Why do right-wingers hate liberal governments so much?

Why do right-wingers hate liberal governments so much, when said governments do their best to cover their asses?
Ever since Gundolf Köhler it is obvious that there is an underground right-wing network operating world wide which is backed by the US government and their vassals.
Because ever since Köhler bombed the Oktoberfest, every right-wing terrorist attack, the investigations always end up with deducing that it was a lone wolf act.
Witnesses who claim otherwise end up dead, see Frank Lauterjung who insisted that moments before Köhler blew up, he saw him with two other people. Also there was the case of Heinz Lembke, who claimed to have shown Köhler the ropes on how to make bombs. Despite his confession, he was released and the case was put on a hold. Once he got arrested again for something different, he again insisted on confessing. One day before he could make it, though he was found hanged. Official cause of death was suicide.

We have this pattern all over again, when it involved the NSU killings. At first police absolutely refused to investigate the hints of a Nazi attack, trying to make it look as if it was gang crime related. Only when they killed a policewoman and wounded her partner, did they turned their attention on them, finally getting them, and killing them, while their hideout caught fire, coincidentally destroying major evidences. Once that happened, there are reports that German secret services INSTANTLY destoryed a lot of files. They went on unpunished since you couldn't prove what they destroyed. They claim it was routine destruction, but everyone knew this was bullshit. There are hints that the network had far more members in them, but any attempts to access to them gets thwarted by the very forces the right-wing pretends to hate. Cuckservative governments, and especially said cuckservatives are very nifty. The current prime minister of Hessen Volker Bouffier makes personally sure that two Nazis are untouchable by law. One of them, Andreas Temme (known around his neighbourhood as Klein-Adolf [lil' Adolf], working for Constitutional Protection was present in the internetcafé when the NSU killed the owner Halit Yozgat. The tape itself is pretty bizzare, because once the terrorists left Temme comes up the counter, looks at the bleeding Yozgat, puts money on the table and leaves. He will later claim on court, that he didn't hear the shots and actually didn't saw all the blood and him lying there.
And of course it was followed with at least 8 witnesses who died suddenly under mysterious circumstances.

All I am saying is that even if that Norwegian shooter claimed he had a network backing him up, it still wasn't persecuted. Now the Australian appeared using the same modus operandi. And not only that. Who the fuck can afford the frequent travels he made? He is most definitely not part of the working class. The West is still supporting Gladio. To what means I don't know. It gets comedic when right-wingers complain about "left-liberal" institutions who back and cover for them.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (220x305 1.22 MB, 61.68K)

Liberalism is a cover word for fascism.
>inb4 bourgeoisie democracy.
Conservatards are taught to.
Fascists are just asshurt they're not the specific Duce in charge of the system.

Imagine being this delusional lol.

It's not the '50s anymore, bros. There's no looming Soviet specter waiting for any weakness to unleash global communism on "the West". The Left is, for all intents and purposes, defunct, and addicted to arguing over how badly white people suck. Western intelligence agencies are run by gay bugman urbanites like Evan McMuffin and Sassy Strozk that unironically believe Trump is a white supremacist puppet of Putin.

Yet the West still an exorbitant amount of money to keep it at bay.
They are still using Islamist proxies to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad and they rediscovered their love for couping in Latin America, not since Venezuela mind you, but with Honduras.

Yes, the Left is, for all intents and purposes, defunct, so why are these groups still active?

To maintain the empire of course.

Fash are anti-parliamentarian largely for the same reasons many communist are. Both view heroic violence as the means to enact their new society. You underestimate the syndicalist currents historically part of fascism that lost out.

Leftist and liberal are not the same thing.

Attached: Neckbeard.png (345x337, 126.6K)

None of which could be considered existential threats to the "capitalist system" - in fact, targeted precisely *because* of their weak positions in the current international system, as countries (except Syria) with no strong patrons or allies, all surrounded by estranged (If not opposing) nations.

Also its an open secret that German intelligence runs every neo-nazi group with more than five members

liberalism is not libertarianism

liberalism is not libertarianism

liberalism is not libertarianism

liberalism is not libertarianism

liberalism is not libertarianism

seriously though liberalism (classical liberalism which IS Libertarianism) sort of died awhile ago. all we have left is neoliberalism which only covers their attackers. not that I care either way, just wanted to point that out.


every fucking time.

aiming off base by an ocean mass.

Israel is in the east

also this.

pro-tip, anarkiddie blogs make shit up. Those things didn't happen, if the racist capitalists were so racist they would not be flooding their countries with non-whites and covering up their crimes (like the Cologne sex attacks orh Rotherham rape gangs). They would be behaving like Israel, deport and sterilize any refugee or illegal immigrant, and simply hire chinese temp-workers for the extra labour they needed.

neoliberalism is classical liberalism you fucking moron


Because liberalism requires an illusion of freedom while fascism wants muh nayshun stronk imagery. It's bickering between two potential managers of capital over window dressing while keeping the same foundations of capitalism.

Attached: Centrism.jpg (500x394, 42.97K)

In this case, yes.

A racist capitalist is a capitalist before being a racist. Who cares if savage niggers rape local proles as a long as i have cheaper labor?

liberals created communism

horribly uninformed post
go back to high school and take history class

It’s actually a capitalist trick.

That user is correct, communism is nothing but the values of the enlightenment: Liberté, égalité, fraternité, taken to their logical conclusion.

If such ideals could create something as abhorrent as stalinism and tankies, then obviously the enlightenment must be rejected if we want to reach real, correct communism.


also you're a faggot

Not necessarily if you're not retarded enough to believe that communism has to be industrial.

perhaps because they aren't normally liberal fellows these days.

What a drivel. Marx, Engels and the others have fought against those grand phrases for a reason: those are nothing but glorified ways of saying "good things", which makes them easy to bend in any direction. A supporter of capitalist might say(and does say!) that we've already in the world where the Word was made flesh and the ideas of liberté, égalité, fraternité have been at last realised

Yes J Barg, lolberts are liberals.

you're thinking of neoliberals who use capitalism to push a progressive agenda of constructed rights, where as classical liberalism, aka libertarianism, not including social libertarians, are about the same economically but instead are about natural rights and the state of man, both err in different ways but I'll take a classical liberal over a neoliberal any day. and none of these governments protect them, they treat them like shit, whilst giving their attackers free reign to whine.

it seems that leftists are just as clueless about right wing beliefs as right wingers are about leftism


So same shit, different spooks. Hell, they aren't even different spooks. What is the difference between a constructed right and a "natural" right? The answer is absolutely nothing beyond the plain fact that you acknowledge that you made the first one up in your head. A natural right is just a constructed right hidden behind a self-delusion.

Please. Rightist bullshit is all memes. There is nothing complex about any of it. The most rudimentary analysis lays it all bare.

Attached: Rights.jpg (620x400, 37.16K)

calling things spooks doesn't justify anything if it affects the larger macrocosm of things.

Explain better. Are you arguing that rights actually do something?

there is a difference between constructed rights and natural rights. being that constructed rights are ones given by a state apparatus and natural rights are things that humans need to survive. then again I'm not right libnigger and this board isn't the place for that.

sounds like something Jacques Camatte would say

Why call the means of survival "rights?" What makes them rights apart from the toothless declaration that they are such?

We already knew this

Only stalinism/tankieism.

I know you're shitposting, but come on.

The right is a reactionary force, it's defined by stopping some revolutionary force. Since the left is a joke these days they have to punch themselves in the face.


Stalin loved Jews. He gave the Jews their own territory and defeated the greatest warrior against the Jews of all time: Hitler. He sided with the capitalists (thus Jewry) and strengthened international capitalism greatly

so people should die? wow, such a compelling argument!

actually its not

read up on Night Of The Murdered Poets, not that I care he did it. Hail Malenkov

citation needed

When the liberal kool-aid was being handed out, you just drank the whole punch bowl, didn't you?

Liberal governments tend not to be so liberal. Speech is regulated.

I don't know why I get accused of being a liberal for clarifying things (I'm like the farthest thing from it) but since everyone talks about "muh spooks" it starts to become a spook itself.

natural rights are like a right to food, water, clean air, not being violated by the leader whom you serve, either directly or by groups of people or sovereign individuals, etc etc.

constructed rights are things like giving someone something that wouldn't exist in post-civilization, if everything was bared down to basic stuff, you wouldn't be granted a right to luxuries.

furthermore I used to be classical liberal/palecon and not neolib so I can do this better than most people here.

Maybe it's because you are so steeped in lockean philosophy that you cannot mentally divorce the concept of the right to breathe from the ability to breathe.

How is all that not constructed? Who says that people have the "right" to such things? Whoever does is surely constructing those rights even if he does say that they have been there all along. If no one declares those rights, thus constructing them, then what qualities can "natural rights" rightly be said to possess?

Rights are just mental exercises, which is evidenced by the readily apparent fact that they have no independent reality. Like all mental exercises, they require functioning brains to define them. Thus they are all constructed.

no, wrong, FAGGOT. I just know what he's about.

Rights are just mental exercises, which is evidenced by the readily apparent fact that they have no independent reality. Like all mental exercises, they require functioning brains to define them. Thus they are all constructed.

muh spooks n sheeit

this is actually true. and often the wrong things are regulated for irrational reasons.

also nobody likely reads Hegel, sometimes you have to face what you dislike to gain new perspectives.

Nigga, you dumb.

Retards are the master race didn't you learn anything from Democratic Kampuchea or do we have to genocide you again?