explain

>>2332637
The spanish republicans were openly slaughtering Catholic clergy during the civil war. Franco turned out to be like the mildest dictator of the whole 20th century.

Catholics are natural fascists

>>2332637
Based Father Coughlin telling it like it is.
>Why didn't we listen?

File: hmm.png (129KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 2000x2000px

>Franco wins
>succesfully keeps marxists and agitators at bay for his entire reign
>dies
>Fulfills every monarchists wet dream and reinstates Monarchy
>king says "fuck this" and makes it a democracy

Is there anything more JUST?

>Soviet Union bankrolling Communists and Anarchists
>Republicans just roll over and fucking die, or join the Commies and Anarchists
>Commies and Anarchists establish "utopia": Armed forces roam the countryside like bandits raping, looting, murdering, and commandeering goods and money
>Eventually they come to a conundrum: On one hand, those who have internalized Communism/Anarchism the most want to be referred to as Officers. On the other hand, everyone is equal, so there should be no ranks or hierarchy and everyone should be called "Comrade"
>The Anarchist/Communist forces immediately begin to murder each other over this minor issue of terminology
.
.
.
>Franco and the Fascists just kind of sit there watching the Anarchists/Communists implode in a virtue signalling death spiral
>Eventually get bored, at which point they just march on into the occupied villages and towns, mop up the Anarchists/Communists that didn't kill each other, and are hailed as heroes by the locals

>>2332649
>Franco
>fascist
"No." He allied with fascists but wasn't one himself.

>>2332661
Is this a peek into what's in store for the future

>>2332660
As a monarchist this always kind of troubled me, what if a monarch goes full retard. And by that I don't mean just being incompetent or malevolent, but abolishing monarchy altogether? Like that one dipshit in Nepal who offered his country to the Maoists who then broke every promise they've given him.

>>2332670
>Conservative, totalitarian nationalist emphasizing a strongly militarized society wasn't a fascist.

Man, it's amazing that you split those hairs.

>>2332684
It does make me wonder who the king was talking to at the time Franco was ruling.

He must of been in contact with western forces who were convincing him to abdicate or switch to democracy after he takes over

>>2332684
This should address to you the fundamentally flawed nature of your beliefs.

>>2332696
why do i have the feeling this cuck is somebody who argues that certain communist states weren't true communist

>>2332703
Even by their own definitions they weren't, they were at the intermediary stage of socialism. Fascism however isn't bound by clear definitions, it in fact doesn't have any intellectual spine to speak of.

>>2332699
Well but everyone could ask the same question, not just monarchists. Like democrats, what if someone is democratically elected and then abolishes democracy? Because Hitler did exactly that.

>>2332730
>hitler
>elected

>>2332720
>when its my retarded ideology, it wasn't true communism
>when it's the ideology I don't like, it was fascism

kys

>>2332730
Hitler wasn't democratically elected.

Democrats also typically propose a series of checks and balances to prevent them from doing something like that. But the type of absolute monarchist that would consider themselves a monarchist these days couldn't propose something similar as it would defeat the initial purpose.

>>2332742
I'm not a communist, and no socialist state has ever met the definition of communist (all property held in common). And Franco meets the loose standard for what qualifies as a fascist.

>>2332750
>no socialist state ever met the definition of socialism that I keep changing every time socialism fails

Franco was certainly not a fascist, he was anti communist because communist shitheads started a civil war in his country and then lost. Then when they lost they started shouting le fascism

File: 1483559056041.gif (659KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 480x270px

>>2332646
You're forgetting the Catholic Church remained especially strong in Spain. The Inquisition was abolished relatively late there, and even afterwards, remained a large landowner presiding over peasants, naturally incurring their wrath. Furthermore, Catholic clergy sided directly with ruling class interests, often providing strikebreakers when needed and even organizing some of the right-wing terror squads that operated in the countryside (Juan Soldevilla y Romero, the ultra-reactionary Cardinal Archbishop of Saragossa, was murdered by anarchists in revenge for his role in financing and recruiting assassins to gun down union organizers during this period). Don't forget the clergy vehemently opposed anything deemed "Progressive" for back then: higher wages for industrial workers, unions, women's rights, betterment of the education system, etc.

In fact, I'd have to say the anti-clericalism of the period is completely understandable, given Spain's history and relationship with the Church.

>>2332740
Bait.

>>2332743
But "checks and balances" are ultimately undemocratic and kind of make democracy a self-contradicting ideology.

>power is derived from will of the people
>people elect someone who wants to abolish democracy
>therefore, we must create enough checks and balances that would prevent them from doing that
>there are constitutional barriers that prevent people from electing who they want, therefore it's not about people's will at all
Americans ran into the same problem in South Vietnam. The majority of the population wanted to vote for Ho Chi Minh, who was certainly no democrat, so they literally barred people from voting for him with the justification of "protecting democracy", it's completely absurd.

>>2332757
I already said they were socialist. Socialism is a very loose term that refers to a broad range of ideologies all concerned with addressing the problems of labor. They however were not communist.

>Franco was certainly not a fascist, he was anti communist because communist shitheads started a civil war in his country and then lost. Then when they lost they started shouting le fascism

First off, the right started the civil war with an attempted coup. Second he absolutely was a fascist, since he meets the definition. He was a conservative totalitarian nationalist that emphasized a heavily militarized state.

>>2332758
>the church wuz oppressin us and shiet

nottu dissu shitto agen

>>2332761
>But "checks and balances" are ultimately undemocratic and kind of make democracy a self-contradicting ideology.

You're making a basic error in assume the ideology of your average democrat is democracy. It's liberalism, and the idea behind the checks and balances is ensuring that liberty, not democracy, is maintained.

>>2332769
>onservative totalitarian nationalist that emphasized a heavily militarized state.

We talking about Franco or Stalin here

>>2332699
Nah, it's easily rectified by mandating that the monarch cannot abdicate without establishing a clear and legitimate successor.

File: Christians are the SJWS of late antiquity.png (102KB, 609x497px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 609x497px

>>2332772
>>2332772
It was, you reactionary idiot.

>>2332781
Ah, now we're getting to the grey area. Stalin was socially conservative, but the fundamental ideological underpinning of his ideal was different. He still advocated for many of the progressive ideals of Marxism-Leninism; his stated aim being still to establish socialism and eventually communism. Whereas a truly conservative politician is just trying to maintain a specific ideal status-quo.

>>2332787
Then you don't have an absolute monarchy.

Moreover, how do you plan to enforce this?

>>2332769
>He was a conservative totalitarian nationalist that emphasized a heavily militarized state.
Fascism by definition isn't conservative, it's extremely modernist. Some intelliguanas even coined the term "reactionary modernism" because fascism borrows from reaction when it comes to style but remains modernist and progressive in its core, which makes it far more modernist than reactionary.

Franco was just an old word order reactionary, a relict of a bygone era, the last counter-enlightement politician. Nothing right of him but the wall, fascists were actually to his left.

>>2332779
Good point actually. But then they cannot really call themselves democrats.

>>2332750
>And Franco meets the loose standard for what qualifies as a fascist.

Only because you allow Marxists to define fascism for you, rather than actual fascists.

>>2332789
Stalin is literally Hitler if you replace the Jews with the Kulaks. He even genocided 6 million of them!

This "he was an authoritarian so hes a fascist" meme needs to fucking go

>>2332803
>Fascism by definition isn't conservative, it's extremely modernist.

That was never actually a core of its ideals, and they flipflopped on it quite regularly.

As I said earlier, fascism does not have an intellectual spine the same way Marxism, Liberalism, or Anarchism do.

>Good point actually. But then they cannot really call themselves democrats.

They can in so far as they consider democracy to be the preferable means by which they decide things in government.

>>2332797
Who said anything about absolute monarchy?

>>2332806
Fascists were never able to create a consistent definition, because it wasn't an intellectual movement.

>>2332814
Most monarchists. You don't see people calling themselves monarchists to champion constitutional monarchy these days.

>>2332818
What kind of wacky monarchists are you hanging around?

>>2332827
The 4chan kind.

>>2332815
>not an intellectual movement
lol
As opposed to what exactly?

>>2332812
>That was never actually a core of its ideals, and they flipflopped on it quite regularly.
Fascism originated in national syndicalism and socialism (Mussolini and Hitler both started out as socialists), then slowly gravitated to the right until it basically became radical centrism. They're too left to be considered right and too right to be considered left, basically.

>anarchism
>intellectual spine
That's such a poor bait I have trouble dignifying it with a proper reply.

>They can in so far as they consider democracy to be the preferable means by which they decide things in government.
If they're willing to sacrifice democracy in the name of liberty, then they're no democrats.

>>2332845
Anarchism, Liberalism, and Marxism. Which all had a clear intellectual spine owing to their drawing from a fairly specific source each (respectively, Proudhon, Locke, and Marx).

Fascism had intellectuals, but they were each trying to paint their own picture of it without drawing from a common source, so it wound up taking a form specific to each country it manifested in, requiring that outsiders define it by what each movement had in common in their practices.

>>2332855
>That's such a poor bait I have trouble dignifying it with a proper reply.

Proudhon. Both the social anarchists and individualist anarchists considered themselves to be drawing from his work.

>If they're willing to sacrifice democracy in the name of liberty, then they're no democrats.
>requiring absolute ideals for your definitions rather than practices

How's highschool?

>>2332882
>Both the social anarchists and individualist anarchists considered themselves to be drawing from his work.
Well yes, and since we know trees by their fruit, we can safely conclude Proudhon was pretty garbage.

>How's highschool?
Projecting? I'm 30.

>>2332900
>Well yes, and since we know trees by their fruit, we can safely conclude Proudhon was pretty garbage.

That's not really the point I'm trying to get at. The quality of the particular spine is irrelevant, what matters is that it had some clear intellectual roots and thus a clear definition. You can tell at a glance what is and is not anarchism, because it draws from a common source.

>Projecting? I'm 30.

Well, they do say growing up is optional.

>>2332910
>That's not really the point I'm trying to get at. The quality of the particular spine is irrelevant, what matters is that it had some clear intellectual roots and thus a clear definition. You can tell at a glance what is and is not anarchism, because it draws from a common source.
Right. I think your criticism stems from the fact anarchism is theory-based while fascism is practice-based. This is also a reason why anarchism can only work in theory.

>Well, they do say growing up is optional.
True, learning to ignore intellectual lightweights with reddit spacing will be a next step towards my maturity.

>>2332937
>Right. I think your criticism stems from the fact anarchism is theory-based while fascism is practice-based. This is also a reason why anarchism can only work in theory.

Fascism isn't really based in anything except common despotism and nationalism.

>complains about reddit spacing

I'd bet my left testicle I've been here longer than you. Go complain about proper formating of a paragraph elsewhere.

File: communist logic.png (765KB, 954x864px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 954x864px

>>2332957
>Fascism isn't really based in anything except common despotism and nationalism.
Defining fascism as basically any authoritarian regime that's left of Lenin is intellectually dishonest and only serves as a tool to label your political enemies. I'd say fascism has three pillars: authoritarianism, corporatism and modernism. If it doesn't check on all threes then it's not really fascism.

>I'd bet my left testicle I've been here longer than you.
Betting something you don't have seems meaningless. I'd bet your right testicle that you definitely weren't here before 2008.

>>2333042
>Defining fascism as basically any authoritarian regime that's left of Lenin is intellectually dishonest and only serves as a tool to label your political enemies

Thank you for this

>>2333042
I think you meant to type "right of lenin"

>>2333074
Indeed I did.

>>2332750
Franco wasn't a Fascist. He could be described as conservative, traditionalist, authoritarian, nationalistic. None of these things are exclusive to Fascism (which is an ideology which focus on the state above all else).

>>2333042
I strict exactly is "authoritarian" in this context? Using a looser definition it seems like modern Japan could be described as fascist using these pillars. Japan most certainly is not fascist. I'd add another pillar to clear it up.

>>2333116
Didn't the US make a point of making Japan be lightly fascist to counter possible communist influence though?

>>2333116
Is modern Japan authoritarian? They are a western-style democracy as far as I know.

>>2332637
The republican government took lands and privileges back from the church. Later when the war started, the commies burned down churches and convents across the country. They didn't like it.

>>2333042
>Defining fascism as basically any authoritarian regime that's left of Lenin is intellectually dishonest and only serves as a tool to label your political enemies.

But I never once did this. Franco was socially conservative, totalitarian, and militaristic. Traits found in every single fascist state.

>I'd say fascism has three pillars: authoritarianism, corporatism and modernism. If it doesn't check on all threes then it's not really fascism.

Then you'd wind up excluding a bunch of states and organizations that called themselves fascist quite explicitly.

>Betting something you don't have seems meaningless.

Oh snap!

>I'd bet your right testicle that you definitely weren't here before 2008.

I hate to say it, but I've been here since 2006.

>>2333128
It depends. Its a very conservative place despite being a liberal democracy. Its definitely corporatist and modern.

how are you defining authoritarian?

>>2333144
>Traits found in every single fascist state.
These traits were found in practically every state before the revolutions in the 1700s and most after even still.

>>2333144
>Franco was socially conservative, totalitarian, and militaristic. Traits found in every single fascist state.
And also in Stalinist Russia and more or less the entire Warsaw Pact.

>Then you'd wind up excluding a bunch of states and organizations that called themselves fascist quite explicitly.
Such as? But nevertheless, your arguments are devoid of any kind of logical consistency. First you argued it doesn't matter what "fascists" called themselves, now you're acting like self-identification is important. Decide.

>I've been here since 2006
I somehow doubt it.

>>2333144
>Franco was socially conservative, totalitarian, and militaristic. Traits found in every single fascist state.

That doesn't mean he was a fascist though. That's like saying
>Stalin was a human being with a heart, lungs, and spleen. Organs found in every democracy

>>2333158
Actually totalitarianism and the obsessive focus on militarism were pretty uncommon. Totalitarianism was found pretty much only in 20th century ideologies, in fact.

Prior to that, the idea that every action and thought of the citizenry was a matter of state importance wasn't really a thing.

>>2333176
>And also in Stalinist Russia and more or less the entire Warsaw Pact.

See >>2332789

>Such as? But nevertheless, your arguments are devoid of any kind of logical consistency. First you argued it doesn't matter what "fascists" called themselves, now you're acting like self-identification is important. Decide.

It is when you're trying to define a movement from the outside. A bunch of states called themselves fascist without a clear intellectual spine, so outsiders were forced to define them by their unifying features, which happened to included Franco in the definition, by being a fascist in everything but name.

>I somehow doubt it.

You started it. I'm an oldfag, and you're newfag cancer.

>>2333144
>umm they called themselves fascists that must mean they're fascists
>but the USSR? NOT TRUE COMMUNISM

What did the pinko mean by this?

>>2333199
Oh, I forgot the "such as?" part. Cleric fascism would be right out in that definition you used.

>>2333207
The fact that property wasn't held in the common in the USSR. It was a socialist state, but not a communist one.

I'm not sure why the right wing here has such a problem with words.

>>2333217
I know that, and I agree with you, but R E A L L Y makes you think why this guy has double standards

File: tripcancer.png (84KB, 915x297px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 915x297px

>>2333199
>being a fascist in everything but name
The only fascist thing about Franco was that he allied with fascists against the communists. Considering fascism is very modernist and Franco's core ideas revolved around completely rejecting modernity, it would be pretty odd to label him a fascist.

>You started it. I'm an oldfag, and you're newfag cancer.
I can only provably date my posts to 2010 because that's as far as archives go with my old tripcancer. Your move to prove you've been here longer.

>>2332696
>>2332699


I agree with that guy, as in, Franco is a hispanic caudillo, not very different from Latin American dictators of the XIX century that preceded Fascism, for example Rosas of Argentina.

Catholic nationalism with dictators is something older than Fascism.

Franco is much more similar to the Catholic Dictator o Austria assasinated by the Nazis, Dolfuss, than to Hitler or Mussolinni, who werent Christians in any way.
Portugal also had a very similar guy for decades, Salazar.

>>2333237
What double standards? The USSR doesn't meet the basic definition, whereas Franco's government does meet the basic description of fascism.

>>2333238
>Considering fascism is very modernist and Franco's core ideas revolved around completely rejecting modernity, it would be pretty odd to label him a fascist.

But fascism isn't universally modernist. Most fascist governments were explicitly conservative historically speaking. Clerical fascism was expressly anti-modernist.

>I can only provably date my posts to 2010 because that's as far as archives go with my old tripcancer. Your move to prove you've been here longer.

Haha! You think I give a shit. I don't need to prove dick shit to you. You're the only who started accusing me of being from Reddit because I properly space my paragraphs. No, you started this game, but I have no interest in playing it. Get an assessment of your priorities going here: you're a 30 year old man who considers your authenticity to an anonymous imageboard to be something of import; you are quite possibly the single most pathetic person I've met here.

>>2333254
Dolfuss was expressly fascist.

>>2332637

he btfo red scum

anarchists are neat except for the whole murdering priests and nuns thing, but they should have never trusted the commies

>explain

Religions are not exempt from errors in judgement, just like any other human institution.

>>2332696

>authoritarianism = fascism

you are uneducated

>>2333257
>But fascism isn't universally modernist.
It explicitly is.

>Haha! You think I give a shit. I don't need to prove dick shit to you.
You sound quite incensed just because you got outed as redditor. Just don't pretend to be from here and we're cool.

>>2332696
Fascism isn't conservative you dumb cuckold

>>2332696
>German empire was fascism
>Soviet Union was fascism
>Baroque absolutist monarchies were fascism
>everything is fascism
Kill yourself.

>>2333261
>murdering nuns

How scum do you have to be to do this shit

>>2333269
>It explicitly is.

Except it isn't. Again, your definition would exclude both clerical fascism and Austrofascism.

>You sound quite incensed just because you got outed as redditor. Just don't pretend to be from here and we're cool.

Whatever helps you sleep man. I'm not a 30 year old man who plays at being an authoritarian hardass while considering my credentials on an anonymous anime imageboard to be something of import. Regardless of what you say, I know for a fact these words are registering with you.

>>2333274
>I don't understand the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

I know, it's unreasonable of me to expect a History and Humanities board to understand basic political terminology and ideas.

>>2333274
Name ONE thing that isn't fascism.

>>2333289
Pharisaical Judaism

>>2333280
>Except it isn't. Again, your definition would exclude both clerical fascism and Austrofascism.
Clerical fascism is not really a thing though, it's a term created by a butthurt democratic conservative to label Catholics who supported Mussolini. It's more of a slur than anything, on par with calling someone a Judeo-Bolshevik.
Austrofascism is more interesting and peculiar because it's a genuine synthesis of fascism and Catholic reaction. But as a syncretic ideology they're just on the opposite spectrum of NazBol.

>I'm not a 30 year old man who plays at being an authoritarian hardass
You're a secular liberal normalfag redditor, that much is known. You're the outsider here.

>>2332750

the definition of communist is literally impossible to achieve, and is used as a false promise by those who seek power for themselves

how have you not seen this yet?

>>2333289
Mussolinism.

>>2332758
>a large landowner presiding over peasants, naturally incurring their wrath

the peasants were the ones fighting with the Nationalists, most were agriculturists and monarchists.

it was the city folks, miners, and intelligentsia that revolted.

the same goddamn thing happened in the French Revolution.

>>2333289
Leftist logic is that nothing is really communism while everything is really fascism.

>>2333321
Russian revolution too.

>>2333302
>Austrofascism is more interesting and peculiar because it's a genuine synthesis of fascism and Catholic reaction. But as a syncretic ideology they're just on the opposite spectrum of NazBol.

Austrofascism is a fascist ideology and your definition excludes it, proving your definition to be garbage.

>that much is known

Romans 1:22

File: 158.png (15KB, 447x378px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 447x378px

>>2333308
>the definition of communist is literally impossible to achieve, and is used as a false promise by those who seek power for themselves

holy shit whoever set this ideology up is a genius. create an intentionally ambiguous definition that leads to power seeking and if/when you fail you can always try again because it wasn't the "true ideal"

communism is truly diabolical.

>>2333326
>Austrofascism is a fascist ideology and your definition excludes it, proving your definition to be garbage.
It's syncretic on the right side of the spectrum, much like NazBol is syncretism of the left side of the spectrum. If NazBol embrace some tenets of communism, it doesn't mean that fascism = communism. I really think you're out of your depth here.

>Romans 1:22
Your reddit is showing.

>>2333342
>It's syncretic on the right side of the spectrum, much like NazBol is syncretism of the left side of the spectrum. If NazBol embrace some tenets of communism, it doesn't mean that fascism = communism. I really think you're out of your depth here.

I really think you're a fucking idiot here. Because Austrofascism is a fascist ideology that draws straight from Italian fascism. It's not syncretic; it's just unique to the particular culture, as literally every fascist movement was, which is why it required definition from an outside source.

National Bolshevism is just an offshoot of National Socialism (which itself is just fascism unique to Germany).

>Your reddit is showing.

Matthew 16:2-3

It seems literally everything is proof of Reddit to you.

File: ideo.png (26KB, 802x926px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 802x926px

>>2333359
A simple illustration of what I mean, if my previous post wasn't clear enough. Austrofascism absolutely is syncretic.

>It seems literally everything is proof of Reddit to you.
You reek of reddit more than anyone I've seen all day. Complete with the random fedora dropping of Bible verses.

>>2333325
Not true. Many peasants rejected both the Whites and Reds, forming either the Greens or Blacks that sought to primarily defend their own lands and homesteads rather than enforce an ideology.

>>2332684
Monarchists are a special kind of cuck. Nobody was born a noble in primitive societies. You made yourself a noble by leading the people in the middle of struggle and hardship. In this sense Franco, Mussolini, are nobler than any would be monarch then and today. Giving away political power to a pampered playboy just because he happened to be the great great great son of a monarch is beyond cuckoldry. No. Nietzsche got it right. The most noble were often the most brutal.

>>2333444
Check 'em.

>>2333423
>A simple illustration of what I mean, if my previous post wasn't clear enough. Austrofascism absolutely is syncretic.
>this unsourced JPG proves my point

Ok then. Why don't you try that one in a political science course?

Strasserism is not syncretic in the slightest, it was a completely independent ideology. Neither was Austrofascism, which as I said, drew directly from Italian fascism, specifically Giovanni Gentile. It just placed religion and social conservatism as important values.

You are on this stupid tangent because you refuse to abandon your retarded definition that would get you laughed out of a university.

>You reek of reddit more than anyone I've seen all day. Complete with the random fedora dropping of Bible verses.

Okie dokie then. Once again, you're a 30 year old man, who is obsessed with what site someone hails from. Let me ask you: what was your father doing at this age? Is he proud of you?

You are, also, wrong, still, but I can't prove that.

>>2333423
>You reek of reddit more than anyone I've seen all day. Complete with the random fedora dropping of Bible verses.
>only redditors reference the bible

>>2333444
cuck numbers

>>2333444
This is why Europeans thought America would just turn into a monarchy under Washington and his kids would form the new aristocracy

This is where Franco got it wrong, he should have just dissolved the monarchy and made himself king but that would have gone against traditionalism

in a way traditionalism cucks itself because if the existing monarchy is full of cucks, you can't create a new monarchy because you'll piss everyone off who loves the king. there really is no solution to this dilemma. not even rome had a solution, they just got rid of their king and went back and forth between dictators and a republic

>>2333462
most cucked post itt

>>2333465
explain why. the king of spain was objectively a cuck, he dissolved his own power after franco gave it to him

>he just keeps on cucking himself

>>2333476
Who are you referring to?

>>2333453
>Strasserism is not syncretic in the slightest
It most certainly is. My suggestion would be reading Otto Strasser's book Hitler and I, start right at the debate he had with Hitler at Lundendorff's house, arguing for the socialist aspect of national socialism and trying to explicitly implement socialist aspects from the USSR when he was a gauleiter.

>Neither was Austrofascism, which as I said, drew directly from Italian fascism, specifically Giovanni Gentile.
I hope you realize Gentile wasn't a conservative or even religious, he was just a cultural Catholic and a corporatist modernist. Austrofascism was a synthesis of Italian fascism and traditional Austrian Catholic reaction.

>Once again, you're a 30 year old man, who is obsessed with what site someone hails from.
Once again, you seem to imply that everyone who posts on 4chan is a loser, which I assume is yet another monumental avalanche of projection from you.

>>2333488
>It most certainly is. My suggestion would be reading Otto Strasser's book Hitler and I, start right at the debate he had with Hitler at Lundendorff's house, arguing for the socialist aspect of national socialism and trying to explicitly implement socialist aspects from the USSR when he was a gauleiter.
>I hope you realize Gentile wasn't a conservative or even religious, he was just a cultural Catholic and a corporatist modernist. Austrofascism was a synthesis of Italian fascism and traditional Austrian Catholic reaction.

Whatever, I'm sick of this. The fact is your definition of fascism outright excludes several fascist governments and movements, proving conclusively that it is garbage.

>Once again, you seem to imply that everyone who posts on 4chan is a loser, which I assume is yet another monumental avalanche of projection from you.

Not, everyone, just you.

>>2333506
Damn that extra comma.

>>2333506
>Whatever, I'm sick of this.
Because you have no arguments.

>Not, everyone, just you.
And it's an assumption based on nothing but your butt trouble over being called out for being a redditor.

King James Bible
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

>>2333506
>>2333488
Also, while I'm at it, your argument this whole time has been "NOT TRUE FASCISM!"

And before you try to accuse me of the same, I never once claimed any socialist government wasn't socialist, just that they weren't communist, since they didn't meet the single defining feature of communism (or ever self-identify as communism, since they all held themselves to be at the socialist intermediary stage).

>>2333514
>Because you have no arguments.

You mean aside from the several I made? Franco's government fit the form of fascism well and several fascist movements weren't modernist.

>And it's an assumption based on nothing but your butt trouble over being called out for being a redditor.

Educated guess based on the personality type of someone who identifies strongly enough with an imageboard to care about someone's credentials as a long time poster.

You never did answer my questions about your father.

>>2333522
>You mean aside from the several I made?
You've made none, if anything you've constistently avoided refuting the fact Franco was a counter-enlightement monarchist which is something that predates fascism by more than a century.

>You're 30 years old and you're not fond of redditeurs shitting up 4chan, therefore you have no life
I wonder if this actually makes sense in your head, or you're just too seething to realize how absurd a claim it is.

>>2333546
>You've made none, if anything you've constistently avoided refuting the fact Franco was a counter-enlightement monarchist which is something that predates fascism by more than a century.

Except for the fact he was also explicitly totalitarian (something unique to the 20th century) and borrowed extensively from fasicism. In fact during the early years of his reign, his government was even hand in hand with a fascist party.

>I wonder if this actually makes sense in your head, or you're just too seething to realize how absurd a claim it is.
>I consider disagreement to be sign of an invasion of this site from elsewhere.

Yeah, that's pretty fucking pathetic.

>>2333559
>something unique to the 20th century
Only the word itself is, reactionary autocracy as described by e.g. de Maistre is textbook totalitarianism.

>In fact during the early years of his reign, his government was even hand in hand with a fascist party.
>being allied with fascists makes you a fascist
No cmment.

>I consider disagreement ...
You know damn well it wasn't about disagreement but keep playing dumb and trying to weasel out of it.

>>2333580
>Only the word itself is, reactionary autocracy as described by e.g. de Maistre is textbook totalitarianism.

The idea of no explicit division between private and public life, the the state is all in all, is actually pretty unique to the 20th century. But I actually haven't read Maistre.

>allied with

He wasn't allied with them. The fascist parties were merged into his party, which was fascist in literally everything but name. Which goes back to that original point: where you are indeed just splitting hairs. He walked like a fascist, talked like a fascist, and cracked down on fucking everything that disagreed with him like a fascist without the explicitly socialistic aspects of the socialist regimes that acted much the same.

>You know damn well it wasn't about disagreement but keep playing dumb and trying to weasel out of it.

Then what was it about? Having an opinion left of Hitler is not an exclusively Reddit thing, and if you weren't a newfag, you'd know that 4chan used to be predominantly progressive and libertarian (latter being in the minority) and just fond of edgy rhetoric. It was only with the election of Obama that 4chan started to shift to the right.

Also I was wrong. I've been here since 2007, though I was a poster on 7chan before that. I came here right after /tg/ became a board; I expressly remember it being in italics on the sidebar and in the early hundreds of posts.

>>2333462
>This is why Europeans thought America would just turn into a monarchy under Washington

no

this is why

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWpk4kdgQAM

long version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB96oPafQgg

>>2333515

>bait

>>2333594
>But I actually haven't read Maistre.
That much is obvious.

>which was fascist in literally everything but name
You keep repeating this asspull mantra that fascism means conservatism, militarism and totalitarianism but that won't make it any more true. Mussolini was definitely not conservative. Mosley was neither conservative nor a militarist. Your definition is so downright retarded it would exclude the original fascists as fascists, and would include Ivan Grozny or de Maistre as fascists.

>Then what was it about?
Reddit spacing, normie attitude, passive-agressive remarks, condescending attitude and pseudo-intellectualism despite being uneducated yourself, you name it. It's almost impossible to wash out the reddit stank out of you fucks.

>4chan used to be predominantly progressive and libertarian (latter being in the minority) and just fond of edgy rhetoric
This "predominantly progressive" claim is nonsense and you'd know it if you actually were here by the way.

>7chan
Glorified goon haven.

>>2333659
>That much is obvious.

Sue me. I'd bet he wasn't totalitarian in the sense Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and yes, Franco were. As I recall he also considered church authority legitimate, whereas no fascist, not even Franco or Dollfuss did.

>Mussolini was definitely not conservative. Mosley was neither conservative nor a militarist.

But both of those leaders were indeed socially conservative.

>Reddit spacing

Anyone who has ever been through an english class should know how to space a paragraph. This meme is retarded. There was a similar one on 7chan, where they pointed out the way people formated their posts as proof that they were newfags from 4chan, but that actually made sense as it was forced by the sites formating.

>normie attitude

What precisely is that?

>passive-agressive remarks

There wasn't anything passive-aggressive about my statements. I outright called you stupid and immature.

>condescending attitude and pseudo-intellectualism despite being uneducated yourself

Oh puh fucking leeze. Those are standard for 4chan.

>It's almost impossible to wash out the reddit stank out of you fucks.

For a guy who is so anti-reddit, you seem to have some specific knowledge of their behavior. Because I've never been to Reddit, and know literally fuck all about them.

>This "predominantly progressive" claim is nonsense and you'd know it if you actually were here by the way.

By your own admission, you weren't there for the election. The idea of McCain winning was mocked relentlessly, and the only board that favoured McCain was /k/. You came here after me, when 4chan, in true contrarian fashion started to shift to the right.

>Glorified goon haven.

Irrelevant. I was posting there long before you'd be on 4chan, and I was posting on 4chan well before you. I just don't keep a comprehensive archive of my fucking posts like a pathetic loser.

File: when-youre-busy-liberating-the-north-but-gran-wants-a-1609392.png (104KB, 500x405px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 500x405px

>>2332699

>expecting monarchist memers to actually think

There is and has only ever been one way to stop someone from believing in the fairy tail of good kings.

The Roman Empire were fascists
>socially conservative
>nationalistic
>militaristic

>>2333699
>I'd bet he wasn't totalitarian in the sense Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and yes, Franco were.
His totalitarianism and militarism actually makes Mussolini look like a complete lightweight in comparison. Start with Considerations on France and then move on to St. Petersburg Dialogues, that should cover it sufficiently.

>But both of those leaders were indeed socially conservative.
"No." Mussolini was a progressive closely associated with futurism, ex-socialists, and praised by people like G.B. Shaw and Rexford Tugwell. Evola who was one of the leading figures of 20th century reactionaries was butthurt to no end about fascist Italy's progressiveness and "plebeian" nature.

>Anyone who has ever been through an english class should know how to space a paragraph. This meme is retarded.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to leave a blank line between greentexts and your reply, let alone having a line for separete sentences. Kindly go back to your shithole.

>By your own admission, you weren't there for the election.
I was here before that. 4chan was hardly ever progressive, if anything it was always degenerate as hell but otherwise really apolitical. I remember people mocking Bush, but those were almost always Euros in the Europe vs America shitstorm threads rather than progressives.

>>2333699
Forgot about:
> I was posting there long before you'd be on 4chan
We both know that's not true.

The founding fathers were fascist
>socially conservative
>nationalistic
>Militaristic

>>2333624
What an absolutely fascinating premise.

>>2333783

ikr

just wait till you hear about the Virginian Cavalier "myth"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Cavaliers_(historical)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Washington

follow the white rabbit anon

>>2333624
>it's a founding fathers revisionism episode

>>2333751
Prove it.

File: Pope-Francis2.jpg (37KB, 940x545px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 940x545px

As a Catholic I fully acknowledge that sincerely following the Church tends one towards authoritarianism. The Church itself is an authoritarian theocracy.

We like absolute rulers. Quicker and easier for them to do God's will. Also better components in the chain of being.

>>2334571

>I raise the authority of man above that of God

Whatever you say, """"""""""""Catholic"""""""""""" person

>>2334581
Well I mean in an ideal world everyone would be a Christian and we'd just follow the Church, and there'd be no need of governments beyond the Church's religions guidance.

So I suppose the truest form of government is a kind of Catholic anarchy, but that's really just a soft theocracy, in the end.

>>2332696
>purposfully ignoring the modernist and revolutionary aspects of fascism

>>2332758
>*tips fedora*

This is why Franco had to kick you priest-killers shit in

>>2334571
You're a shit Catholic then. Roman Catholicism emphasizes its primacy and unbroken links to Jesus, but it also teaches free will and not to literally believe everything, but to seek the truth and come to know God -- because you want this (salvation, etc) not because you have to. Sure it can be pretty dogmatic, but as it is so large, it is not uniformly blindly orthodox.

File: delicious.jpg (237KB, 715x1007px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 715x1007px

>>2333280
>I'm not a 30 year old man who plays at being an authoritarian hardass while considering my credentials on an anonymous anime imageboard to be something of import.
>I hate to say it, but I've been here since 2006.

File: BSsQt8XCYAAiTpb.jpg (104KB, 600x534px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 600x534px

>>2332769
>the right started the civil war with an attempted coup
Sure, after many failed coup attempts by the left and separatists, after the leader of the opposition was taken from his home and killed with no court order during the left wing government
Pic related is coup attempts by the left, they're just sore that the one that achieved its goals was done by the right

>>2333659

Oh man. You know you've been rekt hard when you are reduced to complaining about "Reddit spacing". This is painful to read.

>>2332696
>i know nothing about what fascism actually is but i use the word a lot

>>2332637
He'd be right.

>>2333302
I like clerical fascism. I don't view it as an insulting term.

>>2333277
I can somewhat understand the complete destruction of clerics if your ideology directly painted them as a lynchpin of the old order that was oppressive against the individual. If you're fighting to create a classless state with no hierarchies, and your opponents are staunch believers in the structure and authority of religious institutions, you don't have any real alternative but to put them to death. They're not the kind of people who are just going to nod their head and stop doing what they're doing because you tell them to.

That said, putting them to death and torturing them are two different things, and of the latter there is no excuse. I assume the individuals responsible for such acts were simply wrapped up in anarchist/communist fervor, and these acts were essentially to wash themselves of their old trappings and further solidify their position as topplers of the old regime. They were impassioned acts committed in a delusional mindset of making a better world and any means justified the end.

>>2333321
As a matter of fact, they were oppressin us and shiet.

Look at the Philippines. People there are Christian as fuck but the church is so corrupt that they even agree with Duterte with "the church needs to go down."

I'm not saying "Catholics are evil" with a fedora on one hand and an atheist bible on the other.

I'm saying the Catholic church has great power, and they obtained it by being a big mafia and scamming people. They even implemented a "pay to get a contract, become sin free" policy. That is not a church. It's a business.

>>2332637
He was correct, Franco saved Spain.

>>2335557
>pay to get a contract, become sin free

Not true

File: 96f958fd0dc35f83f7042b06edd346d8c1576729.jpg (222KB, 1024x728px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1024x728px

>>2335784
Now did he? Let's take a look at the current problems of Spain

>Cronyism
Spain has a long tradition of putting incompetent people you know personally in power while discarding those talented. Franco was no exception: he put friends in positions of power to consolidate his rule. Even when things were going wrong, one of Franco's famous quote was "but your factory is still running well, right?"
He pretty much created the current establishment.
>Corruption
The life of high ranked party members and friends was lavish. Who was going to investigate them? Franco? Themselves? Who was even going to denounce them? Same thing happens right now, only when politicians are judged they're sent to the EU parliament or to a corporation/bank or somewhere where they won't make noise unless they fuck up big time. Which they normally do, because corruption won't stop. It goes deep from the church to the congress to the Spanish corporations.
>Euroshills
Both Spanish parties are known euroshills, but would that have changed with Franco in power? Absolutely no. He ditched Hitler and joined the US for the money. And Spain got absolutely cucked with all sorts of shady deals and American bases. The benefits? No more isolationism. He literally sold his so-called values to the highest bidder.
And then our current politicians finished the job by obeying the high EU commands and dismantling our industry to make Spain become a country of waiters, whores and drunk tourists. Brotip: also happened in Portugal, Italy and Greece.

Now what the fuck did he save, then?
>Right wing
No. He literally let right wing ideologues die because he didn't need brains, he needed fanatics, which is what he got. Then in the 50's he realised how much he had fucked up and let that merchant religious cult in.
Spanish "Right wing" is just a facade. They're as ideologically empty as the left, but they're greedier. But hey, "at least we're not commies xD". That's the only argument they have. And it still works.

>>2335461
>That said, putting them to death and torturing them are two different things, and of the latter there is no excuse

The former is no excuse either you statist. Murder is wrong.

>>2336050

t. me follo a la sudaca de Hogar Social de Madrid.

>>2333042
>implying right-wingers care about distinguishing between MLs, leftcoms, socdems, anarcho-syndicalists etc.

>>2336050
>But hey, "at least we're not commies xD". That's the only argument they have.

To be fair that is a perfectly sound argument that is very difficult to counter.

>>2336353
It very much is, but at least it's understandable. Torturing of civilians really doesn't reap any tangible benefits, and was done for reasons unknown.

>>2333144
>totalitarian

nope.

Authortarian government that doesn't allow people to actively fuck up society =/= totalitarian

>>2337092
Then they're actively suppressing society, and people being free to make mistakes has lead to more progress than suppressing problems that occur anyway.

>>2332637
>the Catholic Church is horrifically authoritarian and regressive

oh wow color me surprised

File: open_fire_on_statue_christ.jpg (242KB, 1296x1089px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1296x1089px

>leftists shooting priests and christians left and right
>catholic church grateful to the guy who stopped the massacres
>"SEE, THAT'S WHY THE CHURCH IS EVIL, NOT THE COMMIES, THOUGH, THEY DINDU NUFFIN".

File: carlistas.jpg (135KB, 750x689px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 750x689px

>>2332758
In Church lands, peasants had traditional rights, in the "private property" of Masonic landlords who funded anticlericalism, they were treated like slaves.

That's why peasants in Spain supported reactionary movements like Carlism.

File: 1451155183673.png (199KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 600x450px

So what's a good book or documentary for hearing about the Spanish Civil War without any bias? /his/ has talked about it quite a bit, and I get a lot in snips here or there which may or may not be colored by one's own beliefs, so it'd be nice to get it from a semi-official source that looks at the war as a whole.

>>2334675
Austrofascism, that's all.

>>2334969
I only mentioned it because he did.

File: Albert_René,_June_2014.jpg (13KB, 220x276px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x276px

>>2332646
>Franco was the mildest dictator of the 20th century
Excusez-moi?

>>2332661
*revisionism intensifies*
>>2332742
Not an argument.
>>2333042
epik meme dood XD
>>2333269
>le everyone i don't le like is le rebbit meme