How do you make a political extremist character likeable?

I can't make ISIS and Bolsheviks 'human' because to me they simply aren't, consdering how they are promotors of white genocide

that's why you're not a good writer

>consdering how they are promotors of white genocide
OP, I don't mean to alarm you, but have you ever considered that you might be a political extremist.

Make them part of a fictional extremist group first of all. Also, show the psychological, political, and economic pressures that turn someone into an extremist. There's a hidden side of extremism people don't see. Tear open the lid. Don't just make him a faceless creep.

You do it by depicting what they fought against as even worse - in the case of Bolsheviks it's easy, since Nicholas II, Rasputin and the Okhrana were almost cartoonishly vicious and despotic. ISIS is harder, but you could depict the desperation and fury of a man who had his village destroyed by US drone strikes, for instance, and use that as the motivator for his actions. Or make him a tragic figure, preyed on by manipulative clerics with their own agenda. There's all sorts of options if you just use a little imagination.

I am referring to current Bolsheviks, i.e. cultural marxist feminist judaics

Those are just liberals. They don't even care about economic class for the most part; they're certainly not starting a proletarian revolution any time soon.

they're leftists and against capitalism

wit
the answer is always wit

Nicholas II wasn't cartoonishly vicious and despotic. He was a meek and gentle dude that was in charge of the hegemon of reaction and absolute monarchy in Europe and surrounded by people that expected him to act like an iron-fisted tyrant. If he was in charge of a regular western European country like his cousins he would have been fine, but nope, he got stuck with the Saudi Arabia of the day. If he was actually a vicious despot it paradoxically probably would have been better for Russia since it wouldn't have had to deal with the indecisiveness and ineffectuality of Nicholas at a time when was rapidly booming and experience huge unrest.

Purple haired Hillary supporters are not against capitalism. They might think they are but their idea of "socialism" is Sweden.

Is this book any good? I've never read anything by Mieville other than his Dial H comic, which was good.

Well, keep in mind that one thing common to most extremists willing to resort to violence is that they don't have much to lose, in material and/or emotional terms.
There is a reason poor people are more prone to violent rebellion, and so are emotionally detached people.

Everyone with more than an ounce of brain matter has problems with capitalism. The people you're describing seldom actually engage with it, though, they just whine about transgender toilets or whatever tedious non-issue is popular on Facebook. Hard leftist would be more about labor strikes, nationalizing industries, and wealth redistribution.

It's pretty nice, yeah. Much more readable than Ten Days or most of the primary sources, but without sacrificing too much in depth of perspective, research, etc. Bit of thesaurus abuse here and there.

Any extremist is more likeable than a milquetoast, western liberal bugman eternally ejaculating into a plastic pussy in the VR pleasuredome

I don't literally mean ISIS and bolsheviks. I'm just giving examples of people widely disliked by Veeky Forums culture because it's easier to get across what I'm going for.

right-wing ecoterrorism is the new wave
catch it

You have to give him a proper reason to be an extremist. Someone in a warzone joining ISIS would be more likeable than someone in his mom's basement memeing about white genocide for example.

Is there any interesting writing on it, other than (arguably) Edward Abbey?

If it's a leftist, show how his self-loathing neurosis is rooted in his relationship with his smothering Jewish mother.

If he's right wing, show that his motivation is to make his country safe and prosperous for his children's children.

Depict them as people. Show aspects of their lives that don't have anything to do with politics. Also, when it comes time to discuss their being militants, make the audience privy to the logic that led them to their conclusion.

The audience doesn't have to like your character as a militant, only like him as a person and understand him as a militant.

Focus on the person and give them good reasons to support a bad cause. In case of ISIS it's simply lack of options and revenge for example. In case of Bolsheviks it's a misguided attempt to create a better society for everyone. Extra points if they lost someone close to the other side. Someone starving or getting executed by the current government or getting fucked by upper classes for the commies. Someone bombing your little brother on the way from school for the ISIS guy.

Now if you have some crazy white libertarians who wage a war against the state or KKK, that's a lot harder and takes more skill. Go with their disconnect with the world and loneliness as an somewhat simple way out.

What is this... like deliberate destruction of the environment?

Gotta save it from the Jews and the Blacks somehow.

>white genocide

McNig isn't an extremist. An idiot, yes, but not an extremist

If you're having trouble understanding why people have different political idealogies besides your own beyond some armchair psychoanalysis , then that is your fault as a person not as a writer.

When we talk about politics extremism, the easiest cop out to making him complex is to give him an emotionally charged back story
>My whole family was killed by x, I'm out for revenge
Or
>I never had a problem with x, until they began hurting the people around me

You have to give people the ethos of a certain political idealogy and the context that spurred it if you want to create a complex character. You have to get inside the head of someone who vehemently disagrees with you.

>United States is less than 60% white
>Whites will eventually diminish in voting power before other ethnic groups , leading to ethnic tensions
>Again
>Sheltered bourgie white kids have no problem with this as long as they can play Vidya and jerk off

>people moving into a country is genocide

If you lack this much self awareness and empathy and fall into agitprop this easily you will never produce writing of worth. By your logic most writers are "cucks" because you often need to account for several perspectives when writing

Not him and generally you're right but with certain views it's still pretty tricky to make the character likeable. Understanding WHY someone wants to do X isn't enough when we talk about completely despicable ideas, especially if it goes beyond wanting but doing that kind of shit.

With something like white surpremacist, the only solution seems to be having the character to grow up in that kind of environment and having all of their friends being crazies too, hence creating extra internal conflict, because abandoning the bullshit would mean abandoning their entire past life. Besides, if they are cut off from any other views, they never really had the capacity to make an informed decision.

It's less than 40% black and black people somehow survived so far.

The Japanese and the Koreans seem to be of that opinion.

And that makes it ok because they're not white and as well all know if someone else does it that makes it ok

LEFITSTS BLWON THE FUCK OUT!!! subscribe for more epic sjw cuck own moments, hehe based sam hyde and molyneux

>implying anyone actually wants to move there

Wew lad, you need to take a few deep breaths!

very empathetic

>Implying anything is inherently despicable
That's what I'm talking about, the trait of a rational actor is to assume no black and white evils in the world. Now that doesn't mean you have to change your personal opinion, but to be more nuanced in your views you need to get engaged in the dialectic of your opponents and rivals.

When it comes to white supremacy, for instance, a lot of it has to with the complicated issue of race relations in the modern world, where white people are also experiencing racism and hatred against themselves. I've talked with white supremacists (it's as easy as lurking on /pol/) and that's their general answer, they are biological determinist, race naturalists, ethnographers, and reactionaries. That is their view, and when exploring their ethos, logos, pathos etc you need to have as much of understanding of it as possible.

While the majority of people on /pol/ are mostly just sheep it's the same as with most idealogies where the intelligentsia of a movement surrounds itself with loyal prols who buy into their rhetoric. Their is , contrary to popular belief, and intellectual core to these types of people. It's the same with ISIS, it was the same with Bolsheviks, Khmer Rouge, einztasgruppen, etc. Most people do not really understand their opponents on this level, they see them as an ontological Other. Bridging different kinds of others together is how you create a sympathetic radical character, which isn't easy because it also requires you going on your own cognition of the Other.

>a group of Jewish agitators forcing suffering and starvation on millions of innocents to make themselves rich and powerful is somehow more sympathetic than a noble house and ancient culture forever destroyed by rootless, parasitic hatemongerers

The House of Romanov are "noble" despite the massive starvation and poverty in the Russian empire while they got fat and wealthy.

Fucking pathetic.

That's the benevolence of whire people, white minorities in blac countries don't fare anywhere near as well.

The white supremecist argument against white genocide is that there have been three consecutive generations of black children raised on the idea that they aren't really black of they don't hate white people/ white people are the devil.

Allowing them to gain voting power is simply not in the whites best interests.

> White - 232,943,055 (73.6%)
>73.6%
>less than 60%

Sauce on those numbers? Most estimates out it between 56%-63%

Also this is 2012, not 2017 and whites are predicted to be less than half the population by 2025

>People moving into a country is genocide
It is according to the UN
>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
>(a) Killing members of the group;
>(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

So under (d), yes white people are being genocided and displaced en masse by government programs intended to promote miscegenation and displacement in the name of neo-liberal economic programs. Genocide doesn't need to mass murder, although in places like South Africa that does happen albeit in small measures.

Okay, what measures are being imposed that are intended to prevent births among white people?

I would hope to give you some credit. Because right now it sounds like you're saying the possibility that a white person might have children with someone who is not white would fall under this. And I hope you don't think that because that is fucking retarded.

>they're certainly not starting a proletarian revolution any time soon
And neither would Bolsheviks. You don't start a revolution, you wait for one to happen and then try to assume position as its leaders.

Make them zany like Pynchon does.

>Promoting miscegenation is not interfering with white birth rates
Nigger...

Well first of all
>Promoting miscegenation is not trying to prevent white births
Wew
Second of all
>c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
So importing a highly religious and high birth rate having population into the country which offsets the political power of the ethnic majority of the country is , in a sense, genocide according to the UN. Which is what's happening, as white people are supposed to be less than half of the country by 2025. We used to have some pretty strict laws about this kind of stuff because of a fear of ethnic conflict, but now people don't care so much about that because
>Lol we need to competitive in the global market place, so we're going to stagnate real wages through free trade agreements with Mexico where laborers from Mexico (which has some of the lowest minimum wages in the world) can send remitences back home making them insanely competitive when compared to the native labor market
Which, in a sense, is is trying to competent the near slave level of labor conditions in China. The side affects t of this, however, is white people being displaced

>Is this even possible?

dude stop being such a cuck as to your own powers.

did you ever think that everyone is a person, and every person does what they do for a reason? The most evil people have the most ingenious justifications for their actions. Either that or they FEEL they do, otherwise nothing would make sense.

>Promoting miscegenation is not trying to prevent white births
Here's the thing, no one is being imposed upon here. If you see a nigger in a movie and that makes you want to fuck a nigger in real life no one has forced you to do anything, you did that yourself.

Likewise if you see someone hit a woman in a video game this does not mean there's a patriarchal conspiracy.
> Which is what's happening, as white people are supposed to be less than half of the country by 2025
Here's the thing. Unless you are going to veer into (((the Jews))) territory nothing about this is being deliberately calculated for the purpose of destroying white people.

Additionally making up a smaller percentage of the population does not constitute genocide anyway. White people wouldn't have gone anywhere, they would still be living in America at a comparable number of people. It would so happen that there's also now more brown people living in America.

If I have a bowl of skittles and pour in a bag of M&M's the skittles haven't gone anywhere, they haven't been replaced. They just share a bowl with another kind of candy.

i actually saw a legit hot white chick today, i was like shit i guess gentrification has it's upsides, the crazy thing was she was with a white boy bro type who clearly lifted, the rich whites who buy million dollar lofts and shit talk all that liberal mess but when it comes down to it they not trying to pollute the pool

Are you a black character from a 1990s movie?

yeah but the early 90s when everyone had really bright african colors and shit not the later 90s when it was all timbs and fatigues

Iris Murdoch

speaking of old hiphop movies can someone tell the origin of that sample thats like "your just fessin man" i could never figure out what "fessin" was supposed to be, confessing? why would you say "you're just confessin man?" maybe im retarded but i dont get it

ooohhh, it's supposed to be "fussin" but since the beastie boys are rich jews it was totally inauthentic, got it

the problem is that the best way to make someone likable is to make them relatable, so trying to make a likeable character that isn't relatable is really hard. look for characters that aren't relatable but still likable. filthy frank comes to mind, sadly.

after all the communist shit pumped out in the 20th century there wasn't one novel with a likable commy true believer? hard to believe

>communist shit pumped out in the 20th century
Like?

how about 1984, the protag is basically a terrorist who admits he's down to kill innocent people for his radical beliefs

niggers the answer is boxer in animal farm and y'all had deprived childhoods

Old Major is also pretty likeable and I don't remember the Trotsky-pig doing anything particularly objectionable.

I don't think it's a good idea to approach a character with the intent of making them likeable. That's like trying to make yourself likeable, it usually comes off as contrived.

>trotsky-pig
that's because orwell's a trotskiite. he doesn't hate communism, he hates stalin

That’s counting wetbacks.

>Rasputin
You fell for the meme

>implying there's no reason for the ethnic tensions in black majority countries
>muh black people all believe the same thing I think they think
>muh white people all have the same goals I think they do

>There has to be more too it then showing their dependents (daughters w/ cancer, and so forth)
there isn't any other way, give him a little sister and kill her

People being moved into a country for the purpose of ethnic replacement could be considered genocide, yes.

It's an endless cycle of mutual hate, and you're propagating it with your black man vs. white man mantra.

white man hates black man, in return the black man hates the white man, so white man feels justified in his hatred and gives more voice to it, so the black man also feels justified in his hatred, and so on until the end of racial tensions.

It's the same with most minorities that suffered from heavy discrimination. Look at the Roma in Europe for another example.

It's not neolib affirmative action that will end this, but a culture that realizes that mutual hatred is not in the interest of either of the groups.

This is why it's hard to write a relatable white/black supremacist into a thought provoking story. When you start looking for a reason for their hatred, you'll find nothing but "They were raised like this." If they were raised in a non-hateful environment their ideology would lack a source.

Of course you could push a certain agenda from whatever point of view, but then your character wouldn't be as relatable and your book would fall into the niche of whatever side you took. That would alienate the vast majority of potential readers.

All in all you can write a relatable, heroic white supremacist, but you cannot push his rhetoric, you can simply show it to the reader.

Show their perspective, their reasoning, their life. Any human being with sufficient empathy will feel for a character and understand why they are as they are, if you show some reasonable line of thought and history. Of course they likely won't agree with their views, but they'll understand why the character holds them, at least in some way. It also helps to try make the reader actually agree with some points, to some extent, though overall disagreeing.

Say an extreme, militant anarchist (of some type) is pretty easy because you can appeal to fairness and freedom (from the perspective of the anarchist), that most will resonate with to some degree. Most of the lower-end of ISIS are just random poor people joining for the benefits, often for their families. Not out of ideology or religion. Though that's not really relevant here.

Basically just humanise them and show their perspective (and reasoning/history that lead them to that perspective). Even if their views/actions are completely unagreeable and terrible, at the very least it will invoke pity on some level.

>If see a movie
>Movie
Oh yes because the public government run schools do not teach total racial egalitarianism
How about we ignore fucking movies and take a look at how the government is the ones pushing this shit, not only pushing it, but literally indoctrinating our children into believing total racial egalitarianism.
>If you mix a bowl of Skittles with a bowl M&M's the Skittles are still
Are you seriously comparing human behavior to something as inert as candy?

Except showing a cycle of mutual hate is one of the biggest cliche's and misunderstanding of radical thought out there.
>Communist hates capitalist
>White hates black
>Man hates women
>Why can't we all just get along?
>Author asserts democratic, bourgeois, and pacifistic narrative or something that is simply his own ethos ,
>fails to understand why not everyone would agree with the ethos

Easy. Make him self aware of his ridiculousness

DA GUBERNMENT IS TEACHING SCIENCE TO OUR CHILDREN!

>Jews have to be the one behind everything otherwise it's now white genocide
It's the state and private interests working together to displace white people for economic reasons. This leads to ethnic tensions overtime
google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ramona-hate-crime-20160707-snap-story,amp.html

That most john green esque bourgeois white liberals like.yourself never hear about because you live in atomized and consumeristic quasi communities that distracts you from interaction with different kinds of folk
google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ramona-hate-crime-20160707-snap-story,amp.html

Stories like this are usually completely looked over btw, because the faux cosmopolitan culture of the liberalized west doesn't like to see that multiculturalism just leads to conflict.

Yes, white people being intentionally displaced is a genocide. Just because it isn't the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust doesn't means it's any less of a genocide.

Also, just to clarify, human nature is a bit more complicated than candies.
>Dude you live in same.area as everybody else why can't you just get along lmao
>T. sheltered middle class kiddie

lmao ernst just look at this fucking liberal over here i bet he doesn't even into the concept of the political

>Racial egalitarianism is science
It's actually social.science :DD

Which isn't really a science anymore than psychology.
>Look kids, Martin Luther King Jr said we need to value people by their merit and not their skin color, because race is just soon color and the individual does not occur on a modal basis based on ethnicity and race a priori
>Isn't that just WEIRD

>daughters w/ cancer

i woz jus sik n my mouth

>everything I don't understand isn't real science but product of the jooce, the state or muh private interests
Ah, to be young again.

>Any statistical discrepancy between racial groups is due to a progressive conspiracy theory that the KKK has infiltrated the police and all forms of government leading to institutional racism
>Anyone who believes in biological determininism is false a priori
>Strawmanning me so hard about muh Jews
>Probably doesn't know the first thing about jews to begin with but because he watched a lot of tv programs he feels like he does
Why is it always the same brand of egocentric moron who ends up doing the
>Detached meme'ing with basic bitch arguments
Style of shitposting?

>Social science
>Real science
Uh-oh, someone fucked up and got the wrong degree. How is that psych/poly sci degree working out , user,? Did you get a nice job waiting tables like everyone else?

get out of the basement before you become another statistic

Oh so your that one butthurt type of fag
>Fuck you and your arguments I DONT NEED TO HEAR ARGUMENTS WHO DISAGREES WITH ME AND MY LIBERAL VALUES
>ESPECIALLY NOT FROM SOME FAT FUCKING NECK BEARD LIKE YOU
>They aren't even arguments, they are just nonsense
>How can someone disagree with ME?

Kek, okay pal whatever makes you sleep at night. Your still a shit tier writer if you can't even attempt to understand how people other than yourself and political views work.

>bitches about muh social science and attempts to justify his belief with social science
I don't even.

>Anyone who believes in biological determininism is false a priori
That or maybe just lacks any kind biological background, but let's be real, more likely than not, it's both.

>Strawmanning me so hard about muh Jews
>Probably doesn't know the first thing about jews to begin with but because he watched a lot of tv programs he feels like he does
That's some based meta shitposting, or just complete lack of self-awareness? You killed your own arguments in the same post all by yourself, not cool, user, not cool at all.

>not quitting college and starting your own company (or at least being self employed)
Wagecucks are sad.

Not him, but most extremism is pretty simple and just boils down to fear of change and the unknown plus a desire for a simpler world.

>Biological determinism is social science
Welp, at least I know im talking to a moron. It's good that I can clear that up.
>Yup, anyone who disagrees with me on the nature of human behavior is just dumb
>How can anyone disagree with ME? like LOL
Okay pal
>Meta shitposting
You realize that I was saying that I know about jeeish culture more than you in a way that is da joos, right? Or, or are you actually so retarded that you thought that in the second paragraph I was blaming Jews for the displacement of white people? For the love of fuck user, why are you posting here?

Brainlets belong on /s4s/

>There are people who think that idealogical differences between people are a simple as a knee jerk reaction to change
>People like this exist
>People like this vote
Ah yes, I see your marxian critiques on the economy is because you're afraid of change, Mr Bolsheviks, how silly of you. Oh, me alt right, I see that you have some qualms with unlimited amounts of immigration entering your country and leading to massive demographic shifts.

How silly! You're just afraid of *insert your idealogy* it's just natural change! It's, praxeological even.

>another post of arguing with himself and still losing
Just stop, user. So far it's still amusing but this is bound to step over in to tragic territory.

>Another post by an obvious shitposter who refuses to actually engage me
Let me ask you a question, what do you think about the existence of race and biological mechanisms in human behavior as we've learned in the past 20 years studying neurology and ye old tein studies?