Post your face whenever someone calls fascism "aesthetic"
Its an abstract king of artistic supremacy.
Futurism is 50% aesthetic and 50% ugly edgy shit
Y'all motherfuckers need Walter Benjamin
>>1307185
>/fa/scism
>>1307185
It's a primarily aesthetic based movement
Its aesthetic based rather than economic based - aesthetic in the nietzchean sense
>>1307185
Avant-garde as shit.
>>1307185
What did he mean by this?
Vincere è Vinceremo!
>>1307185
>>1307185
Funny thing, my grandma Doctorate is about the interface of Fascism and the Getúlio Vargas dictatorship and the aesthetic influences the Futurism and the Brazilian Modernism, respectively, in them. Grandma was edgy channer befora it was cool.
mfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I71VX5RyGA
>>1309931
what is even happening in that picture
>>1309931
>cultured
Why are people like these so delusional?
Like just by looking at them you know exactly what kind of people they are...
>>1309931
Nigga wut
>>1310850
modern art
>>1309941
wow you ruined my idol
>>1309931
this is art
>>1311083
No this is art
Only thing aesthetic about fascism right here
>>1311154
>beady eyes full of lies
>aesthetic
I'm new here, is /his/ /leftypol/?
>>1307211
Don't forget the dog.
>>1307185
Andross?
>>1307185
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I71VX5RyGA
>>1311376
nah.
there's all kinds of different political affiliations
If you cant handle the heat, you better fuck off
>>1311376
What the fuck made you think that?
>>1309931
Shit, how much did this guy squat
>>1311376
History has a liberal bias, honey.
Fascists knew what aesthetics were, they just sucked at creating it.
>>1311779
so why do liberals hate scientific proof of genetic differences between people so much
>>1311376
>if you don't like the biggest failure of the modern world then you're a lefty
>>1311808
That's meme science, bigot.
>>1307272
>>1307185
Vroom vroom fast cars mussolini
/pol/ wedding.
Fascism never had a clear aesthetic direction. It never even managed to decide betewen Historicism/Eclecticism or Futurism.
I feel like people think Fascism was a lot "deeper" than it actually was, it actually didn't have much intellectual substance at all.
>>1313172
t. my unironically communist jewish history professor
what was the purpose of that big as poster with the face in OP's pic and SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI
>>1313216
It was an election year.
>>1313172
>Intellectual diversity is an indication of shallowness
Nigga what?
>>1313172
Fascism appeals to the same people it always appealed to: repressed, inferior males. They like militarism because army buddies would be closer to a friendship than anything they have IRL, and they desire war because rape is the most intimate they will get with women. It's all truth.
>>1313242
Funnily enough, despite his apparently belligerent nature, Mussolini's personal military record was quite unimpressive.
>>1313172
Well that's obvious to anyone who isn't prepared to drink the kool-aid. Fascism is an ideology that offers easy answers to complicated questions. It makes all matters of society some sort of struggle of "national identity" and suggests that the solution is to hand over absolute control to a strongman and his cronies.
>>1311376
It's more like a /pol/ but with more leftists than the usual.
>>1311154
BEADY
>>1313250
Only to people who get their ideas of military service from the movies.
He was injured twice, served nine months at the front lines, got promoted to corporal "for merit in war."
That's an above average service record.
>>1313254
>strongman and his cronies
That's all it is. Anything after that is specific to each local Fascist variant. Take the comparison between Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain. Mussolini was expansionist, Franco was isolationist. Mussolini was initially anti-clerical then changed to pro-Catholic Church, Franco was staunchly Catholic and the Church was very much part of the state, Mussolini was a futurist, Franco a traditionalist and so on.
>>1311884
wallace stevens (whoever that is) doesn't know anything abot ethiopia.
>>1313254
>Easy answers to complicated questions
Love this meme
>>1313278
>Franco was fascist
When will this meme end?
>>1313268
He was literally a deserter, he went to Switzerland to avoid serving and only served in the military to overturn his conviction of desertion. Also, one of the injuries you mention was from an accident during a training exercise.
>>1313257
>more leftists
literally the only leftist thing /his/ has is commies
and they won't be here for long
>>1313296
If you only count Italian Fascism as the one genuine example of Fascism then you're still not in much luck, it was contradictory as fuck.
>>1313294
It's not really a meme. All totalitarianism is rooted in it. It's about lifting responsibility for handling the ambiguities of existence off of its followers and putting them onto a larger than life figurehead.
>>1313172
Coming from the same people who spout out Deleuzian in every essay ever since 2008.
>>1313244
The question is, of course, does a movement really require substance to be succesful?
Does capitalism even have a 'substance'. What do you define as 'substance'? A clear set of theologians and a canon? Capitalism never really had that and it's one of the most succesful systems in the history of man.
I see the left argue this all the time, from Eco on, that fascism is this ad hoc melange and accumulation of everything that appeals to a revanchist sentiment.
Yet, that's how most systems emerged. Communism is dead to the masses. Fascism is en vogue again. Especially because in the meme age it allows for the very fluidity the left doesn't allow itself to have ( have 4 leftists in a room and you'll have a Leninist, Trotskyite, a reformist and an anarchist ).
>>1313522
Having substance would mean there was a coherent or even distinguishable ideology behind the movement that merits a theoretical discussion on the subject, like the ones we have here. Nobody mentioned success you fucking assburger, read the OP and the thread. I won't even comment on the idea that capitalism is "successful" (whatever you may mean by that).
>>1313522
Have four alt rightists in the room and you'll have a libertarian, a traditionalist, a fascist, and a paleocon.
>>1313551
Hell, have four fascists in a room, you'll get an Italian Fascist, a Falangist, a National Socialist, and whatever the hell Pinochet was.
>>1313548
>Having substance would mean there was a coherent or even distinguishable ideology behind the movement that merits a theoretical discussion on the subject, like the ones we have here.
Well, we got to the point where 'intellectual depth' is just a cover word for 'legitimacy' pretty quick this time.
>>1313560
Yes, and? If it has no intellectual substance behind it, why should we consider it anything more than the brainless bleating of idiots?
>>1313558
Have four Italian Fascists in the room and you'll have a socialist, a monarchist, a futurist and a catholic.
>>1313563
Because the same can be said about (your philosophy here).
>>1313568
You don't know squat about my philosophy. You're swinging in the dark.
Fascism was very clearly an artifact of its time, a hodgepodge of veteran driven reactions to the horrors of ww1 and the sweeping social changes that came with mass industrialization; there was no actual intellectual spine to it. You can't say the same about communism (no, I am not, before you accuse me of such), which has a clear intellectual backbone in Marx's works, even if there are distinct differences in interpretation and implementation.
>>1313551
>>1313558
>>1313564
And they'll all scream deus vult and agree on the political solution without fucking eachother over like the left has been doing for over 2 centuries now.
How is Trump able to rally behind him such a disparate group of right wingers? From NRx to deus vult /pol/, Ben Garrison and The Golden One.
Because in the end "iz he really a my-gang-ism and do we agree on the working method" doesn't matter to right wingers. They'll just disagree on what needs to happen as soon as they take power, but taking power is primary. And taking power is what they do best.
>>1313303
This one guy keeps posting Pinochet and hopes we think it's a legion of PInochet devotees
>>1313586
>And taking power is what they do best.
Says the man in the century following the one where liberals and communists were the primary driving force of political power.
>>1313576
>fascism were unread losers haha communists at least read books ;)
Oh look, the champions of the proletariat.
>>1313586
I think you are misinterpreting reality for 4chan again. Time for a break, m8.
>>1313593
I thought that had nothing to do with communism?
Also, liberals. Aren't they supposed to be class traitors?
I'm really confused guys! Your allegiance to these groups is shifting every discussion.
>t-t-t-that was us
>"why did you kill so many people in Russia? why are you all identity politics retards nowadays?"
>hey! that's not us! here have a sniffing Slovene to explain it for ya
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6GXNIuNDac
>>1313576
>You don't know squat about my philosophy. You're swinging in the dark.
I know it lacks intellectual substance, and is the brainless bleating of idiots.
If you're so confident, in the legitimacy of your ideology, step up and talk about it. I'm sure everyone in this thread will acknowledge it's totally a serious intellectual movement.
>You can't say the same about communism (no, I am not, before you accuse me of such), which has a clear intellectual backbone in Marx's works, even if there are distinct differences in interpretation and implementation.
Sure I can watch: Marx's work doesn't even merit a theoretical discussion on the subject, ergo communism has no intellectual depth, and it should be regarded as simply brainless bleating.
>>1313600
Oh look, butthurt without an actual argument.
I said nothing about them being unread losers. Hitler, Mussolini, and Mosley were all well-educated as I recall. I said their ideology had no clear intellectual spine to it, because they were primarily just reactions to the events of their time, rather than outgrowths of a specific ideal.
>>1313560
>>1313568
You don't need to agree with a philosophy or movement to be able to tell whether its underlying theories warrant any interest. I don't necessarily agree with Futurism, Corporatism and other ideologies/movements that were hijacked by Fascism but they are of interest to, Fascism itself isn't. Italian Fascism was merely the rule of a man and his cronies, who then co-opted a number of different ideologies in an attempt to give their regime legitimacy and a way of attracting supporters.
>>1313609
You're clearly an idiot then. I have no allegiance to either of those groups, I just recognize that they both were the primary forces of political power in the 20th century, whereas fascism was largely met with dismal failure (barring exceptions such as Spain).
>>1311779
>>1311376
Most historians are communist because communism benefits the political interests of all intellectual castes.
>>1313614
Oh, I see now. You're asshurt and are going to continue swinging in the dark. Well, thanks for acknowledging your own ass-whupping. Come back any time boy, I'll be happy to administer another.
>>1313607
I'm pretty sure we're talking about a reality where Trump owned the GOP to an unseen level, while the American left are hugely divided over whom they'll support. Bernie Sanders supporters are post-Occupy crust punks, BLM brownshirt tier hooligans, feminists ( who for some reason now do support an old white guy ) and xvideos "cuck category" nu male millennials. He sure got a diverse crowd, but they only do so because they're desperate as fucking fuck now. Very telling where this century is going to.
And then all the pundits were going on about how Trump would destroy the GOP. Lel. Never trust a leftist analysis of the future. Always wrong.
>>1313303
Gracias, mi general
To the retard who suddenly made this a "muh right-wing vs left-wing" debate:
Please stop, you're turning /his/ into /pol/. Every post you make and every reply you get takes this board further and further away from the possibility of becoming a place where subjects such as the aesthetic qualities (or lack thereof) in Fascism can be discussed.
Leftists demanding you have a holy book/or set of holy books in an intellectual tradition they consider legitimate.
It's fucking Islam tier really, no surprise.
>>1313648
What the fuck are you on about m8.
>>1313658
So a thread about fascism can't have actual fascists defending their point of view?
I love how it's always "we need an open and rational discussion with many points of view EXCEPT the one we're talking about. #EndToxicShitlordism."
>>1313677
Read the OP, this isn't a thread about whether Fascism is good or not it's a thread about the Aesthetics of Fascism. Nobody stopped anyone on expressing their opinion on that. All the posts supporting Fascism seem to be crying about the attack on Fascism's ideological legitimacy (without offering any evidence to the contrary), not a single post on Fascist aesthetics or what they consider those to be.
>>1313639
See, it doesn't matter if I'm swinging in the dark. The content of your own philosophy is, as you have argued, immaterial. Anything which cannot create an "intellectual spine" is just the bleating of idiots. There is no "intellectual spine" to your thought process. There are not a single coherent book or even short article.
Therefor, all your objections to Fascism aren't real, serious objections, but mearly the bleating of an idiot who regurgitating 4chan memes like 'asshurt.'
>>1313713
Wait, so attacking the intellectual base of something because it lacks political legitimacy is an apolitical action?
>>1313716
>Anything which cannot create an "intellectual spine" is just the bleating of idiots
So you're basically admitting your ideology is metropolitan bourgeois intellectualism with a disdain for the unthinking and unwashed masses.
Not a huge surprise, but it's good to know you guys are indeed what many claim to be: kids of upper (middle) class comfort with romanticist ideas about revolt, but without much respect for the people they purport to champion.
>>1313739
>So you're basically admitting your ideology is metropolitan bourgeois intellectualism with a disdain for the unthinking and unwashed masses.
Nope. I'm summarizing the claims made here
>>1313563
>>1313576
>it has no intellectual substance behind it, why should we consider it anything more than the brainless bleating of idiots?... there was no actual intellectual spine to it. You can't say the same about [works that have] a clear intellectual backbone.
>Not a huge surprise, but it's good to know you guys are indeed what many claim to be: kids of upper (middle) class comfort with romanticist ideas about revolt, but without much respect for the people they purport to champion.
Woo. Devolving into self-parody here. Tell me, which philosophy are you trying to pidgeon-hole me into?
>>1313716
Yeah, you're an idiot. You don't know anything about my ideology, and I can point to several that unlike fascism have an actual intellectual spine. Liberalism, Marxism, Anarchism, Religious Monarchism, Technocracy, and the various component ideologies that fascism co-opted such as futurism.
But by trying to turn this discussion into something about me, you're tacitly admitting that you can't defend your own position, so you're attempting to redefine the discussion; trying to wrangle it into a position you feel you can best, but you wont because I wont let you; this isn't about me or my ideals, it's about your own and how you can't actually defend them.
>>1313728
That's completely irrelevant. Early on in the thread, I attacked the intellectual legitimacy of Fascism based on its lack of ideological legitimacy (i.e it has no true ideology). I used the example of its extremely contradictory aesthetics in conjunction with a number of its other ideological contradictions that are historically documented, the ideological U-turns of Fascism if you like, to show it was a fickle movement. My political objections to it are quite different and have not been mentioned.
>>1313767
> I can point to several that unlike fascism have an actual intellectual spine
Point to one.
>But by trying to turn this discussion into something about me, you're tacitly admitting that you can't defend your own position
And what, do you think, is my position? So far, I've discussed nothing but the validity of your claims.
>>1313632
A dismal failure because it got aborted by an numerically superior alliance of communists and capitalists.
Kinda funny isn't it. You always hear how fascism is just a bunch of angry capitalists, yet capitalist nations teamed up with commie ones to destroy fascism.
Hmmmmm.
>>1313771
And since then, there's been no political defense of fascism mounted, only a rebuttal of those attacks on the intellectual legitimacy.
>>1313767
He doesn't even have to defend Fascism, which is quite an ask, all he had to do was take a position on Fascist aesthetics but he hasn't. That's either because he too is confused by their conflicting nature, or because he doesn't know jack-shit about Fascism.
>>1313776
>Point to one.
I just did. You fucking idiot.
>And what, do you think, is my position?
That fascism has a coherent ideology driving it.
>>1313780
Fascist nations invaded other sovereign countries and got put down for it. They didn't team up to "destroy fascism." Spain continued on just fucking fine because they didn't do something stupid like invade their neighbours who Britain and France were at the time obligated by international treaty to protect the sovereignty of.
>>1313788
Point to those posts please, I fail to see how any posts in this thread do that. Attacking someone for attacking the intellectual legitimacy of Fascism, isn't the same as defending it's intellectual legitimacy. To do that you need to actually say how and why it is intellectually legitimate, not just stomp your feet and cry "I don't have to prove shit to you leftists".
>>1313803
>I just did. You fucking idiot.
You tried to defend your ramshackle belief system by pointing to several contradictory intellectual trends.
I'm asking you to produce one text if we're going to take your criticisms of Fascist ideology seriously.
>>1313807
>Attacking someone for attacking the intellectual legitimacy of Fascism, isn't the same as defending it's intellectual legitimacy. To do that you need to actually say how and why it is intellectually legitimate
No, you don't. If someone walks in to a thread about marxism and says it's all rubbish because it's a Jew conspiracy, you don't need to go about proving the LTV, to rebut them.
I DON'T have to prove shit to you leftists.
>>1311154
This man is very obviously a homosexual.
>>1313811
The fact that they're contradictory doesn't mean they don't individually have their own intellectual merit. But when a movement, like Fascism, tries to use contradictory ideologies such as those to legitimise itself then that contradiction is exactly why Fascist ideology is a non-sense.
>I'm asking you to produce one text if we're going to take your criticisms of Fascist ideology seriously.
I didn't see you produce a text supporting Fascist ideology.
>>1313826
Cool strawman m8.
>I DON'T have to prove shit to you leftists.
If this is your position then you really don't need to post anymore do you?
>>1313826
If you're going to "rebutt attacks on Fascist intellectual legitimacy" then you have to prove its legitimacy or at least demonstrate why you believe it is intellectual legitimate. You're basically the right-wing equivalent of safe-space college kids who refuse to talk about things they don't like.
>>1313867
>If you're going to "rebutt attacks on Fascist intellectual legitimacy" then you have to prove its legitimacy
No, I don't. You can be wrong independent of any other factor involved.
>You're basically the right-wing equivalent of safe-space college kids who refuse to talk about things they don't like.
You're the one grouping things into identity politics, and asserting that someone cannot reject a criticism without taking part in a political action.
>>1313846
>The fact that they're contradictory doesn't mean they don't individually have their own intellectual merit.
Yes, but it does mean that your ideology and objections are without intellectual merit.
>I didn't see you produce a text supporting Fascist ideology.
I never claimed a text was necessary.
>>1313916
>Yes, but it does mean that your ideology and objections are without intellectual merit.
He's not me, and you still don't know what my ideology is. Remember: this isn't about me, and has never been, you pathetic child.
>>1313172
Without invoking "Nazis weren't really fascist!" I'm still greatly amused by the Posen speech.
"...It is one of those things that is easily said. “The Jewish people is being exterminated,” every Party member will tell you, “perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter”. And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew." t. Himmler.
All fair enough, yes? The position of the Nazi party was clear enough, and had just been restated aware of the hypocrisy of some members. Well then along comes this one Party member, a truly first class guy with a great brain, some great political ideas, a grand speaker... You might have heard of him: Adolf Hitler. And he says "Yes, Yes, you're right. They're all swine, every last one of them, no exceptions... Except mother's doctor of course. He is a first class Jew."
>>1313780
>capitalist nations teamed up with commie ones to destroy fascism
After the fascist ones invaded innocent countries.
You'll note that Spain [NOT REALLY FASCISM!] lasted into the 70s despite all these nefarious capitalists who apparently love commies even more..
Not to mention all the fucking Juntas the USA propped up because muhcommies.
>>1313916
>No, I don't. You can be wrong independent of any other factor involved.
And how do you aim to prove that, beyond simply stating that I'm wrong because you say so.
>You're the one grouping things into identity politics, and asserting that someone cannot reject a criticism without taking part in a political action.
So wait, you want to reject the criticism of Fascist ideology but not say why or provide your own opinion of Fascist ideology? You understand the point of threads is to discuss things, not just turn up and declare your disagreement.
>Yes, but it does mean that your ideology and objections are without intellectual merit.
I have not made a single post in this thread about my ideology, in fact I don't even have an ideology just various ideologies that I agree more or less with. I'm not the other guy you've been arguing with.
>I never claimed a text was necessary.
You did a couple of posts ago.
Good work, gang, I think we all learned a lot today.
>>1314057
I refuse to let /his/ be shit like this. I remember days when it was possible to have meaningful discussion on this site. When /r9k/ was first made (as in literally the first months of its creation) there were wonderful discussions on philosophy, politics etc. Seen some pretty good ones here as well, but the level of shit-posting is increasing.
>>1313648
Don't let those girlscouts and effeminate men tell you how to live your life. It's OK, I know you're scared. It's alright, we're all afraid of everything. Don't worry, you're special.
man, i fucking hate vaporwave
>>1314083
Hey, you better not reject his criticisms without mounting a defense of the democratic party!
>>1313991
>And how do you aim to prove that, beyond simply stating that I'm wrong because you say so.
By showing that the arguments are politicized, self-contradictory, and/or special pleading.
>So wait, you want to reject the criticism of Fascist ideology but not say why
I've provided plenty of reasons to reject them. These were proven so effective the goal posts were then move to I should mount a defense of Fascism.
>I have not made a single post in this thread about my ideology, in fact I don't even have an ideology just various ideologies that I agree more or less with.
In other words...you want to reject fascist ideology, but not provide your own opinions? What a radical concept!
>You did a couple of posts ago.
Granting the premises to demonstrate the argument collapses.
>>1314155
Are you still here captain butthurt? Why have you still not made a single post about Fascist Aesthetics or even Fascist ideology in general?
>>1314163
>By showing that the arguments are politicized, self-contradictory, and/or special pleading.
You did no such thing. I specifically said, politics has nothing to do with this. Whether you agree or disagree with a movement is irrelevant when it comes to noting contradiction.
>I've provided plenty of reasons to reject them. These were proven so effective the goal posts were then move to I should mount a defense of Fascism.
Quite the opposite, I kept insisting that you defend the opinion that Fascism has some sort of coherent ideology and insisted that we don't make this a general discussion about Fascist politics.
>In other words...you want to reject fascist ideology, but not provide your own opinions? What a radical concept!
I stated that Fascist ideology is incoherent and provided the reasons why, based on my own opinions (that it is has too many contradictions). Not quite what you are doing.
>>1313214
jesus man
>>1313944
where are these quotes from. I am interested very much
>>1314194
nvm I am an idiot
>>1313944
Anyone else find this hilarious? A bunch of nazis set themselves the task of auschwitzing the jews but run into the problem of people wanting to spare the odd jew so they have to complain "are we going to kill ALL the jews or what?"
>>1314216
>Nazi supporters were stupid
In other news, the sky is blue.
>>1314073
Just wait until the election is over m9. The redditors and paid shills will leave Soon after.
Screen cap this, I will eat my shoe and post photos if board quality does not improve after the election ends.
>>1314260
Let's hope so.
>>1313214
>2016
>still a fascist
at least the tankies can say they won back in the day
>>1313303
Mi general!
>>1311779
This meme baka
HAHA E TEMPO PER IL FUTURISMO
Dumping aesthetic fascists
>>1314553
DVCE NOSTRA LVCE
>>1314554
>>1311376
Essentially
>commies triggered by art
errytime
Daily reminder that loads of Jews supported Mussolini's fascism up until his alliance with Hitler.
>>1314571
>implying fascist """"""aesthetics"""""" have anything on communist aesthetics
>>1314585
Asiatic decadent grandeur to compensate for both a material and immaterial poverty.
Plus, that shit wasn't even built.
What you got in the glorious communist era were depressing commie blocks with Lenin statues on each square.
So inspiring!
>>1314585
>commies
>aesthetics
pick one
>fascism is nazism is futurism
How futurists imagined home design
>>1314650
That's the shit that would happen if Macintosh Plus were to take meth.
>>1314601
This is one of my favourite paintings of all time.
t. One of the posters who were berating Fascist ideology earlier on.
Futurist Sandwich
>>1314650
besides the excess of colored marble I think it's rather neat
>>1314696
At least there is food.
>>1314696
Check out this trippy shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurist_meals
>>1314708
>Tactile Dinner: A multi-course meal featured in Marinetti's The Futurist Cookbook. Pajamas have been prepared for the dinner, each one covered with a different material such as sponge, cork, sandpaper, or felt. As the guests arrive, each puts on a pair of the pajamas. Once all have arrived and are dressed in pajamas, they are taken to an unlit, empty room. Without being able to see, each guest chooses a dinner partner according to their tactile impression. The guests then enter the dining room, which consists of tables for two, and discover the partner they have selected.
>The meal begins. The first course is a 'polyrhythmic salad,' which consists of a box containing a bowl of undressed lettuce leaves, dates and grapes. The box has a crank on the left side. Without using cutlery, the guests eat with their right hand while turning the crank with their left. This produces music to which the waiters dance until the course is finished.
>The second course is 'magic food', which is served in small bowls covered with tactile materials. The bowl is held in the left hand while the right picks out balls made of caramel and filled with different ingredients such as dried fruits, raw meat, garlic, mashed banana, chocolate, or pepper. The guests cannot guess what flavor they will encounter next.
>The third course is 'tactile vegetable garden,' which is a plate of cooked and raw green vegetables without dressing. The guest eats the vegetables without the use of their hands, instead burying their face in the plate of vegetables, feeling the sensation of the greens on their face and lips. Each time a guest raises their head to chew, the waiters spray their face with perfume.
What the fuck did I just read
>>1314731
>Each time a guest raises their head to chew, the waiters spray their face with perfume.
Okay I lost it there.
>>1314650
Fascist aesthetic more like A E S T H E T I C
>>1314731
That sounds immensely fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I71VX5RyGA
thread theme
>>1311779
The newest iteration of 'liberal' by definition doesn't exist in 'history'.
Checkmate atheists
>>1314585
yes really nice aesthetics you have there
>>1307185
>>1314696
What a stupid sandwich.
>>1309931
that qt chink in bottom right
>Subscribing to an ideology
>>1313648
>that image
>mfw a bunch of /pol/tards opened fire at BLM while screaming le dindu may may meanwhile /pol/ gets triggered by people having eggs thrown at them
>>1315971
>le political violence is ok when it's against people I disagree with may may
Futurism is just an idealistic cubism
Come at me
>>1315997
>having eggs tossed at you
>political violence
Since when have fascists been so sensitive?
>>1313172
Fascism is the ideology of the corpus mysticum, famalam
>>1315971
That was /k/ you sjw faggot
>>1307185
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLsOEC1fZWU
>>1307185
still better than shitty Soviet Realism
>>1315971
that was /k/. They showed up to troll and actually got attacked and shot someone lol
>>1314763
You sound immensely gay
>>1316177
There is plenty of good socialist realism, it just all focuses on WW2.
>>1311388
>tfw this is at your local museum
>>1311388
>you have been greeted by the fast doggo of fascism
>national rebirth and masculinity will come to you, but only if you type "go fast doggo"
>>1311841
See this is what he was talking about. Lefties discard any facts that don't fit their fragile worldview.
>>1312622
Not creepy at all.
>>1315928
not a commie, but i've always actually liked the aesthetic of commieblocks, even if it is depressing;
>>1317527
In terms of urban planning, socialist schemes were more ambitious, pioneering and interesting (even if they were wrong) than the schemes Fascist Italy built. In terms of architectural design I think Fascist architecture, both Historicist and Futurist, are much more interesting than that of the Soviet Russia. The Constructivists like Melnikov were of interest but Stalin got rid of them all.
>>1316083
It's not just fascists.
It happened to a British Labour MP in Scotland during their referendum and got huge news coverage because "Muh violent nationalists."
An egg.
>>1314575
muh robot people
>>1311808
"Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race."
"Thirty centuries of history allow us to look with supreme pity on certain doctrines which are preached beyond the Alps by the descendants of those who were illiterate when Rome had Caesar, Virgil and Augustus."
>>1314585
>>1317622
>>1314585
Superior. (Keep in mind this is a design from 1933 you could still find Ford Model-Ts on the street).
>>1315938
That would be communism
>>1317656
This really blows my mind, you could enter this in a competition now and it would have a good chance of winning.
>>1309931
i dig it
>>1311376
>hey guyse so uhh.. i'm new here :)
L E A V E
>>1315938
>nigger
Wow, that seems a llittle edgy for a non fascist.
>>1317692
What I don't get with this meme is that Pinochet wasn't even an interesting dictator he was just a puppet.
>>1313172
Because Fascism is not a universalist ideology. It is revolutionary Nationalism, and every Nation formulates its own myths to emulate. Futurism works for the Italians because it was part of their culture
>>1317716
muh free hellacopter rides xD
>>1313315
There were Spaish fascists, however to conflate the likes of Antonio Prima de Rivera with Franco's agenda shows gross ignorance
>>1317759
But even Italian Fasism was not uniformly Futurist (or anything else). Architecturally, Fascist Italy has a roughly 50-50 split between Historicism and Futurism and in their social policies they continuously swayed between traditionalism and social liberalism, you can see this contradiction in their art, propaganda, everywhere really.
>>1317767
People call him Fascist, but I agree that his policies were too different from Mussolini's to be able to put them in the same basket. When people use the term Fascist they tend to either use it as a blanket-term for totalitarian (usually right-wing) regimes, or more rarely (but correctly) for Fascist Italy.
>>1317716
Exactly, the man had no imagination or ideological bent beyond what worked best for dictatorship. His entire economic policy was formulated by the Circago boys, thatcher loved him not because he was an intelligent moral capitalist but because he was an effective guard dog for an aggresive free market
>>1317791
Only polemicists call Francoism fascism. If he was truely fascist, his legacy wouldn't be so highly contenious in Spain today, wheras actual Spanish Fascists like the Falange remain marginal and highly disliked among left and right
>>1317794
all of this is true
as much as i hate neoliberalism the chicago boys definitely saved a dying economy, none of the praise should go to pinochet who l i t e r a l l y dindu nuffin
>>1310850
just someone pissing away $100,000 of their parents money.
>>1309931
MODERN ART
ODERN ART
DERN ART
ERN ART
RN ART
N ART
ART
ART
RT
T
>>1313374
>fascism is totalitarian
dropped
>>1313303
>won't be here for long
>>1310850
(((art)))
>>1311376
Its basically /pol/ without memes and with more people saying 'stormcuck' or the synonym '/pol/'.
Just get over it faggots people have right wing views.
>>1318181
For most people, totalitarianism and authoritarianism are pretty indistinguishable.
If you rebut that fascism is "not authoritarian" then please consult the dictionary.
>>1318334
>totalitarianism and authoritarianism are indistinguishable
mmmmmmmmmm
>>1313280
>(whoever that is)
:(
>>1316957
It's not that it doesn't fit their worldview, it's that the "science" you are referring to has been proven wrong repeatedly and discarded numerous times by most scientists as heavily flawed or completely false. Those infographs you stormniggers post all the time have been debunked for ages and only make you look like an uneducated faggot.
t. /pol/ack of 5+ years
>>1318517
Depends on exactly what you're talking about, because a lot of actual racialist research now either A. Goes unfunded completely and is forced to look for alternatives B. Discarded because it was funded by an alternative source C. Accidently discovered and quickly buried by top level administration.
t. Child and employee of a medical studies professor
>>1313374
>believing totalitarianism is real and/or ever achieved
>>1316667
go fast doggo
>>1318528
That's because there's no need to study it as its an unproductive field that will probably just lead to harmful evidence.
The notion of race in my opinion is valid but there shouldn't be rigorous scientific research to prove what differences really exist because its not actually going to lead anywhere useful
>>1322820
First off, I'm not a racist, I'm just telling you what happens in the real world.
Second off, I'm not opposed to racialist research if their methodology is valid and they are open and productive like any other researchers are.
>That's because there's no need to study it as its an unproductive field
What evidence do you have besides the barbaric and unscientific studies of race from the early 1900s?
There is rarely such a thing as "unproductive science", as long as it is actual science.
>that will probably just lead to harmful evidence.
So, evidence can be harmful, why? Because the evidence points a conclusion opposite the world view of a few people?
If truth hurts should it be suppressed?
I have a certain faith that research will prove the vast majority of racists wrong; but will coincide with racialists.
>The notion of race in my opinion is valid
This is a different discussi9n.
>but there shouldn't be rigorous scientific research to prove what differences really exist
Why not?
>because its not actually going to lead anywhere useful
Except for you know, possible leaps and bounds in medical, social, enviornmental sciences?
Any amount of information and research can lead to something useful, productive, or essential.
You're no better than the anti-science right.
>Fascism
>Not Hokumat-i Eslami
>>1313278
Of course if you use fascism to label unrelated things it seems incoherent.
>>1307185
Fascism isn't a single ideology so much as It is an entire spectrum of ideologies. It is a third wing to the left and the right. As such, there is some fascism which is aesthetic and some which is not, just as there are some left and right ideologies which are 'aesthetic' and some which are not. I'd say on average the spectrum of fascism tends to be more aesthetic than the spectrum of left and right, probably because aesthetics play a pretty big role in making fascism likeable.
>>1322993
It's not allowed for the same reason human cloning and genetic modification is illegal.
For a start we have to understand what our humanity is before making discoveries that could once again put this idea into question.
Race is a reality but it doesn't have to be proven scientifically.
>>1323063
Italian Fascism was also incoherent. As stated about 100 times in this thread.
>>1323386
Except that it is not banned...
It's only shunned and blocked by top down administration.
You are talking out your ass, you can't even answer any of the questions I asked.
There is no reason why methodilogical and valid racialist research should not be conducted other than some exorbent amount of feefees.
>>1323386
>>1323575
On top of that you're trying to corner the science market,
>only humanities can answer questions regarding humanity not science
So we only come up with answers that can't be tested in real world scenarios.
If humanities conclude absolute equality, science should be able to produce in great number the evidence for it.
>>1323575
>There is no reason why methodilogical and valid racialist research should not be conducted other than some exorbent amount of feefees.
There is no reason why methodilogical and valid lysenkoist research should not be conducted other than some exorbent [sic] amount of feefees.
>>1323616
I can not answer those questions.
They do get funded, but by alternative means, and even when widely open and viable as any other research (let's take the widely renowned and debated The Bell Curve for example) it is discarded.
>something useful comes from it
A. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not a bad answer, anything can come from it
B. Mainly advances in the medical fields or social fields of study when learning how to treat social inequality.
>>1323635
Because lysenkoist research was not scientific in the slightest.
>>1323635
>The campaign was supported by Joseph Stalin. More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were sent to prison, fired, or executed as a part of this campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his scientific opponents. The president of the Agriculture Academy was sent to prison and died there, while the scientific research in the field of genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953.[3] Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines was also negatively affected or banned.[4]
Seems like in both cases the biggest problem is lefties suppressing honest scientific inquiry.
>>1323668
Except it had zero scientific basis, had falsified results, and was an entirely political act.
Hardly comparable to actual research.
Your again trying to paint crude early 1900s racist science as what I'm talking about.
Memetic.
>>1323672
How is IQ research substantial in any way?
Seriously, there's no evidence that IQ is related to intelligence at all aside from the normal "more intelligent people tend to do better on IQ tests."
Khoisan people score 65 on IQ tests. You'd say they're sub retarded. Here's the thing about that:
They have one of the more complex spoken languages.
They carry on conversations with each other.
They have survived for thousands of years. Humans only adaptation, really, is their intelligence. A society of sub-retarded people is not going to survive. And that there is condemning.
Let's take a closer look at world history as well. Say we gave and IQ test to an Ancient Germanic person and a contemporaneous Roman person. Would the Germanic person score lower? They hadn't invented anything. In fact, Germanic people went on to invent nothing for another couple thousand years. Aren't they considered one of the more intelligent groups of people?
Yet another question. If Greek culture and history forms the basis of our societies today, why do Greeks score significantly lower than other Europeans on IQ tests?
Too inconsistent. Intelligence isn't even constant within countries, let alone within entire races. Are Greeks white even though their average IQ is so low?
>>1323668
No, your logic is stupid. Lysenko only existed because any kind of criticism or debate was brutally suppressed by fanatical leftists who cared more about protecting their narrative than actually making scientific progress.
Thankfully, criticism of the left's sacred cows today will only get you ostracized from the academy or professionally slandered, rather than sent to a gulag.
If you had any shred of intellectual integrity, you wouldn't care about racialist research because people with intellectual integrity adjust their worldview to fit facts, not the other way around. One would think if you were secure in your belief that racialist research was pseudo-science then you would have no problem with it, as the research would prove it false. But here you are, making contorted arguments out of the young earth creationist's playbook.
>>1323713
Mind you I don't agree with intelligence quotient as a defecto way of measuring intelligence itself, or that intelligence is inherently measurable.
But if someone has a research plan and gets it funded, it shouldn't be shut down.
And to answer your questions about IQ and why it changed or why are Greeks dumb and so on, it's because your scrambling for an answer to a question I haven't asked.
You're now darting all over the place to "put the evil racist in his place". Or some shit like that.
It's probably due to population changes, social structures, and the biggest is probably wealth and leasiure.
>>1323672
So? Why is that a reason to not fund open, methodologically sound lysenkoism?
>But here you are, making contorted arguments out of the young earth creationist's playbook.
You're complaining about how science is unfair because it gave up on your theories after they were thoroughly discredited and debunked.
You literally are pulling from the Young Earth Creationist playbook, and you don't have the standing to actually talk shit about Young Earth Creationists.
After all, one would think if you were secure in your believe that biblically based biology was psuedo-science, than you would have no problem with it, right?
If you had intellectual integrity, you'd adjust your worldview to fit facts, and not rule out the possibility that all human beings share a common ancestor who lived only 4,000 years ago.
>>1323765
>So? Why is that a reason to not fund open, methodologically sound lysenkoism?
Because that's an oxymoron.
From this point on you've shown you don't know how to use this weebsite. But I'll respond anyway to the questions for the other anon.
>You're complaining about how science is unfair because it gave up on your theories after they were thoroughly discredited and debunked.
Where have I done this?
And what have been throughly discredited and debunked and how?
>You literally are pulling from the Young Earth Creationist playbook, and you don't have the standing to actually talk shit about Young Earth Creationists.
I am? In what way?
>After all, one would think if you were secure in your believe that biblically based biology was psuedo-science, than you would have no problem with it, right?
This isn't really a coherent sentence and I'm not sure of your point. You're starting to type like a hysterical mental case.
>If you had intellectual integrity, you'd adjust your worldview to fit facts, and not rule out the possibility that all human beings share a common ancestor who lived only 4,000 years ago.
What exactly is my world view? And what am I ruling out?
Why are you projecting so much?
>>1323792
>Because that's an oxymoron.
Special pleading.
>Where have I done this?
"Thankfully, criticism of the left's sacred cows today will only get you ostracized from the academy or professionally slandered, rather than sent to a gulag."
Literally could be written by a YEC in explaining why no university will fund biblically based biology.
>I am? In what way?
See above.
>What exactly is my world view?
Evidently one contemptuous of Yong Earth Creationists.
>And what am I ruling out?
The possibility that Young Earth Creationists are scientifically correct.
>>1323743
"it shouldn't be shut down"
it's not shut down... it's just ridiculed for being as absurd as it is. here's the thing: you're talking about legitimate research, which is not the form race and intelligence research takes on. not to mention that races themselves are poorly defined (most people forget that those who they criticize for not "pooing in the loo" are actually indo-europeans)
if my research plan is about lysenkoism, it shouldn't even get funded.
you're the one who is advocating for race and intelligence research, which always takes on the form of IQ testing.
>>1323820
> not to mention that races themselves are poorly defined (most people forget that those who they criticize for not "pooing in the loo" are actually indo-europeans)
This. Racial research is always bunk and psuedo-science because it works from assuming it's framework is real and never defining it.
This is exactly in the same area of 'research' as phrenology, chiropractic, traditional chinese medicine, and yes, Young Earth Creationism.
>>1323820
Dravidians aren't Indo-European.
>>1323839
... It's not the Dravidians that aren't pooing in the loo according to this HDI map... South India is richer than North India.
