Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Brexit! What's Next: Frexit? Nexit? Italexit? Swexit?" video.

  1. 3
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. The Similarities & Differences Of Fascism & Communism: Right now the "antifa" people are a threat to American sovereignty. This "Anticenter-Fascism" [linker-Fachismus] is not good for the country. It's growing (on both the right [national socialism in it's racialism] and the left) because the left keeps insinuating itself in debacle after debacle, pissing off the right enough for them to become "rampantly individualist" from the base of the 'center-right' on the political spectrum, and thus separate from the left entirely—a bifurcation. Which is by title alone extensive in it's nuance, because it is this that is actually an attempt at the impossible; that is to say, the two divisions share in remarkable quality the essence of what both sides want to achieve, yet vary in the goals to achieve for themselves- and that's still putting it simply. Yet the Fascist strives for (thus in likemindedness they strive for) what is essentially an antithesis to the Centrist model, given the current political spectrum. It's revolutionary, it's tendency is to be disdained, it involves a massive disproportion of violence (throughout history, this is a fact)—and it revolves around idealist solutions that DO NOT WORK for long term success, unless they were to enact a virulent (and in this day and age, possibly world-ending) war—the selfsame as the Communist, which aims for non-violent coercion [save for the composite forms of 'crude communism', the Soviets, Chinese Imperialists, Pol Pot, etc. in other words "extremists", in the tone of Zionism], in the striving for autarky (whether they achieve that or not History tells us is an entirely different matter); that is, whether collectivized, a la Communist existence, versus, "more independent" a la Fascismo methodology, for the state. Now notice, there are two distinctions here: One: Fascism focuses on "independence", and there is a, let's call it, "rampant individualism" of the Fascistic flair—and yet they at most collectivize the labor's wealth at the very highest state levels—in order to fund it's activities, all while maintaining it's self-providing state. It relies on everyone's "individual" effort, but no less than "everyone's"; similar to.... Two: Communism focuses on "collectivism" and there is a notion of the state being abolished and the individual being insuperable in importance, a la Fascismo—but without the import of the state—thusly requiring, in theory, no one to supplant one another in their collective importance. Thusly, like the Fascismo, they are needed in a collective state to provide the necessities of the whole of the individual- this is what the Greeks taught, at some point, I do believe—point is, that it eventually requires something akin to a state, and as the line somewhat goes, eventually you just call what is quacking a duck- and yes I'm paraphrasing- this is a walking, talking & LAME duck, this attempt to stifle "centrism", as if the mere notion of Centrisim weren't just "preventing collapse of contemporary society". Something we should aim to preserve. [This last part (at "point is") is definitely a snap at statism as anymore than the social requirement, period: nothing akin to a imperialistic state apparatus, but the State often adapts that form. And the social requires the economic at that end, but that means that the conversion from socialism and/or anarcho-capitalism (in a given racial/national body) and then into either totalizing it's pursuits of resources and juridical/legal components or absolutizing the universal imperative of racial/national or religious directives: which then lead to a contradiction: this is why you see such forms taking place in Russia, as of now, and in China, still yet].
    1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. @Benjamin "Musslini and Hitler agreed with certain aspects of Marxism, ergo they're the same as Soviet Communism" I didn't say that. You are misreading me. I never ever said these words you've jettisoned out of your head. I was actually trying to make the point you just made: it was DIALECTICAL [cf. Giovanni] of their ERA [Fin de siècle—which I would have gotten...and given the opportunity, here it is...]. And I know about Hegel. That's the point, Hegel WAS a CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DAY — Precisely, why Marx and Hegel and the German Idealist school following after Kant, and then the phenomenologists after Husserl, like Heidegger, et al. are so prescient to understand in their fullness. NatSoc is basically retarded unless you're actually German, then ok; or you plan on being the only national base around; and fascism is just a trend: it's more proper to human nature, in my opinion, but...that is to say, in a more operable way, than say, NatSoc, which is basically too extreme. It's not serviceable, especially, under "capitalism" [that is to say, the means to production]. The "race" needs must control the production, and the customary law become non-binary to the law of other peoples, when the "self-hood" of the race [or weltanshauung] takes on "it's own meaning" and significance, as it were [which is what the fascists wanted to, but in a different sense, not so much based on the science at the time, biology, etc.]...point is, people are trending towards "self-management", either way you go, any which way in the triad espoused here, Marxism, Fascism, or National Socialism: they all converge in Socialism [self-management] of a kind that is differentiated from the status quo, as it were, or if you will, the "trend" of capitalistic endeavor as it stands [crony capital- and that's within "liberalist" ends, as well, which is the synarchy which contract their flows of wealth into "state" socialism, and whence comes the idea of "capitalist-socialism" or "gradualism" [cf. Fabian Society]...you can also see this trending ideal with the MPS [Mont Pelerin Society] funding the juntas in Chile: which become, again, SOCIALIST [or at least they are called socialist, but they are only socialist in on sense...they are "self-managing by race/nation" [the difference between "civic nationalism" and "ethnonationalism" is bound to the difference in "socialism" in state democracies, or pseudo-democracies, and "Socialism" as in "national socialism" [race-based self-management]. Where am I wrong?
    1
  20. 1
  21. 1