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
1
devotech2 on scored.co
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
>jew funded
>funded by jews
>not jewish by genetics
>bad, morally unscrupulous white person that took jewish money
He also didn't need jews to be filthy rich because he struck oil in the 1800s. Jews just wanted to stake their claim in his revenue.
Pointing to 1 jewphile oligarch is the exception that proves the rule.
White Christians do just fine with self-determination and free markets. It’s only when usurped by outside interests that it’s a problem. And that’s a problem even Benjamin Franklin warned extensively against.
Name literally one historical example, ever. America might count, but jews saw that chink in the armor *immediately* and have been destroying the country since its inception. Now america is the octopus of world jewry. It took them about 137 years to accomplish in america what it took them well over a millennium to do in Europe. And it was largely because of American, Jewish influence that they were able to do half the shit they pulled in Europe. Great job.
Jews introduced individualism and liberalism in the first place. Our entire history is about collective, tribal identity.
When you remove the collective, you open yourself up to outsiders and bad actors in general by default. There will always be outside influence in a nation which doesn't have the collective identity to deal with it. It doesn't matter that the founding fathers warned against outside influence. It's always going to be there if nobody gives a shit about organizing around a collective.
I don't really give a fuck if it's free markets or socialism, just whatever works best for the given people and environment and what they want. Germans would probably vye for socialism, an american free market. Whatever. People go too apeshit over economics when its a secondary problem. What matters more than either of these is whether or not they have a collective, racial, identity.
Meh. I’m not emotionally invested in free markets one way or the other. But I think it’s extremely
Important to recognize that (like you correctly point out), Jews have subverted the concept of liberty from the beginning.
But there’s a world of difference of advocating for “libertarianism” and a return to “constitutional restrictions on government”.
Well then, I believe we misinterpreted each other from the beginning. I thought that you were advocating for libertarianism in the first place.
I think a decentralized government could be fine. Depending on whether or not the people have a developed tribal identity. If they do, a centralized government isn't necessary. If they don't, it's almost a given that a vanguard needs to instill this in them and reflect any jewish pestering until subsequent generations are fully indoctrinated. Were in an age where vanguard parties are necessary in the west until they aren't anymore. After that point, we could return to "medieval style" governance.
(The phrase vanguard party is a bolshevik invention. But it's a useful term with a good amount of merit in spite of it. A right wing governance under a radical party fills the role of a vanguard party)
>funded by jews
>not jewish by genetics
>bad, morally unscrupulous white person that took jewish money
He also didn't need jews to be filthy rich because he struck oil in the 1800s. Jews just wanted to stake their claim in his revenue.
White Christians do just fine with self-determination and free markets. It’s only when usurped by outside interests that it’s a problem. And that’s a problem even Benjamin Franklin warned extensively against.
Name literally one historical example, ever. America might count, but jews saw that chink in the armor *immediately* and have been destroying the country since its inception. Now america is the octopus of world jewry. It took them about 137 years to accomplish in america what it took them well over a millennium to do in Europe. And it was largely because of American, Jewish influence that they were able to do half the shit they pulled in Europe. Great job.
Jews introduced individualism and liberalism in the first place. Our entire history is about collective, tribal identity.
When you remove the collective, you open yourself up to outsiders and bad actors in general by default. There will always be outside influence in a nation which doesn't have the collective identity to deal with it. It doesn't matter that the founding fathers warned against outside influence. It's always going to be there if nobody gives a shit about organizing around a collective.
I don't really give a fuck if it's free markets or socialism, just whatever works best for the given people and environment and what they want. Germans would probably vye for socialism, an american free market. Whatever. People go too apeshit over economics when its a secondary problem. What matters more than either of these is whether or not they have a collective, racial, identity.
Important to recognize that (like you correctly point out), Jews have subverted the concept of liberty from the beginning.
But there’s a world of difference of advocating for “libertarianism” and a return to “constitutional restrictions on government”.
I think a decentralized government could be fine. Depending on whether or not the people have a developed tribal identity. If they do, a centralized government isn't necessary. If they don't, it's almost a given that a vanguard needs to instill this in them and reflect any jewish pestering until subsequent generations are fully indoctrinated. Were in an age where vanguard parties are necessary in the west until they aren't anymore. After that point, we could return to "medieval style" governance.
(The phrase vanguard party is a bolshevik invention. But it's a useful term with a good amount of merit in spite of it. A right wing governance under a radical party fills the role of a vanguard party)