Neo-Bannnedism rejects both Laissez-Faire Capitalism and Socialism, he favours mixed economics, Protectionist tariffs, aggressive anti-trust regulations, a progressive taxation system and protections for private property all in service of a decentralised economy based on his Cultural Values.
He tends to be a Populist on many issues, most clearly his view on suffrage which is not class-based the way many who are adjacent to him view suffrage, he also believes in many economically Populist measures. He supports welfare and social programs to enfranchise the poor, he believes in strict anti-trust and anti-bribery measures, being staunchly against corporate lobbying. He also believes that the internet should be under public ownership with strict measures that guarantee its independence from governmental politicisation and censorship. He believes in price controls in certain limited circumstances that involve drugs needed to save lives.
When analysing the positions of politicians on economics, he admires the initial positions of Donald Trump, before he took the far-right economic positions that defined his presidency. He likes the strong Protectionist rhetoric and the anti-establishment positions Trump held, as well as the rhetoric surrounding the economy that was not focused on supply-side economics, rather it focused on populist, worker-first, economic nationalism.
Many of the left-wing positions he holds are populist and nationalist, he believes in strong protectionist tariffs, a pro-union stance on labour (although he supports banning union donations), robust environmental protections that focus on everyday issues like keeping streets clean, a ban on usury as well as a nationalisation of the banks aimed at producing economic growth through easily acquired loans from the government that prevent (((certain individuals))) from acquiring absurd fortunes off of unproductive strategies and a progressive taxation system that benefits the middle class over the rich.
he has retained some of the economic principles that he held when he used to be a radical capitalist. He believes that most people should be responsible for their own healthcare, he is a staunch proponent of private property, he believes that small businesses need to be lightly regulated and taxed within reason to achieve a thriving localised economy that benefits the people, he generally believes that competition breeds success in the economy and he believes that commitment to one's labour and a strong work ethic should be promoted and rewarded at the governmental level.
Civilly Authoritarian Positions
He believes in laws that preserve the religious tradition of Christianity, being Catholic himself, he supports laws that are in line with biblical teachings, wishing to ban crimes such as Sodomy and adultery, he generally supports the police although he hates the police in his home country of Australia. He supports obscenity laws, a total ban on pornography, a ban on Satanism, the death penalty for a wide range of offenses and favours corporal punishment.
Civilly Libertarian Positions
On the other hand he supports many civilly Libertarian policies such as gun rights, private property, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, legal rights such as trial by jury and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures and privacy on the internet if it remains legal. He is a Federalist although not the staunch Confederalist he used to be, he still favours some local governance, mostly when it concerns economic and communal issues.
Voting and Governance
He opposes democracy and favours a Theocratic Semi-Constitutional Monarchy, with a regent-prince as its ruler, a hereditary position that exists until the return of Jesus Christ.
As previously alluded to, he is very Anti-Homo and virulently opposes all sexual degeneracy, his cultural policy is based on a Catholic Fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, his perspective on Sodomites can be summed up in Leviticus 20:13. He also is strongly opposed to adultery, drug dealing, production of pornography, flag burning, abortion, same-sex marriage (which itself is an oxymoron) and polygamy, all preferably capital offenses.
Individual Policies and Issues
In case the above was not clear enough for anyone reading this page, I will include positions on individual policies, please notify me in the comments below if I fail to include an important issue in the following section.
Bannned believes that abortion should be illegal from conception for every situation except those which involve a clear and present danger to the life of the mother, it must be a danger to her LIFE and it must be a LIKELY if not certain outcome. He believes that the punishment for abortion should fall on the mother and the doctor, and that the punishment should be equal to infanticide, which would be punished by death either as a hanging, shooting or in a particularly heinous situation, stake burning.
Bannned supports a constitution that constrains the power of the government to the law of the Bible and the doctrines of the Catholic faith (pre-Vatican II).
Bannned believes that the rights only exist when the law mandates the just and divinely ordered responsibility on the part of the nation and its people articulated in the Bible.
Bannned doesn't believe that the Coronavirus is a threat to him in the slightest, he has an absolutely fanatical HATRED of the Coronavirus lockdowns. He believes that mask wear should be voluntary if not punished and that any organisation that imposes mandates should be fined severely. He believes in the same standard for vaccines. He applies the standard of medical liberty to most vaccines. He frequently describes lockdowns as "medical apartheid" and completely supports the lockdown protests in his home country of Australia.
Bannned generally believes in self-determination as a principle of nations, he does not care about most foreign policy matters, as he is an isolationist. He does not like foreign intervention, believes that Australia has never fought a war it belonged in, believes that economic nationalism and tariffs are vital to a successful nation and generally supports policies that decrease reliance on foreign nations.
This section has been added due to the fact that the question of monarchism is one that divides many in the general area of the political spectrum that Bannned inhabits. He absolutely hates the existence of Elizabeth II as the Australian head of state and would prefer a non-Heathen to rule as a regent monarch or dictator.
Bannned's beliefs concerning religion and government have been subject to change in the past, although in the past year have solidified, as he has actually read the bible. He is a Catholic Christian and all of his political views reflect that fact, as politics is game of faiths in his mind. He believes society should be a Christian Theocracy, which rejects Paganism, Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious groups that are not Christian or Muslim as Satanic cult, and although he believes that Islam is somewhat Satanic, he does not believe that it is enough so to justify the measure he wishes to take in combatting the other heresies.
I actually love the Jews and please don't ban me. Judaism through is severe contempt for Jesus and the genuinely awful things they did and say about him is enough to justify their expulsion from Christian lands and many further actions taken to defeat these subversive elements.
His view on Islam has changed since his arrival into politics, originally he hated Muslims and Islam, viewing as a primitive religion and even during his phase as a more liberal individual he still held a genuine contempt for Muslims, wanting to invade their nations and destroy their societies. His current position is by far the most pro-Muslim position he has even held, he believes that private practice is fine, he is lukewarm about the idea of mosques existing on Christian land including the Holy Land, believes that only Bethlehem, Nazareth and Rome should bar Muslim residence and he is willing to engage with and accept the existence of Muslim nations, such as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that he considers redpilled on the JQ and the Sodomite question.
He hates Pagans and includes Atheists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other similar so-called sects of Christianity in that category. He believes in the desecration of Pagan monuments and idols, and believes it is righteous to persecute Pagans as the real Israelites did in the old testament when they settled Canaanite (and other pagan) lands.
When it comes to Christianity he desires a theocratic state, he wants Catholicism taught in schools and other venues, he wants benefits for Catholicism and other incentives to join Catholicism and he believes that Christian cross-sect solidarity is a fundamental development required to maintain a Christian Theocracy, as many nations in the West such as the USA, Canada and Australia are divided between Catholics and Protestants when it concerns believers.
Sodomite is the biblical term that refers to homosexuals, as Sodom was the city of men who were homosexuals. Bannned absolutely despises ALL Sodomites and fornicators. He believes in death by hanging, shooting or burning for ALL Sodomites and believes in a punishment dealt with lashes or other forms of corporal punishment. Cross-dressers should have lashes dealt in minor cases, and be burned in heinous cases. "furries" and their lovers should be burned for bestiality. All who practice bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia and adultery should be burned, all who attempt the aforementioned should have lashes dealt and all caught in "less severe" cases should be either hung or shot.
War and Foreign Affairs
Bannned hates war, he considers himself a pacifist although finds himself hating everything that most pacifists say. He as previously stated is an isolationist and believes that Australia has never fought a war it needed to or should have. He supports nationalising everything in possession of foreigners and banning certain products and services that are foreign such as tiktok.
His foreign policy is an Ultranationalist and Isolationist rejection of all of the tenants of Globalism. He wishes to model his foreign policy after that of Switzerland, a militarised isolation, although he opposes the existence of a peacetime draft. He completely opposes immigration and the presence of "asylum seekers".
Foreign Policy Positions
Israel & Palestine - The land belongs to neither the Arabs nor the Jews, as the Jews lost their mandate of heaven when they rejected Christ, the land should belong to a Theocratic Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Afghanistan - The Taliban is not his problem and he doesn't care about Afghanistan so long as no rapefugees enter his country.
Constantinople - Constantinople would ideally be its own Catholic Theocracy, but speaking practically, it is better in the hands of the Greeks (as is all of Anatolia) than in the hands of the Turks.
Yemen - Don't care
Kashmir - Don't care
Crimea & Donbass - Don't care
If you have a problem with these, or want to be in it, comment, I'll include everyone in my comment section, otherwise it will just be people I notice on the wiki.
KaiserKlausMouse - A generally quite based individual, I typically (80-90% of the time) agree with him and his takes which are on LITERALLY EVERYTHING in the ideology section, cool ideology. He is too auth and left in my opinion and maybe a bit too environmentalist, but these are all trivial differences, especially since he is a based Catholic.
Noel21231 - Literally everything on his page is at least semi-based, he is the most redpilled user on this site with the exception of me, he is incredibly based and all I have to critique him with is to add more to his page.
Mackii boye - Called me based, but sadly doesn't have a user wiki so I can't spend +2 hours critiquing every aspect of his ideology like I did with Comrade Shrek.
NazBolGANG12 - Called me based, but sadly doesn't have a user wiki so I can't spend +2 hours critiquing every aspect of his ideology like I did with Comrade Shrek.
Comrade Shrek - He has a very well put-together page on the anarchy wiki which details his based ideology. My main concerns with it are that it is too economically left-wing, he also isn't culturally conservative enough in my opinion but these issues are only minor. He is not a Sodomite and in his morality section he details an excellent morality, although flawed in regards to women, who he believes should be able to work and assume many authorities that belong to men.
His view on Sodomites is not radical enough, as it contradicts Leviticus 20:13. He is also too moderate on prostitutes, as he says they belong in labour camps when in actuality they should be burned at stake or stoned to death. Abortion is another issue he is too moderate on, any case of abortion that doesn't prevent the death of the mother should result in her and doctor being stoned to death or burned at the stake, as she is a degenerate whore and her doctor is a serial killer.
He is 100% correct about drug issues. His view of collectivisation is too radical in my opinion, I would only nationalise property of foreigners with foreign citizenship and the means to leave the nation, the banks and maybe the electricity, otherwise natural resources, land and private enterprise can remain independent. He also emphasises Democracy in his condemnation of capitalist economics, a common trend I find throughout my investigation, and one that I find problematic, as I believe Democracy and the idolisation of it is a subversive effort headed by (((dangerous individuals))), although I do not identify him and many others like him who support Democracy this way.
I share his contempt of Liberal Democracy and the view that it is decadent and antithetical to a moral and just society, although his Democratic Workers' State is not ideal, rather a Theocratic Constitutional Republic with a mix of Third Positionist and Distributist economics is preferable. His ideology presents as its main geopolitical rivals, Capitalists and Imperialists, whereas mine presents International Jewry and Foreigners as the primary concerns, although we both also present degenerates, globalists and others as issues within society.
In outlining his vision for a Planned Economy that involves both local and central planners, he deviates from me again in his approach, I prefer to keep a mostly private economy with robust regulation, pro-union and pro-worker policy, and uncompromising Trade Protectionism. In the next part he explains his belief in workers' rights, I support most of what he defines as rights, although things such as jobs are the responsibility of the people to find themselves, I also do not believe that wage labour is an inherently bad thing, rather I am concerned with the wages that are being payed.
He expresses his desire to deport degenerates to labour camps or other nations, I would execute most degenerates, i.e. prostitutes, Sodomites and rapists whereas others such as SJWs may retain their positions in society so long as they operate within the system of free political speech and follow basic codes such as no pornography, no obscenity, no depravity etc. and finally he mentions bourgeois and landlords, for the landlords I am conflicted, as I strongly believe in both private property and families owning their own homes, therefore I believe that is an issue to be decided by communities and states.
The bourgeois on the other hand are the backbone of a thriving civilisation, the Middle Class that inhabited the suburbs back in a time when Capitalism was made to serve the people, rather than the rich, is quite similar to what I desire, with safeguards to prevent another fall, a stable society that is economically prosperous relies on a principle like that of the American Dream, if you work hard in life you may achieve the dream, that being a family in a somewhat large suburban home, happy and wealthy, slowly getting richer over generations, living a moral life in service to God, that is my ideal for society.
In the next paragraph (titled Sustainable Socialism if you've lost where I'm up to), he begins with talking about Climate Change, which is not real, and while I agree with the support of Nuclear Power, I disagree with the hostility towards fossil fuels, as they should be gradually, rather than suddenly, phased out to prevent damage to the economy and jobs.
When speaking of revolution, he accurately condemns the disease of Liberalism, correctly highlights the flaw in the oligarchic elections of the west, and realises its place in the broader initiative of social control on the part of those in power. Although, as Communists who are well-intentioned often do, name the bourgeoise as the culprit, rather than the Jews, who have, for two-thousand years since they murdered the Messiah slandered all that is true and righteous, practiced all forms of heresy, tried to destroy the West time and time again and have tried to make a mockery of God by referring to themselves as his chosen people, rather than purging the bourgeoise, the Jews should be purged for their sins. Rather than Ergatocratic Democracy, Republican Theocracy is the answer to the fall of European Civilisation.
His system of governmental organisation has its downsides and upsides, although I'd have some key differences. I would like to have a bicameral legislature, with a House of Clergy that are nominated by religious authorities and a Senate which is elected by state legislatures. His system has a local council, which I would support although I would wish for a local executive, such as a mayor. He also has Democracy throughout the system, whereas I would have local and state-wide elections with limited suffrage and a Federal Executive elected by the states, with a system similar to the electoral college in the United States rather than direct democracy. I am a supporter of a Semi-Theocractic Constitutional Federational Republic rather than an Ergatocratic Communal Democracy and thus I oppose most of what his system would entail.
My only issues with his "Order and Authority" arise from the aforementioned question of Democracy and the new issue of "ideological education", I prefer Chauvinistic education that does not indoctrinate the people to believe in ideological supremacy, but rather National Supremacy and leave the young free to learn politics from their parents. I would also like to mention the issue of language, he refers to concepts such as Democracy, Anti-Imperialism and an opposition to Counter-Revolutionaries, whereas I would use different language, although this distinction is more an optical one than an ideological one.
His section on Security and Justice is similar to the previous when concerning my issues with it, although a new issue arises of his desire to send lesser offenders to camps, which I disagree with, I prefer corporal punishment to deportation to camps. Rather than re-educating a thief, I would give him 50 lashes and send him on his way, with the warning that he'd loose his hands if he continued to steal.
Next to a section we have much agreement on, he is a based Isolationist Nationalist, although not extreme enough, as I am an Ultranationalist who wants total isolation, like that of North Korea or the first Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, with very minimal foreign trade with trustworthy nations, nuclear armament to deter war and no foreign co-operation. He believes in minimal anti-capitalist co-operation, some immigration, and International Solidarity, all concepts which I reject, at least in the short term.
I began with a critique and some praise of his morality, and I do find that 75-85% of it is good, although he is too moderate in my opinion. He glorifies revolution because he in some ways has succumbed to the Jewish perversion of violence against the status quo, as the Jews know that the moment the revolution begins to purge its own they may intervene, with the support of the people, and establish a Banana Republic, Military Junta, or otherwise Authoritarian Neo-Liberal regime in service to global Judaism. Reform is always preferable and if revolution occurs it should be delayed until the mortal blow against Liberal Democracy is so popular that it is swift and painless for all but those who ruled and oppressed the people.
To conclude, he could benefit from economic moderation and cultural and religious fundamentalism, but remains quite based, thus earning the tier of based.
Based and Jedpilled - He is a based Distributist and although I didn't find many details concerning his ideological beliefs, but he identifies himself as a Classical Conservative and a Distributist. He also has good art.
Typicalfan4 - He is a based moderate, I agree with all of his opinions on his page except for his opinion on criminals, he gives me Zionist vibes which is a concern but otherwise he is quite based. His dislike section is good with the exception of Wignats and Neo-Nazis, who aren't bad enough to be in the dislike section in my opinion. His like section is okay but he refers to "Indigenous People" on his page, this term is traumatic to me as I live in Australia and that is what progtards call the savages who lost their land due to the fact they are savages. He is pretty based though.
SomeCrusader1224 - He is about as based as a moderate Conservative can be, basically me about a year ago (when I was his age) minus the Protestantism. The only issue I have with the Like/Dislike section is the capitalism being in like and fascism being in dislike. He is therefore based, but could improve, he gets based tier because I see my former ideology in his.
Ukraiana - He is too authoritarian and his test results show different traditionalism scores. His discriminatoryvalues is very based and he has a some-what high religion score. He is based bordering on semi-based.
BasedRussianMikuru - Okay, I can't overlook it, what is with that anime thing? It ruins an otherwise based page. Anyway forgetting that and judging the substance he is quite based. He passes the first test of not being a Sodomite, he is a reactionary, he is an individual influenced by many based ideologies, he has some problematic features (Minarchism and Monarchism) although they can be overlooked, he is too capitalist which can be somewhat overlooked, he is a fan of cats which is a dire condition for one to be in, he is too soft with the death penalty, he wants a higher house of aristocracy rather than the ideal house of clergy as the lower house and the senate of the states as the upper house and he wants to require property to vote. With all of that said he is still quite based and supports many things that are far more important than the concerns I have, the only reason I exclude him from 'Based' tier is because of the profile pic.
Responsible Citizen - Libertarian Conservatism is generally too moderate for me, his Like/Dislike section is good with the exception of free markets on the like section. He also puts Nazis in cringe tier, which I definitely do not object to because Nazis are evil and 6 million and genocide and stuff. To conclude, he seems based with the exception of moderate social views and Libertarianism, which go hand-in-hand, therefore he belongs in Semi-Based tier.
Dumnorix - His ideology is okay, he is a Cultural Conservative, Distributist, Pro-Gold Standard and Nationalistic. Although he holds many highly objectionable positions, he is an evictionist on the issue of abortion, he is a Liberal, he is Democratic and he is a Euro-Federalist. He is also my foe.
Fant - He is a patriotic AnCap, no evidence of being a Sodomite, so he can go in neutral tier.
Mebrouk - Only redeeming characteristics is that he isn't a capcuck or an authoritarian, which don't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things if you are a progtard. Features a furry on his page. Complains about American-backed military dictatorships and complains about Islamic theocracies both of which are not very based but better than his ideology which is Secular, Feminist, Liberal and Multicultural, which gives the verdict of fairly cringe although I reserve 'Cringe' tier for the most egregious examples of societal decline.
Enaysikey - Pretty cringe, he says mean things about me on his page, that I am "really cringe" if I ever attain political power he shall be called to one of those international criminal tribunals or whatever the globaltards call them, anyway he is a cringe Social Libertarian who I can basically only judge from his 'attitudes to others' section. My verdict is Semi-Cringe.
Liberal - He has declared that he is a foe of mine, which is a move that I agree with, as he is a Technocrat, a Transhumanist, a Liberal and he says in his foe request "Racist, Homophobe, anti-progress, we're basically opposites politically." This is partially correct, as I only dislike Jews as a race and believe that if they are baptised and show genuine remorse for what their ancestors did to The Messiah, they ought to be forgiven. I do hate Sodomites, progress and find myself diametrically opposed to his core principles from what I have seen.
YellingYowie - He is a Social Libertarian and basically everything he believes in is cringe. Technocrat, Imperialist Libertarian, Progressive and Feminist, literally the opposite to me, although he isn't a Sodomite or Kirbly, so he can go in Semi-Based tier.
SumisuAirisu - Degenerate Sodomite who constantly accuses me of being a fed despite the fact that I live in Australia, clearly a lie perpetuated by (((certain people))). Very Cringe Individual.
YugoslavPartisan - Degenerate crossdressing Sodomite heretic. Secular, Communist, Totalitarian and absolute Heathen. Although he is a Federalist, Republican, Anti-Zionist, Eurosceptic, Anti-Liberal and Anti-Porn but he is still a degenerate crossdresser.
Pirate Tails - His analysis of my ideology is correct and he identifies one of my close neighbours and probably the most if not one of the most based ideologies on this site (Reactionary Liberalism) which I am not a part of for reasons I outline in my response to him in the comments on this page. Although in reviewing his page I noticed a certain feature in my first question concerning the based status, the 'Femboy' issue, that alone earns anyone a position in Ninth Circle of 'Cringe' Tier. He has some based positions I guess, among them being a compass centrist and a nationalist, but he is a liberal and a progtard. If it weren't for the whole femboy thing he'd be in 'Semi-Cringe' tier bordering on Neutral.
Sykar Socialist - Degenerate, supports everything I hate, only redeeming qualities are that he is somewhat pro-life and that he is not an Atheist Theocrat. He is an anime fan and even links images of fake women as his "waifus" which is really retarded, he is an all-around weird individual and quite cringe.
Wasp - Anyone who has looked at my page should already know why he is in 'Cringe' tier, if not, look at his page. He is a Utopian and a Progressive, in limited circumstances meritocracy is based, but religious discrimination is good, Distributism is based and he has a cool polcompball. He also didn't say anything objectionable on my page like some other people did, Still cringe though for being a Sodomite.
Kirbly - Literally hate almost everything about his ideology so I'll try to focus on the few redeeming characteristics. He is an environmentalist which is okay, left-wing environmentalists typically have a lot of positions I hate but still usually are based on at least a few things. He dislikes France which is based and he is a market centrist.
RightistWrangler - Sodomite, so that alone earns him Cringe tier, although his substantive beliefs further justify this critique. He is an Antifa supporter, Communist, Anarchist and Globalist. Also glorifies Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Marx, two of the worst "(((people)))" to ever live. Cool icon though.
Edgey05 - Degenerate sodomite, Cosmopolitan and Libertarian Socialist. That is enough to prove a Cringe tier judgement.
People who don't have userpages - Get a page so I can critique you, otherwise don't criticise me!
We must resist modernism in the interest of our nation, our people and our traditions.
The most important part of my foreign policy, anyone who hates their own nation is a degenerate.
Basically my foreign policy, inherent to any nationalist ideology is the desire to cease involvements and commitments in foreign lands.
Patriotism - A
ll good citizens are patriots.
Socially conservative, fiscally moderate and religious. I wouldn't be who I am today without you.
Catholic Theocracy -
Heirs of Saint Peter.
Christian Theocracy -
Be more Catholic, otherwise based.
Orthodox Theocracy - Come home brother, and well will retake Constantinople and the Holy Land!
Based Reactionary Illiberal Catholics.
Clerical Fascism -
Most based fascist!
Economics should be based of Catholic Cultural Values.
You're good but could you cool it with the woman-hating?
We must live in a nation where the leader is accountable to the law.
Right-Wing Populism -
Socially Conservative, Nationalist, Populist and Economically Moderate? Based.
Reactionary Liberalism -
Pretty based, although democracy is cringe and too much capitalism.
Nationalism is based.
Saved Spain from Atheistic agents of Satan and maintained a strong, traditional, Catholic society for 35 years.
Based Cultural Conservatives bravely fought off the godless commies.
National Conservatism -
Based Conservative Nationalist.
Crusadism - Saved the West from savages.
Fascism - Economically populist, nationalist and traditional, but too authoritarian and not religious enough.
French Conservatism - Anti-Secular, Patriotic, Nationalistic, quite Illiberal, Anti-Enlightenment but French so it cannot go in based tier.
Alt-Lite - Too culturally liberal, capitalist but otherwise pretty based.
Anarcho-Monarchism - Mostly based, although Monarchist which is kinda cringe and Anarchist which is very cringe.
This Guy - He said and did many weird and counterproductive things, he was kind of crazy, likely an atheist and made several catastrophic mistakes in his war effort, but he had the right enemies and was an excellent speaker.
Absolute Monarchism - You don't come with any cultural positions, religious beleifs or any real opinions beyond your own right to rule, although historically you guys were Christian and culturally conservative. Also don't like centralised governments and monarchies.
Anti-Authoritarianism Depends who is in power, if it is a Neo-Liberal pro-lockdown dictatorship then based, if it is a Catholic Theocracy than Anti-Auth is cringe.
Agrarian Anarchism - Culturally Conservative and bio-conservative although he is an Anarchist, Libcenter and a Primitivist, so he belongs in Neutral Tier. Also animal rights are gay.
Agrarian Socialism - Same as above, although gets bonus points for not being an anarchist but gets deducted points for being Socialist.
Titoism - Federalism and Moderate Socialism are based, but he isn't a Cultural Conservative and he is a bit too Authoritarian.
Agrarianism - Similar to the two above, although deducted points for being socially ambiguous.
American Conservatism -
Moderately Socially Conservative but also too focused on rights, too Libertarian, too Socially Liberal, too Fiscally Conservative and too Internationalist.
British Conservatism - Prior to the Second World War it was significantly more based, belonging in the Semi-Based or even Based categories, although following the war it became too Fiscally Liberal due to a desire for compromise, although under Thatcher's leadership became way too Far-Right on economics, also supported Monarchism, Interventionism, way too Socially Liberal. Should have remained a Classical Conservative movement.
Alt-Right - Pretty based on most of the issues, although White Supremacism is cringe and all of this 'Tranny Porn' nonsense is MEGACRINGE.
Anti-Environmentalism - Cringe for hating the environment, but based for realising that climate change is a hoax, although it is overshadowed by the aforementioned hatred for natural heritage.
Anarcho-Conservatism - Cringe Anarchist, but his heart is in the right place, just needs to realise how unsustainable Anarchism is.
Anarcho-Fascism - Culturally Conservative, Nationalist and economically variable, although it is still an Anarchist and Ethnonationalist, belongs in Very Cringe tier if it is the Esoteric variant.
Anarcho-Frontierism - Transhumanist, Anarchist and Fictional, quite cringe.
Anarcho-Totalitarianism - Fictional and therefore cringe, contradicts itself which is also cringe.
Anationalism - Globalist, Culturally Left and Multicultural. Clearly an agent of Satan and his (((servants))).
Anarcho-Transhumanism - Combination of two of the worst ideologies.
Anarcho-Primitivism - Anarchist, Primitivist, wants to turn humans into animals and also probably a pagan.
Anti-Centrism - Pick A side, pick ONE, not all of them, get some substantive beliefs
Anarcho-Syndicalism - No redeeming characteristics, you aren't even cool in Kaiserreich.
Anarcho-Naturism - Degenerate manifestation of the lust and desires of the worst of society, dress codes exist to exclude people like you, you filthy hippie.
Anarcho-Nihilism - Heathen who does not acknowledge the glory of God and the miracle of life, he is unoriginal and tries to minimise the rest of the world out of an insecurity for a lack of character on his part.
Anarcho-Individualism - Post Left, Anarchist and Culturally Left, as well as being a narcissistic individualist which lands him squarely in the Very Cringe Category.
Anarcho-Capitalism - Basically the same as Anarchism, impractical and completely ridiculous, it is also a scheme of the (((Corporate Elite))) to undermine national stability, it is merely a stepping stone towards the ultimate goal of the (((rootless international clique))).
Anarcho-Distributism - Vile perversion of the one true faith, it is Culturally Left and calls itself a Distributist? Just another degenerate Progressive Libleft.
Anarcho-Pacifism - Like Anarcho-Distributism except it isn't Catholic, but then again neither is Anarcho-Distributism, both are Godless cults of degeneracy.
Anarcho-Collectivism - Basically the same as Anarchism, impractical and completely ridiculous, it could never exist as powerful tyrants would arise out of chaos.
Anarcho-Communism - Same as above, unrealistic, impractical and easily taken advantage of by tyrants
Alter-Globalization - Leftist, Globalist, Internationalist, total loser and deserves a Very Cringe rating.
Acid Communism - Weird, culturally progressive and always on drugs. Total degenerate that glorifies the 1960s, the worst decade in human history. To make an ideology off of the fulfilment of lesser desires such as drug use is to condemn oneself to the Very Cringe tier.
Agorism - Cool name but bad ideology because it bases its political views off of breaking good laws that are in place to prevent the existence of dangerous markets. It is culturally ambiguous although it has the negative effect of being an anarchist ideology, which means allowing degenerates to exist unpunished.
Clearly ridiculous and unworkable, also the whole "mother anarchy" thing is a big red flag
Antifa - LARPs as an Anarchist because he isn't in power, commits acts of terrorism, very cringe.
Anti-Humanism - Humanity is important and we are what matters on the Earth. Animals, plants and inanimate objects are inferior and don't deserve rights, without humans all that will matter on the Earth is the evidence of humanity.
Disgusting sexual degenerates, child rapists and completely deplorable individuals, Sodom was destroyed for a reason.
Esoterics and Pagans -
Religiously inferior in every possible way, absolute scum.
The murders and deniers of Christ, responsible for sexual degeneracy, pornography, infiltration and subversion of Western Culture, Radical Progressivism, Communism and various other horrible sins.
Globalist vice aimed at the destruction of the family, better off in the kitchen and raising the kids.
Accelerationism - Another Globalist scheme.