Reuse the same definitions for which you can't provide any proof? Bring up a dictionary entry from a non-specialist or otherwise irrelevant website which magically 'proves' that you're using the terminology right?
...all while dodging the actual content of what I'm trying to say and the demarcations which I made between given things to which I have assigned terms, *which you still haven't argued against* given that you've stuck to using frozen absolutes which are either trivial or can never exist in place of the dynamic and history-dependent concepts that I've used?
I wasn't just talking about Jews. Saying 'implying' means nothing on its own, by the way. Notice how you never make any effort to explain your own politics.
My point is very simple: ***If you can ally with people who might, in line with their identities, always be opposed to your politics, then why can't I or anyone else in the same tradition as me do that too?***
But this is besides the point. You were the first to bring up the topic of 'genocide' when I was talking about going beyond biology because you think that my kind of politics can only be achieved with a homogeneous master race.
**If people have 'different traits' (which is what *you* said) and this causes them to inherently act in a certain way (which *you* implied by defending biological determinism)**, then conflict resolution cannot be established on grounds of reasoning and mutual solutions can never be found. People would always be pursuing a subset of a given set of goals and **there would be no option but to kill other people if tactical alliances cannot be made** since people would get in the way of each other if they all demanded more than what resources could allow for.
Are people different? Yes! I have never argued otherwise. That doesn't mean that they cannot relate their own personal struggles to a universal struggle, even if it is simply universal at a present moment.
Your only defence was to hide behind words which we simply were not using in the same way and claim that I meant something that I didn't because I was supposedly using your interpretations of those words. That was the whole 'freedom' and 'submission' shitfest. When I say that there *can only be* such authoritarianism in an early stage of Communist revolution - as I've explained before - I mean that Communism would not yet be powerful enough to establish a ground upon which mutual conflict resolution can take place and would therefore most likely need to fight violently. Notice how you still dodged the points about this conflict resolution.
You mean to say that my ego is unwarranted rather than large, since you position yourself to be among *The Based*. You pretend that you're a fusion between Diogenes and Hitler: you say you certainly know what others are thinking; you have all the possible nuances to hand *apart from when it doesn't benefit your argumentation*.
So much so that *your own politics* doesn't need to have so much of a focus as as those of others must, and those others should just be more concise so that you can drag your Based Interpretations out of what they say and the matter will be swiftly dealt with!
**Using your definitions of words, of course, there are many things that we agree on. The impossibility of 'freedom', the universality of 'authoritarian'-ism, the 'finitude' of the present. - we agree on all of those mentioned things.**
I know that you are referring to static, frozen and highly abstract ideas which are ultimately superficial, but I am not doing the same thing that you are. I explain why your definitions are not just missing the point of what I'm saying but are in fact putting you in the same predicament that I'm supposedly in.
When I say that your 'fascism' is universal in bourgeois politics, I make a distinction between that and whatever the Wikipedia article said about Fascism, and also third-positionist politics in general.
**So when you say 'you're admitting I'm right', I say 'no shit Sherlock, but this doesn't mean what you think it does - it's a big own goal for you too, since you can't justify how you're also not a 'fascist'!'**
@Garbage "If I'm a 'fascist' and 'fascism' does not require genocide, then you'd be wrong to say that my politics requires genocide." ***i never said this**
Nuance recalling what you said. You said that this evolution is ever constant there is no stability , so that stage of facism you are talking about so much in which your dick gets hard is ever lasting as it is constant revolution and progression as you described
>so that stage of facism you are talking about so much in which your dick gets hard is ever lasting as it is constant revolution and progression as you described
