Questions

Fascism didnt exist then. Fascism is a modern political theory that takes some elements from Roman Imperialism.
The "first formally fascist state" was Plato's "just society" from The Republic. It was never properly put into practice until the 20th century.

Evola is good for further reading after you've gained an understanding of Fascism.
I dont agree with many of his views but it's an interesting opportunity to reflect on Fascism from the only person on earth who thought Fascism wasnt going far enough.

Attached: Capture+_2018-03-22-10-19-55.png (719x1004, 207K)

Evola is full meme bruv, nigger was basically the proto-incel.

Good recommendations otherwise.

Retard detected.

Rome is where the symbolism originated and where the first practices of recognizable Fascism began, that is it was a society where people were respected to act for the good of the group and each other.

However Roman society eventually degenerated into a corrupt oligarchy due to its own enormous success. This cycle of success, expansion and degeneration was already understood by Plato's time and he described it as the "Kyklos" or the cycle.

Rome was also a den of degeneracy and bourgeoisie corruption. Capitalism and materialist conceptions of life came from Rome too.
Rome was only "fascist" for brief periods, under Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar, and then The Period of the 5 Good Emperors. The rest of Roman history is pretty messed up.
Definitley not a good way to learn about Fascism. If you want to learn about Fascism read the source material by the men who wrote the theory.

That said, reading about Julius Caesar's life is a great idea.
He was essentially the original "Fascist", and probably the best leader in history.

The Republic was a functional fascist state, and one of the most successful states to ever exist on the planet.

Degeneracy had indeed began by the late Republic especially after the defeat of Carthage (Which Scipio warned would happen) and the lack of a real enemy to motivate the Roman elite to not be greedy or degenerate.

At the same time it was still monumentally successful going from a minor central Italian power in 300 BC to controlling most of the Mediterranean by 100 BC.

Julius Caesar didn't live in a vacuum, he was a devoted populares who acted for the good of the people like Gaius Marius and the Grachhi brothers before him. That's why the people loved him and supported his dictatorship because he intended to fix Rome and reform the corrupt oligarchy.

Attached: 419768465.jpg (4063x6657, 2.47M)

The Roman republic was not a fascist state..
Fascism is a 20th century invention m8
Its based off corporatism, Rome was not corporatist or meritocratic it was a democracy ran by a handful of wealthy families who abused their position of power to pad their own pockets.
Caesar's vision for Rome was a fascistic one but it never came to fruition because he was killed.
Augustus sort of continued his legacy but mostly used it for his own personal gain as opposed to the benefit of the people. Nevertheless he ruled a peaceful Empire for 60 years and it was probably the closest thing to a modern fascist state.
Your second point seems a bit odd, I already know this. Are you implying he wasnt a great leader or a visionary?

3/4ths of this is absolute trash that has nothing to do with fascist thought
Fascism isn't right wing its opposed to the right and left

> 120 x 120

Attached: asianweewee.gif (50x42, 71K)

That movie makes me sad. Not because of the story, but because of the 10-year-old girl who played the voice of Ducky that was murdered by her father.

SO FUCKING ADORABLE

youtube.com/watch?v=0w1Vs7CZygw

>Rome was not corporatist or meritocratic

That's exactly what Rome was, the whole point of its entire government was to act as a practical means of promoting meritocracy.

>wealthy families who abused their position of power to pad their own pockets

Only as the system began to collapse. The very existence of the populares, and Julius Ceasar himself prove your generalization wrong as he and others (The Gracchi, Drusus, Gaius Marius) were all members of the nobility yet they began to advocate for reform as they saw the system slipping into degeneracy from a former state of competent fascism.

>but mostly used it for his own personal gain

Augustus acted for the good of Rome and did what he could to change the system even if it was far less than Julius Caesar or Gaius Marius wanted.

>Are you implying he wasnt a great leader or a visionary?

I'm saying Ceasar was a member of the nobility who like other members of the nobility (Gracchi) put the well being of Rome and the people before himself and attempted to reform the system when they saw it becoming corrupt. That's what made Rome a functional fascist state for centuries the nobility and the commoners were expected to act in concert for the good of the state. .

I think you've fallen for the Romantic meme no offense
Rome really wasnt that great
It had a few high points but also a lot of horrible ones

Furthermore it was never the goal of Fascism to be Romantic, its a progressive modern ideology (as cucked as that sounds), its about moving forward not looking back. It respects history, traditions, and religion, but its not about trying to emulate the past. As Mussolini said its not reactionary its revolutionary. Its a unique and original creation designed to fix the sickness of modernity.

Rome was nothing but pragmatic and "progressive" for it's time period from its military tactics to its government systems to its technology.

Rome did what worked, and the form of government that works best is the sort of nationalist/fascistic model that is based on meritocracy and reward for service.

The private soldiers and citizens the legionaries and the equites were at one time rewarded greatly for their service in war.

>It had a few high points

It conquered the entire Mediterranean so thoroughly that it held its territory together for centuries. The accomplishments of Rome are astounding, you can only dismiss them because you take Rome's success for granted as a historical fact. And all of their success can be laid at the feet of an effective fascistic system symbolized by the literal fasces.

Look under Fascist, Propertarianism, and Jow Forums sections. Others are scattered around here and there.

JQ - mega.co.nz/#F!UdxSVLJB!bgBwqzuFIV3z0HvCswA0dQ

Religion, Magick, Occult - mega.co.nz/#F!AE5yjIqB!y7Vdxdb5pbNsi2O3zyq9KQ!cE5yWZoI

General - mega.co.nz/#F!LotEVRxT!YE-YrG6SZ54nJqltrYN8Nw

Psyops - mega.co.nz/#F!m00SjRRA!R_I9wzUTEhSN6spP35TyZg

Jow Forums books - mega.co.nz/#F!eMs1HDRD!LJcwVTJXhhx1a5bUu2l0dg

Poems/stories - mega.co.nz/#F!6sgETKCa!vGFF5iTfCR6lH3ZLXaQorQ

Propertarianism library mega.co.nz/#F!0F5GXTjS!oGdz8UP5JbcleNMy6YKLvg

Fascist - mega.co.nz/#F!cZoSEbpC!kdnYuLw3hvYSus9uZl6PRQ

Stats and facts - mega.co.nz/#F!4MJE0L6Q!teKAfBlT2m3Ija-Tun-EFw

Sydney traditionalist reading - mega.co.nz/#F!pYRnSJaC!HrC3Siqyioo9PjdGMNWs3Q

General collection - mega.nz/#F!flYQGbzI!p1AFjtMuCLHQqocJqxV7rg

Homestead/History - mega.nz/#F!WQ1j0Q5A!BrV-uEsC2VZlhFsqJV-YHg

Book dump - mega.nz/#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg

Book dump - mega.nz/#F!8YhT1SwT!naXLsLCamWPYP6YxJZAopA

Languages - drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B9QDHej9UGAdcDhWVEllMzJBSEk

Military History - mega.nz/#F!ZAoVjbQB!iGfDqfBDpgr0GC-NHg7KFQ

Philosophy - mega.nz/#F!MQBRHBJA!L_on3h-XUrtbc719UaMygw

Warfare - mega.nz/#F!x4JD1RzD!4_nIFmI2sBdSYg14j7pIdA

Attached: books2.jpg (3872x2592, 1.75M)

You're just waxing rhetoric at me and ignoring my previous points now.
Rome was Roman it was not Fascist.
It may have had elements that were Fascistic and Giovanni Gentile stated that Fascism is inspired by Roman Imperialism and the "Imperial Spirit" but its a society that existed 2 thousand years prior to the concept of Fascism.
If you think the only time of turmoil in the republic was at the late stages you're very ignorant.
The empire wasnt much better but it was deifinitley an improvement.
A republic cannot be fascist, fascism is totalitarian. Its a top down dictatorship. This didnt come fully into fruition in Rome until about 100 AD or later.
Tl;dr its very ignorant to attribute modern political ideas to 2 thousand year old societies who had no concept of it.
It would be more accurate to say that Fascism is Roman.

Now back to the original point, reading about Roman history will tell you nothing about Fascism. It'll tell you dates and names and some battles. If you want to learn about Fascism read these:
Then read whatever you want

>propertarianism
FUCKING LOL

I thought the same thing, that's how it was titled when I copied the links

Fascism is completely opposed to propertarianism, its probably the exact opposite in fact

The thing about Evola was that he is extremely and openly critical of Fascism. His thing was Traditionalism.

He wasnt "extremely critical" of Fascism he wrote Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race and was then hired by Mussolini personally to write a Fascist magazine. He criticised Fascism and National Socialism for not going far enough, he was a bit of a contrarian fag, but at the same time he was very involved with both movements. He worked for the Fascist party and later for SS Intelligence.
He was personal friends with Heinrich Himmler.
He wrote in Men Amongst The Ruins that the Axis were "his men".

Just finished chapter 2, kinda bored. Addy wasn't a very engaging writer. Can I skip to volume 2, or is his life story absolutely essential?

What version are you reading?

Stalag

Try the Ford see if thats more to your liking
Or just drop it
If you're not interested already maybe its not for you
The entire book is his life story
I personally found it incredible and couldnt put it down, but I read the Ford not the Stalag

Dis shill research thread

Attached: 1502328732478.jpg (666x666, 148K)

>Fascism
>Mein Kampf
Pick one nigger

I never get tired of the Jow Forums pseuds who havent read a book in their life but think they know everything

Attached: Oswald Mosley.png (706x869, 661K)

>Rome was Roman it was not Fascist.

Roman is a specific ethnic and political label, the make up of Roman society and government could be termed fascist.

>If you think the only time of turmoil in the republic was at the late stages you're very ignorant.

The late Republican crisis was a sign of the beginning of the end. The success of Augustus' reforms is what helped preserved the Roman state, but it sacrificed its traditions.

>A republic cannot be fascist

A republic can be fascistic and it was. The whole point of a rotating yearly elected Roman Consul was to incentivize actions that were in the collective good of the Roman state/people. That "collective action for the good of the ethnostate/people" is the basis of fascism.

>fascism is totalitarian. Its a top down dictatorship

You're not using the right terminology. The correct terminology is "hierarchical" and all government is hierarchical even the most radical communist regieme you can think of.

The question is "in who's interest is the government supposed to act?" And if the answer is "the ethno-group" or "the state represented by the ethnic group" then you have a fascist system even if leaders are elected.

> very ignorant to attribute modern political ideas to 2 thousand year old societies who had no concept of it

I think it's very ignorant to dismiss the ancient historical basis for modern political ideas. By your "logic" no ancient monarchy could have ever existed because we have kings in the modern world.

>reading about Roman history will tell you nothing about Fascism. It'll tell you dates and names and some battles

>implying no Roman writers ever wrote about politics, culture or society

You're insane.

Fascism: The Career of a Concept, by Paul Gottfried
>Gottfried has been greatly influenced by the historian Ernst Nolte, who sees fascism as a reaction to the violence and disruption of the Bolshevik Revolution. “Fascist movements were ‘counterrevolutionary imitations of leftist revolution’ that developed as reactions to the dangers of leftist upheavals…According to Nolte, the fascists absorbed the disruptive tactics and revolutionary élan of their leftist enemies in order to vanquish them.” (pp.1, 37)
mises.org/wire/paul-gottfried-fascism

It's written by a conservative Jew who condemns both the left and the neocons.

Attached: Fascism_Gottfried.jpg (240x360, 11K)

Yiiiii