[Blackpill] Racial Allegiance Is An Extremely Blue Pilled Cope

Ledgemund

Ledgemund

free him or cuck
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Posts
2,941
Online
13h 38m
The Jews were not responsible for anything that happened to Russians ever. None of the leaders of the USSR was Jewish either but yeah you are so far down the neo-nazi rabbit hole to get out of but keep thinking the Russians "picked themselves up" when their country has absolutely no future whatsoever and is a shadow of its former self.
Just fucking JFL

Lazar Kaganovich, Jewish architect of the Holodomor

Genrikh Yagoda, head of the NKVD and responsible for the purging of the Russian citizenry and intelligentsia

Leon Trotsky, leading figure in the Russian Civil War, a globohomo dork who massacred the Russian nobility

And many more, not to mention that Communism itself is an invention of the Jewish world-utopian spirit.

By the time Bolshevism was in any way congenial to the average Russian in daily life, it was far different from the bloody sacrificial altar of its first years and overseen by ethnic Russians like Brezhnev.

As of right now, it has no "future" in the same way the rest of the integrated globe has no future. But at the very least, they conduct themselves on the whole better than nogs now that the 6 million aren't turning their nation into mulch any longer.
 
O

OMGFML

Officer
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Posts
525
Online
2d 2h 1m
Just fucking JFL

Lazar Kaganovich, Jewish architect of the Holodomor

Genrikh Yagoda, head of the NKVD and responsible for the purging of the Russian citizenry and intelligentsia

Leon Trotsky, leading figure in the Russian Civil War, a globohomo dork who massacred the Russian nobility

And many more, not to mention that Communism itself is an invention of the Jewish world-utopian spirit.

By the time Bolshevism was in any way congenial to the average Russian in daily life, it was far different from the bloody sacrificial altar of its first years and overseen by ethnic Russians like Brezhnev.

As of right now, it has no "future" in the same way the rest of the integrated globe has no future. But at the very least, they conduct themselves on the whole better than nogs now that the 6 million aren't turning their nation into mulch any longer.
All baseless conspiracy theories. Even historians these days like Stephen G. Wheatcroft don't consider holodomor as intentional (and in fact it was largely the fault of the rich peasants who decided to resist collectivization), the purge era was also much more nuanced than you think but that is understandable when your only source is David Duke. Listen to actual top historians like J.A.Getty .
If anything ethnic Slavs like Brezhnev drove the USSR into the ground and have only continued the trend with the Russian Federation today.

Stalin took a degenerate poverty stricken shithole to a space travelling super power all while defeating the strongest military in human history in less than 30 years, a feat that will never ever be repeated in the Russian history. That is why even the modern day gay hating Jew hating demented Russian Orthodox Christians praise Stalin as if he were Jesus Christ himself
 
Ledgemund

Ledgemund

free him or cuck
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Posts
2,941
Online
13h 38m
Good, now be consistent and apply your same logic to the current predicament Whites face with Jews :feelsokman:
Okay.

Assuming Jews (and plenty of other people) are ever ejected from Europe and America White men will be just fine, as ample evidence from the years preceding 1914 shows. This is in agreement with the relationship between national IQ and material prosperity.

JBW is also an incel problem, well an ethnic incel problem, are you seriously going to tell me the asian male community isn't significantly affected by the phenomenon of JBW, asian women basically worship white men, and often disrespect their own men because of it.
Lol no it isn't. To use your phrasing:

THEY ARE THE GENETIC TRASH OF THEIR RACE. You are an incel, do you think getting rid of White men is going to help you at all? If you have a cookie and a lump of shit, guess what FOIDS ARE NOT GOING TO CHOOSE THE LUMP OF SHIT ONCE YOU RUN OUT OF COOKIES.

This is exactly the argument you used when @Braincel14w brought up not wanting to be drowned in imported military age males.

Nothing about your reasoning here is consistent.

Your initial post was even targeted directly at White men. This is just a way for you to vent your resentment and more than anything else makes clear the need for White consciousness. Your screed only contains the seed of its opposition.
 
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
10,911
Online
44d 13h 43m
THEY ARE THE GENETIC TRASH OF THEIR RACE. You are an incel, do you think getting rid of White men is going to help you at all? If you have a cookie and a lump of shit, guess what FOIDS ARE NOT GOING TO CHOOSE THE LUMP OF SHIT ONCE YOU RUN OUT OF COOKIES.

This is exactly the argument you used when @Braincel14w brought up not wanting to be drowned in imported military age males.

Nothing about your reasoning here is consistent.
White incels of the same looks league mog asian incels of the same looks league, from an asian womans perspective a 5/10 white man is more attractive than a 5/10 asian man, because she wants to have a child with caucasiod traits.

Its like the only arguments you can make are disingenuous ones, and you pretend like context doesn't matter

When I made that argument the guy I said that too, was basically arguing that any number of any looks league of ethnic men was lowering his chances, which doesn't make sense, because men above your league aren't competing against you, they are competing with other men above you, but when its "incel vs incel" it does impact your chances, and asian incels (and average men) are affected by white incels (and average men)

This is just a way for you to vent your resentment and more than anything else makes clear the need for White consciousness. Your screed only contains the seed of its opposition.
Again your logic can be applied right back at you, all whites complaining about jews is just the resentment held for them being the ruling class that dominates and manipulates you.
 
DaveBuster

DaveBuster

Inceldom is not about the sex act.
★★
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Posts
2,124
Online
56m
Call me a retard, but is there at least a way I can mute this thread so it doesn't show up when I go to "New posts"?
 
Ledgemund

Ledgemund

free him or cuck
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Posts
2,941
Online
13h 38m
All baseless conspiracy theories. Even historians these days like Stephen G. Wheatcroft don't consider holodomor as intentional (and in fact it was largely the fault of the rich peasants who decided to resist collectivization), the purge era was also much more nuanced than you think but that is understandable when your only source is David Duke. Listen to actual top historians like J.A.Getty .
If anything ethnic Slavs like Brezhnev drove the USSR into the ground and have only continued the trend with the Russian Federation today.

Stalin took a degenerate poverty stricken shithole to a space travelling super power all while defeating the strongest military in human history in less than 30 years, a feat that will never ever be repeated in the Russian history. That is why even the modern day gay hating Jew hating demented Russian Orthodox Christians praise Stalin as if he were Jesus Christ himself
Ooga booga David Duke. If you want to play historian vs historian, Robert Conquest has written loads about the engineered famine in Ukraine and the purges throughout the USSR. Who's right? "The one I like."

"Oops, a third of the people died in the making of a 'superpower'. Blaming intentional Jewish malice for any part of it is a low IQ conspiracy theory, but the kulaks on the other hand could have done it easily."

Stalin himself wasn't a Jew, but he was lucky. But for a few fortuitous events, the Germans could have crippled their industrial operations before they were moved behind the Urals, especually given the languishing state of the Red Army after depletion of healthy, competent men by the purges and all of its best generals were deposed and executed. The whole machine was sustained on death, war, expropraition, and paranoia and his life only happened to be as long as the limited period of growth he oversaw. Really, the whole system contained the kernel of its eventual downfall; you see this also in Stalin's embrace of Lysenko's agriculture and other absursities. Even if he'd had longer to live, he'd have crashed the upward trajectory of national productivity by pursuing these delusions. No way it would have gone on forever.

Stalinism, it's worth noting too, is very distinct from "real" Marxism-Leninism. It was effectively one man enforcing his will through the industrial, military, and cultural sectors of a whole nation and for that reason was marked by all of the decisive efficiency (and tyranny) that such a system makes possible. Again, as a personal empire, the USSR wasn't going to last forever after this person was removed.
 
Last edited:
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
10,911
Online
44d 13h 43m
Well enough of this back and forth @Ledgemund (there's nothing left to argue), you can believe what you want, but you have to see the irony of your side telling my side were coping:

WHEN YOUR TASK IS TO OVERTHROW RICH AND POWERFUL OVERLORDS

and our task is just to find things in life to enjoy, one of those things being said overlords causing chaos and fucking the world up

Good luck saving the world and all that :feelskek:


Call me a retard, but is there at least a way I can mute this thread so it doesn't show up when I go to "New posts"?
Set your filter to "Show only: Unread" after clicking new posts, making it invisible to you doesn't make it go away though lol, keep coping though
 
Last edited:
O

OMGFML

Officer
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Posts
525
Online
2d 2h 1m
Ooga booga David Duke. If you want to play historian vs historian, Robert Conquest has written loads about the engineered famine in Ukraine and the purges throughout the USSR. Who's right? "The one I like."

"Oops, a third of the people died in the making of a 'superpower'. Blaming intentional Jewish malice for any part of it is a low IQ conspiracy theory, but the kulaks on the other hand could have done it easily."

Stalin himself wasn't a Jew, but he was lucky. But for a few fortuitous events, the Germans could have crippled their industrial operations before they were moved behind the Urals, especually given the languishing state of the Red Army after depletion of healthy, competent men by the purges all of its best generals were deposed and executed. The whole machine was sustained on death, war, expropraition, and paranoia and his life only happened to be as long as the limited period of growth he oversaw. Really, the whole system contained the kernel of its eventual downfall; you see this also in Stalin's embrace of Lysenko's agriculture and other absursities. Even if he'd had longer to live, he'd have crashed the upward trajectory of national productivity by pursuining these delusions. No way it would have gone on gone on forever.

Stalinism, it's worth noting too, is very distinct from "real" Marxism-Leninism. It was effectively one man enforcing his will through the industrial, military, and cultural sectors of a while nation and for that reason was marked by all of the decisive efficiency (and tyranny) that such a system makes possible. Again, as a personal empire, the USSR wasn't going to last forever after this person was removed.
Robert Conquest, the British intelligence paid propagandist who had no access to archival information recanted that view back in 2003, sorry.
112431


Also a third of what people died? Of the entire population? Are you trying to pedal the whole "60 million people died" when even modern day propagandist like Timothy Snyder don't dare to go above the already ridiculous 9 million?
112432

Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism, Stalin created the ideology. I wouldn't even disagree with the rest of the paragraph, Stalin was effectively the USSR, I'd probably go further and claim Stalin is Russia. Russians,with their 1000 years of history combined have not been able to create the growth Stalin did in 30 years.
 
Ledgemund

Ledgemund

free him or cuck
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Posts
2,941
Online
13h 38m
White incels of the same looks league mog asian incels of the same looks league, from an asian womans perspective a 5/10 white man is more attractive than a 5/10 asian man, because she wants to have a child with caucasiod traits.

Its like the only arguments you can make are disingenuous ones, and you pretend like context doesn't matter

When I made that argument the guy I said that too, was basically arguing that any number of any looks league of ethnic men was lowering his chances, which doesn't make sense, because men above your league aren't competing against you, they are competing with other men above you, but when its "incel vs incel" it does impact your chances, and asian incels (and average men) are affected by white incels (and average men)
Incels aren't affected since they wouldn't be getting anything in either case. This is your contention for supporting the "elimination of race"; I am just applying it in the other direction.

The relationship is the same whether someone gets mogged by their "looksmatch" :feelskek: or by someone of the same race a point above them. You are always at a spot within the spectrum that excludes all other occupancies, to which you are always considered relatively.

Again your logic can be applied right back at you, all whites complaining about jews is just the resentment held for them being the ruling class that dominates and manipulates you.
They're dominating and manipulating you too, against whitey, and characteristically you're sucking their cocks and blaming whites for what happens in the process.

In one case people are talking about those with genuine institutional control and malicious intentions and trying to reveal their conduct, in the other "he mog me so got to take his whyprivilege". The two situations are not equivalent.

You keep shifting ground and then claiming that the person talking to you is being "disingenuous" when they don't move over to whatever new form you try to fit the discussion into.
 
LastGerman

LastGerman

Ubermenschcel
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Posts
14,012
Online
114d 20h 50m
The Jews were not responsible for anything that happened to Russians ever. None of the leaders of the USSR was Jewish either but yeah you are so far down the neo-nazi rabbit hole to get out of but keep thinking the Russians "picked themselves up" when their country has absolutely no future whatsoever and is a shadow of its former self.
You can easily disprove that with Wikipedia in a few seconds: ''Leon Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronstein on 7 November 1879, the fifth child of a Ukrainian-Jewish family...''

''After the Bolsheviks came to power, Trotsky became the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs''

Ohh. @Ledgemund was first...

Still, you can easily disprove that via Wikipedia. It is not that hard.
 
Last edited:
O

OMGFML

Officer
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Posts
525
Online
2d 2h 1m
You can easily disprove that with Wikipedia in a few seconds: ''Leon Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronstein on 7 November 1879, the fifth child of a Ukrainian-Jewish family...''

''After the Bolsheviks came to power, Trotsky became the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs''
Sure but he never became a leader of the USSR. He also fell off quite early and moved out of the USSR right after its inception.
 
Ledgemund

Ledgemund

free him or cuck
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Posts
2,941
Online
13h 38m
Robert Conquest, the British intelligence paid propagandist who had no access to archival information recanted that view back in 2003, sorry.
View attachment 112431

Also a third of what people died? Of the entire population? Are you trying to pedal the whole "60 million people died" when even modern day propagandist like Timothy Snyder don't dare to go above the already ridiculous 9 million?
View attachment 112432
One third of the Ukrainian peasantry.

I doubt it was anyone's contention that the famine was "intentional" in that they went out of their way to starve these people. By "abetting" it, they requisitioned grain supplies for the industrial sector to the point where these people were knowingly left to die. If you think that's qualitatively different from hawlocausting the 6 million out of "mean racism", I suppose we'll just have to disagree.

Harvest of Sorrow was also repeatedly re-editioned as new material from archives was released. At the time of the initial writing, these were effectively hermetically sealed (wonder why?)

Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism, Stalin created the ideology. I wouldn't even disagree with the rest of the paragraph, Stalin was effectively the USSR, I'd probably go further and claim Stalin is Russia. Russians,with their 1000 years of history combined have not been able to create the growth Stalin did in 30 years.
When your only criterion of success is " growth" (might as well be a neocon), of course this is easier to achieve under brutal Caesarism that feeds its own people into the engine of "progress". If Conrad Gloormpf had actually looted Silicon Valley and left all of the constitutionally dependent without welfare like everyone was saying he would, I'm sure America would be " growing" pretty nicely too.

As to Marxism-Leninism, yeah I suppose that was Stalin's name for his personal politics, bizzarely crowned with very distinct referents. I just meant that there's not a very strong continuity between his ideology, The Communist Manifesto, and What Is to Be Done?
 
Last edited:
LastGerman

LastGerman

Ubermenschcel
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Posts
14,012
Online
114d 20h 50m
Sure but he never became a leader of the USSR.
That was never the claim in the begin with. He had a leading position though and that is just a matter of fact.
 
O

OMGFML

Officer
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Posts
525
Online
2d 2h 1m
One third of the Ukrainian peasantry.

I doubt it was anyone's contention that the famine was "intentional" in that they went out of their way to starve these people. By "abetting" it, they requisitioned grain supplies for the industrial sector to the point where these people were knowingly left to die. If you think that's qualitatively different from hawlocausting the 6 million out of "mean racism", I suppose we'll just have to disagree.

Harvest of Sorrow was also repeatedly re-editioned as new material from archives was released. At the time of the initial writing, these were effectively hermetically sealed (wonder why?)



When your only criterion of success is " growth" (might as well be a neocon), of course this is easier to achieve under brutal Caesarism that feeds its own people into the engine of "progress". If Conrad Gloormpf had actually looted Silicon Valley and left all of the constitutionally dependent without welfare like everyone was saying he would, I'm sure America would be " growing" pretty nicely too.

As to Marxism-Leninism, yeah I suppose that was Stalin's name for his personal politics, bizzarely crowned with very distinct referents. I just meant that there's not a very strong continuity between his ideology, The Communist Manifesto, and What Is to Be Done?
The overall excess deaths of the famine according to Wheatcroft were 4-6 million people in 4 regions (Ukraine, Southern Russia, the Caucasus and Western Kazakhstan) so the 1/3rd of all Ukrainians is more of a myth. It actually is the view of many people including early Conquest that Stalin purposefully genocided the Ukrainians out of spite. Stalin (as well as a great chunk of people anywhere in the world) knew the war was coming so the extremely hasty industrialization came before everything else. If the geopoliitcal situation was different, I am sure much of the brutalities of the 30s would never take place. Given the fact the archival information mostly debunked the cold war propaganda I don't think it was hidden for that reason, all countries have their internal data that doesn't get shared, that is normal.

The growth under the USSR wasn't merely economic, it was even more so cultural and scientific. The USSR had one of the best cinemas in the World and a very cultured population, that is all gone now.

Patents '87 vs 2011
112437


Education 1990 vs 2012 (UNESCO)
112440



Last Summer Olympics with the USSR 1988:
112438


Top10 Chess Players 1991:
112439


The fall of the USSR was a tragedy to its inhabitants.
 
Ledgemund

Ledgemund

free him or cuck
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Posts
2,941
Online
13h 38m
The overall excess deaths of the famine according to Wheatcroft were 4-6 million people in 4 regions (Ukraine, Southern Russia, the Caucasus and Western Kazakhstan) so the 1/3rd of all Ukrainians is more of a myth. It actually is the view of many people including early Conquest that Stalin purposefully genocided the Ukrainians out of spite. Stalin (as well as a great chunk of people anywhere in the world) knew the war was coming so the extremely hasty industrialization came before everything else. If the geopoliitcal situation was different, I am sure much of the brutalities of the 30s would never take place. Given the fact the archival information mostly debunked the cold war propaganda I don't think it was hidden for that reason, all countries have their internal data that doesn't get shared, that is normal.

The growth under the USSR wasn't merely economic, it was even more so cultural and scientific. The USSR had one of the best cinemas in the World and a very cultured population, that is all gone now.

Patents '87 vs 2011
View attachment 112437

Education 1990 vs 2012 (UNESCO)
View attachment 112440


Last Summer Olympics with the USSR 1988:
View attachment 112438

Top10 Chess Players 1991:
View attachment 112439

The fall of the USSR was a tragedy to its inhabitants.
Nah, geopolitical considerations had to be very obscure here, especially since Germany was still demilitarized and Hitler wasn't even Chancellor of Germany yet when the famine happened (1932). If you think the Soviet Union had something to fear from another European state, consider that it was largely unmolested through the 20s. The October Revolution was even pumped up with funds from Wall Street. Moreover, it would have been a very stupid idea to purge distinguished generals like Tukhachevsky if a war was truly imminent. Like I said before, the purges actually left the USSR more vulnerable than it would have been otherwise (presumably Stalin knew this when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed) - consider it luck that Operation Barbarossa failed.

As to culture, yes universal education is a very effective principle, just as it was in the radically liberal United States in the 19th Century (highest literacy in the world at that point). Any economic system can support universal education, provided it's a priority.

As to cinema, maybe. But you have to compare Eisenstein to someone like Sjöström (or Riefenstahl), not one of his modern countrymen - cinema on the whole has degraded. Plus, even someone like Tarkovsky was forced to work around censors. As to literature, absolutely not. The "backwards" tsarist Russia only produced Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Turgenev, Herzen, Bunin, Goncharov, compared to... what, Gorky?

I don't know much about chess competitions or the Olympics, but consider that these people were being drawn from each of the 13 SSRs. It's worth noting that the pool was much larger at this time.

The collapse of the Soviet Union wasn't a disaster for its people per se - it's rather that this left a vacuum in which the post-Soviet republics were plundered by international elites.
 
Mainländer

Mainländer

Songwritercel
★★★★★
Joined
May 2, 2018
Posts
23,739
Online
30d 3h 31m
historians these days like Stephen G. Wheatcroft don't consider holodomor as intentional (and in fact it was largely the fault of the rich peasants who decided to resist collectivization)
Kek. The holocaust also wasn't intentional, it was the fault of the Jews who refused to step down from the economic stranglehold they were imposing to Germany.

J F L at believing in any academia mainstream belief nowadays. Academia is nearly 100% communist occupied.
 
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
10,911
Online
44d 13h 43m
The overall excess deaths of the famine according to Wheatcroft were 4-6 million people in 4 regions (Ukraine, Southern Russia, the Caucasus and Western Kazakhstan) so the 1/3rd of all Ukrainians is more of a myth. It actually is the view of many people including early Conquest that Stalin purposefully genocided the Ukrainians out of spite. Stalin (as well as a great chunk of people anywhere in the world) knew the war was coming so the extremely hasty industrialization came before everything else. If the geopoliitcal situation was different, I am sure much of the brutalities of the 30s would never take place. Given the fact the archival information mostly debunked the cold war propaganda I don't think it was hidden for that reason, all countries have their internal data that doesn't get shared, that is normal.

The growth under the USSR wasn't merely economic, it was even more so cultural and scientific. The USSR had one of the best cinemas in the World and a very cultured population, that is all gone now.

Patents '87 vs 2011
View attachment 112437

Education 1990 vs 2012 (UNESCO)
View attachment 112440


Last Summer Olympics with the USSR 1988:
View attachment 112438

Top10 Chess Players 1991:
View attachment 112439

The fall of the USSR was a tragedy to its inhabitants.
Nah, geopolitical considerations had to be very obscure here, especially since Germany was still demilitarized and Hitler wasn't even Chancellor of Germany yet when the famine happened (1932). If you think the Soviet Union had something to fear from another European state, consider that it was largely unmolested through the 20s. The October Revolution was even pumped up with funds from Wall Street. Moreover, it would have been a very stupid idea to purge distinguished generals like Tukhachevsky if a war was truly imminent. Like I said before, the purges actually left the USSR more vulnerable than it would have been otherwise (presumably Stalin knew this when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed) - consider it luck that Operation Barbarossa failed.

As to culture, yes universal education is a very effective principle, just as it was in the radically liberal United States in the 19th Century (highest literacy in the world at that point). Any economic system can support universal education, provided it's a priority.

As to cinema, maybe. But you have to compare Eisenstein to someone like Sjöström (or Riefenstahl), not one of his modern countrymen - cinema on the whole has degraded. Plus, even someone like Tarkovsky was forced to work around censors. As to literature, absolutely not. The "backwards" tsarist Russia only produced Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Turgenev, Herzen, Bunin, Goncharov, compared to... what, Gorky?

I don't know much about chess competitions or the Olympics, but consider that these people were being drawn from each of the 13 SSRs. It's worth noting that the pool was much larger at this time.

The collapse of the Soviet Union wasn't a disaster for its people per se - it's rather that this left a vacuum in which the post-Soviet republics were plundered by international elites.
I like how much effort, research, documented statistics, etc has been collected by incels to argue about the greatness of past nations and why/how they fell.

The amount of pride people hold just for being born on a certain landmass, or being born of a certain race always astounds me

Whether the "jews did it" or not, or whether Russia was the greatest nation ever at some point or not, what difference does that make to an incel. I'll never understand the mental investment that goes into stuff like this. One might as well get a teaching degree on these fields and make some money lecturing out of it.
 
O

OMGFML

Officer
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Posts
525
Online
2d 2h 1m
Nah, geopolitical considerations had to be very obscure here, especially since Germany was still demilitarized and Hitler wasn't even Chancellor of Germany yet when the famine happened (1932). If you think the Soviet Union had something to fear from another European state, consider that it was largely unmolested through the 20s. The October Revolution was even pumped up with funds from Wall Street. Moreover, it would have been a very stupid idea to purge distinguished generals like Tukhachevsky if a war was truly imminent. Like I said before, the purges actually left the USSR more vulnerable than it would have been otherwise (presumably Stalin knew this when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed) - consider it luck that Operation Barbarossa failed.

As to culture, yes universal education is a very effective principle, just as it was in the radically liberal United States in the 19th Century (highest literacy in the world at that point). Any economic system can support universal education, provided it's a priority.

As to cinema, maybe. But you have to compare Eisenstein to someone like Sjöström (or Riefenstahl), not one of his modern countrymen - cinema on the whole has degraded. Plus, even someone like Tarkovsky was forced to work around censors. As to literature, absolutely not. The "backwards" tsarist Russia only produced Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Turgenev, Herzen, Bunin, Goncharov, compared to... what, Gorky?

I don't know much about chess competitions or the Olympics, but consider that these people were being drawn from each of the 13 SSRs. It's worth noting that the pool was much larger at this time.

The collapse of the Soviet Union wasn't a disaster for its people per se - it's rather that this left a vacuum in which the post-Soviet republics were plundered by international elites.
If that is what you think how do you explain this German communist song from 1929?

Also how do you explain Stalin's statement from 1931 explaining the reason behind the hasty collectivization:
"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make up this gap in ten years. Either we do it or they will crush us."

It's untrue the USSR had nothing to fear. I am also skeptical about the whole Wall Street conspiracy which was concocted by Anthony Sutton, a very dubious source and a John Birch Society conspiracy theorist. This one review shows how lack of a understanding he had on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-...f=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=190557035X

If the mainstream liberal history is right, the purge would make it so but given the fact they simplify (without any primary sources) the purges into "Stalin was just a crazy paranoid guy who executed random people who were all 100% innocent, no general was trying to overthrow him" I tend to disbelieve the story. Even the assassination of Kirov (the closest associate of Stalin) is simplified into "He was killed by some random lone shooter, Stalin's opposition had nothing to do with it and Stalin simply used it to put 100% innocent people on trial". If the USSR was being subverted (like other countries who didn't really put up a fight or appeased Germany) the purge would actually make sense.

Concerning art and the cinema, I don't think it makes sense to say we should not compare it to the modern day degenerate cinema of the Russian Federation only because it has declined in other countries as well. The USA still to this day produces great movies. The decline has also not been as rapid in the West as in the East where it has pretty much happened overnight.

The old Russian Empire did have artists that produced great works of art, I have never disputed that, it's one of the very few things the old Russia possessed. Modern day Russia has very little to offer artistically speaking and as far as I know it's way worse in places like Poland or especially Czechoslovakia, which had the greatest cinema in Eastern Europe together with the USSR and is now unable to produce a single decent movie.

The collapse was engineered from within so both the Russians and the international elites (Germans, French and so on) were on it. That is why I consider it a disaster since the plunder was planned.
Kek. The holocaust also wasn't intentional, it was the fault of the Jews who refused to step down from the economic stranglehold they were imposing to Germany.

J F L at believing in any academia mainstream belief nowadays. Academia is nearly 100% communist occupied.
The academia is almost entirely anti-communist. Pro-Soviet work is for example never produced. The Jews were never imposing a stranglehold to Germany. You are again taking the silly old newspaper article way too literally. Here you have a thorough debunking:
 
Last edited:
Ledgemund

Ledgemund

free him or cuck
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Posts
2,941
Online
13h 38m
If that is what you think how do you explain this German communist song from 1929?

Also how do you explain Stalin's statement from 1931 explaining the reason behind the hasty collectivization:
"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make up this gap in ten years. Either we do it or they will crush us."

It's untrue the USSR had nothing to fear. I am also skeptical about the whole Wall Street conspiracy which was concocted by Anthony Sutton, a very dubious source and a John Birch Society conspiracy theorist. This one review shows how lack of a understanding he had on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-...f=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=190557035X
I think the explanation is clear if you consider it as a simple justification for political action, akin to what "human rights" and "democracy" are now. Moreover the famine occurred in 1932, but was orchestrated in the years prior. The National Socialists weren't even a major political force until the Reichstag elections in 1932. The noble reaction was inveterately opposed to Bolshevism, at least in Germany, but their powers were as crippled as anyone else's in the Weimar days of indecision and ineffectuality. The Communists needed a recruiting strategy and of course amplified the "Fascist" threat into something beyond what it was (pretty similar to the situation today honestly). A short bout of popular unrest and political intrigue brought the NSDAP to power in a stroke of luck in 1932/1933, after which they deftly secured their position.

Anthony Sutton was a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute, from which he was let go as a result of his work on this and related topics.

Here's another article linked in a comment responding to that post, by Richard B. Spence (significantly, not Richard B. Spencer)


The initial post seems to indicate that it is informed by a single competing source, Alexander Rabinowitch's [((()))?] July Days. From Rabinowitz's short biography on Wikipedia, one gets the impression that his work is likely to be as, if not more, tendentious than Sutton's:

the grass-roots egalitarian ideals that contributed immeasurably to its effectiveness in the struggle for power in 1917 Russia were subverted

JFL how is the vanguardism of a salon of cosmopolitan intellectual flaneurs "grass-roots"? Bolshevism is the product of Zurich coffeehouses.


If the mainstream liberal history is right, the purge would make it so but given the fact they simplify (without any primary sources) the purges into "Stalin was just a crazy paranoid guy who executed random people who were all 100% innocent, no general was trying to overthrow him" I tend to disbelieve the story. Even the assassination of Kirov (the closest associate of Stalin) is simplified into "He was killed by some random lone shooter, Stalin's opposition had nothing to do with it and Stalin simply used it to put 100% innocent people on trial". If the USSR was being subverted (like other countries who didn't really put up a fight or appeased Germany) the purge would actually make sense.
In the Kirov case, the shooter was said to be an agent of Stalin's himself, after which the event was seized as a pretext for harsher actions. Think of it as the equivalent of "the Reichstag fire" in purge mythology.

As to the goal of the purges in general, I don't see why it wouldn't make sense. It was a protracted process of Stalin trimming down the state to a set of palace guards. If the accusations of sabotage were actually genuine, then it was a massive and unprecedented plot, the scale of which has never been seen since. I am in awe at the incredible efficiency with which all of these people were uncovered and neutralized, especially since the conspirators in the Stauffenberg bomb plot weren't pursued with nearly as much skill.

But if you want to be revisionist on the level of the purges being the natural response to a real conspiracy ['no primary sources' for a lack of complicity? How about genuine evidence (i.e. not torture-extracted confessions) for involvement in the first place?], then we'll have to treat the Holocaust in the same manner. If mainstream liberal history is right, I'm expected to believe that, as the Eastern front was being pushed back, the Germans expended administrative resources, machinery, energy, space, time, and manpower to ship people out to death camps in the remotest stretches of their conquered territory. "Just to be evil racists, whom scapegoated the defenseless".

Concerning art and the cinema, I don't think it makes sense to say we should not compare it to the modern day degenerate cinema of the Russian Federation only because it has declined in other countries as well. The USA still to this day produces great movies. The decline has also not been as rapid in the West as in the East where it has pretty much happened overnight.

The old Russian Empire did have artists that produced great works of art, I have never disputed that, it's one of the very few things the old Russia possessed. Modern day Russia has very little to offer artistically speaking and as far as I know it's way worse in places like Poland or especially Czechoslovakia, which had the greatest cinema in Eastern Europe together with the USSR and is now unable to produce a single decent movie.
And the US happens to be one of the most culturally and politically degenerated places in the modern world, the vehicle of "democratic" imperialism and the strongman for international finance. So what relationship does this have with the (few) good films still coming out of it?

Who were the representatives of Polish and Czech cinema in this era? In Poland, you've got Polanski (emigrated to the US), Zulawski (emigrated to France, Diabel was banned by Polish censors), Wajda (made a film about the Katyn massacre in 2007, no way he could have done it under the old Communist regime), and Kieslowski (produced his most known works after the collapse of Communist Poland).

On the topic of music, which I forgot to mention, it is instructive to bring up the case of Shostakovich, who was held up as an exemplar of Soviet culture in the Stalin era. He was compelled to produce works in the service of the state, its ideology, and its goals, but as you can imagine spoke very differently privately:

Music illuminates a person and provides him with his last hope; even Stalin, a butcher, knew that.

The collapse was engineered from within so both the Russians and the international elites (Germans, French and so on) were on it. That is why I consider it a disaster since the plunder was planned.
I honestly don't want to harp on the Juden too much, but it's worth noting that, here again, they're involved. The stripping and economic liberalization of Russia and several other post-Soviet republics was overseen by advisors like (((Jeffrey Sachs))).


The academia is almost entirely anti-communist. Pro-Soviet work is for example never produced. The Jews were never imposing a stranglehold to Germany. You are again taking the silly old newspaper article way too literally. Here you have a thorough debunking:
Lol come on. Even in the Cold War era, that alleged bind on political objectivity, intellectuals were vocally pro-Soviet. Jean Paul Sartre, Nobel Prize recipient, was an outspoken admirer of the Soviet Union. The erstwhile Frankfurt intellectuals enjoyed professorships at major American universities. Most types of political "radicalism" in the 20th century were informed by a sympathy with Communism.

This should need no historical proof in 2019 AD. Walk onto the campus of a major university wearing either a swastika or a hammer and sickle, and guess which one is going to have pink-haired trannies throwing bottles of their piss at you, doughy soycucks trying to pick frights with you, and the police being called on you to frame you as the instigator of whatever damage occurs in the interim.
 
Last edited:
O

OMGFML

Officer
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Posts
525
Online
2d 2h 1m
I think the explanation is clear if you consider it as a simple justification for political action, akin to what "human rights" and "democracy" are now. Moreover the famine occurred in 1932, but was orchestrated in the years prior.
How was it orchestrated if it wasn't intentional? That is now without a doubt when even the biggest fraud and an anti-intellectual recanted that view.

The National Socialists weren't even a major political force until the Reichstag elections in 1932. The noble reaction was inveterately opposed to Bolshevism, at least in Germany, but their powers were as crippled as anyone else's in the Weimar days of indecision and ineffectuality. The Communists needed a recruiting strategy and of course amplified the "Fascist" threat into something beyond what it was (pretty similar to the situation today honestly). A short bout of popular unrest and political intrigue brought the NSDAP to power in a stroke of luck in 1932/1933, after which they deftly secured their position.
Fascism and anti-communism were both major forces throughout the World. Stalin predicted it exactly in his 1931 speech. He could not have been both right and needlessly paranoid as you are trying to portray here.


Here's another article linked in a comment responding to that post, by Richard B. Spence (significantly, not Richard B. Spencer)
I would not even be surprised if Trotsky was connected to the British secret service. He was after all an anti-Soviet agent of subversion. Even Lenin himself was very skeptical of him since the beginning.

Hitler himself was said to be impressed by his work:
112501


Despite the massive persecution of communists in fascist Italy Trotsky would go on and take a vacation there:

Trotsky was among the most influential anti-Soviets in the World, Orwell (a fellow Trotskyist) is to this day revered by the right everywhere in the World.

In the Kirov case, the shooter was said to be an agent of Stalin's himself, after which the event was seized as a pretext for harsher actions. Think of it as the equivalent of "the Reichstag fire" in purge mythology.
There is a reason no major scholar holds that view, there is simply zero evidence for it. The move would make no sense anyways since he was not just his closest associate, but also the best friend. That is why Western pseudo-scholars claim it was a lone shooter similar to Oswald.

As to the goal of the purges in general, I don't see why it wouldn't make sense. It was a protracted process of Stalin trimming down the state to a set of palace guards. If the accusations of sabotage were actually genuine, then it was a massive and unprecedented plot, the scale of which has never been seen since. I am in awe at the incredible efficiency with which all of these people were uncovered and neutralized, especially since the conspirators in the Stauffenberg bomb plot weren't pursued with nearly as much skill.
What do you mean? The purges were messy and extremely brutal, there was no incredible efficiency you are talking about.

But if you want to be revisionist on the level of the purges being the natural response to a real conspiracy ['no primary sources' for a lack of complicity? How about genuine evidence (i.e. not torture-extracted confessions) for involvement in the first place?], then we'll have to treat the Holocaust in the same manner. If mainstream liberal history is right, I'm expected to believe that, as the Eastern front was being pushed back, the Germans expended administrative resources, machinery, energy, space, time, and manpower to ship people out to death camps in the remotest stretches of their conquered territory. "Just to be evil racists, whom scapegoated the defenseless".
The Holocaust is the best documented genocide of all time. The Jews were also not shipped to any remote places since the death camps were always near the Polish ghettos. The Nazi hatred of the Jews was also not a secret, but the main pillar of the ideology.


And the US happens to be one of the most culturally and politically degenerated places in the modern world, the vehicle of "democratic" imperialism and the strongman for international finance. So what relationship does this have with the (few) good films still coming out of it?
My point was that even today great works of art are still made so comparing the cinema of old with today's cinema is indeed possible.

Who were the representatives of Polish and Czech cinema in this era? In Poland, you've got Polanski (emigrated to the US), Zulawski (emigrated to France, Diabel was banned by Polish censors), Wajda (made a film about the Katyn massacre in 2007, no way he could have done it under the old Communist regime), and Kieslowski (produced his most known works after the collapse of Communist Poland).

On the topic of music, which I forgot to mention, it is instructive to bring up the case of Shostakovich, who was held up as an exemplar of Soviet culture in the Stalin era. He was compelled to produce works in the service of the state, its ideology, and its goals, but as you can imagine spoke very differently privately:

Music illuminates a person and provides him with his last hope; even Stalin, a butcher, knew that.
Regarding Polish cinema, the decline (though noticeable) wasn't as massive as I thought now that I am looking at it.

I went to the Czech movie database and only filtered the movies that have gotten 80%+ ratings (and the vast majority of people reviewing are uppity anti-communist liberals comparable to those on yelp) and 95% of them come from before 1990.

Though I didn't find an exact source of Shostakovich's quote I could believe it. It's a great paradox, most artists did not in fact like the regime (even the famous Czech director Forman who went on to produce great American movies like Amadeus or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest did indeed migrate from the East) yet were the chief benefactors of it.


I honestly don't want to harp on the Juden too much, but it's worth noting that, here again, they're involved. The stripping and economic liberalization of Russia and several other post-Soviet republics was overseen by advisors like (((Jeffrey Sachs))).
Liberalism is a 100% white English made ideology and the fact some dude with a Jewish name was an adviser changes nothing.


Lol come on. Even in the Cold War era, that alleged bind on political objectivity, intellectuals were vocally pro-Soviet. Jean Paul Sartre, Nobel Prize recipient, was an outspoken admirer of the Soviet Union. The erstwhile Frankfurt intellectuals enjoyed professorships at major American universities. Most types of political "radicalism" in the 20th century were informed by a sympathy with Communism.
Sartre was anti-Soviet since at least the 50s. The entire Frankfurt school was anti-Soviet.

This should need no historical proof in 2019 AD. Walk onto the campus of a major university wearing either a swastika or a hammer and sickle, and guess which one is going to have pink-haired trannies throwing bottles of their piss at you, doughy soycucks trying to pick frights with you, and the police being called on you to frame you as the instigator of whatever damage occurs in the interim.
Obviously the promoting of Nazism is going to be met with opposition but that doesn't change the fact one can't be openly pro-Soviet and still publish as a historian or an economist. Grover Furr is a pro-Soviet scholar of English (so his communist views do not overlap with his professional life) and he's receiving daily harassment and death threats.
 
S

SwordsmanAlt

Captain
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Posts
1,507
Online
3d 16h 39m
Ultra high Godlike IQ :feelsLSD:
 
Algeriancel

Algeriancel

COOM to the dark side
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Posts
3,981
Online
31d 21h 35m
incel loyalty only lies to himself. Fuck you and your nigger future/ humanity, op. And fuck all of you nationalists. Both are part of the same coin.

Why would I want to forge a better future for a mutt that isn't even my kin?. And you call others cucks, op?.

Your problem is that you think incels are "united" under a cause. We're not. If every man is for himself then surely racism is logical.
 
Braincel14w

Braincel14w

Greycel
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Posts
2,998
Online
1h 49m
Are the mods here literally Jews? I can't think why else this thread would be stickied
 
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
10,911
Online
44d 13h 43m
incel loyalty only lies to himself. Fuck you and your nigger future/ humanity
For somebody who is for themselves, you sound very tribal and group oriented lol

If every man is for himself then surely racism is logical.
"If its every man for himself, surely tribalism (acting as a group) is logical"

Yeah, makes perfect sense........
 
Ledgemund

Ledgemund

free him or cuck
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Posts
2,941
Online
13h 38m
How was it orchestrated if it wasn't intentional? That is now without a doubt when even the biggest fraud and an anti-intellectual recanted that view.
Whatever your view is on the motives producing the famine (current opinion is far from being the consensus you've alleged), the five year plan including collectivization was drafted in 1928 and the kulaks were already being persecuted in 1929. The consequences of the absurd demands placed on the peasants could have easily been forecasted at this point. That their deaths were instrumentalized toward some ostensible end (allegedly, the Juden were made into soap, which keeps people clean) is immaterial when they were knowingly sacrificed en masse. "Greater good" thinking is utilitarian delusion and, as this case itself shows, easily manipulable toward political goals of the elite using only weak justifications.

Fascism and anti-communism were both major forces throughout the World. Stalin predicted it exactly in his 1931 speech. He could not have been both right and needlessly paranoid as you are trying to portray here.
If your definition of "Fascism" is as nebulous as that used by Stalin (and Trotsky) as "the competing revolutionary movement which opposes my idea of a Communist insurgency", or worse yet "the bad guys" definition used since WWII, maybe. Fascism in the strict sense was confined to Italy, with National Socialism, Falangism, etc. being importantly distinct. A James Gregor's work is by far the most legitimate and careful description of Fascism in the US and a study of it will reveal important distinctions in the intellectual heritage, methods, and political goals of Fascism and other 20th century popular movements. Stalin's bloviating about "the Fascists" is barely different from Reagan's about "the Communists" - ie anything standing in the way of political ambitions.


I would not even be surprised if Trotsky was connected to the British secret service. He was after all an anti-Soviet agent of subversion. Even Lenin himself was very skeptical of him since the beginning.

Hitler himself was said to be impressed by his work:
View attachment 112501

Despite the massive persecution of communists in fascist Italy Trotsky would go on and take a vacation there:

Trotsky was among the most influential anti-Soviets in the World, Orwell (a fellow Trotskyist) is to this day revered by the right everywhere in the World.

Sartre was anti-Soviet since at least the 50s. The entire Frankfurt school was anti-Soviet.
Ah now things are getting interesting.

So is your admiration for Communism rather just Stalinism? I'm not even exactly ideologically opposed to Stalin, I just think his methods were ridiculously wasteful and ultimately untenable. But you'll find that much of his achievements were totally out of line with what most think of the Left. He criminalized homosexuality and abortion, promoted upright conduct and sobriety, made overtures toward patriotism and religious feeling after the 1930s, even engaged in his own small-scale shoahcaust during the Zhdanovshchina. Mussolini expressed admiration for him having turned Bolshevism into "Slavic Fascism". Hitler respected him as well.

Trotsky was indeed a rat and is much more what tends to be associated with "Communism". Not only was Orwell influenced by him, so were many eventual Neoconservatives in their youth. There is a direct and unbroken lineage between the ideological imperialism of Trotsky's international revolution and the current set of wars being waged by the West in the name of ARE VALUES. Stalin's socialism in one country, in the other hand, is one more point of comparison between him and contemporary national movements (and even if there was no expressly racial element of his system, he, despite being Georgian, was something of a Russian chauvinist - this is evident as far back as his time as Comissar of Nationalities).

Now even more interesting is the Soviet Union in the mind of Western intellectuals. Likely because of the reasons enumerated above, along with several others, which make it clear that the strong, brutal, cold steel Soviet state was the exact opposite of the utopian fairy tale that these people envisioned for their "Communism", they abandoned it. "After the 1950s" is another important qualification, when Krushchev began his de-Stalinization campaign and revealed all of the "yuman rights" abuses (and outright mass murder) carried out by Stalin's state. It was clear to every beatnik soy cuck at that point that the Soviet Union was not the model they were aiming for. (You also mentioned that the Brezhnev years were uneventful and symbolic of decline, but consider the international system at this time. After the 1950s the Soviet Union had to exist effectively as an autarky. Stalin wasn't nearly so constrained and had the advantages of a decisive military victory to sustain him in his last years).

This is in start contrast with the early years of the Soviet Union, mind you. Even if Lenin himself was a frigid and cold-blooded man, the revolution he oversaw was notorious for the element of sexual licentiousness it carried. Sexual liberation was widespread after the revolution, and was even an explicit goal of the Bolsheviks:

the Bolsheviks joined and were the biggest promoter of the World League for Sexual Reform, attending its large congresses in Berlin in 1921, Copenhagen in 1928 and Vienna in 1930. The Bolsheviks’ position on homosexuality as put by their delegate Grigorii Bakkis in 1923 was:

The present sexual legislation in the Soviet Union is the work of the October Revolution. This revolution is important not only as a political phenomenon which secures the political role of the working class. But also for the revolutions which evolving from it reach out into all areas of life… [Soviet legislation] declares absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters, so long as nobody is injured, and no one’s interests are encroached upon—concerning homosexuality, sodomy and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offences against morality—Soviet legislation treats these exactly as so-called “natural” intercourse.7

...from some kind of socialist orgnization that looks on this favorably. This was very brash for its time, and is already very far along the path that produced the abysmal state of the modern sexual market.

Lenin, even if personally non-committal, was effectively the equivalent of a puritanical Protestant mother who "learns to love" her gay son. He also made increasing overtures toward privatization and agrarian reform before his death in 1924. He distrusted Stalin as much as Trotsky.

So if you're against Trotsky, against the Frankfurt intellectuals, what is it about Communism that recommends itself to you over Fascism (which before the influence of Hitler's hand in Italy did not promulgate any racial codes)?

There is a reason no major scholar holds that view, there is simply zero evidence for it. The move would make no sense anyways since he was not just his closest associate, but also the best friend. That is why Western pseudo-scholars claim it was a lone shooter similar to Oswald.


What do you mean? The purges were messy and extremely brutal, there was no incredible efficiency you are talking about.
Efficient in the sense that he was completely able to crush any semblance of action by the "conspirators", unless you want to consider the fact that he died eventually as the consummation of a 'plot'.

The Holocaust is the best documented genocide of all time. The Jews were also not shipped to any remote places since the death camps were always near the Polish ghettos. The Nazi hatred of the Jews was also not a secret, but the main pillar of the ideology.
I'm not even familair with the literature on Holocaust skepticism. Not like it's easy to find - it is suppressed with unmatched vehemence by the international Holocaust industry. Calling this "the best documented genocide of all time" is ridiculous when there's a tenebrous veil cast over all of it. Immediately obvious are problems with the extent of the killings (6 million? Probably not), the use of gas chambers, the nature of concentration camps (death camps or labor camps?), the motive (a few castigations in Mein Kampf does not mean Auntie Semitism was the "central part" of National Socialism, despite all the repeated emphasis of this point in Holocaust Class).


My point was that even today great works of art are still made so comparing the cinema of old with today's cinema is indeed possible.


Regarding Polish cinema, the decline (though noticeable) wasn't as massive as I thought now that I am looking at it.

I went to the Czech movie database and only filtered the movies that have gotten 80%+ ratings (and the vast majority of people reviewing are uppity anti-communist liberals comparable to those on yelp) and 95% of them come from before 1990.

Though I didn't find an exact source of Shostakovich's quote I could believe it. It's a great paradox, most artists did not in fact like the regime (even the famous Czech director Forman who went on to produce great American movies like Amadeus or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest did indeed migrate from the East) yet were the chief benefactors of it.
I think any of these artists would find it laughable to claim that they were "benefactors" of the regime. Sure there's plenty of funding for the arts, which are hammered into the narrow form of Socialist Realism deemed acceptable by the state. If you don't obey these constraints, not only are you not getting funded, you're getting hounded by the authorities or killed. How is this preferable to the conditions set by the Third Reich, where only entartete Kunst was actually banned but there was a certain freedom to work aside from that? The culture of Germany in the 1930s produced Triumph of the Will, the philospophy of Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt, the novels of Ernst Jünger, etc. They performed well in their own right at the Olympics during these years.


Liberalism is a 100% white English made ideology and the fact some dude with a Jewish name was an adviser changes nothing.
Modern liberalism is a huge leap from John Locke and Adam Smith (even if they're a step along the decline). As mentioned above, Trotsky is as much their intellectual progenitor as these men.

(((Jeffrey Sachs))) doesn't just have a Jewish name. He is ethnically Jewish and was the primary advisor for Russia's economic liberalization, in which the country's assests were sold off to men like (((Boris Berezovsky))). I'm not trying to say that the chosen people are the only ones responsible for the plundering of modern countries or that there's some kind of Talmudic conspiracy going on to the total exclusion of everyone else, but it's a fact that Jews are highly overrepresented in just about every process that cripples any given nation. Take a look at the CIA-backed coups in Chile, Iran, etc. you'll find the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Algeriancel

Algeriancel

COOM to the dark side
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Posts
3,981
Online
31d 21h 35m
For somebody who is for themselves, you sound very tribal and group oriented lol

Nice nitpicking. I can only notice


"If its every man for himself, surely tribalism (acting as a group) is logical"

Yeah, makes perfect sense........
maybe you wanna finish quoting the entirety of what I wrote and read it. Or did my choice of (N) words trigger something?.
Maybe you haven't noticed when I said FUCK THE NATIONALISTS.

I might not have the same sets of beliefs as them, that my "race" or skin color is somehow superior to other races. But that Doesn't mean I'll shut my eyes blind to the reality of the world around me and how people operate in groups like a retard, just because an anti-racism incel on a fuckin website told me so.

So here's the catch genius.....
We know everything in this goddamn planet is rigged and twisted, and every man is for himself and his own genetic survival using any means necessary (deception, lying. Theft, joining a gang to obtain strength through numbers) .. Etc ) . Then why the fuck shouldn't I be part of a group to save my ass even though I know it doesn't hold my best interest in the long run?. You see there's a thing called pretending. The Jews do it all the time, they pretend to be part of a collectivist ethnic minority yet a little search on how the American Jews treated their fellow German blood during ww2 will show you a complete different story.

They PRETEND to be white, but we all know where their true loyalty rests.

"the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.... Only a temporary ally and eventually a future enemy".

If my race has treated me like shit for my entire life, what makes you think that other races will tolerate me?.

But sure... I'm the cuck because I don't want my country's foid to have an infinite supply of men of all races.

I know what you're gonna say, b-b-but it's OVAH!. Just because it's over for me doesn't mean I'll make it any easier for any foid, chad Or Tyrone. or any race for that matter.

You know what though. You're right to a certain extent. It's not racism as much as it is pure hatred and envy.

Now go spread your pro mixed races nonsense somewhere else. I'm sure some white foids would love to hear from you.
 
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
10,911
Online
44d 13h 43m
I know what you're gonna say, b-b-but it's OVAH!. Just because it's over for me doesn't mean I'll make it any easier for any foid, chad Or Tyrone. or any race for that matter.
1. You can't make it harder for them because you can't do shit, not one of your race allegiance idiots is going to do anything of significance to stop this, this is another aspect of what I mean by you are coping, you guys are coping in the sense that you think this will benefit you in some way, and you are also coping by even thinking you could do anything to stop it to begin with

2. Honeypot summarized my entire point best, something simple and straight forward that can't be argued against
You can't have two loyalties because you often will have to put one in front of the other.

Loyalty to your race means loyalty to normies in the vast majority.
Just as a single mother will always prioritize her child over you, so there's no point in dating her, a incel who is race obsessed, will prioritize those of his race, EVEN WOMEN, over an incel.

You guys aren't actually incels, you're failed normies. Your stance is you siding with normies whether you realize it or not, that is the end result of such a world view, at some point its going to come down between what benefits incels as a collective, and what benefits your race, and you will pick your race.
 
Algeriancel

Algeriancel

COOM to the dark side
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Posts
3,981
Online
31d 21h 35m
1. You can't make it harder for them because you can't do shit, not one of your race allegiance idiots is going to do anything of significance to stop this, this is another aspect of what I mean by you are coping, you guys are coping in the sense that you think this will benefit you in some way, and you are also coping by even thinking you could do anything to stop it to begin with

2. Honeypot summarized my entire point best, something simple and straight forward that can't be argued against


Just as a single mother will always prioritize her child over you, so there's no point in dating her, a incel who is race obsessed, will prioritize those of his race, EVEN WOMEN, over an incel.

You guys aren't actually incels, you're failed normies. Your stance is you siding with normies whether you realize it or not, that is the end result of such a world view, at some point its going to come down between what benefits incels as a collective, and what benefits your race, and you will pick your race.
I told you. We're not fuckin united! Jfc! There's no "incels" as a collective for me to fight with!. There's no Day of retribution! Nothing! Why the fuck will I side with something non existent?!?.
We're nothing but fuckin social rejects lashing on a website sharing stories of our pathetic lives.

You just don't get it, do ya?. its not a cope if I ALREDY KNOW IT'S OVER. I just won't participate on what gives others happiness while denying me that same happiness. I would rather do just the opposite of that. Call it whatever the fuck you wish to call it. Idc, some of us like to do shit even though we're fully aware that it's meaningless, cuz guess what? Not all of us can just chill and ldar WITHOUT GOING FUCKIN CRAZY . So don't come with your bullshit as if it was a revelation.
I'm not loyal to any race! That's not the point!.
I only care for what benefits me and I don't care if I lie for it!!. The only reason you don't have to worry about race is because you're mixed and thus on the winning side anyway.

You're both right and wrong, racial loyalism does benefit an incel but the the amplification of the ideology itself on a society/nation is what's impossible in these times.
 
O

OMGFML

Officer
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Posts
525
Online
2d 2h 1m
Whatever your view is on the motives producing the famine (current opinion is far from being the consensus you've alleged), the five year plan including collectivization was drafted in 1928 and the kulaks were already being persecuted in 1929. The consequences of the absurd demands placed on the peasants could have easily been forecasted at this point.
Nothing absurd about giving up the land to the people, the very land their ancestors unjustly gained and practiced slavery (serfdom) on. Stalin was openly preparing for a military conflict at least as early as in 1931 (We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make up this gap in ten years. Either we do it or they will crush us.-Stalin 1931) and there was just no time left for the vestiges of feudalism to remain intact for much longer.


If your definition of "Fascism" is as nebulous as that used by Stalin (and Trotsky) as "the competing revolutionary movement which opposes my idea of a Communist insurgency", or worse yet "the bad guys" definition used since WWII, maybe. Fascism in the strict sense was confined to Italy, with National Socialism, Falangism, etc. being importantly distinct. A James Gregor's work is by far the most legitimate and careful description of Fascism in the US and a study of it will reveal important distinctions in the intellectual heritage, methods, and political goals of Fascism and other 20th century popular movements. Stalin's bloviating about "the Fascists" is barely different from Reagan's about "the Communists" - ie anything standing in the way of political ambitions.

So if you're against Trotsky, against the Frankfurt intellectuals, what is it about Communism that recommends itself to you over Fascism (which before the influence of Hitler's hand in Italy did not promulgate any racial codes)?
I subscribe to the explaination offered by Mises in 1927:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error” -Mises
Fascism is essentially a reaction to the growth of Marxism in Europe. It's an emergency makeshift called in by the liberal elite itself. Hitler was a huge anglophile and many fascist leaders would use liberal free marketeers to help them administrate the economy (liberal finance minister Hjalmar Schacht, liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani or the infamous adviser Milton Friedman).


So is your admiration for Communism rather just Stalinism? I'm not even exactly ideologically opposed to Stalin, I just think his methods were ridiculously wasteful and ultimately untenable. But you'll find that much of his achievements were totally out of line with what most think of the Left. He criminalized homosexuality and abortion, promoted upright conduct and sobriety, made overtures toward patriotism and religious feeling after the 1930s, even engaged in his own small-scale shoahcaust during the Zhdanovshchina. Mussolini expressed admiration for him having turned Bolshevism into "Slavic Fascism". Hitler respected him as well.
Everybody respected Stalin. The criminalization of homosexuality was not out of spite, it was the default policy everywhere in the World at the time. In fact I am not aware of a single quote where Stalin attacked homosexuals. It is also usually viewed that the increase of religious freedom during the war was for pragmatic and not ideological reasons.

Trotsky was indeed a rat and is much more what tends to be associated with "Communism". Not only was Orwell influenced by him, so were many eventual Neoconservatives in their youth. There is a direct and unbroken lineage between the ideological imperialism of Trotsky's international revolution and the current set of wars being waged by the West in the name of ARE VALUES.
I have heard that too but I think it's more of a libertardian cop out than anything else. Trotskyism was most likely popular among the youth back then and the switch to conservative liberalism wasn't too difficult since Trotskyism is basically all about individualism and "freedom" (right wing values). Libertadians are always trying to disassociate the liberal ideology with war so they have all of these conspiracy theories about how it's the communists/NWO running the show and what not.

Stalin's socialism in one country, in the other hand, is one more point of comparison between him and contemporary national movements (and even if there was no expressly racial element of his system, he, despite being Georgian, was something of a Russian chauvinist - this is evident as far back as his time as Comissar of Nationalities).
Contemporary national movements are fascist and liberal in their core. Most of these people are basically liberal conservative extremists who still spout the same nonsense about Anglo values of freedom, pseudo conservative virtue signaling (like the hatred of the homosexuals) and racial chauvinism. Stalin could be in my view however compared to nationalistic nation builders like Lincoln, Bismark, Ataturk or de Gaulle.

Now even more interesting is the Soviet Union in the mind of Western intellectuals. Likely because of the reasons enumerated above, along with several others, which make it clear that the strong, brutal, cold steel Soviet state was the exact opposite of the utopian fairy tale that these people envisioned for their "Communism", they abandoned it. "After the 1950s" is another important qualification, when Krushchev began his de-Stalinization campaign and revealed all of the "yuman rights" abuses (and outright mass murder) carried out by Stalin's state. It was clear to every beatnik soy cuck at that point that the Soviet Union was not the model they were aiming for. (You also mentioned that the Brezhnev years were uneventful and symbolic of decline, but consider the international system at this time. After the 1950s the Soviet Union had to exist effectively as an autarky. Stalin wasn't nearly so constrained and had the advantages of a decisive military victory to sustain him in his last years).
Sure the USSR started slowly declining after Stalin's death, that is true.

This is in start contrast with the early years of the Soviet Union, mind you. Even if Lenin himself was a frigid and cold-blooded man, the revolution he oversaw was notorious for the element of sexual licentiousness it carried. Sexual liberation was widespread after the revolution, and was even an explicit goal of the Bolsheviks:

the Bolsheviks joined and were the biggest promoter of the World League for Sexual Reform, attending its large congresses in Berlin in 1921, Copenhagen in 1928 and Vienna in 1930. The Bolsheviks’ position on homosexuality as put by their delegate Grigorii Bakkis in 1923 was:


...from some kind of socialist orgnization that looks on this favorably. This was very brash for its time, and is already very far along the path that produced the abysmal state of the modern sexual market.

Lenin, even if personally non-committal, was effectively the equivalent of a puritanical Protestant mother who "learns to love" her gay son. He also made increasing overtures toward privatization and agrarian reform before his death in 1924. He distrusted Stalin as much as Trotsky.
Your source is a Trotskyist website and as all Trotskyists they engage in obscurantism and call Stalin a counter-revolutionary. Lenin was himself an opponent of "free love":

On “Free Love”

This is one part of Lenin’s reply to Inessa Armand’s plan to publish a pamphlet for women workers. Lenin says that the section on women’s’ “demand for free love” should be eliminated because it is a “bourgeois, not a proletarian demand.” In other words, “what matters is the objective logic of class relations in affairs of love,” not subjective hopes.

Does the term “free love” really express the interests of the proletarian in “freedom from material (financial) considerations in love,” and freedom “from material cares”? The answer is no. What, then, does this term express? Lenin points out that “in modern society the most talkative and noisy ‘top strata’ mean by ‘free love’” such things as “freedom from earnestness in love,” “freedom from childbirth,” and “freedom to commit adultery.” Therefore, he finds the slogan of “free love” to be a demand of bourgeois women.



Lenin distrusting Stalin is a myth promoted by Trotsky himself and now even Western scholars are beginning to see that the so called "Lenin's testament" was a fraud:


Efficient in the sense that he was completely able to crush any semblance of action by the "conspirators", unless you want to consider the fact that he died eventually as the consummation of a 'plot'.
That is mainstream history now. Stalin was either poisoned or had a stroke but in either case the doctor's help was severely delayed by about a full day.


I'm not even familair with the literature on Holocaust skepticism.
There is basically none, it's mostly this just this fringe Italian neonazi with no degree Carlo Mattogno.

Not like it's easy to find - it is suppressed with unmatched vehemence by the international Holocaust industry.
Holocaust denial is illegal in a few countries only. Nobody is suppressing such research in the USA and in many other countries. This is a cop out.

Calling this "the best documented genocide of all time" is ridiculous when there's a tenebrous veil cast over all of it.
Is there any genocide which produced such an amount of witnesses on both sides, such a vast array of documents and speeches? I don't think so. Yet nobody can still find one quote from Stalin which is directed against Ukrainians, Jews or homosexuals. All of his alleged hatred comes from circumstantial evidence aka no evidence.


Immediately obvious are problems with the extent of the killings (6 million? Probably not),
What is the problem? The number corresponds with all the other evidence available.

the use of gas chambers,
Some are even fully preserved:
112809



the nature of concentration camps (death camps or labor camps?)
Some were labor camps, some were death camps and some were both. Again this is all mainstream information.

the motive (a few castigations in Mein Kampf does not mean Auntie Semitism was the "central part" of National Socialism, despite all the repeated emphasis of this point in Holocaust Class).
The hatred of Jews and communism were the central parts of Nazism.

You claim there was no motive when top German officials would openly say things like:

"Today I will once more be a prophet. If the international Jewish financiers, inside and outside Europe, succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevisation of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!" - Adolf Hitler, 1939

"We swear, we will not give up fighting until the last Jew in Europe is destroyed and dead" - Robert Ley, 1942

or
112814



I think any of these artists would find it laughable to claim that they were "benefactors" of the regime. Sure there's plenty of funding for the arts, which are hammered into the narrow form of Socialist Realism deemed acceptable by the state.
Not all art was politically driven, in fact as someone from Eastern Europe I rarely find any communist propaganda in Eastern European movies or music. Not to mention the artists would make more money than the top communist officials including the general secretary himself.


The culture of Germany in the 1930s produced Triumph of the Will, the philospophy of Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt, the novels of Ernst Jünger, etc.
This one is subjective but I'd go and say nothing of particular cultural value was made and much was lost, even Junger was banned from writing.

They performed well in their own right at the Olympics during these years.
This one is true.

Modern liberalism is a huge leap from John Locke and Adam Smith (even if they're a step along the decline). As mentioned above, Trotsky is as much their intellectual progenitor as these men.
Where is the huge leap though? Modern liberalism (economically speaking) is a mix of the Austrian School and Keynesianism, both direct sons of the old classical liberalism.

(((Jeffrey Sachs))) doesn't just have a Jewish name. He is ethnically Jewish and was the primary advisor for Russia's economic liberalization, in which the country's assests were sold off to men like (((Boris Berezovsky))). I'm not trying to say that the chosen people are the only ones responsible for the plundering of modern countries or that there's some kind of Talmudic conspiracy going on
That is what you are clearly implying. White Anglo Saxons are overrepresented in everything too. The Jews have had a very successful history just like the Anglos so no wonder these are the people who are in charge not to mention American Jews are usually blue eyes white skinned people racially almost no different to any other European. This is your typical American Jew taking a DNA test
 
Last edited:
Blackpill Rage

Blackpill Rage

Ethnic sfcel
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Posts
2,949
Online
41d 14h 42m
All baseless conspiracy theories. Even historians these days like Stephen G. Wheatcroft don't consider holodomor as intentional (and in fact it was largely the fault of the rich peasants who decided to resist collectivization), the purge era was also much more nuanced than you think but that is understandable when your only source is David Duke. Listen to actual top historians like J.A.Getty .
If anything ethnic Slavs like Brezhnev drove the USSR into the ground and have only continued the trend with the Russian Federation today.

Stalin took a degenerate poverty stricken shithole to a space travelling super power all while defeating the strongest military in human history in less than 30 years, a feat that will never ever be repeated in the Russian history. That is why even the modern day gay hating Jew hating demented Russian Orthodox Christians praise Stalin as if he were Jesus Christ himself
kikecel detected.
 
DaveBuster

DaveBuster

Inceldom is not about the sex act.
★★
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Posts
2,124
Online
56m
inceliboy

inceliboy

17 y o incelibate | SonicCel
★★
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Posts
195
Online
5d 2h 46m
This is really for white nationalist copers, because the white race is the only race I see so obsessed with race like this, to the point where they try to co-opt other "movements" into their race obsession, and the most laughable example of this, is trying to co-opt the "incel movement".

They don't seem to get the irony of these things:

1. Recruiting men who cannot get sex, into a movement revolving around men preserving and continuing their race, WHICH MEANS REPRODUCTION, AS IN HAVING SEX, (holy shit these guys are fucking stupid). In order to address "Problem B" (reproducing within your race) isn't it common sense that you have to solve "Problem A" first (being able to get sex period).

2. The majority of incels ARE ETHNIC, its like trying to recruit blacks into the KKK and wondering why you don't have "any takers", its like these guys don't have any self awareness. The white race has it the easiest when it comes to getting laid as their typical looks are considered the universal standards of attractiveness. Not only that, having a white partner is a symbol of social status, especially for ethnic women, because the white race is seen as the worlds "conquerer race", that's never going to change, its an established historical fact.

That's why it sounds so ironic when white men are complaining about their women leaving them for other races, because white men are doing the same shit to the asian race, in fact basically all the ethnic races. JBW is reality not a theory, we literally have an ex user of this site that used JBW to his advantage (@itsOVER) (he's gotten many of these women pregnant btw during his "ventures")

https://incels.is/threads/roundup-of-thailand-trip-girls-advice-conversation-screenshots-etc.28034/

The dude created an entire detailed guide of where to go in a specific SEA country and what to do to find girls, he's a 5/10, so only a 3/10 white male can fucking tell me it wouldn't work for him, 4/10 could pull this shit off easy with some looksmaxxing and effort. Again he didn't pay whores, he used tinder mostly.

I get mad everytime I see a user deny JBW because it just seems like they're blatantly being dishonest, this guide is a well known post on this site, its very unlikely you haven't seen it or heard of it, how the fuck can you deny JBW with examples like these.

Literally all the average white incels on this site needs to do, is go to thailand, follow his guide, and they'd get laid, JUST FOR BEING WHITE, so please stop pretending like we all have it equally as hard, we don't.

Every time I see some kind of white nationalist/white pride post on this forum I assume they are trolling or posting sarcastically, because I can't think the poster could seriously be that stupid, that blue pilled, that illogical.

Let me just destroy a few of the main arguments "pro-race incels" they keep falling on as their crux:

1. We need to preserve diversity of genetics/culture/tradition/etc

No actually we don't, there is nothing inherently positive about having multiple races, there is nothing inherently good about past cultures or traditions.This argument is really just a lot of "appeal to" fallacies. What makes tradition or culture good or bad, are the rules that make it up, not which era its from. Either way we can just create our own new traditions and cultures.

If we all raced mixed into this giant indistinguishable super race there'd be one less thing for us to fight about. We don't "need" multiple races, that just happens to be the norm today, 1000 years from now we'll all basically be one race and arguments like these will seem pointless and stupid.

2. Our women belong to us

No they don't belong to anyone, they are "rogue assets", up for grabs by anyone, nobody owns their race of women, men as a collective don't "own" women, men as a collective just have "dominion" over them. You can't call dibs, all races of women are up for grabs.

3. Its my duty as a white man to preserve my race, I'm not going to "give up" on my race

Please take the white nationalist BS off of the site, race wars have no relevance to incels because we aren't even part of the equation. You are taking great mental investment in a problem that doesn't involve you, and it just seems like hardcore coping at that point, like tricking yourself into thinking you have to worry about a "woman shortage" problem as though any of them want you to begin with, this shit is just coping.

Give up what?, stop coping, you are an ugly incel, you don't matter to your race, stop coping yourself into thinking you are even a part of this, your women don't want you, you aren't giving up on anything because you aren't a part of it to begin with. What about that don't you get, stop coping.

If you are a white nationalist, just GTFO the site, you don't belong here, your agenda doesn't belong here and doesn't benefit incels, and again I remind you, the majority of incels are ethnic, demographics is key when you're trying to spread a movement, you are targeting the wrong demographic group, go to 4chan/pol or something, you are wasting your time here.

To end on a key point here (I really need people to get this part, let it sink in)
No incel is actually "a part of" their race, we are genetic defects of our own race, and therefore just as easily excluded as members of other races because they are also considered genetically defective and not "superior". That's the irony of white incels claiming allegiance to their race, they don't seem to get that they have no race, their race doesn't consider them a part of that race, they'll gladly use you and take advantage of you and your patronage to establish that white nationalist state, and when its all said and done white women will resume their chad fuck fest and you'll still be left an incel, its all just a giant cope.

NO INCEL IS A PART OF HIS RESPECTIVE RACE, WERE ALL THE "NIGGERS" OF OUR RESPECTIVE RACES
Agreed.It's stupid to hate others for their mere existence of being born in a race (something you can't control) then complianing about getting hated for bad looks (something you can't control)
 
DaveBuster

DaveBuster

Inceldom is not about the sex act.
★★
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Posts
2,124
Online
56m
turbocuckcel_7000

turbocuckcel_7000

⋆ ✢ ✥ ✦ ✧ ❂ ❉ ✯⋆ ✢ ✥ ✦ ✧ ❂ ❉ ✯⋆ ✢ ✥ ✦ ✧ ❂ ❉ ✯⋆ ✢ ✥
★★★★★
Joined
May 2, 2018
Posts
11,713
Online
60d 2h 27m
Ledgemund

Ledgemund

free him or cuck
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Posts
2,941
Online
13h 38m
Nothing absurd about giving up the land to the people, the very land their ancestors unjustly gained and practiced slavery (serfdom) on. Stalin was openly preparing for a military conflict at least as early as in 1931 (We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make up this gap in ten years. Either we do it or they will crush us.-Stalin 1931) and there was just no time left for the vestiges of feudalism to remain intact for much longer.
I do not buy this justification and it sounds like the standard excuse furnished every time a brutal action is needed to realize a political ambition: "human rights" or "greater good".

Again, the relevant five year plan was developed in 1928 - 13 years before Germany attacked and still long before it was in any kind of position to with the Versailles disarmament in place, the Weimar parliament in gridlock, and the German Communists being a major political force. In 1928, the NSDAP was still a very marginal political force and Italy was and remained undeveloped enough to be incapable of independent action. I can't buy "we need to strip the peasantry bare and leave them to die because we need all of their output now" as a legitimate explanation. I doubly can't buy the "your ancestors were slaveholders" argument, especially given its specious use in modern day America, even more so considering the descendants of these slaves were the ones sacrificed at the altar of industrial productivity.

It wasn't even that collectivization was an especially productive system. The kolkhozes were just set up to rob the countryside.


I subscribe to the explaination offered by Mises in 1927:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error” -Mises
Fascism is essentially a reaction to the growth of Marxism in Europe. It's an emergency makeshift called in by the liberal elite itself. Hitler was a huge anglophile and many fascist leaders would use liberal free marketeers to help them administrate the economy (liberal finance minister Hjalmar Schacht, liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani or the infamous adviser Milton Friedman).
JFL so effectively:

the competing revolutionary movement which opposes my idea of a Communist insurgency
or "fascism is capitalism in crisis"

Of course Mises would view it as a 'makeshift', since Fascism was ultimately subordinated to a degree by liberal forces. This does not make it a mere negative image of Liberalism or Marxism, but rather a ideologically autonomous force with its own genesis. It was a flawed system, but the narcissistic Marxist interpretation would have it that the 20th century national movements were merely the reactionary response to its own unique positive truth, all subordinated under the name "Fascism". In actuality, the corporate structure of the Fascist state was meant to streamline and express the needs of distinct but cooperative sectors of the state economy, an heir to the syndicalism of Georges Sorel and even providing something of a reworking of feudal principles rescued from pre-liberal history. The economy, state, and society were to be organized as a set of pluralistic guilds encouraging participation at every level from citizen, worker, and employer.

Of course, the ambitions of doctrinal Fascism were not exactly realized. But this was due to the constraints the state inherited and the international situation in which it had to work - same reason you don't get 'real' Communism or a 'truly' free market.




Everybody respected Stalin. The criminalization of homosexuality was not out of spite, it was the default policy everywhere in the World at the time. In fact I am not aware of a single quote where Stalin attacked homosexuals. It is also usually viewed that the increase of religious freedom during the war was for pragmatic and not ideological reasons.
Everybody? How about, uh, Churchill, for one?

“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons”.

No Cards, No Flowers



I have heard that too but I think it's more of a libertardian cop out than anything else. Trotskyism was most likely popular among the youth back then and the switch to conservative liberalism wasn't too difficult since Trotskyism is basically all about individualism and "freedom" (right wing values). Libertadians are always trying to disassociate the liberal ideology with war so they have all of these conspiracy theories about how it's the communists/NWO running the show and what not.


Contemporary national movements are fascist and liberal in their core. Most of these people are basically liberal conservative extremists who still spout the same nonsense about Anglo values of freedom, pseudo conservative virtue signaling (like the hatred of the homosexuals) and racial chauvinism. Stalin could be in my view however compared to nationalistic nation builders like Lincoln, Bismark, Ataturk or de Gaulle.
Bolded is exactly the point I wanted to make, in addition to the nexus occurring around their 'democratic' imperial projects.

As for the evolution itself, it's well documented. James Burnham and Irving Kristol are two major examples of neocons formerly active in Trotskyite organizations.

But I'm going to have to strongly contest calling individualism and 'freedom' "right wing values". This is politicalspectrum-tier materialism that reduces 'left vs right' to a measure of economic liberalization. Many taxonomies have been attempted here, but as I see it the 'Right' is characterized by the recognition of natural hierarchies, respect for inherited tradition and religious wisdom, personal stolidity, a circular view of time, essentialism, and a prescriptive set of codes to prevent the excesses of human nature. The 'Left' on the other hand, is characterized by a view of linear progression, historical immanence, a faith in human perfectability, equality, and emphasis on social construction and education - liberte, egalite, fraternite.

Liberalism, the Enlightenment, Capitalism, etc. are all products of a massive social and intellectual movement leftward in the 18th Century. It is all fundamentally the product of the same wordly utopianism that led to Marxism and all its myriad branches since. Marx even himself thought capitalism superior to feudalism and an intermediate step in the metamorphosis leading eventually to Communism. It is obvious in what relation this stands with sexual liberation. Engel's polemics against the 'oppression of women in the bourgeois family' are informed by exactly the same tendency that informed the moral laxity of liberals like Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham, both quoted here in a succinct passage:

There is a flipside to this tradition of seeing sodomy as the enemy of the natural economy of the household: The counter-tradition of liberal economics founded by Adam Smith challenged the household model by seeing economics as rooted in the free trade of goods between households and nations. Precisely because Smith was more receptive to previously condemned or taboo economic activities like trade and manufacturing, he was also more open to sexual liberalism.


Smith’s friend Alexander Dalrymple is now thought to have written an anonymous tract, Thoughts of an Old Man (1800), recalling that the founder of modern economics believed that “sodomy was a thing in itself indifferent”—a radical thing to say even in private at a time when sodomy was a capital offence, condemned by church and state.


…Smith’s new and somewhat inchoate ideas were pushed further by Bentham, who in an unpublished essay observed that sodomy “produces no pain in anyone” but “on the contrary it produces pleasure.”


…It’s no accident that in 1787 Bentham wrote a “Defence of Usury,” which tried to convince Adam Smith to take a more benevolent view of the hitherto morally sanctioned economic activity. On the subject of both usury and sodomy, Bentham’s inclination was to take Smith’s liberal impulses to their logical end. Bentham was in favour of consensual adult acts (be they sexual or economic) that led to greater happiness, whether they violated pre-existing taboos or not.


Fascism was not even a strictly Right wing movement. Mussolini was a major figure in the Italian Socialist Party and Fascism initially borrowed heavily from contemporary socialist theory. This is reflected even in the work of Giovanni Gentile, the preeminent theoretician of Fascism and who shared with Marx a major influence in Hegel's idea of the immanent logic of history, even writing an early book on Marx's relationship with Hegelian theory.


Your source is a Trotskyist website and as all Trotskyists they engage in obscurantism and call Stalin a counter-revolutionary. Lenin was himself an opponent of "free love":

On “Free Love”

This is one part of Lenin’s reply to Inessa Armand’s plan to publish a pamphlet for women workers. Lenin says that the section on women’s’ “demand for free love” should be eliminated because it is a “bourgeois, not a proletarian demand.” In other words, “what matters is the objective logic of class relations in affairs of love,” not subjective hopes.

Does the term “free love” really express the interests of the proletarian in “freedom from material (financial) considerations in love,” and freedom “from material cares”? The answer is no. What, then, does this term express? Lenin points out that “in modern society the most talkative and noisy ‘top strata’ mean by ‘free love’” such things as “freedom from earnestness in love,” “freedom from childbirth,” and “freedom to commit adultery.” Therefore, he finds the slogan of “free love” to be a demand of bourgeois women.



Lenin distrusting Stalin is a myth promoted by Trotsky himself and now even Western scholars are beginning to see that the so called "Lenin's testament" was a fraud:
Again, I am totally indifferent to Lenin the man as he thought of sexual liberation. It remained true that the early days of the Soviet Union were characterized by a remarkably high degree of sexual freedom.

from Grigory Batkis, a text submitted to the World League for Sexual Reform (same one mentioned in the last post):

The Sexual Revolution in Russia

Homosexuality was decriminalized (then recriminalized under Stalin in 1934 as I said - instead of being 'in line with the times' it was just a revocation of a radical anachronism).

Alexandra Kollontai was a major figure in the Soviet women's movement. She's written about at length in E Michael Jones' Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control. She was a very 'modern' type of feminist for 1920.

From the Russia Beyond site:

Kollontai promoted a concept of the ‘new woman’ – one freed from the oppression of marriage, household work and the business of raising children; all these chores must be taken on by society and state. They would take on children’s education (including sexual), urge a move toward a nationwide catering industry, collective housing, foster care and so on. For Kollontai, love was to be freed, too – civil partnership would take the place of traditional marriage.

The early Soviet Union was morally rootless and remarkably degenerated in matters of this kind. It's to Stalin's credit that he fixed this. A major point that gives his social policy a significantly "Rightist" element compared to other Bolsheviks.

A cursory search about the testament and I only found one source claiming forgery, VA Sakharov's 'Forgery of the Lenin Testament'. Only other complaints were that Trotsky gave a tendentious account of some of the passages.

I won't claim to be an expert on this history, but it seems like you're going out of your way to controvert accepted opinion. This was pretty obviously one of the most brutal and obfuscated periods of the 20th century and you'd have it that all of the indictments of Stalin were part of a massive propaganda campaign that has a uniqu and ever-burning hatred for the totally dead-and-buried ideology of Stalinism, but somehow treats the Third Reich fairly in spite of a much clearer motive against it held by much more obvious agents.



That is mainstream history now. Stalin was either poisoned or had a stroke but in either case the doctor's help was severely delayed by about a full day.
Even if Stalin was poisoned (doubt it), it would have been by a totally different set of people than the ones he executed on an unprecedented scale and it happened at the very end of a remarkably long life all things considered.


There is basically none, it's mostly this just this fringe Italian neonazi with no degree Carlo Mattogno.


Holocaust denial is illegal in a few countries only. Nobody is suppressing such research in the USA and in many other countries. This is a cop out.
Naive to think research isn't being suppressed just because people don't get jailed in the US. James Watson, who elucidated the 3D structure of DNA and was a remarkably eminent scientist, was sacked from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories because he questioned the tacitly enforced narrative of race being a' social construct', pointing instead to evidence that showed a racial basis for cognitive differences. This is in ostensibly 'apolitical' matters such as the basic elaboration of life's mechanistic workings. Now consider how the control of historical consensus is treated.

But no bro, not just Mattogno, skepticism is very active here:


There's the famous infographic about the census of the European Jewry only counting several million people before the war, yet six million people were supposed to have been killed in Germany + adjoining territories alone. I really don't care too much though, and it's sufficient for me to note that the Holocaust is weaponized and shoved down the throats of every Westerner from kindergarten on, while the Holodomor is perfectly open to debate in academia..


Not all art was politically driven, in fact as someone from Eastern Europe I rarely find any communist propaganda in Eastern European movies or music. Not to mention the artists would make more money than the top communist officials including the general secretary himself.
Not in the later years, but there was a centripetal process of artistic freedom that occurred after Stalin. Under his rule, I'd be interested to see some outstanding examples of visual art or literature that didn't correspond to the principles of Socialist Realism.

You'd have to be over 30 to have a direct memory of which regime ruled the country you're in. And by the 1980s, they were much more culturally open than in the Stalin years.


This one is subjective but I'd go and say nothing of particular cultural value was made and much was lost, even Junger was banned from writing.
Was he? Didn't look like it. Even though he was in open conflict with the NSDAP and routinely scorned them, he was not treated with any semblance of harshness:

  • 1939, Auf den Marmorklippen (On the Marble Cliffs)
  • 1942, Gärten und Straßen
  • 1943, Myrdun. Briefe aus Norwegen
  • 1945, Der Friede. Ein Wort an die Jugend Europas und an die Jugend der Welt
Where is the huge leap though? Modern liberalism (economically speaking) is a mix of the Austrian School and Keynesianism, both direct sons of the old classical liberalism.
See my exposition above.



That is what you are clearly implying. White Anglo Saxons are overrepresented in everything too. The Jews have had a very successful history just like the Anglos so no wonder these are the people who are in charge not to mention American Jews are usually blue eyes white skinned people racially almost no different to any other European. This is your typical American Jew taking a DNA test
Nothing close to a comparison. Yes, I realize WASPs are also notorious saboteurs, but Jews routinely stand out as being truly overrepresented. A very small fraction of the general population, highly active in internationalism, finance, and propaganda. Overrepresented in elite schools mainly due to nepotism. Thing is, I don't claim they're acting independently of the rest of the cosmopolitan elite - they just happen to be very, very suited to this milieu. The utopian spirit of Judaism is related to the above discussion of forced and directed 'progress'.

As far as genetics, a simple ancestry test can identify marker associated with the Ashkenazi, who were very reproductively insular during their time in Europe. Again though, this isn't even a point I wish to emphasize.

UNSUBSCRIBE
Only thing worse than an ethnicoper is someone who comes into a thread just to say "I DON'T LIKE IT IN HERE" 4 times.
 
Last edited:
O

OMGFML

Officer
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Posts
525
Online
2d 2h 1m
I do not buy this justification and it sounds like the standard excuse furnished every time a brutal action is needed to realize a political ambition: "human rights" or "greater good".

Again, the relevant five year plan was developed in 1928 - 13 years before Germany attacked and still long before it was in any kind of position to with the Versailles disarmament in place, the Weimar parliament in gridlock, and the German Communists being a major political force. In 1928, the NSDAP was still a very marginal political force and Italy was and remained undeveloped enough to be incapable of independent action. I can't buy "we need to strip the peasantry bare and leave them to die because we need all of their output now" as a legitimate explanation.
The whole World was anti-Soviet. During the civil war most of the Western World came to invade Soviet Russia and aided the White Army. Stalin precisely predicted the future in 1931.


I doubly can't buy the "your ancestors were slaveholders" argument, especially given its specious use in modern day America, even more so considering the descendants of these slaves were the ones sacrificed at the altar of industrial productivity.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Russia was a backward shithole and the rich peasants owned most of the land. They gained the land unjustly at the expense of everyone else. In America only a small % of the population was enslaved, the two scenarios are very different.

or "fascism is capitalism in crisis"

Of course Mises would view it as a 'makeshift', since Fascism was ultimately subordinated to a degree by liberal forces. This does not make it a mere negative image of Liberalism or Marxism, but rather a ideologically autonomous force with its own genesis. It was a flawed system, but the narcissistic Marxist interpretation would have it that the 20th century national movements were merely the reactionary response to its own unique positive truth, all subordinated under the name "Fascism".
The USSR was willing to ally or work with 20th century national movements, hence the close relations with Ataturk, Nasser, Mossadeq or Qasim. Even the greatest Frenchman of the 20th century, de Gaulle aimed for good relations with the USSR. Real national builders and nationalists were rarely anti-Soviet. Fascists merely veil themselves under the cloth of pseudo-nationalism.


In actuality, the corporate structure of the Fascist state was meant to streamline and express the needs of distinct but cooperative sectors of the state economy, an heir to the syndicalism of Georges Sorel and even providing something of a reworking of feudal principles rescued from pre-liberal history. The economy, state, and society were to be organized as a set of pluralistic guilds encouraging participation at every level from citizen, worker, and employer.

Of course, the ambitions of doctrinal Fascism were not exactly realized. But this was due to the constraints the state inherited and the international situation in which it had to work - same reason you don't get 'real' Communism or a 'truly' free market.
All fascist regimes wither away as soon as the threat of communism/leftism is gone. Fascism can't exist without it. Communism might not be realizable but fully functioning socialist regimes existed and a true free market is something we already live under, it's just that the libertardians don't want to admit it.



Everybody? How about, uh, Churchill, for one?

“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons”.
Churchill was a great enemy of the USSR but still had some respect for Stalin.

112997



But I'm going to have to strongly contest calling individualism and 'freedom' "right wing values". This is politicalspectrum-tier materialism that reduces 'left vs right' to a measure of economic liberalization. Many taxonomies have been attempted here, but as I see it the 'Right' is characterized by the recognition of natural hierarchies, respect for inherited tradition and religious wisdom, personal stolidity, a circular view of time, essentialism, and a prescriptive set of codes to prevent the excesses of human nature. The 'Left' on the other hand, is characterized by a view of linear progression, historical immanence, a faith in human perfectability, equality, and emphasis on social construction and education - liberte, egalite, fraternite.
The right really believes in just two things, nature over nurture and the survival of the fittest. Right Wingers tend to hide their animalism behind noble words like tradition or religion, yet they don't believe in neither.

Liberalism, the Enlightenment, Capitalism, etc. are all products of a massive social and intellectual movement leftward in the 18th Century. It is all fundamentally the product of the same wordly utopianism that led to Marxism and all its myriad branches since. Marx even himself thought capitalism superior to feudalism and an intermediate step in the metamorphosis leading eventually to Communism.
They are a product of the industrial revolution. Keeping feudalism intact was just not possible anymore.

It is obvious in what relation this stands with sexual liberation. Engel's polemics against the 'oppression of women in the bourgeois family' are informed by exactly the same tendency that informed the moral laxity of liberals like Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham, both quoted here in a succinct passage:
To be honest I don't even care about sexual liberation. I do think some emancipation was needed but I am obviously not a fan of full on sexual liberation, the destruction of family and an unhinged hypergamy. I am not even a communist. I just consider the Bolshevik revolution as a success and Stalin as one of the greatest men of the century.


Fascism was not even a strictly Right wing movement. Mussolini was a major figure in the Italian Socialist Party and Fascism initially borrowed heavily from contemporary socialist theory. This is reflected even in the work of Giovanni Gentile, the preeminent theoretician of Fascism and who shared with Marx a major influence in Hegel's idea of the immanent logic of history, even writing an early book on Marx's relationship with Hegelian theory.
Mussolini was never a Bolshevik though, he was inspired by anarchism, which no matter what the deranged hippies claim is and always will be an animalistic right wing ideology. Virtually all the so called "Well in my youth I was a socialist but later I wised up and became a right winger" were never pro-Soviet and pretty much always anarchistic in essence.


Again, I am totally indifferent to Lenin the man as he thought of sexual liberation. It remained true that the early days of the Soviet Union were characterized by a remarkably high degree of sexual freedom.

from Grigory Batkis, a text submitted to the World League for Sexual Reform (same one mentioned in the last post):

The Sexual Revolution in Russia

Homosexuality was decriminalized (then recriminalized under Stalin in 1934 as I said - instead of being 'in line with the times' it was just a revocation of a radical anachronism).

Alexandra Kollontai was a major figure in the Soviet women's movement. She's written about at length in E Michael Jones' Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control. She was a very 'modern' type of feminist for 1920.

From the Russia Beyond site:

Kollontai promoted a concept of the ‘new woman’ – one freed from the oppression of marriage, household work and the business of raising children; all these chores must be taken on by society and state. They would take on children’s education (including sexual), urge a move toward a nationwide catering industry, collective housing, foster care and so on. For Kollontai, love was to be freed, too – civil partnership would take the place of traditional marriage.

The early Soviet Union was morally rootless and remarkably degenerated in matters of this kind. It's to Stalin's credit that he fixed this. A major point that gives his social policy a significantly "Rightist" element compared to other Bolsheviks.
Lenin was against "free love" and Stalin was against it also. You can be indifferent to it but both the creator of the USSR and of the ideology and the eventual leader stood against it. Kollontai was not a very relevant figure, not to mention she was a life long menshevik before she switched sides right before the revolution. Her wikipedia page also mentions "patriarchal legislation of 1926" so as soon as in 1926 her ideas faced a setback. As far as I know the Soviets got rid of the legal code of the Russian Empire and it took a while to get it all back again. 1926 is also before Stalin's takeover so it's safe to say it was the vast majority of Bolsheviks (including the founder and the leader) who were on board.

A cursory search about the testament and I only found one source claiming forgery, VA Sakharov's 'Forgery of the Lenin Testament'. Only other complaints were that Trotsky gave a tendentious account of some of the passages.
Didn't I post a video of Kotkin, maybe the most respected Western author on the USSR saying it was a forgery?

I won't claim to be an expert on this history, but it seems like you're going out of your way to controvert accepted opinion. This was pretty obviously one of the most brutal and obfuscated periods of the 20th century and you'd have it that all of the indictments of Stalin were part of a massive propaganda campaign that has a uniqu and ever-burning hatred for the totally dead-and-buried ideology of Stalinism
The West and the USSR were in a de facto state of war for more than 40 years. The propaganda war against the USSR was massive, not to mention the extreme differences between the two ideologies which makes even Western historians who want to be true to history biased.

but somehow treats the Third Reich fairly in spite of a much clearer motive against it held by much more obvious agents.
I don't see the clearer motive. Fascism discredited itself after plunging the World into the deadliest war of all time and after committing the worst genocide of all time. Hitler was a known anglophile and had admirers from the top stratas in the entire Western World. Edwin Black, a Jewish-American author clearly shows how heavily Hitler drew from the Anglos.


Even if Stalin was poisoned (doubt it), it would have been by a totally different set of people than the ones he executed on an unprecedented scale and it happened at the very end of a remarkably long life all things considered.
It's known now the doctors were not called in to save him. Even if he wasn't poisoned, he was de facto killed by Chruschev and his associates by not giving him the needed help.

Naive to think research isn't being suppressed just because people don't get jailed in the US. James Watson, who elucidated the 3D structure of DNA and was a remarkably eminent scientist, was sacked from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories because he questioned the tacitly enforced narrative of race being a' social construct', pointing instead to evidence that showed a racial basis for cognitive differences. This is in ostensibly 'apolitical' matters such as the basic elaboration of life's mechanistic workings. Now consider how the control of historical consensus is treated.
Having the wrong opinion can get you sacked, but it has not stopped acclaimed figures from publishing racist literature. There is basically no historian who denies the holocaust since it would require them to blindly fall into the realm of blind cultist faith.

But no bro, not just Mattogno, skepticism is very active here:

It's active as in there are many people who deny it, but not in terms of works published on the matter.

There's the famous infographic about the census of the European Jewry only counting several million people before the war, yet six million people were supposed to have been killed in Germany + adjoining territories alone.
That is merely a neonazi talking point debunked long time ago
113008


Check out this channel to see how pathetic the neonazi talking points are. They fake history on purpose, I doubt they are even deniers themselves, it's done to merely recruit as many sheep as possible and to normalize the demented ideology once again.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSXrf0b0aeUn5jIhWm7g/videos

I really don't care too much though, and it's sufficient for me to note that the Holocaust is weaponized and shoved down the throats of every Westerner from kindergarten on, while the Holodomor is perfectly open to debate in academia..
I am from Europe and in fact even from a country where denial is illegal yet I have never felt like the holocaust was shoved down my throat. There is also nothing to debate, the deniers are purposefully faking history (outright doctoring photos, faking documents) in order to win over the average racist they see on the street.


Not in the later years, but there was a centripetal process of artistic freedom that occurred after Stalin. Under his rule, I'd be interested to see some outstanding examples of visual art or literature that didn't correspond to the principles of Socialist Realism.

You'd have to be over 30 to have a direct memory of which regime ruled the country you're in. And by the 1980s, they were much more culturally open than in the Stalin years.
I did not live throughout the 80s but since there was a lack of modern art I grew up watching movies from that era. Obviously most of it was made after WW2 since movies weren't as common of an art form in the 20s and the 30s. Although many movies had similar themes, the more famous ones rarely contained something outright propagandist.

This is for example one of the greatest war movies of all time:

Was he? Didn't look like it. Even though he was in open conflict with the NSDAP and routinely scorned them, he was not treated with any semblance of harshness:
Ok I guess I got that wrong, I admit I am not really familiar with him.

Nothing close to a comparison. Yes, I realize WASPs are also notorious saboteurs, but Jews routinely stand out as being truly overrepresented. A very small fraction of the general population, highly active in internationalism, finance, and propaganda. Overrepresented in elite schools mainly due to nepotism. Thing is, I don't claim they're acting independently of the rest of the cosmopolitan elite - they just happen to be very, very suited to this milieu. The utopian spirit of Judaism is related to the above discussion of forced and directed 'progress'.
Aren't they just overrepresented due to ability? They have always been overrepresented in science and culture which has also always attracted a great deal of envy.
 
Last edited:
Bleachcel

Bleachcel

G.O.R.I.L.L.A _M.A.X.I.N.G
-
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Posts
6,788
Online
68d 17h 13m
Couldn’t have said it better
 
IncelKing

IncelKing

Chaos is a laddER
★★★★
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Posts
1,811
Online
36d 18h 48m
@SergeantIncel Must-Read Content
 
ShySaxon

ShySaxon

Diagnosed Autistic Person
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 16, 2020
Posts
5,993
Online
24d 10h 33m
It’s natural to prefer your own race over other races though.
 
Stalin

Stalin

infinite deadlock
★★★
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Posts
2,208
Online
47d 14h 22m
Top10 Chess Players 1991:
112439
112439


The fall of the USSR was a tragedy to its inhabitants.
True. Russians IQ moged the whole world except maybe Germans up to like 1980..1985. It's been a steady and steep downhill since. US was hit by degeneracy almost equally as bad once the Cold War was over, but still not to the degree of the former SU. Now we are all "reaping" the "benefits" when both countries are mainly populated by "form over function" normie consoomers and brain dead foids with no signs of recovery.
 
Last edited:
Cyrrow

Cyrrow

Will simp for attractive female, very thirsty.
★★★★
Joined
May 4, 2020
Posts
337
Online
4d 3h 37m
Why isn't this in must read content?
I'd actually read this, it's just that good.
 
Blackpill Rage

Blackpill Rage

Ethnic sfcel
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Posts
2,949
Online
41d 14h 42m
Gigacope. Bluepillers don't even acknowledge that race exists.
 
OwlGod

OwlGod

★★
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Posts
1,148
Online
16d 14h 33m
JFL

this thread looks like wikipedia

@Ledgemund and @OMGFML have literally photographic memory
 
AlexanderTheGreat11

AlexanderTheGreat11

youngcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Posts
28,872
Online
131d 14h 37m
Interesting guide from itsover
 
Benj-amin

Benj-amin

Grotesque High-IQ Autistic KHHV Trucel PPPcel
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Posts
598
Online
8d 17h 59m
This is really for white nationalist copers, because the white race is the only race I see so obsessed with race like this, to the point where they try to co-opt other "movements" into their race obsession, and the most laughable example of this, is trying to co-opt the "incel movement".

They don't seem to get the irony of these things:

1. Recruiting men who cannot get sex, into a movement revolving around men preserving and continuing their race, WHICH MEANS REPRODUCTION, AS IN HAVING SEX, (holy shit these guys are fucking stupid). In order to address "Problem B" (reproducing within your race) isn't it common sense that you have to solve "Problem A" first (being able to get sex period).

2. The majority of incels ARE ETHNIC, its like trying to recruit blacks into the KKK and wondering why you don't have "any takers", its like these guys don't have any self awareness. The white race has it the easiest when it comes to getting laid as their typical looks are considered the universal standards of attractiveness. Not only that, having a white partner is a symbol of social status, especially for ethnic women, because the white race is seen as the worlds "conquerer race", that's never going to change, its an established historical fact.

That's why it sounds so ironic when white men are complaining about their women leaving them for other races, because white men are doing the same shit to the asian race, in fact basically all the ethnic races. JBW is reality not a theory, we literally have an ex user of this site that used JBW to his advantage (@itsOVER) (he's gotten many of these women pregnant btw during his "ventures")

https://incels.is/threads/roundup-of-thailand-trip-girls-advice-conversation-screenshots-etc.28034/

The dude created an entire detailed guide of where to go in a specific SEA country and what to do to find girls, he's a 5/10, so only a 3/10 white male can fucking tell me it wouldn't work for him, 4/10 could pull this shit off easy with some looksmaxxing and effort. Again he didn't pay whores, he used tinder mostly.

I get mad everytime I see a user deny JBW because it just seems like they're blatantly being dishonest, this guide is a well known post on this site, its very unlikely you haven't seen it or heard of it, how the fuck can you deny JBW with examples like these.

Literally all the average white incels on this site needs to do, is go to thailand, follow his guide, and they'd get laid, JUST FOR BEING WHITE, so please stop pretending like we all have it equally as hard, we don't.

Every time I see some kind of white nationalist/white pride post on this forum I assume they are trolling or posting sarcastically, because I can't think the poster could seriously be that stupid, that blue pilled, that illogical.

Let me just destroy a few of the main arguments "pro-race incels" they keep falling on as their crux:

1. We need to preserve diversity of genetics/culture/tradition/etc

No actually we don't, there is nothing inherently positive about having multiple races, there is nothing inherently good about past cultures or traditions.This argument is really just a lot of "appeal to" fallacies. What makes tradition or culture good or bad, are the rules that make it up, not which era its from. Either way we can just create our own new traditions and cultures.

If we all raced mixed into this giant indistinguishable super race there'd be one less thing for us to fight about. We don't "need" multiple races, that just happens to be the norm today, 1000 years from now we'll all basically be one race and arguments like these will seem pointless and stupid.

2. Our women belong to us

No they don't belong to anyone, they are "rogue assets", up for grabs by anyone, nobody owns their race of women, men as a collective don't "own" women, men as a collective just have "dominion" over them. You can't call dibs, all races of women are up for grabs.

3. Its my duty as a white man to preserve my race, I'm not going to "give up" on my race

Please take the white nationalist BS off of the site, race wars have no relevance to incels because we aren't even part of the equation. You are taking great mental investment in a problem that doesn't involve you, and it just seems like hardcore coping at that point, like tricking yourself into thinking you have to worry about a "woman shortage" problem as though any of them want you to begin with, this shit is just coping.

Give up what?, stop coping, you are an ugly incel, you don't matter to your race, stop coping yourself into thinking you are even a part of this, your women don't want you, you aren't giving up on anything because you aren't a part of it to begin with. What about that don't you get, stop coping.

If you are a white nationalist, just GTFO the site, you don't belong here, your agenda doesn't belong here and doesn't benefit incels, and again I remind you, the majority of incels are ethnic, demographics is key when you're trying to spread a movement, you are targeting the wrong demographic group, go to 4chan/pol or something, you are wasting your time here.

To end on a key point here (I really need people to get this part, let it sink in)
No incel is actually "a part of" their race, we are genetic defects of our own race, and therefore just as easily excluded as members of other races because they are also considered genetically defective and not "superior". That's the irony of white incels claiming allegiance to their race, they don't seem to get that they have no race, their race doesn't consider them a part of that race, they'll gladly use you and take advantage of you and your patronage to establish that white nationalist state, and when its all said and done white women will resume their chad fuck fest and you'll still be left an incel, its all just a giant cope.

NO INCEL IS A PART OF HIS RESPECTIVE RACE, WERE ALL THE "NIGGERS" OF OUR RESPECTIVE RACES
I am blackcel, and Blacks give no shit about me, why would I care?
 
Admiral_Arkantos

Admiral_Arkantos

Führerscheinlossus
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 9, 2019
Posts
5,953
Online
37d 4h 4m
I always love reading these race argumentation threads
 
ThoughtfulCel

ThoughtfulCel

G.O.R.I.L.L.A _M.A.X.I.N.G
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
6,828
Online
85d 14h 45m
IncelKing

IncelKing

Chaos is a laddER
★★★★
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Posts
1,811
Online
36d 18h 48m
JFL at incels thinking they are a member of their respective race when they arent even a member of the human species.
 
SchrodingersDick

SchrodingersDick

Skeleton Volume = Life Quality
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Posts
6,992
Online
25d 48m
You seriously just told all white nationalists to leave the site? You sound like a snowflake talking like that and lose some credibility
I think he meant white nationalists from pol, not necessarily incel, who made count here to “recruit” posters. I think the recruitment shit is media fearmongering tbh
 
Top