Ciuvică dacă tăcea… filozof tot nu rămînea. Penibil, să trecem peste.
Interesantă izbucnirea celui care, probabil, știe cel mai bine tot ceea ce era de știut despre perioada pre-revoluționară a lui Băsescu.
„Am spus-o de mai multe ori: firea de lichea a lui Basescu nu-l lasa sa nu gafeze!
Sa ranjesti la moartea tribunului e blasfemie, dupa ce l-ai folosit si in 2004 si in 2008 ca sa iti faci majoritatea si la Bucuresti si la prezidentiale!
Mai mult, sa faci alianta TU PERSONAL, intuitu personae, cu Profesorul, cu Tribunul, si apoi sa ii faci „solutie imorala” si sa te maimutaresti acum cu OPREA e uluitor, e nemernic!
Sa-l faci pe VADIM, DUMNEZEU sa-l odihneasca!, DELATOR cand tu insuti ai fost „COLABORATOR MEMBRU DE PARTID” al CI-ULUI DIE, inseamna sa fii o jigodie fara de pereche! Adica tu ii turnai pe toti romanii care iti treceau prin fata. Am tacut zeci de ani pentru prestigiul tarii. AJUNGE!
Ca sa intelegeti, el, BASESCU, era turnatorul tuturor matrozilor care treceau prin ANVERS si cumparau si ei lantisorul de aur mai ieftin decat putea el. Asta era jale! In timp ce el, BASESCU, ciordea din curse zeci de mii de dolari din bunkeraj, shipchadlering si altele! Stiu ei toti comandantii cum se chiverniseau pe banii prostilor!
Cati nebuni mai avem sa creada ca inca LEPRA ASTA mai e necesara neamului?
Mi-asi dori ca toti cei ce agreaza cele de mai sus sa inteleaga tacerea mea anterioara, sa ma ierte, dar mai presus de toate sa dea „SHARE” pentru ca tot mai multi sa stie adevarul despre aceasta monumentala JIGODIE!
Chiar nu scapam de comunisti, cum sugera chiar el!”
( Silvian Ionescu – https://www.facebook.com/silvian.ionescu.5 – necesar facebook login)
Efectul Vadim începe să se manifeste.
De ce nu s-ar re-pozitiona PRM ca partid National-Socialist? Mai jos, argumentatia unui amic de pe coasta de vest a CAnadei…
16 septembrie la 12:56
People love to equate National Socialism with Adolf Hitler. As do the Elite that was and were the benefactors of Hitler’s demise. Yet Hitler did not invent National Socialism. Let’s be frank. Hitler was a LEADER and an ORATOR who was necessary to establish National Socialism but is no more related to it than that. To discuss National Socialism today is somewhat taboo, and when the BIG guns come out, they always „Nay Say” pointing at Hitler, accusing him of being a Madman, and Anti-Semite and wanting to take over the World. None of which is really true.
National Socialism is best viewed as the family structure applied to government. The family is connected by blood, by soil, and by love. Similarly, a National Socialist state is connected by blood (race), by soil (territory), and by love (comradeship, patriotism). Comparing the National Socialist folkish state with a family is a very basic way of looking at the way National Socialism is run politically. Like a family, the National Socialist state is only the vessel and the race is what it contains. The vessel can have a value only if it preserves and safeguards the contents. The value of one is inferior to the value of the whole, and, if need be, the lesser must be sacrificed to protect the greater. In a National Socialist state, one has rights and a proportionate amount of responsibilities. He has freedom and liberty to do what he will, as long as it is not at the detriment of anyone else or the nation itself.
There are no popular elections in a National Socialist state, just as there are none in a family. Elections rarely produce a strong leader, rather, they produce politicians, and the very politicians who are most adept at lying and deceiving the populace are the ones who usually win. In a democratic system, the votes of two idiots count for more than that of one well-informed man. In a National Socialist system will, character, and ability are the three main tenets of leadership, and leaders are appointed to office by their superiors rather than elected.
By way of this appointment, the leaders of a National Socialist state have absolute power to make decisions over their particular field. Some say that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but society must front up to three facts before being so hasty to throw this type of catch phrase around.
First – Power must be given to somebody, else there is no more than anarchy.
Second – It is essential to have responsibility for power, lest it be misused. Where one man is making the decisions, he alone is responsible for the outcome of those decisions. Where votes are taken in a parliament or senate, responsibility is so divided that effectively no one is held accountable.
Third – Given power’s tendency to corrupt, it makes more sense to entrust it to him who shows the best character, and is consequently more able to resist its corrupting influence.
If two men stand together, and one is to have power over the other, it is natural that it should be the better man, the man with the stronger will, the better character, and the superior ability, that rules over his companion. This is the formula that has always stood throughout Man’s history, and is in fact the very basis of any structured and hierarchal society outside of human society. It is the strongest and most dominant lion who leads the pride – he is the one who is the most likely to make the best decisions most of the time. If he becomes unsuitable for his position at the top, whether it be because he becomes too foolish or too old, there is always a younger and smarter lion waiting in the wings to take his place. The same is true in the National Socialist folkish state.
This is the basis for National Socialism, as to who leads it. Yet the fact is that it was National Socialism that proved to be most successful in getting Germany out of the last Great Depression, as we are looking at facing, once again today.
Taking Hitler out of the picture and Propaganda, the premise of National Socialism is popular and has been adopted in many parts of the World. The only thing lacking is the actual name, as the name has been blackballed by the Victors of WWII, who were in fact the Capitalists. They lead us all into today’s destruction, as they have done throughout history, but what they point at as EVIL and their worst threat, with really nothing but unrelated propaganda IS National Socialism.
Under the democratic systems, responsibility is split up among numerous individuals, and ultimately lies with the general public that elects the electors. This leads to the undesirable situation of the electors or representatives having little to no responsibility for the way in which they use (or misuse) their power. The very worst that could happen is that they manage to fall out of favor with their electorate come the next elections, and lose their seat in office. We can see, through the various hucksters and showboat politicians we have had leading our nations, that this is little deterrent to wildly abusing political power.
In the National Socialist system however, ultimate responsibility lies in one man, the leader, to make ultimate decisions. Should those decisions turn out to be made in error, then he must accept responsibility for those errors and hand over his power to a more capable person.
Other leaders, subordinate to the head leader, have dual responsibilities, not only to their decisions, but to carrying out the decisions of their superiors. Should these duties be carried out to the satisfaction of their superiors, they are rewarded with more power; should they not, then their power is reduced or they are deposed.
Under National Socialism rights are directly proportionate to one’s responsibility to the folkish state. There are people (subjects) who have very little responsibility, and consequently have very few rights. There are others (citizens) who have a normal responsiblity and enjoy the same rights as most everyone else. And there are those (leaders) who bear the burden of tremendous responsibility and have not only personal rights, but guarantee the rights of others (in other words, they hold political power).
Democracy, at its heart, is mob rule. Whoever is in favor with the mob is „right,” and whoever is not is „wrong.” A small minority may actually be right about something yet drowned out by the large majority and the many voices of their misinformed argument. With the advent of mass media this tendency is strengthened, as the folks behind the amplifiers can more or less create „public opinion.” Indeed, so strong are the mass media that public opinion can be shaped and manipulated in such a way that the majority of people, never well informed ever, are firmly convinced they’re in the driver’s seat by the media-masters who really do exert the control.
National Socialism a comparatively stable political system, and one relatively unaffected by foreign subversion. National Socialism is governed from the top down, whereas Democracy (mob rule) rules – pretends to rule – from the bottom up. Humans are always and everywhere ruled by a minority elite.
Many Reactionaries make the error of closely comparing National Socialism to Communism in terms of economical policy, when in fact the two stand wide apart from each other. It is also interesting to note that the Communists claim National Socialism is not socialism at all, and is in fact the purest form of Capitalism. In reality, however, National Socialism is neither Capitalism nor Communism, but takes natural and healthy elements from each one to form a more „centrist” style of government. Neither laissez-faire Capitalism nor bolshevik Communism have ever worked in practice, and neither of them will work because they are both two sides of the same coin. What we need, rather than one unhealthy extreme or the other, is a healthy median, a balance, between the two. The National Socialist state allows capitalistic principles, but not at the expense of the collective folk.
In a National Socialist society, unlike Communism, there is certainly private ownership of property and land, and there is private ownership of possessions and capital. But unlike Capitalism, though, financial interests are curtailed and restricted at the point where they begin to have a negative effect on the folkish state. One example of this might be the charging of usurious interest rates on loans, which binds the working class into the slavery of an endless debt/interest cycle. Interest rates for the public should never be raised past a fraction of a percent, and this should be set in place by the central nationalized bank and this rate controlled by the Minister of Finance. The charging of interest on loans by any other organization or business or individual is strictly forbidden, for that is the acquisition of income for those not employed or making no effort which is also forbidden.
When an individual is gaining wealth through means whereby he is not contributing an equal amount of effort in exchange, it means that somewhere along the way someone is making more effort than he should in order to feed and clothe and house this individual who is contributing nothing himself. That should be considered nothing short of slavery by any civilized society, and that’s exactly what usury is. Money or wealth by its very nature does not replicate itself.
If Paul keeps a dollar bill for a hundred years, at the end of that time he still has a dollar bill, it is worth no more than it was a century earlier. If he lends that dollar bill to Josef and Josef agrees to pay Paul a dollar-fifty at the end of that hundred years, then effectively, all Paul’s done is manage to exploit Josef at a time of need, for his own profit.
Say that your brother was starving, would you force him to work like a slave for you before you gave him a meal? Certainly no civilized man would do such a thing to his own brother. One must certainly wonder why the so-called civilized men of the world today would think nothing of doing the same to his fellow racial countryman in the form of usury. Slavery and exploitation are not what racial comrades do to one another, and that is why in the folkish state this usurious slavery is forbidden.
Any conflicts or disputes that do arise between employers and workers are resolved through mediation between representatives of the Government and the employer, by an organization set up for that purpose.
This organization shall take the form of a commission consisting in an equal proportion of representatives of various industries and representatives from the Government who are representative of the workers of various said industries, and chaired by a representative of the Economics Ministry. This organization shall have power to appoint a mediator or make recommendations and suggestions to the representative of the Economics Ministry who alone has the power to force a solution.
The value of currency in a National Socialist state shall be directly tied to the productive capacity of the racial folkish state. It shall not be backed with the capital of the people (as the American Dollar is), nor of the capital of the state (i.e. gold standard, silver standard) but rather be guaranteed by the productivity of the folkish state.
Fractional reserve banking is a fraud perpetrated on the nations of this world. The system a National Socialist state takes for its currency is that every unit of money is worth a specific amount of WORK rather than gold, silver, land, or property. Therefore it is the duty of the Economics Minister to recognize the total value of the productivity of the National Socialist state and the duty of the Government to set the value of currency at an appropriate level to match this value.
Most every other philosophy, political notion, or religious belief stems from the absurd notion that human beings are somehow above Nature, that for some strange reason, biological laws just don’t apply to humans. National Socialism is the only one that accepts the concrete fact that humans are indeed part of Nature also.
It is National Socialism that is the ideology of Nature – the living of one’s life based on Natural principles.
One can choose to live in a material fashion, pursuing wealth, short-term gratification, fornication, or other „feel good” goals. Or one can choose to live in a way that reflects accordance with Nature, in pursuit of an idealistic goal which may not be achieved for centuries, patiently waiting for love over simple fornication, and replacing the notion that money is king with the human one that excellence is king.
There is more to life than material wealth.
National Socialists hold the premise that it is better for a society to be motivated toward a higher goal than simply „feeling good” in the present, and that in fact pursuing this short-term goal society is left worse off, just as the individual ends up feeling sorry for himself in the long term.
The basis for this „feel good” mentality is rather childish. A child does not plan for the future, he wants his gratification NOW, and that is all that matters to him. National Socialists think of what is better for all and for the future.
National Socialism is an ideology of quality over quantity. National Socialists would rather have a better society than a large one; we would rather have fewer, better people than a great number of mediocre people. Education IS important in a productive society and should be provided for freely.
Overall, National Socialism WORKED. It worked very well, and it was not so much that Germany conquered other Countries and FORCED them to take on National Socialism, more than the system was proven to work in Germany, bringing them out of the Great Depression, with NO HOMELESS and no person needing to starve or live without clothes, medical care, etc. Not only was the society productive, but overly so with 100% employment, vacations and affordable luxury for everyone.
When the actual statistics are tallied today (from what is allowed to be found), the people who came under the National Socialist Realm from other Countries, were glad to have it. Very few protested this better way of life.
The French Resistance (as has been evaluated with far less suppression of the facts today) was in reality only 2% of the people, as almost the total of the people living under National Socialism liked it far better than the system they had previously dealt with.
These facts are a THREAT to Capitalism and the Elite in general. This is why the propaganda does not allow this kind of education into the public realm. Yet today with the Internet, it cannot be stopped and people CAN be educated is what frightens the Elite from head to toe with its rationality.
A penny 4 your toughts, Cap’tain Maltese!
Complicat. Anumite aserțiuni sînt false acolo sau strict ideologizate. De exemplu, francezii nu iubeau ocupația, cel mult o suportau. Evident că rezistența activă nu putea reprezenta un procent foarte mare, nicăieri nu se întîmplă altfel într-o țară ocupată de o mașină de război extrem de eficientă.
Pînă una, alta, oricît îmi displac etichetările automate, care pretind o reacție obligaoriu pe linie, un partid care s-ar declara, fie și numai în denumire, național-socialist ar avea un handicap insurmontabil. Echivalența dintre nazism (nu ar trece 5 minute pînă s-ar folosi contracția anglicizantă) și răul absolut a fost adînc înrădăcinată și este bine cultivată în toate generațiile postbelice. Ar fi și interzis, conform legii românești.
Cît despre ideologia național-socialistă, probabil una mult mai puțin structurată decît liberalismul modern, comunismul sau chiar fascismul a la Mussolini, eu am o reținere majoră din cel puțin 2 motive. Germania lui Hitler a degenerat spre 2 atitudini pe care nu le pot aproba. A abandonat naționalismul în favoarea unui imperialism construit inițial pe dorința legitimă a națiunii germane de a recăpăta un loc demn, dar care, pe măsură ce i-au ieșit jocurile, a devenit un imperialism ideologizat, ajungînd ca, spre final, Hitler să pretindă sacrificul suprem, mergînd pînă la distrugerea completă a națiunii germane. Efectele negative se simt și astăzi. A doua atitudine pe care nu o pot accepta este cea față de creștinism, tolerat oarecum, dar pe care, în mod clar, se pregăteau să-l înlocuiască cu un fel de religie păgînă, inspirată parțial din vechi credințe nordice.
Despre construcția social-economică, impresiile mele sunt mult mai nuanțate. Multe lucruri au funcționat bine. Acum, e greu de spus dacă forma lor de socialism a fost componenta determinantă. Marii industriași și finanțiști au jucat un rol important, cumva nu foarte diferit de politica japoneză de după război.
Ar fi multe, dar nu mă consider suficient de avizat. E greu să desconsideri un Albert Speer sau Erhard Milch, dar cît de mult au fost creația unei ideologii e discutabil. Vezi și cazul României sub Antonescu, extrem de eficientă, o societate probabil mult mai corect așezată, dar care s-a născut după ce a distrus forma organizată ideologic a legionarismului, folosind doar capacități individuale, de o orientare sau alta.
Practic vorbind, dincolo de orientarea de stînga a electoratului său pe care o admitea chiar Vadim, cînd susținea că el este un om de dreapta care conduce un partid de stînga, PRM a fost un partid naționalist cu puternică orientare socială și un partid de lider, dar, de aici pînă la național-socialism cred că există o distanță de neparcurs pentru tipul de electorat pe care s-a bazat. Părerea mea.