It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Definition of Fascism -- Who What Where and How they reDefined it

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Sure, if you use the american reDefinition of left and right.




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The other day I spoke to a snowflake, and told them I was neither left nor right but rather in the center. So the snowflake re-defined Nazi to be center.

See anything wrong there? Point is they will re-define anything as long as it fits their agenda and anyone against what they say no matter left right center or neither has no place in their world. You are seeing an all out attack by the new world order and it is very effective. But face em head on long enough and you ultimately outsmart them.


originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: xuenchen

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini

Lobbyist control the politicians. CEOs own the lobbyists. Corporations ARE the government!


Nailed it.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Can we just simplify it as anti-freedom?



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Can we just simplify it as anti-freedom?


He doesn't want that because it wouldn't generate faux outrage.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Also, we can't have unity on any topics. We need more devision and shallow identity politics to fck the people up with. And more lies, accuse dead people to be sick liars! Good thing is, you wont have to deal with them and might actually get through with that. And never forget to thoroughly emotionalize issues, things like socialism work like a charme on thoroughly reDefined Muricans for example.The author did a marvellous job on that btw.

Otherwise... yeah, we all know what could happen if we don't, so don't even think about it. Just don't do it, Dickhead!


edit on 11-8-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, that is the american reDefinition of left and right.

There are a lot of anti-freedom positions in american right of center politics but somehow they want to claim that right=freedom and left=anti-freedom and that just isn't true.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

And we could use less differentiations, this is way too complex for our Burger buddies to grasp. Think Fox-News.

C'mon!




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, that is the american reDefinition of left and right.

There are a lot of anti-freedom positions in american right of center politics but somehow they want to claim that right=freedom and left=anti-freedom and that just isn't true.


How about just. . "freedom", I don't know hy so many people have such are hard time with this concept.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, that is the american reDefinition of left and right.

There are a lot of anti-freedom positions in american right of center politics but somehow they want to claim that right=freedom and left=anti-freedom and that just isn't true.


How about just. . "freedom", I don't know hy so many people have such are hard time with this concept.

Yeah. Rightists such as Xuenchen have such a hard time with the concept for some reason.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Must you troll your own threads?



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen


A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the XIXth century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the XVIIIth, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

Source: Mussolini himself.

Xuen, are you going to keep making the same threads?


Fantastic !!

A long "quote" with no source link(s) at all !!




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen


A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the XIXth century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the XVIIIth, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

Source: Mussolini himself.

Xuen, are you going to keep making the same threads?


Fantastic !!

A long "quote" with no source link(s) at all !!


I quoted and linked to source in one of your duplicate threads. You have short memory.
Here's the link:
www.worldfuturefund.org...



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
Sigh... Wow.


Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2]characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce,[3]that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5]
Fascism


Oh Great !!

All 5 of the "sources" ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) are Left Wing and some can not be "reached" for examination !!

BwaaaHaHaHa




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen


A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the XIXth century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the XVIIIth, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

Source: Mussolini himself.

Xuen, are you going to keep making the same threads?


Fantastic !!

A long "quote" with no source link(s) at all !!


I quoted and linked to source in one of your duplicate threads. You have short memory.
Here's the link:
www.worldfuturefund.org...


Left Wing "Sources" and "Opinions" with no proof !!




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
How about just. . "freedom", I don't know hy so many people have such are hard time with this concept.

How about just freedom, what?



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen


A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the XIXth century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the XVIIIth, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

Source: Mussolini himself.

Xuen, are you going to keep making the same threads?


Fantastic !!

A long "quote" with no source link(s) at all !!


I quoted and linked to source in one of your duplicate threads. You have short memory.
Here's the link:
www.worldfuturefund.org...


Left Wing "Sources" and "Opinions" with no proof !!


Are you a troll? Mussolini wrote that.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Can we just simplify it as anti-freedom?



Yeah.

It's anti-freedom.




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen


A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the XIXth century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the XVIIIth, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

Source: Mussolini himself.

Xuen, are you going to keep making the same threads?


Fantastic !!

A long "quote" with no source link(s) at all !!


I quoted and linked to source in one of your duplicate threads. You have short memory.
Here's the link:
www.worldfuturefund.org...


Left Wing "Sources" and "Opinions" with no proof !!


Are you a troll? Mussolini wrote that.


Are you 100% certain ?

Start sourcing and see the real deal.




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: DBCowboy
How about just. . "freedom", I don't know hy so many people have such are hard time with this concept.

How about just freedom, what?


*sigh*


I don't see how this is such a hard concept for some.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen


A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the XIXth century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the XVIIIth, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

Source: Mussolini himself.

Xuen, are you going to keep making the same threads?


Fantastic !!

A long "quote" with no source link(s) at all !!


I quoted and linked to source in one of your duplicate threads. You have short memory.
Here's the link:
www.worldfuturefund.org...


Left Wing "Sources" and "Opinions" with no proof !!


Are you a troll? Mussolini wrote that.


Are you 100% certain ?

Start sourcing and see the real deal.


The source is from Mussolini himself. You can purchase his book if you can read Italian.




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join