Every so often I'll encounter a niche Conservative who advocates for the a quasi "Nazi Germany" model, as the solution to preventing a Leftist take-over of any future civilizations. For example, here is a fellow named "Brett Stevens", who proposes a Statist idea based on these four pillars:

1. Nationalism
2. Aristocracy
3. Capitalism
4. A Transcendental Goal

He goes on to remark:



To me, this is quite literally the definition of State Fascism: a strong national identity, a ruling elite class, and State-directed capitalism which is guided towards the nation's mission.

And I don't say "State Fascism" as a dismissive pejorative: I'm not employing an ad hominem-- I'm merely using it as a descriptive term. After all, there are pros and cons to any system. Further, Stevens has very reasonable commentary regarding competing models which you can read here-- including a valid critique of my own beloved liberalism.

That aforementioned criticism, incidentally, reminds me of the old book "A Critique of Pure Tolerance", which made the rational argument that pure tolerance, including of those who are intolerant, will simply result in the intolerant taking over the society, and destroying the tolerant.

Stevens gives a hypothetical example involving the Amish: if the Left wanted to destroy them, the Left would simply send a gay black orphan into the society, followed by a single New York Times article: "Meet Lars, the boy the Amish hated just because he was gay." The Amish would be gone within a month.

The problem I have with these "State Fascism" kinds of solutions is that they-- by definition-- are totally repressive towards anyone who deviates from the narrative. Heck, the Left is instituting Stevens' own model right now:

They have their transcendental goal-- the enforcement of the "victimhood olympics" religion-- and are using State political power plus directed capitalism ("it's no longer enough for corporations to just make money-- they need to be 'a force for good'"), while violently putting down people with values contrary to "SJW Nation"-- such as Brett Stevens himself.

If my reading of him is correct-- and I think it is-- Stevens should be endorsing what the Left are doing at the moment, not lamenting it: they are instituting his own model!

That's not to say that pure liberalism-- "cuckservatism"-- is a great model either. I suppose what would be best, would be a modification of Libertarianism, which would consider anti-liberal espousings to be some kind of threat of force, in and of themselves: this would keep the society "purely liberal", which would prevent a takeover by illiberal collectivists such as Leftists (or Brett Stevens!).

At the same time, it itself wouldn't be a "cure worse than the disease", with soul-crushing police state apparati and gulags-- because those aspects would also be illiberal.

In other words, it'd be a society with one inviolable Mega Law: "Everyone is an individual." Espousing any kind of collectivism would be the one thing which the society would immediately squash.

Naturally, all of these musings are moot: every society, no matter the model, tends to collapse in two or three hundred years at the longest; and, societies and political systems arise from the bottom up, not the top-down-- whereas the above discourse is all prescriptive: purely academic.