What Should The Right Wing Be?

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Reverence for faith (in the west, Christianity) is necessary because humans require stern moral guidance. The west flourished under the authority of the Lord, and now falters after a century of us deciding that we know better and can do well enough on our own. Some things cannot be up for debate. I know this one is a sticking point for a lot of people, but the west gets shit results without it. It is human to think we know better, but we don't.
The west also flourished under the authority of Jupiter and Caesar.
However, you are still right in a way - the west, or any society that aspires to being functional, need to be reasonably united around some degree of shared cultural and moral standards, preferably ones that aren't batshit insane and are not the cause of crazy zealots setting things (and sometimes people) on fire running around. If it doesn't get something equivalent to that, it can hardly be called a single society, being more of a hodgepodge of different ones for all practical purposes.

Whether Christianity can fulfill that function and has that degree of authority in society for the near future, hard to say, if it doesn't, or as seen especially in USA, its a wide label under which some dramatically different values, cultures and lifestyles preach their own ways with little attention to all the others, it can't really fulfill that function.

In the end, it is completely possible that the west, as a collection of related nations and cultures, outlives Christianity, and it still is going to be part of its heritage, much like the pagan cultures Rome and Greece are, even if the practice of and popular adherence to their religions is history.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
In the end, it is completely possible that the west, as a collection of related nations and cultures, outlives Christianity, and it still is going to be part of its heritage, much like the pagan cultures Rome and Greece are, even if the practice of and popular adherence to their religions is history.
I take it your not a Christian then?
 
I'm starting to think I should change my status from right winger to "Capitalist with nationalistic tendacies" more accurate to my political beliefs and it'd at least separate me from the current crapshow that is Left wing-right wing crap.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
The left and right dichotomy is the product of the French Revolution. An event which without the world would not be as it is today.

The only way the dichotomy goes away is if something as equally world shaking and paradigmatically changing occurs.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
The left and right dichotomy is the product of the French Revolution. An event which without the world would not be as it is today.

The only way the dichotomy goes away is if something as equally world shaking and paradigmatically changing occurs.
Well, it's sort of like the Optimate/Populares split in the Roman Republic. And that split ended during the civil war, after the Roman Empire established itself.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
No honest man ever believed they were friends.

Except Roosevelt, but his administration was riddled with commie spies so eh.

Insightful men such as General Patton understood that we failed, that it was our obligation to crush communism, and that our defeat of Germany was more tragedy than triumph.

I think one regime of genocidal socialist retards taken out and the other prevented from conquering all of Europe was at least passable; of course, it was a shame that KGB was allowed to spread active measures across the West later on, but without the benefit of hindsight I don't see how that can be avoided.

Our 'leaders' were not interested in 'saving Europe from tyranny' or any such altruistic goal.

Well, "not being conquered by genocidal socialist retards" was also a priority. I don't know what recess of Stormfront you're getting this version of history from, but the notion that poor widdle A. Hitler would have ignored western Europe and America if we'd let him conquer Poland in peace has no resemblance to reality:


In a subsequently published speech given at Erlangen University in November 1930 Hitler explained to his audience that no other people had more of a right to fight for and attain "control" of the globe (Weltherrschaft, i.e. "world leadership", "world rule") than the Germans. He realized that this extremely ambitious goal could never be achieved without an enormous amount of fighting.[14] Hitler had alluded to future German world dominance even earlier in his political career. In a letter written by Rudolf Hess to Walter Hewel in 1927, Hess paraphrases Hitler's vision: "World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That [power] can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly"

...

According to captured German documents, the commander-in-chief of the German Army, Walther von Brauchitsch, directed that "The able-bodied male population between the ages of 17 and 45 will, unless the local situation calls for an exceptional ruling, be interned and dispatched to the Continent." This represented about 25% of the surviving population. The United Kingdom was then to be plundered for anything of financial, military, industrial or cultural value,[18] and the remaining population terrorized. Civilian hostages would be taken, and the death penalty immediately imposed for any acts of resistance.[19]

The deported male population would have most likely been used as industrial slave labor in areas of the Reich such as the factories and mines of the Ruhr and Upper Silesia. Although they may have been treated less brutally than slaves from the East (whom the Nazis regarded as sub-humans, fit only to be worked to death), working and living conditions would still have been severe.[20]

After the war, Otto Bräutigam of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories claimed in his book that in February 1943 he had the opportunity to read a personal report by Wagner regarding a discussion with Heinrich Himmler, in which Himmler had expressed the intention to exterminate about 80% of the populations of France and England by special forces of the SD after the German victory.[21]

...

In mid-late 1941, as Hitler became overconfident of an Axis victory in Europe against the UK and the Soviet Union, he began planning an enormous extension of the Kriegsmarine, projected to include 25 battleships, 8 aircraft carriers, 50 cruisers, 400 submarines and 150 destroyers, far exceeding the naval expansion that had already been decided on in 1939's Plan Z.[97] Historian Gerhard L. Weinberg stated that this super-fleet was intended against the Western Hemisphere.[97] Hitler also considered the occupation of the Portuguese Azores, Cape Verde and Madeira and the Spanish Canary islands to deny the British a staging ground for military actions against Nazi-controlled Europe, and also to gain Atlantic naval bases and military airfields for operations against North America.[98][99] Hitler desired to use the islands to "deploy long-range bombers against American cities from the Azores", via a plan that actually arrived on Hermann Göring's RLM office desks in the spring of 1942 for the design competition concerning such an aircraft.[100] In July 1941, Hitler approached Japanese ambassador Ōshima with an offer to wage a joint struggle against the U.S.[101]—Japan's own Project Z aircraft design program was one possible manner in which such a goal could be accomplished, all during the timeframe that the USAAC had itself, on April 11, 1941, first proposed a competition for airframe designs for the same sort of missions against the Axis forces, the Northrop XB-35 and the Convair B-36, flying directly from North American soil to attack Nazi Germany.

In this final battle for world domination, Hitler expected the defeated British to eventually support the Axis forces with its powerful navy.[99] He stated that "England and America will one day have a war with one another, which will be waged with the greatest hatred imaginable. One of the two countries will have to disappear."[102] and "I shall no longer be there to see it, but I rejoice on behalf of the German people at the idea that one day we will see England and Germany marching together against America".

Even for "muh hwhite ethnostate" babies like you, you'd think 80% of the French and English populations (along with most likely similar percentages in North America, Southern and Eastern Europe) being exterminated would be a deal-breaker.

Their masters in international finance already had their goals met, their rival who rejected international monetary influence crushed.

I mean, the USSR also rejected international monetary influence, taken literally, so why didn't the "masters in international finance" turn against them? Unless by those phrases you mean ... what we all know you mean.

To your point regarding definition of the 'Right', yes, it must be more than mere tactics. I put forward tactics first because I have observed that the last iteration, Conservatism, failed utterly in this regard.

I mean, the ideas you express sympathy for in this post:

A. Got the country which implemented them turned into a bombed-out wreck parcelled out between foreign powers.
B. Utterly poisoned all concepts of national pride in said country for generations.
C. Gave the Left a handy cudgel to wield against everyone right of Mao regardless of whether or not it actually fit, based on the sheer repulsive nature of the regime based on said ideas's actions.
D. Killed millions of people and started the world's largest war for absolutely no gain.

Hard to get closer to "failed utterly" than that.

The two principles I suggested are additions to a whole, and nowhere near enough on their own.

I guess we need to add socialist economic policies, killing of those deemed unworthy of life by the state, and a totalitarian political system indistinguishable from the communist one?
 
Last edited:

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
I mean, the ideas you express sympathy for in this post:

A. Got the country which implemented them turned into a bombed-out wreck parcelled out between foreign powers.
B. Utterly poisoned all concepts of national pride in said country for generations.
C. Gave the Left a handy cudgel to wield against everyone right of Mao regardless of whether or not it actually fit, based on the sheer repulsive nature of the regime based on said ideas's actions.
D. Killed millions of people and started the world's largest war for absolutely no gain.

Hard to get closer to "failed utterly" than that.
Very much this. Nazism was born out of the pathologies of accepting the enemy's frame. In World War I, the liberal democracies of the world established, through force of arms, the idea that "if you aren't a liberal, then you're a hun." Given how destructive (and quite frankly, hypocritical) liberals were, Germans thought "okay, fuck liberalism! I'm a hun." The result was Nazism. If you occupy your enemy's frame of what they think their enemy looks like, then you will be destroyed. To beat the Catholic Church in Renaissance Europe, you don't become a Satanist. You become a Protestant.
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
There is no right. There is only left and not-left. Any 'right wing' party must reject the binary and build cross floor alliances.

Some ideas

1) reject and deconstruct leftwing intersectionalism.
2) Build a proper rightwing green movement.
3) Economic dirigism to definancialise and reindustrialise the USA
4) economic protectionism
5) Proper healthcare
6) The construction of a rightwing feminism
7) The embrace of certain aspects of the Mens movement
8) An end to the 'war on terror', and a reduction of Zionist and Israeli influence over policy.
9) A reduction of all immigration and the importation of temporary foreign labour
10) The creation of a rightwing SPLC and NLG
11) The creation of rightwing street cadre
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
BoomerU has Feminism 2.0 already. Is this what you mean?



I mean a feminism that rejects and deconstructs the bourgeois power valuation that female status = contributing to GDP

What is this?

People who will beat up left wing goons that attack our meetings, rallies and neighbourhoods. its that simple. The democrats have their paramilitary cadre. Its time for the right to have one too.
 

Whitestrake Pelinal

Like a dream without a dreamer
Except Roosevelt, but his administration was riddled with commie spies so eh.
I wouldn't call him honest. If he were, he wouldn't have thought himself wiser than George Washington and gone for third and fourth Presidential terms.

I think one regime of genocidal socialist retards taken out and the other prevented from conquering all of Europe was at least passable; of course, it was a shame that KGB was allowed to spread active measures across the West later on, but without the benefit of hindsight I don't see how that can be avoided.

Well, "not being conquered by genocidal socialist retards" was also a priority. I don't know what recess of Stormfront you're getting this version of history from, but the notion that poor widdle A. Hitler would have ignored western Europe and America if we'd let him conquer Poland in peace has no resemblance to reality:


Even for "muh hwhite ethnostate" babies like you, you'd think 80% of the French and English populations (along with most likely similar percentages in North America, Southern and Eastern Europe) being exterminated would be a deal-breaker.

I mean, the USSR also rejected international monetary influence, taken literally, so why didn't the "masters in international finance" turn against them? Unless by those phrases you mean ... what we all know you mean.

I mean, the ideas you express sympathy for in this post:

A. Got the country which implemented them turned into a bombed-out wreck parcelled out between foreign powers.
B. Utterly poisoned all concepts of national pride in said country for generations.
C. Gave the Left a handy cudgel to wield against everyone right of Mao regardless of whether or not it actually fit, based on the sheer repulsive nature of the regime based on said ideas's actions.
D. Killed millions of people and started the world's largest war for absolutely no gain.

Hard to get closer to "failed utterly" than that.

I guess we need to add socialist economic policies, killing of those deemed unworthy of life by the state, and a totalitarian political system indistinguishable from the communist one?
You went off on quite the tangent there. I expressed sympathy for the tens of millions of people killed in a war that didn't have to happen, a brothers war that never should have been started, and which once started never should have been finished the way it was. Nazi Germany was in the wrong (gasp! heresy!) doing anything beyond recapturing territories ceded at the end of WW1, but the allies were in the wrong to permit communism to survive in return for having Germany destroyed. Peace was possible with Germany (spare me your wikitrash), it was never possible with communism. Between communist Russia and Nazi Germany, the Nazis were the lesser evil. Compare their body counts, and compare how they treated the people they saw as their own.

I'll readily admit that Europeans of the time mostly didn't look at themselves as 'European' or 'white', they had their own specific nationalities and a general sense of shared history, with that history including a lot of animosity. But, they should have known enough by then, having explored and conquered much of the world for centuries, to understand that they had common ground that was worth defending, and that their differences were not worth fighting either world war.

The pertinent takeaway from this tangent should be that whatever the Right should be, we must not be warmongers. It's fine to be strong on defense but fuck adventurism, fuck wars of conquest, and fuck bleeding for bankers.
 
Last edited:

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
I mean a feminism that rejects and deconstructs the bourgeois power valuation that female status = contributing to GDP

Well, we have socialist versions of feminism already. How about... we don't have feminism?

People who will beat up left wing goons that attack our meetings, rallies and neighbourhoods. its that simple. The democrats have their paramilitary cadre. Its time for the right to have one too.
And if right-wing militants and left-wing militants clash, who are the courts going to side with? It seems to me they side against groups like the Proud Boys.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
You went off on quite the tangent there. I expressed sympathy for the tens of millions of people killed in a war that didn't have to happen, a brothers war that never should have been started, and which once started never should have been finished the way it was.

Takes only one to start a fight. Nazi Germany wanted to conquer the world for ideological reasons and was driven to do so by economic factors.

Nazi Germany was in the wrong (gasp! heresy!) doing anything beyond recapturing territories ceded at the end of WW1

Those weren't their goals, and if they had stopped at that Germany would have imploded. Continuous conquest, looting, slavery and killing was the only thing which kept the Nazi economy, such as it was, afloat.

but the allies were in the wrong to permit communism to survive in return for having Germany destroyed.

We were all set to deal with Russia after Germany, but Roosevelt rendered it politically infeasible and it was a long shot at any rate which if failed would have handed all of Europe over to the commies. After he went the Soviets quickly got the Bomb in turn and a military solution to communism became impossible. At least in the direct sense.

Peace was possible with Germany (spare me your wikitrash)

Nazi Germany wanted to conquer the world. France, Britain and America wanted not to be conquered. Wikipedia sources from the explicit public and private statements of Nazi political and military leadership that they sought world domination through conquest, the extermination of large parts of the world's "white" population, and reduction of the vast majority of the rest to a state of slavery.

This was not a mere matter of foreign policy, but also driven by the dumpster fire that was the Nazi economy, which as I've noted was reliant solely on slaving, killing and looting. For Hitler, it was literally conquer the world or die trying.

, it was never possible with communism. Between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, the Nazis were the lesser evil.

They were just about equal, and both should have lost, but that wasn't possible. As for your comment that peace wasn't possible with Russia - it wasn't, but we managed to militarily contain the USSR until it imploded. And as stated, both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia sought military expansion through conquest.

(Letting them win on the Eastern Front and then carpet-nuking Europe in '48 or so was certainly a possibility, but again, with a much higher death toll than OTL saw.)

Compare their body counts, and compare how they treated the people the saw as their own.

Would the Nazi bodycount really have been lower if they had been permitted to run around unchecked for decades? And the Nazis treated the "people they saw as their own" in much the same way as the Soviets did.
I'll readily admit that Europeans of the time mostly didn't look at themselves as 'European' or 'white', they had their own specific nationalities and a general sense of shared history, with that history including a lot of animosity. But, they should have known enough by then, having explored and conquered much of the world for centuries, to understand that they had common ground that was worth defending, and that their differences were not worth fighting either world war.

Nazis didn't have that opinion. They viewed their differences with the rest of Europe as certainly worth fighting a war over, and it only takes one to start a fight. Peace was never an option with them, unless by "peace" you mean "submission".

EDIT:

@Alathon, since the kind of talk you're using is the exact same Nazi collaborators used during WW2, let me tell you what would happen when they took over your country. Now, since the Ahnernebe had produced very "scientific" studies "proving" that you were racially inferior to them, the occupying forces wouldn't bother with treating you as an equal. No, unless you were "racially inferior" enough to go straight to the gas chamber, they'd treat you as a sock-puppet to spout collaborationist propaganda justifying the enslavement and extermination of your own country until they were bored of dealing with you, at which point they'd just cut out the middleman and kill you. Unless you avoided that, in which case you'd be looking at a very lengthy prison term once the Allies won, or maybe even hanging for treason.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
I mean, the USSR also rejected international monetary influence, taken literally, so why didn't the "masters in international finance" turn against them? Unless by those phrases you mean ... what we all know you mean.
Well if the Nazis had won then these masters of international finance would not exist now. As we all know what that means.

That’s only a good thing if you believe the masters of finance to be the cause of our current crisis.

If you believe that, then yes anything the Nazis had planned was necessary.

If not, then it was not.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
I'm starting to think I should change my status from right winger to "Capitalist with nationalistic tendacies" more accurate to my political beliefs and it'd at least separate me from the current crapshow that is Left wing-right wing crap.
That does make you right wing, and in the eyes of left wing consesus, even a bit of a far right extremist.

I take it your not a Christian then?
Indeed.

There is no right. There is only left and not-left. Any 'right wing' party must reject the binary and build cross floor alliances.

Some ideas

1) reject and deconstruct leftwing intersectionalism.
2) Build a proper rightwing green movement.
3) Economic dirigism to definancialise and reindustrialise the USA
4) economic protectionism
5) Proper healthcare
6) The construction of a rightwing feminism
7) The embrace of certain aspects of the Mens movement
8) An end to the 'war on terror', and a reduction of Zionist and Israeli influence over policy.
9) A reduction of all immigration and the importation of temporary foreign labour
10) The creation of a rightwing SPLC and NLG
11) The creation of rightwing street cadre
2 and 3 are inherently contradictory. There is no right wing green movement, and that's because there is nothing to do for a right wing green movement, the current political balance on these matters is more strict regulated than a reasonable, right wing green movement would advocate for...

4 is abuseable by economic incompetents, protectionism is a dangerous toy to give politicians, even if in some cases it is necessary to deal with all sorts of shenanigans from countries that play by completely different economic and political rules than the western ones.
Related to 3, dirigism is not the way to achieve the goal stated in it, even though the goal is agreeable. State directed industries, as shown in examples around the world, tend to not be flourishing world leaders in their areas, quite the opposite.

5, what do you mean?

6, like in 2, doesn't exist, because there is no niche for it. More so, there shouldn't be, as there is zero ideological or practical reason for the right to want for women to have a separate identity and social, political or cultural movement inherently standing in opposition to men and their interests.
Women have a place on the right as fellow compatriots and citizens, not a special interest group.

7, to add to the above, would also be contradictory in 6, and pointless in light of other ideas.

8 makes more sense as a call to rationalize foreign entanglements and limit them to those that *really* make sense. The way you state it attracts several of the wrong crowds guided in these sentiments by their ideological pet peeves not just to the border of reasonable related points, but much beyond that border aswell.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top