Sup Forums likes to talk a lot about degeneracy, cultural marxism and takes conservative stands against SJWs on idpol subjects. Basically, culture, religion, race and nationality is discussed a lot here.
But I have the feeling that Sup Forums disregards socio-economics and matters that are more "materialistic" so to speak, limiting themselves to a support of the free market, almost only because they're opposed to communism.
So I do have questions for Sup Forums in order for them to elaborate their positions on those type of stances (away from idpols) :
- How much do you recognise the importance of class struggle (as a factor to take into account)?
- How do you solve poverty, homelessness, lack of access to healthcare, etc... in your ideal society?
- The industrial revolution and general technological advancement has spawned ideologies such as communism and cultural marxism afterwards, and provoked advances in social progress. If you are a fascist/monarchist/neo-reactionnary... or a libertarian/ancap... , how do you combine your ideology that is, with honesty, based on inegalitarianism, with technological advancement that pushes for more egalitarianism? Or, perhaps you do not accept technology, and want to return to a state before the industrial revolution?
So this is some interrogations I have, thank you for responding to me in order to inform me.
For all Sup Forums shits on shitskins, they seem to keep on forgetting that the people who pushed for the policies that let them in were white CEOs
Joseph Turner
I do indeed feel personally that there is a lack of consideration for the very negative effects that neoliberalism has provoked since the past 30 years
Aiden Brown
I think something with the ancap train of thought sort of goes under the radar, that it shares some commonalities not only with the socialists but also with the fascists. I thought this thread was really interesting There's an apparent want for a return to the community, small-scale, autonomous communities with freedom- this is very much in line with communist thought in the communitarian sense, and the only difference with nationalism is in scale.
So we have three outlier ideologies, none of them realized, all utterly revolutionary(contrary the status quo) and pretty much as far from each other as possible but they all want the same one thing that we do not have. Teddy K was right. We're idiots. We're all embracing modernity, the industrialization, now digitalization, the uprooting of people consequent of the urban project while rattling our sabers over the negative consequences stemming from it. All sides want what we lost in the process, none do away with what was gained.
Brandon Nelson
I think this is where accelerationism (in its large definition) comes in as a way of thought that does take into account what has been gained through centuries of technological, social and economic progress. Whether it be left or right-wing, accelerationism is looking at the tools that society has in its possession in order to use them to bring about radical progress that is necessary due to the challenge of climate change and lack of natural ressources to come.
Basically, accelerationism accepts and embraces modernity with both its positive and negative aspects, with the main idea that it is even more modernity that will permit improvement. I personally do think that due to what capitalism and technological progress did over centuries.
Julian Moore
However, I absolutely disagree with the idea of nationalism just being some emergent property of the contrarianism common here. Obviously, as a nationalist.
You seem to be disregarding the arguments in favor of the positions, of nationalism, of biological determinism(to some %, not necessarily absolute 100%). Regardless of whether it's sound or not, there certainly are arguments for them. I think it's foolish assuming that these arguments are all merely rationalizations for a stance which is either emotionally driven, or inevitable due to circumstances of life. I think it's impossible to derive any meaningful discussions from that basis.
Reducing nationalism to merely a rejection of multiculturalism is petty and ignores any arguments of sovereignty or really anything beyond a mere knee-jerk reaction to seeing brown people. Reducing "racism" to hatred, to a rejection of the idea of equality, ignores the very sound arguments of biological difference.
Asher Rodriguez
I've got to say, then, I've misunderstood accelerationism completely. I thought it more like a parody, to exaggerate it past the point of sustainability.
Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in the climate change spectacle. If you look at the UN figures, we only run a surplus of 3% of atmospheric carbon. We only emit 103% of what nature absorbs every year, decreasing that figure by a mere ~3% to reach an equilibrium would be a imperceptibly small sacrifice were it really a serious issue.
Henry Robinson
>plebbit spacing kys le fagit
Cooper Morales
Genuine question, are you autistic? I recognize you from other threads.
Aaron Wright
There is fundamentally a division between recognising biological differences and considering that some biological differences are ultimately superior and should be accounted for in a society.
As somebody who has deep respect for science, I do not fall in the pseudoscience of thinking that the concept of biological difference within the human specie doesn't exist. But interpretations of biological difference to create political thoughts are what they are, beliefs.
Racism thus isn't necessarily just rejection and does has some basis in observations of biological difference, but nonetheless it doesn't suppress the idea that it is a very inegalitarian ideology, since it assigns the individual to a predetermined role in a hierarchical society based on biological difference, which is something that I would personally avoid at all costs. Biological differences can be accounted for, but I do believe that, within a nation/society, there is no need for segregation in order to deal with those differences.
Zachary Watson
Genuine answer: No. I'm mediocre in that arena. I'm about average in judging emotions and don't have any great difficulty in social situations, but I'm very disagreeable so conflating it for autism is more than understandable.
You've made me curious, what do you remember me by?
Michael Davis
well capitalism was certainly a mistake in its current unfettered form
John Morris
>Or, perhaps you do not accept technology, and want to return to a state before the industrial revolution? This is the ideal but it is unachievable on a mass scale so the only option is to embrace technology and use it for good. Eugenics for example.
Brayden Lopez
>How do you solve poverty, homelessness, lack of access to healthcare, etc... in your ideal society?
These aren't issues in a homoegenous society.
Evan Clark
I think you're right in that being a criticism of any ideology derived from the fact of the races being unequal, but it doesn't discredit arguments from racism.
You've got to keep in mind the discourse here being largely dictated by Americans who are, if not a majority, an overwhelmingly large plurality. From a country with a policy of affirmative action, and with disparate impact legislation. Arguments from racism are very much valid there, as a refutation of affirmative action the fact that the black man is far less intelligent than whites it is very succinct and sufficient.
Luke Perez
Well, there are different kinds of accelerationism. One which is plain dumb, which revolves around the idea that capitalism and hyperconsumption should be pushed to it's extreme in order for it to ruin human society and push for an abolition of it (implying anarchy and chaos wouldn't have took over)
This type of accelerationism just gives a bad name to the word. After, there's right-wing accelerationism which advocates that technological innovation will create a technological singularity that will ultimately bring massive profit and power the economy to a thousandfold. There's as well left-wing accelerationism, which thinks that the process of automation will permit a post-capitalist society where work will be carried out by machines and where the humans will be free from working.
Concerning climate change, I do not know about your data and will look it up, but nonetheless there is a global environmental crisis, whether it be pollution of the air, acidification of the sea, specie extinctions, etc... Which does threaten humanity today.
Austin Hall
>Well, there are different kinds of accelerationism. One which is plain dumb, which revolves around the idea that capitalism and hyperconsumption should be pushed to it's extreme in order for it to ruin human society and push for an abolition of it (implying anarchy and chaos wouldn't have took over) Yes the a la Zizek nonsense. At least the smarter marxist knew that they wouldn't achieve anything with economic marxism in Europe and NA so they decided to swim around in culture. archive.is/YcIBg
Julian James
Also, I think segregationist sympathies find their basis more in the concept of sovereignty than in the fact of racial differences. How do you, as a nation, respond adequately to anything if you're busy infighting? If you're locked into zero-sum politics, black versus white, man versus woman. How can you expect timely and appropriate measures to be taken to any one problem if the entire political discourse is dominated by racial, or sex, divisions?
I don't think it's a coincidence that "identity" politics only became relevant after women's suffrage, long after industrialization.
Cameron Walker
Well, even if arguments coming out from racism may be valid, it is the conclusion and application of racism that brings upon problems, as even if there are differences between populations, there are a whole bunch of differences between individuals as well. How do you recognise the talent/potential of an individual if society prejudges him due to his physical appearance? According to the facts biological differences brings you, should you deal with other populations in a humane way or should you engage in violent action?
As somebody who tries to be humanistic (personal implication), I see that racism, justified or not, has brought upon bad results on society so far. And if a society where merit and value is based on your skin colour, i won't be surprised to see backclash in that system.
Caleb King
>I don't think it's a coincidence that "identity" politics only became relevant after women's suffrage, long after industrialization. It's the new marxist tactic for subversion. They are relying too much on our individualist and universalist nature and the reaction can be seen.
Nolan Murphy
Racial conflict will always exist the question is are you ready to work in your own group interest or are you too liberal?
Ayden Murphy
Well, in that logic, there's not only racial conflict that exists but class conflict as well. And I could ask the question "are you ready to work in your own group interest or are you too capitalist?"
So it really depends how much importance you give to both racial and class conflict.
Dylan Hernandez
>pollution of the air, acidification of the sea, specie extinctions Those are all well and good, they are serious issues and they are fact. But the climate change people, the carbon apocalypse crowd, they are a very disparate group. There's a huge overlap between them, opposition to nuclear(the only universally valid alternative), veganism, and general socialist sympathies. They're a very strange group and their agenda is extremely muddled.
My father is in environmental science and a lot of those people are just insane. You have engineers with no education in biology past a high-school level, and the UN basing policy off of their research. The same people who think a hectare of arable land is the same as any other, proposing we grow soy above the pole circle, and dig up farmland mulch(necessitating enormous expenses on fertilization) to make bio-fuel.
The environment is extremely important, but the carbon crowd is not. Even if it was a serious issue, the people behind the policies and the policies themselves are just plain wrong.
Luis Adams
no u are only talking about the dumb half-redpilled libertarians the ones who have been here for a while are national socialist note: socialist
Andrew Butler
I think that in some way, idpols are part of divide and rule tactics. While the nation gets fossilized by internal struggles related to race and gender, the ruling socio-economic and political class gets to continue to rule the country without the wider public contesting the power, even if it does not advance the country.
/leftypol/ see idpols as a distraction from class struggle for example. You might agree or not with this but it is debatable.
Carson Thompson
I want to see a fusion of Amish and modern technology. Smaller villages that run on solar power, and the whole community works together to produce the means to live. The materialistic greedy civilization has taken over, not everyone wants this. Too many citizens force themselves into meaningless jobs they hate just to put food on the table. We have everything we could ever want, yet most people are not happy. This unquenchable hole people try to fill with buying stuff is nothing more then a lack of community and meaning.
Landon Cruz
>even if there are differences between populations There are. >there are a whole bunch of differences between individuals as well Have you ever seen anyone dispute this? Claim that there's not a single black smarter than any white? Not even the staunchest racialist would say so, and Thomas Sowell for one is positively deified on here. I don't think you have.
But still you have people arguing for total segregation, so what basis could there be for it? An easily disproven factual claim that nobody seems to believe in or something else? Sovereignty is a good argument. Brain-drain is another. Even 100% biological determinism doesn't support total segregation, as IQ is normally distributed and outliers exceeding 1-2 standard deviations are relatively commonplace. That leads me to believe you're being insincere in disregarding segregationists, either parodying them as a strawman position or attempting to distance yourself from them by not acknowledging the arguments in favor of it.
Cooper King
>Well, in that logic, there's not only racial conflict that exists but class conflict as well Yes class conflict exists but it's nothing permamnent while racial is threatening our entire ethnicity, culture and civilisation.
Sebastian Rogers
There are indeed dangerous ideas coming out from that sphere, due to the fact that there is no consideration for the socio-economic impacts of some decisions made in the name of the environment. The video "Why I left Greenpeace" by Patrick Moore (who was an ex-leader of Greenpeace) explains a bunch on some of the pseudoscience that is present within the Greenpeace movement. And, if what you say is true, then it can globally be confirmed that environementalism needs to take into account socio-economics, simply.
The problem is that what we are using that produces carbon dioxyde are fossil fuels that do not regenerate as fastly as we consume them. I do not see nuclear fission due to it being based on uranium mining (not renewable) and being dangerous. I live in a country which has 80% of its electrical energy coming from nuclear power plants, and due to them becoming older and older, I do kinda get worried of the security of these.
Renewable energies aren't enough efficient right now, but I sincerely believe that nuclear fusion (not the same as fission) combined with hydrogen are both very promising paths
Dominic Cook
That's what I'm saying. You have the very simple choice whether or not to import foreigners and create a disparate population within a single nation. A divided population of disparate people, irreconcilable thus far, too busy playing at zero-sum politics to enact any meaningful change.
That's an argument from sovereignty, not from biological determinism. 30 years ago Europe was virtually exclusively white. White, native Europeans, are still an overwhelming majority in every European nation.
Why would we wish to lose our sovereignty? To import foreigners and create a disparate people and losing our political power along with our majority? To divide our nations on racial grounds, creating the conditions for corporatists to divide and conquer?
Nathan Scott
>Why would we wish to lose our sovereignty? Because we all have collective guilt for slavery, crusades and the opression of the poor minorities (proletariat) and that's what jews have been brewing since the early XX century. Read pic related it's such a great book. youtube.com/watch?v=eTmNWY0ZPfM
>/The-Unabomber-Manifesto This guy's definition of "Leftism" became the mainstream definition. mfw
Jayden Barnes
To clarify, advocating your nation remain homogeneous is not D&C. It's opposition to the very conditions which make it possible in the first place. You CAN NOT divide a single people on the basis of race. Thus classifying the people who wish to retain their sovereignty, to remain an autonomous people(the basis of nation states), to be the same as those who want to throw away their sovereignty and autonomy, who wish to create the very conditions that make D&C possible is blatant equivocation.
"Identity politics" is a fallacy.
Landon Adams
>implying he isn't correct on everything Please take a vacation to Croatia,Ukraine and compare their capitals to Paris. You will be the first in the failed negrification experiment.
Jason Martinez
The rest is really far more interesting. I highly recommend reading it in its entirety as it's quite short, and the excerpt of where he talks about leftists doesn't make it justice. It's all leading up to one point and that screencap doesn't get there.
As if it could be ever like that in a realistic world scenario. One event could change everything. So naturally having a people who care about their country and their own people can never be a bad thing allot of the times.
Yes you are correct it's an old thing. Now the "philia" doesn't exist now it's only the negro.
James Barnes
>renaud camus Interesting fellow.
Ethan James
In england theres a lot of poor white people, theres a lot of overlap with chavs but not always, in my experience they go to underfunded schools and they disrupt the learning experience, making it worse, the parents set a bad example for them which causes this but they also have low IQ, bad habits, addiction prone personality etc, I imagine every society has this issue though to some extent.
I don't know if the 'class issue' can be solved, I wonder if we need lower class people otherwise certain jobs would not get done, I figure you couldn't really have a society where everyone was middle class, as good as that sounds.
Carter Garcia
Thats a tiny crouton
Easton Thomas
They're supposed to be like that I can already guess your flag.
