Latest poll for the Russian elections shows feminism and "progressive" politics is dead on arrival by Ethnocrat in debatealtright
[–]Rakean93 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
Russian communists are basically the same of the radical European right.
What's the relation between Christianity and liberalism? by Mastermustard03 in debatealtright
[–]Rakean93 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago* (0 children)
I, for myself, don't buy in the pure biological arguments. They are irrilevants and inconsistents from an ethnic perspective. They are also prominent among nordicists, which i dont' like. Probably in the forum there's a variety of people with different degrees of opinions, only a small portion of them beeing "true" american alt-righters. It's a debate forum after all.
[–]Rakean93 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
It's a well know topic actually. Epecially the calvinists considered themselves, in a sort of way, to be the new "Jews". The whole idea of building a "city on the Hill" (Massachusetts) or a "community of saints" (Geneva) was linked to a strict interpretation of the predestination that resemble the jew's argument about the chosen people. That eventually (very rapidly) evolved in the Covenant Theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology#:~:text=Covenant%20theology%20(also%20known%20as,organizing%20principle%20for%20Christian%20theology. which obviusly resemble the jew's attitude toward the "pact between God and the Chosen People" based on the Laws. Note that this doesn't mean that every calvinist recognized itself as a "New Jew"; but it was a common theme and it's been analized in several works.
Success of far-right Brothers of Italy raises fears of fascist revival by Ethnocrat in debatealtright
[–]Rakean93 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
In Italy the category of Catholic Reformation was cancelled a few years ago. That's mainly because it's considered an apologetic term from the Jedin's school, and also because Massimo Firpo, the most important scholar in the field, personally hates it. Other terms like "early modern catholicism" are also despised because they're linked to the anglosaxon historiography, which is reguarded to be too much neutral about the role of the Church. About the anti-imperialist role of the inquisition, isn't even new: you can find some early references in "Gui, La Riforma nei circoli nobiliari, Cinquant'anni di storiografia italiana sulla riforma, Claudiana, Torino, pp. 115-116".
[–]Rakean93 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago* (0 children)
last month I had to publish an article I've been working on since last December about the Counter-Reformation. The article underwent a preliminary censorship in which I was forced to remove all definite articles, which in my language are gendered. Subsequently I presented the work at a conference, after which I was asked to eliminate all references to a possible anti-imperialist role played by the very first Roman inquisition during the affirmation of Spanish hegemony. Only at this point was the article accepted. I doubt that an Identitarian state would impose greater constraints on my freedom of scientific research.
Edit: i just read that you said "i think we don't want to talk about ourselves". Honestly i'm not that much concerned, my political affiliation is not illegal nor obscure. In any case, returning to general arguments: the absolute majority of Italian intellectuals, even anti-fascists, continued their activity normally during fascism. Benedetto Croce was even allowed to become the international voice of anti-fascism. The only one who perhaps suffered unfair treatment was Gramsci, who was imprisoned, although the Duce personally ensured that he was treated with every respect. But Gramsci was virulently opposed to the regime, and frankly, the American McCarthyists, exponents of liberal democracy, have done worse.
[–]Rakean93 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
I find your commitment to establishing a debate commendable, but specifically you have taken refuge in formulas of circular reasoning that cannot be falsified. Given your definition, anyone who is a fascist ipso facto ceases to be an intellectual, and fascism itself rejects intellectuals, and therefore you conclude that fascist intellectuals cannot exist despite the fact that they existed and still exist. I would have assumed that such an acute person as you would not be fooled by such a blatant logical fallacy. Moreover, I myself am an academic researcher, which I suppose puts me in the bizarre condition of not existing, because i'm also an identitarian.
there's a long time struggle within the party between the leftish side and rightish side. It was yet present in 1946. But it's not that streamlined as you may think. Pino Rauti, who was the main pupil of Evola, ended up with an economically left-wing platform when he managed to get the leadership of the party. Also, most of the active base is economically leftish, even if at various degrees. I'm probably very extreme within the party, because I come from the "national socialism" in-party group, which in Italian doesn't sounds like national socialism (it's "socialismo nazionale" instead of "nazionalsocialismo"). We were advocating a platform based on the socialization of every enterprise with more than 100 employees, and a straight nationalization of every strategic and essential ones. But we were also advocating for corporatism and a more strict jus sanguinis, border control etc. So we were both the more leftish and the more rightish of the party, with the national-conservatives beeing more moderate on every point.
D'Annunzio, Marinetti, Cantimori, Gentile, just to name a few.
Edit: nowadays there are also Gervasoni, Buttafuoco, Fusaro, for example. All of them are academics or broadly-known mainstream tier writers. Pennacchi just died unfortunately. Anyway, we just need more.
American Leftists are discovering the increasing ethnic nationalism of Denmark and not liking it by JuliusCaesar225 in debatealtright
[–]Rakean93 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
Ahh got it. I'm still struggling to grasp some English expressions.
Lol I didn't realize that there was a double meaning. It's "you can't beat Italians"
Won't let the immigrants in and will defend the jus sanguinis to death, but the party itself is neutral reguarding Israel. I'm more concerned about economical policies, because the leadership is trying to appeal the middle class.
Edit: I must point out that Italy is different from USA. We don't have a Jewish lobby, the ADL or really anything like that. We don't support Israel by default as the United States do. I don't know if we recognize Gerusalem as Israel capital (I recently saw something about that but I wasn't interested), but we didn't for a very long time. We don't have Jews politicians or industrials really. Zionism is not a compelling issue here. Americanism is.
Zionist war hawks having a meltdown as GloboHomo is humiliated in Afghanistan by lokke767 in debatealtright
I don't like the idea of imposing a religion over a different race/ethnos. I could do it with my people because I'm part of it and I understand it, but I'm strongly against any form of imperialism over aliens. Anyway, for the sake discussion, what do you think would fit better?
[–]Rakean93 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
Yups. Edit: i'm also a long-time militant of the BoI.
[–]Rakean93 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago* (0 children)
You are right, i totally forgot the actual number. we're still the biggest EU army. https://imgur.com/a/PKTUHte
Btw, i can't tell if you know italian or nay, but the meaning of that phrase is "you can't win over italians", which is strange given the contex.
Mhhh we have over 2 million soldiers if I recall correctly. We don't have that much projection power, but we have a very strong defensive army. Anyway yeah let's see.
[–]Rakean93 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
Strictly speaking, to win the culture war we need intellectuals in tenured academic positions and in middle school. My hope is that we will be able to achieve at least a part of that during the next government, which is very likely to be shared between BoI and Lega (since 99% of our universities are public, it's not unlikely that they promote people of the ruling party). But yes, it was a very positive development. Not that much for BoI itself, which is good but still very "conservative" in the pejorative meaning, but because the political discourse is much more welcoming for identitarian ideas.
Edit: what really impressed me is that, while a few years ago nationalism was a semi-taboo, nowadays you are able to find people expressing very nationalist ideas basically everywhere: in the shops, in the bars, even in the geek community, which used to be very left leaning.
[–]Rakean93 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
Godspeed to them. Islam is our eternal enemy, but also the rightful ethno-religion of middle-est / north Africa. They ultimately fought the rightful battle and will be rewarded by God.
I think you misunderstood my post. I'm Italian. I'm asking for a withdrawal from Italy. Invasion took place in 1944.
Honestly mate, Americans invaded my country, we are still not allowed to have nuclear weapons and, while having the largest army in Europe numerically, we are forced to have American bases all over the country. If you to withdraw, you have my blessings.
Europe IS more "liberal" in economy, because the welfare state is well established. That's what the conservatives think about when they say so.
Without God there can be no moral society by casparvoneverec in debatealtright
[–]Rakean93 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
that makes perfect sense, not recognizing religion obviusly lead to ethnic indifferentism
(translation of a part):
"The foundations of Latin civilization lay neither in a sacred book, as for the Jews, nor in an epic text, such as the Iliad and the Odyssey for the Greeks, but in a series of customs and models, embodied in exemplary characters, that had to be imitated. A set of values and norms gathered under the name of “mos maiorum”: literally, “the custom of the ancestors”, which were defined as “maiores” because they were greater in a moral sense. These unwritten laws regulated the life of the Roman citizen, even before the drafting of the XII Tables, and were based on orality and memory, drawing their auctoritas [authority] from repeated application over time.
During the most archaic phase of the roman history, those laws were guarded, administered and interpreted by the priests, the rex and the pontifex maximus [both beeing religious officies]. The transgression of the mos maiorum represented a violation of both civil and religious order: an act that disturbed the Gods and which, in order to restore the relationship with the divinity, could be punished with the death of the person responsible.
The fundamental principle of the mos maiorum was the pursuit of the collective good: the hero qualified himself as such not for extraordinary individual qualities, but because he used them in the defense of the state, in contributing to the well-being of citizens and of Rome.
The life of the civis romanus [citizien of Rome] was governed by austerity, rejecting the typical luxury of oriental populations and devoting himself to military commitment and agricultural work.
The mos maiorum had five main values: virtus, pietas, fides, maiestas, gravitas. He who possesses virtus is valiant in war, confident in his own strength and in the Roman state, fearful of the gods, respectful of the laws. Pietas is certainly more difficult to circumscribe: it embraces values and meanings ranging from "duty" to "devotion", from "justice" to "filial love", from "affection" to "fidelity". The fides is the oldest virtue honored in Rome, whose cult was established, according to tradition, by Numa Pompilius and subsequently restored by the emperors who sought the fides militum, or the "loyalty of the soldiers". The main meaning is therefore "loyalty", "fidelity to one's word": it regulates relationships between men, constituting the foundation of law, but also of friendship, or the social pact that unites the customer to his patron. In ancient times, she was depicted in the effigies as an old woman with white hair, older than Jupiter: respect for the given word indicates the principle of every social and political relationship. The maiestas instilled in the Roman people the feeling of superiority: the Romans claimed to be a chosen people. Gravitas brings together essential qualities for the Roman citizen: seriousness, composure, dignity, authority. "
Again, i respect you in your political thinking, but you literally know nothing about nor christianity, nor paganism. You totally rely on an outdated and unreliable source as Nietzsche, which i already pointed out was antichristian, very likely, because he was gay, and he thought that a fake paganism would fit better. There are no christian values that can't be directly linked to the mos maiorum, which is, even according to Dumezil itself, the most accurate derivative from the original indo-european spirituality. Rejecting christianity as whole you are rejecting the aryan race.
That's how back in the time you can track the cul of the Deus Pater - God Father.
Asking which religion is stupid. The right religion is always the religion of your kind. That's the ethos of the race. That's the ethical absolute.
Is important to understand that God, especially in his Western and Indo-European interpretation, is not simply a very powerful person, but the recognition of an ethical absolute. Given the absence of a universal ethical absolute, the Divinity can only be configured as the absolute racial ethics.
FBI Seizes Entire Bank Account of Conservative Talk Show Host (Nick Fuentes) After He Attended a Trump Rally by Fitter_Happier in debatealtright
You get to vote for leaders, in a multi-party system, while beeing a pleb. That's democracy. Nobody cares about the supposed or real flaws of the system while making a classification.
That's a dumb definition. That's something that can happen in fascism. Or in communism. Or in democracy, like it's actually happening.
Questions about the Alt Right's racial ideology by ayotollahsinIran in debatealtright
As others, like notably markimus, said, "race" is above everything else about phenotypes and the ability to fit in a context. You can't, 99% of the times, tell apart an European from another. You can definitely tell apart an Asian or an African from an European.
Since we are not blind, the ability to recognise ourselves in the people of the nation is one of the main points of the concept of "ethnicity", the others beeing shared culture, language, and so on. That's not necessarily the "alt right take on the race" since I can hear a lot of nonsense about genetic and IQ, but that's for sure my take.
Communist Zipperhead admits non-white nationalism is ok, but right-wing White nationalism is BAD. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright
No problem, I was a left-wing white nationalist anyway
The 2020 Olympics are over, and the USA still beats China... by radicalcentrist in debatealtright
You also should keep in mind that, while now it isn't the case in Europe, until AT LEAST the end of the feudal age, phisical prowess was depending more on the diet that on genetics. The food was scarse, expecially animal protein sources. This was a major factor in the development of strength.
While this is generally true, you can't take the Roman account as an hard-proof, because those accounts were written with a double goal: to depict other populations as barbarians, and to prove that they were good enough to be deserving of the Roman civilization. So the authors described them as bearers of the common traits of the barbarians (lack of laws, practicing obsolete cults that involved human sacrifices, strong individually but unable to coordinate themselves) while also saying that they would fit the empire if they had a chance. You have to keep in mind that it's unlikely that the Kelts were as uncivilised as they result from the Caesar's depiction, for example, since they had, just a century before, a pretty large confederation able to deal with Rome.