What's your stance on authoritarianism?

Ugh that makes me cringe. At least this is a real question with some legitimacy.

Youre right, generally people will question it, fight it. They always will.

I support NatSoc simply because our society has gone too far astray. I know for a fact that people are simply too stupid to make their own rules, really moderate or take care of themselves properly.

Thats why any anarchist BS is completely retarded. And yes, I used to be lefty, anarchist fag. Then I got out of schooling and seen real people.

Anyway, I agree that NatSoc or anything so authoritarian realistically would never work in the long run. However I see it as a form of societal cleansing that just needs to happen every so often. People today are drunk off their liberties, lack any decency or moderation.

A nice hard shove for a while would really fix the problems.

I don't believe in parliamentarism or some sort of bourgeois democracy.

That basically goes against fascism or monarchy, which both relies on a transcendental concept of irreablilty of your leader.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they have been manipulated, they still rose up which they did because they felt that the traditional authority reached the point of illegitimacy.

Belarus is a much, much better country to live in than virtually anywhere in the West unless you have enough money to never exist around niggers, spics, and sandniggers.

The idea that it would be preferable to grow up in Bakersfield, Tacoma, Wilmington, Fresno, Minneapolis, Marseille, Birmingham, and on and on as opposed to a place like Minsk is laughable.

Quints confirm

...

Checked, my man

top fucking kek

How exactly does it do it when your leader is infailable?

I'm not an Anarkiddie so while that is not technically wrong, I don't see how some of you guys want to sell blind authoritarianism as an utopia in itself. So when everything is cleansed, people get their liberty back and the whole circle starts again?

You deny this?

It isn't irrelevant. The point was that they were just following a different authority. Authoritarianism isn't even something that you can choose to have or not, it is a rule. The only thing that changes is who has authority.

Sudoku yourself.

Don't you guys want a vanguard to tell people how they should live? Most of them will say no, you know. Your ideals can't exist without a strong police state.

Or maybe you are the anarchist kind. Have fun keeping people in the anarchy when they start to form a society again right under your nose or when another society come with steel and tell you how your life is going to be now.

Lukashenko is a total bro. Every country should have a dictator like him.

And Belarus isn't White Rus without reason.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Belarus

Sure, the total fertility rate was 1.72 last year, but that's a major improvement over 1.25 a decade before.

Fun thought: Remember a few weeks ago when liberals started saying if Trump won a coup wasn't impossible? Imagine Trump won and a faction did try to pull a coup, but soldiers more in line with the military's rightward politics retook power in a counter-coup. Trump's authority would then be based on arms, not votes, and he could rule as dictator, eventually making his family into the ruling dynasty of the Empire.

60+ Million dead in Russia / Ukraine / germany
60+ Million dead in China
20 Million Dead in Cambodia / Korea / Vietnam

The intelligent can see other intelligent people easily.
This is not the case for the stupid. This is how the evil take power. The stupid cannot fend for themselves.

That's just human nature. The greater cycle is probably always going to be unavoidable. All we can do is strive for peaceful times. And strength is required for peace.

All im going to say is that you have to read som Hitler because you have no idea what we (NatSocs in this case) stand for.

this is a very limited knowledge of Holla Forums
we used to be 2/3 libertarian and 1/3 fascist, now it is almost fully some form of fascism/monarchy
it is a very basic instinct right down to biology, despite the fact we would like to live in free societies of like minded european people like say the early US, we can't, a libertarian order is not capable of resisting the attack of both marxists and islam. when confronted with a terrible enemy like those who oppose all the things we value in life we set aside current hopes for affluence and freedom and band together under the banner of a leader selfselected for by strenght of will and character to face this existential threath to our most valued ways of life
this is the reason you marxist hate europeans so much, unlike asians who mindlessly bend the knee to communist central authority the european man always resists such a takeover
to summarise the anwser we forgo temporary freedom for survival

but lefty let me ask the question right back to you
to use the example from your own post belarus might be s shithole by champagne socialist standards such as your own, but by world standards belarus is doing pretty ok and in a century belarus will still be belarusian, whereas the west will then be (on current trends) both a total helhole and eurabia
so my question to you: how do you prevent your glorious social democratic workers republics of the west to succumb to islamic theocracy
and let me tell you the bodycount they will do to your kind will make the 20th century pale in comparison if left unchecked

Then why don't you see that we will never have peace? Pax Romana is a thing, but every Roma all eventually.

lol die

I was a bit sloppy because I didn't differentiate between authority and authoritarianism. My point was that before people were politically conscious, "revolutions" would always just install a new bloodline or dynasty while the revolutions after the enlightment seeked to change the system in itself.

I wasn't entirely denying that. The difference is that our ideals are brought forward by historical necessity and not by some transcendental bullshit such as divine right.

60+ Million dead in China
20 Million Dead in Cambodia / Korea / Vietnam
Ye sure they killed a bunch of Kulaks but the numbers are exaggerated and with the same principle, you could claim that capitalism and fascism is responsible for every African in the last decades - pic very much related.

Without capitalism, agricultural progress would never have evolved fast enough to feed more than one or two billion people.

Add that in the balance.

Tankie, is that you?

...

What necessity is that?

GTFO out here faggot. You don't even have good arguments.
You make 0 effort to defend your points.
We are clearly vastly more intelligent then you
>>>Holla Forums calls you

...

That image makes no sense, most of the countries and regimes mentioned do not identify as capitalists.

Your just placing a very diverse number of countries and regimes under a single label, not caring that most of those countries and regimes have very little in common.

If you're gonna poz up the place with your shitty thread, at least type correctly.

One thing I've been wondering is what is the exact difference between capitalism and fascism on an economic level?

It seems to me the idea is to ban things that harm the people while allowing free enterprise.

For instance I do not think Coca-cola would exist in a fascist society because it causes harm to people's health, which leads to a strain on the nation's health. Thereby effecting everyone so it is banned.

Can we then say America is fascist in the worst possible implementation? I mean doesn't the government already ban things that are deemed bad for the populace?

I'm assuming that the real fascist state would ban alot of things in America, like pornography, low quality imported food, etc…

If anyone could help me understand the highlights between what constitutes a fascist and capitalism economy.

I have attempted to debate the fascist view with a Capitalist (conservative) and even when I brought up banning things like pornography he still held to his "more jobs, free market, free trade" guns. This to me seems to highlight the problems of Capitalism.

Some claim it is materialist, well that may be true. It may very well be the best way to generate lots of economic strength. However this seems to be short term for Capitalism fails to take into account the spiritual/moral/societal implications of the freedom it bestows. Fascism appears aware of these factors and thus is an economy driven by freedom only to the extent that society benefits from it.

Am I getting this right?

No normies are trained to obey authority in public school via pavlovian dog training. They are only trained to question National Socialist authority. All other authority if fine according to them.

Faggot doesn't even know Muslims killed 300 million whites during the Muslim Jihad that began out plagues wiped out eastern roman empire.

OK, PROLETARIAT

Well the way I see NatSoc is that Hitler pretty much killed everybody who would try to seize a part of his power, even when royally losing and eventually bringing total destruction to his own people (coup d'etat in July 1944).

You deny the Holocaust. I still think it's vastly different when people die because of mismanagement done by local party deputies (not denying that) or when they get genocided because some pseudo-scientific pricks think their genes are a threat.

Yes.

Historical necessity is based on overcoming the capitalist superstructure, the surplus extraction, the wageslavery and the alienation of the worker from the commodity. You may disagree with it, fine - but at least it is based in empirical materialism and not in some sort of "natural" "organic" "religious" order or whatever you guys favor.

Same way you do it with socialist countries. It's was more of a response to the stupid "GOMMUNISM KILLED 93478925792 GORILLIONS MEME"

You don't want to be left on the bad side of history, don't you?

This parody of an argument is not only used by the zombies militants of the left. It come from their best philosophers.

You should realize that authoritarian systems, such has National Socialism, haven't been legitimized through some sort of acclamatory "will of the people" but through a) massive propaganda and b) rallying the classes behind a "national goal" which was mostly war. In the 21st century, I don't believe that you could uphold any authoritarian order in an organic way without massive battalions of secret police and so on, eventually ending up like a shithole such as Belarus for example.

That's where your wrong friendo, at least in the case of Nat Soc Germany. The national goal was the elimination of the shame of Versailles and the revival of everything Germanic and they were well on their way to achieving that until progressively all shit hit the fan.

Where the actual fuck have I been an apologist for Muslim expansionism?

That being said, your statement is very interesting since I doubt that many "whites" would have existed arround that time.

No, I don't. I just find unhealthy to use the death of people as a tool to get money and political support. If I was a Jew, I would militate against that exploration of a painful part of my people's history.

Doesn't matter, if we meme that with communists, then the majority of those countries identify with communism.

When you do it with capitalism, you just place every non-communist system from monarchies, to democracies, islamic theocracies, fascist states, tribal unions to the KKK under one label and pretend they are all the same.

fail.

The basic gist of the difference is that crony capitalism (what America has) results in the corporation running the government to ban competition, while fascism is the government interfering with corporations that do not act towards the common good.

So you deny reality, then.

Im not natsoc, used to be more libertarian but I have come to embrace authoritarianism for one main reason and that is the left hand of the bell curve. People are fucking stupid. What the average (above average intelligence though) libertarian/ancap doesn't take into account is both racial differences not to mention the bell curve itself within races. They assume everyone is as smart as them and can handle life in a civil society without coercion. It isn't just libertarians that make this mistake but any egalitarian as well. The thing is it's just not possible. The masses are just too stupid. The more intelligent members of society can't hold together the idiotic masses without some form of authoritarianism. As simple as that.

Europe who is now importing millions of low IQ third worlders will have to go heavily authoritarian to maintain any sense of order.

...

He is not from >>>Holla Forums , is the roleplayer autist. He used to larp as a Think Tank employee and a neuroscience college student.

I'm 100% certain that 90% of both >>>/liberty/ and >>>Holla Forums would love NatSoc if they really knew what it was and knew its history.

The problem with "enlightened euphoric individuals" like OP is that you can't really explain to them why they are wrong.

People who are left-wing are invariably those with low education. Many of them go to university and take classes thinking that makes them educated, it does not it makes them indoctrinated.

Left-wing individuals see an idealized world, an idealized reality. They do not understand the basic philosophy of man or evolutionary psychology. They pretend to defy authority while embracing the ideologies and ideals of those who oppress them delighting in their own ignorance claiming it to be a well of infinite understanding.

And… WHY is THAT necessary? Just answer the fucking question.

Stalin got millions of people killed because they were against communism, or against his personal interpretation of communism, or even because they were too much supporting him and he didn't liked people who were politically engaged and who were not directly dependant than him.

If he had any value to give to human life, not even one million would have died. There is more than mismanagement. There is voluntary blinding yourself to the fact and killing anyone who tell the truth.

For other irreligious-irrational concepts, see "equality", "social justice", and "freedom"

/thread
Can everyone stop bumping already?

You deny the holocaust and the gulags?
Do you deny the October revolution too?

Leftists don't think, they can be good at learning and applying a skill, but the average leftist will never take a walk some day to think things through, they don't enjoy thinking, they work best in groups, applying their books to the world.

Most people don't give a shit about the ideals of liberalism. For the peasants to revolt, they need to feel their livelihood is under threat. Any regime that provides food, safety, and housing for its inhabitants is secure, no matter the structure.

Democracy in America will be overthrown when the electricity goes out - how long do you think all the food in the stores will last without electricity? Maybe 24 hours? hunger means a lot more than empty ideals…

How do you know that?

This is what is called a "false equivalence fallacy".

Whatever it takes to rid white countries of non whites

It was /thread after I pointed out OP's hypocrisy claiming that fascism or any form of traditionalist nationalism requires an illiterate population.

He can't see the b.s. coming from his own arse-mouth, let alone able to hold a reasonable discussion if he starts the topic with an insulting bias and airs of arrogance.

Funny you mention that, pylons are not hard to break.

The biggest problem with an authoritarian government is that there's no system in place for when the will of the people changes.

mind to elaborate why you think communism could work this/next time?

Autocorrect sucks when your phone is not English

I think you lack a deeper understanding of the situation the Third Reich was finding itself in in 1939. War was pretty much inevitable, since most of the German job miracle was based on loans, a total economic sell out, that could have only been fixed by exploiting other countries to the core. Why do you think they attacked Poland even though Hitler himself and his inner circle planned with a war at least arround 1941?

Sure, it was all about money and exploitation.

I havn't gotten a good argument so far

I'm not a liberal

Well okay, you can establish and uphold traditionalist authoritariansim for a few years, but all the regimes eventually collapsed within a decade, often causing great human sacrifrice.

The problem with fascism is that your "national goal" of which you rally your society behind has to be defined somehow, once it's gone, or it's pursuit becomes meaningless, you have a big legitimization problem.

blatantly false.

Contemporary democracies determine the "will of the people" through polls

Contemporary absolute monarchies and other authoritarian regimes also do the same thing.

Leftists only think with feels and primal needs, actually.
Thats why they only appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Plus the lack of actual responsibilities and duties.
This shit is the same everywhere, it just changes the color and format. Hence why they always appeal to minorities and dumpfucks in general.

Jesus christ, I all for covert leftist shilling since it bothers the weak willed, newfags and people with sore butts.

But this overt leftist faggotry is comparable to faggotry pride parades. It's obnoxious, cancerous and completely pointless.

Gas yourself, faggot.

Yes there is, that's the entire point of the second amendment.

When monarchies were still a popular form of government the populace would overthrow a king who did not rule well enough for the common peasant to feel their family was safe under their rule.

Regime rule has always been through the barrel of a proverbial gun.

It has never been tried in a developed First World country, also, I believe the USSR didn't really fail until Krushchev's revisionism.

kek you faggots raid and shill our board en masse every day

the thing you need to understand is we aren't for laws but understand culture is the key to a high trust yet non-degenerate society

for to make sailors of men you cannot force their choice: you must make them yearn for the high seas

our fight is for the minds, hearts, and souls of our folk.

Do you honestly believe that an authoritarian government would give a flying fuck about the 2nd Amendment?

Considering that this very board doesn't give a shit about the 1st Amendment and it is a microcosm of authoritarianism, how long do you think any of your precious freedoms would last, Mr. Tor?

WHERE THE FUCK DO I PANDER TO SOME STUPID MINORITIES

okay I'm triggered. My fault of thinking I could have a debate with Holla Forums on a civilized basis

All communism ever managed to successfully do is to point guns at people. They pointed guns at their own people and send human waves of them at the Germans until they eventually won because of their superior number. Then they pointed guns at Germans and told them to build rockets for them. They pointed guns at all the people here and told them to build factories instead of growing food to eat.

Pointed guns, pointed guns, pointed guns.

Shut up Jew.

If you can't debate outside of a safe space, then you should take a really deep look at yourself.

media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1421139130259-0.pdf

There are many pursuits today, and there would be many also under fascism, but not any non-sense faggotry.

The main difference between our use of Authoritarianism vs your use of it is that we value private property. We, or at least I, advocate for the ability of a State power to regulate businesses, that being not allowing them to pursue goals and sell products that affect the economic and healthy well-being of the people. It will also put a stop to Corporations become mini-factions that undermines the state and national interests. The push for automation and technologies who will must likely worsen the already technologically dependent population (who instead of using these tools effectively, they let themselves controlled by the tools) will be controlled.

Surely, use automation for the production of military equipment (our world has been in a perpetual arms-race since day 1), because if we decide not to use that to our benefit, others will and they will subjugate us. But in terms of agriculture, clothing, construction working etc., removing the human element from it will cause more problems for the majority. A society's culture is directly affected by jobs and how much wealth they manage to gather.

1. Among any group of humans, natural or artificial, hierarchy forms as an emergent property. This is why the families news fathers, and why (((they))) are disrupting the family and destroy the idea of fatherhood. It creates chaos and destroys the society bottom-up.

2. The ideas of a leaderless society, and Marxism-Leninism was created by the kikes. Marxism and Communism stem from a flawed premise of human equality and it must limit people's freedoms to form a stable regime.

3. The importance of a strong leader of a country cannot br underestimated. Just look at Hitler, Putin, or Trump, their popularity, and what they accomplished.

4. The idea of National Socialism is to give people what they need, not necessarily what they say they want. But totalitarianism does not equal tyranny. The government, as long as it is not corrupt or occupational, has the well-being of its citizens as its primary goal. It must serve the people instead of the other way around.

5. People are naturally tribalistic, so stoking a fire of national pride and religious fervor is an effective way to have a lawful society.

6. The majority of the people are simply "dumb", so giving them a direction through strong leadership is doing them a favor. To illustrate: the average IQ in white societies is roughly 100. I mean, have you ever talked to a person with an IQ of 100?

7. If the people are happy, you don't need a secret network of police spies. You just need to educate, promote soul-enriching mass media and art, provide positive incentives for the people through laws and the economic system, and watch punish degeneracy adequately.

8. There is no ideal political system. The best system depends based on the people of the state, and the current era. The only thing we can do is to make it so that the existence of our people and the future of our children is secured, and prepare them to do the same for the next generation. This is why there will always be war and conflict, but it does not mean we should not strive for an orderly society. An authoritarian society.

9. Yes, authoritarian systems can get corrupt. But. Any political system can and will get corrupt eventually. See point 8.

Feel free to dispute my points.

I havn't heard a single argument besides liberal bullshit, ad hominems and basic display of incapability of debating anyone with a different opinion

i really hate when i can't tell if troll or useful idiot

Because your alternative ideas are much, much worse. They are artificial and were thought up by intellectuals, who, even according to your own board, were never able in nearly two hundred years to put them into practice. I'm talking about shit like Marxism-Leninism (OP), anarchism, you can even throw lolbergs in there too).

Our systems are organic. They came into place naturally. No one ever sat down and wrote The Monarchist Manifesto. That was simply how a successful civilization worked back then, and it worked for the vast majority of human history. Your little experiments, from the French revolution onward, have brought nothing but death and destruction. Two world wars that have us slowly limping on to our demise.

Monarchy isn't meritocratic it's aristocratic

Can you further explain "Historical Necessity" as a justification? Not as a "better" justification than "divine right to rule", but as a stand-alone "good" justification.

have you ever lived in a working class neighbourhood you bourgeoisie cunt
my cousin couldnt even spell his own name at the age of 9 thats public state education for you
the truly enlightened working man always becomes a nationalist in some manner of speaking and Holla Forums still cant rationalize it

try thinking for yourself, open your eyes and look around you and form your own opinions dont just regurgitate rhetoric fed to you by your sociology professor

Because your brain only react to what make you feel. I see a lot of opinions and arguments for and against various political regimes.

Is the story of the pill real? People don't see the same thing before?

Cry more Jew.

Empires are meritocratic :^)

It's very hard to debate with some that has no clue what he is talking about and want to talk about complex things as government and sovereignty.

You mean like we do here and now? There will always be people like us. The only question is - in service of what.

Sorry but I have seen hos the Pax Romana story end and this is not a good end.

When people give away their mean to stand against force because there is a local, temporary force keeping other bad influence away, it always end with millions and millions of dead people.

I have none, I take everything at face value and deal with it pragmatically. Then deal with the long term plans.

For the first generation.. not after.

It's inherited then.

That's the big issue with our society is.. we haven't broke free from that.

not if noble titles arent inherited
property sure but if noble titles are tied to the military and the monarch then you can limit the power of the aristocracy

If you fags can't even debate some Holla Forums bastard then you don't belong here.

Excellent post.

hello fellow tankie

Where did anyone say people couldn't bear arms>>7456256

THE IRONY IS UNREAL

I bet your reply to this will be "name fagging this hard", won't you Shlomo?

Was meant for

You surely have a point, but I think we see the general contradictions of capitalism will always lead to crisis - falling rate of profit, the reliance of low-wage labor to fuel consumerism, etc.

Fascism tries to overcome that by corporating the antagonized social classes through a common national goal, but when I look at history, this mostly ended up in a war or collapsed in itself.

Thank you for portraying what you are about, however I do believe there is not such a thing as "human nature" since one is always shaped by enviroment and material conditions.

Are you familiar with the historical materialism of Marx? I believe that capitalism reached it's peak because shareholders in our times simply accumulate capital by not actually contributing to the real ecnomoy what makes them parasites.

When the nobility became court sycophants instead of warriors after mercenary armies were established, they were eventually deposed in the French Revolution because they lacked any sort of justifiable legitimacy.

That leftist nigger dream of world peace once socialism have finished "re-educating" the masses.

Yes, that is what we do as intelligent, reasonable people.

But in the end, we have to compress and simplify our ideas into neat little boxes (-isms) and sell them to the simple masses so they too can grasp them and talk to others about it.

masses like Holla Forums

"I'm personally a Marxist-Leninist"
hi xexizy

Or the opposite..

Then they have an army elite class.. Though rightly so, they die for their position.

It's like i say here
There is no point in even arguing about things like this when he has no foundation. You dont argue with people about thing like Unruh radiation for example, if they dont even know what an integral is.
If he want to start at the bottom i would happily have a discussion with him.

No we don't.

Why do we?
That limits solutions to problems.

Not really different than anarchism or communism then.

Fine. The rules of nature, environment and material conditions are always relatively similar and shape people into what we call human nature.

(((re-educating)))*

kill all non-whites

Do you know what concern trolling means?

What? There is most definitely a "human nature". There are differences between cultures, sure, but human behavior and the things that motivate us does not vary that much at all. Also, made several more points that you didn't address.

And communism has such a great track record. I'm not a fan of authoritarianism in any form personally, but that's a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You are wrong. I'd say most people here view authoritarianism as a means to an end.

The end, of course, is getting rid of people like you, OP.

Dude, if I would start at the bottom with you I would declare all your vague assumptions about Jews, Races, natural order, human nature and whatnot spooks.

the normies cant buy into an ideology thats not an ism
you cant get people motivated behind an ideal unless you produce an ism

this tbh
its impossible to argue with leftypol because they view the world and history via the filter of marxist theory by and large where they reduce everything down to the flow of capital
its oversimplified history for dummies, marxists are invariably historically illiterate so its difficult to argue with them

...

...

>>>/politics/
:^)

Your doubles are niť going to save you. We are shaped by the environment only to the extent that our human nature allows. In fact, our human nature is specifically programmed to be shaped by our environment by the process of socialization.

The trap of nature/nurture dichotomy is easy to fall to, because (((they))) are pushing people towards it.

As to books about our nature, I recommend The Moral Animal by Robert Wrigh, The Red Queen by Matt Ridley or The Language Instinct by (((Steven Pinker))).

We haven't tried yet.

What about an ideology to NOT abide by isms.

...

Races are objective facts about bodies and behaviour. If you think that is a social construct, there is little we can do for you.

So, you were going to tell us how the Jews are not disproportionally opposed as the separation of the world into nation states when it is not Israel. Care to elaborate?

There's a little more to arguing rationally than that.

Then what makes you think that human nature impossible to change if you admit it yourself?

The 5000 years humans lived in different societies would leave a very marginal genetic imprint, when you look at evolution.

NANI?!?!?!
for real though highlight one for me that isnt a cult

I am certain that you do know what it means very well. :')

Marxists can be decent humans after all.

If only Holla Forums were to realize we have the same enemy. This divisiveness brings a literal tear to my eye.

Because you would have to change nature?

Short explanation what a spook is: It's referring to an abstract concept that you submit yourself under which isn't in your own interest.

Race for example is folklore. Yes, there is ancestry, but that works very different from the pseudo-scientific race terminology. You have more in common with a random nigger than that nigger has with another nigger.

What is nature then except material conditions?

As a molecular geneticist and nationalist I'm calling bullshit tbh

under that definition kikes and their meddling arent spooks

If race is a spook, then class is so spooky that even skeletons get spooked by it, Holla Forums.

I see this shit repeated everywhere from pseudo-intellectuals who are aware of race differences but want to be able to pretend it doesn't matter. Here.

It's funny and sad at the same time because Holla Forums might not get that many Holla Forumsacks have similar political compasses to - that is strongly opposed to the rule of amoral international corporations without government oversight. (Put triple brackets where appropriate.)

Which would make us "leftists" according of some people.

(The silliness and of the outdated left-right scale is a topic for another discussion)

Hm, I would mostly argue that Jews just act according to their own self-interests, being an out-group, being involved in financial capital since the middle ages, and so on. I'd also differentiate between the Jewish prole and the Jewish elite.

If you go ahead and replace all Jews with Ango-Saxons you would get the same stew.

We cant avoid cults because there is ignorance.

People simply do not understand enough.

Agree with you here, it is mostly a trick to make liberal normies equally condamn radical left and radical right as collectivistic shitfests,

Rules of evolution, to start with. It does not only apply to individuals: we are the descendent of the people who reproduce more and have their features, not the ones of those who don't reproduce, it also apply to societies. The Roman Empire extend its shadow over eastern Europe and eastern Europe have a latin culture now. Revolutionary Frenchs are at an advantage over monarchies because they are powered by popular will and not aristocratic greed: Europe is full of democracies now.

Then, the natural state of a man is to starve naked in mud. You can not change that and you need people to be productive if you want them to not starve naked in mud. Whatever society you promote, it's effective productivity will define it's success and it's success will define his survival.

That hardly makes sense. Assuming the Jews look out for their own, and that they are in positions of powers in white societies, you would not get the "same stew" if they were replaced by actually white people.

But when a society synchronizes in a brain like manner.. maybe they can avoid this?

You are thinking of nurture not nature.

A financial or corporate elite would always act for their own interests, Jewish or not.

You see similar tendencies in societies that barely have Jews in those positions facing similar problems.

well as an Anglo-Saxon I take offense at that tbh >>>7444392

he's fucking bliiiiind.

It depends.
I'm personally very much against any form of authority that exploits or undermines the people. It is the duty of one who would wield authority to prove himself worthy with his every act as leader.

If anyone on Holla Forums doesn't get this, he's talking about the fact that there is more diversity within populations than between them. Example: the range of IQs within white Europeans is massive, maybe 80 excluding braindead people. The difference between whites and blacks, however, is only 15 points or so in the US.

This is technically true but it throws the baby out with the bathwater. Just because the difference within a group is greater doesn't mean the difference between groups goes away. If we talk about any large groups of people - and we do this if we talk about immigration on any reasonable scale - there will be clear differences that affect things like income, crime, performance at school and trust. You can't just magic away differences by calling them a spook.

Also worth considering is that race, although biological, has social effects too. People take racial cues when deciding whom to socialise with, which is what leads to the incredibly visible self-segregation in schools, prisons and friendship groups.

I'm not saying that Jews are the only ones capable of greed or anti-social behavior. Of course not. I'm saying that given that combination of greed and having no ties to the people they have power over, in fact being loyal to an entirely different people/culture brings worse outcomes than just having greedy people of the same race and culture as the peasants.

This probably the point where Holla Forums and Holla Forums essentially disagree about: You believe ethnic and cultural consciousness triumphs over class consciousness, we disagree.

For example, Han Chinese factory owners in the Cantonese South of China employing millions of other Han Chinese: You'd think they would have some integral solidarity with their brethren, but they treat them like shit.

Does all niggers have less in common between them than with random white, or do you mean that the last nigger is closer from the first nigger than from me?

The first is utter nonsence because white people are diverse but we all are white in theree, and niggers are diverse in the same way but they have the common point of being niggers.
If it is the second, then you are admitting races exist.

No, lefty, we think both exists and you insists nations are not real.

WEW

...

Think about this: if 10 billions (to keep things at the same scale) Indians wanted to move in China and to force Indian values and lifestyle over the Chinese, would the Chinese as a whole welcome them?

That's because chinese people are one of the most materialistic people there are. They just want money and dont give a fuck about the rest.

Here's mine.

yeah. i know. the board i used to use is totally dead now so i use Holla Forums and Holla Forums

frends with everyone now

Hello OP.

You criticize authoritarianism. Then you approve of authoritarianism.

Are you having schizophrenia? You're not jewish are you?

And to address one weak point you made:

What makes you think we want unjustified authority? What makes you think that the statesmen aren't statesmen of the people? What makes you think they won't deserve their place.

No, if total hierarchy have worked for all armies throughout the millenias, it can work for civil society too. Idiots questioning truth will exist whether its authoritarian or not, which means, in either case, your point is moot.

Wow. It's as if money makes people stomp on each other. Who would've thought?????? That really means that race doesn't exist!!!!!!!!

We are discussing the same fucking problems, how money divides nations. I always considered money as a tool and when you let the tool become the end goal and not the means to an end (you lose control of the tool and the tool ends up controlling you), that is when it becomes the problem.

So are you telling me that nature is against my own interest ? No shit retard

Nations are pretty real, but they are very much the definition of a social construct (even though I don't like using the word, it just perfectly applies to so-called nations).

Race isn't real. ancestry is. If race = ancestry, then yes, race is real. I think we are arguing terminology here.
However, if you aim to divide ancestral groups based on physical and mental features, skin color would be the most unimportant one, since people are simply black, brown or white because of climatical conditions, the same way all birds look the same but are vastly genetically different: Enviroment shapes the looks.

More liberal than Stalin's I suppose.

that was mine a few years ago :^)

my social views haven't changed that much but that test is economic mainly.

I was probably just imagining that my poodle is different from my neighbor's pure german shepherd. I wonder what he thinks about cross-breeding his pedigree chum.

So, science is your religion? Since it apparently trumps common sense and what you are surely able to observe in your daily life. If I fart in the same room and you complain, I will ask you to shut up or prove "scientifically" that I farted. Whatever that means. Also, who proved that things fall down? Why didn't we all fly away before gravity was "scientifically" discovered?

False. Niggers have nigger cranial structures. I have a white skull. Samé with hundreds of other anatomical or psychological differences. There is literally no pure nigger that has more in common with me than he has with anotha brotha.

the cultural revolution in China destroyed the classical confucian hierarchy that rated the simple peasant farmer as second only to the emperor because the farmer produced the rice that fed all of China
communism is a cancer that destroys everything it touches and lies about it afterwards to pretend its the good guy

You do realize that race is a more tangible fact than your serially failed theories, don't you?

Nations are a group of people who have more in common that people on the outside. That seem very real to me.

Race is your genetic heritage. Any question?

Did you read my post? I didn't say that. I said the combination of race and class differences allows for worse outcomes than just class difference.

My original point was that authoritarianism is ok when it's for a purpose (like the Romans giving a dictator authority over 2 years) but that it can hardly be maintained as the natural order given the state of public consciousness.

There are no two Europeans of that are less similar to each other than they are to any random nigger though. Niggers have greater genetic diversity because they literally fucked with monkeys.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans#Archaic_African_hominins

...

...

see

What world are you people living in?

The masses blindly believe what is fed to them by their masters, they are steeped in perpetual ignorance and apathy believing themselves to be enlightened so that they have no reason to doubt their own shallow convictions. A worldwide system of control is destroying the racial, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic borders of the people while burdening them with the materialistic slavery of debt and useless consumption. The people of this world are blind monkeys aping the actions of their fellows following each other in circles, look at the world you moron.

Leftists are disconnected from reality, they live in a land of their imagination, an idealized universe based on shallow assumptions and thin veneers of residual propaganda absorbed from media.

You people follow your leaders towards what you think is freedom, but you are toiling under the slavery of ideological control. The globalists and jews control your very being, they control the center of your thought, they own your soul.

Thanks, saved.

authoritarian isn't an -ism, it's only a method
it's like specifying a flavor without first declaring a dish

"Give me your shekels goyim or it's off to the gulag"
"That's right goyim, be degenerates. Smash all things good in society"
"The free market will fix everything goyim, no lets legalize sex with fetuses"
Neo-Conservatives (Literally free market Trotskyites)

Where everyone on Holla Forums should land.

No it's far more discrete.

now*

So, you can look at any pictire of a human and identify their race subconsciously even before you are able to say it 0.01 seconds later. But sure.

You can identify a race of a person by looking at their skeleton, in some cases only if you have a few bones. But sure.

You can identify someone's race just by looking at a single hair of theirs. But sure.

You can get a $200 DNA analysis done, where they tell you your race accurately without ever looking at you. It even tells you more about your ancestors' races than you knew. But sure.

You are so deep in the Nile that they will crown you the next kang of Egypt.

Hi /faggotpol/.

First of all you make some pretty brash and frankly wrong-headed assumptions.

Having an "education" today makes them blindly accept authority. Communist authority. You're okay with that I'm sure. Actually, less "educated" people are more likely to be rugged individualists. So right out the gate you're entire premise is all retarded.

According to whom? By what reckoning is an authority "just" or "unjust"? Yours?

It's like you don't even know anything about history. All the propaganda was actually focused AGAINST the NSDAP. It was as organic as can be.

See, when degenerates like you start to ruin a country to a sufficient degree, there comes a point where the only way to fix it again is through authoritarian means because it's so far gone that it will simply rot to decay and implode if left on its current course. We're fast approaching that time now in America.

hey man, you don't want to gulag wealthy business men, bankers, evil politicans? smdh

I can't tell if it's wilful ignorance or some kind of ebin ruse they aren't cluing us into.

Holy shit , thanks for the laugh and the insight into the lefty brain

I finally can understand where the whole "no borders/one rayc, humin rayc/one peepul humin peepul" comes from and how you can so blatantly disregard thousands of years of human history for the sake of an ideology that has failed every single time it was put into practise

You people are mentally ill ,holding these views should be treated no different than any other mental disorders with shock therapy ,isolation , medicinal treatment and reintergration into society for those that still have a chance to be redeemed and euthanasia for the uncurable/untreatable cases

for the most part the same could be argued for communism. Authority arrives into fascist societies largely when they are mobilized towards what they see as a threat such as the modern migrant invasion or in ww2 the soviets expansion into eastern Europe. I'm not in favor if lasting authoritarian governments because ultimately when the threat is gone they serve little to no purpose and honestly hinder society for the most part. From my opinion a good nation should be an aristocratic republic with a monarch/fuhrer like figure that grooms his own successor. The people should have a will of their own and when the nation is not threatened they should for the most part just be left alone to enjoy there various vices, as you said most people are apathetic.

Race cannot be an abstract if it has a basis in scientific fact a spook is someones opinion that has no basis beyond there personal morality. Almost all of the top runners in the world are black almost all of the top power lifters are white that shit is not a social construct.

No, not all Holla Forumslacks are or should be authoritarians.

That's because they have different material upbringings.×-{|:^)

I have more in common with a dog than a nigger.

Neither of us will bite the hand that feeds.

What makes Trump a better leader than me ?

Every Holla Forums user should definitely be authoritarians. Hierarchy and nationalism goes hand in hand.
If you want a republic or a monarchy is a different thing.

He's an extremely successful businessman. He could do some real work on the economy. He has an excellent tax plan.

What are your qualifications? Maybe you are.

checked

also however many million black americans killing each other in the inner cities since the 60s. i'd lay those on communism too

It's because you're fired.

POWER

People understand and follow power ,this has been the way of the world for thousands of years now and it isn't likely to change any time soon

So you're saying that a general (or anyone in a position of power) shouldn't be allowed his position, simply because he has had that position?

In that case, who is to decide "how long" someone stays in power? No, this is all nonsense, either someone is cut for power or he is not. Only once the utility of the authority can no longer be ensured by the individual practicing the authority should there come a question of his fitness as a leader. Other than that, there is no point "shuffling" the administration with new individuals, that's a waste of time.

Just imagine if you have your people, and can possible two leaders are Leader A and Leader B. Do you think it must necessarily imply increased happiness just because they switch from leader A to leader B? Why would that switch in itself cause increased happiness? Wouldn't that be like saying: "You have to switch your processor in your computer because, otherwise it wouldn't be fair to other processors" ?

Arent't there like 10000 people in america with the same qualities as trump?

Yes but only one of them run for president.

So Holla Forums is just one person? That's what I thought.

That's mostly your fantasy. Take me for example, I mainly want whites to stop drinking the Kool-aid and realize they have group interests just like every other racial group and take back their governments and prevent the mass suicide that's on the NWO's To Do list.

I don't know which political category I'm supposedly part of and I don't care. I don't care about ideology and labels.

He does better shitposting.

The same amount of money, maybe. But there's more to Trump than a shitload of cash.

Weren't there a billion chinamen in china that where exactly like Mao ?

thats generally why you're here lad
because you have independent thoughts, feelings and opinions on matters instead of proscribing to some preordained groupthink

nothing hes honestly not anyone I would ever want to be a monarch or in any sort of permanent position of power. We mostly support him because he has shifted the overtone window closer to our political stance during this election.

There were a billion Chinamen in China that LOOK exactly like Mao

;D

So if a Jew runs for president that has the same amount of money with trump will you vote for him?

What are this qualities?

Who is fitted to be a monarch?

hes the one major non-globalist in the mess called american politics
hes the man too rich to be bribed and too smug and uncaring to be blackmailed
thats why hes supported here

Anyone can have good leader qualities. The question is do you have better leader qualities than Trump.

He is not a politician. He will change this sytem of corruption, and you can argue that it will not be for the greater good but at least there wil be change, not like with Obama.

He is possibly the only chance left to avoin a WWIII in the next decades and it help.

No he isnt Its true hes not full on globalist shill but he sucks Israeli dick married his kids off to jews has a history of pushing anti racism when its good for him and is very much not above being bribed or bribing to get his way. Hes not going to save you hes not your god emperor he is a stepping stone to something better.

Oh, but user, you don't know one thing.

He is not using us to gain power.

*We* are using *him* to gain power.

if you meant "avoid" my only question is

WHY?

exactly
well i cant expect much from a yank can I

thats the point you dolt trump is a stepping stone to a better political situation

War is ugly. Trust me, you do not want it.

Because only the kikes win wars, and the white man loses them.

Haven't you seen Russia is back on stage and China awaken?

All the politicians want to take a strong stance against Russia, like if a common denominator was on their back. Trump want to befriend Russia and to cool things down. Hillary would start another war and could possibly end using the bomb.

To be fair, your dislike of punctuation made your post hard to comprehend at a glance.

The white man fight them, and it result in dead white man. Who could have see that coming?

There isn't any form of government that ISN'T authoritarian or at least oligarchic. No one is equal. We have to stopped pretending the universe don't be like it is, when it, as a matter of fact, do.

politics is about relationships between people.
anarchy is a matter of scope:
if you have a set of groups running themselves without any overarching authority, there is anarchy of those groups, but not of the groups themselves.

if there is an objectively true ethos, and the authority is a direct reflection of that, then full ham authoritarianism is the best way.

no matter what, you will be disciplined by a group of ethos A or a group of ethos B.

even if there is "anarchy", there will still be coercive social pressures that develop.

have you still not come to the realization that populism is the only way, decentralization only grants the people more political power which allows them more sway of which ethos they choose as a discipline, and that communism and capitalism result in the same (((ruling elite))), and that leftypol isn't a politics board?

Fair enough

There are probably 100-500 with his qualities. That is a true business sense and the ability to be entertaining on live TV. And many of them would make good presidents. Unfortunately running for president will wreck your life so nobody (ethical) ever wants to do it. Plus most all of them benefit from the current rigged system and are more than happy to just pay off politicians to get what they want. They have good lives, why rock the boat? Some of them REALLY love what they do. I worked for a billionaire who is still working into his 90's because he loves what he does so much, he is in the office 6 days a week.

Perot was the last time we had a super rich businessman run for president who was a serious run at the establishment. Perot's problem was his personality is very bland and he had a funny accent. He was also couldn't get any media attention as there was no internet to speak of and no social/alternative media like today. Trump on the other hand has been on TV for decades and even his biggest detractors admit he's entertaining on TV. And you can't deny he has a way of getting media (for free).

Parlamentarism, but i guess thst could be listed as a two step oligarchy for the jews.

Parliamentarism is an oligarchy. Instead of one publuc and accountable authority you get a bunch of obscure ones.

So you've been in a couple of wars , eh ? You a vet eh?

I remember hearing a parable about where people think power lies. It was more of a riddle, really.

Now, tell me. Who lives, and who dies?

Nothing.

All three of them die and the sellsword keeps the gold from the (((rich man))), becomes the king of the nation and is viewed as a god to the people

sellsword.
all three.

Nothing lives.*

Wew I fucked that one up.

Isn't this the exact reason why people don't want to become billionaires, but have the required inteligence?

The more it rocks the fast it goes.

The polar categories defining the political are, as such, those of the friend–enemy distinction — a distinction implying the possibility of physical killing between rival states. This distinction is based on antithetical categories distinct to the political — distinct in the way that the categories of good and evil are specific to morality, the beautiful and the ugly to aesthetics, the profitable or unprofitable to economics, etc.

“Politics” is tied to rationalism, materialism, economism, and the rule of Mammon, all of which undermine authority, tradition, and the imperatives of the “political.”

What do you mean?

and everything in between.
it's about relationships.
economics is about the deals people make, but only understood properly if all that can be valued, interests, are understood.

kinda correct, but those words are way too fucking flambouyant for my taste.

There isn't actually a difference. What is typically called "authoritarian" is just more open about it. Democracy is just as authoritarian (even more so in fact) as fascism was. Same with socialism. Authoritarianism is all that exists, and the various systems (yes, even your faggot leftist fantasy systems) just serve to obfuscate it.

I have absolutely no problem with working without direct and sole gain for myself, but rather to help the common good of my community. The problem is, and where Nationalists and Communists disagree, is who that community is.
I think my community is my people, my family, my culture, and my homeland. Communists think that it's EVERYONE, specifically poor, working-class people regardless of culture, race, religion, etc.
when in reality all of those things play very important roles in how those people function in society.
It's like trying to build a car or any other machine, where every model has specific parts it uses that can't just be replaced by any other corresponding part from another car. Sure, there might be exceptions here and there where cultures can mingle or even fuse, but they also split apart, and on the whole most cultures still remain different and distinct. Communism is like trying to design a car to work with every kind of part there is, and as a result you either get a horribly broken car, or a bunch of previously-fine parts broken and ground-down to resemble generic, all-purpose, but ultimately inferior parts.

Marx should have studied anthropology in his spare time instead of smoking weed in Frederick Engels' apartment.

It's quoting Carl Schmitt, the greatest political philosopher of all time (who also happened to be a nazi).

If Stalin didn't want to invade Europe he and Hitler could have in theory been allies against America and the Allies.
The problem lies in the fact that communism (specifically Leninism, Stalin was smarter and preached one-nation communism) typically preaches "worldwide violent revolution", making relationships with non-communists somewhat dicey

true "libertarianism" is really just proton-authoritarianism, even in the original 13 colonies they had governments and laws and shit, they just had less because there simply wasn't a need to have 15 by-laws about selling toothpaste when the entire country had about 30 people living in it. If jerry sells toothpaste and has a problem with how larry sells it, he could just go to the judge, who knows both of them, and talk it out. There wasn't a need for such immense political machines because there just weren't that many people.

The enemy is thus designated not on the basis of personal feelings or moral judgments (inimicus), but only in face of an intensely hostile power (hostis), which menaces the state’s existence.
An enemy, in this sense, exists wherever one fighting-collectivity poses an existential threat to another collectivity.

Friendship — the condition of amity between those making up a large socially or communally cohesive association — is always prior to enmity. For it is impossible to have a life-threatening “them” without first having a life-affirming “us.”

The political is ultimately, then, a question of life or death — a question that presupposes the existence of an enemy — an enemy comprehended independent of other antitheses (e.g., the moral antitheses of good v. evil) and with conceptually autonomous categories of thought.

Liberalism cannot distinguish between friend and enemy because its individualist, universalist, and pluralist ideology (“conceived in liberty and dedicated to the [abstract] proposition that all men are created equal”) denies that such a designation is conceivable in a world understood in market or moralist terms, where there are only competitors and moral entities, with whom one negotiates or reasons on the basis of universal rights and interests.

“The protego ergo oblige [I protect therefore I oblige] is the cogito ergo sum [I think therefore I am] of the state.”
The state, as such, is the highest form of human association, defending the life of its citizens and expecting that they, in turn, prepare to die for it, if necessary.
Protection and obedience, in healthy bondage to one another, are in this way mutually entwined.

Without the political and the state upon which it rests (i.e., without an existential commitment to a shared identity), there would be, as a consequence, no polarity, no opposition, no transcendent reference, and no way to counter the entertainment of modern nihilism.
The first victim of liberal depoliticization is thus always “meaning.”
If Europeans, then, are ever to regain control of their Destiny, it will only come through a political assertion of the identity that distinguishes them from the world’s other peoples.
All else is simply “politics.”

...

Wew lad I'm fucking up badly today.

But anyway - what goes faster the more it rocks?

So you believe trump is better than the other billionaires because he rocks the boat?

Yup.

The "class struggle" meme was invented to purposefully ignore racial and cultural differences. And it helped the jews use the easily manipulable working class to further their globalist dreams of domination.

Nowadays they found a better type of a useful idiot - the LGBT youth, the angry blacks, other minorities, whom they feed lies about discrimination and "systemic" white oppression (while they themselves are the system profiting off their disenfranchisement).

I like it, but only if I'm the one wearing the boots. I don't like being tread on *hiss*

I still have my doubts about Mr Doubt.

Now hillary is out of the way..

Mr Trump*.

Wtf kekek

I would actually differ between authoritarianism and authority.
Every system needs authority or else it would just be anarchy. But every system is not authoritarian. I tie authoritarian with responsibility. One man (a republic or monarchy) has the highest responsibility and authority in the political world (authoritarianism=/=totalitarianism) and he alone is responsible (basically see what Hitler talks about in MK). A parliamentary system is founded on responsibility but on the "authority" on a big anonymous mass. A tyranny is also not based a responsibility. The tyrant seeks only to benefit himself and his own. And this holds true for parliamentary also.

i hope he is an excellent 1st shitposter in chief.

OP you only asked one thing

Yes you are wrong, it is a means to the end, end being the protection of the white race and cultures.

You get no more questions. If you want our time you must first make an offer that is in the best interests of our race and culture. Before you say "Easy, Gommunism :DDDD" You must convince us to abandon the Natural order for your "equality".

Stopped reading right there.

Listen here you disgusting, vile, worthless abomination of human excrement you are the lowest form of life on earth. You are not even a human fucking being, you are nothing but an unorganized grabastic piece of amphibian shit. You are puke. Not even your own mother loves you. Your parents regret eveything you've ever done. You are nothing but a faggot drone sucking down cheetos and consuming copious amounts of pornography to satisfy the dwindling sexual urges of your 400lb, 20 year old body. You will never be anything, you should have put the gun in your mouth and pulled the trigger like you said you would all those years ago. Now here you are sucking your betters cock just for the attention I'm giving you now. If you were to get skullfucked by a horse nobody would bat an eye. If you were to be shot down in the middle of the street nobody would bat an eye. You will never know love, you will never know a womans touch, and you will continue fantasizing about raping 12 year old little boys while shoving your dragon dildo up your ass to try and fill the gaping hole where your heart and soul should be. You do not even deserve death, the only reason we will hunt you and kill you on the DOTR is to purge this beautiful world of your disgusting landwhale body and your degenerate thoughts.

You are so worthless not even a kike would want you as a slave. Even niggers pity you. You have no agency, you are nothing but a worthless parasite self-fellating yourself over marx who would himself exterminate you on site. You will continue being a fuckup in everything you do until the end of time, if you're thinking about slashing your wrists or tying a noose or putting a bullet in your head do the world a favor and dig your own grave first to save us the trouble of having to crane lift your fat fucking ass out of your house. Kill yourself, nobody and I mean NOBODY is going to even pretend to try to stop you. You won't even kill yourself though because you are too much of a fucking failure to do that right, you'll pussy out like a whiny bitch and continue coming to Holla Forums where we will continue to bully you in your own personal hell until the day comes where we will purge you and the rest of your faggot buddies. Here's an idea, cut your dick off and become a woman like you've always dreamed that way your degenerate "friends" that hate you just as much as we do will at least get a chance of fucking something in their lives. If you're nice and pay maybe mr. shekelstein will let you give him a rimjob in front of your parents finally solidifying to them their absolute failure at raising a human being, of course they already know and they've already given up on you. This is more so that WE get to see the pain and hurt in your eyes when you realize your own parents couldn't give a rats ass about you and gave up on you long before you touched the internet.

-t. Holla Forums
Kill yourself. Do it now you fucking bitch. Quit pussying out.

gets weird when your idea of the world doesn't line up with reality

This is the number one biggest problem with pro-hierarchical arguments. This is patently untrue. Tribes were communal for 150,000 years before monarchy was a thing. We've only had social stratification for at most 12,000 years.

This is at the core of the whole selfish genetic atheist survival of the fittest meme. Cripples survive and pass on genes because communities care for their species as a whole to pass on the genes of *the species* as a whole and *species* that do not adapt go extinct. Gay uncles are genetically superior for the family genetic reproduction because it creates an additional food provider for children.

All individuals die. This live forever mentality is what is destroying western culture.

You can make arguments for who counts as in your family or tribe and weather they should be led democratically or by divine right but "because thats how its always been" is NOT AN ARGUMENT.

stop making everyone look bad

What's the y-axis?

people are stupider, more apathetic and more inclined to go along with established authority than you think.

eg: the current power structure is completely unjust, especially towards white people and most of them either don't care or rabidly defend it.

the imposition of order is required, and it won't (necessarily) be significantly resisted.

sage for Holla Forums faggotry.

Polite sage because at least you arent a blabbering fucktard like 95% of /leftyshit/

general unhappiness

I hope you realize reiterating the arguments we use against you like the braindead moron that you are doesn't actually work.

Capitalism is a spectrum not a yes/no

so did every other civilization ever

literally every single civilization has either collapsed or is going to

every

single

one

Glorification of the strong and successful is better than glorification of the weak. The idea of National Socialism is that the strong push society forwards while the weak support them. Naturally people are more motivated to advance as individuals in this society than in one where it is considered normal to leech off those at the top. When more people are more motivated to advance themselves, society advances. The strong benefit from the support of the weak, the weak benefit from the advances made by the strong. It isn't a difficult idea to grasp.

But who determines who is strong and who is weak?

That's funny I had the same question about Communist systems

And why wouldn't Americans want to reconnect with that? Butthurt normies around me want to keep that democratic way of life, under my regime or those who think like me, would be lined up and shot. All this corruption in the last century has turned us into corrupt from was once a decent constitutional republic. Maybe it's time for something in the states that hasn't been tried yet

Corrupt oligarchy * my bad

Your picture is a perfect representation of leftism. A mangy drunken street rat trampling upon timeless beauty. Willfully destroying the excellent just so vlad can throw them in a labor camp later.

The Natural Order, you know survival of the fittest

The parasites then?

Had you bothered to learn Nature, even parasites have their role in Nature.

Communism is a revolt against both Civilization and Nature. Goes even worse than Rosseau's idylic savage idea.

(Checked)

Trips of truth. There is only survival and extinction, everything in between is sophistry.

So wouldn't anarchy be the complete survival of the fittest?

anarchy is a temporal state of chaos. can never last too long.

even the most legitimate anarchic tribes (without ideological reasons for such) ended up with their leaders, known today as Attila the Hun and Ghengis Khan, each leading their respective hordes in a now much pyramidal structure way.

So basically the order of things is. Anarchy until the leader is found.And when he dies anarchy again?

The title for the y-axis was late because it was waiting in a breadline, so it was shot for not being a true believer in the party and pretended it was always absent.

Which means the natural order of things is not anarchy at all - anarchy is the placeholder which transpires in between, in the spaces created when the natural order flounders temporarily or there is a change in said order.

Ever put your hand under water, and sort of *flub* it so there's a lil air pocket formed?
That air pocket is anarchy - its only created by some action upon the normative order, and it is filled in almost-instantly as that order reasserts itself.

Anarchy is nothing but an empty void, created temporarily when the natural order is in state of flux, and gone as soon as such flux reaches cessation.

The point is that power lies where people think it does. Some think Religious Power is greater than that of wealth or birth. Others think that your wealth determines how powerful you are.
While still others think their noble blood gives them authority.

I'm not necessarily Pro-Right, I'm just against the Fascist-Left.

I still promote Libertarianism as the ideology to aim towards, but realize its (current) impracticality with an (at large) stupid population who believe they deserve more "rights" without taking on any more personal responsibility.

Would just like to add, that I think this is a good term to start slapping on them.

So anarchy is as essential as a leader is?Because it's the law that will put things into order when they flux?

Isn't it expected for a leadership to flux, either because of death or cause someone fittest comes?

Who the fuck would be believe in a monarchy anymore on either side?

"I believe that all other political states are in fact variations or outgrowths of a basic state of anarchy; after all, when you mention the idea of anarchy to most people they will tell you what a bad idea it is because the biggest gang would just take over. Which is pretty much how I see contemporary society. We live in a badly developed anarchist situation in which the biggest gang has taken over and have declared that it is not an anarchist situation – that it is a capitalist or a communist situation. But I tend to think that anarchy is the most natural form of politics for a human being to actually practice."

I'm sorry lad, but fascist left is a retarded term. You're accepting the moral premise that leftism is alright as long as it's not authoritarian leftism, which doesn't make sense as leftism flies in the face of reason and thus must make use of authoritarianism to enforce it.

Let's look at this as applied to race. Mr. Frenchman and Mr. Algerian are not the same race, and have about a 10 IQ gap between them. Not the end of the world, but surely a difference. A leftist skew on this dillemma would be to deny that the difference exists to stop conflict between the two. But difference does exist, and will exist in outcomes from both groups - at a certain point, much like with Mexicans or Turks in America/Germany respectively, the state is going to have to compensate for the lack of one to maintain the lie the Leftist tells themself to avoid conflict. Eventually, this must lead to some form of force, commonly thinly-veiled affirmative action via welfare, or explicit affirmative action.

Thus, it's impossible, as they become more apparent, to maintain the convenient lies central to the foundation of Leftism itself without, taken to its logical conclusion, near-fascistic force.

No no no, anarchy is not politics. It's the law of nature.

Or a law of nature.That's what I'm trying to find out.

A leader is essential, anarchy is merely consequential.

Variable, though certainly a potentiality.
Probability of anarchy coming to pass increases in relation to extremity of flux condition, which should be rather obvious.

*A hierarchy is essential, which invariably results in a leader emerging, whereas anarchy is merely consequential from this paradigm.

Persuasion isn't a one-step process.

Using "Fascist-Left" as an intermediate step that points out to us "Lolbergs" that the Left (generally) are just as "Fascist" (anti-freespeech, opinion-imposing) as the Right, thus discrediting them and making the "Right" look less severe (and perhaps even more favorable).

Tailor propaganda to specific demographics. Straight up calling for the extermination of Blacks, for example, isolates a number of (what could be) "Useful Idiots".

I have the privilege of living in a relatively "black-free" neighborhood, so I've never had to deal with the nig-problem that everyone here describes. It confused me and made me think the people here were absurd. Not that they were incorrect, just describing my –conditioned knee-jerk reaction– to it.

You should give Jeff Vail's "A Theory Of Power" a read. It shows how all Structure (Political or otherwise) are just variations on the Laws by which Nature structures itself. And it's available for free.

You have a link?

Reminder that this topic makes all subversives, especially anarchists apopletic with rage.

It's an added bit of fun to a system which is also very sound for other reasons.

...

Anarchy is a quick transition state from one status to another. It is not a system in itself.

Effectively, yes.

Anarchy transpires, when it transpires, when hierarchy is in flux.
Hierarchy is inevitable, thus anarchy is never lasting.

Why isn't it the other way around? Or why aren't those two a circle of evolution. Anarchy-Leader-Anarchy-Leader. That is what's happeninig till today, isn't it?

I'll give it a look.

happeninig

kek

...

Elective Monarchies were a thing. The Roman Kingdom is an example.

Certianly, persuasion takes a long time. But you're going the wrong way. You're establishing Fascism as a negative, which they already believe. Equating Fascism with the Left leads them to believe that both sides are idiotic and eventually leads to Sargonianism as they try to reconcile the indisputable truth they've been led to believe: that hirearchy is bad.

Much more effective, at least in my opinion, is what we have been doing: Make the left look absolutely rediculous and their premises become harder to accept via association with rainbow haired mental illness patients.

To your particular issue, that of living in a relatively black free neighborhood, it's a knee-jerk reaction I had once too. The black people I knew were alright, how could people not like them?

Then you realize the characteristics of that neighborhood. You have to have a job in order to live there. You have to have a job thay pays mortgage, property taxes, for a car (Unless you're fabulously wealthy and live in the all white parts of the city), and maintain it enough to avoid pissing off the homeowner's association.

Just by those facts of your existence, which working and middle class whites consider standard, we've weeded out the black population to the talented 10% that can function at this baseline level we've established.

Then think about what that says about the black population, at least in America.. What makes a more convincing story? For the past 60 years we've been oppressing them so hard they're trapped in neighborhoods that were once our working class's dens and now are blights that waste prime real estate? Or that they are simply unable to compete in the unfair genetic playing field required by white society - which is why where there are high populations of blacks, you get conditions similar to Africa, and where there are high populations of whites, you get conditions similar to Europe.

Oppression can only go so far in ensuring the status of blacks. Haiti, for example, is often shown as a victim of colonialism - while ignoring that its neighbor was colonized by the far harsher Spain, has shittier natural resources, yet manages to thrive for a caribbean country - while Haiti is among the poorest on earth. What's the difference? The genetic character people who live there. If one buys into the leftist lie of equality, the only explanation of colonialism makes sense - yet against all evidence, it makes 0 sense.

your example falls flat on it's face not much unlike communism or multiculturalism because while the result looks predictable and manageable on paper , when you put it into actual practise it stumbles on the same thing : your own perception of what human nature is vs what human nature really is

hint: unpredictable

Because its not.

Because they aren't.

Doesn't really happen - again, its not "Leader", its "Hierarchy", a "Leader" being a component thereof.

Nope.
Its more like hierarchy for extended periods of time, punctuated by brief instances of anarchy.

So, like, Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Anarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Anarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Anarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy-Hierarchy

Why is it that way?
Because establishment of hierarchy is natural law, a condition which inevitably transpires.
Anarchy is, again, merely consequential from that paradigm, and in no way truly "necessary" - it just happens to be what transpires when hierarchy fluctuates, and never lasting, due to the nature of this paradigm (which you appear to struggle with even still).

IOW

So you are saying that because hierarchy lasts longer through time it is more natural than anarchy?

I am not sure what you mean by more "natural"?

Nor is such even relevant - both are 'natural' conditions, it is merely via the 'natural' course of the function of our Universe such that anarchy is transitory and short in the context of the establishment, function and fluctuation of hierarchy.

Some very good posts in this thread.

Can't stick around, but would like to summarize:

Nature strives for Harmony, not Equality.

The thing it seems you continue to struggle with is the matter of inevitability, specifically the inevitability of the establishment of hierarchy.

This is not a matter of desire, it is requisite, it simply is.
Establishment of hierarchy will happen, even if nobody involved necessarily wants it to happen, because it is an inevitable state of being in the context of existence.
A hierarchy will always be established, period.

Anarchy, conceptually, is merely the state of fluctuation - if the hierarchical paradigm should enter flux, should be altered in an extreme fashion, a state of anarchy might occur whilst hierarhcy is re-establishing itself… Or it might not. But when anarchy does occur, it is in such context.

All your questioning seems to derive from a desire to alter this state or to avoid coming to terms with this condition, that being, that establishment of hierarchy is a natural law.
Why it is this way, well… We will have to escape this Universe before you can answer that question, I'm afraid.

… If we can, that is.

You are implying that because hierarchy lasts longer through time and anarchy is sudden, the hierarchy is essential but anarchy isn't.

Sort of, yep.

… Though, granted, this depends on how you are utilizing the term "essential".
At the very least, I would suggest that hierarchy is by-far more relevant in terms of its "essential" nature, specifically in the contexts most applicable to the discussion(s) at hand.

See also:

Why are you obsessed with the concept of anarchy being, in some way, "essential"?

It is a consequential, transitory state - certainly not something to attempt to base any sort of applicable foundation upon; even if such were feasible (it is not, because, again, establishment of hierarchy is natural law), it would rationally offer little in terms of "fertile ground".

Because diferent hierarchys can tackle different situations.And that means there should be a point where someone has no power.As known as anarchy.

*authority
power is wrong

As we've already established, hierarchy is inevitable.
You're still struggling with this concept it seems.

Let me make it crystal clear for you:
Anarchy does not exist for a greater period in time, because it cannot.

That's the point I am trying to get across to you.

The reason that anarchy does not last, is because it cannot last, because - say it with me now - establishment of hierarchy is natural law, inevitable.

If you try to establish hierarchy? Hierarchy established.
If you don't try to establish hierarchy?
Hierarchy established.
If you actively try NOT to establish hierarchy?
Hierarchy established.

This is the entire point.
Anarchy can exist - but never lasting, for it is merely a transitory condition within the hierarchical paradigm.

Does this lend some greater relevance, in the context of human experience and the systems we attempt to consciously employ in the context of the hierarchical paradigm, to hierarchy relative to anarchy?
Yes.

Interesting, since every time "Marxist socialism" was implemented, your people sold it as some mind of utopia promoting (((equality))) ,"freedom", and prosperity, while the truth is; the first is inherently flawed and impossible to achieve, the second is thwarted once you send to gulags those who oppose your system or the vanguard party decides to (((purge))) the central body, and the third is discarded with the famous food "shortages", courtesy of the retarded economical policies

What kind of drugs do you take to make this deluded?

Not an argument. It doesn't why the masses come to support the truth.It better than living under lies like equality.Try again.

You haven't read the basics of Fascism. Authoritarianism is needed to destroy democratic,liberal society, and all such forms of Kikery.

It like a doctor shocking a patient to restart the heart of a cultural on it's death bed. Once we have the authoritarian structure in place in can impose a traditionalist culture likely a monarchy or blood based aristocracy to organically keep the culture alive.

You leftist don't understand because you come from broken families and don't understand how the love our kith and kin cannot be reduced to mere "authoritianism" of the Jewish marxist vile parody of the western volk.

Calling our system of Liebe dein Volk "authoritianism" is pure ethnic hatred our people. Is parental guidance authoritianism for it's own end? Only a degenerate or an enemy your family would dare make such a claim.

Well the Marxist cancer on the OP made my brain rot

People near-exclusively rebel against authority in the way which they are told to.
We're no exception: we're playing the bad guy because we hate what is aid to be good.

This is also the problem with arguing morality with these people. They refuse to accept natural law and any universal truths which might conflict with their commie wet dream.

I came twice.

is right
the problem with libertarianism is that niggers exist

And that is exactly what i'm telling.I't like a very small ingredient which is essential for the cake to be baked.But if you put too much of it there won't be a cake.
It's the transitory condition between hierarchys.Which is essential.

Example: in a group of ten people 5 are survivalists and 5 are economists.The hierarchy when the comunity is made first is based on the survivalists and then when the society progresses into the economists.The transitory state is anarchy.

What I'm arguing is that the state of anarchy will certainly occur. Not might.

That's idiotic. That anarchal state is entirely unnecessary should a strong man exist to make that transitional period between necessary hierarchies a managed transition, rather than an upheaval.

But the power a man has is based on the needs of the community.Different people can handle different situations.So there always be different strong men.So there always be a transitory state.

To argue that is to argue for a permanent transition. Which eventually results in factions of strong men fighting eachother for control of the resulting hirearchy.

Nigger the only -ist I am is anti-communist.

We live in a tyrannical totalitarian state. Authoritarianism gives you much more freedom just there is a hierarchy that you have to respect or you will find yourself in trouble. There will be moral codes that you are compelled to follow bt the state won't be minding every little detail in your life like it currently does.

Publicly execute race traitors, Jews and remove non whites. You remove most of the agitating elements from removing those blocs alone. Then you make an effort to discredit liberalism and condemn it for eternity. The horrors of our liberal society should be well preserved and shown to future generations.

I'm sorry but I need some sleep.Could you rephrase it so I can grasp what you are saying when I wake up?

That image is fucking retarded on so many levels. For one, most of these "evils" are based on a leftist cucked, universalist egalitarian moral foundation, which implies that colonialism or "muh exploitation" is morally wrong. It's not. Conquering, exterminating, and colonising are entirely morally justifiable, and have been an intrinsic part of human interaction since our species evolved. Secondly, most of those can't even be blamed on capitalism. Fucking lynched niggers are capitalism's fault? "Fascist terror" (ignoring the blatant fucking bias in this line alone)? Even when fascism rejects the capitalistic system? This list was made by some idiot who felt like blaming the deaths of anyone who died under a system that wasn't communist on "capitalism", even when a lot of these have literally nothing to do with economic motivations.

Reading this feels like listening to a whiny commie college student crying abut "muh colonialism!!! muh genocide!!! muh natives!!! muh conquest!!!". There is literally nothing wrong with any of these, and there isn't a single moral argument you can make that proves me wrong. The strong dominating the weak is nature's law, and this is exactly what has happened for thousands of years.

Kill yourself, you fucking cuck.

So kinda like economic classes, right?

lmao. You do realise that race is a biological fact, while "class" is merely an abstract concept developed during industrlisation to describe the newly created divides and stratification in society? "Class" as a tangible, literal thing does not exist. It is merely a descriptor - an abstract concept reliant on a single particular method of resource distribution.

Do you know any actual human beings? They rarely question anything, let alone authority.

You teach them the truth about human biodiversity and racial differences in cognitive ability, and we'll see how 'meritocratic' they think ZOG is.

You don't know anything about history, do you

There is no great political goal (as in "Communism is heaven and Socialism is a ladder to a heaven") that lies beyond authoritarianism, but an authoritarian government will have many goals which promote the welfare of the nation — not least of which is, to provide peace and order so that 'the citizens', individually and in groups, are free to pursue 'their goals', rather than being violently subordinated to the power struggles of factions in the Bolshevik party.

Alan Moore pls go

My fucking sides, the lack of self-awareness in this post is of the scale!

So you don't even know what you're debating?

I'm going to go easy on you because you're a newfag. Lurk moar. If you want to post fucking learn a thing or two beforehand.