Astreja

The problem with a fascist system is that it only provides beneficial results if the leaders act with strict impartiality towards all citizens. And that, IMHO, is extremely unlikely.

It's more probable that the leaders have a vendetta against one or more groups in the society, and use their positions of power to abuse those groups. Innocent people die. Unacceptable.

And I have a big problem taking "morality" from an outside source, especially the same source (Catholicism) that damaged or annihilated so many indigenous cultures and killed so many thousands of people. It shall be poetic justice indeed when the remnants of that pathetic dogma finally sink down the entropy well. *gurgle*

Apologist

I really don't care how you define it. I quoted Father Corrapi.

Who were recieving Russian Aid.

Who are recieving aid and reinforcements from throughout the middle east?

You mean the Palestinean terrorists whom the majority of the middle easterners support?

Apologist

I would say that Hitler and Mussolini provided very beneficial results...except for the Jews and the other dissidents.

Hitler didn't consider the Jews innocent. He considered them enemies of the State and dealt with them accordingly. (I don't necessarily agree with him; just saying.)

You can't really call it an abuse of authority. He did what he thought was best as furthering his political ideaology.

You would either take morality from an outside source (Catholicism) or die in such a society. Either way, I wouldn't care. I'd be happy.

Astreja

May I never, as long as I should live, experience your idea of "happy."

Apologist

My idea of happy is the experience of the beatific vision. If you knew what was best, that would be your idea of happy too.

Yggdrasill

And I linked to an encyclopedia.
I'm guessing other states don't exist in this hypothetical? Well, then the situation could never arise, nuclear force would be employed long before it became realistic.

But, as it's a hypothetical, I should assert that I still think there would be a resistance movement, maybe it wouldn't be as well equipped as many other resistances/movements, but it would be there.

laughing dog

Learn some history. Italy had no long tradition of anti-semitism. Jews had been assimilated into the culture, and were not usually viewed as "different" but as friends and neighbors. After 1938, Mussolini - the subserviant kissass that he was - sought to further ingratiate himself to your Fuhrer through the passage of a number of laws aimed at Jews. Jews were ordered to be rounded up, but ordinary Italians disobeyed those order. Ordinary Italians helped 1000s of Jews to Portugal and Spain where they would be safe.
Jews were rounded up, but despite the orders to send them off, ordinary Italians disobeyed.

And whom did they disobey - the Fascists.


You're new to this board. You'll learn that most of the posters actually bring quite a bit of knowledge to the board. Try and be a member of that club.

EsoCyn

What makes you, or anyone else, qualified as to say what is best for me or humanity as a whole, for that matter?

Apologist

I didn't read it. I was merely commenting on what you said. I gave the definition Father Corrapi gave. Father Corrapi knows what he is talking about.

Well, this is the way I am looking at it. Fascism is by nature an ideaology that stresses military domination. There would be no other states because Hitler would have conquered them all. It would have ultimately been a bunch of diffused resistors against global armed forces. It would have been nothing but a nuissance to the Reich. As it was, the French resistance served a very real purpose. It aided the Allied Powers during WWII, and ultimately aided in the demise of the Axis. Had Britain not been there, there would have been no D-Day, and therefore no hope of French liberation, and therefore no French resistance.

Apologist

In such a society, the leader would have an army of people with guns qualifying him as being able to say what is best for you and humanity as a whole.