Fascism Discussion Thread

[Neanderthaland]

Let's destroy what makes us human and reprogram it to make us all little worker bees contributing to something that only exists to stomp on the working class.

Yay, fascism!

Do you realize that recreational copulation is not an integral component of society? Unless, of course, you provide some document or article that details how recreational deviancy has shaped human history into the modern day, and not the ambitions of the working class and national identities.

It's an integral component of the human species. Humans and Banobos engage in recreational copulation in place of grooming behavior.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Do you realize that recreational copulation is not an integral component of society? Unless, of course, you provide some document or article that details how recreational deviancy has shaped human history into the modern day, and not the ambitions of the working class and national identities.

It's an integral component of the human species. Humans and Banobos engage in recreational copulation in place of grooming behavior.

Oh I think I found my new term for my sluttiness

[Prolix Debate]

Do you realize that recreational copulation is not an integral component of society? Unless, of course, you provide some document or article that details how recreational deviancy has shaped human history into the modern day, and not the ambitions of the working class and national identities.

Shit, do you get out much?

No; I reside within my home without any form of external interaction...

That is quite a comical question to ask.

Most societies (e.g. Europe) had good luck with that concept for quite some time; mostly enforced through religious practices transplanted into codes of law.

Of course, nowadays, this "deviancy" has been resurrected and embedded into society because of "social progression".

Sure they did.

Not sure why I bother. Fascism has historically been a generating force of sexual deviancy, if anything. I'd be happy to provide citation, alas the pg-13 rule is in effect.

From all of the texts that I have scoured, not many infer to sexual deviancy in Fascism as a propelling factor. But, maybe I am indeed wrong; who truly knows?

[Bakery Hill]

It's an integral component of the human species. Humans and Banobos engage in recreational copulation in place of grooming behavior.

Oh I think I found my new term for my sluttiness

It'd be a good name for a really indie band as well.

[Neanderthaland]

Shit, do you get out much?

No; I reside within my home without any form of external interaction...

That is quite a comical question to ask.

Sure they did.

Not sure why I bother. Fascism has historically been a generating force of sexual deviancy, if anything. I'd be happy to provide citation, alas the pg-13 rule is in effect.

From all of the texts that I have scoured, not many infer to sexual deviancy in Fascism as a propelling factor. But, maybe I am indeed wrong; who truly knows?

I bet Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS does.

[Bakery Hill]

Shit, do you get out much?

No; I reside within my home without any form of external interaction...

That is quite a comical question to ask.

Well life's pretty comical really, unless you're a "clerical fascist" I suppose.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Oh I think I found my new term for my sluttiness

It'd be a good name for a really indie band as well.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Grooming Behavior, followed by Clerical Fascists.
Man that acually does sound good

[Bakery Hill]

It'd be a good name for a really indie band as well.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Grooming Behavior, followed by Clerical Fascists.
Man that acually does sound good

It's gold. Do you play an instrument? I'll take bass ukulele or synthesiser.

Our first concept album can be called Recreational Copulation.

[Neanderthaland]

Ladies and Gentlemen, Grooming Behavior, followed by Clerical Fascists.
Man that acually does sound good

It's gold. Do you play an instrument? I'll take bass ukulele or synthesiser.

Our first concept album can be called Recreational Copulation.

"Though Recreational Copulation was widely popular, it was frequently criticized as being too short. A follow-up performance was originally planned, but took so long in coming that fans lost interest."

[Zaurell]

Noticed some folks asking about what exactly Fascism is. Here's an explanation of what I, as a Fascist, consider Fascism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICPKcng9_SU

[Mattopilos]

Noticed some folks asking about what exactly Fascism is. Here's an explanation of what I, as a Fascist, consider Fascism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICPKcng9_SU

Hmmm, I share quite a few of the views economically, then (protectionism economically and trade-wise). As I have mentioned before, though, I just don't see the appeal with an absolute authority.

[Zaurell]

Noticed some folks asking about what exactly Fascism is. Here's an explanation of what I, as a Fascist, consider Fascism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICPKcng9_SU

Hmmm, I share quite a few of the views economically, then (protectionism economically and trade-wise). As I have mentioned before, though, I just don't see the appeal with an absolute authority.

As the video stated, a wise leader will look out for the good of the people. If not because he/she cares about their well-being, then because they have him or her greatly outnumbered.

[Mattopilos]

Hmmm, I share quite a few of the views economically, then (protectionism economically and trade-wise). As I have mentioned before, though, I just don't see the appeal with an absolute authority.

As the video stated, a wise leader will look out for the good of the people. If not because he/she cares about their well-being, then because they have him or her greatly outnumbered.

Still not a fan of the concept. They still place a large amount of power in one individual and that still means they could act outside the true needs of the people. coercion from the masses should hardly be the reason they do good, but rather of their own self interest... which would be nor being a ruler, but a leader (someone without true authority but gives guidance).

[Zaurell]

As the video stated, a wise leader will look out for the good of the people. If not because he/she cares about their well-being, then because they have him or her greatly outnumbered.

Still not a fan of the concept. They still place a large amount of power in one individual and that still means they could act outside the true needs of the people. coercion from the masses should hardly be the reason they do good, but rather of their own self interest... which would be nor being a ruler, but a leader (someone without true authority but gives guidance).

I'm not saying fear of the masses should be the reason they do good, it's just a built-in safeguard should all else fail. The idea of a leader who has no authority but gives guidance is nice but a voice of reason isn't always heard.

[Mattopilos]

Still not a fan of the concept. They still place a large amount of power in one individual and that still means they could act outside the true needs of the people. coercion from the masses should hardly be the reason they do good, but rather of their own self interest... which would be nor being a ruler, but a leader (someone without true authority but gives guidance).

I'm not saying fear of the masses should be the reason they do good, it's just a built-in safeguard should all else fail. The idea of a leader who has no authority but gives guidance is nice but a voice of reason isn't always heard.

That will always be the case, and it has to do with the attitude of the people in the nation. Political apathy in the 'moderate' citizens is one reason, and lack of clear and concise understanding on the consensus of current fact (science, history or other factual concepts) is another. Media sucks, as does the overbearing of religions on each other and non-religious people. Class consciousness, as well as education and dialectic attitudes will remedy that over time. Soon? No, but it can happen. In other words, people don't know what they want, because they have been presented with misconceptions from the current political mess currently happening and from the attitude that their ignorance is just as good as our fact.

[Zaurell]

I'm not saying fear of the masses should be the reason they do good, it's just a built-in safeguard should all else fail. The idea of a leader who has no authority but gives guidance is nice but a voice of reason isn't always heard.

That will always be the case, and it has to do with the attitude of the people in the nation. Political apathy in the 'moderate' citizens is one reason, and lack of clear and concise understanding on the consensus of current fact (science, history or other factual concepts) is another. Media sucks, as does the overbearing of religions on each other and non-religious people. Class consciousness, as well as education and dialectic attitudes will remedy that over time. Soon? No, but it can happen. In other words, people don't know what they want, because they have been presented with misconceptions from the current political mess currently happening and from the attitude that their ignorance is just as good as our fact.

You say the people don't know what they want. To me, that sounds a bit like an argument for one authority capable of ordering better education and regulating the media to avoid a variety of problems. BTW, it's getting late in my time zone so if I don't reply, I might have gone to bed.

[Mattopilos]

That will always be the case, and it has to do with the attitude of the people in the nation. Political apathy in the 'moderate' citizens is one reason, and lack of clear and concise understanding on the consensus of current fact (science, history or other factual concepts) is another. Media sucks, as does the overbearing of religions on each other and non-religious people. Class consciousness, as well as education and dialectic attitudes will remedy that over time. Soon? No, but it can happen. In other words, people don't know what they want, because they have been presented with misconceptions from the current political mess currently happening and from the attitude that their ignorance is just as good as our fact.

You say the people don't know what they want. To me, that sounds a bit like an argument for one authority capable of ordering better education and regulating the media to avoid a variety of problems. BTW, it's getting late in my time zone so if I don't reply, I might have gone to bed.

Fair enough.

I can see how one might reach that conclusion, but I don't think an authority would be required to do so, but rather more education on such matters. In other words, the people who know what the hell they are talking about should out of their own self interests educate those who are unsure or are outright factually wrong on a subject. Dialectic over debate, I would say.
People listening to the media is a problem just as much as the media itself. The primary objective there is to make sure people are aware that not everything they see in the media is true, and that being skeptical of such things isn't wrong, within reason e.g. being skeptical of something that is clearly fact such as the safety of GMOs just because someone said they were safe in the media is an absurd thing to do. Again, individualism can still be protected here without the need of an authority to do so.

[Zaurell]

You say the people don't know what they want. To me, that sounds a bit like an argument for one authority capable of ordering better education and regulating the media to avoid a variety of problems. BTW, it's getting late in my time zone so if I don't reply, I might have gone to bed.

Fair enough.

I can see how one might reach that conclusion, but I don't think an authority would be required to do so, but rather more education on such matters. In other words, the people who know what the hell they are talking about should out of their own self interests educate those who are unsure or are outright factually wrong on a subject. Dialectic over debate, I would say.
People listening to the media is a problem just as much as the media itself. The primary objective there is to make sure people are aware that not everything they see in the media is true, and that being skeptical of such things isn't wrong, within reason e.g. being skeptical of something that is clearly fact such as the safety of GMOs just because someone said they were safe in the media is an absurd thing to do. Again, individualism can still be protected here without the need of an authority to do so.

All noble ideals but the problem arises that in a democratic society, the people rejecting facts can still vote. The religious fundamentalists aren't going to be inclined to support education that teaches scientific fact that contradicts some belief of theirs. The parents who think vaccines cause autism aren't likely to support education that points out truthfully that vaccines are a good thing. Etc. etc.
I do believe education is a must but getting everybody to agree to what a good education is will be undermined by fringe groups.

[Mattopilos]

All noble ideals but the problem arises that in a democratic society, the people rejecting facts can still vote. The religious fundamentalists aren't going to be inclined to support education that teaches scientific fact that contradicts some belief of theirs. The parents who think vaccines cause autism aren't likely to support education that points out truthfully that vaccines are a good thing. Etc. etc.
I do believe education is a must but getting everybody to agree to what a good education is will be undermined by fringe groups.

Which is why I said a change in attitude in society is required, just as it would be to accept your system. The dialectic attitude is what is needed. This attitude should radiate through the largest group than through the fringe groups, so even democratically they would lose out. Common sense may not be common, but it is still more common than outright batshittery. I would propose direct democracy as well, so such ideas cannot be expressed even more by placing the power in one person who makes the final decision anyway. And, as you said, those with merit would be the people that others would listen to, not persuasion - that would be dialectic being viewed as a better thought process than debate (which is really just trying to win others to your side without a strict regard for fact).

[Wulfenia]

Except in social democracy, the goal is complacency. Give the working class what issue they want (minimum wage, paid leave, etc) so they shut up and let the capitalists continue to exploit their labour.

While exploitation of labor does happens, and corporatism has it's own answers to this, if you think getting rid of the bourgeois will solve problems, then you clearly haven't thought things through. In the event of a proletariat victory, how do you expect people not trained to manage and organize industry to suddenly start doing exactly that? As easy as it is to picture CEO's taking naps and relaxing while workers slave away in your head, that's not how it works in reality.

Private enterprise has shown itself to be the most productive means of social ownership, and for that reason, it is preferable to the theoretical notions of socialism.

Class struggle is only something that I reluctantly support, a more collaborative form of society would be far more to my liking.
All the underlined I do oppose as well though.

Class collaboration is a core tenet of fascism. The capitalists work against the interest of the workers in order to enrich themselves and keep the workers dependent upon them for their own survival. The workers are maddened by their material conditions, but instead of working to overthrow the reasoning behind their oppression fascists work to trick and indoctrinate the masses to further their own goals and protect the state (see scapgoating of minorities in italy and germany and the rise of nationalism and militarism).

As much as you lot would like to think that the workers all agree with you, they don't. There are workers who hate capitalism, but others who support and admire it, and others who don't care either way. The Marxist delusion that their beliefs are historically inevitable make them unable to realize that other movements can appeal to the interests of the workers as much as they can.

To say that Italian Fascists used Slavs and Germans as "scapegoats," would be ridiculous. They wanted to Italianize them, and were not afraid to use brutal measures to achieve that end, but they were never the archetypal Other in Fascist propaganda like the Jews were to the Nazis.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Fascism is an interesting ideology. It is basically conservatism to the extreme. Nazi Germany was probably the most famous fascist nation in history and that is the government I base my NS nation on. There are hardly any fascist states today because fascism was the losing ideology in World War II. One fascist state today is Sudan under Omar al-Bashir. He is a member of the National Congress Party. The National Congress Party is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is another fascist organization. There is also a power struggle in Palestine between fascist Hamas and socialist Fatah. Fascism may become the dominant ideology in Palestine soon. Fascism may also make a comeback in Europe due to rising nationalism. It will be interesting to see the future of the far-right.

The Muslim Brotherhood is Fundamentalist-Populist.

Not Fascist. Not even Clerical Fascist. (I suppose you might be able to make some sort of an argument on Khomeini being one. But that would be a stretch. )

[Zaurell]

All noble ideals but the problem arises that in a democratic society, the people rejecting facts can still vote. The religious fundamentalists aren't going to be inclined to support education that teaches scientific fact that contradicts some belief of theirs. The parents who think vaccines cause autism aren't likely to support education that points out truthfully that vaccines are a good thing. Etc. etc.
I do believe education is a must but getting everybody to agree to what a good education is will be undermined by fringe groups.

Which is why I said a change in attitude in society is required, just as it would be to accept your system. The dialectic attitude is what is needed. This attitude should radiate through the largest group than through the fringe groups, so even democratically they would lose out. Common sense may not be common, but it is still more common than outright batshittery. I would propose direct democracy as well, so such ideas cannot be expressed even more by placing the power in one person who makes the final decision anyway. And, as you said, those with merit would be the people that others would listen to, not persuasion - that would be dialectic being viewed as a better thought process than debate (which is really just trying to win others to your side without a strict regard for fact).

I know you're denouncing debate but I'm really enjoying ours.

Anyways, we both agree that a change in society's attitude is necessary. The only difference is how we propose this come about. What you are advocating is that we wait for it to come about naturally. My argument would be that the authority figure could bring it about more quickly, thus avoiding some time in which ignorance would still be a strong presence. Your counter to this is the proposal of direct democracy to avoid the authority figure being a member of one of the fringe groups. Now, I see where you are coming from but ideally there would be safeguards in place in choosing the authority figure that would prevent one of the crazies from taking power. Furthermore, I must dispute direct democracy. I dispute this on the grounds that the vast majority of the populace isn't familiar with every nuance of politics nor are they necessarily willing to take the time to become familiar. This could cause quite a few problems when decisions are being made. For example, many people support the government doing all sorts of helpful things. Problem is, these helpful things cost money and nobody likes taxes. Therefore, the programs might not be paid for unless the national debt is increased and that is never a good thing.

EDIT: Off to bed, talk more tomorrow.

[Jochizyd Republic]

The Muslim Brotherhood is Fundamentalist-Populist.

Not Fascist. Not even Clerical Fascist. (I suppose you might be able to make some sort of an argument on Khomeini being one. But that would be a stretch. )

Why did they partner with the Nazis during World War II then?

Because they weren't Fundamentalists back then. Hassan I Banna was an Islamic Modernist. but since they've become extremeley powerful they've shifted into Puritan Reformism. Especially due to the philosophy of Sayyid Qutb and the opposition of them by Nationalists in the 1952 Revolution.

[Mattopilos]

I know you're denouncing debate but I'm really enjoying ours.

Anyways, we both agree that a change in society's attitude is necessary. The only difference is how we propose this come about. What you are advocating is that we wait for it to come about naturally. My argument would be that the authority figure could bring it about more quickly, thus avoiding some time in which ignorance would still be a strong presence. Your counter to this is the proposal of direct democracy to avoid the authority figure being a member of one of the fringe groups. Now, I see where you are coming from but ideally there would be safeguards in place in choosing the authority figure that would prevent one of the crazies from taking power. Furthermore, I must dispute direct democracy. I dispute this on the grounds that the vast majority of the populace isn't familiar with every nuance of politics nor are they necessarily willing to take the time to become familiar. This could cause quite a few problems when decisions are being made. For example, many people support the government doing all sorts of helpful things. Problem is, these helpful things cost money and nobody likes taxes. Therefore, the programs might not be paid for unless the national debt is increased and that is never a good thing.

EDIT: Off to bed, talk more tomorrow.

Actually, I am suggesting more of a revolution of some sort, ideally one like in Iceland - that would be the most peaceful possible revolution one could have. The other possibility is insurrection until that is possible, and a society with direct democracy and a different attitude towards what society is is reached.
Safeguarding who gets in still has its problems. One cannot tell what an authority figure will be like at face value. If that were the case, all politicians would be amazing and do what we wanted them to. That hasn't happened, ever.
Direct democracy doesn't require everyone to vote, so that shouldn't be a huge problem. Also, if one is educated in what the decision will mean is voting yes or no, then the decision is at least informed. This is compared to what many decisions are like in politics, where they just expect you to know what the outcome actually means.
That issue to explain is the problem with income inequality and the issue of how wage is distributed.

[Great Kauthar]

I'm not a Fascist but I strongly sympathize with Clerical Fascism (such as that espoused by the Rexists, the Ustase and the Fatherland Front)

>Fetishizes Serbia
>Likes the Ustaše

Welcome back to another episode of "Things the Jochizyd Republic assume about Kauthar that aren't true."