Gloominary wrote:Zero_Sum wrote: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.
