Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Alucard483 · 05-20-2008 09:11 PM

Hmmmm, usually nobody knows what that is. I will admit it, im a nazi, however this is in the political sense. I do NOT IN ANY WAY OR FORM support or condone the holocaust, Invasion of poland and all that shit

happy fool called Nigel · 05-21-2008 05:47 AM

Alucard483 Wrote:Hmmmm, usually nobody knows what that is. I will admit it, im a nazi, however this is in the political sense. I do NOT IN ANY WAY OR FORM support or condone the holocaust, Invasion of poland and all that shit

So that means you are pro-school.

The Nazi political philosophies are based around brainwashing and forced compliance. School is a lrage part of it.

TheDelinquent · 05-21-2008 06:45 AM

I'm actually pretty curious about what this whole "national socialism" belief means. I'm not going to assert that you're pro or anti anything, but what made you decide on that particular political orientation?

Alucard483 · 05-21-2008 09:05 AM

happy fool called Nigel Wrote:So that means you are pro-school.
The Nazi political philosophies are based around brainwashing and forced compliance. School is a lrage part of it.

Yes, I am pro LEARNING, however I am NOT pro compulsitry schooling. I think that school should be manditory through 5th grade because that is becuase you actually learn things you use in grade school. Like basic math, english and common things like that. After that I do not think that school should be manditory, just offered. The school after that would also be more secialized and the student shooses what they think they might want to do for a living and take classes that pertain to THIER job rather than a million and two useles thing you will never even think about agin.

The basic philosiphy of facsism/nazism is puting the common wealth before the individual. Meaning that some freedoms are sacrificed while others are gained, such as less trade to increase the number of jobs in a nation. Thus more jobs are available to everyone however less of a variety is untile a new buisness is opend. Heavyer regulation is alo put on buisnesses. Military service is also highly encouraged with tax breaks. While free speech is still there it is to a somewhat lesser extent. For instance if a religion is considered dangerous *cough* scientology *cough* the government moves to scilence it as to protect the future of citizens. While some may think it is great there is a greater number opf people that stand to be hurt by it. Public befor the person. things like that.

youvebeenthunderstruck · 05-21-2008 09:11 AM

Alucard, just shut the fuck up.

Alucard483 · 05-21-2008 11:01 AM

how about you shut the fuck up and get a tolerant viewpoint. I dont mention my affiliation for exactly this reason, assholes like you getting bent out of shape over trivial shit. I dont persicute you because you hate bush and chase you down about it, I say hes actually doing a good job and NORMALLY leave it at that. Id appreciate it if you grew up and did the same

youvebeenthunderstruck · 05-21-2008 11:02 AM

Really, a tolerant viewpoint? Such as "if you don't believe in the existence of god, you're a dumbass"?

Alucard483 · 05-21-2008 11:09 AM

That wasnt started by me. I think its a pointless argument that can be neither dissproved nor proved and thus I accept not beliving in god, however when somone calls me a dumbass on somthing I belive strongly in then I will call them a dumbass right back

Tasty Waffles · 05-21-2008 11:09 AM

What the hell i going on. Your both giving me wedgies

Alucard483 · 05-21-2008 11:14 AM

I stated my political allignment and thunder as usual found fault in it and called me out. Like always

Tasty Waffles · 05-21-2008 11:16 AM

O, hes done that to me before, BUT I DONT CARE IF PEOPLE ARGUE WITH ME

TheDelinquent · 05-21-2008 11:21 AM

youvebeenthunderstruck Wrote:Alucard, just shut the fuck up.

Now that's just impolite, youvebeenthunderstruck.

"The basic philosophy of fascism/Nazism is putting the common wealth before the individual."

So what is the 'common wealth' anyway? Do you mean wealth in an economic sense, a social sense, an ideological sense... or all of the above?

"some freedoms are sacrificed while others are gained, such as less trade to increase the number of jobs in a nation."

Do more jobs indicate more freedom?

"For instance if a religion is considered dangerous *cough* Scientology *cough* the government moves to silence it as to protect the future of citizens"

What qualifies a religion or person for the denigration of "dangerous"?
Is it beliefs alone, or the actions that result that merit concern?

Also, I am assuming "national socialism" is also a form of nationalism. If that is the case, how does one nation qualify as the public? Wouldn't the only thing a nazi support (logically) be the UN, or arguably an even more world-government body?

Thanks for the honest answers.

Tasty Waffles · 05-21-2008 11:22 AM

HOLY FUCK, STOP ARGUING

TheDelinquent · 05-21-2008 11:36 AM

magic Wrote:HOLY FUCK, STOP ARGUING

Why?

Tasty Waffles · 05-21-2008 11:40 AM

For some reason im getting pissed

TheDelinquent · 05-21-2008 11:50 AM

There's an arrow near the top left of your browser window called the "back button". If you can't locate it, try the red one with the "x" at the top right.

Tasty Waffles · 05-21-2008 01:09 PM

Yeah, but evrytime they argue, it comes up as a post, so i check it

happy fool called Nigel · 05-21-2008 10:58 PM

Alucard483 Wrote:
happy fool called Nigel Wrote:So that means you are pro-school.
The Nazi political philosophies are based around brainwashing and forced compliance. School is a lrage part of it.
Yes, I am pro LEARNING, however I am NOT pro compulsitry schooling. I think that school should be manditory through 5th grade because that is becuase you actually learn things you use in grade school. Like basic math, english and common things like that. After that I do not think that school should be manditory, just offered. The school after that would also be more secialized and the student shooses what they think they might want to do for a living and take classes that pertain to THIER job rather than a million and two useles thing you will never even think about agin.

The basic philosiphy of facsism/nazism is puting the common wealth before the individual. Meaning that some freedoms are sacrificed while others are gained, such as less trade to increase the number of jobs in a nation. Thus more jobs are available to everyone however less of a variety is untile a new buisness is opend. Heavyer regulation is alo put on buisnesses. Military service is also highly encouraged with tax breaks. While free speech is still there it is to a somewhat lesser extent. For instance if a religion is considered dangerous *cough* scientology *cough* the government moves to scilence it as to protect the future of citizens. While some may think it is great there is a greater number opf people that stand to be hurt by it. Public befor the person. things like that.

Why though? What if everyone took care of themselves?

Also, there are ways to balance the to you know.

Alucard483 · 05-22-2008 05:31 AM

TheDelinquent Wrote:So what is the 'common wealth' anyway? Do you mean wealth in an economic sense, a social sense, an ideological sense... or all of the above?

the common wealth means the people at large in an economic, religious and other things that effect the community indirectly such as goods available

TheDelinquent Wrote:Do more jobs indicate more freedom?

If more jobs are available then more people will have work therefor money. If an individual has more money then more luxurys and things that the 'unpriviliged' can not afford are suddenly made more attainable

TheDelinquent Wrote:What qualifies a religion or person for the denigration of "dangerous"?
Is it beliefs alone, or the actions that result that merit concern?

Most things are left alone, my referance to scientology was that they have policy to harm ALL others that are not part of the religion. So even though a percentage of people may follow it it is still considered a danger to the common good thus eliminated. If you ment such things as protests, most are told to disband if it looks as though damage to the public may occure such as the burning of public property and graphitti along with other such violent acts. The killing of people is never encouraged and ussually only implmented in riots and other incidents in which the offenders are armed.

TheDelinquent Wrote:Also, I am assuming "national socialism" is also a form of nationalism. If that is the case, how does one nation qualify as the public? Wouldn't the only thing a nazi support (logically) be the UN, or arguably an even more world-government body?

Thanks for the honest answers.

The belifes are that the citizens of that nation come before the citizens of other nations. Thus, most fascist goeverments ally with very few others as it creates a conundrum of do what is in the citizens best intrest or help an ally in need and possibly put citizens in a bad sittuation such as war.

TheDelinquent · 05-22-2008 07:49 AM

"the common wealth means the people at large in an economic, religious and other things that effect the community indirectly such as goods available"

So economically and ideologically.

"If more jobs are available then more people will have work therefor money. If an individual has more money then more luxurys and things that the 'unprivileged' can not afford are suddenly made more attainable"

Two questions. What do the people who work to make the money get paid? It doesn't exactly grow on trees. If they are being payed fairly, wouldn't they be entitled to whatever money they themselves decide to make?
And are 'more luxurys and things' the same thing as liberty?

"If you meant such things as protests, most are told to disband if it looks as though damage to the public may occur such as the burning of public property and graphitti along with other such violent acts. The killing of people is never encouraged and usually only implemented in riots and other incidents in which the offenders are armed."

As long as peaceful protests aren't touched, I could certainly see the logic in that. But then again, if what they are protesting is in nature a violent or non-peaceful thing, it would hardly be fair to hold one aspect of the public to a different standard to any other.

"The beliefs are that the citizens of that nation come before the citizens of other nations. Thus, most fascist governments ally with very few others as it creates a conundrum of do what is in the citizens best interest or help an ally in need and possibly put citizens in a bad situation such as war."

See that's what I'm having trouble with. Each human is something like .999999% identical to every other (don't quote me there), and if you use public to mean 'the set of all humans', nationalism seems to be self-refuting. If you think there should be a government, and hold everyone to the same standard, you can only ever argue for a one-world government. And how do wars start unless two governments disagree with one another?
It seems to me that any fascist would have to be anti-nation, and pro-entireEarth.

Alucard483 · 05-22-2008 08:22 AM

TheDelinquent Wrote:Two questions. What do the people who work to make the money get paid? It doesn't exactly grow on trees. If they are being payed fairly, wouldn't they be entitled to whatever money they themselves decide to make?
And are 'more luxurys and things' the same thing as liberty?

What do you mean by make the money?

TheDelinquent Wrote:But then again, if what they are protesting is in nature a violent or non-peaceful thing, it would hardly be fair to hold one aspect of the public to a different standard to any other.

Situation please

TheDelinquent Wrote:See that's what I'm having trouble with. Each human is something like .999999% identical to every other (don't quote me there), and if you use public to mean 'the set of all humans', nationalism seems to be self-refuting. If you think there should be a government, and hold everyone to the same standard, you can only ever argue for a one-world government. And how do wars start unless two governments disagree with one another?
It seems to me that any fascist would have to be anti-nation, and pro-entireEarth.

When I use the word public I mean the people of one country specificly of thier country/nationality. Meaning that a fascist government isnt exactly a charity organization, they dont really give aid to other nations and if it is not affecting thier citizens then they are probobly not going to do anything.

happy fool called Nigel · 05-22-2008 09:03 AM

"the burning of public property and graphitti along with other such violent acts"

So if they were destroying things you would destroy them?

I think your ideas are creepy, and although you very strongly believe them, I think that you should try to consider three things.

1. You'll never stop disorder. It's part of the cycle.

2. This idea of keeping people in line for their own good is hypocritical. Keeping them under your control is bad for them. Not everyone is thew same. Everyone has the right to make their own choices. Who would make you boss anyways?

3. If you try to implement this society, you will have people like me who would in fact resort to revolt. I mean that with every fiber of my being. (if you try to do this in America I will fucking kill you, I am a Native American as well as an anarchist.

p.s. Delinquent rocks.

i-am-the-liquor · 05-22-2008 10:39 AM

i miss canada

TheDelinquent · 05-22-2008 01:55 PM

"What do you mean by make the money?"

Just what I say - whoever chops down the trees, grinds them into material malleable to human will, collects all the ink necessary, and runs the factory that puts it all together, makes the money.
What are these people payed to make that money? If the money denotes value equivalent to the labor expended to deserve it, wouldn't the makers of the money deserve to be paid the exact amount of money they produced? Excuse me if that seems a bit too socialist, but I do believe that cost is the limit of price.

"Situation please"

Setting: United States, right now.
Topic of protest: War in Iraq.

"When I use the word public I mean the people of one country specificly of thier country/nationality. Meaning that a fascist government isnt exactly a charity organization, they don't really give aid to other nations and if it is not affecting their citizens then they are probobly not going to do anything."

Well when I say private I mean the people of one household specifically of the household... c'mon. That's not what public means. At least not to me, but whatever. Potato, patato.
Why globalist government translates to charity organization is beyond me. Would or would not the goal of a just fascist State be worldwide uniform implementation?

happy fool called Nigel Wrote:p.s. Delinquent rocks.

Solidarity, comrade!

Alucard483 · 05-23-2008 12:31 AM

happy fool called Nigel Wrote:So if they were destroying things you would destroy them?

Subdue, not kill

happy fool called Nigel Wrote:1. You'll never stop disorder. It's part of the cycle.
2. This idea of keeping people in line for their own good is hypocritical. Keeping them under your control is bad for them. Not everyone is thew same. Everyone has the right to make their own choices. Who would make you boss anyways?
3. If you try to implement this society, you will have people like me who would in fact resort to revolt. I mean that with every fiber of my being. (if you try to do this in America I will fucking kill you, I am a Native American as well as an anarchist.

1: No shit, however limiting the extent of disorder is possible
2: You make it sound as if people would be given no freedom. What I said is that they would not be allowed to cause trouble that can grow to hurt other people.
3: You would have just as many who can not live without the stability of government. That plus I think you are already biased becasue the media has brainwashed you into the belife that nazism is the devil.

Alucard483 · 05-23-2008 03:09 AM

TheDelinquent Wrote:"What do you mean by make the money?"

Just what I say - whoever chops down the trees, grinds them into material malleable to human will, collects all the ink necessary, and runs the factory that puts it all together, makes the money.
What are these people payed to make that money? If the money denotes value equivalent to the labor expended to deserve it, wouldn't the makers of the money deserve to be paid the exact amount of money they produced? Excuse me if that seems a bit too socialist, but I do believe that cost is the limit of price.

Ok, I see where you are coming from, you are confusing communism with socialism. Socialsim is capitalism with more government regulation. I have no idea what they would be paid, I would exspect they get paid what our mint workers sould be paid.

TheDelinquent Wrote:Setting: United States, right now.
Topic of protest: War in Iraq.

Lets say its just people standing around with signs passing out fliers and singing and shit. They have the right to do that as freedom of speech and exspression has not violated anyone elses or government property. If they start to detain and 'harrass' passers by they will probably be told to stop actions such as vindictivly yelling into the faces of said plaintifs and if they do not comply they will be told to desperse for the day nocompliance is met with riot gass. If property is damaged such as smashed windsheilds or rocks through windows the incient will be treated as though a riot is starting, Police will armthemselves accordingly, tell the protestors to stop all action and dissperse one last time, if they do not comply tear gas will be unilized, nonlethal force is greenlighted and all remaining citizens will pay fines and property damage. If the police is met with armed resistance and the protestors attempt to assault the police the incident is proclaimed a riot, lethal force is go.

TheDelinquent Wrote:Would or would not the goal of a just fascist State be worldwide uniform implementation?

Yes, a facist state DOES desire to unite the world under its one rule. Thats kind of how WWII started. I do not think that world conquest is needed though. However most fascist states DO have a very good military force.

TheDelinquent · 05-23-2008 05:22 AM

Alucard483 Wrote:Ok, I see where you are coming from, you are confusing communism with socialism. Socialism is capitalism with more government regulation. I have no idea what they would be paid, I would expect they get paid what our mint workers should be paid.

I'm not confusing anything with anything. Truth be told, I've heard more definitions of socialism than I care to recant. Your definition of socialism is what most socialists call State-capitalism. Though socialism is kind of the intelligent design of the political realm to begin with. Capitalism sucks, capitalism is inefficient, therefore socialism. Darwin was a douche, evolution bites, therefore God. But everyone comes to the table with a different God, and everyone comes with a different economic prescription.

Alucard483 Wrote:Lets say its just people standing around with signs passing out fliers and singing and shit. They have the right to do that as freedom of speech and expression has not violated anyone else's or government property. If they start to detain and 'harass' passers by they will probably be told to stop actions such as vindictively yelling into the faces of said plaintiffs and if they do not comply they will be told to disperse for the day noncompliance is met with riot gass. If property is damaged such as smashed windshields or rocks through windows the incident will be treated as though a riot is starting, Police will arm themselves accordingly, tell the protesters to stop all action and disperse one last time, if they do not comply tear gas will be utilized, nonlethal force is green lighted and all remaining citizens will pay fines and property damage. If the police is met with armed resistance and the protesters attempt to assault the police the incident is proclaimed a riot, lethal force is go.

Right, but they are violently protesting a violent war your government is commiting. To persecute them then is to hold them to a wildly different standard than the rest of the public.

Alucard483 Wrote:Yes, a fascist state DOES desire to unite the world under its one rule. Thats kind of how WWII started. I do not think that world conquest is needed though. However most fascist states DO have a very good military force.

Right, so you think there should be world rule. That's fine, but what happens when the fascist State YOU support meets the fascist State some other country supports? Nationalism does not seem to be a very effecient means to the end.

happy fool called Nigel · 05-23-2008 05:45 AM

Alucard483 Wrote:
happy fool called Nigel Wrote:So if they were destroying things you would destroy them?
Subdue, not kill

happy fool called Nigel Wrote:1. You'll never stop disorder. It's part of the cycle.
2. This idea of keeping people in line for their own good is hypocritical. Keeping them under your control is bad for them. Not everyone is thew same. Everyone has the right to make their own choices. Who would make you boss anyways?
3. If you try to implement this society, you will have people like me who would in fact resort to revolt. I mean that with every fiber of my being. (if you try to do this in America I will fucking kill you, I am a Native American as well as an anarchist.
1: No shit, however limiting the extent of disorder is possible
2: You make it sound as if people would be given no freedom. What I said is that they would not be allowed to cause trouble that can grow to hurt other people.
3: You would have just as many who can not live without the stability of government. That plus I think you are already biased becasue the media has brainwashed you into the belife that nazism is the devil.

Wow... Me brainwashjed by the media... That'll be the day. I've been brainwashed by learning about the Nazi party. It's pretty easy to see how fucked up it was.

"Holocaust"

Mean anything to you?

Alucard483 · 05-23-2008 05:52 AM

TheDelinquent Wrote:Right, but they are violently protesting a violent war your government is commiting. To persecute them then is to hold them to a wildly different standard than the rest of the public.

If by 'the rest of the public' you mean military then yes. To conquer, defend, help whatever killing is a nessesity, there is no way around it.

TheDelinquent Wrote:Right, so you think there should be world rule. That's fine, but what happens when the fascist State YOU support meets the fascist State some other country supports? Nationalism does not seem to be a very effecient means to the end.

Sure, that would be great but highly unrealistic and probably cause to many problems in the long run. Beisides most fascims ally with other ones. However that dosnt answer the question. If my Facist nation was in danger of nation two war is almost inevitable if nation two did not want an alliance.

TheDelinquent · 05-23-2008 06:10 AM

"If by 'the rest of the public' you mean military then yes. To conquer, defend, help whatever killing is a nessesity, there is no way around it."

Well, then you're a hypocrite, by your own admission.
If killing is a necessity in fighting the war, you can't argue it's not a necessity for those protesting it.

"Sure, that would be great but highly unrealistic and probably cause to many problems in the long run. Besides most fascisms ally with other ones. However that doesn't answer the question. If my fascist nation was in danger of nation two war is almost inevitable if nation two did not want an alliance."

Well then both of our plans are highly unrealistic. You say war is inevitable, I say it's unnecessary. You say killing is a requirement, I say it is the worst of all transgressions. I've learned all I needed from this conversation.

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchi ... rooms.html

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Do you love your country?
Author	Message