The Not-So-Fascist-Pony · 8:11am Feb 11th, 2017
This post came about as a response to a question another user gave me about how I feel about Socialism and Fascism.
I am not a fascist.
I know, I know, the pseudo-Nazi expy pony is not really a fascist, get it out of your system.
Done?
Ok. This is a bit of a long one, but please bear with me.
I am a major Constitution guy; I firmly believe that it works...but only in a homogeneous society whose culture has a history of utilizing its (the Constitution's) rules and systems fairly. The Founding Fathers specifically claimed that the government that they were establishing was "for themselves and their posterity", which means them and their descendants, specifically white people. The system they crafted was utilized based on the assumption that the people of America would have a common cultural respect for the Constitution since much of it was based off of the old documents and theories of law present in the Old World of Europe.
And as we can see, the clash of cultures that has grown from the fertile ground of immigration (particularly the near-unfettered influx of the last few decades) has resulted in every group in America screeching about how the Constitution (by which term I am also including the laws of the land) needs to change to suit their needs/wants/points-of-view, often at the expense of those whom it was originally meant to serve.
If this country is going to remain culturally-diverse (and I see no end to that in sight; whether that is good or ill, I leave up to you), then the Constitution, based off of the concepts of Liberal Democracy, is rendered ineffective; again, as demographics within the country change, then the laws and mores of the State will as well, which means that the largest group (or the group where the most public sympathy lies, or the group that has the most lobbyists, etc) will be able to craft a bank of laws and lawmakers that will benefit them them most, usually at the cost of everyone else.
A more culturally-diverse society needs something stronger, stricter, more iron-clad than Liberal Democracy...and that is where many on the Right are now looking at Fascism as the ideal way forward.
I do not agree, for the very simple fact that I love my personal freedoms, and I refuse to let my society hang by a single thread.
The old Fascist regimes were very successful economically, militarily, and socially. Italy and Germany were literally yanked into the mid-20th century thanks to the fact that their respective peoples were united in a single cause. The root term of Fascist refers to a bundle of sticks, which is borrowed from a metaphor about a bundle of sticks being stronger and less easy to break than single sticks on their own, and this proved true.
Art, music, architecture, personal health, business...all were boosted thanks to the people being united in their energies and efforts!
But...
Let's just say that you were a member of one of these countries, and for some reason, let's just say moral, you decided that you didn't like the new law from the Glorious Leader decreeing that all squirrels must be exterminated from inner city parks because they were an unpleasant shade of grey.
You may not have any particular affinity for grey squirrels...but you don't want them dead; you believe in only killing an animal to either eat or because it poses a clear and immediate danger, not because of its fur color.
And so you decide to organize a group to protest this act and send a petition to the Glorious Leader, asking to please cease this senseless act against the squirrels; after all, they really aren't harming anybody, right?
However, you have dared to step out of line. The GL has decreed this, and it must be done! He hears of this effrontery, and decides that your Save the Squirrels movement must be monitored closely, and propaganda must be sent out to counter your dangerous ideas.
Soon, you find your face plastered on posters around the city, declaring you a lover of Tree Rats; your boss cuts your hours, since no customer wants to patronize a business that employs someone with such subversive tendencies; your spouse finds themselves the subject of odd looks and muttered conversations among their coworkers; your son, a member of the National Scouts, is told by his scoutleader that he must submit a report every week detailing what you say and do at home, who meets you there, when you come and go, etc.
I could go on, but I believe that you get the picture.
Fascism will eventually devolve into just as much of a police state as Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Nazi Germany, or Mussolini's Italy were. You have your freedoms...but only those freedoms that the regime thinks you should have, and they would always be second place to the State's needs and desires, since the State represents the collective will of the people, and so on. It is as bad as Socialism/Communism because the State becomes the ultimate authority, supplanting any other authority in every way, including your authority over your own children.
Authoritarian governments are only good in the long-term for those who are in power; for those who are being ruled over, it has the potential to turn into a nightmare...and it usually does.
Besides this, what did Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Musso all have in common?
After they died/were deposed, their countries fell apart; granted, the USSR took decades, and the ChiComs still rule, but nobody can deny that their respective countries have been exposed for the shitholes they became after their Glorious Leaders kicked the bucket. After Hitler and Mussolini shuffled off the mortal coil, their governments (what was left of them) collapsed.
Look no further than North Korea for another example; the Kim Dynasty is just holding on by ragged fingernails, and that is only due to propaganda. They have ceased trying to convince their people that their government is superior as their main lie of choice. Now they are telling the population that their oppression keeps them racially-pure, that they are the "only true Koreans left", with the current sack of idiocy, Jong-Un, being the purest human being in the history of history (his tears cure cancer and he rode a unicorn, dontcha know).
If he were taken out, what would happen?
The Chavistas of Venezuela could tell you.
This is what I meant by "single thread" earlier; most authoritarian regimes rely on a carefully-crafted Cult of Personality built around their Glorious Leader; if he is exposed (breaking the facade of awe), or if he dies with no heir/is unexpectedly killed/assassinated, then what? Whoever is next will not be the Fuhrer, or Il Deuce, or Papa Stalin, or what have you; they'll just be the New Guy, and no matter how the Cult is built back up, eventually the magic will be gone.
Now, the problem with multicultural Liberal Democracy is the fact that it automatically assumes that everyone is the same or at least mostly similar, with a similar thought process, similar wants and needs, etc.
However, the sciences (anthropology, evolutionary biology, psychology, etc) tell us a very different story; all of humankind is not the same. You cannot take a native African shaman and have him switch places with a native Chinese Shaolin monk and expect them to thrive; the culture clash, the language barrier, the IQ level, the acclimation to climate, and even more will play a factor in how they survive...if at all.
Essentially, Liberal Democracy assumes that everyone in the world is merely different colors of the same kind of LEGO brick; they look different at first glance, but they still fit together the same way.
This is simply not so, and to assume it would be completely unscientific and unrealistic.
However, if Marxsm (including all of its derivatives) and Fascism (ditto) don't work, and Liberal Democracy only works under certain conditions (and we know that Anarchy doesn't work; everything goes back to a hierarchy eventually), then what would work at least most, if not all the time?
Russian political theorist Aleksandr Dugin advocates for the development of a fourth political theory, one that would take the best from the three previous models and incorporate them into something new, something that would both unite the people under it while preserving the population from what each advocates, which is the abolition of individuality and culture.
Granted, Dugin does not give us an outline of this theory; he merely provides skeleton parameters for the issues it must address and how it might come to be.
That said, one cannot deny the possibilities that a "Fourth Way" might present us with.
Marxism has failed, Fascism is dead, and Liberal Democracy is faltering. What is left to us is either tribal rule, autocracy, or ethnostatism; we don't want to go back to intertribal warfare, having a king would suck just as bad as the first three, and there is no way in hell that the globalist elite would allow any more ethnostates than already exist.
The problem is this; Fascism was beaten by Marxism in 1945. Marxism fell to Liberal Democracy in 1989. Liberal Democracy then spread around what parts of the world that it hadn't yet touched.
Westerners, the longest practitioners of Liberal Democracy, have been utilizing it for so long that now we think everyone either has it or wants it, and anyone who doesn't is either insane or just stupid, leaving it vulnerable to attack from within by those who hate it or want to use it for personal gain.
There are also those who do not want it, those of us who are seeing its failings and wanting to replace the system before it collapses and takes Western Civilization, what may as well be our world, with it. Naturally, we will be seen as evil and/or crazy as well.
Anyways, so while I hate Leftism, dislike Fascism, and am a Constitutionalist, I also realize that perhaps Liberal Democracy has played itself out, and not necessarily for the better. However, I have little clue where to proceed myself, and so I sit and think and research.
Feel free to post your opinions, comments, critiques, or ideas below, especially those ideas! Discuss! Think! Argue!
To the future, my friends.
Hail the Sun!
In my observations on looking at all forms of government, I've found that none of them truly work as they were intended to. But it is the matter on the fact that some of them simply work better than others in terms of people.
-- Feudalism
We've seen Feudalism and how widely ineffective it was. The citizenry suffered while the nobles and royalty remained mostly aloof as they toiled and starved.
An impractical system that often lead to more violence and bloodshed due to the nature of it. Rivalries between Lords and Vassals as they fought over land and resources.
-- Fascism
Despite many peoples' preconceptions of Fascism due to Hitler's bigotry, (Ironically, it turns out that Hitler himself was descended from Jews and some African ancestry.
Source #1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/7961211/Hitler-had-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html
Source #2: http://www.history.com/news/study-suggests-adolf-hitler-had-jewish-and-african-ancestors) it worked out quite well for Germany after they were hit with an economic crisis after WWI when they had to pay war reparations despite not technically starting the war.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-world-war-erupts-in-europe
It was Austria-Hungary and Serbia. I blame them at least.
The people were happy, the economy was doing well and science was brewing including many iconic war machines created by German Engineering. I capitalized that because of how iconic their technology is.
If Hitler didn't blame everything on Jewish people and wasn't a hardliner in propaganda and crushing dissent... then maybe... just maybe.
-- Democracy
The Big D. Oh boy. This one... Where do I even begin? At it's core... it may seem like a good system. But by itself, it falls incredibly short. Take note that before the 1900s, most people either worked in the military or were farmers. Scientists and many other fields that we see today just weren't that big back then. At least, not by today's standards.
In my opinion, it is not much different than a monarchy with the rich being the nobles and the poor suffering. Just like other systems.
Let's not forget it's near-collapse in the 1930s.
The only reason... we're all even here is because of things like the Constitution which is not limited to this one system alone and Socialist programs such as Social Security, Federal Pell Grant and programs like CUNY (City University of New York - very affordable yet high quality colleges. I go to one, y'know... I had to pay nothing last semester due to Financial aid and I'm only paying 1.2k this semester due to FAFSA Pell Grant. Full tuition would've been 2k - approx. 6k.)
-- Socialism
The system that fell short. I still need to look into this system more as there are so many different variations of it such as Stalinism, Marxism, Leninism... etc.
I genuinely do not even know where to begin with this one. All I know for this one is that Stalin fucked everything up. I need to look more into Lenin's time.
-- My Idea!
On your user page, I saw a comment that accurately describes how ALL systems of government works. This doesn't only apply to Denmark alone.
A country is like a very sick, cancer-ridden human. Each problem represents some ailment or condition that it is effected with.
It is good that Denmark is surviving due to it's oil! It means that it has something to stave off death for awhile. This applies to all countries. If a country has a system and just a system then it might as well just not be a country anyway.
Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that sticking to just one system shouldn't be the goal. After all, Socialism bolstered Democracy after it nearly failed, right?
Why not apply all the things that each system did well? Like an Imperial Republic? A Feudal Constitutioncy! The Socialist Reich! YOU GET THE POINT!
Each system is like the framework. Then parts of other systems are like vitamins and enzymes. Regulations and Constitutions are your weekly and monthly meds. All things to a happy and healthy Country!
I'm SO glad I asked you for your thoughts. For what it's worth, I'm personally a "I'm not sure but it involves capitalism."
4417905
It didn't get to be an issue until he talked with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Right after he talked with an Islamic Cleric, he decided to turn Jews into soap and lampshades.
Coincidence? I think not.
I suppose that my main argument with Liberal Democracy is the fact that it requires one thing...
An informed and rational electorate that has a stake in society and is willing and/or able to weigh issues presented to them by their merit, and is also able and willing to put aside identity politics for the good of the nation as a whole.
Instead, what we have is a hyper-diverse welfare state where the people vote along identity lines in order to extract the wealth of others via taxation, and are more often than not more interested in who scored the most goals in the last sportsball game than in the way their government is run. Hence, my dismissal of it as a viable political ideology.
And yes, I am admitting that the Founding Father's "experiment in democracy" has failed.
After reading about them, you begin to realize that all the different shades of red can all be called "red".
That's what I am advocating; there has got to be an admixture somewhere that takes the best of them all and combines them to form a superior government.
There are aspects of certain social programs I agree with, just as there are elements of many other ideologies that have merit and deserve to be considered.
DON'T YOU
AT ME!
Which is exactly what the West does not have.
And frankly, as each day passes, I dread more and more that it is too late for us.
The balkanization has long since begun, and the fissures along the lines of identity politics have grown too deep.