FIGHT BACK, OR DIE!
>Elon Musk told the far-right rally that "violence is going to come to you. You either fight back, or you die."
Ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence?
98 posts and 13 image replies omitted.>>2483512that they should desist for it is irrational to generalise based on such contingent factors
>>2483513truth is simply that which cannot be denied by reason
>>2483515no, fascists are people who imagine there is no truth besides violence.
>>2483506He is wrong about people being ready to revolt and die for Da Trooth & Freedumb but it is always good to have it on your side.
Rule by the barrel of a gun only always end like Noriega.
>>2483481I agree but it's a context thing. Schmittian thought is good in case of open political conflicts. When two very different worldview clashes.
Otherwise it is indeed completely dysfunctional and wrong.
>>2483520weltenschauung is two-fold. either it is a volkish inheritence, such as the national socialists believed. in this case it is an irrational instinct. another case is that worldview is based on reason, for which its grounds of disagreement are rational. to disagree on grounds of reason is not a schmittian dispute. schmitt's political distinction only concerns group loyalties, so is in essence either irrational or self-interested, but not a distinction founded on reason. this is why in this complex, there is no possibility of reform, but only competition between two irrational actors.
if we presuppose reason however, the schmittian distinction becomes unjustifiable. dont forget also that in loyalty groups (cults), those within the organisation are tried and tested just as much as those without. if you criticise your parents for example, you may be disciplined for insulting the cult leader. the schmittian distinction appears when its stated, "do as i say, not as i do" - directly invoking hypocrisy into the formula of power. power becomes a sublime form of hypocrisy.
supporting the distinction generally then only means that your politics is based around corruption, loyalty and violence; all irrational tendencies. the rulers are despised by the ruled for precisely these purposes, which also means a more perfect order must do away with the irrational to bring forth justice.
>>2483525are all bachelors unmarried?
>>2483528To oppose politics as either irrational loyalty or rational discourse is an idealist construction. Politics is not constituted in the realm of ideas but in the antagonisms of material life. Schmitt’s friend–enemy distinction, stripped of its mysticism, reflects not mere cultic allegiance but the objective reality of class conflict.
Violence in this context is not reducible to corruption or hypocrisy. The state itself is the organized monopoly of violence in the service of a ruling class, and what passes for “reason” is inseparable from the reproduction of that order. The charge of hypocrisy is secondary to this structural fact: domination always presents itself as necessity.
Thus, the appeal to “reason” as a transcendent ground of politics fails to recognize that reason is historically mediated by class relations. Bourgeois reason is no neutral principle but an ideological expression of bourgeois interests. Political violence is therefore not the collapse of rationality but the moment at which material contradictions exceed the integrative capacity of discourse.
>>2483539>Schmitt’s friend–enemy distinction, stripped of its mysticism, reflects not mere cultic allegiance but the objective reality of class conflict."class conflict" is just opposing class loyalties.
>The state itself is the organized monopoly of violence in the service of a ruling class, and what passes for “reason” is inseparable from the reproduction of that order.you are speaking in contradiction here. you are saying that what passes for rationality is in fact irrational. this is what im saying too, but still understand that my disagreements are based in reason, not a nebulous "class interest", which can easily be extended to further cults, like "racial interest", "sexual interest", etc.
>Thus, the appeal to “reason” as a transcendent ground of politicspolitics is mostly based in irrationality, which is why it breeds cults and violence. a rational politics we would call "justice".
>Political violence is therefore not the collapse of rationality but the moment at which material contradictions exceed the integrative capacity of discourse.give an example.
>>2483543You misread the point of calling class antagonism “objective.” Class conflict is not merely another group loyalty; it arises from determinate positions in the process of production. Unlike racial or cultic identities, class is rooted in the reproduction of material life itself, and cannot be dissolved into mere preference or belief.
When I say that bourgeois “reason” is bound to class domination, I am not calling it irrational in the same sense as cultic violence. It is internally consistent, but its consistency serves the interests of a class. To reveal the partiality of that reason is not to abandon rationality altogether, but to insist that rationality itself is historically mediated.
As for an example: the Paris Commune demonstrates what it means for material contradictions to exceed discourse. Workers’ demands for political equality and economic survival could not be reconciled within the institutions of the French state; the contradiction between capital and labor erupted into insurrection. Likewise, the American Civil War was not the collapse of reason into irrational violence, but the inevitable resolution of the contradiction between a slave economy and a capitalist one.
And here’s the part you never seem to grasp: your obsession with calling everything “irrational cultism” is just a lazy way of avoiding the fact that politics has material roots you’d rather ignore. You want to sound like you’re above it all, dispensing judgments from the perch of “reason,” but it’s the shallowest kind of armchair moralism. You don’t come across as some noble defender of justice just a pompous retard with a philosophy degree who thinks sneering pseudo-intellectual nonsense is somehow conducive to the reality of politics.
>>2483551>reason is historically contingentabsolute nonsense. if this were the case then the writers of ancient greece would be unintelligible to us.
>bourgeois class loyalty is rationalno it isnt. thats why a child can ask why some people in the world starve while others dont.
>Likewise, the American Civil War was not the collapse of reason into irrational violenceyes it was. pride on the part of the south cost millions of lives for no reason. what you are saying is that all death and destruction was necessary when this is obviously untrue.
>And here’s the part you never seem to grasp: your obsession with calling everything “irrational cultism” is just a lazy way of avoiding the fact that politics has material roots you’d rather ignore. where is my ignorance of material reality? what youre saying is that violence is good when some people do it but not when other people do it, without considering violence itself. i already summed up your worldview, so why keep protesting? just admit that you are a hypocrite. you will cheat to win a game.
>>2483553explain.
>>2483555>you will cheat to win the game Yes
Mate you’re genuinely a fucking retard, can’t wait for uni funding to sink even more so they cut humanities and we get less retards like you
>>2483558>yesright, so you are a hypocrite, self-amittedly.
i hope youre grateful to discover the truth about yourself.
>>2483559it was already admitted to:
>>2483558so my description simply bears relation to truth
>>2483560“i defined your worldview”
cool bro, you also defined yourself as the type of useless retard who jerks off to arguments online while doing absolutely nothing that matters in the real world
>>2483564yes, i defined your worldview which is why you admitted to what i told you about yourself. this is therapeutic.
>doing absolutely nothing that matters in the real worldand im guessing youre the next lenin? youre on leftypol with me, mate. calm down.
>>2483618Simple. to have a wank about how smart
I am.
>>2483613perhaps you misunderstand.
the esoteric worldview is a violent worldview where competing spirits attempt to conquer each other by the power of their supreme personality. evola in his book on magic directly criticises the notion of reality having preconditions and instead sees "will" as an unconditional aspect, the same as schopenhauer and nietzsche. this view of blind necessity is a view that privileges destruction over preservation. in all cases, the will of nature is irrational, with reason only impeding its malicious progress by steady contemplation. this is why nietzsche resented priests who apparently invented morality to debase great men. nietzsche's "master morality" for example takes inspiration from the roman virtues of war and leisure; so basically, theft, murder and idleness (with roman soldiers actually inventing the term "otium otiosum" to describe their occasional condition as a curse). to a "blonde beast" however, this passes as "greatness" apparently (again, to kleptocratic politicians, theft, murder and laziness come naturally as "aristocratic" values - predators are parasites). you must excuse me but i prefer my "jewish" egalitarian myths of the bible to this poverty of intellect. the meek shall inherit the earth while those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.
>>2483889>the esoteric worldview is a violent worldview where competing spirits attempt to conquer each other by the power of their supreme personality.What a lot of nonsense. You are not seriously claiming these sorts are driven by the Willd to Power.
The rest of this post is sophistry.
Also Judaism is not egalitarian it is ethnocentric (which could easily and is adapted into fascism).
>>2483906>Why did he kill our freiest of korps in Ukraine and Kronstadt?>The Anarchists were just sweet peaceful hippies who never did nothing wrong and the Reds should've just rolled over and died and let the Anarchists destroy all the hard work the Bolsheviks had doneNippah it was a civil WAR. Opposing sides held different ideologies and fought each other. Anarchists tried to usurp the Bolsheviks and lost.
Why do anarkiddies act like they are innocent victims in all of these instead of the fact, they were an army intending to kill the Reds and destroy the USSR.
Unique IPs: 22