My biggest issue with chuds is how many of them would be ok with the current status quo but under different aesthetics and how many of their talking points are riddled with is-ought fallacies, and can’t forget how they can’t decide as to whether ideology or race matters more, combined with how they often have many of the traits they complain leftists of having (e.g., indifference to the truth), and overall lack of revolutionary thought.
Let’s take race for example. Jared Taylor tells his audience that race being biological means that your should be a right-leaning Christian libertarian, but that doesn’t follow at all. In fact, even if we took the concept of races as being rooted in biology and shaping outcomes far more than socioeconomic factors for granted, it still wouldn’t invalidate shit like affirmative action and DEI. Far from it, it would actually justify those measures alongside welfare leeching since under that logic it can equally be argued that affirmative action and DEI are necessary for the socioeconomic welfare of African Americans and Latinos since according to racialists they’ll just revert to the mean no matter how much they study anyway.
Thus, the problem with pseudoscience HBD’s true believers are that they’re committing an is-ought fallacy by using their so-called “race science” to argue in favor of austerity and other rightoid policies.
As for indifference to the truth, see how they’ll use deconstructionist arguments to dismiss hate speech laws, only to turn into moralfags whenever some leftist gets indicted with bogus charges of “terrorism”, as if “terrorism” isn’t any more of a magic word than “hate speech”. That goes to show their lack of coherence and understanding of how lawmaking actually works and how selective they are in their reasoning. And there’s of course the issue of interracial rape that they overflow as some sort of epidemic by using the same feminist talking points that they would deride if applied to any other situation like MeToo and Jack Russell’s case. See:
https://xcancel.com/RichardHanania/status/2068476652447777145I dislike Hanania for being a Zionist capitalist mouthpiece, but he is right in that tweet and note how almost all of the replies are chuds doing muh feelz and unironically using MeToo-ist feminist rhetoric to justify the slopaganda they swallowed wholesale. I could show more examples, but you get the point: Neither side of capital, left or right, gives a rat’s ass about the truth.
The obsession with wanting to change only the aesthetics correlates with how they aren’t revolutionaries to begin with, since they merely want affirmative action and minority privileges but for the goyim. Indeed, a prime example are captive_dreamer (real name: Geoffrey Martin) and Nick Fuentes (a.k.a., captive_dreamer but lagging by two years), the former of whom has gone from quoting Hitler to being an edgier and more racist version of Sean Hannity, despite the fact that the same status quo establishment that the alt-right used to attack during the Obama years and first Trump term remain relatively unchanged sans the aesthetics. America is still ZOG, mass immigration is still continuing with the drop having more to do with the USA turning into a shithole than Trump doing some ethnic cleansing via ICE, and the problems that were caused by the 2008 financial crisis are unsolved to this day.
But all it took to shut up the /pol/tards and make them into compliant and subservient goyim was a bunch of viral marketing tricks and a solid mockingbird influencer network. Ofc inability to question their own priors combined with the online right’s inability to have genuine economic critique beyond falling back to Reaganism and Thatcherism are some of the reasons, but I think the biggest factor is that the modern western right has stopped being revolutionary since at least 2016 when the right-wingers that wanted to overthrow the American government as opposed to talking over it (like William Luther Pierce’s National Alliance) have largely died off by then with the remnants being feds or deranged psychos unappealing to even their fellow travellers. And this isn’t exclusive to America as many of the chuds in Europe and Australia that used to be opposed to the USA are now America’s top bitches who fully support the American empire like cucks. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that much of this shift occurred in 2023 when the leftist response against Israel led to the establishment to abandon woke in favor of the anti-woke (much like how the continental elites that used to support the enlightenment turned to the anti-enlightenment forces when it became clear that Napoleon Bonaparte’s French empire would threaten capital) either out of anti-leftist reactionism or purely out of spite. And this Nazi-to-neocon pipeline will continue on as much of what used to be the identitarian right become philosemitic especially under the reactionary zoomers who have little memory of the intellectual anti-semitism of the 2010s and are more influenced by shallow algorithmic shifts as exemplified by Clavicular, Joe Rogan, Nick Fuentes and other bought and paid for mockingbird influencers.
The “race matters over ideology, but we can’t let them in because they don’t share our values” talking point is one of the biggest contradictions chuds on X’itter have, especially since they’ll mock civic nationalists for being “raceblind” only to use their same arguments for restricting immigration. But if they were right, they would have to admit that immigration from Europe at the turn of the last century did tangentially affect American society, but that would undermine the white nationalist narrative that immigration is ok if it’s only from so-called “white countries”.
And what does it say about modern immigration from Latin America if the changes to American society are far less radical than what happened with Ellis islanders?
One amusing aspect of modern chuds is how they dismiss citizenship as being just a “piece of paper” when this belief would be so alien to the very ancient Romans these chuds look up to, as citizenship was a cornerstone of ancient Romans identity (especially in the republican and imperial periods) such that citizenship defined who was and wasn’t Roman and with it determined many aspects of life like property ownership, rights, power, etc…
In fact, it wouldn’t be an exaggeration that citizenship was foundational to being a Roman back in antiquity far more than religion, race and ethnicity.
So no wonder that the average right-winger has more in common with a radfem over a communist since both rightists and radfems are middle class-centric and value abstractions and mysticisms and “lived experiences”-type stupidpol over economics and rationalism the way communists and ancaps at least do if the criss-cross theory is correct.