/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

Winner of the JulayWorld Attention-Hungry Games™, Week 5

/retro/ - 1990s ans[sic] 2000s nostalgia

Nominations for week 6 coming soon.

Report your front-end woes 2: Electric Boogaloo

What is the Imageboard Federation?

JulayWorld onion service: bhlnasxdkbaoxf4gtpbhavref7l2j3bwooes77hqcacxztkindztzrad.onion

Max message length: 32768

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB


(used to delete files and postings)

Open file (62.24 KB 440x220 state-capitalism.jpg)
Economics Blackshirt 02/11/2020 (Tue) 21:07:12 No.4574
I want to learn about economics. Particularly these topics: >Basic economics. >Pros and cons of nationalizing the banks and having your own currency. >Is State involvement bad? Is protectionism bad? >Why was Nazi Germany so economically successful? In the long term, was its policy really dependent on war? Please give me good reads on these matters. About state involvement and protectionism, right now I think that protectionism is not worth it. It is not convenient economically, and achieving autarky is basically impossible. At the same time, I think the State should get involved when necessary for the well-being of its citizens. Remove harmful products, help smart young men achieve what they're capable of, grant a good healthcare. I already have a position on this but it is simply based on feelings. I need to read about it.
For the Third Reich in particular the best book that I am aware that deals explicitly with the economy is Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction'. It's a very large book and full of a wealth of information. It's important to note that this book is not pro-National Socialist and does discuss the Holohoax, but it's as mild as it gets. I've also heard that Hitler's Revolution by Tedor is good but I've not read it. Another important book is The Manifesto for the Abolition of Enslavement to Interest on Money by Gottfried Feder. I don't think really any of what he wrote in here was applied in the Third Reich (unless I'm mistaken), but nevertheless we shouldn't abandon the goal of crushing usury once and for all. There are plenty of arguments for limiting trade. The most compelling to me are for reasons of national security and for protecting infant industries. I care about the former more than the latter personally. The nation must be guaranteed access and control of key war materials and resources. To me, this is common sense. Why should private interests, especially foreign, have any fingers in these vital matters? Tariffs obviously can raise prices for consumers, but depending on what the product is, I think the benefits outweigh the costs here. Autarky is possible, but only in large countries like America, Russia and the like (that's one reason Lebensraum was vital), but not without drastic changes in those societies. At the very least if I was Supreme Leader of the United States I'd be working to ensure self-sufficiency in food and protection of the vital material and resources as discussed above. Doing otherwise entangles a people in the web of (((international capitalism))) and is a driving factor in globalization and the disintegration of nations (a slow but steadily ongoing process). Some may doubt whether autarky would be achievable in America, but I've always advocated that Canada be annexed since we're of the same Volk for the most part and Canada is very dependent on the US.
>>4574 >The Coming Corporate State for fascist economics And pretty much any keynesian economics book. I think all of those can be good or bad depending on the situations there are plenty of factors to consider.
There's other third position economics, like distrubutism, syndicalism, mutualism, guild socialism, market socialism too you might want to check those out. I'm trying to work on an economics book with this Zoomer kid but he's taking forever to write his part
>>4600 Those are all good economic systems but state syndicalism is fascist economics. However, I think those systems can be incorporated into fascism as well.
>>4574 >Basic economics. To put it simply, the less government intervention, the better. To elaborate the more taxes, regulations, labor laws, etc, the more money a business has to spend on things that are not the product the more the product will cost, meaning less people will be able to afford it (or more likely not buy it because it's more than they want to spend) and the less money the businessman will make because less people are buying it. Now there are obviously exceptions to this rule, for example if it is a higher end product the additional cost will often not affect the price too much comparatively but for the vast majority of goods this harms the economy. I should also specify that I am not saying regulations are inherently bad, as I could see a good argument for banning something like kosher animal slaughter and a bit more controversaly factory farming, though I believe there would be no need for such things in an aryan society. Also to expand on the labor laws part it is almost universally a bad idea, as all it does is make it harder for people (especially the inexperienced) to get a job as it raises the costs and risks of hiring resulting in the infamous 3-5 years experience for an entry level job. And for the final basic lesson i'll go over for now is that taxation is inherently harmful to any economy, both practically and morally. The fist is that it obviously results in less money for the tax power, meaning they have less to spend and save. And second it is morally wrong because unless your a nigger you probably know why not to steal. Plus it makes your citizens more hostile to you. So moral of the story is if you want to fund a government project only use taxes as a last resort and try to secure other means of funding first. It is almost midnight where I live so I'll answer your other questions tomorrow if you'd like.
Open file (28.76 KB 350x532 00arbeiter.jpg)
>>4730 We can't just have a weak army and let homeless mothers starve to death on the streets, ideally we need a tax on business and income to fund the military, the social safety net and other public projects. We should also put taxes on degenerate shit like alcohol and tobacco to discourage their consumption and to prepare the population for outright banning it.
>>4741 Strong military with low taxes is basically the definition of a night watchman state, a form of libertarianism. Having relatively low government intervention doesn't mean homeless mothers starving on the street. You get 80% of the benefit from 20% of effort. And there is still community to help.
>>4741 >military Once our victory is secure there should be little to no need for a large army, unless you live in Europe and are that countries like France, Germany, Russia, etc are going to try to reclaim their old borders. Besides there are other ways to fund a military like war bonds and even just diverting revenue from other products, and even if that's not enough to pay for it, using that as your primary means will reduce the tax burden. On the subject of taxes don't just tax you rich/business owners for the war effort, as it will make what is arguably your most important economic class resentful of you, which inevitably will either lead to your government replacing them, which will have immediate negative effects on the economy (loss of confidence in those businesses, those new managers likely won't be as competent due to being political appointees and even if they are not there is still a reason they didn't have those jobs to begin with) or long term ones for granting those businesses concessions which will almost ways create a loop of >business with gibs fucks over workers and competition >workers get gebs to make up for worse work >business gets new gibs to make up for the cost of unions >ad infinum We've seen this cycle in almost every western country. >homeless mothers That's what charities and homeless shelters are for, something which we have even in our cucked system and likely will still have in your ideal one, and even if for whatever reason that doesn't pan out she still likely has friends and family that can lend a hand. But beyond that there are quite a few things she can do to improve her situation like finding a job sewing, cooking, cleaning, write a book/help new mothers on how to raise children. And depending on why she is homeless (I'm going to assume she doesn't have a husband for the sake of this) if she has something going for her she can possibly get remarriade, or, if the father fucked off, then he can be brought back and made to do his job. >alcohol has been part of European culture since at least the aryan conquest of india, since we have evidence that they drank it. >tobacco You have a fair point on that, however once the government (or anyone really) starts making money on it, it will become very hard to ban that thing, especially if it's in some nebulas future. And that's not even getting into the problems of driving an industry like that underground, just look at the drug war.
>>4745 >[alcohol] has been part of European culture since at least the aryan conquest of india, since we have evidence that they drank it. Alcohol is degeneracy, plain and simple and it should be extirpated in total from Aryan culture. In America alone the misuse of alcohol costs us $250 billion dollars annually, leading to 88,000 deaths a year, making it the third leading cause of preventable death in the US. On top of this we can merely look at the effects that alcohol has on people, making them liable to engage in degenerate sexual behaviors, harming their health in the long-term (high blood-pressure, cancer, alcohol dependence, problems with memory, cirrhosis, liver disease, etc). 6% of deaths worldwide in 2012 were due to alcohol. True Aryan culture exalts health and fitness above all else.
>>4730 >To put it simply, the less government intervention, the better. That's almost literally the opposite of fascism.
>>4755 Well there are different spheres where a government can intervene right. Government intervention isn't in itself necessarily some great thing towards all objectives, or in all areas. It could also have different levels of usefulness in different situations such as wartime vs peacetime, early foundation of government vs later stages. Plus we're not all necessarily convinced that some specific vision of fascism is amazing as an economic system, but mostly here to learn more or just to secure our race's future.
>>4755 Early Fascism is very hands-on, but it has always meant to loosen up intervention in most industries as the people become more fascistic. Fascism, unlike other reformist ideologies, does plan to change its strategies as society changes. And Fascists are aware that constant intervention makes economies less dynamic, so it works towards being able to give up some control of the economy to the people while recognizing that not everyone should be given control. This is because Fascism knows that economies are more efficient and productive if you let people work by themselves, the people know more about their own situations and are more invested than any government could, so they are better at solving local problems while still able to adhere to a general plan. And when it comes to enforcing rules what would be better? A centralized body outside of the population, or having each person manage their own section using the values and doctrine you taught them. So this is not a question of how to make a centralized economy work, but how to train individuals so they stick to the plan even when not directly instructed. Think of Fascism as being able to use Mission-command tactics, centralized intent but decentralized execution, this has proved to be among the best ways to manage an extensive organization. Administratorial costs go down, bureaucracy decreases, orders are executed at the same time in multiple areas, goals are able to adapt to manny circumstances, leaders are able to concentrate on the big picture, severed communication lines do not have such a big effect of the execution of orders; only the reception of new ones. Is this adaptability which attracts me the most, as being able to adapt to your current circumstances is the key to survival. >>4747 Drunkenness is degenerate, alcohol itself is not. This is a mirror of the gun debate. I drink a lot, I have spend a lot of time studying alcoholic drinks, yet I have never being drunk in my life simply because I am disgusted by drunk people and people who seek to be drunk. The abuse of alcohol does not stem from an appreciation of alcoholic drinks nor their cultural value, but to seek its psychoactive effects, an escapist fantasy.
>>4764 >Early Fascism is very hands-on What do you mean by this? Fascism evolved over time and matured much the same way Communist ideologies evolved over time from Marx to Lenin. Fascism varies by the country but there are some common traits that are sustained across the board, it is most certainly in favor of a planned economy. One of the main selling points of fascism is the "third position" i.e a third way besides capitalism and socialism. Free market capitalism with an authoritarian government isn't fascism it's just any plain dictatorship.
>>4574 >>4730 >Pros and cons of nationalizing the banks and having your own currency. >nationalization Well almost anything is better than the Keynesian federal reserve we have here in America but nationalizing the banks is not the answer, as it will just create a system similar to the one we have now where all the banks are run by the same people and are in bed with each other, it would just be more open about it. (Though that is not to say it wouldn't be better, as a system that is open about screwing you is better than one that pretends it doesn't, and the fact that it is run by white people instead of jews has to count for something.) Infact, you could make an argument that (beside form the obvious) the government intervening in the banks though the federal reserve is one of the reasons for the problems we face with them such as run away inflation and the fact that the banks are almost guaranteed to get their money back, no matter how much they fuck up. To contrast this a fully private bank will have incentive not to give out bad loans, as no one will reimburse them and will have good reasons not to devalue their currency, as no one would use it. >Currency >National currency Pros: you can trade easily with others in the nation with no need for exchange. Is backed by the state, which often has more resources than an individual. Cons: no competition meaning that the government has little to no incentive to improve or even maintain the value of its currency, as people will more or less have to use it anyway. >Non-national currency Pros: Competition, due to fact that anyone can create and use a currency an entrepreneur will be forced to give his some benefit so that people will choose to use his instead of another. And issuer of currency will be constantly be finding ways to increase its value so that people will switch to it. Variety, instead of just one currency backed by fiat (which is what most countries have today) you will likely be able to find things money backed by things ranging from gold to shares in a company to land to a precious resource to whatever crypto is. If you don't like something a particular currency then there is always another. Cons: Less stability, companies tend to go under more often that governments, especially in an economy without corporate welfare, so if you choose wrong you could be fucked. Complexity, it is a lot more effort to try to figure out if vbucks, zyklons, or truegoldplus™ and those who are poorly educated or just unintelligent are going to have a harder time than if there was just one, although that is more of the fault of bad eugenics/parenting than privatized currency.
>>4766 >What do you mean by this? Presumably he means that early in the regime much of the economy will be state controlled to take it out of the hands of (((them))) and to more easily transition society to the ideal but once people have been de-programed from globohomo then the economy will be transitioned to a freer market.
>>4766 By early I do not mean Historically early. But in its application. I still fail to see the need for this loyalty to economics. Yes, economic problems require some economic solution, and Fascism obviously had economics in mind when formulating a plan. But the 20th century was full of economic problems, it would be unfair to think of fascism as only economic because of the situation of found itself in. The modern world as so manny problems that a purely economic solution would do little, which is what attracted manny to fascism, it's refusal to be limited by the adherence to some stiff economic plan. When fascism was created it was the new kid on the block, its economics were done with its contemporary world in mind, but not we are a century removed from them, I do not think their economic doctrine would work today without heavy modification. Economies under fascism are panned but not necessarily under constant control, they are what they need to be, simple as. >>4769 Basically, same with a lot of issues, I hate having to follow rules meant for a society that dies long ago
>>4769 I think that it should always stay planned but that doesn't mean private enterprise will be abolished. It's planned but not as planned as under communist governments. And sometimes there can be room for relaxing some control here and there stopping short of capitalism. Part of the reason (((they))) have control and globohomo exists is precisely because of free markets imo. Returning to free markets will just destroy any progress made. >>4770 Economics are a crucial component to any society and cannot be disregarded. There needs to be a fascist plan for economics in order to properly manage a fascist state. The economic success of fascist countries is something people always reference when advocating for fascism. This economic success is one reason people were attracted to fascism too. Of course this doesn't mean we have to resort to materialism and put economics first but we need to consider it. Obviously the modern world has different challenges but that's a fallacy imo. Capitalism existed in the 1890s but most countries still use that economic system even though the world is drastically different. The economic system can be modified. Communist central planning lasted almost 100 years across different countries and each time it was modified depending on the time and place.
>>4772 But we don't like under a free market or capitalism, most states today have a mixed-market Keynesian system.
>>4773 It depends on what you think capitalism is. Imo capitalism is a relatively free market with private enterprise aka private ownership of the MOP. Which is what most states have. Keynesian, Austrian, and Chicago economics are all subsets of that and work within that framework.
>>4764 >Drunkenness is degenerate, alcohol itself is not. This is a mirror of the gun debate. I drink a lot, I have spend a lot of time studying alcoholic drinks, yet I have never being drunk in my life simply because I am disgusted by drunk people and people who seek to be drunk. The abuse of alcohol does not stem from an appreciation of alcoholic drinks nor their cultural value, but to seek its psychoactive effects, an escapist fantasy. I think the main problem is that we live in a society where virtuous and non-hedonistic behavior is not promoted, but is instead demonized. The Jews work by attacking and attempting to exacerbate our base desires. He is who has taken his carnal desires as his god is like an animal, if not even more astray. Many people, if left to their own devices and "freedom" will surely (and do do so) destroy themselves through impulse and over-indulgence in carnal pleasures, becoming greater slaves to their base desires. You, from all of your posts that I've read, are not one of these "natural slaves", but instead someone who is governed by reason and who is very unlikely to be swayed by the psychological barrages that they unleash upon us 24/7. With legislation we must take into account those who are most at risk for destroying themselves. The individualist notion of "they are destroying themselves by choice, therefore let them destroy themselves" must be eradicated. I am not saying that is what you are saying of course but I have encountered this line of thinking before when I have discussed with friends the need to either ban or heavy regulate who is permitted to consume alcohol.
>>4778 Were your friends fat
>>4772 Everyone has an opinion on the perfect mix of market regulation and what consitutes words like capitalism. Certainly more people than are qualified to control something so complex (almost nobody, if anyone has an ultimate knowledge for how to control such a complex emergent system without fucking it up)
>>4772 I am not disregarding the importance of economics, but I am rejecting the idea that economics define Fascism. And is this unpassionate approach the main reason on why fascism is so successful economically. While communism seems to try to build a prosperous nation around a preset economic system, fascism does the right thing and rebuilds its economics in order to achieve a goal. When you hear others point out Fascist economic growth you will always hear of revolutionary policies and solutions, these are always different depending on the nation, if fascism was defined by economics then it would be difficult to categorize all these movements under the same name. Fascism has always being flexible in its economics, by deeming a policy as « Not-Fascist » you are limiting this flexibility. >Capitalism existed in the 1890s but most countries still use that economic system Because the free market is based on such simple and adaptable laws >Communist central planning lasted almost 100 years And out of those 100 years when was it good? Communism tends to keep itself on life-support even when the population is suffering. If longevity was the only measure necessary for success then capitalism would be king >>4778 >"they are destroying themselves by choice, therefore let them destroy themselves" You call it individualist, for me this stand is one which spawns from respect. When a child does something dangerous you rush to stop him, but once you reach adulthood you should be able to understand the consequences of your actions, then suffer because of them. To negate this dynamic is to negate someone's ability to take responsibility. This may sound horrible, but why save everyone? Most people are a waste of time, energy and resources and will always be, no matter how much you give to them. You are better off helping tose who already listen, you will get more sustainable results.
>>4832 I disagree with the notion that rejecting economics made fascism so successful economically. Italy had a pretty left wing labor charter and multiple public works programs. Economics alone does not define fascism like I said but it is a key part of what does define fascism. Fascism is all about class collaboration i.e getting all economic classes to unite for the good of the country. The idea of unity and action are key principles of fascist philosophy. This is achieved by an economic policy of state syndicalism aka corporatism. This is in opposition to capitalism which benefits the wealthy and to socialism which benefits the improvised. >simple and adaptable laws That's arguable the market is a complex system. And you can say that for any economic system imo. >And out of those 100 years when was it good? It arguably was good for some time in some places but this isn't leftypol. And that's a can of worms.
>>4834 *Fascist economics is all about class collaboration
>>4834 >I disagree with the notion that rejecting economics made fascism so successful economically. I am not saying it rejected economics, but that it did not let herself be defined by it. Fascism was not conceived as the ideology of plenty of left wing labor charters and multiple public works programs, those were the answer Fascism gave based on its situation, have fascism found itself in a different context it would have used different economic plans while still being fascism. Is not like communism which arrives with the notion that it must socialize everything even if the situation does not call or it, unlike Fascism, communism –and capitalism– is defined by a certain economic policy. >Fascism is all about class collaboration Class collaboration is the economic expression of the « Unity » aspect of fascism. It is a non-economic doctrine being applied to an issue with an economic dimension, this same doctrine can be applied to manny non-economic issues which is why I separate the base ideas of fascism from economics.
>>4836 >unlike Fascism, communism –and capitalism– is defined by a certain economic policy. Here is where we disagree. I think fascism does have a certain economic policy and I agree with that policy which is why I'm a fascist. However, if the situation required a change in policy I'd agree for the greater good. >It is a non-economic doctrine I think of it as the philosophical basis of fascism unity, action, ect being materialized in the real world through the policy of class collaboration. So we sort of agree here. At any rate I don't see too much disagreement since I concede that if the need arose we'd need to change to another economic policy. But I think corporatism/state syndicalism should be the default policy unless circumstances arise that would change that.
>>4574 >>4768 >Is State involvement bad? As I already explained, it is almost always harmful. >Is protectionism bad? Now that is a more interesting question, in a vacuum it is neither, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. Tariffs can help national business by removing its international competitors, but at the same time it hurts your other citizens because they are forced to buy a product that is usually more expensive, and visa versa. So unless you have a good reason too it is generally a good idea not to have tariffs.
>>4574 >>4853 >Why was the german economy successful? A few reasons, the primary one being that they freed the markets, selling off government owned lands and companies that were nationalized during the weimar period, decreasing regulations and taxes, promotion of charity and brotherhood, and establishing a government agency that would help citizens find a job. >In the long term, was its policy really dependent on war? As it existed at the time, yes, though saying that no war economy is sustainable. They set it up in such a way that much of their war economy was paid for with captured resources. But there is no reason to believe that wouldn't change, as stated elsewhere in the thread fascist economics change according to their needs, and adding to that basic sense they would more than likely demobilized their economy once the war is over.
>>4745 I disagree as a smoker myself. alcohol I could do without. that's not to say people shouldn't consume it.
I would prefer a mix of distributism and guild socialism
>>4853 You claim that state involvement is almost always harmful, then you treat protectionism as a more interesting topic. However, protectionism is by definition a type of state involvement. So I fail to see the logic.
>>4853 If state involvement almost always harmful how are you a fascist?
>>4853 > it is almost always harmful. Public need before private greed
>>4916 I can support the revival of the white race and the removal of blacks and jews without wanting the government to cuck me, and the better off the economy the more prosperous the white man will be. >>4917 Public need before private greed Wanting to keep your property isn't greedy, and there is no such thing as the public, just individuals organized as a tribe.
Open file (69.94 KB 1852x1408 tarrant tread on them.png)
>>4961 >Wanting to keep your property isn't greedy Nothing in that slogan says anything about not being able to own property. In fact, that slogan was actively used by the NSDAP (Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz), which, as we know, affirmed private property as part of its 25-point Program. Also it appears that you harbor some individualist deviations still - take the communitarian-pill. Human beings are necessarily social. Society precedes the individual. The tribe is a superindividual and every aspect of a person is shaped by both descent and social position within a given group. Greedy antisocial elements will be smashed and tread upon
>>4963 >Nothing in that slogan says anything about not being able to own property. It's not inherently anti-property, but if you say saw someone chanting that on the streets then it probably is. >slogan was actively used by the NSDAP Didn't know that, always good to learn more about their lore. >Human beings are necessarily social The vast majority of us are, yes. [spoiler]Myself included/[spoiler] >Society precedes the individual I would disagree on that point, as you said yourself that the tribe is but a superindividual, society is nothing but a group of individuals, and to put the nebulous concept of society before those of which it is made up is a great folly. For which is greater, the painting or the artist? The idea or the thinker? The NSDAP or Hitler? I would say the artist, the thinker, and Hitler are all the greater part, for while they can exist without their creation the same cannot be said for the reverse. A Machine cannot function without its parts where as the parts can still function without, even if their usefulness is limited. So while society, the tribe, is still important, you can never put the tribe before the man. [spoiler]Sorry for the proseposting/[spoiler]
>>4964 >those spoilers oof
>>4964 >It's not inherently anti-property, but if you say saw someone chanting that on the streets then it probably is. That's true, it certainly depends on whose mouth it is coming out of. I could see leftist mobs chanting the same thing. I don't think it's an inherently bad slogan, but context matters. Below the level of the nation there is of course more fundamental building blocks. At the most base level there is the individual as an atomic unit, and above that there is the pairing of a man and a woman to form of a family, which is the most fundamental association there is which is of course necessary for propagation of the species. This pairing of course comes together instinctually. And of course above that we have greater and greater asscociations such as villages, and at the highest level, the nation or tribe. Man is of course a political animal / social being like I said in my prior post and without a larger community what is he? He's either a hermit or a godlike being. Even those who pride themselves in their precious individuality are intimately tied into a larger and ubiquitous societal web. There is a natural impulse for men to come together and form associations instinctively, so it could be argued that the nation as a massive superordinate association of millions of families is the consummation and perfection of all of the subordinate / constituent elements below it. The family and base individual are certainly important, but they alone are not able to bring about the highest heights of human civilization or good-living. The nation exists by nature, as do the individual and family. What is the bee without its beehive? The ant without its ant colony? Just like a human society there are different types of individuals within these insect colonies - those who rule, those who serve, all with different natures and functions, so it is with human societies. Within these groupings we can of course never deny the role of the individual as the Marxist or other varieties of leftists would be apt to do. I for one wholly agree with Hitler that the role of the individual should absolutely never be disparaged, as I believe in his idea of the "aristocracy of nature", where it is brilliant individual minds who most often shape history and make great inventions. Below them, of course, are masses of lesser beings, each with a proper place according to their nature. These great individuals are the natural rulers. Without Hitler, of course, there would be no NSDAP. These types of communitarian ideas are wholly reconcilable with the traditionalist idea of the reign of quality over quantity, giving space for the great to radiant their greatness in all of its brilliance for the good of all. In your example with the machine the consummation / perfection of the parts, individually crafted as they are for a higher end to come together as something of use / utility actually helps my case, I feel. The parts scattered around in a heap are useless, they are not fulfilling their purpose or end. I hope this post made sense. Honestly there's not too much original thought in here, as most of it is drawn from Aristotle (particularly book one of his Politics mixed with some more authoritarian / trad leanings of my own) >sorry for the proseposting Half of the autistic rambling essays and waxing lyrical on this board is my fault so don't worry kek
>>4837 >I think fascism does have a certain economic policy and I agree with that policy which is why I'm a fascist I was introduced to Fascism trough A E S T H E T I C S and philosophy, thus why I see economics as non-defining
>>4978 >I was introduced to Fascism trough A E S T H E T I C S and philosophy, Now you just need to right a few good books and become the Mexican Mishima, he was a huge aesthetics guy
>>4978 >>4984 We need a thread on other fascist variations like synarchism. I'm Mexican too but I don't use the synarchist flag.
>>4970 I'm in agreement with you almost wholly. Man is incomplete without his family and tribe and is certainly lesser on his own, and as for the "aristocracy of nature" I could not put it better myself. However the last point I find disagreeable, while again it is certainly true that man is in his superior state when with his fellows, and without them he is in most cases degraded, the same is much more true in reverse. For A man can survive and a rare man even live a satisfying life when alone though I suppose he is never truly alone, for he is with the natural things and spirits of his ancestors/gods/Christ a society cannot, as without the men that make up it there is no society, but without society there are still men.
>>4991 I'm not really a Synarchst (They, like Mosley, wanted democracy while I am spiritually against democracy), but I greatly respect them, at least they accomplished more than the « Acción Revolucionaria Mexicanista » >>4984 I just made a thread that might be relevant >>4994 My goal has always being this basic personal fascism that you can practice even in enemy territory
>>4991 >>4997 >>4995 I should clarify that I'm Mexican but I'm a burger not an actual Mexican national.
>>4997 I didn't know they wanted democracy. Also I'd stop short of saying Mosley wanted democracy. It depends on how you define democracy.
>>5001 If I remember correctly Mosley definitely wanted some form of democracy. I remember reading in one of his books (it was either Tomorrow We Live or 100 Questions) how they wanted to replace "government by talk" into "government by action", and how the government would have periodic referendums on its conduct and how voting would be done by occupation rather than the place in which one lived. Definitely democratic, but not in the liberal sense. I think Mosley was most concerned with ending the rule of finance and Jews over his country, and while I am very opposed to any form of democracy, I can't fault him on wanting to move at least somewhat in the right direction. It's been a while since I've read up on Mosley though so I might be forgetting or mis-remembering some aspect of his or the BUF's ideology. >>4992 >For A man can survive and a rare man even live a satisfying life when alone though I suppose he is never truly alone, for he is with the natural things and spirits of his ancestors/gods/Christ You're not wrong, there are certainly men who can live a satisfying life alone and actively seek this out, but it is certainly a harder existence, and an existence that would not be attractive to everyone, so I would argue that this is more of the exception to the general rule. Even with those who choose to leave the world for spiritual purposes are very much so rare individuals

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?