Why one should'nt be a nazi/fascist

Enlightenment.

It sure is to pomo fash.

Immortal science of Marxism-Leninism

literally a dogmatic religion based on faith on abstract and empty concepts like "universal progress of humanity", "human rights"

antinatalism

Antinatalism romanticizes non-existence.

boomer-tier pic

Attached: IMG_20190224_215445.jpg (599x492, 18.67K)

rosenberg was a baltic german so that's nonsense
this is bullshit

Literally the first thing that pops up when you search "hitler rosenberg"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg

You return people to their proper territory from which they migrated after you declare which ethnic standard shall exist in your country.
In the case of America, in keeping with the founding fathers, return to a white standard with Mexicans returning to Mexico, blacks returning to Africa, and so on.
Of course some countries may choose to keep their mix or not.
Either way, it can't be done without these declarations on the part of all countries and forced migrations as necessary.

Nazism is a dumbass ideology that has only ever caused misery and has been adopted by the shittiest people for the shittiest, most cowardly reasons. There is not one redeeming thing about the Nazis to speak of. They're banal incompetents.

The rise of Hitlerism parallels the degeneration of humanity in technological society, and at its root is a simple truth - that if we rest the case for what is to be done on an appeal to nature (human nature, Mother Earth, or whatever), the only outcome can be people who first turn viciously against the neighbors in pursuit of a futile biological imperative, and then turn inward and fall into permanent insanity. Resting your case on the biological or natural imperative can only result in this, no matter how much it can be dressed in ideology or justified. The Nazis just demonstrate how this ideology appeals to and produces degeneracy, but they are but one expression of this trend.

Even if you could buy into the notion of racial identity as the basis for a civilization - and that's really a silly basis for civilization - if you have nothing but identity politics, you have a failed civilization that has nothing to do but rot. That's where we are right now, because we have at the core of modern ideology this retarded ideology, eugenics, and it can only produce misery. So long as eugenics in any way remains the law of the land, Hitlerism will re-appear like herpes, because it speaks to the feeble sort of creature created by such ideologies and self-propagates, whereas liberalism falls apart due to its attempts to maintain something like intellectual integrity. Intellectual integrity and eugenics cannot coexist.

I just thought of something. Lets just talk about tribalism, because imperialism/fascism are just advanced forms of the same brainletism and fascism is a loaded term distracting from the actual core of the belief system

Well in the case of Zig Forums folk, associating them with degeneracy doesn't quite make sense to me.
In a way it does, but to what degree?
Most Nazis are in favor of the traditional family, moral societies, clean behavior, fit individuals contributing to communities through labor, art, and engineering.
That's why the extreme of the Nazi emerges, because of the social degeneracy around them which is supported by corruption in the government.

Nice spooks, nerd.

Attached: 9f181c1ab542221566802efea3ca7615d4c935e1477cf7172e07b46b5fbe75a6.jpg (634x571, 78.99K)

Categorizing me doesn't negate my argument.

People matter, land is a means to an end. If it's a hill spooked nerds want to die on, they are very welcome to.

Attached: 1456606700572.jpg (710x781, 72.65K)

Implying we don't already have those rules to some degree is ignorance.
VISA laws apply to every country to some degree.
They exist for a reason.
Now imagine them being fine tuned for the purpose of maintaining a global utopia rather than simply stopping an armageddon.
They're dialed to the lowest setting all with the intention of maintaining the integrity of each nation.

How is it arbitrary?
We have history in every land on this planet which serves as context for making these decisions.

But how are you going to do that? How are you going to say convince the black population in America, which has lived its entire life there and doesn't culturally identify in the slightest with its mother continent, to just leave? Either you'll have to provide some kind of incentive for them to leave, or you might risk civil war with nearly half the country for your insane pipe dream. And since fascist ideologies usually rise to power at times of existential economic crises (ie. war), you're wasting all the effort necessary for readying up a strong military force and basically giving your enemies fuel to burn you with.

Well, trying to achieve that in any meaningful way societally under late capitalism is like swimming against the current, so you have to regress society back a few hundred years to enforce your ideal view of society.
And regarding traditional values, how do you define those values? Is there a metric standard to measure proper social values that need to be preserved? It seems to me like those "values" really are not preserved because they are always objectively right, but rather because they're enforced by the dominant political force.

I'd ask you to name that reason, but you don't fucking know it. Much less understand that it serves the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat.

Attaching yourself to corpses is a choice you make yourself. For reasons as arbitrary as they are idiotic, because what you gain in false self-esteem you lose in vision of a brighter future.

This is what proletarian culture and socialist patriotism are for

The ideology bases its case on appeal to nature, which can only result in a degenerated society if you think it through and know what actually occurs in nature. Nazi "art" itself is towards the end of that degeneration, as are its other efforts. They claim that this is what they are fighting for, and try to connect their ideology to the past (a past that doesn't actually exist the way Nazis believe it did) in order to present the Nazi belief system as eternal and inevitable. Traditional families are only supported insofar as they are useful for the Nazi regime, and indeed the Nazis would proliferate destructive social values among those deemed subhuman by their race-science. They don't defend the traditional families of Jews, for instance, and they promoted prostitution and abortion among Slavs to reduce their numbers. Nazi "morality" itself is lies, they venerate deception and senseless cruelty for the sake of cruelty, and in that they share a kinship with late liberalism and its veneration of realpolitik.

The biggest mistake was letting Nazis live at all. If we lived in a decent world, there probably wouldn't be a Germany today, because a great bloodletting would have occured to make sure this never, ever happened again. But then, it's not really a national ideology, not really. Until there is a bloody purge of believers in eugenics, the war isn't over as far as I care.

Blacks are already manipulated as they are in hundreds of ways. Tricking them could be quite easy. As for the more intelligent blacks, the ones that actually rise to the American standard, they would be leaders rather than lower ranked amongst the whites.
I'm not for tricking them though. I'm for full declas as to how it is they actually got there. According to my research, Jews primarily handled the slave trade at large. It was a matter of the trade winds. Slaves from Africa to Brazil, liquor or liquor making materials to North America, and tobacco/cotton back to Europe. And from what I understand, the majority of Jewish migrants to NA were the majority slave owners.
If that's not true, I welcome the truth. As it stands in my mind, if they were indeed moved by the Jews, Blacks have a misplaced hatred toward whites.
The reason why I'm inclined to believe that research is due to Jewish control of Hollywood making movies about slavery! To deflect guilt/blame.
I know a guy that was the only white kid in an almost all black school, in particular the only white kid in history class, when they were covering the topics of slavery, he was suddenly evil when he previously fit in just fine before.
If people are selected for positions based on merit and reputation and skills to manage the massive undertaking and move to another country, I think people will rise to the occasion and guide people.
It might cause a schism between absorbing nations, but we already have that right now, and unless people want to claim a side in a civil war by enhancing their attire/uniform, they can easily avoid that by the natural skin color allegiance.
It's starting to sound far fetched to me through my own explanation so far, but I have much more in my mind to make it make sense. It's just come out a bit disorganized and incomplete.
I can imagine some black tribes in Africa being pissed that smarter blacks from America are moving in, but they may be relieved to know that white colonists are moving out if that be the case.
I'm in favor of maintaining as many current cultures as possible which may require new boundaries and segregation. So in the case of South Africa, people may have to split the country into a portion where the whites live separate from the blacks. Same for Natives in America and Canada.

Morality should strictly be based on HEALTH, not ideas.
If pedos are using gay marriage to adopt and abuse kids, for example… Gay Marriage needs to be reevaluated.
If women are psychologically effected by having sex with multiple partners to the extent that renders them unable to thrive and enjoy marriage, in other words, more likely to divorce, they shouldn't be afforded the same rights in divorce court.
Suicide amongst men in many countries is extremely high.
Thinking your actions shouldn't come with consequences because your liberty trumps the rights of others, isn't contributing to societal health.
Same for men. If you're a sexual deviant to the extent that you are a pick up artist and shoot for 50+ sexual partners, and your actions cause psychological consequences in the female partners, that behavioral preference should be taken into account. It's already manifesting in our culture/society with the #metoo movement. So far it's only amounted to some jail, resignations, and payouts. I'm not sure what should be impacted, as those kinds of men don't make out of divorces later on, but pregnancies induced by such slutty behavior stresses communities with single mothers. Data suggests single mothers produce awful children. There should be consequences to some degree.
The fact of the matter is that there are many behaviors today that are simply considered "modern" and "acceptable" because "human freedom" but that doesn't make them morally correct. The results of the behavior make for objective conclusions.

I like the way you think comrade. There is no future in the past.

Mane I didn't even realize we were arguing with a polyp because I read the reply chain from the bottom.

Nigga just seriously said:

Attached: image.png (793x551 288.29 KB, 25.74K)

I think of it in terms of stress on an environment.
I abhor tourism in Hawaii for example.
The fucking idiots arrive hyped on caffeine, sunscreen, and alcohol, with their disposable gear and clothes that they'll wear a few times. They trash all the places they go. They don't interact positively with locals. They stress locals out to hell. They have no cares in the world, so niches emerge based on crime. For example, people stop beside the road to run down to the beach and leave their cameras or laptops in their car. Windows are smashed daily.
The locals are stressed so bad that they just drink and drive and toss glass out on the sides of the roads. They become degenerate and stop respecting their own islands to a degree.
Not to mention people die because they have no concept of the Ocean. They simply run in and swim and drown or…
They go to a beach with a steep drop off which causes the waves to break extremely late and large right on the sand. Kids go swimming, get picked up and dropped on their heads and break their necks.
It's a dangerous place.
It's beautiful though.
Tourism should be a lot more complicated than buying a ticket and packing your shampoo and toothpaste properly.
In order to have peace in this world, boundaries need to be respected.
Go to Japan, and in the middle of Tokyo, you can hear silence, aside from machine noise. People respect each other's mind space there. It's an amazing place.
Go to Hong Kong, and you have to do gymnastics to avoid getting crashed into by people walking in extremely ignorant and disorganized fashion. Which may be the result of active and ongoing colonization or European presence.
Culture boundaries in the form of country boundaries seem absolutely essential for peace.
They can change based on fairness.
They can open briefly for festivals. They can have tourist seasons or a numbers limit.
I know this all starts to challenge individual freedom and right to movement, which in the case of state parks and national parks in the US, I despise, but I know I'm not one to damage the environment like what the rules are accounting for. So I would encourage licenses based on merit or training courses for expanded freedom.
It all comes down to respect.

Blood feuds, family feuds, country feuds… these things don't just disappear because they're logically outdated or irrelevant. Memories exist and can't be dismissed. People act on them whether or not you like it.
A brighter future can't exist without justice.
If a grudge is misplaced due to misinformation or lies, then there's a remedy for that. Otherwise justice will always be required until the crime is forgotten. Denying people the right to their feelings isn't fair, to put it mildly.

You have to respect the right of conquest.
Our ancestors played a game based on the the time they lived.
I'm not in favor of genocide nor appeasement forms of forgiveness or apology. I'm in favor of a deal rooted in respect, a way to bury the hatchet.

Besides, there's some history that suggests white people were in America before the natives, and European whites arriving to colonize was an example of whites returning.
Who knows?

And the injuns aka central americans done reconquisted your pasty ass white boy, deal with it. Stop detailing your nostalgia fantasy for return to a time that will never return and was even lamer than the present in actuality.

Did they? Or are they being encouraged through our corrupt laws.
So my ideas are bad because the past was lame?
I can see that being a fair argument if it were fully fleshed out, but I see a relatively unhealthy global society.
Returning people to their roots to counter short sighted, human exploitation profits, to me seems like the only path to a utopia.
Right now we're depending on propaganda campaigns to not only instill fear to hinder personal liberties but also to cause degeneracy to produce statistical abundance for the elite.

Also propaganda that serves as divide and conquer purposes to get each demographic fighting another or multiple.
Wages stay the same while currency is devalued due to inflation and while cost of goods and services go up. Wages always have to be fought for to simply catch up and match inflation.
People are fucked.
Millennials are the poorest generation ever, the first generation to be more poor than the previous.
Boomers making less than 100k a year are completely fucked.
Just look at a calculator, what the federal reserve bank has done to our currency.
Just look at what 10,000 dollars today was worth in 1915.

Wow this is so much concentrated faggotry, I can't even. Thanks for demonstrating why the fascist is such a degenerate creature and deserves to be ground into dust.

And no, it's not just a /pol thing, it's degeneracy all the way up. Otherwise intelligent people - supposedly people far more capable than I - indulging in this retarded ideology that makes them say the stupidest shit, and they actually believe the shit that comes out of their mouth.

Fascism (and Nazism by extension) is predicated on hedonism, and if you read Goebbels this would be obvious to you. The base component is never "Let us materially improve society" but that "someone is impeding our ability to enjoy and take pleasure in things". Even Goebbels complaints about moralisms is based upon this.

For the Webm, the Zizek bit is about Nationalism in general, so the beginning portion is a bit dated now.

Attached: b02e73634edad06db3947b0ed12bce65b7f4c3b314020cba56894ba77b33624e.webm (480x360, 6.21M)

Stop being an idealist and stop believing in unabsolute concepts.

Do we have the same definition for degenerate?
How am I a degenerate?
I think you assume I wouldn't seek a compromise between Americans that have colonized the region of the USA and Canada, with the Natives.
I don't know how I would compromise. I wouldn't send all whites back to Europe. lol
Maybe I'd give California and the neighboring square states to the Natives.
I'm even from California and I love it here.
I know it produces so much of the world's damn food, but at the same time I hate seeing the valley be a food factory.
The other question is, how would the Natives even live? They've failed to acclimate, and they wouldn't be able to return to their roots because they've been spoiled.
It's a conundrum for sure, but I don't think there's no solution.

This goes against all my understanding.
I'm under the assumption that Jewish culture was the hedonist which was being purged by Nazism.
The burning of books was the burning of Jewish pornography for example.
There are TV documentaries describing how "progressive" Berlin was prior to Hitler and the Nazi party. The contrast is incredibly stark.
If by impeded by the Jewish bankers, Germans were unable to pursue their "German dream" or what have you…
Hedonism seems hell bent on leaning far into perversion which is what 'hedonism' is supposed to protect by logically defining it to justify it.

¿¿¿
Why

Well, they actually do over time. Most real substantial conflicts are material in origin or have a material basis
And? Why should they be allowed to act on their memories? Especially if these memories aren't even theirs?
Why should I care for their feelings?

What are you suggesting then?
People that try to right wrongs be destroyed or incarcerated because they're pissed off at a perceived injustice?
What does whether you care or not about their feelings have to do with their actions?
How do you propose to stop people from acting upon their values if rooted in memory?
That's like telling the whole world to just stop and be nice just because it's dumb to be pissed off at other people.

My entrance into this thread was in response to a question. I gave an answer. You're saying it's a bad answer. What's your answer?

I'm going to bed, but I'll pick this back up in the morning if there are responses.

Few things are funnier than reactionaries looking at Japan as proof of success of ethnic nationalism, traditionalism, homogeneity and isolationism.
Respect for other cultures assumes everyone who lives in that culture is happy with it. But I don't understand what your undialectical whining about tourists supposed to accomplish, since you never ask yourself why they come, why are they hyped on alcohol, what they are trying to get away from and what they have to return to.
youtube.com/watch?v=4Z5_uHOONNE

Reals>feels.
Abolition of private property and creation of a classless society trumps everything. Achieving this objective solves all existing ills currently plaguing the people. I do not care for their attachment to land, I do not care for their perceived slights, their historical grievances, their economic ambitions or their feelings of entitlement to slaves. If all on Earth will deny me a classless society, then all on Earth will die.

having an Autism Level over 50.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (743x606, 331.26K)

Which culture? The proletarian Jewish "culture", or the bourgeoisie Jewish "culture"? The proletarian Jewish culture was purged, but I fail to see how it was hedonist. Religiously spooked in many regards, but not particularly more or less hedonist then the average German. The bourgeoisie sure, but these more or less got away unscathed with the two prominent Warburgs for example remaining in Germany. Their culture remained, because their culture and decadent lifestyles differed very little from the other German bourgeoisie.
The Nazi's literally created semi-pornographic stories which were featured within a distributed propaganda newspaper in which Jewish men seduced and engaged in explicit sexual intercourse with German woman with the intent of eliciting a feeling of jealously and arousal while also propagating the image of the "dangerous but seductive" Jew. They literally created cuck porn.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher#Rise_of_Der_Stürmer
Most of these over-exaggerate the situation ten-fold, but regardless I would hardly call poverty, capitalism, and the adverse affects of such "progressive". All of the accusations could be true, and it would still not suddenly materially validate Nazism. All I see and still see is two things to be removed regardless of time.
Define the "German Dream". It would seem that only the "German Dream" of the industry capitalists and their Nazi collaborators was valid, and not the "German Dream" of the communists or even the "left" Fascists. They didn't even initially dispose of the Jewish bankers, with Siegmund and Max Warburg even supporting the Nazi's initially and Hitler telling Schacht that "In economic matters, the Jews can carry on exactly as they have done up to now," which is what occurred for the years Schacht was in charge of the Reichsbank. The Jewish proles suffered heavily during that time, but not the bankers.
Read Goebbels writing on moralisms. His problem and reasoning to be against moralism lays out how the Nazi ideal is based on pleasure, and rejects that which is critical of such pleasure.

Because they have no material basis and mean nothing.

Which wrong and which rights? If they go against my set goals, if the development of communism and stand in the way of what is historically necessary, then yes. And why should I care otherwise?
Law, power, and the monopoly of violence.
I don't care if they're nice. They can be pissed till their faces are red if they want to. But their petty squabbles get in the way of socialist development and waste time and resources, and that is all I care for. So they can pocket their grievances, get to work, or deal with the consequences of such. I only have one single purpose in life, one absolute cause. Nothing else matters.

Not deporting people for ideal reasons and realizing that multiple socialist countries succeeded regardless of their ethnic make-up. Give me a materialist reason why we should deport people. Mass immigration generally doesn't occur in socialism, so you cannot use that reason.

Attached: Diagram_3a.jpg (2490x1218, 254.64K)

I hope you look back on this time as a dark, dark period of your life, but I have little hope.

I don't even know where to begin. It's sheer insanity and you can't even defend your own batshit beliefs in the confines of your own ideology (which should prove to you just how stupid it is). Now suddenly you're talking about "compromise" over an obviously insane and stupid position, as if you retards are ever going to be anything more than internet shills for Porky.

I don't think even literal retards can contort their brains around the Nazi ideology. It takes a certain level of intelligence to promote such an aggressively stupid belief system, ironically enough.

I'll add one:

+ It'll fuck your life up really bad if you ever actually join a white supremacist group. These groups are filled with psychopaths and gangsters who build blackmail lists on their own members and push them into committing violence. If you ever thought "gee, joining the Mafia sounds like a good idea" then it might be for you, but as it stands joining the Mafia, like joining a white supremacist group, is a bad idea overall. Don't do it for your own sake, your future and your family members.

Yeah Japan is pretty much where what we call "hypernormalization" started with the insane monster movies and blood-spatter anime + stagnant "long depression" economy stretching decades.

It's the dictatorship of the mediocre. Too much bullshit for idiots to understand, too stupid for the intelligent, just enough for the average.

these arguments are stupid as hell, and just seem dishonest. You have to do quite a bit of legwork just to convince someone you believe these arguments, and that they are not a debate tactic.

Fascists ALWAYS lose.

Which is hilarious because of how they talk about HOW THE STRONG WILL DEFEAT THE WEAK

Fun thing about Japanese homogeneity is that they achieved that by forced assimilation of all ethnicities that lived on the islands, outlawing local languages and customs and shit.
So it's a bunch of distinct ethnic groups with their own local tradition but on paper they're all "pure Japanese"

Hotler was a man who was always loyal. So loyal. He would kill to prove himself. He would do other things, too. He loved… many people. Many men. And he proved his love in the ways that couldn’t be faked. He was such a loving man, and such a proud man. Such a rare confluence of attributes. What could ever be fake coming from such a proud, loving man?

He proved his love to his best friends so many times.

Anyone who spoke of Hotler’s love in terms other than his pure love of his homeland died. That’s how everyone knew his love was only for his homeland, his volk. Everyone knew. He was such a loving man.

Hitler was a literal screaming retard. The Nazi leadership, in general, were also screaming retards. Screaming retards tend to get along with other screaming retards, it's kind of like gaydar.

The Weimar Republic enabled Hotler. He was so loyal, so pure, to those who knew him in private. So loving. Prison changed him for the better. His love grew only purer. He would prove himself again and again in the vast purity of his love. Nothing would ever turn him. Everyone knew.

The Jews swore after that there would never be another Hotler. Never again would there be another man that pure and loving in power.

Golly user, I’m just shitposting. This is such a fibrous board, you know?

I kind of figured.

I'm back.
Germans were not masturbating to the semi-pornographic stories disseminated as propaganda. lol
Your argument is completely invalid.
Berlin was a sex capital where any perversion could be bought and sold.
Drunks, degenerates… It was a cesspool.
What you're suggesting is that Hitler was a puppet which is something Q has mentioned, a puppet at the start.
In that case, Nazism never existed organically, and just like these fellas,

today's Nazi's could simply be shit posting!
Look how triggered most of you are, respecting it as something legitimate, going so far as to suggest that Nazism is hedonistic. I find that incredibly hard to believe, but I guess I'll have to read some Goebbels.
Based on how you've corrupted some ideas like equating Jewish Berlin and the infinity realm of prostitution with some propaganda pamphlets produced for war morale, I can only assume you've misinterpreted Goebbels words.
That or…
youtu.be/YU4gZjiVPkI
Watch from about 1:45 and look when Cobain shifts to what he's supposed to say. You can see him struggle to remember the script he was given.
Drummer is smoking a cig out of stress, and bassist is squirming trying to help Cobain remember his lines.
I just put German Dream in quotes to infer that it's something like the American Dream, a concept that may not have even existed as a meme but still stood as an ideal, prosperous society. To insist that Germans were wanting a perverted, degenerate, society because of Goebbels use of the term hedonist and pleasure is a bit obtuse.
A healthy ecosystem is all I would surmise.

I think we're getting a bit lost here.
Monopoly of violence is the world we live in today. Suggesting that that's the tool we're going to use to usher in a utopia, is like saying you have to cut your wounds every day so they can heal. We're already using it. Are you suggesting we use it for establishing a different economic system?
So then your beef is not with people that squabble but with the people that are behind the monopoly of violence?
Would neighbor conflicts ceasing by force be the means to an end?
To me squabbles are symptoms of a source problem, a desired distraction maintained pitifully.
Often times it's fueled by the ruling class anyway.
I would love to see your list of countries that succeeded under socialism and what your definition of success is.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-06-16 at 7.29.32 AM.png (1532x1254 645.26 KB, 358.17K)

Japan is an amazing place.
I spent a month there.
Every country is dealing with some sort of problem(s). Australia's most common death for men is suicide. MANY men are committing suicide due to going through divorces, presumably prompted by women or at least due to the court's fairness.
I met some Japanese that recognize their tendency for reserved behavior, but I don't think it's something nearly as destructive as tendencies of any other country. To me they've coped the best out of any developed country, that I've been to at least.
Reals>feels, indeed. However, how do you deliver the reals to everyone? Until you can, you can't just interject with violence to solve anything.
The elite know this, that's why they use propaganda to divide and conquer by demographic so any demographic is always at some point in conflict with another, a scapegoat.
Private property has been the marker of success since existence. I suppose it's a noble consideration, a transformational process for the world, but I think your bigger concern is the monopoly of land ownership, the loopholes people use to maintain it, the abuse of corporate wealth to consolidate land, the loopholes to avoid property tax which was meant to limit the growth of individuals (circumnavigated by corporations often), and the poor training involved in maintaining land.
There's just too much corruption that needs to be cleaned up to suggest, in my mind, that ending land ownership is the solution.
If you're suggesting land ownership as a thing is the cause for the corruption, then perhaps you have an argument there.