Bad advice.
Good advice.
You seem like a sperg who has no idea what he’s talking about. Nationalism is not and will not be popular in Europe, if anything far-right parties are in decline once more. Neoliberalism has prevailed again, because the electorate is not interested in fear-mongering and doomsday promises, especially considering the migrant crisis is basically over.
You should apply it to yourself. To have such a peremptory opinion, I assume that, like me, you have the luxury of not being an American, i.e. a third-worlder (with the exception of a few roughly pristine areas).
So while my routine walks in old Europe can often look like this:
It turns out that my journeys through the cities of the western part of the continent tend to look more like this:
Of course, this can vary from neighbourhood to neighbourhood.
Oddly enough, people tend to avoid neighbourhoods that are mainly populated by Arabs, Africans, Pakistanis; in short, brown people. Don't ask me why, I have no idea myself.
Not only is the "migrant crisis" by no means over (whether they come through Spain, Italy, Greece or, for the past few months, Belarus, the invasion continues), but the number of immigrants already present is growing at a faster rate than the number of natives, which increases the replacement phenomenon and its consequences on the security and hygiene of the cities concerned.
This has led to a growing 'far-right' electoral dynamic in a number of countries, although this is not significant in itself, since immigrants who have become citizens can also vote, which invariably alters the real trends. One must also take into account the very large number of abstainers, of which I am one.
But the most important factor is of course women. Unless they have a European man in their lives who has not lost all dignity (and contemporary men are not exempt from all reproach, far from it), women will naturally gravitate towards the left or the extreme left, which flatter their depraved instincts ready to offer themselves to the whole world to ease their conscience, in a typically female short-termist and emotional drive. Or towards the conservative, wait-and-see right, for the bourgeois women. In the end, the results are more or less the same. Simply because a woman, or anyone else for that matter, has absolutely nothing to gain socially by joining the "extreme right", but rather everything to lose. It is even risking condemnation, in countries where the notion of hate speech exists in law. A woman would not naturally go down such a path; and she does not have to. She should be guided, not towards male activism which would not suit her, but towards motherhood and, why not, the structuring of sororities of mothers or healthy young women.
All sucessful fringe political movements utilize women as they're a surrogate for social acceptability, and non-deviant men want to fuck them. The more successful of the western communists notably did this (Hungarians), contemporary nationalist movements which aren't retarded do this.
The fact that the gaypers explicitly reject this is - no joke - easily their most glaring flaw and why they'll never get anywhere. Your incel, strict sexual hierarchy shit is dead on arrival.
What do you mean by Hungarian communists? Those of the Jew Bela Kun and his correligionists, who were crushed after having reigned terror for a few months in 1919? The ones the Reds put in power in 1945? Or hypothetical contemporary communists, whom I would hardly perceive, given the Hungarian political climate, as the most gifted in the West?
To come back briefly to your final statement and to the substance of the matter: the simple reminder of the ancestral - because natural - truths of the sexual hierarchy (of differences, to be more consensual), cannot be "dead on arrival". Simply because it is the truth. No matter how it is anathematised (incel seems to be the most fashionable term, the meaning of which has fluctuated to become synonymous with 'criticism of women'), it will never change. This is commonly referred to as the natural order.
However, some people would like to see this change, that's for sure. But despite hormonal disruption, despite the great emphasis on homosexual and, in the last decade, transsexual freaks by puppet governments and big corporations; despite hegemonic feminism, which sometimes clashes with the latter, the old atavisms remain. Women proclaim that they are as strong and independent as men and denounce the masculinity of yesteryear while still coveting it; they want providers who could demand nothing in return and would be liable to get a divorce in the face at the slightest whim.
As I have already argued, this is not a healthy, let alone sustainable, model. I say this all the more because it is the prevailing model today, and if it is not radically reformed from within, it will be supplanted by an external, non-native system, which will no doubt be perceived as more archaic, even more barbaric, but which will not have lost all contact with these fundamental biological realities.
I do not come to these conclusions with great optimism. As women are now placed on a pedestal by men who, paradoxically, are the most quick to call others "incel", I cannot see the situation changing tomorrow. A great reversal would be necessary. Until then, I observe the great movement of the world with stoicism and placidity.
Common Filth? Is that you? Based.
Albeit extremely based, I am not that person (whom I do not know).
