-=> Quoting Rich Willbanks to Guy Putnam <=-
 RW> Next... Make sure you are using the correct terms.  How
 RW> do you define Fascism? 
 RW> . . . you seem to be equating Fascism and Communism or
 RW> Socialism.  They are three totally different types of
 RW> governing.
 
 GP> Look how warped your thinking has become from trying to
 GP> focus on the Conflict of Opposites presented to you by the
 GP> kept media!  Don't you  see it?
 RW> No I don't.  All I see it the fact that you are trying
 RW> to equate two different forms of governments.
No, you are trying to separate the same for of govt, simply by calling it
different names.
 
 GP> I'll let Benito Mussolini himself define Fascism.  When
 GP> asked "What is a Fascist," Mussolini replied, "I am a
 GP> Marxist . . ."
 RW> Doesn't work.  There's nothing there to say what a
 RW> fascist is. 
Mussolini said exactly what a Fascist is.  Mussolini said he was a Fascist. 
Mussolini said he was a Marxist.  They are the same thing, 2 names for
Socialism.
 
 GP> "Nazi" stands for "National SOCIALIST Workers Party of
 GP> Germany." 
 RW> Problem.  There was nothing socialist about the Nazis.
 RW> They weren't even good fascist, they were nothing more
 RW> then dictators, i.e. a government ran by one person.
There's nothing social about any Socialist.  They are all Total Govt, on
the left (along with Pharoism, Ceasarism, monarchy, etc).  The other side
of the spectrum, the right, could be best represented by no govt, a total
absence of govt . . . or anarchy.  The center would be a Constitutional
Republic, real freedom protected by the rule of law.
 
 GP> "USSR" stands for "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics."
 RW> Another problem.  The USSR was a poor attempt at
 RW> Marxism.  The party was to decide what the people
 RW> needed and then had the people make it.  "From each
 RW> according to his abilities, to each according to his
 RW> needs."
Communists have the same problems as Fascists . . . they are extreme left-
wing Socialists, representing systems of Total Govt.  The USSR & the Third
Reich were _excellent_ attampts at Marxism, as Marxism was always intended
to be Total Govt Tyranny.
 
 GP> You see, you've been watching the Nazis fighting it out with
 GP> the Communists, the Conflict of Opposites, right & left; . .
 GP> . but guess what? . . . Fascists/Communists are not really
 RW> Sure they are.  Fascists believe that the government
 RW> should control the manufacturing base and the communist
 RW> believe that the people should.
Negative.  They are the same.  Communists are Socialists that believe govt
should control the manfacturing base & they tell everybody so.  A Fascist
is a Socialist who believes that govt should control the manufacturing base
also, but have the additional problem that their country is a Christian
country (like Italy or America) where most believe that the right of
private property ownership is a God-given right.  Therefore, the Communist
goes underground & "re-emerges" as a Fascist who "believes" in private
property ownership.  Sure, under Fascism you "own" your factory, but govt
tells you who you may hire, how much you will pay them, who you can buy
your raw materials from & how much you will pay, how much you pay your
workers, how much you charge for your product, & how much of the money you
may keep.  
If there's any difference, please point it out to me.
 
 GP> opposites at all, but Brothers in Socialism.  They aren't
 GP> screwing each other at all, but its you who they are coming
 GP> down the middle at with both guns of Socialism balzing,
 GP> while you eyes & mind are entertained by the "Opposites."
 RW> That's like saying that watching two gangs killing each
 RW> other is making them stronger because they are both out
 RW> to steal my car.  As long as they are killing each
 RW> other they are growing weaker while allowing me to grow
 RW> stronger.
No . . . I'm saying that while intently watching 2 gangs "fighting" it out,
the gang bosses steal your car right out from under your nose.  Later, you
see them _all_ driving around in you car, laughing & drinking your beer
together . . . !  
In the Conflict of Opposites, the "opposites" are always really the same,
as they represent a phony conflict to capture your attention while you
really get screwed!  That's the catch.  Schumer vs NRA = both anti-gun. 
Klinton vs Dole = Brady Bill/magazine ban.  Fascists vs Communists =
Socialism.  Republicans vs Democrats = Fascism.  Thesis vs Anti-thesis =
Synthesis.  Thesis & anti-thesis are bullshit for _you_.  The Synthesis is
the target of the left-wing Fascists.  The Synthesis is the screw-job you
_always_ get no matter who you vote for or who wins.  That's because you
always vote of anti-gunners & they always win. . . . the Synthesis.
 
 RW> Not impossible but until there are changes in the
 RW> election laws it is impractical.  Doing so now, or any
 RW> time soon, will only split the pro gun vote and allow
 RW> even more anti gun people to be elected.  This is one
 RW> reason it hasn't been done.
 
 GP> Well that's the silliest thing I've ever heard!  You're
 GP> trying to tell me that if gun owners don't vote anti-gun,
 GP> then its going to split the pro-gun vote!  Well, perhaps you
 GP> are right.  If all gunowners vote anti-gun, then to get one
 RW> Of course I'm right .  
Splitting the "pro"-gun vote for anti-gun candidates, is really, splitting
the anti-gun vote.
 RW> How do you think Clinton got 
 RW> elected with 43% of the vote?  Because the other 57%
 RW> was split between two, sort of, conservatives.
Klinton got elected because those opposing him voted for one of two other
anti-gunners, Bush or peRot.  Had these 57% insisted on voting for a pro-
gun candidate, he would have won.
 
 GP> fact, split the vote.  Only, it would not be the pro-gun
 GP> vote as you claim . . . it would be splitting the anti-gun
 GP> gun owners vote!
 RW> How so?  Do you think the republican party is going to
 RW> turn as anti gun as the demos?  
It already is at the national level.  Bush got more anti-gun Presidental
Directives passed than Carter.  Bush banned imported infantry rifles.
Regan, Nixon & Ford supported passage of the Brady Bill, along with Bill
Ruger.
Bob Dole voted for the Brady Bill & the Magazine Ban.
 RW> Do you think that ALL gun owners are one issue voters?
Yes, they must all vote anti-gun Republican!
--- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR]
---------------