Russia bans Jehovah's Witnesses

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Objectively speaking though, if you look at what Benito Mussolini did, Vladimir Putin comes closer to it than any other leader has done for a long time. The main difference is that he still pays lip service to the idea of his authority coming from the will of the Russian people; a proper fascist would derive his authority simply from having that authority - might makes right or auctoritas.

Actually, I would suggest that only Franco rested everything on a "might makes right" platform. Both Mussolini and Hitler used the political systems as were to rise to power and then were VERY assiduous in using their claims regarding the "will of the people" to retain their status as champion of the people. The sold the idea that they embodied the will of the people and therefore were empowered to act as THE leader. Call it propaganda, call it "smoke and mirrors," put it down to stacking the crowd to be televised or what-not. They managed to sell the concept well enough that people tacitly accepted it.

ou cannot rule absent the consent of the ruled, and pure coercion is impossible in the long term due to resources required to maintain it. You CAN manufacture that consent and -- the term used by critical theorists is concertive control -- use messages, institutions, and some coercion to enact a situation where the governed police themselves. THAT is what the fascist dictator strives for. Or, to use your Romanesque reference, they used auctoritas to beget gravitas and presumed dignitas (both elements of making the leader the symbol of the people being lead) which in turn granted ever greater auctoritas.

[Crandar]

Never met a Jehovah Witness in my life.

Here only the Orthodox Church is begging for money, especially during the holiday of the Epiphany, when they send hundreds of Orthodox South-Koreans to ring the bells of houses.
Maybe it's related to the fact that only the Orthodox Church is allowed to proselytise and we ten to take blasphemy laws somewhat seriously.

Or maybe it's just a coincidence, because I have see Mormons selling their book, but they spoke only French, not even English, so there's a considerable chance that nobody understood they were violating our constitution.

Are the Jehovah Witnesses really that onboxious or is it just an exaggerated urban legend?

[Tristuskhan]

Are the Jehovah Witnesses really that onboxious or is it just an exaggerated urban legend?

Urban I can't say. Rural, quite a bit here in France. I remember three years ago, local elections, I saw people in suits stalking villages all around when I was coming back from work the forest.
Misery! I thought. The Sarkozists are on the move, better hide. When they came knocking at my door later I discovered those were just Jehovah Witnesses, what a relief!
If I remember well I was so happy I maybe was a bit uncivil. For once.

"Mine" are a couple in their mid-thirties, with strange eyes and with two young kids. A two years-old boy and a five years old girl. I always feel uneasy for them, give them a smile and think about the french proverb: "les plus belles roses poussent sur les tas de fumier".

The most beautiful roses grow on dung heaps.

Good luck, children!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Never met a Jehovah Witness in my life.

Here only the Orthodox Church is begging for money, especially during the holiday of the Epiphany, when they send hundreds of Orthodox South-Koreans to ring the bells of houses.
Maybe it's related to the fact that only the Orthodox Church is allowed to proselytise and we ten to take blasphemy laws somewhat seriously.

Or maybe it's just a coincidence, because I have see Mormons selling their book, but they spoke only French, not even English, so there's a considerable chance that nobody understood they were violating our constitution.

Are the Jehovah Witnesses really that onboxious or is it just an exaggerated urban legend?

Generally speaking, they are lovely people - as are Mormons.

However, other people find their insistent attempts to save your soul annoying, and so they say nasty things about them.

Generally speaking they will leave you alone if you firmly declare a religion.

[Brenus]

Generally speaking they will leave you alone if you firmly declare a religion.

I just tell them I am atheist, and it works wonders...

[Pannonian]

Generally speaking, they are lovely people - as are Mormons.

However, other people find their insistent attempts to save your soul annoying, and so they say nasty things about them.

Generally speaking they will leave you alone if you firmly declare a religion.

They're among the most decent evangelists I've met or seen. I'm against evangelism as a rule, but I find them pleasantly moderate. That said, the brand of witnessism I've seen in person is akin to the famed Church of England tea and scones extremism.

[Sarmatian]

How aren't they shot in Texas?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How aren't they shot in Texas?

They're polite. Persistent, but polite. If ordered off a property, they wish you a good day and depart.

[Strike For The South]

How aren't they shot in Texas?

They tend to be "European-American"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They tend to be "European-American"

All the ones in Florida have been salt and pepper teams -- all female.

[Pannonian]

Actually, I would suggest that only Franco rested everything on a "might makes right" platform. Both Mussolini and Hitler used the political systems as were to rise to power and then were VERY assiduous in using their claims regarding the "will of the people" to retain their status as champion of the people. The sold the idea that they embodied the will of the people and therefore were empowered to act as THE leader. Call it propaganda, call it "smoke and mirrors," put it down to stacking the crowd to be televised or what-not. They managed to sell the concept well enough that people tacitly accepted it.

ou cannot rule absent the consent of the ruled, and pure coercion is impossible in the long term due to resources required to maintain it. You CAN manufacture that consent and -- the term used by critical theorists is concertive control -- use messages, institutions, and some coercion to enact a situation where the governed police themselves. THAT is what the fascist dictator strives for. Or, to use your Romanesque reference, they used auctoritas to beget gravitas and presumed dignitas (both elements of making the leader the symbol of the people being lead) which in turn granted ever greater auctoritas.

Of course, dictators are constitutional, and both Mussolini and Hitler rose to power by constitutional means. You can be a popular leader without constitutional requirements though, holding power through implicit popular approval. That would be an old school Greek tyrant.