What drives people--particularly adolescent/young adult men--to support radical political movements like fascism or...

My assertion is that you are ignoring actual political "action" in favor of seeing mere political "opinion," which coincidentally is also a dangerous, infantile, unproductive, and just generally a shitty thing to do. In fact, political movements can be dangerous and a guarantee of injustice and suffering, and to relegate political action to some mysterious hypothetical just because you've never personally experienced it is to have a very shortsighted view of politics.

> My assertion is that you are ignoring actual political "action" in favor of seeing mere political "opinion," which coincidentally is also a dangerous, infantile, unproductive, and just generally a shitty thing to do.

If that is your belief then why isn't the book titled "The Mass Psychology of Marxism and Fascism" instead of just "Fascism".

Also
>Fascism
>same as National Socialism

Get the fuck outta here.

>some mysterious hypothetical

>fascism
>reactionary

>islamism
>fascist

this

people have different ideas, and always will

faggots and left wingers don't have a monopoly on reasonable thought, despite what your echochamber might tell you

ideas need to be maintained.
'
the fact you're even asking what "makes" people think different things shows how stupid you are

>Argues against non-arguments with a non-argument

Bro I wish it wasn't present year so ppl weren't like you.

concerning the far right movements like fascism and Islamism, much of it is for the same reason that folks move towards far-left movements.

Those who join these movements (especially for those who are not part of that movement's host culture, like westerners joining Islamist groups) view themselves as, or are, bullied, abused, abused, marginalized or otherwise outcast from mainstream society. Folks in that position often times have low self-esteem or display excessively narcessistic behavior, and often look for a reason why their lives suck, typically assigning their woes to a single group or individual who is the "oppressor". It can be anything from white supremacy, world Jewry, to patriarchy, Christianity, etc. with this "have and have not" worldview established, individuals will naturally gravitate towards groups of like minded individuals, looking for a sense of community or belonging, as well as an opportunity to fight back against their oppressor of choice with the aid of a powerful and inspiring individual or group.
I would argue that it is not really a set of behaviors that are only associated with right wing of the political spectrum, but more on the authoritarian/libertarian (more or less authority) axis of political dynamics (though there are, of course, many other factors, I am merely using a razor here). I know some folks have made a meme out of him on this board, but the work of Dr, Jordan Peterson concerning ideology and how it occurs and perpetuates itself is laudable, and if you are interested, you can get a taste of it here.
In regards to the books, I think simply limiting one's study of this kind of behavior to a single wing of politics is a tad bit biased, especially since one could easily point out behavior of this kind coming from the left as well with a fairly simplistic text book and a single hour of the evening news.
youtube.com/watch?v=SsoVhKo4UvQ
youtube.com/watch?v=XY7a1RXMbHI&t=24s

Because it's fun.

>"We were a band of fighters drunk with all the passions of the world; full of lust, exultant in action. What we wanted, we did not know. And what we knew, we did not want! War and adventure, excitement and destruction. An indefinable, surging force welled up from every part of our being and flayed us onward."

Ernst von Salomon, The Outlaws

Don't tell me this is not better than slaving away at some low-paid job in an office.

Whether the radical movement joined will be reactionary or revolutionary, depends only on the circumstances or the personality of the people involved.

This!
And i also want to add that this effect exists in all kinds of ideologies. Young people and males are generally very much idealists compared to your average society. Most of both revolutionary leftists AND fascist/alt-righters are young males. This is true in religions, philosophical stances, arts, sports bla bla also.

I believe it is safe to say that the world is built by young males.

National Socialism is indeed different than fascism as it focuses on the superiority of race (whether imaginary or not) rather than the superiority of the nation. A fascist would not care if you were Jewish or Anglo, as long as you were (insert nation-state here), a Nazi (Nationalsozialistische) would indeed care, as his view is that a people start with race, not a nation or political identity. Nationalsozialistische is an offshoot/new spin on Fascism that has some major fucking implications as to how the ideology works in practice (i.e. racial cleansing and genocide rather than just political purges). (figured I would help you out here, I get into this argument all the time. Its like saying Stalinism is the same as Titoism, which is a simply disgusting intellectual statement.) Tally-ho, sir!

Oh and btw can someone explain to me why fascism/alt-right or right in general are called reactionary meanwhile left is revolutionary?

It was correct for 200 years ago when the dominant ideology was right and the left have started revolutions of sort in order to change the status quo. However they generally succeed and now they are the status quo?

I define myself as a fascist natsoc and i believe we are the ones fighting to bring down state (establishment) while it is the leftists (and their governments) trying to protect it.

It is us who should be calles revolutionaries; we are not reacting against anything, we want to destroy the old in order to build a new world.

Yeah.

And a tally ho ho to you my good sir!

Not all NatSoc though. Original natsoc was strasserist and didn't opposes jews for racial reasons but because of their unjust economic monopoly. That's why Hitler disposed them in night of the long knives.

>Oh and btw can someone explain to me why fascism/alt-right or right in general are called reactionary meanwhile left is revolutionary?

Leftists regardless of their position in government, and their control over government policies, will always refer to themselves as "revolutionaries", Communist governments continued to refer to themselves as this even well after a successful revolution, and this can be explained two-fold:

1)They attempt to appear as the underdog so when they are victorious it seems as if they were fighting a continuous uphill battle against their enemies. While this was true at several times in history, there are plenty of times it is not.

2)The idea of Progress, or that history is a linear measurement of humanity's movement towards utopia of some kind. By stating they are revolutionaries they are claiming that they are on this side, fighting against what they believe are decadent 'traditional' or 'reactionary' forces. Revolting against this established order. Again, something which makes no sense when they ARE the established order.

>However they generally succeed and now they are the status quo?

By consistently claiming that they are the underdog they can over-exaggerate their victories and make it seem as if they are both hard-fought and unlikely, thereby enhancing their reputation when they succeed.

>It is us who should be called revolutionaries.

Looking at the definition for Revolutionary (en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/revolutionary)

Modern National Socialists and Fascists fit this pretty neatly, however, so would Communists in Western nations (as while some Western nations engage in and promote certain Communist/Socialist ideas they are not Communist countries).

Fascists etc are revolutionaries, but they are also calling back to an older time and thus can also be called reactionary. The issue is when people assume reactionary and revolutionary are mutually exclusive, when in-fact they are not.

Yeah, totally wasn't because Strasser was undermining them while having ideological differences.

>Oh and btw can someone explain to me why fascism/alt-right or right in general are called reactionary meanwhile left is revolutionary?
Words can be used for anything you want. It doesn't matter how unfounded your statements are, you can always resort to the fallacy fallacy by shouting "no true scotman!" ad nauseum.

I don't know

But im sure it's way more complex than being a "libertarian" because deeply you want to leave home because you cannot handle dad rules or being a "communist" because it sounded cool in your HS history class and saw a hobbo falling to the ground, dropping his hotdog, and you are like NOOO POOR HOMELESS PERSON LETS SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!.

The word you have to focus is "Reaction", there is your answer.

everyone that disagrees with me is mentally ill. Don't even bother to reply because only people with daddy issues would disagree with me, okay?

Young men have always been the most willing to go to extremes.

>(((Wilhelm Reich)))

>Modern National Socialists and Fascists
Redundant, all fascism is modern.

>Fascists etc are revolutionaries, but they are also calling back to an older time
I never understood this meme.

Socially and economically, fascist promoted the application of modern theories like corporatism, national syndicalism, integralism, etc.

Artistically, the first proponents were D'Annunzio, the symbolist-influenced author, and the futurists. The Novecento movement that followed wasn't a homogeneous entity and was heavily influenced by the late-19th century Aestheticism, Impressionism, and to some degree, the recent and small Metaphysical movement.

The allusions to ancient history were nothing but rhetoric. For exemple, in the Spanish Falangist politcal program of 1934, under the "Nation, Unity and Empire" section, it puts Spain as the spiritual leader of the Hispanic world. They seeked cultural unification with Hispanoamerica.

*Pfff* that guy to Hitler's right (the one in black) has a face like:
"This was a mistake, we made mistakes in a few places".

testosterone

psypost.org/2016/06/study-finds-boredom-leads-political-extremism-43583

And boredom is basically nihilism

I prefer the term "reactionary" because it gives lie to the Myth of Progress, which has always outlined leftist Whig history.

Progressives want to keep speeding forward, conservatives want to slow down, reactionaries want to reverse trajectory.

It's true, look at this book called "The Psychology of People who Disagree with this Guy" by Morty Cohenbergsteinwitz

>Progressives want to keep speeding forward
They wish. Only F U T U R I S M O can advance modern society.

Could it be operationally a white people phenomenon? The "extreme ideologies" in he east are more or less a response to western imperialism.

Who started the trend of using "authoritarian" as a smear?

Revolution is either a push for:

1. Complete change from one constitution to another, or the modification of a constitution (in politics, though the sense of the "complete change" can apply to more than just politics. The change must be original in the sense that it seeks to liberalize (in the classical sense) whatever thing is being rebelled against.

Reactionary is a descriptor for line of thought, person, or action that is motivated by a desire (in politics alone) to return or move towards whatever the actor deems to be the " status quo ante" which literally means "the state existing before". This is inherently "conservative" and can mean a number of things as both "revolutionary" and "reactionary" depend on the meanings of the opposite concept in the concept of the time and place.

A man's view that homosexuals should not be killed en mass, but should be content with not having their marriage recognized in a court of law, would be considered revolutionary in the middle east, and reactionary in western nations.

you sir, depending on you goals, you could be considered a revolutionary or a reactionary, your actions and beliefs define you, just wanting to bring down a government is not enough to call yourself a Fascist Natsoc, it's what you would plan to built that would define you.

So please, do elaborate. Its not every day that I get to talk to a Facist. Being a right-libertarian living in MA does not exactly place me in your circles that often I'm afraid.

so a group of black national socialists purging me (a "white boi") for my oppressive monopoly on wealth is not in any way racially motivated? Most of those Jews were dirt poor or middle class Germans who did not fit the image of the Natsoc "World Jewry". Were their deaths motivated by their mere ethnic association with this perceived "Jewish Monopoly"?

There is just about as much evidence for such a thing as there is for feminist "patriarchy" dude.

>Anyone who isn't a traditionalist is destroing and subverting civilization

You're not wrong.

depends on what you mean by "western imperialism"

1. never use race to describe an ideology or movement unless this is the explicitly stated goal. "white man's burden" does not count as "white" was a short hand for "civilized" and "modern" in regards to colonial affairs, not the explicitly racist ideologies of the southern united states and the racial collectivist movements and revolutions in Europe and Africa of the 20th century.

Is the reaction out of a reactionary push back to the status quo i.e. mostly trade based agrarian society and not a vastly rich multi-national oil oligopoly?

Do not read adorno, he is one of the poster children of corrupt sociology and is one of the sources of the "Cultural Marxist" conspiracy theories (good and bad, depends on the theorist)

Is pretty good and funny shortcut for power and pussies.

There a fancy term for somebody who wants progress but to slow the fuck down so shit actually works?

Or is that too fence sitty?

Conservatism. I'm not kidding either.

If you were a white minority who unjustly monopolized the economy of black majority then yeah; it's justified.

>Most of the Jews were poor or middle class

And strasserism wasn't against them afaik?

a moderate, or Liberal Conservative. Politics really loves it's binarys so there is no specific thing for moderate progressives. Classical liberal perhaps?

Mostly agree. However i differ personally about longing for past stuff. While there were many communist states ruled for a relatively long time both in peace periods and war; there wasn't a fascist progressive state ruled long enough for us to observe and come to conclusions.

I don't want to reverse it though. I want to destroy it and go in a different way, faster than them.

For example: Fascism is against religion much more than leftists. While they accept immigrants with religious tolerance we oppose them because of their conservatism. It is they who should be labelled conservatives not us.

They have many taboos which are stronger than religious beliefs. Strongest of them is believing that all humans/groups are equal while science says otherwise.

Classical liberalism is revolutionary.

Interesting

Ok we can do a question&answer session because i dont trust my english to explain all my goals that well. I might need help.

Key aspects i want to change:

1)Complete destruction of all religions.
Cultural traditions -if suits with reason- might stay but organized religion has to go

2)End all sexism. World will be mono-gendered. Females will be eliminated and we will reproduce via farms (reserve healthy females hidden away from society; artificially inseminate them) till we go figure out cloning/immortality

3)Transhumanism. We'll have to switch to virtual bodies/minda eventually.

4)One world state with one huge government choosen with meritocratic democracy. Too long to explain, tl;dr: more iq&accomplishments=more votes

5)One scientifically crafted artificial lingua franca. Local languages (English, Arabic, Chinese) bla bla can stay but this will be enforced globally.

There are many more; post getting too long.

>ywn tear down the dustbins of history
WW1 ruined everything

Both Islamic and Western civilizations are dying. Fascism provides a totalitarian path to preserve culture and race.

Well, fascists were "retro-modernists" in that they also loved technology, youth and above all action (i.e. cutting through unwieldy liberal politics and using whatever methods possible to better the nation). On the other hand, there were the conservative/reactionary elements such as promoting manliness/virility, strong families and the desire to push women back into the domestic sphere and curb any rights that they had gained in previous decades. There was a general disgust with the 'decadence' or 'degeneracy' of liberal democracy and the lack of moral, social and economic order that characterized modern life in the early twentieth century. The fascists wanted to use the state to restore order.
>The allusions to ancient history were nothing but rhetoric.
Rhetoric is important. Anyway you'd see the aspirations were real if you read primary sources of the period. The nazis or fascists had their own conception of history whether you like it or not. They believed they were restoring a past that had been tainted by the erosion of morality/social norms . This past was heavily idealized like many other reactionary movements (and I don't mean to use reactionary as derogatory ) They see in their 'national' past an idyllic time when things were better and they wanted to bring back those elements they perceived from the past as wholesome.

I'm mostly speaking of the ideology in the context of today's political landscape, not in the context of when it was just called "Liberalism"

statism desu. The French economy actually did the transition from agrarian to an industrial economy at a very modest pace a large part because of state intervention. Socially a class of small farmers and artisans fought a good rearguard action against uncontrolled economic growth. I think it goes to show that if people are willing to organize Progress can be slowed down. While we may lament that technology or future productivity gains could have come earlier, a more steady progress or "sustainable development" actually gives a society time to make the adjustments needed for the wrenching changes that come with the process.

Misogyny isn't conservative though. It's quite revolutinary while feminism have never achieved anything. Even after all the rights they have got; women still choose secondary roles because their genes are weak. Eliminating weakness and promoting strongness shouldn't be viewed as conservative. I don't understand the reasoning behind it desu.

hoooo boy, this is quite a can (nay, a bucket) of worms...

1. As long as religion has no role in the state, what harm could it do that could not be easily countered with reason? and would attempting to purge a group just be a sign that we have now way of settling our differences? The man who has a goal that he cannot argue for logically will use violence as his only recourse. by destroying religion, you are damning yourself and vindicating them.
2. but I like women... all one needs to do to end sexism is to understand the innate differences between the sexes and not give any sexual collectivist group a leg up as opposed to the other. Immortality is a pretty good goal, but going mono-gender/sex would just royally fuck up the human gene pool. I find it is best to not fuck with the natural order. do I see any mono-gender mammals? No? best to not fuck with it then.
3. no problem with this as long as it is not a state controlled and forced process. humans should have the choice in regards to the transition.
4. provided that local governments had sovreignty over their own territory, and the world government served as an arbitrator over international disputes, sure. Though one must be wary when it comes to meritocratic voting, as merit must be judged by the consumer or beneficiary of that merit, not some arbitrary standard made by a world government. I think we should have a less shitty U.N. how bout that?
5. would it not be better to have a language that most folks speak already, like English? seems like wasted effort to create a new language to replace a language that has already had near global dominance for two centuries, especially since all devices and hardware pretty much run on the roman alphabetical standard.

I would say you're a revolutionary. you favor fascism as a means to destroy government, but not in how your new government would be run, as I don't see any traditionalist or reactionary sentiments in your political aims or reasoning. more coming

I would say that you are an amalgamation of the following:

Techno-Authoritarian Progressivism (non-typical progressive ideal):
encouraging and actively working towards a conception of societal progress via the use of state authority and technological innovation/utilization in the name of the greater good and a "better" society.

Authoritarian-Postgenderism: involuntary elimination of gender in the human species via state imposed application of advanced biotechnology and assistive reproductive technologies. This process continues with you into Immortalism insofar as you seek to obtain immortality for this new post-gender human species.

all of these categories fall under the label of "Transhumanism" as far as political goals go, which is itself an offshoot of the futurist social movements of the mid-20th century. this movement originating from early 20th century progressivism. you have a very authoritarian slant to the means by which you wish to obtain these ends, so I suppose one could call you and "Authoritarian-Transhumanist"

>Misogyny isn't conservative though. It's quite revolutinary while feminism have never achieved anything.
it's "regressive" though because it curbs legislation and more permissive social and cultural norms that granted unprecedented rights/privileges/freedom to women. Women voting was nonexistent before the 1800s. Likewise, all lawcodes had laws that acknowledged women as weaker and possessing less legal rights vs. men. These laws were retracted or heavily revised only in 19th and 20th centuries.
I mean, since conservative and revolutionary are relative terms, it's not for me to say whether you're right or wrong, I suppose. But wanting to restrict women in any way I think is "conservative" because it is a return to a past tradition. It would be "revolutionary" to pass misogynistic laws, however, because it would reorientate the political, economic and social order drastically.
As for feminism not achieving anything...it did; it just the achievements you like such as gaining the vote, working in careers/professional environments previously denied to them, gaining more legal rights etc. etc.

>Eliminating weakness and promoting strongness shouldn't be viewed as conservative.
I mean i'd agree with it too.
It only is if you want to use the state to enforce strength (which can mean anything but I'm guessing you mean enforcing better moral behavior, eliminating "undesirable" persons or cultural influences from society) because it requires the suspension of certain civil liberties.

> it just the achievements you like
it's just achievements you don't like* (am I'm also not passing judgement whether these changes are for better or worse, mind you)

Lack of sex with girls, I believe.

Where did this ebin "fascism is against religion" maymay come from?

Screwiest shit I've read all week.

Shame on you.

They feel disenfranchised and without an identity.

>and the desire to push women back into the domestic sphere and curb any rights that they had gained in previous decades.

This is so far wrong it's laughable.

Pretty good memes, user.

While you list transhumanism as one of your points, it seems that all of them would fit into the category of transhumanism. But honestly it's really hard to classify your ideology since it's so out there.

not an argument. tell me why i'm wrong senpai

The whole of liberalism along with its values are inherently classicist thus opposed to modernism.

>There was a general disgust with the 'decadence' or 'degeneracy' of liberal democracy and the lack of moral, social and economic order that characterized modern life in the early twentieth century.
So, following your logic, liberals were opposed to the Enlightenment because they opposed the political, social and economical aspects of the Ancien Régime?

His ideas are out there, but don't shame him for it anons. Stuff like this is why I stay on Veeky Forums.

mussolini and hitler were anticlerical but had to make compromises with the catholic church.

That has nothing to do with religiosity, though.

>be completely socially alienated and excluded since you were a teenager
>try to figure out what is wrong with society and how to help others in your situation
>discover that in the past you'd have a place and somewhere along the line the current left wing establishment decided you shouldn't have one
>your virginity is a side effect of all this, but not one you consider relevant
>regardless sex obsessed normies accuse you of being an angry virgin for criticizing their 100% perfect society
well shit

Are you saying that fascists didn't want to push women back into the domestic sphere? The Nazis in their propaganda stated that the duty of Aryan women to the state was to produce babies rather than work.

I don't think the "establishment" is really 'left'. Lukewarm centrist more like.

How do you tell the difference between an unjust monopolization and one that results from one group simply being smarter/more capable than the other.

> left wing establishment decided you shouldn't have one
What did he mean by this?

>fascist natsoc
>bringing down the establishment
you aren't doing a very good job are you

I love how socially incapable autists think they'd do better in some hard right social darwinist society. The only reason you haven't ALL hanged yourselves is because you live in a society that believes in coddling losers and insists that everyone's life is sacred.

He meant "I'm a worthless sack of flesh but I'll pretend it's because the meanie Cultural Marxists conspired to do this to me because the truth that I'm a spiritual and genetic failure is too painful".

Basically the source of all ideologies that blame personal worthlessness on evil outside forces (socialism, feminism, fascism, etc.)

>Are you saying that fascists didn't want to push women back into the domestic sphere? The Nazis in their propaganda stated that the duty of Aryan women to the state was to produce babies rather than work.
>Nazis
>Fascist

Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascist, question 14: Will Fascism Allow Opposition Parties to Exist?: ".....Men and Women will vote according to their industry or profession, not according to their locality."

Question of Voting: ."...once every 5 years, men and women will get a slip of paper saying Yes or No to the current government..."

Source: 100 Questions for Fascist by Oswald Mosley

The Italian Fascist killed pretty efficiently the inept liberal establishment.

>personal worthlessness
I thought the individual didn't exist in fascism ;^)

well to start with, we're assuming we have the same definition of the vacuous term modernism (what does it mean to you?)
>classicist
I think you mean classist in which case, yes, liberalism as originally conceived in the 19th century was classist/elitist. However, the liberals of that age believed that the hierarchy of wealth and status would be determined by meritocracy rather than conservative hierarchies determined by inherited wealth or privileges.

>So, following your logic, liberals were opposed to the Enlightenment because they opposed the political, social and economical aspects of the Ancien Régime?
Well, there is a difference between the Enlightenment (another contested word) and the Ancien Regime, though they were interrelated. There were enlightenment thinkers for and against the French and the other ancien regimes of Europe. Adam Smith, the chief ideologue of liberalism, was part of the Enlightenment. So I think you have to make your question clearer as I don't understand it.

I think they also aspired to eliminate any religiosity (or any independent social or cultural force) outside of the purview of the state. Mussolini was the one to coin the world "totalitarianism" to capture this vision of a state and people indistinguishable from each other.

Right; it draws those who want to forget how much they suck by immersing themselves in a collective. Fascism is pretty much just Marxism with a traditionalist coat of paint slapped on.

Thank you for all replies and being surprisely civilized. Most liberals/leftists/feminists (especially the latter) can't seem to hold a decent discussion. Anyways i'll try to explain my ideology (yet to be named) and list my counter-points to you (there are some really good questions). However i work in night shift as a security officer and have to rest now. I'll start to post again at 11 pm (UK time) if the thread doesn't die by that time. This board seems slow so it might survive.

OK, bb for now!

Mosley's movement was a unique variant of fascism which attracted a greater number of women than any other such movement in Europe at the time. So it's not surprising he was more accommodating toward them. Also, no offense but Mosley's movement was an abject failure.

>Most liberals/leftists/feminists (especially the latter) can't seem to hold a decent discussion
You can see how the discussion started turning to shit once this faggot started.

Look at this traditionalist Marxist filth! I bet da traditional cultural Marxist j00s are behind this!!!!

Also, here's another.

Mein Kampf, page 495, Stalag Edition, Chapter III: Citizens and Subjects of the State: "The German girl is subject of the state, but will become citizens when she marries. At the same time, those who have earned their living independently have right to aquire citizenship." Women under NSDAP could vote if married or self supported

wtf im #withAdolf now??

I'm not a leftist.

Hatred of the autism that is fascism is hardly specific to lefties.

No. Always, nice goal post changing, just because it was a failure doesn't mean Fascism untimely curb stomps women's rights.

By what standard are you judging Nazis as not fascist? Why does Oswald Mosley meet your definition of a fascist but not Hitler?

>British Union of Fascists
Gee, I wonder.

You can vocalize your hatred more eloquently than just going "hurr yall just a bunch of dumb virgs lmao"

This.
And philosophy of each movement. Fascist cared more about State than Race and National Socialist put Race/Nation above all.

Also, do you still stand by your statement on their view of women's rights?

I never said that the Nazis didn't want women to vote. I said that they wanted women to stay home and produce babies rather than work, which is what the "domestic sphere" usually means. A woman can be in the domestic sphere and still have the right to vote.