Board 8 > Nationalist politics topic 15: The "Russian collusion" was a hoax!

(+) Yeah! (+)

foolm0r0n posted...

Vlado posted...

Every single democratic government that has been in a position allowing it to do so has started a war, too.

Switzerland

Ok your turn

that has been in a position allowing it to do

Espeon posted...

I ask again, why are you defending fascism?

Saying that fascism is a political system, and that political systems and war are not necessarily related, is simply a statement of fact.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Switzerland

Ok your turn

weren't you arguing before that governments suck because war is an inherent aspect of them?
---

Fascism is an inherently violent political system, predisposed to war though. You literally had to add a caveat to your democracy is just as bad argument to maintain it, because no, democratic governance is NOT predisposed to war. And the fact that youre using whataboutism to compare democracy to fascism shows that youre defending fascism.
---

Vlado posted...

that has been in a position allowing it to do

Switzerland

If you're saying that democracy allows a country to stay peaceful even though it is in an incredibly strategic geographical position, with deep financial and political ties with all its neighbors who are currently conducting total war, as well as the axis and allies across the globe, then thank you because you made my point way better than I ever could.

Now you go. This game isn't so fun when it's all one sided. I knew your idea would be hard to argue but I didn't think you would just give up like this.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

weren't you arguing before that governments suck because war is an inherent aspect of them?

Statist and collectivist elements inherently encourages war-mongering due to the political lines that have to be enforced to maintain it. But those elements are a spectrum, and there are governments that are way on the lower side, which don't war nearly as much. As I've always said, due to the nature of humanity I don't think governments can ever be eliminated long-term, but I do think we can sustainably eliminate the most destructive policies.

(I do think democracy is terrible though, especially when it comes to war, but it can be limited in those regards)
---

https://twitter.com/hbdchick/status/1134432725195272195

This is why immigration is bad.
---

Picking those colors is the most fun that racist ever had in their entire life
---

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/hbdchick/status/1134432725195272195

This is why immigration is bad.

But what if Americans emigrated to other countries and said government ownership of businesses was bad in those countries? You would approve of that immigration
---

Jakyl25 posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/hbdchick/status/1134432725195272195

This is why immigration is bad.

But what if Americans emigrated to other countries and said government ownership of businesses was bad in those countries? You would approve of that immigration

Not really. It would leave me more outnumbered here.

Any sane country should absolutely want more people who favor capitalism, and absolutely not want more people who favor communism.

Foolmo, of course, is more loyal to the cult of diversity worship than he is to freedom and free markets, so he will, of course, disagree.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Any sane country should absolutely want more people who favor capitalism, and absolutely not want more people who favor communism.

This seems odd to me since the only thing that makes a country a country is government
---

Replace country with geographic area, if you'd like.

I want more capitalists and less communists in my nation, in my state, in my county, in my town, in my neighborhood, and in my house.
---

But do you want to deny them the freedom to live near you?
---

Then you could more easily defeat them in the marketplace of ideas
---

Jakyl25 posted...

But do you want to deny them the freedom to live near you?

To the extent that I can do so without initiating aggression, yes.

Nobody has the freedom to live wherever they like. Nor would they have that freedom even if we did have an AnCap society.
---

How does land ownership work in an AnCap society?
---

Yeah because I realize the SUPER EASY 0-step leap from banning people by profiling and thought crime, to fascist government rule of society. Anyone with a brain, who appreciates freedom, would obviously reject this.

To be clear I'm not saying Muffin is a brain dead idiot, I'm saying he is a freedom hating fascism lover.

I will give him 2 months before he starts repeating vlado's pro fascism posts here (vlado tends to be on the cutting edge of these movements).
---

So is Jordan Peterson!

https://hungarytoday.hu/orban-meets-jordan-peterson-in-budapest/
---

SmartMuffin posted...

To the extent that I can do so without initiating aggression, yes.

Twitter retweets then?

No but seriously, what you're actually doing is directly supporting those who do use aggression against them, and pretending you're free of fault. You know what you're doing thiugh. You just care more about eradicating the browns than the NAP.

"Nationalist first, libertarian second" - Ulti
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Then you could more easily defeat them in the marketplace of ideas

obviously communists will never change their mind about anything because they're dumb lol
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I will give him 2 months before he starts repeating vlado's pro fascism posts here (vlado tends to be on the cutting edge of these movements).

at this point, muffin probably agrees the most with vlado out of the people regularly posting in this topic.
---

"Nationalist first, libertarian second" - Ulti

If you mean "first" in terms of preference, I disagree.

If you mean it chronologically, I agree.

Libertarianism is more likely to arise in a nationalist society than in a globalist one. As the poll linked above shows.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

If you mean "first" in terms of preference, I disagree.

Not preference, but philosophy. i.e. when you refer to "libertarianism" you are referring to enacting nationalist policies FIRST at all costs, at the direct expense of the NAP, property rights, freedom of association, etc

Like in your last sentence. You are at the 1-year-ago-vlado position that nationalism is the only solution. Anything that isn't nationalism (especially small government) is seen as an enemy, a promotion of globalism. You use polls like that to promote nationalism, forgetting that you have literally turned into that 4% of white people who is advocating for national government control.

Those socialist foreigners will very quickly become pro capitalism and pro freedom, as every socialist exposed to it has. I don't worry a single bit about them.

But you were intensely pro freedom not so long ago and now you look for any reason to fight it, and follow any and all the propaganda against it. Is that not fucking terrifying?
---

Espeon posted...

Fascism is an inherently violent political system, predisposed to war though. You literally had to add a caveat to your democracy is just as bad argument to maintain it, because no, democratic governance is NOT predisposed to war. And the fact that youre using whataboutism to compare democracy to fascism shows that youre defending fascism.

Wrong. How do I put it in even simpler terms and hope that you understand... Fascism is a way to run your country. It is in no way related to war in and by itself. Neither is democracy.

Now, you have been completely demoralised by post-WW2 propaganda, so it's understandable that you equate a political system that happened to be on the losing side with all that is evil. Reminder: if the roles had been reversed, democracy would have been the demonised system today.

foolm0r0n posted...

Vlado posted...

that has been in a position allowing it to do

Switzerland

If you're saying that democracy allows a country to stay peaceful even though it is in an incredibly strategic geographical position, with deep financial and political ties with all its neighbors who are currently conducting total war, as well as the axis and allies across the globe, then thank you because you made my point way better than I ever could.

Now you go. This game isn't so fun when it's all one sided. I knew your idea would be hard to argue but I didn't think you would just give up like this.

Quite the opposite - namely because it's surrounded by warring states, it would have been idiocy of Switzerland NOT to stay neutral.

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/hbdchick/status/1134432725195272195

This is why immigration is bad.

Among a million other reasons.

SmartMuffin posted...

Foolmo, of course, is more loyal to the cult of diversity worship than he is to freedom and free markets, so he will, of course, disagree.

Of course he is. Why would he go against his own interests?

SmartMuffin posted...

Replace country with geographic area, if you'd like.

Why did you fall for that bait? A "geographic area" is nothing. It is the PEOPLE that make the country. Not government, which is secondary at best.

Jakyl25 posted...

So is Jordan Peterson!

https://hungarytoday.hu/orban-meets-jordan-peterson-in-budapest/

Peterson is a globalist actively working to discourage young Europeans from working together to defend their interests by poisoning their minds with "individualism." "Controlled opposition" is too soft a term for him. Watch his debate with Zizek, btw. Peterson was laughably unprepared and got embarrassed big time.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

"Nationalist first, libertarian second" - Ulti

Of course. If you're a libertarian first and nationalist second, you've fallen for divide and conquer. You are done. You are out of the equation. You can never achieve anything.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

at this point, muffin probably agrees the most with vlado out of the people regularly posting in this topic.

We've still got Lucian, even if he only posts once in a blue moon. :)

SmartMuffin posted...

"Nationalist first, libertarian second" - Ulti

If you mean "first" in terms of preference, I disagree.

If you mean it chronologically, I agree.

Libertarianism is more likely to arise in a nationalist society than in a globalist one. As the poll linked above shows.

That's true. It's also true that many libertarians have turned into nationalists as they continue to accummulate knowledge.
---

ulti, like muffin, is just one of the many people who want to be called "libertarians" because they like ron paul, even though they fundamentally disgree with the core libertarian principles
---

Well, I like Ron Paul and don't pretend to be libertarian. The economic aspect of libertarianism can only possibly work if we somehow restarted humanity from scratch. If we apply it to the current situation, that means globalist corporations destroy all competition and establish complete control that much more easily.

Meanwhile, Meryl Streep says:

Sometimes I think were hurt. We hurt our boys by calling something toxic masculinity'. I do, Streep said. And I dont find [that] putting those two words together ... because women can be pretty f***ing toxic.

And backlash predictably ensues. Apparently, hating Trump's guts is not enough, you must hate all men, too, in order to not get crucified by rabid US leftists.

https://www.rt.com/usa/460830-meryl-streep-toxic-masculinity/
---

Vlado posted...

Fascism is a way to run your country. It is in no way related to war in and by itself.

Fascism uses militarism and war as a core part of how it runs a country. You don't seem very knowledgeable about the political system you support.
---

Vlado posted...

Well, I like Ron Paul and don't pretend to be libertarian.

same. i like ron paul and i agree with him on some points, disagree with him on others. i'm definitely not a libertarian.

but there's plenty of ""libertarians"" (again, ulti and muffin are good examples) who love ron paul so much that they want to be called libertarians, even though it's obvious that they're not libertarian at all either when you look at their political stances. because of this, you get shit like ulti's "i'm a nationalist first, libertarian second" claim, which is complete nonsense as nationalism is incompatible with libertarianism. it's similar to saying someone is a "left-libertarian" or gary johnson saying he's "socially liberal, economically conservative." it's just stuff that doesn't actually mean anything that people only say to make themselves feel better.
---

Vlado posted...

it would have been idiocy of Switzerland NOT to stay neutral.

They weren't neutral lol. They just didn't go to war.

How much more are you going to respond without pointing out 1 fascist country that didn't immediately go to war at the earliest opportunity?
---

Vlado posted...

You can never achieve anything.

Like I said to Muffin, you are so desperate to achieve ANYTHING that you will support anti-freedom, anti-rights, anti-NAP, just to feel like you're not useless. You are aware & proud of this which is... better than Muffin? Maybe?

And you are absolutely right that I cannot achieve nationalist fascism. To you that means I'm useless.

But every second of your life you benefit from libertarian achievements. Your entire reality, and your children's (hopefully), is defined by the freedoms that liberty seekers have fought for over centuries, and turned into norms. Even in Russia and China, the virus of freedom has spread.

It is absolutely terrifying that this new breed of nationalists and socialists have figured out an antidote to freedom, but it is entirely temporary. I just want to get past this without as much destruction as last time.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcklYVR5I-I" data-time="

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIN8oxnw__I" data-time="&start=5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM1w8_dOcR8" data-time="

I know you won't watch these, Vlado, but here's some videos to explain to you why fascism is an inherently violent political ideology (due to it being a reactionary attack on selected out-groups.)
---

Vlado posted...

Well, I like Ron Paul and don't pretend to be libertarian. The economic aspect of libertarianism can only possibly work if we somehow restarted humanity from scratch. If we apply it to the current situation, that means globalist corporations destroy all competition and establish complete control that much more easily.

Meanwhile, Meryl Streep says:

Sometimes I think were hurt. We hurt our boys by calling something toxic masculinity'. I do, Streep said. And I dont find [that] putting those two words together ... because women can be pretty f***ing toxic.

And backlash predictably ensues. Apparently, hating Trump's guts is not enough, you must hate all men, too, in order to not get crucified by rabid US leftists.

https://www.rt.com/usa/460830-meryl-streep-toxic-masculinity/

Toxic masculinity =/= masculinity is toxic.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Toxic masculinity =/= masculinity is toxic

People keep saying this and it makes no sense. Either everything about something is toxic, or nothing is. There's only heaven, and hell. 0s and 1s. Red and blue.
---

Vlado posted...

The economic aspect of libertarianism can only possibly work if we somehow restarted humanity from scratch. If we apply it to the current situation, that means globalist corporations destroy all competition and establish complete control that much more easily.

This is maybe the wisest thing youve ever said
---

He copied it from the marxist subreddit
---

foolm0r0n posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Toxic masculinity =/= masculinity is toxic

People keep saying this and it makes no sense. Either everything about something is toxic, or nothing is. There's only heaven, and hell. 0s and 1s. Red and blue.

But sometimes things are purple.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

But sometimes things are purple.

That's easily my (least) favorite color on that graph
---

TheRock1525 posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Toxic masculinity =/= masculinity is toxic

People keep saying this and it makes no sense. Either everything about something is toxic, or nothing is. There's only heaven, and hell. 0s and 1s. Red and blue.

But sometimes things are purple.

...dude
---

https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/1134968888116932609

I'm actually shocked the media would do this. Not that they'd punch down to try and destroy a poor black man for expressing wrongthink, that's completely and entirely expected. But that they actually believe the gains from chilling speech among poor black men (probably the people least exposed to economic bullying from the PC crowd) will offset the losses in actually admitting that Trump gets support from poor black men. They definitely should have forgotten and buried this story the second they found out it wasn't a rich white guy.

So not only are they amoral, sub-human, scum. They're also dumb. This is a net PR win for Trump, given to him for free.
---

Is there an example of something that is not a net PR win for Trump?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Is there an example of something that is not a net PR win for Trump?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1134538166919204865

This, and everything like it.

Will do absolutely nothing to persuade his opponents, and annoys and antagonizes his supporters.

Basically any time he publicly takes the same side as every huge bureaucratic global organization on Earth, he harms his own cause. And PC diversity issues are pretty much the only time he self-owns like that.
---

When being a decent human being is a PR loss for you (or in your case, for someone you've willingly dropped all other beliefs and principles in order to support), you're probably a bad person.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

pretty much the only time he self-owns like that

lol what
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump

That said, I don't see how hypocritical self-owns are a PR loss for Trump. He does it so often that it's his entire political aesthetic, it's exactly why people like him - there's always a version of him that says what you want to hear.

Like that LGBT tweet is neutral at worst. At best it keep the racist gays interest in him (there's a bunch of them). And the media will perfectly oblige with beneficial coverage of this for him.

SmartMuffin posted...

So not only are they amoral, sub-human, scum. They're also dumb.

Which comes back to this. It's ridiculous that you still think the media, who is your biggest and most vile enemy, is just plain dumb, instead of directly complicit in hurting our freedoms and helping Trump's authoritarianism in an intelligent and intentional manner.
---

muffin thinks anyone who disagrees with him is dumb
---

When being a decent human being

Celebrating homosexuality as a positive virtue is not required for being a decent human being.
---

It is, in the context of a world that still oppresses it.

Ideally it would just be a neutral aspect of a person, not a virtue at all, but too many people still resist that.

ib4 Muffin explains how true libertarianism has to be in line with the rules of the 1950s Catholic Church
---

It is, in the context of a world that still oppresses it.

It does the exact opposite of that. In the western world, at least.

Pride would be meaningful in Saudi Arabia. I wonder if the local affiliates of all our lovely global corporations are flying rainbow flags in places like that?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

It is, in the context of a world that still oppresses it.

It does the exact opposite of that. In the western world, at least.

Pride would be meaningful in Saudi Arabia. I wonder if the local affiliates of all our lovely global corporations are flying rainbow flags in places like that?

Do you actually give a shit about gay oppression in Saudi Arabia for ANY reason other than using it as a way to hate on Muslims? Because the thing is that, just because oppression is worse overseas doesn't mean there isn't a sizable contingent of people in this country who either believe the LGBTQ+ community is subhuman, or actually take measure to TREAT them as sub-human.
---

Do you actually give a shit about gay oppression in Saudi Arabia for ANY reason other than using it as a way to hate on Muslims?

I absolutely hate people who literally believe homosexuals should be executed. Do you not?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Do you actually give a shit about gay oppression in Saudi Arabia for ANY reason other than using it as a way to hate on Muslims?

I absolutely hate people who literally believe homosexuals should be executed. Do you not?

That doesn't answer my question.
---