NationStates

I am an independent free thinker who has been drifting to the right for years.

I've read through this entire thread and I'm quite disturbed and mystified to see how many people identify with some sort of iteration of fascism, national socialism, totalitarianism, or authoritarianism in general.

Now, I know NationStates is not representative of the general population. There are a lot of teenagers here and teenagers tend to gravitate to whatever they consider edgy, and it's usually a phase, we're also in an era where there is a backlash toward liberalism since many people disillusioned with the neoliberal establishment (to be fair, they should be, neoliberalism is poisonous). I also have to consider that people with such ideas might be inherently more attracted to a nation simulator than others.

Still though, I wonder what it is that draws people to these ideologies.

Page wrote:I've read through this entire thread and I'm quite disturbed and mystified to see how many people identify with some sort of iteration of fascism, national socialism, totalitarianism, or authoritarianism in general.

Now, I know NationStates is not representative of the general population. There are a lot of teenagers here and teenagers tend to gravitate to whatever they consider edgy, and it's usually a phase, we're also in an era where there is a backlash toward liberalism since many people disillusioned with the neoliberal establishment (to be fair, they should be, neoliberalism is poisonous). I also have to consider that people with such ideas might be inherently more attracted to a nation simulator than others.

Still though, I wonder what it is that draws people to these ideologies.

Just look at the poll. 12% are far-right and 18% are far-left. Very worrying.

Page wrote:I've read through this entire thread and I'm quite disturbed and mystified to see how many people identify with some sort of iteration of fascism, national socialism, totalitarianism, or authoritarianism in general.

Now, I know NationStates is not representative of the general population. There are a lot of teenagers here and teenagers tend to gravitate to whatever they consider edgy, and it's usually a phase, we're also in an era where there is a backlash toward liberalism since many people disillusioned with the neoliberal establishment (to be fair, they should be, neoliberalism is poisonous). I also have to consider that people with such ideas might be inherently more attracted to a nation simulator than others.

Still though, I wonder what it is that draws people to these ideologies.

It is due to political polarization currently happening drawing people to extremes. Another factor is the genre of Nation Simulators especially this style of it has attracted people who want change but knows it would not happen which are oftenly extreme ideologies.

Btw I am a libertarian who believes in realpolitik if necessary.

Monarchist Fascist, although I do believe local elections are necessary.

The Philippine Islands of Luzviminda wrote:Btw I am a libertarian who believes in realpolitik if necessary.

I found out from posting in this thread that there's actually a name for my ideology, which is philosophical anarchism. I still prefer left-libertarian though as I think it gets the point across better. I also accept the need for realpolitik.

My policies align with social democracy, but the reasoning behind my backing of such policies is drawn much more from liberal ethics than socialist ideology. I'm also a pragmatist at heart; I see the world as a collection of problems that are interconnected but can be given separate solutions.

Luminesa wrote:

US-SSR wrote:
Fascism.

“These things I do not like are fascism!” Literally nothing he described goes with the traditional definition of fascism.

Well actually, my emphasis upon a corporatist economy, national ( collective ) identity, and rejection of consumerism are pretty in line with a lot of fascist principles. Yet, no, I would not call myself a fascist, on account of me not supporting either an absolute ruler or a single party system.

US-SSR wrote:

Joohan wrote:I am not sure what my ideology is called. Perhaps someone has the right word?

I believe that Christianity is the foundation of society, and that all policy decisions and goals kept in mind by the nation should be in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and the church. I believe that an authoritarian executive ( not an absolute one however ), is necessary to ensure legislative efficiency and stop any political deadlock. I believe that the nation and the collective should be lauded above the individual. I believe that the economy should be thought of an organized as a tool for society - the state intervening when ever necessary on behalf of the nation. I believe that consumerism is a literal cancer which eats away at the health and beauty of the Earth, and should be removed to ensure the peace, security, and prosperity of future generations. I believe that human struggle and adventure are integral to a proper and well lived life. I believe that immigration should be used as a tool for the betterment of the nation, the same with trade. I despise political parties, and would mandate that every politician lead as independents if I could. I believe that citizenship should be earned, and that voting isn't for everyone.

what would you call this?

Luminesa wrote:“These things I do not like are fascism!” Literally nothing he described goes with the traditional definition of fascism.

(emphasis added)

It's like 65% fascistic but not fascist

Page wrote:I've read through this entire thread and I'm quite disturbed and mystified to see how many people identify with some sort of iteration of fascism, national socialism, totalitarianism, or authoritarianism in general.

Now, I know NationStates is not representative of the general population. There are a lot of teenagers here and teenagers tend to gravitate to whatever they consider edgy, and it's usually a phase, we're also in an era where there is a backlash toward liberalism since many people disillusioned with the neoliberal establishment (to be fair, they should be, neoliberalism is poisonous). I also have to consider that people with such ideas might be inherently more attracted to a nation simulator than others.

Still though, I wonder what it is that draws people to these ideologies.

We live in a liberal world order, one which emphasizes hedonism, individualism, and consumerism. Because of this, many of the nuances which used to affect the daily lives our ancestors have been seriously mitigated: faith, nationalism, spirituality, etc. Every great cultural revolution begins as a rejection of the current and predominent culture for it's opposite. The hippies rejected their straight-lace and conservative parents for a life of free love, free drugs, and living free. We ( the millennial's and Gen z ) reject the meaningless hyper individualism of our parents in exchange for religious and national solidarity.

I welcome the change.

Dark Socialism wrote:

US-SSR wrote:


(emphasis added)

It's like 65% fascistic but not fascist

The single party state and executive absolutism are rejected however - two concepts which are integral to fascism. I really don't think that there is a word for it. Kumumba said Christian Monarchy, which I guess might be right.

Other > Right-wing Populist

Joohan wrote:

Page wrote:I've read through this entire thread and I'm quite disturbed and mystified to see how many people identify with some sort of iteration of fascism, national socialism, totalitarianism, or authoritarianism in general.

Now, I know NationStates is not representative of the general population. There are a lot of teenagers here and teenagers tend to gravitate to whatever they consider edgy, and it's usually a phase, we're also in an era where there is a backlash toward liberalism since many people disillusioned with the neoliberal establishment (to be fair, they should be, neoliberalism is poisonous). I also have to consider that people with such ideas might be inherently more attracted to a nation simulator than others.

Still though, I wonder what it is that draws people to these ideologies.

We live in a liberal world order, one which emphasizes hedonism, individualism, and consumerism. Because of this, many of the nuances which used to affect the daily lives our ancestors have been seriously mitigated: faith, nationalism, spirituality, etc. Every great cultural revolution begins as a rejection of the current and predominent culture for it's opposite. The hippies rejected their straight-lace and conservative parents for a life of free love, free drugs, and living free. We ( the millennial's and Gen z ) reject the meaningless hyper individualism of our parents in exchange for religious and national solidarity.

I welcome the change.

Conservatives are not the majority among MIllenials, and while there are some polls showing that Gen Z may be more conservative than the Millenials, Gen Z is nonetheless even less religious. Check out the polls, you'll see that religion is still eroding. I've seen quite a few young people rejecting the liberal ideologies usually associated with atheists, but they don't become believers. A lot of them are Jordan Peterson fans, atheists who swoon over them despite the fact that he has repeatedly insulted them.

Page wrote:

Joohan wrote:
We live in a liberal world order, one which emphasizes hedonism, individualism, and consumerism. Because of this, many of the nuances which used to affect the daily lives our ancestors have been seriously mitigated: faith, nationalism, spirituality, etc. Every great cultural revolution begins as a rejection of the current and predominent culture for it's opposite. The hippies rejected their straight-lace and conservative parents for a life of free love, free drugs, and living free. We ( the millennial's and Gen z ) reject the meaningless hyper individualism of our parents in exchange for religious and national solidarity.

I welcome the change.

Conservatives are not the majority among MIllenials, and while there are some polls showing that Gen Z may be more conservative than the Millenials, Gen Z is nonetheless even less religious. Check out the polls, you'll see that religion is still eroding. I've seen quite a few young people rejecting the liberal ideologies usually associated with atheists, but they don't become believers. A lot of them are Jordan Peterson fans, atheists who swoon over them despite the fact that he has repeatedly insulted them.

A majority of baby-boomers weren't hippies either. It's not about what most of the people are, it's about who is heard the most. And that would be those of us on the dissident right currently. And just as it was in the 60's and 70's, there is no single unified ideological front against the prevailing ideology - only a discontent which can generally be seen gravitating in one direction. In this instance, the right.

Imagine unironically using the terms "totalitarian" and "statist" when describing political groups.

Wawakanatote wrote:Imagine unironically using the terms "totalitarian" and "statist" when describing political groups.

I always hated the negative connotations surrounding a lot of adjectives - such as totalitarianism. People tend to think it synonomous with tyranny, which it isn't. It is possible to have a benign totalitarian state.

Off topic, I know, but just one of my frustrations with the English language.

Moderate Right Libertarian.

I'm a National Syndicalist, although I generally just saw Fascist because I think it's what best describes the majority of my views but lately I'm grown wary of the term as I find it to be too distracting in serious conversations.

Joohan wrote:

Page wrote:I've read through this entire thread and I'm quite disturbed and mystified to see how many people identify with some sort of iteration of fascism, national socialism, totalitarianism, or authoritarianism in general.

Now, I know NationStates is not representative of the general population. There are a lot of teenagers here and teenagers tend to gravitate to whatever they consider edgy, and it's usually a phase, we're also in an era where there is a backlash toward liberalism since many people disillusioned with the neoliberal establishment (to be fair, they should be, neoliberalism is poisonous). I also have to consider that people with such ideas might be inherently more attracted to a nation simulator than others.

Still though, I wonder what it is that draws people to these ideologies.

We live in a liberal world order, one which emphasizes hedonism, individualism, and consumerism. Because of this, many of the nuances which used to affect the daily lives our ancestors have been seriously mitigated: faith, nationalism, spirituality, etc. Every great cultural revolution begins as a rejection of the current and predominent culture for it's opposite. The hippies rejected their straight-lace and conservative parents for a life of free love, free drugs, and living free. We ( the millennial's and Gen z ) reject the meaningless hyper individualism of our parents in exchange for religious and national solidarity.

I welcome the change.

What is wrong with freedom if it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom?

Im one of them that red menaces so i am, hiding under your bed at night to steal your apple pie, nationalist the chairs and distribute das kapital.


Seriously though yeah ive always been solidly left wing, socialist has always been the term ive used to describe myself. Well that and the red menance.

Also partially an irish nationalist as its the community i come from here in NI

From the thing i said earlier I think Meta-Fascist Primitivist who believes in elective monarchy and radical traditionalism

Joohan wrote:

Wawakanatote wrote:Imagine unironically using the terms "totalitarian" and "statist" when describing political groups.

I always hated the negative connotations surrounding a lot of adjectives - such as totalitarianism. People tend to think it synonomous with tyranny, which it isn't. It is possible to have a benign totalitarian state.

Off topic, I know, but just one of my frustrations with the English language.

No it isn't. Totalitarian structures imperatively benefit the upper rungs of society at the expense of the rest. That's where their foundations are, no matter how "benign" its leadership is.

Anti-Orthodox and anti-nationalist progressive liberal. Orthodox Christianity as practised by the Former Soviet people is the most purely empty form of virtue signalling and nationalism is just masturbation.

Joohan wrote:

Wawakanatote wrote:Imagine unironically using the terms "totalitarian" and "statist" when describing political groups.

I always hated the negative connotations surrounding a lot of adjectives - such as totalitarianism. People tend to think it synonomous with tyranny, which it isn't. It is possible to have a benign totalitarian state.

Off topic, I know, but just one of my frustrations with the English language.

No, totalitarian governments inevitably stay in power through minimising the chance of revolution - which is often done through oppression of the general population