[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / ausneets / dempart / freeb / ita / jenny / mascot / vichan ]

/fascist/ - Fascism and the Third Position

“Adolf Hitler was literally an evangelist of love” — Jost Turner
Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 5f1c08ff7790a13⋯.jpg (31.78 KB, 300x478, 150:239, mosley.jpg)

93e060  No.15335

In "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered" and in "The Coming Corporate State". The BUF advocated for freedom of expression, I've interpreted this as their acceptance of political liberalism on the individual level. If they were for freedom of expression that would suggest they were for other civil liberties, i.e political liberalism. Even then freedom of expression can be interpreted to allow for other rights such as gun ownership as a means of freedom of expression.

My point is this then: if the BUF accepted liberalism but combined it with the economic planning and anti-democracy of Fascism. Then wouldn't British Fascism be the best variant of Fascism for our contemporary age?

Italian Fascism and other variants opposed basic civil liberties such as those found in the bill of rights on the basis that it separated the individual from the state. Not only does that seem like a blank check for tyranny if combined with anti-democracy, but how are we going to convince people to believe in a ideology that strips them of their civil liberties?

03478e  No.15355

>>15335

Bumping for interest. I agree, freedom of expression seems to be important. Echo chambers are unhealthy, and so long as you call out all subversion it seems like you're just building up the mental immune system of the nation by allowing discussion.


36e86e  No.15365

File: bba5fc89eedc1c7⋯.jpg (308.86 KB, 1280x560, 16:7, Dordogne.jpg)

>how are we going to convince people to believe in a ideology that strips them of their civil liberties?

Easy. Show them some fucking Pedos getting away with it.

Show them migrant rape.

They'll give up their civil liberties real quick.

See 9/11

I think we should be able to discuss pretty much everything in a fascist state.

Except conspiracy against the state, pedophilia, transgenderism, homosexuality, Zionism, Democracy, islam, etc.

Pedophilia is shoot on sight.

Conspiracy against the state is shoot on sight.

Zionism, transgenderism, Islam, and homosexuality should be reeducation camps.

Some things are just directly opposite what we believe on so many levels that we should just not allow them.

There are some things that we just 'are' as nations.

Things that shouldn't ever be changed.

If you give people unmoderated civil liberties, they'll start clinging to things like what I listed when the going gets rough.

The revolution ends up being the opposite of what came before in an attempt to fix things.

It may seem outlandish to us that a fascist ethnostate would ever go back to being a pozzed neoliberal hellhole, but I bet the founders of America never thought anyone would ever want to go back to authoritarianism.

The government starts to falter a little bit(food shortage, war losses, economic mismanagement), and the people start flailing around looking for something to believe in.

That's how you get your colonies succeeding.

That's how you get the French revolution.

That's how you get Bolsheviks.

You have to:

1) Be as effective as possible, obviously.

2) Maintain public opinion with propaganda, tours, speeches, and parades.

3) Suppress dissent

A state that can maintain these three things will never see regime change.

The problem is that every state sets out with these three things in mind, and fails with time.

They should probably be enshrined in a some kind of document or building.

Kinda like how the American people are so devoted to the constitution.


d68e83  No.15374


e129bf  No.15404

>>15365

I will ask, what even constitutes pedophiles in regards to young women. Seems like age of consent was something evil feminists conjured up after the turn of last century


9e4584  No.15408

>>15404

>Seems like age of consent was something evil feminists conjured up after the turn of last century

Correct. If we are to have any age of consent at all, it should be around the average age of puberty in females. Child-molesters should still get the bullet. Anything I talk about happens within the strict limits of consensual marriage


93e060  No.15412

>Easy. Show them some fucking Pedos getting away with it.

Show them migrant rape.

They'll give up their civil liberties real quick.

See 9/11

This didn't happen due to civil liberties though and how does any of this justify ending civil liberties?

>If you give people unmoderated civil liberties, they'll start clinging to things like what I listed when the going gets rough.

I think those things aren't due to civil liberties though. You can maintain civil liberties but not have those things.

>A state that can maintain these three things will never see regime change.

It isn't about preventing regime change or bringing that about it's about justifying civil liberties or their removal.


36e86e  No.15430

File: c1646c71379f10b⋯.jpg (178.29 KB, 1030x684, 515:342, Lake_geneva_Switzerland-10….jpg)

>>15412

Wym?

9/11 happened because airports trusted their passengers.

When that trust was broken it ushered in invasive security measures.

The same thing is happening in our countries on a larger scale with things like crime, drug use, degens, etc.

I'm saying we can use horror stories like drug overdoses, rape, pedos getting out of jail, etc to scare people into letting us take a more authoritarian approach.

There are plenty of things you can do when you take away some civil liberties.

The SS can just detain you and search your property if there are rumors going around that you're a pedo.

You can be detained instantly if a neighbor tips the police about you harboring illegals.

If you get caught red handed raping someone, the police could just execute you on the spot.

If you're a drug kingpin, you can be tortured for information.

You are, as the state, making a promise to the people.

The promise that if they give up some of their civil liberties, you can prevent shit like that from happening.

>I think those things aren't due to civil liberties though.

>it's about justifying civil liberties or their removal.

>how does any of this justify ending civil liberties?

>This didn't happen due to civil liberties though

idk why you're viewing everything through this civil liberties lense.

Your rights stop mattering when you cause a problem for or might cause a problem for the volk.

Are you a crypto-libertarian or something?

You have freedom of speech until you start advocating for pedophilia.

You have a right to bear arms until you pledge your allegiance to communism or another country.

You have a right to privacy until you do some pizzagate shit.

You have freedom of press until every paper you print is telling people to stop having kids.

You have freedom of religion as long as you're christian, non-religious, or pagan.

You have a right to self-determination until you determine that you want to throw away 20,000 years of ancestry to fuck a black girl.

You have a right to due process until you get caught red-handed raping someone.

>>15404

I think 16 is fine.

I respect the law of the land even if its higher than 16.

Younger than 16 creeps me out.

It also creeps me out when old 40+ guys are pining after teenagers.

I don't think a 40+ year old man should be able to marry a teenager.

If he dies, now she's left to raise a bunch of kids as a single mother and that never ends well.

>>15408

and yeah it should be consensual and within the confines of a marriage.


93e060  No.15432

>>15430

>The promise that if they give up some of their civil liberties, you can prevent shit like that from happening.

>some

When will there be a limit though? If the state has that kind of power what will limit it from devolving into a tyranny on par with Bolshevism?

>you can prevent shit like that from happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ogorzow

There will still be that sort of stuff happening like the serial killer in the Third Reich. You won't fix all the ills of society by removing civil liberties.

If what you're saying is true then there would have been no crime in the communist countries but there still is. In fact at that point all the criminals just join the government to do the crime they wanted to do anyways but do it legally.

>idk why you're viewing everything through this civil liberties lense.

Because what kind of society do you want to live in? Imagine a society without these basic liberties we take for granted. Party of the reason the British Fascists opposed communism was because they saw it as too tyrannical.

>Your rights stop mattering when you cause a problem for or might cause a problem for the volk.

>You have freedom of speech until you start advocating for pedophilia.

>You have a right to bear arms until you pledge your allegiance to communism or another country.

>You have a right to privacy until you do some pizzagate shit.

>You have freedom of press until every paper you print is telling people to stop having kids.

>You have freedom of religion as long as you're christian, non-religious, or pagan.

>You have a right to self-determination until you determine that you want to throw away 20,000 years of ancestry to fuck a black girl.

>You have a right to due process until you get caught red-handed raping someone.

So what you're saying is: you have rights but the moment you start doing things I don't like or don't agree with you suddenly don't have rights. That isn't civil liberties. Imagine you replace all that with communist stuff.

In a communist country you're free as long as you shut up and obey. What you're saying is no different.


36e86e  No.15459

File: 140e7588f6c0517⋯.webm (3.46 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Hard Knock Life.webm)

>>15432

>When will there be a limit though.

When the government abuses it for too long and there's a revolution.

And tyranny is not what's bad about communism.

Communism is what's bad about communism.

>Paul Ogorzow

"one high profile case therefore you didn't fix it."

You really think crime didn't go down under that regime?

>Because what kind of society do you want to live in? Imagine a society without these basic liberties we take for granted.

That sounds fuckin awesome. I'd give up all of my civil liberties except the right to bear arms if it meant the betterment of the nation.

and I'm not a fan of the watered-down British fascism that they used to try and save their dying pozzed nation. Granted I'm not too knowledgeable about the subject.

>So what you're saying is: you have rights but the moment you start doing things I don't like or don't agree with you suddenly don't have rights.

Yeah exactly.

>Imagine you replace all that with communist stuff.

Imagine if I fucking didn't.

Communism is what's bad about communism

Not totalitarianism.

>In a communist country you're free as long as you shut up and obey. What you're saying is no different.

Communists weren't the first totalitarian regime.

and yeah, you're free as long as you don't cause problems.

You're stating my position over again and expecting me to recoil from it.

I'm a totalitarian.

I'm a national socialist monarchist.


9e4584  No.15460

File: 67af0413e21566f⋯.jpeg (36.81 KB, 448x401, 448:401, 212645CF-1774-4B72-8BA5-E….jpeg)

>>15459

>I'm a national socialist monarchist.


4b12a2  No.15463

>>15459

>National Socialist Monarchist

I'm happy to conclude that I'm not the only one to consider pairing the religious and hierarchical advantages of monarchism with the racial and economical aspects of third position politics.


93e060  No.15464

File: 32896b7408e5cb5⋯.jpg (53.61 KB, 900x539, 900:539, charles ii.jpg)

>>15459

>When the government abuses it for too long and there's a revolution.

>if you don't like the government just take up arms and start a revolution

There would have been a revolution in North Korea by now then. It isn't as easy as you may believe and people are more likely to be afraid to do so than revolt.

>tyranny is not what's bad about communism

So the massacres in the Soviet Union weren't bad? Because Stalin didn't kill so many people over communist ideas but because he was a paranoid tyrant trying to protect his power base.

>one high profile case therefore you didn't fix it

My point is if people want to do those things you listed they will find a way to do it. Just like the serial killer found a way to go on a murder spree in the Third Reich if terrorists wanted to conduct a 9/11 terror attack inside a tyrannical government they would do it one way or another.

>I'd give up all of my civil liberties except the right to bear arms if it meant the betterment of the nation.

At what point is the betterment of the nation not the end all? If the death of you, your family, and your dog bettered the nation too would you be for that as well?

>Yeah exactly.

What if the dictator revokes your rights for having the wrong opinion, then you switch your opinion out of fear but he simply refuses to give you your rights back? You can't force him to in this case, there's nothing you can do. Then if the dictator starts doing stuff you don't agree with and not working for the greater good then you're screwed.

>Communism is what's bad about communism.

So you're saying the communist ideas are bad not communist government. I hope you realize all the degenerate stuff you hate so much isn't due to communist ideas. Communist theory isn't all about interracial mixing or pedophilia. Communist theory is about creating a state-less classless society with no money.

Communist countries had very traditional values, Several communist countries have been very nationalistic and conservative.

>you're free as long as you don't cause problems

Then it's not freedom. You have freedom when you're free and you don't lose your freedom for having incorrect opinions which you're okay with.

Who says what the problems are? You don't have a say or any right it's all arbitrary.

>I'm a national socialist monarchist.

Combine Fuhrerprinzip in National Socialist theory with monarchy and you have absolute monarchy. You're going to have a retarded King like pic related lording over you eventually and can't do anything because it's for the "betterment" of the country for him to have his say.


93e060  No.15465

File: f84b2c85614ac4d⋯.jpg (52.72 KB, 850x400, 17:8, religion.jpg)


9e4584  No.15466

>>15464

>Combine Fuhrerprinzip in National Socialist theory with monarchy and you have absolute monarchy. You're going to have a retarded King like pic related lording over you eventually and can't do anything because it's for the "betterment" of the country for him to have his say.

If we combine National Socialist theory with aspects of monarchism, a degenerate like that would never even get near the throne. This is NatSoc 101. In Mein Kampf Hitler makes it clear that we need to "place thinking individuals above the masses, thus subordinating the latter to the former". He's all about what he called the "aristocratic principle of nature". The best should lead, and that man in your picture is clearly not the best. This is why hereditary monarchy is shit and why an intensive sifting process is the best way to locate and empower actual leaders that adhere to ancient Aryan conceptions of perfect leadership such as the philosopher king or the Chakravartin


e10cf0  No.15469

File: 5410d8252920502⋯.jpeg (101.61 KB, 602x482, 301:241, main-qimg-996ec2d926d8d53….jpeg)

>>15465

For every picture trying to prove that National Socialism was anti-Christian I could give you multiple more proofs that NS can be compatible with Christianity. http://whitehonor.com/white-power/christianity-and-national-socialism/

https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_Christianity


93e060  No.15470

>>15469

>The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed. The Führer is a convinced vegetarian on principle.

— Goebbels Diaries, 29 December 1939

Hitler was a politician too, so of course what he said in public he didn't say always actually believe. I'd trust the private remarks of Goebbels in his diary over what Hitler may have said for political posturing.

>>15466

>a degenerate like that would never even get near the throne.

If he's in the line of succession as heir it is his legal birthright in a monarchy to have power. Also Charles II was never officially diagnosed with any mental illness. While today we accept he had genetic disorders most likely due to inbreeding he was not mentally retarded or insane. Charles was however totally incompetent. A monarchy cannot prevent a stupid heir.

>The best should lead

But the best will not always come from a hereditary line of succession. If the German monarchy remained intact it seems very unlikely Hitler would've attained so much power.

If he did come to power it would be in a very limited role unable to enact any real change.

>hereditary monarchy is shit and why an intensive sifting process is the best

So elective monarchy then?

>the philosopher king

As likely as finding a unicorn imo.


36e86e  No.15471

File: fe88ffe3021cd3f⋯.webm (3.81 MB, 384x216, 16:9, Put in Jail.webm)

>>15464

>North Korea.

Kim Jong Un will be the last of that dynasty.

>It isn't as easy as you may believe and people are more likely to be afraid to do so than revolt.

See all of Chinese history.

Good leader>Mediocre leader>Mediocre leader>Good Leader>Tyrant>Revolt>Repeat

>Stalin didn't kill so many people over communist ideas but because he was a paranoid tyrant

Paranoid because communism was logistically impossible in a country that big, people were starving, and they were ready to kill him.

The only way he could retain power was genocide.

If it wasn't a communist dystopia to begin with, none of that would have ever happened.

>My point is if people want to do those things you listed they will find a way to do it.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm not saying crime will stop you brainlet.

I'm saying that regardless of the high profile cases, crime will go down drastically.

I'm not saying that something 9/11-tier would be impossible.

I'm saying that you can use events like that to scare people into giving the state power to drastically reduce crime via militarization.

>At what point is the betterment of the nation not the end all? If the death of you, your family, and your dog bettered the nation too would you be for that as well?

No you fucking idiot.

It stops at the working man's ability to have property, a wife, and children.

It stops when the leader starts interfering with the traditional values that keep a nation alive.

>What if the dictator revokes your rights for having the wrong opinion

What makes you think the king of a country gives a rat's ass about your opinion on policy?

We're not talking about "minor disagreements with policy", we're talking about "if you are a commie or a zionist, you are an enemy of the state".

Lolbertarians are always like "bu..buht what if the king knocks on my door and makes me do the chicken dance and then kill myself"

What makes you think your traditional daily life will ever intersect with the King's daily routine?

and why do you assume the king is a complete dice roll?

99% of history is kings and queens.

Most kings are decent, and a decent king is better than the decent democracy.

Just because a handful of tyrants abuse their power doesn't mean we should just throw totalitarianism out the window.

Every time we've had civil liberties it ends in this zog hellscape we see today, so what's better?

The current state of the western world or the chance that we might get a bad leader once every 500 years?

>So you're saying the communist ideas are bad not communist government.

Yeah, communism is gay.

Humans are not capable of it.

Due to it not working, its leaders are constantly scrambling to plug the holes.

It ends in genocide.

If you think that the problem with Communism is its overpowered state, then you don't belong on this board.

>Communist theory is about creating a state-less classless society with no money.

Yes this is gay, impossible, and leads to the death of countless members of the volk that are trying their best.

>Communist countries had very traditional values, Several communist countries have been very nationalistic and conservative.

Yeah until their policies don't work and they have to cull the population.

>Then it's not freedom. You have freedom when you're free and you don't lose your freedom for having incorrect opinions

I'm not arguing that you're completely free.

I'm arguing that freedom is gay.

I'd rather everyone have well-defined paths that they can take to benefit the nation as opposed to everyone just having infinite choices.

and I'm perfectly fine with certain personal choices being absolutely off limits.

No you cannot be a communist.

No you can't be a fag.

No you can't be a tranny.

No you can't be a drag queen.

>Who says what the problems are?

I do because this is my opinion lol.

>You don't have a say or any right it's all arbitrary.

And if we get enough people together that believe the same thing, we can seize power in a country.

And when we're in power and the SS are knocking on your door, its not so arbitrary anymore.

>You're going to have a retarded King like pic related

Yeah then he's gonna piss enough people off to get assassinated.

Now a new leader rises and his dynasty continues until the same thing happens.

If they don't kill the king then it didn't get bad enough.

Louis XVI was a really bad king.

His head rolled.

>Combine Fuhrerprinzip National Socialist theory with monarchy and you have absolute monarchy.

The King is meant to be the personified will of the nation.

If the nation is traditional, nationalistic, and catholic

and the king stops being those things

then he loses the "mandate of heaven"

and his head should roll.

>>15469

>>15470

I have a different opinion than most Christian Nazis.

I don't think Nazi Germany was pro-christian.

But I think that a Christian National socialist nation is possible and that's what I'd like to establish.


9e4584  No.15472

>>15470

>So elective monarchy then?

Correct. You can't ensure you'll get the best of the best in a hereditary monarchy.

>As likely as finding a unicorn imo.

This is why there would be a complex sifting process to identify and shape such individuals.


93e060  No.15478

File: 12d29fa5ccce1e3⋯.png (1.01 MB, 1200x1200, 1:1, franklin on liberty.png)

>>15471

>Kim Jong Un will be the last of that dynasty.

But there was decades of Kim family rule without a revolution. Is that how long we must wait and suffer before anything is done?

>See all of Chinese history

Yes a chaotic cycle of endless violence. How is this desirable? Why not avoid it if possible.

>Paranoid because communism was logistically impossible in a country that big, people were starving, and they were ready to kill him.

Problem with this is that even when Soviet citizens were suffering incredibly acts of brutality they rationalized it and justified it because they were so brainwashed by the propaganda. For example, when Stalin sent Molotov's wife to the gulag he still supported Stalin. Even at the end of his life supported him for what he did in transforming Russia into a super power. This was a common sentiment. This is partially why the Soviets rallied behind Stalin and did not collapse like a house of cards as the Germans thought.

>I'm not saying crime will stop you brainlet.

>I'm saying that regardless of the high profile cases, crime will go down drastically.

Why do we have to give up political liberties to lower crime? What kind of justification is that? When people sit down to form a government they ask themselves what kind of society do we want for our people to live in. Not what kind of society will best prevent crime. This is political philosophy 101.

>No you fucking idiot.

>It stops at the working man's ability to have property, a wife, and children.

>It stops when the leader starts interfering with the traditional values that keep a nation alive.

Well that won't be your decision on where it stops or doesn't because you're not dictator.

>What makes you think the king of a country gives a rat's ass about your opinion on policy?

But didn't you say earlier that if the ruler doesn't be careful there might be revolution? He has to care or they'll revolt against him.

>And when we're in power and the SS are knocking on your door, its not so arbitrary anymore.

It is arbitrary because the SS will knock on my door for whatever bullshit reason they want and I have no say.

>Yeah then he's gonna piss enough people off to get assassinated.

Which is why the opinions of the people matter and cannot be suffocated by suppressing civil liberties.

Also

>that webm

>bringing up libertarians in your reply to me

What makes you think I'm a libertarian or sympathizer of them? You're clearly insinuating I have libertarian tendencies just because I don't want 1984. Just like how communists think anyone who doesn't support communism is a right winger you seem to think anyone who believes in a modicum of civil liberties is a libertarian.

>No you fucking idiot.

>stop you brainlet

You are really stupid if you think I'm stupid for having a differing opinion than you. This is the source of your pathological views you resent those you disagree with so you want a government where they're killed.


93e060  No.15479

>>15472

Actually I think the philosopher king is an oxymoron as other philosophers have said. To govern implies to be a man of action and philosophy requires idleness in order to contemplate. But that's not exactly the point here.


9e4584  No.15483

>>15479

I don't think people are as dichotomous as you seem to be saying. It is by no means impossible that people exist who are simultaneously natural-born leaders with martial and administrative prowess coupled with superior spiritual attainment. These individuals are rare, but I see nothing inherently oxymoronic in the concept. One can be a fighter and thinker, a warrior and a priest, a politician and a philosopher, a king and a saint all in one body. One aspect (such as the martial or administrative) does not take up the entirety of a leader's time.


e05cff  No.15485

>>15471

This would be a good read for you comrade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurrassisme


36e86e  No.15501

File: 8231d64f00d61e1⋯.jpg (55.34 KB, 850x400, 17:8, Mussolini.jpg)

>>15478

>But there was decades of Kim family rule without a revolution.

I'm not familiar with Korean History.

I really couldn't tell you why they haven't revolted.

I assume its because the regime is brutal to only a handful.

Also its able to sustain itself because China props it up.

>Endless violence

You mean dynasty change every couple hundred years?

I'll take that over being an ever-decaying zog puppet republic any day.

The end result of limitless freedom is degeneracy, civic nationalism, jewish control, the destruction of tradition, etc.

>Why do we have to give up political liberties to lower crime? What kind of justification is that?

A damn good one. wym

Is your "right" to do what ever you want in your personal life more important than the right a child has to not have a homosexual tranny for a father?

The same way we take the civil liberties of non-whites away when we kick them out of our countries, we'll take them from those that pose a threat to the nation.

>When people sit down to form a government they ask themselves what kind of society do we want for our people to live in.

How about if they want to not get raped by migrants? Robbed by niggers? Molested by homosexuals?

How about if people care more about preserving their culture, genetics, etc than they care about a jew's right to dominate the entire entertainment industry?

A nation's first priority is not ensuring the freedom of its citizens.

Its first priorities are securing the existence of our people, our culture, and a future for white children

Its second priority is to ensure that each and every citizen is able to live the model traditional family life.

Until the dictator's policies start getting in the way of those things, I don't care.

Those are the things that matter to me.

Not your ability to do whatever you want.

I fundamentally disagree with Benjamin Franklin, quoting him isn't changing anyone's mind.

Pic related

>He has to care or they'll revolt against him.

He doesn't care about you bitching on your porch with your neighbor.

He cares when you organize and start spreading certain ideas that are counter to everything we believe.

Like the ones I've talked about.

Now, when everyone starts bitching on their porch that means its time for regime change.

That's how revolutions start.

When the dissatisfaction is so ubiquitous that it doesn't need to organize.

>whatever bullshit reason they want and I have no say.

Yeah.

>the opinions of the people matter and cannot be suffocated

No, when the sentiment is strong enough they can't be contained.

Hitler could crowd surf without fear.

A hated king just gets shot.

>What makes you think I'm a libertarian or sympathizer of them?

If you put unfettered civil liberties above the welfare of the people you are not a fascist.

If you think large amounts of state power is a bad thing you are not a fascist.

>you think I'm stupid for having a differing opinion

No, I think you're fucking stupid because you have shitty Ben Shapiro tier takes and you have an impressive ability to misinterpret things.

>>15485

"establishing the criteria for the national community on traditionalist grounds: Catholicism, agrarianism and historic rule under the French monarchy. Thus it took a different direction to the racial or ethno-linguistic nationalism of the German radical right but ended up with a similar degree of vehement xenophobia and anti-semitism"

Pretty legit.

Close to what I believe.

Cept the lack of racism.

Was a good read.

Thanks anon


93e060  No.15515

File: 274c4cd52902b71⋯.jpg (78.14 KB, 759x500, 759:500, 12312313123.jpg)

>>15501

>You mean dynasty change every couple hundred years?

War, famine, poverty are likely to be the product of such changes. If the only way to change the system is by revolution it will bring nothing but destruction. I don't know the details of the dynastic phases in Chinese history but it's not as easy as how you put it

>Good leader>Mediocre leader>Mediocre leader>Good Leader>Tyrant>Revolt>Repeat

this all involves death and destruction. And it is no guarantee there won't be any of the degeneracy and multiculturalism in between.

>limitless freedom

Nobody here was talking about limitless freedom until you brought it up. Even if civil liberties leads to shit you don't like how can't you see that you don't need to resort to going to an extreme of totally removing civil liberties to stop that shit? Are you that simple minded?

>Hitler could crowd surf without fear.

Those photos literally mean nothing regarding policy or governance pic related.

>If you put unfettered civil liberties above the welfare of the people you are not a fascist.

>If you think large amounts of state power is a bad thing you are not a fascist.

You're assuming a false dichotomy were one must choose either civil liberties or the public good. I don't think state power is bad but I think you want 1984 style despotism and somehow think that the equivalent of the SS won't come to your door.

>No, I think you're fucking stupid because you have shitty Ben Shapiro tier takes and you have an impressive ability to misinterpret things.

Maybe I'm wrong here but I don't believe that for a second. I think you're pissed that you're getting push back on your views and that's triggering you. The fact I can admit I might be wrong is something you're incapable of doing regarding your views hence your desire for a 1984 stereotype world to force those views upon everyone else.

>everything else

You sound like you're regurgitating talking points you got from an image macro. You're talking about the Jewish media, and about degeneracy, and about the destruction of tradition, and rape by migrants. None of this has anything to do with fascist theory or why fascism opposed such civil liberties originally. All of this is bullshit straight from /pol/.

If there was none of that shit you'd not give a rat's ass about fascism.You only care for fascism to use it as a tool in order to enlarge state power and use it to then remove undesirables from society.


e88573  No.15516

>>15515

>All of this is bullshit straight from /pol/.

/fascist/ agrees with /pol/ nine times out of ten, we’re only here because people on /pol/ are brainless schizos and shitposters.


93e060  No.15517

>>15516

I'm not saying it's those things are not true or not happening. What I'm saying is that none of that shit has anything to do with why fascists opposed liberalism. And why do we need to resort to 1984 to deal with that shit?


9e4584  No.15518

>>15515

>civil liberties

You seem awfully attached to this concept. Perhaps you already know this, but “civil liberties” are merely privileges granted by the state. No one has God-given rights. All civilization is founded on punishment and the sacrifice of freedom for the collective good. I haven’t read all of your back-and-forth since it goes on so long but I don’t really see where you’re getting this “1984” vibe from. He advocated for a monarchy legitimated by God – something that was for long the norm. He also seems to say that the health of any given dynasty consists of growth, vitality and then decline over a span of decades if not centuries which leads to the establishment of a new power. All very reasonable, if this leads to death and destruction it may be unstoppable from this point of view. This is why I adhere to an elective monarchy personally. Degeneracy needs removed, but it goes far further than this, a whole societal rebirth is needed and many rudiments of the recent past destroyed and those of the world of Tradition renewed.


93e060  No.15520

>>15518

>You seem awfully attached to this concept.

It's not so much that I'm attached to it as everyone else is easily dismissive of it on superficial grounds and takes it for granted.

>granted by the state

I don't disagree this doesn't justify their non-existence though.

>sacrifice of freedom for the collective good

Whose to say that collective good does not include civil liberties? Is it not possible to sacrifice for civil liberties that the collective as a whole can enjoy?

>but I don’t really see where you’re getting this “1984” vibe from.

Each one of his posts is filled with neanderthal boot licking like the following:

>So what you're saying is: you have rights but the moment you start doing things I don't like or don't agree with you suddenly don't have rights.

>Yeah exactly.

>>15459

>He also seems to say that the health of any given dynasty consists of growth, vitality and then decline over a span of decades if not centuries which leads to the establishment of a new power.

I'm not denying this but he specifically said

>Good leader>Mediocre leader>Mediocre leader>Good Leader>Tyrant>Revolt>Repeat

Which involves a mediocre leader, a tyrant and a revolt. This isn't a peaceful transition and probably involves revolution, war, famine and poverty at some point. Something he's ok with because he cares more about telling faggots they can't go on parade than creating a government that is more stable and lasting.


9e4584  No.15524

>>15520

<So what you're saying is: you have rights but the moment you start doing things I don't like or don't agree with you suddenly don't have rights.

Honestly most people think the same way whether they admit it or not. I’d agree with that statement.

>everyone else is easily dismissive of it on superficial grounds and takes it for granted.

People are dismissive of it because it is a Trojan horse for degeneracy, atomization and subversion of all kinds. Look where founding an entire nation on some nebulous idea of “freedom” and “muh God-given rights” landed America – in a sea of filth. We need to move past this mentality of rights and freedom — but don’t interpret this as “let’s turn the entire country into chattel slaves of the god-emperor” or whatever. We need strict hierarchy of function w/ qualitative distinction between castes and rule by a chosen elite. The vast majority of people are of zero value and are merely replaceable drones. NPCs don’t follow the Solar Path, they revel as always in telluric mediocrity.

On the stable government part though I agree that’s important.


93e060  No.15526

>>15524

>Honestly most people think the same way whether they admit it or not. I’d agree with that statement.

Even if most people think this way doesn't make it right, we're fascists we don't care about popular majorities determining right or wrong that's democracy.

>People are dismissive of it because it is a Trojan horse for degeneracy, atomization and subversion of all kinds.

That's arguable. I don't believe that individual rights in of themselves lead to those things although I once did. Even then it's all on a spectrum. But I hold a deontological view on this in that we should judge these ideas based on their own merits not so much on the consequences.

>The vast majority of people are of zero value and are merely replaceable drones. NPCs don’t follow the Solar Path, they revel as always in telluric mediocrity.

I agree I'm not advocating for democracy I hate that shit, always have.


36e86e  No.15529

File: 091a38691dacfde⋯.jpg (2.19 MB, 2160x1440, 3:2, 1556329639392.jpg)

>>15520

I would rather a country have to fight to live every couple centuries than have it flicker out and die because they couldn't get off their high horse about not infringing "god given rights".

If you are a threat to the welfare of the nation, if you threaten tradition, if you threaten order, you should be punished by the state.

Civil Liberties is a concept made up by enlightenment fags, that wanted to destroy the established order and tradition so that they could replace it with a zog puppet show.

>Even if civil liberties leads to shit you don't like how can't you see that you don't need to resort to going to an extreme of totally removing civil liberties to stop that shit?

How else are you gonna stop soylent gremlins from throwing pride parades and raising their kids to be trans?

You become a statist when you realize that there's no way we can talk our way out of this.

They literally will not stop until you take away their civil liberties.

If you elect Hitler then tie his hands behind his back with civil liberties, then why even elect Hitler?

If he can't remove the Jews then what's the point?

If he can't make it illegal to throw nude gay tranny parades in the streets of Berlin then what's the point?

>You're talking about the Jewish media, and about degeneracy, and about the destruction of tradition

Yes, welcome to 1933. Its almost like I'm a national socialist.

>your desire for a 1984 stereotype world to force those views upon everyone else.

Yes.

>You only care for fascism to use it as a tool in order to enlarge state power and use it to then remove undesirables from society.

I'd also use it to institute a lot of other economic policies, but yeah.

>he cares more about telling faggots they can't go on parade than creating a government that is more stable and lasting.

See 99.99% of history.

A dynasty that lasts 250 years is pretty stable and long lasting, and a 4 year revolt that ushers in another 250 year dynasty is a small price to pay.

Its not a peaceful transition.

Unless you get something like the glorious revolution.


93e060  No.15530

>>15529

>flicker out and die

I don't think the problems afflicting society are due to civil liberties in of themselves though. But I don't believe in such civil liberties being bestowed by a deity.

>How else are you gonna stop soylent gremlins from throwing pride parades and raising their kids to be trans?

>identity politics

But if you really want to remove that shit just pass a law saying they can't do that and if like-minded people control the courts then the law will be upheld in court. No need to remove freedom of expression or gun ownership.

I don't entirely disagree with your end goals I just think it'll lead to tyranny and anarchy in the process of trying to achieve them. In short I think you're too utopian and think a super state can achieve that utopia. Which is why I think you're posting these idyllic pictures.


93e060  No.15531

>>15530

To elaborate further, look at America in 1900. None of this shit would be imaginable in America at that time. Degenerates like how you mentioned were stamped out and weren't throwing parades. There was no need for a dictatorship to prevent degeneracy at the time because of people's attitudes and beliefs. So then if we change attitudes and beliefs we can change the laws rather than change the laws to change the beliefs and behaviors of the people as your suggesting.

This is why I think your reasoning is flawed because you can just change people's attitudes without resorting to fascism. Thus you remove any rationale for being fascist.


36e86e  No.15555

File: 04c179219384d93⋯.png (2.42 MB, 1474x748, 67:34, Screenshot_1077.png)

>>15531

>look at America in 1900.

America was working prior to the middle of the 20th century because America was built on that idea that we'd destroy everything holding us together by law, and rely entirely on nongovernmental things to hold us together like family, religion, tradition, community, etc.

That experiment failed. Without all those things being married to the state in a symbiotic relationship, everything fell apart.

It couldn't withstand industrialization.

It has to be enshrined and enforced by the state.

That's how Europe has gotten by so far.

>There was no need for a dictatorship to prevent degeneracy at the time because of people's attitudes.

That public consciousness will never come back unless you enforce it.

and it'll go away just as quickly if you don't enforce it.

Those colonists had centuries of tradition and morals built by a monarchy that made sure no one deviated to far from them.

Its doubtful that this movement towards fascist and national socialist ideas will ever exceed half the US population in size, and that's being generous.

>I don't think the problems afflicting society are due to civil liberties in of themselves

Literally this all comes down to the government not being able to do anything with regard to the people causing the problems without infringing on their rights.

>But if you really want to remove that shit just pass a law saying they can't do that and if like-minded people control the courts then the law will be upheld in court. No need to remove freedom.

Yeah but the judges can't just force them to stop

They can't tell a father that he can't be a transsexual for the sake of his kid.

We elected a president and we can't even reduce immigration let alone build a wall and deport them.

Abortion is legal in a lot of states, and judges can't do anything.

We can't organize militarized drug busts daily because we'd get called racist by half the country, and it would stop immediately.

Women are fucking 30 men before they turn 20.

Drug overdoses and suicides are record high.

You cannot make quick and lasting changes to anything of these things without the threat of violence by the state.

We're not talking about Mr. Model Citizen based chad aryan with a wife and kids getting his guns taken away for having a slight disagreement on policy.

We're talking about kicking in the doors of drag queens that groom children and executing/locking them up.

We're talking about Nuremberg laws.

>>15530

>identity politics

I feel like I'm posting on /liberty/.

>I don't entirely disagree with your end goals I just think it'll lead to tyranny and anarchy in the process of trying to achieve them.

You and the other guy disagreeing with me are just completely ignoring the fact that democratic republics got us to where we are now.

I would gladly watch a tyrant start another inquisition, before I ever tow the line of the worst form of government ever dreamt up by man.

Mussolini and Hitler took power, because their countries were inoperable and something had to be done.

We're in the same position now, and I'll pledge my allegiance to the first person that manages what they managed.

and beyond the first king's reign I think that a dynasty is the best way to preserve the nation and public order.

>think a super state can achieve that utopia. Which is why I think you're posting these idyllic pictures.

Stop psychoanalyzing me. I hate when people don't post pics. They work like landmarks in a wall of text. I've posted most of the good memes I have saved on this board already, and I don't wanna repost so I'm posting photography from my comfy folder. Pic related


9e4584  No.15556

>>15526

>we should judge these ideas based on their own merits not so much on the consequences.

An idea should not be adopted without consideration of its consequences, no matter how much "merit" it may have on paper. Look at what happens to communists when they try to realize their insanity IRL.

If you're as opposed to democracy as you claim to be, you'd realize that this civil liberty bullshit is part of the same pozzed package.


e129bf  No.15559

>>15479

that kind of thinking, while I love Machiavelli, is what led to Machiavelli. all this subjectivism.


93e060  No.15561

>>15555

>America was working prior to the middle of the 20th century because America was built on that idea that we'd destroy everything holding us together by law

Then you can just go back to this idea without resorting to fascism. Your justification for fascism is built on sand.

>It has to be enshrined and enforced by the state.

So then it is enshrined by the state but the state is not fascist. Just like segregation or slavery was enforced by the state but that state was not fascist. Just enforced your anti degeneracy agenda but it does not resort to fascism.

>Its doubtful that this movement towards fascist and national socialist ideas will ever exceed half the US population in size, and that's being generous.

You are right here but I don't think this justifies ending individual rights what your reasoning here justifies is dictatorship. You can have a dictatorship but have liberalism as well like Napoleon's liberal empire.

>Yeah but the judges can't just force them to stop

>We're talking about Nuremberg laws.

Then create those laws and the courts will uphold then if judges believe them. If the judges could enforce slavery and forced Dredd Scott to remain as a slave they can force these faggots to stop too.

>I feel like I'm posting on /liberty/.

Democracy leads to obsession over superficial matters in politics because the masses only care for those things. A democracy allows for identity politics to become the focus of attention while the country is robbed by international finance. So any fascist should oppose identity politics as a distraction in a democracy.

>You and the other guy disagreeing with me are just completely ignoring the fact that democratic republics got us to where we are now.

First off some of these problems are not directly caused by democratic government. And secondly I'm speaking about liberalism not democratic government you can separate the two like Carl Schmitt, a member of the NSDAP, did.

>An idea should not be adopted without consideration of its consequences, no matter how much "merit" it may have on paper. Look at what happens to communists when they try to realize their insanity IRL.

I said "not so miuch" meaning I think consequences should be considered but only after the idea is judged on its merits first. Communist theory is entirely self defeating and contradictory in theory, so it isn't like their theory is good on paper but in practice it sucks. Their theory sucks on paper and in practice.

>If you're as opposed to democracy as you claim to be, you'd realize that this civil liberty bullshit is part of the same pozzed package.

Liberalism =/= democracy though you can have one without the other and it's all on a spectrum.


93e060  No.15562

>>15483

Depends on if you believe virtue can be taught really.

>>15559

How did it lead to him, and if you love him then how is leading to him a bad thing?


36e86e  No.15565

File: 3876a3a17a4f4bd⋯.jpg (66 KB, 600x376, 75:47, t.Mussolini.jpg)

>>15561

>Then you can just go back to this idea without resorting to fascism.

What I'm saying is that you're not going to bring the entire society back around to those ideas.

You're going to convert a small group that can mobilize and take over the means of state coercion.

Hitler converted a portion of the population and used that support to bully the his way into power.

Mussolini did the same thing with the blackshirts.

This idea that we can just talk it out and achieve the changes we wanna see within the system are just nonsense.

>Your justification for fascism is built on sand.

Its the same as Hitler's

>You can enforce your anti degeneracy agenda without resorting to fascism.

Fascism is the idea that you should have statism, corporatism, and militarism built around the idea of preserving the nation.

I think we should have all of the same policies but with monarchy instead.

Hating degeneracy is not my entire worldview.

Its just what we're discussing at the moment.

>Just like segregation or slavery was enforced by the state

>Then create those laws and the courts will uphold them if the judges believe them.

>Napoleon's liberal empire.

Yeah, I don't want any of that.

I want totalitarianism.

The state should be limited only by God.

You have no rights when you interfere with the will of the nation personified.

There should be no barrier between the will of the king and what can be done besides religious ethics.

>You are right here but I don't think this justifies ending individual rights

If individuals have the right to be whatever they want so long as "they aren't hurting anyone"

Then you can't do anything to solve these problems even with a dictatorship.

>any fascist should oppose identity politics as a distraction in a democracy.

I'm still gonna advocate for the well-being of whites in this democratic republic as best I can.

If throwing the jews out is the identity politics and you're telling me identity politics is a distraction, then you're getting thrown out too.

>First off some of these problems are not directly caused by democratic government. And secondly I'm speaking about liberalism not democratic government

Liberalism and democratic government got us where we are.

Both of them can individually get us here too.

Both are awful, and I hate them.

Next question.

>Liberalism =/= democracy though you can have one without the other

Liberalism makes people want democracy.

Democracy can function without liberalism, but it still sucks.


d68e83  No.15567

>>15565

this

>>15561

also, stfu lolberg


93e060  No.15575

File: af0b0d32a038f0f⋯.jpg (105 KB, 1000x600, 5:3, mosley quote.jpg)

>>15565

>What I'm saying is that you're not going to bring the entire society back around to those ideas.

Well you yourself and everyone else here is proof people in the modern age can be convinced of those ideas. Don't tell me everyone is stupid and you're somehow above everyone else and special just because your have these opinions and they don't.

>Convert a small group that can mobilize and take over the means of state coercion.

You seize power but if your ideas aren't popular like you said they won't be then you'll have civil war. You really think they'll stand by and let a small minority enact all their bullshit laws? You'll have civil war and your small minority will be at a disadvantage, the military might turn on you too because they're not convinced of your views.

>Hitler converted a portion

So you're saying you can't ever get your ideas to become popular so you want a small clique to seize power by force and impose those ideas? Even Hitler would disagree he tried what you're saying with the Beer Hall Putsch and that failed. He then made his ideas popular enough to get the biggest party in the Reichstag.

>same as Hitler's

But it isn't. Hitler didn't say let's revoke everyone's civil liberties and end democracy because I don't like immigrants and homosexuals.

>Hating degeneracy is not my worldview.

It isn't but your sole justification for fascism is hating degeneracy and you think that won't happen in fascism.

>long as "they aren't hurting anyone"

Well it's more complicated than that. I mean shouting fire in a packed theater is a crime in many cases and that doesn't involve hurting anyone. It isn't limitless freedom vs no freedom as you're indicating.

>then you're getting thrown out too

Exactly my point. You're not supporting fascism for fascism's sake but to use it as a tool to throw people you don't like out. In this case you're not a fascist you just want a big state run on your racial theories.

>Liberalism and democratic government got us where we are.

I'd say capitalism and democratic government did not liberalism. Businesses want the profit from people and don't give a shit about the morality in their actions.

>Liberalism makes people want democracy

Slippery slope fallacy. Even then I don't believe this to be true you had the liberal enlightened despotisms of the 18th century with no calls for democracy there.

>>15567

So because I support a modicum of individual liberty I suddenly a libertarian? Do you even know anything about libertarian theory?


36e86e  No.15582

File: 49e0e28bac689cc⋯.jpg (1.2 MB, 1080x1920, 9:16, Eldia.jpg)

>>15575

>Well you yourself and everyone else here is proof people in the modern age can be convinced of those ideas.

This is a 20 man board in the corner of another corner of the internet.

>Don't tell me everyone is stupid

Everyone is stupid.

>you're somehow above everyone else and special just because your have these opinions and they don't.

I won't say we're better, but we're certainly unique.

I don't know what it is.

The stars definitely have to align themselves a certain way for some young men in Dixie, and some fuckers from Mexico to become fascists in 2019.

>You seize power but if your ideas aren't popular like you said they won't be then you'll have civil war.

Yeah and if we can sow enough dissent in the military, we've got a shot at winning.

>You really think they'll stand by and let a small minority enact all their bullshit laws?

Look, there's the far right, The establishment, the far left, and then there are drones that just flow like water down the path of least resistance.

The established powers are the enemy

The far left is the enemy.

The drones are mostly whatever they're told to be.

The second we get a charismatic leader on a pulpit, it'll be like flicking a light switch.

We can go from 30% without power to 60% with power.

Before we can make that happen

1. Things need to get worse. This year has been especially good for accelerationism. We had the ice cream shit. The dem debates. The 60 niggers robbing a walgreens.

2. We need to get sympathizers in high places. The next midterm election will see a lot of far right candidates.

3. We need to get the establishment to regulate twitter and youtube, if at all possible.

4. We need the charismatic leader.

>Even Hitler would disagree he tried what you're saying with the Beer Hall Putsch and that failed. He then made his ideas popular enough to get the biggest party in the Reichstag.

>You really think they'll stand by and let a small minority enact all their bullshit laws?

No I'm saying we get to about a third and then we can knock other horses out of the race until we're around 40-50%.

Then we can just subjugate the other half.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power

"Following the Reichstag fire, the Nazis began to suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition. The Communists were excluded from the Reichstag."

"He called on Reichstag members to vote for the Enabling Act on 24 March 1933. The law gave him the freedom to act without parliamentary consent and even without constitutional limitations."

"Hitler offered the possibility of friendly co-operation"

"With Nazi paramilitary encircling the building, he said: 'It is for you, gentlemen of the Reichstag to decide between war and peace'"

"Non-Nazi parties were formally outlawed on 14 July 1933"

>your sole justification for fascism is hating degeneracy

No, I've outlined my views in other threads quite a bit.

>you think that won't happen in fascism.

I never said it won't happen.

But do you really think the sex, drugs, and other forms of degeneracy didn't drop to >10% after Hitler was in power?

>Well it's more complicated than that.

>shouting fire in a packed theater is a crime

I'm asking for more things to be added to that list.

Running around converting people to awful ideologies is like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

>you're not a fascist you just want a big state run on your racial theories.

Yeah, in addition to every other naitonal socialist policy.

I literally just detailed what fascism was and said I believe those things.

How am I not a fascist?

I could maybe understand you coming at me saying that I'm a monarchist instead, but you're just saying I don't agree with the principles and that's just not true.

>I'd say capitalism and democratic government did not liberalism.

No, definitely liberalism too.

Freedom is not a virtue.

>Slippery slope fallacy.

Yeah just like when we said gay marriage was a slippery slope.

Its not a fallacy.

The world is perpetually slipping down a slope.

Maintaining stability, order, and effectiveness is the Sisyphean duty of man.

Monarchy and fascism are the best compromises we've ever devised to combat the decay of civilizations.


93e060  No.15584

>>15582

>This is a 20 man board in the corner of another corner of the internet.

Point is it's possible to convince modern people of these ideas and one person can change everything.

>Everyone is stupid.

Well most people are uninformed and apathetic this is true but the people who side with us are not any smarter.

>I won't say we're better

This is a problem though. If we're no better than the rabble how can we rule over them? So are we better than them just because we have different opinions? If that were true that'd justify our small minority lording over them to an extent. But right and wrong based on opinions is a can of worms.

>Yeah and if we can sow enough dissent in the military, we've got a shot at winning.

I don't see the ZOG infested military buying this though. If we do not convince the majority of people of our views and somehow gain power despite the majority. The military will absolutely side with the majority against us.

Furthermore, this is what I am talking about yes we're a 20 man board but it just takes one person to change everything. You're saying one general on our side might change things and that certainly would but it's unlikely if most people don't agree with us.

>Before we can make that happen

Too many contingencies there too many variables, the stars would have to align so perfectly for your scenario to come to fruition.

>No I'm saying we get to about a third and then we can knock other horses out of the race until we're around 40-50%.

Ok so we do need to concern ourselves with public opinion as I've been saying at least to a certain point.

We can't just have a small elite come to power by force without caring about the opinion of the masses as I was arguing this entire time. We need to have the opinion of a large portion of society on our side.

We will never convince enough people to side with us if we say let's remove their civil liberties. Most will just say fix it without removing civil liberties. This is the problem of trying to do this.

>I'm asking for more things to be added to that list.

>Running around converting people to awful ideologies is like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Thinking something =/= shouting fire. This is a false equivalence. If we suppress these views we will get people more interested in them. Look at how making it illegal to deny the holocaust has worked for Germany. This isn't going to stop those ideologies from seeping into people's minds. Allow discourse on those ideologies bring them out in the open and debunk them. If you're so sure in the rightness o your views then we can easily debunk them to the masses. Fidel Castro aired his interview with Barbra Walters on Cuban national tv where they debated the merits of communism. That didn't convince people in Cuba to overthrow him.

>Yeah, in addition to every other national socialist policy.

Because if it wasn't for all this degeneracy I don't think you'd be convinced of the ideas of the NSDAP on their own merits. You want to purge society and these ideologies do that so you're for them. But again you can purge society without resorting to these ideologies to do so. I was once a supporter of communism for the same reason, I never read communist theory or cared for it. But I didn't like what I saw around me so I thought it would be best as a means of purging undesirables from society.

>How am I not a fascist?

I don't believe national socialism is fascism. You're either one or the other imo, national socialism deviates from fascism but builds upon it. I know Mosley spoke of them being the same but I disagree and I think he said that with tongue in cheek.

>No, definitely liberalism too.

We have had liberalism since the 1700s and none of the stuff you're talking about back then just like the example of America in 1900. Liberalism in of itself did not cause all this shit and we can remove it without dropping liberalism on the individual level.

Also regarding the monarchism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksgemeinschaft

>and it appealed to the idea of breaking down elitism and uniting people across class divides to achieve a national purpose

I cannot see this coexisting with monarchy and everything it brings. Hereditary privileges and aristocracy run counter to this entirely


8248ce  No.15595

>>15335

Heres my hot take.

Fascism (not national socialism) evolved as a European cousin to American Progressivism in the after math of both WW1 and later the great depression. They are similar in that being their birth, but are different in that America and Europe dealt with different fallout in the form of different problems to both of those events, but were united in their recognizing of those problems and an attempt to forge a new path forward while completely rejecting the marxism view that both those horrible events were signs that communism was the answer. And by Progressive American, I mean early politicians like Huey Long or FDR and think progressives today are an almost completely different thing, but thats a different argument.

But I think in the years after WW2 and especially the 60s, theres been a sort of boogeymanning of fascism ideals by both schools and popular media which has contributed to the sort of vague notion of fascism people have to day where is basically means someone you dont like. And I think self described "fascist" perpetuate this and play into it when edgy kids who dont have a an active social life and are really insecure like to LARP as the boogeyman version of it without caring about the actual ideology in a power fantasy thing, in the same way a little kid might pretend to be darth vader. Or like those gangs in 1970s new york who would wear swastikas and nazi fashion just to be edgy and scary and piss people off, even though they had puerto ricans and blacks in the gang.


93e060  No.15618

File: 0cad072e664c64f⋯.jpg (35.13 KB, 500x638, 250:319, fdr and mosley.jpg)

>>15595

I'd agree regarding the view that fascism is a sort of cousin to American Progressivism especially like that of Huey Long.

What are your views of British fascism in relation to the other variants that did not uphold individual liberties? Why do you suppose this is the case?


8248ce  No.15644

>>15618

>What are your views of British fascism in relation to the other variants that did not uphold individual liberties? Why do you suppose this is the case?

This core anglo-christian view of individualism. I dont know exactly where this originates, but its the founding ideal of America in the form of the pilgrims and was laid out by the English around the same time too all the way back to the magna carta. I think Mosley was trying to do something with that ideal of an Englishman compared to Mussolini where it was never even a factor to Italian identity or culture.

I suggest reading Democracy in America because it perfectly explains the history behind American ideas of liberty and individual freedom and American exceptionalism (its the origin of the term )




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / ausneets / dempart / freeb / ita / jenny / mascot / vichan ]