Misconceptions about the far-right.

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.
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.

Same here.

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 of power 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.

The thing is, dictatorships aren’t that much, if any 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 3rd parties and independents, 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 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, the autocrat would have to write a will just before they enter office with the names of their successors (in case one or more of them die) enclosed in it.
This of government could be called constitutional or democratic autocracy.
Autocracy with the right checks and balances is preferable to compulsory nepotism (monarchy) because it averts infighting and is more meritorious.

There’s an economic model called social corporatism you should look into.
It’s 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.

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 foods, but not immoral.
Also, I don’t fully buy the whole born-this-way narrative.

Not much shocks or horrifies me.

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 the same rights for men and women.
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’s wellbeing, 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 a public 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.

For me, Canada doesn’t have to be 100% 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.
Preferably all full blooded and religious Jews should be deported to Israel.
Preferably 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, but 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.

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

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.

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.
While some races might be a little stronger than others overall, every race has its strengths, weaknesses and things that make it unique and interesting, which’s all the more reason to keep them distinct.
It’s much 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.

Agreed.

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.

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

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.

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.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOY5OzdXU18[/youtube]

Also, this right here.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnztjRMyiik[/youtube]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.