What's Your Political Ideology?

[GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS]

Choose the one you think resembles your ideology best.

[GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS]

By the way, I hope a few of those alternatives don't get a vote.

[GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS]

Yay, looks like National Socialism is winning.

[Loyalist]

Social conservative going strictly by the list, but the more accurate term in my case would be Paleoconservative.

[Jamt]

If I could leave the list:
Paleoconservative/Localism/Environmentalist and some Hippie-ism

[Vulpix]

None of the options listed. Paleoconservatism probably comes closest.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Social Liberalism is the only one that comes remotely close, though I am against many social liberal policies like banning guns, smoking and 'hate speech'

I'm a 'libertarian', which is basically a paleoconservative with social liberal elements.

[Absinthe]

Sorry, I picked that one because none of the other options seems to express my feelings. :cool:
I explain my political standing in my introductory post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2529&postcount=1);)

[Fortis in Arduis]

I had to put national socialism; national anarchist really.

[Oresai]

National Socialist is closest for me, but really, I want to be made dictator of Scotland until I can divorce the country from England, repair our plundered economy and build a working army, mine the Borders against undesirable immigrants and installed heathenism as the main religion of the country, outlawed Islam, and made Hogmanay a more extended holiday than it is now. :D
After which I`d put in place a government of my choice that I felt would run the country according to my ideals.
See? I don`t want much in life....;)

[Revenant]

I voted Autocrat that's closest on the list to mine. A nationalist (not chauvinist) autocratic, militaristic, conservative, racialist govt with limited 'free' market economics would be my ideal.

I'd be happy if any sort conservative government came to power in any white country that put the needs of their people first. I would be there in a flash.

[Silverfern]

I am more right wing than Attila the Hun

[The Lawspeaker]

Wow- that's a tough one for me since I draw ideas from social democracy,libertarianism, agrarianism and environmentalism.
Perhaps I can be labelled as a pragmatic since I don't think that one size fits all and things should be sorted out on a local level rather then in a distant parliament far removed from the people. I believe in keeping up traditional values on the countryside and in the somewhat smaller cities while also having an extensive welfare state (but with a work first-approach) but with a libertarian attitude towards regulations and the economy.

Mmm perhaps I am a social conservative (with a passion for freedom and the environment) but I am not sure. Just read this (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2408) thread and then decide what I am :p

[Freomæg]

The problem is... labels can change and be manipulated. Look at the US Republican Party and the UK Conservative Party. Can either of those be said to resemble what they stood for 50 years ago? The Conservatives certainly can't. So in choosing a political ideology, you're committing yourself to something which is changeable. It's a game the Establishment likes to play.

According to original definitions, I'm probably largely Libertarian, but then I'm more and more starting to feel a little affinity for Anarchism. Then, I'm also very environmentally-conscious and in favour of Primitivism. In short, I wouldn't commit to any one of the poll options.

[Barreldriver]

I have no political orientation really, I just know how I was raised and what I am comfortable livin', only difference between me and the articles(see links below), is I ain't a Christian, though raised one, I still hold on to everything I learned except for religion:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/albion/aclan.html
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/albion/agender.html
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/albion/awork.html
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/albion/alex.html

[Hilding]

Nationalist I'd say, I dislike to get locked into an -ism though.

[sturmwalkure]

I voted Social Conservatism since that sounds pretty accurate I guess.

[Ulf]

Leavemealoneism.

[Jägerstaffel]

Leavemealoneism.

I'm exactly the same way.

Keep your politics and your ideas of nation away from me for the most part.

[The Lawspeaker]

Yes I guess that Leavemealonism would also suit me. I want my government to do me a favour: to sod off and leave daily business to us- citizens.

[BritishResistance]

As many here know, I am a principled opponent of usurious Jewish capital and Jewish Bolshevism, I am an autarchist and I believe in the social betterment of our people in the national interest, National Socialism.

What about YOU? What is YOUR political ideology?

[Wulfhere]

As many here know, I am a principled opponent of usurious Jewish capital and Jewish Bolshevism, I am an autarchist and I believe in the social betterment of our people in the national interest, National Socialism.

What about YOU? What is YOUR political ideology?

Take a look at my link, below, to see our 16-point manifesto.

[Pallantides]

Feudalism

[BritishResistance]

Take a look at my link, below, to see our 16-point manifesto.

I can't see the link, I'm on My phone using Opera Mini Mobile Web browser. Can you copy and paste it here?

[Wulfhere]

I can't see the link, I'm on My phone using Opera Mini Mobile Web browser. Can you copy and paste it here?

http://sovereignmercia.angelfire.com/

[Nglund]

Mixed Multiculturalism ;)

[BritishResistance]

I cannot say I agree with the idea of the Matriarch, the Women's state can only be weak, democracy is a corrosive instrument and the line there shall be no restrictions on what and what not someone can put in their body struck me unfavourably.

[Wulfhere]

I cannot say I agree with the idea of the Matriarch, the Women's state can only be weak, democracy is a corrosive instrument and the line there shall be no restrictions on what and what not someone can put in their body struck me unfavourably.

Are there any points you regard more sympathetically?

[BritishResistance]

Mixed Multiculturalism ;)

:rofl:

[Wulfhere]

:rofl:

How about national service for all 18 to 25-year olds?

[Lithium]

I'm a National Socialist, Racial Separatist and Anti-SemitiST :D

[BritishResistance]

Are there any points you regard more sympathetically?

The point regarding the physical training of youth, VERY agreeable.

[Wulfhere]

The point regarding the physical training of youth, VERY agreeable.

And how about almost all political posts being filled by lot, rather than vote?

[BritishResistance]

How about national service for all 18 to 25-year olds?

Aye that too. Conscription weeds out the weak and the cowardly and is in accordance with my ideal of Social-Darwinism.

[BritishResistance]

And how about almost all political posts being filled by lot, rather than vote?

Indeed, if it does away with general Democratic indecision.

[Wulfhere]

Indeed, if it does away with general Democratic indecision.

Only one post is elected by the citizens, the head of government.

[BritishResistance]

Ah free election then leadership according to responsibility! I find that agreeable.

[Heretik]

I'm a non-chauvinistic patriot. I prefer to love my own than to hate others.

[Psychonaut]

Brah, your poll choices are ruh-tarded. The first two are certainly ideologies, but patriotism is an emotive modality through which any ideology (to include the former two) can be approached and felt. It can only be inclusive of something else, not exclusive in and of itself. And if by "mixed," you're trying to imply that all political ideologies aside from Marxism and NS are some mixture of the two, that's just inane.

But, to answer your question I began my political thinking as a strong Libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian), then shifted into a Paleoconservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative) position, but, over the last year or so, have now transitioned into more of a Realist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_in_international_relations_theory) view—seeing the other two as too idealistic.

[BritishResistance]

Those are two main ideologies, and by mixed I mean no definite ideology but a mixed own personal view.

[Aramis]

Brah, your poll choices are ruh-tarded. The first two are certainly ideologies, but patriotism is an emotive modality through which any ideology (to include the former two) can be approached and felt. It can only be inclusive of something else, not exclusive in and of itself. And if by "mixed," you're trying to imply that all political ideologies aside from Marxism and NS are some mixture of the two, that's just inane.

But, to answer your question I began my political thinking as a strong Libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian), then shifted into a Paleoconservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative) position, but, over the last year or so, have now transitioned into more of a Realist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_in_international_relations_theory) view—seeing the other two as too idealistic.

That's Marxist talk.

[Cato]

The American brand of republicanism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States

[Psychonaut]

Those are two main ideologies

Fixed that for ya. NS is not, by any stretch of the imagine, a main ideology except among Neo-Nazis. In the world at large, I'd wager nearly every other political perspective has a greater number of adherents than does NS.


and by mixed I mean no definite ideology but a mixed own personal view.

So, they myriad of mainstream political philosophies outside of Marxism and NS only count as "personal view[s]"?


That's Marxist talk.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090730005604/mjparty/images/6/64/Ffffuuuu.jpg

[Tomasz]

Zadrugism / Rodoslavism

(that is in practice: National Socialism but somewhat closer to Strasserism than Hitlerism)

[Sarmata]

I'm nationalist/patriot but from the other side I believe in Pan-Europeism/ European preservationism as tool for secure of our ethnic and cultural existance, I see progress and grow by cooperation between European nations. I despise socialism, I belive that communism and also nazism grew from the same root.
I think that root of all evil in modern Europe it's fall of family as institution, distortion of traditional roles of man and women, showing parenthood and even children in negative light. This threat of existance European people it also brings immigrants and multi-culturalism...
I think it's essence of my political beliefs

[Grumpy Cat]

Lol none of the above.

[Germanicus]

Sorry but your political beliefs should be private, and your own view of it should remain private! ;)

[BritishResistance]

I just thought it would be an interesting thread

[Murphy]

Catholic Social Teaching.

[Grumpy Cat]

Sorry but your political beliefs should be private, and your own view of it should remain private! ;)

Lol that's such an Anglo-Saxon thing. I though it was just among North Americans of Anglo extraction but they think like that in England too?

They won't talk about their political views because it's so personal but they'll describe what they did with their sexual partner last night in detail or if you offer them some food they'll be like "no thanks, that makes me fart". Lol

[BritishResistance]

Think like what?

[Grumpy Cat]

Think like what?

That political views should be personal.

Try asking an English speaking Canadian who they're going to vote for:

"Woah! You're getting too personal!!! So anyways, I was fucking my wife in the ass last night and ..."

[BritishResistance]

Canadians say "Eh" alot. Whenever I speak to one I can't help thinking of Terrance and Phillip from South Park.

[Piparskeggr]

My politics are informed most by the environment in which I was raised, which I have called a remnant of Anglo-Saxon Yeoman culture.

My hometown had the New England Town Meeting form of government, which was a representative assembly due to the town's size; 15 meeting members from each ward. My dad was elected 16 years in a row from his ward.

There was also the influence of the Union Movement, my paternal grandfather was an organizer for the Teamsters alongside his regular work as a Boiler and Furnace man.

My family's political ethos was much more a combination of classic republicanism and Teddy Roosevelt style progressivism than anything.

There is definitely some sense of immigrant patriotism towards the United States, too, as my family came here over a span of 1628 - 1927.

[Fortis in Arduis]

I am somewhere between anarchism and fascism, but I also like democracy.

Decentralised democratic fascism or anarchism.

I think that workers should be given interest-free loans to buy and cooperativise the companies they work for.

Credit unions, workers coops, buying cooperatives, cooperative home schooling and direct referenda democracy.

[Vasconcelos]

I'm a die-hard defender of Democracy, I belive everyone should have the right to say what they think it's best for their country - and by extention their people. My true democracy should do away with idiots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot_%28Athenian_democracy%29) and educate everyone in a truly unbiased manner, while still valuing and inspiring citizens in their national heritage, culture and traditions, so every individual can have a proper and opinion on what's going on and positively contribute to his country.


These are some of my ideals pillars:

Regular voting
Strong Civil Society
Education
Healthcare
Tradition (European)
Defensive Military



Call this whatever you want :)

[Treffie]

Lol that's such an Anglo-Saxon thing. I though it was just among North Americans of Anglo extraction but they think like that in England too?

They won't talk about their political views because it's so personal but they'll describe what they did with their sexual partner last night in detail or if you offer them some food they'll be like "no thanks, that makes me fart". Lol

I don't think either of those are specifically an `Anglo-Saxon` virtue ;)

[Adalwolf]

The only true democracy is anarchism.

[Vasconcelos]

How well do Anarchy and European Preservation get together?

[BritishResistance]

I'm a die-hard defender of Democracy, I belive everyone should have the right to say what they think it's best for their country - and by extention their people. My true democracy should do away with idiots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot_%28Athenian_democracy%29) and educate everyone in a truly unbiased manner, while still valuing and inspiring citizens in their national heritage, culture and traditions, so every individual can have a proper and opinion on what's going on and positively contribute to his country.


These are some of my ideals pillars:

Regular voting
Strong Civil Society
Education
Healthcare
Tradition (European)
Defensive Military



Call this whatever you want :)

I call this crap. Could easily have been spoken from the mouth of some dirty hippy liberal.

[Grumpy Cat]

Hey it's the British version of Austin.

I guess Anglo Saxons are stupid no matter what continent they reside on and it was a big mistake of my Norman ancestors to civilize them.

[Vasconcelos]

I call this crap. Could easily have been spoken from the mouth of some dirty hippy liberal.

I call your stuff crap aswell, could easily have been spoken from the mouth of some dirty ignorant nazi-wannabe teen.


....oh wait, ouch, sorry.

[Grumpy Cat]

I call your stuff crap aswell, could easily have been spoken from the mouth of some dirty ignorant nazi-wannabe teen.


....oh wait, ouch, sorry.

Yeah Nazi wannabe. The real Nazis had class at least.

[Adalwolf]

How well do Anarchy and European Preservation get together?

Well, it would bring on a state of social-Darwinism which really would benefit European preservation - in the end.

[BritishResistance]

Wannabe? Pfft. I have more class than you and at least my views are principled in opposition to usurious capital and financial democracy and not some weak-willed fool predisposing of bourgeoise muffled radicalism .

[Peasant]

Wannabe? Pfft. I have more class than you and at least my views are principled in opposition to usurious capital and financial democracy and not some weak-willed fool predisposing of bourgeoise muffled radicalism .

L O L

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4498984611_44d5a683e3.jpg

[Vasconcelos]

lol ok kid, you da classyman and follow ze best stuff, others opinions are just bs.

[Joe McCarthy]

A mixture of elite theory, political realism, Comtean positivism, consequentialism, casuistry, and situationism. For the purposes of this poll I'll choose 'patriot'.

I think both Marxists and Nazis should be put under tank treads. The former for being destructive. The latter for being useless.

[Germanicus]

British Political parties....differ, Labour= high taxation, liberal immigration policies, increased central goverment,unchecked public expenditure, dilution of structured European agreement.
Conservative= high taxation, slightly tightened immigration policies, decreased public central goverment, checked and monitored public expenditure, slightly diluted structure of European agreement.
Liberal....Conservative dressed in an orange coat, but not taken seriously.

[CelticTemplar]

Right-Wing Nationalist

[Magister Eckhart]

Seriously? "Political Ideology" and you give four choices. I know who designed this poll:

http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/meh.ro4724.jpg

[Cato]

The only true democracy is anarchism.

Mob rule is what passes for democracy these days.

[Adalwolf]

Many people are deceived into thinking that in a democracy they will have a legitimate say in things, but the truth is that the cards are already dealt long before hand.

[Loddfafner]

Eskimo midgets must rule society as the only true Hyperboreans. No real Aryan could believe otherwise.

[Albion]

Take a look at my link, below, to see our 16-point manifesto.

Hmmm.. so we'll put you down for Dominatrix-led dreamers movement then?


How about national service for all 18 to 25-year olds?

I agree with this in principle, but it should be from 16 until 18 or 19 and be split two ways:

Males train in the army for the worst case scenario (regular army defeated)
Males train in traditional trades such as farming, building trades, manufacturing and land managment. This would include doing a decent service to the community such as repairing roads or building schools
Females would be taught homemaking and how to raise a family as well as teaching skills (to complement school educations by teaching children at things at home as well).
Females would also be taught some farming skills


So mines basically National Service coupled with traditional gender roles in a nutshell.


And how about almost all political posts being filled by lot, rather than vote?

Authoritarianism can create strong nations (which is why I like it) but the authorities become power hungry and dangerous - it usually turns out bad and it leads to a sheepish mentality where its hard to progress into say politics.


I think that root of all evil in modern Europe it's fall of family as institution, distortion of traditional roles of man and women, showing parenthood and even children in negative light.

Agreed.


Hey it's the British version of Austin.

I guess Anglo Saxons are stupid no matter what continent they reside on and it was a big mistake of my Norman ancestors to civilize them.

With rants like that I think the stupid gene is a French creation. Thanks for Norman genetic pollution ;)


My politics are hard to define, I'am a English Nationalist and support at least a devolved government for England. There are some elements of facism I like but not all of it, not enough of it to be NS anyway so I suppose I'm near-centre-right somewhere.

[Liffrea]

Complex, I don’t gravitate towards any specific “camp” nor label my views.

I’m a social realist, when you realise that what most people want is stability, not freedom, you have a firmer baseline to work from. What people want is a job, money, and a bus to work, boring everyday things that keep food on the table, money in the bank and the children clothed. Most people aren’t in the least bit bothered who provides that as long as someone does and if the current crop doesn’t……then you have a problem. People will put up with just about anything as long as the trains come on time.

That cynical (but deny it isn't realistic) point made I do hope humanity can be moved beyond basic concerns.

I believe in meritocracy, consequently a competitive system of education designed to promote an individuals talents and select the brightest and most creative for power. Education should pump out physically strong, mentally developed young men and women who are self reliant and less easy to manipulate. A cult of physical fitness and intellectual advancement would need to be promoted. Everyone has something they can offer and that should be encouraged.

As a result, hopefully, we would have the criteria for the establishment of a genuine forum of debate. I’m not an advocate of democratic government, it is in reality (at best) an expensive illusion of popular participation. Britain never has been a democracy in any real sense of the word, we choose between factions of a common political elite all of whom have similar backgrounds and outlooks. Scrap that and, along with it, the expense of a parasitic political class whose impact on society is often detrimental rather than beneficial, politicians generally know nothing about anything. Less officials is usually necessary to promote dynamism and innovation. Couple a leaner ruling class with a genuine public forum of debate will, perhaps, lead to better results. Of course that can only work if people actually believe in the society they live in…..

A society should feel superior, no successful or long lasting entity has ever had a philosophy of “equality” with outsiders. Rules and laws are for within the group, other groups are competitors and should be treated as such. One reason for the decline of the West is the absurdity of treating other civilisations as our “equals”. Now, of course, this is entirely subjective but a culture needs to believe it is better and more deserving. If it doesn’t we head inexorably toward stagnation and eventual decline. People need to take pride in being part of their society, to believe it has goals and purpose.

[Albion]

Can I please change my vote to Social Conservative. I picked Social Democracy thinking meant something else, I've really fucked up on that big time.

[Winterwolf]

I'd also go with Paleoconservatism.

[mymy]

Social Liberalism influenced with Environmentalist hippie-ism :D

[Geroth]

Please conduct your vote and if you have anything to add please feel free to expand on your political beliefs.:D

[SilverKnight]

Progressive- Moderate with a spice of Nationalism.

[Melina]

Conservative/Nationalist and Fascist.. Against communist and liberal ideologies..

[Nameless Son]

Tribalist maybe? Is that one?

[ethnic3]

Libertarian.... Ron Paul ftw

[Vixen]

Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I´m for a free market and legalized abortion/prostitution/gambling/drugs.

[Sikeliot]

socially liberal and fiscally conservative

Me too.

[Yaroslav]

Conservative-Monarchist.

I would like a Monarchist Republic, something along the lines what Poland-Lithuania was in medieval times.

[Paluga]

Far right fascist. My main target is to wipe out all non europeans from Europe. Niggers and jews will get a special treatment. I prefer slavery and extermination through labor.

And I want to see our politicans hanged in public, these bastards must suffer for their high treason to the european people.

Also I'm against evil christianity,islam and all other monotheistic religions. These filthy jew religions have no place in Europe, and will never have a place here. The european people have to return to their old roots.

I'm against globalism, and the destruction of our beautiful nature on earth. People must stop tree felling and the killing of animals

So you could say I'm most of all a Fascist who supports nature preservation and a more spiritual and reflective nation.

[Virtuous]

Fascist with some National Socialist views, free market which is vigilated by the state, not that controls the state.

[Mortimer]

La Camisa Negra/The Black Shirt=Fascist:p

lol, but i voted other:D
maybe free spirit?

i think often even i dont have a conclusive opinion at all and i dont follow strictly a ideology

[Edelmann]

Socially in line with American conservatives, economically not in line with conservatives; I admire the American System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)), which most conservatives would tend to criticize. Additionally, their libertarian and anti-union sentiments offend me. Pat Buchanan is the closest conservative to my position, I think.

I voted mainline conservative, but to be honest they'd probably call me a RINO. :(

[Leadchucker]

Socially liberal and fiscally conservative.....

Pretty much the same here, down the middle of the road on most stuff as both sides have good points and I'm just off centre by a tiny bit to either side.
A basic form of Libertarianism as the term is used in the US would be close,but with so many different schools of Libertarianism no one school fits exactly.

[Lithium]

Ex-National socialist, now I support racial separatism, eugenetics and pagan revivalism.

[Graham]

Home Rule, decentralisation, green energy, migration to a mininum, Liberal education system, private over public sector, Universal health care and Anti-monoply.

Export rather than import, tax brakes only for small local businesses, no foreign wars, no foreign aid, community service rather than prison, mininum wage, Welfare cut and Taxes cut.
:)
What does this make me?

[Duke]

Liberal nationalist

[derLowe]

I have non.

[Xenomorph]

A mixture of right wing capitalism, left wing statism, mostly liberal social ideas tempered with a pro-life ideology.

[Barreldriver]

I have no political affiliation these days, no matter who is in charge I have and always will be a peon and politicians are nowt but crooked no matter the name of their party. I do as my forefathers did, look out for self and kin, 'tis what we did when Tennessee seceded, fought wearing grey, did as they thought best for the family and I'd be motivated in a similar fashion.

[Supreme American]

Conservative/Nationalist and Fascist.. Against communist and liberal ideologies..

^^ I'm this without the Fascism.

[Lahtari]

I'm a Libertarian politically. I'm fed up with the liberal-cleptocratic political establishment, and while being socially conservative I don't feel like feeding anyone else that same establishment crap.

So let me be a conservative who lives a conservative life. And you stop stealing my money and using it for multicultural indoctrination, life-long refugee support and all kinds of institutional corruption, and you can have all your gay-parades you like and live in a harmonious multicultural little ghetto with all your really, really nice burgha-wearing, Jew-hating, Allah-fearing immigrant friends for all I care. Then we are okay. :)

[angel]

I'm an old-style, left-wing socialist on economic and international issues. There needs to be an end to paid labor, the abolition of parliaments, and a form of popular democracy based on rule by popular committees at every level. All major economic activities will be concentrated in the state sector. Foreign trade would be limited so that the domestic economy would flourish. The state would provide low-cost housing, subsidized food, education, and health care to all working people.

On issues of race, I actually sympathize with black nationalist tendencies rather than the mainstream approach. But I also recognize the prevalence of criminality, savagery, stupidity, and backwardness among blacks. I support a return to the system of race relations that existed in the 1950s.

On social issues, I'm all over the place. I condemn homosexuality, oppose the mainstream churches like the Vatican and American cults like the Mormons, and oppose both patriarchy and the modern liberal feminism. I generally oppose miscegenation.

[Vasconcelos]

Home Rule, decentralisation, green energy, migration to a mininum, Liberal education system, private over public sector, Universal health care and Anti-monoply.

Export rather than import, tax brakes only for small local businesses, no foreign wars, no foreign aid, community service rather than prison, mininum wage, Welfare cut and Taxes cut.
:)
What does this make me?

It makes you extremelly similar to me lol

[Rouxinol]

Free markets, but not in the labor market. Today in Portugal - and I guess some other EU countries - people who have got a higher education degree are being extremely underpaid, not only because of the so-called sovereign debt crisis, but also because supply (their work) largely exceeds demand (businesses looking for workers). This is also originating unemployment among young people who finish their higher education programs, or pushing them to tasks which do not need higher qualification (such as supermarket cashiers and alike). THIS SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN and the government should adjust the vacancies (numerus clausus) in higher education institutions to the specific demands of the labor markets in order to avoid unemployment of qualified people who have made personal and financial investments to get their degree. Tax cuts should be made to promote self-investment, so that people can afford to make their savings to eventually invest in a self-business or so and make a living for themselves, instead of having to save a huge amount of their money to pay a heavy burden in taxes. Unfortunately this seems not likely to going to happen in a near future. Socially I'm liberal, but I dislike abortion with no restrictions - I favor a highly regulated abortion, only in cases like rape, fetus malformation and such.

[Vasconcelos]

Today in Portugal - and I guess some other EU countries - people who have got a higher education degree are being extremely underpaid, not only because of the so-called sovereign debt crisis, but also because supply (their work) largely exceed demand (businesses looking for workers)

Actually many Central and North European countries are recruiting graduated people in South Europe (mostly engineers) because, unlike us, they don't have millions of degrees avaliable and not having one isn't the end of the world..

[finþaų]

I believe in the authoritative, benevolent and meritocratic dictatorship of the elite. Personal liberties should generally be subject to pragmatic reconsiderations, but I'd like the populace to enjoy far-stretching social liberties in many fields.

I would abolish restrictions on the use of narcotics, as I find such a move (the hypothetical legalisation) very sane and viable (drug laws having failed miserably, freedom of conscience).

I might even go so far as to abolish laws pertaining to prostitution, though I am strictly against it morally.

Immigration should be immediately halted (extra-European immigration particularly) and most immigrants refusing to leave when given the opportunity would be forced to do so, imprisoned or sterilised depending on the circumstances.

The economy ought to be reasonably free, allowing and untaxing small-scale local enterprise. Taxes should be kept to a minimum (not minimum in the Mises/Hayek/Rand sense).

Freedom of press and privately owned media be abolished.

The environment ought to be protected fiercly, shunning stereotypical lasseiz-faire pleas for constant economic growth.

Extremely harsh penalties for murder, rape, bullying and the like. Corporal punishment and concentration camps for anti-social individuals to be reinstituted.

Miscegenation attains criminal status.

Execution without trial for members of known and proven criminal organizations.

Efforts to preserve high culture. Massive limitation on commercialism, lewdness and advertising in public areas.

Homosexuals should be free to be homosexual (their sexuality doesn't really bother me), but outside of the public sphere as to not affect the traditionally compatible façade of society.

Swedish national matter: Jews and Gypsies lose their national minority status; the Saami get to keep theirs as they no doubt belong in the northern parts of these lands.

Actually, I don't really know what to call my ideology. I picked other.

[Aces High]

Actually, I don't really know what to call my ideology.

Nazi anarchist.

[ficuscarica]

I voted green conservative...

I am for:
- democracy
- human rights
- free market, but some political control for social justice
- minimum immigration, no muslim immigration
- preservation of nature and cultivated landscape
- preservation of traditional values, such as support of families and
only hetero marriages

[Rereg]

I'm nationalist, monarchist and traditionalist. I hate: freemasons, modern western democracy, multiculturalism or non-european immigration.

[Edelmann]

Freedom of press and privately owned media be abolished.

It sounds massively un-American, but I have to agree with this at least in spirit.

At the very least, we should re-assess what "freedom of the press" means, as it is abundantly clear that media corporations have become far too powerful. I'm not sure that this re-assessment would entail abolishing private media altogether, though. Perhaps an aggressive promotion of smaller, independent and public media would be more in order, in tandem with other potential limitations (not sure what) on "big media".

[Quorra]

I'm a libertarian Socialist. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want without super competitive salesmen types making it a 1000 times harder to enjoy the good parts of life.

[The Lawspeaker]

Stuck between Christian Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy) and Social Democracy (1950s Willem Drees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Drees) - style) with a great deal of respect for Sweden's earlier Folkhemmet.

[Tel Errant]

I'm sovereignist/centralist.

Had I grown up in an another environment I'd be your average PC leftist.

[Lahtari]

I'm a libertarian Socialist. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want without super competitive salesmen types making it a 1000 times harder to enjoy the good parts of life.

I understand this topic wasn't meant for the endless debate, but could you elaborate on "Libertarian Socialist"? Libertarianism and Socialism are fundamentally incompatible, kind of opposites. Or do you simply mean you're moderate?

[Quorra]

I understand this topic wasn't meant for the endless debate, but could you elaborate on "Libertarian Socialist"? Libertarianism and Socialism are fundamentally incompatible, kind of opposites. Or do you simply mean you're moderate?

I don't even know anymore

[Septima]

I would describe myself as a Libertarian mostly, though I do hold some Nationalist views.

[Anarch]

Communitarian Anarchist.

[Quorra]

Communitarian Anarchist.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg249/scaled.php?server=249&filename=180pxhanson4.jpg&res=landing

[Yaroslav]

I'm a libertarian Socialist. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want without super competitive salesmen types making it a 1000 times harder to enjoy the good parts of life.

Leftist Libertarianism is called Anarchism. :thumbs up

http://www.anarchism.net/images/download_ca_black.jpg

Looks like this, doesn't it?

http://stumblesthroughparenthood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Satanic-Star.jpg

[The Lawspeaker]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8Y274wubQfM/TymrfuLfZpI/AAAAAAAAAC4/9qY52G9BCJ4/s1600/libertarianism.jpg

[Anarch]

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg249/scaled.php?server=249&filename=180pxhanson4.jpg&res=landing

The preservation of the integrity and sovereignty of communities and individual freedom by the restoration of power to the lowest level possible.


Leftist Libertarianism is called Anarchism. :thumbs up

http://www.anarchism.net/images/download_ca_black.jpg

Looks like this, doesn't it?

http://stumblesthroughparenthood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Satanic-Star.jpg

No, it doesn't. The pentacle was a symbol of Christ's five wounds and was believed to have protected against demons. The A in O sign, on the other hand, is a reference to Proudhon's declaration that 'Anarchy is the mother of Order'.

[Quorra]

The preservation of the integrity and sovereignty of communities and individual freedom by the restoration of power to the lowest level possible.


Are you racialist as well?

[Anarch]

I'm an ethnonationalist and I have a healthy awareness as a citizen of the West and Greater Europe (seen as a racial-cultural entity).

[Supreme American]

Generally Paleocon but without the isolationist nonsense.

[Supreme American]

Leftist Libertarianism is called Anarchism. :thumbs up

Yup. And "right" Libertarians are socially basically liberals. The only real difference is they are pro-capitalist. I'm not interested in Anarchism in ANY form.

[StonyArabia]

Mainline Liberal.

[Flintlocke]

Fascist mafioso ladies man

[Pecheneg]

Nationalism will bring us victory. (the anti-racist one)

[Siegfried]

Basically National Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism).

However, on religious liberties, I would allow certain irreligious groups (atheists, agnostics, etc...) to continue their faith (or whatever you want to call it), and maybe as far as neo-pagans, but religious groups such as Muslims, Copyists (http://forwhatwearetheywillbe.blogspot.ca/2012/01/new-religion-copyism.html), Jews and others will be done away with (one way or another). However, Christianity would be the official religion of the State, and be taught and promoted to everybody (the irreligious will still need a Christian theological education, even if they don't accept it).

As for homosexuals, I'm not sure at the moment if they should be "done away with" or be made illegal to express their sexual orientation (kissing and whatnot) in public. Gay pride parades will not exist.

[Sultan Suleiman]

Slavic Supremacism of the best kind :D

Dogodine u Slavagradu (former Berlin) :thumb001:

[Siegfried]

Stuck between Christian Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy) and Social Democracy (1950s Willem Drees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Drees) - style) with a great deal of respect for Sweden's earlier Folkhemmet.

Interesting. You're an atheist, yet you would like a Christian Government?

[Siegfried]

Slavic Supremacism of the best kind :D

Dogodine u Slavagradu (former Berlin) :thumb001:

Pan-Slavism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism)?

[The Lawspeaker]

Interesting. You're an atheist, yet you would like a Christian Government?

I have no problems with a "Roman/Red (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman/Red)" coalition government as we had several of those during the 1950s and they were very successful and I agree with the Christian Democrats of the old days in principle (just as much as I agree with the Social Democrats). However: the Christian Democrats of today are neither Christian or Democratic but just a VVD Lite. (just like today's PvdA btw so..)

[Siegfried]

I have no problems with a "Roman/Red (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman/Red)" coalition government as we had several of those during the 1950s and they were very successful and I agree with the Christian Democrats of the old days in principle (just as much as I agree with the Social Democrats). However: the Christian Democrats of today are neither Christian or Democratic but just a VVD Lite.

I see; thanks for the clarification.:thumbs up

[Sultan Suleiman]

Pan-Slavism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism)?

It's a part of it :)

[RoyBatty]

In the Racist Commie National Socialist Workers Utopia

TV will be an adequate replacement for religion. (Broadcasting State Approved material of course).

Gays.... don't care what they get up to in the bar, club or at home but there will be no Rainbow Parades in Town or Penguin stories in schools.

Feminazis... will be rounded up, crated and shipped to Afghanistan and Mecca in exchange for hard currency, narcotics, energy products (thereby offsetting the carbon footprint of these losers) and weapons.

Liberals to be sent express delivery to the Soylent Green plant.

Jews and Muslims will be invited to go home to where their precious rights, freedoms and bizarre practices can be celebrated and respected.

Blacks.... for them it'll either be the banana boat to Liberia or involuntary landmine clearing duties.

[Dilberth]

Pork-eating crusader.

[Sultan Suleiman]

Pork-eating crusader.

Pa pobogu možeš biti valjda orginalniji :rolleyes:

[Siegfried]

TV will be an adequate replacement for religion. (Broadcasting State Approved material of course).
.

Hopefully you don't mean that every household will have a TV and will be forced to watch it X hours everyday. Wouldn't school do the trick?

I really don't this to become of us:
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/8c08db044e145a5f1b4b84e725d96385.jpg

[Siegfried]

Pa pobogu možeš biti valjda orginalniji :rolleyes:

I'm an anti-Pan-Slavic, pork-eating, Crusader. Does that satisfy you?:D

[Albion]

Ethnic Nationalist, Conservative-influenced.

[Marmie Dearest]

I understand this topic wasn't meant for the endless debate, but could you elaborate on "Libertarian Socialist"? Libertarianism and Socialism are fundamentally incompatible, kind of opposites. Or do you simply mean you're moderate?

wrong...libertarianism is not the same as being an anarcho-capitalist ...it just means smaller local government and social freedoms...libertarian socialism is a real political ideology and is sometimes called anarchism

Im also baffled at quorra's response, that she would call herself a left libertarian and not even be able to explain this to you

[Curtis24]

Mainline Liberal!

[Marmie Dearest]

In an ideal world Id be a libertarian socialist, but in the real world I am a moderate. War is necessary but constantly being camped out in and meddling with other countries is stupid and wasteful in the big picture, imo. I believe that ethnic and cultural norms should be respected within individual countries, and that any immigrant who wants to live there needs to act accordingly instead of trying to move their host's furniture around. I believe in capitalism without corporatism, and that globalism and corporatism are wrong. In my country both sides are lunatics and I wish I had the option of being in one of those political parties fifty or sixty years ago before neo-conservative corporatism and extreme liberalism that is now going too far and seeming anti-white and overly PC and Id like immigration and welfare to be reformed. However we need better healthcare here and I think republicans are just as wrong as democrats.

I used to be a naive liberal, but when I had life experience and talked to people from other countries as well as studying it made me more moderate. So did population hitting 7 billion, I almost choked, and I said no, no more of this.

I also support protection of our earth environment from over-development which I see as another disgusting symptom of corporatism.

Corporatism and media have replaced real culture. Its not okay, and I think local business should have more power.

However I realize the economy also doesn't live in a vacuum.

[Marmie Dearest]

Socially in line with American conservatives, economically not in line with conservatives; I admire the American System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)), which most conservatives would tend to criticize. Additionally, their libertarian and anti-union sentiments offend me. Pat Buchanan is the closest conservative to my position, I think.

I voted mainline conservative, but to be honest they'd probably call me a RINO. :(

you're more of an old school Republican, then, like Eisenhower era maybe...Republicans were saner then, though maybe behind socially on a couple of issues, pretty much balanced otherwise, compared to now

[Quorra]

wrong...libertarianism is not the same as being an anarcho-capitalist ...it just means smaller local government and social freedoms...libertarian socialism is a real political ideology and is sometimes called anarchism

Im also baffled at quorra's response, that she would call herself a left libertarian and not even be able to explain this to you

I just put the two words together on a whim. I didn't know what it meant. I have been called an anarchist throughout my life, so that fit.

[Mortimer]

Look at my Profile Category. A soft Pan-Indian Nationalist in the Tradition of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Neither Nordindid,Weddoid nor Indo_Melanid but "The Hindu Nation "Hindus" are those who consider India (Bharat, भारत) to be their motherland (matrubhumi), fatherland (pitrubhumi, पितृभूमि) as well as their holy land (punyabhumi, पुण्यभूमि), hence describing it purely in cultural terms."

and "the natives of India share a common culture, history and ancestry."

the Aryans who settled in India at the dawn of history already formed a nation, now embodied in the Hindus.... Hindus are bound together not only by the tie of the love they bear to a common fatherland and by the common blood that courses through their veins and keeps our hearts throbbing and our affection warm but also by the tie of the common homage we pay to our great civilisation, our Hindu culture."
—(p. 108)

Vinayak Damodar Sarvakar.

http://www.hindurashtra.org/

[Quorra]

Look at my Profile Category. A soft Pan-Indian Nationalist in the Tradition of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Neither Nordindid,Weddoid nor Indo_Melanid but "The Hindu Nation "Hindus" are those who consider India (Bharat, भारत) to be their motherland (matrubhumi), fatherland (pitrubhumi, पितृभूमि) as well as their holy land (punyabhumi, पुण्यभूमि), hence describing it purely in cultural terms."

and "the natives of India share a common culture, history and ancestry."

the Aryans who settled in India at the dawn of history already formed a nation, now embodied in the Hindus.... Hindus are bound together not only by the tie of the love they bear to a common fatherland and by the common blood that courses through their veins and keeps our hearts throbbing and our affection warm but also by the tie of the common homage we pay to our great civilisation, our Hindu culture."
—(p. 108)

Vinayak Damodar Sarvakar.
:yawnee20:

[EvilScotsman]

Ethnic nationalist, socially conservative, strongly believe in the nuclear family as being the cornerstone of a civilized society.

[Paluga]

Freedom and love :thumb001:

I figured out that I have no special political ideas I'm interested in, my only fear is and was the evil and brutality of our governments. They made me blind with their massive immigration, I saw non-european immigrants as something bad and thought fighting them will erase all our problems here. If our governments will be overthrown, the people in the world all can live in peace.we too. Then we don't need political parties or politcal ideologys here. This will be all unnecessary then.

I support a revolution in the same line like in Iran(1979) and Libya(1969).

But that doesn't mean that I want to keep the immigrants here. Sure they have to leave our Europe.

[Siegfried]

Look at my Profile Category. A soft Pan-Indian Nationalist in the Tradition of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Neither Nordindid,Weddoid nor Indo_Melanid but "The Hindu Nation "Hindus" are those who consider India (Bharat, भारत) to be their motherland (matrubhumi), fatherland (pitrubhumi, पितृभूमि) as well as their holy land (punyabhumi, पुण्यभूमि), hence describing it purely in cultural terms."

and "the natives of India share a common culture, history and ancestry."

the Aryans who settled in India at the dawn of history already formed a nation, now embodied in the Hindus.... Hindus are bound together not only by the tie of the love they bear to a common fatherland and by the common blood that courses through their veins and keeps our hearts throbbing and our affection warm but also by the tie of the common homage we pay to our great civilisation, our Hindu culture."
—(p. 108)

Vinayak Damodar Sarvakar.

http://www.hindurashtra.org/

So, are you thinking of immigrating to India?

[Mortimer]

So, are you thinking of immigrating to India?

Maybe one day but not for the Time being, but i guess as older as i get as harder it will get to accustome. India got a Diaspora though and there are Nationalists abroad, they are represented by the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad - World Hindu Council), they work towards the improvement of India from abroad. Yet i have no affiliation or connection to them, just admire the Idea.

[RoyBatty]

Hopefully you don't mean that every household will have a TV and will be forced to watch it X hours everyday. Wouldn't school do the trick?

School seems like work to many kids... hence they resist it.
TV seem like entertainment to many kids... hence they accept it.

o/

[Anarch]

wrong...libertarianism is not the same as being an anarcho-capitalist ...it just means smaller local government and social freedoms...libertarian socialism is a real political ideology and is sometimes called anarchism

Im also baffled at quorra's response, that she would call herself a left libertarian and not even be able to explain this to you

Libertarianism in its purist form is anarcho-capitalism. Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. Without aggressive force - the essence of the State's reality - socialism cannot be maintained. The right to secession from any organisation, the right to one's own person and the product of one's labour, is essential to anarchism. Socialism violates the non-aggression principle and contradicts anarchism.

[RoyBatty]

Libertarianism in its purist form is anarcho-capitalism. Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. Without aggressive force - the essence of the State's reality - socialism cannot be maintained.


Indeed. Give 10 randomly chosen subjects an equal start and eventually the weaker ones will be "put out of business", killed or enslaved by the stronger ones until eventually only King Oligarch is left.

That is the true nature of Libertarianism. No rules, pure Darwinism, survival of the fittest. Once "rules and laws" start being applied it ain't "Libertarianism" no more and those still adhering to the term "Libertarianism" are deluding themselves.

You're either "free" (Libertarianism) or you are not "free", ie, you're part of some system which governs your life be it Socialism, Capitalism, Communism or whatever.

Libertarianism seems like a great idea if you're out in the middle of nowhere with no threats, potentially hostile neighbours or outsiders with designs on your land, riches and wimminz but since such a Utopia doesn't really exist for most of us we have to do the second best thing which is to Collectivise and Socialise and Organise ourselves, our societies and our Defense against external threats.

[Dacul]

I am semi-socialist-communist in which I think small property should stay at people and should be encouraged and also usual people should be supported and encouraged to work in common,to have properties in common for small communities.
And I think big property should belong to the nation.
So railroads,hospitals,education system,police,firemen, electric energy production and transportation etc should belong to the nation.
In Romania before 1900 and before 1800 we had something called "obsti" - translate by a small community and it was "proprietate de obste" which means some things were belonging to the small community.
This is a small communism which I highly support.
For example,they had the village which formed a community and it was the forest of the village,the meadow of the village and so on.
Capitalism in my views is anti-human and brings discord between people.

[RoyBatty]

I agree. I also think that larger industries, mines, banks etc should be controlled 51% by State. The smaller kinds of companies are OK for private ownership but once they reach a certain size they become a threat to ordinary people if they are privately held.

This super-privatised Capitalist system where a few Oligarchs, Banks and Corporations own everything is evil.

[Anarch]

Indeed. Give 10 randomly chosen subjects an equal start and eventually the weaker ones will be "put out of business", killed or enslaved by the stronger ones until eventually only King Oligarch is left.

Uh... no, you're wrong, and obviously don't understand laissez-faire capitalism.


That is the true nature of Libertarianism. No rules, pure Darwinism, survival of the fittest. Once "rules and laws" start being applied it ain't "Libertarianism" no more and those still adhering to the term "Libertarianism" are deluding themselves.

Libertarianism is dependent on the non-aggression principle. You do know what that is, don't you?


You're either "free" (Libertarianism) or you are not "free", ie, you're part of some system which governs your life be it Socialism, Capitalism, Communism or whatever.

Capitalism proper, i.e., laissez-faire capitalism, is the economic form of libertarianism.


Libertarianism seems like a great idea if you're out in the middle of nowhere with no threats, potentially hostile neighbours or outsiders with designs on your land, riches and wimminz but since such a Utopia doesn't really exist for most of us we have to do the second best thing which is to Collectivise and Socialise and Organise ourselves, our societies and our Defense against external threats.

This is retarded, and rubbish. Guerilla warfare is the libertarian model of defensive warfare. It works.


I agree. I also think that larger industries, mines, banks etc should be controlled 51% by State. The smaller kinds of companies are OK for private ownership but once they reach a certain size they become a threat to ordinary people if they are privately held.

A threat to ordinary people? Tell me - how many people have been killed by private companies not in service to the state in the last century? Very few. Now - how many have been killed at the hands of the state? Hundreds of millions. Statists are in no position to declare proper private industry a threat to 'ordinary individuals'.


This super-privatised Capitalist system where a few Oligarchs, Banks and Corporations own everything is evil.

LOL. Obviously you don't understand the mechanics of laissez-faire capitalism properly if you actually think such a situation is even possible. And what we are living under is not laissez-faire capitalism, it's mixed economy.

[Hess]

Libertarianism seems like a great idea if you're out in the middle of nowhere with no threats, potentially hostile neighbours or outsiders with designs on your land, riches and wimminz but since such a Utopia doesn't really exist for most of us we have to do the second best thing which is to Collectivise and Socialise and Organise ourselves, our societies and our Defense against external threats.

Libertarians aren't Isolationists, they're just Non-Interventionists- there's a huge difference.


Taking America, for example, Libertarians argue that the US would have been much safer if it chose not to engage in invasions, buying off dictators, assassinating other dictators, etc., because those sorts of actions almost always backfire and result in worse consequences than had they done nothing at all.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Asia-centrism

[Thunor]

Social conservative with a dash of fascism. Ideally, the US would be like a combination of Franco's Spain and the Scandinavian socialist states.


India got a Diaspora though and there are Nationalists abroad, they are represented by the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad - World Hindu Council), they work towards the improvement of India from abroad.
I'm not surprised these brown parasites are Hindu-nationalists while living in England, the US, and other countries which are superior to their own.

[RoyBatty]

Libertarianism is dependent on the non-aggression principle. You do know what that is, don't you?


Good luck trying to explain that to any self-described Libertarian. And the "non-aggression" principle are for people who believe in the tooth fairy and leprechauns. Doesn't exist in the real world.

Perhaps YOU have a little problem understanding reality and Darwinism :D



Capitalism proper, i.e., laissez-faire capitalism, is the economic form of libertarianism.

The self-regulating market is a fantasy system.... good luck with that one. :rolleyes:



This is retarded, and rubbish. Guerilla warfare is the libertarian model of defensive warfare. It works.


I can somehow see how the Michigan Militia are going to prevail against the Feds in the USA should things come down to a confrontation.... righttttttttttt :rolleyes:




A threat to ordinary people? Tell me - how many people have been killed by private companies not in service to the state in the last century? Very few.


Why the little disclaimer "not in service of the State"? It's a private company, no? Why hide behind disclaimers? And we both know that privatised killing is big business. The Military Industrial Complex is largely "privately held" and shareholder owned.

It's Smedley Butler 101 who the ones behind many wars and massacres are. Private Interests, in other words.



Now - how many have been killed at the hands of the state? Hundreds of millions. Statists are in no position to declare proper private industry a threat to 'ordinary individuals'.


Again... it's a bit vague. I mean, the Bolsheviks (sponsored by Wall Street and London and Germany) killed millions. Company money and sponsorship (Banks etc) were ultimately behind the implementation of this reign of terror.


LOL. Obviously you don't understand the mechanics of laissez-faire capitalism properly if you actually think such a situation is even possible. And what we are living under is not laissez-faire capitalism, it's mixed economy.

Once again dear boy, self-regulating markets is a nice little pipe dream.... for 10 year old Boy Scouts. If you think that the Hells Angels and others are going to let you play by the Queensbury Rules.... good luck with that one.

:coffee:

[RoyBatty]

Libertarians aren't Isolationists, they're just Non-Interventionists- there's a huge difference.


Taking America, for example, Libertarians argue that the US would have been much safer if it chose not to engage in invasions, buying off dictators, assassinating other dictators, etc., because those sorts of actions almost always backfire and result in worse consequences than had they done nothing at all.

Libertarians are deluded fools. :coffee:

[Supreme American]

Libertarians are deluded fools. :coffee:

Anarchist capitalists, basically. :rolleyes:

[Flintlocke]

Libertarians are deluded fools. :coffee:

The real world doesn't work that way, when you get down to fundamentals it's smart violence that decides all things ;)

[RagnarLodbrok666]

Libertarians are deluded fools. :coffee:

There are a few elements like self-governance and private property in libertarianism that are agreeable for ultra-nationalists. Theres the anarcho-liberal garbage that as a National Socialist I stand against and then there are those few elements that apply in any republic. This is both I and my brother who is pro-marijuana legalization and libertarian-minded agree with each other so much. Despite the fact that I favor autocracy, we are both Ron Paul supporters.

How about that huh? I don't like multiculturalism and I firmly support carbon emissions reduction and saving rainforests.

[Queen B]

Nationalist - Fascist

[Linet]

Nationalist, not fascist

[finþaų]

Nazi anarchism, in the words of Aces High on page three of this thread. :P

[arcticwolf]

This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9AG3Z9Nyu0

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlf9ZLnrtiE

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6zGEBhJMHA

[Hess]

The real world doesn't work that way, when you get down to fundamentals it's smart violence that decides all things ;)

Who gets to decide what kind of violence is "smart"? There were many Statesmen in Washington in the 1960's who were convinced that a war with Vietnam would be smart, and we can all see how that turned out; the same can be said about Iraq and Afghanistan.

BTW, why do Neo-Nazis like war so much when it was precisely their warmongering habits that destroyed the Axis Powers? If Hitler was a little more cautious about who he declared war on, perhaps there would still have been a Third Reich today.

[Flintlocke]

Simple Hess, the kind of violence that is "smart" is that which is successful. The Axis and Vietnam examples are good because defeat came not as a result of niceness but at the hands of a more vicious enemy like the NVA and the Red Army. Especially the Vietnamese were the epitome of smart violence, If you study their tactics you'll see that they based their decision on practicality and common sense which led to the Americans (being dogmatic in their military) losing due to attrition.

And let me just add that this is the correct way to fight. Facing your enemies with muskets and marching into the grapeshot is a way of fighting based on ideas of gentlemanly war from the past but it's totally impractical. Strike fast, hard and gtfo. Same with everyday life, some cunt is pissing you off don't challenge him openly where he can be prepared for it, just ambush him in a dark corner with no witnesses, kick his ass, and run as far away as you can.

[Corvus]

I am an unpolitical person

[Anarch]

Good luck trying to explain that to any self-described Libertarian. And the "non-aggression" principle are for people who believe in the tooth fairy and leprechauns. Doesn't exist in the real world.

Principles are for people with moral integrity. Some people are in possession of such a virtue, others are not.


Perhaps YOU have a little problem understanding reality and Darwinism :D

I dare say I understand Darwinism better than you do, actually.


The self-regulating market is a fantasy system.... good luck with that one. :rolleyes:

So long as there are leftists - when considered by the paradigm of Theodore Kaczynski - there will be idiots who presume that not only are all people incapable of governing their own lives, but that - contradictorily - there are a handful who know exactly how such lives are to be governed.


I can somehow see how the Michigan Militia are going to prevail against the Feds in the USA should things come down to a confrontation.... righttttttttttt :rolleyes:

This is only a question of will. Algerian nationalists did defeat France, the Brits were defeated in the US war of independence, and Afghans did defeat the Soviet Union.


Why the little disclaimer "not in service of the State"? It's a private company, no? Why hide behind disclaimers? And we both know that privatised killing is big business. The Military Industrial Complex is largely "privately held" and shareholder owned.

It's quite obvious exactly what it was I was saying. How many people have been killed by Starbucks or Wallmart? The privatisation of military affairs through such entities as Blackwater still depends on the enslavement of entire populations through taxation - all it does is change the people who do the killing. It is an entirely different case if Blackwater operators are hired by shipping companies to face down Somali pirates, and is essentially no different than a supermarket hiring its own security guards.


It's Smedley Butler 101 who the ones behind many wars and massacres are. Private Interests, in other words.

War is the health of the state. Without the state, war becomes much more difficult.


Again... it's a bit vague. I mean, the Bolsheviks (sponsored by Wall Street and London and Germany) killed millions. Company money and sponsorship (Banks etc) were ultimately behind the implementation of this reign of terror.

Tens of millions of people were killed by Red China. Millions have been killed in Africa fighting over the state. The same goes for Russia. Not to mention the Southern War for Independence in the US. The state is wholly and entirely responsible for the first and second world wars, costing vast resources which doubtlessly would've been more productive had they been available for private industry. That a handful - proportionate to the entire economy - of private enterprises found it possible to make some money by assisting the slaughter of millions does nothing to disprove the fact that war is inherent to the nature of the state, nor invalidate the fact that free investment, production and trade contradicts laissez-faire capitalism.


Once again dear boy, self-regulating markets is a nice little pipe dream.... for 10 year old Boy Scouts. If you think that the Hells Angels and others are going to let you play by the Queensbury Rules.... good luck with that one.

:coffee:


The crimes of the Hell's Angels don't match the violent aggression waged by Governments, nor are they capable of doing so - because the Hell's Angels do not have the resources, courtesy of taxation, to carry out such violence. Name an entity funded by freely agreed production and trade that is capable of carrying out such atrocities as the Bataan Death March, the gulags, the industrial killing machine that was the Eastern Front of WWII, the incineration of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[RoyBatty]

Principles are for people with moral integrity. Some people are in possession of such a virtue, others are not.


The world's a jungle. Integrity is for idiots who bet the farm on the Hells Angels never finding the farm. Ain't gonna happen.



I dare say I understand Darwinism better than you do, actually.


Ooooohhhh you're soooo clever. You have to keep reminding me. Because you are sooooo clever..... you have to keep reminding me. Feeling clever and important yet boy? :rolleyes:




This is only a question of will. Algerian nationalists did defeat France, the Brits were defeated in the US war of independence, and Afghans did defeat the Soviet Union.


Which of these guerrilla groups were anarcho-libertarians? :rolleyes:
Not to mention that the Afghans were being supplied by Western Capitalists.



It's quite obvious exactly what it was I was saying. How many people have been killed by Starbucks or Wallmart?


Congratulations, you win First Prize for the most disingenious and idiotic argument of the week.

What you should have asked was:
How many people have been killed by Banks XYZ and by Blackwater.



The privatisation of military affairs through such entities as Blackwater still depends on the enslavement of entire populations through taxation - all it does is change the people who do the killing.


So what? The anarcho-libertarian oligarch has his own private army and methods of raising taxes on the population.



It is an entirely different case if Blackwater operators are hired by shipping companies to face down Somali pirates, and is essentially no different than a supermarket hiring its own security guards.


But we're not talking about shipping security, we're talking about the mercenary business and the land invasion for profits business.




War is the health of the state. Without the state, war becomes much more difficult.


Define "State". Nowadays control over the "State" seems closer to the Privately Held Corporations than to the People.



Tens of millions of people were killed by Red China. Millions have been killed in Africa fighting over the state.


Niggers don't fight over the "State". You're mistakenly assuming that a nigger is actually sophisticated enough to build a state.


The same goes for Russia.

Russian / Soviet Bolshevism were sponsored by, amongst others, Jewish Wall Street Bankers. Capitalism and Private Interests brought them to power.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Oligarchic Anarcho-Libertarians battled one another for the spoils to rob the State.


Not to mention the Southern War for Independence in the US. The state is wholly and entirely responsible for the first and second world wars, costing vast resources which doubtlessly would've been more productive had they been available for private industry.


Who profits from Wars? Oh... that's right. Private Interests such as Banks supplying the Capital, Weapons Makers, Contractors supplying Services etc.

Did they teach you nothing in Kangaroo College about who buys and owns politicians, how politicians award contracts to "Private Enterprise" in return?

Sigh..... what a dingbat. :rolleyes:



That a handful - proportionate to the entire economy - of private enterprises found it possible to make some money by assisting the slaughter of millions does nothing to disprove the fact that war is inherent to the nature of the state, nor invalidate the fact that free investment, production and trade contradicts laissez-faire capitalism.


War is inherent to the personal gain and interest of the Elites who hijack the State for the purpose of making war and profits.

Read what an expert on the topic had to say about it, get a clue.


Smedley Butler USMC - War Is A Racket

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.


The rest here......

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html



The crimes of the Hell's Angels don't match the violent aggression waged by Governments, nor are they capable of doing so - because the Hell's Angels do not have the resources, courtesy of taxation, to carry out such violence.


The Hells Angels are perfectly capable of implementing their own Taxation Regime. The only thing inhibiting their exponential growth and accumulation of resources are the State and its organised muscle which places a bit of a damper upon proceedings. In a Free World, the Hells Angel will thrive.

You're also under the delusion that Govt is some kind of independent entity. Govt is to a large degree servants of the Oligarchy, not the people. In Western Countries Govt are elected by sheeple whose choices are dictated by the Oligarchy owned media.

Govt is supposed to be the servant of the people, BUT IN REALITY IT DOESN'T WORK THIS WAY.

IT IS NOT THE PEOPLE WHO DEMAND AND CHOOSE TO MAKE WARS. It is Govt acting on behalf of their Corporate and Tycoon Sponsors.



Name an entity funded by freely agreed production and trade that is capable of carrying out such atrocities as the Bataan Death March, the gulags, the industrial killing machine that was the Eastern Front of WWII, the incineration of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Boeing Corporation, Lockheed Corporation, BAE Corporation, General Dynamics Corporation, Halliburton, Kellogg Root Brown, Bechtel, BP, Shell, Exxon, United Fruit Company............

[Hess]

Simple Hess, the kind of violence that is "smart" is that which is successful. The Axis and Vietnam examples are good because defeat came not as a result of niceness but at the hands of a more vicious enemy like the NVA and the Red Army. Especially the Vietnamese were the epitome of smart violence, If you study their tactics you'll see that they based their decision on practicality and common sense which led to the Americans (being dogmatic in their military) losing due to attrition.

And let me just add that this is the correct way to fight. Facing your enemies with muskets and marching into the grapeshot is a way of fighting based on ideas of gentlemanly war from the past but it's totally impractical. Strike fast, hard and gtfo. Same with everyday life, some cunt is pissing you off don't challenge him openly where he can be prepared for it, just ambush him in a dark corner with no witnesses, kick his ass, and run as far away as you can.


Well, the Americans lost Vietnam because they never had a plan for how to win. At the end of the day, the Vietnam Cong were prepared to suffer insanely high casualties and the Americans weren't.

The American military actually WON every single major battle in Vietnam, the death ratio was 1 American to every 12 VC.


And I also don't see how the Red Army was more "vicious" than the Wehrmacht. They just had more numbers and, later on in the war, better technology.

[Hess]

Russian / Soviet Bolshevism were sponsored by, amongst others, Jewish Wall Street Bankers. Capitalism and Private Interests brought them to power.

Any proof of any of this?

German High Command, the Government, and not the evil capitalists transported Lenin from Switzerland to Russia.

Btw, the Bolsheviks also killed or expelled hundreds of Rich Russian Jews. To them, it wasn't about race but about class.


Who profits from Wars? Oh... that's right. Private Interests such as Banks supplying the Capital, Weapons Makers, Contractors

Your hypothesis is simply wrong from an economic point of view. The Notion that Capitalism and the Free Market profits from war is a baseless accusation made by Statists that has been debunked ad nauseum

The truth is that the free market is hurt by war.

http://mises.org/daily/1201

http://capitalism.org/category/war/

http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/afolsom/Page_6281/Butters.pdf

[Aces High]

Any proof of any of this?

Read up on Jacob Schiff,etc...its too long to go into.

Seek and thy shall find......;)

[RoyBatty]

Any proof of any of this?

Yes, the information is out there.



German High Command, the Government, and not the evil capitalists transported Lenin from Switzerland to Russia.


The Germans ensured that Lenin and his sealed train could get to St Petersburg. The British also ensured that Trotsky could leave Canada unmolested. The British Embassy in Washington saw to this. Do basic research.



Btw, the Bolsheviks also killed or expelled hundreds of Rich Russian Jews.


Name these 100's of Rich Russian Jews persecuted by the Bolshevists.



Your hypothesis is simply wrong from an economic point of view. The Notion that Capitalism and the Free Market profits from war is a baseless accusation made by Statists that has been debunked ad nauseum


You're wrong. As usual.

[Hess]

Yes, the information is out there.

Then show a link

DISCLAIMER: Posts by people on Stormfront do not count as information


The Germans ensured that Lenin and his sealed train could get to St Petersburg. The British also ensured that Trotsky could leave Canada unmolested. The British Embassy in Washington saw to this. Do basic research.

It wasn't "The Germans" and "The British" who did this, it was German and British Bureaucrats. You've yet to show how Capitalists are guilty of any of this.


Name these 100's of Rich Russian Jews persecuted by the Bolshevists.

Alexander Kerensky, head of the Second Provisional Argument, was a Jew by blood.

The fact that a Jew was violently overthrown by other Jews should show you that that Jews are not this Monolithic entity who are all acting for a single cause. There were Jewish Tsarists, Jewish Whites, and Jewish Reds in Russia who were all in opposition to each other.

Here's an interesting article (http://standpointmag.co.uk/features-april-12-how-the-left-turned-against-the-jews-nick-cohen-anti-semitism-israel-islamism?page=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C 0%2C0) on the acrid resentment between Jewish Communists and Capitalists


You're wrong

Basic Economic Theory says otherwise. There is simply no Evidence that the Free Market benefits from War.

[Breedingvariety]

Basic Economic Theory says otherwise. There is simply no Evidence that the Free Market benefits from War.
Free market can't benefit or lose. The principles of free market can be upheld or infringed.

Some people benefit from war.

[Kazimiera]

Anarchist = 5
Socialist = 3
Communist = 2

And then people have issues with me being left?

[Quorra]

And then people have issues with me being left?

People have issues with you being pro-African and anti-European. I said it before, most of the members on this site are left wing as we discovered in the political 'test'. Even many who don't know it.

[Kazimiera]

People have issues with you being pro-African and anti-European. I said it before, most of the members on this site are left wing as we discovered in the political 'test'. Even many who don't know it.

But who says that I am pro-African??? :confused:

And I'm definitely not anti-European.

I have a problem with media being twisted either way to suit any race. And people judging other people based on skin colour. As if that is any gauge to go by. An asshole is an asshole no matter what colour he is. A good person is a good person not matter what colour they are.

My issue is with people who see a newspaper article about a black criminal and go "He's black. Of course he's going to do these things. It's written in his genes."

The same person will look at an article of a white criminal and go, "He must have been pushed to do it by the blacks."

THAT is what I have a gripe with. I don't vote for black power. I vote for what is fair. And if a black man is going to be jailed for a crime, I will be in the front row clapping my hands. If a white guy is going to jail for a crime, I'll also be in the front row clapping my hands.

I am against stereotyping. Not every German is a Nazi, not every Australian shags sheep and not every American is a fat slob who only eats Big Macs. Of course there are those will disagree with me and vouch for the fact that all Australians shag sheep, that ALL Germans are Nazi's and of course all Americans are obese.

[Kazimiera]

And as for South Africa, the politicians were white capitalist assholes in expensive suits. The only difference is that now they are black assholes.

You can dress up an asshole in Armani, but that doesn't change what he is.

[PetiteParisienne]

Some of my views are quite conservative and others are rather liberal. I keep my eyes, heart, and mind open in order to keep my beliefs level, just, and informed.

[Jon Snow]

It would be helpful to have an agreed-upon definition for the choices listed above, but regardless:

Race and culture feature preeminently in my worldview. I believe in separation and self-determination for all peoples, as well as a generalized unity between persons of European descent (but not one that results in the erasure of cultures or ethnicities).

Politically, I have no real problem with moderate capitalism or moderate socialism in the context of a homogenous society. However, implementing socialist policies in a multiracial nation like the modern USA would be nothing short of disastrous.

Aside from my vehement, non-negotiable opposition to multiculturalism, immigration, and mixing, I consider myself fairly socially liberal: homosexuality, abortion, and religion should all be non-issues in the grand scheme of things, and environmental stewardship is of the utmost importance.

I guess this puts me somewhere along the spectrum of New Right--Nationalist--National Socialist?

[Kazimiera]

Politically, I have no real problem with moderate capitalism or moderate socialism in the context of a homogenous society. However, implementing socialist policies in a multiracial nation like the modern USA would be nothing short of disastrous.


Why? (Honest question, no sarcasm, no strings attached)

[finþaų]

Why? (Honest question, no sarcasm, no strings attached)

Because in a heterogenous society the natural racial and socio-cultural ties between people are severed. Socialism will thus lead to massive exploitation.

[Jon Snow]

Why? (Honest question, no sarcasm, no strings attached)

Honest question, honest answer. :D

The (largely white) American middle class has been shrinking steadily for decades now, and will continue to shrink for the foreseeable future. Aside from the general economic malaise afflicting the Western world as a whole, the reason for this is largely the result of combining liberal social policies with a racially stratified population.

There are an enormous amount of welfare "lifers" in the black community, where entire neighborhoods full of people are funded cradle-to-grave by the taxpayer. This is just one example of how the results of the aforementioned equation are made manifest; others include taxpayer funded health care for illegal immigrants, the creation of unnecessary government jobs (which are then given overwhelmingly to members of racial minorities), etc.

In short, all of these social safety nets are "socalism-lite", and they all result in the undeserved transfer of wealth, power, and quality of life from white people (and, to be fair, other productive minority groups like Jews and Orientals) to racial others.

One imagines that such a process would only be amplified under socialism proper--although, as I did mention before, I would have no real issue living in a socialist, racially homogenous nation.

Edit: Also, what finþaų said much more succinctly above. :D

[arcticwolf]

Aside from my vehement, non-negotiable opposition to multiculturalism, immigration, and mixing, I consider myself fairly socially liberal: homosexuality, abortion, and religion should all be non-issues in the grand scheme of things, and environmental stewardship is of the utmost importance.

I guess this puts me somewhere along the spectrum of New Right--Nationalist--National Socialist?

I'm not really political I'm a weird Gnostic/Buddhist mix, but I share your views: "homosexuality, abortion, and religion should all be non-issues in the grand scheme of things, and environmental stewardship is of the utmost importance." Plus I love freedom more than anything else.

Nah, I think that just makes you.......... sane. :D

[Kazimiera]

Honest question, honest answer. :D

The (largely white) American middle class has been shrinking steadily for decades now, and will continue to shrink for the foreseeable future. Aside from the general economic malaise afflicting the Western world as a whole, the reason for this is largely the result of combining liberal social policies with a racially stratified population.

There are an enormous amount of welfare "lifers" in the black community, where entire neighborhoods full of people are funded cradle-to-grave by the taxpayer. This is just one example of how the results of the aforementioned equation are made manifest; others include taxpayer funded health care for illegal immigrants, the creation of unnecessary government jobs (which are then given overwhelmingly to members of racial minorities), etc.

In short, all of these social safety nets are "socalism-lite", and they all result in the undeserved transfer of wealth, power, and quality of life from white people (and, to be fair, other productive minority groups like Jews and Orientals) to racial others.

One imagines that such a process would only be amplified under socialism proper--although, as I did mention before, I would have no real issue living in a socialist, racially homogenous nation.

Edit: Also, what finþaų said much more succinctly above. :D

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

The middle class is getting progressively poorer and it's a downward slide.

Although I think the problem lies not with the liberal policies but with their implementation.

As you call them "cradle-to-the-grave" welfarers are an expensive reality. I do believe that tax-payer healthcare is necessary, but not for illegal immigrants or some choice minority groups. Money which should stay within a country is being siphoned off and may as well be thrown down the drain.

[Jon Snow]

I'm not really political I'm a weird Gnostic/Buddhist mix, but I share your views: "homosexuality, abortion, and religion should all be non-issues in the grand scheme of things, and environmental stewardship is of the utmost importance." Plus I love freedom more than anything else.

Nah, I think that just makes you.......... sane. :D

Yeah, I actually find it sad how people draw up battle lines around things like gay marriage and abortion. I understand that people sometimes feel passionately about these issues, but they won't shape the future of a nation like demographics, the economy, and foreign policy will.


I think you hit the nail on the head there.

The middle class is getting progressively poorer and it's a downward slide.

Although I think the problem lies not with the liberal policies but with their implementation.

As you call them "cradle-to-the-grave" welfarers are an expensive reality. I do believe that tax-payer healthcare is necessary, but not for illegal immigrants or some choice minority groups. Money which should stay within a country is being siphoned off and may as well be thrown down the drain.

Can't argue at all with anything you've said here, and I'm glad that we're in agreement. If I may, I'm curious about something:

In reference to your belief that the issue lies not in the existence of certain policies but in their implementation, how would you go about implementing social safety nets in a nation like contemporary America without penalizing productive groups of people?

[Kazimiera]

Can't argue at all with anything you've said here, and I'm glad that we're in agreement. If I may, I'm curious about something:

In reference to your belief that the issue lies not in the existence of certain policies but in their implementation, how would you go about implementing social safety nets in a nation like contemporary America without penalizing productive groups of people?

This is the million dollar question. Theory is one thing, putting it into practice is another and I cannot give you an answer on that.

How do you think how this can be implemented?

[Jon Snow]

This is the million dollar question. Theory is one thing, putting it into practice is another and I cannot give you an answer on that.

How do you think how this can be implemented?

Well, that's just it: I don't think these policies can be effectively implemented in a country like mine, unless they are reshaped to be much more limited.

If I were in charge, I would cut welfare drastically. I would do my best to eliminate waste and exploitation, ensuring that food stamps were available only to those families who genuinely need them, and that unemployment benefits were a) available for a shorter duration of time, and b) only available to those who are actively seeking employment.

My cousin tells horror stories about making nine dollars per hour working as a cashier in a grocery store in order to put himself through college, only to have frequent encounters with (black) people who would buy steak, lobster, shrimp, and other expensive items with food stamps and EBT cards, and then pull out wads of hundred dollar bills to pay for cigarettes and alcohol.

This type of exploitation needs to end. It has had an extremely deleterious effect on members of my generation, who are entering the workforce with bleak prospects, enormous amounts of debt, and the knowledge that we'll be struggling to ever afford a house and family while millions of parasites get a free ride.

[Kazimiera]

Well, that's just it: I don't think these policies can be effectively implemented in a country like mine, unless they are reshaped to be much more limited.

If I were in charge, I would cut welfare drastically. I would do my best to eliminate waste and exploitation, ensuring that food stamps were available only to those families who genuinely need them, and that unemployment benefits were a) available for a shorter duration of time, and b) only available to those who are actively seeking employment.

My cousin tells horror stories about making nine dollars per hour working as a cashier in a grocery store in order to put himself through college, only to have frequent encounters with (black) people who would buy steak, lobster, shrimp, and other expensive items with food stamps and EBT cards, and then pull out wads of hundred dollar bills to pay for cigarettes and alcohol.

This type of exploitation needs to end. It has had an extremely deleterious effect of my generation, who are entering the workforce with bleak prospects, enormous amounts of debt, and the knowledge that we'll be struggling to ever afford a house and family while millions of parasites get a free ride.

Welfare has its place but within certain limits such as the ones you mentioned.

Immigrants need to be sent back to wherever they came from. Reproductive choices of people need to be looked at very seriously, especially around contraception, teenage pregnancy and having multiple children. HIV needs to be addressed, maybe more in my country than yours, but it is costing the taxpayer millions and millions every year.

People should receive decent educations, but also be expected to do community service for a certain amount of time to put back what has been given to them. This should be enforced STRICTLY.

I think each welfare case/request should be individually assessed and not automatically granted. This is going to cost money, but it will also save money in the longer run.

[Hess]

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

The middle class is getting progressively poorer and it's a downward slide.

Although I think the problem lies not with the liberal policies but with their implementation.

As you call them "cradle-to-the-grave" welfarers are an expensive reality. I do believe that tax-payer healthcare is necessary, but not for illegal immigrants or some choice minority groups. Money which should stay within a country is being siphoned off and may as well be thrown down the drain.

The idea that the poor and middle are getting poorer (and the rich are getting richer), while oft-repeated, simply isn't true: social mobility is as alive as ever, and the poor of today are far better off than they were 30, or even 15 years ago.

Here's a video (http://www.learnliberty.org/content/are-poor-getting-poorer) that sums it up succinctly

[Kazimiera]

The idea that the poor and middle are getting poorer (and the rich are getting richer), while oft-repeated, simply isn't true: social mobility is as alive as ever, and the poor of today are far better off than they were 30, or even 15 years ago.

Here's a video (http://www.learnliberty.org/content/are-poor-getting-poorer) that sums it up succinctly

I think that this mobility is different in different countries. One cannot assume that this is the same in every country. In South Africa the middle class is actually expanding. It is more the middle class white group which is decreasing and the middle class black group is expanding. Taken in as a whole, the numbers show that there are an increase but for many people it is a decrease. This expansion for one has been at the expense of another.

I cannot vouch for other countries, but what a middle class family could afford thirty years ago is not what they can afford today.

My husband's father was a middle class man with an average job, his mom didn't work. He managed to pay off a house, raise four kids and could go on an annual holiday every year. How many middle class people can afford the same luxury today?

[gossimer]

Racial European Marxist staying true to the real Marx not the one modern Liberals try and paint him as.

[Hess]

I think that this mobility is different in different countries. One cannot assume that this is the same in every country. In South Africa the middle class is actually expanding. It is more the middle class white group which is decreasing and the middle class black group is expanding. Taken in as a whole, the numbers show that there are an increase but for many people it is a decrease. This expansion for one has been at the expense of another.

I cannot vouch for other countries, but what a middle class family could afford thirty years ago is not what they can afford today.

My husband's father was a middle class man with an average job, his mom didn't work. He managed to pay off a house, raise four kids and could go on an annual holiday every year. How many middle class people can afford the same luxury today?

Ah, I assumed you were American for some reason

[RagnarLodbrok666]

The law of the harvest is a Celtic Neopagan bylaw stating that one only has the right to use violence when one could be threatened with by the other party. Perhaps the ideas of the Druid networks can be applied to National Socialist views. Our Druid friends in the UK and USA seem to only see certain conflicts like the revolution and the war of 1812 as necessary conflicts. :lightbul:



Who gets to decide what kind of violence is "smart"? There were many Statesmen in Washington in the 1960's who were convinced that a war with Vietnam would be smart, and we can all see how that turned out; the same can be said about Iraq and Afghanistan.

BTW, why do Neo-Nazis like war so much when it was precisely their warmongering habits that destroyed the Axis Powers? If Hitler was a little more cautious about who he declared war on, perhaps there would still have been a Third Reich today.

[Jon Snow]

Welfare has its place but within certain limits such as the ones you mentioned.

Immigrants need to be sent back to wherever they came from. Reproductive choices of people need to be looked at very seriously, especially around contraception, teenage pregnancy and having multiple children. HIV needs to be addressed, maybe more in my country than yours, but it is costing the taxpayer millions and millions every year.

People should receive decent educations, but also be expected to do community service for a certain amount of time to put back what has been given to them. This should be enforced STRICTLY.

I think each welfare case/request should be individually assessed and not automatically granted. This is going to cost money, but it will also save money in the longer run.

Agreed with all of the above. I'm particularly interested in the idea of community service as a stand-in for tuition. Is this just an idea you had, or is it currently being implemented somewhere?


I cannot vouch for other countries, but what a middle class family could afford thirty years ago is not what they can afford today.

My husband's father was a middle class man with an average job, his mom didn't work. He managed to pay off a house, raise four kids and could go on an annual holiday every year. How many middle class people can afford the same luxury today?

Same story with my grandfather, except he had eight kids. Times sure have changed, and not for the better.

[Kazimiera]

Agreed with all of the above. I'm particularly interested in the idea of community service as a stand-in for tuition. Is this just an idea you had, or is it currently being implemented somewhere?

I'm not sure if we are on the same page here, but in South Africa it is a requirement in some professions for you to work in the profession you have studied for the same amount of time you have studied before you are granted your license to practice.

They do it here especially in healthcare related fields. If you studied to be a registered nurse which is 4 years, you are required to work in state hospitals for 4 years before they grant you the license to practice independantly. This way the state health care service gets at least 4 years out of you. You have to work those 4 years if you want to practice. So you don't have a choice really. They pay you well, but you MUST work in that period. For 4 years they have you by the balls and that is a good thing.

It is late now and I must go to bed, but i will elaborate further tomorrow if you wish.

[Quorra]

But who says that I am pro-African??? :confused:

And I'm definitely not anti-European. You've said it heaps, literally too.


I have a problem with media being twisted either way to suit any race. And people judging other people based on skin colour. As if that is any gauge to go by. An asshole is an asshole no matter what colour he is. A good person is a good person not matter what colour they are. Stereostyping is an important survival skill. We feel we are being disallowed to do this by those who socially enforce political correctness and those who go along with it out of fear. We know that Africans are more likely to commit violent crime and we bloody well wnat that information to be available to us for the security of our communitys and our children.


My issue is with people who see a newspaper article about a black criminal and go "He's black. Of course he's going to do these things. It's written in his genes."

The same person will look at an article of a white criminal and go, "He must have been pushed to do it by the blacks." It sounds a sensible assesment for an imperfect world.


THAT is what I have a gripe with. I don't vote for black power. I vote for what is fair. And if a black man is going to be jailed for a crime, I will be in the front row clapping my hands. If a white guy is going to jail for a crime, I'll also be in the front row clapping my hands. Seeing people punished isn't to my tastes. That said it is not "fair" to distribute the idea that Blacks aren't likely to attack a white. It's just not and it shows your bias that you would want to decieve people into thinking that.


I am against stereotyping. Not every German is a Nazi, not every Australian shags sheep and not every American is a fat slob who only eats Big Macs. Of course there are those will disagree with me and vouch for the fact that all Australians shag sheep, that ALL Germans are Nazi's and of course all Americans are obese.

I reserve the right to stereotype in the name of making a predjugment which prepares me for dealing with people.

Germans are often uptight neurotic type of people, I am aware of that and am prepared that one I'm dealing with may be "nazi" like.

The Aussie one is just silly, but another Aussie one is maybe we may create trouble when backpacking in Europe. This is possibly true and I'm happy for people to be aware of it.

I think the American one is not much of a stereotype because it serves no useful purpose. Unless you are having one for tea and you might decide to do a few extra loads of baking.

Sterotypes are true. And they hurt a lot less than a machete in the neck.

[Hess]

Racial European Marxist staying true to the real Marx not the one modern Liberals try and paint him as.

Marx was a devout anti-racist (http://libertyandsocialism.org/2011/07/19/karl-marx-the-racist/), to suggest otherwise is to engage in major historical revisionism.

[korkolola]

Classical liberal (or liberal in European sense) or libertarian, sceptic. I am socially liberal, but I believe everyone has the right to live the life they want, according to their own moral/etc code. In terms of economic views, I am very pro-Austrian school of economics.

[Jon Snow]

I'm not sure if we are on the same page here, but in South Africa it is a requirement in some professions for you to work in the profession you have studied for the same amount of time you have studied before you are granted your license to practice.

They do it here especially in healthcare related fields. If you studied to be a registered nurse which is 4 years, you are required to work in state hospitals for 4 years before they grant you the license to practice independantly. This way the state health care service gets at least 4 years out of you. You have to work those 4 years if you want to practice. So you don't have a choice really. They pay you well, but you MUST work in that period. For 4 years they have you by the balls and that is a good thing.

It is late now and I must go to bed, but i will elaborate further tomorrow if you wish.

Ah, that makes perfect sense now, and I do agree that it seems a very reasonable system. No need to further elaborate; I just misunderstood you the first time around.

[sturmwalkure]

I'm a National Socialist. I believe in an ideology in accordance with nature's eternal laws. I believe in the acceptance and the application of these laws in the human sector of society. I believe in a new birth for humanity of radiant idealism, realistic peace, international order and justice for all men. I believe in a Renaissance and a glorious revival of the Volkisch elements of our people. I believe in no more brother wars between Europeans nations and the end of American dominance and role as a world police. I believe in exacting justice on those behind the genocide of our race. I believe the Palestinians should be given back their rightful land in 'Israel' and that the rat race of Jews is once and for all subdued.

I do not believe in Democracy for the masses have always been ignorant and quite frankly don't know what they want. What there needs to be is an enlightened leadership of select individuals who would make the best choices for those they represent. I believe in the repatriation of all non-White and mixed-race people from continental Europe. I am for the disbandment of the EU, NATO and the UN. I am against the Frankfurt school and wish for it's destruction as well as the weeding out of Liberal rats and others who have subverted our superior nations and cultures in Europe and to bring them to final justice and make an example of it. I believe in eugenics and that certain people should be excluded from the gene pool and even excluded from healthy society which is meant to exist as an organism. Such a society can only exist in a racially homogenous Volkisch sense.

[Anarch]

The world's a jungle. Integrity is for idiots who bet the farm on the Hells Angels never finding the farm. Ain't gonna happen.

Arm the entire population to the teeth and the Hell's Angels won't be able to accomplish much.


Ooooohhhh you're soooo clever. You have to keep reminding me. Because you are sooooo clever..... you have to keep reminding me. Feeling clever and important yet boy? :rolleyes:

Certainly compared to yourself, yes.


Which of these guerrilla groups were anarcho-libertarians? :rolleyes:
Not to mention that the Afghans were being supplied by Western Capitalists.

They were being supplied by the US Government. And the Afghans are anarchists.


Congratulations, you win First Prize for the most disingenious and idiotic argument of the week.

What you should have asked was:
How many people have been killed by Banks XYZ and by Blackwater.

Banks loan money, not kill people. Blackwater either sells its services on the open market to provide private security, in which case it is paid on a completely consenual basis, or else it taxes money stolen by the state to execute its will - which makes it little more than another arm of the state.


So what? The anarcho-libertarian oligarch has his own private army and methods of raising taxes on the population.

In which case he is not an anarchist, but simply another man with pretensions at forming a state. Someone of your supposed intellectual acuity should be able to grasp such an obvious point. Oh - and it's bloody expensive sustaining a private army.


But we're not talking about shipping security, we're talking about the mercenary business and the land invasion for profits business.

There's a massive distinction, and you may choose to obfuscate the fact, but it'll simply make you look like an inconsistent fool.


Define "State". Nowadays control over the "State" seems closer to the Privately Held Corporations than to the People.

Capitalising Random Words Does Not Make You More Intelligent. Now, with that out of the way, the state is an organisation that claims the sovereign right of imposing force over a delineated territory and its inhabitants. This is a widely recognised definition of the state. The state is the issue, not the economy. Production and trade does not kill people.


Niggers don't fight over the "State". You're mistakenly assuming that a nigger is actually sophisticated enough to build a state.

They know what it is. They saw it forged by whites - whether of the communist or imperial variety. They know its power, and each wishes to wield it for their own ends - namely, to enslave and exploit their tribal rivals.


Russian / Soviet Bolshevism were sponsored by, amongst others, Jewish Wall Street Bankers. Capitalism and Private Interests brought them to power.

And this makes the Romanovs somehow less culpable for driving the Russian people into the meat grinder of WWI?


After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Oligarchic Anarcho-Libertarians battled one another for the spoils to rob the State.

ROFLMAO. They were not 'anarcho-libertarians'.


Who profits from Wars? Oh... that's right. Private Interests such as Banks supplying the Capital, Weapons Makers, Contractors supplying Services etc.

Bureaucrats, politicians and the other assorted parasites the bleed the population dry.


Did they teach you nothing in Kangaroo College about who buys and owns politicians, how politicians award contracts to "Private Enterprise" in return?

Sigh..... what a dingbat. :rolleyes:

How exactly would they do this in the absence of the state?


War is inherent to the personal gain and interest of the Elites who hijack the State for the purpose of making war and profits.

Read what an expert on the topic had to say about it, get a clue.

War is inherent to the state. Without the state, there is no central organisation to be manipulated by these 'elites'.


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

You realise this actually supports my position, right?


The Hells Angels are perfectly capable of implementing their own Taxation Regime. The only thing inhibiting their exponential growth and accumulation of resources are the State and its organised muscle which places a bit of a damper upon proceedings. In a Free World, the Hells Angel will thrive.

How can the Hell's Angels enforce taxes upon an armed population? They make their money by manufacturing and selling drugs on the market. The state is infinitely more predatory than the Hell's Angels could ever be.


You're also under the delusion that Govt is some kind of independent entity. Govt is to a large degree servants of the Oligarchy, not the people. In Western Countries Govt are elected by sheeple whose choices are dictated by the Oligarchy owned media.

Govt is supposed to be the servant of the people, BUT IN REALITY IT DOESN'T WORK THIS WAY.

Government is incapable of serving the people. It is a parasitic organisation dependent on terror, mysticism and slavery.


IT IS NOT THE PEOPLE WHO DEMAND AND CHOOSE TO MAKE WARS. It is Govt acting on behalf of their Corporate and Tycoon Sponsors.

The government acting - that's the main point.


Boeing Corporation, Lockheed Corporation, BAE Corporation, General Dynamics Corporation, Halliburton, Kellogg Root Brown, Bechtel, BP, Shell, Exxon, United Fruit Company............

All of these organisations would function quite differently in the absence of the state. Though I suspect Boeing would still make planes while BP, Exxon and Shell would still drill oil.

[sturmwalkure]

Freedom and love :thumb001:

I figured out that I have no special political ideas I'm interested in, my only fear is and was the evil and brutality of our governments. They made me blind with their massive immigration, I saw non-european immigrants as something bad and thought fighting them will erase all our problems here. If our governments will be overthrown, the people in the world all can live in peace.we too. Then we don't need political parties or politcal ideologys here. This will be all unnecessary then.

I support a revolution in the same line like in Iran(1979) and Libya(1969).

But that doesn't mean that I want to keep the immigrants here. Sure they have to leave our Europe.

There are some good points you bring up here. 'Our' governments are using mass-immigration to destroy the morale, unity and spirit of our nations. It was all done deliberately and I do not think many of these "immigrants" from the Third World are aware of their purpose in our nations. The current government of Germany is illegal (no legitimate government since 1945 and it should be noted that the Deutsches Reich does still exist as a legal and political entity) as are the rest of the governments since World War II. Mass-immigration is just one part of the problem, there is the Liberal, Feminist attitude of a lot of people. Once these corrupt governments are overthrown then the immigrant problem can be solved. We could fight with the Third World immigrants all day long but the government will just bring in more of them and exact more draconian laws against the indigenous population in the name of "human rights". I have seen this happen all too many times and I believe many of which have been false-flag attacks.

As far as removing these immigrants it will take a civil-war. America is already past the tipping point. But like I said, it is utterly pointless to fight them until the head of the proverbial snake is cut off--- the government! The international shadow government. This may be of your interest. This immigration is just one of the very sinister tools our elite use to destroy us and to suppress us.


Wicked, evil Political and Cultural Elites, energized by Freemasonry, conspire with foolish liberal idealists and Zionists Conspirators to bring about the Liberal Utopia, which is the last stepping stone to Total World Tyranny. In Europe this manifests as the Bolshevik Soviet European Union. Crucial to the Liberal Utopia is the Multicultural Agenda; a terrible device facilitated by the official policy of every government in the West to encourage massive illegal and legal immigration of non-white, non-Christian immigrants. Hence, the iniquitous policy of generously subsidized welfare immigrants who are encouraged to preserve their own culture and language. Thus, the growing millions of immigrants who refuse to speak the indigenous language of the Western nation they choose to call home and who produce vast numbers of uneducated, illiterate Western-hating children. While, simultaneously, official policies of discrimination against the indigenous peoples of the West, and deliberate, iniquitous taxation, force many of the young Western couples to abstain from raising healthy and educated children. Further, the more prescient and ambitious Westerners emigrate from these oppressed lands, for, they see no future in a land lost to Multicultural Zionist Oppression, bizarre Political Correctness, ceaseless and unremitting taxation, monstrous health insurance rises and unaffordable price increases. Consequently, the Western World now experiences the lowest birth rates in the world. In other words: it is ethnic genocide by stealth and Culture suicide by design.

Most people are completely unaware of what is going on! They will always see what they want to see! But at the end of the day, when all of the shit hits the fan I can assure they will see. Then through chaos comes order. By this time Nationalsocialism will return but in a new name. Like the sun it is eternally in demand and the only ideology that applies the eternal laws of nature in the human sector of society. The Nationalsocialist state is the ultimate rejection of the degeneration of the modern world and it is the only Volkisch ideology that has the best interests of the people in mind. Doesn't this sound good?


Hence the supreme purpose of the ethical, National Socialist State is to guard and preserve those racial elements which, through their work in the cultural field, create that beauty and dignity which are characteristic of a higher mankind. As Aryans, we can consider the National Socialist State only as the living organism of a people, an organism which does not merely maintain the existence of a people, but functions in such a way as to lead its people to a position of supreme liberty by the progressive development of the intellectual and cultural faculties.

Note well that, in contrast to Democracy on a political plane, National Socialism does not make happiness the end of a people's existence as a society. Happiness is deemed to be at its richest and most satisfying when it is not directly sought, but comes as a by-product of expending one's energy in doing some piece of work well, or for the sake of achieving some other thing in which one deeply believes.

Imagine humanity living in peace and in balance, imagine no brother wars, imagine no predatory Capitalism, imagine no parasitic Liberalism, Feminism and other -isms. Imagine being truly free. Of course it would not be the same course applied during the 1930s but as always it can be changed and applied to fit any time and any people. We are faced with a load of different problems in this age. Hitler faced a different world, but he saw the world we are currently negated to living in today and he tried to stop it! He gave us an example, he stood against the forces of evil and unfortunately failed. But he did say it may be twenty, forty or even one hundred years before the Nationalsocialist idea is victorious.

Of course we can't go around calling ourselves Nazis and waving around the swastika. The ignorant, brainwashed masses are forever aligned against the idea. We must present ourselves with the same ideas but a new approach. We must attack and maybe even infiltrate the NGOs and the other evil corporations and associations who currently bind our freedom. I believe in a truly grassroots movement. By the people, for the people. The NSDAP was began by seven men sitting at a bar discussing politics, all ordinary men of the land, not the bourgeoisie sell-out spineless politicians we have. They gathered the people together and they overthrew the previous corrupt Wiemar regime. Germany was once again a proud and united nation. Unfortunately many mistakes were made and one of the gravest was the Anti-Slavic racism as I am sure many Russian men would have fought for Hitler and the Third Reich as the Germans were originally seen as Liberators from the talons of Bolshevik tyranny that had raped their land and that has unfortunately not so recovered from.

Then in the future generations our progeny can live in a peaceful, safe society. Free from the tyranny of the NWO, as Nationalsocialism lives on in our hearts as the idea of a perfect society. We would not do it just for ourselves but for our children and at an end humanity as an entirety. The Kali Yuga we currently live in exacerbated by the West will draw to an end very soon and then the sun will rise again like the sun after a long winter, the noble attributes of our once Godlike race will return and the future shall be ours. The winds are already beginning to turn in our favor, now all we need is a leader to unite us and lead us out of what I can only describe as a nightmare.

[StonyArabia]

Mainstream Liberal, with no racism/racialism or nationalism involved. I find it pointless bashing people and burning yourself with hate. I see the world having to much poisons in itself, one should not add more of it. I would say my ideology is based on loving people and humanity for the most part and wish there would world peace and prosperity. People coming in the true brotherhood of Humanity. To me racism/racialism are pointless and basically a vechicle that harms no self rather than does anything. At heart I am a humanist. To me the value of Humaniy is far more important than superfacial differences based on culture, religion or even the so called race. I help anyone that is indeed even those who hate me for being what I am. However I have nothing against positive nationalism:) I have been raised as liberal with some conservative elements and I like that way. I find the whole racialist rehtoric to be boring and simply outright reject it.

[Quorra]

Mainstream Liberal, with no racism/racialism or nationalism involved. I find it pointless bashing people and burning yourself with hate. I see the world having to much poisons in itself, one should not add more of it. I would say my ideology is based on loving people and humanity for the most part and wish there would world peace and prosperity. People coming in the true brotherhood of Humanity. To me racism/racialism are pointless and basically a vechicle that harms no self rather than does anything. At heart I am a humanist. To me the value of Humaniy is far more important than superfacial differences based on culture, religion or even the so called race. I help anyone that is indeed even those who hate me for being what I am. However I have nothing against positive nationalism:) I have been raised as liberal with some conservative elements and I like that way. I find the whole racialist rehtoric to be boring and simply outright reject it.

:rolleyes:

[sturmwalkure]

You might want to read How Adolf Hitler Consolidated Power, by Leon Degrelle (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p299_Degrelle.html) Hitler was a true revolutionary and a visionary. :thumb001: The text is entirely too large and lengthy to post in this thread. It's a good read.

[Hess]

The "Nationalist" category is too broad.


You can be a Libertarian Nationalist, a Liberal Nationalist, a Conservative Nationalist, a Communist Nationalist, and even an Anarchist Nationalist

[RagnarLodbrok666]

The "Nationalist" category is too broad.


You can be a Libertarian Nationalist, a Liberal Nationalist, a Conservative Nationalist, a Communist Nationalist, and even an Anarchist Nationalist

I'm just favoring ethnic nationalism myself. Just because I favor decentralizing and localising the state and getting rid of the house of representives and congress. So a tribunal similiar to the althing of old made up of military officials would take its place.

How is my ideal vision of Vinland? is it close enough to anyone elses?

[sturmwalkure]

The "Nationalist" category is too broad.


You can be a Libertarian Nationalist, a Liberal Nationalist, a Conservative Nationalist, a Communist Nationalist, and even an Anarchist Nationalist

.... or a National Socialist. :D

[Bobcat Fraser]

Libertarianism and Constitutionalism come to mind. "Independent" does too. It's often best to judge the merits of each issue within the framework of sound philosophies which don't limit your ability to break out of ineffective political parties/systems. It's pragmatism under law. Break out of the false paradigms that have limited our advancement. Forget the Republican (Coca Cola) and Democratic (Pepsi Cola) Party (not a typo BTW). Make your own choices. Reach your own conclusions, and don't fret if they don't fit the old paradigm.

[Fylfot]

I have always been a tribalist and supported small communities against the state. I am a national anarchist, which means that I advocate the dissolution of the nation-states and the establishment of small tribal communities,consisting of one ethnic group. I think that the leadership in these groups should be gained by merit or wisdom, not by wealth. Economically these groups would be as self-reliant as possible and only small scale trade between these communities would be allowed. NA is also quite easily compatible with heathenism,because in smaller close-knit communities the heathen ways are more easily accessible due to the closeness of nature and the return to a more rural way of life.

[Albion]

I have always been a tribalist and supported small communities against the state. I am a national anarchist, which means that I advocate the dissolution of the nation-states and the establishment of small tribal communities,consisting of one ethnic group. I think that the leadership in these groups should be gained by merit or wisdom, not by wealth. Economically these groups would be as self-reliant as possible and only small scale trade between these communities would be allowed. NA is also quite easily compatible with heathenism,because in smaller close-knit communities the heathen ways are more easily accessible due to the closeness of nature and the return to a more rural way of life.

I don't understand. Why do people advocate anarchism when we've got examples of it such as Somalia which aren't working out?
White anarchist communities would probably be better, but it'd still be a complete mess. You can say that people would become organised, but what is it when you organise a people? The beginnings of a state?

It's always seemed like rather an illogical theory to me.

Self reliance is good though, but a great proportion of humanity wouldn't be smart enough to function outside of the state system.
I actually love the idea of self-reliant communities, it could be achieved within the existing state system if governments set favourable legislation for it (which they won't).

[Breedingvariety]

Fylfot, your proposal sounds idyllic. But it is not possible, as the world has moved on. Only destruction of civilization, most likely by global natural disaster, could return humanity to tribalism.

As it seems, the world is moving towards globalism.

[Fylfot]

Well, of course only the strong communities would survive in the end,but that's natural selection for you;)
Albion, in anglo-saxon england people held Witans,where people of the community would meet and discuss matters related to security and well-being of the community. In witans every person of the community could be heard and thus no representatives needed to elected. When the witan was held,people would go back and continue their lives as normal.
And to Breedingvariety, yes you are right that in todays world my idyl is not possible, but the world is heading towards Ragnarök, so anything is possible :D

[Breedingvariety]

Self reliance is good though, but a great proportion of humanity wouldn't be smart enough to function outside of the state system.
The system of a state is dysgenic for a large part. Although tribal society may have a tendency to drift towards brutish and unenlightened direction. So it is a toss up in a way.

The good thing about tribalism is that superior societies would expand to the detriment of inferior ones. I think enlightenment would be one of advantageous factors.

[Stefan]

There are too many.

I'd just say economically I'd like a balance between capitalism and socialism. I like the idea of social benefits, for security, but I believe strongly in competition.

Socially, I think everyone should stick with their own people and care for their own people first and foremost. It is natural.

If I were to label myself, I'd say I'm more conservative than liberal, but neither really describes me too well.

I definitely believe in nationalism, with the exception of countries based on unions: such as the U.S. For that environment, each state (or region) should have a national identity, with a degree of relation with the other states (or regions) under the federation.

[Albion]

Well, of course only the strong communities would survive in the end,but that's natural selection for you;)
Albion, in anglo-saxon england people held Witans,where people of the community would meet and discuss matters related to security and well-being of the community. In witans every person of the community could be heard and thus no representatives needed to elected. When the witan was held,people would go back and continue their lives as normal.
And to Breedingvariety, yes you are right that in todays world my idyl is not possible, but the world is heading towards Ragnarök, so anything is possible :D

That's true, but that was within tribes and early kingdoms. I don't think tribalism will work with so many people around today, especially not in England.
In England tribes would soon amalgamate and become small kingdoms and then larger ones until someone unified the island.

It just seems like an idyllic dream that can never be achieved in reality on a large scale. Maybe on a small island somewhere you could do it, but not on a worldwide scale.

[Albion]

The system of a state is dysgenic for a large part. Although tribal society may have a tendency to drift towards brutish and unenlightened direction. So it is a toss up in a way.

The good thing about tribalism is that superior societies would expand to the detriment of inferior ones. I think enlightenment would be one of advantageous factors.

No, the more aggressive societies would expand at the expense of the others. It is not good at all because brains and brawn rarely go together. Intelligent societies could be wiped out if that happened.

Just look at aggressive societies in the modern world - the Muslim world, Africa. Those are the societies that would be expanding. :( Then again Europeans could outsmart them to an extent, but it only takes a few smart leaders on their side to overpower and think just as intelligently as more intelligent societies in Europe.

Anarchy would basically be an invitation to them - here, come and invade Europe!

[Breedingvariety]

Stefan, USA should at least have a racial identity. As it is right now, USA stands for nothing, no matter which region you take. Only statistically you may extrapolate differences among regions of USA. Intrinsically USA is a melting pot.

[Fylfot]

Yep, NA is surely not something that a nation just decides to convert to, it would require a massive revolution. But like you said it would be exciting to try it in some smaller area, like an island as you suggested. And if it is not possible to convert the majority to NA, you can always gather some friends and retire to the countryside and establish your own NA community:thumb001:

[Stefan]

Stefan, USA should at least have a racial identity. As it is right now, USA stands for nothing, no matter which region you take. Only statistically you may extrapolate differences among regions of USA. Intrinsically USA is a melting pot.

Even among whites there is a lot of regional distinctions. A white from Idaho isn't very similar to a white from California, for example. There is a sort of country-folk vs city-folk ideology here in Pennsylvania. I've noticed it among my mom's side of the family. Generally, the cities are multicultural, yes, but outside the cities, the regional identities still persist, which are slowly becoming Americanized by the media.

This is what much of North America is like.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Ninenations.PNG/360px-Ninenations.PNG

Of course all whites are more similar with each-other than with non-whites, with exceptions.

[Albion]

Yep, NA is surely not something that a nation just decides to convert to, it would require a massive revolution. But like you said it would be exciting to try it in some smaller area, like an island as you suggested. And if it is not possible to convert the majority to NA, you can always gather some friends and retire to the countryside and establish your own NA community:thumb001:

I like the idea of a community of like-minded people buying an old cruise liner or ship of some sort and converting it into a floating village complete with farms.
70% of the world is ocean so the flag nation can only ever nominally control ships at sea and cannot really know what goes on.

I heard that yachts sometimes formed little temporary villages at British Indian Ocean Territory. It seems idyllic, apparently they kept chickens, shared food supplies and one of the people home schooled the kids.

The Americans and British kept moving them on though which was a shame.

Oh, but my ship would have the rule of law though, only it'd be our laws instead. So not anarchist really, more Micronationalist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronationalism) (read the info in that link - Libertarians keep attempting micronations)

[Breedingvariety]

No, the more aggressive societies would expand at the expense of the others. It is not good at all because brains and brawn rarely go together. Intelligent societies could be wiped out if that happened.

Just look at aggressive societies in the modern world - the Muslim world, Africa. Those are the societies that would be expanding. :( Then again Europeans could outsmart them to an extent, but it only takes a few smart leaders on their side to overpower and think just as intelligently as more intelligent societies in Europe.

Anarchy would basically be an invitation to them - here, come and invade Europe!
No you are wrong. Sure, some aggressiveness would be needed and strong vitality of a tribal race would be needed. But when all that is present, Europeans would easily ruin any competition.

The weakness of European folk is not intrinsic in their nature. The weakness is conditioned by pressures to be the best dumb slaves to the ruling elites. Europeans can not roam free and they are loosing to the dumbest of them.

Muslim aggression towards Europeans can only go so far as Europeans are subjugated and pussyfied by the ruling elites. As soon as the oppression would end, all aliens would be kicked out with ease.

When push comes to shove, Europeans are still at the top.

[Albion]

No you are wrong. Sure, some aggressiveness would be needed and strong vitality of a tribal race would be needed. But when all that is present, Europeans would easily ruin any competition.

The weakness of European folk is not intrinsic in their nature. The weakness is conditioned by pressures to be the best dumb slaves to the ruling elites. Europeans can not roam free and they are loosing to the dumbest of them.

Muslim aggression towards Europeans can only go so far as Europeans are subjugated and pussyfied by the ruling elites. As soon as the oppression would end, all aliens would be kicked out with ease.

When push comes to shove, Europeans are still at the top.

I suppose our pacifist leaders would be out of the way and the warriors amongst us would emerge. Yeah, I suppose you're right.

[Barbarossa]

I chose fascism, however for me fascism will be only the way to establish good society and not final form of it. I woud say that most fascinating movements in 20th century for me were Dolfuss and Austrofascism, Horty's Hungary, Franco's Spain and Falange, Iron Guard etc. On the ideological level I respect Spengler, Junger, Evola, De Mastre, Donoso Cortes and simmilar thinkers.

[Kemalisté]

State socialism combined with Maoism and Kemalism.

[Partizan]

Third Worldist Socialist with Nationalist leanings...

Similar to Atatürk,Galiyev,Nasser,Chavez and Tito.

[Wonder]

None.

"By definition, "ideology" means servitude to political dogmas, abstract ideas not founded upon historical experience. Ideology is inverted religion, and the ideologue is the sort of person whom the historian Jacob Burckhardt called the "terrible simplifier." - Russell Kirk

I have a Taoist approach to politics:

"Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself."
- Tao Te Ching, Chapter 57, trans. Stephen Mitchell

[Just90]

Republican

[Nameless Son]

Republican

whats wrong with free health care?

[Anusiya]

whats wrong with free health care?

Nothing. As long as they don't participate :D

[Nameless Son]

Nothing. As long as they don't participate :D

As long as who doesn't participate?

[Marbeor]

Nativism isnt in the row. I chose fascism, misunderstood ideology: power of the group, nationalistic and brutal but classy.

[Querubín]

Liberal, green liberal

[Nameless Son]

Liberal, green liberal

interesting!

[Awfus]

My political views are kind of all over the place, I consider myself a Greenie but I dislike the way in which far-leftists have infiltrated Green politics and corrupted it. I have some liberal views and some conservative views. I guess you could call me a moderate in that respect. I support regionalism, localism, agrarianism, anti-corporatism, anti-globalism, non-interventionalism and isolationism.

[caesius]

whats wrong with free health care?

there's no such thing as free health care.


None.

"By definition, "ideology" means servitude to political dogmas, abstract ideas not founded upon historical experience. Ideology is inverted religion, and the ideologue is the sort of person whom the historian Jacob Burckhardt called the "terrible simplifier." - Russell Kirk

+1

[Freeroostah]

Socialist here ;-)

[rhiannon]

But who says that I am pro-African??? :confused:

And I'm definitely not anti-European.

I have a problem with media being twisted either way to suit any race. And people judging other people based on skin colour. As if that is any gauge to go by. An asshole is an asshole no matter what colour he is. A good person is a good person not matter what colour they are.

My issue is with people who see a newspaper article about a black criminal and go "He's black. Of course he's going to do these things. It's written in his genes."

The same person will look at an article of a white criminal and go, "He must have been pushed to do it by the blacks."

THAT is what I have a gripe with. I don't vote for black power. I vote for what is fair. And if a black man is going to be jailed for a crime, I will be in the front row clapping my hands. If a white guy is going to jail for a crime, I'll also be in the front row clapping my hands.

I am against stereotyping. Not every German is a Nazi, not every Australian shags sheep and not every American is a fat slob who only eats Big Macs. Of course there are those will disagree with me and vouch for the fact that all Australians shag sheep, that ALL Germans are Nazi's and of course all Americans are obese.

This is exactly me.

Fairness is key

[finþaų]

I support the following:

* Eugenics

* Decriminalization of narcotics

* Racial homogenity

* Pragmatic economy

* Social progressivism

* Architectural and general imagerial conservatism

I am not at all concerned with fairness, only the end results matter.

[Frigga]

Libertarian.

[Dacul]

Christian-socialist.

[MarceloBielsa]

sicilian nationalist

[Albion]

sicilian nationalist

Annex Malta please.