via right to discrimination, freedom of disassociation, and prohibition on "diversifying" areas which are "too white" - basically segregation without the discrimination being compulsory, add to that a complete cutting of government services except for justice and defense.
results in racially homogeneous areas naturally emerging and maintaining themselves out of individual choices, allows for "diverse" areas for those who prefer them, requires least government intervention, least likelihood of war, technically, no borders redrawn, no land is given up.
vs
borders are redrawn, existing countries are balkanized into new, racially homogenous countries with laws that ensure the demography remains white.
allows whites political agency, allows whites to possibly build up power enough to take back lost territory in the future, ensures higher quality whites are chosen over lower quality whites, may require a war.
vs.
a constantly expanding white imperium, either permanently subjugating or exterminating all other races in order to claim a white ruled planet, embraces war.
eliminates all possible future threats to our race (especially the future generations who go soft from comfort), all planet's territory and resources go to the whites, maximum white dominance, white agency, conquest of japs may upset white weebs.
vs.
oppressed whites the world over all flee to newly established white ethnostate, ethnostate has no non-white immigration, no non-white visitation, not even deportations are enough, instead is on full aggro, has a shoot on sight policy regarding non-whites attempting entry, no interaction with the outside world except to welcome in genetically-vetted whites.
like secession but with total surrender of previous territories for the hopes of a new colony, follows in the shoes of the american founders, interesting to watch the old world burn in comparison to a country that started from fresh (especially how they'll try to blame their failures on the whites who literally gave them everything they had), can be achieved by literally creating a new mass of land to settle on (which is kinda cool), creating a colony in the deep (even cooler), or creating a colony on another planet (the coolest), option most resistant to future subversion (because they simply wont be able to get in), the most isolationist route.
Libertarian white nationalism
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Nah dude, just screech about hitler and the jews. That will fix stuff!
There are many anons on Zig Forums who fit the first, second and fourth category. I'm not sure for the third one.
This is a NatSoc board.
libertarian white nationalism is the way to go but there's just one issue
no, it needs to be unconstitutional to do so because to bring in nonwhites is to bring in the very parasites that would destroy libertarianism. You must restrict certain freedoms like muh multiethnic neighborhood for profit and muh immigration if i vote for it. The punishment needs to be death for shit like this otherwise there will be a point in the future when our modern day disaster repeats itself.
White NatSoc reporting in
You forgot the ultimate form of nationalism, ETHNO-GLOBE.
I can't think of a more heinous violation of the "NAP" than harboring, aiding, cultivating, or dispensing niggers or jews.
whats the difference between that and number 3?
what's the natsoc approach?
if it's "ethnically cleanse and create ethnic borders" you will have to take over the government to achieve this, how do you think that can be done? will anyone vote for the natsoc candidate of a natsoc party? will you forego (((democracy))) and simply stage a coup once numbers get large enough?
The reason I started this thread is because we a plan, we need to all be aware of what the plan is, what it's goals are, and what we need to do to get there.
lol
there is no plan
our strength is in our chaos
What is dead may never die
you can't win a fight with a corpse
this is our plan: wait for an opportunity, then decide what to do with it.
As for for what our end goal is, we will keep electing candidates who are more in line with our liking while awakening white people to the threats facing our race, and instilling in them the sense that our race is worth fighting for, eventually, we will have redpilled candidates who will think they have a chance of winning on a natsoc platform, and a population that will openly support voting for them, and for natsoc policies. It's all about changing the culture, and we are doing it one meme at a time, look at this next generation, many are simply conservatives, but a few of them are future natsocs that will protect whites in the future, their votes will matter, because even though whites will be a minority by the time they can vote, and even though the government will be more prepared to stop them from having any sort of influence, this generation will be savvy enough to make their voices count more than the majority in the political process.
You can't be both an individualist and a collectivist. If you believe the collective is more important than the individual, you believe the health of collective is more important than that of the individual. You also believe that the health of the collective is more important than individual freedom. If you believe the individual is more important than the group, you have no sound argument against threats to the group like feminism, communism, gayism, etc. as they are beliefs held by individuals themselves. Collectivism is not compatible with the concept of absolute/true Libertarian individual liberty, and vice versa.
Libertarianism destroys group integrity with its idea of free-trade, which necessarily includes the free movement of people itself. You can't have free trade without the free movement of people from various nations. Even Mises himself admits this. Karl Marx himself supported free-trade because of this. It breaks down national identity and mixes nations.
The idea of anti-protectionism is just as dangerous. Modern analysis has shown that Ricardian comparative advantage applied in the real world results in countries experiencing net losses in wealth because in reality, we have finite resources and abilities. If you have only diamond and silk manufacturing and nothing else, and you export silk manufacturing to China, you have diamonds left but nothing else. You can't just magically replace silk with something. In reality, everything is finite.
In reality, Libertarianism is based on outdated economic ideas (not scientific) that were conceived by Jews looking for a global, borderless economy. It's globalist nonsense and in reality is about as viable as communism.
Libertarianism is for LARPers and losers.
Go back to making love to your Asian girlfriends.
wew lad
It is much easier to corrupt and subvert a single group than it is to corrupt or subvert many individuals. And feminism, communism, etc. are all group-based ideologies, so they have the same weaknesses as all other group based ideologies. (Infighting, virtue signalling, purity spiraling, fuzzy definitions, susceptibility to subversion…)
Also if you're saying you think the only possible arguments against feminism and communism are "They're bad for groups!" then… I don't believe you. You're too articulate not to see the flaws in those ideologies and be able to argue against them — regardless of if you're an individualist or a collectivist. (To be honest I'd guess groupthink would make you less likely to think and argue well.)
The idea that the individual person does not matter is a dangerous one, and I doubt even you believe that. Otherwise you'd be totally on board with soulless "onry the group matters" asian bugman ideologies like communism.
The reason threats to the group are threats is because they're dangerous to individuals. You need individuals to go against the grain. To rebel. Otherwise Zig Forums wouldn't exist.
Individualism, by the way, isn't about individual degeneracy and chaos. It's about individual responsibility. To be totally in control of yourself means you have no other master — you are solely responsible for your life. And therefore since you are beholden to no-one, you are free. There is no liberty without self-responsibility. They are one and the same. And isn't the right all about self-responsibility? About taking ownership of yourself? About being a strong person?
Fascism and other sects of the political right aren't about "oh don't worry about individual responsibility, the group/collective will take care of it!" It's more like the complete opposite.
Just imagine if individualism were good for civilization. If you pretend for a moment that strong, independent individuals are the key to society… then hypothetically we should focus on what's best for the individual, right? That would make sense. Well, all the data points to stable nuclear families being the most important thing in creating healthy individuals.
That's indisputably good for society whether you're an individualist of a collectivist. Both natsocs and lolbergs can agree on the primacy of the family unit. So there is some overlap. A lot, actually.
You see, user, the ideal society is not a flock of sheep… but a flock of shepherds.
so close
You'd think so buuuuut
prepare to get molested after i finish work
P-please be gentle user
If a state was weak enough to be unable to stop its dissolution, why would you not just take over the entire thing?
how is that stuff libertarian?
also vid sort of related, but not really.
lrn2 Hans-Hermann Hoppe
it's impossible to say at this time. we will chose whatever path is most realistic once the opportunity arises. if you're asking about a preference, I like the hoppe school of thought the best. it probably won't be as black and white as you say though.
en.wikipedia.org
it would make sense, i'll give you that. but it would make sense as much as it "made sense" endorsing first wave feminism: yeah, women are still women and supposed to act as such, just with the unearned, because especially where it was a reward for military service, that was completely unfair right to vote.
it's just a statist slippery slope. just like the basic premise of first wave feminism taken further would give birth to second and third wave.
so admitting that a man is not just a man, an individual but part of a community, and that said community has rights on its own and is by all standards an actor of sort, will eventually "devolve" into a state. administrated with classical liberal principles with a few personalized caveats.
i could live with that. but you know that modern western states would never allow that.
as you know that you will never find a following big enough to impose that system. neither with votes, nor with force.
I think giving men the vote was a mistake. It never should have gone beyond landowners. And I'd say it should only be landowning nuclear families that get a vote tbh. Almost like a HOA.
And yes, it might devolve into something loosely resembling a state… but it would be voluntary. Big difference. I think you're probably right about it not happening anytime soon… but, on the other hand, it kinda happened in 1776… and that birthed the greatest civilization the world has ever known. So maybe if we wake up, we can return to our philosophical roots.
I hope one day we can be truly civilized… Because only then will we be truly free.
Okay, just see the attached pic. Marx loved free trade.
While this generally is true, it is also true that cohesive groups that work together are harder to defeat than groups of people who don't work together well. That is why the army rigorously trains people to follow the orders of the leader and to work together as a unit. A divided group is much easier to defeat, as any reader of Sun Tzu could tell you.
Also, compared to other periods of time which weren't individualistic, our hyper-individualistic age has, unquestionably, the greatest amount of subverted and corrupted people. And when you compare individualistic countries to collectivist ones like Hungary and Poland and China and Japan, you find that they are much stronger than any individualistic country. Thus, while your claim is generally true, we find it doesn't apply in reality to actual nations. And, in fact, it indeed appears the opposite is true.
I never said that and I never implied that. If in doubt, go back and re-read.
While this is true, no one ever said the individual does not exist. My position is that the group matters more and is more important and therefore it should come first.
The group is more important than individuals themselves. A few individuals can die and the group can survive but if the group dies, there are no more individuals. Therefore, if you respect individuality, you should value the survival of the group more than the concept of individuality.
Individualism is the idea the individual and his freedom is more important than the group. It favours the choice and desire of the individual over what's good for the group. If an individual wants to go out and take drugs and spread diseases around, that's considered okay because that's what the individual wants and it makes him happy. It isn't necessarily about individual degeneracy and chaos, but that's the natural result. For proof, look no further than any Western city which are products of individualism.
You owe your existence and individuality to the group. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't either. And, your ability to walk around safe and have stability is thanks to your fellow men who help protect society. Although that is less and less the case, it was especially true in the days of yore where you literally depended on your group for survival and protection from enemy tribes.
Except it's not. Today's utter degeneracy that can be found in every scum pipe Western city is a product of individualism.
Libertarian is best.
This is not achieved by government prohibition, but by basic property rights.
Huh. I guess you were right about Marx being "pro free trade". Free trade still doesn't mean open borders though. You can make a trade deal with China without being flooded with chinks. I will, however, concede that "free trade" is often used as justification for open borders and other NWO/ZOG garbage — case in point: the TPP and the EU.
You make some good points, user. I don't think your original claim that you can't be both an individualist and a collectivist is correct. It kind of looks like you must be BOTH an individualist and a collectivist. It seems more like you're arguing for a balance to be struck between the two extremes, and I agree.
My main qualm is that I despise the idea of government mandated collectivism. I think that the forcing together of groups by government decree is… Anathema to a healthy society. Even if you're gonna go full 14/88, the Third Reich had a natural cohesion and shared identity that wasn't forced by the government.
Now, even though I probably lean a bit more towards individualism than you, but I think we mostly meet in the middle. Pure individualism equals chaos and pure collectivism equals tyranny, so balancing the two creates order.
The only part of your post I think is bullshit is
Never said that.
Go read Ludwig von Mises. Free trade necessarily includes the free movement of people. Any Libertarian economist will admit this.
I meant in the absolute sense. You can be an individualist in a general/loose sense but still be a collectivist. Please don't misrepresent my arguments.
Which I never argued for.
I agree. And in a healthy nation without Jews running 24/7 anti-white propaganda, you wouldn't need to force anything because people are naturally tribalistic. However, I think force may be necessary for a brief period in the future because people are so utterly brainwashed to be anti-white and anti-nation. We might need to force them to be compliant if we are to survive.
Yes, tao in everything.
I approach arguments like a boxing match; I don't participate to be compliant but to win.
You should participate in arguments not to win, but to learn.
Hard to learn when you know everything :^)
wat
Also, how can I misrepresent
by saying
Bruh. "You can't be both an individualist and a collectivist" is literally the first sentence you wrote in your first post in this thread. Don't blame me for your lack of nuance.
I like arguing too. But the thing is, I can't lose. Not because I always win… Not because I already know everything… but because I will only lose an argument if I am wrong. And when I discover how I'm wrong, I learn something. If I win, I win an argument. But if I lose, I win a piece of knowledge.
PS how's part 2 coming
Open borders means letting everyone in. With free trade, you don't have to let everyone in, but where capital and companies go, so do the people associated with them. And when those people, who are generally men, return home, they often bring wives back with them. Americans in Japan are a great example of this. It destroys culture and nations.
And that is an absolute claim. Absolute Individualism and Collectivism contradict each other.
You read it before. I don't have many disagreements with you.
Oh, okay. Yeah, we do mostly agree. We're just stubborn about it lol.
Anyway be careful out there. When you protect yourself from being wrong, you also protect yourself from learning.
Goodnight user.
You too, fam.
Also, thanks for the chat. It feels like early days here again.
Yeah I mean the Muslims are so evil.
We should help the poor Jews fight them RIGHT?
Just like the Zoroastrians helped the jews escape Egypt a long time ago!
Or like how the Christians suddenly launched their crusades to "liberate" the land where muslims got from the the poor jews.
Libertarianism inevitably leads to Bolshevism.
Now you know.
not even once fucking jew piece of sand shit god worshipping kid dick sucking kike
The solution to that is to have smaller, more local governments. Instead of having a large federal government like in the US, where citizens from all over vote on policies that effect citizens from all over, most issues would be local. The federal government would only fulfill the most basic roles of a government, and leave all else to the smaller local communities. This way, a community of blacks does not vote to take rights away from a separate community of whites or some other group. Any community that allows multiculturalism is responsible for any consequence it may have without burdening another community with their decision.
The solution to that is to have smaller, more local governments. Instead of having a large federal government like in the US, where citizens from all over vote on policies that effect citizens from all over, most issues would be local. The federal government would only fulfill the most basic roles of a government, and leave all else to the smaller local communities. This way, a community of blacks does not vote to take rights away from a separate community of whites or some other group. Any community that allows multiculturalism is responsible for any consequence it may have without burdening another community with their decision.
This is a false dichotomy. Individuals can identify with something shared (like race) and voluntarily act together without being coerced to do so. I care about the white race, but I also care about having freedom. Libertarianism is not atomized individualism, but rather the freedom for groups to assemble as they please. If (for some reason) I wanted to work with a nig, I could do so. It'd probably lead to me being less successful, but that'd be on me for choosing to work that way. This allows for natural inequality to promote competition and forces the best ideas to the top.
Not sure why the first part double posted, I should probably stop being a filthy phoneposter. But I just finished reading the rest of this thread and think most of us are on the same page.