Nationalism or at least some nationalistic elements are part of any strong society. Nationalism is also not tied to either side of the political scale - actual American nationalists, not the wehraboo larping faggots, are right wing, while national socialists are leftists.
Which is why I don't understand this "we're against commies so we must be right-wing"... Or maybe I do, it's just indoctrination, even if you do it yourself. Leftists will always fight each-other. Nationalism is just a flavor, not a full doctrine, you can attach it to a lot of things.
If people want to be right wing, or maybe a little bit more, national-conservatism is a thing.
Another funny idea is that a Jew can 't be nat-soc... as if the German variant is the only one. There's plenty of people they despise, surely.
If there were two candidates to vote for.One was nationalist, anti lgbt , anti immigrant, pro family, pro traditionalism, pro heritage but had somewhat socialist economic values
whereas the other candidate is pro lgbt, pro immigrant, pro open borders but happened to be pro capitalism as well (basically what many lolbertarians support ) who would you vote for? If you vote for the first candidate congratulations you voted for the leftist instead of the right winger according to your stupid logic.
Look at the USSR then, plenty of traditionalism, nationalism etc. a "little" dash of leftism. Are they a bit right wing? Some concepts are not specific to just one ideology. So the choice is between red and... pink? Sure, pink is better then red, so that might be the better vote (until it gets redder), but is anyone in this situation or are we dealing in hypotheticals? You can also vote against both of them, but that doesn't happen by staying at home as some people think.
USSR was never right wing. They didn't value the Russian traditions or heritage at all and they demonized old Russian heroes. . They pushed feminism. And they weren't even run by Russians, but by jews. And look at the book called "affirmative action empire" they promoted minority rights as well. On top of that national socialists remove the international bankers from the country , but communists do not and neither do capitalists for that matter.
And you still haven't answered who you would rather vote for in my previous post.
No wonder, since they're that brand of communism that's never been tried. I never claimed that, that question was far from genuine on my part.
And you still haven't answered who you would rather vote for in my previous post.
I actually did. "You can also vote against both of them". That's what I'd do, either vote for/add another candidate, where applicable, or just invalidate my vote. You may be right, and those "somewhat socialist economic values" would be so minor that it wouldn't really matter, so maybe that would get my vote. Unfortunately, things are hardly "somewhat socialist", or maybe you're lucky and about to have the opportunity to vote for such a president. And it doesn't only matter what the future president's views are, it what the president's willing to do to change the system already in place.
The wehraboos pretend to be right wing as a psyop. Many of the dumber ones do not understand what actually defines political ideologies at all, but the ones pushing it from behind the curtain have always been the globalists.
It is useful on many levels for them to associate nazis with the right. It is a propaganda tool for them to claim that both sides of politics end in authoritarian hellscapes - horseshoe theory, when that is actually just the result of leftism. It is also a tool to subvert right wing movements, and turn them into supporters of left wing ideology - it's their backup plan, hedging their bets.
The globalists do not care what they have to pretend to believe to seize power. Any ideology that pushes strong centralized power is good for them, because their bread and butter is climbing bureaucracy and corrupting organizations - sociopaths do excellently at that.
Which is why I don't understand this "we're against commies so we must be right-wing"... Or maybe I do, it's just indoctrination, even if you do it yourself. Leftists will always fight each-other. Nationalism is just a flavor, not a full doctrine, you can attach it to a lot of things.
If people want to be right wing, or maybe a little bit more, national-conservatism is a thing.
Another funny idea is that a Jew can 't be nat-soc... as if the German variant is the only one. There's plenty of people they despise, surely.
If there were two candidates to vote for.One was nationalist, anti lgbt , anti immigrant, pro family, pro traditionalism, pro heritage but had somewhat socialist economic values
whereas the other candidate is pro lgbt, pro immigrant, pro open borders but happened to be pro capitalism as well (basically what many lolbertarians support ) who would you vote for? If you vote for the first candidate congratulations you voted for the leftist instead of the right winger according to your stupid logic.
Look at the USSR then, plenty of traditionalism, nationalism etc. a "little" dash of leftism. Are they a bit right wing? Some concepts are not specific to just one ideology. So the choice is between red and... pink? Sure, pink is better then red, so that might be the better vote (until it gets redder), but is anyone in this situation or are we dealing in hypotheticals? You can also vote against both of them, but that doesn't happen by staying at home as some people think.
USSR was never right wing. They didn't value the Russian traditions or heritage at all and they demonized old Russian heroes. . They pushed feminism. And they weren't even run by Russians, but by jews. And look at the book called "affirmative action empire" they promoted minority rights as well. On top of that national socialists remove the international bankers from the country , but communists do not and neither do capitalists for that matter.
And you still haven't answered who you would rather vote for in my previous post.
No wonder, since they're that brand of communism that's never been tried. I never claimed that, that question was far from genuine on my part.
I actually did. "You can also vote against both of them". That's what I'd do, either vote for/add another candidate, where applicable, or just invalidate my vote. You may be right, and those "somewhat socialist economic values" would be so minor that it wouldn't really matter, so maybe that would get my vote. Unfortunately, things are hardly "somewhat socialist", or maybe you're lucky and about to have the opportunity to vote for such a president. And it doesn't only matter what the future president's views are, it what the president's willing to do to change the system already in place.
The wehraboos pretend to be right wing as a psyop. Many of the dumber ones do not understand what actually defines political ideologies at all, but the ones pushing it from behind the curtain have always been the globalists.
It is useful on many levels for them to associate nazis with the right. It is a propaganda tool for them to claim that both sides of politics end in authoritarian hellscapes - horseshoe theory, when that is actually just the result of leftism. It is also a tool to subvert right wing movements, and turn them into supporters of left wing ideology - it's their backup plan, hedging their bets.
The globalists do not care what they have to pretend to believe to seize power. Any ideology that pushes strong centralized power is good for them, because their bread and butter is climbing bureaucracy and corrupting organizations - sociopaths do excellently at that.