Meh, he's just confusing antisemitism with Socialism. That's not really a surprise when literally every single antisemetic ideology ends up being wrapped up with progressive causes, or an argument for social / racial justice.
Sure it's theoretically possible to have an ideology that hate's jews as isn't authoritarian. I just don't think the west has seen one.
Islamists also believe women's place is in the kitchen, so you can't be against both women and Islam.
How do you parse that? Say a rapist rapes women because he hates them. Say for the sake of argument I hate women too. Can I not be against both rapists and women? Or, what if that rapist also did other things, like terrorism. Do I have to support him because he hates women? It makes no sense.
You can't be anti-government and anti-semitic, because all anti-semitic ideologies are advocating a central government that controls everything.
Again, how do you figure? There are plenty of anarchist-adjacent people who also dislike the Jews. Anti-Semitism is not a government policy; you can hate the Jews and be fore an authoritiarian government, but you could just as easily think government should be abolished. Heck, one of the big complaints a lot of those people have is that the Jews run everything. If you don't like the Jews, and think they control government, abolishing the government seems a pretty good idea.
That's never been true. No white nationalist movement under any circumstance is prepared to accept a Libertarian approach to domestic law. White nationalists mock the idea of limited government since that very concept doesn't explicitly protect white people, and actively refuses to do so.
A White Nationalist state, like all other ethno-nationalist state attempts, will always explicitly discriminate against all other ethnicities within their own borders, and produce laws which explicitly favor that specific nationalist intellectual class. They require significant government intervention at every level of the economy to maintain those preferences, and they require a significant effort of categorizing, identifying, and racializing people into the legal categories of discrimination that they will invent, effecting literally all walks of life.
This happens literally 100% of the time, because it has to, otherwise it isn't an ethno-nationalist government. If the government doesn't intervene at every level of society, someone will complain that they are not protecting, uplifting, or supporting the identified group.
It just implies a nation for whites. A nation is not a government. The U.S. founding fathers were white nationalists(as were all whites during that time period) and they wanted the smallest possible state.
The Founding Fathers were not white nationalists, no matter how many times you say it. They were Liberal Revolutionaries. That is an ideological affiliation. They certainly didn't believe in any kind of Pan-European racial solidarity, as they are Europeans who have never at any point in history wanted that. The concept of a white racial unity is a creation of the progressive era.
Islamists also believe women's place is in the kitchen, so you can't be against both women and Islam.
You can't be anti-government and anti-semitic, because all anti-semitic ideologies are advocating a central government that controls everything.
This is the new dumbest post you’ve ever made.
Meh, he's just confusing antisemitism with Socialism. That's not really a surprise when literally every single antisemetic ideology ends up being wrapped up with progressive causes, or an argument for social / racial justice.
Sure it's theoretically possible to have an ideology that hate's jews as isn't authoritarian. I just don't think the west has seen one.
How do you parse that? Say a rapist rapes women because he hates them. Say for the sake of argument I hate women too. Can I not be against both rapists and women? Or, what if that rapist also did other things, like terrorism. Do I have to support him because he hates women? It makes no sense.
Again, how do you figure? There are plenty of anarchist-adjacent people who also dislike the Jews. Anti-Semitism is not a government policy; you can hate the Jews and be fore an authoritiarian government, but you could just as easily think government should be abolished. Heck, one of the big complaints a lot of those people have is that the Jews run everything. If you don't like the Jews, and think they control government, abolishing the government seems a pretty good idea.
His logic is absolutely retarded here. I think he’s giving away the game and revealing that he’s a pure troll.
Just here ?
Not everywhere he posts, all the time ?
You're mighty generous.
You do know Islam is more than just that, right?
You do know there are ideologies advocating for a central government that are not anti-semitic, right?
The sons of Shem are also pushing that even harder.
Yet, I know plenty of MGTOW who detest muslims. Something something Twin Towers.
I didn't know Stormfags wanted big central planning of the economy.
Literally all of them.
Not really. It implies strong border control, but border control is one of the most basic duties of government.
That's never been true. No white nationalist movement under any circumstance is prepared to accept a Libertarian approach to domestic law. White nationalists mock the idea of limited government since that very concept doesn't explicitly protect white people, and actively refuses to do so.
A White Nationalist state, like all other ethno-nationalist state attempts, will always explicitly discriminate against all other ethnicities within their own borders, and produce laws which explicitly favor that specific nationalist intellectual class. They require significant government intervention at every level of the economy to maintain those preferences, and they require a significant effort of categorizing, identifying, and racializing people into the legal categories of discrimination that they will invent, effecting literally all walks of life.
This happens literally 100% of the time, because it has to, otherwise it isn't an ethno-nationalist government. If the government doesn't intervene at every level of society, someone will complain that they are not protecting, uplifting, or supporting the identified group.
It just implies a nation for whites. A nation is not a government. The U.S. founding fathers were white nationalists(as were all whites during that time period) and they wanted the smallest possible state.
The Founding Fathers were not white nationalists, no matter how many times you say it. They were Liberal Revolutionaries. That is an ideological affiliation. They certainly didn't believe in any kind of Pan-European racial solidarity, as they are Europeans who have never at any point in history wanted that. The concept of a white racial unity is a creation of the progressive era.
Not really. Just requires strict immigration.