/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

Sure. This is pretty radical thinking and will probably go over your head but here goes:

We remove all Jews from all economic, social, and political influence.

>>240047

What I want is capitalism serves national interests IF it's possible.

But I don't see how could it become possible after jews are removed. Do you think the ultra rich capitalists would start to care about their country, their national interests, and their poor fellow countrymen after jews are removed? I doubt. They probably still tend to be globalists who are only concerned about their own well being and vanity.

>>240047

that's fascinating. you're fascinating.

>>240049

>Do you think the ultra rich capitalists would start to care about their country, their national interests, and their poor fellow countrymen after jews are removed?

Yes. Humanity is progressing or "evolving." We're all tired of the Jew's shit, his behavior, his mindset, everything. Without his screetching we can create laws to prevent financial competition from becoming mortal combat. And not only this but by redefining the true value of money and wealth we can make good men better and degenerates (much like myself) at least tolerable.

Whenever you hear the word "Capitalism" replace it with "the private individual ownership of person and property", whenever you hear the word "Communism" replace it with "the public universal ownership of person and property".

In one case ("Capitalism"), you have exclusive ownership of your body and belongings, and other people have exclusive owner their bodies and belongings, "ownership" means "control", which means that any interaction with your person or property requires your permission, or it is illegal.

In the other ("Communism"), you have exclusive ownership of nothing, everything (and everyone) is instead owned communally by all people, everything is decided by the majority, and any interaction with anyone or anything must be based on what is most commonly agreed upon in order to be is legal.

Socialism is the stage in between, which most communist-aspirant countries never seem to get out of, und socialism, everything (and everyone) is owned by some central governing authority (they hate calling it "government), which represents the most common will of the people, but in actually just wields absolute authority with no interest in ever running out of excuses to give it up.

If Communism is direct democracy, then socialism is the representative variant of it, tyranny with the very transparently false image of "governance by the governed", much like our own government, to be frank.

Night-Watchman State Minarchism is the absolute extreme of capitalist government, you can't go further beyond this without going into anarchist territory, people who support it feel like the name should just be "Capitalism" since everything else falls short of their ideology, and NWS Minarchism is simply a label adopted for ease of communication, speaking of which…

Anarcho Capitalism is to capitalism what communism is to socialism, there is where ownership , instead of a representative body being charged to guarantee and enforce the principles of ownership and consent, these principles completely replace government, and instead everyone just agrees to only interact with the person or property of the others, or the interaction is illegal. AnCaps tend to think that this is a hard reset on civilization back to the first way people governed their interactions, like the Minarchists, these guys have a word they prefer, "Voluntaryism", but use the name they are known by here for communication-clarity purposes. They also tend to respond to the idea of feudal states eventually emerging from the implementation of their ideology as something they have little problem with.

>>240085

Which leads to the concept of Neo-Monarchism, the idea that a return to monarchy is a good idea because when the government and it's people are someone's personal property, inherited from their ancestors and to be passed onto their descendants, then the leader would have more interest in maintaining it in good condition, many AnCaps who think about their ideology and where it might lead can just make the leap to this concept, and many did, even creating their own board for it, they also tend to cross-pollinate with the other ideologies mentioned here.

Like the Christians below, These guys have an explanation for the decline and fall we've been born into, but their differs in that instead of the loss of the influence of religion, the source of the issues came far earlier, with the fall of the rule of Kings and Queens, and the rise of Republics.

In their eyes, Democracy is fundamentally flawed because it makes a severe misconception of the nature of man, in that Democracy relies on it's civilians to be informed and vigilant, but even though this is not unexpected in times of recent political strife and revolution.

But down the line when things get comfortable, people start to soften up, they lose interest in important topics, which become controversial and taboo to discuss in public due to the unpleasantness it brings in a time of peace, and they start slacking in terms of knowing the things they need to know in order to make informed decisions.

Restricting this to a specific class of people doesn't work either, as the class will expand itself to more people due to ruthless people within it needing to bring in votes from the outside to support their case (votes often from people whose support can easily be bought off with handouts from the governance), and any restricting laws can simply be gotten rid of with enough (easily purchased) public support (with the laws against using the government for ballot bribery often being among the first to go, there is a reason why "rights movements" always come AFTER welfare policies are instituted).

On the other hand, the rule of a single family, whose entire existence is predicated on being good at statecraft, would work because there's less people to influence, and less who can do the influencing, that is why Monarchies are stable.

Neo-Monarchism differs from Monarchism in that there is no special appeal to some other force the "right to rule" for the governing family, old Monarchies usually had loyalties to the state church, as the family were supposed to be the representatives of the will of the God that appointed them, under Neo-Monarchism, the Royals rule simply because everything belong directly to them, and so they aren't beholden to what some Pope says in Vatican City.

Neo-Monarchism differs from Dictatorships in that they are honest about what they are, Dictatorships never present themselves honestly, they often use some smokescreen of a political or ideological force that the dictator merely represents for his people, Neo-Monarchism makes no excuses, it presents itself as being the way it is because "everything belongs to the Royal family, including your ass, and you will love it because it beats the hell out of the alternatives".

Egoism (or AWA - "anarchism without adjectives") is anarcho capitalism and communism without regard for consent (communal or individual), allowing all interactions based solely on their physical capability, and equates ownership solely to possession, basically, everything is a free for all, associations can be voluntary (as in the most nationalist/isolationist forms of capitalism) or coerced (as in the more globalist/expansionist forms of communism), it's just straight up "no rules but the rules of nature/reality". These guys disagree with the AnCaps and think they TRULY represent the primal order, as an irony, they tend to be simultaneously the most anti-government (even looking down on moral restrictions in addition to laws) and the most pro-government (since they tend to believe that their ideology is always in play, it is what TRULY governs everything already, and what we see is the end result)

>>240086

National Socialism and National Capitalism are variants where the rules they follow only apply to a specific people:

National Socialism is socialism where the communal will that is represented by the government is only concerned with a specific group (White or German-Gentile Men, etc.), this can mean in the most extreme forms that only one group are considered persons, which is "being more Hitlerian than literally Hitler was", or you can go Adolf Hitler's route, which was the surprisingly tame one of the National Socialist distinction of "citizen" and "civilian", with associated differences in rights, privileges, and protections, A German Jew was still a German, and was still offered protections and rights, even when interned in a concentration camp (which protected them from being killed without charge, hence why the holocaust as a genocide never happened, however they would lack specific things given to the Aryans of Germany, most notably the ability to participate in the political processes, or being given government loans for reproduction, and other such things (read up on the list, and you will see that I mean).

National Socialism was originally a lot more tame than what the media Jews of Hollywood would have you believe, however, the media portrayals gave a lot of /pol/acks ideas, and the community now rejects the historically accurate picture of the ideology with regards to how it treated it's Non-Aryan Germans, the Ideology started out relatively tame, got demonized, then that produces effects on imageboard which evolved the ideology into the WigNat-isms it is now associated with on most /pol/ boards, even Hitler thought there were good Jews and didn't want to gas any of the Kikes, he had nothing against Blacks and would oppose the idea of a "Day of the Rope", and for him EthnoNationalism was about German Aryans having political sovereignty, not about kicking out everyone who wasn't Aryan out of the country, if he started posting on /pol/, the mods and anons would crucify the guy as a fed or shill.

However, this is changing, as a lot of the NatCaps grew older and became more restrained and closer to the historically accurate characterization of Adolf Hitler's concept of what "EthnoNationalism" implies, that and a lot of NatSocs, ended up meeting a Females and Non-Whites (especially those who aren't Asian, either) who they genuinely liked and didn't want to see come to harm, or they just thought about things in more philosophical or compassionate terms, and decided that hurting innocent people wasn't a good idea, or they actually buckled down and read the words of their ideologies primary historical representative, and realized that Adolf Hitler was nothing like the way he looked on (((TV))), and the thing about him that made people object to him was not related to his attitudes on race or ethnicity, but on his perspectives relating to money, banking, business, and finance.

>>240087

Fascism is where the state is put before the specific group of people, but the group of people is still put before other groups, the idea being that the government is essential to protecting the interests of the people. This means they introduce the element of class and power into the equation as an additional hierarchy. Despite being the poster boy for this ideology in most people's minds, Hitler actually was personally disgusted by fascism, which was more accurately represented in Italy, Mussolini is less popular in our culture, however, and few people realize that there even was a distinction from his ideology and NatSoc.

Similarly to National Socialism, National Capitalism is where the private ownership of person or property that is represented by the government is only recognized as valid for a specific group of people (meaning those who aren't White cannot truly own anything, even themselves, which essentially means that those who aren't White have no legal protections and are defacto slaves to those who are White), essentially "NAP for me and those like me, but not for anyone else".

As with National Socialism, there are also more "tame" or "reasonable" versions of this ideology, where instead of total dispensation with the personhood of those outside the group, there is merely a caste system or hierarchy that exists, such as with Hitler, where he simply created a caste or hierarchy where his people were simply given specific forms of preference to the other peoples living in his lands.

National Capitalism took an opposite evolution on the internet from National Socialism, first of all the environment of NatSoc was WigNat, to the point that even Literally Hitler would find it too unreasonably extreme for his tastes, add to that the constant bashing of all forms of "Capitalism" and "Libertarians" by the /pol/acks, which gives anyone with a taste for minimalistic laws and economic regulations the feeling of a need to prove themselves as being just as edgy and extreme as the NatSocs, and the result was the infamous NatCap "SlaveState EthnoNationalism", which, when it includes "Females" and "Non-Whites" in the category of the "slaves", produced a very kinky ideology that endorses the keeping of one's own daughters as loli sex slaves, the hilarious fact that it was a pedophile's paradise was the true reason a lot of the NatCaps became more restrained and closer to the more accurate characterization of Adolf Hitler's concept of what "EthnoNationalism" implies, that and a lot of them, like a lot of NatSocs, ended up meeting a lot of Females and Non-Whites who they genuinely liked and didn't want to see come to harm, or they just thought about things in more philosophical or compassionate terms, and decided that hurting innocent people wasn't a good idea.

This ideology is a new one, and the product of the meeting of the old "libertarian" /pol/ and the new "nazi" /pol/, the anons realizing they have common ground on a lot of their beliefs, and with a few changes to make the two compatible (prioritizing "nationalism" over "capitalism" by only applying the rights of ownership of self and property to specific groups of people they deemed to be worthy) a new ideology was synthesized from combining the two.

As this is a brand new ideology which the marxists and feds are unfamiliar with, and thus lacking in ability to respond to with shilling, they have instead tried to make it synonymous with mainstream ""civic nationalist" libertarianism, and produced quote a few memes in order to get this result, however, National Capitalists tend to know what they believe in and what makes it unique and new, and they also know that "Civic Nationalism" is an ultimately meaningless concept promoted by COINTELPRO gatekeepers and people getting paid off by Jews to shit up imageboards (or doing it for free).

>>240088

That was a lot on the newest ideology in our community, so here are two dead old ideologies that have been getting revived in recent times, with significant gains in traction, at least in terms of becoming known:

National Communism ("NazBol") is the variety of National Socialism where the anarchism of communism is introduced to replace the government of socialism, it sought the gradual erosion of the state, but Hitler wisely saw the room for subversion in this, and gutted his movement of such beliefs and their adherents during his internal ideological purge on the "night of long knives", good thing too, a lot of these guys were actively working with Communist Jews and other soviet sympathizers to try and clip the claws of the rising Reich as a prominent competitive force to the USSR, many were also betraying the movement in more obvious ways as well, giving it's supporters up to the Marxist terrorists that were behind so many attacks that when the time came to stand up to the Soviets, the NatSocs decided to move the entirety of groups most likely to produce such domestic terrorists and traitors to internment camps, far away from what they would consider to be their most vital targets to attack in order to sabotage the Reich from within.

Christian Nationalism, is an old ideology that was revived recently, the idea is to build a theocracy based on the Biblical text as it's constitution, and make the Christian identity it's core group, rather than a whole race, the main bulk of them reject EthnoNationalism, and rather than an "EthnoState", they seek out to establish "Christendom", or the "Earthly Kingdom of Christ", and a ton of them idolize the 1950's style of living, even though the government they want is one that is way older than the one in 1950, and doesn't resemble it at all (more like 1450, but with modern technology and a lot of past cultural changes to account for).

However, some of them started getting influenced by various /pol/acks, and this subfaction of ChristNats made changes to things and made it a specifically WHITE Christian identity instead.

Either way, expect the result of these guys taking over to result in something like a "Christian Sharia" (do NOT ever call it that in front of them unless you want to piss them off), where God (according to Jesus Christ and not Muhammed) is considered to be the true leader of the country, and a holy book (the Bible and not the Qu'ran) is used as the basis for forming the government and making it's laws.

Often they promote their ideology by claiming that Christianity, regardless of it's factuality, was with White people for the best parts of their history, and indeed most of it, that it had a significant impact on shaping their culture and politics, and that it's decline correlates with the decline of the countries in which this had occurred. Not only do I question these claims, but I also tend to take their logic to it's conclusion, that if the Bible is useful for social engineering, and if this is the true reason why we should be at at least cultural Christians, then we could improve out society by improving the Bible, and thus the proposal has been made by me and echoed by other anons that we could rewrite the good book in order to make it more compatible with the society we want.

This was the essential core of the "Positive Christianity" of National Socialism, and it's not even the first time the book would be given a major overhauling, as we can see that this had indeed been done to it over and over again by people who wanted to make it more useful for them in promoting their political ideology, some Christian Nationalists have unironically adopted this ideology, most ChristNats hate them with a passion, because their book's current rules forbid doing such a thing (even though it was done in the past), being trolls, these "Positive Christians" tend to point out how that rules should be left in, because it would make it easier to claim that they hadn't made the changes they intend to make after they had made them, the other opposition to PosChrists is that people already know what's in it, and can read the older versions of the Bible, the answers to this issue are the same as the ones used by other countries in the past and present, and basically say that it includes a well-known mix of cultural and legal techniques to address satisfactorily, also they say that most Christians aren't anywhere near as informed on their holy book as these critics claim they are.

>>240089

Despite the claims of Adolf Hitler being a devout Catholic his whole life, and being inspired by the German tradition of Catholic and Protestant Christianity (apparently moreso than the actual leaders of those religions), in reality, he had the view of religion in a similar fashion to the early USSR, as something to be co-opted and then eased out, a dangerous distraction from what the government's leaders saw as being most vital and essential, which they aimed to make the prime focus of their people, his "Positive Christianity" was similar to the "Christian Communism" in that it usurped the church from it's authorities and gradually replaced elements of the religion with elements of their own state ideology. He had to present himself and his ideology as Christian for the sake of power, but it was his beliefs regarding the German "volk" that truly occupied a strong place within his heart, and he ultimately saw Christianity as being incompatible, Islam would have been more in line with his ideas than the religion of the majority of Germans, in this way, he was "strongly, devoutly religious, but also thoroughly anti-Christian, and hostile to the church and it's teachings", which he saw as being a "Jewish" source of "weakness" that cost his people so much in the previous war, If his regime had lasted longer, he would have continued to increase the Anti-Christian angle and his ideology would have become known for being State Atheist, like Socialism/Communism is today, the fact that he lost the war is the reason his Christian following has not left him - "The Man in the High Tower" was based on Heinlein trying his best to portray the ideology of National socialism as accurately as he could, he did extensive research on the subject, and that included predicting where it would have gone if given the chance (by looking at the evolution of similar regimes), for example, In the book, the Axis powers win the Second World War, but they don't invade the rest of Europe or America, instead, the Axis countries become so successful in the Post-War era, that they inspire these places to adopt similar forms of government, which talk about Germany as an inspiration similar to how the Americans used to talk about France and vice versa, it's a cultural conquest, not militaristic, and the economic conflict between Germany and Japan was due to how they would both have been having golden ages (Japan for the same reasons as in our timeline, as they were looking for modernization even before the war had ended, and Germany due to the fact that Hitler's "Blitz economy" would have never been ended prematurely), and their markets would be in conflict for their hold in the economies of other countries.

TL;DR

National Capitalism can be summarized as such:

"Any combination of Capitalism as defined by the Anarcho Capitalist or related philosophies, and Nationalism as defined by National Socialist or related philosophies."

"Most commonly taking the form of overlaying the policies of Ethno-Nationalism onto the concept of Night-Watchman Minarchism."

"This ideology was born from the arguments that occurred on /pol/ and related spaces, between Anarcho-Capitalists and National-Socialists, that were observed by non-partisan pragmatists who thought that each made superior points in different subjects, and had commonalities between them, which allowed for a synthesis of the best parts of the two ideologies."

"capitalist policies may include:

- The minimization of the state and the services it provides down to national defense (including the enforcement of laws and policies on matters of immigration, visitation, customs, and trade) and law enforcement (including the collection of taxes), welfare and healthcare will be fully privatized and out of the reach of government involvement.

- Reformations in business and finance that nationalize central banking, institute representative currency, and prohibit fractional-reserve lending, the charging of interest, and the issuance of credit, as well as other reforms such as the nationalization of worker's unions, and the elimination of corporate personhood.

- The reformation of taxation laws, such as having a flat lump sum general tax, and flat percentage sales/services tax on each transaction, a tariff equal on the sales/service tax charged on the total cost of the transaction after the sales/services tax was applied, and a tolling tax collected as a flat sum equal to the general tax on all border-crossings both for entry and exit of the country.

- Absolute freedom of speech and the prohibition of all censorship, which may extend to the restriction of the government to make laws regarding speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet (even for reasons such as the enforcement of intellectual property, the protection of national security, the control of access to restricted media such as obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, the protection of children or other vulnerable groups from media unsuitable for them, to promote/restrict certain political/religious views, and to prevent defamation by slander and libel).

- The legal prohibition of Abortion (Homicide) and Circumcision (Mutilation), and the reclassification of Homosexuality and Transgenderism as being psychiatric disorders.

- The age of consent/adulthood/maturity/majority being anywhere from 16-25, with the additional rule that sexual consent is valid if the people involved are within a certain range of age difference (such as within the same year of age, or only one year apart).

- The Non-Aggression Principle of the Private Ownership of Person and Property and Voluntary Consent as the Distinction of Legal and Illegal Physical Interpersonal Interactions as the basis for all other laws."

"nationalist policies may include:

- The closing of immigration or the border to all who do not belong to a specific group, or imposing tighter restrictions on them than on the preferred group.

- The reduction of all who do not belong to a specific group to a lower class in legal, political, or other terms.

- The removal of all who do not belong to a specific group from the country, or the encouragement of them to leave."

>>240045

As I've said here many times, no matter what form of governance or economic system you have, it WILL become corrupted and subverted if you allow central bankers to control the currency by fiat. That's what central bankers always do: legalize counterfeiting among themselves, devalue the national currency by doing so, consolidate wealth, influence and bribe politicians and officials and create their own influential elitist Foundations/NGOs….. and the whole corrupted Bolshevik cycle repeats until it collapses from insolvency, lack of trust and declining public participation!!!

If you have a country with a central bank, forget it, only a matter of time before it is corrupted-to-the-core and fails. So learn from history or keep repeating it.

>>240092

Remember anon, money is the root of all evil, so if a nation looses control over the money supply by (((special interests))) aka central bankers, that evil will come back and bite them in the butt no matter what laws are in place.

If you want a civilized normal society you must cut out the root problem, go to the very source of usury itself….. that's the central banks.

>>240092

Thank you for your posts. It may take me a while to read and understand how capitalism serves national interests.

By the way, national interests and nationalist policies may overlap but they are not the same.

>"nationalist policies may include:

>- The closing of immigration or the border to all who do not belong to a specific group, or imposing tighter restrictions on them than on the preferred group.

>- The reduction of all who do not belong to a specific group to a lower class in legal, political, or other terms.

>- The removal of all who do not belong to a specific group from the country, or the encouragement of them to leave."

>>240141

>>240142

What if a central bank is set up and run by government?

>>240049

>What I want is capitalism serves national interests IF it's possible.

That is called Communism with Chinese Characteristics

>>240230

Like the People's Bank of China?

>>240090

>something to be co-opted and then eased out, a dangerous distraction from what the government's leaders saw as being most vital and essential, which they aimed to make the prime focus of their people, his "Positive Christianity" was similar to the "Christian Communism"

Don't you diss the ONLY TWO VALID DENOMINATIONS of Christianity, Positive Christianity and Three-Self

Protestanism and Catholicism is heresy as it depicts an Amalekite as the messiah. Any sect which venerates amalekites (whites) is a garbage sect.

Eastern Orthodox canonized the notoriously slutty and godless kike Esther as a "saint", despite her possessing far more loyalty to kikes than to Elohim himself (Est 8:17 NLT)

Three-Self and Positive are the only true currently practiced denominations. Other true denominations are Nazarene and Taiping, but the practitioners are long gone

>>240272

You pretended to know what you didn't know.

>>240045

I imagine you're calling it "national capitalism" because you want to keep up the charade that economies are unplanned. Otherwise you couldjust recycle any number of names already used to describe organizational systems which subjugate capital to the state.

Nationalism implies Socialism (non-Marxist/Bolshevik). A healthy nation requires a healthy society. Capitalism, unmolested by tiny Jewish hands, is Anarchy that works.

>>240391

No, I don't like socialism, and I don't think being nationalistic means it has to be socialism.

>>240303

Is it possible for capitalists to only hire their fellow countrymen or hire them first even if it means they will pay more, and put the interests of their country first while they are still capitalists?

If the answer is yes, then it's what I call national capitalism.

And possibly, it requires changes to the global trade policies.

>>240483

Whenever state capital is used to improve the society responsible for generating capital, either as a whole or specific groups according to their needs, this is "socialism." Any other definition of Socialism is gay and Jewish.

>>240484

A big difference between capitalism and socialism is the role of government in economy.

Another big difference is how wealth is distributed, by fair competition and contribution to the wealth (fair) or by identity or by what people need (theft).

>>240487

>A big difference

Nah, there's no difference. You work and pay into a State tax system. When you're too old to work you're paid Social Security benefits until you die. Why not just let you struggle until death? Because that would be right by society. Hence, this is "socialism." Capitalism and Socialism aren't at odds.

>>240490

>wouldnt

it doesn't.

so much autism about coming up with new ideologies when the answer is so simple, just do what fascism did (and what opponents claim natsocs did); corporatism, or state capitalism. if it's good for the peoples allow/incentivize it, if not, don't.

you don't even have to go full communism, you can still retain entrepreneurship, just realise that free markets are the main driver of degeneracy (well jews are but you get what i'm saying).

>>240483

>Is it possible for capitalists to only hire their fellow countrymen or hire them first even if it means they will pay more, and put the interests of their country first while they are still capitalists?

No.

>>240502

>just realise that free markets are the main driver of degeneracy (well jews are but you get what i'm saying).

You can go with Gulag.

It's simply night watchman state minarchism with white male nationalism, or national socialism with more lax laws and services, but which still gives more preference to white males than any other group.

I'm focused on two things:

- the most scientifically justified beliefs to hold.

And

- the opinions, actions, and rules that produce the most preferable results for me.

Let me start with the second; Out of all the life upon the Earth, White Males are the beings that have demonstrated that they have the greatest potential.

I'm very concerned about whether the life of this planet is going to outlast it, if this is going to be the case, we need only the very best to dominate the evolutionary landscape.

The issue is that the White Man's unique trait of variability, the source of their greatest strength is also it's potentially fatal vulnerability, as it also grants them the source of their greatest weakness.

It's a double edged sword, one that can cut both ways, it can cut us forwards, and backwards.

I've looked into the old days, in my usual autistic style that focuses on accuracy over preferences, and when comparing that to the opinions I see expressed in out community, found that most of us would not be happy with bringing them back.

Even the authentic return to the ways of some time period as recent the 50's they would be, by the standards of our community's sensibilities, degenerate in some way or another.

There were things that were acceptable in the 1950s that most of us would strongly object to, even though in other areas, things would be a lot closer in line to this place's vision, people tend to pursue their own idea of perfection, and so they often accentuate the negative once they see it.

The further back you go, such as to the Neolithic period, the worse the disconnect between our sensibilities and those of the actual reality of these periods would be.

The truth of those golden eras is surprisingly different from the way we imagine they were like, and the level of degeneracy during those golden ages would be a lot more than we would expect, on some ways, it would go past our eras mainstream standards of decency, amd into more fapfiction type areas of social policy.

The larger issue is that each of these past eras eventually fell to corruption and decline, there was something wrong with them, elsewise they would not have gone the way they did, their ways were not the best.

My positions are going to offend you, in truth they offend me as well, but I came up with them not by judging them on the standards of how I feel, but by the standards of how well these approaches would work for the one thing I care for, they are entirely practical, with little room for dogma.

- First, in the process of creating a perfect system, I begin with a blank slate, I want to start off with no government, then add onto that only what there presents a "need to be" for.

>>240542

>more lax laws and services

>but which still gives more preference to white males than any other group.

You're trying to leave in place all the same pitfalls.

>>240504

Do you think Fordism practically possible?

If not, then social security, which is sort of wealth redistribution scheme, is justified if it doesn't allow lazy people to benefit.

Capitalism means you don't have a nation. Your "nation" is a make believe identity controlled by the capitalists, aka something like "Austria" or "America."

>>241230

>Capitalism means you don't have a nation.

Then, why do capitalists need laws and justice?

>>241257

>>Capitalism means you don't have a nation.

>Then, why do capitalists need laws and justice?

I always thought the wealthy paid to have those laws made in order to protect their wealth, and that Justice is simply what they call it when they win and you lose.

>>241314

Oh, clear.

Your capitalism is slavery capitalism.

Then, economic activities only serve capitalists, who become rich by

1. using their slaves' labor

2. exchanging with other slave owners.

And non-capitalists, labors, are mere cattle.

>>241366

seems to be how things work in practice, more or less

>>241527

Then class struggle or even class warfare is inevitable and communism is the natural remedy for slavery capitalism, and Marxism is justified.

And, are Gulag, dozens of million deaths, etc. justified too?

>>241713

To my knowledge, Marx didn't invent the idea that the powerful act in their own interests nor that they refer to their own acts as "Justice." Thrasymachus, for example.

Most /pol/acks are idiots, they aren't good at dealing with ideas that they aren't already familiar with, they cannot handle anything new and instead just refuse to be curious, critical minded, or do original thinking.

I think about things logically, treating political design by figuring out what would happen as a result of any policies we implement, I see them as working parts in a machine that people are a part of, and the mission is to figure out what combination of policies works best to produce the results that I desire.

This practical approach to political design is one that /pol/ needs to adopt, cold rationality will give rise to the best political system for our White Gentile Males.

>>242003

>they aren't good at dealing with ideas that they aren't already familiar with, they cannot handle anything new and instead just refuse to be curious, critical minded, or do original thinking

just sounds like most humans to me

>>242003

Please sum up your ideas, 1. 2. 3. …

Your posts are too long.

>>242062

1. White Nationalism: White Ethnostate (non-whites moved out), White-only Immigration, White-only political representation, emphasis on self-reliance, meaning that foreign labor and trade is only used when domestic labor and trade cannot provide the goods/services needed, right of return for all Whites, etc. also includes basically anything else that I'm leaving out.

2. Capitalism: Minimal system of laws based on the NAP, State reduced to only national defense and law enforcement, Taxes reduced to something reasonable and consistent (eg. flat lump sum, flat percentages), etc.

3. In a lot of ways, it resembles the early united states, but with a lot of the kinks worked out so that it doesn't devolve into shit again, for example, by ensuring the permanent lack of jews.

>>242563

>State reduced to only national defense and law enforcement

lol you think the U.S. will give up her international control? get rekt commie.

>>242003

Wtf is a /pol/ack you goddammit retard? There is no hivemimd here. You can't just generalize anonymous people.

>>242563

OK, what you want is "white nationalist capitalism", not exactly the same as "capitalism that serves national interests".

>>242563

>the early united states

Was full of fucking nigger-cattle, imported in by Christfags capitalists who didn't want to pay a European wage for people to work on their farms.

Niggers are the original Great Replacement. Capitalism means you don't have a nation. The capitalists created the lie of "individualism" to get out of any obligations to their own people. Capitalism is the rule of a class of people who have absolutely no interest in serving their own people, and who don't even believe in the existence of nations at all. This is why capitalists split their real nations and setup artificial States like "America" and "Austria" in the first place.

>>242715

>Capitalism means you don't have a nation. The capitalists created the lie of "individualism" to get out of any obligations to their own people. Capitalism is the rule of a class of people who have absolutely no interest in serving their own people, and who don't even believe in the existence of nations at all.

Interesting.

Can one single nation exist without a rival nation(s)?

My hypothesis is nation is political or politically economic. Capitalists can only be forced to serve their nation when their nation is threatened. That's why when capitalists no longer feel threatened by another country, they tend to become stateless and only care about themselves, let alone when a nation is under jews' rule.

The cure?

It could not be another system, but challenges from another nation until capitalists feel threatened, and liberating themselves from jews' rule.

Full allodial title property ownership. Extremely restricted government to the point of near-anarchy. Free and completely unfettered competition at the 'national level even so far as the ability for any individual to obtain complete and total sovereignty as an individual.

This could all be done with blockchains… But I digress

>>240141

This is absolutely correct.

Take the hoppepill lads

The final pill

>>240047

That is just step one, but it is very important.

Step two is to eliminate suffrage for minorities and women by whatever method. Make everyone pay to vote, or have only those who pay taxes vote, etc.

Step three is the systematic elimination of all anti-white laws and regulations that have accumulated over the last 50+ years.

There is more work to be done after that, but life will certainly get a lot better after the above is completed.

National capitalism agrees with most libertarian ideologies on the idea of there being a minimal state and minimal law as the optimal path for their people, but also believes that the nation, their people, should be put before that as the first concern which overrules the libertarian ideal.

It's a synthesis that came out of the dialogs between National socialists and libertarians over the course of /pol/'s history.

They are pretty much a bunch of libertarians from old/pol/ who listened to the criticisms of their ideology from the natsocs of new/pol/, and agreed with them, but instead of discarding their whole ideology and becoming natsocs, they formed a synthesis by taking the valid criticisms of the natsocs, and modifying their ideology in accordance with them, removing the weak points on their ideals and replacing them with the natsoc alternatives, but keeping the parts the natsocs could not criticize with much success, which was most of their ideology.

Considering that the ideals of libertarianism tend to only appeal to white people, and jewish subversion agents who undermine them (and thus are best purged from the ideological community), the idea of incorporating white nationalist ideas into their ideology was more natural than one might think.

Further precedent lies in the inherently anti-jewish nature of "end the fed" styled banking reform.

The result is basically "rapture" or "galt's gulch" but with a "white gentiles only" sign on it, saying no to things like open borders, foreign trade/labor, corporatism, egalitarianism, and the like, while still guaranteeing a minimal state and law for their people.

The ideology has a lot more history to it than one might think.

Some versions of the ideology go further, and do the whole "enslave the females and non-whites" deal, by making it so that the non-aggression principle, and all the other laws of the land, would not apply to anything that was not a white gentile male, thus making non-whites and females into nothing more than objects in the eyes of the law, just peices of property able to be owned by white gentile males, and thus these these owners could do as they pleased with them.

The idea goes that a white gentile female would be owned first by her father and later by her husband, to whom her father would give her over in an arranged marriage that works more like a deal than bond of romantic love, thus, makes would have far more power over females, whose freedom is identified as a source of much troubles.

And if that is not far enough, this variant of the ideology has a subtype that wants world conquest and domination, they want a whole planet that is ruled by white gentile males and in which all others are slaves, the "ethno-globe".

Though many natcaps think this is going a bit too far, and sees these as a bunch of incel mra losers that disrespect the inherent value and nobility of the aryan female.

There's also the problem that this opens the way to slavery not only of females, but of nonwhites, which many capitalistic nationalists see as being a powder keg liable to go off at a later date, as it would likely bring more nonwhites into contact with our people, and potentially the whites may grow soft in future generations and set these things free, and history has made clear where that route would take us. Certain jews, arabs, gypsies, and imdians may be mistaken for white gentiles (due to aggressive mimicry), but these sorts of naycaps suggest using branding as a means of ensuring that we can identify who is of pure white gentile stock or not.

Not to mention that slavery is one thing that is sure to create hostility in others towards our ideas, we are already racists, and that is already a hard sell by itself, we really don't need to make it any worse for us than that. World conquest is also a very bad look.

The extreme natcaps tell us that we are pussies, too cucked by optics to think big, that our worries are unfounded, and once we win, our people would have learned very well why it must be so that our race and sex must be the master of all others. These guys think that Hitler's worst flaw was that he was too soft and trusting.

>>244907

>Some versions of the ideology go further, and do the whole "enslave the females and non-whites" deal, by making it so that the non-aggression principle, and all the other laws of the land, would not apply to anything that was not a white gentile male, thus making non-whites and females into nothing more than objects in the eyes of the law, just peices of property able to be owned by white gentile males, and thus these these owners could do as they pleased with them.

If that's what they really think and believe could be true, then it's evidence that it's just fantasy. It lacks the basic empirical thinking in it.

>>244958

The statement "all females and non-whites (including those races that can mimic the appearance of whites, jews, arabs, gypsies, and indians, who must be identified by a slave's brand) should be slaves" is one of opinion, not fact, where the heck is there any room for empiricism to have a position here?

Also, it goes without saying that anything that is not alive or human is to be given the same treatment as females and non-whites.

BTW, the rationale of the whole "ethnoglobe" thing is that so long as females or those of other races are living free, anywhere, they will be a potential source of threat to white gentile males, hence, all must be conquered and subjugated, co-existence is no longer a possibility for our people.

We must also be sure to keep our future generations of young white gentil males educated as to what is to be expected from allowing a female or non-white to have even a modicum of freedom - they will want more, and by degrees, they will get it, and then they will turn on us and we will be back at the fringes of our own enslavement and extinction, so we must harden our hearts to them, do not be needlessly cruel, but do not budge from what must be the way things are.

>>245035

>where the heck is there any room for empiricism to have a position here?

Utopianism is a result of wishful thinking, a fantasy.

Marxism is too.

Why do those isms fail in the real world? Because they involve no empiricism in thinking despite Karl Marx pretended to reason empirically.

Empiricism means success in reality.

>>244907

The whole idea reminds of Muslim conquest. It has nothing to do with capitalism or nationalism.

>>245226

What is "utopianism"? If "perfect" is "a society without anything bad in it", I'm not aiming for a "perfect" society, just "the best possible society that we can conceive of", which is how I define "perfect" when talking about societies.

>>245251

It's okay when White Males conquer the world and enslave everyone else, because White Males were the ones who have proven themselves to be the best people to inherit the Earth.

As for Capitalism and Nationalism, world conquest and the enslavement of everyone who isn't both White and Male fixes the problems with taking both ideas in their entirety, when all nations are dominated by the same group of people, there's no conflict between absolute capitalism and absolute nationalism.

However, National Capitalism doesn't necessarily require having both as an absolute, the ideology in it's other forms is "capitalism, except where it conflicts with nationalism - nationalism prioritized over capitalism - capitalist in the areas where nationalism does not mandate anything - nationalism in the areas where capitalism can be well criticized by nationalists, capitalism in the areas where nationalists can be well criticized by capitalists" and other such simplified explanations, the early united states was supposed to be a good historical example, but they had amerindians and mestizos, they let in jews, who then let in blacks, and the asians then made a significant presence, and I'm including the arabs and east-indians as notable additions in that category, and now america belongs to the non-whites more than it does to the whites.

>>245399

>and enslave everyone else, because White Males were the ones who have proven themselves to be the best people to inherit the Earth.

Why do the best people need slaves?

Isn't slavery evil?

>>245598

Not if White Males do it to everyone else.

Then it means we get a whole planet, which we can run as we please without concern for anything else beyond what is best for us.

You see, the jews and muslims are a source of inspiration for me, I think White Gentiles should take the jewish/muslim plan of world domination, and some of their strategies for accomplishing those plans, and do it for ourselves, to defeat your enemy, you must know your enemy, and, in some key aspect, become them.

The kike/dunecoon bastards themselves have got to go, however, they are a continuing source of threat that must be eliminated, especially since some of them can resemble our people, perhaps merely branding them at the earliest opportunity and using regular use of genetic testing to identify who is ours and who is theirs would be sufficient to keep them in the position of slavery.

I like the poetry of it, a fitting punishment for those who wished to enslave the world, to be slaves to a people they had power over, until they inspired those people to turn the tables on them.

The whole thing would be like how oda nobunaga managed to survive an attempt by a foreign power to conquer his province on the way to taking the capital, and then was inspired to copy their plan, due to how successful his enemy was, and in turn, ieyasu tokugawa was inspired by the successes of oda nobunaga to follow in his footsteps, since nobunaga was even more successful than the guy he pwnt.

The best part of slavery is the effects on the genetics of the slave populations, women and non-whites would be transformed by their generations spent in bondage, as masters cull their stock in some way or another, those traits that most appeal to White Gentile Males would be preserved as the ones we find undesirable are taken out of the running for passing their traits to another round of evolutionary competition.

We'd be like the advanced race of aliens known as the "Cu" of the book "many tommorrows" shaping our captive species to our desired specifications.

>>245630

The first generations could only blame themselves for how things turned out, negroids, for example, they had freedom, equality, and even preferential treatment for a time, but they could not stop themselves from antagonizing those who were so gracious to them, now those acts of ingratitude are used as reasoning by their masters for why they cannot be trusted to ever be given anything approaching that ever again.

The jews, arabs, indians, and gypsies are bearing a marking on their foreheads, a brand of a symbol that once was their flag of conquest, a six pointed star, a crescent moon laid on its back with a star nestled in the cavity, a lidless eye turned on it's side, for the gypsies, perhaps a "traveller's mark", they bear these for the rest of their lives, as will all their descendants, a mark that represents the special place their people hold in the hearts of their masters as the ones who almost wiped them out, it would be surprising if any survive, only those who are the very best at proving themselves worthy of being trusted to be kept alive would live to bear descendants, they would be a people who curse the ambitions of their forebears, now prisoners of the monsters their people had created.

amerindians, mestizos, polynesians, aborigines, these folk know what it's like to be a conquered people, but this is unlike anything they had seen before, where as before they were treated as people, now they are tools, and they are evaluated on their utility, those who fail to pass the test may be destroyed, so those who remain must do what they can to mold themselves into a people worth preserving in the eyes of their keepers, they will also remember their ancestral crimes, they were similar to the negroes, constantly complaining and clamoring for more and more, over land that they themselves had stolen from the White Man, who merely reclaimed what was originally theirs.

Which brings us to the White Aryan Woman, who has now been reduced to sharing a common status with these sorts, they had once claimed to have been slaves, but in truth, servitude of this sort is entirely new to them, they were originally prized and given their own roles that suited them and complemented their opposing sex, they were respected and protected masters of the home and nurtures of children, they had fallen because their willingness to use their positions to betray their race was taken as a sign that apparently that was too much freedom and trust for them to handle responsibly, now they truly lack any rights, they are less than chattel, owned by others and regarded by law as if they were common objects, no longer able to have any say over their existences, their fathers are their owners, their partners are chosen for them and become their new masters, they must serve the roles expected of them not by choice, but at the stakes of life and death, there is ample precedent for why they must be treated and regarded as they are, and the folly of their liberation even in the slightest degree, thus any leniency on the part of their keepers is an expensive gift that they must be grateful for. They too shall adapt to their new roles, the nature of what it means to be female will change, sexual dimorphism will reshape itself in accordance with the desires of White Aryan Males, who in turn shall be changed by their mastery over all the people listed above, into a more masculine and masterful heroic figure, now fully realizing the responsibilities given to them by God himself, to conquer the world and subjugate all its inhabitants to their will.

The females of the race now fully embody the position given to them by God as the property and belongings and slaves of the males, gifted to them, standing beneath, never beside nor above, not complementary, but subservient.

>>245598

If slavery was evil, why did God and Jesus reccomend it? It's our divinely mandated destiny and our calling, to conquer the world and to take ownership of all its inhabitants, not just animals, but people too.

>>240045

It's basically patriotic trickle down economics. It's silly

>>245634

Then your national capitalism = stone age slavery society dominated by white males.

It's not "capitalism serving national interests".

If you want to succeed, you first have to send the world back to stone age. No slavery could really work in any sort of modern economy.