So I got downvoted into oblivion on a post about socialism because I think that socialism is doomed to fail no matter what form, even national socialism.
Explain why national socialism is a better economic system than libertarian capitalism, assuming a white, Christian* ethnostate.
*Preferably Catholic and Orthodox, not butt-fucking Protestants
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
6
Brannvesen on scored.co
1 year ago6 points(+0/-0/+6Score on mirror)1 child
First you must understand that the jew have subverted both definitions of "liberalism" and "socialism". Nothing in the former eastern block would be real socialism. I know it's a meme, but this is a fact, those weren't real implementations of socialism. It was (((bolshevik))) communism plain and simple, a 100% jewish ideology just like capitalism.
Real socialism defines a form of welfare system only. The nationalist ideology makes it a White ethnostate. Socialism on it's own isn't a standalone ideology, it's an addition to various forms of capitalist systems to regulate and prevent jewish fuckery. It originates in Germany at a time when (((capitalism))) poses a threat from the west and (((comunism))) threatens from the east. The Germans didn't want to be part of either jew controlled system, so they decided to build their own Reich with regulations in place to keep the jew away from power.
Libertarianism on the other hand is it's own ideology, which is all about the individual. It goes something like "me first, fuck everyone else". Which is very jewish by definition. How could such society ever thrive, when every individual always competes with one another. Just like (((capitalism))) this will keep people divided while large jew owned corporations take over.
To put it simple, the main difference is collectivism vs individualism. White people working together against jewish interests can achieve wonders, while White people busy competing with each others won't have time to notice the jew.
Someone made a great comparison using transportation. Let's say you have a robot taxi, you summon it with an app on your phone, then it shows up and there's poop on the floor from the former passenger, you can't do shit about it, other than pull a deep sigh and be depressed over the collapse of society.
But if you instead took the bus, there's maybe 30-40 other people onboard, a collective of White people, soon as that one problematic individual pull down his pants to take a shit on the floor, the bus will stop and several people will step in to throw that fucker out. This will boost everyone's sense of community, you're surrounded by complete strangers, but you all worked together to make society a better place. It ain't much but it's honest work, and morale goes up.
That's the difference between socialism and libertarianism.
>It goes something like "me first, fuck everyone else".
I think the steel-man of Libertariabism would be "I'm so responsible that I don't need to be governed".
For example, my country requires automatic traction control and ABS brakes in new cars. *I* don't need this, because I know how to drive, but others need to be governed because they're idiots. Same with left turn signals, speed limits, safety inspections, even driver's licenses. If none of that existed, I would drive pretty much the same as I do now because it's just the correct way to drive, so I don't like having these laws.
The problem is, if I'm at least an average driver, most people are worse than me. If any retard can get behind a wheel and do whatever he wants, as fast as he wants, you get India, which I also don't want.
On top of that, I didn't build my car. If I did, I didn't build the parts. If I did, I didn't smelt the metal and process the plastic. If I did, I didn't obtain the raw ore/oil etc. Someone else has to do at least some of this and I can't realisitically check every stage for quality. If my wheel falls off because of poor metalurgy or corners cut during assembly, I'm fucked. Someone needs to hold the dummies to account for their actions, or they'll get away with whatever they can.
Ideally, I think Libertarianism is an individual ideology necessary for small government, but not actually a system of government at all. You can never have a Libertarian country; at best it would be some other system that would barely require paid government positions because most people take on the responsibilities that otherwise fall to governments.
Real socialism defines a form of welfare system only. The nationalist ideology makes it a White ethnostate. Socialism on it's own isn't a standalone ideology, it's an addition to various forms of capitalist systems to regulate and prevent jewish fuckery. It originates in Germany at a time when (((capitalism))) poses a threat from the west and (((comunism))) threatens from the east. The Germans didn't want to be part of either jew controlled system, so they decided to build their own Reich with regulations in place to keep the jew away from power.
Libertarianism on the other hand is it's own ideology, which is all about the individual. It goes something like "me first, fuck everyone else". Which is very jewish by definition. How could such society ever thrive, when every individual always competes with one another. Just like (((capitalism))) this will keep people divided while large jew owned corporations take over.
To put it simple, the main difference is collectivism vs individualism. White people working together against jewish interests can achieve wonders, while White people busy competing with each others won't have time to notice the jew.
Someone made a great comparison using transportation. Let's say you have a robot taxi, you summon it with an app on your phone, then it shows up and there's poop on the floor from the former passenger, you can't do shit about it, other than pull a deep sigh and be depressed over the collapse of society.
But if you instead took the bus, there's maybe 30-40 other people onboard, a collective of White people, soon as that one problematic individual pull down his pants to take a shit on the floor, the bus will stop and several people will step in to throw that fucker out. This will boost everyone's sense of community, you're surrounded by complete strangers, but you all worked together to make society a better place. It ain't much but it's honest work, and morale goes up.
That's the difference between socialism and libertarianism.
I think the steel-man of Libertariabism would be "I'm so responsible that I don't need to be governed".
For example, my country requires automatic traction control and ABS brakes in new cars. *I* don't need this, because I know how to drive, but others need to be governed because they're idiots. Same with left turn signals, speed limits, safety inspections, even driver's licenses. If none of that existed, I would drive pretty much the same as I do now because it's just the correct way to drive, so I don't like having these laws.
The problem is, if I'm at least an average driver, most people are worse than me. If any retard can get behind a wheel and do whatever he wants, as fast as he wants, you get India, which I also don't want.
On top of that, I didn't build my car. If I did, I didn't build the parts. If I did, I didn't smelt the metal and process the plastic. If I did, I didn't obtain the raw ore/oil etc. Someone else has to do at least some of this and I can't realisitically check every stage for quality. If my wheel falls off because of poor metalurgy or corners cut during assembly, I'm fucked. Someone needs to hold the dummies to account for their actions, or they'll get away with whatever they can.
Ideally, I think Libertarianism is an individual ideology necessary for small government, but not actually a system of government at all. You can never have a Libertarian country; at best it would be some other system that would barely require paid government positions because most people take on the responsibilities that otherwise fall to governments.