Quaestorr ago

On labels: I for a long time already hold the labels 'left' and 'right' to be mostly meaningless. In many respects I'm a leftist, especially as measured by American standars.

The nice thing of English though is that 'right' is the opposite of 'left', but also of 'wrong'. So, I can avoid the dichotomoy and still identify as 'alt right', as the opposite of 'plain wrong' :)

Quaestorr ago

It's a pity I can't find the full text of Leon Poliakov's The Aryan Myth online. It contains a passage from Marx's private correspondence, in which he appears to have racist ideas and even applies these to the Jews: he himself was a Jew of 'the germanic type', while Ferdinand Lasalle was of 'the negroid type'.

Rask-II ago

In America far right typically still means capitalist economically (Trump is almost "alt-Center"). Whereas in Europe far right (say, Germany) can mean NS, Monarchist. But Communism itself was modeled on the Prussian/German state and philosophy (Hegel). The purest Communist state was not coincidentally East Germany. Russia was ruled not unlike a Nazi state and for non-Western peoples Communism was almost a Brown/Black/Yellow power movement that wasn't even that heavy on the Marx-Engels philosophy. This adds a cultural and geopolitical relativity to the left-right distinction.

You can associate Marxist ideas with Prussian autocracy/statism (including the ethical economic principle that productive labor is more important than individual wealth) and non-white racialism. Even within the Democratic coalition there are the Midwesterner "Prussians" and non-white irredentist-revanchists (Mexicans), revenge-racists (Blacks, Jews) etc.

Basically everyone is "racist" except for cuckservatives if you count white anti-white racialism in that category.

Marx is funny to me because while he himself may not even be a good representative of Jewishness, on the contrary, his zealous followers that made a religion out of him did include anti-Western clannish Jews.

(Some would criticize the idea that numerous groups mentioned here were "Marxist" at all, but that no true Scotsman is pretty easy to employ when Marx-Engels basic idea about labor theory of value was impossible to implement, but much of the rest of their analysis was easy to adopt for other purposes, making all kinds of people Marxist offshoots.)

I think a lot of Jews would have made "good Germans" because they were close(r) to that ancestry and culture. Whereas the general claim that Jews are "White" is beyond meaningless, since Jews are often not related to the people around them and won't feel connection with them. Jews of the Pale were very hostile to Russia. Jews in the USA have overseen the decline of WASP hegemony in their own universities. From an American perspective certain Jewish enclaves could be seen as either a German Social Democrat/Marxist infiltration or quasi-Muslim non-Western jurisprudence reframing morality in a dualistic manner serving its own ends and referencing only itself -- both possible interpretations of what "Cultural Marxism" is.

Quaestorr ago

Rask-II wrote:

Basically everyone is "racist" except for cuckservatives if you count white anti-white racialism in that category.

Unfortunately, that is not entirely true: many white anti-racists, as well as many seemingly well-integrated non-whites, adhere to an ideology (without naming it 'ideology', and often probably without even realizing this a chosen perspective — thinking of it simply as 'the truth') of maintaining that 'race' is irrelevant, or even that today's mankind is not divided in races (citing how 'race' is defined and biology, and then 'proving' that these characteristics do not apply — even though it is plain clear how unmixed e.g. East-Asians, West-Africans, Northern-Europeans etc. look like)

Maybe this is less the case in the U.S., where people are listed as 'caucasian', 'hispanic' etc. These 'thinkers' abhor categories, and in the Netherlands there have been several attempts to make it imppossible to distinguish between immigrants and indigenous people; usually this leads to a word replaced with another word, i.e. 'immigrant' with 'allochtoon' ). In this respect it is a good thing that we presently seem somewhat of an emancipation of the various immigrant groups: they define themselves as a separate category, negating the attempts to wipe any sense of difference between the ethnic groups.

Rask-II ago

(Generally speaking when I refer to these things I'm talking about potential voters, activists and ideologues rather than "everyone" but) a race-blind society is a generally boomer-approved meme in America which includes cuckservatives and a lot of the people who participated in the counterculture. For those who didn't already think "race was over as a problem" (more conservative types), Obama was the candidate for those Whites who did not believe in race on the left and wanted to end their "guilt" with a (part) Kenyan "Black" president. Thing is in the counterculture various racialist movements were established and the Black "community" is an important voting block. Obama is in this category of a black identarian radical in reality. So in effect people voted for pretty radical (for them) racialism only to find out, amidst riots and rapes and robberies excused by the "beyond race" president and radicalizing millenial SJW morons, that "race had not ended."

Furthermore other leftist factions have a pseudo-collectivist identarian element, acting as if females or homosexuals are a population on their own.

As far as making up a term to deconstruct differences which in turn "drifts" to the same purpose/meaning (because the reality is the same) and then has to be rephrased again, there are of course many examples in America -- Colored people -> Afro-American -> African-American -> People of Color ("Colored people" is racist though!); illegal alien -> illegal immigrant -> undocumented worker -> (if nothing changes) undocumented American.

pm_me_or ago

That's funny, because Marx was actually at least ethnically a jew.

I don't like the lef-right paradigm anyway, so I can't answer the question (were they far-right ?) because the frame in which you put it is fundamentally erroneous IMO.