/Fsg/ Fascism General

/Fsg/ - Fascist General

Thread for discussion of Italian Fascism, and other forms of fascism, Mosley, Codreanu, Falange, etc. Also for sharing fascist literature and information.

A Fascist general for Fascists and those interested


conservapedia.com/Fascist_Manifesto,_1919

worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

reakt.org/fiume/charter_of_carnaro.html


uploadmb.com/dw.php?id=1389982155

Be respectful and please try to keep conversations relatively "intellectual"


Good fascists/similar or influential people to get an introduction

Oswald Mosely
Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera
Benito Mussolini
Adolf Hitler
Stepan Bandera
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu
Salazar
Ramiro Ledesma Ramos
Ettore Ovazza
Gaetano Mosca
Friedrich Nietzsche
Charles Maurras
Enrico Corradini
Filippo Tommaso Marinetti
Johann Plenge
Alceste De Ambris
Gabriele d'Annunzio
George Lincoln Rockwell
Juan Perón
Giovanni Gentile
Julius Evola

Types of Fascism

Italian
Falangism
National-Syndicalism
British Union
National-Socialism
Strasserism
Meme futurism
Clerical Fascism
Brazilian Integralism
Peronism

"[Fascism] was an explosion against intolerable conditions, against remediable wrongs which the old world failed to remedy. It was a movement to secure national renaissance by people who felt themselves threatened with decline into decadence and death and were determined to live, and live greatly."~Oswald Mosely

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Rodzaevsky
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Rolão_Preto
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrije_Ljotić
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_Front_of_Mexico
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Szálasi
savitridevi.org/PDF/lightning.pdf
discord.gg/EU9gJ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plínio_Salgado
pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ação_Integralista_Brasileira
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Integralism
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>philosophic conception
Fascism is thought and action. It is action with an inherent doctrine which, arising out of a given system of historic forces, is inserted in it and works on it from within. It has therefore a form co-related to the contingencies of time and place; but it has at the same time an ideal content which elevates it into a formula of truth in the higher region of the history of thought.

>spiritual conception
To Fascism the world is not this material world which appears on the surface, in which man is an individual separated from all other men, standing by himself and subject to a natural law which instinctively impels him to lead a life of momentary and egoistic pleasure. In Fascism man is an individual who is the nation and the country. He is this by a moral law which embraces and binds together individuals and generations in an established tradition and mission, a moral law which suppresses the instinct to lead a life confined to a brief cycle of pleasure in order, instead, to replace it within the orbit of duty in a superior conception of life, free from the limits of time and space a life in which the individual by self-abnegation and by the sacrifice of his particular interests, even by death, realises the entirely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists.

>ethical conception
This positive conception of life is evidently an ethical conception. And it comprises the whole reality as well as the human activity which domineers it. No action is to be removed from the moral sense; nothing is to be in the world that is divested of the importance which belongs to it in respect of moral aims. Life, therefore, as the Fascist conceives it, is serious, austere, religious; entirely balanced in a world sustained by the moral and responsible forces of the spirit. The Fascist disdains the "easy" life.

>religious conception
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is considered to be in the powerful grip of a superior law, with an objective will which transcends the particular individual and elevates him into a fully conscious member of a spiritual society. Anyone who has stopped short at the mere consideration of opportunism in the religious policy of the Fascist Regime, has failed to understand that Fascism, besides being a system of government, is also a system of thought.

...

...

...

...

Opinions on Carl Schmitt? He was pro-authoritarian scholar and a member of NatSo

...

...

...

...

Very based, need to read into his works

...

...

...

...

...

...

Just ordered a couple of Friedrich Nietzsche books to go along with Mosley's 'My Life' and Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'. Feels good, man.

Screw Bandera and Salazar
Put them on the list instead
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Rodzaevsky
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Rolão_Preto

...

So you're basically a faggot with an axe.

add him as well
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrije_Ljotić

...

Nice man, get the doctrines of fascism and for my legionnaries too if you haven't already.

Could be way worse.

What are your thoughts on them?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_Front_of_Mexico

Don't start with "thus spoke...". Read Nietzsche chronologically and leave "thus spoke..." for the end.

It's good that they exist, but they have some rather bad ideas in their ideology, I would not join them.

Forgot about Rodzaevsky, I'll add the other two.

add him
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Szálasi

> bad ideas in their ideology
like what?

1.- They want to annex all territories of the US that where at any point part of mexico, from California to Texas.
Can't be done, your army is too big.

2.- They want to revive and impose prehispanic religions.

USA will eventually be balkanized
You do agree that Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica,and Belize should be annexed into Mexico, right?

They want to make Nahuatl the official language, kind of how Israel did with Hebrew, as you can imagine that would be impossible, Israel was at least a shining new thing when the adopted Hebrew, VERY FEW of their citizens had been born there, it could be done, We have been using Spanish for over 400 years.

It would be better for them that for us. We would have to solve all of their problems and those are many and big.

...

I think after what went on today I moved a little more towards right authoritarian.

What went on today? I just got home a few minutes ago and I could not read any news today.

How are we all?

There was a riot at a Milo event in California

Absolutely great, how about yourself user?

Very good senpai

Anything else? It seemed like a really eventful day.

savitridevi.org/PDF/lightning.pdf

The lighting and the sun.

...

...

Fascist general discord server

discord.gg/EU9gJ

What's the symbolism behind the Fasces?

Represents strength through unity, also represents power and authority.

Ahh ok.

Truly great parties

...

> checks flag

mmm, sounds familiar

...

...

>communism is individualistic

someone care to elaborate. communism does not seem individualistic in the slightest.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

I'd like to discuss the role of women in fascism. In mein kampf, hitler was pretty much only speaking to men. He said the role of women was essentially to raise a family.

I think in modern fascism, we need to be very egalitarian. Modern values demand it. So to accomplish our important political goals we need to make concessions on this point and stay away from misogyny. Women should always be treated with dignity and respect by modern fascists. Basically don't say a bad word about women as a gender or sex. But also don't pander to the jewish feminists. Thoughts?

Nietzsche was a kike-lover. He hated anti-Semites. If he saw the moral subversion of the Jew in media today...

You're a fucking idiot, a shallow reader, and a leaf to boot.

1
>The divine individual is masculine because the feminine is not individual: The divine feminine is, instead, mother and child. However, it a hallmark of Christian supposition that the redemption of both men and women comes through the masculine, and that is because the masculine is the individual. The central realization – expressed dramatically; symbolically – is that the subordination of the group to the ideal of the Divine Individual is the answer to the paradox of nihilism and totalitarianism.

>The Divine Individual is the man that every man admires, and the man whom all women want their men to be. The Divine Individual is the ideal from which deviations are punished by the group with contempt and disgrace and fidelity to which is rewarded with attention and honor. The Divine Individual is not the winner of any individual game but the player who plays fair and is therefore continually invited to play. The Divine Individual is the builder, maintainer and expander of the state, he who boldly goes where no man has gone before, and someone who eternally watches over the widows and the children. His power of direct and honest communication is that which identifies, discusses and resolves the continually emergent problems of human existence. He is the Savior of the World.

2
>The primary image for women is not the Divine Individual, because of the heavy burden they bear for reproduction. It is, instead, the Divine Mother and Child. This is not to say that man is the Divine Individual, and woman is not, although such confusion is understandable, given the complexity of the problem. Men, like women, have the Divine Mother and Child as an element of their personality. In men, however, it’s in the background, so to speak, as the Divine Individual is in the background of the psyche for women. Men, by necessity, play a less primary role in the care of children. This frees them to act as individuals in a manner that up to now has been nearly impossible for women. Identification with these images is belief in them. Belief is not the statement of agreement with a set of facts, but the willingness to act something out, to become something, to stake your life on something. For men and women alike, this means voluntary adoption of responsibility – responsibility for oneself, family and state. In that responsibility, and not in rights, resides Meaning itself – the meaning that makes life bearable.

3
>Effective birth control has emerged as one of the consequences of our powerful technological materialism. This has been accompanied by the rise of states sufficiently civilized so that women who inhabit them can walk the streets unaccompanied in safety. We do not yet know how to balance the opportunities thus provided for expanded female individuality with the eternal necessity for a woman to serve as the Mother of the Divine Individual. Dividing our civilization into polarized ideological camps of female group identity and male group identity is certainly not the answer. We have to be honest, male and female alike, about what we really want, as individuals, and talk it out. We know beyond dispute that societies who emancipate their women are much more productive and peaceful, and that the relationship is causal. Thus, it’s not a matter of if but how.

4
>But such emancipation places a dual burden on the now more autonomous woman, who is required to balance manifesting the potential of her individual spirit with the necessity of desire to bear and rear the next generation of mankind. To live with free women, and gain the advantages of their freedom and sophistication, men must therefore bring their shadowed psychic identification with the Divine Mother and Child into the light, without losing their Divine Individuality in the process. They must consciously, voluntarily, deliberately and strategically accept their responsibility for the relationship between autonomous female companionship, support, love, and the responsibility of producing that next generation. This means rejecting, among other things, the misbegotten idea of casual sexual gratification. Sex is either the impulsive, short-term gratification of a domineering biological impulse, or the union of two conscious spirits taking responsibility for what they are doing. The former is not commensurate with the demands of an advanced civilization, which requires the adoption of responsibility above all for its preservation, maintenance and expansion. It is for this reason that the sexualized interactions between young men and women – in universities, for example — are increasingly and inevitably falling under the harsh and tyrannical regulation of the state.

See for yourself:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
>Modern antisemitism Nietzsche felt was "despicable" and against European ideals.[141] Its cause, in his opinion, was the growth in European nationalism and the endemic "jealousy and hatred" of Jewish success.[141] He wrote that Jews should be thanked for helping uphold a respect for the philosophies of Ancient Greece,[141] and for giving rise to "the noblest human being (Christ), the purest philosopher (Spinoza), the mightiest book, and the most effective moral code in the world."
Also, his shit on "slave morality" is retarded. Nobody is a slave when they obey things like "don't be a hedonist". If you think being free do be degenerate is any freedom, you are dreadfully wrong: you will be enslaved by your desires, and you will allow them to act FOR you. Respecting traditionalist morals, as opposed to abandoning it because "screw you dad you can't tell me what to do" is a horrible stance to take.


Hey, you seem to have a huge reservoir of fascist knowledge, do you have anything from one Hungarian (or some Eastern European) poet around the twentieth century? It was regarding twenty or so (more than ten) critiques of democracy. One of them included something like "they have no history of this nation; my family has been around for hundreds of years, his only for five years".

>fascist knowledge
Interesting that you call it that, truly interesting. Why did you described it as such?
I'll ask about the poet, wait a bit.

I think you should go read the Genealogy of Morals first-hand before you start rating philosophers.

I describe it as I have because I don't think you're Mexican. You have lots of images and text that you would only find at 8/pol/, or Ironmarch (logos on them), where they are more serious about this stuff.

I started with Kant and it was dogshit. Why do all philosophers point out the extraneous and obvious, as if to appeal to the masses by sounding like some fortune cookie in order to get the most books published? It's fucking pathetic, knowledge just is, it simply is. The mind-body shit was interesting, I haven't really read up as much as I want to about that. What derives consciousness is probably explained with some brain chemistry and hormones, though, but it is just a certain arrangement of things.
Still, most of it is just extraneous, if you get what I mean.

Doesn't change the fact that it is known knowledge that Nietzsche hated Wagner, the true, worthwhile intellectual who was useful to go down in history books. Have you heard Tannhauser?

>I don't think you're Mexican.
Well, I no longer want to help you, get fucked and die.

>kant is "dogshit"

You know that since Kant, every philosopher concerned with ethics or morality has been responding to him?

What's going on here is that you don't like philosophy itself. You probably want a simple pop-culture psychology worldview that doesn't stress you too much. That's fine. Just don't try to speak on epistemics, philosophy of science, or anything related to knowledge.

You don't speak "Mexican", you speak the language of your conquerers: Spanish. Nationalism is key for fascism. Mexicans have nothing to be proud of. Your history is filled with getting conquered. Pure-blooded individuals of European descent, or original natives don't exist: only mestizo scum. All of South America/Central America is a (((globalist's))) wet dream.
Now find the quote, paco. Build the wall and glass all spic mongrels.

>You know that since Kant, every philosopher concerned with ethics or morality has been responding to him?
I am aware of his influence, I'm talking about what he wrote. Majority rule is not always correct.
>What's going on here is that you don't like philosophy itself.
Yes.
>You probably want a simple pop-culture psychology worldview that doesn't stress you too much
No, I put emphasis on the necessary, not the extraneous. I already made that clear.
>Just don't try to speak on epistemics, philosophy of science, or anything related to knowledge.
What knowledge, defining the obvious in order to get a book published? Is that why phil majors are the most insufferable faggots because they have menial knowledge that you can teach a hobo in ten minutes?

You're saying you have better judgment than 200 years of philosophers. These are the people who devoted their lives to dividing the world up into "necessary" and "extraneous" according to transparent principles, rules, arguments, and demonstrations.

So you're trying to claim the product of their work without doing any of it yourself. You're like the 9/11 Arabs whose societies could never build an airplane themselves, but bragged about flying it into one of our buildings.

Are you an idiot or a parasite? I can't decide.

>Brazilian Integralism
Wada fug

pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plínio_Salgado
pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ação_Integralista_Brasileira

>iron legion
>corrupt, kleptocratic regime
>its da joos
>give translyvania to hungary
>lol k

Name one succesful fascist government faggots
>Pinochet
>France
Both implemeented free-market (i.e. anti-fascist) economic reforms

>You're saying you have better judgment than 200 years of philosophers.
Please quote me directly and find when I say that I know more than they do.
>These are the people who devoted their lives to dividing the world up into "necessary" and "extraneous" according to transparent principles, rules, arguments, and demonstrations.
The arbitrary and extraneous are as they are because they do not require elaboration. We already know the nature of bachelors, you just created a term for it.
>So you're trying to claim the product of their work without doing any of it yourself.
See above. Quote me where I directly put myself in and claim I am superior.

>Are you an idiot or a parasite?
You love philosophy so much you want to suck off Kant, yet you can't make an argument besides "well, they spent a lot of time on it and the majority likes it, so yeah". Explain to me the practical usefulness of defining things that, say, Kant did.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Integralism

hey spic, are you deaf or just stupid? Find me the quote, you half-breed scum.

I think you're an idiot. Prove me wrong by posting something insightful about fascism. Blow my fucking mind.

Woah, are we just going to gloss over that? You just made an assertion (that I value my "work" over Kant). Source it or admit you're full of shit.
Also, I asked you: Explain to me the practical usefulness of defining things that, say, Kant did.
Onus is not on me to claim that Kant wasn't totally awesome and practical, it's on you to prove that he was. I can't be asked to disprove a null hypothesis, that's not how the burden of proof works.

...

...

>corrupt
Not really until codreanu was assassinated, and if you read for my legionaries and can't agree and see that at least one of the causes of Romania's downfall was because of the jews then you are truly blind.

And
>Pinochet?
I dont think you even understand what you are talking about, Pinochet was right wing but not fascist at all. And just about everything country that went fascist flourished economically and socially

...

...

...

...