/leftypol_archive/ - leftypol archive

wait are you an actual nazi?

>>589972
>Liberals want to destroy nations just like the communists.
Well, I don't go around writing up lists of nations I want to wipe off the face of the earth, but objecting to that in the abstract is not part of any political tradition I care to be part of. There's nothing inherently wrong with that to the extent it hastens development, administrative rationalization, and the emancipation of social life. (Pic is a case in point, or where the unification of the American nation involved the destruction of another one, but necessarily so because half its population was enslaved.)

>the communist vision to me is fundamentally myopic since it discloses history in a mode of production, when to me, social life is an open thing.
But I think looking at modes of production is useful insofar that the present one might actually keep people from living, or keeping them from having more than a stunted, unrewarding social life. That involves a critique of the present mode of living too, which is usually not how the liberals do it. There were people in the 60s revolts who said they "didn't want to become manipulated professional idiots," and were looking for another way, and they didn't find it. And we still live in an age of professional idiots, professional racists and professional grifters. Which is to say it's still an age of manipulated capitalism that makes an idiot out of everyone.

>>589970
>And classes as a holistic concept (not just economic) are an ambiguous thing.
Yes, although I'm using the term to talk about economic classes (or occasionally other ruling classes, like if the state is legally executing capitalists). A Marxist perspective results in two major classes in capitalist society - the working class and the owning class, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. So, sure, society and culture will recognize the 'working class' differently, stereotypically that brutish uneducated physical laborer, with a middle-class of privileged quieter folk above and then an upper crust of the mega-rich and the famous.
Those social classes can be useful, their connections are relevant, but ultimately a Marxist is by-default talking about how broad classes within capitalism generally relate to the means of production - beneath those social superstructures of upper, middle and lower. Both these models of society are useful in different analyses. I'm calling them models, because ultimately they are just abstract classifications we invent to generalize the world around us and make more sense of it. They are a useful illusion, like a crosshair or a grid on a camera. That illusion guides behavior so sure it can have real life impacts, but it's not some spirit or entity.
So when I say working class (I'll say proletariat from here-on, for clarity) and owning class (booj), a struggling professional landlord or lower-class Italian immigrant mom-and-pop store in net debt is owning class, and a privileged anesthetist earning $400,000 a year in a hospital is ultimately working class alongside a 1920s coal miner. This violates the standard consciousness of the social classes being poor yobbos and rich wankers. This also doesn't account much for the social class systems within the superstructure of each society, whether it be the British system which retains elements of nobility, the Australian 'battlers and bludgers' framing, the Indian caste system, etc.. This model doesn't care if you're broke or have a large vocabulary! It doesn't care if you own an iPhone or have an upper accent. It doesn't care about your nationality, ethnicity or pigmentation. It cares most about whether you're selling your mind and body to survive, or if you're renting bodies. When your economic situation (and therefore way of life) is threatened, this is a major predictor of how you will be affected and how you will choose to act. It explains who controls who can eat or not. It explains what control each class has over the economy, through collective actions like strikes and sabotage, capital flight and coersion.
And yes, this model is reductive. All models must be if they're useful! The world is too complex to always digest holistically. It just means the model has to be applied when it makes sense, rather than be worshiped as the One True Model. You do get interesting cases like the millionaire laborers, or someone who labors full-time but invests in stocks or is a landlord simultaneously. Many people expand on Marxism with ideas like labor aristocracy, an upper class of workers who should be distinguished from the poorer workers. But ultimately, we don't say 'poorfags of the world, unite!'. We don't see unity based on wealth levels or social status, we see it based on being exploited by those who control capital.

>To me, marxism completely drops the ball when it comes to the notion of ending history by abolishing class society. It just makes no sense to me, socially or economically.
I agree on that one, I reject Marx's notion of linear history or it ending with the one true ideology. Admittedly I haven't read Marx's own assertion of this, so if I'm misreading then someone correct me, but it seems like he's just taking a model of history just being one economic class dominating over another and therefore no more economic classes means history ends.

>>589966
Gotta say it’s a rare day when I see a Nazi flag anon with an interesting post. My one question though is about your last sentence on Socialists failing because they don’t talk about “the nation”. Could you elaborate a bit further on what you see as the divide between “the people” and “the nation”? Because, at least in my view, I think it can be argued that the dividing the two has often been used to whip the people into acting against their own interests (e.g. dying in WW1 for some petty aristocracy)

>>1796565
>So i see the dynamics there as more than just a piece of policy by strongman lincoln.
I wouldn't deny the other factors either. For example I think you can say economics asserted itself in the end, but to say it's the only factor would be a kind of vulgar Marxism, which lays more stress to the economic factor than it deserves while not doing justice to the others ones and that you're right to be against it.

>patrician anglo north vs the plebiscite european south (which still continues today ofc).
Yeah I think so. It's funny, people focused on the novelty of rapping Founding Fathers in the Hamilton musical but it's basically allowing the Democrats to reboot themselves back to the more centralizing New Eastern mode of politics which then leaps to Lincoln, FDR and then fast-forwards to Obama. There's even something resembling an industrial policy now.

>Maybe most people are just stupid and mediocre?
I mean, sure, but I count myself among them.

>The point then is to allow the best among us to thrive. This is part of the idea of the academy, but clearly not everyone is a genius or even deserves to be around real genius.
It seems like genius can exist, but great stupidity can also go echoing down across the ages like the ringing of great, big (but dumb) church bells through sheer brainless repetition. I have a kind of native suspicion of really famous stuff that's praised to the heavens constantly, I want to be like, "c'mon, he can't possibly be that good, in fact the opposite has to be true – he's got to suck!"

Rock critics have for decades claimed Lou Reed was a genius and his message was to shoot heroin and then take an erotic dump on someone's else chest in an orgy. There are people who say he was a genius, and the most important artist of the rock period: more significant than the Beatles. But I don't know if you've listened to the music, it's as toxic as fentanyl.

I might be more Nietzschean that you. I'm willing to exercise the will to power and decide: *I* don't like this, and so therefore, it sucks. And if I do like it, then it rocks. Whatever the genius involved, self-proclaimed or bestowed, is irrelevant.

>>1796626
pathetic

>>1796595
>So thats my basic apology of right-wing socialists like patsocs that many unread commies arrogantly dismiss as crypto-fascist or whatever (lets not bring up marx's feelings on lasalle either then! lol).
I think there's something to be said for companies that do make things (I was at a trade show this week that was mostly metal fabrication contractors) and, like, car dealerships that just flip cars for a profit, and for whom we can just get rid of without too much trouble. But you see here, it's in the interest of these car dealership owners to be against the conversion to electric vehicles for a variety of reasons because they stand to be cut out – they're reactionary in the literal sense of trying to slow down new technologies as a means of class survival, or at least the survival of their particular fraction of the class. Are there are large number of Americans who think of car dealership owners as heroic small businessmen? It seems to me that a lot of people think of them as sharks.

But "small businesses" is also rather abstract. I suspect a lot of people think of that as, like, the guy who owns a hair salon. And there can be a vulgar, stupid socialism that would lump him in with the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. I'll tell you, when the BLM protests broke out, a bunch of college radicals and would-be anarchists in my town at the time occupied the town square and were marching around for days. And I saw some older (around 40 probably) conservative-looking white guys standing on the street corner alarmed by it, and started talking to them – they were worried there might be riots. And I said, nah, because the college kids like all the businesses around here. They were mostly small businesses that catered to the college crowd. And I was right, and the police chief (who happened to be black) was smart enough to keep the cops at a distance, and then eventually the students got bored and went home.

But fundamentally, I think the right-wing patsocs weigh way too far into the right-wing culture war stuff while I think American society is liberal in a broad and general sense at the end of the day – not conservative (although there are some deeply conservative peoples, but they don't represent a majority of the population). This doesn't mean the so-called woke people at their extreme are representative of the general population, but I'd also look at modes of production, the role of social media and the internet, viral content farms controlled by large corporations as driving the kind of engagement that leads to "10 Reasons Why We're Done With White Men" or the right-wing anti-woke inverse of that, and which poisoned /pol/. We're basically dancing to the tune of algorithms, robots basically, and are changing our behavior to serve the machine rather than having it serve us.

And that's part of what socialism is for me. It's to flip that upside down so we tell the "machine" where to go rather than it telling us where to go.

I strongly suspect that part of this too is because these right-wing communists would be alt-right guys but can't because many of them are not white, but alienated diaspora kids from socially conservative families, and they suffer from ressentiment toward white people (and the alt-right types who excluded them), and they're also too online and being bamboozled by right-wing propaganda (of which there's a lot of money sloshing around in promoting), and white liberals are an easy target to beat up on as way to let out that mix of frustration and envy, and because the white liberals are politically correct and can't just be, like, we're going to deport your ass. But they sometimes cross the wires wrong like Sameera Khan singling out a white southern girl who likes to go hunting and fishing for her ire, I don't know if you saw that (but I don't think she considers herself a communist). In other words, they're a bundle of contradictions.

>>1796617
>The lumpen often talk about their "race" while a middle class black talks about their nation.
For a very simple reason, the lumpen talk about their "race" because the lumpen reproduce themselves via theft, so "race" becomes a way to receive protection from other classes in their race: "we don't steal from our own." The same goes for lumpen white skinheads who say white power and go rob black drug dealers in the name of protecting white people from drugs, but of course, they sell drugs to white people or steal from white people too.

>You will notice most nationalists are quite isolationist and oppose war, while the globalists love dysgenic zionist wars. Interesting.
Well, I think "against their own interests" or the false consciousness thing is a big problematic. I was just reading about British wars in the 19th century and into WWI, and there was a dynamic where kids in uniform leaving their town in the U.K. to go fight in the Crimean War and other theaters of war would result in higher wages back home because of the crunched labor supply. Or look at Russia nowadays, where they've implemented a form of military Keynesianism, you join the army and you get a lot of cash relative to what you'd normally be making, and this works its way back to these sleepy towns and cities all over Russia, and people go out and spend it, and it lifts effective demand. And if one of the kids dies, then he's immortalized as a hero. I think it's sick but it has an economic "logic" to it.

>>1796595
>Think for example of all the poor whites protesting the immigrants coming in and being put up in hotels. To me this is class war, or class civil war, but its still valid.
So, is their class enemy the immigrants being put up in hotels, or instead, the people who invite immigrants and put them up in hotels? The immigrants aren't in control of the situation, they are playthings as much as the poor whites. Their protest is valid, but misdirected at fellow subjects of the owning class. So unless their plan is to make themselves cheaper labour than hiring immigrants, how will it solve anything?
Even from a poor/rich perspective, the two poorer classes have a general best self-interest in fighting the richer class which carelessly threw away those poor whites.

>>589977
>There are people who say he was a genius, and the most important artist of the rock period: more significant than the Beatles.
"The fact that so many books still name the Beatles

>I also hate it when people say shit like theres no good movies or music anymore.
>Its literally never been better.
It's mixed feelings from me. I agree that "no good movies or music anymore" is absolutely ridiculous, but the mainstream popular stuff, the average that most people see the most, is increasingly industrialized, so their perception isn't just nostalgia trash from nowhere, it's founded in a real issue. But they're also wrong.
Animation is an interesting scene for this discussion, where the ability to cut corners, revolutionized by digital animation, has been a factor in mainstream animation being less and less expressive and creative, even on technical levels. And of course, that doesn't mean that technology has made it impossible for beautiful digital televised animation to exist - see stand-out examples like The Amazing World of Gumball, particularly the first season before the producers cut costs. But that kind of show is getting tougher and tougher at competing with the industry it was made from, where the money exists to make and support big productions. The indie scenes of any entertainment are always the most artistic, but limited.
It's hard not to look down on people embracing mainstream….. anything. I really don't mean that as a hipster sentiment, I enjoy some popular things, but it just amazes me that people tolerate all the blatant crap which dominates the mainstream, even that they don't like and whine about, whether it be social media platforms, software, music, television with ads, it's astounding.

>>1796671
>I find the quantitative, scientific outlook as repulsive and inhuman. It is so rational that it becomes irrational, in common fashion. You can be so right that you become wrong. Just look at reddit science worshippers.
That's true about scientism, but I think the material world is still there. Like, it can be rocks and trees and, well, whatever the hell, but it's there all the same and not something that can just be re-narrated, which is what this whole postmodern atmosphere and its obsession with texts and narratives has been all about.

>I never feel this oppressive weight leftists complain about with muh algorithms or data tracking.
What I do believe is that all of us find ourselves living in a world that is massively articulated by forces completely outside of our control, and I think we have to be true to that experience when we come to believe anything we do believe about what's true and what it isn't, while being cautious of the concept of "truth" as assertions of power or privilege.

>There also isnt class solidarity.
Not automatically. It seems to me like it just has to be built by the people involved.

>>1796680
>They dont have to come to the country
Refugees, migrants and illegals are the most vulnerable humans on earth, they are essentially stateless, homeless, penniless and terrified people who simply hope they don't die as they make the trip. Much of today's human flow is also a business, paid for by migrants, and yes there are many examples of criminality, exploitation, rape, abuse and death, but above all it's a "pull" factor phenomena given the West's hunger for cheap labor, international remittances and concentration of wealth.

Our latest controversy in America is also nothing new for Europe, the Middle East, Africa or Asia. In fact, most migrants of the world are not going to Western countries but to other countries in the rest of the world. Governments can also use their resources to pre-process, organize, and fly these people to the regions that want them, but they instead blame the migrants, who die during their journeys, which causes public outrage, which then sparks rescues (including by private citizens and NGOs), which then creates a backlash when the new arrivals stress social systems and policing. The politicians then harden their stance, creating barriers until more deaths are caused by adaptive but cruel smugglers, and the cycle begins again.

Simply put, Western governments have not, will not, and cannot stop the flow of humans seeking a better life. So they should deal with the situation. In America's case there is another irony, how does a nation built on immigration and immigrants deal with desperate people humanely, respectfully and productively?

>>589425
>I think it was CPUSA who said something akin to, the ludicrous obvious bullshitting of neo-nazis makes them obvious, but the actual classical fascists (as few and far between as they are) would make a much more powerful threat.
this post?

>>589979
>I strongly suspect that part of this too is because these right-wing communists would be alt-right guys but can't because many of them are not white, but alienated diaspora kids from socially conservative families, and they suffer from ressentiment toward white people (and the alt-right types who excluded them), and they're also too online and being bamboozled by right-wing propaganda (of which there's a lot of money sloshing around in promoting), and white liberals are an easy target to beat up on as way to let out that mix of frustration and envy, and because the white liberals are politically correct and can't just be, like, we're going to deport your ass. But they sometimes cross the wires wrong like Sameera Khan singling out a white southern girl who likes to go hunting and fishing for her ire, I don't know if you saw that (but I don't think she considers herself a communist). In other words, they're a bundle of contradictions.
That is a hot take. White liberals get beat up on because their racism is passive aggressive most of the time and is not blatant like conservatives. They are our "allies" but in reality they do not have much of a high opinion of us and would stab us in the back if we do not check them. I could be incorrent but didn't you come from a liberal background because the tone from your post gives that impression. The arrogance to assume that we are "envious" of white people reflect yourself more than whatever patsoc image you have.

Thought this was an interesting read from the Fascio Substack

https://fascio.substack.com/p/the-fascist-and-bolshevik-overlap

The Fascist and Bolshevik Overlap
>Communism and Fascism, typically seen as polar opposites on the ideological spectrum, reveal unexpected similarities when examining Italian Fascism and Soviet Communism. Both regimes faced significant challenges, and their diplomatic interactions, particularly the economic and non-aggression pacts between Italy and the Soviet Union in the early 1930s, highlight a strategic partnership that transcended ideological divides. This collaboration, motivated by diplomatic isolation and the pursuit of strategic advantages, suggests that ideological adherence can be secondary to political and economic interests. The recognition of practical parallels between Stalinism and Fascism, coupled with ᴉuᴉlossnW's admiration for Soviet methods, breaks conventional categorizations. The mutual influence and acknowledgment between these regimes challenge the simplistic binary of left versus right, pointing to a nuanced interplay of ideas that could bridge ideological gaps for pragmatic purposes.

[…]

>Upon assuming the role of editor for the socialist publication Avanti! in December 1912, ᴉuᴉlossnW brought on board a diverse group of contributors, including anarchists and staunch Marxists like Angelica Balabanoff, who served as his deputy editor. The editorial team, including Paolo Orano and syndicalists such as Sergio Panunzio, significantly influenced the paper's socialist orientation. ᴉuᴉlossnW didn't stop there; he went on to launch and oversee Utopia from November 1913 until the end of 1914. This periodical became a gathering place for influential young socialists and syndicalist thinkers, playing a crucial role in shaping ᴉuᴉlossnW's ideological journey. In the years leading up to World War I, a number of syndicalists, Panunzio and Ottavio Dinale among them, viewed warfare as a means of societal progression. These figures, along with ᴉuᴉlossnW, advocated for Italy's military involvement in conflicts like the 1911 battle for Libya against the Ottomans and later in World War I.

>This period marked a significant shift as many socialists transitioned into what would become ᴉuᴉlossnW's fascist movement, with syndicalists such as Panunzio, Olivetti, and Orano emerging as key thinkers within the ideology. By October 1914, Olivetti was articulating a vision of an Italian socialism enriched with nationalistic fervor in the pages of Pagine Libere, emphasizing its potential to unify Italy, boost production, and elevate the nation to global prominence. Over the following three years, through his contributions to L’Italia Nostra, Olivetti championed the idea of a nation as a collective entity that transcends class divisions, rallying individuals across societal lines toward shared historical objectives. In his view, patriotism and the revolutionary spirit of Italian socialism were not just compatible; they were intertwined.

>By 1919, ᴉuᴉlossnW was highlighting the downturn in economic productivity within Soviet Russia as evidence of its failure to fulfill its historical responsibilities. He speculated that the Bolsheviks would eventually need to dedicate themselves to national reconstruction and defense, essentially adopting a form of national socialism similar to the one articulated by Fascism's syndicalist precursors. ᴉuᴉlossnW foresaw the necessity for Lenin to seek the assistance of bourgeois professionals to mend Russia's shattered economy, interpreting the Bolsheviks' inability to recognize their revolutionary imperatives. He argued that Bolshevism needed to "tame" and engage the workforce in focused development efforts, a move he deemed inevitable since Marxism itself stipulated that socialism required a well-developed economic foundation. Given that Russia had not yet navigated through the capitalist phase of economic evolution, it lacked the essential conditions for a Marxist revolution to occur. According to ᴉuᴉlossnW, Russia was as unprepared for socialism as Italy was.

>In July 1920, ᴉuᴉlossnW penned another critique of Lenin's government, pointing out the irony that he would later construct his Fascist regime using the same principles he had criticized in the Bolshevik model. He contended that what they had established was:

<“A State in the most concrete meaning of this word. A Government, composed of men who exercise power, imposing an iron discipline on individuals and groups and practicing “reaction” whenever necessary. In Lenin’s Russia,” there is but one authority: his. There is but one liberty: his. There is but one opinion: his. There is but one law: his. One must either submit or perish. With no room for individuality, the Soviets had created a “super State,” that swallows up and crushes the individual and governs his entire life. The most powerfully armed State, for domestic and foreign purposes, that exists in the world is precisely Russia. Whoever says State necessarily says the army, the police, the judiciary and the bureaucracy. The Russian State is the State par excellence [whose] proletariat, as in the old bourgeois regimes, obeys, works, and eats little or allows itself to be massacred.”
— Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW quoted in ᴉuᴉlossnW In The Making by Gaudens Megaro

[…]

>Following Lenin's demise in 1924, Stalin's interpretation of Marxism in 1925, dubbed "Socialism in One Country," essentially mirrored national socialism. ᴉuᴉlossnW was wary, suspecting Stalin might be veering away from communist principles. This shift appeared to offer economic benefits to Italy, prompting ᴉuᴉlossnW to see the logic in Italy manufacturing ships and aircraft for the Soviets in return for a significant portion of Italy's oil needs. ᴉuᴉlossnW also entertained the thought that Stalin could represent a continuation of Tsarist imperialism, a perspective Fascism might align with. In 1923, ᴉuᴉlossnW speculated that Russia would abandon communism for a return to traditional imperialism with a Pan-Slavic character. ᴉuᴉlossnW sought to persuade himself and others that Russian communism was becoming less revolutionary compared to Fascism, to the point where the distinctions between the two movements were becoming increasingly blurred.

<“Tomorrow there will not be an imperialism with a socialist mark, but it [Russia] will return to the path of its old imperialism with a pan-Slavic mark.”
— Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW quoted in Young ᴉuᴉlossnW and The Intellectual Origins of Fascism by A. James Gregor

>Even committed members of the Fascist party, such as Dino Grandi, who served as ᴉuᴉlossnW's foreign minister from 1928 to 1932, early on saw the similarities between Fascism and Lenin’s Bolshevism. Grandi, influenced in part by revolutionary syndicalism and having described the First World War as a class struggle among nations in 1914, by 1920 pointed out that socialists had misunderstood the essence of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. He viewed it as an underdeveloped, proletarian nation's fight against more developed capitalist countries. The perspective that Fascism and Bolshevism shared common ground wasn't exclusive to Fascists. Torquato Nanni, a revolutionary Marxist socialist who knew ᴉuᴉlossnW early on, anticipated these parallels as early as 1922. He noted the economic bases shared by Fascism and Bolshevism, leading to similar strategies, tactics, and institutional characteristics in these mobilizing, revolutionary movements. Both movements, he observed, took on the bourgeois task of industrializing lagging economies and safeguarding the nation-state, deemed essential for progress. Furthermore, Leon Trotsky, a key figure in the October Revolution, stubbornly viewed Fascism as a mass movement emerging from capitalism's failure. He dismissed any concept of a "national" communism but acknowledged a certain convergence between the movements.

<“Stalinism and Fascism, despite a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity. A victorious revolutionary movement in Europe would immediately shake not only fascism, but Soviet Bonapartism.”
— Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union And Where Is It Going?

>He hesitated to align completely with his occasional collaborator, Bruno Rizzi, who posited that taking on similar developmental and self-sufficient roles would inevitably lead to social and ideological alignment. He expressed regret that what Fascism pursued deliberately, the Soviet Union ended up constructing unintentionally. In his view, the regimes of Stalin, ᴉuᴉlossnW, Hitler, and even Roosevelt were moving towards a worldwide "bureaucratic collectivism," representing a form of Jacobinism. Fascist ideologues concurred with the idea of such convergence. By 1925, Panunzio was pointing out the essential parallels between Fascism and Bolshevism. Fascists observed that the Soviet regime had established a militarized, authoritarian, anti-liberal state, which had effectively organized and disciplined the populace for the sake of ambitious domestic development. The central government was in charge of producing and distributing resources, defining and managing interests, and taking on ultimate educational responsibilities.

>Therefore, as early Fascists were laying out the principles for an authoritarian, hierarchical, anti-liberal, and state-centered approach that emphasized mass mobilization and development under a charismatic leader, the Bolsheviks found themselves adopting a similar path. Both aimed to forge a modern, self-sufficient, industrial society that would secure political and economic sovereignty for previously underdeveloped national communities. Through forced industrialization and "State Capitalism," the Soviets aimed to achieve the advantages of bourgeois modernization for Russia. In light of the necessary sacrifices, both communists and fascists used economic motivations as well as spectacles, rituals, ceremonies, and parades to rally their people, adding territorial expansion to illustrate a striking "systemic symmetry."

[…]

>Concerning Russia's moral and intellectual "spiritual" existence, it drew the attention of several Italian writers, while others, possibly considering economic-political collaboration, examined the Soviet Union's political geography and its various regions. Italians were acutely conscious of the forces that threatened to dismantle the unified front of the socialist republics. Some were also concerned about Russia and Bolshevism's "expansionist," "primitive," "Asiatic" character, which they saw as a cultural and political threat to Europe, with Italy being its main defender. The political and philosophical dynamics of the power contest that ultimately placed Stalin in a position of dictatorial authority were not overlooked by Italian commentators.

>A primary forum for this discussion was the pages of Critica Fascista, a notable critical journal representing Italy's "corporativist left." Its editor, Giuseppe Bottai, known as the "Crusader of the regime," by the mid-1920s, was voicing the often-repeated assertion that Fascism and Bolshevism shared a common front against the bourgeois and plutocratic spirit. In 1930 and 1931, Critica Fascista published a series of articles later termed "Roma o Mosca?" In the spring of the former year, Bruno Spampanato interpreted Leninist violence as stemming from the "primitiveness of the Russian spirit," viewing Russians as political "children." He argued that Bolshevik ideology merely mirrored this immaturity. For instance, the government's push against religion stemmed from the "naive unawareness of the revolution's early stages." He predicted, just as Robespierre's anti-religious policies evolved into Napoleon's acceptance of religion, the Bolsheviks would eventually moderate their stance on religious hostility.

>Spampanato noted that Stalin, in carrying on Lenin's legacy, couldn't overlook the "necessity" of adapting. New socio-economic classes were emerging within the proletariat, and the campaign against the kulaks in rural areas was losing momentum. He saw the sequence of war, revolution, and civil war as Russia's Nietzschean transformation, emerging from chaos and death. However, the slower pace of development under the Tsarist regime meant that the Bolshevik revolution was marked by greater violence compared to other European revolutions. The delay in fostering a national consciousness in Tsarist Russia, coupled with the attempt by Leninism to forge a national identity, was further complicated by ideological burdens weighing down the Bolsheviks. Highlighting Fascism as the pinnacle of political evolution, Spampanato suggested that, as of 1930, Russia found itself in a standoff with Fascist democracy. Nevertheless, he identified a potential link that could, theoretically, unite the two.

<“Not fearing any example because they are solidly attached to the vitality of their historical experience, Fascists can fasten on to some fundamental points of esteem for the Bolshevik experience…. we dare to say that Bolshevism in Russia is the prelude to Fascism.”
— Bruno Spampanato, Equazioni Rivoluzionarie: Dal Bolscevismo al Fascismo

>The debate within Critica Fascista truly gained momentum about eighteen months later. Sergio Panunzio, strengthening his argument with a recent declaration from the Duce that Italy's trade relations with the USSR surpassed those with any other nation, refuted the notion of any economic conflict between Rome and Moscow.

<“Therefore, if we put ourselves exclusively on an economic ground, we arrive to the “absurdity” that fascism opposes communism. We also come to the point of not being able any more to discern a difference. On the contrary, we glimpse a balancing synthesis—the diagonal of the historical contact of two great forces and of two great modern revolutions: Communism and Fascism—Rome and Moscow.”
— Sergio Panunzio, La Fine di un Regno

>The ideological distinctions between Fascism and Bolshevism were stark, with the former being characterized by its focus on spiritual values, willpower, and national identity, while the latter was seen as centered around materialism and industrialism. This fundamental opposition between the ideologies of Moscow and Rome was described as deep and unbridgeable, particularly in the realms of spirituality, morality, and religion, setting the stage for an unending conflict between the two. Despite these profound differences, there were instances where Italians could envision working alongside the Bolsheviks in a practical manner without compromising their core spiritual beliefs. This possibility sparked a vigorous debate in the pages of Critica Fascista, initiated by an article from a former syndicalist. Riccardo Fiorini contended that the economic disparities between communism and Fascism weren't primarily about the divide between private and state control of production. Instead, he highlighted that Fascism's approach to production was inherently nationalistic, unlike communism, which he believed was on a path toward making production international. Even so, Fiorini anticipated that the economic methodologies of communism would gradually align more closely with those of fascism.

>On spiritual issues, Fiorini challenged the clear-cut distinction made by Panunzio between Fascism and communism. He was skeptical of the Soviet claim to materialism and noted that some aspects of Tsarist Russia's family and religious traditions deserved to be eradicated. Furthermore, Fiorini saw potential for spiritual collaboration between the two systems, as both opposed liberalism and democracy, arguing that they shared a common goal of establishing a new order and predicted communism would eventually converge with Fascism. Shortly thereafter, Mario Rivoire lent his support to Panunzio's viewpoint that the real divergence between Rome and Moscow wasn't economic in nature, describing Fascism's approach to physical matters as more nuanced. He disagreed with Fiorini, emphasizing that the key difference was metaphysical, with communism focusing on material aspects and Fascism on the spiritual. Rivoire criticized the initial discussion in Critica Fascista for lacking clarity and highlighted the challenge of reconciling Soviet actions with their rhetoric. He found guidance in a speech by ᴉuᴉlossnW from 1921, which helped him navigate this dilemma.

<“I recognize that between us and the communists there are no political affinities, but there are intellectual affinities. We, as you (the communists) think it is necessary to have a centralized and unitary State which imposes on all the unity of an iron discipline. There is one difference. You arrive at this conclusion through the concept of classes, and we come to it through the concept of the nation.”
— Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW quoted in ᴉuᴉlossnW and The Legacy of Revolutionary Socialism by Domenico Settembrini

Worth a read, if only for the historical context of Fascist Italy's relationship to the USSR from the Fascists' perspectives.

>>589986
>“Stalinism and Fascism, despite a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity. A victorious revolutionary movement in Europe would immediately shake not only fascism, but Soviet Bonapartism.”
<— Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union And Where Is It Going?
Trotskyists still promote this idea in their ranks. But to me this is the political contradiction within communism itself, with the right being stalinists and the left, anti-stalinists of all colours; trotskyists, anarchists and so on. Stalin's absorption into the contemporary russian national consciousness and lenin's total sidelining show this attitude too. Stalin is not a "communist", he is a nationalist, as per his legacy.
>"There is one difference [between communism and fascism]. You arrive at this conclusion through the concept of classes, and we come to it through the concept of the nation.”
<— Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW quoted in ᴉuᴉlossnW and The Legacy of Revolutionary Socialism by Domenico Settembrini
I would say this is extremely relevant too. But here we must be dialectical by positing *qualitative* distinction (as opposed to a quantitative one). The primacy of a political "idea" here matters more than its outcomes. But this to me also smashes the communist concept of a materialist politics, since the left understand well that its not right to give oneself to fascist concessions no matter how self-serving they may be. So politics has its principle in a higher meaning than self-sufficiency.

>>589987
Kerry Bolton, a national socialist has also written a book before praising stalin and his great purge as a protection of his nation against more """international""" actors like trotsky and co.

>>589984
this is nice because even people who shit on hitler and parade as "natsocs" "national syndicalist" "corporatists" and "orthodox facists" all have the same scare with communism, which means that all "facists" nowadays are just anxsty liberals who are larping. the mussolini type of facist is basically dead

Why do you uyghurs waste all your time on 110 year old dead fascists and not irl modern day fascists?

>>589987
>Trotskyists still promote this idea in their ranks. But to me this is the political contradiction within communism itself, with the right being stalinists and the left, anti-stalinists of all colours; trotskyists, anarchists and so on. Stalin's absorption into the contemporary russian national consciousness and lenin's total sidelining show this attitude too. Stalin is not a "communist", he is a nationalist, as per his legacy.

Personally I don't think there's all that much of a contradiction between Stalin "The Nationalist" and Stalin the Communist. They way I see it, upon gaining power within a nation, it's only natural that focus shifts to internal issues rather than external revolution. I believe Bordiga once tried trolling Stlain by saying that since Communism is an internationalist movement, governance of the USSR should be overseen by global Communist parties but of course such a statement is absurd. I think there's a moral and legal responsibility, when you're given a position of leadership over a people, to work towards the best interests of those people, I don't see that as fundamentally contradicting Marxist internationalism. After all, a Proletariat that's tired of war and wants peace after a Revolution is likely not gonna be so excited to die in wars abroad to "spread the revolution".

I believe Stalin's later recuperation as a symbol of Russian Nationalism is namely because Nationalists can excel at straddling contradictions. Which is to say, they can often take these figures out of their political context and just see them as great representatives of "The Nation." Hence a committed Republican Nationalist in, say, Britain, may still appreciate Alfred the Great despite the latter likely seeing the former as an upjumped peasant. Lenin was the founder of the USSR, and so would likely be lionized by people who want to see the USSR's return in some real political and transformative sense. Stalin can be admired solely for the fact he expanded what Nationalists see as "Russian territory" and transformed Russia into a superpower, they don't necessarily see the politics that led to such a transformation being possible.

>I would say this is extremely relevant too. But here we must be dialectical by positing *qualitative* distinction (as opposed to a quantitative one). The primacy of a political "idea" here matters more than its outcomes. But this to me also smashes the communist concept of a materialist politics, since the left understand well that its not right to give oneself to fascist concessions no matter how self-serving they may be. So politics has its principle in a higher meaning than self-sufficiency.

To be honest, Hegelianism and the like isn't necessarily my strong suit. I can enjoy Philosophy by degrees, but at the end of the day I'm just a prole that's a little better read than most.

>>589991
>Personally I don't think there's all that much of a contradiction between Stalin "The Nationalist" and Stalin the Communist.
Quantitatively no, but qualitatively yes.
Its not about *what* you do, its about *how* you do it. Style as substance. But this is also what denotes an aesthetic sensibility, which is an integral aspect to the judgement of any person.
We can see already in stalin an aesthetic which attracts certain people, and these people are less "leninists" and more "stalinists" (as a qualitative distinction), and its this qualification to me which creates the contradiction (which isnt a "bad" thing, its just how things work).
To me in the same way, there is this very contradiction between communism and nationalism, as something "felt" before it is thought. This to me is politics itself, which likewise denotes the advent of a right wing communism and left wing communism. I would say stalinists are on the right and everyone else is on the left. This is at least what i have observed as an internal contradictions. All disagreements arise from this primacy, which is not economic, but about worldviews (weltenschauungs), which includes aesthetics, morality, enjoyment, identity, and so on. We enter into everything with this baggage of our context.
>Hence a committed Republican Nationalist in, say, Britain, may still appreciate Alfred the Great despite the latter likely seeing the former as an upjumped peasant.
Theres a british monarchist guy i know who idolises oliver cromwell of all people as a symbol of "national rebirth", so i understand this contradictory identity of the nation as such. Where does it begin and end?
>Stalin can be admired solely for the fact he expanded what Nationalists see as "Russian territory" and transformed Russia into a superpower, they don't necessarily see the politics that led to such a transformation being possible.
I dont think it can be rationalised. But this is the cult of personality. We all love great men in our own camps without reason. People love stalin because he is stalin; i honestly dont think it mesns anything else. Its like how people loved queen elizabeth ii before she died, and if you asked monarchists why they just deferred to grotesque liberal answers like "she's good for the economy", but who says things need reasons? We are irrational creatures. But here you see my pain - when people attempt to rationalise the irrational they become fools and cynics. Just let it be.
>To be honest, Hegelianism and the like isn't necessarily my strong suit. I can enjoy Philosophy by degrees, but at the end of the day I'm just a prole that's a little better read than most.
My basic point is that people dont fight for better "material conditions", they fight for higher things like morality and meaning. Studies even show that people have fonder memories of disasters than of idle comforts. We are a species addicted to conflict since only in conflict do we discover ourselves.

>>589990
What theory do they have?

>"I recognize that between us and the communists there are no political affinities, but there are intellectual affinities. We, as you (the communists) think it is necessary to have a centralized and unitary State which imposes on all the unity of an iron discipline. There is one difference [between communism and fascism]. You arrive at this conclusion through the concept of classes, and we come to it through the concept of the nation.”
<— Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW quoted in ᴉuᴉlossnW and The Legacy of Revolutionary Socialism by Domenico Settembrini

Simply put, totalitarianism and unitary views, since the days of Plato's Republic. The only reason authright can tangibly conceive of it this way is thanks to the concept of sovereignty and the cult of personality.

Otherwise they might as well be authleft without sovereignty or any cult of personality.

The concept of nation is only another means to unity because of sovereignty and the notion of a cult of personality, the means by which people become a person, so their disharmony and emotions are distilled into totalitarianism.

This is what leftists want to learn from studying Fascism.

Hitler admitted to borrowing from leftists in Mein Kampf, and saw leftists almost mesmerizing display of arrayed red flags and armbands: Hitler wanted to accomplish the totalitarianism in Plato's Republic, that conformed people to a unity in emotions and feeling, and sway the people to coalesce this way. Plato wanted to conform people to being united in emotion and property, by abolishing the multitude of properties, and binding them together, what racial ideology has is the same sentiment, but it's about abolishing different properties of persons into one personality aka race.

When you look at racial ideology this way, in the lens of Plato's Republic, you immediately begin to understand: people are divided on racial aligns, taught to mourn and grieve and celebrate different occasions on the basis of race: when race divides the people, they are disorganized and against each other. And the appeal to purity in race is fundamentally an appeal to unity in personhood, as if to unite and mold a people into the character traits and description a person would have (like his eyes, hair, facial structure and appearance).

Many authoritarian ideologies want to accomplish the goal of unity in Plato's Republic by various means, whether it is abolishing class division (communists), division of race (natsoc), or division of government (fascism) or unity of one person (monarchy) – that is fundamentally what is perceived.

>>589994
TL;DR:
Plato Republic
>And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?

>No doubt.

>Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized–when you have one half of the world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens?

>Certainly.

This unity of emotion that Plato describes is seen in socialist regimes like North Korea.
It's one of the reasons why Plato wanted to abolish private property – to achieve this unity of emotion.
It's also why socialist states use a cult of personality or personhood: to help accomplish this aim.

>>589994
Youre rarted
> authright
pls go outside and engage in politics outside of reddit and voting neoliberal parties

>>589990
>>589993

I'm usually focusing on old school Fascists because the number of Fascists today who read their own goddamn theory is so small. That aside, here's something from a modern Fascist discussing American Nationalists.

American Nationalists Are Incompetent
(He recommends reading Dugin's article on MagaCommunism first)

https://www.arktosjournal.com/p/tucker-carlson-and-maga-communism?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

>In essence, the article explains that Tucker Carlson effect on America. Additionally, it mentions the emergence of MagaCommunism, with proponents like Jackson Hinkle and Infrared, indicating a convergence of conservative and Marxist elements under the Maga movement, targeting the disruption of liberal dominance. Dugin then suggests that this presents a “viable left wing alternative.” I want to clarify why this situation is, in fact, quite disappointing.

>It's disappointing to witness the neglect of numerous nationalist efforts, with Alexander Dugin's focus shifting to Haz's MagaCommunism. In retrospect, I saw this coming. Haz distinctly deviates from Dugin's philosophy, primarily embracing Multipolarity and the concept of Civilization-States. Unlike Dugin's aim to combine the right wing of communism with the left wing of fascism, Haz strictly opposes such fusion, insisting on adherence to Marxism-Leninism for collaboration. My discussions with him have highlighted his rigid stance. Dugin, in contrast, has shown flexibility in collaborating with fascists. The most notable effort in the U.S. to align with Dugin's theories was undertaken by the Traditionalist Workers party (TWP), which planned to attend an international meeting in Russia to discuss Multipolarity, hosted Dugin. Numerous organizations from South America, North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East were slated to attend. Unfortunately, TWP's disintegration, due to the "cuck box" incident, has made Dugin hesitant to interact with American nationalists, whom he perceives as disorganized and ineffective. Furthermore, Heimbach consistently found himself in situations that negatively impacted his image in the American media.

>Infrared, despite its flaws, has not faced such public disgrace, positioning Haz as a potential ally for Russians and the Chinese. The absence of a strong American organization supporting Dugin's Fourth Political Theory is evident, with most neo-fascist groups either supporting Ukraine or maintaining a neutral, yet Kremlin-skeptical stance, like Joel Davis in Australia. This situation presents a significant hurdle for America First supporters like Nick Fuentes. His endorsement of Russia and China, is hampered by a critique of specific Putin policies and along with Nick’s absence of political and economic proposals beyond those associated with racism, have caused both nations to perceive him as less influential, further diminishing his standing.

>My dissatisfaction stems from Infrared's approach to fascism and disregard for pro-Russian fascists. For Haz to succeed, I believe he should reconsider his stance on the Romanovs, adjust his narrative about Jews, and be more open to working with nationalists. His strategy should not just promote patriotism but tap into a deeper nationalistic fervor that Americans are craving. I have always maintained that for nationalism to succeed in America, we should embrace a strategy akin to the Maoist Mass Line, fostering vanguardism and rallying the masses towards a revolution. This strategy entails collaborating with the Maga movement and prioritizing union efforts, particularly with truckers and rail workers. Infrared's public adoption of these tactics I've long supported only underscores the American nationalist movement's lack of effectiveness. The endorsement of Haz by China and Dugin serves as a stark confirmation of our shortcomings. The American nationalist scene's fixation on vulgar racism, internal disputes, and extreme propositions is leading to our downfall.

And now for a funny comment responding to the article.

<This is a much needed bitter pill for nationalists, America firsters, and even self-confessed fascists. We had a huge opportunity in 2015 - 2016, during the first Trump Campaign, however this opportunity was wasted, and opportunists and lowlives took the stage and ruined it. Now, the pendulum of history favors the 'Tankies', particularly the Marxist-Leninists, the MAGA Communists, and the PatSocs. They have the upper hand….for now.

<Just as there was dissention in the right, this dissention exists in the left as well. the widely acclaimed speaker, writer, journalist, and political analyst Caleb Maupin and his CPI was the first "domino" to fall if one recalls his little scandal back in mid-2022. (Now rumor has it that he's in with the famously revolutionary Moonie cult). I also suspect that the relationship between Jackson Hinkle and the circles around Alexander Dugin are uneasy, if Twitter drama by his opponents are anything to go by (according to the Twitter accounts arrayed against him, his Russian wife left him, but I do not see indication by Hinkle himself on this). Haz has a strong following among the Gen-Z youth, but they do not strike me as serious.

<That said, the tankies are still much better organized and they are more "clean" than us , and most importantly, they read and do their homework and are more intellectually rigorous. The fascist ranks on the other hand are filled with degenerates, vulgar racists, and sectarianism is rife among us. We also listen to some of the most God-awful music imaginable. The tankie has Soviet, Maoist, and DPRK music and socialist realism art to nourish their minds with. What are we listening to? What kind of art are we studying? Are we doomed to the Schillerian problem of nature-reason separation and with it, the neglect of the aesthetic?

<We are in the inferno now. We cannot continue to lie to ourselves. We are rock bottom. We have no rigor, no real sense of aesthetics, no proclivity to craft economic and strategic policy, many of us suffer from drug and alcohol problems. A common LaRouchean maxim is "It's a lot worse than you think!" And this is true with our situation.

<But there is a way out of the Inferno we are in. One of which involves understanding Dante's important work regarding the inferno.

<I extend my thanks to Zoltanous for publishing this.

>>589994
All your Based belong to us.
Cope.

>>589895
I started reading Behemoth, and the comparison between Weimar Germany and the United States (or any other country I'm aware of) really makes no sense at all. The only similarities are the economy and the government not doing well, which regularly happens under capitalism. Fascists rose in prominence in a period largely defined by communist success, which is missing right now. The bourgeois don't need fascism at this point in time, they can just use regular war propaganda if they need to pass severe measures.

>>589998
>the number of Fascists today who read their own goddamn theory is so small
Modern fascists in the anglophone world and /pol/ live and breathe on chasing gossip, blogs and Youtube, and meme maymay like frogposting.
They are nowhere near as totalitarian.
In fact they're really Americanized and easily buy into right libertarian sentiments with quotes decorated with flowery traditionalist imagery and appeals to pastoralism (which is all at odds with the totalitarianism of the regimes they embrace like Fascist Italy or Hitler's Germany).
These people complain about clown world, but tbh these clowns deserve clown world.
<History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a farce

>>590001
Yknow I’m reminded of that post in USApol about a white nationalist going to the Midwest and being so bored around his fellow white people that he deradicalized himself. And I think it speaks to that old adage that we really get used to the water we’re born with. For as much as these people may consciously want to reject liberalism in hopes of chasing some kind of based trad ethnostate, they’re still hopelessly enmeshed in it. How many of these nationalists would stay nationalist if they Autarky meant giving up Japanese media? You’ll notice the Amish have no trouble returning to their people after experiencing modernity.

On some level it’s almost sad, like a person that can’t come to terms with their own sexuality throwing themselves into the first heterosexual relationship they can to try and “make” themselves straight. On the other, most of these guys are assholes.

>>590002
>For as much as these people may consciously want to reject liberalism in hopes of chasing some kind of based trad ethnostate, they’re still hopelessly enmeshed in it. How many of these nationalists would stay nationalist if they Autarky meant giving up Japanese media?
Maybe with nationalism or patriotism they can still have a little bit of that, even in the extreme examples of it.
But I imagine this is especially true for the traditionalist / funadmentalist types in those circles that want a return to religiosity to the same extent of places like Saudi Arabia and Iran or Indian caste society.

>>589998
what the fuck is the "cuck box" incident mentioned here

>>590002
>>590003
For context:
These people complain about censorship even in video games and other media – we're not too far the age when Bible Belt parents would censor these things and they'd complain about it – that is a distant memory, but even that was in its marginalized form within modernity.
I could only imagine the 180 pendulum swing /pol/ would make, if we rejected modernity and brought back the full extent of religious authority instead of a few moderate disgruntled boomer parents.

>>590004
https://www.thedailybeast.com/matthew-heimbachs-traditional-workers-party-implodes-over-love-triangle-turned-trailer-brawl



"One of America’s highest-profile neo-Nazi parties is “no more” after a bizarre love triangle saw its leader locked up for assault, the party’s former spokesperson, who described the incident as a “white trash circus” told The Daily Beast.

The Traditionalist Worker Party gained national attention after its involvement at the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last August. Its leader, Matthew Heimbach was arrested Tuesday for allegedly assaulting his wife and his spokesman after Heimbach was caught cheating on his wife with the spokesman’s wife.

David “Matt” Parrott was the party’s spokesperson until Tuesday, when he quit in a statement to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Parrott told The Daily Beast the incident might be the end for the white nationalist group. “People have lost faith in the party on every level,” he said.

Parrott scrapped the TWP’s website after quitting because he believes the party to be dead, he said.

The implosion began at a TWP compound in Paoli, Indiana, where Parrott’s wife, Jessica, was allegedly having an affair with Heimbach—who is married to Parrott’s stepdaughter from a previous marriage.

Heimbach and Jessica told Parrott they’d ended the relationship, but Parrott and Heimbach’s wife were skeptical. They arranged to “set up” Heimbach and Jessica in a trailer on Parrott’s property to catch them having sex.

Parrott stood on a box outside the trailer and watched Heimbach and Jessica have sex inside, according to a police report. When the box broke under Parrott’s weight, he entered the trailer to confront them. Heimbach allegedly choked him and chased him into a house, where Parrott threw a chair at him. Heimbach hit back, choking him into unconsciousness, according to the police report."

>>590003
One only has to look at Saudi Arabia to see that a "RETVRN" to religious fundamentalism will just mean normal people getting their skulls cracked open by the morality police for listening to the "wrong" kind of music, while the upper class lives likes a bunch of degenerates.

It's also why I'm skeptical of "Christian Nationalism" lasting long. Yes the evangelicals are a bunch of highly motivated freaks, but they tend to skew older, and they'll quickly alienate people by trying to do shit like "Ban Pokemon for teaching evolution."

Y'know it's really funny. I'm watching Stranger Things for the first time with a buddy. We're on Season 4. And they bring up the Satanic Panic alongside the fear that D&D will literally give you magic powers and make you worship the devil. My buddy brings up how it makes him uncomfortable to see the show "shitting on religion" and I have to gently remind him that, for a period in the 80s, that was real life. Everything about some small town getting all energized and ready to hunt some "freak" down for the crime of playing D&D was pretty goddamn real. The first movie that Tom Hanks worked on was one about how playing D&D made him go crazy and kill people. And it's not like this social panic against "freaks" and "Satanists" would have any rhyme or reason to it, or only affect the excesses or dregs of a thing. You only have to look at the Comic Code Authority to see that it can completely shit up a hobby or subculture.

And for millions of people, there was a time when that was a tangible fear. Esoterica, a YouTuber I really like, goes into it a bit. He grew up around the time of the Satanic Panic and it almost destroyed his life. I'd say as much as 9/10 of the so-called "trad" types would flip if they see what "traditionalism" in the American context actually means. It doesn't mean marble statues and Roman paganism. It doesn't mean even returning to the aesthetics of "yoeman farmer" America. It'll mean a million Kenneth Copeland expies going from place to place, appointing themselves as "experts" on "moral degeneracy" and charging people fees to scream that the local Magic the Gathering tournament is run by satanic pedophiles.

>>590007
>Esoterica, a YouTuber I really like

ah fellow esoterica enjoyer

>>590006
>Parrott stood on a box outside the trailer and watched Heimbach and Jessica have sex inside, according to a police report. When the box broke under Parrott’s weight, he entered the trailer to confront them. Heimbach allegedly choked him and chased him into a house, where Parrott threw a chair at him. Heimbach hit back, choking him into unconsciousness, according to the police report."
I'd pay good money to watch that to the benny hill music.

>>590006
>The police report lists Heimbach’s occupation as “white nationalist.”
kek

>>590009
This.

>>590008
I found him through Atun-Shei and I've always had at least a mild interest in the Occult. Really like his content.

>>590010
>The police report lists Heimbach’s occupation as “white nationalist.”

<"Name and Occupation?"
>"Matthew Hembach. Professional racist."

I refuse to define fascism as some kind of nationalist idpol. Fascism is simply a capitalist dictatorship.

>>590012
Honestly that's a pretty useless descriptor that wont help you spot Fascism when it's important to.

Fascism - Borderless & Red
By Alexander Dugin

>There are, in the 20th century, only three ideologies that have managed to demonstrate that their principles are realistic in terms of their political-administrative implementation - these are Liberalism, Communism and Fascism. As much as one may like to - it is impossible to name another model of society which would not be one of the forms of these ideologies and [which], at the same time, existed in reality. There are liberal countries, there are communist [countries] and there are fascist (nationalist) [countries]. Others are absent. And are impossible. In Russia, we have passed two ideological stages – the communist and the liberal. What remains is fascism.

<1. Against National Capitalism

>One of the versions of fascism which, it seems, Russian society is today ready (or almost ready) to embrace is national capitalism. It is almost beyond doubt that the project of national capitalism or "right fascism" constitutes an ideological initiative of that part of the elite of society which is seriously concerned with the problem of power and feels acutely the power of time [velenie vremeni]. Yet, the "national-capitalist," "right-wing" variation of fascism does by no means exhaust the nature of this ideology. Moreover, the union of the "national bourgeoisie" with the "intelligentsia" on which, according to some analysts, the coming Russian fascism will be based constitutes a glaring example for what, actually, is entirely alien to fascism as a world-view, as a doctrine, [and] as a style. "The domination of national capital" - this is a Marxist definition of the phenomenon of fascism. It does absolutely not take into account the specific philosophical self-reflection of fascist ideology [and] consciously ignores the fundamental core-pathos of fascism.

>Fascism - this is nationalism, yet not any nationalism, but a revolutionary, rebellious, romantic, idealistic [form of nationalism] appealing to a great myth and transcendental idea, trying to put into practice the Impossible Dream [sic], to give birth to a society of the hero and Superhuman [sic], to change and transform [preobrazovat' i preobrazit'] the world. On the economic level, fascism is characterized rather by socialist or moderately socialist methods which subordinate personal, individual economic interests to the principles of national welfare, justice, [and] brotherhood. And finally, the fascist view of culture corresponds to a radical rejection of the humanistic, "excessively humane" mentality, i.e. of what represents the essence of the "intelligentsia." The fascist hates the intellectual [intelligent] as a type. He sees in him a masked bourgeois, a pretentious philistine, a chatterbox and irresponsible coward. The fascist loves the brutal [zverskoe], superhuman and angel-like, at the same time. He loves the cold and tragedy, he does not like warmth and comfort. With other words, fascism despises everything that makes up the essence of "national capitalism." He fights for the "domination of national idealism" (and not "national capital") and against the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia (and not for her and not with her). The fascist pathos is accurately defined in the famous phrase of ᴉuᴉlossnW: "Rise, fascist and proletarian Italy!" "Fascist and proletarian" - such is the orientation of fascism. [It is] a labor and heroic, militant and creative, idealistic and futuristic ideology which does not have anything in common with securing additional governmental comfort for the traders [torgasham] (even if a thousand times national) and sinecures for the socially parasitic intelligentsia. The central figures of the fascist state, [and] fascist myth [are] the peasant, worker, [and] soldier. On the top, as the supreme symbol of the tragic fight with destiny, cosmic entropy [is] the god-like leader, Duce [duche], Führer [fyurer], superhuman who realizes in his supra-individual personality the extraordinary tension of national will for feat. Of course, somewhere, at the periphery, there is also a place for the honest citizen-merchant [grazhdanin-lavochnik] and university professor. They too put on party badges and go out to ceremonial meetings. But, in fascist reality, their figures are fading, getting lost, [and] move into the background [otstupayut na zadnii plan].

>Not for them and not by them is the national revolution done.

>In history, clean, ideal fascism did not experience a direct incarnation. In practice, the urgent problems of assumption of power and establishing economic order forced the fascist leaders - including ᴉuᴉlossnW, Hitler, Franco, as well as Salazar - to forge alliances with conservatives, national capitalists, big owners and corporation heads. Yet, this compromise always ended deplorable for the fascist regimes. The fanatic anti-communism of Hitler warmed up by the German capitalists cost Germany the defeat in its war with the USSR while ᴉuᴉlossnW - trusting into the honesty of the king (articulator of the interests exactly of big business) - was delivered by him to the renegades Badoglio and Ciano who put the Duce into prison and threw themselves into the embrace of the Americans.

>Franco held out the longest, and even that because of the concessions of liberal-capitalist England and USA and because of [his] rejection to support the ideologically related regimes of the Axis. Moreover, Franco was not a real fascist. National capitalism is the inner virus of fascism, its enemy [and] guarantor [zalog] of its degeneration and perishing. National capitalism is in no way an essential characteristic of fascism as [national capitalism] is, on the contrary, an accidental and contradictory element in its inner structure.

>Therefore, in our case, in the case of the growing Russian national capitalism, one cannot speak about fascism, but of an attempt to preliminarily pervert what is not to be circumvented. Such pseudo-fascism can be called "preventive," [or] "precautionary." It hastens to make itself known before an authentic, real, radically revolutionary and consistent fascism, a fascist fascism is, in full measure, born and becomes strong in Russia. National capitalists – these are former [communist] party leaders who are used to boss around [vlastvovat'] and humiliate the people and who subsequently, out of conformism, became "liberal democrats," and who, now that this stages is over, are, equally zealously, venturing to cover themselves with national clothes.

>Having democracy transformed into a farce, apparently, the partocrats, together with the obliging intelligentsia, are, decidedly up to foul and poison the nationalism that is advancing into society.

>The nature of fascism [is] a new hierarchy, a new aristocracy. The novelty lies in that the hierarchy is based on natural, organic [and] clear principles - dignity, honor, courage [and] heroism. The dilapidated hierarchy which is trying to carry itself over into the era of nationalism is, as before, based on conformist abilities: "flexibility," "caution," "a taste for intrigues," "toadyism," etc. The obvious conflict between two styles, two human types, two normative systems is inescapable.

<2. Russian Socialism

>It is absolutely unjustified to call fascism an "extremely right-wing" ideology. This phenomenon is much more precisely characterized with the paradoxical formula "Conservative Revolution." It is a combination of a "right-wing" cultural-political orientation - traditionalism, faithfulness to the soil, roots, national ethics - with a "left-wing" economic program - social justice, limitation to the market forces, deliverance from "credit [protsentnogo] slavery," prohibition of stock market speculation, monopolies and trusts, [and] primacy of honest work. In analogy to National Socialism which was often called simply "German socialism," one can speak of Russian fascism as "Russian socialism." The ethnic specification of the term "socialism" has, in this context, a special meaning. What is meant is formulation of a socio-economic doctrine, from the beginning, not on the basis of abstract dogmas and rationalistic laws, but on the basis of concrete, spiritual-ethical and cultural principles that have organically formed the nation as such. Russian socialism - that is not Russians for socialism, but socialism for the Russians. In distinction to rigid Marxist-Leninist dogmas, Russian national socialism proceeds from an understanding of social justice which is characteristic exactly for our nation, for our historical tradition, for our economic ethics.

>Such a socialism will be more rural than proletarian, more communal and cooperative than administrative [gosudarstvennyi], more regionalistic than centralistic - all these are requirements of Russian national specificity which will find its expression in the doctrine and not only in practice.

<3. New people

>Such a Russian socialism should be build by new people, a new type of people, a new class. A class of heroes and revolutionaries. The remains of the party nomenclature and their ramshackle order should fall victim to the socialist revolution. The Russian national revolution. The Russian's are longing for freshness, for modernity [sovremennosti], for unfeigned romanticism, for living participation in some great cause. Everything that they are offered today [is] either archaic (the national patriots) or boring and cynical (the liberals). The dance and the attack, fashion and aggression, excessiveness and discipline, will and gesture, fanaticism and irony will seethe in the national revolutionaries - young, malicious [zlykh], merry, fearless, passionate and not knowing limits. They [will] build and destroy, rule and fulfill orders, conduct purges of the enemies of the nation and tenderly take care of Russian elderly and children. Wrathfully and merrily will they approach the citadel of the ramshackle [and] rotten System [sic]. Yes, they deeply [krovno] thirst for Power [sic]. They know how to use it. They will breathe Live [sic] in society, they will shove [vvergnut] the people into the sweet process of creating History [sic]. New people. Finally, intelligent and brave. Such as are needed. Who take the outer world as a strike (in the words of [Evgenii] Golovin [a Russian mystic and teacher of Dugin - A.U.]).

>Immediately before his death, the French fascist writer Robert Brasillach voiced a strange prophecy: "I see how in the East, in Russia, fascism is rising – a fascism borderless and red."

>Note: Not a faded, brownish-pinkish national capitalism, but the blinding dawn of a new Russian Revolution [sic], fascism - borderless as our lands, and red as our blood.

>>589585
What book is this?

>>590015
I hope the ukrops get this retard.

>>590015
they're always so boring and repetitive

>>590017
same he's been pissing me off for way too long they almost got him earlier bet he is too scared to leave his home now and spends his days shitposting online

>>590017
>>590018
>>590019
Honestly as long as he's outside of real political power, I just see Dugin as kind of an eccentric.

>>590020
my libshit friends keep trying to convince me he's the real ideological mastermind behind putin and his quest to conquer eurasia

For those looking for the Esoteric Hitlerism thread, it's been continued over on https://nuclearchange.net/praxis/thread/3.html