[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / animus / cow / fringe / htg / mai / rule34 / sl / wx ]

/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

and shitslinging
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Voice recorder Show voice recorder

(the Stop button will be clickable 5 seconds after you press Record)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Rules Log Spot Those Who Glow
Sponsored by Raid: Shadow Legends

File: 42fca6c70f96c37⋯.png (324.6 KB, 1260x2168, 315:542, 1591022925452.png)

824ca1  No.116034

The biggest struggle in my heart right now is whether I'm a fascist or a libertarian. I don't know which to say I am to people. I want to settle this matter so I can tell everyone which one I really am.

Things that make me think I'm probably a fascist:

1. I want Canada to be 100% whites + natives, with racemixing between the races banned, and a kind of apartheid state where natives and whites don't mix. All other races should not be allowed to work in, have permanent or temporary residence in the country, and will executed if they engage in miscegenation or do crimes while visiting our country.

2. I am pro-eugenics both in the form of government incentives for the best quality individuals to breed and in the form of sterilization and culling on the retarded end of the population. I want paraplegics, the horribly deformed, etc. to be encouraged to be given euthanasia. If they are so damaged they can't even consent to euthanasia (so vegetables) then it would be forced on them without their consent, but for those with enough of a mind intact to say yes or no, they will just be encouraged to accept it until they eventually do. As for babies born defective, they would be mercy killed on the spot, before they can grow up into sentient beings that actually suffer. As to where to draw the line on the killings, well even minor defects would be worthy of culling, we don't need genepool being polluted with gremlins that have no teeth or are born with only one eye or have an extra limb or something or who develop 100+ allergies and are constantly sick and need to live in a bubble or whose bones suddenly disintegrate they they are 20 years old or who develop a condition where they can't sleep and literally die from sleep deprivation and so on and on you get the point, it's hard to list everything but we need to start culling babies that carry significant defects. Things like a predisposition to heart disease maybe wouldn't be worth culling over though as they can quite easily live a healthy life by not being obese and smoking and such and I think predispositions to ailments that are activated by poor lifestyle choices are just too common to cull them all.

3. I am a free speech absolutist I don't care if people are saying whatever the heck they want. I would execute people for their actions not their words. You could whine all you want about my state on the internet but the moment you do something in the real world is when we come for you.

4. I want draconian law. There'd be no prisons in my ideal state. In cases of property damage and thievery you're just enslaved and forced to pay back debts in a manner similar to biblical law (e.g. you steal some dude's cow you pay him back with 5 times the value of that cow if you return the cow to the owner and 7 times the value of the cow if you can't return the original stolen cow). For crimes like sodomy and miscegenation and cheating spouse and whoring I want public executions.

5. I want a propaganda ministry that collects accurate statistics and works all the time to influence public opinion towards supporting my political ideology. Their work will be to win hearts and minds through the word instead of the sword.

6. I want every single man, woman, and child in my state forced to own a weapon and be trained to use it.

7. I want a lot smaller government and more freedom for regular people to enforce morality themselves instead of relying on police. I'd abolish "hate crimes" and censorship. A crime would just be a crime with no "hate" label to it. Regular people would be allowed to shoot thieves and rapists and anyone that tries to perpetrate any crime on them.

8. I would cut all foreign aid. No more money for Israel, no more food for Africa. I would maybe fund groups though that want to spread my ideology abroad and help make other nations actually self-sufficient so their problems don't fuck up the world, but I would do it in a brutal and unforgiving fashion. The moment some dumb niggers sabotage the infrastructure we just put in place for them to water their crops, or they fail to plant the crops and are starving the next year, we just let them all die and tell them to fuck off. They get one chance to become a based and self-sufficient people with our help and that's it, and any programs that make them into a dependent and stupid lazy people (like the hand-outs they get right now) are not going to be allowed.

9. I would abolish copyright laws.

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

824ca1  No.116041

In short.

I want an apartheid state, I want eugenics, I want absolute free speech, I want criminals forced into involuntary labor to pay off debts, I want criminals who commit moral crimes executed, I want a propaganda ministry, I want everyone to own a weapon and be trained to use it, I want to abolish censorship, I want a smaller government and a simpler law, I want people to be able to take matters into their own hands, I want to end the parasitism of foreign nations and promote self-sufficiency around the world, and copyright laws sucks.

What does this make me?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

48bd87  No.116056

>>116041

>>116034

>I want absolute free speech

>I want to abolish censorship

or

>I want a propaganda ministry

Pick one

If I were you, I would stick to being NatSoc. Freedom is gay.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0f32b1  No.116060

>>116056

A propaganda ministry does not have to engage in censorship to win. It only had to expose the lies. Censorship is for liars who are at odds with the natural world and we are not liars we are truthful.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

48bd87  No.116076

>>116060

>A propaganda ministry does not have to engage in censorship to win. It only had to expose the lies.

Right, but Absolute Free Speech DOES NOT penalize people for spreading lies and protects those that that do. A government should do everything to expose them and shut them down. If the The Sedition Act of 1798 or something like it were to pass today, kikes would be foaming at the mouth and the controlled courts would declare it unconstitutional. However the Patriot Act violates the First and Fourth Amendment and the Jewish System does not bat an eye and in fact has expanded it immensely without much protest.

Kikes cry when the screws are put to them, but when whites suffer they cheer.

Plus, they exploit the First Amendment with their control over the media that gives them a blank check to vomit out their lies and shriek when called out on it.

"Freedom for me, but not for thee" is their motto.

Fuck them. Freedom is gay.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0f32b1  No.116105

>>116076

>Right, but Absolute Free Speech DOES NOT penalize people for spreading lies and protects those that that do.

Define "protect".

>Plus, they exploit the First Amendment with their control over the media that gives them a blank check to vomit out their lies and shriek when called out on it.

Oh in my ideal society television would be shutdown and so would be schools. There'd be a curriculum as to what you have to have to learn and there'd be yearly tests but other than kids would not be going to school they'd be learning at home. The government would of course support this homeschooling and reward extra money to families of children that do well academically. With television gone there'd only be the internet and I'd have a law like that one Trump is trying to pass where they have to choose between being a publisher or a platform; if they allow users to upload content then they can not censor that content.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f557bf  No.116112

>>116034

Kek, I was a lolbertarian, you aren't close. The main problem with libertarianism is that it only works in a homogeneous, white, society. How do we get there? That's why I'm /pol/ now.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0f32b1  No.116122

>>116112

So can I say I'm a fascist then?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

48bd87  No.116131

>>116105

>Define "protect".

As in actively promotes and protects those that are in power and does nothing to prevent filth from rotting our society. Remember Charlottesville? That rally still got shut down when that skank dropped dead, even when all the permits and the go ahead was given. We don't see the government shut down fag parades when clearly they should clamp down on such filth.

>I'd have a law like that one Trump is trying to pass

total nothingburger. The EO will be challenged and would unlikely to be carried out. Most likely, Twitter will shut him down if he looses the election, but it's the thought that counts.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0f32b1  No.116137

>>116131

>As in actively promotes and protects those that are in power and does nothing to prevent filth from rotting our society.

Again. Define "protect". Do you mean physically protecting them from harm? Do you mean "protecting" in the sense of censoring anyone that goes against them so they aren't exposed to contrary ideas? Do you mean shielding them from investigations? What do you mean by "protect".

People should not be shot for words but for actions.

Nobody should be shielded from contrary opinions. This sort of "protection" is against free speech.

It is reasonable to investigate someone if they claim they have done or are going to do certain acts and you have reasonable cause to believe it's not just hyperbole and will carry it out. Free speech shouldn't shield you from investigation, I don't care if glows investigate me, as I am far too docile to even begin the simplest steps towards any kind of violent action. I'm just a man of words not of the sword, even though I hate pacifism, and wish I wasn't such a coward.

>We don't see the government shut down fag parades when clearly they should clamp down on such filth.

Fag parades aren't freedom of speech. That's a freedom of assembly and freedom of expression issue. I do not care about those freedoms only freedom of speech.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

86590b  No.116233

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

This is why ideology, and caring about defining yourself ideologically or even by any 'identity', is ultimately fuckin retarded, and has nothing to with absolutism, with how actual power functions. Do the people that run the world have any kind of autistically specific ideology? Are you, or your peoples, even in any position of power or influence yet? In a position of power that allows you to promote your ideology in full, as a whole?

The only 'ideology' you should worry about is 'what is in the best interests of my tribe/in-group' and 'what can I justify with power/force, that isn't inherently, *materially*, incompabitble'. In other words, if any one piece of legislation isn't inherently incompatble (like, for a ridiculous example, pushing for gun right and gun control at the same time), if you have power and systems of power/force and control to put it in place, and it's ultimately good for your tribe, then you don't have to worry if it fits in some strict ideological framework.

Just look at our current system for example - laws are applied or ignored whenever the rulers feel like, ultimate liberty is given in some areas while there's ultimate control in others, and yet at least 95% of people will never ever rise up in any real capacity to oppose any of it. Especially going forward into the future, where we may very well soon have real 'pre-crime' detection abilities, I think you and a lot of anons are going to be surprised by how dualistically totalitarian and libertarian the world will become. Why bother enforcing certain blanket laws on guns, drugs etc. when you have the ability to detect an actually bad gun/drug crime before its even committed?

Of course it's good to have a supreme spiritual/philosophical ideal you're working towards, but the ends justifies the means. Which is ultimately the point here - if you're not even in power yet, why worry about ideology when you could be focusing more on what the means are that will get you that power and influence in the first place?

See links and vid related

https://www.bitchute.com/video/h55SCjJ2mmFf/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AMAOlWThWg

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

06e9c8  No.116289

>>116122

Welcome to the club. Now learn to hide your power level.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

824ca1  No.116365

>>116289

I'd rather not. I yearn for Valhalla. I just want to be accurate and sure though that I am actually a fascist.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

824ca1  No.116368

>>116233

I think it's important for me to at least come up with a label for whatever my ideology is so that people can start identifying with it. When people accept my ideas they should then have an identity to go with it like "I'm a fascist"… or whatever. I've also been toying with the idea of calling myself a conservative since there's forms of conservatism from hundreds of years that are basically exactly what I'm aiming for and if I call myself a conservative then people will easily accept my ideas. Actually I have for many years used to tactic of finding out what labels whoever I am talking to identifies with, slapping those on myself, and then getting them to accept my ideas by basically making them think I am one of them.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

86590b  No.116401

>>116368

>When people accept my ideas they should then have an identity to go with it

But why though? You have more power over the people around you as just an individual, or more specifically as a cool smart friend with his 'own ideas', than you do as someone who identifies with an ideology, as you'll just come off like you're parroting someone else's ideas. And to use your own examples, both libertarianism and fascism are terms that come loaded with associations - and are often represented by names and faces - that are either negative or have nothing to do with your own beliefs and reasoning for identfying with that ideology.

If it ever gets to the point where someone is actually asking you 'pls give me more things to look into regarding your beleifs' don't give them the name of an ideology, reccommend them *specific*, good quality and 'positive', books/articles/individuals etc.

>I've also been toying with the idea of calling myself a conservative since

Terrible power play. What do you see gaining more power and influence, especially among the future generations - ideas (literally or colloquially) associated with 'conservatism/libertarianism', or ideas associated with 'socialism' and authoritarianism?

You're better off, if anything, identifying as a 'socialist' while arguing for all the exact same things. I mean there *are* 'libertarian socialists' out there. And not only do you attract more people with a term that's trendy and has less negative connotations, but you get to tell any internationalist/intersectional SJW type that says 'b-but that's not REEL socialism!!' that they're just a bougie, neoliberal, champagne socialist who has corrupted Marx's original doctrine. You shift the 'socialist overton window' our way and make our ideals more accepted within the younger generations, while also helping to convert socialists to our ideals.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

824ca1  No.116409

>>116401

Ah dude with my audience if I started calling myself a socialist it would not go over well and also I don't consider all the associations that would be invoked to be positive.

I guess I'll never know what to identify as really and will just have be a shapeshifting ideological reptilian forever.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

48bd87  No.116553

>>116137

>Again. Define "protect". Do you mean physically protecting them from harm? Do you mean "protecting" in the sense of censoring anyone that goes against them so they aren't exposed to contrary ideas? Do you mean shielding them from investigations? What do you mean by "protect".

I know you are a smart man, but you clearly miss the point. Yes, it means protecting them from "harm", from being prosecuted for spreading seditious and treasonous ideas. While /pnd/ allows open discussion of all sorts of ideas, we are safeguarded because we already have a idea of what we believe in. When feds and shills try to consensus crack, it's either done in bad faith, or they try to poison people's thoughts in effort to guide us away from what we want, which is an all White society. While we should debate on the method on how to get there, we should both agree that our goals are the same.

>People should not be shot for words but for actions.

Wrong. Speaking treasonous words betrays a treasonous mind and for that alone they should be shot.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

824ca1  No.117032

>>116553

>Wrong. Speaking treasonous words betrays a treasonous mind and for that alone they should be shot.

Maybe in a total war / purge situation then any symbols, words, etc. that give them away as the enemy sure.

In a case where we have our own intelligence agency we should investigate them and see if they are a troll or an actual enemy of the state. Otherwise you end up killing your own people.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

48bd87  No.117655

>>117032

>Maybe in a total war / purge situation then any symbols, words, etc. that give them away as the enemy sure.

>In a case where we have our own intelligence agency we should investigate them and see if they are a troll or an actual enemy of the state. Otherwise you end up killing your own people.

Then a pragmatic, but uncompromising approach is needed then, but that should always be the case.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / animus / cow / fringe / htg / mai / rule34 / sl / wx ]