We need more political discussion so this thread is for talking about political ideologies you dislike that others here might like. Sorta get a feel for why others might dislike your ideology and see what arguments there are for and against it.
I'll start. I hate national socialism. Its got its roots in the enlightenment mixing it with German ideas which I think are way too foreign to my more Gothic world view. Worse yet it lost in the battle of ideas, proving it couldn't out compete liberalism meaning its not only similar to liberalism since its post-enlightenment but its inferior to liberalism in power dynamics. Same goes with most fascist ideologies, though the Romanian legionaries were alright.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): AB661B2F1C3F7418B517BBE6473FDC9C-116360.jpg (113.6 KB, 736x1000, 1496980248937-1.jpg)
I hate monarchy. There is no balance of powers and one incompetent ruler can destroy an entire nation.
>>201642
>balance of powers
An enlightenment idea that is useless. A check and balance only keeps leaders from their rightful rule and the hierarchical goodness granted upon them.
>incompetent ruler can destroy an entire nation
Wrong this has never happened thought all of human history. The governments may have fallen into terrible tragedies from poor ruler-ship but consider if France was a republic when Louis the 17th ruled. Would the famine have ended? Would the merchants not rebelled? You bet they would. Same with Russia during WWI. If Russia was already Communist the same thing would have happened. Its ranks would have broken and a coup would happened at home ousting the local government for one that was anti-war.
Now lets look at a few republics records instead of hypothetical. France was a republic before WWII. It was because it was a republic that it fell so easily. Democratic grid-lock and "balance of powers" kept it from effectively fighting against the Germans. Take the USA, Spain, Chile, and China. All republics, in the 19th and 20th century, all had civil wars and were deeply unstable due to government institutions being unable to agree on a single path forward. Balance of power my ass, a single leader is way better even if he's a retarded inbred.
>balance of powers
An enlightenment idea that is useless. A check and balance only keeps leaders from their rightful rule and the hierarchical goodness granted upon them.
>incompetent ruler can destroy an entire nation
Wrong this has never happened thought all of human history. The governments may have fallen into terrible tragedies from poor ruler-ship but consider if France was a republic when Louis the 17th ruled. Would the famine have ended? Would the merchants not rebelled? You bet they would. Same with Russia during WWI. If Russia was already Communist the same thing would have happened. Its ranks would have broken and a coup would happened at home ousting the local government for one that was anti-war.
Now lets look at a few republics records instead of hypothetical. France was a republic before WWII. It was because it was a republic that it fell so easily. Democratic grid-lock and "balance of powers" kept it from effectively fighting against the Germans. Take the USA, Spain, Chile, and China. All republics, in the 19th and 20th century, all had civil wars and were deeply unstable due to government institutions being unable to agree on a single path forward. Balance of power my ass, a single leader is way better even if he's a retarded inbred.
File (): 3358DE8B5C543F9B209F4E74D1167DB2-70740.jpg (69.1 KB, 1000x303, omen crop.jpg)
Distributism and any sort of "conservative socialism" in practice as it betrays an ignorance, even revulsion towards, the philosophy of economics. It attempts to put a lid on the natural selfishness of man, which will inevitable blow out and boil over, rather than use it towards productive ends.
>>201650
Wouldn't be surprised but knowing the criticism of schools of thought is necessary to impose improvements. We're frankly starved for philosophical discussion.
>>201650
Wouldn't be surprised but knowing the criticism of schools of thought is necessary to impose improvements. We're frankly starved for philosophical discussion.
File (): 3EE69046E60EF7DDAB3C69B199CE83DC-216990.png (211.9 KB, 1116x1024, 1527312782979.png)
>>201641
I'ma let you in on a secret. National Socialism is kinda like socialism, in that the manifestation will never achieve 100% plurality with the philosophy. Having said, an ideology that supports the individual to aid in the development of the group (and not in a gibs mentality) seems preferable.
I'ma let you in on a secret. National Socialism is kinda like socialism, in that the manifestation will never achieve 100% plurality with the philosophy. Having said, an ideology that supports the individual to aid in the development of the group (and not in a gibs mentality) seems preferable.
Ancap and libertarianism. They refuse to see that the destructive and selfish nature of man needs to restrained for a society to function.
>>201649
>A check and balance only keeps leaders from their rightful rule and the hierarchical goodness granted upon them.
What gives them the right to rule?
>A check and balance only keeps leaders from their rightful rule and the hierarchical goodness granted upon them.
What gives them the right to rule?
File (): A4A6B7C22350DF77B80C1DCCB51B58FD-192849.png (188.3 KB, 1200x680, right wing mental faggotry.png)
>>201641
There are two "rightwing" ideologies that I hate. The first is "Libertariaism." Any permutation of Social-liberalism is not ultimately good for human society nor true to human nature. Really, libertarians are just liberals who don't care about poorer people. They are indistinguishable from Liberals on any issue that does not involve money.
The second "rightwing" "ideology" is any alleged-political belief that has no substance to it beyond "I hate Jews." The astounding ignorance behind reducing absolutely every political issue to "ra rar ra Jews" is annoying beyond measure
There are two "rightwing" ideologies that I hate. The first is "Libertariaism." Any permutation of Social-liberalism is not ultimately good for human society nor true to human nature. Really, libertarians are just liberals who don't care about poorer people. They are indistinguishable from Liberals on any issue that does not involve money.
The second "rightwing" "ideology" is any alleged-political belief that has no substance to it beyond "I hate Jews." The astounding ignorance behind reducing absolutely every political issue to "ra rar ra Jews" is annoying beyond measure
I'm pretty chill with anyone who is fighting against globalism, Marxism, and ZOG. I hate neocons, but I don't consider them right-wing, just another form of Bronstein-style jewtopian global Marxism.
>>201661
>the destructive and selfish nature of man needs to restrained
By giving one small group of men the privilege to plunder all the other men in a given area? Seems a little counterproductive, no?
>>201661
>the destructive and selfish nature of man needs to restrained
By giving one small group of men the privilege to plunder all the other men in a given area? Seems a little counterproductive, no?
>>201667
>My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal
>claims this is intellectualism
Great job faggot. Now defend national socialism instead of being asshurt.
>My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal
>claims this is intellectualism
Great job faggot. Now defend national socialism instead of being asshurt.
File (): 4C7E32F515CA751AB6D52D117E9196C6-1985270.png (1.9 MB, 1000x1500, Will vs the charlatan.png)
>>201669
>By giving one small group of men the privilege to plunder all the other men in a given area?
No group should be given absolute power over all other men in a given area.
>By giving one small group of men the privilege to plunder all the other men in a given area?
No group should be given absolute power over all other men in a given area.
>>201671
>No argument
Great slogan. Too bad character seems to be the last thing a modern national socialist has, as made evident by your unwillingness to defend your ideology in a good faith argument.
>No argument
Great slogan. Too bad character seems to be the last thing a modern national socialist has, as made evident by your unwillingness to defend your ideology in a good faith argument.
>>201673
A pic is worth of a thousand words.
Fascism is The Truth and The Path, what you propose is plain Jewish dialectic.
A pic is worth of a thousand words.
Fascism is The Truth and The Path, what you propose is plain Jewish dialectic.
>>201672
>No group should be given absolute power over all other men in a given area.
You say that, but you support the existence of the state, an entity defined by some men using coercion to establish themselves as the ultimate arbitrators in a geographical area.
>No group should be given absolute power over all other men in a given area.
You say that, but you support the existence of the state, an entity defined by some men using coercion to establish themselves as the ultimate arbitrators in a geographical area.
>>201677
What should restrain the state? The will of the people, out of touch bureaucrats, the threat of armed revolt, foreign interests, or the state's own judgement?
What should restrain the state? The will of the people, out of touch bureaucrats, the threat of armed revolt, foreign interests, or the state's own judgement?
>>201677
Speaking historically, it is far more reasonable to expect even a restrained state to grow exponentially than for a state to sacrifice even a sliver of its power. And even a restrained state is still giving a small group of men a monopoly on judgement of disputes and the power to enrich themselves through parasitism.
Speaking historically, it is far more reasonable to expect even a restrained state to grow exponentially than for a state to sacrifice even a sliver of its power. And even a restrained state is still giving a small group of men a monopoly on judgement of disputes and the power to enrich themselves through parasitism.
>>201677
The collapse of America, a restrained state, into degeneracy and anarcho-tyranny took longer than the statute-governed states of Europe, but was inevitable nonetheless.
The collapse of America, a restrained state, into degeneracy and anarcho-tyranny took longer than the statute-governed states of Europe, but was inevitable nonetheless.
>>201680
>>201682
>Speaking historically, it is far more reasonable to expect even a restrained state to grow exponentially than for a state to sacrifice even a sliver of its power.
There will never be a perfect system. We can assume that eventually entropy will build up in a system and the system will collapse. The goal is to build a system that will last as long as possible while providing the citizens with a fair and safe environment to conduct business.
> And even a restrained state is still giving a small group of men a monopoly on judgement of disputes and the power to enrich themselves through parasitism.
There is always going to be some corruption in any state, but this is a necessary trade off for the state to provide safety and fairness.
>>201682
>Speaking historically, it is far more reasonable to expect even a restrained state to grow exponentially than for a state to sacrifice even a sliver of its power.
There will never be a perfect system. We can assume that eventually entropy will build up in a system and the system will collapse. The goal is to build a system that will last as long as possible while providing the citizens with a fair and safe environment to conduct business.
> And even a restrained state is still giving a small group of men a monopoly on judgement of disputes and the power to enrich themselves through parasitism.
There is always going to be some corruption in any state, but this is a necessary trade off for the state to provide safety and fairness.
>>201654
> It attempts to put a lid on the natural selfishness of man, which will inevitable blow out and boil over, rather than use it towards productive ends.
There should be a lid on the natural selfishness of man. An unrestrained man is a very dangerous creature.
> It attempts to put a lid on the natural selfishness of man, which will inevitable blow out and boil over, rather than use it towards productive ends.
There should be a lid on the natural selfishness of man. An unrestrained man is a very dangerous creature.
>>201641
While it is true that national socialism has its faults it is an intermediate form of government as with all fascist governments. In fascist states that didn't fall namely spain power was given over to the king.It just so happened that carlos was a shit king and returned spain to democracy. It is almost impossible to keep a fascist state fascist as their is no real means of succession so the state will turn to monarchy to remedy this. Otherwise their would be a civil war every time the dictator died.
While it is true that national socialism has its faults it is an intermediate form of government as with all fascist governments. In fascist states that didn't fall namely spain power was given over to the king.It just so happened that carlos was a shit king and returned spain to democracy. It is almost impossible to keep a fascist state fascist as their is no real means of succession so the state will turn to monarchy to remedy this. Otherwise their would be a civil war every time the dictator died.
File (): B1A0869B0F779C7F09AC45548CE01D1A-24639934.pdf (23.5 MB, , The Enterprise of Law.pdf)
>>201688
>necessary trade off
It does not matter what powers a state has if the underlying culture is rotten. Likewise, if the culture of the people is one where justice is regularly enforced without needed intervention from the state, then that institution can be dispensed with completely.
>>201690
Man will gravitate to whatever areas and means impose the least restraints and thereby grant him the most power. When such restraints are hard with the force of shackles, he will seek to be the jailer and will likely succeed in becoming one over the less motivated. If such restraints are a steady breeze pushing his boat, he will look for fulfillment in the area towards which it blows.
That is to say, man always looks out for #1 and imposing this artificially is likely to be used against the innocent for that purpose. A softer restriction emanating from societal attitudes is less easily parried and cannot be readily abused. Therefore it is better to let society itself know what is good and bad for it and let its members embark on paths for their benefit and hopefully for that of the community.
>necessary trade off
It does not matter what powers a state has if the underlying culture is rotten. Likewise, if the culture of the people is one where justice is regularly enforced without needed intervention from the state, then that institution can be dispensed with completely.
>>201690
Man will gravitate to whatever areas and means impose the least restraints and thereby grant him the most power. When such restraints are hard with the force of shackles, he will seek to be the jailer and will likely succeed in becoming one over the less motivated. If such restraints are a steady breeze pushing his boat, he will look for fulfillment in the area towards which it blows.
That is to say, man always looks out for #1 and imposing this artificially is likely to be used against the innocent for that purpose. A softer restriction emanating from societal attitudes is less easily parried and cannot be readily abused. Therefore it is better to let society itself know what is good and bad for it and let its members embark on paths for their benefit and hopefully for that of the community.
>>201694
>It does not matter what powers a state has if the underlying culture is rotten.
Then the state should try to prevent the culture from becoming rotten.
>Therefore it is better to let society itself know what is good and bad for it and let its members embark on paths for their benefit and hopefully for that of the community.
Look at where all of our freedoms have lead us too. Society is not capable of deciding what is good and bad on its own.
>It does not matter what powers a state has if the underlying culture is rotten.
Then the state should try to prevent the culture from becoming rotten.
>Therefore it is better to let society itself know what is good and bad for it and let its members embark on paths for their benefit and hopefully for that of the community.
Look at where all of our freedoms have lead us too. Society is not capable of deciding what is good and bad on its own.
>>201697
I alone am not, but I think that some people are better than others at deciding what is best for society. I think a scientist or an engineer would have better insight for what is best for society than say a bum or a liberal arts.
I alone am not, but I think that some people are better than others at deciding what is best for society. I think a scientist or an engineer would have better insight for what is best for society than say a bum or a liberal arts.
>>201698
Society, like humans in general, follow the leader. That's just what we do. Therefore, the question boils down to a preference in leadership, which is not determined by occupation, but by the ability to gain the support of his peers and react well to conflicts both external and internal to his group. An extremely simplified model of course, but sufficient for this particular point.
A scientist or engineer would be no better than a bum or a liberal arts major if they can't build rapport or handle conflicts. Being good at following procedures and scripts means little to nothing for a good leader.
So I suppose the question to you would be: what kind of a leader would you like to follow?
Society, like humans in general, follow the leader. That's just what we do. Therefore, the question boils down to a preference in leadership, which is not determined by occupation, but by the ability to gain the support of his peers and react well to conflicts both external and internal to his group. An extremely simplified model of course, but sufficient for this particular point.
A scientist or engineer would be no better than a bum or a liberal arts major if they can't build rapport or handle conflicts. Being good at following procedures and scripts means little to nothing for a good leader.
So I suppose the question to you would be: what kind of a leader would you like to follow?
>>201701
>what kind of a leader would you like to follow?
Someone who will ensure the survival of our race and lead us to a more prosperous future.
>what kind of a leader would you like to follow?
Someone who will ensure the survival of our race and lead us to a more prosperous future.
>>201691
Well two main things. One Spain under Franco wasn't really fascist. It was just a military Junta rather then what the Falange wanted, which was national syndicalism. Franco let most of the Falange die out so that he could just have the military run the state and wouldn't have to reform society to be as radical as what those in the Falange wanted. Sorta used them as a cover to the more far right elements in the Spanish Civil War even if what he ended up creating wasn't really fascist.
Second my problem isn't with the practicality of fascism. That is I don't think the succession problem with Spain necessarily is a problem even if we consider it fascist. My main problems are with Hegel's ideas that man lives to serve the state first and foremost. My second main problem is that its based in a post-enlightenment worldview, which is how it was created. So instead of it being focused around ideas of character and spirit its based around solving racial and problems of modernity (how do I solve the problem of life.) To which its answer is by serving the state and gaining high status, in contrast to liberalism which is by being free and making money.
Well two main things. One Spain under Franco wasn't really fascist. It was just a military Junta rather then what the Falange wanted, which was national syndicalism. Franco let most of the Falange die out so that he could just have the military run the state and wouldn't have to reform society to be as radical as what those in the Falange wanted. Sorta used them as a cover to the more far right elements in the Spanish Civil War even if what he ended up creating wasn't really fascist.
Second my problem isn't with the practicality of fascism. That is I don't think the succession problem with Spain necessarily is a problem even if we consider it fascist. My main problems are with Hegel's ideas that man lives to serve the state first and foremost. My second main problem is that its based in a post-enlightenment worldview, which is how it was created. So instead of it being focused around ideas of character and spirit its based around solving racial and problems of modernity (how do I solve the problem of life.) To which its answer is by serving the state and gaining high status, in contrast to liberalism which is by being free and making money.
File (): CDB93721E63CF2FDE6C14C8405D39310-784848.png (766.5 KB, 600x1096, fun and games.png)
>>201673
>as made evident by your unwillingness to defend your ideology in a good faith argument
You have it wrong.
For you is unwillingness, for me is an annoyance for your daring insolence asking to justify my beliefs and plans to make you pay reparations for your crimes.
The pic >>201671 represents the idea that jewish theorists and commie charlatans need to face us IRL to have a constructive chat. Where you and your confederates can talk to us about equality and we could explain to you our views about it.
It will be messy at the beginning, but glorious at the end.
>as made evident by your unwillingness to defend your ideology in a good faith argument
You have it wrong.
For you is unwillingness, for me is an annoyance for your daring insolence asking to justify my beliefs and plans to make you pay reparations for your crimes.
The pic >>201671 represents the idea that jewish theorists and commie charlatans need to face us IRL to have a constructive chat. Where you and your confederates can talk to us about equality and we could explain to you our views about it.
It will be messy at the beginning, but glorious at the end.
>>201662
>What gives them the right to rule?
The same thing that gives anyone else the "right". Wielding enough force that everyone obeys your commands. Anything else is just obfuscation.
>>201679
>the threat of armed revolt and separation of powers.
If you have the former, the latter is irrelevant.
If you don't have the former, the latter is still irrelevant.
Look at the current US, for example. Separation of powers just means more possible avenues for malicious actors to cause infighting and keep their moves obscured with.
Without separation of powers, malicious actors can still take over, but at least there's somewhat fewer places for them to hide.
>What gives them the right to rule?
The same thing that gives anyone else the "right". Wielding enough force that everyone obeys your commands. Anything else is just obfuscation.
>>201679
>the threat of armed revolt and separation of powers.
If you have the former, the latter is irrelevant.
If you don't have the former, the latter is still irrelevant.
Look at the current US, for example. Separation of powers just means more possible avenues for malicious actors to cause infighting and keep their moves obscured with.
Without separation of powers, malicious actors can still take over, but at least there's somewhat fewer places for them to hide.
File (): 0D431B3C7256DF8E4EEC50D8150AEA45-260733.jpg (254.6 KB, 1600x840, photographerprotesterviolencefeat.jpg)
>>201714
You have it wrong.
For you is unwillingness, for me is an annoyance for your daring insolence asking to justify my beliefs and plans to make you pay reparations for your crimes.
Pic related represents the idea that white theorists and Nazi charlatans need to face us IRL to have a constructive chat. Where you and your compatriots can talk to us about oppression and we could explain to you our views about it.
It will be messy at the beginning, but glorious at the end.
You have it wrong.
For you is unwillingness, for me is an annoyance for your daring insolence asking to justify my beliefs and plans to make you pay reparations for your crimes.
Pic related represents the idea that white theorists and Nazi charlatans need to face us IRL to have a constructive chat. Where you and your compatriots can talk to us about oppression and we could explain to you our views about it.
It will be messy at the beginning, but glorious at the end.
>>201712
Even if we consider spain not to be fascist it doesn't the fact that monarchy comes naturally after fascism to fix the succession problem even Hitler talked of restoring the monarchy but Wilhelm wanted the throne back as soon as Hitler came to power and started to denounce Hitler so Hitler changed his mind .And yes fascism is post enlightenment. But the job of the monarchy that comes after it is to restore those pre enlightenment ideals
Even if we consider spain not to be fascist it doesn't the fact that monarchy comes naturally after fascism to fix the succession problem even Hitler talked of restoring the monarchy but Wilhelm wanted the throne back as soon as Hitler came to power and started to denounce Hitler so Hitler changed his mind .And yes fascism is post enlightenment. But the job of the monarchy that comes after it is to restore those pre enlightenment ideals
>>201712
>My second main problem is that its based in a post-enlightenment worldview, which is how it was created.
I think this is the central reason why a lot of Western ideologies tend to be unstable and implode upon themselves.
Eastern ideologies by contrast don't suffer under the same delusions of the Enlightenment, and have been a lot more stable as a direct result. The Chinese, for instance, based their empire's beliefs on Confucianism, and they were able to keep the empire going from 221 BC until 1912; a little over 2100 years.
>My second main problem is that its based in a post-enlightenment worldview, which is how it was created.
I think this is the central reason why a lot of Western ideologies tend to be unstable and implode upon themselves.
Eastern ideologies by contrast don't suffer under the same delusions of the Enlightenment, and have been a lot more stable as a direct result. The Chinese, for instance, based their empire's beliefs on Confucianism, and they were able to keep the empire going from 221 BC until 1912; a little over 2100 years.
>>201719
>monarchy that comes after it is to restore those pre enlightenment ideals
>>201720
>Western ideologies tend to be unstable and implode upon themselves
Entirely agree. Fascism falls into this trap which is why I think it'd be prudent to abandon it for something pre-enlightenment. For me this has been Christianity, but I understand why Neo-Paganism is also so popular.
>>201714
>annoyance for your daring insolence asking to justify my beliefs
Why? Is it because you don't know what your beliefs are? Or is it because your beliefs are entirely negative or just based around what you hate? Is there another national socialist that'd like to give my criticism a try, since I'd like to hear a good counterargument.
>monarchy that comes after it is to restore those pre enlightenment ideals
>>201720
>Western ideologies tend to be unstable and implode upon themselves
Entirely agree. Fascism falls into this trap which is why I think it'd be prudent to abandon it for something pre-enlightenment. For me this has been Christianity, but I understand why Neo-Paganism is also so popular.
>>201714
>annoyance for your daring insolence asking to justify my beliefs
Why? Is it because you don't know what your beliefs are? Or is it because your beliefs are entirely negative or just based around what you hate? Is there another national socialist that'd like to give my criticism a try, since I'd like to hear a good counterargument.
>>201723
Yet the empire remained an empire all throughout, and their core ideology changed gradually in response to their competitors to remain relevant. I'd call that a stable system.
>>201724
>Entirely agree. Fascism falls into this trap which is why I think it'd be prudent to abandon it for something pre-enlightenment.
I think it's completely possible to ditch Enlightenment values, but the real challenge is making it stable and appealing in the face of it's Enlightenment-bound contemporaries.
Enlightenment ideologies are unstable, true, but they're also unquestionably powerful, and subversive like none other. It's like if you crossed PCP and heroin, and made it an ideological stimulant. Those who take the drug march forwards with seeming invincibility and with a very intense euphoria, but like all hard drugs, the crash is nothing short of catastrophic.
How do you insulate this hypothetical new ideology against something that powerful, that destructive?
Yet the empire remained an empire all throughout, and their core ideology changed gradually in response to their competitors to remain relevant. I'd call that a stable system.
>>201724
>Entirely agree. Fascism falls into this trap which is why I think it'd be prudent to abandon it for something pre-enlightenment.
I think it's completely possible to ditch Enlightenment values, but the real challenge is making it stable and appealing in the face of it's Enlightenment-bound contemporaries.
Enlightenment ideologies are unstable, true, but they're also unquestionably powerful, and subversive like none other. It's like if you crossed PCP and heroin, and made it an ideological stimulant. Those who take the drug march forwards with seeming invincibility and with a very intense euphoria, but like all hard drugs, the crash is nothing short of catastrophic.
How do you insulate this hypothetical new ideology against something that powerful, that destructive?
File (): EC02CABDDC3602E9C4F03044FF457E43-165206.png (161.3 KB, 600x461, kai_murros_quote_2_by_neetsfagging322297-dagbdq7.png)
File (): 9EA0211C6CEF28F816D5BAD37E400593-15650422.mp4 (14.9 MB, Resolution:1280x720 Length:00:04:00, Manifesto.mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>201724
>I'd like to hear a good counterargument.
Counter arguments can go back and forward for an eternity, and here is where the kike excels with subversive Hegelian dialectic.
You won't read them from me because to counter divergent opinions is useless, better to amass forces to format this planet as the White Race needs it to be.
And by the way, you mention "hate" as negative, I implore you to reconsider such mendacious opinion, hate is good, and think about it as just a byproduct of Judaism in Gentiles civilizations; a immune response to a foreign pathogen.
>I'd like to hear a good counterargument.
Counter arguments can go back and forward for an eternity, and here is where the kike excels with subversive Hegelian dialectic.
You won't read them from me because to counter divergent opinions is useless, better to amass forces to format this planet as the White Race needs it to be.
And by the way, you mention "hate" as negative, I implore you to reconsider such mendacious opinion, hate is good, and think about it as just a byproduct of Judaism in Gentiles civilizations; a immune response to a foreign pathogen.
File (): 4F01B6BB76AF840B7D7729C86355E917-1049524.png (1.0 MB, 5314x5699, _boop ponk.png)
File (): 9BA52F9FB91D9EDAE65644F20FC4838C-86541.jpg (84.5 KB, 960x655, AltRight.jpg)
>>201734
I'm glad you liked the guide, anon.
As for a rebuttal to >>201730 : your hatred makes you easily controllable.
If the Jews have even half the control you ascribe to them, you'll know all about the 'love for all' narrative that is commonly pushed upon their leftist followers and followed to the letter. It makes them easy to control by directly manipulating a powerful emotion.
Consider then, if they are such masterful manipulators, that they would also be playing the opposite side in a similar manner: using such feelings of hatred to easily manipulate their opposition into indulging in harmless, self-destructive actions, while selling them as 'battling the Jew'.
As you have chosen to barge into this thread with platitude after platitude of "I am right, you are wrong, end of discussion", I can only assume you are one of the poor saps that (((they))) have manipulated into doing their bidding.
So I'll make this simple. Join the discussion and put your supposedly unbreakable ideas to the test, or I'll continue to dismiss and ridicule you as the JIDF disinformation actor that you are.
I'm glad you liked the guide, anon.
As for a rebuttal to >>201730 : your hatred makes you easily controllable.
If the Jews have even half the control you ascribe to them, you'll know all about the 'love for all' narrative that is commonly pushed upon their leftist followers and followed to the letter. It makes them easy to control by directly manipulating a powerful emotion.
Consider then, if they are such masterful manipulators, that they would also be playing the opposite side in a similar manner: using such feelings of hatred to easily manipulate their opposition into indulging in harmless, self-destructive actions, while selling them as 'battling the Jew'.
As you have chosen to barge into this thread with platitude after platitude of "I am right, you are wrong, end of discussion", I can only assume you are one of the poor saps that (((they))) have manipulated into doing their bidding.
So I'll make this simple. Join the discussion and put your supposedly unbreakable ideas to the test, or I'll continue to dismiss and ridicule you as the JIDF disinformation actor that you are.
>>201730
>kike excels with subversive Hegelian dialectic
You know Hegel is what led to the origins of fascist thought...
>You won't read them from me because to counter divergent opinions is useless
I made this thread specifically because I wanted to hear a good argument against my problems with national socialism. Which I'm unsure you completely understand it at this point.
>"hate" as negative
Didn't mean negative as in bad, but negative as in negate, or absence.
>video
First, way too many slogans. What does it mean by unshakeable foundations? All consuming framework of beliefs? On top of that it seemed like edgy 40k in modern day. Regardless I'm walking out of this more turned off by fascistic ideologies. Not because of their ideas now, but because they draw in way too many people like you. Unable to answer a few questions and criticisms I have in good faith. If you don't want to answer them or criticize other's posts then don't post anymore since I'm done hearing slogans.
>>201726
>How do you insulate this hypothetical new ideology against something that powerful, that destructive?
Had to think about this for a while. At this point I'd say our only hope is that the enlightenment destroys itself before it destroys everyone that lives under it.
>kike excels with subversive Hegelian dialectic
You know Hegel is what led to the origins of fascist thought...
>You won't read them from me because to counter divergent opinions is useless
I made this thread specifically because I wanted to hear a good argument against my problems with national socialism. Which I'm unsure you completely understand it at this point.
>"hate" as negative
Didn't mean negative as in bad, but negative as in negate, or absence.
>video
First, way too many slogans. What does it mean by unshakeable foundations? All consuming framework of beliefs? On top of that it seemed like edgy 40k in modern day. Regardless I'm walking out of this more turned off by fascistic ideologies. Not because of their ideas now, but because they draw in way too many people like you. Unable to answer a few questions and criticisms I have in good faith. If you don't want to answer them or criticize other's posts then don't post anymore since I'm done hearing slogans.
>>201726
>How do you insulate this hypothetical new ideology against something that powerful, that destructive?
Had to think about this for a while. At this point I'd say our only hope is that the enlightenment destroys itself before it destroys everyone that lives under it.
>>201738
>At this point I'd say our only hope is that the enlightenment destroys itself before it destroys everyone that lives under it.
Oh it won't destroy the people living under it, not by a long shot. But you are right that the Enlightenment will destroy itself. It's that exact point, when the myriad ideologies under it's umbrella fracture for good, that this future ideology will be poised to clean house.
Of course, there's no telling if this new ideology will actually be a return to more stable roots, or simply a far more virulent cancer than the Enlightenment.
>At this point I'd say our only hope is that the enlightenment destroys itself before it destroys everyone that lives under it.
Oh it won't destroy the people living under it, not by a long shot. But you are right that the Enlightenment will destroy itself. It's that exact point, when the myriad ideologies under it's umbrella fracture for good, that this future ideology will be poised to clean house.
Of course, there's no telling if this new ideology will actually be a return to more stable roots, or simply a far more virulent cancer than the Enlightenment.
>>201739
>Oh it won't destroy the people living under it, not by a long shot.
Don't know, I'm still worried about it, at least in burger land with le 56% and all. I'm a fan of Spengler's work so if I was a betting man (I am) I'd be betting on something Imperial replacing the our enlightenment ideals. Not sure if it'll be better or worse, I'm hoping it'll be better though.
>Oh it won't destroy the people living under it, not by a long shot.
Don't know, I'm still worried about it, at least in burger land with le 56% and all. I'm a fan of Spengler's work so if I was a betting man (I am) I'd be betting on something Imperial replacing the our enlightenment ideals. Not sure if it'll be better or worse, I'm hoping it'll be better though.
File (): 4FA181415AA0CF708343519F2630A45A-19252.jpg (18.8 KB, 540x500, 1527345281161-0.jpg)
>>201737
>I'm glad you liked the guide, anon.
If you are the author, have my greatest appreciation.
>that meme
Well done, but it is a big mistake to underestimate the populus (plebs). Looking down at them might backfire badly.
>So I'll make this simple. Join the discussion and put your supposedly unbreakable ideas to the test, or I'll continue to dismiss and ridicule you as the JIDF disinformation actor that you are.
I must decline, for now.
>I'm glad you liked the guide, anon.
If you are the author, have my greatest appreciation.
>that meme
Well done, but it is a big mistake to underestimate the populus (plebs). Looking down at them might backfire badly.
>So I'll make this simple. Join the discussion and put your supposedly unbreakable ideas to the test, or I'll continue to dismiss and ridicule you as the JIDF disinformation actor that you are.
I must decline, for now.
>>201726
To those of European descent, yes. To those of Chinese descent, not likely. We can't view it from the perspective of Europeans with our own definitions of ideologies and empires. We have to view it from theirs.
Unlike others in this thread, I know my ability to make arguments in favor of my own ideology is insufficient for serious discussion, so I'll just say this: for us Burgers, neither Monarchism nor National Socialism will suit our purposes. The ideology we support for the US needs to be tailored around the ideals held by the nation at large, much as National Socialism was tailored around German ideals, and neither ideology mentioned above supports American ideals.
To those of European descent, yes. To those of Chinese descent, not likely. We can't view it from the perspective of Europeans with our own definitions of ideologies and empires. We have to view it from theirs.
Unlike others in this thread, I know my ability to make arguments in favor of my own ideology is insufficient for serious discussion, so I'll just say this: for us Burgers, neither Monarchism nor National Socialism will suit our purposes. The ideology we support for the US needs to be tailored around the ideals held by the nation at large, much as National Socialism was tailored around German ideals, and neither ideology mentioned above supports American ideals.
>>201743
>The ideology we support for the US needs to be tailored around the ideals held by the nation at large
Does it mean civic-nationalism?
>The ideology we support for the US needs to be tailored around the ideals held by the nation at large
Does it mean civic-nationalism?
>>201714
>>201730
Argumentation is necessary as it is a means winning a battle of wills in a way that does not involve physical conflict, therefore leaving both sides better off than they would be otherwise. Obviously you cannot simply convince your invader to leave (though there have been such exceptions in the past, such as Pope Leo's conversation with Attila outside Rome) as he has already steeled himself for physical conflict. However, in almost every situation it is preferable to battle with words rather than arms. Could you imagine a society where men would brawl over who owns a particular patch of lawn?
Traditionally argumentation is meant to convince the other side. However, when it comes to ideology both sides have vested interests that may overwhelm the appeal of logic. Therefore, it is more important to try to convince any third parties present, as they are more likely to join you than an intellectual. Additionally, debate becomes a means by which one refines his own ideas, considering the cogent objections of the other and refuting them or reinforcing one's own system. Therefore ongoing debate is useful even if you cannot convince the other side.
>>201726
>remain relevant
Until the Industrial British arrived and absolutely wrecked house. A centralized empire does not exist in isolation but will be attacked by the opportunistic. It is also worth noting that China had a major flaw in that its armies were perpetually weak and disorganized: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HI_irp3u7E. This was due to a (rational) fear that skilled and successful military commanders would eventually usurp the throne (this takes into account the selfishness/ambition of such generals and aligns with history), therefore a military capable only of suppressing unrest is necessary.
>>201745
Civic nationalism is a relatively new innovation that sprung out of the Union's destruction of the South's bid for independence. I'm assuming >>201743 meant small-government ideals, even right-wing anarchism which has been a tradition long before Lysander Spooner.
>>201730
Argumentation is necessary as it is a means winning a battle of wills in a way that does not involve physical conflict, therefore leaving both sides better off than they would be otherwise. Obviously you cannot simply convince your invader to leave (though there have been such exceptions in the past, such as Pope Leo's conversation with Attila outside Rome) as he has already steeled himself for physical conflict. However, in almost every situation it is preferable to battle with words rather than arms. Could you imagine a society where men would brawl over who owns a particular patch of lawn?
Traditionally argumentation is meant to convince the other side. However, when it comes to ideology both sides have vested interests that may overwhelm the appeal of logic. Therefore, it is more important to try to convince any third parties present, as they are more likely to join you than an intellectual. Additionally, debate becomes a means by which one refines his own ideas, considering the cogent objections of the other and refuting them or reinforcing one's own system. Therefore ongoing debate is useful even if you cannot convince the other side.
>>201726
>remain relevant
Until the Industrial British arrived and absolutely wrecked house. A centralized empire does not exist in isolation but will be attacked by the opportunistic. It is also worth noting that China had a major flaw in that its armies were perpetually weak and disorganized: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HI_irp3u7E. This was due to a (rational) fear that skilled and successful military commanders would eventually usurp the throne (this takes into account the selfishness/ambition of such generals and aligns with history), therefore a military capable only of suppressing unrest is necessary.
>>201745
Civic nationalism is a relatively new innovation that sprung out of the Union's destruction of the South's bid for independence. I'm assuming >>201743 meant small-government ideals, even right-wing anarchism which has been a tradition long before Lysander Spooner.
NatSoc didn't lose a "War of ideas", nearly every industrialized country in the world was required to defeat Germany.
Come on, you're bullshitting. Hitler literally did nothing wrong.
Come on, you're bullshitting. Hitler literally did nothing wrong.
>>201756
Fascism is an alternative to liberalism created in modernity. But it lost a war to liberalism. That means it lost the war of ideas, since liberalism's grand strategy was more successful then fascism's. Liberalism being trade and alliances, fascism being self sufficiency and expansion. In the end liberalism was able to out compete fascism because of its alliances needing to get involved and fascism overestimating its expansionary abilities.
It lost to liberalism on the battlefield, showing it couldn't compete against a more flexible liberalism. Also don't pretend it was the world against Germany, at its height all of the continent was German besides the Soviets. Germany had it all and lost it because they overestimated their ability to expand and liberalim's to stay in the game and get more countries to join their cause.
Fascism is an alternative to liberalism created in modernity. But it lost a war to liberalism. That means it lost the war of ideas, since liberalism's grand strategy was more successful then fascism's. Liberalism being trade and alliances, fascism being self sufficiency and expansion. In the end liberalism was able to out compete fascism because of its alliances needing to get involved and fascism overestimating its expansionary abilities.
It lost to liberalism on the battlefield, showing it couldn't compete against a more flexible liberalism. Also don't pretend it was the world against Germany, at its height all of the continent was German besides the Soviets. Germany had it all and lost it because they overestimated their ability to expand and liberalim's to stay in the game and get more countries to join their cause.
>>201641
You're essentially saying that National Socialism was bad because it got buried under a mountain of corpses driven ahead of the communist political officers. It was taken down in war because it was out-competing every other system on earth and no one in power wanted their working class to start wondering why they weren't following Hitler's example, considering he turned the poorest nation into the richest nation in the face of heavy international opposition and the great depression in just a few short years.
As for what I dislike, anarcho-capitalism. It's for sociopaths who have no care for their fellow man. You cannot build a nation out of individuals, as it is, you can barely build a nation out of individuals coerced to work together by the state without it threatening to collapse every other century.
You're essentially saying that National Socialism was bad because it got buried under a mountain of corpses driven ahead of the communist political officers. It was taken down in war because it was out-competing every other system on earth and no one in power wanted their working class to start wondering why they weren't following Hitler's example, considering he turned the poorest nation into the richest nation in the face of heavy international opposition and the great depression in just a few short years.
As for what I dislike, anarcho-capitalism. It's for sociopaths who have no care for their fellow man. You cannot build a nation out of individuals, as it is, you can barely build a nation out of individuals coerced to work together by the state without it threatening to collapse every other century.
>>201743
>We can't view it from the perspective of Europeans with our own definitions of ideologies and empires. We have to view it from theirs.
I disagree. We can absolutely view their systems from our perspectives and vice-versa, as long as you're aware of and account for the underlying differences in taking such a view, particularly of the factors beyond their control.
Geographical differences, in particular, are massive factors in the successes of the different systems. Europe is, without a doubt, the luckiest one in the draw here. Europe has the best climate, best crops, and best animals out of all the other major continents, which enabled the people there to flourish at a far faster pace than any other continental group. It's one of the big reasons that small nation-states are so prevalent there: everyone could afford to do it. It's also a major reason why many of their ideals, from Christianity to Kantian thought, center around elevating human beings above animals. With success, of course, comes the trappings of arrogance, and the battles that arise out of them. From the Crusades to the World Wars, they've got more blood on their hands than the other regions. Europe hits hard and gets knocked down a lot, but it's favourable conditions ensures it can get right back up again.
Asia, by contrast, doesn't have that kind of fortune. Until agriculture and the Industrial Revolution came along, the people there had to scrape by with whatever they had. Their crops and animals weren't as good as their European counterparts, and their climate was far more volatile, what with their monsoons and typhoons, among other things. This too is reflected in their ideologies: they routinely do not elevate humans above their animal cohorts, but rather place themselves on the same level. Their ideals, born out of survival, are far humbler and simplistic than those of Europe. Of course, once the revolutions happened, they scrapped a lot of this for the faster paced European style systems, since now they can afford to do it too. Enter South Korea's ridiculous corporatism, Communist China, etc.
Africa's climate, crops and animals are a complete dumpster fire. You see where I'm going with this by now. Is it any wonder why they aren't even a blip on our radar?
Anyways, with that set of lenses and more at the ready, you can very easily interpret these systems from our perspectives. So,
>for us Burgers, neither Monarchism nor National Socialism will suit our purposes. The ideology we support for the US needs to be tailored around the ideals held by the nation at large, much as National Socialism was tailored around German ideals, and neither ideology mentioned above supports American ideals.
Very true. You guys are fighters, and need a fighter's ideals to match. All I suggest is to take a long, integrative look at how others have done it, so you can weigh your options and avoid repeating old mistakes. For once, I'd like to see new mistakes made, not old ones retreaded.
>>201755
I didn't know that about the Chinese military. Thanks for the info.
>We can't view it from the perspective of Europeans with our own definitions of ideologies and empires. We have to view it from theirs.
I disagree. We can absolutely view their systems from our perspectives and vice-versa, as long as you're aware of and account for the underlying differences in taking such a view, particularly of the factors beyond their control.
Geographical differences, in particular, are massive factors in the successes of the different systems. Europe is, without a doubt, the luckiest one in the draw here. Europe has the best climate, best crops, and best animals out of all the other major continents, which enabled the people there to flourish at a far faster pace than any other continental group. It's one of the big reasons that small nation-states are so prevalent there: everyone could afford to do it. It's also a major reason why many of their ideals, from Christianity to Kantian thought, center around elevating human beings above animals. With success, of course, comes the trappings of arrogance, and the battles that arise out of them. From the Crusades to the World Wars, they've got more blood on their hands than the other regions. Europe hits hard and gets knocked down a lot, but it's favourable conditions ensures it can get right back up again.
Asia, by contrast, doesn't have that kind of fortune. Until agriculture and the Industrial Revolution came along, the people there had to scrape by with whatever they had. Their crops and animals weren't as good as their European counterparts, and their climate was far more volatile, what with their monsoons and typhoons, among other things. This too is reflected in their ideologies: they routinely do not elevate humans above their animal cohorts, but rather place themselves on the same level. Their ideals, born out of survival, are far humbler and simplistic than those of Europe. Of course, once the revolutions happened, they scrapped a lot of this for the faster paced European style systems, since now they can afford to do it too. Enter South Korea's ridiculous corporatism, Communist China, etc.
Africa's climate, crops and animals are a complete dumpster fire. You see where I'm going with this by now. Is it any wonder why they aren't even a blip on our radar?
Anyways, with that set of lenses and more at the ready, you can very easily interpret these systems from our perspectives. So,
>for us Burgers, neither Monarchism nor National Socialism will suit our purposes. The ideology we support for the US needs to be tailored around the ideals held by the nation at large, much as National Socialism was tailored around German ideals, and neither ideology mentioned above supports American ideals.
Very true. You guys are fighters, and need a fighter's ideals to match. All I suggest is to take a long, integrative look at how others have done it, so you can weigh your options and avoid repeating old mistakes. For once, I'd like to see new mistakes made, not old ones retreaded.
>>201755
I didn't know that about the Chinese military. Thanks for the info.
File (): 3A49F91B1C6742C48BD4AF86FBA21452-1615047.jpg (1.5 MB, 2686x1333, IMG_20190130_025206-1.jpg)
>>201770
Read >>201762 and >>201712 they go more in depth about my dislike of nat soc. One is my criticism of it on an ideological basis, that is its too enlightenment oriented. Next is that not only does it have this problem but liberalism is overall stronger between the two modern ideologies so to me nat socs are a weaker form of post enlightenment thought which I already dislike.
Read >>201762 and >>201712 they go more in depth about my dislike of nat soc. One is my criticism of it on an ideological basis, that is its too enlightenment oriented. Next is that not only does it have this problem but liberalism is overall stronger between the two modern ideologies so to me nat socs are a weaker form of post enlightenment thought which I already dislike.
>>201812
I would agree but for the assertion that national socialism lost a war of ideas. It lost a war, but one of ideas it was not, it was heavily propagandised and no one but the ruling echelons of the apparently liberal societies were actually aware of what national socialism actually was. It was obfuscated to make liberalism appear better than it actually was so people would fight for it, and in the end, it was the war economy and not liberalism that brought liberal countries out of economic ruin and the fruits of national socialism, mostly its focus on innovation and engineering, that were used to build the world after the war.
The only thing liberalism gave humanity after the war was a really big bomb, most everything else was based on german research due to a cleverly downplayed brain drain. The state of the world today is clear evidence of the wonders of liberalism, the fuel that was national socialism is spent and liberalism has nothing to offer anyone but cultural, scientific, economic, racial and spiritual degeneracy and decay. If liberalism really were superior to national socialism, they wouldn't still be terrified of anyone taking a closer look at it almost a century after the fact.
I would agree but for the assertion that national socialism lost a war of ideas. It lost a war, but one of ideas it was not, it was heavily propagandised and no one but the ruling echelons of the apparently liberal societies were actually aware of what national socialism actually was. It was obfuscated to make liberalism appear better than it actually was so people would fight for it, and in the end, it was the war economy and not liberalism that brought liberal countries out of economic ruin and the fruits of national socialism, mostly its focus on innovation and engineering, that were used to build the world after the war.
The only thing liberalism gave humanity after the war was a really big bomb, most everything else was based on german research due to a cleverly downplayed brain drain. The state of the world today is clear evidence of the wonders of liberalism, the fuel that was national socialism is spent and liberalism has nothing to offer anyone but cultural, scientific, economic, racial and spiritual degeneracy and decay. If liberalism really were superior to national socialism, they wouldn't still be terrified of anyone taking a closer look at it almost a century after the fact.
>>201816
>It lost a war, but one of ideas it was not,
When I say battle of ideas I mean literal battle. WWII was an ideological conflict between two different views of modernity which were incomparable. Both are very strong and the foundations of these ideologies were laid just after the enlightenment so the rift had already been made. Now a conflict needed to happen to eliminate one ideology, and it just so happened that liberalism won out. Its not good or bad, it just is. Nat socs blew their chance to win so fascism will never be something that will be implemented again in the west.
>It lost a war, but one of ideas it was not,
When I say battle of ideas I mean literal battle. WWII was an ideological conflict between two different views of modernity which were incomparable. Both are very strong and the foundations of these ideologies were laid just after the enlightenment so the rift had already been made. Now a conflict needed to happen to eliminate one ideology, and it just so happened that liberalism won out. Its not good or bad, it just is. Nat socs blew their chance to win so fascism will never be something that will be implemented again in the west.
>>201816
>it was the war economy and not liberalism that brought liberal countries out of economic ruin
That is as erroneous as the assertion that Keynesian policies ended the Depression. The United States had a naturally strong economy due to its people, resources and position. It was inevitable that the economy right itself before the outbreak of the Second World War, but the wasteful and destructive New Deal prolonged suffering and delayed recovery.
Had Keynes never become dominant and the United States kept to itself America would have become more prosperous than ever, minus the devastation of the rest of the world.
>it was the war economy and not liberalism that brought liberal countries out of economic ruin
That is as erroneous as the assertion that Keynesian policies ended the Depression. The United States had a naturally strong economy due to its people, resources and position. It was inevitable that the economy right itself before the outbreak of the Second World War, but the wasteful and destructive New Deal prolonged suffering and delayed recovery.
Had Keynes never become dominant and the United States kept to itself America would have become more prosperous than ever, minus the devastation of the rest of the world.
>>201819
Pure delusion, shill. The Jewnited States is an illegal corporate entity as no Articles of Confederation were ever produced prior to, during, or after 1868. The poltical/economic ideologies of liberalism, britcuck corporatism which is always erroneously called capitalism or free market capitalism, and communism are essentially the same exact schemes. The only differences between such ideologies are precisely whom control the public sector's industrial differences and whom reaps the most economic slush.
#1: liberalism is controlled by corporate figureheads whom bribe governmental figures to create "brand loyalty", that is, a corporation which produces goods or provides services. The most glaring example of this is the worldwide mega-conglomerate corporation that produce 98% of all eyeglasses and contact lenses. By artificially dividing consumers, that is: the public as a whole, into retaining a loyalty for specific brands, the public itself is shekeled to death. Liberalism is corruption of private kikery trust at the most basic propagandist level. For another perfect example of liberalism: all owners, managers, executives, and company-owned designers of shoes & boots are well aware that their products are produced to CAUSE physical injuries over periods of time, which when added to "donations", in reality paid bribes, to medical sector "researchers", allows them to offput the direct implications of shoes & boots being health hazards into ever more sophisticated Ponzi-styled schemes involving the dire necessity of foot, knee, hip, and spine doctors. From the top down, liberalism destroys health to enrich das juden that want all humans to suffer for their shekel-whoring ways. This is irrefutable as kikes are subhuman.
#2: britcuck corporatism/capitalism/free market capitalism merges the influences and powers of those entrusted to provide political governance with, quote: "protecting the best interests of the public/common man". This is complete fallacy: not only does britcuck corporatism/capitalism/free market capitalism RELY upon the stupidity of consumers, it also relies upon governmental employees to outright ignore flagrant violations of human rights, including property, health safety, and the right-to-know. Should one dare to "correct" this statement whether in the sense of the market or one should, due to (((religious beliefs))), know what they are consuming/buying: go fuck yourself. National Socialism demands that all substances & materials used are to be clearly specified, it also requires that no substances or materials with POTENTIAL health hazards are to be used without clearly labeled warnings. Thus: britcuck corporatism/capitalism/"free market" capitalism allows the worst possible health dangers to be used without the possibility of said manufacturers being sued for willful neglect to inform their consumers of hazards.
#3: communism is the kike-owned ideology in which the "government" directly controls all production. That being stated the "government" itself is a political system of corporate interests which allows 0for virtually complete control of everything: news, information, books, food, clothing, vehicles, fuel, spare parts, medical items & equipment, building materials, heating materials & gases, basic necessities like soap & shampoo, or even your own kitchen sink. Under communism, you either buy products with your worthless fiat currency, or you starve to death like the poor peasants during the literal hundreds of Communist Holocausts throughout the past 110 years.
Tnder these three ideologies, you, the cucked and enslaved GOYIM, are not allowed the absolute basic right of being allowed a single decision that was not made for you. You, the GOYIM, either do what the interests tell you and buy what from the hostile corporatist interests demand you to consume, or your dog(s) are shot to death in front of your eyes, you are killed/arrested for the next 1-5 decades, after which your family is forcefully broken apart and enslaved by the lowest common denominator system. Under these systems, THE COMMON MAN LOSES AS THERE ARE CONDITIONS TO WIN.
tl;dr: unlike your cuckstained jew-owned ideologies, National Socialism is created by the common man to educate the common man in ALL worldly matters so that the common man is best able to protect himself, his fellows, and his peoploe. At the end of National Socialism's goals, the common man is able to correctly achieve the peak of his potential, without the entirely degrading & dogmatically degrading influences of religion or ideology as a whole. You couldn't be more wrong in spouting your relied upon cognitive dissonances, shill.
Pure delusion, shill. The Jewnited States is an illegal corporate entity as no Articles of Confederation were ever produced prior to, during, or after 1868. The poltical/economic ideologies of liberalism, britcuck corporatism which is always erroneously called capitalism or free market capitalism, and communism are essentially the same exact schemes. The only differences between such ideologies are precisely whom control the public sector's industrial differences and whom reaps the most economic slush.
#1: liberalism is controlled by corporate figureheads whom bribe governmental figures to create "brand loyalty", that is, a corporation which produces goods or provides services. The most glaring example of this is the worldwide mega-conglomerate corporation that produce 98% of all eyeglasses and contact lenses. By artificially dividing consumers, that is: the public as a whole, into retaining a loyalty for specific brands, the public itself is shekeled to death. Liberalism is corruption of private kikery trust at the most basic propagandist level. For another perfect example of liberalism: all owners, managers, executives, and company-owned designers of shoes & boots are well aware that their products are produced to CAUSE physical injuries over periods of time, which when added to "donations", in reality paid bribes, to medical sector "researchers", allows them to offput the direct implications of shoes & boots being health hazards into ever more sophisticated Ponzi-styled schemes involving the dire necessity of foot, knee, hip, and spine doctors. From the top down, liberalism destroys health to enrich das juden that want all humans to suffer for their shekel-whoring ways. This is irrefutable as kikes are subhuman.
#2: britcuck corporatism/capitalism/free market capitalism merges the influences and powers of those entrusted to provide political governance with, quote: "protecting the best interests of the public/common man". This is complete fallacy: not only does britcuck corporatism/capitalism/free market capitalism RELY upon the stupidity of consumers, it also relies upon governmental employees to outright ignore flagrant violations of human rights, including property, health safety, and the right-to-know. Should one dare to "correct" this statement whether in the sense of the market or one should, due to (((religious beliefs))), know what they are consuming/buying: go fuck yourself. National Socialism demands that all substances & materials used are to be clearly specified, it also requires that no substances or materials with POTENTIAL health hazards are to be used without clearly labeled warnings. Thus: britcuck corporatism/capitalism/"free market" capitalism allows the worst possible health dangers to be used without the possibility of said manufacturers being sued for willful neglect to inform their consumers of hazards.
#3: communism is the kike-owned ideology in which the "government" directly controls all production. That being stated the "government" itself is a political system of corporate interests which allows 0for virtually complete control of everything: news, information, books, food, clothing, vehicles, fuel, spare parts, medical items & equipment, building materials, heating materials & gases, basic necessities like soap & shampoo, or even your own kitchen sink. Under communism, you either buy products with your worthless fiat currency, or you starve to death like the poor peasants during the literal hundreds of Communist Holocausts throughout the past 110 years.
Tnder these three ideologies, you, the cucked and enslaved GOYIM, are not allowed the absolute basic right of being allowed a single decision that was not made for you. You, the GOYIM, either do what the interests tell you and buy what from the hostile corporatist interests demand you to consume, or your dog(s) are shot to death in front of your eyes, you are killed/arrested for the next 1-5 decades, after which your family is forcefully broken apart and enslaved by the lowest common denominator system. Under these systems, THE COMMON MAN LOSES AS THERE ARE CONDITIONS TO WIN.
tl;dr: unlike your cuckstained jew-owned ideologies, National Socialism is created by the common man to educate the common man in ALL worldly matters so that the common man is best able to protect himself, his fellows, and his peoploe. At the end of National Socialism's goals, the common man is able to correctly achieve the peak of his potential, without the entirely degrading & dogmatically degrading influences of religion or ideology as a whole. You couldn't be more wrong in spouting your relied upon cognitive dissonances, shill.
File (): B74392789853F4555FE14CA8CF13C129-125413.png (122.5 KB, 631x564, ReallyDisappointedTwilightBehindNewspaper.png)
>>201828
>wall of text
>replete with buzzwords
I'm not answering this until you retake your "writing composition" course and learn coherence. You sound exactly like a leftist's vision of what a right-winger is
>wall of text
>replete with buzzwords
I'm not answering this until you retake your "writing composition" course and learn coherence. You sound exactly like a leftist's vision of what a right-winger is
The only correct ideology is the one able to deploy the force and firepower necessary to subjugate its rivals. Mao was 100% correct when he said that political power flows through the barrel of a rifle.
File (): A5EC69F8F7D419C217DD873A1AA9EF26-59721.jpg (58.3 KB, 478x648, mad man makes army disappear.jpg)
>>201698
>I think a scientist or an engineer would have better insight for what is best for society than say a bum or a liberal arts.
lol scientists and engineers just think in terms of information. Morality, politics, and social issues are something they are often quite poor at deciding. It's not like scientists and engineers don't have their own personal opinions either. No amount fancy math work is going to make me value their decisions on issues those skills aren't required for. Rights, liberties, and foreign policy more often coincide with values or beliefs than with scientific fact.
>>201756
>>201770
>nearly every industrialized country in the world was required to defeat Germany.
>Russian zerg rush meme
As someone who unironically used to believe this, you are wrong. In the west we hype up the Germans to make ourselves look good for beating them. Germany was doomed from the start, everyone started dog piling on Germany because they were attacked or it was convenient. Germany had no colonies and could never win a long war. Germany had no way to physically go and take Great Britain, there only hope was a British surrender. The Germans ran out of resources and the Russians rebuilt their military after the horrible losses in 41. In 44 the German army was utterly gutted in Romania and Poland. By that time the Russians had developed a much more sophisticated army and it showed. Meanwhile the Germans are short on training and personal. 300,000 losses in Romania, over 260,000 losses in the destruction of Army Group Center. At this point the Russians are encircling them with much less losses in return. The early war was surely a miracle for Germany but it only delayed the inevitable.
Keep in mind I'm not trying to deny national socialism or fascism on the grounds that it lost the war, simply disprove one narrative of how the war was lost. Its pretty ignorant to make that argument. Ideologies are only as good as the nation can or does carry them out in reality.
Pretty long but it gives a good general overview of the Eastern Front in WWII. Glantz is one of the foremost historians on the topic. Two books that really opened my eyes are "The Germans in Normandy" and "German Defeat in the East 1944-45"
https://youtu.be/7Clz27nghIg
>I think a scientist or an engineer would have better insight for what is best for society than say a bum or a liberal arts.
lol scientists and engineers just think in terms of information. Morality, politics, and social issues are something they are often quite poor at deciding. It's not like scientists and engineers don't have their own personal opinions either. No amount fancy math work is going to make me value their decisions on issues those skills aren't required for. Rights, liberties, and foreign policy more often coincide with values or beliefs than with scientific fact.
>>201756
>>201770
>nearly every industrialized country in the world was required to defeat Germany.
>Russian zerg rush meme
As someone who unironically used to believe this, you are wrong. In the west we hype up the Germans to make ourselves look good for beating them. Germany was doomed from the start, everyone started dog piling on Germany because they were attacked or it was convenient. Germany had no colonies and could never win a long war. Germany had no way to physically go and take Great Britain, there only hope was a British surrender. The Germans ran out of resources and the Russians rebuilt their military after the horrible losses in 41. In 44 the German army was utterly gutted in Romania and Poland. By that time the Russians had developed a much more sophisticated army and it showed. Meanwhile the Germans are short on training and personal. 300,000 losses in Romania, over 260,000 losses in the destruction of Army Group Center. At this point the Russians are encircling them with much less losses in return. The early war was surely a miracle for Germany but it only delayed the inevitable.
Keep in mind I'm not trying to deny national socialism or fascism on the grounds that it lost the war, simply disprove one narrative of how the war was lost. Its pretty ignorant to make that argument. Ideologies are only as good as the nation can or does carry them out in reality.
Pretty long but it gives a good general overview of the Eastern Front in WWII. Glantz is one of the foremost historians on the topic. Two books that really opened my eyes are "The Germans in Normandy" and "German Defeat in the East 1944-45"
https://youtu.be/7Clz27nghIg
File (): 4E58A3B5D194C4CD05260A6C9BE4C3FC-750553.jpg (733.0 KB, 1600x1131, 1510730209959.jpg)
>>201833
Not an argument, but nice personal attack there. You get that from a ShareBlue manual?
Pic related: it's what you've been doing this entire thread.
Not an argument, but nice personal attack there. You get that from a ShareBlue manual?
Pic related: it's what you've been doing this entire thread.
>>201875
That's not the point. One internal foe is worth a dozen external ones. If you kill them, they're dead, and cease to foment rebellious ideas. How do you kill them? With a bullet. Not with BASED DEMOCRATIC IDEOLOGIES. Representative government has always been a meme. Whether it's a jackbooted thug with a pistol or a myopic, bespectacled bank bitch, the average westerner bends his knee to one of the two because of logistical threats to his well-being.
That's not the point. One internal foe is worth a dozen external ones. If you kill them, they're dead, and cease to foment rebellious ideas. How do you kill them? With a bullet. Not with BASED DEMOCRATIC IDEOLOGIES. Representative government has always been a meme. Whether it's a jackbooted thug with a pistol or a myopic, bespectacled bank bitch, the average westerner bends his knee to one of the two because of logistical threats to his well-being.
>>201796
Who is handing out this "right to exist", though? Just because European peoples are generally fond of the idea of rights (and this may even be a new development, historically speaking), doesn't mean that rights exist in any real sense.
Talk of a "right to exist" should be for reminding Europeans that it is, in fact, morally acceptable for us to have our own homeland full of people of our own race (or, multiple homelands, for the multiple European races, to be more accurate).
Anybody else's "rights" must come after we have secured our own. No other races care as much about such magnanimosity to others as the European races do, and none of them will care all that much if we, or any other races, go extinct. A perfect demonstration of this is the fact that we are currently being moraled out of existence. Not fought and conquered, but preached and moralized at.
Who is handing out this "right to exist", though? Just because European peoples are generally fond of the idea of rights (and this may even be a new development, historically speaking), doesn't mean that rights exist in any real sense.
Talk of a "right to exist" should be for reminding Europeans that it is, in fact, morally acceptable for us to have our own homeland full of people of our own race (or, multiple homelands, for the multiple European races, to be more accurate).
Anybody else's "rights" must come after we have secured our own. No other races care as much about such magnanimosity to others as the European races do, and none of them will care all that much if we, or any other races, go extinct. A perfect demonstration of this is the fact that we are currently being moraled out of existence. Not fought and conquered, but preached and moralized at.
>>201884
First off, https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Secondly, if you won't invest the effort to make your position clear and comprehensible, why should he invest the effort to entertain you?
Speaking for myself, your wall of text read more like a pressurized rant than it did an actual argument, or even a declarative statement. ⅞ of it were composed of tangential items that didn't actually feed back into the core argument you perhaps thought you were making. Seriously, what part of your ramble actually addresses his points on Keynesian policies again?
First off, https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Secondly, if you won't invest the effort to make your position clear and comprehensible, why should he invest the effort to entertain you?
Speaking for myself, your wall of text read more like a pressurized rant than it did an actual argument, or even a declarative statement. ⅞ of it were composed of tangential items that didn't actually feed back into the core argument you perhaps thought you were making. Seriously, what part of your ramble actually addresses his points on Keynesian policies again?
File (): A701921288DB52E85489C60AC2DACEF5-140558.jpg (137.3 KB, 768x1024, 3452345345.jpg)
>>201884
>You get that from a ShareBlue manual?
Pic related is you. Seriously I really hope your just pretending to be retarded why in the fuck would shills exist on /mlpol/?
>You get that from a ShareBlue manual?
Pic related is you. Seriously I really hope your just pretending to be retarded why in the fuck would shills exist on /mlpol/?
>>201887
I would agree that the Germans put up a tough fight. They had to in order to create the early victories of 39-41. I'm just trying to contest the idea that they were some kind of supermen who were only defeated because they were out numbered. Mistakes were made on their side, and their enemies learned to fight back just as hard. Most of the western histories of the war from their perspective are written by German Generals. The usual cop outs for failure are "Russians outnumbered us" or "Hitler wouldn't listen". Both of which are increasingly found to be wrong. For example, the Germans regularly outnumbered the Russians on the battlefield in 41 and Hitler had a lot more context for some of his "insane" decisions than most realize.
I would agree that the Germans put up a tough fight. They had to in order to create the early victories of 39-41. I'm just trying to contest the idea that they were some kind of supermen who were only defeated because they were out numbered. Mistakes were made on their side, and their enemies learned to fight back just as hard. Most of the western histories of the war from their perspective are written by German Generals. The usual cop outs for failure are "Russians outnumbered us" or "Hitler wouldn't listen". Both of which are increasingly found to be wrong. For example, the Germans regularly outnumbered the Russians on the battlefield in 41 and Hitler had a lot more context for some of his "insane" decisions than most realize.
What I hate are Liberaltarians, or what ever they actually call themselves. Who ever are the idiots and dolts that claim that NAP bullshit. Sometimes I see it as just a meme but there are those dedicated to it. The, "Well if It doesn't affect me, why bother", "Oh come on they're miless away" "This wont happen for another 100 years." In otherwords, there are storm clouds on the horrizon but they rather drown when the levey breaks instead of geting out of new orleans. You know, the fuckers that don't prepare, the fuckers that don't fight back. The fuckers that punches a guy, gets arested and sent in jail than purposly drops the soap as he is then taken from behind and royally fucked but somehow manages to get everyone else the same amount of fucked because he had ONE JOB and decided to fuck around. These are also the "I am just one person, what can I really do?" Yeah I hate these people.
The left are so small and yet so vocal, and look at all the influence. The right get silenced but the chilling effects of silence keeps us silent. A few dare to protest and they have my respect. Have you posted your "It's Ok To Be White" Posters today?
The left are so small and yet so vocal, and look at all the influence. The right get silenced but the chilling effects of silence keeps us silent. A few dare to protest and they have my respect. Have you posted your "It's Ok To Be White" Posters today?
>>201894
This. I respond to posts by my discretion. I won't reply to an incoherent rambler because that would reward this behavior. If you act like a stereotypical conspiracy theorist on this board, how would you act if you actually had to counter an enemy narrative? You would only shoot the image of your cause in the foot. By engaging in social pressure maybe I can improve debate quality by just a bit.
>>201893
The "right to exist" meme generally exists to use on those who actually believe in rights, such as the "right" of Kurds to be left alone (which I've seen parroted by neocon hawks). Using an opponent's morality against them, rather than approaching with a different morality, is more effective. It's the same reason we say "white genocide" with the UN's own definition, because those we try to convince probably think the UN is a reputable organization.
"Rights" do not exist but are merely the formalized extension of cultural norms that existed due to the power structures of Western Europe. These cultural understandings often benefitted Western societies due to resolving conflict in a productive way, but they are by no means universal. Try explaining something as basic as property rights to an African villager! Raising them to the status of "God-given" and therefore universal (usually without the approval of religious authorities) was one of society's great blunders.
I will be the first to admit that this is where libertarianism went wrong. It can be excused in some fashion: libertarianism was born out of neo-classical economics and the taking for granted that Western values exist in one's society. Also, libertarians usually don't try to convince fascists or reactionaries but rather target moderates and mainstream conservatives. Rather than say that "libertarianism is the objective institution of property rights," it would be more honest to say "libertarianism is the abolition of monopoly on power and the natural distribution of power in hierarchies according to societal valuation of their productivity." However, it does not roll off the tongue so easily and is a bit harder to understand, so it's no wonder that mainstream libertarians have a slightly warped vision of reality (though it still aligns more or less with white interests).
>>201897
I've known a few libertarians like that but they are not the majority. Libertarians are seriously concerned with the growth of the welfare/warfare police state (hence they want it reduced) and a good number are the prepper type. Take a good look at Lewrockwell.com. It's not explicitly pro-white but other than racial matters the concerns of its contributors match up with ours nearly 100%.
This. I respond to posts by my discretion. I won't reply to an incoherent rambler because that would reward this behavior. If you act like a stereotypical conspiracy theorist on this board, how would you act if you actually had to counter an enemy narrative? You would only shoot the image of your cause in the foot. By engaging in social pressure maybe I can improve debate quality by just a bit.
>>201893
The "right to exist" meme generally exists to use on those who actually believe in rights, such as the "right" of Kurds to be left alone (which I've seen parroted by neocon hawks). Using an opponent's morality against them, rather than approaching with a different morality, is more effective. It's the same reason we say "white genocide" with the UN's own definition, because those we try to convince probably think the UN is a reputable organization.
"Rights" do not exist but are merely the formalized extension of cultural norms that existed due to the power structures of Western Europe. These cultural understandings often benefitted Western societies due to resolving conflict in a productive way, but they are by no means universal. Try explaining something as basic as property rights to an African villager! Raising them to the status of "God-given" and therefore universal (usually without the approval of religious authorities) was one of society's great blunders.
I will be the first to admit that this is where libertarianism went wrong. It can be excused in some fashion: libertarianism was born out of neo-classical economics and the taking for granted that Western values exist in one's society. Also, libertarians usually don't try to convince fascists or reactionaries but rather target moderates and mainstream conservatives. Rather than say that "libertarianism is the objective institution of property rights," it would be more honest to say "libertarianism is the abolition of monopoly on power and the natural distribution of power in hierarchies according to societal valuation of their productivity." However, it does not roll off the tongue so easily and is a bit harder to understand, so it's no wonder that mainstream libertarians have a slightly warped vision of reality (though it still aligns more or less with white interests).
>>201897
I've known a few libertarians like that but they are not the majority. Libertarians are seriously concerned with the growth of the welfare/warfare police state (hence they want it reduced) and a good number are the prepper type. Take a good look at Lewrockwell.com. It's not explicitly pro-white but other than racial matters the concerns of its contributors match up with ours nearly 100%.
>>201894
A question was asked and in response highly compressed statements of fact were given, Leaf. Your country is owned under maritime laws owned by a kike-infiltrated, incest-ridden monarchy on a tiny island that has no resources and no longer matters save for political influence. Where does the indoctrination to believe that the "common man" approaches to living, that is where the actual common man benefits from philia and belongs to his own tribe, become wrong in your eyes? Said statements explain the differences between the three most corrupt & oppressive forms of judeo-bolshevism in the world. There is not a single factor of Keynesian politics, in reality the "free market capitalism" bait & switch ideology, which benefits the common man.
>>201895
There are always shills, whether paid, indoctrinated and working for free, or simply (((believing))) they are right in hampering discussions between those that aren't complying to their own rigid tenets of black & white/right & wrong ideological approaches on an open board which espouses non-judaic political freedom. Refusing to acknowledge that fact, even if there is only one shill per month on this board, is dangerous. What is more dangerous is such behavior encourages confirmation bias due to the attacker becoming emotionally biased in trying to correct or sabotage the "wrongthink" they see as a destabilizing influence.
A question was asked and in response highly compressed statements of fact were given, Leaf. Your country is owned under maritime laws owned by a kike-infiltrated, incest-ridden monarchy on a tiny island that has no resources and no longer matters save for political influence. Where does the indoctrination to believe that the "common man" approaches to living, that is where the actual common man benefits from philia and belongs to his own tribe, become wrong in your eyes? Said statements explain the differences between the three most corrupt & oppressive forms of judeo-bolshevism in the world. There is not a single factor of Keynesian politics, in reality the "free market capitalism" bait & switch ideology, which benefits the common man.
>>201895
There are always shills, whether paid, indoctrinated and working for free, or simply (((believing))) they are right in hampering discussions between those that aren't complying to their own rigid tenets of black & white/right & wrong ideological approaches on an open board which espouses non-judaic political freedom. Refusing to acknowledge that fact, even if there is only one shill per month on this board, is dangerous. What is more dangerous is such behavior encourages confirmation bias due to the attacker becoming emotionally biased in trying to correct or sabotage the "wrongthink" they see as a destabilizing influence.
>>201987
>highly compressed statements
So you made no attempt to make it comprehensible. QED.
>statements of fact
Are they, now? Well, if they're as factual as you claim, then surely you can substantiate them with some links to actual evidence, no? While you're at it, kindly try to remember my point on comprehensibility.
The rest of your reply to me is another meaningless tangent, ending with you admitting to and then justifying moving the goalposts.
By the way, I love how you mentioned encouraging confirmation bias at the end of your other reply there with nary a trace of irony. A+.
>>201920
>Raising them to the status of "God-given" and therefore universal (usually without the approval of religious authorities) was one of society's great blunders.
Very true. Even if they were somehow universally standardized, good luck trying to enforce them. Just ask the UN how that's working out for them.
>highly compressed statements
So you made no attempt to make it comprehensible. QED.
>statements of fact
Are they, now? Well, if they're as factual as you claim, then surely you can substantiate them with some links to actual evidence, no? While you're at it, kindly try to remember my point on comprehensibility.
The rest of your reply to me is another meaningless tangent, ending with you admitting to and then justifying moving the goalposts.
By the way, I love how you mentioned encouraging confirmation bias at the end of your other reply there with nary a trace of irony. A+.
>>201920
>Raising them to the status of "God-given" and therefore universal (usually without the approval of religious authorities) was one of society's great blunders.
Very true. Even if they were somehow universally standardized, good luck trying to enforce them. Just ask the UN how that's working out for them.
90 replies | 19 files | 25 UUIDs | Archived