Now I know you want to ban me for daring to post this here, I know 8pol would in a heartbeat. But I truly believe that the alt-right and the radical left (is it OK if I use that term??) have a lot of the same goals, and even a lot of the same solutions.
This is a touchstone issue of the left. One of the issues they are unambiguously correct about. There is disagreement about the validity Global Warming, but in terms of milk-and-cheese environmentalism (protect nature, preserve animal species, provide clean air, water, and clean streets….etc) the alt-right sounds almost exactly like the left. Perhaps even more radical. Richard Spencer is now literally going around saying that we need to return to a pastoral, rural, communitarian lifestyle where kids can grow up in tune with nature.
Who is the big-bad of the left? The rich Who is the big-bad of the alt-right? The jews Now, would it surprise you to learn that there is a lot of overlap between these two groups? Both the radical left and the alt-right want the same people knocked out of power, they just have a different concept about what to replace it with.
The left wants to champion the interests of the working man, to support unions, and to oppose big businesses. The alt-right wants to support the (white) working man, to support (white) unions, to oppose (jewish) big businesses. Again, there is a lot of overlap here. Practically speaking, both groups will be championing a lot of the same policies.
The purehearted left is traditionally anti-war. The alt-right is also against wars that don't support the national interest. Both vigorously oppose the wars in the middle east, and want to see Paul Wolfowitz hanging from a lamppost.
There is plenty of common ground here. I think if the two groups had debate and dialogue between each other, ideas would germinate on both sides, and lay the fertile groundwork for a new modern political consensus.
You have to understand that orthodox fascism was upheld by a former socialist, mussolini. However, it's like an aborted 3rd cousin in that it uses feelings to justify most of their processes instead of actually understanding the real issue (ie "protect the arbitrary lines on the ground from being destroyed by what i dont like!" vs "prevent destructive practices that lead to the destruction and ruin of the working class and the environment". at least thats what marxists think. and most converts from pol come here because they realize that reeing at niggers wont fix your life.
It's not, it is capitalism. If you kill all the richfags, capitalism will create new ones to keep the machine in motion. If you kill all the juice, not only you let the ineffective economic system intact but you also let a lot of the """establishment""" go off free to keep porkying up the world and steering it into global capitalism again.
That's the main schism between fascists and radical gommies from what I can tell.
This can't go wrong
We don't believe in genocide or ethnic cleansing.
Until you abandon these ideas, we will go nowhere with each other. We have no common ground.
fascists have never been for class warfare class collaboration is the bedrock of it like jesus fuck how the fuck can you miss that when you shill for private property wage labor and capital accumulation you are in service to the bourgeoisie
there is no common ground
also alt riht being anti war is a meme you want to see "wolfowitz" hanging from a post but would never join with lefties to engage in real class warfare. if you did, you wouldn't be alt right
read a book pls
Please read this thread it's a brief discussion yesterday that exposes some of the differences. In short this: Just doesn't hold up.
It's not the people, it's the whole system that empowers those people. Also until recently our neighbors at Holla Forums spend the better part of ~2 years sucking off 'honorary Aryan' banker ultra-Jews such as Kuschner. This whole opposing (((big business))) thing only happens in propaganda.
You support capitalism and big business, just so long as the guys at the top are white. Fuck off.
When it comes down to it. Fascism resolves a class question that liberals never considered in full up until that time. What do you do with masses of non-land non-MoP owning citizens? Something that - if you read the works of older Liberal philosophers - wasn't even considered? The way Fascists resolve it reminds me a lot of an ancient comedy by Aristophanes, which goes like this. >Praxagora: I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common; there will no longer be either rich or poor; […] I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. […] Praxagora: The slaves.
"The Slaves" in this case are all the disenfranchised workers, and anyone else soon to be caught up in the Fascist war machine. Including the actual slaves in conquered territories. The Nazis took capitalism to it's very logical conclusion when they send millions of white eastern Europeans to be worked to death in the factories and mines of Thysen Krupp, IG Farben, Messerschmidt and other mega-conglomerates. They wanted socialism for the rich, and slavery for everyone else.
Again, no. Taking out individual actors does nothing in the long run.
You are not in favor of replacing jack shit, you are not for abolishing the present state of things.
That has not been the case with you types historically.
You're mostly right except the alt-right are just racist libertarians and capitalists. Fascists and Natio.nal Socialists have far more common ground with the left since we aren't capitalists.
I literally just got b& from Holla Forums for daring to suggest that a lot of the global elites that we oppose aren't jews and plenty of whites are part of the problem as well. Judaism is a mindset at this point that isn't constrained to any one ethnic group.
Kek, we would just kill them if they are a threat or leave them alone if not. Slavery hurts the native working class even more than mass immigration because free labor can't be competed with.
We hate him and his wife btw and people are starting to hate Trump, too.
I've never heard about this stuff that's kind of depressing but I guess they needed support of the conservatives to consolidate power and intended to finish them off later but were interrupted with the war. They weren't able to implement many of their plans because right after they fixed the economy they had to deal with the war.
Institutions are just pieces of paper acted upon by individuals, remove the individuals and there is nothing real left.
But you are.
Even when the military suggested that security reasons dictated that work should be performed by free German workers, Alfried (Krupp) insisted on using slaves.
Except Hitler went out of his way to purge socialist leaning members like Otto Strasser. Yet even even if we assume it was all 4D chess: Why did so many Eastern Europeans have to enslaved and/or killed? Why did Warsaw have to be destroyed? Why was Rotterdam bombed? Why did they plan to raze Paris? Saving Europe by destroying it seems like a pretty strategy to me.
And then there's Mussolini, who had 17 years till WW2 hit. The same thing happened. (They also had Jewish sympathizers and allies till the end. Which I guess is also interesting.) But this just proves that the system is at fault here. Even if both Mussolini and Hitler had genuine socialist leanings, they weren't, or wouldn't have been able to overcome the system. Profit ruled, and the rest is history.
I'm glad to hear that. I abandoned that place after people started getting banned the first time for not toeing the line. The place definitely seems a less cancerous than it was a year ago. Also pic related. One of Kikefy's greatest hits.
*Pretty warped strategy
Don't feed to concern troll, please.
Krupp wasn't a National Socialist, he was a conservative with a lot of power and influence. Don't you know your Alinsky?
The Strasserites were planning a second revolution and Hitler wanted secure his power. AFAIK only the ringleaders were dealt with, their followers were left free. I'm not going to say he was infallible though, I'm sure communists recognize that the USSR made a lot of mistakes and wasn't a full representation of your ideology, just as we know the Third Reich wasn't able to achieve full National Socialism. Compromises and mistakes were made along the way. Poland was invaded because its German ethnic minority was being abused and attacked and Hitler felt it was his duty to help his people, even though they were citizens of another country. Communists believe in working class unity across borders and we believe in racial unity across borders. A kind of "nationalist internationale" if you will. The Russian and other slav incidents were because they were raping and pillaging their way across Europe and had to be stopped. Anyways Slavs are inferior to other Europeans, which is demonstrated by their utter backwardness throughout history with Russia being the last European country to modernize and with the population basically enslaved as serfs even up to the 20th century. They're more aggressive and barbaric, too, probably from Mongol DNA. So I don't fault the Germans for defending against the Slavic hordes. To shock and awe the Dutch and secure a rapid victory so the Wehrmacht could focus on the real enemies? I haven't heard of this, all I know about the occupation of France is that photo of the high command in front of the Eiffel Tower. They didn't end up razing Paris though so they probably decided against it.
I don't think Mussolini or Mosely were anti-semitic. They recognized that jews were disproportionately represented among the enemies of the people but didn't extend that enmity to their whole race, just the "bad ones". Fascism isn't National Socialism though because there is a minor yet significant philosophical difference. In Fascism, the state is the end goal and the people exist to keep the machinery of the state running. It's not nationalistic in a racial sense because the only goal is the perpetuation of the state. It is corporatist and not socialist, though in practice there may have been socialist influences. In National Socialism, the well being of the people is the highest goal and the state exists only to serve the people, and can be replaced at will. As long as the people survive they can rebuild the state. Ideally profit would have no bearing on the motivations of the NatSoc state because it's not a materialist worldview, it's a spiritual one. Which is why you guys make fun of us for feels > reals but the emotions and mindsets are a big part of it rather than just materialistically focusing on the economy like communism or capitalism.
I don't keep up with mod drama but I heard he got replaced and isn't a mod anymore.
Exacerbated by management incompetence and cynical economic choices, but not genocide as the UN defines it. The famine and deaths weren't just limited to Ukraine at the time, and the areas most affected were in the Russian speaking east of the country. It's something that could have been prevented for most part. But again, even if we assume this is "socialism" It isn't no one is arguing to repeat that. This is different from Natsoc and Fascist circles (including Holla Forums and ironmarch) where people actively advocate ethnic cleansing.
Contemptible, and one of the low-points in Soviet history. But I don't think you will find many people here (if any) that will try to justify that.
I guess you are referring to at least 3 events. The Purges in the USSR. The scale of which has frequently been inflated, to the point it isn't supported by actual demographic figures or the opened KGB archives. There were many innocents that died at it's high point. For which later Yezhov was executed. Not something to be repeated.
The Great Famine in China. Falls into the same category of the Holodomor. Disastrous policies. That exacerbated the type of famine that plagued China periodically. It was definitely made worse, but considering this also happened before the rise of the Chinese Communist Party, there's no guarantee that a free market would have prevented it.
Khmer Rouge. Perhaps surprisingly I'd argue this is the situation where the motives were the 'closest' to socialism. Even if Pol Pot was already a nutcase by then. He was also supported by the US in the end to spite Vietnam. It's a prime example of why killing your boss will not actually abolish capitalism in the long run. For a brief (thankfully) moment in time they actually managed to abolish money and commodity production as dominant form of production. And it was horrible. Because their motives were reactionary. The movement to abolish the present state of things goes in both directions. But only one (forward) will abolish the conditions that make capitalism possible.
The Holodomor was cynicism, The Purges paranoia, The Great Famine incompetence, The Khmer Rouge misdirected fanaticism and the danger of cultism. Even if you label all of that as socialism, it's not something even a plurality of socialists would argue repeating. And all of that could have been prevented.
Nobody gives a shit about you here
ahahahaha ah man that's a good one
Krupp was a card carrying member of the Nazi Party and early financial backer of the Nazis before they were even power but that's really besides the point, your deflection skills need some work.
Who the hell even brings him up here beside Holla Forumsyp retards.
Okay. Now I understand the distinction you were making between regrettable instances you'd rather not repeat and including similar instances as your policy. I guess it comes down to the age old debate between deontology vs utilitarianism: is it the intent or the result that makes something immoral? Both result in millions dead. And how do you weight the value of each life? To us one European life is worth many non-European lives because they're ours, they're stronger, smarter, more beautiful, have more potential, have more empathy, more respect for nature, etc. You may simply think all people are completely identical and any death is equally bad.
We advocate genocide of certain races because they are either an active threat to us (jews/arabs being our internal and external enemies, respectively) or we don't think they are capable of doing anything of note ever and just waste resources and destroy the environment (africans being completely worthless for all of history, never even inventing the wheel). Most other groups I think we would just have a live and let live attitude towards. You'd be hard pressed to find one of us who hates say Assyrians or Persians or Mongolians or Japanese or Maori or Native Americans or Incas etc. They all have unique and interesting cultures with rich history and a track record of producing successful civilizations.
So yeah some of us advocate genocide in some circumstances but it's not like we all want to bathe the world in the blood of universal omnicide. Many of us would even let our enemies live as long as they stuck to their own countries, but I think that's a mistake because they can just come back and reset the situation to how it is now.
Who cares if he was a party member? He wasn't ideologically a National Socialist because he was a megaporky. I guess no-one? I am a Holla Forumsyp and I thought he was big on the left. You guys have been pretty successful the past few decades so we've been studying your tactics.
Polite sage for doublepost
I don't care one way or the other either. My bringing up slave labor in Germany was my only point back then and you chose to harp on a technicality. The point still remains, several business owners were more than comfortable using slave labor, only reason i brought up Krupp specifically was because he was probably the biggest porky in Germany at the time and insisted on using slaves even when recommended he use german workers. The fact that his penchant for slave labor was granted to him by the Nazis just serves to make my point as to their culpability. This isn't even mentioning slaves in camps, mind you.
This is embarrassing.
Well like I said the Nazis weren't infallible and they made a lot of compromises. They did recommend he use native workers but I assume practicality prevailed. They probably needed citizens as soldiers for the war effort and as much industrial production as possible since they were attacked by the entire world. I'm sure they were culpable and weren't perfect. Transferring ideology from paper to real life is difficult to do properly as I'm sure communists are all too aware. We don't know much about you or what you believe but it seems like you know a lot about us. From what I have gathered I thought the big guys on the left were Marx for theory, Stirner for memes and general dismissiveness, and Alinsky for activism.
You're making the common duel mistake of a Rightist in thinking that others believe the same as you (racial/national conflict defines the world and to win you must defeat your racial/national enemies) while also having a non-materialistic conception of history and culture. You're incorrect in the first because the vast majority of people give significantly more fucks about their own advantage than the advantage of their vague racial or ethnic group. Muslims and Africans aren't coming into Europe to rebuild the Caliphate, they're coming in because their countries are shitholes (thanks to constant Capitalist imperialism). Jews aren't trying to subvert the West (why the fuck would they, it's the only entity keeping their apartheid state intact) with degenerate culture, they're trying to succeed in Capitalism by making the most profits they can, and one way in Capitalism is from commodifying culture and appealing to the alienated masses.
Shiggy my diggy
That's a lot of spooks my friend. I imagine it's quite difficult to prove something as generic as jews or arabs are an existential threat for the most powerful countries in the world (who happen to be the ones you want to "protect"). If you want us to take your position seriously you should provide examples of this menace.
Not to mention you should find a way to justify the fact that your superior race is threatened y inferior ones. If whites/non-europeans/whatever are stronger, smarter, etc. how come they are threatened by people who in your opinion are clearly inferior? How can they be superior if they are being corrupted and weakened by inferior beings?
You also say genocide is motivated by resources wasted on useless beings, but you fail to provide precise definitions of uselessness or even an estimate of this waste. In particular considering the vast majority of resources are consumed by the west, be it Europe or the US, despite being only a fraction of the total population. An African is by far a more efficient human being than a European when it comes to pure resource consumption.
You also act as every race existed in a vacuum without exchange or reciprocal influence. Greece took most of its cultural bakground from the middle east and so did indirectly Rome. So since the rest of the western world has its cultural roots in these two ancient countries the west does owe its existence at least partially to the existence of inferior beings. But this is only an example, your analysis of reality under the concept of race leaves little space for far more important factors like geographical influence on demographics and economics: England would never have been the starting point of the industrial revolution without being rich in natural carbon and steel, Rome would never have survived its early centuries if not for the fertility of the Italian peninsula providing the city with virtually unlimited manpower and the US would not be the colossus it is today if not for the abundance of natural resources and the absence of powerful competition neighbouring their country. If you consider this it gets pretty difficult to argue that different races performed better or worse because of their inherent strenghts or weaknesses, rather than their fortune being the product of reciprocal influences (both friendly and hostile) and geopolitical factors.
OP, I want to sincerely thank you for coming here to argue in good faith. It's an admirable trait to be able and willing to argue in good faith with your exact ideological opposites. Ignore the fags being rude.
fuck you fuck nazis
No, not really. Even when you guys are for the right things, it's for the wrong reasons.
Not entirely accurate, but close enough.
Before you get banned for violating rules, I'm going to respond to a few points because I believe that you came in good faith and want to understand why you, the "alt-right" are not more just pawn of the bankers and merchants
I agree, people are very much corrupted with the capitalist mindset of greed which is why National Socialism seeks to reawaken the spirit of our people and our tribalism so we work together instead of for ourselves (and why we think class collaboration would work since everyone would be looking out for their extended family rather than their own self interest). Yeah and I actually don't blame them or say Mexicans for going into the US. The fault is on us for letting them in. Regardless of their motives though they do present an existential demographic threat. This is where you're somewhat wrong, profit does drive them but also malice towards the goyim drives them to do especially fucked up things in pursuit of profits. They admit it. For example see pic related or: www.tabletmag.com/scroll/246724/the-specifically-jewy-perviness-of-harvey-weinstein where they discuss jews wanting to get revenge on goys and defile them.
Because we've been weakened and demoralized through a century of capitalist decadence and moral subversion. We've lost the will to fight. If we ever regained the will to power we could conquer the entire planet. I alluded to it later on in the post where I spoke of other ethnic groups that I respect. Africans are one of the few races that never even left the stone age and have never invented anything significant or contributed to human society in any way. Their native "culture" is extremely primitive and many have IQs below that of animals. They are totally worthless and parasitic beings. I agree on the western resource consumption though, I think we could all benefit from living simpler lives with less pointless consumerist crap that wastes production capacity and resources and pollutes the environment on previously unheard of scales. We aren't perfect by any stretch. The ancient Middle East and North Africa was ruled by whites (not necessarily Europeans). Since the proto-indo-european people spread both west and east, groups like Assyrians, Persians, northern Indians, and others are caucasiods. Egyptian mummies have been found with green and blue eyes and blond hair. By Arabs I refer specifically to the Semitic tribes of the Arabian peninsula, not all people in the Middle East. I don't think all ME people are inferior, just that one group. Africa is the most resource rich continent on the planet and they never left the stone age or invented the wheel. Northern Europeans fought to survive in frozen wastelands during several ice ages (most recently in the 1600s) so bad that the harbors would freeze to the depths and the soil was hard as rocks and they turned out perfectly fine.
Holla Forums probably has another word for this mindset but hopefully they understand what we mean by the jewish mindset and don't think we're talking about just jews.
My gott, this is massive feels>>>reals argument
Meh I'm Slavic myself but everybody knows Slavs aren't exactly the brightest exemplars of European achievement.
Still better than nigs tho :^)
his people, even though they were citizens of another country.
Never before have I read so much bullshit in one sentence
So your argument for the eastern menace is because the superior race got decadent because of its own success? And how is this the fault of anyone else but the white race itself? It controlled the world for several centuries with virtually no competitors (in terms of race at least). It had all the power in its hands and all the resources of this world at its feet and yet it got bored and let inferior races grow to become a threat?
Yes that's exactly what happened. The endless cycle of empire never stops. It's nobody's fault but our own, everybody else is just taking advantage of it. Our main goal is waking up our people not fighting others. Sorry it's late and there's a lot of replies, what points didn't I answer?
Okay I'll put it on my reading list.
Today? Slavs are probably best because we haven't fallen to cultural marxism. But before the first world war when everything started to go downhill I'd say probably Germanic people (not limited to Germany).
Yes. It's the imperialism that bothers me.
Do you mean cultural capitalism? marxism seeks to destroy merchants and bankers, not push LGBTBBQ agenda
The question is not quantity of resources, the question is about the ease of extraction. The industrial revolution did not start during the late Roman empire because there wasn't enough easily extractible coal around, despite there being the scientific principles behind steam engines already explored and played around with. Africa may be resource rich, but it's difficult to extract, process and utilize. Fertility is another big issue, yes there are areas where fertility is through the roof, but nothing like fertile grounds of the middle east or souther Europe. On this topic, should we divide the southern European race by the northern? Because the northmen did literally shit throught history but raid the south, where the actual scientificl and cultural development took place. Incidentally This is because the south provided fertile grounds and easiliy extractible resources, something that the north could not if not only later in history, where better tools could help. Native americans civilizations never invented the wheel as well, but built cities worthy of European countries in size and complexity. Progress is not a straight line nor a clearly defined concept. IQ is an un-scientific concept that holds no water whatsoever, not to mention the fact that intelligence is mostly function of environmental stimuli, rather than innate capacity. This is essentially you admitting that race is a fluid concept that can be modified on the fly to suit the immediate need of who is talking. A few decades ago Irish people were not whites and the same for Italians, now they are cramped together in the mighty white race because the historical situation changed and a new definition is needed. This is going towards the "Orcs vs men" meme, isn't it? The once noble middle East was corrupted by the evil Africans and Jews and now they're no longer white-caucasian-European.
No my mistake sorry, it's late also for me and it shows.
The point of calling it cultural marxism is that it replaces class conflict with idpol conflict where it's all about attacking white people in every way possible.
Not sure what you're implying but if you have two workers, one requires a living wage to support themselves and their family and the other is a slave porky bought at auction, which will he choose as a worker?
yep, sounds like something capitalists were doing for a very long time. It's cultural capitalism
Yes. It's sad to see a people displaced by encroaching capitalism. But note this: As far as the Tibetans go: Their culture lives. Since the exile of 13th Dalai Llama, millions have converted to Vajrayana. Tibetan art, music, literature, ideas have reached beyond the Himalayas. That's the power of culture. It's not a static thing that you can hew down. It's a thing practiced by people. It lives through our interaction with others. It can crosses borders. Culture isn't an identity or a fantasy race. Even the practices under one label aren't uniform.
Tibetans as people are being threatened, not by Han immigrants specifically, but the institution of capitalism as a whole. Which reduces them and the Han workers into second class citizens toiling for their master's superporfits. Besides, as a dominant minority there are less people to share with right? It served Europe well for centuries. The point is that it doesn't matter if you're a minority or not, but whether you own the MoP. The Manchu elites ruled over China for centuries as a minority.
Can you name some "Cultural Marxists" theorists and their works?
Adorno spend a great deal of time critiquing and deconstructing the capitalist culture industry. Read The Culture Industry by Adorno. The One Dimensional Man by Marcuse, The Spectacle by Debord, The Wandering of Humanity by Camatte, and Industrial Society and Its Future by Kaczynski. And most importantly, read Wage, Labor & Profit and Value, Price & Profit.
Cultural marxism has nothing to do with marx himself
It has to do with the frankfurt school, who were indeed capitalist porkies
Except all this post-modern deconstructionism that's lead to idpol came from the academic corner that replaced class conflict with idpol. Sounds like academia needs the cleaning out.
That's a good point about ease of extraction, however I tend to view it as hardship causing adaptation over millenia. Whereas Africa has (had?) massive amounts of fauna which meant a hunter-gatherer lifestyle was easily maintained without much effort, the Middle East, South Europe, and especially North Europe had to stockpile for winters and plan ahead for agriculture which led to the intelligence hierarchy we see today with Northern Europe having very high average IQs, South Europe and ME being lower and Africa being extremely low. Your point about coal and metal extraction is valid but North Europe had very limited metal resources and had to import it from trade with the Middle East even in the middle ages when they were developing. Their high intelligence allowed them to quickly catch up once technology to extract resources was created even though the South and ME had a thousand year head start while the Africans still haven't caught up to where everybody else was thousands of years ago. You can also see this rapid catch up in the case of Japan who was able to rapidly industrialize in just a few years after being exposed to Western technology despite Japan's poor farmland and shitty sources of metal. They proved themselves to be decent, it's a shame they got wrecked so badly by disease. It's a very useful metric of performance, scientists aren't in consensus on what exactly it measures but it definitely correlates strongly with success. Blacks raised as white in white households perform almost exactly the same as blacks raised in their own communities. Poor whites do better in school than rich blacks. Environmental factors don't contribute much as long as the child isn't abused or malnourished. This is historical fact supported by the archaeological record, the proto-indo-european tribes spread from the caucuses westward into Europe and eastward into the northern ME. They aren't related to the Arabs or the Dravidians who are more native to India. This is because we are in such a bad spot that we were forced to abandon our eugenic goals, circle the wagons, and accept any and all allies to help us in our struggle. Italians and Irish and Greeks and such weren't welcome in the US because it was a specifically Anglo-Saxon country. Many still argue they aren't white enough but really this is just us having to lower our standards in the hope of surviving a bit longer, not some proof of racial subjectivity. This is actually what happened although it was with Arabs not blacks or jews. Native ethnic Assyrians are a minority in Syria, ethnic Persians are a minority in Iran, I'm not familiar with Iraq or other nearby countries though I assume they underwent the same experience. Their countries were literally conquered by Arabs during the Muslim wars of conquest, then by Mongols. The so-called Islamic golden age was just the Arabs riding the success of the other ME peoples which was soon squashed under Arab rule, leading to the ME dark ages we see today.
Interesting, it's true that many corporations play the SJW game and we make fun of them for being tools of the establishment they think they're fighting.
I'm glad their struggle has gotten so much attention. But I worry about the commodification and watering down of their culture when they aren't around to practice it anymore. Even if you're a dominant minority you always are at risk of being overwhelmed by the majority. Like Haitian slave revolts, oppressing the majority can lead to disaster for you. Plus there's the mental health aspects of being surrounded by foreigners, it's been proven that people in multicultural societies are much less happy, more alienated, and more stressed than people in homogenous societies.
Well the Frankfurt school started it but we all see the effects of it regardless of who started it or what books they wrote. SJWism and idpol and the general subversion of societal mores should be blatantly obvious to everyone. You guys know him? Holy shit that's more overlap. I'm a big fan of Varg who also is very anti-industrialist and anti-modernist.
Sounds like you haven't read the culture industry. Adorno trashed capitalism.
It's really late here I'll talk to you guys later thanks for a nice civil chat this place is kinda better than Holla Forums I haven't been called a shill or jew once or banned yet.
Didn't mean to reply to you sorry m8
Commodification is inherent to capitalism. That's why businesses sell Che Guevara and Lenin shirts. The culture practices will definitely change. But that's been going on throughout history. Without this mutation and adaption modern cultures wouldn't be able to exist. In the long run, it has made this world more interest, not less. If you want more culture without commodification, give them the time and resources
And yet capitalism has persisted for ages in some countries without major revolts. Even the CSA merely wanted secession, not an overthrow of the system. The reason for this is how people in capitalism relate to each other. In previous systems, even if you were a peasant bound to the land, you still had your farmland to fall back on. In capitalism, most people depend on markets to buy their sustenance. While before you might be able to feed yourself, in capitalism you need to buy your sustenance. This is one reason why revolutions took off in peasant societies, but not the industrial powers as Marx predicted. The Chinese Red Army in particular (But also the Viet Minh and Viet Cong) showed how this can allow people to win against industrialized powers. Under Capitalism a minority can dominate a majority much more securely.
This is somewhat due to historical developments though. Countries like England and France were the first to embrace industrialization, but also nation-states. Places like Britain, France, Germany and other European countries had dozens upon dozens of regional cultures and languages. Before policies were put in place that cracked down on local cultures, which sped up their integration into industrial society. As As a result their cultures slowly merged into mono-cultures. It was industrialization and imperialism that raised European living standards. Which nowadays creates the impression that it's monocultural societies that improve people's wellbeing. This is why a materialist (not to be confused with vulgar materialism such as consumerism) understanding of history is so important.
Neither do I.
Why would I want to genocide a people? I believe in diversity, in the sense that every group deserve their own place to live to their own vision. That's a whole different diversity from the progressive left, who think diversity just means town with 99% Pakistani Muslims. or a Europe where "in 50 years we will all look like this brown mutt and it's beautiful".
That being said an alternative could be force deportation for criminals and illegal immigrants coupled with in depth support in foreign countries to boost their standard of living and incentives for voluntary re-migrations.
I don't see genocide mentioned aside from the fringe far-right (muh rednecks and KKK idiots who aren't even appreciated in the new/alternative right) and by left-wing narrative-pushers who insist that anyone slightly conservative must support genocide because emotion sells.
Did you forget the fact that for the vast majority of history Northern Europeans were effectively uncivilized barbarians who made no great contributions to humanity while their southern counterparts laid the foundation for Western civilization? Low nowadays. The average IQ of a 1920s Englishman or Dutchman is the same as the average Subsaharan African. The average poor white in UK schools actually does worst than all other poor ethnic groups. See pic related. And African Americans just so happen to have worse nutrition, lack of breastfeeding, and common occurrences of spanking, all things that contribute to significant decreases in IQ. The reason Assyrians are so few is because by definition Assyrians are Christians. That is definitively untrue. Arabs are a minority now and they always were. There was never a large migration of Arabs into Persia. The Islamic Golden Age ended because of the Mongol invasion.
Just to be clear: By "group" you mean ethnic group, right?
What about mixed people?
You didn't hear me claim we must have a Europe that has zero migrants. There are grey areas, there are migrants that have no where else to go (legitimate refugees, of which some simply can't be given only a temporary residency, for example).
Well good night, gonna leave my resopnse here for when you wake up (and still want to ruin your day discussing on the internet) Except it's not true, Italy consistently scores in the top 10 often beating every other European country, while the top 5 positions are almost always taken by Asian countries. IQ gives weight to my previous point of the Southern Eurpoean race being superior. Not to mention that western culture was a product of almost exclusively Southern Europe. Italy, greece, Spain together make up for most of the western cultural production, which goes up to almost 100% if we ignore the last two centuries. Not only that but the scientific revolution that allowed the west to dominate the world started in Italy. Three of the five oldest universities of the world are Italian. The industrial revolution started in England, which is the only northern European country who was held for a discreet amount of time by Southern Europeans. Italian and Greek cultures are some of the oldest surviving cultural identities in the world and some of the most influential to this day.Despite all the problems of the south, Italy is still in the top 10 economies of the world and Spain and Greece are not really that far behind. By your own definition of racial superiority the Southern European race is the superior European race. I'm going to need a source on this one, as far as I know Germany and Scandinavia are quite rich in iron deposits and the English isles in coal. I don't recall reading of an intese trade of iron between Europe and the middle east. But this happened much later in history, when technology was far more efficient and with Japan being heavily subsidied by the US because of their useful strategic location. It has little to do with the capabilities of the Japanese race and more with the geopolitical situation in which their industry developed. Can I have sauce? It's hard to argue for the superiority of a race if it has to rely on inferior beings just to stay alive, isn't it?
We want the free association of producers, not a pure white ethno state which forces out black people fuck off Fascism is a petit-bourg ideology and so is most right wing ideologies
I don't think gold, oil and diamond is that difficult to extract. Even now they extract precious metals, of which some very toxic and dangerous, with little more than basic mining tools. Yet they do this under the guidance of others, like chinese
Any gold that doesn't happen to be in nugget form is hard as fuck to mine. A lot of the easy old west style nuggets have been dug up millenniums ago, even the very first civilizations of the fertile crescent already had a hard on for gold.
Again, a lot of the easy oil has already been pillaged and methods like fracking are harmful to the environment (and the locals living on it) and were only developed very recently.
They're worthless in all aspects except for scientific and excavation purposes. The only reason diamonds are expensive is because of De Beers and they actually pay or sabotage countries with large diamond deposits into keeping their supply out of the market.
You have to think a little bit more historically. Gold, diamonds and oil are not what you need to jumpstart an industrial revolution. I was not talking of inherent wealth of a nation, but the different rates of development throughout the world. Africa did not develop at the same speed as Europe because of the difference in the ease of access to resources, in particular food production and metal extraction. As I already mentioned it's not by chance that England was the first to heavily industrialize, France and Spain were as rich in not richer, Italy had the technical expertise and yet it was England to get there first. That is mainly becaue England has (or better had) the vastest and most easily minable deposits of coal in Europe together with colonies full of cheap iron.
What stopped them from mining what they could and turning that initial wealth into developing means to extract further?
Surely after other nations set the example of what was possible they could have chosen to use some of that wealth to obtain the means to create more wealth, or hell, even hire experts and learn techniques from abroad?
Whether or not the resources they have are ideal for starting an industrial revolution is a bit besides the point, but surely they do have more resources than just those. They have vast forests of timber, their lands have vastly different climates, agreeable to a vast number of profitable crops. There are endless coastlines but don't seem to fish for more than the immediate and local need.
It seems even now they often only manage to mine or farm under foreign guidance, and I wonder *what* causes that, because I'm not satisfied with the usual answer of colonialism. As if colonialism ruined their collective spirit so hard they still can't cope.
this is a very good point actually
Colonialism never stopped, it just changed its modus operandi. European countries, the US and now China all use their wealth to keep control of the African continent. Read "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism" by Lenin and marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/introduction.htm by Kwame Nkrumah, the one that created the term.
If we assume this "Judaist mindset" to be existent, what causes it? Well, it can be characterized by hoarding property and ruthlessly exploiting as many people for as much money as possible, while doing everything possible to maintain the ability to do so. How is this mindset so popular? Because it is succesful. Because it works. Because it is rewarded. Jews needn't exist for this to be true. The only thing that causes this mindset is the reward given for having it. So, to cut away the root cause of all "Jewish behaviour", we must abolish the ability to hoard property and exploit others with it. Good thing that we socialists aim for that. Are you with us?
I don't think a bunch of white dudes LARPing as Buddhists is a positive evolution of Tibetan culture. This is really interesting, helps explain why America's founders revolted over fairly trivial shit but modern Americans are living in 1984 and don't care. The differences in happiness occur within societies not just between them. This article is a little introduction to the research. archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/
This is definitely true but still, they were able to catch up rather quickly once they had better access to resources, meaning they had the potential within themselves. Other groups which are still way behind lack that inner potential. Because IQ measures abstract reasoning. The average person in the early 1900s was very concrete and adapted to a working class life. They weren't stupid. You would argue the same applies to blacks, but all you have to do is look at the achievements of 70 IQ Englishmen versus the achievements of 70 IQ Somalians to see they are not at all comparable in intelligence. Englishmen discovered and invented huge amounts of our knowledge and tools and conquered large swathes of the world. Somalians can't even form a functional government or feed themselves. Poor whites are assaulted and raped and bullied nonstop in UK schools because they're a tiny minority surrounded by hostile foreigners. Symptom or cause? I'd say symptom. I'm referring to ethnic Syrians whatever their name is. I just assumed they're called Assyrians and I was wrong. You're also right about this thanks for teaching me something.
The final solution to the Hapa problem is giving them some land in Eastern Russia where they'll fit in ethnically.
Glad you guys recognize it, too. Is that Gorbachev at the end? I don't remember too much of my Soviet history lessons.
This actually makes sense, just killing all the jews won't stop it at this point since people are too spiritually corrupted by vulgar materialism. Removing the ability to even exploit others would solve the problem at the source and allow us to uplift people to their previous noble and naive (I mean naiveté in a good way) state.
If you're measuring the potential of a race based upon their past achievements, then you're effectively the same as a BC Greek philosopher saying that the barbarians were subhuman and had no potential. It's impossible to predict what kind of potential Africa has, especially considering it's now in the interest of the imperialist powers of the world to ensure Africa remains nothing but a source of resources. Any attempt to progress on their part will be met with monumental resistance. Look up Thomas Sankara and what happened in Burkina Faso under him, and it'll make perfect sense why he was couped and assassinated. Racialists ask all the time why Africa is still a shithole even today when colonialism ended decades ago, and it's precisely because colonialism didn't end. Are you implying 70 IQ Englishmen had any substantial achievements? You're trying to equate the achievements of the extraordinary people of their ethnicity with the regular dumb individual. On average, a 1920s Englishman is as dumb as a modern Somali, yet Somali obviously isn't like 1920s England, so it seems like the state of a country is not exactly correlated to the intelligence of its inhabitants. According to the 2011 census whites are 87% of the UK population. Even London, one of the least white places in the UK has whites making up 59.79% of the population, with black 13.32%, and Arabs 1.30%. If you think 2011 is a long time ago since it was before the refugee crisis, note that only about 118,000 refugees live in the UK. My point was it's hard to say who are actual ethnic Syrians and as such it's invalid to claim that modern Syrians aren't mostly descended from Pre-Arab Syrians. The Arab migrations were just that, they didn't genocide the entire native population. The population became Arabs because they adopted Arab culture and religion, not because the actual ethnicities disappeared. Y-you''re welcome senpai.
Notice how it mentions that referring to the inventors by country obscures their actual origin. For instance in Italy, most came from Florence and Venice. Is that to imply Florentines and Venetians are a separate, superior race from other Italians, or is a materialist standpoint (their unique geographical or political positions, for instance) a more likely explanation for their success?
So, what is your ultimate goal? Do you want to destroy Capitalism and give the workers control over the MoP? If so, would you be willing to fight with a Jewish fellow prole who recognize that his Jewish boss exploits him just as much as the goyim and it is in his self-interest to fight along class lines and not racial?
Except they've been worthless for tens of thousands of years of history. It took peoples like the Asians and Scandinavians a couple hundred years at most to turn from backwards savages to modernized societies although this implies that civilization is a good thing which I don't necessarily agree with, but it is a useful marker of the capabilities of a people Northern and Eastern Europe were attacked by Crusades and their populations were genocided. Asia was and still is colonized. They turned out more than fine. Africans in every society across the world all perform at the same level, which is commensurate with their capabilities as a people. Yes, even a generic peasant craftsman had more skill and ability than a modern African. The empire was fueled by 70iq proles. Whether or not it is intelligence, there is definitely some innate quality that Englishmen had and Africans lack that explains their substantially different outcomes. And it's not colonialism because the Britons were colonized by Rome for a long time and still had functional societies and developed agriculture. Those stats are, yes, from before the invasion and also include adults. In London schools, on average 72% of children are from "ethnic minority" backgrounds (not exactly a minority when you're 72% but that's newspeak for you).
And here's the Assad pic because your board doesn't seem to support posting multiple images.
By what standard is worthless? They managed to survive quite well in their environment. Not to mention you're equating the entire population of an entire continent and discarding their numerous achievements. The Bantu independently discovered ironworking, probably one of the few times in history that happened, Ethiopia had an empire and civilization on par with the rest of the ancient world, the Swahili citystates traded with India, Mali was the richest kingdom on Earth at one point. You say they're dumb because they didn't have big stone cities and mighty empires, but that's you're not counting how those things are only advantageous in certain material conditions (there's a reason Eskimos never built cities) and are dependent on large scale agriculture, and large scale agriculture depends on livestock, which was effectively impossible to have in most of Subsaharan Africa because of the tsetse fly. It's the same reason why there were few great civilizations and cities in the Americas, not because of the tsetse fly, but because there were no large animals to domesticate. That's untrue. The png I posted early shows how Nigerians and Ghanians are well above the average IQ in the UK. You equate the most genetically diverse continent in the world with a single ethnic group. It's not innate ability, it was their material conditions. The British Isles aren't Africa. The colonialism was so far reaching the most of the native Briton population was displaced by Germanics. How is that possible when whites are still the largest ethnic group in London? And unless you're saying they're wealthier because they're a superior race, you'd have to say it was their material conditions. Broadly speaking, it is the worker actually controlling their livelihood and not being exploited by an unnecessary parasite class. A market socialist/Mutualist will say the workers should actually own the MoP they work on and personally receive the revenue from it, a Marxist would say that production for exchange (i.e. the profit motive) should be abolished and the economy controlled by the entire proletariat and planned. Unless only and all of the employees owned the company it wouldn't be considered control of the MoP and an absence of exploitation. It's not just referring to machinery. It basically refers to anything necessary to do your job. An physical item doesn't have to be created for it to be considered productive labor. A service is also productive labor. Why would that even be in his self-interest? Why would he care if the top of the pyramid is full of Jews if he's still at the bottom? Even the fact that there's anti-Zionist Jews like Norman Ficklestein show that they can care about principles and not the advantage of certain members of their ethnic group.
Plenty of Arabs have blue eyes, and Assad wouldn't be so far if he spent his life working under the middle-eastern sun.
They're constantly on the verge of mass famine because they never developed agriculture yet still have dozens of children willy-nilly. They're mostly the same ethnic group since the Bantu conquered and genocided their way across Africa. Other ethnic groups like the Khoisan Bushmen only survived because Europeans came and protected them. Pic related is a black nationalist image I believe but it demonstrates the relative ethnic homogeneity of Africa. They learned it from the Egyptians. Yeah Ethiopia has been pretty decent compared to other parts of Africa. Africa is extremely resource rich, Mali had giant gold mines they worked with African slaves. Enslaving others to dig shinies out of the ground doesn't require great skill or intelligence. Africa has large populations of sheep, goats, and cattle. They had Bison, Caribou, deer, dogs, and turkeys. In South American they also had guinea pigs, llamas, alpacas, and ducks. The North American natives hunted American horses, camels, llamas, mammoths and many other large herbivores to extinction long ago. But their performance is the same. See Bantu conquests You're right, Africa was far richer in natural resources. Yeah they were almost totally destroyed by colonialism and imperialism and yet they succeeded. Because nonwhite immigrants have far more children and once the old people die off England will be almost entirely nonwhite. This is what we mean when we talk about white genocide and the Great Replacement. It's a mix of both. Saudis are extremely wealthy beyond our wildest dreams but they blow their wealth on fast cars, drugs, and prostitutes instead of devoting their leisure time to productive pursuits like science as many of the European elite did. Just because you have wealth doesn't mean you're going to use it well, but if you have the inner potential then yes material conditions help you achieve it.
I can agree with this 100% This seems fair, I saw an image today in the Holla Forums thread where they stole an antifa iphone and are dumping the contents that said something like "profit is the unpaid wages of the workers". I think some profit goes into R&D and other things that improve the production in the long term but agree that the extra that just goes in the bank or towards million dollar CEO salaries would be better off being given as bonuses to the workers for a job well done. I think this is a good idea in theory since a planned economy would theoretically reduce waste and stuff like environmental damage from all the useless crap consumer goods. But in practice it's how you get things that I learned about in school like the warehouses full of only left boots, or the orders for 5000 tons of engines interpreted as making two 2500lb engines and taking the rest of the year off. Would everyone have to be given equal shares of stock or would some of the more senior or knowledgeable people have more stock than say a janitor? The employee ownership of the stock method sounds like the market socialist/Mutualist thing you were talking about. So a plumber or other home contractor for example wouldn't see any change in a leftist system since he already owns the tools he needs for his job? Or other small businesses like even a local family run store? It would mainly be large companies that employ many people that would have to deal with the MoP transfer and traditional businesses would pretty much be left unscathed? Okay thanks for clearing that up, when I think of economic communism I think of grimy 1920s industrial workers pouring steel and swinging hammers in giant factories.
Because not everyone is selfish, some people are motivated by greater things like ethnic solidarity or world domination. Because he experiences special treatment for being one of them since they are well known for having a strong tribalist and nepotist mentality. Some jews think it's more in their interest to have a strong ethnostate like Israel, others think it's better to keep subverting from the shadows so they oppose it because they think it draws attention to them and shifts their focus in unhelpful ways. But they all aim for world domination of the cattle (us) by God's Chosen People(TM). The ones with Caucasian ancestry By Caucasian I don't mean the commonly used but imprecise definition of white or European, I mean the descendants of the proto-indo-european peoples who originated in the Caucuses. High caste Indians are dark but still posses distinctly Caucasian facial and bone structure because their ancestors migrated to India and the caste system preserved ethnic diversity between Aryan and Dravidian Indians for thousands of years. Assad is tan and would be dark if he had led an outdoor life, true, because people evolve more melanin over time through environmental adaptation. But his bone structure is still recognizably Caucasian. It's a common misconception that "racists" hate people because of skin color and race is only skin deep. This is very untrue, race goes far beyond something superficial and insignificant like skin color.
I doubt you can unspook me on race and other "feels" stuff but economically I'm very intrigued.
Also I hope I'm not annoying you guys because I'm genuinely enjoying having this conversation and a board where I'm not having memes shouted at me by unprincipled retards. If you'd rather I stop posting and/or bumping this thread just let me know.