What exactly is right wing?

What is wrong with using a traditional emoticon VS uploading a anime girl JPG?

No, I'm what the media names extrema right wing.

I'm new to this board.
So excuse me for not understanding your board culture.

I never asked about the alt-right.
Only the good old 1990s word "right wing".

Just lurk more

Stop posting and lurk, faggot. At least for a year. Read the stickies. This isn't kikebook, assimilate or fuck off. Where's the goreposter when you need him?

I will shoot myself before I ever vote or support that bitch.

Can I get a answer? Maybe link me to a definition?

I appreciate some good gore so start posting I don't give a shit.

by defining the "true" right, you could define "alt-right" by whatever is left, I am not saying we don;t need a consensus on what it mean, just that right now trying to discuss this in Holla Forums will lead to us nitpicking and shills baiting while helping (((them))) define their argument better.

just lurk moar, piece it up together.

Right wing for me is:
Hierarchy
Tradition
Duty
Kinship
Nature
Spiritualism

...

Economically, the definition of right is a government that enforces free market policies, where the left enforce a strict market.
Politically, right wing governments enforce values on tradition, culture, nationalism and, if they right enough, racial supremacy. Where a left wing government enforce values such as equal race, multiculturalism, humanism and values in other people rather than ones own race.

You have a long way to go OP, same goes for the rest of faggots who acknowledge this bluepilled bullshit.

I really don't give a shit about the alt-right.
Can we not bring these faggots into this discussion?

I was thinking about if the use of the word "right wing" is even valid. The media loved for years to use the word "right wing" or "left wing" to describe something.

Interesting
No one is without hierarchy the left only lies about it see how everyone was equal only Stalin was more equal then everyone in the USSR
Here is something substantial

Now this is new…. So will people like environmentalists and new agers be right wing ? Can you show people who are considerate by you to be right wing?

I really don't acknowledge it if I'm asking others to even justify the concept.

I'm only thinking if there might be something to this classification and I found non.

It depends on the context (time period, country, etc.). In the USA, conservativism is about conserving the way the country was run at the time the constitution was written. So you could argue that conservativism in the USA is really classical liberalism, which is left wing compared to traditional monarchy or aristocracy.

Yep these are the text book definitions however they never made any sense to me its like they took some movements and decided they belong together and tried to make it so.

Please stop posting libertarian 2D compass bullshit. You are making Hitler left wing and everyone who is not insane and libertarian left wing.

It was invented with the coming of (((democracy))) to give people the illusion that they have a choice, effectively dividing the nation as well. It's similar to good-evil concept.

You just need to ask yourself whether a certain idea works in the best interests of your nation and country, and approve/reject accordingly.

I'm confused are you saying everything that is good for the country = right wing
or ignoring the right/left proposing a new definition?

People will always be divided communists VS anti-communists or whatever the next insane craze will be.

wow, its almost like a 2 party system is dumb as fuck and the right wing is actually a big umbrella that consists of neocons, libertarians, paleo conservatives, evangelicals,fascists, and now the alt right.

And its almost like the left wing consistent of new democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists, and other stupid hippies shit.

And grouping all of those people under one umbrellas is stupid as fuck

I might have phrased it differently… more intellectually….
However I like to discuss if a idea is truly invalid before making a judgement.
Anyone has a counter argument to say that "right wing" is a valid concept?

Hello newfriend. The secret that defines what exactly rightwing is will be revealed to you in the following .webm.

Are you dumb or something? Forget the left-right concept. Don't even think in these terms. That's why people can't come to conclusion whether NatSoc is right or left, that's because it's neither.

When i say nature i mean that one who is right wing should act according to nature. And by nature i mean the opposit of
nurture.
You could say that all the things i listed is nature (hierarchy, duty etc.).
Taking care of nature is according to me right wing but only if you do it because of the "right" reasons. The environmentalists and new agers are definitely not doing it for a right wing cause.

I feel like you are confusing spiritualism with philosophy. The environmentalists and new agers are very material.

Pic related

A negative identity which takes its own form.
Order.
Will.

LAD

OK looks interesting so you where talking about acting according to nature.

Can you give other factions who are considered right wing? And would your definition of right wing include factions who are traditionally considered to be "right wing" like neocons ?

Left wing Right wing
Equality Hierarchy
Modernity Tradition
Liberty Duty
Altruism Kinship
Nurture Nature
Material Spiritual

HHAHAHAHAHAHA stop posting ME-Me's to try to humiliate me.

Back in my day we did not have ultra fast internet and the ability to post images so we improvised with ASCII.

I was under the impression that this was a relaxed board (I don't add emoticons to my professional writing) now if you only did not post a reaction MEME to disprove me I might have taken you seriously.

The point stands

Ok newfriend

:^)

Its either NatSoc or Fascism. Anything else e.g. 'alt right' or 'civic nationalism' is cuckery.

There are numerous right wings. Everything isn't just black and white, everything has a gradient. So it's up to you what you consider right wing by my definition.
But germanic history in general is pretty right wing minus the jew era.
I have no knowledge (or interest) of US politics so i can't answer that.

The more esoteric aspects of our philosophy are summarized briefly and concisely in this video. Essentially the shitskins must be purged if it's us or them, and it all boils down to an evolutionary struggle according to the laws of nature.

These seem vary forced and unless these "left wing" and "right wing" people are extremely silly in their ideology no one is following this scheme.

VS

Now unless the NS wanted to go back to the stone age and not innovate with cars they can not possibly be on the position of Tradition VS Modernity or can you elaborate on this?

VS

I don't even understand what you define here what is for you spiritual? And how can new age not be spiritual?

VS

Its really hard to find people who are anti-Hierarchy at the minimum everyone agrees that 2 year old have no business voting and need to be obey their parents this is Hierarchy.

Depends who you are talking to however on some level people want to have others on their level same with Altruism and Kinship where you keep with your people and more or less they are equal to you.

...

Why did you post that video?

I'm not from the USA however I have people in my country who are basically neocons(they are considered to be the left wing) under a different name.

Neocons are basically people obsessed with deregulation and thinking that deregulating will solve every problem. They are for giving tax cuts to the rich while cutting social programs and screaming

Basically libertarians v0.3 only not insane on the level of libertarians.

Neocons don't talk about anything except deregulation and how wonderful it is, so they are neutral on religion however they believe in a military that is used to defend its country and other social programs like gov schools and roads and gov fire fighters.

the way i see it, "right wing" leans more toward the laws of nature, ie might makes right, survival of the fittest, what have you. This usually leads to tribalism, competition and war (which is not a problem if you are the winner). "Left wing" ideology is the exact opposite: egalitarianism, cooperation, and peace (which is completely inachievable through natural law, there is no such thing as equality in nature). Both seek to thrive through different means, which puts them at odds.

Its simple he is a degenerate who is unable to engage in a civilized intelligent discussion.

gradient
progressivism vs conservatism might be a better way of putting it for you (they are not the same though).
No easy way of putting it. You have to find out this one for yourself.
I would argue that its very hard to find people that are pro-hierarchy.
I cant really make out what you are trying to say.

Libertarians are very left wing according to me and my definition.

lots of Holla Forumstards in exile theses days…

OK
Ask yourself or other people.

If you answered NO continue

If you answered yes congratulations you are pro-hierarchy, the hierarchy of parents over children.

here's your problem

stop posting right now, and lurk more.

Right wing means nothing but a jumble of randomly related beliefs. same with the left wing.

The only cohesive thing between these "right wing" beliefs is and emphasis on social stability.
Or other words: Order

For me libertarians are simply insane market wankers who believe in a magical market that magically will solve every problem.

Its fantasy level economics.
I don't define them to be right or left they are simply in the insane ideology category for me.

I hope you realize that if you are anti democracy you will answer NO to the question of anyone voting.

The point still stands.

And just all around if you think this has to do anything with hierarchy, you need to read up on things.

It's not fantasy mate.
Libertarians take it too far though.
It works well in markets and only then in fictional perfect efficiency markets.

It's an outdated concept from the french revolution on which most of our political enviroment is based on nowadays. Since we oppose the french revolution it's not neccessairy to think in these terms other than for rhetoric in debates. It means many different things depending on who you ask and in which context. It's subjective. Right wing in the US means something else than in most european enviroments for example.
It's a false dichotomy. This is why fascists called themselfs third position or syncretic

Children are subservient to their parents.
Children are basically the property of their parents.

The parents have all the power while children have basically to no power.

Yep I know about it.

From Julius Evola's MEN AMONG THE RUINS Chapter 1 Revolution—Counterrevolution—Tradition

As far as everything else is concerned, we must acknowledge the reality of a situation that is an easy target for the polemics of the Left, according to which conservatives are not the champions of ideas, but rather of the interests of a particular economic class (i.e., the capitalist one), which organized itself politically in order to perpetuate, for its own advantage, what is alleged to be merely a regime of privileges and social injustices. Thus, it has become all too easy to lump together conservatives, "reactionaries," capitalists, and bourgeoisie; in this way, a "faux target," to use a military term employed in artillery barrages, was successfully chosen.

More-over, the same tactic was employed at a time when the avant-garde of world subversion did not yet wave the flag of Marxism and communism, but instead were represented by liberalism and by constitutionalism. The efficacy of this tactic was due to the fact that yesterday's conservatives (not unlike the contemporary ones, even though the former were of an undeniably higher caliber) limited themselves to defending their sociopolitical positions and the material interests of a given class, of a given caste, instead of committing themselves to a stout defense of a higher right, dignity, and impersonal legacy of values, ideas, and principles. This was indeed their fundamental and most deplorable weakness. Today we have sunk to an even lower level; therefore, the "conservative idea to be defended must not only have no connection with the class that has replaced the fallenaristocracy and exclusively has the character of a mere economic class (i.e., the capitalist bourgeoisie) — but it must also be resolutely op-posed to it.

Recognition of inferiority and superiority among different human beings and recognizing the hierarchy and inequality are natural results of that.

Wtf are you even on about? Do you know what a child is.
Just take a look at that for a while.

Fuck off faggot

it is literally nothing but kike misdirection to prevent people from thinking too hard about politics and shifting the overton window, that's it

''What needs to be preserved and defended in a "revolutionary fashion" is the general view of life and of the State that, being based on higher values and interests, definitely transcends the economic plane, and thus every-thing that can be defined in terms of economic classes.'

For the authentic revolutionary conservative, what really counts is to be faithful not to past forms and institutions, but rather to principles of which such forms and institutions have been particular expressions, adequate for a specific period of time and in a specific geographical area. […] New forms, corresponding in essence to the old ones, are liable to emerge from them as if from a seed; thus, even as they eventually replace the old forms (even in a "revolutionary" manner), what remains is a certain continuity amid the changing historical, social, economic, and cultural factors.

Therefore, conservative spirit and traditional spirit are one and the same thing.

a brief primer, imageboards are anonymous so quality control is enforced through strict community standards. shaming works. some of them may seem arbitrary at first, like using emoticons, but you'll come to understand in time. despite the high number of posts on this board, far more people are non posters that come here to absorb information. it's generally expected that you lurk for at least several months before trying to make a serious effort at posting (like starting a thread for instance). additonally, these measures help detect paid shills that are essentially talking heads for political and commercial interests. sound paranoid? lurk more

What a beautiful picture, please post more.

Sir I appreciate if this discussion is on a superior level then a typical chan post.

And children are subservient to their parents, this is good and actually required for humans to exist.

This is a hierarchy there is no way to spin this around, only democrats, egalitarians and other loons try to pretend for no reason that its not so and that our modern society is 100% equal.

PS: Try this out for fun the next leftist revolution is to give toddlers the vote
I'm not making this up.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

Forgot this gem:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

Hierarchy isnt tied to age.
It's very hard to have a conversation when i dont know what you are talking about.

I think the fundamental question that discerns left from right is the fact that the left requires collectivist effort and resources to oust the injustice in society for everyone, and achieve a common good. (equality)

whereas the right embraces this injustice, and uses the philosophy of "will to power" to allow only the best fit to rise in personal power above others, and lead by example. This obviously is a product of individualism. The right believes in achieving a greater good. (stability)

Our movement on Holla Forums and the alt-right is both left and right, I think. Ideally we unite as a collective race to achieve our beliefs in society. We care only for our fellow whites, in a struggle for identity and existence. We also honor survival of the fittest to strengthen each individual in our collective effort, and reward those who set a higher standard for everyone in our race to achieve.

Is it helicopter time?

Man … has the same urge as the dog, the rabbit and the hare, to couple up with one other being as a separate entity. The social State as such can be maintained only by a rule of iron; take away the laws, and the fabric falls immediately to pieces. – Adolf Hitler

The error of traditional statism was to conceive of the nation as an extension of the family, and hence state authority as an extension of patriarchical/matriarchical authority. This has led to the assumption that all statism is based on this axiom. Hitler recalls the embarassment of an especially ill-informed acquaintance who presumed this was true even of National Socialism: Before giving [Wagner] a chance to speak before a big gathering, I had the prudence to try him out before twenty or so faithful followers gathered at the Sternecker beer-hall. What faces they pulled when they heard the worthy soul, with trembling hands and waggling head, recommending the reconstruction of a State in which “the clan was based on the family, the stock upon the clan, and the common mother upon the stock”.

Based on this falsehood, the anarchist has then argued along the lines of: “Why these extra layers of social structure? Why not just leave it at the family?” and then strut around as though he has ideologically defeated statism when in fact he has at best defeated only traditional statism.

Positive statism, on the other hand, justifies the state as a necessary counterweight to family power. In this capacity, the existence of the state is not only justified but indeed an ethical duty of vigilance, whereas anarchism amounts to negligence. This perspective can be found in Plato who advocated eliminating the family altogether in favour of communal childcare (with nobody aware which child was born to which parents), in the medieval Janissary system, and was the theory behind the Hitler Youth, in Hitler’s own words: “The development of the human being makes it necessary to take the child from the control of that small cell of social life which is the family and entrust his further training to the community itself.” It is based on the awareness that each family is itself a ready-made tribe, which will tend to compete against other families in society for dominance, instead of simply serving society with goodwill. in Hitler’s words: “Nepotism has never been a happy formula; and this is how a work cemented by the blood of a people can be systematically destroyed.” Consider trivially that something like the Rothschild dynasty, or indeed Jewry itself, would be absolutely impossible in a Platonic society, and it will be easy to understand why Jews promote anarchism. (Some Gentiles promote anarchism for the same reason.) National Socialism merely goes two steps deeper in the struggle against family power by firstly retaliating against the demographic violence of reproduction itself, and secondly seeking to Aryanize the gene pool along the way.

It should be noted that many anarchists are, like ourselves, open-minded towards various methods of improving genetic quality, including genetic engineering. However, their conception of such applications involves giving parents (or, more precisely, the fraction of parents who can afford to pay private genetic engineers for the service) control over the genetics of their children, rather than giving the state control over the genetics of the nation. From the National Socialist perspective, this is insanity. One need only look at the escalational measures taken by parents in preparing their children to compete for limited school places to surmise that private-purchase genetic engineering would only add more fuel to the fire, with the focus being primarily on traits that facilitate the child to outcompete other children. Increasingly children would be tailored to their parents’ specifications, designed to be what their parents want them to be and to do what their parents want them to do in life, instead of having a chance to let their Original Nobility shine.

It’s ridiculous that a child should ever feel obliged to take up his father’s profession. Only his aptitudes and gifts should be taken into consideration. Why shouldn’t a child have propensities that his parents didn’t have? – Adolf Hitler

The State … will have to be the supreme protector of this greatest blessing that a people can boast of. Its attention and care must be directed towards the child rather than the adult. – Adolf Hitler

By now it has been completely exposed that the anarchist does not love freedom at all. What the anarchist actually loves (consciously or subconsciously) is unrestricted family power, and he opposes the state merely because the positive state places limitations on family power. This is also true of the more moderate libertarian. They wholly fail to live up to their claim of being “against all authority”; they are instead merely against any authority that could threaten their own authority within their family units! As such, they would be more honest by ceasing to call themselves “anarchists” or “libertarians” and instead calling themselves patriarchists/matriarchists, for in a stateless society that is where power will surely be concentrated.

And herein is the enormous danger. Tyrannical states build resentment among their oppressed classes by keeping them powerless throughout their entire lives, so that the only way for this resentment to be released is through uprising against the state. This is not the case with the family. The family is unique among all tyrannies in that it gives each generation its own turn to be in power after it has done its time as the powerless. Thus it offers an alternative – and most fundamentally ignoble - means for its oppressed to release their resentment: by becoming the oppressors of the next generation. In this way, it perpetually avoids internal revolt irrespective of the cruelty of its culture.

In avowed noble opposition to prevent this ultimate sustainable evil from dominating the future as it has dominated the past, National Socialism is nothing if not the most conclusively sincere freedom-loving ideology in existence.

I shall start the necessary re-education with the young. I’ll tell them: ‘Don’t follow the example of your elders. – Adolf Hitler

There is no "Left" or "Right". There is only the Universal (Natural) truth, for which we stand, and its infinite degeneration (liberalism>neo-liberalism>communism>whatever sick shit comes next). Some user posted excellent pics on this matter yesterday.

Capitalism is left wing.

True however age based hierarchy is one type of hierarchy in addition to others.

If you are anti all Hierarchy then you must fight this age based hierarchy.

See picture for a exploitation of sets and subsets.

In my words hierarchy is if some one (or some people) is subjugated or subservient to someone (or some people) in a formalized fashion.

What is your definition of hierarchy?

Its hard to take this serious.

Find me someone who is not for the good and is not insane.

Everyone believes they are doing things for the good and the greater good.
SJW?
Fighting for the good and making the world abetter (Politically Correct)

Communists?
For them(not bullshiting cult leaders Stalin style) communism is a utopia where everyone will be happy

This is babbling really.
No real points.
And false you are simply a communist or some communist like creature.

wew lad

Right vs. Left is a False Dichotomy. Polite sage as we have been getting this thread a lot lately. It implies that all valid political though exists purely on one spectrum and is linear. Many ideologies (such as National Socialism) either have trouble fitting onto the spectrum or they do not fit at all as they have ideals that fit on either side of the spectrum. I find it limits political thought, and should be known about but not used in real discussion because like I said, it's bullshit.

Demonstratively false quote them unless you are talking about AnCaps(Libertarians on steroids) anarchists are against private eugenics and at best want equal state based eugenics.

The traditional anarchist line is that genetics does not exist or denying that its important at all or other shifting of the discussion.

wew yourself

when I say alt-right, I mean millennial woes, TRS and other white nationalists who call themselves alt-right.
Lolbergs and retards like Milo don't count.

I only mean the greater good in the sense that sacrifices to personal liberty must be made to achieve what is best for society. As in "the ends justify the means". This leads to few benefiting over the many in a hierarchy, whether economical or political.

Whereas the left beliefs society should always find a way to achieve what is a common good, which doesn't impede on the majority's equal liberties. Thus there is no class.
They believe the mean justifies the end.

key words: greater good vs. common good.

I agree mostly with this perspective..

True.

However it appears to me that the modern left SJW, the democratic party, marxists, anarchists, communists are extremely similar and obsessed with living in a fantasy land where only rich white European man do all the bad things and everyone dindu mufin.

So I think that my using seriously the word leftist is valid while i would not name myself right wing seriously.

Conservativism.

Nothing more.

We should just identify as our ideology.
Nationalists.
This stupid left-right crap only promotes a two party system anyway.

Communists dislike liberals too, believe it or not. the left has infighting just as much as the right.

So you saw some shit on tumblr that trigged you and you assume anyone on the "left" believes this shit?

Unattainable
Tried and worked well

Toxic and edgy
Always looks rad and pure

Uncertainty, lack of safety
Duty to do good

Patronistic, chessy, cheesy
Empathic, desiderable, true

Social constructs, house of cards
How things actually work and should work

Superficial, lack of values
Deep, sense of purpose

I'm not even sure why people pick left at all

Yet there are so many of them who say they are alt-right.

For me the word alt-right became synonymous with homosexual degenerates who hate feminists.

Is a complete basement dwelling sicko who sucks the life out of everything with his pessimism.

Has no real answers…has fruity ideas about government that will not stand 2 seconds of thinking example:
Terrible idea for a government and will turn into disaster within minutes however continue
And he never follows this up with any explanation.

Childish idiot with a handful of randomly picked ideas.

Also he gets really butt hurt and has no justifications

Anyone with 2 brain cells can give a answer to this however not mr. alt-right himself.

And my most favorite gem:

Fruity chronically depressed basement dweller with no justifications for his ideas.

What is this ? The Right Stuff? I seriously don't know what you are talking about.
white nationalists call themselves white nationalists.

I would be ashamed to name myself alt-right let the milos of the world have this name.

Only retards get triggered, I see you using this word a lot on Holla Forums to describe yourself, a lot of uses from anons.

No sir, I have came to this conclusion by analyzing various believe systems for example "the atheist experience" will refuse to talk about muslims and immediately shift the discussion to something else see:

Communists will absolutely refuse to talk about muslims today or brush it off.

Anarchists/communists/marxist/whatever who are supposed to be anti-religion will start defending and even sucking muslim cock. I have seen this behavior myself and I can give you examples if you like to see them?

A label used by the (((Intelligentsia))) to point out bad goyim plus a mass of useful idiots and controlled opposition.

For SJW greater good = banning hate speech and hate think.

See modern countries where you have leftists in power like Merkel or media sickos who push their ideas on the masses.

Unless you are not using dictionary definitions of these words you have to realize that for some people the common good is the greater good.

Look I enjoy our discussion you are really smart and know how to discuss, unlike the drive by shit posters.
However there are serious flaws in your explanation your arguments simply don't follow.

This pretty much sums up what I believe, although this user sums it up better than I ever could.

A false dichotomy in order to divide the country into us vs them, In a democratic system , left and right will always leads to centrims and Bipartisanship.

The idea to conflate all political ideas ,philosophies and systems under 2 wings is extremely shallow and ineffective.

Is also extremely easy to mud the waters and control the context in any political discussion if you use left and right language and know how to use fallacies.

Hmm sounds extremely similar to:

And everyone with the exception of true nihilists and people who want to burn the world would agree with this. NS did this with social programs.

And opposing equality is kind of tricky.

Let me demonstrate you have your circle of comrades and more or less you want them to be equal to you. You want to give them knowledge that you have or help them out, for everyone in your circle to have the same skill set.

Theoretically if you where anti-equality for real you would hoard knowledge and never give it to anyone so you can have more and be superior to others.

This is what happens if you base a ideology on "equality" or other absurdist ideas you might as well base society on the principle of making the most candy in candy factories.

Its a stupid idea that falls apart and only equality wankers try to talk in these criteria.

Here's the best way I've been able to explain it: the "left" is a relatively unitary political grouping because it aims for a single ultimate goal - "equality." Leftists believe that differences among people are either an artificial social construct or an archaic social feature worthy of being discarded. They thus seek to either eliminate the "false" heirarchies of the world or affect the change necessary to eliminate any real heirarchies. Either way the ultimate extreme of this ideology is communism.

The "right," on the other hand, is simply a rejection of the idea of equality. Right-leaning folks believe that people are inherently unequal, and this state is either perfectly acceptable or even desirable. As such those in the right wing do agree on a fundamental premise, but branch out into two distinct groups based on how to proceed from it: one side thinks that natural heirarchy needs no intervention and is best simply left alone, while the other believes it should be carefully nurtured and even encouraged through strong traditions.

Amazingly detailed artwork related.

The controlled opposition to use as a discourse bookend.

Interesting. I’ve never thought of it that way.

Higher quality version. The left requires massive gov control to force their "equality" so they are always for bigger gov.

Anarchy is left wing btw.

The reason why the left looks so identical is because they are directly or indirectly linked to karl marx and his friends who did have similar ideas.

Talking about leftists is like talking about christians yes they did have their schisms marxist-leninist VS maoism VS trotskyism however they share a lot of similarity.

Go on youtube and search the difference between anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist not libertarians on crack) and communist and you see its basically like the christian:
faith + works VS faith alone argument.

The graph is terribly misleading.

Yeah, I was thinking of that when I was doing my awesome pic.

Hello, my fellow BBC reporter Nazi.

A completely meaningless buzzword. Political labels like "right", "left", "liberal" and "conservative" are as obsolete as whig and tory. If you don't believe me, then just look at the "neocons" voting for Hillary.

The real war is between American nationalism and evil, anti-American globalism. That is what Trump understands and why he is winning.

Piss, I meant to strikethrough.

But anarcho-syndicalism is nothing like pure anarchy. Various forms of "anarcho" communism are still premised on rule by workers and abolition of a class system, while pure anarchists don't care at all about individuals acquiring massive sums of money and power. The line between these two very different government (or lack thereof) styles I think is adequately represented by the line between communism and anarchy.

But I acknowledge that it does have limitations as a graph; just a rough sketch I threw together for this thread.

No it's not.

Anarchy, as a meme, was appropriated by the left and left wing talking heads–like the Sex Pistols and the Weathermen–so as to present a more subversive message to prospective converts (primarily college students). Anarchy in the context of early twentieth century American pop culture referred to defying an established government and changing it to suit a given insurgent morality. As far as the Weathermen were concerned, Anarchism was a tool to be used for a time, and then put away for good so that they could reaffirm their new government's power.

But anarchy as an ideal means no government EVER. As such, it is an inherently right wing ideology.

Pro tip political ideologies are not scalar values.

And placing them on a 2D cartesian space is ridicules! Where are the other axis like the belief that all Germans must be united? Or that Austrians and Germans are of the same German race?

This graph is silly.

Anarchist will bitch that your graph has no scalar value for "state" and communist will bitch that your graph has no scalar value for "means of production" or "capitalism". This is a childish graph that simplifies political ideas communists and anarchists don't think in the categories "more gov" its not a central point of their ideology.

Seriously you cannot represent political ideologies with 2D spaces.

Its starting to look like the childish 2D libertarian graph.

BTW: What on earth are you using to draw this? Even MS-Pain can do straight lines.

I'm not here to defend anarcho-syndicalism for the one true anarchy my understanding was that anarcho-syndicalism was the first original anarchy back in marxes days.

Its not like I'm obsessed with the name anarchy and check who was the first anarchist writer or who used this word so I'm taking anarcho-syndicalism at their words if they say they date back to marx. Its not that important for me I'm not a anarcho-syndicalist obese with the fact who used first the name anarchy or fight back the fake AnCaps.

Can you define what exactly is a right wing ideology you seam to use this word.

Understanding the differences between ideologies is basically irrelevant to origin: it really doesn't matter what the "original" anarchism was meant to look like if the modern version is completely different. Anarcho-syndicalism might be left-wing, but pure anarchy is right wing because it reverts society to a state of nature which inherently encourages inequality. As I explained, the left supports equality, so no government style which opposes equality can possibly be left-wing.

True , you are just obese

sage for shitpost

You are extremely difficult to read I don't even know what you are saying here.

False, demonstratively false!

Lets take Christianity it did have schisms and understanding that Catholics, Lutherans, baptists and orthodox have a common ancestor (everyone says they are the true original church back to Jesus and everyone else is a heretic BTW) helps you understand why all of them look extremely similar and talk about this Jesus guy a lot.

The rest of your post is indecipherable you seam to assume some left wing definition (that is nothing other then hot air in reality) and string together words that have no meaning.

You remind me of marxist and them talking about their meaningless theories.

Right wing = order

Left wing = chaos

Right wing policies and attitudes lead to more order in the universe, left wing policies and attitudes lead to more chaos.

I see you didn't understand the text.
You must have a fairly simple world view. You're robably american right?

>>>Holla Forums

In what way was that hard to understand? Left-wing = "equality," right-wing = natural differences. Of the two, anarchy (no government) is the latter. I don't see how I could spell it out any more clearly.

Everything in this dimension is bi-polar.
Cold/ hot
High/ low
Quality/ quantity

Right is health and nature
Left is disease and chaos

Right is structure and hierarchy
Left absence of structure is and equality

Right is right
Left is wrong

Right is love of self
Left is hatred of self

Right is construction
Left is destruction

Because of the Kali-Yuga, everything is upside down. Evil passes itself for good (don't give in to hate, love everyone, we are all one, goyim)

And the right has to come in and clean the mess with violence and death (Duterte) in order to set things right again.

This is why Savitri Devi described Hitler as a man with time (he worked with death and destruction to do good)

wasn't it actuall a man against time?

Reddit please go

I seriously doubt this. No one functions in the silly D&D alinement system.

The Marxists love censorship and having a Orwellian superstate who oppressed them to destroy hate speech.

This is a serious case of visible autism.

Thank you this is much more understandable VS incoherent babbling.

Now like I explained before no one ever can be for equality the word is meaningless.
If no then these people are not for equality.
What they do is ignore every example that contradicts them say that they are for equality and you have someone with a collection of rules he wants enforced and an insane and self contradictory justification of a rationalization.

In other words you have a deontological ethics where the speaker pretends they have derived them from some mythical first principle's like utilitarians, they advocate deontological positions, pretend their deontological standpoints are based on some "less harm" however they ignore if its pointed out there are different(and far more nightmarish) solution where there is massively "less harm" then the ideas they advocate.

However people like you have a severe case of visible retardation.

Not answering the question and posting children cartoon images to try to desperately schema me.

You understand that I'm laughing at you right now? Let me write you a onomatopoeia of it
AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH you are a joke stop obsessing over 2 characters.

Seriously this sounds like some brain damaged buddhist crap.

Childish simplification and a forced duality.

I seriously doubt communists think
I actually believe they think(their thinking is wrong BTW) they are right and want the best for society/humans in their worldview.

Your Video…

You must be dumber than a Dem.

Why did the mods not remove it?
He is the definition of shitposting

At least learn the basics before trying to pretend to be one of US EVIL ALT-RIGHTERS

:D

Boys… anyone seen my swastika demotivational emoji snapchat thing? I'm sure I left it here somewhere.

>>>Holla Forums

I will never be a homosexual that pretends to be on the right.

You realize that if you did read my post correctly I was making fun of the left demonizing anything they don't like….giving it a swastika logo…using the word "right wing" to slur people or calling their opponents Nazis/Fascist.

See picture for something I like to name "giving a swastika logo"

...

If your definition of the political spectrum is different from this, it's probably somewhat inaccurate. Bid related was one of the biggest, moist important red pills I've ever taken. You'll see why. HUGELY important and helped me see politics in a new, more revealing light.

(It's as big a realization as understanding nationalism vs globalism or authoritarianism vs libertarianism.)

Jesus fuck. Goddamn autocorrect.

I bask in the glory of my own intellect and look down at the man pigs crawling in their own filth and stupidity. These man pigs slur up the shit that other man pigs constantly crap out in a never ending circle of filth.

I'm slightly amused at their stupidity.

This is what it is to look at social losers like Bill Cooper.
Thinks he is smart, he actually is retarded and clueless, another libertarian A.K.A. neocons on steroids. Bill uses all the tired libertarian memes about types of government, old, fake, stupid.

Using the word "National Socialist"!!!!!!!!
I actually challenge these losers to sight the souses they have for NS.
I can give you the true meaning of NS and a fucken definitive one if you ask.

Everyone who says

K

You want to be enlightened?
to know what the word National Socialist really means?

Ask and you shell receive and you will never listen to gay lords like Bill or other libertarian kooks.

lmfao this guy is a normie cuck what the fuck are you talking about it being a redpill lmfao go back to reddit

...

Everyone knows this.

Sure, why not. You got trips, I gotta listen.

WEW LAD

Read mein kampf.
Hitler clearly states that the color red and the word socialist was used to agitate the communists and to basically troll them!

Hitler named his movement National Socialist because he wanted to get the reds to come to his meetings, it was trolling click bait nothing more.

archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp/meinkampf035176mbp_djvu.txt
greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf
angelfire.com/folk/bigbaldbob88/MeinKampf.pdf

for our posters sufficed to attract them to
our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie wer
e very shocked to see that, we had also
chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism
and they regarded this as something
ambiguously significant. The suspicion was
whispered in German Nationalist circles
that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably
disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and
Marxism still remains a mystery to these people
up to this day. The charge of Marxism
was conclusively proved when it was disco
vered that at our meetings we deliberately
substituted the words 'Fellow-countrymen an
d Women' for 'Ladies and Gentlemen' and
addressed each other as 'Party Comrade'. We used to roar with laughter at these silly
faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to
puzzle out our origin, our intentions and
our aims

Text gets butchered by copy pasting see in your copy for yourself.

being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our
meetings–if only in order to break them up
–so that in this way we got a chance of
talking to the people.

it sure fucking does uncle adolf.

How retarded are you?
Hitler himself wrote in fucke mein kampf that the NAME national socialist was click bait trolling.

We hoped that by giving ourselves such
a name we might scare away a whole host of VÖLKISCH dreamers. And that was the
reason also why we named our Party, THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN
LABOUR PARTY.

The text seriously gets fucked up after copy pasting fucken PDF

lovers of bombastic nomenclature, as well as those who went around beating the big
drum for the VÖLKISCH idea. The full name of the Party kept away all those heroes
whose weapon is the sword of the spirit and all those whining poltroons who take
refuge behind their so-called 'intelligence' as if it were a kind of shield

I found this gem Hitler the original champion of equality.

representative organ of the various occupations and callings. The National Socialist
State recognizes no 'classes'. But, under the po
litical aspect, it recognizes only citizens
with absolutely equal rights and equal obligat
ions corresponding thereto. And, side by
side with these, it recognizes subjects
of the State who have no political rights
whatsoever.

Paste into notepad and format it correctly next time.

so what were nazis then? "not marxists" isn't an explanation.

It's a start, because they certainly weren't.

If you are trying to fit every ideology into a spectrum you will fail. Read mein kampf.

Exactly.

Nazis did have fruity ideas a mix of everything not different from the dems or reps.

Hitler was strong on giving sports instead of intellectually based learning

which the young pupil does not have one hour of physical training in the morning and one in the
evening; and every kind of sport and gymnastics should be included. There is one kind of sport
which should be specially encouraged, although many people who call themselves völkisch
consider it brutal and vulgar, and that is boxing. It is incredible how many false notions prevail
among the "cultivated" classes.

I swear to god these hidden new lines.

Autism, the post.

Based, a fellow radical centrist bro, seems like there's very few of us about these days.

this might be relevant to this thread…

is this just a looks thing? As far as I know, none of the Vsauce crew make any mention of politics in their work

This is interesting. So basically everyone who looks like a real fag or beta pussy boy is the definition of left wing?

I will not contest the fact that I see right wing being correlated with power and strength while left wing seams to be the eternal beta failures of life.

However will the word not become meaningless and a insult like ugly or stupid or beta?

PS: HOLY mother of baby fucking Jesus! Is the bold faggot with the shirt "good night white pride" having a MLP pony kick the man? This is what I classify under autism and humiliating your own position.

He's a member of the german pirate party. They started out basically as a one-issue party for internet freedom or something along those lines. They managed to get popular enough to get into some parliaments ( ~5%) and were of course quickly subverted by marxists.
There was an article on how during their discussion sessions they take MLP breaks "so it stays all nice and friendly". Nobody votes for them anymore.

I need to see more of this, pleas post more of them taking MLP breaks. Images, posts, videos.

I know German so no language barrier.

MLP is utter crap however I love watching bronies they are the real freak show.
Marxism + MLP = the perfect leftist caricature.

...

I demand you post MLP marxists

...

Anyone replying to this thread without a sage should be banned.

Yes but this creates more disorder. Authoritarian =/= order.

The German National People's Party during the time of the Weimar Republic, represents the true and traditional right.