Fascism On The Rise in Austria

[sailor]

Hi new guy.
Naw, Moore isn't a hero. just a film maker. Has a few points but is mostly trash. I imagine he makes good money though.

You're Irish right? Do you folks over there have the same problems with the Fabians?
I swear they have gotten entwined in our politics and are making a mess of what once was a great country. Won't be long and we will need some advice from some republican boys.
What ya think.

Fabians? Screw Fabians, Ireland is a place where the real Socialists always had great influence. And particularly among the Republicans. James O`Connoly was a communist. Anti-treaty IRA tended to be very left wing too. Sinn Fein is socialist-green, anti-smoking today and so on and so on...

 

[Up The Deise]

What I`m saying is is you are a buffoon!

Charming.

 

[Up The Deise]

Hi new guy.
Naw, Moore isn't a hero. just a film maker. Has a few points but is mostly trash. I imagine he makes good money though.

You're Irish right? Do you folks over there have the same problems with the Fabians?
I swear they have gotten entwined in our politics and are making a mess of what once was a great country. Won't be long and we will need some advice from some republican boys.
What ya think.

I was being sarcastic with my reference to Michael Moore.

Yes I'm Irish and we don't need the Fabians to mess things up. Our politicians are doing a fine job of messing the country up without any help from the Fabians.

As for your remark about the republicans. I take it that was in jest.

 

[Up The Deise]

Fabians? Screw Fabians, Ireland is a place where the real Socialists always had great influence. And particularly among the Republicans. James O`Connoly was a communist. Anti-treaty IRA tended to be very left wing too. Sinn Fein is socialist-green, anti-smoking today and so on and so on...

True, the Daily Mail would agree with you.

 

[Conza88]

Socialists and Fascists (national socialists) are on the same side of the spectrum. The left side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ

Your whole spectrum is fallacious.

Monarchy > Republic / Democracy.. whatever. You need to read Hoppe's, Democracy: The God who Failed.

Amazing insights, which carries the thoughts of Mises and Rothbard and addressed what they were too busy to do.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/288E937834B74179BC1501E950394F50/stopandlook-p5-proper-role-.aspx

 

[BuddyRey]

Your whole spectrum is fallacious.

Monarchy > Republic / Democracy.. whatever. You need to read Hoppe's, Democracy: The God who Failed.

Amazing insights, which carries the thoughts of Mises and Rothbard and addressed what they were too busy to do.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/288E937834B74179BC1501E950394F50/stopandlook-p5-proper-role-.aspx

Monarchy? Are you sure you meant that and not "Minarchy"?

If you actually meant the former, I must ask why!

I agree with you that the whole Democracy Vs. Republic argument is stupid hair-splitting, but wouldn't you say that Anarcho-Capitalism or even Minarchism is better than Monarchism?

 

[Conza88]

Monarchy? Are you sure you meant that and not "Minarchy"?

If you actually meant the former, I must ask why!

I agree with you that the whole Democracy Vs. Republic argument is stupid hair-splitting, but wouldn't you say that Anarcho-Capitalism or even Minarchism is better than Monarchism?

:o

Forgot to clarify that IF you MUST have a STATE, then MONARCHY is PREFERABLE to any other form of government, not democracy.

Lol, sorry should have made it clearer.

Anarcho-capitalism still is trumps. Don't worry

Myriad of reasons:

- If people start getting oppressed, they rise up. Their rulers are clear and present. There is no behind the curtain's so to speak. No-one is under the delusion, "WE THE PEOPLE" are the government. And ANYONE can become President.

Which is bs, you've got to be approved by the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Groups first. (But the book has nothing to do with that, mainly my digression. )

- The Country is someones PRIVATE PROPERTY. And they treat it better than if it was COLLECTIVELY owned.
- No endless debt, no POINTLESS WARS, it's in the interest of the Monarchy to see their property increase in value, so prosperity is their friend etc. Low taxes etc.

Interview on LewRockwell about it.

More info if requested.

 

[BuddyRey]

:o

Forgot to clarify that IF you MUST have a STATE, then MONARCHY is PREFERABLE to any other form of government, not democracy.

Lol, sorry should have made it clearer.

Anarcho-capitalism still is trumps. Don't worry

Myriad of reasons:

- If people start getting oppressed, they rise up. Their rulers are clear and present. There is no behind the curtain's so to speak. No-one is under the delusion, "WE THE PEOPLE" are the government. And ANYONE can become President.

Which is bs, you've got to be approved by the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Groups first. (But the book has nothing to do with that, mainly my digression. )

- The Country is someones PRIVATE PROPERTY. And they treat it better than if it was COLLECTIVELY owned.
- No endless debt, no POINTLESS WARS, it's in the interest of the Monarchy to see their property increase in value, so prosperity is their friend etc. Low taxes etc.

Interview on LewRockwell about it.

More info if requested.

Oh! Hehe! I feel much better now, thanks! Though I must say, your pragmatic "if there must be a state" attitude reeks of defeatism! Screw the state, comrade! We MUST have TOTAL Ancap revolution!

I'd never thought of it that way, about a Monarchy preventing a "secret government" from forming, but do you really think it would be true in every case? After all, isn't Britain, though under the rule of a Momarch, basically owned by the Rothschild banking family?

 

[sailor]

- If people start getting oppressed, they rise up. Their rulers are clear and present. There is no behind the curtain's so to speak. No-one is under the delusion, "WE THE PEOPLE" are the government. And ANYONE can become President.

They rise up and create a democracy.

 

[Conza88]

Oh! Hehe! I feel much better now, thanks! Though I must say, your pragmatic "if there must be a state" attitude reeks of defeatism! Screw the state, comrade! We MUST have TOTAL Ancap revolution!

That is does! Which is why I don't go around advocating Monarchy, essentially the use of it here is too point out to LE, that her JBS model is devoid of reality & fallacious. And it is COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to continually, mindlessly, blindly referring to it.

The false left / right paradigm is exactly that. It needs to be rejected. What LE and JBS would contend, is that Both the current LEFT and RIGHT wings sit on the (left side of the spectrum) and Anarchy sits on the extreme RIGHT.

It REPLACES the false left / right paradigm with it's own BS. Just rejumbles the labels around.

The FREE MARKETers back in the day used to sit on the LEFT side of Parliament (during the French Revolution), so it depends on the time, era - as to specific meaning of labels, i.e Classical Liberal, or the contemporary meaning.

Furthermore, JBS says anarchy is on the Far Right. (UMMMM, but anarchists are traditional SOCIALISTS) why aren't they on the LEFT of the JBS spectrum with the other FASCISTS, and COMMUNISTS and SOCIALISTS.

See. It's full of #(@$.

Sorry, massive digressive rant, lol. But yes, Ancap revolution ftw.

I'd never thought of it that way, about a Monarchy preventing a "secret government" from forming, but do you really think it would be true in every case? After all, isn't Britain, though under the rule of a Momarch, basically owned by the Rothschild banking family?

It would help prevent that I think. The Royal Family don't make laws though, the Queen is a figure head. It's really not ideal, but thats the nature of the state.

They rise up and create a democracy.

Indeed, lol. Which is why this isn't an end game solution. You certainly wouldn't want to go from where we are to Monarchy. If there is a break down in the STATE, the stupid thing to do - would be to try re-institute it. Heh

From Monarchy to Democracy by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

 

[pcosmar]

I was being sarcastic with my reference to Michael Moore.

Yes I'm Irish and we don't need the Fabians to mess things up. Our politicians are doing a fine job of messing the country up without any help from the Fabians.

As for your remark about the republicans. I take it that was in jest.

Just checkin'

 

[virolai]

For me the only dangerous fast-growing extreme right parties in Europe are british BNP and german NDP. The other alledged "extreme" right parties like FPÖ, Northern League, Vlaams Belang, etc bring some politically incorrect and provocative answers to issues like illegal immigration and European Union centralized power, but all of them are part of national or local goverments not making extremist policies at all. In fact, many times, they are more conservative (in the good sense) than the so-called moderate (euro-fanatic) center-right parties.

 

[sailor]

For me the only dangerous fast-growing extreme right parties in Europe are british BNP and german NDP. The other alledged "extreme" right parties like FPÖ, Northern League, Vlaams Belang, etc bring some politically incorrect and provocative answers to issues like illegal immigration and European Union centralized power, but all of them are part of national or local goverments not making extremist policies at all. In fact, many times, they are more conservative (in the good sense) than the so-called moderate (euro-fanatic) center-right parties.

I agree. But still these sort of parties are chauvinistic and try to score points by being chauvinistic and that is very distasteful.

It is possible to be anti-EU and anti-immigration without being a chauvinist.