Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke? In the end, they both sell soda. But over here, we have more choices. Fanta, Sprite, Mezzomix. But they are controlled by the same people too...
>>351904 A fascio is a bundle of sticks. In the case of a fascist, it indicates that men are stronger together. In the case of a faggot, it refers to a different type of bundled stick.
>>351906 What you're missing is it's the same case. The "men stronger together" thing was a cope made up after Mussolini was found suckin and fuckin it in 1938
>>351912 >>351893 Why are you getting so angry when all the german did was point out that all democratic options end up getting corrupted into the same thing?
All this name-calling but no counter-argument (pic unrelated)
>>351921 Because I don't actually care, he shits out a thread like this about once a week these days and he's either too deep in to be genuinely argued against or he's trolling so I'm just having a bit of fun
>>351923 >assertation without evidence I know what you're doing. Like I said, I really couldn't care to change his mind, I'm only poking fun in the above. If you want to have a discussion about it I'd be happy to, but you'll forgive me for assuming people on an image board are bad faith actors by default. His position, however legitimate it may or may not be, is that democracy is le bad because some nebulous group (da joos) allegedly controls it and the solution is a return to based trad monarchism. A system where the king can decide to cut your head off for looking at him wrong is preferable to democracy because... Da joos. This is the point where authtards tend to fall back on >but democracy is flawed! ^ that may be true, but a system with flawed checks and balances is obviously preferable to one with no even theoretical checks and balances. If you're gonna be like "obviously? by what metric?", by the metric of the fact you haven't been rounded up by the king's men for wrongthink or not working your noble's plot of land hard enough. >but what about constitutional/representative/etc. monarchy? like Sweden and Britain have? How is that functionally any different from democracy? If that's the argument, I'm all for it. Kings and queens are cool, and as long as they're not meddling in my life, I'd be happy to have one around. >ur brainwashed by the Jews (or similar nonsense) no comment.
If you're interested in having a discussion, I invite you, but to get to the root of your problem, I believe German CHAD is beyond good faith debate on the subject, so I poke fun at him because I think it's funny.
>>351955 My powerful Armenian blood has made me beautiful and intelligent, like a sexy librarian. My sheer argumentative skill confounds the Turk. He will ask, "Ermeni boğası, Ermeni boğası, where do you work out?", and I will stop, turn my head over my shoulder, give the fez-wearing monkey a sly grin, and reply, with a voice like both a warrior and an angel, "The library.", then I will continue walking. The only decision they're left with is to express their anguish, that they were born Turkish, by posting the so-called "soy jack".
>>351944 >but what about constitutional/representative/etc. monarchy?
Don't care, after having a democratic monarchy once in my country's history I only want a proper autocracy, there's a quote about repeating history or something like that
addendum >erm he just said he's a fascist not a monarchist he's expressed both but fascism is functionally monarchism just with a head of office (dictator) which may or may not be informally hereditary rather than a strictly hereditary monarch. >but fascism has more legal structure than an absolute monarchy theoretically true but without a democratic process it's subject to change at the sole whim of the dictator. There is no way or situation where dictatorship is sure to be good for the people. It may be benevolent, if the dictator decides it shall be, but the problem with that should be self-evident. >But fascism is good for the nation! Sure, in a very nebulous way. It's "good for a nation" in the same way that communism is "good for a nation". If you need lots of production very quickly, fascism and communism both produce considerable long-term results, but neither are sustainable compared to their democratic counterparts (liberal democracy in the case of fascism, and democratic socialism in the case of communism). This is because autocratic power structures are, inherently cannibalistic and unstable, especially if they rely on a cult of personality to affirm legitimacy. >But it works perfectly under xyz conditions! That could be said about basically any governmental and economic system. Capitalism works if the capitalists act benevolently to society, but fails because it is inherently resistant to the application of limitations on capital. Communism works if it stays the course of its original ideals and isn't cannibalized by power struggle, both at the top and in, for example, regional administration and production, but we see that's demonstrably an issue plaguing communistic countries constantly. The same goes for fascism. Laud all the praise you want onto Hitler, but consider Mussolini. The Italian military, particularly their navy, was an incredibly effective fighting force, even despite their outdated equipment. They weren't so elite as, for example, the British, Germans, or Americans, but the Soviets proved, even in small-scale engagements, that you can (situationally; see: the Winter War) turn light tanks and outdated rifles into a victory, even under much worse conditions than the Italians. The primary issue with Italy was administrative incompetence, and nobody could challenge that incompetence because fascism doesn't allow for the challenging of government in a significant way. This is what makes it inflexible, and therefore, especially in the modern world, ineffective, doubly so when compounded with nationalism and isolationism, in a world that largely relies on globalism. America, right now, is ceding ground to China (a true fascist state) all around the world right now because muh domestic industry, which has still yet to materialize, and the perception that foreign spending is a waste. There are legitimate problems with the US government that can't be solved as easily as the left claims (for example, it's often said to reduce military spending, but if the US cuts back to the size of, for example, a European army, Europe will need to rearm to compensate, and domestic spending will be cut in favor of military spending, so the reason Europeans can live so well is because America basically provides defense for them. A nationalist would say this is unfair to Americans, and while I would urge him to consider that Europe leads the world in quality of life, and would raise that America is so large that his own quality of life may not increase in a significant way as a result of decreased military spending, I would ultimately have to agree that, in principle, it is indeed unfair that Americans foot the bill for European comfort. Tangent but I feel it's somehow relevant. Idk.)
>>351974 Wouldn't anprim be a monarchist movement too? Because afterall, primitive people would stick together as a tribe, which likely would be led by a chief - kind of a monarch
>>351984 I think it's better to have a bad ruler in an autocratic system rather than a democratic one, because in autocracy the ruler has to fear the consequences of own mistakes (like Sword of Damocles shows), while democratic politicans has to fear peaceful retirement after ruling unopposed for years, because democracy deludes the people that they can fix tyranny by just voting another tyrant into power
>>351985 A good president is limited by the democratic process. A bad king has the sword of damocles hanging above him. Diffused leadership creates neutered governance.
The same problems that applies to democracy also applies to companies to a lesser extent. You can study how public companies destroy themselves to appease the shareholder while private companies stay steady because of the experience of the owner and his interest of passing his wealth down to his next generation. It is a microcosm for the study of political theory.
>>351987 The idea that a bad king rules cautiously for fear of a coup often doesn't hold water: A bad ruler often responds to a threat not with quality management, but with increased repression, the creation of a personal guard, and the purge of competitors. This does not discipline power, but makes it toxic. There is no peaceful way for the king to transfer power. The sword of Damocles is a civil war or conspiracy, which causes much more damage to the state than a "slow" democracy.
>>351996 >The sword of Damocles is a civil war or conspiracy, which causes much more damage to the state than a "slow" democracy. Still less damaging than the autogenocidal self-preservation strategy of democratic parties. By all means, the past 50 years have proven that the democratic experiment is fatal to the nation. Democracies are just a luxury that stems from modern infrastructure means, not the natural state of human statehood.
>>351999 The idea that democratic constraints "neuter" a good leader while the "sword of Damocles" disciplines a bad king is a historical fallacy. In reality, the threat of a coup doesn't make a ruler better; it incentivizes them to build a brutal apparatus of repression. Look at North Korea or Ba'athist Iraq: these weren't disciplined regimes, they were systems where national resources were entirely consumed by the leader's self-preservation. When the only way to change power is through conspiracy, the result is a catastrophic collapse, as seen in the dissolution of Libya or the chaos of the Roman Empire's Crisis of the Third Century. Calling diffused leadership "neutered governance" ignores the fact that distributed power is actually a sophisticated risk management system. While a centralized autocracy like Mussolini’s Italy or Imperial Japan could make "decisive" moves, those moves led their nations to absolute ruin because there were no internal mechanisms to stop a leader's fatal errors. In contrast, the "slow" democracies of the United States or Switzerland have proven far more resilient over centuries precisely because their institutions prevent a single person’s ego from dragging the entire country off a cliff. Far from being a modern "luxury," these democratic constraints are what allow a nation to survive its own leaders, making them far more "natural" for long-term stability than any brittle autocracy.
>>352007 It's bad because it's poor, jews hate lack of shekels
I wonder how it is so poor compared to South Korea, must have been the Juche, not that it's isolated by the democratic world, while Southern one is supported by it
My 4-power government system instead of the Montesquieu medieval obsolete garbage is almost the only thing that could work just now out of the box to prevent blatant zoggery of the system.
>>352011 Its poor because its a commie shithole where the elites have all the bread and the common folk can only have scraps. Tho you can say it about other government no matter its affiliation. There is no much differenve between monarchs and demonrats and whatever because all of them are criminals. A man rules over man for his detriment.
>>352005 The brutal appratus of oppression already existss in democratic governments such as Germany or the United Kingdom, approved by the entire parliament. The real historical fallacy is the blindness of democrats to anything related to reality. Democratic political theoricians can just disregard reality, say “real democracy has never been tried”, cover their ears and eyes like their Marxist nephews. Antidemocrats are the ones that have seen the actions of democratic states and actually analysed them, instead of clinging to liberal ideals that will never manifest. Parliamentary systems act in unison just like paranoid dictators when the conditions are ripe. And when such a thing happens, there is no process to reverse it, because elections are a force of habit and not of merit. Surveilance and draconic anti-free-speech laws exist in every democratic country in the world. Liberty can easily be overturned if a nation's elite works together against the common folk. The risk management system of democracies only serve to put the voters at a disadvantage. North Korea does rule better over its own people than western countries. There are no daily gangrapes by foreign grooming gangs going on there, because this would harm the prestige of the leadership. Who cares if those in the government or those criticising the state have to fear for their lives? It is their problem. Truth is the North Korean government won't collapse any time soon, because autocracy is not brittle at all. Democrats just live in the same fantasy realm that Soviets lived in in the 70s. The ideology of democracy has already been intellectually dismantled and exposed as a civilisational backstep. We just have to prepare the way to a better system. In the end it is also ridiculous to say that Autocracy put nations such as Japan or Italy to ruin. It was American invaders that did that. Had America never stepped a foot on European soil, Democracy would be in the dustbin of history and Europe today would be unimaginably prosperous.
>>352021 I was reading the replies expecting something meaningful or coherent but instead it was just a pig squealing and pressing random keys on the keyboard
>>352018 The argument that democratic constraints are somehow equivalent to the totalitarianism of North Korea is a massive failure of perspective. Comparing the legal frameworks of the UK or Germany to a regime that imprisons three generations of a family for a single act of dissent ignores the reality of institutional feedback. In a democracy, the "oppressive apparatus" is subject to public debate, judicial review, and the risk of being voted out. In an autocracy, there is no mechanism to reverse state violence because the state is the law. To call European speech laws "draconian" while ignoring the mass executions and forced labor of the North Korean system is not an analysis—it is a total detachment from the human experience of those living under real tyranny. The claim that North Korea governs "better" because it lacks certain social issues found in the West is an even deeper delusion. When a country is a closed prison, the lack of reported crime is not a sign of safety; it is a sign of total information control. In such systems, violence by state officials and the military becomes the daily norm, but it never reaches the headlines because there is no free press to report it. "Prestige" in an autocracy is maintained through fear and the crushing of the individual, not through genuine social harmony. Describing this as a stable or superior system is like calling a graveyard the most orderly neighborhood in the city—it’s peaceful only because everyone has been silenced. Furthermore, blaming "American invaders" for the ruin of Japan and Italy is a complete inversion of historical cause and effect. These autocratic regimes collapsed because their lack of internal checks allowed their leaders to drag their nations into suicidal, aggressive wars. No one could tell Mussolini or Hirohito that attacking the world’s largest economies was a strategic blunder, which is the exact "brittleness" that antidemocrats claim doesn't exist. The post-war prosperity of Europe and Japan didn't happen in spite of democracy, but because of it. It was the transition to open markets and institutional accountability that created the "miracles" of the 20th century, whereas the loot-and-conquer economics of the Axis would have inevitably led to stagnation and collapse. >>352023 pig squealing was coming from you due to abundant butthurt
You fucking niggers are still beating the dead horse of right vs left, it's not the political way of governance but the government structure itself which is something completely different.
It's like trying to make a darknet to avoid censorship by using the same shit the normal internet works, nope you need to make a complete alternative to TCP/IP.
>>352028 >In a democracy, the "oppressive apparatus" is subject to public debate, judicial review, and the risk of being voted out. This is a complete fiction. We have already been over this. >Comparing the legal frameworks of the UK or Germany to a regime that imprisons three generations of a family for a single act of dissent ignores the reality of institutional feedback. This is the proper method of punishment for dissent against an autocratic state. The spirit of democracy and materialism needs to be extinguished ideologically and biologically. >To call European speech laws "draconian" while ignoring the mass executions and forced labor of the North Korean system is not an analysis—it is a total detachment from the human experience of those living under real tyranny. This is a legalistic fallacy. North Korea's government performs mass executions to prevent North Korea from becoming a state like Britain or Germany. It's a necessary measure to protect the nation against debilitating western ideals. >it never reaches the headlines because there is no free press to report it. Another complete lies. There is no such thing as a free press. What happens in reality is that western press has to fabricate social issues that exist in autocratic states while lying without stop to their own populace. >The post-war prosperity of Europe and Japan didn't happen in spite of democracy, but because of it That is another fiction. The most prosperous and advanced nation in the world in 1914 was a “militaristic autocracy” in the middle of Europe. What created America's wealth was solely its geography. Kim Jong Il could have archieved the same with fewer housing crisises.
>>352047 The argument that mass executions and the biological liquidation of dissenters are necessary measures for national protection is a chilling admission of a system’s inherent fragility. In reality, no nation in history has achieved long-term prosperity by cannibalizing its own population or enforcing ideological purity through terror. Regimes like North Korea do not survive because of their "efficiency" but because they function as subsidized hermit states, relying on external actors like China to prevent total collapse. A system that views its own citizens as biological threats to be extinguished is not a "strong state"—it is an evolutionary dead end that stifles the very innovation and human capital required to compete in the modern world. Claiming that the German Empire of 1914 or the United States' wealth are products of autocracy or mere geography is a massive historical distortion. Pre-WWI Germany was not a North Korean-style monolith; it possessed a powerful parliament, a sophisticated legal framework, and the world's most advanced social welfare system at the time. Similarly, geography alone does not create wealth—if it did, resource-rich nations like the Democratic Republic of Congo or Venezuela would be the wealthiest on Earth. Prosperity is built on stable institutions and the rule of law, things that Kim Jong Il’s regime failed to produce in half a century, leaving his nation in literal darkness while its democratic neighbors became global economic titans. The dismissal of a free press as a total fiction also ignores how information actually functions as a corrective mechanism. While no media outlet is perfectly objective, the fundamental difference is that in a democracy, the press actively exposes the government’s failures, from Watergate to modern corruption scandals. In an autocracy, the lack of reported issues is never a sign of their absence; it is a sign that systemic rot is being hidden until it reaches a breaking point. Proposing "biological extermination" as a solution to dissent is not a political strategy—it is a recipe for a stagnant, paranoid society that eventually collapses under the weight of its own unaddressed failures.
>>352054 First, the notion that mass executions or "biological liquidation" of dissenters signal fragility is a profound misunderstanding of sovereignty. Far from admitting weakness, such measures affirm the state's primal duty: to excise threats like a surgeon removes a tumor. History doesn't vindicate your "long-term prosperity" through tolerance; it rewards ruthless purification. The Roman Empire, often romanticized by fascists for its hierarchical order, endured for centuries by systematically eliminating internal saboteurs—think of the proscriptions under Sulla or the purges of the Praetorian Guard. Closer to home, Mussolini's Italy, in its early fascist phase, neutralized Bolshevik agitators and ethnic dissidents through decisive action, fostering a cultural renaissance that outshone the chaotic liberal Italy of the pre-fascist era. Even the Bolsheviks, for all their flaws, industrialized Russia in a generation by liquidating kulaks and counter-revolutionaries—proving that terror isn't a dead end but a forge for unity. North Korea? It's no hermit state propped by China alone; its survival stems from a fanatical ideological core that fascist theory would admire for its volkish cohesion, even if distorted by Asiatic despotism. Subsidies are secondary; the regime's grip on the population's biology and spirit ensures loyalty, a model of autarkic resilience that exposes the West's dependence on endless immigration and debt as the true fragility.
Your dismissal of autocracy's role in German and American success is equally ahistorical. The German Empire of 1914 wasn't some parliamentary paradise—it was Bismarck's autocratic masterpiece, where the Kaiser's will, backed by a militarized aristocracy, unified disparate states into an industrial juggernaut. The Reichstag? A facade for controlled debate, not the chaotic democracy you imply; its "sophisticated legal framework" was the Prussian General Staff's efficiency, not liberal handouts. Weimar's welfare experiments were the prelude to collapse, only rectified by the National Socialist state, which channeled that energy into racial renewal and technological dominance—rockets, jets, and autarky that humiliated the "democratic" Allies until their numerical superiority overwhelmed it. As for the U.S., its wealth wasn't birthed by "stable institutions" but by the autocratic impulses of its founding: a federal system that crushed native populations and enslaved Africans to build an empire, all under the Monroe Doctrine's imperial fiat. Geography mattered, yes, but only because it was seized through conquest, not "rule of law." Venezuela and Congo flounder not from resource curses but from the absence of a strong, volk-centered authority to harness them—proof that liberal "institutions" devolve into corruption without a guiding hierarchy, as seen in their Jewish-influenced oligarchies and NGO meddling.
Prosperity, in fascist terms, demands not your vaunted "innovation through diversity" but the disciplined mobilization of superior bloodlines and will. Kim's darkness? A symptom of isolation from globalist exploitation, not failure; North Korea's nukes and cyber capabilities show adaptive strength, while "democratic" South Korea chokes on imported degeneracy and debt. True evolutionary dead ends are the multicultural experiments of the West, where biological dilution stifles genius—contrast Hitler's vision of a purified Europa with the ZOG-controlled U.S., now a bloated corpse of fentanyl and financialization. Fascism doesn't cannibalize; it elevates the worthy by culling the parasitic, ensuring a nation's vitality against the Jewish-orchestrated entropy you call progress.
>>352058 The moment someone stops arguing points and starts obsessing over whether the reply is "AI-generated" or "too earnest," you know they’ve run out of ground to stand on. It’s the ultimate white flag in a debate. If they think justifying mass murder and "biological liquidation" is a winning hand, it’s no wonder they find a structured, logical rebuttal alien. Real intelligence is about parsing history and systemic outcomes, not just vomiting edgelord fantasies about autocracy while enjoying the digital infrastructure and freedom of speech that only a non-autocratic world could provide.
>>352114 Because I wanted it to happen in front of my kids it doesnt matter if it has any weight or not (who will listen to a binter?) I just do what I want. Post what I want. Say what I want. And thats it.
>>352138 It wasnt adressed to him specifically. More like to a common interwebz netizen. I mentioned these fucking cats for that reason. Also yes Im the absolute worst because I want child porn to be banned worldwide.
>>351996 It's true Basically in England the House of Lords was what killed the feudal system cuz it meant the nobility could threaten the king with the idea of a civil war Prior to the existence of the House of Lords it all basically worked well cuz the king's word was law Why did it work when in theory it'd lead to the king being tyrannical? Because the king can't be everywhere, and in the locality of a fief it's up to the local knight to enforce the law, not the king or the lord
