/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>365939 →
>Oh, fuck off!
>I'm not going to sit here playing word games with you. If that's your intention, then you can fuck right off.
Is true tho. What is so abusive about natsoc? Explain it, don't just toss the buzzword and expect it to stick.
Ancap is pretty abusive too. I don't need to explain why, mind you. I don't want to play word games.
Mass reply and bold red-text are strongly correlated with butthurt btw.
>Depends on if you want to go with Marx's definition (Which is simply anything that isn't yada yada
Sorry, I don't wanna play word games with you.
/s

>And, when that doesn't fix the problem?
What's even the argument? Are you assuming the government is just going to inexorably continue growing until freedom is dead? Are you under the impression that's what happened in Nazi Germany? Go ahead, elaborate.
>people will magically stop being self-interested assholes and all come together for the purposes of achieving a "greater good".
<This isn't fascism. Heck, that's such a vague statement you could apply it to anything, including capitalism.
>"Lul, yes it is Fascism."
In what basis do you claim this is what natsoc's believe? Actually explain why. Don't just straw man.
>[Fascism] is a religious cult that believes, at some point of time in history, everything was "perfect" and nothing wrong ever happened in the world for man
<Fascists do not believe this. You are misattributing the circumstances under which the ideology was formed.
>Yes, they do believe it.
In what basis do you claim that? Do you even have an example? Maybe something a natsoc author said? Otherwise you are simply beating a straw man. Again.
>It's NOT changing it for the "better", not even close, it's changing the world because because they're angry with the world. They try to claim that it's for the "betterment of people", but said people is just them and them alone, everyone else needs to "do the work".
>Because I say so.
Goddamn anon. You're going to kill that fucking straw man at this pace.
>What is the political ideology called where people want the government to stop interfering with their lives and leave them alone?
A pipe-dream. Something that can only work assuming people will magically stop being self-interested assholes and all come together for the purposes of achieving "freedom from the government".
/s
<Socialism is it's own ideology, and so is fascism.
>No, they're the same thing. Because I said so.
Dead already.
>And, they'll stop magically being assholes and never be assholes ever again.
Well, you seem to think that a group of individualists would magically stop being selfish and thus prevent the rise of corporations that would ultimately diminish their freedom.
>And, when companies did that, people collectively told them to fuck off.
What's the point? They could've done the same with the state. Gun ownership was a thing in Nazi Germany. (Which is why "west taiwan" is a bad comparison.)

>(The bourgeoisie, whiteness, the patriarchy, kikes, etc.)
You just tossed whiteness, the patriarchy and kikes into the same group without justification. One is a group that has historically fucked with western civilization and continues to do so. The others are pseudonyms for western kind and western man respectively.
What response did you even expected?
>Is Winnie in the East no longer considered a "real threat"? What about Klaus Schwab in the West?
What is even your point? Do I have to choose between kikes and them? That's a disingenuous argument that implies there's only ever two extremes, and nothing else that can possibly every exist.
>Yes, that's right, give these people EXACTLY the response they want. Instead of, you know, rejecting to play their game altogether and living your life to the fullest and in the best way possible.
If you think organizing against jewry is playing into their game, elaborate.

>>365970
>the endless NatSoc v. AnCap[maybe?] debate
This guy isn't interested in debating, anarcho-capitalism/right-libertarianism or anything else. He's just here to get attention and piss people off. If he was genuine, he'd make his case in a thread where it's at least somewhat relevant, e.g. the American politics general or Leslie thread, or make his own thread, like you did.

>>365970
>I believe a proper thread is required to follow through with it.
There is never going to be a "proper thread" when you run from answering the question:
What do you do with your life when you're not posting on this website?

>>365982
Am not even him, lmao. I joined the shitstorm with this thread, haven't engaged before I posted it.

>>365981
Oh, okay.

>>365971
>What is so abusive about natsoc?
It's the exact same thing as Socialism. It's even in the damn name.
>What's even the argument?
The argument is that things are not going to be "fixed", as is insisted, by removing Kikes from the equation. Corruption is still going to occur.
>Are you assuming the government is just going to inexorably continue growing until freedom is dead?
Until people put a stop to it, yes.
>Are you under the impression that's what happened in Nazi Germany? Go ahead, elaborate.
The invasion into Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, and the Baltics are the most blatant examples of this.
>In what basis do you claim this is what natsoc's believe?
On the basis that said Socialists said that they learned and used said tactics from their Socialist enemies, and proceeded to apply them. Hitler outright stated it in Mein Kampf.
>In what basis do you claim that?
The fact that EVERY piece of Nazi literature goes on about how the "Aryans" never did anything wrong, and it's always "Da Juice" is the reason why we no longer have paradise.
>Something that can only work assuming people will magically stop being self-interested assholes
No, free markets work because of self-interest. I have a skill that someone else wants for a project, and they have an item that I want. I exchange my labor for said item, and he gets the completed product of my labor. Both of us win because we appealed to each other's self-interest.
>Well, you seem to think that a group of individualists would magically stop being selfish and thus prevent the rise of corporations that would ultimately diminish their freedom.
It's not magical, it's the company outright telling people to get fucked if they don't like it. And, surprise, people don't take kindly to being told to go pound salt.
>They could've done the same with the state.
Not when they're killed or locked up for expressing dissatisfaction with the state. Or constantly told how "evil" they are for not falling for every sob story that comes along.
>Gun ownership was a thing in Nazi Germany.
Yeah, and "gun ownership" is a thing in West Taiwan: https://infogalactic.com/info/Firearm_ownership_law_in_China
Doesn't matter if it's restrictive, it does exist.
>You just tossed whiteness, the patriarchy and kikes into the same group without justification.
Because it's the same story, just a different "villain".
>One is a group that has historically fucked with western civilization and continues to do so.
Removing the Kikes from the equation, can you seriously not think of any of other group, in ALL of history, that repeatedly fucked with European civilizations?
>What is even your point? Do I have to choose between kikes and them?
The point is that there's ALWAYS someone tying to skin you alive. Therefore, following the logic of Socialists, something must "always" be done because, God forbid, there be another solution that exists that doesn't come from the government.
>If you think organizing against jewry is playing into their game
How are you organizing? Are you refusing to play their games and making it possible for you to exit/survive the system if there's a collapse, or are you doing the exact same thing they do (Seeking to subvert the system and making it discriminatory against them)?

>>365981
>He's just here to get attention and piss people off.
You are the ones who lost your minds when someone expressed that Socialism and Socialism are the same thing.
>If he was genuine, he'd make his case in a thread where it's at least somewhat relevant
Except YOU were the ones who derailed the thread to center it all upon my post.

>>365985
Then, in case you missed, here's the reason why I'm even asking the question. The guy is declaring that we need a "Socialist Revolution" for the purposes of "community solidarity, education, family values, national pride and encouragement". The only problem is that NONE of this requires the government to get involved in order to accomplish it. If he cares so much about community solidarity, then why doesn't he talk to people in his own community or become interested in activities that other people are doing? If he cares so much about education, then why doesn't he take it upon himself to help people who are looking for better methods of education? If he cares so much about family values, does he actually spend time with his family and try to build a connection with them? If he cares so much about national pride and encouragement, does he actually take the time trying showing people the pride that he for in his country and encouraging people to be proud of where they live?

But, then again, actually doing any of this yourself defeats the entire purpose of Socialism, in any and all forms, because it shows that the government is not the solution.

>>365996
Dude, I probably align closer with you (at least on economic issues) than with the people you're yelling at, but you're being such a retard I'm siding with them anyways.
>Except YOU were the ones who derailed the thread to center it all upon my post.
The post you're responding to was the first time I've addressed this ongoing retarded argument.
>The only problem is that NONE of this requires the government to get involved in order to accomplish it.
Why don't you argue for that position in a thread where it's relevant?

>>365999
>Because I wasn't planning on having an argument in the first place and that wasn't even a part of the original discussion. The closest it ever came was me pointing out that the FTC exists.
At the Brit who doesn't know what the FTC is.
>>365877 →

>>365997
>Dude, I probably align closer with you (at least on economic issues) than with the people you're yelling at, but you're being such a retard I'm siding with them anyways.
All according to keikaku...
Shitpost aside, he hasn't budged on or elaborated on anything he has said, yet he goes on so excessively. If this kind of thing weren't exactly what I've experienced for six+ years of discussions about race and the JQ with libertarians, even when talking about entirely localized and small-scale change that requires no government intervention, I might still be a libertarian today.

>>366003
I have to ask our wonderful ban evader what he has done when he hasn't been posting on our site, because he has no post history on any of his VPNs.

>>366003
>a vol has it in his head that I "evaded a ban" by coming to this thread just like he told me to.
Nah, it's more that you keep insisting things like "ebin ebil nazis think nothing ever went wrong before Jews" and "all statism is socialism" or more funnily "what do you do when you're not here," because these are gotchas you're repeating with the sole intention of stopping any discussion around the role of the state or whether it's possible to remove the state (it isn't, it just leaves a power vacuum for another government to jump in, you silly goober)
Of course, maybe ban evasion might be doing all of the above while hopping from IP address to IP address. Almost like you only came here with the intention of stirring the pot, and you took the first possible chance to flip your shit about the word socialism in a thread about white aesthetics. Libertarians really do make their own enemies.

I guess you didn't get the irony of my post. You were banned for spam in the other thread, since you continued to post "What do you do when not posting on this site" in that thread. A shame your IQ is that low. You might train a bit and come back when you stop evading.

Not a bad idea to delete the whole thing. But you are still ban evading.

I'll get around to it when you fuck off for your ban duration. Let's see if that will ever happen.

>>366002
>If this kind of thing weren't exactly what I've experienced for six+ years of discussions about race and the JQ with libertarians, even when talking about entirely localized and small-scale change that requires no government intervention, I might still be a libertarian today.
Yeah, sadly a lot of so-called libertarians take individualism to mean that there can be no ackowledging of differences between groups, and end up sounding like egalitarians. There are libertarians who are much better on these sorts of issues though, file related.

>>366015
I do like Hoppe. He was my go-to citation when it came to race and politics in America, since despite his difficulty in verbally explaining himself sometimes, he's a really smart guy who seems to have wholly good intentions.

>>365970
In the interest of fun posting here's a pone.
All long lasting issues stem from the human element and 'human' element and forces of nature and spiritual forces (can ignore this part for the time being).
The biggest thing is being companionship.
Anything that harms or disintegrates that is the largest hostile motive.
All woes ultimately break into a worsening of companionship.

Petersonism of extreme individualism works until the combined forces of another group overcomes the extreme individual. As a singular person the range of action is dictated by those who come before and those currently there to decide who comes later.
Group actions by single actors only working together by chance can work, but leaves vulnerable gaps. By technically this is how everything works per se.
AnCapitalism solves it by use of mutual agreed counter defensive force and resources, creating a micro nation-state via each person.
Which works when people work togther.
As mutual interests overlap, usually base material interests but also higher levels of Maslov hierarchy of needs.
Intra-personal conflicts are nebulous other than it'll be delt with.

Other actual successful ideologies and politics also create a meta need for ingroup preference for groups.
For ease of understanding or communicating the various interests (accurately or inaccurately). Making thinking about individuals as a sum collection of needs and desires and traits which works by heuristics.
The difference is what happens between groups and meta-groups, both inside and outside.

>>365982
>What do you do with your life when you're not posting on this website?
I'll answer, just to humor you.
I do my job, I take care of my younger and elderly family members, I play video games, I do tabletop games when I can schedule them, I babysit the neighbor's kids, try to keep up my creative hobbies (art, writing), I prep for doomsday scenarios and prep my family members, etc. I also talk about ponies and my hobbies on other sites. I'm a busy guy. I admittingly don't have as much time to post to this board as I used to, but I still check it every day. Idk how that really relevant to the topic of fascism. I admittingly haven't done enough to make my political wishes a reality as I could, but I dream of making a difference some day. I incorporate fascist ideals into my daily life (without revealing my power level). Blood calls blood, so I do my best to look out for my family and members of my race by extension. A lot of younger people in my community don't have the same opportunities I did in life, so I try to be a mentor and teach them some skills.

>>365996
>It's the exact same thing as Socialism. It's even in the damn name.
It should be pretty easy to explain then.
>The argument is that things are not going to be "fixed", as is insisted, by removing Kikes from the equation. Corruption is still going to occur.
Sure, it's human nature. At the minimum, removing them is still a necessary step. The control they have right now, and the control they had in Weimar can hardly be suppressed without the use of force. I'm alright if it's done by the people rather than the state. But they have to go.
>Until people put a stop to it, yes.
Which is why gun ownership was a thing in Germany. More on that later.
>The invasion into Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, and the Baltics are the most blatant examples of this.
Am sorry, what? What does this have to do with the government expanding and taking away its citizen's rights? I thought we were talking about national socialism. Are we gonna talk about WW2 now? I could make a thread, but you're gonna have to shut about it here.
>On the basis that said Socialists said that they learned and used said tactics from their Socialist enemies, and proceeded to apply them. Hitler outright stated it in Mein Kampf.
I too like to study the tactics of my enemies.
>The fact that EVERY piece of Nazi literature goes on about how the "Aryans" never did anything wrong, and it's always "Da Juice" is the reason why we no longer have paradise.
I don't deny there was a bias. Then again, I don't agree that was the general attitude. I mean:
<where are the proofs
In any case, anyone who isn't a sperg-out from the deepest confines of 4/pol/. Knows that kikes aren't the only thing that's wrong about this world. It's quite the caricature tho.
>No, free markets work because of self-interest. I have a skill that someone else wants for a project, and they have an item that I want. I exchange my labor for said item, and he gets the completed product of my labor. Both of us win because we appealed to each other's self-interest.
And you admitted Germany had a free market. I believe you also recognized the state was necessary for stability and to protect the nation from foreign influences. [ >>365939 → and >>365964 → ]
I'd argue the state was necessary to force the big industrialists to serve the nation. Because nations aren't just economic zones. There's also its people and their culture.
>It's not magical, it's the company outright telling people to get fucked if they don't like it. And, surprise, people don't take kindly to being told to go pound salt.
Point is, corruption can manifest itself in the private sector too. Private companies can grow large enough through unfair practices, and collaborate with one another to the detriment of the nation and its people.
>Not when they're killed or locked up for expressing dissatisfaction with the state. Or constantly told how "evil" they are for not falling for every sob story that comes along.
Corporations are just as capable of said violence. They're also just as capable of propaganda. Private or public tyranny can only be addressed with a well regulated militia and a homogeneous population.
>Yeah, and "gun ownership" is a thing in West Taiwan: Doesn't matter if it's restrictive, it does exist.
Yeah, in comparison, Hitler lifted most restrictions. So it is still a dumb comparison. He restricted gun rights for minorities tho. So it was even better than in the US.
>Because it's the same story, just a different "villain".
Thing is, whiteness means western people and their culture. I'm arguing in favor of NatSoc precisely because its better for them. If you're coming from another angle, then I guess this debate is kinda pointless.
>Removing the Kikes from the equation, can you seriously not think of any of other group, in ALL of history, that repeatedly fucked with European civilizations?
Dude, I understand. Kikes aren't the only threat to western civilization. What I don't understand is why you have to throw a tantrum every time they are mentioned.
>The point is that there's ALWAYS someone tying to skin you alive. Therefore, following the logic of Socialists, something must "always" be done because, God forbid, there be another solution that exists that doesn't come from the government.
You do need the state tho. Again, purging the kikes can be done by the people. But if we want to improve birthrates, it's going to get tricky.
>How are you organizing? Are you refusing to play their games and making it possible for you to exit/survive the system if there's a collapse, or are you doing the exact same thing they do (Seeking to subvert the system and making it discriminatory against them)?
What in the fuck is this shit?
>But, then again, actually doing any of this yourself defeats the entire purpose of Socialism, in any and all forms, because it shows that the government is not the solution.
And why aren't people doing it anon? It sounds to me like individuals alone don't really have the drive to change things up. And those who do, aren't numerous enough to make a difference. Sure they could make an agrupation of sorts, but that would eventually become the state in everything but name.

>>366023
>I'd argue the state was necessary to force the big industrialists to serve the nation. Because nations aren't just economic zones. There's also its people and their culture.
Hitler's programs to solve the low birthrates also comes to mind.

>>365996
>It's the exact same thing as Socialism.
Brainlet take. The name was specifically addressed.
>The argument is that things are not going to be "fixed", as is insisted, by removing Kikes from the equation.
Worth it to try. It would greatly be improved.
>Until people put a stop to it, yes.
How are you going to do that without an organized response?
I want to overthrow this sorry excuse for a government too.
>The invasion into Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, and the Baltics
And? What about them?
>tactics
Tactics are not the same as ideology, let alone administrative systems.
>The fact that EVERY piece of Nazi literature goes on about how the "Aryans" never did anything wrong
They do not say that. Aryans have failed on multiple fronts and enabled their own subversion, which is why the Jews have the upper hand now. We are not flawless, but we can do better.
>we no longer have paradise
Who said it was paradise?
>No, free markets work because of self-interest.
Of course. That's why fascism preserves free market enterprise, unlike socialism.
>And, surprise, people don't take kindly to being told to go pound salt.
Do you not remember the housing crisis we just had a decade ago? Private equity firms quietly bought up all those foreclosed houses at the expense of the fractured communities that they themselves destroyed, and none of them have faced serious consequences for it. Same goes who the pharma industry in the opioid crisis, or the farming firms that have been consolidating control of the food supply while sabotaging family farms into extinction. Organized response and direct action against the system is necessary to defeat those who wield enormous economic power.
>in West Taiwan
Apples to oranges. The Third Reich is not China. Fascists are pro-guns.
>Not when they're killed or locked up for expressing dissatisfaction with the state. Or constantly told how "evil" they are for not falling for every sob story that comes along.
That can happen under any system. It has nothing to do with fascism.
>Removing the Kikes from the equation, can you seriously not think of any of other group, in ALL of history, that repeatedly fucked with European civilizations?
I can think of several groups that need removal, yes. Kikes are the highest priority.
>God forbid, there be another solution that exists that doesn't come from the government.
I already told you in the previous thread that fascists could assure quality and nationalism in the private sector through strategic use of nationalist trade unions and craft guilds: those are not government entities.
>Are you refusing to play their games and making it possible for you to exit/survive the system if there's a collapse
Yes. Once this sorry excuse for a system collapsed, fascists could seize control. I've been prepping with my family and community in the mean time.
>Seeking to subvert the system and making it discriminatory against them
I don't seek to subvert the system. I seek to destroy it entirely and replaced with one that favors the interests of my people. The government is the enemy of my people, and I want it gone.
>You are the ones who lost your minds when someone expressed that Socialism and Socialism are the same thing.
Lmao, all I did was refute your unsupported claims. It was you who kept posting "fuck off" on repeat in bolded, red letters. You sound awfully mad, Anon.
>Except YOU were the ones who derailed the thread to center it all upon my post.
You replied to every post, and derailed it just as much. You are just as guilty as anyone else.
>"Socialist Revolution"
Nobody said that.
>"community solidarity, education, family values, national pride and encouragement".
I said that, yes.
>The only problem is that NONE of this requires the government to get involved in order to accomplish it.
I didn't say that either. Fascism can be facilitated through many factors and entities besides the government (such as through trade unions, brotherhoods, clubs, youth programs, etc); what matters is that people organize. I try my best to make fascism a reality in my daily life.
>If he cares so much about community solidarity, then why doesn't he talk to people in his own community or become interested in activities that other people are doing?
I literally do that. See >>366022
>If he cares so much about education, then why doesn't he take it upon himself to help people who are looking for better methods of education?
Also do that, when I can. A few of kids in my community lost family members to the opioid epidemic spread by Jewish drug lords, and I consider it a blood imperative to be a role model (Rainbow Dash values irl).
>If he cares so much about family values, does he actually spend time with his family and try to build a connection with them?
Yes, faggot. I care about my family. I cook dinner for my cousins every day.
>If he cares so much about national pride and encouragement, does he actually take the time trying showing people the pride that he for in his country and encouraging people to be proud of where they live?
Yes, I believe in my community, and I care about local patriotism. Not the Jewnited States though.
>actually doing any of this yourself defeats the entire purpose of Socialism
Of course, which is why I'm NOT a fucking socialist. I'm a fascist.

>>366023
Excellent points, Anon. Have a pony.

>>366027
Thanks fren!

You know, it really disappoints me to hear that there are still Anons who think that fascism and socialism are the same thing. I really believed that the Anons on this board were smarter than that.

>>366029
Socialism's a buzzword that means different things to different people.
The National Socialist German Worker's Party wants a white capitalist state where the government ensures the biggest businesses work for the benefit of the people, not the coin of the money-lending jew cabal.
In some ways NatSoc is libertarian, in some ways it is socialist, and in some ways it is conservative, but what matters is the results. Only children and libtards use labels in lieu of in-depth analysis.

>>366039
>Socialism's a buzzword that means different things to different people
This goes even worse for "fascism". People will call anything they dislike fascist with zero regard for what the actual ideology really means.

>>365982
>What do you do with your life when you're not posting on this website?
Why was this question even necessary? I don't get why he was so insistent on it.

>>366318
>Why was this question even necessary? I don't get why he was so insistent on it.
I believe it is because this mongolian karaoke suddenly filled with liberals in disguise and undercover SJWs. Psychological projection, slander and attacking your character instead of your arguments is their weapon of choice.

>>366320
Go cry about it in /qa/, old man.

>>366320
>projection
>slander
>attacking character
Please repeat that sentence while looking in a mirror. I don't even think I could come up with a better description of the interactions I have had with you.

>>366320
I don't really believe that at all.

>>366320
>suddenly filled with liberals in disguise and undercover SJWs
Come on, Anon... You can't just go calling everything you don't like "undercover SJWs".

>>365996
>The only problem is that NONE of this requires the government to get involved in order to accomplish it.
You're getting it backwards. It's through community solidarity that the people of a nation can fulfill the need for sovereignty, not just through the state that solidarity is created.
>actually doing any of this yourself defeats the entire purpose of Socialism
It's a good thing I'm not a socialist then.

>>366337
He's a brick wall. According to him the state is universally bad and apparently there is a world out there somewhere over the rainbow where people will form communities without establishing a governing order naturally.
I speak from experience when I say this kind of mindset only goes away with time while surrounded by ineffectual libertarians rapidly sliding down leftist slippery slopes like sexual liberation and race denial. Sure, there are Hoppean libertarians, but their foundation is ironically not a starting point but an end point of decades or centuries of development and community forming which will require regime changes and government switch pulling in our situation to accomplish. Hence why Hoppe says monarchy > democracy.

>>366326
>projection
>slander
>attacking character
Interesting, basically the above is how the jew operates. I didn't read any of that coming from this anon booms but a lot of it going towards him, I know because I'm a frequent lurker and shitstorm always caught my eye. And don't gaslight me like you tried with him, I'm not that tolerant.
Call me paranoid if you wish but I remember there was an anon adamantly defending the freemasons a couple of years ago without giving any substance about why they would be innocent pals. I wonder if he is still around, it may explain many unheard behaviors in /mlpol/, specially coming from the top.

>>366344
>implying anyone is seriously gaslighting boom booms
People just don't like him, his facebook meme dumps, or his attitude. Is that really so hard to understand?

>>366344
>And don't gaslight me like you tried with him
Nobody is "gaslighting", you fucking retard.
>I'm not that tolerant.
Oh nooo~, I'm so scared.
>I remember there was an anon adamantly defending the freemasons a couple of years ago without giving any substance about why they would be innocent pals
I was here the whole time. I don't recall anyone "adamantly defending" them. I do recall Anons expressing skepticism to the narrative that they're behind literally everything in a way that draws attention away from the JQ, but I've yet to witness a pro-mason opinion on this board. If I'm wrong, feel free to check the archives for the conversation to show me.
That aside, one or two Anons with shitty opinions doesn't mean this board has been subverted by "undercover SJWs", and claiming such without evidence lowers discussion quality in the same way redditors on /ptg/ shat-up /pol/: exactly the kind of crap Anons here wished to leave behind in 2017.
That being said, the two of you are well justified in assuming that Anon, who has yet to respond to this thread since last week, may have been a detractor or troll, simply by his method of posting. I believe this is completely possible, but "undercover SJW" isn't really evidence-based. It's just as likely that he's a 2019+ lolertarian who unironically thinks fascism is socialism though: those retards have always existed on /pol/, and they've been present here as well, gaining confidence as libertarian ideals have been surging in the right wing media spheres since liberal politicians and the WEF have been pushing increasingly-authoritarian policies to declare war on whites and western cultures.
Tbh, this kind of crap is a sad point of contention between fascists and libertarians that might go to show that our shitposter alliance is largely circumstantial. Fascists support libertarian ideas because most of not all governments have declared war on white people, but when libertarians turn around and call fascists commies with no evidence, that becomes a point of contention.
>specially coming from the top
Are you implying that this is a staff thing? No new staff members have been added in like 5-6 years, and the process for adding new ones is basically non-existent.
>>366348
Also this.

>>366320
>>366344
Go cry about it in /qa/.

>>366351
I really wish more people would go to /qa/ with their complaints instead of derailing threads with them.