Ongezellig
IAZ and soft NAZ
[Return] [Thread list] [Index] [Catalog] [Bottom] | Replies: 39 | Views: 8 | Currently viewing: 1
It's a poor fascism parody for coloreds so there's no difference
yes, and Fascism is a retarded vantablack communist ideology
dude, I'm Brazilian, I know what Integralism is. Is it better than straight up Marxism? Yeah, anything is, but it's not anything special; it gets absolutely mogged by any truly right wing ideology such as Fiscal/Neo-Conservatism, Hoppeanism, Minarchism, etc
Just to let you know that this post is not mine, I would never criticize fascism.
>>40971
>truly right wing ideology such as Fiscal/Neo-Conservatism, Hoppeanism (a jew), Minarchism, etc
It had to be a brownzilian posting this shit.
Plinio and mosley is a example of how there no "peaceful" route to power. Not just for fascists. Even Hitler who choose a less confrontational way still had the brown shirts. Mussolini scared the (((mafia))) away. Like the kike president of mexico that killed 34 other candidates.
1920s brazil was less violent that modern brazil but using force was more culturally acceptable to get results.
There is a peaceful route to power: the democratic one. The purpose of democracy, although overlooked by almost everyone, is to provide a mechanism for regime change without the need for using violence. The premise is simple, since the more numerous faction can always subdue the lesser one, then instead of starting a civil war or revolution every time there is a need to replace the people in power, you can just count the heads and the outcome will stay the same.
>>41022
Hoppe's argument against democracy is worthless and if it was true, he wouldn't have to state it. It's all based on an unsubstantiated assumption that private ownership automatically translates to competence, and that the public ownership translates to indifference. There are millions of examples of people dying for their respective countries, enough to disprove his claims.
All of the main parties always have groups of interests and media/propaganda institutions behind them which makes democratic regime chance impossible unless groups of interest change which dind't really happen since few hundred years
Propaganda doesn't mean shit actually, people vote according to their own interest.
Masses are emotional and not rational most of the times, and what they think is in their interest is shaped by their education and things they consume
People have their psychological predispositions and preferences that are largely genetic in origin and not malleable, the rest is their personal experience and life situation (also including social relationships) which make some opinions more preferable to them than others. Propaganda/media/education can only have influence in areas that are not considered important and in which the cost of obtaining accurate information is higher than the potential cost of acting upon inaccurate information and where people do not already have their opinions. You cannot propagandise people into eating shit for example.
But you can propagandize people into believing that specific party/policy will fullfill their preferences and expectations while said party does nothing or bare minimum which means nothing will ever happen, this was done in every westernized country with conservative party being the false/incomplete opposition
Only if you manage to completely stop the organic flow of information between people. That was always the goal of totalitarian regimes and all of them have failed miserable, even North Korea, as evidenced by numerous people escaping from there.
>>41092
>It's all based on an unsubstantiated assumption that private ownership automatically translates to competence, and that the public ownership translates to indifference.
you're actually retarded kys
Unlike you I have actually read his argument and understood it.
Post actions
[Return] [Thread list] [Index] [Catalog] [Top] | Replies: 39 | Views: 8 | Currently viewing: 1