Good ol' reactionaries back at it again!

I've actually been seeing a lot of right-wingers siding with the islamo-fascist.
Color me not surprised.

Do people actually still use "sodomites"?

Not politics.

Why don't you share a needle with a random faggot and see what happens

Common Filth is right. Homosexuals are more likely to have syphilis, viral hepatitis, HIV/AIDs, anal cancer, throat cancer ect. They are more likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs, to have mental illnesses like depression, to commit suicide, to be perpetrators of domestic violence.

There cannot and must not be tolerated within a civilized advanced society.

No, he doesn't literally believe human races correspond to Biblical races. He was using those concepts as an allegory.

Just like trannies, they should be recognized as mentally ill and get treated as such.

Holla Forums pls go. Why do you have to post your propaganda here? None of us care what fags do on their own time.

>>>Holla Forums

Those are all results of how society treats homosexuals.

Did you even read the image I posted?

in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries"

But you're right. Society is the reason why these people are alcoholic drug addicted diseased man sluts who engage in bug chasing. I'm sure these problems will disappear if we organise more Gay Pride parades and mandatory LGBT indoctrination classes in school. Maybe more rainbow flags will trigger their common sense and monogamy?

Don't you think that is a result of a reactionary Oscar Wilde dedication to hedonism on the gay communities part? And Pride Parades are mostly about selling shit, pure capitalism in action, really.

...

Didn't Foucault contract HIV from a gay bar?

But it's not something you choose, so you can't blame them. It's like saying males are more likely to rape, so we should not tolerate males in an advanced society.

wew

That doesn't follow, though.
Even if it is true that homosexuals are a problem by themselves, not "tolerating" them doesn't change anything.
If you had argued that tolerating homosexuals was a problem, then not tolerating them would be an answer.
But as always, Holla Forumsyps can't even be coherent in their hysteria.

My god you fags need to have your necks violently stomped on.

So homosexuals have no free will and cannot choose to not have unprotected sex with thousands of other men while slamming meth in night clubs and glory holes? I'm not blaming them for being homosexual. That would be like blaming a woman for being born a woman. What I am blaming them for is their degenerate and socially destructive behavior.

Well, negroes and Arab immigrant males are significantly more likely to rape women than white men, and we COULD decide to not tolerate them, but that's besides the point.

Wew.

Not tolerating homosexuals seemed to work pretty well for thousands of years in Europe.

I literally did. "There cannot and must not be tolerated within a civilized advanced society." - Me.

You fag lovers need to catch AIDs.

I can't think of almost anything that was better then
No. You argued one thing, and then made that claim about a completely different thing. Read my post a couple of times, maybe you'll understand what I meant.

Literally everything.

I said homosexuals are over represented in STDS, drugs ect and cannot be tolerated.

You said not tolerating them wouldn't change anything, and that I didn't argue toleration was a problem because if I had not tolerating them would be the answer, which is exactly what I advocated. What the fuck are you talking about?

do tell

As long as there is informed consent between participants I don't see the problem with duh genewacy.

Yes, you advocated for that, you didn't present arguments for that. You argued for one thing, then jumped right onto advocating for something else.
You are a hysterical, irrational bitch.

The fascist mind relies on looking at the past through rose tinted glasses, I bet he thinks the French revolution was a mistake.

Monarchy > Democracy
Inequality > Equality
Patriarchy > Matriarchy
Christianity > Atheism
Theocracy > Secularism

pls kill yourself immediately.
see

No one gives a shit about your "natural order" bud. The top relies on the bottom for their existence. We won't tolerate them and we won't tolerate you either.

wew lad

I mean, you'd think he's baiting, with all the insane claims and misspellings and whatnot, but I don't think a baiter would have those cancerous images saved, would he?

...

...

What about the $16 billion dollars the United States spends every year on STDs? What about the fact that new strains of STDs have developed with resistance to antibiotics, caused by promiscuity?

I do think the French Revolution was a mistake, but I'm not a Fascist. My reasons for thinking this is not based upon nostalgia or sentimentality however. It's based upon a reasoned and logical assessment of politics and society. I will expand upon this tomorrow, but for now I need to sleep. I suggest reading authors like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (particularly his 'Liberty or Equality) and Hans Hermann Hoppe if you're interested in the subject.

WEW
LAD

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17166076
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17612955
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16775771
youtu.be/cPohtDUF5xk

I could provide more evidence but I don't want to drown you with links. However, I'm happy to provide more studies if you like.

Criticising people for spelling errors is a low blow. I'll be sure to proof read from now on. Please list the factual claims I've made which are false. Everything I've said thus far can be supported with documented evidence, studies and surveys. Ask for the source on something and it will be provided.

Why are those images "cancerous"? Everything within them is true. Do you have a problem with the reality of our society?

Yes it is. That's why I didn't do it.
I don't doubt them. You just aren't making coherent claims on their basis. Make logical arguments that follow from your stats, and then they will be worth looking into.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17166076
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17612955
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16775771

Every single one of those studies concludes that it is an extremely fringe phenomenon.
You didn't even read them did you?

...

That's like 0,01 % of the total healthcare budget.
Doesn't seem that excessive to me

I've read short bits of "Liberty or Equality" and like I said, I think most of the examples he list to support his claims can be linked to bigger root causes(the upper living off the low hurting the general populous). He makes the wrongful claim that the elite that restrained the monarch was more benevolent than the monarch him/herself. He is wrong.

If you remove that, then "equality" is not the vague political idea of totalitarianism he makes it out to be.

Again, I think anti-indivudalist are useful idiots, at best and destructive forces at worst. My problem with all Nazi or Fascist ideology is that it makes the false claim that you can find a paragon that's logic is less infallible than others. I can name numerous historic instances to support that being blatantly incorrect if you like.

It's also funny, that you think someone who was an aristocrat such as Leddihn wrote his treatise's for the good of the nation and not himself. Man you guys are to funny.

As I said before, we don't tolerate the upper class and their parasitic ways, and we won't tolerate their useful idiots(such as yourself I don't care if you're not a fascist, get rid of the Nazi flag then) either.

Convert or be purged. There is no time for those who support the false natural order.

"with all the insane claims and misspellings and whatnot" - You.

This poster implied bugchasing didn't exist and I proved otherwise. I wouldn't say it's a fringe phenomena, because other studies prove otherwise, but it's obviously not mainstream and I didn't imply that it was.

You raise interesting points. I need to head off now but I will return to address some of them.

I wasn't a criticism of you. It wasn't even a reply to you.

Literally all bacterial infections are getting increased resistance to antibiotics.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that gonorrhea is special and that its increased resistance is caused by sexual promiscuity.
t. medstudent

Watch out before i destroy civilisation, haha *honk honk*. :^)

why does Holla Forums keep coming here if they're going to get BTFO all the time?

Is it masochism?

Like for example, how many times did(despite being raised from birth to rule) did the King end up being a blithering idiot? How many times did he become corrupt?

The idea of Democracy leading into totalitarianism is not a new one. Plato makes the point in "The Republic" that the population will be (supposedly) fooled into seeing a class struggle where there isn't one and revolt.

It's interesting how a lot of these arguments about the need of a benevolent ruler borrow heavily from the populous's reaction to an upper class or "superior" force.

So what happens if you remove the "superiors"?

Most of the time in anti-democratic points they make the example of how easily is it coerced and corrupted.

I agree.

I don't think a Democracy that isn't direct can work. And I don't think it can work if you maintain any right wing ideology of natural order. This includes capitalism.

So I think our disagreement comes down to a fundamental belief that there are some people who are the literal ubermench and other's who are not but I have yet to see a person who was perfect or wasn't reactionary and didn't need to be held down by many who were not experiencing the same stimuli he was and could critically think about the issue at hand.

I don't think aristocrats that could benefit from the reactionary tendencies of a leader, or benefit from further corruption is the answer.

To be fair, you're the most respectful Nazi I've ever talked to on a Chan board. I welcome you to turn me over to your ideology and I started off as a liberal, then Holla Forumstard:

It was once I realized that I was looking at the symptoms and not the roots that I became a marxist. However I think market socialism is the only way to transition out of capitalism, so I'm not a full on tankietard yet.

Yes, but I would agree that these problems do lie at the root of modernity's problems. The solution presented by Traditionalist Conservatives like Kuehnelt-Leddihn and many Fascist intellectuals is an organic society, one in which the upper and the lower are unified. This is my fundamental problem with Marxism and Communism (don't know if you're either of those things, but seeing as we're on Holla Forums I'll assume you are). Marxism is based upon the premise of class struggle over class unity, and overthrowing the bourgeoisie instead of constructing a system in which the ruling class serves to benefit the society at large.

An organism cannot be happy and healthy unless its individual organs are all working in cooperation with one another, and a society cannot be stable and orderly unless the upper and the lower are unified in some sense towards a common goal or ideal.

I assume by "paragon" you meant "paradigm"? Some overarching and unifying ideal like the Nation, or God, or the Volk ect?

Please do, I'm curious.

You people won't be in power any time soon, and I would rather die than live under your system so I think I'll remain just where I am for the time being. Also, if the "false natural order" is one which has existed for centuries in almost every civilized society (hierarchy, inequality, differentiation, stratification, upper and lower classes) I would like to read your definition of a "true natural order".

Nobody's been blow the fuck out. Have you been paying attention friendo?

Isn't this exactly what almost happened this US presidential election with Bernie Sanders? Wasn't he fooling the masses into a class struggle and a social revolt through Democracy?

Nobody's perfect, certainly. All men are fallible. However, I do believe that some men are "higher" than others. There isn't a psychological test or scientific measurement to determine who is and is not higher or who is and is not born to rule, but you must agree that some men, by virtue of their innate or acquired abilities simply *are* leaders. I've been around many men who, though their charisma and through their inner abilities simply command those around them, and people feel compelled by their presence to follow. Regardless of what you may think of them Fascist leaders like Cornelius Codreanu or Adolf Hitler were described by almost everybody who encountered them personally as "magnetic" or "electric", possessing some form of "aura". You must have experienced people like this at some point in your life, people who simply ought to lead, at least more than effete useless career politicians.

You seem to be implying that there is no class struggle friendo. My point wasn't that Plato's right, it's that most of the people who shit on Democracy shit on it from an upper classist view. If you removed the classes their criticism would be defunct.

Here's where, and why I disagree with fascist. There can be no unity in a "ruling" class and a subordinate. There can only be slaves and masters. You can try and dress it up how you like, but at the end of the day the masters want as much as they can get from the slaves. If they can make the slaves believe they're free, all the better. You make the mistake of thinking that "class struggle" is the point of Marxism. That we will always be fighting. The goal is literally class unity. Fascism and capitalism is indentured slavery.

For example, in (I believe) Icelandic societies a slave could have his own property and produce his own food: but he had to pay his owner a reward for his freedom. They were not foolish enough to call the slave free. He was a slave. He was a "happy" slave, but nonetheless he was a slave. The discrepancy is in thinking we can live in mutualism, but not be slaves.

No, I mean a person who embodies a particular quality perfectly. In this case I meant to mean " a paragon of all qualities"( a perfect man who will never fall corrupt or make a mistake, which a succession of these is crucial to have any semblance of successful authoritarianism). I worded that badly, I know.

It's worth noting that Stalin wrote essay's on nationalism and the idea of an overarching goal for the populous to follow is not in conflict with Marxism. It's the idea that someone because of the circumstances of his birth(unless he has a disease or physical defect) can not contribute to the cause in some way, and work in unity with the people. Of course an element of the final stage "communism", is in a post scarcity world, which can be achieved with robots.

Why you want to support a system that destroys the environment and pits brother against brother is dumbfounding. But that is the mind of a fascist.

"The American people don't think they're slaves, but temporarily embarrassed millionaires"

So be it. marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/1969/misc/reproduction-daily-life.htm

Here is some information about how in the daily life of a slave, a spook like the "natural order" becomes immanent in existence itself.

Communism can rise anytime when Capitalism fails and the people turn to the proletariat.
If you prefer to live in slavery, so be it. But we will fight back. You can shit on Bernie all you want but there will be another, more radical inspired by him.

But now for historical instances to support the account that people will corrupt even if raised to do so.
Let's start with the Fascist.
People like to harp on about Pinochet and how he fixed the economy.
spunk.org/texts/otherpol/critique/sp001280.html
This pretty much throws that out the window.

So here we have an example of a leader who was corrupt, let the rich rule, whose gains were mostly accidental

Now onto Monarchs

I guess you're gonna want me to list white people. So how about King John the 1st?

Hardly what you can call an incorruptible monarch. Now I'm not an expert on history, and I'm willing to bet you don't have a degree either.

I would recommend reading up on the history of the many different monarchs before professing them to be "better" than democracy.

Of course. There is no communist or anarchist who thinks all men are "equal" in a literal sense. The idea is the leaders can be compensated in other ways besides being in a position where they are exploiting others( the capitalist or the aristocrat). Social recognition is a great way to compensate people.

I'm well aware of Fascist economic theory. You guys are basically confused social democrats.

Marx addresses whatever you wanna call "illiberal capitalism". You hinder the profit motive of a naturally destructive system, people won't put their full effort into it because they know, if things were different, if a few laws were removed they could be getting full "compensation". It makes no sense to construct a system with a compelling motivational force and then smoother that. It's self contradicting(like capitalism).

Better to construct a new system with a motive that works for all.

This is literally impossible. People are not born with innate equality, therefore acquired inequality is emergent and endemic. Some are born tall, others short, some attractive others ugly. Some intelligent others stupid. It's quite clear that IQ distributes along bell curve in any given population, as does other psychological dispositions like empathy. Hierarchy, differentiation and stratification is inevitable and has presented itself in every advanced civilized society of which I am aware throughout history. Even in primitive tribal societies a hierarchy of alpha and beta males, dominants and submissives presents itself. This is a law of nature, and every attempt to break this law and turn against it has ended in absolute disaster (Soviet Union, Maoist China ect).

This is utterly ahistorical. You're looking at the contemporary ruling class, which I admit is greedy and is exactly how you describe (to an extent) and applying that to the whole of human history which is simply not the case. In archaic traditional societies the primary axis was not materialistic, but transcendent. Economic power and political influence were treated with contempt, because the sacred was present in everyday life. People did not look towards the dollar, but upwards towards God. This is probably going to fall upon deaf ears here (as I suspect few here aren't atheist) but this is simply a fact. Honor, loyalty, courage and other virtues were the guiding principles of the aristocracy, not money and power.

Obviously it's not the point, but it's a primary focus within Marxism is it not?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany
Say what you will about Not Socialism, but destruction of the environment is not one of its crimes. Hitler introduced some of the first laws against animal vivisection and experimentation and protection of the environment through national parks. I consider myself to be ecocentric (one of the reasons Not Socialism attracted me at first).

Don't know why you included this quote. Is America Fascistic? I'm defending Fascism here not Liberal Democracy and Neoliberalism.

I didn't shit on Bernie. I actually like Bernie, even though I'm a Trump supporter. He seems like a honest genuine person and I would rather him any day over Hillary.

I will read your recommendations later, when I have time.

I beg to differ on that point. The numerous uprisings against a ruling class we had before neoliberalism, or even capitalism are quite evident. The idea that there wasn't an aristocratic class that lived like pigs is ahistorical. Religion is a tool to sedate the working class and what you said about serf's or whatever looking towards god and rationalizing their slavery with god, is why I think so.

Again you are mistaking "classes" with having a leader. You are mistaking exploiting the worker using authority, with being recognized as being extraordinary. A "class" is purely economical. The idea isn't that we should have no order, but that achievements do not make your voice more valuable than that of millions. As I said before, even the wittiest, most creative person can fuck up on humongous levels.

Soviet Union collapsed for entirely different reasons. I don't have time to explain right now, but if you wanna call putting Russian potato farmers in space a failure, by all means do it. The Vanguard party is the first contradiction to Marixst doctrine I can think of off the top of my head Lennin made.

Corrupt Monarchs, corrupt Democrats and corrupt Communists have existed throughout history. The question is which political system minimises such individuals through its inherent and innate structure and which system is the least vulnerable to such issues.

With regards to King Jame's persecution of Witchcraft even though I personally disagree with this (I'm a Pagan, so I probably would have been one of the people burnt at the stake) it's easy to see why the church was so paranoid about rebelliousness against the ruling spiritual power, because once they relaxed such authoritarian measures you had the Reformation, centuries of war, then revolution then the Reign of Terror then…

This is precisely what I'm advocating. We essentially agree, although where you say social recognition I would include religion. Having a spiritual, religious and transcendent power capable of unifying a society and breaking through socio-economic class and caste is essential for civilized unification. I think to an extent atheists can agree with this just as much as religious people, so long as they analyses the situation from a more mechanistic and utilitarian viewpoint i.e. When economic materialism becomes the hegemonic ideology people will forgo morality, ethics, civic duty ect to extract as much money and resources from the masses as they can, the product of which is the modern world (wealth concentration in the 1%, environmental degradation, endemic urban decay, a growing underclass). Therefore something is needed, some set of values of principles necessary to dominate and sublimate economic values for higher ends. Historically this has been a state religion (Christianity, Greco-Roman paganism). These systems prevented the rise of the merchant caste by treating wealth with nothing but contempt, maintaining their Brahmans as the rules of hierarchy.

Obviously I agree, and such parasitic ruling classes appeared during the decline and fall of empires anyway.

I don't think I can convince you otherwise, just as you cannot convince me that religion was created for no other reason than to pacify the masses. Do you think when Jesus Christ or Siddhārtha advocated casting away material wealth and withdrawing from the socio-economic game they were doing so for political and economic power, or to aid their respective aristocracies? If I recall correctly Jesus wasn't the biggest fan of the ruling Jewish elite, nor was he big on the Roman government. Not everything in life can be reduced to a 2-dimensional socio-economic analysis, as a power tool or as some weapon in class struggle. There are things becoming the economic (art and spirituality) that transcend these base economic concerns. I could go on into abstract metaphysics, into Heidegger or Neoplatonism but I think that would be a waste of time.You probably don't want to hear it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror
And so on, and so forth.

I haven't read Heidegger but I've read some Neoplatonist stuff.

I mean to say that Religion as a tool, CAN be used to sedate the working class. Of course the messages are sincere. But all it takes is a few powerful to be smart enough to bypass these messages and they can gain power over the majority.

To what you said about the failures of the Soviets, there were many. But to say there was never a point where the Soviets enjoyed success is dishonest.

I also find the picture with the systems of gov followed by the pictures to be propaganda. For Democracy, you could very well take a picture of anywhere in Europe, or the U.S.(not sure democracies I know, but elected bodies for the people). To say anarchism has been tried with proper organization is ludicrous.

Rule of the many is a good thing, and it means greater efficiency.

I have more respect for people like this than the fuckstains that opportunistically pretend to care about gays/Jews/blacks when it suites their reactionary agenda.

Well duh
Of course an honest fascist is better than a dishonest one.
At least you know what you're dealing with.

As one approaches the far-left or the far-right honesty and sincerity increases. The truth is found near the fringes.

wew lad