Why is the political course of internet autists almost allways as following:
communism >> classic libertarianism >> nationalism/national socialism >> ???
Seems to be allways in this order from personal experience and observation .
Because people love swinging to extremes much to the delight of the people who fund these movements because it keeps everyone in a perpetual political coke vs pepsi war with no end and tons of profit.
>>27053911
I went straight to natsoc
always thought communism was dumb
>>27053953
This. Also the memes are pretty funny.
I'm really flippant between capitalism and democratic socialism. Both are great systems in theory and practice they just always end up being corrupted by oligarchs or sociopaths.
>>27053911
>communism
NEET
>classic libertarianism
NEET who hates his parents
>nationalism/national socialism
NEET who can't loves without his parents
>>27053911
for me it was
Liberalism(early teens)>socialism(still early teens)>libertarianism/classical liberalism(16-19)>paleo libertarian(20)>unknown, but some type of right-wing nationalistic affiliation (present day)
As to why this progress is similar, it's probably because within our culture these ideas are more appealing to people of certain age ranges as well as the effect memes have on online communities. 4chan general politic has shifted from Liberalism to libertarianism and now there's a lot more fascists and right wingers.
Like, seriously... if you're not a teenager and still entertaining socialism you either have some form of mental illness or arrested development.
Because almost everyone is a "communist" when they're a retarded sixteen year old (except for those who have been raised to be vaguely conservative). They're not actually Marxists, and when they learn about Marx they realize he was a fucking retard and communism sucks.
Libertarians are all either autistic liberals or people on the pic related journey.
Nationalism provides an alternative to the current globalist neoliberal framework and if you're a disaffected person who thinks the current shit platform isn't working out, then nationalism provides one of the possible answers. People who focus on other aspects of the issues with neoliberal globalism might instead become ancaps, social democrats, or left-lolbertarians.
Also a lot of NEETSocs are just being edgy.
>>27054021
If a system doesn't work out in practice, then its theory is bad. Or anyway, its metatheory is bad.
>>27054170
>tfw have always liked reps more than dems since before i knew what politics were(about 8 years old) and always thought Nazis and Hitler were cool
>tfw I've been legitimitally edgy as fuck since before it was a meme to be ironically edgy
>>27053971
>natsoc
you mean neo-nazism. completely different thing. that fact that any slav can be a neo-nazi alone shows a drastic difference.
>>27054170
I support (white) nationalsm just because it makes current politics and the media mad. I don't know if I personally would benefit from such politics as I am lazy and any change in politics like natinalism (which isn't unlikely for the coming years in europe) and they might not be as generous in terms of NEETbux spending.
>>27054500
Just to add, as I see it the first measurements would probably be to deny any social benefit money to both natives and foreigners as they are not allowed to discriminate (yet, atleast in this stage)
>>27053911
Well in history it was practically the same.
It starts with
classic libertarianism (the enlightenment)>>communism (Marx and half a dozen french revolutions)>>Fascism/Nationalism(the interwar period>>classical Libertarianism (post-war period in reaction to naziism in europe, reaction to mccarthyism in US and NA)>>communism(modern day cultural marxism)>>nationalism/fascism(response to cultural marxism and the refugee crisis- which was partially caused by said cultural marxism)
And so the great wheel continues to turn.
>>27054303
They're great systems if they're run by people who aren't twats. Somehow twats are the ones who climb the social ladder the easiest though.
>>27055275
"The best laws cannot make a constitution work in spite of morals; morals can turn the worst laws to advantage." (Alexis de Tocqueville)
You're saying that what makes a good system is the people in it, which suggests that the best system would be the one that advances the best people. Competition will almost always bring up the worst of us. This is why capitalism is bad in theory, no matter its apparent elegance.
>>27055349
>the best system would be the one that advances the best people
This pretty much justifies capitalism on its own. Survival of the fittest, neet-ger.
>>27055410
Herbert Spencer was an idiot. In a large society, we sink or swim together.
Center>Center but less authoritarian
Internet doesn't affect you that much if you apply rational thought. All that has changed is that I see the POV of either side much better now. Except Authoritarians. Still a mystery to me.
>>27055464
Very few people (unironically) identify as an authoritarian. So maybe you should ask yourself this: how do you think someone, who you would call an authoritarian, sees themselves? If you're actually good at seeing other sides, I expect you'd find they replace the words "libertarian" and "authoritarian," respectively, with "antisocial" and "prosocial."
I used to be a libertarian, never was a filthy commie.
Now I'm a nationalist libertarian.
>>27055509
Pretty sure the average normie thinks it's simply normal for the government to do everything.
>>27055464
>Authoritarians
I think you mean communitarians who view the basic unit of the social ontology as groups, as opposed to autistic libertarians who can't get past muh individualism. (Based Hoppe excepted)
>>27055451
That's what government is for. Capitalism =/= anarcho-capitalism
>>27055509
We prefer the term "federalist" because we support a strong central government that can stand up to corporations, cartels, and hostile foreign states.
>>27054460
Slavs being Nazis is just hilarious, it's like black people starting a local KKK chapter.
grew up conservative
became pseudo-fascist in highschool because edgy
become libertarian post-grad
was shortly anarcho syndaclist
finally settled into a pretty moderate liberal stance
so it goes. maturity.
>>27054170
Traditionalism/reactionism is debunked just by comparing the year 1700 to 2016.
>>27054586
You realize African Americans get almost nothing from the government right?
The point of afermative action is to keep Chinese and Indians from flooding schools.
>>27053911
This guy is a little faggot.
I was
liberal > libertarian > conservative > reactionary then I stopped browsing /pol/. What I believe is libertarian in nature, which is that I am not a bootlicker for political reasons anymore. Being a reactionary is literally tumblr tier special snowflake shit. I believe that we should constantly be fighting against the power structures that form. Any fucking asshole who wants to control people deserves a bullet in the brain, and you should also kill his kids and his whole family. Wipe out their genes from the gene pool.
>>27055596
That's fucking stupid, though, John Oliver. The same material and technical conditions don't exist in both years, and are basically independent of the state political sphere.
>>27053911
>>27054041
>>27054170
>>27055561
>no one has yet to criticize libertarianism without relying on petty insults and typical collectivist propaganda
Wew lad
>>27055703
Traditionalist institutions were responsible for many of the things holding back society. In particularly, the obsession with inequality prevented a broad population that could produce a large amount of individuals that would bring change.
>>27055558
All those sheeple, amiright?
Whatever they need to be cool.
I was apolitical then as I read more about the world I became more right leaning but have yet to really classify myself as anything.
When people ask me where I stand politically, I ask them to be specific with me and ask me something, paying attention to their language so that they cannot snake a planned response form me if they suspect I stand on some controversial ground.
I'm very much for separation of races and religious groups as well an ethnic groups but opt to keep said groups in contact on a business and trade platform as well as as allies in a war if needs be, for example, two group populate a landmass and someone is coming to take it - for the sake of lasting prosperity, both groups would join forces in order to repel the force which threatens both of them, then go be left to their own devices afterwards.
Differences and diversity never make us stronger; all it takes is a radical 1% opposed to the other groups to bolster conflict and the 99% peaceful majority never matter as they just hold signs and say 'Can't we all just get along?!' - those people get eaten.
>>27055670
>I believe that we should constantly be fighting against the power structures that form
Except for constitutional structures of course
>>27055786
O f c o u r s e. (spaced out for original comment purposes)
Communism because it's edgy but not totally socially unacceptable like national socialism, once I actually fully realized the theory behind it I disliked it. Libertarianism because it "just makes sense" in theory and sounds really nice and everything, but sadly not everyone is as "rational" and autistic as me. Nationalism because it gives answers libertarianism can't provide. At the moment I don't even know, I can't even decide between democracy and dictatorship/one party politics/aristocracy.
>>27055767
You're just a tribalist. Tribalism is an unfortunate sin that is ingrained upon "human nature". Higher evolved people has no time for petty tribalism, while the unfortunate ones have tribalist traits in grained into their mind.
>>27055716
This thread was not meant to insult or discredit libertarianism or any ideology for that matter.
>>27055751
Then how did we into industrial revolution? (Oh right, patent laws instituted by a traditionalist society in a liberal-capitalist early modern context provided the necessary institutional means for the advancement of technology)
You don't need modern political theories and social organization to take advantage of change. Was the putting-out system particularly effective? No, but the same society was traditional after it switched to a stronger proto-industrial or industrial economy.
That said, radical traditionalists who want to return to 1549 are retarded.
>>27055635
I am not American I am in socialist Europ. Pls don't be so UScentric.
>>27055716
Isn't lolbertarianism just anarchism for pussies?
>>27055851
>faggot stating meaningless shit in a condescending manner
>tripcode
>every post is fucking autistic
>can't prove validity of his positions without relying on bullshit a priori assumptions about things which only matter to autistic people
Yeah, it's a Randfag. Of course.
>>27055851
It's ingrained into our minds because it's what works. I don't believe it's unfortunate at all. It is a better path to harmony than all of this melting-pot diveristy non-sense which really just means: 'Let's take people who look different, who live differently and/or who believe in different things that us and bring them here'
It.s suicide. It WILL lead to blood and sure, internal conflict will too but it's not going to cause as much problems as this who fiasco.
>>27053911
I was a totalitarian since I was old enough to learn about politics.
Democracy is a lie, politicians are commercials trying to sell themselves so they swing and change their opinion when it suits the pleb.
Communism is not possible now, there will always be corruption and people are not mature enough.
Nazism would have been really good without all this superior race. It has too much of a tainted name now.
And the biggest problem is that whatever the system is, even if we have an awesome leader, the nation will fall down at his death.
Having an immortal father-like leader would be perfect.
>>27055911
It's common sense for people who care about Liberty and justice for all
>>27055934
Non-arguments
>>27055757
To be fair the average person doesn't know how to classify these things and never have heard of these terms. Maybe communism or socialism rings a bell (what those Russians did) At best they know about their freedoms (freedom to welfare) and they don't really care if it's called collectivism or socialism or anything else, it's the the thing the government is supposed to do.
>tfw born to late to be able to fuck a countries shit up in a war and take it as you please because you're the strongest
>tfw you now have to be a fag politician, circumnavigate and lie in order to wage war and even then, you have to sugar coat it in such a cloying way as to not upset faggy anti-war softskin hippies.
Democracy was a mistake.
>>27055992
Shut up, Stefan.
How does it make you feel to recognize that your hero has fallen to non-arguments and is now further right-authoritarian than Hoppe?
Also the last one totally was an argument, you non-reading autistic virg.
>>27056027
Never change, internet-classical-liberals.
>>27055840
I saw a girl on tindr the other day praising Mao and I realized being a communist is the edgiest thing possible since it's killed something like 180 million people which hitler never managed even with a world war
>>27055975
Theocracy.
>>27056105
This is what an autist would say. "Normal" people don't care about about a kill count or something like that, they only care about social connotations and they might not even have heard of Mao (Mao? That's that crazy chinese kid with the nukes (kim jongun) right?)
If you mention that Hitler was not the one with the highest kill count most people will think you are trying to be apologetic towards Hitler. The nazis are the worst period.
>>27056091
I am not even classical liberal or libertarian or whatever.
>>27056269
Oh please.
>their freedoms (freedom to welfare)
And you're not a classical liberal? Maybe you're the one who doesn't know what these words mean. Maybe you're the real sheeperson.
>>27056295
No I am not. I said people only know about freedoms at most. And whatever they want they classify as freedoms. Whatever you are you should be able to see that freedom = no restriction and it's not something that is provided to you. If you want social benefits or public services that's fine but don't call them freedoms (like freedom to go to school)
>>27056269
>The nazis are the worst period.
They aren't though. At best/worst, they're morally equivalent to the commies.
>Both committed genocide and started wars
>Both internally oppressive
>Commies killed 13425456546768467876 times as many people
Not even the guy you're replying to, but he was specifically referring to a girl praising Mao, so she clearly fucking knows who that piece of shit was.
The only reason normies know MUH HOLOCAUST more than MUH HOLODOMOR is that Jews control the media.
>>27056295
>sheeperson
no fursecution please
I was an edgy liberal atheist who shat on the republican christian meme as teenager, and I slowly progressed into being a conservative race realist.
I was never a socialist or a fucking commie. The socialist/communist pathology never got to me. But nearly every one of my peers was/is a leftist faggot, and is currently some flavor of liberal. I blame the schools.
>>27054170
This pretty much.
>>27056445
I think you missed the point of my post. Nazis worst period was a representation of what the common person thinks and that being edgy is a social thing that relies on social connotations and not on kill counts shared by enlightened internet autists.
>>27055851
That "tribalism" was the soil your enlightened individualism could grow and exist upon, without it, there would have been no possibility for the existence of high culture.
"I am not preaching anti-intellectuality, but extolling the licentiousness and chthonian violence of re-integration. The affliction which Indo-Europeans suffer from is entirely mental and subjective; they are chronically afraid of their own shadow in Jungian terms. If the civilization which their ancestors created has any future at all then they must overcome their resistance to barbarism; they must o'erleap it on the altar of high culture."
"Truthfully, in this age those with intellect have no courage and those with some modicum of physical courage have no intellect. If things are to alter during the next fifty years then we must re-embrace Byron's ideal: the cultured thug." Jonathan Bowden
