or any fascist theorist for that matter

Cool, again, I refuse to debate semantics

> semantics

what??

thats not semantics lmao

You can tag another nerd willing to engage you in definitions if you'd like

thats a key part of its theory

Yes thats fucking semantics, the definition of the theory and what it contains

What do you think semantics even is?

Stop summarizing my position in a disingenuous way as if i always leave debates when the sperg I'm talking to think they've won, when that's not the case as you can check in <#587029563863990282> and <#587028275918929925> and on other servers. I simply stay away from semantics debates, as I've learned those types of debates always go nowhere, are useless and are a waste of time

Hegelian ontology is based on dualism due to an eastern influence. Giovanni Gentle the philosopher of Italian Fascism was an acolyte of Hegel. Hegels views argued because of collective consciousness creating the State it became a living being aka God thus functions like an Organism meaning all economic, social and philosophical doctrines must be regimented under an organic system to create synthesis meaning applying the dialectic to the state.

@Sentient23

k

@Zoltanous >thinking this guy knows who hegel is

Haha very fun haha i say he no know philosophy haha

You're hilarious eno

dude, ive already provided coherent arguments against your takes

you havent refuted any of them

this is honestly the most blackpilling shit

Do i need to repeat myself? I've stated why I haven't addressed them. Your arguments orient around semantics. I stay around from semantics debate. And since your arguments orient around semantics, im gonna stay away from that debate

Can it be any more clear than this you illiterate low iq sperg

Literally a citation for organicism

ok

if you refuse to debate the nature of organicism in fascism because "semantics", then you may as well refuse to debate any sort of theory

no

<:virgin:591451689853255690>

like this is clearly just an excuse cause you are incapable of providing a coherent argument

There's a clear difference between debating the validity of a certain theory by agreeing upon what it contains, and debating what the theory contains and what it doesn't

<:bruh:591181809493082113>

The latter is what i stay away from as that's semantics, the former isn't semantics

<:absoluteretardation:591182455885660178>

"haha pp brain bcs he dont want to debate definitions for 2 hrs haha got him guys"

Go back to uploading videos to your dead channel, maybe one day it will gain attraction

I’m not arguing definitions guy

you should actually check out zorans channel, you might learn something and a situation like this wont happen again

you're arguing what the theory contains and what it doesnt, and the theory is defined as what it contains and what it doesnt

so yes you are

How is this a semantical definition

I just explained

read again

>Situation like this
Situation like what? A zealous idiot not knowing what "I dont wanna debate semantics" means while acting as if he has some arbitrary authority while acting as if i always leave debates in general after a while, despite CONSTANTLY repeating i only stop debates if it gets into semantics