AnCap here. Why is fascism a good idea? How can you conceivably guarantee that the state won't fuck everyone up for their own gain? DESU I kinda want to believe in the kind of unification of the people that 30's/40's Germany had, where the state and people had a common goal for all the people. However, the state always, and I do mean always, fucks everything up for everyone including the state. Why be fascist and turn that kind of power over to the gubment?
Pic unrelated
Other urls found in this thread:
mega.nz
laraj.ca
youtu.be
press.princeton.edu
youtu.be
youtu.be
genius.com
genius.com
youtu.be
archive.org
archive.org
laraj.ca
youtube.com
twitter.com
>Ancap here
go back to gulag
We need robots and ai in control who can't be bought it hacked desu.
Like Evangelion. That's the only "incorruptible" system I can imagine. Otherwise you'd need an immortal human god that knows and believes in what's best for humanity. Like the god emperor if mankind.
Look to nationalism, not the entirety of fascism.
uh that's an M1 garand
Or educate people so they're competent enough to run their own lives and rely on spontaneous action like we do for 95% of everything in our lives.
Human fascism is the topic, no robot bullshit. Why should we be fascist? The plus side is that dindus would be brought under control, borders enforced, pride in race and country would do amazing things for society as a whole, but the drawback is severe potential loss of liberty and grave crimes committed by gubment. How does one justify this tradeoff?
>robots
>who can't be hacked
Bad news for ya m8
If it's a bolt action I don't recognize it's a nugget until I know otherwise. Thanks for the info.
>bolt action
Okay I'm a dumbass
>Bolt action
>M1 garand
...your making my inner /k/ upset user
What about fascism in America where the population is already armed, and with the second amendment. Democracy doesn't necessarily ensure the benevolence of the government, especially when all options are corrupt. The second amendment is what protects from a tyrannical government. If you have a fascist government, the game of democratic politics is eliminated, so you have an incredibly efficient government who can tackle all your countries problems with few roadblocks, and the armed populace is what prevents the party from taking its power too far.
Not a fascist btw just thinking
Garand.... bolt action... Kill yourself.
You're right
The state always fucks it up
Which is why national libertarian is the best
Oh ignore my previous post
>Ancap
>doesn't know what a bolt action is
You're not really an ancap are you OP
>(((Libertarianism)))
>The vox meme
Fuck off straya
Hmm that really made me think...
Agreed on democracy, I would go further and say that democracy is dogshit.
Yeah I saw my mistake, in my defense I'm tired and drunk.
good thread
the only way to guarantee a fascist or socialist nation's success is to have a racially, religiously, nationistically, or otherwise homogenous society
multiculturalism can't mix with fascism or socialism
>How can you conceivably guarantee that the state won't fuck everyone up for their own gain?
That's not a fascism question, that's an
>"I'm too autistic to comprehend concepts like social contracts, and I haven't studied revolutions, rebellions, or social upheavels beyond the superficial level of memes and plattitudes, so I'll never understand what governments have to fear from the governed"
question.
It's common for "anarchists" to fail basic political science. Here's you resource for correcting that, stop being a fucking moron and open some books:
>Politically Incorrect Books Archive:
mega.nz
>Antimony Group Right-Wing Archive
laraj.ca
Here's some other resources, maybe they will help. I started as an anarchist/libertardian too. The problem is you grew up in a subverted cosmopolitian society, so you have no basic notion of a state composed of your own people, and how strong that bond can be in ethnically pure states. Once you travel abroad you'll see examples of it.
>The European Grammar of Self-Intolerance
youtu.be
>A. James Gregor - Mussolini's Intellectuals
press.princeton.edu
>Julius Evola
>The Roots of Western Nihilism
youtu.be
>Leszek Kołakowski
youtu.be
>Nicolás Gómez Dávila
genius.com
genius.com
>Mircea Eliade
youtu.be
>The Sacred and The profane
archive.org
>The Triumph of Reason - The Thinking Man's Adolf Hitler by Michael Walsh
archive.org
>Prince Michel Sturdza - The Suicide of Europe
laraj.ca
I think the question OP is asking is how a mono cultural society prevents government corruption
Homogeneity is a virtue, 100% agreed
I truly believe that in a homogenous, peaceful state, corruption will be a non-problem
the inventive of money will be outranked by the incentive of wanting to create a thriving country for the citizens that they truly love
rulebreakers will be dealt with swiftly
this isn't exactly a point that i can argue, but it's something that i believe
notAnArgument.jpg
Don't be a faggot, give context to your resources. What, am I supposed to just believe that an organization with power to direct guns wherever they want, whenever they want, for any reason they want will stay tame over decades or centuries just because I and my fellow citizens look like them? Please. Last time I checked, the best attempt at restricting governments power failed spectacularly, and so has every attempt since and before then. Don't peddle your social contract "fear of the governed" bullshit, history is, start to finish, a non-stop bloodfest by gubments and people with power, and you want me to believe your side and spend hours reading your resources without so much as a once sentence reason to do so?
Without a reason that's just a word salad, even if it turns out you're 100% right.
This is a red herring, since no society can completely eliminate corruption -- especially not a libertarian one. The best anarchism does to deal with corruption is to simply frame it as good and normative, or to be value neutral, simply a manifestation of "liberty", like being free to fuck who you want to fuck.
>of course it's a Molymeme fanboy who thinks he's molymeme tier
What does an argument contain, faggot -- what are it's parts? There are multiple compound arguments, along with opinions and assertions in my post. Again, you're too autistic to really understand the words and phrases you're trying to use, and it shows.
It goes in order
Trust the system
Destroy it when it stops working
Ancap should be a spirit, not society. Now go grow up and learn.
If that's true, point them out to me. If you can show me your arguments I'll gladly spend my free time in the coming days reading your resources.
If you can't find them no one has the time to baby you for the rest of the day.
Thats a sexy looking pinger dude
>should be
Why? Anarchy in itself means without rulers, which is a description of a society. Society exists in reality. A 'spirit' is non-physical, apart from reality, so by definition of the word anarchy you're wrong on what it's 'supposed to be'. That's like saying 'an iPhone is supposed to be an idea, not a product'.
We've had thousands of years to make a gubment work and it fails every time, and I just want one person to tell me if/how fascism can produce a better result than anarchy, or how one justifies the tradeoffs that come with it.
To be fair what this picture mocks is actually a generally rhetorically valid technique. If you want to win an argument, or at the very least appear to win an argument, then it's always a good idea to set yourself up as right right at the top, reframe, that type of thing.
OTOH it can go too far, even to the point that it becomes clear to plebs that you're not being intellectually honest. But on balance it's better to actually win the argument and appear to be dominant than to get bogged down in the academic rightness of technique.
>I didn't understand your arguments, point them out
Fuck you, lazy fucker. Im not summarizing, contextualizing, or in any way doing the heavy lifting for your brain. Study more on your own dime. What I'll do instead is offer an insight -- when you choose to deflect rather than reply by shifting into some "meta" level (ie, "not an argument"), its a pretty loud signal that you're buying time to think of a rhetorical "out". You could have replied to any number of things I said, but you dodged. I've seen you do it to a number of people here, calling their simple,s traighforward ethno-nationalist views "word salad", as if to signal that your sensibilities operate on a higher level of sophistication.
But you can't hold a basic conversation on basic-bitch political science concepts.
You have all the resources you need to answer you questions.
saged
Nigger you literally just called me ignorant and used half a dictionary to do it and called it an argument. I've already saved all your links n shit and I might even give one or two a read, but what in God's name is so difficult about answering one question?
I'm a feudalist.
I'm just as against statism as you are. A state is merely a paper society; citizenship is just a piece of paper, marriage is a paper, divorce is a paper; and because something is on paper, we have to obey it; we live by paper regardless of whether that paper has any bearing on society or not. The modern paper state controlling America right now is destroying the white society that built it. I hate the state, the paper society. A fascist dictator doesn't need to control a state to be in power.
Analects: [2:3] The Master said: “If you govern the people legalistically and control them by punishment, they will avoid crime, but have no personal sense of shame. If you govern them by means of virtue and control them with propriety, they will gain their own sense of shame, and thus correct themselves.”
The reason merchant is the lowest class in a feudal society, is because merchants are self-interested; they don't care about the people who makes the money; they just care about the money; even peasants and slaves are above them on a social ladder. To control society, you control the order; in a natural feudal society, kings are at the top; but in this capitalist society, the merchants (JEWS) are at the top.
A dictator of a fascist society only needs to control society, and he doesn't have to worry about law; if he controls society, people will take law into their own hands, and the law will be based on the dictator's rule. This is how a stateless fascist rule can exist (which is more or less a feudalist society).
>This entire post
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
the iPhone mention was especially hilarious. You realize that the fallacy every anarchist makes in terms of government is forcing the entire concept of governance into the ontological other thud treating it as though it were the devil? Which society do you wish to bring to anarchy? How would the society of anarchy maintain themselves based on their demographics, class, infrastructure, and culture? Whivh government collapsed and how did they progress into decay? You're just making broad statements over a situation you've clearly just rationalized into being.
Anarchy is just a transitional period into another form of a government. People will intentionally seek out a new order over time.
Aight let's get it straight nigger, your conflation with capitalists and merchants with apathetic assholes is a meme, and you're using it as an argument to bolster your position. Go talk to MOST business owners and get to know them, they're normal fucking people like you and I. They have morals, they have friends and families, they care about society and people. True, they're busy to give a fuck about your personal problems, but that's also true of most of the population. It's also not their responsibility to care about you or your life. Using this as some sort of moral argument against capitalism is nonsensical and irrational.
See, all people are self interested. Every single one. But with capitalism, you at least take advantage of single greatest tool mankind has ever developed for turning self interest into benefit for other people. Can you fuck people up with it? Yes. Do most of them do that intentionally or otherwise? Not at all.
But go on about feudalism. I'm genuinely interested in this topic.
Spontaneous order nigga. You don't use the gubment for any of the following:
Deciding who to marry
Which groceries to buy
Which car to get
Which color shirt you prefer
What you eat for breakfast or any other meal
Whose weddings you attend
Which sexy college bitch you fuck in university
What college major to pursue
What college you go to
What phone you use
What carrier you use
Which airline you use to go to Germany for a week
Which souvenirs you get from Germany
Etc.
You're almost as much an anarchist as I am goy, you just simply can't comprehend how some problems will be solved without violence. As for transitioning to another gubment, this is historically true, but it can't be used as a prediction for the future. Anyway. Back to the topic at hand, how can fascism be superior to AnCapistan?
What I meant to say was how can Fascism succeed lognterm? I want to get away from AnCap because frankly this thread isn't supposed to be that argument for the 100th time, I want to learn about fascism and other peoples insights on it.
See? You immediately equate the state to violence because you fundamentally can't step out of the self protective bubble your ego has surrounded itself with. You know what else the state does try to stop people from deciding?
Murder
Rape
Arson
Pedophilia
Terrorism
Communism
Starvation
Slavery
The list goes on.
This is what /poll calls "degeneracy" or in ither terms a negative attribute to aocietsl behavior which people believe ought to be removed.
Theres a difference between the corrupt state and the true state. The corrupt state is one ruled by ivory tower bureaucrats with little to no connection to those they rule for various different functions including culture and ethnicity. The true state retains connection with the people it rules by actually bringing to the ethos which the people wish to represents. Fascism, is just the expression of the wills of the people enacted through sheer force. That sounds idealistic but there's a whole economic system based around fascism whivh essentially tries to match how the native population behaves.
Much of the tenants which anarcho capitalists draw on are nihilism and Enlightenment era egalitarianism, neither of which have been proven to be true. Race matter and the concept of a "citizen" is ridiculed because it inflated the reality of the state to God like proportions.
>Go talk to MOST business owners and get to know them, they're normal fucking people like you and I
Big difference between merchants then and merchants now. They define their nature by simply existing. Yesterday we knew them as merchants, today we know them as "suits", banksters, lobbyists, etc; these people don't live for society; they live for themselves; they're self-interested, and it shows.
>Using this as some sort of moral argument against capitalism is nonsensical and irrational.
Capitalism is undoubtedly the proper way to run a progressive society if you want to reach the moon, Mars and the stars. But it always fails on a moral level. I personally believe that a society that lives for money rather than morals is not a society, and it's certainly not a life worth living.
>See, all people are self interested. Every single one.
We like to think we are. We say "Don't listen to society, just love yourself, you're born this way". We come out with all these body positive messages, and we try to be selfish to spite society, but we end up slitting our wrists because society gives our lives meaning. We're born without self-interest, and we die without it.
>But go on about feudalism. I'm genuinely interested in this topic.
Simple; it's society that runs itself; it can be with a state or without a state; the power it has isn't about the state, it's about the message it relays to its people. Even with peasants, lords, and kings, everyone essentially is socially-interested; they know their role and follow it. A lot of teachings of Confucius are hard to understand, and people think it's an "Eastern philosophy" thing, but its feudal concepts existed in every European society up until the modern age.
Read "Hitler's Revolution" and whatever Mussolini's essay on fascism was called.
Well it actually turns out that these motherfuckers built and maintain society. Who takes the trash away? Trash companies. Who manages badnwidth and internet? ISP's, though admittedly much of this is regulated. It doesn't have to be but it is and that should be acknowledged. Anywho, as I said, capitalism turns someone else's greed into shiny things that make your life comfortable and way way easier. You don't have to worry about electricity or water or food, just work for the money to afford it. Don't be stupid and after 10 years of saving you too can be rich and prosperous.
But yeah this is totally immoral and wrong.
So in feudal society everyone has roles to play? Who determines these roles? How does one differentiate how this works with/without a ruler?
>AnCap here
Grow up I say! Bark! Rough roughrough! Woofwororkghhhrhrhrhrrrr. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>I kinda want to believe in the kind of unification of the people that 30's/40's Germany had
Then why the fuck are you into ancap
Also, stop ignoring the fact that governments can be successful. If 20 million people put their trust into someone and your country's economy and way of life has only improved from the day he's in office, it's because he's doing something right.
>muh stateless society can keep itself intact based on producing net profits for everyone
>Surely there will never be a conflict of interests to be resolved
>Sure would help if we had a mediator which wasn't the NAP
Anarchy means free reign for tyrants to take control of territory user. Imagine the fat cat villaib tropes in 40's movies except with bigger noses and skull caps
Like I said before, if the state maintains a steady connection with its inhabitants then it can overcome the usual problems with nepotism and corruption.
>educate people
Education is used to brainwash people
>How can you conceivably guarantee that the state won't fuck everyone up for their own gain?
Through the same guarantee you have that each one of your neighbors won't decide to kill you and take your stuff.... absolutely none, because both of your ideologies are deeply flawed.
Because so far it has the soundest arguments and is backed up by psychology, sociology, economics and is based on a sound moral philosophy.
Anyway, remember that Germany was fucked BY government, the fact that Hitler used political power to undo what OTHER GUBMENTS did isn't an argument in favor of fascism, it demonstrates that it takes violence to defy political violence. Granted, if your guy succeeds and produces results, well, results are results plain and simple. Why would Fascism not fail in time like every other gubment? Why would political power not corrupt the rulers in the case of fascism?
False. The avg person isn;t gonna do that shit. But the ones who ARE likely to do that shit are going to, you guessed it, attempt to get into the ONLY organization in society permitted to do such things. Power is magnetic to the corruptible. My neighbors aren't in a position to get away with it. If you want to get away with it go for gubment positions.
(((Psychology))), (((Sociology))), (((moral))) philosophy
I'm gonna need some citations for thst, and if you post a single pseudo psychoanalytic link your opinion is immediately discarded.
>muh violence is never justified
Grow up kid, violence is an invertible part of the living amongst other people. Like I said before, the majority of ancaps live in this sheltered existence where they demnozie the state into the other beyond the point of all return.
>This entire post
Degenerates like you ought to be purged from society. You're basically equating all people who commit crimes into the same category of subversion and screaming MUH STATE OPPRESSION. Next you'll be going on about how Ted Bundy and John Wayne Fact held small amounts of political office while ignoring all the serial killer that weren't.
>you need to be on one end of the extreme
nope.jpg
AnCap = Warlords and Civilwar
Get that in your skull.
I want to believe that at least one of them hasn't been jewed out of their minds completely. No luck yet.
>So in feudal society everyone has roles to play? Who determines these roles? How does one differentiate how this works with/without a ruler?
I live on a small island. In some ways, I'm not a millennial, a boomer or any generation similar to anything today. Around here, people work as something to do; a good man, respectful person I know went on the boat with us when his father's boat was in the shop; it was the 5 of us, and normally it'd be a burden, but he came along, worked for free, and we came home at the end of the day with money in our pockets, but what made us happy is not that we worked, but that our work became who we were; I don't call myself a fisherman like they do; I was just doing it to make a little bit of money to live on; but fishermen don't have a job; they live to be fisherman; rather than going home to reward themselves, they go home, get a net and go fishing again for fun. It's who they are, and it becomes them. This is what happens in a society that has it relatively easy. If people share the load of society, and everyone has it going the same, people develop a good work ethic. Society's natural state is to become ordered and harmonious. When you walk into a party, and nobody knows eachother; at the end of the day everyone has a general idea of who the other guy is; everyone knows who the popular ones are, who the nerds are, etc; the virtue of their role in society is the confidence they have in their role.
Alright fuck this since you faggots see 'AnCap' and immediately lose your shit I'm not gonnat talk about that anymore. Why is fascism good/bad, tradeoffs and benefits?
SUCK MY DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICK
You haven't even attempted to argue against one of my points, some of which were just me stating the positive aspects of fascism
So you avoiding them is
NOT
AN
ARGUMENT
I missed your longer post one minute
I need a bit of expansion on this. First, what defines a 'true state'? How do we test for that?
>a whole economic system based around fascism
What system is this? I've not read anything that indicates a specific or general economic planning system specifically linked to fascism. Even just a name will do.
>Much of the tenants which anarcho capitalists draw on are nihilism and Enlightenment era egalitarianism, neither of which have been proven to be true. Race matter and the concept of a "citizen" is ridiculed because it inflated the reality of the state to God like proportions.
Please elaborate. The first sentence seems blatantly false but I want to see where you get egalitarianism and nihilism from AnCap philosophy. Second sentence stuff about the citizen being ridiculed makes no sense to me, not that you're wrong but i'm not sure what you mean by it.
It's not whether it will fuckup itself, but will it fuck up the kikes? If it results in death camps for the Chosen ones, antifascists, and Marxists, it's good. I would like to see the world burn, just so I can shovel Jewish ashes out of Auschwitz.
One of the biggest selling points for me is jail and expulsion for commies. On the one hand, I really hate the idea of jackboot thugs doing shit to people for their ideology, on the other hand commies running free sets up the possibility for a future of jackboot thugs killing tens of millions.
A dilemma for those who believe in the NAP.
Ask Christopher Cantwell.
youtube.com
The only justification is that if the fascist government is used as a temporary tool to right the system that beforehand due to its own corruption or incompetence had reached an eternal stalemate.
Once the system has been unfucked by the more direct methods, the fachist gov should relinquish power and return to a more democratic system, to prevent the fachist system itself from becoming as corrupt by power, and to prevent dissident from growing to such size that it would create problems for the nation.
>Government, fundamentally a collection of individuals working together for the benefit and security of the people, will always be corrupt and fuck everyone up
>Unregulated corporations, fundamentally a collection of individuals working together for the benefit of stockholders, will always work in the best interest of the people
This is why nobody likes you.
The problem is that your view of a government is some homogeneous blob of bad people with no accountability who want to gain power for themselves it's retarded. There's always going to be corruption in positions of power and there's a risk that government turns into the bureaucratic mess we see in the west today but the idea that eliminating a government and giving unregulated power to business would be any better in terms of fighting corruption is historically and logically wrong.