Democrazy.

Democracy is unstable as a political system as long as it remains a political system and nothing more, instead of being, as it should be, not only a form of government but a type of society, and a manner of life which is in harmony with that type. To make it a type of society requires an advance along two lines. It involves, in the first place, the resolute elimination of all forms of special privilege which favour some groups and depress other, whether their source be differences of environment, of education, or of pecuniary income. It involves, in the second place, the conversion of economic power, now often an irresponsible tyrant, into a servant of society, working within clearly defined limits and accountable for its actions to a public authority. –R.H. Tawney, Keeping Left (1950)

The morning sun scorches the dying bees; earthquake predictions are regularly ignored so as to avoid causing undue panic should the predictions be faulty – which they quite often are. Local television news report of the 7.9 M^w earthquake event as thought it was brought on by “climate change” and “global warming”; and at the same time the Myanmar junta is slow to respond to offers of help, scared as though they must be to appear weak and scared to accept help from people that just some months earlier called for their overthrow and prayed persistently for their deaths when the pompous monks demanded a resumption of fuel subsidies.

The Chinese government allows free market elements, yet now they are bad for doing so; the government was not firm enough when handling out construction contracts; was it not just following the recommendations of the IMF and World Bank (the scum of the world in my book, so to say) economists. It is their fault, their fault; when it happens to us it is by accident, when it happens to the ideological enemy, we are always quick to blame.

Light goes up.

The Soviets do what the U.S. does; when the U.S. or its allies do something, it is done for freedom, liberty and prosperity; the soviets do the same, and it is an act of dangerous aggression, a fascistic totalitarian act of despicable inhumanity. We will liberate you. Let you taste the air of freedom—the same system as before, we just changed the faces of the rulers and the empty words they spew.

What you are I was, what I am you will be.

It is double-think; not mere allegory, not mere criticism, it is vast and it is efficient, intelligent and deep, profound;

. . , the rulers of mankind . . . maintain side by side two standards of social ethics, without the risk of their colliding. Keeping one set of values for use, and another for display, they combine, without conscious insincerity, the moral satisfaction of idealistic principles with the material advantages of realistic practice.

The complete destruction of the Individual is desirable.

It is well known that liberals are idiots. If you word it the right way, even conservative Americans will agree, because what a liberal is in the U.S. is not what it is in most other places around the world. In the U.S., the silly humanistic nanny-leftists and their foolish utopian world-view are constantly (and often rightfully) ridiculed, but why they are called “liberals” I am not quite sure. They are indeed a very stupid bunch, but there are some much more loathsome elements in the U.S. political system. I am talking not of the retarded “neo-conservatives” nor the Democrats and “liberals”, but of the easily most stupid thing ever conceived. Libertarians. (When I say liberal, I mean it as in “classical liberalism”, much akin to Libertarianism).

Good friends of Ron Paul and Internet-savvy, those degenerate utopian liberals have for far too many years ruined the world with their inept tripe. What worse is that they pollute the Internet to an astounding degree with inane preaching about Jefferson and the Constitution, and any good State should have those mongrel vermin shipped away to labour camps. A specimen of the species Libertarian Scum chose to comment upon my previous entry about Italian Fascism, this is what it wrote:

Don’t whitewash Italian Fascism with the “they weren’t racists” defence. I have Italian Fascist magazines from Mussolini’s time that are full of racism, articles on racial purity, on the inferiority of blacks, etc. The usual racist crap. But the key points may be: Both Fascism and Nazism were socialist systems, whose prevue extended into every aspect of life. Both were Nationalistic, with a capital N. And both were corporate socialists’ regimes, and this is very key for the present, for America and Europe are, and are becoming almost purely, under the EU and Clinton-Bush, corporate socialist regimes, where the individual has no power. That’s why Ron Paul’s anti-Statism is the only modern expression of anti-Fascist, anti-Nazi thinking.

As we can see from this inane drivel, this is clearly one of those brain-dead libertarian fuckwits. I disagree with many aspects of Fascism, particularly its anti-communism and absurd traditionalism and friendly treatment of religion, but I see it as a quite enjoyable political ideology, especially in Mussolini/Gentile’s manifesto. Fascism was certainly not socialistic in any other aspect than its collective “bringing-together” of all the national populace. You cannot be a “corporate socialist”.

Libertarians are foolish and have a tendency to rave on about the astounding achievements of the individual and how we must all be free from the murderous State; but the individual is weak and lonely where the State is strong and able. Libertarians use the word “Statism” – a word that a certain imbecile by the name of Ronald Reagan also had strong affection for – to describe any state that directly or indirectly is responsible for more than 0.5% of the national GDP.

Nazism and Fascism were collectivist and authoritarian (and at least in the case of fascism, totalitarian) systems, this does by no way mean they were “socialist” systems, but what can one expect from Libertarians? Surely this fellow must have missed the dreadful news that a number of the degenerate Baltic states as well as Czech Republic have instated a policy of flat tax (at about 10-12% in most cases). This would be unacceptable in any even remotely “socialist” nation. Even in the most liberal deviations of socialism, flat tax is unacceptable.

The Individual must not have power. The individual is meek and meaningless and temporary. Individuals must be controlled. What could have brought anyone to post a pro-Ron-Paul comment here? I mean, save the curious question why anyone would bother commenting at all—I advocate Soviet-style socialism of the Stalinist model and replacement of market/mixed economy with a centrally planned command-economy. I also advocate the relocation of political dissidents voicing their opinion and partaking in activism to labour camps and closed cities in the spirit of internal exile. And no, I’m not even kidding.

It pisses me off when some American calls me a liberal, too. I’m not a fucking liberal. I don’t support any of that hippie-esque stuff, free drugs or world peace. I am passionately pro-war and anti-humanism. In before some comments “lol ur delusional,” “psychotic”, “crazy”, “nazi”, etc.

Fascism.

Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.

– Benito Mussolini/Giovanni Gentile 1931

My perception of Fascism is thusly not one of Nazism; though the terms are oftentimes used interchangably, and “fascist” often serving as a sort of curse word in many political circles. The theories of fascism are not racist; the individual’s origins are unimportant, only his service provided to the State matter.

Kevin Passmore (2002), claims:

There are sufficient similarities between Fascism and Nazism to make it worthwhile applying the concept of fascism to both. In Italy and Germany a movement came to power that sought to create national unity through the repression of national enemies and the incorporation of all classes and both genders into a permanently mobilized nation.

But ultimately this is based upon very vague terminology. Many countries have aspired to unite a nation-state, and during war-time this has been attempted with varying success. Nazism came to borrow certain elements from Fascism, but they were not the same movement, and in whereas Nazism was openly racist, Fascism incorporated meritocracy as one of its main tenets.