Individual greatness vs. Fascism

Good points.

>Also, if you make the individual the cornerstone of society, who are you to deny the entry of non-European individuals into your country?
Social cohesion is needed for a state to be stable. The lack of social cohesion is not per se caused by the presence of different cultures or ethnicities, but rather the unregulated manner in which this has been executed over the last few decades.

Newfag you don't have to leave but please lurk more and develop your opinions before you and your summerfag kind shit up the board worse than it already is.

Fascism is nothing more and nothing less then the merging of corporate and governmental power, resulting in the latter regulating the former for the benefit of the Nation. It is the subject of all social policy to those things deemed the good of the Nation.

I am not a fascist, and I think in practice many fascist regimes would become tyrannical and undesirable, but I think you have painted too black a brush. What act of tyranny or control could a fascist state possibly impose upon the West that is not already imposed by the neoliberal order?

Do I make invalid points?

You make it painfully obvious your new

No but your views are a bit amateurish and show an incomplete knowledge of fascism, republicanism, and politics in general outside the purely modern.

Personally I prefer discussion, even with someone who doesn't know Aristotle from Hobbes to more cuck threads and Boku no Hero shitposting.

So just ignore this faggot and keep talking OP.

I do agree a single decision-maker in power is a valid reaction to times of crises and/or external threats. However, Fascism is not. The problem I see is that fascism is still promoted as a legitimate solution to contemporary problems which do not solve them, yet replace them.

>The lack of social cohesion is not per se caused by the presence of different cultures or ethnicities
It is though, and we know it.
archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/
Look for it, Putnam is a leftie but had to throw in the towel. The Dutch government also made a similar study and obtained the same exact results.

Individual Fascism
>this guy
First your family, then the community, then the lawn, then yourself
We were born in to a collective, its natural

You’re obviously new here as well. LURK MOAR is the appropriate response not discussion

The discussion I want to create is purely about fascism, and why it does not have a place in current politics and/or society. The reason I chose this board for this discussion, is that fascism/nazism has a huge precense here. Yes, I do not know all the ins and outs of modern day and historic politics, however I think that does not prevent one from discussing about a certain idealogy.

>Muh sekret club
>Muh only post after lurking one year

Eat shit and die.

>the ubiquitous identy politics which unfavours the white heterosexual male
lol aquafresh, take your meds

Yeah people like to go "its national SOCIALISM" but in reality the NSDAP was in bed with a lot of the old money elements in Germany. "KRUPP STEEL" and all that. Hell, Hitler killed off a lot of the more leftward portions of the party in the Night of the Long Knives (though in Strasser's case it was probably also because he tried to become party leader while Hitler was in prison)

Vast majority of Jow Forumsacks are self-hating individualists larping as fascist collectivists.

>sekret club
No but in order to be involved in any discussion one must be informed on said topic. This isn’t a reddit QA thread summer fag

Perhaps not, but having certain stereotypes certainly does. The integral aspects of fascism [and I'll clarify again I am not myself a fascist] are

1) The Nation as conceived as an organic entity, the preservation and expansion of which is the object of social policy.

2) The partial regulation of the economy for the benefit of said Nation, forming a kind of middle-position [third position for purists] between internationalist capitalism and international communism

And that's it. General themes include, but do not necessarily have to be included in a fascist state are

3) A contempt for democratic institutions [though not necessarily civil liberties]

4) High degrees of militarism

5) A concern for eugenics or race

6) A charismatic leader

The idea that's being proposed by you is mostly that fascism is synonymous with tyranny, simply of a different variety then that of Leftist tyranny, and should therefore be discarded. This is not necessarily the case.

Much of the nationalist appeal today is not a desire to lash out, but instead to withdraw from the complexity of the world. It's not confusing to see why it appeals to Jow Forums users, who are more withdrawn types in their own lives than they are aggressive types.

Nationalism is tricky, because it ultimately requires the other in order to give meaning to the self, so a strong nationalist nation will have the risk of becoming aggressive towards outsiders, defeating the purpose of the isolationists.

How would you know if it’s not a workable form of governance since for the most part it has not been tried to its fullest for any length of time (except perhaps in Spain).

Individualism is retarded and individuals get raped by collectives. Individualism is literally anti-civilization, and even anti-human as humans have always ALWAYS existed as part of a group. The group is you.

>lurk moar
Sadly this board isn’t what it used to be and they’ll just end up getting a blacked tranny fetish lurking moar.

Hegel please go and stay go. Nationalism is extremely international in its modern forms. Globalism, not globalization, is the enemy. It isn't trade and interaction, but free migration, that is the problem, not national treaties but international unions. At its core is the idea that the World State is a bad idea.

That is indeed the problem I am referring to. A fascist states creates a civilian underclass, purely used for production and contributions to the state, while a political elite is in power. That elite also controls the idealogy, and that is where the danger comes in.

True, but what I meant is to be involved in a discussion one must have informed talking points not just newbie speculation

Exceptional individuals create strong collectives.
Exceptional collectives produce well-educated and virtuous offspring, but overtime degrade into a weaker and less exceptional populace.
From these ashes, new exceptional individuals are born that re-kindle a strong society.
Repeat.
They are both necessary; one must help fuel the other, in teams of both surplus AND suffering as well. Good individuals help the collective, a good collective produces a larger volume of good individuals.

Truly enlightened. The State must be abolished and supplanted by a system of Anarcho-Capitalism.

What happened to the idea of being a part of something bigger than yourself? How can society move forward if everyone is only living as an individual for themselves. There is still plenty of room for individuality while strengthening the collective.

Yeah I know. Just sad the board has gone to shit. Even cripple is getting normied out.

The enlightenment is the worst thing to have occured to mankind in all its history. How about no. What is needed is what is best, and that is monarchy.

blatant lies and misinformation

Attached: 1527419186571.png (2054x1683, 2.04M)

>implying you cant have rights if the government is stronger
also
>implying you are entitled to anything every

>doesnt promote individual greatness

lol

Attached: 1499698691149.png (1024x597, 161K)

Attached: 1503676474180.jpg (1280x844, 251K)

nice shity straw man definition
have the fascists define fascist

also this

It is true that it is not synonymous with tyranny, you can safely assume that is is highly complementary. That alone should be reason to discard it as an idealogy and/or alternative to any other form of tyranny.

oh look, a sane and sensible post. its gonna get slidden I bet

Attached: taxes-are-the-price-we-pay-for-a-civilized-society-4583046.png (500x605, 155K)

t.bootlicker bottom

The exact same thing could be said for democracy, another highly tyranny prone system.

any nazi wants to attack Russia, we killed many european nazi near Donetsk.

Attached: - (17).jpg (1080x922, 121K)

>because the masses are dumb the individual has to suffer
wow, spoken like a true bootlicker. I hope the fascist state bans anime and sends you to extermination camp for being a degenerate

You're not totally wrong, OP, but this video explains better why individualism vs. collectivism is a false dichotomy.

Yes, it's shilling for someone's channel, but the video is valuable:

youtube.com/watch?v=5KfdQfEWPCo&t=2s

Bootlicker is not an argument, as much as you may think it is.

domme capitalist top seeking communist power bottom
please whisper me

Individualism isn’t scalable OP, it works fine for the interpersonal but is a pointless consideration in politics.

The difference lies in the degree to which it is prone to tyranny.

>slavshit thinking he's people
kek

we killed this swedish nazi, scumbag go to hell

Attached: -.jpg (604x1465, 583K)

Ok you should just fuck off. Go be a newfag somewhere else. Seriously if you want a discussion about something you admittedly know little about you’ll have to fuck off with your middle school intellect “tyranny” bullshit straw man.

Wow, rude.

Oh look no roads and I need to pay rent again. Ahh time to sell my underage daughter as a sex slave so we can eat.

f u c k o f f k i k e

It really doesn't. The fact of the matter is that you have an entirely misguided view of what constitutes tyranny.

Social hierarchy, unelected leaders, militarism, nationalism, etc do not mean tyranny.

Tyranny is the violation of individual liberties, and which can exist under any system, and are defended not by legal constitutions but by an armed citizenry.

If you had a blood-aristocracy but the masses of plebians were armed and organized, and preserved a Bill of Rights it would have more liberty then a liberal democracy of unarmed persons. As long as you believe real liberty is to be measured in the proles influence over politics [hint, they should have none] you will approach this issue entirely wrongheaded.

I haven't said that I know little. If you disagree, tell my why. I am provoking a discussion about a subject, not writing a scientific paper.

Any new ideas must start from this seed: authority is always balanced by responsibility. Systems that do not do follow this are inherently self-destructive. While this in mentioned briefly in Heinlein, we now have the mathematical proof of this concept in the science of complex networks and simulated biology. Living systems must be poised at the edge of chaos where nodal connections are at a critical density -- they must have this to support stable homeostasis but also the flexibility to support change in response to environmental shifts. Authority (or Apollo, or whatever you want to call it) is the domain of separating informational nodes, or strengthening a handful of connections over others. This leads to boundaries between regions of information and also strong heuristics and hierarchies, which amount to the same thing. Its failure is the failure to recognize and adjust for change in the environment, leading to obsolescence. Responsibility (or Dionysus) is the domain of connecting nodes together, weakening informational boundaries but increasing responsiveness. Its error is 'degeneracy' -- creatures drifting away from fitness peaks established under Apollo, or at the biochemical level, important environmental signals are lost in the densely connected network.

tldr; service guarantees citizenship

Attached: male-female duality.png (2584x632, 388K)

SeeAlso checked.

i'm rus

Attached: - (15).jpg (1080x1080, 110K)

>the ubiquitous identy politics which unfavours the white heterosexual male
Hey aquafresh, since you're still going, what does the above even mean? Do you have to be a racist spastic to feel threatened?

In fascism, the roles of authority are divided over one idealogy. A fascist government removes the seperation of power first of all into a central power, something that constitutes absolute power. With a seperation of power, the different powers of a government keep an eye on each other. This change in government lays a direct path to tyranny.

Whichever 'side' can master this principle first and interpret it in the world will 'win,' because it's literally the meaning of life: proliferate and connect nodes, then ruthlessly select from the results. Find the Apollo in your enemies and radically change their environment through node-connecting strategies ('meme magic' -- a proliferation of node-connecting strategies followed by the great Apollonian filter -- what actually gets reposted). Find the Dionysus in your enemies, expose their poor fitness, and pollute their network with false signals they cannot help but connect to.

Also yeah you did admit your knowledge is lacking.
>Yes, I do not know all the ins and outs of modern day and historic politics, however I think that does not prevent one from discussing about a certain idealogy.

>all the ins and outs

Does not being a professor in politicology prevent me from discussing about it?

>Fascism does not promote the individual.
This is true if and only if individual desires are at odds with collective desires.

> According to the state, its citizens are reduced to an army of workers, that must continiously produce for the STATE.
That is a pretty narrow view on Fascism, that certainly was partially true, but mostly during the time of the war.

>They are not expected to be involved in politics.
Yes.

>Intellectualism is discouraged, even for the political elite.
I don't see any evidence for that.

>Individual freedoms are limited in order to prevent exchange of ideas to ensure the security of the state's existance.
Somehow you pretend this is unique to Fascism, when ALL nations during and after WW2 practiced this.
The "red scare" in the US was exactly that.

>For fascism to keep existing, there must be a common enemy for the peoples or a continious expansion
No.

>You, as an individual, would thus be blocked from developping your intellect due to the stream of information being controlled by the state's narrative.
No, are you also implying this is somehow a defining feature of Fascism?
Because this is just normal practice, even western countries today do exactly that.
Also, are you implying there were no Fascist researchers? Or that Germany or Italy did not advance scientifically after the Fascists formed their governments.

>It is also way more difficult to achieve economic personal greatness.
That may be so.

You fail to understand what Fascism even aims to be, this is some dumb characterization of Fascism during the War period, which basically applies to the Allies in exactly the same way.

>Fascism would NOT be the proper reaction to this
It really is the only reaction to this, if you want to restore personal freedoms after the period is another question, but there is no survival based on individualism.

>We need NEW ideas, not OLD ones.
And do you have any?
Do you have something at hand able to provide a new social cohesion?

I am stating it's one of the contributing factors to the destabilization of the nation, and that fascism is not a correct response to it. What are you implying?

Then enlighten us on your new form of non tyrannical, individualist, and egalitarian governance.

Your diagnosis is correct, but your solution is not. You cannot simply water down entire groups of people into 'individuals'. They'll never think of themselves like that. They will always have a group they belong to. The correct answer is to create a common identity, one not based on individuality but cultural assimilation.

It literally doesn't matter. Pieces of paper and governmental limits on power only matter to the extent that the citizenry exists as a balancing power.

Civil liberties exist as the counterpoint in a covenant between proles and patricians to the concept of laws. Laws are the things that the people cannot do, Rights are the things that the State cannot forbid.

The balance of power that matters isn't the balance between multiple branches [which quickly become in bed with each other], or between State and Corporations [same story] but the balance of power between the State and its Citizenry.

You are approaching this issue from entirely the wrong concern, namely, the concern with the choice of leaders and political organization which does not matter. Tyranny is possible under any system, and will emerge the moment it is convenient for the governess to implement it.

>and that fascism is not a correct response to it
But what else is the response?
Voting the current elites out of power, or what else?

I mean, I wouldn't reject individual Freedom as a whole, but it seems pretty clear to me that without sacrificing individual Freedoms now, to restore them at some point, we will never get them again.

>I am stating it's one of the contributing factors to the destabilization of the nation
First of all, you're making a bizarre and abstract claim one cannot work with.
>the destabilization of the nation
Like this one. You attribute this unsubstantial claim to some other unsubstantial claim.

>No.
It is needed to keep the support up for the fascist system. Without a clear reason for the government to be fascist, the people will not support it.

>No, are you also implying this is somehow a defining feature of Fascism?
Yes, in order for the people to act as a fasces (bundle), all the minds must be pointing in the same direction. It's something that is only achievable by destroying sources of information and controlling its supply.

I am not suggesting new ideas. Only after discussions like these one is able to formulate new ideas.

>In Ancient Rome a dictator would be elected in times of crisis and for many centuries before Caesar, every dictator always resigned his power after the necessary problem was dealt with. It was only after brides and "bought elections" became the norm that the government became too corrupted.
The problem with this is the centralization of power falls apart due to the local knowledge problem.
youtu.be/zkPGfTEZ_r4
Even in an idealized case. With a small simple economy, something like Cuba, a central planner lacks all the local knowledge, as to what things are needed and what things aren't. The government sucks at investing

Attached: give me a break.jpg (372x290, 16K)

Explain to me how it is not. Do you know how discussions work?

>It is needed to keep the support up for the fascist system.
You should make a distinction between the Ideas of Fascism during War and without war.
Fascism tries to be enlightened authoritarianism, where the state guides everyone into the right place, which I agree has obvious political dangers.

>Yes, in order for the people to act as a fasces (bundle), all the minds must be pointing in the same direction. It's something that is only achievable by destroying sources of information and controlling its supply.
But all other WW2 powers basically did the same.

>I am not suggesting new ideas.
Yes, but if you reject something without even hinting at what else should be done, the discussion is kind of pointless.

Basically the Idea is that Fascism will carry us through this crisis, so that at the end of it we can restore personal freedoms, Fascism is the ultimate war ideology, where everything comes together in order to win the war.

>Do you know how discussions work?
Do you?

You claim there's "the ubiquitous identy politics which unfavours the white heterosexual male".

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm also not a racist spastic. So what are you even talking about? People of colour participating more? Having the same rights? Being fostered where needed?

All I ever see is racist spastics, neonazis and alt-right fragile white males blaming others for their insecurities and incompetence lol

>Tyranny is possible under any system, and will emerge the moment it is convenient for the governess to implement it.

I still agree with that. Tyranny can be formed out of EVERY system. Yet, different forms of government facilitates tyranny to other extents.

>Makes a post that is extremely racist and sexist against white men
>Asks us to prove racism/sexism against white men exists

Kill yourself.

Yes, but the Job of the dictator wasn't to set prices, even nazi Germany kept Capitalism up to some extent, but to do everything to win the war.
You completely failed to understand what he was talking about, in times of war you can't make decisions by committee, or by public vote, you need to have one guy in charge to set the direction.

What does this have to do with anything? A roman dictator did not "decide everything himself", he simply had the ultimate say and authority, he still relied on the previous infrastructure. And it has to be noted that he was mainly a military leader, not an administrator.
>problem arises
>get a dictator
>dictator destroys it
>dictator resigns
>things go back to how they were

>extremely racist and sexist against white men
lol

Arguing against racism is (somehow miraculously) even more of a waste of time than arguing against communism.
Both groups either have a desperate need for a boot on their neck or somehow fancy that they will get to wear the boot.

At least with fascism, it is TECHNICALLY possibly that it can work, but that has nothing to do with why people like it.

personally im a national socialist rather than a fascist

I am implying it's a topic that is ever precense on this board, and linked to the precense of facism on this board.

If the problem is that you don't understand what I am saying with that sentence. I mean that a very dominant subject on this board is identity politics, and especially how in western countries the white male is seen as an enemy. I am not saying I personally experience this as a problem.

>All I ever see is racist spastics, neonazis and alt-right fragile white males blaming others for their insecurities and incompetence lol

This is exactly what I mean.

Why do you keep feeding the troll?

Fascism and democracy are roughly equal in their encouraging of tyranny however. If you understand that tyranny isn't having someone rule over you, its being denied agreed upon liberties, you should understand that the problem has less to do with political organization and more the citizenry existing as a counter-balancing force.

The problem is that our governing elites do not have our best interests at heart. The solution is their removal and replacement with new elites that do. Attempts to do this through democratic means will almost certainly fail or be subverted. Therefore while 'fascism' may be unnecessary, some for m of authoritarianism or violently implemented alternative isn't.

>This is exactly what I mean.
Are you one yourself or what makes you adopt this nonsense?

Go hide your pain spazmo

Attached: htph37.jpg (560x792, 77K)

Oh, its you, nice to see you again.

Hello, dumb blob of the retarded masses that is pol lol

Why so angry?
I just said hello.