1 year ago16 points(+0/-0/+16Score on mirror)1 child
One sign of Communism is when your government refuses to allow White people to have their own identity and own political interests
You're not allowed to have White Pride in America. You're not allowed to belong to a White Nationalist private militia. You are not allowed to celebrate white Heritage. Communists tear down the statues of White leaders and call them racists.
Yet everyone who is NOT White is openly allowed to be racist. They're allowed to blame Whites for all their problems. They're allowed to celebrate their own race and their own heritage.
Jews are allowed to practice eugenics, impose abortion upon non-jews, openly poison medicine and vaccines and food and the skies and the water, indebt all non-jews to insurmountable debt, promote pornography and drugs and anything that can reduce a non-jew population's fertility rate, etc.
A White man loses his job and is condemned and faces criminal charges if he openly expresses White Pride or a preference for friends and neighbors and employees and customers who are of the same race and culture.
This isn't to say that America is necessarily a communist nation. Distinctions between communism, fascism, socialism, capitalism mean very little to me because when jews are in charge and have monopoly power over the central bank then you are fucked no matter way. You might live a better quality of life in one economic system over the other, but ultimately you are still at the service to jews.
1. Anybody who's a lolbert post-2012 is functionally retarded.
2. I'm sure he thinks that because "socialist" is in the name, it must be the same as Soviet Marxism. With his reasoning skill, it would be interesting to hear him describe what he thinks [Grape Nuts](https://www.postconsumerbrands.com/brands/grape-nuts/products/grape-nuts-cereal/) are.
The 'Radical Centre' (i.e. libertarianism) is every bit as bad as the Left.
The main difference between them is that these idiots usually have very little power. However, if they had power, they would be every bit as dangerous and destructive. Unfortunately, the second Trump Administration is essentially theirs, and so we have to deal with idiots like that Twittard—their moronic conceptions of the political spectrum and the self, their extreme philo-semitism, and all the rest of their filth—till the Democrats inevitably deliver the coup de grace to them. Since Argentina's Radical Centre under Milei also looks to have no real staying power, they'll go from controlling two countries to back to zero before long. Some identified South Korea's recently ousted President Yoon as a libertarian—others, however, identify him as a centrist or conservative—in which case they've already lost one country.
Left-Wing bias combined with optimism leads one to believe that the second Trump Administration is the last gasp of the Right in America. In reality, there hasn't been a serious Right in America in centuries: instead, the second Trump Administration represents one of the final, possibly *the* final, gasp of the Radical Centre and its colourblindness, which has no place in a world of growing 'identity politics'. There will simply be Left-Wing identity politics facing off against the possible resurgence of Right-Wing identity politics that hyper-individualist cretins such as Tucker Carlson fear even more than the Left-Wing identity politics that they often rail against. People like this are closer to Antifa than 'Fa', and they will sooner align themselves with Antifa, and Antifa with them, than either will with the dreaded 'Fa'.
At present, I assume that the Republicans will essentially become marginalized post-Trump and thus that the Radical Centre will be out of power in America for a very long time to come. We don't know what the post-Trump Republicans will look like, but they will probably move to the non-radical centre, i.e. away from libertarians like Elon Musk and his Milei-like deregulationism, and trail the Democrats' constant Leftward drift, while ensuring that they don't fully reach the Democrats. As long as they remain somewhere Rightward of the Democrats, they won't lose large numbers of voters or risk a party split.
A few months ago, some talked of the Democrats possibly moving towards the Centre in response to Kamala's defeat. They spoke of three politicians whose names I forget—all of whom were yids—who had 'hijacked' the party. I think one of them might have been Josh Shapiro. However, I don't consider this a serious possibility. There is no real way to take the Democratic Party away from the Left without risking a party split and/or losing millions of younger and/or more degenerative voters.
In conclusion, things do not look good for the future of libertarianism. These people will soon learn what it has been like for centuries on the Right: if they think that they have no 'freedom' and so forth as of now, they'll be reflecting on 2025 fondly come 2028, when Musk comes to realize that he did not 'save the world' after all, with the Democrats likely retaking the executive. (Of course, we do not *know* who will win in 2028, but the mid-terms will give us good indication: if the Democrats do well in the mid-terms, that they will retake the executive in 2028 is practically a fait accompli.)
he invaded and tried to take over areas full of ethnic germans that were being massacred. Everything else was fair game after they declared war on him.
1 year ago9 points(+0/-0/+9Score on mirror)1 child
National socialism was tried and was successful. It took one of the most decimated economies/countries (Weimar Republic Germany) in the world and turned it into one of the strongest, most prosperous (Germany under NSDAP) in about 5 years.
By that criteria every form of government has failed; no government or economic system has lasted indefinitely. Failing eventually (particularly due to most world powers simultaneous attacking financially and physically) and failing from the start seems like a pretty big differentiation. National Socialism, inarguably, was a great success before the jews declared war on them and proceeded to send their attack dogs to crush them.
Th' guy in th' image arguing with boomer man is not calling for national socialism to be tried, he is merely pointing out that National Socialism is different from Marx's communism.
1 year ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
Do you think we still have a republic? That crippled commie FDR twisted it into a weird socialist hybrid back in the 30s. And the opposition party was also infiltrated and subverted by socialists, neoconservatism is a branch of trotskyist socialism. The modern west in general is currently ruled under globalist socialism. It may not be ideal, but replacing the globalism with nationalism would be an improvement.