The 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism

[Stang]

heh, this might get a lot of catches.

[john9001]

your right frenchy, i tend to be a little blunt sometimes, but i call them like i see them, no sly innuendo from me.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

[Jackal1]

Wow, what a nice job of spinning. Too bad the motive that what was trying to be avoided was so obvious it`s pathetic. The article released and published in the direct opposite direction in which he chose to take. The smokescreen would still have been there, but at least it would have been watered down enough to not choke on it`s on source. Published in a magazine that promotes a cult with an article that basicaly says to it`s followers.."Here is a list of things that might possibly be used in a pinch in an attempt to show that we are not really like the majority of people say we are. We know it`s weak, but hey......it`s the best we could come up with" .....is like trying to promote aircraft to the airforce. Another one of the Secular Humanist gems is just as weak. See! Look! Hitler was not an atheist. So we are in the clear. It always cracks me up when some wacko trys to say that Hitler was religous on one hand , but avoids the fact that he was also one of history`s most skilled deceptionists.
If it had been released as a world shaking study, instead of in Free Inquiry it just might have slid by a small percentage of those who have half a brain.
The term Secular Humanism in itself, in my opinion, contradicts itself. The invention of a term to label it as a religion of sorts by a group who claims to be totaly non-religious is hilarious.
The writer should drop the Political Science tag and send a resume to leading Media reps. He certainly has the spinning qualification dwon pat.


If you are going to set a line, and expect any reasonable outcome, you got to change your choice of baits. Mine is a guaranteed product.

[lazs2]

facism... socialism... whatever.. they all amount to the same thing.

The destruction of individual rights for the "good" of the whole.

The only thing that stops either of these forms of government from destroying the rights of it's citizens is a strong bill of rights.

england has no bill of rights.    We have one but so many liberals here, and some conservatives...

Think it is a "flexible" document and can either (in the case of the liberals) be interpreted in "modern" terms or.... like the conservatives.... can be suspended in time of (cough) "emergency"

neither are correct and both want us to be more socialist with more government power over the individual.

We need more rights spelled out and the ones we have enforced at all costs.

only that will stop socialism.    england is a government on the "honor" system... the government says "trust us" and they have no bill of rights.

The defenitions of fascism are a modern one made up by liberal socialists to paint conservatives as fascists but.... it is funny that by the time they are done they are covered in paint.

NEVER vote for a democrat.   Republicans are bad enough but democrats are total socialist commies.

lazs

[thrila]

Lazs England has a bill of rights.  Its had a bill of rights before the USA even existed.

[Shuckins]

Lasz,

The British do have a bill of Rights.  It is composed of rights spelled out over the course of British history in various documents, beginning with the Magna Charta.

William of Orange, also codified many of the basic rights of Englishmen in the English Bill of Rights, which was passed in the late 1600s, if memory serves.

http://[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

[Dago]

Wow, dmf and nirvana, you guys are the masters of the obvious.

Funked has gone off the deep end lately, sorry to witness that.

[Fishu]

I think denial of the previous characteristics when majority of those are true is the 15th characteristic.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Dago
Wow, dmf and nirvana, you guys are the masters of the obvious.

Funked has gone off the deep end lately, sorry to witness that.

I won't ever go as deep as you currently are.

[lazs2]

Is it not true that the english bill of rights are subject to the whim of the crown?

Most seem to be "suggestions" more than inalianable human rights.  Just like their firearms "rights".

I think that what funked came up with is an essay that some liberal socialist came up with and tried to taylor to conservative Amercia.

I will admit that we are going the wrong way but I thank god that we didn't elect kerrie and co and now had two supreme court justices that felt that our bill of rights was a suggestion and for them to modify according to fad or their socialist ideals.

lazs

[lukster]

From what I've read, the birth of fascism in Italy was in response to growing socialism/communism. Both routes lead to a totalitaristic police state making a difference barely discernable.

[thrila]

No lazs.  The point of the Bill of rights was to reduce the power and the rights of the monarch and to give certain rights to all people of England.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by lazs2

I think that what funked came up with is an essay that some liberal socialist came up with and tried to taylor to conservative Amercia.
 

Hehe. The writer is hiding behind a tag of Political Science, not very cleverly released in a magazine that caters to non-beleivers who, not very cleverly are hiding behind the non-religous religion tag of Secualr Humanism. That should clear it up. The organization is graciously providing great amounts of vaguely hidden propaganda , in any sense of the word, which is in itself a cult while claiming that the believers are a misinformed foolishly and hopelessly lost and misguided by the Evilness of...................religion .
" Head my words Brothers and Sisters. Repent and become Godless before it is too late. It is your only hope. A higher being and creator cannot be scientificaly proven."
" Seek out the truth that Hitler was not an atheist. He said so himself and you know how truthful and trustworthy he was. It was the religion who steered him down the wrong path."  
............................. .....and other "No we are not" loads of horse crap.

People who are absolutely terrified by something they claim does not exist crack me up.

[Shuckins]

The 1689 Bill of Rights has some interesting points:

"Freedom {for Protestants} to have arms for defence, as allowed by law."

The right to bear arms....but notice the caveat.  The right can be restricted by law...which means it is, ultimately, no right at all.

"The Freedom of speech in Parliament ..."  There is no mention, at least in this document, of the right to freedom of speech for the common people.  Evidently, that had to wait for a later time and document.

Regards, Shuckins