How can historical fact be fed into a mind like Rosecroix and have it so distorted. Well, I'm not surprised.

hey! wouldnt you feel better pointing out any errors? checking you facts first this time? /R

***The clash of cultures is here. It has been for a while. People have been trying to force the same BS through our throats again and again. - First people try to force fascism to the world. - Then people try to force socialism/communism on the world (a close cousin of fascism)*** If first came fascism and later communism, how comes that the Russian octobre revolution happened 7 years before Musolinni came to power in Italy and 16 years before Hitler won the '33 elections in Germany? And if communism/socialism and fascism are so close cousins why did Hitler sended german communist and socialist to the concentrationcamps? And how come the middle class germans voted for and supported Hitler because they feared the rise to power of communism? And if socialism = communism according to you, does that mean that Europe's social democracies are actually communist states in disguise?

Communism, fascism and fundamentalism are close cousins, because the identity of the group/class matters more than your identity as an individual. In all of these 3 system the group you belong to determines wheter you are good or bad and how you will be treated. Instead of being judged by your own actions the real or imagined actions of your group will be used to judge you. In fascism these groups will be organized by race in communism/socialism these groups will be organized by class and in fundamentalism these groups will be organized by religion. In fascism they will kill you because you are a Jew, in socialism they will kill you are a house owner, in fundamentalism they will kill you because you are an Atheist/Heretic. End result the same, you're killed through no fault of your own. Now some people in the West find this group identity appealing. They will accept the package deal of opinions, morals and sometimes even clothing styles that comes with the group and follow these to the letter. For me, I have serious problems these group identity things. To describe my problems: - I know an avid fan of action films, he also happens to be black. Now what says more about his personality? Should I think of him as a film fan first (the individual) or should I think of him as black (the group)? - I've encountered muslims who were really nice guys. Now should I think of them as really nice guys first? Or should I think of them as muslims first? You see regardles of what I think of muslims/groups as a whole when I meet an individual, I still have to judge him/her on his or her personal merits. (sometimes some more apprehension though) That's a lot harder than judging by group.

If first came fascism and later communism, how comes that the Russian octobre revolution happened 7 years before Musolinni came to power in Italy and 16 years before Hitler won the '33 elections in Germany? OK got a point there. Because I was educated on the evils of fascism before I was educated on the evils of socialism/communism I tend to list one before the other. And if communism/socialism and fascism are so close cousins See previous post. why did Hitler send german communist and socialist to the concentrationcamps? Because Hitler devided the communists in the bad group catagory. Hitler puts the communists in the bad group catagory and sends them to concentration camps, Stalin puts the fascists in the bad group catagory and sends the to the concentration camps (or should I say gulags or siberia). Same reasoning. Difference? And how come the middle class germans voted for and supported Hitler because they feared the rise to power of communism? Is that their only reason? Their fear of communism was justified unfortunately they ended up supporting the roughly same thing. And if socialism = communism according to you, does that mean that Europe's social democracies are actually communist states in disguise? In Europe's social democracies power is spread out over different companies/political parties. There are enough counterbalances to prevent the socialist from doing everything they want. If socialists would be able to do what they want unrestrained then it would be another story.

***And if socialism = communism according to you, does that mean that Europe's social democracies are actually communist states in disguise? In Europe's social democracies power is spread out over different companies/political parties. There are enough counterbalances to prevent the socialist from doing everything they want. If socialists would be able to do what they want unrestrained then it would be another story.*** What about Britain? There socialism isn't spread over many parties? Unless you see de liberal democrats as an offspring (but they don't have much political weight). Or do you mean that socialism in a one-party-state? You're right that would lead to a form of totalitarism, where the individual would no longer come on the first place but wouldn't that be the case with any political party? PS I reread my post and I found it sounding to aggressive. I hope you didn't took it the wrong way? You're right about the place of the individual in both communism and fascism, it's just that both have totaly different endgoals that it is hard to see them as part of the same family. But as they say in French: les extrèmes se touchent.

Strong emotions always surface in a good political discussion. If you're talking about nothing of substance you won't get agressive. Remaining as civil as possible is however a very good discussion tactic. You do ask however some interesting questions: - I meant socialism in a one party state where all financial, production, media, law and military rescources are concetrated in one govt. bureaucracy. - In current Europe power isn't concentrated in one place, but in many places. With the result that a single person or a small group can't control all the power that exist in a country. So when someone grabs all political power the people can still use financial, law enforcement, production power to counter him. Now personally I am for a capitalist system with some safeguards against exesses of such a system (people selling WMD spring to mind). I even would like some form of social safety net for those who fall on hard times. However just handing out money to people doesn't seem to help them and interfering in peoples lives even to help them also sounds bad to me. Just a weird idea. Maybe people who fall on hard times should be given the choice: - You accept the social security benefits, but when accepting these benefits you have to sign a contract. Here you would agree to the extra government interference in your life "to help you" as discribed in the contract. You would also agree to higher future taxes as discribed in the contract so theoretically no-one else ends up paying for you. Breach of contract would put you in jail. - You do not sign the contract and get no social benefits. This would give a social safety net for those that want it and would leave alone those that want to be left alone. Maybe you could make multiple contracts the higher the benefits the more govt. intrusion in your life.

***Just a weird idea. Maybe people who fall on hard times should be given the choice: - You accept the social security benefits, but when accepting these benefits you have to sign a contract. Here you would agree to the extra government interference in your life "to help you" as discribed in the contract. You would also agree to higher future taxes as discribed in the contract so theoretically no-one else ends up paying for you. Breach of contract would put you in jail. - You do not sign the contract and get no social benefits.*** I believe everyone in a society should be looked after, so I don't think giving people no social security is acceptable or civilised. But I also don't believe in giving people money and let them go about there business. That's why I'm a strong believer in the active welfare state (I believe it's sort of like Blair's Third Way) were you have a social seurity with two speeds. One speed for people who participate with the program. Those people are actively helped by the state to find a new job (with free courses to reeducate yourself if necessary, tax benefits for companies who hire new people, etc) those people get high unemployment benefits. People who do not wish to participate get just the basic minimum (if spend wisely you don't have to live in poverty but there's no room for luxury either). It's the system they're implementing in Belgium and it works very well. I've heard the Scandinavian model works very well as well but I don't know the content. PS I believe this discussion is a little off topic.

FNC - <> As far as that goes, why did did the Communist Stalin kill the Communist Trotsky? For that matter, why did he kill and imprison so many millions of socialists and communists? I imagine that it's because (just like Hitler) he was a totalitarian monster.

FJV - Hitler did not win power in Germany through elections. He was offered the chancellor's position by people acting for president Hindenberg. The Nazi's were losing votes from election to election. This deceived the power brokers into believing that they could control Hitler and the Nazi's. Hitler only started winning elections after he had the the coercive power of the state at his command.