The Alt-Right's Got More In Common With Hardline Muslims Than They Wanna Admit

It really is that simple, for both sides.

Islam seems to be kind of univeralist, while right-wing is clearly pron to ideals of nationalism.

Secularism and concepts of romantic "free" love are not western, they are alien to concept of western society and have always been at least form European hegemony's perspective.

Secondly there is no such thing as american "culture" there has never been a such thing. They are meager colonials lacking both in social and intellectual capabilities.

Good.
Fucking robots should all rot.
You too you pseudo-leftist fucker.
Didn't even read your post beyond that.

It's not exclusive in Islam. Women in balkans and Slav women used to wear hearscarfs till recently. Hell, Russians wear them even now to go to church.

The way they do it in islam, differs, though.

Right.. Cause it's not just a meme and the US is filled with sand niggers…

Tell me more about how the creation of WW1 despooking on war and society is not "Western".
Oh… you mean western as USA/GB conservatives.. sorry.

Robots need psychological help.
But OP is indeed a faggot.

I know. He wasn't much of a Catholic, but he put on a facade to promote traditionalism just like the alt-right who're secretly atheists by and by large.

Universalist in the sense that it stamps on the particular. Nazism is also universalist, for it sees every human as a subject for natures eternal struggle, as islam sees every human as subject of allah's judgement.

I don't get it…

I know. Headscarf was part of european culture for centuries, i really like them.

Women in Islam really dindu nuffin though. Especially the burka wearing few I see in London. They're usually really timid and won't even talk to you if you ask for the time from what I know.

The leader of the alt right (Milo) is gay and a lot of gay sex goes on in the muslim world. So theres that too.

and? There is a prevailing majority belief among most alt-right members that we must be against Islam to save the fags and the women and the liberals from getting rekt by Islam and preserving western culture, paintings, statues, literature, sceintific acheivements anyway.

But most Far Right Reactionaries and Fascists find that while the loss of western cultural achievements is lamentable in the long run the strongest race and culture always wins so while it is upsetting at a sentimental level western civilization has become so shitty that it's termination via Islam isn't really that bad

Christianity's too reformed. Even in Catholic majority countries most people ain't got a problem with gays. Just look at Italy.

...

I prefer it where the woman has the option not to wear it if she doesnt feel like it.

Also in todays modern world a man should be allowed to wear a burqa and circumcize his daughter.

It's not. Arabs are like .5% of the American population, sinner.

I forgot that still happens in the world…

Most arabs in America aren’t muslim, they don’t try to establish Shria of kill innocent people in terrorist attacks. Them staying here is fine.

What I meant is that historically, Chrisitanity is tied up with European identity. They would never be interested in Islam because it's not European.

Neither is Christianity and this why actual nazies were neo-pagans.

In America yes, but America has other problems. Russia is 25% Muslim and Western Europe is desperate to catch up to that standard. I'm sure when Russia stops being Russia within this century and becomes an Islamic Emireate with old nukes we wil llament that together my nigger. I will lament that nobody will read Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Pushkin anymore and you will lament that muh Red Square will be the Green Square and all the red stars on top of their government buildings and symbols of victories in ww2 will be replaced with Muslim Crescents

Yeah, most of them are actually Christians too. I'm just saying there's hardly any of them in America cuz the other poster was bitching bout America being overrun by "sand niggers".

Cultures evolve constantly over time you dumb cumskin. No country has ever stopped existing just because it underwent a change in demographics.

Would that not be preferable instead of holding onto judeo-bolshevik "heritage"?

Sure they have the entire Roman middle East and modern Turkey evolved into what you see now go fly to muh Tibet and you will see Han Chinese everywhere displacing the Tibetans with Chinese workers and Chinese businesses

You know Russia's always had a large minority of Muslims, right? It's cuz the country's territory stretches way into parts of the world that have been Islamic for centuries if not millennia like The Caucasus Mountains and Central Asia. It ain't immigration that's "Islamising" Russia, it's territorial expansion. Read a book, sperg.

They always did but it wasn't nearly ever close to the numbers they have now the problem isn't their Caucus Muslim population but the huge influx of migrants from Central Asia

They're big into Christian Orthodoxy now. Putin's reviving it with almost propaganda levels of promotion.

Ive never seen a video of it.

You do realize that just proves that nations are spooks right?

The migrants from Central Asia were Soviets at one point though. Hell, many of them are even ethnic Russians. Just look at Kazakhstan, 33% white.

Problem is, is that they're retarded, hate us and want to live in our countries.

They're the opposite extreme from Marxist degenerates.

If anything the existence of Muzzies just shows that we're somewhere in between them and the far left. We don't want women in bags getting stoned for leaving the house without permission, they do.

You're talking about MGTOW more than the alt-right. The e-celebs you mentioned aren't even alt-right aside from Murdoch Murdoch and I can tell you're an ass blasted roastie btw.

I'm pretty sure they don't film clitorectomies, m8.

You lot should come up with a better slur for Muslims to be honest. That one lacks inspiration.

Actually Islam spread to central asia just 500 years ago.

No it wouldn't be besides it's the bolshevism that cucked them anyway when you purge your society of all the people with high I.Q and personal initiative (kulaks. nobility, business owners, non-snitches, non-conformists, decent generals) and create division where there was none (Ukraine, Belarus) you already set yourself up for destruction

The Central Asians in the USSR couldn't even live or travel to any major city in the RSFR and needed a special permit to live anywhere and couldn't get an apartment unless they knew someone in the communist party hierarchy.

I don't even consider it a slur, it's kind of like "Chinamen."

I just say it because I hear it in an Aussie accent when I read it and that's nice.

They would show it on MEMRI - TV. But I want to see it performed by a man in a Burqa.

And it was that lack of intellectuals that lead them to building first satellite in the world right?

Were any of us alive back then? No? Well, I guess 5 centuries was a really long time ago then…

MemriTV is my shit. I wish politics was discussed like that on the BBC.

It was due to the fact that the Russian warheads were much bigger. So they could just put a satellite on the military rockets they were already producing. The Americans had to design hole new rocket from scratch for the heavier payload.

Right, they had great Tanks and ICBM's as well and a network of closed cities meaning they couldn't get the fuck out and were forced to work at gunpoint during the Stalinist era. Once communism collapsed all their scientists got the fuck out and they haven't solved the brain drain problem to this day

You can`t outspend USA thanks to petrodollar.

You know Central Asia ain't just Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, right? There's a bunch of majority Muslim "republics" in Russia like Tataristan.

Your priorities shouldn't be to outspend and try to dick wave with the USA but to establish better living conditions for the population and protect your national interests like China.

I'm surprised these people are even allowed to cross the street by themselves.

And? Russia is the second largest importer of migrants in the world after America and they mostly coming from central asia and not anywhere else

The USA would have invaded USSR after the U2 planes showed they had a weaker military establishment.

I don't see the problem. What harm can a few more Kazakhs do in a country fulla Tatars, Chechens and Dagestanis?

I can agree with you on that. China should be the prime example for all social democratic parties in the west, unironically. None of that paranoid anti-nuclear bullshit either.

no they wouldn't have, the USA doesn't invade countries that can fight back or fight wars where casualties would go beyond an acceptable threshold

I'm sure it sounds exciting and novel but I prefer not to find out these things I'm reactionary like that

And they have gutter oil.

youtube.com/watch?v=zrv78nG9R04

America isn’t overrun with Arabs, it’s overrun with Mexicans.

They also lifted 300 million form poverty to middle-class in 2 decades.

At least it’s happing less in the North.

China also has cities where people have can’t breath without a mask. There quality of life has decreased, despite GDP increases.

China emits less pollution per capita than the USA and Russia. USA is the worst offender.

The well-being of a nation is more important than the well-being of an individual. I'd like to see what kind of shithole America would be if the population was the same as China they are overpopulated and ideally need to remove a quarter of their population, they are trying to do that by shipping them off to Australia and Canada but it's not enough

Who are overpopulated? America?

That we can see.

china

I like this its a good illustration of their hypocricy.

China solved their population crisis with the much maligned single child policy. Now they're regearing their economy to spread out all over Eurasia. Australia flat out refused the proposal, but the Chinese will be more present in India (for example) than Australia and Canada.

Using the power of mighty gutter oil.

They still have over a billion I'm saying they have all their problems with pollution because their population is too big

So? Part of our job as Marxists is full-scale revolution in the cultural realm as well, which means challenging old gendered dress codes (including headscarves).

Yeah it's because we're taught to shut up and be submissive. Muslim women come off as very aloof for that reason.

...

there were like 5 American soldiers that got killed in action in the Gulf War

over a hundred American servicemen died during the Gulf War dumb fucking nazi

So? You shouldn't have a problem with that cuz they're some of the most devout Catholics there are.

Watch Black Pigeon Speaks' video "How Women Destroy Civilizations". He literally says when women are *allowed* to choose and their sexuality goes unchecked harems form and """good men""" ain't able to reproduce. He's such a butthurt cuck, man…

You still talk to your family or have you been cut off?

Wasn't that why Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City? You know, as payback for the Murican' blood spilled in Kuwait?

My dad is a giant conspiracy theorist who thinks da jooz control everything. Needless to say, we don't talk at all and haven't since I was 19. My mom and I still talk every so often though.

Actually, no that's completely incorrect. The Volga Bulgars were Muslims in the early 10th century, before the Kievan Rus had substantially Christianized. And as for the former Soviet Socialist Republics like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc., The Abbasid's had brought Islam with them when they invaded that part of Central Asian during the 8th and 9th centuries.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

Seems a little more than 10, m8

To be fair Sam Harris' a conniving piece of shit who uses "New Atheism" as a front for his Islamophobic propaganda campaign to justify carpet bombing Israel's The Middle Eastern rivals so your dad's kinda right bout that one.

wow I feel so btfo right now

stop the presses

most people like nuclear families. If this image is for propaganda and not just to circle jerk I'd replace it with something else imply that both Holla Forums and ISIS are predominantly inbred and have low I.Q for example

It's especially funny that feminism tends to regard them the same way, only they couch it in ass-kissing terms. You can't do science, because it is based on a man's way of thinking. Science is woman hater! Your emotional way of thinking and worrying about perception instead of effect is unfairly regarded as less valid than practical action-based MALE thinking. That is why revolutionary thought is a tool of the patriarchy.

Also, Islam is not a big proponent of the nuclear family. Like every other Iron Age religion, it pushes the extended family that was thedominant structure when it was created.

This is only news to people who came from reddit aka Afroplasm

Islam is polygamous, and has more in common with leftist polyamory, Christianity was radical at the time moving towards nuclear family away from the weird pagan shit

MERMI TV is great and so are the memes that come from it.

Bullshit it was. The rise of monogamy was pagan Roman. The rising aristocrat class wanted to solidify lines of succession, and thus monogamy was pushed as part of Caesar Augustus' cultural reforms. That it made his slave master opponents like Marcus Antonius out to be degenerate deviants was just an added bonus. Christians picked up monogamy as part of their desperate attempts to appease Roman authorities. Then Constantine made it an official position of the church.

I guess Holla Forums doesn't like the lack of racism in Islam

right because we're all SJWs and cucks and shit because everybody who disagrees with you is in it together against you because jew nigger jew jew nigger jew computer god

good post i agree. it is funny how most of what they do is project their own self hatred onto others. they always accuse the left of being mired in self hatred and having an inferiority complex… but most of their nationalist rhetoric is the same way. it is predicated on the hatred of all the 'degenerate' elements in the society, which somehow always make up a large portion of the electorate, although they'll claim their views represent a true 'silent' majority. its interesting to say the least.

Kek no

Going on damage control? Fucking pathetic.

Watch this, he's going to mistake us for liberals and call us cucks again.

They admit this shit regularly. They just don't admin their racism and various other autistic habits.

I'm poly and leftist
The two aren't necessarily connected though obviously and I'm a very small minority most people are monogamous regardless of political opinions

Yeah, I think black cat poster meant that the nazi-fag implied that "Leftist-Polyamory" is a thing, which he may have been. But he almost certainly believes polyamory is fundamentally leftist, which would still be stupid, but not surprising.

Why do racist dickheads love going to Southeast Asia to fuck prostitutes? Andrew Anglin also does this.

Or more generally why do they have a fetish for Asian women?

No fucking shit, Sherlock?

Reminder that a stable loving family is the pinnacle of a society and under socialism this shall be promoted.

The modern capitalist world of sexual promiscuity, pornography addiction, divorce and hook up sights is the enemy of the wroking class

It's still idealist.

If only Holla Forums knew the average early 80s Soviet citizen lived the humbly austere and virtuous life they dream of, while still being the most educated in the world and more knowledgeable about Western culture than any of them will ever be.

Wow two conservative traditionalist movements of differering ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds don't like each other and vie for power within their countries. Stop the fu king presses we have a genius here. Isn't it crazy that people who are nothing alike despite both hating liberal and modernity can still dislike each other? Who has ever heard of such a thing?

If this was true and accurate to your goals then you could make all of Holla Forums communists in no time. Or mutualists at the very least. When you get right down to it most of what pol wants is a stable family and cultural identity. I don't think that's too unreasonable.

At the cost of mass genocide, and authoritarian policies. Fuck off

Authoritarian policies? Aren't you guys communists? Either way pol only supports authoritarian policies in so far as they support the outcomes you stated you desire or could bring about. As for genocide pol only desires a stable and lasting ethno cultural existence which everyone besides white westerners also desire. Genocide is not necessary to achieve this goal and is not seriously advocated.

The Nazis didn't run a campaign based off concentration camps and invasion of neighbouring countries either, but that's what it got to when they got into power. White nationalists are only playing that "we just care about our race and culture" shit now cuz history has exposed them for what they are and now the dog's belly up cuz they ain't in a position of power no more. The moment they become the majority the """peaceful ethnic cleansing""" will begin.

Once again aren't you communists? You have to realize the irony in what you're saying. This is The exact reason nobody is a communist anymore. The specific actions of one individual in the ideology don't represent the totality of it. There are fascist and nationalist leaders who did not engage in genocide. There's no eternal natural law that says a people advocating for their continued existence will inevitably result in genocide and I doubt alt right leaders and followers truly want anything more that a segregated area to call their own. That seems to me a pretty reasonable demand for all people.

Huh, really makes you think.

TOP LEL

If you're American which you prolly are how are you gonna go bout making this possible without the use of force? Say if a Black-American guy with roots in The United States going way back to the 1700s don't feel like moving just so White-American descendants of early 20th Century Irish and Italian immigrants can have their little h'wite ethnostate, what then?

Vague cultural platitudes and Nazi memes aside, is EVERYONE HERE such an ignorant little underageb& that they don't remember the start of the neoconservative era, when fundamentalist Moslem terrorists and western porkies were official BFFs 4eva?

Clear from before Reagan was elected in the 1970s, all the way to the early 1990s, the two didn't just work hand-in-glove against the evil commies, they were completely open about it. Moreso, there was a great deal of direct overlap between neocons & Moslem fundies during their developmental period:
archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares-AdamCurtis

The split between them during the '90s, and especially under Dubya, is largely an accident of history resulting from the pacification of the PRC and collapse of the USSR.

Thank you for demonstrating my point

What point? You didn't provide any counter arguments you stooge.

Read these and come back when you're done realising what a fool you are.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism

Well the typical approach is that they don't want all of America simply a portion to act as a self contained ethnic enclave in an area which is already poorly diverse. Those of other ethnicities would be given positive sanctions to resettle and if unconvinced it would be easy to institute a form of reduced citizenship taking away some rights such as voting or marriage to whites but not amounting to any actual harm or force applied. I don't think pol would have much of a problem with that. The real fear is their destruction and diminishing culture. Once that is not a threat they would be fine with a few minorities.

Not him, but his point is that just like there are forms of racialist/nationalist/ethnic/religious/etc idpol that likewise claim to be non-authoritarian, claims which should be greeted with the same skepticism since the only types (of communism or idpol) that have turned out to be historically significant failed to meet those lofty goals.

I myself personally disagree, since anarchists have the cleanest historical human rights record and adherence to their original principles of any political tendency (even when directly compared against other tendencies at similar stages of development/size/influence) in every war or political upheaval they've been involved in.

...

My argument is your argument. Ideologies are not defined in their entirety by one part of one actor in that ideology. Nor is history bound to repeat itself. Many shades of whatever special snowflake donutsteal recolor of communism/anarchism you happen to advocate probably didn't end up exactly as was hoped that does not mean all subsequent attempts will result in the same.

...

I mean they could try… Many states in the U.S. are above 90% white. I mean if a white nationalist society actually gained a part of the nation I doubt they could do much but move or live peacfully. Which is the goal. It honestly doesn't even need to be in America. As long as there's one place in the west that exists which simply recognizes itself as by and for white people as opposed to identityless and global.

It could apply in another way. Anarchists were destroyed by fascists doesn't mean that will happen again. Proudhon as an individual advocated for the genocide of jews but that also does not define all of anarchism in the same way Hitler doesn't define all of fascism (and Hitler wasn't even the first fascist)

And you said this is going to be non-violent. Except for the fact that people aren't going to like having their rights taken away from them, or denied from them based on identity.
The only way to ""enact"" this law and let it quell over is through force due to this reaction. No negro is going to be complacent, and neither should anyone, regardless of race. They had it back in the 20th century, and if it was """"better"""" then how comes whites and blacks argued in favour of non-segregation and having the right to vote?

The person I was originally responding to was posting Soviet propaganda and then talked about the lifestyle of people within communist Russia during the 80. That was the context of this discussion which is why it was confusing when I got a response accusing me of authoritarianism but I responded to your argument regardless. I'm not strawmanning you are just literally autistic.

All law is of course backed by force. However it need not be overtly violent. Voting rights especially, just dont count their vote lol. I mean if they want to start a revolution and take down the 94% let them try. They could always just go a couple miles the other way and live like they always did.

Also not all blacks disagreed with segregation. Many opposed king and thought he only accelerated tensions and others just wanted their own black communities and identities as well. Ultimately segregation was an issue because there was no "black" or multicultural area they could even reasonably go to outside white america. This would not be the case in my example.

Didn't Tito try this exact thing, and immediately after he died, the petty slapfights between the Serbs/Bosnians/Croats/Slovenes/etc went up like a forest fire?

I've always regarded that as an example of multiculturalist failure. He suppressed ethnists and nationalists. How would that relate to carving an enclave of homogenous whites.

Truly a born theorist of the modern era

I don't really know of anyone who unironically advocates this, sounds like more of that idpol laden, anti-GG moral panic to me.

I saw that when it first came out. His points about violent conflicts through history imposing some selective pressure towards more hypergamous tendencies in women are valid, but it doesn't really follow that this tendency (is significant enough to) "destroy(s) civilization" or is in need of any policy-level response - and he didn't even really establish the strength of this tendency with any empirical evidence. His biggest crime is sensationalist clickbait, I'd say.
His video on the boomers and the housing market is actually top tier, save for the fact that it didn't mention capitalism by name, and another clickbait (iirc) title. I think he cited WSWS for that, too, which is uncommon to say the least in the Holla Forums niche
His image is as a "patrician informer," and not entirely undeservedly so in comparison to most of the far-right's youtube intellectuals, but he's still very much after the "Arrow's Impossibility Theorem proves socialism can't work" types. He's one of the reactionaries I can tolerate watching sometimes; I kind of feel like it could be fun to grab a beer with him and argue about stuff for a couple hours, maybe have a little sex

his voice soothes my 'tism

Wow, what a discovery, OP.

Christianity was created by brown desert people. You realize this, yes?

It comes down to tribalism, really. Liberal/Alt-Right can indeed be correlated to Shia/Sunni (which isn't to say that Shiites are liberals).

I think he realizes the poverty of the argument, that's why he capitalized "traditional." But traditions are acquired and become "traditions" pragmatically in the first place - through adoption and use, through appropriation towards the specific local conditions of society. Centuries of christian cultural dominance over europe have established it as "european culture" in at least a descriptive sense. Perhaps it's fair to say that europe conquered christianity, rather than the other way around. You can kind of see a similar thing with catholicism in latin and south americas, even among people with little to no white spanish ancestry. It's certainly not "native to the soil," but it is now a dominant, "native culture"
A subset of Holla Forums is hostile to abrahamic faiths in general and semi-ironically advocate odinism though (">jew on a stick" is a Holla Forums meme)
Traditionalism in the first place is based around assuaging insecurities about the fragile ephemerality of life and one's own "legacy"/"identity" through "enforcing" some semblance of cultural continuity, or conveniently fabricating it by force of will where it does not exist. It's not all that important what the cultures in question actually are, or how compatible they are, in this train of thought. "They'll kill gays and rape women!" isn't necessarily their primary concern, but it is a way they try to sell their position to, and achieve their goals through, "left"-liberals who value civil rights and the social gains of the last century. Or, that aside, "killing (white) gays and raping (white) women" is seen not as an assault on the civil rights of the individual but on collective cultural property. "Only I get to bully my little brother" and so on.

Islam is the Arab ethnoreligion, like Judaism is for Jews.
These cultures have all, to varying degrees, been arabicized. Some more, some less. The main problem with Islam is that you're supposed to learn Arabic, read Quran in the original language, which ends up heavily immersing you in the Arabic culture. If Islam was a more of a universalist and you could be a muslim without turning into a pseudo-Arab, I'm sure a lot of traditionally minded Westerners would gladly convert and cheer as it takes over and destroys the current decadent, decaying, Zionist-controlled West.

How are 220 million whites supposed to fit into a small area of the country that's already not that racially diverse like say for example The Pacific Northwest?

First sentence indicates that the stormfag has no idea what he's talking about. Islam was and is practiced from the Balkans to Africa. It is not a religion designed for any ethnicity. You are retarded for believing it, and even more retarded for believing it's DA ZIONIST JOOS who control the west.

Makes sense. I think that understanding is halfway implicit in social liberals calling criticism of Islam racist. Definitely Islam and Arabic culture have an intimate link, and you can sort of see the spread of Christianity to parts of Africa and the new world as a similar sort of "westernization."
You technically can read the quran in translation, and I tried that before I realized how boring and lifeless it is, but you're right, the muslim community is pretty keen on the original text and the sort of link to their heritage/history that "europe in the shadow of an extinguished rome" using latin as an international auxiliary language and for institutional power of the church itself never had. I don't know how strongly that contributed to the lack of any "western reform islam" to date, but to be fair a not-insignificant muslim population in western europe and the US is a comparatively recent thing, at least since the reconquista and such.
Honestly "this reactionary religion is 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧socially progressive🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 because conservative christians and white nationalists seem to dislike it" isn't a stable equilibrium. I'd say either a liberal universalist neutering or a white nationalist islam, or both, is eventually inevitable.

The nation of islam was an interesting current, do you have any analysis on that?

Arabs must be pretty terrible at controlling their ethnoreligion given that the majority of Muslims aren't Arabs

You could have at least read the second sentence before sperging out. I literally am from the Balkans. Have you ever met a Bosniak in your life? Yeah, compared to the, say, Saudis they're far more "liberal" (at the moment), but they have still been under heavy Arab cultural influence (Even though they were literally never ruled by Arabs - they were ruled by Turks!). Just go open a phonebook of a random majority Muslim city in Bosnia and look at what kind of names they have. Protip: They're not traditional South Slavic ones.

Nation of Islam is faggy American LARP bullshit, they're as much Muslim as Mormons are Christian.

Well yeah, I meant as far as it's an example of "islam" becoming something fundamentally else in the west, though with limited scope and sway. If we want to draw some general conclusions that would be something to consider, but I don't know that much about it myself

Nation of Islam came along when there were only like a hundred "real" Muslims in the United States, it was just dumb Westerners rebelling against their native culture by trying to adopt a foreign exotic religion, like how bored middle class whites did with Buddhism. It was a product of its time. Any Westerner who converts to Islam today does it under different conditions - for one, you actually have real Muslims around to learn about the religion from.

Though I do imagine that, say, a hundred or two hundred years from now, when what is considered West today is majorly Muslim, the Western Muslims will naturally develop their own strains of Islam which will deviate slightly from contemporary strains of Islam. It has happened before, no reason why it wouldn't again. But I don't think it's going to be anything as radically different as Nation of Islam is from "real" Islam.

You see, there's three basic problems here. The first and more obvious is that they're spooked, dinsinformed and misinformed to hell and back, thanks to finely tuned propaganda permeating most of pop culture.

But the second and much bigger problem is, we fundamentally diverge in morality. Yes, I know this term in unpopular here, but bear with me. One thing the far left has in common with liberalism is that both were born out of Enlightenment, humanist ideas. Both of them, at least in theory, recognize that ultimately the function of politics ought to be the betterment of mankind by way of reason and humanist values. In times long gone, a socialist might have been simply a radical liberal, in that he embraced full equality of races, the indivisibility of mankind etc.

Fascism, on the other hand, purposely and actively rejects reason and embraces emotion and intuition as guiding forces. Cliche as it may be, it's true that it appeals to our most basal selves, perhaps even to our instincts. Ergo all those characteristics that fascism has with tribalism: chauvinism, constant war (unlike the alt-right thinks, fascism seems to necessitate perpetual war), cult of tradition, patriarchalism etc. Based on this, the goal of politics is simple: the triumph of Us against Them.

So while fascism and ML seemingly have this ultimate goal of a strong community and healthy nuclear family, they diverge completely regarding the methods. To put it very simply, the far left wants to eliminate poverty, whereas the far right wants to eliminate the poor; the far left wants to end racism, whereas the far right wants to eliminate other races; and sho on *sniff* To paraphrase Eco, the far left struggles for the sake of life, and the far right lives for the sake of struggle. In this manner, the far right's means are actually its goal too, and the supposed goal of a healthy family is merely a justification. There lies a curious parallel: while capitalism uses capital to create more capital ad infinitum, fascism uses the nation to increase the nation ad infinitum.

And of course, that doesn't include far left currents other than ML, which might be more hedonistic or just libertarian, for example. You kow, the ones who don't want gulags, mas deportations, purges and such.

The third problem is, since a fascist, by definition, shirks reasonable discourse, they're much more difficult to reach, inform and despook.

I hope I didn't overdo the answer, it's my vice.

...

jesus christ how horrifying

That idiot's libido shapes his politics, I mean it's patently obvious he's letting his resentment towards women and likely dismal sex life do the talking. That's exactly what I meant about fascism rejecting reason and embracing basal emotions. His whole argument centers around reproduction, punishment and hierarchy. Freud would have a field day.

To say nothing of the mountain of fallacies and bad logic. Fuck, the video barely started and I'm already drowned in biotruths. A layman quoting from evolutionary psychology is a guarantee of bullshit.

If you are a black nationalist you should be working with the alt-right. Some of them have been talking about giving black people florida as there own country, and they are very anti-interventionist. Seriously look into it, you will find they are your natural allies strangely enough.

The area does not need to shelter all white people in America. The goal is really just to establish some patch of land as a symbol of white sovereignty and as assurance that no matter what else happens in the rest of the world the European people and their culture will live on. However I don't think it would be too difficult to pack in many more people than there are currently.

I agree on the first point that generally there is that split in genealogical morality. Thats obvious to anyone with knowledge of history. Of course I characterize it differently. I see the right wing worldview as representing authentic human desires and naturally occurring structures which furthers mankind's actual needs eudaimonistically. Whereas the left desires humanity to conform to artificial goal and ideals which attempt to base themselves in rationality despite whether or not it's actually desirable or compatible with mankind. This I think is why leftist institutions usually end up needing to police people to shape them into what they desire them to be. Fascism wants to make a system to fit mankind while leftists want a mankind that will fit their system (to paraphrase someone else). I also disagree that we struggle for the sake of struggle, that we need perpetual war, or that we don't actually desire our stated goals. This might have been the case with the Nazis and their interpretation of the will to power but I don't think it applies to all right wing politics generally. Furthermore despite this I don't think that it would be impossible to work together in some capacity or at the very least inspire genuine socialist feelings in the right if the class war really is the most important part of your ideology.

Yeah, you've noticed something that should be blindingly obvious, but identity politics prevents anyone from seeing past their massive hateboners.

Probably a good thing though, since we'd be pretty fucked if the white supremacists and radical Islam somehow joined forces.

eeeh

I think Eco and Trotsky did some fairly strong work on the fascist ideology. The Frankfurt School on "the fascist personality," substantially less so.

women wear headscarfs outside of chirch too
hell, I've even seen young girls wearing them in winter, sexy as fuck

also, I thought headscarfs were popular in the west too
I've seen plenty of women in fashion shows wear them

quit bullshitting you stupid peace of shit
in central asian soviet republics in remote parts there were some barbarian customs, but in cities live was civil and people were free to migrate to RSFS
and guess why there was no mass migration, dipshit?
because they had their own industry and workplaces, they didn't need to sell themselves in Moscow for cheap as they do now because of huge unemployment

seriously, fucking die you subhuman

It's bizarre how Holla Forums cares so much about mass migration, but so little about its real causes and real solutions. "Let's make economic migration obsolete" always has to take a backseat to "let's make it illegal, or more illegal, and hope really hard that the government chooses to enforce the laws, and continues choosing to enforce these laws forever." It's maddening.

Like, they would literally rather navigate the logistical nightmare of carrying out a successful ethnic cleansing project than challenge capitalism to achieve their goals.