Ok heres the deal. There are so many mock/aspiring political parties on Armor Games. Iv'e seen Communist Party, Conservative Party etc But I've yet to see a Fascist one. ( If there is one, well my apologies).
Now moving on to why Im a supporter of Fascism. I don't mean the kind where anti-semitics go around killing innocent Jews. I'm talking Fascism Franco and Mussolini style. Intense nationalism, control of the people (after all, all governments do don't they?), and military might to show you mean business. All the pomp and grandeaur. Oh and censorship of unwanted political material. ( Trust me all forms of government do it in one way or another.) And best of all, Capitalism is accpeted and embraced.
Now I don't want to be labelled a Nazi lover or an intense anti-semitic. In fact I respect them, for all the suffering they have been true and their courage. I believe in equality for all races, except the Martians. Oh yeah and Adam Sandler always cracks me up. To clarify, Fascism does not equal to anti-semitism or hatred of any other race. Hitler hated non-Aryans but Hitler does not equal to Fascism. Mussolini was the founder of modern Fascism.
So if there is no mock up 'Fascist party' on AG I'll create one. If this post does not belong here, scrap it and I'll post it on the tavern.
Anyone offended by this material especially Germans, I do not want hatemail/insults/death threats etc. I am not aiming in creating a Fourth Reich or start a mass genocide.
And notice civic nationalism. And cultural nationalism.
Of course there are variations of nationalism, as there are in any ideology. Civic Nationalism is irrelevant to this topic because they do not relate to fascism at all.
Notice wiki's depiction of fascist nationalism :
''Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology[16][17][18][19] which promotes national revolution, national collectivism, a totalitarian state, and irredentism or expansionism to unify and allow the growth of a nation. Fascists often promote ethnic nationalism but also have promoted cultural nationalism including cultural assimilation of people outside a specific ethnic group.''
Notice irredentism and expansionism, not so different from your hated colonial powers. Not to mentin a totalitarian state with all the censorship and lack of freedom that brings.
And the statement that not all nationalism leads to racism.
Read the several other statements that show how it does, especially fascist style nationalism.
And you skimped on the point that the Allies defended my country not for democracy.
Due to your references to the Far East and the colonial powers I am assuming you are from Singapore or Burma and more specifically, the British when you refer to The Allies. Remember that the Japanese were the ones who initiated the combat in the region, so it was self defence. In addition, if Britain fought solely for her empire, why did she rescind the vast majority of her colonies in the years immediately after WW2? In addition, it was a war time situation, it was important strategically.
Can I also remind you that fascist powers started the war, one in which millions were killed. [sarcasm]Yeah put me down for more nationalism, there are no negative side effects whatsoever[/sarcasm].
She abandoned her Empire because she did not have enough resources etc etc to maintain her empire, when she was devastated. And according to the definition, Fascists can also introuduce cultural nationalism, which I want to do, even though there already is. We even have our own 'rojak' language, Singlish. And the people do feel more Singaporean than Chinese anyway. Essentially, what I want to do is to amplify this feeling and loyalty to Singapore, after all the gove has done alot for us in just 40 years.
And by expansion, one can do it in peaceful means. Look at Singapore's case, they are already doing it, although I wouldn't term it as expansion, rather land reclamation. The shopping center opposite my house was the sea a few decades back.
And yes, self-defense, but why defend a small island in the East, or rather as Habibi( not sure of spelling) but it crudely, 'little red dot'. Because of trade and reputation thats why.
If the Japanese had been left to run rampant, it would have put Australia and India in very real danger of invasion. It was more strategic than anything.
If the Communist did try and conquer Europe or if the Iron Curtain was not lifted, you won't be her now. Anyway, this is counter-factual history which I feel strongly against. Like E.H.Carr does.
It was not strategic. The Japanese were running out of troops, let alone have enough power to invade Australia and India. Then they would have to fend of the Russians, British in India, Americans, Dutch and Australians. And when they defeated Britain and conquered Singapore, did they mount an actual invasion apart from some quick raids? Nope.
Wait, one more thing, the discussion is on Fascism, not on the war which I know is the Fascists' fault. But I believe the Allies had some part to play in causing it indirectly.
It was not strategic. The Japanese were running out of troops, let alone have enough power to invade Australia and India. Then they would have to fend of the Russians, British in India, Americans, Dutch and Australians. And when they defeated Britain and conquered Singapore, did they mount an actual invasion apart from some quick raids? Nope.
At the beginning of the war the Japanese were not short on troops. Of course they would not have invaded both at the same time, however they managed to invade and conquer China, a nation with the largest population in the world, so why not Australia or India? The only thing that saved India and Australia was British and American intervention in the region.
Wait, one more thing, the discussion is on Fascism, not on the war which I know is the Fascists' fault. But I believe the Allies had some part to play in causing it indirectly.
The war is key to the discussion. It demonstrates how fascism can turn ugly.
Er conquer China? Only a small part of it, like Manchuria...
They conquered most of the East of China, including most of their large industrial centres.
Then the Iraq War, Vietnam War, Korean War are also examples of Western forms of governments like democracy can turn bad...
The Iraq war hasn't turned bad. Things have drastically been improving. A totalitarian state brings stability, along with all the other morally abhorrent factors. Iraq's sudden shift destabilised the country, but at least there is no danger of millions of people from various ethnic groups being targeted with chemical weapons. The Iraqi people are undoubtedly better off than they were before.
The Vietnamese were not under a system of democracy before the war.
I fail to see how the Korean war demonstrates the failure democracy. It was just as much the fault of the North and ther Chinese than it was the West.
I am not saying they were democracies, but errors on the parts of democracies who claim to be humanitarian. And Iraq is better today? I feel that at least under Saddam, there was a strong leader in that sense. But now the things that sum Iraq up are, Al-Qaeda, Terrorist, Shit-te, Sunni, Bombs, USA, etc etc.
And you previous point said conquer China, not specifying whether it meant the whole of China or part of it.
And you skimped on points like, well, go read them, too many to list...
Since the US has been in Iraq roughly 80,000 people have died. Under Saddam the death toll was in the millions. It is getting more and more stable each year.
And you skimped on points like, well, go read them, too many to list...
If you canb't be bothered to find them, then why should I have to? I don't think it's very clear which points you're reffering to either.
For example, gaining of living space in a peaceful way, Fascism sometimes entailing civic or cultural nationalism to name a few... I need to search the pages to find them all...
I've already addressed the civic and cultural nationalism a few pages back.
How can you gain living space in a peaceful way? Rightly it would belong to another nation so you would just be annexing it. How on earth do you think that's acceptable.
