#it is at the very least the basis for a lot of modern fascist movements

[quoigenicfromhell]

I don't think some of yall can read

[zevranunderstander]

the current genocide happening in palestine so brutally opened my eyes about german politics in terms of antisemitism awareness it kind of makes me sick

the german school curriculum does a lot for antisemitism awareness and for analysis and discussion of WWII and holocaust. i am not jewish so i can't say how much a jewish person would judge the methodology to be effective, but in school we extensively talked about how the fascist regime came to power in germany, why the movement was rooted in antisemitism, and while i think you could have gone into more detail about some aspects of it, i felt like my school at least laid a very solid basis for having an anti-fascist understanding. germany is very much funding a lot of jewish art and projects that are dealing with the holocaust, there are some quite well-known holocaust memorials and visiting a concentration camp is something most school classes do at some point.

and i genuinely think this is a good thing, there is a platform given to jewish people who want to express their indescribable trauma and anger and grief at the holocaust through art and museums and exhibitions and talks and monuments and in my personal opinion it did a lot in terms of creating awareness for antisemitism and the dangers of fascism, and please do not think that i view these things to be bad in any way

but one thing that has always bothered me that this applies to the holocaust ONLY, it is of course one of the worst against humanity commited, but germany never took responsibility in ANY way for the Herero and Namaqua genocide or any other atrocities commited. the most Namibia ever got was a weak apology that amounted to 'we aknowledge it :( sorry :('.

and at the same time germany hails itself as modern and progressive and past all barbarism and is publically atoning for the holocaust in every form they can. so the funding of these projects to me always had that sense of creating an image of atonement, more than actually atoning for a past. funding something good for the wrong reason still creates something good, but if you analyse it a bit, you can clearly see that this atonement is not for actual atonement's sake, but is instead done so that germany can be internationally respected again and is allowed to be in the Important Councils™ again, that france, the uk and the us are in, and so that they can officially be internationally "forgiven" by the other countries

i don't think this is an 'agenda' so to say, i think it's a lot more complex than that, and that politicians often probably actually want to combat antisemitism, but i don't want this post to go on forever, so just right now understand that in germany antisemitism awareness as a talking point has kind of become something that is universally aknowledged as "good", even the really fascist parties aren't stupid enough to have openly antisemitic talking points (they still are mad about every other minority, so idk if you're really supposed to believe that). and i again want to state that that is genuinely very good, that open antisemitism is seen as such a huge political no-go. openly denying the holocaust is a pretty severe crime in germany and you can get in REAL trouble for it and that is also a very very good thing!

however, all of this public atonement is fine and good, but what has germany done for the actual families of the victims of the holocaust? well. they paid 3 billion marks in reparations to a state that didn't exist 4 years prior to the agreement, which is, of course, israel. since its founding, germany has at every turn helped legitimize israel's existence and it's representation as the jewish homeland, while barely otherwise aknowledging victims of the holocaust when it comes to reparations

and in the modern day they have absolute gall to use this framing - that germany themselves created that israel is the state that we need to pay our atonements to - against everyone daring to speak up against the genocide in gaza. i know that a lot of western states try to frame support of palestine as antisemitic, but nowhere is it as insidious as in germany. the state that seemingly atones for genocide is calling speaking up against a genocide a hatecrime.

like i said, germany does a lot of things correctly but for the wrong reasons and now those wrong reasons stand in the way of the image they have previously set up as a peace-loving modern nation, and so they just hold up jewish people as a shield against any criticism of their defense politics, claiming that people opposing them are antisemitic, (which, like said before, is pretty much an universally aknowledged "bad thing") running news stories and quotes of zionist jews on the political situation and framing this occupation as "the jewish people of all the world vs. the evil terrorist palestinians", not caring how much actual antisemitism they create in the population, and how much they harm actual jewish communities, when they directly frame them as the enemy of the besieged palestinian population

[neonbluebell]

Reminder: The “political compass” and “Horseshoe theory” are intentionally inaccurate pieces of propaganda

It’s a device designed to give political validity to ideologies that lack coherency and consistency with their espoused values, and is slanted to look favorably on Right-wing ideology.

Prior to the growth in popularity of the political compass (pictured)...

...the world and it’s people conceptualized the political spectrum like this....

...Although, please keep in mind that this version is modernized. Conservatism, prior to the United States adaptation and use of the word, meant something closer to (but not the same as) Traditionalism, and tended to include more neo-classical virtue-ethics-y sort of stuff, for example. But we’re talking in the here and now, and being simple and accessible whilst being accurate to current usage of the language is more important. Now, chances are, you’ve seen this same chart bent around to look like this...

...which is why “Horseshoe theory” is called what it is. It’s implication is that the far Left and far Right have more in common than the center does. This idea came from the 20th century proliferation of theory based on the work of Lenin (who is the basis of Maoism, Stalinism and despite his separatism from the Bolsheviks, Trotsky) and it’s implementation. Whilst socialism had existed, both in societies and as varying social theories for thousands of years, this new wave of thinking presented a radical departure from the norm - it posited that social hierarchy and authority, particularly the state, could be used to create liberty. By utilizing authoritarian power for the good of the people, rather than the good of the state, social order and financial plenty could both proliferate. Once people grew accustomed and happy with the new state of affairs, the state would no longer have to regulate and organize due to people wanting to keep things going as they are, and the state would become redundant and whither away. Thus, “Authoritarian Leftism” was born, a new and untested theory that became incredibly popular for a wide range of reasons. Perhaps foremost among them was that this theory engaged with a real problem - for plenty to exist, social stability needed to be maintained, something that was constantly being upturned by imperialistic invasion, looting and colonization in the nations where it became popular. The USSR was born out of German imperialism, the CPV was born out of French and American imperialism and the CCP was born out of British and Japanese imperialism. But, outside of resisting imperialism (which these new social structures were actually very good at. The fact that North Korea still exists is testimony to that), the reality of this theory was far different. Socialism/communism (two words that historically mean the same thing, though in the post Lenin era, communism came to have additional authoritarian connotations) are by definition control of the means of production (the places where things are made, and skills are performed. Workplaces, essentially) and by the working class rather than an owning class, and the holding of raw resources in common. In no nation that adopted these ideologies did this happen. Control over the means of production was in the hands of “workers councils”, who were essentially elected representatives of the working class. The problem with that was that these people, by joining these councils, effectively were no longer members of the working class. They controlled and administrated the means on production, effectively acting as a new owning class, and replicating the problems that existed under capitalism. These councils were in turn beholden to the state, meaning that true power was far from the working class, and instead resided with an elite ruling class. And, unsurprisingly, elite ruling classes care very little about the people, and terrible atrocities occurred. And here is where we see Horseshoe Theory begin to fall apart in entirety. If it wasn’t EVER socialist or communist, regardless of what they called themselves, well... It wasn’t ever socialist or communist. And as such, placing these ideologies alongside far Left ideologies is a mistake. Because other far Left ideologies actively resisted authoritarian “communism” when they realized what it was actually about.

This flag is the Iron Front flag, also known as the Antifascist Circle. It is an incredibly popular anarchist insignia. The three white arrows represent what they are resisting - Nazis, monarchist and communists (again, the phrase in context means authoritarian “communists”, not socialists). It’s from 1933. The far Left rejected authoritarian “communists” from the very beginning, or at least before anyone else except the fascists. Similar movements sprung up within the USSR - Anarchist sailors, realizing that the Bolsheviks weren’t who they had said they were ideologically, held up in an act of resistance at Kronstadt naval base.  Their demands included freedom of speech, the end of deportation to work camps, a change in Soviet war politics, and liberation of the “worker’s councils” from Bolshevik control. They were killed to a man with machineguns. The Black Army, revolutionary anarchists who had been major players in the revolution were denounced and killed. Authoritarian “communists” have ALWAYS been the enemy of the rest of the far Left. Now, if authoritarian “communism” isn’t socialist/communist, and is an enemy of the Left wing, and created a hierarchical society dominated by unquestionable absolute rulers supported by armies of secret police under a regime that was an enemy of any of it’s people considered socially undesirable? It isn’t similar to fascism. It’s just fucking fascism. And saying that fascism and fascism have a lot in common is obvious, because it’s all Right wing ideology. But what of the most famous fascists, the Nazis? You know, the National Socialists. Well, this one is simple - did the workers control the means of production, or was it a capitalist nation where those controlling the means of production were only beholden to the state? The answer is the latter, just like the USSR and their ilk. They were by definition NOT SOCIALISTS. This is an important thing to internalize, that what people label themselves is a matter of optics and political convenience, especially when dealing with populist movements. We understand this when we discuss nations that call themselves democratic, but are not. It’s exactly the same for socialism and communism. With this groundwork laid, let’s (finally) talk about the political compass. As has been established, the upper Left quadrant is in fact the upper Right quadrant. The lower Left quadrant exists, the upper Right quadrant exists...

...But what about the lower Right quadrant. The libertarian Right? Well, the “libertarian” Right (yeah, you know what those quotation marks mean already, don’t you?) operates under the notion that hierarchy occurs naturally, and providing that such power was not gained via or is not used for coercion, intimidation, violence or otherwise, is just and fair. This is the Non Aggression Principal (NAP) that is the heart of “libertarian” Right thought. It’s intent is to maximize freedom, whilst having a clear framework for where your freedom ends and another person’s begins, whilst protecting a core Right wing value - the right to create legacy (To assure that your kith and kin will be cared for by allowing and protecting your rights to personal and private property ownership, especially capital (again, the places where things are made and skills are performed) and raw resources). Involuntary taxation is therefore categorically a violation of the NAP, and within this framework of thought, equatable with theft. Regulation of industry is considered coercion, and violates the NAP. Socialism, which would abolish private property (ownership of capital and raw resources) but allow the retention of personal property (the house you live in, your car, your shoes, your toothbrush) is considered theft. Indeed, the only compatible economic system with this economic system is unregulated, free-association, “laissez-faire” capitalism. And this is exactly where “libertarian” Right ideology becomes incoherent. Because we hadlLaissez-faire capitalism in the Industrial Age. Your unregulated factory that you have knowingly built to be dangerous to cut costs is not ethically different from booby trapping your yard, and looting anyone who's killed. You are knowingly exposing people to danger for profit. And providing you stick warning signs up that state it’s dangerous, you haven’t violated the NAP - because they posit that people freely choose to enter these spaces. They are exposing themselves, according to this logic. The inevitable monopolies that come without regulation of capitalism and MASSIVE taxation on the wealthy mean that capitalists can quickly own whole towns and cities. And they are inevitable, as the best business practices under capitalism are to pay the least you need to in order to retain your workforce, maximize profit, and to prevent your workers (who know the industry) from being able to get enough money to acquire their own capital and become a competitor. If you control all the money, all the food, all the shelter, etc? When people can't afford to live, to eat, to have a home, that's explicitly your fault. And no, they can't just leave to go work for another overlord who's offering better pay, because they have no money to move. At best, they can flee as effective refugees - and that means you've got to abandon your possessions you can't carry, risk hunger, thirst and exposure on the road, etc. Forcible relocation is violence, institutional disenfranchisement is violence, the inability to be free to pursue happiness is violence. It's not all truncheons and guns. Women, PoC, people who are openly queer all face issues of harassment, violence, disproportionate pay and more in our current environment. How's it going to be when no-one is stepping on the neck of bigots? People with disabilities, especially severe physical or developmental disabilities, are already shoehorned into poverty by our society. What happens when they're effectively ruled by a multi-billionaire who only sees value in people as labor tools? Right “libertarianism” is liberty only for an elite, wealthy class of rulers, who regardless of the NAP wield truly absolute power. And what do we call a social arrangement that explicitly hates the Left wing, has absolute rulers, and that disenfranchises, harms and kills “undesirables”? That’s right! It’s fascism! And this is why the political compass is propaganda - Three quarters (3/4) of it contains the ideology of fascism. It’s fascist propaganda. So, if the bottom right corner of this compass is actually the top right corner, we’re left with this...

...Or, if we clean it up, this...

...And if we polish it up and add our detailed data...

We end up back where we began, with an easy to understand political spectrum that makes perfect sense. So why was it over-complicated? What was the end goal of such an action? Well, once you get to this point, something becomes apparent - the dichotomy is between liberty and authority. Between equality and hierarchy. Between sharing and hoarding. Between fighting to uplift ALL of your fellow human beings, and fighting to uplift yourself at their expense. It’s because, once you reach this point, it becomes apparent that it’s as simple as good versus evil. That being a Leftist is an ethical responsibility. And I’m aware that that’s a HUGE assertion to make. But if you call a spade a spade, and stop playing games with language and semantics, this is the only conclusion I can rationally come to.

[republicstandard]

6 Things The Alt-Right Are Getting Wrong

Among the dissident right there are all kinds of views which, especially on social media, cause people to clash. It is quite normal for movements, organizations, and companies to have a diversity of opinion; however views should rightfully be challenged on their merits, or lack thereof. There are a few common ideas which, in my view, groups and individuals on our side of the political spectrum get entirely wrong.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

1. "Voting and elections don’t matter"

This is probably the most important of all. Voting in an election (participating in the political process) is very important. Contrary to what some people in the dissident right say, elections are crucial to modern society. If you want an example of why I argue this then look no further than Italy, where the election of Matteo Salvini as Interior Minister has completely changed the country’s immigration policy.

Even if you don’t completely agree with any of the parties or candidates, you need to vote strategically to suit your people’s interests. The perfect example is the election of President Trump, a civic nationalist who has stomped on the left’s agenda, and then thrown it into the trash by nominating two Supreme Court Justices – Justices which will help steer the course of America’s future over the next three decades. You don’t have to completely agree with Trump to support or vote for him, because at the end of the day he is a step in the right direction. Politics moves in decades, not years.

Even if you don’t believe in democracy, that is the system you have to fight in, and fight you must. Not voting and allowing the left to win every election is not going to help Western Civilization at all, is it?

2. ‘Accelerationism: "We need a collapse."

Wishing the end of your civilization is not a very good idea, even if you currently detest the degenerate society you reside within. Most people in the dissident right who support the idea of a collapse would probably not survive it. When the economy collapses, the food runs out, the emergency services aren’t available and the cities are burning, the life expectancy of you and your family will plummet. The vast majority of whites would suffer tremendously, and because we are a global minority under siege, we simply do not have the numbers to rebuild and withstand the immigration onslaught. Not to mention foreign powers (like China) who would take advantage of our collapse and conquer us, or the nuclear power stations that would go into meltdown and leave the western world largely uninhabitable.

Working to avoid a collapse with the time we still have is a lot more productive that waiting for it to happen. It is easy to forget, but there is a 30-year window to turn things around, and we must make the most of it.

3. "Don’t punch right"

Nobody is above criticism, whether they be to the political left or right of you. A movement must be based around people who not only share your beliefs, but who also have reasonable personalities. For decades the nationalist scene has been repeatedly ruined by unstable people, LARPers, infiltrators and idiots. There is nothing wrong with disassociating yourself from a person who you know full well is a car crash waiting to happen. And, more importantly, warning others within your movement about that impending car crash is of paramount importance. Just because someone is ideologically aligned with you does not mean they are valuable.

4. "Optics don’t matter"

Optics absolutely matter. The way you dress, speak, write and move will all be judged by those who are viewing whatever you are doing. If you are rude to somebody, people will notice. If you contradict yourself when answering questions, people will notice. If you dress up in a black shirt and march down the street with a swastika flag, people will notice. You judge people on a daily basis during face to face interactions, and you must also understand that everybody else does this as well.

If Matteo Salvini had openly associated with the overtly-fascist Tricolor Flame, do you think the Italian people would have elected him? Do you think Farage and the Brexit movement would have won if they had openly been members of the BNP? We have to accept that the vast majority of the public are moderate, mild-minded folk who wish for stability and reassurance. The moment they sense something on the right that is too controversial for them they will turn and run; and your movement will never have their support again. You need to establish a brand which is nationalistic but optically suitable for the public – the winning formula.

The left has never (ever!) told the voting public what their long term goal is (Communism), and so therefore nor should you, even though our goal is survival and prosperity. It is not understood by the public to be so. As I said above, politics works in decades not years, and a few compromises on the way you present yourselves now will have a long lasting effect on your fortunes in the future. Just look at the way Identity Evropa has remodeled itself in the last 9 months, and how as a result their membership has grown considerably.

5. The Obsession with Zionists

Over the last 15 years, I have seen numerous nationalist groups in Europe and North America ripped to shreds by this issue. It always goes the same way. The groups become red-pilled about Zionist influence, and over time they descend into a civil war between the realists (who understand the JQ as the in-group bias exhibited by certain Jews and Zionist affiliates), and the others who go full Atomwaffen and usually end up in prison, dead, or having a total meltdown.

Understanding the negative effects of Zionist influence over Europeans is very important, but that doesn’t mean you default to becoming a Jew-hating "Nazi". It also doesn’t mean that you purity spiral on this one issue and forget all the other external pressures affecting white people. Understanding and combating multiple problems is essential for a movement’s relevancy and growth.

6."Christianity vs Pagan civil war"

If there was ever a time white people need to put aside their religious differences and unite, it is now. Squabbling over religion is really not helpful, and I find the it’s all so tiresome meme really comes into its own with regards to this infighting. If white people manage to get out of the demographic mess they are currently in, then I am sure they will be able to pursue their religious beliefs in peace. But unless we win, your religious beliefs will disappear as quickly as your gene pool. So get active, help create credible movements, and try and tolerate each other’s spiritual practises.

There is no reason why a white pagan and a white Christian cannot be in the same nationalist movement, because I suspect they probably agree more than they disagree; at least when it comes to politics. If anything, those with some faith should be helping white people discover their spiritual side, because I do believe this is a necessary component in order for the west to recover. It is clear that a spiritually bereft society does not prosper.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Squabbling and infighting over doctrine, oppression, and minutiae of ideology is what keeps the left divided against itself; and long may that continue. Ideology is all they have, and this manifests in their hierarchical stack of privilege while they fight to become non-hierarchical. We have something bigger to contend with than who is more nationalist than who- we contend with our very existence.

Isn't that more important?

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2uq9mug via IFTTT