Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Am I A Quasi-Fascist? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes pretty much.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    You must be fun at parties.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Nobody and I mean nobody will take the time to read the OP unless she/he's stoned.

    Make a tldr version.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    Nobody and I mean nobody will take the time to read the OP unless she/he's stoned.

    Make a tldr version.
    Am stoned; read the whole thing. tl;dr: OP is a quasi-fascist.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Here's the quote about morality that I mentioned above:

    "The presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content. Thus if I say to someone, "You acted wrongly in stealing that money," I am not stating anything more than if I had simply said, "You stole that money." In adding that this action is wrong I am not making any further statement about it. I am simply evincing my moral disapproval of it. It is as if I had said, "You stole that money," in a peculiar tone of horror, or written it with the addition of some special exclamation marks. … If now I generalise my previous statement and say, "Stealing money is wrong," I produce a sentence that has no factual meaning—that is, expresses no proposition that can be either true or false. … I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments." - Sir A. J. Ayer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    Spoiler:
    Show





    Here's the quote about morality that I mentioned above:

    "The presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content. Thus if I say to someone, "You acted wrongly in stealing that money," I am not stating anything more than if I had simply said, "You stole that money." In adding that this action is wrong I am not making any further statement about it. I am simply evincing my moral disapproval of it. It is as if I had said, "You stole that money," in a peculiar tone of horror, or written it with the addition of some special exclamation marks. … If now I generalise my previous statement and say, "Stealing money is wrong," I produce a sentence that has no factual meaning—that is, expresses no proposition that can be either true or false. … I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments." - Sir A. J. Ayer




    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I think there is in fact an overlap between the two in the situations that you have identified. Is it not possible that things like finding as good a job as possible, a suitable life partner, and having the will to carry out your goals seem instinctual precisely because they are rational? Your body, instinctually, is a self-preservation machine, which is the rational course of action because the body wishes to propogate its genes. So, whilst you think "reason" is used to justify instincts, I actually think the converse: that many of your instincts actually follow rational lines from a perspective of self-interest.

    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.
    • Offline

      20
      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?:

      What is Fascism? (Click to expand)
      Tl;dr: Fascism is fundamentally nationalistic, militaristic, and modern, leaning toward somewhat - but distinct from - socialism (indeed, many leading Fascists were Socialists earlier in their life, such as Mussolini himself).

      Fascism is a relatively hard ideology to define; however, most fascist ideologies share the following core tenets:

      Autarky (Click to expand)
      Most fascists favour complete self-dependence of their state, and reject globalisation.


      Corporatism (Click to expand)
      The idea that the economical structure of the country should be regulated like a corpus (body), each section a corporative (not a corporation), which is a union of workers in a corporation which operates in a free market, it isn't privetely owned.


      Class collaboration (Click to expand)
      Instead of class struggle; this is the reason fascism clashes with socialism, as fascism sees class struggle as a diversion from the struggle of nations.

      Fascism wishes to deconstruct the old classes - which is one of many areas where it clashes with conservatism - but then to create new classes, which collaborate to make the country better great again. There wouldn't be the bourgeoisie and the proletariate, but the many classes of workers under each corporation.


      Hierarchy (Click to expand)
      Fascists believe that no two people anywhere are exactly equal, let alone any more people than that. Naturally, they usually favour their country or race as superior to others; as such, fascists often acted in a socialist-like manner, but exclusively to their own citizens. Hence, fascism can be seen as left-wing to its own, and right-wing to others.

      This implicitly suggests militarist imperialism. Fascism sees life as a continual conflict between people for limited resources. To fascists, war let nations or races decide who got the planet's resources, in a Darwinian struggle for survival.

      Fascists applied biological concepts to constructs like nations and races. Virility, physical prowess and hierarchy were applied to these constructs, as well as notions like sickness and degeneration. Ideas of the "sickness" of a nation or race was what inspired many fascist regimes to resort to eugenics, and in some cases genocide.

      This is another reason why war was so important to fascists; it had a therapeutic effect on society: it destroyed the weak, and allowed the strong and healthy to thrive.


      Meritocracy (Click to expand)
      The idea that power should come with merit. This is where fascism abandons democracy. The idea is that workers progress inside the corporative through merit, and since each corporative is a part of government, the meritocracy actually produces political leaders.

      This leads to the rule of specialists. The leaders and representatives of each corporative (and consequently the government) would be specialists in their areas, not politicians.


      National Rebirth (Click to expand)
      A revolutionary desire to begin a rebirth of the Nation, and escaping the "destructive" influences of capitalism and communism.

      For example, Mussolini wanted to form a "New Roman Empire", while the Nazis initially wanted Germany to regain its former position in the world, as a "Great Power".


      Nationalism (Click to expand)
      Fascists seek social cohesiveness, through nationalism. Mussolini thought nationalism should happen through culturalism, while Hitler thought it should come through racialism. Fascists take nationalism far, essentially seeing other nations as competitors in the struggle for survival.

      It's worth pointing out that Germany and Italy didn't have the sense of "national/ethnic identity" that we as outsiders often ascribe to those nations today. They were relatively recently formed nation-states, and a political movement that emphasized nationalism likely carried some appeal as a means of paving over existing regional and ethno-linguistic differences and tensions.

      Fascists believe that people are fundamentally irrational, and their irrationality should be harnessed into action, e.g. using patriotism and leader idolisation as a means to get people thinking about the "greater good", rather than their own individual interests.

      This is the second way Fascism and Socialism clash. Fascism sees national loyalty as absolutely central, but orthodox Socialism believes that loyalty to the international movement of Communism should replace all other loyalties. As a result, Socialists came to see Fascists as lapdogs of the entrenched, conservative upper-classes, and Fascists saw Socialists as a threat to the integrity of the nation, and as a symptom of a decaying society they sought to replace.


      Purity (Click to expand)
      Fascism idolises purity; usually ethnic or cultural purity.There's an old saying: "If you put one drop of water in 5000 gallons of sewage, you have 5000 gallons of sewage. If you put one drop of sewage in 5000 gallons of water, you have 5000 gallons of sewage."That reaction to "even one drop" of impurity is one impulse that drives some people into fascism.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      How you talk here is alt-right, but most of your views are fairly boring neo conservativism/Reaganism
      • Offline

        20
        (Original post by l'etranger)
        How you talk here is alt-right, but most of your views are fairly boring neo conservativism/Reaganism
        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'.
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (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?:

        What is Fascism? (Click to expand)
        Tl;dr: Fascism is fundamentally nationalistic, militaristic, and modern, leaning toward somewhat - but distinct from - socialism (indeed, many leading Fascists were Socialists earlier in their life, such as Mussolini himself).

        Fascism is a relatively hard ideology to define; however, most fascist ideologies share the following core tenets:

        Autarky (Click to expand)
        Most fascists favour complete self-dependence of their state, and reject globalisation.


        Corporatism (Click to expand)
        The idea that the economical structure of the country should be regulated like a corpus (body), each section a corporative (not a corporation), which is a union of workers in a corporation which operates in a free market, it isn't privetely owned.


        Class collaboration (Click to expand)
        Instead of class struggle; this is the reason fascism clashes with socialism, as fascism sees class struggle as a diversion from the struggle of nations.

        Fascism wishes to deconstruct the old classes - which is one of many areas where it clashes with conservatism - but then to create new classes, which collaborate to make the country better great again. There wouldn't be the bourgeoisie and the proletariate, but the many classes of workers under each corporation.


        Hierarchy (Click to expand)
        Fascists believe that no two people anywhere are exactly equal, let alone any more people than that. Naturally, they usually favour their country or race as superior to others; as such, fascists often acted in a socialist-like manner, but exclusively to their own citizens. Hence, fascism can be seen as left-wing to its own, and right-wing to others.

        This implicitly suggests militarist imperialism. Fascism sees life as a continual conflict between people for limited resources. To fascists, war let nations or races decide who got the planet's resources, in a Darwinian struggle for survival.

        Fascists applied biological concepts to constructs like nations and races. Virility, physical prowess and hierarchy were applied to these constructs, as well as notions like sickness and degeneration. Ideas of the "sickness" of a nation or race was what inspired many fascist regimes to resort to eugenics, and in some cases genocide.

        This is another reason why war was so important to fascists; it had a therapeutic effect on society: it destroyed the weak, and allowed the strong and healthy to thrive.


        Meritocracy (Click to expand)
        The idea that power should come with merit. This is where fascism abandons democracy. The idea is that workers progress inside the corporative through merit, and since each corporative is a part of government, the meritocracy actually produces political leaders.

        This leads to the rule of specialists. The leaders and representatives of each corporative (and consequently the government) would be specialists in their areas, not politicians.


        National Rebirth (Click to expand)
        A revolutionary desire to begin a rebirth of the Nation, and escaping the "destructive" influences of capitalism and communism.

        For example, Mussolini wanted to form a "New Roman Empire", while the Nazis initially wanted Germany to regain its former position in the world, as a "Great Power".


        Nationalism (Click to expand)
        Fascists seek social cohesiveness, through nationalism. Mussolini thought nationalism should happen through culturalism, while Hitler thought it should come through racialism. Fascists take nationalism far, essentially seeing other nations as competitors in the struggle for survival.

        It's worth pointing out that Germany and Italy didn't have the sense of "national/ethnic identity" that we as outsiders often ascribe to those nations today. They were relatively recently formed nation-states, and a political movement that emphasized nationalism likely carried some appeal as a means of paving over existing regional and ethno-linguistic differences and tensions.

        Fascists believe that people are fundamentally irrational, and their irrationality should be harnessed into action, e.g. using patriotism and leader idolisation as a means to get people thinking about the "greater good", rather than their own individual interests.

        This is the second way Fascism and Socialism clash. Fascism sees national loyalty as absolutely central, but orthodox Socialism believes that loyalty to the international movement of Communism should replace all other loyalties. As a result, Socialists came to see Fascists as lapdogs of the entrenched, conservative upper-classes, and Fascists saw Socialists as a threat to the integrity of the nation, and as a symptom of a decaying society they sought to replace.


        Purity (Click to expand)
        Fascism idolises purity; usually ethnic or cultural purity.There's an old saying: "If you put one drop of water in 5000 gallons of sewage, you have 5000 gallons of sewage. If you put one drop of sewage in 5000 gallons of water, you have 5000 gallons of sewage."That reaction to "even one drop" of impurity is one impulse that drives some people into fascism.
        Yes, when you flesh out fascism in that way, OP's views are heading in that direction. Still, based on what he has said, I think these views derive more from pure self-interest than actual hatred for others, the latter of which is a typical fascist characteristic. Of course, there are elements of this through his advocacy of colonialism against 'lesser' cultures. However, this again appears to stem from self-interest through exploitation, rather than an outright hatred of a holocaust-esque tone. If OP could clarify this, that would be useful.
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (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.
        • Offline

          20
          (Original post by JRKinder)
          Yes, when you flesh out fascism in that way, OP's views are heading in that direction. Still, based on what he has said, I think these views derive more from pure self-interest than actual hatred for others, the latter of which is a typical fascist characteristic. Of course, there are elements of this through his advocacy of colonialism against 'lesser' cultures. However, this again appears to stem from self-interest through exploitation, rather than an outright hatred of a holocaust-esque tone. If OP could clarify this, that would be useful.
          Fascism =/= Nazism

          Nazism was a very specific branch of fascism. Fascism is not always defined by a hatred of others; it is a distrust of others, and a feeling of superiority.

          I doubt the Nazis particularly hated the 'untermensch', rather they just literally saw them as sub-humans and a waste of resources.

          One of fascism's most unique characteristics is the application of Darwinism to nations/races; taken to its logical extremes, it often leads to eugenics and genocide. That is the very dangerous thing about fascism - that it is based on cold logic*, rather than emotions that might otherwise regulate it. Fascists see a problem, and they have zero qualms about a solution to it, even if that solution means the deaths of millions. Fascists didn't seek to eliminate their enemies out of hatred, they did it because they genuinely believed they were helping mankind.

          *By this I mean that fascists have a set of axioms, and from those axioms develop a logically consistent system of policies. Their initial axioms are very different to most other ideologies.
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          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.
          Offline

          16
          ReputationRep:
          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.
          Offline

          20
          ReputationRep:
          op's fascination with powerful male figures who wield absolute power in arbitrary ways is clearly rooted in early childhood.
          daddy issues.
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (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.
         
         
         
        Reply
        Submit reply
        TSR Support Team

        We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

        Updated: January 23, 2017
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.