/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (194.96 KB 736x947 your friend.jpg)
Converting leftists Blackshirt 07/08/2020 (Wed) 22:39:00 ID: cff7c8 No.3059
It's no secret that eventually we will come across actual leftists with an interest in real class warfare instead of pseudo socialist radlibs with retarded notions of opposing a system that supports them wholeheartedly. It's important that we convert them and add their revolutionary spirit to the fold. Convince them of the ills of such materialist ideology and if failing that convince them of the merits of the third position and the standard of living it would bring to millions of lives. Avoid faggots like Vaush and if you were a leftist before converting posting ideas itt palatable to our unawakened comrades would be greatlty appreciated.
>>7397 Not exterminating all other races, especially that do not objectively represent a problem, does not mean you have to help them. Your logic sucks.
>>7301 >MiR Half the book is really cringe worthy material tbh, and that's coming from someone who doesn't see in Nature where it's written that we should give a shit about other races' well being.
>>7288 >CT So worse than Sargon. Unsurprisedeon.
>>7279 >Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same shekel Corrected.
>>7250 Leftists are egalitarians and cannot cope with biological determinisms and dharma. They're lost, only useful as working hands but oblivious to blood and faith. They're just jealous materialists who want to have a piece of the cake too and be happy like well fed pigs that feel useful and full.
Open file (247.69 KB 497x364 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (194.05 KB 304x255 ClipboardImage.png)
>>7522 To be quite honest, I'm not really a fan of the book's message either. To individualistic for me, not to mention that superior numbers often constitute superior might, and would therefore under that type of thinking constitute right. I obviously do adhere to this type of thinking to an extent, but more in a collectivistic sort of way, and with reference to the Laws of Nature. I just kind of like the picture. >>7525 Here's the proof that he's not fully White too, go to 39 minutes in this video and listen a bit: https://archive.org/details/CulturedThugKnowAMansLibraryKnowTheManReUpload He's of Karakalpak ancestry, a Turkic tribe. Funnily enough this picture that I found of some on Wikipedia fits the CT phenotype to an uncanny degree
Open file (1.70 MB 805x977 spermiarz.png)
>>7288 This thread went to shit immediately after getting revitalized. >CT bad cause he not 100% Bavarian phenotype like me Just more empty platitudes from /pol/ refugees that would reject even the most loyal of comrades on the basis of 20% admixture. Also leftists actually have a good critique on capitalism and citing Ford as the extremely rare gentile billionaire outlier doesn't convince anyone with two braincells to rub together that this system isn't corrupt from it's very inception and we should be done with it. Many leftists aren't going to come to fascism, especially the "leftists" of today. It's still fucking retarded to reject the few that do come over on the basis of being stuck somewhat in material leftist views, the whole point is you converting them.
>>7723 20% admixture is a lot and shouldn’t be downplayed. The younger two boys in this pic are quadroons and you can still obviously tell that they are not fully White. Granted, CT is part Turk, not nigger, but it shows still. This is the least of his issues, but I don’t want to derail the thread any further.
>>7724 Couldn't really care even if he was part nig, the more people that think as fascists do the less problems we have to worry about, that includes even non-Whites. We don't have to worry about nigs trying to kill Whites or breed with us if our worldview was the norm instead of liberal capitalism. Besides CT has kids that are Whiter than him so I would think he has an interest in keeping Whites on top and it shows in that he still wants America to be White dominated even with the different ethnicites in place.
>>7723 is dad kapital the one that has marx's critiques of capitalism
>>7736 I only read parts of it but it looks like it, although he's not the only one to give a critique on it. He goes full retard with material dialectics and anarkiddies prop him up for this idea that he essentially corrupted from Hegel. >>7228 Freeing workers from the stranglehold the society keeps on them that capitalists support, fewer work hours, social programs for workers (although many leftists want useless shit), and depending on the leftist a strong state. The big thing that keeps them at an arms length from us is class collaboration but there were many 3P movements that didn't have that, importance on race which yet again not all 3P movements had that, and a spiritual base rather than a material one which is probably the biggest crux between us and them since all our movements had that but none of theirs.
>>7723 >Leftism have good critique on capitalism Leftists critique on capitalism are usually that it's not materialistic enough and doesn't allow them to be lazy cucks who doesn't want to jack shit all day. Leftists criticize capitalism for all the wrong reasons.
>>7782 >Leftists criticize capitalism for all the wrong reasons. This. Their critique is often based off of "exploitation", "inequality" and "unjust hierarchies". They don't care about race, nationalism, the destruction of tradition, etc.
>>7784 Not only that their solutions for countering it is nothing, but reinforcements of capitalism with the belief that the state will make everything better. All Communists country have openly used capitalism while acting as anti capitalistic.
Open file (541.46 KB 780x605 ClipboardImage.png)
>>7787 I have often said that communism is merely industrialism with a coat of red paint. Ideas such as the collective ownership of the means of production are a fiction. They don't own anything, they are in the same relationship to the machine or to a boss as they are under capitalism. I think this is what you are referring to when you say that "All Communists country have openly used capitalism while acting as anti capitalistic." The only real difference is that the profit is ate up by the state and that workers might have some more services available to them such as healthcare, but even this has been adopted by most capitalist countries.
>>7723 >Just more empty platitudes from /pol/ refugees that would reject even the most loyal of comrades on the basis of 20% admixture. 1/5th is quite big already. If spread to a whole people, it would be critical. The art of proportions is to define when and how too much is too much, both in terms of ratios within the individual and in the equally relevant numbering of such members within a group which aims at homogenizing its biological roots. There is an obvious need for racial preservation but it should not stand against relevant alliances. If mixing there could be, it should always be outwards, with excess White blood altering the non-White elements at the periphery of the White world, so that non-White elements would not be allowed to get into the center of the community.
>>7782 Pls clarify.
>>7829 Relevant alliances with who to be exact?
>>7831 Marx and the other communist pigs sought the desire for power, plebbit science and hedonism of utopia, because they despised their current lifestyles and living of heritage, ethics, and tradition because they thought it was abusive.
>>7723 >Also leftists actually have a good critique on capitalism Give an example. Most leftist thought is literally Judaism (more specifically the Messianic Age) having been clothed in the language of the Enlightenment
>real class warfare Real class warfare doesn't exist. If society were to face real civil unrest, all the classes would dissolve into a malaise as the economy erupts and mass looting would be everywhere. Even the richest man wouldn't have power. Neither would the poorest man either. All the power would essentially fall on the state, with it's superior military and communication. And once order through martial law happens then class would only be dictated by how much military and political power you have, which isn't unlike what the Soviet Union was. Most leftists are too busy consooming nintendy switch and coca cola to be actually fighting capitalism. And Antifa is controlled op funded by rich (((oligarchs))) burning down small businesses, so that amazion can build new warehouses right over the rubble. So safe to say consumerist capitalism isn't going away anytime soon.
>>7925 >hedonistic That word keeps being thrown around. What exactly is hedonistic? Must everyone stop being hedonistic because it's evil? I mean I play vidya. I believe that as long as you have a serious life, people need some rest so they just relax for a while. Unless I'm reading you wrongly?
>>7928 What is Enlightenment to be exact? Is it all about being happy since it's "enlightening"?
>>7959 The Enlightenment is a collection of ideas worships reason above all else, is based around progress, freedom, social contract theories, etc. It was also what started to undermine religion in general, because reason was applied to religion as well by these people, resulting in Deism, which quickly morphed into Skepticism, Materialism and Atheism. Almost all liberal today pozz results has its roots in the Enlightenment. >>7958 >What exactly is hedonistic? In an ethical sense it refers to the claim that the only true good is pleasure, and what is bad is painful / dis-pleasurable. In a broader sense as it is more often used here, it is living a shallow life merely pursuing bodily pleasures with no higher purpose or goals, such as most of humanity lives today.
>>7961 What's wrong with reason? Why should religion > reason?
>>7967 Your mistake is thinking that reason and religion are necessarily incompatible things. Many people here speak of Nature in religious-like terms, and many of them use the power of their intellect to induce and deduce various Laws of Nature, and indeed the intellect is the faculty of knowing specific – on Earth at least – to humans in greater or lesser degrees depending on intelligence, race, sex, etc. Romanticism was a reaction against the Enlightenment, and it is what spawned new interest in folk culture, national and ethnic origins, paganism, admiration of the sublime and beauty of Nature, and man’s connection with it. Out of this was born the Völkisch movement, much of which the strict rationalist would call “irrational”. In fact if you even look up “fascism irrational” you’ll see dozens of articles and sites attacking Fascism and National Socialism as “irrational”, rejecting Enlightenment ideals and anti-intellectual — and all of this is true! — to an extent. We cannot be strict rationalists, as I assume that many of us do not wholly condemn the irrational, i.e. instincts, feelings. While I have rational grounds for wanting to preserve our people, I have irrational desires to do so as well, based merely on instincts and emotional reasons. And I see nothing wrong with this in the slightest. I value my own subjective desire for the White race to survive. Anti-intellectualism is another thing which Fascism undoubtedly is — Giovanni Gentile comes right out and says it. This doesn’t mean what lefties say it does, see the infograph attached to my post.
>>7972 >While I have rational grounds for wanting to preserve our people, I have irrational desires to do so as well, based merely on instincts and emotional reasons That's understandable. Peoples are closer with their own kinds. For me, when I mean irrational I mean that we may have instincts of feelings that may make us become worse. Like racemixing and what not. I have that situation for me. For example, I find women onf my own race not that good looking but i naturally find better looking women in the upper races. How does one suppress this sinking feeling? Do I believe in a religion for this (going back to point)?
>>7973 >For example, I find women onf my own race not that good looking but i naturally find better looking women in the upper races. How does one suppress this sinking feeling? Whites are universally more desirable on average, but to use some of that reason in our heads, it is clear that race-mixing brings greater harm than good for a variety of reasons, regardless of the races involved. Just peruse this pastebin: https://pastebin.com/tGMEhbhf Rootless mutts also have many issues in life due to who they are, and anyone who produces them is unwittingly contributing to a homogenized judaized world. >How does one suppress this sinking feeling? For me, reading the facts alone and seeing the results of such pairings is enough to turn me off of stuff like that by and large. Concerning religion, unless you were to become like a monk or something I doubt any of the mainstream ones would help you do to their typically universe natures and nonsense such as spiritual equality.
The thing leftists fear the most is the loss of their perceived liberty. They fear authority of the strongest form. They reject the interdiction on any form of speech. We need to work hard on this and decide how much authority, order and violence is necessary.
>>7891 The less primitive and less degenerate people. Without much surprise, we can already think of the Japanese. Smaller Shia groups in the Middle East can be worked with. Even mixed countries like Lebanon and Syria are potentially acceptable as allies in order to pacify their neighboring areas. Not Israel though. Jews must be defeated forever. This, however, must only be done as long as Whites assert their power. Our actions and might must command respect. Order will follow.
>>7961 >The Enlightenment is a collection of ideas worships reason above all else, is based around progress, freedom, social contract theories, etc. It was also what started to undermine religion in general, because reason was applied to religion as well by these people, resulting in Deism, which quickly morphed into Skepticism, Materialism and Atheism. Almost all liberal today pozz results has its roots in the Enlightenment. Deism does not lead to skepticism. It leads to a greater understanding of spirituality. It brings us closer to the Laws of Nature. Deism is radically at odds with Abrahamic cults and other belief system that shun the world, entirely missing the point of its existence. The world might have problems on many planes, but its very essence is not flawed. This said, if it has been created for higher life forms to exist and engage in activities of the richest kind, thus paving the way to beings such as enlightened humans, then it is possible, no matter how insane it sounds, that the planet could be purged violently because degeneracy would have reached levels beyond any salvation. There will be a great war anyway, because humans have become too many and too degenerate.
>>8031 I can see how Deism led to stuff like atheism. As I understand Deism, God didn't engage with the material world. He set it in motion and then let it run according to its own naturalistic / mechanistic laws afterwards. It's not hard to take this basic position and then subtract God entirely from the equation and just to say that somehow these laws just operate on their own accord and no God is necessarily needed. What I think is superior is pantheism. Deism still implies a sort of "otherness" or separation from the world, and pantheism of course, an identity of world and God in one sense or another. This, in my mind, accounts for the appearance of design in the world, and does away with the Abrahamic-esque creator who is, like the Jewish one, wholly separate from creation and utterly useless afterwards like a man who winds up a watch and leaves it running. You're definitely right though that a lot of what became associated with the basic idea of Deism is not essential to the concept, such as many of the Enlightenment ideas that often came attached to it.
>>8046 >the Abrahamic-esque creator who is, like the Jewish one, wholly separate from creation and utterly useless afterwards like a man who winds up a watch and leaves it running. Except Abrahamic theology isn't deistic. Every atom is controlled directly by God. Everything that happens in nature only happens because God commands it.
>>8049 That's why I said 'Abrahamic-esque', and only in the sense of its creation and being wholly separate from it. From how I understand it, the Abrahamic God is perfect in himself even without the creation, it's not necessary to his existence, it's entirely contingent upon him. The deistic, as I understand it at least, is similar, although it is more mechanistic.
>>8046 >I can see how Deism led to stuff like atheism. As I understand Deism, God didn't engage with the material world. He set it in motion and then let it run according to its own naturalistic / mechanistic laws afterwards. It's not hard to take this basic position and then subtract God entirely from the equation and just to say that somehow these laws just operate on their own accord and no God is necessarily needed. There is a risk that with time and ill intent, some definitions of Deism might have been slightly tweaked or even revised. This happened for dictionaries. Pick a classical one from before 1903-1905 and check the definition for any word which we know should have a heavy racial foundation but is devoid of in our modern version of it (like "folklore"). The same is done by those who want to enforce the Abrahamic "understanding" of the universe. Nevertheless, any observation is of limited value if it's not put into practice. I like those argue that true spirituality is not faith but knowledge through application and practice, thus the uncovering ("revelation at a personal level") of very real yet invisible truths. Sound is invisible and yet true. It's just that some elements are less obvious. Gravity too. Thoughts and memories too. But Deism does not separate the Maker from the Made AFAIK. It certainly paves the way to Pantheism or even Panentheism, the latter being perhaps even superior for including the infinite multiverse theory. Besides, isn't it equally easy, then, to fall into atheism when starting from a premise where the world is not divine and merely a place for God to intervene in, and then to claim that because of a lack of such godly evidence, all there is is this non-god, non-divine reality?
>>8211 >some definitions of Deism might have been slightly tweaked or even revised. This happened for dictionaries. Pick a classical one from before 1903-1905 and check the definition for any word which we know should have a heavy racial foundation but is devoid of in our modern version of it (like "folklore") I had not considered this, but it is very possible. We have seen in the past few years alone how the dictionaries all capitulate to the changing leftist discourse in order to redefine things to their benefit and therefore control the people, it would not surprise me in the slightest if this has been done gradually over time with other things. I will have to redpill myself on this sometime in the near future and dig up a few old dictionaries from a century or so ago and find out. >But Deism does not separate the Maker from the Made AFAIK This is at least the understanding that I have gotten from reading various short things on them (but not by them, admittedly). Here is one example: >Deism was represented as the view of those who reduced the role of God to a mere act of creation in accordance with rational laws discoverable by man and held that, after the original act, God virtually withdrew and refrained from interfering in the processes of nature and the ways of man https://www.britannica.com/topic/Deism I know that Britannica is probably suspect to an extent as well, but this is in line with what I have read elsewhere on them. Basically God created the universe, set it in motion and them left it run on its own accord according to naturalistic principles. Maybe I have read into it too far through positing a sort of radical separation between Creator and creation, but it certainly sounds like that, according to this view point, the universe was created and then left running like a wind-up watch or something. I agree with you though that it certainly paves the way towards something like pantheism or panentheism, I see myself as closer to the former personally. > I like those argue that true spirituality is not faith but knowledge through application and practice, thus the uncovering ("revelation at a personal level") of very real yet invisible truths. I agree. Through use of reason we can uncover the Laws of Nature and apply to them our lives and societies. This is what National Socialism, more or less, was founded on as I see it.
You can't convert leftists, these morons will still uphold their communists and liberal stance on things while trying to be "pro-White". I've seen an idiot claim that Marxism-leninism was pro White, anti semetic, masculine, etc, etc. Despite the fact that the Marxist leninist were clear cut and dry that racism was fascist and evil.
>>8213 >This is at least the understanding that I have gotten from reading various short things on them (but not by them, admittedly). Here is one example: >Deism was represented as the view of those who reduced the role of God to a mere act of creation in accordance with rational laws discoverable by man and held that, after the original act, God virtually withdrew and refrained from interfering in the processes of nature and the ways of man >https://www.britannica.com/topic/Deism If God can virtually withdraw from his creation and can chose to interfere, then both are clearly separate and we're dealing with theism here, and thus the only difference remains in the interventionism. It's mad because if the creation is not in God, and since only God is divine (by sheer and obvious definition), then anything outside of God is non divine, yet works only because, in the case of the creation, it is organized and then moved according to Laws that are finding their origin in God, but the whole matter, radiations, etc., all of this is not divine. This is what this definition provides. To the opposition formulated earlier on, the lack of interventionism can be explained not by a withdrawal (which would be impossibe with pantheism) but by the universe being God (God changed so as to become something else, where the universe is God or perhaps an attribute of God), so God does not intervene of Himself, with intervention here understood in the classical theistic way as a break from inaction to action into something, a change, perhaps even somehow irregular. But it is getting me slightly annoyed. I now have to look into 19th century encyclopedias to know how much of this is correct, taking into account that back then Christianity was a greater influence on writings too, which is not going to make the research easier at all, especially if one begins to combine the value of deism with the action of several Gods. This is beyond the topic of this thread but it's worthy of attention nonetheless!
Open file (158.89 KB 461x311 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (190.92 KB 444x350 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (180.26 KB 441x337 ClipboardImage.png)
>>8455 I'm gonna be dumping a handful of old encyclopedia definitions of deism that I took the time to dig up. The first one is from a 1901 dictionary and encyclopedia, "International Dictionary and Encyclopedia". Obviously read it yourself, but the gist of this one's attempted definition is one who believes in God but denies the necessity or existence of revelation and that nature is a sufficient guide. I like that definition honestly. I could probably be lumped under that definition honestly. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100156061 I'll post a few more.
Open file (429.51 KB 746x225 ClipboardImage.png)
This is from an 1870 encyclopedia, again stresses the belief in God and lack of revelation https://archive.org/details/zellspopularency01colauoft
Open file (662.96 KB 591x437 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (353.77 KB 403x356 ClipboardImage.png)
Last one I'll do for now. This one is particularly interesting. The writer of the entry says Theism and Deism ought to be synonyms but that Deism has become associated with certain English freethinkers such as Locke who didn't care for religious revelation and instead relied on knowledge and reason. I think all of these that I've posted are pretty spot on. https://archive.org/details/globeencyclopaed02ross I do want to dig up something on race real quick just for the lulz so I might do that real quick
Open file (711.44 KB 588x501 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (85.23 KB 402x87 ClipboardImage.png)
Back when we could admit the obvious. It's honestly hilarious how spot on they are about niggers today writing over 120 some years ago. They even pointed out that they are loud and like noisy music. Sage for extreme off-topic and multiposting.
>>8465 Niggers used to sing and do soft music and now they're getting mainstream attention because "fuck Whitey, i want the bling bling"
>>8465 it's almost like different races/ethnic groups have longstanding inherent differences from each other. no amount of cultural marxism or diversity gospel can alter reality, try as it might.
>>8465 Holy fuck. That is spot on.
>>8465 >American Indians >Malays What was he saying about Malays and American Indians?
The pursuit is not exactly fruitless, is just that the results will be underwhelming. As I said, men cannot be molded back once their identities have settled. When that happens—if ever—we cannot say, some retain the personality they developed when they were 13, some keep their minds unbound. The first group are slaves, they will forever be trapped in their mindset, no matter where they find themselves in. Leftism is based off this way of thinking from those who are marginalized (and ruthless capitalism is from the master's view), so, it is only natural that all leftists who are deep into the ideology are complete slaves. Even if we eliminate all marxist ideas and rationalizations, we will still get a defective human, fill his head with right-wing ideas and you will get an angry failure who now blames jews and women for all his problems, instead of wasting his time in discussions about unions and intersectionality, he would be talking about circumcision or how a Hollywood movie is literally White genocide. Fascism is abstract, unbound, and esoteric; it will never be understood my these kinds of people, now should be insult its name my pretending it to be possible. And while unrelated, I want to add; this does not only apply to leftists, manny so-called « third positionists » also suffer from this. When using a spectrum to gauge someone's ideology you may have imagined that not having strong opinions about anything will put you on the same category as having strong opinions which are all over the place. This will risks categorizing Fascist men alongside slaves of fringe ideologies, be aware of the angry sheep in wolf's clothing. The only thing I can see some future with is to use these converts as golems, they are already empty shells, no matter what ideology they use to paint their excuses. But having those people stay on the left and let the degenerate them from within is also an option, we would have to consider whether their long-therm corrosion of the left would give us a bigger advantage than to use them as golems. >tl;dr: Instead of trying to convert them, we should be taking advantage of them
>>8973 The songs that Malays tend to sing and play music to tend to be sad. He was right about that
I think a good number of leftists will never be able to more close enough to our position, but they can be nudged very far to the right nonetheless as many of them operate with a good heart but little knowledge of facts and natural laws. They're naive softies and have very warped notions of justice. They also tend to be rapidly revolted by any authoritarian system unless they're really antifa radicals who dream of hardcore marxism (these individuals are dangerous and nearly all of them will not bulge and will have to be dismissed). Authority, especially in a liberal world, is frightening. They assume it would be automatically excessive. Truth be said, fascism and national socialism have certainly not fallen short of examples of this excess of power applied in all sorts of domains which should have remained within the hands of local groups of people. The best demonstration of this is how after its defeat, no force remained in Germany so as to oppose in a way or another the alien authorities. Minds were crushed, people aghast, just like shocked children without parents. It was easier to destroy the state than attack every single local group and family. But when the state invited itself everywhere and took control of families, it was crossing a line that proved detrimental to the success of the doctrine. In other words, too much "statism" had a thing to do in its undoing.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?