Could a fascist government be bound by a constitution and as such, be made to respect and enforce the individual rights of its citizens?
According to Merriam Webster, fascism is "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition".
Other urls found in this thread:
hup.harvard.edu
twitter.com
fascism is interested primarily in the promotion of the strength of the nation or people as a whole. individual rights are a nonstarter.
That definition basically fits modern America and Europe.
"centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader"
Definitely sounds like the EU..
What if the rights of the individual (primarily economic freedom), are what makes a nation powerful? It does seem the case, when you look at the history of systems that've been tried before.
The individual does not exist.
Individual rights do not exist.
The fundamental societal unit is the family.
No it doesn't.
Aren't capitalistic nations with personal freedom on top of the scoreboard right now?
Holy molly that Webster guy has no idea what he talks about.
Then the state will promote that, since it's obviously good for the nation and its people.
No, totalitarian progressive countries with mixed economies are on top. But that doesn't say anything about their relative utility compared with each other.
Just because it's less shit than the others doesn't mean it's not shit.
You mean the ones that have been in and out of recessions for the last 40 years and are currently in one they most likely won't recover from?
I could imagine a united states with a constitution, with a more 'fascist' undertone. Protecting our borders, making deals in the interest of the nation, using empirical data to determine social policy (gay marriage banned, racial issues realistically dealt with, such as offering blacks a free ticket to any african country they wish or forceful deportation etc). Basically freedom until you become a problem for the nation, then you get dealt with.
What's your definition of fascism?
What if it's not good for the state, or the people in control? Gun control in the US for example. If less government is better for a country, would the state promote it? I highly doubt it, since they always try to expand.
Seems logical to choose the least amount of shit.
Government intervention is the cause of the recession (as far as i know).
Seems like a dangerous proposition. Just like banning guns for people who are on the no-fly list, since it's so easy to get on one.
Think of your will as a stick for a moment. Your will might be strong individually, but it can be broken. In Roman times, a symbol used to commonly represent the empire was the Fasces.
The Fasces was a bundle of those sticks with an axe placed at the center (pic related). Each stick represented a person, and together they represented the will of the people.
With this in mind, we can interpret Fascism to literally mean "the way of the bound sticks." With the symbolism taken into consideration, it means "the way of the will of the people."
The true meaning of Fascism has been lost in time. As of now I believe there are 11 distinctly different definitions floating around. None are correct. By looking at party documents at the time, we can confirm the definition that we inferred through the symbolism of the Fasces.
...
People should work together. But I think they should work together through free will, instead of coercion from the government.
Possibly. Certain parts I'd want on amendment level. Gun ownership would definitely be one of them. True it could be dangerous though. Maybe a strong check against federal power in invoking it.
Italian Fascism was crap when it comes to gun ownership.
Does anyone here think that italian people could open carry a Carcano on the streets of rome.
Fascism is a purge of the leftists and foreign elements. Not a permanent state of affairs.
We don't argue for coercion from the government. We argue that the government should be the people. If the government truly was representative of the citizens it ruled, no coercion would be necessary.
Gun ownership is definitely on top for me aswell.
I guess we're always one layer of bureaucracy away from utopia.
Different citizens have different demands. Some demands will probably go against each other. The government should be the people. So why not limit government power and give more freedom to these people, so they can go their own way.
wow. never thought id see this and i thought solipsists were stupid.
You will have to learn this yourself, but if you are new to all of this we can just make it easy for us and say they are the same or what not.
If you have a government that is controlled by power hungry kikes and the leader that have no sense of national pride and responsibility towards that nation and its folk of course they will take control of as much as they can. Read the protocols.
But if you have a true nationalist and folk considerate (not sure if thats a word in english) leader he will make sure that the creative and enthusiastic spirit of his folk will not be suppressed and he will make sure they are protected where they need to be protected.
Indeed, that's why we don't want any of the options currently available today.
I know. It's saddening. There's a part of me that believes no possible combination of government, made by men will ever be able to NOT be co-opted from the inside, en mass, either by money, political coercion or societal marxism.
But if you have a true nationalist and folk considerate (not sure if thats a word in english) leader he will make sure that the creative and enthusiastic spirit of his folk will not be suppressed and he will make sure they are protected where they need to be protected.
But a majority of people in the country won't feel that way. They're not interested in ideology, or something bigger than themselves. They just want whats best for them (or in most cases, what sounds best for them). Fascism as stated by should be a government of the people. As you see nowadays, a lot of people want free gibs me dats ala Bernie Sanders. You can't just suppress them. And it might be difficult to stop them from getting into government. The best thing against these people is personal freedom and small government. Make them unable to install a welfare state etc.
I agree, but this is why I'm so sceptic about a big government. Once they're corrupted, you're fucked.
What about incentive through the government? I don't think you need to use as much force to achieve national socialism as people seem to think. If the government was no long offering contracts, grants and benefits to pozzed up shit and instead nationalistic things, people would fall in line.
Dealing with the kikes is the main issue since they use their money in much the same way by paying people to influence society. If you no longer have them propping up degeneracy and calling the shots in government, what else is really standing in the way of building a decent nation?
Not sure what danger you see, unless you are a degenerate subversive who is going to be removed.
You havent fallen for libertarianism.
It was invented by jews to get goys to accept their global finacial system to create debt.
Economic freedom between the peoples of the nation is wonderful, but some scams are so complex they look invisible. Some become mandatory, like car insurance, which is a regular bet against yourself.
The danger of said government to keep expending. (controlled economy etc)
The danger of corruption. Who gets to decide who's to be "removed". Like I mentioned earlier, it's like taking guns from people on the no-fly list since it's so easy to get on one.
Well, there are plenty of shitskins, sandniggers, jews, and fucking traitors to remove so that's my primary goal. Everything else is secondary.
This is why we are specifically anti-semetic
you don't need to worry about subversion from strong white leaders if there is no jewish influence
Now we have a problem here that I have seen a lot on Holla Forums over the time I have been here. We talk about problems and solutions when we are from different countries. But whatever.
It is indeed a problem that people live materialistic and individualistic lives. That's why the NatSoc "revolution" can never take place in once lifetime. Its the same thing when you are trying to subvert a nation, you start with the youth and when they get in to power, the nation will be fully subverted.
This is also (according to me) the crucial factor why radical new ideas like fascism, NatSoc or even communism will take place in a nation that is in despair or/chaos. Then people are ready to give up their precious 5-step turbo food blender for a new ideas. That's also why you need lots of government control in the beginning. You aren't gonna fix a post ww1 germany that is super degenerated and with a non existent economy, with a small government.
It's obvious that you want what's "best" for your people. But the same goes for people who follow a different ideology. What makes yours superior to theirs?
If only this was the case.
Not every stick is uniform or identical - some sticks are bent, some crooked, some shorter than others - yet they all go in the same general direction.
Any sticks which do not fit into the general direction of the Fasces, are physically removed, or naturally fall out of place.
Not the user you replied to, but I'll tell you why you're wrong.
The family is the smallest meaningful unit of society. A man cannot reproduce by himself. A woman cannot reproduce by herself. A family can create future generations.
Individuals are protons and neutrons alone - nothing meaningful. When these individuals are combined, the atomic family is produced.
You should lurk more.
That's exactly what would happen when we've got small government without any welfare. These people wouldn't have the resources for kids.
But every stick would point in different directions.
One thing every stick wants, is to improve his own life. In the sense of making his life easier, making more money. The only way to do this in a free market is by bettering the life of others, since there's no coercion. This in turn makes society as a whole better.
"The individual" is a concept created by Christcucks. It has no historical precedent before then.
Read this book: hup.harvard.edu
This concept of the individual is the underlying cause of all modernity and the problems with it.
No, and neither could any other type of government.
Good.
Is any government though? The government that exists today is spying on its citizens and constantly attempting to push through executive orders that would hinder the expression of the second amendment.
If coercion is wrong, laws are wrong. If there are no laws, he with the most power to coerce others is free to establish a de facto state and make his own laws. The style of Libertarianism you suggest is no less impossible and stupid than Communism.
...
I'm not a fascist so i dont really know if my argument is correct in a fascist point of view. I just typed it because it was the first thing that popped in to my head.
Since i'm a NatSoc i'm for free market but with limitations. To quote Gottfried Feder: "An economy needs to be as free as possible." "To each his own, but above all public interest before self-interest."
Go back to china, you fucking sack of shit insect. Human beings are individuals. Your hive mind mongoloid bullshit has no place in society.
That will not be true until and unless the standard method of human reproduction is asexual.
Or Europe anytime before liberalism. You cling to what is killing you, like a drug addict.
Incorrect. A human being is a human being. A man is a man, a woman is a woman, a Frenchman is a Frenchman, etc. "The individual" is simply an abstract concept with no reality.
So the way of the faggot.
Holy shit.
It was the beginning of the idea of "the individual" (there is no Jew or Greek…).
And no, he wasn't a liberal or a commie. He was a proto-liberal and proto-commie (also proto-progressive proto-socialist and so on, since in the individual is the foundation of all modern ideas).
If someone feels they are being "coerced" they are free to leave.
Assuming the system is successful (which it would be barring (((external))) pressures) people would naturally grow pride in their nation and people and no coercion would be necessary.
Why the hell are you carrying a rifle through the city? It's no different than the early modern laws that prohibited swords to be brought into cities.
Universal rights should be anathema to any rightist. Gun ownership is a privilege to be earned through good behavior, like all others. Communists and other subhumans should not have access legal access to firearms no matter what "rights" they claim.
Explain this. Are you referring to the idea developed in Michel Houellebecq's "Elementary Particles"?
So it was shitposted
So it was memed
So it shall be
Kek has blessed this system.
Are you advocating for Libertarian/Paleoconservative-style government or a Anarchic government?
Either of these governments could work in a homogeneous white society, but such would require a traditional culture. Given that the sex revolution has come and past, I'd say it's impossible for either of these styles of government to persist without falling into decadence.
Also, on coercion: when is coercion wrong? When is coercion right? There are conflicts which may never be resolved without use of force.
All ideologies have the glorious goal of bringing prosperity to everyone.
Fascism is about authority. The fasces was a symbol of strength through unity, that is true. But it was also the symbol of the lictor, who held the responsibility of enforcing public order and protecting politicians so that they could carry out their function without fearing the frothing mob. Their authority was unquestioned and undeniable, and it was used to kill anyone who might try to shake the autocratic order.
Those who call themselves fascist should not shy away from speaking clearly of autocracy. The reason why fascism is superior to other ideologies is the historical cycle we are currently experiencing in the West.
Affluence is quickly fading, as our parents and their grandparents too have used excessively from the national treasuries of our nations to care for their own needs.
Affluence is fading as our borders stand wide open to the poor and downtrodden, who more often than not put pressure on domestic labour markets as well as sponging up wellfare. Draining opportunities and safeties from those natives in our societies who need them the most, in order to satisfy some misdirected altruism.
Affluence fades by the day in the West, as many Western militaries are so starved by the demands of the wellfare states, that they could barely defend the national borders if they tried. And even in a superior alliance such as NATO, Russia alone poses enough of a threat that NATOs very existence can be nullified if Putin played his cards right.
We stand at the precipice of the end of affluence and the beginning of decadence. We see our universities overtaken by inferior intellects who drag the sciences down in order to install identity politics and mock sciences only in existence for political and financial gain. We see our armies reduced to mercenaries, sent off to fight for commercial interests or for frail political goals in foreign and far off lands. We see a system of corrupt governance where incompetence is rewarded openly by it's benefactors and either choice on the ballot is a vote for the continuation of the system.
It should be self evident to anyone that the current political system has failed or is failing.
Fascism provides a clean slate today, a new beginning, another thousand year empire for the West.
Free of the history and accumulated decadence of current day communists.
Free of the hypocrisy of liberal governance, which has led us to the decline of the West.
Fascism today is ideologically pure, having only had a very brief debut as a viable political current, it can be installed without the heavy historical burdens that are placed on other autocratic or totalitarian ideologies. It still has a chance to flourish, unlike the many other ideologies of today, that have failed to stand time's unrelenting test.
Individual rights of a citizen are worthless and have no need to exist. The only thing that matters is the wellbeing of the nation. Each citizen is a cog in the machine made to do his and her role, and then die when they are no longer useful.
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
Beautifully written, I agree wholeheartedly. And with decadence, we see rising the Age of Cesars, of which Trump is the first emanation in contemporaryt times.
We are just fucked user.
Trump is about to pivot and destroy the second amendment.
Its over after that.
What stops corrupt politicians from hijacking a fascist government and using it to force degeneracy upon the nation?
Most political systems can be seen as the "correct solution" to a problem that exists in another system, but they all depend on good people to run them.
Extermination
All I need to do is bring a pair of tits and I'll have the politicians bending to my tits' every word
lrn2 fascist propaganda. It was much very empowering. They wanted those individuals to feel like they were part of something bigger than their small families, but they didn't want a nation of drones, they wanted a nation of strong individuals working together.
Look user, corrupt people are a product of societal norms and awful genes. Are you telling me that a hedonistic and "democratic" society will produce more good eggs in government than a strict morally aligned one?
...
If your system is designed to select for non-greedy people, then it would obviously be better than one that selects for greedy people (liberalism/capitalism).
It is all about the decision procedure for who should have the power. Someone will have the power, since it is unavoidable. Liberalism says power should go to the people who can make the most money or the people who can convince the most retards to vote for them (usually the person with media support). Are these the best people to have power? Is this the best method for deciding who gets the power? Fascists say no.
I never claimed this.
Also
Being an apologist is cowardly chaim.
The advantage of Fascism over liberal Democracy in that regard is that Fascist leaders don't rely on bankers and large multinational corporate interests to put them in power and thus owe them nothing. The power base of the fascist autocrat is rooted firmly in the single party state and the people he rules over. Degeneracy amongst the people (his soldiers and workers) weakens his position, as does the expansion of the power of globalist bankers.
Liberal democracy on the other hand is ripe for degeneracy and takeover because its leaders require lots of money to run in elections and even more to win them and are there for the buying.
>>>Holla Forums
I don't think America will ever have a totalitarian state, neither fascist nor communist. The mindset of Americans simply do not allow for a collectivist nations. However I see huge likeness between Trump and Huey Long, who was the US' answer to the European shift towards autocracy in the early 19th century.
Whether Trump actually seizes power is wholly up to his success in rearranging the American economy. If he does not manage to do it, he'll have no chance of trying to get a 3rd term.
As a Spenglerite and a fan of Glubb, I would never believe fascism to prove any more resilient to the passage of time than liberal democracy or monarchy. Fascism will eventually deteriorate too, however the nature of its decay will be completely different to the current degeneracy and decadence we see in the West. And I can only speculate and use historical examples to try and project how fascism would eventually fade.
The truth of the matter is, that we need a change of system, if the West is to retain its global hegemony.
All empires eventually fall, as has almost every Western imperial power, yet the West kept its prominence over Asia, Africa and the Middle East. It did so not because the decline of Empires was total, but because the decline lead to new systems rising to take their place.
There'll always be an abundance of skilled people and unskilled people when it comes to statecraft, but human nature dictates that over 200 years, most political systems will be built by the former and squandered by the latter.
You blame most of this stuff on the welfare state (and I agree), but that doesnt make the case for a big totalitarian government. I
You blame most of this stuff on the welfare state (and I agree), but that doesnt make the case for a big totalitarian government. Id say it makes the case for a smaller government.
>>>/hugbox/
The welfare state isn't bad. It doesn't breed incompetence and despondece. Yet it is the symptom of an ailing civilization, when welfare takes priority over the military, when welfare for the old takes priority over schooling for the young and when being dependent on welfare is not taboo but rather an excusable occurrence.
We have reached the point where our civilization is existentially threatened by the inherent incompetence and corruption of our political system and our moral institutions. Everything has become relative, nothing is certain, nihilism is the new God.
Reducing the size of government won't change the disastrous course which our nations follow. It will merely change the power dynamics of corporation and politician, so that lobbyism will be less needed and corporations can act less cautiously.
In order to restore balance in our civilization, we need the creation of a new moral system, and a political system that reflects this morality.
Fascism does not need to be intrusive on privacy, nor does it need to be politically all-encompasing. But it needs to be a present and powerful moral obligation to all who adhere and coexist with its system.
Small government won't make people suddenly respect the property of others.
Small government won't suddenly restore the belief in a greater goal for mankind than nihilistic pleasures.
Small government won't revitalize a society that has rotted deep into its very core.
Thus a new autocratic system HAS to take the place of the current system, or we'll see the eventual destruction of our civilization, as we are overrun by Muslims, dominated by the East Asians economically and possibly technologically too. All our peoples have worked so hard to build around is will have been for nought, as we sleep on the laurels as our empire slowly disintegrates around us.