Name: Anonymous 2017-08-20 9:56
Mmmm. Yo boy 'bout to cuck it, lads. I can feel it.
then his supporters will be completely done with him.What are you talking about? Most of his supporters are braindead and believe he's infallible.
Sadly they will have to learn the hard way that the only race that loves freedom and small government has white skin.This.
CommunismThat would be kikes
fascismA reaction against the kikes' communism.
authoritarian regimesBetter an honest authoritarian regime than an anything goes plutocratic "democracy" that pretends to care about you only to fleece you dry.
the only race that loves freedom and small government has white skinAmerica cant've been part of that race for a long while then
A reaction against the kikes' communism.It was still a reaction carried out by white people; a certain group of white people were responsible for fascism unless we somehow decide that people shouldn't be held responsible for their own actions. Furthermore, the fascists initially joined forces with communists to invade a non-communist country, and the ultimate outcome of the war (which the fascists started) was severe loss of life and damage to infrastructure in countries that were neither communist nor fascist (mostly at the hands of fascist armies) and to leave the communists a more powerful force in Europe than they were before the war.
Better an honest authoritarian regime than an anything goes plutocratic "democracy" that pretends to care about you only to fleece you dry.A true democracy puts political power in the hands of the people, an authoritarian regime does precisely the opposite. While many ``democratic" societies give the average citizen relatively little power over how the government treats them, there is still the fact that the whole philosophy of government means it is considered immoral and shameful for the government to go against the wishes of the people. Whereas authoritarians reject that notion entirely, instead buying into an elitist philosophy that says the masses are too dumb to know what is good for them; such a society does not merely deny political power to the masses, but leads to the notion that it is a good thing. So authoritarianism is ``good" if you're the one in charge (you won't be) or if you like the idea of being on the unpleasant end of a power imbalance.
It was still a reaction carried out by white people; a certain group of white people were responsible for fascism unless we somehow decide that people shouldn't be held responsible for their own actions.Yes, because both economic Marxism then and cultural Marxism today are in their essence anti-European (white).
Furthermore, the fascists initially joined forces with communists to invade a non-communist country, and the ultimate outcome of the war (which the fascists started) was severe loss of life and damage to infrastructure in countries that were neither communist nor fascist (mostly at the hands of fascist armies) and to leave the communists a more powerful force in Europe than they were before the war.This is patent nonsense, communists and fascists are never friends and allies. Unless you're speaking of the case with Sun Yat-sen, he made the fatal mistake of having an alliance with communists which ended up costing his successor dearly. I also don't really consider that movement fascist.
Thus, even though fascism was a reactionary anti-communist movement, you can't say that everything bad that fascism did was ``actually the result of communism". Not only was fascism excessive, leading to the harm of innocent non-communists, it was also an utter failure that ended up strengthening communism.Only immediately after, in the founding of the People's Republic of China, the DPRK, Warsaw Pact, ect. which would have been made worse had there been no fascists movements to counter it, which also helped to exhaust some of the excesses of the international Marxist movement. The USSR and communist movements began to also deteriorate on their own. Stalin passed, Khrushchev came to power, thawing and De-Stalinization, Solzhenitsyn wrote The Gulag Archipelago, market reforms were eventually introduced, ect.
A true democracy puts political power in the hands of the peopleOnly what it claims to do.
While many ``democratic" societies give the average citizen relatively little power over how the government treats them, there is still the fact that the whole philosophy of government means it is considered immoral and shameful for the government to go against the wishes of the people.Which it does all the time in the so-called "democracy".
Whereas authoritarians reject that notion entirely, instead buying into an elitist philosophy that says the masses are too dumb to know what is good for themThis is demonstrably true http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/13/37-percent-of-americans-cant-name-any-of-the-right/
So authoritarianism is ``good" if you're the one in charge (you won't be) or if you like the idea of being on the unpleasant end of a power imbalance.This is already the case in my "democratic" country. So the arguments against an authoritarian regime amount to little more than excessive pilpul.
