Why does far right people pretende to be leftwingers?

Hello.

I found subsection of your forum when searching for something entirely different, and I was impressed by the way you guys handle those odd fellows that "shunns burgoiuse values" and want "a godless and fearless new man" and stuff.

Having gone through periods were I have wondered about the validity of such aggressive theories of rebellion, I have come to a different conclusion. To make it short, I believe we should tighten our belts and our ties, pick our selves together, and cleanse our minds of all such liberal attitidues. We humans need fixed standards and authorities that can tell us whats right or wrong. There can be no "shunning of burgoise values" or "godless new man" There is simply no point in being godless or fearless - period. (Off course, bravery is good, but it is also good to be afraid before you get brave - something like that)

But I am wondering - and since you guys know the magic of material-dialectic marxism and such, you might have an answer for me:

Those guys you kicked out seemed almost desperate to convince you guys, that they are socialists - that they are what you are. Further more, some of them mocked General Franco, saying he was a traitor (or at least mentioned some obscure syndicalist or something that said so)

Pure logical thinking suggests that rightwing-authoritarians should be what they are, and focus on the groups in their camp, groups that share their values, and will benefit from their rule. Such groups would be church, army, police, priests - and probably a few more - perhaps even the . .. Gasp! . . . Eviiiill capitalists

I mean... "As little private property as possible"???!!!! And how is that supposed to go together with the infamous "third way"

To not do that (teaming up with your team and be true to your self) but instead try to do some sort of perverse sex-change operation and pretend to be socialists.... well, then you loose those groups, everyone gets uncertain about the vague "socialism" they promote (kind of the same way people are uncertain about transexuals)... And you guys dont seem to be very impressed either.

So these slutty iron-march people (Is it the same at that other forum that was mentioned, stormfront?).... what the f*** are they up to?

I guess it is good for you people though, having oposition that is so weak that it has to pretend that it is you

MegaTrol wrote:Hello.

Welcome to the forum. I must admit that I find your screen name somewhat disconcerting..

We humans need fixed standards and authorities that can tell us whats right or wrong. There can be no "shunning of burgoise values" or "godless new man"

I wouldn't go that far. Enforceable laws are undoubtedly necessary to maintain some semblance of civilization and to foster an environment conducive to human well-being, but they needn't be eternally fixed. (Modes of production, on the other hand, do largely depend on absolutist conceptions of property, but that's another matter.)

There is simply no point in being godless or fearless - period.

I agree that ones religious affiliation (or lack thereof) and their relative level of fear is basically irrelevant. Of course, such beliefs can (and sometimes do) manifest in harmful ways—e.g., religious fundamentalism fueling acts of terrorism—but that is why secular governments are a requisite condition for domestic and international stability and peace.

Those guys you kicked out seemed almost desperate to convince you guys, that they are socialists - that they are what you are. Further more, some of them mocked General Franco, saying he was a traitor (or at least mentioned some obscure syndicalist or something that said so)

Pure logical thinking suggests that rightwing-authoritarians should be what they are, and focus on the groups in their camp, groups that share their values, and will benefit from their rule. Such groups would be church, army, police, priests - and probably a few more - perhaps even the . .. Gasp! . . . Eviiiill capitalists

The problem stems from the fact that "socialism" is a very broad term with a fairly unique history. Authoritarian socialist theories can be found as early as the writings of Henri de Saint-Simon, and similar tendencies have existed ever since that time. Consequently, in opinion of contemporary authoritarian socialists, there is absolutely nothing contradictory about claiming to be a socialist while also espousing totalitarianism, militarism, class collaborationism, etc.

With respect to your question, the reason a minority of reactionary nationalists reject capitalism and occasionally identify themselves as "socialists" is because they consider capitalism to be at odds with their nationalist convictions. In short, capitalism's international scale is what they find most troubling. Exploitation of the proletariat tends to be a secondary concern for them, if it is at all. However, they can't comprehend, or fail to appreciate, the manner by which hierarchical institutions and geopolitical isolation not only obstructs the development of a form of socialism which humanity would actually find desirable, but inevitably leads to corruption and widespread suffering.

And you guys dont seem to be very impressed either.

I can't speak on behalf of everyone, but I certainly am not.

So these slutty iron-march people (Is it the same at that other forum that was mentioned, stormfront?).... what the f*** are they up to?

Stormfront is a little more consistent, insofar as members of that forum seldom, if ever, identify with leftism or socialism.

I guess it is good for you people though, having oposition that is so weak that it has to pretend that it is you

Absolutely.

Celtiberian wrote:With respect to your question, the reason a minority of reactionary nationalists reject capitalism and occasionally identify themselves as "socialists" is because they consider capitalism to be at odds with their nationalist convictions. In short, capitalism's international scale is what they find most troubling.

That might very well sum it up.

But regardless of their anticapitalism, this brand of radicals can be very cruel to you guys. Just think about the German National-Socialists, and the Falange-party in Spain.

Some of them might have tried to make cheap points about them not getting exactly everything they wanted after the founder died and Franco took over, but during the civil war, falangists voluntered to shoot captured republicans, so that the regular infantry didnt have to. Some of those same falangists attacked a church-meeting and killed a bunch of carlists because they were unhappy about Franco retreating from the eastern front and the war on the Soviet union.

I dont know if those falangist-radicals referred to them selves as "socialists" though. I always believed that this spesific lie was mostly used by nazis. One of those eager wannabe-socialists in that other thread also admitted that he wanted his homenation of south-Africa to go national-socialist a.k.a nazi, so that fits my theory well.

And when they go like this: (page three on the iron march thread, this subforum, the text is taken from Iron march)

Only an adamantine combination of anti-bourgeois and racial Nationalism, Pan-Germanism, economically leftist and revolutionary, anti-capitalistic Socialism, and a classless ethnic community as well as anti-christian and biological Nietzscheism, Wagnerism, Caesarism, Germanization, superior aryan technology, Darwinian racial laws and the eugenic teachings of Madison Grant, de Gobineau and H. S. Chamberlain is National Socialism. Thus a NEW MAN will rise! A godless, pitiless and fearless Man whose only god is himself

Then it gets very freaky. When a bunch of morons try to puff them selves up with these types of sentences.... could it be in order to liberate them selves from traditional values in order to fullfill some sort of violent function? If so "socialism" "anti-bourgoius" and all that other liberalist crap, can be seen as the remains of an old combat-manual that no longer have any relevance.

If you guys take over, I hope you will enforce strict dicipline and puritanism. Because "the enviroment needs it" or "Poor people in poor countries needs it" or perhaps even " because god wants it" (Some leftie leaders like forexample Hugo Chavez are deeply religious, so one cant rule it out completly)

Now that we live in more peaceful times, I guess this "New man" is replaced by the perfect individualist consumer. No more "pityless and fearless" but please:

Shop until you drop!

Ayn Rand and Objectivism also used "New man"-like rethorics at times, business-ybermench with balls the size of watermelons and all pumped up on stereoids, or something.

So tasteless

MegaTrol wrote:But regardless of their anticapitalism, this brand of radicals can be very cruel to you guys. Just think about the German National-Socialists, and the Falange-party in Spain.

The truth is that the so-called "anti-capitalism" which the Nazis, Falangists, and Fascists espoused was not legitimate. In other words, while some of the reactionary nationalists of the 20th century rhetorically denounced capitalism, their proposals for an alternative mode of production failed to actually transcend capitalism—with the exception of the proposals offered by the National Bolsheviks of the Weimar era, who favored a system of centralized economic planning similar to that which Stalin implemented in the Soviet Union. It is no great surprise, then, why the bourgeoisie felt so comfortable financing such parties, and why the capitalist mode of production could be found functioning in Germany, Italy, and Spain throughout the duration of the dictatorships of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco.

Some of them might have tried to make cheap points about them not getting exactly everything they wanted after the founder died and Franco took over, but during the civil war, falangists voluntered to shoot captured republicans, so that the regular infantry didnt have to.

The "Left" faction of the FE-JONS—often associated with José Antonio Primo de Rivera, but more accurately attributable to the theories formulated by Ramiro Ledesma Ramos—were just as vehemently anti-communist and anti-anarchist as the Italian Blackshirts or German Sturmabteilung. The label "National Syndicalist," however, occasionally misleads people into thinking that this faction believed in a form of syndicalism (i.e., workers' control of the means of production and distribution), but that simply wasn't the case. The most radical proposals made by the FE-JONS throughout its entire existence were merely: agrarian reform, socialization of credit, and the corporatization of industry. Franco was (and still is) denounced by advocates of Ledesma and de Rivera's National Syndicalism because he failed to implement the entire Falangist platform—not unlike Strasserists denouncing Hitler for similar transgressions. But what many people (particularly those residing outside of Spain) don't realize is that, despite Franco's unwillingness to nationalize the Spanish banking industry and redistribute lands, he actually did establish a form of corporativism. However, as socialists had predicted, this system (a mere derivative of capitalism) failed to provide the social justice promised by its advocates.

I dont know if those falangist-radicals referred to them selves as "socialists" though.

They considered themselves "syndicalists," but at the time it was fairly common for corporativists to use the term. (The distinction between revolutionary syndicalism and corporativism was discussed here.)

Then it gets very freaky. When a bunch of morons try to puff them selves up with these types of sentences.... could it be in order to liberate them selves from traditional values in order to fullfill some sort of violent function? If so "socialism" "anti-bourgoius" and all that other liberalist crap, can be seen as the remains of an old combat-manual that no longer have any relevance.

It's clearly disturbing rhetoric, but it ultimately poses no threat to society—unless, of course, a movement proclaiming to stand for completely different (more agreeable) principles gained mass support, happened to attain dictatorial power, and implemented such policies coercively. Recall that even the NSDAP had to establish its support base by running on a platform which featured proposals that were largely mainstream in German society at the time. And even after being appointed Chancellor, Adolf Hitler was still forced to lie to the German public in order to establish dictatorial control of the nation (e.g., the NSDAP using the Reichstag fire to provide an excuse for utilizing the emergency protocols featured in the Weimar Constitution) and to embark on his lebensraum foreign policy objective (e.g., by stating that the Reich was literally under attack from Eastern European nations).

Ayn Rand and Objectivism also used "New man"-like rethorics at times, business-ybermench with balls the size of watermelons and all pumped up on stereoids, or something.

So tasteless

Quite tasteless, indeed. The Randian heroic entrepreneur replaces the Nietzschean Übermensch on the hierarchy of societal praise within neoliberal, late capitalism.

And there is also the question of foreign-policy.

What are those authoritarian militants going to do when all the military action is oriented towards toppeling authoritarian leaders in other countries and replacing them with democracy?

What a massive the dilemma! Gadaffi and Saddam Hussein and all those other who have been slained all wanted the UN to help them (Which they actually tried to do on the case of Saddam, not giving thumbs-up for the bombing) but the nationalist right - "communists" or not - cant have that, because the nations are supposed to fight each other in a darwinistic game... So there really aint no solution to their dilemma.

But I guess those wars-for-democracy can function as a good playground for people who wants to be all "new man" and "pityless" and "fearless" and stuff.

Just think about those americans with the SS-flag over in Afghanistan.

I wonder if Hitler and Mussolini and Franco had been able to swallow the pro-democracy rethoric and be good modern conservatives, or if they had thought it was silly, and embarked upon non-political career-paths.

On foreign policy, I my self find the left`s more relaxed attitude of non-intervention (non-violent at least) pretty OK. Maybe we could even warm the hearths of such evil tyrants as the one in North-Korea if were willing to do some talking and trading? Im sure there is something useful they could do or make in exchange for some food or dollars/Euro.

MegaTrol wrote:What are those authoritarian militants going to do when all the military action is oriented towards toppeling authoritarian leaders in other countries and replacing them with democracy?

I wouldn't consider the current foreign policy objectives of the geopolitical hegemons (i.e., the United States, Europe, and China) to be in the pursuit of expanding democracy. In fact, all of the alleged "democratic" countries of the world today are merely variations of polyarchy. Nevertheless, a tyrannical, expansionist state—of the sort the neo-fascists desire—most likely wouldn't be tolerated, aside from perhaps on the periphery of the geopolitical order (provided the hypothetical foreign fascist state(s) refrained from interfering with the hegemonic nations' foreign interests).

Polyarchy is the preferred system of the power elite (i.e., the bourgeoisie and coordinator classes) due to the fact it presents the illusion of freedom to the masses. Dictatorships, on the other hand, are transparently oppressive and therefore require a significantly greater effort to manufacture ideological consent (if such can even be attained in such a context).

What a massive the dilemma! Gadaffi and Saddam Hussein and all those other who have been slained all wanted the UN to help them (Which they actually tried to do on the case of Saddam, not giving thumbs-up for the bombing) but the nationalist right - "communists" or not - cant have that, because the nations are supposed to fight each other in a darwinistic game... So there really aint no solution to their dilemma.

That they honestly believe the people would be willing to agree with their ridiculous proposal of a social Darwinian future of endless warfare between nations is truly remarkable.

I wonder if Hitler and Mussolini and Franco had been able to swallow the pro-democracy rethoric and be good modern conservatives, or if they had thought it was silly, and embarked upon non-political career-paths.

Hitler would have likely abstained from politics, Mussolini probably would have adapted to the situation and either remained a socialist or become a more mainstream liberal or conservative, and Franco would have undoubtedly become a neoconservative.

Maybe we could even warm the hearths of such evil tyrants as the one in North-Korea if were willing to do some talking and trading? Im sure there is something useful they could do or make in exchange for some food or dollars/Euro.

Trade and a policy of non-intervention would surely go a long way in improving foreign relations.

You have a sharp mind Mr Celti!

That Iron-slut website really offended my senses, so in order to dig up some more embarrassing stuff about them, I googled "stormfront iron march"

The first thing that came up was this:

h t t p : / / w w w . s tormfront.org/forum/t852343/

"Iron march is a forum for nationalists, national socialists, fascists" - etcetra

And the stormfronters love them! Best wishes and so on.

But then their love-affair comes to an abrupt end (?):.....

h t t p : / / i r o n m arch.org/index.php?/topic/412-racism/page__st__40

Havok says
We are fucking Third Positionists, not Stormfront, neo-Nazi lughead scum but this is not a distinction the public, the people we're trying to win over, recognise.

These people are shockingly disrespectful towards those guys at the other forum who seem to be giving them a thumbs up (Or maybe they have changed their mind later, upon realizing that those treacherous Iron sluts think of them as "scum", this is after all only a short dive into google, not a research-paper - feel free to expand the little house-of-horrors I have started on here)

And when I think that things can not possibly get any worse, I realize that this is written AFTER what probably is a forum moderator (minister of propaganda, with a medalion on him?) of the forum moderators attacks another forum-participant for not being sufficiently racist!

PM- worker says:
Third, it seems even more obvious that I was establishing that RACE MATTERS, since whites are being DISPLACED by negroids and arabids, which you totally discarded in the previous post stating race shouldn't be on the agenda.

I feel sorry for those guys. The complete lack of substance must sooner or later bring them to a total breakdown

It is a total Freak-show

(I had a little trouble getting those links through, so now I am thinking on registering here permanently just so that I can provide you with freakshow-news from the horror-house that is is the contemporary far-right. It is a bit entertaining, is it not?)

Having taken your forum into closer scrutiny, I have come to the conclusion that it will do fine without me.

So I will not register here right now - as I have many other projects that need my full attention (forum-blabbering can be fun and enlightening, but it is a time-thief)

Good luck everybody

(And with that, MegaTrol leaves the building - if he returns, it will be in a year or so, and with a better nick)

Further research show that there has been a battle of sorts within the online-fascists between accepting or not accepting nazism, and since there has indeed been a battle, it might explain why some of those folks have tried to win by distancing themselves from stormfront (dehumanizing the stormfront-participants in the process)

One of the main moderators on iron march have set up a site (with the same name as the forum) in a place called "reddit" were he links to sites with names such as "thirdreichocculthistory" and "aryanism", sites with swastikas and everything.

Due to the nature of the battle (and the outcome, that might be logical from a purely nationalist perspective) screams and shouts in this or that direction from within the far-right camp, are perhaps, not a symptom of double-standards, but reflects instead, the perspective (and strong emotions) of those involved in the conflict.

I my self have flirted with the idea of an authoritarian catolic dictatorship whose ideas reflects those of my self. But at the same time, it might not work out in the long run. One of the reasons behind the fall of francoism was that the new generation of priests that came in after the civil-war generation started to question and critizise elements of francoism. When that happened, the baloon started to rupture

And if religion fails, I would favor a center or left-oriented regime over anything occult, anti-bourgoise (Whatever it might mean. I imagine there will evolve a ultra-burgoise sub/counter culture if those anti-burgoise far-righters win. People will start smoking pipes while walking their dogs around their lawns in pink bathrobes, or whatever it is burgoise people do - and they will do it as an act of protest against those anti-burgoise militants)

"Ultra-burgoise" would be a better subculture than lets say.... Gangsta-rap - dont you people agree?

MegaTrol wrote:It is a total Freak-show

I agree, but, again, it's not as if these people constitute a significant threat to society. It's important to always bear in mind that even a relatively large forum like Stormfront primarily consists of social outcasts who espouse views with no basis in reality. Racism may well be prevalent in all societies, but the extremist political agendas advocated by members of forums like Stormfront and Iron March are very far from being accepted on a large scale anywhere. Authoritarianism, militarism, and imperialism just aren't held in high regard in most countries.

I had a little trouble getting those links through, so now I am thinking on registering here permanently just so that I can provide you with freakshow-news from the horror-house that is is the contemporary far-right. It is a bit entertaining, is it not?

I don't think guests are permitted to post links due to a security feature our forum software has to prevent spam. Even newly registered members are prevented from posting links for about a week or so.

Having taken your forum into closer scrutiny, I have come to the conclusion that it will do fine without me.

So I will not register here right now - as I have many other projects that need my full attention (forum-blabbering can be fun and enlightening, but it is a time-thief)

Please feel free to register whenever is most convenient for you.

Further research show that there has been a battle of sorts within the online-fascists between accepting or not accepting nazism, and since there has indeed been a battle, it might explain why some of those folks have tried to win by distancing themselves from stormfront

From what I've observed, there are several self-identified 'National Socialists' on Iron March, though certain tenets of Hiterlism (e.g., antisemitism and Aryanism) remain contentious within the forum at large. The members who are more averse to racialist doctrines are typically the ones most concerned with distancing themselves from Nazism and White Nationalist sites like Stormfront, for obvious reasons.

I my self have flirted with the idea of an authoritarian catolic dictatorship whose ideas reflects those of my self. But at the same time, it might not work out in the long run. One of the reasons behind the fall of francoism was that the new generation of priests that came in after the civil-war generation started to question and critizise elements of francoism. When that happened, the baloon started to rupture

The issue of new generations of priests beginning to question the foundations of your hypothetical authoritarian, theocratic dictatorship (thereby increasing the likelihood of political instability) represents the very least of the problems associated with such a proposal.

I would favor a center or left-oriented regime over anything occult, anti-bourgoise

The far right may profess to be anti-bourgeois, but we socialists legitimately are since we advocate the collectivization of the means of production—which would effectively abolish the entire bourgeois class.

"Ultra-burgoise" would be a better subculture than lets say.... Gangsta-rap - dont you people agree?

That isn't exactly setting the standard very high now, is it? Unhealthy subcultures will always exist to some extent, be they orientated around recreational drug use or psychologically harmful sexual practices. So, if small groups of people wish to emulate an antiquated class society amongst their friends and/or family within the confines of their own homes, I see no immediate problem.

If you search google, you will find an interesting article in the New York Times Sunday Review called "A quantum theory of Mitt Romney"

In this article, the writer claims that the US republican have evolved a whole new physics of politics: Mitt Romney is everything at once until the observer makes the observation, and when the observer does this (by asking him a question and being a journalist) the outcome will be affected by the stance of the journalist.

This is also very true for modern far-right web-nerds. Equality? Ineqality? Nationalism? Internationalism? Proletarian? Burgoise? Communist? Third way? Liberalist? - United Europe? Or a Europe of nations? Racism or no racism? Fuck politics man! Lets be all at once until asked - or maybe it is possible to pull this quantum-physics even further: All at once until implemented.

Serious:
Online far-righters (And Mitt Romney?) might need some more resistance, some more rethorical butchering from proper people. If left to them selves, they might end up thinking that their thinking have some sort of value, and that might lead to bad stuff like for example Breivik*. (Governments around the world, specially in Europe, might have been to lenient on those anonymous far-right trols that never gets out into off-line politics.)

*Breivik:
Christian and darwinist (no choice here!) gay single man with makeup, and yet anti-gay (still no choice!) stormfront participant, and anti-nazi (no choice rocks! - Not) Those who have read his "manifesto" says that it just goes on and on and on - it is a monument dedicated to the dark god of anti-choice.

I feel that there is something very liberal, something very decadent about not making such basic choices.

Maybe those M-L people from the 1970s were right after all? (This is something I have to think hard about before registering, and perhaps moving on to the main forum)

Having continued my tour on Iron March, I have come to like "FascistCapitalist" and "NSP"

The debate "Anarcho-Fascism" is a good example on how fascism is unworkable. Both writers are among the few proper fascists participating on that forum, and yet they head in completely opposite directions.

Imagine Mussolini in the middle, with NSP on his left and FascistCapitalist on his right.... Finding the mythical "third way" that will bring a sense of harmony to the room? - No chance of that happening. Actually, mainstream left-wingers have more in common with mainstream right-wingers.

Oh yes, I will register very soon.

I cannot see how anyone that beleives in far right policies can claim to be a socialist. Policies of the far right are based on discrimination and in some cases lack of recognition for certian races. Socialism is about liberation of people and nations. The two can never go together.

I think it has a lot to to with people that import their imaginary worlds into fascism, or "fascism" depending on how you see it. "I want a one world government with a leader that is cloned over and over" "I want a peasant village society of pure arians" "Wouldn't it be really cool if there existed an ancient order of templars that have made an oat to defend European Christianity?" - that kind of stuff.

Everyone makes their own little imaginary bubbles, and many of those bubbles are connected to each other by racism.

When it comes to "socialism" it is a kind of socialism that never manifests itself by participating in demonstrations or doing anything else together with other groups or parties that wants the same thing. "Oh yeah, national solidarity is so cool" But: "Where were you when we demoed against the slashing of the welfare-budgets?"

When it comes to NSP, he seems knows his stuff about syndicalism (It seems that I have read the same books he has, and his summary of Sorel and french syndicalists and D`Annuncio and the rest was a good read:-) and FascistCapitalist is more of a pinochetist - a much simpler and more straight-forward doctrine. The other forum-participants at Iron-march made fun of him for not understanding their "socialism" but... hey - at least he defends something that is real, something that have had physical manifestations in that past, and that have a group of followers in real life. I my self have ran into Pinochet-sympathisers at various occasions.

Now I have finally registered by the way. My username is "Confusion" - but it seems the forum-admins must accept my entry before I can log in.

To imply that all of those on the "far-right" pretend to be "far-left" is absurd; those that do pretend to be "far-left" were never on the "far-right" to begin with. Those sorts of people adopt a syncretic ideology in their brain without knowing what syncretic ideology is. Anyone who's actually ON the far-right wouldn't pretend to be on the 'opposite team'(as for practicality..lol, neither of our sides are truly PRACTICAL in the world today.)

We've seen the devolution of both ideologies. In Germany - Hitler's actions led to an oppressive form of capitalism crossed with extreme nationalism. Although you had very left-wing tendencies in groups like the Strasserites.

In China - the system has devolved so far that it's nothing but the world's greatest source of cheap produce & Capitalism wrapped with a red flag.

MegaTrol wrote:If you search google, you will find an interesting article in the New York Times Sunday Review called "A quantum theory of Mitt Romney"

In this article, the writer claims that the US republican have evolved a whole new physics of politics: Mitt Romney is everything at once until the observer makes the observation, and when the observer does this (by asking him a question and being a journalist) the outcome will be affected by the stance of the journalist.

This is also very true for modern far-right web-nerds. Equality? Ineqality? Nationalism? Internationalism? Proletarian? Burgoise? Communist? Third way? Liberalist? - United Europe? Or a Europe of nations? Racism or no racism? Fuck politics man! Lets be all at once until asked - or maybe it is possible to pull this quantum-physics even further: All at once until implemented.

Serious:
Online far-righters (And Mitt Romney?) might need some more resistance, some more rethorical butchering from proper people. If left to them selves, they might end up thinking that their thinking have some sort of value, and that might lead to bad stuff like for example Breivik*. (Governments around the world, specially in Europe, might have been to lenient on those anonymous far-right trols that never gets out into off-line politics.)

*Breivik:
Christian and darwinist (no choice here!) gay single man with makeup, and yet anti-gay (still no choice!) stormfront participant, and anti-nazi (no choice rocks! - Not) Those who have read his "manifesto" says that it just goes on and on and on - it is a monument dedicated to the dark god of anti-choice.

I feel that there is something very liberal, something very decadent about not making such basic choices.

Maybe those M-L people from the 1970s were right after all? (This is something I have to think hard about before registering, and perhaps moving on to the main forum)

I like how you equate 'far-righters' with Mitt Romney right there. Romney =/= far-right. I don't know where you got that assertion. I think you're just barking up the rhetorical tree now, overusing the term 'far-right' as if a form of namedropping. For that matter - when it comes to so-called "far-right" individuals attempting to "pretend" to be "far-left", you don't seem to understand the social purpose of these individuals. It can go through multiple motivations.

A. They're not real right-wingers.
B. They're trolling you, and you fell for it.
C. They're attempting to manipulate.

You're just outright going to go say "OH ALL THE FAR-RIGHT GUYS WISH THEY WERE FAR-LEFT. YOU GUYS HAVE SUCH WEAK OPPOSITION." Namedropping & semantics won't automatically put you in a position to be correct, son, especially when you yourself aren't even aware of the implications of the people you're "namedropping" on.

I've seen far-left web nerds claiming far worse things, like trying to dress up like Fidel Castro and making YouTube videos claiming they're going to start revolution when I see no revolution. The bias you have is as prevalent for yourself as far-right bias is on the far-right.

"Modern far-right web nerds" just seems silly, for that matter, as it's WELL-KNOWN that far-right ideologies are often used on the Internet for the SOLE purpose of inciting controversy (i.e, trolling) and often aren't even serious yet you're going to take it in stride that they're all serious? Equating Mitt Romney to it all just seems strawman, considering half of these individuals that you're referencing when you say 'modern far-right web nerds' are (I promise you) just leading you on like a moron and you follow the bait.