I don't understand why anti white isn't good enough. Arguing about terms seems a bit frivolous. This Riboua person doesn't even mention what's most important, white erasure. I think it's a little disingenuous to handwave Andrews' idea because the regime kinda sorta supported apartheid south africa a little bit as a short term anti communist tactic. Really seems to ignore the big picture. Saying that Mamdani supports empire in any meaningful sense is a bit like saying Joe Biden believed in free and fair elections. Mamdani didn't mention much about bringing America's enemies to heal or spreading an empire of liberty across the globe. Instead, he thanked all the non white groups who supported him. Because hatred of whites is the currency of our enemies. Everything else is mere intrigue. All the talk of woke this or trad that and 'muh culture' and which type of stupid christianity and on and on and on are major distractions. Like when men should be lifting, acquiring skills, tapping gash and instead they're...oh I don't know...playing morrowind for 12 hours straight. No one should play video games after they've hit puberty and they should probably be banned altogether. Heterosexual porn (with domination and a firm hand against a subjugated female) should be shown to boys on a daily basis in all our schools from a relatively young age. Just my two cents, while we're going off on tangents about what terms we should use to describe our enemies. In a related story, what color should the uniforms be? Are we Arminians or calvinists? I'm really sick of these cosplay zoomers with their assorted collection of esoteric idiosyncratic sexually repressive right wing ideas/complicated BS/convoluted crushingly boring meaningless crap, like some old guy with his stamps or trains. Please make them go away. This is what happens when people never masturbate. Glad to know the online right is focused on the important questions. Please kill me now.
I don't see a problem with the term "progressive" - in fact it's the best one. I say "progressive" and "conservative" instead of "right" or "left", because P & C are immutable like north & south, unlike right & left whose consituencies change over time, and depends on the POV of the speaker.
In politics, you're either wanting to change society, or wanting to preserve it. Those are the two poles. In every culture around the world. Why do we need a "scary" term like Race Communism? Just say so-and-so is a Progressive and everyone knows what you mean. You can even qualify it with "mild" or "very" progressive. Same for conservative.
The only problem with this is how long does one define a period of time after which something is considered conservative? For me, it's at least a century. So by that standard, wanting social security is conservative, but wanting SNAP benefits is progressive.
"Highly Respected" my ass. How about you call the left what they really are - Human Beings that care about humankind? You repugnant conservatives don't care about anything but power and money.
I think there is alot of utility to the term 'Pardocratia', which Cal Crucis defines as
"This is a more historically focused term that avoids something clunky & hazy like "3rd world race communism" or "global market socialism", among other sorts. It's the recognition that the impetus behind the Bandung Conference & the creation of the "3rd world" has deeper roots in anti-colonial liberation movements that have a history longer than the Age of Revolutions but exploded with that time (e.g. Tupac Amaru, Fr. Hidalgo, the Haitian Revolution). This would later meld into the Leninist adjunct to Marxism in anti-imperialism, but the important point is that Socialism was a means to an end, which was land reform for an underclass that would form itself into a new patronage network that was anti-white because pro-indigenous (however that was defined). This indigenousness was itself a novelty, not necessarily the original peoples, but increasingly a mixture of white, indio, & black. This 19th c. concept has become poignant for the racial genesis of "People of Color," who have a similar kind of consciousness about their estate & project. This is a coherent political vision that can make sense of the past & future as a grand anti-colonial struggle to bring about a true global village of equality"
I think 3 is marginal (and somewhat covered by 1 and 2) and should be replaced with feminism. Even sans immigration and demographic replacement as seen in South Korea, feminists can destroy a society.
I personally always preferred race communist. Like to throw gay race communism in as well to capture the hyper effeminate nature of it.
Great minds think alike. We simultaneously posted this.
I don't understand why anti white isn't good enough. Arguing about terms seems a bit frivolous. This Riboua person doesn't even mention what's most important, white erasure. I think it's a little disingenuous to handwave Andrews' idea because the regime kinda sorta supported apartheid south africa a little bit as a short term anti communist tactic. Really seems to ignore the big picture. Saying that Mamdani supports empire in any meaningful sense is a bit like saying Joe Biden believed in free and fair elections. Mamdani didn't mention much about bringing America's enemies to heal or spreading an empire of liberty across the globe. Instead, he thanked all the non white groups who supported him. Because hatred of whites is the currency of our enemies. Everything else is mere intrigue. All the talk of woke this or trad that and 'muh culture' and which type of stupid christianity and on and on and on are major distractions. Like when men should be lifting, acquiring skills, tapping gash and instead they're...oh I don't know...playing morrowind for 12 hours straight. No one should play video games after they've hit puberty and they should probably be banned altogether. Heterosexual porn (with domination and a firm hand against a subjugated female) should be shown to boys on a daily basis in all our schools from a relatively young age. Just my two cents, while we're going off on tangents about what terms we should use to describe our enemies. In a related story, what color should the uniforms be? Are we Arminians or calvinists? I'm really sick of these cosplay zoomers with their assorted collection of esoteric idiosyncratic sexually repressive right wing ideas/complicated BS/convoluted crushingly boring meaningless crap, like some old guy with his stamps or trains. Please make them go away. This is what happens when people never masturbate. Glad to know the online right is focused on the important questions. Please kill me now.
I don't see a problem with the term "progressive" - in fact it's the best one. I say "progressive" and "conservative" instead of "right" or "left", because P & C are immutable like north & south, unlike right & left whose consituencies change over time, and depends on the POV of the speaker.
In politics, you're either wanting to change society, or wanting to preserve it. Those are the two poles. In every culture around the world. Why do we need a "scary" term like Race Communism? Just say so-and-so is a Progressive and everyone knows what you mean. You can even qualify it with "mild" or "very" progressive. Same for conservative.
The only problem with this is how long does one define a period of time after which something is considered conservative? For me, it's at least a century. So by that standard, wanting social security is conservative, but wanting SNAP benefits is progressive.
I remember seeing "gay race communism" on Twitter a lot and I thought that was a pretty good descriptor. "Woke" needs to be retired.
"Highly Respected" my ass. How about you call the left what they really are - Human Beings that care about humankind? You repugnant conservatives don't care about anything but power and money.
Take the greerhead pledge ASAP
I think there is alot of utility to the term 'Pardocratia', which Cal Crucis defines as
"This is a more historically focused term that avoids something clunky & hazy like "3rd world race communism" or "global market socialism", among other sorts. It's the recognition that the impetus behind the Bandung Conference & the creation of the "3rd world" has deeper roots in anti-colonial liberation movements that have a history longer than the Age of Revolutions but exploded with that time (e.g. Tupac Amaru, Fr. Hidalgo, the Haitian Revolution). This would later meld into the Leninist adjunct to Marxism in anti-imperialism, but the important point is that Socialism was a means to an end, which was land reform for an underclass that would form itself into a new patronage network that was anti-white because pro-indigenous (however that was defined). This indigenousness was itself a novelty, not necessarily the original peoples, but increasingly a mixture of white, indio, & black. This 19th c. concept has become poignant for the racial genesis of "People of Color," who have a similar kind of consciousness about their estate & project. This is a coherent political vision that can make sense of the past & future as a grand anti-colonial struggle to bring about a true global village of equality"
I think 3 is marginal (and somewhat covered by 1 and 2) and should be replaced with feminism. Even sans immigration and demographic replacement as seen in South Korea, feminists can destroy a society.
You're really missing a key component of the left if you ignore the LGBTQ stuff.