Reaction, Race and Tradtion

Continuation of “Neoreactionary” discussion

Fuck Blumpf, and fuck Europeans!

Israel is behind European Genocide and Globalism. Name the Jew/Israel or fuck off.

>race
ideas like race and nation as such are not in line with reactioanry traditionalsit understanding fo the world
there's a reason why nationalists and reactioanries are two different groups

Evening lads

All of those things left Europe just recently. Unlike abstract concept of Royal and clerical derived legitimacy, sterilization center and radical exclusion on account of one’s biological state is very real

>Iirc he acted like a fag doxxing another of them and everybody turned against him, and they were right.

yeah but anissimov dropped off the entire internet after his twitter bans

“Reactionary” is not a political movement or ideology, it’s just a state of not accepting the narrative brought by filth like communists, egalitarians and human rights zealots.

... This is not the work of a merciful God...

wrong
i meant reactionary not in a sense of reacting to current events (alt right dose that too just like neonazis and everyone else)
reactionary as a particular worldview - as in traditionalist

Not a movement either, but rather a state of approaching things. What is the core of European indigenous resistance? Eugenics favouring ethnonationalists, many of which happened to like Traditions of Blood and cultural legacy they inherited from their forebears

dumb neonazist larp
im trying to be serious here

>brands himself with some vague term, especially under a tag “neo”
>accuses anyone of being a larper

Is there an operative ideology in a knife fight?

You said "nation is an abstract notion originating in the 19th century liberal romanticist thought". It isn't. You're wrong. Go fuck yourself.
>i dont understand - you come to a non-nationalsit movement general and rage that nationalism isnt respected?
No, I didn't say anything about nationalism. I told you that you are wrong. It's not a personal insult, though you are one defensive fucking retard. I was pointing out your error. Which was everything you said. Nations are not abstract notions, predates the 19th century by a mile, isn't liberal and has nothing whatsoever to do with romanticism.

You were wrong. Deal with it.
>word nation etymologically in english and its derivatives
You used nation. Not any of its derivatives. And you were wrong. Why sperg out and get so defensive about it if it was just a spelling error?

>You said "nation is an abstract notion originating in the 19th century liberal romanticist thought". It isn't. You're wrong. Go fuck yourself.
>No, I didn't say anything about nationalism. I told you that you are wrong. It's not a personal insult, though you are one defensive fucking retard. I was pointing out your error. Which was everything you said. Nations are not abstract notions, predates the 19th century by a mile, isn't liberal and has nothing whatsoever to do with romanticism.
>You were wrong. Deal with it.
totally wrong
you are wrong because you're an uneducated larping bitch

Yes. Avoiding knife fights and carrying a pistol and knife yourself.

Is there an ideological component to a fire fight?

the term nation was coined during the Middle English period which was from 1150 to 1500

but it has latin roots, so it's even older

Do anyone wonder if the EU project was deliberately torpedoes by 3rd world immigration, because a certain nation was afraid of an integrated European superstate that was actually run by Europeans?

You're retarded.

that's a difficult question, since some of the crises are instigated by the EU itself and some aren't...

this migrant crisis could bbe beneficial for the EU if they play their cards right but seeing how Poland and Hungary aren't playing ball, seems unlikely

pic related just substitute Los Angeles with a EU city and UN with EU Army

...

>Perhaps 'national sovereignty' would be a good way of differentiating what you are suggesting from nationalism?
I wasn't making a proposition, I was correcting an idiot. But there is no difference between the two, that's precisely what nationalism is. National sovereignty. Support of nation-states is the defining feature of all nationalist ideology.
>If I'm not mistaken, nationalism could effectively be multicultural while national sovereignty tends towards a collective of national tribes (and so generally isolated ethnically).
No, empires can try to artificially create nations, crafting a national identity while liquidating all the nations it controls. Like Brazil, civic "nationalism". It doesn't share anything in common with nationalism. It's antithetical to it. Its goal isn't for peoples to be free, independent, or exist. Its goal is for the state to persist, through the destruction of all distinct peoples within its territories. One people -> one state != one state -> one people. The former is Nationalism. The latter is expressly anti-nationalistic.
>Although nationalism is currently being redefined as the latter.
It always was.

Because the Catholic Spanish monarchy was fascist/nazist? lol. They had even more strict race purity laws than the third Reich.

Yes it was. Many of the EU main proponents weren’t racially European or racially conscious like “French” jew Jean Monnet and subhuman hapa Richard Kalergi. You can’t join the EU while having any kind of racial, ethnic laws or running any discriminatory policy for that matter

wouldn't the opposite be true, since strong nation-states would make the EU redundant?

It doesn’t matter as long as the main goal of free movement, egalitarianism and blood mixing is there. Norway and Switzerland don’t seem like an example of nativism to me

...