#37551 - 04/12/10 08:25 PM
Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian
[Re: Diavolo]
|
MatthewJ1
member
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 529
Loc: Australia
|
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: MatthewJ1]
|
Diavolo
Moderator
stalker
Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 3774
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
#37735 - 04/17/10 11:58 AM
Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian
[Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
|
Diavolo
Moderator
stalker
Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 3774
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
#37752 - 04/17/10 05:08 PM
Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian
[Re: TheInsane]
|
Doomsage680
member
Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 109
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
|
|
|
|
|
#37756 - 04/17/10 06:13 PM
Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian
[Re: TheInsane]
|
Doomsage680
member
Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 109
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
|
|
|
|
|
#37879 - 04/19/10 05:45 PM
Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian
[Re: TheInsane]
|
Fabiano
member
Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
|
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
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, Mercury_Templar, fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Morgan, Bacchae, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
