Do I have to go full racism to become a NazBol/Asserite? I like some of the ideas but many of my comrades IRL are PoC

Thanks for the dank platitude with no actual counter-argument or content behind it

I agree. I recently got out of nationalism for a simple reason. The liberals of the left claim that letting in immigrants and refugees is good because of their situation at home. Though in reality, it is just cheap labor for the bourgeoisie. The right liberals claim that bringing in the immigrants and the refugees only brings problems here and doesn't solve problems there. This is true, but this also promotes racial division and thus protects the bourgeois. The real solution to the immigration and refugee crisis is global revolution to fix the problem in their home countries. By that point, nationalism seems useless. That's when I became full communist.

Pride in what you built as nation = patriotism. Blindly following your country's expansionary interests while chauvinistically deeming others as inferior = nationalism. You bring up a good point though, but watch the nomenclature

Um….how?

Then why do nationalists blindly worship their governments?

There are different concepts of a nation. While in english 'nation' is synonymous with the nationstate, in other cultures nation means something different, the notion of the nation that emerged in the french revolution was more oriented towards the nation = the people not the state. The same goes for slavic/eastern european countries. In eastern european countries the nation and nationalism is often far removed from adoration of the state but rather the solidarity of the community. Like the nazi 'volk' but without necessarily an ethnonationalist element.

It's a fucking meme that has gone too far. I hate fun policing, but mods need to start cracking down more on ironic ideologies. This board is attracting more people every day and retards come here and don't get that nazbol is a joke.

I understand and agree with you but I don't see how this is necessarily irreconciable with nationalism.

Not all of them do? What I meant was the current liberal democratic government that uses patriotic rhetoric to promote imperialist and global capitalist interest. Those who embrace nationalism after a revolution would in a sense be very proud and devoted to their State but because it was one they built to preserve their Nation which they also built.

I understand your point but I see patriotism more as a manufactured thing forced onto the citizenry by the media/military etc to hypnotize them into supporting capitalist interests. Nationalism makes more sense to describe the workers of a nation being proud of what they've built together.

How is it ironic?

I just don't see how you can be nationalist unless you want to globally remove capitalism.

are you retarded?

Let me rephrase
Do you nationalists seek to end capitalism globally?

Well yeah that's the point of what I was saying. It seems to me that the only way to end global capitalism is to create a nation where the values of the working class of that particular nation become the national values generally. To put it another way, I feel that when the workers own and control their means of production this will naturally generate a state where the Nation becomes a thing that is based in working class culture rather than the culture of the capitalists.

I also feel that Nations can exist without States so nationalism isn't antithetical to full communism

I agree. I wouldn't call it nationalism. I would call is communitarianism. It's emphasis on community being ran by workers and maintaining the community's values is great.

But why not call it nationalism if it is essentially the same thing at its core?

I guess I'm splitting hairs, but when people here nationalism, they think of Hitler or the Republican party. What we are for is more fundamental, that the workers and the majority of the community should form the nation. In the end, we see the same thing but go a step further.

yes, if you're not spooked you're just a regular commie

Socialism is equality of outcomes.
Racism only states some races have a head start, an innate advantage. As a socialist, it shouldn't bother you if they do - you secure that they find the finish time at the same time regardless.

Which is stupid and is the main reason I am hesitant to call myself a Marxist/Socialist.
I believe in some hierarchy and some meritocracy. It is obvious that certain people are more talented than others, and thus investing the community's resources in those talents will yield a better return.
If you send your smartest and brightest to university and pay for their tuition, statistically speaking this will result in a racial divide. Some races will be more and others less represented, as Autism Level has a genetic component to it.

I lean left for the efficiency of a planned market and distribution of resources, to combat hoarding and waste, not for the "equality" aspect of it.

A nation that allows foreigners to own its water supply, bread production, education facilities, etc isn't a very strong nation.
I would imagine nationalists want to nationalize most of the essential production and resources of the country, not privatize them and thus risk them being under foreign control.

You have to go back.

Please don't ban me for wrongthink again.
I am open to discussion, and not an ideologue who comes here to sell rotten apples.
If anything this is a conflict within me and I'd love to see it solved one way or the other.

honestly pretty sure this is entirely the US's fault because state means province there so when you're talking about an ACTUAL state you use nation and then there's no word for an actual nation

Wrong!

three guys standing on boxes in front of a fence dot jeypeg

"race" are subjective, there is no hardline between people.
you'll find retards and smart individuals among every "race".

if you get two group of people, check their Autism Level and divide them in two groupe based on any random subjective tait like the color of their shirts for example, you'll find that one groupe will have a higher Autism Level then another.
that doesn't mean that people with the shirt color X are ALL smarter then people with the shirt color Y.
nor does it mean that people with the shirt color X are statistically smarter then the people with shirt color Y.

this Race/IQ, Racialism, Race realism, ….etc is pure garbage.
even if we take those "studies" as fact and agree about the existance of race and that it has indeed an impact on Autism Level (thats many if already) it still wouldn't mean that every single person of X race is superior to every single person of Y.

people tend to convince themselves of some things because it makes them feel better about themselves.

Replace "race" with "genetic cluster" if the historical usage of the term bothers you.
And it isn't as random as your shirt color example, there is in fact a genetic component to intelligence. Yes, there is also a genetic component to autism. The people we'd conversationally call "white" are more likely to have it. Thus if we give aid to autistic people in our equal society, we are statistically more likely to be giving money to whites disproportionately when compared to others.

The rest of your post doesn't make sense, it is either strawman or wrong.
Not every person of X race is superior to every person of Y race? Of course. Observably so. When did I claim otherwise? Why would you write that?

wouldn't change much, the point still stands.
i'm not arguing that there are no diffencees between statistical avrage, i'm arguing that this has no value on individual level.
because that "racial" (genetic cluster) based ideology will inevitably lead to discrimination.
its a "slippery slope", many people see in it an excuse to to discriminate, just take a look on Holla Forums.
for the Autism Level to be linked with race and used ideologically the Autism Level variation has to be within an acceptable margin.
thats currently not the case, Autism Level's of individuals every "race" (genetic cluster) ovelaps.
thefore you cannot properly link Autism Level to "race"

Observing the fact that some populations have higher Autism Level than others, based on its genetic component, does not equal nor lead to discrimination.
Unless you think discriminating based on Autism Level when selecting who few of us to receive free higher education is wrong. I call it optimization.
Of course every person who receives it will get it based on individual merit, not quotas. Quotas are a tool to fight against this statistical distribution, not enforce it.
The evil you are pretending to fight is actually the logical conclusion of yours, not mine stand.

I am saying and insisting this: if we have a limited number of free scholarships, and must select the most gifted individuals to receive them, a neutral observer will be able to easily over time spot that some races are more represented. They will have statistically higher representation, because they are more likely to give birth to gifted individuals.

Summoning black cat poster to this thread

AWAKEN, MY MASTERS

Strasserism if you follow the train of thought would make life unnecessarily shit for comrades of colour. You sure you wanna put your friends through that? Not to mention nationalism's pretty spooked if it's just for the sake of "racial purity" or some such vague shit. I get why The PKK's got ethnic pride and fight for a homeland for Kurds even though they're card carrying reds, but they're sort of a homeless people who've been getting shit from other people for centuries. Nationalism or ethnic/racial pride in that context makes a lot more sense for a leftist, but if you're one of them Marxist-Strasserist-Evalionist edgelords you're chin deep in idpol.

Making selections based on arbitrary criteria is the definition of discrimination you dimwit.
There are numerous factors that go into making a good student or scholar and selecting for Autism Level like it's the silver bullet of intellect is literally retarded.

Are you opposed to discriminating based on voice when selecting who to sing for your band?
Are you opposed to discriminating based on strength when selecting who to compete for the weightlifting team of your country?
Are you opposed to discriminating against people with bad eyesight when selecting soldiers to train as snipers? As plane pilots?

Stop using "discrimination" as a hammer to beat people over the head with. It just means selecting the best people for the job, rather than randomly picking based on chance.

ok, lets assume that you manage to test everyone from X "race" and found that their avrage Autism Level is lower then Y race.

the avrage has no value on individual level.
the avrage height in the US is 5'10, doesn't mean that everyone is 5'10.
the "avrage" is worth shit on its own.
it would be a fallacy to use it in any ideology.

i don't as long as its done scientifically and not based on opinions/spooks

somone with an Autism Level of 70 would probably make a terrible doctor.

i never said people should be granted X or Y because they are from some "race"
on the contrary, im against every form of spook.
people should be judged on their individual aptitudes.
obviously, statistically some groupe will be more represented then others depending on the field.
but at the end, people will get what theiy deserve and be judged by their actions.

i'm not here to guess things, i focus on facts and only facts.

you'll get some people who'll be over represented in some fields, if that makes your racial boner erect good for you, in the end of the day that would still be a meaningless statistic just like the Race/IQ

You're trying to conflate subjective preference like voice with your spooky pseudo scientific race based Autism Level bullshit.

This is why Asser shits should stay banned. You're not looking to get despook. You just want to justify your prejudices.

Saying that scholarships should go to the highest Aye kyuu individuals is like saying that whoever scores the most points in a season should be on team USA or whatever. You get teams full of all these big time NBA hot shots that get their dicks shoved in by much more statistically mediocre teams because more sportsgame points doesn't necessarily translate into all the things that make a team successful.

Just like how aye kyuu doesn't necessarily translate into good scholar.

Imagine being this scientifically illiterate

Sorry for not being able to answer your question.
What are the differences between Asserism and National Bolshevism?