Converting a Fascist to AnCap

[Akashiax]

Hello everyone, I'm in a bit of a pickle. 

 

 

A little introduction... I have a friend, a good one for that matter. We've been friends since birth. Growing up, both of us always took the path less walked on; outcasts, so through school we were all we really had besides internet relationships. The time has come about in our lives where our beliefs and world views become a little more concrete. I've dipped in almost every ideology, trying to figure out where I stand exactly. Eventually I found Anarchism and it deeply resonated with me, especially after reading a few books such as "The Problem of Political Authority" by Michael Huemer, and of course listening to countless hours of Molyneux. My friend however, let's call him Jack, is heavy into Fascist ideologies such as National Socialism. I completely understand why one would support something like it. Purging impurities from nations, culturally rich, proud, etc. But in the end, force is force, and I would not want to be apart of that show if it ever came to town.

 

I could not think of a more intelligent community to answer this question. How do you go about converting one of these people? We've been debating a lot lately, and in my view, I made very good case. But I guess that's how everyone feels about what they strongly believe in. 

 

Hope to hear what you guys think. Thanks in advance. 

[Will Torbald]

Why do you care that he's a fascist? Unless he's throwing commies off helicopters he's as fascist as I am a golden retriever.

[dsayers]

If you haven't yet checked out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series, I recommend doing so now. The relevance here is that you cannot use logic, reason, or evidence to convince somebody out of a conclusion they didn't arrive at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. And if you challenge his conclusion and fail to convince him, you will actually strengthen his resolve in the conclusion. The opposite of your stated goal!

 

Until you understand WHY he's willing to support the use of violence to achieve his goals, you won't be able to influence that.

[A4E]

You can show people the door, but they have to go through it themselves. If they refuse to go through it or even open the door to see what is on the other side of it, then they have shown you all you need to know. There is no reason then to continue something that is clearly not going to work anyway. So you will not be able to convert him imo.

 

He might still be fairly young, (you did not clarify), which means that his views and opinions can change over years, but most likely not directly from talking with you. Though you have planted a seed.

 

For example, I was a somewhat fanatic climate alarmist around 10 years ago. Today I hold the complete opposite view now that I am enlightened thanks to people on internet. But your friend seems like a closed minded person, and I don't know how it is to be that, so I don't really know if there is any way for him to change his mind.

[Akashiax]

Why do you care that he's a fascist? Unless he's throwing commies off helicopters he's as fascist as I am a golden retriever.

The reason I care is because there is an ever growing fascist movement taking place in Europe, party due to the migrant crisis. Austria's polls are showing a majority for Fascism. He plans to travel there when they take up arms, he's willing to give his life to making this ideology come forth and be the law of the land. I fear for his safety you could say.

 

If you haven't yet checked out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series, I recommend doing so now. The relevance here is that you cannot use logic, reason, or evidence to convince somebody out of a conclusion they didn't arrive at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. And if you challenge his conclusion and fail to convince him, you will actually strengthen his resolve in the conclusion. The opposite of your stated goal!

 

Until you understand WHY he's willing to support the use of violence to achieve his goals, you won't be able to influence that.

Yes I have touched on the Bomb in the Brain series. I am noticing signs that the more I debate him, the more stable his beliefs become. Why he believes in a Fascist state sum'd up: Like I said in OP, purging impurities from society like degeneracy. Supports restrictions on breeding, for example if you're an African and you come to say Britain, you wouldn't be allowed to have offspring. A proponent of Nationalism, pride, etc. Having morals backed by force because he feels the average person cannot think logically and rationally for themselves. Believes Jews are behind a lot of the social problems and world events, etc. 

 

You can show people the door, but they have to go through it themselves. If they refuse to go through it or even open the door to see what is on the other side of it, then they have shown you all you need to know. There is no reason then to continue something that is clearly not going to work anyway. So you will not be able to convert him imo.

 

He might still be fairly young, (you did not clarify), which means that his views and opinions can change over years, but most likely not directly from talking with you. Though you have planted a seed.

 

For example, I was a somewhat fanatic climate alarmist around 10 years ago. Today I hold the complete opposite view now that I am enlightened thanks to people on internet. But your friend seems like a closed minded person, and I don't know how it is to be that, so I don't really know if there is any way for him to change his mind.

I agree that I've done my part, it's now up to him. He's currently around 20 years old, so yes, it's still possible for something to change in his philosophy. He's very open minded in my opinion, I haven't personally met a more intelligent being. I just feel 4chan/pol/ has programmed him in this way. I myself was once susceptible to the ideas he holds, but over time I did a lot of deep thinking which is natural for an introvert like myself, eventually I came through to the conclusion which most of us here hold.

[Will Torbald]

The reason I care is because there is an ever growing fascist movement taking place in Europe, party due to the migrant crisis. Austria's polls are showing a majority for Fascism. He plans to travel there when they take up arms, he's willing to give his life to making this ideology come forth and be the law of the land. I fear for his safety you could say.

 

Yes I have touched on the Bomb in the Brain series. I am noticing signs that the more I debate him, the more stable his beliefs become. Why he believes in a Fascist state sum'd up: Like I said in OP, purging impurities from society like degeneracy. Supports restrictions on breeding, for example if you're an African and you come to say Britain, you wouldn't be allowed to have offspring. A proponent of Nationalism, pride, etc. Having morals backed by force because he feels the average person cannot think logically and rationally for themselves. Believes Jews are behind a lot of the social problems and world events, etc. 

 

I agree that I've done my part, it's now up to him. He's currently around 20 years old, so yes, it's still possible for something to change in his philosophy. He's very open minded in my opinion, I haven't personally met a more intelligent being. I just feel 4chan/pol/ has programmed him in this way. I myself was once susceptible to the ideas he holds, but over time I did a lot of deep thinking which is natural for an introvert like myself, eventually I came through to the conclusion which most of us here hold.

 

You're still very blue pilled when it comes to race, IQ, culture, and present-time-tactics. I know that's not an argument, only a statement, but I think it is you who should understand your friend more because I'm sure he already undersands libertarianism since it's dead simple. Also, """"""fascism"""""" as you call it has been dilluted to mean "liberal welfare state with controlled borders" which is not like my great grandparents fascism.

[dsayers]

Having morals backed by force because he feels the average person cannot think logically and rationally for themselves.

Well, it's not moral if it's backed by violence.

 

So he believes that since people cannot be trusted, we should give a few people a monopoly on violence? That's antithetical.

[luxfelix]

I'd also add that providing the example within yourself can fertilize the seeds you plant from the questions you ask.

[Carl Green]

Be sure to place more importance on understanding your friends beliefs and why he believes them, than on proving any logical point.

 

You want them to be curious about what you're talking about, show them how it's done so they're curious regarding what you're putting forth.

[LovePrevails]

Hello everyone, I'm in a bit of a pickle. 

 

 

A little introduction... I have a friend, a good one for that matter. We've been friends since birth. Growing up, both of us always took the path less walked on; outcasts, so through school we were all we really had besides internet relationships. The time has come about in our lives where our beliefs and world views become a little more concrete. I've dipped in almost every ideology, trying to figure out where I stand exactly. Eventually I found Anarchism and it deeply resonated with me, especially after reading a few books such as "The Problem of Political Authority" by Michael Huemer, and of course listening to countless hours of Molyneux. My friend however, let's call him Jack, is heavy into Fascist ideologies such as National Socialism. I completely understand why one would support something like it. Purging impurities from nations, culturally rich, proud, etc. But in the end, force is force, and I would not want to be apart of that show if it ever came to town.

 

I could not think of a more intelligent community to answer this question. How do you go about converting one of these people? We've been debating a lot lately, and in my view, I made very good case. But I guess that's how everyone feels about what they strongly believe in. 

 

Hope to hear what you guys think. Thanks in advance. 

 

perhaps I can put him in touch with my friend Tam who was a fascist but became a libertarian since he would know what changed his opinion

mauybe

[youzer]

Your friend is a fan of violence.  Beat him silly until he complies.

[GenellanBound]

Where have his views been in the past?

 

There's a big difference between authoritarians that have gone past being libertarians and authoritarians who never bought into those ideas, at least as far as effective arguments.

[Absit]

Ask questions. Listen to him. Ask more, thought provoking, questions. Let him change his own mind. 

You trying to change his mind seems a bit misguided. 

 

 

That said: I think there's more than a few similarities between anarchism and fascism. It's just that the principles change between individual and nation.

[NotDarkYet]

If you want a clincher argument - you're gonna have to go DEEP.

 

Read UPB.

[LovePrevails]

OP has disappeared

[theunbeholden]

If you haven't yet checked out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series, I recommend doing so now. The relevance here is that you cannot use logic, reason, or evidence to convince somebody out of a conclusion they didn't arrive at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. And if you challenge his conclusion and fail to convince him, you will actually strengthen his resolve in the conclusion. The opposite of your stated goal!

 

Until you understand WHY he's willing to support the use of violence to achieve his goals, you won't be able to influence that.

 

The violence I believe is a form of self-defence, it can be a pro-active form of preventation by providing the death penality against those likely to commit murder or rape within statistical groupings. I think that people without access to information or a stable environment tend to either retreat from society or become unstable and lash out at people they care about. Another pro-active selfdefence is having protections against international free trade that promotes trade deficits & unemployment as well as from illegal immigrants from under cutting wages or other forces that will try and institute usury & currency controls, Sharia law etc This route of nationalist protections makes mandatory the moral obligations to protect those unable to afford legal representation or unable to work, to protect environment and endagered species, and to protect the native cultural, religious and racial composition or work ethic, political, social and moral values from being overtaken by others seeking their own social revolution or to vote for radical change. That possibility seems highly likely considering that the creation of govts (be it democracy or dictatorship) and by extension a dominant bank and court system is the single most popular & powerful form of political organisation and most likely will continue to be that way.

 

The risk of a govt turning on its own people or becoming unsustainable overbearing bureacracy is just as dangerous and with the exception of Switzerland, has not been historically kept in check. However the most fundamental value of any society is in labor and shared/communal interests that people instinctively wish to protect *unless there is free doctrination to change it* that we call moral obligations. I hope that makes sense because I'm not exactly a philosopher but I do take morality & justice seriously.

 

   

    Well, it's not moral if it's backed by violence.

 

    So he believes that since people cannot be trusted, we should give a few people a monopoly on violence? That's antithetical.

 

If people are irrational/untrustworthy as he claims they are there may be exceptions based on high standards of physical and mental ability to prove that one has the ability to act for the betterment of society. Consistency and experience could be factors. Does that remove irrationality? No, but accountability can minimize the damage of such positions such as preventing gatekeeping through transparency, several people doing similiar jobs to cross check errors and potential abuses of power, a culture that supports it, civil society organisations, free press & organisations that provide protections for whistleblowers in more sensitive areas. A system designed with false-safes in mind is necessary for attaining something close to perfection in practice. What is possible in theory tends to be only possible in practice if everyone has the same mindset. Nationalism is the great equalizer so there is always a limit to the form and quantity of competing mindsets hence why it is preferable over marxism that forces everyone to be the same. If people are irrational does it mean that some people are incapable of rising above it through the application of skills and experience? If past behaviour is the best method of determining future behaviour than that may maximise the chances that someone will act rationality but does not eliminate it. I think the answer then lies in the system's ability to account for it. The point of a system then is to as much as possible account for potential problems & restructure itself accordingly. My addendum to that would be to have some clear limits set in place.

 

As far as I can see some people are smarter and stronger than others. Only the most persuasive, commanding & cunning individuals with the best ideas can win in a environment that selects for this qualities, those unsuitable will never move past the initial barriers that such competition breeds. Rules/regulations for having a certain level of IQ, physical ability, clean criminal record, history in military service or achievements in public service roles would provide for this.

 

The use of force would be minimized within a society due to a similiar culture, creed, religion, race & similiar history and pride in a shared interests of nationhood that is typically called cultural traditionalism. The religion aspect is what constitutes the higher order of morality, the internalising of ethical standards of conduct due to the value of virtues or fear of condemnation while the racial & cultural solidarity along with freemarket principles of private ownership & enforceable contracts provides the work ethic. See the many arguments of those responsible for violence, ie broken homes by singlemotherhood welfare, illegals that form criminal gangs that are allowed to operate due to a lack of border protection and protection of the gene pool and a sever lack of incentive in rooting out & solving national health problems like mental illness. Then theres also protecting the environment and endangered animals. Logic and reason would have its place to support the shared values of nationhood, to show the benefits and irregularities. There would have to be a high value placed on science by promoting it through grants, scholarships and subisidization rather the social sciences. It is favouritism yes for the native population, the historically dominant group is allowed access but highly restrictive for those that are not part of that group, but rather than restrictive public regulations on the native group there is instead beneficial public services paid through taxation/use-of-force like the one I mentioned. I believe promoting racial awareness is essential element of such a society & the promotion of other projects that aim at minimising harm. This requires a restructuring of what exactly is the public good in a much more narrow sense and a consistent and strong cultural lexicon to carry it.

 

What I would be for however to deviate from fascism (which is essentially Absolutism and Mercantalism) is in the minimizing state power in the form of what its legitimate function may be, eg no welfare or federal healthcare/education, instead I would allow it all to be completely local so that would be my deviation. A more effective constutitional republic, with high standards for public services entry that promotes a stronger form of nationalism. Some level of social security for those unable to work is fine. I understand there are issues of violence begets more violence like the enroachment of individual liberties, increasing entitlements, state education or healthcare and punishment of victimless crimes hence why I'm not on board with the fascists. However I don't see how liberterianism can enforce cultural/social/racial/religious cohesion if there is lacking border security or protectionism from international free trade & currency controls. I value Libertarianism in moral consistency and free markets domestically but not beyond its borders. There has to be cohesive cultural identity to rally behind that can be reliably protected, if free movement and free trade is championed then it risks not only much higher level of corporate inversion & capital flight then merely the 15-20% currently but more importantly it leaves people in a desperate situation for those unable to move to other nations or adapt to those societies. Reducing the size of the middleclass and increasing unemployment. The mobility of capital is limited across borders, more businesses will move to more lucrative & competitive markets leaving a culturally weakened people behind vulnerable to 50%+ Islamic population to install Sharia law, socialists/communists of russian or hispanic decent to have their social revolution, or Judaism to continue its usury & debt slavery through a monopoly over currency. The order of society would change based on the peoples it is made up of which as unfair as it is, it is the reality and anything that goes in the way of that has to be defeated. My hope here is that we can atleast coexist & find a moral consistency in the form of consquentalism, anti-globalism, anti-equalitarianism and anti-communism. Communism in all its forms includes the third wave feminism & political correctness. The desire to live morally consistently through voluntary interaction may be possible in the movement and goals of libertarianism but it is difficult to preserve a environment that is capable of protecting peoples health, safety and happiness without some form of govt.

 

I know capitalism is self-interest that by nature of it becomes beneficial to everyone involved but we've seen distortions in the market as a result supremacists gaining powerful positions and only giving power to other people fitting that racial/religious belief system, so you could say that white supremacy became the equalizer to those older belief systems. This disappeared in favor of globalism, leftist idealogy (non-values that serve merely to bring about communism) and of course usury (in Islam usury is Hallal which upsets the jews but also when someone tries to nationalise currency control like when Saddam Hussein & Qadaffi was deposed & now were seeing it again with Putin). Racialism and nationalism may get people of the christian, european nationality with roman civil law, to begin to care about themselves, their family, religion and nation again framed in 21st identity politics. The only way that anti-racism could work is if every group accepted that as a ideal in both theory and in practice but theres mountains of evidence that it has not happened and probably never will unless there is somekind of massive global hivemind forced education system & a destruction of religion and culture as the Marxists would have it, which would only lead to long-term poverty. Libertarianism may win in terms of achieving morally consistent lassez faire markets, but I doubt it would eliminate the need for govt to preserve our unity and to preserve the middleclass. The safety, trust and consistency that it brings which has arisen out of that evolution of instinctial tribalism. Now going back to violence, are we inherently violent or is an idealogy with nationalism violent? The spears would be facing outwards not within.

 

 

 

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

As somebody who has transitioned from Fascist to Min-archist and considering full AnCap, I could offer a few tips;

 

First off; did Jack become a Fascist because he hated seeing how his people and the land of his ancestors were being raped by foreigners? Was it the weakness and unmanliness of the modern man? Or was it because he believed Fascistic systems are simply better able to address the immediate needs of the population than a democratic system, i.e., efficiency of a dictatorship as compared to a desire for revenge against a stampeding horde.

 

If the first is the case merely present how the Free Market led to the growth and power of the Roman and British Empires, then point out that when the government starts to regulate that market and class bait for power, it winds up destroying it. Therefore since Fascism is essentially a populist movement, it cannot avoid succumbing to typical centrally planned disasters. Or if he's into National Socialism in particular, ask him "What is National Socialism's economic policy?" and if his answer is more or less "central planning", then point out why Socialism is inferior to Capitalism for building and sustaining an empire.

 

Second; after convincing him that central planning and overbearing governments simply fail meet on any level what the Free Market can accomplish, aim for tackling everything he thinks a government should handle (from healthcare to pensions to roads, all the way to the military) until he comes to the conclusion that governments are themselves disposable and not the nucleus of a White ethnostate. From here anarchism and the NAP can be argued.

 

However all this is assuming he arrived at NatSoc as his solution based on how great Europe used to be when it was "racist and imperialistic" compared to "materialistic, cynical, and culture-less" today. 

 

If he simply wants to kill Muslims for the sake of those that have suffered in the past century, then you cannot stop him. A man will sooner die fighting for a lost cause than suffer in patience, especially if he loses faith in victory (i.e. prosperity for his people) by any other means. 

 

But...if you can make the case that AnCap is what would be best for White people and White culture, he might consider it. However you must live the values you preach. And if you're not willing to live the values of a White Nationalist AnCap then you will fail to convince a man who considers anyone who is White but is not basically living or at least moving towards the ideal White life of marrying a White woman, raising at least 3 White children, etc. etc. middle class and all that, then you'd just be a "degenerate" in his eyes (or at least someone who is not a moral authority).

 

 

Mind you I can relate to Jack since I've had those feelings, but what I prescribed as means of changing his mind were my own processes of transitioning out of State Fascism and into what might be called a compromise between White Nationalism and Anarcho-Capitalism. 

[Tyler H]

Have you heard of/tried the against me argument?