Are there any commie pills?

We're glad you're here, but the best way to learn is going to be to read a book found in the sticky.

It's one thing to have a shitty infographic, but with those books you'll learn how bad shit is, why it got that bad and how to fix it, at least according to the various leftist ideologies.

Sadly that is like the only easy infographic I have
Just watch zizek conferences on youtube, they'll put you on track youtube.com/user/nodnodi/videos

I more or less understand how things got as bad as you say they are, as its the same way that the Rothschilds got to the point that they can basically own everything, buy off all the politicians, own the central banks, and then finally meme a country into existence because one of them was bored and felt like it. I'm aware that oilgarchies control everything (and its not just the jews, though they are particularly annoying. The JQ boils down to the Jews being the easiest ethnic group to control as an oligarch) the difference I see is these oiligarchs have been around in some form since the dawn of civilization and will exist no matter what system you try to implement as if you topple one oiligarchy another will move in to take its place, and often your attempt to topple an oiligarchy was being fueled by another oiligarchy eager to take over and the only way to truly defeat the oiligarchs is to collapse civilization and even then you will just have new oiligarchs emerge when civlization remerges.

Essentially I'm blackpilled on communism, and the only "worldwide revolution" that I think could help is the anti-industrial revolution the unabomber talked about

what I'm more looking for is lies that we have been fed about communist regimes that should be corrected

Like what?

You don't read books do you?

more or less everything. the fact that fascism has devolved into a simple accusation that the normie left and right throw at each other "dae x are the real fascists!" shows that nobody in the mainsteam actually knows what fascism is so pretty much everything the mainstream says about it doesn't even make sense when you actually learn about it

This makes for a somewhat decent plotline to a Deus Ex sequel or a cyberpunk roleplay session, but it's completely disconnected from reality. You're making shit up, dude.

Ah… I remember seen material that helps debunking the black book of communism but never saved it and a simple google search leads me nowhere, hopefully a different user has something like it

you sweet summer child

It's true "fascist" has devolved into an epithet when used in casual conversation, but arguing that everything claimed about Fascism in the mainstream is wrong or fabricated is going overboard. Many of the key components of Fascism — nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, etc — are still more-or-less properly understood even by normies if at a surface level.

Besides, there is a vast, firmly established body of theory regarding the origin and nature of Fascism in academia. If you want to learn more about Fascism in earnest and not through "red pills" kindly offered by strangers on the Internet, I suggest you read Paxton, Sternell and Griffin.

Holla Forums likes their shitty propaganda .webms don't they?

the way to remove the oligarchy is to remove the extant oligarchy and the motive for people to form such oligarchies
revolutions that abolish the commodity form are a pretty good way to do that

this is true, and a result of the liberal consensus, where nazis = communists = totalitarians = evil
same with the fact that fascism and nazism are treated as synonyms though the actual geneology of the ideologies is very very different

I agree that capitalism is what enables these oligarchies to gain so much control, and for the first time in the world due to globalization there is no escape from it once the "capitalists" acheive ultimate victory as there now exists an oiligarchy of oligarchies which is Rothschild dominated. Countries I think are not at least partially controlled by the oiligarchy of oiligarchies (which we call the globalists). "Rogue Nations" are just countries whose oiligarchies do not adhere to the world oiligarchy which uses the American military as its attack dog to keep people inline (such as gaddafi)

Here's the other one that was too big to include in that post

And thats why you need to deplatform the oligarchs by having production serve the people who produce rather than the oligarchs directly, it's Marx 101.

will memes suffice?

comrade fashies know that capitalism is cancer

again we know "spreading democracy" is a meme used as an excuse to justify imperialism for banks and corporations, particularly for

we also agree globalization is cancer, and that everyone is debt slaves, and we are against consumerism

I agree, but in general what I find cancerous about most leftists is that they many of them seem to support deplatforming oligarchs so that they can take their stuff, where as if we got rid of the Rothschilds and all their wealth disappeared I would still see that as a victory for humanity.

I agree with you on mostly everything. The difference is what I would want to happen after "the revolution"

1) What class is
2) How class affects society
3) What capitalism is
4) That the state can only ever function as a tool of the ruling class
5) What private property is
6) Why wars happen
7) What neoliberalism is
8) What communism is
9) That economics is about real things in motion, not numbers of dollars
10) That people cannot actually change the current system by voting

do you mean that in some more abstract meaning, or just literal personal debt? eastern euro here, it's not particularly common for people (with university education and all) to be indebted right after school, and supposedly we are the developing nations as opposed to the developed US.

Oh you're a nazbol

...

No, they don't. What do you define as capitalism?

What they do not know is what capitalism is, which is why they keep getting tricked into supporting it. If you don't want to hear an analysis from Marx, then get one from Smith.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors'_plot

That and cybersyn.

You seem like a socialist that is just resentfull that people don't know what socialism is due to deliberate lack of education about the term and fall in line with vaguely anti-establishment populism instead but still call themselves leftists. How are you fascist exactly?

literally some of the dumbest shit i've seen today to be claimed by someone that also laments how 'capitalism is cancer'

*whew*

The U.S. has become a bee hive full of workers who spend their entire lives working off debt from secondary school to the grave.

Stop with the Rothschild/Joo shit. Any porky is bad porky, Irish or not. If you don't do reading well, audiobooks are an option.

Is Cuba Socialist?
A Socialist Labor Party pamphlet.

The working class did not take command of the land and
means of production nor begin to operate them in their own class interests.
Rather, a new state apparatus was established that soon exerted
its authority and control over every aspect of Cuban economic, political
and even social life. In short, state-owned industries and large farms
became the new exploiter of Cuban wage labor.

slp.org/pdf/others/is_cuba.pdf

Smith was unironically very good at pointing out what was fundamentally wrong with capitalism, it's just that he often shrugged off his own conclusions as something that is just an unchangeable.

He just does not know what capitalism is. I am starting to think that that right there is what we should be telling people. Hell, Marx did not write his magnum opus about what communism is. He wrote it about what capitalism is. That should be our focus.

Its probably good to elaborate on these and not just post a list. Though I agree with 4,9, and 10 already

Our currency is debt based. Interest is essentially being paid on every single dollar printed by the federal reserve, worse yet while the money is created out of nothing, the money to pay this interest has not been created so if you stopped printing money the entire thing would collapse spectacularly

I'm not a Nazbol, I have no intention of crushing capitalism, I just know its cancer. Like I said I'm blackpilled on communism

The unchecked force of continual accumulation of capital by the current system which isn't really being driven by anyone person and it pretty much out of anyone hands at the moment. When I said its a cancer, I meant it, its an uncontrolled growth of ever increasing consumption and production

Economics are a secondary concern for fascists. If coke wants to sell their shit we say fine.

Fascist can be summarized as

as long as capitalists get out of our way (as in don't try to influence us to go to war for them etc) they can make as much money as they want.

Fascism is more about the mind, body, and spirit than anything material. We don't desire economic equality or even see it as something attainable.

The reason see communism and capitalism as two sides of the same coin, both are mindless materialism. Communism is just an obsession with equal materialism for everyone.

Educating yourself on types of socialist societies that have existed might be a good start.
youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

The most important part is the reclamation of american history and the strong leftist presence it had. So here:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ql05BE8dV6E

Oh, in that meaning, I guess I'm indeed as fucked as you are.

who could have thought, it's pure ideology

huge surprise here

wew

This is your brain on Holla Forums

I'm in a weird Fascist-Ancap Hybrid political belief system right now.

I have a strong desire to just be left alone (ancap) but in the current world that seems more and more difficult. People are not just leaving us alone all these people who just want to be left alone are starting to band together so that we can force people to leave us alone.

Our main goal is to remove ourselves from the globalist system (and potentially destroy it if they try to force us to remain in their system), however we have no ideological bias against the free trade of goods and accumulation of wealth. Its primarily a revolt against the modern world. When its all over we just want to go back to our farms to love our wives and raise our children.

What I don't understand about you guys' opinion of Communism>NatSoc is why you seem bent on implementing a system which puts all of your ability to own property into the hands of the government, and then expecting the government to distribute all that you need fairly; whereas with Nazi, the whole system revolves around you; the worker, and your ability to do whatever job you happen to do in order to earn money to then reinvest into the economy as you see fit. This system, in my opinion is a more stable platform to encourage people to work and provide for themselves and their families as opposed to the
mentality you guys seem to think everyone would agree upon.
none of what I said in this post is addressing anything anarchy related, mind; because that is 100% retarded for reasons I'm happy to discuss if anyone wants

I have thought about destroying civilization before, which would probably result in living a subsistence life like people did before which actually make me a lot poorer than I am now. Like I said, we are not about materialism

...

How does that work then?

imagine actually believing this

Trade is a weapon too. Simply by undercutting price, you'll lose your customers and you'll be forced to join the global system.

Interchanging socialism and communism aside, socialism being about obsession with equality is the biggest meme. It's rather about curbing the power of capital to ensure that everyone get equal footing to start of with. what you do is of no concern to anyone unless you're trying to enforce property rights upon someone else. Socialism is the materialistic ground work for you to not have obess about materialism to survive.

Yes but this isn't inherently a problem, you are thinking of debt in the wrong way. Sovereign debt and household debt have very little in common. Basically all common economic knowledge is wrong, taxes are a good example. A sovereign currency issuer can never 'run out of money', taxes are not collected to 'fund investment'.
nakedcapitalism.com/2014/05/randy-wray-taxes-mmt-approach.html

This is impossible. Read Marx.

An aesthetic movement where political action is part of the performance.

You are either too old to believe in magic or too young to be on imageboards. Stop believing in magic.

Explain.

We get it, you're a Wikihopper who ended up on the page for Julius Evola and thought it sounded cool, so you came up with a post-modern bricolage of disparate ideologies because you believe forming a worldview is like shopping at the supermarket. So much for the "revolt against modern world", you're the very incarnation of the cultural logic of late capitalism.

Video explaining it:
youtube.com/watch?v=eknoQYrgq60

Mutualist explaining it:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen

Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property

Socialism has never been tried

Ancaps are basically neofeudalists so you're fucked

ayyy

The working class is supposed to be the ruling class, though.

In the most basic terms:
Personal property is any property that revenue is not generated from. Clothes, houses, your bike, a car etc.

Private property is the inverse, mines, factories, infrastructure.

Communism is not about government ownership of personal property. See for a more detailed response

Anarchists learn your history. Read up on Makhnovania and Catalonia at least ffs.

Explain.

Obviously I'm not talking for all forms of communism/socialism but from what I've gathered it goes something like this:

So how can I truly own something if it's been given to me by the same bureaucrats who can kick me out of this home at their discretion?

The spanish nuns had it coming

Kys, learn to criticize kiddie

No shit, but how much time do you have? Marx, Smith, and others have written thousands of pages describing the workings of capitalism. Even stripped down to its basics it is complicated. Understanding communism requires knowing what a whole host of concepts each mean. Materialism is an entire branch of philosophy. This stuff does not fit on an image board post.

Yes, and when you consider how that debt must ultimately be paid (the labor of workers) it makes clear just how big a scam money is.

That is why the well-meaning ones fail. They imagine that they can create a state that can check economic interests, but economics (as well as various other material realities) always shapes the state. Imaginary concepts like the state cannot possibly autonomous, as they are dependent upon real things and people for their reified existence.

What would make them get put of the way? The state? A few bribes and murders will remove any impediment unfriendly individuals serving the state may pose. The fabulously wealthy are more than capable of making that happen. The collective will? Changing that is as easy as printing propaganda. That is no problem for the people who own the newspapers. The military? The military is hilariously easy to coerce, since it's rigid hierarchal structure makes buying the loyalty of certain individuals equal to gaining whole brigades of men. The state is never above the influence of great wealth.

We have already established that you do not know what either "capitalism" or "communism" means, and now we also know that you do not understand what "materialism" means. This right here is what the list in is about.

You've gotta excuse any gaps in my reasoning by the way it's pretty late where I am and I've spent a good few hours reading various threads on this board regarding all manner of policies relating to a couple different ideologies, I'm assuming we're talking about vanilla communism, correct?

I'm still not getting the thrust of your argument.

How is this not true for capitalism or fascism? A state or any organisation with powers of violence can 'requisition' your property at will. In a capitalist system the coercive powers of state are set up to defend property rights, the extraction of surplus value from the workers to capital interests. In a socialist state it is the reverse - the defence of human rights and positive freedom (freedom of opportunity) against property rights.

Vanilla communism as in the stateless, moneyless, classless society? Or socialism where there is the state but money and classes have been abolished?

If implementing your ideology is so difficult it has never actually been implemented despite multiple "attempts" at doing so, then perhaps that is a flaw in the ideology.

The fact that every single attempt at socialism as devolved into state capitalism just proves my earlier statement that there is always going to be oligarchies and revolutions are always the product of one oiligarchy trying to replace the other. Which is what this guy thought was just me making shit up>>1893382

All of the things you mentioned are why people on Holla Forums are obssed with controlled opposition. The immense wealth of the oligarchs means they could be bribing anyone and everything.
I fully agree with you that everything is corruptible. You might think that I am therefore blackpilled on both communism and fascism but there is one fundamental difference. I think communists see history as a linear path going towards something, where as fascists see history as something more cyclical, and the only thing you can do is play your part in the current cycle. All I hope to acheive is to depose the current world oligarchs (and it will likely be replaced with something else, likely many smaller oligarchies fighting over supreme control) and what happens next is less important as we will adapt to it when it comes. To a fascist there is no "end of history" like marx describe, in fact what we are trying to do is actively prevent the end of history from occurring, as the end of history the current world oiligarchy is heading towards is a hellish dystopia.

My point isn't about whether the government could requisition my property by force because any government could do that regardless of the politics behind it, what I mean is under capitalism or fascism I could buy a house w/mortgage, and then pay that mortgage back over time until the debt was paid off and I then assume full ownership of the house, however in a communist/socialist society I wouldn't have the power to do this because obviously there's no money with which to do so. My main issue being that without money, my entire life would be in the hands of a government which provides for me, and as such can pretty much do with me what they want; not to say I believe that they would act maliciously or treat me improperly, but realistically speaking they easily could do at a whim and I wouldn't be able to lift a finger against them in retaliation, lest I get labelled as ungrateful and end up thrown in a gulag.
Not to say it'd be much better under a malicious fascist regime, but in that scenario I would at least not be in the pocket of the government and would be able to maintain fiscal responsibility, and with that cash in my pocket, potentially be able to afford a weapon with which I could defend myself and my family.

It is more like this:

It is fairly comparable to the rendezvous and potlatches that complex hunter/gatherer societies practice, only with industrial goods and services. If you think that such a system would deincentivize work, I invite you to study how active competition between different clans is in such societies. Gift economies are tremendously productive.

Be glad that that you don't live in an post-commie state where it's entirely possible and quite legal to kick out a legit tenant because a rightful pre-war owner reclaimed the building now, and now wants to get rid of the low-rent inhabitants before some serious renovation and gentrifying.

Think very carefully about what 'full ownership of the house' means exactly. How do you own the house, and why? Where does this ownership stem from, what backs this ownership, what gives notions such as ownership any 'power' in the first place?

What do you think money is? Where do you think it gets its exchange value?
If you aren't a self-sufficent sustainance farmer you are always in the hands of others.

It's better to have IOUs using labour vouchers.

Communism is not a state of affairs to be established. It is a real, physical movement that abolishes the present state of things. There is a huge difference between those concepts. Communism is not implemented; it is achieved. Ultimately, it will be achieved by the clas structure collapsing under the ever-increasing weight of its inherent contradictions.

There is no reason to assume that. On the contrary, human history tells a very different story. Oligarchies did not arise until the Agricultural Revolutions first created surplus production, which in turn allowed for the rise of specialization and thus different economic classes. With each subsequent change in the mode of production the structury of hierarchies changed and, when revolution occured, dramatically. Each time, the incoming kleptocrats represented a different economic class than the ousted hierarchs. Now, what happens when the incoming ruling class is a definatively subordinate class like the proletariat? The new ruling class will act according to its own interests which will be to unravel the class structure entirely. When that happens is when communism will begin.

Right, you are serving to maintain the status quo while arguing that you should be dominated by one master instead of another as if you expect the new master to be kinder to his bitches. You actually see that. Why? Why fight to be someone else's bitch? Wouldn't it be more gratifying, if nothing else, to die trying to kill those fucks? Didn't Nietzsche call what the fascists are doing "slave morality?"

Marx said that there would be an end to class which would usher in a new era of human history, but pomos love to throw that "end of history" line around as if it makes their nonsensical approach to history more reasonable by comparison.

Oh yeah I'm not suggesting for one minute that money has any real inherent value, not at the moment at least; no what I'd like to see happen is the banks of a nation become nationalized and all money put into them by each individual person be invested in gold, or some other valuable commodity in each account holder's name; and the value of that country's currency be based on the commodity everyone is investing in, so that at least any loan I take with the bank is held against the currency of the country and not some shady money laundering scheme that has the power to create more money out of thin air which would drive up inflation. Not to imply that being entirely self sufficient would be less desirable than this, but at least with the nation's economy based on the funds of each individual; the people would have some kind of safety net against the government if it ever decided to act in a manner the people deemed unfair (i.e. if they ever decided to take property from the people, the people could just withdraw all their savings and crash the economy within hours.)

This what we are doing. Die trying to kill those fucks. What I'm saying is that in the process of killing those fucks more fucks are going to take their place, then we will probably have to take out those fucks. This will be true as long as there is a surplus like you said with the agriculture revolution.

This is where I disagree, what I see happening is that the exact same thing that was always happened an entirely new group of fucks are going to be put into control.

The only way to end this permanently is to bring down civilization itself.

I think I got a little lost in this conversation, but in case you're OP, welcome, here's your shitposting flag.

Why in God's name would you actually prefer to spend decades working to pay for the place that you already live in? That is completely insane.

Society would provide you with what you need just as it does right now. You having cash and a credit card does not mean that you are providing for yourself. Only peasants provide for themselves, and even they rely on the rest of society for tools.

Governmental bodies in communism are wholely democratic, as they must be owing to the classless nature of society. They are not some distinct clique of bureaucrats who decide policy on their own. You would personally be a part of the decision-making bodies that affect you. Try to envision a world where voting actually does something.

See the thing is I don't want to bring down civilization. I want humans to go to space and conquer the stars. I prepared to bring down civilization if I feel like the current world oligarchy is making us head towards a hellish dystopia where that won't be possible, but I would prefer not to have to destroy civilization.

I think I get it, I do get these "it would be best just to level everything and start over" moments. But this sort of attitude isn't really going anywhere, besides bringing me more frustration, though.

This changes nothing. Gold isn't inherently valuable either. While it has some use value it isn't something a person can really utilise for practical use.

So you replace the current capitalism with a less dynamic, shittier capitalism? Why?

Uh, and why exactly won't the overbearing government simply stop the people from 'withdrawing their savings'? Even if you managed to 'crash the economy' it is only the financial, "immaterial" part of capital you are causing a bump in, the international standing and financial power of the single nation is hurt but the global capital runs as it does. The economy is a real thing formed out of people working. Just for some reason right now they have to also work for a leisure class of people and according to some crazy casino of feels, estimates and wild gambling.

What I am saying is that we can stop this thing. Class is what defines the fucks. If we kill that it will end.

You have inadvertently hit upon the reasoning for Marx's maxim, "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." When everything is made to be used and not to be exchanged, surplus cannot be used for the enrichment of certain individuals. Instead, it gets used for the enjoyment of those who produce.

If the new group is the proletariat, that is one hell of a gigantic ruling class. That is a curious quality of class struggle: each time one class overthrows another it is the more numerous class that replaces the less numerous class (aristocrats replace slavers, bourgeoisie replace aristocrats, proletarians replace bourgeoisie). It will blow everything up when the rulers are the majority.

slave morality

master morality

Facism

The third one is vague but I think I can relate it to the concept of Noblesse Oblige which can summarized as responsibility.

Now lets go back to lead, follow, or get out of our way. The responsibility is to lead.

It may be a futile effort to resist the world oligarchy, but we will die trying.

Friedrich, bitte.

*Socialize the banks not Nationalize them, excuse the typo.

Because by the end of that time the house would be mine, bearing in mind that property such as housing only gains value with time as long as it's well maintained, especially if it's in a good area, so first of all that's a long term investment with pretty much guaranteed profit should I decide to sell, or if I don't want to sell then I'd never have to worry about paying mortgage, rent or whatever else ever again.

What you're saying sounds good in practice but I've lived off of the government safety net in the past and I can tell you it's no fun, I'd rather live off of more than the bare minimum and have a little disposable income in my pocket to do the things I enjoy, you know; live a higher quality of life, or buy a car or something.

Whose to say I want what everyone else wants? you've got to remember that as well as the hard working members of society you've also got the dregs who refuse to work being kept afloat on the back of my labour, why should I be okay with my vote being drowned out by them?

Well I'd assume the government would want to avoid widespread civil unrest and the loss of a good chunk of what makes the currency of the nation worth what it is, my main reasoning for this however would be that given Nat Soc ideology, causing this to happen would not be in the government's best interests; but I wouldn't pose that as a point of discussion because all governments are capable of deciding to fuck their citizens on a whim so that point has an inherent 50/50 chance of being invalid anyway.

this very much this

What is humility if not accepting the supremacy of others? That you do without question. What is pride if it is not pride in one's self? You subordinate yourself. What is strength if not the personal ability to affect change? You sacrifice that to another.

You are not resisting the oligarchy. You are resisting specific oligarchs to the benifit of other oligarchs, thus making yourself a pawn in their game.

those that do tend to get disposed of though.

This is more or less what you are doing you just don't realize it.

I'm not a Asserite though. When I said capitalism is cancer, I literally meant it has the qualities of cancer, it grows uncontrollably and consumes everything. With this being said the participants in the capitalist system rose to their positions by their own merit and thus have a right to lead.

Those are meaningless buzzwords. Fascism isn't even politics proper but merely aestheticized politics, it's a pseudo-artistic performance and nothing more.

...

I hope I'm using pic related right

Slave morality is to accept the master as a given and to submit to their reality.
The Übermensch is one who makes their own morality, not one who submits to the great leader, and definitely not one who submits to tradition.

The economy crashing also isn't in the interests of the government. Nazis can also easily explain the temporary loss of property rights away as 'necessary precaution against enemy x' regardless of the real state of things in their typical PoMo fashion.

So why not support a government by the people for the people. What need is there for a government to fuck people over when there is no abstract wealth to accumulate?

Capital concentration & inherited wealth don't real

I frankly agree given how stupid our movement can be and how we seem to feed off of improbable irony

Well the whole idea is to uphold the 14 words and see this come to fruition, and that's the difference between socialism and NS, the motivation to not just survive but to be the best people we can be, and for the people to do this there must be a strong leader who wholeheartedly feels the same way. No bully tho I get that it sounds pretty ambitious given the current political climate but it's something I'd like to see achieved in my lifetime, if not only because I'd like to experience living under a leader who genuinely has his country and it's people's best interests at heart. The wealth in question by the way wouldn't necessarily be material but would be reflected in the country's infrastructure and social services, as well as industry produce and a general feeling of pride held by each citizen in their own nation; which is something I feel is severely lacking these days.

The house should be yours for as long as you are using it, not only some decades after you have already begun using it. The land is another story. Nobody owns land, because nobody produced it.

No, it just becomes more dear as the population increases.

You should not have to do that from the beginning. Do you not see the trick? Someone else who does not personally use your land once claimed it, which means that they stole it from someone else who had been using it. Over time that claim has been traded between numerous entities (more often than not banks) who also have not personally used it but rather let it to other individuals who have used it and payed the claim-holders for the muh privilege. The entire system is fundamentally based on theft, and it continues as such only to benefit those entities who hold land claims. They leach off the people who do use the land without doing anything themselves. A better, more fair, system is to base ownership on personal production. If you use it to make something–like a home–it's yours.

I am not talking about living off the gubbermint. I am talking about living off the things that society produces. Someone else grows your food. Someone else built your house. Someone else maintains your water pipes. You likely produce things as well, but they are not all the things that you need to live. You live off of socialized production even as you contribute to it. That is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it is one of the benefits of living in an industrialized society.

Members of a particular class share a number of material interests. People will advance their own interests more oten than not provided they are aware of what they are. When there is no upper class obfuscating those interests they will be plain for people to see. For example, paying rent is not in your interest, but right now you are not entirely aware of that. You will be once you lose all the propaganda that the people who rent out land propigate.

That is because either working does not benefit them or they are unable to work due to the lack of available work. Both of those conditions are eliminated by communism. Work is available to all, and it actually produces some return besides endless debt.

Your vote is useless right now, as it is drowned out by the people who own the media and political parties. It cannot get any more useless.

More or less. Nietzsche's philosophy is spooky as fuck.

Whatever, user.

Explain how. I believe that we have already established that is what you are doing, but it seems to me that global revolution is not in the interest of any member of the ruling class.

But more openly the reason I support fascism is that I wish to depose the current world order and lessons from history says this will be an extremely difficult thing to do, so the only way to be able to challenge them is by being as strong as possible, and that requires collective followers I can lead into battle against the olligarchy. This could potentially be a multi-decade battle so we need to have a system that could last long term.

Oligarchies don't go down easy and they will throw their near unlimited resources at us so we would need everyone and everything that could possibly help to be on board.

The one thing you guys fail to mention with your criticism of me not wanted to crush capitalism is just how do you plan on crushing capitalism? Not only will you face the main oligarchy, but every single oligarchy in existence at the same time. Also you might laugh at Holla Forums's obsession with controlled opposition, but should any left-wing revolution should happen you have no idea if they people leading it are the types who are just going to create another state capitalism.

I like talking to you guys and I agree ultimately you are right, but the problem with leftism is that it is full of leftists, and most leftists (besides you guys) are cancerous.

I don't really have a problem with this, as a global revolution is fundamentally what would depose all the oiligarchs, but I seriously doubt that some sort of socialist order would emerge from that instead of just general chaos. (Though general chaos would be fun)

A global revolution is more or less what I'm talking about in the above, except I'm actually planning as to how the revolution would happen as oppose to just wishing for it.

That's what I mean, as long as I'm turning a profit it's happy days.

You see, I'd be inclined to agree with you on this because yes, the land was once owned by no one but the way I'd see it, for someone to come and stake their claim and build on it would be to give that land value, and the value for the land plus the house is derived from the quality and size of the place, it's the fact that this house is more comfortable to live in than say government mandated social housing, which gives it its inherent value and regardless of who the previous owners of the place were it's this extra level of comfort that I'm paying for, as opposed to living in a place with shitty conditions.

Living conditions aside though, Socialism really comes across as too good to be true, so my question to you is; what's the catch? not to kvetch about muh Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc etc but all of these systems ended up as only partial successes at best, which begs the question; while it would be a great system to live under if implemented properly, it's *never* been implemented properly, so where does it go wrong?

I do not understand the motivation to act without any expectations. It appears to be mindless flailing.

What defines a good person? How is that criteria absolute and not relative to a given society? Virtue ethicists never can answer that question definatively.

Regardless, he will always have the ruling class' gun at the back of his head and their money in his pockets.

Fascists always get appointed or installed. They never win revolutions. Franco was a pawn of Hitler's. Pinochet was the front man of a CIA-backed coup. Hitler was straight-up appointed by von Hindenburg. Mussolini was supported by capitalists and appointed by the king. Chang was another American puppet.

Oligarchies have never thrown their full weight against fascists. If anything, they have aggressively supported them as an alternative to communism. Doesn't that give you pause? Compare that the the Russian Revolution where every major capitalist power either invaded or propped up the White faction or the Cuban revolution which has been subjected to an endless string of assassination attempts, a decades-long embargo, and failed proxy wars. Fascists do not have revolutions. Communists do.

You shoud begin by analyzing the nature of your opponent, which is what we have been doing.

Capitalism and the conflict it generates, especially with a fascist topping is not a great way to preserve one's kin. A major war will kill people and destroy signifiers of culture.

Idealistic.

Here comes a strange paradox. Materialism in the consumerist sense, and the elevation of having over being can only be ousted by becoming materialist in the marxist sense. Once material posessions and such are a given, like in a materialist socialist society, true individualism, self-improvement and a certain idealism is truly possible. Materialist Marxism is the best shot at the kind of idealist society you seek. Abandon false consciousness like nation and race.

If so, you are submitting your subjects to slave morality, which doesn't reflect too kindly on them.

Wouldn't say that the far-right is represented by any more respectable people, quite frankly.

t. leftcom.

It's not to do with acting with no expectations, think about it more like proactively changing your country for the better for your (and your fellow countryfolk's) children, be the change you want to see in the world and all that.

It's less to do with having correct morals and more about bettering yourself physically and mentally in order to do whatever you need to do, whether that be long hours of hard labour, or fighting for your country or whatever, good and bad are subjective terms and I wouldn't claim to be able to say for certain what is objectively the most good, it's down to personal judgement if anything.

The idea is to have someone who responds to bribery with beheadings tbh

Who would you identify as your opponent? Right Wingers?

Also on a bit of a tangent I thought I'd reiterate and pose another question for you guys, you claim porky is the enemy, and I've heard from other leftists that this includes but is not limited to Jewish financiers, so my first question is what are your thoughts on Communism being an inherently Jewish concept from its inception to the present day, and second if Communism is such a good political system, then how come all the times (to the best of my knowledge) it has led to disaster (famine, mass murders etc)?

Except trotskyists who would call it a degenerated workers state.

Except leftcoms who would just call it capitalism and don't think "state capitalism" makes any sense.

No one, not even tankies claim the USSR was communist. There are a bunch of non-tankie commies who call the USSR socialist though, like Paul Cockshott or Michael Parenti for example.

Forgive me but I've got no idea what Leftcom is, the USSR aside though how can you explain the other times Communism/Socialism has resulted in mass bloodshed and deaths?

What gives land value (not value in a marxist sense, but never mind that for now), is that it gets used for something. That value lasts only so long as a person uses it. Once he stops using it he stops giving it value (again, different value). At that point, the next person who uses it is the person who gives it value (sic). Thus, the individual who rightly benefits from the land is the person who makes it valuable right now, not the person who once gave it value but has since moved on.

What gives it worth (I am sticking with that word) is that someone lives there. Whatever advantages it may have are entirely dependent upon the occupant's enjoyment thereof.

There would be no motivation to build substandard housing without the profit motive.

You actually have to fight the ruling class for it.

Numerous places. Stalin created a nomenklatura that became a de facto ruling class. The problem with vanguardism is that the vanguard can do shit like that, even when it runs against theory. It is difficult to blame him, though. The capitalist invasion really did happen after all. Mao was a class collaborationist, which is fucking retarded. "Chinese characteristics" my ass. Pol Pot was a CIA stooge. Fuck that guy. Castro's Cuba worked out pretty well despite the sixty-year embargo and literally hundreds of assassination attempts. Allende put too much faith in the political process. He should have seen Pinochet coming. Sankara did ridiculously well until the CIA killed him. Ho was always just a nationalist who adopted a red star to get Soviet support, and he died before he could get anything done. Kim was a fucking nazi in red. Tito was brilliant, but Yugoslavia could not survive in a unipolar environment. Of course the anarchists all managed to get themselves killed after two years, because armies have not been farmers with guns since the eighteenth century.

Above all, the primary reason that socialist revolutions have been destroyed is that they have all happened in places that were still in an early stage of capitalism. They still had peasants. They were not fully industrialized. They lacked a sophisticated infrastructure. Marx and Engels predicted that revolution would take hold in the industrialized center of capitalism–places like Britain, Germany, and the United States. According to the logic of historical materialism, that is where revolution needs to spark. Otherwise, the capitalists in the economic center will just overrun the revolution. Suck it, third-worldists.

That's what happens in revolutions. Let us not forget that capitalism is responsible for considerably more bloodshed than even the most outlandish claims made about communist-led states. If communists must explain Pol Pot, then capitalists must explain the Congo.

The system of global capital. It's most egregous representatives are high-level bankers and industrialists, the 'Davos class' if you will. But simply killing the representatives does nothing, they will be replaced by a new generation - it is the system that must fundamentally change. A true structuralist marxist does not hate the banker but the system. Some of the more exploitative ones do deserve gulag though.
Rightwingers of the political class are just knowing or unknowing pawns, proletarian rightwingers are gripped by false consciousness to support the structures that enslave them. They are to be helped if possible.

What does that even mean? What sort of things would make communism inherently Jewish? Is liberalism an inherently Anglo idea? anyway pic related
You should note here that for essentialists such as yourself and other fascists the characteristics of a person making a statement matter (more) than the actual statement, but for us non-essentialists it is the opposite. As a side note this explains much of the Holla Forums paranoia, as anyone posting could be a Jew or any of the other bogeymen. Essentialism and anonymosity don't really mix too well.

I should also note that by 'rightwingers' in the previous post I also refer to liberals and social democrats, ie. everyone who wishes to maintain the global capitalist status quo

I only bring this up because of the main body of the Bolsheviks being Jewish, as well as Marx it seems that a disproportionate amount of the Jewish elite are pushing for globalism as well as imposing their influence on European countries; as well as other places around the world, I mean I'm sure I don't need to lecture any of you about Soros and everything he gets up to, or the pope pushing for a one world government. Not to imply that I outright think Holla Forums and these guys share the same ideals but you've gotta admit it looks pretty sketchy.

That's all well and good, but it really helps to have a clear and detailed understanding of what you are trying to change and what you want that change to look like.

Just so. It is important to recognize that patterns of thought are, to a significant extent, learned. What makes a thing good in the eyes of an individual is heavily influenced by social context.

Yes, but it will be his head on the chopping block if he crosses the ruling class. Even a dictator relies on others to enact his decrees for him. Political power only extends as far as the economic power that backs it will allow.

The bourgeoisie, the ruling class. They wil be the ones coordinating opposition to the revolution.

Hilarious nonsense. What amazes me is that peple would actually believe that a bunch of atheists who are dedicated to the overthrow of the rule of capital are jewish bankers. It is completely upside-down.

It is a socio-economic system.

They have resulted in revolutions which inherently involve mass killings. Famines are less prevalent under socialist regimes, not the other way around. Further, I could lob the same accusation at capitalism. Capitalist resource extraction nodes are nightmares.

read moses hess. Communism is material judiasm

Seriously, what is "inherently Jewish?" I put it to you that identities have no inherent quaities whatsoever.

Both the fascists and the SJWs always see everything through the lens of which identities are disproportionately represented as if that in any way changes the nature of the a real thing. The Bolsheviks drew a lot of Jews, since there were a lot of Jewish industrial workers at the time. Communists attract the proletariat. The proletariat had Jews in it, since many of them did not own land like peasants did and were thus forced to be waged laborers. As for Marx, he was a lot more Prussian than he was Jewish, not to mention the fact that he was an atheist who was none too fond of judaism.

A materialist religion? Can you not see how absurd that is?

It's a form of transmutation. Also materialism has become a religion if you hadn't being paying attention. Religions are merely memeplexes if you really think about it.

I'm sorry user, but are you a philosophical illiterate?

youtu.be/GEzOgpMWnVs

Watch this mans videos. Pay close attention

are you a philosophical zombie?

No it hasn't. Wait, are you confusing materialism with consumerism? What do you think materialism is?

If you are not actively seeking the destruction of white culture and white heritage, then why would you viciously oppose those who seek its preservation?

If we are really going to bring up that point in history then we should really mention that a similar thing was happening in the former Ottoman Empire with the Turkish civil war, except they were not communist, and there was a communist revolution in Germany that failed as well. (Social democrats killed Luxembourg lol)

Of course they did. We hate communism just as much as they do. What you seem to forget is that before the Italian Fascists and German Nazis came to power, communists had been super annoying in those countries for years, so by then everyone was fucking tired of communist bullshit.

Not to mention that people were afraid of communism coming to them and bringing death to the people it is supposed to be liberating.

You were making everyone's lives miserable with your antics so you essentially created Fascism. The same thing is happening with the SJWs causing white nationalism.

We ally ourselves with the oligarchy of our nation so that we can take on the world oligarchy.

I know that american fucked around in communist nations a lot, but the soviet union was doing the same thing. The FLQ was a terrorist action in Canada that was marxist, you can probably assume the soviet union was involved some how.

Fucking with other countries is just a thing countries do. everyone does it.

hell we are being accused of being russian shills, and I have to admit that there is worrying amount of russian influence in the white nationalist movement, particularly Richard Spencer who seems to have connections to Alexandr Dugin.

What do you think we are doing? Unlike you we actually indentify the individual people who are in control and how they interact with each other. Playing different oligarchies off each other would be essential to defeating the entire system and you guys aren't even willing to admit that if any communist revolution would occur the leaders would 100% likely be agents of the world oiligarchy, and they would be using the revolution to just confiscate the property of all the middle rich people in the country, while the actual rich would just take the private jets elsewhere.

They have enough money that its likely the are funding communist groups so that if any gain power they will be in their pocket. This is why I am blackpilled on communism.

State capitalism is the purpose of communist revolutions.

What we intend to do is end to world oiligarchy and return complete control of each country back to there own oligarchies.

To us imperialism is not bad "because capitalism" but because the poorer countries are not in full control over themselves.

The only way out to escape oligarchies is civilization collapses as oligarchies are a inherent trait of civilization

Because their idea of "white culture" is capitalism, hierarchies and consumerism.

Not even a tankie and I'm sick of this meme

The problem I have with communism is you will essentially need to prevent people from accumulated capital by force for forever after the "revolution". Kulaks will need to be killed indefinitely.

The right-wing solution to the global capitalist system is the unabomber manifesto

cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

I'm going to be honest with you. The reason right-wingers hate communism is that communism kills primarily the most productive and ambitious people, and allows the least productive the ability to breed a lot. It is inherently disgenic and if we implemented it we would never leave this godforasken rock are reach the stars.

Communism has killed primarily whites and east asians, who are the most adept at creating civilizations and technology. I really don't want to kill off anymore of these two groups.

nice meme

Because those groups are all working to make life harder (or nonexistent) for millions of people.

lurk moar

The ultimate red pill is understanding that communists don't seek dictatorship of the proletariat, but rather a dictatorship of the Jews.

Lurking more will not suddenly negate the fact that nazis literally want to make life harder or nonexistent for millions of people.

you cannot remove the religious urge from humans. Athiestic materialism has merely fulfilled that urge for some

to answer your question, Materialism is a world view that ties in with Determinism. That is to say that there is a primacy of matter over all else, or that matter is the sole state of being. Thinking this literally turns you into a good goy zombie

You people don't want to defend 'white culture' or 'white heritage', you don't even know what that is. All you have is some fantasy of a pre-lapsarian 'pure' society to which you want to return even though it never existed in the first place. Destruction of genuine history and perversion of tradition to fit with the new reality is a key component of fascist society- and consciousness-building.
The whole concept of 'white culture' is absurd anyway, built from a schizophrenic American identity crisis with no basis in actual culture or even genetics in the nazi sense. Christian culture is the closest equivalent, but that kind of ruins the genetic argument doesn't it.

Very annoying and scary to the bourgeois and scared and ashamed petit-bourgeois.
In 1920-30? Bullshit. While the propaganda machinery was pumping out anti-communist material, it wasn't collectivisation that people feared like in the modern day of Gulag Archipelagos and Stalin's purges.
First as a tragedy…
Slave mentality. You are still a cuck even if the dick that fucks your wife belongs to Hans not Jamal.
Yes but the point was that Cuba was doing quite well despite constant outside aggression, not which team had bullied the other more.
They cannot put the factories and office buildings in private jets, user. They can take their money, as in a data entry in a bank database somewhere away, but that doesn't really mean anything.
That's not how a communist revolution works though.
So we can all fight each other to death? WWIII, This Time With Nukes!
proofs ples.

Except if you abolish capital.
Based on what exactly?
Arguments from essentialism aren't really going to convince anyone on this board.

Whereas believing in magic turns you into Aryan Supersoldier! Funny that adherents of an ideology based on a mental and physical submission to a 'great leader' would accuse others of zombification. Heil Heil, Führer knows best!

It's funny how much existential angst the sort of stuff you believe to be objective reality causes you. So much so that you cannot respond at all. I know exactly how you think, I used to be like you when I was a teenager. It was the most depressing mental state to live with, so much so that I almost killed myself.

Now I'm not telling you to believe in magic, but you have to really critically examine continental philosophy if you want any sort of value from it in your own life; you cannot know unknown knowns and so on.

It's funny to watch your cognitive dissonance on race realism and materialism though. Haha we totally don't have spirits but do somehow! Real spooky shit ;)

If there is a noumenal world it is unreachable and thus frankly irrelevant. My epistemology is fully internalist.
Respond to what?
Wow, are you ok now?
Thanks, I'm good on existentialist self-help novels. Nice to hear that they helped you though.
Explain.
What spirits? Are you sure you are ok?
You sure you know what that means?

Here you go. Same document, but the first file has the key parts highlit.

There was some post on cuck/pol/ that was most likely a troll, but said The Next Revolution had a defense of Western culture from a leftist point of view. I haven't read it, but if it does, it might be worthwhile to spread it.

The same thing could be said for gun ownership, "it's wasn't real socialism", how socialism != big gubmint, how literally all commie States followed the same blueprint (more or less like if all capitalist countries were like Victorian-England-capitalist), how there were other attempts at socialist and anarchist societies but they were crushed by both capitalists and commies, about libertarian currents within the left and a million other canards.

That was Hitler's pet sculpor, wasn't he? He sucks so much.

can confirm, am jew

heh nothin' personal, *unsheathes eight-fold path*

you're barely wroth responding too.
*sips tea*

I did explain myself. You cannot defend materialism without implicitly recognizing race is part of the superstructure. That is unless you are undergoing some process of cognitive dissonance whereupon biology is not a material phenomena.

You can continue on with that literal "besh the fesh" understanding of Hegal and German idealism though. If you're retarded not enough to understand that you probably cant even tie your own shoelaces without tripping yourself.

hmm

It appears I'm in yet another episode of 'Troll or genuine Holla Forumsyp!', fortunately it's my favourite gameshow.
Do you know what the superstructure is?
Biological categories such as taxonomy etc. are not functions of the world but of human understanding of the world. Universals do not exist.
I wish you luck.

The superstructure can be anything really. Obviously you think I'm referring to Capitalism. Capitalism is subordinate to a larger superstructure, namely the totality of being and human behavior.

boy oh boy are you retarded.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

good luck trying to feed billions without understanding Mendelian inheritance.

And presumably in your model 'the base' of 'human nature' or some other amazing power is static and unchanging?

The fact that you equate the two just shows the shallowness of your understanding.

This is the biggest one. As if efficiency of government is just entirely different to efficiency of business

No, human nature is mutable, but it exists.That is said with a caveat. The whole nurture vs. nature argument is a false dichotomy. They are both part of the superstructure of human behavior and being.

It was an intentional strawman fam, what you said was very retarded, response in kind and so on. Heuristics do exist and will continue to exist due to the nature of our existence that will not be changing anytime soon. Maybe in a conflict free society but that wont be brought about by retarded supporters of cummunism that cannot revolt without daddy oligarchies money and that doesn't even understand an infinitesimal slice of reality.

I do that perfectly fine on my own thank you very much. Why are you in the same breath railing against authoritarianism and defending it??

Nigger, lysenkoism was never useful. I very well understand why humans are incapable of understanding due to our faulty nature. That's why it's important to have good epistemology. Killing and gulaging people because they disagree about theory is dummmmmb

If that is the superstructure what is the base?

This: "Biological categories such as taxonomy etc. are not functions of the world but of human understanding of the world. Universals do not exist."?
How is that retarded?

What do you even mean by this? What relevance does this have to the conversation?

Yes, communism is famously very popular among the moneyed elite. I have no interest in arguing against nazi reality re-writes.

Great, embrace nuance and stop believing in magic then.

Where?

I wasn't comparing the two - I was attacking the notion that the science of biology is in any fundamental way 'real'. This discourse would be much easier if you weren't so in love with strawmen.

'Faulty'? That implies there is some kind of absolute state of completeness? Elaborate.

Yes.

Weltanschaung and will and ability. This underwrites the base of Capitalism's base; labor and hierarchical structures.

You claimed that universals do not exist, and that in that I was defending that. All I care about is the applicability, not whether something is universally true or in that it is possible for mutable forms to have a moment of universal agreement. It's hypocritical of you to claim that;
When here yourself have been making strawmans of me. I don't mind though, shitposting is a very good form of epistemology.

Furthermore;
You are the one claiming whether that universals cannot exist or not. That is not very nuanced in of itself.

ummmm I don't think there's any point to discussing this with you further. You claim that I believe in magic yet biology as an unfalsifiable field of science is not real. This is soooo stupid.

The state of completeness would be absolute clarity of perception. Our bodies were not designed evolutionary/intelligently for this. Not even close. Transhumanism will rectify this.

All this is base while human being (Dasein presumably) is in the superstructure? How does that work? Magic?

In you wrote:
Biology is material phenomena, but all the ways to understand it, categorisations etc are not features of the world itself. This is why I can effortlessly defend materialism while discarding your idea of 'race' as a relevant category.

What sort of golden mean fallacy are you pulling here

So when scientific consensus (or whatever your criterion for scientific 'reality') changes the fundamental nature of reality also changes? Taxonomy for example is as much about consensus of ideas as it is about empirical study. Read up on some philosophy of science.

What does this mean?

No, not human being, but the totality of human being. And how does what work? People are convinced of things and go out and act upon these beliefs. Their actual ability of both being able to be convinced and act upon these things is in part based upon ability which includes material reality. Ignoring the idea of will for a second to accommodate you here for a second, even if material had primacy over all else that would not matter since we are imperfect actors and are not capable of taking material reality into accord. Especially since this material reality is so influenced by others that it will change thereby changing what is appropriate. Especially considering that we do not have perfect clarity of perception. Clarity of perception refers to our senses not being able to perceive reality to how it is. This is really basic stuff dog. You know when you get a cup of water with a straw in it that the straw looks kind of funny and bent and stuff like right, but it's not really. That's the fault of our imperfect senses and a result of the medium. With will and intelligence we could design wayyyy better forms of knowing things that work around the imperfections of our evolved ones.

That's better explained, but it still could be applied to analysis of economic class theory. Even worse considering the very act of talking about biology does not change the nature of biological constructs. That being said those categorizations are reflections of the World and our attempts to come to grips with it. That is why the concept of unfalsifiability is very important. Despite this, it does not change the fact that there is a biological reality that you are not addressing (whether you are right or wrong on the subject). Incidentally what do you think my conception of "race" is? A lot of people actually do not know the etymology of race, even most Holla Forumsacks do not. It's a very difficult subject to discuss and I can understand why it would drive those with a pro-enlightenment disposition nuts.

I'm merely showing you the inconsistency in your thoughts. I do think there is a lot of nuance, and it's a bit churlish to consider otherwise.

I self evidently understand enough. I'm not claiming that having a consensus of douchbags makes you more right. What makes you right is being right.

Furthermore to add upon the impacts of biology on the superstructure. It's not merely race, for example if you look at the field of bio-history and the recent developments in the field of epigenetics you can see a clear influence of biology upon the superstructure without getting into racial science or what have you.

Didn't abolish the commodity form therefore not socialist

I'm more complicated: a Market Socialist + Corporatist hybird.

So the base is:
and the superstructure is:
Presumably 'ability' includes things like experiencing and consciousness? In that case it makes sense. But to return to the reason why I asked about the whole thing in the first place, how do you in that case answer Hegel re:race as in the quote in ?

Is this back to materialism vs idealism? It's a metaphysical debate, what people can or cannot conceive is irrelevant.

With this and transhumanism you've wandered quite far from the "Hans der Bauer" idyll of the OG nazis.

That is exactly why it is different. The reality contained in economic class theory is completely internal - that is the truthfulness of a statement inside the system is contained within the system. Same as when you compare mathematics to biology or other empirical sciences - mathematical statements are absolutely true or false within their own systems.

As in the reverse of falsifiability? Explain.

Which biological reality is that? That people have different amounts of melanin and different genes? Not relevant to my politics.

No idea. There are as many conceptions of race as there are nazis (or perhaps 'political racialists' is a better phrasing) in my experience.
Honestly the notion of building a society around any concept of race or genetics seems to immediately run into enormous problems of consistency in application. If one would want society to be truly reflective of genetic markup it would have to be localist or regionalist, not based on 19th century nation-building politics.

But that's not how science or conceptions of reality work. Were people wrong when they thought newtonian physics were true? If so, is everything we know right now wrong, with the assumption that science will advance? If people were not wrong to think newtonian physics were true, what has changed since?

Give examples.

Because race realism is more than phrenology referring to specifically what he said. However what hegel said is quite right, assuming race is the primary mover in the superstructure is wrong minded. That being said it exists and is important and must be taken into account.

I think it is highly relevant when discussing the state of humanity.

>With this and transhumanism you've wandered quite far from the "Hans der Bauer" idyll of the OG nazis.
Really though I've come to the views I have because I cannot refute them. I wish what I think to be true isn't the case. Yet to be conclusively BTFO though. These views that I hold are all with in mind to truely progress towards a conflict free society, in which we face a great and many challenges in which human nature is part of (we are still biologically inclined towards being tribalistic hunter-gathers, our biology is too slow for memes which causes a great deal of alienation).

if that were true I would turn into a nigger during Summer kek

However
I don't know, If I and a number of other people are correct those genes can and will have a real effect on your politics. Incidentally which are? Some form of post-modern socialism?

As for the reality of race? It is difficult to define as there is a whole lot of nuance to it. Which lends itself towards looking at easily statistical testable areas such as Autism Level levels and time preference. But these alone are not the sole basis of how we are all racially different, merely ways of measuring it in part. A lot of people do not talk about easily observable physiological differences such as muscle twitch fibres, blood pressure, bone density, ability to consume differently, different immune systems. It just goes on and on. Then there are things to consider like what are Middle-East and North Africans? This sort of talk lends itself to the anthropological categorization with Caucasian/caucosoids, mongaloids, negroids, capoids and Australoids. But this does not lend itself to the discussion of the immense diversity in each category. It serves as the most gum toothed form of heuristic. Now given this knowledge and assuming I am correct, what is to be done? ethno-nationalism? And how would that even be achieved? All I can say is that there is no simple solution.

Yes you are very correct in saying this. Most white nationalists and race realists and Not Socialists would be on board with this if it were possible. Unfortunately the chains of suspicion That bind us all prevent us from working together which seems to prove to me yet again the pernicious nature of human nature. I am of the view that communists, socialists, syndicalists or what have you should be allowed to practice their respective ideologies in their own communes in my idealized state but I doubt I could get them to trust me lol

p1

p2

My bad, I meant to type falsifiability. I'm so used to typing that AGW is unfalsifiable that has formed into muscle memory :P

No, but science is based upon this axiom. The rest of the scientific method follows after the consideration that we are often prone to all sorts of cognitive defects and biases and so on. As such there is a spectrum of correctness in describing the universe.

Well for biohistory the wiki page is a good place to start
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biohistory
In refering to epigenetic cycles I'm refering to this lad
biohistory.org/

But there is also gross kike stuff like this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

These oligarchies you speak of are the exploiters and the top of the upper class.
We can get rid of them by opposing that which enabled them in the first place, i.e reversing the opening of floodgates of unjustified hierarchy that first popped up thanks to the agricultural revolution.
We've been classless before and we can do it again :1)

what about biological class and social class? That existed before the economic stratification.

coward's way out

you do know that capitalists also manipulate communist movements too right?

That's cool though, the cowards way out is pretty honorable if you do it with dignity.

aesthetics, nothing but aesthetics

you can take your honor with you, goebbels

well if you are eastern euro count yourself lucky. in US you GO INTO FUCKING DEBT to even go to school

you cannot take anything with you when you die, except that in your last moments the feeling of living a good life.

Well if you want to think of it that way, perhaps the clearest difference is that you put 'Will' (I hope it means the conscious actor rather than some Völkish mysticism) in the base of the human condition, while for me it belongs in the superstructure in your model. On the whole starting to build a society or a view of a society based on the individual or the individual's world is the wrong approach, societies are relations between humans and should thus be based on the logic of structural relations.

Even tribalistic conflicts are built on the back of material reasons; conflict does not pop out of nothing. Biological inclination is secondary.
Either way, this is not something we can fundamentally agree on, due to the gulf between my structuralist views and your essentialism, even if you are possibly the least convincing nazi I've yet to converse with.

Haven't read enough theory to place myself, but at the moment I'd say I'm somewhere between Luxemburg and Lenin. The idea is to eventually build my own theory of course.

So you are saying that because there are genetic differences between groups of people it means they have to live in different societies? Big leap. And I don't even need to say this but in practical terms the concept of race as it is used in the modern context has far more to do with culture and trivial optics than actual genetics. Genetic difference between East and West Africa is quite large in context of the whole of human genetic diversity but 'Black Africans' are often taken as a single group.

Really? Most I've dealt with have in their silly hitlerist fantasies been perfectly happy to lump together Bretons and Occitans or Sicilians and Lombards.

There is space for you in my gulag, don't worry. Honestly I don't give a shit if people are racist or whatnot as long as they don't let that affect the professional side of their life. In private they can build Auschwitz out of lego for all I care.

Yes, but in a system as large and interdependent as the climate variables are hard to control for. IMO the strongest argument for anti-AGW action is a likely-outcome analysis: if AGW is real, great we prevented a mass extinction event, if it isn't, oh well the planet isn't quite as polluted, lets fuck shit up.

Which one is it?

Those are both forms of will, but not the essence of will. You could argue that meta-cognition is will, but not really. All I have to say on the subject is that qualia undergo interesting phenomena.

I agree, you cannot have individuals without collectives. You cannot even argue this without making it clear in arguing for it the need for collectives. As for social units what's the core of it for you? Personally the mannerbund seems to be the bedrock, you cannot even have muh nuclear families without a mannerbund.

yes but those conflicts are now embedded in our genome. People will fight eachother because they look and smell different, even if they think different. All based around the lines of dunbars number or there about. This is not something you can change with conditioning, this instinct can only be overpowered by material forces. When we run out of pretend money to borrow shit is going to get real and that makes me terribly sad. We could have prevented this.

The real Not Socialists were civil and urbane. To an extent. And I still want to gas the juice and 1488.

So vanguardist right? Can you explain the difference between Fascism and Vanuardism to me? Keeping in mind that Fascism isn't explicitly racial. It has to be the expected outcomes and different philosophical soures right?

I know you're bound to disagree with this(and the causes), but Africans and other lower "intelligence" "races" tend to to struggle in our societies. It's sort of cruel to force them to live with us and vice versa. The issue with that is that we can never be free of eachother. Even if we sent all the black people to africa ala Liberia it would turn into a shitshow and we'd continue to exploit them. It all comes back to making a paradime shift, this isn't going to change unless we change. And that isn't going to come from cargo cultism (communism).

p1

p2

Hence the separate anthropological racial categories of negroid and capoid. While they might be more diverse, I'd imagine a lot of that is essentially junk data as other races around the World had to adapt to radically different climates to the ones they inhabited before (I know africa has very changeable local environments, but it's not the same as seasons and other selective forces).

Really? Most I've dealt with have in their silly hitlerist fantasies been perfectly happy to lump together Bretons and Occitans or Sicilians and Lombards.
The ones who do that are probably Americans. They're all mixed cauc which I find disgusting in of itself. I do agree with the sentiment that it espouse though, no more brother wars and so on

There is space for you in my gulag, don't worry. Honestly I don't give a shit if people are racist or whatnot as long as they don't let that affect the professional side of their life.
I'm not quite advocating for putting people into gulags m8, It'd be more like autonomous regions but with the understanding that they fall under the jurisdiction of an overarching state. Hopefully the authentic country living would sort out the profligates and degenerates and the mentally unsound. Orwell thought that putting homeless people in communes to grow their own food in part would help them.
That's the problem, in the past Communists would rely on the oppression of ethnic groups and would exploit them. It's nothing necessarily unique to communists though. Pretty much everybody does it.

Yes, but in a system as large and interdependent as the climate variables are hard to control for. IMO the strongest argument for anti-AGW action is a likely-outcome analysis: if AGW is real, great we prevented a mass extinction event, if it isn't, oh well the planet isn't quite as polluted, lets fuck shit up.
The problem with proponents of AGW is that they provide no real solution. I'm not down for agenda 21 bullshit and I'm not down the counter productive slave labor to mine rare earths to make shitty solar panels and windfarms that are a net negative. It makes more sense to invest in 4th generational nuclear power. Not only is it safer than everything else (even coal, which kills 10,000's per year from pollution) but in mining the fuel you also mine rare earths which you can then separate on the cheap. It's basically fusion lite that you can do everywhere. Pretty much every country has the resources to diy it, in that pretty much every country can mine thorium. And it's been available to us since the 50-60's. But the CIAnigger ZOG Occupied Government USA government thought funding fast breeder high pressure reactors was more important as it produced fissile material and they wouldn't want the 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧petroleum industry🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 to go out of business.

both but it goes more like this

I'm not sure what you mean by biological classes, but social classes did definitely not exist during primitivism to my knowledge
You probably have the wrong idea of egalitarianism

alpha vs. beta mails duuuuh ;)

what did he mean by this??

Zionists and antisemites/Nazis have collaborated in the past and the ultimate goal of racial ethno-nationalists are to be allowed to freely express the same mindset that Jews allegedly, collectively have

marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/hidden/ch06.htm

...

It's the modern day era though

Is it magic?

There is no universal 'core' social unit. The nature of the social units changes for both the individual and the society as a whole, with the mode of production being the predominant force.

Disagree, though proving this one way or the other is quite difficult.

Why? If you don't believe in racial determinism what point is there to hunt down a specific ethnic group? Also who exactly are the jews anyway, if it is genetics you are interested in?
Cmon, hitlerism was a complete failure in just about every category imaginable.

No class collaboration (fuck you maotists)
Centralised democracy
No capitalism (outside of transitionary periods)
etc.

unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
Any comments?
Either way if it is only intelligence and similar ability that means that societal segregation is necessary surely it would be prudent to just consistently discriminate by intelligence or some other metric rather than race. There are loads of intelligent blacks and dumb whites after all.

Communism is the literal polar opposite of cargo cultism - a system that devalues material posessions by making them trivially obtainable. pic somewhat related

Racial self-hatred seems to be quite common among Holla Forums types, do you have any explanation for this phenomenon? Can you see the forest from the trees?

Just going to push them out of sight, but then again optics are the priority for the fascist type anyway.

In the SU it was only post-Lenin when Stalin started his repressive and Russophilic programmes. Lenin held national self-management in high regard.

Stop using the word 'right' if you are going to dilute it into 'a spectrum of rightness'