Yeah but nations often dont agree with the path that should be taken, the states entire function is to adjudicate.

I think it should be more pragmatic.

Internally agree, to clarify

Democracy or any form of represenative governance is very ineffective.

Gridlock, corruption, special interests....trivial concerns

But fascism is an exponent of representative government, at least thats what i gather from its intellectuals

They would tell you fascism is more "democratic" than democracy itself

Which in theory they're correct

However....

In practice history will dictate this isn't the case

I don't really subscribe to the aristotelian classifications of governmental structures so when I say representative I mean it literally, not necessitating democracy or republicanism, but the state making its interests congruent with the interests of the people.

Like I can get where they are coming from. Like Hitler and his idea of the Volkish state, but again, the national interests are often not `good`.

And I'll also acknowledge that qualifying `good` is a separate problem

It is

`It sounds horrible but frankly if there are people out there who want to shut me down or want to put this nation in danger, I want them out of here. Pack your crap and go!`
Also a side note on this, its not horrible, I tend to agree with Schmitt on the function of politics, put simply `us and them`

However if you notice the fascist states that existed then were bound a strong cult of personality

While Fascism emphasizes strong leadership, having a cult of personality is fundamentally flawed or be it rather it is a crap shoot

Hitler and Mussolini were too eager to get their countries into wars that they were ill-prepared for

I'd argue that it was the best time to go considering Hitler's goals. Commonwealth was at its weakest point, Germany at its strongest. If anything Hitler wasn't ruthless enough.

He avoided totally mobilizing the economy for far too long, he avoided saturation bombings on urban centers for too long as well.

I read somewhere it was because he was hoping for the UK to sign a peace with them but I cant substantiate that.

I'm not fond of Hitler or his ideas of National Socialism

So I have to disagree

What are some of your contentions with Hitler and National Socialism?

I agree with Devi's assertion that he was an avatar for the volk

Hitler was an idiot when he picked a fight with the Soviet Union while fighting on two fronts against the UK and in Africa. Not very smart that.

Hitler is the reason why Fascism has such a bad name and sitgmatized as it is.

I wouldn't blame Hitler for the stigma lol, blame your guy's enemies lol

But as for the campaign in the USSR

The campaign in geographic Russia was very strong, I personally attribute the failure of Fall Blau to their defeat in the war(ironically it failed because the general staff betrayed hitlers orders and tried to brute force moscow instead of achieve the actual strategic goal)

Also National Socialism as German-centric as it is would not work in a place like the US. The US is not monolithic.

Well National Socialism in its essence was Racialist Fascism(or even Dharmic Fasicsm), it could be used as a framework for anybody.

And for the US part, I'd say thats evident of the accelerating societal decline Western countries are facing

As Spengler puts it, the `civilization phase`

It's not practical

How is it not practical? I'm not even an exponent of it but I think the world saw its practicality manifest during its armed struggle against the world.

Where it fought extraordinarily well

Unless you can somehow breed the leftism out, the establishment of any ethnostate here in the US would be very costly

Are you a civnat?

or cultural nat however you want to call it

No