![Lolbertarians [GIF - 522KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/jAkqSx.gif){kind=link}
Let's try to situate it in practical terms. You are calling us to fight against Jewish control because you say it should not continue. Without any kind of moral backdrop, their 'right' to control is just as fair as yours. On your terms, this is simply an issue of who can stake a claim and back it up.
That is how the world works, yes. If you lose it doesn't matter how right you are. You still lost.
On what grounds should people take up your fight?
Because it's in their interests to do so.
But it raises the question: why do so many people who share your cultural background also believe Communism is a good thing, or, a form of progress.
Because jews infiltrated the media/education system and my forbearers were too tolerant of them.
what reason have you given people to fight for your cause (when it might mean the total eradication of their currently comfortable life)?
Nothing. They won't recognise that they're fighting for their survival and the survival of their people until their life ceases to be comfortable.
Without an appeal to some moral authority, you've got, "Well, well, we are the same color and our ancestors shared this ground. You ought to defend it."
No. Nationalism is a natural inclination in all humans. It has currently been suppressed in white people but it will reassert itself given the right conditions.
If this kind of thing is the best you've got, a kind of morality-free game theoretic situation, you've got shit. You're seeing it play out now. Go. Gather up your hardline trad conservatives and see what you can manage. Anybody intelligent can see you're going to fail, and fail miserably.
We are. Yes.
The truth is incredibly relevant here. We require an appeal to something higher than being offended about violation of non-aggression principles. Men need to be unified by something transcendent to themselves, and in this day and age, that's not the notion of freedom. We've run that course about as far as it can go. We need righteous structure now, and that doesn't happen in a libertarian society. You will never foster the kind of group ethic and tendency to self-sacrifice by fighting in a cohesive way through libertarian principles.
Oh boy, this crap again.
I never once argued that a libertarian order should be atheistic, that I'm atheistic, or that a property rights system should be the totality of anyone's world view. I argued that it's a good way of delimiting power. That's it.
Next time you feel the inclination to slide the conversation into something completely irrelevant, please feel free not to.
>Oh boy, this crap again.
I had a similar thought.
If you have the time, please walk out for me how a monotheistic religious tradition (that is, a socially functional religious system) exists in a libertarian political paradigm. I'd really like to know how this works. Not only is this sort of freedom totally anathema to any theological framework, to make it so would remove almost all of the features of God that constitute the positive social effects.
It is in the nature of a true religion to be prescriptive in all of the relevant factors of life about which people would be concerned over their freedom.
Evolution. It passes moral judgments like a God running a death game. Determining who who is righteous and keeps their chance at living forever (though their descendants), and who is unrighteous and falls into oblivion (ending the long line of ancestors). Your ancestors are you, and you are literally made out of the pieces of their essence, what makes you unique are your genes and every gene in your body is inherited as a copy of a genes from one of your ancestors, a part of what made them unique, they live on in you, and you will live on in your descendants, should you have any. Seeing new organisms emerge with copies of your genes is like living beyond death, and you can do some small part of this while you are still alive. Direct propagation on one's genes, through bearing offspring, is not the only way, indirect methods also exist, such as others who share genes with you passing them on by having offspring of their own, thus there is a moral hierarchy established in relation to yourself with all things that live on this planet. All that lives on this planet is your family, you have different circles of family around you, and since they share more genes in common with you, you must place more value upon your more immediate circles than on those that dwell in the far periphery, all these circles around you are a hierarchy of the moral obligations you have to them, and sacrificing the organisms of a far circle for those of a close circle is not only a good move, but a moral commandment. Thus is resolved the inherent flaw in every moral system, the lack of a hierarchy of moral priority, now we have one: relatedness. Racism is a morally necessary value, and the reason for the instinct's existence is clear, a farther circle threatens the reproductive success of the closer circle. We have another moral hierarchy to consider in "youth", since the moral edict of nature is the propagation of one's genes, those who are younger have a greater opportunity to pass on their genes, those who are older have less of such a chance, thus nature itself decrees that children are a great treasure. This is the reason that any who harms a child or limits their ability to reproduce in the future, is worse than one who does the same to an adult, this is the cause of instinctive feelings of protection for the young. We have transcendence and higher powers, we have moral righteousness and a connection with others, we have meaning and purpose to our lives, it only takes some basic effort to find it, because it's pretty fucking obvious to me.
Okay, a naturalistic angle. I like it. I should ping . She'll probably develop a crush on you for this :).
>Determining who who is righteous
Why is surviving righteous? What's wrong with dying? After all, every single one of us dies, so it can hardly be immoral to die. Since it is the case that we won't live to observe or experience any possible suffering after the moment of death, what forms the moral obligation for us to do such and such with respect to our ancestors or our progeny?
>Your ancestors are you, and you are literally made out of the pieces of their essence
In what way do you think your genes are your essence? My younger siblings are identical twins. If essence has any meaning at all other than 'genome', then their essences are very distinct. Most of philosophers throughout history would take essence to mean something closer to your personal identity.
I think you'll find that a reduction of your essence to your genes creates a lot more problems for you than it solves.
>Seeing new organisms emerge with copies of your genes is like living beyond death
I have had this thought before myself. I've heard others voice it, but I can never shake the intuition that it's just a bit of existentialist reaching. The thought that one has had children never quite eases the fear of death, and I'm not convinced personally (nor do I think that many are) that people get the real sense they live on in their children. We do in a romantic kind of way, emanating from the intense love that we feel toward our children, causing them to have a 'piece of us' in a sense. I won't deny the narrative reality of a racial inheritance or a 'race memory', but the concept that we live on through our kids feels like coping.
>All that lives on this planet is your family, you have different circles of family around you, and since they share more genes in common with you, you must place more value upon your more immediate circles than on those that dwell in the far periphery,
You keep saying must, but where is the obligation? Why must you? I heard Bret Weinstein say once, "If you become aware of the game, why would you continue to play it?" He framed the entire 'game' you are discussing in the clever way of calling it a molecular spelling bee. If a string of molecules and their propagation is really what's at stake here, this is hardly motivating for an intelligent being to endure life's suffering for the sake of winning the spelling bee.
>all these circles around you are a hierarchy of the moral obligations you have to them, and sacrificing the organisms of a far circle for those of a close circle is not only a good move, but a moral commandment.
A command from who?
An obligation suggests some kind of punishment for flouting the commander. What's the punishment? Death? It's coming anyway.
>Thus is resolved the inherent flaw in every moral system, the lack of a hierarchy of moral priority
Catholic systematic theology has a clear moral hierarchy. For that matter, so do Judaism and Islam. Most public schools have a legal hierarchy that contains more obvious moral structure than the naturalistic theory you are putting forward here.
>Racism is a morally necessary value
I'm not sure you understand what morality is. An expedient is not a necessary moral.
> instinctive feelings of protection
Absolutely, but an instinct does not a moral make.
>We have transcendence and higher powers
What? You've said that your 'transcendent' duty is to the propagation of a string of sequential DNA information. This doesn't seem to transcend anything, and in fact, it leaves out most of the redeemable parts of nature obvious to even the most hardened atheist.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an ancap, I believe in national borders, and in national defense (like military), and in law enforcement (like police), and in taking taxes to support them (services rendered, for enforcing the law and protecting the country from external threats), and i believe in tariffs to limits international trade, tolls to limit tourism, and in a prohibition on foreign workers, and of course, on non-white immigration, I also want to find a way to get the non-whites out of the country, or at least remove the threats they pose to my people. I want to control the banks, and reign in the unions, and make the corporations honest, this is all basic shit for me.
I am a white nationalist, no doubt about it, But I don't fit in with the national socialists, so what am I? a national capitalist.
the ideology is a recent inventions, but it's basically any combination of a minimal state (typically a night-watchman minarchist state) with white nationalism.
We have regulations, but very few of them, and they are up for debate, but largely the state is hands off, one of the largest ideologies within national capitalism which can be bth compared and contrasted with national socialism, is negative eugenics. National socialism employs positive eugenics, which is what most people associate eugenics with, positive eugenics is the introduction of selective factors to promote the propagation of certain traits.
Negative eugenics in the opposite, removing factors that select for traits that are found to be dysgenic, a lot of which fall under the label of "degeneracy", degeneracy is by definition self-destructive, and so all it takes to get rid of it, is to free it of the support it gets from society, and I mean all manner of support. It's still eugenics, as it is a set of policies that are acknowledged and appreciated for their positive effect on the traits of a human population.
The truth is that all policies produce effects on human traits, negative or positive, by impacting their rates of propagation, most people don't think on that very basic and obvious fact, eugenics is basically only the acknowledgement and approval of this simple truth.
the problem isn't stupid people, its people who never even try to find answers, like the christian or socialist who asks a question they don't want to see answered, making the false dichotomy "god or there is no alternative" or "state or there is not alternative". People have interests in doing all sorts of things, especially to avoid things they regard negatively, and nature is inherently fascist, why have god when a simple philosophy derived from science can suffice?
frankly, the alternatives are (usually) superior:
private individuals acting on personal interests can make things happen much better then the government can, right now theres a lot of reasons why corporations are so fucking terrible, for one, corporate personhood that shields people from legal responsibility, second, the "ford law" that forces corporations to act in the interests of shareholders and restricts their capacity to do honest and good business, third, intellectual property, which turns everything into a matter of profit, and thus degrades it, and so much more. Strip that away, and we can see how things work in their absence.
a secular morality derived from philosophy and science is superior to that of any religion in the world today, but as you demonstrate, that this perspective can exist is something that is quite rare to see, even on dissident forums such as this one. It would be best to try and promote this type of philosophy and to improve upon it, rather than insisting that it doesn't exist. your claim to religion being the only source of morality or direction is repelling more than it is attracting, since the atheist usually disbelieves not on moral grounds, but on the grounds of factual truth, they think "god is the only possible source of morality, but i know that god not only doesn't exist, but couldn't exist, therefore the only possible source of morality is to purposefully lie to oneself", and one of the morals of religion is honesty! this leads to natsocs who think that religion is a lie, but that it is also a useful tool for controlling people, and they start to talk about things like rewriting the bible to make it more fascist, which puts of the christians natsocs from the whole movement too, It's a cynical view that fucks our movement over.
If you have the time, please walk out for me how a monotheistic religious tradition (that is, a socially functional religious system) exists in a libertarian political paradigm.
Easy, a bunch of people buy land and they dedicate their lives to their god.
(post is archived)