/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>42447

Don't stray famalam

>>42449
I know it's so cushy, but the western society is under attack from the marxists!!!

>>42451
The road from libertarian to National Socialism begins when you realize that libertarian principles would only work in a vacuum free from Jews and their shitskin pets. The majority of NatSocs, at least the ones I know, started out as libertarians and drifted more towards National Socialism the more they started to fully understand the JQ. The further down the rabbit-hole you go the more you start to realize there is only one solution.

If you haven't already, read Mein Kampf and watch TGSNT. Those are babby's first steps into NatSoc.

>>42447
>>42454
I'm going to comment on this soon.

>>42447

Why not Nat Cap instead of NatSoc. I personally am a NatCap the issue I see with NatSoc is most forms require a certain amount of personal freedoms to be sacrificed and a growth of the gov. I feel that a small and efficient gov that busts the jews down as in Teddy's Era. I feel NatCap is a good middle ground (as long as that NatCap gov identifies the jews and knows to move against them)

>>42456
>NatCap gov identifies the jews and knows to move against them
This. Tho what we need today is a strong leadership of a single individual or narrow group of people that truly cares about the nation and it's people, not the big group of "representatives" that are pawns to kikes, lobbysts and corporations. I think someone on 4pol back when it wasn't that shitty dropped in lolbertarian thread that idea of nation's "guardian" that was there for a oversseing of transition to minimalistic governemnt that only cares for a public safety, juidicial and defensive matters.

>>42447
Capitalism inevitably leads to a small number of people (who are successful for whatever reason - cronyism [jews] or otherwise [entrepreneurs]) controlling all of the means of production.

You can see this in Google. They were the first, the best, and now there is no way in which to compete with Google without dismantling them…which is against capitalism, so no capitalist society would dare compete - which is also against capitalism.

When you run into this catch-22, you realize that the only way for corporations to become a force for good, rather than a tool of cronyist jews/special interests, is to make sure they follow a set of rules and values that put the people of their own country first.

Some have tried to say "Oh, but as a company, I have a duty to the whole planet!", but that simply becomes a smokescreen to make them unaccountable for the real atrocities that they commit (child labor, forcing direct competition with child/slave labor which lowers the value of ALL labor, adding women to the labor force for the same reason, etc.)

Libertarians will probably agree with the above practices in principle, if not execution, but this leaves an economic question that must be answered: Are human lives inherently valuable? The answer to a libertarian is "No, not unless they can participate economically."

The answer for a NatSoc is "Yes, as long as it's one of MY people."

The reason you see as much conflict as you do today is because Globalists don't value humans inherently, and people want to be valued. This is what is red-pilling people. All of the blue-pilled idiots have to have a REASON to be loved (black, woman, tranny, gay, etc.)

Red-pilled people just want to be loved, and do what they love, with the PEOPLE they love. It's that simple…and the world won't let you do it because they don't inherently care about privileged white males just because they exist.

Thoughts?

>>42447
>I'm a libertarian Capitalist, so I'd really like to hear the good and bad and expand my world view.

Oh, you work for CNN? ;)

>>42462
>Globalists
Call them what they are

>>42469
Globalists is a term that also covers the useful idiots that follow them. I already mentioned the cronyist jews.

Essentially, the only thing that makes jews more successful at being crony bastards is that they adopt National Socialism first, while branding anyone else that does it a bigot.

Hence, a wall to the south of the U.S. is a product of hate, but the wall surrounding Israel is A-Ok. They promote more jews to their own companies, but if a white guy promotes his own kind, he needs to be more multicultural.

If National Socialism makes them successful, it can make me successful. As that famous saying goes, "Two can play at that game."

>>42462
I think the real point is that our laws and enforcement do not catch up with the possibilities of things that people can do.

It may be more productive to talk in concrete terms. Laws do not forbid the "illegal" acts corporations do, period. Everything stems back to this fact, and all the politicking back and forth about rights and ideas and more rights and ideas are not as helpful.

I would suggest The Corporation documentary.

>>42474
I wasn't trying to dictate to a corporation how it should do things. I was stating that a corporation that doesn't support it's native nation/people SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO EXIST.

It's the ideology, not the rules. Corporations can follow laws all day and still betray their people. They do it in America all day. Such behavior should not be allowed. I'd rather nationalize everything than allow all opportunities to be controlled by kikes and assholes.

I want the minds of the corporation to be on the same page as the people, and I'm not going to waste time trying to make someone into a slave against their will, fashioning iron bars all day to keep them in. I want a servant of the people to stand up and take charge, who gives a fuck. THAT is the kind of man I would allow to run a corporation. If he benefits, fine, but ONLY if my nation benefits with him.

Fuck the globalists that can dine in Brussels, and party in France, and then sleep with hookers in Japan. Fuck them. I want food, parties, and hookers in America, and I want a business to BRING THAT BACK, NOT BUY IT FROM ANYBODY ELSE.

Read "Atlas Shrugged." The guy that says "There aught to be a law!" is the worst kind of person.

faggots in there hugbox as usual
pro-tip go outside if you want to know why socialism doesn't work

>>42475
Well someone's standing up. I think I was projecting because you sounded like a trump supporter, but your words can fit to any other person, so my bad.

>It's the ideology, not the rules.
Ideologies are dangerous, any ideology that governs more than just yourself that is.

>I'd rather nationalize everything -
Case in point.

>I want the minds of the corporation to be on the same page as the people -
That is actually a good idea, make the corporate's responsibility a living person's responsibility. Make someone concrete responsible, rather than a Legal Person that have "Limited Liability" where in fact, they have none.

You seem to have a good sense of differentiating between right and wrong, so I wanted to push something concrete on to your plate among all the ideologies.

>Atlas Shrugged
Haven't heard of it, sounds cool.

>>42475
Another thing, you seem to agree with rational self interest, but your words do not exemplify that, at least not to me. you sound like you have a more of a nationalist perspective, and I do agree obviously that is far better than the globalists. I just want to make the point that, at the very roots of capitalism, reason, and your own ideas of individualism, there is only bettering the individual, and not bettering a conceptual collective.
On the other hand, you can better a literal collective if you are able to touch everyone involved. It is the part when the professed collective is lifted up in to a metaphysical one, that is an issue.

>>42479
>Ideologies are dangerous, any ideology that governs more than just yourself that is.

True, but an entire society following an ideology by choice is a very, very powerful thing…which is why such a thing is dangerous. In fact, the reason why America has been engineered to be so fractured is to prevent such an ideology from ever manifesting. If it did, the well-armed and well-read American that would emerge would be unstoppable.

>Case in point.
I don't see what was wrong with my statement. I would rather go full strawman and become Venezuela, by my own volition, rather than have some kike, or outsider asshole, or some central banker dictate that I should become Venezuela. If you have a problem with that statement, then you have a problem with assuming risk and consequences for your own actions, good or bad.

>That is actually a good idea, make the corporate's responsibility a living person's responsibility. Make someone concrete responsible, rather than a Legal Person that have "Limited Liability" where in fact, they have none.

It is odd that corporations can count as individuals, and yet can never be sent to prison, never have real assets that can be seized in the event of a default (paper doesn't count), and they can't vote (or at least, none have tried to my knowledge). They are truly odd individuals.


>Haven't heard of it, sounds cool.

Definitely give it a read. You can skip the childhood parts a little bit when they come up a couple chapters in- it's just romance and expounding Antonia as a bad-ass before his fall. It's semi-important, but can be glossed-over if you get bored.

The most important parts are:
Anything with Dagny's brother or his associates - because that is what evil truly looks like;
The 20th Century Motor Company;
and Galt's Gulch.

Read those important bits, and you understand what your enemy desires to create, and what a true libertarian (or someone who cares about his volk) wants to create.

>>42481

>There is only bettering the individual, and not bettering a conceptual collective.

Collectives are made of individuals. Eliminate the defective individuals, and you create a better collective. This can be achieved through assimilation, education, deportation, and execution, or any combination of the above.

I don't have to preach to a whole collective about empty platitudes. I just have to teach the individuals what is RIGHT - and have them agree upon it. A nigh impossible task, but hey, the Constitution got written once…

For everyone else, they can get on a boat and go to/create their own country, or get shot. There would be no room for traitors behind my gates - for those are more dangerous and degenerate than any enemy outside of them.

Once everything is established and agreed upon, it's time to head to the stars. Fuck being imprisoned on a planet that has so far only tried to hold us back from what we've always tried to do - explore.

>>42478

National Socialism is closer to fascism than socialism. If you think the posters in here bring bad arguments in expressing why they have this ideology, Id recommend you point out why you think that in more than 2 short phrases if you want to get taken serious.

>>42489
Careful where you tread.

The Nazis were certainly socialist. However, the end goals and ideals of the state were vastly different from any communist or other socialist "utopia". He didn't care about creating some special zone for special snowflakes - it was all about the German middle class that was getting fucked by Kike bankers, globalist corporations (that did exist at the time, believe it or not), and railing against the countries that fucked over HIS country and HIS people.

As such, it would be the equivalent of Nixon's Silent Majority standing up and burning Woodstock with flamethrowers, and then kicking out the Federal Reserve. Absolutely unthinkable these days.

>>42489
>>42495

Oh, and imagine that under Nixon, Vietnam never happened because fuck France. Yeah, unthinkable.

>>42471
>Essentially, the only thing that makes jews more successful at being crony bastards is that they adopt National Socialism first, while branding anyone else that does it a bigot.

Are you saying that the state of Israel and the enthnicity of jews are operating on the system of exclusive National Socialism?

OP here

>>42462
As soon as you take away control you impede capitalism. It prevents doing your best because you know the effort just gets stripped away. Why try to make a company as effective as google? You cant because you are limited by government. Theyd impose rules eithout understanding your economic habitat as much as ypu do.

Its like buying a house when you know Communism is taking over soon. Youll be disinclined to even try.

My biggest issue, and this is an issue with authoritarian in general. Is unless your views 100% align with the government in every social, economic and political view youre essentially fucked. Like white males if the SJWs got the control they wanted, or jews if nazis get control. Gays, people who like to sleep in, someone who likes freedom of speech. Theres no way to align a country in an objectively best way, only a subjectively best way.

>>42560
You do realize that NatSoc economic policies took a country that was broken beyond repair, in the economic sense, and turned them into an industrial super-power in less than a decade? Companies are still largely privatized in a NatSoc state, and there is plenty of incentive to produce successful corporations. I suggest you learn what actual NatSoc economic principles were, and how they were applied, before you just say "lol but if state controls it's gonna be bad"

For example, the Autobahn was built entirely by private companies, and provided 1,000s of jobs to Germany when their economy was crumbling. Those companies built the Autobahn 100% out of their own pocket, because they were given massive tax breaks for doing so. It's a win-win, because the companies save money over the long-run with their tax breaks, jobs are provided to stimulate the economy, and a useful product is produced for the nation.

>My biggest issue, and this is an issue with authoritarian in general. Is unless your views 100% align with the government in every social, economic and political view youre essentially fucked
In a NatSoc state, the state is essentially used as a weapon for the benefit of the people as a whole. Their will always be groups that seek to disrupt or destabilize a successful people and nation, and you use this weapon to crush them You use that weapon to benefit the nation as a whole, from a utilitarian perspective.

>Gays, people who like to sleep in
These people SHOULD be under pressure from their government. They are degenerates that put their own hedonistic pleasure over their people.

It seems like you aren't familiar a lot of the more basic ideals behind NatSoc. I suggest you watch this video, it is short and to the point. If you don't understand the ideals, you will never understand the practical application of them. In this video he doesn't really speak at all on actual policy or application of policy, it's more-so just a summation of some of the more basic ideals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9oUqIcX-c

>>42495

the nazis we're certainly not "socialist" at least not by marx's twisted definition of the term

>>42580
>it seems youre not familiar
No shit thats why I made a red pill

I already disagree with your statement about gays ruining a country. So even between two people theres a need to "crush" a person with the weapon of fascism.

I'm not saying that Authoritarian Capitalism is bad for the economy and the good of the people. Im just suggesting its less effective than laissez-faire capitalism as it creates artificial restrictions on meritocracy. Value that could be given to the people and utilized for economic growth could be banned or restricted because of subjective reasons over objective.

For example a country with no fossil fuel could ban non-electric cars because they're bad for the nation for causing reliance on other nations. Private research into new fossil fuel engines now stops in that government. Stunting scientific growth.

>>42586
>gays don't ruin countries

Claims that gay parents are just as capable of raising children as straight parents are misrepresented. Source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657413

Between 24% and 90% of lesbians report being psychologically abused by their partners. Source: https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

Gay men are 60x more likely to have HIV than straight men. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462414/

46% of male homosexuals report being molested, as compared to only 7% of heterosexual men. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300

Gays are more likely than straight people to have mental illness. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/

1/4 gay men in America have had over 1000 sex partners. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Homosexualities-Study-Diversity-Among-Women/dp/0671251503

43% of gay men have over 500 partners. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Homosexualities-Study-Diversity-Among-Women/dp/0671251503

Gay men are six times more likely to commit suicide than straight men. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

Gay men are 12x more likely to use amphetamines than straight men. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

Gay men are 10x more likely to use heroin than straight men. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-
Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

Liberal arguments in favor of homosexuality are based on logical fallacies. Source: http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=19028&lang=en

10 to 15 percent of older homosexuals have more than 1000 sex partners. Source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813477

Gay people are 2-3x more likely to abuse alcohol than straight people. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

Up to 50% of lesbians have reported sexual abuse. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9360290

79% of homosexual men say over half of their sex partners are strangers. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

99.8% of lesbian, gay and bisexual teens will change their sexual orientation within 13 years. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26048483

Two-thirds of men and women who were homosexual change their orientation to heterosexual five years later. Source: http://psycnet.apa.org/books/11261/004

Two thirds of self-identified lesbians later have heterosexual relationships. Source: http://psycnet.apa.org/books/11261/004

Identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual does not end sexual questioning or confusion. Source: http://psycnet.apa.org/books/11261/004

>>42592
One in eight gay men in London has HIV. Source: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/18/13-of-gay-and-bisexual-men-in-london-living-with-hiv/

Gay men are twice as likely as straight men to be in interracial relationships. Source: http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/4/1423

In Australia, 25% of homosexuals have had more than 100 sex partners. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Gay men, who are 1.65% of the US population, account for 63% of the country’s syphilis cases. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

In 2010, homosexuals were about 200 times more likely than everyone else to be diagnosed with HIV. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Gay men are 15 times more likely to have Hepatitis B than everyone else. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Homosexuals are more to use illegal drugs and drink to excess than straight people. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Homosexuals are more likely than straight people to have anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and to commit suicide. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Gay men are 10-15 times more likely than straight men to have eating disorders. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

40% to 60% of serial killers are homosexuals. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Homosexual men are more likely to have been abused by their partners than straight men. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Monogamy is not a central feature of most homosexual relationships. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Married homosexual men are 50% more likely than straight couples to divorce. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

In the Netherlands, the average homosexual in a “steady relationship” has seven to eight affairs per year. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Over 20% of older homosexuals have had more than 500 different sex partners. Source: http://advindicate.com/articles/3022

The average gay man has several dozen sex partners per year. Source: http://advindicate.com/articles/3022

>>42593
28% of homosexuals have had sex with over a thousand men. For straight men? Just 25% have had sex with more than 10 women. Source: http://advindicate.com/articles/3022
Most “long term relationships” between gay men last less than eight years. Source: http://advindicate.com/articles/3022

Among gay Canadian men in “committed relationships, only 25% were monogamous. Source: http://advindicate.com/articles/3022

In one study, only 9% of gay men were monogamous. Source: http://advindicate.com/articles/3022

75% of straight men an are faithful, compared to just 4.5% of gay men. Source: http://advindicate.com/articles/3022

In Berlin, 83% of gay men in “steady” relationships had had frequent affairs in the last year. Source: http://advindicate.com/articles/3022

Infection rates for gonorrhea and chlamydia are increasing among active homosexual men. Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_gay_agenda_and_the_real_world.html

Gay men, 1% of the population, account for 83% of syphilis cases. Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_gay_agenda_and_the_real_world.html

Syphilis was almost eradicated, but made a comeback among homosexual men. Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_gay_agenda_and_the_real_world.html

Active homosexual men are 17 times more likely than straight people to have anal cancer. Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_gay_agenda_and_the_real_world.html

Lesbians are 2.5x more likely than straight women to be obese. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to have eating disorders. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to be stalked or physically abused by their partners. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Married lesbians are 2-3 times more likely to divorce than straight couples. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

Homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals are poorer than straight people. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

America has spent $700 million promoting gay rights abroad – an “integral” part of American foreign policy. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/21/world/africa/us-support-of-gay-rights-in-africa-may-have-done-more-harm-than-good.html?_r=0

I totally agree with you, anon! Clearly gays are a great thing for our countries :^)

>>42592
>>42593
>>42594

this is all well and good information to redpill against homosexuality, but this has nothing to do with the thread topic.

>>42592
I didnt say anything about same sex raising children, youre creating points to argue against that aren't in my argument. Your statistics spam is highly irrelevant to:

Gays don't ruin countries.

My argument is nat soc cant function because there are too many people with differing opinions, and sharing the views of the government will be impossible for pretty much everyone. From what I see advocators of Nat Soc, whether its SJWs or Nazis or anyone assume that the government will line up with their views. It has the exact same problem as communism. With a buffer of quasi meritocracy to prevent starvation.

>>42596
>more likely to have mental illness than straight people
>more likely to abuse drugs
>more likely to sexually abuse children
>more likely to be serial killers
Endless hedonism ruins countries. It creates a lower social standard and makes others more comfortable/accepting of their own degeneracy It helps spread the Marxist poison. But, I agree, we have gotten slightly off topic.

>>42598
was meant for >>42597

>>42597

"Gay and bisexual men accounted for 82% (26,375) of HIV diagnoses among males and 67% of all diagnoses." https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics

" Currently, the lifetime treatment cost of an HIV infection is estimated at $379,668" https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/programresources/guidance/costeffectiveness/index.html

Okay let's think of this in your capitalist views, fuck morals right. Purely economy. 26,375 annual infections X $379,668 per treatment. Grand total of: $10,013,743,500

> Gays don't ruin countries

>>42598
Great. I agree being born gay is just a trainwreck of a life. What I disagree with is the impact. Lets look at the abuse one:

30% of lesbians abuse lovers
Ok so thats 30% of 2%. So 0.6% of the abuse statistics against women.

>>42601
>wanting to eradicate a group of mentally ill-child, child molesting, drug-addicts
>I'm the one ignoring morals
Okay.

>average incarcerated nigger provides X amount of dollars per year to prison industrial complex
>niggers are good for the country, they provide income for privatized prisons
>import more niggers to stimulate the economy!
Kek. Good luck with your thread, OP.

>>42603
>>42601
ignore autism I can't into IDs

>>42601
>>42598
At least this dude brings real shit to the discussion. Thanks based leaf.

Now on to the actual topic.

Nat Soc leadership chooses the values of the country. And everyone has subjective values they want the country to adhere to. How can anyone believe that their specific values will be upheld? You are giving up control.

Finally nobody replied to my question about the disruption of meritocracy by imposing false restrictions on capitalism which stunts and disables economic processes that would put the country at a disadvantage compared to a free* country.

>>42605
capitalism's meritocratic nature is thrown out the window when technology is constantly evolving at the rapid pace it currently achieving
the only thing capitalism is good at is rewarding the people who get to the newest technology first

>>42597
>People have too many opinions.

Get rid of the people with differing opinions. Educate the willing, deport the indifferent, kill the rebellious.

Don't try to force education and a different opinion on rebellious people. It doesn't work. It's why prison (the most blunt form of education - do this and bad things happen to you) doesn't rehabilitate anybody. Just shoot the fuckers, and make a society out of people that agree with you, and people you like.

To do otherwise is non-productive and retarded. Living in a house full of your enemies is simply asking to get stabbed in the back.

>>42595
It's okay, Anon; I don't fit in either.

>>42684
What if youre one of the people that need to be educated/deported/executed? The biggest issue is the idealization that the government will be your government. Would you still advocate for fascism? Even if it isnt your fascism? I ask commies the same question.

When you advocate nat soc, are you guys advocating an imaginary personal dictatorship where youre the one that chooses the rules?

>>42691
Topkek

>>42690
Btw if i had to enact fascism pretty much all muslims would be dead. Same with all communists. Regardless if they say theyll reform. Sjws rounded up for days and tortured till theyre shells of themself.

>>42690
>Would you still advocate for fascism? Even if it was communist?
that seems like a contradiction fampai
>what if you were a jew in nazi germany?
I would hightail it out of there because the government does not represent my people

some infographic i saved a while ago

>>42703
Read again
>people who advocate fascism assume it will fully match what they want the form of fascism to be.
>would you still advocate fascism if you were a problem group in a fascist regime and your death served the many?

communists have similar issues, they advocate communism wothout realizing the same weakness that they may not get their idealized version and may in fact end up executed by firing squad.

In other words red pill me on this. Do you only agree with specific forms of fascism that wholly line up with your subjective morality or do you just view nat soc fascism highly regardless of its values?

>>42709
>problem group in a fascist regime
see I don't think you understand what fascism is: an authoritarian traditionalist government that represents a certain people
I answered this question in >>42703

>>42709
>Do you only agree with specific forms of fascism that wholly line up with your subjective morality or do you just view nat soc fascism highly regardless of its values?
you would support the US gov as a slave during the American revolution?
>inb4 not real libertarianism
point is no you wouldn't and the question is just an attempt to discredit an idea
fuck off you kike

>>42711
First I want to say thanks for not being a hypocrite. Admitting you'd flee Germany at least shows you understand fuckloads of people will go through "bad times". Most people champion an ideology from one side of the coin through rose colored glasses.

My major problem with understanding the appeal of Fascism is I do not do things to others that I wouldn't want done to me. Thats about as close to objective morality as I can get. Premptive self defense withstanding. Fascism creates an in crowd/tradition/belief structure and burns alternative systems to the ground. The out crowd gets burned.

I also understand the consequence that some cultures are lessor than others and should be removed. However, Fascism seems like a last resort. If cucks would just hold strong on keeping freedom of speech, the system would weed out the shit ideas through criticism. This is why free speech is under attack because otherwise these trainwreck ideologies will never get ground.

This throws me into libertarian capitalist. Merit, ingenuity and good ideas gain traction, while negative ideas, selfishness and actions will lead to stripping of life's benefits automatically. The world is crafted by a collective human nature, rather than one dictators ideal world that only fully matches a select small group of people.

>>42711
Finally of fucking course fascism isn't libertarianism. They're opposite sides of the political spectrum. In the words of s4s:
>Who are you

>>42722

>They're opposite sides of the political spectrum.

No, they are not.

>>42721
>Merit, ingenuity and good ideas gain traction, while negative ideas, selfishness and actions will lead to stripping of life's benefits automatically.
I have never heard of non-selfish capitalism
hedonism is gaining traction in the west
any merit created by capitalism is destroyed by technology

>If cucks would just hold strong on keeping freedom of speech, the system would weed out the shit ideas through criticism.
that is how we got into this situation in the first place

>I do not do things to others that I wouldn't want done to me.
it doesn't matter, people do not all follow the same rule book

>The world is crafted by a collective human nature, rather than one dictators ideal world that only fully matches a select small group of people.
yes and I would want my people to be in the front of the pack

>>42447
From what I've read up to date from Mein Kampf, it started as a reaction movement from Hitler to respond to the increasing influence of marxism in the press and syndicates.
I'm a very slow reader and I haven't made much progress in that book after that.

The idea of fascism always spoke to me more than nat-soc because what I want to see most is the marxists punished for their faggotry. I imagine a long-term successful right-wing movement would start off full-on fashy to fix things and progressively get more natsoc to advance things though.

>>42810
This.
I hate Marxists even more than I hate Jews, and that says a lot.

>>42811
it's because many of them are traitors. And traitors are always worse than enemies.

>>42815
Amen.

>>42690
>What if youre one of the people that need to be educated/deported/executed?

If I want to stay and be educated, fine, I would try to fit in. If they want to deport me, fine, I'll make my own country (no country would allow you to do this today, which is bullshit, but that's another topic).

If I'm an asshole that wants to commit crime and fuck over the people I'm trying to live with, I DESERVE to be executed. If I'm a Muzzie invader that is raping Swedish women and shitting in public pools, I DESERVE TO GET SHOT. There is no middle ground. If I wanted to be educated, I would've chose that instead of become an invader.

How is this hard to understand?

>>42826
Really man, this is why I meant when I say radical ideologies are dangerous. You sound very possessed by what you believe in. Not to say that you have wrong facts, but facts are point blank useless when thrown at the wrong subject. Just think about it.
The voice you have sounds very authoritarian. You may also consider that, sometimes it is possible that people with different destinations can head the same way, even when they seem to have a completely different idea of where to go. It doesn't happen often, but my guess is that most have at least some of that going on.

>>42584
I like that definition. When we all work toward similar goals, we all benefit.

>>42838
>You sound very possessed by what you believe in.

Should I not be? Should I cower in fear of my own beliefs? Should I tone it down so that I can conform with others? Why not find others like myself, and be fanatical WITH them? Why try to fit in with people who are unlike myself?

Isn't that why we left /pol/? Isn't that why we created /mlpol/?

Why are you here?

>The voice you have sounds very authoritarian.

Jesus spoke with authority. Authority isn't bad as long as you aren't talking out of your ass.

>You may also consider that, sometimes it is possible that people with different destinations can head the same way, even when they seem to have a completely different idea of where to go.

Then they walk together because they choose to. If they differ, there should be nothing forcing them to walk together.

I have nothing against the libertarian ideal of free association with whomever you choose to be with. In fact, I encourage it. I want blacks to have their own country. I want Native Americans to have their own country; in fact, the term Native American is abhorrent to me. There were Iroquois, Apache, Cherokee, Sioux, Arapaho, and many, many other nations. To lump them all together is as much an insult as calling every French, British, German, and Russian "white."

All nations should be allowed to exist and create their own rules, insofar as they do not destroy each other. Unfortunately, the nature of mankind is to be evil, and we can't have nice things.

However, I have a strong belief that, if all peoples were to segregate and form their own nations, based not on their skin alone, but by their ideals and heritage…that all people could be powerful in their own ways. Such a world would be beautiful.

Clouds for the Pegasi, forests and fields for the Earth ponies, ivory towers for the Unicorns. Harmony for all.

>>42838
>>42840
>You sound very possessed in what you believe in

"Every National Socialist believes in idealism. Believes in something that is worth more than his own one single human life. He is willing to die for something. When you are ready to die for something, then you're alive. And until you are ready to die for something, you have no real fanaticism. Just at dinner a little while ago, some of the fellas there were telling me "Well, it's terrible to be a fanatic!" But, did you ever stop to think how this country got here? How all the great inventions ever got there? Anyone of you that is not a fanatic, for something or other, what ever it is you're studying.. If you're going to be a doctor, be a fanatical doctor, otherwise you'll be nothing. You'll just be an ordinary ole' chug-chuggin' guy, and then when you die, nobody will notice it. But, if you're a fanatic, you'll produce something great. You'll create. Creativity is fanaticism. Every creative genius has had to be a fanatic. Many of them have been burned at the stake. So, we are ideological, and idealistic fanatics."
-George Lincoln Rockwell in 1967

>>42826
>>42838

I don't find this post >>42826 radical at all. Establishing laws to protect your country & population and doing all in your power to enforce them against those who (purposely) try to act against them is something I except from every legitimate state, be it fascist or not. Knowingly Allowing criminals and terrorists to undermine the foundation of your state is a crime in itself, as a state leader you are openly violating the trust of your people. You become a traitor.

If you live in an ethnostate where the majority of the population have elected a government that puts laws into place to protect and benefit the same major ethnicity which you are not part of, you are not allowed to have a say in their agenda or be entitled to have special treatment given to you. IF you can not deal with this fixing your behavior or, even worse, if you are selfish and act disruptingly against the same state (and therefore against the spoken will of the people) (((YOU))) are the problem. And every problem requires a solution for the good of the people. Because only those people who make the state work effectively really matter.

Ignoring laws is Anarchy and i am quite frankly disturbed that more and more people these days think following laws is not required, but just an ignorable option.

>>42913
Thank you.

Also, what happened to Leaf OP? Is that faggot too busy sucking cocks to come back to his thread?

>>42447
> libertarian Capitalist

America in the 1920's was the most libertarian its ever been honestly, and it was completely degenerate. You need some form of governing entity in order to make sure that some form of social standard is being enforced and or promoted. Wiemar Germany was very liberal and it was a fucking hellhole. The whole thing about National socialism is that its a collective worldview that respects individualism so long as the individuals needs do not come at the cost of the people as a whole. Hitler respected private property, his centrally planned economy was trying to drift more free market before the war. The socialism part is a philosophy more than anything, that's all NatSoc is really - a philosophy. It's centrist on economic policy and some argue the social policy is more lenient than people think because of what Goebbels said about "Muh degeneracy" people who've co opted the term.
Don't read Mein Kampf since we don't know which quotes to attribute to Hitler
Read the National Socialist Virtues
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/glauben.htm

Read Hitler's Second book
www.resist.com/Onlinebooks/ZweitesBuch.pdf

Read Hitler's Table Talks
vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/HTableTalk.pdf

I am in no way a Nazi btw, I'm an armchair historian and I like to research a lot of world views.

>>43108
That vho link didn't work for me. Any hard copies or pics?

>>42947
Nah Im reading there just haven't been any posts with new perspectives. From what I can see Nat Soc is just as idealized as communism, with assumptions it will cater to 'you'. It also seems to be heavily subjective in it's values. In fact I'd be bold enough to suggest that SJWs are just as nat soc as nazis (with a little more socialism).

-want a dictatorship that delegates social norms amd rules for people and corps to adhere to; to bring about their idealized version of the world. To build a 'pure' country.

There's also some weird statement that meritocracy is degraded by technology which is a confusingly wrong and a lack of understanding what meritocracy is.

>>43145

So I guess we have reached a dead point in the exchange of word then. Sad to hear you come to these conclusions simply before no one came forward to agree with you. Perhaps it was for a lack of traffic or the inflammatory nature of the subject, but you cant really expect a lot of people not supporting this ideology here when most of the site is centered around it.

I suggest we leave this thread be before anyone of you feels encouraged to throw around any more pointless ad hominems.

>>43155
Nah I learned a lot. Its a morality based ideology. I just disagree with the morals of purging non-believers in any ideology. I just thought there could be some objective benefits. But literally all of them are tied to subjective morals. I can't see how this can beat more centrist capitalism though.

>>43157

Unlike the Laws of Nature, Human Moral is in itself always subjective. If enough people deem a subjective moral thing to be just, it becomes an objective moral and potentially from there a law. Moral is the string from which the fabric of the state is woven.

One may object to a moral with a different set of values, but if the society has imprinted the slate for what they deem acceptable, you will have to bend.

Unless the state itself is willingly destroying the nation, then civil unrest becomes a virtue.

>>43145
Sjws want everything to be as gay and as brown as possible and we don't. What don't center-fags understand about this? How is wanting to keep our countries from becoming third world ones not objectively sound reasoning?

Looking like you actually came here just to sniff your own farts like all centrists.

>>43145
Well that's pretty much any social system isn't it?
Creating rules for the people to follow so the society becomes a better place "pure" if you may.
I mean what else is there? Pure anarchy?

There's nothing wrong with beign a mat society, it is a deep feeling that has to be learned, the love for your country and the idea that your people are better than the others, it is just right to defend your people and believe you are superior, doing that brings up the moral of the people and makes them happier, they may get a little cocky and some conflict may take place when people that are not from the country don't accept that, but it's ok, it doesn't matter, as long as the people believe on it, they will become kind to each other and that, the cooperation that comes from that belief is what makes a society strong
When everyone helps each other instead of fighting against each other is when a country gets powerful. There is not such a thing as diversity and harmony, racism is natural and trying to force otherwise is just wrong, we should tolerate other races, but we should never think less of our own for that is who we are.
That's why Hitler did nothing wrong.

>>42597
Gays themselves may not ruin the country (yet they help to do so, spreading an idea like a cancer and defending it like a hungry dog) but they surely help and they are also a sign of a problem.
Gay people are a sign of Degeneracy, a sign of people feeling attracted to unnatural and prohibited stuff, it's like anarchy, only more subtle.
Gay men spread Degeneracy and bring down the general decency of people with their acts, a man should never give in to his desires, a gay is a man that failed to do so and just gave in to the list, becoming what he loved (the woman) but becoming a monster when doing so, something that no one likes nor respect, and now the worst, they fight so their degeneracy gets accepted as normal, and society defends them.
We are doomed

>>42689
I'm walking a thin line here

>>43145
>just as idealized as communism
>assumptions it will cater to 'you'

Well then, you, as a libertarian, are now in the position to defend your belief as 'better'. Please describe it to me - without assuming that such a system will cater to YOU.

That's a bit of a blunt way of saying, to anyone, that no systems work. You are not a libertarian - you are an anarchist.

>meritocracy is degraded by technology

When a computer or machine can do it, where is the merit in a man doing it? What happened to John Henry, after a machine was built to replace him? What happens today to Mr. White Collar when a mathematical program can run the stock market better than he can? Please tell me how technology DOESN'T erode merit.

At the end of the day, what is a man worth? You never attacked the sentiment I had in >>42462

>Libertarians will probably agree with the above practices in principle, if not execution, but this leaves an economic question that must be answered: Are human lives inherently valuable? The answer to a libertarian is "No, not unless they can participate economically."
>The answer for a NatSoc is "Yes, as long as it's one of MY people."

Tell me how lives are inherently valuable in the libertarian society that YOU propose.

>>43257
Holy shit my dude
>complete, utter centrism

>>43328
The purpose of this was to see the pros and cons of Nat Soc, past the propaganda of how great it would be. That said I'll explain my points for why I think other less authoritarian systems can out-navigate it socially and economically (staying in the capitalism side of things).

My main issues with Nat Soc seem to be:
>"white"(Alt-right) vs "brown"(SJW) fascism, nat soc systems can take any flavor and you could be on the outside of some issues because it's so subjective.
>Decrease in Meritocracy only seen in system
>Moral hangups about murdering/imprisoning people for crimes that have vague subjective victims (like society) and not individuals.

I'm going to tackle meritocracy first because it's completely misunderstood here. Meritocracy is societal value is given to people based on their efforts and benefit to that society. Nat Soc applies artificial rules on these systems. Both economic and social. In a white first nat soc it automatically inflates "white" value.

Great. But it's time for social implications. It's really bad for society. Inflating a socioeconomic value of a class of people leads that class of people to become lazy, complacent and egotistical. Currently in our society women are a meritocraticly inflated class of people. You could read for hours on how that lead to degeneracy with "Red Pill" works. Also currently there's another semi-inflated group "islamist". Islam is more a political inflation though than a day to day one. Jobs, the sweet side of life, and means are given to unworthy individuals who did not earn them and these things are misused due to lack of respect.

Now on to the economic side of meritocracy. Artificially inflated classes cause a "quota effect". Whether it's subconsciously in the hiring manager's mind, a societal expectation or an actual legal law, you will see it. Where you need to hire x amount of "class here".

Gotta hire whites first would how it probably would express itself.

Im going to life or death this to make the contrast extremely visible. But it impacts every single business and service. In a surgery room you have 2 brown surgeons, you need a 3rd to keep up with the demands of the community. Applicants are a devout Christian white guy with 51% barely passed med school and almost botched his final exam, and a 100% genius practitioner, a brown devout islamist who believes in Sharia law, but doesn't bring it to work with him. In a quota world, the shitty med student gets the job.

Who would you rather have operate on your child in a life or death situation?

These are the impacts of artificial meritocracy inflation.

Meritocracy is literally a measure of the value of lives in any system.

>>43540
Do you still not understand we want a healthy homogeneous society? You keep trying to apply these policies to a multi-racial, marxist hellhole. We don't want to live in one of those.

>>43540

>"white"(Alt-right) vs "brown"(SJW) fascism, nat soc systems can take any flavor and you could be on the outside of some issues because it's so subjective.

SJWs and Antifa are neomarxists/communists, not fascists. The SA fought theses degenerates in the streets in Deutschland before 1930.

>>43542
>>43544
>Completely ignore sound socioeconomic criticisms.
K. If you dont agree just refute the meritocracy points. If you agree, say "valid points but to me that doesnt outweigh x issue solved by nat soc and heres how nat soc solves it.

Open dialogue friends we're all intelligent here.

>>43552

I am sure the guy with the Nippon flag will come back in time to give you a more sizeable response. Be a little more patient.

Here goes nothing…

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

The goal of fascism is to unite the people of a nation towards a higher goal - which is why it is opposed to both the material philosophies of capitalism and communism. The people of a country can generally be united along (at least two of) three lines: culture, ethnicity, and religion. Each individual in a fascist state is a part of something greater than himself - the ideology offers one immediate purpose, which makes it so attractive to people here.

Fascism is most importantly a return to the natural state of man: no man exists outside culture, ethnicity, religion, and there is no value to individual freedoms if these are lost: without a family, a home, all the money in the world is not enough to give man purpose, in the most literal, biological sense, as he is not eternal. Another way in which fascism is a return to the natural order is its conception of freedoms and rights: make the choice, bear the consequences, is the way things should always be, and fascism thus always ties rights to responsibilities. One can be free within a fascist society in any way that does not directly hurt the state, so long as one has shown that they can bear this freedom responsibly. There will will also be a class of people that can only bear responsibily to a certain degree - those that in the current system become bankrupt addicts; strong societal influences should in a fascist system prevent these people from destroying themselves - sometimes real love is tough love.

Now what is good for the state in a year, is different than what is good for the state in a hundred years, and this is where the racial issue comes in: multiracialism is divisive, as all groups have natural in-group biases, and different groups have different priorities. As the state IS the people, it is unthinkable within fascism to give an outsider any influence in decision making, no matter how valuable their insight, and the foreigner will always be just that - a visitor with limited rights. The fascist believes in a right to self-determination for all peoples, and encourages the other nations and races to follow their own purposes, in their own lands.

This is why your question to the NatSocs here fall flat: the assumption of a fascist state, is a productive and self-sufficient one. A shortage of people in specific fields can be predicted and prevented, be solved internally. In a worst case scenario, the "brown" practicioner would be employed, but his position would be temporary, and he'd be a visitor. "Out-navigation" is not a problem with a closed market (we're aware this means we'll have to pay an import tax on our waifu pillows, or forego them altogether, but it's a loss we're willing to take).

Now the real issue you have is the basis of fascist morality. You're speaking of subjectivity, but is this so? Is it not empirically proven that order is preferable to chaos? Unity to division? The enlightenment idea of people as individuals with widely varying needs, is rejected. There is the outlier of course, but even this person is helped by a strong fundament within which he can put his specific talents to use.

Here lies a major shortcoming of the materialist systems (capitalism and communism alike) in that man is not a machine, and has spiritual needs and motivations. Fascism offers one the strife towards greatness for their extended family - what greater cause could there be in this world? It certainly beats nihilistic pleasure-seeking.

Now lastly there are those who wish not to progress the nation, but are out to harm it for their own gain. Free discussion in a unified society is possible and encouraged, but there are those - the worshippers of weakness, the slaves of the beast within - who will not accept the assumptions of the fascist state. Here again, we see fascism as a return to the natural state of man: he who goes against the tribe, is left to his own devices. A healthy, confident state can, just like the family it is an extension of, handle a fair amount of disdain, but their will be those that have to be punished, jailed, banished, or executed, because they harm the system that hosts them - as is needed to uphold a functional society.

>From what I can see Nat Soc is just as idealized as communism, with assumptions it will cater to 'you'. It also seems to be heavily subjective in it's values.

Man, as a creation of nature, is subject to its laws. National socialism caters to your needs, and mine, not as an individual, but as a human being. You knew all this already? Good; ask me anything and I'll answer to the best of my ability.

>>43540
>In a white first nat soc it automatically inflates "white" value.

Only if that white person is part of the group, and contributing to the society. If they are outside of it, being degenerate or doing their own things, why should I care?

You make it sound like there can't be merit among people that start off on the same foot.

>Gotta hire whites first would how it probably would express itself.

Sure. Hiring whites, that are within my country, should be a top priority. Why is that wrong, in itself? The selection process of ability is still the same - you hire somebody based on what they can do. If the pool of people are separated by race, then the selection and application process still applies to that race. Can't have an idiot run a nuclear reactor just because he's white.

Remember that eugenics is a thing, and that it has it's merits. You don't breed stupid, of any race. That would be…stupid.

>Inflating a socioeconomic value of a class of people leads that class of people to become lazy, complacent and egotistical.

Only when you don't expect somebody to actually work for it. You are assuming that people, given the opportunity to specifically work for themselves, and have their tax dollars go back directly to them, would become lazy.

However, you are forgetting that there is no one else to take from in a Nazi society. If the people are truly one People, then there is no way to rob Peter to pay Paul - they are the same. You can't pander to special interests as much in a Nazi society.

>In a surgery room you have 2 brown surgeons, you need a 3rd to keep up with the demands of the community. Applicants are a devout Christian white guy with 51% barely passed med school and almost botched his final exam, and a 100% genius practitioner, a brown devout islamist who believes in Sharia law, but doesn't bring it to work with him. In a quota world, the shitty med student gets the job.

If the brown guy with a Sharia background is willing to join my society and not try to fuck it up, I have no problem with him. The fact that he is still in the country, and not trying to bomb the fuck out of it just for being Nazi, seems like a good indicator that he's not an asshole.

I'd hire the better med student until/unless he fucks it up. Also, if what you said is true, he'd probably fuck it up really quick.

You forget that a devout Islamist prays to Mecca several times a day, and needs time to do that. If he's as devout as you say, then he might walk out on surgery, killing my patients. There's also several passages relating to killing infidels that are legitimate concerns if he's as devout as you say.

As long as he shows me that he puts my country first before his religion, I have no problems. He would be one of my Volk.

However, the chances of running into a black, Sharia practicing male with an IQ over 90 is quite low, lower than the chances of me finding some random white guy that can fill the position just as well. Bell curves are a thing that exist.

>>43600
You make good points. Have a (you).

>>42447
National socialism puts just enough power in the hands of the government to help keep order and protect the people from foreign invasions. Plus it helps to stop any rising political groups that want to bring in communism. National socialism also helps to rebuild a nation with economic problems. It does this by creating work programs and projects that create jobs and a environment to let small business grow.

This thread has been silent… So I think it's time for one more stream of consciousness, about authoritarianism. The libertarians have to like this one right? Fascists support an authoritarian state, pretty scary stuff.

Except… It's not really: "authoritarian" is on closer inspection a quality embedded in the state (aka "authorities"), as the state (government) has the final say on all the nation's matters, and has a monopoly on violence (coercion) - yes, there are exceptions, as defined by the law of the state. I'm sure we can skip the human rights debate: man knows, in a natural state, not even the right to live; all he has is that which he can protect, if fate will have it. Man as a member of the tribe, sacrifices a large deal of individuality, but gains the means to ensure his survival, and that of his genetic lineage.

Let's be honest and practical here: what does a non-authoritarian state look like, other than a crippled institution? What does experience tell us happens if the state - or any ultimate authority - lacks the power to enforce its agenda? There are two possibilities really: the usual solution is an expansion of state power to circumvent restrictions put in place, with the added benefit of increased bureaucracy and corruption, and chaos, and a loss of accountability for any one party. The other possible result of a state with limited authority? The rise of other authorities obviously, mafia, gangs, of which the consequences are just as negative.

In short: the state is a dangerous thing - authority is a dangerous thing. But someone has to have a final say in all matters, somehow your nation needs a manager. Fascists will cite a number of solutions to the issue of the oppressive state.

First of all, there's hierarchy. Is a democratic state honestly less oppressive than a fascist one? Is it not true that no matter what the organization of the state, an individual stands no chance if his government is out to get him? Are the democratic governments honestly less flawed or corrupt than a fascist one? I'm inclined to say no, but there is a difference: the fascist state has identifiable responsibility, as it theoretically grants its politicians all the power they need to perform their function, and holds them accountable for all the consequences of their actions. This here is one major flaw of the democratic system: what happens to accountability when it is evenly divided among all people of the nation? Let's shorten that: what remains when accountability is divided among multiple parties?

This is also where one must ask himself the question: which leader has a larger incentive to reign in a way that benefits the people? The leader that is a literal extension of the state and profits directly of the success of a nation, or the leader that has to look no further than his popularity with the populace at the time of the next election, and the reputation of his party? You know what the incentive for the second leader would be? To import a foreign population that will vote for his party in exchange for gibsmedats, use the power available to borrow as much as he can to fill his own pockets and keep the people comfortable, and move to Monaco when he has secured a comfortable future. If he's lucky the native population will be so busy looking out for their own well-being that they won't have time to revolt - bonus points if you implemented policies to further divide the country among lines of sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or just party politics.

Anyway, secondly: an armed populace. Any institution of influence attracts those that want to use this influence for the wrong reasons - all power is eventually corrupted. It is the duty of the people to ensure that the state acts in the interest of the nation.

A third way in which the state is checked is fascism's stated goal of unity. I mentioned before that to truly parasitize a nation, the direction of the populace and the righteous must be averted; this is much harder to do in a nation that is not divided by party politics, with a culture that values honour, righteousness, and most importantly, family. Ironically, if the libertarian Utopia is to ever emerge on this plane, expect it to be in a fascist state.

Lastly I should point out that fascism assumes that leaders are elected by a group of their own peers: competence of policymakers ought to be positively influenced by this.

That's a lot of positives I'm mentioning, sounds a bit like rose-tinted glasses even! It does, and the views presented here as just a selection of many. My state of mind is far from perfect - fascism and its offspring are probably far from perfect; feel free to point out why.

A starting point for further reading: http://cnqzu.com/library/Solar%20General/100-questions-about-fascism-oswald-mosley.pdf

An important distinction to make is that hierarchies are not inherently authoritarian, esp. when determined by classical auhtority (read: competence, skill, and ability learned over time). Authoritarianism is ultimately a symptom of excessive or inappropriate authorization (promotion or exaltation by fiat).

>>43552
>>43552
Hello havok

>>44519
Haha no fuck that commie fag. Im ancap. Maybe even more natcap after the thread.