In 1995 Umberto Eco, the world's foremost semiotician and a renowned liberal intellectual, wrote Ur-Fascism (eternal fascism). The essay itself is about what fascism is fundamentally. In it, he defines fascism as truth. He also claims liberalism is in a war with fascism. So liberalism is actually a war against truth itself.
"the combination of different forms of belief or practice"; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth. As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
The idea of truth he's pointing to is not different from the one belonging to the worldview of Christianity. In other words, he's talking about absolute truth as opposed to relative "truth".
From the liberal POV, essentially, absolute truth means no liberalism because liberalism is relativism. Think about it: if absolute truth exists and it is true that homosexuality is bad for society and that favouring ones own race is better than not favouring it, you can't have liberalism. Thus, liberalism is a war against truth and especially Christianity (by Eco's admission). And if liberalism is a war against "fascism", then liberalism's grand goal is the complete destruction of the West because the west is Christian.
Ever wondered why liberals are so allergic to truth? There's your answer. It's too fashy.
surrounding Captain Muddy, talked in tentative French. Captain Muddy knew some French, too. My first image of American liberators was thus – after so many palefaces in black shirts – that of a cultivated black man in a yellow-green uniform saying: " Oui, merci beaucoup, Madame, moi aussi j'aime le champagne . . ." Unfortunately there was no champagne, but Captain Muddy gave me my first piece of Wrigley's Spearmint and I started chewing all day long. At night I put my wad in a water glass, so it would be fresh for the next day.
Nigger Love ———————- I did like this though:
Josiah Fisher
Yeah, a dyed-in-the-wool-liberal.
Jose Ortiz
Hold that thought.
>pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf Page 3 Page 5 Are you linking the right essay? The only mentions of christianity, christian, christ, are when specifying that NSDAP is anti-christian. It sounds like you're injecting your viewpoint to try and attach christianity to fascism.
Furthermore the only mentions of truth are in page 6:
Michael Wood
He doesn't mention Christianity but Christianity has a primeval truth (God) and God's laws for man are absolute. In Christianity, truth has been spelled out once and for all.
I know but he put that feature first because it's the most important. Why? Truth:
Without truth, there is no Fascism.
You have to pierce his veiled language here. As a liberal, he doesn't word it in clear language and that's intentional. Read it a bit more and think about it. The only logical conclusion is that he's saying that liberalism is in an eternal struggle against truth (fascism).
Brayden Scott
If it makes it any easier, forget Christianity and replace it with Islam or Judaism. Doesn't matter. Hell, replace it with NatSoc.
Ethan Jones
Who cares?
Charles Nguyen
I only used Christianity because the West is more or less Christian (at least our culture still is) and liberalism is a largely Western phenomenon. That's the dialectic. If the West was NatSoc you could replace it with Natsoc.
Nathan Cook
You think he gets turned on by the negroes? It sounds like he worships them in that story tbh.
Carter Morgan
see the thing that really gets them the most is the bluntness they can't be blunt because they can never tell how they really feel thus they are never authentically living as their idealized self they only know what they're taught and told to feel similarly they can never produce anything meaningful because they fundamentally exist through a mediated lens they wish to subject each and every thinker to their own mediated lens so as to manufacture truth through consensus via controlled mediated means niggers lay it out pretty plain in intro to philosophy classes and beyond just no one ever has the balls to do anything other than their peers which is learn from the professor they just do as they're taught and the cycle continues fundamentally they just cannot coexist in a world of creators when they only are aware of the ability to destroy
Thanks to Hollywood and the like, having Natsoc be unChristian/Anti Christian evokes scenes where NatSocs allow their own Christian families to be executed for not abandoning their morals and ethics. It will take a ton of work to reconcile this. Besides, NatSoc Germany gathered an alliance of Protestants and Catholics against the ungodly atheistic Bolshevik USSR. In some cases, the Christian cross was brought along, similar to the Crusades previous.
Carson Robinson
Yeah, they are programmed to be to be anti-truth by the liberal programming system. Liberalism is used to program people to be opposed to the truth and attack the people who dare speak it because it's anti-truth by nature. It creates a cult of people hyper-sensitive to anything that conflicts with their world view, no matter how true it is. They are permanently living in denial and are only concerned with how they fit into the social paradigm that was created for them, a place void of truth (meaning) where the only ideal and important thing to existence itself is pleasure. That's why you see libs engaging living self-destructive lives, living only for pleasure. If pleasure is the only important thing and if life is only meaningless suffering, their world view, the only logical conclusion is self-annihilation to escape the suffering. And that's why Jews and globalists are pushing transhumanism, which is essentially marketed to the masses as a way to transcend human existence and suffering itself. In reality, it's the final step in creating the golem – the ultimate NPC. With electrode implants connected to a super microcomputer, they can be programmed using actual code and can be made to do whatever the elite want. That's not that far off either: scientists have already figured out how to manipulate the brain to remove a belief in God and remove racial biases.
Austin Sanchez
Checked
Wyatt Sanchez
He's not speaking about modern USA liberalism, but original liberalism(i.e. the same ideology that created the USA)
Ryder Adams
They are the same thing
Blake Reyes
All liberal traditions come from the same tradition and therefore they're all essentially the same. The difference between liberalism and old liberalism is that liberalism is old liberalism taken to its philosophical conclusion. If you start off with a set off presuppositions, logically, you end with those same presuppositions. Logic unravels along with dialectic. The fundamental presuppositions of liberalism are: only the individual exists, therefore individual liberty is of great importance, there exists no absolute truth, and the world is matter only (materialism). If absolute truth doesn't exist, if only individuals exist, if individual liberty is of great importance (primacy of the individual), then being a tranny is okay, being a homo is okay, miscegenation is okay, whatever you want is okay, as long as you don't infringe on the liberty of others. That's new liberalism. The reason the West is nu-liberal now is because it adopted old liberalism at an earlier time. The logic unravelled with the dialectic, and now you live in a civilisation that is effectively a suicide cult (because liberalism is naturally, fundamentally opposed to Western-Christian culture).
Colton Cruz
Yes. It seems the normies summarize all their values to this: muh morality & FEELS > Reality. It's sad that your moral code dictates you and your people to become extinct. Seems pretty arbitrary.
Isaac Davis
It's a gnostic pose, better to be in a delusional Utopia than conform to natural law (yet they are godless, athiest, matierialist communists.)
Christians act exactly like kikes, they twist everything to suit their needs. The irony of a Christian talking about "ultimate truth" is hilarious. Apollonius of Tyana was more real than Christ ever was.
Nathaniel Turner
It sounds like you're injecting your viewpoint to try and attach Christianity to fascism.
Xavier Perez
Marxism socialism is the fourth abrahamic religion its just substitute god with the greater good™ so they fight social entropy by creating rearranged mirage.
If they enforce laws that punish people for noticing clear trends, and censor statistics to cover up things that contradict their narrative, they're anti-truth.
Nathan Fisher
West is shit West has been shit since it adopted Christianity
Kayden Garcia
found the jew. Cesar was a pontiff, like the catholic popes; catholicism is merely the continuation of the roman empire.
well he isn't wrong, the dichotomy right-left in depth is ultimately linked to two widely separate visions of the world, which can hardly be considered christian alone but is in general the traditional view of existence, with a superworld of Truth above the material world as the hinge around which everything revolves, ultimately in contrast with the materialistic and mechanistic progressive worldview whose version of "truth" is contingent exclusively around the human dimension, starting and ending with man
Tyler Flores
Not in any way or form is this true. That's like saying homosexuality is a derivative of heterosexuality.
Nathaniel Reyes
"So liberalism is actually a war against truth itself."
Thats the most ridiculous staement imaginable …at least for anyone that knows what the term liberal means (in the classical tradition at least).
But alas, perhaps i set my expectations too high for a 3rd worlder intellectual.
While that is broadly correct (both parties in US are Liberal; albeit of different kinds), it is also true that what known in US as the Liberalism is Modern Liberalism (the one promoted by Lloyd George of Liberal Party in UK) which is not recognized as the Liberalism outside of US.
< thinks Robespierre is Liberal It was Girondines who were Liberal. Robespierre guillotined them. In modern terms he was Centrist (SocDem).
Ayden Martin
This
There is nothing in Communism that opposes Christian ideas. They only reject Jesus name by take everything else.
Leo Martinez
That is not exactly correct.
I mean, if we are talking Communism in general, then it can be presented as some kind of "incarnation" of abrahamic religion (after all, for more than a thousand years, communists were religious orders of Christianity).
But if we are talking about modern communism (synonymous with Marxism), then it is wrong.
For general population (well, working population) communism is explicitly "for personal good". "For the greater good" can apply only to the dedicated Communists (a scant minority), and even there we have plenty of people with agendas not necessarily limited to progress or survival of mankind (ex. vendettas against powers that be are quite common).
As for philosophical basis, I would say it is closer to Taoism.
Levi Gray
Christ insanity is also a war against truth. This is why they burned Europeans and European books/art/ideas/anything else. They are the reason we have the problem of NPCs and normalfags today who can't handle the truth.
Gabriel Miller
Truth doesn't even matter lol. Normalfags couldn't give two shits if what they believe is the truth or not.
Tyler Butler
Never said they were equivalent but the left is largely liberal.
Communism is dialectical materialism. Christianity is dualistic and therefore the two are contradictory at the fundamental level. Your assumption of equality is also wrong. Christianity does not claim absolute equality. It does not claim people are absolutely equal. It claims people share equality at the essential level, the level of essences. Things can share the same essence while being different in nature and quality. So while people are equal they're also not equal. Autistics like you utterly fail to grasp this abstract level of thought. Your claim of sameness to communism is utterly, completely wrong.
You're being autistic. Forget whether you like Christianity or not and just look at it from a philosophical POV. Christianity posits the existence of universal truths and the metaphysical. God himself is the source of truth itself.
Zachary Rivera
You're an uneducated retard. All liberalism is essentially the same. All variations share the same moral, epistemic, and metaphysical presuppositions. It all comes from the same revolutionary tradition. It's all leftism.
Camden Flores
Repeat after me: CHRISTIANS ARE CRYPTO-JEWS AND CHOKE TOO ON THE DAY OF THE GAS!
No shit, they are people who refuse to accept reality.
Lincoln Ward
wow. such truth. yeidel deidel, hymie.
Gavin Adams
Also, if the perfect word of the perfect god was worth a damn, there would be no need for hermeneutics or apologetics.
William Kelly
All Liberals are right-wing. US Liberals (Modern Liberalism) are moderate Right.
US Liberals are simply being presented as Left by US mass-media so as to look different from conservatives. Two-party system would implode, if Republicans and Democrats didn't constantly invent artificial differences between themselves, so as to present illusion of choice to the public.
It is Marxist arguments for Communism (not Communism per se) that contradict basics of Christianity. Communism itself does not. As I had already pointed out communists were Christians for more than a thousand years.
Neither does Communism (nor Marxism). The meme about absolute equality is a strawman.
I mean, the motto of all Socialists (repeated multiple times by everyone; explicitly stated in Soviet constitution) "to each according to his contribution" unequivocally tells this. Only deliberately dishonest people continue this charade.
Henry Russell
The term leftwing itself originated in the assemblies of the estates. Because of the belief of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God (the hand in which a man usually holds his sword in), the places right to the ruler were considered to be the more honorable seats. Therefore, aristocracy and clergy were sitting to the right hand of the king, the lower representatives of the free cities, the citizens, to his left. Those to the left were liberals. Without those liberals and their revolutionary action, we'd never even have the term leftwing.
Liberalism is leftwing. None of it is right wing. You're in denial about this.
You're also wrong about Christianity and communism. Absolutely wrong. The two systems are completely different metaphysically. They completely contradict each other. One is materialism, the other is a kind of dualism. One frames itself around material welfare, the other rejects it. One wishes to equalise, the other commands hierarchy.
Cameron Brooks
we need to define the foundation.
the right-wing of What? to *essencificate*: the Right is about a redemption of an individual Soul from the bonds of ananke; the Left is about a collective and its preservation in time. 'millenarian kingdom.'
Nicholas Baker
Yes, that has been obvious for a very long time And the redpill here is that Truth is God So: could also be accurately stated: Again it is confirmed that we are fighting a Holy War as written in the scriptures of all religions And we are the good guys How's that for exciting?
Words are used to trick and have more than one meaning Communism seemed like a good idea to a lot of people at one time, liberalism too Sugar coated turds are a specialty of jews Here is the true meaning of liberalism: The lowering of the standards of morality within a society in order to facilitate it's takeover without risking armed conflict when you are a small band of rat-like parasites with no strength of arms. liberalism is literally de-moralization and they play on the ego's of the (((educated))) and (((intelectual))) to convince them that they are the most (((enlightened))) (((progressive))) members of society and that they should show snarky contempt and derision toward anyone who questions this erosion of values and standards. Much like you have just done. Now GTFO and kill yourself.
Jonathan Ross
I see no point in pretending that Feudal politics - which became obsolete in just two years after the point you are talking about - still somehow define distribution of political agendas in modern politics.
After the king was deposed, the topic people argue about changed. And moderate Feudal Left (Liberal) became moderate Bourgeois Right. And ever since - for over two centuries - we've been using Left/Right to refer to Left and Right sides in modern (non-Feudal; Capitalist) political discourse.
As I already pointed out: French Liberals (Girondins) were already seen as Right-wing.
Then the whole world is "in denial". For centuries. Only some fringe retards stable geniuses in US suddenly started having revelations about Liberalism akshually being Left.
Can you read? I explicitly stated that I'm not talking about ideological basis when I'm talking about compatibility.
Of modern political discourse. Which describes Liberal democracies with market economies in industrial era.
… I will abstain from commenting this, as I'm not sure if you are sober/serious.
Nicholas Ward
(New IP.)
All right, I'll swing from the opposite direction. Let's take this definition of Liberalism which is rather fair.
Liberalism requires the enforcement of law to protect individuals and ensure their liberty, their freedom to live as they wish, making it no different from egalitarianism. Without the the enforcement of egalitarianism to grant a liberal society, you inevitably swing back into some form of non-egalitarian ruler-ship. Egalitarianism may not be the end-goal of liberalism, but that's what you end up getting. That's why the Western-liberal societies of old are now egalitarian.
*tips fedora*
Just plain wrong.
Joseph Cruz
Leftism is a religion based on wordism. All religions are based upon interpretation of wordism. You cannot reason with wordists because they live in their own little universe where anyone who contradicts your opinions is a heretic, a racist, a fascist, a capitalist, a Satanist, and an infidel.
Brandon Nguyen
Umberto eco is all about looking smart but being a faggot
The hate crazed religious zealots who call themselves "liberals" or "leftists" themselves hate everything that makes us human. Our race is an important part of our identity. So they hate race. Our culture is an important part of our identity. So they want to destroy our culture and even deny that White people have a culture. Our history and accomplishments are an important part of our identity. So they seek to destroy monuments of our past and rewrite our history. Our extended communities are an important part of our identity. So they flood them with hostile aliens and teach them to hate us. Obviously, everything that the self proclaimed leftist zealots is focused towards White people because they are taught to hate White people by the jews that control their media and education/indoctrination systems. 300 years ago, leftists burned witches for practicing witchcraft. Today, leftists want to burn White children for practicing "racism"
Leftism is not like a religion. Leftism is a religion.
why? to me it seems that you are so deep in that any attempt of stepping out of it looks like schitz/dudeweed-posting. modern political discourse is the manifested left. thus, right-wing of the Left is not the same as the right-wing of.. the Monad.
Jace Baker
Fair? Should've we be trying to find correct definition?
You did not define egalitarianism. I can make pretty good argument that Liberalism is against egalitarianism (in practice, if not in theory), as it is used to justify economic inequality (i.e. unearned income and underpaid labour; or different starting positions of people due to the wealth of their families).
Language is useless if there is no agreement on what words mean.
Cameron Walker
That is the correct definition. No, I gave the definition. Got me there. I quoted wrong. You can't be both, though. The two are contradictory.
William Davis
Oops, I didn't define. I didn't initially because the word is self-explanatory. But here.
Aiden Myers
This remains to be seen, as you can't be correct "in general", only in specific context.
And I already explained how self-explanatory meaning contradicts Liberal dogmas.
See this bit? Liberalism pretty explicitly defends private property and disparity in economic status (even if modern version of it takes less hardcore approach and recommends not starving poor to death, as they'll have nothing to lose and may endanger Liberalism itself) - which inevitably leads to disparity in everything, as ecnonomic factors in industrial society are extremely important.
Bullshit.
Since you give no arguments why, I have to treat this as "that's just my opinion, I do not insist that it is correct one".
By the way, can you tell me, what would you call economic relations of cenobite monks in christian monasteries?
Kevin Fisher
Marxism literally wants to get rid of all religion you retard.
This is maximum semantic shitposting.
Justin Smith
Please, read again.
Justin Reed
that eric holder thing would be based if it werent niggers
They can be honest as long as they can frame it in word salads.
Kevin Nelson
Classic liberalism is the free flow of capital and goods across borders. Period. It's mercantilism basically. It's hopeless trying to have an economic or political discussion with you turds because you're historically illiterate peons educated by American magazines and television.
Grayson Perry
Gladstonian liberalism is a political doctrine named after the British Victorian Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party, William Ewart Gladstone. Gladstonian liberalism consisted of limited government expenditure and low taxation whilst making sure government had balanced budgets and the classical liberal stress on self-help and freedom of choice. Gladstonian liberalism also emphasised free trade, little government intervention in the economy and equality of opportunity through institutional reform. It is referred to as laissez-faire or classical liberalism in the United Kingdom and is often compared to Thatcherism.[1][2][3]
A libertine is one devoid of most moral principles, a sense of responsibility, or sexual restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behaviour sanctified by the larger society. Libertinism is described as an extreme form of hedonism.
Cooper Rogers
Au contraire user. Have you not noticed that all leftist defences of mass migration that underpins white genocide come straight out of rhetoric used at the von Mises institute. It's all "muh economic boost, muh food, muh diversity" no no you misunderstand and underestimate liberalism and just how vicious and subversive and coopting it can be. The neocons and the contemporary anti-white left are both liberals, it's true. They emphasise different facets of liberalism but make no mistake both are liberal.
Angel Sanders
...
Ian Lee
The faggot completely dropped the ball somewhere in the middle of those 14 points. From an attempt at analysis, it became wishful thinking about what losers those fascists must be.
Xavier Foster
I'm not aware of "all leftist defences".
Marxists defend socialization of immigrants after they had arrived so as to prevent their super-exploitation (which makes immigrants more profitable for Capitalists than native workers). I.e. Marxist "defence" reduces profitability of immigration for the ruling class, thereby harming economic rationale that supports immigration.
So one can tell that Marxists are against immigration per se (as it weakens positions of proletariat), even if they are not against immigrants.
You do know that Mises is quite far on the Right? I don't even need to mention his extreme anti-Marxist position.
Economic boost for the rich. This is inherently anti-left argument.
You are trying to prove that Liberals are Left because they support Liberal position (which you assume is Left because Liberals are Left). Except this is circular reasoning.
This "left" does not support anything Left historically supported, it does not support anything other Left (which does support historical goals) supports. It's claim on "Leftism" is based on their control over mass-media and unspoken agreement with "open" Right (as the neo-cons you mentioned prefer this Fake Left to actual Left).
Yep.
Would it make more sense for you to talk about Liberals/Socialists rather than Right/Left?
Aiden Jackson
That's a twisted interpretation. Liberals aren't anti-reality. They have a more compassion-oriented idea of how the negotiation between what is practical and what is ideal should go. Conservatives, whose primary value is order, approach the effort much more practicality, so when thousands of moochers show up at the border, they tell them to go fuck off. Liberals aren't as fixated on order and will be more willing to test the limits of practicality to achieve ideals. The correct approach depends on the situation. If you didn't have both of these forces working within your society, you'd either collapse into complete anarchy or construct a new dark age around yourself. Societies that are too conservative are complacent with mere survival and don't dare to dream. Meanwhile, the denial of reality and hostility toward inconvenient truths is what you get when liberals becomes too dominant. Honestly, I've come to think the best system might be to fill federal government with conservatives and local government with liberals. Let the practical ones form policies that actually work and the idealistic ones make sure they get implemented with humanity. Not that this will ever happen.
Anyhow, I can definitely agree that the left has gone too far and needs to get their shit kicked in. They're just not the useless cancer a fascist would want you to think they are.
Got it, somewhat. It's still Girondin, -s - which makes clear you're not a frog. So you're talking about what is not the history of your own ppl, you just read a little something about it somewhere. …this is when you were trying too hard and bumping down face-forward. The extra 'Dem' hurts my snowflake feelings, a lot. Just kidding.
…and this is where you embarrased yourself, pants down, on your knees. The Frenchies didn't have a Civil War going on for nothing at that time. You know, a real one - not a Secession. Which is something totally different. Just pointing you (and whoever cares to learn) in the right direction, because I'm such a nice bloke.
Happens when one mainly gets to decide from two political camps nowadays. Really 'democratic', a two-party system, isn't it? I don't blame anyone for not knowing about other different political directions if you never live to see some coming up. And you don't seem to know about historical facts. I guess, young fellows probably… And todays state of education, especially in northern America. Also in parts of Europe… *sigh*
But because you never had the chance doesn't mean you don't have it right now. Do yourself a favour and check 'Chouans' and Mr. 'Cadoudal'. Maybe you already recognise your error. btw most Girondins were coming from (even upper) bourgeoisie (which is not unimportant), so did Fouché. But NEVER EVER AGAIN connect Girondins to, or identify them as, right-wingers. Or get ready for a good bareback spanking. Those 73 re-entering the Convent were *not*, and there is evidence enough until the 'Directoire' began. Then the Conseils were basically fucked from behind, first thanks to Carnot and 'cause of Barras. So don't forget when the French *finally* got their degenerate royals and their reactionary followers back, for a while. It took them another two decades.
Good luck.
Brayden Allen
This would literally go with the fascist idea of empowering the church in the local level liberals can then influence the policy of the community …. With structure to their passion
Oliver Garcia
What evidence?
Unless I mistyped, or accidentally overanglicized the word, or was thinking about "Liberal whores" (feminine, plural) when I was writing. Possibilities are endless (especially, in light of my proper use of Girondins in the same post).
Either way, you are clearly reaching when you attempt to evaluate the whole post by how one word was spelled, instead of actually assessing it. Please, attempt to evaluate ideas, not just grammar.
History of French Revolution is hardly limited to France alone and is not uncommon topic for the actual (non-Liberal) Left.
This is when I'm using two words to clarify what I mean and in what context (as Zig Forums has big problems with understanding political terms; US mass-media takes no prisoners when it comes to political semantics).
To elaborate: Social-Democracy acquired modern meaning (Centrist position, a desire to establish harmony between Left and Right; it referred to revolutionary Left/Marxism before - no relation to US Democrats, it was from SPD, German SocDem party in which Marxists congregated in 19th century) during first World War, when many top politicians of SocDem parties betrayed international Left movement (Second "Socialist" International; they abandoned their own anti-war resolution made during Basel conference in 1912) and sided with their governments instead.
This trend continued after war (when Soviets were rising all across Europe, from Limerick to Bavaria to Turin) as whatever remaind out of SocDem parties (most left them for new, Third "Communist" International) was used to pacify the population, to surrender their weapons, to make rebels disband and stop trying to overthrow the state, to make people hope for reforms and deals that will be delivered from up top (anyone can guess how it ended).
Thus the meaning of the word "Social-Democrat" changed and came to mean centrist position, that of collaborationism and betrayal (Wer hat uns verraten? Die Sozialdemokraten!). Which it remained ever since.
So what I am saying is that Robespierre assumed the same centrist (reconciliatory) stance as those who kept calling themselves Social-Democrats 100 years ago: protected the megarich, while simultaneously trying to control them through state regulations (ex. price maximums).
But you are not really pointing into any direction.
We are talking about use of Right/Left terminology. Historically (after feudalism; in bourgeois society) it was referring to the divide between the megarich and the poor (not between aristocracy and commoners, as before), which is evident by the fact that the term "Right" begun to denote Liberals during the very same French Revolution.
I.e. attempts to reframe Right/Left division to mean what it had meant in 1789, under feudalism (rather than what it had always meant in modern society since 1792) are a deliberate distortion, an attempt to exclude non-Liberal ideas from political discourse, to present only ISIS-style feudal theocracy (which is not an option for anyone sane) as alternative to status quo.
Yes they are. Any facts that do not support their narrative are not allowed to be spoken. They are openly and overly anti-truth. No, conservatives hold all 5 values equally. And order is not a value. Horseshit. Every important society in history was conservative, and then became liberal and collapsed.
Behold the degenerate post-modernism of American politics. It is actually and actively degenerate, as it tries to destroy reasoning, to drive discourse below the level that exists.
Instead of providing people with additional insight, with more precise words (if existing are considered overly vague and imprecise), or by defining meaning of words in specific context so as to channel ideas better - it tells that words don't mean shit (which prevents you from defining anything) and nothing else! This prohibition on word-use is all you get.
Post-1914 SocDem objectively weren't Left as they didn't defend rights of workers only, but tried to accommodate interests of megarich as well (in fact, it was interests of megarich primarily). This is a defining quality of Centrists - attempt to reach some sort of compromise, to act as mediators between two sides. This quality is objective. There is nothing relativist.
Firstly, "Feudal Left" (Liberals; see above: >>12450687 ) are not recognized as "the Fascists" by Communists (I would also say Anarchists, but there is like a bazillion sects and nobody knows them all). Word "Fascist" has a very specific meaning (which might differ from the one Right-wingers use, but it is strictly defined and is continually used in the same sense for over 80 years - since 1934).
Secondly, Liberals went from Left to Right because ruling class in Bourgeois society is different from ruling class in Feudal society (industrial/mercantile elite, as opposed to landed aristocracy). I.e. this is not about perception of individuals, but objective change in situation: Liberals came to defend ruling class, while before they are were deposing ruling class.
And the whole concept of some kind of linear development contradicts reality, as New "Left" (SJWs; American pseudo-Left movements focused on the rights of minorities, as opposed to the right of working majority) is not recognized as Left by "old Left". This New "Left" is attacked by "Old Left" for not being Left at all.
I.e. we do not have something "more progressive", there is no development from old, in fact there is no connection whatsoever to old movements (not any Socialist movements, even degraded offshoots that went Centrist as SocDem, or Right-wing as Trot neo-cons; SJWs are a development of Modern Liberalism). What we have is a completely different movement which bases its claim to "Left" only through control of mass-media and eagerness of conservatives to supplant actual Socialists and replace them with impotent (if flashy and attention grabbing) SJWs.
Firstly, I firmly believe that mankind, as intelligent species, is defined by introducing Artificial Order. "Natural Order" is for animals.
Secondly, it is telling that it is not clarified what the fuck is this "anchor point of Universal Truth" - even on Zig Forums there are plenty of arguments.
Finally, the whole idea of "Universal Truth" doesn't make much sense, as specific information can be true only in specific context. "4" is true as an answer to "what is the sum of 2 and 2?", but it becomes noise as an answer to "what colours result from mix of black and white?" You can't have universal truth, truth that remains true in any context, as an answer to any question.
It's the jews grand goal. After they get control of Palestine, they don't want to get into a war with Christins after knocking down the Church Of The Holy Sepulchre. Best thing to do is slowly nigger good goyim in America and Europe while using their money to push out the muslims in palestine.
Kayden Richardson
There is a further consideration that cannot justly be ignored, if the world is to look forward to Palestine becoming a definitely Jewish state, however gradually that may take place. That consideration grows out of the fact that Palestine is “the Holy Land” for Jews, Christians, and Moslems alike. Millions of Christians and Moslems all over the world are quite as much concerned as the Jews with conditions in Palestine especially with those conditions which touch upon religious feeling and rights. The relations in these matters in Palestine are most delicate and difficult. With the best possible intentions, it may be doubted whether the Jews could possibly seem to either Christians or Moslems proper guardians of the holy places, or custodians of the Holy Land as a whole.
The reason is this: The places which are most sacred to Christians-those having to do with Jesus-and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them. It is simply impossible, under those circumstances, for Moslems and Christians to feel satisfied to have these places in Jewish hands, or under the custody of Jews. There are still other places about which Moslems must have the same feeling. In fact, from this point of view, the Moslems, just because the sacred places of all three religions are sacred to them have made very naturally much more satisfactory custodians of the holy places than the Jews could be. It must be believed that the precise meaning, in this respect, of the complete Jewish occupation of Palestine has not been fully sensed by those who urge the extreme Zionist program.
Ayden Bennett
...
Jordan Robinson
Soros is a thief and should be gassed. So should you for being a worthless brown-noser.
Jordan Gray
This was an anti-Fascist work that was calling on people to remain vigilant. What on earth are you on about? did you read the whole work?
That poem refers to dead revolutionaries who, despite being killed off by fascists, still hold the truth in their hands.
Again, why are you both doing cartwheels to try and make this work out to be essentially pro fascist when it's nothing of the sort?
Noah Brooks
yes
Lucas Rodriguez
Fucking Marxoid
1. That's an ironmarch post, they disregard the left/right paradigm because fundamentally they believed that fascism and its more metaphysical elements are the ultimate truth. This is heavily influenced by the thoughts of Julius Evola, Rene Guenon, Savitri Devi, Serrano, Spengler, and several other philosophers. Something I've noticed with Marxists is that they don't understand metaphysics, or just completely DISTORT and HATE it.
2. Social Democracy is iffy because in the 1800s it was the catch all term for "communist" parties, up until Bernstein applied his literal revisionism to it. SocDems have always been on the "left" of our paradigm as far as I'm concerned 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.
3. There is nothing wrong with spiritual aristocracy, castes are natural. And fundamentally not derived from your positivistic worldview.
4. I won't say much here except Fascist is basically a slur used by leftoids for shit they don't like, similar to how these right wing faggots on this board use Jew every time their check engine lights up.
5. Natural Order in this case means dharma in the Sanatana Dharma sense, or Vril or Universal Order. Your use of "artificial order" seems to either be an offshoot of you modernist worldview. If I am judging from user's post, he is referencing the idea of Sophia Perennis to be the fundamental base for his worldview, integrated with the idea of struggle as a fascist sees it. 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 am not a trained philosopher nor a sole arbiter of knowledge, but 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.
To deviate a bit. Yukio Mishima once saw several men, of different clothes and colors, pushing a bell up on top of a Shinto shrine. This was his "AH-HA" moment, in which he realized the common fold that tied his people, his organism together was the common struggle that they achieved.
It's like we rely on Dialectical Materialism and had explicitly argued against Idealism (what you call metaphysics).
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.
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:
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.
Feel free to provide arguments. Also, I have no idea what you are replying to.
The pic was about Communists, not some vague "leftoids".
I.e. "Universal Truth". Which is nothing but imaginary friend for those with reduced ability to reason.
I'd agree with "modernist worldview", assuming we mean the same thing (can't be certain on Zig Forums).
I'm pretty sure none of them refute that:
But you should be aware that modern science is still very certain that metaphysical reasoning doesn't actually work.
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.
Jaxson Lewis
Idealism (in the philosophical sense) is not the same as metaphysics.
Zachary Russell
One just has to look at the list of topics the left keeps quiet about to know that they're controlled opposition. The judeo-masonic power structure doesn't want a conversation, let alone a spirited debate about real topics, one of the major reasons why the left only talks about muh feels and irrelevant garbage.
The last thing the kikes want is to have the left and right fight about things that actually matter.
I specifically clarified what "metaphysics" I'm talking about. The term is used in many meanings.
Brandon Reyes
Marxism cannot be understood as a political philosophy. It's nothing more than a weapon meant to be used against tribal enemies of a certain ethnic group.
