all 32 comments

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

"Fascism sucks because zero context quotes with no reasoning that amount to SCARY SOCIALISM gay boomer shit"

Bruh c'mon... At least come up with some policies or ANYTHING actually real to critique so other people can actually discuss real ideas with you rather than this dumb kneejerk boomer conservatardism.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

He sounds like if Trump and some chapotraphouse had a child

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Literally not an argument, I don't even really like fascist Italy but your line of 'reasoning' is fucking stupid here

[–]VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This sub is nothing but boomer conservatism mixed in with schizo nonsense at this point…

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sad!

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Race back then also meant ethnic group. So there was a French race, German race, Italian race, etc. and the anti race comments were in regards to that not that blacks or Asians are the same as whites.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It wasn't national groups like that, it was Lothrop Stoddard kind of nordicist spergery he was talking about (Alpine, Nordic, Dinaric etc 'races' based on phenotypes). Hitler was also not a big fan of that, although early on he used that terminology.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So he didn't think the Italian race existed. CivNat cuck (refering to mussolini)

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The mainstream among the racist scientists at the time was that there were at least 3 races amongst Italians, and that the better one was the Nordic. Mussolini rightly rejected this ridiculous claim made by the Nordicists, and when he was forced to adopt the stupid racial nazi legislation went ahead claiming that all the Italians were Aryans, basically negating the retarded nordicist claim.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Italian fascism is indeed different from national socialism. And I think it's better. But wathever, both are gone for good.

Btw I consider myself more "leftist" than "rightist". It's very clear that most of the problems we face are caused by capitalism, and i honestly don't think that even without Jews the capitalism would work better. One can argue about capitalism being an expression of the Jewish spirituality and I think that's fair, but Jeff Bezos is my enemy more than any Jew out there, so...

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

And I think it's better.

How so? I can't think of a qualitative or quantitative metric that would make Italy superior to Germany. Considering everything together (material, mental, spiritual, aesthetic etc factors) I think if we are talking about only ordinary, working class, pleb/member of the masses the absolute best 5-year-period of history to belong to would have been Germany 1933-1938 by a long shot.

If you could live 5 years as the mode (most common) person in any state in history which time and place would you pick?

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

just to add to the context, there was a fascist canchellor in Austria and he was kileld by the nazis, so that Italy was forced to switch alliance with the nazis. Now, if i am to choose between nazism and liberalism i will obviusly choose nazism, but there was a very clear path toward a fascist block in Europe that was forcefully disrupted by the nazis.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Fascism lasted 20 years without problems and would have lasted way longer if not for Hitler, nazism lasted barely 8 years and was a total disaster.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

So the argument is that fascism is better because jews didn't see it as a threat as much as national socialism. Isn't this a condemnation of fascism as not being truly a liberation of the people, opposing the plutocracies etc?

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

The argument is that Italian fascism is better because that wasn't as unstable as Nazism. You can't just blame everything on the Jews. The war was obviously pushed by England, but you can't say that Hitler didn't have a big deal in make this happen.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The argument is that Italian fascism is better because that wasn't as unstable as Nazism.

It would seem the opposite is true, because the Italian state tore itself apart in a civil war upon being subjected to external pressure, whereas the German state endured until the very end. The fact that Italian fascism was older than the National Socialist government is a point against its stability rather than a point for it, because it collapsed more easily despite the additional time of solidification and consolidation in comparison with Germany.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

So how did that have anything to do with National Socialism supposedly being unstable? How does destruction through warfare mean the political system is faulty? There's no correlation there.

By this logic liberalism is superior to both of them, and so is feudalism which are both obviously untrue unless you're a powerful person within those societies.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

1) nazi elite was clearly eager to start a big war, which was a bad idea to start with, and that's a reason of the instability of nazism. 1.5) years in power are a quantitative measure and you asked for that

2) even without taking that in account, nazism itself was heavily inclined to over-racialize any political problem. Racial distinctions were promoted even between germans at the academic level. There was a useless focus on eugenics over social and spiritual factors. Maybe Hitler himself held different ideas, but there were surely influential parts of the nazi establishment that promoted ideas of disunity among their own nation. That's an extremly unstable situation.

3) the nazis were unable to identify a common religion for their people, unlike fascism in spain, austria, italy, romania and so on, and ended up half-heartedly promoting a butchered version of the bible.

You can claim that those were minor factors and that toward the end of the war the nazis embraced a broad definition and the religious stuff wasn't important anymore. But those factor eventually would end up being very important. Except for that, however, the differences between fascism and nazism are extremly tiny and mostly related to the different level of industrialization of both countries. Fascism, as political, social and spiritual system, was absolutely sustainable in my opinion. Nazism, on the other hand, not so much. For how long the germans would have accepted to be categorized as hierachically distinct races?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

1) So they should have just not prepared and let the 4 empires slaughter them? The only way they would have avoided the war is if they didn't oppose the plutocracies. You're just condemning them for actually being real nationalists lol.

1.5) I meant quantitative in terms of economics and such, IE quantifiable metrics of material prosperity for the average person.

2) Was it though? The German people were more unified than ever.

3) Had no perceivable negative effect, this is just your personal preference for religious homogeneity. Sure it would be nice to have one church rather than multiple but doesn't matter politically or socially if there are no negative outcomes. It's not like Ireland where they were having civil wars during the Third Reich or something.

Nazism, on the other hand, not so much. For how long the germans would have accepted to be categorized as hierachically distinct races?

Where's the evidence of anything to do with separating between Nordics, Alpines, Dinarics etc in policy? This was just a hobby of racial scientists and was already out of fashion in the Third Reich with Hitler dismissing it. I very much doubt he would have morphed into some spergy Lothrop Stoddard type character and randomly create a caste system based on phenotypes. Do you really think the man who erased class boundaries and turned Germany into one people would randomly bring an even shittier caste system into place? I don't see why you would assume such a thing, sounds retarded.

You're just making wild assumptions/strawmen of irrelevant things and saying in a theoretical abstract future that didn't actually happen National Socialism would become extremely gay and retarded for no reason at all. I much prefer analysing what their policies actually were and comparing the two.

Again, my example. 5 years, you get to be the average ordinary working class person in any country throughout history, do you think Italy was superior to Germany? Germany had better art, architecture, music, culture, working conditions, wages, family policies, environmental policies, buying power etc etc. The only reason you think Italy was better is simply that you're an Italian, if you had the exact same personality and soul but happened to be born in Germany you would be saying Germany was better lol. It's not based on any evaluation of the internal policies or philosophy.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am making assumptions and stating opinions, indeed, and my very first post was I think Italian fascism was better. I have no conclusive argument on the matter, but I shared what makes me think so, take it or leave it. Edit: I think as opposed to "I know for a matter of facts"

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

lol right, nobody said it had to be 'factual', just backed up with any real reasoning rather than Build-A-Reich Workshop made up bullshit

If I said Italy was worse because they would force everyone to be atheist and gay, import a bunch of foreigners and sell out the country to capitalists you would rightly say I'm just making shit up based on literally nothing. That's pretty much what you did lol.

Your only 'real' criticism was that Germany wasn't religiously homogeneous and even that one was absurd if you think about it for one second. It's not as if Hitler had the power to time travel and stop the reformation, or do you expect him to outlaw everything except Catholicism and somehow not end up in a ridiculously unstable situation? They handled the religious stuff as well as they possibly could.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There was a useless focus on eugenics over social and spiritual factors.

And they were 100% right to focus on eugenics.

Richard Dawkins once said we are already accustomed to breeding better Cows, or better vegetables. Yet why is raising healthier humans somehow taboo?

Spirituality sucks. Religion sucks. The only legacy you can have on Earth is passing on your genes. The universe doesn't care that you bob your head every Sunday to some Church music. If you never had children before you pass away, your whole existence never mattered.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Not spirituality, but genes.

    A group of 30 IQ sub-retarded Humans would never have advanced past the stone age, no matter how "spiritual" they were. Genes would have prevented them from speaking a language, building architecture, creating inventions, etc.

    [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah sure

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    "World Jewry has been, for sixteen years, despite our policy, an irreconcilable enemy of Fascism. In Italy our policy has led, in the Semitic elements, to what can today be called a true rush to board the ship. " 1938

    He came around later

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    nazism lasted barely 8 years and was a total disaster.

    The war was a disaster. National socialism turned the economy around and lifted the spirits and unity of the people. 'Nazism' by every metric of the time was a success.

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Jeff Bezos is my enemy more than any Jew out there

    What a weird take. I can't tell if you're trolling, misinformed or naive.

    You can't have Jeff Bezos without Jews. Look under the hood of all these giant international companies and you will find Jewish banking and Jewish hedgefunds. Look at who owns; not the figurehead.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/WYzX8uLACk77/

    [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm not trolling. There are a lot of Jews and there are a lot of non Jews. Jews are bad. Not every non Jew is good. And capitalism in my opinion - expecially global capitalism - is intrinsically bad.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Take your meds.

    [–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I'm not 'fascist', either, since I've always seen it as too Left-wing (especially after reading the program of March 23, 1919, which reads as libertarian socialist/Lib-Left, including republicanism and even universal suffrage at a time when many liberals and democrats would have opposed it). In 1924, the Italian Communist Party (PCI) leader even praised the fascists.

    Similar things can be found in Germany between the KPD and the NSDAP at various points until 1933. The KPD was among the opposition parties driven underground that year. However, I get the impression that the NSDAP was more 'Right' (predictably, the KPD's relations were much more rocky, constantly shifting between co-opting NSDAP talking points and positions to opposition and back again, largely depending on Stalin's directives from Moscow) than the Italian Fascists were 'Right' (the PCI probably saw fascism as a step closer to what they wanted, at least for some time).

    I think this is a part of the confusion surrounding the famous sociologist Pareto and why he seemed to support the early fascists, something which confuses academia. Most evidence points to Pareto being a libertarian/classical liberal (which fits nicely with the early fascists), whereas Pareto would have witnessed their Rightward shift (which fits nicely with why he clearly made anti-fascist statements later in life; for example, when it reached the stage that the fascists banned Marxism in universities, Pareto was opposed to this). Academics simply can't figure this out because they assume that the late Mussolini and early Mussolini must have been the same, but the story that I outline here is quite coherent and feasible, i.e. that fascism underwent a sort of Rightward drift from its position on the Left as a sort of synthesis of anti-Marxist Leftists, including Leftists falling out with Marxism, and certain traditionalist or reactionary types like Maurras.

    The 'Mussolini/Fascists are Right-wing' narrative must have been a later development (i.e. around the time of Mussolini's association with many of the [actually] Right-wing groups that would later become the Axis), such that we end up with today's demonological Off-the-charts-Extreme-Reactionary-Far-Right Fasssccciisssuuummm that is the supposed 'antithesis' of today's Left-wing nutjobs, and which all Left-wing nutjobs gravely overestimate the threat of today. But the Italian Fascists, at least in the late 1910s and most of the 1920s, would have been closer to radical liberals and communists than to the likes of Codreanu and the Iron Guard or Szalazi and the Arrow Cross.

    As for my opinion on the specific quotes that I find interesting:

    1. Yes, this is thoroughly disagreeable to anyone outside of the Left-wing nutjob box. Prime de Rivera and other early fascists had the exact opposite opinion: Socialism was more agreeable until Marxism, not because of it. I should add that the pre-Marxist socialists weren't very appealing either: Fourier was a sick degenerate as well as a very early advocate for homosexuality and feminism, and some of Saint-Simon's followers were sick degenerates who promoted 'free love' and other nonsense (I'm not sure about him personally, although he promoted feminism). The Saint-Simonians essentially became a cult, especially after his death.

    5. To this I only have to add that Pareto was philo-Semitic, which probably also explains his early indifference or mild support for fascism. In a personal letter, Pareto even lambasted a personal friend for sending to him an 'anti-Semitic' book.

    6. The notion that one of the world's most invasive groups needs to be left 'alone' reeks of ignorance. A most obvious retort is that they plain and simply won't leave you alone. Of course, they'll be even less likely to leave you alone if they see you as a threat, but that doesn't justify meekly appeasing them, it justifies prevailing over them.

    7. This one almost makes me laugh: the notion of an ultra-modernist and materialist like Marx being deified even though he was 100% opposed to such things. Just as Mussolini describes this quasi-spiritualistic attitude towards Marx, a growing number in China believe that Mao brings good luck. Both Marx and Mao would be horrified, I suspect.

    Finally, Marx turned out to be wrong on countless things, so the notion of him as a sort of atheist's prophet also amuses me. The atheist's version of a false prophet he was and he remains, however.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    In 1924, the Italian Communist Party (PCI) leader even praised the fascists.

    Do you have a source for that one? I would appreciate it greatly