/lit/ - Literature

>>10069241
The Greeks

He has a video with book recs. Generation identitaire etc.
/thread

>>10069241
Tons of shitty fantasy novels. And /fit/ sticky.

>>10069241
homoerotic fiction

Read Total Recall by Annie.
Stop after he finishes talking about conan the barbarian shoot though.

The worst thing about thegoldenone is his taste in books. It truly bothers me.

Is there any way to watch his videos without giving him clicks? Dude is funny as fuck but I don't want to sponsor a nazi.

>>10069328
isn't he basically just a shameless genre-shit consumer?

>>10069342
yeah just look behind him in each video. All fantasy garbage. He occasionally talks about evola and guillaume faye, but like, that's kind of shit too. Like do you even know what you are saving (Western culture)?

>>10069340
use u-block origin? i guess he still gets views but he will only get money when people see the ads

anyway most of youtube has been demonetized so you probably won't even get ads without u-block origin

>>10069344
>He occasionally talks about evola and guillaume faye
probably hasn't read them, some of his better read friends like Survive The Jive must have told him about it

>>10069351
He took a picture of himself reading The Path of Cinnabar on his instagram, which is funny since Evola heavily criticizes nationalism in it and he's Mr "Swedeeeish Nashyonalism"

>>10069340

>hahaha he's really funny! I like watching his videos haha!
>haha I don't want to support him bc of a belief he has!

Nice schizophrenia.

>>10069374
>I like his humour but I don't want to support his political views
>shizophrenia

>>10069396

In a way, yeah, especially considering pretty much every one of his videos is about nationalism, so if you find that to be a bad thing, I don't get how you could withstand his videos.

>>10069241
This guy is hilarious. I sometimes watch his videos because his accent cracks me up.

>>10069374
Just because an idea is harmful or stupid doesn't mean the presentation of it can't be funny. It's how Mr Cheeto got into the white house, just unlike Trumps "it sounds like a parody but is actually serious" vibes, The Golden One got this charismatic and naive innocence about him, which creates such a great comedic effect given the messages. Kinda like watching a cartoon with explicit adult themes.

Now actively supporting something like that which probably isn't a parody, is quite a dilemma. And uBlock doesn't block all ads either way (and the ones you skip create more money)

>>10069401
Dunno, watching him play Skyrim and pretend the people he's killing are leftists is pretty hilarious in a sad-cringe sort of way.

>>10069427
yes, the golden one and varg have something innocent about them... then it turns out they unironically believe the craziest shit

>>10069401
Most people find violence a bad thing too and yet there is a lot humour focused on over the top violence. Humour is all about unexpected twists and often about breaking taboos and talking about otherwise not socially acceptable subjects. The only difference with the guy is that it's not advertised as humour. But neither is Twilight or 50 Shades and both work pretty well if you watch them through the lens of comedy.

>>10069432
kekekek pls link

>>10069436
>>10069432
>>10069427

I've only watched a few of his videos, but isn't his basic message: "Sweden should stay for the Swedish. Europe should stay for the Europeans"?

How is this something bad in any way?

>>10069447
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eve0VlL1lZw
He has a whole series of these.

>>10069455
that's ok, i have no love for globalism, but he unironically praises hitler

>>10069462

So? Hitler's vision for Europe would have been a paradise compared to what it looks like now, unless you were Russian at least and in the way of lebensraum.

>>10069462
And? He is a nice guy who just disagrees about a long dead dictator. He is not some skinhead stereotype who wants to gas people.

>>10069455
Which begs the question: "What happens with people who disagree, and especially non Swedish/European people who disagree?"
Nazism often starts with an innocent idea or two before going batshit.

>>10069477
Hitler didn't want to gas anyone at start either.

>>10069474
>Hitler's vision for Europe would have been a paradise compared to what it looks like now

>>10069478

There's no way you'll avoid conflict in this world. If you could choose between Europeans and European civilization peacefully disappearing in a tide of globalist culture/brown race, or Europeans reclaiming their own futures but also at the cost of much blood, which would you choose?

>>10069492
>the only alternative to mass migration is national socialism
This is why /pol/ should stay on /pol/.

>>10069474
Or a religious minority.
Or disagreed with the state.
Or participated in something the state deemed deviant or degenerate.
Or happened to have a Jewish ancestor in there somewhere.
Or said something the Gestapo didn't like.
Or disagreed with the state.
Or got drafted and froze to death on the Russian frontier.
Or decided that genociding literally everyone who isn't a member of the Reich was a bad idea.
Or disagreed with the state.
Or hung your portrait of Hitler crooked and upset the Gestapo members surveilling your home.
Or ended up on the wrong end of one of the many internal power struggles that tend to plague totalitarian governments.
Or ended up on the wrong end of a new racial law designed to target new ethnic minorities now that the Jews are gone.
Or spoke positively of someone who previously ended up on the wrong end of an internal power struggle.
Or disagreed with the state.
Or...

You get the point.

>>10069492
>There's no way you'll avoid conflict in this world.
There was non relevant one in Western Europe for almost a century now, which is historically pretty rare.

As for the option, the peaceful one obviously. Not like it's a question in reality either way but if you prefer genocide as a solution, perhaps you should rethink a thing or two, and trying to interact with people.

>>10069492
>a tide of globalist culture/brown race
>Europeans reclaiming their own futures
Jesus are you retarded. Noone is forcing you to follow a certain cultural movement. The nazis did.
Noone is forcing you to race mix or who to marry or be friends with.
>reclaiming their own futures
They do. The majority of european people vote for this type of politic. Your only complaint is that people disagree with you. And here we are at the heart of why all these ideologies turn shit. As >>10069478 put it.

>>10069478
Restrict immigration so they won't be here in the first place, stir up nationalist pride to curtail the self-hatred of europeans.
And unironically repeal Women's voting rights because that's were this spawned, even center right people who have studied the topic and don't want to break taboos have to hint at it

>>10069509
Yeah...arguments from the far right stop making much sense if you don't have a crippling terror of brown people.

>>10069506
Or an annoying hedonist faggot

>>10069514
>And unironically repeal Women's voting rights
Uhh, oh. You just disagreed with the nazis. Enjoy your stay in a concentration camp.

>>10069514
>everybody who disagrees with me needs to lose their rights
>stop calling me fascist

>>10069500

That's a very poor way to answer the question, and I was not necessarily implying that National Socialism, or something like it, is the only alternative. Still, something authoritative is I believe the only way to move out of this, and I'd say you're naive if you think it can be peacefully done. So, which would you prefer? Globalism or some conflict?

>>10069506

Lots of this was exacerbated by the war, where all sides became unceasingly nasty, and a lot of what you wrote out is hyperbole in general. Should I list out the Allied crimes, the crimes of Bolshevism, or how about the crimes of English and American capitalism and imperialism? Ignoring communism completely, I'd argue America alone has done more harm to this world than even if Germany did all its purported to have done were true.

>>10069530
>Should I list out the Allied crimes, the crimes of Bolshevism, or how about the crimes of English and American capitalism and imperialism?
yes, but only the bolsheviks and the nazis needed slave labor to fuel their society

>>10069530
>or some conflict
>some conflict
>You know that minor disagreement where we will murder 10s of millions of people who were born and raised here because they don't have white skin. And also everyone who disagrees with us.
Yeah I'll pick the free society with rule of law

>>10069509

No one said anything about genocide, just bloodshed. Yes, I would much prefer it (bloodshed) over a globalized world, which offers little or no more room for evolution, collectively or individually. You're like the bleeding hearts that save Africa or India, and in return for your thinking you are doing good, you create conditions of endless slums and insufferable conditions.

>>10069543
So which room for evolution do you not have that you'd have under national socialism?

>>10069241
Is that shield just very tiny or is he a big guy?

>>10069530
>to move out of this
"This" being only of an issue for you.

>I'd argue America alone has done more harm to this world than even if Germany did all its purported to have done were true.
I won't necessary disagree but Germany did a lot good by showing how insane the whole idea is, which helped with progress. Besides, US of A helped to restore Germany, parts of Europe and Japan, which improved lives for millions of people. Nazis only caused damage to society.

>>10069536
It's not like the "die or work" of capitalism in Murica is any that different.

>>10069543
>your thinking you are doing good, you create conditions of endless slums and insufferable conditions.
Globalism isn't causing these issues. Unregulated, exploitative globalism does.

>>10069548
Yeah...dictatorships don't tend to have much room for social chance and evolution other than the inevitable implosion of the system once people get sick enough of the wanton corruption and brutality that are endemic in such systems.

And something tells me that that would be plenty bloody as well.

>>10069527
Nobody asked you to stop calling other people fascists. Being called a fascist is really only offensive to limp-wristed, daddy issues faggots who take pride in their submissive bitch nature

>>10069564
>daddy issues faggots who take pride in their submissive bitch nature
Sounds like your average fascist.

>>10069530
You know a system is indefensible when you have to engage in blatant whataboutism.

Also, kinda funny that you guys always think you'll be the ones loading up the train-cars and not the other way around. In dictatorships you aren't an individual. You don't have rights, no matter how good at goose stepping you are. You're willingly reducing yourself to a cog in a machine, to be replaced when it's convenient. Why would you do that to yourself?

>>10069569
>violently asserting your will on others is an act of submission

>>10069564
>do not criticise the government
>do not hold ideologies beyond the governments
>do not form clubs or organisations who oppose the government
>you are nothing your people is everything
>do not hold philosophies except those by the government
>practice religion or the lack thereof only in accordance with the government
>the party elite is above the law
>if you're born outside the accepted group die
>only consume the art the government likes
>get drafted into a lost war to pity the führer's pride and get your children shot for deserting
>Being called a fascist is really only offensive to limp-wristed, daddy issues faggots who take pride in their submissive bitch nature
Well you don't sound overcompensating at all

>>10069585
Only your leaders do it. Unless you happen to lick enough ass to get promoted high enough, and managed not to get disposed, you're just going to be a little faggot following orders from above, and slapped like a bitch (in base case scenario) if you don't.

Fascist sound like right libertarian kiddies, who think they'll be millionaires once ze evul state stops ze evul regulations.

>>10069523
There's a Hitler speech where he mocks the idea of women voting so I don't know where you got that but based on my single anecdote I'll have to disagree

>>10069542

I really dislike black and white thinkers. You all are so emotional in your rhetoric - it's not always one extreme or the other. No one said anything about killing 10s of millions of nonwhites or those who don't agree with you. Are you nonwhite and having a reaction or something to a white man talking about not wanting his race to go extinct or become powerless?

I've not even said if I'd call myself a National Socialist or not, or what I think about the ideology in general, other than I believe it would have been a better Europe than what it is at present. You realize much of the world had a great respect for NS Germany before the war?

>>10069548

Collectively on the speciation (race) level for one, as miscegenation would not be pushed. And eugenics works, even though NatSoc Germany eugenics was actually pretty tame compared to what was being practiced in America. I think a world of quality over quantity is in great need, otherwise humans breed way too much with all this modern medicine at our disposal and abuse the planet. As for the individual, they were trying to form a society in which the individual could excel through their own merit and not be limited by their class. Hitler mentions multiple times how all the class barriers stop the individual genius from reaching his true potential. NS is a collectivist ideology insofar as the individual growth does not hurt the whole. On paper, it's a brilliant philosophy, but we don't know how it would really have turned out in the long run.

>>10069555

>Nazis only caused damage to society

I think pre-war Germany greatly disagrees with you, as well as leading figures across Europe at the time and a number of third world countries that were taking inspiration from them and forming new trade agreements.

>>10069588
The central principle of fascism is that your government represents your will. You aren't submitting to the government, you are extrapolating your assertive potential by joining with others (as in a fasces)

Living under a fascist government is only an act of submission if you're a socially toxic individual.

>>10069340
this https://hooktube.com

>>10069594
Constitutional Monarchy is the answer. That way your country is guided by god and aristocratic representatives, not the idiotic masses

>>10069573

>You're willingly reducing yourself to a cog in the machine.

I'd say that's the case for our present-day societies, and that you've never really read fascist thought in detail if that's what you think it's all about. You copy the same hollywood rhetoric. Read Corneliu Zelea Codreanu's For my Legionaries, Giovanni Gentile, and Hitler's Table Talks if you want to get a good idea of what it was really about.

>>10069599

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRlfbUr852o

It's this one. He thought it degraded them to be in politics.

>>10069599
I wouldn't be surprised, obviously nazis aren't found of emancipation of women, but at the same time they were a crucial part of their voter base. Check their propaganda.

>>10069602
>pre-war Germany
A temporary state in preparation for war, that wouldn't work without the war and that lasted couple years before miserably collapsing. Germany before WW1 and after WW2 did just fine without nazis.

>>10069602
>I've not even said if I'd call myself a National Socialist or not, or what I think about the ideology in general

You're not fooling anyone Fritz.

>>10069602
>Are you nonwhite
The only response /pol/ has. Why not call me a libtard kike shill numale cuck while you're at it?
>You all are so emotional in your rhetoric
I mocked you downplaying ethnic cleansing to little conflict. Since the other /pol/ tard is bragging about imposing his will on others and you embrace bloodshed as long as it means your worldview trumps the democratic results and your historic role model did the same I'd say it's a fairly rational assumption.

>in which the individual could excel through their own merit and not be limited by their class
Yeah fuck today's class system. It is noted that you didn't mention any individual freedom.

As for eugenics you want to revoke the right to choose your partner freely by the instincts for spouse selection nature gave you and the right to practice eugenics privately to whatever degree you like to have an ideologically driven form of it that forbids key aspects of eugenics such as diversifying the gene pool or mixing with high intelligence outsiders.
>individual growth does not hurt the whole
By the interpretation of the party.
In all of that your only complaint is that people disagree with you. There's more whites today than at Hitler's time. Get a white gf and make all the eugenic babies you want.

>it's a brilliant philosophy
It's really not.

>but we don't know how it would really have turned out in the long run.
We do know enough.

>>10069616
>Living under a fascist government is only an act of submission if you're a socially toxic individual
You might wanna look up what groups were all persecuted by the Nazis. If your definition of socially toxic individual means all nonfascists then no thanks.

>>10069628
> that's the case for our present-day societies
You don't have to follow the party line and live in fear about getting murdered for arbitrary reasons. Hell, you're even free to bitch about the state of things and organise with people who think like you. You're free to live your life in any way you want as long it doesn't harm others.

>>10069650
Not like even being a facist would save one from submission. The nazi infighting would make the left in Russia look peaceful and reasoned.

>all we want to do is kill everybody who disagrees with us and force everybody to form their entire lives aound our fascist ideals
>why do these beta leftists prefer to live in a democracy with rule of law rather than my utopia
Yeah we need stricter moderation on /lit/. This /pol/ shit is getting out of hand.

>>10069628
Frankly, I'm uninterested in reading fascism apologetics when the real world consequences of the system are out there for anyone to look at. And they're bad. Universally, unequivocally bad.

I'd like to invite you to think upon what would happen to you if you were to speak out against the government of your ideal system. To call for their removal or say they're a bunch of corrupt pigs. What would happen to you if you were to do that under a fascist government as opposed to a democratic one?

I don't know about you, but it gives me a sense of comfort to know that I'm not likely to be imprisoned or murdered for speaking out against my elected officials. There's a real debate to be had over just how much impact any one person can have over a democratic system, but at least I won't be thrown into a concentration camp for thumbing my nose at the President.

>>10069661
>All we want to do is kill anyone who disagrees with us
>He thinks generation identity is that radical
All they want to do is stop immigration into Europe and in the West in general , and deport people who aren't of their heritage. Who said anything about genocide?
>Anyone who is even slightly reactionary wants to genocide the whole world
Anon plz

Friendly reminders to nazis what nazis tend to do with other nazis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

>those legs

This is not how I pictured Odysseus, lads

>>10069674
>Authoritarianism is bad because fascism is objectively bad
>Objectively bad
Sure thing. Say what did democracies do to prevent the rise of communism? Oh yeah.
Nothing

>>10069675
>deporting people who are fleeing from wars we supported back to war zones
Yeah, they'll be fine.

>>10069241
that's cultural appropriation

>>10069675
The people who are advocating national socialism and bloodshed in this thread for all nonfascists and violent deportation of all born outside their defined group.

>Anyone who is even slightly reactionary wants to genocide the whole world
I didn't say that. But the people itt actually argued for that so nice going shooting yourself in the foot with your strawman. I guess that's your way to agree with me

>>10069681
That was the best part of the Nazis, when communists tried to infiltrate and disrupt their meetings they actually did something besides hide behind the police

Sure
>Muh genocide
But at least they did something besides sit their and be conquered through internal self destruction caused by leftist agitators

>>10069684
With every post /pol/ makes outside of /pol/ they embarrass themselves

>>10069657
> Hell, you're even free to bitch about the state of things and organise with people who think like you
This is really only true for leftists, who are awarded the privilege of expression and organization by their liberal masters in exchange for acting as their brownshirts. Leftists disrupt the formation and preservation of distinct cultures and communities, and liberals swoop in to cater to individual consumer needs

However, if you dare to express opposition to the multicultural shopping mall of the future, or if you share scientific observations about the reality of human difference, suddenly your 'freedom to bitch and organize' is nowhere to be found

>>10069687
>wars we supported back to war zones
>Because all the migrants are from Syria
So all those fags from Turkey, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Pakistan, Eritrea, and such can all go back? Sounds good to me

Hey remember when they weren't called migrants but refugees? I do! We should send them back then make sure that the government who are starting the wars then trying to flood labor markets with cheap labor to drive down wages aren't in power.

>>10069644

I don't speak that way, and don't like going on /pol/. There's too many people, morons, and shill operations. The reason I asked if you were nonwhite was to better understand your psychology.

You put so many words in my mouth, and I wrote out a long response to you, but it's not worth it. We will never see eye to eye if you think democracy is a good system, unlimited free choice is a good thing, or if you think multiculturalism will propel us to the stars.

>>10069657

>You're free to live your life as long as it doesn't harm others

That is not the case for countries with hate speech and holocaust denial laws. It will probably not be the case for America much longer either (10-15 years), if I'm any judge.

>>10069674

You are already jailed or fined if you criticize jewish power in many European countries, charged with hate speech in Canada, Australia, and England, and just 2 weeks ago in America they proposed a bill to make it ILLEGAL to boycott Israeli goods. We are already moving in the direction you fear. I'd much rather have a government that was honest about itself.

As for what you're saying about the fascist times, I say desperate times call for desperate measures. Germany was in such a rut in the Wiemar period they needed that dictatorship and single vision of will to get out of it. It wasn't meant to stay like that forever. The question is would it have? We will never know. There were Ceasars of times past that were given absolute rule for times of need, and then successfully relinquished their power when the deed was done, and then also those that would not and caused lots of trouble.

>>10069711
>However, if you dare to express opposition to the multicultural shopping mall of the future, or if you share scientific observations about the reality of human difference, suddenly your 'freedom to bitch and organize' is nowhere to be found
Yeah right... except that organisations that literally unironically call themselves right wing death squads are allowed and half of twitter is racist and encouraging violence against the left

>>10069687
>fleeing from wars
*looking for handouts
>we supported
Speak for yourself

>>10069675
how far are you willing to go with deporting people who aren't natives? would an english person with a french surname be deported to france?

>>10069684
Levels of whataboutism this intense shouldn't be possible. Yet here we are.

And given that we live in a world with...lemme check real quick...a whopping five communist nations left in it (and China is pretty debatable given that it seems to slowly be evolving into command capitalism) I'd say that communism as an ideology has been beaten down pretty good. By democracies funnily enough.

>>10069703
>The US did anything to prevent the rise of Communism
You couldn't even stop Vietnam from becoming communist, not only that but you illegally bombed Cambodia leading to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and, before all of that, let Alger Hiss (a Soviet Spy)
>In 1944, Hiss was named Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs, a policy-making entity devoted to planning for post-war international organizations, Hiss served as executive secretary[20] of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, which drew up plans for the future United Nations. In November 1944, Hull, who had led the United Nations project, retired as Secretary of State due to poor health and was succeeded by Undersecretary of State Edward Stettinius.

He even influenced policy on the Yalta Conference ffs

>>10069687
Why the fuck is it northern europes responsability to house Islamic migrants from Syria? Why?

>>10069727
Just deport non-essential non-europeans. So in other words, if you aren't part of the top 10% of productive migrants you're going back.

All of this a pipe dream, of course, but it sure beats all the ethnic conflict all this immigration is going to bring in the future.

>>10069734
It's part of their constitution. And the elected governments enact it with consent of the populace

>>10069719

Mate, that can equally be said of the left on the twittersphere. As for saying you think multiculturalism is a bad idea or that races are different won't get you in trouble in public, you can't honestly be this disingenuous can you? Those are some of the most taboo things you could possibly say. I myself said I thought multiculturalism was actually the end of all diversity in the long run in a study group, and was practically tarred and feathered.

>>10069752
He sounds pretty far gone off the leftist deep end, I wouldn't engage him

>>10069711
Nigga, even the literal nazis had right to protest in Murica. If you're a bit more subtle with it like "I dun want dem immigrants" you're free to protest in every other Western country too. And vote for anti immigrant parties.

>>10069716
>That is not the case for countries with hate speech and holocaust denial laws.
Alright, you're not free to say couple things but it's still no where similar to the oppression you'd get in fascist states, where saying ANYTHING someone with authority disagrees with, would have massive consequences.

>>10069687
>we
typical sheep

>>10069752
>that can equally be said of the left on the twittersphere
Correct. YOU claimed only the left can do it.

>As for saying you think multiculturalism is a bad idea or that races are different won't get you in trouble in public, you can't honestly be this disingenuous can you?
It is objectively allowed and anti immigration parties poll around 20%. Who of us is disingenious?

>I myself said I thought multiculturalism was actually the end of all diversity in the long run in a study group, and was practically tarred and feathered.
Laws don't matter. Facts don't matter. Anon felt oppressed by people hate-disagreeing with him. Compared to the libertarian paradise the natsocs itt propose truely a university study group looking at a person weird is a nightmare.

>>10069722
>>10069769
Your country did it, whether you personally agreed with it or not is irrelevant when we talk about international problems.

>>10069765
I voted AfD yesterday. Fucking /pol/tards.

>>10069752
>Those are some of the most taboo things you could possibly say.
It's honestly like some sort of egalitarian religion. Anyone who questions the long term legitimacy of their values is branded a heretic and shunned rather than reasoned with. Whats worse is that these liberal types are often sheltered and believe in this ridiculous stereotypes of other people and cultures
>Oh look at these brave brown people trying to come here to fight white supremacy
>They're so exotic and exciting , we should just allow them all to come here to integrate into our culture!
Which assumes that every kind of immigrant populations is going to suddenly forsake all of their heritage, history, culture, etc once they come here and see the "superior" way to live. Then they will all magically get along with each other.

>>10069750
What makes me laugh about the far-right is that most of the ones who are the most upset about the refugee crisis tend to be Americans who have no connection to Europe beyond an intense terror of brown people.

Truth is, most of the Europeans know that the refugee crisis is just that: another crisis to be overcome. For instance, the German election ought to be a pretty good referendum on the effects on the refugee crisis and the top two parties are both pro-refugee and got something like 55% of the vote.

Far-right ideas simply aren't popular.

>>10069768

I think your "massive consequences" are overblown, but anyhow, I disagree again. It's choose your poisons, anon. You can disagree with political correctness in liberal democracies (which is destroying your culture, race, and country), and suffer the consequences of potentially losing your job, your friends, family, and going to jail if you breach certain topics; or you could have been severely warned in an official capacity about what your activities of criticism against the state would lead to if it wasn't all that disruptive, or jailed or put in a work camp if bad.

BOTH are states imposing their will on the people. The former is just more open and honest about it; the latter has crafted a culture of self-policing censorship, brainwashing, and some legislation to keep people in line.

>>10069728
>Communism fell eventually, it just killed millions of people and collapsed on it's on while we did nothing
Yeah , and if someone hasn't done something they would've conquered all of Europe and killed millions more.

Your welcome

>>10069241
He made a few videos recommending his favorite shitty fantasy books, check them out.

>>10069792
>Everyone who disagrees with me is an American: a child's guide to arguments
Everytime.

>>10069815
>most
>tend
I like how you just made up your own words since he didn't use any you could criticise

>>10069792
Not only that, but a blatant ad populum. Everytime

>>10069803

Whoops, I got that former and latter wrong: liberal democracies would be the self-policing censorships with some laws to support them, and the fascist states would be the ones more honest about their approach to dissidents.

>>10069818
I like how you're retreating into semantics when the essential core of the argument is the same regardless

>>10069822
>Far-right ideas simply aren't popular
>blatant ad populum
/pol/ posters everyone

>>10069808
That's...uh...that's some logic there.

>Nazis go to war with the USSR
>Lose badly
>The USSR is left with a much improved position in Eastern Europe and the largest army on the continent
>Only possible opposition left is the Western Allies...who then proceed to dismantle the communist world and thoroughly discredit communism as an ideology

Um. Thanks Nazis. You sure did beat them commies good.

>>10069829
What he said is objectively true based on the election results. YOU argued semantics. And mocked him for saying far right wing positions aren't popular as "blatant ad populum". You can't even think about what others write.

I think we also have to admit at some point that we will never get along, and good old fashion fighting is the only way these differences will be settled.

>>10069832
>Says pro refugee sentiments are the most popular while claiming that far-right sentiments are simply due to a knee jerk fear of change and different skin color
>Claims it isn't an appeal to majority sentiment justifying the opinion of Europeans
Liberals everyone

>>10069822
I noticed this same tendency when Le Pen lost her election in France. Far right people love democracy up until the point they inevitably lose. Then they show their true colors and start pining for their ideal system, where only people they agree with could vote.

>>10069803
>I think your "massive consequences" are overblown
It's not something to think, just read up about how disagreements went in fascist states. As a more modern examples of authoritarian regimes, we can look at China.

>your friends, family
Why should people be forced to tolerate your views if they disagree completely with them? How many of your friends are fat positive "kill all men" feminists? Would you want to be friends with one?

>going to jail if you breach certain topics
Pretty standard outcome in fascist states, that takes quite the effort in the West. In a fascist state you'd get at least a slap on the wrist for participating in this thread, and it's not like anonymity online would've been tolerated.

>BOTH are states imposing their will on the people.
That's how civilisation works in the end, there can't be absolute freedom. Censorship, brainwashing and legislations are official policies in fascist states either way.

>>10069833
>Lose badly
See
>>10069732
This isn't counting the fascists in Spain either. All of those deaths were due to.Germans on the eastern front, and 90% of their forces were on the eastern front.

Y'all democracy bitches did nothing

>>10069844

I'd choose fascism over liberal-capitalistic-multicultural democracies any day.

>>10069841
>Far right people love democracy
>Reactionaries are pro-direct democracy
>Le Pen is far right
Far right advocate for an aristocratic form of democracy , even that is pretty liberal.

>>10069852
It's always amazing how people who are afraid of scary foreigners are supposedly cool with a system they never had the unfortune to experience.

Hey, maybe VR shit will advance far enough to simulate that stuff in the near future if historical sources aren't enough to convince you that it's a seriously bad idea.

>>10069857
But if I wore a SS uniform and all the blacks would get deported I'd finally lose my virginity

>>10069857
It's always amazing that people who never have to deal with foreigners en mass think their opinions on the matter are at all accurate , when most of them never get to know migrants and live in posh bourgie neighborhoods where they only get to see the top outlier of the migrants where they then apply an Apex fallacy to the group as a whole because it's literally their only experience with them

>>10069864
Whites in cities with foreigners are overwhelmingly more liberal on immigration and mainly rural people who have less experience with them oppose it. But nice way shooting yourself in the foot

>>10069864
>It's always amazing that people who never have to deal with foreigners en mass think their opinions on the matter are at all accurate
Remember how the cities with tons of foreigners voted in US, UK, French and German elections?

>>10069845
Still doesn't change the fact the Soviets ended up prevailing in that great big 'clash of civilizations' Hitler was pining for. Fascism as an ideology wasn't gonna win that one, even had the Western Allies sat back, since they sure as shit weren't gonna actively help Hitler out. Not when he'd proven himself to be a vicious expansionist with aims to get back at the winners of the Great War.

So, say it with me: Nazi Germany was the best thing that ever happened to the Soviet Union. Prior to 1941 they got a pal who gave them loads of cash for oil and a taste of Poland, and from 1941-45 they were kindly gifted most of Eastern Europe, Manchuria and the Korean peninsula by global fascism and their inability to listen to the lessons of literally anyone who's ever tried to invade Russia from the west.

>>10069857

I've lived in India for over 5 years and look like a Hitler Youth poster child. I am not scared of foreigners. I actually appreciate nature's diversity. When I am with people of a different race, I judge them on an individual basis - same if they are white. I actually have more contempt for whites than any race in the world, because they embody weakness, self-denial, unbelievable naivety, and in the case of liberals, overwhelming arrogance in thinking their ideas are better than nature itself. When I judge things on the macro level, then group differences must be taken into account.

I simply think the modern world left unchecked is the end of evolution on this planet, a kind of post-history hell hole of increasing fascination with technology, losing the humanity of even being able to communicate with one another, love one another, and an increasing disparity between the masses and the elites lording over them in some type of Brazil/India quasi slum situation. And desperate times call for desperate measures, thus some form of authoritative power must take hold to reverse these trends if they are to be reversed (or more likely, it will collapse on its own).

>>10069870
>Whites in cities with foreigners are overwhelmingly more liberal on immigration
Because they live in white neighborhoods away from the diversity, as populations tend to cluster around ethnic, religious, and language groups which is true in every city that is "multicultural". This also means that people who live in cities live in their own little social bubbles that they rarely ever leave :D
>Meanwhile rural people with no experience
>No experience
You realize they are called *migrants* for a reason, right? As in they *migrate* around the countryside until they can find a place to make a tent city.

>>10069878
>Still doesn't change the fact the Soviets ended up prevailing in that great big 'clash of civilizations' Hitler was pining for
They had a massive famine after the war was over
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946–47
And lost a 20 million in their population corrected with birthday during the war , then only got half of Europe when their productive capacities could've conquered all of Europe

What are you talking about with "muh Great War revenge fantasy" as well. That is such a huge historical meme, I can't even

>>10069881
>Because they live in white neighborhoods away from the diversity
Nope. Also the ones that live in majority migration neighborhoods.

>This also means that people who live in cities live in their own little social bubbles that they rarely ever leave :D
Yeah. HAHA. Those world open urban morons living in their bubbles have no idea about living around foreigners. Rurals from low migration areas have. Words mean nothing. Facts are just liberal propaganda.

I wrote less. You specifically had to delete my word and write "no" in to then complain about me saying no experience. We're reaching levels of dishonesty never seen before.

>>10069880
What you talk about would go beyond fascism though but some kind of muh philosopher kings, which is less likely to work than a communist utopia.

>>10069355

Of course. Most alt righters don't bother reading Evola or any actual traditionalist. They probably start the first few chapters, put it aside, because it's "a bit heavy" and will read it later, and of course don't.

>>10069900
>Nope
Yep :D I see you are becoming even more anti-dialogical
>People in the countryside are all just brainwashed lumpenprols who have never met migrants in their life and who think everything they believe is biblical law
>Because there is no partisanship among liberals ever
Or maybe you should listen to what people in the countryside who have to deal with migratory people say about the folks who travel through their towns?

>>10069912
>Calls nationalism too liberal
>Look at this alt righter not understanding Evola

>>10069857

What do you all that think like this think the future holds? The modern world doesn't believe in a single thing. It doesn't believe in race (so this expands into nationalism, collective history and future). It doesn't believe in sexes being different (so this expands into gender roles, relationships between man and woman, woman and child, et cetera).

It basically only believes in "equality," in "individual freedom." So that basically means nothing. You have no foundations on which to premise your system but an abstraction, so what can you hope to achieve?

>>10069903

Well, I'm quite into the likes of Evola, so think something like that is the ideal. At this stage though, there's too many people and the whole situation is so sticky that I don't think anything other than a cataclysmic event like WW2 will set this world back on a more normative path.

>>10069895
I'm honestly not sure what kind of point you're making. The Nazis got blown out, but it's alright because their glorious sacrifice saved the rest of Europe...?

You realize that the events of the Eastern Front played a big role in making the Soviet Union as confrontational and paranoid as it was throughout the Cold War. You can even see the legacy playing out today, with Putin doing his damnedest to secure Eastern Europe to act as a buffer against his Western European foes.

They'd still have been expansionist and terrible had Germany not gone fascist, I know that much, but I sincerely doubt the Soviets would have taken over all of Europe if it weren't for the Nazis, who I'm pretty amused that you're lionizing for LOSING a war.

>>10069914
I didn't say any of this. That white people from high migration areas support immigration more than rurals is statistic fact everyone knows and can in doubt look up themselves.

But of course you know that so now you just shit up the thread. Have a nice day. I'll leave you alone with the feeling that everytime you leave /pol/ you actually turn people further away from your goals by your poor argumentation and obnoxious attitude

>>10069929
>The Soviet Union wasn't paranoid until the invasion by the Germans
So all those purges and the Holodomor combined with the invasion of Poland during the Soviet-Polish war the just didn't happen then?

Are we also going to ignore the Comintern?
>Without fascism, communism would have conquered Europe
Yup

>>10069950
If misrepresenting my points makes you feel any better about your misshapen facsimile of an argument then feel free to keep doing it. I guess you fascists have to do something to break up all the fear and loneliness in your lives.

>>10069935
>High migration areas
I wonder if he even knows what this means. Like, how did people get to cities and where are all the different refugee hotspots around the country, like maybe the Calais Jungle going to shit, etc.

But no, he is just going to keep saying that because most migrants end up in cities that white people living in cities must interact with migrants on a daily basis in an interactive way, despite the fact that cities tend to cluster around ethnic, religious, and linguistic differences

>>10069957
>misrepresenting my points
Except I'm not, and you aren't actually arguing anything beyond saying that Germany lost the war therefore they did nothing to stop the spread of communism to western Europe.

Where you cite nothing like a brainlet and consider the fascists for the reason why communists were so successful in the first place, meanwhile they infiltrated most democratic governments. Okay

>>10069921
>What do you all that think like this think the future holds?
Even more progress and equality, which in turn means more progress and freedoms for the people to shape their lives and achieve greater highs. Also hopefully a world government so we can deal with big issues affecting us all more effective, though this will need at least half a century.

>nationalism
It's one of the biggest memes either way. Even if you believe in races, how can you believe in something so artificial as nations? A piece of paper decides whether nation X exists or not, and depending on the living conditions of the people, most generally don't mind that shit too much. "Italians" are probably the prime example.

>collective history
Going away from races actually allows us to view collective human history much better.

>future
As in?

>gender roles, relationships between man and woman, woman and child
All the stuff forces people into boxes instead of giving them the freedom to fulfil their potential, which is negative for society. Even if you believe that, say women are biologically predestined to do certain tasks, why is it okay to limit the chances of women who excel outside of that? It only limits our potential for growth. Remember how people thought female doctors are unnatural and bad? If we'd stick to that belief, there would be a massive shortage of doctors and the some niggas would've die.

I do agree with bits of your other post like "increasing fascination with technology, losing the humanity of even being able to communicate with one another, love one another, and an increasing disparity between the masses and the elites lording over them" but these are generally just symptoms of neo-liberalism, which will be easier to deal with once automation allows people to focus on other people instead of stressing them with shitty paid jobs to buy shit to fit in.

>I don't think anything other than a cataclysmic event like WW2 will set this world back on a more normative path.
Quite a common belief for people across many different political viewpoints, and probably just signifies how shitty humans are at thinking ahead and imagining the future. There is a reason apocalyptic myths are so popular through history and different cultures.

>>10069992

And I take it you don't think jewish power/political zionism is a serious threat?

>>10069992
>Nationalism is am abstraction not an observation
No , it's an observation of general political unity in a given area that allows for governance and cooperation to flourish. Borders are not arbitrary mr meme liberal, they serve a pragmatic purpose
>Global government is good
Oh yes because the UN and League of Nations are such prime examples of the effectiveness of adding bureaucracy on a global scale
>Getting rid of race would be beneficial
Except that's an abstraction, and race is a Biological fact?
>Why limit women from allowing a small outlier of their modal forms from flourishing at the cost of the collective majority
Because it's moral?

>>10070037
Threat would be a too big word for it, but it's a negative influence on politics and the holier than you bullshit plus accusal of anti-semitism when being critical against Israel is cancerous. You're not going to achieve much against it by turning the majority against you when you focus on the JOOCE instead of zionists though. If you realistically want to do something against it, you'd need to address the issue more precisely.

t. Jew who's against zionism and knows tons of zionists personally, who are pretty annoying and cult-y, but also tend to hate on other non-zionist Jews.

>>10069992

Will respond to this one later. I have some things I have to attend to, so cannot give it much concentration.

>>10070068
>Borders are not arbitrary
Tell that to most European countries, where borders moved all the time through history.
>UN and League of Nations
Are memes without any real power. A world government should be closer to United States, just with a bit more power over the nations.
>and race is a Biological fact
From 20th century. Science moved along, keep up.
>Because it's moral?
How about an actual reason. Can't mention science in one sentence and then base society on muh morals in another.

>>10070093
Well, it's /lit/, threads tend to live for a while. Should be interesting hearing a contrasting perspective from someone with actual life experience.

>>10070109
>Tell that to most European countries, where borders moved all the time through history.
For the pragmatic purposes I listed already :D
>The US
Oh yeah because their global campaign to fight terrorism, communism, and drugs have gone soooo well
>Keep up
No you, pic related. Biological determining and race naturalism are still major fields and beliefs held by many.
>How about an actual reason
I don't want society to become dysfunctional just so few broads can prove they're smarter than most guys, which also places to much weight on individualism and counters the health and well being of the community at large?

>>10070125
>purposes I listed already :D
Then you skipped quite a bit of history.
>Oh yeah because their global campaign to fight terrorism, communism, and drugs have gone soooo well
How are their idiotic policies of any relevance when discussing the governance model? Are you implying that US would act any different if there were no states?
>beliefs held by many
Got actual proof for this statement? This isn't /b/ or /pol/ where you support your point with a meme graph.
>which also places to much weight on individualism and counters the health and well being of the community at large
That's quite a claim, as the whole dysfunctional thing. Elaborate.

>>10070154
>Then you skipped quite a bit of history.
Not really, the nations are divided up based on political unity among a given area, and where there is a difference between conflicting states in disputed regions , the political unity turns into an upheaval and then conflict begins. It can be decided by war, bargaining, or plebescite.
>The incompetence by one global state does not mean all global states will face the same issues and come up with the same shit tier answers
>Because global unity is more realistic than national unity
Okay
>Got any evidence
It says the study from which the graph I posted got it's stats from in the top right corner
>Explain dysfunctional thing

I'd go into more details but I have to get going to work. Basically ad infinitum social changes don't equate to personal flourishing because the concept of the individual also entail the collective influence on the individual, and in order to flourish as an individual you need to maximise the social capital within a society, some of which is based on inherent and intergenerational truths which liberalism disagrees with.

All I can go into for now.

>>10069401

>watching a total retard sperg on about things he doesn't understand isn't funny when you disagree with him, rather it is schizophrenic

Holy fuck man.

>>10069522

>complaining about hedonism on 4chan

Go do your push-ups and eat your oats you fucking degenerate, and hate yourself while you do it too.

>>10070185
>nations are divided up based on political unity among a given area
How about the funny ass history of Alsace, there is even a bit about THE JEWS to make it more entertaining. Or you know, the entire mess UK is. Maybe the meme of Poland? Catalonia is probably a more recent example though.
>The incompetence by one global state does not mean all global states will face the same issues and come up with the same shit tier answers
Murican incompetence stands out, so it's a suboptimal example. How many other first world countries struggle with something as basic as health care or worker laws?
>Because global unity is more realistic than national unity
Entirely depends on the region and your means. If the Roman and British empire managed quasi world domination in a time when it was much harder with an approach that antagonised people who weren't part of them, doing that on a global level with the power of capitalism and Interwebz would be trivial in comparison. Though obviously it's something for the future, so calm your tits.
>It says the study from which the graph I posted
It doesn't. It has the name of one researcher. Post the actual study.
>Basically ad infinitum social changes don't equate to personal flourishing
Where did you get the ad infinitum idea? I'd be impossible with humans, we're pretty simple animals, nor it's asked by anyone. The social changes in recent history improved lives for more people in couple decades than centuries and millennia before did. Based on that alone, it seems pretty likely that we're going into the right direction.
>some of which is based on inherent and intergenerational truths
Another big claim without support.

Anyway, have fun at work. Arbeit macht frei, and all.

>>10069552
4 u

>>10069992
>Also hopefully a world government
Jesus christ dude could you possibly get more utopian?

>>10069992
I reflexively disagree with anyone who "doesn't believe" in nations. It doesn't matter how much you deconstruct these concepts the fact is when I travel outside my country and am wandering through Turkey I don't feel like an individual citizen of the world I feel like a fucking foreigner and I can hardly connect with everyone getting up for prayer calls and chatting in imperceptible dialects of a language I hardly know

>>10070280
>If the Roman and British empire managed quasi world domination in a time when it was
Not him, but I'm going to have to stop you there - the Roman republic was never a direct democracy, it was largely aristocratic and Britain was a Constitutional Monarchy and was still largely ruled by the monarchy and upper aristocracy until the mid 1850's , which is when it began to decline, really. Extending the rights of the plebians to a global scale would just lead to a oligarchy by elites powerful enough to manipulate the masses and force the will of the people into their favor via propoganda

>>10070068
rekt t b h famil

the portrait of dorian gray :^)

>>10069241
Is he larping for teh homogeddon?

>>10070371
The idea of nation states was utopian too at a point. Pretty much everything about our current lives would sound utopian to people couple centuries ago.

>>10070386
Isn't it more down to your inexperience and limited knowledge with the said languages and cultures? Plus, some regions obviously noticeable different from others. And of course your expectations.

As a slavshit from Eastern Europe who lives in Western Europe for couple decades now, I felt quite a home in most European cities and parts of Murica like NYC or Bay area, even when the language was completely foreign to me like in France or Bulgaria. (Specially Paris, I don't get the fucking memes about rude Parisians, whether inside the city or the outskirts, the people were a pure joy to be around)
Now, when leaving the cities for countryside and villages, that's were I felt out of place, being a cityfag and all that. When it comes to Turkey specifically, I only visited Istanbul, very briefly too and it didn't really stand out, I felt more foreign in a small ass Austrian village, despite them speaking almost the same language. Knowing tons of people from different regions, it's about the same. It feels way easier to get along with city folk, whether they are from Ho Chi Minh, Gothenburg or Lausanne, than from people who live in remote regions of my own.

>>10070390
>oligarchy by elites powerful enough to manipulate the masses and force the will of the people into their favor via propoganda
Hey, this sounds eery familiar! Just even with this worst case scenario, there would be less of initiative to rob certain regions and hide your wealth in others at such a scale as it happens now. War would be a lot trickier too on a big scale sans potential internal conflicts between elites. A world government would do more against immigration in the long term than any /pol/ak could dream for.

>>10069427
>Mr Cheeto
braindead neoliberal progressive detected

>>10070674
ZE LIBRULS MADE FUN OF MY DADDY, I AM LITERALLY SHAKING RIGHT NOW

>>10070696
i don't even like trump that much senpai
but if you actually had solid, grounded opinions about trump you would go beyond mere petty insults

>>10069536
>what is wage slavery
besides, that would make american capitalism all the more pernicious. at least nazi germany and the soviet union were overt about it.

>>10070700
How is a person who made their name with petty insults and bragging not the perfect target for the same? If he had any actual policies one could at least make fun of these, but who needs that shit in times of Twitter?

>>10069674
change "fascism" to "communism" in this post and you're imitating the porkies who think the practical effects of an ideology = the ideology itself - or maybe you are one?
challenge yourself for once

>>10070741
At least commies have the excuse that nothing beyond socialism was ever tried. With fascism there are multiple examples of it failing completely for everyone involved. If the ideology doesn't pass the reality test, it's more likely than not, pretty shit.

And while capitalism is shit too, at least it showed enough adaptability to survive for now.

>>10069485
t. Cuckold

Is the golden one natty?

>>10070755
>feudalism is shit but at least it has survived for 1000 years!

>>10070794
At the moment it probably was the most viable system given the state of the world.

>>10069992
t. doesn't know what a nation is
>a political group with a shared culture, language, ethnicity, or race (for example) that can potentially govern themselves
are the kurds or armenians not a nationality because they don't have their own states to operate within?

>>10070815
fascists would say the same, taking all of the social stratification post-ww1 into account

>>10070866
Try the more elegant dictionary definitions:

>a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own
Wait, not good, our /pol/ friends won't like that one.
>an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.
Ah, much better! Only now it's very rough and can apply to pretty arbitrary groups like a nations of all slavs, who aren't too eager for that shit.

Not that someone not knowing that Armenians actually do have a state is worth the reply.

>>10070938
Only that the more successful, non fascist countries and the pretty fast self-destruction of the most fascist ones doesn't do well to support their point of its viability. An idea that sounds stupid in theory and was proven to be stupid in practice every single time it was tried doesn't seem worth pursuing further. Even socialism got a better track record thanks to Cuba.

>>10070995
i actually agree with that first definition. i was just using ethnicity and race as examples because those could be unifying characteristics, even if they are argued to be arbitrary ones.
>Not that someone not knowing that Armenians actually do have a state is worth the reply.
mistake on my part, although it doesn't make my argument of the possibility of nations without states invalid.

>>10071025
Well, agreement with the first one supports the whole "nation as a meme" idea. Stick couple people on a piece of land and let them govern themselves for a while and you have a nation. Switch things up a bit, and you created another. (Balkans, Czechoslovakia or Syria/Iraq as the obvious examples) Or invade a region, let the minority declare a nation and kill everyone who disagrees (Who could that be?)
>i was just using ethnicity and race as examples because those could be unifying characteristics
Ethnicity, sure but only if the other factors aligned. Race meme, not so much. Before racism, there were more pressing factors like believing into the right sky wizard the right way or serving the right guy.
>although it doesn't make my argument of the possibility of nations without states invalid.
Sure, just it was pretty distracting.
Besides, that's rather an exception. Usually people just assimilated into other nations, with groups like Kurds or Jews or Roma the massive discrimination made it tricky, but in turn helped them to remain more unified. Would the Kurds exist as the distinct group they are now if the Turks didn't go their way out to shit on them?

>>10070521
Of course you felt at home in other countries. You were in big cities which try to accommodate foreigners like you. I never felt like I was in Germany when I visited Frankfurt but I certainly did when I visited the countryside and the same happened to any other country. And no, I'm not a big city person. I live in the countryside in fact.

You most likely didn't feel out of place in some foreigner country's countryside because you are a city person but rather because you experienced the country's culture in its purest form. Rarely any tourist visits the countryside of some country anyway so those remote areas reflect that country's reality.

And nation is a clearly defined term, a cultural-political community composed by people who share the same values, customs, traditions. While these can vary little between neighbouring countries like Sweden and Norway for example, you will notice a considerable difference between North and South Europe or Eastern Europe unless you only stay in big cities. Even then, the historical areas of Amsterdam will look very different from Florence and so on.

the dude's hair is way too thin for him to be trustworthy or for that fact excellent.

>>10069483
He never gassed anyone by the end either.

>>10071122
>so those remote areas reflect that country's reality
Well, that's not exactly true. Both cities and the countrysides reflect the reality of a country, just different aspects of it, and yes different pureness but due population size in cities, it seems weird to discount their representation of the country. And sure, the urban side tends to be more similar to ones from other countries, party due the reasons you mentioned, party due a more diverse population but take Germany, a country so proud of their industry, are cities like Wolfsburg, Munich or Stuttgart not perfect representations of it and their culture? Does LA not represent some aspects of USA just as well as some town with 150 people in the middle of Alaska?

And sure, there are considerable differences in cultures and architecture, and some values, etc between different parts of Europe, but why would any of the differences make you not feel like a citizen of the world, assuming you have some knowledge about these already and can avoid a complete culture shock?

Besides, there are many differences between different regions of the same country as well, even if we just talk about the cities. Switzerland, bits of Spain or Belgium are probably the most blatant examples due the languages or North - South Italy due their dislike for each other but even East - West Berlin differ quite a bit, or Munich - Stuttgart as an example without political baggage. You're just unlikely to confuse any of these with each other any more than UK and Ukraine, even though the overall difference won't be as big.

>>10069342
Yeah. Even the history books he reads are historical fiction.

>>10070068
>race is a biological fact

>>10070125
Race in a biological context is very likely different from your views on it

>>10069462
>i have no love for globalism
>posts on an international image board sharing ideas

>>10071560
haha nice false equivalence brah

>>10071560
>gee i sure do love the internet
>i guess i'm obliged to love the idea of open borders and having a one world government!
>#weareallhumans

probably a book on being a jeweler? Or you could work at a wedding ring store?

>>10071666
>Globalization is the increasing interaction of people through the growth of the international flow of money, ideas and culture.

Are you sure you aren't adding your own definitions?

>>10069992

pt1.

>even more progress and equality

You believe in equality. I don't. I think life is fundamentally unequal, not tabula rasa, that evolution is real, and that relative evolutionary isolation created different traits besides just skin color, differences in temperament and intelligence, or how one faces problems, are also there. We are animals, or rather minds/forms of consciousness that inhabit an animal body whose form has been dictated by evolutionary laws. If you didn't have that (inequality), nothing evolutionary would be possible without that contrast. It doesn't mean you are stuck the way you are born; it only means you have a basic outline.

No thanks to a world government, how frightening and bland. I've said earlier that I lived in India, and for a long time already Americanism is becoming more the ideal there, and the same for South America when I went there, and of course Europe followed suit from America's cultural revolution. How boring of a planet! Rather the best that can be achieved are nations that are conscious of themselves and respectful of differences. There will never be total peace. That's a dream.

>Nationalism is one of the biggest memes. How can you believe in it?

Why are nations artificial? Nationhood used to be a territory of a certain group of people(s) that shared a common history, culture, and worldview, and genetics. Humans are tribal, and nations are that on the larger scale. You just want the earth as one giant nation? I call you a dreamer. People are different. People make the place - it's one of the first things you learn if you travel a lot, especially outside of the country of your origin. If you get your one-world nation, then nations will develop all over again given enough time.

>>10069992

pt2.

>gender roles
I don't think we'll see eye to eye here either, as again, I do not believe people are equal and I think evolution is real. I think there are archetypes in a man and a woman, and that the nature of woman is such that she is most happy to be with her children (not all women, but most), have them on the breast and holding them close, rather than popping them out while drugged out, putting them on a bottle, and a few weeks after return to work. I think this one of the greatest crimes of the modern world: the separation of children from their mothers. There is something spiritual there that is lost, the strength of bond between the mother and the child. That child that has been in the warmth and comfort of the womb, always taken care of, only to be "abandoned" upon leaving it. Have you seen the work of Jean Liedloff? I'm very influenced by her in this regard, in particular in child rearing.

And even the bond between the man and the woman is harmed. It is all confused now, since everyone thinks they are free to do whatever they choose. The mind, or people, need foundations to go upon. You need a base set of principles to walk in life, and I think most people truly yearn for that, for some basic identity for them to root themselves in - "I am an individual free to do as I wish!" is too vague for most. No, I am overall extremely anti-feminism. I believe it destroys the essence of womanhood and manhood, that it's a very anit-human ideology that perhaps had good intentions in its beginning but has done a tremendous of harm now and will only continue to.

>apocalyptic myths are nothing more than how shitty humans are at imaging the future

I don't think so. The myth still holds out in the sense that only after these cataclysms, these revolutions, does a new world appear.

>>10071683
>>10071690
I don’t understand how this comment is constructive, or encourages the reader to think more deeply about anything. It appears to me that this comment’s only purpose is to display the cleverness of the author. Unfortunately, despite the collective efforts of the commentariate, we do get infiltration from those who are apparently determined to give the impression that they are incapable of parsing an entire piece of writing and reading it as a whole.
As has been previously noted (regular readers will be aware) we (that’s the “Royal we” — fellow commenters, occasional contributors such as myself and the moderator team) are engaged in an ongoing attempt to keep the quality of comments at its former impeccably high standard. Sadly, this is more of an effort than it should be.
And as a writer, it is rather tiresome having to try to explain to the occasional numpty who happens across a post basic reading comprehension skills, how to follow an argument when it is constructed long-form and the ability to master data interpretation.
And I’ve just caught up on all the subsequent comments on this page. All the other commenters have managed to make coherent and intelligible contributions that furthered my understanding or gave me something to think about, because they took the trouble to type more than a single sentence. I don’t agree with everything that’s been said in other comments. Quite the opposite in a couple of cases. But at least I understand what was expressed and the intention behind it.

>>10071679
Globalism and globalization are two different things sweety

>>10071690

I want to clarify that my ideal utopia would't force a woman to stay at home or not allow her to go to medical school, but the archetype of womanhood would be well known and embraced as a beautiful and admirable thing, rather than as a backwards thing as it is today.
The only way I see humans going forward is acknowledging what they already are, what they have, and from that place, refining what they have been given and at the same time attempting to reach their maximum potential.

>>10071714
>Globalism is a group of ideologies that advocate the concept of globalization.

You sure showed me

>>10071721
>using a poorly put together wikipedia to get your definition
What's wrong with googles definition? Globalism is the evolution of globalization, when people use it they're talking about advocating the dissolution of the nation state and supranational government authorities like the EU

>>10071735
Nation states are so 1800s.

>>10071703

I wrote about 10 comments earlier in the thread that apparently you were able to follow. I made myself as clear as I could. Maybe some can follow it and others not.

I'm not sure what's difficult to register. The thesis was: humans aren't tabula rasa, and I think there are archetypes for man and woman, ones which if they begin to live for themselves make them a more happy and whole person. We were talking about globalism, gender roles, among other topics, which my reply directly responds to.

I just wanted to continue my interesting discussion I was having earlier with the globalist-anon. You seem a haughty.

>>10071357
Not really, biological determininism is actually still pretty popular
>>10071348
Really made me think

>>10070280
>Or you know, the entire mess UK is. Maybe the meme of Poland? Catalonia is probably a more recent example though.
Yeah, differences in the political unity cause splits, what's your point? A nation is still a collective of people who have a manner of political unity beneficial for cooperation and governance. Sometimes the unity changes and a new nation begins.
>How many first world countries struggle with taxes, healthcare, etc
All of them. You should see the suicide, alcoholism, and anti-depressant rates in the Nordic countries lmao
>Roman and British
>Empire
Oh so youre a monarchist. Okay, because it's only.under a monarchy that stuff like this works :D
>Post the actual study
The name is literally there holy shit
>Our reforms.have helped people and improved their lives
Citation required

>>10069241

Coming Out as Gay by Horace Melford

>>10069241

>>10070700
Not him, but I'm guessing that the petty insult is shorthand for the solid, grounded opinions about why Trump sucks.

>>10069778
I don't give a shit, I don't pay for decisions made by a bunch of oligarchs.
Take your pretend logic some place else.

>>10071683
Vol 1

>I think life is fundamentally unequal
Oh definitely, just why would it prevent us from raising the minimum bar for people who got shafted by birth lottery? When talking about equality, I don't think anyone but the most hardcore commies mean some "we're all the same" shit. It's more about giving people a better chance to fulfil their potential despite the differences and not pushing a person in a certain direction just based on the basic outline, which usually offers quite a bit room for growth, if it's not stifled. As a very crude example, take some black chick who could be a great programmer but instead is demoted into physical labor "cuz blacks are strong and stupeed", or a guy like Hawking, who'd be drowning in his own shit if society didn't give him a hand.

Evolution is too elementary of a process to go anywhere, how could anything but massive technological advancement with cyber enchantments and the likes be able to stop it? We started to affect some of the criteria more intentionally since beginnings of civilisation by excluding people with non desirable traits from mating. If feminine otherkin cucks get all the females and the masculine alphas die out, it'd be just another step. Wouldn't complains about it being good or bad, be the same as white liberals who think they know better than nature? The entire distinctions doesn't make too much sense either way, specially given your belief in evolution instead of humans being shaped the way they are by God. All our developments are natural, and limited by nature. At least for the near future.

>>10071703
If you look at it in the context of the conversation that was going on, it makes perfect sense. I find exchange of opinions way more insightful than than the usual arguments of one side trying to convince the other, which like politics just boils down to the rhetoric, appeals to emotions and masses, structure of the argument and memes, which leaves you with a subjective information pretending to be objective, actually worsening your understanding of the subject. If anyone wants to further their knowledge of certain ideologies or ideas, there is no way around reading about these directly.

Specially as a writer, you should be able to appreciate a discussion between individuals. Having anon X explain why they believe in idea Y is way more interesting than X telling Y why they are wrong IMO.

>>10071690
Vol 2

>Rather the best that can be achieved are nations that are conscious of themselves and respectful of differences.
Oh don't get me wrong, I do like the differences between nations and cultures, or to make it more /lit/ related, languages. Simple shit like amount of names for different colours across different places is amazing. I just don't think it's that much related to nations per se given the amount of differences you'd get in the very same country. I'd say it's more related to regions and groups of people. Take the Basques, they still managed to stay unique despite being a part of another country with is part of an union of countries. The people living in the Himalayas will always different from the people living in the Alps, whether they are part of a certain country or a world without countries.

The amount of similarities growing is given due human tendency to emulate each other and improved means to exchange knowledge. A more unified society and the world getting smaller is pretty much unavoidable, unless one could bomb the world back into stone age. Even attempts of isolation like in NK proved to be not very effective, the people there enjoy the same shitty movies and tv series, just risk more to obtain them and are more limited in their choice.

>People make the place - it's one of the first things you learn if you travel a lot, especially outside of the country of your origin. If you get your one-world nation, then nations will develop all over again given enough time.
Seems we even mostly agree on that, sans the nations - regions separation.

>There will never be total peace. That's a dream.
Well, "total" is quite unlikely given our likeness to animals but we're currently experiencing a pretty much unprocendeted period of peace in Europe and even across the world, things are far more peaceful than usually. The idea of human rights was a dream too not too long ago and while shit is still not quite there, if you'd tell about our society to someone from the 15th century, they'd call you insane. Even things most take for granted like child mortality rate improved by 35% in just 200 years, which is basically nothing in thousands of years since the first civilisation. We eradicated tons of diseases that were a death sentence not too long ago too, all the shit would sound like an idealistic dream.

>>10071690
Vol 3

>I think this one of the greatest crimes of the modern world: the separation of children from their mothers.
I don't disagree, although that's more of a legal/worker rights issue. Most countries in Europe offer a parental leave, which also includes the father. Although given how you much empathise evolution, one could easy argue that given the structure of a modern world, the separation is only a logical next step.

And doesn't the fact that the archetypes don't apply to all members of a gender speak against the gender roles idea? A female who is happy to raise children will automatically gravitate into the role of a mother instead of a CEO, just like a man who lacks the testosterone to compete in a high stress, high risk job, would be better staying at home. As long society offers the freedom to pursue both ways and encourage finding out which one fits better to the individual, what issues should arise? I'd be better for everyone if females without motherly instincts stay away from that role as well instead of attempting to shape them into their predestined place. Now sure, there are feminists who are pretty radical about it and bitch against women who want to be mothers, but these groups are just as authoritative as the one they fight against, and just as much anti freedom.

Haven't heard of Liedloff before but skimming through the key points of her "continuum-concept", it seems all reasonable and supported by psychology, neuroscience, and common sense. Only the point about the "modern West" is a bit too generalised since it varies from country to country and parent to parent. Still, generally very agreeable. Just many of the issues are effected by economical factors and decisions of the parents. I've seen progressive parents who do it all right and conservative ones who make the aforementioned mistakes. It's way more complex than gender roles.

>You need a base set of principles to walk in life, and I think most people truly yearn for that, for some basic identity for them to root themselves in - "I am an individual free to do as I wish!" is too vague for most.
All true (though it's a shame that most people don't really appreciate the freedom and have a need for guidance) but it automatically happens in any kind of society based on whichever values are "in", besides people are encourages to create it themselves, hence subcultures are on the rise. It's definitely weaker now than in the past because of alienation and disconnect from others thanks to "social" media memes, but it also looks like the next logical phase in a world that gets smaller and larger at the same time. It's only going to get more interesting once automation begins to kill jobs as we know them, from that point on, there is a lot that could go very right to more humanity but a lot potential for something dystopian as well.

>>10071690
Vol 4

>I believe it destroys the essence of womanhood and manhood, that it's a very anit-human ideology
Isn't that anti-evolution? The essence of womanhood and manhood we know now developed during a time period when these roles were defined by the circumstances at that time, and then evolved to what we got now, they are bound to change further depending on the world. It's just human society moves way faster than biology, creating some friction on the way. If the essences of the genders remain advantageous, they'll ... well, will remain. If not, it's just another step.

>only after these cataclysms, these revolutions, does a new world appear.
I guess if the definition for cataclysm is a bit more moderate than the dictionary one, it's true. At the same time, "new world" sounds too grandiose. If WW1 could've been avoided, our society could've looked similar enough now either way without the big conflicts.

Damn, this turned out way larger than expected. Polonius wouldn't be happy at all. Props for your posts so far and apologies if I don't manage to respond to an potential reply.

>>10069244
Unironically this. He said his dad used to read Homer to him and his brother when they were kids. Patrician.

he has such an unfortunate nose/piltrum/mouth combination

>>10069342
Yep

>>10069344
>He occasionally talks about evola and guillaume faye

Doubt he's ever read them

He's no intellectual but I think he's hilarious

>Guy with clear germanic (AKA the snow africans) heritage LARPing as greek.
Pathetic.

>>10073978
It's meant to symbolize pan-european identarian sentiments.

>>10069241
Thus Spoke Zarathustra

>>10069455
Yeah but what the fuck does that mean? "Sweden for the Swedish" sounds ok. What the fuck does that mean for me? I'm not indigenous to my country, most people aren't, the indigenous population doesn't want us to leave either. Do white South Africans go back to Europe? Are mixed race people allowed to live anywhere? Are minority races allowed to continue living in their historic lands even if the country they live in is dominated by another race? In a democratic country can people vote for more immigration if they want it?

>>10069522
>people who annoy me should die
high level political analysis there friend

>>10075999
>Do white South Africans go back to Europe?

White south africans stay in south africa, blacks (descendants of bantu economic migrants) and indians go the fuck home.
The only blacks who have a right to be there are the descendants of capoids, the small black tribes who traded and allied with whites when they set up shop.

>>10069514
So just gerrymander until you get the desired result?

>>10069478
>Nazism often starts with an innocent idea or two before going batshit.

Nazism aka national socialism didn't start with one or two ideas, it started with the bolsheviks trying to coup the german aristocracy at the end of world war one.

>>10069616
Hmm, how does the government represent my will more than it does now?

I voted for my chosen party last week, those parties will get a proportion of seats in the national legislature proportional to their share of votes, and a government will be formed by these parties provided they can create a coalition representing the majority of people.

Apparently this doesn't represent my will and the will of all my countrymen.

Would it be better to just assume that a leader unconstrained by checks and balances, and with no accountability to the public other than an occasional reference to "the people's will" in a speech, would be a better representative?

>>10069675
So ethnic cleansing but not genocide?

>>10069728
Only Cuba retains any sort of actual allegiance to Marxism. Vietnam, Laos, China, and North Korea all essentially start their founding myth with a founding leader type figure.

Mao, Ho Chi Mihn etc

>>10069815
It is true that the closer you get to supposed 'no go' zones in European countries the less the local reporting tends to support that assessment.

>>10069822
>ad populum
No you're right, we should implement the unpopular polices

>>10069241
>shield to hide his shitty ass underdeveloped quads

unironically this
>>10072214

and how to win friends and influence people

>>10076012
So whites are permanent when they arrive anywhere?

>>10076078
If they arrive in an empty land and settle it, build a nation that prospers then yes.
If a shit tonne of white people showed up in a bantu village looking for work then started demanding citizenship and access to welfare/ government make work programs they would also be required to leave.

>>10069427
>Mr Cheeto
BLUMPF BTFO

I'd suck his cock in a heartbeat.

>>10069511
>They do. The majority of european people vote for this type of politic. Your only complaint is that people disagree with you.

"Vote". When was there a vote in most western nations for mass immigration to take place?

It's also not really a vote if you have your hands on the scale. The media, education system, and unelected bureaucrats pump information into the population that they want people to follow. They associate pro-globalist policy ideas with the cool people, the intelligent people, and control any anti-messages with the opposite. So everyone that disagrees needs to be "educated," which in non-euphemistic terms these days means a public struggle session. So it is no surprise that a significant part of the population follows elite policy. They are basically parroting back what the elites want to hear, like the thralls that they are.

>>10069877
>Remember how the cities with tons of foreigners voted in US, UK, French and German elections?

Pensive soyboy eurotrash left wing goodthink opinions 50 years from now: "Being beheaded by salafists is just another crisis or obstacle to overcome. Look at how nuanced and complex my opinions are. Why are you afraid of brown people?"

>>10076099
lol how is this not intuitive