all 50 comments

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Wait... does this mean that the soy-latte-sipping cosmopolitans are the real racists? And that Brexiters are the real anti-racists? That a vote for Remain was a vote for White supremacy and xenophobia!?

</s>

I still think Brexit is by far a positive development. For starters, the British government will have a harder time buck-passing to the EU when the voters decide they're fed up with them in some way. National governments are far more accountable when there is no supranational entity to which they can point and say: "Look, it's really their fault!" The blame for immigration cannot really be passed to some other group anymore. Only the British government and people can be blamed every time shit hits the fan, not some bureaucrats in Brussels.

Another obvious benefit is that at least all of the Nigerians and Pakis and whomever else who were still coming under the EU at least can't travel around Europe as easily. Britain can keep its shitty 'minorities' to itself.

[–]VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Largely agree. I voted for Brexit even though i support the idea of a united Europe in principle. The modern EU though is an abomination which I want no part of... & leaving was a blow to the establishment.

The Conservative party now no longer have anyone to shift the blame to r.e immigration except themselves.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (36 children)

Britain was the most leftist country in the EU and it leaving has made the EU better overall. It's best if fewer Europeans get sucked into cuck isle. Hopefully, the Poles and Romanians in the UK will soon pack up and leave for their home countries later on.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Britain was the most leftist country in the EU

I think Portugal is probably more ideologically Leftist overall. And France is certainly more demographically nigfuxated.

I do agree, however, that Britain is one of the worst offenders, and it also has some of the very worst type of Leftists. The smug, sneering and openly anti-White type who identify far more with random browns than they do with non-Leftist Brits. The kind who openly mock belief in 'White genocide' and want Britain to become minority White to 'own the racists'.

Here's to hoping that their bloodlines (and this is extremely likely) become fouled up with a bunch of ~65 IQ Somalians. They don't deserve to be European, White or British, and every last one of them should have been born in the shitholes where—and as part of—the queer, brown 'Master Race' they believe in comes from.

It's a real tragedy that others are born into suffering while these pricks can afford to indulge in the comfortable lifestyles they don't deserve. It's also a real tragedy that most of them will be dead before they really see the consequences of their actions and beliefs unfold. They should be kept alive to see it. Instead, their descendants will suffer while they'll get away scot-free, having pissed away everything left that was good, and leaving them with nothing but yet another of the countless shitholes that people desperately wish to leave rather than enter. The real Brexit will be their descendants yelling: 'Britain!? I don't want to remain in this shithole! I want to leave, to exit!"

[–]nordmannenLegionnaire 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Saint Alfred the Great would weep if he saw what has become of England. What a frustrating yet depressing end for such a prominent member of our family.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

We can credit the current state of Britain to Willian III. He bought the Jews back to England during the glorious revolution.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It was Oliver Cromwell who brought Jews back to England.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I think Portugal is probably more ideologically Leftist overall.

I assume their leftism is different than the "woke" liberalism inspired "leftism" of N. Europe/America?

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe for some fringe Left groups. Not for the two main parties, who are clearly 'woke':

94% of PSD voters are against leaving the EU.

97% of PS (the more Leftist of the two) voters are against leaving the EU.

84% of PSD voters support homo marriage.

93% of PS voters support homo marriage.

73% of PSD voters believe homos should have equal adoption rights.

89% of PS voters believe homos should have equal adoption rights.

74% of PSD voters believed Syrian refugees were acceptable.

85% of PS voters believed Syrian refugees were acceptable.

75% of PSD voters identify as 'pro-choice'

88% of PS voters identify as 'pro-choice'

70% of PSD voters believe that trans athletes are acceptable

88% of PS voters believe that trans athletes are acceptable

I think it's obvious that if your two main parties are the 'Socialists' and 'Social Democrats', your country is screwed. Portugal is also the poorest country in Western Europe, so I'm sure there's a correlate here between being super-woke and being the closest thing to a third-world cesspool in Western Europe.

Given that the overwhelming majority of Portuguese cast votes for one of these two awful groups, it seems to me that the average Portuguese is super-woke. We just tend not to know about it because of language barriers and the fact that Portugal is insignificant. They're European, so they don't really have the right to ever be considered victims of anything or in need of aid. But the big cities like Lisbon are well and truly screwed on the ground.

Perhaps the only good thing about Portugal is that a small party called 'Chega' (similar to Spain's 'Vox') seems to be restoring a bit of the balance. However, they are clearly considered 'Far-Right' and 'extreme' within Portugal's extremely biased Overton Window.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

correlate here between being super-woke and being the closest thing to a third-world cesspool

Usually the correlation is the opposite.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Are you from Portugal?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (27 children)

Every time Britain interfered with the continent it's been an unmitigated disaster. From Napoleon to Hitler. The eternal Anglo absolutely exists. It's not only Jews.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Countries jews controlled fucked with everyone

No shit, are all white people also Eternal Aryans too? By this logic yes and we must combat the Eternal Aryan. It's just stupid.

Intra-racial petty nationalism, not even once.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Jews controlled Britain during the Hundred Years' War?

Intra-racial petty nationalism, not even once.

But Britain has been fomenting petty nationalism all over Europe for literally centuries. Napoleon was the pan-Europeanist, not Britain.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Since Cromwell and the formation of the empire ye

But Britain has been fomenting petty nationalism all over Europe for literally centuries. Napoleon was the pan-Europeanist, not Britain.

Yup, because Britain = jews. Just like America = jews. Blaming English or American people for this is what is retarded. As if we have some actual democracy where the will of the people is enacted or something... lol at that idea.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Blaming English or American people for this is what is retarded.

I never did that though. I blamed their elites, and no, centuries ago most of them weren't Jews. That's just coping.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Since when has jewish control meant jews are a majority of people in power? All it takes is for the empire to be serving international finance which it was.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

As much as I admire Napoleon's genius, he was a liberal. In the grand historical scheme of things, I think Metternich played a much more constructive role.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I just have to disagree. I don't see how he was a liberal. He was certainly progressive -- in the good sense -- but liberal? I don't like reactionaries like Metternich.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

He was a great proponent of egalitarianism and his conquests resulted in the spread of liberal systems like the Napoleonic code and a lot of wealth and power redistribution. If he had been successful, both the Prussians and the Russians, who were the most active rightist elements in the 19th and 20th centuries, would have lost their special qualities. It is very difficult to imagine any possible non-leftist, anti-bourgeois reaction in the event of a Napoleonic victory.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

non-leftist, anti-bourgeois reaction

I regard Bonapartism as one of those to be honest.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you are referring to the Bonapartism of Napoleon I, I am not sure what it could have been a reaction against. Liberalism had a foothold only in France, where monarchy was the traditional form of government. Napoleon's system was something like an attempt at reconciling the two.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am not sure what it could have been a reaction against.

The chaos of the French Revolution.

Napoleon's system was something like an attempt at reconciling the two.

Exactly. It was an attempt at synthesis, much like fascism was.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Britain's intervention against Napoleon was a good thing tho. It saved all of Europe from becoming one monolithic hegemony. It did the save against Louis XIV as well.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Britain's intervention against Napoleon was a good thing tho.

No, it was a complete catastrophe, just like their intervention against Hitler.

It saved all of Europe from becoming one monolithic hegemony.

How on Earth is that a bad thing? That's exactly what we should want!

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

How on Earth is that a bad thing? That's exactly what we should want!

Same reason why American hegemony is a bad thing. State rot is inevitable. If one state controls the whole civilization, all are infected by its rot and taken down with it. Western Europe's success is in large part owed to the fact that it never became one blob, and always remained divided into multiple powerful polities: German states, England, France, Italian states, Holland, Sweden etc. This fierce competition averted civilizational rot and promoted fierce competition and innovation.

Ever since it fell under US hegemony since the end of ww2 has it fallen into rot and decay.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This logic is called historical determinism; it's the belief that a set of conditions will always lead to a fixed result. It was used by people like Marx, who claimed that the contradictions in the capitalistic regime would inevitably lead to his collapse, so communism was actually unavoidable. But history shows us that while those contradictions lead to semi-structural crises, the sistem itself is pretty much capable of managing them by various means - state dirigism, welfare, dictatorship and so on.

That's to say: it is possibly true that the absence of competition would lead to stagnation, but it's totally arbitrary to claim that the only way to achieve competition is fragment Europe in tiny states. Europe itself, of we exclude Russia (which is the case for the times being because they choose so) is a tiny portion of the world, both in terms of population and square km. There's plenty of people and cultures to compete with, and there are also non-conflictual challenges to achieve.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's to say: it is possibly true that the absence of competition would lead to stagnation, but it's totally arbitrary to claim that the only way to achieve competition is fragment Europe in tiny states.

I never said Europe should be broken into statelets. I want a Europe of great powers, separate great powers. The country of Germany alone has a GDP larger than Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and SA combined. It has the technical know-how and industrial strength to build a military that can conquer all those nations by itself.

France, Italy, Britain...they are all heavy hitters. They can stand upright in the world and lead an independent existence without fusing into a blob that's ruled by distant technocrats in Brussels.

As for historical determinism, yes, my view might fall on that. What Marx posited was more on the line of technological determinism and it has a strong grain of truth to it. However, that's beside the point. Historical examples and cycles offer insight into human civilizations and their likely outcomes because societies' basic biology, incentives, and hierarchies have fundamentally remained unchanged over the last 3000 years.

Humans have the same lust, fear, desire for glory, devotion to religions, and desire for power today as they did in ancient Sumeria.

Marx's analysis was stupid and flawed because there was never any example of his theory in history. Never in history did the working class/proles/common man rise up, band into communes, overthrow the established society, and form a democratic class society formed of communes.

It's just nonsense that goes against the grain of human biology.

There are countless examples of civilizational cycles of genesis, expansion, apogee, consolidation, decay, and ruin in history. Rome, Greece, Arabs, Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylon, Persia, and countless others as has been demonstrated by writers like Caroll Quigley, Spengler, and John Glubb.

As Caroll Quigley demonstrated in Tragedy and Hope, a lead cause of Europe's success was that it never consolidated into one blob that had a brief apogee and collapsed into decadence. There were attempts like the Hundred Year's War, the 30 years war, the Napoleonic Wars, and the world wars. But it never succeeded until 1945.

And under American consolidation, Europe is now heading in the same direction Mediterranean civilization head under the consolidation of Rome: Ruin and complete destruction by foreigners.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even if I accept the thesis, the point is that we need competition. But the competition is on the global stage, there's really no point in competing between Europeans.

Now, Germany is about 80millions people I think, Italy and France are both around 60 millions, Britain 67 millions. USA are 327 millions, China and India are both 1.4 billions people. There's no way for even Germany to facetank a big power: no matter how much they are good at building cars, they are simply too few. All Europe, which roughly half a billion people, can stand a chance.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Same reason why American hegemony is a bad thing. State rot is inevitable. If one state controls the whole civilization, all are infected by its rot and taken down with it.

This is a dead end logic, because assuming that you actually take its premises seriously, there is no justification for genuine political action. State rot will ruin everything in the end anyway, so why bother doing anything?

Western Europe's success is in large part owed to the fact that it never became one blob, and always remained divided into multiple powerful polities: German states, England, France, Italian states, Holland, Sweden etc. This fierce competition averted civilizational rot and promoted fierce competition and innovation.

It also resulted in the World Wars, which obliterated European power both at home and abroad.

Ever since it fell under US hegemony since the end of ww2 has it fallen into rot and decay.

It's also worth considering why American hegemony reached Europe in the first place - it is because there was no European hegemony.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is a dead end logic, because assuming that you actually take its premises seriously, there is no justification for genuine political action. State rot will ruin everything in the end anyway, so why bother doing anything?

I never said that. Fight for your freedom, fight for the glory of your nation. Something like civilizational rot might be far down the line but you live in the here and now. Strong coherent nation-states generally don't undergo this type of civilizational collapse due to competitiveness and constant existential threats. This happens to great hegemonic empires which have no real threat to their heartland and no real need for innovation or competitiveness.

They can coast on the works of past generations and fall asleep on the steering wheel. As has happened with the US and the Boomer generation.

A strong but not all-powerful state like Germany, Japan, or France has to be alert at all times and have their shit together. They have times of trouble and blunders too, but they're generally short-lived and they recover quick and return stronger. Empires on the other hand have a tendency toward complete moral, genetic and cultural degradation over time. As we see with the US.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I never said that. Fight for your freedom, fight for the glory of your nation. Something like civilizational rot might be far down the line but you live in the here and now.

Just because you did not say it does not mean that it is not the obvious conclusion to the premises that you have given. Giving up on the future means accepting cynicism and nihilism in the present. Abstract slogans about freedom and glory mean nothing, especially in this situation.

I also completely disagree with your nation state argument. If anything, the opposite relationship seems to be at play. France, Japan and Germany suffered an internal collapse as a result of the collapse of their imperial ambitions. The same applies to Britain, despite the fact that its empire was both powerful and an underdog when compared to the Americans and the Soviets. The Soviet Union also collapsed, despite being an underdog. I am willing to concede that hegemonic powers are more likely to become internally divided, but that is a result of a loss of political will - something which is equally possible both in an empire and in a nation state.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great reply.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't buy that for a second. The reason why American hegemony is rotting us is because it's completely dominated by Jews. American ideology has also always been quintessentially liberal, which is yet another reason for the rot. This perpetual pessimism about state power is libertarian nonsense, and it's also disempowering us. It's defeatist poison. State power is what we should seek to attain.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I never said Europe should be broken into statelets. I want a Europe of great powers, separate great powers. The country of Germany alone has a GDP larger than Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and SA combined. It has the technical know-how and industrial strength to build a military that can conquer all those nations by itself.

France, Italy, Britain...they are all heavy hitters. They can stand upright in the world and lead an independent existence without fusing into a blob that's ruled by distant technocrats in Brussels.

As for historical determinism, yes, my view might fall on that. What Marx posited was more on the line of technological determinism and it has a strong grain of truth to it. However, that's beside the point. Historical examples and cycles offer insight into human civilizations and their likely outcomes because societies' basic biology, incentives, and hierarchies have fundamentally remained unchanged over the last 3000 years.

Humans have the same lust, fear, desire for glory, devotion to religions, and desire for power today as they did in ancient Sumeria.

Marx's analysis was stupid and flawed because there was never any example of his theory in history. Never in history did the working class/proles/common man rise up, band into communes, overthrow the established society, and form a democratic class society formed of communes.

It's just nonsense that goes against the grain of human biology.

There are countless examples of civilizational cycles of genesis, expansion, apogee, consolidation, decay, and ruin in history. Rome, Greece, Arabs, Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylon, Persia, and countless others as has been demonstrated by writers like Caroll Quigley, Spengler, and John Glubb.

As Caroll Quigley demonstrated in Tragedy and Hope, a lead cause of Europe's success was that it never consolidated into one blob that had a brief apogee and collapsed into decadence. There were attempts like the Hundred Year's War, the 30 years war, the Napoleonic Wars, and the world wars. But it never succeeded until 1945.

And under American consolidation, Europe is now heading in the same direction Mediterranean civilization head under the consolidation of Rome: Ruin and complete destruction by foreigners.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I want a Europe of great powers, separate great powers

I don't. Now is the time for pan-European unity. If you unify all the countries you mentioned they would be even stronger. Obviously I'm talking about a Nietzschean union here, not the current globohomo one.

Humans have the same lust, fear, desire for glory, devotion to religions, and desire for power today as they did in ancient Sumeria.

I wish that was true.

Rome, Greece, Arabs, Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylon, Persia, and countless others as has been demonstrated by writers like Caroll Quigley, Spengler, and John Glubb.

None of them had negrolatry, twerking as "art", drag queen story hour, or trannies in government.

Anyway, I disagree that a Nazi hegemony would have led to the exact same rot and decay we see now. I also disagree with Carroll Quigley's thesis.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ever since it fell under US hegemony since the end of ww2 has it fallen into rot and decay.

By the way, by this logic a Nazi hegemony would also have led to such rot decay. You can't possibly believe that.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

By the way, by this logic a Nazi hegemony would also have led to such rot decay

Of course, it would have. It happens to every civilization. The pace of ruin and collapse would have depended on who succeeded Hitler If Himmler succeeded him, there would've been some kind of civil war and North Koreanization of Europe over time. If Albert Speer or the Wehrmacht succeeded him, it might've existed for another 100 years but eventually, the same rot would afflict it as well. It happened to more hardcore societies like Rome and Sparta, it would've happened to them as well.

However, my belief is that if the Nazis won ww2 and conquered Russia, and subjugated Britain, it would've led to world-ending nuclear exchange down the line. The US would never accept peace and would arrange a permanent naval raiding policy against German shipping and as well occupy the middle east to deprive it of oil.

There might be some temporary truce by 1948, but eventually, both sides would hit each other with ICBMs. The US would initiate as its elite could never tolerate Nazism. It never happened in our timeline because the American elites had great sympathy for communism. Their view was that capitalism was a superior way to create the egalitarian, anti-racism, world hippy society. Communism was not the right way, but the commies had their hearts in the right place.

Against Nazis, they'd be fight to the death nuclear jihadis.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

North Koreanization of Europe over time.

Stop, my penis can only get so erect!

they'd be fight to the death nuclear jihadis

Press X to doubt.

[–]nordmannenLegionnaire 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

What's the adage? "From ruling a third of the world to being ruled by the third world." What's more disappointing is that the British barely have any political response to this. Is there any hope for that island?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

What can be expected when we have the strongest media, center right, and intelligence apparatus? Anyone who tries to do anything is destroyed by one of the three or just thrown in prison nakedly for their political beliefs.

Our people have always been nationalistic there's just no way of actually reaching them for grassroots nationalists due to these three and the insane wealth inequality.

[–]VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly, normal, working class Brits overwhelmingly oppose everything considered 'woke' & would support a total halt to immigration if given the choice.

There's just nothing they can do when as you say, we literally get thrown in prison for being 'far right'. No peaceful opposition group is allowed to exist.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

center right

This. The center-right -- not the left -- is our biggest enemy within party politics. They always stand in the way of the real right. They're the bulwark of liberalism. Daniel Ziblatt has demonstrated this decisively, and he should know, for obvious reasons.

France is in many ways the opposite of the UK. There, the center-right has utterly collapsed, and as a result the radical right has never been stronger.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The issue with Brexit is that it was implemented by a Conservative government. If a nationalist government had been in charge, the situation would have been very different.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The "ruling" party changes all the time. It doesn't matter what party was in charge because there is no nationalist party and even if there was they would have to seize authoritarian power to get anything done. Until that happens it doesn't party what party has the government because the real power is distinctly anti national and globalist.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I don't fully agree with you. If you have an authentic nationalist party in government, they will be able to do a lot of things, including reform of the political system.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How would a nationalist party reform the political system without total power? And what happens when a new government gets voted in?

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How do you think parties obtain total power in the first place? Orban makes for an interesting case study. Obviously, he has not formalised the position of his party, but he is de facto ruler of Hungary. If he wanted to completely reform the government, he would be able to do so.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Brexshit!

[–]Fonched 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Reminds me of popular arguments against this, such as that the majority of immigrants to the UK are Europeans (Poland often being the chief example), that most plan to be temporary, or that the majority of non-European immigrants head to non-European nations. How do these numbers run contrary to them?