That is the worst straw man of Fascism that has ever been written.
Ayn Rand, a Russian-AmericanJewish novelist and public philosopher
FTFY
glorifies violence, war
False
while Fascism denies the existence of objective truth and relies on emotion, intuition, and faith.
False
Fascism, on the other hand, holds that human beings are irrational and subordinate to the collective, who have the duty to sacrifice their interests and lives for the glory betterment of the nation and the leader. Fascism regards human life as a means to an end, and the statenation as the supreme moral value.
FTFY
Fascism advocates for a strong government that controls all aspects of life and economy,
False, it only requires that the corporations do not work against the nation.
You claim that Objectivism is about conforming to reality, but in reality a collective will always beat an individual. In reality, the largest group wins. In reality there are no such things as rights, contracts or, free markets. There is only F=ma. There is only F=Gm1m1/r^2. There is only F=kq1q2/r^2. There are no laws of the universe that say that individuals have rights. There is only strength, and the will to use it. Which, of course, is why jews want to atomize whites, because individuals pose no threat to them.
Fascism is about planting the trees that you will never see the shade of. It is about ensuring the group survives, even is some of the individuals do not. There is absolutely no motivation to leave a better world in Objectivism. It is pure Slaneshi hedonism. You have to modify it with ideas like "enlightened self interest" in order to even being making it into a useful philosophy. After an objectivist dies, there is nothing left. A fascist at least leaves a legacy.
Objectivism is just a bunch of wankery that talks about what should be instead of what is. Pretty much the only thing it gets right is that there is no Tabula Rasa.
The only saving grace of objectivists is that when the communist fail to leave them alone, like they always do, they become fascist in order to survive.
Would you mind performing a similar analysis on national socialism and/versus communism? And how facism ties into either?
I feel like there’s a lot of confusion on the subject, especially here where everyone who doesn’t want to die for israel is labeled a “leftist” by the usual suspects
"Communism" is largely just the jewish ideology of total government control. Marx was jewish. Trotsky was jewish. Much of the communist governments in eastern europe were jewish, even Putin admits to this. The cultural marxists of the Frankfurt school were almost all jewish. It was not an entirely jewish movement, but the people in positions of power were disproportionately jewish. I suggest watching this video by William Pierce for some blunt history.
Capitalism vs. Communism was really "money jews vs. power jews" about which one would better be able to control Europe and America. It turned out that capitalism (using banks, inflation, etc) was the more subtle one and worked better on America.
Thanks for the link I’ll check that out, and I agree with what you laid out (I usually call it Bolshevism, but I admit it is a far older ideology, even appearing in the early AD era Jerusalem, funnily enough leading to its original downfall and the center of Christianity moving to Rome, but I digress)
But I really want to nail down the differences (and similarities) between national socialism and whatever you want to call Communism/Bolshevism/Globalism/etc
They are both Authoritarian, as in they both show explicit command of power over the government and people with force. As opposed to democracy, liberalism, etc, which show that in more subtle ways but still ultimately do come down to force and power in the end it's just different set dressing.
It's like a gun, a good guy with a gun will be restrained when using it, aim carefully, make sure their target is deserving of it, etc. A bad guy using a gun will flash it to intimidate people, use it whenever they feel like, shoot people because they are acting out emotionally, etc.
The question of government is ultimately how many "good guys" you have running it as opposed to "bad guys" in the end.
If your goal is to beat the commies then you don't go after the guys whose goal is also to beat the commies, even if they also have other objectives you may not agree with.
Objectivism and Fascism differ in their views on the nature of reality and human knowledge. Objectivism holds that reality is objective and knowable by reason, while Fascism denies the existence of objective truth and relies on emotion, intuition, and faith. Objectivism values logic, evidence, and objectivity, while Fascism values myth, propaganda, and subjectivity.
Nothing says "enlightened realist" like denying the biological underpinnings of human nature and the reality of emotion, intuition and faith's proven power in motivating large groups to work together and win power struggles. Using those tools isn't denying objective truth, but pretending they don't exist is
What was your motivation for doing this particular comparison? I have other questions and responses to confusing points...
Fascism ... mainly in Italy and Germany.
People call them both fascist but I don't think those two governments were at all the same.
characterized by authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, and totalitarianism... glorifies violence, war
I have wondered in the past what post-victory Italy or Germany would be like. Surely the goals of the state were not war as an end. Did Mussolini and Hitler have post-Mussolini and post-Hitler succession plans?
Fascism denies the existence of objective truth and relies on emotion, intuition, and faith. ... Fascism values myth, propaganda, and subjectivity
Umm what? Are those arguments made in "The Doctrine of Fascism"?
society is an organic and hierarchical entity
What does that mean? I guess I should not be thinking too hard about generated text and where it came from.
Was this AI generated or?...
That is the worst straw man of Fascism that has ever been written.
FTFY
False
False
FTFY
False, it only requires that the corporations do not work against the nation.
You claim that Objectivism is about conforming to reality, but in reality a collective will always beat an individual. In reality, the largest group wins. In reality there are no such things as rights, contracts or, free markets. There is only F=ma. There is only F=Gm1m1/r^2. There is only F=kq1q2/r^2. There are no laws of the universe that say that individuals have rights. There is only strength, and the will to use it. Which, of course, is why jews want to atomize whites, because individuals pose no threat to them.
Fascism is about planting the trees that you will never see the shade of. It is about ensuring the group survives, even is some of the individuals do not. There is absolutely no motivation to leave a better world in Objectivism. It is pure Slaneshi hedonism. You have to modify it with ideas like "enlightened self interest" in order to even being making it into a useful philosophy. After an objectivist dies, there is nothing left. A fascist at least leaves a legacy.
Objectivism is just a bunch of wankery that talks about what should be instead of what is. Pretty much the only thing it gets right is that there is no Tabula Rasa.
The only saving grace of objectivists is that when the communist fail to leave them alone, like they always do, they become fascist in order to survive.
Would you mind performing a similar analysis on national socialism and/versus communism? And how facism ties into either?
I feel like there’s a lot of confusion on the subject, especially here where everyone who doesn’t want to die for israel is labeled a “leftist” by the usual suspects
"Communism" is largely just the jewish ideology of total government control. Marx was jewish. Trotsky was jewish. Much of the communist governments in eastern europe were jewish, even Putin admits to this. The cultural marxists of the Frankfurt school were almost all jewish. It was not an entirely jewish movement, but the people in positions of power were disproportionately jewish. I suggest watching this video by William Pierce for some blunt history.
Capitalism vs. Communism was really "money jews vs. power jews" about which one would better be able to control Europe and America. It turned out that capitalism (using banks, inflation, etc) was the more subtle one and worked better on America.
Thanks for the link I’ll check that out, and I agree with what you laid out (I usually call it Bolshevism, but I admit it is a far older ideology, even appearing in the early AD era Jerusalem, funnily enough leading to its original downfall and the center of Christianity moving to Rome, but I digress)
But I really want to nail down the differences (and similarities) between national socialism and whatever you want to call Communism/Bolshevism/Globalism/etc
They are both Authoritarian, as in they both show explicit command of power over the government and people with force. As opposed to democracy, liberalism, etc, which show that in more subtle ways but still ultimately do come down to force and power in the end it's just different set dressing.
It's like a gun, a good guy with a gun will be restrained when using it, aim carefully, make sure their target is deserving of it, etc. A bad guy using a gun will flash it to intimidate people, use it whenever they feel like, shoot people because they are acting out emotionally, etc.
The question of government is ultimately how many "good guys" you have running it as opposed to "bad guys" in the end.
If your goal is to beat the commies then you don't go after the guys whose goal is also to beat the commies, even if they also have other objectives you may not agree with.
Nothing says "enlightened realist" like denying the biological underpinnings of human nature and the reality of emotion, intuition and faith's proven power in motivating large groups to work together and win power struggles. Using those tools isn't denying objective truth, but pretending they don't exist is
What was your motivation for doing this particular comparison? I have other questions and responses to confusing points...
People call them both fascist but I don't think those two governments were at all the same.
I have wondered in the past what post-victory Italy or Germany would be like. Surely the goals of the state were not war as an end. Did Mussolini and Hitler have post-Mussolini and post-Hitler succession plans?
Umm what? Are those arguments made in "The Doctrine of Fascism"?
What does that mean? I guess I should not be thinking too hard about generated text and where it came from.
The rest matches my understanding.
Effortpost deleted...the balance is restored