One of my only arguments against fascism is that after the original leader is gone, there is all this power that can be taken by someone who does not have the peoples best interest at heart.
How would you argue against that? It's one of the only things that keeps me from believing in that ideology.
If Hitler won the war and governed for 30 or 40 more years, what happens if someone like Merkel were to take his place?
Other urls found in this thread:
ssa.gov
twitter.com
You say 'fuck this gay government shit' and establish anarcho-capitalism.
What a stupid thread.
Sage
>looking for someone to challenge my actual beliefs
>sage reee
Just don't post next time if you can't contribute anything.
I wish I could have someone provide an actual answer
Its the main flaw of the ideology, fascism comes with a slew of internal power struggles that ultimately will cause government to self-implode once the main figurehead of the state is dead. Japanese fascism was much superior in this regard as it retained monarchist elements and had a stable succession in place.
Thanks. If typical Nazi fascism could only last one lifetime, how long could Japanese fascism last?
When the leader dies you abolish the title of leader. He should have delegated out all of his decision making before then.
Sure, but with power consolidated all it would take is one person with bad intentions or who is just stupid to topple the entire government.
Also think about it this way. Every military carries own throughout generations without this problem you've invented.
Don't have much to say other than I agree with the guy talking about needing a stable form of succession, bump.
Forever probably. They've had the same Royal family for centuries, and they could keep going indefinitely
Same goes with every military. No elections and the top general in theory could do anything, but in practice this is not the case. Hitler ran nothing and everything at the same time remember, he delegated out all tasks and vetoed/steered as he seen fit.
Once it was in full swing his position was only needed for morale. The Soviet Union only had one minor issue and it's generally accepted that each leader was 'better' than the one that preceded him. In most ways at least.
In America the military leadership is set by the President.
But I understand the rest of what you're saying.
Sure, since people would grow up holding the same beliefs. That seems like a decent answer.
Right but you know that there were militarys before America existed. The idea that you need a democratically elected head of government for anything is ridiculous. China doesn't have democracy yet it's doing just fine. Russia was far better off under the Soviet Union than democracy. etc.
You don't get in a position to be the next Hitler unless you've made allies everywhere. You can't just come out of nowhere with evil intentions, unlike in a democracy.
You'll find that in China, the SU, etc. there is/was democracy but it was done at a table with a dozen or so men. These people ally themselves with factions inside the country and that's how shit gets done.
I can't think of one democracy that's more stable in outlook and unified in purpose than China or the old SU.
>China doesn't have democracy yet it's doing just fine.
Tell that to the people who work in the factories that have suicide nets.
>Russia was far better off under the Soviet Union than democracy.
No it wasn't.
>You can't just come out of nowhere with evil intentions,
Unless you have malicious intent from the beginning and have a specific plan to befriend whoever is in charge and replace them.
>unlike in a democracy.
Checks and balances.
Another interesting thought is that most dictatorships didn't fear their people overthrowing them nor did they have a reason too, rather they feared the Americans and/or kikes d&cing their entire government.
Hard to say, it's still certainly not perfect but I'm not quite aware of where the Japanese went wrong. They obviously went wrong somewhere, as them losing the war also points to a flawed ideology. The thing is with Japanese fascism is that it's arose from Shintoist beliefs and was more ingrained in a spiritual philosophical since in the Japanese people rather than an ideological stance like with the Germans and the Italians. If they would have kept to their home islands, ruling over only Japanese it presumably would have worked pretty well, but a major downfall was them attempting to expand into non-Japanese lands. Even if they had Japanese had won, they would have eventually succumbed to revolt and chaos by having foreign people of non-Shinto belief under their rule.
Hard to think about if he had won the war as there are too many variables. If he had accomplished his goal of the reunification of the German people in Austria and Poland and there was no ww2 then I don't think he would have governed indefinitely after that.
> didn't fear their people overthrowing them nor did they have a reason too,
Because they stripped them of their power.
>rather they feared the Americans and/or kikes
pic
I've been to the USA and i've been to China. I've seen your homeless vets all over the streets, the suicide rates in the USA are some of the highest in the world.
The next leader has to be someone who was indoctrinated by the party to be the perfect leader at a very young age.
In this case, like an apprentice to Hitler.
You are dead motherfucker!
If you get it up and running the people should be trusted to decide what to do with the situation they are given. Maybe everyone will vote to have one guy for a little while, maybe people want several people to be in charge for X amount of time, maybe there's new talent ready to shine. I think the founding fathers and the enlightenment stuff were right in thinking you have to trust the population.
More than half of working American adults (61% work) make less than $30k a year. Americans are delusional and refuse to look at their own statistics. King Nigger just added $10t to your fucking debt and your kike ruling class is richer than ever.
Presumably, you have a 2nd in command that takes over in case the leader dies, and he has a 2nd in command in case he dies.
However, for non-emergency situations, you simply take one of the indoctrinated well educated youths and make him apprentice to the leader, trained to take over when the ruler dies.
>like an apprentice to Hitler.
I knew it.
There's a hierarchy. So the person deemed right for the job decides his own successor. If you trust him with everything else, you should trust him with that. It's less of a lottery than a monarchy.
>japanese fascism was stable
Nigger are you dumb or do you not read books?
Or both?
Japan from the 1920s onwards was a constant series of political suicide bombings and assassinations by the IJA,IJN and other facitons all vying for power
So they would've lasted far longer if they stayed home.
>he would have governed indefinitely after that.
But I'm asking what should happen if the person next after Hitler didn't agree with him.
As said earlier in this thread, I that is the best solution I have seen so far. Sort of like a monarchy.
I don't want to get OT from my post but it is not even close comparing China to America.
Chinese laborers are trashed and work for practically nothing while American workers have social safety nets instead of literal safety nets.
Suicide rates in China are unknown anyways.
He's an apprentice to Jackson but born a bit late.
You're on your last legs. Your country went from 90% white and an inspiration to all to being the capital of interracial porn, drug promotion, mass immigration, open societies, a trade deficit nobody knew could have existed twenty years ago and a higher suicide rate than during the great depression.
You act as if American democracy is some great exception thing that didn't completely rot out and destroy your nation. Democracy has doomed your future generations to war, strife, and poverty. Nice. God bless King Nigger god knows nobody could have appointed a man better than him.
both
I was holding off on the leaf meme but once again the red menace strikes
Why the fuck are you trying to say Chinese laborers are better off than America laborers? It's simply not true.
This could only happen in a democracy.
...
Artificial intelligence becomes the new ruler.
This A.I. is of course, Malevolent and caring of humanity and why wouldn't, considering that is the A.I's best way of ensuring its own survival, to have the love of the people and is also immortal. Making sure no human with bad intentions takes its place.
I'm saying that millions of manufacturing jobs have left your country and now your rural areas are being swamped in heroin. I'm saying that only 61% of the adults in your country hold a job and more than half of all working Americans make less than $30k a year.
ssa.gov
This mass exodus of jobs, mass importation of voters, and kike takeover only could have happened via democracy.
that isn't fucking relevant to the thread
Your country wouldn't be """"60%""""" white and $20t in debt if it wasn't for democracy and yet you're concerned about some ebul man coming to power through meritocracy.
Your last first lady was a literal feral sheboon. It's all relevant.
Only a democracy would borrow trillions from China to bribe people with obamaphones/government jobs/etc.
But yeah man the idea of the NSDAP being succeeded by one of ~four men that has served the party for decades and had the support of millions is scary stuff. I'd much rather a nigger community organizer from Chicago run it all.
Democracy is anti-meritocracy.
This creates a new problem:
What will be of the technoElite who can manipulate it, or play with it, and have total power, while the pawns keeps under the illusion of a super intelligent beneficial digital god doing it's thing for them?
Also, what could be of the world, if there was a geopolitical game running by multiple AI as opponents instead of princes, presidents or generals?
AI should help, not lead.
You could use life extension technology to make the original leader live forever, or at least thousands of years.
>Merkel
Because someone like her will be killed by the members of the party.
Also, if you think that Hitler is a good leader, then you need to trusth in his decision of a sucesor
Algorithms already run much of everyday life. When the advertisements come on the tv, what advertisements get shown on youtube, when your shifts are scheduled, when your local bar gets more booze, and that's just timing algorithms.
AI will never 'get' the human element. It's the same old techno paradox, program AI to protect earth and it will wipe out humanity.
>Nigger are you dumb or do you not read books?
I could ask you the same question, the purpose of the IJA and IJN staging coups in the early 30s were specifically for the sole purpose of empowering the emperor and stripping away civilian control of government. THIS is why Japanese fascism is superior to that of its western counterparts. The emperor is established as an incarnation of a god, and thus the entire nation becomes subservient to them and works for their benefit.
Japan would have still had internal power struggles, as again that's simply inherit to the fascist doctrines. However, in western fascism these power struggles would have taken place at the very head of the government, like the clusterfuck of a power vacuum to be caused by Hitler dying. Japanese fascism is superior because these power struggles take place BELOW the head of the state, the emperor, and are therefore much less destabilizing.
Imitate the Romans. Basically Hitler would adopt a male that he believes should lead the nation after him and nurture/guide him as he grows old.
>So they would've lasted far longer if they stayed home.
There's a reason the US specifically did not want to invade the Japanese home islands, they knew that they wouldn't just be fighting the IJA, but the civilian populace as well.
Then simply adjust the transfer of power slightly to better stabilize it
>WW1 how the Germans surrendered
>WW2 how the Japanese surrendered
>there is all this power that can be taken by someone who does not have the peoples best interest at heart
I believe there's a minor flaw in your statement. The leader wouldn't just "die alone" and the next person in the hierarchy would assume.
What'd probably happen is that the leader would pay more attention for possible successors, taking a deeper look on their personalities, skills, way of handling things, in other words, their whole character. Once the leader decided which one should be the successor, he'd make him his pupil and teach him how to be a leader.
She gets shot obviously, or maybe the gas chambers
We'd be fucking fine even if we had someone with 1/10 the balls of Hitler. God damnit you fucking faggots just presevere the demographics of the domestic population and don't radically subvert your people fucking hell
Well if you are having this dilemma about national socialism their was a way to select the next Fuhrer
If you trust a leader enough to have him lead you for 30-40 years, you should trust them enough to choose a worthy successor.