Horseshoe theory is the ultimate bluepill

Prove me wrong.
>inb4 you can't

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/j6p1zxKnDeM
youtu.be/Qa-dInQEa-4
youtube.com/watch?v=kcxal9VAFww
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

be 17
think you tube personality is intelligent

Both dislike jews
Both hate big banks (thought will never admit the other side has the same views)
Both want to subvert consumerist lifestyle
Both hate globalization
Both hate the super rich (more so in thr left if their part of big corporatons and in the right if they're a jew)

Mic drop

> Communism
> Hate globalization

...

It's the belief that the left-right scale is a legitimate way of measuring political activity. Authoritarian states/ideologies inherently have things in common with others of the same authoritarian/libertarian counterpart, even if they are far-right and far-left.

It's oversimplified.

Also both hate foreign entanglemental and want to reduce military involvement

>Both dislike jews
80% of the Bolshevik revolutionaries were Jews, 230 out of the 300 socialists listed on Wikipedia are Jews.
>Both hate big banks
Communism couldn't exist without big banks funding their revolutions and keeping the Soviet union, Peoples Republic of China, etc, afloat. Russian JUST paid off the Soviet debt to the world banking cartels, and Putin vowed "never again" -- now he's public enemy #1 (((pure coincidence)))
youtu.be/j6p1zxKnDeM
youtu.be/Qa-dInQEa-4
>both hate globalization
That explains the Communist (((International)))
Not even going to bother with the rest...
>mic drop
cringe.JPG

...

I look at the spectrum like this, the left is collectivist and the right is about individualism. Both communism and national socialism is left to me. I feel like (((they))) wanted the spectrum in between two left leaning ideologies so the pendulum is always pegged to the left

Horseshoe theory in a nutshell.

>the left is collectivist and the right is about individualism
That's pretty two dimensional, and somewhat true.. Any contrast that doesn't account for other oppositions like authoritarianism/libertarianism is nonsense; it can't explain more than one spectrum of opposition.
> Both communism and national socialism is left to me
Hopefully as you read and think more, your perspective will grow in complexity. The Glenn Beck spectrum you have is pretty useless, that's why it's so popular with cuckservatives.

>Our ideologies are so different, we will join forces and try to take over europe

Who DIDN'T Stalin ally with? He was allies with every major power in that war at various times.

Individualism and collectivism are not what make the right and the left. Boiled down to its essence the left believes in the moral good of equality, while the right believes in the moral good of inequality.

So an alliance before the war when there was no other reason for the agreement then the extreme similarity of their intentions is the same as an alliance during the war when you need support.

How about you try to learn history before you try to make these retarded arguments

>tl;dr
Who temporarily allied with a former enemy, then changed sides and allied with some other set of former enemies, before becoming their enemy all over again for the next 70 years, isn't really a good rubric for determining the similarity of ideological systems. FTFY.

fuck off leftypol faggots, you want to suck nigger dick, we want to kill niggers, no common ground desu

>Both dislike jews
>Both hate globalization
Wrong. Commies are completely for globalisation and are funded by jews like Soros.

>Both hate big banks (thought will never admit the other side has the same views)
Yet you never hear them talking about central banking or about auditing the fed. Its always "muh 1%"

Pretty silly for a "skeptic" to say. If he care about truth it shouldn't matter if it's on the right, left, center, or anywhere else.

Horseshoe theory has some merit the problem is that radical centrist and the faux peace makers present a trivialized version that only serves their goals.

> not understanding what horseshoe theory really is

Yes the two have wildly opposing ideas, but the point is that extremism in the left or right will look similar. Fascists and communists look pretty similar in that they both have state controlled economies, both are authoritarian, etc. They aren't the same, but they exhibit similar symptoms despite being supposed opposites.

not only that, but both are revolutionary anti-bourgeoise mass movements that use similar tactics of street agitation and party cadres. so not only do they both look similar AFTER they come into power because they're both totalitarian, but radicals of both sides look the same when they're operating as a radical movement trying to overthrow a bourgeoise society.

lmao Communism created by Jews that couldn't compete with BUSINESS GOY

Sad!

>what people think is "moderate" politics today was radically leftist politics 50 or 100 years ago
>likewise, "moderate" politics back then would be unthinkably right-wing today

Do "centrist" or "moderate" never think about this? How things keep drifting ever leftward, right under their noses?

>the point is that opposing extremes will look similar
>for example, both are statist theories
>both involve people drinking water
>both involve people breathing air
>both involve people
>pol BTFO
Sophists tend to use a lot of words to describe nothing at all. Horeshoe theory appeals to the same type of mindset as the "enlightened centrist", ie, people terrified of choosing sides, people afraid of conflict, or those who don't really understand why two sides conflict, they just perceive that they do and think it's clever or edgy to "be above the fray".

>cringe.JPG
no u holy shit user

>militant movements are militant
Can horseshoe theory offer anything but redundant statements of the obvious? Is there some profound insight here other than "when two sides go to war, they tend to look like armies at war"? Fake profound garbage.

Shill harder

>being this new and cringe
What am I shilling for, leaf?

>using the word cringe
you are clearly shilling for reddit

Paid to attack that fast?

>thread against horseshoe theory
>clearly shilling for reddit
I'm sure that makes sense on whichever board you came from. You need to go back.
Two different IDs, but talking to me like its the same person... you're using a VPN. Might want to reconfigure your DNS so it doesn't give you multiple IDs in the same thread.

assuming pol = natsoc:
>seek to stop free speech
>want authoritarian regimes
>(((REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH)))
>seek to impose their idiotic ideas over other countries by way of imperialism
>ultimately retarded concepts
>both blatantly left wing
>((("WILDLY DIFFERENT")))

BUT MUH HORSH CHEW FWERY

Literally the first pages of the communist manifesto talk about how globalism is a natural cause of Capitalism, and how the discovery of the Americas naturally led to capitalism being possible. You cannot have Capitalism without the globalism.

On the topic of jews, read "On the Jewish Question" by Karl Marx, or at least look at pic related.

For one both far left and far right are based on identity politics.

Both are authoritarian.
Both hate Israel.
Both want to destroy current system.
Both want racial segregation.
And so on, and so on.

While motivations might be different, not only methods but even some goals are common.

The ideas are wildly different. Horseshoe theory is only about the drastic measures both sides take to reach their goal.

>both blatantly left wing
Where do you all come from? Were you raised on Glenn Beck and Molymeme as core curriculum in your Christian Zionist homeschool?

>For one both far left and far right are based on identity politics.
Is it possible for politics to be based on anything but identity? Without an identity, you're essentially a lone hermit living in a cave; being part of society, by definition entails identity: class, race, sex, religion, nationality, language, and so on. If you bought the meme that you could have society without identity, you were drinking spiked koolaid.
>Both are authoritarian.
Every political ideology except ancap is authoritarian, so, I guess Monarchists are Communists too.
>Both hate Israel.
Everyone hates Israel except Jews.
>Both want to destroy current system.
The Left is the current system, so...
>Both want racial segregation.
That's bullshit though isn't it? Since the Left is risking self-destruction to ensure multiculturalism, even to the point of importing dangerous minorities from war zones in the Jihadist 3rd world.

I don't think "centrists" really think about the politics they believe and just call everyone else dumb for reasons.

Like most political issues today are almost entirely Black and White, where having the "center" opinion to have a compromise misses the point.

You can't really have a compromise for abortion and gun control because doing so would just go against both sides and no one wins.

fascists aren't the right though. they are Third Way.

Commies ARE jews, that's a jewish ideology.
Also
>commie
>hating globalization

Communism is a globalist ideology, they just dislike globalization in the current trade

>"On the Jewish Question" by Karl Marx,
>by (((Karl Marx)))
kek

>s it possible for politics to be based on anything but identity? Without an identity, you're essentially a lone hermit living in a cave; being part of society, by definition entails identity: class, race, sex, religion, nationality, language, and so on. If you bought the meme that you could have society without identity, you were drinking spiked koolaid.
I should probably be more precise. What I mean was idpol based on factors that are random/beyond your control like race, sex.

>le ancaps are only True Libertarians

>everyone hates Israel
Both mainstream republicans and European centrists are quite fond of it.

>The Left is the current system
Yes and no. System is not inherently left wing or right wing. Left have been in control for a while now, but the pendulum is swinging.

>Both want racial segregation.
I'm not talking about Bernie-tier trash. There are more radical groups that advocate stuff like "Black-only spaces". Also Bureau of Land Management is separatist.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE COMMIES,

both are also extremist retards

Both extremes are controlled opposition to each other and are based on mental imbalances

>communism
>"hates jews"
>literally CREATED by a jew

good one retarded fuck

But far right and far left ARE similar
Problem is that moderate right (like majority of Sup Forums) gets called far right

>seek to impose their idiotic ideas over other countries by way of imperialism
Funny how that's never a problem when muh freedom muh democracy faggots decide to impose their idiotic ideas over other countries by the way of imperialism though.

...

I don't hate banks, I don't hate the rich, and although I may think the consumerist lifestyle is pretty shallow and degenerate I am not out right against it. You are retarded if you hate the rich purely due to the fact they're rich.

> Horseshoe theory is the ultimate bluepill
>Both extremes are controlled opposition to each other

This is correct.

>But far right and far left ARE similar
>Problem is that moderate right

The fundamental problem is using an archaic dichotomy based on how the parties in the French National Assembly sat after the revolution.

It hasn't been relevant or useful to designate parties along a simple line scale for a century, but is HAS proved very useful to said parties to act like there's only a line of political opinion and that they represent the two available options.

This creates the illusion of choice among two sides of one coin. Whatever radicals support either "side" gets pushed away to a corner and called "far left" or "far right". And then both sides try to condemn those groups as extremist nuts, again limiting choice to themselves.

If you instead saw that every political issue has a range of options and a wider range of reasoning behind those options you'd end up seeing the logic of new parties that fix gaps in how the right/left dichotomy takes up opinions.

For instance in the US there is ample space in the middle for a socially liberal and fiscally conservative party. There's a huge group now of disaffected voters from both parties that could form that basis. The libertarians have been trying to be that option for a while now, but they've consistently failed, in part because of their own incompetence, but also because the US system wasn't set up to handle a multitude of parties (actually it wasn't set up to handle parties at all, and the founding fathers warned against "factionalism").

Every single year it gets harder to have any opposition party in the US because both parties use government to MAKE it harder. The barriers for entry grows as the possibility of a third party grows.

>Both dislike Jews
Communism is a Jewish ideology and the Soviet Union was fucking FULL of Jews.

>Both hate big banks
Holy shit read Bakunin you stupid nigger, every version of Marxist theory relied on massive central banks.

>Both want to subvert consumerist lifestyle
No, Communists want to END the consumerist lifestyle, Sup Forums wants to reform the consumerist lifestyle.

>Both hate globalization
Sorry how many fucking cominterns were there? Marx's communism was distinct from Bakunin's anarchism primarily because Marx and Marx alone felt that the revolution would HAVE to be global.

>Both hate the super rich
Who is DONALD J TRUMP YOU STUPID BASTARD HOLY FUCK
We don't hate rich people we hate Leftist cultural saboteurs (who all seem Jewish for some reason) regardless of their fucking social class.

Horseshoe theory is low-information nonsense. It is attractive to idiots because it's "easy" to explain and understand. You just have to lack nuance to such a degree that literally polar opposite ideologies become identical, or to hold such a partisan Libertarian position that you simply refuse to acknowledge the differences between authoritarian leftists and rightists because they're both authoritarian.

>>Both want racial segregation.
>That's bullshit though isn't it? Since the Left is risking self-destruction to ensure multiculturalism, even to the point of importing dangerous minorities from war zones in the Jihadist 3rd world.

I can't pretend to explain it fully, because it makes no sense, but:

There is a NIMBYism to the immigrant question. The rich liberal elites aren't affected by mass immigration. Most liberals are better off (as they like to boast themselves) and have more schooling, so the primary people to take the punch by both competition for low-education jobs (that are already shrinking) and face cutbacks on benefits are not liberal.

You'd think that at least the ideological question would be easier to solve, because the people the left defends are the ones most opposed to everything they stand for. The left currently even sells out their rape crisis narrative to defend immigrants and betrays everything they've said about underage sex and marriage to defend the right of barbarians to enforce their customs here (even against the law).

Why would they do this? I don't know. But it's clearly enforcing a racial segregation. They WANT those ghettos. They WANT the immigrants to be subject to different laws and get less punishment for breaking the laws we have. They also WANT them to get preferential treatment in society, special avenues of bennies a regular white worker will not get, as well as job quotas.

This is all a racial (or ethnic if you want to be anal) segregation, enforced by government no less.

I can't explain what the fucking plan is, or how this pretzel logic works out in their heads, but it's clearly not equality.

by horse shoe theory you mean that fascism and communism are similar to each other?


You'd be an idiot to think otherwise.

>Sup Forums vs learned Harvard and Yale Historians

pretty hard choice. Even /his/ would disagree with Sup Forums

t. useful idiot

actually, now that i think about it, i only seem to remember seeing right wingers trying to argue against people who say they're similar to communists. i never see lefties deny it or try to fight it. rly maks me thing

i means that you don't listen to leftists.

>Both hate globalization
yoooo wtf are they teaching in universities over there. in my uni the professors specifically explained that communism was appealing to jews because it's an international ideology and that was appealing to them because they had no sense of belonging to their nations

yeah i guess i might not lol.

>80% of the Bolshevik revolutionaries were Jews, 230 out of the 300 socialists listed on Wikipedia are
Jews were one of the most oppressed groups in the Empire, so no wonder they flocked to all kinds of revolutionaries not just communists.
Pretty much all Jews was purged by Stalin which is what is mostly associated with muh USSR.
>Communism couldn't exist without big banks funding their revolutions and keeping the Soviet union, Peoples Republic of China, etc, afloat. Russian JUST paid off the Soviet debt to the world banking cartels, and Putin vowed "never again" -- now he's public enemy #1 (((pure coincidence)))
Bolsheviks repudiated on all huge foreign debts of the Empire. Throughout its lifetime USSR had very small foreign debt because no one would loan us anyway. Only in the final years, when (((perestroika))) began and USSR began to crumble the debt skyrocketed to several dozen billions.
>That explains the Communist (((International)))
See Stalinism and Socialism in one country. Internationalism was a thing only for a very short time.

Horseshoe theory has no merit, it's symptomatic of trying to define all political ideologies on a single axis. The premise is stupid therefore anything arising from it is just stupidity compounded.

Define extremist, explain why being an extremist is necessarily bad

the thing that has always convinced me horseshoe theory is retarded is that when the radical right takes power, it tends to use the existing governmental apparatus and maintains already existing institutions.

Radical left tends to destroy currently existing institutions and attempts to corrupt the same apparatus that got them into power.

>Commies are completely for globalisation and are funded by jews like Soros.
Except Soros was the most instrumental in destruction of USSR and helping former Warsaw block countries on the road to ""open society"" and ""freedom"" by funding various NGOs and propaganda there.
His pet project is literally fascist hugely anti-communist but pro-globalist Ukraine. He's hardly a communist.

Space time warping is out of the question so that means centrist cucks are still the closest ones to the commies

this.
Though I prefer "hierarchy" instead of "inequality" to describe the right. I don't think it's good to define something with a negation like that.

It always bothers me when (usually cuckservatives) argue in the way of "big vs. small government" when they talk about left-right.

DIE COMMIE WEEABOO

WE ARE BEING RAID. ALMOST ONE WEEK! AND NOBODY DOES NOTHING!

THE FUCK /LEFTYPOL/ THE FUCKING SHIT OF /LEFTYPOL/ RAID US!

Almost everyone biting damn baits, right fighting against right, /ourguys/ being attacked...

FUCKING SHIT! Sup Forums are looking like a bunch of cucks. Let's fight our battle here on our board, Meme Jihad.

youtube.com/watch?v=kcxal9VAFww

LEFTIST LOSERS GET OFF MY BOARD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>Internationalism
>Globalization

You aren't even white kek

>It always bothers me when (usually cuckservatives) argue in the way of "big vs. small government" when they talk about left-right.
I never understood why a fascist government couldn't be small.

How are you supposed to unite your people if your government is small and they can just do whatever they want instead?

FUCK OFF SHILL

COMMUNISM WAS A SHIT MEME AND WILL NEVER BE DANK

Jews founded Communism, Jewish bankers funded the Russian Revolution and the Commies are now Soros' foot soldiers fighting for globalisation.

You're uneducated, or a shill

People don't want to live under authoritarian governments.

I think it usually just refers to one issue they agree on despite having radical different ways of arriving at the conclusion.

>WE ARE BEING RAID. ALMOST ONE WEEK! AND NOBODY DOES NOTHING!

Sup Forums isn't about modding and blocking people. That's the entire attraction you crack smoking chimp.

We resist raids by simply refusing to change and instead absorbing the refuse that wash up.

>LEFTIST LOSERS GET OFF MY BOARD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You can't make them. The only thing you can ever try to do is change their mind.

>The smartest race supports communism
Based

By having the people be the active factor, not the government. The government should create the framework within the people can do their thing - it's just that this framework needs to be upheld more rigorously than it's currently the case.

You don't need a big government to physically remove certain groups of people. In fact I doubt you need one at all - just sanction any actions against them and let the people do what's necessary.

I'd like to and the very fact that I'm not allowed to or don't have the option to is inherently authoritarian itself and thus hypocritical.

>communists have strongly-held convictions
>fascists also have strongly-held convictions

extremists btof

Not allowing a fascist society is in itself fascistic? Haha.

Authoritarian governments always crumble or result in tyranny.

>Authoritarian governments always crumble or result in tyranny.
And unauthoritarian systems always end in degeneracy, but I'm fine with them doing so - I'd just like to have the option of likeminded people to opt out of this madness. But alas, this option won't be granted and yes that is indeed fascistic itself.

Stop forcing your freedom onto me.

First, that's an appeal to authority and thus has no value.
But no, it's the idea that extreme left/right wing ideologies become similar eventually.

This is simply wrong, and it is only propped up by the fact that people cannot rationalize any position that did bad things as existing close to the center on the political compass's X axis because they are idiots.

Reality check: The Nazis were not extreme right-wing, the ideology was flexible and included some left-wing and right-wing elements, they were just extreme authoritarians. What did they do that the Soviets also did? A few left-wing things but mostly being EXTREME AUTHORITARIANS. That isn't about left or right, it's about up or down, figuratively speaking.

What do extreme Minarchists have to do with the Soviet Union? What's in common? Dick. But they can be extremely right wing, and Stalinists are definitely extremely left wing, so... Why the lack of similarity? Ah, it is because most of the "similarities" drawn between the stereotypical far right and far left groups are actually authoritarian in nature and not connected to the left-right axis.

>You can't make them. The only thing you can ever try to do is change their mind.

Great advice, Sweden. You know what you do.

Ssshhh you'll destroy Sup Forumss narrative of George Soros being a Jewish nazi communist who wants to turn everyone inton gay socialists even though he was a guard at Auschwitz.

I don't know who the fuck he is but all of this I've heard here.

>Yes the two have wildly opposing ideas, but the point is that extremism in the left or right will look similar. Fascists and communists look pretty similar

That's because they are both extremism of the Left, who distanced themselves from each other because their support bases very heavily intersected. Since the Left first defined itself as the Left in 1789 it always was statist, it always was authoritarian, it always was about radical social reforms enforced by an authoritarian state, and it always selected some group of people as scapegoats whose very existence explains why everything is going to shit and with whose blood sins of society shall be washed away. Hitler and Stalin simply selected those scapegoats by different criteria.

The problem with distinguishing the Left from the Right lies first in the fact that the Left's propagandists deliberately push some of their own into the Right's camp, so that they can use argumentum ad Hitlerum to shut down discussions. And second in the fact that the actual Right was nearly completely eliminated from politcs for at least half a century, if not much more, and all we have at the moment is radical Left in its various brands opposed by conservative Left, who accepts all the basic axioms of radical Left (human equality, natural human goodness, atheism) but has too much common sense to follow them to their conclusions.