A revolutionary front

The main topic of this thread is an organized movement. My first question would be - Is there one? Is there a solidified movement that supports our ideals of Social Nationalism? And if not, why?

I think a National Movement would be great; however, I think it is much more desirable to organize ourselves in blocks or units. Units and blocks that have absolutely no connection with each other beyond the fact that they support the same ideals of Racial Nationalism and Socialism. This way, if one were to be infiltrated, the others would not go under. What do you all think?

I support the forming of local chapters as well. With that said this is some interesting food for thought - http://www.solargeneral.com/library/leaderless-resistance.pdf

At this point, organizations which espouse varieties of socialist-nationalism are relatively small, but gaining traction among the more youthful elements of the nationalist movements throughout the world. Part of the reason this forum was developed was to help foster the development of new organizations, as well as to enable like-minded comrades to network with one another.

Regarding the issue of organizing into autonomous blocs, I think this approach is problematic for a variety of reasons. Chief among my concerns with such an idea is that socialism can only be achieved by a mass mobilization of the proletariat, leaving little reason for one to contemplate forming small political units. The very notion of small cells pursuing political objectives reminds me of Blanquism—a revolutionary theory formulated by the French socialist, Louis Blanqui, wherein a small group of organized conspirators take state power through a coup d'état and implement socialism from above. Considering the overwhelming power of the state apparatus today, such an approach wouldn't stand a chance at success and would only serve to ruin the lives of the individuals involved in those blocs.

Celtiberian wrote:At this point, organizations which espouse varieties of socialist-nationalism are relatively small, but gaining traction among the more youthful elements of the nationalist movements throughout the world. Part of the reason this forum was developed was to help foster the development of new organizations, as well as to enable like-minded comrades to network with one another.

Regarding the issue of organizing into autonomous blocs, I think this approach is problematic for a variety of reasons. Chief among my concerns with such an idea is that socialism can only be achieved by a mass mobilization of the proletariat, leaving little reason for one to contemplate forming small political units. The very notion of small cells pursuing political objectives reminds me of Blanquism—a revolutionary theory formulated by Louis Auguste Blanqui, wherein a small group of organized conspirators take state power through a coup d'état and implement socialism from above. Considering the overwhelming power of the state apparatus today, such approaches wouldn't stand a chance and would only serve to ruin the lives of the individuals involved in those blocs.

Very good point in your second paragraph. I am just concerned as to the best way to form a National front with local chapters, with members willing to take up the rifle when the time comes. I believe we have some major awakening of our folk to do before that time comes though, and for that we will need an effective movement with efficient propaganda.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Very good point in your second paragraph. I am just concerned as to the best way to form a National front with local chapters, with members willing to take up the rifle when the time comes. I believe we have some major awakening of our folk to do before that time comes though, and for that we will need an effective movement with efficient propaganda.

Capitalism's own internal contradictions will hasten the rise of class consciousness in due course, but it's vital that organizations exist which can channel the revolutionary fervor that is sure to emerge in the right direction. For this, mass political parties are necessary. Most political parties have local chapters, so I'm sure eventually a socialist-nationalist orientated party in the United States will form with active chapters in each state.

As far as insurrection is concerned, I think it's best not to discuss such matters at this point (and especially not online).

Celtiberian wrote:Capitalism's own internal contradictions will hasten the rise of class consciousness in due course, but it's vital that organizations exist which can channel the revolutionary fervor that is sure to emerge in the right direction. For this, mass political parties are necessary. Most political parties have local chapters, so I'm sure eventually a socialist-nationalist orientated party in the United States will form with active chapters in each state.

As far as insurrection is concerned, I think it's best not to discuss such matters at this point (and especially not online).

We couldn't agree more. Though I believe a plan for insurrection is always good, and its good to make one soon, I would never discuss such matters over an open forum.

In germany there are attempts being made to unify the anti globalist marxists with the socialist nationalists, but this is an extremely difficult project. 70 years of animocity, distrust and manipulation is in the way. Good thing is that the marxists are divided and parts of them have taken the side of the socalled "right wing" in several demonstrations.

A unified front is the way to go.

I believe that this forum will eventually grow large enough for the admins to create sub-forums for different parts of the United States and Europe. In such sub-forum's people from same area of the country would be able to agree on meetings, rallies etc. This would be a great step in aiding in creation of organisations... But of course they wouldn't be discussing the exact details of the foums, rest would be done by private messages (The walls have ears ) that's my view on how like minded parties, organisations will form

Lew Skannon wrote:In germany there are attempts being made to unify the anti globalist marxists with the socialist nationalists, but this is an extremely difficult project. 70 years of animocity, distrust and manipulation is in the way. Good thing is that the marxists are divided and parts of them have taken the side of the socalled "right wing" in several demonstrations.

A unified front is the way to go.

This is a great thing to hear.

WodzuUK wrote:I believe that this forum will eventually grow large enough for the admins to create sub-forums for different parts of the United States and Europe. In such sub-forum's people from same area of the country would be able to agree on meetings, rallies etc. This would be a great step in aiding in creation of organisations... But of course they wouldn't be discussing the exact details of the foums, rest would be done by private messages (The walls have ears ) that's my view on how like minded parties, organisations will form

Yes, I think this forum will grow and that is a great thing! Someone has to take the initiative though.

Our ideology puts us in a strange posistion the traditional left see us as fash or crypto nazi or whatever buzz name they have right now and the traditional right see us as unpatriotic or as part of the jooish marxist conspiricay.Luckily the world is in a recession so folk from both camps will cross deck (mainly from the right I belive) the next generation of social nationalist will be the ones to watch.

Myself and a couple of young lads from the northwest of england have for some time been trying to organise an autonomous nationalist-socialist movement. The main problem has been a lack of propaganda for recruitment and 'anti-fascist' opposition from UAF. I find that we have a lot less support from the right wing in england because were seen as collabarators whereas ive seen various blogs set up by lefties that, at the least, show an understanding for our nationalist roots. Its a tricky subject because our politics are so controversial. If anyone could offer up some advice on recruitment it would be glady regarded.

Liverpool_Front_UK wrote:Myself and a couple of young lads from the northwest of england have for some time been trying to organise an autonomous nationalist-socialist movement. The main problem has been a lack of propaganda for recruitment and 'anti-fascist' opposition from UAF. I find that we have a lot less support from the right wing in england because were seen as collabarators whereas ive seen various blogs set up by lefties that, at the least, show an understanding for our nationalist roots. Its a tricky subject because our politics are so controversial. If anyone could offer up some advice on recruitment it would be glady regarded.

I find it difficult to offer you any advice, primarily because the principles of the 'autonomous nationalist' groups strike me as being rather ambiguous. Perhaps if you could expound upon some of your group's ideological tenets, the comrades here can be of some assistance. Of particular relevance are your views on socialist revolution and the national question. For example, do your positions on such matters correspond to those of the Socialist Phalanx — elaborated upon in our official FAQ — or do they instead conform to the typical 'Third Positionist' (racist/imperialist/class-collaborationist) framework?

Liverpool_Front_UK wrote:Myself and a couple of young lads from the northwest of england have for some time been trying to organise an autonomous nationalist-socialist movement. The main problem has been a lack of propaganda for recruitment and 'anti-fascist' opposition from UAF. I find that we have a lot less support from the right wing in england because were seen as collabarators whereas ive seen various blogs set up by lefties that, at the least, show an understanding for our nationalist roots. Its a tricky subject because our politics are so controversial. If anyone could offer up some advice on recruitment it would be glady regarded.

You have to create your own propoganda. Your comrades will have to dig deep to produce at least one leaflet. You have to be clear about your aims and objectives. Also you have to be clear about your ideology. You also have to look at who you are trying to target to win support. I think socialist nationalism is very hard to grasp for a lot of people within main stream nationalism.

Admin wrote:

Liverpool_Front_UK wrote:Myself and a couple of young lads from the northwest of england have for some time been trying to organise an autonomous nationalist-socialist movement. The main problem has been a lack of propaganda for recruitment and 'anti-fascist' opposition from UAF. I find that we have a lot less support from the right wing in england because were seen as collabarators whereas ive seen various blogs set up by lefties that, at the least, show an understanding for our nationalist roots. Its a tricky subject because our politics are so controversial. If anyone could offer up some advice on recruitment it would be glady regarded.

I find it difficult to offer you any advice, primarily because the principles of the 'autonomous nationalist' groups strike me as being rather ambiguous. Perhaps if you could expound upon some of your group's ideological tenets, the comrades here can be of some assistance. Of particular relevance are your views on socialist revolution and the national question. For example, do your positions on such matters correspond to those of the Socialist Phalanx — elaborated upon in our official FAQ — or do they instead conform to the typical 'Third Positionist' (racist/imperialist/class-collaborationist) framework?

Just taking issue with you here with regards the Third Position. Yes the ITP in England did go down the path of reactionary clerical fascism but the English nationalist movement did not and remain true to its principles. See Troy Southgates Nazis, Fascists or neither

seagull wrote:Just taking issue with you here with regards the Third Position. Yes the ITP in England did go down the path of reactionary clerical fascism but the English nationalist movement did not and remain true to its principles. See Troy Southgates Nazis, Fascists or neither

Southgate's group(s) represent but one tendency found within Third Positionism — National Anarchism. Generally speaking, Third Positionist groups tend to promote such things as racism, imperialism, and class collaboration. There is, of course, a superficial pretense of dedication to revolution and that is what alienates so many other reactionary nationalists. (Even the mere aesthetics of socialism are met with strong apprehension from the far-right.) And it should go without saying that leftists (and even centrists) would not be inclined to support Third Positionist groups either — on ideological grounds alone.

With respect to National Anarchist groups, they too appear to be a rather heterogeneous lot. The Bay Area National Anarchists (or BANA), for example, espoused views and engaged in activities that were fundamentally reactionary in nature. Moreover, there are a number of aspects to National Anarchism itself that strike me as particularly dubious. For example, the embrace of "radical traditionalism" is especially disconcerting. (Perhaps you could shed some light on this question.)

Where's the substance of these Third Positionist types groups? Where's the beef? Where are they ADVANCING class struggle rather than playing a detrimental role to it (and giving the 'Left' misleaderships a phony "progressive" posturing opportunity)? All they want to talk about is 'white' people. All they say they care about is 'white' people. That's why their support only comes from the Right---they still have so much in common with the Stormfronters!

That was me once, even at the beginning of this year, at the very beginning of this forum's emergence (in fact, it was dumbass racist statements of mine from SP's beginning that helped the Third Worldists and uber-cosmo Luxembourgists and libertine-sociopath Leftie 'antifa' scenesters make the case that got me banned from RevLeft). I hadn't yet really examined 'white' for what it is. My nationalism was over on one side and separately my socialism was over on the opposite side. My nationalism was insufficient because of this. My socialism was insufficient because of this. I had to face and overcome that goddamn elephant in the room which is better known popularly as 'white race', this whole 'white America' narrative that has serve both Left and Right misleaderships. So long as we identify with it, we're trapped 'inside the box', made impotent by this system, like a bunch of slaves wishing our masters well and pretending we have significant common 'racial' and 'national' links with them while we're pitted against the proletarians and oppressed peoples of every other nationality in a loser's race to the bottom. After all, who really determines what is 'white'? The ruling class does, and always has! We didn't do it. 'White' wasn't something we working people of European ethnic descent independently created and freely chose as our way.

Ask yourself: why aren't Bosnian Muslims and Albanians considered 'white' by most so-called pro-white folks? Lots of Mediterranean-region Europeans are quite capable of getting a dark tan and they are still called 'white', so it isn't just that. Ah, it's that 'white' is supposed to be traditional Christian. If you ain't a self-identifying Christian, you ain't really 'white' enough (which makes one wonder what the attitude of these racist White Christian crusaders would have been if they lived in the era back when Rome was confronting pagans all over Europe). You know what the best thing about being a White Christian traditionalist crusader has to be? Everyone is a 'sinner', anyone is expendable in the name of their 'great ideals', and they can always pat themselves on the back after witch-hunts and conquests and genocides telling themselves that they were doing the work of the good Lord above. Don't like it? Then you must not be really 'white'! If such values and behaviors are alien to you, then you scorn 'tradition', and you must not really be 'white'!

Leave that 'white' box behind. Free yourselves from that trap. It's time we freely created and chose our own paths. It's time we proletarians independently forged our own nations, based on our values, for our own interests----not for the masters of exploitative societies, not based on their ruling ideas and their 'traditional' values!

To hell with the USA. We need a Euroamerican Soviet Socialist Republic.

Coach wrote:Where's the substance of these Third Positionist types groups? Where's the beef? Where are they ADVANCING class struggle rather than playing a detrimental role to it (and giving the 'Left' misleaderships a phony "progressive" posturing opportunity)? All they want to talk about is 'white' people. All they say they care about is 'white' people. That's why their support only comes from the Right---they still have so much in common with the Stormfronters!

That was me once, even at the beginning of this year, at the very beginning of this forum's emergence (in fact, it was dumbass racist statements of mine from SP's beginning that helped the Third Worldists and uber-cosmo Luxembourgists and libertine-sociopath Leftie 'antifa' scenesters make the case that got me banned from RevLeft). I hadn't yet really examined 'white' for what it is. My nationalism was over on one side and separately my socialism was over on the opposite side. My nationalism was insufficient because of this. My socialism was insufficient because of this. I had to face and overcome that goddamn elephant in the room which is better known popularly as 'white race', this whole 'white America' narrative that has serve both Left and Right misleaderships. So long as we identify with it, we're trapped 'inside the box', made impotent by this system, like a bunch of slaves wishing our masters well and pretending we have significant common 'racial' and 'national' links with them while we're pitted against the proletarians and oppressed peoples of every other nationality in a loser's race to the bottom. After all, who really determines what is 'white'? The ruling class does, and always has! We didn't do it. 'White' wasn't something we working people of European ethnic descent independently created and freely chose as our way.

Ask yourself: why aren't Bosnian Muslims and Albanians considered 'white' by most so-called pro-white folks? Lots of Mediterranean-region Europeans are quite capable of getting a dark tan and they are still called 'white', so it isn't just that. Ah, it's that 'white' is supposed to be traditional Christian. If you ain't a self-identifying Christian, you ain't really 'white' enough (which makes one wonder what the attitude of these racist White Christian crusaders would have been if they lived in the era back when Rome was confronting pagans all over Europe). You know what the best thing about being a White Christian traditionalist crusader has to be? Everyone is a 'sinner', anyone is expendable in the name of their 'great ideals', and they can always pat themselves on the back after witch-hunts and conquests and genocides telling themselves that they were doing the work of the good Lord above. Don't like it? Then you must not be really 'white'! If such values and behaviors are alien to you, then you scorn 'tradition', and you must not really be 'white'!

Leave that 'white' box behind. Free yourselves from that trap. It's time we freely created and chose our own paths. It's time we proletarians independently forged our own nations, based on our values, for our own interests----not for the masters of exploitative societies, not based on their ruling ideas and their 'traditional' values!

To hell with the USA. We need a Euroamerican Soviet Socialist Republic.

I agree with you that White Nationalism/Racialism is irrelevant to Socialist Nationalism however I totally disagree with the idea that todays Nations exist because of " ruling ideas and values". That is Cosmopolitan nonsense.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: I agree with you that White Nationalism/Racialism is irrelevant to Socialist Nationalism however I totally disagree with the idea that todays Nations exist because of " ruling ideas and values". That is Cosmopolitan nonsense.

How so? What part of the defining characterizations and delineations of today's recognized nations is not originating straight from "ruling ideas and values"?

When Marx and Engels said that workers have no countries, this meant that not a single one of these countries (in their day) was a dictatorship of the proletariat based on socialized property relations. As such, these countries didn't belong to the workers and thus deserved no loyalty or obedience. It is self-deception to pretend that the United States belong to American working class citizens. The USA has never been ours. I can't think of any mainstream characteristic about the USA that is genuinely ours, and certainly nothing good that wouldn't be manifold times better expressed by independent self-determined proletarian-ruled nations.

Admin wrote:Southgate's group(s) represent but one tendency found within Third Positionism — National Anarchism. Generally speaking, Third Positionist groups tend to promote such things as racism, imperialism, and class collaboration. There is, of course, a superficial pretense of dedication to revolution and that is what alienates so many other reactionary nationalists. (Even the mere aesthetics of socialism are met with strong apprehension from the far-right.) And it should go without saying that leftists (and even centrists) would not be inclined to support Third Positionist groups either — on ideological grounds alone.

With respect to National Anarchist groups, they too appear to be a rather heterogeneous lot. The Bay Area National Anarchists (or BANA), for example, espoused views and engaged in activities that were fundamentally reactionary in nature. Moreover, there are a number of aspects to National Anarchism itself that strike me as particularly dubious. For example, the embrace of "radical traditionalism" is especially disconcerting. (Perhaps you could shed some light on this question.)

Troy was a third positionist before he took the national anarchist route. Where is the racism, class collaboration and imperialism in the NF in the mid 80's and then in the English Nationalist movement? The problem that the Third Positionists had were that they were very much trying to gain ground in the traditonal areas of the reactionary far right and as you say it was met with apprehension. The same could be said for the National Anarchists. I agree that groups like BANA did engage in activities that were reactionary in nature. This is why the left treat National Anarchism with suspicion and see it as fascism moving into "their territory"

What is it that you find disconcerting about radical traditionalism? It is but a rejection of modern materialist values and looking for a new spiritual ideal and for small scale local cultures.

seagull wrote;

What is it that you find disconcerting about radical traditionalism? It is but a rejection of modern materialist values and looking for a new spiritual ideal and for small scale local cultures.

Really?

Radical Traditionalism is the name given to modern movements that seek to revive pre-modern traditionalist values concerning the spiritual aspects of life. In contrast to modern culture, which they see as marked by materialism, mechanization and urbanism, radical traditionalists promote traditional and local culture and folklore, respectful treatment of the earth and animals, and small-scale organization of society (such as distributism, localism and Paleoconservatism). http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Radical_Traditionalism

Radical traditionalism takes its philosophical cue from philosophers such as Alain de Benoist, Christopher Stagner, and Julius Evola. These thinkers are united in expressing distaste for modern culture and admiration for those who have the will and strength to go against the grain of societal norms. The connection between individualism and radical traditionalism is founded in the basic assumption that modern culture is in some way detrimental to the well-being of the soul, and that reactions against it, disparate though they might be in form, are united by a common thread. This explains the acceptance as "models" of the different methods of reaction used by those that the radical traditionalists claim as influences. http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Radical_Traditionalism

Evola again, didn't we discuss him in another thread?

Seems to me that Radical Traditionalism is simply rustic fascism, fascists with an artistic temperament.

"These thinkers are united in expressing distaste for modern culture and admiration for those who have the will and strength to go against the grain of societal norms." What like child molesters, sexual predators and other perverts?

The real question for me is are all thrid posistionist facists?,certainly most ive come across are and look towards the likes of the BUF,Falangist ect ect as the model for the future.

Yea we have discussed Evola and personally I find his many of views Aristorcratic balls.

If anybody belives our Ancestors spent there lives meekley wanting to be led by some demi god charcter to run things then I suggest you go back to the history books.

Isakenaz wrote:Seems to me that Radical Traditionalism is simply rustic fascism, fascists with an artistic temperament.

"These thinkers are united in expressing distaste for modern culture and admiration for those who have the will and strength to go against the grain of societal norms." What like child molesters, sexual predators and other perverts?

I have read lots of Evola and I do not think he was supportive of such things. I recognize him as a reactionary writer, but, not ALL of radical traditionalism should be discarded. What is wrong with a distaste for modern culture? I, myself, despise it. Against the grains of societal norms would be like sustaining from drug and sex culture, not blasting hip hop through your speakers in school, actually reading instead of watching TV 5 hours a day.

Now, I am not sure about your age bracket, but as a senior in High School I am in contact with kids that do and are engaged in all of those things, and let me tell you if I am a "Radical Traditionalist" for denying those aspects of modern culture (which is the product of bourgeoisie minds btw) than I am proud to be one.

Pantheon Rising wrote:What is wrong with a distaste for modern culture? I, myself, despise it. Against the grains of societal norms would be like sustaining from drug and sex culture, not blasting hip hop through your speakers in school, actually reading instead of watching TV 5 hours a day.

Now, I am not sure about your age bracket, but as a senior in High School I am in contact with kids that do and are engaged in all of those things, and let me tell you if I am a "Radical Traditionalist" for denying those aspects of modern culture (which is the product of bourgeoisie minds btw) than I am proud to be one.

Touche Comrade I also share a healthy disdain for "Modern culture" I respect and follow traditional English working class values and the ancient Germanic and Celtic traditions and values of my ancestors,I however have no love for Aristocracy be that post Norman "Royal" aristocracy or post Civil war Merchant aristocracy,Is that radical traditionalism I dont think so but others might.

The question I suppose remains what is meant by Radical Traditionalist and are all third posistionists Radical traditionalists.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I have read lots of Evola and I do not think he was supportive of such things. I recognize him as a reactionary writer, but, not ALL of radical traditionalism should be discarded. What is wrong with a distaste for modern culture? I, myself, despise it. Against the grains of societal norms would be like sustaining from drug and sex culture, not blasting hip hop through your speakers in school, actually reading instead of watching TV 5 hours a day.

Now, I am not sure about your age bracket, but as a senior in High School I am in contact with kids that do and are engaged in all of those things, and let me tell you if I am a "Radical Traditionalist" for denying those aspects of modern culture (which is the product of bourgeoisie minds btw) than I am proud to be one.

The old ruling class traditions are slavery and oppression. The new ruling class ways are slavery and oppression. Your pissed about this nasty form of slavery and oppression that convinces the masses that they are really free, but actually it is more like a social bribe in exchange for accepting the political and economic status quo. Shit's fucked up---ah, might as well lighten up, do drugs, drink, get laid, blast rap music, veg in front of a screen for hours doing nothing (and not just TV screens), 'cause that's all life under modern capitalism still has to offer you if you are wealthy; the bribe is that you can still be 'free' to temporarily please the flesh a little bit as a diversion in between the grind of exploitative and socially/politically alienated reality. Conservatives raise their hands against that very last little bit of temporary pleasure-seeking capability and the illusion of freedom it also us to decive ourselves with; in exchange it gives us slavery and oppression in every arena of life, and most of the time this is done by functionally combining 'church' with the state of the ruling class (thereby determining and enforcing its 'traditions').
Try living in a really religious community where you would get humiliated, shunned, fired, beaten and/or jailed for just these examples you complained about in "modern culture" today. I've lived in such Christian Taliban traditional type places. "God" is now telling you what you can and can't do with your body, can and can't do with your eyes, can and can't do with your ears, can and can't do with your tongue, etc. Most people think that shit only happens in strict Islamic society. No, it happens anywhere 'tradition' is strictly upheld and enforced. You can ferret out about 800 oppressive commandments from the Christian Bible alone, in such a way that certainly no human being would be capable of living without violating this 'tradition'. In America, THAT is what is really meant by 'tradition' by almost all those who crusade for 'tradition' here. Start talking about 'tradition' with 'traditionalist' Americans, and you will almost certainly get to the God Squad argument that "America is a Christian nation". If we don't take that seriously, we ignore it at our own peril; that can only really mean one thing, which is slavery and oppression under "in God we trust" wrapped up in the Stars and Stripes banner. Ironically, these are some of the same assholes who will loudly and persistently shout that 'communism' is directly in contradiction to 'human nature', without showing the slightest hint of reflection upon the fact that their 'tradition' EXPLICITLY DEMONIZES and CRIMINALIZES 'human nature' by anyone's definition (i.e., you could successfully prosecute everyone on Earth under Biblical law). And of course, just as back in 'traditional' past times, there is always one rule for the ruling class and another distinctly stricter oppressive standard and applied law for the masses. They won't be burning rich folks at the stake for watching porn or doing drugs or fornicating out of wedlock or listening to the devil's music or any of that stuff, you know...they'll just demand a bigger contribution from the wealthy to the 'church' in exchange for looking the other way, and the ruling class will tend dominate the leading bodies and officers of that 'church' anyway, so don't expect their 'justice' to be blind and equal.

What should irritate you about people allowing themselves to be reduced to nothing but that shitty bribe of being 'free' to please their flesh temporarily in the more base ways in exchange for accepting exploitation and powerlessness and not making trouble for the ruling class is that it is not objective necessary for them to live in such limited ways with such limited 'freedom' and so little real power. We shouldn't be wagging our fingers to shame people for a lot of the baser bullshit they do just to make by under current conditions, but rather we should be pointing our fingers toward a future of our collective self-emancipation from exploitative and oppressive society altogether, and toward our collective self-determination and proletarian-democratic self-rule over society.

For those of you who still cling to "Whiteness" and 'tradition' what does it really mean to impose your standards? Who get criminalized? Who gets dispossessed and disenfranchised for violations? Who gets tortured, imprisoned, forced into involuntary servitude or executed (read: murdered) for violations? Who are not sufficiently 'White" enough to live? You might feel a bit shy discussing this, but every WN I've met had a long laundry list of groups of people they'd love to see lynched, gassed, machine gunned, forced into slave labor, imprisoned, beaten in public, mutilated and tortured in private, forced from their homes and deported, conquered/nuked, etc. And the broader conservative/traditionalist Right feels much the same way and have much overlap with the WNs' hit-list, give or take a few most-hated groups of people; usually the broader Right aren't so directly up-front about their desire to harm these groups of people when speaking publicly, but every now and then they let slip and reveal how they really like to express their hatreds against these targeted-groups of people. The more 'traditional' they were, the longer and more extensive that list was, until the logical extreme conclusion is arrived at where everyone but themselves really deserved to be punished. What is really being reflected by this? No, it's not that they individually (or groups of people ethnically related to these folks) are the moral equivalent of devil's spawn on Earth, like the faux-Left would pretend. They are expressing the evil nature of exploitative society, driven to the further inhuman extremes by modern capitalism. Their appeal to 'tradition' is an excuse to dispossess, subjugate and/or slay their competition (i.e., those groups of people on their long laundry lists of scapegoats) to "get ahead" under capitalism. 'Traditionalists' NEVER actually fundamentally abolish capitalist relations root and branch, because nothing scares them more that abolishing class distinctions and real mass proletarian democracy in power over all of society; they know that all of their 'tradition' would be swept up like rotten rubbish and tossed in the dustbin of history forever after that.
There really is no 'third position': either we live under exploitative/oppressive society (class society), or we live as liberated human beings in socialist society.

Coach wrote:The old ruling class traditions are slavery and oppression. The new ruling class ways are slavery and oppression. Your pissed about this nasty form of slavery and oppression that convinces the masses that they are really free, but actually it is more like a social bribe in exchange for accepting the political and economic status quo. Shit's fucked up---ah, might as well lighten up, do drugs, drink, get laid, blast rap music, veg in front of a screen for hours doing nothing (and not just TV screens), 'cause that's all life under modern capitalism still has to offer you if you are wealthy; the bribe is that you can still be 'free' to temporarily please the flesh a little bit as a diversion in between the grind of exploitative and socially/politically alienated reality. Conservatives raise their hands against that very last little bit of temporary pleasure-seeking capability and the illusion of freedom it also us to decive ourselves with; in exchange it gives us slavery and oppression in every arena of life, and most of the time this is done by functionally combining 'church' with the state of the ruling class (thereby determining and enforcing its 'traditions').
Try living in a really religious community where you would get humiliated, shunned, fired, beaten and/or jailed for just these examples you complained about in "modern culture" today. I've lived in such Christian Taliban traditional type places. "God" is now telling you what you can and can't do with your body, can and can't do with your eyes, can and can't do with your ears, can and can't do with your tongue, etc. Most people think that shit only happens in strict Islamic society. No, it happens anywhere 'tradition' is strictly upheld and enforced. You can ferret out about 800 oppressive commandments from the Christian Bible alone, in such a way that certainly no human being would be capable of living without violating this 'tradition'. In America, THAT is what is really meant by 'tradition' by almost all those who crusade for 'tradition' here. Start talking about 'tradition' with 'traditionalist' Americans, and you will almost certainly get to the God Squad argument that "America is a Christian nation". If we don't take that seriously, we ignore it at our own peril; that can only really mean one thing, which is slavery and oppression under "in God we trust" wrapped up in the Stars and Stripes banner. Ironically, these are some of the same assholes who will loudly and persistently shout that 'communism' is directly in contradiction to 'human nature', without showing the slightest hint of reflection upon the fact that their 'tradition' EXPLICITLY DEMONIZES and CRIMINALIZES 'human nature' by anyone's definition (i.e., you could successfully prosecute everyone on Earth under Biblical law). And of course, just as back in 'traditional' past times, there is always one rule for the ruling class and another distinctly stricter oppressive standard and applied law for the masses. They won't be burning rich folks at the stake for watching porn or doing drugs or fornicating out of wedlock or listening to the devil's music or any of that stuff, you know...they'll just demand a bigger contribution from the wealthy to the 'church' in exchange for looking the other way, and the ruling class will tend dominate the leading bodies and officers of that 'church' anyway, so don't expect their 'justice' to be blind and equal.

What should irritate you about people allowing themselves to be reduced to nothing but that shitty bribe of being 'free' to please their flesh temporarily in the more base ways in exchange for accepting exploitation and powerlessness and not making trouble for the ruling class is that it is not objective necessary for them to live in such limited ways with such limited 'freedom' and so little real power. We shouldn't be wagging our fingers to shame people for a lot of the baser bullshit they do just to make by under current conditions, but rather we should be pointing our fingers toward a future of our collective self-emancipation from exploitative and oppressive society altogether, and toward our collective self-determination and proletarian-democratic self-rule over society.

For those of you who still cling to "Whiteness" and 'tradition' what does it really mean to impose your standards? Who get criminalized? Who gets dispossessed and disenfranchised for violations? Who gets tortured, imprisoned, forced into involuntary servitude or executed (read: murdered) for violations? Who are not sufficiently 'White" enough to live? You might feel a bit shy discussing this, but every WN I've met had a long laundry list of groups of people they'd love to see lynched, gassed, machine gunned, forced into slave labor, imprisoned, beaten in public, mutilated and tortured in private, forced from their homes and deported, conquered/nuked, etc. And the broader conservative/traditionalist Right feels much the same way and have much overlap with the WNs' hit-list, give or take a few most-hated groups of people; usually the broader Right aren't so directly up-front about their desire to harm these groups of people when speaking publicly, but every now and then they let slip and reveal how they really like to express their hatreds against these targeted-groups of people. The more 'traditional' they were, the longer and more extensive that list was, until the logical extreme conclusion is arrived at where everyone but themselves really deserved to be punished. What is really being reflected by this? No, it's not that they individually (or groups of people ethnically related to these folks) are the moral equivalent of devil's spawn on Earth, like the faux-Left would pretend. They are expressing the evil nature of exploitative society, driven to the further inhuman extremes by modern capitalism. Their appeal to 'tradition' is an excuse to dispossess, subjugate and/or slay their competition (i.e., those groups of people on their long laundry lists of scapegoats) to "get ahead" under capitalism. 'Traditionalists' NEVER actually fundamentally abolish capitalist relations root and branch, because nothing scares them more that abolishing class distinctions and real mass proletarian democracy in power over all of society; they know that all of their 'tradition' would be swept up like rotten rubbish and tossed in the dustbin of history forever after that.
There really is no 'third position': either we live under exploitative/oppressive society (class society), or we live as liberated human beings in socialist society.

Nice rant but that all depends on what youy mean by tradition I suppose,Aristorcratic driven "Tradition" or our your own communites shared Folk traditions.
I concur there is no Third posistion we either live in social nationalist ethno communities or we dont.