Questions from Holla Forums

Hi Holla Forums. Upfront: I'm from Holla Forums and I'm a racist. I've always been socialist-leaning, but I've also always objected to a number of traditionally Left stances, so I thought I'd ask you about them.

I'm not trying bullshit you here. I also won't argue about the semantics of "Nazi", "racist", or any of that shit. I'm just interested in your thoughts. Put into sections so you don't have to wade through a wall of text.

Leftism and its relation to liberalism

It's difficult to deny that the far right is more stigmatized by the establishment than the far left. While it is true that Liberals are not inclined towards your economic programs, they do not demonize you in the same way as they do us. You can be Marxist at your university, in government, or even at Google; you can't be a Nazi.

You're certainly outside of the mainstream insofar as you advocate for workers owning the means of production, but not in the realm of social policy, in which you seem to be in full agreement with, and are being instrumentalized by, Liberals. Anti-racism, immigration, non-traditional sexual roles (LGBTQI+) are all espoused by the neoliberal order and you are frequently celebrated by them for taking those positions.

Fascism and its relation to liberalism

I've gathered that the Marxist/Leninist/Maoist assessment of Fascism is that it's a dictatorship of bourgeoisie and I'll admit that historical Nazism was a solidly middle-class movement. However, those days are gone. A quick look at polls and at the politics of today's bourgeoisie parties shows this idea to be preposterous. In Austria, the largest voting bloc of the FPÖ are lower-class white males (and most lower-class white males support the FPÖ). In Germany, despite its neoliberal economic program, the support for the AfD comes from a mix of former CDU-voters and indigenous working-class people who are being squeezed mightily by immigrants. In France, the respectable middle class and the educated proudly loathe the FN.

Cordons sanitaires exist against the FN, the Netherland's (far-right) Centre Party and PVV, Vlaams Belang, the AfD and NPD in Germany, the Sweden Democrats, and to some degree the FPÖ. Except for maybe the Czech Republic, no Left-wing party is excluded in such a way.

It seems clear to me that the bourgeoisie regards us, not you, as its archenemies.

Leftism and its relation to Fascism

The Left seems to hate Fascists with much greater fervor than it hates the neoliberal establishment, but why? Fascists and Nazis have historically been solidly on the left of Social Democrats, and I'd assume you wouldn't gas them (I guess). Free healthcare, free education, paid vacation, even women's rights (in Italy) have all been Fascist/Nazi policies, at a time when liberals couldn't have given a two licks of a flying fuck about the rabble on the streets, yet Fascists were derided as enemies of the workers. Is this the narcissism of small differences or a displacement of anger onto safe targets?

I don't want to be incendiary, but I just have to say that I think this to be intellectual weakness: Fascists are a safe target. Look at the mood post-Brexit: everybody freely rags on the Poles. It's safe to hate the Poles. What, exactly, have they done? They do depress wages, but there are no Polish rape-gangs and waves of Polish muggings. Those without the courage to speak out against Pakistanis and Africans pour all of their anti-immigrant outrage into socially acceptable, white targets.

Similarly, the Antifa are the biggest, meanest motherfuckers when it comes to "the Nazis", yet they'd never dream of attacking certain hostile foreign communities or Islamists, despite the fact the working-class, living in low-income neighborhoods, suffers disproportionately from immigrant crime. It seems to me that they're very eager to fight, but only as long as it doesn't earn them too much societal opproprium.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_sex_gang
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE&index=207
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Free movement of peoples and non-existent solidarity between them

From my arguments with Leftists elsewhere, I've seen that there's a consistent opposition to immigration restriction. The reasoning generally was that people's (this meant 'workers', I assume) was more important than their nationality and the restrictions on travel were oppressive measures instituted by the bourgeoisie.

However, to me, this ignores two facts:
1. The bourgeoisie is generally in favor of immigration and
2. ordinary people are against it.

In almost any Western country, mass immigration is regarded negatively, but the liberal establishment persistently frustrates the will of the voters in this regard. Now, you might say that the people are just blinded by tribalism and that we'd all be better off if we embraced internationalism, but the behavior of immigrant communities in the West shows that they do not feel any solidarity with the White working class. Not only is interracial crime is overwhelmingly one-sided and against whites, but the case of Rotherham, where 1400 white girls (that we know of) were raped and enslaved over the course of a decade by Pakistanis, as well as the case of Cologne, where, on New Year's Eve, predominantly Black African and Arab men assaulted White German women en masse, show a pattern of predatory behavior on the part of immigrants on the native population.

Free movement of peoples is all well and good, but these groups evidently do not see themselves as part of one people; they see the native population as their victims. In advocating for mass immigration, I see you as directly contributing to the victimization of whites.

The pollution of socialism with neoliberal dogma

I regard both the centre-left and the centre-right as bullshit. One gives you a pittance in terms of economics but rams the dildo of social liberalism up your ass, while the other is nominally against social liberalism, but is content to let people starve in the streets. It is my firm opinion that a racist socialist party would be unstoppable. Why can't we have that? I already know why the "right" won't let us have it, but why won't you? We could have Bernie Sanders' economic program of free college, free healthcare, and unionism, if only we didn't try to invite the Third World. Even he himself motioned at this when he called open borders a "Koch brothers policy" (which is true), yet the liberal wing of the party promptly forced him to walk back on that.

Why are the Koch brothers and the Leftists in agreement on this matter?

Anyway, thanks for reading.

Of course you could: because Sanders is in no way a communist. From our perspective, he is an enemy, just like you and what you call "establishment". You called the nazi regime "a capitalist dictatorship"; the truth is: you all are.

Thanks. So what would do for you? Stalinism - or is that just a form of state capitalism? Would the workers have to own the means of production, i.e. would companies have to be run as co-ops?

Fascism can operate in capitalism. Fascism poses no threat to the capitalist elite. Socialism, real socialism, does pose a threat to capitalists.

The ruling class are liberals, they want free movement of people for economic reasons, and socially and morally liberalism is dominant in the capitalist elite. Therefore fascism is not what they want. However, in a situation of an angered population looking for a kick against the status quo, historically the ruling class has favoured fascists over socialists. They choose a "lesser of two evils" from their perspective.

Of course the majority of voters or proponents for fascism are working class; but fundamentally fascism is a tool of the ruling class, to divert workers away from socialism proper to a kind of nationalization that allows private capital and capitalists to maintain their wealth. This is why it is described as a tool of the ruling class; not because the ruling class wants it particularly, but in that they will (and historically have) backed fascist movements over socialist ones in an attempt to save themselves.

?

Why must the answer be your brand of international socialism? If a nationalist government promised to make thing better for the majority of it's citizens at the expense of the 1%, and promised no wars of aggression, why would you oppose it?

Not the same guy but I wouldn't oppose that no, so long as their general outlook was still internationalist. And that doesn't mean "muh open borders" - it means understanding that socialism needs to be international in the way that capitalist production is international in order to survive; global trade on the same economic principles. There is absolutely room for localism in socialism, in fact I would argue that localism is fundamentally necessary for socialism; but these localities must operate as part of an international collection of different localities to survive. Each can (and hopefully will be!) culturally different, with differences to their political traditions and economies, but all would be socialist, and cooperate rather than compete, in the global marketplace.

Capitalism cannot fall from one national government, this has never been more true and real than today.

Even truer is the fact that a country existing today a country that does not abide to the international banking and corporate cartels rules is crushed, through trade embargoes or political isolation. (just look at Venezuela)

Second the fascist delusion that country can support a good standard of living while living on it's own without movement of labor,foreign trade with other capitalists an thinking that strategy like that of N. Korea's is a god idea is idiotic. Yet this is the kind of economic thinking driving demagogues like Le Pen.

Because no matter how hard you try to build your socialism in one country, you will never escape the contradictions and entanglements of capital itself.

Capital is international. You can't fight it "nationally"; change has to encompass the whole capitalist system which makes for the current mode of production of the whole world.

I can't speak on the whole board behalf but here you go:

Liberals are making identity politics the alpha and omega of political action (gender pay gap, affirmative action etc…), i'm seeing thoses issues as non issues because all exploitation stems from capitalism giving teeth to exploiters.
As for the cracking down on far right rather than far left, i have a few hypothesis:
-I'm seeing the cracking down on far right movements more of a diversion to actual issues, you will agree that from a mediatic perspective, not talking about something is a more effective censorship strategy than outright opposition. By putting fascism under the light under the pretense of fighting it, media quietly sweep alternative discourse to neoliberalism under the rug.
-Also the west in the XX century, especially Europoors, suffered more under far right regimes than under far left regimes, making western people more reluctant to far right related stuff.

Bourgeoisie seek first and formeost political stability to run business without interference, what business oppose is more the political change itself rather than the nature of said change. Once far right policies are enforced, they realize that strong police cracking down on protest is pretty good fo business. As for cordons sanitaire against far right parties, this is more rabid politician fighting over the leftovers of political power under international finance rule.

Under your regime, porkys have an even bigger power providing they belong to the right ethny, and contestation to their rule is not simply ridiculed and decredibilized like in bourgeois democracy, but actively crushed because not adhering to class collaboration is seen as treason. I may have contempt for those laughing at my worldview, but this is nothing compared to those wanting to end my life because of said worldview.
Antifas are just retarded and counterproductive imo, theory illiterates bourgies kids playing revolution.

I distinguish the phenomenon of immigration, natural consequence of technical progress and neoliberal policies, and the individual immigrants themselves.Trying to stop immigration by closing borders is pointless, it's a waste of time and ressource, look what happens in Ceuta, barbelage don't stop the migrants. If you don't abolish capitalism, that will continue no matter what. If anything, you should targeting bosses using immigrants as cheap labour, cracking down on immigrants themselves will only give more power to porky because their 3rd world workers will be even more helpless.
When it comes to immigrants themselves, there is no problem if they try to adapt to their new country. But thanks to Anglo multiculturalism leaking everywhere, the model is inversed and the host country is expected to adapt to the immigrants, which is stupid because you end up with a state where laws apply differently according to citizen's origins. But then again it's liberal idpol.

ftfy

Only in the last 10 years or so


But the reason why the rad-left supports (or at least does not hate these things) is because doing so does not contradict our ideology. If you lurk moar you will see we actually take a critical viewpoint of immigration especially considering the increasingly globalism, neo-liberal market of labor exchange. We also don't accept anti-racism or lgbt activism as a sufficient means of social reform: only economic and political revolution will achieve results.


Doesn't matter what strata of society these viewpoints come from, its still populist clap-trap designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the working class. Why is this sub-heading even titled " fascism and its relation to liberalism" when A) all the fascist works I've read have been staunchly anti-liberal and B) liberalism has nothing to do with this board.


Pic related


Because it distracts the working class from the real issues. Also, you know, world war 2


Again, that has naught to do with us. We are socialists, communists and anarchists, not liberals.

I agree, scape goats are easy to create
Just like that

Its because immigrants in most European countries make up a negligible percentage of the population. If the goal was to reduce ALL crime through vigilant justice they would go after everybody. The purpose of Antifa is to bring the hostilities that fascists are proposing out in the open and challenge their "might makes right" mentality by kicking the shit out of them. Its primarily political in nature.

Communism.


Because it would either be a liar or a fool.

Meanwhile in the United States, over 600,000 women and children are trafficked EVERY year by people of all races. Meanwhile in Europe, the overall rates of sexual assault haven't increased. No one is apologizing for the crimes committed by sand people but its clear that trying to pin all your problems on a specific race backed up with all sorts of pseudo-science and sweeping claims about how multiculturalism is impossible.

Mass amounts of immigrants cause anxiety and social instability. This is a fact. Areas with high lots of poor people have a higher crime rate. This is also a fact. Stop trying to pin it on race and read between the lines.

There is a reason why the neo-liberal media in Germany is trying to convince the population its their duty to accept refugees. But have you ever thought there must be reason why alt-right media outlets constantly highlight these incidents? I don't imagine they do it out of the bottom of their heart, and you shouldn't either.

An isolated, national, response to capitalism is uneffective, because capitalists are using competitions among states to get their way, if the 1% feels like a nationalist governement is not sucking their dick enough, they'll fuck off to a more submissive country and the economy of the nationalist country will collapse.

t. American

...

Australian, but whatever helps you sleep at night

Good post, although you could have called him a cuck to make it even better :^)

Multiethnicism can work under the right conditions. Multiculturalism is bound to fail. You need a common ground of behaviors for a society to work.

OP here. Those are fair points.

I guess I'll have to acknowledge that racism can the door to the oppression of the lower classes under the guise of "national cooperation" and this was certainly an issue with historical Nazism. My main problem with Leftism is that the readiness with which it allows itself to be instrumentalized by neoliberals.

Except for some really tame comments Sarah Wagenknecht made a few months ago about deporting criminal asylum seekers (for which she got a pie in the face and called a Fascist), I don't see much Leftist opposition to mass immigration. This would be fine if the immigrants were really allies with the indigenous working class, but their behavior shows them to be actively hostile.

There's some chance that you'll get natives to embrace Socialism; I see no chance of the Third Worlders in the West embracing it. They are torn between Islam - a powerful, anti-Socialist ideology in its own right - and degenerate, amoral "chavism", exemplified in the perpetrators of Rotherham.

I guess my question is this: do you acknowledge that the immigrants into Western countries are not & won't become Socialists and, if so, would it not be prudent to keep them out?

I'm listening (so sarcasm). Is it to bolster their own popularity by creating an alliance of hate? To discredit the liberal establishment?

Independently of that: it doesn't matter why they do it; these incidents still occur, and they are unique to certain immigrant communities (mostly Muslim ones). I daresay events like those of Cologne have never been perpetrated by Germans against their own people.
Look: let's even suppose that these crimes have nothing to do with any inherent qualities of these people and that they're qualitatively the same as the Germans. They were still perpetrated by foreigners against the natives and thus display a complete lack of empathy. These populations are, broadly speaking, hostile.

What reason is there to import such hostile populations? Mass immigration seems to me to be a huge imposition on the European and American peoples, and the support for which from Leftist quarters I cannot explain to myself.

Internationalism
Generally, because a few people brought it up: Even if you're an internationalist, it doesn't follow that everyone should be able to go everywhere. The Soviets wanted to bring Socialism to Africa, but they did not allow all of Africa to migrate to the USSR. An international alliance can exist without all the constituent populations mixing together.

More broadly: A nation is an extended community. My opinion is that every community has the right to decide who can enter it and who can't. If, say, the British don't want Africans in their country, why should they have to accommodate them? Countries are the property of their populations, not the entire world.

Actually a lot of places like Pakistan and India have strong traditions of socialism. Of course highly orthodox religious people are unlikely to become socialists, Muslims and Christians alike.

Also, a lot of second generation immigrants actually do become quite turned on to socialist ideas, again particularly Indians and Pakistanis in the UK, and so while their parents might be reactionary and orthodox, they themselves grow up in more secular environments and can become quite westernized. Places where there are large communities of x group of people are of course less likely to get out of those circles and integrate. This is why ghettoization is a problem.

Golden Dawn was consistently and uniformly demonized by the Greek and international media, IIRC.

Well that's the eternal reformist dilemna. You try to play by the system rule, you end up eaten by it.

As for third worlders in the west, i'm repeating what i just said previously, multicultural idpol distract from class consciousness by playing on spooks. Whites are spooked by their race and religions, non whites are no differents. The chimps out you watch on tv are purely the consequences of political choices.

Wouldn't it be possible to engage in both? Kick the foreigners out and establish socialism (even an internationalist version, but without allowing immigration)?

Apart from everything else, it'd be sure to bolster your popularity among the populace. Whether they're right or wrong in their wishes, they still don't foreigners coming in. Accommodating that wish just seems to be tactically prudent.

Honestly I think you're just plain wrong about how the population really feels.

I know that Brexit won but it wasn't by that much, really. Most people don't want "muh open borders" but that doesn't mean they'd want all foreigners kicked out.

There are a lot of working class British people, myself included in this, who work alongside Poles, Romanians, Indians, Nigerians and all sorts, and are friends with them. This is their home now. Many of them have lived here for years, have children at school here, and have integrated well into society here.

You are being very absolutist. 51% of the country is not everyone.

Also, I would be really curious to know (I know its impossible) the stats on who voted in or out, as anecdotally the only "out" voters I know are unemployed, and everyone British I know at work or who has a job elsewhere, no matter how much of a wage-slave, voted to stay "in". I think actually meeting and knowing immigrants does change people's views on this a bit.

How about the "law must be the same for everyone?" People wouldn't get as angry if race wasn't a pass to get away with shit. This is why the rotherdam case is scandalous in the first place. You commit a crime, you're trialed and punished accordingly. Just with that, a lot of resentment would fade away.

I agree, white people get away with far too much shit.

Pretty accurate. I'm for Brexit but don't think we should kick out people who're here. We SHOULD secure our borders better and have solid figures for how many people each year, if any can come. A stable population has its benefits.


I'd be very surprised if 52% of Brits are unemployed. The breakdown was roughly

male and female voted the same (1% difference)
Old voted in higher numbers and overwhelming leave with quite a high turnout
young voters voted 75v25 to stay, but only 35% of them voted
Social grade A voted about 70vs30 stay
lower social grades voted to leave

Sorry didn't save infographic

We are anti racist at Holla Forums. As in, we don't discriminate if you are a white guy or a black guy.

I wasnt implying that all Brexit voters were unemployed, just that interaction with immigrants in a work environment seems to make people less likely to buy the "the took our jerbs" meme.

But yeah my main point was that wanting to be out of the EU and wanting some immigration control is not the same as "wanting to kick out all the foreigners", and most Brexit voters are the former not the latter.

First of all, thanks for asking these questions in a well-formatted and polite post. If everyone on Holla Forums posted like you, I'd actually visit that board.

I disagree. College liberals regard you as their arch enemies, but the real organisations of power - the intelligence agencies and the military - are far quicker to enact regime change on a country which elects an openly communist/socialist leader than one which elects an openly fascist leader. In fact, America and the UK both have an illustrious history of supporting racist, genocidal dictators because they're useful in the fight against communism. Any claims they make of caring about human rights or free speech are nothing but a distraction. They certainly don't care enough to stop supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia and Israel.

My main opposition to fascism is all the >degeneracy bullshit. I'm extremely socially libertarian and it just seems completely arbitrary and cruel to want to exterminate vast numbers of people on the basis of their personal preferences or arbitrary physical characteristics. All of the arguments in support of eugenics are based on flawed science and a flawed understanding of the rate of human progress. I believe that if a Holla Forums-style fascist government were to ever get into power, they would cause far more suffering on average than a capitalist government. Capitalism is terrible, but it is merely a passive kind of cruelty compared to the active, sadistic cruelty of fascism.

Thinking about it, I have to agree with you. I'd never considered it from that angle.


Also a fair point. If you ask me, that's LARPing more than anything else (even Nazis/Fascists/Falangists didn't crack down on people's lifestyles to the insane degree frequently proposed on Holla Forums and TRS), but I take your point.

Thanks a lot for the responses. I think I have a feeling on where you guys stand on immigration and racism, but I'd like to ask again about crime and the relation between ethnicities in Western countries.

It's part of the scandal, but, for me, the main issue isn't that they got away with it (or with Cologne, or with countless acts of rape in Sweden), but that they did it at all.

If the consensus is that we shouldn't care about the identities of perpetrator and victim and execute blind justice, I'll take that for what it's worth, but my problem with Third World immigration is specifically the predatory behavior displayed by non-whites against whites.

The perpetrators of Rotherham weren't just general rapists; they were almost exclusively Pakistanis who targeted exclusively white women and girls as young as 11. The perpetrators of the NYE attacks in Cologne and other cities also weren't just randomly raping and groping their way through the cities; they were exclusively North and Black African man, targeting primarily white German women.

Similar things are true for Sweden and Denmark: not only are Muslims and Blacks responsible for the overwhelming number of rapes and sexual assaults there, these sexual assaults are almost always committed against the white population, not just random women.

In the US, we see a similar pattern. Though most black as well as white crime is intra-racial, the interracial crime is clearly a one-way street: almost all murders and ALL rapes, if interracial, are committed by blacks against whites.

It's not just that these people are poor and thus have a higher crime rate, as said; there's a clear pattern of predatory behavior, exhibited against the white population. That is the reason why I see these population, broadly speaking, as hostile, and do not want them in the West (not every member of them, obviously, but we're talking about policy here).

Targeting the racial group that such criminals belong to rather than simply dealing with the criminals themselves only perpetuates the behavior.

We see it time and again. Black people in the US justifying their own criminal activity as "black culture" - precisely because that is how others have framed it.

If you discuss the sexual abuse of children as something inherent to Islamic communities in the UK, it becomes a part of those communities. People fulfill their own stereotype. It becomes normalised.

That might be the case, but they have still perpetrated these crimes - in the case of British Pakistanis, without stereotyping as gangrapists beforehand. They were not forced at gunpoint to rape white British girls, yet they clearly showed their disdain for their host populartion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_sex_gang

Whether stereotype threat does lead to the normalization of such behavior or, not, members of a foreign population committed these acts against the native one out of their own volition. And again: we're not talking about rape/murder/mugging in the abstract, but rape/murder/mugging committed consciously against the white population.

But yeah, I'm not trying to argue here, I'm just interested in your opinions. Do you say that we should ignore the racial background of this criminal behavior and just focus on law and order in the abstract?

This is what social constructionists actually believe.

dude marxism is scientific socialism lmao, dumb christians denying evolution-.. wait, youre saying evolution has continued past the 100,000-50,000 year mark for humans where they branched off to different environments and thus developed different ethnic cultures and behavioral patterns adapted to their conditions? ugh racism!!!

Nah, the minority and refugee women are just a lot less likely to report it. They are also a lot more used to defending themselves since they come from shit places. Hell hath no fury like a lower class mother.
Plus, sex crimes by migrants are less than one percent of them, most crimes are petty theft.

The rape thing was based on extremely suspect evidence. The NVCS, which is based on random small samples of surveys to assess unreported crime, had so many white recipients report sexual crimes by black victims that it wasn't even logistically possible based on assessments of reported crime. In the case of general violent crime, the disparity is because of sheer probability of victim selection.
And no, there is zero evidence of cover ups based on race. The FBI doesn't care.

This is beside the point though. The extremely vast majority of people of ANY race aren't criminals. Statistics don't mean jack shit when applied to individuals. If you treat a person differently for crimes they have not committed, YOU are the criminal.

If you're weeping and worrying everytime crime happens, you will end up killing yourself my friend…
Crime may be greatly reduced with favorable conditions but will never disappear completely [spoiler] even under socialism ;_; [spoiler] And i keep saying that impunity is playing a big part in the prevalence of thoses crimes. Let's be honest, how many -even among Whites- would restrain themselves from raping chicks if the worst they would risk is a slap on the wrist? Especially if the victims themselves are defending the heinous behavior? If you're used to treat women like shit, and you never face consequences for it, you have no reason to stop.


I see two possible solutions to deal with racial motivations in crime: either you ignore it entirely, or you you make it an aggravating circumstance, but it had to work both way (White against black and Black against White). The most important for the particular issue is to avoid creating double standards.
As for general validity of the two models, the first one makes more sense imo, because the second introduce the notion than opinions can be ground for criminal prosecution. But some people on the board would probably disagree in the sense that tolerating intolerance is naive at best.


underage pls the adults are talking.

Are blacks genetically dumber or more violent than whites? Maybe.
Yet there are cases of black people behaving more intelligently and less violent than whites, that means there must be other factors at play.
It is general consensus in most post Enlightenment though that individuals' merit should be determined individually.
Race Realism in inconsequential on those bases.
No one here is some SJW strawman that you want us to be, no one defends multiculturalism since most defend the emancipation of individuals from traditional culture instead.

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE&index=207

Can you fuck off?

Socialism must be international. If socialism is made exclusive to a single nation or group of nations, then capital will simply flee those nations and regroup elsewhere. The forces of reaction, after regaining their power, will then make their counter-attack, which puts the revolution in jeopardy.
Capitalism must be utterly smothered, not only because international socialism will bring prosperity and progress to the world but because it is the only certain way socialism can survive.

We're not like the other leftists ;)

I agree that those things were pretty fucked up. However, you have to view such things in perspective. In most countries, a lot of women get raped everyday. However, when it is a group of refugees raping women it's suddenly news in almost all European countries.

For instance, how many people were raped in Germany by refugees and how many people are raped everyday by natives? Regardless of race, ethnicity or origin, you always have criminals among them. I'd also recommend you to look at what causes such crimes in the first place, as it is the first way to prevent this.

Also, most socialist only accept refugees but are not in any way supportive of mass immigration for profit. The Socialist Party in my party always supports refugees from war-torn countries, but never supported mass immigration with Moroccans and Turks.

...

He is right that it isn't explicitly disproven, but it's also impossible to prove as well because the genetics of cognition have been some of the most difficult to find, aside from single gene disorders like Downs. He's only bring neutral from a scientific perspective.

It doesn't have bearing on politics anyway since dumb people of any race are still humans with rights.

For adding to the clusterfuck, you have the whole epigenetic stuff, where expression of genes are being modified by environnemental factors. And those perturbations can be transmitted to your kids, even if they haven't been themselves exposed to said environnmentals factors.

Hi.

Eh. That's probably true, but I don't think the gap is as great as you think. If I were to go to a university right now and say that we should plan for, and try to bring about, the seizure of the means of production, and that doing so will almost certainly require violence, I wouldn't get a warm welcome. There's a large contingent of "leftists" who disavow violence (which is absurd), and they and their ilk tend to be the ones who get the limelight and positive attention.

I think we range from sympathetic to indifferent on those issues. A lot of people here will tell you that some or all of those are spooks. (I can't explain spooks, if you've lurked at all, you'll understand.) I think part of why anti-racism and LGBTWTFBBQ stuff is so positively and frequently portrayed is because it's a way to seem radical without actually affecting the social order in a meaningful, let alone revolutionary, way. I'm a nationalist (in the traditional sense, i.e., that states should be formed on the basis of a nation of similar people who wish to live together), so I'm pretty vehemently against the kind of open-borders hellhole that liberals tacitly endorse. I also think that socialism is one solution to the economic problems that cause mass illegal immigration. I'm not a racist of any stripe, can't argue there. And I don't really care too much about LGBT issues, but I don't have a problem with gays marrying. That said, if "trans" people want to impose their retarded worldview by demanding access to the other sex's bathrooms or being treated as the other sex, I want no part of that. If you want to dress like a woman and pretend you are one, fine, but the minute you start trying to impose your delusion on society, you can get fucked.

This is almost entirely tied to the problem of mass immigration for economic purposes, and the elite's refusal to curb it stems from: 1) a desire for cheap labor, and 2) their disconnectedness from the rest of the world. By the latter, I mean that when they think of some third world country, they probably think of the businessmen who they've rubbed shoulders with, and who probably went to the same prestigious schools as them. They don't think about the barbarism, theocracy, and backwardness that many immigrants will bring because they don't know what normal people are like. Anyway, the class dimension to this is real, and it's a good thing that so many people, especially working people, have rejected their leaders' calls to destroy their nation just for a small boost in shareholder dividends.

cont.

Like I just said, the bourgeoisie sees labor as its enemy, as a force to be controlled and exploited. The bourgeoisie, above all, hate and fear the proletariat. Whether or not they specifically fear socialists doesn't particularly matter to me, since the point of socialism is to empower the proletariat to seize the means of production and thus end class distinctions forever.

That's true. Although we have plenty of hate for liberals.

Because all fascist movements have been rabidly anti-socialist, despite often using the language and imagery of socialism (i.e., mass mobilization, industrial conflict, etc.).

I strongly disagree. Fascists rarely have a coherent economic policy, and when they do, it tends to be one that reinforces the liberal status quo, a mix of state ownership (which many socialists, including myself, oppose) and capitalism.

None of those things are socialism, though. Socialism is only ever the self-ownership and self-management of workers. While government programs like that are nothing to sneer at inherently, it's like arguing that one is an abolitionist because he bandages his slaves' feet.

True. And more often, I think people are wrongly labeled as fascist for simply going against the politically correct dogma of the day.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I don't think that Holla Forums is uncritically and unconditionally supportive of all immigration. The media certainly is, though. Anyway, Holla Forums isn't really like other socialist/leftist hubs–we care little for identity politics, and we frequently find and point out the implicit ideology behind many of the hand-wringing liberal appeals for "tolerance" or "respect"–showing them for what they are: appeals to maintain the status quo, to leave it to our betters, to "let things run their course," when that course has in fact been solely determined by a handful of wealthy capitalists who care for nothing more than profit.
You've written a lot more on the subject of immigration, and some of it I agree with, but I think I've addressed everything that would constitute a constructive addition to the conversation.

Again, this isn't socialist, nor is it radical. I wouldn't hate to have this–if you have to live under capitalism, better to have some bandaids for that particular cancer–but if you think Sanders is somehow the "candidate for change" that socialists were hoping for, you're sorely mistaken.

Based on what Hitler said and wrote, I have to agree with you. However, my point was that liberals are anti-Socialist in the economic sense AND frequently don't even want to give the people any band-aids. Just on the face of it, Fascism might not sound like a good deal, but at least it'd be a better one than neoliberalism.

Do you regard Fascists the same way we regard the center-right - as cucks who siphon off revolutionary energy and throw the people morsels instead of actual change? I know Bernie isn't a Communist, but just as an example, I know I hate a Ted Cruz or a Jeb far more than I ever hated Bernie Sanders

Can you explain that to me? I know I should lurk moar/read Das Kapital, but I'm not a Communist so my knowledge about this is basically all hearsay. Do you mean the outlawing of wage labor and voting rights for all workers, so that companies are run like republics? Would they function like direct democracies, with referendums on all business decisions? Would there be no companies at all?

I could live with a race-blind justice system. What's more important to me is protection from, and severe punishment for, criminals. In fairness, this is denied to me by the liberals, not by you.

Suppose a group of Somalis gets up to the sort of shenanigans about which we tend to read in the newspapers: they booze up some 13-year-old girl, drag her into a hotel room and gang-rape her. If they are in a Siberian gulag one week thence, cutting up frozen tree trunks for the next 20 years, I'm happy.

Is there a consensus on Holla Forums on how severely crime should be punished?

The issue here is that "culture" encompasses numerous things. Legal tradition is technically cultural, but so is harmless family tradition. Banning all different culture would mean getting rid of a kebab stand because it's different.

Crime needs to be prevented, not dealt with at the last minute, and ultimately a response to material conditions. I live in a US state with a ton of Somali immigrants and when I heard how bad they supposedly are in Sweden I didn't believe it because the ones that come here are such nice people that FBI agents have been caught lying about them committing sexual crimes for personal reputation, since they don't commit enough crime for real.

This tells me that the economic migrants are the lumpens of the countries they hail from, not their typical citizens; in comparison, many of the Somalis where I live are only here because of the chaos.

This is an important point to note though. We shouldn't even really need to engage in this meaningless stat measuring that "race realists" want to use, because its not politically or socially relevant.
I posted this response in another thread a while back so I'll just repost myself here:

I think the most important thing to remember in a way is that even if it turns out that black people's brains are somehow different to white people's, that they genuinely have more propensity to lower IQ scores or whatever - even if this is true, it makes very little difference.
Firstly; the gap, if it exists, is small. Small enough that black and white people are capable of learning the same language, communicating to each other, and undergoing the same cognitive processes in very many respects. We can share complex language processes like jokes, sarcasm, and metaphor.
Secondly; if the gap exists at all, it applies only in general trends, not iron laws of biology. It is not difficult to find countless anecdotal examples of highly intelligent black people. There are also evidently countless examples of extremely stupid white people.
Thirdly; if the gap exists, it is not only minor and vague in its application, but highly influenced by external factors. None of these studies could ever deny that income and general lived experience account significantly for differences, even studies attempting to demonstrate some racial statistical difference would organize their data by socioeconomic status. Even if biology determines mental capacity, there is absolutely no denying the influence of environment.
All in all, even if Holla Forums is right and black people have a minor general propensity to lower mental capacity than whites, I don't see how this has to affect an idea of a socialist society based on meritocracy and equality in socioeconomic class. That a certain section of the population might be marginally less intelligent than another doesn't matter one bit.

Sure, but when I think "fascism," I don't particularly think of things like single-payer healthcare or publicly-funded schools. That's not to say that fascists didn't implement things like that, obviously they did. It's just an outgrowth of what I said before, that fascists don't have a coherent economic policy. Even if they did, if I have to pick between the good parts of liberalism (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, no racist/sexist policies, etc.) or the social programs that fascism can provide (which are sometimes also provided by liberals, given enough pressure), I'll always choose the former.

Not really. I don't think they go, "Hey, look at this anti-capitalist worker movement, let's subvert it and channel it to our own ends." I think they just have their conception of society's ills wrong in the first place, and so they focus on all this stuff like race and virtue and other ineffable things, and in the end, because they haven't identified the true cause of labor's suffering, they end up reproducing the ills of capitalism, and so it inevitably circles back around to strike-breaking and wage reduction and all the other shit that comes with that turf.

When you get down to it, there are basically two schools of thought in socialism:
1) There's a democratic government that owns all the capital, and comes up with a plan on what to produce and how to produce it. The people, who democratically control the government, thus own and manage the means of production. If you don't go along with the plan, you don't get to participate in its rewards. This is the traditional view.
2) In serfdom, land ownership was used as a rationale for taking the product of the serfs' work; in capitalism, ownership of capital is used as a rationale for taking the product of wage-laborers' work. (Socialists usually call this arrangement "private property" or sometimes "Property," always capitalized, and that term has led to a ton of misinformation and the myth that socialists "want to take all your stuff away.") This type of property arrangement, where an owner can take possession of the product of someone else's labor, is outlawed–and this is, by and large, the only real economic change, though it is a colossal one. The natural outcome is that companies will become worker-owned, basically cooperatives, since working and owning are no longer divided (so you can't have things like stock anymore, for example, since that relies on the division of work and ownership.) Goods and services are still exchanged via markets, though. I prefer this model. Businesses would be democratic, though workers could delegate authoriy to elected managers in whatever manner they see fit, which is especially necessary in large or complex businesses. The difference is that management is responsible to the workers, not to shareholders.

An often unmentioned detail is that if IQ measures real cognitive ability, even when adjusting for the lower quality of older tests, people today are much smarter than they were centuries ago, which means there is not a single demographic alive that is incapable of contributing effectively to society. Besides, y'know, the mentally retarded. There is also the fact that the average IQ of American blacks isn't 84-85, it's just over 90, and has been very slowly climbing, while the real average IQ of sub-Saharan Africa is around 82, which is well within a non-genetic difference.

The answer will differ slightly wether you're asking anarchists or regular commies, but companies would be more or less run like co ops


Laws and crime punishment would be democratically established. Personally i have yet to make up my mind about the way of dealing with crime. Is Justice the sublimated revenge of society against the ones who wronged it? Should its mission the rehabilitation of criminals to become productive members of society? Is it just the containment of potentials threats?

This isn't a criticism, I'm just asking out of interest, because you mentioned democracy: do you have an idea of how to prevent a Communist state slipping into a Stalinist dictatorship?

People, at the end of the day, want their shiny iPhones and their Chinese cartoons. Just as a practical matter, fundamentally changing the mode of ownership would greatly disrupt production, and central planning wouldn't satisfy the demand for shiny baubles. Is a dictatorship a necessary evil, or is there a way to peacefully maintain a Communist state?

Its to make money. There's a market for middle class Americans to bitch about the degradation of white culture or whatever Breitbart reports on.


Rape never happened in Germany, apparently. Its a brown invention. Again, rates of sexual assault haven't necessarily increased across Europe so its a moot point.


Do you not understand neoliberalism? If no, why do you keep using the word?


But that'll never happen if the workers aren't in control of their political systems. that'll never happen if the bourgeoisie are in charge. This process of self-determination will be, as history teaches us, stifled by the ruling class and/or prevented by other bourgeoisie internationally. Its foolish to do what fascism does and focus only on your own national issues.

What does that matter when you have political power?

Well, since I don't support the traditional state-socialist model, the first and most important step is to go the cooperative route instead.
Another important factor, in my opinion, is to avoid the centralization of power. Sure, you can have a central government, but every province should be permitted to secede if it wishes, and there should be no single national leader/president/prime minister/whatever–simply have an elected or appointed Cabinet that carries out the functions of the executive branch of government. Third is to avoid the development of a separate military subculture–have no standing peacetime army, and/or require all male citizens to go through basic military training.

They're welcome to them, I fully expect them to continue existing under socialism.

That's true, but it's a temporary state of affairs. The abolition of serfdom didn't spell the end of farming.

Yeah, central planning basically precludes things like brand differentiation and the like. That would actually probably have some advantages, but I don't think they'd outweight disadvantages. Again, I'm not a fan of central planning.

I would say dictatorships are inherently undesirable, because your livelihood is tied to the whim of a single person, and you can't account for who is going to take his place next. But you should know that, when Marx (and other socialists) talk about things like the "dictatorship of the proletariat," they don't mean "dictatorship" in the colloquial sense of the word. What they mean is that one class (the bourgeoisie) effectively dictates the interests and priorities of the state, and what they are referring to is the rise of a different class (the proletariat) who will take over this role. There can only be a dictatorship of the proletariat as long as there is a proletariat, and the goal of socialism is to end class distinction–so a dictatorship of the proletariat is always an intrinsically temporary state of affairs.

The sort of rape that's recently been imported hasn't: gang-rape, mass sexual assaults. I've never heard of a thousand German men going around, surrounding and forcibly fingering women.

Anyway, I did learn a lot. Thanks for replying, anons.

Thanks for being civil. I wish everyone from Holla Forums who posts here were as even-keeled as you.

Wasn't it just 80 assaults on one night though? I don't recall there being "thousands of men" in like some massive gang rape death squad.

But there is a significant, worldwide sex trafficking industry perpetuated by people of all races, including white. So unless you can demonstrate the problem is uniquely linked to brown people its a moot point.

Also, thanks for the civil discussion, please take what we have said on board

Yeah it wasn't even close to thousands, a few dozen, just over a hundred tops. And a good portion of the perpetrators were white. It was abhorrent for sure, but porky exaggerated it for his anti-immigrant moral panic.

If only all visiting Holla Forumsyps had the decency and intelligence to engage in conversation like this.