Ivar Arpi: Why did Sweden turn Right-wing?

Hates__Peach · 2022-10-28T06:38:44+00:00

Chega is more analogous to Spain's Vox rather than Portugal's own PNR, right? I'm getting the impression that they're a part of the same CivNat phenomenon that seems to be filling the Rightmost socially acceptable void as Overton Windows move Leftward further and further away from ethnonationalism. Zemmour's Reconquista and Farage's Brexit Party are parts of this same phenomenon, where they then compete with formerly ethnonationalist parties who are also being driven socioculturally Leftward into CivNat ideology (e.g. Britain's BNP).

I think that PNR (seems to have recently renamed to 'Rise Up') started well, but even they've gone to using obvious nonwhites (not just mixed ones like some of the assimilados, but full-blooded Africans who even the assimilados often high up in groups like Mozambique's ruling FRELIMO seem to dislike) in their propaganda images and (possibly) have stood them as candidates before, essentially also putting them in the CivNat camp.

I'm not too sure about the pre-Carnation Revolution regime. They wanted to hold onto those horrid cesspools like Angola and Mozambique, whereas my view is that any serious ethnonationalist regime would have completely severed ties with those places long before 1974. There's a word for that cultural nationalist ideology (basically, the notion that Portuguese, Brazilians, &c. are all part of the same in-group) that I can't think of: probably Luso-something. I think that was Salazar's ideology: preserve empire by uniting all these people under culture and religion, a notion to which I am obviously strongly averse.

However, what came after Salazar is worse still. Portugal, for instance, produced that vile useless eater Antonio Gutierrez (may the fleas of ten thousand camels be upon him). Moreover, that Costa character—who they stupidly keep re-electing—is another piece of shit who wouldn't have existed were it not for Portugal colonizing Goa, where certain of his ancestors hail. Not that the others are any better: for instance, Passos Coelho's late second wife was some messed up mixture of Portuguese (her grandfathers on both sides), Cape Verdean and Portuguese Guinean (her two grandmothers). I assume thus that his second kid with this woman must be around 25% African. Vile.

Is Chega's leader, Ventura, any good? Apparently he was part of the worthless PSD until as late as 2018 and was attacking PNR's Pinto Coelho (the much better of the two Coelho's in Portuguese politics) as late as 2017. Unless he has undergone a dramatic change, he would be a clear downgrade on Pinto Coelho. I think that alot of PNR/E's vote has switched to Chega, though, which might mean that Chega is doing something right? What's your opinion on those two parties and their leaders?

Hates__Peach · 2022-05-15T04:02:29+00:00

In Brazil, the Marxist Left is also being replaced by the 'progressive' Left?

I'm hearing people from Eastern Europe saying the exact same thing in their own countries.

Hates__Peach · 2022-05-11T04:29:22+00:00

Indeed, and that would be just a further analogue with the West, with Modi being far closer to someone like Shinzo Abe or Trump than to Adolf Hitler. For if we say that Hindutva, for example, is actually Right-wing, and yet Hindutva is a fringe, repressed ideology much like Western fascism, there is only real India's analogue to cuckservatism (I'm not sure if there is a specific term used in India to refer to this sort of pseudo-Right that often uses Right-wing rhetoric but governs as far to the Left as its voters will allow it, a phenomenon personified particularly in Nixon and Trump) to fight against things like liberalism, Islam and Naxalism. And as we know, this kind of pseudo-Right politics always loses on every substantive issue (in America, fag marriage, women on the frontlines, and trannies in the military are three fairly recent examples).

Another analogue: I remember the Indian Left railing against Modi years ago just because he had some massive statue built. So just as Western Leftists love destroying statues because they help preserve a history they despise (pre-New Left/Civil Rights America), these Indian Leftists also dislike statues because... they help preserve a history that they despise (that of a purer Hindu India in which other forces like communism, Islam and liberalism were non-existent and thus were yet to begin corroding Hinduism).

Actually, I think there is a further analogue in that Modi can't really do anything 'right' according these people: exactly the same as if Trump shakes someone's hand (as with Putin) or refuses to shake someone's hand (as with Merkel and Netanyahu), he is simply 'wrong' in both instances. The Left put them in a perpetual double bind. So even if Modi/BJP do obvious Leftist things like promote dalits and so forth, that's still 'wrong' because they just frame it as an insincere, malicious 'tokenism' or something to obfuscate the fact that he's 'really' a fascist.

I think India is far more afflicted by these problems than most people actually realize.

Hates__Peach · 2022-05-10T12:53:46+00:00

American film was paving the way for transsexualism before colour TV was even a thing. An obvious example is Glen or Glenda (1953), directed by the sick degenerate 'Ed Wood'.

Cross-dressing, as a sort of precursor to transsexualism, has a far earlier history. Hollywood started that in earnest around the 1920s.

I'm not familiar with Bollywood film. The few movies I've seen don't seem subversive: they're just corny, farfetched and propagandistic, e.g. a protagonist single-handedly wiping out dozens of Pakistani soldiers, exactly like in the Western films but with the antagonists switched from the Taliban or some other group. And with far worse production quality. I don't remember the names of these films.

I know that a lot of the Indian media seem to be attacking Hinduism all of the time. That was incidentally when I realized that something was also wrong with India: it has the exact same kind of 'progressive', ethnomasochist disease. These Leftists particularly seem to have a problem with 'Hindutva' and 'Sanghis', which they seem to analogize to fascism and fascists 24/7. However, this disease seems to be making rapid inroads in Asia more generally.

Just doing a quick Google to see how this phenomenon has been developing. This here is an excellent example of what I mean, since it follows much of the same 'reasoning' as Western 'progressive' propaganda and the parallels are obvious:

https://dismantlinghindutva.com/resources/hindutva-is-not-hinduism/

Hindu supremacists have made a concerted effort over several decades to equate their manufactured term “Hindutva” with Hinduism.

This is the exact same claim made of 'White supremacists'. They are trying to misappropriate Europe's [i.e. their own] culture and history for their own ends. Hindutva are trying to misappropriate Hindu/Indian [i.e. their own] culture and history for their own ends.

From the early twentieth century onwards, they have worked hard to shield themselves from legitimate critique for their extremism by claiming to speak for a persecuted Hindu community, despite Hindus being a sizable majority in India. Most recently, they have been leveraging the language of being a religious minority in the United States to evade criticism of their supremacist ideologies.

However, the distinction between “Hindutva” and Hinduism has been stark: Hindutva is a political philosophy styled after European fascism of the early twentieth century, an ideology that privileges a cult of personality and authoritarian leadership.

Muh fascism. Sanghis are 'really' Indian Nazis.

By contrast, Hinduism is a term used to describe a wide range of religious practices and beliefs that are heterodox, and like the practices and beliefs of any major religion with hundreds of millions of followers, continuously under contestation, and often contradictory.

Apparently, the idea of a pure Hinduism or India is 'imagined'. They were always 'diverse', always 'multicultural' and so forth. So the Hindutva are just trying to go back to a time of homogeneity and purity that 'never existed'.

Notice that even if we concede that point, there is no obvious ethical reason to me why a purified Hinduism or culture is undesirable for India. There is simply the same "you're just ignorant, wrong and stupid" that we're accustomed to seeing.

Hinduism has rightly been critiqued for the deep inequities in Indian society, most importantly for the caste system.

Hinduism is bad because 'inequality' or 'racism' or whatever. The exact same things we hear from those 'progressives' who hate the West.

Hindutva refuses these critiques, as well as such syncretic faiths, and instead doubles down on using supremacist tools in the service of a toxic and genocidal unifying theory of a “Hindu Rashtra” or Hindu nation. In other words, instead of recognizing the plurality and the changes and debates within Hinduism, Hindutva demands an unquestioned allegiance to a myth-oriented, hate-mongering dogma that reifies and sanctions its violent modes of operation.

Here we see a whole bunch of familiar terms: 'toxic', 'supremacism', 'hate-mongering'. Again, no ethical argument is offered here for why a 'Hindu Rashtra' isn't desirable. I think it should very much be for Indians, because it is rather analogous to White ethnostates.

To equate Hinduism and Hindutva is to fall into the narrow, bigoted, and reductionist fiction that instrumentalizes Hinduism by erasing [its diverse practices], the debates within the fold, as well as its conversations with other faiths. If the poet A. K. Ramanujan reminds us about the importance of acknowledging “three hundred Ramayanas,” then Hindutva seeks to obliterate that complexity into a monolithic fascism.

More familiar terms: 'narrow', 'bigoted'. I'm getting the impression here that Sanghis are first and foremost being othered from even being Hindus by Leftists. The view here seems to be that Sanghis are fascists first and foremost, and Hinduism is just a useful tool for their brand of fascism. This narrative seems to ascribe a conspiratorial maliciousness to them. As though there is a sort of deliberate plot to misappropriate Hinduism for what is 'really fascism'.

It's all the same as what White ethnonationalists face. There is an unwillingness to take the Sanghis seriously: they're simply wrong full stop, and anyone who questions this consensus is probably also a fascist. They're dismissed as malicious, as misappropriating and twisting all sorts of things for their agendas, and as not having any legitimate concerns. The Leftists also are perpetually marginalized and align themselves with others who see themselves as being that way, but that perpetual marginalization never actually ends. It then ends up becoming a suicide cult, in which Hinduism and India need to be destroyed for their 'crime' of being unable to realize the Leftist ideal.

The parallels get even more explicit here, since Hindutva is compared to 'White nationalism' and Modi with Trump. Like America, in which Trump is deemed a 'fascist'; Indian Leftists also obsess with Modi being a 'fascist'. I think both are only marginally Right of centre at most.

https://www.sadhana.org/hindutva-101

It is important to listen to and amplify the voices of groups who are most directly affected by Hindutva: Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis, and other marginalized groups. However, as Hindus, we have a special responsibility to speak out against Hindutva.

It's the same White ally/White guilt thing. 'Good' Hindus side against Hinduism and with Communists and Muslims. To do otherwise is to be complicit with marginalization of others.

The Hindu fundamentalist community aligns perfectly with the anti-poor, anti-black, and anti-Muslim rhetoric of Donald Trump.

I honestly wonder whether there's actually a difference between White 'baizuo' or 'progressives' and Indian Leftists. They look suspiciously similar to me, and the longer I think about it the more parallels I see. For me, it is to do with liberalism as a process unfolding: this ideology is virus-like and follows the same sort of internal 'logic' everywhere (in-group = bad, out-groups = good; past = bad time that we should never revive, future = will be a utopia if we just get rid of [insert a long list of things and people here], and so forth).

I have noticed that Communism and Islam both seem to be allied in India, probably because the adherents of both view themselves as victimized minorities with a shared enemy in the Hindu majority and state.

I didn't know about The Kashmir Files (2022), but it obviously looks like the kind of film that Indian Leftists would find 'Islamophobic'.

Hates__Peach · 2021-11-23T08:05:20+00:00

Leftist 'reasoning':

Rittenhouse > kills 2 and injures 1 in self-defense > How dare he defend himself? That 'White supremacist active shooter who wanted to prove he was a big man by shooting Antifa' should have been killed by them!

This guy > kills 5 and injures 48 by cowardly driving through a crowd > How dare anyone say that he should be killed!? Civilized people oppose capital punishment! He's just a victim of racism and White supremacy!!! He only killed those people, because... oh yeah, Rittenhouse is still alive! We do support capital punishment, after all, but... only for Whites! Now... I'm just going to make the excuse that he was driving away from a stabbing, but anyone that makes a similar excuse for Rittenhouse should die along with him! I don't care if Rittenhouse could have died, he was a fucking White Republican and he would have deserved it! I would love it if we could sacrifice that piece of shit KKKyle in order to give a much-more deserving George Floyd his life back! Yes, I promote violence, but only when it's liberatory! Look at how inclusive and tolerant I am!

Hates__Peach · 2021-09-06T11:30:13+00:00

There seems to be other channels uploading content of this particular street as well.

"SBC News": https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB-2gc-TlQ6L-KE20xP7mEQ/videos

These two look very similar in terms of content, as if 'SBC News' is perhaps an alt of 'kimgary'. 'kimgary' is probably an ethnic Korean judging by the language on some of his early uploads. 'SBC News' only uploads content from that specific street. 'kimgary' also stopped adding Korean to the descriptions of his videos concerning that street. The descriptions on their uploads are identical. They also both have a similar (albeit not identical) intro on their videos.

My guess is that 'kimgary' realized that his content is taking off and that he should film this street obsessively before the opportunity to profit from it ran out. To maximize his monetization profits, he built at least one other channel so that he could reuse some of the same footage.

Here's another channel which also covers the same street sometimes, though this one does not appear to upload the same content. This channel's videos tend towards being filmed at night whereas the other two are instead filmed at day.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1MveHv1lTVBzdM5VYZkcBQ/videos

The commenters think the 'zombie' effect commonly seen in these videos is symptomatic of heroin use, as well as of something called 'Flakka'.

That street looks nasty on Google Maps (as of 2019), but nowhere near as bad as what is portrayed in 2021. My guess is that a mixture of Covid and the resulting lock-downs and mass closure of businesses, and to a lesser extent the Biden Administration more generally, has negatively affected that area. It's clearly a deep blue city—controlled by Democrats ever since 1952.

Hates__Peach · 2021-09-05T08:52:17+00:00

This appears to be an excerpt of a larger video, which is turn one of many on a particular YouTube channel. Rather than linking individual videos, I'll just the link the whole channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOuf_kStlWnhuauw4ce8l-w/videos

I always enjoy videos like this, since they confirm my suspicions about Man. But even I find the channel's contents surprising. It's not a city most people think of when they think, say, what are the biggest shitholes in America? Of course, he is just looking at one particular street in most or all of these videos, so it may not be representative of the whole city.

This evil is slowly and surely cleansing itself away, and so long as Filthadelphia does not pull in new people, this problem will eventually solve itself. After all, I can't imagine the life expectancy in that environment being anywhere near the national average.

Nobody should feel sorry for them. They live in a time where the means of escapism are more prolific than ever. They also live averagely easier lives in most respects compared to their ancestors, who also had lesser access to those same means. They chose this.

Hates__Peach · 2021-09-05T05:21:13+00:00

I was just thinking how utterly farcical that "My body, my choice" nonsense sounds in light of the Covax.

They don't seem to believe in personal autonomy except when it serves as a partial excuse for something sinister like justifying degeneracy. "My body, my choice" for abortion; "not your body, our choice" when it comes down to the 'jab'.

This isn't a remark on the Covax itself, but on that particular Leftist double standard. Personal autonomy, far from being a desired end, seems only a means to an end that they can discard whenever they see fit.

Hates__Peach · 2021-09-05T04:56:36+00:00

All this coming from the very same people who insist that race does not exist.

Where do they draw the line on what constitutes White when, to them, genetic tests or ancestry checks reveal nothing about the blank slate individual, whose lot in life is determined purely by the outside world, its institutions, structures and systems and cannot be meaningfully improved by any doing of his own. Even a black who accrues great wealth merely from throwing a ball around on television is still 'oppressed' according to these morons. It is simply impossible for a black to escape oppression; the condition for freeing him is to harm Whites in some severe way.

Poles are both White and ethnic minorities. On top of being minorities, they have no history of colonizing others. Yet I am sure that they are senselessly lumped in with the rest of the 'oppressors'.

What about White-passing mixed people? Is someone who is 49% White and who identifies as White part of the problem? Is someone who is 75% White and who identifies as mixed not part of the problem? Because of their social constructionism, they must disassociate ancestry and genes from race and insist that race is only a matter of self-identification, or else they are conceding that race is more than mere self-identification.

But if race is purely a social construct, what stops every White person in the NHS from simply claiming to be mixed race? That would then force these morons to concede that there is more to race than mere self-identification—there is no way that these people are simply going to allow every White person off the hook just because they cease identifying as White. The assault on White identity is merely a stepping stone on the path to assaulting Whites in the most literal sense of the word—social constructionism is good for destroying identity, but they must switch back to a somewhat more immutable conception of race (with CRT being the framework for this) to come after people more generally, or else Whites can simply escape persecution by identifying as mixed.

Ask yourself how a 99.9% White Pole with no slaver ancestors is part of the problem and a 50% White mulatto whose White ancestry consists mostly of slavers is not? It seems apparent to me that the latter should carry far more guilt for slavery than the former if either should carry it. But the world says it is the exact reverse! Madness!

Hates__Peach · 2021-09-04T13:05:47+00:00

Just updating the situation on Ruqqus. The post that you linked was literally deleted by the admins. I had a look through my list of 'based' guilds to see how many were banned. I found 11. The reasons given are literally the same excuse as each other even when these guilds were inactive and had low member counts ("Advocating Violence"). In brackets, the number of members as of 29 September 2020:

+CommunismIsJewish (45)

+NationalSocialism (130)

+Nazi (102)

+HitlerWasRight (193)

+JewishQuestion (423)

+WatchaDoinRabbi (37)

+BlackLiesMatter (1157)

+JewishSupremacy (11)

+nigger (87)

+NationalSocialismGeneral (74)

+Nosecheck (52)

Admittedly messages like "JewishSupremacy is banned" and "nigger is banned" were pretty funny, particularly with the "Advocating Violence" excuse being given. J supremacists and N's banned for advocating violence.

Interestingly, seven also seem to have been set to 'Private', which I strongly suspect is the admins' doing (set them to Private and deleted their member count), given how many of them there are. It is unclear what they intend to do with them, but it seems like 'carpathianflorist' is now pretending to be 'based' again:

+ShitNeoconsSay (189)

+BasedDepartment (1602)

+milliondollarextreme (576)

+WakeUpWhitePeople (1577)

+Physical_Removal (106)

+WhiteIdentity (382)

+SpiritualBankruptcy (1368)

Carpathianflorist is guildmaster on +milliondollarextreme (which he's doing nothing with). He's also on +SpiritualBankruptcy, pretending to be anti-pozz all of a sudden. There are also plenty of abandoned guilds that should be sieged.

Hates__Peach · 2021-09-04T07:00:32+00:00

I don't adhere to any organized religion. I don't accept Christianity because Left-liberalism is for me a secularized Christian heresy, one having stripped out God, the afterlife, sin, morality, etc., leaving behind only things I oppose, like the universalist nonsense and guilt culture. It is obvious that the figures pivotal to the rise of liberalism were surrounded everywhere by Christianity given the times and places they were in. It is also obvious that ideologies are influenced by existing ideologies, whether these influences are positive (the ideology is a branch or splinter that maintains most of an existing ideology, e.g. socialism is simply radical liberalism, claiming that liberalism is well-intentioned but cannot sufficiently realize what it intends to realize) or negative (the ideology is a rejection of an existing ideology, for example, in the sense that the 'Dissident-Right' big tent shares in common an explicit rejection of 'progressivism'). Thus even those who believed themselves to be less or anti-Christian would still be working within branches of Christianity to various extents, supporting some parts of it and criticizing others. Left-liberalism simply comes out of that process, accepting Christian values in some regards while replacing the rest with far worse things, e.g. 'original sin' with 'White privilege', the saints with the 'oppressed' like Saint Trayvon and Saint Floyd. 'Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice', as stated by Pelosi, doesn't sound much different from the usual Christian 'Jesus died for your sins'. Jesus was crucified because the world is sinful; Floyd was 'sacrificed' because the world is unjust.

However, I'm largely theistic on metaphysics, and find atheism to be utter absurdity. Atheists themselves seem to constantly want a pat on the back; not for doing or believing, but for not doing or not believing. And how hard is it not to do or believe in something? You believe in... nothing... great achievement, man, you should be real proud of yourself. It's like sitting on a couch stuffing one's face full of Cheetos for hours on end in front of the Talmudvision and thinking: 'This is so productive!'

In conclusion, I find atheists (especially the radical, pompous, sneering and snivelling provocateurs who actively push their belief in nothing while being constantly self-congratulatory and self-promoting: 'I'm so smart, anyone who is religious is so superstitious and dumb!') to be utter blowhards, and am theistic while non-religious. I believe that religious folks and atheists are both wrong, but that the former are much less harmful than the latter (by which I mean, for example, that Christianity, Buddhism and Islam are far better than communism or anarchism). There is obviously that one tribe whose religion is worse even than the atheist creeds, of course, being the exception to the rule.

Hates__Peach · 2021-09-04T03:11:46+00:00

Pro-life victories have at least two instrumental goods for the DR.

The first is simple. It plain and simply makes Leftists even more mad, like a smaller version of Trump's victory. That in itself is meaningless, but consequently they then threaten to do various things which benefit us. Emigrate? They will move around other people like themselves, leading to increased self-segregation. Commit violence? Pigs and Leftists fighting just means two problems weaken each other. They also only commit violence in their own areas (i.e. 'blue' cities—Portland has been Democrat-controlled since 1980). Suicide? Who cares if they off themselves? They become more deranged, insufferable and radicalized when they feel that an 'American Reich' or 'Gilead' is just around the corner to threaten 'progress'. Is there a single thing that they do at that point which is bad for us, excepting those in power? Fence-sitting is increasingly impossible—people increasingly need to define themselves in relation to the hegemonic Left; that is, I'm either with them or against them, but I cannot ignore them any longer. That leads to my second point.

It leads to increasing polarization along party lines, which is always good in countries where we are sympathetic to neither party. Polarization in a country where one party approaches being deserving of our support (e.g. Hungary) can work against us; polarization in a country where both parties are undeserving (e.g. Britain, US, Germany) only works for us. Dems and Repubs hating each other more and more is a good thing, since it damages the Dem-Repub duopoly and encourages the proliferation of new political parties (any of which may be better for us, few of which could possibly be worse than what we already have). The weakening of the duopoly also increases the chances of any other party actually forming government, which is simply impossible in the contemporary USA.

Alot of the pro-choice 'advantages' for the DR seem so pointless to me to the point that I can't add them to any comparison of the pros and cons of abortion. Hoping that it will reduce the number of non-whites so that White minoritization is delayed seems pointless. You're delaying it by, what, maybe a few months or years at the very most? National IQ will also decrease regardless of abortion, which at best just decreases the speed of the decline very slightly. Finding these arguments appealing just shows desperation. It's clutching at straws. I'd rather increased polarization, self-segregation, secessionism, etc.—things that encourage the creation of spaces in which we can survive while everyone else suffers the consequences of their own stupidity—over a minuscule delay in minoritization that changes nothing in the long run. So what if what would normally happen in 2033 is delayed till 2034 or 2035?

Even if abortion became so unpopular that opposing it destroyed the GOP, the void will likely only be rapidly filled by the Libertarians who would get most of the Republican electorate and who are barely any different or worse in the current year. Potentially better parties will inherit much of the rest and have a chance of becoming a serious third-party. So I do not care if the GOP commits collective suicide either, since they are but a few years behind the Dems on most issues like alphabet acceptance. The 'Caitlin for Governor' thing shows that they're even pro-trans in 2021. There will be exceedingly little difference between them, especially if the GOP establishment restores its control over the party.

Hates__Peach · 2021-09-03T11:33:49+00:00

They don't call it Pozztralia for nothing.

Hates__Peach · 2021-08-29T13:07:54+00:00

So-called anti-vaxxers are very soon going to join the TERFs, MGTOW, tankies, and the whole 'Far-Right' in being deplatformed.

The growing deplatforming of other groups is a good thing for us. It means an increasing userbase for Alt-Tech, with the mainstream tech platforms exceedingly becoming 'progressive' echo chambers. This site is a microcosm of these positive changes—the largest communities here are literally all emigrant Reddit communities. Indeed, I wish Reddit would ban every community so that a multitude of Reddit alternatives would appear.

Hates__Peach · 2021-08-29T06:59:08+00:00

I don't care for anything that is essentially a combination of nationalism+social democracy+(on some issues) social conservatism, all of which were all popular in Germany before 1933. There was nothing extraordinary in that sense about the NSDAP's rise in that most people falsely believe the NSDAP's ascension represented a dramatic change and that the NSDAP was very different from other parties. Instead, much of the groundwork for its rise was already in place.

In reality, practically all parties appealed to German nationalism. This even includes the Far-Left KPD, though they only used it instrumentally and would switch back and forth between supporting and opposing it based on Stalin's directives. In their own words: "It is essential that we exploit this sentiment to avoid it being used against us". There was even a time when the KPD were literally accusing the NSDAP of being insufficiently nationalistic. The KPD sent representatives to attend NSDAP events. There is, for example, one recorded instance in which a KPD representative implored the NSDAP not to fight with the KPD because they were both 'socialist organizations' (his words, translated). On another occasion, a KDP party leader at an NSDAP event referred to violence between the two sides as 'fraternal strife'. The KPD went so far in their attempt to co-opt nationalism that they even glorified a deceased German soldier, nationalist and early NSDAP member, Albert Leo Schlageter (1894-1923), who had been executed by the French government after being captured in France's invasion of the Ruhr. There was actual military cooperation between Communists and the Völkisch (effectively, German ethnonationalists) against the French in the Ruhr. KPD propaganda even went as far as to put the swastika alongside the Soviet star.

Karl Radek, in the famous 'Schlageter Speech', 1923:

[Schlageter was] a courageous soldier of the counter-revolution, he deserves to be sincerely honored by us, the soldiers of the revolution.

KPD newspapers, not merely printing the Schlageter Speech on their front pages, also included articles by prominent Völkisch such as Reventlow and van den Bruck. In short, there was nothing exceptional about NSDAP nationalism simply because nationalism was the norm at that time. Most parties also opposed Gesellschaft and were in favour of reconstructing Gemeinschaft. Here is an example of pro-Volksgemeinschaft propaganda from the centrist 'State Party': https://www.dhm.de/fileadmin/medien/lemo/images/xp991575_1.jpg The NSDAP did not pursue this once in power, au contraire, they were ardently modernistic (furthered the autobahns, mass produced the Volkswagen, etc.)

The KPD even had specific instructions for attempting to recruit Right-wing nationalists in the German military:

One has to speak with officers very courteously and amiably, to address them by the title 'Your Excellency.' References to Marx and party jargon are to be avoided.

As for social democracy, this ideology, particularly institutionalized in the SPD and completely Marxisant at its origins, was still immensely popular at the time. However, Marxists falsely predicted—as usual—that WWI would lead to proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie all across of Europe. When this failed to materialize, with the SPD supporting Germany rather than the international proletariat, it bolstered Bolshevism which, distrusting of the gradualist approach taken by Social Democrats, decided that a different set of means—vanguard party, violent revolution—were required to realize socialism. The NSDAP was, of course, somewhere between social democratic to non-Marxist socialist.

My own views are very different from any of that. I have never found socialism appealing. I believe that problems in capitalism are solvable by subordinating capitalists to a powerful, 'totalitarian' (using the proper definition, i.e. the use of state power to improve man from top-down, and not the erroneous, simplistic definition of it merely as absolute state power) state. I reject the idea that this is an impossibility, i.e. that capitalism cannot be contained with nation states. I reject 'infinite growth' (I do not connect this to the economic system; that is, a successful Communist state would still believe in infinite growth) and believe that 'deindustrialization' is desirable. I believe that the transition from Gesellschaft to Gemeinschaft is reversable (but not necessarily that entire nations can do this, only that people splitting from society can reconstruct it).

On social issues I see fascism as far too Leftist. I don't care anything for universal suffrage or republicanism where a monarchy may still exist, as the Italian fascists did (noting, of course, that they compromised with the King later on), for example. Fascists are essentially egalitarians within the confines of the nation, only putting up a wall against foreigners. That the NSDAP Germany was more egalitarian (for Germans) than the Weimar Republic is undeniable; it is a frequently given reason in post-war studies asking Germans who supported the NSDAP their reasons for doing so. Numerous people like Heidegger and Evola rejected the NSDAP for these general reasons—it wasn't the serious counter-revolution that is required against modernity and degeneracy. There will be no true progress until after a successful counter-revolution (if possible) or until the beginning of the next cycle of civilization (the current one is well and truly screwed, and is in an accelerating freefall invisible to most in part because of the continuing persistence of economic prosperity).

Hates__Peach · 2021-08-29T05:52:37+00:00

Again, were you always a Nationalist?

I never went through any other phases. I am, have always been since being 'political', and always will be, 'Far-Right'.

Was there not a point in time where your opinions shifted?

If you mean totally outside of the 'Far-Right', no way.

The guy used to be a liberal-conservative type, now he’s came round to our way of thinking.

I highly doubt that.

Hates__Peach · 2021-08-28T13:35:01+00:00

When he first arrived six months ago he was hostile right off the bat. He only made himself seemingly more tolerable in recent times, following the general path that Soylent, and perhaps Salos, took earlier. Unless this guy genuinely shifted this year, he's still a 'normie'. There are, of course, numerous reasons why outsiders would interact in the long-term with such communities. Masters/Doctorate students whose theses/dissertations are on 'Right-wing radicalism'. 'Antifascist' or 'antiracist' researchers working with groups like the ADL/SPLC. Academics gathering information to publish their work in obscure journals and edited books, to raise their chances of promotion. And, of course, the usual Feds and JIDF straight from places like Tel Aviv and Quantico.

He had clearly internalized Leftism to an extreme degree when he first arrived. Do you think these are the words of someone who isn't a normie?

Racial identity is indeed stupid. Recall the system of slavery condemned human beings to a generation of suffering, only because they were born the wrong skin color. Or we have people arguing in this thread blaming third world people for being naturally inferior. If human beings continue to mix with other groups, like has always been the case throughout history (i.e neanderthals and humans mated and took their genes) then race becomes a useless construct.

Who seriously argues things like the below other than Leftists?

Despite being hell on earth, one thing Brazil did better than other European countries is they didn't push aggressive racism once the slaves were freed.

Huh? Brazil is 'hell on earth' precisely because the 'slaves' and natives are the overwhelming majority of the population. America will also be 'hell on Earth' when people whose race is the same as the natives (Hispanics), 'slaves' (blacks) and all of these other groups are also a clear majority.

When the media prefers to show the worst parts of the third world, it creates a self perpetuating image that they have no hope or that they can't look after themselves.

Yeah, the media is totally racist and White supremacist, man... seriously? Maybe he's exposed to too many of those 'donate to Ngubu' advertisements in which they do something like this in order to persuade idiots to send money. It's a trick. Notice how they also always use sad music in such advertisements?

Fast forward six months. Now he says things like:

If America is to recover, then it needs to be made 80% White again. Anything else, and we just end with a Neo-Brazil.

Hates__Peach