What to do when, despite all the theory I might read, muh feels tell me to be a nationalist totalitarian?

What to do when, despite all the theory I might read, muh feels tell me to be a nationalist totalitarian?

I can work out the reasons why nationalism is bad, why states are bad, etc., but my feelings pretty much tell me to be a NazBol-tier leftist Asserite or some Stalinist, minus the superbigotry and overblown violence I guess.
So I always feel like I'm lying when I talk against nationalism or statism. I want to put aesthetics before ethics, I suppose. Note: I do not hate "minorities", though.

tl;dr brain tells me to be a marxist, heart tells me to be a nationalist, what to do

Other urls found in this thread:


Embrace it.

Use your brain

I feel the same as you but with liberalism (i.e. the political freedom, personal liberty, free press etc thing, not the economic aspect).

VERY important question: Where are you from?

One of the Nordic social democrat paradises.

can't see the harm then tbh, unless at some point voting for a fiscally conservative but nationalist party crops up.
also i would argue one can be a marxist in a long term sense and a nationalist in a very temporal sense. but then i would say that about basically anything since it's a great excuse for following your passion while justifying your presence.

Stop being a cuck.

is that you, fin cuckdem?

use your brain to figure out that nationalism and fascism are both responses to material conditions. Fascism is a response to the developments in industry and warfare which creates a totalizing effect and thus a reaction. Nationalism is a response to the social problem given the nature of human beings (use actual real phenomena like dunbars number and other sociobiological phenomena and not muh feels and avatisms like muh greed), as a matter of fact Nationalism is much more inclusive than atomized or tribal societies. None of this is necessarily incompatible with marxism unless you make it so.

no and iirc he irritated me but i can't actually remember why

i want to say nationalism is a stupid response to any hypothetical problem of human tribalism but i don't want to endorse the deterritorializing effects of neoliberal capitalism. (where i'd sacrifice a thousand people of my nation to save one good socdem, since the primary "tribal" traits move from physical space to other concerns.)

something to dwell on, perhaps.

Thats normal and it does not make you a liberal.

Because reactionarism is a pathology. You could try downloading CBT books and following the methods – a study revealed that doing this is more effective than actually going to a CBT therapist.

No guarantee it'll work tho. There are many kinds of pathologies, and I can't guarantee reactionarism can be cured.

I went to a CBT therapist and it was awful, it didn't solve anything, it felt like I was being brainwashed into not thinking mean things.

Explain what exactly makes OP a reactionary? I'd understand calling him reactionary if he was truly nationalist, but from what i can tell he's simply a socialist patriot. He specifically stated he didn't hate "minorities" which essentially means he doesn't think he's superior to anyone.

Internationalism is a farce that NOBODY believe in, anyone who preaches it is simply using it as a tool to undermine the integrity and social cohesion of your nation.

Nationalism is a good response to tribalism. Do you know how fucking shitty tribal conflict is? Deterritorializing directly leads to tribal conflict in a zero sum game scenario. The inability to delineate power boundaries creates inexorable chains of suspicion that binds all actors along the the one mode of information they can ascertain and find absolution in, tribal lines. It is important to denote that tribal lines are not necessarily of socibiological distinction, but rather driven by them. For example social justice minded people form their own tribal lines and hierarchies.

I've been called a liberal many times because of that.

That's the essence of CBT actually, you recognize (or "recognize") your cognitive process has a flaw somewhere, and you can't trust your judgment on certain issues, in which you have to second-guess yourself and possibly act the exact opposite way of what your mind tells you to.

Well whether he's a reactionary is up for debate, but he does show, shall we say, a couple of clear symptoms. It's not an all-or-nothing deal.

nationalistic conflict is still tribal conflict and requires similar management.
no matter what you're just seeking to manage tribal conflict.

one now wonders about the possibilities of aligning tribal instinct with class concerns in a way that allows the right people to get fucked and the right people to get ahead, but that's perhaps a technocratic gamble too far.

am I dreaming?

There's been a pretty well-read naziposter lurking around here for the last few months.

This is a Lacanian board, boyo

Nationalism is the formalization of power structures. It is inherently anti-tribal. Which is not to say that nationalists are not a tribal line. Just out of curiosity what do you think the total percentage of deaths are in inter-tribal conflict vs. industrialized nations in total war? There is a distinction between tribal and national conflict, one of which is that tribal conflict is one of extermination. You can only imagine what such a conflict would look like within an industrialized society ;)

As for linking tribal and class concerns in the manner you suggest? it is antithetical. The proposition of class rests upon the lofty peaks of politer society, by which I mean upheld by violence. Class conflict accedes to tribal conflict.

cbt is cuck Buddhism. you don't need to listen to a shrink to analyze your own mind. In fact it is counter-productive.

yes it is me, brainlet

nobody cares about your bullshit psychoanalysis, unless you tell me how it will solve my depression.

This i have my doubts about. We could have a purer form of statism without the formalities of nationalism.
(Indeed to some extent perhaps this fits neatly into imperialism, where colonies are recognized as subsidiary and 'not truly 'us' '.)

I have my doubts we approach total war in a society tribally defined by (say) social justice groups. We have conflict, yes, indeed even highly damaging conflict - but I doubt we accelerate to total war. Equal numbers may die, but the means differ.

What's wrong with states and with nationalism?

Sports-fan tier nationalism is obviously stupid but racial nationalism aka real nationalism makes fucking sense.

…and the state is necessary to keep individualist retards from ruining everything.

Do you even the nordic model?

Anyways the brain only informs the feels. You can understand that x leads to y result, but whether that result is good or not is entirely feels.

Nationalism has an inherently supremacist connotation. Come up with a word that means "the people have the right to be free of any fears of genocide and the destruction of their own social cohesion" instead of "the people have the right to step on other people from different countries" and you will be onto something.

Not supprised. Those that screech "LIBERAL REEEE" when you suggest that people should not be slaughtered like animals for going against party line are dogmatic retards who help no one but porky by scaring everyone away from radical socialist politics

racial nationalism is stupid
if you're going to do nationalism do it right. an englishman and an irishman have as little in common as an englishman and a nigerian.

fuck this stupid americanised 'white' meme.

Neither are real?


breathing exercises, cold showers, exercise regularly (starting strength and cardio) and become more disciplined. You might need to go through a period of self-introspection as to why the the aforementioned is not possible.

Yes we could, such a thing emerged in numerous places around the World independently long before nationalism, such as the dark age England. That is a formalized system. I doubt a return to the Heptarchy has wide reaching appeal though. A formalized system must have a real basis. One should also note that statism and a formalized system are not exclusively one and the same.

You misunderstand, under deteritorialized capitalism there is no one societal defining tribal line (except the black nobility). There are atomized individuals that retreat to the stockades based upon their material reality. Under such conditions niceties held under a formalized system disappear very quickly, which leads to tribal conflict which were essentially conflicts of total annihilation. This was all well and good for the conditions of neolithic humanity, but too much to bear for post-hunter gather humanity let alone industrial humanity.

race is commonly misunderstood topic. The original usage referred to populations such as englishman (saxons et al) and so forth. The reality of the situation is that there are hundreds of differentiated sub-populations of human of which some are more closely related than others. Abstractions such as a white race or anthropological terms such as caucosoid or negroid are non-real terms yet they hold great heuristic value. For example there are clades of negroid that have more civilisational promoting characteristics than some caucosoid clades.

He's not wrong though buddy



The international ideal

My problem with Stirnerites and other people who despise things such as religion and morality is that i believe it should not be up to them to decide what the people want to believe in. Shouldn't we focus on working with what cards we've been dealt as a society?

One does not contradict the other. Many if not most leftwing movements were cordial with nationalism, and pretty much every viable movement was not anarchist memelords.

This sounds just an assumption. Why does tribal conflict need to involve total annihilation?

This in itself is an interesting read:


Prisoners dilemma writ large. Without formalized systems to communicate through there are no forms of information transfer thus initiating a double bind whereupon we are all stuck in a total zero sum game system whereupon chauvinistic violence must be maximized yet the self-same actors are at risk of being victimized. The best move in such a system is to min-max and hope for the best, and considering all of your contenders are operating (ironically) from the same frame of reference, would lead to min-maxing in context to mean annihilation.

It is an interesting read, and yes conflicts are materially driven.

kek you just fed me
and thought process
You said CBT was bullshit eh?

My problem with Christendom and other people who enforce morality is that I feel for the children that have to grow up being force fed ghost stories, shouldn't we end this obvious exploitation of people?
sage for double post because i'm not fucking afroplasm
Stirner wasn't against morality, just fixed morality dude.

The basis for CBT, the behavior is the important bit as activities such as breathing exercises, cold showers, exercise regularly (starting strength and cardio) affect your bodily cycles and regulates them. Thinking about your thoughts and how they are the root of the issue instead of your conditions and the attachment to them as such is jewish bs

It is often the case that bad ideas are full of good ideas and extraneous junk information.

you're a ☭TANKIE☭, son.


bruh i'm not well versed in psychology but I know that's absolute hogwash. sure mental health is placating to conditions, but where does CBT ever deny doing anything about your conditions? that's just obvious mental health shit that anyone will go thorugh.

a sock damp not understanding sociology, imagine my shock


sociology is a meme subject

at least do social policy so people can ask you "what's social policy?" and you can say "i don't know either, it sounds like sociology but it's nothing to do with that." and then they'll say "well, are you doing any outside options?"

I feel this is a complete misrepresentation.
In all my time at CBT not one mention of rational thinking was made, and just involves the feelings/behaviours that are DEFINITELY and I repeat DEFINITEL interrelated with negative thought patterns. How the fuck can the constant distress/action that comes with the obviously negative thought process of wanting to kill myself not be negative (or as he describes, "irrational")?. No CBT in the psych wards here at least, go without interviews about your personal life and creating support to help them through their conditions. Not one aspect of deceiving yourself was found in my CBT booklet, but just focus on realistic thinking; eg realizing when things are out of your control.
Maybe they do such a lackadaisy approach in American mental health towards CBT, but it's always compounded on here, and the big focus in each class was behaviour.

All in all, you went psychological on me (perscribing me a thinking pattern for example) even as a method of CBT it's totally a jewish plot, and then went on to try and prove it wrong with some wikipedia (totally jewish) knowledge from totally not jewish psychologists, I mean psychology is totally jewish right?

Modern western ☭TANKIE☭s are only nationalism-friendly if you can frame it as anti-imperialism tho

So they kinda aren't nationalists, they're just edgy and secretly like dictators