Be it Islamists, or fundamentalist Christians, Rightoids are all the same
What’s even the difference between western racists and Islamists? Like, I honestly cant tell away western racists and Islamists.
Western racists are basically Islamists who call themselves Christians.
I saw this online channel of a German right wing pastor
https://youtube.com/@tobias.riemenschneider
and he had anti-Islamic videos on his channel, and a bit further he had a video that German women should get forced to cover their heads outside!
Those videos seemingly were removed.
But he still has this online
I’m convinced that Rightoids are all the same, be they Islamic or Christians.
That Riemenschneider guy basically gets plattformed as the German Charly Kirk here by the Right wing.
Trump, Republicans, Project 2025, AFD, that Riemenschneider guy, its basically all one big organization.
Just Read Project 2025 – They want the west to become a big Afghanistan.
And honestly, I’d like to know which God they even think they are following? Donald Trump?
Jesus was leftist!
Muslim: My religion is so leftist we give alms to the poor and vaguely engage in social justice.
Me: Hitler also gave free money to poor Arians.
Muslim: Are you super retarded?
Me: Because I see patterns where other people are blind to because their brain obeys their social programming, because of that you think I’m dumb?
Chat: Saying Jesus is a leftist, is a retarded statement or low IQ ragebait
Me: Jesus said love your neighbor, give your money to the poor, rich people go to hell, give free healthcare to the public, and give free food to the public, Rightoids say the opposite
Claude.ai:
A few things stand out to me here, and I’ll be direct rather than just validate the framing.
Where I think you’re onto something: There’s a real structural observation buried in this — authoritarian religious movements, whatever their scripture, tend to converge on similar mechanisms: policing women’s bodies and dress, punishing apostasy/heresy, fusing religious and political authority, treating outgroups as existential threats. That convergence is a legitimate thing political scientists study (it’s sometimes called “theocratic” or “religious nationalist” pattern-matching across traditions). If Riemenschneider is on record calling for German women to be forced to cover their heads and then scrubbing that video, that’s a genuinely useful data point about the gap between stated values and actual goals — worth documenting, not dismissing.
Where I think the argument breaks down:
- “Western racists = Islamists who call themselves Christians” collapses a lot of distinct things into one blob. Trump-era Republicanism, Project 2025, AfD, a fringe German pastor’s YouTube channel, and transnational Islamist movements have different histories, different relationships to secular law, different constituencies, and don’t actually coordinate as “one big organization.” Treating them as literally the same thing makes the claim unfalsifiable — any rightist becomes evidence for the theory, any counterexample gets waved away as “not a true rightoid.”
- [ — Claude had some misunderstandings here — ]
If your actual interest is “how do authoritarian religious-political movements structurally resemble each other regardless of the religion’s content,” that’s a real and interesting question — but it needs the specific claims (Riemenschneider’s video, AfD’s platform, Project 2025’s actual text) argued on their own evidence, not asserted through a sweeping identity claim.
Me:
You misunderstood the “Hitler also gave free money to poor Aryans”.
I’m NOT saying Hitler was leftist, no, that statement was the counter to Muslim saying his culture isn’t right wing because donating.
Also you say: “authoritarian religious movements,…punishing apostasy/heresy, fusing religious and political authority, treating outgroups as existential threats” => But it’s like they are treating the teachings of Jesus himself as heresy and Jesus as outgroup of them, while calling upon his name… The nominal law that they defend isn’t Jesus teachings, but Rightoid culture
Claude.ai:
Ah, I see — that’s actually a clean point, and I read it wrong. You’re not equating Hitler with leftism, you’re using him as a reductio: if “we give charity to our own poor” is sufficient to prove a religion/culture isn’t right-wing, then Nazi welfare programs for Aryans would have to count as evidence Nazism wasn’t right-wing too — which is absurd. So the muslim’s original argument (“my religion can’t be right-wing, look, we give alms”) proves too much and therefore proves nothing.
That’s logically sound as a rebuttal to that specific move.
About the Rightwing – Jesus as outgroup and his teachings as heresy:
That’s a sharper and more interesting version of the argument, and it’s not a new observation — it’s basically the core claim of Christian left / liberation theology critiques of the religious right, going back decades: that the right invokes Jesus’s name and authority while structurally inverting or discarding the actual content of his teaching (wealth, the poor, enemies, outsiders), and that what’s actually being protected is a cultural/political Rightwing identity that borrows Christian branding.
There’s real textual ammunition for this. The specific things attributed to Jesus in the gospels — sell what you have and give to the poor, blessed are the poor, woe to the rich, love your enemies, the parable of the sheep and goats (judged on how you treated the hungry, the stranger, the imprisoned) — sit uncomfortably next to policy positions like cutting welfare, hostility to immigrants/refugees, and wealth accumulation as virtue. Reinhold Niebuhr, and more recently figures like the “Christians Against Christian Nationalism” coalition, William Barber, or even Pope Francis’s critiques of unfettered capitalism, have made versions of this exact argument from inside Christianity.
But I want to give you the strongest version of the other side too, since that’s the fair way to handle this:
- The right has its own internally coherent theological reading, not just a cynical costume. Concepts like subsidiarity (charity should be personal/local/church-based, not state-coerced), a reading of “the poor you will always have with you” as anti-utopian, natural law framing on sexuality and family, and a distinction between individual charity (commanded) and state redistribution (not commanded, and possibly a category error) — these aren’t ad hoc, they’re a real, old strand of Christian political theology (Aquinas, Catholic social teaching’s subsidiarity principle, certain Reformed traditions). They’d say the left is the one flattening “love thy neighbor” into “vote for welfare state,” which they’d argue Jesus never actually prescribed.
- “Outgroup” cuts both ways in the text itself. Jesus’s teaching includes both radical inclusion (Samaritans, tax collectors, prostitutes) and sharp boundary-drawing (woe to the Pharisees, the narrow gate, “I did not come to bring peace but a sword,” division within families). Both left and right selectively foreground the parts that fit.
- This is a contested hermeneutical fight, not a settled fact — which side is “really” heretical to Jesus’s teaching depends on which reading of a 2,000-year-old text, translated and recontextualized many times, you take as authoritative. Historians of religion would say both the Christian left and Christian right are doing selective retrieval, just selecting different verses.
So I’d say your critique lands as a genuine and well-supported theological argument within Christianity — one many Christians themselves make forcefully against the religious right. But it’s an argument, not a knockdown proof, because the other side has centuries of its own doctrinal scaffolding, not just bad faith. Worth knowing that if you want to make this case persuasively (e.g., to Riemenschneider’s audience) rather than just to people who already agree with you, you’ll get further engaging their actual theology (subsidiarity, natural law) than asserting they’ve simply abandoned Jesus.
Leave a Reply