[Blackpill] Racial Allegiance Is An Extremely Blue Pilled Cope

S

SwordsmanAlt

Captain
★★
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Posts
1,634
Online
5d 8h 40m
Ultra high Godlike IQ :feelsLSD:
 
Algeriancel

Algeriancel

COOM to the dark side
★★
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Posts
4,176
Online
37d 18h 6m
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
2,993
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
11,510
Online
53d 19h 51m
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
2,939
Online
13h 45m
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
4,176
Online
37d 18h 6m
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
11,510
Online
53d 19h 51m
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
4,176
Online
37d 18h 6m
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
3,363
Online
54d 14h 1m
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
2,129
Online
3h 12m
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
2,129
Online
3h 12m
turbocuckcel_7000

turbocuckcel_7000

⋆ ✢ ✥ ✦ ✧ ❂ ❉ ✯⋆ ✢ ✥ ✦ ✧ ❂ ❉ ✯⋆ ✢ ✥ ✦ ✧ ❂ ❉ ✯⋆ ✢ ✥
★★★★★
Joined
May 2, 2018
Posts
12,275
Online
68d 9h 22m
Ledgemund

Ledgemund

free him or cuck
-
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Posts
2,939
Online
13h 45m
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
6,778
Online
69d 8h 34m
Couldn’t have said it better
 
IncelKing

IncelKing

Chaos is a laddER
★★★
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Posts
2,269
Online
46d 9h 36m
@SergeantIncel Must-Read Content
 
ShySaxon

ShySaxon

Diagnosed Autistic Person.
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 16, 2020
Posts
6,686
Online
27d 13h 40m
It’s natural to prefer your own race over other races though.
 
Stalin

Stalin

infinite deadlock
★★★★
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Posts
2,368
Online
54d 19h 16m
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
935
Online
12d 18m
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
3,363
Online
54d 14h 1m
Gigacope. Bluepillers don't even acknowledge that race exists.
 
OwlGod

OwlGod

★★★★
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Posts
1,354
Online
19d 22h 28m
JFL

this thread looks like wikipedia

@Ledgemund and @OMGFML have literally photographic memory
 
AlexanderTheGreat11

AlexanderTheGreat11

youngcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Posts
29,697
Online
145d 12h 40m
Interesting guide from itsover
 
Benj-amin

Benj-amin

Please, I don't want to hurt anyone.
★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Posts
875
Online
11d 20h 57m
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
6,643
Online
40d 15h 42m
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
8,644
Online
110d 14m
IncelKing

IncelKing

Chaos is a laddER
★★★
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Posts
2,269
Online
46d 9h 36m
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
7,154
Online
28d 3h 6m
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
 
Redpill Robert

Redpill Robert

Supreme Gentleman. King of Incels. Pro slut-shamer
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Posts
4,038
Online
3d 6h 11m
While on some level I agree with you (mainly about how stormceling is largely a cope, incels are the undesirables of their own races etc) you just sound like a huttburt ethnic coper yourself tbh. And there will always be multiple "races" (regardless of how they are defined as that changes as well). Even if hypothetically we do turn into Brazil or some shit like you seem to be fantasizing about, genetic mutations (such as the one that started blue eyes for example) will continue and nature will continue. Who knows, green people very well might be a thing in 10,000 years if humans are still around by then. Moreover, we will likely always have differences among humans and we likely will always have irrational cultural factors that may prize certain features over others. Just a fact of life
 
Top