how can we even be anarchocapitalists under any sort of government. how is it possible to even try when it’s impossible in the state. why does anyone have hope for this ideology. i really thought i got it when i was like 15 but there’s no point, even libertarians are getting fucked. there’s not enough of us to fuck up the govenment so why try
also why do we all draw her with dollars and not bits, she’s a horse people
also also please post her more here, makeshift ancap pone thread
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
107 replies and 27 files omitted.
>>389748
>why does anyone have hope for this ideology
Because it is a fallacy. It looks cool but it is not practical.
Ancap is suited for (((hustlers))) not for the common man. Also you have the issue of personal safety and having a gun might be not enough, then hiring a militia follows and it is 100% sure will end up in a war like the narco-cartels in Mexico.
>why does anyone have hope for this ideology
Because it is a fallacy. It looks cool but it is not practical.
Ancap is suited for (((hustlers))) not for the common man. Also you have the issue of personal safety and having a gun might be not enough, then hiring a militia follows and it is 100% sure will end up in a war like the narco-cartels in Mexico.
>>389752
why do we even care about extremist ideals if the government is so cucked by the moderates. i used to get off to ayn rand and still love objectivist ideas but why even try. we will never really see any of these in our goverment
why do we even care about extremist ideals if the government is so cucked by the moderates. i used to get off to ayn rand and still love objectivist ideas but why even try. we will never really see any of these in our goverment
>>389812
>the government is so cucked by the moderates
>moderates
This is over the top gaslighting and an inversion of reality.
You live in the 1984 novel, for real.
>the government is so cucked by the moderates
>moderates
This is over the top gaslighting and an inversion of reality.
You live in the 1984 novel, for real.
>>389748
If you reach for the stars, you may not get one, but you won't end up with a handful of shit either.
If you reach for the stars, you may not get one, but you won't end up with a handful of shit either.
>>389836
If there is anything a non-conformist hates more than a conformist, it is a non-conformist who refuses to conform to the prevailing standards of non-conformity.
If there is anything a non-conformist hates more than a conformist, it is a non-conformist who refuses to conform to the prevailing standards of non-conformity.
>>389748
>what's the point of terrorism
You're from tel aviv aren't you
You will never guess if I cheered on Brenton tarrant, you'll never fund out
>what's the point of terrorism
You're from tel aviv aren't you
You will never guess if I cheered on Brenton tarrant, you'll never fund out
>>389751
If you could breed a slave race, you could breed a population suitable for ancap. With the right genetics and technology, ancap could naturally evolve, and be sustained.
I recon ancap will be the ultimate direction human societies travel towards. But I expect (due to dysgenic cycle of civilization) it’ll take many thousands of years.
If you could breed a slave race, you could breed a population suitable for ancap. With the right genetics and technology, ancap could naturally evolve, and be sustained.
I recon ancap will be the ultimate direction human societies travel towards. But I expect (due to dysgenic cycle of civilization) it’ll take many thousands of years.
>>389841
>If you could breed a slave race, you could breed a population suitable for ancap.
It's the opposite, it's the most high-trust, intelligent, hierarchical, individualistic populations that are most suited to create and maintain a legal-social order based in property and personal rights and responsibilities. This is why Anglo-Saxons and their biological and geographical neighbors, such as in France, were so influential in developing the liberal ideals which would form the basis of ancap (see John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari), and why they enjoyed so much of the success of liberal capitalism. Of course, these same liberal ideals, such as individualism and rule of law, were exploited when groups who didn't share them were let in. The Hoppean/paleolibertarian/national-libertarian trends within ancap are a reaction to this fact, coming to terms with the need to limit individualism and have a degree of tribalism and standards of behavior if you want to keep a society which aligns with libertarian ethics.
>If you could breed a slave race, you could breed a population suitable for ancap.
It's the opposite, it's the most high-trust, intelligent, hierarchical, individualistic populations that are most suited to create and maintain a legal-social order based in property and personal rights and responsibilities. This is why Anglo-Saxons and their biological and geographical neighbors, such as in France, were so influential in developing the liberal ideals which would form the basis of ancap (see John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari), and why they enjoyed so much of the success of liberal capitalism. Of course, these same liberal ideals, such as individualism and rule of law, were exploited when groups who didn't share them were let in. The Hoppean/paleolibertarian/national-libertarian trends within ancap are a reaction to this fact, coming to terms with the need to limit individualism and have a degree of tribalism and standards of behavior if you want to keep a society which aligns with libertarian ethics.
>>389889
not that Anon, but the anglos and french where the only two global powers to exert individuality towards the inhabitants of their colonial progeny.
And it makes even more sense when you notice the only ones who adopted that way of life were predominantly of western European origin.
America, Canada with Quebec, Australia and New Zealand.
All of the francophone countries in Africa and South Asia are defacto dictatorships with very low societal trust.
not that Anon, but the anglos and french where the only two global powers to exert individuality towards the inhabitants of their colonial progeny.
And it makes even more sense when you notice the only ones who adopted that way of life were predominantly of western European origin.
America, Canada with Quebec, Australia and New Zealand.
All of the francophone countries in Africa and South Asia are defacto dictatorships with very low societal trust.
>>389889
>Of course, these same liberal ideals, such as individualism and rule of law, were exploited when groups who didn't share them were let in.
This would probably be why.
>Of course, these same liberal ideals, such as individualism and rule of law, were exploited when groups who didn't share them were let in.
This would probably be why.
>>390193
Sometimes it is, but sometimes it is just the result of purity spiralling to the point of retardation. Look at communists or flat earthers.
Sometimes it is, but sometimes it is just the result of purity spiralling to the point of retardation. Look at communists or flat earthers.
>>390198
>communists
You can't deny that retarded convictions are still convictions, but I get your point. Having strong beliefs on something doesn't necessarily mean you're right, and I would definitely push a soft-skinned neocon and a temperature-IQ commie off the same helicopter.
>or flat earthers
I'd go out with these dudes for a pint tbh.
>>390218
Extremely based.
>communists
You can't deny that retarded convictions are still convictions, but I get your point. Having strong beliefs on something doesn't necessarily mean you're right, and I would definitely push a soft-skinned neocon and a temperature-IQ commie off the same helicopter.
>or flat earthers
I'd go out with these dudes for a pint tbh.
>>390218
Extremely based.
>>389751
I agree. It will result in war. Hatred, nepotism, cronyism...all the same. The government as it is now and how people suffer under it. Sates my antipathy.
Moreover
>then hiring a militia follows and it is 100% sure will end up in a war like the narco-cartels in Mexico.
Those beaners can die. Makes me wanna kill some random beaner on the street thinking about them. (Cuz 1/3 beaners have some kind of tie to them.
I agree. It will result in war. Hatred, nepotism, cronyism...all the same. The government as it is now and how people suffer under it. Sates my antipathy.
Moreover
>then hiring a militia follows and it is 100% sure will end up in a war like the narco-cartels in Mexico.
Those beaners can die. Makes me wanna kill some random beaner on the street thinking about them. (Cuz 1/3 beaners have some kind of tie to them.
>>390241
>You can't deny that retarded convictions are still convictions
True, but this doesn't touch on the purity spiralling element. Look at how often communities splinter and have sectarian fueds over who is the most ideologically pure. NatSocs also pull this shit and I expect it will only become more common on the rest of the far right as the overton window shifts and more normies turn. You can already see this with some of the schizo retards on the rest of the right. You can literally agree with them on 99% of their policy choices (White only immigration, remove kikes, end feminism, ect) but if you don't believe this or that conspiracy they view you as disloyal. At that point it isn't about convictions it's about proving to other how moral and just you are. Just like the marxists.
>You can't deny that retarded convictions are still convictions
True, but this doesn't touch on the purity spiralling element. Look at how often communities splinter and have sectarian fueds over who is the most ideologically pure. NatSocs also pull this shit and I expect it will only become more common on the rest of the far right as the overton window shifts and more normies turn. You can already see this with some of the schizo retards on the rest of the right. You can literally agree with them on 99% of their policy choices (White only immigration, remove kikes, end feminism, ect) but if you don't believe this or that conspiracy they view you as disloyal. At that point it isn't about convictions it's about proving to other how moral and just you are. Just like the marxists.
>>389859
>France
I don't think the culture in the UK in the 18th Century was as similar to the culture of France at that time than you think.
In the Americas, in the late 18th Century, Englishmen, with the enthusiastic assistance of almost-English Scots and Irish Protestants, created and carried out a successful separatist movement (no. not a revolution. there is a significant difference.) in order to gain independence and sovereignty, to establish a new social order, a government of laws, not a government of men. Right around the same time, in France, Frenchmen waged a war, outwardly similar, with the oft-stated goal of creating a government of laws, not a government of men.
You may have noticed that these two undertakings did not turn out the same. We got the Constitution and about a century and a half of mostly benevolent, mostly libertarian-ish, mostly open and transparent government. The French got a fifteen-year-long bloodbath, which lasted right up until Napoleon appeared on the scene, on horseback, and invented fascism.
If their culture and ours are that similar, I would have thought that a popular uprising in the name of reclaiming sovereignty and rights from a decayed, corrupt aristocracy would have turned out similarly. I have heard it blamed on personalities. We got Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They got Robespierre and Saint-Just. But how is it that the War for Independence in the North American colonies got so many brilliant, heroic, courageous, selfless men, the finest minds of their generation, to act as its leaders, but the French got a bunch of cackling homicidal maniacs? And the French aristocrats they guillotined were little better; more than one count and duke in southern France was found to have kept scrupulous records of the bribes he'd accepted from the Barbary Pirates to allow them to raid coastal towns for slaves, and indeed the Kings of France had formal treaties of alliance with the Sultan of Byzantium, to whom the Barbary Pirates owed at least nominal allegiance, for two hundred and fifty years. To say "well, that's just the way the dice rolled" is to beg the question.
I think the French, and by that I mean the indigenous wypipo of what is now France, a people of common birth, language, and culture, are very, very, VERY different from us in many of their attitudes and the way they view the world. I don't think it comes down to something as simpleminded as religion, either. I don't think Catholicism made them uniquely corrupt and wicked. And to say "it's genetic" is glib. I can pose the questions but I have no final answers.
>France
I don't think the culture in the UK in the 18th Century was as similar to the culture of France at that time than you think.
In the Americas, in the late 18th Century, Englishmen, with the enthusiastic assistance of almost-English Scots and Irish Protestants, created and carried out a successful separatist movement (no. not a revolution. there is a significant difference.) in order to gain independence and sovereignty, to establish a new social order, a government of laws, not a government of men. Right around the same time, in France, Frenchmen waged a war, outwardly similar, with the oft-stated goal of creating a government of laws, not a government of men.
You may have noticed that these two undertakings did not turn out the same. We got the Constitution and about a century and a half of mostly benevolent, mostly libertarian-ish, mostly open and transparent government. The French got a fifteen-year-long bloodbath, which lasted right up until Napoleon appeared on the scene, on horseback, and invented fascism.
If their culture and ours are that similar, I would have thought that a popular uprising in the name of reclaiming sovereignty and rights from a decayed, corrupt aristocracy would have turned out similarly. I have heard it blamed on personalities. We got Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They got Robespierre and Saint-Just. But how is it that the War for Independence in the North American colonies got so many brilliant, heroic, courageous, selfless men, the finest minds of their generation, to act as its leaders, but the French got a bunch of cackling homicidal maniacs? And the French aristocrats they guillotined were little better; more than one count and duke in southern France was found to have kept scrupulous records of the bribes he'd accepted from the Barbary Pirates to allow them to raid coastal towns for slaves, and indeed the Kings of France had formal treaties of alliance with the Sultan of Byzantium, to whom the Barbary Pirates owed at least nominal allegiance, for two hundred and fifty years. To say "well, that's just the way the dice rolled" is to beg the question.
I think the French, and by that I mean the indigenous wypipo of what is now France, a people of common birth, language, and culture, are very, very, VERY different from us in many of their attitudes and the way they view the world. I don't think it comes down to something as simpleminded as religion, either. I don't think Catholicism made them uniquely corrupt and wicked. And to say "it's genetic" is glib. I can pose the questions but I have no final answers.
All you lolberts have to do is have balls to enact some policy, ANY policy. As far as my normalfag ass is concerned, the best libertarian/ancap guy is Rand Paul, and he's been too busy doing fuck all for most of my pitiful existence. Do not correct me, you know that's the sentiment out there.
>>395680
Well, kinda you may have a point. I suppose that's the reason many moved from Ancap to Natsoc.
Well, kinda you may have a point. I suppose that's the reason many moved from Ancap to Natsoc.
>>389812
>why do we even care about extremist ideals if the government is so cucked by the moderates
Extremism means recognizing that the status quo is completely fucked, and wanting to replace it to change society for the better. It's more about recognition than realism.
>>389826
They're moderates because they are the status quo. The status quo just happens to want to kill you.
>why do we even care about extremist ideals if the government is so cucked by the moderates
Extremism means recognizing that the status quo is completely fucked, and wanting to replace it to change society for the better. It's more about recognition than realism.
>>389826
They're moderates because they are the status quo. The status quo just happens to want to kill you.
>>395680
>All you lolberts have to do is have balls to enact some policy, ANY policy.
see NH if you're interested in lolberts running the government
>All you lolberts have to do is have balls to enact some policy, ANY policy.
see NH if you're interested in lolberts running the government
1754621434.png (512.5 KB, 1350x1416, lolbertarianism is a midwit ideology.png)
>>395680
Lolbertarians are lolbertarians because they make a virtue of their cowardice. They have all these idealistic plans, and plan #1 is "let's not enforce any rules of any kind for anything anywhere. NO GODS NO MASTERS NO BORDERS, THE ONLY COLOR I CARE ABOUT IS GREEN!!!!1111oneoneeleven" We had that a hundred years ago. The path from there to Clown World is not difficult to trace. Like Marxism-Leninism it is a midwit ideology created and propagated by people who have the horrible combination of autism and strongly held opinions about things they don't understand and don't understand that they don't understand, starting with human nature. I like their utopia a lot more than I like the commies' utopia, because it isn't built on nearly as many mass graves. But, ultimately, both their visions for a better world require it to be inhabited by a very, very different species, one that does not exist.
Lolbertarians are lolbertarians because they make a virtue of their cowardice. They have all these idealistic plans, and plan #1 is "let's not enforce any rules of any kind for anything anywhere. NO GODS NO MASTERS NO BORDERS, THE ONLY COLOR I CARE ABOUT IS GREEN!!!!1111oneoneeleven" We had that a hundred years ago. The path from there to Clown World is not difficult to trace. Like Marxism-Leninism it is a midwit ideology created and propagated by people who have the horrible combination of autism and strongly held opinions about things they don't understand and don't understand that they don't understand, starting with human nature. I like their utopia a lot more than I like the commies' utopia, because it isn't built on nearly as many mass graves. But, ultimately, both their visions for a better world require it to be inhabited by a very, very different species, one that does not exist.
>>395685
>"let's not enforce any rules of any kind for anything anywhere.
you enforce "rules" by physically removing the violators (dissociation for "victimless crimes" of degeneracy and justified violence for violation of natural rights)
>NO GODS NO MASTERS
Hierarchy is natural
Use of violence to establish one is evil
>NO BORDERS,
Private property requires borders (e.g. lock on your door)
>THE ONLY COLOR I CARE ABOUT IS GREEN!!!!1111oneoneeleven"
We care about colors of gold and black
>"let's not enforce any rules of any kind for anything anywhere.
you enforce "rules" by physically removing the violators (dissociation for "victimless crimes" of degeneracy and justified violence for violation of natural rights)
>NO GODS NO MASTERS
Hierarchy is natural
Use of violence to establish one is evil
>NO BORDERS,
Private property requires borders (e.g. lock on your door)
>THE ONLY COLOR I CARE ABOUT IS GREEN!!!!1111oneoneeleven"
We care about colors of gold and black
>>395686
In theory libertarianism is great, but, it won't work as it will degenerate into who can pay a stronger militia; in other words, it will degenerate into warlords' rule.
In theory libertarianism is great, but, it won't work as it will degenerate into who can pay a stronger militia; in other words, it will degenerate into warlords' rule.
>>395686
All authority and all hierarchy are based on force. No exceptions.
>>395689
This. It was observed before anyone here was born that without government regulation, the "free market" always peddles human flesh, literally, figuratively, or both. Lolbertarians don't want to think about slave raids, or cannibal banksters buying infants to carve up. "Gotta get muh adenochrome! Gotta get muh stem cell therapy to make muh dick bigger! Doncha like muh CAPITALISMS, boy? Is you some kinda RED?"
All authority and all hierarchy are based on force. No exceptions.
>>395689
This. It was observed before anyone here was born that without government regulation, the "free market" always peddles human flesh, literally, figuratively, or both. Lolbertarians don't want to think about slave raids, or cannibal banksters buying infants to carve up. "Gotta get muh adenochrome! Gotta get muh stem cell therapy to make muh dick bigger! Doncha like muh CAPITALISMS, boy? Is you some kinda RED?"
>>395689
Your statement is true for a society that is degenerate when it enters anarchy.
High-trust society with low time preference values will not fight itself in AnCap, because doing so is counterproductive: any private defense agency that dares to attack others will not only lose its trust and customers (as no sane man would want to buy their protection service), but will also be attacked by other private defense agencies (as other militias would obviously want to gain additional trust by fighting an objectively evil group).
Low-trust society with degenerate high time preference values doesn't care about reputation, so aggression isn't a death sentence for anyone who performs it.
AnCap is possible but not with members of Romani people.
>>395691
>All authority and all hierarchy are based on force
I said "violence", not force
Anyone can participate in volunteer hierarchy by finding a job, obeying its management and receiving rewards for labor they give to the employer. No violence is necessary for this to work
>It was observed before anyone here was born that without government regulation, the "free market" always peddles human flesh, literally, figuratively, or both
[citation needed]
Every time one argues that "free market results in inhuman evil" they always bring up situations where state interference is still prevalent. Institution of slavery, for example, could only exist because the state forced its citizens into involuntary servitude of cooperating with search and return of fugitive slaves.
Your statement is true for a society that is degenerate when it enters anarchy.
High-trust society with low time preference values will not fight itself in AnCap, because doing so is counterproductive: any private defense agency that dares to attack others will not only lose its trust and customers (as no sane man would want to buy their protection service), but will also be attacked by other private defense agencies (as other militias would obviously want to gain additional trust by fighting an objectively evil group).
Low-trust society with degenerate high time preference values doesn't care about reputation, so aggression isn't a death sentence for anyone who performs it.
AnCap is possible but not with members of Romani people.
>>395691
>All authority and all hierarchy are based on force
I said "violence", not force
Anyone can participate in volunteer hierarchy by finding a job, obeying its management and receiving rewards for labor they give to the employer. No violence is necessary for this to work
>It was observed before anyone here was born that without government regulation, the "free market" always peddles human flesh, literally, figuratively, or both
[citation needed]
Every time one argues that "free market results in inhuman evil" they always bring up situations where state interference is still prevalent. Institution of slavery, for example, could only exist because the state forced its citizens into involuntary servitude of cooperating with search and return of fugitive slaves.
>>395698
>High-trust society with low time preference values will not fight itself in AnCap
Ahem, human nature says otherwise. People behave better when kind words are backed with the barrel of a gun.
>High-trust society with low time preference values will not fight itself in AnCap
Ahem, human nature says otherwise. People behave better when kind words are backed with the barrel of a gun.
>>395698
>AnCap is possible but not with members of Romani people.
Let's kill all the Jews and niggers and troons first, and then we can talk about this "high trust society".
>Anyone can participate in volunteer hierarchy by finding a job, obeying its management and receiving rewards for labor they give to the employer. No violence is necessary for this to work
That requires property. Property rights are enforced with violence. This is how it had always been.
>where state interference is still prevalent
This is the libertarian equivalent to "but it wasn't real communism!"
>could only exist because the state forced its citizens into involuntary servitude of cooperating with search and return of fugitive slaves
No. We had slaves since before the fugitive slave act. We've had slavery for at least 12k years since agriculture turned human labor into a scarce commodity.
Anyone with sufficient violence could imprison and enslave you if nobody stops them.
>AnCap is possible but not with members of Romani people.
Let's kill all the Jews and niggers and troons first, and then we can talk about this "high trust society".
>Anyone can participate in volunteer hierarchy by finding a job, obeying its management and receiving rewards for labor they give to the employer. No violence is necessary for this to work
That requires property. Property rights are enforced with violence. This is how it had always been.
>where state interference is still prevalent
This is the libertarian equivalent to "but it wasn't real communism!"
>could only exist because the state forced its citizens into involuntary servitude of cooperating with search and return of fugitive slaves
No. We had slaves since before the fugitive slave act. We've had slavery for at least 12k years since agriculture turned human labor into a scarce commodity.
Anyone with sufficient violence could imprison and enslave you if nobody stops them.
>>395698
>Institution of slavery
An institution as old as humanity that you portrait as oppressive but many dispute that because slaves were take of and were given a purpose in life, to serve their masters through their work.
>involuntary servitude
Well, here is the case of private property as slaves where indeed property and as well women. You see, it is all about if the time line has been contaminated with the "equality" trope.
>Institution of slavery
An institution as old as humanity that you portrait as oppressive but many dispute that because slaves were take of and were given a purpose in life, to serve their masters through their work.
>involuntary servitude
Well, here is the case of private property as slaves where indeed property and as well women. You see, it is all about if the time line has been contaminated with the "equality" trope.
>>395701
>involuntary servitude
Also, slavery is a choice. There is no way to keep alive an individual who will fight for his freedom.
>involuntary servitude
Also, slavery is a choice. There is no way to keep alive an individual who will fight for his freedom.
>>395703
All you have to do is abuse them until they no longer fight back or have hope to escape. It's not hard.
All you have to do is abuse them until they no longer fight back or have hope to escape. It's not hard.
>>395704
>until they no longer fight back or have hope to escape
It is what I said. Stress and a broken soul is not app for freedom. Anyway, millions of Whites were taken slaves by the Muslims in the middle ages, and to put it bluntly, it was their choice.
>until they no longer fight back or have hope to escape
It is what I said. Stress and a broken soul is not app for freedom. Anyway, millions of Whites were taken slaves by the Muslims in the middle ages, and to put it bluntly, it was their choice.
>>395706
Gotta an modern example? I know the muslim rap sheet in Europe and how the Crusades were launched to stop that.
Gotta an modern example? I know the muslim rap sheet in Europe and how the Crusades were launched to stop that.
>>395700
>Let's kill all the Jews and niggers and troons first, and then we can talk about this "high trust society".
Well yeah you do need homogeneous society to achieve high social trust
Genocide is not necessary though, physical removal is fine.
>That requires property. Property rights are enforced with violence. This is how it had always been.
I was wondering if I should've included
>(unless, of course, you believe that property is violence)
and it appears that I've made a mistake by omitting this statement.
You own yourself. You own labor of your body. You own goods produced by your labor.
Things you own require force to protect them, but force becomes violent when and only when it is used for aggression, not when one defends himself and/or his belongings.
Believing otherwise results in you "violently" rejecting working in kolkhoz during another Soviet famine or "violently" controlling "public" kidney that some bum needs to survive.
>>395703
>Also, slavery is a choice
At this point I'm just leaving this meaningless conversation
>Let's kill all the Jews and niggers and troons first, and then we can talk about this "high trust society".
Well yeah you do need homogeneous society to achieve high social trust
Genocide is not necessary though, physical removal is fine.
>That requires property. Property rights are enforced with violence. This is how it had always been.
I was wondering if I should've included
>(unless, of course, you believe that property is violence)
and it appears that I've made a mistake by omitting this statement.
You own yourself. You own labor of your body. You own goods produced by your labor.
Things you own require force to protect them, but force becomes violent when and only when it is used for aggression, not when one defends himself and/or his belongings.
Believing otherwise results in you "violently" rejecting working in kolkhoz during another Soviet famine or "violently" controlling "public" kidney that some bum needs to survive.
>>395703
>Also, slavery is a choice
At this point I'm just leaving this meaningless conversation
>>395710
>At this point I'm just leaving this meaningless conversation
I understand. There is not possible rebuttal to that.
>At this point I'm just leaving this meaningless conversation
I understand. There is not possible rebuttal to that.
Muh slavery.
There is a reason why this mutt historical point is hammered over and over again.
There is a reason why this mutt historical point is hammered over and over again.
>>395709
NTA, but if you're for example from some ghetto and your parents suck, it may not be up to you if they decide to whore their daughter out in the streets for meth
then, looking at some shithole countries like India, marriage is also decided by parents when their kids hit adolescence
yes, you can fight back, you always can. but how can you fight when you were raised in such way that you don't know how to?
NTA, but if you're for example from some ghetto and your parents suck, it may not be up to you if they decide to whore their daughter out in the streets for meth
then, looking at some shithole countries like India, marriage is also decided by parents when their kids hit adolescence
yes, you can fight back, you always can. but how can you fight when you were raised in such way that you don't know how to?
>>395713
Dude, this is White Land. Gotta any significant example on White People? Epstein's mini operation doesn't count as is negligible.
Dude, this is White Land. Gotta any significant example on White People? Epstein's mini operation doesn't count as is negligible.
>>395713
Arranged marriage is extremely, extremely, extremely based. In the West it was the norm until very recently, historically speaking. Foids are mental and emotional children all their lives. In the West we spoiled them by giving them all the autonomy they said they wanted. Now they're bitter fat miserable cat ladies with tiny apartments and grotesque tattoos. Spoiling children results in spoiled children behaving like spoiled children, in other words, and what we have done has consequences on a civilizational scale. The birthrate has completely cratered.
Arranged marriage is extremely, extremely, extremely based. In the West it was the norm until very recently, historically speaking. Foids are mental and emotional children all their lives. In the West we spoiled them by giving them all the autonomy they said they wanted. Now they're bitter fat miserable cat ladies with tiny apartments and grotesque tattoos. Spoiling children results in spoiled children behaving like spoiled children, in other words, and what we have done has consequences on a civilizational scale. The birthrate has completely cratered.
>>395710
>Well yeah you do need homogeneous society to achieve high social trust
Sure, but you do need to remove subversives, savages and parasites.
>Genocide is not necessary though, physical removal is fine.
Perhaps in the short term, but in the long term they become someone else's problem, and eventually your problem again. They've been doing this for 4000 years.
>You own yourself. You own labor of your body. You own goods produced by your labor.
All of those things can be stolen from you by a person who decides that they own you and the violence to enforce that.
>force becomes violent when and only when it is used for aggression, not when one defends himself and/or his belongings
Maybe we just disagree on the definition of "violence". I do not consider violence to be synonymous with aggression, nor do I consider violence to be inherently bad.
>>395711
The rebuttal is that people can be deprived of autonomy and liberty through abuse, brainwashing, grooming, threats, hostage-taking and violence.
>>395712
>mutt historical point
Slavery didn't only happen in America. It has effected every race on every continent, and continues to this day.
>>395713
This.
>>395714
>Epstein's mini operation doesn't count as is negligible.
How does a cabal of powerful people enslaving children for sex negligible?
>Gotta any significant example on White People?
Bro, I live in Florida, one of biggest hubs in the country for victims of human trafficking. There's some 500,000 reported victims of labor trafficking, and 200,000 reported victims of sex trafficking (most of which are children). Of those, at least 27% are reported to be white, which is more than a quarter of them. Slavery affects white people too.
And that's just the state I live in.
>>395722
>Arranged marriage is extremely, extremely, extremely based.
Not when the bride is a nine year old girl who was kidnapped from her home to be the sex pet of a disgusting 47 year old pervert.
>In the West it was the norm until very recently, historically speaking.
So was literally kidnapping them from their families to take them as brides. That doesn't make it good.
>Well yeah you do need homogeneous society to achieve high social trust
Sure, but you do need to remove subversives, savages and parasites.
>Genocide is not necessary though, physical removal is fine.
Perhaps in the short term, but in the long term they become someone else's problem, and eventually your problem again. They've been doing this for 4000 years.
>You own yourself. You own labor of your body. You own goods produced by your labor.
All of those things can be stolen from you by a person who decides that they own you and the violence to enforce that.
>force becomes violent when and only when it is used for aggression, not when one defends himself and/or his belongings
Maybe we just disagree on the definition of "violence". I do not consider violence to be synonymous with aggression, nor do I consider violence to be inherently bad.
>>395711
The rebuttal is that people can be deprived of autonomy and liberty through abuse, brainwashing, grooming, threats, hostage-taking and violence.
>>395712
>mutt historical point
Slavery didn't only happen in America. It has effected every race on every continent, and continues to this day.
>>395713
This.
>>395714
>Epstein's mini operation doesn't count as is negligible.
How does a cabal of powerful people enslaving children for sex negligible?
>Gotta any significant example on White People?
Bro, I live in Florida, one of biggest hubs in the country for victims of human trafficking. There's some 500,000 reported victims of labor trafficking, and 200,000 reported victims of sex trafficking (most of which are children). Of those, at least 27% are reported to be white, which is more than a quarter of them. Slavery affects white people too.
And that's just the state I live in.
>>395722
>Arranged marriage is extremely, extremely, extremely based.
Not when the bride is a nine year old girl who was kidnapped from her home to be the sex pet of a disgusting 47 year old pervert.
>In the West it was the norm until very recently, historically speaking.
So was literally kidnapping them from their families to take them as brides. That doesn't make it good.
>>395701
>An institution as old as humanity that you portrait as oppressive but many dispute that because slaves were take of and were given a purpose in life, to serve their masters through their work.
I disagree with the premise that serving someone else through work is a fulfilling purpose in life, especially when it's involuntary.
>Well, here is the case of private property as slaves where indeed property and as well women. You see, it is all about if the time line has been contaminated with the "equality" trope.
Are you arguing for AnCap, or against it?
You denounced libertarianism in the other post, but you also seem to be pro-slavery. What is your point?
>An institution as old as humanity that you portrait as oppressive but many dispute that because slaves were take of and were given a purpose in life, to serve their masters through their work.
I disagree with the premise that serving someone else through work is a fulfilling purpose in life, especially when it's involuntary.
>Well, here is the case of private property as slaves where indeed property and as well women. You see, it is all about if the time line has been contaminated with the "equality" trope.
Are you arguing for AnCap, or against it?
You denounced libertarianism in the other post, but you also seem to be pro-slavery. What is your point?
1754671114.jpg (5.6 MB, 4452x6768, Rape_of_Prosepina_September_2015-3a.jpg)
>>395727
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping
See the embedded sources.
Answer the other questions, faggot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping
See the embedded sources.
Answer the other questions, faggot.
>>395729
>article lists historical allegations against the Vikings, the truth of which is difficult to verify at a remove of a thousand years or more
>"oh, also Gypsies did it hundreds of years ago! And maybe a remote tribe in Uzbekistan!"
>plus stories, equally poorly attested, of cannibal tribesmen of the Americas, and the H'mong
>and Etruscans during the Bronze Age
>ooh! ooh! someone accused the Mormons of it!
>"however, accurate information is difficult to obtain from these closed communities"
I stopped reading there. It was a really nice red herring, though. I'm still trying to figure out what any of this has to do with arranged marriages, in which no one is kidnapped by Jivaro cannibals in the dark of the night.
>article lists historical allegations against the Vikings, the truth of which is difficult to verify at a remove of a thousand years or more
>"oh, also Gypsies did it hundreds of years ago! And maybe a remote tribe in Uzbekistan!"
>plus stories, equally poorly attested, of cannibal tribesmen of the Americas, and the H'mong
>and Etruscans during the Bronze Age
>ooh! ooh! someone accused the Mormons of it!
>"however, accurate information is difficult to obtain from these closed communities"
I stopped reading there. It was a really nice red herring, though. I'm still trying to figure out what any of this has to do with arranged marriages, in which no one is kidnapped by Jivaro cannibals in the dark of the night.
>>389748
Extreme problems require extreme solutions. That said whatever your position is you shouldn't alienate potential allies with your positions.
Extreme problems require extreme solutions. That said whatever your position is you shouldn't alienate potential allies with your positions.
>>395751
>defends kikes, gypsies, and offshoot judeo-shitstains
>forgets to mention cathocucks, (((puritans))), scientologists
Show your real flag.
>defends kikes, gypsies, and offshoot judeo-shitstains
>forgets to mention cathocucks, (((puritans))), scientologists
Show your real flag.
>>395755
Just put the fries in the bag, bro.
>>395760
Who's defending? I read the article and copied and pasted a few snippets from it, which don't support his claims. And his claims are irrelevant, anyway, because they were an attempt to change the subject. Arranged marriage != bride kidnapping. Bride kidnapping != arranged marriage. They are two different things. They don't have anything to do with one another. This is called the "red herring" approach to debate. It's something midwit Plebbit trash do, and calling them on it whenever they crawl out of their hugbox to try to pull that bullshit in a place like this is a moral obligation. It's also fun.
Just put the fries in the bag, bro.
>>395760
Who's defending? I read the article and copied and pasted a few snippets from it, which don't support his claims. And his claims are irrelevant, anyway, because they were an attempt to change the subject. Arranged marriage != bride kidnapping. Bride kidnapping != arranged marriage. They are two different things. They don't have anything to do with one another. This is called the "red herring" approach to debate. It's something midwit Plebbit trash do, and calling them on it whenever they crawl out of their hugbox to try to pull that bullshit in a place like this is a moral obligation. It's also fun.
>>395921
>Just put the fries in the bag, bro.
What is that supposed to mean?
>Arranged marriage != bride kidnapping. Bride kidnapping != arranged marriage.
Nobody said that.
The point is that both go back a long time in history, countering the point that just because something has been done history makes it inherently good. Appeal to tradition is in itself a logical fallacy.
>This is called the "red herring" approach to debate.
If you think it's a red herring, you clearly didn't understand the argument. It was an example to contradict your logic.
>It's something midwit Plebbit trash do, and calling them on it whenever they crawl out of their hugbox to try to pull that bullshit in a place like this is a moral obligation.
And now you're just resorting to ad hominem.
>>395760
You are not using sage correctly.
>Just put the fries in the bag, bro.
What is that supposed to mean?
>Arranged marriage != bride kidnapping. Bride kidnapping != arranged marriage.
Nobody said that.
The point is that both go back a long time in history, countering the point that just because something has been done history makes it inherently good. Appeal to tradition is in itself a logical fallacy.
>This is called the "red herring" approach to debate.
If you think it's a red herring, you clearly didn't understand the argument. It was an example to contradict your logic.
>It's something midwit Plebbit trash do, and calling them on it whenever they crawl out of their hugbox to try to pull that bullshit in a place like this is a moral obligation.
And now you're just resorting to ad hominem.
>>395760
You are not using sage correctly.
>>389748
anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, capitalism requires the enforcement of private property to keep the means of production out of the hands of the workers who will be subjugated by wage slavery, and for the benefit of the capitalist class who passively extracts the surplus value of labor from work they didn't do. capitalism is not just "the market", there are markets in socialism, and were markets even before money itself. profit is theft from the worker, capitalism is slavery. you can't "anarcho" capitalism any more than you can "anarcho" monarchy, they're fundamentally about unjust hierarchies.
anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, capitalism requires the enforcement of private property to keep the means of production out of the hands of the workers who will be subjugated by wage slavery, and for the benefit of the capitalist class who passively extracts the surplus value of labor from work they didn't do. capitalism is not just "the market", there are markets in socialism, and were markets even before money itself. profit is theft from the worker, capitalism is slavery. you can't "anarcho" capitalism any more than you can "anarcho" monarchy, they're fundamentally about unjust hierarchies.
>>397378
That's why distributism is best. The problem with capitalism is that there aren't enough capitalists.
That's why distributism is best. The problem with capitalism is that there aren't enough capitalists.
>>397378
cool cia propaganda bro. obviously the workers owning the means of production instead of some ignorant capitalist who didn't do any of the work is just utopian fantasy starvation simulator don't think about it bro, trust me bro
cool cia propaganda bro. obviously the workers owning the means of production instead of some ignorant capitalist who didn't do any of the work is just utopian fantasy starvation simulator don't think about it bro, trust me bro
>>397439
Nice false dichotomy, commie.
I, personally, prefer the fascist approach, where private industry flourishes, but the industrial sector is kept in check through trade unions led by nationalist party leaders, with union workers who are educated to be nationally and racially conscious. That way kikes aren't allowed to amass economic power, and the private sector works in the interests of the nation.
Parallel but separate parts all facing the same way, stronger together.
Nice false dichotomy, commie.
I, personally, prefer the fascist approach, where private industry flourishes, but the industrial sector is kept in check through trade unions led by nationalist party leaders, with union workers who are educated to be nationally and racially conscious. That way kikes aren't allowed to amass economic power, and the private sector works in the interests of the nation.
Parallel but separate parts all facing the same way, stronger together.
>>397439
Unironically yeah. You fucking seen those commie countries? It was so bad that the only prospering commie country (China) made it by scrapping all the commie parts and only kept the control parts.
Unironically yeah. You fucking seen those commie countries? It was so bad that the only prospering commie country (China) made it by scrapping all the commie parts and only kept the control parts.
>>397441
fascist "unions" don't protect the worker at all, they protect the capitalist class from the worker by acting as a faux entity that prevents collective bargaining. there's zero difference between fascist economics and capitalism, because fascism is capitalism without the pretense of a bourgeois democracy that doesn't actually answer to the will of the people anyway. that's why the answer is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the people, not the capitalist class that just buys up every institution and politician. fascism isn't opposition to capitalism, it's the final form of capitalism, colonialism turned inward, full ownership of all people as property of the state run by the capitalist class.
fascist "unions" don't protect the worker at all, they protect the capitalist class from the worker by acting as a faux entity that prevents collective bargaining. there's zero difference between fascist economics and capitalism, because fascism is capitalism without the pretense of a bourgeois democracy that doesn't actually answer to the will of the people anyway. that's why the answer is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the people, not the capitalist class that just buys up every institution and politician. fascism isn't opposition to capitalism, it's the final form of capitalism, colonialism turned inward, full ownership of all people as property of the state run by the capitalist class.
>>397451
>fascist "unions" don't protect the worker at all, they protect the capitalist class from the worker by acting as a faux entity that prevents collective bargaining
A union of any kind is a tool for collective bargaining. What makes fascism work is that the collective action of the workers is reinforced by the powers of the state, so we can just shoot any kikes who mistreat their workers.
You argue that fascist unions aren't effective for collective bargaining, but there's no evidence to suggest that they were any less effective than those in socialist countries. Socialist countries in history had unions led by party members too, and were often just sockpuppets for the state.
>there's zero difference between fascist economics and capitalism, because fascism is capitalism
No, it really isn't. The point of fascism is to present a third option between socialism and capitalism. Fascism preserves the principles of competition and private enterprise, but also reigns in and restricts the powers of the bourgeois class for the benefit of the nation. Fascism creates unilateral solidarity so that freedom can be preserved without the state overstepping its bounds. The key aspect to fascism is corporatism, and fascism attains that through the incorporation of class-conscious, nationalist workers unions who are there for the purpose of making sure private businesses use their businesses for everyone's benefit, instead of letting them consolidate power and wealth at the nation's detriment.
You might have noticed that a lot of the fascist politicians in the 20th century were formerly members of socialist parties. They abandoned socialism for fascism because socialism doesn't work.
>without the pretense of a bourgeois democracy
Fascism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. The point of fascism is to have unilateral solidarity across state, industry, and culture, and for that popular support is necessary. You just think it's anti-democratic because you buy into the Hollywood's depiction of fascism.
> full ownership of all people as property of the state run by the capitalist class
Literally the opposite.
>fascist "unions" don't protect the worker at all, they protect the capitalist class from the worker by acting as a faux entity that prevents collective bargaining
A union of any kind is a tool for collective bargaining. What makes fascism work is that the collective action of the workers is reinforced by the powers of the state, so we can just shoot any kikes who mistreat their workers.
You argue that fascist unions aren't effective for collective bargaining, but there's no evidence to suggest that they were any less effective than those in socialist countries. Socialist countries in history had unions led by party members too, and were often just sockpuppets for the state.
>there's zero difference between fascist economics and capitalism, because fascism is capitalism
No, it really isn't. The point of fascism is to present a third option between socialism and capitalism. Fascism preserves the principles of competition and private enterprise, but also reigns in and restricts the powers of the bourgeois class for the benefit of the nation. Fascism creates unilateral solidarity so that freedom can be preserved without the state overstepping its bounds. The key aspect to fascism is corporatism, and fascism attains that through the incorporation of class-conscious, nationalist workers unions who are there for the purpose of making sure private businesses use their businesses for everyone's benefit, instead of letting them consolidate power and wealth at the nation's detriment.
You might have noticed that a lot of the fascist politicians in the 20th century were formerly members of socialist parties. They abandoned socialism for fascism because socialism doesn't work.
>without the pretense of a bourgeois democracy
Fascism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. The point of fascism is to have unilateral solidarity across state, industry, and culture, and for that popular support is necessary. You just think it's anti-democratic because you buy into the Hollywood's depiction of fascism.
> full ownership of all people as property of the state run by the capitalist class
Literally the opposite.
>>397456
>"it's not capitalism because my overlords who own me like cattle can shoot jews advocating for workers rights for all so i don't have to be a slave"
the rest of your post is rambling nonsense, fascism isn't third to anything - it's just the the final monopoly of capitalism over all institutions of state.
>"it's not capitalism because my overlords who own me like cattle can shoot jews advocating for workers rights for all so i don't have to be a slave"
the rest of your post is rambling nonsense, fascism isn't third to anything - it's just the the final monopoly of capitalism over all institutions of state.
>>397459
I don't really care what you call it. Fascism, socialism and capitalism aren't even mutually exclusive. You can have a fascist country with capitalist and socialist policies. I, for example, think that there should be at least a few social programs for healthcare, like they had in the Third Reich, although I may be biased in that because I have some chronic health problems.
>final monopoly
You have completely missed the point. Fascism is supposed to prevent monopolies. Maybe if you listened to actual fascists describe the definition of fascism, instead of whatever cartoonist supervillainy your commie propaganda tells you it is, you would understand why it was so popular in the first half of the 20th century, and how it might soon see a resurgence in the 21st century, as people like the idea of organized labor without the failures of socialism.
I don't really care what you call it. Fascism, socialism and capitalism aren't even mutually exclusive. You can have a fascist country with capitalist and socialist policies. I, for example, think that there should be at least a few social programs for healthcare, like they had in the Third Reich, although I may be biased in that because I have some chronic health problems.
>final monopoly
You have completely missed the point. Fascism is supposed to prevent monopolies. Maybe if you listened to actual fascists describe the definition of fascism, instead of whatever cartoonist supervillainy your commie propaganda tells you it is, you would understand why it was so popular in the first half of the 20th century, and how it might soon see a resurgence in the 21st century, as people like the idea of organized labor without the failures of socialism.
>>397465
you have chronic health problems and you advocate for eugenicist politics, are you mentally disabled too?
you have chronic health problems and you advocate for eugenicist politics, are you mentally disabled too?
>>397439
Name one real-world example of workers owning "the means of production" that hasn't ended in a complete clusterfuck where nothing of value is being produced and nobody owns anything. I'll wait.
Name one real-world example of workers owning "the means of production" that hasn't ended in a complete clusterfuck where nothing of value is being produced and nobody owns anything. I'll wait.
>>397467
>you advocate for eugenicist politics
I never mentioned anything about eugenics. Eugenics was more a product of the American positivist movement.
Fascism has nothing to do with eugenics. Fascism is primarily economic policy.
It's mostly leftists carrying the torch of the eugenics movement, with their antinatalism.
Also, my chronic health conditions are mostly due to a severe chemical lung injury when I was young, not genetic.
>you advocate for eugenicist politics
I never mentioned anything about eugenics. Eugenics was more a product of the American positivist movement.
Fascism has nothing to do with eugenics. Fascism is primarily economic policy.
It's mostly leftists carrying the torch of the eugenics movement, with their antinatalism.
Also, my chronic health conditions are mostly due to a severe chemical lung injury when I was young, not genetic.
>>397467
>you advocate for eugenicist politics
Eugenics is tribal and even racial prophylaxis. Its practice deserve praise and encouragement.
>you advocate for eugenicist politics
Eugenics is tribal and even racial prophylaxis. Its practice deserve praise and encouragement.
>>397518
That is a very unique method. I'm impressed by that company. Instead of wealth cap, there's a wage cap, such that an exec's pay is a strict ratio to the lower workers. That is actually a very agreeable idea, much better than the fucker in the dedicated distributist thread putting wealth caps on the table.
That is a very unique method. I'm impressed by that company. Instead of wealth cap, there's a wage cap, such that an exec's pay is a strict ratio to the lower workers. That is actually a very agreeable idea, much better than the fucker in the dedicated distributist thread putting wealth caps on the table.
>>397521
No. Eugenics is a product of the 1920s progressive movement when they thought that they could breed human beings like dogs with the "science-led" state to enforce their whims. It's not tribal at all.
No. Eugenics is a product of the 1920s progressive movement when they thought that they could breed human beings like dogs with the "science-led" state to enforce their whims. It's not tribal at all.
>>397526
>Eugenics is a product of the 1920s progressive movement
I disagree, I read about records from ancient times, Rome and Greece in this case, where defective and bastards in some family lineages were put to death.
>Eugenics is a product of the 1920s progressive movement
I disagree, I read about records from ancient times, Rome and Greece in this case, where defective and bastards in some family lineages were put to death.
>>397465
>prevent monopoly
it is monopoly, you just can't parse the propaganda marketing of fascism from the reality of fascism. it's like a monkey's paw, solving a headache by eating a grenade, technically the headache is gone.
>prevent monopoly
it is monopoly, you just can't parse the propaganda marketing of fascism from the reality of fascism. it's like a monkey's paw, solving a headache by eating a grenade, technically the headache is gone.
>>397528
The eugenics movement was a lot more than culling deformed infants.
>>397540
>propaganda marketing of fascism from the reality of fascism
Okay then, fag, then I guess you can say that I believe in the "marketing" of fascism, whatever you want to call it. I will continue to call myself a fascist and I will continue advocate for organized labor as a vehicle of nationalism to incorporate the private sector towards national goals.
The eugenics movement was a lot more than culling deformed infants.
>>397540
>propaganda marketing of fascism from the reality of fascism
Okay then, fag, then I guess you can say that I believe in the "marketing" of fascism, whatever you want to call it. I will continue to call myself a fascist and I will continue advocate for organized labor as a vehicle of nationalism to incorporate the private sector towards national goals.
>>397544
>The eugenics movement was a lot more than culling deformed infants.
Sure, its goals are noteworthy. The improvement of species having the ubersmensch as the ideal. Nothing wrong with it.
>The eugenics movement was a lot more than culling deformed infants.
Sure, its goals are noteworthy. The improvement of species having the ubersmensch as the ideal. Nothing wrong with it.
>>397546
Nah, the eugenics movement was a failure overall. It just resulted in inbred rich kikes posturing that they're generically superior because they have the most money.
Nazis were in part inspired by the eugenics movement though, and they had a lot of interesting ideas on the matter.
>>397545
I am already familiar with that material. I reject communism entirely. Fascism is the way because it creates the conditions for unilateral social causes and proper balance of power between the state and private sector, while also preserving the principles of competition and private enterprise.
Nah, the eugenics movement was a failure overall. It just resulted in inbred rich kikes posturing that they're generically superior because they have the most money.
Nazis were in part inspired by the eugenics movement though, and they had a lot of interesting ideas on the matter.
>>397545
I am already familiar with that material. I reject communism entirely. Fascism is the way because it creates the conditions for unilateral social causes and proper balance of power between the state and private sector, while also preserving the principles of competition and private enterprise.
>>397549
It's telling that you don't say you read it, you just say you're familiar with it. Then continue spouting off a bunch of nonsense that shows you don't understand fascism, much less socialism.
It's telling that you don't say you read it, you just say you're familiar with it. Then continue spouting off a bunch of nonsense that shows you don't understand fascism, much less socialism.
>>397549
>posturing that they're generically superior
This always baffled me. If the idea is so bizarre and ridiculous, then why oppose it with such a hatred?
>posturing that they're generically superior
This always baffled me. If the idea is so bizarre and ridiculous, then why oppose it with such a hatred?
>>397551
>It's telling that you don't say you read it
I only read part of them, mostly The State, which I got about halfway through. I believe I don't need to read every single socialist book in history to decide I don't like communism.
>Then continue spouting off a bunch of nonsense that shows you don't understand fascism
No, I do understand fascism. I understand the policies that I am a proponent of. I am a firm advocate of organized labor as a vehicle of nationalist incorporation, and I am grounded in these beliefs. I really don't care for whatever labels you give me, but I call myself a fascist, and I know what policies I support.
Besides, just because I support the general structure of fascism doesn't mean I support every failed policy of the 20th century.
>It's telling that you don't say you read it
I only read part of them, mostly The State, which I got about halfway through. I believe I don't need to read every single socialist book in history to decide I don't like communism.
>Then continue spouting off a bunch of nonsense that shows you don't understand fascism
No, I do understand fascism. I understand the policies that I am a proponent of. I am a firm advocate of organized labor as a vehicle of nationalist incorporation, and I am grounded in these beliefs. I really don't care for whatever labels you give me, but I call myself a fascist, and I know what policies I support.
Besides, just because I support the general structure of fascism doesn't mean I support every failed policy of the 20th century.
>>397555
Are you trolling, they're not different books you idiot, that's the title of one book. Fascists are actually illiterate, holy shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_State_and_Revolution
Are you trolling, they're not different books you idiot, that's the title of one book. Fascists are actually illiterate, holy shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_State_and_Revolution
>>397556
Idk, m8. It was like 15 years ago, when I was still in highschool. I never claimed to be an expert on socialist literature. I just recall reading a book with a familiar title.
Maybe I'll give it a read. How about you also read some fascist literature and we can talk about it some other time on this site.
Idk, m8. It was like 15 years ago, when I was still in highschool. I never claimed to be an expert on socialist literature. I just recall reading a book with a familiar title.
Maybe I'll give it a read. How about you also read some fascist literature and we can talk about it some other time on this site.
>>397556
Anyways, since you claim that the definition of fascism is different from what I described, what do you call the policies that I advocated for? With organized labor acting as a vehicle for nationalist incorporation? From my perspective, that's a fascist policy.
Anyways, since you claim that the definition of fascism is different from what I described, what do you call the policies that I advocated for? With organized labor acting as a vehicle for nationalist incorporation? From my perspective, that's a fascist policy.
>>397583
Call it what you want then. I don't consider myself to be a hardcore fascist. I mostly envision fascism as more of a means to an end. I want nationalism, and I want to use organized labor to bring about nationalism, and to reign in usurious corporate entities who try to subvert and undermine the sovereignty of my people.
Functionally, I vote libertarian, just because I consider the current regime to be the enemy of my people, so I don't want to give the state any power at all, much less give it my money.
Call it what you want then. I don't consider myself to be a hardcore fascist. I mostly envision fascism as more of a means to an end. I want nationalism, and I want to use organized labor to bring about nationalism, and to reign in usurious corporate entities who try to subvert and undermine the sovereignty of my people.
Functionally, I vote libertarian, just because I consider the current regime to be the enemy of my people, so I don't want to give the state any power at all, much less give it my money.
>>397583
People have been calling me a "fascist" and a "Nazi" for as long as I can remember. Even you called me a fascist. Am I not supposed to believe all of the people who tell me that the policies I advocate for are fascism?
People have been calling me a "fascist" and a "Nazi" for as long as I can remember. Even you called me a fascist. Am I not supposed to believe all of the people who tell me that the policies I advocate for are fascism?
>>397523
I am the fucker putting wealth caps on the table. I don't want any more bill gates or Jeff bezos types running around. Humanity should not have to suffer anything like them ever again.
I am the fucker putting wealth caps on the table. I don't want any more bill gates or Jeff bezos types running around. Humanity should not have to suffer anything like them ever again.
>>397585
>>397588
You'll have a lot more to think about after you finish this, and I suspect you'll be a lot more prepared to define yourself on this matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrfLQsyUYig
>>397588
You'll have a lot more to think about after you finish this, and I suspect you'll be a lot more prepared to define yourself on this matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrfLQsyUYig
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-100] [101-200] [201-207] [Next] [Live (last 100 replies)]
207 replies | 45 files | 58 UUIDs | Page 10