Non-racist fascist here. Serious question: why do you racist faggots have to ruin everything?

Non-racist fascist here. Serious question: why do you racist faggots have to ruin everything?

Other urls found in this thread:

propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/is-modernity-anti-white/
alor.org/Race, Culture and Nation/Jewish Intellectual Supremacism - A Refutation.htm
youtu.be/aR4MvD9IEAE
youtube.com/watch?v=0E0Mak0cvAM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

What's wrong with racism?

I dont believe in racial hierarchy but i believe in race realism
Am fascist too

It was THAT idiot that ruined everything by attacking Greece and creating a front in the worthless Balkans

because like it or not, you'd be happier and better off if europeans managed to wipe out every other subspecies of human on the planet

"Racism is what caused the collapse of National Socialism in the historical, geopolitical, and theoretical sense. This was not only a historical, but a philosophical collapse. Racism is based on the belief in the innate objective superiority of one human race over another. It was racism, and not some other aspect of National Socialism, that brought about such consequences, leading to immeasurable suffering on both sides, as well as the collapse of Germany and the Axis powers, not to mention the destruction of the entire ideological project of the Third Way. The criminal practice of wiping out entire ethnic groups (Jews, gypsies, and Slavs) based on race was precisely rooted in their racial theory — this is what angers and shocks us about Nazism to this day. In addition, Hitler's anti-Semitism, and the doctrine that Slavs are 'subhuman' and must be colonized, is what led Germany to go to war against the Soviet Union, which cost us millions of lives. It is also true that this resulted in the Germans themselves losing their political freedom and the right to participate in political history for a long time, if not forever. Today they are left only with their economy and, in the best case scenario, with a concern for ecology. The supporters of the Third Way were left in the position of ideological outcasts on the margins of society. It was racism — in theory and in practice — that criminalized all other aspects of National Socialism and fascism, causing these worldviews to become the object of curses and vilification."

I understand that it would be difficult to be objective in this kind, since you would most likely assume that your culture/people are superior in some aspects.
But not all inherited traits are equal, some traits are objectively better than others in the context of a society. Heritable traits linked to intelligent or aggression are not equal. The people whom share a similar genetic profil with a high prevalence of "good" traits are objectively better than a population with a high prevalence of "bad" traits.

that hateful nationalists are useful idiots for the left. the idea that nationalism = hate for others, rather than love for your own people is the narrative that globalists wish to promote

nothing about nationalism excludes the possibility for nations to cooperate and trade without miscegenation and war

>nationalism = hate for others, rather than love for your own people

Call me when this happens, cause I've never seen it.

pic related is what multiculturalists actually believe

>nothing about nationalism excludes the possibility for nations to cooperate and trade without miscegenation and war

That's right, which is why it is so detestable with racists latch onto nationalism and pervert it into something wicked.

>Hitler's anti-Semitism, and the doctrine that Slavs are 'subhuman' and must be colonized, is what led Germany to go to war against the Soviet Union

No the driving force of Hitler's anger to Russia was because it fucked the second reich and it was a communist shithole

The drive into the ussr was driven by the need to for material resources to continue the war against britain and to secure the eastern flank against the inevitable collapse of the nonaggression pact. But color me surprised, a philosopher pulled shit out of his ass.

Who are these people?

What I'm talking about is people who express nationalists views are obsessed with genetics and ethnic homogeneity, is there a nationalist organization that doesn't highlight this?

Theoretical approach to nationalism are interesting, but practical applications of it always seem to result in violence.

No, nationalism takes pride in a culture you support and teach.

Idiot.

>he thinks national socialism is gone

The identity of a nation is not created by geography, governments, or boundaries but it is bound up in the people and their cultural identity. Romania is Romanian because of the Romanian people, an Australian who moves to China will never be Chinese.
Ask an American what makes them American and what will they say?
Race? No.
Ethnicity? No.
Language? Not anymore. Culture? Nope.
Merely government recognition. Ask an immigrant why they are in America and they will tell you- money. America is a bastard nation where money rules, where mob rule exists, where no history is sacred as is any multi-cultural nation.

So go ahead and call us racists, just remember you have nothing to tie yourself to the land you call your own anymore.

No. What brought it down was the jew response to being removed from another country in europe. Racism is necessary when speaking about jews. Wake up!

Hitler would have ventured eastward even if he never went to war with Britain, but thanks for the revisionism.

Oohhhh cry me a river, faggot

" I belive in race and I'm not ashamed to admit it, but that does not mean im out to pursicute anyone based on his color or ethnicity; he can't help what he is."
George Rockwell could have done great things. Taken to soon

>What I'm talking about is people who express nationalists views are obsessed with genetics and ethnic homogeneity, is there a nationalist organization that doesn't highlight this?
no, that's pretty normal for nationalists. but nothing about genetic homogeneity precludes cooperation with other genetically homogeneous groups.

>Theoretical approach to nationalism are interesting, but practical applications of it always seem to result in violence.
either they were warmongering idiots like the nazis (which isn't fascism, anyway), or they are targeted by antifas who start the violence. violent people come in all ideologies and beliefs, but the media will only tell you when nationalists are violent, and rarely bring up the rampant violence of the left. for example, the villainization of fascism exemplified by non-fascist nazis, vs the total acceptance of communists (who killed way more than the nazis ever did)

practical applications of nationalism include pretty much every nation in existence until colonialism. it used to be that conquered people were made to accept the culture of the conquerors, it's only recently in human history that we came to the idea that we could live side by side in peace, yet racial violence is prevalent in every modern multicultural society. in a nationalist world there would be no racial violence.

...

i am not racist i do understand the racial differences and accept them. am racially aware.
have fun trying to fit a square into a circular hole your whole life.

No, you are right but it goes back to a theoretical approach to nationalism that relies on homogeneity already in effect, it doesn't deal with the practical reality on how to achieve this.
There doesn't seem to be a non-violent solution to this problem, and in this context kicking people out (to where?) is an act of violence.

mussolini was still "racist"

Because people have a right to live peacefully in a place where radical fascist (read: liberal) ideologies that have proven to be destructive to society are shunned and ignored actively.

I'd like to note that we were perfectly happy to sell him those resources, and were a large trade partner up until the start of Barbarossa.

And if Hitler didn't repeatedly declare that he was going to attack the Soviet Union and seek Lebensraum in our lands, then violation of the non-agression pact wouldn't be inevitable.

I'm wrapped in like 10 layers of irony right now bro

At least that allowed this guy to take Belgrade in a daring 7-man invasion!

Hey Benito; why'd you give all your political ideas to a bunch of racists? Could it be that ALL fascists; are actually submissives just looking for a big daddy leader to take care of them? To give their ideas away to and blow? Fucking hell; don't blame others for your issues.

You must be some kind of faggot.

Codreanu believed in race-mixing, one of his many criticisms against the Jews is that they didn't inter-marry with Romanians and assimilate.

"Well, our national history and everyday experience have proved to us that from among all foreigners who come to us, the Turks and particularly the Jews are the ones who never intermarry with us, while other foreigners: Russians, Greeks, Italians, Germans intermarry and fuse with us, if not on the first then during the second or third generation, but finally there comes a time when there is no distinction between these foreigners and ourselves, either as regards blood or love of country. But it is not the same with the Jews..."

>>Hitler's anti-Semitism, and the doctrine that Slavs are 'subhuman' and must be colonized, is what led Germany to go to war against the Soviet Union

>What was Operation Groza?

how about this

>Racism is necessary when speaking about jews

No it's not, pic related.

>racism
>bad
its actually a survival instinct found in every communal creature on this flat earth.

That's still the logic in 41 regardless of any hypothetical. Dugin would have you believe that the nazis had a concrete racial theory rather than ad-hoc rationalizations out of political necessity(such as the slovak republic and the croation dictatorship of yugoslavia). And not only did they have concrete racial theories, this motivated the germans to initiate a two-fronted war that lead to their destruction, over more banal concerns about being overly reliant on oil from grozny. It's an attempt to mystify the nazis and make them unknowable.

The molotov-ribbentrop was born from the purges of the soviet officer corp and everyone knew it.

>And if Hitler didn't repeatedly declare that he was going to attack the Soviet Union and seek Lebensraum in our lands.

The ussr abandoned its' main defensive fortification built in the 1930s to initiate a war of aggression against: poland, the baltic states, and romania. Do you honestly think that once the military was modernized that stalin would sit idly by while germany established continental hegemony?

Based Dugin.

>Hitler's anti-Semitism, and the doctrine that Slavs are 'subhuman' and must be colonized, is what led Germany to go to war against the Soviet Union, which cost us millions of lives. It is also true that this resulted in the Germans themselves losing their political freedom and the right to participate in political history for a long time, if not forever

Germany didn't lose because of any ideological aspect of their beliefs. They lost because they made strategic miscalculations.
None of the allies declared war on Germany because of their beliefs about race.
Hell, similar beliefs about race weren't even that uncommon in Europe.
Russia even carried out its own anti jewish pogroms not too long ago.

Spend a little less time working out an eloquent paragraph and a little more verifying your claims before you make them.

>America is a nation where money rules
eh, having money that you didn't earn is usually looked down on in America, pretty much from the beginning to present day. Ex: One of the biggest criticisms (and most effective) against Trump is that he didn't create his own wealth but inherited it from his father. Being "old money" is something most Americans don't want to be associated with. Meritocracy and ingenuity and possibly the (myth?) of self reliance and individuality is what rules America.

>Someone, somewhere, actually believes this

Top kek, I needed that laugh today

Color me surprised, but his comment
>intermarry and fuse with us
Points to a unification of cultures to where they become a singularity. He also was referring to other Europeans, not other races.
One of the few things the left rants about (hypocritically) that is correct is the presence and influence of money in elections, whether from foreign or domestic sources.

Yes. No reason to. All those so-called wars of agression were to regain territory lost only several decades ago, And which were part of Russia for centuries. There was no point in attacking the Germany territorial or economic benefits.

>Germany didn't lose because of any ideological aspect of their beliefs. They lost because they made strategic miscalculations.

They lost more than the war, it was a philosophical defeat, the proof of which is that neo-Nazis are relegated to shitposting anonymously on Sup Forums and Twitter. If it were only a simple strategic defeat then the Third Way would have continued to be popular in the following decades instead of being completely marginalized. Next time try reading comprehension instead of picking out one part to set up a straw man.

How is anything he said wrong? Of course, real politik was involved in the decision to fight the Soviets, but purging slavs was undeniable one motivation. The rest of what he said is basically true.

Why don't you faggots actually make an argument against what he said instead of memeing?

This is probably the most advanced cuckoldry I've ever witnessed. Well done OP, you flaming faggot.

not really doing much to fight the stereotype of when Sup Forums has no good argument they'll resort to calling you a cuck, are you.

Because the "Purging of the Slavs" is Soviet and Jewish propaganda, just look at the number of Slavs who served in the SS and Wehrmacht, there were even Slavic commanders such as Pavlo Shandruk.
Germany's first "Axis" ally was Slovakia ffs.

Most of Sup Forums just doesn't bother with this obvious shitposting, newbie. "Racist" was a term Trotsky created in the first place, a non racist fascist is essentially an anti-white fascist

Because they know it's true, so all they have in their defense is ad hominems and Hitler dindu nuffin revisionism. This is why us fashy goys can't have nice things.

>and the doctrine that Slavs are 'subhuman' and must be colonized

communists had the same view about the slavs

He didn't believe in race and all his and all his Anti-Semitic policies existed because he was Hitler's fuccboi.

>One of the few things the left rants
I'd say it's both the right and the left that rant about it. The left likes to rant about corporations having too much influence while the right says "if where gonna do corporations, we should also be dealing with corrupt unions and lawyer's guild money having undue influence." I would say that most Americans don't think having money is a sin. It's just a tool. It's when money is used to encroach on individual liberty is when it's becomes a bad thing. Obama didn't really need huge amounts of capital to use the IRS to attack the finances of his political opponents but those opponents sure did need capitol to defend themselves and get their message out.

if you wont kick people out to where they come from / make them live in their own state, and you also don't lay your culture on them, then the differences still haven't been settled. There will not be one institutionalized violence that opponents fear so much (war), but instead, daily microaggressions.

yes

>The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902

>Non-racist fascist
sure kike.
>dont believe in racial hierarchy but i believe in race realism
then you believe in racial hierarchy because there is no equality in nature

>Dugin
This faggot needs to die in a furnace. Slavs like this guy are on a mission to out-kike the kikes

Do you refute the scientific fact that no man is equal? That someone is always best and someone worst?

Statistically every individual of one collective are not superior to another because of what they look like, but the truth isn't very different either.

Their collective genetic quality still means that they as a collective are superior. Every collective has idiots and geniuses, but it's a question of whether the average person in each collective is closer to the idiot or the genius that matters.

And this means one group is objectively better than the other.

To make a clear example, if you have two groups:
>9 idiots and 1 genius
>9 geniuses and 1 idiot

You can say "both have geniuses and idiots" and be correct, but you can't deny that the group with 9 geniuses is exponentially better than the group with only 1.

I'd say we're making everything better. Your grievance industry is over

What's wrong with fascism???

It really depends on what you are measuring. If race realists took their social darwinism to its logical conclusion, then whites are objectively the worst race, because they have the lowest birth rates. This means they are literally the worst at surviving, and everything else comes secondary to survival.

Or if you want to go by IQ, whites are #3 but somehow are the best inventors—which raises the question, how valuable of a metric is IQ if the highest IQ group aren't the best inventors? If there is more to humanity than IQ then it is not an objective measure of superiority at all. Moreover, while nobody disputes the disparity among mean IQ among races, there is no direct evidence that supports a genetic hypothesis. At best your position is speculation that is not compelling to most reasonable people, and at worst it is just pure evil that infested and ruined an otherwise legitimate political ideology.

>whites are objectively the worst race, because they have the lowest birth rates
>implying r-selected species have the highest survival rates as well as the highest birth rates
If that's going to be your rubric, then Jews produce fewer offspring, have more heritable diseases, and have done the worst job thriving and integrating into their environments. Whites literally subsidize the birth rates of every other race. Whites do have flaws, but not in the terms you've listed.

Here you go, brush up on the basics:
>propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/is-modernity-anti-white/

>I dont believe in racial hierarchy but i believe in race realism
those are contradictory statements since not all races were built equally dumbshit, goes against all natural laws

>which raises the question, how valuable of a metric is IQ
It's a wonderful metric, but you have to be able to sort out the hintentional distortions; inflating IQ performance is a popular propaganda trick. Do you really trust the same government that told you the Great Leap Forward was a success to tell you that all the dog-eating, getting electrocuted and chopped up by escalators dialy, and running over little kids multiple times to make sure they're dead buttfuck populations of China are somehow these intellectual titans (not even touching on the notoriously rampant cheating culture, or how they export only their upper middle-class successes here to go to university, or the fact that they have to export people to go to university in the first place, etc)

tl;dr
>alor.org/Race, Culture and Nation/Jewish Intellectual Supremacism - A Refutation.htm
there are many reasons to believe that the IQ number given for certain races are flawed, not that IQ is inherently a bad concept.

Because I like it.
I walk by little kids birthday parties, and I have to go ruin it.
I'm out on a Friday night, and see a bunch of ladies celebrating a birthday, gotta go ruin it.
I see a young couple out necking, and I just have to go shit on them (literally).

I just ruin everything because I'm not your carbon copy. How date anyone hold an opinion on anything that differs from yours, you delicate little snowflake.

>If that's going to be your rubric, then Jews produce fewer offspring, have more heritable diseases, and have done the worst job thriving and integrating into their environments.

That's fine, it only strengthens my point, which is that any race will look superior or inferior depending on what you're looking at. Not only that, but there can be no objective superior race when there are so many things to look at in the scope of humanity. Furthermore, different races have different values, so when you take a point like this:

>Whites literally subsidize the birth rates of every other race

Which points to the "whites are the most altruistic" argument, well it doesn't really mean anything because tribes of people that aren't altruistic don't care if whites are more altruistic then they are. They might even point to altruism as a flaw, as many non-egalitarian white people do, as it leads to globalization and multiculturalism.

Kill yourself cuckold kikescum

This man knew....shame there was no one to replace him.

What's wrong with this picture?

>it only strengthens my point, which is that any race will look superior or inferior depending on what you're looking a
That wasn't your point. Your point was that IQ was a flawed rubric and whites were inferior because they produced fewer offspring. You said nothing about the subjective nature of IQ, you tried to give counter-examples to IQ being a valid measure, and to white superiority. I pointed out that your counter-examples implied the opposite cases you were arguing.
>whites subsidize others is altruistic but means nothing
it means they're altruistic -- are you a spaz, or is this a poor attempt at sophistry?
>tribes of people that aren't altruistic don't care if whites are more altruistic then they are
Yes, it is possible for altruism to be a negative thing, are you logic impaired?
>They might even point to altruism as a flaw
Of course it does, ie, pathological altruism. user, are you painfully new and arrogant, talking on matters you haven't studied yet, or are you just to stupid to realize how you sound? You're just talking in logical circles trying to sound contrarian.

>The European Grammar of Self-Intolerance
youtu.be/aR4MvD9IEAE

>That wasn't your point.

I said "it really depends on what you are measuring" and proceeded to give three examples- birth rates, IQ, and inventions, of which whites are worst(or second to last according to your data) third, and first.

>I said "it really depends on what you are measuring"
>haha, so no matter which example I gave after that I have an out if I'm wrong
>checkmate racist , haha
Ok, you're an idiot. I'll walk you through what you said line by fucking line. After that, I hope you go kys. I know you won't, but I hope you do.
>If race realists took their social darwinism to its logical conclusion, then whites are objectively the worst race, because they have the lowest birth rates
That consideration might have something to do with natural selection, or with Darwin's theories, but it has nothing to do with "social darwinism", which isn't a formal theory at all, and had nothing to do with Darwin, or birthrates, or anything else you said. My reply to you was that "birthrate" isn't a eugenic consideration unless the birthrate falls so low that it leads to extinction. Populations fluctuate, birthrates rise and fall, but lower birthrates compared to another race doesn't imply that race is better adapted. Their birthrate could be dysgenic, as in the case of r-selected black population with serial paternity families.
>tl;dr
There would have to be a very nuanced argument for lower birthrates alone to become that significant. k-selected whites have always been a global minority, but they've also succeeded materially and socially in ways that groups who fuck randomly and shit out babies don't. The only reason those races are able to survive reproducing at those rates is because whites subsidize it, provide modern medicine and sanitation, etc. All non-whites have seen lifespans doubled or tripled through contact with whites. When whites "de-colonized" mortality rates shot up, back to their natural equilibrium.

Outside the context of white civilizations, these r-selected third worlders would still be fucking and shitting out neglected r-selected babies, they'd just be dying off so fast no one would notice the birthrate. They do anyway, even with whites helping keep them alive and afloat.

>hurr hurr blame everything on Italy
When will this meme die?

Hitler was going to invade Yugoslavia anyway.
During the Balkan campaign, the Germans built airfields and stockpiled supplies in Poland.

The invasion of the SU was already delayed anyway due to weather and conditions too muddy to operate in anyway. The main reason Barbarossa failed was because of Hitler's disagreement on strategic objectives with his generals, and his oncoming insanity.

>let me tell you what you are really trying to argue

I know arguing with racists is an invitation to get sucked into an endless abyss of autism but I'm not going to go there with you. Racism is bad and how bad it is should be self evident to you. Why don't you try not being a piece of shit you fucking faggot?

>said X, Y, Z
>uh oh, you made me look bad
>I really meant A, B, C
>don't tell me what I was arguing
just fuck off to the containment board you belong in

It is haunted?

just remember you have nothing to tie yourself to the land you call your own anymore

>implying we care

"Thirty centuries of history allow us to look with supreme pity on certain doctrines which are preached beyond the Alps by the descendants of those who were illiterate when Rome had Caesar, Virgil and Augustus."-Mussolini

One of the greatest quotes of all time

youtube.com/watch?v=0E0Mak0cvAM

>Hitler's anti-Semitism, and the doctrine that Slavs are 'subhuman' and must be colonized, is what led Germany to go to war against the Soviet Union
That is exactly fucking %100 true. He also thought that the US was a bunch of, how did he put it? "Negrified playboys" or something like that? And that we'd therefore be pushovers. But of course I'm on a web page full of stormfags who think the Holocaust was a hoax, so never mind.

>racism is bad because it's bad

Literally not an argument

>Mussulini
>Italian

PoC can't be racist, shitlord