Why the Libertarian Moment is Over (and the Nationalist Moment is Upon Us)

REMEMBER TO REPORT ALL (((CIVIC NATIONALISM))) BRITCUCKS

If this is what available to a purebreed Jew, i can understand why so many of them go homo.

Correct.

exactly, any sort of civic nationalism will turn into real nationalism.

Great post.

Not really civic nationalism quickly just becomes nationalism if you let it get out of control. Which Trump would because he is honestly not that smart.

Yet TRS are still crypto-lolbergs…

he just wrote a detailed paper on why liberatarinism is stupid. Just kill yourself

Sage alt-right cryptoJew outfit.

the alt-right always start the first sentence by name dropping one of their goons. This has the effect of making them seem relevant and talked about.

thats a liberal
bin/chamber

Are you an autistic libertarian m8

The lemmings are beginning to change their tune.

This we may as well just wait for Brazil to happen

Civic nationalism is cuckold nonsense. It always runs into a point where it either acknowledges that its civic virtues come from the character of the national race and turns into ethnic nationalism or it sticks its fingers in its ears and degrades into traitorous globalism.

Thanks for reminding me again. Workers of the world amirite?

No, because he'll let it happen.

Nice one Moshe, you are sure to get lots of replies from retards with this one

Nice false dichotomy you got there

Like a clock

What…

How ya doin' Chaim?

So, Chaim, can you point out which part of the Communist Manifesto that highlighted Blood and Soil as essential to the workers of the world?

What's the difference between nationalism and patriotism, guys?

Nationalism = to the real ethnic natives of each country.
Patriotardism = blindly defending the current regime regardless of how it treats the natives that built it
Nationalism = Axis powers.
Patriotardism = Current United State of Amerimutts.

There isn't one

Would you support the current goverment then? If you dont then you arent a patriot.

Patriotism is for the country, while nationalism is for the nation. Americans tend to use these words interchangeably because their "nation" is defined by the the citizens of the country, instead of the country being defined by the nation.

FOR BLOOD AND FAITH

Decent battle cry.

The United States has forgotten its history. We have come believe that the current principality grew organically from the soil; that this empire will last forever.

Nigga the red in communist flags literally represents the blood of the workers, and land is seen as the means of production (things like factories are seen as secondary to land).

Nationalism is blind love for your country regardless of what it does, patriotism is being proud for your country when it deserves it and for what it deserves it for.

Amazing how the people who popularized the term patriot didn't get that message and spent so much time shooting at the government.

So I decided to look at the dictionary and compare the two - But what struck me as most odd was that nationalism is almost always coupled with the belief that that nation/nationality is inherently better than others.

Are these jewish tricks?

The idea that nationalism is some kind of deranged chauvinism comes from Orwell, who while he did some useful stuff in his stand against the Soviets and their useful idiots in the west was still an traitor who fought for the anarchists in Spain.

While true he did write an accurate account of his time there, unlike most who outright lie and say it was the greatest thing ever.

Orwell may have fought for the anarchists but thanks to him we have one of the few accurate first hand accounts of how shit it actually was.

That's the point. The article is the equivalent of Bill Kristol writing an argument about why Trotskyism sucks.

Despite what said there is still an element of truth to it.

Wasn't Orwell's time in Spain more of an eye-opener to leftist hypocrisy, though?

Everyone's nation is the best for them. They aren't going to get another no matter how many passports they receive.

Martyrdom and soulless materialism is not what nationalists are invoking when talking about blood and soil. You may as well try drawing comparisons to Aztec mythology, hell it'd probably be more relevant.

Not enough of one, he became one of those no true leftism types who thought of Uncle Adolf and Stalin as being basically identical.

Libertarian Nationalism is the future ;)

libertarian nationalism doesn't exist

I even have vector templates for the party logo already done.

Is libertarian nationalism even a thing outside of Holla Forums?

We /Cantwell/ now?

So I guess TRS can quit pimping Pinochet now???

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys
The Chicago Boys were a group of Chilean economists prominent around the 1970s and 80s, the majority of whom trained at the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger, or at its affiliate in the economics department at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile.

The term "Chicago Boys" has been used at least as early as the 1980s[9] to describe Latin American economists who studied or identified with the libertarian economic theories then taught at the University of Chicago, even though some of them earned degrees at Harvard or MIT (see below). They advocated widespread deregulation, privatization, and other free market policies for closely controlled economies. The Chicago Boys rose to prominence as leaders of the early reforms initiated in Chile during General Augusto Pinochet's rule.[9] Milton and Rose Friedman used the term Chicago Boys in their memoir: "In 1975, when inflation still raged and a world recession triggered a depression in Chile, General Pinochet turned to the "Chicago Boys"; he appointed several of them to powerful positions in the government.[10]

The training program was the result of the "Chile Project" organized in the 1950s by the U.S. State Department, through the Point Four program, the first US program for international economic development.[citation needed] It was funded by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation aimed at influencing Chilean economic thinking.

...

Its basically Paleoconservatism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

Those guys literally saved Chile from becoming a mini Venezuela, now Chile has the 3rd highest standard of living in the Americas (behind the US and Canada) and has one of the lowest levels of poverty in the world.

Libertarian here. This country has a precedent of kicking out people hostile to liberty in this country. After we won the revolution, we kicked out the boot licking loyalist and turncoats.

We need to do it again. Across the entire nation. THEN we can have libertarianism again. We can not give a home to people constantly attacking our liberties. Deport them off and deport them fast.

I've seen some mentions of National Libertarianism, but it's not yet emerged outside of pol in any significant mention.

Reminder: Rand Paul isn't coming to the convention and did not honor his word by endorsing Trump

Libertarians are cuck bitches who want open borders and are devoid of reality. Libertarian Nationalists are based in reality and solves all the problems with pure Libertarianism.

of pure libertarianism*

tbh most average women are shit regardless of ethnicity, not all white women look like the bullshit that gets spammed on this website

Hilariously they elected their first woman president, and in less than 8 years they had one of the biggest political-corruption scandals in Chile history.

archive.is/EqbVl

Hillary Clinton must not be president, women are awful leaders.

Rand is an embarrassment and like Jeb! being supported by George the only reason he was support by Ron was because hes his son.

Not all, Thatcher was decent.

But yes, most are awful, we had one which ran our country into the ground during a period of global economic upturn.
Spoiler warning, shes fucking ugly en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Clark
Now she wants to be the UN head and we are promoting her because she ruins everything she touches and the UN crashing into the ground would be a great thing.

Yeah, because the Rockefellers really give a shit about "freedom" and "liberty". That's bait to get white dudes to give jews total control of the economy. Have fun getting your 401k wiped out the next time the jews pull the rug out from under the stock market. Because muh choices and freedumb to invest muh money where I want.

That's Davie reading Oskar Morgenstern's The Limits of Economics, btw. He was some minor
(((Austrian Economics))) guy.

Confirmed for not knowing what the fuck you are talking about

You get what you deserve if you trust your money with anyone but yourself.

When this is one of the choices for a leader in the movement it's not going to go anywhere.

libertarian "nationalism" is literally an oxymoron. These are two entirely opposing ideologies that simply cannot be spliced together to create some special-snowflake ideology. It's like if I claimed to be an "anarcho-fascist". It makes no fucking sense

Libertarian Communism is actually a lot closer

It is because the argument isn't presented intellectually challenging libertarians who are frankly unfamilar with several problems:

1. zionist, frankfurt school, jewish subversion
2. cultural marxism's intent to destroy liberty
3. islam and its fundamental attempt to destroy liberty and replace it with sharia.

Many older libertarians who are the old guard and think tanks are not familiar with updated information of the information age. They are familiar with social conservatives and the progressive movement.

The reason libertarian is not sufficient and full of cucks is because the argument must be presented that these groups are fundamentally hostile to liberty. So it goes beyond just watering the tree of liberty, you have to get rid of the parasitic and cancerous rot on the tree too.

Calling yourself a "libertarian nationalist" is like calling yourself an "anarcho-monarchist" or something. It's a contradiction. Libertarian nationalism cannot be a thing because the tenets of libertarianism undermine nationalism.

Right, like "national socialism" isn't socialism. That's fine though, I don't need you to see the brilliance of Libertarian Nationalism. You're free to believe in whatever you want.

One of our principles in LN is that people are inherently corrupt. They have the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want as individuals as long as it doesn't impact the rights of others, but politicians and people who work in the government who are corrupt and found guilty of corruption will be put to death. It will not be tolerated in any fashion no matter how trivial. If they want to work for the government, then before they take the job they will know the consequences of their actions. Also anyone outside of government connected to corruption in the government will likewise be put to death.

I believe this will solve nearly all the problems in government alone. Being held accountable by "voting" isn't sufficient to prevent corruption.

Well, not actually. Libertarianism is not anarchy. So I understand the point you are trying to make, but it isn't impossible.

Kill yourself

No, you really don't.

Yes it is. Individualism and nationalism are like oil and water. They don't mix.

Nationalism is a systemic perspective in Libertarian Nationalism. Strong sovereignty is nationalist. Libertarianism and Nationalism are not only NOT mutually exclusive, they are wholly symbiotic. It's a shame so many of you are too fucking stupid to grasp that, but that's probably why you NatSoc fags are leftist faggots who want mommy government to save you and keep you "pure". Bunch of limp-wristed sissies.

Good policy. We also need an Amparo type amendments. Put teeth to the enforcement of the Constitution by the people to those in government.

Libertarians such as myself can understand Holla Forums because you all have obvious information I have looked at into groups that are attacking our nation. We aren't a lost cause, we simply need to ask libertarians this:

If we don't remove those individuals who are fundamentally intent on attacking and destroying our liberty within, is it even possible to keep our liberty in the future?

USA has never been libertarian.

No the proper response is:
"Gee, I didn't know the Rockefellers were shilling libertarianism, that's a weird (((coincidence))). Maybe I'll look into your accusations that you've at least bothered to source. And then, I'll look up Jewdwig von Mises' kikepedia page and then wonder why he was lifelong friends/associates with Otto von Habsburg or why he was "helping Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi study currency issues" for the Pan European Movement that went on to become the EU. Because the EU is so libertarian."

Didn't some libertarian even outright say "Well yeah sometimes you might need fascism to have good libertarianism"? Doesn't that kind of undermine the whole concept of libertarianism? If your concept of liberty relies on brute force authority, what good is your liberty? In what way is it even liberty?

Another question to ask libertarians:

If we know what individuals and organizations are intent to destroy our liberty, why do we permit them to persist unchallenged and without consequence?

Classical liberalism/paleo-conservative/libertarianism is the same ideology. Go back to Holla Forums

Absolutely. Constitution will also have to be re-written and STRICTLY enumerated to prevent government expansion. Even the smallest expansion of government needs to be onerous that it will only happen under the critical conditions. Big government has fucked this country up.

I think a lot of the existing libertarians will quickly move to libertarian nationalism because it corrects many of the problems the pure libertarian ideology has like open borders, weak military, etc. Since nearly no one has ever even heard of LN outside of pol they don't know there's a better option.

We wouldn't under LN. They would tried, convicted, and put to death - a result of their own doing.

Completely incorrect. You just don't know what libertarianism is and you are not familiar with libertarian theory, so you make dumb mistakes. You are also incapable of thinking out the logic of your system to its conclusion when implemented in reality, taking account of human nature. It is because you are autistic.

Also paleoconservatism is similar to LN, but anything Xconservatism is religious founded. LN eliminates the religious component, people can believe whatever the fuck they want. It's about optimizing the "system" nationally, and maximizing the liberty of the individuals within the system to succeed AND fail by their own hand.

No, they aren't. But they do all come from the same deficient worldview.

(1)
What's the point of this? Probably just d&c

I've never heard of williamson, and I was a libertarian/ancap for more then a decade. The left-libertarians have been a problem for years now, so basically it's just using the same name, one side is cultural marxist shit, and the other is basically Holla Forums with more guns and fewer uniforms.

How the fuck does everyone forget that?

It won't happen and it won't work, but we can worry about that shit once we fix our demographic and (((commie))) problems, then we can worry about that.

Paleconservatism outright rejects liberalism you fucking idiot

It is MORE beneficial to liberty to remove elements that are antagonist to our liberty through force. If you don't want liberty, don't complain to have it once you get shipped off to a country that agrees with your belief in civil rights.

In order to prevent an undermining of liberty you have to name the idiots that need to be shipped off though before hand such as:

1. Sharia law supporters
2. Cultural marxist/marxist/socialist/soros supporters, etc.
3. corrupt government officials

Name who has to go and why. The people that don't want to get shipped off can stop being fucking fags and stop being part of the categories that are called out as being motherfuckers to be shipped off.

Considering I've spent years actually modeling and designing systems/processes for manufacturing/business models/processes/etc, am an expert in simulation and statistical methods, I'll wager you look like a fucking piss ant retard next to my resume.

top kek clueless Holla Forums
Tell me where do classical liberalism and supporters of John Locke, Adam Smith, Bastiat, Goldwater, Robert Taft air their philosophies and viewpoints? The democrats and republican parties? Marxist/communist meetings?

No you fucking retards.

Completely fucking different. This is a total false equivalency

You seem to forget that at the beginning of the 20th century, the definition of socialism was quite up in the air. "Socialism" was not synonymous with marxist "eat the rich" socialism, so to pretend like there was already a universally accepted definition of the word is retarded. You also don't seem to know that The Nazis also used "socialism" as a means of courting young commies to their cause.

The difference between National socialism and libertarianism, is that no such confusion about the definition of libertarianism ever existed. Libertarianism is a very specific ideology with a set of specific tenets and foundations, all of which have been refined by the various self-proclaimed libertarian philosophers over the decades.

I bothered to actually look into that a while ago, and the economic system we had until the 1970's was called-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)
The American System was an economic plan that played a prominent role in American policy during the first half of the 19th century. Rooted in the "American School" ideas of Alexander Hamilton, the plan "consisted of three mutually reinforcing parts: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other 'internal improvements' to develop profitable markets for agriculture."[1] Congressman Henry Clay was the plan's foremost proponent and the first to refer to it as the “American System”.

and also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)
The American School, also known as the "National System", represents three different yet related constructs in politics, policy and philosophy. It was the American policy from the 1860s to the 1970s, waxing and waning in actual degrees and details of implementation. Historian Michael Lind describes it as a coherent applied economic philosophy with logical and conceptual relationships with other economic ideas.[1]

It is the macroeconomic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-twentieth century.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.

Oh the horror……

As a PhD in mathematics working in algebraic topology, I would say you are wrong on that. Stats? Don't make me laugh, pleb.

Well, what exactly would you define the "socialism" to be in NatSoc then? You seem quite apt at saying what it isn't, perhaps you enlighten us as to what you think the socialism means and how it differs from the leftist socialism.

Your math knowledge is irrelevant. I can design an entire manufacturing process and optimize it. I've done significant work in everything from industrial engineering, automation, simulation/optimization of entire plants. Your niche knowledge is piss ant level. I've been through 3 separate degrees across numerous fields, PhDs are arrogant as fuck, have niche specialty knowledge, and are almost complete fucking retards on anything outside their specialties.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think a PhD is impressive. All that tells me is that for anything outside your specialty you know less than a plant technician.

So you're an engineering pleb like everyone else. I could have done that in high school.

And if you think that manufacturing is at all comparable to politics, then it just lends more evidence to the claim that you are autistic.

the more right leaning libertarians (who are really just american fundamentalists/constitutionalists riding the libertarian meme) are slowly realizing that "libertarian principals" are not universal and are nothing more than analytical observations of Anglo culture around the time starting and into the Enlightenment. The point being, that to save what they see as "libertarianism" is really to save white, and especially Anglo white, culture.

Even though he endorsed fucking Romney in 2012.

I'm having a tough time finding the quotes from Hitler himself, but he very specifically and clearly made distinctions between his view of socialism, and the marxist view. On multiple occasions he accused marxists of "stealing" the idea of socialism and perverting it into an ideology based on class warfare and public ownership of property. Hitler maintained that true socialism protects private enterprise and property. Hitler viewed marxist socialism/communism as equally destructive to the nation as unbridled economic liberalism. The concept of "socialism" for Nazis was based around the idea of the nation being a greater ethnic family, on the betterment of which the country and her people should be forever focused.

I probably am autistic to a degree, it's not like it's a fucking binary state of being autistic or not, you do realize variance exists in the real world right?

Systems are systems in the abstract. The difference is my background is based in real-world design, analysis, and optimization thereof.

Don't make me give you a helicopter ride, 1488 LARPer.

Some marginal differences are irrelevant. Socialism of any kind requires significant overhead to administer and manage (i.e. BIG GOVERNMENT). As people are inherently corrupt and as history as show time and time again, socialism doesn't work in the long-term, eventually the system collapses upon itself.

Here's something that kind of illustrates the point. Read the screenshot and then look up those writers. I did the other day and I see his point. That line about "socialism is Aryan" jumped out at me.

Otto Weininger was a sort-of-proto-Brother Nathanael who denounced Judaism and then an heroed himself after writing this book. Jews hate it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Weininger
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_Character
archive.org/details/sexcharacter00wein

To understand the socialism part in the NatSoc, You need to understand the reallity of the Weimar Republic after WW1 . i will quote Feder , Renowned NatSoc Economic theoretician.

In his book Gottfried Feder The German State On A National And Socialist Foundation the next quotes can be found.

Page 148:
The main goal of the national socialist state is: the state without taxes.

Page 152:
Once the state is freed of the lead-wegiht of its intereset obligations, then one will see what the state can archieve,
If new sources of revenue of a larce scope come in addition, like the tapping of hydro-energy and the natural recourses of the country,then the state without taxes will really no longer be a utopia but a joyful reality.

archive.org/details/GottfriedFederTheGermanStateOnANationalAndSocialistFoundation

Dont fall for the leftist language trap. Nationalism and Patriotism are not bad things. We already have aword for blind tribalism: Jingoism.

Actually it is the other way around. It's the younger libertarians that seem to be insane and uninformed.

Go read Ron Paul's early newsletters, they are red pilled as fuck with a large amount of hatefacts and a sense of humor about them. Those newsletter were Holla Forums before Holla Forums.

Or go read mises.org, inb4 jew, no shit, but the site has plenty of good red pilled information, especially if you (((read between the lines))). Lots of information on commie subversion of culture. Lots of the paleolibertarian thought is pretty much in line with Holla Forums's thought on the defence of western civ from cultural marxism.

The problem is two fold:

1. Your average young libertarians are indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill progs. They are pro open borders, pro mass immigration, pro social leftism, among a bunch of other positions. The ones that aren't – who I have sympathies for, at least in outlook – tend to think that libertarian solutions can get rid of these, which leads to problem number two.

2. The libertarians in (1) tend to be as spergy and arrogant as Holla Forums commies with their sole focus on economics and law. They tend to dismiss anything else that isn't economics, e.g. culture, social pressures, morality, aesthetics, human biodiversity. They also mostly tend to ignore the power centers of leftism (the education system, the media, and the ngos/foundations), and ignore the power of Jewish social networks to control these power centers and others. This all leads to a blindspot, which further leads to incomplete solutions.

Fuck off with your mental gymnastics

"muh big government"
Government isn't necessarily the problem - just the kikes that corrupt it from within. Remove kike influence, and the government can be functional again.
marxist socialism*, which national socialism is not.

"Socialism is Aryan", so if socialism will only work under the condition that the country is entirely "pure Aryan", how exactly do you plan on accomplishing the first step of purging anything not Aryan?

Seems to me you're better off just starting your own Aryan NatSoc country somewhere else and avoid being massively outnumbered by people who don't share your goal of white purity.

To put it in simple words the Socialism part was a clever way to pin point the Jewry ,Usurery ,interests connection to the bankers. Still having clear distinction by Marx ideas about property.

yea libertarians are cancer at this point, hence the purpose of stealing the best components of libertarianism (maximizing individual liberty), but under the constraints of nationalism for the nation.

Both of these can be done. You can maximize individual liberty while simultaneously optimizing the nation as a whole as it relates/interactions with other countries in the world. Our country is only a subsystem in a larger system.

Oh my fucking sides. You're that multiracial cuckold who claims to be a Southener with that nigger "friend" you want so desperately to include in your national-libertardian Utopia. I BTFO your shit arguments thoroughly multiple times.

You're right. Only trouble is you've mistaken a Nationalist argument for a Libertarian one. Kicking people hostile to liberty out is an action of defending your nation. "We did it in 1776 so there's precedent" is not an argument that is accepted by Libertarians, but by Nationalists.

You're a actually nationalist but haven't realized it yet

I'm white, you didn't BTFO of me on anything, I'm pretty much the only LN on here (at least that calls himself a LN) so recognizing me is tard tier, and the fact it's taken you this long to put it all together is pretty pathetic.

You misunderstood the point of my post. Those authors that he listed were different flavors of socialists- christian, etc. that weren't jewish. Some of them were around before Marx. Weininger's point was that Marx the jew hijacked socialism like jews hijack everything to fit their purposes.

This isn't the best components of libertarianism. Maximisng individual liberty is degenerative to the overall unity and function of the state. Individual liberty is only as good as its ability to make the nation stronger internally and externally - something that is impossible when you place the maximisation of liberty above all else
This is a retarded ideology. You seem to believe that all we have to do is close the borders and slap "nationalist" before the "libertarian", and suddenly all the problems will be solved. What you don't realise is that the maximisation of liberty has led to the overall decline of moral and national character in every Western nation - something that can only be restored with authoritarianism and a strong leader. It doesn't matter whether you have strong borders if your entire nation is rotten from within. It's not the facade that holds up the building, it's the internal frame. You want to neglect the maintenance of the frame in favour of a better looking facade.

You missed the point of mine, from a systems perspective any socialist government irrespective of the marginal differences you outline requires massive overhead to administer, manage, and enforce. You can't have socialism without big government at a national scale.

The state wouldn't provide a safety net for these people who are willing to be degenerate. The problem corrects itself and the "gene pool" now has its natural self-correcting mechanism restored.

Also, maximizing liberty under the constraint of nationalism is putting it "above all else", hence the constraint.

isn't*

I can agree with this.

Not disputing that possibility. I am simply very much in agreement with classical liberalism in how I want to have a relationship with my government.

Those that want marxism and etc can fuck off or eat lead.

Here's an old article I found that talks about Hitler and Socialism. The 3rd column. The guy makes it pretty clear they weren't talking about marxist socialism. Sorry about the formatting. It was worse in the original newspaper.

And btw, I don't think anyone's brought it up yet, but here's Spengler's Prussianism and Socialism.
archive.org/details/PrussianismAndSocialism

The state doesn't care about you. Just remember. If you want to promote the state, you can. No one is stopping you from licking Obama's boots, fighting against BRICS overseas, and promote the health of the state.

The issue is what type of state you want to promote. One in which good men can say "fuck this, I'm going to kill this motherfucker for fucking with our community, and damn the constibulary" or one in which you need to be a bitch for those in power.

I never said you weren't. Learn to read.
That's because most people grow up from the non-existence kiddy ideologies and enter the real world
I knew who you were from the start. I just needed you to confirm it. You're not hard to tell from your incredibly autistic posting style and your self-loathing cuckery.

That doesn't make any fucking sense. Most degeneracy isn't economical, and doesn't necessarily make the person incapable of work. Degeneracy comes largely in the form of moral decay, apathy, self-loathing, frivolity, consumerism, and other such symptoms of a hyper-individual society that determines the value of an individual solely on their economic output. Also, you seem to be perfectly fine with watching your own racial brethren and country men rotting on the streets, when they could in fact be shown the true way and put to good work bettering their race and people

Thank you for outlining the entirely destructive nature of your shitty ideology

"social inequality"
"unjust distribution of wealth"
"common welfare before self"

This is still leftist. A libertarian nationalist society would understand that ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE COMPLETELY NATURAL. I do find it interesting that they think Nationalism and Socialism is a "completion" as I would argue Libertarianism and Nationalism are also a completion.

So perhaps LN and NatSoc are opposite sides of the nationalism coin, with NatSoc being the left wing and LN being the right wing.

I don't support the Jewish ZOG government we have today, you fucking retard. I don't worship "the state" as some universal entity. The state can take many forms - one of which being pro-racialist and nationalist.
You have no idea what state I want to promote. I've never implied anything either way. Stop making shitty strawmen.

Look a if a bunch of HIV positive faggots want to have an orgy, that's their business. If they all get AIDS and want the government to pick up the tab, they're fucked. Hell, the only downside here would be them not further spreading HIV to other degenerates because they suddenly found morality.

The system naturally purges the filth if you let it.

I'M NOT ADVOCATING ANYTHING. I'm just posting stuff trying to make the point that the word "socialism" in "National Socialism" doesn't have the same meaning to a German in the 1930's as it does to an American in 2016. We hear the word socialism and welfare niggers pooping out 6 kids springs to mind. It didn't mean that back then.

Like I've explained to you drooling retard multiple times, Libertarian "nationalism "doesn't exist. It's a literal contradiction of terms. I can claim to be an "anarcho-fascist-progressive-conservative-communist", but that doesn't suddenly make such a thing exist. Your kiddy-pen special-snowflake ideology is literally a fantasy you've concocted in your head where you try to conflate two entirely different worldviews without even understanding either of them.

They use the same terminology as leftists today. Just sayin'.

You're talking about Libertarian Nationalism.

QED ;)

No it's fucking not. These freaks should not be allowed under any circumstances to act out their disgusting filth in any capacity. Their actions are entirely degenerative to the moral resolve of the nation, and corrupt our race from within. You clearly showcase why your entirely ideology is self-destructive. You refuse to actually deal with the real problems posed by maximising personal liberty, believing instead that closing the border will "fix" everything when it clearly won't. All you want to do is contain the degeneracy into a particular set of political borders, yet have clearly no deeper understanding of the concept of nationhood, nationalism, love for ones own people, the importance of foundational morals, and the overall unity of all countrymen. Your entire ideology is no different from actual libertarianism, except you've arbitrarily decided that national borders should exist, yet place no urgency or even interest on stamping out the degenerative ideologies and practices that cause all our problems in the first place.

not an argument. Take your shitty faggot emoticons back to Reddit

I don't mean to sound insulting when I say this, but you sound a lot like my dad. He calls himself a Libertarian, but doesn't understand that "Libertarian" today doesn't mean what Libertarian meant 10-20 years ago. Libertarianism has turned into lolbergturdanism in a very large part due to (((Ayn Rand))). (((Rand))) hated Libertarianism, and after being on Holla Forums I can see why. Libertarians didn't understand that loljectivism was a bunch of kikery, and didn't understand the difference. They then adopted it, and it turned into a festering cancer that killed the ideology.

For those who don't know, Objectivism is the diametric opposite of Communism. And that isn't a good thing. Both are inherently Jewish, hyper materialistic, anti-culture, anti-religion, and are tools for Jews to continue jewing the goyim without anyone calling them out for it.

it's what the founding fathers wanted to America

Libertarianism has been steadily growing for decades actually. It certainly isn't a populist movement, and probably never will be, because it's fundamentally an intellectual one. Libertarians try to reason their way instead of relying on emotional reactions, but those who end up being convinced generally hold to it with much more resilience. The problem with populism is that it relies too much on popular figures. For example, if Trump doesn't win the election, or when he wins and ends up not meeting Holla Forums's expectations by far, a lot of people will become disheartened and give up. That's all that an ephemeral and emotional optimism can accomplish. The libertarian movement experienced a burst of ephemeral optimist with Ron Paul, and that was what it was about, and that's how it ended, but the consistent gains that libertarianism made as an intellectual movement throughout the years is still there. So much so that people are talking about it, hurling insults at it, mocking it. By numbers, there are probably more libertarians today than 5 years ago, which was more than 10 years ago, which was more than 20 years ago. Today people argue about it, something that didn't happen in the not so long gone past, which demonstrates its growth as an ideology with solid bases. There won't be a libertarian revolution, but it'll most probably continue its slow evolution.

Yes it does. Rothbard described the concept of "nation by consent":

unz.org/Pub/JLibertarianStudies-1994q1-00001

Hoppe is also a pro-nationalist libertarian.

Care to show them?

lol good luck enforcing a bunch of fags not having an orgy. You can bitch and whine about everything you think is degenerate, but unless you can enforce that belief is fucking irrelevant.

It's obvious you NatSoc leftists just don't like the term Libertarian Nationalism. I really don't care though, there's nothing you can do about it but cry. Deal with it.

Are you looking for a graduate student who browses this board? I'll have a masters and published topological research by the end of this year.

Forgot I had more to say about Libertarianism. Libertarianism was created in a time before Jewish subversion was rampant. It was constructed believing that those who participated were white men, or had the same underlying psychology as white men. If you discuss with an older Libertarian, you will see this:
-They believe that people will always behave in a fair and lawful manner when conducting business.
-They believe that you can teach people to avoid degeneracy by legalizing it and showing kids the consequences.
-They believe that the smart people will succeed, and that stupid people will fail.
-They believe that people will make business decisions purely on the bottom line, and not out of nepotism.
-They do not recognize the ability for the (((rich))) to corrupt politics
-They do not recognize the thorough and destructive influence of (((mass media)))
-They do not recognize that most people do not second guess (((advertisers))) and their motives.

Not yet, but I decided the best animal is the Honey Badger to represent LN. Individualistic by nature, but fierce as fuck as a nation.

...

How's the weather in Tel Aviv?

No it wasn't, you moron. This idea that the founding fathers were libertarian is a retarded meme. The founding fathers were racial republicans the traditional meaning of the word who wanted an economically protectionist nation with strong moral guiding principles. They would have never tolerated a bunch of degenerate faggots having an HIV fuck party.

Also, this idea that the founding fathers are infallible is moronic. They were old-school liberals who believed in equality, democracy, and human rights. Three cancerous ideologies.

My fucking sides. "Nationalist libertarian" is the self-contradictory label ex-libertarians used to try and reconcile their old worldview with the more realistic nationalist worldview. Libetarianism in every form is degenerate and anti-nationalist, because it rejects the idea of a greater racial/national family every countryman has a duty to, instead opting for hyper-individualist, duty-less cultural degeneracy. The two ideologies are incompatible.

Executions could work
You have the iq of a nigger.

First of all, I'm not even natsoc. Secondly, it has nothing to do with me not "liking" the terms. This is a shitty strawman. It has everything to do with the fact that the two ideologies are literally fundamentally contradictory, and make as much sense as "anarcho-fascism".
And the nigger-lover autist devolves into petty chest-puffing when he's clearly losing the argument. How predictable.

Ideally it would be 6 million degrees, but down here in the South it's currently 84 degrees and humid as fuck.

How can a people be a people if they don't see themselves as such? And if they see themselves as such, why is there a need of an authoritarian government to force them together? Authoritarian nationalism and natural identity are anathema to each other, because where there is identity there is no need of force to impose it.

Well get to it Spartacus, get those gay orgy execution squads on the roll.

There's no contradiction whatsoever, Libertarianism is essentially a globalist ideology, Libertarian Nationalism is an anti-globalist ideology.

Clearly you have a problem with the terminology. I don't.

(check)

I was re-reading the Turner Diaries last week and Pierce wrote the same thing 40 years ago.

You only love them when they live their lives according to your commands. As soon as they do something you don't approve of, you want to kill them. That's a psycho's concept of love, not the real thing.

Libertarians give far more importance to foundational morals than any socialist could ever conceive of.

New ip? Atleast dont spacetext when you jump ips, did you not get training?

Yes they were, libertarian is the nowadays word to what was once liberal which the founding fathers were. And of fucking course they also know non-whites were incompatible.

Those free-borders muh gay rights lolbergs are jew subverters, in case you didn't noticed.

And he was right.

The idea of nationhood and a unified people must be fostered and allowed to flourish by a government that recognises the value of these things. In a society where no such value is attributed to ideas of racial unity, pride, working together for the common good of the nation, etc., then you inevitably arrive at the self-indulged, degenerate, consumerist culture we have today.
Because an authoritarian figure to keep the nation united is natural and has been a fact of human societies since the beginning. A government that doesn't emphasises, promotes, or fosters nationalist principles and ideals, but instead opts for the hyper-individualist economically-based, race-blind "libertarianism", the culture of the nation will inevitably shift to incorporate it.

Stop being a disingenuous little cunt, you nigger-loving faggot. You made a retarded statement about how it's impossible to enforce, and I gave you one example of why it's not. Sop trying to conflate that we me saying we should go into the streets and lynch faggots.
It's more than just a globalist ideology. Libertarianism doesn't start from globalism and work down - it starts from the bottom up, basing itself on foundational tenets and moral principles, inevitably arriving at globalism. This is why you can't have nationalist "libertarianism". The two ideologies are fundamentally opposed to each other. Libertarianism is based on values and beliefs that inevitably lead to globalism.
No, you just don't even understand the shit you're spouting.

Gotta love the mindless ramblings of a retard who excruciatingly over-estimates his own intelligence.

Only incompatible with your socialist version of nationalism, in which I have a duty towards every random mouthbreathing parasite just because they are ethnically related to me. Libertarian nationalism values the nation because it's good for the individuals involved, rather than worshipping it for its own sake, like socialist nationalism does.

If by "something I don't approve of" you mean faggot HIV orgy parties, then yes. I don't I approve of this filth and it should most definitely be stamped out. I don't have some libshit-style unconditional love for every individual of my race simply by virtue of being white. If a white decides to live a life of disgusting degeneracy such as being an HIV-chasing cum-guzzling faggot, then they have disgraced their people and do not deserve any respect.

like "muh equality", "muh hooman rights", and "muh democracy"? My fucking sides.

I'm not spacetexting, smarty pants. Look closer.

You sound overly triggered, do you need us to call the safe space police to provide you assistance?

Seriously though, just watch, LN will take off like a bat out of hell and you'll still be bitching about NatSoc.

Haha what a cry baby. And some absolute cucks were trying to convince us to vote for him early on.

I don't either. Are you really incapable of indifference? What are these faggots actually ==doing== to you?

No, like "muh bullet in your head if you try to enslave me or take muh land".

Sure it will.

Okay, and libertarianism has no framework or function to deal with these subverters, so the ideology is basically worthless. Libertarians are cucked by their very own ideology out of defending or upholding it. Your entire concept of reactionary non-aggression and hyper-individuality basically precludes you of ever cutting off the filth that festers in our society once and for all.

Define socialist.
This has never been claimed by any nationalist, you fucking mong. You're clearly just highlighting your own ignorance on the ideology you're trying to shittalk. Nationalism has nothing to do with dragging people down to the lowest common denominator like marxist socialism and modern liberalism wants to do, nor does it demand you prop up the worthess freeloaders and human garbage inherent to every society. Nationalism promotes excellence and independence, but under the framework of working towards the betterment of the greater race and nation. You have a duty to your people and countrymen as a group, because it is to these people you are intrinsically linked, and it is from these people the greatness of your society springs. Libertarianism is anti-nature because it tries to strip them of any duty or belonging to anything but their immediate self. This kind of ideology promotes a purely cancerous "I've got mine, fuck off" mentality that would inevitably bring us back to the apathetic shithole we're in today.
The nation comes before the individual, because every individual belongs to a greater nation. The moment you try to place more value on the individual itself instead of the collective people and nation, is the moment you devolve back into a hedonistic directionless society.

what does being stupid feel like? you cant even red-text . I mean if you cant shill properly here you must have less than 90 IQ

And you sound like a fucking Redditor who's incapable of making any coherent argument or even refuting the points I've made. If all you want to do is shitfling and make a mockery of yourself, then fuck off back to your containment site

the best components of "libertarianism" is really just Propertarianism; maximizing property rights and contractual relationships, instead of this abstract idea of "liberty". This allows for a better economic structure than a socialized central planning type economy yet will still be compatible with a nationalist state (a state to protect and enforce property rights).

The way something like would work for with nationalism would be something like a localized domestic social structure, bound by strong traditional and moral values, and functions through the voluntary trading/markets and a respect for and enforcement of property rights. All citizens would be able to defend their property on their own to the fullest extent possible (aka full gun rights) but still there will be a police/security force to protect the overall society as a whole.

This localized communities would be the building blocks of the whole state structure which would basically be Nationalist/Autocratic Republic/Fascist/ in function lead by some ruling party/dictator/representatives 'what have you'. Other than obvious things like Foreign Affairs and National Security, they would be made to direct resources to the needs of the nation that cannot be satisfied by the localized markets (in things like infrastructure, general resources, or security). They should help promote a unified sense of culture that should be naturally be understood and voluntarily practices by its citizens.

I guess the main difference that outright Fascism or NS is greater importance on letting markets handle basic economic activities, emphasis on voluntary social cohesion and ostracism to regulate against social degeneracy (like a 'soft' Fascism), contracts over coercion, and guaranteed rights (mainly just property and defense) in exchange for set duties AS a contractual understanding.

The hope here is to have a strong nationalist nation while curbing the libertarian fears of authoritarianism that becomes destructive and socialism that becomes destructive.

I don't think you make a strong case for it. If it's natural for people to have an identity, then it's not necessary for them to be forced into recognizing it. If it's natural for them to follow a leader, then it's not necessary for this leader to force the people to follow him. Conversely, if it's necessary to impose an identity upon people and force them into following leaders and figures because otherwise they would never do it, then it's not natural for them to do so. In fact, this means that a people can only truly be a People, a Nation, when they are united in freedom and by their own volition, rather than forced into submission by a strong government. Basically, this means that if you truly believe that people do have a natural identity, then you should also admit that it's possible for them to recognize and exercise that identity voluntarily, and that it would be possible for them to do so even in the total absence of a government.

He's a shill , but he must be doing it for free. He's not even libertarian

Jokes on you. You are quoting two different posters as one.

sure shlomo, i can jumps ip too wanna dance?

Ah yes. The typical liberal "if its not directly affecting you, it doesn't matter" argument

The point is, all our people do not exist in vacuum-sealed bubbles. The actions of groups in society and their activities set precedents of what's acceptable and normal behaviour. If we enable such disgusting destructive filthy like homo HIV cumsuck parties, then we are sending a message that such a lifestyle is acceptable. At this point, you have opened the flood gate to total moral and cultural collapse, and you enter a scenario of complete hedonistic fetish-ridden pleasure-seeking resembling the last years of Rome. We have to remain vigilant to stamp out cultural decline wherever we see it, lest we eventually become consumed by it once again

No one said they wanted to take your land, you faggot.

No he's not a shill. He's just a incredibly persistent, probably genuinely autistic faggot. He's showed up before trying to promote his shitty ideology, and every time he's been thoroughly BTFO. Get this: He's even a race-blind nigger-lover who has a hard on for his "best friend" whom he claims is a nog. Pretty filthy stuff if you ask me

He is a shill , a bad one that cant even change his format when shilling diferent topics so you are right in the autistic part.

Don't confuse not giving a fuck about what you think as it's irrelevant to my beliefs with the inability to counter your arguments. That's fine, you don't like LN, you think it's contradictory, etc. I'll keep pushing it here and at some point bring it mainstream. You don't matter and are completely irrelevant.

You're right, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Libertarian Nationalist. And what shill in their right might would shill anything that's 100% anti-globalist?

Get the fuck outta here tardlet.

Real shilling pic related

Forced into recognising it? You can't "force" someone to recognise an identity - you can only foster said identity and stamp out those who wish to undermine it. My argument is that we need a culture and a national that actively promotes such racial identity and framework to truly unify the people and allow them to reach their full potential. We can't allow for potentially subversive elements stopping this.
What kind of shitty argument is this? The idea you seem to be pedalling implies that all people are entirely rational actors who inherently have their best interests at heart, are infallible, and are incapable of being corrupted by external influence. This couldn't be more from reality. A people without strong guidance from someone with the tenacity to lead will inevitably fall to corruption and self-indulged hedonism. The nation and leader are as much a part of the human condition as anything else. A leader reigns by popular support, and if he no longer is in the favour of the population, then he is overthrown. Such has been the case since antiquity. This idea that everything must be "consensual", otherwise it's invalid is moronic. Not everyone will agree on everything ever. That's not the point. The point is uniting the people regardless of their individual differences of opinions around their common race and nationality, allowing such divisions such as class, status, possession of material wealth, or other such distinctions to be overwhelmed by the unifying nature of a greater identity being actively fostered.
Yes it's called Anarchy, and you know what happens in such a system? Authoritarian leaders emerge, and humanity divides itself along tribal lines, because such a system is natural and functional.

AGAIN:

What the fuck am I shilling you moron? Absolutely blown away by your stupidity. You're literally calling everyone on pol who feels the same way as I do a shill, and anyone who doesn't support your NatSoc Aryan purity fantasy is a shill.

Stop amateur, How many real paid-shills do you think end up being regular users of this board after getting the shekels? You are a disgrace and im calling you out for it.

So basically you have no argument whatsoever, and are just trying to hide behind the non-argument of "lel idc. ur wrong becuz i say so". My fucking sides
Again with this fucking strawman. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't suddenly become true. Being a lying sophist doesn't make you intelligent. No where have I ever claimed to "not like" "libertarian nationalism". My argument this whole time has been that libertarian nationalism doesn't even exist, and I've given more than enough justification for this reasoning (which you haven't even refuted yet, btw). You want to know how I know you're a leftist? Because you're projecting your emotional argumentation (i.e. "not liking" something) onto others.
TOP FUCKING KEK. You can't even make a coherent argument in favour of it, and have been BTFO every time you've opened your mouth. No one's gonna buy your McDonalds Play Place ideology when you can't even justify it in the first place.
Remember kids! When you're losing the argument, just declare your opponent irrelevant! You both shut down the argument by killing rational discourse, and have the added benefit of feeling like you intellectually bested your opponent! Win win!

Off yourself

contradictory
contradictory
contradictory

I think you might be the shill and trying to use some reverse psychology tactics to hide it.

Come enforce it. Checkmate.

not an argument

So you're pro-government, therefore pro-jew and pro-leftist by extension.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

What does the fact that this thread would be dead if it wasnt for d7c2ed tell you? You are bad at this and im calling you out

That's pretty hard, but I'm thinking of the insistence on some form of forced integration and the instinctive rejection of any form of personal autonomy/sovereignity.

By "mouthbreathing parasites" I meant, among others, obnoxious nosy zealots feeding from my taxes. I know, literal retards are allegedly put down, but those are the least of my concerns, compared to those who are just smart enoguh to be a PITA.

That's the sales pitch. In practice, those in charge define what this "betterment" is. At some point, someone, say, invents something that puts a govt crony out of business, and boom, his invention is officially declared useless and degenerate because it kills jobs or some similar bullshit.

This sounds like a fallacy of equivocation. You are saying things like "comes first" and "belongs", which in some sense are obviously true (everyone "belongs" to some group), but you are adscribing them the implication that the individual OWES something to this abstract entity.

That depends on what the individual actually does with his time and resources. What if an individual is far more idealistic, less hedonistic, than most of society, and he can't pursue his hefty goals because his hedonistic countrymen won't allow it?

I've seen thousands of threads die, and I'll see thousands more.I'm not going anywhere and there's nothing you can do about it. I'm sure we'll have this same back and forth again sometime soon.

Sure , until i get you , like the others.

You can't be nationalist and anti-government, because the government, which is an extension of the people, is what binds everyone together through fostering the common identity and unity.

You can't be anti-jew and anti-government, because without the government, you have no way of stopping the reach of influence of Jews in your nation, allowing them to take root like they did in the last couple centuries in America

You can't be anti-leftist and anti-government, because the government is the only thing capable of eradicating leftism and ensuring it has no platform to grow.

Fuck off with this bullshit sophistry. I'm pro-government, not pro-ZOG or pro-this kike-infested gutter we call America today. I don't have a problem with government in principle.
Fucking kill yourself, you dishonest nigger-lover

Better get me from a distance, because that's the only chance you'll have.

We dont work like that dont worry , we are lot more subtle .

You can be anti-government and nationalist. You're arguing I'm against 100% of government, I'm not. I'm for a small strictly enumerated government. But I am still anti-government, or anti-socialist-big-government if that you feels better about the terminology.

Why would I worry? You're putting me to sleep.

Anyway, I'm off to bed to get comfy, I'm sure I'll see you two faggots again here soon enough.

What if the left is pushing degeneracy simply because it makes right-wingers sperg out so loudly that it scares off normal people who would normally, instinctively reject degeneracy? Society goes through cycles, fashions get old, older fashions come back.. blatant degeneracy is so fucking '90s I strongly suspect it would quickly die out without Holla Forums's attention. I'm a normal person, and the more I read Milo's timeline, the less likely I am to ever suck a dick.

Not personally, but I think their logic leads to some govt stooge ruling over my land AND me to the smallest detail of my lifestyle, which amounts to the same.

I'm straight, sober and so on, but sooner or later they will find something "degenerate" about my conduct.

Precisely. They either have it, or they don't, because they either are a People or they are not, a government being immaterial to the question of identity.

As for the rest, you are incurring in contradiction in several points. If a leader is chosen by a people, then his leadership is by definition consensual, and if he has to suppress dissent in the people by force, then his leadership isn't popular and therefore not consensual. Furthermore, if a group of people would otherwise not have an identity, then they're are not a People, because identity doesn't need a government. In fact, this can be seem throughout the world and history, especially before the advent of the concept of Nation-State but even after it, with Nations being spread in different countries and different Nations inhabiting the same country, yet all of them maintaining their identities, because that's what an identity is, it's not a creation of the government nor something that needs a government to exist, it's a natural relationship that individuals have with each other. If you have to force such an identity where it would otherwise not exist, then there is no Nation, only a legalistic rather than natural union.

Again, you have to accept that it's possible for a people to exist even when a government doesn't exist and therefore admit that libertarian nationalism isn't a contradiction, otherwise you are saying that Nation is merely the creation of governments rather than a natural entity that exists before, after and beyond it.

No it's not, there's a literal definition of socialism. If you weren't using socialism as a catch-all phrase for ideologies you don't like, then you'd know this
And once again you showcase your lack of understanding on the ideology you're trying to criticse. Nationalists are not communists. We do not deny the individual or believe he should be denied all personal autonomy or sovereignty. Nationalists don't deny that individuals are a valid unit of society, we just recognise that individuals do not exist on their own, but belong to a larger racial/national family for which they should always be striving to better. Nationalists promote individual excellence and success, because we recognise that the greatness of a nation rests on the back of exceptional individuals all working for the benefit of their people. Nationalists don't view individuals as a dirty concept, and don't wish to stamp them out by any means. Nationalists lionize excellency and and hold individuals who are a good example of this as an ideal for every member of society to strive towards, unlike commies, who wish to bring everyone down to the same common denominator.
and nationalists do not promote the creation of a degenerative welfare state that allows people to leech off the system. Nationalists believe in some form of social welfare, but also that it should be carefully controlled, and that people receiving such welfare should be contributing to society in any way they can.
And why do you assume those in charge do not believe in the greatness of their people? Do you believe there is no "betterment", and the modern degenerate consumer society with decaying morals we have today is equal in quality and cultural expression to what we had a couple centuries ago? I refuse to truly accept that you believe this.
This is an entirely and incredibly vague hypothetical scenario - not even a good one at that. I can literally create "what ifs" about any political system until we've reduced everything down to anarchy. The fact of reality is that utopias do not exist, but at least if we base our nation on the right foundations, then it will be better than one built on the wrong foundations.
Individuals DO owe something to their race. The immediate self-interest and gratification of the individual comes second to the survival and function of the nation he/she belongs to. The nation protects, maintains, and ensures the functionality of the society that individual lives in and benefits from. Also, the nation is like an individual's greater family. Ones race and nation is not some "abstract entity" that cannot be pinned down. It's tangible and very real, and thus far less subject to manipulation than mere thought-based ideologies like communism are. Nationalism really boils down to one very simple question - "is it good for my nation and people?". From there, everything else flows.

If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country

Countries are political/government creations, nations are naturally occurring.

This is retarded circular logic. You're implying the left exists solely to drive off support of the right, when in fact their goals are quite clear and malicious in and of themselves
Are you in complete denial of the total moral and cultural meltdown every nation is experiencing, and how it's been deliberately fostered by select interest groups? Come one now.
Another strawman. Show me were anyone claimed the government would be ruling over every detail of your lifestyle. Go ahead. I'll be waiting for the specific post.
Degeneracy isn't just some buzzword, you massive retard. Pic related

Nations form countries, you dolt. Countries throughout history have always functioned as the physical manifestation of a nation's will to survive and propagate itself. Nations form governments to protect and order themselves, which ultimately ends up interacting with other such governments, which thus prompts the necessity of political divisions on a map.

How do we convert civic nationalists into real nationalists?

Does electing Trump help or hurt this? Are we gonna make it?

It was watching this video again a few months ago that made me realize how elementary and divisive libertarianism really is.

youtube.com/watch?v=YrRhLoC9uqw

This is Iron Ann at the special Students for Liberty taping of the Stossel Show back in 2013 (I believe) where she called libertarians "pussies" and "stoners".

A lot of my activist friends were there and I remember watching it while I was high getting all pissed off at her.

It's funny looking back at old Holla Forums and all the old ancap and stateless society threads.

Suit yourself, it's your router. I trust the white race to survive your faggotry ;)

Seriously, you are not such a magnificent samebuster as you think. Why so shocked to find two libertarians on Holla Forums? We used to be the majority.

Except a government is a natural extension of human society. You're trying to make an argument that implies the entire framework of government can be removed from the rest of society's function as though it was never intrinsically linked to it in the first place.
If a leader is not overthrown by the peopole, then that leadership is also consensual.
This is a bad argument because it operates in absolutes, (i.e. if so much as one person disagrees with the government and tries to undermine it, and the government responds with force, then the government is unconsensual and illegitimate) A government that tries to appeal to as many people as possible ends up having no convictions of its own, and is endlessly swayed by the changing opinions of an easily manipulated populace. This is why democracy itself degenerates into popularity contests. The point of the government is to ensure the survival and propagation of the race and nation, not achieve the maximum amount of "consent" from whatever-which group in society.
See my first point. The entire national body is intrinsically linked with a government. The identity itself might not be based around that particular government, but it is undoubtedly reliant on it in order not to collapse in onto itself.
You're implying that these countries were based on the idea of equality and mutual respect for all differences. They weren't In every such case, the relationship between majority groups who ran the country, and minority groups who happened to reside within it have always been one of superior and subordinate. The country still remained unquestionably an extension of the ruling nation
Except a government is a natural and inseparable extension of a people - the manifestation of their will to survive and propagate themselves.
Except it entirely is a contradiction on a fundamental level, based on the differences of the ideologies of nationalism and libertarianism respectively. "Nationalist libertarian" is as self-contradictory as saying "anarcho-fascist"

Good question. I think civic "nationalists" can be converted by simply pointing out that their civilisation is uniquely the expression of their race alone, and that no other race is capable of "integrating" without diluting, degrading, and ultimately destroying what it originally was. Show them that other races are naturally tribalistic and will look out for their own interests regardless of what country a piece of paper says they're a citizen of.

Unfortunately that's not the case for America since it's not monolithic like a European country or other European diaspora countries. It was founded by essentially a single people but the last century has been an expression of others (jews and niggers in particular).

But America still remains an unquestionable extension of European/White civilisation. Our nation is wholly white in its foundations and identity, only recently having that aspect of ourselves denied from us.

I was against egalitarianism for along time. Fa Hayek and Pinochet is what brought me out of Libertarianism. However it was then reading Mein Kampf which lead me to the Protocols. That finally red pilled me on the Lies of liberty. I honestly think all Lolberts need to reed the Protocols.
xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/Kidd/thesis/pdf/protocols.pdf

If you submit to me because I threaten to kill you and/or your family, then I am not your leader by popular support. This is fundamental. The same can be extended to a group, a Nation. If a leader is only in power because he beats the people into submission, then his leadership is not popular. A leader is as popular as his leadership is consensual, saying otherwise is incurring in a irreversible inconsistency. Furthermore, to talk about a government having a will of its own that can go into opposition against the will of the people is to say that the State defines a People, which is rubbish for anyone who takes identity as something natural rather than a mere artificial creation.

To resume the rest, let me ask something: Can a Nation exist in more than one State? Can a Nation exist in the same State as another Nation? Of course it can, as history and the current state of the world demonstrates. If so, why cannot it exist without a State? If Nations can exist even under persecution by State, which was the case of countless Peoples (many of them Whites) at many points in history and which didn't stop them from persevering, then why the hell a Nation wouldn't be able to exist without a State? Of course it can. A Nation exists regardless of a government, a Nation can exist even under attack from a government. Why? Because Nations exist as a natural relationship between people. Governments are at best merely a collection of legal and administrative institutions, whose existence is not necessary for the existence of a Nation, and whose disappearance wouldn't be accompanied by the disappearance of a Nation, unless that Nation never existed beyond rhetorical illusion.

You seem confused about what libertarianism means. I read this whole thread and want to correct some serious misconceptions you seem to have.

First Libertarianism is not Ancap. It could be best summed up as the concept of governmental minimalism. Not open borders, not anarchy, not mad max winner-take-all free-for-all, just the idea that we should only have as much government as necessary. LibertarianNationalistAnon seems to think we need more government than I do, for example. I think the role of government should be to maintain land ownership records, settle contractual disputes, and defend the borders/ rally the militia when necessary. Anything else would be unnecessary to my pursuit of happiness on my farm.

Faggots can fuck all they want, but not on my land. Only white civilized people are permitted on my farm. Any others will be repelled. With deadly force if necessary.

You must be a city dweller incapable of supporting yourself to have such socialist big government stances. And that is the fundamental problem. You want to live in the hand of the devil without getting burned and think that your daddy government can make that happen for you.

When at the end of the day whitopia is up to each of us to create individually. You need someone to tell you to keep niggers off your land? Me either.

I agree for the most part except I would prefer the government to only be a last resort for contract dispute resolution. I prefer market alternatives based in tort law over the muzzle end of the gun approach the government takes.

Amen to that.

No the issue is that hes projecting.

Well I agree with that too. Of course I'd like to see free market alternatives outcompete the government in all matters other than border control and milita support. Or just all matters, edficiency is beautiful. Of course even border control could eventually be effectively achieved by a rich enough nation with only private property, no public.
But as a fallback, a failsafe, a transition to ancapistan and safety net in case something goes terribly wrong, the government could be a powerful ally.

Also I accidentally quoted the wrong person. Blame the booze.

Thanks for the laugh

Libertarians still post here? And here I thought after being routinely BTFO so many times they'd at least change their attitudes a little bit if anything.

If you ask any Libertarian to solve a problem, they will solve it by not being Libertarian. They're only Libertarian when a problem is nebulous. If a problem is vague enough, they'll simply recommend more freedom as a solution since you can't accurately call them out for being wrong. But for issues like declining birth rates and the demographic crisis, they'll either ignore the problem or suddenly stop being Libertarian for that moment, only to repeat their affinity for the ideology soon thereafter.

If there is one thing I have learned throughout my time here, it's that almost no self-professed Libertarians know what Libertarianism is either. It's whatever they want it to be at the time. It's a jelly-like ideology that breaks up and then reforms to avoid being pinned down.
You even contradict yourself within your own goddamn post.
So it IS open borders, because with no state to harshly enforce border restrictions the left will be free to bring over whatever mongrels and sub-humans they wish. And you'll let them, because "Oh well I just won't let them on MY land", and you'll die thinking you actually made a difference. Only to find that Within 2 generations, your descendants will be flanked on all sides by foreign hordes banging at the gates, and they will be destroyed because of your own fucking selfishness in assuming that you are an emotional, mental and physical island.

Perhaps for the same reason one might be shocked to find a toddler in their university lectures, despite the fact that in kindergarten they were the majority.

On their own land? Supported by the sweat of their own brow? Yes. In fact I'll give you a dollar if you can organize a bunch of leftists and shitskins into a business model superior to mine. without violating the NAP of course entitling me to act in their self defense :^) And if you get that dollar I'll spend ten on poppy seeds and opium war your fly by night ass.

How is Libertarianism if Gary Johnson is polling the highest hes ever been?

And so your country falls by their machinations. Congratulations. All you've achieved is the ability to claim it wasn't your fault.
I'm sorry are you unaware of the existence of the Jew?

You're painfully naive.

So the Jew can beat you in a fair fight? Sad!

The Jew doesn't play a fair fight.
Again, you don't understand the Jew.

Well then enlighten me friend, that's what we're here for. Without a strong state to wield against me what kinds of unfair tactics might the Jew defeat me with?

Nah, the dawn of the era of shitposting begins. Even shit shitposting is good in these times, it is a golden age of shitposting, funposting and ironicposting.

Deception.
Subversion.
Degeneracy.
The Media.

But of course I know you'll just respond with "But those are because of the state!" in which case you're saying only anarchy solves the problem, or you'll just pretend those won't happen because they magically disappear in Libertarian paradise. Tell me: Do you plan to be entirely self-sufficient and never interact with another living creature? Because that's the only way your "freedom is the only goal" is going to work.

...

Let's turn the question around on you, are families made stronger or weaker for the authoritarian institution of dad being in charge?

and what a magical place it is for that truly

Not an argument.

Weaker. In a strong family, all members do as the patriarch says and they follow the advice of the elders because they trust them, not just because they are "the authoritarian [figure] in charge".

Correction, there's a fuckton literal definitions of socialism, and socialists love to call each other non-socialists. I bet your definition makes socialism look like something any sane person would agree to. I'm looking for a NPOV definition.

I've read Mein Kampf. NS is not communism, but the leftie influences do show. It's basically a modern white version of the most basic tribal logic: solidarity plus hierarchy within the group, naked Darwinian competition between groups.

Commies don't do that either. Ever heard of the distinction between "personal property" and "private property"? Commies try to destroy the "burgeois" social order and build their utopia from scratch, while Natsocs have the good sense to appreciate its merits, but they tend to freeze it in place with rampant cronyism. That's why NS is a lesser evil, but not a good long-term policy. Just like chemotherapy can cure cancer, but it can't be part of a healthy diet.

That's a great sales pitch. Who can object to that? But, again, like any sales pitch, it smacks of equivocation. I notice weasel words like "belongs" and "should". In practice, that means a govt stooge can decide that my time and resources are better employed doing something else, or by someone else.

And commies will say you are making a strawman. After all, they do give medals and moral recognition to the best workers and soldiers, and not everyone has the same salary in real-life socialist country. Maybe in the utopic "communist" paradise these incentives would be removed, but only because they would no longer be needed, because the "socialist man" wouldn't need them.

Charity is one of the prime examples where the fine-tuning power of private initiative proves vital. When the needs and abilities of beneficiaries are evaluated by a govt bureaucracy rather than the individual contributors, the welfare system can at best clumsily imitate private charity at a greater cost (and it's therefore superfluous). At worst, it's either needlessly draconian or a boon for leeches, or both. Notice, also, that commies and other leftie socialists are by no means alien to the concept of executing people who are "useless drags on society".

Oh, they probably do, but they will always find a way to make this "greatness" coincide with what's best for them and their cronies. And the plebs who elects them (or in some way keeps them in place) will always accept their reasoning.

Most arts are pretty much dead, because the modern man finds inspiration in science and technology. Normal people laugh at these leftie degenerates calling their turds "art". Only (most of) Holla Forums takes them seriously enough to rage.

Not at all. This "muh jobs" thing is fucking everywhere, and social-nationalists are pushing it. Now they want to restrict trade, but the next logical step is to protest automation.

Why?

Now you are defending the nation for its service to the individual. I can relate to that. But then you turn around and say the individual's needs and desires must be blindly sacrificed at the altar of the nation. So which is it?

(cont)

(CONT)

What I mean is, a nation is made of individuals, rather a godlike entity to which everyone owes everything for some (unexplained) reason. I only accept the concept of "contributing to the nation" as a shorthand for cooperating with other members of my group. It's not heressy, Jewery or whatever to ask "what do I owe them?" "who do I owe what, and why?" "what are they doing for me in exchange" and so on.

What if the individuals decide that it's best for them to either split their nation in two, or fuse two nations into one? From the POV of a quasi-religious nationalist, that would be the ultimate heressy/crime. He would fight them to the death, and yet he would only be serving an abstract entity, and his own delusions.

Simpleminded ideologies always look robust. The less nuance, the fewer moral axioms, the more unassailable. That doesn't make them better. Anyone can play that trick. For instance, I can say "I'm a radical egoist, I only care about what benefits me and that's what my morality is all about". Then I can pragmatically adopt libertarianism, nationalism, communism or whatever subservient ideology, and no one can morally challenge my ideology WITHIN MY OWN SYSTEM, because my moral tenets are so few (just one) and simple (what befefits me is morally good). In a similar way, you say "my nation" instead of "me" and you think that puts you intellectually (and morally!) above libertarians. Well, it doesn't. No offense, but in this you are like an abbo laughing at whites who are busy trying to fix a car, while he walks barefoot.

Don't deal with Jews then
Anyone who disagrees with how I run my farm is free to leave, and can be made to by force if necessary.
Not on my farm.
What are they gonna do?

I do plan to be completely self sufficient. Name one thing I need to acquire from Jews.

Obviously an independent man triggers you. You should plant a garden, it will help with your self esteem.

...

Why don't these people lift?

What exactly do you imagine when you say subvert?

The rest of the world would also have to travel a hundred miles through the hottest desert in the Western Hemisphere to even look at me sideways for killing my cow. And if I'm not expecting company I can put a slug in your engine block before you even see my driveway.

Come at me bro.

You really are simple minded.

Let the europoors whine. I'll do ISIS style cow execution videos. I'll raise a herd on desert scrub just to run them off a cliff like an injun. If you don't like it feel free to whine like a bitch, or set foot on my land uninvited and test your luck.

The president can suck a dick too. What's he gonna do, tell my neighbors and fellow militia members to stop me? Hahaha

I don't think you realize that your dream will be nothing more than a dream as long as kikes exist since they will always want nation states like your to no longer exist. You can pretend to be isolationist but during CURRENT YEAR, it's damn near impossible. Doubly so if kikes are eying you down in the media. You will be nothing more than another middle east to the rest of the world, and you saw how that turned out.

I don't care whatever the "pop ideology" is. I care what makes sense and works. A pro-liberty movement with nationalist overtones is basically what the Founders believed anyway. Why not both?

Your nose is showing

So the sole reason you want or feel you need a large socialist government is to protect you from those rascally Jews? Why not just get rid of them? It would be much cheaper than paying heavy taxes your entire life.

Furthermore are you saying that once the Jews are gone you can't wait to live in ancapistan?

And as a final probe into your train of thought are you saying that Erdogan is like a libertarian just trying to live his life and tend his farm, but those damn Jews won't stop calling him out on eating beef?

Nice red text clickbait title OP

Libertarian=/=Nationalistic?

In that case Bananas=/= yellow because one is a fruit

It's the tea party movement and rw populism in the us, dude.

Bumping for more statists to btfo