The Third Reich and Libertarianism

It does not matter what you call it, whether "classical republicanism," "libertarianism," "the views of the Founders" or even "Ron Paulism," the idea is clear: opposition to the Federal Reserve, a very limited government, opposition to entangling alliances, standing armies, foreign wars, and a pro-liberty attitude in general. Such an attitude towards the present decrepit "evil empire" of America seems the best, most sensible view an informed person can take towards things.

So what about the Third Reich? How many people who agree with what Ron Paul has to say about America also admire the achievements of Hitler and the National Socialists? I certainly do; but at the end of the day, the Third Reich was a dictatorship–wasn't it?

I believe that there is room for reconciliation for an appreciation of Hitler's achievements and the sensible worldview advocated by the American Founders. Hitler's struggle is predominately nationalist in form, whereas the struggle of the Founders was about liberty, personal accountability, and a limited government.

When we combine the nationalist struggle with that of the Founders, what results is not "American Fascism" or anything like that, but really just the articulation of everything a modern American should concern himself with. The modern American fights the same nationalist struggle that Hitler did, in that we want to free ourselves from fractional reserve private central banking currency manipulators/price controllers and globalist forces that curtail our national sovereignty and democratic power; as Americans in particular, we want to reduce our government's size and scope, rid ourselves of the Federal Reserve and a debt-based currency, halt our Zionist wars, etc.

As such, the goal is not to adopt the forms of National Socialism but its ethos. To admire its struggle, if not its own national concerns. In this way, we will understand our dual appreciation for elements of the Third Reich while also holding political views that for our own country that seem opposed to it in form.

Other urls found in this thread:

amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/NonToolbarTopics/Reconciling_Libertarianism_and_Nationalism/
npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Where are you going with this?

I'm simply pointing out how to understand one's appreciation of the Third Reich with what appears to be the contradictory political and economic views of "libertarianism."

Nationalist Socialist was a system designed for Germany in culture and in its people.

Other nationalists countries will create their own systems, basing some core ideas from the likes of NS or Fascism, but in the end their nations will be structured much differently.

For America, its a tricky one as its a nation started as an Anglo colony but ended up being first a multi-white ethnic country to now a failing multi-racial society. It also is more or less its own continent made up of 50 smaller "countries" in a loose sense. If it ever ends up being uncucked, it will not be an ethno-state but a white-racial state. Its governing system will be less centralize in domestic respects, but more integral and efficient in the ways it IS centralized.

Here is some good points on the matter:

amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/NonToolbarTopics/Reconciling_Libertarianism_and_Nationalism/

npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race

Prominent libertarians like (((Murray Rothbard))) and Hans-Hermann Hoppe acknowledge that republicanism or democracy has very little to do with liberty.

Most would agree that a benevolent dictatorship is probably the best form of government to conserve individual liberty.

Why would you want to be a libertarian?

I put it in quotes. I went at pains in the OP to define that term as the sensible opposition to the Federal Reserve, fractional reserve private central banking, currency manipulation, price controls, etc, neocon foreign policy, a strong federal government, etc. Whatever you want to call these things.

...

that egalitarian bullshit needs to be allowed to fucking die.

If you are talking about Holla Forums tier limited federal government and increased freedoms/removal of safety nets then you are talking about paleoconservatism or minarchism

libertarianism is a kike corruption of those two.

Dude, there is NOTHING Libertarian about the Founding Fathers. Get off youtube and inforwars you demoralized faggot. Hitler even said he modeled the Reich after early American Government, which was a fucking Nationalist Racialist Republic – the greatest the world has ever known.
The Libertarian America was invented in the later 1900s, the FED is even older than that.

Christ read the OP, I'm just using that as a blanket term.


You should, I don't see why you wouldn't. If you don't share them, does that mean you do like a corrupt big federal government, foreign wars, and things like the patriot act?

(checked)
Why are all men created equal in dignity and rights?

I don't know where you get that phrase from, and I think the whole "all men are created equal" phrase is confusing. Since the Founders were all about liberty, I think what they're really meaning by it is that "all men are created free," i.e. we're all born into the world as free people. Obviously not everyone is created equally, that's biologically absurd.

...

Well libertarianism is really a 20th century jewish analytical philosophy centered around the abstract ideas of "freedom" defined by Enlightenment philosophers.

What you are really talking about is Constitutionalism/American Fundamentalism. The American founders are famous for their love of liberty but they did not create this country purely around this abstract idea.

That is where the confusion in this thread is coming from.

Good clarification.

What lolbergs miss by caring only about freedom is that freedom alone does not sustain a stable society.

The hierarchy for creating a society is more like
peace>order>law>freedom

meant to reply to

Founding Fathers weren't libertarian. They were White racialists.
Learn 2 original constitution of USA.

NatSoc was exclusive for German People.

Might be heresy to say on Holla Forums, but Reich Generals would agree: Hitler leadership commanding civilians had a huge contrast with his Military leadership skills.

Lack of division between civilian leadership and military/diplomatic one led to NatSoc Germany being kill. Otherwise it had interesting ideas, such as:

-Freedom from Banking cabals
-Freedom from Usury
-Production more important than paying accumulated interest
-Society Health and jobs more important than paying Big Bank CEOs huge bonuses.

Simply Hitler couldn't play the game to either get Neutrality in this huge experiment, to keep a cool head, and in case of war to give command to some General. He proved himself as a Fuhrer of the People, but lost utterly as Fuhrer of the Armed Forces, and had one of the strongest armies.

Libertarianism is the opposite of anything egalitarian.

Figure out what libertarianism is before you post retarded statements.

In order to advance as a civilization, control and organization must be implemented. One might be able to "do fine" living on their own, nomadic or not, but in order to achieve massive and complex task (i.e. Eugenics and elimination disorders such as Down Syndrome) you NEED control. Dictatorship is okay, so as long as the person leading is intelligent and can choose a good successor; democracy has many fail-safe mechanisms, but can lean to "the people" too much, and can become polluted with half-wit garbage, like our democracy in the US.

There's a thread on google manipulating language
Isolationism is fascism, now.
BTW, I just realised that if sheep could think ahead about predators, they wouldn't be sheep.


A lot of the anti federalists were, signers of the consteetushun, not so much.

The founding fathers were not libertarian.

Libertarianism and classical liberalism are not the same. The former comes from Anglo-Saxon legal and philosophical tradition while the latter is a rootless Jewish ideology.

No, they weren't. Because libertarianism did not exist until the 20th century when it was created by Jews.

So if all people are not equal, why should they be considered of equal moral and political worth?

If I understand you correctly you are arguing for a new ideology which syncretises the two positions which considering the US is considerably larger than europe, and thus is not in need of lebensraum, makes a greater amount of sense. Here's the thing I think it would have a greater impact if we promoted a form of nationalism bespoke as nation states moving forwards.

Thomas Jefferson was a degenerate Jacobin. He knew that that phrase was false and wrote it anyway because he was a faggot. George Washington should have lynched that stupid nigger first thing when he became president.

Classical liberalism is also an anachronistic tag, some could be defined that way, some libertarian, among many other things. My point being that 'there is NOTHING libertarian' about them is incorrect.


Also an anachronism, also not true, and washington was a shit general who should never have been deified the way he was, and hamilton should have been the first one lynched.

Not if you ask Alfred Jodl

I actually don't think they should be.

My interpretation of the Founders is that their concept of democracy was very classicist. The persons who should vote were free property-owning men. They didn't believe everyone was equal, and they gave superlative preference to their own class. They didn't seem to want the unwashed masses to have a say; instead, they considered the "planter" class of classically-educated, politically-informed "gentlemen farmers" to be the rulers of the land. They would be aghast at the present that we have universal voting.

While their statement "all men are created equal" (which I'm interpreting as free) is true at birth, we are then segregated due to biological, environmental, and psychological differences which certainly produce distinguishing qualities between us.

I don't know what "moral worth" means, but I certainly don't think everyone should be considered of equal political worth in virtually any case.

To be honest I think we're at the bottom of the barrel politically. We need a dictator to sweep away the old edifice and return sovereignty to the people, just like what Maximus intended to do.

...

They had no sensible ideas. Abolishing monarchy and nobility in favor of rule by the lowest common denominator as bought by the most influential corporate oligarchs and foreign lobbying groups is sheer idiocy.

In the traditional European culture, duty is the determining factor in the hierarchy of power, not fucking individualist liberty. Individualism is not how civilization arose nor how it is sustained.

Jefferson had the American Army kill Turks, Berbers and Arabs though.

Do you know that there are different forms of democracy? You apparently do not.

What you are referring to is universal voting and mob rule. The Founders were opposed to this and carefully orchestrated the balance of powers.

As I have mentioned here, , the democracy that the Founders advocated was rather aristocratic itself. Surely they didn't think that the vote would ever be extended to slaves or women. They would not recognize the society that we live in today.

The traditional European culture is gone. We live in the post-WW2 culture of globalism. The solution to globalism, as it has been since the time of Hitler, is nationalism. We also live in a culture of private central banking, the solution to which is to get rid of the private central banks and government-issued currency in general. Our government itself is globalist, the solution to which is to weaken the power of government and empower the individual to lead a responsible life of his own.

Aristocracy is forbidden by the Constitution. If the Founders had wanted aristocracy then they would have established an inherited title of Elector which precluded universal suffrage rather than promoting it. The concept of balanced government is inherently faulty when the basis for entrance into office is based on vote by the masses or appointment by an elected official. Just look at Obama chimping at the bit to shove in a communist Supreme Court Justice before retiring to a bunker.

The Enlightenment values and Lockean theory from which the the US was founded are already too liberal to produce a stable society. You can see the result.

I really miss this.

We have it it is called "Nationalist Libertarianism."
I even have made 2/3 videos on the subject.

Interesting. We could further desensitize "Nazi" in the mainstream if we troll these renegade party juden with their similarities

That was entertaining, thank you, Jafash.

I'd just like to make a point to any faggots from /liberty/ and /politics/ who may be lurking here that no one called OP a shill despite him being (presumably) a libertarian. Why? Because he wasn't an antagonistic faggot calling everyone names, but actually presented a well thought-out post about an interesting topic of discussion.

All you cunts who claim Holla Forums is a hugbox are only crying because you can't shitpost bullshit without getting called out on it. You actually have to put effort into your posting. Shocker, isn't it?

This has been addressed many times on Holla Forums

Libertarianism is only viable in a white society with minimal external threats. Only white people care about liberty. Nonwhites just care about gibsmedats and Marxism.

Libertarian mindsets are part of the reason we found ourselves in this multicultural hellhole in the first place. A "live and let live" philosophy means Mexicans can flood over the border en masse and (((multinational corporations))) can outsource American jobs for a quick buck.

In a multiracial world, libertarians will be bred out of existence.

"Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence, nothing can be effected. A tribe possessing… a greater number of courageous, sympathetic, and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other… would spread and be victorious over other tribes." - Charles Darwin

It will take some time, but you need to undo all that egalitarian and liberty nonsense. No man is free and no man is equal in a state of nature. What you will find is that true justice under this hierarchical system of division of labor and respect for property Starts to look more like monarchism. That system was why the Jew's introduced the ideals of Freemasonry, to subvert the Nations natrual foundation. The American project was always meant to have a trap door and become Internationalism Globalism, Socialism. Now with that truth reconstruct the world from your Lockean Natural law principles and tell me if their is any room for these liberal (Jewish lies) ideals of being "free".
Jewry

There was a synthesis of National Socialism and Libertarianism on 4chan pol, resulting in an alliance between the two groups.

The concept is for the population to be kept racially hygienic to be all-White by the intervention of the vanguard party and the state; but beyond that to allow for maximum liberty for the White population, while remedying problems that harm the population as a whole such as poverty and public health.

Pro-tip: The National Socialist German Worker's Party was not too far from what I described.

The founders may've opposed it all they liked. The moment their generation died off the gentlemen farmers became the town rabble and then the obese slob, the illiterate nigger till eventually we reach the present day.

You can claim "but the founders only wanted this special redpilled democracy!" If you like, as far as I see - if they did, more fool them for letting it degenerate so easily. They wrote a constitution, and founded a nation on the principles of universal equality and inalienable rights which constitute the kernel of democracy, socialism and globalism today.

This is an American thread you better skidattle son.

No man is equal and what set them apart becomes apparent when they live as individuals.

Jews, corporate raiders, and other sociopaths notwithstanding, the so-called selfish of Society tend to be the most prepared and most apt to reinvest into their societies. Darwin didn't know shit about the socioeconomics of wealth creation.

yet the individual is helpless against the collective forces of the barbarian tribe and the man who bases their morality on "individualism" cannot blame the gunman who killed dozens of his brethren for his affiliation with organized crime.

nope

fuck lolbergs
you guys are fucking delusional

No it isn't. Because libertarianism is a Jewish ideology created in the 20th century.

well user, Daddy loves a Mommy very very much…

Republicanism only works with a landed elite. Which America basically had in the beginning. You'll see that it quickly degenerated once voting rights were given to the landless and then much worse niggers and women. America would do well with an Emperor that hand selects his successor

The idea of which was strangled to death during the American Revolution because the Puritans had already killed one king for fun and most of the Founders were merchants and lawyers pretending to be nobles. A lot of the serious (((backers of the plantation system))) stayed off the stage because there was already a trend toward a materialistic and individualistic theory of governance which always allows the merchant caste and (((merchants))) to buy their way into power.

If the Founding Fathers had been worthy of imitation they would have assumed the role of aristocratic stewards which was absent in the colonies rather than enshrining their failure to strive for virtue as the beating heart of a new nation. That first step of weakness is all it takes to doom the entire enterprise to unceasing decline as the mechanisms engineered to prevent perceived corruption themselves become part of a systematic corruption which cannot be dispelled except by the complete reforging of society. It goes right back to the simple ideal which made civilization possible at all: duty is the organizing principle, not defense of liberty. In-group preference is the ultimate survival strategy, not individualism and certainly not materialism.

I think we're fighting two battles.

On one front we're fighting the authoritarians that seek to control our lives through any means necessary. They do this through both international and national means. Authoritarianism in America can be traced back to Civil War when Lincoln denied the existence of the states as sovereign entities. Lincoln killed the idea of the federation and with it's destruction came authoritarian figures such as FDR and every president since him.

To fight the growing oppression of the people we must fight back and impose liberty. In America we must revert our government all the way back to the pre-Lincoln era where the federal government was kept in check by the threat of secession and state governments were kept in check by the threat of a people's rebellion. This will not be easy to do as even our closest allies may seek only to claim the power for themselves and not give it back to the people.

On the second front we are fighting a culture war. We are fighting against leftism, or in other terms degeneracy. The fight on the cultural front didn't start until ~60 years ago, but it has grown much more quickly than the authoritarian front. Since the 50's America has grudgingly accepted blacks marrying whites, gays being gays, marxists shouting their bullshit, sexual deviants practicing their ugly acts. In the past 20 years we have gone from grudgingly accepting degeneracy to embracing it to rejecting those who speak out against it.

The soviets accelerated the spread of degeneracy in America through direct subversion. Slowly the soviets worked their marxist teachings into the minds of schoolteachers who would then inject their ideology into their students. The centralization of public education only made it easier for larger and larger amounts of children to be sown with the seeds of laziness, entitlement, and a general hate of successful people (which are the core of the marxist ideology).

The National Socialists look only at the second front and fight it with everything they have. They reject the claim that authoritarianism is bad, seeking only to eliminate the authoritarian left.

Modern day members of the Libertarian Party are as culturally degenerate as your average liberal. Most of the time they are only libertarian because they reject the authoritarian right, but see nothing wrong with the morals that the left espouses. The current Libertarian Party presidential candidate is the perfect example of this. He calls taxation theft, but paradoxically he thinks the government should force bakers to bake cakes.

We cannot win the war by focusing on only one front, both must be dealt with and our enemies on either side must be crushed unequivocally. Electing Trump will be a major blow on the cultural front, but he is as authoritarian as any president we've had in the past 30 years. During Trump's presidency we must continue to fight to bring America back to its roots. After 8 years of Trump I think America will finally be culturally ready for true, classical libertarianism. The United States will finally be returned to a Federation of States.

But I could be totally wrong and the authoritarian-right totally correct.

I think it's quite simple actually. Let's go back to the frigid steppes that most of Europe became during the Younger Dryas climatic events. You are a K-selected proto-proto-Indo-European living in a tribe forced to scratch out a meager existence now that agriculture is no longer reliable. What brings our race to the other side of this hellish thousand years of cold? Is it liberty, or is it duty? Is it "I am entitled to the fruits of my labor," or "I must fulfill this or that goal in order for the tribe to survive?" When agriculture, astronomy, megalithic construction, and all skills beyond not freezing or starving to death are useless for a thousand years, what sort of ideal causes our people to emerge from the frozen world with ocean-going vessels and the knowledge of civilization still in a state that can be transferred to various vassal tribes causing an immediate resurgence of agriculture?

When you look at the truly ancient founders of our civilization, I think it is quite clear that authoritarianism is something we should embrace, perhaps within ourselves most of all.

I'm actually surprised that this thread turned out well.

There are examples of authoritarianism working wonders and examples of it wreaking destruction.
When one is at the bottom look up the power structure, can one be sure that he is working for the interests of his race if he can't make out who the person at type is?

Also, why do we necessarily have to work for the benefit of all those in our race? Obviously the white race is superior to all others, but individually, there are many many many whites who are worse than the average asiatic. I see no reason why I should give my life to a government that works to better all whites if the bottom 5% of whites are no better than the average negro?

I want to use my life to better myself, my family, and those who I think are deserving of my help. I don't want to be forced to better those who I care nothing about and if I am coerced into doing so I will work at a much worse rate than if I was merely allowed to do what I thought best.

Because someone better than you has the decency to protect and enrich your life as well. That's how hierarchy works. The people at the top have the most obligations and the people at the bottom are limited in their options for their own benefit. If your contributions are grand, your reward is grand. But reward is never the motivation. If you have to even struggle with the question of "Why should I give my life?" then you are already an existence reliant on the generosity of the virtuous. To put it in terms materialists might understand, you are born with the boon of all those who invested in your future and therefore have a debt of honor to repay. Turning one's back on this principle is a rejection of civilization itself.

To put it more simply, if you aren't willing to work for the good of our race, then what makes you think you deserve any part in our society?

Nobody wants to adopt National Socialism for America, Fascism and National Socialism are both born of the rejection of communist ideals.

So, that being said, unlike communism, Fascism can't be applied the same way everywhere, because it believes that not everyone is equal, and in social Darwinism. National Socialism is a Fascist derivative, the application of those principles to Germany in the 1930s. Every nation is different, and has different needs to it will mold differently to each one.

A true Fascist movement doesn't utilize imagery from Nazi Germany, because that would contradict a core tenant of the ideology. It's about the nation, American nationalism doesn't involve swastikas or SS uniforms, it involves Yankee Doodles and defeating tyranny.

American fascists would be different than German ones, American culture is way too focused on liberty and capitalism. That being said, I do think that Fascism could work in America.

Nope, that was a Nazi thing before the lolbergs hijacked it.

Because Goldberg finally got caught. He admitted to having made most of the lolberg threads here.

sage

Wait. You think people here are (((libertarians)))?

Probably a handful of Hoppe disciples and the occasional autistic hedonist aspiring to Ubermenschen status