What is your Religion?

Black Brigade Colonel Joined: 12 Jun 2008 Posts: 485

Trajanus wrote:

Bormann had PLENTY of influence. Anyway, so called positive christianity was just a way of watering down a lousy belief system that couldn't be eliminated altogether, or fast enough.

Can you bring me some proof that Hitler himself wanted the elimination of religion? The National Socialists were completely divided on the subject of religion and you can clearly see it in their policies.

Trajanus wrote:

Nobody should doubt the obvious similarities between Italian fascism and nazism--the supreme leader, aggressive hegemonistic nationalism, State supremacy, the straight arm salute. They're adequate to include nazism under the fascist heading. Fascism varied considrably from country to country.

You can still say the same thing about Stalin's Russia. That was not a Fascist country but nonetheless shared many traits with Germany and Italy. The Roman Salute, like many other aspects of Fascism, was copied by the Nazis. You are still very ignorant to label National Socialism as Fascism. You forget that Nazism's economic system is a loose form of socialism/a command economy while corporatism is essential to Fascism (and economics do matter). In addition, National Socialism is a direct totalitarian system while Fascism gives the State council and other government bodies limited authority.

Trajanus wrote:

Of course not because however desirable in principle, it just wasn't possible. That doesn't mean it NEVER will be. Secularization is continuing. We should ultimately attain the ideal of a nation free of "silly religious doctrine."

Even if it wasn't possible back then, you can't just add completely new principles to an ideology and then call it the same thing. I think this section of the argument can be summed up this way: your inability to be moderate or to compromise makes you a one man movement. Being a little more moderate and/or learning to compromise can really help (even outside of ideology).

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:07 pm

Imperator wrote:

Can you bring me some proof that Hitler himself wanted the elimination of religion? The National Socialists were completely divided on the subject of religion and you can clearly see it in their policies.

Thee's no doubt that nazism was fundamentally opposed to real christianity and the nazis wanted to water it down or get rid of it in time, read Shirer.

Trajanus wrote:

You can still say the same thing about Stalin's Russia. That was not a Fascist country but nonetheless shared many traits with Germany and Italy.

Yes in practice but the fundamental ideology was quite different; it was equalitarian, and championed the proletariat. Moreover it wasn't hegemonistic in principle.

Quote:

The Roman Salute, like many other aspects of Fascism, was copied by the Nazis. You are still very ignorant to label National Socialism as Fascism. You forget that Nazism's economic system is a loose form of socialism/a command economy while corporatism is essential to Fascism (and economics do matter)

Both regimes clearly dominated industry to further the State's agenda. Their approach may not have been the same but the idea was; add the other similarities, and its no wonder HISTORIANS have no problem calling nazism fascism.

Others concur; look at this pofo thread:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=107247

Quote:

In addition, National Socialism is a direct totalitarian system while Fascism gives the State council and other government bodies limited authority.

See HITLER'S EMPIRE; the various nazi agencies had limited authority.

Quote:

Even if it wasn't possible back then, you can't just add completely new principles to an ideology and then call it the same thing.

Bingo, I don't. As I've said before, while my own views most closely resemble fascism--of all familiar ideologies--the latter is DEAD , a discredited thing of the past. This is the 21st century; after all the tremendous changes and advances since 1945, it is silly to just copy some past doctrine; we should be devising our own, based on the VASTLY greater progress since the fascist demise--this in addition to the complete political AMATEURISHNESS of using the term.

Quote:

your inability to be moderate or to compromise makes you a one man movement. Being a little more moderate and/or learning to compromise can really help (even outside of ideology).

On tactical matters sure. But as regards basic ideology we shouldn't compromise, but adhere to what is true.

Black Brigade Colonel Joined: 12 Jun 2008 Posts: 485

Trajanus wrote:

Thee's no doubt that nazism was fundamentally opposed to real christianity and the nazis wanted to water it down or get rid of it in time, read Shirer.

Part of the Hitler Youth motto: We believe that there is a God in heaven who created us, leads, and directs us.

That is my evidence from an actual official body founded by the National Socialist Party.

Trajanus wrote:

Yes in practice but the fundamental ideology was quite different; it was equalitarian, and championed the proletariat. Moreover it wasn't hegemonistic in principle.

What is principle without action? The results were the same as those in Germany: obey the government and the supreme leader. In addition, it still did act as a hegemon (satellite states = red imperialism).

Trajanus wrote:

Both regimes clearly dominated industry to further the State's agenda. Their approach may not have been the same but the idea was; add the other similarities, and its no wonder HISTORIANS have no problem calling nazism fascism.

Yes, they did. However, the manner of doing so was quite different. In addition, these "HISTORIANS" have fallen into the same trap you have. During the 20's and 30's, most people around the world knew the differences between the two separate ideologies. Only the Russians were fed lies by their anti-nationalist government that purposely confused the two systems. During and after the war, media delinquents made no distinction between the two systems due to their similarities and now the whole world has consumed these lies and misconceptions.

Trajanus wrote:

Others concur; look at this pofo thread:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=107247

See my above response for why this internet forum is wrong.

Trajanus wrote:

See HITLER'S EMPIRE; the various nazi agencies had limited authority.

Textual evidence, please.

Trajanus wrote:

Bingo, I don't. As I've said before, while my own views most closely resemble fascism--of all familiar ideologies--the latter is DEAD , a discredited thing of the past. This is the 21st century; after all the tremendous changes and advances since 1945, it is silly to just copy some past doctrine; we should be devising our own, based on the VASTLY greater progress since the fascist demise--this in addition to the complete political AMATEURISHNESS of using the term.

You seem to forget the growing power of the Fascists in Italy, as well as the Perónists in Argentina. Well have fun creating your own movement. naivety for thinking anyone will actual join up with you. We have support in at least a few countries. I wish you good luck, even though I can barely believe the NAIVETY that anyone may have for thinking a new completely totalitarian and imperialist ideology would ever gain the smallest amount of power in the 21st century.

Trajanus wrote:

On tactical matters sure. But as regards basic ideology we shouldn't compromise, but adhere to what is true.

What is truth? Some people will never believe my truth. Some people will never believe your truth. You need to encompass the people somehow, and deceit doesn't always work.

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:29 pm

Imperator wrote:

Part of the Hitler Youth motto

But see Shirer.

Trajanus wrote:

What is principle without action? The results were the same as those in Germany: obey the government and the supreme leader. In addition, it still did act as a hegemon (satellite states = red imperialism).

Not really as it only sought a buffer zone, before and after a deadly attack.

Trajanus wrote:

Yes, they did. However, the manner of doing so was quite different.

Much less important than the idea and the goal.

Quote:

In addition, these "HISTORIANS" have fallen into the same trap you have. During the 20's and 30's, most people around the world knew the differences between the two separate ideologies.

Sure they weren't quite the same. But systems don't have to be identical to fall into the same category. There are different varieties of democracy and different varieties of fascism.

Trajanus wrote:

Others concur; look at this pofo thread:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=107247See my above response for why this internet forum is wrong.

Join the thread and tell THEM that. Laughing

Trajanus wrote:

You seem to forget the growing power of the Fascists in Italy, as well as the Perónists in Argentina.

Good for them; what really matters is AMERICA. It's an absolute pipe dream to think you'll succeed under the fascist banner here.

Quote:

Well have fun creating your own movement. naivety for thinking anyone will actual join up with you. We have support in at least a few countries.

The KKK, leftists and anarchists probably have as much or more. What I advocate is a "new American patriotic" movement. Politically that's about the best one can do here, and it is infinitely more naive to think an openly fascist movement willl win.

Quote:

I wish you good luck, even though I can barely believe the NAIVETY that anyone may have for thinking a new completely totalitarian and imperialist ideology would ever gain the smallest amount of power in the 21st century.

The 21st century will almost certainly witness upheavals and vast techinical changes which can break democracy. Totalitarianism IS possible, ultimately, PROVIDED its proponents are clever enough to mask the nature of their movement--to the degree necessary-- until their control is consolidated.

Trajanus wrote:

What is truth? Some people will never believe my truth. Some people will never believe your truth.

Truth is the result of the scientific method which hardly confirms religion. Enough people will adhere to truth to govern a future nation.

Black Brigade Regular Joined: 04 Jun 2009 Posts: 29

Russian Orthodox

i self are a agnostic with a touch of atheism

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:42 pm

RusRu wrote:

Russian Orthodox

i self are a agnostic with a touch of atheism

...how are you both?

You can't be Russian Orthodox and atheist/agnostic at the same time, you know.

Black Brigade Regular Joined: 04 Jun 2009 Posts: 29

Kacen wrote:

RusRu wrote:

Russian Orthodox

i self are a agnostic with a touch of atheism

...how are you both?

You can't be Russian Orthodox and atheist/agnostic at the same time, you know.

im baptized RO but thats just the official part i self am agnostic/atheist

Black Brigade Colonel Joined: 12 Jun 2008 Posts: 485

Trajanus wrote:

But see Shirer.

I'll put it on my list, okay?

Trajanus wrote:

Not really as it only sought a buffer zone, before and after a deadly attack.

Then why didn't they give these countries back after 1945? It's not like NATO was going to invade the USSR (especially with the nuclear paranoia on both sides).

Trajanus wrote:

Much less important than the idea and the goal.

Not necessarily. The corporate state was invented to benefit the nation as a whole (Fascism is socially progressive, more so than National Socialism) while the National Socialist model benefits the State in more of a direct manner.

Trajanus wrote:

Sure they weren't quite the same. But systems don't have to be identical to fall into the same category. There are different varieties of democracy and different varieties of fascism.

Then that category is statist-nationalism. Different varieties of Fascism did exist but only ones that were based directly off of Italy such as Falangism, Austrofascism, Brazilian Integralism, Perónism, Hellenic Fascism, et cetera.

Trajanus wrote:

Join the thread and tell THEM that. Laughing

Ignorant people will go a long way to prove their own false points...

Trajanus wrote:

Good for them; what really matters is AMERICA. It's an absolute pipe dream to think you'll succeed under the fascist banner here.

I doubt Fascism or your own far-fetched totalitarian imperial ideology will gain any support even if it is under a catchy name. Either way it's a pipe dream.

Trajanus wrote:

The KKK, leftists and anarchists probably have as much or more. What I advocate is a "new American patriotic" movement. Politically that's about the best one can do here, and it is infinitely more naive to think an openly fascist movement willl win.

Who said I will try anything in the US? I am a European citizen too.

Trajanus wrote:

The 21st century will almost certainly witness upheavals and vast techinical changes which can break democracy. Totalitarianism IS possible, ultimately, PROVIDED its proponents are clever enough to mask the nature of their movement--to the degree necessary-- until their control is consolidated.

Like I said previously, deceit doesn't always work. Maybe for Augustus Caesar it was easy, but not in the 21st century where people can 'Twitter' what they see in a matter of minutes.

Trajanus wrote:

Truth is the result of the scientific method which hardly confirms religion. Enough people will adhere to truth to govern a future nation.

How can you prove totalitarianism as "true"? And you know, some people will never believe in science. That's a fact.

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:12 pm

Imperator wrote:

Then why didn't they give these countries back after 1945? It's not like NATO was going to invade the USSR (especially with the nuclear paranoia on both sides).

To ensure permanent stability as well as a buffer zone.

Quote:

Not necessarily.

We shouldn't make such an issue of relatively minor differences. As they said on that thread, this kind of hair splitting is just an attempt to "rehabiliate" fascism.

Quote:

Ignorant people will go a long way to prove their own false points...

They're generally speaking, anything but ignorant. Try to convert them. Wink

Quote:

I doubt Fascism or your own far-fetched totalitarian imperial ideology will gain any support even if it is under a catchy name. Either way it's a pipe dream.

What's the point of standing for something if t has no chance?

Quote:

Like I said previously, deceit doesn't always work. Maybe for Augustus Caesar it was easy, but not in the 21st century where people can 'Twitter' what they see in a matter of minutes.

Believe me, there was all kinds of gossip and rumor mongering among the anti-Caesar faction in Rome, for many years. It made no real difference, as long as the system was working.

Quote:

How can you prove totalitarianism as "true"? And you know, some people will never believe in science. That's a fact.

Totalitarianism is itself a reflection of truth, established by science. Sure some won't believe it but those that dumb can usually be marginalized or destroyed.

Black Brigade Colonel Joined: 12 Jun 2008 Posts: 485

Trajanus wrote:

To ensure permanent stability as well as a buffer zone.

Permanent stability? What do a bunch of Poles/Kazakhs/Germans/Lithuanians have anything to do with the national stability of Russia?

Trajanus wrote:

We shouldn't make such an issue of relatively minor differences. As they said on that thread, this kind of hair splitting is just an attempt to "rehabiliate" fascism.

Rehabilitate? This is an essential part of Fascism. It's Mussolini's Fascist solution to the materialism of capitalism and socialism.

Trajanus wrote:

They're generally speaking, anything but ignorant. Try to convert them. Wink

Of course they are. However, I do not blame them nor do I blame you. I blame the leftists and individualists who decided it would be convenient to switch some names around.

Trajanus wrote:

What's the point of standing for something if t has no chance?

When I said "no chance", I meant in countries built on individualism and democracy, namely the Unites States.

Trajanus wrote:

Believe me, there was all kinds of gossip and rumor mongering among the anti-Caesar faction in Rome, for many years. It made no real difference, as long as the system was working.

Of course there was. However, Augustus' enemies did not have internet chat-rooms and Blackberries that they could use to be instantly in contact with each other.

Trajanus wrote:

Totalitarianism is itself a reflection of truth, established by science.

Please explain.

Trajanus wrote:

Sure some won't believe it but those that dumb can usually be marginalized or destroyed.

I suppose this is possible but if they are high in number it may not be such a simple task.

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:04 pm

Imperator wrote:

Permanent stability? What do a bunch of Poles/Kazakhs/Germans/Lithuanians have anything to do with the national stability of Russia?

I meant general stability; due to major powers dominating formerly independent countries, as in pax romana.

Quote:

When I said "no chance", I meant in countries built on individualism and democracy, namely the Unites States.

WAAAY too pessimistic.

Quote:

Of course there was. However, Augustus' enemies did not have internet chat-rooms and Blackberries that they could use to be instantly in contact with each other.

They sure had means of travel, and Romans were prolific letter writers.

Trajanus wrote:

Please explain.

I meant when scientific progress enables us to see the grasp the truth of the Universe; truth, when established, will favor monism not pluralism.

Trajanus wrote:

I suppose this is possible but if they are high in number it may not be such a simple task.

Others like the communists have done it already.

Black Brigade Colonel Joined: 12 Jun 2008 Posts: 485

Trajanus wrote:

I meant general stability; due to major powers dominating formerly independent countries, as in pax romana.

Many things done in the first century AD aren't justifiable in the modern day. That's why all of the USSR's friends were either in poverty or were communist themselves (and hence they could justify the Russian grip over these "satellite states"). Sure, it makes the USSR more stable nationally but how can you be stable globally when most of the world sees you as a big red monster?

Trajanus wrote:

WAAAY too pessimistic.

We both know that Americans are particularly known for their love of democracy and the individual. It is impossible to sneak in a completely totalitarian régime under the guise of a democratic one.

Trajanus wrote:

They sure had means of travel, and Romans were prolific letter writers.

But letters take days, weeks or in the case of the Romans, months and possibly years, to mail. The Romans could not send pictures, information or videos in a matter of seconds. Time counts. Look at the current anti-Islamist movement in Persia. The protesters are using the technology to their advantage. How do you think the West is getting all of their information?

Trajanus wrote:

I meant when scientific progress enables us to see the grasp the truth of the Universe; truth, when established, will favor monism not pluralism.

But how do explain authoritarian and totalitarian doctrines with this? Yes, collectivism and monism are much more efficient than greedy individualism. However, how do you make authority the supreme truth?

Trajanus wrote:

Others like the communists have done it already.

And look where they have gotten. Russia collapsed into democracy and capitalism. China is fading into capitalism and unemployment is growing. Cuba's level of poverty is very high. I think you can say the same for North Korea.

Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:21 pm

Imperator wrote:

Many things done in the first century AD aren't justifiable in the modern day. That's why all of the USSR's friends were either in poverty or were communist themselves (and hence they could justify the Russian grip over these "satellite states"). Sure, it makes the USSR more stable nationally but how can you be stable globally when most of the world sees you as a big red monster?

There was good stability generally in the cold war, especially in europe. That ended only after the "Russian peace" ended, and ethnic conflicts got out of hand.

Quote:

We both know that Americans are particularly known for their love of democracy and the individual. It is impossible to sneak in a completely totalitarian régime under the guise of a democratic one.

As I've pointed out many times, the key is CRISES, which do appear to be looming. The US became dictatorial in past crises like the civil war; what is really needed are crises for which DEMOCRACY ITSELF is responsible.

Quote:

Look at the current anti-Islamist movement in Persia. The protesters are using the technology to their advantage. How do you think the West is getting all of their information?

Big deal; they're not winning and the government can even shut down net access.

Quote:

But how do explain authoritarian and totalitarian doctrines with this? Yes, collectivism and monism are much more efficient than greedy individualism. However, how do you make authority the supreme truth?

By showing that truth i.e. evolutionary, is opposed to equalitarian democracy as well as religion. If progress is the name of the game, a truly progressive system must prevail, not an individualistic/hedonistic or "man isn't the answer" one.

Quote:

And look where they have gotten. Russia collapsed into democracy and capitalism. China is fading into capitalism and unemployment is growing. Cuba's level of poverty is very high. I think you can say the same for North Korea.

Russia and China are still authoritarian; you don't need democracy for progress and, with future hi tech, you won't necessarily have to provide incentives to get things done. In any event if the State is number 1, you shouldn't worry too much about poverty. As long as the masses are reasonably healthy.

Black Brigade Colonel Joined: 12 Jun 2008 Posts: 485

Trajanus wrote:

There was good stability generally in the cold war, especially in europe. That ended only after the "Russian peace" ended, and ethnic conflicts got out of hand.

But the USSR's imperialistic policies caused further anti-Russian and anti-authoritarian feelings in the satellite-states, especially in places like Lithuania, Poland and Hungary. When you cause too much friction like that, you end with rebellion.

Trajanus wrote:

As I've pointed out many times, the key is CRISES, which do appear to be looming. The US became dictatorial in past crises like the civil war; what is really needed are crises for which DEMOCRACY ITSELF is responsible.

But the people will never come to that (rightful) conclusion that democracy is fallacious.

Trajanus wrote:

Big deal; they're not winning and the government can even shut down net access.

Still, it's potential momentum building up against the (clerical) State. If the regime-change doesn't happen now, it will happen before the next century.

Trajanus wrote:

By showing that truth i.e. evolutionary, is opposed to equalitarian democracy as well as religion. If progress is the name of the game, a truly progressive system must prevail, not an individualistic/hedonistic or "man isn't the answer" one.

Yes, but no matter how efficient and true authority is, the majority of people won't buy it as a scientific truth. You and I believe such things, but don't expect the democracy-loving masses to (especially in the U.S.).

Trajanus wrote:

Russia and China are still authoritarian; you don't need democracy for progress and, with future hi tech, you won't necessarily have to provide incentives to get things done. In any event if the State is number 1, you shouldn't worry too much about poverty. As long as the masses are reasonably healthy.

Despite Putin clinging on to the State, Russia is still a democracy (and has since converted to capitalism). What do you mean no incentives to work? And yes, not everyone needs to be employed but certainly most do. The State must maintain a good image by having a low unemployment rate. Besides, there are always State-run jobs like draining marshes or repairing towns.

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:13 pm

Imperator wrote:

But the USSR's imperialistic policies caused further anti-Russian and anti-authoritarian feelings in the satellite-states, especially in places like Lithuania, Poland and Hungary. When you cause too much friction like that, you end with rebellion.

They crushed rebelions with little trouble. The Romans had to deal with them before their Empire was fully stabiized.

Quote:

But the people will never come to that (rightful) conclusion that democracy is fallacious.

Authoritarian rule isn't based on majority support, necessarily. When democracy cracks, enough intelligent people will work to end it and keep it dead, despite a facade to fool the "slow ones."

Quote:

Still, it's potential momentum building up against the (clerical) State. If the regime-change doesn't happen now, it will happen before the next century.

I do think the clerical regime will ultimately go but a better one cold be permanent.

Quote:

Yes, but no matter how efficient and true authority is, the majority of people won't buy it as a scientific truth. You and I believe such things, but don't expect the democracy-loving masses to (especially in the U.S.).

The solution is an initial low key approach and public education and indoctrination. The Russians were religious but the State overawed that bull.

Quote:

Despite Putin clinging on to the State, Russia is still a democracy (and has since converted to capitalism). What do you mean no incentives to work? And yes, not everyone needs to be employed but certainly most do. The State must maintain a good image by having a low unemployment rate. Besides, there are always State-run jobs like draining marshes or repairing towns.

Many would deny Russia is a democracy. It has reverted to a more authoritarian system. Sure widespread employment is fine but not high living standards or materialism, necessarily. Wages in fascist Italy and the reich were low, because the State was paramount.