Shit……maybe they have a point, bros……

Shit……maybe they have a point, bros……

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/gRdfX7ut8gw
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

sage goes in email

...

did bum tickley write this

First of all, why do far-rightists believe that having a strong government is the best way to preserve culture ?
Strong governments in my country have destroyed local cultures by forcing everyone to speak the same language, banned the use of dialects by children in schools, and even encouraged teachers to mock peculiar accents so pupils would learn an uniform way of talking across all the territory.
A communalist system really makes more sense if you really want to preserve cultures.

Moreover, capitalism, which fascists don't want to abolish, has destroyed things like traditional music and folklore by allowing the manufacturing of a popular culture in a top-down fashion by the capitalist class, often removed from traditions, or reifying them into inauthentic commodities.
I only see a heap of contradiction tbh.

I was with you until this point, and was willing to ignore the communialism meme you spouted too.

It's just so sad how 21st century nationalists imagine themselves as being 19th century liberal wagecucks.

...

Because without a strong government, it is impossible to have borders able to resist the flow of millions of third worlders, and resisting this flow is the only way to avoid the fate of Haiti or South Africa. Obviously, just having because the government is strong, it don't mean it will be willing to act for the greater good of the country.

To build a log cabin, you need an axe, but the axe can also be used by a psychopath to kill you.

Fascists want the government to contain the destructive forces of capitalism. Want to frag the soil so you can make some money? Sorry bro, you won't. Want to make a sexually loaded show with underage girls? Go to the US if you want to do that.

I think a nazi made this picture to secretly let a red pill go in your ass.

sorry, bookchin is the only hope the left have today.

have you been to the US?
have you been to a less capitalist country than the US?

Literally nothing in the last panel contradicts what the dog said. Just one long feels argument

tsk tsk

Dear god. What must it be like to be incapable of rational thought?

How does the author not see the problem here?

Understanding is assumption!

Circular reasoning at its finest.

This has to be the product of mental illness.

...

What I meant by this stupid term is that traditions are often used by producers of cultural products only driven by profit as readymade tropes and means to give cred to their contents for a certain market segment (conservatives and old people).
They don't transmit folklore for its own sake, but distorts it to make profit and attract consumers.
There is no doubt that, for example, there are some people who sell records for the niche of people who are really interested by traditional music because they really into it themselves, but they are also bad capitalists usually because they don't make much profits.

I'm not saying communalism is the best system ever, just that having a system of communes makes more sense than a strong central government if your main goal is to protect culture. I haven't read much Bookchin yet tbh.

This. Words words words muh muh muh.

There is one very crucial thing that I have never understood about reactionaries: how can anyone be a nationalist but oppose modernity?

...

oops my shitposting symbol

le nebulous concepts face

Acting for the good of the country is only the ostensible function of a state. Its actual function is always, always, always to serve dominant economic interests. That is because fictional entities like states cannot act of their own accord; the actions that we ascribe to the state are in fact the actions of real individuals who are motivated primarily by self-interest.

Every culture have it's traditions, but I am part of only one culture, and in every culture traditions is a tool keeping society united.

We let spooks exist because they are useful to us.

And the notion of family is pretty much the same everywhere, a biology book for highschoolers will tell you why.

You know, for a group of people that hates the jews, they sure use a lot of jewy concepts.
vid related
youtu.be/gRdfX7ut8gw

You can tell that reactionaries are retards trying to emulate what they think intelligent people sound like when you see them post these walls of text like the one in the last panel which basically take three or four paragraphs just to express "I beleive we should do X or Y because reasons"

If only we could add a common cause uniting all the people inside the country, then the few in charges would have no choices but to not go against this common cause.

You can't be serious. You just can't.

No one thinks that way. The culture belongs to the people and a gov (of any size) should protect it
Yes destruction of a culture is bad no matter 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧who🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 engages in it
It would yes but to bad its unsustainable in almost every other way
Ok pop culture is very often rejected, and currently more so. Now days the only pop culture consumers are niggers and kids who have yet to grow out of it. Traditional culture is threatened mostly by mixing with those that do not share similar culture

Biology books tell me that humans were originally communally raised. The idea of a nuclear family is quite a recent one in human development.

Good job retard

It is though. Family and dynasty is one of the only aspects humans have in common.

Are you circumcized? because you're really autistic.

Fucking lel. Causes do not motivate the state. The material interests of the ruling class do. The only way to change that is to overthrow the ruling class.

Without borders you undermine the entire material basis of capitalism and then there is no reason for the migration crises we are experiencing now you massive sperg

Then you can finally be a niggers sex slave like you've always wanted>>1739811

Not really no

Agreed we have to get rid of the dirt worshiping savages first

If any of these "traditionalists" have even read Evola they would realize that traditional values were already being bastardized as "Western values" became a solidified thing. They are not even inherent to the West anymore, Japan, South Korea etc.
“liberalism and constitutionalism unavoidably pave the way for democracy, which in turn paves the way for socialism, which in turn paves the way for radicalism and finally for communism” (Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World p. 341-342). If we look closely at Evola’s theory, nationalism inevitably leads to collectivization since the two concepts are conducive to group mentality and in-thinking. “The plebeian feeling of the Motherland that triumphed with the French Revolution and was developed by nationalistic ideologies as the mysticism of the common folk and the sacred and omnipotent Motherland is nothing less than the revival of a form of feminine totemism;” “Regardless of its myths, the substance of modern nationalism is not an ethnos but a demos, and its prototype always the plebeian one produce by the French Revolution” (Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World p. 326 and p. 339).

you're right. reactionaries are too stupid to create a compelling argument, so they rely on trying to sound more polite, common-sensey, even handed. It's why you often see them reply to communist threads with wall of text jpgs from Mises that are complete non-sequitors, like "Alienation is a cosmological jewish fallacy" and "Marxism is undeniably the evolution of the failed philosophic of Plotinus (ever heard of him? Yeah.)" I would say the entire "LTV is debunked line" of argument is an extension of this.

Bull-fucking-shit. The structure and concept of the "family" varies wildly from place to place and from time to time. There is absolutely nothing consistent about it.

Nice fake history book. Does it include a peer reviewed source?

Our knowledge of the very ancient world only go as far as the written documents goes.
At the time of the Hammurabi code, the nuclear family was around.

Capitalists work hard to undermine the national barriers. How do you explain that?

No, you adapted to a culture. You aren't part of it. You only give it providence over you. Because you are incapable of asserting your own autonomy, or have no will to, you submit to the spook like a dog.

Except traditional cultures fall apart as well, so that's a joke.


Useful for you and people that think like you, specifically. Not everyone cares about having a racially pure waifu, and cares to be restrained by phantoms of the past.


lol
No it isn't.
It depends on the specific time period and geographical place you live in.

He doesn't prove the dog wrong. He just says that European values were developed over a long period of time. He doesn't prove that his idea of traditional western values were held by anyone but a romantic ruling class, or that his idea of traditional western values were held by traditional western people.

The family unit started to arise with the invention of farming and raising livestock became a innovation. People didn't have to be nomadic so they were able to settle in one good place (usually by the water) and started to divide themselves into separate clans/tribes etc.

You see, Professor Ranke, we have this scientific disciple now called "archeology" that covers a lot of that.

That's quite recent, anonkun.

The dynasties in Medieval Europe, in the Ancient Greece, in the even more ancient Egypt, in the exotic Indian civilization or the even more exotic Chinese one work the same.

Beside some savages in the forest, I can't think of a different version of the family. Stop claiming nothing have value.

Are you the scheduled emtertainment for the afternoon?

We only stared to stand on our feet recently. Should we live in trees?
We only started to use tools recently. Should we stop?

I don't care. user said 'originally'.

What does a broken vase tell you about social structure? We only knew they were animists and in some case had cannibal rituals.

Originally we were a collection of amine acids in a bubble of mud.

We should probably not base our lives from something that far from us.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you a crusader for the virtues of the "traditional" EXTENDED family? Because all of those societies that you listed employed varients of the extended family.

I don't care, user. I can tell you the ancient Greeks fought with AK-47s, if you like, and when you tell me otherwise I can tell you that AKs are better weapons. We can do this all night.

The biggest threat to continental European culture is the 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧eternal Anglo🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 nowadays.
I'm even write in their fucking language right now, scheiße.
Muslims and North-African stay in their little communities but have very few influence on "white culture". We don't watch Arab movies, listen to Arab music and read Arab books, but American ones. They build mosquees, true, but other than that they just stay in their neighborhoods with their kebab shops and do their thing.

Anyway, I'm tired to have this debate every other day, this has nothing to do with Marxism or anarchism. I want to talk about capitalism, not this shit. I think I will try to make something better out of my limited time on this planet now.

Volumns! Are you kidding? Seriously, are you trolling?

Hey!
Living in mud was part of our traditon.
We need to go back to it.

Show me a peer reviewed source proving it was not the norm before.

I you want to mean "back when we were monkeys", as far as I know animal behavior and even if few of them keep the same male/female couple for life, for mammals and birds having a stable male/one or more female per reproduction cycle is the norm.

Fishes on the other hand are degenerates.

Humans evolved around 200,000 BC. Hummarabi code was around 1700 BC.
If i knew anything about math i would say that 1700 BC is closer to today than 200,000 BC was to 1700 BC

This. you can tell whoever wrote this is trying to sound smart. he pointlessly use "his (or her)" only to in the very same sentence incorrectly use "they". being female shouldn't even be a parenthetical, as if it were some exception. just his or her.

He also abuses capitalization (nihilism, the modern world, and traditional western values are not proper nouns) and pointlessly constructs "hyper-hedonistic" where just hedonism makes more sense.

This is literal substanceless virtue signalling.

Wasn't that just homo erectus? I don't think that homo sapiens became distinct until about fifty-thousand years BP.

Are you only talking about pair bonding when you say 'family unit'?

No, homo sapien skeletons have been found that date back 200,000 years ago.

Haha holy fuck. Yes other animals like swans do pair bonding so do humans. The family is a relatively new but that doesn't mean we should go back

OK
this has to be a shitpost.
There's no way…

Become one with the fish
OOO POSEIDON

A MAN OF THE SEA

He doesn't actually address the dog's point. To posit an immutable, monolithic, ahistorical "Western culture" makes no sense whatsoever and his rant does not disprove any of that. Of course you can argue that what "Western culture" stands for was shaped by many different actors and events in the past, but then you'd have to ignore how these mixed and clashed — and white nationalists specifically would have to gloss over the influence of say Judaic and Islamic philosophy over so-called Western culture.

Besides, most of what a white nationalist would call "Western culture" — philosophy, politics, commerce, technology, warring, architecture, literature, music, etc — effectively was the product of a tiny ruling class be it only because for most of its history, the vast majority of Europeans were peasants and could neither read nor write.

I think it's a reference to Footnote, required autismcore watching.

(You)

As Žižek said:

No, it isn't. Not only does it vary over space but so does it over time and class. Do you seriously believe peasants and aristocrats in 15-century France had the same family structure?

Really gets my noggin joggin

Left: niggers
Right: humans

...

please sage

I know it's a lot more nuanced than "humans vs Orcs".

...

There is no love in family, only struggle and lies.

200,000 BC-10,000: no evolution
1700 BC: okay, we have evolution now

Do you want a hug?

This is literally nothing but a Holla Forums variation on Clinton's "cut it out". Your one and only take on the issue of capitalism is that the state will ask capitalists to not act like capitalists and everything will go according to plan.

Today I'd manage with a single bullet to the back of my head.

Successful troll is successful

I have a strong desire to get these girls out of their traditional garb and into slutty outfits and pressuring them to become strippers.

Fuck am I hard now.

Yes they do have a point. I am an anarachist and a nationalist.
Creating ethno states is completely pointless now, because for melleniums that interracial banging happens. Besides there's many people in my country which never met any other culture. I consider this people to be the same as me. I had many examples of people integrated in our society and they share the same mentality. Regardless fo the color of their skin.
As opposed to many people from other european countries, who may live here for many decades and never bothered to even try to fit in.
I believe in descentralized government and creating city-states which then through culture, keeps the nation strong and together.
I don't think nations are spooks, because i live in a nation that has existed for 878 years and i would like to see it reaching 900 and beyond, as long as i am alive. I don't want to leave, i like being here, always have and i always will.

I enjoyed when in my early teen years, back in the early 00's, i remember seeing on tv actual left wing people fighting globalism meetings from the G8. They looked fearless and determined. What happened to thsoe people? Why has the left become so anti nationalist, pro-EU(but with reforms), pro-globalism(but global communism). I do not like these concepts at all.
I do liek other people, i do not consider my country to be better or worst than other. I want the world to be rich in all sorts of cultures.

Stirnerfags are cancer. They want to force everybody to live in a standardized globe. They are as bad as the nazis, who are fake nationalists and want to build empires, or wish they country to be occupied by Germany.
They are as bad as neo liberal globalists who want to make everything the same.
It's easier to build socialism on each nation and perhaps one day if everyone is in favour reach full internationalism. But if some places which to reject western notiosn of how nations should work, it's their will and should never be frowned upon.

I'm pretty sure those are fairly ordinary girls who just happened to be wearing traditional clothing because they were involved in some sort of cultural event. Nobody in Europe actually dresses like that anymore.

Holy shit nigga, are you going to post the exact same copypasta in every thread? We get it, you're a national-anarchist — and again, that's retarded and no amount of Gothic architecture is going to change any of that.

I'm pretty sure they are advocating government regulation and laws.
Regardless I think the economy should take on a guild socialist or mutualists character to stop the destructive force of capitalism

Says the nationalist

'Kay. I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of the nuclear family, but I doubt the West is the only culture ever to have it.


Some traditions are useful/beneficial, and may even remain useful/beneficial as we progress towards a less exploitative societal/economic model. Some. Not all. Traditionalism as envisioned by the kind of mongs who would wear a White Pride shirt in the first place is usually little more than using appeals to "tradition" to justify being utterly fucking backwards.

Yea, like SocDems.

You can't legislate capitalism away, fam. Force all the laws you want unto it, capitalism will remain a force that seeks endless exploitation and global scope.

Would you rather live in some communal tribe or under Hammarabi?

Fascists don't care about your concept of muh exploitation. They want to mitigate other problems arising from capitalism which can be accomplished with legislation.
Ultimately though I agree with you. Even the changes fascists want to make can never really be solved until it is completely destroyed.

In the vaguest possible way of people being born from the same people being related, but what constitutes 'family' and how varies drastically between cultures.

Why are you trad cucks so fucking ignorant about literally everything you ever talk about

Even the concept of nuclear family changes depending on the author. Latino families tend to encompass grandparents and sometimes even uncles and cousins. Or used to, anyway, as the American atomized family is preading accross the globe.

"Sometimes people have grand parents live with them sometimes they dont therefor the concept of family is completely different and totally not universal"

Nuclear family is just a buzzword. Nobody really gives a shit who all lives in what house. It doesn't really change the concept of who your family is or anything substantial.
When people say preserving the nuclear family what they mean is making sure family stays relevant and meaningful in people's lives

a set of values from an aristocratic class cannot serve as a common uniting cause. only resolving class contradictions can do this, aka building socialism

I have to disagree, it very much matters "how many people live in a house". It has to do with community, or as you say, making sure family stays relevant in people's lives. One of the biggest, largely ignored issues in the world today is the death of communities, fueled part by industrialization, but mostly by capitalism. Unfortunately, the nuclear family, being the most immediate community, is also dying, and the number of individuals in a household is part of it.

The nuclear family in the Anglosphere itself has been shrinking since at least the industrial revolution. It used to be a bit closer to Latino families, but material conditions, and a bit of cultural conditioning, have chipped it away to almost nothing. Now it's basically father, mother and one child, sometimes too – and that's assuming it's not a single-parent household. (Ironically, the aut-right now wants to preserve the nuclear family right when it's at its worst and weakest, because they're dimwits who think it was always like this.)

Contact with not-so-distant relatives and older generations gets more and more rare, and there's an increasing dependence on nursing homes to take care of the elderly, which was once a task the entire, bigger family of yesterday shared, which made it manageable and "free", not to mention infinitely healthier for the care-receiver. Now, those who can't afford a nursing home often have to take care of their parent(s) by themselves, which can be a physically and overwhelming task. Parents of severely disabled children have a similar burden.

The bigger family provided a very important support network, in fact the first such network an individual could count on, not just for the healthcare issues I used as an example above, but also for financial help, emotional support etc. And now it's nearly gone; the current, tiny nuclear family is barely emotionally intimate within itself. Soon enough there might no even be a nuclear family at all. Capitalism once relied on it, but has started to destroy it a while ago, because it can't help but spread alienation. We're already more alienated than ever from our neighborhoods, countries, workplaces, societies at large etc., and soon enough, we'll be deprived of the strongest and oldest social bond, our most immediate relatives themselves. We'll be alienated from our parents, siblings and children. The nuclear family will give way to atomized individuals (yeah I know the analogy doesn't hold). And once we're all finally completely socially alienated and isolated, Porky will commodify those missing human bonds and sell them back to us.

I generally agree about your point of the breakdown of the family but for western people the familial structure has always been nuclear. However, the familiar community and importance has been severely degraded due to capitalism. Families no longer work together in the same place, even mothers are no longer with their children. And even though it was only a two generational household they almost always lived and worked with their relatives sharing a tight knit community and responsibilities.
However I don't see how Marxism offers a solution. The alienation we saw with the shift from aristocratic to mercantile power structue will only be worsened by a shift to a worker based one. Most Marxists I've heard from seem to regard these bonds and other parts of what used to make a meaningful life as spooks which will be dissipated after the revolution.

No you're a shithead, actually. an-nat is a meme, it's nazifag entryism and you fell for it like the moron you are.
and there it is

my fucking sides, nazifags really are retarded
The terms aren't interchangable, dumbshit. nihilism is the lack of values, whereas hedonism states that only pleasure is the source of all value. In short, pic related.

meant to also include

Not him but you're a nitpicking fuck. He clearly wasn't referring to the philosophical movement. He was talking about the tendency to overindulge in bodily pleasure at the cost of all else.

You're right, orthodox Marxism doesn't deal with it, maybe it's too much of a cultural issue for it, you know how materialist it is. Even in the alienation issue, Marx thought it was just a matter of collectivizing ye olde means of production, but I don't think that would solve all of it.

But socialism at large has probably delved more often into these issues. I recall an instance of one of these experimental colonies in the Americas, one called Cecília, in Brazil. It was anarchist and, very unusually, promoted free love since it started in 1890. As you might guess, it didn't work for a million reasons, not the least of which because most members tried but couldn't deal with the emotional issue involved with free love because they couldn't shake the traditional family mentality, and it was abandoned in 1893. I remember this because one of its creators would later say something to the effect of: "If I could choose to destroy a single institution in human society, it would be the family". Unfortunately I can't remember the source, so I don't know if he meant "nuclear family" or just "family".

Anyway, the downfall of old society and rise of a new one would present the perfect opportunity to introduce a new "social cell", or at least regenerate the moribund nuclear family. I only recently discovered that the solution I had "invented" already had a name and everything: phalanstery. The inventor, a Utopian socialist, had a fairly different view from mine tho, as he envisioned a micro-city of sorts, a community of mutually-supportive families and individuals. They would live in a huge building, with private quarters but mostly common areas, which included even libraries and workshops for carpentry, forgery etc. sustaining its own micro-economy in order to pay for collective maintenance costs. Basically, a condo on steroids.

My idea was much scaled down from that: a building surrounding the entire perimeter of a block like these stereotypical old European blocks, with an open area inside. The building, obviously, would house all the rooms of a common modern house, with private quarters, and communal most everything else, but no economical activity. The main difference tho, is that it would house several families that shared blood (thus extended family) or simple non-blood kinship, and they were collectivelly responsible for rearing kids and taking care of the elderly and mildly sick. I figure that it could make for a very close-knit community, bridging the gap between the basic support network of the family and the larger, possibly too abstract support network of the State. Basically, a house with a big Latino family on steroids.

So then, how much bullshit am I spewing here? Does this idea have merit or should I be gulagged for wasting public resources?

yes. stfu gay nigger faggot