You have the German AFD where one of their chairmans is a lesbian woman married to an Indian woman where the whole political body is considered far right because they want less mass foreign immigration into their nation.
German and European politics seem pretty bleak to me.
I ask myself what kind of political conservatism is this but then again conservatives don’t seem to conserve much of anything anymore.
It is an odd situation. Her party is family values and more or less anti-gay. How ironic. Their not considered far right just for wanting less immigration. They want to mass deport immigrants, legal ones included. The party has referred to the whole nazi era as a speck of bird poop in German history. Yes, bad, but really nothing big at all. Some of their leaders have used Nazi slogans.
But what an odd party. Never heard of them before. And how strange that she opted to go for that party given their attitude towards gays. But it seems the party gets a lot of milage out of her. See, we aren’t homophobic, we aren’t against diversity.
As an American I find the spectacle hilarious, Germany is so politically correct that even their far right leaders are female lesbians. Too funny.
Germany gets judged too harshly for the Third Reich, it is a miniscule period of time compared to its entire national history. Of course Zionism dominates Europe and North America where specific people need their eternal enemy haunted by long dead shadow ghosts.
The odd things is – they aren’t connected. What I mean is: we can think the Holocaust was terrible and think what Israel is doing and has done to Palestianians is terrible. But many people seem to agree on this odd idea. If you want to feel good about Germany, you need to either walk around in guilt and shame or pretend the Holocaust was not so bad or never happened. If you want to be critical of Israel, then let’s question the Holocaust. Or it can’t be bad what Israel is doing, because the Palestinians did X. But lots of things can be true at the same time here.
It’s like everything has to fit in some perfect little box. We couldn’t possibly hate what government X did without hating every citizen in the country or their grandchildren, so we have to deny what government X did. We need the simplest story, so we can simply hate everyone in group X, period. It assumes we can justify current horrors with past horrors. It assumes that everyone decided to do X. It assume the country is all the people deciding and somehow future generations are also guilty of what that past government did.
“What is the description that makes it so easy to classify the good and the bad. Oh, I’ll take two of those, thank you.”
A people lose their eternal victim status when they’re currently busy genociding others in military forms of aggression like Gaza for instance.
Hypocrisy has a way of damaging sympathy, guilt, and status of prestige.
World War II might as well been a hundred years ago.
I don’t understand how I managed to post before the post I quoted. I want control of my magical powers.
Wait till you find out that in germany they think its part of democracy to ban any political organization that is “too” right wing.
Germany and many other countries among the core cesspit that is the EU and brüssel are literally just communist socialists with extra steps.
And nothing will tell you more about this than how they have essentially taken over the visegrad 4.
These fucks cant tolerate anything that is not left of karl marx or halfway up their ass, licking as it goes.
You think the situation is bleak? Oh no. We are just getting started with them admitting that europe is now failing economically on all fronts. It WILL be bleak.
As an Orthodox Marxist and communist myself I would tell you that I find these bourgeois pseudo Neo-Marxists very annoying, although most do not understand the nuances to distinguish the political differences.
If you really want to make the heads of liberal dunces explode tell them that weaponized mass foreign immigration is just another manipulative tool by international capitalists to keep working wages low via the arbitrage of a labor reserve army concerning a surplus replacement population. Never forget that in economic capitalism people are merely replaceable interchangeable parts of an overall systemic machine.
Point of clarification: Alice Weidel is not married, her girlfriend is Swiss, she was born in Sri Lanka but adopted as a baby, raised in Switzerland, and is a Swiss citizen.
AfD is officially in favor of civil unions.
Are you lamenting the demise of classical conservatism? That seems at odds with your support for communism, as classical conservatism was heavily hierarchical, supporting a society where a hereditary aristocratic class rules over everyone else.
If you are, take solace in the fact that modern populist conservatism is more about hacking democracy than actual principles. While there are plenty of ‘true believers’, much of the bigotry is a tool to divide working class coalitions who might otherwise advance pro-worker policies.
Immigration has roughly zero effect on wages. One of many reasons “weaponized mass immigration” is not a thing.
I think that’s because these beliefs fulfill a dual role: they are how we explain and understand the world, but also how we signal our affiliations to others. “Israel is a complex polity and the governing coalition is engaging in war crimes” is true, but it can read as antisemitic or zionist depending who you’re talking to.
Looks like you edited your first post instead of posting a reply. Multiple windows/tabs?
How does one read that as zionist?
And one can be zionist and anti-semitic.
“She’s an Indian with Swiss citizenship.”
Yeah, well being a French and Spaniard American myself living in Nigeria I couldn’t call myself Nigerian, could I?
Cultural conservatism since I still hold traditional views on marriage, family, and identity. My communist, Marxist, and socialist views are purely economic in general relation to political statism.
Are you familiar with the history of Soviet Russia or other communist nations?
Even they had to make specific cultural concessions overtime in that social cohesion is an important factor maintaining national state governments.
The only people that seem to have a problem with racial, ethnic, cultural, and national identity are liberals, why is that?
You tell me Carleas why being a liberal yourself.
If you’re familiar with my beliefs already you know that I don’t particularly care about democracy and hierarchy is inevitable, my emphasis is making a system that mutually benefits everyone with the eradication of exploitation. It’s negative exploitation of people I have a huge problem with.
“There is no negative consequences or impact on working wages by mass foreign immigration.”
Yes, yes, I am aware this is something you liberals are in deep denial about contentiously and constantly.
You’re also aware this something I disagree with you on.
It is no coincidence that with the dissolution of labor unions in the 1980s and 1990s just happened to be the same time that huge waves of mass foreign immigration began to enter into western nations.
I think you need to define your terms or make a more clear assertion here. I’m sure a lot of liberals identify, for example, as Irish or African american, celebrate their cultures, the former attending St. Patty’s parades and so on, and are proud americans. So, with other ethnic groups in the US.
So, what is it you see the liberals as a group are actually against?
It’s all the global melting pot with liberals in the creation of the future post-human borderless world where there are no separate distinct tribal, historical, or national identities. But in particular as me and Carleas have discussed ad nauseaum already, liberals despise anything to do with a white Caucasian European identity to the point of denying its existence completely. That particular identity they hate above all others.
For me identity is a natural thing and I find it curious how political liberals insist on trying to abolish it or stomp it out.
Any type of society or civilization you have collective social cohesion is an inescapable inevitability, without that you have chaos of hostile competing interests without any commonality. Liberals seem unable to address those concerns everywhere I have seen.
You often intentionally ignore the situation you’re talking about in order to keep believing what you want to believe.
She was born in Sri Lanka, which is not India. She was adopted as an infant and raised in Switzerland. She is a Swiss citizen, and as far as I can tell she is not a Sri Lankan citizen.
If you had been adopted as as an infant and raised in Nigeria by a Nigerian family and had Nigerian citizenship, yes, you could call yourself a Nigerian.
It “seems” that way to you because you inhabit a poisoned information ecosystem and make no effort to reflect on the coherence of the beliefs if feeds you or check them against anything other than the same poisoned well.
Just acknowledge the historical recency of the idea of “Caucasian European identity”. Every ethnic group in Europe saw itself as racially distinct from every other ethnic group in Europe until a couple hundred years ago. They had prejudices and stereotypes about each other very much like the stereotypes people have now about modern racial categories. They disliked and distrusted each other, opposed immigration, and considered intermarriage miscegenation.
Identity is ‘natural’ in the sense that people develop identities for themselves as a normal human process, but identities aren’t natural categories, they’re intersubjective and contingent.
Not for nothing, that’s true of liberal-coded identities as well: people in the past may have been homosexual or have had gender dysphoria, but that being a salient part of their identity has changed over time and place.
Go tell a native Polynesian in Hawaii that as a white dude born there you’re defacto Hawaiian. Then watch them laugh in your face afterwards.
You view national culture as merely a place or residence of birth only. You lack knowledge and understanding of historic cultural dynamics.
Birthright citizenship without historic cultural context, the very failure of liberalism in terms of its perception.
Are we talking about identity, national culture, or citizenship? Those are three different things.
That’s vastly more corporate than liberal. White Caucausian European identity is a melting pot category. (as is Afro-American, but their cultures got erased to an extent, mixed along with their ethnic groups and the diverse cultures became a mish mosh)
You’re waking up very, very recently in history. Those ‘white’ Europeans have been killing each other through their entire history and did not see each other as one clump. But we’ve been through this before.
As I said liberals certain celebrate their ethnic background, their nation, their culture, whether it’s generic us culture: baseball, the flag, whatever music they consider american - or specific ethnic cultures. Conservatives were happy to have the corporations (those globalists) have more and more power and fought restrictions and taxes on those entities every step of the way. They were thrilled when Reagan smashed unions and undermined goverment oversight of industry, etc. etc.
I know, you think conservatives are liberals. But here in this forum you are getting away with something when you call them all liberals. It aligns you with people who are aligned with you to a degree on social behavior and criticism of women, but you’re not really aligned with them on much else. I know you are open about your communism (and buddhism) but I think there’s a kind of team gain if you use ‘liberals’. It sounds like you are critical of the left. Well, if we are talking about globalism, the right is globalist as can be. yes, they are more likely to honor the flag and talk abou their great country, but they have no problem with globalism since to say anything else was to be somehow, yup, communist. So, you can’t push these NAFTA and other deals through, despite these agreements (opposed by many more liberals and lefties) eroding national boundaries and not in tiny ways.
And really, you’re in the wrong country. The founders believed in civic nationalism not ethnic nationalism. And not slightly or on the side. The whole idea was not ‘we are connected by English blood’ but by our rights as humans. The melting pot and the shift from ethnic nationalism was open and clearly stated right from the beginning. Sure, they didn’t realize that Native Americans and black slaves or even Italians and for some the Irish might become significant parts of the nation, but the idea is right there. There was humanism. A nation built on the rights of humans, a civic nationalism. A country built on legal commonality, rights and not cultural monism. Religion was also not going to be uniform and people were assumed to have the rights to their own cultures and beliefs. And Europe reacted negatively to this melting pot, civic nationalism with very specific ideas of Volk, and enthnic nationalism. Leftists and rightists alike were critical of this model. But it was the model. And whenever it needed it, it brought in, allowed in, and used incoming new groups and once considered disgusting Catholics and/or disgusting Irish, Italians (those lazy dark-skinned mediterraneans, were embraced, along with Chinese, the already present quite large Hispanic population and so on. That’s not a globalism, but the US was specifically civic rather than ethnic.
They’re less, supposedly, radically individualistic than conservatives. When you and your cohorts are trying to shift the nation towards communism, wanna wager whether it’s conservatives or liberals who have most guns aimed from the woods at your troops. And you will need troops. Good luck in Appalachia and the South and West. The liberals will at least listen for a long time. Once you say communism, I’d get behind that pane of bullet proof glass, cause the 2nd ammendment guys will already be grumbling.