La verdadera derecha se define por: -Tradicionalismo -Estado limitado -Nativismo -Descentralizacion -Libre mercado Derecha es el patriota q no sea muy tibio o centralista, el tradicionalista q no sea muy estatista y el libertario q no sea muy progre PPuercos y falanguarros sobran

"Here's your Christian Nationalism, bro." [It's Pagan Socialism]

Lol pedos talk about epstein

“The right has no culture” Meanwhile the right:

It's really impossible to exaggerate just how martially pathetic Muslims are. They've spent the last twenty years bragging that they're conquering the West with their wombs, as if getting subsidized by welfare and coddled by the most treacherous governing class in the history of the Western world made them all Saladin. Then a few lads in Belfast throw some petrol bombs in their general direction and they start whimpering like little bitches. Just an absolutely contemptible, effeminate culture of sadistic little bullies.

My ancestors built some cool stuff 🇱🇧

Esto pero sin sarcasmo

La pfp del Camarada Wiwi representa a la perfección la esencia del falangismo: un negro pegando pegatinas en farolas.

In Scandinavia, Scandinavians are rich and peaceful. In America, Scandinavians are rich and peaceful. In Somalia, Somalians are poor and violent. In America, Somalians are poor and violent. There is no magic soil.

The future depends on your ability to remain indifferent to this

Landlords in northern Ireland mainly Belfast are being warned not to house moslems or third worlders. Or the house may be a victim to climate change 🔥 KEEP OUR CHILDREN, WOMEN AND MEN SAFE!!!

Lots of arguments about this one. Many people assume Nazis could not have been socialists, despite all the time and energy they devoted to jumping up and down screaming "We are socialists!", because they were "right-wing" and socialism is supposed to be "left-wing". Except "right-wing" and "left-wing" don't have rigid definitions outside the context of the French revolution. In any other context, they're just a metaphor. So why did the NATIONAL Socialist German Workers' Party and the INTERNATIONAL Marxist-Leninist Socialist Workers' Movement hate each other so much? It's pretty obvious when you look at the names. National. International. To Nazis, the race and culture of a people are everything. They are what the state is supposed to represent. Ein Volk, as they would say. The purpose of Nazi socialism is to control capital assets, subordinating them to the will and welfare of the ethnostate. But Marxist-Leninists seek to abolish all ethnostates. They are a globalist movement, seeking to place all capital assets under the control of a universal proletariat in theory, which is in practice represented by one world government. Thus, Nazis sought to use socialist policies for the welfare of the German people and Marxist-Leninists seek to abolish "German" as a meaningful distinction, along with all other cultures. The antipathy between Nazis and communists was a sectarian struggle within socialism. Same methods, but different sacred groups. Since the defeat of National Socialism by International Socialism in WW2, all modern socialism is pretty much of the international variety. This does, however, suggest that there is a contrast between National Capitalism and International Capitalism as well. Which is the source of the current sectarian struggle between elements of the American right wing.

"Women mostly base their opinions on consensus, not reason" And for this reason, women have no business being in power or listened to for decision making

A Restore Britain Government will aim to prosecute officials and politicians who knowingly placed dangerous third world savages in our communities. This will apply retrospectively. A great number of people will go to prison for what has been inflicted on our communities.

Las mogeres no cagan, se alimentan de atencion

The order of operations when you take power is simple. You should always do something that makes the next thing easier to do. Every political action creates winners and losers. If you attempt the most controversial reform first, every interest group that benefits from the status quo will immediately mobilize against you. So instead of trying to just ram something through, you should instead remove the institutional incentives that constantly regenerate opposition to whatever it is you’re working towards. For example, if we want to repeal Hart-Celler one day, we should first marginalize whatever the opposition would obviously emerge to oppose such a repeal if a vote to do so were held in Congress tomorrow. That means cutting off the flow of money to anyone and everyone that facilitates open borders and mass migration, which includes the immigration NGO complex, sanctuary cities (and states), charities, as well as businesses and industries that hire illegals or foreigners in disproportionate numbers. Make each of the independent coalition partners of the mass migration side pay such a price for their views that they either throw in the towel and back off, or they become so toxic that no one wants to associate with them for fear of the blowback coming for them as well. The true believers will still vote NO when the time comes, but many of them won’t be in the House or Senate to do so. This mechanism works for almost everything, by the way, and it’s the same playbook the Left used to advance virtually every Progressive cause you can think of. They made the social and political costs of opposing them too steep for anyone to bother trying. That’s one of the reasons “cancel culture” became a thing in the first place.

Los pansexuales son el motivo de que el panadero de mi barrio esconda una escopeta tras el mostrador

La reconciliación es cuando la “derecha” le perdona a la izquierda todos sus abusos y perpetúa su proyecto.