My problems with fascism
>The implied control of media
>The implied control over speech
>The implied collectivist nature of the economy
>The implied dictatorial nature of it's system
>The implied restrictions on freedom in general
Explain why this isn't true.
Other urls found in this thread:
counter-currents.com
twitter.com
all allied propaganda.
> as if all of this isnt in place under another name
Benevolent dictatorship is preferable to democracy, sad but true. The US was an absolutely amazing entity from 1776-1965 but now we see the fruits of democracy paired with "progressivism".
We gave up our national and racial identity in the 60's. That's where we went wrong.
/thread
It was always going to happen, the contitution needed to be amended to explicitly state this country was for white people. The founding fathers all said it, and its heavily alluded to or even said in past laws, but the retarded assbackwards voters in this country still don't get the hint.
Well there's a lot of (((propaganda))) that makes people uncomfortable with that stuff
I blame the cia introducing psychedelics to the college rebels of the day.
Yes in theory. In the exact same way Communism is fantastic in theory. But giving all that power to a bunch or just 1 piece of shit human(s) is just a recipe for disaster in reality and in practice.
Most of the extreme examples of restrictions of freedom come as a result of analyzing fascist/natsoc policies during wartime. Naturally, much harsher control was exercised during the war.
A better example of what is possible is to observe what Germany was able to do pre-WW2, and how the quality of life for the average citizen vastly improved.
This is such a sad truth. Almost every day I think of the golden age of america, it stood for some 200 years as one the greatest nations to ever grace this earth. Very sad if you think about it. Democracy is not a perfect system but if only white male land owners vote it is good enough. Seems like such a system is bound to eventually fail, and can only stand for so long before it becomes subverted, but then I think any system can, even an authoritarian system like fascism. I wonder what fascism could have been like, I mean Mussolini's fascism, not Hitler's aryan obsession, who knows how successful it might have been.
>>The implied control of media
>>The implied control over speech
>>The implied collectivist nature of the economy
>>The implied dictatorial nature of it's system
>>The implied restrictions on freedom in general
The jews are already controlling media and restricting your rights. I'd rather have one of my countrymen doing that, at least he'd have the interests of the people at heart.
I'd prefer tax payer voting only. In a white ethno-state obviously
Tell this to the people under Erdogan, falling for Dictatorship over Democracy is a great way to live in a hellhole. Democarcy is far from perfect but it prevents fucking batshit insane people from tipping everything on it's head
So, control is implicit in all forms of governance. I'm not going to allow myself to be completely hobbled into thinking control is bad just because I don't like who controls the media and economy now. The question is: Is the system of control over you in alignment with your own desires? If not, then people will rebel. If it is, people will live with it.
The current paradigm sucks because the powers controlling the media and economy are completely separated from the people. Communists think there are huge horizontal classes that blanket the world, and while this is true to an extent, the working class Joe of America isn't the same as the working class Li of China. Our media is meant for everyone, but it doesn't MEAN much to anyone. I would rather have blacks live in their own area, under their own rules, self actualizing their own control over their own media and economy. Muslims too. Asians and on and on. Hell, if you want to have a country like America where people are genuinely trying to carry on the experiment of diversity, that's cool too.
I would like to live around people that are already similar to me. My local world has gotten very alien to me. I feel out of place in an area that my family has lived in for generations. That's humiliating.
Strong self actualization is fascism. However, fascism is only truly achieved when the individual GENUINELY believes in the message because they also drive it. Its a self sustaining fusion, I believe, which can create extremely cohesive environments for people to concentrate and create.
I also encourage anons to imagine that the 'right' version of fascism may not have been achieved yet. All I know is that I spent over two conscious decades-a-liberal in mind, but also depressed. Strong expressions of nationalism have really helped me get out of the fog more often. I find it more transcendent.
Another thing to look at was the disagreements when germany's natsoc and Italy's fascism starting butting heads due to ideological differences mostly.
Natsoc muddied the waters with fascism and people normally tend to forget what fascism truly means in the process as well. As American fascism wouldn't be the same as Spain's fascism or even Italy's fascism. The same goes for any country. Reading some of Thomas Carlyle's work can get one a better grasp on the issue.
of course fascism in a multicultural nation with jewish influence is a terrible idea
monarchies are better than democracies. there is a reason the jews push for democracy all over the world. bad monarchies are the exception. there needs to be an axe
I didnt mean to imply that I felt otherwise. I guess I should have been more clear. Certainly only tax payers should vote because otherwise the system breaks immediately and turns into shit, no question about it. I am guessing then that if someone isn't a landowner but a taxpayer they should still be able to vote? Maybe, i don't know. It should either be only white male tax payers who are landowners or just white male taxpayers, both landowners and not. Either way you get my general point, greatly restricted voting privileges like the kind america originally had. Suffrage is not a right that applies to everyone. This is probably one of the dumbest ideas that has ever been conceived, and the founding fathers no doubt would consider it a ridiculous idea too.
Jewish influence means nothing in a fascist country and was never part of Italy's plan till Germany came along. The only thing Fascism truly needs is a strong nationalistic tone. Nationalism is the heart of fascism.
Nationalism influences it's economics which are based upon being self sufficient which bases around their fuel of wanting to be at war too. Fascism could be about hating mexicans, americans, though it has to stick to what the -state- feels and what the state can propagate.
The best example can be with Spain their fascist state was quite religious as it even had the Pope over a few times. It took the roots of what made Spain of what it is and ran with it. It took the heroes of Spain and went with it.
Even if you got a fantastic leader for say 20 years before someone replaced him, there's a high chance that every other leader will be terrible, and all that power is placed into the hands of one person. This would basically require 2-3 Civil Wars each century to be consistently desirable, which would be complete madness.
At least with checks and balances, the government that isn't entirely corrupt can at least partially regulate itself. And instead of millions of people having to give their life to remove a shit leader every couple decades, we simply have to fill out ballots every couple years. Sure our current system isn't invincible, and may require it's own revolution and a complete reset to run without 90% corruption and operate like an actual service to the nation again. But at least the path to corruption and shithole isn't as instantaneous as one shitty leader coming to power.
Could you imagine if someone like Hillary Clinton got their hands on a dictatorship?
You're anglo. Fascism is not compatible with anglo peoples because we're the most individualistic and demand all these freedoms.
That's why there was never any fascist (or communist) movement worth a damn in any anglo country, but they succeeded in Continental Europe.
Simply put, it's not an ideology for us, but it's one that can work in cultures more accepting of authoritarianism.
Europeans can be both collectivist and individualistic, these are dependent on culture, and not really on genes. Only low IQ populations tend to be explicitly collectivist, simply because each individual is not smart enough to be individualistic. But for high IQ populations it is a choice. And fascism from what I understand does not require the kind of insectoid collectivism you might see in africa, but rather that you always keep in mind the good of the nation, other than that you are free to pursue individual things, just not at the expense of everyone else. This is not the same thing as some low IQ population being innately collectivist to such a degree that its members are completely incapable of creative individualistic thought.
Also, does anyone have that link where there are like one hundred or something misconceptions/myths about fascism? Specifically fascism and not natsoc. I have seen it get posted before but I never saved it and cant seem to find it now. It was really enlightening.
>Only low IQ populations tend to be explicitly collectivist
East Asia suggests otherwise.
>But for high IQ populations it is a choice.
Not one that can be made in a single generation. It would take a long time to change political culture.
Both individualism and collectivism have benefits. I tend to think anglos are too individualistic despite being one myself, because it leads eventually to a lack of any in-group loyalty. True fascism would likely be impossible here, closest we could do is an aristocratic republic or a mixed-monarchy.
>East Asia suggests otherwise
I disagree. Look at Hong Kong for example. Due to being a capitalistic and westernized city it is not collectivist at all. It is well known that hong kong chinese are vastly more cultured and behaved than mainland chinese who have been ravaged by communism and turned into some kind of hive nation.
Also look at modern japan, with many males shunning society altogether. It is a form of extremely selfish and non productive individualism.
>Not one that can be made in a single generation. It would take a long time to change political culture.
I agree, it would obviously be a challenge.
>Both individualism and collectivism have benefits. I tend to think anglos are too individualistic despite being one myself, because it leads eventually to a lack of any in-group loyalty. True fascism would likely be impossible here, closest we could do is an aristocratic republic or a mixed-monarchy.
Thats fair enough, obvioulsy not everyone all over the world is ever going to adopt similar values. And I agree with you that there is a good medium between individualism and collectivism. I think monarchism can achieve it well enough.
ok kid
It is true, we just think some people need to be controlled rather than run rampant with their degeneracy. The collectivist nature of the economy is a little misleading, it's more aptly described as protectionist.