You will end up like Hippies if you don't learn Materialism

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_xxJY3ERjfAJ:https://8ch.net/leftypol/res/2610844.html &cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
8ch.net/leftypol/res/2292575.html#2301377

You are literally the same as the New Left in the 60's except Right-Wing. Sam Hyde's Government book is literally the same as the Steal this Book Book. You keep thinking that you will wake people up but they you materialism. You are gonna end up the same fate as the hippies. Becoming what you hate.

Learn materialism. It's not gonna hurt you if you don't.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Class is important, there is more in common with a ghettto nigger, drunk injun, and a trailer park White than Bill Gates and that White.

Capitalism is actually the reason for all the anti-White stuff. It's because the Globalist Capitalists are trying to pave the way for a new source of Capital. It wants non-Whites to move in so that it can suck the Capital out of them. There is actually a War on White Males but it's because of Capitalism. Capitalism is in favor of White Women and Non-White Men which is why Race-Mixing is being pushed. All the degeneracy that people hate is because of Capitalism. The reason for Multiculturalism, Homosexuality, Trannys, even Cuckolding is because of Capitalism. It wants to keep the Rate of Profit up and so it will push all this. Something that people need to realize is that Immigration literally only happens because of the falling Rate of Profit (Adam Smith talked about it waaaaaaay back). Capitalism also destroys Culture.

Capitalism forces the breakdown of the family by forcing relatives to break apart due to financial difficulties, job requirements, commute requirements, alienation etc.

Capitalism destroys tradition by advancing technological progression which in itself brings about social change.

Capitalism destroys culture via commodification and replaces it with mass produced McCulture.

Capitalism destroys morals by neutralizing it under the banner of the market and justifying actions on the basis of their voluntary nature and the legal parameters which surround such actions whilst creating a system in which individuals who determine such legal parameters are themselves subject to enticement through lobbying etc.

Capitalism is responsible for mass immigration as it destabilizes the third world, the upper classes or elites promote mass immigration through official government policies, academia, and the media, and condemn as intolerant and xenophobic the working-class who have to suffer the adverse consequences of that immigration. It has undermined the political strength of the organised working class, along with draconian anti-trade union legislation and mass de-industrialisation backed up by state violence. A labor shortage means the working class have power and mass immigration prevents this and them from getting too uppity. The last thing the upper classes want is their cattle being empowered.

Instead of having to finance families and kids for the working class with decent wages, constant mass immigration allows them to just replace aging, childless proles with fresh young bodies. These immigrants will also have no social affinity whatsoever with the aging and now jobless indigenous population. This allows the capitalist class to overturn the pension systems by playing the pensionaires (=indigenous population) against the working class (=immigrants).

Therefore, mass immigration is a hidden form of genocide (indigenous population can no longer afford to procreate) that increases the profits of the upper class. The vast majority of births historically happen in the lower class. The future middle class recruits itself from the current lower class.

The ultimate goal is to create defunct nation states under an all-powerful, informal world government that consists of transnational banks and transnational corps with their armies of hired lawyers and the mass media they use to control public opinion.

This is class warfare pure and simple.

If you want to win you need to adopt a Materialist viewpoint. You don't need to be a Communist, you can be NazBol or whatever but you are gonna win more with this than what you are doing.

Ever noticed that the BASED East European nations had a Socialist economy?

Attached: Woke on Jews.jpg (850x400, 70.2K)

We are already NatSoc, go to cuckchan if you want to convert AnCaps.

Materialism is kiked in all its forms.
National Socialism is metaphysical in nature and focuses on the transcendent qualities of man and the health of the people. It is holistic and stands against both Jewish finance and Bolshevism.

/thread

Yes. Fascism is a philosophy of political action guided by absolute idealism, a fusion of the philosophies of Hegel and Berkeley.

But the reason all of this is happening is because of a Materialist viewpoint.

this doesn't seem like a very intelligent thing to say so i'm going to pretend I never read it

No there isn't, ghetto niggers and rich niggers are equally retarded, one just has more money than the other.

I'm inclined to extend a claim made by the political scientist Hanspeter Kriesi from the electoral domain to the social domain.

Kriesi claims that the process of economic and cultural globalisation benefits different demographics than those who suffer from it; certain distinct groups of people are the 'winners' and others are the 'losers'. Thus, the political realignment that the west is experiencing at the moment can be seen as the 'losers' and 'winners' of globalisation mobilising to protect and advance their respective interests. For Kriesi, this is a methodology to understand why the political landscape of the west increasingly resembles a Blairite/Clintonite 'centre' on one side against a loosely defined group of nativists and nationalists who seem to cut across the traditional left/right divide.

But let's break it down into the cultural domain. Who are the winners and losers? Let's generalise the attributes of these two groups from what we see in a modest empirical analysis (there's far more than merely this, but for brevity's sake I'm being reductionist):

Winnners
More likely to work in white-collar professions.
More likely to live in a city or a large metropolitan area.
More likely to be non-white.
Losers
More likely to work in blue-collar industries.
More likely to live in a peripheral or underdeveloped region of their nation.
More likely to be white.

These three contrasting attributes of the winners and losers in the division are actually closely related, for what are hopefully obvious reasons. White collar professions tend to agglomerate in major population centres, which in turn typically are more ethnically 'diverse' due to their magnetism for migrants and non-natives. Also, men are far more likely to be in blue-collar jobs than white-collar ones, and also gravitate towards rural or sub-urban locales.

The winners of globalisation can be understood to be either the global ultra-poor or the western elites. In the former case, a Chadian or a Nigerian is afforded access to an increase in wealth and income through taking lower skilled work from a western country, and in the latter case, those who already have money and institutional power will find inefficiencies in the organisations they control reduced as costs of labour drop markedly. The losers of globalisation tend to be the working-to-middle class inhabitants of the western nations who are now finding that a job that once could sustain an entire family is now being moved abroad or is having its wages cut to compete with Pranay's work in Bombay.

Thus, we can see that both the winners and losers tend to have their own divergent interests and tend to compose discernible groups. We have all the makings for conflict between the two; and thus we see the cultural war that has been fermenting increasingly for the past couple of decades. It is born of the fact that white men in the west tend to be the socioeconomic losers of globalisation, whilst women and ethnic minorities are far more likely to be the beneficiaries. Culture being as it is - formulated post-hoc after socieconomic struggles - the 'war on white men' we see in the media is the product of two things:

White men tending towards being the opponents of the economic and cultural agenda that tends to prevail in the intellectual or creative professions (seeing as they are the preserve of white collar urbanites).
White men being an underrepresented 'other' that those in intellectual or creative professions don't encounter that often, especially white men who themselves are 'losers' and thus indulge in wrongthink (remember, the most proportionally underrepresented demographic in higher education or elite institutions is working class white men).

...

Quit shitting up the board with your spam. Mods WILL ban you if you keep this up. Like I said in the other thread, go get your fix somewhere else. The way I see it you're no better than a druggie with your need for internet arguements.