Why Facism is compulsed to die

[Stefan the Berserker]

The basic three ideological Elements of Fascism are pooled Nationalism, Militarism and Chauvinism, while it is philosophically based on Nihilism. Resulting in the pratice of Social Darwinism (domestic politics) and Imperialism (foreign politics).

The leadership of the Axis Nations interpreted the second worldwar as a final battle in which the supreme peoples would defeat the inferior peoples and of course supreme facist ideology would defeat "reactionary" democratism and marxist bolshevism.

However it happened the other way around: Facism has prooven to be the inferior System and had been destroyed by its opponents in Warefare. After 1975, when the franquist Gouverment collapsed, Facism as a stateform ceased.

Based on this disaster I'll explain to major problem of Neo-Nazism in a very provocative form: Why should a person who believes in its own supremacy and those of its nation favor to establish a defeated political system which was practiced by... inferior nations...

Based on this proof of weakness, the absolute right-wing of the Intellectual society which favors ideals of selfsupremacy and malthusian Doctrines (however switched to favor "new alternatives") ended consideration of facism as a stateform which removed the whole intelligent leadership of Facism. The lost of the most vital resource for any political movement.

Secondly: Yes, it is the Facist Ideology which must be blamed for the defeat of the Axis in the second Worldwar. The Facist Ideology includes exraged Chauvinism, which is unsuitable for any political leadership.

"Know thy enemy and know thyself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know thyself but not thy enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not thyself, wallow in defeat everytime." - Sūn Zi

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sūn Zi

Through the dogmatic believe in the supremacy of himself and his people, a facist is unable to make a rational decsision whenever to rate the risk of a military operation. However Hitler took the Title of GröFaZ ("Greatest Warlord of All Times"), he was the most useless one unlike Mussolini and Tojo. In any important decsision, the Ideology forced to withdraw rationalism and proclaim supremacy under all conditions. Thus lead to the German Invasion of the Soviet Union and the Japanese Bombing of Pearl Harbour, irrational and senseless actions which were absolutely unimportant to the strategic interessts of the Nations.

Very interessting for this case is Downfall, where it can be clearly seen how Hitler refuses to accept defeat, commands Ghostdevisions and handles his Generals like stupid schoolboys. Proclaiming the supremacy of Germany, then switching to blame Germany as beeing an inferior Nation unable to bring the necessary efford for the realisation of his supreme ideals. The conclusion it could be his fault... never! He dies with the thought he was supreme and the disasterous development was the fault of others, while all who warned of this development were pushed out of Office or beeing killed.

This way Italo Balbo payed his criticism on Mussolini with his Blood, Heinz Guderian, Gerd von Rundstedt and Yamamoto Isoroku beeing simply ingnored.

Finally we come to the Result...

Thus Spake Zarathustra: "Adolf has once been my student, but he was a failure. Unable to know thy enemy, unable to know himself, he wallowed in defeat everytime. So once upon I'll turn and dance on his grave, then spread my seed in hearts of those who overcame him. Facism has been overcome and placing belief or faith in anything transcendental is foolish and would lead to the failure of man's attempt to become Übermensch."

[Adrian II]

[i]Thus Spake Zarathustra: "Adolf has once been my student, but he was a failure. Unable to know thy enemy and unable to know himself, he wallowed in defeat everytime. So once upon I'll turn and dance on his grave, then spread my seed in hearts of those who overcame him. Fascism has been overcome and placing belief or faith in anything transcendental is foolish and would lead to the failure of man's attempt to become Übermensch."

Some of what you write seems a bit too ambitious for a Backroom post and I am not sure I agree to it, but the gist of your post is interesting and the Zarathustra paraphrase is brilliant, my friend.

[Stefan the Berserker]

Some of what you write seems a bit too ambitious for a Backroom post and I am not sure I agree to it, but the gist of your post is interesting and the Zarathustra paraphrase is brilliant, my friend.

Well, it takes some time to undestand it. I appoint to follow the Wikipedia-links, they are very useful.

[Strike For The South]

Wow thats really good. You should be on talk radio. Really well thought out. You deserve a piece of hard candy *Takes out carmel*

[Byzantine Prince]

Nice post, what does Zarathustra have to do with this. The Ubermench is the Dionysian Artist, not an insane dictator.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The fascist ideology is doomed to destroy it's followers because seeing others as inferior and wanting to destroy them or claim supremacy over them, sometimes after a diplomatic fake alliance or non-violence pact, creates enemies both among those they have quarrel with, and almost all others. Everyone wants to see the death of a nation that wants to see others dead or dominated in the end. While fear may deter their actions, the neutrals will eventually all join the effort of destroying such a person in the end. Only a fool would remain allied to a powerful nation with it's ultimate goal to destroy or conquer all of it's neighbors. This basic chauvinistic idea has existed numerous times in history but under different names.

As for Hitler's refusal to admit defeat and not avoiding to open many fronts at once, this might have more to do with the psycological and sociological situation he was in. He had played the strong saviour who would conquer all enemies of Germany, so he couldn't suddenly turn soft in any way in front of the others. He had also lived through a childhood of failures, refusals and bullying of different kinds, and couldn't handle another defeat. I think the Downfall and other theories are inaccurate attempts at making a mystical thing of a simple psycological process of breakdown of an unfortunate man who unfortunately happened to end up dictator. He didn't turn mad because he was inspired by fascism and philosophy, he grew a hatred against the entire world and desperately sought a way of finding happiness and safety, but found nothing. Philosophy and political ideologies are natural and common points for an uncertain doubtful young man to end up. He was already mad when he read these things, and made his own interpretations. The seeing himself as superior to all others was a natural defensive mechanism for a person in that situation. It happened that a chauvinistic misconception of darwinism, and a misconception of Nietzsche's uber-mench circulated in the society at that time.

And to finish up: darwinism and Nietzsche have little or nothing to do with fascism. Darwinism if studied properly is probably the strongest proof we have of why fascism, racism, nazism and similar ideologies are stupid, and it was a popular misconcepted version of Nietzsche's works that the nazis were inspired by.

[Adrian II]

(..) it was a popular misconcepted version of Nietzsche's works that the nazis were inspired by.

Hence the nice paraphrase that our SauPreusse gave of Nietzsche, in which Zarathustra dances on the grave of his erstwhile student.

[Byzantine Prince]

The fascist ideology is doomed to destroy it's followers because seeing others as inferior and wanting to destroy them or claim supremacy over them, sometimes after a diplomatic fake alliance or non-violence pact, creates enemies both among those they have quarrel with, and almost all others. Everyone wants to see the death of a nation that wants to see others dead or dominated in the end. While fear may deter their actions, the neutrals will eventually all join the effort of destroying such a person in the end. Only a fool would remain allied to a powerful nation with it's ultimate goal to destroy or conquer all of it's neighbors. This basic chauvinistic idea has existed numerous times in history but under different names.

Fallacy.
Fascist nations were strong partners. The reason the US joined in was not because they sensed some immenent fear from Germany but because Japan was allied to the Germans. Nazi Germany's cause was not to destroy all ethnicities, it was to eradicated the non-Aryan ones and give others their fascist governments under the protection of greater Germany, which was did not include everything they conqoured. Note France's Vichy state, and the even some non aryans like the Croatian fascists.

Hence the nice paraphrase that our SauPreusse gave of Nietzsche, in which Zarathustra dances on the grave of his erstwhile student.

Student? I doubt the idiot ever read a single one of his books.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Fallacy.
Fascist nations were strong partners. The reason the US joined in was not because they sensed some immenent fear from Germany but because Japan was allied to the Germans. Nazi Germany's cause was not to destroy all ethnicities, it was to eradicated the non-Aryan ones and give others their fascist governments under the protection of greater Germany, which was did not include everything they conqoured. Note France's Vichy state, and the even some non aryans like the Croatian fascists.

First of all nazi Germany fell so early that they hadn't had enough time to show themselves as alliance breakers and show their long-term plan. Such developments take time, sometimes a hundred years or more. Germany also managed to hide some of these ideologies and make them look like they weren't serious for a very long time. Another thing which made many want to ally with Germany was their military strength and that the Germans actually also threatened other "bad guys" which troubled them. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, at least for a while. If I'm not mistaken this was the case with Croatia. In the short term all alliances are formed based on mutual interests and turncoat philosophy to avoid fighting, but if repeatedly a strong nation rewards it's allies by conquering them, resistance will eventually develop. Any nation will of course want to see the destruction of such a nation, but they want to remain allied to the nation until it's certain that nation will fall. The strong empires with hidden agendas to conquer everything of course want to make it look to each ally like the other allies being conquered is something that won't happen to them, just an exception from the ordinary. Germany was in many way successful in hiding such intentions. And the fact that they counted most Europeans as part of the guys they planned to give benefits.

[QwertyMIDX]

Stephan have you read Philip Bobbitt?

[QwertyMIDX]

Fascist nations were strong partners. The reason the US joined in was not because they sensed some immenent fear from Germany but because Japan was allied to the Germans. Nazi Germany's cause was not to destroy all ethnicities, it was to eradicated the non-Aryan ones and give others their fascist governments under the protection of greater Germany, which was did not include everything they conqoured. Note France's Vichy state, and the even some non aryans like the Croatian fascists.

Also, the US went to war with Germany because it declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan.

[Byzantine Prince]

Any nation will of course want to see the destruction of such a nation, but they want to remain allied to the nation until it's certain that nation will fall. The strong empires with hidden agendas to conquer everything of course want to make it look to each ally like the other allies being conquered is something that won't happen to them, just an exception from the ordinary. Germany was in many way successful in hiding such intentions. And the fact that they counted most Europeans as part of the guys they planned to give benefits.

Hence your fallacy. You have no evidence of Germany attacking another (allied) fascist nation. Your argument is not properly supported therefore you are wrong.

[Red Harvest]

Shouldn't the title be "compelled" rather than "compulsed?"

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hence your fallacy. You have no evidence of Germany attacking another (allied) fascist nation. Your argument is not properly supported therefore you are wrong.

I spoke generally about a fascist strategy resulting in that eventually. Nazi Germany never survived that long, thus it would be a fallacy to say nazi Germany fell for that reason.

[bmolsson]

Facism will never vanish. It's in everyone and under the right circumstances it will raise again in the future. It can only be kept at bay through education and tolerance......

[Soulforged]

However, it can be said that Fascism--like Communism--has never been implemented correctly. That in itself is a fault however, as both systems lend themselves too easily to tyranny.

However fascism has those basic premises in it's theory, superiority, chauvinism, social control, classitic structure, you name it. That's why it's compelled to fall, it may rise over and over, but it will not last much.

[Soulforged]

In an ideal Fascist state, those components would do nothing but complement eachother. But that is neither feasible nor plausible.

The same can be said of Communism, as before.

Let me get what you're saying.
Communism has all those elements too? Just curious.
I made that statement looking at it from the point of view of justice. When something is not ajusted to society it's doomed. Hence superiority, classes or state power have the same fate.

[Soulforged]

No, Communism has other, but similarly implausible elements that are required for it to work. The most successful example of Communis thus far has been Stalin's Soviet Union, which by all means was Communist just like Nazi Germany was Fascist.

Oka...I get it. I'm not getting in another discussion about communism this time, had enough for one week.

[Byzantine Prince]

Soul, thank god! I don't want to see you post like a 1000 other pointless posts.

Fascism and communism and democracy cannot be applied to the mainstream public in their ideal forms and work. It's impossible. People are too ignorant and petty. Kind of reminds of the Backroom in that manner.

[bmolsson]

Communism is a pure military system. I would argue that more or less every military organization is a communistic system. The problem with communism is that as all armies, it need to expand in order to progress. A little bit like the Borgs.....

[bmolsson]

That is certainly one of the largest reasons it is implausible.

As long as there are some civilisations in the west refusing to assimilate, yes.....

[PanzerJaeger]

Wow, taking a hard line against Fascism.. so brave.

What a rambling piece of garbage you've presented here. This sounds like a high school paper mixed with a poorly written conspiracy theory. Using Der Untergang and Zarathustra were particularly hilarious.

The only semi-rational point I could find was:

Yes, it is the Facist Ideology which must be blamed for the defeat of the Axis in the second Worldwar.

It may be semi-rational, but its still idiotic.

Fascism may be blamed for starting the second world war, but things like industrial capacity, resources and gross population are what defeated the axis nations.

I think you're better at playing Paradox games than you are at playing political philosopher.

[PanzerJaeger]

Where did I give my opinion of Fascism? I simply gave my opinion of a poorly written and illogical post.

When Fascism rises again, and it will, the mistakes of the past will not be made again.

[Ser Clegane]

When Fascism rises again, and it will, the mistakes of the past will not be made again.

Should fascism rise its ugly head again, it would be a sign that mistakes of the past are being repeated...

[Meneldil]

I'm dazed by the fact some fascist people keep claiming Fascism is great and Communism is bad, will in fact the 2 are exactly the same thing.
(Although in theory, Communism is fundamentaly based on a positive ideology, unlike Fascism).

And although I see how Communism has never been implemented correctly, I don't see how it would apply to fascim. As far as I know, there's no 'Fascism Manifesto' or other written ideology. Mussolini and Hitler applied it as they thought they had to. Period.

[Meneldil]

Wasn't the word 'fascism' itself invented by the Italian fascists ?

I don't see the strong guidelines you're speaking about as real guidelines about how fascism should work, but a conglomerate of many extreme left (socialist or communist) and extreme right (conservative ideas, corporatism) ideas that were later used (or not) by the fascists

[Ironside]

IIRC, Mussolini and his pals put together some kind of ruleset. I could be wrong though.

You're thinking of THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM by BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)?

[Meneldil]

I found that rather interesting reading on wikipedia :

The 1919 Fascist Manifesto

[Rodion Romanovich]

Wasn't the word 'fascism' itself invented by the Italian fascists ?

I don't see the strong guidelines you're speaking about as real guidelines about how fascism should work, but a conglomerate of many extreme left (socialist or communist) and extreme right (conservative ideas, corporatism) ideas that were later used (or not) by the fascists

Fascism comes from latin "fascia", which means bundle or sheaf, which was the symbol used by Mussolini, and the meaning behind it was something like "sticking together", indirectly also saying that this sticking together was intended to gain strength in fighting all others, more or less. The fascist principle of chauvinism is something that has existed throughout history and rises every once in a while, but under different names, sometimes without a name. It's due to a few basic concepts of civilization including:
1. turning different groups against each others
2. forming new groupings between which conflict reasons can appear
3. accidentally creating scenarios where the rise of a competing group can be a threat to the own group
4. the lack of clear communication and understanding which often makes it seem like other groups constitute threats even when they aren't

It's common that oppressed minority groups adopt a chauvinistic ideal, as it's quite natural to go against ALL others if ALL others go against them. To some extent, both Germany and Italy had experienced problems due to their lack of unity which gave them little ability to resist foreign nations attacking them. Hitler on the social level lived through a sort of oppressed lonesome warrior childhood. While fascism is usually extremely bad, the non-fascistic societies where the fascists appear and rise are no better, as they usually are the cause of the fascism. From this realization one can draw simple conclusions about what are the most effective ways of preventing fascism from rising again. Another conclusion is that many cases of fascism/chauvinism is often to an extent justified revenge on an oppresive world, which is why it often gets so many followers, and as long as it only turns against former oppressors it's very successful. However in the nazi case, the mass-murders carried out were in no way justified and in no way a revenge, because the Jews and others who were killed hadn't oppressed the Germans in any way. The killing of Jews was a way of acquiring their money, which the Jews had earned because they since the Medieval age had been forced to specialize in banking and similar fields (which became increasingly profitable post 1900), because they were oppressed in the Medieval age. This is just one of many examples of the weakness of a total fascistic ideology. Nobody is oppressed by ALL around them, but some are oppressed by NEARLY ALL around them, but if they generalize it to a hatred and chauvinistic ideology covering ALL around them as inferior and enemies, they'll sooner or later start completely unprovoked and unjustified quarrels.

The roman empire is an interesting case. Whereas in the early stages it mostly fought opponents who had attacked the romans unprovokedly, they eventually started seeing all surrounding people as inferior and potential dangers, and decided to strike first, with the result that more and more started hating Rome. A simple principle: a nation which only defends itself and starts no unprovoked wars is extremely successful in the long term if it can survive in the short term. The roman empire was in no way completely just in the early stages, but a great number of the conquests in the earlier stages were very much justified, while they became less and less just the later in the history you go. If you have as policy to conquer all who attacked you first, you'll unfortunately soon run into problems. It might be the neighbor to your most forward positions that attacks, and then you get very undefensible borders unless you conquer several innocents to push the entire border forward. That principle, and the principle that smaller and smaller threats were interpreted as attacks, and the simple fact that the romans in many ways got corrupt and started wars for a reason like they wanted to get gloria militaris for their careers and their names to be remembered.

[Dutch_guy]

Fascism comes from latin "fascia", which means bundle or sheaf, which was the symbol used by Mussolini, and the meaning behind it was something like "sticking together", indirectly also saying that this sticking together was intended to gain strength in fighting all others, more or less

Hmm thought fascisme came from the latin woord fasces, basicly meaning hte same thing as fascia - I take it.
The symbol of fascisme was the bundle of sticks and the double axe - which the lictors used in the Roman era, a symbol of power and this symbolised his wish for another great Roman empire - under his reign.