Add new comment

Idpols are evidently too stupid to understand analytical arguments. My point was that the whole up/down criterion is stupid if it's taken literally, and often it's not clear who's up and who's down, it varies with the axis you focus on. Though, you're showing how you follow the counterinsurgency approach of reading "enemy" movements just as ideologies i.e. bad thoughts and ignoring the affects involved. You're here centuries behind Wilhelm Reich (a German Jew forced to flee the Nazis) who says fascism mixes anti-capitalist appeal with reactionary politics, it's not just extreme conservatism.

>everything is context and context is everything

Another of these glib idpol slogans with no meaning. Which context? How do you decide? With ISIS, we have downtrodden Sunni Syrians and global Islamophobia victims fighting back against Assad and the Iranian-backed Iraqi regime - that's one context. Then we have ISIS the unrecognised microstate resisting bombardment by the worlds 20 top imperialist powers - that's another context. Then we have ISIS attacking the Kurds and Yezidis, killing gay men and random civilians, keeping sex slaves, beheading NGO people for being the wrong nationality, that's another context again. A kid from London goes there thinking he'll find a paradise and getting disillusioned; an ex-Anon hacker joining ISIS after the trauma of imprisoment and racial abuse; Uighurs from Xinjiang travelling to Syria to get combat experience to take back home, the US continuing to torture Islamists at Guantanamo and elsewhere - all part of the context. Whether it's up or down depends on the context. Basically ISIS is a form of idpol: a revivalism of Sunni Muslims against western culture which also posits them as the new ruling group with a right to dominate everyone else, same way all the idpols do. A lot of today's fascism is just idpol of the white working-class. Complex is not fucking simple.