature state with the experience,but also a deeper philosophical one that has reached a balance of sorts through those reforms, it wishes to rid itself of the nonsense of religion on it's people's lives & bring them into the modern world of reality.

In effect, China has elected itself a 'dictator', but he can just as easily be removed from office, were he to become a 'problem' for China on the world stage & threaten the state itself from his actions.

In the former Soviet Union, Romania, under the husband-wife dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu, against the backdrop of the Berlin Wall, collapsed, along with the USSR itself, thanks to Gorbachev, whom, wisely, said that it didn't matter whether an economy is run by the state or capitalism, what matters is, just what works most efficiently & that's another story of course.
#15027556
BigSteve wrote:I don't know one way or the other, and neither do you.

I'm hoping Nonsense answers my question...



In such situations, wouldn't one like to be a 'fly-on-the-wall' :eek: :hmm: :roll: :p
#15027560
Nonsense wrote:I would agree with that, a wise dictator should sleep with one eye open.

I have said elsewhere here, that the U.N should change International Law, to make it a 'defence' in law, to kill a dictator without being subject to legal sanction.

A 'dictator' does not 'rule' by consent of the people, they should be treated as 'outlaws' by the legal system & not enjoy the protection of the same rights afforded to others.

In any other political system, people enjoy certain rights, even if they do not always equate with the Geneva Convention & collectively they can rid themselves of an unwanted government through elections.
A dictator, on the other hand, is like a monarch, think that they have a 'divine' right to rule, neither have 'rights' other than accorded to them by subjection or fascism & both deserve absolute contempt.


As much as I strongly support the idea of killing dictators without sanction (yes, there are probably quite a few in HK and China that need to be killed), who is to decide who should be killed and how? And what can we do to ensure there's enough check and balance against this very powerful organisation?
#15027563
Patrickov wrote:As much as I strongly support the idea of killing dictators without sanction (yes, there are probably quite a few in HK and China that need to be killed), who is to decide who should be killed and how? And what can we do to ensure there's enough check and balance against this very powerful organisation?


That's a decision by the people, the 'head' of the serpent(Hydra)or dictator should be taken, less others appear to replace it, as a warning not to do so.

The state in which people have agitated for change, along with the oppression used to supress the ligitimate aspirations of the people, should be the litmus test for action to 'neutralise' that oppression & different situations require custom methods of resolving issues of that nature.
#15027581
Nonsense wrote:It's a question of scale.

There are limits as to the extent any individual can respond, that's where national or international opprobrium , or worse, should be part of the arsenal of tools to bring the necessary changes about, which, ideally, should be done by popular national revolt.

Often, seemingly intractible regimes headed by a dictator or regime, collapse at the flick of a switch when the tide of history washes up on their shore, usually when there are other similar situations subjecting the people to intolerable pressure in other countries within regions around the world, whether that's in S.America, Middle East or Eastern Europe.

In the case of China,like most countries big or small, over many centuries, they have been subjected to internal or external threats or changes by forces beyond the control of it's parts in contesting them.
'Democracy' is not the perfect form of governance, 'elections' are not effective at bringing in changes to countries like China, whose structure is geared only to the state itself through one party & that situation is similar to having a monarchy with 'divine' right's to rule.
China could go a long way towards democratising itself, by devolution from the centre, allowing a multi-party system of governance configured on central unifying principles of defence, security, freedoms of expression & social protection.

It could do the above, yet retain it's coherent strength at the same time, just because China is large, doesn't mean that it is stronger, no matter what it's military strength is, regimes can fail from their internal contradictions.

China has been in existence for a very long time, it is, like most Asian countries, very industrious, very vibrant for a centralised state, due mainly to the reforms & has a very bright future.

It is also a mature state with the experience,but also a deeper philosophical one that has reached a balance of sorts through those reforms, it wishes to rid itself of the nonsense of religion on it's people's lives & bring them into the modern world of reality.

In effect, China has elected itself a 'dictator', but he can just as easily be removed from office, were he to become a 'problem' for China on the world stage & threaten the state itself from his actions.

In the former Soviet Union, Romania, under the husband-wife dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu, against the backdrop of the Berlin Wall, collapsed, along with the USSR itself, thanks to Gorbachev, whom, wisely, said that it didn't matter whether an economy is run by the state or capitalism, what matters is, just what works most efficiently & that's another story of course.


States aren't homogenous hiveminds, especially China and they certainly didn't elect to make themselves a dictatorship.

Anyone should be allowed to kill the head of state of any country if they are citizens of said country. Governments are always oppressive.
#15027584
Nonsense wrote:I never made any such suggestion...


Yeah, you did:

I have said elsewhere here, that the U.N should change International Law, to make it a 'defence' in law, to kill a dictator without being subject to legal sanction.


A dictator, on the other hand, is like a monarch...


I dunno', Sport. Sure sounds like you'd be fine with someone killing the Queen...

In the U.K, we have a 'monarch' as Head of State...


Yes, and as I just demonstrated, you equate a monarch with a dictator after stating that killing a dictator should be legally permissible.

So, let's be clear: If someone assassinated Queen Elizabeth II, that'd be okay with you?

https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/11700444400118[…]

Your post is just complete lying rubbish now. You[…]

As a Christian, and especially as a Christian con[…]

At the end of this video, one of the vermin antif[…]