Oppose anyone from outside your community ruling over you, and you got a deal. Power should be in the community, not capital city plebs.
Just realise that the nation-state, and national market, also destroys local cultures and forces everyone into one system. History shows it's inevitable once you have a centralised state. Absent power, cultures die out. That's why you're nationalists.
Anarchy does this much better, concentrating culture and power in people's immediate communities. At the end of the day nation states are abstract entities containing millions of people. How much can one person belong to / feel needed by, such a massively overburdened tribe?
Why should means of production not be owned by the people?
No, we don't support the nation state
"The people" is just rhetoric.
This is the spookiest thing I've read in a while.
In what way?
What I mean is factories / offices etc should be open to control by the community in the same way as libraries, town-halls, etc. Make whatever is needed, having working hours set by the community, etc.
Sounds good, lets gas the kikes, and the end the (((capitalist))) system.
Actually, Nationalists are Nationalists. Conflating two different things to seem intellectual is the lowest tier of midwittery. It shows how fucking stupid you are. You're trapped by binary thought.
And the community is controlled by who?
You are fucking stupid. I'm not saying anarchy and nationalism are the same at all. Somehow you completely missed the point.
How does that work?
A community is a group of people, if no one control it, how does it functions or make decision?
Ideally by consensus, if not by vote. Same as any small group or committee.
Nationalism is the demand for a nation-state. Literally the definition
You actually don't even know the definitions of those words. Nationalist anarchist is an oxymoron.
I agree. I'm saying people who identify as nationalists, were they to meditate better on the issue, would find themselves to be anarchists.
oy vey nationalist libertarian anarchist white nationalist larping incels from the internets are going to take over.
No, they wouldn't. We're nationalists because we love our peoples. We also like government systems because they are useful tools in the right hands. Thousands of people much smarter and more educated than you have refuted your nonsense ideology ages ago. Notice how no one takes you seriously? That's how stupid you come across. Reported.
Who count the vote?
Loving X doesn't imply you want a nation state for X. One could love them and believe in anarchy or international government.
Doesn't follow there aren't better tools.
Lmao. Thousands? Really? Where? When? How?
Arrogant peddlers of perceived wisdom, such as you.
I used to be an unironic anarchist (not this 2019 larp shit) in 2010-11. Then I found Zig Forums.
Thats around the time I learned how to make napalm and small explosives. Just for funnsies ofc. Was a fun time, gotta love college towns.
The reason no one takes anarchism seriously is purely because of might=right. Collectivism by it's very nature can field way more force than an individualist could, so even if the individualist was 110% right on everything the collective could still just fuck em and there wouldn't be much that could be done about it. So unless you have the ability to allow an individual to have the same force or more than a collective/make a collective be a bigger liability than it's benefits can supply this will always be the situation.
Just because two things share some similar qualities does not mean that they are similar enough to be compatable. I have all the same body parts that a chimpanzee does, but no matter how much I think on it, no, I am not a chimpanzee. Nationalism, especially as it is currently defined in contemporary discussion, is fundamentally at odds with anarchism, the most obvious (but not only) reason being because their stances on individualism/collectivism are complete opposites, and that stance forms one of the pillars that form the bedrock of each ideology.
That, and anarchism is fucking stupid edgy teenager bullshit, right below libertarianism. Libertarianism at least would work in a perfect world, anarchism falls apart as soon as two people start interacting with each other.
I'm a National Socialist. I believe in a strong authoritarian state in service of the volk. I'm not anarchists and I'm no fucking Commie. Fuck off to >>>Zig Forums where you belong, cretin
Well lets face it modern fascists do seem to have picked up an anarchist streak in comparison to their predecessors. They're much more skeptical of any authority whether it be in their favour or otherwise.
But outright anarchists and lolbertarians are still idiots.
Why not play around with anarchist ideas? I thought we were supposed to be pragmatic? We can't run from the fact that the Jews corrupt our elite and therefore bypass the middle and working class.This is also true of people that are supposed to be on our side. I mean look at Trump, they completely stopped him. Look at Richard Spencer, rich as hell but useless and a piece of shit. What will happen if we get into power now? They'll just corrupt the people at the top.
States are far more susceptible to feudalism than anarchy. If people believe in the legitimacy of some far-off state they will bow out of their right to rule their communities for themselves. It wasn't Ireland or Iceland or the German tribes that had feudalism. It was Russia, France, England, where they had powerful states.
OP, left wing anarchism is not anarchy at all. You said, that you want to make "the means of production" as free as libraries, which is not possible without an state-like construct. You want to make the means of production into a common good, which would lead to the so called "tragedy of the commons". In short, the means of production would degrade, because they'd be overused by everyone, while there would be nobody maintaining them. Libraries exist, because they're financed by taxation, and they're protected by institutions like the police, without which every single book in a library would soon be "privatized" by the first person being too lazy to return it afterwards.
BTW, someone might see an advantage in borrowing books from such a library in order to burn them during winter. Coal or wood costs money. Public books, which everyone can take, might be cheaper. In your anarchy there wouldn't be an police, and the books would be public property. Therefore, why shouldn't any member of the public use those books to generate heat?
If you want to be an proper anarchist, you should consider anarchocapitalism. In contrast to the left-wing stuff, anarchocapitalism does not require an overarching state-like construct. From an anarchocapitalist point of view, nationalist and anarchocapitalists have much in common. Anarchocapitalists tend to think in a way, that everyone should be able to form their own nation, and collectivize and de-collectivize as seems fit.
You should read Hans Herrmann Hoppe.
The best kind of lies have some truth in them, and those truths are twisted in a way to further recondition and subvert the actual truth.
Example: "The sun is bright, apples grow on trees, dogs bark, snow is cold, pineapple is red"
fool, nations were always there and people always fought for them. communities like you describe are simply too small to achieve anything greater than a nigger tier mudhut
This is some low IQ astroturfing.
oh look white muslim terrirosts would be the correct definition for this, communists can't even disagree.
We have what we have because this is what we wanted. As we can see by the blaming of capitalism or communism for all the wrongs of hierarchy, we see that hierarchy is indeed what we desire utmost. It is comforting to know ones place, and the schedule by which one must comport themselves. Voting is a means by which we make leadership decisions without the responsibility of leadership. So when we want to have freedom without responsibility, we vote for leaders.
There have always been leaders and there has always been hierarchy. You can balk at that for ideological reasons and even stretch and contort history to claim that was not always the way… yet alas, it is what we have now. It is the default condition.
"the people" is communist rhetoric. Specifically communist jews. this was the big bad wolf of ww2. "the people" means the same bankers centralize all wealth with no means for anyone to rise. anarchy = natural law. The most cooperative humans will naturally survive. Anarchy is all that has ever existed. A bunch of people who own all the land on earth just lied to you and pretended such thing as "the law" exists so they can keep cracking whips (while acting above the so called "law" which is a fiction they invented)
Separatism is superior to anarchism. Nationalists are separatists. INDEPENDENCE NOW
Decentralization is extremely important for our immediate future. Steppe Barbarians, erwache.
Please do me a favour, and read Hoppe. "Democracy, the god that failed" would be a good start. If you don't like books, you'll find plenty of talks by him on youtube.
Basically, what he wants is a kind of anarchy, which everyone on this board would like, because people could move together, buy some land, and form their own nationstate, or commieblock, or califate, or whatever they want. Hoppe is big on natural law.
This is the gayest shit I've heard all day. Race > economics.
Kek. It sounds like exactly the kind of shit they say.
Learn german. What you're trying to say is "Steppenbarbaren erwachet".
"Steppe" is singular. "Steppen" is plural. "barbarians" is translated "Barbaren". "erwache" means "wake up, you single thing". When you're talking to multiple things, the word is "erwachet".
No. Nationalists want good rulers. Anarchists are cretins. We've been living in caves once, that sucked. ty
There's a good case to make, that the market is better in creating laws, than the state. Laws are delicate things. Have you ever heard of a state producing anything delicate?
OP look up Proudhon, he was the OG anarchist. He was a jew hating patriarch. He proposed what's now called Mutualism, a kind of free-market anarchism, which rejects both capitalism and communism. Some of his ideas were stolen by Marx(Jew) but twisted to support the ideals of communism, and you also have to be careful because of the very heavy Jewish presence in Anarchism that largely pushed/pushes forms of communist-anarchism(Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, all huge names in anarchism because they co-opted anarchism after Proudhon created it). There is also a nationalist side of anarchism, largely influenced by Ernst Junger and Julius Evola, so your statement isn't completely off-base about nationalists being anarchists. It's not that they definitely are, but they can be.
Yeah, let's see the market ruled by jews and their limpwristed libcucked lackeys protect the right to keep and bear arms with laws.
get a job, faggot
Actually, I don't see any market forces acting against gun ownership. If you're afraid about jews being too powerful, you should be against any center of power that can be taken over by jews. Right?
It's nice to have allies for the first part of things, but the end goals are incredibly different. National Socialists want to replace the system with a system that localizes power instead of globalizes it. Pure anarchists don't want a system, and anarcho-communists want a global 'we the people' to exist when that idea is only practiced by Western nations.
Anarchists and communists simply don't know how to function in reality.
There's no reason a nation has to be that big. A nation can be a hundred people, or a thousand. That's why Confederacy was an idea - groups of people that wanted their own specific rules, but shared a similar background, with enough similarity that they could trade without animosity or harming their own self-interests. There's no reason why each city can't be their own nations, with agreements for Confederacy to prevent outright foreigners from getting in and breaking down the system.
Because it would fall in the hands of communists. It is better to destroy the whole world first, before letting communists have the right to live.
I actually agree with all of this, the true Nation is an organic entity. I do not agree that a classless, stateless society is possible or even desirable, but I do think one based around smaller localism is.
If you're actually an anarchist or a 'naz-an' (I literally just encountered one of you guys for the first time, is this a new thing?), then this is an interesting and worthwhile discussion.
If you go by the actual meaning of 'nationalist' from the real meaning of the word, it's entirely possible to be a nationalist and an anarchist. The nation is not the state.
I think it's a bit goofy tbh, but it's not a contradiction.
I see what you are saying, OP. You Anarchists and us Nationalists want basically the same things. But anarchy will ultimately never work because it is in denial of some basic facts of life and reality. We have a capacity for endless growth but live in a world with a limited abound of resources. This means that there will always be competition and fighting over these limited resources that are necessary for survival. People that band together as a large group usually have a much better chance at survival than individuals and small groups. Small communities like you want would easily be dominated and defeated by even small nations. This is why nations formed in the first place: because they give everyone within a better chance at survival.
Anaexhist and Commie fags should go after the globalist kikes
The fact that they don’t proves that they are pawns for the kikes and complete idiots
Anarchism is the only political ideology less successful than Nazism. It was not ever even meaningfully opposed by any of the factions because only the lowest tier people would become anarchists in any society.
Think about that for a second.
we're ethn0nationalists you faggot kinda like racist communists doesn't mean we'll ever align with commies or anarchists, because they're too dumb to take the ethno-pill
Anarchism is just another form of degenerate individualism, and it will devolve into shitty meth addict tent villages like downtown SF.
Meanwhile, both domestic and foreign tribes of other races will keep acting ethnocentricly. In other words, you'll just create a power vacuum for brown nationalism. Most anarchists right now literally defend ethnocentric groups of other races, such as BLM, CAIRL, the (((ADL))), etc. It's because most anarchists are just neoliberal SJWs LARPing.
Are you aware, that the relations between modern states are anarchistic in nature?
You people shouldn't think, that all anarchists are radical individualists in nature. In fact, many libertarian anarchists want the same thing you people want. More localization, and decentralized power.
Libertarian anarchism is the polar opposite of communism and leftism in general. It's totally compatible with your rabid nationalism, as long as you rabit nationalists don't want your tribe to include people not wishing to be part of your tribe. As far as I can tell, that's the case. You don't want to be inclusive towards SJWs and their ilk, no matter what their race may be. So, as someone considering myself being an anarchist, I wish you well, and I think, that we want the same thing.
I think, that you're in a purity spiral, trying to exclude everyone not meeting your standards of purity. That's just stupid, because that's a losing strategy. e.g. if you want segregation from some kind of people, you might work together with the same people you want to segregate from, if they want to segregate from you. Cooperation would give both groups more influence, while your purity spiraling weakens both sides.
How does your ideology keep jews and other nonwhites out of white countries?
By discrimination, of course.
You should consider, that it's a country, that's keeping your community from putting up a sign stating "no free running niggers, jews, and pigs allowed", and enforcing it.
Keep in mind, that there are niggers, who would like to plant a sign reading "white devils and jews will be shot on sight". For example, Malcolm X was a well respected black nationalist segregationist. What's keeping those niggers from planting said sign is the same country, that's keeping you from doing the same.
Therefore, countries seem to be a disadvantage. The reason, why people want to have an state-like country is, that they seem to imagine, that they'll be in power. Usually that's not what happens. Usually the worst people around get into power.
So explain to me, when an anarchist system allows wealthy jews to establish (or rather, retain) the same kind of power a government would have, how can they be stopped?
If you'd go full anarchocapitalist, the'd have full power over their property, while you keep full power over your property. And even as a rich minority, jews wouldn't have the same amount of power they're getting from the government.
The problem is not, that jews have power, but, that they have power over you. And, in order to exercise said power, they're using the state.
Their power derives from their wealth and connections. None of that requires government.
This is not what Anarchy is. Anarchy is the complete absence of hierarchy, which doesn't exist in nature. Nationalists already believe in empowered communities and community building as part of an over strategy for nation building. If you Zig Forums fucks ever actually talked to nationalists instead of [b](((bash the fash)))[/b] and chanting stupid catch phrases just because they rhyme, maybe you would know that.
Hierarchies happen naturally and its something you want to escape in studying apes (humans are apes). We're smarter than chimpanzees, gorrillas, and niggers but humans are apes and practice ape behavior. Zig Forums is populated by low status beta males. Beta males aren't strong enough to dominate alpha males physically or through any kind of virtue so they resort to display behavior like virtue signalling. This kind of behavior is typical amongst chimpanzees. Human's as an ape species are always involved in display behavior in one way or another. Leftists will always end up looking the same because in trying to be anti-conformist start creating guidelines on being anti-conformist. They they try to outdo each other on anti-conformity this is display behavior and trying to gain acceptance within a group. What's weird to me about leftists is that they always wear clothing that makes them look like a tore up pierce of shit. Why don't you guys ever wear normal clothes? Don't you understand that individuality is something that's inside you? You don't. And you could never accept your place in a normal hierarchy. You could never accept the fact that you are weak and acknowledge your need for self improvement. If you recognized that you piece of shit and actually thought, hey, I'm kinda a piece of shit and I need to make changes in my life, and then actually act on that thought and make self improvements incrimentally over time you might start earning the respect of the men around you and women might actually start being interested in you. In other words if you started working on making yourself better instead of trying to force people to accept you as a piece of shit maybe you'd eventually start seeing right wing people as people and realize you that a lot of the behavior you engage in is display behavior in attempt to ascend the social hierarchy because it never occured to you that people who actually succeed in the world understand the natural order inately. Instead you are listening to that vetching voice in your head whining about how people don't like you. And now you know.
Also dying when you dye your hair a fucked up color and get facial piercings that's display behavior. STOP doing it. Realize that it's the primitive part of your brain that is telling you to do that. Just wear a t shirt and a pair of jeans. Maybe comb your hair instead of letting it turn into dreadlocks. There's nothing more disgusting than white people with dreadlocks. Maybe instead of throwing your clothing in a pile next to your bed actually wash it and maybe run an iron over it once in a while.
And what would keep you from acquiring wealth and connections?
I'd argue, that all one can hope for is an even playingfield. If you're for institutions meant to exercise power against others, the same institutions could be used against you.
Neither am I a leftist, nor am I as you describe.
Please search on youtube for "Hans Hermann Hoppe". That's a rather famous anarchist, with which you'd agree nearly 100%.
I oppose anyone of a different race living around me, am I doing it right op?
There was a strong anarchist streak in the very early fascist movements, before they came into power. Their attitude was mostly 'politics is big gay, let's make a political party where we dress up like pirtes, drive fast cars and launch military invasions for fun'. I'm not even totally exaggerating. I think there was one indcident where they got bored one day and decided to dress as pirates and invade a small Island just for fun.
because jews are inherently sneaky tribal collectivists