>>443183>Don't they have any shame?
>Do they ever step back and look at how they consistently just invade places and rub their stink all over the place?
They think they have the right to do so for reasons that basically amount to "muh feels"
Alot of those reactionaries are socially neglected. Also, not all social reactionaries are obnxoxiois. Alot of them are quiet intoverts with some messiah complex.
They are retards, every single one of them. Only Nazi worthy of any form of respect is a Nazi who doesn’t believe the bullshit it spews and does it out of pure opportunism, real believers are retards. Remember that fascist and nazies started wars that killed millions not for anything of worth just to make rich richer. These “people” are less than libertarians because at least a rich libertarian has something to gain, while these imbeciles think they will achieve glory and honour because they truly think that the narrative of this story follows them. They think they are main characters because they live in a cartoon world.
Most reactionaries arent even fully convinced of racial castes. They just follow along with it fue to social neglect from their youth.
If someone's seething about uyghas making jokes about whites eating bland food they're already beyond the point of normalcy.
That's what I'm saying.
Reaction is so sexual and pornified. There's a reason /pol/ is a NSFW board. You can't be a reactionary without a deep subconscious obsession with sex.
I know a chinlet irl he had a weird obsession with poop and even payed a friend to see his shit.
Hate them for being so weirdly hypocritical while seemingly unaware of their own hypocrisy. These people spread propaganda about their enemies raping the children they themselves fantasise about all day.
> Do they ever step back
no, theyre nazis, their mental faculties are gravely diminshed.
Anon these people are reactionaries because they’re severely mentally ill. The fact that they’re that unhealthy, alienated from others and violent is the antecedent for their awful behaviour and political views on others.
I think to the reactionary hypocrisy is the point, rather than contrary to the point. To win is to be hypocritical faster than your enemy. Hypocrisy is a weapon, and they intend on using it first. Principles are likewise simply a shield, not something you sincerely believe in. Reactionaries use their conservative "principles" and "racial consciousness" as shields, while they use their hypocrisy as a weapon. If their enemies actually believe in something, then they are simply mishandling their shield, and are easier to predict, easier to stab, mid-combat. Hope my strained analogy is making sense.
this. so much this
literally who>>443197>Would you rape some Midjourney pic
No because it isn't real you Twitter coomer
>>443197>(this is how standardized testing will be written when we’re in control)
>why can’t reactionaries be normal?
I agree with you. In the end it’s all about them and their emotions and ego, nothing really matters to these people. Every time a reactionary get bitten in the ass and loses, they immediately throw away their values or find a way to change them to something in their own interests.
Is this from before or after Twitter being Musk'ed?
Lucky for me, I'm extremely sexual and have nothing to apologize for it, I embrace it, these guys on the other hand like to pretend they're all about purity and loyalty and all that crap but in the end they're just as sexual as any person. It's always those who watch an absurd amount of porn who want to ban porn for some reason.
maybe they think they would be free from their porn addiction if they banned it for everyone
Reactionaries are fine with rape as longs only white males doing it.
Lets npt forget that reactionaries are hebephobic.
They want young people to be ideological servant-warriors.
They hate young people havimg sex, TV, video games or any form of recreation or non-innocence.
uh who gives a fuck
this liberal psychologizing (and sexual-psychologizing) of politics is naive as it is dangerous. There are reactionaries who have a real world view of how the world should be that.
For example, people didnt support slavery because they were coomers. they supported slavery because they had a teological view that the weak should serve the strong. I forgot who it was, but an American slave holder made the case that had the native americans submitted to slavery, they wouldnt have been exterminated, and why the black population increased in north america. He also (in his world view) that the future of mexico is peonage in service of the south.
no because they are terminally online weirdos
>>451026>people didnt support slavery because they were coomers
then why did so many of them coom in their slaves? ex: Thomas Jefferson
Bless the brits for showing that there is no rockbottom. Hopefully one day may I taste ye old fastfood
I guess I meant internet reaction. You're right that it would be idealist and liberal to entirely psychologize reaction. I recommend reading Male Fantasies or (the much shorter) "Fascinating Fascism" to understand where I'm coming from.
>>443381>Reactionaries are fine with rape as longs only white males doing it.
Well yeah, they think of rape as a matter of who controls the women. They only speak of rape as a bad thing insofar as it's "foreigners" doing it, and they only pretend it's about the rape part and not the foreigner part to rile up normie libs about "replacement."
>>451026>they had a teological view that the weak should serve the strong
how is that not libidinal as hell tho
I bet that slop tastes heavenly
Neo-Nazi ideology and reactionary politics are fetishism as an ideology, worship of an arbitrary trait (The past or race) as an inherent item of power or worship. chinlets do get off to feeling like they are in control simply for their genes, being inherently the chosen one.
Unique IPs: 27