Comment by TacticalCoder
16 hours ago
> It's wild that we've hit a point where the existence of Right-Wing Extremists is simply denied.
OK, let's go 30 years back and see how many terror attacks, worldwide, were from islamists: it's something like 95% of all terror attacks.
Then we take all the drug related killings (in which drug users have a responsibility btw: I don't care if they should be legal or not, they're not and you're evil if you support in any way a system that sells fentanyl to teenagers)...
The we take the far-left killings like the assassination of the (maybe despicable) Charlie Kirk and the Trump assassination attempts (with a 's') and Luigi Mangione killing a CEO...
And it's kinda, sorta, indeed not a world where "far-right" terrorism ain't that much of a big thing.
It's been a long time we have seen true far-right, like Mussolini style fascists, doing anything.
And, arguably, the nationalists who think they defend "the people" of their country, are more like nazis (aka national socialists) than actual fascits (to me portraying national socialists and the "one car for everyone" / the car of the people "volkswagen" as purely a far-right party when there were clearly socialists tendencies in nazism --especially at the beginning when Hitler got elected on many "socialist" promises, and that's not open for discussion-- is the biggest success ever of socialism).
Leftists somehow tried to dissociate themselves from all the socialist promises that got Hitler elected.
But not everybody got fooled.
I know what those who killed Charlie Kirk and the UnitedHealthcare CEO are made of.
And I certainly know what those who slaughtered 300 people at the Bataclan and 100 times that in january 2026 in Iran are made of.
Get your priorities right mate: otherwise I know what you are made of too.
> OK, let's go 30 years back and see how many terror attacks, worldwide, were from islamists: it's something like 95% of all terror attacks.
30 years ago - in the mid-1990s - 100% of all terror attacks were carried out by white Christians, often by groups like the Irish Republicans.
Can you give an example of even one "islamist" attack from that time period?
Ramzi Yousef, famous Irish Republican terrorist.
Don't know who that is.
Mate.
That last sentence is a straight-up threat.
Bloke's a melon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Don...
what evidence is there that this registered republican was "far left"?
Well, there is apparently no evidence that he was "far right" either.
> The we take the far-left killings like the assassination of the (maybe despicable) Charlie Kirk and the Trump assassination attempts (with a 's') and Luigi Mangione killing a CEO...
I have no recollection of any of those perps being left-wing. Apolitical and centrists.
> OK, let's go 30 years back and see how many terror attacks, worldwide, were from islamists: it's something like 95% of all terror attacks.
Islamism is a far-right ideology. Islamists even collaborate with other flavors of far-right. A lot of American leftists don't like talking about it because they also want solidarity with liberal and leftist Muslims, and the biggest vulnerability to that solidarity is for the American right to demonize Muslims by pointing out that there's an Islamist right. The far right is always inherently scary to anyone outside the preferred in-group.
> Leftists somehow tried to dissociate themselves from all the socialist promises that got Hitler elected.
Even though the Soviets and the Nazis did collaborate, Hitler wasn't a leftist by any definition of the word. Both sides of the collaboration hated each other's guts and figured they'd be able to beat the other once they silenced their mutual threat: liberals and liberal socialists[1]. Hitler was clearly sponsored by German and American[0] business interests looking to maintain their wealth by any means necessary - including putting a meth-addled idiot in power. Everything that "seems socialist" about Hitler (or Stalin[1], or Trump, or Napoleon) is either a concession, or a lie, made to fool people at the margins of the left wing.
The ultimate goal of any fascist is to divide and conquer the people by using non-class divisions (e.g. race, language, religion) to keep the people from realizing whose boot is on their neck. In America this was "Why would you join a union? Do you want to be paid the same as a black person!?". In Germany this was "Why would you vote socialist? Don't you know the Jews made that up!?". The labels are different but the effect is the same: don't join together and fight us, your friends and neighbors are your real enemy.
> And it's kinda, sorta, indeed not a world where "far-right" terrorism ain't that much of a big thing.
It stops being far-right terrorism when the far-right is in power. There's no need to maintain a large insurgency against... what, exactly? Yourself?
[0] Casual reminder that Henry Ford was a huge Hitlerite and that cars are inherently Hitlertech.
[1] Hitler was an example of what happens when the reactionary counter-revolution succeeds. But there's a second possibility: the reactionaries only succeed at pushing the left in a far more authoritarian direction. A Reign of Terror happens, in which both the reactionaries and left-libertarians are purged as equal traitors to the revolution. This continues to burn through the political hierarchy until the forest fire runs out of fuel to burn, Robespierre is hung by his own guillotine, and Thermidor comes. Russia's communists went down the same path the French left did a hundred years ago, and that's why you sometimes hear socialists say "true socialism has never been tried".
[flagged]
It's generally considered rude to stop reading one sentence into a message in order to shoot off pithy replies
1 reply →
Yes, the Ayatollahs were very notable in using foreign media to provide cover while they turned a liberal revolution into a far-right Islamist one. I believe there was also a few radical feminists who were so pissed off about America they thought Osama was one of the good guys. The history of left-wing own goals is frustratingly long.
Idiots aside, Islamism is obviously far-right. Okay, left- and right- don't have good definitions as is, as they were defined in response to where people physically sat in the Estates General during the French Revolution. But I can at least point to a few properties that are manifestly right-wing and why Islamists all tick those boxes:
1. Right-wing politics supports and defends already-established power structures. Islam (Sunni-Shia divide notwithstanding) is an established power structure; in fact, it's the dominant power structure in the region. Ergo, Islamism supports and defends an established power structure: a specific religion.
2. Right-wing politics is Wilhoitist: it believes in an in-group, to whom the law protects but does not bind; and that the law binds but does not protect the out-group. Islamism specifically wants an Islamic theocracy, that's about as Wilhoitist as it gets.
3. Right-wing politics demonizes the other, to the point of spreading lies about people outside their preferred in-group. Whenever there's someone shitting on Islam you can count on Islamists to make shit up about them to stoke the flames of outrage.
To me, at least, those properties alone are enough to confidently put Islamism in the far-right bin. The fact that some ignorant leftists do the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bit without actually reading what's on the tin is immaterial.
2 replies →