What drives people--particularly adolescent/young adult men--to

File: 41u5dM1yVUL._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (17KB, 328x499px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 328x499px

Motherfucking wrong image, sorry

Young adults are inevitably the least invested in the society within which they agitate. Young adult men just happen to be more willing to kill themselves for a cause than pragmatic women.

File: 1475412466995.png (29KB, 250x226px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 250x226px

Most cultures have long standing traditions and assumptions that define what should be done and what should be looked out for. When they collapse, people gravitate to strongmen or authoritarian ideologies because they have no idea what's going on so they need someone or something to protect them from ALL possible dangers.

File: 1481342693686.png (1MB, 928x773px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 928x773px

>>2091242
>>2091237
>le "people who disagree with left-wing politics are mentally ill" books

>>2091315
>i don't have an actual argument so I'm just going to meme away what I don't like

Fuck's sake. Actually write out some sentences as to what exactly you disagree with and why.

>>2091355
my assertion is that pathologizing people who have different political opinions than you is dangerous, infantile, unproductive, and just generally a shitty thing to do

>>2091237

The majority of young people are idealists who strive to make the world a better place. Which side of politics they gravitate towards depends on their culture, religion and psychological differences.

It is only after years of demoralisation by the media that this idealism is replaced with cynicism in their ability to change politics for the better.

>>2091257
This is quite accurate.
I've often thought about "feminism" and their unwillingness to use violence to enact change, which certainly hobbles their attempts at progress.

>>2091379
>Thinking this
>almost 2017

>>2091379
My assertion is that you are ignoring actual political "action" in favor of seeing mere political "opinion," which coincidentally is also a dangerous, infantile, unproductive, and just generally a shitty thing to do. In fact, political movements can be dangerous and a guarantee of injustice and suffering, and to relegate political action to some mysterious hypothetical just because you've never personally experienced it is to have a very shortsighted view of politics.

>>2091436
> My assertion is that you are ignoring actual political "action" in favor of seeing mere political "opinion," which coincidentally is also a dangerous, infantile, unproductive, and just generally a shitty thing to do.

If that is your belief then why isn't the book titled "The Mass Psychology of Marxism and Fascism" instead of just "Fascism".

Also
>Fascism
>same as National Socialism

Get the fuck outta here.

>some mysterious hypothetical

File: marinetti_symposium_image.jpg (45KB, 700x460px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 700x460px

>>2091237
>fascism
>reactionary

>>2091242
>islamism
>fascist

>>2091281
>>2091418
this

>>2091237
people have different ideas, and always will

faggots and left wingers don't have a monopoly on reasonable thought, despite what your echochamber might tell you

ideas need to be maintained.
'
the fact you're even asking what "makes" people think different things shows how stupid you are

>>2091355
>Argues against non-arguments with a non-argument

Bro I wish it wasn't present year so ppl weren't like you.

File: 1481435379433.jpg (70KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 480x400px

concerning the far right movements like fascism and Islamism, much of it is for the same reason that folks move towards far-left movements.

Those who join these movements (especially for those who are not part of that movement's host culture, like westerners joining Islamist groups) view themselves as, or are, bullied, abused, abused, marginalized or otherwise outcast from mainstream society. Folks in that position often times have low self-esteem or display excessively narcessistic behavior, and often look for a reason why their lives suck, typically assigning their woes to a single group or individual who is the "oppressor". It can be anything from white supremacy, world Jewry, to patriarchy, Christianity, etc. with this "have and have not" worldview established, individuals will naturally gravitate towards groups of like minded individuals, looking for a sense of community or belonging, as well as an opportunity to fight back against their oppressor of choice with the aid of a powerful and inspiring individual or group.
I would argue that it is not really a set of behaviors that are only associated with right wing of the political spectrum, but more on the authoritarian/libertarian (more or less authority) axis of political dynamics (though there are, of course, many other factors, I am merely using a razor here). I know some folks have made a meme out of him on this board, but the work of Dr, Jordan Peterson concerning ideology and how it occurs and perpetuates itself is laudable, and if you are interested, you can get a taste of it here.
In regards to the books, I think simply limiting one's study of this kind of behavior to a single wing of politics is a tad bit biased, especially since one could easily point out behavior of this kind coming from the left as well with a fairly simplistic text book and a single hour of the evening news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsoVhKo4UvQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY7a1RXMbHI&t=24s

File: fun.jpg (87KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 640x480px

Because it's fun.

>"We were a band of fighters drunk with all the passions of the world; full of lust, exultant in action. What we wanted, we did not know. And what we knew, we did not want! War and adventure, excitement and destruction. An indefinable, surging force welled up from every part of our being and flayed us onward."

Ernst von Salomon, The Outlaws

Don't tell me this is not better than slaving away at some low-paid job in an office.

Whether the radical movement joined will be reactionary or revolutionary, depends only on the circumstances or the personality of the people involved.

>>2091418
This!
And i also want to add that this effect exists in all kinds of ideologies. Young people and males are generally very much idealists compared to your average society. Most of both revolutionary leftists AND fascist/alt-righters are young males. This is true in religions, philosophical stances, arts, sports bla bla also.

I believe it is safe to say that the world is built by young males.

File: 11189650_857421004330172_1986426100_n.jpg (76KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x640px

>>2091508

National Socialism is indeed different than fascism as it focuses on the superiority of race (whether imaginary or not) rather than the superiority of the nation. A fascist would not care if you were Jewish or Anglo, as long as you were (insert nation-state here), a Nazi (Nationalsozialistische) would indeed care, as his view is that a people start with race, not a nation or political identity. Nationalsozialistische is an offshoot/new spin on Fascism that has some major fucking implications as to how the ideology works in practice (i.e. racial cleansing and genocide rather than just political purges). (figured I would help you out here, I get into this argument all the time. Its like saying Stalinism is the same as Titoism, which is a simply disgusting intellectual statement.) Tally-ho, sir!

>>2091637
Oh and btw can someone explain to me why fascism/alt-right or right in general are called reactionary meanwhile left is revolutionary?

It was correct for 200 years ago when the dominant ideology was right and the left have started revolutions of sort in order to change the status quo. However they generally succeed and now they are the status quo?

I define myself as a fascist natsoc and i believe we are the ones fighting to bring down state (establishment) while it is the leftists (and their governments) trying to protect it.

It is us who should be calles revolutionaries; we are not reacting against anything, we want to destroy the old in order to build a new world.

Yeah.

File: 1470229484338.jpg (576KB, 1600x1900px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 1600x1900px

>>2091683
And a tally ho ho to you my good sir!

>>2091683
Not all NatSoc though. Original natsoc was strasserist and didn't opposes jews for racial reasons but because of their unjust economic monopoly. That's why Hitler disposed them in night of the long knives.

File: 1.png (290KB, 754x554px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 754x554px

>>2091714

>Oh and btw can someone explain to me why fascism/alt-right or right in general are called reactionary meanwhile left is revolutionary?

Leftists regardless of their position in government, and their control over government policies, will always refer to themselves as "revolutionaries", Communist governments continued to refer to themselves as this even well after a successful revolution, and this can be explained two-fold:

1)They attempt to appear as the underdog so when they are victorious it seems as if they were fighting a continuous uphill battle against their enemies. While this was true at several times in history, there are plenty of times it is not.

2)The idea of Progress, or that history is a linear measurement of humanity's movement towards utopia of some kind. By stating they are revolutionaries they are claiming that they are on this side, fighting against what they believe are decadent 'traditional' or 'reactionary' forces. Revolting against this established order. Again, something which makes no sense when they ARE the established order.

>However they generally succeed and now they are the status quo?

By consistently claiming that they are the underdog they can over-exaggerate their victories and make it seem as if they are both hard-fought and unlikely, thereby enhancing their reputation when they succeed.

>It is us who should be called revolutionaries.

Looking at the definition for Revolutionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/revolutionary)

Modern National Socialists and Fascists fit this pretty neatly, however, so would Communists in Western nations (as while some Western nations engage in and promote certain Communist/Socialist ideas they are not Communist countries).

Fascists etc are revolutionaries, but they are also calling back to an older time and thus can also be called reactionary. The issue is when people assume reactionary and revolutionary are mutually exclusive, when in-fact they are not.

>>2091734
Yeah, totally wasn't because Strasser was undermining them while having ideological differences.

>>2091714
>Oh and btw can someone explain to me why fascism/alt-right or right in general are called reactionary meanwhile left is revolutionary?
Words can be used for anything you want. It doesn't matter how unfounded your statements are, you can always resort to the fallacy fallacy by shouting "no true scotman!" ad nauseum.

I don't know

But im sure it's way more complex than being a "libertarian" because deeply you want to leave home because you cannot handle dad rules or being a "communist" because it sounded cool in your HS history class and saw a hobbo falling to the ground, dropping his hotdog, and you are like NOOO POOR HOMELESS PERSON LETS SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!.

The word you have to focus is "Reaction", there is your answer.

File: 1452293923678.jpg (20KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x200px

everyone that disagrees with me is mentally ill. Don't even bother to reply because only people with daddy issues would disagree with me, okay?

>>2091237
Young men have always been the most willing to go to extremes.

>>2091242
>(((Wilhelm Reich)))

File: jose-antonio_PRESENTE.jpg (24KB, 400x301px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x301px

>>2091879
>Modern National Socialists and Fascists
Redundant, all fascism is modern.

>Fascists etc are revolutionaries, but they are also calling back to an older time
I never understood this meme.

Socially and economically, fascist promoted the application of modern theories like corporatism, national syndicalism, integralism, etc.

Artistically, the first proponents were D'Annunzio, the symbolist-influenced author, and the futurists. The Novecento movement that followed wasn't a homogeneous entity and was heavily influenced by the late-19th century Aestheticism, Impressionism, and to some degree, the recent and small Metaphysical movement.

The allusions to ancient history were nothing but rhetoric. For exemple, in the Spanish Falangist politcal program of 1934, under the "Nation, Unity and Empire" section, it puts Spain as the spiritual leader of the Hispanic world. They seeked cultural unification with Hispanoamerica.

File: 1444924178796.jpg (95KB, 613x1000px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 613x1000px

>>2091716

*Pfff* that guy to Hitler's right (the one in black) has a face like:
"This was a mistake, we made mistakes in a few places".

>>2091237
testosterone

http://www.psypost.org/2016/06/study-finds-boredom-leads-political-extremism-43583

And boredom is basically nihilism

>>2091714
I prefer the term "reactionary" because it gives lie to the Myth of Progress, which has always outlined leftist Whig history.

Progressives want to keep speeding forward, conservatives want to slow down, reactionaries want to reverse trajectory.

>>2092104
It's true, look at this book called "The Psychology of People who Disagree with this Guy" by Morty Cohenbergsteinwitz

File: La rivolta, 1911.jpg (1MB, 1677x1075px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1677x1075px

>>2092255
>Progressives want to keep speeding forward
They wish. Only F U T U R I S M O can advance modern society.

File: 51SGfzoipZL.jpg (35KB, 322x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 322x500px

Could it be operationally a white people phenomenon? The "extreme ideologies" in he east are more or less a response to western imperialism.

File: 1470692181970.jpg (51KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x360px

>>2092295
Who started the trend of using "authoritarian" as a smear?

File: 2eb.png (26KB, 432x239px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 432x239px

>>2091714

Revolution is either a push for:

1. Complete change from one constitution to another, or the modification of a constitution (in politics, though the sense of the "complete change" can apply to more than just politics. The change must be original in the sense that it seeks to liberalize (in the classical sense) whatever thing is being rebelled against.

Reactionary is a descriptor for line of thought, person, or action that is motivated by a desire (in politics alone) to return or move towards whatever the actor deems to be the " status quo ante" which literally means "the state existing before". This is inherently "conservative" and can mean a number of things as both "revolutionary" and "reactionary" depend on the meanings of the opposite concept in the concept of the time and place.

A man's view that homosexuals should not be killed en mass, but should be content with not having their marriage recognized in a court of law, would be considered revolutionary in the middle east, and reactionary in western nations.

you sir, depending on you goals, you could be considered a revolutionary or a reactionary, your actions and beliefs define you, just wanting to bring down a government is not enough to call yourself a Fascist Natsoc, it's what you would plan to built that would define you.

So please, do elaborate. Its not every day that I get to talk to a Facist. Being a right-libertarian living in MA does not exactly place me in your circles that often I'm afraid.

>>2091734

so a group of black national socialists purging me (a "white boi") for my oppressive monopoly on wealth is not in any way racially motivated? Most of those Jews were dirt poor or middle class Germans who did not fit the image of the Natsoc "World Jewry". Were their deaths motivated by their mere ethnic association with this perceived "Jewish Monopoly"?

There is just about as much evidence for such a thing as there is for feminist "patriarchy" dude.

>>2091315
>Anyone who isn't a traditionalist is destroing and subverting civilization

>>2092445
You're not wrong.

>>2092295

depends on what you mean by "western imperialism"

1. never use race to describe an ideology or movement unless this is the explicitly stated goal. "white man's burden" does not count as "white" was a short hand for "civilized" and "modern" in regards to colonial affairs, not the explicitly racist ideologies of the southern united states and the racial collectivist movements and revolutions in Europe and Africa of the 20th century.

Is the reaction out of a reactionary push back to the status quo i.e. mostly trade based agrarian society and not a vastly rich multi-national oil oligopoly?

Do not read adorno, he is one of the poster children of corrupt sociology and is one of the sources of the "Cultural Marxist" conspiracy theories (good and bad, depends on the theorist)

>>2091237
Is pretty good and funny shortcut for power and pussies.

>>2092255
There a fancy term for somebody who wants progress but to slow the fuck down so shit actually works?

Or is that too fence sitty?

>>2092503

Conservatism. I'm not kidding either.

>>2092399
If you were a white minority who unjustly monopolized the economy of black majority then yeah; it's justified.

>Most of the Jews were poor or middle class

And strasserism wasn't against them afaik?

>>2092503

a moderate, or Liberal Conservative. Politics really loves it's binarys so there is no specific thing for moderate progressives. Classical liberal perhaps?

>>2091879
Mostly agree. However i differ personally about longing for past stuff. While there were many communist states ruled for a relatively long time both in peace periods and war; there wasn't a fascist progressive state ruled long enough for us to observe and come to conclusions.

>>2092255

I don't want to reverse it though. I want to destroy it and go in a different way, faster than them.

For example: Fascism is against religion much more than leftists. While they accept immigrants with religious tolerance we oppose them because of their conservatism. It is they who should be labelled conservatives not us.

They have many taboos which are stronger than religious beliefs. Strongest of them is believing that all humans/groups are equal while science says otherwise.

>>2092669
Classical liberalism is revolutionary.

>>2092239
Interesting

>>2092359
Ok we can do a question&answer session because i dont trust my english to explain all my goals that well. I might need help.

Key aspects i want to change:

1)Complete destruction of all religions.
Cultural traditions -if suits with reason- might stay but organized religion has to go

2)End all sexism. World will be mono-gendered. Females will be eliminated and we will reproduce via farms (reserve healthy females hidden away from society; artificially inseminate them) till we go figure out cloning/immortality

3)Transhumanism. We'll have to switch to virtual bodies/minda eventually.

4)One world state with one huge government choosen with meritocratic democracy. Too long to explain, tl;dr: more iq&accomplishments=more votes

5)One scientifically crafted artificial lingua franca. Local languages (English, Arabic, Chinese) bla bla can stay but this will be enforced globally.

There are many more; post getting too long.

>>2092278
>ywn tear down the dustbins of history
WW1 ruined everything

>>2091237
Both Islamic and Western civilizations are dying. Fascism provides a totalitarian path to preserve culture and race.

>>2092198
Well, fascists were "retro-modernists" in that they also loved technology, youth and above all action (i.e. cutting through unwieldy liberal politics and using whatever methods possible to better the nation). On the other hand, there were the conservative/reactionary elements such as promoting manliness/virility, strong families and the desire to push women back into the domestic sphere and curb any rights that they had gained in previous decades. There was a general disgust with the 'decadence' or 'degeneracy' of liberal democracy and the lack of moral, social and economic order that characterized modern life in the early twentieth century. The fascists wanted to use the state to restore order.
>The allusions to ancient history were nothing but rhetoric.
Rhetoric is important. Anyway you'd see the aspirations were real if you read primary sources of the period. The nazis or fascists had their own conception of history whether you like it or not. They believed they were restoring a past that had been tainted by the erosion of morality/social norms . This past was heavily idealized like many other reactionary movements (and I don't mean to use reactionary as derogatory ) They see in their 'national' past an idyllic time when things were better and they wanted to bring back those elements they perceived from the past as wholesome.

>>2092687

I'm mostly speaking of the ideology in the context of today's political landscape, not in the context of when it was just called "Liberalism"

>>2092503
statism desu. The French economy actually did the transition from agrarian to an industrial economy at a very modest pace a large part because of state intervention. Socially a class of small farmers and artisans fought a good rearguard action against uncontrolled economic growth. I think it goes to show that if people are willing to organize Progress can be slowed down. While we may lament that technology or future productivity gains could have come earlier, a more steady progress or "sustainable development" actually gives a society time to make the adjustments needed for the wrenching changes that come with the process.

>>2092880
Misogyny isn't conservative though. It's quite revolutinary while feminism have never achieved anything. Even after all the rights they have got; women still choose secondary roles because their genes are weak. Eliminating weakness and promoting strongness shouldn't be viewed as conservative. I don't understand the reasoning behind it desu.

File: 1442580146545.jpg (45KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 225x225px

>>2092711

hoooo boy, this is quite a can (nay, a bucket) of worms...

1. As long as religion has no role in the state, what harm could it do that could not be easily countered with reason? and would attempting to purge a group just be a sign that we have now way of settling our differences? The man who has a goal that he cannot argue for logically will use violence as his only recourse. by destroying religion, you are damning yourself and vindicating them.
2. but I like women... all one needs to do to end sexism is to understand the innate differences between the sexes and not give any sexual collectivist group a leg up as opposed to the other. Immortality is a pretty good goal, but going mono-gender/sex would just royally fuck up the human gene pool. I find it is best to not fuck with the natural order. do I see any mono-gender mammals? No? best to not fuck with it then.
3. no problem with this as long as it is not a state controlled and forced process. humans should have the choice in regards to the transition.
4. provided that local governments had sovreignty over their own territory, and the world government served as an arbitrator over international disputes, sure. Though one must be wary when it comes to meritocratic voting, as merit must be judged by the consumer or beneficiary of that merit, not some arbitrary standard made by a world government. I think we should have a less shitty U.N. how bout that?
5. would it not be better to have a language that most folks speak already, like English? seems like wasted effort to create a new language to replace a language that has already had near global dominance for two centuries, especially since all devices and hardware pretty much run on the roman alphabetical standard.

I would say you're a revolutionary. you favor fascism as a means to destroy government, but not in how your new government would be run, as I don't see any traditionalist or reactionary sentiments in your political aims or reasoning. more coming

File: 1446829288045.jpg (45KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x480px

>>2093005

>>2092711

I would say that you are an amalgamation of the following:

Techno-Authoritarian Progressivism (non-typical progressive ideal):
encouraging and actively working towards a conception of societal progress via the use of state authority and technological innovation/utilization in the name of the greater good and a "better" society.

Authoritarian-Postgenderism: involuntary elimination of gender in the human species via state imposed application of advanced biotechnology and assistive reproductive technologies. This process continues with you into Immortalism insofar as you seek to obtain immortality for this new post-gender human species.

all of these categories fall under the label of "Transhumanism" as far as political goals go, which is itself an offshoot of the futurist social movements of the mid-20th century. this movement originating from early 20th century progressivism. you have a very authoritarian slant to the means by which you wish to obtain these ends, so I suppose one could call you and "Authoritarian-Transhumanist"

>>2092951
>Misogyny isn't conservative though. It's quite revolutinary while feminism have never achieved anything.
it's "regressive" though because it curbs legislation and more permissive social and cultural norms that granted unprecedented rights/privileges/freedom to women. Women voting was nonexistent before the 1800s. Likewise, all lawcodes had laws that acknowledged women as weaker and possessing less legal rights vs. men. These laws were retracted or heavily revised only in 19th and 20th centuries.
I mean, since conservative and revolutionary are relative terms, it's not for me to say whether you're right or wrong, I suppose. But wanting to restrict women in any way I think is "conservative" because it is a return to a past tradition. It would be "revolutionary" to pass misogynistic laws, however, because it would reorientate the political, economic and social order drastically.
As for feminism not achieving anything...it did; it just the achievements you like such as gaining the vote, working in careers/professional environments previously denied to them, gaining more legal rights etc. etc.


>Eliminating weakness and promoting strongness shouldn't be viewed as conservative.
I mean i'd agree with it too.
It only is if you want to use the state to enforce strength (which can mean anything but I'm guessing you mean enforcing better moral behavior, eliminating "undesirable" persons or cultural influences from society) because it requires the suspension of certain civil liberties.

>>2093097
> it just the achievements you like
it's just achievements you don't like* (am I'm also not passing judgement whether these changes are for better or worse, mind you)

Lack of sex with girls, I believe.

>>2092670
>>2092711

Where did this ebin "fascism is against religion" maymay come from?

>>2092711
>>2093005
>>2093056
Screwiest shit I've read all week.

Shame on you.

>>2091237
They feel disenfranchised and without an identity.

>>2092880
>and the desire to push women back into the domestic sphere and curb any rights that they had gained in previous decades.

This is so far wrong it's laughable.

File: 139035361828.png (190KB, 373x327px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 373x327px

>>2092711
Pretty good memes, anon.

>>2092711
While you list transhumanism as one of your points, it seems that all of them would fit into the category of transhumanism. But honestly it's really hard to classify your ideology since it's so out there.

>>2093236
not an argument. tell me why i'm wrong senpai

>>2092880
The whole of liberalism along with its values are inherently classicist thus opposed to modernism.

>There was a general disgust with the 'decadence' or 'degeneracy' of liberal democracy and the lack of moral, social and economic order that characterized modern life in the early twentieth century.
So, following your logic, liberals were opposed to the Enlightenment because they opposed the political, social and economical aspects of the Ancien Régime?

>>2093162
>>2093246
His ideas are out there, but don't shame him for it anons. Stuff like this is why I stay on 4chan.

>>2093152
mussolini and hitler were anticlerical but had to make compromises with the catholic church.

>>2093297
That has nothing to do with religiosity, though.

File: brendanclap.gif (785KB, 269x199px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 269x199px

>>2093122
>be completely socially alienated and excluded since you were a teenager
>try to figure out what is wrong with society and how to help others in your situation
>discover that in the past you'd have a place and somewhere along the line the current left wing establishment decided you shouldn't have one
>your virginity is a side effect of all this, but not one you consider relevant
>regardless sex obsessed normies accuse you of being an angry virgin for criticizing their 100% perfect society
well shit

>>2093236
Are you saying that fascists didn't want to push women back into the domestic sphere? The Nazis in their propaganda stated that the duty of Aryan women to the state was to produce babies rather than work.

>>2091714
I don't think the "establishment" is really 'left'. Lukewarm centrist more like.

>>2092617
How do you tell the difference between an unjust monopolization and one that results from one group simply being smarter/more capable than the other.

>>2093304
> left wing establishment decided you shouldn't have one
What did he mean by this?

>>2091714
>fascist natsoc
>bringing down the establishment
you aren't doing a very good job are you

>>2093304
I love how socially incapable autists think they'd do better in some hard right social darwinist society. The only reason you haven't ALL hanged yourselves is because you live in a society that believes in coddling losers and insists that everyone's life is sacred.

>>2093321
He meant "I'm a worthless sack of flesh but I'll pretend it's because the meanie Cultural Marxists conspired to do this to me because the truth that I'm a spiritual and genetic failure is too painful".

Basically the source of all ideologies that blame personal worthlessness on evil outside forces (socialism, feminism, fascism, etc.)

>>2093305
>Are you saying that fascists didn't want to push women back into the domestic sphere? The Nazis in their propaganda stated that the duty of Aryan women to the state was to produce babies rather than work.
>Nazis
>Fascist

>>2093284
Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascist, question 14: Will Fascism Allow Opposition Parties to Exist?: ".....Men and Women will vote according to their industry or profession, not according to their locality."

Question of Voting: ."...once every 5 years, men and women will get a slip of paper saying Yes or No to the current government..."

Source: 100 Questions for Fascist by Oswald Mosley

>>2093329
The Italian Fascist killed pretty efficiently the inept liberal establishment.

>>2093347
>personal worthlessness
I thought the individual didn't exist in fascism ;^)

>>2093285
well to start with, we're assuming we have the same definition of the vacuous term modernism (what does it mean to you?)
>classicist
I think you mean classist in which case, yes, liberalism as originally conceived in the 19th century was classist/elitist. However, the liberals of that age believed that the hierarchy of wealth and status would be determined by meritocracy rather than conservative hierarchies determined by inherited wealth or privileges.

>So, following your logic, liberals were opposed to the Enlightenment because they opposed the political, social and economical aspects of the Ancien Régime?
Well, there is a difference between the Enlightenment (another contested word) and the Ancien Regime, though they were interrelated. There were enlightenment thinkers for and against the French and the other ancien regimes of Europe. Adam Smith, the chief ideologue of liberalism, was part of the Enlightenment. So I think you have to make your question clearer as I don't understand it.

>>2093303
I think they also aspired to eliminate any religiosity (or any independent social or cultural force) outside of the purview of the state. Mussolini was the one to coin the world "totalitarianism" to capture this vision of a state and people indistinguishable from each other.

>>2093359
Right; it draws those who want to forget how much they suck by immersing themselves in a collective. Fascism is pretty much just Marxism with a traditionalist coat of paint slapped on.

Thank you for all replies and being surprisely civilized. Most liberals/leftists/feminists (especially the latter) can't seem to hold a decent discussion. Anyways i'll try to explain my ideology (yet to be named) and list my counter-points to you (there are some really good questions). However i work in night shift as a security officer and have to rest now. I'll start to post again at 11 pm (UK time) if the thread doesn't die by that time. This board seems slow so it might survive.

OK, bb for now!

>>2093348
Mosley's movement was a unique variant of fascism which attracted a greater number of women than any other such movement in Europe at the time. So it's not surprising he was more accommodating toward them. Also, no offense but Mosley's movement was an abject failure.

>>2093392
>Most liberals/leftists/feminists (especially the latter) can't seem to hold a decent discussion
You can see how the discussion started turning to shit once this faggot started.>>2093382

File: image.jpg (157KB, 634x887px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 634x887px

>>2093382
Look at this traditionalist Marxist filth! I bet da traditional cultural Marxist j00s are behind this!!!!

>>2093305
>>2093284
Also, here's another.

Mein Kampf, page 495, Stalag Edition, Chapter III: Citizens and Subjects of the State: "The German girl is subject of the state, but will become citizens when she marries. At the same time, those who have earned their living independently have right to aquire citizenship." Women under NSDAP could vote if married or self supported

>>2093409
wtf im #withAdolf now??

>>2093398
I'm not a leftist.

Hatred of the autism that is fascism is hardly specific to lefties.

>>2093395
No. >>2093409
Always, nice goal post changing, just because it was a failure doesn't mean Fascism untimely curb stomps women's rights.

>>2093348
By what standard are you judging Nazis as not fascist? Why does Oswald Mosley meet your definition of a fascist but not Hitler?

>>2093419
>British Union of Fascists
Gee, I wonder.

>>2093413
You can vocalize your hatred more eloquently than just going "hurr yall just a bunch of dumb virgs lmao"

>>2093422
This.
>>2093419
And philosophy of each movement. Fascist cared more about State than Race and National Socialist put Race/Nation above all.

Also, do you still stand by your statement on their view of women's rights?

>>2093409
I never said that the Nazis didn't want women to vote. I said that they wanted women to stay home and produce babies rather than work, which is what the "domestic sphere" usually means. A woman can be in the domestic sphere and still have the right to vote.

>>2093435
See
>>2093435

>>2093422
I never said Oswald Mosley wasn't fascist dumbass. I agree Oswald Mosley was a fascist, I asked why Hitler wasn't.

>>2091237
Not having a sufficiently chastening experience. After WW2 everyone agreed that war was a horrible thing that should be avoided.
Over time the lessons have been forgotten and what you see is a reaction to the politics post WW2.

>>2093414
Senpai, Mosley's failure is an important point. Fascism is not easy to pin down but from what I've read there's a distinction between fascism as a political movement, as a party and as a government in power because each of these stages has different goals and obstacles. So we cannot accurately compare Mosley to Mussolini or Hitler in power, the reason being that Mussolini and Hitler, while they may have previously supported some rights for women, in practice tried (though failed) to circumscribe the lives of women greatly. We don't know what Mosley would have done in power. He might have been genuinely cared for women but on the other hand he may have calculated for propaganda purposes that this stance would help the image of his movement (unlikely, but possible), or if he had ever attained power, a process can change people or force them to make compromises, he might have also curbed women's rights. We just don't know.

>>2093436
>>2093442
Hitler wasn't a Fascist because he cared about Nation over State. And you quoted me to my own post.
>>2093436
Literally, no. They didn't care if women wanted to work, but they did want to help women who wanted start a family, which is not the same as wanting to push them or propagate them into being housewives.

>>2093461
Race over Nation*

>>2093392
I would reply to you, based guy, but I got a major philosophy exams today, so maybe later. :(

>>2093459
>Fascism curbs women's rights
>here's a Fascist who didn't want to
>"wasn't in power, doesn't matter"
How does that change the argument that Fascism doesn't inherently kill women's rights?

>>2093468
>Nation not involving race
o-okay

>>2093478
So... What exactly Fascism does inherently?

>>2093478
Why do you even care? Aren't most fascists on board with killing women's rights?

>>2093435
>Fascist cared more about State than Race and National Socialist put Race/Nation above all.

While I would agree Mussolini cared less about race than Hitler, I wouldn't say Hitler necessarily viewed the state as less important than race/nation. To me, it seems like state was equally emphasized when you look at ideas the Nazis espoused like the Führerprinzip. That's just me though, what specifically would you point to that indicates the Nazis viewed state on less footing than race?

It still seems weird to view the Nazis as not fascist considering they're usually the first thing people think of when they hear the word "fascist". Did Hitler ever make any statements where he said or implied that he didn't consider the Nazis fascist?

And you are defining fascism solely as how Mussolini envisioned it? Cause if so, to me that seems like not considering Maoism communist since the way Mao viewed the peasantry differed from how Marxism traditionally viewed peasants.

>>2093483
Really, in all honesty, depends on the country. While, Rockwell was a National Socialist, he believed in a Constitutional Christian Representative Republic for America - see how radically different that is, when say, compared to Germany who couldn't even decide between Republic and Monarchism in their party plan?
>>2093486
I care because even modern National Socialist and Fascist don't even know their own system. I'm not even a Fascist or National Socialist.
Also, "and curb any rights that they had gained in previous decades," you did claim that they killed women's rights compared to previous decades.
(This is your statement, right? Hope you're the correct anon)

>>2093483
>inherently
Fascism, like every other ideology, has different shapes and forms each having something that the other doesn't have but they're all tied together by the basic aspects of fascism like corporatism, nationalism, authoritarianism, etc.

>>2093482
They're both different concepts, one based on biology and the other based on culture.

>>2093501
You're absolutely right, most so-called contemporary (not modern because the original fascists were already modern) fascists have nothing to do with even the basics of fascism. Most call themselves fascist because of their racism, which isn't even a inherent aspect of fascism.

>>2093461
>While most of the other parties under the Weimar Republic ran female candidates during elections (and some were elected), the Nazi party did not. In 1933, Joseph Goebbels justified this position by explaining that "it is necessary to leave to men that which belongs to men "

>While the Nazi party decreed that "women could be admitted to neither the Party executive nor to the Administrative Committee",[2] this did not prevent numerous women from becoming party members.

>Officially, the status of women changed from "equal rights" (Gleichberechtigung) to an "equivalence" between men and women (Gleichstellung).

>In 1933, school programmes for girls were changed, notably with the goal of discouraging them from pursuing university studies. The five years of Latin classes and three years of science were replaced by courses in German language and domestic skills training.

>In 1936, a law was passed banning certain high-level positions in the judicial system to women (notably judge and prosecutor, through Hitler's personal intervention[24]) and the medical field. Female doctors were no longer allowed to practice, until their loss had a harmful effect on health needs and some were recalled to work; also dissolved was the Association of Medical Women, which was absorbed into its male counterpart.[21]) Under the Weimar Republic, only 1% of university posts were filled by women.

>In a document published in 1934, The Nine Commandments of the Workers' Struggle, Hermann Goering bluntly summarizes the future role of German women: "Take a pot, a dustpan and a broom and marry a man"

>Mothers were encouraged to have children: thus was created the "Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter" (in English: Cross of Honour of the German Mother) for mothers having brought into the world more than four children.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany

Sure sounds like they wanted women to be housewives and not work to me sempai

>>2093478
I didn't say it doesn't matter. But there's a difference between a political party in power and out of power. We don't know what Mosley would have done in power. And as the other anon said, voting rights is only one among many rights that women had. There are other ways to 'oppress' women besides denying them the vote. But, in any case, if we look at the regimes that were fascist, we see that voting became rubber-stamp plebiscites that were manipulated anyway. England had a parliamentary history that Mosley seemed to respect, but we don't know how he would have acted in power.

>How does that change the argument that Fascism doesn't inherently kill women's rights?
It's hard to say. Fascism has tremendous variation and the search in scholarship for a "fascist minimum" has been fraught with controversy over the years. I'd argue that Mosley's was the exception to the rule. Mainland European fascism as far as I know was not supportive of women's rights.

File: Nietzsche1882.jpg (329KB, 1274x1700px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1274x1700px

If fascism was anti-nationalist and strictly atheist it would be great.

>>2093491
>Fascist cared more about State than Race and National Socialist put Race/Nation above all.

>While I would agree Mussolini cared less about race than Hitler, I wouldn't say Hitler necessarily viewed the state as less important than race/nation.
He did care about race/nation more. For example, they couldn't decide what would be better for Germany, to go back to a Monarchy or a Republic, so they would later, after 15 years, let the public vote. Source: Nazi-Sozi.

>To me, it seems like state was equally emphasized when you look at ideas the Nazis espoused like the Führerprinzip. That's just me though, what specifically would you point to that indicates the Nazis viewed state on less footing than race?
What I said above and the fact that they would literally wrote they aimed to preserve the nation and the state would change to whatever the nation needed.

>It still seems weird to view the Nazis as not fascist considering they're usually the first thing people think of when they hear the word "fascist". Did Hitler ever make any statements where he said or implied that he didn't consider the Nazis fascist?
Yes, let me find the qoute.

>And you are defining fascism solely as how Mussolini envisioned it? Cause if so, to me that seems like not considering Maoism communist since the way Mao viewed the peasantry differed from how Marxism traditionally viewed peasants.
I can only define it on what country we are talking about.

>>2093542
>For example, they couldn't decide what would be better for Germany, to go back to a Monarchy or a Republic, so they would later, after 15 years, let the public vote. Source: Nazi-Sozi.
>the fact that they would literally wrote they aimed to preserve the nation and the state would change to whatever the nation needed.

Huh, I had no idea about this. I hope you find that quote, you now have me interested.

>>2093542
Fascism is still about the nation, the real thing that separates Nazism from fascism is corporatism. Fascism is corporatist while Nazism isn't.

>>2093525
A quote is suppose to kill the fact that the party's policies allowed women rights?

>While the Nazi party decreed that "women could be admitted to neither the Party executive nor to the Administrative Committee",[2] this did not prevent numerous women from becoming party members.
Literally self defeated.

>In 1933, school programmes for girls were changed, notably with the goal of discouraging them from pursuing university studies. The five years of Latin classes and three years of science were replaced by courses in German language and domestic skills training.
Wow - it's almost like a party complaining about the falling birthrate would encourage kids! How does this stop women's rights, again?

>In 1936, a law was passed banning certain high-level positions in the judicial system to women (notably judge and prosecutor, through Hitler's personal intervention[24]) and the medical field. Female doctors were no longer allowed to practice, until their loss had a harmful effect on health needs and some were recalled to work; also dissolved was the Association of Medical Women, which was absorbed into its male counterpart.[21]) Under the Weimar Republic, only 1% of university posts were filled by women.
I'll give you this. Again, though, I'm speaking of their policies, not practices.

>In a document published in 1934, The Nine Commandments of the Workers' Struggle, Hermann Goering bluntly summarizes the future role of German women: "Take a pot, a dustpan and a broom and marry a man"
Again, how does this curb rights by itself? Gotta take action for it to be action.

>Mothers were encouraged to have children: thus was created the "Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter" (in English: Cross of Honour of the German Mother) for mothers having brought into the world more than four children.
And?

>>2093557

>Huh, I had no idea about this. I hope you find that quote, you now have me interested.
Mein Kampf, Stalag Edition, Chapter IV: PERSONALITY AND THE IDEAL OF THE VOLKISCH STATE, page 498: "If the principal of National Socialist VOLKISCH State educate and promote those who constitute the material out of which the State is formed....The State must also adopt its own organization to meet the existence of this task."

>>2093572
Well I wasn't the original guy who said that fascists had "the desire to push women back into the domestic sphere and curb any rights that they had gained in previous decades". I wasn't talking about rights, I was solely talking about the domestic sphere. So I think we can look at the Nazis rhetoric and policies and say they had a clear desire to discourage women from working and becoming housewives who would pump out babies, which is the traditional view of "the domestic sphere".

That being said, I'm pretty sure nearly all feminists would view any law that limited their ability to choose a profession or hold political offices as a violation of women's rights.

>>2091237

On the one hand, I appreciate that another anon in this thread has correctly invoked the word "pathologizing" to describe impulses like the OP's purported impulse. This correct indignation is repeated here.>>2091315 , and incorrectly scoffed at just below >>2091355 , for example. On the contrary, it is the latter poster who seems to want to meme away what I'm about to mention.

The two texts right at the beginning of the thread (regardless of the OP's goof) would appear by their covers to be of the same genre as Adorno et al's /The Authoritarian Personality/ (oh good now that I scroll through I notice someone posted it! >>2092295 ) , the /pathologizing/ effort par excellence of leftists.

Admittedly, Adorno personally had very good reason to deeply, deeply hate fascism, to the extent that he himself pathologically found it necessary to pathologize it. Imagine being a German Jewish Marxist, enjoying a comfortable life filled with culture and music, only to be obliged to move, and for your most personally hated reason which then goes on to actually kill about half of your people. This is a level of asshurt to which the present liberal tears can only approximate.

Also this person specifically >>2091436 is an idiot, as is this >>2091430 one. As for the latter, he perhaps wants to apply a certain "reptilian" logic of always overcoming the opposition at all costs, a reasonable impulse, even if that requires pathologizing them. What is perhaps lost on him is the need to balance Winning against continuing in a society that one wants to live in, which ought to entail certain Freedoms. The tension and contradictions in this latter liberal impulse versus the above vaguely positive defense of reaction et al are not lost on me, and so they need not be pointed out. Let us say that I suggest a middle way between the two, especially since...

cont.

>>2093629

cont.

ON THE OTHER HAND, young men are able-bodied and in the bruter sense, able to influence the world as they see fit. Hence ISIS, Trump, etc. It's almost as if people want to act in their own perceived self-interests, however misguidedly, and when better powered to do so, will succeed to do so. Like other anons have noticed, T is a thing. But the above T is also a tautology, and thus boring.

One wonders about the historically mediating/mollifying cultural effect of Christianity in all this, now blunted. I think instead that we simply didn't have the technology to kill each other so rapidly back then, so it's a lie to suppose that "old" Christianity is capable of saving us.

>>2093597
This is pretty interesting, can you post the rest of the quote though? When Hitler is saying that "The State must also adopt its own organization to meet the existence of this task", is he saying that the State would still be a "National Socialist VOLKISCH State" even as it adapts?

Also is there any quote where Hitler outright says that either him or the Nazis are not fascists?

>>2093005
1) I'm not against traditions and other harmless beliefs however major organized religions cannot be tamed. They have to be destroyed because they by their nature are against reasoning and logic. There is no middle ground to compromise. You can argue with someone saying "i believe x because of y reasons" while it's not possible to argue with an ideology who forbits its followers to argue with others.

Good luck arguing against "i believe x because y commands me so; i don't need reasoning behind y, i just obey"

2)

>i like women

You do not feel to have sex with females; it is cultural and heteronormative. Humans aren't hetero or homo sexuals, we are JUST sexual.

>it is better to not fuck with natural order

Appeal to nature fallacy. Using glass for bad eyesight is against the "nature" too? Vitamin supplements, c-section operations bla bla are all against the nature. This doesn't hold as you can see.

>being mono-sexed will fuck up our gene pool

We will remove females from society, not from our genes though. Until we figure out and transtition into virtual bodies, an healthy amount of females will be reserved for us to ensure our genetic diversity. You can say we'll reserve %0.001 of all women from all ethnicities. They will not know the outside world (livr as milking cows) and the outside world won't know/won't interact with females.

3) I'm not sure and really have not thougt about the role of government in the transtition period. I'm gonna pass this one.

4)Merits will be decided by their contributions to society and no we can't leave this to hands of consumers because those consumers haven't been evaluated by their merits at the first place. It has to be imposed by a fascist state FOR the first transtition phase. Then we can trust the consumers.

5) English is imperfect. All natural languages are imperfect. We will scientifically create a language suiting out interests. It is going to constantly evolve from there.

>>2093056
>>2093281

I don't feel particularly close to a specific label but i like social darwinist, fascist, anti-theist, transhumanist, elitist/jacobinist...

Emm this will took too long; skipping this one also =)

>>2093097
Good reply, thanks.
Keyword is restricting. I don't aim to restrict w*mens i aim to liberate them being slaves to men by destroying sexual differences. Eliminating a sex cannot be sexist per definition because when there is only 1 sex left; the meaning of sex will vanish too. There is no other way to combat sexism via trying to eliminate social aspects of it because all of them eventually originates from innate sexual differences which can not be changed.

Funny thing is l*ftists and l*berals ALSO came close to this conclusion too. In a different field and by a different perspective. You see many l*beral scientists are consistently finding research results that racial bias is not just social but implicit/inherent. The extent of it can be lowered/hightened BUT impossible to reduce to 0.

>No matter what you do the color black symbolizes night(danger), predators(danger), blindness(danger) etc. People will always feel safer around whiter skinned humans no matter how l*berally enlightened they are.

Yeah.

>>2093107
True. They have been given the chance to prove themselves and they didn't manage to proof it.

Their standart deviation of IQ is significantly lower than males. Even if their average IQ is same to males (it is) they are heavily outnumbered in gifted/disabled intelligent population (autism sex ratio support this). Since morons are irrelevant but high iq individuals are valueable there is no way for them to "achieve" things that are comparable to males.

Yeah.

>>2095881
won't this mean mass homosexuality though. I guess in such as society homosexuality by default cannot be "bad" because there's only men. But, even though this may sound like a silly quibble, isn't really healthy to receive constant anal sex and increases risk of anal cancer, and incontinence problems as you get older. I suppose you also want to eliminate sexual desire too though with your transhumanism? Cause in that case transhumanism might help us overcome our implicit racial and gender biases...

>>2095963
>There is no other way to combat sexism via trying to eliminate social aspects of it because all of them eventually originates from innate sexual differences which can not be changed.
I agree, but while sexism exists it's not an existential problem for most society today unless you're nogf 4channer like many of us here. What's to say that once women are eliminated, men won't find some other minor distinction to show their superiority to other men? Granted, a large part of sexism comes from women's dual nature as a bearer of children (and the responsibilities and restrictions that entails) and as a human being with a desire of one's own. But I don't think we should just assume that without women men will all the sudden become less vain and desirous of dominating other men. I suppose the best examples we have is of all male societies of sailing ships. I haven't studied the issue but the exigencies of running a ship require rigid discipline and such, though one scholar made the controversial argument that pirate ships were a radical egalitarian society.

>>2096206
cont.
Still, though, the problem of childcare would still be a dilemma for an all-male society. Children need to be raised in a stable environment and be educated. We would need to figure out whether we'd need family units or simply raising kids in larger groups under the direction of 1-3 men who act as mentors, or even work as early childhood teachers. One advantage may be that eliminating girls is good for the concentration of boys. At least in america, a lot of problems come with school cultures (and pop culture) that glorifies having a girlfriend and having sex as the only "normal" path to emotional and social development. I've heard (only anecdotally) that boys in all-male schools score higher than in coed schools, but everyone also knows of the trope of boys in english boarding schools doing gay shit (which wouldn't be stigmatized in an all-male society I suppose).

>>2096206
>nless you're nogf 4channer like many of us here.
Let me add though, that I realize sexism exists in the workplace and through sexual harassment, but, again, what's to say stronger men wouldn't prey on marginally weaker men in society? Think about prisons kek.

>>2096206
>>2096282
I'm sorry but my connection via mobile is bad; keeps dcing and everytime i have to write again. Wastes too much time. I might return when i have free time on my pc but i'll have to go now. Thanks for replies.

>>2093336
Doesn't that merely perpetuate the cycle of increasingly weak and effeminate men?

Wouldn't that infer the leftist system is by either intention or accident creating generations of weak useful idiots?

Wouldn't this count as evidence that Marxism was engineered to undermine nations?

Read 'The True Believer' by Eric Hoffer.

>>2091237
>What drives people--particularly adolescent/young adult men--to support radical political movements like fascism or Islamism?

Deep down, they're really fucked up people.

https://pando.com/2015/02/27/the-war-nerd-why-did-mohammed-emwazi-become-jihadi-john/

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0816614490/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_t1_HG29xbRKBVZDB

>why do people become radicalized?
Every "answer" I've seen has marginal predictive power, and often gives false positives that are literally in the billions.