Fascism

[New Emeline]

You are a fake Hebrew, goyim! You didn't offer a shekel to YHWH before entering this place! Fascist infiltrators like you will never degenerate the Jewish master race. :^)

N-no, I promise I am 150%! I have my gentile servant around here somewhere...

150%! You have been corrupted! Us real Jews are all 200%!

[Torrocca]

N-no, I promise I am 150%! I have my gentile servant around here somewhere...

150%! You have been corrupted! Us real Jews are all 200%!

You've been compromised as well, goyim! We've increased to 300% since yesterday!

[Britannic Unity]

I notice that "militaristic" is thrown around a lot in these criterion. This seems problematic because it seemingly implies figures such as Mosley (who was openly against military interventionism), Engelbert Dollfuss, or Antonio Salazar were not fascists because of their anti-militaristic or neutral stances on militarism.

I also notice a few people trying to make the case that fascism isn't racist because it focuses on (which is technically not race) and/or is less racist than one might suppose. This is also patently false. Most early fascist theorists like Maurras and Sorel were, strictly speaking, obsessed with race and racial theory, and even Mussolini, who people often regard as a "moderate fascist" openly ascribed to racial theories on many accounts.

[West Leas Oros]

Highly nationalistic, with a focus on unity. That's sort of what the fasces represents - a bunch of twigs that would be weaker alone are bound together and thus made strong.

It's almost always right-wing as well, though IMO it can take different forms; National Socialism, for example, had some more left-ish economics going on. However, Communism and Socialism are NOT Fascism.

This is the only post that is both true and correct I’ve seen for the last few pages.

[Kramanica]

N-no, I promise I am 150%! I have my gentile servant around here somewhere...

150%! You have been corrupted! Us real Jews are all 200%!

*hisses, transforms into a lizard and crawls away*

[Lux Pulchrae]

Highly nationalistic, with a focus on unity. That's sort of what the fasces represents - a bunch of twigs that would be weaker alone are bound together and thus made strong.

It's almost always right-wing as well, though IMO it can take different forms; National Socialism, for example, had some more left-ish economics going on. However, Communism and Socialism are NOT Fascism.

This is the only post that is both true and correct I’ve seen for the last few pages.

Ok, communism and socialism aren’t fascism but how we’ve seen communism implemented in the practical world I.e. the Soviet Union where everyone does act as one with the state to further progress. You can definitely draw some parallels

[Internationalist Bastard]

This is the only post that is both true and correct I’ve seen for the last few pages.

Ok, communism and socialism aren’t fascism but how we’ve seen communism implemented in the practical world I.e. the Soviet Union where everyone does act as one with the state to further progress. You can definitely draw some parallels

Yes. To borrow a term from Kaisereich cuz I like it, Totalism is very similar to fascism

[Cekoviu]

uhhhhhhhhhh you might want to read up on that some more

>yeah bro read some wikipedia and slate bro.

What exactly do you think is wrong with Wikipedia?

[Cekoviu]

This is the only post that is both true and correct I’ve seen for the last few pages.

Ok, communism and socialism aren’t fascism but how we’ve seen communism implemented in the practical world I.e. the Soviet Union where everyone does act as one with the state to further progress. You can definitely draw some parallels

Similar to fascism != actual fascism

[Gharrow]

This is the only post that is both true and correct I’ve seen for the last few pages.

Ok, communism and socialism aren’t fascism but how we’ve seen communism implemented in the practical world I.e. the Soviet Union where everyone does act as one with the state to further progress. You can definitely draw some parallels

But the reasons behind their actions are totally different, so they are still totally disparate ideologies, despite both being authoritarian to at least some extent.

[Ifreann]

Embrace full automation, comrade. Set down your tools and relax, the machines will see to all our needs.

That will make us weak and decadent.

Yes, exactly. It will be wonderful.

We can have machines but we still have to all make a honest living.

No, see, we have the machines so that we don't have to work.

With communism and capitalism it always leads to degeneracy and social decadence.

Sexy, sexy decadence.

Also who will pay for or make the machines?

Other machines.

Machines also cant do things like defend borders

or anything creative like accounting

Sure they can.

---

Yep.

In my opinion, the way banking operates, as well as currency as a whole, is theft.

Currency in its self is just a means to exchange and if done properly where the government creates and determines money circulation its amazing

Money is a sign of poverty.

[The Parkus Empire]

I notice that "militaristic" is thrown around a lot in these criterion. This seems problematic because it seemingly implies figures such as Mosley (who was openly against military interventionism), Engelbert Dollfuss, or Antonio Salazar were not fascists because of their anti-militaristic or neutral stances on militarism.

I also notice a few people trying to make the case that fascism isn't racist because it focuses on (which is technically not race) and/or is less racist than one might suppose. This is also patently false. Most early fascist theorists like Maurras and Sorel were, strictly speaking, obsessed with race and racial theory, and even Mussolini, who people often regard as a "moderate fascist" openly ascribed to racial theories on many accounts.

I would say Mosley didn't want to intervene specifically because he didn't want to support to anti fascist side.

I don't regard Salazar or Dollfuss as fascists, just as conservatives and fine men.

[Cekoviu]

I notice that "militaristic" is thrown around a lot in these criterion. This seems problematic because it seemingly implies figures such as Mosley (who was openly against military interventionism), Engelbert Dollfuss, or Antonio Salazar were not fascists because of their anti-militaristic or neutral stances on militarism.

I also notice a few people trying to make the case that fascism isn't racist because it focuses on (which is technically not race) and/or is less racist than one might suppose. This is also patently false. Most early fascist theorists like Maurras and Sorel were, strictly speaking, obsessed with race and racial theory, and even Mussolini, who people often regard as a "moderate fascist" openly ascribed to racial theories on many accounts.

I would say Mosley didn't want to intervene specifically because he didn't want to support to anti fascist side.

I don't regard Salazar or Dollfuss as fascists, just as conservatives and fine men.

>Salazar
>fine man
i weep for humanity

[New Emeline]

>yeah bro read some wikipedia and slate bro.

What exactly do you think is wrong with Wikipedia?

Too many Jews.

[Cekoviu]

What exactly do you think is wrong with Wikipedia?

Too many Jews.

In the userbase or in the articles?

[Britannic Unity]

I notice that "militaristic" is thrown around a lot in these criterion. This seems problematic because it seemingly implies figures such as Mosley (who was openly against military interventionism), Engelbert Dollfuss, or Antonio Salazar were not fascists because of their anti-militaristic or neutral stances on militarism.

I also notice a few people trying to make the case that fascism isn't racist because it focuses on (which is technically not race) and/or is less racist than one might suppose. This is also patently false. Most early fascist theorists like Maurras and Sorel were, strictly speaking, obsessed with race and racial theory, and even Mussolini, who people often regard as a "moderate fascist" openly ascribed to racial theories on many accounts.

I would say Mosley didn't want to intervene specifically because he didn't want to support to anti fascist side.

I don't regard Salazar or Dollfuss as fascists, just as conservatives and fine men.

Well, they certainly seemed to regard themselves as fascist. As to whether they are is obviously a semantic difference.

My point regarding Mosley, though, was not that he was some sort of pacifist. It's that he wasn't indubitably obsessed with the business of war. Though he was an ardent opponent of de-colonization, he also didn't regard expanding Britain or empowering her military as did Hitler or Mussolini.

[New Emeline]

Too many Jews.

In the userbase or in the articles?

Both?

[Cekoviu]

In the userbase or in the articles?

Both?

I'm not quite sure how one would quantify the number of Jews in the userbase, and it's not really Wikipedia's fault that there are a lot of Jews prominent enough to warrant an article... Maybe it's just the presence of Jews that bothers Nazis.

[New Emeline]

Both?

I'm not quite sure how one would quantify the number of Jews in the userbase, and it's not really Wikipedia's fault that there are a lot of Jews prominent enough to warrant an article... Maybe it's just the presence of Jews that bothers Nazis.

Maybe the Jews write the articles?

[Internationalist Bastard]

I would say Mosley didn't want to intervene specifically because he didn't want to support to anti fascist side.

I don't regard Salazar or Dollfuss as fascists, just as conservatives and fine men.

Well, they certainly seemed to regard themselves as fascist. As to whether they are is obviously a semantic difference.

My point regarding Mosley, though, was not that he was some sort of pacifist. It's that he wasn't indubitably obsessed with the business of war. Though he was an ardent opponent of de-colonization, he also didn't regard expanding Britain or empowering her military as did Hitler or Mussolini.

So he wanted to maintain the empire without expanding the army?
That just sounds like he would’ve been a terrible leader

[Kingdom Of The UN]

fascism is of ok

[New Emeline]

fascism is of ok

?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Well, they certainly seemed to regard themselves as fascist. As to whether they are is obviously a semantic difference.

My point regarding Mosley, though, was not that he was some sort of pacifist. It's that he wasn't indubitably obsessed with the business of war. Though he was an ardent opponent of de-colonization, he also didn't regard expanding Britain or empowering her military as did Hitler or Mussolini.

So he wanted to maintain the empire without expanding the army?
That just sounds like he would’ve been a terrible leader

"Ah, I see these militant dictators building up huge armies. Let's do nothing and let the problem sort itself out!"

[Cekoviu]

I'm not quite sure how one would quantify the number of Jews in the userbase, and it's not really Wikipedia's fault that there are a lot of Jews prominent enough to warrant an article... Maybe it's just the presence of Jews that bothers Nazis.

Maybe the Jews write the articles?

Clearly not all of them, since I'm not a Jew and I've written Wikipedia articles.

[Britannic Unity]

Well, they certainly seemed to regard themselves as fascist. As to whether they are is obviously a semantic difference.

My point regarding Mosley, though, was not that he was some sort of pacifist. It's that he wasn't indubitably obsessed with the business of war. Though he was an ardent opponent of de-colonization, he also didn't regard expanding Britain or empowering her military as did Hitler or Mussolini.

So he wanted to maintain the empire without expanding the army?
That just sounds like he would’ve been a terrible leader

No.

He just saw no need to expand it for the sake of expansion's sake.

Mosley believed, fervently, that "fascism would remove the causes of war" (1936). He believed "Britons should fight for Britons only." His conception of fascism was ultimately quite idealistic and pacifistic, as far as fascism goes, and he hated the idea of intervening in any issue not directly related to British interest.

He supposed he could keep the empire together through shared prosperity and increased rights towards the colonies. Of course, we all can probably imagine this might not have worked as he suspected it would, but he was fully in favor of halting the Anglicization of colonial elites through education, and sought to implement education that would allow them to glorify their own cultures. When asked if this would not encourage what was then regarded as a beastly culture, he said something to the effects of "I do not care." Or simply put, he did not believe military force would be needed to keep the Empire together because he believed he could transform the Empire into a slightly more consensual arrangement