Page 5 of 7 « First<34567>
Topic Options
#37551 - 04/12/10 08:25 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



The meaning of Fascism is the meaning of the word as defined by scholars, politicians and other stakeholders (who first conceived this word and determined its specific meaning in the 1920’s and 1930’s); and a specific type of political, social and military practice, which took place during the 1920’s and 1930’s.

The notion of an organic state is considered to be one of the components of Fascism, particularly the content of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, but it is not Fascism. Irrationalism, nationalism, aspects of European history and questions related to racial superiority or the myth of the blood were also considered key components.

To use the word Fascism (without careful efforts at re – meaning or re – articulating the content), in any context, is to draw on and dwell within that meaning, which the word received from its original source. It is also to draw on all aspects of the words constitutive components, including racism, irrationalism, nationalism and the organic state.

The organic state itself is not Fascism. Words can be re - interpreted and re – meant, but the onus is on the one who is re – interpreting and altering the meaning of the word to provide the new definition and the why of the re – interpretation and then to get some sort of agreement, or at least understanding, on the new definition.

In relation to the word Satanism: this word was re – interpreted and its revised or new meaning was very carefully explained through a series of works, public statements and interviews by Dr. LaVey and others who understood the new meaning and could explain it.

There is a reference made to Satanism or the S-word in the above post. On, the one hand, the claim is made that the S-word has not been used in relation to the conversation about Fascism in any prior posts. Then, in the very next paragraph, the point is made that Fascism is there for them and that this had been explained before. This dodgy relationship between Satanism and Fascism is addressed all the way along in these posts.

Our current political arrangements are not going to be overturned in favour of Fascism no matter how the meaning of that word is re – articulated and this is definitely for the best. It is stated that might and victory are the basis of right, if this is so, than the Fascist’s lost all of their rights at the end of the war.

I strongly disagree with the presumption that honest working people who are actually working hard, aspiring to better themselves and paying societies bills need to be regarded as pawns and objects to be controlled by some Fascist authorita

Top
#37573 - 04/13/10 02:54 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Thus in short; you don't like the fact that I use fascism differently than you, the dictionary and the majority and therefor I should either adapt to your standard of interpretation or completely explain what I talk about?
If I'm not mistaking, I gave the very basics on which my views are based upon in the previous post to Fabiano but it seems that might have required too much effort.

Don't be offended that, even when I post this in public, I will admit that I am not necessarily communicating with you. In that context you should also see my use of "us" and "them", as I have explained before. It's not because I talk about a group of people that I therefor talk about Laveyan satanists or satanists in general. I think that might be causing the confusion here.
Whether or not Laveyan Satanism goes hand in hand with fascism isn't something which really interests me. If you think it doesn't, good for you but a yes or no riddle doesn't really keep me awake at night.

About the presumption of those honest hard working people.
Look, most out there are closer to cattle than us. Oops, there's that "us" again. ;\) There is raw material which might get somewhere when guided but a lot will never get anywhere and their sole purpose is to fulfill our needs. It doesn't imply one therefor has to treat them in a dishonorable manner (if they don't deserve it) but one should never forget they are a different species. I don't consider myself equal to them but if anyone else wants to bow down to their level, let them feel free.

D.

Top
#37579 - 04/13/10 07:26 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Diavolo, you have provided a link to a book about your views, which I would like to read when I get a chance.

I am certainly interested in how the doctrine of Fascism may have changed over time and how your views are shaped.

I am negative about Fascism as you have probably surmised from my posts. One reason: I always remember that Australian, American and English forces (including my own family members) were risking their lives to fight German and Italian Fascists. Too many died as a result of Fascism.

I believe that water should be allowed to seek its own level naturally, but I believe the process should take place within a more open and less regimented form of society, where elitism is exercised somewhat more humanly and where necessary illusions are active.

I would be interested in what other members think.

Top
#37585 - 04/14/10 12:58 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
Fascism, as does all statism, operates off of the concept that some people cannot be trusted with freedom because they are somehow inferior.
While there are certainly criminals and the mentally ill, this dichotomy is a simplistic way to look at humanity. All people are capable of achieving their happiness through the natural abilities that have evolved into our being, and when any state attempts to limit freedom in order to enhance it for others, it increases the problem.
Satanists aren't elite because we are the only ones capable of looking at reality objectively and doing as we please- we are simply more capable of succeeding in our environment because we hold the truth as an absolute value- the truth being an unforgiving, materialistic animal world. This isn't a bad thing.

I will read that book you posted the link to Diavolo, but historical precedent has shown fascism to be a major fail. To evoke Ayn Rand, "Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off."
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37592 - 04/14/10 05:47 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
If the so called “Fascism” being promoted here in this thread is different than the Fascism advocated by people such as Hitler, Mussolini, Huber, Gentile, Rocco, Rosenberg etc. etc. than maybe some other word or term should be used to define it. Maybe a better definition of this strange new doctrine needs to be articulated as well.


I think I shared my view enough on the matter at hand in different posts throughout the forum but couldnt resist on comment on it again. Basically Im not for unlimited personal freedoms for every man. Not every man is capable of dealing with it. Humans in groups certainly arent. I think a strong government is required for things not to get out of hand (not saying it cant get out of hand to the other extreme though).

Satanism generally doesnt care about every mans freedoms (or politics) but to create an envoiroment where the individual Satanist will flourish. I believe that a country ruled by some of the fascist doctrines would provide such a thing. For one, crime would decrease. Mussolinis Italy managed to pretty much destroy the mafia for instance. Then again there are parts I dont like which includes colonisation - which was indeed a great part of original fascism.

Not all fascist regimes have been failures but there was a little thing called WW2 which naturally put an end to a lot of the progress some countries had made as fascist countries. I put the blame on Hitler for wanting to much to soon. As we know the victors write the history so even though some countries wasnt bad under fascism it is portrayed as the worst thing ever because of the war and because of the nazis (mainly).

And while on the topic your quotes are mostly from national socialists which I would actually put in a seperate branch from fascism since it is based on blood and thus race. Fascism (Mussolini) never really had that as a foundation (they prefered cultural nationalism which one could become a part of despite being jewish for example - Mussolini had a longtime jewish lover for example). Sadly they felt they had to please Hitler because of the unfortunate alliance they made with Germany. Before that alliance Italy was indeed doing very well under fascist rule and did not include hitlers anti-semitism or racism.

And indeed even democratic countries in the 30's held anti-semitic and racist views. The war did make people re-think and now many makes it sound as if they were always anti-race biology and it was only "those fascists" that were for it - which just isnt true.

This article is quite interesting. I may not agree with everything but considering the topic at hand its well worth a read: http://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=30&aid=242&template_file=printfriendly.html

Top
#37735 - 04/17/10 11:58 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I don't think the herd is much of a factor in the changes at a political level. The mass in itself is inert and only moves into a certain direction when pushed by others. What are behind changes are forces that take advantage of a certain climate. Those forces, which might consist out of groups of people, or individuals, which might or might not know the others or even consciously cooperate with them and not necessarily need to be in the same period of time, are not always that easily identified and often remain hidden to most. If you take the development of Nazi Germany, as an example, most put a causal link between Hitler and the Third Reich as if it all was his idea but if you'd explore most parts of the whole Nazi-culture and ideas, you'd be able to detect all kinds of influences which at a certain point made the realization of the Third Reich possible. As such, I do think the causal link between Hitler and Nazi Germany is not as important in this as all the factors that contributed to the very preparation of the soil. The mass its only role is being available to move in whatever direction it is desired.

I liked how you mentioned taxable drugs. I am pro drugs; nothing should be forbidden at that level, no matter what type or kind of drug, and it should be a normal consumer product, available to the public just like anything else. Many oppose this idea but knowing the World of Weakness pretty well, it got me thinking a while back and as a result, even changed my approach. At times we dream of a weapon or virus which would eliminate the weak and only make the strong survive. It's one of those daydreams which are pretty hard to realize. How are you even going to decide who is weak or strong is one of the very problems attached to it. The solution is actually very simple. Let them decide it for themselves. Let everything that can cause addiction be available out there under the principle of responsibility to the responsible. Let those that can handle it enjoy it and those that can't eliminate themselves; let them sink down the social level or eliminate themselves when they are weak enough. In doing so, you give people the opportunity to decide for themselves how far they want to take things or how much they can handle and at the same time, you clean up the gene pool and move the undesired toward the lower caste they were destined to be in to begin with. It's time we kick the saints of their pedestal and put the dealers and pushers on it. ;\)

D.

Top
#37738 - 04/17/10 02:43 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well said Dia. The arms that have been cradling the weak and inept could really be put to better use. Pulling that particular carpet out from under the herds feet would be a move towards natural selection, the tried and true method of social and species advancement. I have been singing this song for years, remove the stops from this stagnant basin and let the water flow where it will, seeking its own level.

\:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37746 - 04/17/10 04:03 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I am very unsure about the legalization of drugs. It may sound alright from the way you put it but there is no denying that drugs doesnt just effect the person taking it. If it was only a matter of individual choice I wouldnt really have a problem with it. Now however we have to deal with crimes related to drug-use that I personally would not like to see.

We have the basic statistic that the risk for unprovoced violence increases dramatically as well as dangers in traffic. On top of that we all know that drug abusers generally cant hold their own and thus arent able to work and earn money. This of course leads to stealing of different kinds. While the undeground illegal drug scene might dissappear we get a whole new set o problems when more people will start abusing drugs (because believe me if it was for anyone to buy legally it would increase).

I tend to think that its better to ban drugs and hit hard towards the (relatively) small group that deal with that kind of thing. This does of course require a stronger police force (or maybe even a specialized force dealing only with drugs).

Top
#37752 - 04/17/10 05:08 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
@TheInsane,

While your claim that a total legalization of drugs would likely lead to increased use, at least temporarily, there is significant evidence that decriminalization would have a much more beneficial impact than continuing criminalization. It turns out that letting people be responsible for themselves actually works- once drugs were decriminalized, the number of addicts seeking help for rehabilitation increased Four-fold. When a User is caught, it is no longer a criminal charge but an administrative offense, where the defendant sits in a circle with counselors at the same level, rather than being looked down upon by a Judge. The maximum amount of respect is given towards the individual, and they are offered help and evaluated carefully.
The report on this vastly successful political decision can be found here, provided by the libertarian CATO Institute.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

Satanists seem to like the idea that the weak will fall through the cracks and only the strong will remain. It turns out that more people than we might think are capable of helping themselves, given the right incentives and circumstances. Ultimately, a more individualist political philosophy is something that the masses can be convinced to adopt. Just give it time. Ron Paul is working hard, as are all libertarians pushing for a smarter national drug policy.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37755 - 04/17/10 05:34 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Well, naturally the reports from a liberal institute such as CATO will indicate that legalization of drugs is a positive thing. Frankly numbers and statistics can be twisted and turned in whatever ways desireable and since I willingly admit that Im not well read on the topic of drugs I decide to not get to involved in deeper discussion about it.

I would however recomend people to not just look at the information that organisations who are for legalization of drugs (or have an ideology closely related to pople who think so) produce. The same is of course true the other way around for all of us who take a stand against legalization.

Top
#37756 - 04/17/10 06:13 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
The Cato Institute's information comes from reports from the Portuguese government themselves. A government that made the decision not because it doubted an increase in crime(an increase that was insignificant and temporary), but solely as a way to combat the growing problems of addiction. Cato is libertarian, not liberal. And it was about decriminalization- a far cry from legalization.

Deciding to believe something with lack of proof, especially in spite of proof, is a stupid thing we call faith.
"Numbers and statistics can be twisted"
So we might as well ignore anything that doesn't satisfy out bias?

The same report also shows that marijuana use increased. It's not a biased report. It is, as we say, "fair and balanced".

If you wish not to lead this thread towards a tangent about drug policy, that is fine, but I cite it because the individualist philosophy of Satanism is not simply one I have accepted due to a self-interested preference- it is backed up by reason and scientific fact. In a world where I seek fulfillment through survival and pursuit of happiness, truth is a value that cannot be set aside.
That is why we cannot simply say, which do we prefer- anarchy, fascism, or communism- there is a system, or a range of, systems of government that are most effective and efficient in guaranteeing individual civil liberties. It is, in my educated opinion, a system of small government with proper, sensible laws. I do not expect to convince anyone of this without legitimate scientific, psychological, political and historical proof. But the conversation is for nothing if one is not willing to look objectively at the facts and admit when or where they may be mistaken. To do any less is intellectually dishonest, to deny one's full potential, and only takes away from the benefits of openly discussing systems of government and the policies that make them.

The definition of Insanity has been known as, "doing the same thing and expecting different results".
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37871 - 04/19/10 01:17 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
The reason I didnt want to turn this thread into a discussion on drugs was because I am not well read on the subject. If Portugals approach does work then Im all for it. If it does make the use of drugs less common thats great. We do have to consider the circumstances as well though and not try to think of an idea as universal.

Personally I tend to think that several political ideologies can work if properly executed. That way you could say Im no idealist in the Platonic sense of the word (and indeed most fascists would never agree with me on this). I do however have preferences on what I think is needed today and what direction I would like to see politics in general take. And of course my own philosophy includes certain ideas that makes me lean towards specific political ideas. Anti-egalitarianism for example.

Top
#37879 - 04/19/10 05:45 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Whether or not Laveyan Satanism goes hand in hand with fascism isn't something which really interests me.

Really? I'm confused then. I thought you was defending a strong state/government as an effective way to promote some values and assumed those values were quite satanic... Did I missed something?

Regarding the drugs, we all know the result of prohibition... Legalizing drugs is indeed a good way to eliminate the criminality around it and to eliminate the weaks who doesn't have a will strong enough for managing drugs usage.
I think this would happen quite "naturally" under anarchy so I do not see the need of an authority (again).

Top
#37941 - 04/20/10 04:24 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm not a Laveyan, so what the philosophy permits or not isn't any of my concerns. Let's leave it at that.

D.

Top
#37944 - 04/20/10 06:46 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
TheInsane, please explain why you are anti-egalitarian. It seems to me that after hundreds of years of organizations of all sorts developing and advancing, they have greatly moved towards egalitarianism, where more members are accountable and more gets done because individuals feel more personally involved. It seems to make sense that if one care's for their own interests above all, that participating in an organization they believe upholds their values will be more beneficial to the organization as well as themselves. I base this knowledge off of numerous things I have read and learned in an Organization Science class.

Top-down economic policies have certainly been shown to fail and cause more problems than does the free market in responding to problems itself. The greatest problems nations face occur when the government attempts to aid the market, and end when the top-down imbalance can no longer stand.
Sure hierarchy has its place, but indeed the government usually creates or utterly fails to address problems in which it takes an active involvement.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
Page 5 of 7 « First<34567>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.028 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.