Right wingers bitching about being banned by private institutions

Isn't it funny how the right wing retards keep bitching about socialism 24/7, while cheerleading for capitalism, and then they throw a bitchfit when the very same profit incentive that drives private companies suddenly drops the banhammer on them? Take Sargon of a Cuck's whining, as an example:


And for the so called "natsocs" on Zig Forums and alike, you'd think those morons would at least join forces with the class focused left-wing to overthrow capitalism and abolish profit incentive, so they can shitpost and circlejerk all day about meaningless shit like "muh k¡kes" and "muh niggers", without any meaningful repercussion, outside of not being able to get laid, of course.

No, stupid Zig Forumsturd retards and alike. You're not being banned in the name of the "left-wing bias". You're being banned in the name of profit motive and market segment pandering. You'd know this if you actually read a book about economics and marketing, instead of bitching about jews and blacks for your inhability to get pussy.

You, much like SJWs, downplay class struggle in the name of your identitarian horseshit that nobody but you gives a fuck about. You have no one else to blame but yourselves. Man the fuck up already, take hitler's dick out of your mouth and actually stand up against the bougeoisie that keeps fucking you in the ass, while you spam"Capitalistniggerfaggot" over a septillion times in a day, like the good NEET piece of shit you are.

Attached: corporate_aut.jpg (500x756, 88.83K)

Other urls found in this thread:


As a /cow/ user, I am very pleased

Jesus fucking christ

Are you feeling it now, Carl?

Attached: 328DC819-EB4D-4E4F-8AB9-03812AA10D43.jpeg (1059x962, 604.66K)

Neo-fascists are not for free speech. However, they need free speech to spread their message and succeed, so they look to take advantage of it, even though if they ever had power they'd ban all speech they disagree with. They aren't arguing for it in good faith. Fascism always looks to take advantage of liberal institutions, only to dismantle them later.

Obviously, the alt right are all fascists.

They're moaning because of the history of large institutions within liberal democracies adopting a position of political neutrality. So long as the customer is not engaged in activities the state has prohibited, those institutions have been happy to trade with anyone.

One of the hallmarks of the current fad of (supposedly) left-liberal identity politics adherents has been their aggressive politicization of institutions. Any institution they manage to seize control of is then used as a weapon against any they deem enemies. The most visibly this is causing ever increasing waves of "deplatforming" as identity politics proponents seek to suppress any discourse contrary to their own.

Of course, you're correct to point out that many of the users of Patreon are the sort of identity politicians who would favour this move. My problem with suggesting that pandering to this market is the cause of banning stems from last years fuss about pricing changes on Patreon fees. It turned out, as I recall, that most of the idpollers on the site were inflating their donation totals by passing funds back and forth. It raises big questions about how profitable that market segment is.

The actual alt-right, Spencer and co, are anticapitalist. Hell, even Banon, who isn't alt-right, is practically a socdem economically. The suppression and deplatforming of 'fascism' in the West has morphed it into a truly revolutionary movement. The working-class demographics and outsider nature of it has morphed it into something similar to what communism was in the early 20th century.

Meanwhile, the idealist, violent middle-class youth in Antifa adopt the pro-establishment behavior and ideological fanaticism of the squadristi. (I won't compare them to the SA, since the SA was more of an actual working-class organization than the strikebreaking squadristi.)

Before you balk at my suggestion, do remember that the original fascist movement started out as a firmly revolutionary/reformist movement, which degenerated slowly in the late 1910s and early 1920s into a reactionary movement. I have made a lot of posts about it, and I don't want to explain it any further so read the Google sample of this book.


Anyways, SarSassenach of Cuckad is an egotistical retard, and the entire alt-lite shot themselves in the foot with this retarded pro-capitalism rhetoric.

Fuck you, I live my life as I please. Sick and tired of people wanting me to 'man up', which mostly means either being a douche or cucking yourself.

But seriously, SarSassenach is not alt-right, being a fervent opponent of them in favor of anti-idpol egalitarianism. (Ironically, SarSassenach and the more pro-capitalist people in the 'Internet Right' tend to be the ones who promote the anti-idpol line the most, while the anti-capitalists tend to be the actual white nationalists.) And, the alt-right isn't even incel. In fact, a large portion of incels are ethnic minorities who feel that they don't get as much pussy as white chads. willful cuckolds, meanwhile, have generally depoliticized themselves or, if they turned alt-right, focused on racial issues.

Basically, the alt-right who actually hates niggers and Jews is anticapitalist. The alt-lite that shadilays with le based black man are the ones who cry the most about 'muh gummies'.

Attached: 2da3caa9158c280825d1cefaf1f0df5f6fe86b92bf9dd3d1b7d5d390f0a4b10a.jpg (1209x1137, 375.1K)

Deplatforming right wingers is smart for capitalism because it convinces them (and their audience) that they really are subversives and that their ideas aren't in line with the status quo, keeping them from being radicalized.

You're a stupid fuck, and an apologist for fascism. You should kill yourself. At the very least, don't reproduce.

Let me translate this:

You're a stupid fuck because you actually think in materialist terms instead of eating out of the ideology trash can. Because you have a different opinion, you should kill yourself or not reproduce. Because, believing in using negative artificial selection to eliminate traits I don't like isn't eugenics or anything. :^)

On the other hand it should teach right-wingers that pure capitalism is bad for free speech.

Attached: 4a56af21fe6c6671247203ae91af6e4f0766bd81cb7ec563cb1534fcc8c252a3.png (778x471, 92.07K)

At the same time the left and liberals alike are the only people actively seeking the deplatforming of speech online. They are the agitators for the most part in this particular cultural moment of the internet being equal to platforms of expression. What many hard left advocates don’t realize (looking at you liberals like the DSA parading as “socialists”) is that although corporations like Google parrot “left” ideals (read: idpol diversity garbage that benefits their marketing schemes), they will always choose censorship actions when pressured by their shareholders to make their products more marketable to advertisers. This includes deplatforming leftist groups that advocate for violent means of revolution against the current state and a lot of anti-totalitarian rhetoric falls under this. You are not more free when Google bans fascist nuts, vegan animal rights activists and actual leftists through YouTube. Or demonetizes them which effectively crippled any somewhat production value heavy operation. I agree with yet I am not convinced that sucking Google’s cock for deplatforming right wingers is the correct course of action. You also stifle leftist speech.

Attached: bc4d016a8d72e8fd1c88cdae6678b41a82eb82c8b378024ed9fe85bc693fb6f1.jpg (767x960, 111.48K)

We're not liberals you fag.

I would like to think everyone on Zig Forums is not a liberal. Sadly I have been mistaken recently. Can everyone agree that Google sucks a fat penis?

Leftist have been already been deplatformed before, we just don't throw bitch fits like the right since we expect as much.

Only the faggot anprim is defending Google, everyone else is just pointing out how the deplatforming is an example of right-wing myopia. We aren't calling it a good sign.

The first statement is a cop out. And how are anprims defending Google?

Never mind, the earlier anprim. That’s actually a Green Anarchism flag which is different but obvious has very strong and sometimes indistinguishable ties to anarchoprimitivism.

go fuck yourself tbh fam

Get out.

Ancaps are opposed to liberal idpol, but make up a relatively small group even though many others are in some level of agreement with their values, because those people who would otherwise be ancaps feel that ancap isn't tough enough on invaders and subverters. White nationalists tend to oppose capitalism because they view it as incompatible with racialism, which in many ways it is because a liberal view of race allows corporations to have a bigger consumer base, but ever since Charlottesville they've experienced a decline in interest. Basic bitch Trumpcucks are also declining due to Trump's betrayals of his base. And yet the hostility toward the left doesn't seem to have abated very much if at all. We've entered an uncharted area of the political landscape.

Incel is a meaningless term that basically means "anyone who threatens feminist domination of modern society." Sex is available so readily today that people who aren't just meeting people on some trashy site to fuck probably aren't interested in that, so incels don't even really exist in the sense that liberals claim.

This word filter is a disgrace. But beyond that, this depoliticization seems not to have happened, or to only have happened on a very limited basis. Their politics are just taking a different and heretofore unseen form.

Maybe they're being radicalized in a different way.

I really wish Zig Forums would stop coming over here. They already have their Reddit Jr. shithole board where they never have to listen to different opinions.

I've noticed this more and more recently. But judging by the political trends I described above, this won't lead to a resurgence of the left.

Change some of the words around and this applies to basically everyone.

To hear liberals tell it, MRAs have taken over the board.

Attached: 1478214205830.jpg (757x3030 38.51 KB, 240.39K)

Literally no one here is making that claim other than retarded liberals.

faux neutrality

you're a clueless american aren't you. don't talk about "the West" if you mean America, Bannon already got told off by the proto-pseudo-post-demi-fascist right-populist nativist European political movements
and yet they can't recognise capitalism when it fucks them violently in the ass

the fucking ironing of someone claiming to be materialist while thinking "deplatforming" turned fascism into a "truly revolutionary movement"

this, the left, if it gets off the ground (and where it has, already is) will be the target of this same censorship.

Attached: (me) on corporate censorship of fascists.png (1332x205, 110.46K)

Sounds like a good time to me

He doesn't have to, because other people are willing to do that for him.

The clueless American response would be to claim that 'proto-pseudo-post-demi-fascist right-populist nativist European movements' somehow can be placed on the same side as laissez-faire neocon Zionists.

Deplatforming, the change in white working class demographics, and the consequences of globalization are consistent across the whole Western world. Hell, it's even harsher in Europe, with 'right-populist' politics being more popular there than in the US, where the two-party system allows the Neocon, libertarian, and traditional conservative elites of the Republican Party to keep white working class voters under control. (The same can be said of the Democrats with black and immigrant voters.)

Literally watch Eric Striker or Spencer. Half the time, they're bitching about capitalism directly. Seriously, you people write them off despite never hearing what they actually have to say. Wasn't even referring to Zig Forums, who I dislike actually.

It's not just deplatforming, but deplatforming and disenfranchisement changes the material conditions of any movement. See Russia and what happened with the Bolsheviks and SRs. Terrorism and secret cells became the norm of revolutionary organization due to the Tsarist regime forbidding public expression of revolutionary sentiment. Disenfranchisement also imbues a sense of anti-authoritarianism into a movement, at least temporarily. It also makes movements more attractive to fringe elements of society. (This is why metal and skinhead culture boomed among Neo-Nazis during the 80s and 90s.) This in turn makes a movement less traditionalist/conservative.

That combined with globalization's negative effects being felt mostly by the native working class, and you have a recipe for 'fascism' adopting a more proletarian demographic. And, a proletarian demographic in turn changes a movement. Mussolini tried to make Fascism leftist, but the middle-class reactionaries of the Squadristi would overthrow him if he carried through with those ideas. Noting the effects of economic and political conditions along with changing demographics is inherently materialist, in that it focuses on politics as a competition between interest groups as opposed to that between ideas.

It doesn't matter if the worker's revolution is done with a hammer or sickle or with a fasces or with a swatiska or even with a Gadsden-flag. All that matters is that the working-class seize control of the means of production and the state. That is the point of a lot of my 'ramblings' on here.

your post wasn't worth the effort
AFD and UKIP are just that, though the kippers are a bit of a special case. they would still be loosely counted into the right-nativist-populist wave. the wave in general, for the parts that have actual influence, isn't anywhere close as radical or economically nonliberal as you seem to think. and even the populist succdemism is among the first things to go, when necessary as Fidez in Hungary recently proved.
I'd rather not, but I know spence isn't quite as dumb as his peers. but as long as they don't recognise the class character of the state their nationalism and other spooks are at odds with their anticapitalism.
The rest of your post I broadly agree with, what I objected to originally was the idea that 'repression of ideas' could turn something fundamentally class-collaborationist like fascism revolutionary
it seems that state overreaction and overrepression is the common element among revolutions, from France to Nepal to Russia to Libya. which is why liberal democracies seem to survive: they don't overrestimate the impact of protest and the protest movement fizzles out. think Paris 1968. indifference is powerful.

Well, that's a little mean-spirited.

I never claimed that of the right-populist parites in Europe are anticapitalist. My claim was reserved for those who are considered hardcore 'NeoNazis'. In fact, what you said proves my point. It is the more moderate parties that tend to be more economically right-wing/pro-capitalist. Jobbik is more Hungary's version of National-Rally/National-Front. Hell, one look at UKIP's membership and the BNP shows that there is a desire for leftist economics and nationalism among the working-class voters.

Eric Striker is even more leftist than he is. Also, white nationalism is inherently against the United States as is. They have no loyalty to the American state. Even then, Eric Striker actually has proposed outright revolution against the capitalist state.

Terms can change their meaning over time. 'Fascism' has been neutered of its proper definition for decades. It doesn't mean anything anymore. Richard Spencer makes no mention of class collaboration (I mean, blood and soil Nazis care less about class collaboration than actual fascists. And, Richard Spencer's pan-white nationalism doesn't fit into either of those.), and Eric Striker suggested the opposite in fact, wanting a revolution of white workers.

Not to mention that the early Italian Fascist movement was divided on the issue of class collaborationism and Rossini's 'Fascist Syndicalism', which led a trade union movement numbering in the millions, actually was in favor of a gradualist interpretation of class struggle.

But yes, I agree with the part about liberal democracies. Though, it seems that they are abandoning that principle in favor of harsh, albeit thinly disguised and hidden, crackdowns. Perhaps, it is the degeneration of the 'democratic' element as the capitalist class is less and less restrained by the state, emboldened by the economic destruction of the Western working class during the 80s-2000s through mass migration, free trade, unionbusting, privatization, and automation.

Let's ask huge corporations to actively police the range of permissible discourse. Nothing will go wrong.

Attached: socjus_censors.png (589x138, 20.77K)

They already do that. Unironically read Manufacturing Consent. Also learn about the first and second red scares in America (which ironically, proves that deplatforming actually works.)

reading twitter makes me want to reach for a baseball bat

I have read Manufacturing Consent. Do you think it's a good idea to encourage corporate power to do this overtly, rather than via the covert methods of framing and narrative section shown Chomsky's book? That's what this brain dead cabbage is doing.

I hate to admit it but Saragon wasn't hurt in the least by all of this. If anything this helped him by making him look like a martyr for muh freeze peach. I looked at his account on the alt-patreon and he's making like 12 thousand a month in donations. All of this shit is just about optics and ideology pushing. Nothing actually changed.

Obviously. You think corporations would actually try to change things?

Of course not. I more so meant Sargon and his ilk crying about this or anyone hailing this as some kind of victory are basically just shitposting as nothing substantial actually happened.

No one for which this is actually the case needs to brag about it on an Icelandic ice sculpture imageboard. It doesn't make your opinions seem more credible. It just makes you look like a douche. So I'll amend that statement to "kill yourself." And trust me that there are definitely people willing to help you with that.

I'm much more Zig Forums than Zig Forums, or a least I was before pieces of shit like you came and redefined it.

The difference between leftypol and leftpol used to pretty much be the division between the authoritarian and anti-authoritarian parts of the left. They were the authoritarians, we were everyone else. Now it seems like this board has been subverted by a much of irrelevant, angry, moronic MRAs, primitivists, and confused right wingers who for some reason think they're socialists despite really just being retarded "ethno-nationalist" pieces of shit.

The primitivists can stay, because for better or worse, they really are in our camp. You, though, you need to either go back to your right wing reactionary fuckheads or become less retarded.

I want my board back.

Male liberation /= white nationalism. That said I understand your concerns. I am sorry that you disagree with many users’ views towards feminism.

It's the same shit either way.

They're two sides of the same coin.
White nationalism is a majority who holds social power appropriating the liberation rhetoric of black nationalist struggle to perpetuate a false equivalence and a baseless victimization narrative, where the hegemon is somehow supposed to be the victim in the situation.
Men's rights activism is a majority who holds social power appropriating the liberation rhetoric of feminist struggle to perpetuate a false equivalence and a baseless victimization narrative, where the hegemon is somehow supposed to be the victim in the situation.
In both cases problems related to class are emphasized in the false victimization narrative while they are attributed by the group as being related to identity in the hegemon.

It's the exact same reactionary tactic applied to two different dimensions of identity, race and gender.

Men do not hold the majority of the power.

Gee, it sure would be strange if men held 80% of political offices if they didn't hold all the power right?


Wouldn't it be even stranger if 70+% of CEOs and an even higher percentage of the richest people in the world were men if women had all the power?

Oh, but by all the power you mean that they won't fuck you specifically as an individual. Right, my bad.

are you calling user gay

Is incel the new virgin for Internet insults? Insulting someone’s manhood as your go-to insult simply confirms the point if this entire thread. Your petty squabbles mean nothing to me. If you think political offices is equivalent to power on an individual basis, you’re plain retarded. Women are nearly invincible legally. Let’s talk about over representation in prison.

but private companies shouldn't exist


that way they couldn't get deplatformed

nazbol just fucking works.

It is funny. It's also funny how some so-called socialists will bash capitalism but then turn around and dick-suck billionaires for using their privileged economic status to censor conservatives.

When are you guys going to give up this strawman? Liberals are not leftists.

Guide on reporting Ethan Ralph

Go to this form

Report patreon

Select nudity/pornography

Posting revenge porn of an 18 year old girl

Evidence link 1

Evidence link 2

(Linked in article) archive.fo/a-spider-in-the-heliotropes.tumblr.com