Who do you hate the most and why?

Who do you hate the most and why?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_10_28.htm#n1
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Anarcho-capitalists, because they're the most dishonest of the bunch. Even though they have the smallest chance of getting any of their ideas implemented, they dress up what would be an amazingly oppressive society in the language of freedom and human liberation.

liberals yes, that includes not only all of them, but also (you)

Exactly this.

Ancaps for not even attempting to be coherent. Easily the most "nobooks" of the groups mentioned, at least dumbass klansman have probably read the Turner Diaries.

Neo-fascists, out of all of those they're the most toxic and dangerous. Can't think of a more cancerous, delusional, mentally ill group of little shits.

Still don't hate them as much as neo-liberals, though.

Fascists literally are neoliberals though

liberals

Neo-Liberals

Neo-fascists, Neo-nazis, Neoreactionaries, Anarcho-capitalists are not a real danger. Neo LIberalism is what is destroying the world

Ancaps, the rest of them usually gets that there is something terribly wrong about Capitalism, even though they analyse it the wrong way.

Also they constantly invoke classical Liberals without having ever read them.

Ancaps are insufferable faggots who don't understand what they're talking about and repeat falsehoods like truth. They are basically "Conflating Finance and Economics: The Ideology".

...

Absolutely ancaps

They are either fascists who think that sociopathy is the operative quality to look for in a ruling class or dupes following the former

Scum of the fucking earth

Le rational skeptics™. Can't stand people who criticise everything from an edgy centrist position, but don't ever take a stand on nothing. Plus they lowkey dog-whistle to the alt-right and are for the most part ancaps.

Neonazis and fascists are the same.

Also fascists. Because they are actually dangerous, unlike ancaps who are either fascists or self defeating.

all the above

I was distinguishing those who identify with Italian fascism and nazism.

I have to deal with this ancrap dude on a daily basis, its fucking aweful

Neo-Nazis are the niggers of the white race

Liberals
t. NRx

neoreactionaries
they all seem to think they'd be lords or knights
one of the big reason guillotining nobles is good

Hatred is silly.

The most annoying are probably Holla Forums tards who have to shit up everything with cuck, nigger, jew, wimin. As for most dangerous, republicans obviously.

appreciate the complement fam

Gotta give credit where it's due, mate.

Myself.

Why dems are considered ok?

That's me in a nutshell, comrade.

1. Neoreactionaries
2. Anarcho-capitalists
3. Neo-nazis
4. Neo-fascists

Other socialists.

Wouldn't say okay but just not horrible enough to give any fucks about them. Dems are your average neo-liberal cunts who are motivated by profit and try to act humane if it promises more dividends. Average people motivated by self interest.

Modern reps are a psychopathic, self-righteous, bible thumping porkies lost to all reason in ideology who actively spread their insanity and damage everything they touch. Being anti-education doesn't help either.

...

lol how about quoting the entire page this marx quote comes from loc?

Wow, what a hateful bunch

They're not required for it though

despite hating yo ass you're right. most nazis are not the inbred retards we see in tv, which makes them a lot more dangerous.

You were always fat idiots.

...

138 Autism Level

No need to look further than the big wigs in the nazi party. Nazis were always fat neckbeards and idiots with couple able psychopaths to sort the shit out.

At the very least the Reps will straight up tell you their intentions before fucking you over and have no reservations about having it heard. The Dems will just give you platitudes and "promises" about how everything will be great and how the new programs will fix everything while fucking you in the background. The Rep is the guy forcefully fucking you over the couch while yelling in your ear hes fucking you while the Dem is the guy edging you on the side of the table while saying he may or may not fuck and fucks you in the end anyway.

Seriously though, Hermann "I'll decide who's a Jew!" Goering was the worst Nazi by far. Not driven by ideology or loyalty, just opportunism. At least a man like Goebbels or Himmler genuinely believed that their actions were the right thing to do. Goering had no such delusions and was just a completely selfish cynic who adopted the viewpoints of the party without any actual faith, bending the rules when convenient. Complete scum who was willing to participate in all the crimes of the Nazis and get millions killed just to get himself ahead.

Meyer.

The Dem uses lube from time to time though and the safe word sometimes works. Also the honesty aspect isn't that true, given how they fool poorfags into voting for them with alternative facts.

Yeah, but ignoring Trump the Reps have always been pretty clear on their strictly capitalist intentions and have straight up said higher wages are bad while the Dems have always thrown a scrap here or there to at least get some left or working class vote and then reeled it in afterword. I hate this countries politics

Ancaps. Fascists could still be able to meat people’s basic needs. Ancaps couldn’t.

They're Engels' (it says so at the bottom), and sure:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_10_28.htm#n1

Theres no real difference. Fascism has theory but no following, nazism adopts fascist theory in addition to racialism and has a following.

Almost nowhere in the world are there mussolini style fascists anymore, and definately not in the west.

Nationalism is the only serious threat porky is facing right now.

ancaps

Intentions yes but the way they tried to justify them was still pure bullshit and dog-whistling to extremists happened before Trump too. They blame the poor for being poor way more openly too. As duplicitous Dems are, they aren't openly encouraging lack of empathy but just don't give enough shits about it when they get in power.

Though both are horrible in the end of course, and having to choose between two version of cancer every 4 year is pretty depressing.

Hating liberals is stupid because they are fulfilling their purpose by heightening class tensions and the contradictions brought by capital. The neoreactionaries only hate liberals because the liberals acted in their own self interest by accomodating black people in the 1960's and even decided to create a token black elite.

The neoreactionaries and their parents felt "betrayed" by the liberals, because they were. Now the blacks are being squeezed by hispanics and new immigrants. Trusting in liberals is absolutely retarded but the liberals are necessary because all of these contradictions are necessary and inevitable.

Neoreactionaries are defectives that tacitly support free movement of capital but overtly oppose free movement of people. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They're going down big fucking time.

People who somehow think dubs are better than the original product. Put down the pipe, and learn to enjoy Eastern animation as it was meant to be enjoyed, like an adult, you moronic degenerate stoner. Next is people naive enough to think the top 2% "owes" them something like Universal Basic Income, because we actually found a way to become successful, penalizing the successful winners of society literally brings everybody down. As for the third group I hate, I would have to say fascists.

...

>The issue is purely one of principle: is the struggle to be conducted as a class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, or is it to be permitted that in good opportunist (or as it is called in the Socialist translation: possibilist) style the class character of the movement, together with the programme, are everywhere to be dropped where there is a chance of winning more votes, more adherents, by this means. Malon and Brousse, by declaring themselves in favour of the latter alternative, have sacrificed the proletarian class character of the movement and made separation inevitable.
ENGELS WAS LEFTCOM

this is 100d

Gulag for you.

I'm Italian and I have to go with neo-fascists, since I've had to deal with them for my entire life.
They're bottom tier scum. They will attack every minority for their lack of "culture" as if they knew even the first thing about the art and culture of their country. What they mean by culture is not even the pseudo-intellectual LARPing of Mussolini: they mean white people who eat italian food and say italian words. They're ignorant and stupid, and this is fine, but they're also legitimately evil.

Now, I've said "they" lots of times, and this may seem an over-generalization, but I can assure you that 99% of neo and crypto fascists I've met, from Sicily to Piedmont, operated on the same arguments, used the same words, referenced the same "thinkers" (usually cryptofascists who go on tv, members of CasaPound and internet personalities; decades ago, according to my father, they would have quoted obscure, equally insignificant magazines). They're a broken record, which is even more fucking annoying when you can actually see through their ignorance on their culture.

...

Mussolini really was an idiot. If he'd continued to oppose Hitler like he did initially he'd have in power until he died and Fascism would be regarded as a somewhat respectable ideology and considered separate from Nazism.

Not to mention that Libya would have remained Italian to this day and probably be majority Italian; it was very lightly populated and once the oil was discovered it would likely receive mass Italian immigration.

if I'm honest, Italian fascism could've been an ok transitional phase towards socialism. State capitalism was defined as a first step into communism. Too bad it was influenced by clericalism, imperialism and such bullshit.

Right wing authoritarians aka fascists. Ancaps and other liberals dont get even close.

Liberals because they're the only ones that are a legitimate threat to the entire left wing right now.

Your knowledge of Italian Fascist history is rudimentary to say the least. Fascism literally rose to power in Italy because it was protecting bourgeois interests against Socialist revolutionaries. Also Mussolini was fucking up the country even before the Axis pact with the shit he was doing in Ethiopia and with the Quota Novanta.

just

Also Italian colonization of Libya was total shit. They failed hard at colonizing even the coast and never really managed to pacify the Saharan nomads

Is their symbol some sort of I-Ching turtle?

liberals get the bullet too ;)

shouldn't Anti-fa be ontop of your list if you're including fascists??

The things listed are not the criteria of what's fascist and what's not

fascist has a pretty specific definition - and it isn't exclusively bullying other skin color """people""" for gibs. The word you are looking for is totalitarian, both fascists and antifa are totalitarians.

Neo-nazis that are losers.

If you are genetic trash, don't be a fucking nazi, join ANTIFA or become a leftist and demand equality.

Antifa can't be categorized as pushing for authoritarianism as they don't have a single political ideology, this is a movement about opposing fascism and similar right wing things

Sorry about the pictures from Charlottesville. That's your master race though, better come to terms.

90% of the "neo-nazis" at Charlottesville were ok. ANTIFA and BLM though.. subhumans.

I was there, and while the gangly students that made up the counter-protesters were hardly physical specimens the nazis really weren't any more impressive. Mostly teenage shitheads and diabetic old bastards, I don't think you guys have the cardio for racewar.

"Differences between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes:

The term "authoritarian regime" denotes a state in which the single power holder – an individual "dictator", a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite – monopolizes political power. "[The] authoritarian state … is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty."[19] Authoritarianism "does not attempt to change the world and human nature."[19]

In contrast, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life, including the economy, education, art, science, private life, and morals of citizens. "The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into the deepest reaches of societal structure and the totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens."[9] It also mobilizes the whole population in pursuit of its goals. Carl Joachim Friedrich writes that "a totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a secret police, and monopoly control of […] industrial mass society" are the three features of totalitarian regimes that distinguish them from other autocracies.[19]"

While it could be argued that antifa is anarchist in principle if you give them a good scratch and make them squeal you'll find a neo-lib.

Potentially, generalizations about antifa are usually going to be off the mark though because as has been mentioned it's not a coherent political ideology. It's a boots on the ground tactic to repel fascism where it appears. Whether or not Nazis should be allowed free reign on the streets is the whole "tolerate the intolerant" paradox, which I'm too tired to get into right now.


You can play semantic games like this but in practice it's the same goddamn thing and you know it.

this is correct, except Nazis only hate skin color and Antifa only hates class…
what a retarded image.

You claim that I like to play hard and fast with semantics yet you are defending "boots on the ground tactics" which engages in the selfsame by smearing those who oppose their Ur-ideology (Rousseau) with the label of fascist without understanding that fascism has a very specific definition. Can I tolerate such intolerance? I do wonder if you've read up on your wiemar germany history…

Ethno-nationalism and ethno-supremacism are patently not the same. Can you prove otherwise?

By definition they aren't the same. But any movement that endorses ethno-nationalism always carries the belief that their ethnicity is superior. I was responding your nazi friend who wished for non-ubermensch to exit the movement, clearly he thinks they're the same.

I'll just ask you a question, are white people superior?

The label of fascist might be a bit hyperbolic at this exact moment but the label is used because the perception right now is that's where things are leading. Tiki torch nazis in Charlottesville were literally yelling "blood and soil" and "the jew will not replace us". Perhaps it doesn't match the poli-sci textbook definition just yet but it's hard to look at a crowd like that and not think "Nazi!".

Superior in what sense? Most Europeans would die from disease if they entered the Congo without modern advances in medicine. This quibble is however a side note from the central tenet of ethno-nationalism; it is entirely irrelevant to the justification of nationhood and the fruits of such whether one particular ethnicity is measurably superior to another. It is merely a solution to the classical Hobbesian problem.

Why do you think this occurred? Does this particular event exist in a vacuum? Can a peaceful big tent protest considered to be Fascistic or be considered to fall under the tenets of Not Socialism? I certainly don't remember ethno-nationalists or any other "right-wing" group "counter-protesting" events like occupy wall street.

I think you're playing coy. You know exactly what I mean, unless that nazi flag is ironic.


I don't think it is. Again, if we consider the terms abstractly, ethno-nationalism and as you term it ethnology-supremecy, are different. And one doesn't necessarily suppose the other. In practice this is never the case.


What are you playing at here? Are you saying this rally was a justified reaction? Against what exactly?

To answer your question, I think this event specifically occurred as a declaration of relevance. It was an attempt to bring the more moderate right-wing groups into explicit white nationalism. If you're asking for a broader cultural explanation of why young alienated white guys are cozying up to fascism I could only take a stab at a few ideas. I'm sure it's a material response but harnessed in the direction of ethnic scapegoating rather than solidarity with fellow workers who suffer the same relation to capital. Charlatans like Richard Spencer are the real ideologues who pilot the reigns, can only imagine his fucking motivations.

no, I'm playing at being Socratic. Claiming something is superior without context is a non-sequitur. In a case comparison Congoids vs. Caucosoids living in the Congo without aid has a clear superior.

was a typo, I meant to type ethno-supremecy.

anuddah shoah if you want to address the central theme. Material alienation is a corollary cause. I'm not sure why you would be led to think that class consciousness would emerge from conditions whereupon the masses can barely get along at a tribal level (dunbars number) let alone in larger sociopolitical categorizations. Specifically so given that there is a downwards trend.

implicit dick is a nazbol duganist.maybe a cianigger

Have you ever heard a more liberal sentiment? That makes it sound like you want discrimination…
Liberals, along with the nazifags, get the bullets too.

NRx is pretty broad, but I think Moldbug and Land want a bunch of lil itty bitty states to exist and compete for highly productive people. Because they see immigration from the third world as something that is generally beneficial in the short term and costly in the long term, especially when highly skilled labor is free to leave and go to more selective countries, they think states which are selective about immigrants will outcompete states that are reckless about accepting immigrants.

Anarcho-capitalists/libertarians.
Only because their politics are so fucking contradictory. They shout about freedom all day, but don't question the economic slavery capitalism brings about.
I think the majority of libertarians don't actually care about the economy at all and just want more freedom from government, but refuse to acknowledge how removing the state without removing capitalism will only transfer power to corporations. They are the most ridiculous of the bunch, either very ignorant or very dishonest.

This is tested. Ever heard of Switzerland or Singapore?

...

This text is a hoax.

Subspecies or whatever word you want to use. My point still stands

i know,i'm bored