Strangest Right-wing Movements

Radical traditionalist

These make me cringe

Doesn't sound like it to me

...

They don`t want restoration of nobility but return to the days of absolutism with monarch.

That makes even less sense.

Do they think they'll end up being an absolute monarch?

Do they even recognize that absolute monarchy was in many ways the degeneration of feudalism?

Those political sanity warnings sound like something a fifteen year old would right, it's just a hair away from a goth kid talking about how sick and twisted they are.

Also the 4th pic is great. "A government that functions, SHIT, I never thought of that."

There's this very creepy right wing group with sympathies to Jobbik that calls itself "Hungarian Radical Animal-Protectors." What they do basically is get hints about people not taking care of their animals and going there to beat them up. There was an interview with one of them where they openly admit that they'd prefer the life of an unfed dog over the abusive owner, etc.

Jobbik is a strange conglomeration of everything that's crazy in Hungary. There are new-age shamanistic sects colluding with them. One election season I had the chance to witness one of the ceremonies held to gather good luck to the Jobbik candidate. They had shaman drums and nonsense languages and praised the Sun. The official Jobbik position is ofc >muh christianity.

Second pic related: one of their shaman candidates. It reads: "Lajos Papp, heart surgeon professor @City. For the future of Hungary and humankind."

UKIP is similar I heard on the municipal level, filled to the brim with barmy pensioners and self-proclaimed saviors of mankind.

That Dutch angle pisses me off.

is that supposed to be a controversial statement? animal abusers are human garbage

What the fuck is that quote on the fourth poster even supposed to mean? "People aren't smart?" Is that supposed to be deep?

I'm comin for that toothbrush whitey

They are. They also have rights.

The praxis of Evola followers and NRx types is very weak. They abhor and eschew any kind of popular movements or mass action. So, as far as I can tell, their praxis consists of circlejerking to the absolute monarchs of old while waiting for their God-King to show up and lead them to glory. They seem pretty harmless actually.

The response that I usually get from them on this is that they don't mind being cucked as long as it's by an esoteric king.

so? that wasn't the question. what's wrong with preferring a starved, abused dog over its scumbag abuser?

The abuser being human? Him having the chance of redeeming himself and changing his ways? The dog being a lesser, not conscious being?

I mean… if you deny the first part, you are being intentionally deluded and cruel. If you deny the latter part you just deny facts.

my point is i have more sympathy for the abused animal than for its abuser, and there's nothing controversial about that

I don't care what is controversial or not I care about what is just.

also, feels > reals

To be fair, the message is that they prefer a functioning government over a government where everybody can vote.

it is my will to favour the abused over the abusive
your support for animal abusers is also a "feel." as is their "rights," my spooked friend

My ass. You are an autist who tries to justify his lack of empathy towards humans who happen to be scum/criminals and his infantile preference of animals.

We know, your doggie got you out of your autist tantrums. Good for both of you. Now leave questions about justice to the adults.

You are not even trying.

This is speciesism. Peter Singer thought this through and speciesism is very hard to defend. For example children or people with a mental disability are also not conscious.

preference for animals is infantile but preference for humans isn't? hmm, sounds like a "feel," as you put it

I'll always prefer conscious beings over non-conscious beings. There's a clear, qualitative difference.

Let's stay in the context of legality and justice. Let's say a lion eats a 12 year old kid. What can you do? Punish it like in medieval animal trials? It clearly can't learn shit, it has no morality, no capacity for it. On the other hand even the worst criminal, as despicable she may be, can redeem herself, can learn a lesson, is already an ethical agent.

What this autist ITT suggests (let the abuser human die and the abused animal live, because this is non-controversial in his mind) is a grave injustice. I'm not only saying that her penalty would be completely disproportionate to the crime she committed, but that her crime was less severe than if she had done the same to a fellow human being.

Ethics between subjects can't be the same as between a subject and a non-subject, since the latter can't reciprocate, isn't an ethical agent. Suggesting otherwise borders on the delusional: anthropomorphizing animals.

I have no problems with post-natal euthanasia. People shouldn't hurt others with disabilities.

Try harder.

i don't need to. the entire argument on either side is built on spooks, thus ultimately pointless

What are the spooks on my side? Ethics? Are you fourteen?

So do you prefer adults over babies? Babies are non-conscious. Are adults worth more?

I recommend Peter Singer to you. Even if you disagree, it was a fascinating read for me.

yeah. value is a spook. you can't objectively prove one lifeform, like a human, more 'worthy' than another, like a dog. pure imagination

What basic moral value can you prove? At some point it will become an opinion. How can you prove to me that I should not kill neither animals nor humans?

i can't. that's why it's a spook

So what's your standpoint on killing, and why? Do you accept different opinions on this matter?

btw I'm talking about bookre.org/reader?file=1095085&pg=3

does my opinion really matter? personal feelings are spooks

What does "prefer" mean? I acknowledge that there are qualitative differences between a dog, a newborn child, a 3 years old, and an adult. A dog is a non-conscious sentient being with no capacity to become conscious, a newborn child is pre-conscious with the capacity to become conscious, a 3 yrs old child is conscious but not yet an ethically responsible agent, an adult is conscious and ethically responsible for all of his acts. I consider these facts. Do you agree so far?

From these follow several (ethical, legal, social, political, etc.) differentiating consequences. A parent could pretend that his kid was an adult, and the kid could end up running under a bus since it has no developed sense of threats. A dog owner could pretend that his pet was conscious, but that would make him a weird idiot, and so on.

I'm not too fond of utilitarians (even though I shill for David Benatar occasionally). Might read some day.

Who said anything about "worth?" I'm not the one sticking value judgments to the aforementioned facts, you are. I'm not saying that beating a dog is good, I'm saying it is qualitatively different than beating a fellow human being.

Morals aren't proven, they are adopted through socialization, and hopefully constructed by the agent for himself later on, argued between agents, but always functioning regardless of its epistemological status and with some reference either to the others well being or the maxim's of the agent.

It matters insofar as I'm interested. I suppose you are not walking around killing people, and I suppose you would condemn killing (.e.g of you family). But on what basis if you reject morality in itself?

And here we see the Stirnerite crawling back to his non-opinionated den.

S P E W K S

i take ur life
muh property

i fug ur wife
muh property

i tak ur house
muh property

everything else: spooks

Yes.

That's the question. Do you approve of euthanasia of mentally disabled people? They are at the same scale as the dogs by your definition: not conscious, no capacity to become conscious.

I'm not too fond of utilitarianism either. But this aspect is not really important when he talks about animal rights.

I read it that way too. It sounds like you give the live of humans greater value than the live of other species, like dogs, i.e. they are worth more.

It seems at least we three all agree on that ;-)

I don't see the problem.

how?

i don't personally reject morality. i'm only arguing from the nihilistic perspective because this guy believes a preference for humans is valid while a preference for animals is invalid, when objectively both are equally valid or invalid, because they're both spooks, and all one can do is agree to disagree

I honestly believe that removing animal abusers from the gene pool would benefit the society.
If one can't treat animals with dignity, he can't be expected to treat fellow humans any better.
Embrace vegetarianism and eugenics; one day our descendants will live in a socialist utopia.

I know, and here, with the social context, enter inevitably value judgements.

We need to further specify. In my understanding people who can speak (even in a "challenged" way) are always conscious. The question is the ethical side: are they to be considered ethical agents like other adults? Weaseling out here would be to say that every case should be judged uniquely, there are no two the same persons, yadda yadda. Philosophy deals with universals, so that would be too cheap.

Let me put it like this: they, just like everybody else, should be considered adults. Let's say such a person is charged with killing another fellow human being. At the beginning of the trial he should be immediately put to decide: "Regardless if you plea guilty or not guilty, do you understand yourself to be an adult, completely responsible for his deeds?"

If he says yes, the trial must continue normally, if he says no, he performatively abandons his claim to the same ethical status we treat others with.

With regards to euthanasia: I believe that anyone, regardless of their reasons should be given the opportunity, including the mentally handicapped.

You are talking about people who are near- or completely vegetative, non-speaking, can't feed themselves, defecate uncontrollably, etc. Their very consciousness comes into question. The tricky bit: are they electo-mutists? Do they have an inner monologue just like everyone else, fantasies, hopes, etc. but being unable or choosing not to express them?

The general problem is of representation. They can't represent themselves, so inevitably somebody comes to do this for them (and with this inevitably misrepresent them). Let's say a family member comes forth: she just knows that Mr. Carrot is suffering immensely, this is not a real life, etc. and should be euthanized. Do we have medical evidence of his suffering? If so, euthanasia seems humane. If not, society should take care of him until he dies naturally unless his caregivers from their own judgement conclude that he should be euthanized regardless. For this they would need to come forth and present their case: we know that he is not suffering in a medical sense, but…

When you go into legal, political, etc. context value judgments inevitably come up.

When I said that a dog is a sentient being incapable of becoming conscious I believe I stated a fact. Same with the newborn kid, the 3 year old, the adult. These aren't my value judgments. Well, they could be, but I thought we agreed that these were facts. If we still agree that these are facts, it entails that these qualitative differences are "objectively there" and my later value judgments (in legal context, for instance) only reflect on these objective differences.

Should I make it explicit? I thought it was pretty self-evidently embedded in that line of thought.

An ethical subject (human) will always act more severely towards another ethical subject (another human) as opposed to non-ethical beings (animals) with the same act (like beating) since he doesn't just cause physical harm to its prey (like against animals), but also deprives the other (human) from constituting herself as a free ethical subject.

If I beat a dog it will be hurt, it will suffer physically. It might be tied down and can't move and or it could try to bite back. Nobody could blame it. If I beat your stupid ass I'm not just causing you physical suffering, but also either restricting you completely to act on your own ethical volition or forcing a set of choices with ethical consequence on you from the outside, e.g. you might chose to retaliate the harm. Whatever you chose, you can always blame yourself in retrospect, and in fact as a society we even punish people who retaliate too severely.

If you really can't grasp the ethical difference between animals and humans you are behind my help.

Another thing is that with consciousness comes another qualitatively different layer of suffering: traumas, shame, phobias, anxiety, etc. If you are into utilitarian reasoning you definitely need to take this into account.

ITT

...

If it did these embarrassing posters wouldn't exist.

Sounds like a bunch of twenty-something edgy philosophy majors just founded a roleplaying secret society through a blood-oath in a neglected cellar of a campus building.

Props for Haitian Revolution, though. Underrated as fuck. I mean, it's obvious why. But still - in context it's incredibly interesting. Even the reasons why it resulted in such shitty conditions are a really enlightening lesson about imperialism.

Agreed.

Hm, two things.
1. This is an assumption. Maybe not a bad one, but still. Let's define it like that for this discussion

2. I don't understand why being conscious gives you more rights. But being a human gives you more *responsibility*, because I *know* that humans (in general) have the capacity to choose their actions. So, as you also said, a human is responsible for killing, an animal is not.

Yes, we do.

Please let's quickly define what exactly we are arguing about. From my point of view: you said in that "preferring the abused dog over its abuser" is wrong because
and
("not conscious" is a fact, "lesser" isn't.)

Or did i mix up people?

That's what I'm arguing against. My opinion:
1. Vigilante justice against animal abusers is questionable
2. But this is not because the dog is a lesser being. I don't know what goes on in a dog. It's cheap to assume that my species is the only one that deserves to live and have a good life.
3. I base my judgments not on consciousness, but on suffering.
I don't like suffering.
I don't want that others make me suffer
I generalize that: no being should suffer, no being should make other beings suffer (if it has the capacity to decide either way)

I'm not arguing about spooks. I acknowledge the fact that moral conclusions are just opinions, but that's not really important if we share basic values. Based on these values we can still come to the same moral conclusions. The conclusions should be self-consistent, and that's why it's interesting to talk about them.

I brought the disabled people in to check the consistency of your conclusions.

Do I understand you correctly that you give more rights to ethical agents? You said that ethical agents can redeem themselves, but I don't see the connection.

The issue is NRx has some popularity among silicon valley types. Who needs an organic mass movement when you have bottomless pockets.

Do you have a link to that post of his mentioned at the end? This guy is really insightful.

Clearly not

silicon valley will need to be turned into a giant gulag under socialism

yeah, and no doubt they think they'd be the monarch
it's telling that these types idolise statues, paintings and fantasy stories. reactionary ideology is built around a mythical past, free of class struggle or antagonism.

Actually, the truth is more horrifying.

archive.is/atByK

The NRX types don't even bother with the last two you mentioned.

The guillotine hasn't even begun to start yet.

Birchers are a throw-back

Peter Singer is a Utilitarian idiot and an Anglo

Oh I beg to differ.

So right-wing leftcoms?

That is actually a point of disagreement among reactionary types.
While some certainly do support monarchical absolutism.
A very significant amount support either a constitutional/semi-constitutional monarchy or a full on return to feudalism, with monarchical power tempered by regional vassels.

I can't wait for President Mark Zuckerberg so I can laugh at the "Silicon Valley will inherit the earth" types. Almost all the monarchists who think "NRx is the least facist form of government in existence" in practice just think only a monarch can 1. keep the darkies out, 2. crush SJWs, and 3. liquidate the poor. Apparently it hasn't occurred to them that Silicon Valley CEOs will do 1. and 3. with the opposite of 2.

I meant "the opposite of 1. and 2." while still doing (3.)

braise gleg

Theres NOTHING bizarre about good old feudalism.

Negroes were better off as slaves.
50 cent and maywheter are offspring of slaves.
Millions of dead children in Congo arent.

You're welcome. Feel free to return to Africa anytime, black boy

The sperg in me wants it to fit a nice, binary 16.

What an argument.

How does Holla Forums respond?

Because spiritual and cultural matters are private, not state matters

As if having values beyond the economic is something found only in the right.

This is totally false. Free will does not exist. We are chemical machines obeying the laws of physics.
You can train an animal by exploiting your knowledge of its programmed behavior. You can train a human by exploiting your knowledge of its programmed behavior. Humans are more complex, but they are still fundamentally just machines. Your inability to fully predict their actions is a result of your own lack of cognitive ability and imperfect knowledge, not a physical limitation of the universe.

Also, punishment is a terrible motivator for humans. Just look at recidivism rates in the US.

I wish there were more strange reactionary movements exposing themselves like this. It's like tattooing "GULAG ME PLEASE" on their foreheads.

...

Don't forget this one.