democrofascism

[GrapeJ713]

Interesting article about this democracy thing everyone wants in IRAQ.
No to democracy (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32221)
In 1928, for example, the U.S. Army published training Manual 2000-25 for its officers. Here are some two definitions included in it:
"DEMOCRACY: A government of masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other kind of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

"REPUBLIC: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard for consequences. A great number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress."

link to definition of democrofascism (http://bureaucrash.com/campaigns/politicshurt/individuals/democrofascist.shtml)

[voidx]

Hahah definitions from 1928, good and relevant to current day. And besides it looks similar to this definition:

Oranges: All things I hated, or found bad about Oranges when I was six.

Apples: All things I loved, or found good about Apples when I was six.

Therefore, Apples good, Oranges BAD :mad:

:rolleyes:

[GrapeJ713]

There are some ideas that pre-date 1928 that are still relevant today. A lot of philosophy and science comes from centuries ago. So just because something is old doesn't mean it's not relevant. I think what the writer was trying to exemplify was that it was an official document published by the US govt. defining certain kinds of governments.

[Gem]

I think I'm hearing "Politicly correct" over and over in my head...

Didn't Hitler rise to power through a republic, btw?

Or wasn't the first democracy of france a republic?

Gem

[Tony]

Originally posted by Gem
I think I'm hearing "Politicly correct" over and over in my head...

Didn't Hitler rise to power through a republic, btw?

Or wasn't the first democracy of france a republic?

Gem

France still is a republic.

http://www.elysee.fr/ang/index.shtm

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
There are some ideas that pre-date 1928 that are still relevant today. A lot of philosophy and science comes from centuries ago. So just because something is old doesn't mean it's not relevant. I think what the writer was trying to exemplify was that it was an official document published by the US govt. defining certain kinds of governments.

Someone has already posted this link in another thread. The result of the debate, from my point of view anyway, was that all modern, functional democracies have achieved a similar level of self control and balance. The mechanisms have been different, and the structures of the democracies vary, but all with the same aim, of allowing the will of the majority to select the government, while ensuring that the rule of law and responsibility in office are still evident.

The US constitution was certainly a big advance in Democracy when it was first developed, and Australia, for example, based much of it's constitution on that of the US when it was created.

These days, everyone is driving very similar cars, and living under similar democratic institutions, (in those countries where they have a functioning one).

If anything, given many of the problems in the functioning of modern US democracy, it may be time to start tinkering with the thing to get it working properly again.

[GrapeJ713]

It could be that it's confusing to say a republican (small "r") government and not confuse people with the GOP (big "R") Rebuplicans that only believe in about half of the principles of a Republic. Just because someone calls something republic or democratic doesn't mean it is so. East Germany was a tyranical communist regime and it's official name was the German Democratic Republic.

[voidx]

There are some ideas that pre-date 1928 that are still relevant today. A lot of philosophy and science comes from centuries ago. So just because something is old doesn't mean it's not relevant. I think what the writer was trying to exemplify was that it was an official document published by the US govt. defining certain kinds of governments.

Very true, however I don't think it changes the fact, in my opinion, that you went out and found a definition of Democracy that fitted your statement of:

Interesting article about this democracy thing everyone wants in IRAQ.

Just because it was quoted before, does not mean its what the current defintion of it might be.

This section of the quote:

Attitude toward law is that the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy

certainly seems to be pushing an agenda of some sort, wouldn't you agree? I'm always skeptical of a set definition pair like that in which one is painted as smelling like dirt, and the other comes out stinking of roses.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by voidx
certainly seems to be pushing an agenda of some sort, wouldn't you agree? I'm always skeptical of a set definition pair like that in which one is painted as smelling like dirt, and the other comes out stinking of roses.

That was an official USA military definition of democracy, the same thing we want to set up by the military in Iraq now. It's just that now the word democracy is used when the better word would be republic. It seems to me that most of the democracies set up in the last century have devolved to mobacracy-socialist-kleptocracy type governments that trample individual rights and liberty.