US Pol Thesis: The American 'far-left' are actually the far-right but for non-white people by Metropolis45 on alternatehistory.com

[Bassoe]

source is here

I was reading the thread What explains the appeal of rightist or reactionary populism in some American anti-establishiment progressive/leftist circles? Which discussed odd elements of left-wing identity politics in the United States. This inspired me to post my own thread on the topic.

I have a theory that within the context of American politics the term 'far-left' actually means far-right but for non-white people. I do not believe that a coherent far-left movement actually exists in the United states. While some individuals may genuinely profess far-left ideals they do not compose the political force popularly referred to as the 'far-left.'

I first developed this idea a couple years ago when I noticed that Tariq Nasheed has a number of left-wing followers. I also occasionally see people post his tweets on left-wing forums. Often times there is controversy over Nasheed, but a controversy requires two sides. Why is there a pro-Nasheed side in left-wing spaces at all? The man is openly homophobic, he is a misogynist, he is anti-immigrant, and most importantly he does not even identify as left-wing. My conclusion is simple: the pro-Nasheed 'leftists' aren't leftists. They are far-rightists, but for black people.

I want you to take a look at this picture

These are the leaders of the 2016 Women's March attending the Time gala in 2017. Notice that their fists are raised, a traditional leftist symbol dating back to the Spanish Civil War. Sounds like these ladies are on the Left, right?

Now look at this picture

This finely dressed gentleman is none other than the Honorable Louis Farrakhan. He believes that blacks and whites should not co-exist and that they should instead live in different countries. He is a Holocaust denier and anti-semite. Farrakhan also is homophobic and further believes that women should remain in the house and be obedient towards their husbands. And the cherry on top, he also associated himself with the neo-Nazi leader George Lincoln Rockwell and got banned from Facebook two years ago for his anti-semitism.

Now based on what I have told you, this guy sounds pretty far-right, right?

There is no way any leftist would want anything to do with this guy, right?

But alas, three of the four women pictured above have expressed admiration and support for Farrakhan. This shouldn't make sense, but it does the moment you consider my thesis: Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, and Carmen Perez are not leftists. In fact, they are very far to the right. They are considered leftists in the context of American politics only because they are non-white. Notice that the one woman I didn't mention from the above picture is of rather fair complexion. This is not a coincidence.

Sarsour has expressed support for Sharia law in Islamic countries. Vanessa Wruble, an organizer of the Women's March, told the NYT that she faced harassment from Mallory and Perez for being Jewish. Mallory tweeted regarding Farrakhan that “If your leader does not have the same enemies as Jesus, they may not be THE leader!” Now, remind me (((who))) the (((enemies of Jesus))) were again?

Does any of this sound like like left-wing rhetoric to you?

These aren't exactly isolated incidents, but part of a very clear pattern seen among members of the American 'left.'

Malcolm X is very popular among the American 'left' despite opposing racial integration and women's rights.

Yuri Kochiyama is fondly remembered as a 'left-wing' activist despite supporting segregation and the right-wing religious fundamentalist Osama bin Laden.

'Leftists' will often express support for revanchist Blut und Boden nationalist ideas, so long as they are non-white nations.

Sometimes they even fight each other over who has the right to which land.

In South Africa the 'left-wing' Economic Freedom Fighters has repeatedly had leaders put on trial for hate speech against whites, Indians, women, and even foreign blacks. Albeit South Africa is not the United States.

If Varg Vikernes was black he would probably be considered a leftist in America. At least he is anti-capitalist. Or in his case, anti-(((capitalist))). He even opposes white people living in the Americas as they are not indigenous, echoing my point about Blut und Boden nationalism. If Serbs were brown and Turks were white 'remove kebab' would probably be seen as an anti-colonialist slogan.

Please read these quotes

I am offended when people call European descendants “privileged good-for-nothing pilgrims.” Because by saying this, people do not take into account the thousands of years that European peoples were raped, tortured and enslaved. They do not understand the beauty of who we were before the onslaught. They do not understand that even though we have free will and the ability to choose how we live our life, it is very hard to overcome inter-generational trauma.

The parallels between the genocide of Indigenous Europeans and Native Americans are astounding. It boggles my mind that more people don’t see how we are the same people, who have undergone the same spiritual assault.

To not be ashamed of our European-ness, but to reclaim our beautiful grandmothers, to reclaim our venerable grandfathers, to reclaim our lost languages, our lost ceremonies, our lost homelands and become one with the Great Sacred Motherland of Europe once again. The European diaspora is spread all throughout the world, searching the planet for something that lives is inside. I promise you will hear it when who climb the mountains of Switzerland! Of Scotland! Of Tuscany! Of Hungary! Of Portugal! Of the Great Sacred Motherland of Europe!

I didn't get these off Stormfront. These words were written by a indigenous rights activist named Lyla June. This reveals something that speaks to my main point: when you apply 'far-left' wokery to white people, you get white nationalism. That is because it isn't far-left. It's far-right.

So why is this?

My theory is that the American non-white far-right identifies as left-wing and co-opts left-wing symbolism because within the context of American society these symbols are seen as anti-American due to Cold War propaganda. They wear leftist paint in order to present themselves as the enemy of mainstream American society, but are actually on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

In short, I think the problem is that left-wing imagery is seen as edgy and anti-establishment so elements of the far-right like to co-opt it.

What do you think?

Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point

A heartbreaking story is currently unfolding that’s sure to have devastating ramifications for years to come. Just moments ago, without any warning, the worst person…

clickhole.com

Yeah, I was as surprised as you and thought I'd better transplant the discussion here before it got banhammered.

 

[ShieldWife]

Yeah, he’s basically right. Being anti-white is usually the central belief of the far left, so much so that they’d be Nazis or the KKK if the were white with equivalent beliefs.

 

[Syzygy]

Basically right, but technically wrong; they are still far-left because the underlying goal remains the same as almost every other far-left organization only with the added stipulation of racial supremacy that is not white.

The far-left has not been co-opted by its insidiously clever counterpart, its institutions simply armed supremacists with leftist rhetoric. Only now some - such as the article's author - are beginning to realize when the right is gone they've painted a target on their own backs. But that simply cannot be possible. After all, to denounce black organizations, regardless of their explicit goals, would be to indulge racist sentiments, a blatantly right-wing position. How are leftists to save themselves from the monsters they nurtured without becoming monsters themselves? Why, by redefining the opposition as they always do; these black activists are not far-left, they are clearly far-right, therefore it is acceptable to condemn them.

 

[Scottty]

"Left" and "Right" are political terms that are overloaded with conflicting meanings nowadays. Originally, they were used in a more-or-less single race context, and meant something simple.
If you supported the hereditary rule of king, nobility, and church, you were Right. If you wanted to change those things, you were Left.

But yes, the Left used to be ones who were for egalitarianism. Or claimed to be. In reality it was always about replacing the old elite with a new one.

The true essence of the Left, arguably, is about rejection of Christianity. All the noise about wealth distribution, and group rights, and blah blah blah is just cover. At heart they are anti-God.
And they hate, hate, hate white people because they equate whiteness with Christianity. It's really Jesus they hate, they're just confusing Him with us.

"But not all white people are Christians!" I hear you reply. "But lots of non-whites are Christians too!" "Was Jesus when He was on earth actually white-skinned at all?"
I know that, you know that, even the Leftists, if they were capable of sitting down and thinking it over rationally, would realize those points. But they are not driven by reason, they are driven by irrational hatred. Hatred of God, and of all who are made in His image, especially the ones with pale skin.

So pushing Atheism, criminality and LGBTwhatever on the one hand, and rolling out a welcome mat for Islam on the other? Screaming that "racism" is bad, while encouraging it at the same time?
It seems utterly self-contradictory until you see the real point: hatred of the image of God, that they see in white men.
(No, I'm not saying that I believe white men to reflect God's image more than other humans, I'm saying that's the Left's subconscious belief. And they hate white people for it. )

 

[ATP]

Becouse they support big socialist state which control everything,they are still leftist.Just like comrade Hitler was.Problem is - leftist lied so much that he was far-right,then when we see black Hitlers we consider them far-right.

 

[Scottty]

Becouse they support big socialist state which control everything,they are still leftist.Just like comrade Hitler was.Problem is - leftist lied so much that he was far-right,then when we see black Hitlers we consider them far-right.

I don't think these "black supremacist" types care about the state controlling the economy, so much as about it giving them an endless supply of hand-outs. Where the resources would actually come from is probably a long way over their mental horizon.

 

[Cherico]

Basically right, but technically wrong; they are still far-left because the underlying goal remains the same as almost every other far-left organization only with the added stipulation of racial supremacy that is not white.

The far-left has not been co-opted by its insidiously clever counterpart, its institutions simply armed supremacists with leftist rhetoric. Only now some - such as the article's author - are beginning to realize when the right is gone they've painted a target on their own backs. But that simply cannot be possible. After all, to denounce black organizations, regardless of their explicit goals, would be to indulge racist sentiments, a blatantly right-wing position. How are leftists to save themselves from the monsters they nurtured without becoming monsters themselves? Why, by redefining the opposition as they always do; these black activists are not far-left, they are clearly far-right, therefore it is acceptable to condemn them.

One day white people, black people, hispanics asians and people of every race will come together and kick the absolute shit out of the commies.

 

[ATP]

One day white people, black people, hispanics asians and people of every race will come together and kick the absolute shit out of the commies.

Amen.

 

[Navarro]

This doesn't go far enough and fails to make the conclusion which is obvious enough when looking at the historical sources, which is that what is commonly referred to as the "far-right" is actually a branch of the left.

 

[Scottty]

This doesn't go far enough and fails to make the obvious conclusion which is obvious enough when looking at the historical sources, which is that what is commonly referred to as the "far-right" is actually a branch of the left.

Many of the unspoken assumptions that seem to lie under their ideas are very similar, yes.

 

[ShieldWife]

One day white people, black people, hispanics asians and people of every race will come together and kick the absolute shit out of the commies.

That sounds nice, but that isn’t the direction any nation in the world is heading in, either ideologically or in terms of policy.

 

[ATP]

That sounds nice, but that isn’t the direction any nation in the world is heading in, either ideologically or in terms of policy.

True.I fear,that we unite in leftist gulags or massgraves.

 

[Scottty]

True.I fear,that we unite in leftist gulags or massgraves.

Don't get too black-pilled. The Left generally ends up destroying itself.

 

[ATP]

Don't get too black-pilled. The Left generally ends up destroying itself.

When i see polish politicians,it is my only hope.Becouse our leftist destroy themselves all on their own,and ruling PIS would not help in it.Well,they are socialists.
I hope,that normal politicians in other countries are better.Orban certainly is.