DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 11128--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Blue Kumul Date: February 8, 2022, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"In prior discussions, 90sRetroFan has summarized that leftist
Romanticists draw inspiration from the ancient past, whereas
rightists draw inspiration from the traditional past. (He may be
able to expand on this point more.)"
As I see it, leftist Romanticists romanticize egalitarian
aspects of past societies, such as social freedom under paganism
(compared to Christianity) or lack of class distinctions in
tribal society. Rightist romanticists romanticize hierarchical
aspects of past societies, such as monarchy or hereditary
nobility in medieval Europe. You also praise monarchy, which
makes me suspect you are not a 100% Leftist.
Julius Evola was a rightist, yet he admired ancient
Indo-European society, which is definitely ancient or even
mythical since we don't have any primary sources from that era.
#Post#: 11131--------------------------------------------------
Re: Trump a Fascist?
By: Blue Kumul Date: February 8, 2022, 11:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Trump has some fascist traits:
-autocratic management style
-social Darwinist attitudes (e.g. his attitude to vaccines)
-ethnocentrism
What is missing is totalitarian state control and thirst for
military expansion.
#Post#: 11132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Trump a Fascist?
By: rp Date: February 8, 2022, 3:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Of those three, only autocracy is authentic fascism.
#Post#: 11142--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: SirGalahad Date: February 8, 2022, 11:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"As I see it, leftist Romanticists romanticize egalitarian
aspects of past societies, such as social freedom under paganism
(compared to Christianity) or lack of class distinctions in
tribal society."
Non-western societies are only superior to western civilization,
insofar as western civilization represents some of the very
worst of what we claim to fight against. Just because we view
non-western societies as superior to western societies, and
because we speak out against white colonialism, that doesn't
mean that we view these non-western societies as optimal. For
example, the vast majority of people in non-western societies
prior to colonization were still non-Gnostic (they worshipped
gods of natural forces or even creator gods, which we condemn),
anthropocentric, natalist (i.e., they support the violence of
reproduction), carnist (an extension of anthropocentrism),
tribalistic, etc etc. And as far as tribalism is concerned, it's
a major reason why we're even in this mess in the first place.
Tribalism par excellence is white nationalism and Zionism. I
don't think that you disagree with me on most of this, but I'm
just putting it out there because the praise of non-western
societies can very easily get out of hand, especially when
they're compared to the West. Some leftists will romanticize the
lifestyle of Native American hunter-gatherers for example, and
the fact that they hunt sustainably and "thank" the animal
before they kill it. This attitude disgusts me, especially when
it's promoted by vegan leftists, because it plays into the noble
savage trope, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that there
were agricultural civilizations among the Native Americans and
other non-western groups subjected to western colonialism.
There's nothing romantic about killing a non-human who didn't
want to die and is trapped here facing the same core problems as
the rest of us, or thanking the animal, as if it gave itself
willingly and didn't in all likelihood attempt to run for its
life or fight back.
"You also praise monarchy, which makes me suspect you are not a
100% Leftist."
If we're in agreement that romanticism is a good thing, then
democratic romanticism doesn't exist. The more romantic, and
hence idealistic you are, the less weight you should be putting
in majority opinion, because the very best of society, the
noblest of society, are necessarily a small minority. So of
course we disagree with egalitarianism. Some people are very
clearly better than others. White nationalists and Zionists are
inferior for example, and their bloodlines should be
extinguished. The difference between us, rightists, and many
traditional royal families, is that higher caste people have the
tendency to support aristocracy because the inferior of society
make them look better by comparison. We support aristocracy (and
hence monarchy) as a means to an end. If we had it our way, the
inferior would simply not exist, and at that point, there would
be no hierarchy, or any need for one. I also don't see how you
can be a genuine leftist if you support democracy, because many
of the most important principles that we consider leftist
principles, would practically never be voted in by a majority of
the population. If anyone would rather vote and deliberately
hand their enemies an opportunity to make an influence, then
they care more about the concept of democracy than they do about
leftism. Democracy is also a logistical nightmare. Under a
monarchy, only the monarch has to be convinced of a good idea
for it to be instituted. Under a democracy, you have to convince
millions upon millions of citizens, as well as their
representatives. And even at that point, there's still the next
election just a few years later to give your enemies yet another
shot. In short, it would be foolish to believe that we could
ever achieve anything of worth by following the democratic
process. The more idealistic our goals, the harder it will be to
achieve them by simply convincing people.
"Julius Evola was a rightist, yet he admired ancient
Indo-European society, which is definitely ancient or even
mythical since we don't have any primary sources from that era."
That falls under the traditional past, which 90sRetroFan already
mentioned. We represent the idealistic past of, as 90sRetroFan
calls it, paths not taken. We represent those noble few
throughout all of human history who were too good for the
societies that they found themselves in, and hence never made
much of a real influence in their respective societies, unless
they decided to tone down their message in order to expand it
sufficiently. (Plus, not that it matters to get my point across,
but the Neolithic Revolution actually predates the expansion of
the Indo-Europeans into India and the rest of Europe anyways, so
it's not really a good example to use. We credit adaptations
towards agrarian lifestyles for Aryanization, unlike the white
nationalists who tend to credit the Indo-Europeans. To us, the
Aryan phenotype cuts across ethnic lines for this reason. The
Indo-European Vedics that Julius Evola loved so much weren't
even responsible for agricultural society in India. By the time
they had arrived in India, the Indus Valley Civilization had
already declined, and the ancestors of the Vedics weren't even
agrarians. They were nomadic herders from the steppes who
ironically sacrificed cattle.)
But back to my earlier assertion, you might ask why we emphasize
the past so much to begin with, if we can't really point to any
civilization in recorded history that meets our lofty standards,
and if our greatest historical role models were often outcasts.
First, it's because we oppose progressivism. Progress isn't
going to build a better humanity. Technological progress is
irrelevant because creating more machines, better machines, more
powerful machines, colonizing other planets, improving current
VR tech to the point where we create our own Matrix, none of
these things will make people kinder, more noble, more
compassionate. Not to mention the fact that western machines
have the tendency to solve one problem while creating another,
which compels western society to invent another machine that
supposedly solves that problem while creating another problem on
top of that, ad infinitum. And societal progress is irrelevant,
because it's a completely meaningless phrase. Everyone defines
it differently because there's no consensus on what a better
society is. To white nationalists, societal progress would mean
closing the borders and booting migrants. It would mean placing
"whites" back at the top of the pecking order. We, on the other
hand, are regressive. We want to make life simpler. We oppose
western technology that complexifies life (machines), but we
support technology that simplifies it (automatons). Our emphasis
on the past is also reflected in our concept of original
nobility. We despise maturity because it reduces emotional
sensitivity and increases callousness. We strive to be like our
earlier selves, before we were forced to acclimate ourselves
with the world in order to cope with it. There's also a
metaphysical aspect to it, because as Gnostics, we support the
religious narrative that all was perfect with God until the
Devil lusted after the light and, as a result, created a flawed
material world filled with suffering to entrap fragments of that
light, hence our mission becomes to liberate the light from
matter until the end of time, so we can return to that original
state. Not that we require everyone in our movement to be
religious. We only offer this as a counter to the non-Aryan
religious worldview, for those who wish to walk that path.
#Post#: 11143--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Trump a Fascist?
By: SirGalahad Date: February 9, 2022, 12:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@Blue Kumul Ethnocentrism and fascism are diametrically opposed.
A white "American" who would rather side with a white
non-American over a non-white American is expressing tribal
interests that supersede the interests of the state and the
people who live there. The Roman Empire is also where the symbol
of fascism even comes from, and the Roman Empire was
multiethnic. Anyone could be Roman, at least in theory. This is
also the reason why racist nationalists are a joke and
contradict themselves. Their ethnotribal identity is placed on a
higher level of importance than the nation, which is why some
white nationalists go so far as to tell other white nationalists
to reject the concept of America, and to give up on it. We would
never call our movement fascist because it has a few key
differences that separate it from fascism, and we certainly have
our gripes with fascists (and most nationalists for that
matter). Even the ones that we sympathize with on some level,
like the Brazilian Integralists who supported interethnic mixing
as we do. We're only using this thread and others like it, to
point out the inconsistency of our enemy's politics.
"As I understand it, nationalism defines the in-group as the
citizens of a particular state, while tribalism defines the
in-group as members of a certain ethnic group."
This is from another thread, but I'm gonna copy and paste it
here so that I can respond to it, since it's relevant. We don't
support nationalism for its own sake. We only support
nationalism, insofar as every nation has its own problems that
require solving under their own unique terms, and insofar as a
nation proves to be useful strategically (in the case of
America, the conception of America as THE land of immigrants and
as a melting pot is convenient for us, because our goal is to
draw from the best of every ethnicity to create a superior
humanity). Our end goal as an ideology would mean the inevitable
dissolution of every nation-state, because both the nation and
the state are abstractions that don't have any significance on
their own.
#Post#: 11144--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Trump a Fascist?
By: 90sRetroFan Date: February 9, 2022, 2:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"Of those three, only autocracy is authentic fascism."
I wouldn't even consider Trump autocratic. He can't stop talking
about how popular he is! He is authoritarian, but derives the
legitimacy of his authoritarianism from democratic foundations.
Conversely, true autocrats (who are unconcerned with popularity)
are not necessarily authoritarians, in that they can readily
admit their own mistakes, admit their ignorance about particular
subjects when talking to experts in those subjects, and so on
(Trump is incapable of any of these).
#Post#: 11145--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: rp Date: February 9, 2022, 2:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I was going to mention that, but I was not sure. Also, to
clarify, I only agreed with Blue Kumul that autocracy is
fascist, not that Trump was an autocrat.
#Post#: 11148--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zhang Caizhi Date: February 9, 2022, 3:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Does monarchy originally require inheritance by descendants? In
the modern context, it is mostly associated with the head of
state passing to descendants.
#Post#: 11149--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Blue Kumul Date: February 9, 2022, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"Thank you for confirming your illiteracy. Henceforth, all
further posts by you will be moved here"
This just confirms you are a major buffoon!
#Post#: 11151--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: guest55 Date: February 9, 2022, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@SirGalahad
[quote]There's also a metaphysical aspect to it, because as
Gnostics, we support the religious narrative that all was
perfect with God until the Devil lusted after the light and, as
a result, created a flawed material world filled with suffering
to entrap fragments of the that light, hence our mission becomes
to liberate the light from matter until the end of time, so we
can return to that original state. Not that we require everyone
in our movement to be religious. We only offer this as a counter
to the non-Aryan religious worldview, for those who wish to walk
that path.[/quote]
Nicely said!
[quote]Our end goal as an ideology would mean the inevitable
dissolution of every nation-state, because both the nation and
the state are abstractions that don't have any significance on
their own.[/quote]
Indeed. If anyone ever asked me why I am a nationalist my only
response would be, "because it's a whole lot better than
tribalism! Certainly a step in the right direction toward
unity!".
I don't think most people, especially in the West, understand
the importance of the difference between tribalism and
nationalism.
[img width=1280
height=720]
HTML https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/977355-Arthur-Keith-Quote-Human-nature-as-manifested-in-tribalism-and.jpg[/img]
Sadly, Cornel West for example does not understand the
difference between tribalism and nationalism.
[img width=1280
height=720]
HTML https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/2744149-Cornel-West-Quote-I-loathe-nationalism-It-is-a-form-of-tribalism.jpg[/img]
Nationalism is the opposite of tribalism. Cornel West obviously
doesn't understand that most human-beings are tribal and just
because tribalists are capable of taking over a nation-state and
turning it tribal does not equate to nationalism and tribalism
being the same exact thing.
Bill Clinton understands better than most apparently, but even
the title to this article is misleading:
Bill Clinton slams tribalism, nationalism
[quote]Former President Clinton on Monday slammed what he called
the increasing tribalism and noninclusive
[s]nationalism[/s][ETHNO-TRIBALISM?] in the United States,
calling on Americans to decide "who we really are."
In an op-ed published by The New York Times, Clinton did not
mention President Trump or any of his specific policy objectives
by name but slammed the rising tide of nationalism that promotes
an “us” versus “them” mentality.
“All too often, tribalism based on race, religion, sexual
identity and place of birth has replaced inclusive nationalism,
in which you can be proud of your tribe and still embrace the
larger American community,” Clinton said.
“And too often resentment conquers reason, anger blinds us to
answers and sanctimony passes for authenticity,” he
wrote.[/quote]
HTML https://thehill.com/homenews/news/363129-bill-clinton-slams-tribalism-nationalism
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page