Yes, don't vote for the imperfect candidate who still agrees with 80% of your policy goals. Instead vote for the one who disagrees with all of them.
I can't believe did anyone who studies politics doesn't understand that the current two-party system leaves us with a binary: you're never going to get to candidate that you agree with completely, you're only choice is to pick between the two for the one that you dislike the least.
Cheney (father and daughter) and Frum are neoliberals, and neoliberals have almost completely left the GOP for the dems. Liz and David are just trolling at this point by pretending to still be Republicans.
My values are not fellating jews for personal power. Trump has failed. My values are not elevating blacks using my tax dollars. Trump has failed. My values are not warp speeding an mrna bioweapon. Trump has failed.
Yeah! That's why you want Kamala to win! Because she doesn't do DEI with tax dollars! Fuck yeah! And she hates the jews! Yeah!
Oh wait, no she won't. And remember every vote not for one party, IS a vote for the other. Or more mathematically, it changes the victory margin by half the amount a vote would, in the favor of the other party: 20 votes for Trump, 20 votes for Kamala, you choose NOT to vote for Trump, that's 19 votes to 20, Kamala wins, your action supported and caused Kamala to win. If you do so through laziness or ineptitude, well, that's standing aside from the political system. But you looked at the setup, analyzed it, and said "I want to give a half-vote FOR this person." That's the awful flaw of a 2-party system, but it is a thing nonetheless.
Or just don't be a faggot bitch and vote for Trump and move on with your day knowing you didn't contribute to that cackling gremlin getting into office.
If you actually had any morals or values you'd realize Perfection is the enemy of Good.
Who am I kidding tho, you're prolly just some faggot leftoid trolling.
If it was Nikki Haley and Kamala, like the assassination attempt was supposed to put in place, I would probably stay home. You're picking between Hillary and retarded Hillary. At that point it's unknowable which would be less worse, if either.
you're only choice is to pick between the two for the one that you dislike the least.
No. I have the choice to not participate. I refuse to be bullied into a bad decision. The lesson of the two party system is you should DESTROY it, not take some goofball political lesson from it, then vote against yourself just to say you did.
That's what many don't get here. Is that you're free to not exercise a right if you believe it's a bad choice. The option to exercise or not exercise is the whole point of this country, as we still want the option on the table. If people don't want to vote, they don't have to. Hell, most of the country that's eligible doesn't even.
This is no different than Dems complaining about not enough people voting either, but they frame it through "voter suppression" or some nebulous BS.
Don't worry. Most of these anti-Trump guys are just refusing to vote and acting like it makes them principled and respectable.
As if that doesn't just help Harris or whoever anyway. And that its somehow "more moral" to help the Left continue to rape our children than have to compromise on their pet issue.
Prevent Hillary from gaining power and doing so hard enough that it derailed her entire legacy. And in doing so delayed or damaged the Leftie march to ultimate power that they are continuing to remind us they want.
But this isn't "Trump versus a more Perfect candidate." Its Trump vs Harris.
How does Harris better represent your values? Explain how Trump would be worse in that regard.
I have my beliefs and I'm putting in a token effort to have the system support them, rather than whining about it and throwing out all my toys because I didn't get the Red Megaman like I wanted.
Defend the border. Create incentives for manufacturing to be brought back to North America using tariffs, reducing the market domination of China. Encourage North American oil production and trade, reducing our dependency on the Middle East. Force Europe to pay their fair share in NATO and the UN, so that the US is no longer forced to bankroll the defence for an entire foreign continent. Support the First and Second Amendments.
Need I go on? I'm only scraping the surface, here.
Both sides have outrage farms that benefit when their opponents win. Nick Fuentes benefits from a Kamela win the same way Vaush benefits from a Trump win.
Meanwhile Trump is saying prayers at the grave of a rabbi who claimed goyim exist to serve jews. Lol.
I think Trump represents putting your head in the sand on both sides. He's like 80 years old and did nothing the last four years. But supposedly he will change things or something this time.
2 more weeks of political theater goys! Red jew or blue jew?
Of those who are in power, or at least nominal power as I'm not sure how powerful you are when you get almost assassinated, Fico, Orban and Putin are the only ones who are remotely half-decent.
It's kind of telling that he routinely denies the six gorillions with no ill effect (other than that one time years ago they froze his assets, then...nothing happened?) But Alex Jones was sued to the tune of a billion for questioning Sandy Hook.
Fuentes is exactly like that though. He is a literal meme of a Mexican mutt short guy jerking off to femboys while screaming about how Jews bad and women evil.
He is a literal caricature of every negative stereotype about the alt-right you can think of.
Fuentes is exactly like that though. He is a literal meme of a Mexican mutt short guy jerking off to femboys while screaming about how Jews bad and women evil.
I don't follow him. I've caught a few long-form interviews with him on podcasts that I do watch over the years (Hodge Twins recently). He did none of this. He talked about stuff that I would classify as mostly reasonable, and nothing he said made me feel like I need to go and subscribe to his channels/feeds/etc because I just don't find him that interesting or insightful.
Maybe he acts differently in other places. I don't know or care. I don't think he has much real influence; he has almost no presence outside of very specific Internet niche, but when he does leave it he at least seems to be able to behave himself.
But apparently not thinking he is a fed and is merely a troll is insufficient. Whatever.
Fuentes has a wierdly large amount of money/connections and a legion of sychophants. That means that his presence when he breaks into the mainstream on things like podcasts is carefully curated and clipped to lure people in through the exact manner you described. He says reasonable things there and then draws them down the rabbit hole.
He doesn't have much influence and his party has been dying for a while, but what he does have is the exact power you are describing. People know nothing about him, but he says some "based and agreeable" things sometimes so people make posts like this about his thoughts as if they are valid and then it gains influence that way. It doesn't gain him direct power, but it does sway some less certain people's minds and plants the seeds for retarded ideas to sweep through.
Everything you are using to downplay and describe him is exactly what a Fed plant would want (see also, movements like Patriot Front who can be described exactly the same) to maintain their level of influence.
There's been a propaganda strategy shift in the last 6 or so years that understands memetic transfer and tries to prevent the spread of ones they don't like with pre-exposure, much like how a [real] vaccine would prime your immune response with a weakened virus.
Attach the good point to something that makes normies recoil and the normies then get primed to recoil from the good point alone. It's the time-honored "poisoning the well" trick but with an extra payload to poison things outside of it.
Until now I never had a huge problem with him either like some people. There's lots of reasons not to like Trump, and it's legitimate politicking to try and push the culture towards your point of view, then convince politicians to make gestures to your movement if they want your support.
At some point you do need to recognize you've gotten all the concessions you'll get for this cycle, and lock in your political capital until the next - if you don't, people will question what your real goal is.
If good points were at all convincing to normies, they'd already be convinced. They're exceptionally good at ignoring the obvious if it maintains their social standing.
The constant spamming of low IQ racial collectivism is a fed op. Trying to slide the right into adopting leftist ideology is the point, for multiple reasons. Internally it derails actual right wing organization. Externally the goal is to destroy the image of the right and reinforce the horseshoe theory propaganda that is used to keep people from understanding reality.
The point of horseshoe theory is to both inprove the image of the left by claiming that the german socialists were right wing, when in reality all of WW2 was leftist power struggling. And also to make people who wpupd lean right believe the lie that both political sides are actually the same and there is no point in getting involved, when the real left and right are fundamentally different, and it is very obvious that leftism is evil.
Furthermore, I'm an atheist, and that sounds like a load of shit to me. Clearly there are different characteristics in different religions; some are supremacist, others are not.
But if you do respond again, you'll still dodge the question and argue about religion in general instead of specifically about individual people who think they are, literally, part of "God's chosen people," and are perfectly willing say it to your face.
What qualifies a religion as 'supremacist'? The whole point of religion is that you have something that others don't have. Catholics say that outside the church, there is no salvation. Calvinists call themselves 'the Elect', or at least hope that they're part of that group.
And Jews believe that they were chosen by God to reveal himself to the world. It beats me why God would decide to pick a barbaric Bronze Age tribe for his revelation, but that's just me. Generally, aside from a few whackjob rabbis, they don't believe this makes them better than anyone. Indeed, they are in a worse position because, in their believe, we have to obey only the laws of Noah, while they have to follow all the laws of Moses and the thousands of rules that rabbis added to it.
Judaism is an ethnoreligion and many Jews believe their people are superior by ancestry regardless of what they believe. That's why they're supremacist.
Yes, and it doesn't matter if they're dual citizens in little hats or sad aging alky fucks with bad quality swastika tattoos (who the Reich would've sentenced to hard labor anyhow if they were around in those days).
All collectivist leftists deserve the rope. "But this other group is doing thing you said is bad" yes, and they are retarded leftists. "We should also do it". No.
Go "reeee joos" at someone else faggot. I don't care. They're not special.
Racial collectivism isn't just stupid, it's actually more stupid than ethnic collectivism.
The only critique I would make to your analysis is that there is no "right". Ever since the term was defined among the anti-Jacobian coalition in the French Revolution, all it ever meant was "not among the Leftists".
There is only a Left and an Anti-Left. There is no other mechanism that would align militarists, theocrats, ancaps, monarchists, and classical liberals beyond that.
Collectivism is an evolutionary adaptation for survival. If you need it spelled out for you then you're really too dense to be opining on the subject and just have a suicidal moral framework.
Collectivism is not evolutionary, it's ideological.
Taking credit for someone else, and accepting blame for someone else, is not something you were evolved to do. It's a coping mechanism to your own weakness that is promoted by idealogues who are intentionally robbing you of that agency for their own benefit.
Confirming that you're too dense or ideologically motivated to be able to responsibly offer an opinion. I'm going with the latter in your case. You're not stupid, but you are actively committed to being wrong.
The only objective left right measure is the scale of government control, not the cultural flavoring. The far ends of the scale are anarchist as extreme right, and totalitarian as extreme left.
How are you defining ethnicity that it's noticeably different from race? Or are you going by the absurdly overgeneralized definition of "race" the wehraboos pretend to use? Where they mash a third of the globe into some generic "white".
I think your definition of the left-right measure makes non-Marxist, non-Hegelian, and non-Rousseauian descendent political systems as "politically Left", so I don't think it's really valid as a measuring tool.
I'm defining ethnicity different from race because they aren't really the same thing.
Race has two potential definitions: a) Explicitly biological sub-stratas of humans, b) the socio-political definition of a cultural super-strata. These definitions are fundamentally incompatible, but are used interchangeably either by modern racialists, or early 20th century progressives.
As I've said in other places on this forum before, I tend to use J. G. Stoessenger's definition of how to define a nation, and break down it's stratifications from a political science perspective as follows; from bottom to top:
Individual
Family/Kin
Clan
Tribe
Ethnos
Nation
Religion
Racial category
(Please note that Nation is not the same as State, and is defined by a set series of characteristics, I won't go into yet)
From this, when I use the term "race", I use it in this sense, which is a particularly American sense. Race is a socio-political category which is cross-national, cross-state, cross-religion, and cross-cultural category denoting some population of people that share some observable physical distinction. "White", "Black", and "Asian" are considered races, and have very clearly observed physical distinctions (which is why they are literally color coded), but are extremely broad categories beyond that. "White" includes most ethnic groups in Europe, including Franks, English, Irish, Welsh, Danes, Swiss, Poles, Germans, etc. (For our sake let us say 'most' to avoid arguments about whether the Spanish, Syrians, or Albanians are "White"). We can have similar discussions about "Blacks" since Caribbean, American, South American, and African "Blacks" have very clearly demarcated ethnic groups. One of the most "diverse" countries in the world is Nigeria, where the country has 30 separate languages because of the isolation of each tribal society within the country. "Asian" is obviously the most grossly broad because it includes Sri Lankans, Japanese, Siberians, Mongolians, etc into one massive bloc. Strangely enough, "Asian" would make more sense kept broken up into "Yellow" and "Brown" to at least be consistent.
An Ethnos is a much smaller arrangement of people that both has genetic similarity, and also a shared culture, history, language, and self-identity. It is less genetically distinct than a Tribe, but more than a Nation. A good example would be the Welsh, as they are too distinct for a Nation, but far too large for a Tribe.
"Hello Fellow White Patriots! Have you heard the good word of Adolf Hitler? He was a true American hero! We must collectively organize as racial advocates of Social National Justice. Most importantly, we must do it public gatherings, wearing uniforms, in front of cameras, in homogenously democratic cities. Everything every Democrat has ever said about us is right, and that's a good thing!"
So you're describing behavior that doesn't describe what I've seen from Fuentes, and I agree that that the behavior you've described is 100% fed-speak.
Which is why he comes off as more of a troll to me than a fed.
Hypothetical Strawman: "Neither candidate fully agrees with me on everything so I'm sitting this election out!"
Wow Hypothetical Strawman, you sure showed those candidates and sent ripples across the country! I bet they'll totally try to see things your way next time.
I note that "Don't vote for the party the media decided represents your beliefs" seems to be a line only used by the Right. You'd think it'd be more prevalent, much less exist in any capacity in leftist circles, but alas. One has to wonder what would happen to the leftist influencer that says "don't vote Kamala".
Yes, don't vote for the imperfect candidate who still agrees with 80% of your policy goals. Instead vote for the one who disagrees with all of them.
I can't believe did anyone who studies politics doesn't understand that the current two-party system leaves us with a binary: you're never going to get to candidate that you agree with completely, you're only choice is to pick between the two for the one that you dislike the least.
You took the words out of my mouth. Never trumpers are willing to vote for someone that completely spits in their values to stick it to Trump
I'm not sure "Never Trumpers" have values. People like Liz Cheney and David Frum, they're just psychos.
True.
Cheney (father and daughter) and Frum are neoliberals, and neoliberals have almost completely left the GOP for the dems. Liz and David are just trolling at this point by pretending to still be Republicans.
Trump spits in my values. I'm just not cuck enough to vote for him anyway.
Gotcha.
Your values are trolling?
My values are not fellating jews for personal power. Trump has failed. My values are not elevating blacks using my tax dollars. Trump has failed. My values are not warp speeding an mrna bioweapon. Trump has failed.
Yeah! That's why you want Kamala to win! Because she doesn't do DEI with tax dollars! Fuck yeah! And she hates the jews! Yeah!
Oh wait, no she won't. And remember every vote not for one party, IS a vote for the other. Or more mathematically, it changes the victory margin by half the amount a vote would, in the favor of the other party: 20 votes for Trump, 20 votes for Kamala, you choose NOT to vote for Trump, that's 19 votes to 20, Kamala wins, your action supported and caused Kamala to win. If you do so through laziness or ineptitude, well, that's standing aside from the political system. But you looked at the setup, analyzed it, and said "I want to give a half-vote FOR this person." That's the awful flaw of a 2-party system, but it is a thing nonetheless.
This is a false choice. The only thing people can do is point at the other buffoon and rage. I'm not voting for these buffoons.
Breaking News: Trump fails exacting standards of Random Retard #1134. Drumpf is surely finished now.
You know, I have my own criticisms of Trump, but you don't have to be retarded about it. Well, maybe you do.
Keep insulting me instead of refuting my points lol. Orange man save us!
Genuine question: Are there any party/candidates that actually promotes your values?
I'm all for multiple parties and candidates, but realistically your only two choices are sadly those two.
I'm not aware of any.
I am just not bothering. I don't want to vote Trump again. He didn't do anything and I'm tired of wasting my time and hoping.
Or just don't be a faggot bitch and vote for Trump and move on with your day knowing you didn't contribute to that cackling gremlin getting into office.
If you actually had any morals or values you'd realize Perfection is the enemy of Good.
Who am I kidding tho, you're prolly just some faggot leftoid trolling.
Value trolling? Is that like virtue signaling, but more retarded?
The only way to get a candidate that agrees with you 100% is to run yourself.
And even then you may find yourself changing political positions over time as you gain experience and learn facts you never knew before.
Exactly.
Unless it's on the legality of machine guns. It's time to legalize it.
It's not the only way to get an America First candidate. We had one in 2016 and 2020. What happened?
War is a hell of a disagreement my man
If it was Nikki Haley and Kamala, like the assassination attempt was supposed to put in place, I would probably stay home. You're picking between Hillary and retarded Hillary. At that point it's unknowable which would be less worse, if either.
Nikki would be worse
With Nikki you would get the blame for the fuckups and wars, while making all the same decisions.
No. I have the choice to not participate. I refuse to be bullied into a bad decision. The lesson of the two party system is you should DESTROY it, not take some goofball political lesson from it, then vote against yourself just to say you did.
Fucking goofy.
But if you don't vote for 1 you can't complain!!!!
California nutcase dei hire vs shabbos goy NYC real estate developer...
What a choice.
That's what many don't get here. Is that you're free to not exercise a right if you believe it's a bad choice. The option to exercise or not exercise is the whole point of this country, as we still want the option on the table. If people don't want to vote, they don't have to. Hell, most of the country that's eligible doesn't even.
This is no different than Dems complaining about not enough people voting either, but they frame it through "voter suppression" or some nebulous BS.
Believe me, we understand you can do this
Don't worry. Most of these anti-Trump guys are just refusing to vote and acting like it makes them principled and respectable.
As if that doesn't just help Harris or whoever anyway. And that its somehow "more moral" to help the Left continue to rape our children than have to compromise on their pet issue.
Name 1 thing Trump has done that represents your values.
Prevent Hillary from gaining power and doing so hard enough that it derailed her entire legacy. And in doing so delayed or damaged the Leftie march to ultimate power that they are continuing to remind us they want.
But this isn't "Trump versus a more Perfect candidate." Its Trump vs Harris.
How does Harris better represent your values? Explain how Trump would be worse in that regard.
I'm not voting for Harris so i don't have to share her values.
Trump didn't delay anything. If anything he keeps people invested in the stage play. 2 more weeks right?
Then your vote has no value or worth, as does your opinion.
You're right. It has no value. Just like your's. You are getting there
I have my beliefs and I'm putting in a token effort to have the system support them, rather than whining about it and throwing out all my toys because I didn't get the Red Megaman like I wanted.
I feel quite good about its value.
Literally anyone who votes has more value than you, even the nigtards from Atlanta voting for gibs.
Defend the border. Create incentives for manufacturing to be brought back to North America using tariffs, reducing the market domination of China. Encourage North American oil production and trade, reducing our dependency on the Middle East. Force Europe to pay their fair share in NATO and the UN, so that the US is no longer forced to bankroll the defence for an entire foreign continent. Support the First and Second Amendments.
Need I go on? I'm only scraping the surface, here.
Defend the border? He wants more immigrants. Just legally so they can replace you legally. Wowzers, thanks Trump.
Chyna. Sure, name an incentive his administration implemented and sustained.
He drone striked an Iranian general. He's very dependent on the middle east.
Nato being more heavily funded won't bring peace to any members of nato.
He supported the 2nd amendment so much he banned bump stocks illegally.
1st amendment? Such as?
These are talking points and platitudes. No results.
I have no idea why anyone should have a problem with this
Both sides have outrage farms that benefit when their opponents win. Nick Fuentes benefits from a Kamela win the same way Vaush benefits from a Trump win.
Today's chapter in "Nick is a federal asset"
Honestly can't tell if he's been "activated" because the establishment is scared of a Trump win, or he's just a lolcow.
I'm leaning on the more believable 'he's an attention seeking idiot with not much talent so this grift is how he gets attention' side of things.
He would be making at least as much money, likely a lot more, riding the Trump wave. Right wing media is as profitable as Fox News right now.
But not as MUCH attention, he'd rather get less money but more attention.
Meanwhile Trump is saying prayers at the grave of a rabbi who claimed goyim exist to serve jews. Lol.
I think Trump represents putting your head in the sand on both sides. He's like 80 years old and did nothing the last four years. But supposedly he will change things or something this time.
2 more weeks of political theater goys! Red jew or blue jew?
There's always Jill Stein, who is anti-Israel. But something tells me that you will like her even less.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to get any significant power in this country without pandering to Jews.
Trump will not broadcast the JQ far and wide, but he actually cares about Americans, and that's good enough to get my vote just by itself.
Sure he does
Exactly he is fellating jews for personal power. He will represent those who give him power, not some magatard fatty loser.
His actions show otherwise
I wish there was a politician in Europe who cared about Europeans.
Viktor Orban's about the closest.
Of those who are in power, or at least nominal power as I'm not sure how powerful you are when you get almost assassinated, Fico, Orban and Putin are the only ones who are remotely half-decent.
I don't think he's a federal asset. He talks about the "JQ" way too much for that.
I think he's mostly a troll.
Dude like a quarter of all KKK-type organizations are feds lol. Have been for decades.
It's kind of telling that he routinely denies the six gorillions with no ill effect (other than that one time years ago they froze his assets, then...nothing happened?) But Alex Jones was sued to the tune of a billion for questioning Sandy Hook.
Nah, flip that, less than a quarter of them are serious retards, the rest are feds or globalists.
Endlessly bringing up the JQ is a classic Fed tactic, because they know there's nothing more toxic in terms of optics from a normie perspective.
Feds don't bring up good points. They act as a racist caricature cartoon to serve as an example of "wow, don't be like that crazy guy."
I don't follow him, but from what I have seen, Fuentes doesn't strike me as that.
Fuentes is exactly like that though. He is a literal meme of a Mexican mutt short guy jerking off to femboys while screaming about how Jews bad and women evil.
He is a literal caricature of every negative stereotype about the alt-right you can think of.
I don't follow him. I've caught a few long-form interviews with him on podcasts that I do watch over the years (Hodge Twins recently). He did none of this. He talked about stuff that I would classify as mostly reasonable, and nothing he said made me feel like I need to go and subscribe to his channels/feeds/etc because I just don't find him that interesting or insightful.
Maybe he acts differently in other places. I don't know or care. I don't think he has much real influence; he has almost no presence outside of very specific Internet niche, but when he does leave it he at least seems to be able to behave himself.
But apparently not thinking he is a fed and is merely a troll is insufficient. Whatever.
Fuentes has a wierdly large amount of money/connections and a legion of sychophants. That means that his presence when he breaks into the mainstream on things like podcasts is carefully curated and clipped to lure people in through the exact manner you described. He says reasonable things there and then draws them down the rabbit hole.
He doesn't have much influence and his party has been dying for a while, but what he does have is the exact power you are describing. People know nothing about him, but he says some "based and agreeable" things sometimes so people make posts like this about his thoughts as if they are valid and then it gains influence that way. It doesn't gain him direct power, but it does sway some less certain people's minds and plants the seeds for retarded ideas to sweep through.
Everything you are using to downplay and describe him is exactly what a Fed plant would want (see also, movements like Patriot Front who can be described exactly the same) to maintain their level of influence.
There's been a propaganda strategy shift in the last 6 or so years that understands memetic transfer and tries to prevent the spread of ones they don't like with pre-exposure, much like how a [real] vaccine would prime your immune response with a weakened virus.
Attach the good point to something that makes normies recoil and the normies then get primed to recoil from the good point alone. It's the time-honored "poisoning the well" trick but with an extra payload to poison things outside of it.
Until now I never had a huge problem with him either like some people. There's lots of reasons not to like Trump, and it's legitimate politicking to try and push the culture towards your point of view, then convince politicians to make gestures to your movement if they want your support.
At some point you do need to recognize you've gotten all the concessions you'll get for this cycle, and lock in your political capital until the next - if you don't, people will question what your real goal is.
If good points were at all convincing to normies, they'd already be convinced. They're exceptionally good at ignoring the obvious if it maintains their social standing.
Exactly this, they can't silence it completely so they have it coming out of the mouths of the worst possible spergs.
Classic well poisoning.
The constant spamming of low IQ racial collectivism is a fed op. Trying to slide the right into adopting leftist ideology is the point, for multiple reasons. Internally it derails actual right wing organization. Externally the goal is to destroy the image of the right and reinforce the horseshoe theory propaganda that is used to keep people from understanding reality.
The point of horseshoe theory is to both inprove the image of the left by claiming that the german socialists were right wing, when in reality all of WW2 was leftist power struggling. And also to make people who wpupd lean right believe the lie that both political sides are actually the same and there is no point in getting involved, when the real left and right are fundamentally different, and it is very obvious that leftism is evil.
Are groups who think they are "God's chosen people" following a collectivist ideology?
That is called a religion.
That didn't answer my question.
Furthermore, I'm an atheist, and that sounds like a load of shit to me. Clearly there are different characteristics in different religions; some are supremacist, others are not.
But if you do respond again, you'll still dodge the question and argue about religion in general instead of specifically about individual people who think they are, literally, part of "God's chosen people," and are perfectly willing say it to your face.
What qualifies a religion as 'supremacist'? The whole point of religion is that you have something that others don't have. Catholics say that outside the church, there is no salvation. Calvinists call themselves 'the Elect', or at least hope that they're part of that group.
And Jews believe that they were chosen by God to reveal himself to the world. It beats me why God would decide to pick a barbaric Bronze Age tribe for his revelation, but that's just me. Generally, aside from a few whackjob rabbis, they don't believe this makes them better than anyone. Indeed, they are in a worse position because, in their believe, we have to obey only the laws of Noah, while they have to follow all the laws of Moses and the thousands of rules that rabbis added to it.
Called it.
Judaism is an ethnoreligion and many Jews believe their people are superior by ancestry regardless of what they believe. That's why they're supremacist.
😂😂😂
"Oh? My secular religion is religious? Hmm. Well then, is your religion religious? Checkmate, atheist."
Yes, and it doesn't matter if they're dual citizens in little hats or sad aging alky fucks with bad quality swastika tattoos (who the Reich would've sentenced to hard labor anyhow if they were around in those days).
Historically, when people believe they have the Will of God, they commit atrocities as a group, sometimes with someone leading them, yes.
All collectivist leftists deserve the rope. "But this other group is doing thing you said is bad" yes, and they are retarded leftists. "We should also do it". No.
Go "reeee joos" at someone else faggot. I don't care. They're not special.
Committed Jews are retarded leftists, you heard it here lol
Racial collectivism isn't just stupid, it's actually more stupid than ethnic collectivism.
The only critique I would make to your analysis is that there is no "right". Ever since the term was defined among the anti-Jacobian coalition in the French Revolution, all it ever meant was "not among the Leftists".
There is only a Left and an Anti-Left. There is no other mechanism that would align militarists, theocrats, ancaps, monarchists, and classical liberals beyond that.
Collectivism is an evolutionary adaptation for survival. If you need it spelled out for you then you're really too dense to be opining on the subject and just have a suicidal moral framework.
Oh no, not the dreaded Fabians, anything but that!
Collectivism is not evolutionary, it's ideological.
Taking credit for someone else, and accepting blame for someone else, is not something you were evolved to do. It's a coping mechanism to your own weakness that is promoted by idealogues who are intentionally robbing you of that agency for their own benefit.
Confirming that you're too dense or ideologically motivated to be able to responsibly offer an opinion. I'm going with the latter in your case. You're not stupid, but you are actively committed to being wrong.
The only objective left right measure is the scale of government control, not the cultural flavoring. The far ends of the scale are anarchist as extreme right, and totalitarian as extreme left.
How are you defining ethnicity that it's noticeably different from race? Or are you going by the absurdly overgeneralized definition of "race" the wehraboos pretend to use? Where they mash a third of the globe into some generic "white".
I think your definition of the left-right measure makes non-Marxist, non-Hegelian, and non-Rousseauian descendent political systems as "politically Left", so I don't think it's really valid as a measuring tool.
I'm defining ethnicity different from race because they aren't really the same thing.
Race has two potential definitions: a) Explicitly biological sub-stratas of humans, b) the socio-political definition of a cultural super-strata. These definitions are fundamentally incompatible, but are used interchangeably either by modern racialists, or early 20th century progressives.
As I've said in other places on this forum before, I tend to use J. G. Stoessenger's definition of how to define a nation, and break down it's stratifications from a political science perspective as follows; from bottom to top:
(Please note that Nation is not the same as State, and is defined by a set series of characteristics, I won't go into yet)
From this, when I use the term "race", I use it in this sense, which is a particularly American sense. Race is a socio-political category which is cross-national, cross-state, cross-religion, and cross-cultural category denoting some population of people that share some observable physical distinction. "White", "Black", and "Asian" are considered races, and have very clearly observed physical distinctions (which is why they are literally color coded), but are extremely broad categories beyond that. "White" includes most ethnic groups in Europe, including Franks, English, Irish, Welsh, Danes, Swiss, Poles, Germans, etc. (For our sake let us say 'most' to avoid arguments about whether the Spanish, Syrians, or Albanians are "White"). We can have similar discussions about "Blacks" since Caribbean, American, South American, and African "Blacks" have very clearly demarcated ethnic groups. One of the most "diverse" countries in the world is Nigeria, where the country has 30 separate languages because of the isolation of each tribal society within the country. "Asian" is obviously the most grossly broad because it includes Sri Lankans, Japanese, Siberians, Mongolians, etc into one massive bloc. Strangely enough, "Asian" would make more sense kept broken up into "Yellow" and "Brown" to at least be consistent.
An Ethnos is a much smaller arrangement of people that both has genetic similarity, and also a shared culture, history, language, and self-identity. It is less genetically distinct than a Tribe, but more than a Nation. A good example would be the Welsh, as they are too distinct for a Nation, but far too large for a Tribe.
Literally a leading topic among feds.
"Hello Fellow White Patriots! Have you heard the good word of Adolf Hitler? He was a true American hero! We must collectively organize as racial advocates of Social National Justice. Most importantly, we must do it public gatherings, wearing uniforms, in front of cameras, in homogenously democratic cities. Everything every Democrat has ever said about us is right, and that's a good thing!"
So you're describing behavior that doesn't describe what I've seen from Fuentes, and I agree that that the behavior you've described is 100% fed-speak.
Which is why he comes off as more of a troll to me than a fed.
Nah I'll go ahead and vote trump, faggot.
BREAKING NEWS: Nick Fuentes calls on his fellow homosexual virgins to not vote for Trump.
Not only is he a faggot, but I'm starting to think he's a full-on Fed.
The purpose of the alt-right is to suicide bomb the dissident right and the populist right.
Wehraboo fags are not right wing. They are crypto leftists. The conceit that socialist authoritarians are right wing is propaganda.
Didn't Milo recently come out with a flex that he banged Nick's trans fuck buddy?
Not sure I'm going to take voting instructions from this loon.
"Nick Fuentes endorses Kamala Harris." would be a more accurate title.
Hypothetical Strawman: "Neither candidate fully agrees with me on everything so I'm sitting this election out!"
Wow Hypothetical Strawman, you sure showed those candidates and sent ripples across the country! I bet they'll totally try to see things your way next time.
why is he so gay
Is he taking Lauren Chen's money, too?
I note that "Don't vote for the party the media decided represents your beliefs" seems to be a line only used by the Right. You'd think it'd be more prevalent, much less exist in any capacity in leftist circles, but alas. One has to wonder what would happen to the leftist influencer that says "don't vote Kamala".
Nick Forehead just trying to stir the pot for hate views. Just ignore him.