Moprollems

Well since we have a rather popular thread currently arguing that Globalism is better than Nationalism in the long run, I figure I should create a kind of "counter" thread, not directly rebutting each point made in the other, but rather offering a positive argument for Nationalism on its own merits. I also wish to discuss the different "forms" of diversity as understood by The Right.

Firstly, let's talk about love.

The chief argument those who oppose nationalism offer, is that it "creates war"; on the surface this appears to make sense, and there's no fault for your average person believing it. After all, you put two people in a room, both of them thinking their nation is the best, then na

I find, funny enough, that sometimes the best reflections come in those quiet spaces among friends: after some drinks and a bit of smoking, you can detect a kind of introverted undercurrent, a bit of tension rise, and then a quite confession: "You think things have gone to shit?" Then with a bit of an ironic laugh, a very postmodern admittance of nihilism whilst trying to assert some authority over it via humor, you get a response confirming this underlying thought, "Buddy, it can only get worse from here."

Some friends and I had seen Read Player One a little while ago, I went in expecting nothing, and found a rather entertaining film at least visually, it helped that it was in 3D and I w

So among some corners of the Right there exists a kind of psuedo-ideology known as "National Capitalism", which ultimately boils down to "NatSoc without the obscurantism". The ideology itself is incredibly vague, and can be summarized loosely as "Capitalism with some protectionism and a nice little nationalist paintjob."

Whilst trying to impose nationalist characteristics on Capitalism is a noble goal in and of itself, sadly the ideology is far too nascent to really amount to anything other than--in my opinion--a kind of vague populist nationalism which appreciates Capitalism up to a certain point. A kind of psuedo "Yeah the consumer produc

In George Sorel's Reflections on Violence, Page 79, he briefly mentions the Reactionary, someone characterized by him and Marx as longing for the social relations of the middle ages and, to quote:

Marx does not seem to have asked himself what would happen if the economic system was declining; he never dreamt of the possibility of a revolution which would take a return to the past, or even social conservation, as its ideal. Today we can see that this might easily come to pass: the friends of Jaures, the priests and the democrats all take the Middle Ages as their ideal for the future; they would like competition to be tempered, wealth limited and production subordinated to needs. These

Well, things have been really really good for me lately. I got lucky, and whilst I hesitate to name anything an act of God, the sheer luck I experienced has honestly convinced me that someone somewhere is watching out for me.

That aside, I figure my next few posts are going to be a lot more conceptual and a lot less competitive/offensive in nature. Hopefully explaining reactionary ideas in a less angry--albeit less passionate--manner, if only because the confusion over them and what they stand for causes its own share of issues.

In his book, Men Among The Ruins, Evola outlines the traditionalist's understanding of The State in contrast to The Nation and that it is fundamentally under

Right so I have the Humble Bundle and past a point I get so many vidya gaems I honestly don't know what to do with the steam keys I have.

The most recent game I've had trouble getting rid of is Overgrowth, some kind of game about rabbits with martial arts skills killing each other or something. Think Watership Down designed by furries going through their "edgy" phase.

Regardless it's $30 value vidya and I figured that a little contest could break up the monotony of the sub. So yeah, for maybe three days I'll keep this thread up to anyone interested in participating. You can use any means of appeal, I don't care if it's explaining Fascism v

Evidently he can't ever back down when he's caught in a lie, when given proof he just needs more.

I've got to ask the fine people of r/CapitalismVSocialism where those missing chromosones of his may have gone.

Today I experienced the great joy of going to class on a modern college campus and not only learning from my professor that Hate Speech wasn't the same thing as free speech and thus not protected by the 1st amendment, but also I got to sit through twenty minutes of "March For Our Lives" speeches.

Immediately I was transported to an almost cult-like ritual, the were tears in the classroom as we watched the camera pan as a bald-hispanic woman by the name of "Emma Gonzales" I believe stared silently at a crowd of people, countless placards lifted above the crowd with a sundry hashtags and slogans, perhaps the most disturbing being pictures of Ms. Gonzales herself, with the stereotypical ["Hope

Figured I've argued against trends in Liberalism and Socialism enough that it's time that I make some criticism against some fascist and "AltRight" trends to--though from the perspective of a friend who simply wants lead them away from fundamental errors in their philosophy.

Now the occultist Peter J. Carroll argues for the existence of three philosophical "paradigms" he outlined as Materialist, Transcendentalist, and "Magical", whilst I have some quibbles over the third, he provides an undoubtedly useful distinction in these talks so I'll be borrowing his paradigm system, if only to discuss Transcendental and Materialist philosophy throughout their respective "epochs".

Generally I find th

I recently had the joy of reading a completely neurotic rant of a supposed game review for a cute little indie game about cartoon animals.

Now the author's raving madness aside, the article conjured up memories of an article written by an equally smug cuckservative wherein he sneered that White Working Class Communities deserved to die because they failed at properly appeasing his real God: blatant economic interests.

These articles are a symptom of a kind of Imperialistic Modernity, as I've deemed it. Whereas in most cases Modernit

Since I was a child, I've always had--though crude at times--an appreciation of the school of Aesthetics. Though I was by no means a good artist and I'm still not proficient in that wonderful labor, art as a whole has always captured my interest, and I recall always loathing on some level the meaningless, smug elitism found in post-modern art for something of a more classic variety--one of my personal favorites being the work of Thomas Cole specifically his two most famous cycles The Voyage of Life and The Course of Empire, I was also fortunate enough to be raised mostly on Studio Ghibli films which similarly gave me an abiding love of Nature that I can say has never left (One of the

I was originally imagining this as a general defense of collectivism, but it gradually morphed into an attack against of a far-too-common attitude I see uttered again and again.

We have a disturbing proclivity towards a kind of strange Utilitarianism in this day and age, one which responds to the "People on the tracks" debate with a kind of vague "eh" and shrug of the shoulders, a kind of constant self-doubt and self-contradiction wherein in the desire to do good is overrided by a constant fear of doing evil. I'd say that this is mostly a result of the age, and specifically of postmodern trash constantly seeking to "deconstruct" historical heroes and myths, so that you cannot just have Wa