Best products from r/DebateFascism

We found 24 comments on r/DebateFascism discussing the most recommended products. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 105 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top comments mentioning products on r/DebateFascism:

u/hailmurdoch14 · 1 pointr/DebateFascism

There is a reason that identical twins reach a very similar height, even if separated and live in different environments, as long as they get a minimum threshold of resources, (so that their height isn't stunted in any way). But it's not like if one gets adopted by the royal palace, and the other one gets adopted by a middle class family, that the rich one with more resources will be anything more than slightly taller. As long as they get their appropriate resources, they are intended to reach their blueprint, their genetic DNA design for their body. There is evidence that better resources can positively impact your height slightly, but not much more.

Intelligence is certainly more complex than height, and harder to measure than height, but it certainly isn't "hard to measure" in a vacuum. It is very, very easy to tell whether the person across from you meets a certain level of intelligence or not, and you don't even need a test to do so. The fact that we do have advanced testing methods only solidifies the point.

Sam Harris recently said, "What we have here is a set of nested taboos. Human intelligence itself is a taboo topic. People don't want to hear that intelligence is a real thing, and that some people have more of it than others. They don't want to hear that IQ tests really measure it. They don't want to hear that differences in IQ matter, because they are highly predictive of differential success in life. And not just for things like education attainment, and wealth, but for things like out of wedlock birth, and mortality. People don't want to hear that a person's intelligence is, in large measure, due to his or her genes, and there seems to be very little we can do environmentally, to increase a person's intelligence, even in childhood. It's not that the environment doesn't matter, but genes appear to be 50-80% of the story. People don't want to hear this. And they certainly don't want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups. Now, for better or worse, these are all facts. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science, for which there is more evidence than these claims, about IQ, about the validity of testing for it, about it's importance in the real world, about it's heritability, and about it's differential expression in different populations. Again, this is what a dispassionate look at what decades of research suggests."

"The efforts to invalidate the very notions of 'general intelligence', and race have been wholly unconvincing from a psychometric and biological point of view. And are obviously motivated by a political discomfort in talking about these things. And I understand and share that discomfort."

If you would like to see the data that backs this stuff up, I would recommend reading 'The 10,000 Year Explosion', by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, 'A Troublesome Inheritance' by Nicolas Wade, and 'The Bell Curve', by Charles Murray.

u/Niekisch · 6 pointsr/DebateFascism

Putting a strong state emphasis on ancestral heritage through advocacy of historical research seems like an effective way of promoting nationalism & stronger social ties, so I can see why they put value in this. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of information on the Ahnenerbe in English. Finding accurate info is especially difficult when it comes to this kind of topic - a huge number of pseudohistorical books on SS research have piled up which spread a lot of nonsense about occultism, Atlantis, the Holy Grail, etc., like Ravenscroft's godawful The Spear of Destiny. If you want more information I'd try Heather Pringle's book. I haven't read it myself but I've read her article 'Hitler's Willing Architects' and it's probably the best you'll do until someone translates Kater's Das "Ahnenerbe" Der SS into English.

Which is a pity, because it's a really interesting topic. The expeditions to Tibet, the theories on Aryan origins in India, and the organization's attitude towards Gypsies provide evidence of a more complex attitude towards race than most people usually give the National Socialists credit for. The Ahnenerbe also did a lot to promote interest in and funding for archaeological research, which was partly intended to promote 'blood and soil' ideology, although (according to Speer) Hitler wasn't as sold on its value:

> Why do we call the whole world's attention to the fact that we have no past? It isn't enough that the Romans were erecting great buildings when our forefathers were still living in mud huts; now Himmler is starting to dig up these villages of mud huts and enthusing over every potsherd and stone axe he finds. All we prove by that is that we were still throwing stone hatchets and crouching around open fires when Greece and Rome had already reached the highest stage of culture. We really should do our best to keep quiet about this past. Instead Himmler makes a great fuss about it all. The present-day Romans must be having a laugh at these relegations.

Rosenberg in his Memoirs also talks negatively about Ahnenerbe, although I think that's more because it was overshadowing his own research institutions.

u/BionicTransWomyn · 4 pointsr/DebateFascism

I'll preface this by saying you're not actually arguing against what I'm saying as opposed to what you wish I was saying, it is a bit frustrating.

I never said Europe was multi-racial before the 19th century, simply that race wasn't a factor as much, and that the concept of whiteness didn't exist. Take for example Spain. Spaniards were considered both Spaniards and Christians, that was how they were defined. It didn't really matter that they had a duskier skin tone. Same thing with Sicilians and Neapolitans.

>Your point about these few that served in leadership positions (name one after the collapse of Rome and before the 19th century) once again does not dispprove my point at all. They were exceptions, not the norms. They were a tiny percentage of the population. (Pushkin's ancestor to boot),_Duke_of_Florence

There's more. Of course they weren't the majority, they're nowhere close to be even today, and it's unlikely it'll change for some time yet. But the fact is that physical appearance wasn't that big of a deal if you had skills and ideas to offer.

>The idea that a shared identity wasn't facilitated by a shared appearance is ridiculous. Our whole system in Europe between the fall of Rome and the modern era had one of its most basic pillars on the concept of continuity of generations. From King to peasant, the idea of family and inheritance was central. [...]

I never argued against this, merely that religion, origin and allegiance were far more important determinants. If you were black or moorish back then, sure you got some odd looks and you'd always be apart and special, but there wasn't that racialist bent you find in the 19th century. You weren't considered necessarily "inferior" and generally monarchs welcomed strangers to their court, using their skills and cultural innovations to improve their realm. Examples could be Peter the Great travelling around Europe to learn shipbuilding, the Austrians adopting (or at least popularising) coffee after the Battle of Vienna, where large Ottoman stocks were seized and so on and so forth. And this is just in a European context, there's many more examples elsewhere of successful cultural integration.

>[...] To put it down to what you say would deny the existence of nations in the first place. We would all become some generic and bland culture, with no heart or sole, no sense of inclusiveness that builds the nation.

If you're interested in how nations form, I strongly suggest reading the following:

Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities

Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism

*Anthony D. Smith, Ethno-Symbolism and Nationalism: A cultural approach

Please don't think I'm just title dropping, but nations and nationalism happen to be topics close to my heart, and in academia, the essentialist approach has been largely discredited. The three authors above present a range of opinions that could interest you. I personally prefer Anthony Smith combined with a conflict driven approach to the formation of nations (basically, nations form because they encounter other nations and thus define themselves in comparison to them. I can expand more on this in another post.)

>No, it is well established amongst the elite in Europe. The majority of people in Europe want reduced immigration. Wanting immigration is really at this point an extremist idea.

I'm not saying that people do not debate whether or not there should be less or more immigrants, merely that almost no one is advocating closing the borders and taking in no immigrants at all. After all, unless natality rates rise across the West, we will have to keep "importing" immigrants.

>And if we accept mass non-white immigration, then we can say good bye to that. Any invasion breaks the continuity of generation (as I noted, there remains an issue with the British identity as a result of the Anglo-Saxon invasion), but one which leaves such a visible break is bound to bring an end to nations.

I disagree, it merely means that the British identity will change. Strangely enough in Canada we don't seem to have half the issues you have with your ethnic immigration, and we are basically a nation of immigrants, many of which are non-white.

>As I say, the biological fact of race is irrelevant. It is the pysical appearance. Europe has always been white. We might be about to see a huge upheaval in the demographics of our continent, and with that will come and end to our continuous and historic culture, just as happened with the collapse of Rome.

And this is the thing. You don't actually disagree with this point. You know this will change culture, to the point at which it is unrecognisable. It will be something new. The difference is, I don't want this to happen, and you do.

Okay, this is the point where I explain my actual position, which I've alluded to in my earlier posts. Having discussed Rome, I think I clearly highlighted the difference between taking small bits of culture from different people here and there and using them to enhance your own culture (Republic-Early Empire) versus uncontrolled hordes of migrants rampaging through your territory (late empire). One does not lead necessarily to the other.

The original topic was about small enclaves (Chinatowns) and the integration of small parts of other cultures to enhance the dominant culture.

This is what I support: Limited immigration with an open-minded policy, in order to create the best culture possible, while maintaining the historical and cultural heritage (especially the language) of the dominant culture.

I never said mass immigration was desirable. On the other hand I did take a historical perspective by saying that given the current rates of immigration and the increase of mixed marriages, the British culture in a few decades/centuries will look very different than it does now, and might even not be majority white as opposed to mixed. It's just how things are, as our world becomes more inter-connected, boundaries become more malleable, especially with communication technologies.

Finally, we should see other cultures as potential sources of wealth. Take what is good for us, then leave the rest. We're already doing it daily. Look at all the sushi shops around, hell, Manchester even has a Curry Mile (though I believe Curry was invented in Britain by Indian immigrants, correct me if I'm wrong there). Shisha bars, alcohols from everywhere around the world, world litterature etc...

u/Djumbo_Djet · 15 pointsr/DebateFascism

The ideal for a bachelor is a relatively spartan lifestyle that behooves a true Political Soldier. His diet should consist of simple, healthy meals (that, contrary to the link, should not entirely omit meat). His living space should be his sanctum, and be kept neat and tidy at all times. His style of dress must be smart and practical.

In terms of lifestyle, men must strive to create an appropriate balance between physicality and intellect. It is inevitable that you will lean more towards one than the other, but each is an equally vital aspect of masculinity and should not be neglected. I lean more towards the pursuits of the mind, and so I chose a very physical, manual career to ensure that my body would be kept fit and well-functioning in spite of my naturally slothful inclinations. Even so, I am currently looking for a squash partner. I spend my spare time developing my knowledge through reading. At the moment, I am engaged in a project of comparative theology. I am studying the Srimad Bhagavatam along with the Jerusalem Bible in an attempt to compare and contrast the archetypically Aryan and the archetypically Hebrew religious "styles".

One should also reserve time for "decompression", in which you engage in nonproductive - but still rewarding - activity. Internet browsing counts towards this. So do video games, chess, and the consumption of art and media. One should be very careful with this, however. It is all to easy to become corrupted by decadent, degenerate influences. I speak from experience.

When the bachelor is ready, he graduates into a husband and father. He should pursue a eugenic marriage with a woman who broadly shares his inclinations. I am fortunate enough to have met such a woman, and we are currently engaged in a romantic relationship. I am likely to propose to her within the next three years.

u/PeddaKondappa · 1 pointr/DebateFascism

>It depends how you define "assimilation". These days it's more of a political term describing someone who is "economically productive". There are limits to assimilation. Social cohesion in ethnically homogenous nations will always be higher than in ethnically diverse nations. One of the main reasons why US is so against all social spending (universal healthcare for example) is because it is so ethnically fragmented that people don't relate to each other as much. That's why its culture is so individualistic. This is all very well studied:
So that's why it makes sense to keep nation as homogenous as possible.

"Assimilation" means becoming a part of the nation. It often does not take place within a single generation (unless someone moved to a new nation at a very young age), but over 2-3. You have not answered my question, which was "what does "collective memory of a people" have to do with genetics?" You have not explained why people of different racial origin cannot assimilate and become part of a nation.

>Almost all of them?

Name three.

>but many times correlation does imply a causation.

And many times it doesn't. If you want to make a claim that X causes Y, you need to prove that X causes Y. Merely showing that X and Y are correlated is not sufficient. Even Mexico with its large mestizo population is richer than Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania, and many other East European "white" countries (I am not sure if East Europeans are regarded as "white" or not by fascists). With that being said, I don't think it is a mere coincidence that a largely white Canada is much richer than places like Mexico or Argentina (by the way, there is no significant difference in per capita income between these two latter countries). In my view, Western Europeans since the 18th century did inculcate superior cultural values that are conducive to building an advanced industrial economy (such as keen time-awareness, emphasis on literacy, and work ethic), but these traits are learned and are not a result of genetics, given that Western Europeans themselves did not possess such traits before modern times, and several non-Western countries (particularly East Asian ones like Japan and South Korea) have adopted these traits and outperformed Western European countries like Portugal and Spain (which remained largely illiterate and underdeveloped well into the 20th century).

u/mhl67 · 3 pointsr/DebateFascism

>Could you explain this divide more? I would have thought the differences between SocDem and other Marxist ideologies would lie elsewhere.

Anarchists and SocDems believe, in different senses, that the ends don't justify the means. Soc Dems implement this by trying to reform the existing system into socialism; Anarchists do this by trying to create Anarchism within their own organizational structures and activities rather then as a set of policies to be implemented (though that is the end goal, obviously, of anarchism). Marxism says that whatever works is desirable, though they do not believe reform will be effective in the long-term because of the idea that capitalist states are in essence dictatorships.

>But the NEP was a mixed economy policy? Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you mean.

I'm meaning that the USSR bypassed capitalism completely, which besides Trotsky was thought ridiculous before it happened. The USSR passed straight from Feudalism to Socialism, and that's where industry was built up, not industry being built up followed by Socialism.

>Would the Rehn-Meidner Plan be an example of this?

Kind of. Stuff like the $15 minimum wage in the US is a modern example. The classic example is stuff like "full employment", "free education", etc., stuff that is relatable to the average person but basically impossible to fulfill within a capitalist system.

>Were the Mensheviks unilaterally opposed to the Bolsheviks? My understanding of this part of the USSR's history is somewhat limited.

Essentially, yes. After the October Revolution, the Mensheviks and Right SRs demanded cabinet posts in the new government, which was eventually refused after an all-night meeting of the Soviet. The Bolsheviks held 60% of the delegates, so they weren't under any obligation to do so anyway; but the Mensheviks and Right SRs walked out of the meeting "into the dustbin of history" and formed a rebel government at Samara. This was the beginning of the Civil War. Of course, the Whites eventually expelled them also as more right-wing factions took power, but still.

>Trotskyism seems agreeable as an ideology, I'll have to look into it more.

Most authors today espousing a more or less orthodox Marxist viewpoint are Trotskyists. Alex Callinicos book The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx is good, but doesn't go into much detail on Trotsky's ideas. Isaac Deutscher's three volume series The Prophet ( ) , about the life of Leon Trotsky, is a very good sympathetic biography (even Tony Blair liked it, for some reason). If you kind find any introductory texts by Ernest Mandel, they are also very good, but somewhat difficult to find as most of them were written in the 1970s. The Tariq Ali edited collection The Stalinist Legacy is another good collection of texts from a mostly Trotskyist viewpoint, most of them about Stalinism. Chris Harman's People's History of the World is an excellent book on world history from a Trotskyist viewpoint, though you can skip to modern times if you just want the stuff actually dealing with capitalism and socialism.

u/Zaneph · 1 pointr/DebateFascism

>There is no reason to believe in the existence of said powers, and no hard evidence that they exist.

And what is the criterion of satisfaction? Without that provided, this is a meaningless statement.

>In this respect one can detect a tinge of Nietzschean slave morality in Evola

Slave morality is not synonymous with reservation for the immaterial.

>In Evola's view, the divine power of a deity embodied itself in the material presence of a king. I believe that it is the other way round. It is my belief that when great men, through their intelligence and cunning and wisdom and charisma, seized power, led their peoples to glory and then died, they were posthumously made into gods by their subjects, unwilling to accept that the end of the natural life of a great man meant that he had ceased to exist. Unable to accept the fact of his material non-existence, they invented an otherworld in order to create the pretence that he was still somehow out there, looking out for them.

This view is farcical. First, it ignores that traditional societies did not believe in a "beyond" as in another quasi-physical universe, an abode for the dead made of a different material. It already intimates a transposition of a modern, materialist enterprise onto civilizations which experienced and saw the world in a radically different fashion. Thus it secondly begs the question.

>The gods of ancient civilizations would have been based on real human beings who did heroic deeds and were then posthumously made into deities by the tribe. But the idea that they were embodied in real, living, breathing individuals is absurd. Men were embodied in gods, not the other way round. A god is simply a human hero who was made immortal, but no person or lineage should be regarded as being an embodiment of the sacred by virtue of a non-existent, otherwordly connection

The "gods," in a traditional sense, are different forms of consciousness that can be assumed and developed for integration (we can refer here to the accounts of Pharaohs becoming Set and Baal in war). If we were to take your view, that is, the predominant view of the modern age, of classical deities being the transposition of a "good memory" onto some ontological plane of eternity, it would fail to account for the fact that ancient historians utilized the myths as a form of language of the sacred (Herodotus, Plutarch, etc.) That is, they often used myths to reach a level of commensurability with other respective cultures. How does one explain the identification of various deities across civilizations? Plutarch even affirmed in De Iside et Osiride an essential unity of the Hellenic and Egyptian religion. Thus, under your conviction, we are led to assume the same heroes fought for and generals led both civilizations, which is quite obviously a ludicrous view - one, moreover, not supported by the same modus operandi that, as it were, operates in a narrow way and at a restricted capacity, that you seem to fawn over so well. This is to say, it has not and cannot find any of evidence of these assertions. It amounts to being gratuitous, the assertions themselves being the posterior of a particular way of interpreting history, that is, of only seeing history as the enveloping of continuous material modifications: the Marxian apparatus.

The Neo-fascists are particularly bad for appropriating people like Evola and Guenon. I don't want to discourage your quite obvious capacity for an intellectual dialogue, but it's important to say: you've seemed to pick up the mordant and polemical tone of the 20th-century Traditionalists, referring to civilizations as "degenerate" and whatnot, but it is not this tone that makes their arguments strong; they made the radical claims they did because Evola and Guenon were both somewhat of scholarly loners with a vast understanding of ancient texts and civilizations. It is more difficult than you likely imagine to make sweeping statements about the nature of these past civilizations. Even archaeologists and mathematicians are still uncovering how surprisingly advanced some of them were, I could refer here to Keith Critchlow's work ( ), who is a part of the modern-day traditionalist strain, and demonstrates even the Neolithic peoples were familiar with the Platonic solids and their construction. Imagine that! So much for "primitivity."

It is best to approach older civilizations and doctrines like a serpent who has sloughed off their skin and can slither through the corridors of a vast and mysterious world, forming an understanding of the structures and premises without being too systematic lest one modernize them.

u/Nachstenliebe · 6 pointsr/DebateFascism

I think that the Ethno State one might be easier to argue from, and perhaps somewhat less controversial. You'd still have to be ready to defend your views very vehemently as well as convincingly. You might need a lot more than simply a 500 character intro just to defend your position well enough so that you'll save a lot of time.

You might have seen some of these before, but here are some very useful links you could use as sources, as well as give you ideas for how to formulate your arguments. Try to understand them as much as possible.

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.

[Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.] (

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.

Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.

Furthermore, I'd be open to helping you revise the first intro you come up with and offer up my own suggestions for ways you could improve it.

u/FourthKingdom · 1 pointr/DebateFascism

> So my observation should be easily defeatable, yes?

See above.

>That's also convenient for you now isn't it. We need more data, therefore you cannot assert what you are asserting.

Similarly, it is convenient for you to use the time-preference and other concepts in a limited way so as to support your position.

>So what your theory for why the races differ in behavior/culture/IQ/etc? Please tell me you have something better than prejudice and discrimination. I am always open to new evidence and I'd like to know what you come up with to explain why Asians in America are, on net, doing better than blacks. Even though both have faced similar levels of discrimination and prejudice. I'll grant that blacks were indeed treated worse - I don't really recall any Asians being lynched either. But even if you control for that there will still be a difference. Even if you step outside of America this difference is still there. Why have Asians cultures such as the Japanese advanced greatly while Africa has stagnated?

This book will explain it better than I ever could:*Version*=1&*entries*=0

Having read it, I can vouch for its quality.

>I'll fly and you drop the bombs.

And we can revel in the clinking of our glasses as we toast to our success!

>Still though, the Fed in the US has been around in it current iteration since 1912 and Americans used to save at the same rate as the Chinese do now. Near zero interest federal notes fuckover the people that have saved though. Which is a shame...

Unfortunately I do not have the knowledge or expertise to comment/add, so I will leave this point unmolested.

u/Ondskapt666 · 3 pointsr/DebateFascism

I've read some of these books before I bought them, some I already finished and the rest are on my list to read. My problem is that I read 10 books at once. I'll read a couple of chapters and/or half a book and then switch it up. My mind is strange like that. I don't why I do it but it just works.

I'm collecting books to have in my library one day. Wishful thinking, I know! My bookshelf is packed and the remaining books are now collecting on my desk and comic book short boxes.

There is this image I've always had of myself in a room like this or that. Some guys want the big bar (I would love to have this mini bar and whiskey set), big screen tv, and football memorabilia. I rather have the silence, in solitude, next to a fire, book in hand.

Remember, it's not hoarding if it's books. ;)

u/Carinus · 2 pointsr/DebateFascism

I would be delighted! He is my favorite living scholar. His first breakout work was on the relationship between Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt. He has since then worked extensively in the field of Straussianism, particularly in revitalizing the academic legacy of Carl Schmitt. He focuses primarily on Strauss's distinction between revealed religion and philosophy and how that informs the role of the philosopher within society. Most of his books tend to be succinct and brief, bordering on laconic.
The top three I would reccomend are "The Lesson of Carl Schmitt", "Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue" , "Leo Strauss and the Theological-Political Problem".

If you have any further questions or want to discuss any of his work I am always happy to do so.

here are links on amazon to the referenced texts:

u/CAPS_4_FUN · 2 pointsr/DebateFascism

> Do you think people cannot be assimilated into a collective? White Americans are a mongrel nation with diverse ethnic origins from across Europe (England, Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Poland, etc.) as well as from Native American populations, yet they are all assimilated into an English-speaking, Anglo-Saxon nation.

It depends how you define "assimilation". These days it's more of a political term describing someone who is "economically productive". There are limits to assimilation. Social cohesion in ethnically homogenous nations will always be higher than in ethnically diverse nations. One of the main reasons why US is so against all social spending (universal healthcare for example) is because it is so ethnically fragmented that people don't relate to each other as much. That's why its culture is so individualistic. This is all very well studied:
So that's why it makes sense to keep nation as homogenous as possible.

> Which ethnic group is racially homogeneous?

Almost all of them?

> The most basic rule of elementary statistics.

but many times correlation does imply a causation. Go over the entire new world and you'll see a correlation between European ancestry and per-capita income. I just read recently that France's average IQ has dropped by 2 points from the last time they did the study.... surely it's not because of massive immigration from Africa? Just another "correlation is not causation"? How many correlations and studies will it take for you to show causation?

u/frooben · 1 pointr/DebateFascism

If you can read German get Solzhenitsyn first, it has not yet officially been translated into English because the Jews control all publishing. I have also refrained from providing books on science and philosophy and kept it to history because it would become too expansive: