There is literally nothing wrong with a strong sense of nationality. A strict authority with well-enforced reasonable laws is idealistic for a powerful nation.
But how far can fascism go without restraining individual freedom?
Also, Happy 4th Sup Forums
4th what?
depends entirely what you mean by freedom, its a buzzword that can refer to a lot of things, what freedoms do you want exactly?
You do know "fascism" doesn't just mean "authoritarianism," right? Because it sounds like that's what you think.
What personal freedoms did you have in mind? Running a business? You can do that. Outsourcing to India? Fuck you. Promoting anti-family sexual "freedom"? Fuck you. Promoting harmful drug use? Fuck you.
no, at least not in the purest sense
the existence of a state, any state, itself is to balance and channel the individual freedom in a certain direction
in any case, the concept of freedom is rather ill defined
I'd like to see society return to how it was in the 1950's, to get there we need to go 1933.
An authoritarian regime is something you need only temporarily to stabilize the region. Freedoms will be returned to the people once the problems have been solved.
Of July
The buzzword freedom that leftists use to win arguments against pureform fascism. There's nothing wrong with the ideology I just don't know how to counter their logical fallacy
well no society lives in total freedom, it would be anarchy. just tell them what freedoms you do want to have and tell them why the freedom to destroy your society isnt worth keeping around.
If you're quoting leftists, then do this
inevitably they'll answer with either
>muh weed
or
>muh buttcummies
Then you can just point out why these things are harmdful to society, and "it doesn't affect you" is a fallacy.
>Is it possible to be a fascist and a proponent of freedom at the same time?
I think that being a fascist means advocating strongly for personal freedoms of all kinds, except for where people's use of those freedoms harms the society, as determined by you. In those cases, individual human freedoms are curtailed. For example, disallowing public nudity is a good example of a fascist policy.
>channel the individual freedom in a certain direction
Good point
Alright thank you. Both of these answer my question. There are "freedoms" that degrade society and family values as well as "freedoms" that promote degeneracy and drug use. Fascism can curb these from happening
Fascism promoted economic protectionism and family unit based either off race in Mosley and Hitler's case or off civic values in Manley Mussolini's case.
The ideal is a moral society necessary for family upbringing with the laws and economy to protect it, it is only authoritarian if you consider moral decadence harmful to family "freedom" sch as gay marriage and abortion.
The biggest selling point of fascism was and is economic protectionism though, the Reichsmark's transfer into a labor based currency from a credit was ingenious and laws to essentially prevent outsourcing and price gouging, along with unionized labor force. Really admire fascist economics but ya its not authoritarian, its prime purpose was to nurture family/community hence why it leaned towards ethnic.
I want freedom from shitskins and leftists, muslims and kikes.
> Is it possible to be a fascist and a proponent of freedom at the same time?
Authoritarian government yes, fascism no.
>But how far can fascism go without restraining individual freedom?
Fascism ideally will build people up with discipline, restraint, refinement and a sense of how to succeed in society both as individuals and as members of a greater whole.
This will make them infinitely more free than if you'd never "tread on them" in the first place.
Coincidentally this is the difference between spoiling a child by letting it do and have whatever it wants and raising it in a strict household that instills proper values. We may have freedom from guidance, or freedom from dependence, but we may never have both.
What about freedom of speech? I hear fascists argue against it all the time. It is the most important freedom in my eyes.
The (((media's))) abuses of free speech are still better than a state monopoly on it.
I remember reading there was an English-language announcement on Radio Rome before Ezra Pound's shortwave radio broadcasts which state:
> Rome Radio, acting in accordance with the Fascist policy of intellectual freedom and free expression of opinion by those who are qualified to hold it, following the tradition of Italian hospitality, has offered Dr. Ezra Pound the use of the microphone twice a week. It is understood that he will not be asked to say anything whatsoever that goes against his conscience, or anything incompatible with his duties as a citizen of the United States of America.
That's from Humphrey Carpenter's biography btw.
...
Fun fact
National Socialist Germany's gun laws were less strict than modern day Germany's gun laws
>fascist symbol is a bundle of sticks
literally faggots
I don't believe in penalizing people for what they say, but I do believe that public life must be held to a standard of decency in regards to art, music, public displays and literature.
>waah muh artistic freedom
if a standard of decency stands in the way of good art we'd be experiencing the finest renaissance imaginable at the moment but our museums are filled instead with sculptures of cocks and paintings done in feces and period blood - people should be expected to rise above base nature.
And at the very least, if we cannot censor, then we must censure.
Someone answer this please
No. Fascism by definition supports the subservience of the individual to the collective. It is a collectivist ideology. It is not compatible with strong individual liberty.
that's meaningless. the only freedoms people would curtail ever are those thought to harm society. every restriction of freedom is justified in that way.
you may mean to say "in ways that harm society that I find valid" but then that doesn't say anything to your more fundamental orientation toward the idea of freedom. anyone, no matter what ideology, wouldn't curtail freedoms that they thought didn't harm society, since that would be a waste of government resources.
I'd say liberal societies are unique since they act as though they value freedom above the benefit of society. they may actually value freedom above society, or maybe they have a belief that the greater freedom will always end up benefitting society even in situations where it appears that the freedom is harmful. I guess the latter is closer to what liberals believe.
Authoritarianism denies a neutral instance to judge a person. So you NEVER want to live in that kind of system. Cause YOU could be next to be killed, deported, etc.
That's what most fanboys don't understand.
exactly
Fascism is power through fear, under the pretence of 'justice', 'order' and the best 'for all'.
>all authoritarian states are Communist shitholes
Getting whispered away in the night is only important when the system is dysfunctional and the dysfunction needs to be blamed on increasingly microscopic failures to comply - ie all of leftism.
This is simply not the case in proper traditionalist nations, they function too well to need scapegoats.
Depends on your definition of fascism. I define it in its purest form: The ideology of the fasces.
When the individual rods of the fasces are bound together, they are harder to break than when they are separate. Fascism is simply "strength through unity". Whatever unites the people and strengthens the country is good. You could extend it to be fundamentally opposed to capitalism, communism, equality, and democracy, but at its core it is an ideology that strives for fraternity. This is why it pisses me off to see "fascist" thrown around at white nationalists. White nationalists do not unite the country, they divide it. They're anti-fascist.
>But how far can fascism go without restraining individual freedom?
Any state restricts individual freedom. It is all about goals.
Fascism is a form egalitarianism. Can elitism have individual freedom for elite?
>But how far can fascism go without restraining individual freedom?
Any state restricts individual freedom. It is all about goals of these restrictions.
Fascism is a form of elitism. Can elitism have individual freedom for elite?
Civilisation comes about from restricting degenerate people's bad tendencies.
That includes bullshit they say. Jews promoting race mixing, degeneracy and other such shit should have their mouths shut for them.
Do you really think that people should have a right to say that white people shouldn't exist in countries that are historically built by white people? That is what is happening right now because of American ideals of free speech
>Is it possible to be a fascist and a proponent of freedom at the same time?
No.
>There is literally nothing wrong with a strong sense of nationality. A strict authority with well-enforced reasonable laws is idealistic for a powerful nation.
>But how far can fascism go without restraining individual freedom?
All that stuff you just described isn't fascism.
So long as people retain the freedom to leave your fascist state if they so desire, then that's the only freedom anyone would ever need.
Without an "enemy" you don't need a national authoritarianism. Enemy can be in- or outside of your country, but a lack of an independent jurisdiction is one of the defintitions of authoritarianism. It it used to serve the ruling elite. Opposition can be killed, bought, co-opted or sustained to exploit it.
Authoritarian systems are dysfunctional regarding free will, real opposition, free elections and the power of the people to change the regime-policy.
Well it cant youre absolutely right.
Fascism is a flawes ideology that enforces strict guidelines for lifestyles
And nationalism has nothing to do with fascism. It doesnt take much for one to be proud of the dirt where they were born and nationalism is a fluid as the lines on a map.
Fascism is rigid and orginized.
For example
Look at those misguided kids on college campuses around the US.
they enforce a rigid and orginized idea and oppose all manner of speech or expression that trays even a bit from their veiwpoint.
What they paint as an all inclusive and tolerant society is just a banner for a world free from variation. No more conflicts over variants and variant ideals.
"We shall all stand for the one"
"One people one god one goverment."
They even have uniforms.
That's why we get to keep our free speech and guns nigger
Why did Romans invent a bundle of sticks?
h
y
So they could name it after you
The fasces had its origin in the Etruscan civilization, and was passed on to ancient Rome, where it symbolized a magistrate's power and jurisdiction. The image has survived in the modern world as a representation of magisterial or collective power. The fasces frequently occurs as a charge in heraldry, it is present on an older design of the Mercury dime and behind the podium in the United States House of Representatives. - Wiki
All the restrictions on freedom the law needs are those defined in the bible.
Though shalt not kill
Honor thy father and mother
Do not covet your neighbours
Though shalt not steal
Though shall not commit adultery
Though shalt not take on to thee any graven images
Though shalt not take the lords name in vain
Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy
You shall not bear false testimony
Its pretty simple shit
Not sure how everyone keep fucking it up.
You dont even have to be some bible thumping tight ass to keep with it.
Its just simple rules
I'm highly protectionist but otherwise I have a lot of similarities to libertarians, so I guess it's possible
This user is correct: Also, many sticks bundled together represents strength through unity, and the axe represents power, i.e. power to execute through the death penalty is necessary.
>Honor thy father and mother
>They rape you
>You may now rape?
or
>You should do something about it because they commit adultery?
more beaver posts pls
thats a lot of faggots
...
thats basically the BUF in a nutshell