lol
Libertarian white nationalism
Ethan Wood
Brandon Lopez
there is no plan
our strength is in our chaos
Isaac Rodriguez
What is dead may never die
Jack Barnes
you can't win a fight with a corpse
Jaxson Carter
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.
Robert Reyes
Jose Russell
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.
James Sanchez
Angel Barnes
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.
Christopher Bennett
so close