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

Am I A Quasi-Fascist? Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    It's silly and childish. I don't think anyone can take him seriously.
    • Offline

      20
      (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
      OP is Ghanaian as far as I know, lol
      Are you saying that there aren't white Ghanaians? Or that black people can't be white supremacists?

      Wow. WTF??? Its 2017 dude!1
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (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.
      I'm a white supremacist? Did you even read my post? XD
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (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
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by knightchildish)
      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
      Not an argument I'm afraid.

      And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.

      Read "The Prince" by Machiavelli and "Thus Spake Zarathustra", "The Antichrist", "On The Genealogy of Morals", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Gay Science" by Nietzsche.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Cato the Elder)
      Not an argument I'm afraid.

      And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.
      You kind of remind me of the guy from fight club.

      I mean look, you've spent so much time writing paragraphs on paragraphs to justify what seems to be a reenactment of movies and sensationalist novels. I think you're miserable and your life is mundane and coming up with silly political ideologies that are sort of hilarious for the rest of us to cover your dissatisfaction in life.

      Don't worry, you'll grow out of it. Hopefully.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by knightchildish)
      You kind of remind me of the guy from fight club.

      I mean look, you've spent so much time writing paragraphs on paragraphs to justify what seems to be a reenactment of movies and sensationalist novels. I think you're miserable and your life is mundane and coming up with silly political ideologies that are sort of hilarious for the rest of us to cover your dissatisfaction in life.

      Don't worry, you'll grow out of it. Hopefully.
      Lol, ad hominem attacks. The response of someone who has nothing intelligent to contribute to the discussion.

      Please, leave this thread if you aren't going to say anything useful and beneficial to humankind.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Cato the Elder)
      Lol, ad hominem attacks. The response of someone who has nothing intelligent to contribute to the discussion.
      What I find hilariously ironic is that i've seen you here being very critical to say the least about places like Saudi Arabia and yet you advocate the violation of international borders and the killing of people for the Western world's gain. You're nothing short of a hypocrite.

      This was never a discussion, this was me giving you a wake up call.
      • Offline

        20
        (Original post by Cato the Elder)
        Not an argument I'm afraid.

        And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.

        Read "The Prince" by Machiavelli and "Thus Spake Zarathustra", "The Antichrist", "On The Genealogy of Morals", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Gay Science" by Nietzsche.
        Are you actually being serious?
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by knightchildish)
        What I find hilariously ironic is that i've seen you here being very critical to say the least about places like Saudi Arabia and yet you advocate the violation of international borders and the killing of people for the Western world's gain. You're nothing short of a hypocrite.

        This was never a discussion, this was me giving you a wake up call.
        So my ideal state is the moral equivalent of a hellhole like Saudi Arabia? All this tells me is that your narrow and unfurnished mind cannot even begin to comprehend the degradation, poverty and misery in said country. For you to compare my ideas with totalitarian Islamic theocracy is to trivialise it, and is, in effect, a form of apology for Islamism, because you're basically saying that Saudi Arabia isn't that bad. Good to know that you're an apologist for Islamism.

        Thank you for your perspicacious and indispensable insights. Goodbye!
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Mathemagicien)
        Are you actually being serious?
        Yes.
        • Offline

          20
          (Original post by Cato the Elder)
          Yes.
          So what did you think of those tenets?

          (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.
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Cato the Elder)
          So my ideal state is the moral equivalent of a hellhole like Saudi Arabia? All this tells me is that your narrow and unfurnished mind cannot even begin to comprehend the degradation, poverty and misery in said country. For you to compare my ideas with totalitarian Islamic theocracy is to trivialise it, and is, in effect, a form of apology for Islamism, because you're basically saying that Saudi Arabia isn't that bad. Good to know that you're an apologist for Islamism.

          Thank you for your perspicacious and indispensable insights. Goodbye!
          Well you have thrown all morals out, given that you advocate genocide for the purpose of gain for the west. Even the Saudis aren't indiscriminately murdering everyone for the West's gain. I'm saying that the Saudis are vile but you're worse. Im not an apologist. Your whole ideology is based on the fundamental principle that the people of the West are superior to the rest of the world and that's how the slave trade began.

          However I am struggling to see how you're trying to justify your own ideology which has no morals at all for victim countries but then say that the Saudis are bad. It's purely hypocritical. It's like you're cherry picking which morals we throw away and which we keep. It's not one rule for the west and another for the rest. There needs to be consistency.
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Cato the Elder)
          Not an argument I'm afraid.

          And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.

          Read "The Prince" by Machiavelli and "Thus Spake Zarathustra", "The Antichrist", "On The Genealogy of Morals", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Gay Science" by Nietzsche.
          I object to having no qualms with killing thousands; causing the deaths of innocent people should be avoided as far as is possible (for example, I accept that the deaths of some innocent people in launching air strikes against ISIS are inevitable, and necessary to destroy the organisation, but we shouldn't simply blitzkreig the place - even though this would be quicker, we will have less of an impact on innocents by using targeted strikes).

          Would it not simply be better to endorse isolationism in your society? You don't really even have to interact with other civilisations if you wish not to, but there's no need to wage war. Although, I imagine war would be inevitable at some point as you would no doubt pursue the same resources as another state. In this respect, I guess colonialism would further your goals most effectively. Still, if there's no need to come into conflict with one another, then I see no need to attempt to dominate another society.

          Like I said before, your proposals make logical sense from a perspective of self-interest, with a strong attachment to the state. There are obvious criticisms to this as well, which are plainly obvious to identify (mainly in regards to disregards for human rights and the 'right' to invade other nations). You could counter this by saying these are both human constructs with no tangible value, which is true, but I assume that you at least want some degree of moral standards and respect for others within your own society, which are just as intangible. It may also serve your own long-term interests to cooperate with others in the world, as this increases the number of potential 'great' people who may bring about a positive change, and avoids conflict that risks periodic mass destruction of your own society (if the enemy has similar strength to your own). It's an interesting thought-experiment though. Tomorrow, when I'm on my computer, I might go through the whole OP and respond to each part in more detail, listing what I think are the pros and cons of all the things you've described, if you'd like?
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Cato the Elder)
          Not an argument I'm afraid.

          And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.

          Read "The Prince" by Machiavelli and "Thus Spake Zarathustra", "The Antichrist", "On The Genealogy of Morals", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Gay Science" by Nietzsche.
          Mate no matter what you political aims ideally you shouldn't need to kill people to achieve them, and if you do eg bombing an enemy city during wartime said course of action shouldn't be taken frivolously.
          Offline

          20
          ReputationRep:
          An initial post of more than 1,200 words (which is essentially an essay) really needs an expanded tl;dr to get the most responses, don't you think? Even if those words are beautifully assembled
          • Offline

            20
            (Original post by Reality Check)
            An initial post of more than 1,200 words (which is essentially an essay) really needs an expanded tl;dr to get the most responses, don't you think? Even if those words are beautifully assembled
            The youth of today... no attention span. :shakecane:
            Offline

            20
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Mathemagicien)
            The youth of today... no attention span. :shakecane:
            lol - I did try, but it started to feel like I was being hit over the head a bit.
            Offline

            3
            ReputationRep:
            Winston Churchill, the man who sent 200,000 men to their deaths in Turkey because of ego and his selfish fears of having the Navy be 'marginalized' in WW1 is a worthy 'heroic' leader of state? Even he himself predicted that the operation would fail long before he pushed for it to be put into action.

            I would understand having a state ruled by a person raised and perhaps even bred (for traits such as intelligence, not bogus 'racial purity') for the ruling of a state from the ground up... but giving Churchill as an example? Even barring his apparent thirst for blood (and white supremacy views) he was not a particularly efficient head of state. Effective? Sure, but many horribly bad leaders were, in the end, effective.

            Besides, the reason as to why Napoelon might have been an overall force for good in Europe and perhaps the world as a whole, would be that he was eventually crushed and shooed out of power.
           
           
           
          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.