Are you a liberal, conservative, or a fascist

Fascism is a national revolutionary movement that throws off the shackles of the old order and creates something entirely new. Conservatives seek to establish the old order. Liberals want it to "progress". Fascists seek to overthrow it. So Sup Forums which side are you on?
youtube.com/watch?v=N2QFm6uc-JQ

fascist i guess

>Death of God

Name one fascist leader in history that wanted this.

>HARD MODE

No communists

>death of God
no thanks

Read Nietzsche. The "Death of God" is not a good thing. It's an admission that despite the fact that secularism become the new norm, we can still attain spiritual fulfillment through overman status.

I want a decentralized military regime which lets me do whatever I want and maintains national integrity. I'd rather not cuck my self out to some supreme leader like under most fascist regimes.

The leader within a fascist state is simply an extension of the national will.

That is sophistry. The leader of a fascist state can choose to be an extension of the nation's will, but rarely is. By creating a decentralized system, you will know those you take orders from personally and thus they will be more representative of you. Even if a fascist leader tries to act as the national will, he will still not be able to act as the will of everyone. Instead he will be the will of a slim majority or the will of the city he lives in.

Yeah, and the overman was also for a select few you dipshit. Fascism is a mass movement. I fucking hate you illiterate retards.

fascism is the conclusion to the ideology debate

the nations will is irrelevant, if they coincide its a mere coincidence

If the leader of the fascist state doesn't do a good job the military will inevitably coup him and fascist society is built upon on a strong military. Also decentralization doesn't work. You're essentially referring to anarchy or (((democracy))) which is just mob rule.
It's a meritocratic mass movement. Very few can become overmen but fascism allows people to reach their fullest potential and cultivates overman status unlike materialistic capitalism or communism.
I agree kamerad.

neither, retarded faggot
>only 2 choices
kys

We can solve all of the problems that governments create by simply making the state bigger.

>if the leader doesn't do well the military otherthrows it
This is actually a major problem with the belief that fascism wishes to change the system, the fascist leader has to appeal to a central military command or replace it with cronies. As a result, the leader either ends up supporting conservative policy with some that favor the military (in the case of the old command retaining power) or they are surrounded by yes men and get to do as they wish (if he purged the old guard).
>Also decentralization doesn't work. You're essentially referring to anarchy or (((democracy))) which is just mob rule.
I am will concede that my system would be semi-democratic (with the exception that only military personnel can vote and only officers can run), centralized systems are not representative of the whole population as it represents a massive area full of people with different desires and beliefs. If regional autonomy is maintained, then the people which lead you will most likely hold similar beliefs and concerns as you. Whereas a fascist ruler from Washington will disproportionately care about Washington's concerns.
Then I won't cuck myself out to some strong man.

That's not how dictators work sweetie.

>Then I won't cuck myself out to some strong man.
the power of the strong man in guiding his peoples is absolute. your only way out would be suicide or live as hermit in the woods

>Very few can become overmen but fascism allows people to reach their fullest potential and cultivates overman status unlike materialistic capitalism or communism.
Translation: resentment

What a fucking joke. Go back to doing your homework, kid. It's a school night.

>This is actually a major problem with the belief that fascism wishes to change the system, the fascist leader has to appeal to a central military command or replace it with cronies. As a result, the leader either ends up supporting conservative policy with some that favor the military (in the case of the old command retaining power) or they are surrounded by yes men and get to do as they wish (if he purged the old guard).
There's nothing wrong with the leadership being surrounded by loyal military officials if the leadership is in place due to a meritocratic and organic system of government. If he isn't competent, he'd still be overthrown. People aren't robots, even your so called "yes men" would get fed up with shit leadership.
>I am will concede that my system would be semi-democratic (with the exception that only military personnel can vote and only officers can run)
That's not much different from organic fascism.
>centralized systems are not representative of the whole population as it represents a massive area full of people with different desires and beliefs. If regional autonomy is maintained, then the people which lead you will most likely hold similar beliefs and concerns as you. Whereas a fascist ruler from Washington will disproportionately care about Washington's concerns.
You're confusing fascism for totalitarianism.
Only faggots call other men sweetie.
How so? Everyone should be allowed to reach their full potential without having it handed to them.

Fascists are cultural relativists almost of the likes of communists. They don't care for traditions and actual heritage. By making the state the center of society they rob the nation's soul. A monarch's rule is justified by his divine right of birth, his reign is in harmony with the history and identity of the people. He is part of culture. Fascists don't care for that. Their desire to implement their idea of identity destroys the true identity a nation has developed over centuries.

>There's nothing wrong with the leadership being surrounded by loyal military officials if the leadership is in place due to a meritocratic and organic system of government
I agree, fascism fails in this regard however. See-Mussolini's General Staff.
>If he isn't competent, he'd still be overthrown. People aren't robots, even your so called "yes men" would get fed up with shit leadership.
Yes but not until it is too late. Again see Italy.
>You're confusing fascism for totalitarianism
This is a problem universal with all centralized systems. Orthodox fascism was a heavily in favor of centralization, but if the system seeks to maintain regional and individual sovereignty, then I have no problem with it.

>How so?
See your second statement:
>Everyone should be allowed to reach their full potential without having it handed to them.
Muh rage against the machine. You can't accept how things are and want to change it out of resentment. You should re-read Nietzsche until you actually UNDERSTAND what the fuck he's talking about instead of cherry picking what fits your narrative.

Paleoconservative