Thread replies: 4
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: Fascism.png (59KB, 2000x1000px) Image search:
[Google]
59KB, 2000x1000px
One thing that makes most political discussion between radicals and non-radicals difficult is the fact that most radical political ideologies require a complete or near-complete overhaul of standard political systems in order for their specific policy proposals to be valid and applicable. For example: a fascist white nationalist living in the United States might want to enact a eugenic policy providing white women with IQs exceeding 120 with strong financial incentives to reproduce as much as possible, but this proposal must either assume the existence of a hypothetical white ethno-state, or a political situation in which it were feasible for the laws preventing such eugenic policies in the US to be overturned. It would also assume a cultural climate in which doing such would not cause a civil uproar. In other words: such a policy could not be applied in the current political state of the US. Therefore, i order to accurately theorize about such policies, an alternative political system must also be proposed in which said policies could feasibly be applied, thus if a fascist, a Marxist, an AnCap, and an American Republican wanted to have a political debate, everyone involved would have to argue their entire ideologies against one-another, which would take so long as to make any real discussion nearly impossible.
[CONT.]
>>
This effect is somewhat curbed by the existence of platforms like YouTube, in which a fascist, Marxist, AnCap, and American Republican can each post long videos laying out their entire ideologies in detail for viewers (including each other) to watch at their leisure, but it also reduces the likelihood of viewership in the first place as potential viewers are not likely to wish to spend their time entertaining many hours worth of opposing political media unless they were already interested in the topics at hand prior to encountering said media. This is rare, however, and so the question becomes "how can I get people interested in my ideology by means other than theoretical explanation?"
This is where symbolism, direct action, and controversy come in. Those who are able to make the biggest waves and appeal to the emotions of the masses will attract the largest number of potential followers to their cause. A great example of this is Donald Trump, who won the US election despite being generally very vague about his policy proposals and his overall political vision. He made a few key points very powerful by making sure they were emotionally charged. If he had been a fascist, he probably would not have won, but he certainly would have gotten people talking seriously about fascism.
Political debate is the domain of intellectuals, not of masses. intellectuals can often be converted by strong arguments, but even they are usually more susceptible to deep emotional appeals than to sophisticated rhetoric. Such rhetoric is undoubtedly important, but is mostly the tool of political leaders, not of those who are actually building the political structures with their blood and tears.
So, for all radicals, the keys to power lie in the creation of myths, symbols, and blocs of strong and dedicated men willing to die for what they believe in, not in air-tight logical trains and airy sophisms.
[CONT.]
>>
tl;dr - if whites are to survive the demographic changes of the 21st century, we must stop trying to persuade everyone through carefully-crafted arguments, and start organizing into powerful groups and making ourselves known through controversy and symbolism. This is the essence of fascism.
>>
File: 1495263180904.jpg (300KB, 1920x1200px) Image search:
[Google]
300KB, 1920x1200px
bump
Thread posts: 4
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2