Left performism

Is anybody else sick of the massive amounts of performism on the left, that just seems to suck up so much energy but do absolutely jack shit but create a toxic vampires castle?

Attached: vampirescastle.jpg (1000x461, 60.43K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Wtf why did it post the same thread twice? mods/janitors delete this

You are right, OP.
I am tired of this shit, too.

Attached: 1302020463001.png (976x600, 44.86K)

Have you tried not being American? It's not perfect, but helps a lot.

more than the actual causes of the idpol issues, what pains me is the complete unthinkingness of action, and action for action's sake. performative protest, performative statements, performative parties and so on.
people don't think WHY we do things, WHY the left came to the positions it did and why it still holds them. improving accessibility to an org by making a new libfem plan of 'inclusivity' including microaggressions and discrimination against the WM devil, listen-and-believe, fun-hating puritan rules and so on is bound to drive away far far more people if ever enforced than it could bring in people by making sure even the most mentally brittle people can participate. the whole point of inclusivity in the first place was to make the base as broad as possible: the working class must be united to win.
same with demonstrations: they aren't just there so activists have something to do on a sunday, or to 'raise awareness' though I suppose that can also have concrete effects. it is in practice a show of force, complete with an implicit threat of violence: "this is how many people we can mobilise for this cause, give us what we demand or there are consequences".

Attached: switch life.png (699x417, 407.01K)

Not really, because I don't look at where it's manifested much e.g. Twitter (except for a few peoples accounts who I find interesting and reasonable.)

It's like the self defense writer Rory Miller said (in a slightly different context, of avoiding violent places and situations), "if you're not there, not even your feelings can be hurt."

It's think it's better to just work on your own projects, and not worry about toxic vampires, tbh.

And gnosticism, occult experimentation, and left hand path tantric practices as well!
Some people find these useful . But if you don't, that's fine.

Why is leftpol so full of incels?
Anyway you are somewhat right. The fact that women complain about too many men sending them their genitals is ridiculous, its a kind of problem that every man on earth wishes he had, and i have no sympathy for it. As for the 'constant rejection' this is somewhat overblown, also in dating you will notice that it gets harder for women with age and easier for men. Dating in your early 20s as a man can be p brutal since your seen as worthless by everybody including your parents and yourself, things get easier from that point onward.

Ive been thinking for a while that the left needs some kind of 'male liberation movement'. Everytime ordinary men get the short end of the stick in our society all they do is sperg out and go on rampages in high schools or full hikkikomori/fash/kill themselves. I think this is because there is no place for 'male issues' on the left. Feminists will tell you that "of course, feminism is about liberating men from the patriarchy as well", but its a complete afterthought and since the dominant viewpoint is men=oppressors and women=oppressed it rarely yields productive ideas that could help men. I'm not saying "women need to take mens issues more serious", what i'm saying is that the movement would have to come from men themselves making themselves heard.

Good Post.
Everybody is running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Something that is also very prevalent is people not being able to wrap their heads around is some things being not the most intrinsically moral thing to do in the moment but still the most advantageous strategically (think adopting the slogan 'open borders'). Its a really weird kind of cognitive dissonance.
Also some people are trying to develop 'theory' that does not actually deal with the real world and its workings but instead is meant to persuade everyone of the most morally pure course of action that is also agreeable to everyone. You will see the most intense mental gymnastics in this area.

Have you tried not being so incredibly online or at least getting a hobby that doesn't have anything to do with struggling with people about class struggle in discord channels?


Attached: systemsneatesttrick.jpg (690x395, 75.08K)

No, because I spend more time organizing irl than fighting internet folks over imaginary programs. Turn your computer off and start talking to niggas.

Performative wokeness.

This is basically the entire Dirtbag Left these days if you go look at /r/chapotraphouse. It's pretty hilarious that a movement that started as a reaction to cringy wokesphere/idpol nonsense literally became completely consumed by it. They've already turned on two of their core figures for not playing along enough being Zizek and Nagle, I suspect they'll turn on Amber within the next year as well.


This is a retarded complaint mayocide jokes are good.
This is basically the entire Dirtbag Left these days if you go look at /r/chapotraphouse. It's pretty hilarious that a movement that started as a reaction to cringy wokesphere/idpol nonsense literally became completely consumed by it. They've already turned on two of their core figures for not playing along enough being Zizek and Nagle, I suspect they'll turn on Amber within the next year as well.
They're turning on her already. What the dirtbag left achieved is basically the insight that Trumps base is a mass of zombies and animals which should never be taken seriously or debated, they are to be annoyed, mocked and enraged.

But other than that yes they are falling into the trap more and more. Although r/chapotraphouse is still better in many ways than many other idpol cesspools. One important indicator for example is if you're allowed to openly express heterosexual male desire ("damn, those knockers"), which is fine on r/CTH generally. In other spaces you will be hounded out.

This is an excellent way of putting it and I had not considered it that way.
This entire era of pseudo-leftism seems borne from the necessity of getting twitter and facebook likes and nothing to do with making any actual change. In fact, they would despise any real change if you were to bring it to them due to the fact that they seem mostly comfortable with their lives right now.

Is there a better way to refer to these people?

Not him but I don't think any of this is good, though. It seems rife with trying to find more and more creative ways to pigeonhole opinions which don't agree with the 'majority' and simply ban those who disagree.
It's not a rabbithole, but it's teetering on the edge.

- Orwell The Road to Wigan Pier

Why do you think Zig Forums and later Zig Forums were created?

It's true we leftists have failed greatly in living up to our legacy of on the ground activism, but having every venue of explicitly "leftist" communication and organization wholly subverted by and unwilling to openly defy the vampire castle is a real impediment to any but the most rudimentary activism.

Counterpoint: When the sun's natural ~3B hydrogen supply runs low, solar radiation will strip the atmosphere off the world's surface, leaving behind only a lifeless rock. Unless some creature, such as humanity, takes a firm interest in activities other than masturbating to death on our ball of mud, terrestrial life will vanish without any trace aside from a brief burst of radio transmissions.

You DO know that they're like much of the aut-right such as MPC literally cut from the same cloth as SJWs, the goon diaspora Weird Twatter clique, right?

That specific brand of post-meta-dis-ironic hipster "humor" as a justification for attentionwhoring goon trolls to reinvent themselves as political activists is, far more than any supposed left/right partisan allegiance, is what unifies all of them to this day.

Attached: SRShistory.jpg (524x497 705.8 KB, 88.41K)

It'd be nice to have a useful online left instead of… this. Internet has potential for organizing but all this bullshit does is create new people who find the left insufferable despite their class interests being aligned.

Not that there's much we can do when the web's been reduced to like 6 platforms anyone reads and porky bans meaningful, effective dissent from all of them.

I get your points but atheism IS reactionary horseshit no offense

Oh you americans are cute

Well get out there and talk to people, organise, build socialism. Otherwise how are you any different from all these leftist who said things you didnt like and is complaining about them on a chinese backgammon board?

Maybe study more theory?

Lol, yes snear at him from being from a country you dont like. Its elitism, but with class characteristics.

So are you. Now park your cute ass in front of me so I can fuck you and choke you while I give you a reach around with my other hand and yell in backwards Yiddish. My desires are unconventional.

On a serious note it's actually true. Every country is cool except us. That's how most on the left operate. Nevermind the fact most people in the flyover states are too poor to travel overseas. We have much more pressing issues than being a toxic internationalist, like cleaning up our dirty water, food, the housing crisis, never will be able to afford college, not since I was out of hs and not even now, because our system is fucked up and so is our bureaucracy. But nevermind that, some pissy eurocunt is mad because we're "dumbass primitive Christians". What. The. Fuck. Ever.

We will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. No gods, no masters.

Are 'performism' and 'LARPing' different?

Performism is just the term that larpers use to deflect suspicion and sound academic

IMO the worst part of this is the "hurr atheism bad" thing. People are straight up denouncing skepticism now, at a time when we most need people to be skeptical of the ruling ideology.

tbqh I had a modest proposal (to anyone who read the short story in high school/uni, things are about to get diabolical:

this sounds odd but since I have the belief that Jesus killed the God of the jews, Jews should either consider converting to their ancient pagan beliefs or Christianity, and leave judaism and atheism behind. even if by force. The Ashkenazis and Sephardics were once Khanghanates that had localized beliefs and they would be less of a burden on the world if they did.

freedom is an abstract concept. what makes priests garner less freedom for their subjects than a top scientist for his students? we are all enslaved by concepts whether materially or otherworldly. egoists and other anarchists claim they're not spooked until the fact of the matter not all people are universally good, nor universally bad. morality is not universal and you can stop living in altruistic fantasy land, not amount of science and pro-material rhetoric against the religious will make this any less or more true. you're fucked, m8.

Attached: 20161231_141933.jpg (1596x1600, 731.28K)

skeptical of what? scientism and technology and liberalism run the show. there is no universal ruling code. and internationalists should stop trying that in the real world. just because east asia thinks eating cats is ok but cows are sacred, and with the west vice versa, neither is going to convince one or the other either is wrong. we will crash, and crash hard.

Attached: 46523524_10217867867954066_2656302535156957184_n.jpg (540x752, 66.99K)

Those are all things it's good to be skeptical of.

Obviously. There's nothing wrong with questioning but 'god no real and YOU must prove, not me, that he doesn't exist' is becoming tiresome and routine. Just because you're an envious faggot who can't ascend to the astral realm and likes fucking kids and black dudes, sometimes at the same time, doesn't mean you have to be a salty fuck over it.

your schizoposting is just proving right

You guys wont be able to stop left performism (or SJWs, or the Vampire's Catle, or whatever new name they have this week) in the current climate, because it's broken too many taboos.
Now I'm sure there's a ton of "Smash the Fash" anarchists willing to ignore everything I say, but what I'm about to say is fairly important. Anyone who thinks that "beating" the internet right or Zig Forums should take priority over cleansing the left of SJWs fails to understand one fundamental truth: Zig Forums feeds off SJWs (though the reverse is NOT true, more on that later) and so the destruction of SJWs will starve it like the fucking chaos gods.
Why is this? Well the roots lie in humor. I've heard many people argue that you should beat the Vampire's Castle by returning to a more class-centric left, or in the case of Sargon: by reaffirming a belief in "liberal" values of free speech and free expression, both those ideas wont succeed because they fundamentally require a return to "seriousness" in a world where being serious is seen as a kind of strange self-tyranny–amazingly people will fight for their own enslavement if self-discipline is told to be oppressive to them–and rejected by most people (probably because it's too hard). Seriousness was possible in prior eras, but our culture has been saturated in activist performances which rely on "shock" for so long that trying to hold that anything may have any value or importance or require a degree of seriousness is mocked relentlessly at best, and hated at worst.
To beat the SJWs then, you have to understand and deconstruct their humor. Kaczinsky was, maybe, right when he described them as "oversocialized", but I'd say it's a kind of strange power fetishism. For all the talk of the SJW left about "punching up" and fighting "oppression", their humor is almost entirely based around asserting their supposed "superiority" over their opponent, either by infantilizing them (e.g. "Sweetie", "Hon", "Angry White Man") or making loud displays of how much they're mocking them, it's essentially sending a subconscious signal: "I'm better than you, you're worth less than dirt to me, I hope I'm making you angry, you're pathetic, etc." It's a kind of intrinsic superiority complex, most of the people who engage in this humor are rarely poor, or lonely, or disadvantaged in some way, but rather they're middle class suburbanites fueled by deep resentment that they're barred from the upper echelons of power/the upper class but rather than turning that into rage against the rich, they instead try to imitate them while also distancing themselves from their inferior brethren.
In fact most of these anti-whites likely aren't anti-white in the traditional sense of despising the white race, but rather their picture of a "white" person is some low-income hick, morbidly obese, and shopping at walmart of all places, it's traditional liberal obsession with "worldliness" and "intelligence" while reflecting a deep disdain of their social inferiors likely stemming from their own inferiority complex, MovieBob is a perfect example of this: he socially isolated himself from his "redneck" family, yet hides his blatant feelings of inferiority by disguising himself as a psuedo-intellectual, which has lead him to the rather strange position of being a "left winger" who openly supports turning the stupid, unwashed masses into slaves at best, or cleansing them at worst.
Zig Forums's humor, ironically enough, is far closer to what one would imagine a rebellious, subversive, and lower class kind of humor would look like.

Attached: 1535404841260.gif (570x498, 851.33K)

A great deal of Zig Forumslacks are, in fact, social outcasts in one way or another, though rather than transforming their perceived or real feelings of inferiority into an oversocialized complex, they instead embrace and fortify their "inferior" status. Being called racist one too many times, they embrace racism wholeheartedly, being called a "virgin" or "loser" or "unattractive" often enough, they embrace the worst kind of self-pitying woman hatred and become InCels; across Zig Forums you'll find a wide variety of mulattoes, incels, autists, and others who've failed the social "game" and have embraced their status as outcasts.
Their humor is not the thinly veiled contempt of the Social Justice Warriors however, it's asocial hatred and it feels good as fuck. The Social Justice Warrior relies on his prey being fundamentally not-racist, being a normal, socialized person desperate to maintain their social standing, Zig Forumslacks either have no social standing or are willing to destroy what standing they have to loudly proclaim "fuck you" to the people viewing them with contempt.
What makes Zig Forums's humor so effective is that it takes the wind out of the sneering SJW's sails, they gain their power almost entirely from making an accusation, then relentlessly mocking and insulting and sneering at their victim for offering anything less than a total capitulation to their attacker and begging for forgiveness (the point of the attacks isn't to "fix racism" but rather to drive their target to tears, to destroy their social standing, and to make them seem pathetic); if Zig Forumslacks say something bluntly, openly racist, then the SJW absolutely MUST maintain their fake outrage, it makes the sneering, infantilizing humor that much more difficult because they have to pretend to be serious enough to be angry, their attacks get reflected back on them.
Zig Forumslacks are fundamentally correct in their assessment of what you're not allowed to criticize in society, racism, misogyny, and all forms of bigotry are socially unacceptable–despite what SJWs screaming about "rape culture" or "white privilege" might say–and thus the anger of SJWs gives the Zig Forumslack a feeling of power, of striking the rich, privileged bastard mocking you straight in the nose. The fundamental feeling of their humor isn't abusing people with their great white power, but rather the powerless actively striking back at the powerful, it's the dirty, stinking, disgusting lower classes charging into some rich guy's ball and pissing in his punch bowl–or rather it would be if the SJWs weren't wannabe movers and shakers.
So what can the left learn from this? Simple, if you want to win, you have to beat the "SJWs", and you have to do it with humor–specifically the kind of humor that forces them to be serious, them to be on the defensive, and in fact openly attacks their claims to "superiority". Do this and you wont even have to "fight" Zig Forums, once a more socially acceptable way of seemingly taking power back or asserting your own independence from would be tyrants is available, most would likely jump ship–or at least become less zealous in their crusade.

Attached: 1530212728357.png (869x1080, 571.3K)

One little addendum:
Zig Forums humor:
SJW "humor"

Attached: 1535770058781.png (1280x1014, 667.09K)

I'd rather press the button on nuclear winter than team up with fascist scum

Liberals are a precancerous lesion, while fascists are Stage IV. I will not listen to some idiot Naziposter telling me to just ignore the cancer out of the goodness of my heart since cancer gets a bad rap and, "after all without the lesion I wouldn't even be here."

You are the enemy. You can keep making excuses, or you can disavow your poisonous ideology and repent.

He gave you a great analysis and excellent advice. I’m glad Zig Forums refuses to put it to use.


whats wrong with being schizo you bigot? and who says they're right/correct?

why not both?

I have two problems :

Permanently living from payday to payday, in debt and nothing saved; and


Partly it's my own fault, for being a waster when I was younger, and for not keeping in contact with friends.
But it's also partly porky's fault, as porky exploits me at work (takes the surplus value), and I have to work so many hours I have little time to see friends or make new friends anyway.

But can anyone explain to me why it's the fault of the denizens of the Vampires' Castle? Certainly they might not help, they might say sorry not sorry, it's not my job to help you ( emotional labour blah). Or they might say you have it tough but you're still privileged, if you were black or a woman you'd have MOAR problems.

And to be fair, there's truth in both statements.
But they're not looking for comrades! Theyre looking for "allies", for people to "signal boost" while keeping their opinions to themselves.

He's persuing a Sargonic strategy of blaming the Social Justice Warriors for everything.
I don't know why people are so willing to take his "advice" in good faith.
Even Mussolini is reported to have said,upon fearing an approaching army were Allied troops but being told the were the Nazis, "oh no, that's all we need."

No, it's even worse. is saying "Being interesting is more important than being true."

This is never going to happen. It would require the mores and culture of modern society to change substantially, but the current social structure offers privileged interest groups the power to oppress others for their own gain.

One of the most persistent rules of marketing is that your advice is only as good as its taken–yet persistently you end up dealing with the most strange kind of irrationality as to make your advice functionally useless. In some cases–as I've experienced–it's a business owner stubbornly refusing to hire a social media manager and insisting that their daughter-in-law who manages the businesses' social media as a hobby is just as good as any paid media manager… and in this case, it's ideological zealotry leading to stupid decision making.
In marketing terms, the far right and the far left, generally speaking, attract the same target demographic. The power of fascist groups throughout history has been their willingness to absorb communists into their organizations while communists seemed to lack this strength.

What makes Zig Forums so much of a threat to left wing groups, is that people who–in most cases–would be the perfect kind of revolutionary are instead driven into the arms of reaction precisely because "reactionaries" can market themselves better, because reactionaries seem to address the issues that concern them, and they make them feel powerful, useful, a part of something–as well as striking back at the people keeping them down.

The curious thing about zealotry though, is you can always tell whether someone is a zealot by their willingness to make shouting pronunciations that they'd see the world destroyed before they see their enemies win. Rather than showing any seriousness as its intended to, this is more or less a childish temper tantrum, a way of crying that you "hate them" and you want to let the world know how much you do.
As for saying you should "ignore" the "cancer", the fact is you idiots don't even stop it in the first place–you might kick it from some public spaces, you might violently attack a few of its preachers, but you've done nothing to actually stop it, and if you think they actually represent a real threat you're deluding yourself (again, thanks to ideology, you want to LARP reds vs fascists because it makes you seem important) and are part of the problem for your side.
Jesus Christ nothing you guys say is "shocking" or in any way controversial. Hating the rich is the most socially acceptable past time throughout the world, and while some cuckservatives might puff up their chests and whine about "muh job creators" they look absolutely silly when they do. Literally all you have to do is start pestering the rich and powerful, mock them, annoy them, anything to give people the feeling of power, of being a part of something, and they'll jump to it because–again–it's far more socially acceptable to be anti-rich than anti-black.

Attached: 1531452350602.jpg (1280x817, 190.53K)

Zig Forumslacks aren't Nazis, they aren't the wehrmacht, they don't have the backing of a major european power, and you aren't in the middle of a war. Idiotic zealots making your lot look fucking stupid has done far more damage to your side than Zig Forums could ever hope, it just feeds on and highlights this rampant stupidity.
And when one of them comes into your own forums specifically to tell you how to win, you just double-down on the "NO SYMPATHY FOR NAZIS!" mantra as if you were in WWII and not wasting your life talking about communism on a Thai puppet show enthusiasts forum.
I'm not a Nazi and you're not a Commie, at least in that apocalyptic sense where there's actual warfare and what we say will decide the fate of nations, we're just two fucks on the internet–and as someone who's had to hear for years that "evangelical zealots promoting weird social causes over practical public policy are hurting the Republican party", it's absolutely hilarious that now that the left has its own evangelical problem it keeps trying to insist that its a non-problem and any attempt to remove them is inherently "sinister".
SJWs are a problem for your side, because they drive the naive and the new away from it and into my sides' arms. Don't want to solve that issue? Well congratulations, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Attached: 1531384335709.jpg (1920x1440, 1.33M)

every time


It doesn't matter whether anyone likes mass immigration or not. What matters is whether or not people attack immigrants over it.


I'll take that as a "no", then.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

Your assertions about SJWs and the like are decently well-founded and your effortpost is commendable, but neither Zig Forums or SJWs have any modicum of political power in the real world. They are both largely performative in nature and only act as distractions from the real struggle, that of class struggle. No twitter activists or online proto-fascists will make any meaningful impact on day-to-day society aside from being a distraction for insecure teenagers and reactionary boomers. In truth, the battle between Zig Forums and SJWs, or whatever new forms and names this arbitrary idpol binary manifests itself as in the future, is antithetical to true leftist organization in any meaningful capacity, and untangling ourselves from this performative politics and taking on working class struggles is the only real course of action.

If you are genuine in your interests to preserve the well-being of the people of your nation or whatever, I would implore you to tackle more leftist theory and to begin to understand the nature of class struggle, and learn how the powers at play use idpol as a smokescreen to cover for the true failings of society.

nothing petty about that. only Leftcomms like open borders because they're practically post-left and are closet capitalists.

You mistake me if you think that I'm saying you shouldn't organize–you should, but successful organization intrinsically requires purging these SJWs. Their means of "debate" (really absurd exercises in power) creates not just hostility, but distracts from actual issues at hand, not to mention they're power hungry enough that you can expect they'd be trying to really people against any actually decent organizers so a new position is open.
Beyond that, they give the impression that the left is more about race than class, which I would assume you guys wouldn't want in the slightest.

I've seen plenty of leftist theory, trust me–enough that there are quite a few more points where I agree with Marx than disagree with him. I'm not a leftist, however, because I can't see the left as anything other than what SJWs have made it. Beyond even that, I find such people instinctively repulsive, and have prompted the very word equality to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I read Bookchin's "The Next Revolution" a while ago, it was a struggle getting through it because anytime he mentioned minority rights or feminism, I had the urge to put the book down and read something else–if I'm allowed any defense, I'm surrounded by that SJW nonsense twenty-four-seven, and my experience in college lead me to seeing even more of those freaks than usual (to the point that a professor defended human sacrifice practiced by pagan tribes while condemning Christians for iconoclasms) and finding the whole project to be wholly repellent.
I'm not willing to swallow my pride and work alongside people who, day in and day out, seems to lay all the evils of the world on my race, my gender, my faith, and my culture's shoulders, and sadly enough I have no faith in even the "Anti-IdPol Left" to not engage in the same kind of thinking when push comes to shove.

Attached: 1537888979146m.jpg (698x1024, 47.19K)

Shut the fuck up.

the control of the internet/information affects everyone on either side. The idea of "fake news" is being used to shut down legitimate dissent

Make it happen >:(


How many friends do you have? I hope you all are saving money and improving your livelihoods day by day. If you prefer to stay comfy 24/7, sharing the link should come even easier to you

More relevance: youtu.be/eqBzFbGuPf8
"Regardless of where you’re at on the political spectrum, if you oppose the status quo then opposing internet censorship of any political speech is now a matter of simple self defense."


Attached: js2.gif (252x184, 1.55K)

smart memers join the government. People yak and yak about real world action, how about they enlist in the branch of the government and work their way up the hierarchy scale? Groypers might just be autistic retards that shitpost on twitter, but sometimes the younger conservatives are secretly groypers. You don't have to like rightwing memes to understand that people find them hilarious, and that is the type of propaganda that no money can buy, no policeman can enforce. I noticed the left doesn't like pepe even though he's the perfect mascot for attacking authoritarianism. He's just a smug little shit who doesn't care if you're pissed off at him, and has little to no concern for his actions. But he's also the sad frog, for people dissatisfied and unhappy with the world at large, and physically ugly. So while not every frogposter has political power, they can influence and support people in power. I remember Donald Trump retweeting a "can't stump the Trump" video with a trump version of pepe. Eric Trump has accidentally used the word punt too:

Retarded shitposting faggots on Zig Forums are not the explosion of rightwing sentiment and solidarity, but they were the spark that caused it to go off. Especially the "it's ok to be white" posters that triggered the libtards epic style, but really helps turn the unwashed masses more woke. A couple of NEETs wanted to feel acceptance and appreciation from fellow Zig Forumsacks, so they were willing to secretly go out and put those posters up. The outrage that came from the left was the exact response they wanted, because lolcow SJW's turn people away from the left. This is not something leftists chose, but it is a reality of the current political situation. Those same shitposters also start joining the young republicans, pretending to be normie conservatives, but in reality have secret groyper accounts. Nick Fuentes doesn't have immediate power, but he has been browsing 4chan for years, flies to DC and talks to younger conservatives who work for congressman. Influence is a form of power in itself, too. Porky may not be physically capable of enforcing his capitalism on us, but he can use money to influence a police force and an army.

This is why we should push the Nazbol meme and solidarity with not socialists, because "rightwingers" like Nick are somehow attacking free market capitalism. But you still have dum dums like who don't get it. Apparently he's unwilling to ally with anti-capitalist nationalists on the premise that nazi's can't be right about anything ever, but he's willing to tolerate elitist SJW's. the Naziposter is correct when he points out how bourgeois and upper class it is to be woke, to shit on poorer working class whites to feel better about themselves. You'll notice those same SJW's ally with corporations and multinational banks if it means shitting on lower class less woke people. I've posted about helping coal miners in the poor appalachia here and Zig Forums several times, and I always get passive aggressive responses and jokes about mayocide. It is a form of upper class sneering at poor people, to attack them as less educated, to attack their low class lifestyle and celebrate when working people are suffering, all just because your modern leftist is just a self-hating upper class white. Nazbol memes combine the edginess and funniness of current rightwingers, while also destroying the awful arguments that promote the free market. Nazbol also flies in the face of the outrage machine, because it isn't super serious 100% of the time.

The most ironic part is, you could get working class whites to ally with the left and destroy capitalism as long as you allow them to retain their christianity, 1st amendment, and 2nd amendment. Has anyone here actually ever spoken with rednecks? They are so desperate to appear not racist, and will bend over backwards to show you what a big not-racist they are. And the left just shits on them, and then wonders why people like Trump are elected.

Attached: nick communism2.PNG (599x550 75.37 KB, 67.56K)

You are fucking right, user.

the poster you were talking with is never going to change his ways. He replied to you "shut the fuck up", which is just another powerplay for his power fetish. But you're right, the SJW cares more about race than class. How this isn't obvious to all leftwingers is beyond me.


I wouldn't recommend the NazBol meme, if only because the ideology itself is incoherent, it seems to be the worst kind of romanticized nationalism, maybe a more socially acceptable form of Authoritarian Personalities–fundamentally I don't think it's any different from Nazism, at least in the sense of that Vulgar Fascism which can just boil down to "I want big parades and cool uniforms and the government to make me feel good"
You don't need to be authoritarian to meme anything, hell I'd say the reason Authoritarianism is liked isn't because of anything inherent in it, but because of the fundamental, underlying reasons: it's the idea of people united, coming together under one purpose, people having something they're willing to die for. This is why the archtype of the Patriarch or King is so powerful, because to many a great and powerful and charismatic leader will give them a sense of purpose in their lives that's drastically missing–hell it's part of the reason that the crusades became such a meme among young, right wing Christians: the idea of devoting yourself to something so completely that you're willing to destroy yourself for it is extremely powerful–Joseph de Maistre talked about this to some degree.
What needs to be done isn't to try and meme some authoritarianism, but to offer people an alternative–people want something to die for because the world they live in, the world as they see it, is completely meaningless to them: the feeling of self-power and accomplishing something, of being united with other human beings, it's a very powerful motivator.
Thus the biggest tool the left has to recruit people isn't red-fascism, but instead a powerful image of the world united and whole, and people not just having something to fight and die for, but to fight and live for.
Zig Forumslacks are far easier to change than SJWs, because Zig Forumslacks fundamentally want something to give their life purpose, they don't want to feel like outcasts subject to the bullying whims of the over-socialized, there should be no reason these people became fascists except that the left's image is repellent to them.
These people look on the left, and they see self-righteous bullies that masquerade as "fighters for the oppressed", they see hypocrites, they see hateful, petty, vindictive people–this is their very first interaction with the left and it leaves a sour taste in their mouth.

Attached: 1532819077845.jpg (380x960, 58.99K)

Anyone can change, and I'm of the opinion that the overt hostility is a mask for one's desire to change. Often times they become hostile because they're afraid of letting anyone close to them, or they want to reassure themselves they can't change.
Zealotry is a terrible thing to be burdened with. It feeds off itself , it's the sign of someone not necessarily of a strong and unshakable faith, but who is perhaps terrified by their lack of it. Maybe it's, in some Jungian sense, the violent rejection of some part of themselves that they find distasteful, but maybe it's also a desperate cry for help. It's a way to scream that you're in a dark place and you need help, and you desperately want someone to crawl past the thorny insults and actually help you.
That's just my interpretation of it, I find that the genuinely abrasive kind of anger, the open "fuck you" compared to the passive-aggressive sarcasm is the sign of someone in need of help than someone who might actually hate you.

Attached: 1529332061625.jpg (1240x1754, 790.69K)

Dude you're fucking dumb, like holy shit I don't even agree with everything nazi user is saying ITT but you have literally no arguments. I am just going to assume you're a twatter anarkiddy and perhaps you should consider going back there to jerk off your friends.

Attached: sized-soviet-anti-drinking-posters-0.jpg (600x836, 283.8K)

You can't have leftism and multiculturalism existing in good faith.

The left is filled with all sorts of minority grievance struggles because they see you as their sugar-daddy that will go rob right-wing whites for them.

That's why the most successful SocDem countries are fucking Sweden and Norway.

Eurocunts also trivialize the race issue.

Imagine living in suburban Denmark all your life, and telling an American that niggers and Mexicans are based, and that we need to open our borders more. Imagine.

Attached: Democrat soy 2018 2.png (115x154, 36.34K)

Attached: 1541719712181.jpg (639x481, 29.09K)

Not an argument

Here's the FULL quote:

Yeah it is, but you're just too stupid to suss it out. Which is why there's no point in even giving you arguments.

There's nothing inherently wrong with absolutism or cynicism.
In fact, I would say that kettle logic and naiveté are substantially worse.
The cynic doesn't say "a plague on both your houses." They cynic asks for evidence rather than platitudes. It's not my job to prove you wrong. That isn't how evidence works. It's your job to justify your position, which you won't and can't do. This is why there is a disanalogy between the market and argumentation; you don't just assume truth until proven wrong. You have to establish a very good case for your argument. If you give weak arguments it's a totally reasonable response to tell you to fuck off because replying to someone arguing in bad faith is a waste of time. Your dollar store sophistry is completely worthless.

The naziposter is arguing in bad faith? No m8, I think it's you who's unwilling to have a real conversation.

Excuse you user, but we have to assume everyone, from those who believes Satan was the high priest of Atlantis and the father of the Aryan people(which includes every major civilization btw) to those who think real capitalism doesn't exist because muh gubbermint treads, is arguing in good faith and challenge their ideas in the sacred marketplace of ideas. They don't need to prove anything to debate, they just need strong opinions.

That's not debate. That's just screeching.

Most of what passes for debate from liberals and reactionaries is screeching, it doesn't matter if they're polite or not.

Why is it that whenever I go to Zig Forums I never see quality posts like this. Are people like you ostracized on that board?
Anyways, if I was Stalin I would have put you in a high position in the NKVD to gulag all the SJW enemies of the revolution.

Then STFU? Either you make an honest attempt to test the other guy's argument, or you admit that his argument doesn't feel interesting enough at a shallow glance to bother investigating. You DO NOT get to simply dismiss someone's argument without even engaging with it.
Note that just because an argument is made insincerely, doesn't necessarily mean it's false.

Please stop abusing the term. You don't have to take on every position as a coherent monolith, you can break down arguments to good and bad points separately.

Both sides distrust each other of acting in good faith. After all, the most common response they get from one another is "I'd murder you in a second"

Because Zig Forums is a place for regurgitating memes, not for introspection or deep contemplation.

Attached: LeastRare.jpg (656x465, 23.97K)


Amber being problematic is pretty much already a majority opinion on r/CTH.

You can't base your entire world view on simply inverting liberal beliefs.

there used to be a few effortposters on Zig Forums who actually created quality. unfortunately the Zig Forums BO and vols engaged in a policy of deliberately dumbing down the board.

There was not much else that they could do what with Trump going full-zionist. The desperation with which Zig Forumstards tried to meme away their God-Emperor's love of all things Israel was thesingle most entertaining aspect of the internet in 2017.

I just don't really find myself posting to Zig Forums that often, especially after how many shills have infested the board, it's a near-constant spam of trolling sadly. Thanks for the compliment by the way.

Attached: 1536204597752.jpg (1069x1363, 239.77K)

This one line probably has wreaked more havoc for the left than the phrase "It's Okay To Be White". Insults and an aggressive attitude that you refuse to answer for because "Well it's not my job to explain why I'm being hostile to you" only creates more enemies and more problems down the line. It's a tactic not dissimilar from what SJWs do, wherein they'll attack someone (generally lower class and less educated) with a plethora of insults disguised behind pseudo-philosophical mantras in the line of "All whites are racist" or "Racism is power + prejudice" and when asked to explain by an increasingly frustrated listener, they smugly proclaim that it's "not my job" to explain to them, and that they should be expected to take these insults passively lest they be called racist too.

Attached: 1531860542429.jpg (540x539, 42.96K)

do you remember oldfag Zig Forums? pepperidge farm remembers.

Attached: trump1.png (936x405, 155.67K)

Nazbol isn't necessarily authoritarian. Though, I guess National-Bolshevism refers to a variety of ideologies that all happen to share a common name from Ernst Niekisch's combination of German nationalism and Communism to Limonov's edgy anti-authoritarian movement to Dugin's Eurasianist ideology.

In the internet, I noticed two 'Nazbol' groups. One being a Third-Worldist group that memes anti-imperialism and Jason Unruhe. The other being white leftists who adopted nationalist views or nationalists adopting leftist economics. In the latter case, 'Nazbol' is just more of a meme when they're often Asserists or National-Syndicalists and don't actually believe in an authoritarian centralized state.

But, besides that. I agree with you entirely, and your posts often say things that I was trying to say to people here for a long time when it comes to ideology. In fact, my emphasis has moved towards that, though it's more of a pessimistic view that LARPing, moralist puritanism, and partisanship had collectively ruined politics, especially due to the over-socialized SJWs.

This! I swear, from the discussion on the influence of SRS to Naziposter's analysis of SJWs and Zig Forums to your concepts of absolutism and cynicism, this thread has been pure gold. Zig Forums really is impressing me with this.

Attached: By-Karl Popper.jpg (800x1000, 96.29K)

I've always find the "be intolerant of intolerance" argument to be useless; there's not a person I know of on the far-right who thinks that censoring far-right ideas would actually stop them, so unless we all had a secret meeting where we decided to lie collectively that actually engaging and debating us would defeat us, then that's one strike against the "You gotta keep these people from speaking" argument.

Secondly "intolerance of intolerance" is just intolerance, the word's been corrupted to simply mean "I don't have a problem with minorities", yet by its implication its original definition still stands: disliking something but still allowing for its existence. In short, trying to "preserve tolerance" by "being intolerant of intolerance" is self-defeating.

Thirdly, if tolerance is thrown out the window to fight "intolerance", and if we accept that such a thing is in and of itself intolerance, then what's the point of "preserving tolerance" anyways? It's an open admittance that it's an entirely subjective thing that changes according to the whims of the society in charge, that fringe views can and should be isolated to preserve the status quo of wider society, applying such a subjective standard is an open confession that there's nothing inherently *wrong* with racism or "intolerant views", rather its views are repugnant to wider society and so that society should have a right to quash them in such a case.

If you try to sound the alarm about "but the nazis will take over then!" well they equally have their own fears of society being conquered from within by insidious forces–hell the "White Genocide" argument is entirely based around "tolerance" in the sense that it argues White's "tolerance" of mass immigration has gotten us to a point where cultural and political institutions actively work to repress us and see our extinction as a unique demographic.

In essence, Karl Popper's argument–far from being a repudiation of Fascism–is Fascist at its core, it simply mistakes the typical enemies of fascist movements, the victims of it, as somehow unique in their historical presence, that the victims of Fascism must always remain the same, and that Fascism can be defined by its victims rather than its actions.

Attached: 1536970995055.jpg (975x820, 78.2K)

As an addendum, the weakness of "tolerance" isn't that it can be conquered by an external foe, but rather that it's infuriating for everyone to practice it–increasingly so in the modern age.

A Muslim blows himself up in a busy intersection, men, women, and children are murdered and people are told to not direct their anger at Muslims in general–sounds easy on paper, but when it happens again and again, it becomes noxious to the listener to hear cries for "tolerance", to them it appears they're letting the Muslims walk all over them. As attempts to keep the peace become increasingly authoritarian, as it seems like Muslims are held to a lower and lower standard by the rest of us–and disturbingly *lionized* by some groups to seemingly "balance out" all the bigotry directed against them, then tolerance appears to be weakness, that person becomes a "Nazi" and the tolerant to him look like impotent cuckolds, pathetic doormats at best, or oikophobic monsters at worst.

Then the leftist sees the "Nazis" on the rise, and in true "never again" fashion they try to shut them down–with protests, no platforming, what have you. Some people say that this isn't helping, that even people with morally repugnant views should have the right to voice them, but the cries of "tolerance" fall on deaf ears compared to crime and terrorism statistics–it harkens back to the pathetic appeasers who let the Nazis run roughshod over Europe and kill millions, it's "dangerous" and "weak".

See, throughout history we never see tolerance die because of anything inherent in tolerance, but because people are told that tolerance itself is a weakness, "the enemy" (whomever that may be) is on the verge of "taking over" in a truly apocalyptic, hysterics-inducing nightmare and so concessions must be made to freedom in order to secure our "way of life" (whatever that may be).

So, if you want to know who the real enemy of tolerance is, it's people who present arguments like Karl Popper. Anyone at all who presents any kind of "outside threat" that needs to be quashed via removing wide-scale liberties to increase our security is a tyrant in disguise: they bring the dictatorship, not the jews, not the foreigners, and not the nazis. Them.

This is a frustrating view to accept, because to those who hear it, it seems to promote "weakness" where they want "strength"–after all "how can we be sure?" in true scare-mongering fashion, do we want to take the "chance" of "the enemy" taking over by "not fighting them"? In fact, aren't you a weakling if you just "surrender" to them without fighting!

Well in a truly paradoxical way, the fighting proposed by advocates of intolerance of all stripes is the truest kind of surrender, it's the willful surrender of *your* freedom under the guise of "fighting the enemy", and sadly the real "fight" isn't glorious, nor provides the emotional satisfaction of vanquishing a hated foe, it requires something harder: keeping yourself focused on the light in the darkest of places as people all around you say there's enemies to be cautious of.

Attached: 1538732947729.jpg (1024x1024, 116.33K)

Check out the Evolution of Trust

You find that those who always cooperate (tolerant) and those who always cheat (intolerant) don't win. Pacifists are losers as much as violent barbarians united only on their mutual greeds and lusts for eachothers gold and women. For a truely tolerant open society, values must be reciprocated to function. Nonreciprocal parties shouldn't be tolerated.

In most judeo-christianity, you'll find that forgiveness and tolerance functions soley on reciprocity while highlighting how sin (cheating) creates it's own punishment in game theory.

You can choose these abhorrent beliefs. The people you hate cannot choose how they were born. Fuck off and kill yourself. The sooner all you people are put into the gulags or get a bullet the better.

/r/neoliberal is that way

That is odd considering the bitchfest over Alex Jones getting banned. If it does not matter (and it really doesn't), why do they care so much? In fact, I do not buy that claim at all. We are talking about people who think that they memed Donald Trump into office. Da gubbermint taking away their memes would rob them of all of their imagined power. I suspect, rather, that the aut-right imagines deplatforming to be an existential threat.

Now, if we are talking about the common "conservative" liberals as the "right," then I can certainly agree that they do not see a real threat in deplatforming. They think that since their candidates get elected half the time their ballots must be worth something. SJWs denying them the right to post YouTube videos or gather at demonstrations that they never get seriously involved in are surely not seen as real threats by "conservatives."

A curious quality of identities is that most of their defining characteristics are decided upon by the very people who hate them. SJWs create the fascist identity every bit as much as fascists create the SJW identity. Zig Forums is nothing without tumblr.

Missing from that equation is the manner by which people are informed of terrorist activity. They see "muslim" terrorists or "white supremacist" terrorists or "anti-abortion" terrorists, as though it were the particular fantasies that made them deranged rather than their derangement producing their fantasies. It is the madness that is their common denominator. Cho Seung-Hui became a killer for the same reasons that Anders Breivik did–he was insane.

Of course, addressing the issue from that angle brings up questions to which certain people do not want answers to. Why are there so many insane people running about? Is a police state really necessary to protect us from them? Does it even help at all? Also, identitarians greatly prefer that the issue by treated as one of identities. "See," the Zig Forumstard says, "All these muslim terrorosts prove that the races really cannot coexist." Likewise, the SJW screams, "Most of the terrorists are problematic cis-het white males! We told you that their devisive language breeds hatred and violence." That useless framing simultaneously reinforces both of their world views and obscures the truth of the matter.

Even worse for leftists, asymetrical warfare gets lumped in with terrorism. It serves as the pretext under which Erdogan persecutes the Kurdish rebels. Those who control the narrative determine what is and is not terrorism, and thus Harris and Clebold get grouped with the PKK.

By calling this a paradox, Pooper is high-key trying to make it look bad.

Ask yourself, why do people hate? It is anger and disdain over a perceived problem. No one who wants fascism just woke up one day and decided they disliked minorities. It is always proximity to those who are different that is correlated with hatred, because the problems are generated by the close proximity. E.g. being around blacks will make you like them less than being far away from them, where their inherent differences from you are not experience in the day-to-day life.

For all the talk of "deconstructing racism", little action is truly taken by leftists to understand WHY different people get mad other each other. I can give you one example about different races smelling different to each other. Indians smell like curry, and this seems weird to european people. However, european people smell like rotting meat to indians. The way our noses are genetically wired makes it so that we "stink" towards one another. The only way you could possibly stop this phenomenon is if every last humanbeing on earth had the exact same hormones, skin oils, and noses as one another. If a european and an indian are roommates, both will be disgusted at how the apartment smells all the time. The european will find the curry smell distasteful, and the indian will find the meat smell distasteful. While this doesn't mean they'll be at each others' throats, it certainly will produce tension between the two people. There are many more elements of race that cause cultural differences and ultimately, generate disdain between both groups.

It is for this reason I have no issue with blacks like Louis Farrakhan, who preaches racial separation. In fact, many of his arguments that he makes are 100% correct. A multiracial society does not work with blacks, whites, browns, or yellows. Blacks should be able to fight for themselves and choose their own government rules, and their own cultural practices, and have their own spaces, just as whites should have as well.

Again, you're assuming that people act in perfect accordance with tactics rather than being heavily influenced by emotion. For example, there are plenty of tactical reasons to tone down the "smash the fash" nonsense, but fear and hatred drives that tactically stupid move onwards.
Zig Forums was frustrated not because of any perceived strategic loss, but because of the emotional defeat of Alex Jones getting banned. In much the same way, when people are desperate or scared, they need to "feel" victory more–anything short of waving one's flag over one's enemies is seen as a defeat or "weakness", they want to crush them totally and absolutely, not win with an unfair treaty.
For a historical example, there was once an agreement between Japan, The U.S., and Great Britain which limited the size of their respective navies to 3:5:5 if I recall correctly–it meant that for every 3 ships Japan had, Britain and the U.S.A. had 5–the Nationalist Japanese Government despised this however, because in spite of essentially limiting the U.S. navy in size and scope they got the "smaller" number and so "lost". Zig Forums sees Alex Jones' censorship as a loss when if anything it makes it look like half the inane shit he talks about is real and the elites are "scared" of him.

Of course you don't, every time I've tried explaining this to leftists, there's always some Anarchist who imagines that I'm "secretly scared" of no platforming and trying to convince you to stop using a valuable tactic.

Other than vastly overestimating your worth in the modern political landscape, you're really underestimating how much damage over-zealous anarchists "noplatforming" moderate right wingers has done to your cause. I'd say you've only been good at pushing conservatives and a few Social Democrats towards my side, while you've only appealed to hyper-partisan liberals at best.

See, through "deplatforming" you don't get rid of us or our ideas, in fact if modern society has taught us anything, it's that it's simply too difficult for heavy handed centralized stat apparatus' to destroy dedicated, ideologically motivated, and decentralized organizations.

You can't stop us, and by trying to stamp us out like a petty tyrant you only give more moral credence to our cause. I sincerely doubt you'll learn from this if only because you tried the same tactics against the Nazis back in Germany, and you fail to understand that by not changing your tactics in those last few decades you set the stage for another dictatorship–though I doubt it's one I'd truly enjoy either.

Attached: 1530680351348.jpg (738x960, 68.55K)

Interestingly enough you don't know who I hate or for what reasons, never once in this thread have I explained my ideals–instead you saw the symbol of the enemy tribe and constructed your argument against that vague ideal rather than the beliefs of the person speaking with you.

Attached: 1527280230664.jpg (1200x758, 178.89K)

They're probably an-coms, and like all anarchists, they're idealists. Just like fascists like to solve the complicated problems of economics by scapegoating some minority, anarchists love the idea of an underdog group "fighting the good fight" against some oppressor. And this childish idea requires simplistic black and white factions, so of course the victims "didn't choose" to be part of the oppressed group, but the oppressors always "choose" to be hateful, bigoted, etc. The oppressor is the antagonist who launches the plot through their actions and heroes, the oppressed, gotta fight him to restore the balance.

What these people need is an understanding of orthodox, materialistic Marxism. People of both "factions", their positions and their views are the result of their circumstances (biological, economical, cultural). Also, some Thorstein Veblen would also be helpful. His concept of conspicuous consumption explains how people do all sort of stupid things for social standing, and like you said with Twitter, liberal online bullying and even anarkiddie window smashing are forms of gaining social standing, as they're really more about the social activity than bringing about any social change.