Can someone explain to me, as someone with little knowledge of these ideologies...

The Austrofascists were heavily catholic, but then the good goy nazi thugs destroyed the sovereignty of their nation.

The state exists to serve those that make it up (people). You have it backwards.

In fact this thread is full of so much bullshit it would take hours to fix this whole fucking mess.

It wouldn't work. National Socialism and Fascism seem nice to Holla Forums because of their pseudo-traditionalism and pseudo-intellectualism but they are both built on the nihilist revolution (the "vitalist stage). In fact polacks can smell the bullshit when they come across those pseudo-intellectual works of Hitler's propagandists such as that "Myth of the 20th century" book that was pushed here a few days ago.

What we need is to go back to the days of the Old Order. This guy does a good defense of many of the monarchies that were faced with revolution:

madmonarchist.blogspot.com.

look at him and laugh

Things move forward for a reason. Returning to a pure monarchy model ignores the lessons of history and doesn't take into account ruling efficiencies through specialization of tasks. Democracy has clearly failed, and Federalism has proved unable to maintain itself or serve the greater good. But we should be wary of simplistic models that we know are impractical and easily toppled like a pure monarchy.

Read these OP. Probably the best collection of Fascist Philosophy in the world. Not a well known work bet excellent in quality. Written just a few years ago by a modern day fascist historian as well. ( who happens to be Eastern Orthodox Christian in his religion) (i believe some kind of clergy)

THE CODEX FASCISMO

This is mostly a large compendium of original source works of all the original fascist philosophers. Although the author does do a little bit of writing mostly as an introduction in each book. The last book of the Codex Fascismo also has a section on National Socialism and compares and contrasts them.

Pics Related.

*Note there is no book One in the Codex. Book One is the Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini.

Its amusing how people here reject the mainstream narratives about WWII but trust them with anything even a little further back. Most Monarchies were really improving their countries pre-WWI but they were set back and ultimately destroyed by the machinations of radical-revolutionaries and the onset of WWI.

Take Russia for example. The country was setting the foundations for modernisation under Stolypins reforms so the revolutionaries killed him so that conditions wouldn't improve.

The White Army was actually doing very well and industrial production of weapons was hugely increasing but it was traitors at home who lost the war and destroyed the Empire just like with Germany.

Seeing as every country is now controlled by these Jewish traitors and Hitler also lost to them I fail to see how you can say that Monarchy is worse than what we have today. Theologically and philosophically it is the only system that supports the Order and Traditionalism that people here clearly desire.

Additionally, to say that "things move forward for a reason" is simply to use the same arguments that "progressives" use. "We're progressing". Well then, "Whither? For how long? And what then?" as Spengler said.

or we could spend our time and effort to eradicate psychopathy and fix 99% of our problems once and for all

Is there a download link for these?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with monarchy except that it easily toppled, as history has proven. George Washington, Oliver Cromwell, the Jacobites, had 'grievances' and threw off the monarchy. I'm not saying I approve or that this was wise, but it happened, and it will happen again and again. Of course you have to out-progress the progressive, unless you want to always remain one step behind and out of power.

Monarchs often can't trust their own people. The people must be appeased and the state must have legitimacy. Divine rule isn't persuasive unless there is a church to preach that to the people. But government must rule over the people with strictness - so the good king needs to outsource this to the civil governor. The military prevents a coup against the king or church or fuhrer by one of the others or by the people, and all branches are jealous against foreigner subversion. Monarchy is good, but there must be a better monarchy-system than those that went before.

You can easily find pdfs of The Doctrine of Fascism online. The Codex you can buy on Kindle. I think the Codex books are $2.99 a piece if I remember correctly.

...

I remember seeing a .webm a while back that had Benito Mussolini saying something along the lines of "I will walk by my friend to the bitter end" or something. Then it shows Hitler returning the gesture. I've looked for it on jewtube but have been having no luck, anybody here have it?

Well I generally look to the Tsars in Russia and the Emperors of Byzantium for my ideal balance of Church and State but I'm looking into the reforms that were going to be enacted just pre-revolution in Russia.

As I said, n government stood against the forces of revolution.

If you want to read into that, look up Pyotr Stolypin and his reforms, he was quite a dude.
His plan called for breaking up the peasant communes by allowing for individual property rights. He believed that enough of the peasants (no longer serfs), would be hardworking and farsighted enough to want to create their own farms away from the communes. The communes themselves were artificial forms of control, despite the narodniks believing themselves to be the 'truest form of socialism'. Basically these peasants could say no to staying in the commune and liquidate their holdings. I don't remember if they got a certain acreage from the commune land or were able to get a similar amount of acreage somewhere else. Either way they had the opportunity. Also he suspended redemption payments which were essentially a huge mortgage on holding land, something broke peasants couldn't afford. Stolypin had said 'Wager on the strong and sober' and indeed many industrious peasants had started creating farms and wealth for themselves (kulaks). Unfortunately he also said don't get involved in a war for the next 20 years or this won't work, but then WWI happened. When the revolution started, the commune peasants were the ones who killed the kulaks out of spite. Even so, a lot of the peasants were ass backwards and probably wouldn't have gone for individual land ownership as opposed to the 'security' (crab mentality) of the commune. It wasn't until Stalin started shooting them onto tractors that they were really broken up.

I wouldn't lionize the tsars that much, at least not Nicholas II who seems to me either grossly incompetent or horrifically naive. That being said he didn't deserve being butchered by a Bolshevik murderer.
A lot of things went bad in a short time period in Russia which undermined the reforms. Vera Zasulich assassinating the governor of St. Peterburg and plain sight and being acquitted undermined the court system. World War I of course did not help the cause of the Kadets as the royalists were undermining their efforts - look into how they manipulated the train depots and circumvented the Duma. The peasants, who were on the side of the tsar for forever, were lost on Bloody Sunday when Father Gapon's followers were shot in the street.The Myth of the Little Father, which is essentially that the tsar is being blinded by the evil nobility against the plight of the peasants and that if he only knew he would come in and save them.

NS is manifestation of Fascism in Germany of the time.

...

Modern collapse of these things are just the natural consequences of empire. Look at a place like Switzerland, Luxembourg, or any out of the way white civilization. They functioned fine for years until they fall under the sway of an empire.

We have a few nowadays — the EU and the US are mainly the one's we're concerned about. Countries fall under their sway and suffer from their plagues.

Empire is a double-edged sword. The power to save yourself from destruction, but the inherent and coming decline afterwards.

One is for faggots and the other is for queers.

Yeah, I've only just started looking into Stolypin and such. I know that the Tsar made mistakes but I don't think he was as bad as he was made out to be. He was a good Tsar when Russia needed a great Tsar.

Literally 5 post that addresses OP before you post and that would take hours fix.

There isn't a real difference. National Socialism was more racially-motivated and pro-market than Fascism. National Socialism emerged from the german Conservative Revolutionaries, Social Darwinism and with some Volkisch woo mixed in. Fascism began in France as an alliance between Syndicalists and Monarchists and was turned into a corporatist movement by Mussolini. It was then given an intellectual polishing by Giovanni Gentile, who added some quasi-Hegelian woo.

I believe what you're looking for is Dildocracy.

In this post, I'm disregarding economic regulations differences because fascism and NS are pretty similar.

Fascism, an Italian-centric ideologie, hopes that a culture or belief system can be imbued onto a population regardless of their genetic propenstities. Italians are nigger-tier and got raped to hell by mudslime conquests, so ofc they would pretend they're good people when every higher white race knows they're shit-tier. Eveyone hates Italian, they're pure niggerish trash just like muzzie-raped Spaniards. They can't be considered white or acceptable in polite societies. Italy has a huge fucking mess to fix, that may never be fixed, because their genetics are so fucked up thanks to nigger rape.

NatSoc has much better odds in the race dept, given that Germany has less mass-rape aside from the Slavic East Berlin mass rapes. Furthermore, slavs are not as drastically different as the niggers and mudslimes that Italians got raped by. Slavs are still shit individuals, though. Fuck them all, just make them a white trash buffer between Western true Europe.

NatSoc recognises that genes do matter. It doesn't matter that your shitskin dad was a good person, inheritance regresses to the mean. That is why first gen legal immigrants are okay, but their children are shit. It takes centuries or millenia of intense selective pressures to create a gene pool of reliably decent organisms.

Splendour, beauty, and fragility are worth protecting. Fuck swag.

In one system you're a pennyless serf who follows orders from your overlords and in the other you're a pennyless serf who follows orders from your overlords.

Be more specific or fuck off, nigger. Not everything can be reduced to absolute slave and absolute master. Kike motherfucker. Everything is black and white, isn't it? Spite your nose.

Spergkraut?

You sound pathetic.

Okay. Prove me wrong. All Euros north of Italy and Spain hate their halfbreeed asses. So does Canada, Aus, NZ, and USA. Wog fuckers of ill repute for centuries.

8ch.net/pol/res/6286067.html
Check the catalog.

Lurk more.

Fascism is for the State, NatSoc is for the Folk. Think of it as analogous to Romans and Germans respectively.

Wat? This thread has nothing to do with this thread.

Roman Common Law VS German Civil Code

I bought the the 4th pic. I have only gotten 10% into the book but it has the same vibes as any other fascist book.
Fascism and NatSoc talks about the same problems but compared to NatSoc, fascism feels like a rebellious teenager. The deepth of understanding, philosophical thinking and solutions to the problems is just miles ahead on the NatSoc side. Fascism is childish compared to NatSoc.
I will continue reading the book and see if it gets better

forgot to add: while NatSoc is a fully grown man.

wat

The problem with those ideologies is that they were essentially in baby shoes at the end of WW2 and have remained so for 70 years.

They were created in the 20's, refined a bit in the 30's and then killed off in the 40's. After that they have remained untouched and thus do not really fit our modern world. They don't address issues like cyber security or automatization.

I'm not aware of any recent attempts to refine these old ideologies into the 21st century. If there isn't one I think we could even consider having a go at it ourselves.

The 2 issues you mentioned are already considered quite big on here, so I wouldn't see a problem with doing that.

First we need to find plenty of literature on the subject, get them into downloadable pdf/epub form, go through them all and then start discussing what to remove, what to add and what to refine.

The core value after all is really simple. One race, culture and language per country and a state to protect them.

I'm no a fascist so i will no speak for them, but for NatSoc nothing set in stone since it's a weltanschauung and not a specific system with 100% defined rules.
Just like says
It's up to each country what is most fitting for them, at the current world situation and era.

American with pure anglo ancestry here.
I'm good friends with a russian slav and a (northern) italian. They are as white as me.

Personally, you sound like a jew or shitskin trying to d/c with the "not true white" line.

Fucking burgers. Every goddamn time.

He says in part 7 & 8 that part 1 will come out 2014-2016. But i guess the doctrine of fascism is a good substitute.

OP, ignore everything and read this:

worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

fascism is the spaghetti while national socialism is the frankfurt sausage

I've never had any real problems when I've had Italians employed other than them getting pissed off when you fuck up identifying spaghetti.

national socialism is a form of fascism

fuck off, you anti-white kike

Let me guess, blue-pilled burger who thinks socialism is bad, because people keep using it to describe progressives.

socialism is bad because it's inherently inefficient, even in an ethnically homogeneous society.

Maybe certain aspects are beneficial, such as universal healthcare and public schooling, but in the traditional sense of the word, it's an economically destructive system.

kek

Yeah I can't get over the statism part. I sympathize, but fuck that I will keep my freedom.

Romans didn't have common law, it was an Anglo Norman invention to take the courts out of the Lords estates.

Let me stop you right there………

So how did this fit with what I read here on Holla Forums about how Hitler thought Mussolini was a dipshit?

Arthur Kemp would argue that such a collapse is only a temporary thing if the founding people of said empire are still pure.

So why the fuck is this bumplocked.

Fucking faggot mods.

GG, you picked the one that isn't mixed.

That's even shittier than the Molyneux Dresden thread being locked.

The reason you have that complaint is because you don't like the idea of uncontrollable or unchecked people doing things for themselves alone and just using everyone else to make that happen, stepping on anyone that's in the way.

Like the kikes do.

The reason this is different is the leadership is people who are actually like you, and the only thing they care about is the people. Because of this, you have your freedom as a part of the people. Things are done on your behalf, not to you.

You best be joking:
google.com/search?q=kindle 1984 incident

Never mind the privacy issues.

Hitler had great respect for Mussolini. But when it came to military business he said he was, to put it mildly, unprepared.

Ok i read most of part 7 of 4 pic and i gotta give it to him he makes it clear what fascism is and thats the sad part since genuine fascism is just crypto-communism or something like syndicalist Strasserism.
So i went to part 8 (the natsoc part) and not to suprising he has no idea what NatSoc is. The sources he use is from american natsoc movements. The only source that is from germany is Nazi-Sozi. Literlly a 35 pages pamphlet for the very basic basic man.
The part where he talks about NSDAPs programme made me so angry that i had to stop reading for a while. He has no idea what any of the points really mean and cuz of that no idea if they were implemented or not.

I cant be bother to spell check their will be lost of spelling and grammatical errors.

Also why the fuck did this thread get bumplocked?

You mean the Austrians (i.e. Germans) destroyed their nation (i.e. Germany) by joining with… Germany?