/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

Addressing some recent claims


Winner of the JulayWorld Attention-Hungry Games™, Week 5

/retro/ - 1990s ans[sic] 2000s nostalgia

Nominations for week 6 coming soon.


Report your front-end woes 2: Electric Boogaloo

What is the Imageboard Federation?

JulayWorld onion service: bhlnasxdkbaoxf4gtpbhavref7l2j3bwooes77hqcacxztkindztzrad.onion

Max message length: 32768

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

More

(used to delete files and postings)


Animals Blackshirt 02/13/2020 (Thu) 16:10:02 ID: 6f038f No.4649
<“An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat eating is wrong. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also. Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favour of his standpoint are very compelling. – Dr. J. Goebbels. Goebbels’ Diaries (entry of April 26, 1942) Was Hitler onto something with vegetarianism? I’ve been thinking about it more recently while working through Savitri Devi’s The Impeachment of Man. I like the idea of it for a variety of reasons, but as of now I’m not compelled to try it, though I may some day in the future just to experiment. If anything though, animal experimentation, vivisection and kosher slaughter – at minimum – I feel are important issues for any National Socialist government to take on along with all-important environmental issues after securing their nation from (((outside influence))) and definitively solving the racial problems of our day. Even today the Third Reich sits well before all other countries in the steps they took in these areas. Video from a kosher slaughterhouse (inb4 muh PETA, I only care about the footage): https://youtu.be/KezHKbUzy0A
Any time you bring up natsoc germany's ambientalism and animal rights, they will tell you "THEY EXPERIMENTED ON JEWS THO LOL" How to shut these people up?
>>4656 Anyone who is willing to believe that tier of bullshit isnt yet ready or isnt able to be saved. >>4649 Vegetarianism is aryan. Meat eating is a disgusting habit and an inhumane act. It is filthy and immoral from beginning to end. This is easily acknowledged by the pro meat crowd. The real hang up we need to move past is the belief that you need meat to survive, and if that hurdle is passed, we then need to address that even if there is any physical advantage of eating meat it is far outweighed by the costs. I am hesitant to say that meat can produce superior muscular structure than vegetables and dairy could, but i am absolutely certain that meat clouds and dulls the mind and destroys ones morality. I am certain it is a blight on the purity of the mind and ones morality as it is on the condition and purity of the lands on which it takes place.
>>4657 >Meat eating is a disgusting habit and an inhumane act stopped reading there >killing your ennemies is a disgusting habit and an inhuman act how are two sentence not different ? are you a woman ?
>i am absolutely certain that meat clouds and dulls the mind and destroys ones morality muh humn moralism, are you a christian woman ? yes i did not stop reading nigger
>>4656 >How to shut these people up? An important cluster of lies to shut down immediately, especially if they themselves bring it up, is all of the bullshit that the Jews spread about Joseph Mengele. Firstly, there's literally zero proof that anything like stitching humans together to create Siamese twins, injecting stuff into peoples eyes to turn them blue or anything else actually happened. This article shows that much of the (((accepted))) orthodoxy on this figure has been challenged recently as well: https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/01/theyre-even-admitting-that-the-slander-of-dr-mengele-was-a-pack-of-lies-the-last-days-of-the-holocaust-myth/ In regards to experimentation in general, frankly I don't care if they did experiment on prisoners, especially prisoners of war. These people in the camps were active or potential enemies of all the German people loved and stood for, not innocents, and meanwhile the Allies were firebombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians purposely in places like Dresden and rounding up people into camps themselves in the US. It must be remembered that according to law and whenever detected in the Third Reich as well that those who were overly violently and needlessly cruel were severely punished, one has to merely look at the case of Martin Sommer, a member of the SS who worked at Dachau and Buchenwald. In 1943 this man was imprisoned and reduced in rank for this cruelties and mistreatment of internees. >>4659 >having moral standards is bad Nigger-tier. You should really try formulating a serious rebuttal, anon, because "hurr you're a woman" isn't an argument. I'd actually like to see someone here formulate an argument for meat-eating on economic, health-related, ethical and spiritual grounds - they'd fail. The main argument is that we are in a superior position over animals in the hierarchy of being - this is readily apparent, but this higher status does not automatically give us the right to kill other life-forms for our selfish ends, especially innocent ones. Mere superiority over another sentient being cannot be interpreted as a license for abusing another less capable being, or class of beings. Any challenging of this merely leaves us with a "might makes right" worldview. If we are indeed superior to other life-forms we should clearly exhibit that superior nature through our actions. It is absurd to say that our inherent intellectual and ethical superiority over other beings gives us license to act in unthinking, niggerlike and immoral ways towards these less capable beings. Another argument is that animals are incapable of thinking rationally and are thus not worthy of the same ethical consideration as other humans are. Only moral agents are moral objects. Sometimes you also here the argument that only beings capable of communicating through language are worthy of moral consideration. If we were to accept these two criteria as valid we quickly find that several categories of human beings do not pass these standards of ethical consideration, namely infants. Of course the reply will be "well infants have the potential to develop these faculties. What about humans then who do not possess even this minimal potential -- e.g. someone who is mute and severely mentally retarded who never did and never will have this potential. Should we being eating retards? What about someone's mute mom or dad who is suffering from severe and irreversible Alzheimer's disease - are they food now? They have no potential to recover. Whenever we propose a means of separating human from non-human animals it turns out that if all non-human animals are going to fail it, some humans will as well. The real redpill on this question is that while humans are certainly moral agents, they alone are not objects of moral concern. It is of course impossible to live without harming some forms of life (through eating plants, in self-defense, etc), but in this we come to the Aryan concept of Ahimsa - not non-violence, but the minimization of violence. This same type of belief has been adhered to by Aryan groups as diverse as the Orphics, Pythagoreans and of course the Aryan traditions of the east, I use the term I did for mere convenience.
>>4658 <Obvious Shill/Shit Stirrer Killing your enemies is disgusting, but not inhumane. In vedic times it was the mercy of a king to hang a murderer as it would lessen his sentence in hell. The bhagavad gita comes from a vegetarian religion and makes no doubt about the fact that you should always kill those who are clearly evil, and in doing so for the benefit of the greater good for the pleasure of the supreme, no sin is incurred. Kshatriya, the name of the warrior class of vedic society means "to prevent harm", however a kshatriya should never pose himself as non-violent. >>4659 <Obvious Shill/Shit Stirrer Advocating against morality? For power? Nothing could be more jewish. The source of all virtue and morality is God and God is the highest power. The jews along with their false god yaldabaoth abandon and forsake moral principles in favor of becoming gods themselves, by any means possible. Thus the disgusting forms they inherit.
>>4665 Thank you
Meat-eating is part of the natural order, however. We are and forever remain part of that order, so I don't see any reason beyond moral to give up meat-eating, and many reasons to keep it.
Open file (227.08 KB 640x1434 AwokenYourInnerMonster.jpg)
>>4665 >because "hurr you're a woman" isn't an argument. you're so insecure that you didn't even tried to see my argument you faggot. >I'd actually like to see someone here formulate an argument for meat-eating on economic, health-related, ethical and spiritual grounds - they'd fail. >economic farming cattle feed more people with less land average by head and do not desertify the soil nor it pollute it with extra chemical, in fact it even add nitrogen to the soil. >health related meat is a problem when it is charred and create radical cell that can increase cancer, it is better for us than fiber that you can't digest like cow can with multiple stomach. ie you can't eat plant to get nutrient herbivore can, we can to an extent because we are oportunist, omnivore. >ethical i know plenty of farmer in my family or else that do love and care for every animal they have, try proving otherwise. if you don't eat them hey will just rot and then you have no need to farm cattle, so what the problem if you eat them they are well off cared by the farmer with company than by itself to fend off for it life, everyone win >spiritual gorund i believe i aborb vital energy of something to stay alive and healthy, if i don't and die i will feed something else. (if not enclosed christian style of course) >The main argument is that we are in a superior position over animals in the hierarchy of being what argument ? who said that ? why are you pretending to know my argumet you nigger ? i don't see myself better or not an animal, i am one and need to do what i must to stay alive and keep my genetic stock in the course. >but this higher status does not automatically give us the right to kill other life-forms for our selfish ends, especially innocent ones. not my argument and your conclusion is woman tier. >"might makes right" worldview. and it does, having the might does not give you the right to do anything and everything tho, that's why you have something called honour that keep you grounded on equity and harmony trough the life cycles. you're sperging out about an argument that no one gave and especially not me >Another argument is that animals are incapable of thinking rationally and are thus not worthy of the same ethical consideration as other humans are i don't understand, is your argument and argument about an imaginay argument ? is that my supposed stance or yours ? <blablabla >Should we being eating retards? never go full retard. > It is of course impossible to live without harming some forms of life (through eating plants, in self-defense, etc), but in this we come to the Aryan concept of Ahimsa - not non-violence, but the minimization of violence well what the fuck ! we aggree on that, so i don't understand this anon, why are you proving to know degree of violence and our ability to minimize it and then go full retard by spouting TO MINIMIZE VIOLENCE TO ANIMALS WE SHOULD STOP VIOLENCE ON ANIMALS. pls tell me what you think. >>4671 didn't read fuck off.
Vegan should be thrown out off cliff
Just stop the cruelest factory farming practices and reduce or stop consumption of the smartest animals
>>4677 If we abandon morality, to become monsters, what the fuck are we even fighting for? If you want to abandon morality and awaken your inner monster, there is no need for you to be on a fascist board, just go to a synagogue and convert to judaism. Theyve already laid out the groundwork for the sort of nonsense and theyre already winning. You are a glownigger pining for senseless violence here so that you and the fed bois can turn society against us and shuttle us into gas chambers already.
Eating meat is a natural thing for example a lion is a predator so therefore he will not eat grass like a cow or a goat he will eat other animals. It is the same with humans we are omnivores and therefore yes we can eat green food but that does not mean we should give up eating meat because it is a natural part of our diet.
There's no need to throw insults around because you disagree with each-other, that's just fucking gay. This is moot to discuss because we're not even there [/spoiler] yet [spoiler] when the entire focus should be about getting there and not "small" complaints, but whatever. I like discussions anyway. Just know that people aren't going to quit eating meat, and that's okay. The point is whoever morally objects to meat production in decadent society as of now it's completely legitimate because 99% of the meat bought farmers have systematically imposed terrible conditions on the animal before they kill it, and just given the animals antibiotics/antiparasitics to prevent those animals dying in the cruel unnatural conditions which they would have they not been doped up, this also does no good for humans eating it causing multiple drug resistance. Those practices need to be banned in entirety. Along with animal experimentation and all that other shit. And they would have been in a GOOD SOCIETY which we DO NOT HAVE. While saying that I still eat meat, but mostly a lot of vegetables and serve meat that's not fish for mostly special occasion. To me there's nothing wrong with meat because the problem here is how the animals are kept and cared for, I'd rather like to eat an animal that had a good life walking around naturally in the sunlight and enjoying itself/actually living until slaughtered, not a poor fucking tortured in megafactory drugged up mutant which we have now unless you have mad shekels and can afford buying organic or hunted meat and even then it's not certain, same with furs and anything else like that involving animals. I stand with PETA the whole way except from the fact that most of those people are Marxist tier neoliberal rot brains, which is a shame. But i respect their cause. Anyone who's willing to go out of their way to do anything online and irl to prevent these fucking gay soul less spiritually jewish animal torturing niggerfaggots from doing this sadistic shit in selflessness are doing gods work. Now just just take a look at pic related, what kind of monster goes to work every day and does this fucking shit to animals? Honestly. A normal rational human being doing this shit? No fucking way. Worse yet the faggots that do this is shit are "highly educated" and spent at least 5 years in school, this is nothing but pure fucking evil sadism from individualist human trash, and these trash tier people are actually at the same time trying to justify their said sadism by saying many mammals and other animals have no real conciousness(lol), self-awareness(lol) even though this is patently false as of course they do, but not the same level as a human which makes it hard to detect for us, as these researchers keep trying to compare their faculties to ours(because they're fucking retarded) because it's really visible and obvious they the same set of emotions and everything we have but just on another level and even then the average nigger has an IQ of about 70-80, and Koko the gorilla had about 90, go figure.
>>4677 I never said anyone in particular was making those common arguments that I put down. I certainly didn’t make them up out of thin air and have heard most of them used in discussing with people before in the past. Perhaps the confusion here comes from the fact that this section of my post somewhat branched off my from my original reply to you, while it was actuallly meant to be more distantly connected and addressed to no one in particular. That said you should fuck off because you clearly don’t belong on this board – not for merely disagreeing, but because you’re a low IQ overly hostile faggot who advocates for some Jewish amoralism.
Open file (759.48 KB 1200x900 3gco2s.png)
>this thread it's amazing how gay this board can be sometimes
>>4701 Vegans and Islamists, truly the best the white race has to offer.
>>4697 >[/spoiler] yet [spoiler] go back
muhhh fee fee the thread /fascist/ is a board for woman i'm convinced now.
>you’re a low IQ overly hostile faggot who advocates for some Jewish amoralism lol fag
>>4701 >>4702 >>4703 >>4704 >>4705 It takes a psychopath to even come up with any justifications of this cruel and unusual torture these people are running on animals in such places as laboratories. Idgaf about veganism but your replies sound like you monkeybrained fags are just as good as vegetables at this point. Go be the monkey niggers. https://youtu.be/F5j8Al77aJs As if you would let them do this to your pet dog or whatever poor animals you wierd freaks own.
>>4706 ok, unironically take your med. you're arguing by yourself and strawmanning a little more everytime, kill yourself faggot.
One thing id like to say is that cows get old and cows break legs should we just discard their flesh and let it rot away for nothing or should we honor the cow and use everything it has to give us, i can see why people are against gigantic inhumane farm houses but there are farmers out there who give their cattle very good lives until the day comes that they get too old or they have some kind of accident
>>4702 >welcome to /fascist/ where the 3rd position is being a vegan islamist
>>4701 t. /liberty/ If anything this thread shows how assblasted meatfags get when challenged. Just look at 6d1f79 – it’s a veritable spergout
>>4710 There is maybe one vegan or islamist here
I can see the argument. One does involve slaying the creature very much against their natural will, while the other wants to be eaten (fruits off trees, vegetables, etc., being eaten is an integral part of their reproductive journey) That's not to say I'm vegan by any stretch, but I do see the merits at a cursory glance.
Even if all meat was lab grown we still shouldnt be eating it.
>>4701 >>4702 Honestly I like these threads on more off-the-wall and controversial topics because with them we avoid rehashing the same basic topics daily like cuck/pol/ does. We're full of spergs but that's part of why I like this board, you can get an autist to pound out an essay on almost any topic.
>>4714 >One does involve slaying the creature very much against their natural will, while the other wants to be eaten (fruits off trees, vegetables, etc., being eaten is an integral part of their reproductive journey) That's definitely true. I think the Jains have an interesting way of going about this, putting plants and animals into a hierarchy as per their senses. At the top we have five sensed beings (which can touch, taste, smell, see and hear) while the lowest are said to have only the sense of touch (like plants or microorganisms called nigoda). While admirable, these people take it a bit too far in some respects though, I'm sure everyone's seen the pics where they walk around with surgical masks on and sweep the streets to avoid stepping on bugs. Granted that's only the monks who have taken the great vows but still once it starts hindering one's ability to function to such an extent I think it becomes excessive and even they understand that it is impossible to avoid doing harm to some beings. >>4715 I'm not sure I want to consume anything grown in a lab, especially if it is masquerading as meat. >>4710 >>4702 >veganism Never even mentioned ITT, they are degenerate. Even someone as extreme as Savitri Devi wasn't a vegan.
>>4701 It's honestly embarrassing
>>4722 What's the ideal
You know, I'd love to see the kikes write a hit-piece on this board. I don't mind our wackier elements personally but I love imagining them trying to interpret stuff like dharmaposting and Integralist-chan. >>4723 He's probably a newfag who wants a /pol/ clone, forgetting that /fascist/ expressly exists for this type of discussion that isn't entirely kosher on /pol/ or that cannot be discussed in good enough depth there.
>>4724 I wonder why there isn't a /pol/ here. I know about /n/ but it's an untended lawn for some reason.
meat-eating is part of the natural order. nature is not some cartoon where everyone gets along, it's a hierarchical system of energy exchange. all life devours other life, except for primary producers who rely on sunlight, but even they consume nitrates that were once part of other organisms. we are omnivores by nature, and to deny part of our natural sustenance is improper. Hitler was a great leader, but he still made mistakes, such as killing off Rommel, ignoring the better advice of his generals, being too aggressive and inflexible in the Ostfront, but I digress. the point is, just as an association with Hitler doesn't make it wrong, that doesn't guarantee that it's right either. vegetarianism is not a good diet. it's unnatural, and it's difficult to get the nutrients you need without supplements. veganism is even worse, of course. if you want to diet, the best method is pollo-pescetarianism i.e. eat chicken & fish, and cut red meat.
>>4740 Hell we'd get huge nutritional benefits alone from intact families where you eat more homecooked food.
>>4729 Administration here doesn't want anything called /pol/ for some reason. They have no problem with /pol/-related places like this but as soon as its a full-fledged /pol/ they refuse to create it. There is, like you said, /n/, but it seems like that place just can't take off. Their first faggot BO Guthrum was bad enough but it just seems dead. I guess people want an honest-to-God /pol/ and nothing less kek. >>4740 Vegetarians have been shown to live longer, as well as suffer much less from health problems such as cancer, heart-disease and other illnesses. Not to mention the fact that our teeth and intestinal structures are best suited for a herbivorous (vegetarian) diet. People like to make the teeth argument, but they should look at the mouth of the gorilla which doesn't eat meat.
>>4665 You could try being less obvious with your (((ethical))) and vegan astroturfing across the chans, but I guess not eating meat has deteriorated your brain to the point where you are no longer capable of being subtle about it, or you are a kike and thus lack any self-awareness. >give us the right to kill other life-forms for our selfish ends "Selfishness" is a slippery slope, you could easily deduct that we must eat soylent and live in bug-pods or abstain from any activity not being related to our (immediate) survival. Which is the real goal of your religious shilling, you are trying to use National-Socialism and Fascism as a vector for pushing globohomo and noahide laws (goyim are forbidden from eating animals according to those). You are poisoning the well by promoting destructive diets and philosophies, whose effects were proven to be disastrous (The concept of (((oneness))) eventually led to secular humanism, and by extension, SJW/globohomo). Trying to repackage it under NS guise won't change it's nature and utility. Inb4 you start clinging to a few quotes, Hitler being a vegetarian for health reasons and authors like Savitri Devi who had clearly degenerated in their thoughts (no one is perfect anyway), using that deviation to attach your agenda to the general narrative. I've seen your colleagues use the same tactics trying to shill for Hitler being a Christian, etc. Whatever works to poz the goyim, huh? They are not sending their best. >especially innocent ones There is no such thing as innocent life. We had reports of a pig eating an immobile old woman alive, and every animal would kill you if it could. Dogs often attack people just because they can, without being threatened. Even many plants could kill you, and will grow out of your corpse. Herbivorous (Omnivorous) animals just can't afford taking such risks and have found an alternate survival strategy. Which didn't lead to sapience, carnivorous diet did. You would never be able to post this nonsense were your ancestors not carnivores for a long time. >ethical superiority No such thing. Ethics is a social construct and a religious meme, and I'm saying this unironically. >e.g. someone who is severely mentally retarded who never did and never will have this potential Should be aborted, post-natal. In fact, euthanizing those would be an act of mercy. >What about someone's mute mom or dad who is suffering from severe and irreversible Alzheimer's disease They were genuine people at one point (and at certain level still are), animals were not. You could make the same argument about subhumans. They should live among us and procreate with us (as long as they are not whatever you falsely define as "evil") because all life good and killing bad. t. NPC >>4671 >The bhagavad gita comes from a vegetarian religion Religion pushed onto dravidians in order to prevent them from eating up too much resources. I guess kikes are trying to copy that with whites now. This is your mind on veganism, the ultimate state of goyim. This is what (((people))) who shill for veganism want you to become. Vid related. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-QaGzenEaQ >>4671 >Advocating against morality? For power? Nothing could be more jewish. Oy gevalt, don't seek power goyim! Leave Caesar's unto Caesar he he he . Here is this artificial religion to keep you eternally enslaved to us and ensure that you never oppose us. >The source of all virtue and morality is God And God doesn't exist. You can deduct the rest yourself ...
>>4697 A commonly used logical fallacy by Weegee shills >Kikes and psychopaths torture animals and sell us toxic, low nutrition meat, therefore, we should abandon eating meat altogether It's the same pilpul as with ecology, they never attack Jewish industries and planned obsolesce economy (greatest pollutants) but shill for extra (((taxes))) and (((regulations))) which don't really affect pollution much but serve the Jewish agenda. >To me there's nothing wrong with meat because the problem here is how the animals are kept and cared for, I'd rather like to eat an animal that had a good life walking around naturally in the sunlight and enjoying itself/actually living until slaughtered, not a poor fucking tortured in megafactory drugged up mutant which we have now unless you have mad shekels and can afford buying organic or hunted meat and even then it's not certain This is the most reasonable position. >same with furs and anything else like that involving animals Leather is a very useful commodity >>4710 Transexual, Mexican, Islamic Communism >>4711 >Implying we care about dogs either Kek >>4740 How vegans/vegetarians and moralists imagine the universe/natural order: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASzFs4_4kvk How it actually works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9B8n7ubgUg
>>4752 >>4754 Again, if you want nothing to do with god and morality, then go join the jews. You will become the same as them.
Open file (571.81 KB 1280x720 IMG_5446.PNG)
Well, I think dogs are just wonderful
>>4763 You can have radically different values and worldview to the one that the Jews have and still not ascribe to any kind of universal morality or a single, all-encompassing god. Ironically, I'm far more moral than (((ethical))) people, who use such buzzwords for social manipulation, as unlike them and their false concepts, I at least have a code of honor. I have yet to meet a person who attempts to make moral/ethical arguments who is not a total scoundrel. You are implying that one can either be a Jew or their victim, I tend to disagree. Only by transcending duality and going beyond good and evil will you be able to achieve a higher state.
>>4775 You are a puffed up moron
Open file (98.43 KB 785x523 savitri devi.jpg)
>>4754 >How vegans/vegetarians and moralists imagine the universe/natural order: Funny how a radical vegetarian like Savitri Devi would completely demolish this strawman - <We admit, of course — one just has to admit it — that the Law of struggle for life (and of struggle for well-being) is inseparable from time-bound existence; and that Nature’s command is: “Kill, and eat!,” since even plants are endowed with life (and, to a certain degree, with sensitiveness) and since one has to eat something. But we notice that his iron law of struggle for life and for well-being is universal and that, especially in an increasingly overcrowded world such as ours, it determines, and cannot but determine, the attitude of human beings and of human collectivities towards one another just as mercilessly as it does the mutual attitude of different species.
>You could try being less obvious with your (((ethical))) and vegan astroturfing across the chans I've posted ITT and made two posts on Neinchan yesterday. I'm not even denying it. When I'm thinking about something I look for opportunities to post about it and talk about it with others. >"Selfishness" is a slippery slope, you could easily deduct that we must eat soylent and live in bug-pods or abstain from any activity not being related to our (immediate) survival. This point doesn't even follow. > noahide laws (goyim are forbidden from eating animals according to those) The Noahide laws say say "Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal." Keyword is living. >Hitler being a vegetarian for health reasons Hitler was clearly a lover of animals as the legislation put into place for the benefit of animals shows. And again, there is the quote from Goebbels diary posted in the OP. It was for health reasons, but not health reasons alone. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Nazianimalrights.htm >and every animal would kill you if it could This is absolute nonsense. >Ethics is a social construct and a religious meme, and I'm saying this unironically. I love how I'm the kike here in your eyes. >Should be aborted, post-natal. In fact, euthanizing those would be an act of mercy. I agree. >They were genuine people at one point (and at certain level still are), animals were not. So what? Why can't I eat them? Why can't I eat people? It's the natural order for me to devour other beings! >You could make the same argument about subhumans. They should live among us and procreate with us (as long as they are not whatever you falsely define as "evil") because all life good and killing bad. t. NPC Why should subhumans be allowed to procreate with higher forms of life? The only product of such unions is lower abominations that are between the level of their parents, in every case a lower form of life than the higher parent. What right do subhumans have to live among Aryans? THEY HAVE NO RIGHT Half of your arguments don't even follow or make sense, or are wild extrapolations from minor points of a given argument. Killing can be good or bad depending on the context. >And God doesn't exist It all makes sense now. You're just a Jew.
>>4781 Did she have healthy children btw?
>>4785 Nice ad hominem. She left behind a wealth of valuable works that are still inspiring National Socialists to this day.
>>4788 So she didn't.
>>4788 It was only a question, relax. I was kind of hoping she did. I have nothing against vegetarianism as a personal choice. Though of course I'd be quite wary of my wife following such a diet if it could effect the health of my children.
>>4748 there are probably other intervening variables at work, e.g. the meat-eaters in the study may have also consumed cigarettes & alcohol and had other unhealthy habits. gorillas may have inherited canine teeth, but the fact remains, we're supposed to be omnivores. as I said, without meat, you need supplements to get certain nutrients, which means it's an incomplete diet. you should be able to get all required nutrients from your food. >>4752 well said. >>4754 > It's the same pilpul as with ecology, they never attack Jewish industries and planned obsolesce economy (greatest pollutants) but shill for extra (((taxes))) and (((regulations))) which don't really affect pollution much but serve the Jewish agenda. indeed, planned obsolescence is very wasteful and greedy, yet their focus is only on taxes and regulations. this is because environmentalism has been hijacked by globalists who are using it to consolidate power. this should not be confused with genuine environmental concerns, which are overshadowed by vested interests. human depictions of nature are often just that, human, and not based on natural order. >>4783 we can treat animals well while still living off their flesh. this is not necessarily a contradiction. >Why can't I eat people? cannibalism is not natural for human beings, and is unsafe. see: kuru
As an advocate for vegetarianism i dont think meat eating should be outright banned, its not reasonable to think that would go over well, its perhaps another act of cruelty in itself. There are many good moral people who are meat eaters and i do believe people are more important than animals on the basis that people are capable of higher works than animals. Animal cruelty laws and factory farming should be outlawed and meat eaters would agree with that. The responsibility of vegetarians from that point is to live healthy productive lives, to set an example that lacto-vegetarianism is a better lifestyle than meat eating. There are far to many people ingrained in meat eating and they will never give it up or come around but a living example of a strong healthy lacto-vegetarian will not be easily denied. I think theres a greater play going on that isnt hasnt been studied yet, and that is genetics. Theres probably whites that are genetically fit for being meat eaters/vegetarians/vegans and whites that are genetically unfit.
>>4649 Short answer, no, we should eat meat. Excellent sources of protein and vitamins plus the most efficient source of heme-iron. On the other hand, we must be good stewards of the process. Cruel methods of slaughter should be outlawed and great care should be taken to ease their passing and provide the highest quality meats, but meat is an integral part of the human animal's diet. https://youtu.be/1MH2ZKt35K4 Mega if you don't like embeds; I just ripped it from there though. https://mega.nz/#!z8NzkCJY!CMVwYr7CSfxN7gzIy6lGl5FkaleFYyN4jkHMeOnH-UQ
>>4779 Not an argument >>4781 Then her vegetarianism is contradictory to her views. Provided it's anything BUT the personal choice. By forcing this diet as a policy you are sabotaging one group and putting it at a disadvantage compared to those who do not have such a policy. I wonder who would benefit from that ... >>4783 >I've posted ITT and made two posts on Neinchan yesterday I've seen the same scripted "arguments" even back on 8pol and many other chans. You are all reciting/parroting the talking points of the same (((think tanks))) , that's why you are barely distinguishable from each other. >Keyword is living. It would be living if you didn't kill it (pilpul), it could be mistranslated from Hebrew, etc. Veganism (or eating bugs) is how they seem to practically interpret it anyway. It's obviously part of the agenda. >Hitler was clearly a lover of animals So? Plenty of animal lovers eat meat. >I love how I'm the kike here in your eyes. Ethics is the final refuge of the scoundrel. >Why can't I eat people? Because you would be eating an actual person and not a biological machine (animal). Higher forms of consciousness are sympathetic to each other, lower are to lower. There is no need for any universal morality or ethics to have that. Cannibalism is not natural for most species, especially for humans. It's not healthy, and humans are not tasty to other humans. Plus, plenty of animal meat around. >in every case a lower form of life than the higher parent But higher than the other half Not really, but I'll make such an assumption for the sake of argument That means that MUH LYF didn't actually lose anything. >What right do subhumans have to live among Aryans? If they are not hurting you, and you should minimize violence/harm, what argument do you have for NOT letting them live among us? >Half of your arguments don't even follow or make sense, or are wild extrapolations from minor points of a given argument >Why can't I eat people? Nice projection >You're just a Jew. I don't need slave morality and "God" to have standards, principles and virtues. It's usually people who lack these qualities internally who feel a need to project them onto an external entity (point of universal focus, "God" etc.).
>>4847 Your opinion and prose, the way you think and speak, it is like a long noxious fart.
>>4856 Meatcucks btfo. >>4847 reddi/pol/ you need to go back to 8coom if you want to jerk off about how you love Pissrael, eating burgers, and donnie dup,
Open file (1.70 MB 275x206 1579886992428.gif)
>>4752 >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-QaGzenEaQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-QaGzenEaQ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I CANT BELIEVE MY EYES These mother fuckers are mentally disabled, they won't do anything for their own people but they will do something for another species of animal instead, even inflicting self harm. Mentally ill and POZZED soyim. You know that's the exact problem with some people's talking points dead-born discussion. Other things are way more important right now than this crap. First of all it's a modern myth Hitler was a full on vegetarian, apparently he still ate meat on occasions, and consumed fish daily. Animal husbandry diets have been common in Europe for thousands of years already and that has been linked to our high stature as in height as with fish omega 3 consumption linked to height in the Netherlands. Foraging for us was always secondary, as we learned animal husbandry very early, likely earlier than most other races. >Of note, a recent randomized-controlled trial of N-3 PUFA supplementation in 208 healthy women in the Netherlands (the ‘INFAT study’) found that higher N-3 and N-6 PUFA in maternal red blood cells during the third trimester was associated with higher birthweight and birth length https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6716373/#R45 It's a personal choice what you eat, you take that choice yourself, choice of food doesn't make you anything more than what you are.
>>4847 >It would be living if you didn't kill it (pilpul), it could be mistranslated from Hebrew, etc Do you have any proof or you just talking out of your ass again? >Because you would be eating an actual person and not a biological machine (animal). Higher forms of consciousness are sympathetic to each other, lower are to lower. There is no need for any universal morality or ethics to have that. Cannibalism is not natural for most species, especially for humans. It's not healthy, and humans are not tasty to other humans. Plus, plenty of animal meat around. So what if I want to devour the flesh of actual people, anon, "Ethics is the final refuge of the scoundrel" after all. This sure sounds like an ethical position to me. I for one, as a healthy non-cucked omnivorous Aryan male, am not bound by such petty ethical positions and wish to devour the flesh of my fellow humans, regardless of their level of consciousness. Plenty of species devour each other. I don't want to eat the meat of other animals! Daily reminder that Herodotus described extensive types of cannibalism (funerary or otherwise) among Aryan peoples. This is an Aryan tradition and I do not wish to hear such ethical claims from fellow racial compatriots. >But higher than the other half And lower than the superior. It's an abomination and loss of quality. >That means that MUH LYF didn't actually lose anything. The question of breeding is much different from whether humans should eat other animals. There is certainly things of greater and lesser value. >If they are not hurting you, and you should minimize violence/harm, what argument do you have for NOT letting them live among us? What does violence or harm minimization have to do with letting subhumans live among us? Subhumans which, as you know, are extremely violent with low impulse control, and prone to murder, steal, rape and laze around. Removing them from society for this reason, and for the preservation of the higher races is common sense. You're really not at your best in these devil's advocate arguments tonight, are you? >I don't need slave morality and "God" to have standards, principles and virtues. There's no morality at all which is not wholly relative without God. Your views are thus, accepting your atheism, completely subjective, relative and meaningless.
>>4856 Maybe your farts would smell less bad if you ate food that you can fully digest and that won't rot in your intestines, like meat? It would also give your brain enough fuel to make a post that's not emotional screeching or barking. >>4863 >about how you love Pissrael, eating burgers, and donnie dup The only alternative being vegetarian Garl Marx burgers and BASED POOS of course. It always has to be false dichotomies, black and white, bouncing from one wrong end to another ... >>4866 Maybe they empathize so much with the farm animals because they are farm animals themselves? They eat literal pig food like soy, they live (and want to live) highly controlled, passive lives, in small, enclosed spaces, their brains don't recognize a difference between higher and lower forms of life (which is how we evolved from amoebas in the first place) and they even like getting abused. I believe there is a certain level where one shouldn't be considered human anymore. Those hot iron brands should have GOY written on them and it would be the ultimate SJW certification. Then these ruined forms of life would be thrown into the pigsty, so they can finally enjoy equality and unity with all life. I mean this is what they want, what they crave for. >You know that's the exact problem with some people's talking points dead-born discussion A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth. Shills need to be BTFO once in a while so fresher anons don't get lured by them. Not that most people posting on places like this are stupid enough to fall for their tricks, but still ... >It's a personal choice what you eat That does not apply to pregnant mothers. Vegan diet while pregnant should be classified as child abuse. And letting these people raise children is questionable in the first place. >>4867 >Do you have any proof or you just talking out of your ass again? You tell me, you are the expert on rabbinical literature here. I have just pointed out a very high correlation between noahide laws and globalist agenda. Veganism being part of it is undeniable, and something which could be construed/interpreted/pilpuled as veganism does exist as a noahide law. >So what if I want to devour the flesh of actual people Some niggers already do it, do you want to be like them? Animals do it too, plenty would gladly devour you. They don't discern based on level of consciousness either, because they do not possess any. Both vegan and cannibal positions lack discrimination, they might not be as opposed as you think. This is what makes vegans and cannibals (kikes) natural allies. Aryans discriminate by virtue and quality, and this discrimination goes beyond (((God))) and any (((universal morality))). >This sure sounds like an ethical position to me Laws of synchronicity, sympathy and association. Like attracts like. >Subhumans which, as you know, are extremely violent with low impulse control What about those which are not? By your logic, you shouldn't touch them or interfere with their reproduction in any way. Who are you to judge life anyway? How can some races be superior to others, but animals being equal to humans? Why have animal welfare but not Abdullah welfare? You have so many flaws in your thinking. You would empathize with an animal, but not with a nigger who is actually a superior lifeform to that animal. What about animals who hunt and kill other animals, would you get rid of them too? Would you completely chop up and disfigure natural order to fit your artificial delusions? Because that's a quintessentially Jewish trait. > and for the preservation of the higher races is common sense Eating meat played a great role in that preservation. >There's no morality at all which is not wholly relative without God. Platonic Forms, Archetypes, synchronicities etc. don't need some kind of original emanating point, they are eternal and permeate everything. There is no central, unifying entity or moral authority, it's an entirely open ended system bound only by certain eternal principles. You need artifice like "God" because otherwise you would be unironically eating people. I don't, because my virtues emanate internally without any need of central external authority. I am what I am :>) Even if such God existed, you exoteric NPC cucks couldn't be any further away from it. And if you claim that your god is objective, then some evidence would be required. Not necessarily physical, a reasonable explanation would suffice.
>>4863 >Meatcucks btfo lmao I don't think this is going to have the effect you think it's going to have
>>4876 >How can some races be superior to others, but animals being equal to humans? Animals were never stated to be equal to humans. I don't understand how you repeatedly keep misinterpreting and reading into everything people in this thread say so badly. >Why have animal welfare but not Abdullah welfare? You have so many flaws in your thinking. Do animals cause crimes? Do animals rape our women? Do animals destroy the biological foundation of our race? I think not. There's nothing about equality or diversity in this worldview, and you repeatedly fail to understand it. I'm not even sure at this point what you understand to be meant by animal welfare - I mean no vivisections, no experimentation, no slaughterhouses, etc. There will never be a kumbaya world. It's a world of struggle. If anything niggers should be experimented on if we want human experimentation since they, unlike animals, abuse and neglect their higher capacities as a form of human beings on a much wider scale, thus being worse and more harmful than animals >What about animals who hunt and kill other animals, would you get rid of them too? Would you completely chop up and disfigure natural order to fit your artificial delusions? This is getting ridiculous. This thread is only in relation to rational human beings, not animals who function merely according to their instincts. Yet another Reductio ad absurdum from you I'm not even going to bother replying to other schizo bullshit
Open file (321.06 KB 1053x865 ClipboardImage.png)
>>4876 >Platonic Forms, Archetypes, synchronicities etc. don't need some kind of original emanating point, they are eternal and permeate everything. There is no central, unifying entity or moral authority, it's an entirely open ended system bound only by certain eternal principles. You need artifice like "God" because otherwise you would be unironically eating people. I don't, because my virtues emanate internally without any need of central external authority. I am what I am :>) Yawn, more New Agey woo. "muh virtues emanate internally" = "I'm muh own guru". You just spurt out words like "muh oneness is bad because it doesn't emanate internally from muh feels" and "Platonic forms" but you can't explain why it's real or can be proven any more than the exact same anons you accuse of not being able to prove their God. You use all sorts of esoteric terms without real understanding, you are as exoteric as can be. It's no surprise that the elite in the past actually kept these doctrines secure from the real NPCs in brotherhoods and only past them down orally, so they wouldn't be bastardized by half-baked (((New Age))) faggotry like this
To those seeing unable to see why niggers and bastards are less than animals, read Savitri Devi: >In the eyes of the believers in quality, however, (in the eyes of those who deplore that broadening disparity between actual life and its divine pattern, which characterises evolution in Time) any Bengal tiger, nay, any healthy cat — any healthy tree; any perfect sample of manifested Life — is worth far more than an ugly, — degenerate human bastard. Alone man in his perfection — superior man “like unto the Gods,” not the patched-up weakling that this conceited Age exalts — is to be looked upon as “the highest creature,” “God’s image,” etc... National Socialism — and that is the root of its conflict with Communism, no less than with Christianity as the latter has come down to us, — strives to bring back that conception of man into living reality, and to prepare the reappearing of such a human type, through the preservation and strengthening of the best in our fallen Age, not at the cost of the other healthy and beautiful creatures of this earth but, no doubt, — and without a qualm of remorse — at the expense of those masses of racially inferior humanity which the Dark Forces are now organising,with the help of the Jews, their permanent agents, under the sign of the Hammer and Sickle. For those organised masses are, as Hans Grimm has clearly seen — alas, after the disaster of 1945 — tomorrow’s threat to the every existence of higher mankind (not “Asia’s” threat to “Europe,” — by any means! — but the threat of raceless numbers to the pure-blooded Aryan of Europe and Asia, America and South Africa and Australia, and to the pure-blooded and noble non-Aryan, also of the whole world.)
>>4867 > There's no morality at all which is not wholly relative without God. And how do you objectively measure "God" or any of the moralities he bestowed us?
>>4880 >Animals were never stated to be equal to humans Equally treated, having the same (or even higher) moral standards applied to them, etc. You are the one arguing sematics while being either too retarded or too much of a kike to address my actual points >Do animals cause crimes? Crime depends on legislature, most of which is entirely artificial and made to control other groups of people for personal benefit of the ruling clique. But if we take what's commonly considered as crime, then yes, animals do kill, rape, and destroy biological foundations of other races/species. >There's nothing about equality or diversity in this worldview There is, because according to your worldview, everything is equal at the very source, the rest being just different manifestations/degrees of the same. This is the very poisonous seed of egalitarianism, and from that, everything bad in our societies sprouts. You are quick to succumb to it as well, in spite of all the talk of hierarchy, castes etc. You are a SJW through and through. If you discriminate, you have to discriminate all the way to the source. >I'm not even sure at this point what you understand to be meant by animal welfare Not killing them for food, skin, or experiments - the matters which are practical, everything else is degenerate and should be abstained from >If anything niggers should be experimented on Do you really think that niggers have any rational capacity? So your only problem with niggers is that they do not ascribe to the same artificial (moral) standards as you do? How does that make you any different from christcucks and their godly niggers or civnats and their legal niggers? >abuse and neglect their higher capacities as a form of human beings on a much wider scale, thus being worse and more harmful than animals Is there anything compelling them to use their higher capacities for something else? Do they owe it to anyone? They are a higher lifeform than animals, it's their right. If they use it irrationally, they will suffer and go extinct. So is ours in dealing with niggers and other lesser lifeforms. The fact that you would rather hurt a higher form of consciousness than a lower one solely because it doesn't follow the entirely subjective morality of yours clearly shows that you are not being objective in the slightest. And the real reason for that is that you feel threatened by higher lifeforms (if we extrapolate your rational capacity argument to whites). You feel competition. This is the real reason why SJW's (and kikes) hate whites while "loving" animals and subhumans, they don't see them as competition, they don't have inferiority complexes with them. And they also use (((morals))) as a sort of a criminal code of conduct for them to destroy the superior and thus eliminate competition. You are much wiser in it's application as you consider long term and more encompassing effects as well, but in essence, you don't differ much. You are hiding behind "morals" in order to advance your personal interests and promote your individual Will. Moral higher ground is a falied meme, just look at the sad state of the nations which utilized it as a competitive strategy. It's a race to the bottom and only benefits the kikes, it's original creators. >This thread is only in relation to rational human beings There is zero practical difference between a human killing you and an animal killing you. Lack of rational capacity is not innocence. By the same logic, we should forgive subhumans many of their crimes solely because they are not as rational as we are. Morals only apply to beings of approximately same level of consciousness, not because they are universal, but because it's an agreement of two (or more) wills of the similar rank to not hurt each other or cooperate for mutual benefit, or simply because of sympathy and genuine desire to help. Having common blood/features, being of the same race plays a great role in this. This is why honor is the only valid concept, something which (((moralists))) lack entirely. >I'm not even going to bother replying to other schizo bullshit I'm impressed you managed to even last this far without conceding. You need to eat a good, juicy steak and then come back. >>4884 Why of course, there is no free will and individuality is an illusion, only by worshiping the supreme golem/NPC can we be objective. You keep getting drawn to the false light like moths to a lamp and yet you call someone exoteric kek.
>>4885 Quality is an universal value. Morals and ethics are not, except in their application and results.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?