The Green Party gained 20+% of the vote. 30+% among young people.
I can't stop thinking about that we need something radically new in the current century and that old-school right-wing politics isn't enough. What do these populist parties even offer? Just get rid of all immigrants and all will be fine? Then we will continue our current economic policies, our current social policies? That it?
I agree with the Left that a lot of the Populism is just talk to get populist support to gain power. The old Grachian brother and Tribune of the Plebs move.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLNvcTK6DTU
Farage for example is worshipped by many people, despite cucking the BNP, preventing UKIP from developing to something more than just an Anti-EU party and prevented them from becoming more nationalist.
If we can't get rid of refugees and immigrants, because you just get turned from wherever you are on the political spectrum to ultra far right, why not build camp-cities for them in our country and try to extract as much value from them as possible? They are coming here on their own. Why not use them as an economic ressource and exploit it as much as possible for the benefit of us?
And radically invest in Education, public transport, development of Green Spaces, National Parks. Try to become energy independet from fossil fuels ASAP.
And the EU. You know, old school nationalism and trying to take Prussia back won't work. The EU is a good way to fullfill our geopoltiical ambitions. We just need to adjust it in a better direction.
Why does Latvia and Estonia need to be independent? They are just going to be influenced by Russia, the US or China. Why not have a European Empire? I agree with Richard Spencer. Being anti EU is too short-sighted.
I am seriously thinking about these issues and I think that something like this might be much more succesful, than bruteforcing deporation of refugees and migrants, which will just get you hated. I think many Lefties would support that.
Can you talk me out of that?
OP - https://8ch.net/pol/res/13323687.html
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 18849050? ago
>>13324301
He definitely is, whether or not you agree with that narrative is the question.
Its a discussion, wherein a given party is being querried and presenting their narrative positions on various topics - in this case, a man who claims his 'mentor' was a zionist jewish man (Paul Gottfried) and who is now saying that "zionism is not an enemy in the context of controlling media narratives", claiming "the jewish question is just so complex" and promoting the narrative of the holohoax (whether for optics or not, pretty irrelevant).
I do though.
He should.
No, no, no. "Conservatives" don't deny that history at all, they embrace it and cuck on it. Nationalists, however, point out that much of the 'history' presented IS IN FACT A LIE. And those lies form the narrative foundation which acts to inhibit such activies as explicit White advocacy. As such, they MUST BE CONFRONTED (as opposed to 'embraced' or 'owned') because to internalize these narratives is to legitimize and solidify EVEN FURTHER the foundations which act to inhibit what is necessary to serve a truly Nationalistic stance.
Yes, its very cucky. Its EXTREMELY cucky, and almost-certainly for optics - which basically everyone with half a brain sees through immediately. If its NOT for optics, also a possibility and a strong point of suspicion because of his stance on zionism and associations therewith, then he's trying to poison his own people with a weak cucky narrative which will only act to inhibit.
Taking ownership of a false history which is inherently designed and aimed to discredit your very perpetuation as a biologic and cultural clade, consciously and purposefully internalizing such a thing, is the paramount of dysgenic behaviors.