Can fascism and freedom of speech walk together?

Can fascism and freedom of speech walk together?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=HHgxOXEQaFU
youtu.be/g_DaMKUP3Og
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_inventions_and_discoveries#Robotics
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No

why wouldn't it? it doesn't work with democracy so it might with fascism

Fascism fucks over individualism. During the end of WW2, Germany considered shutting down businesses that weren't helpful to the war effort. It's a cancerous ideology.

youtube.com/watch?v=HHgxOXEQaFU

>Can fascism and freedom of speech walk together?

>Democracy freedom of speech
>say something mean/counter to zeitgeist
>lose job and become social outcast

>Fascism freedom of speech
>Say something against the government
>become enemy of state
>deported

Which is better?

>Fascism fucks over individualism

That's a good thing. individualism is a cancerous jewish ideology

...

What do Hassidim dancing have to do with the topic of OP's post? That rare time a post on Sup Forums wasn't a shitpost, but a legitimate question, and hues have to come along and ruin it.

Just needs a good leader

>Germany considered shutting down businesses that weren't helpful to the war effort
Gee. that sounds awfully reasonable considering the circumstances, doesn't it. Oh I forgot, your ""people"" are only profit oriented

So Hitler was shilling for a Jewish ideology in Mein Kampf?

Hitler confirmed JOOO.

You're a sheep. A sheep that can't think for himself, so he needs big daddy government to help. You're no better than a negro.
youtu.be/g_DaMKUP3Og

individualism is just another term for being a liberal faggot

YOU GOYIM AREN'T ALLOWED TO FORM ETHNOCENTRIC GOVERNMENTS

YOU DON'T OWN NOTHIN

1st issue, Hitler was a National Socialist not a Fascist.

2nd issue, Fascism and National Socialism revolve around a core belief of the State above the Individual, so if an Individual says or does anything that can cause harm too the state, they are considered a self declared enemy of the collective well being of everyone else.

So really your question, although easy too ask, is rather complicated too answer as it requires a consensus of what qualifies as harmful to the state in question. But the easy answer is No.

"The individual must never be replaced by the collective" -Hitler from Mein Kampf

...

Hitlers plan for Autarky was never reasonable in the first place. His idea to solve the depression in Germany, was to have the government hire people. Those people have to be paid. How do you do it? Taxes, are unpopular, printing money leads to inflation, and borrowing has future consequences. He decided to steal land from the countries around him. Eventually he ran out of supplies and was defeated. The people shouldn't have to be punished for one Man's foolish ambition. You accuse me of being "profit oriented?" Glad to hear it. Profit oriented is what has advanced mankind through the Millenia.

...

Jews were collectivists mostly living in extremely collectivistic rabbinical communities until probably the 20th century.

Individualism originates with many English, French, and other European philosophers from around the 16th century onward who studied many old Roman and Greek philosophers.

Individualism has nothing to do with Jews.

>Profit oriented is what has advanced mankind through the Millenia.
No, your profit comes from plunder, sucking the people dry and moving on when there's nothing left to take. Your people have no grand ambition beyond finding another person to lie to and steal from.
Your dump of a country has been plundering the west for decades. Then your people destroy our countries by nepotism and lies, lobbying to flood us with 3rd worlders who destroy our nations from the inside out.

Israel is a sham, rest in hell

You have caught me, I work for the JIDF and am secretly shilling Hitler's agenda.

Individualism, which is what he preachesfor a good part of Mein Kampf.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_inventions_and_discoveries#Robotics
Jews have done many great things for the world. Get out of the echo chamber, and look at facts. My country, has become a regional superpower that is more powerful than most of the countries of Europe. Posting a picture with 2 liberals that happen to be jews doesn't mean a thing. I can make list of liberals that are gentiles. Liberalism isn't composed of just jews, as you seem to think.

Hitler wasn't a fascist, faggot.

Ardit?

no

I'm from Kosovo but I know an Ardit.

What do you want, Mehmet?

youre not welcome here kike get the fuck off my board

The difference between Natsoc and Fascism is negligible. They have more similarities than differences, namely they were both abject failures.

>Mehmet

It's you faggots who are 94% Muslim

The difference between fascism and National Socialism isn't neglible, they're fundamentally different, from goal to execution.

We barely saw anything from them, marxism didn't even give us anything in the first 10 years.

If we would have had more similar regimes for a longer time, we could judge.

I think you're giving up some rights (or at least agree to have them limited) for the greater good. The question really is, who can and should decide which opinions and views are beneficial for the greater good? Because in those cases you will almost always have to make decisions based on "emotions", so arguably your decisions aren't neccessarily better than those of the groups you oppose.

Yadayadayadayada, let's get the bullshit out of the way. So what were you going to ask me?

Was wondering if you were my Brother in Tirana, it's extremely rare to find another National Socialist Albanian here.

>NatSoc in Tirana

That sounds too good to be true.

But still, why haven't you done your patriotic duty as an Albanian and razed Lazarat yet?

Britian is facism.

Yeah, they both had no longevity whatsoever which is why we should pick the good parts out of them (Nationalism) and leave the destructive parts (Statism&Racism).

Marxism is more than a political movement, it's a commentary on Liberalism and Capitalism, a commentary that was pretty accurate. Where it falls short is the practical application of the theories Marx proposed.

The 20th century was dominated by three ideologies; Marxism, Fascism and Liberalism.Fascism/Natsoc was an abject failure. Marxism lasted for longer but wrought ruin on the countries it infected, Liberalism is dominant today but is currently failing. It seems stupid to cling to either of these ideologies without comparing and contrasting their strengths and weaknesses.

Fascism/Natsoc and Marxism is dead and it's never coming back, the question is: What replaces them?

Not yet. I plan to join politics once i finish my studies and found a National Socialist party, then burn Lazarat to the ground.

Private enterprise nationalism

I agree that Nationalism should be picked up again, but I must disagree with the "Statism and Racism" parts.

An efficient centralized bureaucracy is a neccesity for any strong nation alongside a solid genetic stock and ethnic population. The finest point would be France and it's rise as the major military power of Europe ever since the fall of WRE, as it encapsulates most of what I said.

I have to give you something though, I don't believe dictatorships should be long-term, as soon as the original leader dies then it is sure the succesor will be an outside agent who is going to spell doom for the nation.

So basically, Fascism and NatSoc should be transitional phases for civilizations and not permanent modes.

Again, britbong, there's a fundamental difference between National Socialism and Fascism. They are grouped together so that they can be easily strawmaned by big government haters.

What is it?

National Socialism is often considered to be a variation of Fascism, but this labeling is simply untrue. Fascism and National Socialism are distinct political ideologies with a wide breadth of differences between them.

“Hitler is a spiritual vessel, a demi-divinity; even better, a myth. … Mussolini is a man.” – Carl Jung

The Axis connection between National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy led to popular misconception that National Socialism is an offshoot of fascism, or a particular brand of fascism, when in fact the only relation between National Socialism and fascism was that both were countermeasures to the capitalist-communist dichotomy, which accounts for their political alliance. Many in the NSDAP also had become positively embittered towards Fascist Italy towards the end of WWII, considering it to have contributed to their defeat at the hands of the Allies.

>Cont

Nonetheless, left-leaning hypocrites have further pushed this conflation after WWII (smearing National Socialists as “fascists”) in order to regulate National Socialism to a generic fascist strawman more easily dismissaile by libertarian and other small-government advocates. With a new hostile dichotomy forming between fascist-leaning and libertarian-leaning camps in the present-day, it is important to realize that National Socialism stands politically apart from, and ideologically far above, this debate.


“Fascism itself was not National Socialism, contrarily to what so many haters of both seem to think. It was a political — and economical — system; not a more-than-political creed; and it inspired a Movement of practical and immediate — of time-bound — significance, not one of cosmic scope.” – Savitri Devi

By fascism, we refer to autocracy that overtly uses autocratic state authority over economy, media and other national apparatus to unite and energize society. It is symbolized by the ancient Roman fasces that celebrates the principle of strength through unity, in the sense that a bundle of rods is much more difficult to break than single rods. Nevertheless, fascists (especially those who call themselves such) by definition should be essentially Roman in outlook. Thus, contrary to antifa/mainstream media labeling, far-right groups which create not unification but division in society along ethnic lines are not authentically fascist at all, but its utter opposite.

>Cont.

This is fascism. Those who like the idea should stop calling themselves “antifas”. Those who dislike the idea should call themselves falangists, not “fascists”.

On the other hand, to say that National Socialism is a brand of fascism is equivalent to saying that veganism is a style of cooking. The simplest way to understand the key difference between fascism and National Socialism is to inspect the essence of their rhetoric:

Fascism: If we work together, we will have the power to achieve any goal we want. (“It is humiliating to remain with our hands folded while others write history. It matters little who wins. To make a people great it is necessary to send them to battle even if you have to kick them in the pants. That is what I shall do.” – Benito Mussolini)

National Socialism: This is our goal. The only way to achieve it is to work together. ( “They are inspired by the feeling that they have a mission to fulfill, and we might just as well egg them on a little.” – Adolf Hitler)

>Cont.

n other words, power itself is the spiritual motivation for fascism, and it follows that the accomplishments of a fascist nation will always be mere frivolities to demonstrate its power to itself or to others. National Socialism, on the other hand, insists that power is strictly the means to achieve the goal – ending exploitation - which is specified at the beginning and thereafter made the focal point onto which everything else converges. For example, the fascist considers politics in general and war in particular to be among the best methods for character-building, and thus feels glad to be involved in them for their experiential value alone, whereas the National Socialist considers these to be unfortunate burdens, and thus approaches them purely out of a sense of duty and purely for the sake of defeating the enemy, in Hitler’s words: “A war-leader is what I am against my own will. If I apply my mind to military problems, that’s because for the moment I know that nobody would succeed better at this than I can.” National Socialism motivates individual participation not by glory, but by duty. National Socialism values not mastery, but nobility. Fascism can be perfectly successful even when nobody (including its leaders) actually knows or cares about the purpose for which a nation exists, so long as its leaders keep the nation strong. This is not the case with National Socialism, where loyalty to purpose is paramount. In practice, therefore, fascists are merely statist glory-hounds, whereas National Socialists are genuine ideological warriors.

>My country, has become a regional superpower that is more powerful than most of the countries of Europe
Paid for by USA and Germany

Hey, how come 2% of the world's population controls more than 90% of the media? Nepotism
What do they use their media influence for, White guilt, and the destruction of our countries
>DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!

kind of