Anti-collectivist Trends in political Thought

[Von Braun]

As racialists, a key component to our success in achieving self-determination is our desire to put the interests of our racial group ahead of our own interests, to a large extent. I have noticed many profiles that indicate libertarianism, anti-fascism, and anarchism. The first ideology is about the liberty of the individual being the most important thing to consider. There have been some good essays on why libertarians, despite usually being people of above-average intelligence (for being removed from the two party dichotomy if they are from the u.s.), often have trouble becoming racialists because their ideology has a tendency to make them less concerned with group interests (whether it is racial interests, national interests, or neighborhood interests). Of course, one could make the argument that one can be a libertarian and care about saving his race because he cares about saving himself. However, one libertarian here once indicated in another thread that the motivation for saving the white race should not be about saving one's self, but rather should be motivated by altruism. This seems contradictory to me.

[Azdaja]

Originally posted by Von Braun
As racialists, a key component to our success in achieving self-determination is our desire to put the interests of our racial group ahead of our own interests, to a large extent. I have noticed many profiles that indicate libertarianism, anti-fascism, and anarchism.

Libertarianism: Keep in mind that racialism is totally natural. In a society void of alien influence, racialism would be a part of everyday existence.
A Libertarian in touch with his own nature would most likely exhibit racialist tendencies by default.
Anti-Fascism: I see nothing wrong with being anti-Fascist. There are people (myself among them, regardless of what that political test says, lol) who do not want to live under a government that has incorporated itself into every aspect of existence.
Anarchism: My assumption is that the 'Anarchists' here believe in a race-based version of what the Amish have in Pennsylvania. On a very small scale it could work, but certainly not on a nationwide level. I agree it is an odd political choice for a racialist, though.

Originally posted by Von Braun
The first ideology is about the liberty of the individual being the most important thing to consider. There have been some good essays on why libertarians, despite usually being people of above-average intelligence (for being removed from the two party dichotomy if they are from the u.s.), often have trouble becoming racialists because their ideology has a tendency to make them less concerned with group interests (whether it is racial interests, national interests, or neighborhood interests).

Libertarianism is not about out and out selfishness. Can you post a link to these essays?

[Ederico]

Racialism is about Collectivism. The Racial Common-Interest before the Individual Self-Interest. Our ideals revolve around the Collective and the brave ones amongst us are those that will and do sacrifice their existance for their Collective, that is, their Race.

Individualism is part of the downfall of our Race and the decline of Europe. If you give me an Individualist Ideology opposed to a Collectivist one I'll probably select the Collectivist one.

Moreover Racialism is not only about Collectivism, in my opinion it should be about Socialism, which is Collectivist as opposed to Capitalism which is generally Individualist.

[Von Braun]

Libertarianism: Keep in mind that racialism is totally natural. In a society void of alien influence, racialism would be a part of everyday existence. A Libertarian in touch with his own nature would most likely exhibit racialist tendencies by default.

This is a good point. Even though neither democratic nor libertarian ideas are jewish in origin, they are our Achilles Heal. The jews exploit the weaknesses of mass opinion and radical individualism, respectively, to move our entire section of humanity closer to extinction.

Anti-Fascism: I see nothing wrong with being anti-Fascist. There are people (myself among them, regardless of what that political test says, lol) who do not want to live under a government that has incorporated itself into every aspect of existence.

In my opinion, a high degree of authoritarianism is needed between the point in time when we achieve self-determination and the point in time when our enemies are vanquished.

Anarchism: My assumption is that the 'Anarchists' here believe in a race-based version of what the Amish have in Pennsylvania. On a very small scale it could work, but certainly not on a nationwide level. I agree it is an odd political choice for a racialist, though.

Indeed, it is limited by scale. The obstacle is of course the lack of self-sufficiency of any given community. Also, with such a high degree of decentralization, the quality of life in any given community would probably be lower than what contemporary Westerners are familiar with.

Libertarianism is not about out and out selfishness. Can you post a link to these essays?

I do not remember any specific titles, but I remember seeing them on VNN. However, this same site has a link titled "Conservative And Libertarian Cowards" (http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/a...asp?category=7)

[Azdaja]

Originally posted by Von Braun
This is a good point. Even though neither democratic nor libertarian ideas are jewish in origin, they are our Achilles Heal. The jews exploit the weaknesses of mass opinion and radical individualism, respectively, to move our entire section of humanity closer to extinction.

You're certainly right about that last part. Individualism - influenced by malignant forces, is sure to cause just the sort of 'trends' and 'culture' it has in our society.
I'm not sure, though, that moving towards totalitarianism (if that is your solution) is such a great idea either. I think that perhaps if we:
1) Removed the corrupting forces/people from the society
2) Imposed certain restrictions upon the organs of public opinion
and
3) Radically altered the educational system to impart upon it's students a sense of true culture
we could prevent Individualism from causing the problems it is at the current time.

Originally posted by Von Braun
In my opinion, a high degree of authoritarianism is needed between the point in time when we achieve self-determination and the point in time when our enemies are vanquished.

Yes, I agree. But I would see this as only a temporary state of affairs. Necessary for the moment, but far from ideal for the long term.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[Stríbog]

Totalitarianism is not the solution to anything. I don't trust any government, and I don't trust human nature, regardless of race. It's ironic that you masturbate to National Socialist autocracy, because you would have annoyed most SS officers and party officials, and who knows what would have happened to you. There is a long-standing tradition of European men claiming liberty for themselves and posterity, from the Magna Carta to John Wilkes Booth. All governments claim to have the best interests of their supposed constituent group at heart; none do. Government is an organic entity; once it comes into being, its primary function is to preserve and enlarge itself. All other considerations are secondary. If you abhor mass opinion, then authoritarian communalism makes little sense.
It's also fallacious to claim that all libertarians desire personal wealth. Many of them sincerely believe that it would offer the path of least resistance for white success. There is also the fact that you will gain more supporters if the white situation is portrayed as a freedom-fight for self-determination and liberty, rather than a quest to subjugate all other races with white autocracy. You profess that whites are superior to all others. If this is truly so, then a decentralized state of free competition would favor whites. If whites need a protectionist, Communist-style state to enable us to compete at the global level, then we are hardly superior. Furthermore, I relish slavery to other whites little more than slavery to Jews. It's time to grow beyond slavishly imitating National Socialism; I'll take my freedom, thank you.

[Von Braun]

Originally posted by Fionn mac Cumhaill
I'll take my freedom, thank you.

The jews are the ones who do not value freedom. They are the ones who try to silence anyone who speaks out against them. Some of them even publicly admit that there should be freedom of speech as long as it does not offend them (the Skokie case comes to mind). These vile scum are the true oppressors. Hitler and his men were liberators. They were neither the first nor the last.

[Stríbog]

Ok, now let's stop playing pretend and return to the real world for a while. I'll say it again: who are "The Jews"? In my experience, both most Jews and most Nazis could be described as oppressors, in that they want to impose their worldview on all others with no room for debate or disagreement, and both resort to childish emotional arguments when they can't fight logic. They also both implement gun control :- P

[Von Braun]

who are "The Jews"?

They are a collection of individuals who can trace a significant percentage of their lineages back to a certain small group of individuals in the middle east, circa 1500 B.C.E. Those who fail to meet this criterion may be considered jewish, but from a biological perspective, they are merely allies of this tribe.

Disclaimer: This is a definition that applies to that which could be determined by a capable enough hypothetical observer (let's say powerful extraterrestrials who have been here observing for a while as an example); i.e., it might not be readily measurable, but that does not mean that which is almost incapable of being measured does not exist (we might not be able to prove that a high percentage of a given individual's lineages converge back in time through this small group of individuals, but the information is still out there and so the definition is still valid; if no one is looking at something, that thing still exists, for example).

Another possibility could entail defining as jewish someone with a certain number or higher of a particular set of genes. Note that this definition would refer to a subset of the set defined above.

In my experience, both most Jews and most Nazis could be described as oppressors, in that they want to impose their worldview on all others with no room for debate or disagreement, and both resort to childish emotional arguments when they can't fight logic.

The truth is on our side in every critical area.

They also both implement gun control

Guns were not banned under the Third Reich.

[Stríbog]

No, their ownership was just restricted to an equal or greater extent than that of the current United States. Thorburn can describe the facts in detail, if you are curious.

Out of curiosity, whom do you mean by 'our side'?