He says he has engagement rings. But those are not engagement rings. They are what slaves wear.
I miss when people had higher hopes for whites and thought we planned to enslave niggers with our charity. We are enslaved by niggers and our urge to be charitable.
I don't know about the people around me at work, but I definitely reject the white man's burden.
Trying to share the innovations and civilizational advances with other civilizations seems to have been a mistake. Outside of the East Asians, no other group seems to even be capable of mimicking the advances of the west, let alone emulating the best parts of our civilization.
Other civilizations are not Western people. It does seem to me that a lot of the idea of outreach, the idea of the "white man's burden" to share western advances like food production, medicine, and architecture, is largely based on the idea that the only difference between different racial groups of people is culture and that the problems of starvation and mass death from disease can be solved by equipping them with our knowledge and giving them some temporary assistance of material resources to help them get the ball rolling. This has not proven to be the case.
You meant National Socialist Truth.
A simple banner isn't worth much.
Now if they proved their dedication to the cause and did something to prove they're serious, that would impress me.
I won't trust groups like Patriot Front until I see them make an example out of antifa commies and put the fear of God into them.
Some Nordicists claim that civilization was a mistake. In particular, due to the elimination or reduction of certain evolutive pressures. Some others claim that western man was not ready for civilization.
Regardless of your opinion on that claim. It should be considered when thinking about the white man's burden. Because none of these people were ready.
Survival in nature is shaped by a single crude tool: Failure.
Complex societies allow mankind to define success.
A fair society can ensure toolmakers can dedicate their lives to making tools that improve everyone's lives and chances of survival, and ensure the best toolmakers can grow richer than the worst toolmakers, increasing their capacity to reproduce.
In a fair and just society, evolutionary pressures are shaped by mankind's desire to ensure the best people for the most important jobs rise up due to meritocracy and produce higher amounts of higher quality offspring.
Of course, we do not live in a fair and just society.
We live in a jewed society.
No wonder so many people come to the conclusion that society itself was a mistake.
But Hitler's society worked. It worked better than its enemies. It took almost everything the Jew had to destroy it. A good society prioritizes the volk, the people, not profit for the parasitic jews.
Agreed. As for its importance on the white man's burden. You can't jump straight into civilisation, skip everything that shaped the white man, and expect that everything is going to work just fine. Non-eurasians are too "raw" to be served on the dish of civilisation.
What they are doing would be admirable and something a lot of people would stand with if they weren't retards and identify as Nazis. Part of me thinks people haven't learned since 2017, another part that this is a clever FBI trick to associate anti-grooming with Nazis. It's not hard at all to present yourself as anti-pedophilia without throwing a Roman salute at the press.
Nazism is opposing pedophilia, degeneracy, and subversion.
Jews understand this means them.
It's not the virtues being promoted that are the issue, it's the generations of brainwashing and emotional associations that have made most people have a knee-jerk negative reaction to anything that could possibly be associated with the maligned keywords.
Most people will agree with almost everything the Nazi platform stands for, like keeping kids exercising and playing team sports to stay fit, healthy, and build a sense of community, but as soon as they hear or see anything that reminds them of national socialism their programmed responses kick in.
The overall goal, I think, is to get the good recovery of our civilization, and that at some point will need to involve getting the average person on an our side. The brainwashing and emotional conditioning are hurdles to be overcome.
It seems like this is why a lot of people are in favor of dropping the Nazi imagery and associations entirely. I mean, at this point a normie politician could probably run on everything the Nazis ran on and amass a reasonable following.
The nazi imagery keeps away the cowards who would be afraid to be seen alive or dead next to anything Nazi.
Movements don't need that kind of coward. He'd flee the movement or betray it the second it was accused of nazism, or seemed to be full of people more anti-nigger than him.
Keeps away the cowards and attracts the Feds.
Does avoiding nazi imagery keep the normies from opposing anti-degeneracy causes that the jews associate with fictional evil nazis anyway?
The feds won't leave us alone until they have no other option. We need homes the feds aren't allowed to visit or take people from without getting shot at in the process.>"but Waco"-
Waco wasn't armed enough to make the Jews think twice.
>>356716>Does avoiding nazi imagery keep the normies from opposing anti-degeneracy causes that the jews associate with fictional evil nazis anyway?
In some cases, it can. Pedophilia is still a massive hurdle for Jews to normalize and it won't come easily. Consistently call it out and oppose it, point out how this is merely the latest in a long string of degenerate causes and you'll find plenty of willing ears. Do a retard rally where you're throwing salutes around, and you're only feeding the narrative that "groomers is an alt-right dog whistle" and hurt your cause.>We need homes the feds aren't allowed to visit or take people from without getting shot at in the process.
Counties and even entire states are starting to refuse to cooperate with feds, but it's a slow process. It needs to happen faster and doing retarded things only impedes it.
If you think national socialism is a dead ideology that became irrelevant the better part of a century ago, there is zero point to doing this except being edgy. If you actually believe in national socialism, then the pragmatist in you should realize that it's the imagery that is holding it back and which needs to be dropped.
Say we drop the visual aesthetics of nazism and call ourselves something else.
Say we start wearing some other symbol to identify ourselves while remaining discreet.
Can't call ourselves nationalists for wanting what's best for America white or black, because the Jews called that "White Nationalism".
Any new name we invent for any of the true nazi ideals will be associated with fictional Dalek nazis by the Jews.
Any new non-nazi movement would become controlled opposition unless it remained unapologetically committed to everything the nazis stood for.
You can't watch Europa: The Last Battle without understanding the Nazis did nothing wrong and were the good guys of WW2.
Even if we became cuckservatives who rejected everything white men ever stood for and fought for, the media and the left would still call us "RepubliKKKan Maga hat extremists".
We wouldn't be redpilling more every day if nazi iconography was holding us back.
>>356718>Can't call ourselves nationalists for wanting what's best for America white or black, because the Jews called that "White Nationalism".>Any new name we invent for any of the true nazi ideals will be associated with fictional Dalek nazis by the Jews.
Not as big a problem as you'd think. Yeah, they would do that, yeah, some of their lemmings would believe it, but those who care about those ideals wouldn't think anything of it. The Nazi label has worn so thin that it does virtually nothing if you don't prove them right.>Any new non-nazi movement would become controlled opposition unless it remained unapologetically committed to everything the nazis stood for.
That's why you have a delineated set of ideals, so when someone starts to deviate from them you can call them out. It's the reason "anti-" political movements tend to become controlled opposition. Movements that are anti-immigration for example tend to get sidetracked and lose steam when presented with a very minor "win.">You can't watch Europa: The Last Battle without understanding the Nazis did nothing wrong and were the good guys of WW2.
Share it with those few who do understand, it's not meant for mass consumption.>We wouldn't be redpilling more every day if nazi iconography was holding us back.
Anons from 2015 up to some time after 2017 liked the nazi stuff because it was edgy and contrarian while offering some truths. Most have retained those truths while moving on, because it doesn't have anything more to offer and needs to be replaced.
What would you suggest we replace Nazism with?
I'm an anarcho-capitalist so it's obvious to me, but you likely disagree.
Anarchy is a power vacuum. Once anarcho-capitalism allows a sufficiently powerful warlord or coalition of allied warlords to take over, the anarchy is over.
Breaking the conditioning is hard to do. I name the Jew all the time and it gets dicey, but if I have to fight oh well. Where I get frustrated is the lack of historical knowledge. The average faggot knows nothing about the Bavarian people's party or the kpd. But ask them if an uninvited group settled in America and then tried to take over and involve another nation to do it? They will be all for fighting the red coats or the chicoms, mention the joos and they can't believe it. I don't really care about the doomed NPC anymore, maybe the propaganda of the deed might work? >>356720
Real Bavarian national socialism. I never say Nazi, and I always refer to Adolph Hitler as the Fuhrer. Period. I don't care about optics. Eventually I figure I'll sperg and it won't matter. The only thing I care about is revenge. Don't be a degenerate and be ready to fight. A real national socialist is an extremist, and as such one should not be ashamed to name the joo or praise the Fuhrer. >Be the example that gives others courage.
That's a nonsense word and you know it.
Jews love nonsense words because they prompt others to lose face by asking "What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?".
But hey, I'll bite. Tell me what you mean by this nonsense word that does not inherently carry any meaning 50 Distributists can agree on, let alone 5,000,000.
No, seriously, what the fuck is Distributism to you?
That sounds like socialism, or worse, communism.
Extremely based Distributist.>>360196>>360200
Distributism is the economic belief that the means of production ought to be widely distributed among the working class. Ideally, this means that every worker owns the tools which he uses to ply his trade - farmers own their own land, carpenters own their own tools, etc. Distributists tend to focus heavily on agrarianism, rather than industrialism.
They often reference the medieval town as a model for their economic views. Peasants owning their own land, some journeymen and master craftsmen who owned their tools, and some guilds where craftsmen banded together to share tools which would be impractical to own on the individual level.
It is often contrasted with Industrial Capitalism and Communism, where the means of production are concentrated in the hands of the managerial class or the state.
Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton were well known Distributists. For further, more in depth, reading, I would recommend the Servile State by Belloc.
I should add that this system is probably very similar to what you will find in rural American towns, where rather than going to work for some manager for a wage, the majority of people own at least some means of production.
>>360282>the means of production ought to be widely distributed among the working classIt's Socialism!
There, I summed it up for you.> every worker owns the tools which he uses to ply his trade - farmers own their own land, carpenters own their own tools, etc.
As long as those people are identified as "workers". If they're not, then they have their property siezed.> They often reference the medieval town as a model for their economic views
The lifestyle that was adopted because Medieval Europe was in a constant state of war.> Peasants owning their own land
You don't need government revolution to accomplish that.> some journeymen and master craftsmen who owned their tools
Nor that.> some guilds where craftsmen banded together to share tools
In other words, you're forced
to share your tools. Meaning no one actually owns their tools, despite what was previously said.> It is often contrasted with Industrial Capitalism THERE'S
the Marxist angling of it. It's ALWAYS
Capitalisms fault, never Socialisms fault because Socialism is the "only" scientific view of history, and Socialism has realized that Socialisms is the solution to all the problems that the bourgeoisie created. It's not like economics systems such as "supply and demand" exist, and are capable of self-correcting itself.
OP was asking for an alternative name for National Socialism
Distributism is a pretty good one, although it has a greater focus on agrarianism than industrialism.> Peasants owning their own land>You don't need government revolution to accomplish that.
When did I ever say there would be a government revolution?
Besides, one could say that Hitler's reform of German government was a kind of revolution.
I merely am stating the kind of economic setup which anarcho-capitalists claim will naturally be achieved without government, and which everyone on this board agrees is best. Distributism maximizes freedom.> some guilds where craftsmen banded together to share tools>In other words, you're forced to share your tools.
If you could afford your own carpentry shop, no one forced you to join the guild. Most people, however, could not, and it would simply be inefficient for each worker to have his own complete set of (at least very complex and rarely used) tools. It was simply more efficient if everyone shared, say, a tool which was very large and difficult to make, but was only used in certain circumstances. Guilds were collected by free association.
>>360289>>360289>THERE'S the Marxist angling of it. It's ALWAYS Capitalisms fault, never Socialisms fault
It's always the Jews, anon, and during the industrial revolution, they were industrial capitalists. In post-war Russia, however, they were communists. They have never been anarcho-capitalists, monarchists, fascists, distributists, or national socialists, and they'll say anyone who is is antisemitic, so any of those options is free game as far as your average poltard is concerned
>>360282>Distributism is the economic belief that the means of production ought to be widely distributed among the working class
I have a question. If it is about to distribution, from where the assets will be taken? This looks like communism, but rebranded.
I don't mean distributed as in handed out by the government. I mean an economic circumstance in which most of the working class owns their own means of production. This economic stage was reached at the height of the Middle Ages, but due to the King's defection from the Church in England, and his seizure of Church lands, which he then sold to the nobles, who, now unchecked by the Church, gained the power to pass the enclosure act to steal land from the peasant class, we entered the Industrial era under a guise of capitalism, although property was concentrated rather than distributed, and this setup tends toward communism
>>360312>I mean an economic circumstance in which most of the working class owns their own means of production.
A hypothetical situation then.
Hilaire Belloc's Servile State goes into historical detail about this, an I highly recommend it. I am not attacking Anarcho capitalism when I attack Industrial Capitalism to be clear. Personally, I think anarcho capitalism is like the communist meme where "it hasn't really been tried yet", but I like the theory, as far as it goes, because the theorists all argue that it will end in a distributist state of economic affairs.
I am a monarchist personally, which Hoppe argues is the next best thing to anarcho-capitalism, because a monarch is basically just a self-interested individual, acting in his own, long-term (rather than short-term, as in a democracy) economic interests. Under monarchy in the middle ages, the distributist state was attained without violent revolution, or by government redistribution, but by the natural progression of affairs
No more hypothetical than libertarianism or national socialism, but this economic circumstance has really existed during a real period of time.
There are a few distributist societies around, such as the circle the wagons project from our frens over at frenschan
>>360314>Under monarchy in the middle ages, the distributist state was attained without violent revolution
Of course, violent revolution always needs a financier, and the King didn't finance its own demise.
In summary, most of the people on this board whether natsoc or ancap seem to be desiring what I have described as a distributist state of economic affairs. Distributism does not describe the means to attaining such a state, and ancaps and natsocs both argue that their economic systems are good precisely because they tend toward this reputedly good state of affairs, because such a state of affairs (self-ownership, economic freedom) is good for man as man, and not as livestock.
Thus, I was defending the anon who suggested distributism as an alternative name to use to refer to a pol-styled ideology, because several anons here seemed to confuse it with Communism, which it is inherently opposed to. It does not advocate for the seizure of land by the government. That was what got us out of the distributist state to begin with. It does not promote the consolidation of property in the hands of a few, which some people will argue is the result of capitalism. That, however, is a different argument, and not and inherent tenent of those who seek to realize the distributist state
Jews could have financed it, but they would only have done so if they could use the conflict to seize power, which most of the time did not happen, because most of the time the peasants would kick them out if they tried to subvert the public order.
This meme describes pretty well what is going on.
>>360312>most of the working class owns their own means of production. This economic stage was reached at the height of the Middle Ages
You've lost me here. How can you say that medieval peasants owned the means of production when most serfs loved on land owned by nobles and had to farm to pay taxes to them? If they don't own the land they don't own the means of production.
From the beginning of the middle ages ~ 1000 to the high Middle Ages ~ 1500, Europe slowly transitioned from the servile state of Rome to the distributist state. The slaves gradually became serfs, with more rights to the land and less obligation to the lords, and serfs gradually became freedmen who truly owned their land and only paid taxes to the lord for the sake of military protection.
If you want the history in detail, I highly recommend Hilaire Belloc's 'The Servile State'
>>360317>because several anons here seemed to confuse it with Communism
I won't say confusing, but a well known method of subversion used by commies to introduce their poison.
>>360314>Under monarchy in the middle ages, the distributist state was attained without violent revolution, or by government redistribution, but by the natural progression of affairs
The natural progression of affairs was near-constant warfare.
>>360323>But hey, I'll bite. Tell me what you mean by this nonsense word that does not inherently carry any meaning 50 Distributists can agree on, let alone 5,000,000.>No, seriously, what the fuck is Distributism to you?>That sounds like socialism, or worse, communism.
It doesn't seem like distributism is a well known term to you guys. Most people don't know what it means in my experience
Those who do know what it is normally write it off as "Reactionary", much like they do with national socialism
Oh bullshit. Are you actually denying that medieval Europe was a series of warring fiefdoms?
What's your source?
>>360322>serfs gradually became freedmen who truly owned their land and only paid taxes to the lord for the sake of military protection.
So, it is if the freeman surrenders his liberty to serve on the Lord property in exchange of protection. It is that or go and own a piece of wilderness.
>>360328>>360322>serfs gradually became freedmen who truly owned their land and only paid taxes to the lord for the sake of military protection
That was a relationship that could change at any time depending on how much their liege wanted to press them for taxes.
In other words.
There is no freeman if he lives under the Lord's jurisdiction. Otherwise, the freeman can stay in the wilderness and make its own a piece of land, but without the protection of the swordmen.
Hilaire Belloc - 'Europe and the Faith' is one off the top of my head
It's true that England frequently invaded northern France, but according to the rules of chivalry which developed during this period, noncombatant peasants were to be left out of the fighting. The only time they really got massacred is if non-Roman barbarian Danes, Moors, or Huns invaded, but those weren't fiefdoms. In England before the St. Augusine's landing, there was near constant warring, but that was because during this period, England had been cut off form Roman order and civilization due to the occupying Danes
Not to mention its completely up to the Lord when or if the serfs ever become "freemen".
We have the same system now, except going and living in the wilderness isn't an option anymore, and replace Lord with Jews. What do you propose?
History books in middle school.
I would like to check the authors on those
I'm looking online for the author's name, no success.
>>360333>peasants were to be left out of the fighting
That was an ideal, not reality.
They same the same things in modern times, but civilians get looted and raped anyway.>England
I'm talking about more than just England.>>360336
Source being fucking logic.
The guy with the sword makes the decisions, and so long as you live on their land they decide your fate: that's the power dynamic.
Do you think the serfs could just take their liege to court and sue them for not making them freemen soon enough?
That's okay. Back when I was in school, a lot of the history had a very anti-medieval bias, similar to anit-nazi bias, so it's sometimes difficult when you get into sourcing, especially in online debates
Anyway, it won't be relevant to you because was many years ago and in a non-English language.
Actually, if the king ever massacred his own people, he would effectively destroy himself because no one to produce food for the army. Secondly, freemen didn't live on his land. It was their land, but the tax was for protection from outside invasion. As stated before, this is no different from the modern system, except in our case the sometimes benevolent king is replaced by the never-benevolent Jew.
This is the age old question. How do you make the guy with the sword a good man?
Well, show him that the people who pay him make maximum prosperity when left to themselves, train him in a religious dedication to the principles of chivalry. If possible, make swords widely distributed so that the peasants can defend themselves. Basically everything that modern society discourages, do that
>>360346>Secondly, freemen didn't live on his land. It was their land, but the tax was for protection from outside invasion. As stated before, this is no different from the modern system
it is exactly the same system used in the Roman Empire.
The aristocrats and middle class owned slaves and also serf working the land. The last have to pay a tribute for the use of the land and I read about the legal disputes on it. (a book on Roman Law, 800 pages).
Well how would you set up the system so that no one pays taxes?
(without violent revolution)
What are you defending, btw, I'm getting ancap vibes
A note, a revolt doesn't count as revolution. This first is spontaneous and short lived, the second is widespread and financed for the long run.
Also, it's a very different system when there are basically no slaves, and most of the peasants are not exactly serfs, having more rights to their land than if they were merely renting
Thus my point still stands that throughout the middle ages, the peasant class as rising in respect to freedom and rights from the servile state of Rome
>>360346>he would effectively destroy himself because no one to produce food for the army.
First of all, the king hardly ever personally did any massacring. Second of all, people weren't massacred outright all at once: they'd get murdered and exploited isolated in pockets of violence by greedy warriors and nobles who treated them like property.>Secondly, freemen didn't live on his land.
And who decides who is a serf and who is a freeman?>but the tax was for protection from outside invasion
Nobles levy the taxes, and could set the prices to whatever was convenient for them. Don't pay up one day and your liege has you killed or beaten.>this is no different from the modern system
On this point, we agree.>>360347>show him that the people who pay him make maximum prosperity when left to themselves
Which he may promptly ignore for short term gain. That aside, he can still be cruel to small portions of his serfs at a time without threatening his own livelihood.>train him in a religious dedication to the principles of chivalry
This is a system that relies on self-governance. It you expect the people who hold all of the power and wealth in society to be chivalrous out of the goodness of their hearts, you'll be disappointed. Oftentimes chivalry was hollow, false, and just a show for politics with the court.>make swords widely distributed so that the peasants can defend themselves
This wasn't a thing. Nobles never went handing out swords to peasants unless they were drafting them into the army because shit was hitting the fan. Feudalist systems are warrior aristocracies, with power dynamics enforced by military power and protection rackets.
I don't see much difference about the serf status between Rome and the European Middle Age. A serf has limited rights that depend on the good will of the landlord.
Rights weren't even a political concept in medieval times. It you were a serf, your destiny was beholden to your liege: since he owned the land he lived on, he owned you. If he wanted to take 60% of your crop one year, he could. If he wanted to rape your daughter, he could. If he wanted to draft your son into the army, he could. If he wanted to seize your home to quarter his troops for the winter, he could. There were no "rights" to be had.
>>360354>Nobles never went handing out swords to peasants unless they were drafting them into the army because shit was hitting the fan
On a side note, it is the same method today. Soldiers are not given weapons until they get to the front. And when they are called to the rear, they are disarmed before they are ferried to the resting area. Also this serves for the military police and commanders to punish the soldiers without risk to be shot on the spot.
This is going to be my last post before I have to go. Thank you for the good argument. Always a pleasure to have some good 'ol pol roughousing.
Just want to point out that we are now arguing over points of history, and no longer about the merits of distributism as an economic theory. I think that we agree that not only self-ownership and freedom are good, but also community and nation.
On the history, I have recommended sources which I think accurately depict the history of Europe. I think that the claims you make about the baseness of the lords are largely based upon modern exaggerations meant to show how "progressive" we moderns are, when in reality, we are much worse.
I never said we were much better, but I'm saying those rose colored glasses you have about the history of Europe are also biased.
If you want a system that is enduring, you need to get the power dynamics right, and not be reliant on the generosity and chivalry of nobles who hole all the cards. If you create a system that has ample opportunity for people to be abused, people WILL be abused.
>>360343>a lot of the history had a very anti-FEUDAL bias
Fixed, and people have good reason for that. Even the Japanese, despite treating the Sengoku period like a fantastical time of great progress and ideals, still acknowledge that it was absolute Hell when you stop being a romantic about it.>>360347>How do you make the guy with the sword a good man?
Simple, you don't
.>>360349>the system so that no one pays taxes
Taxes are going to exist whether we like them or not. If you want a government, taxes will exist regardless.>>360359>we are now arguing over points of history, and no longer about the merits of distributism as an economic theory
Because your economic theory is based upon incorrect assumptions and aspects of historical society. You said
that "Distributism" is literally Feudal Europe. How can people NOT
pull up the historical points to point out the problems with your idea?>I think that the claims you make about the baseness of the lords are largely based upon modern exaggerations
Have you EVER
read up on the history of Switzerland and how it came to be, or ever even heard of William Tell? To cut it short, back in the late 13th century, the peasants of the central Alps began revolting against the various European lords because they were tired of dealing with all of their shit. This culminated in the Battle of Morgarten, where the Swiss peasants utterly defeated and humiliated Duke Leopold I and his army, and finally won their independence.
How can THAT
be seen as "exaggerated"?
The guy with the sword allegory falls apart when you consider what it's really saying. People with "power" are telling those with a monopoly on force what to do. National Socialism understands National Socialists must have a monopoly on force, while Feudalism relies on a military formed from peasant conscripts or the children of treasonous noble families with their own agendas.
The capacity to utilize violent force against tyrants is a necessary aspect of any free and fair society.
Feudalism makes this impossible by ensuring only the lucky few children of the aristocracy can learn anything and train for combat while the peasantry is treated as an expendable resource by those in power.
Do you really expect those in the ruling class to be good people and have the best interests of the land at heart?
Feudalism lacks any checks and balances on power built into the system.
Feudalism is nothing but a pussy's bootleg fascism.
People can come together and agree to institute a dictatorship ruled according to the principles of National Socialism.
But feudalism is not an ideology, it is an outmoded form of governance.
The Jews don't fear any wannabe feudal lord around the planet. They fear National Socialists.
Your fantasies about a good feudal warlord (also called a king or emperor in some places) are worth less than a child's fantasies about superman conquering all to rule benevolently.
>>360366>You said that "Distributism" is literally Feudal Europe.
No, I said it was reached in that period directly after Feudal Europe, in the high Middle Ages. Feudal Europe was a stage between the servile state and the distributist state. >your economic theory is based upon incorrect assumptions and aspects of historical society
You aren't even arguing that distributism per se is bad, you are disagreeing with me that it was achieved in the high middle ages. Distributism is not based on the feudal system, although most of us would argue that the best example of distributism exists directly after feudal Europe and before the Industrial revolution.
Furthermore, I only mentioned medieval Europe because you stated that it was purely hypothetical which it isn't. It really has existed, and still does exist in some small communities, and when it has existed, it has been good for man. Your dislike of feudal Europe stems from your belief, which may be well founded, that it was not Distributist, because land and power over the land was concentrated in the hands of the few, rather distributed among the working class.
I contest that in the late 1400's to the 1500's, the land really was distributed among the working class and not concentrated in the hands of the powerful, because of the sources I have mentioned. (Also see Mitford Goodson's 'History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind)
Even if I am incorrect in this assertions, however, this would only show that Europe was not in fact Distributist, which would hardly be an argument against Distributism.
Nor would this be begging the question by stating that "that wasn't real distributism" because I am not trying to show that a distributist state was not distributist. I am trying to show that a certain period of Europe had achieved the distributist state, and you are trying to show that it did not
>>360373>the best example of distributism exists directly after feudal Europe and before the Industrial revolution
So, from the 1400's-1700's, when Europe was busy exploring the world, establishing colonies, and exporting goods from those colonies to their homeland
. Sounds like your economic theory isn't going to work, unless humanity has already reached the point of which we're exploring space with relative ease.> It really has existed
And, ended when we explored the entire planet.> and still does exist in some small communities
No, it doesn't. Unless you're referring to the Amish, who live like it's still the 1700's and reject anything and everything and content with living in their own little corner of the world.
Don't mistake that as ridiculing them. They can live like that as much as they want. I have no issue with that. Where I have an problem
is where you self-impose retards dictate and demand that the rest of us MUST
live like that, with zero exceptions (Except for you because you deserve special privileges since you're the one in charge of it all). No, I reject that idea altogether.You are not going to tell me how to live me life.
did you even read my post?
I clearly said 1400s to 1500s
It's not just the Amish, I gave you the example of the frens over on frenschan with the circle the wagons project.
Did I demand that everyone live the agrarian peasant lifestyle?
No. I merely assert that ancaps and natsocs both seek as an endgoal and the justification of their economic ideologies the state in which the majority of people own their own means of production. No one is forcing you to take ownership of your own means of production. If you wish to labor for a wage and not be a property owner, be my guest.
>>360376>Did I demand that everyone live the agrarian peasant lifestyle?
Isn't that always the result? You cannot sustain your community due to your micromanagement of it, so you start invading and force other countries under your rule.> I merely assert that ancaps and natsocs both seek as an endgoal and the justification of their economic ideologies the state in which the majority of people own their own means of production
Ancaps believe that violence solves everything (Africa is the best example of this in action), meanwhile Nazism is just Socialism under the branding of race and nationalism, but still the same failed cult disguised as an economic and political system that has proven endless over the past century that it does not worked, cannot work, and will never work (But you retards don't care because people dying as a result of your actions is a feature of the system, not a bug).
If there are already communities that live out this lifestyle that you're exposing as the "solution" to everything, why don't you move there?
>>360377>Isn't that always the result? You cannot sustain your community due to your micromanagement of it, so you start invading and force other countries under your rule.
No, look at Orania, the only sane place in South Africa.
When did I say micromanagement was necessary for Distributism? In fact, it's most efficient when not micromanaged, much like the free market.
I'll admit, I only have one ancap friend, but he doesn't think that violence solves everything. He just doesn't think that the state should have the monopoly on violence, so like a good red-blooded American, he believes that the means of violence ought to be widely held (i.e. he believes in the second amendment, as do I)>>360378
Yes, that's the idea, I. just need to labor under a wage long enough to afford my own land and property
What economic system do you defend?
>>360379>When did I say micromanagement was necessary for Distributism?
When you outlined that it's Socialism: >>360282<the means of production ought to be widely distributed among the working class> In fact, it's most efficient when not micromanaged, much like the free market.
Except, you're not advocating for a free market. You're advocating for a Socialist society. Free markets do no and have not ever existed under Socialism.> He just doesn't think that the state should have the monopoly on violence
Except they already don't.> What economic system do you defend?
The one that exists right now. Though, I'd prefer the America before Wilson and the 16th amendment.
>>360380<the means of production ought to be widely distributed among the working class
If you read the rest of my posts, you will find that when I say distributed, I mean merely that most workers own their own means of production, not that the government redistributes wealth and property> He just doesn't think that the state should have the monopoly on violence
America is quite possibly the most hopeless nation, because even though we in theory have the means to enact justice when the government commits sever injustices, no one actually does, and when they do, they are punished for it.>The one that exists right now. Though, I'd prefer the America before Wilson and the 16th amendment.
The economy is about to fail. Inflation is destroying the US dollar. It's going to take at leasts 10-20 years before anyone in my generation, with an average working class job can afford their own house/pay off the debt to the bankers. On top of that, muh reparations, are going to cripple the working class even further.
>>360389>>360380> I'd prefer the America before Wilson and the 16th amendment.
I'm very sympathetic to this system. I think that it worked pretty well, but that's precisely because the early American system was heavily agrarian and focused on ownership of one's own property. The industrial setup in which immigrants often found themselves must have not been terrible, because it was evidently better than what they were coming from, but I think that it wasn't too terribly different from a kind of neo-feudalism. Look at Ford, who somewhat micromanaged his workers. Ford was in my opinion a great man, but I definitely get the vibe of a feudal lord from him based on his deep involvement in Americanising his workers even outside of the factory
>>360389>I mean merely that most workers own their own means of production
And, how are the workers defined?> Jan. 6
What does that have to do with violent antics?> The economy is about to fail.
Yes, it should. It boosted up markets that shouldn't have been making the money they were, and now those markets are going to crash as a result of people's stupidity and have their value reset to where things should have been. Economic bubbles bursting happen every decade. It happened during the late Aughts under the nigger, it happened in the 90's with the Dotcom crash, and so on. They're natural cycles of the economy, where market bubbles burst and values reset to their proper place. It's only when people fight it do people suffer longer and in worse conditions than had they not tried to "fix" a system that wasn't broken in the first place.> It's going to take at leasts 10-20 years before anyone in my generation, with an average working class job can afford their own house/pay off the debt to the bankers
Why did you allow yourself to go into debt in the first place if you didn't have a plan, and a fallback plan (And a fallback for the fallback), to pay it off? It's not my problem you took out loans you couldn't pay back.>>360390>the early American system was heavily agrarian and focused on ownership of one's own property.
Not by the late 1800's, early 1900's, which is the time I specified. And, the reason I specified those times is because it's when we had anything close to the modern world, just with far less regulation than currently exists. Although, with the downside of lacking modern conveniences like cellphones and vidya.> Ford was in my opinion a great man, but I definitely get the vibe of a feudal lord from him based on his deep involvement in Americanising his workers even outside of the factory
Ford was an idealist, who, while he did do everything possible to benefit the lives of his employees, and bought about many advancements such as those in medicine and workplace conditions, he didn't show an inch of respect to anyone (Even his own family) unless they submitted to his cult of personality.
People who work to earn a livelihood are workers>>360391
I haven't taken out any loans, but it's going to take a long time to save up enough to buy a house, and I only spend money on the bare necessities
The current economic situation in America is terrible, much worse than Third Reich
>>360392>People who work to earn a livelihood are workers
So, that means anyone who has any occupation is defined as a worker, correct?> it's going to take a long time to save up enough to buy a house
Yes, if you want to live in city. Once you get into the countryside, prices drop to exceedingly low rates.> The current economic situation in America is terrible, much worse than Third Reich
How so? From what I understand, the only people who are going to be suffering are the idiots in cities who think meat comes from the supermarket. There's an entire continent out there that you can do practically anything in.
Yes, it is best to own the tools which one uses to make one's livelihood. Else, you become subject to the man who does own those tools. Such is the case in some corporations which required the vaccine, and those who decided not to take it lost their jobs. Of course, most could find work elsewhere, but that's still a lot of time put into past work and climbing the company ladder that's disappeared.
I would appreciate some examples of countryside where you can buy say 10 acres of good farmland at a low cost. I have been looking, and it still looks pretty bad.
Yes it is cityfolk who have it the worst, but the majority of the population lives in those cities and, should the electoral college be abolished, which is becoming a distinct possibility, would gain a lot of political control over the countryside.
Also, the fact that the countryside does best just goes to prove my point that when you own your own property, you are better off than when you rent from others, like in the city.
Distributism makes the claim that the agrarian life is freer and better than the industrial, urban life
Normies won't eat any redpill that look too big for them.
One at a time, never forget.
i took the holocaust was a lie redoill straight away, but then again i'm a king.
Skull bumper stickers
Dear god is that considered based now
What am I doing with my life
The first 'Transgender' clinic was burned by the Hitler Youth