Post your face whenever someone calls fascism "aesthetic"

Vincere è Vinceremo!

...

mfw

Funny thing, my grandma Doctorate is about the interface of Fascism and the Getúlio Vargas dictatorship and the aesthetic influences the Futurism and the Brazilian Modernism, respectively, in them. Grandma was edgy channer befora it was cool.

mfw
youtube.com/watch?v=0I71VX5RyGA

...

what is even happening in that picture

>cultured
Why are people like these so delusional?
Like just by looking at them you know exactly what kind of people they are...

Nigga wut

modern art

wow you ruined my idol

this is art

No this is art

Only thing aesthetic about fascism right here

>beady eyes full of lies
>aesthetic

I'm new here, is Veeky Forums /leftypol/?

Don't forget the dog.

Andross?

youtube.com/watch?v=0I71VX5RyGA

nah.
there's all kinds of different political affiliations

If you cant handle the heat, you better fuck off

What the fuck made you think that?

Shit, how much did this guy squat

History has a liberal bias, honey.

Fascists knew what aesthetics were, they just sucked at creating it.

so why do liberals hate scientific proof of genetic differences between people so much

>if you don't like the biggest failure of the modern world then you're a lefty

That's meme science, bigot.

...

Vroom vroom fast cars mussolini

Wow, thanks for welcoming me.

It was just a test. I know that I could have say "test" but it's too late.

C-can I see your feet?

Are you an anarchist? I'd like you to stop talking to me please.

...

/pol/ wedding.

Fascism never had a clear aesthetic direction. It never even managed to decide betewen Historicism/Eclecticism or Futurism.

I feel like people think Fascism was a lot "deeper" than it actually was, it actually didn't have much intellectual substance at all.

t. my unironically communist jewish history professor

what was the purpose of that big as poster with the face in OP's pic and SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

It was an election year.

>Intellectual diversity is an indication of shallowness
Nigga what?

Fascism appeals to the same people it always appealed to: repressed, inferior males. They like militarism because army buddies would be closer to a friendship than anything they have IRL, and they desire war because rape is the most intimate they will get with women. It's all truth.

That wasn't my point. One sentence wasn't supposed to qualify the other, hence the spacing.

You don't have to be communist to tell that Fascism never had much substance. Every time Mussolini was asked Fascism was he gave a different definition.

Funnily enough, despite his apparently belligerent nature, Mussolini's personal military record was quite unimpressive.

Well that's obvious to anyone who isn't prepared to drink the kool-aid. Fascism is an ideology that offers easy answers to complicated questions. It makes all matters of society some sort of struggle of "national identity" and suggests that the solution is to hand over absolute control to a strongman and his cronies.

It's more like a /pol/ but with more leftists than the usual.

BEADY

Only to people who get their ideas of military service from the movies.

He was injured twice, served nine months at the front lines, got promoted to corporal "for merit in war."

That's an above average service record.

>strongman and his cronies
That's all it is. Anything after that is specific to each local Fascist variant. Take the comparison between Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain. Mussolini was expansionist, Franco was isolationist. Mussolini was initially anti-clerical then changed to pro-Catholic Church, Franco was staunchly Catholic and the Church was very much part of the state, Mussolini was a futurist, Franco a traditionalist and so on.

wallace stevens (whoever that is) doesn't know anything abot ethiopia.

>Easy answers to complicated questions
Love this meme

>Franco was fascist
When will this meme end?

He was literally a deserter, he went to Switzerland to avoid serving and only served in the military to overturn his conviction of desertion. Also, one of the injuries you mention was from an accident during a training exercise.

>more leftists
literally the only leftist thing Veeky Forums has is commies
and they won't be here for long

If you only count Italian Fascism as the one genuine example of Fascism then you're still not in much luck, it was contradictory as fuck.

It's not really a meme. All totalitarianism is rooted in it. It's about lifting responsibility for handling the ambiguities of existence off of its followers and putting them onto a larger than life figurehead.

Coming from the same people who spout out Deleuzian in every essay ever since 2008.

The question is, of course, does a movement really require substance to be succesful?
Does capitalism even have a 'substance'. What do you define as 'substance'? A clear set of theologians and a canon? Capitalism never really had that and it's one of the most succesful systems in the history of man.

I see the left argue this all the time, from Eco on, that fascism is this ad hoc melange and accumulation of everything that appeals to a revanchist sentiment.
Yet, that's how most systems emerged. Communism is dead to the masses. Fascism is en vogue again. Especially because in the meme age it allows for the very fluidity the left doesn't allow itself to have ( have 4 leftists in a room and you'll have a Leninist, Trotskyite, a reformist and an anarchist ).

Having substance would mean there was a coherent or even distinguishable ideology behind the movement that merits a theoretical discussion on the subject, like the ones we have here. Nobody mentioned success you fucking assburger, read the OP and the thread. I won't even comment on the idea that capitalism is "successful" (whatever you may mean by that).

Have four alt rightists in the room and you'll have a libertarian, a traditionalist, a fascist, and a paleocon.

Hell, have four fascists in a room, you'll get an Italian Fascist, a Falangist, a National Socialist, and whatever the hell Pinochet was.

>Having substance would mean there was a coherent or even distinguishable ideology behind the movement that merits a theoretical discussion on the subject, like the ones we have here.
Well, we got to the point where 'intellectual depth' is just a cover word for 'legitimacy' pretty quick this time.

this is too perfect

Yes, and? If it has no intellectual substance behind it, why should we consider it anything more than the brainless bleating of idiots?

Have four Italian Fascists in the room and you'll have a socialist, a monarchist, a futurist and a catholic.

Because the same can be said about (your philosophy here).

You don't know squat about my philosophy. You're swinging in the dark.

Fascism was very clearly an artifact of its time, a hodgepodge of veteran driven reactions to the horrors of ww1 and the sweeping social changes that came with mass industrialization; there was no actual intellectual spine to it. You can't say the same about communism (no, I am not, before you accuse me of such), which has a clear intellectual backbone in Marx's works, even if there are distinct differences in interpretation and implementation.

And they'll all scream deus vult and agree on the political solution without fucking eachother over like the left has been doing for over 2 centuries now.

How is Trump able to rally behind him such a disparate group of right wingers? From NRx to deus vult /pol/, Ben Garrison and The Golden One.
Because in the end "iz he really a my-gang-ism and do we agree on the working method" doesn't matter to right wingers. They'll just disagree on what needs to happen as soon as they take power, but taking power is primary. And taking power is what they do best.

This one guy keeps posting Pinochet and hopes we think it's a legion of PInochet devotees

>And taking power is what they do best.

Says the man in the century following the one where liberals and communists were the primary driving force of political power.

>fascism were unread losers haha communists at least read books ;)

Oh look, the champions of the proletariat.

I think you are misinterpreting reality for Veeky Forums again. Time for a break, m8.

I thought that had nothing to do with communism?

Also, liberals. Aren't they supposed to be class traitors?

I'm really confused guys! Your allegiance to these groups is shifting every discussion.

>t-t-t-that was us
>"why did you kill so many people in Russia? why are you all identity politics retards nowadays?"
>hey! that's not us! here have a sniffing Slovene to explain it for ya

youtube.com/watch?v=i6GXNIuNDac

>You don't know squat about my philosophy. You're swinging in the dark.
I know it lacks intellectual substance, and is the brainless bleating of idiots.

If you're so confident, in the legitimacy of your ideology, step up and talk about it. I'm sure everyone in this thread will acknowledge it's totally a serious intellectual movement.

>You can't say the same about communism (no, I am not, before you accuse me of such), which has a clear intellectual backbone in Marx's works, even if there are distinct differences in interpretation and implementation.
Sure I can watch: Marx's work doesn't even merit a theoretical discussion on the subject, ergo communism has no intellectual depth, and it should be regarded as simply brainless bleating.

Oh look, butthurt without an actual argument.

I said nothing about them being unread losers. Hitler, Mussolini, and Mosley were all well-educated as I recall. I said their ideology had no clear intellectual spine to it, because they were primarily just reactions to the events of their time, rather than outgrowths of a specific ideal.

You don't need to agree with a philosophy or movement to be able to tell whether its underlying theories warrant any interest. I don't necessarily agree with Futurism, Corporatism and other ideologies/movements that were hijacked by Fascism but they are of interest to, Fascism itself isn't. Italian Fascism was merely the rule of a man and his cronies, who then co-opted a number of different ideologies in an attempt to give their regime legitimacy and a way of attracting supporters.

You're clearly an idiot then. I have no allegiance to either of those groups, I just recognize that they both were the primary forces of political power in the 20th century, whereas fascism was largely met with dismal failure (barring exceptions such as Spain).

...

Most historians are communist because communism benefits the political interests of all intellectual castes.

Oh, I see now. You're asshurt and are going to continue swinging in the dark. Well, thanks for acknowledging your own ass-whupping. Come back any time boy, I'll be happy to administer another.

I'm pretty sure we're talking about a reality where Trump owned the GOP to an unseen level, while the American left are hugely divided over whom they'll support. Bernie Sanders supporters are post-Occupy crust punks, BLM brownshirt tier hooligans, feminists ( who for some reason now do support an old white guy ) and xvideos "cuck category" nu male millennials. He sure got a diverse crowd, but they only do so because they're desperate as fucking fuck now. Very telling where this century is going to.

And then all the pundits were going on about how Trump would destroy the GOP. Lel. Never trust a leftist analysis of the future. Always wrong.

Gracias, mi general

To the retard who suddenly made this a "muh right-wing vs left-wing" debate:

Please stop, you're turning Veeky Forums into /pol/. Every post you make and every reply you get takes this board further and further away from the possibility of becoming a place where subjects such as the aesthetic qualities (or lack thereof) in Fascism can be discussed.

Leftists demanding you have a holy book/or set of holy books in an intellectual tradition they consider legitimate.

It's fucking Islam tier really, no surprise.

What the fuck are you on about m8.

So a thread about fascism can't have actual fascists defending their point of view?

I love how it's always "we need an open and rational discussion with many points of view EXCEPT the one we're talking about. #EndToxicShitlordism."

Read the OP, this isn't a thread about whether Fascism is good or not it's a thread about the Aesthetics of Fascism. Nobody stopped anyone on expressing their opinion on that. All the posts supporting Fascism seem to be crying about the attack on Fascism's ideological legitimacy (without offering any evidence to the contrary), not a single post on Fascist aesthetics or what they consider those to be.

See, it doesn't matter if I'm swinging in the dark. The content of your own philosophy is, as you have argued, immaterial. Anything which cannot create an "intellectual spine" is just the bleating of idiots. There is no "intellectual spine" to your thought process. There are not a single coherent book or even short article.

Therefor, all your objections to Fascism aren't real, serious objections, but mearly the bleating of an idiot who regurgitating Veeky Forums memes like 'asshurt.'

Wait, so attacking the intellectual base of something because it lacks political legitimacy is an apolitical action?

>Anything which cannot create an "intellectual spine" is just the bleating of idiots

So you're basically admitting your ideology is metropolitan bourgeois intellectualism with a disdain for the unthinking and unwashed masses.

Not a huge surprise, but it's good to know you guys are indeed what many claim to be: kids of upper (middle) class comfort with romanticist ideas about revolt, but without much respect for the people they purport to champion.

>So you're basically admitting your ideology is metropolitan bourgeois intellectualism with a disdain for the unthinking and unwashed masses.
Nope. I'm summarizing the claims made here
>it has no intellectual substance behind it, why should we consider it anything more than the brainless bleating of idiots?... there was no actual intellectual spine to it. You can't say the same about [works that have] a clear intellectual backbone.

>Not a huge surprise, but it's good to know you guys are indeed what many claim to be: kids of upper (middle) class comfort with romanticist ideas about revolt, but without much respect for the people they purport to champion.
Woo. Devolving into self-parody here. Tell me, which philosophy are you trying to pidgeon-hole me into?

Yeah, you're an idiot. You don't know anything about my ideology, and I can point to several that unlike fascism have an actual intellectual spine. Liberalism, Marxism, Anarchism, Religious Monarchism, Technocracy, and the various component ideologies that fascism co-opted such as futurism.

But by trying to turn this discussion into something about me, you're tacitly admitting that you can't defend your own position, so you're attempting to redefine the discussion; trying to wrangle it into a position you feel you can best, but you wont because I wont let you; this isn't about me or my ideals, it's about your own and how you can't actually defend them.

That's completely irrelevant. Early on in the thread, I attacked the intellectual legitimacy of Fascism based on its lack of ideological legitimacy (i.e it has no true ideology). I used the example of its extremely contradictory aesthetics in conjunction with a number of its other ideological contradictions that are historically documented, the ideological U-turns of Fascism if you like, to show it was a fickle movement. My political objections to it are quite different and have not been mentioned.