Democracy vs. Fascism

[Abasha]

Japan is a technically a monarchy, it gives them tradition and stability.

Ask the average Japanese civilian what they think the monarchy does for them.
You know what, you could even TG NERVUN that question. I'm sure he would give you a good answer.

Sorry, but I am not fond of telegraphing moderators unless I really have to. In any case, the Japanese citizens that I have talked to have either been indifferent or supportive of the monarchy. You cannot deny that the monarchy is an essential part of Japan.

[Luveria]

And Franco wasn't a fascist so it's pointless bringing him up in a discussion about fascism.


Bolshevism?

You sir do not see my point, Franco was not technically a fascist BUT he does fit the definition for a fascist according to Merriam-Webster, a reliable source. You can be democratic and be a monarchy, hence the source of some of my own personal beliefs.

Not everyone on this site is male.

If you've already twice admitted Franco wasn't a fascist, why do you continue bringing him up as an example of a fascist?

[Pacifornia]

Idk about where everybody is from, but here in America, if you try to stage a coup to install a fascist regime, there's a good chance the public and military will have so much pride in freedom and democracy that they will have zero-tolerance for chaos and corruption.

[Abasha]

You sir do not see my point, Franco was not technically a fascist BUT he does fit the definition for a fascist according to Merriam-Webster, a reliable source. You can be democratic and be a monarchy, hence the source of some of my own personal beliefs.

Not everyone on this site is male.

If you've already twice admitted Franco wasn't a fascist, why do you continue bringing him up as an example of a fascist?

Obviously, as I myself am not a male. xD It was just a simple courtesy is all, meant to facilitate a civil conversation. You keep missing my point in bringing Franco up though, he WAS a fascist according to the definition of the word, hence it can be applied to him.

PS: You have a spectacular flag by the way.

[God Kefka]

Not everyone is equally incompetent and not everyone is incompetent (even though MOST people are).

If you believe that everyone is equally incompetent or that everyone is incompetent than you have been enslaved by the Sheep Mentality.

Because the majority of people are incompetent but seek to glorify themselves they convince everyone else that ''everyone is equally incompetent''.

While it may make some people feel good and while it sounds all PC; It is just factually false.

Some people are smarter. Some people run faster. Some people score higher on tests, some people are better fighters.

DEAL WITH IT.

You are a perfect example of the mediocrity mentality. ''Everyone is equally bad...'' REALLY? How can you believe this?

Tsk. Tsk.
Ad hominem? I expected better.
Not once did I say that everyone was equally incompetent.
All I said was that everyone is incompetent.
To what degree is debatable.

For example, you've been pretty incompetent at debating.
No sources. No factual claims. Ignoring history.

Go home bud. You're not fit to lead.

You have said both.

You seem to forget that leaders are not God. They are as incompetent as anyone else.

In order for that to be always and unconditionally true, 1) everyone would have to be incompetent, 2) everyone would have to be equally incompetent.

It's logic.

If Statement 1 is not true and you didn't assume it than you can't make your conclusion (''You seem to forget that leaders are not God. They are as incompetent as anyone else'') because it wouldn't follow... you are ignoring the possibility that the leader is NOT amongst the incompetent.

If Statement 2 is not true and you didn't assume it, then you can't make the conclusion. How can you just assume that the leader chosen would be ''as incompetent as anyone else''? Two other possibilities you have ignored: 1) the leader is incompetent but not as incompetent as ''everyone else'', 2) the leader is NOT incompetent.

See? Your logic is flawed if you DON'T assume the two things I have said you have assumed.

By the way, just from this I can see that I would make a far better leader than you but this is besides the point right (I'm only bringing this up because for some ridiculous reason you decided to make a jib about how I was not fit to govern)? So who are you to make the call eh?

[Zathganastan]

Ask the average Japanese civilian what they think the monarchy does for them.
You know what, you could even TG NERVUN that question. I'm sure he would give you a good answer.

Sorry, but I am not fond of telegraphing moderators unless I really have to. In any case, the Japanese citizens that I have talked to have either been indifferent or supportive of the monarchy. You cannot deny that the monarchy is an essential part of Japan.

Prior to WW2 the average Japanese citizen had never even heard their emperor's voice, when they finally did at the conflicts end few could even understand what he was saying.Outside of being more of a nationalist symbol the Japanese monarchy has been of little importance to the running of the day to day affairs of the Japanese empire.

[Vareiln]

Ask the average Japanese civilian what they think the monarchy does for them.
You know what, you could even TG NERVUN that question. I'm sure he would give you a good answer.

Sorry, but I am not fond of telegraphing moderators unless I really have to. In any case, the Japanese citizens that I have talked to have either been indifferent or supportive of the monarchy. You cannot deny that the monarchy is an essential part of Japan.

It has been neutered since the end of WWII. To say it's an essential part of Japan would be like saying a mascot is essential to a sports team.

[The Grey Wolf]

And Franco wasn't a fascist so it's pointless bringing him up in a discussion about fascism.


Bolshevism?

You sir do not see my point, Franco was not technically a fascist BUT he does fit the definition for a fascist according to Merriam-Webster, a reliable source. You can be democratic and be a monarchy, hence the source of some of my own personal beliefs.

He fits the definition because he was a Fascist.

[Abasha]

Sorry, but I am not fond of telegraphing moderators unless I really have to. In any case, the Japanese citizens that I have talked to have either been indifferent or supportive of the monarchy. You cannot deny that the monarchy is an essential part of Japan.

Prior to WW2 the average Japanese citizen had never even heard their emperor's voice, when they finally did at the conflicts end few could even understand what he was saying.Outside of being more of a nationalist symbol the Japanese monarchy has been of little importance to the running of the day to day affairs of the Japanese empire.

My point of bringing the Japanese monarchy up, it is an important symbol of Japan. Who wants to be a nationalist when your leader changes every four years or so, not me!

[Zathganastan]

Prior to WW2 the average Japanese citizen had never even heard their emperor's voice, when they finally did at the conflicts end few could even understand what he was saying.Outside of being more of a nationalist symbol the Japanese monarchy has been of little importance to the running of the day to day affairs of the Japanese empire.

My point of bringing the Japanese monarchy up, it is an important symbol of Japan. Who wants to be a nationalist when your leader changes every four years or so, not me!

It's my understanding that Nationalism is to the country not it's leader is it not?

[Abasha]

My point of bringing the Japanese monarchy up, it is an important symbol of Japan. Who wants to be a nationalist when your leader changes every four years or so, not me!

It's my understanding that Nationalism is to the country not it's leader is it not?

It is, leaders help to establish nationalism though, as you yourself admitted in the words that I have bolded in your previous comment. The point is that I think fascism is better than democracy, and I also believe that the monarchy is an important symbol of any country. Of course, I would want to be the leader of a monarchy, but doesn't almost everyone want power?

[Abasha]

You sir do not see my point, Franco was not technically a fascist BUT he does fit the definition for a fascist according to Merriam-Webster, a reliable source. You can be democratic and be a monarchy, hence the source of some of my own personal beliefs.

He fits the definition because he was a Fascist.

By the English definition of the word, yes.

[The Grey Wolf]

My point of bringing the Japanese monarchy up, it is an important symbol of Japan. Who wants to be a nationalist when your leader changes every four years or so, not me!

It's my understanding that Nationalism is to the country not it's leader is it not?

The leader is a representation of the nation. To revere the leader is to revere the nation.

[Abasha]

It's my understanding that Nationalism is to the country not it's leader is it not?

The leader is a representation of the nation. To revere the leader is to revere the nation.

Exactly! Not to mention the fact that the leader is an important symbol, and to be willing to die for the leader is being willing to die for the country.

[Blasveck]

Tsk. Tsk.
Ad hominem? I expected better.
Not once did I say that everyone was equally incompetent.
All I said was that everyone is incompetent.
To what degree is debatable.

For example, you've been pretty incompetent at debating.
No sources. No factual claims. Ignoring history.

Go home bud. You're not fit to lead.

You have said both.

You seem to forget that leaders are not God. They are as incompetent as anyone else.

In order for that to be always and unconditionally true, 1) everyone would have to be incompetent, 2) everyone would have to be equally incompetent.

It's logic.

If Statement 1 is not true and you didn't assume it than you can't make your conclusion (''You seem to forget that leaders are not God. They are as incompetent as anyone else'') because it wouldn't follow... you are ignoring the possibility that the leader is NOT amongst the incompetent.

If Statement 2 is not true and you didn't assume it, then you can't make the conclusion. How can you just assume that the leader chosen would be ''as incompetent as anyone else''? Two other possibilities you have ignored: 1) the leader is incompetent but not as incompetent as ''everyone else'', 2) the leader is NOT incompetent.

See? Your logic is flawed if you DON'T assume the two things I have said you have assumed.

By the way, just from this I can see that I would make a far better leader than you but this is besides the point right (I'm only bringing this up because for some ridiculous reason you decided to make a jib about how I was not fit to govern)? So who are you to make the call eh?

My jib about your ability to lead was unnecessary, yes.

1. Everyone has some measure of incompetence. It's impossible to find someone who isn't for we are not perfect beings.
2. History has shown that your ideology fails. Hitler was undoubtedly a fascist, and his policies ruined the German economy.

Besides, ever hear the phrase "Absolute power corrupts Absolutely"?

[Zathganastan]

It is, leaders help to establish nationalism though, as you yourself admitted in the words that I have bolded in your previous comment. The point is that I think fascism is better than democracy, and I also believe that the monarchy is an important symbol of any country. Of course, I would want to be the leader of a monarchy, but doesn't almost everyone want power?

Yes it's only human to want power, just as it's only human to want to insure that when your not the ones in power said power can't be used to make your life a living hell.Which is why for the most part most monarchs are little more the figure heads who's advice is valued but ultimately unnecessary.

The leader is a representation of the nation. To revere the leader is to revere the nation.

Not necessarily, five minutes with anyone who didn't vote for Obama could show you that.

[God Kefka]

You have said both.



In order for that to be always and unconditionally true, 1) everyone would have to be incompetent, 2) everyone would have to be equally incompetent.

It's logic.

If Statement 1 is not true and you didn't assume it than you can't make your conclusion (''You seem to forget that leaders are not God. They are as incompetent as anyone else'') because it wouldn't follow... you are ignoring the possibility that the leader is NOT amongst the incompetent.

If Statement 2 is not true and you didn't assume it, then you can't make the conclusion. How can you just assume that the leader chosen would be ''as incompetent as anyone else''? Two other possibilities you have ignored: 1) the leader is incompetent but not as incompetent as ''everyone else'', 2) the leader is NOT incompetent.

See? Your logic is flawed if you DON'T assume the two things I have said you have assumed.

By the way, just from this I can see that I would make a far better leader than you but this is besides the point right (I'm only bringing this up because for some ridiculous reason you decided to make a jib about how I was not fit to govern)? So who are you to make the call eh?

My jib about your ability to lead was unnecessary, yes.

1. Everyone has some measure of incompetence. It's impossible to find someone who isn't for we are not perfect beings.
2. History has shown that your ideology fails. Hitler was undoubtedly a fascist, and his policies ruined the German economy.

Besides, ever hear the phrase "Absolute power corrupts Absolutely"?

1. This is true but misleading. Some people are less incompetent than others, some people are more than competent. It's one thing to say that but this should not stop us from seeking out the truly exceptional people and pay attention to their views over that of the largely mediocre and incompetent majority.

2. Hitler brought the German economy out of the Great Depression and his economic policies brought the German economy up. He lost the war but had he won it Germany would have been invincible. Plus you have to consider how long he managed to hold out against such powerful countries as the USA (world's wealthiest country), British Empire (world's largest empire by landmass), and the Soviet Union (largest army).

The fact that Hitler's forces fought to the very very end and the fact that he's succeeded in keeping the German people largely unified and patriotic throughout the war shows the power of fascist nationalism at uniting and inspiring the people to do the extraordinary.

3.

Besides, ever hear the phrase "Absolute power corrupts Absolutely"?

Yes but right now we have a system where the majority, who as I have said are stupid, incompetent or mediocre... HAVE absolute power. And the leaders they elect are corrupt and stupid as hell...

If we change the rules of the game and turn it into a meritocracy, power does not have to corrupt.

[Blasveck]

My jib about your ability to lead was unnecessary, yes.

1. Everyone has some measure of incompetence. It's impossible to find someone who isn't for we are not perfect beings.
2. History has shown that your ideology fails. Hitler was undoubtedly a fascist, and his policies ruined the German economy.

Besides, ever hear the phrase "Absolute power corrupts Absolutely"?

1. This is true but misleading. Some people are less incompetent than others, some people are more than competent. It's one thing to say that but this should not stop us from seeking out the truly exceptional people and pay attention to their views over that of the largely mediocre and incompetent majority.

2. Hitler brought the German economy out of the Great Depression and his economic policies brought the German economy up. He lost the war but had he won it Germany would have been invincible. Plus you have to consider how long he managed to hold out against such powerful countries as the USA (world's wealthiest country), British Empire (world's largest empire by landmass), and the Soviet Union (largest army).

The fact that Hitler's forces fought to the very very end and the fact that he's succeeded in keeping the German people largely unified and patriotic throughout the war shows the power of fascist nationalism at uniting and inspiring the people to do the extraordinary.

3.

Besides, ever hear the phrase "Absolute power corrupts Absolutely"?

Yes but right now we have a system where the majority, who as I have said are stupid, incompetent or mediocre... HAVE absolute power. And the leaders they elect are corrupt and stupid as hell...

If we change the rules of the game and turn it into a meritocracy, power does not have to corrupt.

1. Um...okay.
2. Hitler also had used the power of the state to justify genocide.
How would that not happen again?
3. Have you ever even HEARD of checks and balances?
The problem is that you're giving absolute power to the few.
And what will they do with it? Abuse it.

[God Kefka]

1. This is true but misleading. Some people are less incompetent than others, some people are more than competent. It's one thing to say that but this should not stop us from seeking out the truly exceptional people and pay attention to their views over that of the largely mediocre and incompetent majority.

2. Hitler brought the German economy out of the Great Depression and his economic policies brought the German economy up. He lost the war but had he won it Germany would have been invincible. Plus you have to consider how long he managed to hold out against such powerful countries as the USA (world's wealthiest country), British Empire (world's largest empire by landmass), and the Soviet Union (largest army).

The fact that Hitler's forces fought to the very very end and the fact that he's succeeded in keeping the German people largely unified and patriotic throughout the war shows the power of fascist nationalism at uniting and inspiring the people to do the extraordinary.

3.

Yes but right now we have a system where the majority, who as I have said are stupid, incompetent or mediocre... HAVE absolute power. And the leaders they elect are corrupt and stupid as hell...

If we change the rules of the game and turn it into a meritocracy, power does not have to corrupt.

1. Um...okay.
2. Hitler also had used the power of the state to justify genocide.
How would that not happen again?
3. Have you ever even HEARD of checks and balances?
The problem is that you're giving absolute power to the few.
And what will they do with it? Abuse it.

1. Good

2. He did it to bring stability to the nation

3. Not if they are qualified to rule

[Blasveck]

1. Um...okay.
2. Hitler also had used the power of the state to justify genocide.
How would that not happen again?
3. Have you ever even HEARD of checks and balances?
The problem is that you're giving absolute power to the few.
And what will they do with it? Abuse it.

1. Good

2. He did it to bring stability to the nation

3. Not if they are qualified to rule

Are you justifying Genocide with stability? Holy fucking Christ.

[New Libertarian States]

My jib about your ability to lead was unnecessary, yes.

1. Everyone has some measure of incompetence. It's impossible to find someone who isn't for we are not perfect beings.
2. History has shown that your ideology fails. Hitler was undoubtedly a fascist, and his policies ruined the German economy.

Besides, ever hear the phrase "Absolute power corrupts Absolutely"?

1. This is true but misleading. Some people are less incompetent than others, some people are more than competent. It's one thing to say that but this should not stop us from seeking out the truly exceptional people and pay attention to their views over that of the largely mediocre and incompetent majority.

2. Hitler brought the German economy out of the Great Depression and his economic policies brought the German economy up. He lost the war but had he won it Germany would have been invincible. Plus you have to consider how long he managed to hold out against such powerful countries as the USA (world's wealthiest country), British Empire (world's largest empire by landmass), and the Soviet Union (largest army).

The fact that Hitler's forces fought to the very very end and the fact that he's succeeded in keeping the German people largely unified and patriotic throughout the war shows the power of fascist nationalism at uniting and inspiring the people to do the extraordinary.

3.

Besides, ever hear the phrase "Absolute power corrupts Absolutely"?

Yes but right now we have a system where the majority, who as I have said are stupid, incompetent or mediocre... HAVE absolute power. And the leaders they elect are corrupt and stupid as hell...

If we change the rules of the game and turn it into a meritocracy, power does not have to corrupt.

2)With a shit ton of propaganda, war,imperialism, and slave/forced labor, mind you. He only unified the people, like stated before, through constant propaganda, and authoritarian policies, which, in a nutshell, boiled down to "Like what we like, do what Hitler does, or bye-bye".
3)And how the hell will this keep people from going off and being corrupt? Seriously. The people have power because without them, where is your strong base? A indoctrinated populace who asks "How high?" When you say "Jump"?
Yeah, sorry that I like criticism from the "incompetent" populace.

[New Libertarian States]

1. Um...okay.
2. Hitler also had used the power of the state to justify genocide.
How would that not happen again?
3. Have you ever even HEARD of checks and balances?
The problem is that you're giving absolute power to the few.
And what will they do with it? Abuse it.

1. Good

2. He did it to bring stability to the nation

3. Not if they are qualified to rule

2)How the hell did eliminating millions of people bring stability.
3)Who is qualified?What makes one "qualified"?

[Zathganastan]

1. This is true but misleading. Some people are less incompetent than others, some people are more than competent. It's one thing to say that but this should not stop us from seeking out the truly exceptional people and pay attention to their views over that of the largely mediocre and incompetent majority.

2. Hitler brought the German economy out of the Great Depression and his economic policies brought the German economy up. He lost the war but had he won it Germany would have been invincible. Plus you have to consider how long he managed to hold out against such powerful countries as the USA (world's wealthiest country), British Empire (world's largest empire by landmass), and the Soviet Union (largest army).

The fact that Hitler's forces fought to the very very end and the fact that he's succeeded in keeping the German people largely unified and patriotic throughout the war shows the power of fascist nationalism at uniting and inspiring the people to do the extraordinary.

3. Yes but right now we have a system where the majority, who as I have said are stupid, incompetent or mediocre... HAVE absolute power. And the leaders they elect are corrupt and stupid as hell...

If we change the rules of the game and turn it into a meritocracy, power does not have to corrupt.

1. Doesn't take genius to figure out that the select few generally never have anything more then their own interests at mind.With elected politicians it's just that they hold the same interest as the people who voted for them, where as in fascism those in charge tend to act only on their personal interest, regardless if it's good or bad for the rest of the country.

2. By completely moving the nation towards wartime preparations, taking credit for previous chancellors reforms, or simply overworking the German population.Not to mention you seem to be forgetting Germany owes it's early success to having skilled veteran generals left over from WW1. Most of whom outright though Hitler was either insane, a poor leader, or a bloodily madman determined to run Germany into the ground.

3. So both Hitler and Stalin where bastard sons of an abusive father and estranged mothers who climbed their way into being rulers of Germany and the USSR respectively, that doesn't by any means make them any more fit for the jobs.VS Roosevelt and Churchill whom where elected into their positions and brought more prosperity to their countries then either Stalin or Hitler ever did.

[Minarchist States]

Yes it is immoral. Humanity is not meant to be a machine. Efficiency is not the end goal. It never has been.

We are all cogs in a machine. We must all work to make sure the machine works. If a cog stops working, it must be removed, and replaced. Its simple.

Some of us cogs want to be seen as more than a part to a machine. We want to be valued as one.

And you scare me when you speak like that.

[Stovokor]

Money is a powerful incentive.
You seem to forget that leaders are not God. They are as incompetent as anyone else.

Not everyone is equally incompetent and not everyone is incompetent (even though MOST people are).

If you believe that everyone is equally incompetent or that everyone is incompetent than you have been enslaved by the Sheep Mentality.

Because the majority of people are incompetent but seek to glorify themselves they convince everyone else that ''everyone is equally incompetent''.

While it may make some people feel good and while it sounds all PC; It is just factually false.

Some people are smarter. Some people run faster. Some people score higher on tests, some people are better fighters.

DEAL WITH IT.

You are a perfect example of the mediocrity mentality. ''Everyone is equally bad...'' REALLY? How can you believe this?

Right and what you need to understand and "deal with" is the concept that not the best and brightest are put into positions of power/money/ and or status. Examples of this permeate society, it's why there's even a thing called ascribed status and hereditary rule.