I am personally a fascist. Fascism is far superior to capitalism and here’s why, in a capitalist society we have shit tier manpower, Places like McDonald’s and fast food joints in general are allowed to flourish and turn our nations manpower into s o y beans. Fascism is better because anything that hurts the people is not permitted. In a fascist society we would have only healthy choices for food options to keep our manpower top tier. Capitalism without fascism hurts the people and allows big biz to take advantage of stupid people. In a fascist society we would already all be driving electric cars because pollution might be big biz but it hurts the people. With capitalism big business trumps the welfare of the people and the state and is then used to bribe the state in order to keep hurting the people. In a fascist society this would never be allowed, big business never takes priority over the people and the nation state. Same with healthcare and things like abortion and birth control, yes it’s big business but in a fascist society these things would never be allowed in order to keep the populace and the nation states manpower, healthy and happy. There are many examples I could state. This is why fascism is superior to capitalism and you cannot ever prove me wrong or change my mind. But you can try I’m listening Jow Forums
Let me tell you why capitalism is flawed
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
And you forgot the most important part fighting for GLORY instead of petty economic interest
White people are the flawed ones. They are a bunch of bootlicking faggots, that love being debt slaves. True struggle is only seen in nature. People are sad farm animals that serve like bitches.
>White people are the flawed ones
No you're the flawed one. Know how I know?
Because you're a white country. Right now.
You couldn't do for yourself. Just like all your brown kind. You had to live and leech amongst betters to survive.
Agreed. Fighting in wars for the better of the nation state VS the pockets of bankers. Nice addition I should of mentioned this
People just like being comfortable. Even Hitler knew that comfort should never trump struggle, etc. I try to incorporate this into my life. If you feel too comfy workout longer and harder etc
We have been free all our existence since the first aryans spread around the world, romans and greeks conquer all the mediterranean and europe conquered the world or germans fight to death for glory in the ww2
Only 50 years in a history of more than 4000 and you use this merchant slavement of thirt lapse as a metric?
>”b-but it’s muh white nation...”
lies to the aboriginal people and shoves them into reserves and the whole country was brought up by European immigrants looking for a quick schekles
>”fascism works better than capitalism...”
sure if your the factory owner or the Furher
>”it’s the globalist zionist fault”
Its functioning by people and not by ethnicity
>“In a fascist society this would never be allowed”
Gettoblaster.mp4
Need I go on..?
THIS
We will win. Their system is cracking everywhere and we are flooding in at break neck pace.
No fascism is better than capitalism because it serves what’s in the best interest of the people not the factory owner nice try jew
I hope ur right
Very true
>fascism is better than capitalism because it serves the best interest of the people”
OP are you actually retarded? Your the type of person Hitler was pandering to, anybody stupid enough to fall for obvious propaganda deserves to be laughed at
You're always trying to control too much and it blows the fuck up.
The answer isn't mind-numbingly dumb centralized governments with infinite powers and millions of life or death decisions to make, but decentralized groups of indivual people who make up, manage & control their own local communities. There should be no national state. It doesn't matter if people you agree with control it now, because most of the time they probably wont. It's a lottery racket for plunder.
The future is embracing the way of our ancestors and fight for glory instead or hedonistic pleasures, thats why we are in the situation we are know for abandoning our true roots
>There should be no national state.
If you want to preserve your ideal society then you need a national body to protect it. I agree with having strong local communities, but there needs to be an overarching state to bind these communities should they come under threat from outsiders. Otherwise your local community will end up getting plundered by outsiders who chose to organize as a state.
>that’s propaganda goy
>no national state
Ok until the Asians come through with their fucking national army and subjugate your faggit little anarchist bullshit
Agreed
Nazi Germany still had free exchange and infact was a market economy. It was a variation of the Keynesian economic theory.
On that note, i'd also like to recommend Günter Reimann's book you can get for free called the "vampire economy"
Depending on where it took root, fascism was basically capitalism with regulations. Workers are not to be exploited and the skilled can rise above that of a worker, but both will serve the common good of the state.
Hitler wasn't a fascist.
National Socialism was the German flavor of fascism. Wherever fascism took root it always depended on the culture/ethnicity of the people.
National socialism is fascism
This. Only naive retards believe anarchism can withstand the might of a state like China, or any organized army for that matter
Exactly. Anarchist are retards they can never dispute what I said
>"the jews again slyly dupe the dumb goyim."
He fucking said that? Pretty based actually.
how do you decide what's good for man or not? is any man not capable of doing so themselves?
the amish thrive as pacifists because they are protected by the us gov
I thought a well armed militia was fundamental to the protection of your state
isn't that in your constitution?
is that not ancap communities literally fighting off an army, like the constitution intended?
why the need for a national state?
>is any man not capable of doing so themselves?
You do need a certain amount of authority in a society if you want that society to survive long term, otherwise you'll be subjugated by those that are stronger. General bad behaviors that afflict a society don't necessarily have to be illegal, but at the very least you should have a culture that shames them so more people will be likely to avoid such behaviors.
What hurts the people or the nation is not permitted even if it’s big business. It’s not that hard to distinguish what’s harmful to a populace and what isn’t
>the amish thrive as pacifists because they are protected by the us gov
For now. Once white Americans become a minority I highly doubt a Hispanic majority will care about them and will do to them as they please.
>muh superior genes
>muh authority to the state
Embarrasing
Northern Europe was basically feudalistic anarchism in the time of the Romans and look what happened to those tribes. Anarchism is basically feudalism with lords and shit and it’s easy to divide clans and conquer there’s also infighting among them
>muh authority to the state
State authority will always exist and it's the reason Western nations, especially Canada, are getting screwed. They use their authority to sell us out. Better the authority rests in the hands of someone we agree with rather than our enemies.
Who gets to decide?
Whoever has the will to get the masses on their side and then seize state power.
STFU Discord Tranny
The people
and even a bunch of lords can get together in times of need and wreak havoc on an enemy army
a militia is more important than a centralised state for the defence of a country
fascism is truly the best form of government. a fascist state gives purpose to it's citizens, rather than allowing them to live in a degenerate shitbag country.
>fascism is truly the best form of government.
There's a reason the word "fascist" is so demonized. You know something's off when both the left and right accuse each other of being fascist, while neither of them are. Third position is the way forward.
They can also be divided or be at war with each other and that would get annoying to control
I agree entirely
Third position is the only position men take
>Same with healthcare and things like abortion and birth control, yes it’s big business but in a fascist society these things would never be allowed in order to keep the populace and the nation states manpower, healthy and happy
Oh my goodness. Looks like we have another pro-life christkike here thinking he's in good company alongside based eugenics supporting dyed in the wool national socialists like myself.
LOL
Recommended reading if you need new material. I think I enjoy it more then Mein Kamph.
I’m pro choice because of niggar babies and spic babies but in a homogenous society of whites I’m pro life faggit
I haven’t even read meinkampf yet but I have a list I’ll add this to it
Even when children are horribly deformed, or have genetic diseases that will confine them to a life of suffering, diseases that can be passed on? Do you realize how much good can be done through eugenic abortions?
If fascism is so much superior to capitalism, how come the US, a capitalist nation, was able to defeat both Germany and Italy?
Let me tell you why, user: what wins wars is productivity. The most productive economic system known to man is capitalism, plain and simple. That's because free market is led by Darwinian evolution, wich ensures that only the most productive companies can survive.
No matter how smart the people in charged of a planned economy (which is what the economy under fascism was) are, they will never be able to completely emulate the efficiency of resource allocation that you find in a free market - because no one person (or minority group) can at all times know exactly what's going on in all of the economy they're planning. And that leads to inefficiencies.
In a free market, on the other hand, no such absolute knowledge is needed, since every actor that partakes in it need only know what concernes them; millions of people that only know what's important to them combined, generate a highly adaptive, self-correcting system which efficiently allocates all of the resource at its disposal.
How can one person (or group of people), smart as they may be, hope to beat that?
do you realise you're talking about killing a kid for having sub-average iq?
So is coffee harmful? it's addictive.
Is tobacco? How many families have been destroyed by alcohol? and isn't meth illegal yet it still ravages the country side?
What IS harmful for a population? and who are you to decide that?
Praying for it. Sick of this "Free-market Democracy" scam.
It's sad to watch your folk kill itself.
Except we're not, we're talking about aborting the development of diseased children in the womb for the purpose of completely annihilating all sorts of genetic diseases from our gene pool forever.
Meant for;
germany got pretty damn close to winning. the USSR is what beat the germans, because they had a fuckton of manpower and they have a cold ass winter. a democratic decadant germany would not have been able to take as much land as nazi germany did.
>That's because free market is led by Darwinian evolution, wich ensures that only the most productive companies can survive.
You say this with so much pride, as if only good could come from that. What if the market environement ends up selecting for only the most sociopathic business strategies? Wouldn't be long before we'd find ourselves living in nations dominated by extremely wealthy sociopa-Oh wait a second...
>"How come the US was able to defeat Germany and Italy"
What a fucking retarded strawman you really just shitted the complex state of dissaray and tiredness or the german war machine and the fucking us market
You realize if the US had to fight the germans face on they wouldv been crushed? Just because you came and did a cleanup doesent mean you won the whole war by yourself faggot.
Individualism is a meme. A folk does not last long in an individualistic model. You'll just end up getting blacked up like the West is right now. A strong national identity and national purpose should be the core of your country and your community - the collectivistic model.
All else is asking to get conquered by the smallest force of subversion.
We didn't do anything in the Western front of actual note. We mostly fought volkssturm, and even they kicked our ass.The Pacific War was mostly us, and that's all we can really be credited for during the war.
Italy was long already fubar before American troops set foot in sicily, which by that time German soldiers were picking up the Italian slack.
First of all, though I wish I were American, I'm not.
But bact to your rebuke: you are just conferming what I've said. Germany wasn't able to keep up, because its economy, a planned economy, though fully geared toward warfare, was dwarfed by the productivity of a capitalist system.
The inefficient resource allocation inherent to planned economies just can't keep up with the free market.
Lmao, seethe harder. You got no argument at all.
To be sure, but my point is, even if the USSR had fallen under Hitler's boot, in the long run, the US would outcompete the Nazies when it comes to productivity and as you surely know, numbers win wars.
Yes, but that's my point: what made this lightning-fast conquest possible, was the supernova of Hitler's enthusiasm. In the long run though, they burned themselves out, because the economy Germany had, wasn't able to sustain the costs of war - because planned economies are inefficient.
> if the USSR had fallen under Hitler's boot, in the long run, the US would outcompete the Nazies when it comes to productivity and as you surely know, numbers win wars
And you can't imagine Germany's numbers going up after securing practically all of fucking europe and the full extent of Russia?
Haha, just how many millions of people did capitalism kill? Conversly, how many millions did fascism and communism kill?
Can't really say, as the fall of the Soviet Union would have meant many things for Germany, namely having access to the oil fields of Baku. Germany would also have a quite a potential labor force at their disposal. There's also the case of Russian citizens with loyalties to the White Guard, former monarchy, and those, now liberated with anti-communist sympathies.
Sure, and with all of those resources they might evan have conquered the world - for how long though? How long could have such an inefficient (resource allocation wise) system survive? German economy was really good at producing weapons, but with the war won, what would they have done with all of those millions of now unemployed workers?
Slave labour is inefficient. And overworked slaves tend to die. Plus they would had to face massive uprisings all over former USSR. Not such an easy task while you are still actively fighting a war with a far superior enemy (productivity wise)
Lol, capitalism uses freedom to excuse itself from the death and suffering brought about by the ignorance and foolishness of capitalist consumers. Fair enough, capitalism doesn't put a gun to the back of anyone's head, but it's more than happy to sell you a gun, drugs, fast food or any method of suicide you demand for that matter.
Your point being? Do you think that under fascism people wouldn't find ways to commit suicide, get inoxicated or kill other people, if they were really determined?
Sure all those evils are more then abundant under capitalism: the difference though, is that you have can choose to pursue them or not to - you have agency.
No such thing under fascism: the state tells you what to do and you have to do it, even if you feel it's wrong
> Plus they would had to face massive uprisings all over former USSR
I'd have my doubts since just about every area the 6th Army pushed the Soviets back from was met with admiration by the locals, which by this point Communism had taken it's toll on them, locals would almost immediately start tearing down Soviet propaganda anticipating the arrival of German soldiers. Loyalty wasn't something the Soviet Union ever had much of.
you and you're family are kidnapped and taken to a farm area. you get two choices:
1. you can abide by a set of very relaxed set of rules in exchange for relative freedom, you are free to decay, be lazy atc. however, you will be raped in your sleep at night, quite frequently. you won't remember that it happened, and you will only have mild discomfort due to these rapes, though the effects will increase with time. but you know that it is happening (to your children as well)
2. you agree to abide by a set of much stricter rules, some seem arbitrary and some seem reasonable, but they are put in place in order to better you. if you break the rules, you will be raped quite violently and you'll remember the traumatic experience. if you follow all the rules, no rape.
i've asked quite a few people what they would choose, and all but one has chosen no 2. women choose 2 immediately when they hear their kids get raped in the sleep.
why are women constantly voting for option 1?
Don't be so sure about that: just look at what was happening in the Nazy occupied Balcans - we beat them good
The majority of people have been led to believe that there is no choice.
Modern American-style (and Japanese/Korean-style) capitalism contributes to that, unfortunately. It encourages the best and brightest to work day and night for profit instead of seeking to lead, leaving government as a hobby for the wealthy elite.
And leaving the ordinary people starved for guidance.
Blindly following this line of thinking produces nonsense.
What exactly do you think the US did to mobilize for war? Unleash the free market?
Here is what really happened:
>en.wikipedia.org
Not even defending fascism or economic planning, just remember that "efficiency" in economics-speak means efficiency at producing "marginal utility", nothing else.
Marginal utility doesn't win wars.
>>Pussy wants a handout
Meow.
>Sure all those evils are more then abundant under capitalism: the difference though, is that you have can choose to pursue them or not to
Yep. I don't think people should have the right to self-destruct in ways that capitalism seems to almost encourage. Selling someone the poison that they'd use to destroy their own lives (and perhaps the lives of anyone who cared or depended on them) is immoral.
OP HERE. No you fucking retard it’s becsuse the USA was much larger than Germany and had more manpower and Germany was up against 21 countries you absolute retard
Whatever weakens the nation state is not permitted. Coffee enhances it
Wrong: productivity leads to wealth. Wealth + productivity leads to tanks, ships, weapons buit fast and well.
Want proof of that: look at the quality and quantity of the wepons produced in Germany towards the end of the conflict. Now look at what wealth and productivity of the US lead to: year after year of exponentially better, more rapidly produced and thus more numerous weapons. That's the power of higher productivity
And who decides what is moral and what's not? Is slavery moral? Well, under fascism it was. Is eugenics moral? Under fascism it was. Is censorship moral? Under fascism it was. Is suppression of political dissent moral? Under fascism it was. And the list goes on and on.
The real difference? Under capitalism, you decide for yourself what's moral and you are free to act accordingly. Under fascism the state tells you what's moral and you better supress your own moral compass or you die.
The Germans had better tech at the time so I disagree the USA had better productivity
Hahaha, yeah, that's right, Germany just sucks - it was never able to compete with the superior power that was/is the US
Better tech? Maybe. How many pieces of that better tech though? Very few.
And let me remind you, that tech wise the US had the A-bomb. Germans had jack shit
If you forbid people to be degenerate under the threat of gun, does that make them not degenerate?
>And who decides what is moral and what's not?
A man that I can truly trust. The most trustworthy and noble man that I can find in my nation.
Much better than leaving the definition up to the cold, souless machinery of capitalism, where value is determined by literal plebs.
Not really but it removes the harm their degeneracy would cause to society at the very least.
>tech wise the US had the A-bomb. Germans had jack shit
>jack shit
I guess sending the very first man-made object into fucking space just aint that impressive
Moral according to whose standards?
All of the thing I cited in my previous reply were considered moral under fascism? Do you consider them moral? Do you consider slavery, censorship, violent suppression of dissent and eugenics moral? And if you don't agree even with one of those, that that mean that you are immoral or that the peron that exercises those thing is immoral? Who decides what's moral anyway? Is there such a thing as an objective morality? Please, do answer to all these questions, I am genuinely intrigued
To think Wilhelm 2nd lived to see in German newspapers the surrender of the French Republic at the second armistice at Compiegne and the capitulation of Poland followed by Operation Barbarossa at a part of its furthest extent... I like to think he died without regret and shame... to have seen his failures wiped away before his death. Rapturous glory. The hope. The freedom.
I'm just going by what I know from example. There's no telling.
They didn't you moron. That was done by a German, to be sure IN THE US THOUGH, after the war.
And even if the Nazies had done that, so what? What warheads were they arming their rockets with? TNT? What is a TNT warhead compared to the A-bomb?
Sure. Consider this though: the US had the A-bomb. Would Germany had been abke to defeat that?
You mean that bomb that only came into fruition because of imported German scientists?
>imported German scientists
That fled Germany to the capitalist US precisely because of Nazism
This is why I became a Fascist Capitalism is great in certain sectors but should not be absolutist