Fascism vs Roman Dicatorship in War. Same thing.

It is extremely difficult to find something that the fascists were ‘wrong’ about other than dependence on a dictator rather than rule of law by natural law.

In other words, ‘rule of law fascism’ (meaning zero tolerance) is the optimum polity for homogenous, domesticated peoples.

If you want to confuse fascism with two sides of the coin, that’s claiming that fascism is other than a war footing, just like the romans’ used dictators in war.

(a)Germans were right to seek to restore greater german civilization after the Napoleonic destruction of Europe,

(b) germans were right to join other Europeans in colonial expansion

(c) Communism was a threat to europeans.

(d) Anglo civ’s liberalism (or Swiss) is only suitable for Island/naval/marine states with natural borders, whereas germans require Ordnung and ‘to compete better than others’ given that they are territorial, surrounded, and have fewer resources other than TALENT.

(e) So Rule of Man Fascism is simply necessary in time of war, and Rule of Law fascism is simply the optimum in time of peace, given that Europe is bounded on the east and south by anti-european civilizations that cannot integrate into or compete with European civilization.

(f) but there are no conditions under which anything other than zero tolerance for irreciprocity in european civilization is ‘tolerable’ or even ‘utilitarian’ except to ‘fund the enemy’.

Leave a Reply