what should we do about our embaressing nazis?
- Thread starter luka
- Start date
-
- Tags
- baggy bumhole due to heroin bring back hmlt to shout at them call lombard direct dj controversial talking point hamas are absolutely brilliant limp biscuits maggie the sodomite me and hamas in a copse full of wildflowers perpetual motion romanian orphanage sub-kantian sub-kantian even tired contrarianism we are the hegelian e-girls your weird
shakahislop
Well-known member
he got his measuring tape out and asked if he could check the circumference of my forehead. there were all kinds of markings on it. he said he was building a 'database'
germaphobian
Well-known member
I do see this though and I would also wholeheartedly agree with Thatcher and Reagan being agents of dissolution, I have no qualms with that.
It's just that my interpretation of what is "left" and what is "right" is rather different; at this point in history they are only useful as vaguely defined psychological archetypes; as someone here said, "hard right" - broadly speaking - is characterized mostly by disgust and "the left" is characterized by resentment. Jordan Peterson may be a foolish guy be he is not far off when he makes this kind of analysis about "conservative character" and "liberal character" or whatever.
But when it comes to material reality, the Gestalt let's say, that divide is illusory at best. I guess that the difference is that I do believe in existence of Establishment although more precise term would be "an elite" or "power elite"; it's not an conspiratorial view in a sense of it being sort of cabal, no, it's an impersonal and faceless entity and it has three very simple objectives - to gain power, to keep power, and to keep expanding its power.
And, of course, it would use both "the right" (Thatcher again) and "the left" to achieve its objectives depending on the needs of the moment; but the entity itself is apolitical, all-encompassing blob and the end point is not a revolution as you anticipate, but an neofeudal corporate anarchotyranny, which is where we're heading (and which is the thing you are mistaking for an nascent revolutionary action, a big mistake). Of course, maybe your idea of revolution is some sort of Elysium or Children of Men type of situation, because, after all, you didn't elaborate on that.
Attachments
germaphobian
Well-known member
BTW, the hatred for radical right stems from the fact that it's the only political movement the system cannot incorporate within itself. I mean, it's fashionable and normal to display the symbols of radical left, sickles and hammer, Lenin t-shirt - whatever, it threatens nobody. But why can't you do that with symbols and personalities of radical right? After all, communism killed many more people that all the rightists combined? So why is it that the system can neuter the one but not the other? People should linger on this dangerous thought.
That "CaPiTalist aRe FaSCistS", "fascism is capitalism in decay" is one of the funniest things ever as far as its remoteness from reality is concerned.
P.S. I'm not saying it should be incorporated, but it has nothing to do with morality. I mean if you're a NPC nobody, a man on the street or whatever you see it in those terms of course, but from elites point of view it's something else
That "CaPiTalist aRe FaSCistS", "fascism is capitalism in decay" is one of the funniest things ever as far as its remoteness from reality is concerned.
P.S. I'm not saying it should be incorporated, but it has nothing to do with morality. I mean if you're a NPC nobody, a man on the street or whatever you see it in those terms of course, but from elites point of view it's something else
germaphobian
Well-known member
As far as Lenin is concerned, I recommend this books "Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution" - https://ia600205.us.archive.org/23/...volution/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution.pdf A pinch of salt needed, but its still pretty good.
germaphobian
Well-known member
That last bit is what you are perceiving as revolution:
In this respect, the soft managerial elite appears to be virtually unique in human history. Almost all elites and ruling classes of the past have acquired strong interests in preserving the social, economic, political, and cultural institutions on which their own power, wealth, and status were founded. Hence, most elites of the past have been conservative in the ideas, values, and policies they have supported. While the soft managerial elite is conservative in the sense that it seeks to preserve and extend the base of its power in the mass organizations of the state, economy, and culture, its functions and dominance within this organizational base are derived from its proficiency in skills that manage, manipulate, and accelerate social change, and its apparatus of power in the mass organizations expands its dominance through the erosion of compact and autonomous institutions in which managerial skills have little application or value. Moreover, the apparatus of mass organizations is fused or bound together not by the social bonds and disciplines of the subordinate society but, in part, by its own routines that regulate the thought and behavior of those assimilated within it; in part, by the legal bonds and relationships that regulate the interdependence of the state, the economy, and the culture; and perhaps in major part by the bonds imposed by the physical and social technology of mass organizations. The scientific, technical, administrative, and bureaucratic skills, knowledge, and procedures involved in the operation and direction of these technologies impose or select for a uniformity of mentality and behavior as well as of function that radically differentiates the soft managerial elite from non-managerial social groups and forces, alienates the elite from the subordinate society, and binds it together as a supra-cultural and supra-national social force that is hostile to subordinate society. The soft managerial elite not only does not need the subordinate society for its own functioning and cohesion but also dislikes it and seeks its extinction-
Samuel Francis, "Leviathan and Its Enemies
In this respect, the soft managerial elite appears to be virtually unique in human history. Almost all elites and ruling classes of the past have acquired strong interests in preserving the social, economic, political, and cultural institutions on which their own power, wealth, and status were founded. Hence, most elites of the past have been conservative in the ideas, values, and policies they have supported. While the soft managerial elite is conservative in the sense that it seeks to preserve and extend the base of its power in the mass organizations of the state, economy, and culture, its functions and dominance within this organizational base are derived from its proficiency in skills that manage, manipulate, and accelerate social change, and its apparatus of power in the mass organizations expands its dominance through the erosion of compact and autonomous institutions in which managerial skills have little application or value. Moreover, the apparatus of mass organizations is fused or bound together not by the social bonds and disciplines of the subordinate society but, in part, by its own routines that regulate the thought and behavior of those assimilated within it; in part, by the legal bonds and relationships that regulate the interdependence of the state, the economy, and the culture; and perhaps in major part by the bonds imposed by the physical and social technology of mass organizations. The scientific, technical, administrative, and bureaucratic skills, knowledge, and procedures involved in the operation and direction of these technologies impose or select for a uniformity of mentality and behavior as well as of function that radically differentiates the soft managerial elite from non-managerial social groups and forces, alienates the elite from the subordinate society, and binds it together as a supra-cultural and supra-national social force that is hostile to subordinate society. The soft managerial elite not only does not need the subordinate society for its own functioning and cohesion but also dislikes it and seeks its extinction-
Samuel Francis, "Leviathan and Its Enemies
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Ahh yes, this must be why industrial capitalists in Italy, Germany and Japan fought tooth and nail against the rise of fascism in those countries and didn't, you know, welcome it with open arms or anything like that... right?
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
what irony?
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Is Denmark really on a higher latitude than London?
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Romanians don't think those orphans were Romanian FYI. I don't know either way myself.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Communism doesn't create a negative affect for westerners because they were never attacked by Communists nor experienced life under them.
would be a better world if they were attacked by them. less of the reversion to archaic trinitarianism. what kind of Jew believes in the trinity? only an anglo-american one. JEWS FOR JESUS.
luka
Well-known member
what i would say to germanaphone is it actually took more courage for your dad to think for himself and be a pacificst and run away than what it would of took for him to fight alongside his brothers in an ethno-religious war. you shoud be proud of him and not ashamed that he ran away to denmark. thats called sticking up for what you beleive in.
