Cross posted from the Breadtube thread. This is from Shaun's video on Posie Parker. Find which rules do not apply to troons.
View attachment 5217786
View attachment 5217787
Yes...a real person wrote those down, thinking troons are immune from all of that.
The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
The cult of tradition as opposed to what? You realise cult, culture, and cultivate are all conjugations of the same concept, right? As opposed to the anticult of sterility, yeah? Abortions, sex changes, sodomy, oh yeah you're really cultivating a viable alternative to the social animal's best adaption selected over millenia, yeah? And someone should tell these guys about all the Futurists who died on the frontlines volunteering for Fascism before they dump that modernist mess in tradition's lap.
The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
Rejection of modernism? Guilty as charged. But defined as irrationalism? Bruh, we rationally come to this conclusion by looking at the sterile white cubes of the modernist tree. The sterile white troons, too. Modernism can be defined as the haughty disposition to ignore the giants boosting you up to see as far as you do, throwing everything they did in the garbage and trying to reinvent the wheel, but this time with square corners and it makes three left turns to make a right. WoW, sO oRiGiNaL aNd UniQuE! But WTF is Ur-fascism? The ancient mesopotamian civilisation of Ur? Speak plainly, you obfuscational daygo. If you were a grown ass man at the time of the modernist innovations instead of a child, you would have been holding up and defending the conventions that they were challenging; as it is, you now hold up their iconoclasm way more ironically as a tradition of its own.
The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
This is retarded. Again, see the Italian Futurists, modernists, who went running into action and died on the front lines for fascism. Also, see action painting and the collectors who supported it. Jackson Pollack hanging an expelled enema on Peggy Gugenheim's dining room wall doesn't exactly whisper "tradition". This whole paragraph is projection telling on yourself.
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
So all those people who lost their livelihoods for the tamest of critiques of the perpetual revolution between the capture of the institutions and today were being praised? All the scientists and cultural producers ostracised by these captured institutions are censored to build knowledge? Do you actually believe anything you say or do you just say it because you think it's convincing?
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Fear of difference? Guilty as charged. So are you, as proven by 50 years of suppression, oppression, repression, and castration of counter-revolutionary voices intruding into your haughty clubs. Again, you conflate one concept with the definition of another.
Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
So, which it? The critical spirit makes distinctions? Or appeal to social frustration? And you dress yourself in the camoflage of poverty and peasantry as you humiliate and frighten the targets of your Reign of Terror from your ivory war chariot, oh Doctor Professor.
The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
StOp NoTiCiNg! I suppose you still had plausible deniabilty when you wrote and published this, professor. But we have the clarity of hindsight. You gaslighted our fathers. We see you plain as Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.
The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Which is it? Your critics are irrational dummies who just act without thinking or they're nuanced philosophers who can recognise you in both your strengths and in your weaknesses?
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
Fifty years of peacefully consuming product while selling your children's inheritance to fund it hollows your words. YOU lived no struggle because your fathers struggled! And you squandered it all jerking off in the guerilla semiotics department. You don't know what struggle even feels like and sound like a virgin telling us what sex with a hot girl is and isn't.
Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
No, massive empathy for the weak. No tolerance for wolves in sheep's clothes. No tolerance for empathy hackers. We are sick and tired of ignoble elites pretending to be victims, and of course would rather noble elites who belong in that position, not to perpetuate a self-centred revolution but to fight for those too busy producing to fight.
Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
As opposed to everyone educated to become cannon-fodder to the perpetual revolution, yeah? What's more cult of death to you? Dying for your children? Or murdering your children for yourself?
Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
First of all, machismo is nothing more than masculine feminism. It's a gender with an -ism at the end of it. If it implies disdain for the opposite gender, then so does its complement. You can't have one without the other. Secondly, of course weaponry goes with the macho. Wo-man, the wife-man; Weo-man, the weapon-man. A man is defined by his weapon just as a woman is defined by her matrimony. You know this as a linguist, but you make me say it because your weapon is the unmarried woman and the weaponless men oh so offended by the mere words who turn against the one who utters them. We all see now, with hindsight, what your weaponisation of the gender non-conforming has done. And you did it all for selfish consumption, leaving nothing as a legacy, as an inheritance. We have to struggle now, to pay for your luxury.
Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
And what are you, with your printing press or radio populism? The true Vox Populi? Quit telling on yourself.
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
As opposed to your esoteric language, right? Whipping up the frenzy of the exoteric reader to lay down on the barbed wire for your neophytes? Speaking plainly doesn't mean speaking impovererishedly. It means elegance. BaFfLe tHeM wItH bUlLsHiT, right professor? AcCuSE tHeM oF yOuR oWn CrImES, right professor? Get fukt.
