Nazi photos Hitlers support for the Church

[kılıç_mehmet]

Friend, fascism is nothing more than an expression of nationalistic tendencies, represented in an anti-communist manner. In Italy, it surfaced with an Italian image, and since it surfaced there with that name, it was commonplace to call all similar nationalistic ideologies with that name. They were all founded on European soil, and had perhaps common interests, but that's all about it man.
The fact that those countries were catholic is due to history, nothing more. For example, Japan, a major axis power was Shinto, not catholic, where the Emperor was the head of the church. Yet similar things were not seen in neither Germany, nor in Italy, again major axis powers, they didn't even have monarchies, while Britain, whose ruler is also the head of the Church lacked such things due to its ethnic heterogeneity. Similarly for France and Spain, while Spain did resist communism in their own lands, it took them a bit more effort to rid this vile abomination out of the minds of their people.
Well, I don't think that anti-communism(also called fascism by communists, regardless of it's proper name, whether Phalangist, Gardist or etc.) is a "catholic-thing".

I would doubt that Japan was a fascist regime during that time. I would considere it to be a extremly nationalist military hunta. And I do not think that the resistance against communism is the only thing which defines fascism as different from nationalism. Racism is not required in nationalism while it pops up in every fascist movement and a nationalist can still be a democrat, constitutional monarchist or republican whilest fascism requires totalitarianism and insists on it`s right to rule authoritarian.

Of course they weren't "fascist". Fascist is simply a name that is applied to every non-communist ideology by the leftists. The fact is that fascism only came to power in Italy. In Japan, there simply was Japanese nationalism, nothing more. I don't know the japanese name for the ideology though.
Fascism is in itself, nothing more than Italian nationalism, that was, in it's time, opposed to the largest internationalist movement of the time, being communism. Similarly, the other nationalist movements of the time had the same goal, opposing communism, but the actual ideology changed, whereas Fascism was built on the Italian identity, National socialism was built on another identity. In itself, as I said, they differed, but the main idea behind them was simply being a national ideology, as opposed to an imported, internationalist agenda like communism.

And you're right on one thing, and that not every nationalist agenda puts an emphasis on "race" or ethnicity for that matter, as with the nations in Europe which are not descendants of a single ethnicity or race, such as the French and Spanish, though for Germans, who have a history that goes beyond the dark ages in Europe, the national identity was inseperable from the racial identity. Same for my ideology, we Turks are an old people, we have a history that goes a while back, and we do not call ourselves with the name of another people, and speak the language of another like the French(named after the Germanic Franks, speaking the language of the Latins, and living on Celtic soil). For us, being a Turk is a matter of blood, as much as a matter of culture and self-identification. Cultural nationalism can apply for certain nations, while it certainly does not apply to nations like Germans, Greeks, all manner of Slavs, Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Iranians, and etc.

Democracy for nationalists...Is somewhat like a double-edged sword, you see. I speak for my own group, that we do abide by the laws regarding elections, similarly, abiding by all laws that come with it, but we are strongly opposed to the multi-party system. One particular slogan of ours is "Turkish nationalism will bring about the end of democracy". Although it is true that in Turkey, the first nationalist government built the country as a democratic country, our founding fathers had not yet realized that democracy could be used to cover all manners of harmful ideologies and enemies of the state.

So now, we're debating on what kind of a system would be more beneficial, to replace democracy with. For us, democracy is a tool, rather than a goal, you see, it's the same for all nationalists.
I mean, what purpose would a nationalistic government serve, if an economic/social liberal goverment could overtake it with an election?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

As the good Lord says, we must mindlessly submit to authority, for all authority as put into place by Him. Romans chapter 13.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistle...13_01.html

[kılıç_mehmet]

As the good Lord says, we must mindlessly submit to authority, for all authority as put into place by Him. Romans chapter 13.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistle...13_01.html

And you do, friend.
You do. However in a nationalist government, of course, the authority is the nation. Do you really think that the NSDAP could rule without the majority of the population backing it up? I don't think so. No authority can stand before the might of the people. If the people disagree with a certain authority, they tear it down, and replace it. Democracy was thought to be a rather peaceful solution to this problem, as in opposition to popular revolutions, it was said that a ruling body would be elected and would rule for a certain time, before another election would take place. But instead of bringing about a better regime, that tried to correct its flaws, it brought about a number of political parties that were just hell-bent on fooling the people as good as they could in the said period, in order to win the next elections by lies, tricks and all manners of subfertuge.
In short, democracy only serves to fool people, by playing on their selfishness.

[Brian37]

Koolaid comes in many flavors and leads to fascism because of the marketing of a utopia in a evolutionary reality that will never result in a utopia.

Religious books are WEAPONS and all should be treated as such, but so should nationalism and political ideology.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Koolaid comes in many flavors and leads to fascism because of the marketing of a utopia in a evolutionary reality that will never result in a utopia.

Religious books are WEAPONS and all should be treated as such, but so should nationalism and political ideology.

People are the real weapons. Nationalism aims to channel the minds of the people to a common purpose, may it be war, industrialization, or to save funds for future use(of course, meaning, less wages). As liberalism celebrates diversity, we believe that diversity in mind is the death of a nation, as other nations prey upon the small pockets that are divided by too many different thoughts.

[Brian37]

Koolaid comes in many flavors and leads to fascism because of the marketing of a utopia in a evolutionary reality that will never result in a utopia.

Religious books are WEAPONS and all should be treated as such, but so should nationalism and political ideology.

People are the real weapons. Nationalism aims to channel the minds of the people to a common purpose, may it be war, industrialization, or to save funds for future use(of course, meaning, less wages). As liberalism celebrates diversity, we believe that diversity in mind is the death of a nation, as other nations prey upon the small pockets that are divided by too many different thoughts.

People are flawed in their perceptions, the idea of calling labels the weapon is entirely to GET humans to see individuals as such, labels are weapons because humans don't want to see their own perceptions as flawed.

[kılıç_mehmet]

People are the real weapons. Nationalism aims to channel the minds of the people to a common purpose, may it be war, industrialization, or to save funds for future use(of course, meaning, less wages). As liberalism celebrates diversity, we believe that diversity in mind is the death of a nation, as other nations prey upon the small pockets that are divided by too many different thoughts.

People are flawed in their perceptions, the idea of calling labels the weapon is entirely to GET humans to see individuals as such, labels are weapons because humans don't want to see their own perceptions as flawed.

Well, I don't label anyone as any different than what they are.
Nor do they really deny any accusations I throw at the ones that I do label.

[bladevalant546]

Well, it cannot be used to manipulate a people over a certain degree.
For example, if he were to use religion as his primary tool to come to power, people would be quite reluctant to actually spill christian blood in wars, or in that case, would revert from the German national identity to a simple Christian identity that knows no boundaries in terms of race, nation or language.

You might be surprised. The American Civil War was fueled by a strong abolitionist movement instigated by religious Quakers. Their preachers fueled the movement from the pulpit.

In the South the preachers fired up the populace by using the same religion. Things got more and more heated by all the religious arguments and firey language that they all thought they were morally superior to the other side.

What happened next was the bloodiest war America has ever experienced. Left the South in desolation for a century after killing 1/4 of it's military aged men and maiming another 1/4 of them.

The South, in crushing poverty, turned to religion for consolation, and is currently causing most of the problems with this country based on that religion. It's the heart of the Republican empire.

You are right, however it is democrat empire, republicans have just been hijacked much like democrats today.

[Big Blue Sky]

Sorry If this is older that 30 days but this is kinda cool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDXAaKnLaA

My favourite was that he regulary took speed

[Chas]

I would doubt that Japan was a fascist regime during that time. I would considere it to be a extremly nationalist military hunta. And I do not think that the resistance against communism is the only thing which defines fascism as different from nationalism. Racism is not required in nationalism while it pops up in every fascist movement and a nationalist can still be a democrat, constitutional monarchist or republican whilest fascism requires totalitarianism and insists on it`s right to rule authoritarian.

Of course they weren't "fascist". Fascist is simply a name that is applied to every non-communist ideology by the leftists. The fact is that fascism only came to power in Italy. In Japan, there simply was Japanese nationalism, nothing more. I don't know the japanese name for the ideology though.
Fascism is in itself, nothing more than Italian nationalism, that was, in it's time, opposed to the largest internationalist movement of the time, being communism. Similarly, the other nationalist movements of the time had the same goal, opposing communism, but the actual ideology changed, whereas Fascism was built on the Italian identity, National socialism was built on another identity. In itself, as I said, they differed, but the main idea behind them was simply being a national ideology, as opposed to an imported, internationalist agenda like communism.

And you're right on one thing, and that not every nationalist agenda puts an emphasis on "race" or ethnicity for that matter, as with the nations in Europe which are not descendants of a single ethnicity or race, such as the French and Spanish, though for Germans, who have a history that goes beyond the dark ages in Europe, the national identity was inseperable from the racial identity. Same for my ideology, we Turks are an old people, we have a history that goes a while back, and we do not call ourselves with the name of another people, and speak the language of another like the French(named after the Germanic Franks, speaking the language of the Latins, and living on Celtic soil). For us, being a Turk is a matter of blood, as much as a matter of culture and self-identification. Cultural nationalism can apply for certain nations, while it certainly does not apply to nations like Germans, Greeks, all manner of Slavs, Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Iranians, and etc.

Democracy for nationalists...Is somewhat like a double-edged sword, you see. I speak for my own group, that we do abide by the laws regarding elections, similarly, abiding by all laws that come with it, but we are strongly opposed to the multi-party system. One particular slogan of ours is "Turkish nationalism will bring about the end of democracy". Although it is true that in Turkey, the first nationalist government built the country as a democratic country, our founding fathers had not yet realized that democracy could be used to cover all manners of harmful ideologies and enemies of the state.

So now, we're debating on what kind of a system would be more beneficial, to replace democracy with. For us, democracy is a tool, rather than a goal, you see, it's the same for all nationalists.
I mean, what purpose would a nationalistic government serve, if an economic/social liberal goverment could overtake it with an election?

All of the strongly nationalist countries you refer to started bloody, destructive wars and committed atrocities in their nation's name.

Maybe you should re-think your gung-ho nationalism.