I may be Nat.Soc. but I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say. I just want to give you guys a chance to explain things to me and I'm hoping we can keep things civil, and if possible, not mention the Jews.
So, questions:
1. What's your brand of leftism and how does it differ from other kinds?
2. What's the story behind the death tolls in communist countries? (I know this a crap way to describe them but it’s the best umbrella term I can think of) I've seen people here say they're inflated but I haven't seen any evidence. I'm fairly sympathetic to this though, as I've had to deal with my fair share of false allegations of genocide.
3. How do you refute the ‘human nature’ argument? I imagine it’s something to with the fact that people falsely equate Socialism with Social Democracy but clarification is appreciated.
4. Why do you think that Nat.Soc. and Fascism are right-wing and reactionary? What's the problem with understanding the 3rd position and their revolutionary yet traditional nature?
5. Why do you reject Nationalism? How do you ignore the biological fact that people naturally care for their own more than outsiders?
DISCLAIMER: I’m not aut-right, don’t lump me in with those faggots.
.2) Pic rel. Many people died, that's true. If it's necessary to kill, people will be killed. Of course no one wants innocents to die, but that may happen, especially if you have the wrong people in office (i.e. Ezov)
.3) Human nature depends on the material conditions and mode of production. Human nature, initially, was "communistic", when there was still no private property.
.4) /turdposition/ is not revolutionary at all. Your "revolutionary" position is nothing different from liberalism . It's still capitalism, it still features private property, it still has the support of the bourgeoise (fascism in Italy is the most evident case of this : fascist squads would beat workers on strike on the behalf of the factory owners!; Hitler got power with the support of the wealthy). The reason "liberal" democracies were against fascism is not because they were brainwashed by jews to destroy the nationalistic pure-blooded german utopia, but merely for profit (just like ww1 I might add).
.5) I reject nationalism because I don't give a shit about my "biological" kinsmen. I care only for my property, i.e. only for the things that interests me. The well being of my people is not my well being. Their fortune is my misfortune! Although, I do care about other individuals, let them be male or female, caucasian or blacks, or whatever. But only because I enjoy it.
Evan Young
nice dank meme
Angel Nguyen
Vulgar marxism/populist leftism. it means I have no idea what I'm talking about but I know what I'm doing
They're inflated, they count all natural deaths as part of the extermination, some times they just add people who was arrested for any crime and didn't die to the death toll. Plus they proposefully ignore each countries previews histories of famines and diesises
there isn't such a thing as human nature and if there was such a thing sharing will still benefit mankind much more.
We define the left and right spectrum as: left= common ownership of the means of production and right = private ownership of the means of production fascists will claim a lot of things but at the end of the day there still are bosses on the factories making money off the workers
People on your own nation can be alien or foreign to in individual, why will you like to jein them under a single banner? Then hy are you a nationalist? why not be a townist or a communitist? Nationalist fail to see how the nation itself can be heterogenous and diverse, once you see that you'll release that nationalism is phony.
Daniel Ortiz
...
Jonathan Sanchez
...
Luis Howard
...
Liam Butler
...
Tyler Nelson
...
Bentley Jenkins
...
Luis Reed
I understand this, but nobody wants to regress to a stone age society, and we couldn't there's too many people.
I don't think you understand it. I understand why you may think of it as capitalism, but we don't believe in the primacy of the consumer.
Well then, you're a sordid creature. Enjoy yourself.
Riiiiight
Fair explanation there. But what about the Holodomor? Was that not deliberate? What real numbers are we looking at here then?
I strongly disagree, and this seems fanciful to be honest.
I see. But in reality there's much to the spectrum than that. And the capitalism in Nat.Soc. is different, since it's not unrestricted, it must be for the good of the people. I posted a pastebin above if you want to know more.
But when we talk about nations we're talking about people who are bound by common blood, tongue, and culture. This, logically, extends to your whole nation, not one part, although when there are regional differences you may identify with that region, but you will not give up your national identity. Diverse nations do not exist, and cannot exist. Diverse countries are doomed to fail because there is nothing holding them together.
Dominic Myers
1. My goal i to have economy managed by the workers themselves, and since i can't figure out the best way to ahieve it, i have no precise ideology 2. Many deaths, but inflatuated for propaganda purpose. Beside, if you start to blame directly deaths on an economic system (especially in the way they are pinned on communism itself), the comparison with capitalism do not turn to the advantage of the latter. 3. That depend largely on how do you define human nature, because you can observe vague and contradictory tendencies among humans as well as great malleability. There is more to this than tabula rasa and genetic determinism. 4.Nati0nal Socialism is capitalist, the Stra.sser brothers learned it the hard way. 5.People car emore for their own, but their definition of their own is largely being manipulated to an extent. We went from tribes to clans, to city states to Nations. Look at how medieval Italian cities hated each other guts. The constant infighting within feudal kingdoms. The nations are not entity that cut and clean, thoses groups have been largely an enlightment years creation(the People has a different source of legitimity than god). The Nations lies on the corpses of local cultures ad languages. They had been enforced during the XIX century trough education and coercion. The tendency over the century had been to creates larger and larger groups, there is no reason to stop just at Nations.
Adrian Cruz
Having private property abolished wouldn't result in a "regression".
Chase Torres
There is nothing wrong with caring first and foremost for the people around you. I care more for my Black neighbor than i care for the White dude in the other side of the country. Why caring about people if it is't for the enjoyment of their company?
Logan Lee
I can get this. Capitalists (or, you know who) get people worked up about Communism to get them to accept unrestricted capitalism easier. The 80s with Reagan and Thatcher is the culmination of this. Still, McCarthy was right, don't forget.
It's more to do with the fact that communism is more strictly defined than capitalism, or at least appears to be.
There do seem to be certain rules however, and you can't give people too much freedom with regards to things like this.
Strasserism is basically NatBol, it's a meme.
But every step along the way, people had some sort of biological attachment to the unit they were part of. If we go any further, we cross in territory that is akin to different dog breeds having offspring. The offspring will still be a dog, but it will be like neither of it's parents, eradicating the distinct identity of the parents.
But you appear to be proposing the destruction of property.
I'm not saying you can't care for people outside of your nation, but you are far more closely related to members of your nation than to other nations. A Great Dane is closer to other Great Danes than to Bulldogs, for example.
Sebastian Reyes
Socialist. I'm pragmatic in my aims. I dislike authoritarianism but don't oppose some form of government or state power.
Most are true. The socialist attempts in the past made serious mistakes and we should learn from them.
However, ask yourself the question. How many people die each day because of starvation in the capitalist world? How many people died just for the system of profit?
We always had different conceptions about what human nature is throughout history and it never remained the same.
Because it promotes solidarity based on race or nationality instead of solidarity by class. US workers have more in common with European workers than with the corporate overlords of their own countries. Fascist attempts in the past were supported by big business because it crushed class solidarity.
Nationalism is not natural at all. Just take a look at the history of the nation states. See also the answer to question 4.
Jordan Gutierrez
KEK
Property is but a relation between people. You don't abolish private property by literally destroying the objects of this relation.
Carter Taylor
He was just making the point that co-operation isn't innately impossible.
And you don't understand capitalism. The things Marx talked about, exploitation of the worker, the inherent contradictions like variable capital being the only way to procure capital, and the alienation of the labourer from his labour are all present in Nazi society. Maybe if Hitler had read Marx instead of being scared of him because he was a Jew he could've actually created racial socialism which was created by a Jew named Moses Hess
Humans can only be studied in the context of their society. How do you intend to prove this?
Yeah, but if you understood leftism the "type" of capitalism would make no difference. Your economy is basically social democracy. B████ ██████ was much closer to a Mussolini-esque fascist economically, than Donald Trump is.
There isn't a consensus among historians whether the Holodomer was a genocide, as it mostly comes down to Stalin not allowing Ukrainians to travel out of Ukraine. This can however be explained by not wanting masses of starving peasants to riot in the urban areas where there were other starving people. The total for those who dies in the 1932-33 famine is around 4-6 million. Stalin did execute around 700,000 during the Great Purge and if you count Gulags and other atrocities you can come to around 4 million dead without including famine and around 10 million if you include the famine(which was not deliberate - just exacerbated by policy). It's still nowhere near Hitlers 12-15 million which were a direct result of Nazi savagery(and yes, it is 12-15 million. If you're wondering where those numbers are coming from the Nazi's committed horrible war crimes. 1 million died of famine and bombing in the Siege of Leningrad for example. Take your Dresden and show it up your ass. All the allies combined killed less than 1 million non-combatants.)
Isaac Nelson
What are thoses rules? What makes you think they are rules? Why can't you allow people to ignore them?
We can agree on that.
Racial purity is not even a spook, it's a myth. History is filled with inter ethnic breeding since people are moving from place to place. People fuse and split, but their knowledge and history still reach our minds. And why should i value a non codant portion of my DNA more statistically found in european people more than my well being?
Hudson Richardson
I see your point here, I suppose it's because of the higher death tolls and the fact when people picture capitalism they picture the West, as opposed to countries like India or countries in South East Asia.
I get this. There's a similar idea in Nat.Soc. that capitalists just don't get.
Firstly, the support for Fascism of big business is overstated. Secondly, people are more closely bound by their nationality than by class, because your class can change, but you nationality will not (I'm referring to blood here, not legal status).
Of course it's natural, you share a closer link with your nation than you do with other nations.
But you're harking back to a time when there was no property, i.e. the stone age. People would see this as a regression.
The people aren't exploited here, Germany in the 30s experienced meteoric rises in the standard of living, helped by wage rises (including a minimum wage), price controls, and reduced working hours. I understand the 'alienation of the labourer from his labour' issue, but I don't think it's a problem. People still need to have the ability to create businesses and therefore ensure that enough is produced, because on a nation wide scale, people will simply not give up their current situation for what is essentially one big commune.
Oh please, that's like saying Robert Owen created Socialism.
True, it's only hypothetical, but I don't believe the masses will ever want it, even if it could be better for them.
I get the position here, I'm just saying that you shouldn't view the whole spectrum that way, since property is not the only political issue. It is the divider between capitalism and communism, but not necessarily left and right (or the 3rd position). Our economy is similar to socdem, but with no gibs, instead of welfare you get offered a job with good wages.
Thanks for clearing that up. As long as you learn the mistakes of the policy, that's fine.
That's all false and Jewish propaganda. I don't want to derail the thread and let it turn into a holohoax/Jew thread so can we just agree to disagree on this one?
Asher Richardson
Biology.
Not so. Maybe 'purity' is but races are distinct are should be defended. In the globalised state of the world today, there is a danger that we will all become one mixed race, which would be a disaster.
Tens of thousands of years ago. There have been distinctive racial identities for a long time now.
Will that happen if we all mix with low-IQ blacks?
Because DNA is objective and your well being is subjective.
Michael Baker
hotweels fix your shit
Robert Gutierrez
I usually avoid presenting myself as this or that kind of leftist; I'm just a Marxist. However, it would be dishonest not to acknowledge that I'm largely influenced by left communism, situationism, wertkritik and post-left anarchism. So basically I'm a Marxist who puts a lot of emphasis on individualism and anti-work ethics.
They were ruthless state-capitalist dictatorships dominated by paranoid, self-righteous bureaucrats who apparently thought "socialism" simply meant having a centrally-planned economy — and a poorly managed one, at that.
That it would end in disaster is no surprise. In these countries there certainly was no social ownership of the means of production and no attempt at enabling it; and of course wage labor, commodity production and capital accumulation were still the order of the day as a result; that is why I as a Marxist argue that the USSR & Co. were not socialist.
The "human nature" argument rests upon the assumption that there exists an ahistorical "essence" of Man that is unaffected by concrete factors. This is not sound. As a Marxists, I believe that the base determine the superstructure; that is material conditions determine the development of the other spheres of existence. The observed behavior of men in the context of a specific set of labour relations reveals nothing more than that.
As Andrew Collier put it: "To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough."
Kayden Howard
You imply that a person's own is defined by biology. Who are you to dictate my friends and family? Who is the nationalist to segregate me from my black friends, to prevent me from marrying a different colored wife? If people naturally care for their own more than outsiders why do you have to legislate to force people apart?
Colton Morris
That's not even the biggest problem with capitalism idiot, the biggest problem is the fundamentally conflict of interest that class creates in society.
Who cares if everyone suddenly works in a starbucks with a nice boss. All it does is cover up the real power relations at work. Your boss is still your boss even if he acts like your friend to make himself feel better about the relationship.
Isaiah Anderson
(cont.)
I don't have a problem with "understanding" turd positionism; in fact, I have studied them extensively (and subsequently found nothing of political value in it). Italian Fascism and Nat. Socialist might have occasionally used revolutionary-sounding rhetoric as long as they were movements; however, once they seized the State, they became objectively reactionary ideologies hell-bent on preserving the institution of private property.
And it couldn't be otherwise: Mussolini and Hitler (or, for that matter, Useful Idiot) were absolutely not interested in the social ownership of the means of productions, neither did they have any problem with wage labor, commodity production and capital accumulation. Their centers of interest simply laid elsewhere.
Kayden Carter
Clouds are objective. Why don't you use them to make rules for your society and value system.
Mason Rodriguez
Does wage labour exist? Yeah it did. Did commodity production persist? Yeah it did. People were exploited. Leftist will never support any version of capitalism and trying to appeal by saying " well it's not AS shit" is the same as socdem.
No. Racial socialism was pioneered by Moses Hess. Look it up. He thought the battle of races was the primary one, and class was secondary to that.
?I get the position here, I'm just saying that you shouldn't view the whole spectrum that way, since property is not the only political issue. It is the divider between capitalism and communism, but not necessarily left and right (or the 3rd position). Our economy is similar to socdem, but with no gibs, instead of welfare you get offered a job with good wages. Nazi Germany did have gibs. Free university and health care. The only reason everyone was employed was because you were gearing up for a war.
I recommend you take a look at this site: holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca. These guys do a lot of debating on revisionist forums. No Holocaust denier has EVER been able to come up with an adequate explanation for where the missing Jews went following World War Two. The world Jewish population is still lower today than it was pre-Holocaust. You can be a Nazi and not deny the Holocaust, just say you wouldn't go that far again. But you need to research this beyond Holla Forums infographs.
Charles Young
ffs it won't even let me post the last part of my response for some reason. Fix your goddamn shit, Hotwheels.
Jayden Martinez
Expand a bit please, or is it just a lazy appeal to nature fallacy? And what are thoses rules? Why we ought to follow them? Why would it be a disaster?
Nothing different than if we're all breeding with low IQ Whites. I probably couldn't stand living with a retard, wheter she's black white or asian. There are a lot of criteria when building a relationships, race is one i don't give a shit about.
The dopamin in my brain is objective and your Nationhood is subjective. See how it works?
Ignore the issues with capitalism and blame it on communism. Scapegoat economics.
Empathy and emotion are also parts of human nature as well as greed. Human nature is just becoming the new religion for those duped by such arguments.
They want to privatize and individualize everything to the detriment of society so that it becomes a Social Darwinist utopia. That's why they fail so quickly when the people rise up against them.
Because internationalism trumps it.
Nathaniel Sanders
Hey OP, I appreciate that you're genuinely trying to learn so I will do my best here. Feel free to ask me for more explanations of my responses or anything else.
1. Leninism, it's quite close to regular Marxism but with emphasis on pragmatism and applying Marxist theory to current material contexts, which say Trotskyism or Stalinism may have trouble doing as they are typically more stuck in the 20th century.
2. A lot of it from unavoidable famine which would of happened under a free market, probably to even worse degrees. Lets look at the USSR in particular though. The USSR had a lot of famines due to its super-rapid industrialisation. You may ask, why not industrialise slower, but if that route was taken then Russia would of most likely not been able to defend against Hitler, and Moscow would of fallen to the Nazis, which would of resulted in many more deaths than the famines.
3. Even if human nature is real, so what? If you actually understand how Socialism and Communism function, you will realise that the assumed human nature dosnt even conflict with it, but it's not real anyway. People's behaviour is determined by their material conditions. We put less emphasis in selfishness and competition in our society, people will act accordingly.
4. Because they claim that race struggle is what drives society rather than class struggle. This is as anti-left as you can get. They are also reactionary because they want to try and preserve culture that ultimately dosnt make a difference to people's well beings, and will be replaced as long as there are good material and economic conditions, and want to preserve things like traiditonal gender roles, religion, and anti-hedonism, work for the sake of work attitude. It's all pretty spooky tbh.
5. In order to progress we must not divide the working class based on nationality, or for that matter race or gender. The working class has no identity. Basically nationalism is irrelevant to the progress of society, that is, the progress to socialism. It hinders proletarian movements by pitting the working class against each other.
Hudson Richardson
China's famine was largely because they engaged in retard tier agricultural techniques, shot Sparrows so they crop was overrun by vermin, and told farmers to make worthless steel in their backyards. The Great Chinese Famine is one of the worst in history, and that does't happen without severe mismanagement of the food supply.
The 1932-33 famine wouldn't of been as bad if Stalin had gotten aid like Lenin did following the civil war. But instead he denied the famine to not make his administration look bad and restricted immigration so peasants couldn't travel to where there was food.
Joshua Wright
I straddle the border somewhat between anarcho-communism and more libertarian strands of Marxism. I'm also a Christian which influences my political views a bit.
I don't really know much about them, in part because I'm very new to leftism. In part because I'm not really interested in defending the USSR or other cold-war-era dictatorships. I'd like to learn more about them and what went right vs what went wrong in them in the future, I see little reason to defend these dictatorships. (There are some real-world examples of socialism that I'm a bit more fond of like Kekalonia. While these weren't perfect by any means, they tend to have a better track record imo.)
The issue with the human nature argument is that it's essentially a matter of saying "ok people behave this way under this mode of production they must ultimately revert to this behavior under all modes of production." I am reminded of the economist Heilbroner Milberg who, in defense of capitalism, essentially divided all economies into three different types: command, tradition, and free-market economy. Essentially what he said was that if people weren't being commanded to behave a certain way but they did not organize into a capitalist mode of production it must have been because of "tradition." Essentially any human behavior that capitalist-apologists don't account for must be caused by "muh traditions and customs." With trash arguments like these it's amazing that any people take the field of economics seriously.
Essentially I don't agree with the notion that people despise work and live for leisure and limitless consumption/greed, which is inevitably what all these liberal arguments against communism ultimately rely upon.
Personally I became a leftist in pursuit of personal freedom. It seems to me that at least a lot of these traditional and so.cially con.servative aspects of society are maintained through coercion in their current state. This does not mean I necessarily have a problem with say females behaving in a way that is feminine, it's more an issue of whether or not they are behaving this way because of pressures from society. Ultimately this is a somewhat more complicated issue to solve than economic issues. I don't necessarily think that making everybody dye their hair, make up pronouns for themselves and take hormone supplements is an effective method to free us from more coercive aspects of tradition. Freeing people from coercive societal expectations is a complicated issue that warrants another discussion entirely.
First off I do not ignore the "biological fact that people naturally care for their own." I think it is more a matter of what does "our own" mean. Why does a white person on the other side of the world living a completely different life from me count as "my own" while a black person in my /uni/ and taking the same classes as me doesn't? Beyond that while I am somewhat sympathetic to the claim that a lot of right-wingers make that there are some disadvantages to a multicultural society, I don't think nationalism is necessarily the answer. The nation is ultimately the reason why there are so many Mexicans in America and Muslims in Europe. When you have an enormously successful society next to a less successful society like the US to the north of Mexico or Europe across the sea from Africa and the Middle-East, you are naturally going to have people who migrate to Europe and the USA for practical and financial reasons even if they may not want to otherwise. What causes this inequality? The fact that these societies act as separate entities in the first place with separate governments, separate natural resources, etc. may play a role. The imperialism, war and general antagonistic relationships between these entities may also play a significant role. I would argue the root cause of much of this mass-migration and irrelevant shiting that far-right groups are so concerned with is this notion of nations in the first place.
Luis Clark
that was the word filter for ra.ce-mi.xing
Hunter Adams
shit, also I meant economists Heilbroner and Milberg. I can't type.
Joseph Russell
1. Marxist. I assume you think of liberals when you think of lefitsm - we are not liberals and we do not like liberals. We believe that working people are exploited by bosses, corporations, etc - and all the institutions that reinforce these people. 2. It really depends on what you specific instance you are talking about. Generally, a couple of things - 1. Communism only comes as a result of civil war and civil upheaval - this isn't exactly good for a country's stability - 2. Exterior forces from capitalist countries exert pressure which again, creates problems such as famine and civil unrest - 3. There are cases of legitimate political repression because there are people who attempt counter revolutions. You may say this is a bad thing, but its no different from countries today stopping revolutions - its perfectly logical. And 4, yes they are often inflated. 3. Human nature isn't any kid of objective statement, it seems to mean something different to every person. People behave a certain way within their environment - changing the environment can result in different behavior. 4. See below. 5. Nationalism is a tool used by the state to control the masses - its not based on any science or reality, its just sentimental bullshit used to control people.
Carson Scott
I'm a National Bolshevist. We are the Fourth Position, transcending both Fascism and Socialism as we admit both systems have failed and got outpaced by liberalism. We read Marx from a right-wing perspective and Evola from a left-wing perspective. We are pan-nationalists and believe in the European/Eurasian spirit as the antithesis to global liberalism. We are not racist but ethnopluralistic and support national liberation movements when they are anti-imperialistic not unlike Maoism.
Exaggerated. The Holocaust and the Holodmor did happen but not like western history tells you (as in like an evil plan to genocide an ethnic group) and the death tolls are massively exaggerated.
I don't. I guess I believe there is a dynamic between nurture and nature (genetics) which is a question for scientists to solve. I do believe certain ethnic groups have inherent positive/negative traits but not like Holla Forums believes it (skin color) but rather based on ancestry - I also think while there might be an average IQ difference between ethnicities independent from material conditions, it's just rather marginal.
Fascism killed itself in it's crib with unscientific and retarded racism and thougts of extermination of whole groups, by having "race" as it's subject. Italian Fascism had potential (having "state" as it's subject), but got dragged down with the Not Socialist expression of it. Furthermore, Fascist regimes enforced private property and were more than eager to lend money from the Rothschilds etc. who in the end would profit from the war efforts of both sides.
I don't. Some forms of Nationalism I reject.
Thomas King
I do understand this. You wouldn't believe how many times I get told by Holla Forums to 'go back' here simply for pointing out Venezuela is state capitalist, not socialist.
Fair enough, there's a similar concept in Nat.Soc.
I disagree here. Yes they preserved private ownership, but I believe in private ownership.
True. They certainly weren't leftists, but my point is that they're not rightists either, since the opposite of Marxism is neoliberalism. They combined tradition with modernity, and the reactionaries were in fact strongly opposed to them. See Horst Wessel: Here you see the opposition to both communism and the reactionaries.
It is, it's scientific fact.
I'm not, biology is.
Because there is an agenda currently to mix the races and destroy identity. irrelevant shiting does not end well. Look at Portugal. They used to be great, but mixed with negroes and have now achieved nothing of note for 400 years.
Nat.Soc. eliminates class divisions, as all are united under the nation.
People are inherently unequal. We should not seek to go against the natural order of things. If you don't want to be a worker, then become a boss. Under Nat.Soc. you have the opportunity to do so.
But clouds have nothing to with do with you. Your DNA does, obviously.
Eli Cruz
Well your argument is that exploitation occurs in the system whatever the people do. I disagree. I understand the labourer being divorced from his labour, but most people want to be paid in money, it gives them more versatility to choose what they want to buy. You would still define this as exploitation though.
It is though. Nat.Soc. is very different to Hess' racial socialism. Nat.Soc. is just about defending and improving one's race while eliminating class divisions, while Hess just took traditional socialism and added a racial element. I'm sure you'd agree that Nat.Soc. is not traditional socialism.
When I say gibs I meant benefits. Free stuff was there, but are you against that? Should you have to pay for healthcare if you break your arm? Germany was not gearing up for war, it was just enlarging it's army, as Hitler wanted to restore Germany's army to a size that befitted a major power (it had been reduced significantly in Versailles).
I've seen this dealt with numerous times. Essentially it's tampered numbers. They take the real population and reduce it, and over time, the effect is negated, since there was a huge drop in the the international Jewish population in the 80s. As I said, I don't want htis thread to turn into a Jew/holohoax thread, so I'll leave you with a couple of pastebins and we'll not mention it again.
You are biologically closer to your own nation. Homogeneous societies are generally more successful, and safer. I'm not saying you can't interact with other races at all, but there should not be mass immigration or irrelevant shiting.
It is different. Low IQ whites are below the average for whites, while low IQ blacks are at the average for their race. When you have children, generally their IQ will revert to the mean, although this doesn't happen in every case. But if a white mixes with a black then the mean IQ will become lower.
Nationhood is not subjective. It's an objective fact that you are more closely related to your nation than to others.
What? So the fact that I'm more related to a fellow Brit than to an African is socially constructed? Come on.
I understand the frustration but has there been a single successful communist country (I know Marxism hasn't been tried)? Capitalism is far from good but it at least has managed to raise living standards in at least some countries.
I do agree here, there is a similar concept in Nat.Soc.
There's a lot wrong with this statement. We don't want to privatise everything, and even if something is privatised, the economy is still directed. But it's directed, not planned. And when did the people rise up against Nat.Soc.? I know Mussolini was deposed but that's only because he got involved in a war he shouldn't have done. He was still very popular for 20 years.
[citation needed]
Charles Wood
...
Cameron King
I believe that the super-rapid industrialisation was the turn the USSR into a world power, so it could spread communism more effectively. As the Germans, reports of their killings is grossly overexaggerated, and in fact it was the Russians who were more brutal. I don't want to turn this into a WW2 thread though, so shall we agree to disagree?
Agree here.
It does make a difference to people's well beings (homogeneous nations are more successful and are safer).
The first three are necessary for the survival of a nation. Interestingly the USSR was first all about getting rid of these things, free love, etc. Then they changed back to a more puritanical lifestyle, because otherwise Russia would've been destroyed. See pic.
But you are bound by blood to members of your own nation, there is no such connection other working class people. You can move out of the working class and into the middle class for example, but you will always have the same blood in your veins.
Dominic Lee
What's the difference between anarcho-communism and Marxism? Isn't Marxism stateless anyway?
The problem with personal freedom is that people make bad choices. Bad choices can lead to the downfall of nations. The fall of Rome was partly because they had grown weak and corrupted because traditional ideas about gender roles, sexuality, and such did not apply.
Because you are closer racially to the white than to the black. Your geographical location doesn't matter.
No it's not, nationalists are firmly against this. It is internationalists who push this idea of no borders that allows this to happen.
Then you don't let them in. Harsh, I know, but otherwise they'll never be incentivised to improve the situation in their home country.
Then why was there not much race.mixing or immigration (colonialism excluded) before now?
Hate the filters, I just wrote a couple of posts with this in it. Oh well.
Owen White
Marxism's path to communism is capitalism -> socialism -> dictatorship of the proletariat -> communism
anarcho-communists want to go straight from capitalism -> communism
Logan Morales
No, I understand true Marxists. I get why you hate them. They go on about how they love Marx and then outline why nationalisation is the answer to society's problems. Or dying their hair green to 'make a statement'.
You make good points on 2 and 3.
This, I'm afraid, is false. You cannot deny that people are biologically more closely related to their nation than to others. Are you arguing that I'm just as closely related to a black person than I am to a fellow Brit?
Pretty much everyone agrees that this is a meme, m8.
When did they fail? Losing a war does not mean you failed as an ideology.
This doesn't make a lot of sense for someone who is 'fourth position'.
Better than internationalism, I suppose.
Nat.Soc. isn't racist, it just recognises that the races are not equal. Any race can apply Nat.Soc. to themselves.
If there wasn't a planned genocide then that means they didn't happen. Because that's what they're defined as.
We don't believe it this way. Race =/= skin colour.
Average IQ of blacks around 80ish. For whites it's around 100. Not 'marginal'.
Fascism is civic, not racial aspect, you're thinking of Nat.Soc. Our 'racism' as you put it, is not unscientific. There were no plans to exterminate other races, don't believe the propaganda.
They did finance Hitler at first, but Hitler was not an agent of the bankers, it's been debunked.
I see, thanks user.
Jayden Johnson
Every country that tried "communism" increased its living standards, but Tito's market socialism was by all standards, a success.
Proven false. 2nd generation migrants in Britain are doing better academically than native anglo's and blacks have increased their IQ +5 points in the United States. Meanwhile women have the same IQ as men now in the United States when they were previously 5-10 points below.
There is NO proof of mass transits out of the Atikon Reinhard camps and none in your pastebin. It's not propaganda and I won't drop this and let your sophistry permeate the minds of naive person s in this thread.
Letter from Harald Turner to Karl Wolff of 11 April 1942:
Today it is 14.7 million. But I guess Nazi paranoia is so deep you guys think that every census on Jews that was taken since the end of WW2 was a farce.
Aiden Rodriguez
The death toll for the Holodomer isn't exaggerated, there isn't a consensus among historians it was a genocide unlike the Holocaust which is corroborated by a mass convergence of documentary, photographical and testimonial evidence. They aren't comparable.
Dominic Barnes
But market socialism is technically capitalism to you guys, right?
How one does academically is not reflective of their IQ. As for your US example (and this is true in the UK as well) if you compare blacks in the US to blacks in Africa, the blacks in the US have lighter skin. This is because they bred with whites. Almost all blacks in America today have some white blood in them, hence the slightly higher IQ. But if all whites and blacks were to mix, the average would drop.
He references gas vans, which have been proven fake.
The World Almanac showed no drop in numbers in 1948.
Jaxon Butler
I don't think so no. I think the Soviet Union was run inefficiently because it couldn't accurately judge firm performance. Having a capital market is beneficial till most service jobs are automated and computers can accurately simulate a market. Dogmatic Marxist are beating a dead horse and lack pragmatism.
No. they haven't.
Those were using pre Holocaust numbers.
Xavier Lewis
Again what you're saying about census's about the Jewish population would require every single census taken to be falsified, which is a ludicrous claim.
Nolan Parker
Well it seems to differ, but some would define it as capitalism, the same way they define Nat.Soc. as capitalism.
They certainly haven't been proven. And the episode at the Museum of Tolerance involving David Cole supports my assertion.
I'm not necessarily saying they're falsified, I'm just saying that they take the 6 million into account when they shouldn't. I'm not saying that their doing this specifically to cover things up. But you should know that the 6 million is not accurate, given how much the death toll has been revised. So is it not accurate to claim that the current numbers are inaccurate? I also urge you to check the table here, the numbers don't add up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country
Justin Murphy
Would you mind telling me what that concept might be?
Well, they defended private property so they defended capitalism. It's as simple as that. If you're not going to dismantle what constitutes the very core of what majes capitalism what it is, how can you call yourself revolutionary?
Political ideologies can't be neatly compared in a way that allow to consider two to be "opposed", especially when they're not contemporary to each other. Economic liberalism is not the only political family that can described as "right-wing".
They combined tradition with modernity, you say. So what? Not only is it a rather shallow formula, it doesn't really mean anything politically. Don't your run-of-the-mill American conservatives combine backward social policies regarding sexuality or religion with hyper-modern neoliberal economics?
As for the Horst-Wessel Lied, it is a propaganda song — it can't be taken at face value. Just like I said earlier, it was part of their pre-establishment revolutionary-sounding rhetoric but it isn't much more than that.
Nat. Soc. (and nationalism in general) doesn't eliminate class divisions; it pretends they don't exist, actively hides them and goes after those who don't buy into that silly role-playing. Abolition and validation are not the same things at all.
Well… Obviously? Some of my friends are not white, yet I unsurprisingly feel closer to them than I do to a random white guy. I also happen to be listening to Jamaican dub music as I'm writing this message and feel more connected to it than I do to Cajun string music. Is that really so hard to consider?
Even on a more abstract level, the way individuals from a specific group relates to and apprehend other groups radically changes over time. Do you seriously think that "Frenchmen" and "Germans" see each other in the same light today as they did one century ago? Here's a fun fact for you: there was a time in France when Algerians were considered more easily assimilated and relatable than the Portuguese — make of that what you will.
Rosa Luxemburg, a Polish-Jewish communist theorist and activist, once said: "What do you want with these special Jewish pains? I feel as close to the wretched victims of the rubber plantations in Putamayo and the blacks of Africa with whose bodies the Europeans play ball… I have no special corner in my heart for the ghetto: I am at home in the entire world, where there are clouds and birds and human tears."
Ah, yeah, Léon Degrelle — Volksführer of the Walloon people. Guess what: I'm Walloon, and I don't feel the slightest connection with this mythomaniac piece-of-shit-in-chief. I'd rather read Paul Lafargue, C. L. R. James or Fred Hampton. Really makes you think, uh?
That quote is brazen bullshit, by the way. If Nazi racial policies were not "anti-race" then why did they systematically slaughter Jews, Slavs and Romanis by the truckload? Surely even if you're one of those deluded Holocaust deniers you cannot just pretend nothing happened?
John Torres
I do not reject it. I just think Nationalists must be shot on sight.
Yeah. Public is mostly certain that Communism and Fascism are the same. Soon even Nazi will be "lesser evil". Just as they were before. Fun times are coming.
Compared to what?
I beg to differ. So far I have yet to encounter actual evidence of this (historical data, rather then tall tales). If you have anything that says otherwise (and I mean actual research) - please share.
Besides, "market judgement" is firm going bust: workers fired, equipment scrapped or sold. The same level of underperformance is easily observable under planned economy.
That said, there were some blind spots in Planning, but completely different and for different reasons (and they are easily avoidable, as long as there is political will; computers are not that necessary). Funnily enough, those problems are practically never mentioned in American literature.
Dogmatic Marxism is about being as pragmatic as possible. It's revisionism that either ignores pragmatism or substitutes it for ethics.
Ryder Rogers
Well yea I guess I was using the fact it deafened against Facsism as a reason in its self but I suppose that wouldn't apply to a Fascist. We dont have to get into it if you dont wanna.
What you're most likely doing here is looking at crime statistics for countries with more homogeneous populations and ones without, then drawing conclusions. This is literally assuming correlation = causation and is taught to be unreliable to 16 year olds. You need stronger arguments than this.
A Marxist analysis of these statistics would be that the countries with higher crime rates have worse off material and economic conditions, and that if you swapped around the material conditions with the two countries you're comparing, the one with the homogeneous population would see that rise in crime rate.
Explain why. They're really not by Marxist standards - if anything they serve to hinder it. Transitional gender roles mean less innovative potential from literally half the population, religion only exists to ease class friction and comfort people in bad material conditions, it will fade away when we correct Capitalism's contradictions. There's literally nothing wrong with hedonism assuming that you're also keeping long term sanctification and health in mind. A 30 person orgy each weekend complete with whips and latex suits hurts no one assuming everyone's consenting. Taking MDMA once every 3 months has no long term permanent damage. It's about being responsible as well.
The only reason Russia developed a drinking problem is because their material conditions worsened in many areas. It's been proven that people will always turn to drugs and alcohol more when their lives are worse off. If we create a society with less hard ship, drug addiction and alcoholism will really not be a concern.
I'm not bound to anyone. I dont have to stay with anyone from my own nation, which was most had it's borders arbitrarily defined through historical conflict. I have no responsibly to my nation or race simply because I was born into it, but then again neither do I to the proletariat or bourgeoisie. The point that people sympathise easier with people from their own country/race is very true, but in no way invalidates the need for an international proletarian movement. All it means is we have to work to make people see past that, and it's been achieved many times in history before.
Isaiah Wilson
You're a Holla Forumsyp alright.
Wyatt Brooks
...
Alexander Jackson
I bet you prefer when Holla Forumslacks post interracial
Julian Reyes
Basically it's that Nat.Soc. doesn't believe in the primacy of the consumer, so people are expected to work for the good of the nation, not themselves (although private property is maintained). Capitalists spin the whole 'human nature' argument here, saying that people will only work if motivated by greed, etc.
I think it comes down to the fact that we define capitalism and revolutionary differently. By your definitions, then what you say is correct, but under our definitions, we are what we say we are.
Again, I see where you're coming from here. However, you seem to imply that you view capitalism and communism as opposed to one another, which would go against your statement, but I imagine it stems from your view that the class struggle the definitive aspect of political ideologies.
I wasn't referring to economics here. It basically consists of both traditional values and modern science and innovation, as well as laying down the foundations for a new order.
I guess Horst Wessel in itself can't be taken at face value, but in reality Hitler faced some of strongest opposition from the reactionaries - the Army, President Hindenburg, the aristocracy.
Well, I should say it unites the classes, rather than abolishes them. But this is because you ought to be loyal to your fellow countrymen, not some Chinese worker on the other side of the world.
I think you misunderstand. Of course you will feel close to a black friend than to a white stranger. My point is, you will feel closer to a white stranger than to a black stranger. Additionally, whatever your feelings about your black friend, objectively, you are not closely related to him biologically than you are to a stranger who is of nation. Also, I never said you couldn't appreciate foreign culture.
1. Algeria was considered an integral part of France, so that makes sense. 2. The Portuguese are hardly European anyway, they're almost all a mix of white and negro.
Do you really want to go there?
I hate Tony Blair. Doesn't make me any less British.
Because it didn't happen. The quote shows you the true nature of Nat.Soc. racialism. Given that there is no physical proof of the holocaust, you are jumping to conclusions here.
I'm not denying that some German soldiers acted badly but everyone did to some extent. Also it's worth remembering that many atrocities supposedly committed by the Germans were actually committed by Soviets in German uniform. Look up Torch Men Command, proof can be found in Stalin's command No. 0428, issued November 17th, 1941.
Lucas Taylor
Kill yourself.
Juan Diaz
Individualist Anarchism, because the individual is the ultimate authority. Some overlap with other leftist ideas (primarily Mutualism and Egoism, but to some extent other anarchist flavors), and some differences (primarily Marxist currents).
Stalin was a fascist, simple as that.
Human nature is a spook.
Because you people are inherently rightist. You want to maintain the status quo, or go beyond it and reverse progress. You maintain hierarchies, strengthen the state, and continue a more mercantilist version of capitalism.
Nationalism is a spook. Also, if you're equating a "nation" with a family then stop fucking people with similar ethnic backgrounds.
Anthony Barnes
DEGENERATE
Jason Smith
please end yourself before you continue spoutting retarded /int/ memes
Jonathan Collins
bad meme all I can do is 1/10 because Holla Forumscucks actually have cuck porn saved in their pc
Christopher Russell
The other user basically cleared this one up though if we are being more precise, marxism essentially provides a lens through which you can look at economics and politics (generally revolving around his LVT and diaclectical materialism) where anarcho-communism would be more in line with the ideas of Kropotkin (he criticized Marx a lot but I think most of his criticisms were based on misunderstanding.)
Perhaps I have trouble understanding in what way these choices were "bad." Bad is a value judgement and so there's gotta be something you're basing it off of. Such as "these individuals' actions were bad for the Roman Empire's strength as compared to those around them" or "these individuals' actions resulted in less material wealth in the long run and thus they were bad." Essentially I'm wondering what exactly these individuals' actions were "good" or "bad" FOR which I suppose is a matter of priorities, but it would help make things a bit more precise. If you are arguing that prioritizing individual freedom is unsustainable, I would agree with you in some contexts. I think it becomes an issue of whether under a given system there are motivations for an individual to behave in a way that is against the interests of larger society. I would argue that's not the case under a communist society but if there is an instance where in a communist society an individual has an incentive to act against the larger community, then that is certainly a problem that should be addressed. No such incentives come to mind at the moment.
Yes but why? Why prioritize this racial closeness above all other forms of closeness. Why is this racial closeness so relevant?
In a capitalist society perhaps. The issue is that in our society, wealth, safety and opportunity is very much tied to location though this is not necessarily the case for people. Thus people have a motivation and an ability to follow wealth, safety and opportunity. I agree with you that just opening borders at the moment would result in mass migration. What I argue is that the reason behind this mass migration is a difference between these communities' living standards and the root cause of that is the existence of nations acting as separate entities in the first place. Weakening of borders while maintaining our current mode of production and geopolitical landscape will result in mass migration, but that is not what I am advocating.
Fair enough, but then it becomes a question of whether or not this policy is viable and whether or not it is a waste of resources. As long as there is this clear motivation to move across this border, there will be a large group of people constantly searching for ways to get across. The legacy of imperialism and the current geopolitical landscape also form an enormous obstacle in the way of people trying to improve their own communities.
For more on the legacy of imperialism and various other obstacles that stand in the way of developing nations currently, there's a book called the Poinsonwood Bible that I remember reading a couple years ago. It is very liberal propaganda-ish which kind of bothered me but it does get into the issue of what specifically stands in the way of these developing countries especially in places like central Africa.
We have changed our policies toward borders and in certain places, attitudes toward interracial couples have changed, but states and capitalism remain. The motivation to move to another community remains though we have loosened many of the old restrictions. I am saying under a communist society, much of the motivations behind these actions would go away.
Luke Lopez
Well that not's very civil ''at all'. Have you read the thread title?
The retarded horseshoe theory is to blame for this.
The thread is on the verge of exploding into Jew and holohoax posts, and I don't want to exacerbate the situation.
visionofhumanity.org/#/page/indexes/global-peace-index Looking at this map, we can see that the multi-ethnic USA, despite being regarded as one of the richest countries in the world, is ranked far lower than Poland and some Balkan countries, which have lower living standards, but are more ethnically homogeneous.
Because when you get rid of them, you are removing the natural aspects from society. Take gender roles for example.Women are naturally meant to be housewives and mothers, it's what they've always done. When you take them out of the home, you result in the degeneration of relations between the sexes, and runaway feminists who start spouting SJW bullshit. Rome tried it, and it didn't work: lifesitenews.com/opinion/we-did-the-sexual-revolution-once-before.-it-didnt-go-well
It's interesting to note that Russia developed a drinking problem, which would indicate that things were not quite as bad as they were before the USSR. Otherwise, you're right, but you seem to imply that the USSR made things worse.
You are bound, by blood, like it or not. And borders are natural, it's where the people are. The exact border is arbitrary, and non-countries like Belgium suffer from a lack of a nation and thus are basically just arbitrary lines on a map.
Yes, you do have responsibility. You ought to defend you country and care for you people.
The problem with internationalism is that it seeks to undo nations, which would be a disaster, for reasons I have outlined in other posts.
Asher Martinez
I'm not turning this into a holohoax thread, there's plenty of those.
All of those claims have been debunked. I know you won't believe me, but I'll debunk a couple to prove my veracity.
The only source for these is from the USSR, which was fanatically anti-German, see pic. Thus, it's biased and cannot be trusted, since it's almost certainly fabricated.
I say the youtube video of this, and that is not Himmler's voice. I've heard him speak, and his voice is different.
I could do the rest, but it's not the topic of this thread, so please take it elsewhere.
Nolan Cook
No it's not. Don't you care about others?
Some fascist tendencies, like Bets Korea, but he was a Stalinist, as one might expect.
I agree that the human nature argument is dumb.
Interesting how you define 'progress' as something that is detrimental to society and is proven to not work in the fall of Rome, the fall of the Song Dynasty, and the fall of Byzantium.
I'm not equating it with a family, it's basically an extended tribe.
You really love your Stirner.
I never said it was black, I said it was a homogeneous nation where virtually everyone is of mixed black and white descent.
Landon Nguyen
please, go back to cuckchan /int/
David Wilson
Found the Belgian.
Elijah Ward
nice meme, sadly this only considers the present times, how do you explain the fact that europe, before mercantilism, was a very violent shithole?
How fo you explain the fact that, before any sort of muslims conquest and so on, ethnic tribes in europe were fighting one another?
If people are naturally inclined to bond with other ethnic europeans why were medieval empirs always fighting eachother?
How come it took a multiethnic society (the US) to finally stop yuropeans from fighting and killing themselves every 50 years?
I am from fucking latin-america dude
Jordan Moore
That has very little if anything to do with the "human nature" debate, the relationship between base and superstructure, etc.
What do you define "capitalism" as, then?
Uh, so reactionaries in lab coats? Coexistence of so-called "traditional" values and scientific progress is hardly exclusive to Nat. Socialism. Also, "laying the foundations of a new order" is just a nice way to say "setting up a totalitarian State".
And Mao faced some of the strongest opposition from Hoxha. Doesn't mean they weren't both Stalinists.
Errr… No? They're both strangers. Their race is irrelevant and I don't see how it could be otherwise. You're assuming a lot of things.
… Yes, so? This fact kinda defeats your argument that closeness is supposedly determined by biology.
Doesn't change the fact that you would consider them racially distinct from white Europeans.
( ° ʖ °)
I'm sorry you're so autistic that the mere mention of the existence of the Jews triggers you harder than a Victorian novel does a tumblrina.
Oh, I see, you actually are an Holocaust denier.
Well, no point in trying to administer medicine to the dead, is there?
William Hill
Flemish or Walloon heritage?
Oliver Hernandez
Thanks for the info, user.
Basically, as I've outlined in other posts, too much freedom leads to fun stuff, which destroys nations. A nation can only survive if it has a strong moral foundation.
Because your race is biological, whereas other forms of closeness are based on subjective feelings. Race is the only constant.
True. Since I'm capitalist by your standards my solution is stop the movement of people, then you can maintain individual nations. My problem with making it so that wealth, safety, and opportunity are not tied to one location is that it can result in the destruction of national identity, as people will inevitably mix.
It is viable, it's worked before.
This is a meme, Africa for example was great under white rule, it just went to shit under black rule.
Because that agenda is specifically being pushed by powerful members of a certain ethno-religious group.
It wouldn't because ^^^ are behind it.
Thomas Robinson
Oh boy, the individualist edgelord are here, prepare your anus OP.
Jordan Wilson
nice M E M E dude, you deserve a 4/10
Brayden Garcia
Yea, and the large large LARGE majority of that wealth is in the hands of a very very VERY small minority. I really cant stress enough how bad the wealth inequality is. This means saying the the US is wealthy therefore all the people have good standards of living makes no sense.
There are no such thing. There are tendencies in society but nothing is set in stone, as we see from history a huge variety in culture and societal structure. Typically women tend to have to be more submissive because men are biologically stronger and so they can simply over power women, however male and female capacity for intelligence is the same. There is no 'default' way for a society to be.
Well you could also attribute it to the fact that under the USSR, people actually had a greater access to alcohol than they did under Czarism. I'm sure under Czarism, a system so bad it drove the country to revolution, people would of been drinking a hell of a lot more too had there one been grounds for more production of alcohol and two more money for the population to buy alcohol with.
I'm related by blood, not bound. I'm not physically incapable of leaving my country.
some are, some arnt. You cant really generalise it.
Why though?
Not necessarily. I think for Socialists, being against Nationalism is more being against dividing up the working class, who have to work together to achieve Socialism. Nations could still exist under Socialism by all means.
Henry Taylor
Belgian here. The Walloon - Flemish divide is bullshit — a shallow, meaningless split engineered by nationalists and populists. Belgium is no less "a country" than Ireland or Italy.
Thomas Parker
I don't recall my biology sending me a memo about who I should befriend or not.
There is plenty of irrelevant shiting in both the US and the Russia, both very powerful countries.
That is some impressively naive idealism.
Then in a world with equal laws, this would naturally become apparent. That is not the case today, or in fascism, where inequality is legally imposed regardless of merit.
Do we not have free will then? And how is your "order of things" not completely arbitrary? What you are referring to race has little to do with its scientific basis.
So long as private property exists, most people will be unable to rule their own lives.
Jeremiah Baker
Ｂ Ｒ Ａ Ｖ Ｏ Ｗ Ｈ Ｉ Ｔ Ｅ Ｍ Ａ Ｎ
Caleb Cruz
The /po/yp's infamous Joker card: "da Joos".
Eli Thompson
Are Belgians a race? No.
Everyone in the world was constantly warring with each other. When they formed nations this gradually subsided.
It's similar in how people react to it, they're not the same.
A system where the acquisition of capital is the main goal in society.
Make of it what you will, but that's what it is.
I prefer 'authoritarian'.
Mao was a Maoist and Hoxha was a Hoxhaist.
I am saying that objectively speaking, you are more closely related to a fellow countryman than to a foreigner.
There are different kinds of closeness. I'm referring to closeness as in biologically how closely related you are here.
The French did consider them different, just easier to assimilate than Portuguese.
I'm not triggered, but I'm trying not to let this turn into a Jew thread.
I'm not doing this now.
I know, but the USA still has a much higher standard of living on average than most of the world.
Of course there is, women for example are biologically programmed to act and think in a certain way. It's like the fight or flight response - that's not a social construct.
Fair enough, can't argue with that.
I'm not referring to your physical location, I'm saying that you are always going to be related by blood to your countrymen.
True, I'm a Brit so when I think of borders I tend to think of Europe, which is where most natural borders are. A lot of countries are not actually nations, so they don't have natural borders.
Why live? Because you just should. It's the honourable and dutiful thing to do.
I'm sceptical, considering the way things have been going recently. It's not just socialism mind you, neoliberalism is more to blame than anything else.
Brody Smith
When it's in my best interest, yeah.
Stalinism is a form of totalitarianism, as is fascism. I'm not saying they are 100% alike, but more overlap than a Mutualist has with an AnCom, so designating him a fascist isn't too far off.
Good.
Implying that these empires didn't have fundamental flaws to begin with, like constant need for military conquest to keep income flowing, for example.
but in the pcitures I posted you can see nations fighting againts each other
Tyler Walker
Yes, but going back to those homogeneous countries you were talking about earlier, most likely Sweden or Japan, the US is far behind standards of living for large parts of the country, which would be where most of the crime rates would come from.
They're literally not though. At birth both male and female brains are exactly the same. It's only because they're socialised differently they specialise into different skill sets.
But that dosnt actually mean anything in the real world other than I can sympathise with them easier.
Not an argument.
Well all I have here are my words.
Not neoliberalism, simply capitalism.
Logan Mitchell
Half of the country speaks Dutch, the other half French. This is not natural.
I'm not saying you can't befriend people of other races - I have several black friends myself, and the Germans had blacks fighting for them in WW2.
Only recently though. And both have declined since the Cold War.
Bad choice of words. It unites classes, but doesn't necessarily abolish them. However, everyone is afforded to opportunity to move up the ladder.
It is apparent, just look at women in the workplace. Under Fascism there is in fact equality of opportunity.
You have the free will to throw yourself off a cliff. Would you do that?
Depends on how you look at it, but I disagree.
The Congo's not any better today. And in countries such as Zimbabwe, South Africa, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, etc. life for blacks was better under white rule.
JUDEN RAUS!
Isaac Jackson
This is an incredibly poor, vague and cursory definition.
Doesn't change that it's historically unremarkable. The Islamic Republic of Iran both champions traditional values and oversees state-of-the-art nuclear projects. Are they Nazis?
Come on, now. You know as well as I do that Nazi Germany, just like the USSR under Stalin or Cambodia under Pol Pot, cannot simply be accurately described as "authoritarian" — the political organization of such States went far beyond regular authoritarianism.
And therefore both Stalinists, yes.
But we've just showed that to be wrong. I might possibly be closer in a purely biological sense (which is socially irrelevant) but that is it.
That's irrelevant. The French's apprehension of Algerians mutated over time; that's all there is to say and know.
By dismissing a quote merely because its originator was Jewish? I'm not going to refrain from mentioning Jewish figures just to pander to your paranoid delusions.
Josiah Barnes
You're a very selfish man.
He's not a Fascist, but I do agree that there were Fascist aspects to his regime.
The erosion of traditional values played a direct part in their defeats. The mean, for example, were seen as weak and effeminate.
kek'd slightly
This comes nowhere to refuting my argument.
Those areas of lower standard of living in the US correlate with the presence of ethnic minorities. Just sayin'.
They are not exactly the same. Even if they are learned through societal factors, some will be inevitable, due to the physical differences.
This becomes more apparent when your nation comes under direct attack. You will find it natural to rally around your own nation than that of a foreign nation.
The kill yourself. If you need a reason to do absolutely anything then give me one reason why you should stay alive. I don't mean this in malicious way, but it's an honest question.
But you define Nat.Soc. as capitalism, and I certainly don't advocate internationalism. By my definition of capitalism, though, you're absolutely correct.
Evan Ortiz
lol
Italy functioned for hundreds of years with numerous languages and cultures united via the Roman state. China has hundreds of "minority" ethnic groups that have flourished in China for thousands of years, to say nothing of the substantial linguistic divide between Mandarin and Cantonese. And that's to say nothing of European countries like France or England where a poly-lingual society is the norm, which is true for the majority of countries or states throughout history.
So what the fuck are you basing that on?
Xavier Murphy
Right, I'm off now, I'll come back to this later, don't worry if I don't reply.
Jace Evans
Please don't.
Asher Miller
Again, pics related.
If it walks like a duck.
Rome seemed to run for a few centuries after those traditional values of 'democracy' and paganism flew out the window.
Lucas Hall
it absolutely does, ethnic europeans fighting againts eachother despite having the same genotype, or rather mono-cultural european states fighting againts mono-cultural european states
It doesn't matter how you look at it, ethinicity comes before race
Samuel Hall
Well yea because they are either populated by immigrants that come from poorer countries or populated by ethnicities that a couple of decades ago were systematically oppressed.
I wouldnt want to rally under any nation honestly.
Because I enjoy living and I enjoy the sensual pleasures I gain from living, as well as the satisfaction from my efforts that I put into living.
Now give me a reason I should be loyal to my country/race/whatever.
Well yea ok fair enough then.
Lincoln Kelly
WEW trust the nat suck to have a meme-tier understanding of history.
Jose Howard
I lean pretty heavy towards the ancom side. I distrust capitalism far more than the state, but that doesn't mean I like the state either.
Probably all true BUT it neglects to mention that people also starve to death in great numbers in capitalist countries. I've seen as many as 10 million per year, which would put it at the same 100 million figure cited for communism within a decade. Very hypocritical and misleading.
You can only judge the nature of a man within the context of the society in which he lives. If you examine a society where human beings are sacrificed to appease the gods, you might assume that it's in human nature to have human sacrifices. In a capitalist society, greed and selfishness are incentivized and rewarded so you see those traits emphasized in the general population.
4. Why do you think that Nat.Soc. and Fascism are right-wing and reactionary? What's the problem with understanding the 3rd position and their revolutionary yet traditional nature? I don't think they're absolute extreme right-wing. They co-opted elements of both sides of the political spectrum. My problem would lie with the fact that they're extremely repressive and authoritarian. They may be revolutionary, but they're revolutionary in a way that's regressive.
Race and nations are complete abstractions. A border or a national identity is little more than a collective hallucination that fluctuates with the times.
Jeremiah Cox
How is this "not natural" and why should that even matter anyway? You do realize that linguistic homogeneity within a State's borders are a fairly recent development and certainly not an universal phenomenon, right? In France, the actual French language wasn't spoken by a majority of Frenchmen until the late XIXth century.
Cherry-picking? Instances of European colonial barbarity are a dime a dozen throughout history. In the specific case of the Belgian Congo under Leopold II, the maiming of innocents was appallingly systematic.
By the way, most of the mess going on today in Africa today stems from the conditions left by colonialism (and the ongoing meddling of neo-colonialism). The Rwandan genocide wouldn't have happened had Belgian colonialists not played Hutu and Tutsi against each other during and after their rule.
Keep on LARPin'.
Cooper Allen
...
Zachary Wilson
It is civil. Civil duty civil.
Coddling murderous fucks is hardly civil from any point.
Parker Ross
No race is only a concept, Scientist don't even agree on its meaning..
Robert Cooper
Someone. Post that "I'm ending a Holla Forums meme"
Austin Reed
I'd love to know if this guy honestly believed that this was a argument.
Mason Thomas
1. economic marxist. big capital and exploitation is the ultimate cancer and the sole cause of all problems in society (imperialism, war, colonialism, ect) 2. anti-humanist cancerous people who deserved to die being killed/soviet weird agriculture not being able to save all of the people (not murder, unlike hitler) 3. people during slavery and feudal times used the human nature argument to, its not an argument 4. i don't care about that shit, the only thing that matters is stopping exploitation. if you want to have a society where gays cant get married or blacks dont exist then i dont give a shit, these are reactionary principles used to distract from the true cancer aka bourgouise exploitation. but sure if you want to be a traditionalist then cool any "fascist" who is marxist in his anti capitalist anti imperialist ideology is my comrad 5. because its a porky distraction and a spook from stopping capital. its how the porky capitalist jew gets support when in actuality he is an exploiter of his own people. being proud of other peoples accomplishments because you are from the same made up "nation" is also silly. if nationalism is used for good (ie sport like competition in a full communist world) then nationalism is cool, but the nationalism we've seen now is disgusting and ultimately harmful on all fronts even to the nationalists themselves.
the one true enemy is the capitalist jew exploiter of man, regardless of his nationality
are you aware you believe in one of the biggest delusional religions ever created? "nationalism".
are you aware how it's just an non-existent idea that can control you to get you killed just like another pawn of the rulers? trust me the rulers don't buy your "nationalist" religion, they ARE the nation.
Logan Evans
lel
James Gutierrez
...
Parker Williams
I can't believe I used to be dumb like you 4 years ago. I'm glad I expanded my political knowledge.
Read a fucking book you spook-ed fuckboy. smh.
Luis Myers
1. Libertarian socialist who believes in a minimal state 2. Fairly accurate if not doctored a bit to support porky's numbers. Robespierre did justify terror in times of revolution but I reject bolshevism completely. 3. Human nature isn't real. Muh human nature is lazy justification for crimes committed in the name of capitalism. 4. It's not. It's an appeal to "natural hierarchy" which was established without justification from the beginning and appealed to ad nauseam by defenders of the status quo ante. It's fantastic call to a time that perhaps never existed. There's a reason it's called the socialism of fools after all. 5. Loaded question, just as retarded as muh human nature.
Zachary Phillips
hehehe stupid leftcucks. it's JUST NOT NATURAL for people within certain MAN MADE BORDERS to speak using MAN MADE LANGUAGE in DIFFERENT WORDS. I mean COME ON PEOPLE, ITS JUTS NOT NATURAL!!!
Aiden Nguyen
Anarcho-Transhumanism. We understand science rather than making "science" up wholecloth.
People always died in undeveloped countries due to starvation etc. When you have limited infrastructure, third world production, and a weak economy starvation can happen en mass all the time. It was common in Russia, China, etc before Communist revolutions. As they were developing it continued to happen, but this time it was "Communism" responsible.
We're re-engineering people.
3rd position is merely rhetoric. It is only revolutionary in this instance because you seek to replace a state of inverse-totalitarianism with literal totalitarianism.
I can literally breed a black man from "pure aryan" stock selected by the most Nazi of Nazis. The idea of biological race is a fucking joke.
Caleb Kelly
Just curious, what distinguishes you from the alt-right. I have to admit I'm about as familiar with right-wing sects as the average person is with left-wing sects
Nicholas Ross
toaster pls go.
Brandon Robinson
I'm trying to engineer elf and cat-girl waifus user. I prefer genetics to, as you put it so crudely, toasters.
Ryan Young
if you genetically engineer me an elf-waifu I'll take back everything I said about your ideology
Jaxon Harris
Project Elf is still imminent if you remember that.
Jordan Carter
...
Grayson Williams
I suppose. But Holla Forumss definition of capitalism is any system where there is private property, which is very vague. There's no precise definition.
NS Germany was far more advanced compared to the rest of the world than Iran is. It's not simply a matter of promoting science, it's being really, really, good at it.
Describe them how you want. Germany's totalitarian nature is exaggerated.
They're not the same thing, they do have different names, after all. Remember that Mao's idea of class struggle differed from Stalin's.
The point is, it's not socially irrelevant. It's important for the survival of a nation that you remain close to your fellow countrymen.
It is irrelevant, so why did you bring it up in the first place?
I'm not dismissing the quote (on the contrary, it supports my view of the JQ) or asking you not to mention Jews, I'm just warning you that if you mention Jews like Luxemburg it only helps me. But I don't want to talk about the Jews, and I'm sure you don't.
That was an empire, not a nation. The Italians only united when they gained national consciousness (like class consciousness).
China has been divided for most of it's history, and there is still a common culture binding them together. You also exaggerate the ethnic differences.
lol wat
I live in England and we are definitely not polylingual. Remember that I'm talking about nations, not states, here.
Jonathan Russell
Rome fell.
It doesn't. You just repeated your point, which I had refuted. Go back and read it.
So if you come from a poorer country, you can't be succesful? Nothing stopping you. As for systematic oppression, I can see how that might hold water in the US, but they've had 60 years of freedom, and things have gotten worse since desegregation. And what about countries like the UK where there was only limited 'systematic oppression'?
I don't think so. Opinion pieces from the Guardian are just awful.
Because you've been indoctrinated to believe otherwise. It's natural.
But that's just based on what you feel. 'Not an argument', as you would say.
Because it plays a crucial part in the survival of your nation. Everybody must put their collective effort into the nation to ensure it's survival.
Juan Clark
Actually the definition is a system of private property for commodity production, but we mostly focus on private property as that's what we want to change.
Wyatt Martinez
Great analysis you fucking dipshit. Rome fell because of the monopolization of private property by the upper classes.
Kill yourself by the way.
Luke Carter
You are a worthless piece of shit. All you do is handwave away thing that are inconvenient for your stupid bullshit.
That's not the point you fucking shitcock. Belgium is a country, not a nation, so what about it's bilingual population is "not natural?"
lol give us the material basis for this "national consciousness" then you moron. Tell me what binds together the average Venetian peasant and a serf from Sicily and a Lombard descended citizen of Napoli, especially after over a thousand years of geographic and political division.
Irrelevant again you stupid fucker.
And Belgium doesn't???
Manx, Cornish, Celtic, and Welsh aren't other languages?
You were talking about the Belgian state being unnatural you fucking retard. Even if you wanted to try and make it about "nations" you still haven't explained what the material basis for a nation is and what about a bilingual "nation" is "unnatural."
It's fine if you cut your throat instead of answering by the way.
Julian Wood
I said gradually you dumbfuck.
Where exactly?
Agree.
I can see how you wouldn't like that. Worth remembering that people liked it under NS Germany, though.
It's biological mate, don't deny it. Are you honestly arguing that everyone in the world is equal?
Language is not necessarily tied to nation. It wasn't in France. But it is today in Belgium, since the lingual divide indicates the ethnic divide.
Firstly, Leopold was an exception, once the rest of Europe found out what he was doing they confiscated his land. There are other examples of brutality, but they generally weren't state sponsored policy. Overall, life was much better for blacks under white rule, particularly in the 20th century.
Fucking how? Things were fine under the blacks took over. They don't know how to run countries. Maybe they could've showed otherwise had Rhodesia managed to finish it's plan but people like you had to give it Mugabe.
Blame China.
The Belgians were exceptionally bad. The British, for example, were generally very kind.
I'm not murderous. If you murder me though, how are you any better?
So when did the "peace" come? I assume you're talking about Europe, so was it during the hundreds of years of internecine warfare between the Spanish nation and the French nation and the English nation (who was also busy fighting the Irish and Scottish nations), to say nothing of the almost constant fighting between the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish nations, that there was peace? Or was it after Napoleon that peace finally reigned? Oh, wait, there were still national conflicts then between English and the Boers and the Turks and the Russians and so on and so on, up until WW2 when the last great national struggle resulted in the utter devastation of Europe and the rest of the industrialized world
You should seriously fucking kill yourself and save the world from your stupidity.
Liam Moore
Nationalism in general has been co-opted by the elites in the past, yes. But Nat.Soc. gets rid of the elites, that's the whole bloody point.
Not an argument.
You haven't read my posts, have you?
Oh, Christ. Can't you guys just accept death? We already have a problem with people living too long now anyway.
Yeah I get this.
spooky
Maybe you could, but it wouldn't be natural. I've got plenty of sources and a Nobel prize winner backing me up.
Alt-right doesn't exist, it's a media invention, to try and define us. Some sites like the Daily Stormer are deliberately using the label to stop us from being defined as 'not really racist', etc. (thanks to Milo) but the only people who really think they're alt right are redditors from r/The_Donald.
I see, but that's still not very precise. I'm not saying it should be, but it's not less precise than mine.
Marxist history is a meme, lad. Go read a book by a proper historian sometime.
Tyler Miller
I think the idea is to stop involuntary death AND the unproductive years of life caused by aging.
Kevin Rivera
rekt
Aiden Morgan
Actually, alt-right was a way for, heh, the 'alt-right' to try and define itself in a way which didn't just make them look like the typical mainstream "conservative".
MSM didn't call the alt-right, the alt-right… libertarians back in the day used to make damn sure that they were not the same as (all of this is in the context of the US, where this shit stems from), 'regular republicans', and the more (totally actual racists, not the 'u racist' sense style) extreme versions trying to make it seem like 'nono, we're not like THOSE people, we're… realists. Yea, rational, realists. Alternative.'
It wasn't an MSM construct, at all. Not really sure why you're trying to pretend it was. It was just their way of trying to make it seem like they were not just part of the 'democrat vs republican', while maintaining pretty much the exact same nonsense just in different words.
Adrian Foster
Exactly, Belgium's a country, not a nation, so it's not a natural creation. Really it should be two separate countries (Flanders and Wallonia) or each should join France and the Netherlands.
It's not material, it's a mindset. Clue's in the name, 'consciousness'.
Lots happened over that thousand years, so this doesn't really apply. But as of now, they're related by a common tongue, culture, and yes, to an extent, genetics.
You're the one bringing up these stupid examples. The first line of post applies to you, not me.
NO! There is no Belgian culture. There is Flemish culture, and Walloon culture, but not Belgian culture.
Manx is a dialect, not a separate language. Nobody has spoken Cornish naturally for hundreds of years, the current language is reconstructed and is spoken by very few people. Celtic language are spoken in Scotland and Ireland, but not England. And, unsurprisingly, Welsh is spoken in Wales.
It is, because it doesn't fit a nation when it could.
Shared genetics.
Bilingual nations aren't inherently unnatural, I was just referring to the situation in Belgium being unnatural.
The peace came with the rise of nationalism, as the wars of the medieval Kingdom era gradually became smaller. WW1 was the end of the imperial, dynastic era, and ushered in an era of nationalism. WW2 came about only because of retarded peace treaties and the Jews starting a world war over some dispute in eastern Europe. We've had peace since then, but internationalism has started conflicts again, and the world is gradually becoming less safe again.
It's not natural, don't play God.
It may have been whatever back in the day, but the 'alt right' of the media is a construct. No one on 8pol ever identified as alt right, neither did the non-newfags on cuckpol.
Nicholas Hall
Sure would be. Nothing engineered, I'd just be picking which gametes went into the kids. They'd be non-white in your eyes by the third generation, and black as you can get by the fourth.
Isaac Nelson
Have an infograph.
Sorry to see that the "civil discussion"
Leo Martin
That isn't "marxist history" you retard. It's history, one of the contributing factors to its fall was a monopolization by the upper classes combined with an over reliance on slave labour.
Stick the gun in the barrel of your mouth - follow your leader faggot.
So it literally is "Muh feels"
So material conditions can affect the foundation for a nation? Because these are very different lineages.
You just said it was fine that the Italians had multiple genetic lineages coexisting in one nation since material conditions have changed, make up your mind.
Nonsense. Applying that same line of thought to England, it would stand to reason that there is a culture in Wales distinct from the rest of England, and a separate culture for those who speak English. If being bilingual is the criterion for having a separate culture - but if not what is?
Sebastian Bailey
WEW
Isaiah Roberts
OP I'm going to reply properly to your response to me later but can I just ask quickly what's up with your fetishisation of nature? You use it as a recurring argument in your posts. Just because something is natural dosnt make it good, otherwise rape would be good.
As humans we have the ability to go beyound nature and we already have by forming society as it is today and throughout history. Why would you have our progress bound to your abstract idea of nature?
Ian Bell
Fascist are eternal sophist for a reason.
Liam Edwards
The Marxist definition for capitalism is pretty thorough.
Capitalism is the economic system wherein the means of production are privately owned (private property) by a ruling class (the bourgeoisie) to which a dispossessed class (the proletariat) has to offer its ability to work and/or produce (labor power) in exchange for a portion of the fruit of their labor (the wage system) — that is, through the extraction of wealth (surplus value) from the workers as a way to generate profits form itself (accumulation).
We could go a bit deeper, but that's the gist of it. Wouldn't you agree this is a bit more comprehensive that "capitalism is when people really want money'?
I'm sorry, but this is a really laughable point. So one of the tenets of Nat. Socialism is "being really, really good at science"… Sounds like out of a Neil deGrasse Tyson show.
Nazi Germany was ruled by a dictator-led single Party promulgating an official ideology, with no restrain on the State's use of terror through the police, military and administration in order to quell dissent and its use of indoctrination through the education system, mass media and official art in order to achieve full control over every aspect of intellectual life. It had no issue with physically eliminating people regardless of their lack of culpability in any specific crime (ethnic cleansing, forced labor, internal purges, etc) and was bent on aggressive imperialist expansion though these very means.
Seems pretty totalitarian to me, pal. You do realize that Nazis themselves considered their political system to be totalitarian in nature, right?
Let's say that is it… How exactly are my non-white countrymen not my fellow countrymen?
Uh, so you get to decide when it is and when it isn't. Talk about moving the goalpost…
Besides, how is the lingual divide an ethnic divide in Belgium? Don't you consider both the Walloon and the Flemish to both be white? … or maybe there is yet another creative racial theory I'm not aware of.
Now you're just parroting the typical colonial-apologist discourse. That you would describe the British colonial policies as "very kind" (?!) just shows you have absolutely no command of the subject.
The PRC certainly plays its role but that sure as hell doesn't negate Europe's involvement. France's meddling in its former African colonies is widespread enough to have been given a specific name, "Françafrique". And we're not talking "strategic influences" here; we're talking political manipulation, economic corruption, military destabilization and even coups or assassinations.
Connor Sanders
Fascists are sophists dude. They'll believe any nonsense that seems to support their beliefs and reject any that debunk them.
Easton Bell
Should I post some Ukraine? Or was there another lucky break recently?
I don't intend to be better. I just want to be sure there are no Nazis around.
Gavin Anderson
Nazism really shouldn't died off already by its own rules… what a lot of neo-nazis forget, when they speak of race supremacy and Nazi masturbation fantasy, is that it was an actual thing in the ideology behind Nazi: a battle to the end, to determine the winner. The winning 'race' was the supreme ruler.
Natsocs lost the war. Their ideology should have died with them, on their own premise. By their own rules, and their own 'game law'; the adherents of it, should accept their loss and become subservient to everyone else.
The 'Aryan' race, lost to the Slavs, in combat. By nazi theory, and Nazi masturbation fantasy theory, this makes Slavs superior.
/s
Does this shit ever cross the minds of a neo-nazi? I wonder sometimes, how little they know of the spirit behind their own ideology.
Brandon Wilson
As dumb as it may sound, there even exists today Russian, Ukrainian or Polish neo-Nazis. That is because neo-Nazism could be best described as post-modern Nazism, that is an ideological mutation that allows you ot cherry-pick what you like in the original ideology.
In a way, neo-Nazis are "Neo" moreso than they are "Nazis". British historian Roger Griffin called that phenomenon "Universal Nazism", which French historian Nicolas Lebourg humorously translated as "Nazisme pour Tous" ("Nazism Equality") in a nod to gay marriage.
Lucas Gonzalez
So i should care about something i don't care about because otherwise this thing i don't care about would disappear?
Nice buzzwords, but the thing is, not everyone agree on what race means, it's an abstract category used to understand part of the material world, it's not reality itself. And as an abstract category, it's not fixed like the laws of physics, it evolve (Look how the meaning of gravity changed between Newton and Einstein). Like pretty much everything consituting our thoughts, that's just how our brains work.
Angel Barnes
This post literally gave me the cancers
Justin Perez
I am an anarcho-communist, meaning I advocate a communist economic system and no state or hierarchy (unless that hierarchy is A: completely consensual and B: without consequence upon leaving). I will still cooperative with most other leftist and anarchist ideologies.
Dictators often use workers ideologies to gain support then quietly discard any of that ideologies principles once in power.
Greed, like all other negative aspects of human nature, can be destroyed through rationality and self control. The way people think is influenced by there surroundings, so it makes sense that capitalist citizens are greedy, but with a system that doesn't require greed this will be deprogrammed.
Our society is evolving past racial segregation, past gender roles, past homophobia not yet past wage slavery -_- . In what way is returning to that revolutionary?
That's not a biological fact, that's bigotry. If you divided people into clans based on eye colour they would think people of there own eye colour far superior to any others (TLDR; racism is a human construct).
Cameron Jackson
...
Jaxson Jones
You don't even know how to meme. Kill yourself and begone
Dominic Bell
In what way, exactly, is our society "unnatural"?
Jaxson Richardson
It's 'natural' to hunt, gather, be exposed to the elements, be dictated by them, have their access to light be restricted to night and day be on constant alert for predators, not have instant communication access with people literally on the other side of the world ect ect.
Most humans do none of this.
Elijah Adams
Your own personalized definition is laughable.
To be natural, all one has to do is exist within the natural world. Human beings developed within that context. It is pure ignorance to believe that humans are no longer bound by the limits of nature. The most advanced technological creations are still a part of nature, as they are manmade, and man is nature-made.
Jayden Jones
I never said that. I'm just saying that poverty correlates strongly with crime and this can be explained through materialism.
There's more than that one source but I'm too lazy to find them. At the very least you know I'm not pulling it straight out my ass.
What? People require indoctrination to JOIN the army! That's why propaganda exists. Modern global conflict as we see it today is not the natural 'defending your kind' as you see it either way.
Also with this natural bullshit, see
There is no reason to live, apart from what I feel about living. You asked me why dont I kill myself and I gave you an answer. Beyond my own personal feelings, there is no reason. If I decide I can no longer derive any pleasure or satisfaction from life anymore, I will kill myself.
What if I dont care about my nation? What if actually I wish to overthrow it and construct a new nation?
Cameron Wright
I don't buy it. To me, "natural" is a construct anyway. Whatever comes to you easily, is your nature.
Grayson Phillips
You're perfectly right though OP is not thinking about it in this context at all.
Robert Scott
bump
Wyatt Hughes
And Marxists aren't sophists? Remember Lysenkoism?
Owen Mitchell
It is human biology to exploit and manipulate the world around us to better our lives. Building permanent structures and cities is in out genes.
Jason Robinson
...
Benjamin Nguyen
...
Camden Peterson
stay ecocucked
Jace Lee
So did we manage to convert OP?
Christian Ortiz
Alright, this is gonna be my last reply cause I can't do this forever, it takes too long. Sorry for being late btw.
If you are required to choose anything, that makes it unnatural.
You seem to making this main factor, when other factors were the main cause. You're viewing this through the lens of class struggle, which makes it Marxist history.
I don't know, is Argentina expensive?
So is class consciousness.
They're not that different. Pretty much all of northern Italy shares Lombard blood, as well as what came before.
Italians are related by common culture, mostly, though there is a fairly high degree of genetic closeness. The situation is different in various countries.
Not all countries are the same, retard. The lingual divide in Belgium is an indicator of the two separate nations within it. In the UK, language is not an indicator of lineage, because everybody speaks English, and only some speak Welsh, Scots, etc.
I never said that, faggot.
What is natural is, generally speaking, good. If we move away from nature, the results are bad. Look at what computers have done to us, for example. Your parallel with rape is wrong, because only the act of sex itself is natural. Consent is a social construct.
Yes, but that isn't my definition. Mine is where the people's primary aim is the acquisition of capital above all else.
Strawman. It's not a tenet, it's just valuing science and scientific advancements. And NS Germany was exceptionally advanced.
I'm not denying that they were totalitarian, just that it's exaggerated. What you just said is completely exaggerated with lots of propaganda. Also, Hitler used the term 'authoritarian'.
I'm using 'countrymen' in the context of fellow members of your nation. A non-white person cannot be part of your nation, because he shares no genetic lineage with you.
Not all countries are the same, retard.
'White' isn't really a race. There are Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Nordics, Germanics, Slavs, etc. Within this there are further sub groups, where the distinct Flemish and Walloon identities are found.
There you again with a strawman. They weren't perfect, but overall their impact was very positive, leaving behind medicine, hospitals, roads, good infrastructure, etc.
Well, that's France, they're a strange bunch. Other countries haven't been doing this, really.
Joshua Campbell
This is the most amount of bullshit I've ever read. I mean ignoring the fact that the idea of 'good' is subjective, are you really suggesting humanity was at it's peak when we were all still moving from cave to cave, hunting wild life without agriculture to settle down and ever develop any kind of society or culture? That's the logical conclusion of what you're saying.
Also computers and technology have improved our lives massively and will continue to. Just wait until trans humanism hits, shit's only gonna get better and your primitivism cant stop it. I can promise any problems you're pinning on computers is simply a result of Capitalist social alienation.
Yea ok. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Anthony Baker
The amount of propaganda here is shocking.
If your nation falls, you'll regret it. The fact that you don't care about it is because you've been brainwashed into thinking that way.
See pics. Denying the biological basis of race is retarded.
I do partly agree, but that's why oppose immigration. You're not likely to improve your lot if you move anyway.
Propaganda can be true or false. What you've been indoctrinated to believe in is false.
But there is a reason to live. Even if you're not religious, we exist to maintain the survival of our people.
Countries are not necessarily nations. You can't overthrow or construct a nation, you can only destroy them. If you want to overthrow a country, go ahead.
No. Nat.Soc. is about scientific advancement too, remember? It's about staying close to your roots, and maintaining a connection to nature. For example, the Third Reich had environmental laws, animal protection laws, youth hostels for hiking, encouraged good sporting ability and natural health, all while becoming the most technologically advanced country in the world.
The issue isn't with the tech itself, it's how we use it. Both capitalism and communism are artificial, so further advancement will have bad results. Nat.Soc. is natural, though.
I said consent was a social construct, not rape.
Hudson Lee
Riddle me this you buffoons, how do you expect to transition from a society in which people are dependent upon the state for all services to one where the state doesn't even exist? How do you expect people to just break off this dependency spontaneously, and not form their own communities and produce crypto-states?
1. Central planning with labor vouchers and consumer feedback, sortition-based chambers as a check on government.
2. The research into this is heavily colored by ideology. People do weird calculations, involving things like counting unborn children among the dead. Using similar methodology, you can get fantastic death tolls for the Great Depression in the US that nobody takes seriously. China and Russia had been used to horrible famines, and after transition to a different society (whatever one might call that, State Capitalism, Real Socialism, whatever) these ceased to happen, but not immediately. In terms of famines, if you average over the 20th century India had it worse, so I don't see how that is such a great argument for capitalism. On propaganda against China, there is Mobo Gao's "The Battle for China's Past".
3. I don't really. Since I don't subscribe to the line that everything should be free for everybody and things will magically work out, I don't see a need to argue against that.
4. Some left-wing statements will inevitably pop up in any movement made of millions of people. While I don't think it's a logical impossibility to have both some leftwing economic positions and very racist nationalistic ones, I don't see the influence of these folks in the period of NSDAP governing. Night of the long knifes and all that.
5. Nation borders have changed a lot throughout history. You need strong physical barriers to have strongly distinct genetic patterns in the different populations with unique shared histories (islands, mountains). I don't live in such an area. The other thing is that you need to have co-operation across ethnic groups if you don't have all resources in one place. There is no oil in the ground where I live, and that's true whether Arabs are literally orcs or not.
Julian Wilson
Fourth pic is retarded. While the person's, who came up with the term "Lewontin's fallacy,' argument that "most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data" is correct, it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs, as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences; there is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another (there is no such thing as species nor breeds of Homo sapiens). That correlations between geographical areas and genetics exist in human populations is obvious, but what is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century—the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Even Witherspoon, the person they're trying to argue on the side for, disagrees with you!: "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population."
Right, I'm done now, for reasons I outlined 2 posts ago.
Nolan Moore
MY nation? What makes it MY nation? I do not have any control over its actions. The people who live under it are not my relations. Its rules have been established by individuals who do not have my best interests in mind. There is absolutely nothing about a nation that belongs to me.
Using infographics created by the Cato Institute to make a scientific argument is retarded.
Where does this supposed purpose come from? How is purpose anything other than a function of perception?
Of course you can. They are all spun out of whole cloth. Follow any supposed nation back through its history, and you will find a moment of creation.
Do you not see the glaring contradiction there? Any change is a departure from what was. Advancements in technology make modes of production–and thus ways of life–obsolete.
Then why does it not occur in nature?
Consent is not a social construct. It is a basic concept that gets used by identitarians to mean "stuff that I approve of other people doing."
John Edwards
Exactly how?
Evan Cook
no they aren't lol
Nice try poo in the loo. mtDNA is all of 37 genes. y-chromosome encodes about 200 genes. Both completely insignificant compared to whole genome SNP analysis.
Now go back to cleaning up your shit filled steels Apool.
