Who are the Fascists?

The Programme of the German Workers' Party is designed to be of limited duration. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it have been achieved, of establishing fresh ones, merely in order to increase, artificially, the discontent of the masses and so ensure the continued existence of the Party.

1. We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.

4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.

5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.

6. The right to vote on the State's government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to character or abilities.

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.


We demand therefore:


11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.


The breaking of the slavery of interest


12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.

22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army.
...

constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...

(continued)
23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:

(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
(b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
(c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.

The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly -- if need be to sacrifice their very lives -- to translate this programme into action.

constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...

I wonder who makes similar demands?... I am SURE it is not "rightwingers"...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You honestly are delusional, literally, not as an insult, but as a description of your mental state, if you read that Nazi # and think it sounds like left wing ideology.

The FACT of Naziism being a far right ideology is one of the most agreed upon, least controversial facts going.

End of story.

Sounds like a classic alright !!

1. Never admit you are wrong. Even when proven wrong, throw in a straw man argument to deflect the other person's attention from the fact that you don't have a clue. Then call him or her a racist teabagger.

2. Anyone that says anything bad about Obama is a racist. Anyone that says anything good about Obama is a true patriot.

3. Include any of the following in every OP you write: right wing extremists, anti-American, wingnuts, Republicraps, tea baggers and teahadists.

4. After including those words, insist that anyone slightly right of center who thinks differently than you is a racist who likes violence. Remember, the standards you have apply to everyone else, not to you.
Left Wing Debate Handbook

and some more liberal tricks --> The Left Hook

1) Attack The Messenger: Instead of addressing the argument that has been made, people using this method attack the person making it instead. This is particularly easy for many delusional people on the left who believe that almost everyone on the right is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Fascist who longs for the return of the Confederacy and is planning to start throwing leftists in prison camps if they let their guard down for five minutes. The charge made doesn't even have to be accurate, in fact it's better in some ways if it's off target. That's because the more whacked out the charge is, the more compelled your opponent will feel to spend his time defending himself while you continue to make your points.

Look for all these tactics to counter all Un-Left and Left-Over discussions and counter points

reply to post by xuenchen


Right, so you not responding to the post, and attacking the messenger is ok, because??

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Right, so you not responding to the post, and attacking the messenger is ok, because??

Actually I was commenting on the last several pages.

Who Are the Fascists anyway ?

Who is "the messenger" ?

The Nazis advocated a strong, central government under the Führer, for defending Germany and the German nation, the Volk, against communism and Jewish subversion. To the end of establishing Großdeutschland (Greater Germany), the German peoples must acquire Lebensraum (living space) from Russia.[99]

Hitler, the Führer of Nazi Germany The original National Socialists, the 1919 German Workers' Party (DAP) said there would be no program binding upon them, thus rejecting any Weltanschauung.

Nonetheless, when Adolf Hitler assumed command of its successor, the Nazi Party, political substance of Nazism concorded with his political beliefs — man and idea as political entity, the Führer.

Hitler had concluded that ethnic and linguistic diversity had weakened the Austro–Hungarian Empire, and had resulted in contemporary political dissent.

He disliked democracy because it allowed political power to ethnic minorities and to liberal political parties, who "weakened and destabilized" the empire with internal division.

Hitler's cultural, historical, and political beliefs were tempered in combat during World War I; by Germany's loss of the war, and by the Bolsheviks' successful October Revolution of 1917 that installed Marxist communism in Russia. From 1920 to 1923, Hitler formulated his ideology, then published it in 1925–26, as Mein Kampf, a two-volume, biography and political manifesto.[100] During the 1920s and 1930s, Nazism was ideologically heterogeneous, comprising two sub-ideologies, those of Otto Strasser and of Hitler.

As leftists, the Strasserites fell afoul of Hitler, who expelled Otto Strasser from the Nazi Party when he failed to establish the Black Front, an oppositional, anti-capitalist bloc, in 1930.

Though Hitler for "tactical" reasons had rhetorically declared a 1920 party platform with socialist platitudes "unshakable," actually "many paragraphs of the party program were obviously merely a demagogic appeal to the mood of the lower classes at a time when they were in bad straits and were sympathetic to radical and even socialist slogans...Point 11, for example...Point 12...nationalization...Point 16...communalization.... put in at the insistence of Drexler and Feder, who apparently really believed in the 'socialism' of National Socialism."[101]

In actual practice, such points were mere slogans, "most of them forgotten by the time the party came to power.... the Nazi leader himself was later to be embarrassed when reminded of some of them."[101]

Historian Conan Fischer argues that the Nazis were sincere in their use of the adjective socialist, which the saw as inseparable from the adjective national, and meant it as a socialism of the master race, rather than the socialism of the "underprivileged and oppressed seeking justice and equal rights."[102]

The conflicting philosophies of leading Nazis of the early years were visible at times: in 1930 "Strasser, Feder and Frick introduced a bill in the Reichstag on behalf of the Nazi Party calling for (interest rate limits, expropriation of large bank-holdings)... and the nationalization of the big banks.... Hitler was horrified; this was not only Bolshevism, it was financial suicide for the party."[103]

Many Strasserites who remained in the Nazi Party, mostly in the Sturmabteilung (SA), were assassinated in the Night of the Long Knives purge.

en.wikipedia.org...-101

i'm so glad i got out of this, BOOOOM!

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

I see you have ignored my request two times already...

Please tell us, during the 30's and 40's when fascism was viable political outlook...
Who represented the RIGHT WING in Italy and Germany opposing the left wing
Fascists???

Simple question - Once we know that, a lot can proven, should be simple for you
to do.

Originally posted by xuenchen
Sounds like a classic alright !!

1. Never admit you are wrong. Even when proven wrong, throw in a straw man argument to deflect the other person's attention from the fact that you don't have a clue. Then call him or her a racist teabagger.

2. Anyone that says anything bad about Obama is a racist. Anyone that says anything good about Obama is a true patriot.

3. Include any of the following in every OP you write: right wing extremists, anti-American, wingnuts, Republicraps, tea baggers and teahadists.

4. After including those words, insist that anyone slightly right of center who thinks differently than you is a racist who likes violence. Remember, the standards you have apply to everyone else, not to you.
Left Wing Debate Handbook

and some more liberal tricks --> The Left Hook

1) Attack The Messenger: Instead of addressing the argument that has been made, people using this method attack the person making it instead. This is particularly easy for many delusional people on the left who believe that almost everyone on the right is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Fascist who longs for the return of the Confederacy and is planning to start throwing leftists in prison camps if they let their guard down for five minutes. The charge made doesn't even have to be accurate, in fact it's better in some ways if it's off target. That's because the more whacked out the charge is, the more compelled your opponent will feel to spend his time defending himself while you continue to make your points.

Look for all these tactics to counter all Un-Left and Left-Over discussions and counter points

You guys are the ones who are wrong -

You tell me - because I have asked you right wingers FIVE times in the tread to
tell us WHO represented the RightWing in Fascist Germany and Italy?

Put you money where you mouth is and don't be a flaming hypocrite, simple question

Tell us who, simple...

i have read the last few pages, and for my 2 cents, calling yourself or others by a catch-all name for a particular political philosophy, does not mean a thing anymore.
what matters to me is: what political party passes laws that benefit the wealthy and hurts all others. the wealthy knows who it is.

Go far enough to the left or right ideologically and you go full circle. Terms like "right wing or left wing" are meaningless to all but the extremists who adopt the various political labels as window dressing. Such pathetic, transparent presentations are an attempt to hide the simple mindset of true extremists. True despots, in temperament or in power are uniformly frightened neurotics, of infantile mentality and shockingly insecure.

I like to apply the answer to fascism that the late US supreme court justice Potter Stevens said in response to the question how he would define pornography. He sad; " I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

A few quotes from history...

It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic. Anarchy is a synonym for liberty, freedom, independence, free play, self-government, non-interference, mind your own business and let your neighbor's alone, laissez faire, ungoverned, autonomy, and so on.

flag.blackened.net...

For the Anarcho-Syndicalists the labour syndicate are the most fruitful germs of a future society, the elementary school of Socialism in general. Rudolf Rocker

recollectionbooks.com...

His belief in the people was very genuine, & his vision of socialism quite unlike the State machine pictured in Marx's communist manifesto. Hearing his views, I could not help exclaiming: "Why, Mr. Debs, you're an anarchist!" "Not Mister, but Comrade," he corrected me; "won't you call me that?" Clasping my hand warmly, he assured me that he felt very close to the anarchists, that anarchism was the goal to strive for, & that all socialists should also be anarchists. Eugene Debs

The first principle [of anarchism] is possession, not private property. Following Proudhon’s “What is Property?”, use rights replace property rights in a free society. This automatically implies an egalitarian distribution of wealth. The second is socialisation. This means free access to workplaces and land, so the end of landlords and bosses (this is sometimes called “occupancy and use”). The third is voluntary association, in other words self-management of production by those who do it...
...Bakunin summarised this kind of economy well when he stated that the “land belongs to only those who cultivate it with their own hands; to the agricultural communes . . . the tools of production belong to the workers; to the workers’ associations...
...While not all anarchists have used the term "socialisation", the fact this is the necessary foundation for a free society and, unsurprisingly, the concept (if not the word) is at the base of anarchism. This is because it ensures universal self-management by allowing free access to the means of production. As Emma Goldman and John Most argued, it “logically excludes any and every relation between master and servant...

...Getting there

So, with the desirability and validity of libertarian socialism sketched, the question becomes one of how do we get there. Obviously, one elements of this would be creating and supporting co-operatives within capitalism (Proudhon: “That a new society be founded in the heart of the old society”) This could include promoting socialisation and co-operatives as an alternative to closures, bailouts and nationalisation.

However, most anarchists see that as just a part of encouraging a culture of resistance, or encouraging collective struggles against capitalism and the state. In other words, encouraging direct action (strikes, protests, occupations, etc.) and ensuring that all struggles are self-managed by those within them and that any organisations they create are also self-managed from below. The goal would be for people to start occupying workplaces, housing, land, etc., and so making socialisation a reality. By managing our struggles we learn to manage our lives; by creating organisations for struggles against the current system we create the framework of a free society.”

anarchism.pageabode.com...

“[Anarchism] abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title – not to ownership but to possession. The organisation of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the railroads, and so on. Collective possession, co-operatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit.” Alexander Berkman

Socialism is the bases for anarchism, whether the term is used or not anarchism is socialistic, as in it realizes worker ownership is a necessity for a free society, and capitalism is the root of our oppression.

So again socialism does not have to be state controlled, it can be libertarian. It is not government it is worker ownership of the means of production.

Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organization, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

www.spunk.org...

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

You honestly are delusional, literally, not as an insult, but as a description of your mental state, if you read that Nazi # and think it sounds like left wing ideology.

The FACT of Naziism being a far right ideology is one of the most agreed upon, least controversial facts going.

End of story.

And that's the evidence you have against FACTS and you call me dellusional?... Please... You are so brainwashed you can't see the trees in the forest in front of you.

PRESENT FACTS, not BS comments full of nothing but hot air. That's all you have, HOT AIR...

Of course there are SOME differences between National SOCIALISM and other socialist branches... THAT'S WHY THERE ARE DIFFERENT BRANCHES...

Of course you, and other leftwingers like you do not want to face the facts, because it shows what socialism is really all about... But you know what? Your stupid comments with no facts to corroborate them mean nothing, and do not debunk the fact that Mussolini, and Hitler WERE SOCIALISTS...

No matter how many leftwingers have written books claiming Hitler and Mussolini were "rightwingers" the FACTS speak a different story...

You don't have any EVIDENCE or FACTS to corroborate your argument... All you have is HOT AIR and a denial mentality in front of facts...

A couple more instances of name-calling since my last mod note.

Stop it.

No 'please', this time. Just don't go there or post bans will be handed out.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


The NAZIS advocated a STRONG SOCIALIST CENTRAL GOVERNMENT? really? and that is "rightwing"?...

The world is going down a dangerous path, and we won't avoid it because of people like you who do not want to face the FACTS about socialism...

It is because of this DENIAL by leftwingers that we are going down this dangerous path. I don't deny that many so called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) have been bought by the SOCIALIST GLOBAL ELITES, and they also are to blame for what is happening...

But it is this DENIAL by leftwingers to see what is right in front of their faces that is allowing the SOCIALIST GLOBAL CABAL to realize their long wet dream of INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM...

Unless leftwingers, and people in general wake up and accept the facts, we are going to have the worse SOCIALIST dictatorship ever created...

The following website explains CLEARLY the problem. Whether the solution they claim will work is something we will have to see. What really matters is that people WAKE UP ONCE AND FOR ALL that giving all power to the state, and consolidating all power to a few, even if they claim to be "the workers" or to "represent the workers" is a bad idea since then there is NOTHING to stop them because THEY HAVE ALL THE POWER...

SOCIALISM & CENTRAL BANKING

SOCIALISM has been the issue of the bloody twentieth century. The greatest slaughter in all human history was the consequence of the effort to settle this issue _ whether it was the bureaucratic form as in Communism or the special-law or fiat kind as in Naziism. The Nazi (National Sozialist) kind died first as the result of World War II. The Communist form (seen in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) died when it could no longer match American military production, and it became clear to all that the Soviets were being out-produced in both the kinds and quality of armaments they would need to maintain the threat that they had used for so many long years during the Cold War.

The last years of the twentieth century are witnessing the death of the welfare state, the present form of socialism, which is socialism with a democratic face. The cause of its death is the exhaustion of the capital reserve of the world, accumulated by its peoples through centuries of saving, which has been taxed away and wasted by the bureaucracies of the welfare states in the various countries.

What will follow is what we are already threatened with, the last and most evil form of socialism. Nothing approaching it has been seen in the whole history of man. This international form of socialism would be administered by the world banking system in the name of international bodies such as the United Nations.

Communism aspired to world control, but it did not have the means to that end. International socialism is now within reach of this goal through the banking system.

In the United States this phenomenon had its first important appearance in the Wilsonian effort to establish the League of Nations as an aspiring world government in swaddling clothes.

The United Nations succeeded where the League of Nations had failed because World War II had occurred and the United Nations was portrayed as the needed international control to assure peace.

But the United Nations has been used as a propaganda machine for international socialism through all its years, and it may yet acquire its own military force to police the world.

Meanwhile, the true enabling power of world government, the international banking system, has worked to become adequate to the greatest challenge of all time, the establishment of world government which would be administered by the banks. (The United Nations police force would remain only a background threat that isn’t where the real control would be centered.) Since World War II the banking system has managed to build a formidable array of organizations for its functioning, beginning with the post-war Bretton Woods agreement and including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, among others.

At the same time, within the United States, the Internal Revenue Service (the income tax) and the Federal Reserve system have become the two tools that are the engine of the transformation of the sovereignty of the United States into the backbone of the new world government.
...

www.thevoluntarystate.com...

This is a good article that tries to explain why socialism never made it to the US...

A problem with much of this literature is that it seeks to prove America’s “exceptionalism” by reference to features that are actually found in most advanced capitalist states. First and foremost, America, like Britain, France, and Germany, developed capitalism relatively early vis-à-vis the south and east, and this led to them dominating the system as imperialist powers, either with colonial possessions or by keeping the formally independent states in a condition of economic bondage. Their status as imperialist powers had consequences for domestic class relations too, as it led to the development of a large middle class and a privileged upper stratum of the working class.

Why is there no Socialism in the United States?

Capitalist interests have dominated the US since it's beginning. Capitalist interest still control the states, and the state, through the feds.

Even the political system itself is a business that makes a lot of money. You pay for your own oppression. The whole modern political system is not what it claims to be. It gives you the illusion of change, and participation, but it's designed to protect capital, and keep you making profit for someone else. The issues it gets you all riled up about are just distractions from what the real problem is. We well never solve our social issues while we continue to blindly accept, and support, the root of the problems.

Capitalism has a dilemma, it cannot meet peoples needs because over production would cause it to collapse. Capitalist economies are always unstable. People always seem surprised when the economy goes down, but that is inevitable, it always happens. On the micro, and macro levels. This is why artificial scarcity of resources is a fundamental requirement of capitalism. It is why capitalist economies go up and down, called the 'business cycle' by Marx, also know as Crisis theory

The only way under capitalism that production can be raised, and profit still made, is to lower wages, lower employee numbers, mechanize, raise prices, cut corners etc. Capitalists remove their contribution to the supply of needed resources when they can no longer make profit. The people do not have access to those resources, or the machinery to produce, and since capitalism caused the people to become reliant on the private owner in the first place, then that is exploitation and oppression.

(It was the change in land laws that allowed land owners to deny the people use of the land to live and work on autonomously, that started capitalist labour exploitation. People were coerced into factories and mills in order to live, and wage slavery started.)

If the workers owned the means of production, and the capitalist need for profit no longer relevant, then overproduction would not be a problem, and peoples needs could be met.

Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

www.worldsocialism.org...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Hmmm so some schmuck writes a book and you just believe it?

Well, I got that Elvis book, maybe you want to borrow it?



That article you link to is a good example of how people are confused, and simply believe what they are told.
That article completely ignores the true history and simply uses term as defined by the mainstream.

It fails in its first sentence by associating socialism with fascism, as we have shown over and over are different ideologies, that were in opposition to each other.

You fail because you are using some article, written by who knows who, from a modern twisted perspective, while I am trying to show you original texts from the time, and from the same continent it all happened in.

If you really think that article proves anything then I can see now why you fail to grasp why your claims are illogical and based on a lack of understanding. You should really try to get your facts from the original sources, not someone else's misunderstandings. All you are doing is spreading ignorance.

reply to post by St Udio


i really need to follow up on my own post of yesterday(s)...

this snip from a dynamite article pretty sums up/ or consensus of what i said (but was overlooked as not being sharp enough)

...A fascist advocates nominal private ownership of both the means of production and consumer goods – but with strong state control over both. In other words, you can own mines, farms, and factories – but the state reserves the right to tax, regulate or even expropriate them. Fascism has nothing to do with jackboots and black uniforms; you can have those in communist and socialist states as well. It has to do with a corporate state and a revolving door between business and government, with each protecting and enriching the other. Fascism can be maintained for a long time but necessarily entails all the problems we now face. Almost all the world's states are fascist today; they differ only in degree and detail....

...No country provides a perfect example of any of these four arrangements. But every government promotes one or the other as a theoretical ideal. In most places, certainly including the US, the "mixed economy" is put forward as a good thing; the "mixed economy" is a polite way of describing fascism. Nobody wants to call fascism by its name today because of its strong association with Hitler's "National Socialists." In any event, look and analyze closely before you use these words and attach any of the four tags to any country.

source: www.marketoracle.co.uk...



i did not use obscure or oblique examples; as in lthe Bush administrations & the Obama administration... but for some reason this 'truth' did not hit an acceptance nerve with the posters on the thread.


read the article for a full fleshed out profile of just what constitutes a Fascist State...
thanks to whomever seeks this little bit of enlightenment


peace