/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

cafe/icup/: The GCUP is coming! Tentative Start Date - February 13th, 2021.

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

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Please Report Shills and Retards in the News Thread


The Natural Order Blackshirt 06/10/2020 (Wed) 04:41:08 ID: aa33c6 No.776
How exactly is the Natural Order defined? How do we discern its laws? Should we always adhere to the Natural Order when it conflicts with human conventions? NatSocs like to mention this concept a lot, and while I myself consider myself a NatSoc and refer to this concept quite often, I am thinking that I need to flesh out my idea of what exactly this implies and how exactly it should be interpreted. We know that Hitler correctly pointed out, as have many others, that man is an integral part of Nature, never able to truly divorce himself no matter how hard he may try to “conquer” it. He remains subject to its laws regardless of how much he may protest their “injustice” or “cruelty” according to his moralistic humanist view. It seems to me that the Natural Order is primarily defined as the essential nature of things in general, more narrowly human beings and their behavior, independently of social engineering, nurture or anything else, referring to what is natural and healthy to us. Given this definition which I adhere to, degeneracy or decadence is anything contrary to this. What exactly does this imply (certainly not exhaustive): >inequality between races, men, men and women, etc >hierarchy (rule of the strong over the weak) >life defined in terms of struggle Is it always good to live in accordance with this? From my view it seems to imply that the Jews are ‘rightfully’ (according to natural justice) in power now, but this power is not absolute and inviolable, as life is struggle. The weak being ruled by the strong is natural justice. The weak are often utilized by the strong in their plans – sidestepping, I think, Socrates’ objection to Callicles’ claims in Gorgias. Sheep are guided by shepards, rarely do they spontaneously do anything en masse. Of course we are left to define what is meant by the strong – clearly not physical strength alone, intelligence, charisma, perhaps technical organization – all constitute qualities of the strong today. Technics are merely tactics of living in struggle which is identical with life itself. I rambled a bit but I think there’s some things to discuss.
An interesting book on pantheism from a philosophical perspective: http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=BFC1B0D6B9667B86F9C5FD54C40DCA95 I think most people who are champions of the Natural Order are likely thinking along very pantheistic lines whether they know it or not. All pantheism really is at heart is the belief in an all-inclusive Unity. Thinking of Nature as a interrelated “whole” rather than just an aggregate of unrelated things. It’s a non-personal God. Yet it does not seem wrong to call it divine if anything is to be given this label, especially when one is not a bugman who thinks that the universe is just random atoms bouncing around in a cold, lifeless void and that the universe is going to die a heat death, ergo nothing matters. Honestly I’m not too surprised that this view is never spoken about seriously. To look to Nature for values is taboo today even though it was the norm all throughout antiquity. They fear it because it almost certainly leads to National Socialism, at least the spirit of National Socialism.
>>15654 No it's been repeatedly debunked by Leftists, the man never said it.
Open file (705.40 KB 1280x930 1laZFiy.png)
Natural Order is a retarded idea worthy only of the monke meme. The so-called animal ideal cannot justify itself. REED Evola. To see our race as mere beasts of the earth is to put us in the same level as niggers.
>>15782 Evola is a LARPer who brings nothing to the table but obscurantism and arguably a soft form of subversion through his doctrines of "spiritual race" and other nonsense. Also, you fail to understand the idea of the Natural Order. As expected of Traditionalist retards
>>15784 >too retarded to understand Evola Typical Vaisha mommyist. Your natural order is as empty and soulless as democracy.
Open file (97.83 KB 1024x724 himmler shake hands.jpg)
>>15787 An utterly vacuous response, typical. "You just don't understand, breh". Evola produced degenerate art, was anti-nationalist, and attacked identification with one's own race with terms such as "vulgar materialism" and LARPed as some sort of Brahmin Übermensch. The SS was 100% right about him in their characterization, as was Miguel Serrano.
>>15791 >An utterly vacuous response, typical. Just like yours. Don't expect what you weren't giving in the first place. >You just don't understand, breh You quite literally are too retarded to understand Evola if you think he was in any way subversive. >Evola produced degenerate art For example? >was anti-nationalist >implying this is a bad thing Heh, I see you are quite literally retarded if you think a DEMOCRATIC, FRENCH REVOLUTION value like nationalism is in any way representative of a proper aryan society. >and attacked identification with one's own race with terms such as "vulgar materialism See? This is what I meant when I said you were too dumb to understand Evola. He called out identifying as one's race in mere materialistic, animal terms as degenerate, and he was right. Race trascends what is expressed in the body as a physical manifestation of an original spiritual condition through the laws of correspondence. It's not that race doesn't exist, or that physical race is not relevant, it's that race goes BEYOND material manifestation without excluding it. I don't know if you read his books or not, but he says in RATMW that one of the strongest reasons for keeping to one's own race (as opposed to miscegenation) is that to mix in the flesh also produces spiritually hybridized offspring, in the same way that mutts are an abominable in-between between each of their parents. As above, so below. >LARPed as some sort of Brahmin Übermensch And the NatSocs LARPed as Ubermensch, the kikes LARP as the chosen of Moloch, and normalniggers LARP as cattle. Everything is a LARP. Right now, you are LARPing as a retard who either hasn't read or was too dumb to get Evola. >The SS was 100% right about him The SS lost.
Open file (115.40 KB 500x504 evola painting 4.jpg)
Open file (28.00 KB 300x401 evola painting 3.jpg)
Open file (43.30 KB 488x500 evola painting 2.jpg)
Open file (161.34 KB 300x437 evola painting.jpg)
>>15794 >You quite literally are too retarded to understand Evola if you think he was in any way subversive. I've already provided several examples of his subversive teachings. It's up to you to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to disprove me. >For example? Pics. >if you think a DEMOCRATIC, FRENCH REVOLUTION value like nationalism is in any way representative of a proper aryan society. It looks like you've fallen for the Jewish analysis of nationalism. Nation-states are something newer to the world, but there is nothing wrong with them. They came about due to technologization and industrialization first and foremost rather than your dumb ideas of them being exclusively the product of a single historical event. Greater connections within the state led to greater levels of rising ethnic consciousness and an awareness of cultural similarities among related peoples who would have otherwise have not come into contact. The nation-state is merely a more highly developed form of earlier and less complex kin-groups such as the family and the tribe. And indeed it is the most harmonious, natural and enduring variety. >Race trascends what is expressed in the body as a physical manifestation of an original spiritual condition through the laws of correspondence Prove it. >it's that race goes BEYOND material manifestation Prove it. >The SS lost. Irrelevant. Your hero was a degenerate Dadaist artist who rolled around in a wheelchair while spewing out irrelevant and obscurantist works.
>>15796 >I've already provided several examples of his subversive teachings. Except you didn't. You just lied about his some of his beliefs, and painted anti-nationalism as a bad thing. >It's up to you to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to disprove me. So dumb, yet so arrogant. Tearing you apart is going to be a pleasure. >Pics. How is that in any way degenerate? Do you think renaissance art with naked women on it was also degenerate? What are you, a christcuck? >It looks like you've fallen for the Jewish analysis of nationalism More like it's factual origin. The French Revolution was funded by the Rothschilds btw. Nationalism is a degeneration of a degeneration, a consequence of secularized monarchies that had lost their spiritual authority and tried to make up for it in increased centralization. Of course it didn't work, since a king who is only a 'mere human' instead of a living God has no greater right to rule than any other beast. This doesn't change the fact that loyalty to abstract ideals of 'nation' instead of a proper ethos that includes within itself the preservation of the race at all levels is the symptom of a dying civilization. >The nation-state is merely a more highly developed form of earlier and less complex kin-groups such as the family and the tribe. And indeed it is the most harmonious, natural and enduring variety. A hilarious claim considering it died faster than ANY other state in history, as further proof of the inherent weakness of all democratic values and systems. The correct succession to family and tribe is RACE, at both physical and spiritual levels, not flimsy and and meaningless concepts like 'nation'. It transcends things like language and borders. >Prove it. Can you prove your body is real? >Dadaist Except he literally trashes Dadaism as a form of nihilism in Ride the Tiger. Hell, have you read a single one of his books or do your incorrect views on him all come from wikipedia articles? My absolute sides.
>>15800 >You just lied about his some of his beliefs, and painted anti-nationalism as a bad thing. I have not lied, it is you who are lying. Evola did not put much importance on the biological reality of race. To quote from Men Among the Ruins: >The concept of race itself, according to its higher traditional significance, cannot have anything in common with the rational idols of modern biology and profane science. Above all, race is a basic attitude, a spiritual power, something primal and creative, whose outer, tangible forms are only a last echo... Race is an attitude? Some spiritual woo woo? The tangible forms are only an echo? This is utterly subversive, not to mention out of tune with reality. In the same book the following is said: >We repeat: race is secondary, spirit and tradition the primary factor, because, in a metaphysical sense, race dwells in the spirit before being expressed in the blood. If it is true that without racial purity, spirit and tradition are deprived of their most precious means of expression, then it also true that pure race deprived of spirit is condemned to be a biological mechanism and, in the end, doomed to extinction. The proof of this lies in spiritual decay, the ethical stupefaction, and the slow death of many tribes that did not commit any of the sins against the blood that have been discovered by materialistic racial science Race is secondary... he needless cries about "materialistic racial science". Race is biological period, and any abstraction away from the biological reality of race together with a condemnation of the material world is 100% pozzed, and it is what leads to race-mixing. "Bro... it's the spirit that matters, not the skin!" >How is that in any way degenerate? Dadaism is a degenerate style of art. In fact, it is not art at all, just like cubism, surrealism and other modern forms of "art". The fact that you see art like this as fine or normal says much about you, and it has nothing to do with naked women. >Of course it didn't work, since a king who is only a 'mere human' instead of a living God has no greater right to rule than any other beast. Nice fantasy LARPing. There is no such thing as God-Kings. You did not debunk one point that I made. Telling. >meaningless concepts like 'nation' Lmao what a Jew >Can you prove your body is real? I don't think I need to prove the material world around us, anon. I asked you whether you can prove that race is in any sense beyond the material or that "Race trascends what is expressed in the body as a physical manifestation of an original spiritual condition through the laws of correspondence". This is quite the extraordinary claim. Where is your proof? You can't escape forever by shifting the burden of proof onto something irrelevant to our discussion. >Except he literally trashes Dadaism as a form of nihilism in Ride the Tiger Didn't stop him from literally painting tons of shitty Dadaist and futurist-style works LOL
>>15800 How did you learn of this place? you sound incredibly similar to a Slavnigger motherfucker, who I have recently discovered has Ashkenazim heritage, from telegram, goes by Vedic Eudaimonia now.
>>15899 Please don't tell me that there are legions of people like this out there.
>>15904 There are some certainly and I hope not.
>>15905 I have no idea why people shill for Evola, Spengler and other retards constantly. People need to stick with Savitri Devi, Hitler, Pierce and other actual fighters for our race.
I'm replying to the OP on this point only because I haven't seen an answer that hits the right spot for me. I'm a newfag posting here so if I'm breaking some unspoken rule, then forgive me. >From my view it seems to imply that the Jews are ‘rightfully’ (according to natural justice) in power now, but this power is not absolute and inviolable, as life is struggle. There's two important and distinct ways to look at this: the objective way, and the subjective way. Objectively, looking "from the outside" at Jews and "Us" as collective organisms in a struggle for survival, the Jews have their Natural Right to survive by employing the strategy they see fit, and that strategy is parasitism. They are successful and rightful in subduing "Us" through these means. "We" however, subdued by the parasitic Jew, have our own Natural Right to recognize the parasite and defend ourselves from it. What "We" can do about it is twofold: Subjectively speaking, "We" should act on it. Objectively speaking, still removing ourselves from the context, from the struggle "We" are in, we could argue that since the Jews are doing what is Natural Right to them, once we recognize the objective struggle, we cannot violate their Natural Right, and let it happen to us, as vehement upholders of Natural Right and Natural Order. Who are we to judge? Subjectively speaking again however, and this is the important part, we must recognize that what information we gained through looking at the struggle, and really anything else in that matter, through this objective lense, that information cannot make us forget of our subjective needs of survival. In the subjective, we cannot be truly objective, lest we negate ourself and deny our own Natural Rights. We are we to judge. When we act as observers we must remember that we ourselves are also the subjects, if we hope that others will spare us due to our observers status, or are completely oblivious to the consequences of such act, due to the very Natural Order we strive for all but ourselves to upkeep, we will be exterminated. In other words, "We" should act on it none the less. This is a rejection of Relativism, Universalism, as Objectivity can be defined as the intersection of all Subjective points of view: a Subject may never be truly Objectivist, as it is a failing strategy and will be beaten and eaten by all others. Thus, the affirmation of the Self as a Subject in this Objective Struggle for survival is the Natural Order, the rejection of the universalist Man, an affirmation of an exclusivist "Us". This also answers to those that say that Jews are doing something right in their nepotism and aggressive in-group preference. What they do right is recognizing themselves as an "Us", affirming themselves as a Subject, which "We" should copy, but not necessarily their underhanded tactics. It is sufficient to recognize this fact to make your own strategy according to your own ideals: the only requirement is that the ideals fight for themselves. Hitler hints at all of this in passim all over chapters 2 and 3 of Mein Kampf, as he laments of the hypocritical and selfless objectivism of his Germanic people.
>>16035 To expand a little upon this, as some people here seem to critique not having an explicitly race realist position, the importance of race does not follow immediately from this argument, but once you deny the universalist Man, even if you argue for culture as most important, once you are pressed to explain where culture comes from, there will be little room to escape the fact that it comes from the nature of the race. Therefore, race comes first, competing races among themselves, and only within a single race different cultures, which can be imported/influenced from other races, may directly compete. You can see this in Jews as well, who first argue for themselves, and only then argue between themselves, e.g. there's the Jews vs Gentiles argument first, the Zionist Jews vs Globalist Jews argument after.
>>16035 >>16037 Welcome, anon. Do not worry, your post was very good, so I hope to see you around more in the future. I think this objective versus subjective distinction you're bringing up is essential to getting a proper understanding of how we are to act, and how to solve these misunderstandings / potential problems that I brought up in the OP. Since posting this thread back in June, it just so happens that I've more or less gone down a similar line of thinking as you are doing here, except I had not been thinking in a subjective versus objective framework, but more in terms of the in-group versus the out-group, and how each of these groups have their own interests, which often conflict and lead to struggle, and how more than any human concocted theories which are based on abstractions such as equality, rationality and the like, in truth it is those most like the self (the ultimate in-group in a way, even if the self does not have ultimate value) who are valued the highest, and who are given the most altruistic concern, and who most affect our own ways of thinking and acting. This is of course an affirmation of subjectivity, and a rejection of these abstract theories which are founded on stripping humans of all individuating characteristics (such as being a man, a woman, old, young, White, non-White, smart, dumb, etc) and saying that they are "equal" just because they share the unimpressive quality of being human. This sort of laughable idea stems from Abrahamic ideas of spiritual equality, not any sort of theory based on Nature or viewing them as they are concretely. So what you are talking about here definitely adds another important layer onto this. I think all of this fits in well with what I said about true moral systems in a post in another thread: >>15934
>>16049 >Welcome, anon. Do not worry, your post was very good, so I hope to see you around more in the future. Thank you. I like it around here, so I'll post sometimes for sure. I found this place while looking for an English translation of Mein Kampf. About the objective/subjective blindspot, it is one that is absolutely pervasive in today's society, from morals, to art and aesthetics, to even mathematics and physics. So in one way or another, I think everyone at some point realizes the effects of it in at least some area of human endeavor: call it moral relativism, call it postmodernism in art, architecture, or globalism, or Einsteinian relativity in physics, or the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, they all end up being problems arising from aspects of this objective/subjective blindspot that we made for ourselves. As for the Jews, it is advantageous for the them for reasons I think you'd consider obvious, as it is easy pilpul, a language game they can manipulate by "looking at things from a different prospective" whenever the current one isn't pleasing them. But as for ourselves, we dug ourselves into this hole, at least as far as I can see, when we put Reason and its supposed objectivity above all the subjective needs and emotions, and accepted the Renaissance conception of the universal Man, who is both the sculpture and his own sculptor. To extend that analogy, we forgot that in any case the sculpture doesn't get to choose the material for himself, and must work with what he has been given by Nature, i.e. by his nativity, what his genes gave him at birth. The take-away is not that Reason is bad, or we shouldn't look at things objectively, but that once we have done that, the objective facts must be interpreted by the subject subjectively, and to pretend that he may interpret them objectively is to commit a fallacy, and that by doing so he becomes an hypocritical subject, unaware that he is part of the system that he observes. That is, he is rejecting Nature and its Order, hypocritically putting himself above it and its rules, by thinking that what he observes is truly objective, and therefore how he acts also is. It is not. This is how I interpret Natural Order and how one may go against it, in very abstract terms. It can be instantiated to more concrete situations. About true moral systems, it fits all right. What I wrote is a starting point for me, onto which to elaborate further on specific points like morals, the importance of race, family, etc. Once the Subject's point of view is established as meaningful, you can start looking at how he comes to be, how he interacts with other Subjects, and what becomes of him. By a Darwinian argument, as you did, you quickly come to the conclusion that the Subject should strive to survive, as only those who survive get to "play another round" in the game of life, and therefore should act by a moral system that not only increases his chance of survival and success (and about that, winning strategies in game theory are always altruistic to some extent, look into strategies for the iterated prisoner's dilemma for example), but the moral system itself should strive towards its own survival and success: it should not be easily replaced, corrupted by a moral system that decreases the chances of survival, ruling out blindly altruistic strategies. Where we, the Man (and I am allowed here to appeal to the universal Man, as it truly is what sets us us apart), differ from animals, is that we have more than mere reproduction to look forward in our struggle for survival: due to our ability to communicate, not only do we spread our genes*, but we can also spread our memes, i.e. ideas, ideals, and eventually morals and religions, that play a survival game on their own in the collective minds of the nations. (* Although reproduction never hurts, one of the worst points of Christianity is barring smart and pious priests and monks from reproducing, on top of being the biggest justification for the universalism of Man. While I don't buy into arguments that smart people should reproduce more, as K-selection is more appropriate than r-selection for them, as intellect must be properly nurtured, throwing away the life of the most intelligent and pious of your people is simply sad.)
>>16082 (cont) So, you are right in saying that The Golden Rule, that of doing unto others what you would have them do unto you, in order to be a surviving moral system, requires self-respect and altruism, or else it will create selfless drones, ready to be taken advantage of. It is another case of taking oneself out of the picture. As for myself, the moral precept, or "golden rule", I like to appeal to is that one should help himself before being able to help others (or in more romantic terms, that one who does not love himself, cannot truly love others), which affirms the Self above the Others, without negating the Others as some egoists do (and perhaps is what Stirnerist egoism really is about, but I'm not that well read on philosophy, especially modern), allowing for altruistic strategies. This seems to be in line with your identification of the Self as the ultimate in-group. Another precept I take is to always give the benefit of the doubt, i.e. start amicably towards anyway until he shows ill intent. And another one is hold others to the same standard as yourself, for prolonged cooperation. They are pretty much postulating "self-respect", "altruism" and expecting them from others, so I agree with you overall, though I think different people need different (specific to their needs) life philosophies: the simple man can just stop here, the industrious men should be Stoics, the studious follow Aristotle or Plato. But I feel I've strayed off the topic enough already.
Commander Rockwell on Natural Law
>>16082 >That is, he is rejecting Nature and its Order, hypocritically putting himself above it and its rules In fact it is impossible. Though one may think themselves above Nature, they are merely a constituent part of it, and it is the ultimate form of hubris to think that one can escape its iron laws forever. We see this today. People think themselves above Nature, and think that Nature is merely places where trees grow and deer roam around not directly disturbed by humans. Hitler himself denounced the idea of man as the conqueror of Nature in Mein Kampf directly as "Jewish", and he is more or less correct, because the view stems directly from Abrahamism. >the moral system itself should strive towards its own survival and success: it should not be easily replaced, corrupted by a moral system that decreases the chances of survival, Yes of course. And of course at the end of the day the moral system only exists in the minds of those who carry it out, so it will only itself become corrupted or cease to exist if the people who adhere to it are corrupted or denatured in a way. This is exactly what is happening today in our modern societies. They are anti-Nature, inhuman hellscapes, not to mention that in the prelude to the establishment of these small, tight-knit local communities were uprooted, millions moved into tightly-packed, filthy urban areas and many of them were reduced to wage-slaves. The modern lifestyle only continues to become more and more harmful and unnatural, and I hardly need to go down the list of problems. We ourselves become corrupted, and then the soil was fertile for the corruption of traditional values, which were pushed into the public consciousness through propaganda, media, laws, etc. >>16084 >I like to appeal to is that one should help himself before being able to help others (or in more romantic terms, that one who does not love himself, cannot truly love others), which affirms the Self above the Others, without negating the Others as some egoists do [...] allowing for altruistic strategies. This seems to be in line with your identification of the Self as the ultimate in-group. To an extent one should of course make sure one's Self is line before helping others, but I still hesitate to say that this is affirming the Self above Others. Maybe it is in a limited and obvious sense, but its value, even though it is the "ultimate in-group" in a way, is limited, or to put it a different way, maybe, not ultimate. I feel like you'd agree with this, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding. Of course, the Self in the sense of an individual is something ephemeral which is born, grows up and dies within a period of usually less than a century. The race, however, is potentially immortal (though not entirely static itself over long periods of time). It is like if we are given the choice between throwing out a perfectly good apple, or chopping down a perfectly healthy apple tree. Obviously we'd throw out the perfectly good apple, because the tree can produce new, more or less similar apples year after year. One would be delusional to prioritize an ephemeral part over the whole, and this holds true throughout Nature, where the whole is prioritized over the part most often in its workings. >the industrious men should be Stoics The one doctrine of the Stoics that I do like is the idea of assenting to or rejecting impressions that we receive. I think many people should consider this idea more, along with what is in our power and not in our power. I haven't studied the Stoics too deeply (though I intend to), but those doctrines alone have really given me the ability to realize that I can control my reaction to certain stimuli, especially angering ones, and that some things are literally just not worth having a fuss over. I think Marcus Aurelius said something about how the consequences of anger are often so much worse than their causes. He was right.
Open file (219.03 KB 1200x900 rockwell.jpg)
>>16111 I can't believe some retards dismiss Rockwell as some sort of "clown". I just watched your video, and I've seen at least an interview or two with him in it, and this man grasped National Socialism 100%. He's the real deal
>>16115 >Hitler himself denounced the idea of man as the conqueror of Nature in Mein Kampf directly as "Jewish", and he is more or less correct, because the view stems directly from Abrahamism. I feel somewhat differently. I think of Man as a beast capable of rising above the other beasts, but not by divine right, but rather by his own acts. It is an achievement, not a given fact. Due to universalist Man, people feel that that achievement is as good as their, because if anyone can, then all in principle could. They see civilization not as something to preserve, that has been instituted and handed to them by the better before them (the majores), but as something naturally given to them, an effortless, natural consequence of being human. In their head, they do not rise above the beasts, they simply are. But even then, I guess that "the other beasts" the whole of Nature do not make. >I feel like you'd agree with this, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding. It's alright, I tend to ramble a lot around concepts I have not yet put in order in my mind, so it's hard to understand whether I'm being coherent at all. There's a lot to say and a lot left unspoken. Restating what the other has said in your own words is necessary to ensure proper communication anyway. I think we agree for the most part. By "affirming the Self above Others, without negating them", I mean that the Self is not negated in favor of the Others, but Others are not directly put under the bus in favor of the Self either: you don't want bugman collectivism, you want individual initiative; you don't want hedonistic individualism, you want collective conscience. The Self is free to act for himself, but you are allowed to look into and classify the Others as well, because they too matter for the Self, and it would be a lie to say otherwise. It is in the definition of "acting for himself" that lies the difference: Mussolini's own words regarding corporativism, that an individual is part of the State and made freer by its protection than total isolation, is in today's terms nothing more than that we live in a society. The individual, however individual he may be, still needs to interact with others in a society. That doesn't negate his individuality, just as his individuality doesn't negate society. So how does he interact with the world? The first collective that matters for the individual is, by his biological imperative of reproduction, his Nuclear Family: the institution and maintainment of it. Finding a wife, putting a baby in her, and raising the kid(s) properly together. The Extended Family is likewise important, and we can divide it in Upper Family (grandparents, grandgrandparents, ...), Lower Family (grandchildren, grandgrandchildren, ...), and Lateral Family (cousins, their children, their grandchildren, ...). Keep track of the Extended Family for enough generations and you get something like a Roman Gens, a clan. I have a lot to say about familial dynamics and the importance of grandparents in raising a kid properly, but for the sake of the argument let's assume that the Upper Family is important. The Lower Family is important for obvious reasons, they are your descendants. Why care about the Lateral Family? Because their offspring will be the people to which your kids will be closest. They are the ones that will be setting the familial environment within which your kids will live. Friendship between cousins can be some of the strongest friendships in your life, that will last even after years of separation. Bad cousins = bad future extended family for your kids.
>>16235 (cont) The same argument applies to Race, as a conglomerate of Extended Families, or Gentes: There's your Gens, there's the Upper Race (the Ancestors), the Lower Race (the Descendants), and there's the other Gentes, the Lateral Race. From the narrow objective of raising your kids in the best way possible, arises the broader objective of ensuring that he will be surrounded by good people, good Gentes, in a good world, from which fact collective consciousness arises, stronger for those that are around you, that will influence directly and indirectly your kids' future. So in a sense you're also right that the Self as the ultimate in-group is not actually the ultimate. You live for yourself, until you live for your kids. That act of natural altruism to your offspring is what causes you to care for the rest of the world around you. I hope you get what I'm trying to achieve here. I'm arguing in the abstract that the Self should care about the society he lives in, and that concretely, that society is molded by Race, hence that collective conscience implies a strong racial conscience. Society -(helps with building)> Family -(eventually leads to)> Race -(will be the one molding)> Society >Obviously we'd throw out the perfectly good apple, because the tree can produce new, more or less similar apples year after year. Obviously we'd throw out the perfectly good apple, because the tree can produce new, more or less similar apples year after year. One would be delusional to prioritize an ephemeral part over the whole, and this holds true throughout Nature, where the whole is prioritized over the part most often in its workings. I agree and disagree here. The analogy breaks down, because a tree with no apples can still produce apples, but a Race with no individuals is a dead Race. Objectively it is true, that one great loss is nonetheless replaceable in the long run, but the Race is made out of the individuals in it: what should they think of themselves? You can't tell them that subjectively they should care more about Race than about themselves, because a population of self-sacrificing individuals, once they all have self-sacrificed, is left with no one to enjoy the fruits of said self-sacrifices: a dead Race. It's a form of unrestrained altruism. Subjectively, to achieve the objective of a perpetual Race, the individual should care about himself first, and about others second (but not never), according to (by my approximation) what I said above. The recognition of the Objective need of survival of the Race manifests in him as collective consciousness, helping him gauge the severity of the consequences of his actions and external events based on how harmful they are to the Race.
>>16236 >>16235 >I think of Man as a beast capable of rising above the other beasts, but not by divine right, but rather by his own acts. It is an achievement, not a given fact. I definitely agree with this. My interpretation of what Hitler was saying was that he was more than anything referring to certain tendencies or mindsets. Most of modern civilization is founded on a growing alienation from Nature. Spengler described it in 'Man and Technics' as "the history of a rebel that grows up to raise his hand against his mother", and then goes onto say that this is a tragedy, because Nature is the stronger of the two, and that man remains utterly dependent on it, in fact an integral part of it. Of course, what I'm saying here shouldn't necessarily be seen as a condemnation of civilization or technology as a whole, but rather a certain "technical mindset" that we as a civilization are caught up in, obsessed with rationalization, effiency and materialism above all else, weakening us and denaturing us, leaving a world of mutted-up 'Last Men'. European man ultimately has a Faustian spirit that says to him "Thou shalt not rest or be content, no matter what thy accomplishments. Thou must strive all the days of thy life. Thou must discover all things, know all things, master all things". https://counter-currents.com/2013/06/the-faustian-spirit/ But still, we are bound by Nature's Laws, and that is what Hitler is emphasizing. Even if we can gain this mastery of things, we are not really conquerors, and we are still as dependent as ever. >>16236 >You can't tell them that subjectively they should care more about Race than about themselves, because a population of self-sacrificing individuals, once they all have self-sacrificed, is left with no one to enjoy the fruits of said self-sacrifices: a dead Race. I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with that. You seem to be talking here about specifically self-sacrifice to the death, and even in this case (assuming that it is not reckless, senseless self-sacrifice) self-sacrifice would probably be the superior strategy against another group which was more wrought with internal conflicts. And even if all individuals in the group worked exclusively for the benefit of the group at the expense of themselves, this would not equal a dead race due to the fact that there would be a division of labor among the group which would ensure that all needs are met and that multiple simultaneous tasks could be accomplished, so even in the case of the self-sacrifice that you were mentioning above that seemed to have connotations of combat, it's highly unlikely that even all members of the group would have that role, especially given the fact that females are more vital than males for the maintenance of the race / species (if you had a few men and many females you'd be a lot less fucked than many men and a few females). It doesn't make sense to sacrifice them in that way. We can of course look to ants and bees here for what is an even higher form of society (I do not use higher in a valued sense, I mean that it is nearing a superorganismic status)
>>15796 >>15803 https://counter-currents.com/2011/02/julius-evolas-concept-of-race/ http://www.juliusevola.net/excerpts/Difference_between_Higher_%26_Lower_Views_on_Racism_however_Meaningless_to_Discuss_Today.html >I have not lied, it is you who are lying. Evola did not put much importance on the biological reality of race. You seem to not understand what he meant, Evola is not saying that race does not matter, but that the soul and spirit of a European is what shines the greatest about us. He's not supportive of race-mixing or any of that, because doing so, obviously destroys the race and thus the soul, but what makes the race so great is that the spirit of a Nordic-bull is Faustian and drives through all possibilities than a levant-cuck. The need for material science to prove that race is important is not needed, because it already is important through spirit and blood as shown by history and not just DNA. >Nice fantasy LARPing. There is no such thing as God-Kings You sound like a Marxist materialist. His point here is that there should be a true god-king and not a cult or a larp, but one who actually strives to become divine and the nation follows behind him. You love Savitri Devi, but she believed in this as well, which is why she believed that Hitler was an avatar of VIshnu aka someone who has divine power and will. I don't why you're shitting on this idea like a Marxist faggot would, because most fascists and those who inspired us wanted this as well.
>>16337 >Evola is not saying that race does not matter, but that the soul and spirit of a European is what shines the greatest about us. This is literally just a banal observation though. The author of this first article acts like it is some super important revelation that needs to be grasped by "atheist Aryans", but I think everyone already knows that there is a behavioral (or what would be called "spiritual if you like) and a biological aspect to this. >You sound like a Marxist materialist. Lol, it's all how one is wording things. When you lay out stuff in your post here, there's not much I disagree with. Even my point in the first part of my reply is just a nitpick at most. The other guy said shit like this: >"a king who is only a 'mere human' instead of a living God has no greater right to rule than any other beast." So I called him a LARPer based on his wording. What I am saying may sound to verge close on materialism at times, but it is certainly not Marxist, and I certainly do not believe their nonsense about how everything mental or spiritual is just a mere epiphenomenon of the material conditions that we find ourselves in.
>>16341 >The author of this first article acts like it is some super important revelation that needs to be grasped by "atheist Aryans", but I think everyone already knows that there is a behavioral (or what would be called "spiritual if you like) and a biological aspect to this. Except the person is this article is making a good point that muh "biological superiority" is a retarded and unrealistic excuse for White supremacy. This implies that a gay or any other degenerate Aryan can exist because he is simply superior and things will go his way just ,because he is biologically stronger and smarter. Caring more for skin and thinking that the White Faustian spirit is only attributed to material biology only is a shitlib way of thinking. >and I certainly do not believe their nonsense about how everything mental or spiritual is just a mere epiphenomenon of the material conditions that we find ourselves in. In other words you're an atheist.
>>16349 Welcome to /fascism/ where most of the vedic retards here only care for it, because of it's institutions and muh aryanism, No one actually cares for religion and aren't religious or spiritual in any way, but only being Varg-tier atheist cucks who think that they should be simply on the higher caste for being "White", pretends to be agaisnt degeneracy but says degenerate shit in the gene thread and having a debate on whether polygamy and pedophilia should be legal, only cares for liberal racial science, circle-jerking and most of the niggers here are literal mutts from cuckchan who ruined this board and turned into a /pol/ larp board for muh hindpoos. Enjoy your stay!
>>16350 I doubt what you say is true can be applied to everyone on this board, but I have seen these type of people, so don't see how it applies here.
>>16350 >and I certainly do not believe their nonsense about how everything mental or spiritual is just a mere epiphenomenon of the material conditions that we find ourselves in. >In other words you're an atheist. Lol what? If someone *did* believe that they would be a Marxist, what the fuck are you talking about. That is what Marxist materialism is. >>16350 Someone is upset
>>16350 >a debate on whether polygamy and pedophilia should be legal, Ten bucks says you were BTFO in both of these arguments
>>16350 If you don't like it, simply don't discuss it and ignore it and discuss something else retard.
>>16349 >I doubt what you say is true can be applied to everyone on this board, but I have seen these type of people, so don't see how it applies here. Ha you fucking wish, look at the older threads such as the unpopular opinion thread during June 2019 and the gene thread. You can also look at the Dharmaic and Christian threads. >>16354 >Ten bucks says you were BTFO in both of these arguments Lol not even close, because I told that one retard and explained to me 100% on why they were wrong on muh polygamy on both accounts I doubt the retards here are even edigble for polygamy, considering it's nothing but mutts. >>16356 >If you don't like it, simply don't discuss it and ignore it and discuss something else retard. I've been doing this for months, but you retards don't discuss anything, but the same stupid shit over and over again. >Muh christcucks >Der natural order >Der Aryans >Der based Vedic >Der blackpills You don't talk about anything interesting, other than circle-jerking stupid shit. It's quite ironic how you despise crying and desire action, but do nothing of the sort.
>>16352 Then my bad I misread I thought you were reassuring that you agreed with them to an extent, but at the same time it's also dumb to call something a larp that you don't understand, especially in Evola's case where you misinterpreted and misunderstood everything he had said.
>>16358 Your arguments against polygamy were garbage, bro. You were BTFO, period. Also, whether people advocating for it are directly eligible are not is literally inconsequential—you are trapped in a petty individualistic mindset where you cannot even begin to comprehend how one could advocate for policies that would benefit the race in the long term even if the person themselves does not ever benefits personally. It’s eugenics. You seem pretty dysgenic based on your shit spelling too
>>16358 >You don't talk about anything interesting, other than circle-jerking stupid shit. It's quite ironic how you despise crying and desire action, but do nothing of the sort. So go away then faggotface, go backseat somewhere else, this board is great and high quality. Imagine just cying while not even contributing to the board. Why the fuck should anyone listen to you? You complain about bullshit but evidently it seems you yourself can't even bring up anything interesting, because let's be real you're probably just some vapid leech with the attention span of a goldfish demanding to be entertained. I fucking hate people like you.
>>16349 >muh "biological superiority" is a retarded and unrealistic excuse for White supremacy. This implies that a gay or any other degenerate Aryan can exist because he is simply superior and things will go his way just ,because he is biologically stronger and smarter The implication doesn't follow. There is variation, not all Aryans are created equal. You even using the term "degenerate" undermines your point, because degeneration implies that someone or something has become denatured, degraded, deteriorated, weakened, etc. These are certain not qualities of superior beings, or anything that would be "biologically stronger". >Caring more for skin Funny that you imply I'm thinking like a shitlib when you strawman the idea of race as something first and foremost biological as caring only for "skin". Your abstracting one aspect away from what is a single unit
>>16358 spastic detected. also, German has three definite articles, not just one.
>The Church was always a favourite topic. Hitler had no affiliation. He considered the Christian religion to be a hypocritical trap which had outlived its time. His religion was the Law of Nature. >“We are a limb of Creation and children of Nature and the same laws apply to us as they do to all living beings. In Nature, the law of the jungle has been in force from the beginning. All those unsuitable to live, and the weak, are trampled underfoot. Man, and above all the Church, have made it precisely their goal to keep alive by artificial means the weak, those unfit for life and the invalids.”
>>16360 Except they really wasn't I already gave explains you faggots never listen other than smell your own farts, due to your mental retardation and mutt logic. I gave you several explanations on why old Europeans didn't use polygamy, which usually contributes to violence, interbreeding or even fucking up the gene pool. You morons only referred to Vedic scripts or use the aristocratic and priest's polygamy as an example to excuse it, while retards are trying to generally justify it as a whole. Not the Vedics civilizations/tribes limited how many women you can fuck. You retards really don't deserve polygamy when you have the brains of cum. Don't call muh btfod if your argument as less jack shit as your IRL life. >>16362 >Imagine just cying while not even contributing to the board. The entire point of /fascist/ boards is discuss and argue our viewpoints and ideas you fucking mongoliod. Imagine being so retarded and a bitch that you don't want hear anything opposing your stupid ideals. You post pic related, but this entire board thinks like a bunch of trannies with the circle-jerking and refusing to argue. What's the point of having a board if you can't make disagreements for the sake of fascism and the White race? You might as well open up a discord and start pinkpilling children, because that's honestly more suited for the low niggers on this board and the way it acts.
>>16481 You were probably the guy who posted some shit from Africa where a man needed like three hundred cattle to get any pussy at all, turning large amounts of men into incels. It literally didn't even apply to what people were discussing. You're so buttmad it's not even funny.
Open file (24.30 KB 480x490 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (24.70 KB 497x473 ClipboardImage.png)
I have been recently thinking that it might be a good idea to try to write up a lot of this in a catechism-like format, with special emphasis on National Socialism. Pic related is what I've worked up in the last hour or so. It's obviously based on how I understand National Socialism, but I think I'm not too idiosyncratic here. Not sure how far I'll go with it.
Found this in some FBI file
>>16610 Some OC based off the previous post. I might try to make a better version later. Am I missing anything major?
Open file (755.11 KB 154x82 gits.gif)
>>16481 >The entire point of /fascist/ boards is discuss and argue our viewpoints and ideas you fucking mongoliod. Imagine being so retarded and a bitch that you don't want hear anything opposing your stupid ideals. You post pic related, but this entire board thinks like a bunch of trannies with the circle-jerking and refusing to argue. What's the point of having a board if you can't make disagreements for the sake of fascism and the White race? You might as well open up a discord and start pinkpilling children, because that's honestly more suited for the low niggers on this board and the way it acts. Mate I'm all for arguing but you come off as a cunt, settle down >>16744 No it's a bit blocky and simple but decent, If this is a propaganda image just know that normies will have heavy brainwashing implications come up in their heads when it comes to "eliminating hereditary defects and weaknesses" so I suggest you edit that. Another thing is you forgot to remove some remaining text completely from line 1, also image and text looks compressed, if you are using paint do yourself the favor and install GIMP it's powerful and easy to use once you get a feel for the tools.
>>16749 Thanks for the advice, I spotted a few others problem as well that I will have to tackle here in a minute. The big problem is that the pic is so small too. It makes the text look like something out of Minecraft. I'll have to stop being lazy and recreate the image instead of repurposing images I find on the Internet.
Alright, here is version 2.0. The text looks much better, I think. I added a background. It's very subtle but I thought it added a bit of life to what was otherwise just rectangles, squares and colors. Regarding the third section, I didn't wholly eliminate the one part the other anon pointed out, "eliminating hereditary defects and weaknesses", but instead I softened it a bit to read "eliminating hereditary diseases". It implies the same thing, but is much more subtle than talk of "defects" and "weaknesses".
Imagine being an individualist and not realizing your place in the nested hierarchies of the universe.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports)

no cookies?