Historically, right wing extremism is ALWAYS in response to left wing extremism

>Historically, right wing extremism is ALWAYS in response to left wing extremism

Why is that?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because when leftists violently shut down ANYONE who is slightly right wing people finally get pissed off and start thinking "we have to absolutely smash these guys for our own protection"

Te problem with the left is they ALWAYS lose a debate to a moderate centre right leaning view and so they decide instead of admitting they're wrong to shut down everyone else by force

The left pushes progressive policy. The Right promotes conservation and tradition. How is this hard to understand?

Horseshoe theory.
Look it up.

Not even slightly relevant to the discussion.

Because the left is objectively terrible. In order to stay relevant, they push social change. They don't know or care whether the change will have a good or bad effect - they only care about appeasing their desire for attention. So normal people get pissed off, and radicalise in response to the left doubling down on every insane article of their agenda.

A myth propagated by people who don't understand the political axis. What you mistake for similarity between the extreme left and right are actually just the the shared attributes of extremist groups in terms of Authoritarianism or Libertarianism.

e.g. a fascist and a communist have in common the desire for an all-encompassing state, but that isn't a similarity between left and right, it's just that they're both extreme authoritarians. In actuality left and right wing ideologies diverge continually as they grow more extreme and never loop back around. I defy you to find me one instance in which they do that is not a false parallel of the sort I just described. Do you actually think that a Free Market Fundamentalist will EVER come to resemble an Anarcho Communist?

Because we have not been taught REAL history. Only redpilled dudes such as you get this. All normies have starch beliefs that it is the other way around.

mix of benevolence and a case of hivemind taking kindness for weakness

Because The Left always hits first; usually a cheap shot.

t. mongoloid

Tha user's a dumb retard.

Explain how horseshoe theory has anything to do with the fact that right wing extremism only ever rises as a response to left wing extremism and never vice versa then you dumb cuccbois.

No, you are.

Prove your initial assertion first.

Provide a counter-example.

It's the immune system of humanity. When it fails you die from Communism.

Because being right wing is the neutral position, the left are the ones regressing things so that demands action.

I'm waiting.

Topical example: The Nazis literally arose on a wave of public fear over the Bolsheviks. Comintern shills were smashing peoples' windows and attacking Republicans in the street, the Brownshirts were assembled to fight them. One of the reasons Hitler rose to power so quickly was that the people welcomed the stability and order he brought to Germany.

Chile 1973, Japan 1929.

That's why the extremes are radical and reactionary. Simple shit really

I don't care, shut the fuck up you pretentious faggot.

Both sides act as a counter response to the other.

If one sides wins the society degenerates and culling is imminent.

For example: If you get to end for good Antifa, American Reich would come and cull all the weak.
Probably even you guys.

>chile
>commies lose the vote
>cause a shitstorm and demand to be put into power and given free stuff
>given free helicopter rides

Good job destroying your own argument.

>shillboy mad at getting btfo

What a shock.

For example2: If you end all radicals from the right, you end up with Brazil

because the left wing is the cancer and the right wing is the cure, but the problem with cancer is, that even if you cure it, it will probably come back even worse

Not an argument

>lying shamelessly and blatantly to win an 'argument'
And of course you ignored the one you couldn't argue against, and are almost certainly not even aware of.

Fuck off, shill.

Historical Dialectic

>>>Historically, right wing extremism is ALWAYS in response to left wing extremism
>why is that?

can you provide sources? also i'm really not surprised.

>can you provide sources?
Of course he can't.

because the right wing is implicitly made up of people who are supportive of the status quo (or an idealized vision of the status quo), thus they only turn to violence when someone seeks to disrupt that status quo. The average right winger would completely disengage from politics if politics would disengage from them.

Because Progressivism turns Libertarians into Fascists.

1. Society is run like shit (by progs)
2. Libertarians say "just leave me out of it"
3. Progs say "no, we will come after you until you pay your fair share"
4. Libertarians realize the left will NEVER leave them alone
5. They realize there will ALWAYS be some asshole telling everyone what to do
6. They figure it might as well be THEIR asshole

The USA today truly resembles the Weimar Republic. It's quite a sight to behold. Really makes you think...

Historically it's more like this:

Conservatives and traditionalists were by definition the ones in power and defended the status quo. Socialists/Lefties want to radically change society and property distribution.
Because they can't achieve the change through the institutions/aren't in power, the only recourse they have is violence.
People don't like this and defend themselves.

This is also what Marx predicted would happen, but you don't need to be a genius to figure this out.

Libertarians exist in a fantasy universe where every individual is a closed system that shouldn't be affected by any other. It is short sighted and delusional. It denies the opportunities they have been granted on good faith. It is selfish and borderline sociopathic

>libertarians deny bullshit like white privilege

So they are right and that makes you wrong.

leftism is a disease and the right is antibodies

How was voting for van der Bellen?

get rekt stupid shill

Because lefties are fuckin nuts.

Think of it this way.

You have 2 clubs, 1 right-wing and 1 left-wing
-A right-wing club is a club where you are not let in unless the right-wingers want you too.
-A left-wing club is a club where you are automatically a member but you don't have a choice of leaving.

Left wingers always push their agendas and try to force everybody to go along with it. People don't want to be forced to do things especially when they are sick of being told what to do. Right now people want to be left alone, people want their own clubs on their own terms.

A conservative person will hate you for telling lies. The liberal will hate you for telling the truth.

Get rekt double-digit IQ mongoloid.

Wrong.

It was good. Took only five minutes.

What did you think when van der Bellen said in that one TV show that he knows that 40% of your guard batallion, the parade guard, is already muslim and is not scared at all by this fact?

How do you feel about your future in a nation that will be minority Austrian within in your life time?

How does it feel supporting this development by your own actions?

NAZISM started BECAUSE of a Communist civil war in Germany that was lead by Jews.

It goes both ways really.

The right is traditional by nature, which is not extreme but just what has worked in the past. The left is by nature extreme, promising utopia via destroying everything, that provokes extremism in response

One doesn't let you in, the other doesn't let you escape

Because the right, whatever its faults, has a natural inclination/obsession with maintaining proper order.

The extreme left just brings chaos, destruction, and fear. People naturally turn to the right to stamp this out and make thins peaceful, or at the very least, secure.

Most recent sample: Philippines. The liberal elite complain like crazy, but for the common people, being able to go outside at night without having to worry as much about being mugged or shot makes it basically worth it.

Because the left tries to change things, and the right reacts and tries to turn it back or stop it.

The right is like a fortress, you can't come in unless invited, however there is no one stopping you from starting your own

The left is like a prison, you can't leave, and your fortress now belongs to them

How is it wrong? I think what's going on in America right now is proof of that statement.

>What did you think when van der Bellen said in that one TV show that he knows that 40% of your guard batallion, the parade guard, is already muslim and is not scared at all by this fact?

Never heard about this, don't know if the number is true, and this random sample doesn't matter.

>How do you feel about your future in a nation that will be minority Austrian within in your life time?

Not gonna happen. And if it does Germany will have fallen long before then.

>How does it feel supporting this development by your own actions?

I didn't. Believe what you will, but this election was inconsequential when it comes to immigration.

It's also wildly off topic so that's all from me.

Hitlers brownshirts only came into power after the Commies tried to start a Communist revolution

Germany at the time was getting pulled in a bunch of different directions, from the Western controlled Wiemar and the Eastern controlled Marxists. The right rose up in response to that.

The left usually instigates some kind of violence or political takeover in an attempt to "destroy" or shut down the right, and label all on the right as "evil."

Right wing extremism is the inevitable violent reaction to left wing violent extremism. Sicne the right is conservative and logical, the right is usually far more capable of successful violence and authoritarianism than the left, as left wing violence is usually emotional and sporadic. Right wing violence is organized and calculated.

>denying reality
>strawmanning
>denying reality again

You also have more muslims than we do per capita. You are also much smaller and your economy is weaker. If you honestly believe, Germany would fall before your country, you are delusional. But then again: you are an unironic leftist, probably a Marxist. So what's new?

National Socialism was actually a very modernist, revolutionary movement.

>inb4 National Socialism is left-wing

The left is not driven by a plan, they're driven by what their twisted and perverted sense of moral superiority tells them.

Eventually reality clashes with their high and mighty morality (whether it's communist, multi-ethnoculturalism, sexual egalitarianism, LGBT, etc) and they get stuck because their vision is not based on any facts or data, but it relies on their own assumptions being correct. At that point they're forced use force to hide the truth: if they can they'll use the government (and slowly turn any country into a left wing authoritarian state), else they'll chimpout in the streets.

Now the vast majority of people simply don't care about politics and just want to (mostly) mind their own businesses, but given that they'll also be targeted by leftists for not being dedicated enough to their moral quest they'll side with the right wingers simply to restore things as they were before - aka when things worked.

That's wy ideally we could go back to a traditionalist society were everyone is borne into their profession and is ruled under a king or ruler of a nation.

But people don't want that because they have no value for work, so they fear becoming the person that has to empty toilets or whatever.

So instead we must ride the tiger.

What is the positive vision of the far right for Europe?

Before Reactionary became a shitty pejorative, it was an a decent description of the political views of the "Far Right". That is, they were reacting to perceived overstep by the left. Obviously, if nothing changes, people aren't going to go riot to keep everything the same.

Secondly, conservative people have more faith in the authorities. They expect that the police will enforce the law, and that politicians will change a law if it is somehow wrong. If the politicians fail to do so, they can be disposed through elections. Again, people won't riot against a system they think is working.

However, the left thinks the system is flawed. For whatever reason, usually immaturity but occasionally due to actual problems with the system, they feel that direct action is the best way to push forward their cause. If these violent acts result in an increase of political power, you'll see the right begin to organize violent response.

An example of this being the Battle of Cable Street, and the Blackshirts in general. Part of the reason Mosley never got the scale of support that fascists were getting on the continent is that the police were fully capable of dealing with communist protesters. The left never came close to overthrowing the government, so people saw the jackbooted, uniform wearing right wingers as lunatics who were crying over nothing.

its not true just because you said it.

Is that a rhetorical question, a personal question ("what do you think.."), or a geopolitical question ("what would Le Pen do if..")?

More dead white people

I'd like your personal and geopoliticals takes on this, if you don't mind.

Where will Europe be in 25 years, if far right parties got into power in all European countries?

The US rests on much better economic footing than the Weimar Republic did. The US is still prosperous.

Sup Forums logic:>nazi/facist gets punched
"THAT'S SUPPRESSING FREE SPEECH!!!11!1"

>BLMer gets run over
"Perfectly fine by us!"

That is really the only difference. If it weren't for our economy things would be looking a lot worse. Honestly I feel as though we are not far off from some recession that drives us into that critical point. That's when the communists will really rear their heads.

Run over for blocking a public road?

It isn't.

A lot of it depends on the petro dollar and financial capitalism. I wonder where your republic will be, if or rather when a major recession hits. When the occasional street-fights with antifa turn into Freikorps vs Communist murder battles. When the military gets dragged in. Or Trump gets JFKed.

Bribery with money only gets you so far when your country is rotting from withing: both the Roman and Byzantine Empire experienced this.

Like all things it's the situation. Spencer is an idiot but was struck for no real reason other than the attacker felt morally justified. That's suppression and very concerning because now anything they label as fascist or Nazi is fair game because they are morally justified.

A BLM protester restricting someones right to movement and/or is attempting to or actively harming the individual is getting what they deserve.

Sectarian bullshit much?

>one is targeted political violence (literally terrorism)
>the other is retards playing in a busy street

Our economy is almost destined to make a rebound now that trump has killed the TPP and is tearing up NAFTA along with many other shitty trade deals. If Clinton got into office and pushed for the continuation of that economic policy then we might be in serious trouble. As it is I have hope our middle class will grow again and our prosperity will be fine.

I know you're an autistic retard, but try not to get bogged down into details. Most people use it in relation to how extreme ends of certain issues seem to take the same measures and create the same conditions ultimately.

I sure hope so. A stronger economy should calm down the climate slightly. Or at least the antifa will look even more retarded when they're protesting during a positive time

you cant beat an extremism with moderation i guess, unless you are a jedi. so wa la another extremism pops up

>Stand on freeway
>Get ran over
>m-muh free speech

People on the right are generally flexible and tend to themselves until it becomes impossible

This.
and
Are retards

Sry that I do not buy into your premisses and the future you made up in your mind. Also

>you are an unironic leftist, probably a Marxist

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA no

How do you factually know this - beyond Trump's promises?

What I also see is that A LOT of your economic growth, especially in the New Economy, is in business sectors that are dominated by non-white, liberal/leftist demographics that have nothing to do with WASP culture or even white European culture. Google, Facebook, Amazon for example. What's more the multi-billionaire class really couldn't give a rat's ass about the working or middle class, culture, tradition and religion. They also don't care at all, if a white European Christian and traditionalist is buying their products, or an Islamic Subsaharan-African oder Middle Easterner. The sold unit and profit count. Not the personality of the consumer or the culture of the nation.

I would have never even dreamed to see antifa and the black bloc in the USA and your political and media elite shilling for Islam. But this is where it's at now.

>having no arguments
the post

>The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money

Left ideologies always sound nice and good until everything is fucked up beyond repair and their is no non-radical way left to fix the economy. Socialists don't make everyone equally happy. They'll make everyone equally unhappy and eventually the population just snaps.

>personal
If it were up to me there would be anudda shoah of non European people. Let's not kid ourselves here: "demographic is destiny" is not a meme, it's the truth. People aren't light bulbs that you can swap in and out at will. You don't get to import millions of people, especially from different races, into your country and pretend everyone will get along fine. Different DNAs produce different people that produce different cultures that produce different countries and institutions. Hell, sometimes it's hard to get along with people of the same race but different upbringing. It will end like every other mix of people in history has ever ended: ethnic replacement of the natives, or of the invaders, or balkanization, or (the worst option because it's permanent) racemixing.


>geopolitical
25 years is way too long to make any accurate prediction. However I don't think the leaders of we today call "far right" are really that far right. What I hope the newly elected "far right" leaders (like Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, etc) will do is to "normalize" their political position and in doing so, even unwillingly, pave the way for the rest of us. Nothing is set in stone of course. Hell, Le Pen could even lose the upcoming elections. But one thing is sure: as I said in the previous post, the universal egalitarianism that the left (which is currently the mainstream ideology) bases its model of society on is false, therefore it will come down even if the next round of European elections are won by leftists government.
It's a race against time, because if we become minorities in our own countries then that's it. It's game over. We'll lose at the billions years old game of life. The "new Europeans" will simply replace us and created their "new Europe".

Everything is pretty much a power play. Education, money and weapons are pretty much the tools of the population that they have against the government. Basically a weak economy is better for the left because it gives them even more power and less power over the people. A lot of gib me dat legislation isn't actually meant to help the poor, but rather weaken the middle class to make more poor saps.

scarily accurate

The problem with that is that, as you said, the so called far right parties are actually civic nationalists. Le Pen for example grew when she ditched her "antisemitic, racist" father and his policies. Today she is just anti Eu and anti Euro. And anti Islam. But an Arab or African is just as French to her, if he has the citizenship. Actual white nationalists in the USA could not capitalize on Trump's victory and Trumpenstein disavowed the alt-right. To this day people like Jared Taylore and Richard Spencer remain in the political fringe.

Also: to make Europe for the Europeans again, you would need to deport millions and millions of people. I don't see that happening at all. - Do you?

What's more: your OWN people, your own tribe will be your primary enemies then. As we see in the USA today, even white Americans rally against ethno nationalists. And the people enacting violence against the alt-right so far were all white. Antifa is all white, too.

Then you need to completely eradicate every condition that makes immigrants come here. Like, whether you're a refugee or not, if you're not at least second generation german, no welfare. Companies that hire sandniggers over native germans will be kept under control: if they underpay them, massive fines. If they didn't ask native germans whether they did want the job first, fines.

White liberals don't matter, they'll be the very first to fall in an eventual race war.

Astute observation, Hans.

>the new economy
Ahaha, you think that economics has changed radically somehow now that things are more controlled by computers? Adam Greenspan's flood of cheap credit into the US in the 90's only worked because China was buying a shitton of US bonds. The new economy is built on a weak foundation of total deregulation.

*Alan Greenspan's flood of cheap credit
fix'd

Yes, I understand that. But it's not just white liberals. It is the entire political elite of every single European country. And as I said: even the far right parties are not nativist, or race realist. They do not advocate for ethno-states.

At the end of the day, when it comes down it: you need another great European civil war to make Europe white European again.

And I wonder how capable the right would be in achieving this. What I see is that the average person does not care about this issue enough to fight and die for it, especially when his life is comfortable and wealth is around.

I just don't see it happening. I see Europeans sliding slowly but surely into the warm water bath tub and steadily but surely getting replaced in their home countries.

What's more is the demoralization of the public: youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

No you don't. You need to hurt them legally where it hurts the most: the wallet. If you can legally destroy all the progressive material they've set in motion, shit like affirmative action for one, they can cry all you want about hate, if nobody actually puts people in ovens there is nothing they can do. And it's even better if they do resort to violence first, because then you actually hit them back.

Think about the arm wrestling Trump is doing with commiefornia, do you actually think the USA need them more than them need the USA? They're pushing it too far.