No, there was no mention of the Mercury Dime. I'd never heard of that one before. The birth of Nazism was the Eugenics movement in the USA, and D'Souza goes into great detail about that and how it morphed into the Progressive movement. Unfortunately, he did not take the opportunity to mention the whole Cold Spring Harbor thing in great detail, and only mentions it on one page.
I got pissed that they EXPLICITLY wrote FASCIST ECONOMIC IDEALS into the core operations of the New Deal, then have the gall to call us “fascists”.
These people are nothing but bundles of sticks.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong on this, but the modern definition of “fascism” seems wrong. What it seems to have been historically is “many rods together are not easily broken”. A populist, therefore, would by definition be a “fascist” by virtue of uniting many individuals, and the whole “state ownership of blah blah blah” is irrelevant nonsense.
It’s also hilarious that DEMOCRATS (literally, “rule by the people”) accuse POPULISTS (“drawing authority of/from the people”) of being “fascist”, when those two words (democrat and populist) should effectively mean the same thing, by their grammatical construction.
Really shows that the democrats, in truth, have NOTHING to do with the common man other than drawing on them for exploitation.
If we unite, they call us “fascists”, because they want us divided.
The forces of Ha’Satanwoulddo that, wouldn’t they?
Matthew 12:25-26
Knowing their thoughts, Yeshua said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Ha’Satan casts out Ha’Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
One thing that the communists, and then the neo-communists of the Frankfurt School, for example, came to realize was the power of propaganda (early psyops) through the re-defining of language.
Rainbow > relative humanism, 'diversity', 'equality', etc.
But it is gross manipulation, grounded in a foundation of lies and evil (selfish) intent.
Do the fasces of Rome sort of have a philosophical and spiritual lineage connection to the modern 'fascism'?
Roman law became the foundation (I think) of the civil law that is used, for example, by France. Contrast this with the common law foundation that is the root of British and American law. That common law foundation is Christian civilization and ethics, the civil law of Rome, then France, is rooted in the power of the state.
In that civil system, if someone commits a crime, they commit a crime against the state, and so the State prosecutes them, whether it is murder, theft, etc, etc.
In common law, it is party vs party. So if you damage or somehow inflict problems by violating my rights, I am the one who prosecutes you and it is to me that the redress is given.
But don't confuse this sort of common law approach with the (now twisted) criminal law vs 'civil law' in systems based on the British way, such as in the US or Australia, etc.
Despite any similarities between our now 'civil law' and common law approaches, I think that they are probably different.
In any case, from Rome Fasces to Mussolini's fascism to then the modern, post WW2 concept of 'Fascism', the spirit is the same: supremacy of the State over the individual.
It is a testament to the effectiveness of the Communist / Political Satanist clique that somehow patriotic nationalism has been tainted with the concept of fascism.
But I think a clearer, more accurate nomenclature would be that fascism is very close to Communism, or any form of State-ism where the collective or state is held as superseding the inalienable rights of the individual (which after all, are based on the concept that each human being is a unique child of the Creator, God.)
Roman law became the foundation (I think) of the civil law that is used, for example, by France. Contrast this with the common law foundation that is the root of British and American law. That common law foundation is Christian civilization and ethics, the civil law of Rome, then France, is rooted in the power of the state.
Dude, I’ve been looking for that answer for a long time, and it looks like you nailed it.
My suspicion has been that the fasces might have been from the 1700’s/early 1800’s and been intended to represent the common man bundling together a la “WWG1WGA”, but if you combine your comment with my note on a lot of them showing up in the 1920’s and you have them being implemented, with Roman architecture, in the 1871-1941 era where the admiralty/civic/banking systems would have been being brought online. Looks like a perfect fit!
As far as the “common law” we still have - we apply common law as a “layer 2” to civic law. Primary is the civic law which is encoded at various nodes, then the judges aggregate and apply it, and call their binding legal opinions “precedent”, “common law”. In reality, it’s a gross hybrid that gives the judges a lot more power than they should have - effectively granting them superlegislative authority in lieu of Convener / Guide / Referee for the juries, who should be the ACTUAL civic law authors, using any sort of statutory codes as a guideline. (Criminal/felony law may differ somewhat to lesser trials)
No, there was no mention of the Mercury Dime. I'd never heard of that one before. The birth of Nazism was the Eugenics movement in the USA, and D'Souza goes into great detail about that and how it morphed into the Progressive movement. Unfortunately, he did not take the opportunity to mention the whole Cold Spring Harbor thing in great detail, and only mentions it on one page.
I got pissed that they EXPLICITLY wrote FASCIST ECONOMIC IDEALS into the core operations of the New Deal, then have the gall to call us “fascists”.
These people are nothing but bundles of sticks.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong on this, but the modern definition of “fascism” seems wrong. What it seems to have been historically is “many rods together are not easily broken”. A populist, therefore, would by definition be a “fascist” by virtue of uniting many individuals, and the whole “state ownership of blah blah blah” is irrelevant nonsense.
It’s also hilarious that DEMOCRATS (literally, “rule by the people”) accuse POPULISTS (“drawing authority of/from the people”) of being “fascist”, when those two words (democrat and populist) should effectively mean the same thing, by their grammatical construction.
Really shows that the democrats, in truth, have NOTHING to do with the common man other than drawing on them for exploitation.
Projection, projection, and more projection.
u/#q4943
If we unite, they call us “fascists”, because they want us divided.
The forces of Ha’Satan would do that, wouldn’t they?
Matthew 12:25-26
Peace through strength.
u/FractalizingIron
One thing that the communists, and then the neo-communists of the Frankfurt School, for example, came to realize was the power of propaganda (early psyops) through the re-defining of language.
Rainbow > relative humanism, 'diversity', 'equality', etc.
But it is gross manipulation, grounded in a foundation of lies and evil (selfish) intent.
Do the fasces of Rome sort of have a philosophical and spiritual lineage connection to the modern 'fascism'?
Roman law became the foundation (I think) of the civil law that is used, for example, by France. Contrast this with the common law foundation that is the root of British and American law. That common law foundation is Christian civilization and ethics, the civil law of Rome, then France, is rooted in the power of the state.
In that civil system, if someone commits a crime, they commit a crime against the state, and so the State prosecutes them, whether it is murder, theft, etc, etc.
In common law, it is party vs party. So if you damage or somehow inflict problems by violating my rights, I am the one who prosecutes you and it is to me that the redress is given.
But don't confuse this sort of common law approach with the (now twisted) criminal law vs 'civil law' in systems based on the British way, such as in the US or Australia, etc.
Despite any similarities between our now 'civil law' and common law approaches, I think that they are probably different.
In any case, from Rome Fasces to Mussolini's fascism to then the modern, post WW2 concept of 'Fascism', the spirit is the same: supremacy of the State over the individual.
It is a testament to the effectiveness of the Communist / Political Satanist clique that somehow patriotic nationalism has been tainted with the concept of fascism.
But I think a clearer, more accurate nomenclature would be that fascism is very close to Communism, or any form of State-ism where the collective or state is held as superseding the inalienable rights of the individual (which after all, are based on the concept that each human being is a unique child of the Creator, God.)
Dude, I’ve been looking for that answer for a long time, and it looks like you nailed it.
My suspicion has been that the fasces might have been from the 1700’s/early 1800’s and been intended to represent the common man bundling together a la “WWG1WGA”, but if you combine your comment with my note on a lot of them showing up in the 1920’s and you have them being implemented, with Roman architecture, in the 1871-1941 era where the admiralty/civic/banking systems would have been being brought online. Looks like a perfect fit!
u/#updoot
As far as the “common law” we still have - we apply common law as a “layer 2” to civic law. Primary is the civic law which is encoded at various nodes, then the judges aggregate and apply it, and call their binding legal opinions “precedent”, “common law”. In reality, it’s a gross hybrid that gives the judges a lot more power than they should have - effectively granting them superlegislative authority in lieu of Convener / Guide / Referee for the juries, who should be the ACTUAL civic law authors, using any sort of statutory codes as a guideline. (Criminal/felony law may differ somewhat to lesser trials)
Yes, Mussolini praised FDR as "America's Fascist," particularly in the way he strong-armed people into accepting the New Deal.