Hello gents. I'm from the /mlp/ side of the merge and have been trying to broaden my horizons on what would be considered some of the more taboo ideologies by the mainstream, so please correct me if I'm wrong here.
My understanding of National Socialism and Fascism is that their primary goals are to preserve the nation's culture and to build a strong state to protect it's citizens.
So my question is this: How do American authoritarians reconcile protecting American culture when democracy and the right to vote (at least for white men) has been an integral part of our culture since the US's founding?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): B8046347346136C5CD8D6216B6C06613-1422266.jpg (1.4 MB, 1920x1080, 1491264689774.jpg)
How can something be an integral part of the culture when the majority of people were not allowed to participate? The founders very much understood that certain groups shouldn't vote, but didn't understand fully the dangers of subversion through bad faith actors. We can see the implications now, and correct that one flaw. American Way economics and old American culture was otherwise pretty proto-fascistic, America had several fascist organizations until they were cracked down on when we joined WWII
>>15629
I don't disagree but I'm having trouble making the jump from restricting certain groups and bad actors to no elections at all.
Is there room for any type of elected leader in a fascist state or some other way that leadership would change if the people had lost faith in the head of state?
I don't disagree but I'm having trouble making the jump from restricting certain groups and bad actors to no elections at all.
Is there room for any type of elected leader in a fascist state or some other way that leadership would change if the people had lost faith in the head of state?
>>15634
The jump from some voters to no voters comes from the fluidity of dangers to the state. While Jews, women, and brown people voting have damaged our state, they're not the only wreckers. In the French Revolution it was wealthy white urbanites who grew bored and decided to try and destroy the Ancien Regime. There is no way to cover all of your bases, so the better idea is to not give them the chance to hit a home run
There would likely be space for local level positions, but ultimately the government is held in check by threat of violence. Despite what you may think monarchies worked for centuries on that principle, it is a principle that dates back to Imperial Rome. I would say a man who is worried about being murdered as a result of his bad decisions is more motivated than a man who is worried about being outvoted
The jump from some voters to no voters comes from the fluidity of dangers to the state. While Jews, women, and brown people voting have damaged our state, they're not the only wreckers. In the French Revolution it was wealthy white urbanites who grew bored and decided to try and destroy the Ancien Regime. There is no way to cover all of your bases, so the better idea is to not give them the chance to hit a home run
There would likely be space for local level positions, but ultimately the government is held in check by threat of violence. Despite what you may think monarchies worked for centuries on that principle, it is a principle that dates back to Imperial Rome. I would say a man who is worried about being murdered as a result of his bad decisions is more motivated than a man who is worried about being outvoted
>>15617
>So my question is this: How do American authoritarians reconcile protecting American culture when democracy and the right to vote (at least for white men) has been an integral part of our culture since the US's founding?
Through the corporatist system of managing the economy.
>It is the deliberate aim of Fascism to bring to an end the Party game which we believe to be the
ruin of the Nation. We substitute a new system of action suited to the modern age for the system
of talk which belongs to the past. For instance, a Parliament elected under Fascism will be a
technical and not a political Parliament. The franchise will be occupational and not geographical.
Men and women will vote according to their industry or profession, and not according to their
locality. They will vote for people versed in the problems of their industries, and not for
professional politicians. In such a system there is no place for parties and for politicians. We
shall ask the people for a mandate to bring to an end the Party system and the Parties. We invite
them to enter a new civilisation. Parties and the Party game belong to the old civilisation, which
has failed.
And, on other more social issues like marijuana will there be a nation wide referendum.
>So my question is this: How do American authoritarians reconcile protecting American culture when democracy and the right to vote (at least for white men) has been an integral part of our culture since the US's founding?
Through the corporatist system of managing the economy.
>It is the deliberate aim of Fascism to bring to an end the Party game which we believe to be the
ruin of the Nation. We substitute a new system of action suited to the modern age for the system
of talk which belongs to the past. For instance, a Parliament elected under Fascism will be a
technical and not a political Parliament. The franchise will be occupational and not geographical.
Men and women will vote according to their industry or profession, and not according to their
locality. They will vote for people versed in the problems of their industries, and not for
professional politicians. In such a system there is no place for parties and for politicians. We
shall ask the people for a mandate to bring to an end the Party system and the Parties. We invite
them to enter a new civilisation. Parties and the Party game belong to the old civilisation, which
has failed.
And, on other more social issues like marijuana will there be a nation wide referendum.
>>15617
Liberals like to talk about "equality for all" as being something the founders intended but these guys were imperials through and through. When you realize how they put their own first and formost before everyone else - be it niggers or injuns it's very clear that they wanted an ethnostate. And I say more power to'em.
Liberals like to talk about "equality for all" as being something the founders intended but these guys were imperials through and through. When you realize how they put their own first and formost before everyone else - be it niggers or injuns it's very clear that they wanted an ethnostate. And I say more power to'em.
Adolf Hitler was a Muslim sympathizing piece of socialist garbage whom ruined Europe and is currently being used as PC culture propaganda fodder.
Not nearly as bad as the commies, but still pretty bad.
Not nearly as bad as the commies, but still pretty bad.
>>15644
>Despite what you may think monarchies worked for centuries on that principle
I had always chalked up the successes of monarchies to the decentralization of power with the Dukes and lower Lords being able to address issues unique to their holds. Your points will definitely give me something to think more on.
>>15645
This is something I think I could get behind. It would be a unique form of government, eliminating most of the problems our current system has while drawing from American ideas and ideals.
>>15649
>Liberals like to talk about "equality for all" as being something the founders intended but these guys were imperials through and through.
I think this is the one thing that /pol/ has opened my eyes to the most. I live in a small rural town where the most liberal people you'll meet are blue collar democrats, I had no idea how absolutely batshit crazy and oppressive the far left had become.
>Despite what you may think monarchies worked for centuries on that principle
I had always chalked up the successes of monarchies to the decentralization of power with the Dukes and lower Lords being able to address issues unique to their holds. Your points will definitely give me something to think more on.
>>15645
This is something I think I could get behind. It would be a unique form of government, eliminating most of the problems our current system has while drawing from American ideas and ideals.
>>15649
>Liberals like to talk about "equality for all" as being something the founders intended but these guys were imperials through and through.
I think this is the one thing that /pol/ has opened my eyes to the most. I live in a small rural town where the most liberal people you'll meet are blue collar democrats, I had no idea how absolutely batshit crazy and oppressive the far left had become.
File (): 7DF84E7CA3CB7D45D717A81492249F42-1674267.jpg (1.6 MB, 1696x2544, what it means to be an Ame….jpg)
>>15649
The Founding Fathers said "Liberty for all" and it's unfortunately not hard to mold that beautiful word into a miserable "equality".
The Founding Fathers said "Liberty for all" and it's unfortunately not hard to mold that beautiful word into a miserable "equality".
I see it as a good foreign policy but not a domestic policy. Id rather it be more liberal capitalist within the borders as a culture to be protected from outside threats entering.
File (): 625246DBB4F034056C10947F5A03AF1D-693584.jpg (677.3 KB, 1369x1338, 1492711541321.jpg)
>>15667
On the contrary, they clearly meant it, (Liberty, not equality) but many of them understood only those already free and capable to be deserving, among the "all" that they spoke of. Surely not even we in the modern times would give full liberty to horses or dogs - and to Europeans of 18th century many non-Europeans were comparable to livestock. Human rights could only apply to humans after all.
The only thing that has changed since then is the widely accepted definition of "all". Personally I believe that the original one was slightly too narrow. But then, it was tenfold better than the current one, which is far too broad.
On the contrary, they clearly meant it, (Liberty, not equality) but many of them understood only those already free and capable to be deserving, among the "all" that they spoke of. Surely not even we in the modern times would give full liberty to horses or dogs - and to Europeans of 18th century many non-Europeans were comparable to livestock. Human rights could only apply to humans after all.
The only thing that has changed since then is the widely accepted definition of "all". Personally I believe that the original one was slightly too narrow. But then, it was tenfold better than the current one, which is far too broad.
>>15657
Surprisingly enough I'm not sure many modern day "fascists" know about the corporatist system.
>https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=MYXhOT1ZMEg&t=310s
Surprisingly enough I'm not sure many modern day "fascists" know about the corporatist system.
>https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=MYXhOT1ZMEg&t=310s
>>15634
Autocracy is not best because it is the best of all governments. It is best because under some circumstances, it is the only feasible form of government.
Any sort of Republic or Democracy where rule by the majority - or something approximating it - exists requires two elements in order for it to succeed. First, enough agreement among about half of the population for a majority to come to a decision on some course of action or policy direction. Second, for almost the entire population to be sufficiently committed to the Democratic project to stand down and let the majority enact its will when they are not a part of the majority.
If you look at essentially every successful democracy or republic in history, you'll see that it takes the form of city-state or nation-state. that's because these are the only sorts of social orders that are homogeneous enough to allow for the level of trust that makes any form of government besides despotism possible.
If you look at the multicultural empires of history, they have always been despotism. That's because where the peoples are too diverse as to have a consensus of opinions or values, people are not willing to put faith in a democratic system, and no government besides autocracy is possible. That's also why nations in Africa and the middle east are rarely successful democracies. They are states encompassing many diverse tribes and religions drawn up by the colonial empires, not proper nation-states. But Autocracy at least allows some clear policy direction and set of actions to be taken by the government, even if the ruled factions could never come to a consensus.
At present nations in the West are barely able to sustain democratic governments. How much longer will it be before they are completely lost? And when they are, how about they be replaced by governments that respect culture, tradition, and try to preserve the last remnants of the nation and social cohesion. That's why fascism may be your best choice
Autocracy is not best because it is the best of all governments. It is best because under some circumstances, it is the only feasible form of government.
Any sort of Republic or Democracy where rule by the majority - or something approximating it - exists requires two elements in order for it to succeed. First, enough agreement among about half of the population for a majority to come to a decision on some course of action or policy direction. Second, for almost the entire population to be sufficiently committed to the Democratic project to stand down and let the majority enact its will when they are not a part of the majority.
If you look at essentially every successful democracy or republic in history, you'll see that it takes the form of city-state or nation-state. that's because these are the only sorts of social orders that are homogeneous enough to allow for the level of trust that makes any form of government besides despotism possible.
If you look at the multicultural empires of history, they have always been despotism. That's because where the peoples are too diverse as to have a consensus of opinions or values, people are not willing to put faith in a democratic system, and no government besides autocracy is possible. That's also why nations in Africa and the middle east are rarely successful democracies. They are states encompassing many diverse tribes and religions drawn up by the colonial empires, not proper nation-states. But Autocracy at least allows some clear policy direction and set of actions to be taken by the government, even if the ruled factions could never come to a consensus.
At present nations in the West are barely able to sustain democratic governments. How much longer will it be before they are completely lost? And when they are, how about they be replaced by governments that respect culture, tradition, and try to preserve the last remnants of the nation and social cohesion. That's why fascism may be your best choice
>>15634
Again, citing Oswald Mosley's "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered":
20. Should a Fascist Government incur a Parliamentary vote of censure, what occurs ?
If a Fascist Government incurs a Parliamentary vote of censure in its first Parliament, it will
immediately ask for a vote of the whole people in universal franchise whether it goes or carries
on. After the election of the second Parliament, which will be a technical and not a political
Parliament, the life of the Government will depend, not on Parliament, but on direct votes of the
whole people taken at intervals of not longer than five years. In practice we shall probably ask
for a vote of the people even more frequently, because to carry through the Fascist revolution we
shall want always to know that we have not only the tacit consent, but the enthusiastic support of
the people behind us. The support of the people is far more necessary to a Government of action
than to a Democratic Government, which tricks the people into a vote once every five years on
an irrelevant issue, and then hopes the Nation will go to sleep for another five years so that the
Government can go to sleep as well.
21. If the people vote against a Government what will happen ?
The Government will resign and H.M. The King will send for fresh Ministers, who, in his
opinion, will secure the confidence of the country. A fresh vote will then be taken to discover
whether or not the people have confidence in the new Government. In this way we restore the
Royal Prerogative to send for new Ministers in the event of the defeat of a Government. By
present practice the King is bound to send for the Leaders of the Parliamentary Opposition, and,
in fact, his prerogative no longer exists.
22. At the end of the first Fascist Parliament how would Governments be chosen and
Parliaments elected ?
The first Fascist Parliament will come to an end within the normal lifetime of a present
Parliament, and before that date the permanent Fascist system will be introduced. Thereafter the
life of Government will depend, not on Parliament, but on the direct vote of the whole people by
universal franchise. Nothing shall come between Government and People. They will be asked
whether or not a Government shall continue in a direct "Yes" or "No" decision. Parliament will
be elected to advise Government on the technical problems of a technical age. Therefore, it will
be elected not on a geographical but on an occupational franchise, according to industry or
profession. Parliament will become a serious body suited to the complex problems of the modern
age, and the knock-about frivolity of the Party game will be eliminated.
Again, citing Oswald Mosley's "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered":
20. Should a Fascist Government incur a Parliamentary vote of censure, what occurs ?
If a Fascist Government incurs a Parliamentary vote of censure in its first Parliament, it will
immediately ask for a vote of the whole people in universal franchise whether it goes or carries
on. After the election of the second Parliament, which will be a technical and not a political
Parliament, the life of the Government will depend, not on Parliament, but on direct votes of the
whole people taken at intervals of not longer than five years. In practice we shall probably ask
for a vote of the people even more frequently, because to carry through the Fascist revolution we
shall want always to know that we have not only the tacit consent, but the enthusiastic support of
the people behind us. The support of the people is far more necessary to a Government of action
than to a Democratic Government, which tricks the people into a vote once every five years on
an irrelevant issue, and then hopes the Nation will go to sleep for another five years so that the
Government can go to sleep as well.
21. If the people vote against a Government what will happen ?
The Government will resign and H.M. The King will send for fresh Ministers, who, in his
opinion, will secure the confidence of the country. A fresh vote will then be taken to discover
whether or not the people have confidence in the new Government. In this way we restore the
Royal Prerogative to send for new Ministers in the event of the defeat of a Government. By
present practice the King is bound to send for the Leaders of the Parliamentary Opposition, and,
in fact, his prerogative no longer exists.
22. At the end of the first Fascist Parliament how would Governments be chosen and
Parliaments elected ?
The first Fascist Parliament will come to an end within the normal lifetime of a present
Parliament, and before that date the permanent Fascist system will be introduced. Thereafter the
life of Government will depend, not on Parliament, but on the direct vote of the whole people by
universal franchise. Nothing shall come between Government and People. They will be asked
whether or not a Government shall continue in a direct "Yes" or "No" decision. Parliament will
be elected to advise Government on the technical problems of a technical age. Therefore, it will
be elected not on a geographical but on an occupational franchise, according to industry or
profession. Parliament will become a serious body suited to the complex problems of the modern
age, and the knock-about frivolity of the Party game will be eliminated.
>>15963
National Socialism is not a utopia.
It will not cause wheat to grow in the winter and every hour of your life to be spent in enjoyable leisure.
It is in many ways a distopia. There will be long hours of backbreaking labor. Unions will be banned. Good men will hang for false accusations. But at the end of the age your race will survive, and in a hundred or a thousand or a million years your descendants will look back on your memory with pride, and know the blood of heroes flows through their veins.
National Socialism is not a utopia. It is the however, the best of all possible distopias. The dystopia that we know our race can thrive in. All other choices lead to death, genocide and extinction.
National Socialism is not a utopia.
It will not cause wheat to grow in the winter and every hour of your life to be spent in enjoyable leisure.
It is in many ways a distopia. There will be long hours of backbreaking labor. Unions will be banned. Good men will hang for false accusations. But at the end of the age your race will survive, and in a hundred or a thousand or a million years your descendants will look back on your memory with pride, and know the blood of heroes flows through their veins.
National Socialism is not a utopia. It is the however, the best of all possible distopias. The dystopia that we know our race can thrive in. All other choices lead to death, genocide and extinction.
File (): DF10749498B111154A785B7257D53640-281147.png (274.6 KB, 1020x1230, 1491279328477.png)
File (): EEFD1906381A752155C8872899C6B745-92523.png (90.4 KB, 392x413, IMG_0739.PNG)
File (): 6FE4E9E5F9D96E4D2FB20227D8096E86-495075.jpg (483.5 KB, 1080x1920, mlpol heros through friend….jpg)
>>16055
Integralism and Peronism featured the inclusion of unions. They don't have to be banned, but are unnecessary at most. As for that labor, at least it is being done by our own men and not by exploit of a cheper alternative.
Integralism and Peronism featured the inclusion of unions. They don't have to be banned, but are unnecessary at most. As for that labor, at least it is being done by our own men and not by exploit of a cheper alternative.
>>16055
>confusing narsoc with fascism again
Although the two go together well, they're not the same thing.
>confusing narsoc with fascism again
Although the two go together well, they're not the same thing.
My question is how we're going to keep State's rights in a fascist society.
important question to have answered
27 replies | 6 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived