Future Trends

I'm pretty skeptical who hires illegals and takes money from a rich Jew. Hell, I'm skeptical of politicians in general. Like I said, if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it but I don't think I'm wrong. Either way, you're still missing the overall point.
After Trump is out of office, someone more extreme will take his place from people who are clamoring for actual change. Those people will be the people I mention in my original post.

Meant to write:

Where are you getting this? Is this your "opinion" or do you have something to back this up?

Fuck, I'm tired.
MEANT TO WRITE:
I'm going to sleep. Goodnight Holla Forums.

And then one wonders why welfare states breed so many socialists into adulthood - because there's no need to grow up.

He's not taking the money you fucking retard, it's going into the GOP war chest.

And as for your o, we don't have 20 years. If he doesn't deliver the wall or jobs expect civil war.

Op, you fucking faggot, you started this fucking thread now finish it.

Sage and report this garbage.

Last post before I sleep.
Anyway, rural whites are generally more patriotic than than city dwelling nigs (and especially mexicans).

Once again missing the point. Either way, he's taking money from a super PAC that's being funded by a rich Jew. That is a fact.

Well, there's three points here.
1.Hiring illegals is sort of immaterial. You can argue it as a matter of principle, but if a guy's in business, and all his competitors are using the cheap labor, you have to compete.

2.Same goes for taking the money. Its one thing to self-fund when you're in the primary. And even a man like Trump could only do that because he's a billionaire (and had the skills to spend as little as he did).

3. I don't know how you can call Trump "a politician" by any meaningful definition of the word.

Uhhh, you do realize its actually ILLEGAL for a candidate to touch super-PACs right? If all the jewish money is going to super-PACs, Trump couldn't stop it even if he wanted to.

No, fuck socialism. We're going to become the party of American Nationalism and the American System.

Socialism does not work in mixed populations, it's the entire reason we're being invaded.

Yeah…. this is a very very good point.

Europe had the luxury of faffing about with socialism for a while and lording it over America because they had homogenious populations.

Had.

...

Socialism does not work in mixed populations like the other guy said, the whole idea of nationalism is that you love your own people.

corection: national socialism does not work in mixed populations

We don't care about your special snowflake socialism, regardless of whether it has Hitler's name attached to it or not. National Capitalism is the American system.

Did you just want to write that socialism and nationalism are the same?

No, there is NO socialism that works with mixed populations.

National socialism for obvious reasons, but regular socialism too because you have different races operating at completely different competencies when you NEED a baseline of equality among your citizens.

nice boomer meme

And even then it leads to women collectively cuckolding the men. Socialism is a female-brained way of running a state. They parasitize men through taxation and then treat them like garbage.

That's not to say I agree with complete individualism either, the state should consider the family the base organizational unit.

A very good observation OP. Also, a reminder that the age of politics you're talking about already started in the beginning of the 20th century but was suppressed, tortured and perverted by the blind forces of global capitalism.

That is not true. "Females cuckolding men" can only come in Marxist international Socialism. And even that happens because such ideology always wants to equalize everything to the lowest denominator.
A female-brained way of running a state would be Individualist and Isolationist ideologies. Which is not inherently a bad thing if you don't want to have an Empire and be the Cultural center of the world.

Nope, you are exactly the opposite. Men do well with individualism, women do not. Men do not need women except to reproduce. Women need men for far more than reproduction. Socialism inverts this totally.

In my opinion, if someone fucks up, the last line of defense should be the welfare state. They should go after their families first, because the welfare state is collective punishment of everyone for one person's fuckup.

The welfare model should work like this:

A person fucks up
1. Family pays
2. Extended family pays
3. Town pays
4. City pays
5. State Pays
6. Nation Pays.

That should be how it is prioritized. People may go much collective punishment but in reality #5 is far more collective punishment than #1. Let the immediate families pay for their own fucked up children first. It also works well because they are in the best position to influence that person not to fuck up.

I don't subscribe to the lolbertarian belief in individualism where they scream "collective punishment!" when their family member fucks up and they don't want to pay. If their parents knew fucked up children would become a family burden, they might try harder not to produce them, they will try to merge with families that are not fucked up, and they'll probably start paying men a dowry to marry women again.

This makes critically little sense when women aren't able to compete individually with men.

Its women who insist on "fairness" that has nothing to do with competition or merit. The notion of a person or a state as an entity unto itself which is sovereign and should be left to itself (what you call individualism and isolationism) is an inherently masculine sentiment. And while you might spout seductive ideas like "empire" and "cultural center of the world", in truth, the only alternative to being a country unto yourself is to be a globalist.

You are both talking about gender interdependence and not about a "female-brained way of running a state" then. Collective ideologies have nothing to do with female way of thinking.

Best examples of this are National Socialism and any form of Fascism, both collective ideologies. They both demand individual sacrifices for the good of the Nation, they both value honour, loyalty and respect for authority.
They both seek to dominate on a cultural level and lust for a strong leadership. This is a male-brained way of running a state.

Isolationist and Individualist societies will always be counting bitterly their losses in war and will always prefer to depend on their allies instead of themselves go to battle head first. This is a female-brained way of running a state.
Mother will always try to avoid to lose their children and depend on others to help solve or destroy her threats.

*Mother will always try to avoid losing her children
I apologize for bad English

Yea, no, you're a fucking retard who's trying to puff up your own stupid way of thinking.

No, they don't demand individual sacrifices for the good of the nation, they demand male sacrifices for the good of women. That's not a masculine system, it's a feminine system. Just as the woman demand a man sacrifice his life for the protection of her eggs, the socialist system demands men protects womens' eggs collectively - which are then given to the invaders anyway.

the US will be minority white before that point so it's a useless outcome

Sorry mate, not an argument.

And yet that's exactly what National Socialist and Fascist core policies are about.

Everyone makes sacrifices for the good of the Nation and its country as a whole based on their gender roles.
If you're talking about males defending their females against a foreign threat in order to be able to continue to mate with them, I still don't see anything female-brained about that.

I already explained this here . The false equality causes everything to lean towards the lowest common denominator, that doesn't just include women cucking men, but also other inferior races in your nation.

Wrong in a part, 1/4th.

Social Justice Communistic Globalism.

Capitalism is not a globalist belief. There are going to be tons of /x/-tier niggers who cry about me saying that though. Capitalism is an economic structure for trade within borders. Look at the forst 150 years of the US.

And they're wrong because the fascists never considered what women would become under socialism. Total whores.

In other words, a more male-centric system would demand first that for whatever sacrifices a male made on behalf of a woman, those eggs must first be fertilized. Hence, he should fight not for a bunch of useless whores and their empty eggs, he should fight for his children, his genetic legacy and the future of his people - not for her.

Cunts keeping empty eggs around or saving them for a foreigner should not be entitled to any protection at all and should be treated as traitors or become wards of their own immediate family.

For every man sent to sacrifice in a war, a woman should be drafted to reproduce.

No, the entire premise of arguing "male vs female ways of thinking" isn't an argument, fuckwit. Its the most nebulous load of shit you could imagine, and you're trying to play it off like science because you're literally trying to argue politics via "MUH DIK".

Fuck off, nigger.

Come on man, where have women become total whores under Fascism or National Socialism? Again, we're not talking about marxist kike bullshit, known as Democratic Socialism or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

Make a research on National Socialism, Fascism or any other form of Nationalist collective ideology and you'll see that that's exactly what was demanded from women.
Everyone works for the betterment of the Nation as a whole, that includes women as well.

It's pretty useless to hold hatred for women, kikes brainwashed them to be whores. Nature didn't make them wrong user. If you have any ideology that follows the Nature's law they will never become total whores.

Of course.

What happened at the end of the war? Those women shacked up with niggers and Americans. They should have all been impregnated before the war ended, that should have been their duty.

Large scale warfare is about the most unnatural thing ever conceived. It is not natural to be shot at or have limbs blown off by mines. It is not natural to welcome death.

Only a cuck defends empty eggs, because an empty egg is 1) not his, and 2) will probably become someone else's. Any enemy combatant who would want her after having children would have to welcome his own cuckoldry - that would be the final revenge of the man who sacrificed for his country. Women who don't do this are traitors.

STOP FUCKING BELIEVING LEFTIST LIES

hahahahaha

And Hitler used money he got from Jew banks.
What's your point?

That's not right at all

You're not going to have a people much longer if the women are not having children. Again, only a cuck defends empty eggs, they might as well prep the bull because they're just keeping them warm for someone else.

wew

Those women were raped by Commies. Americans didn't want to give them food and in exchange for it demanded to fuck them. Rapist scum devoid of all pride, honour or self discipline occupying Europe at the end of the war doesn't mean women were total whores under these ideologies.

I don't really get the point you're trying to prove with the rest of your post. We were talking about ideologies from the viewpoint of a certain gender pole. Of course no large scale warfare is healthy or good for a Nation in any way. But it is sometimes necessary in order to secure the existence of that nation.
Consequences of that are widows and unbalanced male:female ratio, yes.

Because any philosophy that doesn't consider or leverage basic biology is bound to fail. Socialism is taking the model of a family and applying it to a country. It doesn't work in mixed population because they're not related at all, and it doesn't work with women because they either use it to neurotically mother an entire nation, or they take advantage of the fact that they're being paid for their potential to reproduce and not their actual reproduction - not only that but it makes it far too easy for them to take the father out of the picture and just depend on all males in the abstract as a substitute father. Fuck that.

It was insanity, and it was driven by the lies and deceits of the Jew.
How many millions of native Russians did they slaughter? 20 million? 30 million? And yet most of the Bolshevik government was Jews, and the people followed them.
America didn't even WANT to go to war with Germany, in WW1 or WW2, until the Jew lie machine got into full swing.
Who was it that determined the invasion of Poland was a good reason to go to war with Germany, but NOT Russia, who had done the same thing? Whose liver-colored lips under a banker's hooked nose were whispering into the ears of British government?
Whites had better see who their REAL enemies are, and stop fighting each other. We would all be better off with an Angelo Alliance, that transcends countries and excludes der Juden.

Yes, as I've said in my previous post: "If you have any ideology that follows the Nature's law they will never become total whores." You're still talking about Marxist international Socialism that doesn't recognize family or even gender differences.
If you apply the natural model of family to a country, this doesn't happen because father is an authority figure. The point of Nationalist collective ideologies was always to follow the natural law, that means that genders get assigned their natural roles.

Anyway, we're just going in circles since you're unable to recognize the difference between International Egalitarian Socialism and National Socialism. Nice talking to you.

Yeah, the same propaganda that was targeted against the Germans is today targeted against our whole race, especially those of us who are against their Globalist plans. It's designed to dehumanize us so their minions, like in WW2, won't hesitate to slaughter us like animals.

This.

OP is a major faggot for posting this dis-informational picture. Way to be gay and pozzed out.

You're all wrong. Politics is not a one-dimensional line. It's more like a three-dimensional cube with the axis being liberty, economics, and race.

All those ideologies on those spectrums in your images are slavery in a multicultural, non-white society.

Damn straight it is. BUT if you’re only talking about one axis of the cube (economic control, social control, or governmental control), it’s a line and you’d damn well better get the things in order.

This is not /x/ you faggot

...

Since we are talking about political systems, I kind of like Monarchy. It had a really classy way of doing things plus it promoted "some" good behaviors that we need today (chivalry), but it's really incompatible with today's society and there would need to be a widespread purge of parasites and feminist whores on society.

I don't want an Absolute Monarchy of course, I think it should be a mix of parliamentary and monarch rule with a constitution that cannot be broken by both. The king/queen would be there to promote good behavior in society and have the power to reward people with a higher standing and better treatment (nobility), but not be striped out of having a say in policy and law decisions that parliament implements.

An added bonus would be that parliament could not sign their fucking sovereignty away (EU) because the monarchy would not allow it. A constitution would be there so both of them (king and parliament) cannot just fuck with basic laws and human rights for whatever reason.

Again, you need to reread what I wrote. We're "going in circles" because you keep strawmanning me as claiming NatSoc=marxism. I most assuredly am not. I'm saying NatSoc has a cuck loophole.

It encourages women to reproduce but does not require that they do so. The guarantee of every fighter should be that they have an heir. If he is single then a single woman should be chosen to provide him with one.

The National Socialists never had a plan for failure. Their plan for failure and a complete takeover of the communists should have at the very least been to cuck the communists.

This.

Trump is a nationalist on trade and going to turn the R's into a worker's party.

Socialists subscribe to a static view of social class and inevitably destroy the middle class while not helping the poor. Socialism just failed again in Venezuela. Socialism is retarded, move on already. The White middle class is the backbone of our civilization.

fuck you undercover leftypol trash. capitalism > socialism you parasite

I must have misunderstood you then and I apologize for that.

Ok, I understand now where you're coming from.

Your position, if I understand correctly, is that when a widow is being taken care of by the state for raising her children, men get cucked?
If so, I'll have to disagree here, because woman is suppose to be taking care of her children and if her husband who is serving the Nation is killed in battle or by work accident, the state should take care for his family and make sure that his descendants have a future to be productive members of society.

That's debatable, some people think that everything should be enforced by law. I think that things which come naturally, in this case woman having children, should be encouraged and not forced. The reason here is also natural eugenics (a female with good genes will usually breed with a male on a similar level).
If you force every woman to breed, you will be interfering with the Natural law, because you're enabling women with bad genes to breed with men who have good genes and vice versa.

I am aware that war causes a catastrophe in male:female ratio where a lot of quality males die though, so maybe in extreme circumstances females should be forced to breed, but again, would a negative effect on natural eugenic process of a Nation be worth it?
Also, keep in mind that this would be practically almost impossible to implement in the middle of a total war, so the decision of it depends on the end result of a war.

That's because it would be pointless. Their enemy demanded unconditional surrender. Any plan for failure wouldn't prevent the enemy raping their women and starving 3 million of their people to death.

Plenty of women who had children were raped anyway together with their children and in a lot of cases killed afterwards. In short, if you suffer total defeat, the enemy dictates everything. So in the end it wouldn't even matter what ideology you had.

Also, I would like to clarify that it wasn't my intention to criticize Individualist and Isolationist ideologies in any way in my first post. Just wanted to explain the female:male pole of political thinking and not focus on female role in society, I have a feeling we already misunderstood each other a little here.
It's an interesting topic, because a lot of top-tier political philosophers like Francis Parker in his book Imperium use this approach to differentiate, explain and predict historical happenings.

Waffen SS wanted to introduce second wives.

Muh evil capitalism

Try harder, kike

Yeah, but this still doesn't require them to breed. Although I did read somewhere that Himmler wanted to make some sort of a meetup place for SS to get women easier.

I always considered Himmler's views the most distinct from the rest of NSDAP members and very in depth. His views on faggots is hilarious though.

It's been found that women who have children during wartime are more likely to produce males. As to the potential dysgenic effect, any male that went to war was already presumably filtered for genetic fitness. They didn't allow retards in, for example. My point is that you are free to choose a mate, but if you don't choose in a time of war the state chooses for you. The dysgenics occurs in the post-war period where the women are raped by inferior invaders (presumably a NatSoc state would not war with people of its own tribe), or they exist in a conquered society where their ownly choices for a mate are the remaining males who were too weak to go to war in the first place. They end up reproducing with the dregs. Today with our knowledge of fertility it's even easier to preserve the best genetics. Obviously there would be exceptions for women who are unfit to reproduce, just like there were exceptions for men who were unfit to go to war.

only ffs

Don't me laugh.

Ain't gonna happen. Ever.

unless you mass-murder and/or kick out all the niggers and spics and other undesirables. America won't do it, though

Your outlook is very ridiculous. It is never required that they do it because it's something they do naturally when conditions are met, like a stable income and a home.

Literally every successful Empire will disagree faggot.

>>>Holla Forums

holy shit, is that based on my chart? if not, great minds think alike.

I was going to sage this thread bc of the retarded graphic, but this hypothesis has gotten my attention. I'm not sure if this is possible under the condition of "browning" if you know what I mean. The Democrats are completely infiltrated by Communists no. I'm not kidding I know what a real communist is, and they are infiltrated and are trying to create the conditions they claim already exist: ie. white overclass and brown underclass. Without a whitening of America, the NatSoc option might just be propelling us into the "inevitable" revolution.

just a thought. I hope you're right, though

I like your chart bro.

You guarantee that both parties will be complete and utter shit? Good thing the Libertarian party is gaining prominence. In twenty years we may have a three or four party system, depending on the growth of that shitty Green party.

y-axis needs improvement, perhaps globalization on negative y values, nationalism on positive y values.

that's bc you're stupid

this

there is no such thing as libertarianism. call it (classical) liberalism and switch it with Republicanism, and this might be okay. The US Founders were Republicans, not libertarians

Reminder that any graph based on More-Less "Gummint" is lolbergtardian kike propaganda and should be thrown in the fucking trash.

Reminder that you’re a fucking faggot who missed the point:

Yeah ok, well if your goal here is to prevent a dysgenic after effect of the war, I don't see this helping, except if you're expecting the war to last for a very long time.
I think that if you manage to get a majority of breeding age women to have children by encouraging them to do so, you've already done a sufficient job.

I would consider enforcing it by law only in case of extreme circumstances. Look at China for example, they tried to tame the breeding by allowing only 1 child per family and now they have a completely messed up gender balance in their country and need to import women from Thailand.

I am the one arguing against them being forced to breed. Check my previous posts.

Ah, here it is. Finally found it.

Reminder that buzzwords aren't a rebuttal, nor are they are an infallible ideological stance. Go back to your gender studies class and pick up a few more argumentative tactics why don't you…

If Himmler was alive today he'd totally post on Holla Forums (and maybe /x/).

> reminder

Nice argument template bro.

ideology is always the opposite of infallible, you fucking retard. That's my whole point. That line you're drawing is the ideology.

No, you missed the point. See above

Gobble up the kike propaganda and see if I care, faggot.

Fuck off Shlomo.
"libertarianism" aka "let kikes buy out the world cheap".