garyb wrote:
oh yeah and back off subject, "fascism is more properly called corporatism, as it is a blend of corporate and state power." B. Mussolini
now that you for the second time rely on a fascist dictator to prove you're right:
since when let we define historical phenomenons (history) by the main actor(s) of those phenomenons?.
Is Mussolini a content reference for you?
If you wanne give a definition of Nazism do you then rely on definitions by Adolf Hitler?
Would you ask Mugabe for a definition of his dictatorship?
Besides, it's too ridiculous to constrain the term fascism to such a narrow and pure formalistic description, if it's true at all in this formula.
You're using an old trick, namely take a smal part, mix a word with not related phenomenons, and there you go.
So you bring back fascism to one aspect (corporatism), chain that to social democracy, and halleluja, social democracy is corporatisme is fascism.
It's below every scientific truth, it's just your own private desillusion which you make to the normative rule here on this board.
Where you get the chance, even if it's really far-fetched, you try to vent this antidemocratic or at least very negative view to anything 'societal', be it government, press, an official report, leaked emails from scientist, a simple remark about something from a paper, whatever but you try to make your absurd and radical point.
Yes, radical. The prove is that you don't wanne have it linked to the company which brings us here together.
Valis referred to it as 'apathetic', a psychological category, but the opposite 'flow' you use to push your anti-attitude doesn't really show up as 'apathetic', on the contrary.
I feel it as slow poison to the (off topic) atmosphere on this board, and I'm not the only one.
It's not good for the public atmosphere.
It's absolutely not that I don't like you as a person, but I hate your so called political attitude and moreover the sick way you try to make your believes to the dominant ones here.
By the way:
- if someone lies, he
is not a liar.
One isn't his behavior, even not if he lies 'always' and intendedly.
But the latter I give to you...IF that's the underlying message. But then say so openly.
- in addition, with your statement 'the press lies' you try to state without saying it: 'the press lies intentionally', and it does that always.
These are just rhetorical tricks, a shame for a erudite person like you.
I have all the time, go on and I'll be there
