Link: Copy link
The existence of substantial race differences is fact. Multiracial, multi-ethnic, and multicultural states are unnatural constructs based on the foundational idea of egalitarianism. Why do you think the Civil Rights Act had to be passed in the first place? It would be better for all parties involved if the races were segregated or allowed to form their own states. It is the only way to end the racial conflicts that exist in this country. It is something both George Lincoln Rockwell and Malcom X agreed upon. I've posted the statistics many times on this forum. Take a look at "White Girl Bleed A Lot" by Colin Flaherty. Spend some time on Liveleak watching videos from Brazil and Mexico. If you import third world people, you will get third world problems. There will always be those that have less wealth than others, but racial strife need not be a problem. Should Israel be more racially diverse? Should Japan? Should Nigeria?William wrote: 1) I don't think I said anything in particular about "race egalitarianism" other than maybe imply you are making a category error in thinking in these terms. It's a red herring. A more qualified point would be your government deliberately bringing in some crazy foreign culture that shares little to no values of the native population, and actively prevents that culture from assimilating for whatever screwy reason. That's a common complaint you hear these days, and if it's true it has merit. But that's a different argument. Ethno-nationalism and many of these race theories is about the same crazy and unwarranted overreaction as me noticing poverty and calling for rivers of blood and Marxism...and just like a government bringing in boatloads of foreign cultures to actively undermine a native culture - ethno-nationalism and Marxism are philosophies that are based off of massive social engineering schemes, not piecemeal ones
I see Fascism as more of a reactionary movement against Socialism. It is hierarchical, meritocratic in nature, opposes degeneracy and values tradition. Many of the Fascists states had relatively high amounts of privatization as well, including NatSoc Germany but with the exception of Fascist Italy. That's one major difference between Fascism and Communism, it's a bit more flexible. George Lincoln Rockwell explicitly said he favored the free enterprise system. If I were to rank my preferred systems of government it would go Ethnolibertarian Constitutional Republic > Absolute Monarchy > Fascist Dictatorship > Anything Marxist.William wrote:2) If you want to compare full retard Marxism to Italian Fascism (as Mises and the Italian Liberals were doing at the time) or people like Franco and Pinnochet sure, that's a no brainer. You would probably be best off comparing Italian Fascism to some heavy handed but functioning and prosperous social democracy though, maybe Yugoslavia when it existed or maybe even France at her worst. Mises would categorize both these social as "third way" options. He does not consider Nazism or ethno nationalism in the same category. See his comments about the NAZI'S, his main work on that is Omnipotent Government. And again, look at what happens when South America, Africa, or SE Europe embraces that crap...they go to shit. Something like that may be a more fair comparison to Marxism, and again I'll grant it might be marginally better, but that's probably more of an academic point
Well said. I guess degeneracy could also be referred to as vice and a deterioration of artistic standards.Jon Irenicus wrote: I don't think you'd need state intervention to achieve any of the above. In fact, most large governments actively try and foment dysgenic behaviours, the biggest example being the welfare state, by far, but also by stimulating mass migration and then forced integration, which by the way will fall apart in the absence of the welfare state. All you need to do is remove its interference in those areas and then allow for secession to resolve to more homogeneous political units. I think this will occur in the US, Europe, China etc. regardless of whether there is an active political push for it. We're evolutionarily conditioned to prefer "likes" and also to opt for mates who are "fitter" by evolutionary standards, so that will take care of itself; what is an issue is the system allowing women to simply have offspring with whomever they please, then offload the costs to others via the government, and on top of that, to parent those kids pretty badly. The government is a clumsy tool and one easily hijacked by special interests. Traditional values are things that need to arise organically and be internalised, and transmitted from parent to child, as well as ideally lived through role models. Imposing them through a state won't achieve that. What it does do through the schooling system is ensure such values aren't transmitted, but I don't think it follows that it is its role (in reverse) to inculcate them in children. I'm not quite sure what is meant by "degeneracy" when the term comes up, but I interpret it as the tendency to display and normalise in public behaviours that should be kept behind closed doors.
Although I am an ancap, I am certainly supportive of secession for the purposes of achieving a proxy of it.
Here's the quote I was talking about. It comes at the end of a section in "Liberalism" on Fascism which can be found here. Keep in mind he is not arguing in favor of Fascism per se.onebornfree wrote:Without hunting down quotes, I thought Mises was very clear on this point: that the differences between Italian fascism, German fascism[i.e. National Socialism or Nazism] and Russian communism were purely superficial.
Furthermore, Hitler is on record as stating that Nazism [ Facism] was firmly and deliberately based on and inspired by Marxian principles of communism.
Persons who are willing to swap one superficially different ["better"] form of socialism for another [for any excuse, e.g. "saving the culture"] are either fools, dupes, or full blown scam artists fully intent on instigating their own particular government-run fantasy dream-system that would inevitably end up attempting to command everyone [except, somehow, themselves, of course :-)], as to what they could and could not do with their lives.
I'd be interested to see the quotes where Mises supposedly thanked fascists for saving the west from communism - does not make sense to me- given what I've read by Mises on the subject [ eg "Omnipotent Government"]. If he actually said something like that , then that would be another "strike" against him, as far as I'm concerned.
I think you're right, but you do have to take into account some other factors, lest we assume all anarchist societies would look like Somalia.william wrote:I didn't mean to imply he did. If you look at "omnipotent government" he shows the peculiar features of Nazism. I was trying to state that if you want to compare Marxism to something that the OP seems to be into, like a hard core nationalism...he ought compare what Marxism has done to countries in Africa (or SE Europe or South America) vs Nationalism vs Western Colonial Governments or previous empires (such as the Austro-Hungarian) vs Liberal Governments there is a big difference. Marxism is best to be compared to those nationalisms, not Mussolini, Pinochet, or Franco however bad they may be that's a completely different ballpark. You would be better off comparing Mussolini to Tito's Yugoslavia or something else.
I would choose NatSoc Germany over Soviet Russia any day. WW2 should never have happened. There is a lot of propaganda out there about the Nazis, and a lot of sketchy aspects of the Holocaust story. I'm not saying it didn't happen at all or that the Nazi were saints, but they were a hell of a lot better than the Communists in my opinion. With regards to the Slavs, it's debatable whether Hitler thought they were actually a lesser race or if he just disliked them because most were Communists. It could be argued that Hitler and Nazi Germany were the last to fight against the New World Order.Jon Irenicus wrote:Yes, and the reason for that is that Nazism is a pretty unique blend of ideologies, which advocated for expansion of German territory and had an eliminative (genocidal) approach to various groups seen contrary to German interests, much like Marxism did. So I agree that they're closer to each other than most would care to think. On the other hand, it had assumptions about racial taxonomy that were strongly at odds with what was prevalent at the time (and this was a period when group differences were readily acknowledged), and an aggressive, antagonistic approach to other European ethnicities, but on a very ad hoc basis. However, many who advocate for ethnonationalism as such would consider Nazism to be a significant step backwards precisely due to the fact that it was antagonistic to European ethnicities, on the basis of its expansionism and also due to its genocidal aspect, and therefore wrongheaded, because their model state would be something like modern Japan or the Scandinavian countries prior to their diversity fetish kicking in (mostly in Sweden more than anywhere else), and not so much a genocidal juggernaut.
Nazism is pretty off the charts in terms of ideologies, much like doctrinaire Marxism. I am guessing this is exactly why the OP said he would prefer fascism over Marxism, and with it I would assume, Nazism. They're both abominable ideologies.
I'm actually trying to study the revisionist side of WWII because there are so many things that do not add up, such as why the US and Britain chose to ally themselves with the Soviets - the regime that murdered 60 million of it's own citizens. Everyone's heard the atrocities by Hitler, but what about the ones committed by the Allies? Something like 40-50 million people died in WWII, yet we mainly hear about the 6 million Jewish victims. You should listen to at least a few minutes of David Cole, a WWII revisionist who is Jewish. He talks openly about the Holocaust and how a lot of things we been had been exaggerated:Jon Irenicus wrote: I’ll give the book a look, but regardless at that point you’re comparing a frying pan vs the fire situation, and whilst I agree that communist regimes such as the USSR were worse, in some cases by far, neither is a good situation to be in. I guess it’s worth noting that Germany was at risk of Communist subversion at the time, and that may have ended even worse. The Commies ironically helped the NSDAP in its rise to power due to their violent agitation. But I maintain they were both abysmal outcomes.
The Nazi regime, whatever the true extent of its crimes, ironically fuelled the NWO and has aided it more than any other ideology in suppressing certain subjects as taboo, or worse, and added impetus to its globalist, diversity fetishising aspect by serving as an ideal bogeyman. My view is that the world would’ve been a much better place had the US kept out of WW1 and ignored financial interests pushing for its involvement. Regarding their views on Slavs, that’s why I said it was modified on an ad hoc basis.
"...Unlike communism, no bloody wars have been fought to install a national socialistic government...."AlGoreTheIdiot wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 8:47 pmThere is a big difference between communism and national socialism. While both systems are on the left when it comes to economics, when it comes to social issues national socialism is on the right while communism is on the left. I've been to both communists and national socialist countries and I speak from observation. Cuba is a communist country. It has a government and ruling class that is clearly antagonistic over the people they rule. The people know their leaders are hostile to their interests and they know their system has been forced upon them. The destruction of religion and identity is almost a given under communism.
When most people think of national socialism they think of Nazi Germany. But countries like Israel, Syria, Libya (formerly), and a host of other Middle-eastern countries also engage national socialism. The people do view their governments as legit and believe their identity and interests are being protected. Unlike communism, no bloody wars have been fought to install a national socialistic government. Under national socialism, the protection of race and religion is given a high priority. BTW, this is not an endorsement of national socialism.