/b/ - Random

Anything Goes

Posting Mode: Reply Return

Max message length: 5000


(used to delete files and postings)


  • Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more
  • Max files: 5
  • Max file size: 50.00 MB
  • Read the global rules before you post, as well as the board rules found in the sticky.

02/27/20 IRC/Matrix/and Discord servers are now available, join here.
02/09/20 /ausneets/ has been added!
11/23/19 Donations can now be made via PayPal, thank you for all of your support!
11/21/19 We have successfully migrated to LynxChan 2.3.0, to see all of the changes to 16chan, click here.

[Index] [Catalog] [Archive] [Bottom] [Refresh]

complaining about end/pol/, again Anonymous 05/24/2020 (Sun) 01:47:39 ID:069ec6 No. 10901
Read this thread, especially the bottom of it. https://endchan.net/pol/res/79824.html Then tell me why I'm wrong (in case you do not know who I am, assume I'm whoever you disagree with the most) I need some outside influence to keep my head on straight right now. Do you think Libertarians are the same as Liberals?
thucc my peenie weenie
(670.03 KB 3840x2976 helikiketarian_constitocracy.jpg)
(174.43 KB 1640x740 pinochet_zionist.jpg)
post 1
>>10903 I might be a helikiketarian, I;ve been posting here before and got banned a lot as well, now, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I will for myself: 1. I've never read most libertarian writings or publications, my philosophy is mostly self-created out of my own thinking, it was only down the line that I discovered the similarity of PARTS of my own philosophy to SELECT PIECES of the words of people like ((Ayn Rand))). This discovery was made via my conversations that I had with others on 4/pol/ and through my own investigations. From what I can see, the only contribution prior philosophers have made to my ideas is purely terminology that make it easier to convey my ideas by use a a single encapsulating word, and even then, I put my own definitions to them. To this day I am not well read on their ideas, mostly because I believe mine are better. I've changed my mind a lot of times with regard to the evidence and arguments I've encountered, and someone due to encountering a good idea or inspiration for one. So most of my philosophy comes from the mind of a gentile (typically while I am in the washroom, usually while in the shower), not from some book or movie made by a Jew. Another thing is that I hold a thought that is commonly held that the origin of minimal government is that it was among the first forms of government on human history, its existence predating that of the Jews. Jews have supported every form of political system in the past, Jewish support is not a predictor of how bad a political system is, that would be the policies themselves. Even then, if any set of policies we encounter could be reworked and modified to benefit white gentilefolk over all other peoples, instead of the other way around, there is no reason not to unless a system more beneficial to whites gentiles also exists. I think every libertarian type on /pol/ is conscious enough of the facts to make their own modifications to any libertarian ideology they may have picked up in prior. Lastly, I never came into everything claiming to be any particular ideology, I only started identifying as "libertarian" or "night-watchman state minarchist" or "national capitalist" due to the labels being placed upon me by those who i interacted with, I dint take them up with pride, I merely accepted them passively from others. 2. The idea of nation capitalism is some combination of political policies of national socialism and anarcho-capitalism. The degree from which each set of policies contributes to the ideology varies, as does the idea of which policies should be chosen from each, or how the policies should be combined. to sell us as a unified population, for which any one of us can speak for all (or even most), is unreasonable given how much internal conflict there is. One thing we can generally assume the others will find agreeable, is that national capitalism, should be a "closed borders minarchism", or a "white nationalist minarchism", (as opposed to "bitch libertarianism" or "cosmopolitan libertarianism"). A system where immigration is stopped or heavily restricted, typically with the goal of a white-dominant society (and violations of our immigration laws strongly enforced), the idea of penalizing foreign trade or use of foreign labor in order to become self-reliant, and the idea of the country not interacting with other countries in any way (no foreign aid, no more foreign wars, etc.), but to have a strong defense so that if any other country fucks with us we can retaliate to such a degree as to deter any further aggression towards our nation.
>>10904 3. There are among your side of the aisle those who've called capitalism and libertarianism worthy of destruction in the past, so why do you act like it's anything special when one of us does so? we have the shit disturbers among our own, if they even really ARE our own. Like you, we are dissident, We aren't libertarians in the same way you aren't conservatives, both of us know and accept the facts about jews, and race, and homosexuality, and history in a way that our mainstream counterparts do not, we are both pariahs from mainstream political thinking. So the powers that be could be trying to infiltrate and ruin us, or turn both of us against each other, and it wouldn't be surprising if there were attempts being made to do just that by powerful people who fear either of us getting influence. Most of the time we don't mention you, when we do, it's usually as a potential ally that we'd work with fine if they weren't so unwilling to see us as allies due to unreasonable demands for ideological purity. Only occasionally does anyone mention you as an enemy, and typically that person isn't popular, sometimes being told to shut up, there are the newbie cancer who love the idea of starting drama between us and you, but they get told to shut the hell up as well. We aren't your enemies, even if you wish to be enemies to us, if either of us wins, it's better than the status quo, both of us are pro-white, anti-jew, anti-globalism, and pro-nationalism, and this means that we wouldn't come into conflict if we both had a country. 4. Pinochet is not our Hitler, he is to us what Trump is to you, a guy who isn't /ourguy/, who's political ideas don't exactly gel with us, but who makes a significant portion of our ideological enemies furious due to winning in a place and time where they were "supposed" to lose, and with negative consequences for them, however minor they may have been. Naming ourselves "Helicoptarians" is not to indicate that we ant to replicate the reign of Pinochet, it's almost entirely to provoke the people we dislike in a way that we find fun. 5. Full disclosure: I feel confident about tat's I've posted, but I still might be wrong about all this, I'm not active in the Helicoptarian community, most of my family are liberal useful idiots ("libtards"), and none of my friends IRL are even into politics (and when they are it's usually of one of the mainstream flavors I've come to despise).
(25.43 KB 608x402 pic 1.jpg)
(685.14 KB 1899x1615 pic2.jpg)
(47.80 KB 386x358 pic3.jpg)
(144.08 KB 865x419 pic4.jpg)
(916.95 KB 1981x1108 pic5.jpg)
>>10904 >Jewish support is not a predictor of how bad a political system is >>10905 >both of us are pro-white, anti-jew Contradictory as usual. I remember you, shilling for Liberalism here in the past. Yes, you were banned here before. You not only admit you share the viewpoints of kikes, you have both claimed in the past and are claiming now that it's not a problem to do so. You also made false claims against Hitler and National Socialism. I don't know why you keep coming back. This is not a board for Libertarians. Stop taking a wrong turn and find your own pro-kiketarian IB. Libertarianism is jewish. Anarchism is jewish. Nothing promoting jewish degeneracy is allowed here. It's in bright red text at the top of the board.
>>10906 Not a contradiction. I said that jewish support is not the ultimate determinant of a bad political system, because Jews have supported every political system, including National Socialism. Will you abandon National Socialism just because Freud "fell on his knees in joy" as Hitler took power? It wasn't just him, I've seen a list of Jews who supported National Socialism before it took control of Germany, and some who even support him after he started rounding up Jews for the camps. There is a dangerous precedent that we will take any side Jews don't support, until they support it. Then subversive kikes will just have to pretend to like what we like, and we change our tune accordingly, it's a dumb standard to have. Better to find the anti-white shit and take it out of a political system (possibly replacing them with things that benefit whites), than to chuck the whole thing out. BTW, White - Gentile, don't try and pretend I'm saying that Jews are white, they are closer to Arabs on genetic and cultural basis. >2nd pic I just told you that I don't read Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederick Hayek, or take my ideas from them, he's not anyone I hold to an especially high standard, you do nothing to me by saying anything about them. Your assumption these guys are my teachers or idols only tells me that you don't know anything about me. I don't think I'd get along with them if I ever encountered them, Not only are they Jews, and thus inherently untrustworthy, but they seem very committed to principles and consistency to an overarching ideology, and very smug. I'm a pragmatist, finding the political policies that work is my MO, practicality over dogma, just as you claim to be, I've no interest in a doomsday cult that superficially agrees with me on a few of the less-important matters. BTW Stop comparing me to mainstream libertarians as well, I cut paths pretty deeply with them when I found the truth (and the truth about the truth), and you know that. cherry-picking is not nice, as is making shit up about me. >3rd pic The Murray Rothbard quote about taking the name of a group of anti-property activists and using it for a pro-property movement doesn't seem bad at all, kinda like what Hitler did in appropriating the titles and symbols of socialists and communists for an anti-socialist, anti-communist movement. It would have been bad if "the enemy" was white gentiles, but it was one of the same enemies we face, the ones who now call themselves the redundant title of anarcho-communists. where is the sinister element of this quote? Also, I came to my "libertarian" conclusions on my own around high school, I was never part of any political group or individuals, nor was I influenced by them. >4th pic I'n not a Liberal, why do you keep conflating libertarianism and liberalism? are you retarded or something? And nothing stated by that pic resembles me at all, fuck off. >5th pic Why are you so fucking stupid? I'M NOT A LIBERAL! HELL I'M NOT EVEN WHAT MOST PEOPLE CONSIDER A LIBERTARIAN TO BE! WHY CANT YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO CONFLICTING IDEOLOGIES YOU FUCKING IDIOT? Are you just trolling me now? please tell me you're just pretending to be this fucking stupid. There is no way that a significant portion of this movement was being held on an imageboard controlled by this level of moron. Please tell me this is a joke of yours that I am too autistic to understand, I'm begging you, please. If not, there is no wonder everyone jumped ship from end/pol/.
>>10905 6. My political ideas are different fundamentally from those of a lot of the people I get compared to. First example is self-interest and (((Ayn Rand))), I think in terms of genes, she does not. My first loyalty is to myself because I share 100% of my genetic material with myself, then to my family from closest relation to furthest. This leads me to white ethnocentrism because I share more in common with a white man half way across the world than I ever will with a black man living across the hall, at the very least in terms of genetics. My NAP is always defined by myself as a handy acronym to describe a system of laws based on ownership and consent, a shorthand for "most basic fundamental laws", however, I do not end my laws with the NAP, only use it as a foundation to add additional needed laws to it (such as a system of taxation, the prohibition of intellectual property, age of consent/guardianship, laws against abortion, anti-usury laws, the redefinition of lgbt as mental illness, the banning of workers unions, etc). My idea is not to eradicate the state (or the taxes that fund it), but to reduce it to it's essential functions and then ensuring it can perform those functions to it's maximum capability. Taxes are not an issue if you consider that it's paying for the land one lives on, and the protection afforded to those who reside there in the form of military, police, etc. If you put it that way, NOT paying taxes for that shit is theft.
>>10908 ...and that's the end of the conversation, I got banned and all the posts you see above got removed. I'm genuinely wondering if I was in the wrong here, and why. we are both pariahs for agreeing on the same uncommon and taboo knowledge, we both fight the same enemy (anti-white, anti-gentile), we both want and end to globalization and we both believe white gentiles are a unique and important race that has unjustly been put under attack and whose interests must be advocated for (using conservative language here). And if we can both build our own societies not only will they be guaranteed to be better than any we see in the world today, but they would be the best in the world so far, and both our political policies are compatible, so even if we were next to one another, our countries would be perfect neighbors and even allies (if we were into having allies). So why can't both our sides just get along?
>>10909 Where to fucking begin. To start with your OP, aside from being a shit slide thread, got moved because no one is interested in cross board posting. Are we really expected to go find your (now deleted) cryptic posts on end then come back here to respond? Do you think we give a shit to read your half a conservation now? Take your blog post to r/liberal or r/libertarian >Do you think Libertarians are the same as Liberals? Most here are of one fascismo stripe or another. Nationalists are oppose to libertarians because our ideology is about the needs of the many, whereas libertarians raise the value of the individual above that of the group. So, Yes as far as we are concerned you both can eat a fucking bullet As you pointed out aside from being a bad idea, Libertarianism is born of and promoted by jews >I got banned and all the posts you see above got removed. >I'm genuinely wondering if I was in the wrong here, and why. Official infographics and webms thread Anonymous 10 days ago Id: 05afc6 (8) [Preview] No. 79824 I'm starting and pinning this as the successor to the old "redpills and webms", but as you might know, The Matrix was made by the Ghost in the Shell ripping off tranny Wachowski kikes so the term "red pill" is cringe-worthy. >Scroll up and read the 4th line of the board description for a quick summary of what you should not try here. Post /pol/ related webms. Adding a message is okay but not mandatory. Or offload your infographs Top of the Board it says in big fucking red letters Insulting National Socialism or Hitler, or promoting jewish degeneracy, will result in an immediate ban
>>10911 >To start with your OP, aside from being a shit slide thread, got moved because no one is interested in cross board posting. - Fair enough >Are we really expected to go find your (now deleted) cryptic posts on end then come back here to respond? - I re-posted the entire conversation here, it;s all here, and my posts are not cryptic at all, it's that my ideology is different from those I'm being compared to in key ways, then I listed off some of those ways, and I went full disclosure on how my ideology was come up with independent of books, television, personalities, groups, etc. I just thought my whole position up by myself around high school (typically while in the shower, where I do my best thinking), and 4/pool/ was the one who pointed out my similarities. >Do you think we give a shit to read your half a conservation now? - again I posted both halves of the conversation. >Take your blog post to r/liberal or r/libertarian -Yeah, fuck those guys, remember when I said tat my ideas are different from theirs? well those differences mean they don't like me very much. I'm against globalism and in favor of strict immigration control, either making immigration "white gentiles only", or ending immigration altogether, I also came up with the concept of "reciprocal immigration" tat would even things out in the favor of whites wile showing up the "open borders" advocate's true colors, but they rejected tat as well ("muh imperialism", well, if it's imperialism when WE do it.... BANNED). I got a similar reaction to my position against foreign labor and foreign goods, I proposed to either use tariffs to disincentivise their usage, or to just cut them off altogether (possibly with the sole exception where no domestic alternative exists, and even then only until an domestic alternative is discovered) (I got a BAN for that.) . I believe that taxation isn't theft, but could be sen as paying for the objective and impartial protective services of of the government, I got a surprisingly strong push back on that too (and another BAN). I believe in ethnonationalism because my "self-interest" is defined by loyalty to one's genetics, not something that ends at oneself, but extends to every living being by way of degrees of genetic similarity. They called me a Nazi for that. I believe in racial differences and in particular those of the jews, who are a groups that operates as a parasitic organism, towards all other groups. I even pointed out the evolutionary explanations behind both. Again, I'm B& again for being a "Nazi". The liberals hate absolutely everything about me and I hate everything about them, so I have no idea why you;'d compare mew to them so damn much, they B& me ten times harder than the libertarians ever did. >As you pointed out aside from being a bad idea -how is MY political position a "bad idea"? It protects white demographics, it protects the national interest, it kicks out the subversive Jewish parasites, it restores racial self-determination, revives the economy, amputates any unnecessary part of the system prone to being infected by corruption (while at the same time removing the magnet of "gibs" and fostering a culture where people are willing to help each other), and ensures no one else can fuck with us by builing up a military and going full total annihilation on anyone who attacks us. >Libertarianism is born of and promoted by Jews Not mine, I came up with it on my own, it;s very different, and you refuse to address those differences, think of my positions as a completely different animal to be handled on it's own terms, not the terms of others. If your opposition is to the things my ideology shares in common with theirs, go ahead, we can actually make some conversation about that, but right now you are attacking me for policies I never supported, books I never read, people I've never listened to, groups I've never associated with, and just generally for things I've never said. Finally, which Jews would support MY ideas today? The Jews who created libertarianism certainly wouldn't, and the Jews of today would oppose my opinions even more strongly and harshly - I'm a "Nazi", remember? Lastly, libertarianism being borne of the Jews you cite is difficult for me to agree with because I see it as one of the first forms of government that would emerge in any people moving towards civilization, in fact, I'd say the existence of libertarian-type societies predate the very existence of Jews as a people (when they first began living in foreign lands, like Sumeria and Egypt, Greece and Rome, etc.). >I'm starting and pinning this as the successor to the old "redpills and webms", but as you might know, The Matrix was made by the Ghost in the Shell ripping off tranny Wachowski kikes so the term "red pill" is cringe-worthy. - yeah, I agree that's why I never used the term "red pill" and refuse to do so to this day. (are you implying that I've used it in the past? where?)
>Insulting National Socialism or Hitler, or promoting jewish degeneracy, will result in an immediate ban -This one I find personally insulting, I've never had anything BUT respect for Hitler and National socialist Germany, I may point out a few things about it that weren't so great (Hitler was opposed to Black/White segregation, spoke in favor of Muslims/Islam, took imagery and policies from socialist thinkers -most of whom were Jewish- though he acknowledged this as being so that he could trick or confuse his enemy, and, as the commander-in-chief of the wehrmacht, he had to be responsible for the actions of those a rank below him, regardless of any other factors. etc.), but it was a better system than anything this world has ever seen before. To fail to address the flaws of someone is not a sign of respect, it's making an idol of them and worshiping it in their place, and THAT is something disrespectful, you disrespect Hitler by ignoring him and the NSDAP by pretending it didn't actually exist (only recognizing your created Hitler and NSDAP, which never existed). I do think I could do better, but my system has never been implemented (and I've checked), so right now the only thing that came as close to the ideal mark was the NSDAP Reich. If my system is put into placer and someone else thinks they can do even better, I'd not consider it an insult to what I've achieved. I think Hitler would like me and my way of thinking better than yours (even if he may prefer your conclusions to mine), I try to lead, my ideology is almost entirely self-made, and can only be attacked by figments of my opponent's imagination, never directly, and I clearly love my volk and both recognize the threats against them, and have a plan on how to oppose them. You seem to just blindly follow, both of us love our people (or at least claim to), but you seem to have a closed mind to what is and isn't possible, so you file everything into a few categories even when they fit into them about as well as a larger square block could fit into a smaller round hole, your world is too small (at least in this respect, it's smaller then mine). What Jewish degeneracy have I even promoted? Capitalism with limitations? Well, so did Hitler! Not enforcing racial segregation from the top-down with discrimination laws, and instead promoting it from the bottom-up via legalizing discrimination? Hitler did that too! What about not deporting all non-whites by force? that's also move Hitler had made. Like Hitler, I remove the Jews from power by re-modelling the national economy and business practices (especially with regards to banking regulations and abolishing privately-run worker's unions). Like Hitler, I promote a self-reliant country rather than a "member of the global community". So yeah, I share more in common with Hitler than I think anyone would care to admit, right down to "blood and soil, honor and glory", he and I saw eye-to-eye on a multitude of issues. I don;t promote Jewish degeneracy, I remove it, I don;t insult National Socialism or Hitler, I fucking revere and emulate them, I don;t fit in with mainstream liberals or mainstream libertarians because I am, in their words, a "literal fucking Nazi. I don't belong there, and I don't belong here, so where the hell is a place for people like me on the internet? Nowhere, everyone gives me the B&hammer for being to much like another, and I imagine that this trap is one of a deliberate construction - by (((them))), wouldn't be a surprise if the idea was to keep our numbers from growing with this D&C infighting and deliberate lack of communication. But that's just me.
>>10918 >promoting jewish degeneracy Most NATSOC see Libertarianism as jewish degen It is in direct conflict with Fascism Just because you see commonalities between the two ideologies, does not mean they are equal nor compatible to most of your peers From jewpedia >Fascio (pronounced [ˈfaʃʃo]; plural fasci) is an Italian word literally meaning "a bundle" or "a sheaf", and figuratively "league", and which was used in the late 19th century to refer to political groups of many different (and sometimes opposing) orientations. A number of nationalist fasci later evolved into the 20th century Fasci movement, which became known as fascism. Origin >During the 19th century the bundle of rods, in Latin called fasces and in Italian fascio, came to symbolise strength through unity, the point being that whilst each independent rod was fragile, as a bundle they were strong. By extension, the word fascio came in modern Italian political usage to mean group, union, band or league. Where do you see the rights of the individual to do as he pleases there? To be free of Rule? Perhaps your have your own flavour you wish to promote, then you should reconsider associating yourself so closely with the term Libertarian Hitlers flavor of economy was not 'capitalism with limits' but fascism with room for individual free market at the bottom. Yes people were free to commerce but anything that was deemed essential to the volk was tightly controlled, e.g radios, gas, education etc. That model is nothing like Libertarianism in the sense that most use the term today
(16.40 KB 800x480 National Capitalism.png)
>>10919 >Most NATSOC see Libertarianism as jewish degeneracy, It is in direct conflict with Fascism. -NatSoc is not Fascism, Italian Fascism puts the state above all, while NatSoc is concerned with the good of the people. >Perhaps your have your own flavor you wish to promote, then you should reconsider associating yourself so closely with the term "Libertarian". Well the association was put on me whenever I expressed my ideas, I did not take it upon myself, eventually I stopped resisting. then I and those like myself, decided we did need a name for ourselves to distinguish ourselves from libertarians, minarchists, ancaps, and the like. We chose the name "National capitalism" because we are essentially National Socialists who've replaced the "Socialism"with "Capitalism" while maintaining the "Nationalism" that separates us from the more mainstream "Capitalists". Our flag is the same as the NSDAP, but with Yellow in place of Red. >Hitlers flavor of economy was not 'capitalism with limits' but fascism with room for individual free market at the bottom. Yes people were free to commerce but anything that was deemed essential to the volk was tightly controlled, e.g radios, gas, education etc. -okay, fair enough. He was not opposed to private ownership and enterprise like the socialists though, that's good enough for me. >That model is nothing like Libertarianism in the sense that most use the term today. -end/pol/ seems to disagree, despite my trying to tell them.
>>10919 But yeah, most degenerate libertarians are at odds with some of that shit. >Where do you see the rights of the individual to do as he pleases there? To be free of Rule? -No, I'm very opposed to granting everyone free reign to do as they please, that sounds more like DeSade and Stirner's "egoism" (individualist anarchy) than any other political system I know. I'd be willing to take my version of the NAP (ownership of person and property, informed consent as a strict requirement for interaction, and a sole exception for the enforcement of the law to the most essential degree) as a starting foundation to build from. I'd add to that guardianship/age of consent laws, laws prohibiting intellectual property and private worker's unions, as system of taxation to fund the government functions (of enforcing the law and protecting the nation - not "country", "nation" - including demographics), a system of tariffs to incentivise a reliance on local workers and local goods+services except where there are no domestic options (and then only for as long as there continues to be an absence of domestic alternatives), a complete reform of economics, business, and finance (as indicated above) to remove usury, etc. I'd remove all government besides those associated with law enforcement and national defense, this means granting everyone, individuals and businesses, the right to have full power over who they interact with and how they interact with them, the right to discriminate for any reason or none at all, the right to choose who to associate with and on what basis (who to sell to, buy from, serve, employ, live next to, etc.), the government will be blind to not the domestic distribution of demographics within it's borders, which means no integration policies or diversity initiatives. There would be no more government charity of any kind (welfare, healthcare, social security, subsidization, bailouts, etc). So the people must rely upon each other and actually show they care when they can no longer feel like they contributed enough to their countrymen merely by paying taxes. Alternatively, the government could potentially provide EVERY possible service (full on socialism), BUT the people can chose what they get by choosing what they pay for, every service may be opted out of (except those relating to law enforcement and national defense), meaning that the citizen will not receive the benefits of a service they did not pay for for the rest of the time between that taxation period and the next. I'd make laws that ban circumcision, I'd legally define life as beginning at the union of egg and sperm, "gender" as synonymous with biological sex, non-heterosexuality as mental illness (complete with a malpractice penalty on any medical professional who suggests otherwise). immigration could be (gentile) white-only (in which case, Jews and non-whites are offered incentives to emigrate and never return, even to visit, and while non-white visitation may possibly be permitted permitted, visitation terms must be strictly policed). It could be "closed-country", meaning borders that are completely closed to immigration, emigration, or visitation in either direction (no one gets in OR out, no matter the race or circumstances of the individuals involved). Or the interesting concept of "reciprocal immigration": Anyone can come in, no restrictions, no questions asked except "where did you come from?" for the purpose of placing a token on whatever country they name. BUT for every immigrant we have in our land (no matter how or why they have come to us), a token is placed on their self-identified country of origin, and at any time one of our own citizens can redeem a token to get free license to immigrate to that immigrant's claimed country of origin, we will send them over as soon as they apply, first come first serve, no restrictions, no questions asked except "where did you come from?" for the purposes of redeeming that token. Any countries who refuse a to take in and grant full citizenship to a citizen of ours bearing a token of their country will be punished, every refusal it's it's own offence and will be given it's own punishment, and the only way to rid oneself of a punishment is to take in two of our citizens for one that they had refused, our own citizens will be made aware of which countries have tokens and how many they have on them. Whatever way we handle it, we will eliminate multiple citizenship so that every must choose their allegiance to only one people, those who choose another people, will be sent over to live among them (and not us), legally registered as "defectors" (aka "traitors" barred from re-entry, perhaps uniquely). BTW, I'm working from a clean slate, so any laws or regulations not added by me are absent (and shall remain so), as I am removing the power of the government to make new laws, remove/alter existing ones, or to refuse to enforce them, they are the overseers and protectors, nothing more.
>>10921 And complete freedom of speech, expression, assembly, etc.will be achieved by barring all government interference with crimes that do not directly and physically affect the person or property of another. Most laws regarding speech begin with some "common sense" or "universally acceptable" precedent for limitations, and grow to censorious cancers from there by means of increments. Completely barring victimless crimes from being policed prevents this, and while it does not allow for the regulation of "contraband media" aka recordings of certain criminal activities, it does not mean that those activities are going to become legal as just because they are being recorded, fuck no. Speaking of criminal justice, our prison system is both more harsh and more lenient at the same time. As free will is an illusion, all criminal activity is top be considered a symptom of mental illness, and all criminals are therefore not given a set sentence in a punitive prison system, but instead are sent to a rehabilitative prison system that resembles a professional asylum, and given a sentence that lasts until they are reasonably determined to no longer be at risk of committing another criminal offense following release, and no longer a threat to themselves, others, to the property of others, or to the security of the nation. In any case where rehabilitation is determined to be impossible, the criminal is put to death by having their bodies surgically dissected while alive but under anesthesia. (You know, for donations, studies, and the like.) What else? OK, taxes, taxes are taken from everyone in the form of a flat tax every four years, plus a flat percentage on all domestic purchases of goods and services. Tariffs are taken in the form of a percentage on all imports and exports, which is charged on top of the aforementioned sales/services tax. and a Toll is collected in the form of a flat lump sum for every border crossing. since "gender" is defined as synonymous with "biological sex" trannies are defined as mentally ill, and must be treated as such by medical professionals on penalty of malpractice. Did I mention that private worker's unions are prohibited? negotiations are not collective, but between individual employees and their bosses. No one can force a worker to not go to work, and no one can punish an employer for firing an employee at any time and for any reason that they so choose (including for no reason at all). I also want to introduce a lot of laws regarding the construction and design of washrooms, both private and public, and to make clear that the government will use it's full power to enforce the terms of any contract to the letter, and the breach of contract is an offence punished with imprisonment. the government is solely concerned with people, animals get no protections, and aside from harshly punishing any sexual activity involving children and child sexual abuse (children = all who are under the age of consent), and the enforcement of laws against indecent exposure (of anywhere around the pubic area - such as the genitalia, buttock area - such as the anus, ans generally speaking the entire hipbone area into which the aforementioned falls into, etc. and a possible ban on the public exposure of female and male breasts), public indecency (for example, twerking in public, being disorderly in public, etc.), and sexual activity in a public space (including clothed activity such as dry humping), it will not be concerned with policing sexual activity. marriage is not an officially recognized concept, but merely just another private contract between individuals, the terms of which will be enforced by the state. laws will also exist against the public use of recreational drugs of any sort (including alcohol and tobacco), stalking or harassment (determined by the violation of legal separation orders), etc. there are a lot of things restricting behavior in my system, it's pretty free, but not utter chaos, those who fail are not given aid, those who succeed are not punished for doing so. Let things emerge as they will, while the government merely protects the people it is meant to serve, having been forbidden to do otherwise.
>>10920 >>10920 >He was not opposed to private ownership and enterprise like the socialists though But he was opposed to private ownership and enterprise when it was in conflict "of the people", your model makes no mention of that, likewise you want to end all social programs, another slap in the face to NATSOC, it should not be any wonder why end/pol didn't want anything to do with you >end/pol/ seems to disagree, despite my trying to tell them. I guess I wasn't clear, Hitlers fascism wasn't anything akin to the libertarianism you are suggesting "The Nazi Economy" https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ld8fxzEXZ2Qz/[Embed] >>>/library/480 >>>/library/481
>>10925 >But he was opposed to private ownership and enterprise when it was in conflict "of the people", your model makes no mention of that. - I don't need to, my argument isn't "my system is just like National Socialism", that would be retarded, my argument is "my system has similarities with National Socialism". such as "no blanket ban on private ownership and enterprise like the Socialists advocate for", the fact that Hitler put SOME restrictions on the private economy and that mine places far less (as you could see, I do indeed include some of them myself), fits my argument because the Socialists want NO economic freedoms for the private sector of society (as it is "exploitation" which produces inequality, the worst thing EVAR in their eyes). >likewise you want to end all social programs, another slap in the face to NATSOC - not a "slap in the face to National Socialism", more like "not like National Socialism". I don't think that Hitler would hate a society like mine nearly as much as you do, sure, it;s "Capitalism" but it's definitely not "Jewish Capitalism", just as his "Socialism" was not "Jewish Socialism", this guy could chill with the Niggers, Japs, 'Rabs, and Wops, surely he could set aside his beef with my kind. He was just that kind of guy, a pretty nice dude, my dude. His beef was with injustice, and with the way the lying, cheating, manipulative, Jewish parasites had oppressed the Gentiles, and he didn't like faggotry or the degeneracy that was cabaret and the Wiemar red light culture, and neither do I, he wanted to use state power to stamp it out, and I just think that the self-destructive nature of it all would mean that all; we have to do is not give it any support or aid when the inevitable consequences hit.
>>10931 Now, I'm not "against private social programs", only government charity where donations are obligated and the services are as well, a drain on the productive for the sake of those whom they will care to help (well, I'm going to make them care by making "the public good" into a personal affair). We all know that a "count-on-it" social safety net is dysgenic, and I think it remains so even when managed with eugenics in mind, even with modern science humans have difficulty predicting human genetic potential, and a system where we don't have to for genetic potential's selection to be promoted is already available, "a tree shall be judged by it's fruit", "the proof is in the pudding", "the results speak for themselves", the best way for human potential to be selected for, is for it to be given the opportunity to select for itself. True genetic health of a population is emergent, it comes from the cumulative effect of individual actions and the full scale of their consequences, time and time again, the best of gentile whites emerges dominant when everyone is playing by the exact same set of rules, and no one is obligated to rescue the losers from the results of their misplays. you think I care not for the collective? I'm building this all up with the collective in the foremost of my mind! like I said, I'm not like (((Ayn Rand))), my loyalty is to the best genes, not to the best individuals. Without a government role in social programs, social programs and charities will not simply cease to exist, on the contrary, there will be more of them and each will be superior in quality to the "public option". They will become business, and be run in such a fashion, and be more efficient for it due to market selection. People will be affected psychologically, they will become better neighbors, more willing to help one another, because they know that their taxes will not be doing it for them any longer, charity becomes a matter of personal responsibility, and so does being the type of person who can respect themselves. I'm not interested in creating a society of degenerates and selfish assholes, I see my policies as ensuring that such a society will not emerge, because of the lasting lessons that history will take from the long-term effects of my political build. I've learned my lessons from experience better than any other teacher, suffering the results of my choices and mistakes was the ultimate motivator to self-improvement. I've taken Hitler's essential philosophy and applied it to the modern world, I've exaggerated parts of it and made it more influential in the political sphere. I don't just want to enforce a return to traditional life, I want a return to traditional values to make the best case for itself, by allowing the flaws in every other way to show themselves in all their hideous glory, simply by removing the protections afforded to those who are harmed by these so-called "alternative lifestyles". I want my legacy to be left in the hearts and minds of everyone, present and future, for the truth to demonstrate itself so that NO ONE would ever think to question it again. the eternal record of the internet, where every single detail is logged, will be the lasting testament that solidifies the fate of the white gentile race, no one will question without immediate comparisons and the accompanying mockery. it's revenge and rapture all in one, that is why social programs must become a matter of private enterprise and not of the public dime.>>10931
>>10932 Whatever, don't care. Still sounds pretty jewish
>>10933 Actually, you seem mighty Jewish right now. How'd you get the image made so fast? What agency do you work for?
>>10934 >how to edit saved pic?
I don't like mainstream libertarians who talk about "nazis" in the negative, and think they are rebelling against anything. I really get mad whenever I see it happen, and it happens all. the. fucking. time. National Capitalism is not Libertarianism in the same way National Socialism is not "Right-Wing/Conservatism". Doesn't stop us from being conflated. though, even is dissident pro-white circles that go through the equivalent of the same thing.
>>10935 Yeah, I know how you did it, why did you get the template up and edited so quickly? Was there some "call the guy a jew" folder already open or something? - and what was the original template like? A "nazi is a jew" pic where you swapped the colors? Seems suspicious is all...
>>10937 >Was there some "call the guy a jew" folder already open or something? >pol/subversion To be clear I'm not calling you a jew, I just thought the image was fitting to my position. You know, as well as anyone here, jews have worked from the inside of every movement to subvert it. That goes for libertarianism as well, as in most iterations of the ideology it is a jews wet dream
>>10941 Unfortunately, the same went for National Socialism, until Hitler kicked the Bolsheviks out of the party (based).
>>10941 Ok, so I'm going to make my response much shorter than what it originally was. I sincerely apologize for jumping to conclusions regarding you pic and you personally, please forgive me for my mistake.
(35.98 KB 800x450 hitler.jpg)
>>10954 No worries, too often we all (myself included) resort to calling each other jews and/or glowniggers. Not only is this a weak argument, it does nothing but foment distrust and toxicity for the board in general. As to your political theory, I was nearly bitten by the libertarian bug years ago, and saw a lot of valid arguments for the model, but personally I just think we got into our present day mess by having too many freedoms and feel a more authoritarian political solution is needed. Of course with such a model you need the right leader, but it is a risk I'm willing to take should the right figure come along. In the end I think we can both take comfort in knowing that neither of our ideas are likely to unseat Zog. They will simply use aspects of both models to obtain more power and more money.
>>10957 yeah, check out my other thread for the part of this discussion you are missing out on: https://16chan.xyz/pol/res/27883.html as for the "libertarian bug", I really think my system is pretty authoritarian: 1. the people and their leaders cannot change the law even in minutia, and cannot simply ignore it without severe punishment, either, they may only enforce what is already there. 2. punishment is both more lenient and harsher, because it's dependent upon the individuals who commit crimes, rather than the crimes themselves, some get out very shortly upon entering, others spend the rest of their lives in there, and yet others are put to death in a public and grotesque fashion. I went the opposite direction, I used to be full-on NatSoc, then became more libertarian as I saw the value in "bottom-up eugenics", I never went full libertarian, but I used to be totally Authoritarian, National Socialist. What changed was a lot of talking to people on various /pol/ boards, and some meditative thinking done in the shower. I became NatSoc when I was first into politics, first due to edgyness, then due to actual research, and reading some books, I thought it was the ultimate system of government, not only were the policies so very new and innovative, but why else would the world conspire to destroy it? Then eventually, as I got older, things played out as I described above in this thread, I've decided that full-on libertarian thinkers are wrong on a lot of things the NatSocs got right, but right on a lot of thing the NatSocs got wrong. So, I thought about this for myself, integrated what I liked most about both systems (due to the evidence/arguments I had encountered on both ends) into my personal philosophy. I even made some of the more abstract ideas my own, the midpoint between loyalty to the volk and loyalty to oneself is loyalty to ones genetics, not only does it establish a firm hierarchy, it's not completely selfish on an individualist's hedonistic level, but it also allows me to see that the needs of me and my family are met before my race, and the to those outside of that circle, who are also neatly categorized by moral priority.
>>10961 I don't have to be heartless, I just have no know who's side I would take in any conflict that could not be resolved in a mutually agreeable manner, and even then, I won't need to any more callous (to anyone) than I absolutely have to be. It's a big damn world, not a small one, more than enough dirt for everyone, and even when that dirt runs out, we have a whole universe of dirt to go around, so everyone gets to have a place of their own. > my former self would hate me for saying a lot of that shit, but it's what I believe in now. A race war is unnecessary bloodshed that just results in pointless pain for everyone, it should not have ever been a possibility or option, all these conflicts could have been resolved in a peaceful manner, and maybe they still can, hopefully. But if a fight is inevitable and forced upon me, and I have no way to avoid getting involved in it's wake, I will take the side of my genetics, placing those who share more of it with me over those who share less, myself, then my family, extending outwards, until it covers all the life of this planet, neatly fitting them all into different levels of moral importance to myself in directly proportion tot the degree of their genetic similarity to myself.
>>10925 >the vast sea of grey it's like asmr. AHHHHHHHHHHH.
>>10920 yes it is, just highly specialized and modified
>>11017 just found the image
>>10901 original libertarianism has its foundations in liberalism and socialism. that's not to say libertarianism and nazism are dissimilar, unless you are referring to the modern colloquial version of libertarianism


no cookies?