Necessitating Violence

[Xadufell]

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?

[Vorond]

>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.

That last one... o/

[The United Secular States]

Sadly this OP simply confirms my negative opinion of "social justice".

[Conserative Morality]

So Lebensraum wasn't a spirit of expansion?

It's more that they held so many things higher than the spirit of expansion. And honestly, Nazi Germany's insular pan-Germanic worldview has a hint of the hermit about it.

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.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Sadly this OP simply confirms my negative opinion of "social justice".

And the American Revolution confirmed the King's negative opinion of Thomas Jefferson.

[Quokkastan]

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

Someone who changes their worldview so radically in a month clearly doesn't think hard about what they believe.

[The Serbian Empire]

You can't hold the moral high ground if you resort to the base tactics of the opposition.

Good isn't always nice and soft.

[Vorond]

Sadly this OP simply confirms my negative opinion of "social justice".

And the American Revolution confirmed the King's negative opinion of Thomas Jefferson.

Any reason you didn't bother to respond to My Post?

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

And the American Revolution confirmed the King's negative opinion of Thomas Jefferson.

Any reason you didn't bother to respond to My Post?

O Your Most Gracious and Highest Excellency, my endeared and holiest humble apologies for daring not explicitly address your specific concerns, even those which have been addressed time and time herein. Doth beseech me, O Lourd.

(seriously, I give fuck all a care for how hurt your ego gets over whether or not I care to quote half the thread to give you a recap of all the arguments that have already taken place; it doesn't help me in any half a regard because there are dozens of other people who actually know how to get involved in a debate, rather than whining that they aren't getting special attention to their specific problems; it reflects immensely on your feelings of entitlement)

[The Grey Wolf]

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

[Farnhamia]

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

*** 7 day ban for flaming. ***

[The North-American State]

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.

[Anarch Free States]

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

[Annorax]

Sadly this OP simply confirms my negative opinion of "social justice".

And the American Revolution confirmed the King's negative opinion of Thomas Jefferson.

SJWs compared to Thomas Jefferson!
Waaay too funny.

I kind of hope these leftists do get violent so there would be a reason to crack them in the head and haul them to jail.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

As women, LGBT people, and people of color get slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis, I'm starting to think it's necessary the left take a no tolerance approach — by that, I mean by using violence.

[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.

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

I really think you two should find somewhere a little more private to continue your circlejerk.

[Anarch Free States]

[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.

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.

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!

[The East Marches]

This thread smacks of the run up to the Spanish Civil War.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

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!

This is an out-of-character forum.

[Anarch Free States]

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.

The OP amounts to an OOC declaration (or at least promotion) of war against society; and I am replying in kind!

[Dinake]

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.

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.

[Kubra]

This thread smacks of the run up to the Spanish Civil War.

aw as if spaniards need an excuse to fight
unlike other euros they still know how to have fun

[USS Monitor]

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.

Last time we had a civil war in the US, the left won.

[The East Marches]

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.

I'd hardly call Lincoln left leaning. That was a different kind of dispute in an age before. If you'll remember old U.S. Grant had no problem sending in the army or NG to crush protesting workers.

[Kubra]

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.

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.

[Annorax]

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.

That wasn't a left-right issue as we understand it today and I highly doubt any real conservative would agree with slavery.

Plus the north had better industry/economy that is why they won.