Search for fascism in Google and you'll get pic related. However, there's just one problem.
See the phrase "right-wing system of government"? That doesn't appear in any dictionary definition of the word.
Not in dictionary.com's definition
Not in Merriam-Webster's definition
Not even in Wikipedia's definition
So the question is....where the fuck did that come from?
Or did Google just come up with one of it's own "alternative facts"?
Gee I wonder (((who))) could be behind this?
...
It's Oxford being the jews this time.
once again satan provides the answer
Once again kek confirms it.
>authoritarian
>right wing
>Or did Google just come up with one of it's own "alternative facts"?
I think you know the answer
Right wing faggots don't like fascism, they like authoritarians to tell them what to do.
Trumpfags will just give an outdated definition of fascism anyway
So then what is the definition for fascism?
And God who points him out
I hope (((they))) realize that pointing out all the nazi germany similarities isnt going to save them.
even as they are being shoved into box cars screaming "SEE?! THIS IS JUST LIKE THE HOLOCAUST!!!", i will roll my eyes and slam the doors shut
Well, it certainly helps explain some antifa mindset
They CAN'T be fascist because Google told them so
I don't remember Trump being anywhere close to Mussolini, I thought he was suppose to be literally Hitler.
Facism has always been associated with the far right. Didn't you ever have to look at models of the political spectrum in school?
>tfw the family dictionary doesn't have the definition of fascism
>You really think a Leaf would do that?
>Just go on the internet and tell lies?
>"what your teacher told you"
literally just proved my post correct
>Fascism
>Having actual meaning
Why do you care what Google tells you? Not even actual self declared fascists can come to an agreement on what fascism is.
Google has been under control of left-wing radicals for years. I don't get how this comes as a surprise
Google shilled for Hilary, hardcore. They even had her as the image for president of the U.S. until/pol/ forced them to remove it.
uhh only one of our major political parties uses the war on oceana as their message every 4 years
Let's see, Hitler gassed the Jews because he viewed them as a privileged race and wanted his minorities to be superior. Sounds lefty to me.
How do we summon the almighty Faschismus?
For those of you who don't seem to understand what Fascism is.
National Socialism is actually around the middle.. But nice try kike
lol @ this jew
Cmon, don't push this kike bullshit here. Read the Haavara Agreement and The Madagascar Plan.. Nobody wants to gas the kikes except for in fantasies, it is counter productive as fuck
...
>Fascism disallows pornography
Welp, fuck that then
What do you expect from (((google)))? They want to push the right down so they can advance their (((leftist))) ideals.
It is degenerate, so yeah. I enjoy pornography but i'm not so selfish as to refuse to give it up if it's necessary for the betterment of myself and my people.
...
Well said.
>See the phrase "right-wing system of government"? That doesn't appear in any dictionary definition of the word.
It's technically correct if you believe in the old style linear model of left-right "political thought"
Of course the linear model is woefully inacurate.
that model is something like this
LEFT | Communist/socialist -> Socialist Labor Parties (in Europe) -> Green Parties (Europe) -> Social Democrat (Europe) -> Democrats (USA) -> LABOR -> Utopian Socialist -> Libertarians -> Classical Liberals (Reagan Conservatives minus the religious ones) -> Centrists -> Conservative Party (Europe) -> Republicans (USA) -> Traditional Conservatives -> Southern Democrats/Christian Republicans (USA) -> UK Independence Party -> Barisan Nasional Party (Malasia) -> Fascists/Nazi Party | RIGHT
The problem with the linear model is it doesn't really accurately indicate where any of these parties really stand in relation to the "Left-Right" without being wildly subjective in it's appraisal. I think the main definition used for placement for left-right on this scale is the belief in humanity (man is inherently good vs man is inherently evil) after that it gets pretty iffy, and you can have all sorts of arguments about the placement of the different parties on this list. Generally tendencies toward political violence land you on the more extreme sides of the two spectrum, as well as a tendency for a more invasive government.
However this was how social scientists looked at it back in the early 1900's, as a result Nazis were viewed with horror by the Communists, and the Nazi's saw the communists as the end of humanity. Even though time and distance makes them look like two sides of the same coin, the "enlightened" lefty ivory tower intellectuals of the day were all a fluff with arguments proving Nazis were the RIGHT WING and had nothing to do with the left.
Can you tell me how fascism regards land ownership rights? Would it fall under the same thing as property. A right to keep and hold land but the government can kick you off for the good of the nation?
Thanks friend. Nothing irks me so much as people throwing around the word Fascism willy nilly and besmirching the concept. They see the word Socialist in 'National Socialist' and think they know what it means.
Yes, I'd say you're correct in that interpretation. So long as the government doesn't decide that it is imperative that they own the land then it's yours and they respect your ownership of it. Also, in the event that it is seized you would ideally be compensated for it.
How is that even an argument against what I said? I just stated that they have always been associated in the mainstream.
fascists tend toward believing humans are scum at heart and require a regresive authoritarian regime to hold them in line.
That said "property" ownership was often treated as a "reward for citizenship". Citizenship in a true fascist country is NOT earned by birth but by contribution to society.
...
What kind of normal checks and balances be used? Is a fascist government easily corruptible?
>So long as the government doesn't decide that it is imperative that they own the land then it's yours and they respect your ownership of it. Also, in the event that it is seized you would ideally be compensated for it.
So basically just eminent domain? Or is the compensation from the state optional?
That's an accurate definition, moron. Fascism is right wing. Anyways, the authoritarian part is what you should take issue with. Mussolini's Italy, Peron's Argentina, and Franco's Spain, for example, were arguably no less than authoritarian than the modern United States.
t. Guy who's further right than the fascists
Hey I work for Google, and a guy has to make a living you know?
Wow.. How wrong can someone be... Thanks for explaining communism faggot.
In "Facism" the individual is the most important aspect of society as it is only individuals who will come up with great ideas and make our nations prosper.. Unlike communism who think that can be achieved by the "classless" masses..
...
> slam the doors shut
so hard that the universe will shake and mankind will stand back in stupefaction.
So what's wrong here?
Facist governments tend to reward loyalty. They're pretty much feudal, in that power concentrates with the head of government, who is kept in power by rewarding power to those who prove themselves and removing privledge of those who do not. The vast majority are generally powerless.
The main check and balance that the head can must keep a stable support base, which isn't very difficult, and conditions must be decent enough for the lowest in society that they don't revolt.
Quality of life depends on the quality of the leader.
Maybe we should just become the fascists they already believe we are.
>that the head can must
*Is that the head must
Heres the thing about fascism, it comes in a lot of flavors and they all vary on these types of things.
As far as corruption, it's based heavily around a strong idealist leader who personifies the will of the nation and its people, so inherently so long as that leader remains in power there isn't much concern for corruption and the issue seems to only arise towards the death of the leader. Potentially you would see fit for the leader to name a successor of adequate moral standing. These are, of course, idealistic and susceptible to error.
It's somewhat of a flexible ideology, hence the many flavors. I personally am a big fan of fascism, I used to be a libertarian capitalist and then I saw cultural marxism rear it's ugly head. It's not perfect, but it blows away the leftist alternatives and I believe can be molded further to adapt and cover it's weaknesses.
Exactly. Well put.
This is a solid answer too.
dude. you need to stop before you make a full ass of yourself.
You're mixing up authoritarianism with communism, Authoritarian regimes glorify the "faceless masses", and destroy individuality.
1984 was at it's core an ANTI authoritarian book. Remember, Orwell was a card carrying communist, who got red pilled hard by Stalinism. He wrote 1984 as a political BTFO to Stalin. But being a commy at heart he couldn't quite take the step to condemn communism so he kept the book to anti authoritarianism.
Atlas Shrugged is also an Anti-authoritarianism and to a lesser extent, anti-communist book. Don't confuse the two. It just so happens the extreme left of his time (and of today) was embracing authoritarianism harder then it was socialism.
AGAIN the linear left-right model is FLAWED. I was not claiming it worked or I agreed with it. Only explaining why some airhead might claim fascists were right wing.
Also, yes the facist systems are susceptible to corruption by nature of being loyalty based. The integrity is directly linked to the leader(s).
Seems nobody understands what fascism is, including me.
But apparently it's still ebil right-wing nightmare fuel
Yeah, Trump should just announce tomorrow that all shitskins will be deported back to where they came from. The nightmare would probably end then.
>Also, yes the facist systems are susceptible to corruption by nature of being loyalty based. The integrity is directly linked to the leader(s).
I see, but so long as the very head of state maintains his own integrity, which isn't guaranteed but also more reliable than the will of the masses, abuses to the people of the nation will be accountable to him and such a thing would lead the head of state to roll heads.
The hard part of Fascism is finding a good head of state it seems.
I do like how Fascism embraces hierarchy though.
nobody really knows, it borrows heavily from both socialism and nationalism. both are heavily collectivist, built on class/national/race consciousness, argue for stronger centralization of power, hated on free markets and favoured heavy nationalisation (communism goes all the way through commons, but fascism did that too in its own way through direct control of the industrialists boardrooms), one argued against private property while the other stated private property should be used in the national interest first.
I think it goes far to remember its creator was a socialist ww1 veteran that became disillusioned with anti-militarism and internationalism.
Thank you. Both these points make a lot of sense to me. I'm currently for a libertarian capitalist point of view but I'm starting to see some flaws in regards to corporate land ownership and just trying to shop around for ideas of what would make a better system. The flaw with fascism seems to be the threat of a corrupted leader which could really do a lot of damage. And as far a republic system that should be a safeguard to corruption but even corrupt leaders can find a way around that through democracy.
...
At some point anyone will find a leader to be corrupt. In fascism, everyone agrees that the leader is correct on everything. It doesn't matter if he is wrong.
All their buzzwords have no meaning or shock value anymore. I have a leftie friend who was calling me Adolph in public for nearly a week straight for not agreeing that Trump is Anti-American/literal Hitler and it didn't really bother me. I just kind of laugh off his opinions on everything now and that butt hurts him more than any insult could either of us.
Offcial Anticom Twitter is up! Once we have 300 members, we'll begin physical work. Important links below:
>Twitter twitter.com
>Rough draft of ideas docs.google.com
>Uniforms here
www.511tactical.com/public-safety/law-enforcement/uniforms.html
>Riot gear here
bulletproofme.com
>Subplebbit
reddit.com
>Discord
discord.gg
>How can I help?
Until we get to 300, come join the discord, follow us on Twitter, and spread knowledge of Anticom. Also, distribute the propaganda fliers that have been posted on Discord and Twitter. Godspeed!
It seems very much to me fascism is better than a democracy for a nation. It may not be the safest of the two but fortunes favor the bold...
attempted to clean it up
For fascism to get off the ground and work the leader would need to be of the kind you would like, that's a given. The issue of corruption and fascism itself is when that leader dies. If you had an immortal vampire as leader than you could sidestep that issue, but such things have not been proven to exist so we must make do with what we have. The leader would preferably then be rather young, but a prodigy in his craft.
This is what is taught in schools. Of course, they never explain why it's supposed to be right wing other than muh racism, so I presumed it was entirely liberal propaganda and that fascism was left wing, since the left is more for governmental power than the right and the most obvious example of Fascism was socialist.
It was only after coming to pol that I found reasons for fascism to be considered right wing. The first reason I found was an essay posted here on fascist corporatism, i.e. privatization. Now I'm seeing a multitude of reasons: patriotism, opposition to degeneracy, etc.
Look at any political spectrum dumb ass. Fascism is extreme right and communism is extreme left.
it just gets funnier the longer its online, I can't wait to see what happens next
Also, begin searching for "left wing fascism" to offset their search algorithms.
>big government is extreme right
>big government is extreme left
you're actually fucking stupid. end yourself immediately you waste of fucking oxygen.
Because fascism is a buzz-word that's ultimately meaningless outside of Italy. America, by the Italian (actual) definition, has been a fascist state since 1776. Hell, the fasces has been a symbol of the U.S. longer than any other current state. One of our mottos is E Pluribus Unum for fucks sake.
This is what scares me about fascism. The odds are always in favor of a corrupted leader. What I would like to know is if the people are in power to stop that without violence if they don't agree with the leader.
google: oven definition
:^)
Look, communism in itself is to create a so called classless society. Communism will, in any way, sense or form destroy individualism as it is in its nature to do so to create this mythical disney utopia.
I am not mixing authoriatinism with communism as individuality is non existant in a "true" communist society.
Facists don't believe that individuals are "scum at heart" and need a "regresive authoritarian regime to hold them in line". Facists believe that through individuals, which again form into groups is the saviour of a nation. That individuals alone will be the ones who nurture and make a nation prosper. In a classless society which communism aims for, this is impossible. As they do actually see human nature as scum at heart as you phrased it. Facism, or even better National Socialism believies in the laws of nature and abides by it and does not try to change the human nature by force. National Socialism is a biological world-view, based on the laws of nature, which no man can bend. And those who try to bend them, like socialists and communists try really hard to do will get punished by nature. And in worst case scenario lead to the death of mankind as a whole, while the universe continues its life and enforces its laws on every inhabitant of the universe.
I should not have called you faggot, but communism and authoritarianism cannot be mixed up
Isn't extreme right wing practically anarchy but with a gov to make trade deals, courts and a small army?
The people are always the ones in power. They don't always show it, but their shier numbers have the ability to persuade any politician.
Only in a 2D political spectrum, which is fucking stupid.
The corrupt leader comes after the rise of fascism. Fascism starts with a wonderful leader and then has the possibility of becoming fucked after he dies.
>It seems very much to me fascism is better than a democracy for a nation. It may not be the safest of the two but fortunes favor the bold
I think the thing that helps against corruption in comparison to monarchy, which is honestly something I have considered as an idea, is that things aren't decided by ancestry.
Also it seems the culture it supports is one of involvement in the health of the nation. Monarchies that are corrupted actively oppose it while democracies are manipulated into being misinformed by outside groups. Fascism encourages people to understand the needs of a nation.
Also it doesn't seem culturally oppressive when the previous user had an image describing it as treating the nation as family. You wouldn't care if your family member watched anime in his or her spare time while also maintaining a job and healthy social relationships. If that was all they did you'd show concern and get them to move away from it.
Fascism is just a another word hijacked by the left to trick stupid people. What is going on now is fascist with even the largest stretch. The right would ever allow a fascist to rise up. The left is much more likely to follow a fascist because they are pussies and need someone to save them from the evil white man.
I think a more general, non-partisan definition of facism would be:
An authoritarian and nationalistic system of government and social organization based on reciprocity of ideological, military, and fiscal support.
i.e. those who support the government in all areas will be of higher standing, and those who differ from the governing powers, or have no major contribution, are at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Read up on horseshoe theory you brain dead retard.
In America? Sure
In the rest of the world, 'right-wing' means 'traditional' or 'reactionary'. It derives from the group of people who opposed the French Revolution.
So basically, an extremely right-wing system would be very religious and traditionalist, and likely absolute monarchist too.
>Read up on horseshoe theory you brain dead retard.
But Communism seeks to destroy hierarchy and Fascism embraces it as the proper way to govern. Sure there are similarities because they are both authoritarian and believe the state should be involved in determining aspects of military, finance, and culture, but there end goals look entirely different.
Compare Chile to Venezuela for a contemporary example.
I would think that people at the bottom class of a monarchy are just living in a communist system. I'm not sure how middle class are in a monarchy but assume it's pretty nice. I know a strong middle-class is important for any healthy nation.
Yes. There's absolutely no comparison between fascism and communism. The ideals are completely different. Communism wants to break up identity, family, religion while fascism encourages those.
This is why I use duckduckgo to do my searches.
There is comparison between Fascism and Communism, but only in their revolutions and ruling methods. Also they're both as authoritarian as governments can be. That's about the extent of similarities though.
...
>I know a strong middle-class is important for any healthy nation.
Mostly because it means the population is educated and has the free time to make use of that education which oftentimes means involvement in the political process which leads to a healthy nation.
Here's the thing though, all leaders that have been considered fascists have been socialists. There is no debating that. Does that make socialism a right wing movement?
fascism is centrist
these fucking chosens
isn't fascism left-wing?
>Right wing typically = smaller government
>Left wing typically = larger government
>Socialism = larger government
>Most fascists = socialists
>Fascist = right wing
>Therefore, right wing = socialist
Wow, you just pulled some dumb fuck logic right there.
You can have right-wing authoritarian governments and right-wing libertarian governments. It's not an oxymoron. Left-wing libertarian governments ARE an oxymoron though.
Yeah, but right wing authoritarian governments cannot be socialist as socialist is diametrically opposed to being right wing/conservative.
The point is moot anyways because fascism isn't right-wing. It's center authoritarian. It is, by very definition, neither left nor right. It's third position and thus center.
Also conservative is only relative to the status quo. It is not inherently right-wing.