What exactly is it that can turn move a leftist into the far-right?

"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ."

the destruction of western civilisation and the threat that bolsjevism and zionism pose to Europe and its people

>inb4 back to /pol/
this is unironically what motivated many fascists

Not only him had that transition.

>mfw I'm right wing

But I'm a socialist

congratulations, you are now a National Socialist

It should be like a trident, as people get more extreme in terms of left and right they gravitate towards authoritarian means of achieving said aims.

WW1 in his case. He was already expulsed from the socialist party in 1914 but he became convinced that the war proved that antimilitarism and internationalism were memes, and that men will always put class warfare second and the nation first. Although different in their goals and nature, fascism tries to do with "national consciousness" what socialism does with "class consciousness". It's also really irrational with hatred of modernity and the drive for a "national rebirth". Caesarism and all that. Basically a shitton of larping.

>Hitler
>fascist
>far right is collectivist

>tfw no radical liberal conservatism option
LAD

Winning a world war but feeling like you lost.

It's not clear exactly how it happened, but following the Great War he came to see national identity as the main dividing line between people, rather than economic class. Italian Fascism started out as something very similar to Marxism, but focusing on nationalism rather than economic class, and branched off from there, in some cases taking the opposite positions from socialists. For example, fascism didn't just consider the class system a secondary concern after national unity, but in fact something that should be preserved, and fascism was likewise anti-democratic (socialism being in many ways democracy applied to the workplace), encouraging authoritarian rule by an elite class (which socialists never promoted as anything more than a revolutionary vanguard) , and became very traditionalist and anti-egalitarian, largely because such views were regarded as necessary to maintain a national identity.

In any case, viewing things as simply left versus right is rather limiting, as it's basically trying to compress an indefinite number of variables onto a single axis.

This chart has a lot of problems. Anarchist really belongs on the far left of the chart, because most anarchists support both personal liberty and economic security, whereas it should probably be ancaps at the top center (though many ancaps are also basically reactionaries that would place them on the lower right corner). And placing personal/group security towards the right doesn't really make sense, since that's a lot of what political correctness and identity politics (generally regarded as leftist) are about. It's basically trying to plot four axes, but in a way that they can't vary independently.

>Considered myself far left for a long time, anarcho-socialist (before it was cool)
>Leftism eventually turned into sucking shitskin dick even if they're violent criminals
>Then I tried to buy a gun (live in California)
>Realize leftism is about being a disarmed, emasculated, degenerate cuck
>Fucking dropped
>Realized the damage they've done also needs to be reversed
>Now a white nationalist

How exactly is your brand of socialism pro-hierarchy? Socialism doesn't mean no leadership or organizations (and neither does anarchism), but it does mean that there should be no elite class, at least in economic terms (socialism's focus on economics is how there can be such a thing as authoritarian socialism).

>>far right is collectivist
Most "far right" movements are nationalist, rather than being truly individualist or globalist. And nationalism is essentially a form of collectivism, though it differs from leftist collectivism in being focused on the nation rather than on the whole world or human race. But it is still very much anti-individualist.

Where exactly is the "radical moderate muh horseshoe" subculture emanating from? Who's promoting it, given that the mainstream news has no vested interest in it?

>t. centrist faggot

A 180 degrees turn

>neoliberal cucks like Pinochet were collectivist because he was """nationalist"""
>calling thid position alt-right

All of my favorite far-right authors are people who were commies or shitlibs in their youth. Something about true-blue "conservative" writing (even from the "good" conservative traditions like paleocon) seems lacking in comparison.

Distrust in the current order of things

>>neoliberal cucks like Pinochet were collectivist because he was """nationalist"""
The guy who threw Marxists out of helicopters? I'd say that fits right in with the "personal/group security" aspect.

>>calling thid position alt-right
What exactly do you think "far right" should refer to?

Why did the pastas feel like they lost? They were given more than enough land from the peace treaty, did they seriously speech out over Fiume?

nationalism was, and in some cases still is, a necessary stepping stone to walk away from divine mandate of kings. The earliest roots of nationalism are found in america and france, and those strains embraced humanist and universalist values in their respective texts, the US constitution and french declaration of human rights. It would be hard call either of these anti-individualistic. Nationalism can be literally whatever is drafted into the founding documents of the sovereignty of a people and its lands. You can end with liberal, cultural nationalist democracies like in the west or you can end up with the nastier ethnonationalist kind like we've seen in the 1930-40s and the middle east with baathist syria/iraq, etc etc.

Nationalism is pretty much anchored in the concept of sovereignty of the people, by the people, for the people. What shape it takes is ultimately up to them. I'd argue that nationalism is inherently an amoral model of governance despite the great tragedies of the 20th century.

I mean guy that ruined his country´s economy.
>What exactly do you think "far right" should refer to?
Exactly this, liberal puppet that sells his country to the Kikes.

t. godless commie fag that cant fly

People with no grounding in ideology trying to come up with a somewhat intellectual justification for their lack of conviction.

I mean from what space on the Internet are they coming from? It seems like a lot of it's coming from YouTube and podcasters, the kind of people who go on Joe Rogan.

Its essentially centrist who don't swing right or left and will be hunted by both in the coming race war.

>Left
>Right
Those terms have no meaning and never had any. When will you guys realize that ideologies don't exist on fucking spectrums? You'd group social democrats with marxists in the left wing, yet social democrats have absolutely nothing in common with them, as they reject every point of marxist doctrine. You'd group fascists and traditional conservatives together as the "far-right" even though the groups have completely different ways of looking at the world, have a different genealogy and rightfully hate each other. An ideology is a self-consistent set of ideas and perspectives. It can relate to other ideologies, but to put them on a spectrum based on their attitude toward some arbitrarily-chosen question they might not even consider important (or may reach a similar conclusion to in a completely different way, as it is with the previously-mentioned socdems and marxists) is bleeding retarded.
>look up horseshoe theory
VVevv

From observation of reality. The far left and the alt-right aka "far right" are extremely similar. Like the other dude said, both are viole t authoritarian collectivist. Also, both are organized as totalizing narratives of all history and reality, centered on victim complexes.

I think that "left" has some meaning but "right" doesn't. The term "Right" lumps together everything that is not "left". I agree that conservatives, alt-rightists, and small government constitutionalists are too different from each other for it to make sense to classify them together.

Your whole idea of "moderate" or "centrist" is "not a SJW/alt-right caricature from Facebook memes". You bleating lamb.

I'm sick of this retarded meme claiming that there's something wrong with rejecting the idiocy of both the left cult and the various "right" cults.

Nothing to do with Facebook memes. I've been observing the growth of both movements for years in various venues. Both are leaderless cults organized around victim complex master narratives of reality.

there are plenty of leftists who own guns

probably not Veeky Forums

I thought so too but then found out there is a genetic basis to the left and right, see these books or look for papers:
- Our political nature
- Predisposed
Cognitive, personality and physical differences influence your political leanings. The rest of the left and right is a cultural construct.

I think future research will make things clearer.

When they become self reliant.

(Cont)
Politics is also a social game, see The dictators handbook.

>tfw coming to Veeky Forums unironically made me a zionist frogaboo

I've been on Veeky Forums longer than I have been on /pol/, lmao.

>I think that "left" has some meaning
You'd be wrong. There's a lot of different ideologies lumped under the "left" and they fucking hate each other. The biggest divergence is between the ideologies using marxist methodology (or its derivatives) and the ideologies that developed from socially-conscious classical liberals and non-marxian worker movements (labour parties and socdems). Then there's the strongest power among the contemporary "left", the movements which trace their lineage to the feminist movement and the civil rights movement. They're radically different from both marxists and labour/socdems, and relations between them are strained at best. There are other, more obscure lineages such as those hailing from anarchist writings and so on, but they're pretty irrelevant.

"Left" and "right" originally meant "for the French Revolution" and "for the ancien regime". Use it in that sense.

That rides on an idiotically simplified version of the already incoherent concept of left and right. Basically, it's a meme, you dip.

>decadent degenerate out of touch elites
>kangaroo courts who sentence children to death for "counter revolutionary activity"

How about fucking neither?

Why do you think this is?

It's literally a meme. For I know, it started on this shithole website or Ebaums or something. Someone reads "Horseshoe Theory" and thinks "Oh, that's a great defense of being a fucking pussy who doesn't believe in anything." He then uses it, and then two more people read it, and so on an so on.

But horseshoe theory is accurate. And rejecting both left and right doesn't make you a pussy, it makes you sane.

>Dude a Theocratic regime is exactly the same as a Walden 2 style collective! Why can't you just SEE that?

horseshoe theory is the result of looking at politics like pic related

Oh yeah, those faggy lanklets that walked around in Austin with their big brother's air rifle.

I can't speak to Mussolini's experience, but I'm a former Marxist turned Traditionalist (Orthodox) Christian. What really got me was that the assumptions of scientific socialism are largely unfounded; there are lots of holes in it.

What the ideologues of the movements say they want means little. What they are actually like as people, and what tends to result in practice when their types gain power, means a lot more.

I love how offended pol gets at this.

This, classical liberalism and individualism is the true redpill.

Agreed, although libertarianism has its own fundamentalist ideologues, and I think that the an-* in particular are deluded if they think an-* society would work in practice.

People born and raised in prog environments have a more intuitive understanding of prog memes and how to reverse them?

I think the case can be made that even if there is a genetic component to political leanings that the left and right do not actually exist. I am however convinced that personality and biophysical traits do in fact influence political leanings for a great deal.

Maybe political leanings need to be seen in an entirely different way, and I think that the latest research can help with that. Instead of left and right various ideas match with those traits and the other part is environmentally determined, like social.

But, ok, that's what I think. Can you futher explain why you think what you think? Is there anything that supports the left and right not actually existing? They have proven that there are indeed differences in personality and other traits with the left and right. What is your counter-evidence or argument against that?

I certainly think that the definitions we create to describe political movements don't actually fit.

Take a side and have the balls to defend it, classcuck.

I hate this meme

Coming to Veeky Forums also persuaded me of the glory of France

>Far right
>Binary spectrum

>mfw everyone ignores Third Position

third position is a meme

t. leftist

>Where exactly is the "radical moderate muh horseshoe" subculture emanating from?
People who are sick and tired of both /pol/ and Tumblr level bullshit.

Argue against it, then.

I still don't see any solid arguments against the horseshoe theory in this thread, just people calling it a meme.
Hmm...

Much like Japan, they felt insulted at the peace conference,

They wanted Dalmatia

>Japan who joined purely so they could grab German land in Asia with no chance of it biting them in the ass
>made off like robber barons in this war
>bitching that they weren't respected
Oh boo hoo, look at mr "my country wasn't devastated"

Their fee fees got hurt when Australia shitposted their racial equality proposal into oblivion

Wow it turns out Normies hate Nazis and Commies. Who the fuck would guess?

>Make shitty post
>get mocked for making shitty post
>samefag and blame /pol/ because other posters have a better understanding of politics than "Dude both sides are the same"

Basically Anglo trickery. They were promised a whole lot more than they got.

I still see zero solid arguments against the horseshoe theory in this thread, just people blustering and calling it a meme.
Try actually arguing against it.

>libertarianism
>Private property ownership
>capital
Seems more like individualistic authoritarianism too me

Experience outside of a basement.

b8

You'll note that anarcho capitalist socities have never seriously worked long term (bar the early months of the spanish civil war) and anarcho capiltaism is essentially a vaccum for other people to try for power, Somlia's an instance, anarcho anything simply is not politically relevant in today's world.

Pick a side and have the balls to defend it fag.

If youre healthy you can be any politics that you can be fascist if non healthy you can never be fascist

>facist under hitler

Australian banter has actually led to armed conflict

>Libertarianism
>"Hai gaise we dindu nuffin!"
That's because the closest thing we ever had to Libertarianism were the Return to Normalcy years: 1921 to 1929. After crashing and burning horribly nobody outside a tiny sliver of rednecks and right-wing hipsters still cling to such outdated ways of thinking, especially since Donald Trump and the nationalists came in and ate their lunch. The Tea Party is already as old as yesterday's news.

I do pick a side: liberalism, which is distinct from leftism, from conservatism, and from fascism.

>I stopped being anti-statism when I got screwed over by the state
And California is no bastion of anarcho-socialism moron

>I pick a side, the middle side.

Because you offer literally no alternative. "Centerism" is just a way to shout EVERYONE BUT ME IS DUMB without needing to defend an actual position or belief. It's the ultimate in failing to put up or shut up.

Not him but what if you just don't want to be involved in politics? That you just want to live an apolitical life.