Completely right. The Nazis were shitty fascists. They valued materialistic gain and some weird racial hygeine thing higher than the spirit of expansion and victory which must drive a fascist State.
So Lebensraum wasn't a spirit of expansion?
Advertisement
by Xadufell » Sun May 29, 2016 3:20 pm
Completely right. The Nazis were shitty fascists. They valued materialistic gain and some weird racial hygeine thing higher than the spirit of expansion and victory which must drive a fascist State.
Grinning Dragon wrote:Why would anyone waste a good bullet on the likes of CNN anyway? I don't understand why anyone would get that worked up over a bunch of dipshits, christ if their shit show is getting you that worked up, just turn the damn thing off and go for a walk/run/ride.
by Vorond » Sun May 29, 2016 3:29 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Traditionalism wrote:>Fascism requires others, even those who are not fascists of the State, to respect it,
no. It doesn't require anything of others except their obedience or elimination.
Someone's a shitty fascist. And it's not me. Jesus, have you even studied the philosophy of fascists from the 20s-40s?"As I turned back and realized the Jews in the camp didn't respect me, I knew I failed my job as a camp guard."
YEP, TOTALLY RIGHT MAN
Completely right. The Nazis were shitty fascists. They valued materialistic gain and some weird racial hygeine thing higher than the spirit of expansion and victory which must drive a fascist State.
by The United Secular States » Sun May 29, 2016 3:30 pm
by Conserative Morality » Sun May 29, 2016 3:52 pm
Xadufell wrote:So Lebensraum wasn't a spirit of expansion?
The Fascist State expresses the will to exercise power and to command. Here the Roman tradition is embodied in a conception of strength. Imperial power, as understood by the Fascist doctrine, is not only territorial, or military, or commercial; it is also spiritual and ethical. An imperial nation, that is to say a nation a which directly or indirectly is a leader of others, can exist without the need of conquering a single square mile of territory. Fascism sees in the imperialistic spirit -- i.e. in the tendency of nations to expand - a manifestation of their vitality. In the opposite tendency, which would limit their interests to the home country, it sees a symptom of decadence. Peoples who rise or rearise are imperialistic; renunciation is characteristic of dying peoples. The Fascist doctrine is that best suited to the tendencies and feelings of a people which, like the Italian, after lying fallow during centuries of foreign servitude, are now reasserting itself in the world.
by Not a Bang but a Whimper » Sun May 29, 2016 3:53 pm
The United Secular States wrote:Sadly this OP simply confirms my negative opinion of "social justice".
Meroivinge wrote:The very fact that you would have doubts about whether to join a forum full of goddless commie islamofascist homosexual welfare-recipients instead of a forum built to celebrate the Greatest Christian country in all of history deeply concerns me.
Kautharr wrote:Back when that was how the world was, there was no gay or transgender people.
by Quokkastan » Sun May 29, 2016 4:03 pm
Traditionalism wrote:Not a Bang but a Whimper wrote:
Since it's difficult for you to think, I'll go ahead and let you in on a little secret.
I was obviously a Traditionalist when I made the name, and don't consider myself a Traditionalist anymore. Hope you can wrap your head around this and crack the code
by The Serbian Empire » Sun May 29, 2016 4:06 pm
SaintB wrote:You can't hold the moral high ground if you resort to the base tactics of the opposition.
by Not a Bang but a Whimper » Sun May 29, 2016 5:17 pm
Meroivinge wrote:The very fact that you would have doubts about whether to join a forum full of goddless commie islamofascist homosexual welfare-recipients instead of a forum built to celebrate the Greatest Christian country in all of history deeply concerns me.
Kautharr wrote:Back when that was how the world was, there was no gay or transgender people.
by The Grey Wolf » Sun May 29, 2016 5:27 pm
Traditionalism wrote:no. It doesn't require anything of others except their obedience or elimination.
The Fascist State, on the contrary, is a people's state, and, as such, the democratic State par excellence. The relationship between State and citizen (not this or that citizen, but all citizens) is accordingly so intimate that the State exists only as, and in so far as, the citizen causes it to exist. Its formation therefore is the formation of a consciousness of it in individuals, in the masses. - Philosophic Basis of Fascism
by Farnhamia » Sun May 29, 2016 7:58 pm
Traditionalism wrote:Not a Bang but a Whimper wrote:
Since it's difficult for you to think, I'll go ahead and let you in on a little secret.
I was obviously a Traditionalist when I made the name, and don't consider myself a Traditionalist anymore. Hope you can wrap your head around this and crack the code
by The North-American State » Sun May 29, 2016 9:06 pm
by Anarch Free States » Sun May 29, 2016 9:40 pm
The North-American State wrote:You must be joking!
With the regressive lefts need for trigger warnings and safe spaces, you would be barely capable of violence!
If your group started a violent confrontation, you would be outnumbered by those who are desensitized to extreme violence; and many of them barely tolerated you to begin with.
Starting the violence will simply result in them throwing off all restraint!
In other words all you would accomplish would be an elaborate form of mass suicide!
PS> In case Im misunderstood, this is in no way a threat simply an honest assessment of the logical consequences.
by Bogdanov Vishniac » Sun May 29, 2016 10:03 pm
Anarch Free States wrote:The North-American State wrote:You must be joking!
With the regressive lefts need for trigger warnings and safe spaces, you would be barely capable of violence!
If your group started a violent confrontation, you would be outnumbered by those who are desensitized to extreme violence; and many of them barely tolerated you to begin with.
Starting the violence will simply result in them throwing off all restraint!
In other words all you would accomplish would be an elaborate form of mass suicide!
PS> In case Im misunderstood, this is in no way a threat simply an honest assessment of the logical consequences.
Well said!
And as a barely tolerant person desensitized to extreme violence; I say bring it on!
Here is my "war cry" if you are foolish enough to start the violence!
PS SEVERE TRIGGER WARNING RUN TO YOU SAFE SPACE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7YpCzJYaiU&list=RDO7YpCzJYaiU&feature=player_detailpage#t=1
by Anarch Free States » Sun May 29, 2016 10:16 pm
Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:Vorond wrote:
[citation needed]
Do we really need to source the fact that in large swathes of the world LGBT people can and will be arrested or killed or both for their sexuality? Let alone that there are still places in the West where you most certainly aren't safe in being openly LGBT.Anarch Free States wrote:
Well said!
And as a barely tolerant person desensitized to extreme violence; I say bring it on!
Here is my "war cry" if you are foolish enough to start the violence!
PS SEVERE TRIGGER WARNING RUN TO YOU SAFE SPACE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7YpCzJYaiU&list=RDO7YpCzJYaiU&feature=player_detailpage#t=1
I really think you two should find somewhere a little more private to continue your circlejerk.
by The East Marches » Sun May 29, 2016 10:20 pm
by Bogdanov Vishniac » Sun May 29, 2016 10:23 pm
Anarch Free States wrote:Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:
Do we really need to source the fact that in large swathes of the world LGBT people can and will be arrested or killed or both for their sexuality? Let alone that there are still places in the West where you most certainly aren't safe in being openly LGBT.
I really think you two should find somewhere a little more private to continue your circlejerk.
The OP is the one promoting violence, The North-American State pointed out the obvious result, and while I have no problem with Women, People of color & LGBT; anyone who declares war upon me will have the hell they asked for unleashed upon them!
by Anarch Free States » Sun May 29, 2016 10:25 pm
Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:Anarch Free States wrote:
The OP is the one promoting violence, The North-American State pointed out the obvious result, and while I have no problem with Women, People of color & LGBT; anyone who declares war upon me will have the hell they asked for unleashed upon them!
This is an out-of-character forum.
by Dinake » Sun May 29, 2016 11:09 pm
Not a Bang but a Whimper wrote:Traditionalism wrote:Uh, good point? Millions of disgruntled effeminate scarf wearing hipsters and trans people. *shivers*
This is the exact ideology that is demanding a violent response. See how quickly it will dissipate once their Klan meetings are bombed. The difference between the left and the right is that the left has an incentive to keep fighting. The right will stop the moment their actions are reciprocated against them. But to be safe, they ought to be reciprocated ten times.
by Kubra » Sun May 29, 2016 11:25 pm
aw as if spaniards need an excuse to fightThe East Marches wrote:This thread smacks of the run up to the Spanish Civil War.
by USS Monitor » Sun May 29, 2016 11:29 pm
Dinake wrote:Not a Bang but a Whimper wrote:This is the exact ideology that is demanding a violent response. See how quickly it will dissipate once their Klan meetings are bombed. The difference between the left and the right is that the left has an incentive to keep fighting. The right will stop the moment their actions are reciprocated against them. But to be safe, they ought to be reciprocated ten times.
Let's be blunt here; you're projecting things that you have no ability to, and you're dead wrong.
The right has an incentive to fight. I know I myself would consider starting something violent with the left right now to be immoral, but once you start bombing our churches(which you will, on account of some of the sermons if nothing else, if you decide to go that route) you've declared a holy war, and rightists do this thing where they fight alongside their archenemies because another enemy is threatening them right now and they need to work together to survive. We're pragmatic that way, and it means someone like me and someone like this traditionalism fellow you're projecting at would set aside our differences and work together to destroy you. That's very bad news for you, because it means some of the most heavily armed people on the planet are gunning for you, and working together on it.
And don't think for a second we wouldn't be motivated because we're not leftists. My faction will fight to the death, if need be, knowing that if they die, they die as martyrs. I can't speak for Traditionalism's, but I would guess that threats of violence against not just them but their women and children will make them stand and fight.
So don't start a civil war with the right. You will lose. And civil wars bring out the radical in everyone, so it'll end with a white terror.
by The East Marches » Sun May 29, 2016 11:32 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Dinake wrote:Let's be blunt here; you're projecting things that you have no ability to, and you're dead wrong.
The right has an incentive to fight. I know I myself would consider starting something violent with the left right now to be immoral, but once you start bombing our churches(which you will, on account of some of the sermons if nothing else, if you decide to go that route) you've declared a holy war, and rightists do this thing where they fight alongside their archenemies because another enemy is threatening them right now and they need to work together to survive. We're pragmatic that way, and it means someone like me and someone like this traditionalism fellow you're projecting at would set aside our differences and work together to destroy you. That's very bad news for you, because it means some of the most heavily armed people on the planet are gunning for you, and working together on it.
And don't think for a second we wouldn't be motivated because we're not leftists. My faction will fight to the death, if need be, knowing that if they die, they die as martyrs. I can't speak for Traditionalism's, but I would guess that threats of violence against not just them but their women and children will make them stand and fight.
So don't start a civil war with the right. You will lose. And civil wars bring out the radical in everyone, so it'll end with a white terror.
Last time we had a civil war in the US, the left won.
by Kubra » Sun May 29, 2016 11:34 pm
hitting up churches hasn't been a left wing thing since before the first world war, the only guys hitting up churches these days are varg vikernes.Dinake wrote:Not a Bang but a Whimper wrote:This is the exact ideology that is demanding a violent response. See how quickly it will dissipate once their Klan meetings are bombed. The difference between the left and the right is that the left has an incentive to keep fighting. The right will stop the moment their actions are reciprocated against them. But to be safe, they ought to be reciprocated ten times.
Let's be blunt here; you're projecting things that you have no ability to, and you're dead wrong.
The right has an incentive to fight. I know I myself would consider starting something violent with the left right now to be immoral, but once you start bombing our churches(which you will, on account of some of the sermons if nothing else, if you decide to go that route) you've declared a holy war, and rightists do this thing where they fight alongside their archenemies because another enemy is threatening them right now and they need to work together to survive. We're pragmatic that way, and it means someone like me and someone like this traditionalism fellow you're projecting at would set aside our differences and work together to destroy you. That's very bad news for you, because it means some of the most heavily armed people on the planet are gunning for you, and working together on it.
And don't think for a second we wouldn't be motivated because we're not leftists. My faction will fight to the death, if need be, knowing that if they die, they die as martyrs. I can't speak for Traditionalism's, but I would guess that threats of violence against not just them but their women and children will make them stand and fight.
So don't start a civil war with the right. You will lose. And civil wars bring out the radical in everyone, so it'll end with a white terror.
by Annorax » Sun May 29, 2016 11:34 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Dinake wrote:Let's be blunt here; you're projecting things that you have no ability to, and you're dead wrong.
The right has an incentive to fight. I know I myself would consider starting something violent with the left right now to be immoral, but once you start bombing our churches(which you will, on account of some of the sermons if nothing else, if you decide to go that route) you've declared a holy war, and rightists do this thing where they fight alongside their archenemies because another enemy is threatening them right now and they need to work together to survive. We're pragmatic that way, and it means someone like me and someone like this traditionalism fellow you're projecting at would set aside our differences and work together to destroy you. That's very bad news for you, because it means some of the most heavily armed people on the planet are gunning for you, and working together on it.
And don't think for a second we wouldn't be motivated because we're not leftists. My faction will fight to the death, if need be, knowing that if they die, they die as martyrs. I can't speak for Traditionalism's, but I would guess that threats of violence against not just them but their women and children will make them stand and fight.
So don't start a civil war with the right. You will lose. And civil wars bring out the radical in everyone, so it'll end with a white terror.
Last time we had a civil war in the US, the left won.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: East Nivosea, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Shrillland, Varsemia
Advertisement