How come most NS and fascists never answer when you ask them to elaborate on a point

[psychomandible]

Authoritarianism or fascism isnt bound to a specific economic idea. I'd say an adoptive monarchy like the five good emperors is the ideal form of government, but when you adopt instead of birthing a heir, is it really still a monarchy or just dictatorship based on meritocracy and legitimacy?

Fascism is though ? Fascism is economically separate from capitalism.

 

[ImVerySorry]

Fascism is though ? Fascism is economically separate from capitalism.

uhm, no. Fascism is just Authoritarianism + nationalism and militarism.

 

[It'snotover]

So Italy was serving the collective when they joined a war they knew they were not prepared for ?

They thought so. They thought by joining the war and possibly winning the country would have become more powerful, and richer. It's true that the country and the army were not ready at all for such war but probably they thought their soldiers were enough to help germany win. Very wrong of course, technology wins war and during those times location was extremely important too and italian soldiers were at disadvantage in that regard

So nazi Germany was serving the German people when they sent millions of their young population to die

You could say yes as well if germans of that time believed in the cause they were fighting. War is war and doesn't matter the ideology behind the country leaders people are going to suffer and soldiers die or get mutilated. You could say the same about ukraine right now, they know they will never win a war against russia unless Nato joins yet they still send young men to die.

 

[ImVerySorry]

This is all proving my point which is that all states are self serving and don't serve the people at all. Doesn't matter if they're autho or democratic they're all self serving.

A state’s self-interest can align with public benefit, serving its people doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive with serving itself.

While it's true that states often act in their own interest, that doesn’t preclude them from serving the people simultaneously. The state’s self-interest, such as maintaining stability, economic growth, or legitimacy can align with the public's well-being.

For instance, programs like infrastructure development, healthcare systems, and education initiatives benefit both the state and its citizens. Even authoritarian regimes like Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew or democracies like Scandinavian countries demonstrate that a state’s self-interest can coexist with effective public service.

 

[psychomandible]

A state’s self-interest can align with public benefit, serving its people doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive with serving itself.

While it's true that states often act in their own interest, that doesn’t preclude them from serving the people simultaneously. The state’s self-interest, such as maintaining stability, economic growth, or legitimacy can align with the public's well-being.

For instance, programs like infrastructure development, healthcare systems, and education initiatives benefit both the state and its citizens. Even authoritarian regimes like Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew or democracies like Scandinavian countries demonstrate that a state’s self-interest can coexist with effective public service.

Yes they can align but by saying this you show that the government isn't inherently serving the people.

 

[imontheloose]

gargantuan and corinthianLOX

Ask me any question you want, son.

 

[Myth]

Too many Jew worshipping faggots on this forum

 

[psychomandible]

Ask me any question you want, son.

How do you not recorrupt your giant state just like every big state has before?

How is your state in reality any different from what the jews have now ?

Why do you want a ecnomic system which has been shown to be unreliable and a actually terrible system?

What are the individuals freedoms in your nazi state ?

How will you get the money for your gigantic state ? (This I already know but I'd like to hear you say it)

 

[CorinthianLOX]

only people I've spoken to who actually answer questions are gargantuan and corinthianLOX

Is this a compliment

 

[psychomandible]

Is this a compliment

Yes

 

[CorinthianLOX]

Yes

 

[Hitlerstopguy05]

You'll say "why" or "how" and they just never answer you, only people I've spoken to who actually answer questions are gargantuan and corinthianLOX (not tagging beacuse im sure they dont want to get tagged in another one of these type of threads). Apart from them you never get a real answer.

@Jonasㅤㅤ⠀
@Whatever
@Shahnameh
@castizo_ascender
@Jason Voorhees

You should debate high iq users like @Hitlerstopguy05

 

[sigma boii]

cause most of them are actually braindead stupid. they dont possess the ability to think independently. they probably saw some other neo and were like “ooh racism yuh this is cool” or sum shit, without ever forming a bias of their own.

i blame gypsy

Everyone hates gypies bud

 

[Antipsychotics]

Everyone hates gypies bud

i mean gypsy crusader u fuckin greycel

 

[imontheloose]

How do you not recorrupt your giant state just like every big state has before?

Spoiler: Response

How come you assume it's inevitable? That's a separate discussion in itself.

Corruption isn't caused by size, it's caused by weakness. A state rots when its leaders serve themselves instead of something higher. Democracy institutionalises that rot: endless compromise, bought loyalties, rule by appetite.

Rome didn't fall because it was large, but because it forgot why it was so strong. It let in what was foreign. It tolerated decadence. It began to confuse expansion with meaning, and in the end, it died of spiritual anaemia.

I think we can avoid corruption not by trimming the state into irrelevance, but by uniting its function with its mythos, essentially binding it to a purpose. Educate an elite not in policy, but virtue and duty. In an ideal National Socialist state, you do not ascend by lobbying, you ascend by bleeding for the people. Corruption finds no oxygen there.

The leaders shouldn't be elected by popularity, but merit and loyalty. You shouldn't govern for votes, but for a destiny; for the people.

How is your state in reality any different from what the jews have now ?

Spoiler: Response

Simple. They rule from the shadow, we rule in the open. They manipulate systems built on lies, we build systems from truth (I won't address the idea of it being metaphysical unless you press for it). They fracture nations for profit. We forge unity through blood and purpose.

What they do in secret, we do with honour. Their power feeds on weakness is my point, ours would demand sacrifice.

They exploit the state. Ideally, we are the state.

Why do you want a ecnomic system which has been shown to be unreliable and a actually terrible system?

Spoiler: Response

Well. I understand the economic distaste people have on National Socialism. I do. But I don't measure it by profit. I measure it by purpose. The economy in a National Socialist government exists to serve the nation, not the other way around. It feeds the people, arms the state, and protects the future. I don't care so much that it's inefficient by a capitalist metric, or whatever Spielberg diagnoses it as such. I care that it works for us.

Systems generally chase this infinite growth, even if it hollows out the soul of a people. I don't think we should serve the market. Just as Germany retooled its entire economy within five years under direction, not market demand. Labour is sacred. Capital is subordinate. Finance doesn't rule. At least it shouldn't.

What are the individuals freedoms in your nazi state ?

Spoiler: Response

I get what you're trying to do, but most people's concept of freedom is atomised. Freedom from interference. Freedom from duty. Freedom from consequence. It reduces the individual to a consumer of rights rather than a bearer of responsibility. That is not freedom. That is isolation dressed up as liberty.

In National Socialism, freedom is just redefined. It's the freedom to participate in something greater than oneself. That kind of freedom imposes limits, true, but those limits give life coherence, meaning, and direction. You're asking what the individual can do, but I think it's more about what should the individual actually be? Detached license leads to decadence. There is no freedom without borders, internally and externally. And yes, some desires must die for the people to succeed.

How will you get the money for your gigantic state ?

Spoiler: Response

You create the money through directed issuance, credit tied not to speculation but to state-backed production. Infrastructure, arms, energy, we should issue currency as command, not as debt. The liberal world waits for capital to appear. It should be summoned by labour, resources, and purpose. We'd nationalise what must be nationalised. Redirect luxury into production. Strip speculation of its power. No middleman, no parasite, no hedge fund will come between the state and its goals. Industry will serve the people, or it will be replaced.

 

[looksmaxxed]

Because being a far right winger is usually an indicator for a low IQ. Pattern recognition is natural, doesn't mean it is always correct.

Shit I'm thinking of
View attachment 3759425

@wishIwasSalludon

translation: "racists are low iq because i'm brown and they hate me"

 

[McSkziofren]

Because being a far right winger is usually an indicator for a low IQ. Pattern recognition is natural, doesn't mean it is always correct.

Shit I'm thinking of
View attachment 3759425

@wishIwasSalludon

Being a far leftist also.

 

[looksmaxxed]

Right-wing ideology tends to be more straightforward and easier to grasp, which makes it more accessible to individuals with lower intelligence levels. Concepts like "socio-economic factors" require a degree of abstract thinking and complexity that someone with a very low IQ, such as 70, is unlikely to comprehend.

Your average genius isnt more likely to be far left or far right, the right is just simpler which makes it accessible to low intelligence people in a way the far left isnt.

And again, complexity /= correctness.

cringe. socio economic factors is something 70 iq niggers openly embrace, this whole low iq, midwit, hgih iq memetic virus is a jewish invention.

all racists are more intelligent than non racists

 

[ImVerySorry]

cringe. socio economic factors is something 70 iq niggers openly embrace, this whole low iq, midwit, hgih iq memetic virus is a jewish invention.

all racists are more intelligent than non racists

"B-b-but saar!!! Socio economics are real saar, I’m a Dalit and trust me it’s fully real, I’m only stabbing you because I’m poor"

 

[psychomandible]

How come you assume it's inevitable? That's a separate discussion in itself.

Corruption isn't caused by size, it's caused by weakness. A state rots when its leaders serve themselves instead of something higher. Democracy institutionalises that rot: endless compromise, bought loyalties, rule by appetite.

Rome didn't fall because it was large, but because it forgot why it was so strong. It let in what was foreign. It tolerated decadence. It began to confuse expansion with meaning, and in the end, it died of spiritual anaemia.

I think we can avoid corruption not by trimming the state into irrelevance, but by uniting its function with its mythos, essentially binding it to a purpose. Educate an elite not in policy, but virtue and duty. In an ideal National Socialist state, you do not ascend by lobbying, you ascend by bleeding for the people. Corruption finds no oxygen there.

The leaders shouldn't be elected by popularity, but merit and loyalty. You shouldn't govern for votes, but for a destiny; for the people.

except corruption does find its way, for example goring was heavily corrupt, the whole nsdap was corrupted except for a few like hitler.
humans are not wired to serve like ants, they are too individualistic and it only gets worse with Europeans. a person only serves what they think can help them, they need incentive which socialism can not give as it wants equality within the group. your state will always fail because it is not based on anything in reality but abstract ideas. I am pretty sure you're directly quoting Sewell but it is whatever. you also see where ascension through loyalty gets you, just look at the soviet union and Arab countries today .

Simple. They rule from the shadow, we rule in the open. They manipulate systems built on lies, we build systems from truth (I won't address the idea of it being metaphysical unless you press for it). They fracture nations for profit. We forge unity through blood and purpose.

What they do in secret, we do with honour. Their power feeds on weakness is my point, ours would demand sacrifice.

They exploit the state. Ideally, we are the state.

how is your system built on truth ?
the national socialist did fracture nations for profit just not their own (sounds a lot like Israel)
the rest of this is just abstract nonsense which you are using because you can not actually think of anything.

Well. I understand the economic distaste people have on National Socialism. I do. But I don't measure it by profit. I measure it by purpose. The economy in a National Socialist government exists to serve the nation, not the other way around. It feeds the people, arms the state, and protects the future. I don't care so much that it's inefficient by a capitalist metric, or whatever Spielberg diagnoses it as such. I care that it works for us.

Systems generally chase this infinite growth, even if it hollows out the soul of a people. I don't think we should serve the market. Just as Germany retooled its entire economy within five years under direction, not market demand. Labour is sacred. Capital is subordinate. Finance doesn't rule. At least it shouldn't.

@Whatever tbh I JFL @ this point, free market capitalism does not chase infinite growth this a misconception made by communist of which your boy hitler was one for quite a while, capitalism still succeeds when stagnate because it is held up by the real world and not burecratic paper sheets.

the profit of the individual should be the number 1 purpose of the economy, if it does not do that then it is a bad economy. Germany was suffering a food shortage while retooling and being a war economy during peace time which they then threw the damage onto their invaded lands like Greece and Ukraine. you think the market is some separate entity to the people when it is actually the collective mind of the people.

In National Socialism, freedom is just redefined. It's the freedom to participate in something greater than oneself. That kind of freedom imposes limits, true, but those limits give life coherence, meaning, and direction. You're asking what the individual can do, but I think it's more about what should the individual actually be? Detached license leads to decadence. There is no freedom without borders, internally and externally. And yes, some desires must die for the people to succeed.

but that is not freedom at all ? I do not get a choice in the matter of if I want to be apart of it or not, your ideology assumes that humans are just empty vessels with no soul for themselves but apparently national socialism fills them with some life force that makes them all into superhumans.

I'm not going to even get into the cope that freedom leads to decadence because that is just cope

You create the money through directed issuance, credit tied not to speculation but to state-backed production. Infrastructure, arms, energy, we should issue currency as command, not as debt. The liberal world waits for capital to appear. It should be summoned by labour, resources, and purpose. We'd nationalise what must be nationalised. Redirect luxury into production. Strip speculation of its power. No middleman, no parasite, no hedge fund will come between the state and its goals. Industry will serve the people, or it will be replaced.

so you replace all the variety of companies with one state owned one instead.

@castizo_ascender

 

[Shahnameh]

Just say you’re a Turk roach bro

Turks breeding with ur European women

 

[Whatever]

except corruption does find its way, for example goring was heavily corrupt, the whole nsdap was corrupted except for a few like hitler.
humans are not wired to serve like ants, they are too individualistic and it only gets worse with Europeans. a person only serves what they think can help them, they need incentive which socialism can not give as it wants equality within the group. your state will always fail because it is not based on anything in reality but abstract ideas. I am pretty sure you're directly quoting Sewell but it is whatever. you also see where ascension through loyalty gets you, just look at the soviet union and Arab countries today .

how is your system built on truth ?
the national socialist did fracture nations for profit just not their own (sounds a lot like Israel)
the rest of this is just abstract nonsense which you are using because you can not actually think of anything.

@Whatever tbh I JFL @ this point, free market capitalism does not chase infinite growth this a misconception made by communist of which your boy hitler was one for quite a while, capitalism still succeeds when stagnate because it is held up by the real world and not burecratic paper sheets.

the profit of the individual should be the number 1 purpose of the economy, if it does not do that then it is a bad economy. Germany was suffering a food shortage while retooling and being a war economy during peace time which they then threw the damage onto their invaded lands like Greece and Ukraine. you think the market is some separate entity to the people when it is actually the collective mind of the people.

but that is not freedom at all ? I do not get a choice in the matter of if I want to be apart of it or not, your ideology assumes that humans are just empty vessels with no soul for themselves but apparently national socialism fills them with some life force that makes them all into superhumans.

I'm not going to even get into the cope that freedom leads to decadence because that is just cope


so you replace all the variety of companies with one state owned one instead.

@castizo_ascender

It’s funny because the post that you’re quoting is the perfect example of your original question. No offense @imontheloose but your post is pure idealism, mentally masturbating about what the government “should” do, while skipping any course of action and other means as to how they would ensure loyalty to this ideology and their people. “They must” is not a solution for this, this problem won’t just work itself out and disappear.

Governments, even the most outwardly communist or fascist ones, have every single time in history found it impossible to stick to their proclaimed ideals not long after they get into power. Circumstances and the state’s own interests get in the way. And this causes communist governments to open up the economy and fascist governments to open up society every time. Virtually any action that any government has ever taken can be explained by how it was in the self interest of the state, fascism/NS is not above that law.

 

[imontheloose]

@psychomandible will respond soon, son. I am out at the moment (trying to enjoy the last moments of this shitty birthday).

No offense @

@imontheloose but your post is pure idealism, mentally masturbating about what the government “should” do, while skipping any course of action and other means as to how they would ensure loyalty to this ideology and their people. “They must” is not a solution for this, this problem won’t just work itself out and disappear.

That is true. When I explain my beliefs, it is very much idealistic. I don’t feel like when you’re asked your views you should immediately give the practical, realistic method. I think it’s simpler to be a bit more reductionist at times. If asked to elaborate, I’d be more than happy to get into it. But I do accept it is idealistic, most my posts about this stuff is generally idealistic. I only opt for a more holistic, realistic approach when asked for it.

 

[imontheloose]

have every single time in history found it impossible to stick to their proclaimed ideals not long after they get into power

I absolutely agree with this. I always say ideological consistency is fundamentally impossible in pursuit of power. You have to always sacrifice it either, or.

 

[psychomandible]

I absolutely agree with this. I always say ideological consistency is fundamentally impossible in pursuit of power. You have to always sacrifice it either, or.

So is this a admission that NS Is not possible ?

 

[imontheloose]

So is this an admission that NS Is not possible ?

Not in its entirety, no. No ideology is.

 

[psychomandible]

Not in its entirety, no. No ideology is.

How can libertarianism not be imposed?

 

[imontheloose]

How can libertarianism not be imposed?

It would do the same thing. Any system can be imposed broadly. But to its ideals, it is impossible. It gets worse the more firm and extreme your ideology is.

How does libertarianism not do the same? Voluntary association, individual sovereignty, non-aggression. Fine. But who enforces it? What happens when someone rejects the rule? What happens if some corporation poisons water, or some cult enslaves children, or a foreign influence hacks your economy? Who draws the line? Who punishes violates of the libertarian's sacred non-violation principle? Would it be a state? A private militia? And who regulates them?

Libertarianism also requires faith in human nature. It seems to be just hidden behind contracts instead of banners. It assumes people will act rationally, honour property, and respect boundaries. But when they don't, don't you need some type of coercion? I think everyone does, really.

I think fascism and National Socialism are more honest about power.

 

[psychomandible]

It would do the same thing. Any system can be imposed broadly. But to its ideals, it is impossible. It gets worse the more firm and extreme your ideology is.

How does libertarianism not do the same? Voluntary association, individual sovereignty, non-aggression. Fine. But who enforces it? What happens when someone rejects the rule? What happens if some corporation poisons water, or some cult enslaves children, or a foreign influence hacks your economy? Who draws the line? Who punishes violates of the libertarian's sacred non-violation principle? Would it be a state? A private militia? And who regulates them?

Libertarianism also requires faith in human nature. It seems to be just hidden behind contracts instead of banners. It assumes people will act rationally, honour property, and respect boundaries. But when they don't, don't you need some type of coercion? I think everyone does, really.

I think fascism and National Socialism are more honest about power.

Yes that's why the freedom to bare arms is integral, if you try and remove my property rights to life I will take yours away any means necessary

 

[imontheloose]

Yes that's why the freedom to bare arms is integral, if you try and remove my property rights to life I will take yours away any means necessary

That's a clear line. Fair enough. So you're not pretending violence isn't part of the equation, you just want it privatised, conditional? That's coherent, I get that. But do you think a society of atomised individuals, all that are prepared to kill over their definition of property can form anything cohesive? Any lasting structure? Or does it just create a cold detente? A standoff waiting to snap? What happens when property rights collide? When two people draw their lines differently and both are willing to shoot? Do you resolve it via a court? Arbitration? They require authority. And ultimately enforcement, no? So surely even your system, to last, demands a type of structure.

I understand you believe every man is a sovereign. But sovereignty doesn't scale. Eventually, someone has to decide. Someone's gotta lead. And someone has to yield.

So yeah, your gun protects your rights. But them rights still hang on whether others agree they exist. It's almost a gamble.

 

[psychomandible]

That's a clear line. Fair enough. So you're not pretending violence isn't part of the equation, you just want it privatised, conditional? That's coherent, I get that. But do you think a society of atomised individuals, all that are prepared to kill over their definition of property can form anything cohesive? Any lasting structure? Or does it just create a cold detente? A standoff waiting to snap? What happens when property rights collide? When two people draw their lines differently and both are willing to shoot? Do you resolve it via a court? Arbitration? They require authority. And ultimately enforcement, no? So surely even your system, to last, demands a type of structure.

I understand you believe every man is a sovereign. But sovereignty doesn't scale. Eventually, someone has to decide. Someone's gotta lead. And someone has to yield.

So yeah, your gun protects your rights. But them rights still hang on whether others agree they exist. It's almost a gamble.

Well we already have our definitions of private property within the ideology, it's not some mystical thing. Also libertarianism does not disallow people to create their own private institutions such as private police and such, within those structures there are hierarchical structures but beacuse there is no forcing to comply like with public institutions you can leave whenever you want.

Even things like monarchy are private institutions to a extent and before mass democracy you could still leave it all behind and go into the steppe and evade it all, you didn't have to participate.

 

[imontheloose]

Well we already have our definitions of private property within the ideology, it's not some mystical thing. Also libertarianism does not disallow people to create their own private institutions such as private police and such, within those structures there are hierarchical structures but beacuse there is no forcing to comply like with public institutions you can leave whenever you want.

Even things like monarchy are private institutions to a extent and before mass democracy you could still leave it all behind and go into the steppe and evade it all, you didn't have to participate.

Voluntary hierarchy works as long as everyone agrees to the same game. But what if they don't? What if two private polities claim the same land? What if their "private definitions of property" clash? You're back to violence and there is no shared authority to mediate. It's a battlefield of contracts.

And as for exit, it seems overestimated. You could disappear into the steppe in the 13th century. But try opting out of modern digital infrastructure, global finance, or a centralised power grid. Try building a private currency that can't be regulated or crushed. Exit in theory isn't exit in practise. Sovereignty, today, is a myth unless you can enforce it.

 

[psychomandible]

Voluntary hierarchy works as long as everyone agrees to the same game. But what if they don't? What if two private polities claim the same land? What if their "private definitions of property" clash? You're back to violence and there is no shared authority to mediate. It's a battlefield of contracts.

There is still a law which is followed and the definition of private property is a through thing as I said.

And as for exit, it seems overestimated. You could disappear into the steppe in the 13th century. But try opting out of modern digital infrastructure, global finance, or a centralised power grid. Try building a private currency that can't be regulated or crushed. Exit in theory isn't exit in practise. Sovereignty, today, is a myth unless you can enforce it.

This is literally what libertarianism defeats, it decentralises everything. I can tell you from experience that is fairly easy to escape most of this stuff and even then global finance would be unable to get a foothold in libertarianism beacuse of how decentralised it is, also currency would be material you don't need paper that is backed by nothing as we traded stuff for literally millions of years.

 

[imontheloose]

There is still a law which is followed and the definition of private property is a through thing as I said.

You say the law still exists but who enforces it? And what happens when enforcement costs more than it's worth for the enforcer? When someone refuses arbitration, or when both sides claim they're in the right? This doesn't seem like it removes coercion. It's just outsourcing it to whoever has more force or funding at the moment.

This is literally what libertarianism defeats, it decentralises everything. I can tell you from experience that is fairly easy to escape most of this stuff and even then global finance would be unable to get a foothold in libertarianism beacuse of how decentralised it is, also currency would be material you don't need paper that is backed by nothing as we traded stuff for literally millions of years.

You believe decentralisation prevents tyranny. I think it can sometimes. But it also paralyses response. Try coordinating infrastructure repair, epidemic response, or national defence without central authority. Good ideas don't scale just because they're moral.

And on exit, you're still thinking like a settler. You can opt out if you have land, materials, time, and no hostile actors. But in a dense, digitised world, exit isn't just about leaving physically. It's about disengaging from systems you didn't build, don't control, and that increasingly shape your access to communication, trade, even identity.

Decentralisation isn't immunity. It's more like fragmentation. And fragmentation is only peaceful until someone wants to unify it whether that be by force or leverage. Then what? You'd call the private militia? You'll be out of luck if the other guy owns the satellite feed.

 

[psychomandible]

You say the law still exists but who enforces it? And what happens when enforcement costs more than it's worth for the enforcer? When someone refuses arbitration, or when both sides claim they're in the right? This doesn't seem like it removes coercion. It's just outsourcing it to whoever has more force or funding at the moment.

They have incentive to enforce what is in the contract beacuse if they don't word will go out that they're shit and people will just change security groups.

What has happened for the last million years when someone has a disagreement with another ? They have a neutral third party to judge.

You believe decentralisation prevents tyranny. I think it can sometimes. But it also paralyses response. Try coordinating infrastructure repair, epidemic response, or national defence without central authority. Good ideas don't scale just because they're moral.

American war of independence
Napoleonic wars
Franco prussian war

These are all times when smaller groups coordinated and defeated a large centralised army.

And on exit, you're still thinking like a settler. You can opt out if you have land, materials, time, and no hostile actors. But in a dense, digitised world, exit isn't just about leaving physically. It's about disengaging from systems you didn't build, don't control, and that increasingly shape your access to communication, trade, even identity.

Decentralisation isn't immunity. It's more like fragmentation. And fragmentation is only peaceful until someone wants to unify it whether that be by force or leverage. Then what? You'd call the private militia? You'll be out of luck if the other guy owns the satellite feed.

Build your own stuff, it's not hard