[Rei Murasame]

The meaning of "No. Maybe?", is that I would like the question before it to be a higher number than what it actually is. Knowing the sort of person I am, that should've been obvious.

I see that you can't actually debate the points, so we are now really talking about whether I am happy with four sexual encounters a week! Is my sexual appetite really relevant to this thread?

There's also a really good reason that thread was in an off-topic subforum, yet here you are quoting it in an on-topic one.

[Varg]

And that is what makes you a reactionary. You remember that fascism is supposed to be neither red nor reactionary, right?

LOL. If a government existed it cannot be fascism anymore.
Funny logic.

I think that pagans will be sending the Christians and Muslims back to their foreparents - the Jews - to ask about a new strategy for survival after we get around to giving them all a good spanking.

The pagans are hiding. OMG. They will smash all others religions treacherously. AMERICA AND EUROPE BE AWARE OUR CHRISTENDOM WILL DISAPPEAR.

You are quoting about governments of the past that no longer exist. If you are trying to bring back the NS of 1930s, or the Tsarist Russia, that's ridiculous and it will never happen.

And you're are defending a government that never existed, never will exist and is everything but fascist.

So? Do we have to say that 2+2 = 7, just because the communists decided it was 4?

You're defending Communism.
You had a point. I was wrong about fascism. If we think Fascism could be a regime that can abolish private property. Why not? The parties are volatile and change easily. Individualism is also cool, i thing it could be integrated.
LOL.

Oh really?! So it is actually YOU that is not fascist! As I suspected! You are just a radical conservative.

"National pride has no need of the delirium of race." I just believe in the victory of the strong. Europeans are losing the battle for survival and they did and actually do a lot of stupid things. I don't see why they deserve to live. Let the degenerate Europeans fight for women's rights while the Arabs use their women as breeding cattle. Let's see who will lead Europe tomorrow. God is merciless against the weaks and transgressors. I'm just depressed and now i'm thinking that the manly Chinese, Arabs and Jews deserve to be winners.

[Rei Murasame]

"National pride has no need of the delirium of race."

Then we are fundamentally opposed and will just be arguing in circles here. You seem to like conservative values more than you like the ethno-racial groups in Europe.

The thing is that values exist in a transcendental realm, they can neither be fought for, nor destroyed. But genes can be.

[Varg]

I just posted that because you said that a fascist must be necessary racialist. You're smart and I'm sure that you can understand how bizarre is a bisexual woman defending feminism and claiming herself a fascist. A bisexual fascist is just like a cosmopolitan racist.

[Rei Murasame]

That's completely ridiculous and again fails to take into account the times we now live in. If you really think that you need an army of straight people in order to defend Europe now, then that is frankly not going to happen and you are hoping on a delusion.

You are not going to get your perfect and pristine 1930s era vision to manifest in any reality anywhere, so either adaptation to the realities will occur or you'll end up in the scrap-heap in 20 years.

Anything else is alterable, but the racialist core and the national-syndicalist economic tendency cannot be changed.

This is what that must happen:

Primary phenomenon will always take revenge against any attempt to narrowly alter their derivative phenomenon.

Mass migration is a derivative phenomenon, meaning that the ethnic contradictions are secondary to the primary contradiction which is the contradiction between:

• The middle class whose interest is to be nationally hegemonic by arranging a unity of purpose between territorially-coincident capital and labour so that it can carry out its social goals,
  
  VS
  
  
• Finance capital, whose interest is to most rapidly engage in wealth-accumulation and knock down any inconvenient barriers to that accumulation.

What this means for us is that in order to credibly address any of the social goals, such as halting the mass immigration process, we must criticise liberal-capitalism and highlight the actual centrality of capitalist logic in the re-production of a scenario where this mass immigration (and whatever else we don't like) is occurring. That must happen openly and it must accompany a complete divorce from any centre-right organisations - that line must be drawn firmly in the sand.

Another pitfall that we must avoid is the misuse of the word 'greed'. Greed is not the problem. It is not greed which perpetuates capitalism, it is capitalism which perpetuates capitalism; it is capitalism which penetrates and shapes society in such a way that the use of capitalist logic becomes the path of least resistance [to surviving] in that society.

What is needed is for nationalists to kick against that logic and call for an ethnic solidarity in which we become comfortable with co-operating with and working alongside people of differing social statuses in our business-lives, so that capitalism can be dealt a strong blow and the experience of real community would be a practice and not just a word.

This solidarited 'real community' effect must be actualised through 'the path of national-labour', a struggle in which the middle class would reach out to the working class and establish a rival base of economic power using a labour movement to facilitate the dispersal of economic power into national guilds and co-determinate corporations, and co-operatives. That is the only way to challenge finance. That material condition must be satisfied in order to attain the power to act; that is the only way that a Far Right party would ever be able to reach power while maintaining its integrity.

And it is only then, that the potential would exist for the state to be actually commandeered by our new political class, a new political class which is interested in social justice and spiritual advancement of the indigenous people of Europe; that commitment being bolstered and encouraged by the aforementioned solid material incentives, in a civil society in which our community-oriented ideology would have already displaced liberalism and would be triumphant and total.

The desires of our new political class could then be fashioned into a coherent corporatist institutional arrangement which - through consensus-building - would develop those desires into a workable methodology and therefore totalitarian action.

[Varg]

That's completely ridiculous and again fails to take into account the times we now live in. If you really think that you need an army of straight people in order to defend Europe now, then that is frankly not going to happen and you are hoping on a delusion.

You are not going to get your perfect and pristine 1930s era vision to manifest in any reality anywhere, so either adaptation to the realities will occur or you'll end up in the scrap-heap in 20 years.

Anything else is alterable, but the racialist core and the national-syndicalist economic tendency cannot be changed.

It depends on the country. In Russia, people are very reactionary. It's possible to create a intolerant regime towards gays and deviants. And a racialist country in a multicultural place like Russia is madness. Considering fascism in general(ignoring national socialism), manliness and vitalism are much more important than racialism.

[Daktoria]

I see that you can't actually debate the points, so we are now really talking about whether I am happy with four sexual encounters a week!

If you think I honestly believe you have sex every other day, you're out of your mind.

Is my sexual appetite really relevant to this thread?

Maybe now that I think about it.

Earlier, I made a comment about how female leadership disintegrates after victory.

You said your submissiveness is a construct for an elaborate game.

Do you feel melancholy and suspicion after "victory"?

I'm just curious how you keep organization together if you don't have anyone to fight. Do you ever fight your partner because you're bored?

[Rei Murasame]

If you think I honestly believe you have sex every other day, you're out of your mind.

If I told you how it's possible you wouldn't believe how casual it is either!

I'm just curious how you keep organization together if you don't have anyone to fight.

There's always something to 'fight', since no-one's life stands up without maintenance.

Do you ever fight your partner because you're bored?

Nope. If I can get away with shaping the circumstances around my partner to provoke something interesting that I want to happen into happening, then that sort of indirect action is always preferred. Making conflict with someone that I am quite happy with, would be ridiculous.

If I manage to annoy someone it is usually by an act of omission, or indirectly shaping some situation which turns out to be a bad situation.

This leads to people having said, "How is it that we never have any actual fights?"

Given that you're a Gorkiy Park veteran by now, you know things about my past that newer posters would not know, so I don't know why you are now pretending like you don't know what kind of person you are talking to. Given the type of people you are aware that I've gravitated toward in my past, do you think I intend to fight such people, or something more like the complete opposite of that? Exactly. I'll say no more.

I know you are asking these questions because you want to connect it to the way I debate, as part of some new crackpot theory you are devising. But obviously my behaviour toward my partner is going to differ completely and radically from my behaviour toward a political opponent.