Post-lefty Jow Forums thread

I dont think so

Attached: Pathetic.jpg (700x483, 39K)

Attached: 1554958470732.png (1995x2048, 1.55M)

thoroughlyse throughly de-spook yourself.

>nationalism
> statism.
> authority.

Attached: 1494463245396.jpg (203x240, 13K)

Fascism and communism when in practice are nearly identical in function, dont pull that bullshit here.

Collectivism does not make fascism and communism the same dip shit

Could you expand on that for me?

>t. Commie

Actually it does, The supposed "rightwing" views of fascism mirror Marxism Just substituting class with Racial and ethnic, politics. Both ideologies hold utopian views of a future without saying ethnic Minorities or The Bourgeoise.

Antifa is far left just like hitler!

This meme made by an evil beta straight white man who thinks he can save his ass and even direct the hate mob that will be his end.

It's a pretty accurate image.

what are you talking about. all of pol is hard core progressive.

Attached: pol hypocrisy.jpg (458x1024, 72K)

fascists dont hold utopian views. We embrace the future of war and strength. We do not back down from the realities of the world. however we are intelligent enough to not take notice in the promised goods of marxism and embrace the good of our race and ethnicity whilst your kind destroys it. Marxism is a destroyer of all that is human, since it cannot exist within a human spirit. Fascism embraces the human spirit, it embraces cultures and the differences between. We know our limits, you exadgerate yours to make it seem limitless.
Horse shoe theory is beyond false, and it is another meme you fell for you redskinned mutt

Antifa was founded and active before the NSDAP, your OP pic is thereby reverse and the left still can't meme

Fascism hold the basic law of natural order as its ideology and philosophy, the opposite of Marxism. Marxism holds progression, equality, making it utopian. Fascism being the opposite of Marxism - makes Fascism the opposite of any utopian manner.

The two ideologies really aren't all that different. Both sides see things in black and white and dont notice the grey in between

> fascists dont hold utopian views. We embrace the future of war and strength. We do not back down from the realities of the world.

An ethnostate is Utopian.
> however we are intelligent enough to not take notice in the promised goods of Marxism

No, you still do, Just differently, You see Fascism as ensuring the existence of your Nation, Family race, etc... I would see that as promising you some form of "good", Norms of what's Good and what's Bad are purely perspective. I don't believe in Horseshoe theory either, The right and left get far too caught up in semantics are a pure abstraction and both have ruling doners and ruling Individuals that I don't agree with separating things into right and left but purely Libertarian and purely authoritarian.

>Fascism hold the basic law of natural order as its ideology and philosophy,

Yes and Fascism Holds an abstract idea of Human Perfection as a Master Race. My point is both authoritarian regimes offer their followers a reward, such as securing Family existence or financial stability.

Attached: 1556776243847.jpg (553x674, 85K)

If an ethnostate is utopian then that makes fascism natural. Nations before modernization were 'ethnostatist' by default then.

Ignore my last post then if thats your point. I didn't see your until it was too late.

>post-left
So right wing but wants free shit and consumerism.

Attached: kulak1.jpg (1170x1187, 423K)

The two ideologies have no idea what comes after they reach social justice or an ethnostate.

That's not entirely True, Europeans would often trade with Asians and northern Africans, as well as travel Middle Easterners, also not to mention the Modern "state" being a fairly new concept, Years ago crossing borders wasn't as strenuous as it is now.

No Post-left want to eliminate consumerism as that would be a form of conformity, and right-wingers are waaaay to sp00ged. and freeshit? what are you talking about economically am a Mutualist?

>An ethnostate is Utopian.

Are you dumb? Vast vast majority of civilizations in the past were ethnostates. Hell America was an ethnostate for 200 years. Majority of countries in the world RIGHT NOW are ethnostates. Ethnostate doesn't mean absolutely 100% of a single ethnicity, but rather the vast majority. Like, 90%

The utopian view is the multicultural view. That's why they constantly have to shove it down our faces with factually and observably wrong statements like "diversity is our strength", despite people separating among themselves into their own groups when you look at nearly every major multicultural city in America.

Leftists are much more oriented towards consumerism with communism securing a persons material needs.

The only people I've heard say "post-left" are weird egoists who pretend to be left but are actually just nazbols or memers. Mutualism is idealist and wouldn't work.

Consumerism is not "meeting people's needs", its a form of system developed under capitalism to keep it growing because it can't sustain itself without it.

Attached: memeideology.jpg (1052x650, 80K)

Attached: 1554756444786.jpg (656x652, 94K)

Attached: 1501035889532.jpg (1280x1872, 1.12M)

Capitalists make and post vile shit all the time because they are vile people. And you wonder why they put up the Berlin Wall?

Attached: GDR.jpg (720x720, 84K)

> diversity is our strength.

That's entirely subjective, and I could just say "ethnic Hegemony is our strength"

> Mutualism is idealist and wouldn't work.

explain.
"Consumerism is not "meeting people's needs"

No, but is secures it, I believe people need to see value in the commodities they consume by exerting themselves into their work, Capitalism and Communism, If communism were ever successful would secure large amounts of peoples needs, capitalism often creates a surplus of commodities, as does communism.

I'm neither a capitalist or a communist. so this image doesn't apply to me.

Mutualism is literally any form of mutual aid. wwe have that now, only Mutualism wants to dissolve Hiearchy.

Your perception of what most of us mean by "Ethnostate" is probably off if you think it is utopian. Most of us aren't referring to absolutely 100% pure uniformity, rather to super-majorities of over 90% racial homogeneity.
That means most European countries up until about 1970 are what many of us consider ideal demographic conditions.

Australia up until about 1975 had racially discriminatory immigration and citizenship policies. Getting rid of them entirely was a mistake.

Because its not based on looking at the material conditions, its based on morality or a "we should do this" mentality. As long as you have commodity production and markets, you're never going to abolish capitalism, because markets themselves tend toward monopoly and imperialism.

>That's entirely subjective

Except it's not. Lots and lots of studies showing ethnic diversity compared to ethnic hegemony is a net negative.

> ethnic hegemony is a net negative.

That's yet again a purely subjectiv
e statement.

It's actually not, Proudhonb was very clear about this:

> Communism is oppression and slavery. Man is very willing to obey the law of duty, serve his country, and oblige his friends; but he wishes to labor when he pleases, where he pleases, and as much as he pleases. He wishes to dispose of his own time, to be governed only by necessity, to choose his friendships, his recreation, and his discipline; to act from judgment, not by command; to sacrifice himself through selfishness, not through servile obligation. Communism is essentially opposed to the free exercise of our faculties, to our noblest desires, to our deepest feelings.

It isn't based on morality whatsoever it's based on various industries natural dependence of one another. example farms and grocery stores need to associate to operate.

We'll that was productive im going to bed now, Night Jow Forums.

By the way, this misunderstanding is why so many on the Left assume we nationalists all "want to genocide any minorities in a country" simply because we dislike excessive diversity. In fact most of us are fine with there being small minorities in the country, and for them to be treated as fairly as anyone else. We just don't want there to be too many of them.
An ideal state in Europe would be roughly 95% European, with 5% non European. That 5% could be treated as fairly and humanely as anyone else. But there would be an understanding that their numbers would never grow beyond 10% at most

Demographic certainty = More incentive for minorities to fully assimilate. Less anxiety on the part of the majority = a more peaceful and cohesive society.

Attached: Tallinn.jpg (497x400, 77K)

>That's yet again a purely subjectiv
>e statement.

A subjective statement that proves to be true with the experiences of the majority. What's your point here? Ethnic diversity is still a net negative for the majority, thus ethnic hegemony is preferable, as it has been the case for thousands of years all over the world.

>>ethnic hegemony is a net negative.
I think he's saying the opposite.
Whether one prefers it is subjective, but what isn't subjective is the effect of diversity on things like social-trust, social cohesion. Pretty much all the research points to more diversity fracturing societies, rather than unifying them.

Attached: Putnam Diversity Downside.png (1436x1972, 439K)

Doesn't exempt you from showing bob so show bob faguette.

Attached: 58461427_2658525760830327_8102366640382935040_o.jpg (1371x1132, 333K)