I’m willing to go so far as to say maybe this wasn’t politically motivated and was just for the lulz. I think that might be the most likely case. But there’s far more evidence this kid was on the right than left.
My point stands, there’s zero evidence he was a leftist. It’s grasping at straws.
I don’t recall any chats that had any liberal takes outside that one transcript they tried to sell us as real.
ok.. come on you literally grasped at straws trying to prove he was right wing. At this point it's just proving what I said in that first post.
But right when the shooting happened a lot of people on the left did immediately start saying this is far right violence because they have been conditioned to do that by propogranda, and people aren't going to go out of their way to learn about something to prove themselves wrong (i.e. confirmation bias). So they just left it at that. Also because the alternative to that would mean they would have to admit that people on the left also do the same thing they demonize right wingers for.
I can concede that we won't fully know why he did this until the trial concludes, but still when you will just take anything as proof that your preconceive notion is correct, and immediately disregard anything that might suggest you are wrong, I don't know what to tell you.
Also do you think if something has a pepe involved that means it's a far right or a groyper meme in particular?
Are they though? Maybe they used to be, but a good amount of their arguments could be construed as (modern) left-wing in nature - the third worldism, the NEETophilia, etc. A lot of chudoid discourse is really just communism+racism, racism which is dependent on the purpose it's being used for, that's why groypers end up praising a schizophrenic like Coonye just because at one point he became antisemitic as a marketing gimmick. Yes, the guy who went on SNL to explain how much he loves porn and Jesus. Not to mention having a hard-on for people like Thomas Sankara or BRICS in general, which is not exactly a right-winger position, to put it lightly.
No. Being a national socialist, or maybe a white nationalist is communism+racism. That's not exactly the end all be all of what being on the "right" is, and really the hard lines I look at with right vs left, it's communism on the left, capitalism on the right. Then you have authoritarian vs libertarian that either right or left can fit into. communism, and national socialism from my view both just land in the same place, authoritarian left, whether or not their is racism involved doesn't meaningfully change that there is nothing really "right" wing about it. At least the the "right" wing people you are describing.
I don't know what the groypers themselves are going to be for or against, so maybe they are all liberal leftist, or socialists or something it seems extremely unlikely but hey who knows. I do know what Fuentes says though.
And at least going off of what he says himself. And going off what he says (people can argue about whether he believes it or not but it's irrelevant). He overall argues for capitalism, but less in the libertarian vein that I would say I myself want, and more so the kind of capitalism we already have here now, that uses things like tariffs or taxes to incentivize something when it's in the interest of the nation. Some level of social wellfare, like nationalized healthcare in particular. He argues against immigration, both illegal, and legal. He is pro rule of law, as in pro police, and actually cracking down on crime in places that need it. Generally he is nationalistic, which is why he's so anti-jew in particular, because of Irsraels influence on the country. The other things he argues for tend to be shaped by catholocism.
Also in America in particular the kind of racism you see from the far right national socialists/white nationalists honestly doesn't really make sense. At least not in modern america. But even a lot further back. I could see those making more sense in Europe.
aint now way miggers watch this
