Welcome to the New World Order - FEMA Joins the HomeLand Security

Well that sucks, I am also against gay enforcements.

 

You still here, Cyrus?

 

In your dream for the apotheosis of the state, I call you a fascist. Further, in your singular hatred and terror of Jews, I call you a nazi. As evidenced in this thread and others, in your mutually exclusive worldviews, I first call for my glasses, then a tall glass of Booker's.

 

I don't hate jews. Jeez, get a grip. My best friend's fiance is a jew and I'm the best man.

To deny the strangehold of the secular jewish elite is also ridiculous.

There are plenty of good Jews.

You're overly simplifying life. There are good and bad people of every race. They can show themselves in different ways.


That'd be like saying anyone who criticizes black gangs is racist against black people.

Sadly, Bill Cosby himself has been crucified by his own community for essentially that very reason.


Oh and my dream state is one where ALL power is relegated DOWN to the state level with perhaps a THOUSAND representatives with NO PARTIES (so people actually have to stand for something and work together for the good of the nation), and NO central figure leader. A confederate republic. With fascist elements to the economy. Fascism being the method of production that is most efficient via economies of scale with supply and demand considered, as opposed to capitalism where production is based on what is most profitable. I am also for family values and not allowing my next door neighbor to egally use narcotics and spread them to the local children, or have gay adoptions forced on my local churches.

What a radical viewpoint

 

hmm. makes sense. But that will not happen, there is way too much money changing hands in our capitalist system. The people in power are getting richer and richer, and they wouldn't change that for anything, they don't care if everyone else is suffering. The fact is the people in power control the worlds economy, they will never get rid of that control.

 

Hey, Cyrus255, why do you spend all your time ranting about politics on a webmaster forum? 95% of your posts have been these political rants. Wouldn't it make more sense to find a political board to do this? I find your decision to spend all your time ranting about politics on a webmaster forum to be perplexing.

 

Why preach to the choir?

Oh, and because of the slander of the F-word government, what I'm talking about is a popular movement that most americans agree with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerism

"In the United States, Producerists are distrustful of both major political parties. The Republican Party is rejected for its support of corrupt Big Business and the Democratic Party for its advocacy of the unproductive poor (Kazin, Stock, Berlet & Lyons)."

 

LMAO. You're daydreaming, nutjob.

 

I agree on that. Stalin could manage an impressive growth in Soviet Union in the 30:ies(while the rest of the world was hit by the depression) and a 10%-25% each year after the WW2(10 years).

btw.. Here's my solution to the democracy problem. A one party system.

 

- It doesn't work.

Post 1 in response

Post 2 in response

Cyrus, based on the sputem you have cast on Jews generally, even resorting to apocryphal and misconstrued texts to reach for some semblance of cogency in your ideology, I find it laughable you would like to now back off and say you only hate the "elite jews," itself part and parcel of your conspiracy theories run amok:

Presumably, you include these sentiments in furtherance of your own. Now, maybe it's just me, but if your "pal" is marrying a jewish girl, and, based on your love of the above sentiments, you wished to be a part of the wedding, I'd say "thanks, but no thanks." Actually, I'd do a helluva lot more, but I'll leave enough be.

I suppose "fascism" and "nazism" can be redefined to meaninglessness, like most things. I take my cue as to what fascism was as an historically-anchored movement very peculiar to time and place; precursors set up before, but taking true birth only after the profound shifts leading up to and through WWI. The common denominator among is the primary drive to sustain and nurture the State itself; all material and cultural interests remain squarely aligned to further the interests of the state as defined by a central authority.

It's economic principle, if you want to say there is one (and I hold that "economics" take a back seat to "politics" in fascist political economies), is squarely corporatist. There is not an ounce of "from the bottom up" possible in any kind of fascist state. Fascist "solutions" are extra-market and squarely political - any economic interest which doesn't feed the state is squashed.

It cannot be "confederate" or anything else that dilutes the ability of the central authority to execute command and control over every phase of national life. You remove that power, you no longer have a fascist state.

I believe your arguments are without merit. I find your hatred for jews vile, and though you are likely a confused nazi, you are in my book a nazi nonetheless.

 

It worked for Stalin

 

"It doesn't work" refers to your own thread on one-party systems - which you point people to:

Here's my solution to the democracy problem.

In that thread, you proposed a one-party system as the friend of democracy. I laid out some thoughts in an attempt to show how that was not possible, using, in one instance, your own country's history of coalition building as an alternative scenario. You got some historical facts wrong there - you may want to check back again.

Stalin, like his pal, Hitler, was anything but a "confederalist." I am not sure how Stalin entered into a conversation about a sort of fascist confederalism.

There is no organizing economic principle called "fascism" apart from its political principle - it is a corporatist principle of power, and it is impossible to construct that principle in any other way but from the top down - the definition of fascism. Laying out some kind of idea of confederal republic with some pie-in-the-sky, sanitized (and wholly incorrect) view of "fascist economics" is laughably ridiculous.

 

I am too. I support an "exit only" policy

 

I wished it had never come to all that, but who is to blame? The ones protecting the US or the ones who attacked, wanna attack, wait for the right time to attack?

 

You didn't hear a thing I said.

You can hate black gangs without hating black people

In the same way, I hate the jewish elite who control our media, with people like Israeli PM Ariel Sharon who said "we control America"

On the flip side, I don't hate the normal jews who had no part of it.

Just like you can hate Radical Islamic Terrorists without hating all Arabs

So now, if I've heard you say things against Islamic terrorists, who are supported by many in the islamic community, you MUST be anti-Arab! YOU ARAB HATER! haha... *your logic*

Those citations definitely were too generalizing and condemning of all without specifying that it was the particulars. They know all jews aren't. Orators are prone to exaggeration. The forefather's equivalent would be like lumping all black people in with gangs, which is, to an extent unfair. However, perhaps their sporadically ambivalent support of gangs within their culture is something that needs to be pointed out.

Oops, I mispelled that phrase, I meant because of the slander, the F-word ECONOMIC type (that northpointaiki thinks doesn't exist...haha) has taken on a NEW name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerism

Something most of you probably agree with. Ironic.


I have no confusion about what I believe. I believe evil should be stopped, and good encouraged. I believe that a system where all power is dispersed among a congress of thousands, a test of government knowledge should be required to vote, and a "PRODUCERIST" (since the f-word confuses you) economy, where efficiency overtakes profiteering.

 

OK, trying to use your current logic, itself a veiled change from your former logic:

Why is this "to an extent" unfair, and not categorically unfair? Is there something about blacks generally which makes the above injustice acceptable, if only to an extent? By the logic you try to point out (at least your logic today), shouldn't the "good blacks" have been absolved from being lumped together with the "black gang members" alltogether? If "good jews" have nothing to do with your (paranoic) view of "bad elite jews," then wasn't what scribble you cut and paste entirely wrong in its guilt by association of "good jews" with "bad elite jews?" Or, perhaps, you have the view, which you cannot hide, that jews, generally, are just a bad lot and predisposed to "always being up to something." Therefore their condemnation by your spurious source is only "to an extent" unfair?

Secondly, you originally used the word fascist to describe yourself. Then you called for what is by definition the antithesis of fascism (confederalism), then go on to pose some kind of vague association between fascism and "economic efficiency."

There's no confusion on anyone's part but your own, my friend. In so many ways, you betray yourself with every word you write. I'd advise climbing back into your hole.