Ethics & Values

[CaptainSkelebob]

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT
f***ing ppl ere have no f***ing ethics or values!!!
Ppl pretend to be ur pal!!!
Pretend to value you and then stab you in the back as soon as you turn round
Im f***ing sick of it!!!!
Pixel you might have some ppl here fooled with all ur BS but I f***ing see right thru you like you are made from rice paper you f***ing cardboard cutout cunt!!!
NO f***ing VALUES HERE!!!
NO FUVKING CALUES HERE!!!!!
I would literally Stab a puppy to see all you evil ppl know the pain of betrayal!!!!!!
Like im a f***ing joke here!!!!
Eh!!

[Lucas88]

Pixel Dude and Lucas88, I don't even understand why you two dislike the Jews so much to be honest. They seem to be working towards getting everything you want. The great reset is basically what you are talking about, a technocratic kind of communism where people don't own anything, there will probably be a lot of automation, and resources will be evenly distributed. The Jews also pushed for sexual liberalism, they are anti-Christian, and you guys are effectively feminists since you support women working, which the Jews also support. Do you just dislike them because they happen to be the group that's in power? I dislike the Jews because they are trying to destroy all traditionally conservative, Christian values. But I really don't understand why y'all do, or why you identify with the right at all when your positions on everything are pretty consistently left-leaning.

All of you were first mentioning wanting to be like Ancient Rome again, and then Pixel Dude starts talking about wanting this technocratic brand of communism while Tsar just supports plain communism. How does it not occur to you that these are completely different societies? Communism has nothing in common with Ancient Rome or the way that Ancient Rome was run? Then Tsar mentions nationalism socialism as if they're the same thing when national socialists and communists absolutely hate each other and the biggest thing that motivated people to join the German army was to stop Communism. Tsar talks about the merits of communism but he also wants to legalize slavery, which is completely impossible in a communist system because nobody in his system will have enough money to organize and run a slave trade.

I think that you simply don't understand our positions on certain things because you are either unable to see any nuance beyond your own fixed ideological parameters (i.e., your own brand of Christian traditional conservatism) or you completely misunderstand our points or take them out of context.

For example, you seem to think that Pixel--Dude and I want things to be like Ancient Rome again based on one alt-history type of hypothetical which we entertained earlier in this thread. I know that Tsar expressed his admiration for Ancient Rome but he speaks for himself. The truth is that Pixel--Dude and I don't really admire Ancient Rome too much outside of certain Roman cultural achievements. We are of the view that most of the ages throughout known history were objectively shit for the majority of people and that there have been only a few brief glimmers of light in the last few millennia. We believe that we are in the Kali Yuga since about five millennia ago, after all. I myself have an affinity only for certain periods of Ancient Egypt, the Italian Renaissance, and the late 20th century (especially the 80s). Maybe I'll come to like more historical periods as I continue to study history, but as of right now, I don't have a particularly good impression of most ages of the known past.

This leads us to the next point: Pixel--Dude and I are not traditionalists. As I've already expressed above, we believe that most ages before the late 20th century were generally not as good for the common masses and that the various forms of traditionalism are simply an unconvincing attempt to whitewash and idealize some specific period of the past based on the proponent's own aesthetic fetishes. We are glad to enjoy the technology, material comforts, medicine and basic human rights of the modern age. Pixel--Dude and I are not Christians either (we are however spiritual and believe that the purpose of earthly life is soul evolution through experiences and occult practice). So we naturally don't care about so-called "Christian values" or "Christian traditionalism". We indeed have a negative view of Christianity, regard it as an adversarial entity, and therefore don't want it to be conserved in any way.

Pixel--Dude and I value the increased freedom and liberties which people began to enjoy in the modern age. We value freedom from the likes of tyrannies and theocracies, either Christian or other. We understand that as non-Christians and initiates of the Pagan mysteries we would have likely been killed or persecuted under a Christian theocracy. In this regard, we are thankful for the Enlightenment and its values of liberty and reason. At least in a society based on Enlightenment principles we know that our right to life and liberty is safeguarded against any forms of tyranny at the hands of hostile religious fanatics and other ideologues. We appreciate the right to determine our own lives and want the same for other people too.

However, even though we accept that such values of liberty and reason have generally brought about a better society in comparison to most premodern ages, we also recognize that the modern project has been hijacked by a certain Jewish elite which now more than ever seeks to throw Gentile societies into chaos through various ideologies of subversion (e.g., "progressivism", "wokeism", etc., which are in fact highly illiberal and seek to destroy free speech) and then push the nations into poverty and enslave us under its own global totalitarian system for no other reason than the materialization of the Jewish Old Testament religious ideal of the so-called Messianic Age (i.e., Jewish world domination). The relative freedom of the 20th century is quickly coming to an end. The batshit crazy, cult-inspired enemy seeks to replace it with tyranny of thought and soon possibly complete tyranny as well.

Pixel--Dude and I are indeed in favor of a high degree of individual liberty (within reason, of course; there must always be laws against extremely destructive things like hard drugs and dangerous forms of pornography, etc.), but at the same time we are not naïve enough to believe that anarchy or pure libertarianism could ever be conducive to actual liberty and wellbeing, especially when there are (((subversive forces))) running amok throughout society and attempting to destroy everything from within with the end goal of imposing their own tyranny. In light of this, we see the need for our own benevolent Gentile governments - somewhat akin to national socialism except without mindless racism or opposition to civil liberties (I personally conceptualize it as "enlightened national socialism") - that will fight to defend our nations from the threat of the tribal mafia and then work to safeguard the independence and prosperity of our people. Such a movement is necessary for our liberation from the New World Order. All current political parties (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) are simply part of the enemy's system.

I see the need for our own Gentile resistance movement and independent Gentile governments but I'm personally not too fond of narrow ideologies. I favor pragmatism over narrow ideologies. The most important thing before anything else is to defeat the ZOGs and dismantle the power structures of the New World Order. At the moment everything else is secondary. If Gentiles don't put petty ideological differences aside and cooperate for the overthrowing of the ZOGs and the NWO, then we will be easily defeated. Any future Gentile resistance movement must be broad and far-reaching. That is why I have little time for narrow "isms" and indeed believe that excessive ideological thinking is a malady of our time.

As for futuristic technology, Pixel--Dude and I simply accept that technology will simply continue to advance at an exponential rate whether in the context of the current NWO or any possible Gentile government (e.g., our own envisioned enlightened national socialism) and so we believe that future technological developments such as automation should be harnessed sensibly to reduce the workweek and free people from drudgery so that people have more time for self-development and interpersonal relationships. We believe that hypermodern technology should serve to make life better for people. Indeed, we recognize that it is only through the technological advancement of the modern age that life has become decent for the majority of people. Pixel--Dude and I are therefore pro-technology and pro-progress. We believe that society will continue to evolve materially and that a sensible government is needed to guide the integration of technological advancement for the common benefit of society. We support at least some degree of economic dirigisme on the macro scale (as opposed to the corporatocratic "free market" of current Jew capitalism).

I think that it is obvious by now that Pixel--Dude and I don't have any crystallized ideological commitment to any form of "pure capitalism" as many Americans do. We consider that societies and economic systems evolve over time and therefore favor pragmatic actions over ideological abstractions.

This has been my sincere response to your accusations of inconsistency against our own thinking. I hope to have cleared up any confusion.

Of course, here I have only spoken for myself and Pixel--Dude since we often talk about these kinds of topics in person. Tsar may very well have his own views which are different from ours.

You didn't need to call us out in an accusatory way. All you had to do was ask us about our views sincerely and we would have happily replied as I did above.

[Outcast9428]

Pixel Dude and Lucas88, I don't even understand why you two dislike the Jews so much to be honest. They seem to be working towards getting everything you want. The great reset is basically what you are talking about, a technocratic kind of communism where people don't own anything, there will probably be a lot of automation, and resources will be evenly distributed. The Jews also pushed for sexual liberalism, they are anti-Christian, and you guys are effectively feminists since you support women working, which the Jews also support. Do you just dislike them because they happen to be the group that's in power? I dislike the Jews because they are trying to destroy all traditionally conservative, Christian values. But I really don't understand why y'all do, or why you identify with the right at all when your positions on everything are pretty consistently left-leaning.

All of you were first mentioning wanting to be like Ancient Rome again, and then Pixel Dude starts talking about wanting this technocratic brand of communism while Tsar just supports plain communism. How does it not occur to you that these are completely different societies? Communism has nothing in common with Ancient Rome or the way that Ancient Rome was run? Then Tsar mentions nationalism socialism as if they're the same thing when national socialists and communists absolutely hate each other and the biggest thing that motivated people to join the German army was to stop Communism. Tsar talks about the merits of communism but he also wants to legalize slavery, which is completely impossible in a communist system because nobody in his system will have enough money to organize and run a slave trade.

I think that you simply don't understand our positions on certain things because you are either unable to see any nuance beyond your own fixed ideological parameters (i.e., your own brand of Christian traditional conservatism) or you completely misunderstand our points or take them out of context.

For example, you seem to think that Pixel--Dude and I want things to be like Ancient Rome again based on one alt-history type of hypothetical which we entertained earlier in this thread. I know that Tsar expressed his admiration for Ancient Rome but he speaks for himself. The truth is that Pixel--Dude and I don't really admire Ancient Rome too much outside of certain Roman cultural achievements. We are of the view that most of the ages throughout known history were objectively shit for the majority of people and that there have been only a few brief glimmers of light in the last few millennia. We believe that we are in the Kali Yuga since about five millennia ago, after all. I myself have an affinity only for certain periods of Ancient Egypt, the Italian Renaissance, and the late 20th century (especially the 80s). Maybe I'll come to like more historical periods as I continue to study history, but as of right now, I don't have a particularly good impression of most ages of the known past.

This leads us to the next point: Pixel--Dude and I are not traditionalists. As I've already expressed above, we believe that most ages before the late 20th century were generally not as good for the common masses and that the various forms of traditionalism are simply an unconvincing attempt to whitewash and idealize some specific period of the past based on the proponent's own aesthetic fetishes. We are glad to enjoy the technology, material comforts, medicine and basic human rights of the modern age. Pixel--Dude and I are not Christians either (we are however spiritual and believe that the purpose of earthly life is soul evolution through experiences and occult practice). So we naturally don't care about so-called "Christian values" or "Christian traditionalism". We indeed have a negative view of Christianity, regard it as an adversarial entity, and therefore don't want it to be conserved in any way.

Pixel--Dude and I value the increased freedom and liberties which people began to enjoy in the modern age. We value freedom from the likes of tyrannies and theocracies, either Christian or other. We understand that as non-Christians and initiates of the Pagan mysteries we would have likely been killed or persecuted under a Christian theocracy. In this regard, we are thankful for the Enlightenment and its values of liberty and reason. At least in a society based on Enlightenment principles we know that our right to life and liberty is safeguarded against any forms of tyranny at the hands of hostile religious fanatics and other ideologues. We appreciate the right to determine our own lives and want the same for other people too.

However, even though we accept that such values of liberty and reason have generally brought about a better society in comparison to most premodern ages, we also recognize that the modern project has been hijacked by a certain Jewish elite which now more than ever seeks to throw Gentile societies into chaos through various ideologies of subversion (e.g., "progressivism", "wokeism", etc., which are in fact highly illiberal and seek to destroy free speech) and then push the nations into poverty and enslave us under its own global totalitarian system for no other reason than the materialization of the Jewish Old Testament religious ideal of the so-called Messianic Age (i.e., Jewish world domination). The relative freedom of the 20th century is quickly coming to an end. The batshit crazy, cult-inspired enemy seeks to replace it with tyranny of thought and soon possibly complete tyranny as well.

Pixel--Dude and I are indeed in favor of a high degree of individual liberty (within reason, of course; there must always be laws against extremely destructive things like hard drugs and dangerous forms of pornography, etc.), but at the same time we are not naïve enough to believe that anarchy or pure libertarianism could ever be conducive to actual liberty and wellbeing, especially when there are (((subversive forces))) running amok throughout society and attempting to destroy everything from within with the end goal of imposing their own tyranny. In light of this, we see the need for our own benevolent Gentile governments - somewhat akin to national socialism except without mindless racism or opposition to civil liberties (I personally conceptualize it as "enlightened national socialism") - that will fight to defend our nations from the threat of the tribal mafia and then work to safeguard the independence and prosperity of our people. Such a movement is necessary for our liberation from the New World Order. All current political parties (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) are simply part of the enemy's system.

I see the need for our own Gentile resistance movement and independent Gentile governments but I'm personally not too fond of narrow ideologies. I favor pragmatism over narrow ideologies. The most important thing before anything else is to defeat the ZOGs and dismantle the power structures of the New World Order. At the moment everything else is secondary. If Gentiles don't put petty ideological differences aside and cooperate for the overthrowing of the ZOGs and the NWO, then we will be easily defeated. Any future Gentile resistance movement must be broad and far-reaching. That is why I have little time for narrow "isms" and indeed believe that excessive ideological thinking is a malady of our time.

As for futuristic technology, Pixel--Dude and I simply accept that technology will simply continue to advance at an exponential rate whether in the context of the current NWO or any possible Gentile government (e.g., our own envisioned enlightened national socialism) and so we believe that future technological developments such as automation should be harnessed sensibly to reduce the workweek and free people from drudgery so that people have more time for self-development and interpersonal relationships. We believe that hypermodern technology should serve to make life better for people. Indeed, we recognize that it is only through the technological advancement of the modern age that life has become decent for the majority of people. Pixel--Dude and I are therefore pro-technology and pro-progress. We believe that society will continue to evolve materially and that a sensible government is needed to guide the integration of technological advancement for the common benefit of society. We support at least some degree of economic dirigisme on the macro scale (as opposed to the corporatocratic "free market" of current Jew capitalism).

I think that it is obvious by now that Pixel--Dude and I don't have any crystallized ideological commitment to any form of "pure capitalism" as many Americans do. We consider that societies and economic systems evolve over time and therefore favor pragmatic actions over ideological abstractions.

This has been my sincere response to your accusations of inconsistency against our own thinking. I hope to have cleared up any confusion.

Of course, here I have only spoken for myself and Pixel--Dude since we often talk about these kinds of topics in person. Tsar may very well have his own views which are different from ours.

You didn't need to call us out in an accusatory way. All you had to do was ask us about our views sincerely and we would have happily replied as I did above.

That's fair enough, I do need to watch how I speak more...

I didn't think you were traditionalists at all... But I was confused because all three of you bounce between ideologies a lot. To address you and Pixel Dude...

The admiration for Ancient Rome seems to be archaic, pre-Christian extreme traditionalism so to speak. I guess you mentioned that one is out. The emphasis on individual freedom and liberalism seems like libertarianism but the dislike of capitalism scratches that one out. The talk about automating all work away and then distributing resources equally amongst everyone sounds like technocratic communism. But if you want technocratic communism then why wouldn't you be in support of the great reset and the NWO? Technocratic communism is pretty much exactly what they are trying to create. In the end though you advocate for non-racial based, non-authoritarian national socialism. National socialism is anti-liberal though. So are you going to advocate for non-racial, liberal, and non-authoritarian national socialism? At this point, it doesn't sound much like national socialism. It just sounds like moderate socialism. All four of these ideas are extremely different from one another.

Tsar meanwhile can't seem to decide whether he wants Ancient Rome, communism, or national socialism. Again, they're all very different from one another and there's no consistency.

[Tsar]

@Tsar

It would not help traditionalism at all because with this economic system you are speaking of, you are giving people an excessive number of safety nets. You’re not encouraging them to try and become responsible individuals who can make a life for themselves and their family you are encouraging them to sit around and do the minimum amount of effort possible. If you give people all those basic necessities for free then many people will not work. And you can say the benefit to working is enjoying a higher standard of living but there’s plenty of people who will sit around in your government paid for block apartments and just do drugs and play video games all day.

You need a system that lights a little bit of a fire under people’s asses but doesn’t actually kill them if they fail. That’s what we have right now. Find me a news story of someone actually starving to death because they couldn’t afford to eat? Capitalism is not killing anybody in America. Poverty does not look like an Oliver Twist novel anymore. In fact we give the poor so much money in welfare benefits now that they live better then the lower middle class does despite usually having no jobs.

That’s why I like the marriage loans program Hungary is doing. Give the money to people who are getting married and have jobs. Give assistance to people who are actually trying, don’t give assistance to parasites who just want to do the bare minimum.

I am not advocating for unlimited free handouts. People will want to work and do want to work.

People will need to work to buy things but guaranteeing the basics isn't wrong. The people won't even be allowed to sell their apartment for money. They will be required to do some work in exchange for their minimum even if they don't want better. But video games and entertainment cost money and they won't have money on the basic minimum. They'll receive coupons for government stores with standard products. Nothing else.

Coupons for basic things like eggs, fruits, vegetables, and limited amounts of grains. They won't be getting anything that is over the basics. If people want to have an absolute basic life not working with a limited amount of food then that should be their choice.

People will not able to have experiences or see nature or travel without working. They won't be able to buy alcohol or cakes or anything.

So no, people will need to work to earn money, and in my fair system, people will be given what they need to be self-employed in a starter job because employment will be guaranteed or they can volunteer for credits and coupons, or they can try to work for other people who have small business. People will not apply to work and everyone works. I'm not advocating for a pro-consumerist type welfare system that will allow people to play video games or sit around all day while eating snacks and watching movies. People can sit in a chair and do nothing, go for walks, exercise on their own, lay around, or cook basic meals but that's not how people would choose to live. People will work for themselves, small business, or the government. Workers won't apply or beg profiteers to hire them and pay them wages. People will earn their own wages.

Today's capitalism favors profiteers and land owners like in Feudalism. I want a more archaic capitalism that favors people and small business, so I guess that's where the overlap comes in.

My system is designed to encourage people to live like Ancient People and Renaissance People but in modern times. Prevent obscene wealth ownership.

It will encourage people to do real work and create self-employment. It will give people time to invent new things, learn new talents, and apply them to create small businesses.

It will reward producers, not profiteers. It will destroy large business in favor of individual artisans up to medium businesses. It will enhance competition to a level seen in the Renaissance. People will focus on creating the best things and most beautiful things.

People will be productive because if people are given land, they will need to generate economic activity in a healthy way and learn farming.

I also don't believe most people need cars if there's a developed subway system.

Another thing is most modern jobs are worthless and useless. Most people must return to productive jobs, not developing distractions for people. Instead of having 5 to 20 grocery stores largely dominate a country, my system would have thousands of small family grocery stores and a government grocery store.

Just because I want an egalitarian system doesn't make it communist. My system might be similar in some aspects to communism but it's designed to promote ownership of private businesses like in Renaissance capitalism and artisans like in Ancient Rome.

America is declining because people are forced to become serfs working for large businesses and multinational corporations. That is not Capitalism in any traditional form. It cannot be supported or acknowledged. I don't support Republican economic policy or Democrat economic policy because both are Jew controlled. One is Jewish usury and the other Jewish controlled redistribution.

What I want is a system that removes all vestiges of Jewish influence and returns the world to absolute fairness. Many pagan societies gave everyone the limited basics for life. The Norse pagans were one great example.

If someone examines nature and paganism, then they know that the best path for any system is with everyone being cared for. I imagined a new system based on the best principles of every system. People can still be rich and they can live good lives, but it will reward them with extra privileges, maybe temporary rights that come with extra responsibility, and a place in history. Much like from ancient times up to the Renaissance, and even in some cases until the end of monarchies. There's no reason that everyone born into the world shouldn't be able to have a great life.

Unlike @Pixel--Dude and @Lucas88, I want less automation for most jobs. Automation only for mass production but I want most jobs to be high-quality or produced by artisans or custom made for every customer. Common prosperity and fulfillment through work comes from creative expression, freedom, and being fairly rewarded. It doesn't mean enriching a manager or a CEO or shareholders who own stocks of a corporation or giving a cut to financiers who own financial markets or to large businesses.

You probably are working within the existing system so you can't imagine my system. My system involves a completely new monetary system and new economic system. No financial system as it is now would exist if I ruled a country. Business would exist and money would exist, but I would not have Fiat Currency or Fractional Reserve Banking or Debt or Unlimited Ownership or Misuse of Natural Resources. Destroy the old system and completely replace it.

Everyone can and will have limited ownership of a communist style apartment in the city and can eventually exchange it for an upgrade or move into an apartment they choose in the city if they can buy a better one they want. Everyone can and will have limited ownership of a country house or a family property in the countryside. That's not communist, it's common prosperity. People can save over decades or multiple generations to build a family mansion on land and the land gets managed like a farm.

Farmland will grow crops or be for grazing animals or growing forests depending on what use it's best able to be used for considering it's natural state and the climate.

People cannot turn a forest or woodlands into pastures. People cannot turn pastures into a forest under most circumstances. People will need to use the land in harmony with nature like pagans and ancient people, and even most people in the Renaissance.

The news is owned by large businesses and multinational corporations and billionaires. It's censored by the profiteers and manipulated by ideologues. There is no real news. There is no voice of the people or truth in the news. It's mostly propaganda.

America and other Jew-infested nations have terrible economic conditions and growing poverty because even if people want to try to create social policies that are more traditional, they still have toxic economic policies that have too much Jew influence or are only temporary bandaid solutions because they adjust one thing in a completely broken system.

Like I said, modern capitalism doesn't work and it doesn't help most people.

Tell me if you really think that people in the Renaissance were paying the equivalent of $300,000-400,000 for a home or going into lifelong debt for one? Why small business has been dying since 1960 in the United States, if the United States really has the best economic system? America had to outlaw both the National Socialist and Communist parties, and FDR had to implement Public Works Projects similar to communism and even that wasn't enough to get America out of the Great Depression which was largely caused because of usury, profiteering, and the Gilded Age. America has one of the most broken, corrupt, disastrous, evil, flawed, unfair, and usurious economic systems in the world.

Communism of the Bolsheviks wasn't exactly designed to be successful because the Bolsheviks were denominated by the evil Jews, just like America is.

Adolf Hitler created a radical new system in Germany called National Socialism. He got Germany out of the Great Depression without a war because he swept out the Jews, Jewish influence, destroyed Jewish power, ended usury, created a much fairer economy, fair compensation, well managed resources, protected nature, creates environmental protections, gave people a good start in life, and created real bottom upwards economic growth. In ten years, Germany went from a hyperinflation, high unemployment, defeated nation with a broken people without much national pride and little opportunity and an army in tatters and a terrible business climate into a superpower with the world's strongest economy, common prosperity, full employment, a nation of hope with people full of nationalism, great opportunity, and one of the best armies in human history. That's what a radical new economic system under an authoritarian leader and no Jewish influence can accomplish.

America cannot do that. America's history is mostly exploitation of other peoples or its own population. It has a history of mismanaging it's resources, intentionally allowing profiteers to destroy nature, cause extinctions of wildlife, and the mismanagement of natural resources. This is toxic Jewish values or the delusional Anglo-Protestant mindsets that developed sometime in the 1600s and only became worse.

Look at Britain? It mismanaged it's national resources. It use to be forested but it destroyed it's forests. It use to have more farms. London became mostly a city of profiteers. They looted other nations, stole artifacts from across the world like thieves, forced famines on other nations, and because they couldn't compete fairly, they used resources gained through exploitation to destroy all their rivals. That's what I call a terrible empire. No offense @Pixel--Dude or @Lucas88. An empire built on blood and oppression that went from "An empire where the sun never sets" to broken because they fought against National Socialist Germany purely to maintain hegemony status and complete control of all trades routes at sea, and then they lost everything. But the real reason is that Britain was likely completely cucked to the Jews to an extreme level that the constitutional monarchy had to give into Jewish interests, much like they chose not to rescue the Romanovs because of Jewish interests.

Look at America now? It's just the same as the former British Empire but only much worse in terms of exploitation, neocolonialism, disrupting stability in the world, regime change, color revolutions, militarism, creating hotbeds of terrorism, and creating new hotspots for future conflicts. NATO, AUKUS, G7 is effectively the Greater American Empire. But Israel is really the main leader of the American Empire behind the scenes. The Jews in the collective West and Israel destroys the world. America only works to serve the Elites and it wages war to preserve it's hegemonic status purely to protect their Jewish Elites. Most people in North America and even Europe wouldn't fight for their nations. They might defend themselves and their families if threatened but they wouldn't fight an invader. America is destined to mathematically fall this century.

Russia has the advantage because it has a real economy. Yes, America is supposedly the wealthiest in fiat wealth but much of that fiat is owned by the rich, corporations, or billionaires. Most of America's prosperity is built on debt. Russia has more real wealth and so do their people. Russia's government could mobilize their resources and factory and workers to create weapons, artillery, and other war goods if needed. May not the most advanced but things that will accomplish the job. The Russian defense industry is state-owned. America will be paying billions to it's war profiteers but America must actively issue debt or collect the taxes to pay their private arms manufacturers. America is in an unsustainable position and like Britain, by seeking to destroy Russia, it will only destroy itself. Russia will expell the West from Ukraine and the West will collapse or fracture in the aftermath. Russia has the upper hand in all areas.

Also let's look at the typical Russian person or family: they own a communist apartment in the city and a dacha. Most do not have any mortgage unless they bought a new property. Natural gas is often free or low cost.

Typical American doesn't own even one property, not truly. If there's a mortgage then the bank owns it. Annual Property Tax will mean someone always is a serf to the government and must somehow pay taxes in Fiat Currency which has no true legitimacy because it's completely created by the people who control a society. People need alternatives and to be exempt from property tax on their home.

I am not a conservative because true traditionalists care about traditional values and ensuring the cultural traditions and good values survive. Traditional economics doesn't exist. The only reason why people want to be conservative about an economic system is because they want power or to become someone who dominates the economy far above the rest. People cannot build dynasties that accumulate unnecessary wealth and that's what my system would allow. Billionaires and CEOs don't deserve to live better lives than their workers. These people are living like tyrannical kings and people justifying it because it's capitalism is unintelligent. They had more financial credits so they paid workers to create them things then they were lucky enough to have it become dominant and because of barriers to any competition, it becomes largely a monopoly until other oligarchs create competition. Almost all things in modern economics is fluff. Almost all economic activity is fluff with all real traditional economics owned by profiteers and powerful land owners.

People will be able to become rich, and produce more if people demand their quality products, but they will mostly be able to use it to better their life and other life. People will invest their money into creating new achievements for all society and humanity, and be remembered. People can use excess money to build things like people in the Renaissance built Cathedrals or pay artists to create unique songs or invest in research or pay for people to become involved in fields. Only authoritarian governments with good leaders can create good systems. History have proven this over and over again. Republics might start okay but always become corrupt or dysfunctional. Any truly democratic system or with large amounts of involvement will fail. America is a dysfunctional nation in both economics and politics. You can't truly solve social problems just by trying to implement social policies, because if the economic system is unfair to most people or all power is to the profiteers, then people will be upset.

The free markets that America likes to talk about haven't been free markets for over one hundred or two hundred years. American Capitalism based on unlimited inequality, unlimited property ownership, corporate power and legal protections, fiat currency, and consumerism are is a terrible economic system. It's a system that will end because mathematically, if enough nations band together and create an alternate system of financial transactions and trade, then America will experience a collapse much worse than the Soviet Union and because people are starting from a level of extreme wealth inequality, it will not end well.

I want to live in a country where everyone can have a good life and anyone can become rich at some point in their lifetime, but no one becomes too rich and billionaires and corporations don't exist. My solution completely destroys all trace of Jewishness in economics. My system is for everyone. People will have a similar level of traditional socioeconomic inequality but everyone will be able to start as equals and then like video game characters, at least get to the point where they are really good with some near gear and choose their own custom path. It will give everyone fulfilling lives and the ability to live a good life if they work and because everyone is guaranteed work. My system is completely feasible and it would be completely functional. My system would be completely balanced. It would prevent people from having nothing and allow for a reasonable amount of unfairness based entirely on merit.

@MarcosZeitola What do you think?

[Tsar]

"Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class."
Al Capone

This quote really sums up modern capitalism. It's a racketeering system of profiteers and landowners protecting their interests and a permanent place at the top to live better than everyone else at the expense of everyone else with the myth that anyone can become like them, but they control all the things that people need to become like them.

People cannot mint their own money. People cannot automatically receive land. People must buy the basic things necessary for life. People must apply or beg for work, or apply or beg for charity if they can't obtain work or don't get hired or earn low wages.

Modern Capitalism is a failure and it's unsuitable for any truly great nation.

Many Jews have given their playbook over the years. The Jews have infested Britain since the 1600s which is why Anglos have largely adopted Jewish values into own culture and system. Since America replaced Britain as the Anglo superpower, America has adopted more Jewish immorality and more Jewish values. Jews are a toxic group of people who cannot exist inside any great nation because the Jewish threat must be dealt with to prevent a nation from being undermined by virus-like elements who will spread their toxic degeneracy like a disease.

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls the British money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."
Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild


"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"If you control the food, you control a nation. If you control the energy, you control a region. If you control the money, you control the world."
Henry A. Kissinger

[Lucas88]

That's fair enough, I do need to watch how I speak more...

I didn't think you were traditionalists at all... But I was confused because all three of you bounce between ideologies a lot. To address you and Pixel Dude...

The admiration for Ancient Rome seems to be archaic, pre-Christian extreme traditionalism so to speak. I guess you mentioned that one is out. The emphasis on individual freedom and liberalism seems like libertarianism but the dislike of capitalism scratches that one out. The talk about automating all work away and then distributing resources equally amongst everyone sounds like technocratic communism. But if you want technocratic communism then why wouldn't you be in support of the great reset and the NWO? Technocratic communism is pretty much exactly what they are trying to create. In the end though you advocate for non-racial based, non-authoritarian national socialism. National socialism is anti-liberal though. So are you going to advocate for non-racial, liberal, and non-authoritarian national socialism? At this point, it doesn't sound much like national socialism. It just sounds like moderate socialism. All four of these ideas are extremely different from one another.

Tsar meanwhile can't seem to decide whether he wants Ancient Rome, communism, or national socialism. Again, they're all very different from one another and there's no consistency.

It's not that our views are inconsistent but rather simply that we don't feel the need to pigeonhole ourselves in narrow preconceived ideologies which are really just specters of the mind. Moreover, we understand that ideologies aren't perfect and can and should evolve. A movement of national socialism in the 21st century, for example, obviously wouldn't be exactly the same as the national socialism of the 1930s. Material conditions and the social landscape change over time. But it seems that you on the other hand are only able to see the world in narrow preconceived ideological terms, hence your confusion.

As for our own views, they're not really contradictory once one ceases to view everything through simplistic predefined ideological prisms. Our views are along the lines of:

• A national socialist-style government should play a central role in running things of central importance for the nation such as the economy and security. The task of such a government would be to defend the interests of the Gentile population from Jewish subversion and unscrupulous international capitalism and thereby safeguard the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation. "Democracy" is a farce of the current plutocratic elite anyway. A nation needs strong leaders who have the people's best interest at heart and know how to get things done.

• Once Jewish subversion and other real threats have been eliminated from society, the government should refrain from interfering in people's personal lives unless absolutely necessary. Certain civil liberties should be afforded to people. Only subversive activities which undermine the nation's health and security should be cracked down upon. The average citizen should be allowed a wide degree of freedom within reason. The government should concern itself only with important issues rather than the trivialities of people's personal lives.

• Most of us have grown up a little since the early and mid 20th century. We have no reason for silly racial theories and mindless racism against other Gentile groups. Rather we should advocate for mutual respect and cooperation among all amicable Gentile groups and define our movement as a pan-Gentile resistance movement against Jewish parasitism and subversion. Only the Jewish elite and its lackeys are the enemy.

• Automation is something that should be introduced gradually at first in order to reduce working hours and free people from long periods of monotonous drudgery in light of technological advancements (most people hate their boring jobs anyway and are only there to collect a paycheck). "Techno-socialism" on the other hand would be something for the future once automation and production technology have evolved to such a level that capitalism as a system becomes obsolete.

As for why we don't support the NWO and the Great Reset - well, we understand that their true agenda is one of Jewish world domination and total subjugation of the Gentile nations and that their proponents don't really have our best interest at heart. The Jewish elite simply wishes to manifest its perverse Old Testament Messianic vision of all nations being destroyed and subjugated and forced to serve Israel. The idea of the "Great Reset" and sustainability and whatnot is simply a pretext for this more sinister end.

That's why I advocate for the creation of our own Gentile governments and a national socialist-style system as a movement of resistance against and an antidote to the NWO and all of its current ideological façades: true Gentile advancement is only possible outside of the NWO system and after its defeat and dismantlement, hence why I consider resistance against the NWO the single most important issue at present.

I've once again explained my position above in simple terms and with clarity. If you are still confused and unable to understand, then I can only assume that you are being willfully ignorant.

[Pixel--Dude]

That's fair enough, I do need to watch how I speak more...

I didn't think you were traditionalists at all... But I was confused because all three of you bounce between ideologies a lot. To address you and Pixel Dude...

The admiration for Ancient Rome seems to be archaic, pre-Christian extreme traditionalism so to speak. I guess you mentioned that one is out. The emphasis on individual freedom and liberalism seems like libertarianism but the dislike of capitalism scratches that one out. The talk about automating all work away and then distributing resources equally amongst everyone sounds like technocratic communism. But if you want technocratic communism then why wouldn't you be in support of the great reset and the NWO? Technocratic communism is pretty much exactly what they are trying to create. In the end though you advocate for non-racial based, non-authoritarian national socialism. National socialism is anti-liberal though. So are you going to advocate for non-racial, liberal, and non-authoritarian national socialism? At this point, it doesn't sound much like national socialism. It just sounds like moderate socialism. All four of these ideas are extremely different from one another.

Tsar meanwhile can't seem to decide whether he wants Ancient Rome, communism, or national socialism. Again, they're all very different from one another and there's no consistency.

It's not that our views are inconsistent but rather simply that we don't feel the need to pigeonhole ourselves in narrow preconceived ideologies which are really just specters of the mind. Moreover, we understand that ideologies aren't perfect and can and should evolve. A movement of national socialism in the 21st century, for example, obviously wouldn't be exactly the same as the national socialism of the 1930s. Material conditions and the social landscape change over time. But it seems that you on the other hand are only able to see the world in narrow preconceived ideological terms, hence your confusion.

As for our own views, they're not really contradictory once one ceases to view everything through simplistic predefined ideological prisms. Our views are along the lines of:

• A national socialist-style government should play a central role in running things of central importance for the nation such as the economy and security. The task of such a government would be to defend the interests of the Gentile population from Jewish subversion and unscrupulous international capitalism and thereby safeguard the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation. "Democracy" is a farce of the current plutocratic elite anyway. A nation needs strong leaders who have the people's best interest at heart and know how to get things done.

• Once Jewish subversion and other real threats have been eliminated from society, the government should refrain from interfering in people's personal lives unless absolutely necessary. Certain civil liberties should be afforded to people. Only subversive activities which undermine the nation's health and security should be cracked down upon. The average citizen should be allowed a wide degree of freedom within reason. The government should concern itself only with important issues rather than the trivialities of people's personal lives.

• Most of us have grown up a little since the early and mid 20th century. We have no reason for silly racial theories and mindless racism against other Gentile groups. Rather we should advocate for mutual respect and cooperation among all amicable Gentile groups and define our movement as a pan-Gentile resistance movement against Jewish parasitism and subversion. Only the Jewish elite and its lackeys are the enemy.

• Automation is something that should be introduced gradually at first in order to reduce working hours and free people from long periods of monotonous drudgery in light of technological advancements (most people hate their boring jobs anyway and are only there to collect a paycheck). "Techno-socialism" on the other hand would be something for the future once automation and production technology have evolved to such a level that capitalism as a system becomes obsolete.

As for why we don't support the NWO and the Great Reset - well, we understand that their true agenda is one of Jewish world domination and total subjugation of the Gentile nations and that their proponents don't really have our best interest at heart. The Jewish elite simply wishes to manifest its perverse Old Testament Messianic vision of all nations being destroyed and subjugated and forced to serve Israel. The idea of the "Great Reset" and sustainability and whatnot is simply a pretext for this more sinister end.

That's why I advocate for the creation of our own Gentile governments and a national socialist-style system as a movement of resistance against and an antidote to the NWO and all of its current ideological façades: true Gentile advancement is only possible outside of the NWO system and after its defeat and dismantlement, hence why I consider resistance against the NWO the single most important issue at present.

I've once again explained my position above in simple terms and with clarity. If you are still confused and unable to understand, then I can only assume that you are being willfully ignorant.

This!
@Outcast9428, I think @Lucas88 has encapsulated my stance pretty well here and so I see no need to reiterate what he said. Though I still fancy writing a thread about a Resource Based Economy where we can discuss ideas for a new societal system and maybe even start a poll for people to vote on which system of the proposed systems therein is the best.

"Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class."
Al Capone

This quote really sums up modern capitalism. It's a racketeering system of profiteers and landowners protecting their interests and a permanent place at the top to live better than everyone else at the expense of everyone else with the myth that anyone can become like them, but they control all the things that people need to become like them.

People cannot mint their own money. People cannot automatically receive land. People must buy the basic things necessary for life. People must apply or beg for work, or apply or beg for charity if they can't obtain work or don't get hired or earn low wages.

Modern Capitalism is a failure and it's unsuitable for any truly great nation.

Many Jews have given their playbook over the years. The Jews have infested Britain since the 1600s which is why Anglos have largely adopted Jewish values into own culture and system. Since America replaced Britain as the Anglo superpower, America has adopted more Jewish immorality and more Jewish values. Jews are a toxic group of people who cannot exist inside any great nation because the Jewish threat must be dealt with to prevent a nation from being undermined by virus-like elements who will spread their toxic degeneracy like a disease.

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls the British money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."
Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild


"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"If you control the food, you control a nation. If you control the energy, you control a region. If you control the money, you control the world."
Henry A. Kissinger

Some brilliant quotes here, @Tsar. They really do show how this current system is zero sum game and favours the rich and wealthy. The poor are just tools to be exploited by big corporations and to be forced into debt by predatory banking systems with their usurious loans and interest rates.

Going back to the topic of ethics and values and morality I have some questions about morality, I'll tag people who have commented so far, but I apologise if I miss anyone.
@fschmidt
@Outcast9428
@Lucas88
@Tsar
@MarcosZeitola
@Cornfed
@WanderingProtagonist
@CaptainSkelebob

1. Is it immoral to kill someone? And in what context?
We have wars, people who might try and hurt you in the street.
What about euthanasia?
Do you support the death penalty for inmates?

2. Is it immoral to kill animals?
Like mass farming and animals reared for the purpose of being eaten?
What about if you live in a forest and have to hunt animals?
What about hunting animals purely for sport?

3. Is abortion murder?
What about if a woman is raped and carries the rapist's child?
What if the pregnancy is accidental and the parents can't provide a decent standard of living for a child?

4. Is it immoral to damage the environment through mass production of pointless things?
What about destroying nature for farmland?
What about for housing to be built?

Does anyone else have any questions to add on morality? What are your answers to the posed questions above?
Maybe I will post some moral dilemmas later and see what answers people offer.

[WanderingProtagonist]

That's fair enough, I do need to watch how I speak more...

I didn't think you were traditionalists at all... But I was confused because all three of you bounce between ideologies a lot. To address you and Pixel Dude...

The admiration for Ancient Rome seems to be archaic, pre-Christian extreme traditionalism so to speak. I guess you mentioned that one is out. The emphasis on individual freedom and liberalism seems like libertarianism but the dislike of capitalism scratches that one out. The talk about automating all work away and then distributing resources equally amongst everyone sounds like technocratic communism. But if you want technocratic communism then why wouldn't you be in support of the great reset and the NWO? Technocratic communism is pretty much exactly what they are trying to create. In the end though you advocate for non-racial based, non-authoritarian national socialism. National socialism is anti-liberal though. So are you going to advocate for non-racial, liberal, and non-authoritarian national socialism? At this point, it doesn't sound much like national socialism. It just sounds like moderate socialism. All four of these ideas are extremely different from one another.

Tsar meanwhile can't seem to decide whether he wants Ancient Rome, communism, or national socialism. Again, they're all very different from one another and there's no consistency.

It's not that our views are inconsistent but rather simply that we don't feel the need to pigeonhole ourselves in narrow preconceived ideologies which are really just specters of the mind. Moreover, we understand that ideologies aren't perfect and can and should evolve. A movement of national socialism in the 21st century, for example, obviously wouldn't be exactly the same as the national socialism of the 1930s. Material conditions and the social landscape change over time. But it seems that you on the other hand are only able to see the world in narrow preconceived ideological terms, hence your confusion.

As for our own views, they're not really contradictory once one ceases to view everything through simplistic predefined ideological prisms. Our views are along the lines of:

• A national socialist-style government should play a central role in running things of central importance for the nation such as the economy and security. The task of such a government would be to defend the interests of the Gentile population from Jewish subversion and unscrupulous international capitalism and thereby safeguard the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation. "Democracy" is a farce of the current plutocratic elite anyway. A nation needs strong leaders who have the people's best interest at heart and know how to get things done.

• Once Jewish subversion and other real threats have been eliminated from society, the government should refrain from interfering in people's personal lives unless absolutely necessary. Certain civil liberties should be afforded to people. Only subversive activities which undermine the nation's health and security should be cracked down upon. The average citizen should be allowed a wide degree of freedom within reason. The government should concern itself only with important issues rather than the trivialities of people's personal lives.

• Most of us have grown up a little since the early and mid 20th century. We have no reason for silly racial theories and mindless racism against other Gentile groups. Rather we should advocate for mutual respect and cooperation among all amicable Gentile groups and define our movement as a pan-Gentile resistance movement against Jewish parasitism and subversion. Only the Jewish elite and its lackeys are the enemy.

• Automation is something that should be introduced gradually at first in order to reduce working hours and free people from long periods of monotonous drudgery in light of technological advancements (most people hate their boring jobs anyway and are only there to collect a paycheck). "Techno-socialism" on the other hand would be something for the future once automation and production technology have evolved to such a level that capitalism as a system becomes obsolete.

As for why we don't support the NWO and the Great Reset - well, we understand that their true agenda is one of Jewish world domination and total subjugation of the Gentile nations and that their proponents don't really have our best interest at heart. The Jewish elite simply wishes to manifest its perverse Old Testament Messianic vision of all nations being destroyed and subjugated and forced to serve Israel. The idea of the "Great Reset" and sustainability and whatnot is simply a pretext for this more sinister end.

That's why I advocate for the creation of our own Gentile governments and a national socialist-style system as a movement of resistance against and an antidote to the NWO and all of its current ideological façades: true Gentile advancement is only possible outside of the NWO system and after its defeat and dismantlement, hence why I consider resistance against the NWO the single most important issue at present.

I've once again explained my position above in simple terms and with clarity. If you are still confused and unable to understand, then I can only assume that you are being willfully ignorant.

This!
@Outcast9428, I think @Lucas88 has encapsulated my stance pretty well here and so I see no need to reiterate what he said. Though I still fancy writing a thread about a Resource Based Economy where we can discuss ideas for a new societal system and maybe even start a poll for people to vote on which system of the proposed systems therein is the best.

"Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class."
Al Capone

This quote really sums up modern capitalism. It's a racketeering system of profiteers and landowners protecting their interests and a permanent place at the top to live better than everyone else at the expense of everyone else with the myth that anyone can become like them, but they control all the things that people need to become like them.

People cannot mint their own money. People cannot automatically receive land. People must buy the basic things necessary for life. People must apply or beg for work, or apply or beg for charity if they can't obtain work or don't get hired or earn low wages.

Modern Capitalism is a failure and it's unsuitable for any truly great nation.

Many Jews have given their playbook over the years. The Jews have infested Britain since the 1600s which is why Anglos have largely adopted Jewish values into own culture and system. Since America replaced Britain as the Anglo superpower, America has adopted more Jewish immorality and more Jewish values. Jews are a toxic group of people who cannot exist inside any great nation because the Jewish threat must be dealt with to prevent a nation from being undermined by virus-like elements who will spread their toxic degeneracy like a disease.

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls the British money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."
Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild


"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"If you control the food, you control a nation. If you control the energy, you control a region. If you control the money, you control the world."
Henry A. Kissinger

Some brilliant quotes here, @Tsar. They really do show how this current system is zero sum game and favours the rich and wealthy. The poor are just tools to be exploited by big corporations and to be forced into debt by predatory banking systems with their usurious loans and interest rates.

Going back to the topic of ethics and values and morality I have some questions about morality, I'll tag people who have commented so far, but I apologise if I miss anyone.
@fschmidt
@Outcast9428
@Lucas88
@Tsar
@MarcosZeitola
@Cornfed
@WanderingProtagonist
@CaptainSkelebob

1. Is it immoral to kill someone? And in what context?
We have wars, people who might try and hurt you in the street.
What about euthanasia?
Do you support the death penalty for inmates?

2. Is it immoral to kill animals?
Like mass farming and animals reared for the purpose of being eaten?
What about if you live in a forest and have to hunt animals?
What about hunting animals purely for sport?

3. Is abortion murder?
What about if a woman is raped and carries the rapist's child?
What if the pregnancy is accidental and the parents can't provide a decent standard of living for a child?

4. Is it immoral to damage the environment through mass production of pointless things?
What about destroying nature for farmland?
What about for housing to be built?

Does anyone else have any questions to add on morality? What are your answers to the posed questions above?
Maybe I will post some moral dilemmas later and see what answers people offer.

Most people will probably say they support the death penalty for inmates, while it would curb a lot of the serious crimes to some extent. They would have to out right kill a whole lot of nigs guilty of murder crimes and Latinos. Rapist don't nearly outnumber the amount of people who get killed their numbers are quite small. Of course this will easily make the West look bad if they did this since everyone nowadays is a negro sympathizer so if you took a bunch of them and murdered them for murder, that itself would create a shit load of backlash from the public.

[Pixel--Dude]

That's fair enough, I do need to watch how I speak more...

I didn't think you were traditionalists at all... But I was confused because all three of you bounce between ideologies a lot. To address you and Pixel Dude...

The admiration for Ancient Rome seems to be archaic, pre-Christian extreme traditionalism so to speak. I guess you mentioned that one is out. The emphasis on individual freedom and liberalism seems like libertarianism but the dislike of capitalism scratches that one out. The talk about automating all work away and then distributing resources equally amongst everyone sounds like technocratic communism. But if you want technocratic communism then why wouldn't you be in support of the great reset and the NWO? Technocratic communism is pretty much exactly what they are trying to create. In the end though you advocate for non-racial based, non-authoritarian national socialism. National socialism is anti-liberal though. So are you going to advocate for non-racial, liberal, and non-authoritarian national socialism? At this point, it doesn't sound much like national socialism. It just sounds like moderate socialism. All four of these ideas are extremely different from one another.

Tsar meanwhile can't seem to decide whether he wants Ancient Rome, communism, or national socialism. Again, they're all very different from one another and there's no consistency.

It's not that our views are inconsistent but rather simply that we don't feel the need to pigeonhole ourselves in narrow preconceived ideologies which are really just specters of the mind. Moreover, we understand that ideologies aren't perfect and can and should evolve. A movement of national socialism in the 21st century, for example, obviously wouldn't be exactly the same as the national socialism of the 1930s. Material conditions and the social landscape change over time. But it seems that you on the other hand are only able to see the world in narrow preconceived ideological terms, hence your confusion.

As for our own views, they're not really contradictory once one ceases to view everything through simplistic predefined ideological prisms. Our views are along the lines of:

• A national socialist-style government should play a central role in running things of central importance for the nation such as the economy and security. The task of such a government would be to defend the interests of the Gentile population from Jewish subversion and unscrupulous international capitalism and thereby safeguard the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation. "Democracy" is a farce of the current plutocratic elite anyway. A nation needs strong leaders who have the people's best interest at heart and know how to get things done.

• Once Jewish subversion and other real threats have been eliminated from society, the government should refrain from interfering in people's personal lives unless absolutely necessary. Certain civil liberties should be afforded to people. Only subversive activities which undermine the nation's health and security should be cracked down upon. The average citizen should be allowed a wide degree of freedom within reason. The government should concern itself only with important issues rather than the trivialities of people's personal lives.

• Most of us have grown up a little since the early and mid 20th century. We have no reason for silly racial theories and mindless racism against other Gentile groups. Rather we should advocate for mutual respect and cooperation among all amicable Gentile groups and define our movement as a pan-Gentile resistance movement against Jewish parasitism and subversion. Only the Jewish elite and its lackeys are the enemy.

• Automation is something that should be introduced gradually at first in order to reduce working hours and free people from long periods of monotonous drudgery in light of technological advancements (most people hate their boring jobs anyway and are only there to collect a paycheck). "Techno-socialism" on the other hand would be something for the future once automation and production technology have evolved to such a level that capitalism as a system becomes obsolete.

As for why we don't support the NWO and the Great Reset - well, we understand that their true agenda is one of Jewish world domination and total subjugation of the Gentile nations and that their proponents don't really have our best interest at heart. The Jewish elite simply wishes to manifest its perverse Old Testament Messianic vision of all nations being destroyed and subjugated and forced to serve Israel. The idea of the "Great Reset" and sustainability and whatnot is simply a pretext for this more sinister end.

That's why I advocate for the creation of our own Gentile governments and a national socialist-style system as a movement of resistance against and an antidote to the NWO and all of its current ideological façades: true Gentile advancement is only possible outside of the NWO system and after its defeat and dismantlement, hence why I consider resistance against the NWO the single most important issue at present.

I've once again explained my position above in simple terms and with clarity. If you are still confused and unable to understand, then I can only assume that you are being willfully ignorant.

This!
@Outcast9428, I think @Lucas88 has encapsulated my stance pretty well here and so I see no need to reiterate what he said. Though I still fancy writing a thread about a Resource Based Economy where we can discuss ideas for a new societal system and maybe even start a poll for people to vote on which system of the proposed systems therein is the best.

"Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class."
Al Capone

This quote really sums up modern capitalism. It's a racketeering system of profiteers and landowners protecting their interests and a permanent place at the top to live better than everyone else at the expense of everyone else with the myth that anyone can become like them, but they control all the things that people need to become like them.

People cannot mint their own money. People cannot automatically receive land. People must buy the basic things necessary for life. People must apply or beg for work, or apply or beg for charity if they can't obtain work or don't get hired or earn low wages.

Modern Capitalism is a failure and it's unsuitable for any truly great nation.

Many Jews have given their playbook over the years. The Jews have infested Britain since the 1600s which is why Anglos have largely adopted Jewish values into own culture and system. Since America replaced Britain as the Anglo superpower, America has adopted more Jewish immorality and more Jewish values. Jews are a toxic group of people who cannot exist inside any great nation because the Jewish threat must be dealt with to prevent a nation from being undermined by virus-like elements who will spread their toxic degeneracy like a disease.

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls the British money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."
Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild


"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"If you control the food, you control a nation. If you control the energy, you control a region. If you control the money, you control the world."
Henry A. Kissinger

Some brilliant quotes here, @Tsar. They really do show how this current system is zero sum game and favours the rich and wealthy. The poor are just tools to be exploited by big corporations and to be forced into debt by predatory banking systems with their usurious loans and interest rates.

Going back to the topic of ethics and values and morality I have some questions about morality, I'll tag people who have commented so far, but I apologise if I miss anyone.
@fschmidt
@Outcast9428
@Lucas88
@Tsar
@MarcosZeitola
@Cornfed
@WanderingProtagonist
@CaptainSkelebob

1. Is it immoral to kill someone? And in what context?
We have wars, people who might try and hurt you in the street.
What about euthanasia?
Do you support the death penalty for inmates?

2. Is it immoral to kill animals?
Like mass farming and animals reared for the purpose of being eaten?
What about if you live in a forest and have to hunt animals?
What about hunting animals purely for sport?

3. Is abortion murder?
What about if a woman is raped and carries the rapist's child?
What if the pregnancy is accidental and the parents can't provide a decent standard of living for a child?

4. Is it immoral to damage the environment through mass production of pointless things?
What about destroying nature for farmland?
What about for housing to be built?

Does anyone else have any questions to add on morality? What are your answers to the posed questions above?
Maybe I will post some moral dilemmas later and see what answers people offer.

Most people will probably say they support the death penalty for inmates, while it would curb a lot of the serious crimes to some extent. They would have to out right kill a whole lot of nigs guilty of murder crimes and Latinos. Rapist don't nearly outnumber the amount of people who get killed their numbers are quite small. Of course this will easily make the West look bad if they did this since everyone nowadays is a negro sympathizer so if you took a bunch of them and murdered them for murder, that itself would create a shit load of backlash from the public.

There's a debate here on the death penalty if you are interested. Let me know which side you think makes the best arguments.

I also wanted to post the clip of Brian Griffin from Family Guy talking about how he supports the death penalty because it shows that killing is wrong as a joke But I couldn't find it.

[Outcast9428]

@Pixel--Dude To address the questions first.

1. I think that killing is justified when it is done in self defense. I also think self defense can apply to a broad scale. For example, if a group of people is attempting to destroy your culture/nation then that is an act of war, that makes it justifiable to do whatever it takes to defend your own culture/nation. I also think euthanasia is okay in instances where people are braindead or going to die soon anyway because it is often the merciful way to let them go.

2. I don’t believe eating animals is justified. Not just factory farms I think eating meat in general is immoral unless there is some reason why a person truly needs it to survive. Otherwise I think they should try not to eat meat. They should look for plant based options or vitamin supplements to get the vitamins they need.

3. I think if the woman got raped then it is justified to allow her to get an abortion. I don’t think living conditions are a justified reason. If we are talking about some very undeveloped countries or the historical past. I can understand why people did it. But that doesn’t make it ok.

4. Some destruction of the environment is inevitable but we should try to preserve it the best we can. Perhaps keeping track of how many trees we cut down in order to plant new ones in a different spot. I think we should make a greater effort to clean up all the trash and pollution we have created.

5. I think there are rare instances when the death penalty can be justified. I think the death penalty is justified for heads of criminal organizations who often find ways to continue their business in prison. I also think execution for people who produce and distribute particularly disturbing, sick, violent, and extreme pornography might be justified because of the damage it causes to large numbers of people. I view them as similar to the heads of drug trafficking organizations. But I can understand if people think that’s too extreme. For murderers I think there are too many of them to make it a death penalty offense. You will have to execute thousands of people every year if you make that a death penalty offense whereas with what I’m suggesting you would probably would only execute a handful of people each year.

[fschmidt]

1. Is it immoral to kill someone? And in what context?
We have wars, people who might try and hurt you in the street.
What about euthanasia?
Do you support the death penalty for inmates?

It is immoral to kill a member of your community except in self-defense. War is okay, not members of your community. Suicide is okay, so euthanasia is only okay if it is suicide. The death penalty is just murder by government, not okay.

2. Is it immoral to kill animals?
Like mass farming and animals reared for the purpose of being eaten?
What about if you live in a forest and have to hunt animals?
What about hunting animals purely for sport?

Eating animals is fine. Hunting animals for sport is in bad taste, worse then killing outsiders (people outside of your community) for fun, but not strictly immoral since animals aren't members of your community.

3. Is abortion murder?
What about if a woman is raped and carries the rapist's child?
What if the pregnancy is accidental and the parents can't provide a decent standard of living for a child?

Abortion isn't murder because a fetus is not fully human.

4. Is it immoral to damage the environment through mass production of pointless things?
What about destroying nature for farmland?
What about for housing to be built?

Yes, harming the environment of one's community is immoral.

[WanderingProtagonist]

1. Is it immoral to kill someone? And in what context?
We have wars, people who might try and hurt you in the street.
What about euthanasia?
Do you support the death penalty for inmates?

It is immoral to kill a member of your community except in self-defense. War is okay, not members of your community. Suicide is okay, so euthanasia is only okay if it is suicide. The death penalty is just murder by government, not okay.

2. Is it immoral to kill animals?
Like mass farming and animals reared for the purpose of being eaten?
What about if you live in a forest and have to hunt animals?
What about hunting animals purely for sport?

Eating animals is fine. Hunting animals for sport is in bad taste, worse then killing outsiders (people outside of your community) for fun, but not strictly immoral since animals aren't members of your community.

3. Is abortion murder?
What about if a woman is raped and carries the rapist's child?
What if the pregnancy is accidental and the parents can't provide a decent standard of living for a child?

Abortion isn't murder because a fetus is not fully human.

4. Is it immoral to damage the environment through mass production of pointless things?
What about destroying nature for farmland?
What about for housing to be built?

Yes, harming the environment of one's community is immoral.

People who are okay with abortion probably should have had it done to themselves then.
See how they like being denied a chance at existing. f***ing useless ass anti-human jerk offs...
Its one thing if a person have to do it because the birth might kill them, but people doing this shit as a "reset button"
just to get out of being responsible just flat out sicken me. The vast majority of abortions is basically garbage women trying to avoid responsibility but refuse to take precautions before having sex. Some of these assholes will kill multiple unborn because that's how shitty their heart really is.

[fschmidt]

People who are okay with abortion probably should have had it done to themselves then.
See how they like being denied a chance at existing. f***ing useless ass anti-human jerk offs...

Pixel--Dude, I just want to point out that this is how modern scum communicate, by insults. They are incapable of anything else. So if you are going to ban people for insults, you have to ban almost everyone on this forum. If you want a forum without insults, you have to look outside of modern culture, like a Mennonite forum or a Muslim forum.

[WanderingProtagonist]

People who are okay with abortion probably should have had it done to themselves then.
See how they like being denied a chance at existing. f***ing useless ass anti-human jerk offs...

Pixel--Dude, I just want to point out that this is how modern scum communicate, by insults. They are incapable of anything else. So if you are going to ban people for insults, you have to ban almost everyone on this forum. If you want a forum without insults, you have to look outside of modern culture, like a Mennonite forum or a Muslim forum.

Yeah, I am "modern scum" for calling out bitches that want to murder the unborn. I never even directly said you were the anti-human jerk off, but now You definitely are for trying to advocate to get me banned.

[Cornfed]

Abortion isn't murder because a fetus is not fully human.

Is it up to quacks and shysters to decide who is "fully human"?