Until now the western democracies decided to go a middle way beetween total control in a dictatorship on one side and anarchistic chaos on the other side. Do you know the film "The Siege" with Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis? Sooner or earlier the democracies will become dictatorships. It is not a question if anybody wants that. It is only a question of safety.

And who or what´s threatens our safety?

The terrorism for example. And when you directly ask me if i really want fascism, then i say yes. Yes, i am a fascist. Yes i want a monarchy. Why should we wait until we get attacked? Fascism is the best thing that can happen to a country.

All I can say is:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemöller


At least you admit it. I have no problem with people that have an extreme attitude or ideology. You have that right in a democratic society. But you can be sure of one thing; the day you forcibly try to take power then I will take up arms and fight you to the death in defense of democracy.

The democracy is not worth to be defended. Or do the western democratic countries follow any plan to create a worldwide democracy? No, they don´t. For example Nepal: The CIA supports in Nepal an absolutistic monarchy. The people there live like in the mid-age. 80 % are illiterate. And the US governement wants that. That means the principles freedom and indipendence can not be so important for the US government. And i am absloutely sure that the US government woult tolerate a fascistic dictatorship if this fascistic state would become an allied of the US. Just for example: The Somoza Regime in Nicaragua or Franco in Spain. Franco was one of the closest allied of the US during the cold war.

But then, to abide by democracy wouldn't you then have independent states and ideologies? I mean, democracy is, basically, when the people choose what they want. If the people choose to be an independent nation to the US then that is there democratic choice. The aim of democracy is not to unite the world under one leadership but to unite the world under, in a sense, a political fairness. I say political fairness because fairness isn't the correct word. Because not all democracies bring fairness, Nazi Germany is a perfect example. But political fairness means that the awfulness that a government has brought wasn't brought politically unfairly because the people of that nation chose that line to take.

@Gregor

You say that fascism is the best thing that can happen to a country – why?

The democracy is not worth to be defended – why?

Also let me ask you this:

How old are you?
Do you live in that part of Germany that was part of the former DDR?


@Yin717

“The aim of democracy is not to unite the world under one leadership but to unite the world under, in a sense, a political fairness”

That´s a pretty good answer; never thought of it that way. I must remember to use it in the future.

Democracy is betrayal to the whole mankind. Democracy gives the communism the possibility to conquer a country from inside. Fascism is the best szenery that can happen, because attack is the best defence against communism. When you give the people what they want, then they vote what the massmedia tell them to vote. Democracy is not only a nonsense but also rediculus.

When the labour party in britain won the elections, then the former british colonies became "independent". Independent means that they were left over to the communism. For example South Africa. That is the reason why democracy is absolutely nonsense. The system "democracy" is too weak to stop totalitaristic systems. How old i am doesn´t matter. And i´m not from the former DDR. But a similar state.

Or for example the situation in iraq: The US and the teabags invaded Iraq to bring them the democracy, so that the people of iraq can vote for the same socialists in a democratic way. And the same socialists control the massmedia in iraq. On this example you can see what absolutely idiots the Yanks and the Brits are. They follow no plan to get control over the world. I would never risk anything for this rediculus system. But for the fascism it´s worth to fight for, because the fascists wanted the world power. But i admit that the allliance between Hitler and Mussolini was a mistake, because Hitler was a pagan. But the catholic Mussolini didn´t realise that.

Originally Posted by Gregor1

Democracy is betrayal to the whole mankind. Democracy gives the communism the possibility to conquer a country from inside. Fascism is the best szenery that can happen, because attack is the best defence against communism. When you give the people what they want, then they vote what the massmedia tell them to vote. Democracy is not only a nonsense but also rediculus.

Attack is the best form of defence? I know that it didn't really occur in Europe past 1947, or was it 1949? Well it was after the Berlin Blockade but have you heard of the Cold War? Although no direct conflict between the US and USSR happened, because if it did we wouldn't be here, there were minor conflicts against communism. Examples. Korean War. Nothing was actually gained. We were able to nearly destroy North Korea but China fought back and pushed the UN back out of North Korea. Attack didn't work there. We were left at square 1. The Vietnam War was even worse! Not only was communist China, North Vietnam, North Korea and other communist countries able to push the US and South Vietnam back but they took it over. Why? Partly because the US citizens saw the war as an unnecessary loss. Not only that but communists were being attacked and they united. Same as if you attacked a democratic the democratic countries will lock together and fight you off. This was the case in the Korean War. We didn't destroy communism but we stopped them from destroying democracy. The point I am trying to make is the US, and the USSR, learnt that attacking each other ideologies does not work. You get no where. because people of the same ideologies unite together to stop it. An ideology is impossible to knock out of people by force. You force someone to lose it, they will just fight back with force to keep it.

When the labour party in britain won the elections, then the former british colonies became "independent". Independent means that they were left over to the communism. For example South Africa. That is the reason why democracy is absolutely nonsense. The system "democracy" is too weak to stop totalitaristic systems. How old i am doesn´t matter. And i´m not from the former DDR. But a similar state.

Actually this isn't true. The mass leaving of countries to independent states was in the Thatcher regime, 1980s, and as far as I know, correct me if I am wrong, none of those countries has fallen to Communism, excluding Hong Kong which is a different issue. I am not familiar with the South Africa issue you are referring too. As far as I know it has always been democratic.

Or for example the situation in iraq: The US and the teabags invaded Iraq to bring them the democracy, so that the people of iraq can vote for the same socialists in a democratic way. And the same socialists control the massmedia in iraq. On this example you can see what absolutely idiots the Yanks and the Brits are. They follow no plan to get control over the world.

This is possibly the worst example to use, Afghanistan is far better. But, regarding Iraq, the public hated it. And the point of democracy is to listen to the people. This was not done and therefore was not a democratic decision. Also Tony Blair and his closest colleagues were, sorry if I offend, American butt lickers. They would do anything to please the Americans but a majority of the government were against the idea. Why did we still vote for the war? Because Labour had the biggest majority and if a member voted against, their career would be down the drain. Still saw it as wrong but hey, can't blame them. Iraq was a mistake and stupid and even fascism makes mistakes. Japan and Pearl Harbour? Germany and Russia? You know. Many mistakes have also been made by fascists just like those by democracy. Fascism isn't perfect!

Just to argue the point for Afghanistan. Many people who study this may want to disagree with me here or add in points but this is how I understand Afghanistan. It is primarily a war on terror. We are in there to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Yes, this protects democracy but it also stops innocent people dieing. Who knows, Germany could have been next! But yes, like Iraq, the US is instituting democracy. Two reasons why I support. One is because I am a strong believer in democracy. But yes, that is a biased view. My second reason is that it get's the Taliban out of government. I believe before the war the Taliban ran the country. If we install a government this get's rid of the Taliban in the government and makes them easier to fight off. Also, having a democratic system helps prepare the country for when we leave. They can then choose their future. may I remind you, Hitler wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for democracy! The Munich Putsch failed and at that point Hitler realised that force, unlike in Russia, would never win over the German people.

I would never risk anything for this rediculus system. But for the fascism it´s worth to fight for, because the fascists wanted the world power. But i admit that the allliance between Hitler and Mussolini was a mistake, because Hitler was a pagan. But the catholic Mussolini didn´t realise that.

World domination never works. Hitler tried and failed. Britain was the closest to ever getting world domination but only they got a 1/4. Why? Because people want their independence. People want to run their lives their own way and not under one dictatorship. Even you can't deny that of people.

By the way. Hitler was actually born a Catholic and grew up a Catholic. In fact, I believe he still said he was a Catholic even when in power. Please correct if I am wrong.

Dictatorships often appear invulnerable. Intelligence agencies, police, military forces, prisons and execution squads are controlled by a powerful few. A country's finances, natural resources, and production capacities are often arbitrarily plundered by dictators and used to support the dictators' will. In comparison, democratic opposition forces often appear extremely weak, ineffective, and powerless. That perception of invulnerability against powerlessness makes effective opposition unlikely.

That is not the whole story, however. A myth from Classical Greece illustrates well the vulnerability of the supposedly invulnerable. Against the warrior Achilles, no blow would injure and no sword would penetrate his skin. When still a baby, Achilles' mother had supposedly dipped him into the waters of the magical river Styx, resulting in the protection of his body from all dangers. There was, however, a problem. Since the baby was held by his heel so that he would not be washed away, the magical water had not covered that small part of his body. When Achilles was a grown man he appeared to all to be invulnerable to the enemies' weapons. However, in the battle against Troy, instructed by one who knew the weakness, an enemy soldier aimed his arrow at Achilles' unprotected heel, the one spot where he could be injured. The strike proved fatal. Still today, the phrase "Achilles' heel" refers to the vulnerable part of a person, a plan, or an institution at which if attacked there is no protection.

The same principle applies to ruthless dictatorships. They, too, can be conquered, but most quickly and with least cost if their weaknesses can be identified and the attack concentrated on them. Among the weaknesses of dictatorships are the following:

The cooperation of a multitude of people, groups, and institutions needed to operate the system may be restricted or withdrawn.

The requirements and effects of the regime's past policies will somewhat limit its present ability to adopt and implement conflicting policies.

The system may become routine in its operation, less able to adjust quickly to new situations.

Personnel and resources already allocated for existing tasks will not be easily available for new needs.

Subordinates fearful of displeasing their superiors may not report accurate or complete information needed by the dictators to make decisions.

The ideology may erode, and myths and symbols of the system may become unstable.

If a strong ideology is present which influences one's view of reality, firm adherence to it may cause inattention to actual conditions and needs.

Deteriorating efficiency and competency of the bureaucracy, or excessive controls and regulations, may make the system's policies and operation ineffective.

Internal institutional conflicts and personal rivalries and hostilities may harm, and even disrupt, the operation of the dictatorship.

Intellectuals and students may become restless in response to conditions, restrictions, doctrinarism, and repression.

The general public may over time become apathetic, skeptical, and even hostile to the regime.

Regional, class, cultural, or national differences may become acute.

The power hierarchy of the dictatorship is always unstable to some degree, and at times extremely so. Individuals do not only remain in the same position in the ranking, but may rise or fall to other ranks or be removed entirely and replaced by new persons.

Sections of the police or military forces may act to achieve their own objectives, even against the will of established dictators, including by coup d’état.

If the dictatorship is new, time is required for it to become well established.

With so many decisions made by so few people in the dictatorship, mistakes of judgment, policy, and action are likely to occur.

If the regime seeks to avoid these dangers and decentralizes controls and decision making, its control over the central levers of power may be further eroded.

With knowledge of such inherent weaknesses, the democratic opposition can seek to aggravate these "Achilles' heels" deliberately in order to alter the system drastically or to disintegrate it.

The conclusion is then clear: despite the appearances of strength, all dictatorships have weaknesses, internal inefficiencies, personal rivalries, institutional inefficiencies, and conflicts between organizations and departments. These weaknesses, over time, tend to make the regime less effective and more vulnerable to changing conditions and deliberate resistance. Not everything the regime sets out to accomplish will get completed. At times, for example, even Hitler's direct orders were never implemented because those beneath him in the hierarchy refused to carry them out. The dictatorial regime may at times even fall apart quickly, as we have already observed.

In recent years various dictatorships-of both internal and external origin-have collapsed or stumbled when confronted by defiant, mobilized people. Often seen as firmly entrenched and impregnable, some of these dictatorships proved unable to withstand the concerted political, economic, and social defiance of the people.

You claim that democracies are weak. No my friend, it just looks that way but if you come into a conflict with democracy, then you will discover that it is a strong foe.

Since 1980 dictatorships have collapsed before the predominantly nonviolent defiance of people in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Slovenia, Madagascar, Mali, Bolivia, and the Philippines. Nonviolent resistance has furthered the movement toward democratization in Nepal, Zambia, South Korea, Chile, Argentina, Haiti, Brazil, Uruguay, Malawi, Thailand, Bulgaria, Hungary, Zaire, Nigeria, and various parts of the former Soviet Union (playing a significant role in the defeat of the August 1991 attempted hard-line coup d'‚tat).

You just continue to dream about your fascist paradise, you will never experience it.

Democracy’s sword will decapitate the fascist monster within minutes.