Am I A Quasi-Fascist?
A basic rundown on my political views:
I support government run by a heroic leader with almost super-human abilities. Someone like Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Augustus, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, Garibaldi, William Pitt, Justinian, Belisarius, Winston Churchill, Oliver Cromwell, etc. Basically, someone of superior value and worthiness than your average citizen. Such a heroic leader should be willing to violate Christian and liberal morality and commit quasi-criminal or criminal deeds for the greater good. Such a person should even be willing to violate the law in order to achieve his ends, and, if necessary, crush his political opponents with utter ruthlessness. This goes against the liberal idea of the rule of law and the equal worth of all individuals, so I certainly can't place myself in the classical liberal camp as I once did, though I still feel strong sympathy for certain classical liberal ideas.
I would support a government under such a heroic leader being able to mobilise the whole of society for his goals, even for his own personal glory. This might strike you as psychotic, absurd and destructive, but there are countless examples in history of heroic leaders doing this to highly successful ends. Napoleon Bonaparte amassed armies of millions of troops for war and conquest, spreading the ideals of the French Revolution and the highly successful models of French government throughout Europe. The glories of France were inextricably connected with his glories. The people of France were nothing more than mere objects, mere tools, mere instruments with which he achieved his vision. The Revolution was dead - it had reincarnated itself as Bonapartism, and it would set an entire continent aflame. Frederick the Great transformed Prussia from being a slumbering, Northern European kingdom to being a world power. Thousands of lives were sacrificed for him to earn the epithet "the Great", but who remembers them? We only remember the empire he forged from his victories. At one point he came close to being defeated and ruined, yet he clung on and won ultimate victory. Gustavus Adolphus turned a tiny, sparsely-populated Baltic kingdom into a Great Power through war and conquest, and the last ruler of the Swedish Empire, Charles XII, fought to the end to preserve it, dying heroically in battle in 1718 just as Gustavus Adolphus did in 1632, his country in ruins and his population cursing his name. But his heroic example lives in history. These heroic leaders just as often led their countries to ruin as to triumph, but their glories live on, and they are household names to us. These individuals alone has inspired plays, poetry, novels and films, and have left their imprint upon our great civilisation. Who will say that their ventures were not worth it?
On economics, I considered myself a solid free-trader until recently, though I now think that I would be ok with moderate protectionism. Free trade seems pointless if you trade freely with countries like China that don't trade freely back, but prefer to cheat. Furthermore, the spectre of culturally inferior countries such as the Middle East potentially challenging the West in the economic sphere appalls me. I don't want Islamist Turkey or the Islamic Republic of Iran pulling a China and gaining the economic and military power of the West combined with despicable and repulsive cultural values, or we'll end up with a similar situation to that with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. I also believe that freedom of movement, as we can see with the refugee crisis, is an absurd idea when taken to its extreme. On the one hand, no country should be like North Korea or China and shut off all immigration, but no cultured country should have to put up with hordes of illegals, aliens and people who are fundamentally hostile to said country's cultural values invading said country. Quality is more important than quantity. We should allow intelligent and skilled people of all races and countries in, but in manageable numbers and generally from friendly cultures or former colonies. We are a lot more than one, big, floating island marketplace. We should have more self-respect than that.
On foreign policy, I considered myself an alt-right style isolationist, but my views have evolved and I have now been converted to the acceptance of some kind of imperialism. The whole of human history is testament to the efficacy and beneficial effects of imperialism. Even Islamic imperialism, which I find abhorrent, had positive effects which I am happy to admit to. Yet nowadays everyone wants to bash the West solely for imperialism and colonialism, even though Western imperialism is the most benign form of imperialism the world has known over the numerous and multifaceted millenia of human history. I now support forceful intervention in foreign lands, but not necessarily because of liberal humanitarianism, but for the purposes of conquest, economic advantage and cultural exploitation. We should take on the good aspects of foreign cultures and discard the bad, replacing it with aspects of our own, superior cultures. We should encourage a new age of exploration, a new era of colonial adventure and conquest such as existed in the early modern era. Budding, semi-autonomous entrepreneurs should be aided by the government in going to foreign lands in Africa and the Middle East, overthrowing the existing governments and replacing them with protectorates and kingdoms ruled by themselves and their followers, with strong British support. These might take the form of companies such as existed in previous centuries (like the East India Company), except they'd be in the form of modern-day, private contractors (imagine Blackwater being re-named The Mesopotamia Company and being given a charter by the U.S. government for the conquest and exploitation of the country). We should also not be afraid to rename our new conquests. For example, Zimbabwe should be returned to its old name of Rhodesia, or named after whoever conquers it this time. We should build a great, multi-racial empire run by an elite of the brightest and best of all races, ruling over the pathetic and feckless plebs kept contented by bread and games, and advancing a rejuvenated British (and Western) culture. Anyone that challenges such a state of affairs should be incarcerated and suppressed without hesitation, especially if said person is a communist.
On education, I believe that we should adopt an uber-elitist, Nietzschean approach and save our schools and universities from being invaded by hordes of brainless students who shouldn't be there in the first place. Instead, these institutions will be preserved for those who show potential, especially our institutions of higher learning. The state will only interfere with education to preserve its elitist nature, but will try its best to leave teachers and parents with most of the control. The state should also ensure that pupils are taught to emulate great men of history.
Social security would remain in place, but it would be just enough to stop the underclass rioting/philandering/squatting. The military would be beefed up, for obvious reasons. A program will be put in place for the construction of beautiful public parks, monuments to historical heroes, museums built, roads widened etc. The government won't really interfere with social issues like homosexuality or religion unless they have debilitating effects on civil society (like Christianity, which encourages meekness, pity, weakness and submissiveness). Other than that, there will be freedom of religion.
In short, the main differences between this society and that will be: a) no elections but leadership by a heroic elite b) imperialist foreign policy c) elitist education.
Am I a quasi-fascist or have I just been reading too much Nietzsche?
I support government run by a heroic leader with almost super-human abilities. Someone like Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Augustus, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, Garibaldi, William Pitt, Justinian, Belisarius, Winston Churchill, Oliver Cromwell, etc. Basically, someone of superior value and worthiness than your average citizen. Such a heroic leader should be willing to violate Christian and liberal morality and commit quasi-criminal or criminal deeds for the greater good. Such a person should even be willing to violate the law in order to achieve his ends, and, if necessary, crush his political opponents with utter ruthlessness. This goes against the liberal idea of the rule of law and the equal worth of all individuals, so I certainly can't place myself in the classical liberal camp as I once did, though I still feel strong sympathy for certain classical liberal ideas.
I would support a government under such a heroic leader being able to mobilise the whole of society for his goals, even for his own personal glory. This might strike you as psychotic, absurd and destructive, but there are countless examples in history of heroic leaders doing this to highly successful ends. Napoleon Bonaparte amassed armies of millions of troops for war and conquest, spreading the ideals of the French Revolution and the highly successful models of French government throughout Europe. The glories of France were inextricably connected with his glories. The people of France were nothing more than mere objects, mere tools, mere instruments with which he achieved his vision. The Revolution was dead - it had reincarnated itself as Bonapartism, and it would set an entire continent aflame. Frederick the Great transformed Prussia from being a slumbering, Northern European kingdom to being a world power. Thousands of lives were sacrificed for him to earn the epithet "the Great", but who remembers them? We only remember the empire he forged from his victories. At one point he came close to being defeated and ruined, yet he clung on and won ultimate victory. Gustavus Adolphus turned a tiny, sparsely-populated Baltic kingdom into a Great Power through war and conquest, and the last ruler of the Swedish Empire, Charles XII, fought to the end to preserve it, dying heroically in battle in 1718 just as Gustavus Adolphus did in 1632, his country in ruins and his population cursing his name. But his heroic example lives in history. These heroic leaders just as often led their countries to ruin as to triumph, but their glories live on, and they are household names to us. These individuals alone has inspired plays, poetry, novels and films, and have left their imprint upon our great civilisation. Who will say that their ventures were not worth it?
On economics, I considered myself a solid free-trader until recently, though I now think that I would be ok with moderate protectionism. Free trade seems pointless if you trade freely with countries like China that don't trade freely back, but prefer to cheat. Furthermore, the spectre of culturally inferior countries such as the Middle East potentially challenging the West in the economic sphere appalls me. I don't want Islamist Turkey or the Islamic Republic of Iran pulling a China and gaining the economic and military power of the West combined with despicable and repulsive cultural values, or we'll end up with a similar situation to that with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. I also believe that freedom of movement, as we can see with the refugee crisis, is an absurd idea when taken to its extreme. On the one hand, no country should be like North Korea or China and shut off all immigration, but no cultured country should have to put up with hordes of illegals, aliens and people who are fundamentally hostile to said country's cultural values invading said country. Quality is more important than quantity. We should allow intelligent and skilled people of all races and countries in, but in manageable numbers and generally from friendly cultures or former colonies. We are a lot more than one, big, floating island marketplace. We should have more self-respect than that.
On foreign policy, I considered myself an alt-right style isolationist, but my views have evolved and I have now been converted to the acceptance of some kind of imperialism. The whole of human history is testament to the efficacy and beneficial effects of imperialism. Even Islamic imperialism, which I find abhorrent, had positive effects which I am happy to admit to. Yet nowadays everyone wants to bash the West solely for imperialism and colonialism, even though Western imperialism is the most benign form of imperialism the world has known over the numerous and multifaceted millenia of human history. I now support forceful intervention in foreign lands, but not necessarily because of liberal humanitarianism, but for the purposes of conquest, economic advantage and cultural exploitation. We should take on the good aspects of foreign cultures and discard the bad, replacing it with aspects of our own, superior cultures. We should encourage a new age of exploration, a new era of colonial adventure and conquest such as existed in the early modern era. Budding, semi-autonomous entrepreneurs should be aided by the government in going to foreign lands in Africa and the Middle East, overthrowing the existing governments and replacing them with protectorates and kingdoms ruled by themselves and their followers, with strong British support. These might take the form of companies such as existed in previous centuries (like the East India Company), except they'd be in the form of modern-day, private contractors (imagine Blackwater being re-named The Mesopotamia Company and being given a charter by the U.S. government for the conquest and exploitation of the country). We should also not be afraid to rename our new conquests. For example, Zimbabwe should be returned to its old name of Rhodesia, or named after whoever conquers it this time. We should build a great, multi-racial empire run by an elite of the brightest and best of all races, ruling over the pathetic and feckless plebs kept contented by bread and games, and advancing a rejuvenated British (and Western) culture. Anyone that challenges such a state of affairs should be incarcerated and suppressed without hesitation, especially if said person is a communist.
On education, I believe that we should adopt an uber-elitist, Nietzschean approach and save our schools and universities from being invaded by hordes of brainless students who shouldn't be there in the first place. Instead, these institutions will be preserved for those who show potential, especially our institutions of higher learning. The state will only interfere with education to preserve its elitist nature, but will try its best to leave teachers and parents with most of the control. The state should also ensure that pupils are taught to emulate great men of history.
Social security would remain in place, but it would be just enough to stop the underclass rioting/philandering/squatting. The military would be beefed up, for obvious reasons. A program will be put in place for the construction of beautiful public parks, monuments to historical heroes, museums built, roads widened etc. The government won't really interfere with social issues like homosexuality or religion unless they have debilitating effects on civil society (like Christianity, which encourages meekness, pity, weakness and submissiveness). Other than that, there will be freedom of religion.
In short, the main differences between this society and that will be: a) no elections but leadership by a heroic elite b) imperialist foreign policy c) elitist education.
Am I a quasi-fascist or have I just been reading too much Nietzsche?
Scroll to see replies
And another thing: I'm not sure what title I'd give this heroic leader - he could be an Emperor, a President or just The Leader.
Supreme Leader? Maximum Leader? Brother Leader and Guide? Lord Protector?
Supreme Leader? Maximum Leader? Brother Leader and Guide? Lord Protector?
Am stoned; read the whole thing. tl;dr: OP is a quasi-fascist.
Machiavellian, certainly, but I wouldn't go as far as quasi-fascist. From the perspective of advancing the nation-state, some of these policies would certainly benefit Britain/the West in general's relative geopolitical power. The moral dimension is obviously a bit more murky, but as there isn't really any objectivity with morality (it's a personal opinion - I'll quote below) you could certainly argue that the net benefits of such policies may outweigh the authoritarian method of achieving such aims. I remember a while ago that we had a discussion together on the merits and drawbacks of democracy (with me defending it), which was very enjoyable, and I do actually agree* with some of the points that you've made here. Whilst the men that you mentioned are certainly respectable in their own right, do you not think that a cold, rational calculator that adheres to broadly enlightenment-era ideals (at least on the intellectual front) would be a better leader than someone who is instinctive and charismatic? I think charisma is a good trait to have, and ideally the rational leader would be charismatic as well, but in the monarchy thread you mentioned that you'd prefer them to act on instinct, rather than reason? Are you sure this is a wise way to obtain the optimal outcome?
*When I say I agree, by the way, I mean broadly in principle. I think there are a number of practical limitations and flaws to some of these ideas, which I can flesh out if you wish.
*When I say I agree, by the way, I mean broadly in principle. I think there are a number of practical limitations and flaws to some of these ideas, which I can flesh out if you wish.
Spoiler
(edited 7 years ago)
I might also add that in the current global struggle between "globalism" and "nationalism", my sympathy is with the latter due to their struggle against PC, Cultural Marxism and over-sentimental liberal humanitarianism and identity politics. But I do not believe, like many alt-right figures, that national sovereignty is an absolute - I am for breaching the national sovereignty of countries with barbaric cultures and colonising them. Nor do I endorse the ethnic nationalism or racism of credulous and moronic white nationalists/white supremacists in the alt-right movement (being non-white myself and not believing in a scientific concept of race). I am also fine with a pan-European empire led by a Caesar or a Bonaparte which preserves Western civilisation (not this scummy, uber-liberal version).
Original post by JRKinder
Machiavellian, certainly, but I wouldn't go as far as quasi-fascist. From the perspective of advancing the nation-state, some of these policies would certainly benefit Britain/the West in general's relative geopolitical power. The moral dimension is obviously a bit more murky, but as there isn't really any objectivity with morality (it's a personal opinion - I'll quote below) you could certainly argue that the net benefits of such policies may outweigh the authoritarian method of achieving such aims. I remember a while ago that we had a discussion together on the merits and drawbacks of democracy (with me defending it), which was very enjoyable, and I do actually agree* with a number of the points that you've made here. Whilst all the figures that you mentioned are certainly respectable in their own right, do you not think that a cold, rational calculator that adheres to broadly enlightenment-era ideals (at least on the intellectual front) would be a better leader than someone who is instinctive and charismatic? I think charisma is a good trait to have, and ideally the rational leader would be charismatic as well, but in the monarchy thread you mentioned that you'd prefer them to act on instinct, rather than reason? Are you sure this is wise way to obtain the optimal outcome?
*When I say I agree, by the way, I mean broadly in principle. I think there are a number of practical limitations and flaws to some of these ideas, which I can flesh out if you wish.
*When I say I agree, by the way, I mean broadly in principle. I think there are a number of practical limitations and flaws to some of these ideas, which I can flesh out if you wish.
Spoiler
Thanks for your warm response. With regards to your point about instinct vs reason, I believe that instinct is the driving force of life. It is what motivates you to work for your dream job, it is what drives you to pick your life partner, it is what gives you the will to live and to achieve your goals. I believe it is superior to reason in this regard. Reason can only do so much, and so many times people believe they're following "reason" but really they're merely rationalising an instinctive choice. Reason is useful for justifying decisions, not so much for making them. Any attempt to follow "reason" to the exclusion of one's instinctive drives will result in a Hamlet-style dilemma of never coming to a decision. It is better to make a quick and risky decision than take ages to decide on a course of action and miss a valuable opportunity.
Original post by Cato the Elder
Thanks for your warm response. With regards to your point about instinct vs reason, I believe that instinct is the driving force of life. It is what motivates you to work for your dream job, it is what drives you to pick your life partner, it is what gives you the will to live and to achieve your goals. I believe it is superior to reason in this regard. Reason can only do so much, and so many times people believe they're following "reason" but really they're merely rationalising an instinctive choice. Reason is useful for justifying decisions, not so much for making them. Any attempt to follow "reason" to the exclusion of one's instinctive drives will result in a Hamlet-style dilemma of never coming to a decision. It is better to make a quick and risky decision than take ages to decide on a course of action and miss a valuable opportunity.
But on a larger scale - in this instance governing a political state - I think one instead must defer to reason backed up by empirical evidence, or at the very least logical projections of the result of actions, before actually taking those actions. I think a number of issues in the modern world are simply too big and complex for instinct to produce the optimal response the majority of times, so we must instead look at the evidence, come up with a number of potential responses to the situation, and then rationally argue the merits and drawbacks of each, before deciding which is the strongest course of action to take. In an ideal world a truly enlightened monarch could do this themselves, but failing that there should be much deliberation between the greatest minds and experts in the field that society can produce. There are actually some models of democracy that aim to foster this environment, such as the trustee model of representation, but this obviously brings the flaws of democracy along with it. However, I think it's a much more realistic form of governance, simply because actually ensuring that the monarch is truly enlightened is both subjective and nigh-on impossible.
(edited 7 years ago)
How you talk here is alt-right, but most of your views are fairly boring neo conservativism/Reaganism
Original post by Mathemagicien
Fascist traits:
Strong leader
Don't care for Christian/liberal morality
The ends always justify the means
Less political freedom
People are fundamentally unequal
'Mobilising the whole of society for a goal', even total war
Our culture is superior
Pro-imperialist and pro-colonialist, even exploitation of natives
Expansionist
Anti-communist
Extreme meritocracy (wrt education)
Social security for the 'in-group'
Projects to restore pride with aesthetics
Your economic policies aren't necessarily overly fascist. You lean towards autarky, which is characteristic of fascism; but fascists also lean more towards corporatism and class collaboration than you might.
Also note that racism isn't necessarily characteristic of fascism. For example, Mussolini wasn't particularly racist.
So overall, from what you've said, yeah, I'd say you lean quite strongly towards fascism. But what do you think of the following tenets?:
Strong leader
Don't care for Christian/liberal morality
The ends always justify the means
Less political freedom
People are fundamentally unequal
'Mobilising the whole of society for a goal', even total war
Our culture is superior
Pro-imperialist and pro-colonialist, even exploitation of natives
Expansionist
Anti-communist
Extreme meritocracy (wrt education)
Social security for the 'in-group'
Projects to restore pride with aesthetics
Your economic policies aren't necessarily overly fascist. You lean towards autarky, which is characteristic of fascism; but fascists also lean more towards corporatism and class collaboration than you might.
Also note that racism isn't necessarily characteristic of fascism. For example, Mussolini wasn't particularly racist.
So overall, from what you've said, yeah, I'd say you lean quite strongly towards fascism. But what do you think of the following tenets?:
What is Fascism? (Click to expand)
Original post by Mathemagicien
Yeah, I don't think its particularly alt-right. Alt-right really means white nationalist, although the media (in its love for Newspeak) now labels a huge variety of ideologies 'alt-right'.
I generally associate white nationalists with the traditional right where the wealthy old money members form the Old Boys/NeoCons (e.g. Bush family) and the more lower class blue collar folk either become WN's/Traditional Conservatives (army families and tradesmen).
The alt-right are the sons of anarchy. They're drawn from a demographic you would in the past have associated with champagne socialists and academic leftism, many of the prominent writers are the children of 1960's radicals which is why it's been so shockingly successful and the strategies used are they same strategies which the left used in the past. It's mischievous, fun, modern, like something straight outta Alinsky's playbook for example in the past you would stereotype right-wingers as being inbred, not very intelligent and out of touch, now it's SJW's who and their hairy fannies who are doing useless degrees and have no idea of the real world.
You've been indulging in too many movies and epic novels, you've sensationally lost sense of reality.
Also it's interesting that you also think we should invade other countries. The white supremacists aren't even hiding it anymore.
Also it's interesting that you also think we should invade other countries. The white supremacists aren't even hiding it anymore.
In my opinion you are not a facist. I would be happy with a absoulute monarchy IF and only IF I could 100% assure that our leaders would actually be really good like many of those famous leaders you said, but there is no real way to do that. If you could it certainly would be more efficent but It is unrealistic to happen all the time, that is why I am opposed to it.
Original post by AperfectBalance
In my opinion you are not a facist. I would be happy with a absoulute monarchy IF and only IF I could 100% assure that our leaders would actually be really good like many of those famous leaders you said, but there is no real way to do that. If you could it certainly would be more efficent but It is unrealistic to happen all the time, that is why I am opposed to it.
What I don't get about this position is that in democracy idiots get into power constantly as long as they are charismatic enough they can even fool the plebs to vote for them again and again.
Original post by knightchildish
You've been indulging in too many movies and epic novels, you've sensationally lost sense of reality.
Also it's interesting that you also think we should invade other countries. The white supremacists aren't even hiding it anymore.
Also it's interesting that you also think we should invade other countries. The white supremacists aren't even hiding it anymore.
OP is Ghanaian as far as I know, lol
But yes, sounds like he's been reading too much Machiavellian ********; his delusional thinking has led him to borderline misanthropy and narcissism.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
OP is Ghanaian as far as I know, lol
But yes, sounds like he's been reading too much Machiavellian ********; his delusional thinking has led him to borderline misanthropy and narcissism.
But yes, sounds like he's been reading too much Machiavellian ********; his delusional thinking has led him to borderline misanthropy and narcissism.
It's silly and childish. I don't think anyone can take him seriously.
Original post by knightchildish
You've been indulging in too many movies and epic novels, you've sensationally lost sense of reality.
Also it's interesting that you also think we should invade other countries. The white supremacists aren't even hiding it anymore.
Also it's interesting that you also think we should invade other countries. The white supremacists aren't even hiding it anymore.
I'm a white supremacist? Did you even read my post? XD
Original post by Cato the Elder
I'm a white supremacist? Did you even read my post? XD
Idc what you are, clearly you believing that the west is entitled to invade countries shows what kind of mentality you have, grow up and get in check with reality
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official University of the Arts London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 8 minutes ago
LAWYERS: Can I bring an action against my old schoolLast reply 10 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 11 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 15 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 43 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1275
Last reply 57 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 hours ago
2023 ** Borders and Enforcement, Crime & Compliance - ICE - Immigration OfficersLast reply 2 hours ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
