Fascism is OK if we add 'bol' and a hammer and sickle

NazBol is not leftism, it's a retarded 'ideology' that calls reactionary ideas leftist. Nationalism is not leftist. End of fucking story. Get rid of it.

Attached: 02b3e6bbd97787f5ebdfc6b01b5b7688b12f10e6df8b50b6095d36fa138ff9c4.jpg (213x341, 9.76K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Attached: Pol_Pot_Headshot.jpg (182x243, 5.55K)


Can't get more divide and conquer than that, pork shill.

not even. constantly I see threads talking about how mentally disabled people shouldn't participate in the revolution. and then there's edgy fedora antitheist threads too, but that's small potatoes (pun not intended)

the fact of the matter either all get to participate or nobody does, any prole, that includes the mentally ill. we have low inhibition for being shock troops. untapped resource. any revolutionary will get nowhere without being resourceful.

True for trankies as well

Is it even worth it to post things ironically online anymore, considering there's so many retards like OP who keep taking everything seriously?

Furthermore deplatforming so-called 'incels' is how radicals form (haven't learned since the Muslims huh?). So unless you want mass shootings, which could likely end up turning into bombings, bio-weapons, gas attacks, etc. Do you want them on your side or do you want to be on the receiving end? If you're accelerationist or nihilist, disregard, but if you're any other type of leftist who wants revolutionary praxis and a United working class free of distinction, you must pick your battles. A lot of them aren't spoiled brats because you take what you see as face value, and the whole "buy a hooker" think works if you're rich (women greatly overvalue themselves, especially these days) truly poor, sexless men need a purpose and turning them into cannon fodder is just gonna make things worse.

Where's the irony? I bet having a nazi flag for posters to use is also 'ironic'. Let's be ironic nationalists and ironic nazis, let's round up minorities ironically, then deport them ironically. It's just bants lol How about we kill all the anarchists for a laugh? I bet anarkiddies wouldn't even get such humour. Heh before you respond to this post, you must understand I made it ironically.

The age of irony is over. The 90s will never come back. Brutal honesty is the item of the day. No more empty placades.

Unrestricted Immigration is a fools errand to make porky richer. Stop trying being John Lennon. He got shot for a reason.

Open borders will divide the classes further. You are so naive to think big business wouldn't find a way to exploit collective profits. A monopoly of megacorps running the world. But I digress, you probably don't care.

Humans should be able to move to whatever part of the planet they wish. If immigrants flooding Europe will destroy countries in Europe – good. I have no loyalties towards any State. Favouring one group of Humans who may or may not be friendly to you (people of the same nationality kill one another) over another group of Humans who may or may not be friendly to you just because one group is born within the same arbitrary geographic lines as you are is absolutely ridiculous. We need to realise we are all one, global species.

Yeah irony is dead frankly. It was nice while it lasted but too many newfags and kiddies can't handle it and now it's just a dogwhistle for fascists. Like "GAS ALL THE JEWS LMAO - just kidding fellow kids ~_^. But seriously those damn SJWs are stealing our freedoms to make these don't jokes, and don't you think we need to do something about the Jews making us take in all these Muslims". It's a way of opening the door to all sorts of dangerous beliefs.

It wouldn't, because the Marxist conception of "class" is utterly idiotic. Your idea of "class consciousness" is simply to remove whatever bargaining power employees have against employers by importing unlimited third world labor, that has absolutely no standards whatsoever.

Why on earth would any actual member of the working class side with you commie fucks?

What are you doing on this board?

he's right that racially divided people are easier to rule. The British would redraw lines in Africa, splitting up ethnic tribes and forcing them to share the same government with other tribes. The tribes were too busy infighting against themselves to unite against the British.

Racial division happens because of people like , it's not a fact of life or something that arises necessarily.

I don't like throwing a book at anyone who disagrees with me, but team red vs. team blue is part of human psycology that's not going away anytime soon.

Attached: The_Social_Conquest_of_Earth.jpg (256x389, 20.51K)

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Read A People's History of the United States, racism was literally invented to divide the working class. I never said it was 'for no reason'. Before then there was mixing and cooperation among the white and black slaves.

I was talking about how racial division could happen in worker's movements today and that is by people being against other members of the working class just because they were born in a different place.

Capitalism is a global system. The bourgeoisie is an international class. Do you think people like Bezos and the rest of the 1% care about nationalities? They travel in private airplanes, not worrying about borders. To 'captains of industry' countries are nothing more than systems of controlling the workers. Yet to the workers countries are a source of pride, for the very reason of dividing the international proletarian. Now that's irony.

Sorry kid, but nationalism is one of the more consistent revolutionary takes in the modern capitalism apparatus

Attached: 554120.jpg (600x600, 69K)

Not going to play this faggy game where we keep throwing books at each other. Different people are different and only a fool ignores that.

Attached: germans getting angry.mp4 (640x360, 8.02M)

Except humans in the state of nature are originally non-territorial, and upon seeing another group "enroaching" on their land, they simply moved to another place, avoiding conflict.
Plus, humans, in the state of nature originally didn't care about shit like race or whatever. We were just animals—that you fuck a nigger doesn't matter much for you, as long as you get laid and feel great.
Nation, land, gender, race, shit like that, are all abstract concepts created by agriculture, division of labor, surplus and symbolic culture.

Attached: Bastille_2007-05-06_anti_Sarkozy_487645689_c9fce856e3_o.jpg (1020x681, 139.75K)

Pol Pot did by just killing the upper class. Your move Sambo. And I don't follow Marx. I follow Sorel and Blanqui

What's wrong with domestic violence?

After all it's just a social construct.

Good lord what a shit thread.

It's not even nationalism, it's a meme.

Attached: nazboltheory.png (700x4791, 3.33M)

That isn't true. I will show you exactly why.

Not true. Colonies were a source of nationalist pride and patriotism, the British fought to keep their colonies, so did the French. Furthermore, nationalism almost always leads to conquest, when you think your country is the best you start acting like it. Nationalism mobilised the German people in WWII, it was called N.ational Socialism for a reason. It was nationalism that inspired the Japanese to attempt a genocide on the Chinese. As early as the 80s Britain fought in Falklands to keep them, and that was a nationalist thing as well.

Not if the leader of the country is willing to allow the exploitation of their own country by multi-national corporations in exchange for personal gain, like it is happening in ex-Yu countries, it used to happen in Central America to a large degree as well. One of the main ways imperialist-friendly right-wing rulers hold onto power is through nationalism. Can't you see the rise in nationalism, fascism and right-wing terrorism happening at the same time? If by 'revolutionary takes' you mean a fascist movement that seems anti-capitalist just because it is against neoliberalism then you can count me out.

Show me where a confederation of nationalists ever existed for a long time. It was nationalism that played a large part in the break up of Yugoslavia.

Why do you think it is one or the other? Besides, maybe you should have bren involved in these leftist movements and perhaps done something against the neoliberal creep into leftist movements. But you're just on the side-lines, complaining that movements aren't leftist enough while doing absolutely nothing about it.

Why are 'race, creed and hyper masculinity' good things? What the fuck is hyper masculinity anyway? Now *that* sounds like a 'SJW' word. Race is a social construct and while there are differences among people, people of the same 'race' aren't as similar to one another as you might think. Even on /his/ and Zig Forums they argue about percentages of genetic markers so everyone is some sort of mix. At which percentage do we set 'belonging', 60%, 70%? You can see that the whole 'race' thing is a futile exercise that achieves nothing but separate people, which is objectively counter-productive to our development.

Calling something a meme isn't an argument.

People had colonies over purely economic factors, religious motives, scarcity of resources. Not always "nationalism" was the motive.

There is tons of nations in Europe that were "nationalist" and still didn't go invading every single country possible. And the reason the Japanese invaded China was literally almost purely for scarcity motives. Not to say "nationalism" was one of the many motives many people fought to liberate themselves from colonialists and gain sovereignty again.

Yes has in a bunch of different ethnicities and cultures coexisting didn't work and people still wanted their countries to be independent,great example you have there against nationalism you retard.

Garbage post

Fuck off back to Reddit you faggot liberal trash.

Confirmed for never having read a history book. To say 'people living together for thousands of years' is ridiculous because it ignores movement, mixing, trade, internal power struggles, etc. Nation-states arose because of ambitions for war and riches necessitated extraction of resources from the population. The State didn't just happen, the State is a collection of apparatuses, such as bureaucracy, taxation, education, law-making and law enforcing, and so on. All of these 'institutions' were established to extract resources, including labour from the subjugated population. Read "Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1990" by Charles Tilly to read more about it. He makes a compelling argument.

You need to prove race exists, btw, you can't just point to people of different skin colour and call it a day. People within the same race have different skin tones, eye colour, hair colour, face shape, body type, etc. How do you classify people of mixed race? How does race analysis help? It seems to bring up more questions than it answers. And because it is such a varied concept it is unlikely there can ever be agreement on one 'race theory'.

Nobody is saying otherwise. Unironic "nazbols" hardly exist.

Except it unironically exists in Russia and other Eastern European states.

And in the West.

Attached: 1526027980010.jpg (1024x1024, 101.64K)

Rather than using the word Irony, or the ironic adjective, I suggest using the word satire.

Of course, the internet being what it is, Poe's law applies here. But there wouldn't be satire if the real thing didn't exist.

Who cares? When someone says race is a social construct what he really means is that actually caring (as in, recognizing, acting differently, whatever) about race is a purely social consturct and has no place in the human state of nature. Plus, being bred to obey certain behavioural tendencies in itself is a construct of society! Human domestication only started with or a little before actual society in the form of civilization.
Everyone knows some dude has a different skin color. That he has a different skin color is a fact, not a construct—recognizing and acting around that fact IS a social construct.

Attached: 08p.jpg (800x600, 350.76K)

Race is inherently a social construct, because while there are a wide array of actual genetic differences between
men, and while there are "groups" with close genetic or phenotypic ressemblance, there's no definite, natural way
to delimit these groups as monolithic entities. Therefore the demarkation has to be social in nature.

Yeah, exactly. People trying to put abstract delimiters and creating "race" is what its about.

I still think its Haram

It's also funny how Marxists hate the US but also hate the Confederacy for seceeding because 'muh slavery' pick a side or get walled with a dik up yet ass

If race is a social construct then why are there unique cultures with unique languages, different skull formations, difference in Intel, and pigmentation?

Were small but growing

Also the same people who say it's a Social construct are the same faggots who deny the existence of God because 'muh burden of proof'

It's like you only approve of science if it fits your agenda

Your hands, wrists, and arms are different from each other, and are material things that objectively exist, but the precise lines between them and their significance as conceptual distinctions are wholly arbitrary and socially constructed.

Similarly, varying degrees of historical genetic isolation have produced different genetic characteristics and populations, but the exact lines by which any individual person or genetic trait is grouped with others are a purely arbitrary social construct. As such, the "races" you are spooked by are only valid insofar as they are a more useful schema than other mode of classification.

Attached: wrist-and-hand-anatomy-anatomy-of-the-wrist-and-hand-styrnsupdateinfo.jpg (795x1024, 572.44K)

NazBol isn't a thing. It's merely Zig Forumsturds larping as socialists.

NazBol is as idpol as it gets. Every single one of them goes the autistic way of "muh white race" and "muh white genocide"

even if this may be true, does that extend to society as well. the fucked up thing about some people is they are not absolutist, i.e., fascist, for a lack of a better word about their own politics, they become instant moralists when you breach social contracts, whether beneficial or harming, but that too could all be a matter of opinion as it depends on the individual preaching such matters. another man's trash, etc.

Attached: 10007 (1).jpg (192x192, 8.68K)

There's no need to be mean to the guy. He made good arguments, I'm just gonna politely disagree with his example of Nazis and Japan

Honestly Europe was afraid of The Nazis doing to them what they did to the rest of the world. Its the old "something is always bad" argument. Yes imperialism is always bad. But imperialists imperializing imperialists is hella funny and I'd say for the better.

Look at what shit holes Japan and Germany are now. Third positionism is definitely the lesser evil and America has put a stop to it a thousand times for a reason in Iraq, Libya, etc

Attached: Naruto-Shippuden-Episode-492-Release-Date-And-Spoilers-Shikamaru-Gets-Rescued--520x294.jpg (520x294, 21.77K)

On Zig Forums you post with an ancap flag.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-12-08 South Park did a commie episode where they literally quote Marx and set up a worker's revolt plot aga[...].png (1255x423, 148.7K)

All paths lead to accelerationism my good boy. You seem han'gry and in need of tendie nourishment

Let's face it. If society collapses it won't be we're all suddenly dead. Itll just be a ghetto and I'll happily hang a no step on snek flag at my used abortion clinic car lot where Forest is on a commercial "prices so low to kill your disgusting best you'd think we were communists!!!"

Because alienation is a great motivator. While you're red in the face I'm green in the eye

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 90.89K)

Another word is used to refer to a common culture, language, etc. I'll let you guess which one, but it's not race (it's ethnicity).
If you take an ethnic group, you (usually) draw lines based on cultural/social concepts. Once the lines are drawn, we can of course notice
similarities in genome. As I mentionned earlier, these similarities exist to a degree, they just don't have natural boundaries.

You can't slap the word White on a common people with a common language, a common culture, a common religion…

This poster gets it. Also, even within a single nation-state the population will not be homogenous, you'll have atheists as well as religious people, or maybe two or three religions represented among the population. Also, a nation-state can have different cultures within it, this is especially noticeable in Europe, where different parts of countries got influenced by their neighbours, e.g. south of Spain is different than their North. Hell, 'Spain' is a collection of 6-7 smaller regions, two of these regions have their own language (Basque and Catalonia). India is another example, African countries as well, in Nigeria there are 4 different ethnic groups (iirc) living inside the same 'nation-state'.

Once we actually look at a composition of a country, we see that it is not homogenous but its apparent homogeneity is usually an illusion. Compare people from Southern Italy to people in Northern Italy and you will find differences, same for many other countries.

I don't understand how people can't see that race, country, nationality is literally a human invention, a bourgeois invention, that only happened because of the way Human society developed. In the past 'nationalism' and 'national pride' weren't so commonplace, peasants got forced into armies to fight, their surplus was taken under the threat of force, sailors in the Great British Navy would be pressed into service. Nationalism is a relatively new concept, about 1000-1200 year old concept, because nation-states didn't exist before then.

Where are all the Denisovans, Neanderthals, Homo Floresiensis, Homo Habilis and an unnamed genus attested only be genetic evidence in African populations, then? If humans are non-territorial, as you assert, where are these other five lineages of human?

Don't know about the others, but Homo Sapiens have anywhere from 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA, evidence of interbreeding in the past.

solution: America becomes third position. besides, what goes around comes around.

god Jim, you're making me erect.

NPC faggot detected. WE ARE LEGION.

In true D&D fashion, humans fucked them until they became human.

I'm not a nazbol but if you don't understand that fascistic ideology is called third positionist because it breaks the left-right false dichotomy yain't doing it right.

Attached: quote-reduce-the-supply-of-black-labor-by-colonizing-the-black-laborer-out-of-the-country-abraham-lincoln-127-5-0530.jpg (850x400, 61.84K)

It does nothing of the sort.

You're conflating economic policies as with social policies.

Xenophilia is a social policy, not economic.

If you have a workers commune that hates niggers, it doesn't magically become "less-communister".

Attached: Stirner.jpg (753x800, 170.22K)

7, 10, 11-18, 20, and 21

It literally does.


It was a meme the same way "the jews did it" was a meme on Zig Forums before everyone decided it wasn't a meme anymore.
You people are beyond redemption, only calling yourselves leftist because you deluded yourself into thinking we'll get rid of the brownies to protect the workers' wages or some dumb shit.

You're just a dumb kid, aren't ya? Don't even bother responding. Go read a book.

You got me, bro. I actually love corporations.

Apple, Twitter, Facebook, and Google are so based when they ban white nationalists constantly.

so your evidence that territorial conquest didn't come from evolution is….that humans originally weren't territorial? You wear that anprim flag but I don't think you know what it means. Other ape species and monkey species exist in tribes of around 150, and have patrols that protect some imaginary line. They have complex social hierarchies, just as humans do. Alpha males of the tribe often kill their competitors' offspring and don't let weaker males breed with the females.

You literally have no comprehension of humanity and you need to go back to reddit with the other liberals.

Attached: Sentinelese ooga booga.jpg (750x527, 32.25K)

Imagine being this ignorant lol


Your "ironic" shitposting would turn serious the millisecond enough people started agreeing with them. People learned from what happened to Zig Forums, faggot.

Xenophiles couldn't compete in a free speech zone?

Bonobos are lead by matriarchs.

Those niggas domesticated tho

Are you really arguing that there are no similarities between humans and apes/monkeys? Chimpanzees are the closest relative at 99.6% DNA, while Bonobos are 98.7% shared human DNA

And some human tribes are matriarchal too, in africa. Chimpanzees, however, have troop culture where an alpha male leads a group of beta males, complex social hierarchies, and have borders and resource control. Look at the first video. Rape, theft, and murder are earlier forms of competition: psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201006/why-criminals-are-less-intelligent-non-criminals

The second video also shows that monkeys/apes understand unfairness as well. The 2000's big internet debate was atheists versus christians, and it was thoroughly established that humans evolved from apes, or at least have common ancestry with apes/monkeys. I'm not buying you pretending to be retarded and forgetting that humans are still animals at heart, and have animalist behaviors similar to their relatives.

Attached: unequalpay.webm (640x360 6.24 MB, 7.54M)

Dude, if after introspection and asking yourself about what we are you come to the conclusion that you, and by extension other people, are led by instincts, intuitions and learned behaviours similar to that of Chimpanzees and other ape social groups then I don't know what to tell you.

We aren't descended from apes, we just share a common ancestor. A human being lives in conditions that are much different than that of Chimpanzees and Humans possesses faculties that apes do not, like language. But I don't think you really believe Humans are like apes, it's just a convenient way for you to explain why you don't like or are afraid of people who look different than you. Have you considered that perhaps your own conditions and your socialisations played a part in your development?

You can find examples of animals cooperating with different species, and you can find different 'races', nations living and working together, mixing together. This invalidates your genetic argument.

I don't know what else to tell you besides prepare to lose. The history of mankind has been 10,000 years of territorial conquest, and you actually believe you can educate people out of it.

Next you'll ask me to prove why cats purr and dogs bark.

Holy shit, you really don't know anything.

You're out of arguments and you haven't proven your claims. And yet you still have the gall to be arrogant and condescending. Amazing.

Have you considered that humans might conquer and war not because of a genetic imperative but because it serves interests of the bourgeoisie, in other words Capital. It is well-known that the US starts wars for corporate interests, arms dealers from around the world sell weapons to warlords who use those guns to control areas and enrich themselves (and then use parts of those profits to buy more weapons), that countries often sell weapons to both sides in conflicts, that countries arm other nations friendly to them to protect their geopolitical interests and expand markets for their domestic companies.

All this information, about apes, humans, wars and conflicts is readily available and with the internet it is easier than ever to find it. That you continue to think that Humans fight each other because "we're nothing but animals lol" and refuse to learn is mind-boggling. At which point does it become more important to be right, on the internet of all places, than to actually have an idea what is really going on. Aren't you curious? Are you really satisfied with your conclusions and the level of understanding you have demonstrated in this thread?



nothing satirical about we doin nigga.

Where is your evidence that Anarcho Queer Furry Communism motivates people to start the revolution? I mean, it works so well right? Definitely not tribalism nooo, that's a spook. Definitely not part of human nature.

Read a book nigger, this one
I'm taking the word of a pulitzer prize winning social biologist over some literal who

Attached: massivecrowd.PNG (1104x839, 1.8M)

I heard Forest was the vocalist in a incel themed blackend death metal band with J Barg these days, he might write a song or 2 about killing moderators though

Attached: 1a1726ca7b1b67fe4debf2b35581eda2c8081a511d868b096858742754204c54.jpg (756x945, 110.1K)

Domesticated human tribes, though. Humans are highly hierarchical and form states, does that mean it happens in original humans? No—and anthropology has proven that human hunter-gatherer bands are non-hierarchical and egalitarian.

Its an anti-imperialist ideology so we support it.

What are you talking about? Who or what are you arguing against? Anarcho Queer Furry Communism?

First of all, the pulitzer is a literary prize, not a scientific one. Second of all, a quick search for that book shows that Wilson's views are not accepted by the scientific community.

Alright, I'll humor you.

Let's say we have societal collapse from climate change, oil runs out, etc. What's stopping this process from starting all over again? Hierarchy, love of family, and ingroup altruism are extremely effective methods in a scarce resource environment. In this way, I believe it justifies anti-imperialist nationalism, becomes it acknowledges that in a cruel world, you must take precautions, but it also avoids the slave-like capitalism. Ants are slave like, but it has no regard for the individual ant. An unhappy, brainless experience. A tribe must be united, but it must care for the tribe members, and not let one with hierarchical power abuse his position.

It's kind of like how Trump stated he wanted to withdraw from foreign wars, and (so far) has avoided getting America into another war with either Russia or the DPRK. He hasn't invaded a middle eastern country yet besides the Syria missile strikes to my knowledge. He's fucked up in major ways and sees the need to cater to jewish people (like a hanukkah celebration), but he's the least imperialist president of the past

Basically he admits that Wilson's theory is just the selfish gene, and this is an argument over semantics.

Problem is that bullying and sexism work, even if you disagree with the morality of it. And bringing up the holocaust lol, how is this an argument? Bullying is what kids naturally do to explore their emotions and learn for the real world. Most kids that were bullied in highschool were usually pricks who were assholes. I went to sit with an alone kid and learned quickly why no one wanted to sit with him.

Islam is a powerful opponent, I can agree. White shitlibs who don't have the will to fight and rebuke islam in their countries don't deserve to have offspring. Mothers who kill their own babies in abortion don't deserve offspring either.

Having been around diversity my whole life, it's appropriate to say that there are legitimate language barriers between the races.

A lot of this dude's arguments are just attacking Wilson for wrongthink. "That's racist, that's sexist, I can't believe you disagreed with Noam Chomsky blah blah blah".

Poor reading comprehension.

Not true at all. Since you seem to be having trouble understanding the text I will copy paste some of the arguments, feel free to pin point which ones are attacking Wilson for wrongthink.

again, I can condense your entire argument down to "no wrongthink aloud". If you're mentally ill enough to kill your own children then you're a genetic dead end. In this vain, mormons who avoid substance abuse and have large families will out-breed suicidal liberals. You are literally getting dabbed on by evolution.

whoops, mea culpa.

Imagine being to retarded as to post this tabula rasa trash in a community where instinctive longing for sex and companionship causes regular

I like how that is the only thing out of a two-post post you were able to answer. Really? You are going to defend the part where you say "White shitlibs who don't have the will to fight and rebuke islam in their countries don't deserve to have offspring"? You don't see how that sentence sounds like something a crazy person would write?

No, you can't. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. You ignore all the arguments and go off on another tangent unrelated to discussion because you think rambling about "anarcho queer feminists" and "mormons breeding out liberals" makes your position stronger. It doesn't, it just shows that you had one argument "muh Humans are apes" and after that got destroyed you resorted to name calling.

I think you need to ask yourself why your ego doesn't allow you to accept you were wrong about something. It's not a sign of weakness to change your mind in light of new information. There is no cosmic reward for "sticking to your guns" and being really really stubborn.

Wrong. If you have 10 children, and you kill 9 of them, you are not a 'genetic dead end'. That is beside the point, I just want to show you that even when you write something that seems true, it's not. And no one is arguing that killing your own children is a bad idea. Wtf? The article specifically says that the kin selection theory is true, where animals have an interest in protecting their own offspring as well as family. How you get 'kill all offspring' from that is a mystery.

Haha! Suicidal shitlibs will turn you into a gay muslim!

The leaps in logic to just be 'right on the internet' are amazing. Not only that, but you call me a retard and insult me as if what you're saying is an undeniable truth that only a retard would argue against. Also, apes don't have girlfriends and 'a girlfriend' isn't something found in nature. Various animals have different mating patterns. Albatrosses mate for life, maybe we're actually birds, not apes.

Nazbol gang is LARPing

This but in ironically.

your mother is LARPing on MUH EGO DIK


based Mutualists