Hitler Was Incompetent and Lazy—and His Nazi Government Was an Absolute Clown Show

There's no problem here. The traits I mentioned are perfectly mapped on Trump America. Rambling on about communism can't be used to provide relevant counter.

 

And this post right here, boils down why Liberals can never understand Fascism. In it, they appeal to other "intellectual authorities", who they themselves don't know what it is! That's why our dear socialist friend(exposing his socialism using these quotes and socialist sources) cited this: 'a system of political and economic decision-making based on the representation of organised interest groups in government' (Sarti).



There's so much wrong with his entire creed, but let's just start with this one(As a Fascist, I can no longer allow Liberals to use words they don't understand, and statements that go unchallenged because it "sounds good".) .

When Benito Mussolini did use the word "corporatism" to describe Fascism, it was not in the mold of the word as we know it today. This is a slight of hand that requires us to look at the dictionary definition of corporation:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporation

Specifically, the second definition. In other words, a Fascist government is one that streamlines the participants in government to be as small and as efficient as humanly possible. In fact, where Mussolini's centralized government failed is that it was starting to get too big and redundant. "But wait, doesn't that sound like conservatism?" No, not exactly. The conservative's reason for limiting government is only on the "small" part, not the efficient part. We want to be efficient, you can have a strong handed government without being some big obtuse thing.

In fact, the centralized/major authority is easier, because you'd have the one authority, not multiple authorities. (Or a few authorities who subordinate themselves to the overarching authority.) Which then leads us into another statement that was made.

"Second, we have the belief in the distribution of innate ability (i.e. the Theory of the Elites where those with a natural talent for ruling rule over the masses). A socialist, on the other hand, appreciates the destructiveness of class."

Let's first celebrate that the socialist has finally, proudly admitted that he appreciates the destructiveness of class. You now have definitive proof that when we say Antifa, it's on grounds. But let's expand on that: Democracy as a whole is destructive. Or as former President Obama said: "Democracy" is messy. The same is true for Communism/Marxism. Violence is inherent in its ideology, whereas Mussolini transitioned away from violence(at least as a governing ideology) in 1928.

This is because the Socialist/Marxist/Liberal sees nothing but class and race. He sees envy, and in it he sees divisions that can be exploited for political gain. But while he's gaining his ill gained loot and fortune, on the literal blood and tears of the citizens he's supposed to be governing, those same citizens and the cities they live under, are plundered by the ideology.

There hasn't been a peaceful "communist" country anywhere, because it is an oxymoron to the Communist State. Where Communism exists, the peasant is swallowed up. And even any pretending of 'democracy' just gives an opening to the class violence that democracy perpetuates.

And it's not just me, the Fascist saying it. Our Socialist friend here openly admits that the violence and mayhem is 'appreciated'. But if violence and mayhem is an inherent ideology within the supposed 'democratic' societies, then on what grounds do they have to claim Fascism is the same? They don't.

Now, we have to address the ever laughable "distribution of innate ability." This is similar to the corporation misdirection. If a government is centralized to key positions, then it is of course natural that the head of state will pick the people within that organization. Note that our Socialist friend will have no problem with Joe Biden's selections, or that of Obama's.

So if he wants to complain about distribution of innate ability, he should complain about every government that ever was that appointed any individual! To the extent that the Socialist decries this 'belief' of Fascism, let's address the little reality within it:

Yes, at their time the AXIS powers did not believe in an 'open democracy', or in other words the faulty presumption of giving everybody who asks for it, power.(To a degree, this is severely regulated in primaries worth thousands of dollars, thereby eliminating the lower classes entirely but you don't hear the democrat complain about this.). But this is not due to an 'inherent' elite ability, but rather a demonstrated elite ability.

The idea of an 'inherent' position would have royally pissed off Hitler for example, who believed in the "uber man". If the government had just allowed any person to walk into the Reichstag and call themselves a member of government, that in his mind wouldn't have been no different to the Weimar Republic.

Our Socialist friend will then say that I'm confirming that the "proven" elite is in their following the ideology. What I will submit is that this is only partially true.(Less so in Mussolini's Italy). Since the Fascist government focuses primarily on the efficiency and improvement of its government, any part of its live organism that is failing would be cut off(and our Socialist friend knows this and calls it anti-democratic, in fact it is the purest form of representation. Here in the US, we have no choice. No recall, we must suffer the indignation of the city/state governments.)

Being a Hitler yeppie only got you so far in Germany(or in Mussolini's Italy). If you were perceived as a liability to the government/State, they had no problem cutting you off. But you want to know where inherent positions do exist?

Democracies/Socialism! Right here in the US, our various committees are staffed by people with no knowledge of the fields(such as commerce, or foreign intelligence, etc.) They're not qualified to be de-facto board members of these smaller congressional groups but
there they sit! Why? Because of their seniority in the American government!

How about Solyndra and other such favored contracts? Oh, wait, that would be inherent!(And for those who want to point out Kushner. You're right, Trump is also promoting favoritism and is thus betraying the foundation of Nationalism as a whole.) The Socialist is the one who has absolutely no problem with race/class struggles. He has no qualms with dividing the people he's supposed to govern. Everything the Socialist tags to us Fascists, is him with a bashful glee! When these policies of picking and choosing people based off their loyalty fail, they misdirect and point the finger at us. "Ooh, look a squirrel!"(Even as there's no real Fascist government or even rather a substantial party. The closest is Le Pen's party in France.)

So I'm here, to help you keep your guise on the ones who gave us "paradise", the ones who want you to look at a squirrel while robbing the wealth and lying about the Third Position revolution.

Last one we'll address, because it's absolutely ridiculous: "I'd first refer to Keserich's definition of fascism as 'the reactionary and terroristic dictatorship of finance capital'. I'd then describe how fascism is incompatible with socialist political economy. Zanden (1960, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol 19, pp 399-411) is a good source."

A Socialist has absolutely NO business condemning the economic policies of Fascism. Where is their economic miracle? Wait, it's NOWHERE. In fact, government spending has increased in the 60's onwards, and we've been living under a boom and bust cycle(which had a predominate Democratic House until 1996, and has since been split back and forth, now once again under Democratic Control.). So despite their big claims, from the USSR, to Venezuela, to virtually the entirety of Latin America. Their failure is demonstrable.

The moment a Socialist State achieves anywhere close to the German Economic miracle, or the Italian economic rebound then they can talk. But the failure of largesse programs in today's society, should show you that they understand nothing of economics and have merged it with their violent political creed.

Since they have failed, it goes without saying that of course we're incompatible with failure. That's the whole damn point. We don't ever want to be compatible with a society that picks and chooses(and as we've demonstrated, does this very poorly) and when the failure is imminent, they blame something or someone else(including an ideology they proudly proclaim has been defeated. Yet they revive it whenever it pleases them.)

Now, onto the crux. It's claimed that our economics are "reactionary". Well, I would hope so. They faced the Great Depression. They needed to react to situations on the ground economically. But also, not really. It was more proactive. The National union in Germany(which as described, was more like a roundtable then anything else.) was a major financial reform that ended up eliminating/greatly reducing strikes and lost working hours which in turn led to gained wages for its workers.

Today's unions exists for themselves and for their membership dues. If you are not a member, you're screwed. If you're a member, you're screwed anyway since a strike at any moment derives you of your earnings while living off the fees they've collected.

In today's society, it would be a hell of a lot easier to accomplish the gains that were financially had by the AXIS in the 30's. America is in no need for land, or territory or anything else. A lot of the AXIS foreign policy/ww2 dispute, was over land share. But we have crops to fertilize, we have more than enough manpower. And today, we've become a very technologically savvy world.

There is no longer a need for us to pick winners and losers, but to prioritize our priorities. An infrastructure bill, reducing government spending/bloating, while cutting the middle class(not the rich) a massive tax cut. But more than a tax cut to restore the wealth of the people, we must create a financial board to financially educate the people on how to invest their money, on how to use their money to gain more wealth.

We must have national training centers around the country, helping people to figure out the careers that best suit them and then train them accordingly for that profession. Under a Fascist society, a real one, not the one the Socialist falsely describes to keep looking at a squirrel and not their own objective failures we would be blooming.

If you want to TLDR this: Our friend here: "Look, a squirrel!"

 

Trump is no different than 99.5 % of the politicians. His advantage is the .05% he is better.

 

Amusing that fascists can't distinguish between socialism and liberalism. Political economy really isnt their bag.

 

If you say so. I would suggest your 99.5% math is a little off, but think as you wish.

 

Pretty much like today democrats and their politicians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You cherry picked a definition that aimed to your point, calling Trump a fascist. That's just intellectual jelly, a pure confirmation bias.

If you want to call Trump fascist and cherry pick the most random definition of fascism, yes you will "prove" that Trump is a fascist. However, knowledge is brought by doubt, not pathetic confirmation bias.
You may mock right winger, you're not different of them, you are just ignorant of that fact.

 

There's no distinguishing pattern, that's observable in the reality on the ground here in the United States and around the developed world. Now, why don't the Left address the history of violence that you yourself said you appreciate.

 

That's not true is it? I demonstrated the key features of fascism by referring directly to the political economy. That was written way before Trump. It just happens to fit as snug as a bug in a rug. And you can't show otherwise, explaining why you went into a word soup stammer over communism.

 

But if CNN was around back then to interview him he would have said that he only inspected that bunker at the insistence of the SS.

 

Exactly to call all right wing policies fascist or all liberal policies socialist is wrong and stupid.

 

Speaking specifically to Italy, they had an even worse raw shortage issue than Germany or even Japan. There's very little industrialization(even to this day) for the Italian nation and raw materials definitely left for a hunger issue. We undervalue just how important foods and grains are(but the coronavirus was a good reminder.)

The West had tried to court Mussolini and was seen as one of the most influential thinkers of his time(far from 'largely bankrupt'). What we should regret, is that we were unable to pull Italy away from Germany. That blame, lies solely on both France and the United Kingdom.

 

There is no one trying to sabotage the Trump administration. Not Big Foot, the Mothman, or the mythical Deep State. Trumpists are just making excuses for Trumpian failures.

 

Who has? I've only seen fascist misunderstanding of socialism and liberalism. That doesn't surprise as fascism is only 'economics by mistake', as it has no economic spine.

It is the case, mind you, that fascism is always a threat with right wing regime. That reflects the authoritarian personality. In the past intellectual debate would be sufficient to keep that in check. That doesn't exist with Trump's America.

 

Odd isn't it that we never see a country that has solid democratic principles or classic conservative or classic liberal principles move to Communism or Fascism. Cases in point are post revolution Russian Imperial Empire and post WWI Germany.

 

sure
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...al_morphs_into_deep-state_salute_141688.html#!

 

If you actually believe that your knowledge of how thing are in DC is woefully inadequate.

 

What a joke you posted. Posting an opinion piece is not proof of anything.

 

Until 1936 and Franco all of the statist goombahs from FDR to Hitler to Mussolini and Stalin were praising each other and talking about how far sight and wondrous each other were. After the Spanish civil war it all changed.

 

So you think that if you believe that the Tooth Fairy leaves money under your pillow when you lose your baby teeth is knowledge. There are indeed professional government employees who have served their country through both Republican and Democratic administrations. Just because Trump declared them "Deep State" and fantasies that career government people are all against him does not make it. The fact Trump wants all officials that Obama appointed fired does not proove that there is a Deep State.

 

Further evidenced by what Trump seems to want from the military. I don't think he understands or wants to have a civilian controlled military. Milley, these days, seems to be 'the man'...and Esper is left out of the loop.

 

I think at least in your case ignorance is bliss and willful ignorance means you don't have to deal with the reality of just how corrupt DC has become and exactly who the primary vorruptirs are.

 

You have crisis providing opportunity for radical change. Fascists, without that economic spine, are typically reliant on kidding a desperate population. This case certainly differs. Years of neoliberalism have unleashed the full potential of the authoritarian personality.

 

Sadly, I don't think you do either. Someone who refuses oversight to something as basic as federal funds distribution during the virus bail out might just be corrupt. Don't you think? Or if a large amount of their inauguration funds have gone missing, only to turn up in the hands of a friend, they just might be regarded as corrupt. Don't you think? Or the ongoing refusals of subpoenas during an impeachment trial might just point to suspicions of wrong doing or corruption. Don't you think?

You seem to think your boy is squeaky clean, just because he says so. And you believe in a deep state, just because he says so. Come on man - as an American citizen you can and should do better than that.

 

Milley, of the "I wanna be apolitical, but give you media soundbytes to attack the President" fame is 'the man'? LOL. He's the man of the inside resistance, perhaps but not a 'Trumpie' of the President. In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find a real Trumpie.