It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Who are the Fascists?

page: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Why do you insist on repeating this nonsense when it has been explained over and over that you have it backwards?

What school did you go to lol? In one ear out the other? Or do they not teach this stuff in American schools?

Let's actually TRY to educate AGAIN the dumbed down masses at least in this thread...

So according to ANOK, and a few others, this is rightwing...

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

Hitler was intent on having a community of mutual interest that desired mutual success instead of one that was divided over the control of money or differing values.


And if we look at a LEFTWING source, wikipedia, let's see what the FASCIST MANIFESTO of Mussolini is all about...

Contents of the Fascist Manifesto

The manifesto (published in "Il Popolo d'Italia" on June 6, 1919) is divided into four sections, describing Fascist objectives in political, social, military and financial fields.[2]

Politically, the manifesto calls for:
Universal suffrage with a lowered voting age to 18 years, and voting and electoral office eligibility for all age 25 and more, including women;
Proportional representation on a regional basis;
Voting for women (which was opposed by most other European nations);
Representation at government level of newly created national councils by economic sector;
The abolition of the Italian Senate (at the time, the senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the king. It has been described as a sort of extended council of the crown);
The formation of a national council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a general commission with ministerial powers (this concept was rooted in corporatist ideology and derived in part from Catholic social doctrine).

In labour and social policy, the manifesto calls for:
The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
A minimum wage;
The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
Reorganisation of the railways and the transport sector;
Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

In military affairs, the manifesto advocates:
Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities;
Armaments factories are to be nationalised;
A peaceful but competitive foreign policy.

In finance, the manifesto advocates:
A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging apartial expropriation of concentrated wealth);
The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;
Revision of all contracts for military provisions;
The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

The manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on class collaboration (the idea of social classes existing side by side and collaborating for the sake of national interests; the opposite of the Marxist notion of class struggle).

edit on 23-4-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 05:46 PM

You keep confusing authoritarism with fascism.

Let me explain it some other way:

Apples are red and semi-round,
Cherries are also red but more round than apples.

Both are red, but they don't have the same shape.

Fascism = Far Right
Communism= Far Left

Both are authoritarian,but have different shapes.

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 05:47 PM
Shall we take a look at the communist manifesto?

1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State
; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.

edit on 23-4-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

The funding fathers were not so shallow to be simply "liberal" or "conservative" in today's terms and would indeed find the labels we use today to be ridiculous and essentially meaningless.

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by metodex

wow... Didn't you read the FACTS i posted above?...

Are you now, alongside some others, going to claim that what I posted aren't facts?... You can actually find them in any REAL history books...

I am not the one confused... YOU are...

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

We are not in the days of the independence. Time moves on,so do we.
History is made,concepts are created and theories too.

i do not understand your point.Yes the founding fathers wouldn't laugh because they would have understood this.
Sir,education is a must for you,so is the development of analitic skills.

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I wasn't talking to you.I didn't actually "reply" to anybody.My message was directed to those confused.

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 05:57 PM

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

The funding fathers were not so shallow to be simply "liberal" or "conservative" in today's terms and would indeed find the labels we use today to be ridiculous and essentially meaningless.

The Founding Fathers in the United States agreed that the best form of government that would represent everyone is a REPUBLICAN form of government...

A Republican is someone who advocates the Republic, and it's against all forms of dictatorships.

Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Just because today's Republican Party, and for the most part those in power in that party, don't represent what a real Republican is, it doesn't make them Republicans just because they use that name.

If you look at the laws, and how our government is run it looks more and more fascist/communist than Republican.

The fascists and communists have a LOT in common.

In the U.S. we have a "progressive tax", a central bank, centralization of power, centralization of credit in the hands of the state (the Feds) and many other policies which are leftwing and can be found in fascists and or communist dictatorships...

If you read the communist manifesto, or the fascist manifesto, you would see that the U.S. has implemented MANY, if not all of the policies and programs delineated in those manifestos...

edit on 23-4-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:14 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I dont know much about american politics,but from what i do know, the republicans have deviated a lot from what the initial plan was. However,i have more faith in the Republican party than i do on the Democratic.I just think the Democrats are a little bit lost on what they want,and their methods seem a bit too old.

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by metodex

I dont know much about american politics,but from what i do know, the republicans have deviated a lot from what the initial plan was. However,i have more faith in the Republican party than i do on the Democratic.I just think the Democrats are a little bit lost on what they want,and their methods seem a bit too old.

Most of that deviation has been caused for implementing leftwing ideas such as a central bank, a progressive tax system, and in general for giving power over the U.S. economy to globalist bankers. This was done by Progressive Democrats, under a Progressive Democrat as President Woodrow Wilson back in 1913 who signed into law the Federal Reserve Act (the Feds) and among other policies and programs funded the IRS and it's progressive taxes as they exist today.

This opened the door for total corruption in our political system, and gave the power to control this nation to the globalist bankers.

If you look at the problems occurring around the world, the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other leftwing programs are the cause for most of the problems occurring right now.

We owe the global economic crisis to the Feds, the IMF, the World Bank, and the UN among others, and they did this so that they can implement their One World Socialist Corpocracy Government.

edit on 23-4-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Sorry, but you didn't actually contradict what I said. Our concept of political ideology, especially the lines we divide ourselves on, would be meaningless abstraction to the founding fathers.

As for the whole "Republican" thing... you're taking an extreme stance... if the Founding Fathers wanted pure states rights they wouldn't have created a FEDERAL government and a national constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The point of me posting that is to note that your definition of what the constitution means, the absolutist nature of your conviction, is .. well, flatly, wrong.

The Founding fathers had to repeatedly compromise about what they were trying to create and the document is based on no one side getting all of what they wanted.

On top of that, courts, and even Founding Fathers, argued about the meaning of the document after it was written.

For instance, Hamilton thought the Federal Government had the power, based on the Constitution, to tax and spend on education, at a federal level.

I know you probably disagree, but at least acknowledge that there was never a single view about what America was, what the constitution allowed and what a proper set of American beliefs are.

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Don't be daft... Central banks have existed forever.. they existed under the gold standard and were not the invention of Liberals... you must know that.

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Many people believe that the ---> Congressional Progressive Caucus
may very well be a "communist" spin-off. Some even go as far as to associate the members with Agenda 21 and other globalist idealisms.

Their website IS part of the "" site.

And they Are progressive and seem to be Democrats or Independents !!

I'm confident that all voters in the members' districts are fully aware of this affiliation

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

I never said the founding fathers all agreed all the time, but they did agree at the time of it's inception on what form of government was the best for the American people, including for future generations.

Yes, they disagreed a lot. Some wanted a central bank, others didn't, some wanted the rich to be in control, and others didn't. What matters is what they agreed on, and they did agree when they signed their names.

You do know that likewise, there were some settlers who wanted to be governed by the Brittish crown right? Not all settlers wanted to start a war with them. Does that matter now? No. What matters is that it was agreed that it was needed to separate the United States from the crown of England, and to start a nation with freedoms that were denied in nations like Britain.

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:33 PM
Oh and yes, the horrible liberal Adam Smith, the socialist marxist that he was said:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

By the way, that commie fascist book is recommended by the fascist pinko scum Ron Paul:

Maybe he should read the constitution... and stop sucking on the government teat... then he wouldn't recommend such communist #.
edit on 23-4-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:35 PM

Originally posted by metodex
Fascism = Far Right
Communism= Far Left

Both are authoritarian, but have different shapes.

They are not both authoritarian. This keeps getting confused because of countries like the USSR being called communist when they weren't. Communism is not a form of government.

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

The further right you go the more the state has control, the more authority, the extreme being fascism. The further left you go the less state control, less authority, anarchism being the extreme left.

It is that simple.

The 20th century experienced or witnessed every variety of state socialism, and learned that if its rulers are ruthless enough, they can impose, for a while, the most bizarre regimes and describe them as socialism. As socialism has been grossly misrepresented, so anarchism suffers from the widely held view that it is simply another variety of millenarianism, the belief in the eventual arrival, ‘after the revolution’, of a period of ultimate happiness when all the problems that beset humanity will have been solved, permanently.

Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.3 p.31, 1995

This is the ultimate goal of left-wing ideologies...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

The different versions of left-wing ideology are just different ways to get to that goal. Marxism is the political route using a temporary revolutionary government and nationalization that would lead to socialism, and then to communism (free association). The anarchists wanted the same ultimate goal, but they rejected the political route and wanted direct action, revolution. This played out in the Spanish revolution, with the anarchists taking over industry etc., and the Marxist communist party trying to reinstate the government, and ultimately betraying the anarchists. While undergoing a fascist military coup by Franco, the civil war.

The Spanish Revolution (1936)

edit on 4/23/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie take-over Harry

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

You've again missed the point.

AFTER it was signed they STILL disagreed on what it all meant.

Claiming it's so precise as to be only interpreted in one way is false.

And history shows that as the constitution has been interpreted and re-interpreted, many times.. and guess what... not by fascists, but by people who, like the founding fathers, couldn't agree what it all meant...

It's fine to think your interpretation is best, but it's factually wrong to think yours in the only one..
edit on 23-4-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:48 PM
Here's more indications of how deep the the ultra fanatical liberal mania is embedded.

These are only some of the problems that normal conservatives are fighting against.

The more these outfits get their Real agendas exposed, the safer we are from a complete takeover.

Very few Americans realize there exists a large network of far left philanthropists and foundations in America dedicated to destroying the American way of life, our Christian-based culture and our free enterprise system. They seek to remove America from its constitutional foundations and move it toward a European-style socialism. Much of this effort is coordinated by a little known group called the Tides Foundation and its related group, the Tides Center.

Who Funds The Radical Left In America?

(from July 2009)

Summary: Socialists push for greater redistribution
of wealth, massive government
spending, and government ownership of the
means of production, and they’re having a
banner year so far. Now President Obama’s
appointment of radical environmentalist
Carol Browner as his global warming “czar”
reminds Americans that actual card-carrying
socialists really do work in the federal government.
Browner has been a member of
the Socialist International. Its U.S. affiliate,
the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
does not function as a political party and it
has a tiny membership. But DSA supports the
Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose
members control key committees in the U.S.
House of Representatives. The mainstream
media and Obama supporters snicker at the
word “socialist,” treating it as an anachronistic
epithet hurled by rubes. But it’s clear that
extreme left-wing ideologues play a major
role in shaping U.S. public policy.

Socialism in America:
Far Left Democrats Setting the Policy Agenda

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:53 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

They are not both authoritarian. This keeps getting confused because of countries like the USSR being called communist when they weren't.

edit on 4/23/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie take-over Harry

Sorry,but no,communism does not mean less government.Every time it has been tried it ends up with the government owning everything in the name of the "people",and infinite bureaucratic loops to obtain something as simple as powdered milk.

But however,since you seem to be attached to communism,i refuse to continue this conversation.
You try to imply that communism has never existed. Then what good is defending supporting or even trying to achieve it? Communism by definition is violent,authoritatian and utopic, so it gets stuck always at violent and authoritarian because those in power always get TOO MUCH POWER, and get corrupted.

Good bye, and may you soon be striked by reality.

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

So tell me Mr Electric Universe?
Who are the fascists in this thread here:
Private Prisons: What's The Harm?

That want to bring the Gulags and Work Farms to our country for more profits?

It would be those that support the Corporate Overlords and Financial Criminals operating at the Federal Level.
I support more Freedom and an end to Big Government.

Those Fascists that support the Mega Corporations and Financial Institutions embedded in our government are the true fascists.

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in