Under Mussolini’s it wasn’t. Also Mussolini is one of the few genuine fascist governments. Most leaders like Codreanu, Mosley, Jose Antonio primo de Rivera, etc never got power. Franco wasn’t an actual fascist so he doesn’t count he wasn’t even falangist in fact he was a cuck traitor. i guess you could say Dolfuss and he didn’t implement these “sexual eugenics”.Once again, name a single fascist government where sexual eugenics hasn't been paramount.
In the West both corporate majordomos and government peons work for the same (((bosses))) so I'm not so sure I agree with your statement regarding the West.
You feel the same about decentralization? Because I think decentralization does lead to less corruption. Or, at least, the corruption will be on smaller scales and should thence be more easily resolvable. As for privatization, I'd have to think about whether that's conducive to corruption. Private companies getting too big does lead to problems, that's for sure. That said, putting all your eggs in one basket (the government) doesn't sound ideal at first hearing either, however. Maybe there's some middle ground... food for thought I guess.In my interpretation of things, privatization leads to more corruption not less, which is why I'm a big critic of liberal or libertarian forms of thinking.
Human beings by their very nature are not apolitical, there will always be a political power structure. I knew a libertarian would come in this thread eventually.
Now I feel like a kid trying to mingle with the grown-ups.The bad thing about monarchy is sometimes you get the likes of Caligula, however, there are benevolent monarchs like Marcus Aurelius or Caesar Augustus. Not all monarchies are oligarchical in nature, but as history has shown, once the merchant class becomes too powerful monarchies become weakened from within.
???
Mosley was more of a socialist, I wouldn't call him a fascist, authoritarian socialist much like Hitler perhaps. [Some minor differences.]
I meant that I ain't nearly as well-versed in history and politics as you, @ElTruecel or some of the other users, making me feel as tho this thread wasn't meant for the likes of me.???
I'm a proponent of centralization actually, because it's the only political capability of reigning in on private monopolies.
I wasn't always myself, but once you start reading entire spans or volumes of human history globally, it broadens your mind mentally.
While you certainly need some degree of centralized government to reign in on private monopolies, wouldn't overzealous centralization lead to the biggest monopoly of them all? Instead of many smaller monopolies, you'd have one huge one. Not sure that's such a good trade tbh.I'm a proponent of centralization actually, because it's the only political capability of reigning in on private monopolies.
Yes, but the difference is that the national government is held accountable to the people politically, whereas private corporations are accountable to noone other than their own shareholders or profits.
Youre right. Wanting to enslave foids would make me a hypocrite...Human beings by their very nature are not apolitical, there will always be a political power structure. I knew a libertarian would come in this thread eventually.
You're arguing for a sexual reproduction redistributive model, yet, the core tenets of libertarianism is privatization, non-aggression principal, and non-interference, I wonder if you can see how that contradicts your own political principals entirely.
Nah you’re fine you got good knowledge. Just keep reading and picking up on what others say about these topics.
Fascism has similar characteristics to socialism. It is very syndicalist in nature and don’t forget Mussolini was originally a socialist and then adopted some of these ideals into this new system.
How so?
Yea. Fascism hasn’t been implemented in society as much. I don’t agree with all the characteristics of fascism ofc like I’m definitely opposed to the futuristic elements.although, probably less than say Hitler's Germany. Mosley is probably the only person you mentioned I could give you an exception with, of course, Mosley's fascist England was never realized or implemented either.
I'm just saying, if you're going for a sexual reproductive model of redistribution you might as well become an authoritarian socialist to be more consistent. That libertarian dog won't hunt.
Fair point. I guess I concede for now. I'll hafta think about all of this some more. Thanks for indulging me. I hope I haven't been too annoying with my continuous poking and prodding without really offering an alternative in return.Yes, but the difference is that the national government is held accountable to the people politically, whereas private corporations are accountable to noone other than their own shareholders or profits.
Thanks for the vote of confidence brocel.
For me Mosley and Hitler is what I call half and half, half fascism, half socialism. But in Hitler's Germany they were definitely pro sexual eugenics, and had Mosley been successful I wonder if his government would of turned out the same or not.
Admirable, but I foresee major problems, conflicts, or disruptions with any society striving for total technological automation.
Fascism has socialist elements it not separate. Remember it’s third positionist based. Also yea nazi germany had eugenics true but it’s over exaggerated tbh. Also look at half the high ranking Nazis like Goebbels, Eichmann , Goering or even Hitler himself they weren’t exactly chads.
Yu
That’s not essential to fascism. It doesn’t believe in superiority. Does fascism support hierarchy, yes. Hierarchy is not superior or inferior though hierarchy is simply people have different roles in life and should fulfill those roles. Also this doesn’t have much to do with the sexual market because this was pre sexual revolution and the Blackpill is only really something that came during the digital age.
Isn’t that what Stalinism does as well though? An aristocratic government is natural and it has always been the most efficientAny nation or society that prides itself on the well-being of an aristocracy over the expense of everybody else is doomed, I just see fascism as doing that exactly.
I believe in a government that enshrines and protects the power of the people, a proletarian government for the working class, and one where the powerful are regulated under careful supervision so they don't destroy the balance of things with their individual inflated egos. Aristocracy? No. Political vanguard and inner political party of intellectuals, yes, but only as an aid of furthering national government interests. Well, Hitler's and Mosley's fascism had socialist elements, Mussolini's or Franco's, not so much. Yeah, have to agree with you on that of Goebbels, but I think that was more of a case of being born into wealth. If you have no looks material wealth is the fallback, if you have neither looks or material wealth you're SOL. I'm extremely skeptical of anything that is a private corporation or that which calls itself an aristocracy, worst things to have ever been spawned.
I c.
Vanguard I’m pretty sure is only for revolutionary matters, under a government wouldn’t it just be politburo?
Mussolini’s definitely did. Franco wasn’t technically a fascist he cucked hard wasnt a true falangist.
I cYeah, have to agree with you on that of Goebbels, but I think that was more of a case of being born into wealth. If you have no looks material wealth is the fallback, if you have neither looks or material wealth you're SOL. I'm extremely skeptical of anything that is a private corporation or that which calls itself an aristocracy, worst things to have ever been spawned.
As an incel, it's hard not to become misanthropic or anti-natalist.Spotted the thread antinatalist.
Based, the government should track down and execute cheating foidsIf a hypothetical nation of incels was created, what kind of political government structure would lead it?
For me it would an authoritarian Marxist and communist political regime, what would be yours? This thread is devoted to political, social, and economic debate of what a hypothetical future nation of incels would look like.
Based comrade
Jordon Peterson got tounge tied trying to justify enforced monogamy and economic liberalism at the same time.
What's stopping Lords from cuckolding the serfs?
We need a Whore Bureau of InvestigationAuthoritarian state capitalism with policies to help end inceldom (for the most part) and make the nation as culturally and socially homogenous as possible, discrimination against sub 5s would be outlawed and regarded in the same manner as people today regard the slavery of blacks. The movement and actions of foids would be strictly regulated especially as far as sexual activity goes, sex outside of marriage would mean you're basically worn out at that point and you would be used for breeding/labor purposes.
The ruling capitalist class would eventually reintroduce feminism to increase consumer spending and cuck their slave employees. We need Marxism Rodgerism to prevent that.My problem with economic capitalism besides its more obvious economic inequalities is that it doubles or quadruples female hypergamic vaginal capitalism.
Capitalists funded the proto-feminist Temperance Movement and supported feminism to double the number of workers, consumers
The US states that gave women the right to vote were trying to reach the population requirement
Fascism is chad worship as an ideologyThe problem with fascism is twofold, its cultural and sexual eugenics added with its perception firmly rooted in Social Darwinism. This is the antithesis of inceldom.
We exist because ugly foids get to pass down their genes
Monarchies last because it's a primitive structure. The family in power changes all the time. Surviving modern day monarchies are just capitalist countries with more censorship and an unelected president.In a communist government there is suppose to be checks and balances ran by the political inner party or vanguard. The entire government is based upon redistribution of the oppressed against a political social economic class of oppressors, under Monarchy there is no such checks or balances, that isn't to say they can't exist under a benevolent monarch, however, not all monarchs as history alludes are benevolent.
What's stopping Chads, the rich, or the most brutal from accumulating multiple foids and leaving the rest of us dry?
Private companies can tell the command man go fuck off in a way that governments can't. I think governments are more accountable - to those who disagree, just look at the popularity of Apple products, how shit they are and how helpless consumers are in avoiding them thanks to being locked in the Apple ecosystemI'm a proponent of centralization actually, because it's the only political capability of reigning in on private monopolies.
Bro, the SS has breeding parties and mansions with free use Stacie's. Just because a few incels were leading the Nazis doesn't mean the ideology isn't Chad worshipping
Militarism doesn’t mean eugenic. Eugenics has to do with killing babies however preventing defects from ever occurring them among them isn’t eugenics. It’s a good thing for each generation to get stronger & stronger lol
what’s wrong with fucking stacies when ur leading Germany?
That's the main drawback of FascismThe problem with fascism is twofold, its cultural and sexual eugenics added with its perception firmly rooted in Social Darwinism. This is the antithesis of inceldom.
