The Nazi's socialist?

[Senor Hortler]

Spencer is the archetypical wignat and is very outdated, Leftist is behind the times massively; the up and comer in the USA in terms of White Wellbeing is No White Guilt a man who essentially preaches multinational co-operation of white people from the USA, Europe and various other places to disengage non violently (and is very adamant about this), start families and counteract the white guilt mentality cultivated in the western world.

He also looks like Albert Wesker.

He also regularly does shows with Laura Towler and Mark Collet, both of whom are English right wingers that want essentially an ethno state (but do state practically it's not realistic) and support the buy back and deportation of migrants from the UK; but where Albert Wesker NWG is pretty clearly a small government type Collet and Towler prefer more government methods of healthcare and support systems greater than what we have now. Renew Britannia is the same as Collet and Towler but wants less government regulation.

The fact of the matter is that Spencer was a LARP'er who took himself seriously, the current crop of 'Nazi's' are about as diverse as they come; they range from socialists to free market capitalists and everything in between. The only thing that unites them is a desire to see their race preserved where people like leftist would see everything mixed.

 

[Scottty]

If that's not it, then why else would they suddenly deescalate after it looked like they might have to live up to there "it's a life and death struggle for the soul of the nation, and we'll do whatever we have to do to win that struggle" rhetoric. Because I have a pretty good idea why a bunch of sheltered kids would suddenly do an about face on that, but I'm not seeing anything from you beyond some vague wishy washy crap about optics and justification and "we have no idea why every single event we hold turns into a riot or who all these black masked kids chanting our slogans are".

If I understand correctly, what happened was that the Antifa gang "deescalated" after learning the lesson that street violence stops being fun when their intended victims start fighting back.
In a nutshell, this:


Go home, little girl.

 

[ShieldWife]

If I understand correctly, what happened was that the Antifa gang "deescalated" after learning the lesson that street violence stops being fun when their intended victims start fighting back.
In a nutshell, this:


Go home, little girl.

It is my belief that any right wing protest or march should be heavily armed. By this, I mean the majority of attendees carrying an assault rifle. In Charlottesville we see what happened when the right wingers were unarmed - the police and leftist thugs collude to shut down the event and assault the attendees for daring to dissent. A few years later, also in Virginia, there was another right wing event - this time the participants were heavily armed - and for some mysterious reason they weren't attacked.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

It is my belief that any right wing protest or march should be heavily armed. By this, I mean the majority of attendees carrying an assault rifle. In Charlottesville we see what happened when the right wingers were unarmed - the police and leftist thugs collude to shut down the event and assault the attendees for daring to dissent. A few years later, also in Virginia, there was another right wing event - this time the participants were heavily armed - and for some mysterious reason they weren't attacked.

This is why the Left wants to circumvent the 2nd amendment, so their thugs can suppress dissenting opinions without problems.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

He didn't do experiments to confirm his hypotheses, nor did he seek independent verification for his "findings". Both of which are critical to the scientific method. You're just further demonstrating you don't know what it is.

on my way out the door but that is a late development of modern science. The current version of the modern scientific method is a process of staged development which began in the Renaissance the middle form of which looked identical to that of Aristarchus's scientific method.

 

[Navarro]

on my way out the door but that is a late development of modern science. The current version of the modern scientific method is a process of staged development which began in the Renaissance the middle form of which looked identical to that of Aristarchus's scientific method.

Aristarchus of Samos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Plutarch, while Aristarchus postulated heliocentrism only as a hypothesis, Seleucus of Seleucia, a Hellenistic astronomer who lived a century after Aristarchus, maintained it as a definite opinion and gave a demonstration of it[8] but no full record has been found. In his Naturalis Historia, Pliny the Elder later wondered whether errors in the predictions about the heavens could be attributed to a displacement of the Earth from its central position.[9] Pliny[10] and Seneca[11] referred to the retrograde motion of some planets as an apparent (and not real) phenomenon, which is an implication of heliocentrism rather than geocentrism. Still, no stellar parallax was observed, and Plato, Aristotle, and Ptolemy preferred the geocentric model, which was held as true throughout the Middle Ages.

The only known surviving work usually attributed to Aristarchus, On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon, is based on a geocentric world view. It has historically been read as stating that the angle subtended by the Sun's diameter is two degrees, but Archimedes states in The Sand Reckoner that Aristarchus had a value of ½ degree, which is much closer to the actual average value of 32' or 0.53 degrees. The discrepancy may come from a misinterpretation of what unit of measure was meant by a certain Greek term in the text of Aristarchus.[14]

He was literally just spitballing!

 

[Senor Hortler]

As an actual scientist this discussion is retarded.

 

[Navarro]

I'll also comment on this part, because while this accurately describes the results, it's very important that it's recognized only the bolded is actually requisite of the original ideology. Calling it "Right-wing" is, accounting for historic alliances, a matter of feverish distancing to avoid association with a horrendous conclusion of many of the same ideas. The original Italian Fascists were, after all, Socialists pissed about the lack of revolution.

Forcefully suppressing opposition, oddly enough, is actually a thing the Nazis had plans to stop in order to facilitate perpetual war. Careful avoidance of defeat in detail to preserve a real and active external "threat" for political purposes. Strongly regimenting the economy is something Fascism did much less than Socialism, because they preserved Capitalist enterprise as motivation for personal excellence, much the same as your own idea of "market" Socialism. If a brilliant engineer in Nazi Germany secured a loan to get a factory going for infrastructural manufacture, they were better off than under the Weimar Republic or the Second Reich because the Nazis very much supported the notion of capitalism for the sake of the people, differing from "market Socialism" in defining "the people" as a given nation.

Stratifying society, in political terms, is a weird one because it's one of those cases where the ideology doesn't necessitate a given measure, but the sorts willing to enact the ideology have no reason not to. Technically speaking, Fascism can be a civic nationalist system, pressing for extreme meritocracy in the name of national interest. The dictatorial nature of the Italian and German examples contradict this, but the ideology could just as well have the authoritarian state be a Confucian bureaucracy.

Again, it actually rejects principal in means, that's the entire justification of the National Bolsheviks.

Hmm ... fascism sounds an awful lot like socialism without universalism and without the idea of a utopian end-state to me ... i.e., socialism without the parts taken from Christianity.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Fascism and socialism are both products of the emergence of nation states, the growth of middle and lower classes, and the rise of literacy and political engagement by said lower classes.

Fascism in particular is a very disillusioned nationalism. Given it’s hostility to the traditional elites of pre WW1 Europe and its desire to remake the nation in service to the “people” as opposed to rule by the upper classes.

It lacks the universalism of international socialism and communism-which emphasizes the centrality of class, not blood and aims for the end of the nation state all together. Whereas fascism is basically nationalism that seeks to transform and mend the divisions and gaps in national societies.

 

[Julio92]

It is my belief that any right wing protest or march should be heavily armed. By this, I mean the majority of attendees carrying an assault rifle. In Charlottesville we see what happened when the right wingers were unarmed - the police and leftist thugs collude to shut down the event and assault the attendees for daring to dissent. A few years later, also in Virginia, there was another right wing event - this time the participants were heavily armed - and for some mysterious reason they weren't attacked.

They weren't "rightwing" they were 2A marchers, in effect, libertarians, arguing not for a people and a place, but for liberty, in essence holding up the virtues of the system, and only demanding that it follow its own virtues more stringently, no different from BLM marching for equality for rigorously applied.

They aren't actual dissidents opposed to the System in its entirety and thus, they were not attacked by it, nor did they make any impactful change because of their actions. Charlottesville is *still* talked about today, its what the president-elect of the US, started his campaign upon, because fundamentally it was the first anti-System protest since Occupy Wallstreet.

Edit: Sorry about the Necro, I just saw the dates, I figured I'd leave it up since everyone already got a notification.