National Socialism vs Libertarian Nationalism

>taking care of yourself is edgy
stormbabbies can't be this deluded

...

If Nat Lib got militant, as in unforgiving and uncompromising, it would work. That's the way this country was until we gave black citizenship instead of just shipping their nigger asses back to Africa

both are jewish crap for lobotomized retardinos

>If Nat Lib got militant, as in unforgiving and uncompromising

Except fw will, as they always harp about muh NAP

If they get into the mindset of enforcing the NAP by the "little violence now prevent mass violence later" philosophy.

How about forced labour for petty crimes and hanging for heinous crimes?

The only crime being violation of the NAP, of course.

but how do you drive a people to that point without a strong ruling party?

and how is maintained for any meaningful time without a strong ruling party?

see for as to why even hardcore libertarians would be against that

when it comes down to it, niche, odd governments like this are only effective if they meet no opposition and anyone who's against, rather than saying "ill vote against them next election" is instead forced to choose if the new regime is one worth living under or one worth leaving because of

I have that philosophy too, except that we might need a little genocide now to prevent mass human death later :^)

>lolbertarians after 2012
loving every laugh

National socialism is edgy children tier.

>Libertarian Nationalism

Serious question. How does that work?

NatSoc has a good message but the system is trash and creates a bubble that inevitably pops.

The German economy would have been trashed within 5 years had the war not started when it did.

NatLib has the potential to work long term.

If I am not for myself, who will be?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
Hillel, Pirke Avot

To be a people you must look after your own, come rain or shine, so that they, and thus you, can all achieve their truest potential regardless the situation of their birth.

...

itt

Well there's really no official NatLib yet. It would take a book or two, plus a group of individuals pushing to win over the hardcore crowd. Maybe by having the Libertarian Party adopt said book as their official material it could also help.

Worse case scenario we start a new party.

Liber Socializmus does sound American Reich as fuck

Free speech, guns, individual right but forced responsibility and nationalism

Again, it would still violate the NAP for them, and few hardcore libertarians would act in such a way.

I think both systems are flawed, but I agree with in regards to nat lib working in a oligarchy (not so sure about a monarchy), whereas nat-soc would work in certain types of republics

>that pic

nazis were not socialists. just because it's in the name doesn't mean it's true.

koala bears are not actual bears. horseradishes are not horsey.

You can't into roads, we force criminals to build them.

>NatSocs after 1945
loving ever laugh

-t. High Tory Master Race

If we went back to only tax payers being allowed to vote it could help. Shrink the government, abolish the IRS and federal income tax, limits the number of voters even more. That worked for this country for over a hundred years.

Doesn't National Socialism have certain libertarian principles for its people? Isn't the end goal of National Socialism prosperity and liberty for their own people?

Both are trash for classcucks.

National socialism isn't the same kind of socialism you're referring to.

B O T H

First we gas the degenerates/non-whites
>Nat Soc

Then once we have a white nation of strength and honor...... we all leave each other alone.
>Libertarian

Rinse and Repeat if necessary.

>you can't love your country and also want freedom
but ultimately it's libretarianism + military and borders
it's practical libretarianism

>>Worse case scenario we start a new party.
no
there's sub-groups like pro gun democrats, but they don't start new parties over it
ive only seen large amounts of political parties over minor ideological differences in socialist and communist circles with unending amounts of "alternative" socialist/commie parties sprouting up, ultimately splitting their own vote

the best bet is to have it settled in the libertarian debates. some years it might be mainline libertarians on the ballot without a nat-lib choice being present, yes, but it's better than fracturing the vote

Think, a mixed economy that's hard on the market freedom side.
Protection of free speech, right to bear arms, and other rights, for white Americans.
Enhanced social programs, such as national healthcare, social security, public education, space program, ect, but they actually work here because we don't have the drain and strain that niggers and spics and the rest of the third world puts on our services. Where each citizen actually pulls his weight.
Imagine what we could accomplish.

You're a fucking leaf so I can't trust what you're saying, but if true I maybe a Nazi..

top lel on that picture

He's from Estonia, he'll know a thing or two about extreme leftists.

>Doesn't National Socialism have certain libertarian principles

>Only tax payers
Thing is, I don't see how people would be all up for only the tax payer, or land owning person can vote. It'll be
>that's racist
>that's classist
>that's sexist
etc.

You have democrats bitching that having an ID to vote is racist implying blacks can't afford one, when you need an ID for pretty much everything else.

>Abolish the (((IRS)))
Good luck

but if the Libertarian Party doesn't accept or worse, actively rejects the movement towards NatLib, what choice would we have?

>haha the combined forces of the Jewish banking cabal and Jewish Bolshevism smashed, raped and broke the spirit of the one nation that tried to free itself
Hope you enjoy the migrants m8, the kikes aren't going to let you leave the EU.

>Extreme lefties in one shit country are comparable to pedestrian left wing governments in the developed world.
wew lad

that's an extreme scenario, and personally i doubt they'd make that move, they need all the support they can get

That's what I mean though. The movement would be strong and militant against all those things so it wouldn't matter. Look at what's happening with Trump. People don't care about being called racist anymore.

Violent uprising and overthrowing of government, the only actually feasible approach for installing ancaptopia

>he bought the NatSoc meme
there's a lot of black propaganda but you're a faggot if you think Hitler wasn't looking for war

it was the only way the German economy didn't go down the drain to a level below the end of the war and the implementation of the Treaty of Versailles.

I've already said ITT that NatSoc has a good message - its just a shit system.

The difference is that libertarians are open border cucks that believe all races and people are equal etc, I don't think I need to explain how national socialism is different.

libretarian =/= ancap

I'd argue that anyone in violation of the NAP has forfeited their right to safety; punishment or retribution inflicted upon them is just.

Thieves, financial fraudsters, and those committing assault or worse physical violence to their fellow citizens should have two options: forced labour for a period of years at the end of which citizenship and rights will be restored, or a long drop with a quick stop involving a rope.

It wouldn't be Ancaptopia. It would be what the founding fathers intended for America. You're a Kraut. You don't understand

I agree with the NAP part, would just need to make a really good case for it and get the normies on board.

I'm not a normal Kraut, most Krauts buy into the libertarian "natural rights" deontological rubbish. I'm a utilitarian, which compels me to reject "rights" and "freedom" as being "absolutely good, context and consequences be damned".

What is ancaptopua? Please.

>utilitarian
disgusting commie ideology you got there m8

I'm assuming he was referencing a stateless Anarcho-capitalist society.

A libertarian society will inevitably get corrupted by giving too much freedom to degenerates.

I'm talking about personal freedom for their citizens to do things and be creative and flourish. Not open borders jewish multi culti shit.

>magical rights exist ontologically and are valid from the beginning until the end of time regardless of context
Top meme. :^)

national libretarianism would make people put their country first and likely shame them socially for being degenerate/ not being useful

it would still happen, yes, but ALOT slower

I'm not quite sure if "normies" are possibly going to get "on board" with public hangings and gulag sentences for any violation of the minimal law.

Many people value human life too much for that; even the life of one that is a net detriment to each individual that comes in contact with him, or a net detriment to his or her fellow citizens.

And then you've got the issue of a department of justice efficacious enough and incorruptable enough to dispense public hangings and forced labour on public works objectively and without bias. Big fucking issue.

of course, if it was ME determining who is strung up, who is digging ditches for some years, and who walks free....:^)

>who cares about your ability to have and enjoy your life
>be a good goy and endure who knows what because it's a net benefit to society
it doesn't matter if rights are artificial or not, they are important

Are you retarded? Enlightenment political regimes always viewed the government as an extension of "the people." Fascism was no different. In that view, Nazis nationalized key industries.

Second, if a "private capitalist" is controlled by the state, then they're not really private are they?

Third, if that's your standard for so-called "true socialism," then how come every socialist country that has ever existed in the history of ever seized control of private industries and put them under the control of the public? Because that's literally the only conceivable way to implement a planned economy.

So I'll ask you again. Are you retarded?

>national libertarianism

that's a contradiction if I've ever seen one. Libertarianism is about the strong emphasis on the individual, not some national identity.

>stateless anarcho-capitalist """"" society"""""(as if with anarchism was possible to have a society) is not more then fantasy and stupid, it is based in a filosophy that seems created by some in understood teenagers on an isolation frame

And I've already said ITT to use a different economic model.
I also never said Hitler wasn't looking for war. You said it yourself, it was the only way the German economy didn't tank.
That doesn't change the fact that the economic situation Germany found itself in was directly the result of the terms of Versailles and the Great Depression. What choice was there, really? The same idea of the military-industrial complex created is what pulled the US, UK and USSR out of their economic troubles. Nor does it change the fact that the war was Hitler vs. Jewish influence in the Allies and Jewish influence in the Soviets.

Un-understood

I can get on board with criminals working on public works, but I think the most heinous crimes should result in termination of citizenship and they should be kicked the fuck out. We don't want that shit in the gene pool

Most people would realize how fragile human life is during the inevitable teething phase of a libertarian society. Seeing people gunned down in the street, neighbours raped etc. would really drill home the idea that strict punishments must be dealt to those who violate the NAP.

Really Libertarian society would follow human common sense, that's it.

>why yes I do believe those bloody kikes controlled Britain, America, France and Russia and that's why muh nazi heroes lost

Sure thing, buddy, and all those red fielded flags were just for show.

>use NatSoc
>just scrap the economic part
so you're a nationalist conservative?

>would make people

How? You can't force people to shame degenerate and useless people. If they don't do that on your own, how are you going to deal with those degenerate and useless people?

>implying lolbertarians and socialists shouldn't be shot on sight like the fucking traitors they are
National Nationalism is where it's at

It's only slightly less retarded. Any and all socialism is anti-human. Tyranny of the weak and undesirable.

...

KICK THEM OUT! Whites are naturally non degenerate when left to their own devices.

Bad call, lad.

You've now got numbers of individuals that are clearly willing to commit crime; or hypothetically, have been wrongly convicted.

Now you've got to find some place to SEND them. Countries aren't desperate to import criminals, generally.

Say that they actually end up outside the nation's borders. Now you've got an extremely pissed-off individual with no qualms about criminality.

Whaddya think that a royally-pissed off individual with his anger directed towards an entire nation does when he or she is outside of the reach of that nation?

You might be able to think of some current examples.

And you might be able to think of a better and more permanent way to remove an individual from the nation's gene pool.

made me laugh lel

Of course they are, they serve as incredibly useful shorthands, but it's important to remember that we use rights /because they're useful/, not because /they literally exist/, and to remember that they are only useful within certain contexts, not "absolutely".

How would you kick them out without violating the NAP?
>Whites are naturally non degenerate when left to their own devices.
How do you ensure that they're left to their own devices? What, are you going to prohibit your people from watching kike propaganda media? That'd violate the NAP.

you have no idea what you are talking about shut the fuck up

Puerto Rico is a US territory. Send them there

The free market would take care of it.

Degenerates generally can't survive without government handouts, and degenerated that have jobs/give back to society are few and far between.

Nice argument you got there commie. Maybe you should spend that energy collecting your welfare checks instead of raging on the Internet.

1/2 of the 13 colonies confirmed for Socialist Utopias

If an individual violated the NAP they lose their right to the NAP. Have you been reading the thread?

As for kike media, if we send the kikes back to Israel, no problem.

↑lets see KEK previsions↑

HAHAHA That fucking picture "capitalists owned the means of production" thats some fucking bullshit i tell you what

not him, but I could ask you the same question desu

>enlightened political regimes always viewed the government as an extension of "the people"

only if government served the direct interest of the people, not harped about it. Any Communist state was called the "People's Republic of (...)",but served their own purposes. Hitler was no different, yet emphasized race instead of class.

>nationalized key industries
for war, not for the betterment of his people. Seized w/e he wanted, fucking everyone who had built anything over.

>if a private capitalist is controlled by the state
you put the chicken before the egg here. The state is controlled by private capitalists, not vice versa. There's a huge difference man. Any analysis of socialism will inevitably include some degree of class conflict. The fact that you argue about socialism from a position that doesn't start from there implies you either have a really shallow idea of what socialism is (which I don't blame you personally for) or you're talking out of your ass on purpose (which I would blame and shut you down for.)

>anno domini 2016
>socialist
>planned economy

Planned and free market economies are all hypotheticals; all countries' economies are and can only be mixed. In anno domini 2016, ""socialist"" economies (i.e. democratic socialist) simply allow for unionization and facilitate some degree of worker equity, but they don't seize and force. Your knowledge on socialism is thus either very shallow or you're talking out of your ass.

So, I'll ask you again as well. Are you retarded?

NS-gay meme LARP club for beta nerds that failed horribly in real life and was just some psycho massacering millions of people in an autism fueled rage

LN-all the best parts of nationalism, as in closing your boarders, not being cucked, and minding your own business combined with the freedom to pursue your own destiny and forge your own path while enjoying a liberal and free economy

>we sided with communism because muh evil expansionist nazis, not like we were going to start 50 year cold war right after
>we signed the belfort declaration for the interest of the British
>the nation of Israel was created, funded and defended by us right after because we just felt so bad for those poor jews
I'm not saying they had a chance user. I'm just saying they were right. If the world after the war up into today, and the part Jews have played in shaping it, isn't proof of that to you, there's no helping you.

I'm an American NatSoc. It would obviously function differently here. We would retain a more laissez-faire economic model, as well as personal liberty for White Americans. We would use the nationalist values and the belief in eugenics. The economic model used by Nazi Germany is unique to them and the situation they were in at the time. We obviously wouldn't need it.
We do have the same if not worse infection of the Jews in our media, education and government however.

Collectivism vs Individual rights... I wonder what is better for individuals..

>spill paint on a neighbour's garden
>they fire V2 rockets at your house
Quality deontology there, bro.

> National socialism isn't the same kind of socialism you're referring to.

they put "National" in front of it.

>if I frame his position as an extreme different to my own view, I win!

>We would retain a more laissez-faire economic model
so not NatSoc
holy fuck you people are delusional.

"National socialism" as in the nation as a whole controlled production. It's basically real world socialism.

>libertarianism will inevitably lead to an opening of borders to allow low-wage workers in or to gain highly-skilled immigrants, chasing after the newly minted "god" of profit, resulting in a subsequent destruction of the necessary homogeneity and white-presenting values necessary for a libertarian society to function
>reply
>the NAP will fix it :^)

I'm a nat lib whatever that is

Hate these goddamn minorities but don't feel much connection to some white race ghost. Family is all

What about both....balanced, even so every society needs a little bit more of "collectivism", remember that every nation is at least like that

what about fascist/monarchist capitalist? Why socialist?

holy shit... You can't be that fucking dense. Shit like that wouldn't happen. Under this system people would know each other like they did before the leftist started importing all the shitskins. They would laugh about the fucking thing, then clean it up. Fucking hell.

>Degenerates generally can't survive without government handouts

Wrong, look at any somewhat prominent person that Hollywood is currently shitting out. The free market isn't going to stop these degenerates and neither is it going to stop people from consuming their products.

Why did it fail miserably then you fucking dumb chorizo muncher? There's benefits to all the major political ideologies of the 20th century but it's fucking retarded to apply them to the 21st century because they all failed for a reason. Liberalism has had more of a run than Fascism/Natsoc in the 20th/21st century, why would you hold onto it when it got it's ass handed to it by people essentially looking out for their own best interests? Marxism had a better run than central european political theory and you Natsoc faggots won't even take a look at it.

The way forward is to pick the still edible meat from the rotting carcasses of the political ideologies of the 20th century.

Hans pls, you should know better

How does "being a degenerate" violate the NAP?

>As for kike media, if we send the kikes back to Israel, no problem.
How, without violating the NAP?

see libertarian-nationalism works best in a monarchy/oligarchy where the regulated borders and military strategy can be controlled by people that would be hard to curropt

Why though? If violating the NAP revokes your entitlement to its protections, what guarantee do you have that this will not occur, and what argument do you actually have against it being acceptable if it does?

>if we don't follow german national socialism of 1933 to the letter it's not national socialism
What's the point in calling it "national" socialism if we use the laws and economic models that were created for a specific foreign nation and people at a specific time and situation?
That's fucking retarded.

Why then are they comparable? Stating your assumptions also would be helpful.

>because "muh Hans Herman-Hoppe physical removal service"
Totalitarianism and death squads are bad when NatSoc does it, but A-OK when its to create the libertarian free market Utopia

That Nationalism part would negate the NAP from applying to the non-white population in the country. As for NAP, being a degenerate would be frowned upon by society the way it use to. If it negatively effected someone else, it would violate the NAP.

>if we don't follow the texts and practices of a system its not that system
yeah sounds about right to me.

You're a Nationalist Conservative.

The answer is still no.

Swastika flinging fascism/nazism is anti-liberal.

Left-wing Socialist Nationalism is actually not that widespread. Although I imagine it will be soon. You can only have so many recessions before people get sick of neoliberalism.

why did you make this thread? there is no reason for these two groups to be arguing on this board, especially when they had no trouble meming trump to where he is

Because Whites are fucking savages, that's why. It's fucking genetics you fucking inbred idiot. Now I know how you guys lost BOTH world wars.

ITT: idiots talk about "non aggression principles" with religious fervour, justified by "natural rights" which themselves can only be accepted on faith and deny relevant contexts to actions

Come on, Amis, deontology and other "rule ethics" were debunked a century ago.

hollywood needs the government more than anyone to sue detractors, wtf are you talking about

>libertarian nationalism

Doesn't even make sense. Libertarianism is about individualism and nationalism is about collectivism. It's really stupid.

the entire point of NatSoc is to try to apply the the communal and societal functions of the smaller in-groups (the family, clan, and tribe) to the ultimate in-group (the ethno-state). The socialist functions are there to create a sense of solidarity with what is essentially the extended-family. The 25-point meme programme was a 1920 appeal to hardcore socialist voters and Feder himself changed it in 24. After the Night of Long Knives and the Strasserite purges the socialist elements had essentially been reduced to social programs.

>Libertarian Nationalism
No such thing. Oxymoron. Doesn't exist.

just discussion. I want to change the NatSoc's to NatLibs too. I think it would have a great chance of success in the world and in the country. Plus I can't get on board with NatSoc because socialism, but I can get on board with NatLib because lolbertard.

> As for NAP, being a degenerate would be frowned upon by society the way it use to.
See >If it negatively effected someone else, it would violate the NAP.
Doesn't that invite liberal safe space mentality? What if not having the means to get railed by niggers would negatively "effect" coalburners?

>As for kike media, if we send the kikes back to Israel, no problem.
>How, without violating the NAP?

by telling black people the truth about them

then it won't be us violating the NAP

>every race and creed in the world will wholeheartedly adopt our white, egalitarian, western values and would never continue voting themselves benefits and power as an ethnic block just like in their home country
NAP
A
P

has a physically negative effect work better than? Emotions don't fucking count. it's this myth that political correctness has made mainstream

Socialists of all kinds pls go and stay go.

Did those colonies specify that the color of their flags signify its roots in socialism?

No.

Did the Nazis?

Yes.

Did you just make a fallacious argument?

Yes.

Is this the famous libertarian autism kicking in?

>blacks will embrace the NAP, wean themselves off their welfare-induced breeding class status, and become constructive elements of society
>GLORY TO THE NAP, ALL HAIL NAP
gibs me dat

Should check your neighbours again, bong. There was a lot of hubbub about egality, fraternity and liberty along to go with flag waving.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism

Economics is the only aspect that can be called "nationalist conservatism." Which has no set economic policy.
On all aspects of social policy, eugenics, military, collectivism, culture, welfare and safety net, and the Jewish question, I'm agree with German national socialism.
If you think national socialism is only economics, you don't understand national socialism.

>voters only exist to steal my money!
>Tax is theft despite my continuing to consent to living in countries which tax me
>I'm wealthy, had connections, opportunities, and no serious health issues, obviously deserve it from birth, and thus deserve all my earnings and poor people are just lazy
>each 1$ for me is worth to me as a wealthy person as each 1$ would to a poor person, as the difference between "eating" and "not eating" is clearly the same as an extra centimetre length for my new Yacht
Americans, everyone.

>has a physically negative effect work better than?
????? English pls

>Emotions don't fucking count.
You're arbitrarily restricting the freedom and rights of people for who emotions do count, thus violating the NAP by negatively "effecting" them.

>Libertarian Nationalism

Remember when Morrakiu was our guy? ;_;

youtube.com/watch?v=HPKGgo4kGQM

National Socialism > everything else

I'm a Libertarian and I don't agree with NAP at all. If your situation is dire and you have the power to take, you should take.

There's nothing wrong with violence.

Were the colors of the flag not a revolt against the decadent Weimar republic?

Yes

Was the red in homage to the German Empire?

Yes

Did the nazi party change in over 25 years?

Yes

Did the nazi party intentionally use elements solely for their aesthetic nature?

Yes

Are you intentionally ignoring facts to present flawed arguments?

Yes

youtube.com/watch?v=f_T_HWj2sog

if you think it has nothing to do with economics you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Econ is a large part of the system.
and NatSoc doesn't lay out how to deal with kikes.

do some reading.

HEATHEN EMBRACE THE TRUTH OF OUR ONE TRUE LORD
N A P
A
P

>if you are not perfectly socialist you are not socialist at all
literally what?

a e s t h e t i c

>libertarian
>nationalism
nationalism is gonna go out the window as soon as Mr. Shekelstein's MegaCorp decides it needs some cheap labor

And these same people are probably hardcore atheists because "you can't prove God". It really makes you think.

Are you 13? "Libertarian Nationalism" isn't a form of governing, being proud of being libertarian? Libertarians are also all either underaged or autistic.

"hardcore" atheism is a meme
But worse than not being able to "prove" God, the claim isn't even falsifiable. And as I'm sure you went to school, you know what that means, and why it means a claim is junk before it even starts.

A lot of the problem is that what people want is "a white ethnostate, with a few socialist programs for its people, and an otherwise free market." When they hear about Cred Forums's rose-tinted nostalgic take of the Nazis, pic related. they go, "YES THATS IT!" The more libertarian and AnCap elements then hear about NatSoc being circle-jerked, immediately think of wholesale government seizure of the means of production, and begin attacking the NatSoc people. The Nazis then see this as an attack on the white ethnostate or white sovereignty and respond with their own attacks on the NAP or other tenets of libertarianism. Rinse and repeat every thread.

both are cancer

Is Justin Amash an example of a libertarian nationalist?

So it's true, germans really do have autism

>requiring claims about the real world to be falsifiable before wasting effort on them is "autism"
Guilty as charged, but without the meme subtext you're trying to imply.

Let's get it form the horse's ass:

>It was necessary to use the same colours as Imperial Germany, because in Hitler's opinion they were "revered colours expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the German nation." The most important requirement was that "the new flag... should prove effective as a large poster" because "in hundreds of thousands of cases a really striking emblem may be the first cause of awakening interest in a movement." Nazi propaganda clarified the symbolism of the flag: the red colour stood for the social, white for the movement's national thinking and the swastika for the victory of the Aryan peoples over the Jewry

>the red colour stood for the social

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Germany#Third_Reich_and_World_War_II_.281933.E2.80.9345.29

And the prominence of the red to the make up of the held no special significant, in spite of your aesthetics argument?

>Socialism
GOVERNMENT LEAVE

REEEEE

Also, fuck off, Sweden.

Yeah, every single time.

This board is flooded with bandwagon nazis who don't understand the system and just like the message, when the message can be applied to conservatism.

Ancap is retarded and NatLib is incredibly idealistic (perhaps as much as communism is).

Most people on this board are Conservative Ethno Nationalists and they don't realise it because they hear
>muh white race
and get a hard on for Nazis

As long as there are no niggers or spics or snackbars allowed either one would be great desu

judging that natsocs secretly love miscegenation, i'll go with libertarian nationalism

can someone help me understand how economics work with national socialism? First off I thought NatSoc is the philosophy that race is a biological reality and that humans must live with their own type in order to function optimally. Basically anti globalism. Now where does it say that a libertarian state can not be based on national socialistic ideals? Does Nat Soc mean big government? Why would it be beneficial for the race to have a large and overshadowing government? Didn't we deconstruct this notion? If we do need a large state, how large?

Socialism is shit.
Nationalism is fine and has good benefits, especially for a country like America where national pride is not ethnically based.

Nationalist socialist is therefore shit.
Nationalist libertarian sounds awesome.

Note:
Nationalism in European countries that have a strong ethnic identity can turn into extreme racism.

It really only works in countries like America and maybe Canada where we have no real ethnic identity.

>EMERGENCY crews rescued a 23-year-old German tourist today after a hole he spent hours digging at a beach on Spain's Canary Islands collapsed and buried him up to his head.
>The man was buried in the sand on the beach on the island of Tenerife for nearly two hours before firefighters, who were alerted by his girlfriend, were able to free him unharmed, a spokeswoman for Tenerife firefighters said.
>"He had built a three-metre deep hole when the sand buried him," she said.
>Five vehicles and 15 firefighters were involved in the rescue.
>The hole was to be part of a tunnel the man planned to build on the beach.
Its just their culture

At least Socialists don't pretend they won't expand government control :^)

Lolbertarianism/ancap if/once we achieve an all white society, fascism until we do.

>minarchist
>support state murdering civilians
whoever made that pic deserves to be helicoptered himself

One is a rational approach to society based on personal responsibility. The other is socialist.

The economics developed for 1933 Nazi Germany are wholly unique to the situation they were in post WW1. As we are in an entirely different situation, we would require a different economic model.
Ideas we would still keep would be public works projects, infrastructure improvement, nationalized health care, social security pensions.
We would also remain staunchly anticommunistic.
>NatSoc doesn't lay out how to deal with the kikes
But it does address the problem of Jewish influence, the perverseness of Judaism in financial, banking, education, media and establishment institutions, and how they use that influence to oppress native populations and further Jewish interests. I would argue that today the best option would be to just deport them all to Israel and be done with them.
Surely you're not saying NatSoc never addressed the Jews.
I guarantee I've read more about the economics of Nazi Germany than you have, and that's obvious. Most tellingly, that you seem to think the economic model created for Germany is the universal tenet of NatSoc and not just a specific system meant to address the economic woes of the time.

"Nationalist" and "socialist" are two separate things can you can read about individually.

The Nazis were additionally fascist, though, meaning there was a strong central authority on top of everything else.

Nazism as a government is basically the worst nightmare for people in Cred Forums though I'm not sure many realize it. It does not mean what they think it means.

America HAD an ethnic identity though. We lost it when we gave the slaves citizenship. Before that, only free white people could be citizens. There was even legislature that expressly said people like Asians were NOT allowed to be citizens. The fucking niggers getting citizenship ruined everything.

it was an argie

Lib Nat because everyone is inherently self interested

explains why they're also so fucking good at engineering.

>Tyranny of the weak and undesirable.

national socialism is mostly the rule of the established owners with inclusion of the plebs so you're not driving them into the hands of the communists

the weak and undesirables do not have their field day in this form of government

>the social
Gee almost like the Germans wanted a unified nation or something?

But lets see what else you missed in that page,

>In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the process by which the Nazi flag design was created: It was necessary to use the same colours as Imperial Germany, because in Hitler's opinion they were "revered colours expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the German nation." The most important requirement was that "the new flag... should prove effective as a large poster" because "in hundreds of thousands of cases a really striking emblem may be the first cause of awakening interest in a movement.

But wait!

>Nazi propaganda clarified the symbolism of the flag: the red colour stood for the social, white for the movement's national thinking and the swastika for the victory of the Aryan peoples over the Jewry
>nazi propoganda clarified

So the meaning was ascribed AFTER the colors had been decided on.

>Hitler wants a new german empire
>uses the colors of the old flag for the new one
>makes up some stuff to justify it
>80 years later a libertarian uses that to attack the only ideology standing in the way of his privately owned child sex slaves

But what exactly is Nazism? George Lincoln Rockwell believed the United States ideals of liberty could also be fused with national socialism's philosophy

capitalism is the tyranny of the bankers, criminals, globalists and jews.

national socialism is rule of the people.

Is its still considered capitalism if the ownership belongs to the racial collective based on a social hierarchy?

In the Nazi redpill, Performance > All else.

NatSoc's econ is basically the state funding and directing (without completely managing - for the most part) the nation's industry and management.
Its a fascist ideology so yes it means big government.

It has basically the same issues as socialism and communism, it just doesn't have them to the same extent in normal cases (theoretically).

The issue arises also when the state runs out of capital to fund the industry with.
The economy goes bust incredibly quickly and you need to find something to keep the industry going while having an excuse to keep wages low - ie war.

>nationalized health care
and this is why its retarded
see the NHS for a good practical example of nationalized healthcare over a relatively long term

>Surely you're not saying NatSoc never addressed the Jews.
No you just worded it in such a way that it made it seem like you were one of those morons who honestly believed Hitler literally wrote a book on exactly how to deal with Jews,

>Most tellingly, that you seem to think the economic model created for Germany is the universal tenet of NatSoc
What you're wanting to do with the economic model would literally remove the socialist side of the system.

You would retain a fascist state but on the right side of the economic political scale rather than the left,
I'm not exactly sure why this would be hard to understand.

You're now conflating fascism in general with National Socialism, a specific form of fascism.

Also having nationalized healthcare does not put you to the economic or social left, nor does doing this while coupling with a nationalized pensions scheme, which was used in Hitler's Germany due to the fact he kept wages low in order to mitigate inflation.

>Implying socialism doesn't work for the Aryans

Nice try Anglo scum.

It's no surprise that the only people (other than edgy teens) supporting anarcho capitalism are bankers, criminals, globalists (muh free trade), and jews.

it is nowadays, but are libertarians really better in this regard? they're approaching that stage faster by the day

watch the libertarian convention...

Same reason "muh christianty" draws images of crusaders, "muh paganism" vikings, and "muh manifest destiny" Andrew Jackson eating a cheeseburger on an aircraft carrier. Everyone looks to the strongest proponents of their ideology historically and glorifies them as a reminder of, "the successes that were already proven to be reached, so imagine what we could do TODAY!"

>Most people on this board are Conservative Ethno Nationalists and they don't realise it because they hear
>>muh white race
>and get a hard on for Nazis
That's pretty accurate, in fact i think most people here already perceive the nazi program to be exactly that, and I am completely certain that if Cred Forums created a Nazi state from scratch thats exactly what you would end up with.

It would be best if Cred Forums created a name for its proprietary ideology, so as to avoid all this obfuscation in the future.

Not sure. I like both. Just don't be a faggot.

>Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist

then what is the philosophy to which i speak? Anti globalism? Anti marxism? What is the philosophy that says man must live within his own, just as animals do because we are programmed that way through our biology?

Well ethno nationalism varies between ethnicity, in my opinion Nationalistic Libertarianism is the way to go for Anglos, otherwise Germans and the Nordics in general have the potential for socialism being worked in.

>muh aryan race!

stupid meme understanding of history and it didnt work. The Reich was held together with fucking duct tape in the private sector even before the war started.

your LARPers are delusional asshats

Anglos also have the long heritage of a middle class, with the magna carta and free men in their society. I'm of the opinion that whites could honestly make any system work if necessary, but sticking with historical precedence might be best

>It would be best if Cred Forums created a name for its proprietary ideology, so as to avoid all this obfuscation in the future.
honestly its incredibly close to Powellism (if slightly more authoritarian and a little bit more ethnically based, although I'm fairly sure that Powell would have liked to say "Britain for ethnic Brits only" but he would have been crucified if he did).

>in fact i think most people here already perceive the nazi program to be exactly that,
So do I, its why I always come to these threads honestly.
Its quite funny seeing people who are literally just bandwagon nazis because its edgy and they have pretty good aesthetics.

>and I am completely certain that if Cred Forums created a Nazi state from scratch thats exactly what you would end up with.
Glad to find a kindred mind in this place, not found one in these threads for a while.
Although that could just be down to my only looking for people to argue with,

>What is the philosophy that says man must live within his own, just as animals do because we are programmed that way through our biology?
Depending on your definition of freedom it could be hedonism or it could be stoicism or epicureanism.
Other than that on this board its incredibly like you're a High Tory Ethnic Nationalist.

National Socialism was a lot less socialist than you think.

It did still have social programs, obviously, but it doesn't fall under what most people see as socialism now.
Hitler didn't like the socialism and made several speeches, admittedly to companies, about the need of a free market and the inherent benefit of competition/struggle in the marketplace.

National Socialism praised competition in race, as did it with economics.
Economics, however, wasn't a main focus of National Socialism. That makes it quite unique.
The main focus was race and everything was build around that.

>Held together with duct tape
>muh digging holes for no reasons meme
>ignoring the economic situation the Germans were left in from the Weimar Era
>Implying there wasn't a rush for military power and infrastructure due to the (((Soviet))) question

Franks aren't Anglos aren't Aryans. Every ethnicity has its own ethos in terms of its behavior and Germans especially are highly conformist. They can make it work.

Jesus Christ, didn't you get the memo?
Ron Paul lost and libertarianism is a self-destructive ideology.

Stop living in the past.

>libertarianism is a self-destructive ideology.
that's quite the assertion there friend
I don't subscribe to it myself but I'm yet to see how Nationalist Libertarianism is self destructive, although I do agree without the nationalist side to it that it would be self destructive.

>incredibly like
incredibly likely
fix'd

He nationalized the chocolate factory of my granddad. And no, he wasn't a jew.

Anyone saying hurr national socialism isn't socialism is fucking retarded.

>implying the majority of the alt right aren't former libertarians still holding onto the economic theories of the free market, while also believing in ethnicity and the importance of certain aspects of the state

>He nationalized the chocolate factory
this sounds like a commie's Willy Wonka fantasy

Can i just be a national populist?

>honestly its incredibly close to Powellism
I'm pretty ignorant on Powell, I've wanted to learn more about him, but am unsure where to start. Do you have any suggestions?

>Its quite funny seeing people who are literally just bandwagon nazis because its edgy and they have pretty good aesthetics.
Pretty much, i certainly argue in support of them for those reasons, the fact that it was the first explicitly-white ideology I discovered, and I think by the late-30s they had almost ironed out a functioning from of society. Shame about the war, the longevity of the state and zeal the people had for class-cooperation would have been interesting to test.

But, its dead and gone, not much point in trying to ape the nazis when the entire foundation of fascism is palinogenesis. That's why the "create a natsoc/fascist program for your own country" threads tend to be better, the Portuguese and Norwegians have little attachments to swastikas and wolfsangels.

can the protection of the nation really be individual rather than collectivist?

kek'd heartily

I bet Slugworth did this.

>>the social
>Gee almost like the Germans wanted a unified nation or something?
No, almost like Hitler was directly evoking his beloved socialism.

independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

>80 years later a libertarian uses that to attack the only ideology standing in the way of his privately owned child sex slaves
more like 80 years later someone--anyone--needs to come along to point out what is patently obvious.

One of the most common critiques is that the NSDAP didn't really live up to the Socialist part of National Socialism.
Hitler disagreed with the more radical socialist parts of his following (of which even Goebbels was part until Hitler convinced him) mostly to keep the funding of the party going before he took full power.

It certainly wasn't socialist as what socialism was understood to be then.
If you're one of the types to call the USA a socialist state, then sure, it was.

>Do you have any suggestions?
try this
youtube.com/watch?v=dc26aTCwyYM
Its fairly short but it should give you some idea as to a bit of his political career and life

also although I haven't gottena round to reading it yet
"Enoch at 100, edited by Greville Howard" is meant to be a fairly well balanced book on the man for further reading.

>Shame about the war
Yeah, its a shame Hitler had to invade Poland due to the untimely death of their old PM.
Although war with the soviets was always guaranteed I think he could have won this.

>the longevity of the state and zeal the people had for class-cooperation would have been interesting to test.
It would have had interesting results in either case definitely.
I wish there was a way to simulate the policies with the world's political climate and the people's dedication to the nation.
I wonder how well modern simulations would handle it?

>That's why the "create a natsoc/fascist program for your own country" threads tend to be better
Never really bothered with them as it tends to be very focused on flag design which doesn't interest me much in all honesty.
Are they worth visiting?

If a group of individuals believe it to be in their own best interest to maintain borders in what way is it inherently collectivist to ensure this is done correctly?
Also its the only way libertarianism survives in the real world without being flooded with shitskins who want gibs.

>a new book has found Hitler was actually a socialist
>a new book has found Hitler was actually a half-jewish, parkinsons victim, with one testicle!
Im sure the pick-and-choose hit piece is wonderful.

>more like 80 years later someone--anyone--needs to come along to point out what is patently obvious.
Thank NAP that finally, an enlightened libertarian has come along to tell us what Hitler ACTUALLY meant, when he said and did the complete opposite thing in every case.

It is funny though how you don't deny the desire for child sex slaves.

The USA? No European country right now would forcibly nationalize a factory industry. If they wanted it to be public, they would buy it up. So the nazis were already more socialist than any modern social democrats. I don't understand what the distinguishing factor for you is. What did they need to do to be considered socialist?

Obviously children are fully rational agents who entirely comprehend the contracts they completely voluntarily enter into.

Libertarians are fine, right now. It's a transitional ideology, nothing more. Less of the system we have now is great. However, it is absolute freedom, which means degeneracy incarnate. Schlomo's wet dream, basically. It is the precursor of globalism.

Thank you for the the links, i'll look into him. You have any opinions about Mosley?

>Never really bothered with them as it tends to be very focused on flag design which doesn't interest me much in all honesty.
>Are they worth visiting?
Its rare, but sometimes good discussion arises. The natsoc threads that have been popping up had me excited, but they're just trash desu. No original thought at all, just spam lists and a legit South African JIDF shill every thread. I miss 2014 Cred Forums.

Libertarian Nationalism

DOES

NOT

EXIST

In a libertarian society the role of government is to uphold contracts. If a citizen wants to bring in 100k niggers to work in his factory he may. If you expand the definition of the state to be aggressive to outsiders, protecting borders, the genetic stock, and sacrificing the material well-being of capitalists for the greater good of your people as a whole your view of the state is a fascist one. American facism with heavy emphasis on property rights and traditional values would probably look a lot like what I imagine you "Libertarian nationalists" faggots halfway envision in your head. These "libertarian nationalist" faggots are either stupid fascists who need to read more or stupid lolbergs that are fighting to rationalize the idiocy of their ideology.

Exactly, how don't people get this stuff?

>this fetus is already violating the NAP and has been intruding into my privately owned body
>therefore I have the right to keep it as a brain-dead organ repository for 80 years

Nat Soc in times of war, lolbertarianism during peace time, but the people must be homogenous. In a heterogeneous society I would go libertarian over Nat Soc because it forces negros to work.

>In a heterogeneous society I would go libertarian over Nat Soc because it forces negros to work.
You should do the exact opposite, so you can stop having a heterogeneous society in the first place.

Objectively wrong

libertarianism =/= a specific branch of anarcho capitalism

No he is completely correct. The libertarian definition of the state is inherently anti-nationalist.

>You have any opinions about Mosley?
British patriot, a genius by any man, driven off the edge due to frustration at the political system's flaws and corruption to the extent he would try to inherently change the nation he loved so much into something it shouldn't be.

He was right about a great many things and I have a profound respect for him but I feel his solutions were in the wrong direction.
If you're interested in him and his policies the Channel 4 (I believe) series "Mosley" is actually not completely horrible and his
"100 Questions on Fascism" only take around 20 minutes to read.

>The natsoc threads that have been popping up had me excited
Yeah I saw these and I thought we might have had the libertarian - natsoc split arise again, with Brit/pol/ seeming to make a return to High Toryism (if slowly).
It would have made the board a lot more interesting, especially now with the influx of Red Tories coming from r*ddit for /trumpgen/ (although their ideology will change fairly quickly after the election season ends like the rest of the influxes we've during election years).
i'm holding out hope for after November.
It could be the best time this board has ever seen - after we recover from the US Election aftermath which might crash the site.

Considering the major banks, the railway system and a lot of steel production facilities were privatised and major companies were never nationalised, there was never socialism.
Sure, a lot of left wing policies and certain things were nationalised, but the major parts of the economy, which was a war-economy, weren't nationalised.

Socialism is a state seizing the means of production.

It depends entirely on what definition of libertarianism you are using.

For example a Night-watchman state is a form of Libertarianism that is absolutely compatible with nationalism.

But I agree that by many other uses of the word "libertarianism" it would not be compatible

Post of the thread.

In a libertarian society the role of government is to minimise the breaching of the NAP against its citizens. If the immigration would cause more violence towards the citizenry than the measures to prevent said immigration entail, it is the government's duty to prevent it.

>Night-watchman state

Wikipedia states
>Minarchists generally justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequence of adhering to the non-aggression principle. They argue that anarchism is impractical because it is not sufficient to enforce the non-aggression principle. They argue that this is because the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition.[6] Another common justification is that private defense and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[7] Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia argued that a night watchman state provides a framework that allows for any political system that respects fundamental individual rights.

Any state that is only concerned with upholding the NAP is inherently anti-nationalist. It acts in the way that I described in the comment I linked you to.

I'm getting mixed vibes from you, my brethren in potato-dom.

That seems fair enough.

See you in the race war, colgate. Godspeed

Good luck with that in Chile

You'll need a lot of helicopters for that

I used to be really libertarian but lately I just can't help but look around at degeneracy and it makes me sick. This place changed me man. I want to go back.

The immigrants and sponsor haven't broken the NAP and you do not have any grounds to stop it unless you accept that the people can unite under the state to protect themselves against the evils of capitalism. Congratulations, you're a fascist that likes property rights.

Pinochet 2.0 when?

lel, Bioshock Infinite

great game, redpilled as fuck if you look deep into it

>the state needs to violate the NAP in order to prevent other peopel from maybe violating the NAP
fucking libertarians can't even into deontology

>google commie revolution leader
>murders and industrialist
>about to murder his young son in cold blood before sailor moon drops her google ass
2real4me

Even deontologists can't into deontology because deontology can't consistently handle situations with conflicting or overlapping rules.

>he didn't even get past the led
Sasuga a disciple of the master race theory.

>It is funny though how you don't deny the desire for child sex slaves.
I don't have to take that from a wife beater.

>(((Industrialists))) abusing the state via capitalism
>ethnic commie uprising fails due to ooga booga
>muh multiverse theory
>Lel there is no true answer, just struggle

Nope. Blue Pilled.

Simple, if you're libertarian you're not nationalist, if you're socialist you have to be nationalist as well, otherwise is an empty idea.

Just like with christianity, you can be honest and intelligent but not christian, if you're christian and intelligent then you're not honest, and if christian and honest thus not intelligent.

So do this thread mean we can finally put this libertarian nationalist meme to rest or are we just going to get a steady stream of conservatard Americans who don't know what libertarianism or natsoc is and claim to be both?

>Sasuga a disciple of the master race theory.
ty for admitting my mastery

>I don't have to take that from a wife beater.
she violated the NAP, she had to be physically removed

>ty for implying that I'm too lazy to get past the headline of an article to broach the argument contained therein and too fearful of challenges to my worldview to read viewpoints contrary to my rigid beliefs
No problem. It's the least I can do.

The photons from your post have violated the NAP of my eyes, my private army will be paying you a visit soon.

I wish there were an AnCapBall thread on the board right now, I can't find my collection any more.

me too start it and link us

I have the best one anyways.

The flaw of libertarianism is it has no defense against degeneracy or subversion.

Main reason I'm no longer a libertarian.

here you go senpai

>again resorts to an NAP jibe, though I have not once asserted it ITT or given indication that I'm some sort of doctrinal Libertarian
Yes, you do seem wedded to your strawman and have those at the core of your arguments. Don't break from the pattern.

One opens up possibility of strong rulers with great foresight and leadership.

The other one is hopeless "everyone is actually good inside" bullshit.

Does anyone have an actual, non-meme, argument for how people in an ancap """"""""""society"""""""""" wouldn't or couldn't just buy a huge chunk of land and form their own government and state in it, which people in adjacent land would progressively decide to join for all the same reasons that states were the most successful strategy in prehistory leading up to history?

>memertarian
>nationalist
M8 you can't have borders AND no government.
That's like saying I'm a communist capatialisim.

Exactly. It will only lead back to staes in the end.

NAP
A
P

That is exactly what happens. Monarchy evolved from what was essentially anarcho-capitalism.

>NAP
>A
>P
Is that your answer to every post that asserts the evident truth that National Socialism was in part socialist?

Neither, you merge the best elements of the two.

Socialism is for "feel the bern" entitled millenials who want to suck the meaty cock of clueless, limp dick bureaucrats for free goodies. But NATIONAL i.e nationalist policies are great. I'm talking big military, national pride, imperialism, immigrant restriction, etc.

Then libertarianism has elements of marxist globalist degeneration of the host society. But what it does foster is sweet, beautiful capitalism which puts the economy into spurious momentum, free speech, good business practice, and a small state that sticks to the principles of defense and justice.

Work to combine these two things and you come to an ideology similar to Paleoconservatism or Conservative nationalism, akin to individuals like Pat Buchanan, Barry Goldwater, and some could argue Trump. Now that is a sound ideology.

NAZI ofc, libertarian just wants to reduce tax, doesnt care at all about people in need, just fedora degens like that shit

i want you to say that when u get on the streets as an homeless, prob just a kid living in parents basemente

no one is doubting that child-fucker feudalist
just like providing a government-administrated army made the US socialist.

I think the first thing that needs to be done

Is kill all the jews

then we can try out these different forms of government without their interference

whats edgy on that? oh right, the part that actually works!

Socialism wants to destroy the single greatest tool to turn human selfishness into selfless service and production, libertarianism wants to enable that tool to allow it to have the greatest impact on the world as possible.

Gee, wonder which I should choose. Socialism = googles

it doesnt, just autistic kids idea

Easy, a Man chooses, and a Slave obeys. /thread

How about instead of only relying on human selfishness to yield net benefits, we also channel other aspects of humanity, and ultimately make serious, non-meme, efforts to break free from multipolar incentive traps.

slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

>greed won't destroy us

Ok, chaim.

Nobody said we don't use other aspects of humanity. But capitalism takes one of the worst, selfishness, and turns it into a good.

>Obviously, the one that actually cares about its people
So we can thoroughly rule out Nat SOC since it got untold Germans killed thanks to a war started due to an insane trade policy and economic policy in general and the German people to this day are still suffering due to the aftermath of it

mises.org/library/omnipotent-government-rise-total-state-and-total-war

hahah great idea

Indeed, "we" don't, because we have governments in which we can participate. As for lolbertarians on the other hand...

>mises.org
Ancap shill site.

thats actually a great idea but this degen society will never allow that

When was the last time you participated in government and achieved a net beneficial result for your country? I'll wait.

fpbp

When was the last time a primitivist "tax = theft" "country" yielded better results than we currently have? I'll wait.

Do you think that the US is currently "good"? Millions upon millions o f invaders imported to drive down wages. A degenerate, empty culture that is built up around consumption. A fat, ignorant populace that will tolerate any amount of abuse and ethnic cleansing so long as the gdp goes up .1%. Capitalism and greed are not "good". They need to be tempered.

You are attacking him and not his ideas.

bruh

sorry my ignorance but in natsoc isnt needed imperialism right? plus can't you get capitalism with natsoc?

I'm a libertarian socialist because it's most degenerate.

Too bad every civilization was founded on collectivist tribalism and not individualistic nonsense.

...

nope, no argument because that could happens, thats why ancap is the ultimate autism

thx dude :)

Not yet tried.

He stated that he and others ('we') participated in governments and as such didn't need selfish capitalists to produce net good for their country. I was asking him to provide any sort of argument or evidence to suggest that was true.

Rhodesia almost pulled off a successful citizenship test that was inclusive. If you could pass it regardless of race you could vote. It's not like white people are the only people paying taxes anymore so diversity will be there although minorities will be under represented unless they can convince their tax paying counter parts to vote in their interests which might go a long way towards community building....or class warfare.

A collective is only ever a reflection of groups of individuals. All it takes to be an individualist is for analysis to occur with this level as the base.

Libertarianism provides no solution to the problem of having subs within our borders.

Of course we need capitalists. My (I'm the same guy btw, I had an internet fail mid-thread) point is that we can't do it with selfish capitalists /alone/. If you want a starter to why I believe this, I suggest you read the article "meditations on moloch" ( slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ ), which covers the basic idea of what multipolar traps are, and why self-interested agents with any information imperfections, acting within incentive structures which are not necessarily perfectly coupled to everyone's actual interests, can be expected to fail catastrophically barring regulation.

Yes it has. If you're such a lib-fag at least read your hoppe. He describes how monarchy and states that tax formed.

Dude, you need to read Hitlers own words and reflect upon the actions he took. Hitler cared more for his people than ANY Man in history. Other the Cyrus the great that is.

This!!!!!!!!!

>no one is doubting that child-fucker feudalist
Then you probably shouldn't have reacted so negatively to my input that National Socialism was rooted in socialism.

>an armed forces is socialist
wew lad, back to them handy strawmen, huh? Though this last is more like an inanity. Does an armed force by nature of its existence serve to redistribute wealth or property from one class to another? First I've read that.

National Socialism is a racialist political ideology, while Libertarian Nationalism, at least the American version, is a multiracial advent, because it accepts racial foreigners as fellow countrymen, but the definition of a naiton in Greek comes from the word ethnos(ἔθνος,) so the definition of a nation proper, is an ethnicity of a race, as a race can have many ethnicities, or nations(a tribe is also a nation.) That is the true definition of a nation, going all the way back to antiquity.

National Socialism is therefore not only true Nationalism, unlike Libertarian Nationalism, which should rather just simply be called Globalism or a branch of Globalism anyway because it is multiracial and not truly Nationalism. But National Socialism also safegaurds and holds the interest of the whole race, rather than just one nation, such as Germany and the Deutsche German ethnic.

National Socialism supports a strong morally upright authoritarian government, not sure what Libertarianism stands for on this, but it seems like they want almost no government, almost like an anarchy, but perhaps the independence of each state or province without a federal government to supersede their laws.

>Hitler cared more for his people than ANY Man in history
And that's why Hitler wanted to see all his people's infrastructure and culture not survive him.

It might have had more to do with seeing first-hand the all-encompassing depression and despondency that losing a total war had wrought on the German people 30 years prior and wishing to avoid it a second time, but thats dumb he just hated krauts.

>re-distribute wealth from the people to an armed class of soldiers
wew lad, the krupps sure had it rough in ww2 with all that rampant wealth redistribution

...

...

>libertarians
>anti degenerate

youtube.com/watch?v=NVHxPr8e4aY

Go back to /leftypol/
>cares about people
Telling people what to do isn't caring. It infringes on people's rights to make their own decisions. Why can't you let grown adults make their own decisions like they should? It's a part of growing up

libertarian nationalism, by far

national socialism (under Hitler) was pretty shitty by all economic accounts. At every turn the government wounded itself with shitty regulatory and economic policies, and the ability of Hitler to override his general's decisions was what ultimately killed the third reich.

the only good thing was the Hitler youth, which could easily be adapted to a libertarian nationalist ethos, maybe the Jefferson Youth or Washington Youth.

The main problem with national socialism is that another shoah or a mass racial deportation would be required, and the new world government would never allow that to happen in a white country without severe consequences. A better way of dealing with minorities is to remove their incentives to reproduce/move with their children here.

I don't think "degeneracy" is something libertarians care about. That word is just for stupid stormfags to blurt out because they see something they don't like. Libertarians don't give a shit of what you do as long as you let them do whatever they want within legal limits

When "grown adults" who own a portion of the commons want to take a huge shit into said commons, I don't really care about "their" "rights"; I care about the welfare of the entire group as a whole. If you want to be sent to the naughty corner in kindergarten for shitting in """your""" corner of the sandpit, then feel "free", but expect repercussions from everyone not brainwashed to treat "rights" as more important than reals.

Hard choice...