/edu/ - Education

bump

Either you mean Klaus Mann or Hannah Arendt.

i fall into this camp as well. my untermensch status is what motivates my racial fanaticism. this has its constitutive class basis also. peasantry will be most patriotic while those who most benefit from the nation are also most critical. i have heard that black police officers in america are similar, where they will be most brutal to prove their exception. what you see on the right today is also a hideous sewerage of "based" blacks, gays and even transhumanists who fight for people who are fundamentally antagonistic to them.
in marxian terms, we see how proles are also most commonly the least revolutionary aspect of society. lacan gives a name to this contradiction; surplus-enjoyment, which is how one enjoys a complaint more than the solution to his problems. his problem becomes the drive of his complaint, like the guy who rages at videogames yet keeps playing. when he says he "hates" a game, he actually loves it. the person who talks does not act. but as lacan famously said to a woman, "i could be talking to you or fucking you and it would be the same difference". here, the drive is recursive of its formal activity, not its content - this is also why the postmodern age reveals sex to only be a form of participatory masturbation. i could be fucking my hand or your pussy and it would be the same difference, and so on.

>>23380
I love your ramblings, Nazi-chan

>>23380
I don't get what you're implying with the last two sentences,especially considering the ones before

>>23388
skill issue?
the last two sentences reveal that desire is in the nature of the drive, which is only a form, not content, of activity. the particular videogame doesnt matter that we play, as long as we are angry, like how a pussy and hand still simulate the fantasy. the content of our desire is immaterial to its formality. this is why it is the same in politics, that you can pitch communism to a reactionary, as long as you call it something else (seriously, try it. just call the capitalists "elites" and stuff like that). the true content is in the identity, or name, of the thing. this obviously cuts against marxist materialism, but think about it. why do the proletariat vote against their own class interest? they only vote against it if it is conjunctive with a universal, or leftist signification. this is why the working class are a "reactionary mass" the same as the lumpen (lenin knew this well; that all class consciousness is born from antisemitism). all soviet aesthetics is the same; that what is primary is soviet nationalism rather than proletarian liberation. this is why certain marxists like georges sorel posit a non-materialist approach to political mobilisation.

when people think of "the working class" in the west it is typically seen as a particularised phantasm of white men in heavy labour, despite the fact that this doesnt really exist anymore. the working class identity thus is an alienated one, which betrays its contemporary subjectivity. this is why cyber-lumpens like haz can say barristas are not working class in the formal sense (despite the fact that haz is a "parasite" in his own terms complaining about wage workers). others talk of the precariat and "nomads" like refugees; proletarian identity is abolished for a neoliberal individualism. this failure begins in marx however, who fails to properly ground the proletariat within capitalism's internal dynamics. lenin is better since he sees the task as one of political subjectivity, and therefore a normative judgement of labour (which thus integrates peasantry into the struggle). this is why class politics must ultimately conform to a grander political ontology (you cannot be a "communist", but must be a left or right wing communist, the same as marx's description of reactionary socialists in the manifesto). for example, lets say the working class is terminally reactionary, yet still socialist - there can never simply be "class politics" thus.
>>23387
💖💋

>>12147
>>23380
>>23389
Here's the thing: I don't think Hitler was a mastermind creating any sort of complex theories. I feel people forget he was a homeless guy radicalized by street pamphlets. To me, he was a low-class man who had good oratory ability, but he wasn't particularly intelligent. He would believe most of what he read in his specific choice of media and magazines, yet he spoke very well. The thing is, if it hadn't been Hitler or the Nazis, it would have been some other Fascist force taking power in Germany, a party with enough pro-worker rhetoric for the lower classes but didn't alienate them with anti-nationalism, but who didn't alienate the old nobility and military either

>>23391
Hitler is beyond intellect, he is Will, which is why he became weltgeist, like napoleon. he expressed the german zeitgeist as an historical necessity, to complete the european Concept, which is in negation to its aryan identity, but which is yet to negate its negation and so to establish its concrete universality. this concludes with the formalisation of the american imperium, which by its identity, will be entered into its alienation. china says that they will establish socialism in 2050, the same year that the grand masonic lodge in england reaches its 333rd anniversary, so perhaps its then 👁

>>23391
this, not to mention bro was fucking geeked most of the time

>>23392
Okay, plenty of guys are like this, and specific conditions led to Hitler being in charge. While I think he was always going to be a nationalist and a radical of some sort, he could have been a regional level Communist nationalist if the conditions were there. That said, I'm not from the West, so I've never really viewed him as Satan incarnate or anything.

>>23394
>Communist nationalist
The shit I have to read here, lmao.

You can tell how cooked the average braindead moron here is when they believe Nazi Germany or any other country depends on their "leaders" choosing the "correct" or "wrong" policy.

>>23391
The nazis were elected by the middle classes (just like any politician), what are you fucking smoking?

>>23391
The thing about hitler and Nazism broadly speaking is that it is socialism of phenomena and not the noumena like marxism is, he saw the Jews which embodied capitalism but are not capitalism itself, just like his racialism, seeing the backwardness of other cultures as a manifestation not of capitalist imperialism but of the people themselves. Nazism is socialism but of the vulgar kind that fails to abstract from the concrete.

>>23398
lower middle classes of Shopkeepers, clerks, small business owners were abstetoyl a strong voter base for Nazis, but they would not have made it anywhere without support of rural, workers and the old aristocracy

>>23399
>>23399
>he saw the Jews which embodied capitalism but are not capitalism itself
you should read marx's "on the jewish question"; to him, jews represent capitalism in particular (as civil society) yet the christians sublime judaism by its alienation in the state (like how christians benefit from jews yet persecute them). i suppose youre saying that Hitler never saw the judaism of christianity, which is a common flaw.
>Nazism is socialism but of the vulgar kind that fails to abstract from the concrete.
this links nazism with anarchism i would say, which attempts to ontologise socialism, and so appeals to an anti-political (bourgeois) tendency. the propaganda of the deed is also a staple in nazism.
>>23394
what i am saying is that Hitler is a contingency of a greater historical necessity. he was an avatar of the german zeitgeist. this is why liberal individualists blame Hitler as an actor and not Hitler as an historical phenomenon.

>>23402
Again, my point is that there are dozens of quotes from Hitler that an average person on the Internet who supports Communism might find appealing or agree with, but that’s due to the nature of populist, authoritarian, militaristic, and nationalistic state


>"The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today's bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can"

>"National Socialism derived from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism."

>"All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community."

>"Capitalism as a whole will now be destroyed, the whole people will now be free. We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting very capitalism: we are making the people completely free.' … It is only the international Stock Exchange and loan- capital, the so-called 'supra-state capital,' which has profited from the collapse of our economic life, the capital which receives its character from the single supra-state nation which is itself national to the core, which fancies itself to be above all other nations, which places itself above other nations and which already rules over them."

>"In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.' By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of the 'freedom of the press.' In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion"

>"What Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.”

>“But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.”

>"What Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.”

>"I have learnt a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit… I don't mean their tiresome social doctrine or the materialist conception of history, or their absurd marginal utility theories and so on. But I have learnt from their methods. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it"

>>23408
i would rather say that most people are particularists. the jew represents capitalism in particular; "international capital", or "rootless" cosmopolitanism. this is why most people are anticapitalist in proportion to their antisemitism (again, ask your average joe about "elites" and see him froth). you can glean the antisemitism of industrial nostalgia for example, which seeks to embody labour in a domestic, rooted and national concept. a commodity "made in america" is more attractive than something "made in china".

as zizek says, antisemitism assigns the jew as everything, and therefore he is nothing in himself. the jew is both wealthy and "clean", while simultaneously being filthy and poor. henry ford in his "the international jew" speaks on the instinctive prejudice humanity holds against jews, the same as gypsies and other nomads. alain badiou says that all identities are permitted besides the jewish, for the jewish identity is only in negation to gentiles. this is why israel is such an international contradiction, or what many have claimed, "nothing is more antisemitic than the creation of israel". rabbis clamber to criticise the jewish state, while others laud it as meschiach. jews appear to be behind capitalism and communism; right and left. everywhere is the jew, and thus he is nowhere in particular - this makes the jew an abstract negativity, or "universal" identity.

only a few who like the early christians, call themselves jews, are entered into a jewish self-abolition, like marx speaks of in "on the jewish question". nietzsche asks why christians hate jews yet worship a jewish god. it seems strange. but this makes more sense in a hegelian context; to enter into one's identity is to become alienated from it, like how Christ comes for the jews, yet they reject him.

i consider myself critically inclined and so i begin with my own confession. i am a spiritual jew, yet i wish to be saved from myself. i yearn for the baptism of my soul, or the shabbat, to which the qabalists signify as "the world to come".

now, i spake earlier of christianity's judaism. this was in fact noted by Hitler, who instead devised of a program called "positive christianity" which removed the old testament and paul's epistles from the bible. here, we are presented an aryan Christ in theosophical fashion. i prefer contradiction however. we are all jews, but only some of us are spiritual israel.

in the end, jews as the universal non-peoples are made most particular. we see this in how jews cannot become self-abolished (like the bourgeosie; in other words, there can be no jewish proletariat). there can be no worldly israel thus.

>>23410
Okay, so I'm not European, and I'm not fond of mass migrations to countries because I know they destabilize nations. However, my position on the Jewish question is this: it's almost impossible to pretend they aren't vastly overrepresented in various fields, intelligentsia, entertainment and politics. That doesn't mean they deserve genocide, but I follow the Gumilev school of thought that the Jews should be 'remade' by being placed in a province where they do manual labor for generations and even intermingle with the locals to create a new Jewish race without

>>23411
it is contrary to the physis of jews to be converted into a labouring race. this is why they only ever occupy positions which serve their mentality and not their physicality. the jew is a banker, a rabbi, an intellectual, a manager, a director, a writer, a critic, a psychologist, an artist, a producer, a comedian, and so on. his abode is in the media, synagogue, academia or party. he has no fraternity within the factory. this is his bourgeois essence.

this is why i say that the contradiction of the jew is that he cannot be self-abolished. he is forever a conspirator for his own people, living with a false name. this is what makes him the least, and most, of all particular peoples. he cannot become european til europe becomes an image of himself. he cannot be an american until america becomes israel, and even then…

i sympathise with your proletarian ambitions to liberate the jew from himself, but i simply disbelieve in its possibility. the jew is not a proletarian race, like all others may be. but like i say, were the first christians themselves not jews who were liberated from their jewishness? (though some insist that the vatican is a jewish institution, while others claim that the reformation was a jewish act). all in all, the jewish question concerns the possibility of his extinction; either socially, religiously, or existentially.