/politics/ - News & Politics

What you describe sounds more like a stormfront stereotype strawman tbh.

If this thread takes off I expect a lot of "But I don't!"

>>8916

then please tell me about YOUR personal far-right beliefs, if you are far-right.

Also questions 1 and 3 seem very central fallacies to the general far right

>>8920

>Hitler called slavs subhuman and wanted to repopulate Russia with Germans

Hitler claimed Russians lacked a natural aristocracy

>now slavs are white and equal to western europeans

I think most "far-right" folks today believe the anti-slav stuff was just nazi propaganda. Also, considering there is nothing in science that supports slavs as being inferior to west euros

>why do you always speak out against rich jews and jewish corporations but are OK with the mega rich as long as they are white?

I don't think many in the far-right are ok with it. the far-right isn't one person

>none of you criticize Hitler for choosing Goering as his DESIGNATED successor. Also Goering was a obese, drug-using, corrupt and nepotistical fuck.

>Why do you idolize Hitler and fantasize about the third reich? I mean wouldn't it be easier to promote your ideology if you distance yourself from nazism, swastikas and the black Hugo Boss fetish? Also why do you ignore Hitler's many blunders?

again the far-right isn't one person, I really doubt anyone would call Hitler perfect

>>8923

>Hitler claimed Russians lacked a natural aristocracy

Although Hitler did shit on Russian nobility plan Ost was abandoned and Russians were allowed in the Waffen

>I think most...

Early nazi propaganda because of butthurt. They are the only ones not getting cucked.

>Ok with mega rich

Not really considering Trump is the only rich guy even seriously pretending to give a fuck about the people.

>Goering

citation needed

>fantasize about the third reich

It was a nice place. Not perfect but deal with it.

>distance yourself from nazism, swastikas...

You may have a point but the research makes Nazism rehabilitable in part at least. I agree as far as the Swstika thing goes.

>Why do you ignore Hitler's many blunders?

We don't. Indeed the Wermacht should have had more power. Politically Mein Kampf and Himmler's speeches almost buried NS.

>>8945

>russians in the waffen

only when the nazis started losing

>goering citation

about him being designated successor or the drug abuse and corruption?

>nice place

In what way? How?

>>8914

>Hitler called slavs subhuman and wanted to repopulate Russia with Germans

>now slavs are white and equal to western europeans

Most Slavs are and have always been white. Hitler was a German ultra-nationalist so his approach to Slavs is not too surprising. The veracity of the "Hitler saw Slavs as sub-human" is something i doubt considering he did hold Slavs, such as Jozef Pulsudski, in high regard.

>none of you criticize Hitler for choosing Goering as his DESIGNATED successor. Also Goering was a obese, drug-using, corrupt and nepotistical fuck.

Goering was based but i agree that such an action would have been a big mistake. If i were Hitler i would have re-enthroned the Kaisar and either allowed free elections like Pinochet or Franco or have a one party constitutional monarchy like Italy essentially had under Mussolini.

>why do you always speak out against rich jews and jewish corporations but are OK with the mega rich as long as they are white?

The fact that they're rich is not the problem it is the fact that they get rich off of us in our countries and the activities they undertake with that pecuniary power. If they were rich in Israel there would be no problem whatsoever.

>Why do you idolize Hitler and fantasize about the third reich? I mean wouldn't it be easier to promote your ideology if you distance yourself from nazism, swastikas and the black Hugo Boss fetish? Also why do you ignore Hitler's many blunders?

As a British nationalist none of that applies to me or any other nationalist I've ever met. Hitler was good and bad. He didn't go far enough with the Jews, believed in a "classless society" and violated the sovereignty of numerous countries. I suspect you are referring to the American far right with your question because they are the ones who unironically say "Hitler did nothing wrong!"

I'm a part of a group who do make such statements but in doing so the intent is to piss off the left whereas our real message and belief is much more nuanced and Britain-centric. It's very complicated i suppose.

tl;dr Hitler was an OK bloke but to hero worship the man is absolute folly.

>>8914

>OK with the mega rich as long as they are white?

we arent

Hitler is the past

Reiterating, the past is the past.

Nationalism is alive in many forms, only you fetishize WWII

>>8994

Monarchy is an absolute mistake, ironically made by absolutists.

>>9024

On what grounds?

>>8914

>OK with the mega rich as long as they are white?

naw, a huge portion of them deserve nothing but a bullet, especially those who get rich by plundering/damaging the nation.

The rest of that is really just a stormfag strawman

>>8994

>hero worship the man is absolute folly

Hero worship is generally a bad choice, especially in these days when everything is documented

>>9956

Obsession with what was, and what could have been.

>>8914

>slavs

russian nationalists ate up the hitler shit after the wall came down as a reaction to bureaucratic socialism. blame them for thinking they're human (or thinking that other people aren't, I don't get rightwingers, but I believe this is the source of the cognitive dissonance)

>goering

take a look at australian politics: Howard, a long standing conservative PM named Abbot as his successor, Abbot got dirked by his party in his first term and the conservatives truck on at significantly increased standing, last week one of Abbot's last allies the murdoch press kicked him while he was down after rumours he was going to try to challenge the new PM's faction.

if goering didn't have the smarts some other fucker would climb the ladder and maybe even be lucky enough to dodge a purge unlike hitler's former butt daddy Ernst Rohm.

>rich jews

because they are racists and that's what racists do. if they were clever they'd dig a little harder into the other desert jahoodies splashing cash into american politics and come up with topical stories that seriously wound liberal and neocon hegemony that can be embraced by all demographics and ideologies but they're not clever.

>idolize hitler

hitler wuz a good boy he dindu nuffin. he was going to make peace and open diplomatic channels tommorow but now he dead; killed by dem raycis ass zionist cartels over some bullshit. #JusticeForsHitler #DictatorsLivesMatter

>>8923

>Hitler claimed Russians lacked a natural aristocracy

Aristocracy almost always springs up when the social elite can distinguish themselves from the common folk on the grounds of separate ancestry. Most of Europe had nobility that claimed descent from Germanic warlords who carved their own kingdoms in Europe. Even Germany only developed a separate aristocracy under Frankish influence. And later on, Bohemian and Polish chiefs became aristocracy too. In Russia, however, Varangian warlords were above the local chiefs so they became the aristocracy as did Visigoths in Spain.

I'm not sure what the situation on the Balkans was but reading on history of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia it looks like Slavic chiefs became the aristocracy there, and the general population was still of the same Illyro-Roman stock from which Albanians and Romanians derive. So not being able to be "natural aristocracy" isn't a Slav thing, it's more connected to historical development.

>>9990

>He also dug some expressive art-a stance he also had to abandon.

that's really sad. the expressionists are my favourites, they combined a very minimal style with an extremely human perspective and subject matter. this honestly makes me relate to yet dislike the nazis more than anything else.

if you're a pleb on art take a look at this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Claude_Monet_011.jpg

you like it but you don't know why. here's a short summary of why it's great.

the woman is a solid form, and anchored to the world by her shadow, getting the shadow in frame meant putting her in as negative space so immediately it doesn't look staged.

her forms are defined by reflected light, which is usually a minor fill light in a traditional front back and fill academic style. the lighting is reflected sky and flowers however they'd never be that saturated, and the flowers don't reflect that much light compared to the grass. this links her to the flowers and enhances her femininity, it also lends a dream like quality to the image.

the whole world is in motion around her, meaning your eyes embrace the movement of the world but return to her body in centre ground. her body is in line with her sight line so you continually return to her gaze which is beautiful but haunting. nothing else in the picture is truly in focus.

>>10017

your first pic integrates the geometric forms used by the draftsman into the composition, which is cool because of the subject matter. I also like that they cheekily lined up the fencelines of the fields with the vanishing point to draw focus and enhance depth. very clever.

the second pic also has industrial motifs, but they are subverted. it falls into the zeitgeist of postwar (ww1) art and starts off industrial, demonstrates a death of subjectivity, and breakdown of reason, place, form and figure on the highly industrialised killing fields. The tryptich ties that with death and also what appears to be a messianic figure. not sure should look it up. typically horrific and psychological, provided it's of the period. (otherwise I'm off base).

the third pic is actually cg, but you should watch metropolis if you haven't already. it's alot like titanic in narrative but it's about a futuristic city in which a wizard has incanted moloch the old god deep into the heart of the infrastructure. weird but good. more power to you if you can understand the deep occult knowledge woven into it.