Politics

Fascism is becoming increasingly more palatable as time goes on. I can't see any other way, and that's coming from a confused libertarian. Don't know if I'm black pilled or just bored of being atomized.

Attached: Wehrmacht (2).png (1582x890, 481K)

What made you consider support for fascism as opposed to democracy.

democracy talks itself to death while taking advantage of the confusion created by petty squabbles as it criminally scams honest people into the illusion of having a say on any matter.

Populism, by still being a democratic expression, has been likened to fascism because it tries (and so far, fails) to shift back power from lobbies and disembodied interests into the hands of the people.

Most likely it's the fact that we live in a weak democracy. But it's generally still preferable to an authoritarian state -- in order to enter one the common people would need to give up their rights in exchange for political, social, and economic change, but what happens after this change is the problem. To get your rights back you'll need another revolution. This is why Fascism isn't viable as a long-term solution, but rather as a tool for radical change.

But fascism takes away my rights as an individual, does it not?

It's a matter of personal philosophy. Do you value ideology more than personal rights? To be a Fascist is to be an idealist, really.

Samefag

>Fascism is becoming increasingly more palatable as time goes on.
Nope

>It's all there, it's all waiting. Of course it can be done; it depends upon ourselves.

>You say: "But again, we're scattered individuals. Everything's against us. Governments, money, press, television - all the new forces are used against us." All the great forces, all the material powers of the world, you say, are against you. And so they are - you're quite right to feel that.

>And I don't underrate them, but I don't despair and you shouldn't despair. Because you, like I, have read something of history. You know something of the record of the achievement of Europeans. And dark as this hour is, it's no darker, it's not as dark as some of the hours you've known in European history.

>When everything was cowardice, treachery, and betrayal. And when the Saracen hordes from far outside Europe swept right across that continent, and would've come on over our own Britain too, if they hadn't been stopped. And it didn't only happen once, it's happened more than once.

>Small bands of men in resolution, in absolute determination, giving themselves completely and saying "Europe shall live!" And they stood firm and faced the menace to Europe: its values, its civilisations, the glory of its achievement - all those things in mortal danger. And they stood firm, they faced it, they came together, and more and more ran it to their standards, and those hordes were thrown back. Again and again and again, our Europe lived in triumph because the will of Europe still endured!

>We've got other forces against us - not those particular forces, but the power of money, the power of press. All those things are against us. And how can you stop it? My friends, by an act of will, an act of the European will.

>My friends, today, just as much as in the past, we can meet the dark forces which in another way threaten our European life with eternal night. We can rally those forces, and in the end, we can prevail and we can triumph!”

Attached: 1553033020281.jpg (435x540, 22K)

If we have to live in an socialist authoritarian state, which seems to me the current trajectory given multiculy society, then it's a choice between virgin communism vs chad fascism. Fascism offers a meritocracy and a strong ordered state. Communism is weak and has failed. Communists are weak little parasite virgins. Fascists are strong productive Chad's.

We've fallen from our republic even if we don't realize it. Populism is our Gracchian phase before we become a fascist empire.

The United States has been an oligarchy since the Gilded Age m8. Even your democracy and republicanism are just products sold in a market.

SJWs unwittingly remove our barriers to the term ''fascism'' and that's when it can rise again. so, do SJWs have an upside for us?

Attached: sjwbabies.jpg (1116x813, 370K)

but if theres no more individualism, who the fuck cares about your ideals? Arent you worried by the fact that most americans clearly have different ideals than yours?

National socialism and socialism aren't very far apart. Look at China today or the soviet union under Stalin.

The problem with Fascism is that it shares the same problem with the Soviet Union. It can sometimes forget human nature. Bad and corrupt people could later join the Fascist party and sell it out in the end, how would the fascists of Jow Forums counter this issue?

Fascism will be necessary to set the course aright. When we deserve freedom we shall have it again, but at this moment in time we as people DO NOT DESERVE OUR FREEDOMS. Freedom doesn't matter in the slightest, LIBERTY does. That's liberty from ourselves as well as other oppressive forces. Our very freedoms have become chains of bondage to our own selfish ways and pleasures; as the collective unity of our people has continually declined all that's left for atomized individuals is to retreat into our own micro worlds and pleasure seeking.

Laughing at (You) bong

I agree with this, it’s similar to what the Romans did in their Republic, they would elect a dictator in times of crisis. Fascism is required to purify the state, after the leader, democracy would be introduced, but with the philosophy of a United and ethnically homogenous state.

Communisms only 'successes' are literally due to the concessions to fascist ideology. Stalin himself did a 180 in Russia during the Great Cultural Retreat of the 30s towards the right wing. Before that the Soviet state supported multiracialism/culturalism, feminism, abortion, no borders, and other globalhomo horseshit.

>keep making false flag threads against LOLbertarians!
>its working!
please keep doing it and take our retards, make sure to convert normies who have leftist retard tendencies

Attached: 1981692689036894.png (1280x853, 46K)

And the Romans weren't an oligarchy for a long ass time before the Gracchi? I admit they had populism strewn throughout, but so have we.

How are either of these like national socialism

Republic does work, if you limit who actually gets the say over the state sword power, and everyone has a sword of their own.
The US model is flawed only in that our Democrats were made comfortable by centuries of sea buffer, and haven't been able to recoup their losses to actual foreign hostiles taking the stage at their meetings. Freedom doesn't mean every group has to accept the ideas of every other group. It means you have the right to make your own group and be left alone with it.

How does one expect to pull a fascist empire out of this mess?

It was expected that our elites would remain loyal to the ideals of the Constitution and people of the Republic. Instead, we now have a mob of gangsters pimping out the collective labor and sacrifice of hundreds of millions for their own temporal benefit.

We live in a soft tyranny at this point. When one is afraid to speak ones mind at the fear of being labeled a racist, homophobe, and being ostracized is not freedom.

dude theyre totally not because like national socialism wasnt JOOish
>creates israel

Attached: china israel.jpg (1250x954, 449K)

"Who watches the Watchmen?"
t. Republicman

>It was expected that our elites would remain loyal to the ideals of the Constitution
It was also expected we would have regular minor uprisings and everyone who was male would be trained for war.

Plato referred to your idea as Timocracy, he believed it was the second best society, a society where there is limited suffrage, however this eventually turns into oligarchy and then into democracy, where suffrage becomes universal. An enlightened aristocracy of philosopher kings is defined as the best society in his opinion.

Then stop accepting their threats and start speaking.

Ideally the people themselves would be imbued with the values and will of the fascist doctrine and thus not stand for such parasites and men who would hurt the national and it's people. Especially since gun restrictions were very much lowered in natsoc Germany. A well armed population with a strong folk and national will against taking bullshit and abuse sounds like the best deterrent you're gonna get. When your people degenerate your system degenerates. The difference here is that fascism replaces as losing team for a winning team. Rather than hopelessly trying to win every single defensive battle of 'conserving,' the fascist replaces this defence with an eternal offense, seeking to re-establish and restore.

>It was expected that our elites would remain loyal to the ideals of the Constitution and people of the Republic
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG. how do you even consider yourself american? the price of liberty is eternal vigilance

plato was a proto-commie

The biggest "flaw" is that instead of primacy in governance theory, the republic puts primacy in wealth creation.
It's hard to say that your child being alive past 5 because someone wanted to earn into influence is worse than having taxes 4% too high.

how are they not? because of a label or the hammer and sickle on their flag? Through their actions, they were clearly national socialist.

Ideally, but in reality it isn’t more tricky. As I said, even in the Soviet Union, the elite that were brought up with communist propaganda blazing into their ears eventually sold out their nation. The fascist state would need a true leader, because in the end, it is a state of politicians. The only counter is for the state not to be run by politicians, but by a philosopher king that has achieved their rule by inheritance. The monarch would be less likely to sell out because his child will inherit.

t. joo

>the elites in the USSR actually believed in communism
stupid newfags

Libertarians don't understand how human nature works, nor the world. Libertarianism is not possible without a strong people, and you will not get a strong people by supporting libertarianism today. If you're actually an Ancap like your flag suggests, you're as good as a communist. Doctrinally communism is anarchist, but anarchy is impossible to maintain and you cannot overcome the will of nature to fill that vacuum with another power. Any and every anarchist only succeeds in tearing down an old order for a new order.
Also there's nothing wrong with a philosophy advocating for ethnostates to create an ethnostate for those it deports from it's borders. It's ideologically consistent.

Like what this guy said We expect them to remain loyal, or we rebel. But as a country we had it relatively too good for too long, and we got comfortable. Now the communist niggerkikes are racing for our guns, and we're here shitposting on a Nepalese totem-carving imageboard.

No it's not. That's the best you're gonna get from me until you give actual substance first.

I understand, but money should be as far from politics as possible, the major problem is that it is severely difficult to separate the two. Oligarchy is never ideal, leaders should not rule based on profit.

>The monarch would be less likely to sell out
except you and I already have 1000 years of experience with that idea. and right now you can go to prison for carrying a butter knife to your picnic on Piccadilly, if you can get there without being accosted by jihadists.

yes of course libertarians dont understand human nature its not like we study markets
>We expect them to remain loyal

fascism just means strength of the people as a union > individual freedom

that in mind, USSR was also fascist

it can only be good, when the leadership is good. just like dictatorship can be good if the leader is good, ruling out the increasing separatism like we see in modern day democracies

not to mention it then HAS to be an ethnostate. fascism wont work in multicultural countries like russia and literally any western country

if you do live in a central-european country, go for it. if not, well, good luck. not impossible, but extremely difficult

let me explain you something, oligarchy is not rule by money, oligarchy is rule by ignorance

facism is the whtie pill

t. retard newfag

>But it's generally still preferable to an authoritarian state
wrong. democracy is the worst form of goverment

It is. deal with it.

I don't think they're quite the same. Communism only 'worked' because of concessions to fascist thought, most of the people in the system were just trying to get by and not purged for most of the time. After Stalin they sorta went back towards real Marxism in some ways, which is anti logos and anti nature and thus unsustainable.
As for succession, it depends on the country and the system they want to have. Fascism isn't the same everywhere.

The monarch in my country is merely a figurehead, my country is a crypto-Republic, run by useless bureaucrats with more concern for their pockets than their own race. I’m not saying we must have an absolute monarchy, I’m saying that the West has truly gone bad when they completely embraced the idea of Republic and universal suffrage. I still believe representation is important, that’s why I believe a semi-constitional monarchy is a great system, far better than the traditional Republic.

You don't understand human nature just because you study theoretical markets. That's exactly my point. Read through history and see how people are. You're just as idealist as communists are.

Fascism allows a healthy democracy without the corrupt bullshit. See: starship troopers.

Attached: cdbff1cb477e76aeb5474a1ec1f30c02cefdccaea6c13c08e2065494b6370817_1.jpg (740x934, 91K)

So lets say Hillary Clinton becomes dictator of America, you'd think this is preferable?

It's impossible. As Rand offers, money is time spent in exchange for time spent. And if you're going to repair the sea-port after the storm, you're going to need lumber and concrete and workmen and... All of that is money.
And now the most advantageously positioned Lord will have extra weight in whether or not you get enough funds, since there are always ways to pay less taxes, always another public good that could be built elsewhere...

>he's a libertardian
Oh, sorry, thought I was talking with a real person for a moment.

Attached: 1458630775699.jpg (630x687, 139K)

>theoretical markets
you've confused me for a socialist

>Traded one vicous and unlovable animal for another.

Try a Hedgehog, fits 10/10 with the whole treading thing AND they look cute. Nobody ever used a hedgehog for their political
emblem/flag either.

[spoiler] Hedgehogs organize orgies too, really. [/spoiler]

Attached: horsemask.jpg (459x669, 77K)

>Soviets were fascists
>But you can't be fascist in a multiethnic state
You don't know what fascism means and your post was dumb. Try again. Fascism is a LOT more than what you posted.

It isn't, deal with it. Lol

>attempted insult with 0 factual comebacks
kys memeflag kike

I actually agree with you, Stalin was an autocrat that used fascistic like nationalism in order to strengthen his nation. The idea of Communism is inherently flawed and Fascism is far more ideal, this does not make it immune to corrupt politicians infiltrating the system.

dont you mean lolbergtardian?

Attached: 27564257024609427642.jpg (500x688, 83K)

exactly, that's why USSR failed, it was a shithole, it was multicultural

>The monarch in my country is merely a figurehead
Starting when?
Not sure how this applies, suggesting that the State guide production is also contrary to how people are, so what are you after?

Yeah I’ve ignored all of his posts, he’s just being a retard now, I like to savour threads on Jow Forums where we can have an actual political discussion without memes.

Your market theories are theoretical because you'll never get rid of the state and thus never get rid of the tie between money and politics, i.e corruption. And what's more important is that you think the market is the sole drive of humanity over anything else. Materialists get the rope.

I said it wont work if it's multicultural
are you saying USSR worked?
amerimutt education at it's finest

Attached: Libertarian-Porcupine.jpg (1000x600, 83K)

>ussr failed because of multiculturalism
t. kike

wow bunch of fucking disinfo cucks fuck off and go on ur aids pills.

True enough, and checked trips. It's something I don't have a great answer for outside of the idea that the people themselves would have to recognize what is actually true and right and just and stand up for it, which the fascist system claims it would. At least it's the best argument I've heard for it so far.

Slowly over time they lost their power. The English civil war was a major point but the monarch mostly ran the nation through the industrial revolution before the monarch became less powerful in the late 19th century. Queen Elizabeth has very few privileges, mostly symbolic in nature, you might consider her a Victor Emmanuel III. A figurehead, with very little more.

>i like to have an actual political discussion without memes... YOU FUCKING JEW
t. kike
>your market theories are theoretical
american public education

Brainlet brainlet brainlet. There's more o fascism than the concept of unity together, even if that is a main tenant of it. If you can't understand the huge gulf in world view between fascism and Marxism you don't know what you're talking about.

good.

Are markets the most important thing to man over all else? If you don't think they are you shouldn't structure your society on that concept.

>you'll never get rid of the state
which one? Hail Caesar! Hail His Imperial Majesty Roman Emperor of the Holy Roman Church! Long Live the King! That's My Dog the Shot-Caller...

>the queen doesnt rule the UK and all the commonwealth
keep coping and believing the MSM bongcuck
lick my boot subject

The trips have graced you it seems. As I said, I personally embrace the idea of inheritance as the natural succession of power. I’ll detail my reasons for monarchy right now.

1. The leader is tied to the nation, a stronger nation means a stronger dynasty so the monarch has to make the state more powerful

2. Because their child will inherit, they are far less likely to rob the nation because their child will rule after them. People tend to care about the wellbeing of their child, so they would not rob the nation, they would prepare it for their child

3. Less court intrigue because not everyone can be the leader. In a dictatorship anyone can, this is the same in a democracy. If you have a clear line of succession, far less people challenge it simply because they can’t be the leader without staging a revolt. This also means the chaos of selecting another leader is completely fine in a monarchy.

There's a lot more to why it didn't work than being multicultural, especially since Stalin went pro Russian nationalist (as a non Russian himself), shifting against the previous multiculti rhetoric.

>Slowly over time they lost their power.
Exactly. And they knew of Plato. The same corruptions happen in every system.
The human is the goal, and the human is the problem.
We better be very careful with AI...

fukin checked

Attached: hans hermann hoppe shall not be infringed.jpg (640x640, 46K)

So to what should we laud our neighbor and should our State be swinging the sword to enhance?

That is not to say a monarch cannot be infiltrated, of course it can, but I believe it is the natural order of the world, and one of the best ideas of succession

in a tweet the other Rees-Mogg's sister, a newly elected MEP, called the EU parliament the talking shop. Is that a common phrase or has she been watching some Mosley?

Indeed, every system is corruptable, that’s the simple truth of it

Says murican neckbeard who's only contact with authoritarianism was when his mom turned off his WiFi. The west really is crumbling huh

In America republicans and democrats are nearly identical and have a monopoly on all politics and because of the 4 year election cycle no one gets angry long enough to do anything worthwhile to fix the country because in 4 years we can just vote again, Democracy has also lead so special interest groups like AIPAC and career politicians infiltrate our government and taken the government out of the peoples hands and refused the right for Americans to inherit their nation and leading to our cultural replacement, so yea democracy is big gay

so the Libertarian argument to answer corruption/scamming is that the business will fall out of grace, sure, but what about the victims to these practises before it got detected?

There's always a new one, isn't there? You can get rid of a state for a new one.

Dude, I saw Elizabeth pulling babies out of a fire last night, and at the same time she was spotted helping tow a fishing boat that was floundering off the banks, and simultaneously she was operating the sewer dredge to keep the London loos working, and I heard she even helped intercept a Russian bomber from the flight deck of her aircraft carrier at the same time...

there's that old saying; power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

private citizen community courts

This is pretty freshmen, but the differences seem to be the qualities of the membership and the efforts expended for and from the members. Humans fall into hierarchy by nature, or fight for it if they cannot organize, at least in specific situations.

he's right but his solution is worse

Are you alright user?

A statement that could not be more true, that is why I believe in a semi-constitional monarchy, where the leader is the monarch, but an acting parliament represents the people and holds some authority.

then we're plausibly all fucked, because as long as God restrains his hand, it's actually been anarchy since the apple.