I think I might be a nazi

I've been studying about nazism and the rise and fall of Germany during 1938-'44 and I got to thinking. If Hitler played his cards right, Fascism could have actually worked. I like a lot of what he had planned (other than mass genocide of course) and agree with a handful of what he was doing. I'm just saying during peacetime, fascism could be a good government.

Attached: sqsfkcokhymxnd1vbtwq.jpg (725x294, 23K)

you sound like more of a retard than a nazi

I wouldn't say you are a Nazi. But I disagree with wanting to have facism as the foundation for governance. Authoritarianism usually leads to tyranny

but what if it didn't?

Eventually it will by pure statistical chance, Satan

Real tyranny hasn't been tried yet.

Is nazism an actual term? What is it sipposed to mean? As for your question I would careful calling yourself a facist. You couldn't be a nazi unless you were part of the nazi party. Fascism could work sure, at least better than communism because of economic policy. I don't like authoritarianism

Nazi is short for national socialism.
Nazi sounds to fit in the same street as nigger, it's meant to offend.

Become a sanghi instead

Attached: 1555547733118.png (1000x600, 24K)

Become a nazbol instead

Attached: 0D32F4A8-7677-4F42-B589-F8A493D81681.png (2000x1334, 74K)

which part of it is good government

the one where you get promoted based on your loyalty or asslicking skills not your ability?
the one where the government asks you to make sacrifices but anyone near power lives like a king?
the one where the cohesion comes from hating something or someone instead of instead of liking one another
the one where institutional discrimination is a mean for the state to steal the wealth of its citizens
the one which is incapable of modernisation of the economy and steers it towards bankrupcy
the one where is you disagree with the government you stop being part of your nation by definition?

you havent been studying fuck all because if you did, you would know the system is built to fail

Enjoy

Attached: 38959bd3ea7b2ea760475600ccac97ca.jpg (564x564, 44K)

History agrees with you if you look at the big scheme of things. But the USA is kinda new. Lets give that a try and try not to fuck things up.

If you want an example of an actual fascist state, just look at China.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Care you bring up specific points?

>But what if
This can be applied even in a system where we make political choices based on entrail readings.

idk lol i just wish people had an actual sense of purpose again, i feel like this life under democratic capitalism is shallow and meaningless. atomistic individualism isn't really liberty in any meaningful sense, it's the freedom to float aimlessly in the void by yourself forever.

>I've been studying about nazism and the rise and fall of Germany during 1938-'44

You aren't good with history are you? 1933 - 1945 is when they were " officially " in power in Nazi Germany. I don't even want to know if you know when WWII started and ended.

Attached: 1537542378644.gif (280x210, 1.41M)

>Lets give that a try and try not to fuck things up.
You missed your chance. America has been fucked up ever since they started breeding and importing democrat voters.

You may be right. I'm hoping that some of the misfits will spawn those who realize that they are individuals and not just part of the herd. I have seen people say, "F my people, those aren't my people. I work for my stuff, they can go to hell. Build that wall." We have a system that is almost fool proof on paper. There are bumps in the road.

Eventually, everything has led to tyranny.

Try Proudhonism then.

Funnier still that noting the absence of a unified goal is becoming a slur: nationalist.

The idiots who try to conflate nationalism with evil are the same idiots who think we aren't constantly in a state of cold or hot war.

Nationalism is something we sorely need again. Preferably not with genocide, but there are some excellent choices out there if it must go that way.

We (Americans) currently have tyranny of corporate interest and of the majority (i.e. retarded people). I'd rather have tyranny by people who at least pretend to care about its people and their future

And the question is?
If you want to circlejerk about the greatness of fascism, there is a better board for it.

>it's the freedom to float aimlessly in the void by yourself forever.
Or you could actually pick anything yourself instead of being forced into some die for your lord/state/führer shit.

back to

Genocide, deportations, exiles, etc are all necessary. A nation (as in "national socialism" ) requires a unified people. Both racially and politically, but racial is more important.
Anyway, jews deserve to and need to die. I wish the world could work together just one time to make that a reality

I'll live for my boss' wage. That sounds rewarding

Unlike in fascism, you have the total freedom not to give a shit about your pay master.

>has to be homeless
Wow, what a meaningful life

>it's either worshipping your boss or being homeless

Well, if I work and notice that I'm not happy working because all there is to do is waste money on consumerist or save it up for (?) Then I have to question why I'm working at all. After a while, the rush from hedonism wears off and I'm left simply as a cog in a machine that exists to put money into other people's pockets.
Before you say
>open your own business
Or
>find a meaningful job
Understand that working for working's sake is meaningful to me. And being homeless *is* better than that (from experience)

*waste money on *consuming*
Sorry

Working for working's sake is **meaningless**
I'm sorry. Phoneposting

Fascism leads to dictatorship. Aristocracy is best, like ancient Greece. Fascism is similar to ancient rome

Plato's meritocracy is faw and away better than aristocracy. There has to be potential for upward and downward movement in a society, but it has to be based on actual merit, not how popular someone is

>Then I have to question why I'm working at all.
A perfectly legitimate question that requires a personal answer. Why the hell would you want your Führer to tell you that instead of deciding for yourself? Hell, you could still work towards some nationalist goal by trying to make life as great as possible for the people of your community/ethnicity/nation if that floats your boat, just in todays world everyone else would have the choose to pursue their ambition.

>After a while, the rush from hedonism wears off
Hedonism is quite different from consumerism and doesn't have to wear off. There are no brakes on the self-actualisation train. And there are more great experiences than you could hope to experience in the little time you have.

>Understand that working for working's sake is meaningful to me.
But won't be necessary as meaningful as having a job you truly love following a deeper goal, which is utterly up to you instead of being chosen for you.

Merit being decided by who?

It boils down to the same fascist stuff.

Societies themselves are inherently fascists. The mere existence of a society is fascist. Ideally it'd be determined by a universal test, but as with everything it would be corrupted

So then it only seems logical to focus on a system that has a more limited power and hence would minimize the effects from corruption. And hence philosopher kings is too much of a potshot, our shitty liberal democracy seems like the least shitty development in the better direction.

Nein. It's basically all or nothing. Im an anarchist at heart, but I'm not dumb enough to think people are ready for that (it would devolved with a year) and so I'd rather be ruled by someone supposedly trained to rule than someone who appeals most effectively to the least common denominators (i.e. dumb). It doesn't matter, since the only option is to change it regardless of what it is. Ideal systems require ideal people, and we're obviously not there yet.

you are free what to make whatever with your life
you, personally havent managed to find any, that is your failure, not the systems

you dont think, you want someone to tell you how to think, prime brainlet

1939 (altough on school they used to say it's 1940) and it never ended. Just postponed.

>I want to live in an authoritarian regime

You are a retard. A lot of them sound nice on paper, but i can guarantee you they suck to live under

I'm talking about Aristotle's aristocracy. Aristocracy has been changed over time to say it's ran by rich ppl

I don't know much plato but Aristotle believed the state should be ran by people best fit for a job. So a general should be main leader, a smart economist for economy,best philosophers for laws. I think the new term is technocracy. Also there should be buildings where anyone can debate and make new inquirys.

And democracy leads to authoritarianism. Plato was right, democracy really is the second-worst form of government.

What about modern innovation?

Futocracy for example. Give each law a set of objective, measurable goals to achieve, then allow people to invest in laws the way people invest in the stock market.

Eventually this leads to algorithmic trading companies pouring billions into advanced mathematical models to predict which laws will be the most effective. If they're right, they make money. If they make a mistake, give into corruption, or otherwise screw up, they lose massively.