Are far-right and far-left necessarily enemies?

[Tooting Carmen]

Your "freedom" is the sole reason why the western world is in steep decline, and you're happy with the idea of Whites being a minority in their own country soon?

Well apparently many Germans seem happy with the idea of the German language dying off. And guess what: it won't be due to MENA immigrants. https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...icial-language

[Smitty]

Hitler and Mussolini weren't economically right-wing at all. They were nationalists, but they were also, as you say, statists. That makes them at least half left-wing in my book. Popular consensus is that they were hard right, but that's just leftist propaganda to hide their connections to socialism and authoritarianism, which are obviously leftist ideologies.

[Kamal900]

Well apparently many Germans seem happy with the idea of the German language dying off. And guess what: it won't be due to MENA immigrants. https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...icial-language

That's why I don't care about the western world really. The rest of us humanity would live on for the future. People like him and others are very comfortable in seeing their own nations destroyed just for them to live their extreme individualistic lives without any care for their family and people. Again, I'm mostly balanced in between individualism and collectivism. Libertarianism is an extreme individualistic left leaning ideology that is pretty much destroying the social fabric of the western world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

You need to remember that these kind of people are extreme conformists as well, and anyone who doesn't conform to their ideology gets shamed by the overall society as what Jamesbond had been doing to people like Richmondbread here.

[Dragoon]

People cant even agree what left and right is in this topic.



Old concept used by some (construct used since the French revolution)

right wing: conservative, order, king, god, country, tradition, (nothing to do with free markets or capitalism).
left wing: liberty, freedom, equality, separation of church and state, (free markets, ,economic liberalism)


vs

"Modern" concept used by some (construct of the late 19th and early 20th century)
right wing: capitalist, individual, liberty, etc
left wing: socialist, commmie, collectivist,

[Kamal900]

People cant even agree what left and right is in this topic.



Old concept used by some (construct used since the French revolution)

right wing: conservative, order, king, god, country, tradition, (nothing to do with free markets or capitalism).
left wing: liberty, freedom, equality, separation of church and state, (free markets, ,economic liberalism)


vs

"Modern" concept used by some (construct of the late 19th and early 20th century)
right wing: capitalist, individual, liberty, etc
left wing: socialist, commmie, collectivist,

Libertarianism only makes sense in economy, but when it comes to politics and culture of a nation, they're the lowest scum on Earth. They're basically neo-liberals calling themselves a different name, but the core ideology is liberalism AKA cultural Marxism against the social order of the world for "freedom".

[Dragoon]

That's why I don't care about the western world really. The rest of us humanity would live on for the future. People like him and others are very comfortable in seeing their own nations destroyed just for them to live their extreme individualistic lives without any care for their family and people. Again, I'm mostly balanced in between individualism and collectivism. Libertarianism is an extreme individualistic left leaning ideology that is pretty much destroying the social fabric of the western world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Agreed.

[Batavia]

I think left and right wing should work together; maybe we don´t want the same things exactly, but I think that there are many things that both sides want and that there are some commonalities. There also are some "left wing nationalists" or "right wing bolshevics" like National-Bolshevics or National-Anarchists. I´m not a big fan of the whole left/right thing.

[JamesBond007]

According to the polemicists and followers of both extremes, they are. Yet is this always so? Whatever their differences regarding issues such as race, nationhood and economics, surely they are ultimately united in their mutual disdain towards 'mainstream' and 'bourgeois' liberal democracy and all it entails. Here are three key examples of far-right and far-left collaborating happily with one another (when they aren't at war, that is):

(1) Mussolini and Lenin. However ruthless the former was towards Communists at home, he nevertheless set up an economy that eventually became almost as statist as the USSR itself, plus more crucially was the first Western leader to establish full commercial and diplomatic relations with the USSR. Now there is still speculation as to whether the two men actually met or not; nevertheless, it is quite clear that Lenin's ideas of the Vanguard Party and the strong leader were inspirational for Mussolini, leaving aside the fact that Il Duce was originally a socialist himself anyway.

(2) Hitler and Stalin. Throughout the 30's, Nazi Germany and the USSR were each others' principal trading partners, and condemnations of each others' regimes were mostly quite muted and small-scale. Then of course, in 1939 the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, where the two tyrants effectively carved up Eastern Europe between them (especially Poland).

(3) Franco and Castro. As I've discussed before, for many years Franco was the only Western leader to openly condemn the US embargo on Cuba, and Spain became the first Western country to establish full diplomatic and commercial relations with the Communist regime. Moreover, Spain thus became Cuba's largest trading partner outside the Soviet bloc; for its part, Cuba became Spain's largest trading partner in Latin America after only Argentina and Brazil.

No, they both share a common enemy : Libertarians.

[Tooting Carmen]

file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/The_Franco_regime_s_contradiction_Its_fo.pdf

First, Franco pleased great attention on maintaining relations with Cuba. Specifically, he felt that Spain’s honor, damaged by the American-Spanish war, had been recovered in proxy by Cuba. Additionally, Franco and Castro shared common values in terms of their morals and patriotism. Second, Spanish elites believed that Spain required a “peculiar” policy that
would establish its status as a “middle power of an influential state” in a particular region and enable it to distance itself from the Cold War. In addition, it was thought that Spain, although shut out of much of European diplomacy because of nondemocratic and anticommunist regime, could still play a role as an “intermediary” between the Occidental World and Latin America, especially between the U.S. and Cuba, without requiring a change to the Spanish regime.

The part in bold in particular should really be noted.

[sean]

According to the polemicists and followers of both extremes, they are. Yet is this always so? Whatever their differences regarding issues such as race, nationhood and economics, surely they are ultimately united in their mutual disdain towards 'mainstream' and 'bourgeois' liberal democracy and all it entails. As I've discussed before, for many years Franco was the only Western leader to openly condemn the US embargo on Cuba, and Spain became the first Western country to establish full diplomatic and commercial relations with the Communist regime. Moreover, Spain thus became Cuba's largest trading partner outside the Soviet bloc; for its part, Cuba became Spain's largest trading partner in Latin America after only Argentina and Brazil.

They actually embraced Hispanidad (because they knew those mainstream ideologies whether left or right were always irrelevant and temporary), and even Primo de Rivera (who was betrayed by Franco) hoped it would spread to Spain's former colonies. Falangism is literally rooted in Catholicism (their Lebanese counterpart even allied with Israel against Palestinians during the Lebanese Civil War).

The Spanish Falange and its affiliates in Latin America wanted to unite diverse people from California to Patagonia to Manila, all under the same banner with allegiance to the King of Spain and "One True Faith". Their best asset was opportunism.

Castro hated the US for taking Cuba from Spain (Castro's father fought against the US during the Spanish-American War). He was an admirer of Falange during his youth. He even made the revolution flag red and black because of the Falange flag.

He was politically educated mostly by Nationalist Spanish academics promoting Franco's doctrines such as autarky. He only formally became "Communist" because that was the dominant political alternative to Spain's liberalism at the time.

Franco even kept Fulgencio Batista in Spain without executing him or sending him back to Cuba. Batista presided over a functioning economy and tolerated the local Marxist parties, which Castro violently purged upon taking office.

"The Spanish Miracle" was created by pressure from the USA and IMF to actually open Spain's economy to free trade and Franco subsequently booting out the original fascists and replacing them with liberals (Manuel Fraga, Mariano Navarro Rubio, Alberto Ullastres and so on). Ullastres and Navarro modernised the economy to make European integration easier, Fraga understood the potential of tourism industry before anyone else.

Any economic prosperity Spain had was from mimicking what democratic nations were doing and, of course, accepting billions of dollars in financial aid from the United States.

In Chile, Christian Democratic Party (PDC) which is basically a Chilean Falange with pro-free market economics sided with Pinochet, although he was in bed with American big business.

Even in Colombia, despite being sons of a prominent Franco-supporter right-winger, Juan Manuel and his brother Enrique Santos turned their backs on their father and became leftist water-carriers for Fidel Castro and his mission to enslave Latin America with communism and to extend the reach of the Cuban empire by trying to lead Colombia down the path of communism. Thus he has worked tirelessly to infiltrate renowned political parties in Colombia in order to make a name for himself to eventually run for president, which he accomplished through Alvaro Uribe and the trust received from him.