>tfw there has been a Left-wing revival online in the past year

As a leftist, fuck the left.
This revival is going to be a fucking nightmare

>He's delusional enough to not know that the pendulum is going to be swung far right for a long time from here on out
Yawn.

Also, stop posting politics on Veeky Forums. A thread about literature that nobody here actually likes to talk about just died for this.

SOCIALISM

WILL

WIN

nothing remotely leftist will escape this century

>Posting a guy who did an interview on Red Ice tv unironically

I wonder why people want to see /ppl/ closed.
We already get enough bait threads and shitpost about topics as it is, if pol would close we'll be flooding in these threads and in poltards posts

3rd position Marinetti's-futurism-inspired-progressivist fascism when

I'm afraid the age of leftism has peaked, or at best is currently peaking. It's along road down from here. You'll watch things considered left see defeat after defeat in the coming years and say it doesn't matter, and then the second something leftist makes a minor or temporary gain you'll declare it a turning point.

Yeah, cuz shilling for egalitarianism, open borders, Marxism and Islam can be just hilarious. I mean, it's 2017!?!

>Yeah, cuz

Stopped reading, 16 year old.

>not listening to the interview

the current year stuff is just liberalism

LOL good one! WTF I'm suddenly I'm realizing how hilarious the alt-woke movement really is!

And that is different from this "neo-left" movement in what way?

actual class consciousness

KEK
E
K

Leftism is not counter culture. That's just retarded. You can't be a counter culture when ALL of the normies agree with you
Get off Veeky Forums you disgusting faggot.

You guys gonna take down the mean one puhcenters?

yes

i cannot believe so many people can get into politics and genuinely just not give a fuck about the people
establishment left and right are both atrocities that need to be broken down and reconstructed from scratch

Whatcha gonna do when you realize that by taking down the one puhcenters you will have been attacking disproportionately Jews Mr. Tolerance?

MAKE LYSENKOISM REAL AGAIN

CLASS WAR NOW

>class

3spooky5me

which are those lol

>mfw people believe propaganda that tells them centrist and center right policies are actually EBUL LEFTIST POLICIES and don't realize that it's the right that's peaked
>mfw I watch Trump supporters and IWW members find common ground while fashy larpers sperg out in the background
Once the working class realizes that making sure BLM and AL Nusra won't take over their town of 6000 people and making sure Milo can speak at a liberal arts college with a 78% acceptance rate won't stop them from being exploited, they'll be mad as fuck.

Still posting 2015 era memes. Boring!

Let's see your High-Octane Super-Memes then.

>as a person who has ethical and political commitments but doesn't actually believe in it or agree with him/herself

>open borders, anti-white rhetoric, anti-capitalism
>center right

Uhhh, I don't think so amigo.

Well the "right" was just subverted successfully and the "left" almost did it by electing the Alzheimer's communist guy.

>You can't be a counter culture when ALL of the normies agree with you
Unless of course, you redefine politics as a constant encounter with the police order, and still are a prominent left wing intellectual :)

>supporting the welfare state
>anti-police
Pick one.

>anti-capitalism
You're perhaps right on the first two, but nobody in the mainstream (and almost nobody anywhere) is anti-capitalism.

Fuck off commie scum. Normies are lefties. Left-wing isnt counter-culture, idiot. Capitalism will always reign supreme

yes I too am enjoying summer break!!

>Plebs talking about politics
Hahahahaha. Please stop, none of you guys know shit. Trying to deflect your personal problems into something.

Both left and right are systems of control that need to be demolished, so that pseudo-humans can be deconditioned and reintegrated into ecology. Take the black pill, folks

>Heh, none of you philistines know what you discuss. Just apes, mere apes, hooting about topics you do not understand. What? N-no, I can't be bothered to explain it to you. The enlightenment of my words would annihilate your primitive minds.

>mainstream american liberals
>left-wing
Liberalism =/= leftism, read a book u mong. Democrats are center-right in basically every issue that isn't shitty posturing (immigration, muh genders, etc)

>tfw there has been a Left-wing revival online in the past year

I take it you arent fammilar with the left of the 60s and 70s?

how do you hope to liberate man from political control when you can't even liberate yourself from idiotic meme structures? Seeing someone use the "pill" format makes me instantly disregard their post tbqh

WHEN WILL THE PROGRESSIVE HEGEMONY IN THE ARTS END?

It's mind-destroying. Black women are just as capable at math as white men are; gay relationships are nearly as common as straight ones; trans is an identity that can change at a whim rather than a medical problem that takes years of hormone treatments and surgery to fix; being promiscuous is just as likely to lead to a fulfilling life as being monogamous and starting a family is; all regions are equally peaceful except for the evil fundamentalists Christians.

It's a giant lie that we're all perfectly aware of but are forced to accept because of the HR culture we've developed. It's like noticing the conspicuous lack of sex in Victorian novels, or the ubiquity of religious dogma in medieval literature. We've smashed the old taboos just to put up new, equally restrictive ones.

In what universe? On the other hand, I still see the Alt-Right going strong (which is a meme, but nevertheless has followers).

Ideal future: left and right both weaken, replaced by a wave of classical liberalism and a new commitment to rationality and strong liberal institutions. People realize that the left's criticisms of the right are accurate, and the right's criticisms of the left are also accurate, but ultimately both the left and the right are dumb. Society accepts that humans aren't equal, but also accepts that individuals should not be judged based on the averages of the groups that they belong to. Race realism becomes acceptable, but institutional racism (including both anti-minority racism and affirmative action) is rejected. There is widespread support for small, but not too small, government with minimal but well chosen social safety nets. SJWs, commies, alt-rightists, and fascists return to utter marginalization. Leftists realize that we should have better border security, more effective policing of crime, and some degree of legal gun ownership. Rightists realize that we should legalize drugs, keep abortion legal, and keep religion out of politics. Libertarians realize that their ideals are noble but too small of a government is impractical. Everyone realizes that the national security apparatus is too bloated and could use some cuts.

The vision your described is to the right of the National Review. This is by no means "liberal" in the contemporary sense.

>to the right of the National Review.
Which aspects of it? I've never read much of that magazine.

I don't deny that this is happening, but given demographic trends and rising ethnic conflict, it's not going to go anywhere unless the left decides to go Nazbol, which they won't.

It's a conservative publication of note that influences most even remotely intellectual Republicans, and you're to the Right of them on racial realism, affirmative action, and immigration. The overton window is so far Left that even the vision you laid out would be considered too conservative for most modern progressives.

Cont... I suppose race realism is automatically considered right-wing because it is so anathema to the left, although to me its merits really just depend on correspondence to reality rather than based on any political value system... so I don't consider race realism to be "right wing". But I'm aware that mainstream society disagrees.
One thing I'll say is, it's annoying being a race realist and having alt-rightists assume that you're one of them because of it. No guys, just because I believe that intelligence is probably significantly affected by genetics doesn't mean that I support authoritarian populist nationalism. Meanwhile, of course, many leftists assume you're an evil hateful racist if you start discussing such issues.
As for "liberal", I'm certainly using the word in its old meaning.

So, national socialism?

>"Republicans are the new punk,” said Sabo, echoing a slogan on his T-shirt also adorned with an image of Trump in a three-piece suit, looking rather rakish, giving the finger. “I’m pretty much the only right-winger doing guerrilla art. I’m like patient zero, the first one doing this on our side.”

theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/jun/21/rightwing-street-artist-sabo-donald-trump-la

Polls have shown that Donald Trump is making the rest of the world more liberal. He is such an embarrassment to right-wing causes that he is actually pushing forward the leftist movement at rapid speed.

Once you accept that there's a natural hierarchy to people and to races, and that some of our abilities and preferences are biologically determined rather than culturally instantiated, then you're Right wing. Progressive ideology is predicated on the notion economic, social, and material conditions are what cause disparities between people. You fundamentally disagree with this view, which makes you Right wing.

That makes sense. The way I look at things, the left/right dichotomy fails to accurately map the territory. I think that a much more accurate map has roughly 3 or maybe even 4 poles:
1) The Left
2) Mainstream Republican-type right (lip service to small government, but in reality supporters of big government - however, also respect constitutional norms and support free trade. Usually socially conservative.)
3) Trumpism, alt-rightism, neo-fascism, and in general, populist nationalism (often with authoritarian components. Usually socially conservative.)
4) Classical liberalism
So to say that my views are "right-wing" isn't accurate, although I understand why people would say it. My views are "right-wing" *only* in the sense that they are not left-wing. There is as much distance between my views (4) and the conventional "right" (2 and 3) as there is between my views and the left.
It's unfortunate that due to the particular development of modern politics, anything that's not left-wing is dubbed "right". I don't consider myself right-wing at all.

>trips
>tripfag

Jesus, did you just stain my mountain tops?

>often with authoritarian components

I've never understood this. If most people in a country don't want more immigration, is it not authoritarian to FORCE them to have more immigrants?

I disagree. See: Basically, I think that calling everyone who isn't leftist "right-wing" makes the term "right-wing" meaningless. There is as much distance between my views and those of the alt-right, for example, as there is between my views and those of leftists. So it's rather absurd if I were to be considered "right-wing" simply because I am not a leftist and I agree with alt-rightists on a few hot-button issues, while disagreeing with them on everything else.

That's why I wrote "often". Obviously not all anti-immigration types are authoritarian. However, there is a certain political grouping of people who are both anti-immigration *and* authoritarian —neo-fascists fall into this grouping.

Not at all. I support free trade and free markets, am anti-authoritarian, am socially liberal, and literally the only way in which I am a nationalist is that I support tighter immigration controls. I certainly have no use for emotional nationalism or national revival movements, and I deeply distrust populism.

Well I mean theres commies, libtards, facists, and basically hitlers.

And that's all there is to it.

>mfw the rise of reactionary ideology is a direct result of brainlet millennials only being able to think of egalitarianism like neo-libs who can only see people as contributions to global or national utility, unequal since including group X in our population stops us from maximizing our national utility function where utility is ultimately strictly material
>the logical conclusion of this idea isn't racial utopia, it's hyper-eugenics then human extinction
>this might be prevented in places with strong national identity, but certainly won't in hell holes like the
US where whites shoot each other and send bombs to each other for having the wrong political opinion
>internet reaction will destroy the US
>mfw I'm ok with this
This doesn't seem super far-right at all unless you assume race realism only manifests as FUCK NIGGERS FUCK ZOG 1488 (Now with graphs!)

Your problem with the labeling is not realizing that the alt-right represents the extreme version of the Right, as far from the norm as those progressives who fly the hammer and sickle. The views you expressed are closer to mainstream conservatism than they are to anyone who considers themselves a liberal in the modern sense. A "classical liberal" is someone who reads Edmund Burke, and he's the hero of every intellectual conservative Republican today. In modern parlance, you're Right wing.

Even in not-so-modern parlance, the term "Right wing" always meant an acceptance of hierarchies as natural. Even in the term's inception, "Right wing" perfectly encapsulates the views you expressed.

this desu

But the alt-right doesn't actually *just* represent an extreme version of that ideology which beings by accepting human difference. Yes, that's one component of the alt-right. However, the alt-right also has a very strong current of longing for 1) authoritarianism and 2) social conservatism. Classical liberalism, on the other hand, has no innate overlap with either authoritarianism or social conservatism. So what do I call myself, as someone who believes in human difference but is also fairly anti-authoritarian and socially liberal? I'm also a big proponent of free markets, which is a divisive issue on the so-called "right", with some "right-wingers" being fully for them and others espousing protectionism and even corporatism. If I called myself "right-wing", I would be lumping myself in with people who disagree with me about almost everything except the existence of innate human difference.

Anti-intellectualism is the alt-right's greatest asset. The left is too mired in academic sterility to be relevant.

Race realism isn't real. It is a way for the right wing to try to legitimize racism instead of trying to understand economic and political structures that account for their supposed statistics. "I'm a race realist" is the political equivalent of "I hate them niggers, but I'm not racist because I have a black friend".

>pol shitters thinking their pseudo-science inforgraphics on race are valid in any way

Kek and lel. Points about gender differences are valid and fairly well understood tho

Race realists dont have black friends they just hate blacks.

The alt-right isn't anti-intellectual. It's much more intellectual than the cultural conservative movement of the 90s. Alt-righters read Pinker, Murray, and Hoppe. They're not dumb.

You're centrist or center-right. Don't listen to the faggot who's whining how the Overton Window oppresses him. He thinks liberalism is right wing because internet righties love to feel oppressed by the system. They're kinda like hippies without the sex.
Thanks in advance for derailing the thread

This thread was meant to derail.

Race realism isn't necessarily "black people are dumber than white people". Race realism is simply being open to the *possibility* that intelligence and other such characteristics have a strong genetic component, rather than rejecting it on account of the taboo that exists against the idea in mainstream society. It's true, there are many so-called "race realists" who are just emotionally-driven racists who use the concept of "race realism" as a cover. However, when I say "race realism" I mean a true, unbiased stance that is open to being modified new information. Personally, the evidence I've seen leads me to believe that intelligence probably does vary by race, with whites doing better than blacks on average. However, I am completely open to having my stance modified by new information and/or argument. And one important way in which I differ from most alt-rightists is that I vehemently oppose the idea of making the consequences of such investigations a political matter. I insist that the law treats individuals based on their individual characteristics, rather than based on the characteristics of groups that those individuals belong to. I also think that from the point of view of morality and just plain good manners, it is also best to have the same attitude in one's personal life.

When is Bernie's religious test going to be nation-wife?

First of all,people like Gavin Mcinnes and Milo Yiannopoulos demonstrate that the alt-right isn't all that concerned with social conservatism Second, like I keep saying, Right wing conservatism and the alt-right aren't synonymous. A classical liberal, someone who believes in free speech, free markets, free association, etc. (i.e. a Burkean), is a conservative. Words cannot be separated from their culture context, and the "classical liberal" views you expressed are also conservative despite the term's inclusion of the word "liberal."

gen-X poasters have become a real problem

>no natural hierarchy
Keep telling yourself that.

I'm not saying that natural hierarchies don't exist. I consider myself Right wing.

>Gavin McGinnis and Milo
>alt right
The alt right is a white identity movement that seeks to combat jewish cultural hegemony. So why are you under the impression that a guy who's married to a non white and a gay jew are considered a part of it?

Don't respond, I know why: because you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

>First of all,people like Gavin Mcinnes and Milo Yiannopoulos demonstrate that the alt-right isn't all that concerned with social conservatism
No, but it seems to me that the vast majority of the alt-rightists whom I see online are socially conservative, and many want to impose it on others.
>Right wing conservatism and the alt-right aren't synonymous.
We're in agreement there. But that's precisely why I don't label myself "right-wing". I don't want to categorize myself in the same group as the anti-free market populists, the religious fundamentalist crazies, the white nationalists, the hypocrites who speak of small government and then vote to expand the military, and all the other people who are lumped in together as "right-wing" despite their mutual differences.
I understand that "classical liberal" is also misleading given the modern meaning of the word "liberal" in the US. I just don't know what would be a better label. "Libertarian" also has the problem of being too broad (plus I think the word sounds goofy) —my views are more or less aligned with those of moderate libertarians, but are very different from those of the more extreme libertarians because, while I sympathize with the desire for a very small government, I simply don't think it's practicable.
And "centrist" makes it seem as if my views are defined by being a sort of average or compromise of all other positions, rather than standing on their own merits.

you're retarted

There's the alt-right movement, which is about ethnic nationalism. Then there's the alt-light movement (i.e. Milo, Gavin), who care more about civic nationalism. The media refers to both as "alt-right", so I decided to lump the two together. Their views do overlap on many issues, and both groups love Trump.

>the vast majority of the alt-rightists whom I see online are socially conservative, and many want to impose it on others.
The alt right is a reaction to the jews and the unwitting white zombies unaware of who's leading them to their own destruction imposing 3rd world diversity on everyone else. Don't misconstrue what's going on here.

Read this book. You're basically just a standard moderate, young conservative libertarian. Don't let the alt-right define an entire side of the ideological spectrum; they're as representative of the Right as communists are of the Left.

Well, you shouldn't lump them together in the future. The alt lite is nothing more than the subversive kosher reaction to the alt right.

>whites are more successful than blacks due to their higher IQ
>Jews are more successful than whites due to muh ZOQ conspiracy, not their higher IQ
You people are retards

reminder that being left or right is embarrassing

The average IQ of Israeli jews is in the mid-90s. Jews are nepotistic tribalists, and that is how they came to control things like Hollywood, which they subsequently made into a propaganda machine that pumps out annual holocaust films. But now I understand why (((you))) were obfuscating before, tsk tsk, Shlomo.

Israelis are made up Sephardic Jews, Arab Jews, and Arab non-Jews. Ashkenazi Jews (i.e. European Jews) are the ones with the naturally higher IQ, and the ones who are disproportionately represented in positions of power because of this.

>Jews are nepotistic tribalists
You mean like every other fucking group in the world? They became especially tribal because they spent over a thousand years being ostracized by Christians in Europe, they had to develop a sort of ethnic solidarity in order to survive.

The left must be completely, 100% ridiculed and unpopular to the general public before it can have a revival

I would support left-wing political movements on the economy and social care, but their positions on mass immigration, cultural masochism, and capitulation to Islamic extremism is disastrous.

>tfw have to be lumped in with conservatards

Right-Libertarians: We need to establish limited government and individual freedom.

Conservatards: HOL UP, HOL UP
What about the part where we're supposed to establish repressive and xenophobic moral norms which are totally not derived from irrelevant 3,000 year old sanitation codes and which have the totally opposite effect of what we intend?

Right-Libertarians: Ok, I'm not sure that's a very good ide-

Conservatards: REEEEEEEEEE, ACCEPT JESUS INTO YOUR HEART

Leftists: Wow, you guys are dumb.
Hey, since the conservatives have hijacked the liberal paradigm, we can call anyone advocating for it a crypto-Nazi and hide within our post-structuralist social justice pillow fort until we get over the fact that the Soviet Union was an utter moral atrocity and economic failure.

Right-Libertarians: G-guys pls stop...