A Fascism-Primer For Bush-Fans!

Mr. Shaman

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2007
Well.....first you get treated to Jonah Goldberg’s NeoCon-version :rolleyes: .......and, then, the REAL-version (by an actual-historian).

Lawrence Britt’s 14 Tenets of Fascism
Sorry......I've gotta go with a Historian on this one.


2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.​

(Sounds like Homeland Security to me!)
Since you decide to ignore palerider's refutation, I'll ask a different question and try to answer it without changing font colors/sizes and adding a million different links.

Which of these 14 "characterstics of fascism" differ from the common characteristics of communist regimes?
1. Rampant sexism.

Women are equal USMC.

2. Religion and government intwined.

Religion is often abolished by a communist government, although admittedly the leaders then sometimes portray themselves as demi-gods.

3. Corporate power is protected

The communist government sometimes does this, but sometimes quite the opposite.

But still, communism is a very bad system and succeptible to fascism.
Which of these 14 "characterstics of fascism" differ from the common characteristics of communist regimes?
Communism - a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.


Fascist-regimes are hardly concerned about any common-good. :rolleyes:

9. Corporate Power is Protected

"The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite."
See why the hell would you want the abolishion of all private property? Don't you have pride for your own personal freedoms and your identity, your own labours for your hard work? Don't you want to have something to call your own, rather than letting every tom dick and harry get his hands all over your posessions?
See why the hell would you want the abolishion of all private property?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......let's seeeeee.......

NOPE, I never said that.

We were comparing Fascism & Communism. I apologize for using a universally-accepted definition of Communism. :rolleyes:

(Your's was a nice try at spin, though. You should check with Karl Rove. He might be hiring.)
Abstracting from the real: definition quarrells won't save the republic

It is true that we are at a crossroads in this—our present—regime: we have been brought to this point by forces which are clearly and readily identifiable, and it is up to us—you and me—sublime9, USMCalmighty—to define where we are at and why;the next question, once reasonable clarity about our political situation is obtained is to ask a question that was posed by V. I. Lenin in a short tract that he wrote early in the 20th century—"What is to be done?"—now you will notice that this title mirrors Leo Strauss' title "What is Political Philosophy?"—in that it asks a question?;Strauss answered that question, but his answer was more than an answer, it was the very transformation of man and world, and due to his concerted political effort our political horizon—in Nietzsche and Hiedegger's strong sense of "Fundamental Ontology," or "Being and Time"—our options for political action have been somewhat narrowly constrained; but the basic desire of all of us should be clear definition of the situation that were in—and that has quite a bit to do with the Los Alamos scientists, in many ways heros of mine, if political opponents (there is as much room in science for diagreement as there is in politics, if we still live in a reasonably humane world, which if I were to deny it, I could not bear to live; my own approach to the problems today has been to see them in the light of America's development over the whole course of the 20th century, and this I assert has everything to do with the Universe/(city) of Chicago, especially its political science and philosophy departments; the University worked in tandem with Nazi Germany and with Heidegger, who operated on essentially Nietzschean premises, on hypothesis, and thus positioned us in an odd way, to say the least, at the end of world war II;another revolution followed this one—culminated in the 1960s with the death of four leaders—starting with chief executive Kennedy, concluding with the death of his brother, presidential hopeful, Robert Kennedy; these assassinations were necesary, because the war in Vietnam was at stake, and these combined forces opposed it, and threatened it and, especially, the enormous wealth that it promised those financiers who built the military hardware; it is no accident that after the events of the 1960s that the country faced one of the severest challanges to its constitutional government that it has ever faced, and Nixon was among those whose activities can be traced back to even before the election of Kennedy(Christopher Hitchens has detailed the crimes of these ment better that I can do: in His Harper's magazine article, then in his book on Kissinger (please Mr. Kissinger, do not assassinate me for agreeing with Mr.Hitchen's that you were responsible for some very nefarious deeds, to say the least of dubious constitutional integrity). If we refuse to start with this history—and attempt to gain clarity from this standpoint—we will miss the opportunity, I feel certain, to save the constitutional Republic!—Long live the Republic;however, we must recognize that we are in an age comparable (see Oswald Spengler "The Decline of the West": Spengler started out too in the early 20th century trying to analyze the events in his native Germany, but he found that a much deeper historical analysis was required before he could gain clarity in his situation; he opposed Fascist rule in Germany, and I believe he was persecuted for this, for he refused to surrender to tthe heady vision of the revolutionaries who thought revolutions were all about dancing in the streets—they are instead about blood in the streets, and death and devastating losses from which it could take nations decades, if not centuries, to overcome.) to the age of the decay of Rome, essentially when the Republic collapsed and the age of the Cesaers (Julius or Borgia) began: So let's start with history.
The one logical problem with the 14 points of fascism is that it doesn't state that they are 14 points exclusive to fascism. They're 14 things all fascist governments had in common, not 14 things only fascist governments have, or 14 things that are the only defining characteristics of fascism.