THE MYTH OF LUCI'S FASCISM

[Lord Raffles]

Where is your information regarding the sneak attack on Pearl Harbour? Where is your information stating that the Japanese committed the world's worst atrocities against their prisoners? I would suggest you read up on the Long March. My uncle's father was killed as a prison of war at the hands of the Japanese in the Long March. This was a death march. Prisoners of the Japanese were the most poorly-treated of them all.

Why in this post do you neglect to mention that it was the Japanese who started the war and in so doing committed atrocities the Americans had never even thought possible? If you feel so bad for how Japan suffered and now how their enemies the Allies suffered then perhaps it would behoove you to make a move to Japan yes? You seem to think the West is a bunch of murderers. I would suggest perhaps it is not a good idea for you to live amongst murderers? Why not go live with your beloved Japanese? Oh wait. You can't because you are GAIJIN. They would never allow you to live there. Oh well. So much for that idea.

Most interesting. I just noticed the name of the author who wrote the article. Now that is funny. She is Japanese. Quel surprise!

SOURCE: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/716585-post22.html

DOES NOT THE FASCIST DOCTRINE DICTATE THAT WAR IS GLORIOUS, THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS 'WAR' ATROCITIES SINCE THE FASCIST LINE OF THOUGHT DOES NOT CONFORM TO CHRISTIAN VIEWS ON MORALITY?

AND HERE YOU ARE ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO, CRYING ABOUT 'ATROCITIES' THAT THE JAPANESE DID TO THE USA - SOME CANADIAN FASCIST, MOANING LIKE A LIBERAL ABOUT WAR AND THEN DEFENDING THE 'HATED' AMERICANS.

SAINTLUCIFER AS A CANADIAN FASCIST IS A MYTH - I, LORD RAFFLES, HAVE PROVED IT!

NOW YIELD!​

 

[Conchaga]

I noticed that his intelligence is a bunch of conjecture. The march he's talking about isn't The Long March. It's real name is the Bataan Death March.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March

The Long March was a Chinese event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_March

Do your research, moron. Especially when talking about shit like that.

 

[starguard]

Have any of you all ever heard of the "Trail of Tears"? This was America's version of the Bataan Death March, only it involved the Native American's. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Cherok-peo

 

[jack]

Have any of you ever heard of "The Throat Fucking Death March?"

or the "Squeeze The Base Death Marathon"?

http://www.throatfuckingdeathmarch.com.forum.php

http://www.squeezethebaseontheupstroke.net.preferences

 

[Conchaga]

Have any of you all ever heard of the "Trail of Tears"? This was America's version of the Bataan Death March, only it involved the Native American's. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Cherok-peo

Dead redskins are funny.

 

[Conchaga]

Have any of you ever heard of "The Throat Fucking Death March?"

or the "Squeeze The Base Death Marathon"?

http://www.throatfuckingdeathmarch.com.forum.php

http://www.squeezethebaseontheupstroke.net.preferences

I'm glad you're back. We needed shit like this.

 

[SaintLucifer]

I noticed that his intelligence is a bunch of conjecture. The march he's talking about isn't The Long March. It's real name is the Bataan Death March.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March

The Long March was a Chinese event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_March

Do your research, moron. Especially when talking about shit like that.

Strange that I recalled the name from memory, yet you sought out Wiki. I absently mixed the two up and now I am considered a fool for attempting to rely upon my memory alone rather than consult 'learned' sources?

 

[SaintLucifer]

Have any of you all ever heard of the "Trail of Tears"? This was America's version of the Bataan Death March, only it involved the Native American's. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Cherok-peo

That is exactly why the 'natives' preferred the British and Canadians over all those years. If not for American brutality against the natives, you would not have lost the War of 1812. The British were smart enough to treat the natives properly.

 

[SaintLucifer]

SOURCE: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/716585-post22.html

DOES NOT THE FASCIST DOCTRINE DICTATE THAT WAR IS GLORIOUS, THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS 'WAR' ATROCITIES SINCE THE FASCIST LINE OF THOUGHT DOES NOT CONFORM TO CHRISTIAN VIEWS ON MORALITY?

AND HERE YOU ARE ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO, CRYING ABOUT 'ATROCITIES' THAT THE JAPANESE DID TO THE USA - SOME CANADIAN FASCIST, MOANING LIKE A LIBERAL ABOUT WAR AND THEN DEFENDING THE 'HATED' AMERICANS.

SAINTLUCIFER AS A CANADIAN FASCIST IS A MYTH - I, LORD RAFFLES, HAVE PROVED IT!

NOW YIELD!​

Fascism advocates murder? Since when? You are telling me there is a fascist manifesto out there which decided the ideology must include wholesale slaughter of the innocents?

The only ideology which advocates murder is communism. Read the Communist Manifesto and discover for yourself. It is for this reason I kiss those US missiles.

Fascist doctrine glorifies war if and when such is necessary to bind the nation behind a goal. Fascism sees nothing wrong with imperialism. In fact, it is embraced by fascism. In no way does fascism state that it is in the best intersts of the State to commit wholesale slaughter of innocents. The Nips murdered those prisoners simply out of racism. They hated the white man. This is why I laugh when people complain about how it was unnecessary for the USA to nuke the slants back to the Stone Age during WWII. They claim this was blatant racism, yet it was alright for the slopeheads to murder hundreds of thousands of white prisoners. I have suggested the Americans should not have stopped at bombing only two Japanese cities with nukes. They should have included Tokyo.

Fascist thought can indeed confirm to Christian views on morality. Indeed you have been watching too many war movies with lots of Nazis wearing cool uniforms and affecting a German accent yes? Your post is proof you have not a clue what fascism is. Learn about how the Nazis treated their prisoners in comparison with the slanty-eyed, slope-headed motherfuckers and you would understand what it was I attempted to explain. What is there to gain which could benefit the fascist State by murdering so many innocents, other than a world's hatred? Look at how much the Nazis are reviled because of their treatment of the disgusting Jews. They should have settled for simply expelling them from Germany, after nationalising all of their possessions first but of course. The Jews were trash and deserved everything that was handed to them... other than the mass-murders. That was ridiculous. Look at the result. The world has done everything it can to ensure Nazism never rises again. Would you, as a fascist, want an entire world to ensure you never rise like the fabled phoenix if ever you were defeated?

FASCISM - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of into human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, fascism… interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered – as it should be – from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and tending to express itself in the conscience and will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing as one conscience and one will, along the self-same line of development and spiritual formation. Not a race, or a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality...."

A controversial topic is the relationship between fascist movements and the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum included doctrines that fascists used or admired. Forty years later, the corporatist tendencies of Rerum Novarum were underscored by Pope Pius XI's May 25, 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno restated the hostility of Rerum Novarum to both unbridled competition and class struggle. Apologists claim the criticism of both socialism and capitalism in these encyclicals was not fascist but rather closer to Christian Democracy.

There is little debate over Slovakia, where the fascist dictator was a Catholic monsignor; and the Independent State of Croatia, where the fascist Ustashe identified itself as a Catholic movement. The Iron Guard in Romania identified itself as an Eastern Orthodox movement (with no connection to Roman Catholicism), and had particularly strong leanings toward clerical fascism.

The Catholic organization Opus Dei and its founder Josemaría Escrivá supported the fascist regime of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco.

 

[Conchaga]

Strange that I recalled the name from memory, yet you sought out Wiki. I absently mixed the two up and now I am considered a fool for attempting to rely upon my memory alone rather than consult 'learned' sources?

I cited the wiki threads as support to my argument. The names and history are all stored in my massive brain.

 

[Conchaga]

That is exactly why the 'natives' preferred the British and Canadians over all those years. If not for American brutality against the natives, you would not have lost the War of 1812. The British were smart enough to treat the natives properly.

You mean the French American wars? 1812 was 99% British, 1% Indian.

The French American wars were where the Native Americans were used en masse against US forces.

Would you like me to cite the wiki entries again?

 

[Conchaga]

You mean the French American wars? 1812 was 99% British, 1% Indian.

The French American wars were where the Native Americans were used en masse against US forces.

Would you like me to cite the wiki entries again?

Shit, luci, as a Canadian I would've hoped that you at least made that distinction. Or, perhaps you canucks don't know your US history as well as you think you do.

 

[SaintLucifer]

You mean the French American wars? 1812 was 99% British, 1% Indian.

The French American wars were where the Native Americans were used en masse against US forces.

Would you like me to cite the wiki entries again?

Ho hum. Here we go again.

The War of 1812, declared by the United States on Great Britain under President James Madison on 18 June 1812, is a source of pride to Canadians as many inhabitants, principally of Upper Canada, fought alongside the Regular British Army and Indian allies to thwart American plans to capture what were then the British colonies on their northern flank.

Tecumseh was a charismatic Shawnee native leader who was brought up with a hatred of Americans, known as "Long Knives" to the Indians, following the death of his father in a bloody clash with Virginian militia. Concerned about the American westward expansion and encroachment onto Indian territory, Tecumseh supported the British in the War of 1812 in the hope that a British victory would assure the Indians of possession of their lands. Indian support to the British side of the war was a key factor in many of the British successes.

An important commander of the allied British and Native American war effort on the U.S.-Canadian border, Mohawk Chief John Norton (Teyoninhokarawen) was born of a Cherokee father and a Scottish mother most probably in Scotland and spent his formative years in Britain. He came to Canada with a British Army infantry regiment in the 1780s but soon left the army becoming a teacher and interpreter. Despite his mixed blood, under Indian law he was regarded as a full-blooded Indian.

Mohawk Chief Joseph Brant of the Grand River Iroquois realized Norton's abilities and adopted the young man as his nephew. When Brant died in 1807, Norton became chief of the tribe. He led the Mohawks through the majority of the war, from June 1812 to December 1814, as his warriors fought beside the British regulars in Canada in most of the actions on the Canadian war front. He and his warriors assisted General Brock at Detroit and at Queenston Heights and, after Brock's death at Queenston (October 13, 1812), they fought in 1813 at Fort George, Stoney Creek, Beaver Dams, and in numerous skirmishes. He and his men participated in the capture of Fort Niagara and the burning of Buffalo that same year. In the summer of 1814, the Norton and his warriors were intimately involved in the British-Indian forces that fought in the battles of Chippewa and Lundy's Lane. Norton ended his service with the British at the siege of Fort Erie in late 1814.

No native participation? Silly, ignorant little girl aren't you?



None too bright are you, arguing Canadian history with a Canadian. I have known the above since I was 10 years of age. Reading American liberal propaganda again are you?

 

[Conchaga]

Ho hum. Here we go again.
No native participation? Silly, ignorant little girl aren't you?



None too bright are you, arguing Canadian history with a Canadian. I have known the above since I was 10 years of age. Reading American liberal propaganda again are you?

You didn't give numbers. You surely proved that there was Native American involvement. Though, I didn't contest that. My argument was that the Native American involvement in the war of 1812 was minimal compared to the French American War.

But then, I could always just quote you.

Strange that I recalled the name from memory, yet you sought out Wiki. I absently mixed the two up and now I am considered a fool for attempting to rely upon my memory alone rather than consult 'learned' sources?

Yeah... that's what I thought.

 

[SaintLucifer]

You didn't give numbers. You surely proved that there was Native American involvement. Though, I didn't contest that. My argument was that the Native American involvement in the war of 1812 was minimal compared to the French American War.

http://www.trollkingdom.net/forum/showpost.php?p=908541&postcount=11

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintLucifer

That is exactly why the 'natives' preferred the British and Canadians over all those years. If not for American brutality against the natives, you would not have lost the War of 1812. The British were smart enough to treat the natives properly.


You mean the French American wars? 1812 was 99% British, 1% Indian.

The French American wars were where the Native Americans were used en masse against US forces.

Would you like me to cite the wiki entries again?

I made you look stupid, so you change what the discussion was about. You were claiming that the natives had very, very little involvement in the War of 1812. I was pointing out you were incorrect. Now you mention wars that had nothing to do with 1812. Why the sudden change of topic? We were discussing the fact the Indians had joined the British against the Americans thanks to poor treatment of the Indians by those same Americans. The discussion started because someone mentioned the 'trail of tears' which is directly related to American treatment of the natives. I merely pointed out had not the Americans treated the Indians so harshly, they would not have fought alongside the British thus crushing the Americans in 1812. Things may have been different if you Americans had not been so stupid.

 

[Lilac]

So, question.

You don't condone the Holocaust, or specifically the mass murder and essentially enslavement of the Jews and other groups the Nazi party did not tolerat, since you 'don't believe the Holocaust occurred', and yet you assert your, dare I say, vehement opinion toward the Jews and those that don't fit the Aryan mold.

Is race or ethnic identity even important these days, save for lineage and geneaology? I would imagine that a Facist State that is tolerant for its diversity as a people would be stronger than one that is intolerant and forces those different from the 'ideal' out. To force relocate people en mass runs the risk of angering other nations, suddenly burdened by a now-homeless bunch of refugees, especially if those refugees have no native 'homeland' or if that 'homeland' historically is now the State that evicted them.

 

[SaintLucifer]

So, question.

You don't condone the Holocaust, or specifically the mass murder and essentially enslavement of the Jews and other groups the Nazi party did not tolerat, since you 'don't believe the Holocaust occurred', and yet you assert your, dare I say, vehement opinion toward the Jews and those that don't fit the Aryan mold.

Is race or ethnic identity even important these days, save for lineage and geneaology? I would imagine that a Facist State that is tolerant for its diversity as a people would be stronger than one that is intolerant and forces those different from the 'ideal' out. To force relocate people en mass runs the risk of angering other nations, suddenly burdened by a now-homeless bunch of refugees, especially if those refugees have no native 'homeland' or if that 'homeland' historically is now the State that evicted them.

First of all, there was no 'Holocaust'. It is a myth. It never happened. Accept it.

I do not condone the mass-murder of Jews or any ethnic group for that matter... unless they have threatened the same against my own ethnic group (Muslims etc.). In this instance, I would not have the slightest problem with it.

I would imagine that a Facist State that is tolerant for its diversity as a people would be stronger than one that is intolerant and forces those different from the 'ideal' out.

I guess you have never truly seen 'Multiculturalism' in action now have you? Race riots all over North America and Europe. A fascist state that displays tolerance towards diversity would actually be weakened. Multiculturalism is a recipe for disorder and fascism exists through enforced order. The more chaos that arises in a fascist society, the more resources are required to defeat that chaos and bring about order.

To force relocate people en mass runs the risk of angering other nations, suddenly burdened by a now-homeless bunch of refugees, especially if those refugees have no native 'homeland' or if that 'homeland' historically is now the State that evicted them.

You do not understand fascism now do you? You speak of the fascist State running the risk of angering other nations. Who cares? The only thing that matters under fascism is the State itself.

How could they be 'refugees' from a country to which they emigrated? That very same nation cannot be their 'native' homeland and as such have no rights or privileges to the same. As an example, look at France. It is burdened with Muslims who are creating chaos in that nation. Since when was France ever a Muslim homeland? Since when did France ever trace their ethnicities to Arabs? You have not heard about the riots perpetrated by the Muslims in France? You have not heard about Muslim gangs who are killing French policemen in large numbers? This is chaos. This is a non-French peoples bringing about terror on the French people in their own homeland. If France would be wise enough to adopt fascism, they could seek to drive the Muslim hordes out of France. If you would recall your history lessons, if not for France, all of Europe would have become Muslim centuries ago. They saved Europe once and with the adoption of strong fascist policies, they will do so again.

 

[Lilac]

First of all, there was no 'Holocaust'. It is a myth. It never happened. Accept it.

I've been to Dachau. That place begs to differ.

 

[SaintLucifer]

I've been to Dachau. That place begs to differ.

While it is undeniably true Jews were killed in concentration camps, there were nowhere near 6 million deaths thus we have a 'holocaust'. There were barely 6 million Jews in all of Europe in those days. You would suggest the Nazis hunted down Jews, captured them, rounded them up and processed them to be sent off to concentration camps? Do you understand the logistics involved here? How is it possible to have the resources available to do this whilst fighting half the civilised world? Look how long it took my country and the USA to evacuate their citizens from Lebanon when the Israelis were pounding that country to shit? Yet you would suggest the Nazis managed the logistics for the movement of 6 million Jews whilst taking on the most-powerful nations the world had ever seen? It is an impossibility and you know it. The numbers have been greatly exaggerated. I would bet perhaps thousands of Jews were killed in concentration camps, not the 6 million claimed. Even the Soviets did not believe it and they were there.

 

[Lord Raffles]

CHECK THIS OUT - LUCY HASN'T A FUCKING CLUE WHEN IT COMES TO FASCISM!