Unashamedly. Dare you introduce yourself?
1. That's an ironmarch post
Is this an excuse for being retarded?
Something I've noticed with Marxists is that they don't understand metaphysics, or just completely DISTORT and HATE it.
It's like we rely on Dialectical Materialism and had explicitly argued against Idealism (what you call metaphysics).
Post-1914 SocDem objectively weren't Left
2. Social Democracy is iffy because in the 1800s it was the catch all term for "communist" parties
Firstly, 19th century Communists weren't limited to Marxists (ex. Neo-Babouvism).
Secondly, it was not "1800s", as it was since ~1870s (when SPD was becoming the Marxist party) and until World War 1 (by 1915 - Zimmerwald - it was effectively over) that SocDem meant Marxism.
Finally, there is no reason to claim some "iffyiness" (unless you are perusing old books), as we've been using SocDem the same way for more than a century now.
SocDems have always been on the "left" of our paradigm as far as I'm concerned
Your paradigm is a wee bit skewed.
SPD officials in government defended NSDAP members in the 1920s and refused to ally with Communists even after their own Socialist International demanded it from them (they left SocIntern instead). I'm not even mentioning semi-anecdotal accounts of how SPD was busy purging their ranks from Jews when it was shut down by Nazis. The same shit was happening everywhere during interbellum: SocDem were trying to pacify population and were resisting attempts of Left to seize the power and prevent next war. They did not function as Left in any way, but attempted to reach a compromise.
Either way, this is all irrelevant, as it misses the whole point: described interaction between Communists and SocDem did not happen. SocDem (the ones that had been rejected and attacked) broke their own promises and were attacked because of it, not because by some new, more "lefty" Socialist theories had emerged.
Also, I already talked about it before the ironmarch post:
up until the 2000s with the coopting of their ideals for full on neoliberal third way, pro mass immigration, third way ideas that permeate our modern society.
You are confusing SocDem with Modern Liberals (Liberalism of Lloyd George; what Americans call Liberalism). There is a difference between reformism "Marx is (mostly) correct and we need to abolish Capitalism
with taxes through democratic reforms" and welfare state "Capitalism works fine, we just need to re-distribute money a bit".
SocDem are Centrists - they agree with changing status quo, but want to ensure that this change is acceptable to both Left and Right. Hence they become collaborationists and try to play both sides.
(Modern) Liberals are moderate Right-wing - they do not intend to change status quo, only make it less uncompromising so as to avoid the whole "roll out the guillotines!" thing that tends to happen when unrestricted (classical/neo-) Liberalism reigns.
Also, I don't really see this "third way" you are referring to.
3. There is nothing wrong with spiritual aristocracy, castes are natural.
Feel free to provide arguments. Also, I have no idea what you are replying to.
4. I won't say much here except Fascist is basically a slur used by leftoids for shit they don't like
The pic was about Communists, not some vague "leftoids".
Fascism relies on Natural Order
… "Natural Order" is for animals.
5. Natural Order in this case means dharma in the Sanatana Dharma sense, or Vril or Universal Order.
I.e. "Universal Truth". Which is nothing but imaginary friend for those with reduced ability to reason.
Your use of "artificial order" seems to either be an offshoot of you modernist worldview.
I'd agree with "modernist worldview", assuming we mean the same thing (can't be certain on Zig Forums).
Ironmarch wrote a lot about this truth, just read some old pdfs of their shit on archive and you'll get the answers you need.
I'm pretty sure none of them refute that:
specific information can be true only in specific context
I am not a trained philosopher nor a sole arbiter of knowledge,
But you should be aware that modern science is still very certain that metaphysical reasoning doesn't actually work.
there has been plenty of discussion about exactly what you've written before in texts from Schuon to Ironmarch. Go ahead and give them a read, they're not bad.
In other words, ironmarch (which had already proved itself to be incompetent by making two huge mistakes in one pic) had somehow developed an alternative to scientific method, had redefined reasoning itself - an epochal discovery, to say the least.
Apologies, but I remain skeptical.