/liberty/ - Liberty

Commies aren't human.

>block roads and public places

>"WAAAH WHY DID YOU RUN ME OVERR"

Bunch of fucking idiots.

>>64001

Blocking the road is not aggression unlike running over people.

>>64009

Commies are not human so it's okay.

>>64013

>Infidels are not human so it's okay to run them over

t. totally not ISIS

>>64001

Running people over is only alright if they do shit like throw bricks at your vehicle or start damaging your car in such a way to suggest they'll do the same to you inside of it.

You shouldn't run people over in general, anon. Not unless you're a shitty human being.

>>64009

>>64024

Really? Why don't you two go stand in the middle of some highways and see if people agree with you?

>>64035

Are you retarded? Honest question.

>>64040

Right back at you.

>>64042

I'll take that as a yes.

>>64042

>stand on roads where cars drive

>"why did i get hit?????"

Yes, commies are retarded.

>>64043

Likewise.

>>64044

Exactly my point. Why is this even a discussion?

>>64045

>>64044

>terrorist deliberately drives into a group of people is the same as accidentally stepping in front of a car

Is being clinically retarded a requirement for being an "an"-cap?

>>64046

>Man trying to get from/to work or an emergency case frustrated by a bunch of hippie retards with Lesbian Arts degrees blocking the road

Stopping traffic isn't helping your cause, it only makes people hate and despise you more.

The more radical the left becomes, the more you push people to the extreme right.

>>64046

>protestor deliberately standing in the middle of the street is the same as accidentally stepping in the street.

Is being clinically retarded a requirement for being an an-"com"?

>>64047

>>64048

Imagine being this delusional. Just don't get surprised when you start agreeing with ISIS. First you copy the tactics, then you copy the thoughts…

Do you guys think the internet exaggerates this and makes it seem more prevalent than it actually is? I wonder how much of the population side with these idiots?

>>64050

No sane person thinks it's okay to execute ISIS like terrorist attacks on people you disagree with.

>>64049

We aren't talking about mowing down people we disagree with. We're talking about idiots standing in the middle of the fucking street.

Communists should be lined up and shot.

>>64053

Umm… we are, though. Maybe you are not, but that would only reinforce the fact that you are a huge retard.

>>64057

>Umm… we are, though.

Nope.

>>64001

>block roads and public places

>"WAAAH WHY DID YOU RUN ME OVERR"

Your actions have consequences.

Don't stand infront of cars if you don't want to get hit.

>>63999

>anyone pro-white is a genocidal Nazi and probably a NEET as well!

Do I have to be careful of 35-40 mph cars when I walk across small alleyways?

I should also expect to get mustard gas for breathing too?

Maybe I should've had that nuclear fallout bunker as detonated Nukes are just natural these days.

>>64067

> They suspect that antifa swarmed his car and he became scared for his life, thus the ramming.

lol that's clearly not what's happening in the video

>>64081

Organizing to murder people is not speech. Antifa is acting in self-defence.

>>64083

>if you do the crime in your mind the crime is REAL

Nope. Leftfags must go.

>>64086

>you can't attack the person aiming at you until they pull the trigger

Not everyone is a cuck like you.

>>64091

I don't remember hearing about a single terrorist attack by antifa, mean while far-right terror attacks are getting more and more common in the USA.

>>64094

ANTIFA are known for their violent acts.

>>64099

Accidental sage, but good dubs.

>>64098

Antifa are known for bullying people, the far-right is known for murdering people.

>>64099

You can't hide your cuck nature

>>64094

>I don't remember hearing about a single terrorist attack by antifa

Running around and setting cars on fire isn't terrorism? Here in Germany, left-wing radicals commit four times more arson than right-wingers. That's terrorism, m8.

>>64102

You can't even hide your severe retardation, go suck some tranny dick you moron. Clearly your talents exist in that regard and not in anything that actually requires intellect or critical thinking.

>>64101

ANTIFA are known for violence, censorship and punching people that disagree with them.

alt-right is known for shitposting on the internet.

>>64103

Vandalism is not terrorism.

>>64111

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

>>64083

>Antifa is acting in self-defence.

lol reminds me of this

Does anyone here really believe that this event was real, and not a false flag?

>>64024

> they do shit like throw bricks at your vehicle or start damaging your car

Exactly. They had weapons.

If im in a car and people surround me with weapons Im hitting the gas.

>>64083

Antifa are the ones organising to commit violence. You are so stupid.

>>64094

>sharing ideology with violent people is the same as 'organising to commit violence'

>>64101

Why not admit they violently attack people, rather than using the word 'bullying' to try to portray innocent victims as children?

Antifa, White Supremacists, NatSocs. I hate them all and would shoot any of them.

P.S. It's come marching back home Johnny.

>>64101

>Antifa are known for bullying people, the far-right is known for murdering people.

Those republican senators that wanted to do a charity baseball game, the people who get attacked in the streets by 10:1 numbers, and the cops being murdered beg to differ, lefty cuck. The only reason antifa isn't more dangerous is the incredible amount of incompetence of the left stemming from being handed everything all their lives.

>>64205

Day of the Helicopter can't come soon enough.

>>64196

I don't mean "Does anyone really believe it was real" as in "Did it even happen?"/"Did guy X even do it?" I mean, "believe it was real" as in "Don't you think the whole protest was a honeypot setup, a false flag psyop?"

>>64309

Forgot to mention the rally was to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E Lee. Do a little research and you'll find out that's the case.

>>64310

Just as the civil war was about State's Rights and not slavery, this event was really about picking a fight with antifa faggots, the statue was just a backdrop.

>>64081

that kid has a mask on and got his head split open. He got a kickstarter that is at 110K for a 50K goal.

When he is the halftime show at the superbowl in 2 years we can thank all the guys in that video.

So the "Alt-right" are Trump worshipping anti-semites, the "Ctrl-left" are antifa ultraviolents, and libertarians are…are libertarians the fucking moderate centrists now?

What the actual fuck?

>>64323

Libertarians have facts, logic and common sense.

Commies/Nazis are just retarded.

>>64323

In this particular scenario, Libertarians happen to be in the majority opinion of "Stop fucking shit up".

>>64323

We support neither side. We've seen plenty of bullshit flung from both. There is no lesser evil among them. Everyone with a copy of Rules For Radicals these days thinks they're reinventing subversion. It's all been done.

>>64328

>There is no lesser evil among them

tbh I would say the right is only slightly better cause muh guns and property. not by much though

Bunch of people with too much time on their hands. Wish they would escalate so we could come to a resolution.

Needs to be a diplomatic solution; else our rights may be threatened by the powers that be in their ongoing quest to neuter the masses.

An endless generational drama between demographics is troublesome; not good to be apathetic as it may effect us all.

Here we witness the dysfunction of the disparate pieces of the new right, topped off by the most unexpected cherry on top of the shit sundae. The uniting of the right should never have happened in the first place. They exist in their spheres of influence with less overlap than you think, and they've reached many of their mutual goals.

I think the intentions were noble, as the lack of a new concrete goal in the post-election period has left them in a malaise. Infighting has plagued the various sub-factions. This event attempted to refocus them but backfired spectacularly. Granted most of the things that went wrong were out of their control, but it was really a bad strategic decision even if it went smoothly.

Recognizing the divisions and how they view each other is important to understanding why it was so tempting a prospect to unite them, but also why this was a bad decision:

>Trump boomers

People who just support their president. Since this was not a rally for basic bitch Republicans, only the most motivated of this group came out: Oathkeepers and bikers. Wear principles on their sleeves but don't really know why they believe what they do. Believe reading anything but the Constitution is for faggots. Being raised in the television era, they are very sensitive to mainstream media perception.

>the "counter-culture" right

E-celebs, e-book merchants, and edgelords who missed the Hitlerposting boat. Only attracted to the right because The Cathedral is so unbearable to anyone above room temperature IQ. Care more about memes and aesthetics than principles. Like junk food, easily palatable but devoid of substance. Fond of debate and trying to make their opponents look stupid. Transcend Internet/meatspace barrier better than anyone.

>Nazi LARPers

/pol/. Subset of kids raised on edgy Internet meme culture to upset normalfags who actually went to research Hitler, the NSDAP, and the Third Reich. Some actually became very well-read and researched these topics thoroughly, though afraid to entertain good-faith counter arguments, while others just read too many misleading infographics. Smart enough to realize that Internet culture should remain on the Internet (and not just because of the consequences of espousing their views in public) but still get rabid at more respectable right-wing political action in public for not being hardcore enough. Refuse to accept any aesthetics that weren't developed in or derivative of 1930's Germany.

>the "intellectual" right

The Richard Spencer crowd. Not that intellectual in reality, but what is most important is the airs they put on. They attempt to be respectable, and the adoption of a "next door neighbor" kind of feel is a welcomed alternative to the category below. Happy to debate and love to point out hypocrisy, but ignorant of leftist praxis and how to counter it.

>bogeymen

Here is the group of people the media love to focus on, as it is their only point of reference for the far right (whether their ignorance is willful or not should be obvious). Skinheads, Klansmen, and other human refuse go here. These are the unfortunate hangers-on that one invites by uniting the right. They're identity focused but not really sure why. They don't have any strong intellectual cause, and are really a different class of LARPers.

Barring the last group, each of these groups does something important to the entire right in their own way. In Babel-like hubris, they imagined they could construct a unified, principled right that had the strength of each group. However, all it took was a double cross by the state and a car crash to scatter them to the four winds.

>>64323

Maybe big-L Libertarians are radical centrists. Some bigwig in the LP was crying for libertarians to disavow everyone to the right of Marx. They, just like always, have tried to shift themselves into the political center as an opportunistic strategy as Democrats and Republicans retreat to their corners. Actual principled libertarians are where they've always been and will continue to be.

>>64341

>Oathkeepers

I keep hearing about these guys but not so much what they do. I heard they were at the Baltimore riot or something to maintain peace.

>>64341

Jesus christ, yap a novel why don't you?

>>64330

The "Socialist policies are fine as long as the population is all white and Christian" Right or the "Capitalism is a Jewish tool of manipulation and must be regulated" Right?

>>64351

He said he'd rather live in a place where the ground is made of needles (authoritarian right) instead of a place where the ground is made of needles and the government makes him eat a turkey and shit sandwich every day (authoritarian left). He's not saying it's good, it's just a mild improvement.

>>64372

I DON'T CARE ABOUT

>where the ground is made of needles and the government makes him eat a turkey and shit sandwich every day (authoritarian left). He's not saying it's good, it's just a mild improvement.

>>64372

I'm saying there is no such thing as Authoritarian Right. Submitting to collectivist rule with collectivist policies is not Right Wing. Nevermind how utterly incompatible the right to bear arms and Authoritarianism are. Nationalist Socialist and Fascists will never be part of the Right no matter how they think they want to identify with it.

>>64076

>>64346

They're usually members of the military who claim to take their oath to "defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic" quite seriously (hence the name "oathkeepers"). They take the "domestic" part the most seriously, and tend to organize in groups on the understanding that if the government should oppress its citizens, they will defect from the military to take up arms against it. They don't usually do much, but you'll usually see them at protests, often open carrying. Sometimes their members are court martialed for getting too excited and talking back to their sergeants.

>>64388

korwin calm down

>>64588

He's right about it, though. Especially the part about natsocs and fascists not being right-wing. These were left-wing ideologies from the very start.

>>64328

/what the fuck was with the ancap flag on the unite the right promo posters? Does cantwell still identify as that? Why are they trying to drag us into this?

>>64599

Natsocs hated private property. In The Nazi-Sozi, Goebbels basically distinguished between private and personal property and talked about the nationalization of major industries. In the 25 Point Program, points 10 and 11 and 13 to 18 deal with economic interventionism and not a single one lends support to capitalism. The Nazi politics mirrored that, as they confiscated a lot of property and de facto owned a lot of what was private in a formal sense. You'll see some more points in the program that breath the spirit of the French Revolution and of identitarianism, but none that are individualistic. Also, the Nazis weren't traditionalistic, they were progressive. Hitler hated the nobility and in particular the Hapsburgs. There was an Ancien Régime for him to reinstitute and he didn't do it. In fact, he hunted them down after the Anschluss. It's significant that the 22 July assassination attempt was mostly carried out by Catholic noblemen, of all people.

The Italian fascists were left-wing, too. They even had their own variant of guild socialism. Spanish or Chilean fascism does not deserve the name. These started out as legitimate defense movement against left-wing regimes. They were so rightist, they even eventually reasserted the validity of the old order that they had replaced. Their militarism was hardly inspired by Mussolini, either: Mussolini was a corporal, whereas Franco and Pinochet were generals. He was playing make-belief, they didn't.

>>64347

I'll keep all further comments limited to "lol" and "cuck" if that makes you feel better.

I needed to vent because it feels like there's nowhere else I can dissect this. It needed to be broken down by group to understand why it happened in the first place. Each has something to bring to the table. The prospect of a united right outside of the neocon GOP was too tempting to resist. Imagine if you had a large right-wing party with the presentability of the "intellectual" (used loosely) right, social media savvy and memetic power of the "counter-culture" (also used loosely) right, normalfag numbers and connections of Trump boomers, and the fervor of Nazi LARPers. Just to lasso so many different types of people in those numbers in one location with a common goal was an impressive feat for the organizers, but nobody has seemed to notice because of the spectacle of the car of peace.

This breakdown also helps extrapolate analysis into the future. Ironically, the left is the only thing keeping this group together. The rabid response to the event has not only backed them into a common corner but also forced them to work together. The media spectacle energized the left to take action, but this action gave the right common goals: Fight historical destruction, build parallel structures to avoid non-platforming, and stop the media gaslighting. These are not easy goals but thanks to the digital Pearl Harbor the left has unleashed, they are necessary goals. This is sink or swim for the alt-right. They definitely have the resources to complete their goals, but we'll have to wait and see if they have the will to hold together long enough to accomplish them.

>>64608

>Slavery is Freedom

>War is Peace

>Planned economies aren't socialist

>>64679

>Look, it was absolutely not slavery.

I didn't say it was. I thought it was obvious enough that this was just a rhetoric device.

>Now, if Hitler enforced emigration laws that statement would have some merit. There's also a lot of people who think that when Hitler is explicitly talking to his own army (while demanding obedience) they think that it somehow relates to germany as a whole (for some retarded reason).

For many people, it was slavery in the most narrow sense of that term. He regularly put civilians in conquered territories to work, that's a fact.

Even those that weren't on Hitlers List of Worthless People had to deal with a totalitarian system. I have read the verdicts of at least two cases where someone was put to death over privately saying that the war was unwinnable. Even before the war, there was the Hitlerjugend, and boot camps/indoctrination centers for law students before they were allowed to graduate law school. The Churches were oppressed, religious practice was regulated along ideological lines, and well, they burned books as early as 1933. One of these policies and actions would've been scary enough, all of them taken together make for a totalitarian system. And mind you, I didn't talk about the fate of gypsies, jews, homosexuals, jehovahs witnesses or slavs for the most part.

>Hitler did not want ww2 (nor did he start it) and even offered a couple dozen peace treaties (that went on deaf ears).

He absolutely wanted to wage war on Poland, that's for sure. He even teamed up with the Soviets to do it. Besides, it's not very likely that a party as war-obsessed as the Nazis would seek peace. Even the Youth Organizations were

>Well, yes. That was the socialist part of national socialism. The entrepreneur and the private profit motive was however not disrupted (or planned) by the government.

This doesn't matter. I said they were socialist, and you conceded it. Then why the hell talk about how they weren't like other commies, they were cool commies?

>And honestly, what "socialist" country in history allowed private gun ownership, private property, and private profit motive all in one? I don't think there's one you can actually name besides national socialist Germany.

All socialist countries that didn't fail completely had some semblance of a market. Otherwise, their economy simply would've been ruined. Even the USSR, the model socialist state, allowed private land ownership after the New Economic Policy was enacted. The Nazis weren't in any way special in that regard.

>>64328

I support the side that protects our constitutional rights, which from what I've seen and heard appears to be Nazis.

>>64689

They do it now because they're on the receiving end of tyranny. Give them power and they'll quickly forget that they ever supported things like free speech

>>64693

>Also, you may want to look at my pdf.

Forgot to cite the specific page tbh (page 7).

>>64689

i have heard that only 30 of ppl were nazis/kkk and a thousand were ordinary alt-righters

>>64799

Wasn't there a similar compilation with five, seven and eight million jews mentioned?

Also, the word "holocaust" being highlighted is ridiculous. That's how the genocide against the Armenians was called, too. No surprise, then, that it would be applied to the persecution of the Jews before their extermination became widely known.

Not sure how anyone can doubt the Nazis systematically killed Jews. They moved them into ghettos, constantly harassed and humiliated them, and likened them to vermin and pests. Most importantly, the Nazis were savage in general. They starved over a million civilians to death in Leningrad and you're telling me they had moral qualms about rounding up and killing Jews? Come the fuck on.

>>64845

>going in

*into showers (gas chambers), and cremating them. Instead of just rounding them up and just shooting them in one day.

It's cute that /pol/ thinks it is "redpilled" when it has yet to cover the mother of all conspiracies.

1. Flat earth

2. Evolution myth

3. Occult societies (Jesuits, Masonry, Illuminati, etc)

4. Moon landing hoax

5. Deep state, JFK, 9/11, etc

….

999. muh holocaust. Who the fuck even cares

>>64041

lmao, this guy lives like 3 miles from me.

>>64846

Yeah, just shoot them with bullets that you desperately need for a two-front war. Why do you think they used Zyklon B, or really, why did they start killing in the first place? Too many mouths to feed in the concentration camps. How are you going to kill them without using something that you could use elsewhere to kill your enemies that aren't inside a convenient cage?

>>64889

First: I believe the Germans were not at any time desperately in need of bullets. Bullets are cheap and easy. I'm not aware of any time in the history of Western warfare that people just suddenly ran out of bullets.

Second: There is no evidence of a plan to exterminate all the Jews in Germany (though there is evidence of a rather grim looting plan which may or may not have been done behind Hitlers back, which did directly and intentionally lead to the death of many Jews).

Third: You can kill prisoners in so many ways - especially emaciated, lousy, typhus bearing prisoners, so why waste all the time, effort and industrial power to create canisters of toxic gas (used to kill lice) and then transport it to concentration camps (or do you believe in the Communist lie of "Death Camps") when you could simply not feed them or beat them with a shovel or something? After all, your first complaint is a reference to their war effort being hectic, their supplies being run low, so why waste the industrial power making death gas when a good thwack with a shovel (something they had plenty of) or simple mistreatment would do? Furthermore, the Russians had no problem exterminating civilians with bullets, there is no reason to believe the Germans wouldn't do the same if they thought it necessary. Hell, if memory serves they (the Germans) had a problem with partisans in eastern Europe which was solved with bullets, not gas.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and hoping that you'll think about this instead of just assuming I'm some sort of internet Nazi. WW2 wasn't "The good and noble Allies + Uncle Stalin V The horrible genocidal monster Germans" it was a horrible mistake of a bankers war and, perhaps, a natural response to a people drowned in debt and the infestation of Communism. The German government was not intent on the extermination of the Jewish race, there were no homicidal gas chambers and the Communists lied out of their ass to demonize an enemy and to make themselves look like angels. The 'witness' testimonies are completely all over the place (some going so far as to explain a complicated rail-system employed to quickly gas jews to death and then pipe them straight into ovens), the ovens at those camps were likely for bread, the gas was for clothes (delousing). Many Jews did die but almost certainly not 6 million and mostly from Typhus and other problems you'd expect from camps being cut off from supply lines during the allied assault.

If you're at all interested in this topic I'd recommend you read David Irving or watch some of his stuff on the internet, then see if you still believe in the six million "burnt offering".

>>64049

>If you're angry about radical, state worshipping idiots who use violent force to appropriate a road for a cause that violates your NAP, you're ISIS

Who let Reddit in?

Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of people in their different professions of politics, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Republic. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their belief — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Good for Mankind. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are apathetic to politics, he is certainly yet short of being a true Good Man himself. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so."[1] The business of true politics is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of regional dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of political action, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of politics, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. "Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," said our Lord to Peter.[3] It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. For it is impossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply themselves to make other people Nazis or Socialists, who have not really embraced Goodness in their own hearts. If the Gospel and the apostles may be credited, no man can be Good without charity and without that faith which works, not by force, but by love. Now, I appeal to the consciences of those that persecute, torment, destroy, and kill other men upon pretence of political persuasion, whether they do it out of friendship and kindness towards them or no? And I shall then indeed, and not until then, believe they do so, when I shall see those fiery zealots correcting, in the same manner, their friends and familiar acquaintance for the manifest sins they commit against the precepts of ethics; when I shall see them persecute with fire and sword the members of their own communion that are tainted with enormous vices and without amendment are in danger of eternal perdition; and when I shall see them thus express their love and desire of the salvation of their souls by the infliction of torments and exercise of all manner of cruelties. For if it be out of a principle of charity, as they pretend, and love to men's souls that they deprive them of their estates, maim them with corporal punishments, starve and torment them in noisome prisons, and in the end even take away their lives — I say, if all this be done merely to make men Ctrl-Left or Alt-Right and procure their salvation, why then do they suffer whoredom, fraud, malice, and such-like enormities, which (according to the apostle)[4] manifestly relish of heathenish corruption, to predominate so much and abound amongst their flocks and people? These, and such-like things, are certainly more contrary to the government, to the purity of the Republic, and to the salvation of souls, than any conscientious dissent from governmental decisions, or separation from public assembly, whilst accompanied with innocence of life. Why, then, does this burning zeal for politics, for the Republic, and for the salvation of souls — burning I say, literally, with fire and maggot — pass by those moral vices and wickednesses, without any chastisement, which are acknowledged by all men to be diametrically opposite to the profession of Goodness, and bend all its nerves either to the introducing of ceremonies, or to the establishment of opinions, which for the most part are about nice and intricate matters, that exceed the capacity of ordinary understandings? Which of the parties contending about these things is in the right, which of them is guilty of schism or heresy, whether those that domineer or those that suffer, will then at last be manifest when the causes of their separation comes to be judged of He, certainly, that follows Goodness, embraces His doctrine, and bears His yoke, though he forsake both father and mother, separate from the public assemblies and ceremonies of his country, or whomsoever or whatsoever else he relinquishes, will not then be judged a heretic.

>>64693

>>For many people, it was slavery in the most narrow sense of that term. He regularly put civilians in conquered territories to work, that's a fact.

>So, actually getting people to work and not allowing the economic system in conquered countries to collapse is a bad thing?

NIGGER NNIGGER NIGGER NIGGGER NIGGER NJIGGERNIGGEGNIGNEINGIENGINERIGNEINGEINEIGNEINGEINGIEN

>>64992

hotwheels

>>63999

I don't keep up with all the newest chimpouts, but pretty sure in virtually all these cases the neetsocs did nothing wrong and it's always the leftists who initiate that violence.