Is it necessary to give up human rights to fight degeneracy/protect the race...

Is it necessary to give up human rights to fight degeneracy/protect the race? NatSoc fights degeneracy/protects the race, but you were liable to be put in prison or even killed by the government if you pissed it off. No the holohoax didnt happen but you can't deny NatSoc killed and imprisoned its opponents. Is there a way to fight degeneracy/protect the race while still protecting the right to a fair trial and the right to live without threats from government?

Attached: 1200px-Flag_of_the_German_Reich_(1935–1945).svg.png (1200x720, 19.92K)

Human rights only apply to humans. Shitskins, niggers and chinks need not apply.

National socialism is against animal abuse though.

They're invasive species, so it's okay.

National Socialism, or any form of Socialism in that sense, only applies to the people within that nation. And the people within our nation will not be Africans, Middle-Easterns, or Asians.

If immigration is sane, and the only people from other nations that come over are those that truly value our traditions and people, then that should be fine. It is good to very slowly allow races to intermingle slightly, so that we get fresh blood and fresh genetics into our nation. But this is the sort of thing that should be one immigrant per 10,000 of our own people.

As for human rights? It is the same with gay people. If there is no pro-homosexual propaganda, then there will be very few gay people or transgender people. They will simply live their life, and if left alone, they will never need to go on a protest or parade, and they can live quietly and then die without breeding, to be ended naturally forever. This means there will be no violence or oppression.

We are intelligent, so we think in terms of 100+ year periods. That means that a few gays or immigrants every now and then will not cause any actual problems. Same with drugs even. Alcohol, cannabis, psychedelics, all of that should be fine: In extremely low numbers, and if never made into propaganda. They should be unpopular things that only people who actually seek it out should do. It should never be offered, never be in popular stores, and should always be kept away from children.

Anything that we consider bad is likely perfectly fine and good, and can lead to wisdom and new perspectives, if kept at a low level.

But if these things that we consider bad become popular or made into propaganda meant to tempt people away from a benevolent, good lifestyle, then our nation will surely fall and we as a people will die forever.

That is the difference between a strong nation guarded by a proper father, or fuhrer, and a nation that is ruled by a tyrant, even if they are trying to be benevolent, and of course, a nation that is ruled by a tyrant trying to corrupt its people and destroy its very blood.

One is good, one is neutral, and one is simply bad.

I prefer the good one, so that our people can have our freedom, but never be unaware of what the more proper and popular path is.

As morbid as it may be for you to realize this, but that is why they used gas. There are more efficient ways of killing people.

human rights are a meme invented by kikes
they don't exist
Will to power, bitch

Epic bluepill, fellow Reddipede.

t. filthy kike

If this is the only place we can talk about NS seriously, and this is the quality of our discourse, it's no wonder we are going nowhere

A racket. There are only rights given to you by God, and no human can redefine or rob you of these rights. Those rights are part of Natural Law.

Lurk 2 years.

Attached: logistically impossible.png (853x1432 119.25 KB, 105.94K)

Human rights are social construct.

Attached: 4235345.png (579x909, 60.94K)

Define human rights in practical terms, what rights should people have ?
The German government had the rule of law and a court system, although this didn't often extent to all of the occupied countries where things were more complex due to the war.
honestly do a bit more research before making a thread, give specific examples.

Also, in terms of fighting degeneracy w/o govt. It's honestly completely unrealistic to expect us to come to any government power in our lives. It's more reasonable we fight our struggle through other means that pure government power, to adopt these principles for our lives and form organizations and parallel social groups outside the government.

Attached: empathy.png (1189x456, 185.45K)


Your invisible friend is a racket. Rights come from people and violence. Natural law means whatever the humans in charge say it means.

Decadence and degeneracy are the wages of the state. The state desires to replace religion, so that believers won't find the justification to overthrow them; it uses legislation and taxation to liberate sex because the state is in direct competition with productive men, whose motivation is finding a fit mate and producing offspring. Giving men free sex divorced from morality by way of birth control, abortion, legislation of marriage and divorce, the state takes most fighting age men who could resist it out of the equation. By promoting feminism and women in the work place, the state is able to remove women from the home, making the lives of workers mind-breaking and stressful with no relief, cutting wages and salaries in half now that twice as many people are working, forcing men and women to turn to opioids, painkillers, anti-depressants, and suicide because the natural order has been replaced by the state-run economy. Government schools reject any notion of engaging with children intellectually, and parents are too busy working to pay adequate attention to them, so children are taught how to be cogs in the machine and turn to alcoholism, drug abuse, and endless sex for pleasure because they have no goals and no future, only the present in which to live.

The idea that a state can be crafted which promotes morality is an idyllic phantom. Even when founded with the best intentions, the state has a greater incentive to promote degeneracy than to fight it. Degeneracy makes the state powerful. Witness the increase in the power and spending of the governments of Europe and the United States, and witness how the most powerful politicians in those states are the 'progressives'–it's no coincidence.

The majority of people WANT things they shouldn't. For some it is illogical, but pleasurable, to eat unhealthy foods, to play video games for 10 hours straight, to have casual sex and never make a family. But in a free society, social barriers prevent people from living this kind of lifestyle. Eating unhealthily is punished with higher healthcare costs, leisure must be balanced with labor, and promiscuity is punished with unwanted pregnancies. The state is incentivized to use these things against the masses, to control them with their illogical desires: subsidized or free healthcare for the gluttonous, welfare for the slothful, child support and food stamps for the single mothers.

Expanding the government and controlling citizens is illusory, because larger states promote degeneracy, they don't suppress it. Degeneracy is a prerequisite to the expansion of state power because men's vices are their source of influence.

There are no inherent "human rights". Rights exist only within the context of a community. A community affords one another "rights" because they care about the prosperity of others in that community. If you are interested in the topic, I recommend reading "Beyond Human rights" by Alain de Benoist.

Altruism (kin selection) is a highly adaptive (evolutionarily advantageous) strategy. Essentially, a population contains a highly similar set of genes; if your progeny reproduce it almost as good as if you yourself reproduced, if a family member reproduces it is almost as good as your progeny reproducing, if your folk reproduce it is almost as good as your family reproducing. You genes are a subset and instantiation of the limited selection of genes in your population, and populations with genes promoting altruistic behaviour towards your kin result in the population being more likely to survive and pass on your collective shared genes. Empirically observed scenarios and game-theory models have demonstrated that 3 other behavioural types (no altruism, universally applied altruism, and traitorism) are less adaptive than than kin selection: moral code is essentially biological.

The text below is quoted from Rushton, J. P. (1998). Genetic similarity theory, ethnocentrism, and group selection.

The Paradox of Altruism

it ensures the survival of common genes because, by common descent, it shares 50 percent of its distinct genes with each sibling and 25 percent with each sibling's offspring.

Attached: Global_10_3D.png (324x499 66.95 KB, 23.44K)

Are you actually incapable of making an intelligent or coherent post? What you've typed is not even a valid form of communication. It's quite literally a robotic response, a thoughtless ejection of the lowest common denominator, least requiring-of-effort, most instinctive slew imaginable. Speech is a language game and you are failing to play. You truly are a cog. Of course you wouldn't comprehend an abstract concept like rights, because possessing rights requires a conscience, and you've already demonstrated that you are not sapient enough to exist on that plane. A philosophical zombie, walking with no living intelligence to control it.

Your move, bluepillanon.

It's simple really. Degenerates and shitskins don't have human rights, because they aren't human.

Ah, another philosophical zombie.

You are more likely to be the one who is not True Humanity.

The truth is that humans really do come in all colors. Yes, Africans are humans, and so are Jews.

The issue is that they ought to remain in their lands. Do not mistake an invasion for the nullification of their humanity. An African will do best in Africa. They will not get sunburned, and they do not need to deal with the winter.

For us Aryans, the winter harvest is a harvest of the weak: The weak will turn into ice statues. That is the darkest truth, and that is why the trucks come by, filled with frozen Middle-Easterns on the days that Sweden is the coldest.

And we'd be sunburned if we go south. So it works for us both if we stick to where we ought to be. And yes, even the people you don't like, such as gays, atheists, or whatever else your degenerate mind doesn't personally agree with, are actually human.

These are all humans, and a thing that calls humans its enemy is not human. You are the one who is not human, in that case.

No. Shut up commie.

Sry didn't finish reading your post. Maybe you're not a commie.

Nice textwall, shlomo.

Human rights for "Whites" (read: non-jewish White Caucasians of Euro-descent. read: not anglo-kikes or any other mutt with tainted jew blood), can only exist in White societies, with White Homogeneity, White culture and a White ethos. Other cultures can make their own "manifest destination" according to their visions, but first they have to learn to create sustainable societies for themselves. For 1000's of years they've failed w/exception only to China.
Any group that has over-populated themselves into poverty, and procreated with no concept of how to afford their small families of 20 or so people, does not value human life as a product of progeny which will add value to the whole.
Human lives are like dollars. The more there are, the less value each has

They are an enemy because they are human. If they were a lion or a moose they would not be competition and they would not have the capacity to compete with us for resources or harm the globe. Just because they are low iq doesn't mean they can't use language and tools and fire and impact their environment.

Global resources like air/water quality, or ocean fish populations can be impacted by people on other continents. The massive amount of garbage, agricultural runoff, industrial waste, and other crap pumped into rivers and ultimately the ocean from mainland Asia makes them a major global hazard. Likewise, commercial fishing from South America and Asia are massive biological threats.

They are an enemy, but not in the sense of "The Enemy."

They are competitors, so yes, we do need to drive them out. But again, that's not the same as what the other user said, about them not being human.

If we fight them, we fight them with law and honorable war.
It is best to deport them back to their proper home. That is just how it is.

I read just a recent thread about how the Jews decided that the best way to defeat Germany was to ban exports/imports.

Well, just stop selling products to people that need to leave, and they will go home. If it is fair for Jews to do, then it's fair for us to do.

Well, we already knew that. Go back to cuckchan.

Why would you fight degeneracy? Most degenerates aren't concerned with procreating, usually they're against it. Let them hinder themselves in the foot eventually they will die off.

And if you don't believe that then think about this. The only people who they will justify putting in rockets and sending to other planets is highly educated (and usually highly morale) people. This means the only culture leaving the atmosphere is an intelligent and dignified one.

Rockets n shit will send smart people to other planets. Badda-Bing Badda-boom.

Let them shoot themselves in the foot.

I'd ask for a code switch but that's what you lot haven't got. So take it as a reassurance instead: the pathetic fear of san notionalism isn't needed.

There is literally no upside to allowing any racially foreign immigration.
I don't care if they are "le based nonwhite" or not.
All admixture does is stunt the evolutionary process.
Lolberg confirmed.

so convert the people. People ensure rights, governments don't. Technically the gov't must protect everyone's freedom of speech in America, but if you lose your job and get deplatformed, how does that society have free speech? It's the society admitting that "yes we have to technically respect this older law, but we can circumvent the principle of the law in several ways to ignore your rights". For this reason, you must convert the people.

Corporations and governments benefit from one another. The corporations can rely on the government to achieve things a private company legally cannot, and the government can rely on the corporation to violate citizens' rights where a government is legally not allowed to. For example, social media companies are spy networks that log everybody's data and hand it off to the NSA. The government funded google's research, google circumvents the 4th amendment for the government, and boom, no more rights. Of course, google gets government favors back, such as tax breaks and certain protections against competition.

white traitors and nonwhites will defend this system, because they see it as morally just. It's ok for google and the Fed to have all the power, as long as they bully the correct targets. In this way you are not fighting a war of logic, but a religious war where your enemy is the church and all its high priests. If no one believes in the church, what power does it have?

subversion of society was tolerated to a point (drugs laziness perversion etc), but anti-war propaganda was not tolerated at all and would get you executed. so i guess in terms of freedom of expression wartime germany was not as free as the united states is now.

No it is not
Depends if your human rights are the same as mine of course

QTDDTOT. Reported for violating rule 4.

Very good post

Humans right is an (((marxist))) invention to shove the equality ideology into goyim's throats.

Attached: lieutenant_applejack_by_tensaioni-d3icvu6.png (4388x4463, 695.11K)

>(((human rights)))
Remember anons;
Report D&C threads.
Sage D&C threads.
Filter D&C threads.

Remember anons;
Report slide threads.
Sage slide threads.
Filter slide threads.

retarded ponygger

Posting in epic slide thread.

Attached: хoзяин мира.png (797x1036 91.37 KB, 99.17K)

(((Human Rights))) is a jewish invention that only White people have been goaded into believing in. The "rights" found in Germania by Tacitus are the only necessary rights and why it was the basis for the founding of the new culture within Hitler's Germany.

One such right is, everyone must be armed at all times. When you swear loyalty to your Chief then you must keep it until one of the two are dead for "the Chief fights for victory, his vassals fight for their Chief".

Attached: unbroken_tradition.webm (640x480, 10.5M)

There's no such thing as human rights in a multicultural society. Only a homogeneous society can have "human" rights, much less pay for them.

First define "human rights" for us please. ;^) ;^) ;^)


Liberties for us, not for them

Attached: Screenshot_20181211-071815_Firefox.jpg (720x1480, 768.55K)

OP, I believe degeneracy should be primarily fighted by religions, not by strong state.