>>324579>That is perhaps the most important point to consider, why is this important?, because it is a direct obstacle for any class approach, are you familiar with Amazon's leaked memos?, Ocuppy Wallstreet and what the feds did with it?
well, in 1871 the IWW expelled Victoria Woodhull and associates partially due to Marx's influence, because according to him they focused far too much on issues unrelated to class, such as race, feminism and sexuality, so it's an established precedent that socialism can get watered down by faux-progressive elements without proper opposition to it. personally though I think I kind of see things more as a hierarchical intersectionality - that is to say, all these issues intersect, but more like roots growing out of the existence of class. but then, I guess that in and of itself would be called class reductionist. my biggest objection is mainly that I don't want to specifically oppose progressive causes merely because they aren't solely class-based, I'd rather take a neutral stance on them and remain unassociated it terms of party organizations and affiliation.>>324580>Having the same race is definitely a thing that helps people connect to each other easier.
I agree, BUT I don't at all think people connect more over race than over class. that is to say, I think people generally can and ought to get along with people they work together with. >but they still hang with others of their kind and vice versa.
that's fine, I've no problem with it. there's often this accusation flung around that the Left are the "real segregationists", but in reality the real problem of segregation is that it was done without consent and unequally - so long as it's on each group's own terms, segregation doesn't seem inherently problematic to me.>I support basically the David Duke dream about a for each and every people and race for them to rule solo.
that's a very laudable goal. provided that the little guy, the Bretons, say, got their place to rule solo rather than being forced back into French rule, I'd be fine with that. there are areas, such as central asia, where traditionally peoples are nomadic so borders would be a little hard to negotiate for having each people rule their own area, but for most of the world I think dividing up territory to allow the self-rule of the people who actually live there would be a massive improvement.>I do acknowledge them as I acknowledge their collective sins.
that's fine as far as it goes, but if we ignore white sins I think it's only fair to turn over a new leaf as far as other races go as well.>because I don't believe the multi-ethinical society works due to it having not worked ever in history
I see it mainly existing as a function of globalist trade, so I'm not especially tied to multiculturalism, even though I'm not totally opposed to it either. >I couldn't really follow I'm sorry.
I think I made a typo, I meant to say "class consciousness" and "national consciousness" there. class consciousness means camaraderie with the people you work side by side with, whereas national consciousness focuses more on people you live in the same country with, typically also of the same ethnicity. >To me it still seems like you could have nationalistic communism
I think it's a useful model for most of the world, it's mainly that I don't think it'd really work in England. if we could have a nationalist Europe though, that's another matter, I could see that working. it's something that Mosley and Orwell ironically agreed upon.>like if everyone in country was of the same race and then they became communistical then you would have it.
the main stickler is I don't want that here, especially given the proclivity that certain English people have for claiming that the Celts aren't white.>>324584>They don't act like *******
then I don't see how it's essentialist behaviour.>They are happy to assimilate into white culture and reap the benefits of their black privilege, instead of hurting whites more in a quest for more privilege.
that's not what the "friendly blacks" I knew were like. the polynesian guy was intensely traditional to his culture, he was even part of their priestly tradition. he didn't wear a suit or speak with the same faggoty-ass received pronounciation that I do. and at my cleaning job after that, I worked with a bunch of old black and pakistani ladies, they didn't "integrate" - they never spoke english except to me, and even then a lot of it was hand gestures and me helping them find the right word to say what they meant. >and they love their white friends who are desperate for the socjus brownie-points/social credit points having a "based" black friend gives them.
I lost these friends when I lost these jobs, I don't have any nonwhite friends currently. >Even little old ladies who tell the obvious mathematical truth about the holohoax.
the mathematical truth presumably being that you can't cremate that many bodies in such a timespan? not all were cremated, there were also mass graves. yes there were, the University of Birmingham did a field study where they discovered a notable example. other mass grave involved genocides like Pol Pot's also mainly go off of estimates rather than actual recovered remains - I don't mind taking a remains-based view, wherein we'd start Pol Pot's count off at 200k, and Hitler's somewhere between 200 and 800k, and in fact I think this would be a much more useful and logical approach to historical analysis of genocide, but the problem is that in doing this not only would established archaeology accuse it of antisemitism due to now long-established association with outright denial, you deniers would also hound and screech at such an approach simply because it admits that the Germans killed at least some Jewish people.