Or you could come to the realization that Tommy's not compatible with ethnats, conservativism isn';t compatible with ethnats. And the only thing right about the alt-right is that they use the wrod right. Much like AntiFa calling themselves anti-fascist.......

No need to come to whatever so called realisations you seem to propose.
Simply pointing out the miss framing and hypocrisy of his supporters understandings.
But of course if we're really going to be this erroneous I don't really see the point. Going along with the old misnomer of lol they call themselves muh antifascist but are actually fascist themselves nonsense.
No they're communist and you tend to fail in actually defining what left and right mean if you seek to correct me.
Yes conservatism isn't compatible with ethnats but only because current conservatism is only concerned with conserving the status quo.

Conservatism is by definition interesting in keeping the status quo. Or, more realistically, with slowing down change to it. If you want change (especially radical change) in the direction of Fascism, ur a progressive. Not in the sense that ur necessarily akin to the "no borders" ppl or some shit. At least not in anything other then that you want change and you want that change to be going in the direction of something that hasn't been the status quo in your polity.

Other then that there's also reactionaries who *also* want change, but towards models that used to be the status quo or, again more realistically, a merging of the current ones with the former ones.

So yeah, institutionalized racism in modern America is not compatible with conservatism. It's compatible with progressivism or reactionary thinking.

In Europe, outside of a few places, it's only really compatible with progressive approaches as institutionalized racism was mostly not a thing here.

The only real exceptions are the Iberian peninsula, Italy and, to a lesser degree, though more recently, Britain and France (kinda).

Low Countries too I guess

Germany is far more dubious though. It existed, but only for very a short amount of time really.

Basically the colonizing nations.

Sometimes I'd love to be Irish just so I'd have the best reason of all to be an ethnat.

The Irish race is a good choice tbh. +1 Luck and +2 Alcohol Resistance.

Can really come in handy in some Charisma checks around socializing.

English race is playing on easy mode

The Anglo build is just a copy paste of the Jew build, they just changed the bonus to tribalism to a bonus to sailing.

I thought this channel would be different

Welp

Bruh

Momento

I'm just saying ethnats are only compatible with ethnats (and maybe commies) so there's nothing 'right' about them. That's why they always bottom feed off of more popular right movements. Collett is just another example of this phenomena.

Gain you've failed to define what 'Right' actual is and for lord knows what reason you think "commies" those who are literally internationalist are somehow compatible with ethnats.
Ethnats are nearly never internationalist.
The civic nationalist is simply in denial of the importance that ethnic homogeneity is the most stabilising factor of the state.
All ethnically diverse nations are in civil conflict.

I'd agree right and left are nebulous terms. But the fact that nothing on the right is compatible with ethnats indicates that it is not a right ideology. Communists are the most ideoleologically compatible. Stalin's treatise on politics was 'Socialism in one Nation' functionally little different from National Socialism. Both ideologies are dependent on a fantasy of revisionist history. Both are framed on a defunct theory of reality that never matches reality and thus insist that reality change to suit them.

Why not use moral foundations to define left and right?

Care/Harm, Liberty/Oppression, loyalty/betray, sanctity/degradation, fairness/cheating, authority/subversion

https://youtu.be/iEtw3XJoJrE

Gotta love the onion

Sadly, the fact they're all using M16s means it's an obvious fake.

I for one welcome our new female overlords

Instead of the more subtle fakes they're capable of.

https://aholdencirm.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/monty.jpg?w=676
surprise purity test fuckboys
what do you think of the personality known was ||Q anon||

I think it's an amusing little thing for the die-hard Trumpsters to talk about.

The ones on Twitter tend to be a little too into it for my taste. It's more a "wouldn't it be interesting if" thing for me.

i think the person behind it is likely an aide or someone close to someone else, as opposed to the illusion that theyre basically trumps right hand man

Probably.

and it went from leaking some details about speeches to just outright conspiracy pandering

Agreed.

honestly i think its negative on the long run, the left is already shitting itself on its various trump related conspiracies which people should be focusing on, but this pizzagate 2,0 shit is just gonna make the more crazy/outspoken die hard trump fans act out and basically be fodder for the media to show how bad trump supporters are

Well, yeah and nah. There's always gonna be zealots, and every side will have their fair share. Is it possibly damaging to Trump? Of course, in the same sense that the hardcore leftist Twitteratti can be to the Democrats. But in the end, I think it's probably going to end up not causing much harm to the Republicans and sane Democrats (yes, they do exist).

In the end, IMHO Qanon is more meme than menace.

i suppose

Back Stop

Read now: https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1002504523656855552

Seeing as our politicians are having trouble coming up with a solution for the back-stop, which seems to be the lynchpin for any UK-EU withdrawal agreement, I thought I'd apply some commonsense and see what everyone else thought?