How come this board defends fascism considering it has failed every time it's been tried?

>Oh I know, I'll call him a kike again! that'll show him

Fascism and authoritarianism/totalitarianism are not the same thing

We don't like fascism, we heinlenianism

Attached: u5n3cradkmcq1h2wqoho.0.jpg (1200x800, 132K)

Nat Soc is an offshoot of Fascism.

>Nat Soc is an offshoot of Fascism.
True
And Fascism is the result of collectivist governance.

Attached: hayek.png (521x304, 163K)

It is true, of course, that in Germany before 1933 and in Italy
before 1922 communists and Nazis or Fascists clashed more
frequently with each other than with other parties. They competed
for the support of the same type of mind and reserved for
each other the hatred of the heretic. But their practice showed
how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man
with whom they had nothing in common and whom they could
not hope to convince, is the liberal of the old type. While to the
Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to
both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the
right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they
both know that there can be no compromise between them and
those who really believe in individual freedom.

"Hitler did not have to destroy democracy;
he merely took advantage of the decay of democracy and
at the critical moment obtained the support of many to whom,
though they detested Hitler, he yet seemed the only man strong
enough to get things done."
-Hayek

tiananmen square

yarks

yarkd

Every country run by Jews forming a coalition to destroy your country isn't a failure of fascism.

Fascism as a societal structure, along with corporatism, has technically never failed. Every country that implemented social and economic fascist policies has seen a pretty great result. (See Spain, Italy from 1924-1937, Germany from 1934-1940) The problem with recent fascism was the intervention of countries against the fascist states after their willingness to expand the territory through war. If the fascists hadn’t declared war, their regimes would have been longstanding.

>declaring war on two of the largest countries on earth had nothing to do with NatSoc

>Fascism as a societal structure, along with corporatism, has technically never failed
Franco Spain would disagree

I like everything about you, except for your trigger discipline.

Britain declared war on Germany under the premise it was defending Poland which it left to get raped by Russia afterward. Germany pioneered the world and quite literally almost singlehandedly conquered it after being declared on. If anything, this is a strong argument of the benefit of Fascism. They just really were that good.

I just want government driven initiatives that will improve the people in my country genetically. I also want large-scale architectural and technological projects that serve no other purpose than national pride. Does that make an evil man? Fucking kikes.

Attached: 1894597_oc6dc.jpg (1280x1652, 489K)

So what that it is collectivist? It isn't a socialist ideology, it encourages excellence and self-dependence. It meddles in people's private lives by banning degeneracy and deviance but it doesn't create a nanny state like democracy does. I like both fascism and nat soc but they're two separate ideologies.
Fascism doesn't have a nemesis, except for any enemy wanting to subvert its society and attack its ideals. Fascists do squabble over ideas that should be implemented but just like other ideologies it has more radical and less radical elements.

I'm a feudalist. Fascism is gayismo and they always lose wars despite it being a focus.

This post was made by Communist gang

NatSocs defended a different type of socialism than Marxists,and they came to existence because of the degeneracy of the "democratic" Weimar Republic so you can understand why they distrusted democracy.

>collectivism
>encourages self-dependence
Whew

>NatSocs defended a different type of socialism than Marxists,and they came to existence because of the degeneracy of the "democratic" Weimar Republic
True.
I'm not say NatSoc was bad, only that it is a form of Socialism- which I also don't necessarily denounce- given that countries can choose how they wish to act.

inb4 not true fasc...
nevermind

No it wouldn't, Franco wasn't even fascist

He was far right conservative

It didn't even fucking fail, carlos acted like a fucking faggot.

There was a mostly peaceful transition to democracy. I"m unsure how that is failing.

Fascism is based off of Roman the empire so its never failed. It's like saying the monarchy has failed after thousands of years.

yes. collectivist as in unites people to work together. imagine being this ignorant.

It's not poor trigger discipline when you intend to shoot everything.

It worked great in Spain, unlike communism which has always failed.

It's like asking: How come medics try to fight cancer if trying to fight cancer on last stage failed every time it's been tried.

It only failed because everything Germany tries fails.
And everything Germany tries always fails because Anglo-Saxons don't want Germans to have nice things.
Fascism made Rome great and Germany almost great, and once Anglo-Saxons adopt it we will obliterate all other races and control all of space and time forever.

>can't unite people
>without using government to do so
Whew

this

what a moron

(((Drive Theory))): Instincts don't Exist:
Drive Theory states that our actions are driven by subconscious urges- which are
innate and unchosen, which we cannot vanquish, only suppress.
The fact is that we are act according to our values- which are consciously chosen.
>but how do we learn to eat and fuck?
By sensory response and/or imitation.
>but we don't choose to breath
That is not action, as one does not choose to breathe- it's autonomous action.

The fact is that we are not born with drives, and that our actions are the result of us acting to achieve our values. Just as you choose to be fat, you choose to be gay.

Look at all these Anglo cut off island countries actually thinking they understand fascism. Fascism never works in countries like Britain or Australia because you have a natural barrier.

Fascism puts masculinity at the top and military men are undoubtedly at the top of this chain. In summary, there wouldn’t exist a fascist leader if there are no wars, threats and a poor volunatary military. All the fascist leaders have been only military men and nothing else. By this definition, Trump is nothing but fascist. He had a shetlered life with only monetary threats and no discipline and no physical struggle. He’s not even nationalist, he’s just a classical economic business republican.

The fascists (Nazi, Italy, Japan) brought down all the empires which had become weak. I’d say the fascists won, because their countries are now as rich as Britain, France and the countries that want to become imprerialists through business like America (Philliphines) can’t because they chose to side with the opposite doctrine.

If Germany or Japans remilitarize, you’ll see more outward signs of fascism very quickly.

is nofap a meme? have any anons actually had positive experiences with it?

sincerely curious

As for why this place defends fascism. A good part of Pol is made of up all those countries under constant threat.

Go to any British or America exclusive forum and fascism is not defended at all. The Americans who support fascism here are I suspect people who live in the midwest or south near the border of mexico.

>is nofap a meme?
Yep.
No porn= Good
NoFap = Prostate cancer

Everything fails in the end, some periods of rule vanish due to inside conflicts others perish due to outside causes.

Like the south american people didn't expect to die w/o fighting,... they just got a disease to which they were not immune.

Attached: 1466517945256.png (427x417, 129K)

hayek looks like that old man from that one disney short

Attached: Geri's_Game_poster.jpg (259x384, 13K)

You're right. But Hayek looked much different as a young man.

Attached: hayekYoung.jpg (300x168, 4K)

Fair enough,what exactly is your political alignment?

>Not being able to win a war against pretty much the entire world means the system didn't work

Retard. I don't even want fascism, but nazi germany was very succesful in getting the economy back on track. Very aesthetic. Dealt with the jewish menace. Overall very based and succesful, and perhaps something like it is needed to get this dumpster fire of a world back on track.

>what exactly is your political alignment?
I'm with Hayek, in that there's a difference between:
-competing for planning (who steals from who)
and
-planning for competition (regulations to manage country)

I believe a country is a product of its people, and that any change should be extremely gradual- and that costs should occur directly to those who cause them.