Misconceptions about the far-right.

[Zero_Sum]

I don't just hate Jews, no I've studied their religion, culture, and beliefs quite extensively.

why would you have an exclusive kind of hatred for this group of people that you wouldn't have for any other group of people? how insensitive. like any 'in-group', you have the same weberian dynamic of stratification operating here; group x feels unique and identifies itself as culturally isolated from group y. there is nothing inherently worse about one group and not another, because they're all doing the same thing, essentially.

but there is a kind of bolder existential reality to this dynamic that explains the appearance of such phenomena. an 'in-group' facilitates as well as fosters two of the strongest social drives (you could even call them instincts) in human beings. the ability to fully express both love and hate simultaneously; love for one's group, and hate for an enemy. human beings enjoy having enemies as well as being able to love... and this group forming dynamic provides the opportunity to do this.

and part of this obviously involves each group believing they're the 'good' group while the others are bad... and it's here, if anywhere, that any criticism can be given. a group can be measured by what it was that gave them the idea of their exclusiveness. for the religious groups - those centered around religious doctrine - the reasons are especially ridiculous, and this is worth some criticism.

you might say that the formula for determining the integrity of individuals in a group is to analyze to what extent they feel their engagement in the group is for some higher cause, above and beyond the individuals, what transcends the appreciation of the individuals involved... or, feels appreciation only so long as the individual remains faithful to the sacred cause for which they are supposed to stand. such things as 'state' and 'nation' are examples of this... meaningless abstractions that originate to provide for those who are committed, a sense of selflessness and belonging so that they may temporarily, if not indefinitely, avoid the reality of their own ego... which is the causa sui of the very commitment itself (ironically). it is an attempt to transcend the ephemeral nature of the individual's existence by believing as if he were 'part' of something greater and lasting. one of the more endearing features of man, in fact, because it is in fear and trembling that he forgets himself and takes refuge in the sacred cause. you'd have to be a real asshole to not sympathize with this or at least understand it.

you've heard the phrase 'know thyself' before, yeah? well here's the bad news; for most that effort ought to be strenuously avoided because what it truly entails would be devastating to them. better not to start down that path of honest self discovery.

yeah but i don't see the prob with the jews. it's just an instance of the same mass mania that peoples have suffered since time immemorial... and it's unfair to blame them for any of it. the joy of this feeling of belonging to something is incredibly strong... regardless of the delusional nature of it. just keep in mind that at the end of the day, man is not rational, and he dare not want to be, for good reason; one either breaks or becomes mad. in either case, ostracization from the herd follows directly. terrifying for the broken and liberating for the mad.

yo but that adage should really read: 'don't know thyself, whatever the fuck you do.'

Stop your moralizing nihilist, you can't tell me what to do man!

If you have to ask why Jews are hated all over the world then you really haven't studied past or present history all that much.




Also, this right here.

[Zero_Sum]

It's going to get much worse because the white fertility or reproductive rate is only slightly above zero where it is basically toppling over a cliff as white European women have been brainwashed that only money, careerism, and professionalism is all that matters. We can thank coordinated and organized Jewish inspired radical feminism for all of that. Meanwhile in a declining economy on the verge of collapse white men are discriminated everywhere as the last publicly acceptable group of people to openly discriminate against. The foreigners added with other races breed like rabbits which only ensures a death cross against declining white European populations.

..and the movies portray Corporate careers as glamorous and exciting.. which they can be, but those careers shouldn’t stop those women having children, but I guess the fear of losing their jobs would.

The good news is western civilization is going to collapse where white women are going to have to learn to suck a mean white cock if they don't want to starve to death or not survive. They're going to learn very quickly that amongst hordes of men that want to kill, hurt, or rape them there is a steep price in exchange for protection on their part, that will help in the initial stages of societal collapse bringing that white fertility back up.

Well that’s one way to get them procreating.. oh the lure of big-city life.. perhaps incentives to assure jobs are kept open and the availability of company creches, might be needed.

More effective measures of course under a fascist political system would have to take place in order to ensure a white racial population revival, resurrection, or boost.

What's stopping them? An ongoing socio-economic economic propaganda campaign against women, men, and families.

Surely not all the women in European countries are in corporate careers, so wouldn’t the wider demographic still be raising families?

Have you actually looked at white fertility rates all throughout the west?

[Zero_Sum]

They redirect the socialist opposition away from real issues like wages, healthcare, education and upholding white working class values towards subversive things, like carbon taxes, raising taxes for the working class, corporate welfare, black lives matter, feminism, gay marriage, transsexualism, open borders, utopian anarchism and communism, Hollyweird, MTV, porn, sports, which alienates the white working class, who end up voting for the same capitalists and cronyists who fucked them over to begin with, who do nothing to oppose the usury, the fractional reserve banking, who just cut taxes for the rich, cut spending on the poor and take us to war.

It's not enough to simply remove the usury, fractional reserve banking and corporatism in place, the richest 1%-0.1% have been getting richer off it for over a century, they owe us trillions of dollars in reparations.

But there's no reason we can't have our cake and eat it too, why we can't have socialism without all the bullshit.

Of course it's not just the Jews who're responsible, but they're overrepresented in it, many times over.

Exactly, they're master manipulators of propaganda where within the 24/7 news corps it's practically overkill.

For millennia, the Jews didn't have land.
They couldn't plough a field, or wield a sword very well...but they wrote the bible.
They can count shekels and tell stories, and that's precisely what they did.
They swindled the nations of the earth out of their gold, betrayed Germany during WW1, and when the Germans called them out on it during WW2, they spun a sob story called the holohoax, and unfortunately the nations of the world bought it wholesale.

Remember they're descended from Jacob, not Esau.
Of course it's a fictional tale, but even fiction contains a germ of truth.
By and large, this was never a tribe of hunters and farmers, of artists, artisans and tradesmen, of warriors.
It's a tribe of money changers, story tellers and entertainers.
They can make you laugh, cry or enraged at the stroke of a pen.

They're also moralizers, but their morality is usually self-serving tripe.
They're not above having one standard for Israel, and another for everyone else.
On the surface they're cosmopolitan, but just beneath the veneer they're obsessed with ethnic, racial and religious purity.
The bible is full of genealogy, littered with it.

They point to a poor, black, mentally ill transwoman and say, you must not only tolerate and accept, but you must embrace this person as if they were your own child, in fact they're better than your own child, for some of your wicked ancestors...or the ancestors of a few people who look like you (because race exists, but only when they want it to) rejected these people, and you unwittingly benefitted from that...somehow, somewhere down the line I'm sure.
You must because the Jew, the eternal stranger in a strange land, above all else fears rejection, and if you'll accept and worship the poor, black, mentally ill tranny, then surely you'll accept and worship the Jew, yet they are not above trampling over the corpses of dead Palestinian women and children on their way to completing their Project for the New American Century i.e. greater Israel.
This is their armor, sword and shield.
They whimper, even as they strike you.

Elitism is a universal idea, populism, the idea the people should rule themselves as individuals, communities and a collective, is a white idea, but pluralism, the idea the majority should not only tolerate, accept but worship minorities and foreigners, is a Jewish idea.
The idea that we must be globalist, liberal and progressive while they're permitted, even encouraged to be nationalistic, within our own borders?
It's an absolute affront to, infiltration and subversion of our democracy.

They keep the middle and working classes fighting over taxes and wages when all that shit can be bypassed by directly going after the elite's money.
They wage war against the 3rd world, then import the 3rd world for cheap labor, then say you owe these people a living for warring with them when polls show time and time again we never wanted to war with them in the first place, then extend more rights to them than us, and that's what passes for socialism these days, keeping the majority fighting with minorities over scraps from the master's table.
They keep us dumbed down and sickly with every kind of pollution, but just competent and healthy enough for enough of us to run the machines.

Really this whole impeachment nonsense is just noise and distraction away from a crumbling economy on the verge of collapse along with the death of dollar for the dumb idiot masses. It keeps everybody fighting each other, demoralized, and distracted while the nation burns where simultaneously they're strip mining the United States financially moving what little bit of wealth that is left to China or Asia.

They have the neo-conservatives believing the trade war is about bringing jobs back or revitalizing the United States economically when in reality it is all just one big international wealth transfer. So far it seems to be working with a nation mostly comprised of imbeciles sadly.

What comes next nobody can say for absolute certainty, I think they're pushing really hard for a modern civil war in the United States which is fine by me because once they open up that Pandora's box there will be no way to put the genie back inside again. It allows far-right people like myself to gain some traction, independence, organization, and flexibility which for me is a good thing. These guys are really going to come to understand the old saying, "Be very careful for what you wish for as you might just get it".

I don't think they want civil war.
I just think the republicans had to wear different makeup, because whites were getting sick and tired of cronyism, the influx of cheap labor, offshoring, BLM, radical Islam, feminism and so on.
They had to amp up the empty rhetoric about opposing these policies (and in response the controlled opposition, the dems had to amp up their empty rhetoric) to make whites feel like something was being done so they wouldn't vote 3rd party, independent or revolt, but the establishment doesn't really want to rock the boat or dramatically change course, it rarely does, especially since they're winning, consolidating wealth and power, it only feigns to, until it can purge social media of the alt and far right movements and find more, better ways to placate and stupefy the masses.

But if they do want civil war, which I doubt, of course it's only because they think they can somehow blame the patriots for it and ultimately hasten their UN takeover.

Yeah, there is a bunch of non-Jews that work with them also. They all deserve to be hung on lampposts for their treachery, capital crimes deserve capital punishment.

Bring back the guillotine.

They just use that whole Christian or secular humanitarian bullshit to get people to vote for their population replacement whereas usual the dumb voting electorate falls for it time and time again.

Christianity is in decline in the west, its relative absence may make it easier for whites to accept secular or pagan white nationalism someday.

I prefer describing them as vampiric financial and economic parasites myself.

They suck the life, blood, and prosperity out of entire nations or regions of the world where afterwards go onto moving to new hosts. Their only interests in morality, ethics, and laws is rigging them heavily in favor of themselves for their own benefit while destroying or bringing others down.

They are the most duplicitous or subversive people on the face of the planet where they cannot be reasoned with at all.

[promethean75]

and here i thought it was you who was doing the 'moralizing'. we nihilists are more like journalists than philosophers. we just report the facts, man.

yeah but i got no problem with the nazis movin' on up. germany got royally fucked after WW1 and europe got what it deserved as far as i'm concerned. so i'm good with the war, but the whole ideological war with the 'jewish problem' was a bit much. trying to exterminate an entire ethnicity is tacky as fuck. id'a kept them all alive and put them to work to help build the german war machine.... then after i won the war, i'd begin the long process of un-endoctrination to get all that judaism bullshit out of their heads.

but we historical materialists are much harder than that breed of romantic fascists who's ideas are up in the metaphysical and mythological clouds. wagner's stuff was great for opera, bro, but it wasn't a way of life.

[Zero_Sum]

Donald Trump is controlled opposition, people thought they had a choice between him and Clinton in 2016, in reality the choice between both was an elaborate illusion. They choose the presidential candidates putting them on television on all the major cable networks that they own and then they say, "Here's your political freedom and rights to vote in choosing.", in reality everything is already pre-determined before any individual sets foot on stage.

In reality both were Manchurian candidates making sure that no matter what happened or who had won they would have their person in the Whitehouse. Donald Trump has Rothschild connections all over the place but, we're led to believe he is a political maverick, independent, and champion of the people! What a fucking joke! 2016 was when the hidden international cabal had a real good laugh on the dumb American voting population. It was a real giant,"Fuck you, we own your asses no matter what", moment in American political history by the international hidden cabal, and the American population bought into it too!

Yup, Trump is controlled opposition.
The war between the dems and Trump is more over empty rhetoric, style and who gets to be the reigning deep state puppets than it is over substance.
This Tulsi Gabbard is probably mostly or wholly controlled opposition too.
But I'm not as sure as you are that all the 3rd parties and independents are completely controlled.

At any rate, as far as I know, there is no Nazi party of the US, so in light of that, I would support the most nationalist party or independent available until something better shows up.
In Canada, that means Maxime Bernier and the People's Party of Canada.
even if it's not enough, it's a step in the right direction.
If we can get people to take that step, the subsequent one might be white nationalism.
Unlikely, especially in Canada, but still, that's the best chance we got right now, I'm not so sure collapse is right around the corner.

It will happen sooner or later, because everything breaks down in nature, at least part way, it's the one thing you can count on, but it could take decades.
But I'll take a look at the graphs in that thread of yours anyway.

Yeah, I'm all about political syncretism adding and mixing things from a variety of schools or thought into an effective working political organization. I like things from the right but there are some things on the left in terms of economics I like also concerning a political platform.

Same here.

You know me, I'm against democracy. If you think modern democracies are shitty now just wait for being a new racial minority in a democracy as a white person. You'll have no political representation whatsoever since in democracy power is majority rule driven and you'll have all the other ethnicities or races of people running you down because you're a wicked white devil. [Think South Africa.]

Yup, I know you that way.
Briefly you were a communist, then an anarchist, and now you're a national socialist.
If there's anything that's been consistent about your politics, it's that you're a radical, you have no hope or faith in democracy, in reforming the system, instead you're awaiting its demise, and hoping some dictator you may try to join will build something better in its ashes, but if that doesn't happen, you're content to live among its ruins.

If there's anything consistent about mine, it's that I've never been an elitist, nor a pluralist.
Putting the interests of another demographic, another class, religion, race or sex ahead of my own, is most reprehensible to me.
I'm either in favor of having a libertarian or communitarian balance between demographics, or my demographic first, I'd never put others ahead of me and my own.
I don't hate other groups or regard them as very inferior, but I prefer mine, I look out for me and my own first.

This is why democracy is doomed to failure within multiracial or multiethnic societies.

The thing is, dictatorships aren't that much, if at all less likely to become multiracial and multicultural than democracies, or purge themselves of other races and cultures.
I'll give you some examples off the top of my head.

In the early Roman republic, only Romans, that is, people descended from Rome's earliest inhabitants, could become citizens.
In the late republic, only Italians could become citizens.
About 2 centuries after the republic fell and Rome became a dictatorship, the first non-Italian emperor Septimius Severus of North African descent became emperor, and shortly after he made it so all peoples of the Roman empire could become full citizens.

Other examples, the soviet union was and Putin's Russia is officially multiracial and multicultural.
Many Latin American countries are officially multiracial and multicultural and have imported many non-whites from Africa and Asia, altho not as many as we have, but only because Latin American countries are poorer, not as many want to come, and they can't economically accommodate as many.

I still have a little hope we can turn our democracies around as things continue to worsen. I'm hoping people will turn to independents and third parties, but even still if collapse and balkanization are inevitable, I'd rather see national social democracies arise than dictatorships.
That being said, if dictatorship ends up being the only way we can preserve and protect our race, and the working class, then I'll support it.

That being said, synthesis is something that interests me.
An interesting form of government would be one where the executive branch rules for life, or until they voluntarily leave office, having to appoint a replacement before they do so, but the legislative branch remains democratic, elected by the people.
The head of state wouldn't be above the law, if they commit a crime, they would be impeached and prosecuted, just as now.
They wouldn't have absolute power, they'd have to share it with the legislative branch.

In case they unexpectedly die in office, they should have to write a will upon entering office indicating their successor.
The will should be kept secret until death, so you don't have people trying to assassinate each other for the position.
I think constitutional dictatorship is preferable to monarchy, because compulsory nepotism leads to infighting and is less meritorious.

In terms of economics we're in agreement although I think corporatism can be managed or regulated within a fascist state. The trick is to regulate corporations within every inch of their lives and make wealthy people very afraid that if they should ever harm the nation's general well being you send squads of secret police to hunt down their owners. The solution to the rich and wealthy is to put the fear of God back into them so to speak where death is hanging over their heads if they get out of line. The problem with the wealthy is that they're not afraid these days, I think we need to change that.

There's an economic model called social corporatism you should look into.
It's prevalent in Scandinavia and Finland.
It's basically a synthesis of capitalists, labor unions and consumer representation, where all three are given an equal say in things.
I'm sure in practice it doesn't always work out that way, but in theory it sounds like a fair and balanced system, especially for larger corporations, big business.

I would not be entirely opposed to such a system, it's just that the working and middle classes have been looted for so long, I can't even begin to think about supporting corporatism.
After the working class is several times richer than today, perhaps we can begin to talk about moderation, but right now we need major downward redistribution.
At least get our standard of living back to where it was when boomers were growing up.

Economically the system Scandinavia has is not unlike the system the fascists and national socialists had.
It's an alternative model, both to the Anglo-American, (crony) capitalist model on the one hand, and proper social democracy, democratic socialism and communism on the other.
Mussolini talked extensively about class collaboration, as opposed to the individualistic competition of capitalism on the one hand, and the class competition of corporatism or socialism.
Of course culturally and socially, Scandinavia and Finland are fucking retarded, they need to shift way more towards conservatism and libertarianism, but economically, they may have one of, if not the best systems in the world, altho I have not lived there or studied it extensively, so I can't say for sure, I'm sure they have their problems.

I don't like gays or homosexuals. For me they need to stay in the closet and never leave there. As long as they keep it private away from the public whatever. They've always been amongst us unfortunately.

I don't like or dislike gays.
They can have their lifestyle and culture, but it should be R or X rated, keep it out of public view away from children.
I don't see homosexuality as immoral the way Abrahamists do, so much as I see it as inferior to heterosexuality, sort of like the way junk food, alcohol and recreational drugs are inferior to whole food, but not immoral.
Also, I don't fully buy the whole born-this-way narrative.

I believe women should have limited-rights and while that sounds terrible or even shocking my perception on that is not completely horrible.

Not much shocks or horrifies me.

Can discuss that a later time as I can talk about that literally for hours on end. Limited-rights are better than no rights at all just in case we have any gasping feminists within our audience here.

I'm all about a strong patriarchal male dominating culture where feminists and matriarchs along with their apologists can eat a bag of dicks for all I care.

Yea, we could go on and on about it I'm sure.
I'll, try to keep it simple.
For me it comes down to this: I'm in favor of equal rights for men and women.
However, I'm not necessarily in favor of men and women having the same rights.
I think if women want more positive rights than men, that is if they want men and the state to be more financially and socially responsible for their health and wellbeing than they are for men and the state, then they should have less negative rights, less socioeconomic opportunities and give men and the state more authority over women.
I'm all for men and women having more dialogue about this issue, deciding it together as a society, but what I'm not in favor of is women having more positive, and more and negative rights than men, like they do today, that is misandry.

Some things have changed in modernity, like legalized abortion (which you may not be in favor of, for me I'm in favor of it), improved contraceptive methods and jobs becoming less physically demanding.
I think traditional roles for men and women are still valid, they'll probably always have some validity as long as we remain essentially what we are, human, especially within the context of family, marriage and children, but perhaps they're not quite as relevant as they were a century or two ago.

We're in agreement on immigration but I don't think we whites have the numbers to strong arm them with especially when you divide our current numbers by half with all the retarded self hating white bleeding hearts neo-liberal jackasses. [White female mudsharks and their mud children included.]

Realistically much of the west is going to go Basque where white racial nationalists are going to pick a region and say that is ours belonging to us kicking everybody out fighting in the whole process. I guess what I'm saying, I don't think the future will be one where whites take back the entire United States in terms of territory. More realistically we'll take over three to six states where other races or ethnicities will take over others. This will become the new racial and ethnic balkanization in my mind when the United States collapses.

I like to think of them as the new miniature racial nation states that will develop with the disintegration of the United States. I can also easily see Mexico taking over California, Arizona, Texas, and other states in the process once a Mexican majority grows in all of those places. If a Mexican majority happens in those states, what's stopping the government of Mexico from just taking them over? Exactly, nothing at all.

For me, Canada doesn't have to be absolutely white, just maintain our majority.
The only minorities I dislike are Jews and Muslims because of their historic hostility towards whites, and because their religions are inherently militaristically expansionist.
I think all full blooded and religious Jews should be deported to Israel.
All Muslims should be deported to wherever they came from.
All illegals and refugees should be deported.
All non-contributive, non-white immigrants should be deported, unless they're being financially supported by their families.
However, contributive non-white immigrants, and non-white citizens can stay.
And I'd ban further non-white immigration.

I don't like Jews, and I hate Judaism and Islam, because they're inherently hostile to, not only whites, but to all of mankind, but paganism, far eastern religions like Sikhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Buddhism and non-Zionist Christianity, I don't have a problem with.

I'm all about invention, innovation, and science. So, I'm all for that. I am however a big critic of artificial intelligence, transhumanism, and the complete automation of everything. I have negative feelings or thoughts towards all three.

I'm a firm believer in industrialization, commerce, and economic prosperity. With that being said I'm also a devout environmentalist that believes in being good stewards of the earth and nature.

Right, I just think there needs to be a balance.

I'm fine with gun rights or civilian private gun owners but I believe they should be limited to pistols, shotguns, and rifles not military weapons. Depending on circumstances maybe even a military civilian defense force.

Besides democracy, this is another area where we disagree on.
I'm very much in favor of citizens having the right to possess fully automatic assault rifles, and licensing militias to possess military vehicles.
I find both the economic, and military disparity between us and the elite to be very alarming.
If we don't stop, and reverse some of the disparity, it could lead to 99.9% of the population being reduced to the status of cattle in the coming future.

I don't hate other races and ethnicities of people either, I just prioritize my race first or foremost. I've lived in areas of the United States where whites are already a racial minority and it isn't fun let me tell you. It's not the cooperative racially collective social utopia like you see portrayed on television. I view racial and ethnic separation as being more peaceful than forcibly imposed integration. In fact I view racially forced and imposed integration as a major source of unwanted or unwarranted conflict. If whites are so bad like they say, then let them have their own territories, nations, and governments to live amongst themselves separately. Give American blacks Florida and Georgia to run as they please amongst themselves, I'm all for it. They could even have Louis Farakhan as their leader.

If Canada doesn't balkanize, then I'm in favor of just keeping it majority white.
We don't have to remove every last non-white.
I don't hate minorities either, and I think whites are only a little superior overall.
Every race has its strengths, weaknesses and things that make it unique and interesting, which's all he more reason to keep them distinct.
It's more of a birds of a feather thing, for me, than a hate or supremacy thing.
I definitely don't want to oppress anyone on account of their race or religion (I don't consider deportation to be a form of oppression, especially when they're financially compensated. Ultimately our survival depends on the deportation of Jews and Muslims).

However, if Canada does balkanize, then I'm all in favor of majority white regions adopting a strict policy of 100% whiteness, but for Canada as a whole, I don't think it's fair, feasible or necessary.

Gloominary as I think we're almost entirely on the same page with some minor differences.

Agreed.

There's only one solution to the United States domestic problems and that is violent revolution or insurrection.

All non-violent methods of approaching the national crisis has been tried and has utterly failed.

Eventually even the most idiotic and ignorant simpletons on the street will eventually come to this same conclusion. Once a majority of people come to that same realization this country will forever be changed.

[Zero_Sum]

and here i thought it was you who was doing the 'moralizing'. we nihilists are more like journalists than philosophers. we just report the facts, man.

yeah but i got no problem with the nazis movin' on up. germany got royally fucked after WW1 and europe got what it deserved as far as i'm concerned. so i'm good with the war, but the whole ideological war with the 'jewish problem' was a bit much. trying to exterminate an entire ethnicity is tacky as fuck. id'a kept them all alive and put them to work to help build the german war machine.... then after i won the war, i'd begin the long process of un-endoctrination to get all that judaism bullshit out of their heads.

but we historical materialists are much harder than that breed of romantic fascists who's ideas are up in the metaphysical and mythological clouds. wagner's stuff was great for opera, bro, but it wasn't a way of life.

Yes, but your reactions as a nihilist are a bit surprising since in your world moralizing is irrelevant or redundant, right? Yet you're acting all politically correct concerning the plight of the Jews as if theirs is your own.

So the nihilist takes up the common position of the United States during world war II being the 'good' guys?

More moralizing which a nihilist isn't suppose to do. Even in my nihilist days I would never make such an error.

Are you sure you're still not an anarcho communist? Because you sound like one to me. For some reason the word nihilist just doesn't suit you Zoot.

[Zero_Sum]

It doesn't matter if the numbers are reducing now, the damage on western civilization with foreign immigration since the 1960s has been done significantly. The only way to fix this is secession and separatism, forcibly imposed multiracial or multiethnic integration is not going to solve anything. It will only create more tensions and conflict of interests overtime until it basically spills out in the streets.

I think it is the recent immigration influx of the last few decades that has created tensions and conflict of interests, and things did (literally) spill out in the streets, when people were getting run over and killed by men in vans.

And you guys are on an island much like Ireland for fucks sake! I don't envy the problems native Brits,Welsh, Scots, and Irish face at all. They're literally stuck on islands with millions of foreigners invading their nations year in and year out.

Not any more.. The UK, because of Colonialism, has been a diverse place for 100s of years, so I think we’ll all cope.

If Christopher Columbus did that to an island of native inhabitants people would be screaming genocide all over the place. For some reason white Brits, Welsh, Scots, and Irish don't count, right?

As I’ve said, the UK has been diverse for a long while now, so the problem is not the British-born multi-ethnic population, but the recent forced influx of numbers, and that was forced on many countries, so a problem not solely reserve for us here.

You only speak kindly of 'modern diversity' in Europe because you're a Caribbean Jamaican living in England, so naturally you're going to reduce England's racial, social, and political modern transformation as being merely trivial since you're a product of it. That's exactly why you'll defend it. That's why you're probably a cosmopolitan civic nationalist because in your own individual world it works, it certainly works for you, am I right? I highly doubt the native European white Scots, Brits, Welsh, and Irish feel the same as you, those that are not self hating retards anyways.

[promethean75]

They suck the life, blood, and prosperity out of entire nations or regions of the world where afterwards go onto moving to new hosts. Their only interests in morality, ethics, and laws is rigging them heavily in favor of themselves for their own benefit while destroying or bringing others down.

because global capitalism has made that possible... not because the 'jews' are intrinsically predisposed to do that. put a jew in 1920 maoist china and he'd behave himself like everyone else. it's only because there happens to be a historically persistent ethnicity, religiously founded, and therefore a formidable presence, that has consistently utilized the opportunity of capitalism to further enrich itself as well as keep its distance as a culture. hell you can't half blame them. the problem isn't the jewish people... it's the silly shit they believe and the capitalistic underhandedness that they have mastered to empower themselves and further augment the stupid shit written in some book by semi-literate bronze-age desert tribesmen, that they believe. the jewish situation isn't tragic... it's comical... but that's from my particular anarchist perspective. the problem is capitalism... or what would become in the hands of the so called jewish communists, 'state capitalism', which is nothing but a ruse to cover their nationalism.

no but i like jewish people as much as anyone else. they're no dumber than the christians, muslims, hindus, or buddhists. it's just a different kind of dumb, that's all.

in fact i once dated a jewish princess, believe it or not.

[Zero_Sum]

They suck the life, blood, and prosperity out of entire nations or regions of the world where afterwards go onto moving to new hosts. Their only interests in morality, ethics, and laws is rigging them heavily in favor of themselves for their own benefit while destroying or bringing others down.

because global capitalism has made that possible... not because the 'jews' are intrinsically predisposed to do that. put a jew in 1920 maoist china and he'd behave himself like everyone else. it's only because there happens to be a historically persistent ethnicity, religiously founded, and therefore a formidable presence, that has consistently utilized the opportunity of capitalism to further enrich itself as well as keep its distance as a culture. hell you can't half blame them. the problem isn't the jewish people... it's the silly shit they believe and the capitalistic underhandedness that they have mastered to empower themselves and further augment the stupid shit written in some book by semi-literate bronze-age desert tribesmen, that they believe. the jewish situation isn't tragic... it's comical... but that's from my particular anarchist perspective. the problem is capitalism... or what would become in the hands of the so called jewish communists, 'state capitalism', which is nothing but a ruse to cover their nationalism.

no but i like jewish people as much as anyone else. they're no dumber than the christians, muslims, hindus, or buddhists. it's just a different kind of dumb, that's all.

in fact i once dated a jewish princess, believe it or not.

Jews are financial and cultural predators whether it is in capitalism or Soviet Russia. Their modus operandi is the same either way with some minor differences.

[Zero_Sum]

Donald Trump is controlled opposition, people thought they had a choice between him and Clinton in 2016, in reality the choice between both was an elaborate illusion. They choose the presidential candidates putting them on television on all the major cable networks that they own and then they say, "Here's your political freedom and rights to vote in choosing.", in reality everything is already pre-determined before any individual sets foot on stage.

In reality both were Manchurian candidates making sure that no matter what happened or who had won they would have their person in the Whitehouse. Donald Trump has Rothschild connections all over the place but, we're led to believe he is a political maverick, independent, and champion of the people! What a fucking joke! 2016 was when the hidden international cabal had a real good laugh on the dumb American voting population. It was a real giant,"Fuck you, we own your asses no matter what", moment in American political history by the international hidden cabal, and the American population bought into it too!

Yup, Trump is controlled opposition.
The war between the dems and Trump is more over empty rhetoric, style and who gets to be the reigning deep state puppets than it is over substance.
This Tulsi Gabbard is probably mostly or wholly controlled opposition too.
But I'm not as sure as you are that all the 3rd parties and independents are completely controlled.

At any rate, as far as I know, there is no Nazi party of the US, so in light of that, I would support the most nationalist party or independent available until something better shows up.
In Canada, that means Maxime Bernier and the People's Party of Canada.
even if it's not enough, it's a step in the right direction.
If we can get people to take that step, the subsequent one might be white nationalism.
Unlikely, especially in Canada, but still, that's the best chance we got right now, I'm not so sure collapse is right around the corner.

It will happen sooner or later, because everything breaks down in nature, at least part way, it's the one thing you can count on, but it could take decades.
But I'll take a look at the graphs in that thread of yours anyway.

Yeah, I'm all about political syncretism adding and mixing things from a variety of schools or thought into an effective working political organization. I like things from the right but there are some things on the left in terms of economics I like also concerning a political platform.

Same here.

You know me, I'm against democracy. If you think modern democracies are shitty now just wait for being a new racial minority in a democracy as a white person. You'll have no political representation whatsoever since in democracy power is majority rule driven and you'll have all the other ethnicities or races of people running you down because you're a wicked white devil. [Think South Africa.]

Yup, I know you that way.
Briefly you were a communist, then an anarchist, and now you're a national socialist.
If there's anything that's been consistent about your politics, it's that you're a radical, you have no hope or faith in democracy, in reforming the system, instead you're awaiting its demise, and hoping some dictator you may try to join will build something better in its ashes, but if that doesn't happen, you're content to live among its ruins.

If there's anything consistent about mine, it's that I've never been an elitist, nor a pluralist.
Putting the interests of another demographic, another class, religion, race or sex ahead of my own, is most reprehensible to me.
I'm either in favor of having a libertarian or communitarian balance between demographics, or my demographic first, I'd never put others ahead of me and my own.
I don't hate other groups or regard them as very inferior, but I prefer mine, I look out for me and my own first.

This is why democracy is doomed to failure within multiracial or multiethnic societies.

The thing is, dictatorships aren't that much, if at all less likely to become multiracial and multicultural than democracies, or purge themselves of other races and cultures.
I'll give you some examples off the top of my head.

In the early Roman republic, only Romans, that is, people descended from Rome's earliest inhabitants, could become citizens.
In the late republic, only Italians could become citizens.
About 2 centuries after the republic fell and Rome became a dictatorship, the first non-Italian emperor Septimius Severus of North African descent became emperor, and shortly after he made it so all peoples of the Roman empire could become full citizens.

Other examples, the soviet union was and Putin's Russia is officially multiracial and multicultural.
Many Latin American countries are officially multiracial and multicultural and have imported many non-whites from Africa and Asia, altho not as many as we have, but only because Latin American countries are poorer, not as many want to come, and they can't economically accommodate as many.

I still have a little hope we can turn our democracies around as things continue to worsen. I'm hoping people will turn to independents and third parties, but even still if collapse and balkanization are inevitable, I'd rather see national social democracies arise than dictatorships.
That being said, if dictatorship ends up being the only way we can preserve and protect our race, and the working class, then I'll support it.

That being said, synthesis is something that interests me.
An interesting form of government would be one where the executive branch rules for life, or until they voluntarily leave office, having to appoint a replacement before they do so, but the legislative branch remains democratic, elected by the people.
The head of state wouldn't be above the law, if they commit a crime, they would be impeached and prosecuted, just as now.
They wouldn't have absolute power, they'd have to share it with the legislative branch.

In case they unexpectedly die in office, they should have to write a will upon entering office indicating their successor.
The will should be kept secret until death, so you don't have people trying to assassinate each other for the position.
I think constitutional dictatorship is preferable to monarchy, because compulsory nepotism leads to infighting and is less meritorious.

In terms of economics we're in agreement although I think corporatism can be managed or regulated within a fascist state. The trick is to regulate corporations within every inch of their lives and make wealthy people very afraid that if they should ever harm the nation's general well being you send squads of secret police to hunt down their owners. The solution to the rich and wealthy is to put the fear of God back into them so to speak where death is hanging over their heads if they get out of line. The problem with the wealthy is that they're not afraid these days, I think we need to change that.

There's an economic model called social corporatism you should look into.
It's prevalent in Scandinavia and Finland.
It's basically a synthesis of capitalists, labor unions and consumer representation, where all three are given an equal say in things.
I'm sure in practice it doesn't always work out that way, but in theory it sounds like a fair and balanced system, especially for larger corporations, big business.

I would not be entirely opposed to such a system, it's just that the working and middle classes have been looted for so long, I can't even begin to think about supporting corporatism.
After the working class is several times richer than today, perhaps we can begin to talk about moderation, but right now we need major downward redistribution.
At least get our standard of living back to where it was when boomers were growing up.

Economically the system Scandinavia has is not unlike the system the fascists and national socialists had.
It's an alternative model, both to the Anglo-American, (crony) capitalist model on the one hand, and proper social democracy, democratic socialism and communism on the other.
Mussolini talked extensively about class collaboration, as opposed to the individualistic competition of capitalism on the one hand, and the class competition of corporatism or socialism.
Of course culturally and socially, Scandinavia and Finland are fucking retarded, they need to shift way more towards conservatism and libertarianism, but economically, they may have one of, if not the best systems in the world, altho I have not lived there or studied it extensively, so I can't say for sure, I'm sure they have their problems.

I don't like gays or homosexuals. For me they need to stay in the closet and never leave there. As long as they keep it private away from the public whatever. They've always been amongst us unfortunately.

I don't like or dislike gays.
They can have their lifestyle and culture, but it should be R or X rated, keep it out of public view away from children.
I don't see homosexuality as immoral the way Abrahamists do, so much as I see it as inferior to heterosexuality, sort of like the way junk food, alcohol and recreational drugs are inferior to whole food, but not immoral.
Also, I don't fully buy the whole born-this-way narrative.

I believe women should have limited-rights and while that sounds terrible or even shocking my perception on that is not completely horrible.

Not much shocks or horrifies me.

Can discuss that a later time as I can talk about that literally for hours on end. Limited-rights are better than no rights at all just in case we have any gasping feminists within our audience here.

I'm all about a strong patriarchal male dominating culture where feminists and matriarchs along with their apologists can eat a bag of dicks for all I care.

Yea, we could go on and on about it I'm sure.
I'll, try to keep it simple.
For me it comes down to this: I'm in favor of equal rights for men and women.
However, I'm not necessarily in favor of men and women having the same rights.
I think if women want more positive rights than men, that is if they want men and the state to be more financially and socially responsible for their health and wellbeing than they are for men and the state, then they should have less negative rights, less socioeconomic opportunities and give men and the state more authority over women.
I'm all for men and women having more dialogue about this issue, deciding it together as a society, but what I'm not in favor of is women having more positive, and more and negative rights than men, like they do today, that is misandry.

Some things have changed in modernity, like legalized abortion (which you may not be in favor of, for me I'm in favor of it), improved contraceptive methods and jobs becoming less physically demanding.
I think traditional roles for men and women are still valid, they'll probably always have some validity as long as we remain essentially what we are, human, especially within the context of family, marriage and children, but perhaps they're not quite as relevant as they were a century or two ago.

We're in agreement on immigration but I don't think we whites have the numbers to strong arm them with especially when you divide our current numbers by half with all the retarded self hating white bleeding hearts neo-liberal jackasses. [White female mudsharks and their mud children included.]

Realistically much of the west is going to go Basque where white racial nationalists are going to pick a region and say that is ours belonging to us kicking everybody out fighting in the whole process. I guess what I'm saying, I don't think the future will be one where whites take back the entire United States in terms of territory. More realistically we'll take over three to six states where other races or ethnicities will take over others. This will become the new racial and ethnic balkanization in my mind when the United States collapses.

I like to think of them as the new miniature racial nation states that will develop with the disintegration of the United States. I can also easily see Mexico taking over California, Arizona, Texas, and other states in the process once a Mexican majority grows in all of those places. If a Mexican majority happens in those states, what's stopping the government of Mexico from just taking them over? Exactly, nothing at all.

For me, Canada doesn't have to be absolutely white, just maintain our majority.
The only minorities I dislike are Jews and Muslims because of their historic hostility towards whites, and because their religions are inherently militaristically expansionist.
I think all full blooded and religious Jews should be deported to Israel.
All Muslims should be deported to wherever they came from.
All illegals and refugees should be deported.
All non-contributive, non-white immigrants should be deported, unless they're being financially supported by their families.
However, contributive non-white immigrants, and non-white citizens can stay.
And I'd ban further non-white immigration.

I don't like Jews, and I hate Judaism and Islam, because they're inherently hostile to, not only whites, but to all of mankind, but paganism, far eastern religions like Sikhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Buddhism and non-Zionist Christianity, I don't have a problem with.

I'm all about invention, innovation, and science. So, I'm all for that. I am however a big critic of artificial intelligence, transhumanism, and the complete automation of everything. I have negative feelings or thoughts towards all three.

I'm a firm believer in industrialization, commerce, and economic prosperity. With that being said I'm also a devout environmentalist that believes in being good stewards of the earth and nature.

Right, I just think there needs to be a balance.

I'm fine with gun rights or civilian private gun owners but I believe they should be limited to pistols, shotguns, and rifles not military weapons. Depending on circumstances maybe even a military civilian defense force.

Besides democracy, this is another area where we disagree on.
I'm very much in favor of citizens having the right to possess fully automatic assault rifles, and licensing militias to possess military vehicles.
I find both the economic, and military disparity between us and the elite to be very alarming.
If we don't stop, and reverse some of the disparity, it could lead to 99.9% of the population being reduced to the status of cattle in the coming future.

I don't hate other races and ethnicities of people either, I just prioritize my race first or foremost. I've lived in areas of the United States where whites are already a racial minority and it isn't fun let me tell you. It's not the cooperative racially collective social utopia like you see portrayed on television. I view racial and ethnic separation as being more peaceful than forcibly imposed integration. In fact I view racially forced and imposed integration as a major source of unwanted or unwarranted conflict. If whites are so bad like they say, then let them have their own territories, nations, and governments to live amongst themselves separately. Give American blacks Florida and Georgia to run as they please amongst themselves, I'm all for it. They could even have Louis Farakhan as their leader.

If Canada doesn't balkanize, then I'm in favor of just keeping it majority white.
We don't have to remove every last non-white.
I don't hate minorities either, and I think whites are only a little superior overall.
Every race has its strengths, weaknesses and things that make it unique and interesting, which's all he more reason to keep them distinct.
It's more of a birds of a feather thing, for me, than a hate or supremacy thing.
I definitely don't want to oppress anyone on account of their race or religion (I don't consider deportation to be a form of oppression, especially when they're financially compensated. Ultimately our survival depends on the deportation of Jews and Muslims).

However, if Canada does balkanize, then I'm all in favor of majority white regions adopting a strict policy of 100% whiteness, but for Canada as a whole, I don't think it's fair, feasible or necessary.

Gloominary as I think we're almost entirely on the same page with some minor differences.

Agreed.

Yes, I like social corporatism as a model only instead the government will be a dictatorship that keeps corporations in check if they know what is good for them.

The current system is not sustainable, it will collapse and do so in a very horrific manner. Currently the American political establishment is learning a hard lesson in economic diminishing returns. They're finding it very difficult squeezing blood out of a rock and while they might currently realize the errors of their ways it's simply too late in the game to meaningfully change the current trajectory of things. This whole corrupt and damned society is on the verge of collapse where there is nothing anybody can do about it. The chaotic fallout when everything really starts to break down will be quite epic. It will be a giant free for all and a revolutionary period when it finally arrives.

[promethean75]

Yes, but your reactions as a nihilist are a bit surprising since in your world moralizing is irrelevant or redundant, right? Yet you're acting all politically correct concerning the plight of the Jews as if theirs is your own.

i'm de-moralizing the matter by defusing it of its philosophical and ideological foundations. in doing so i'm not saying you shouldn't stand by your values... only that you ought not try to justify them on philosophical grounds... because there are no such grounds.

So the nihilist takes up the common position of the United States during world war II being the 'good' guys?

but there aren't any bad guys in war, really. just guys killing each other in a field somewhere. but regarding WW2, i'd side with the corporatist nations (fascist) before the free market capitalist nations because the interests of the working classes would be my primary concern. corporatism is a step toward the proletarian dictatorship, while free market capitalism is every effort to prevent this.

Are you sure you're still not an anarcho communist? Because you sound like one to me. For some reason the word nihilist just doesn't suit you Zoot.

yeah i know. there needs to be a whole new 'position' to characterize my standing. imma mix of all kinds of shit, bro... some of it even diametrically opposed. it's fuckin retarded.

i wuz gonna found a school and invent my own designer philosophy, but i can't get enough time off of work to do it.

[Gloominary]

I don't just hate Jews, no I've studied their religion, culture, and beliefs quite extensively. If you're going to have a formidable enemy or adversary to contend with it takes a bit of reconnaissance in studying absolutely everything about them including their weaknesses to exploit.

At any rate, if you study the Talmud or rabbinical writings they truly believe that as God's chosen people it is their divine right to inherit the entire earth to rule from Jerusalem with the coming of the mashiach.

So really it is no surprise why they favor open borders, globalism, and the breaking down of nationalism everywhere because they literally believe God is going to give them the entire world on a silver platter which will become theirs to do whatever they see fit. Yet discussing the Jewish religion none of this ever comes into the public spotlight.

Judaism and Islam aren't just religions, they're blueprints for global enslavement.
Judaism and Islam, along with Zionist Christianity, are cults and hate groups, if ever there were any, and ideally should officially be classified as such.
So long as we restore a 90-99% white majority, I can live with other minorities, but I can't live with Jews and Muslims.
It'd be like Jews and Muslims tolerating white supremacists in their homelands.
We wouldn't expect them to, and they shouldn't expect us to tolerate them.

[Gloominary]

I prefer describing them as vampiric financial and economic parasites myself.

They suck the life, blood, and prosperity out of entire nations or regions of the world where afterwards go onto moving to new hosts. Their only interests in morality, ethics, and laws is rigging them heavily in favor of themselves for their own benefit while destroying or bringing others down.

They are the most duplicitous or subversive people on the face of the planet where they cannot be reasoned with at all.

Jews are the worst.
They steal many, many, many more times than they contribute.
The Rothschilds quietly conquered the UK in 1815 and the US in 1913.
They've been undermining the west's integrity especially ever since, but even before, all the way back to the Macedonian empire.
Our monetary system is a complete and total fraud.
Vampires is an apt description.

[MagsJ]

Have you actually looked at white fertility rates all throughout the west?

No.. apart from what’s been posted on here, in the past.

You only speak kindly of 'modern diversity' in Europe because you're a Caribbean Jamaican living in England, so naturally you're going to reduce England's racial, social, and political modern transformation as being merely trivial since you're a product of it. That's exactly why you'll defend it. That's why you're probably a cosmopolitan civic nationalist because in your own individual world it works, it certainly works for you, am I right? I highly doubt the native European white Scots, Brits, Welsh, and Irish feel the same as you, those that are not self hating retards anyways.

The native Brits are part of the 'modern diversity' demographic that I always speak kindly of.. why have you thought otherwise? I’ve not been brought up in a segregated society, so do not speak in segregative terms.

I’d say that the native Brits are probably more multi-culturally tolerant than I am, but we cannot be tolerant at the expense of our selves and our livelihoods and future, and I cannot speak for mainland Europe, as they have their own views on how they envision their country to be, and that is up to them.

As for me, being a British-born St Lucian (not Jamaican), I feel it my duty.. along with those that can and do, to do my part in what needs resolving here. I’m not an immigrant, and neither were my parents.
What point are you trying to make?

[Urwrongx1000]

My main problem with moving Far-Right is the anti-Semitism which I think does exponentially more detriment than benefit.

Why can't white-nationalists simply be "Pro-White" without hating others and needing a scapegoat??? But, for whatever reason, a whipping-boy is needed, and that whipping-boy is Der Juden. Philosophically and Rationally, I can't overcome that hurdle. It doesn't seem necessary, for me, that I have to be pro-white and anti-semitic. In other words, I simply want to be pro-white, insuchthat, I can be white, male, and proud, and not need to "hate myself" or be nihilistic for such. However, I understand the blowback and ramifications. Most people, almost everybody in Western Civilization, will presume that if you are "white-male" and "proud", that you must be anti-semitic, Or, oppressive, Or, hateful to other groups (like blacks and/or women), Or whatever else (like "homophobic"). I have problems with all of this, which is why I delay or hesitate to step from Center (politically and religiously) to Right and "automatically hateful" or "xenophobic" toward outsiders. Can't there be tolerance?

I don't know, yet, if there can be "tolerance" or not. This is actually a very deep ramification and implication. Can you be "white-male" and "tolerant"? According to most people, most "Westerners", the answer is No. So even if some say Yes, it won't matter, because the Liberal-Left-Loonies will impose their narrative over you, by force. And this will force anybody "Right-of-Center" into being labeled as such: Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Anti-semitic, Etc.

I do believer there are "ulterior motives" and sedition at-hand, and that, there maybe legitimacy toward the "classical, historic enemies of the European peoples and race, or even ethnic battles and animosity". For example, there is Germanic and Slavic antagonism. There is Scottish (Saxon) and English (Anglo) antagonism. There is Romanian and Turkish antagonism. There are lots of anti-Ethnic battles, even within the "White" classification. So until those are acknowledged, and settled, it doesn't really matter or make sense to over-genearlize into "White" versus "Non-white". And the lack of sophistication is severely damaging "Western Culture/Civilization". And I do think there is some merit to the degeneration and deterioration of Western Civilization, especially by LLL "forces", which may or may not include Semites/Jews, and which may or may not be intentional or not.

I think most people are too simplistic, and simply driven by base-desires, and will profit themselves over others. There is no "great conspiracy" in this a priori, but rather a posteriori, after-the-fact. In other words, people "look backward" and conclude that there "was a conspiracy" when there wasn't. Jews simply set themselves up in a way, specifically educate their children, to gain and acquire more money than Gentiles, and then leverage the advantage through predatory lending and scams. That's "the way it is". If whites/gentiles want to combat this, and perhaps it should be combated, then it can be so legitimately, and without prejudice.

It's a simple as: don't take out loans, and spend money as a group, as a society, rather than appealing to individualistic and hedonistic gratifications.


It seems simple; but it's very very complex, when Saxons and Anglos, to this day, will simply not work together for "the greater good", because, out of spite, they would rather not pool their money, and Jews simply will do so. So if this cannot be achieved, then nothing on the Alt-Right or Far-Right would be achieved, as well.

[Gloominary]

That being said, synthesis is something that interests me.
An interesting form of government would be one where the executive branch is unelected and rules for life, or until they voluntarily leave office after appointing a successor of their choosing, but the legislative branch remains democratic, elected by the people.
The head of state still wouldn't be above the law, if they commit a crime, they could be impeached, removed from office and thrown in prison, just as now.
They wouldn't have absolute power, they'd have to share it with the legislative branch.
In case of death or imprisonment, the autocrat would have to write a will just before entering office with the name of their successor enclosed in it, as well as backups in case their successor dies or is imprisoned before taking office.

This form of government could be called constitutional or democratic autocracy.
Autocracy with the right checks and balances might be preferable to compulsory nepotism (monarchy) because it averts infighting and is more meritorious.
The constitution could even forbid nepotism by preventing the autocrat from appointing a successor closely related to them.


There's an economic model called social corporatism you should look into.
It's AKA the Nordic or Scandinavian and Finnish model.
It's basically a synthesis of capital, labor unions and consumer representation, where all three are given an equal say in things.
I'm sure in practice it doesn't always work out that way, but in theory it sounds like a fair and balanced system, especially for larger corporations, big business.

I would not be entirely opposed to such a system, it's just that the working and middle classes have been looted for so long, I can't even begin to think about supporting corporatism.
After the working class is several times richer than today, perhaps we can begin to talk about moderation, but right now we need major downward redistribution.
At least get our standard of living back to where it was when boomers were growing up.

Economically the Nordic model isn't unlike the fascist and national socialist model.
It's an alternative model, both to the Anglo-American (crony) capitalist model on the one hand, and proper social democracy, democratic socialism and communism on the other.
Mussolini talked extensively about class collaboration, as opposed to the individualistic competition of capitalism on the one hand, and the class competition of corporatism or socialism on the other.

Of course culturally and socially, Scandinavia and Finland are fucking retarded, they need to radically shift towards conservatism and libertarianism, but economically, they may have one of, if not the best system in the world, altho I have not lived there or studied it extensively, so I can't say for sure, I'm sure they have their problems.

Yes, I like social corporatism as a model only instead the government will be a dictatorship that keeps corporations in check if they know what is good for them.

The current system is not sustainable, it will collapse and do so in a very horrific manner. Currently the American political establishment is learning a hard lesson in economic diminishing returns. They're finding it very difficult squeezing blood out of a rock and while they might currently realize the errors of their ways it's simply too late in the game to meaningfully change the current trajectory of things. This whole corrupt and damned society is on the verge of collapse where there is nothing anybody can do about it. The chaotic fallout when everything really starts to break down will be quite epic. It will be a giant free for all and a revolutionary period when it finally arrives.

Social corporatism is a pretty good system.
I think it fits nicely with what I'm calling constitutional autocracy, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
Together they form a synthesis of elitism and populism without any pluralism.
Alternatively, you could have constitutional monarchy paired with social corporatism.

[Gloominary]

I don't hate Jews.
They're just looking out for themselves, like we use to.
It's not about hate, for me, it's about the will to live.
Jews are at the center of almost everything that damages our people.
It doesn't matter to what degree they used existing democratic and legal processes established by Anglo-Saxons or circumvented them, either way it's very destructive and must be opposed by any means necessary.
Resisting them does not mean I hate them, or any group.

It's nuance.
As a whole, some groups are hostile, some aren't.
Some groups have the means and motivation to inflict more damage on us than others.

[Urwrongx1000]

Consider White-Jews, for a moment.

The matter is very complex. Jews, historically and traditionally, have intermixed heavily into specific European groups, and in the US, many Anglo-Jewish intermarriage has already occurred. Traditionally, Jews could not really infiltrate Catholicism as Catholics still have Graeco-Roman roots and loyalty to Rome/Italy. Thus Zionism is a dubious marriage with Southern Europeans. Thus, Jews infiltrated and spread into West and Northern Europe, eventually leading to World War II since they were ultimately rejected by core Germanic people. However, Jews used the opportunity to intermarry into 'Protestant' Christian families and ethnic groupings. In the US, Jewish-Anglo marriages are common and pervasive, and again a synthesis of 'Christian' and 'Jewish' genes and memes, culture and society, politics and religion. This is why, when I say "Abrahamism" I'm grouping Christians and Jews into their synthesized version "Judaeo-Christian". Historically, it is a mimicry and (per)version of the Graeco-Roman relationship. It stems from the historic 'Master' classes versus the historic 'Slave'/Under classes. This is from whence Jewish resentiment (for Europeans and Gentiles) originates, specifically against the Romans who, repeatedly, sacked, plundered, "stole", conquered, re-conquered, and re-took Jerusalem and then imposed their own (Roman) rule over. The lack of Jewish military, historically, meant that Jerusalem/Israel/Zion would always be susceptible to major (foreign) world-powers. Since Jews could not break this by physical-force, then turned to "Magical" force, Biblical Prophesy, Education/Indoctrination, and then finally to inter-marriage.

Jews cannot infiltrate societies in which it is illegal for a population to inter-marry with Jewish people. This is why China does not have a significant 'Jewish' population, because East Asians are explicitly "Racist" and perhaps more-so than any other nation or group of people on Earth. If anybody is truly "Xenophobic" then it would be the severely Introverted East Asians.

However, the historic and traditional intermarriage, I believe, has benefited Western culture and civilization. Although the Jewish Mercantilism maybe considered "evil", unfair, unjust, by normal Gentile standards, it has syphoned world money and banks to Anglo-America. Because Jews are loyal to Zionist policies. And because US Christians are pro-Zionist, mostly (especially Evangelicals), Jews would rather have and hold money in the Western Hemisphere, where it is essentially safe from worldwide upheaval, than say, Central Europe (dominated by Swiss Banks) or Russia (dominated and controlled by the Kremlin, Putin, and Orthodox Christians).


All of this explains much, but, there is always a lack of sophistication in most 'white' groups, or simply, pro-Zionist views underneath. So to speak of any "pro-white" association, or moreso, "white nationals", is a fear and threat to Jews, Zionists, Anglo-Protestants, and many other subsequent groups, who all have been indoctrinated to funnel fear of 'Tyranny' and 'Fascism' into what is viewed as "Far-Right".

[promethean75]

yes and that's why the jews have the reputation of being underhanded. in contrast to something like rome which had a complete military, the jews were seen as the terrorists... and terrorism is the surgical strike capability of oppressed people... people who can't fight a real war openly. the jews became guerillas on that account and fought with whatever means available. economically, ideologically, philosophically, religiously, what have you.

and to make matters worse for the poor bastards... and everyone else for that matter... the entire world would soon come to believe that these weren't just megalomaniacal morons who thought they were selected by divine edict to rule the world, but that they were also a full frontal assault on a value system and totally fabulous way of life called 'hellenism'. but get this; if you put a hundred million jews on a plot of land and gave them a civilization with all its usual institutions and modes of production, you'd not know what they believed in unless you asked. the system would be just as functional as any other system, and, for all intents and purposes, there would be no critically important distinction between jewish and hellenistic values. and this is because values are derived from the material modes of production, exchange/distribution and consumption, not vice-versa.

so, for example, it wouldn't matter how many gods you believed in, or if you believed in none, or if you had a particularly unique custom or practice in your culture that others didn't have. if the social organization of those above three processes are stable, it duddint matter what the fuck you believe in and all your ideas become arbitrary. ideology comes after stablization of these modes, and usually follows the direction given to it by the dominant class (see gramsci).

so in our hypothetical model here we see a civilization of jews instead of a civilization of romans doing damn near the same shit. what, you think people who believe philosophical bullshit x aren't capable of sustaining a functioning civilization with all the same pros and cons of any other system? it wasn't the bullshit the romans or the jews believed that would grant them the ability to prosper. it was the infrastructure fined tuned around the modes of production, and the final superstructure this resulted in. if a group of people don't prosper, it ain't because they're beliving the wrong shit. hell, the entire western hemisphere believes the wrong shit and they're doing great (more or less). this is what i'm tellin you; philosophy, religion, ideology don't mean or do shit. all this is a luxury afforded through the relative success of the material relations of a people and its society. big wealthy societies produce the possibility of philosophical genius; enter post-industrial europe. but that philosophical genius isn't what got them there, see. that shit's speculative entertainment. it was the elbow grease and the scientific experimentation with an abundance of tangible materials that got them there. and trust me, the power of imagination that brought about all these novel ideas wasn't philosophical either. engineers and mathematicians made shit work, not philosophers. i mean they mighta been philosophers too, but that isn't what inspired them, because language games can't inspire.

there are no jews and there are no romans. these are names for collections of ideas... spooks, to speak with max.

[Pedro I Rengel]

"the jews became guerillas on that account and fought with whatever means available. economically, ideologically, philosophically, religiously, what have you. "

Sometimes I really forget you are legitimately disgusting.

You do realize that when people say "philosophically," they mean socialism.

[promethean75]

Sometimes I really forget you are legitimately disgusting.

Now hol up, man. I'ont never tell you what I really think about you and your crew, do I? If I did you'd never speak to me again (if you didn't kill yourself first)... and i can't let that happen because I need you for my experiments.

Hey but yo you and your crew, as reprehensible as it is, is still a notch or two above most folks on the street, so there is that.

[Gloominary]

Are Jews hearty enough to build and maintain a prosperous country of their own?
To be its farmers, miners, tradesmen, truckdrivers, blue collar workers and defenders (obviously they have some farmers and so on, but would it be anywhere near as prosperous without draining the life force of Europeans)?
I'm not sure, let's nationalize the central banks and stop propping Israel up financially and militarily and see how well they do on their own.

Race is real.
Culture isn't Darwinianly arbitrary, it has practical implications.
Race and culture aren't spooks, the idea that they're spooks is a spook.

Point to one African country as prosperous as North America, western Europe and Australia.
Point to one European country as backward and impoverished as say, Liberia.
You can't.

Conquered and dispossessed peoples aren't equal either, compare Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, African Americans, Polynesians, Gypsies and Jews.
Compare their academic and athletic achievement, health and longevity, incarceration rates or anything that really matters.
There is no comparison, they're all different from one another.

Apples are to oranges what this:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gq1v0faUhOc/maxresdefault.jpg

Is to this:

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2012/12/18/17/web-jews-getty.jpg

It's obvious, just look at them.
Intuitively you know, your right brain knows.
But if your left brain still needs convincing, I urge you to look up some statistics.
You've been conditioned to see the sky green and the grass blue by the progressive elite, or rather to see everything as being the same color.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Sometimes I really forget you are legitimately disgusting.

Now hol up, man. I'ont never tell you what I really think about you and your crew, do I? If I did you'd never speak to me again (if you didn't kill yourself first)... and i can't let that happen because I need you for my experiments.

Hey but yo you and your crew, as reprehensible as it is, is still a notch or two above most folks on the street, so there is that.

You're playing with fire holmes.

My crew will fuck nazis up and do voodoo shit on their bones.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Once the shock was done though I realized you didn't quite go there. And that is a vast ocean, that step you didn't take.

[Pedro I Rengel]

It is forded in a nano-second though. Watch the fuck out blood.