Alt-right. A terrorist movement in the making?

[Ostroeuropa]

The attack was perpetrated by al-Qaeda, not progressives. The claim that the attack was somehow the catalyst of attacking people for being white and was motivated because of race is not correct.

Since the topic is about alt-right terrorism, it's important to try to "emulate" an alt-rightist's perspective. It's only a search away to finding a plethora of manifestos on how Western civilization/white race is under siege by the evil hordes.

I don't think this accurately captures the actual ideology. You're mistaking "Wartime propaganda" for political theory. This is why it's futile to point out that various aspects and crimes they accuse the "enemy" of aren't true.

It's not supposed to be true. It's done as a functional tool of dehumanization, out-grouping, and psyching ones self up for violence. This is a mistake many make when engaging with them, thinking if they point out that actually the Germans aren't bayoneting babies, everyone will calm down and go home. You come across as someone not "in" on the act. It's not meant to be true. It doesn't have to be true. It is simply an aspect of warfare and outgrouping.

The actual ideology is far more cynical and depressing than merely being misinformed about evil hordes. It is not inherent to British ideology that Germans bayonet babies. What is inherent to it is that you say they do under certain circumstances.

[Liriena]

9/11 was not an attack on white people motivated by the fact they are white. It was to do with attacking the West. Just because people in the west are white does not mean the motive behind this attack was because of this.

"The west" and "Whites" are not really separate concepts according to many progressives though.

And as we all know, progressive thinkers and al-Qaeda are ideologically identical and perform the exact same historical analysis.

oh gawd you're gonna unironically say "yes", aren't you?

[Liriena]

The actual ideology is far more cynical and depressing than merely being misinformed about evil hordes.

This is absolutely correct... IMHO.

[Diarcesia]

Since the topic is about alt-right terrorism, it's important to try to "emulate" an alt-rightist's perspective. It's only a search away to finding a plethora of manifestos on how Western civilization/white race is under siege by the evil hordes.

I don't think this accurately captures the actual ideology. You're mistaking "Wartime propaganda" for political theory. This is why it's futile to point out that various aspects and crimes they accuse the "enemy" of aren't true.

It's not supposed to be true. It's done as a functional tool of dehumanization, out-grouping, and psyching ones self up for violence. This is a mistake many make when engaging with them, thinking if they point out that actually the Germans aren't bayoneting babies, everyone will calm down and go home. You come across as someone not "in" on the act. It's not meant to be true. It doesn't have to be true. It is simply an aspect of warfare and outgrouping.

The actual ideology is far more cynical and depressing than merely being misinformed about evil hordes. It is not inherent to British ideology that Germans bayonet babies. What is inherent to it is that you say they do under certain circumstances.

You're right that I'm looking at it in a "wartime propaganda" perspective. Of course it is an act to rile up people to their cause. And once the alt-right extremists are firmly in power, that's when they'll promulgate the "bayoneting babies" that they so lovingly accuse the other of doing. In a way it's a form of fatwa envy. Cynical indeed.

[Liriena]

The right controls the executive branch, half the legislative branch, the judiciary branch and most state governments, and even the opposition still has a strong right-wing faction within.


Disregarding the terrorism apologia... "desperate" over what, exactly? Not having absolute power? Not being able to deport every immigrant and Muslim? Desperate that the libs didn't all spontaneously die when Trump won? Desperate that Hillary Clinton, AKA Satan in the flesh, hasn't been hanged? Desperate that their government hasn't put more children in concentration camps?


Who is doing that? I certainly think that conservatism in its American form is bigoted and kind of a dead weight for all humanity, but I'd say that it's violent side is mostly comprised of stuff like killing civilians abroad in illegal wars and torturing people who haven't even been given due process.


Not a bad bit of deduction.


And left-wing terrorism? Is it better planned or something? Better coordinated?


For someone so adamantly upset at the idea of conservatives being associated with political violence, the underlined might lend itself to rather unfortunate implications.


Except it's not at all like 'Hitler ate sugar'. There's a credible link between the rhetoric of far right figures like Ben Shapiro and the actions of people like teh Quebec mosque shooter. Ben Shapiro has spent much of his punditry career stoking an existential terror of Muslims among his fanbase, an existential terror that the Quebec mosque shooter, a huge fan of his, came to share and eventually took to its logical extreme.

It's more like 'Hitler said Jews were insidious vermin out to destroy Germany and his fanboys went on to burn a synagogue despite him not necessarily personally commanding it'.

And their managing to take that control sparked a wave of violent outrage across the country, including murders and assassination attempts and the ongoing political bullshit that's carried on until this day. Please don't pretend that just because they managed to grab a single election they have control over the political structure of our country.

Obama wasn't even left-wing to begin with yet here you are, acting like somehow left-wing politics are the real power behind the American throne even though all of your governments have been at most neoliberal and at least neoconservative since Carter fucked off. Acting like even your soft power (the mainstream media, the alternative media, entertainment and even social media) isn't dominated by people who actually rather like free market capitalism and at most will entertain the idea of Obamacare.

Also, not once did any right-wing terrorist cite antifa violence or any of that shit as a motivation. They cited Jewish conspiracies, the Muslim threat, etc.

Terrorism is not a problem we need to take drastic measures to solve. Catch the criminals, and put them through the courts.

When was the last time you made the same argument when the topic was antifa or Islamic fundamentalism, rather than a white supremacist memeing his way to multiple homicide charges?

[New haven america]

I wasn't aware that 9/11 was because al-Qaeda hated white people specifically rather than... y'know... American imperialism and people of other religions...

But I do appreciate the flaccid attempt to kinda excuse terrorist acts against Muslims, I guess?

I'm not excusing anything. I hope it's understood that to many of the alt-right, race and civilization has a large overlap, and thus, an attack against America and Western civilization is by extension an attack against whites, if only because that's the civilization the majority of whites belong to.

Yeah, it totally was an attack on all white culture.

Let's just forget the fact that Arabs are considered white.

[-MAFDET-]

Ostroeuropa logged off around the time this was posted. Just quoting it so it doesn’t get buried. I’m eager to continue the discussion.

1. That's largely the point. A lot of "White privilege" isn't white privilege, it's black disadvantage relative to all other races. Same as anti-Semitism isn't "White privilege", it's anti-Semitism, and it's something Jews put up with. It isn't "White privilege" for people not to make fun of the shape of your nose, for instance, because plenty of races don't put up with that. White privilege as a narrative places the focus on white people even where that is not justified, and erases inter-minority racism as existing. It does so to create an in-group and out-group distinction between whites and everyone else, where whites are the enemy based on often spurious reasoning.

2. It's not shamefully wrong, you simply didn't understand it. I was very explicit. Half of all white people suffer disproportionate police violence, and half of all black people are treated more leniently than average by the police. If we were to average out the police treatment of all citizens, half of all black people would need to be treated worse, and half of all white people would need to be treated better. Specifically, white men and black men would need to be treated better, and white women and black women worse. Given that that is the case, "White privilege" miscasts the issue and attributes privilege to a large body of people where it doesn't exist. This is because the progressive narrative is anti-white. I don't doubt you'd consider it ridiculous to argue a rape victim privileged because they aren't a gangrape victim, offensive even. It's like I said, when you fuck around with statistics to fit a preconceived narrative you can make it say whatever you want. Anti-white racists wanted a reason to hate white people, so they pulled this shenanigan. Not much different to when Christian fundamentalists threw out the stat that pre-marital sex increases your chances of being divorced later in life as part of their overall narrative against sexual promiscuity, and ignored the fact this is only the case if you include rape victims in the stats because trauma does things to peoples ability to relate, remove those people from the data set and suddenly it isn't true. It's about framing the data.

Anti-white racists want to push this idea that white people are privileged, and so throw this crap out there, despite it not actually describing white experience and being more accurately understood as a female privilege, something usually denied by the progressive left as existing.

1). And where does black disadvantage - which is shared to various levels by other marginalized races in the United States - as well as inter-minority racial bias come from? The racial classification system explicitly devised by white settlers that formed the basis of American society, after stealing indigenous land through genocide. Black disadvantage is the result of enforced white advantage. Furthermore, your argument rests on the idea that white people are depicted as the enemy of all marginalized racial identities in the United States. This has never been true. It is not the goal of black liberation to enforce a sort of reverse-racism on white Americans where - in a new society - they would be the disadvantaged group but rather, to create true equality by breaking down the racial in-group and out-group system created by white colonists hundreds of years ago. In a nation that came to be through conquest, the conquerors will always be the ruling class - everyone else is second class. Lastly for this point, to suggest that anti-white racism is actually a thing is preposterous. Racism is the incorporation of racial bias into a system. This system was historically created by colonial whites.

This fact is not a justification of anti-white racial bias. No advocate actually harbors a deep-seated hatred of white people. To believe this indicates a persecution complex.


2). It's no argument that being raped is only marginally better than being gang-raped, and even writing that sentence down feels sick. It's the use of the world 'privilege'. Privilege is a granted positive, not the lack of something that is worse. It sounds like your personal definition of the word is flawed. All of your arguments thus far have relied on this false perception of the word.

Being a woman has some implicit privileges, sure. But you can only conceive of privileges that do not apply to you. If you can understand how women have certain privileges, then you should be able to conceive the even vaster amounts of power and privilege that white men are granted.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I wasn't aware that 9/11 was because al-Qaeda hated white people specifically rather than... y'know... American imperialism and people of other religions...

But I do appreciate the flaccid attempt to kinda excuse terrorist acts against Muslims, I guess?

I'm not excusing anything. I hope it's understood that to many of the alt-right, race and civilization has a large overlap, and thus, an attack against America and Western civilization is by extension an attack against whites, if only because that's the civilization the majority of whites belong to.

Again....how does having to fabricate evidence and blatantly making stuff up to support what they claim in anyway making their beliefs any more understandable or valid? It is doing the exact opposite and showing how nonsensical and untrue their beliefs are.

[The Emerald Legion]

Terrorism is not a problem we need to take drastic measures to solve. Catch the criminals, and put them through the courts.

When was the last time you made the same argument when the topic was antifa or Islamic fundamentalism, rather than a white supremacist memeing his way to multiple homicide charges?

I've never made the argument before, therefore it's wrong? I typically don't weigh in much on Islamic terrorism. Leftist terrorism I only talk about because people pretend it doesn't exist. That their angry, hateful rhetoric is ok.

[Satuga]

In the UK. Which I will admit seems quite awful and definitely a sign that something's messed up in how British progressivism has thought and operated. But the UK is not the only country with a right-wing terrorism problem. In fact, this thread started off with reports from Canada, and much of the discussion has revolved around the United States. I can't speak for the Canadian case... but in the American case, the issues you raised aren't there.

From what I've seen even from Left leaning news* sites, all most every single protest turned riot was a left leaning protest. The only case where this isn't true would be the Lee Statue Riot which even then was caused by the left and right bashing heads with each other. As for single man terrorist acts, you would be somewhat correct it's been disproportionately right leaning in the US, however terrorist attacks that happen in Europe near constantly are normally by Muslim Extremists. Which in some cases those Extremists have been either dismissed or even in cases PRAISED by the left leaning. Either way both sides have their absurdities, but to say that Left-leaning terrorism isn't as extreme or threatening as Right-leaning terrorism is incredibly absurd and ignorant.

You asked about race and we're talking about race. Don't pivot to gender to score bonus points in your crusade against feminism.

From where in there did you see anything about gender?

Who? How? Where? On what platforms? And how many people do those platforms reach?

CNN, The New York Times, NBC, etc. all of which reach have the potential to reach out to millions. Influencing them to believe that something as simple as It's Okay To Be White is somehow a racist, oppressive suggestion.

Criticism of western superiority narratives is not the same as anti-semitic myths.

What he was saying was, people have been lying and being intentionally misleading in order to make White people look bad or racist. Similar to what people have done in an attempt to make Jews look bad.

Not by law it isn't. And even if it's frowned upon by many people, that definitely hasn't stopped many others from trying to speak about those issues... aaaaaand, yet again, all of those peoples (or at least, all of the public figures) who have talked about them turned out to be white supremacists or, at the very least, had some very nasty things to say about other groups of people.

Why is it frowned upon to talk about the issues against the white community? Shouldn't every Issue that has to do with race be welcomed to discussion? Though it seems that any time someone tries to talk about it their almost always shutdown as a white supremacist, racist, or nazi? With many people claiming those issues don't matter because of "White privilege". Also who aside from that one known KKK supporter(I forget his name that's how little I care about that shit stain) has discussed these issues and been openly a white supremacist? As for "some very nasty things to say about other groups of people" as long as it's not throwing racial slurs or being incredibly discriminatory they don't really matter as criticism should be allowed for every race, religion, ethnicity, culture, etc.

(edited a simple spelling mistake)

[Ostroeuropa]

1. That's largely the point. A lot of "White privilege" isn't white privilege, it's black disadvantage relative to all other races. Same as anti-Semitism isn't "White privilege", it's anti-Semitism, and it's something Jews put up with. It isn't "White privilege" for people not to make fun of the shape of your nose, for instance, because plenty of races don't put up with that. White privilege as a narrative places the focus on white people even where that is not justified, and erases inter-minority racism as existing. It does so to create an in-group and out-group distinction between whites and everyone else, where whites are the enemy based on often spurious reasoning.

2. It's not shamefully wrong, you simply didn't understand it. I was very explicit. Half of all white people suffer disproportionate police violence, and half of all black people are treated more leniently than average by the police. If we were to average out the police treatment of all citizens, half of all black people would need to be treated worse, and half of all white people would need to be treated better. Specifically, white men and black men would need to be treated better, and white women and black women worse. Given that that is the case, "White privilege" miscasts the issue and attributes privilege to a large body of people where it doesn't exist. This is because the progressive narrative is anti-white. I don't doubt you'd consider it ridiculous to argue a rape victim privileged because they aren't a gangrape victim, offensive even. It's like I said, when you fuck around with statistics to fit a preconceived narrative you can make it say whatever you want. Anti-white racists wanted a reason to hate white people, so they pulled this shenanigan. Not much different to when Christian fundamentalists threw out the stat that pre-marital sex increases your chances of being divorced later in life as part of their overall narrative against sexual promiscuity, and ignored the fact this is only the case if you include rape victims in the stats because trauma does things to peoples ability to relate, remove those people from the data set and suddenly it isn't true. It's about framing the data.

Anti-white racists want to push this idea that white people are privileged, and so throw this crap out there, despite it not actually describing white experience and being more accurately understood as a female privilege, something usually denied by the progressive left as existing.

1). And where does black disadvantage - which is shared to various levels by other marginalized races in the United States - as well as inter-minority racial bias come from? The racial classification system explicitly devised by white settlers that formed the basis of American society, after stealing indigenous land through genocide. Black disadvantage is the result of enforced white advantage. Furthermore, your argument rests on the idea that white people are depicted as the enemy of all marginalized racial identities in the United States. This has never been true. It is not the goal of black liberation to enforce a sort of reverse-racism on white Americans where - in a new society - they would be the disadvantaged group but rather, to create true equality by breaking down the racial in-group and out-group system created by white colonists hundreds of years ago. In a nation that came to be through conquest, the conquerors will always be the ruling class - everyone else is second class. Lastly for this point, to suggest that anti-white racism is actually a thing is preposterous. Racism is the incorporation of racial bias into a system. This system was historically created by colonial whites.

This fact is not a justification of anti-white racial bias. No advocate actually harbors a deep-seated hatred of white people. To believe this indicates a persecution complex.


2). It's no argument that being raped is only marginally better than being gang-raped, and even writing that sentence down feels sick. It's the use of the world 'privilege'. Privilege is a granted positive, not the lack of something that is worse. It sounds like your personal definition of the word is flawed. All of your arguments thus far have relied on this false perception of the word.

Being a woman has some implicit privileges, sure. But you can only conceive of privileges that do not apply to you. If you can understand how women have certain privileges, then you should be able to conceive the even vaster amounts of power and privilege that white men are granted.

1. Your narrative of history is, as with all narratives of history, picking out certain facts to enforce a political narrative. You are ignoring aspects of history that run counter to your political agenda, such as ideological changes in institutions. You assert it's never been true that whites are depicted as the enemy, but that seems to me to be gaslighting, that is pretty much what the progressive narrative on the topic boils down to.

Furthermore even if we accept this narrative for the sake of argument, you don't appear able to distinguish between an unfair advantage given to someone, and an unfair disadvantage forced on someone else, which matters for the solutions you try to apply. Whites are not given an unfair advantage, blacks are given an unfair disadvantage. By framing the argument around white privilege, you are creating a situation where a state of being unmolested by prejudice is seen as unfair, rather than a fairness owed to everybody. This is because the ideology is anti-white and destructive, rather than pro-black and constructive and focused on human rights of black people being violated, rather than whining about how white people don't get their rights violated and thereby breeding resentment at a lack of racism against whites by framing that as a social problem. The emotional impetus and catharsis for your ideology and the behavior your kind is spreading is to enact racism against whites, that is clear to basically everyone except you guys at this point, and its why so many of you can't help yourselves with shit like "mayo" and so on. it's not about helping minorities, that's not how you get your high. That's entirely a consequence of your conflict ideology and how you view the issues.

If I got on stage and made it my mission to normalize discussion of poverty in terms of "Well the smell will be awful and they'll breed like diseased rats, so we don't want poverty.", it doesn't matter if I center all my arguments around "Ending poverty" when the entire framework i'm using is demonizing the poor, because the impact will be destructive. This is similar to the trick you have fallen for. The emotional impetus there isn't, "end poverty", it's "Hurt the poor, get rid of them, put them out of sight.", and no amount of "I'm just trying to end poverty" would change that.

The goal of the activists isn't a monolith, and doesn't even matter if as you say their goal is equality, the effect of their ideology is evident. Many conservatives don't conspire to crash the economy, they just have an ass backward understanding of how it works and are ill equipped to deliver the prosperity they are aiming for. So it goes for progressives trying to create equality. Other conservatives know it's a con and do it to milk the system for their own benefit at the expense of others and society by utilizing it as a tool for corruption and for their own ends. So it goes for progressives who simply hate men and white people and understand the ideology is a useful tool for that.

A particular ideologically driven historical narrative of a system doesn't describe its present state. Systems change, sometimes radically and in a short period of time. Anti-white racism exists in institutions and in certain contexts. It is not a zero sum game. Your problem is your brain has been filled with conflict theory/marxist drivel about there necessarily being an oppressor and oppressed class rather than there being a social problem that needs solving.

2. Marginally better, sure, but not privileged. There are no granted positives to being white, this is again the problem, you appear unable to grasp the point. Being raped as opposed to gang raped is not a "granted positive", it is a lesser degree of imposed disadvantage. You make this mistake because your ideology causes you to view the world that way, and hence it is anti-white instead of pro-black. It focuses the problem around imaginary "White advantage" instead of black disadvantage or indeed, everyones experience with racism and how it negatively impacts them to differing degrees in different contexts.

My argument is based on you not confroting the metaphor. You argue white privilege exists because of police injustice for example, and then act like because blacks are "Gang raped" that means whites being merely "raped" is "Unfair advantage". You act like being raped is a "Granted positive" because progressive ideology has turned you into a racist. As I pointed out, police brutality impacts every demographic to varying degrees, rather than focus the issue on peoples human rights being violated, you frame the issue the way you do. That is destructive, and the rise of the alt-right is one consequence of progressives re-igniting racist politics and mainstreaming it. You did that. Not Trump. He is the reaction to it.

Men have advantages over women in some situations, and women in others. If you think men have "Vastly more" advantages than women, it's because your ideology and the people you associate with has filled your head with garbage mate. Being a man does not actually give you that many advantages compared to being a woman, and the only way progressives can pretend otherwise is by playing games with statistics much like they do over police violence. (Where as I pointed out, half of all white people are treated worse than average, and half of all minorities are treated better than average. So "Being white" does not actually mean privilege as a common experience there.).

For "White men having power" the game progressives play is pretending that "working at microsoft" is a privilege because bill gates is the richest man alive, and if you work there, you are better off than someone working at KFC for the same wages because progressive style racism says so. The progressive description of "White privilege" does not actually describe white privilege, and often this is the case for male privilege too. But because whites and males are their enemy, they often misframe issues to confirm their own prejudices.

"Being white" doesn't give a common privileged experience. It is of no more benefit to me that the ruling class are often white than it is to an Arab that the Sauds are arab. Further, the progressive style racism obfuscates the modern economy and global politics by ignoring the influence of people like the Sauds.

Do Arabs have privilege?
Do Chinese people?

Yet the Sauds and China have as much impact on how we are governed as those white men, so why not?

[Seges]

Inb4 "but the left is just as bad because *mightily inhales* ANTIFA".

Yes, in the status quo antifa, or people "affiliating' with antifa do more violence then any people claiming to be on the far-right.

[North German Realm]

Inb4 "but the left is just as bad because *mightily inhales* ANTIFA".

Yes, in the status quo antifa, or people "affiliating' with antifa do more violence then any people claiming to be on the far-right.

Proportions. Generally, the most antifa does is either acts of minor vandalism or minor physical violence. It can be denounced for hooliganism (though I wouldn't denounce or condemn it anyway), but it is nowhere near what the normal act of violence done by one of the far-right looks like, which is generally murder, successful or attempted.

[The Emerald Legion]

Actually no. While there are clear cases of left wing terrorism Antifa typically isn't involved.

Antifa is more of a street brawl public disorder and vandalism kind of organization. Rather than a 'We are gonna shoot someone in the face' organization.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, in the status quo antifa, or people "affiliating' with antifa do more violence then any people claiming to be on the far-right.

Proportions. Generally, the most antifa does is either acts of minor vandalism or minor physical violence. It can be denounced for hooliganism (though I wouldn't denounce or condemn it anyway), but it is nowhere near what the normal act of violence done by one of the far-right looks like, which is generally murder, successful or attempted.

This is ignoring state violence. If you're talking about independent actors without keeping that context in mind, it benefits the powerful over those without power. It's as absurd as calling Algerian Nationalists violent hooligans as you occupy their country with soldiers and police because soldiers and police don't count.

So you have to examine how that state violence is being used.

When you look at polls dealing with immigration, the overwhelming majority have opposed this situation for a long while. Preventing self-governance and consent of the governed through oligarchy and so on is an act of mass violence against every citizen.

[North German Realm]

Proportions. Generally, the most antifa does is either acts of minor vandalism or minor physical violence. It can be denounced for hooliganism (though I wouldn't denounce or condemn it anyway), but it is nowhere near what the normal act of violence done by one of the far-right looks like, which is generally murder, successful or attempted.

This is ignoring state violence. If you're talking about independent actors without keeping that context in mind, it benefits the powerful over those without power. It's as absurd as calling Algerian Nationalists violent hooligans as you occupy their country with soldiers and police because soldiers and police don't count.

So you have to examine how that state violence is being used.

When you look at polls dealing with immigration, the overwhelming majority have opposed this situation for a long while. Preventing self-governance and consent of the governed through oligarchy and so on is an act of mass violence against every citizen.

Almost every single state in the collective concept of "The West" is right-wing. Most of them are moderately right-wing (the type that allows non-conservative parties to function as part of a larger system, rather than an inherent opposition), some are clearly, obviously far-right (Hungary, Poland), a few of them are actually left-wing (and by that I mean "left-wing parties play a large part in politics and/or have been in charge of running things at least one term in the last decade"), and none of them are "antifa". Stop putting the blame for The Far-Right being a bunch of mass-murdering terrorists like they've always been on the fucking state. The state can be blamed for a lot of things, but if it's gonna be blamed for the shitshow that is the Far-Right, it's for pandering to them so much they feel entitled to being the only voice so much they start shooting mosques and synagogues the moment they're only the "dominant" voice, rather than the only voice.

[Shanhwa]

This is ignoring state violence. If you're talking about independent actors without keeping that context in mind, it benefits the powerful over those without power. It's as absurd as calling Algerian Nationalists violent hooligans as you occupy their country with soldiers and police because soldiers and police don't count.

So you have to examine how that state violence is being used.

When you look at polls dealing with immigration, the overwhelming majority have opposed this situation for a long while. Preventing self-governance and consent of the governed through oligarchy and so on is an act of mass violence against every citizen.

Almost every single state in the collective concept of "The West" is right-wing. Most of them are moderately right-wing (the type that allows non-conservative parties to function as part of a larger system, rather than an inherent opposition), some are clearly, obviously far-right (Hungary, Poland), a few of them are actually left-wing (and by that I mean "left-wing parties play a large part in politics and/or have been in charge of running things at least one term in the last decade"), and none of them are "antifa". Stop putting the blame for The Far-Right being a bunch of mass-murdering terrorists like they've always been on the fucking state. The state can be blamed for a lot of things, but if it's gonna be blamed for the shitshow that is the Far-Right, it's for pandering to them so much they feel entitled to being the only voice so much they start shooting mosques and synagogues the moment they're only the "dominant" voice, rather than the only voice.

Poland is far right.

lol

[North German Realm]

Almost every single state in the collective concept of "The West" is right-wing. Most of them are moderately right-wing (the type that allows non-conservative parties to function as part of a larger system, rather than an inherent opposition), some are clearly, obviously far-right (Hungary, Poland), a few of them are actually left-wing (and by that I mean "left-wing parties play a large part in politics and/or have been in charge of running things at least one term in the last decade"), and none of them are "antifa". Stop putting the blame for The Far-Right being a bunch of mass-murdering terrorists like they've always been on the fucking state. The state can be blamed for a lot of things, but if it's gonna be blamed for the shitshow that is the Far-Right, it's for pandering to them so much they feel entitled to being the only voice so much they start shooting mosques and synagogues the moment they're only the "dominant" voice, rather than the only voice.

Poland is far right.

lol

It's far enough in extremism and traditionalism from the "centrist" Right-wing governments to be safely considered one from a relative point of view.

[Shanhwa]

Poland is far right.

lol

It's far enough in extremism and traditionalism from the "centrist" Right-wing governments to be safely considered one from a relative point of view.

So not wanting your country to be oppressed again like they were for decades and being patriotic is far right?

[Great Kauthar]

Rounding up altrighters and finding out their background would be very nice.
How many were raised in a single parent household? How many of them were bullied at school? How many of them were left to technology unauthorised by bad parents? Would be interesting and rather predictable.

[Kyrinasaj]

It's far enough in extremism and traditionalism from the "centrist" Right-wing governments to be safely considered one from a relative point of view.

So not wanting your country to be oppressed again like they were for decades and being patriotic is far right?

You can not be oppressed and not be right-wing populist

[North German Realm]

It's far enough in extremism and traditionalism from the "centrist" Right-wing governments to be safely considered one from a relative point of view.

So not wanting your country to be oppressed again like they were for decades and being patriotic is far right?

Despite your poor attempts at an appeal to emotion, Yes. When done in an extremist manner, as zealously as it is done in Poland. Of course, it is understandable (it's a trend you see in many post-communist countries, obviously) but it is still far-right.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Poland is far right.

lol

It's far enough in extremism and traditionalism from the "centrist" Right-wing governments to be safely considered one from a relative point of view.

Extremism and traditionalism is not inherent to the far-right. In Poland’s case being communist historically, wouldn’t it be ‘traditional’ to be far-left?

[North German Realm]

It's far enough in extremism and traditionalism from the "centrist" Right-wing governments to be safely considered one from a relative point of view.

Extremism and traditionalism is not inherent to the far-right. In Poland’s case being communist historically, wouldn’t it be ‘traditional’ to be far-left?

Fair point. Maybe I should have articulated myself in a better way, as I did not really mean "traditional" -as ironically pre-partition Poland was nowhere as reactionary as any of the three modern Polish States. Maybe Reactionary would be a better term?

[Holy Tedalonia]

Extremism and traditionalism is not inherent to the far-right. In Poland’s case being communist historically, wouldn’t it be ‘traditional’ to be far-left?

Fair point. Maybe I should have articulated myself in a better way, as I did not really mean "traditional" -as ironically pre-partition Poland was nowhere as reactionary as any of the three modern Polish States. Maybe Reactionary would be a better term?

Probably, Poland is undergoing changes probably not likely seen in its history, given that its either been the staple of democracy (before it was cool), or a independent-fighting communist state.