I am in need of some convincing, /mpol/ A little background,

Sounds like you're on the road to Strasserism.

>>183590
>Strasserism
I have read a ridiculous amount of political books, yet I have never heard of this ideology.

I will of course research it on my own, but would you care to enlighten me on the core ideas/points?

>>183678
Not as much as you'd want, I'm not a Stasserite myself. I can do the basic bitch think and link you to wikipedia, though. It sounds to me like the in-between point between fascism and communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism

File: ab359752765365cd54c6d3580fdc89f03205079409ec7b852879dcc99ebf98cd.jpg (137KB, 956x960px)

137KB, 956x960px

>>183488
Yep, Strasserism. Or National Bolshevism if you're a walking meme.

>>183488
Sounds like you may be on the path of Civic Nationalism

>>183488

I used to be a Communist when I was a teenager as well, but all that changed once I started owning stuff. It's probably the reason why older people tend to be more Right-Wing.

>>184056

I wouldn't call myself Right-Wing by any stretch of the imagination, however. Left-leaning Centrist is closest to what I believe in

>>184056
Yeah, I was in La-La land when I was a teen, thinking that Anarcho-Communism would ever work is autistic. I still support Communism with authority though, as I think Capitalism is crumbling before our eyes and we need an alternative to make our nations strong.

Now though, I guess counting as a Stalinist or somthing like that, I am sliding more right, and I I will do more reading obviously, but I think I am becoming a Strasserist/National-Bolsheivk/Whatever

>>183488
>I don't believe that "race-realism" holds up scientifically.
I'm not sure how you can say this. The mere fact that a single race can be dominant in a social/economic sense (and that said dominance is along racial lines) is a de-facto argument that a race is superior to another.

File: IMG_1087.jpg (166KB, 960x960px)

166KB, 960x960px

>>183488
Communism is a flawed system, it has literally never lead to a prolonged successful society. However it has been known to lead to mass cannibalism.

File: IMG_1304.png (925KB, 728x3570px)

925KB, 728x3570px

>>183488
"Race realism" is as real as it gets.
I'm going to provide you with a lot of information, but just get your head out of your ass and look at the world you live in the most civilized and developed countries in the world are predominately white and a few exceptions are Mongoloids such as Japan. The shittiest most archaic countries are black. Beyond that the civilized world countries that take in enough black immigrant show a pretty incontrovertible correlation show a pretty incontrovertible correlations... The best/safest cities, districts, areas are predominately white and the shittiest and most crime ridden are predominantly black.

File: IMG_1226.png (138KB, 962x589px)

138KB, 962x589px

>>183488
1

>>184313
Yeah, most have fuckled it up in history, but many could say the same thing about Fascism.

Communism, if not put in place by some wackjob that thinks it will stretch to every nation, it could work out very well. Little communities of people that don't even assimilate into the nation's culture can't take over the market, the nation can put more money towards protecting itself and building culture rather than sucking off the rich, and a better sense of unity can be achieved if everyone is relatively equal.

File: IMG_1227.png (232KB, 962x498px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 962x498px

>>183488
2

File: IMG_1228.png (382KB, 962x583px)

382KB, 962x583px

>>183488
3

>>184292
>>184412
>>184425
Hm, I am willing to listen, though I doubt my views will change. I took biology classes for years, and I just think it doesn't work out in the end. But feel free to make arguments, and biological arguments will work better on me, by the way.

File: IMG_1229.png (127KB, 962x582px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 962x582px

>>183488
4

File: IMG_1230.png (968KB, 962x2073px)

968KB, 962x2073px

>>183488
5

File: IMG_1231.png (82KB, 1047x622px)

82KB, 1047x622px

>>183488
6

File: IMG_1232.png (177KB, 1056x875px)

177KB, 1056x875px

>>183488
7

File: IMG_1233.png (193KB, 696x609px)

193KB, 696x609px

>>183488
8

>>184152
Capitalism isn't failing at all. It just means that you fail. Capitalism is about personal responsibility and not being a cuck.

>>184431
Communism is always a NO. It's only for people who can't think for themselves.

File: IMG_1369.jpg (3MB, 1122x4320px)

3MB, 1122x4320px

>>183488
Most importantly here is a debunking of the pathetic attempts of the liberals trying to debunk these studies

>>183488
Why do I feel the need to fuck the shit out of this pone?

>>183488

Teens love communism because they don't own anything, so they like to believe in an ideology that would give them the same economic equality as everyone else.

Adults tend to be either economic centrists or right-wing, because they realize that communists have no perfunctory understanding of economics, personal freedom, individualism, and especially not meritocracy. Go watch The Cutie Map again and then come back.

As for National Socialism, you are talking about a nationalist, but left-wing collectivist society including a planned far-left economy. Do not let your university professor tell you otherwise. Fascism is not overly worth your time, either. Look into constitutional meritocracy if you like freedom and ponies.

File: IMG_1210.png (226KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 500x500px

>>183488
Important fact established by renowned anthropologist Carleton S Coon , A book that almost everyone in the field reads and realize that the vast majority of it is the truth, in fact in advances in generic evaluation and Anthropometry only prove his case. And his work is still what we used to characterize the various races with in humanity

File: 405f4d6054905.jpg (34KB, 562x504px)

34KB, 562x504px

>>184513
Capitalism works well for the few, not the many of a nation. A person should not be strong, their nation and culture should be. Do you really want, for example, families of Jews controlling the entire economy? This is exactly what happened in the Weimar republic.

>>184534
"Muh Individual rights"

Faggot detected

>>184551
Because Veronika's ass is the people's ass, and all workers desire to rut it.

File: IMG_1211.jpg (32KB, 225x225px)

32KB, 225x225px

>>183488
Same thing

File: IMG_1208.jpg (78KB, 507x501px)

78KB, 507x501px

>>183488
More

File: IMG_1064.png (203KB, 1693x1108px)

203KB, 1693x1108px

>>183488
There is so much more, but I digress. I'll finish with this

>>184513
What we have in the West isn't capitalism either though.. Like, the U.S. can check off I think every single one of Marx' planks...

>>184604
People with no marketable abilities will always take "according to my needs."
I'd rather take "according to my desires," even if i have to put in that hustle to get there.

File: 1491078301415.png (290KB, 720x659px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 720x659px

Human intelligence up to 75% inheritible
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html


Human intelligence is highly heritable.
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html


Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305


Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html


Privately, intelligence experts hold more hereditarian views than they express in public.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994egalitarianfiction.pdf


Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001


The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741


The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf


The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html


Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636


Intelligence has at least a40-50% genetic basis.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809


IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf


IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

File: IMG_1072.jpg (156KB, 940x690px)

156KB, 940x690px

>>183488
OK one more, Detroit used to be the centre of America. And yes there were other contributing factors but the reason for the state it is in today is that the whites left and the blacks arrived.

Chicago is heading in the same direction, the only difference is the black crime and degenerates are playing an even bigger role than they did in Detroit. The state of Chicago is almost entirely their fault. And it is not getting better, in fact in early 2016 it was mostly isolated to southern Chicago but it is spreading very quickly

>>184604
Right, right.

That's the thing though, my beliefs are sorta a soup of science and efficiency. I dislike Democracy because it slows down a nation, yet I see no problem with egalitarianism for gays, women, etc. because (as of now) now science 100% proves them inferior. Also me being a bisexual faggot might have somthing to do with it

I will look into those ideologies though, even though I still like many elements of fascism.

>>184434
>>184445
>>184459
>>184472
>>184484
>>184496
>>184508
>>184537
>>184613
>>184629
>>184649
>>184669
I will take time to read these. Better have a lot of biology, or I'm not gonna be convinced at all.

>>184412
thanks i needed refreshed on this stuff

>>184736
*No science

>>183488
Y'know, Hitler once said he is a communist at heart in an ideal sense. I think it was the best speech I saw on /gif/ once. It just cannot work with large populations.

>>184674

So would anyone else with natural capability, or else marketable abilities as you have said. "Needs" are entirely self-defined anyway, so what you and I tend to think of as desires (ie: an iPhone,) a communist might see as a "need" in that "everyone *needs* to have one" in their own opinion.

This dysfunctional mis-association of material goods with needs comes naturally as a result of the immaturity associated with youth, hence why so many SJWs are upper class.

>>184736
>Better have a lot of biology,
If it has .01% and you have nothing scientific to refute it with, is it not the prevailing theory? I'm confused, you claim to hold science in a high regard, but seem to have an ideological threshold that needs to be met.

You should become a NS my man.

Marxist (Left) socialism and National (Right) Socialism are "antipodal zeitgeists engaged in dialectic". That's a fancy way to say they're opposite ideologies designed to clash, like Yin and Yang.

NatSoc was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while Marxist socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on racial identity. Socialism, in contrast, was a class war between workers, bosses, and owners (Capitalists), aiming to build a workers state in which race and gender were insignificant. Socialists, especially Marxist socialists, were anti-religious atheists, whereas NatSoc went so far as to make Christianity the religion of the state.

The differences go on and on: Marxist socialism was internationalist, NatSoc was nationalist. Marxist socialism was egalitarian, whereas NatSoc believed that nature was unequal and required competition. Marxist socialism wanted to nationalize all private industry, while NatSoc privatized every major industry except the railroads (it considered these a military asset. In fact, Hitler once joked "they didn't need to nationalize property because they nationalized people". NatSoc drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class-focused socialism as a non-German ideology.

>>184748
NatSoc redefined socialism as "Germanism/Volkism", which they saw as "producer-oriented capitalism", as opposed to "Jewish capitalism", aka, international finance, globalism, wall street, etc. In theory, NatSoc economics was a version of Keynesianism, tailored to the Völkisch nature of whichever people adopted it. Its not one dogmatic economic system,and Hitler often joked that the lack of a specific ideology was their strength. NatSoc could be more "free market" as Americans know it, or less. But NatSoc is always in favor of the Volk over economic identity, of "producer capitalism" over "finance capitalism".

Hitler tried to clarify the distinction in 1938:
“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency.
Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. ((((Marxism))) is anti-property; true socialism is not. ((((Marxism))) places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”

>>183488
Consider for a second - all economic systems seek to allocate resources. The best economies move resources efficiently.

A top down approach to economics results in massive beurocracies that produce no goods, nor do they actually move the resources based on need. They study, model, plan, and order the production of and delivery of those resources.

A capitalist approach to economics is organized by manufacturers/farmers/harvesters.

These groups sell in bulk to distributors. Distributors specialize in shipping and moving goods.

Wholesalers buy from distributors in bulk, and then sell products to retailers.

Retailers are specialized in selling to the public.

It seems like a lot of steps, but the beauty is that you can always bypass any step, and become the next level up in the hierarchy. The search for value drives consumers to find efficient ways to contact manufacturers, and the search for volume of sales drives manufacturers to find consumers.

Driving down prices increases volume of sales and vice versa. The fact that both sides benefit is the motivational factor.

Communism relies on the authority of the state and oversight to drive economies.

>>184431
"National Socialism / Fascism was a failed system"

It's intellectually dishonest to label something that was forcibly crushed a "failed system", implying that a nation bombed into collapse during war is comparable to a system imploding politically during peace-time. The Soviet system failed, as did the Roman Empire, and every Chinese or Ottoman dynasty. Some of these examples of government lasted thousands of years, while some didn't last more than a generation. All forms of government inevitably fail. This has been true since ancient times. Polybius famously articulated this process of Anacyclosis: social organization paradigms rise, fail, and give way to further systems. This is the cycle of history.

Fascism is not a failed system, it was a defeated system: A.) it was not an economic system, but a social one; B.) the so-called "failed system" had a control group: the US. Germany, Italy, and the US were operating under Keynesean policies; only one of them won the war, and experienced a massive period of growth once their industrial rivals were destroyed. So no, it wasn't a failed system, because both sides were using it, including the side that won.

https://mises.org/library/three-new-deals-why-nazis-and-fascists-loved-fdr

>>184758
>a communist might see as a "need"
That's the rub, innit? I assure you, communist party leaders seem to have more "needs" than the workers every time. Idealized communism cannot be realized while people have differing abilities, because people will exploit their abilities to get ahead in whatever system they are in. It is a natural survival instinct and seeking to repress that is tantamount to trying to suppress evolution.

File: IMG_0972.jpg (96KB, 640x427px)

96KB, 640x427px

>>184313
Any fucking decent human being with any stack of envision would rather have a system where they have a chance to succeed and grow, rather than live in a stagnant society where everyone is equal, and when people lay around doing nothing they still live with relatively the same quality of life and material value.

Lazy bum like the idea of communism, but constantly ignore it's continuous failures throughout history Karl Marx was the bomb wanted a system that would basically normalize even glorify his pathetic leech like lifestyle.

They're not just lazy bum, they're also selfish little punks. What kind of person rationalizes because I'm not rich, nobody should be rich. The answer: an egocentrical fool!

Within a capitalist society there is so much opportunity, it just requires tremendous work which can be very stressful but tough it up, it's not like we have to stormed the beaches of Normandy. Take the developer of WhatsApp, the guy that was basically on food stamps, believes in his product continues with it and almost instantly just one day doesn't just become rich but becomes one of the top 1000th richest people in the world. Hardwork can make you comfortable even wealthy, combined hard work with innovation and it can take you anywhere with capitalism

>>184792
Well, by that logic, I can I say that there is a teapot behind Saturn, and if you have no proof otherwise, I am correct. It just doesn't work like that. You need to have evidence that not proves the opposite of established theories.

>>184803
I see the appeal of National Socialism, yet the anti-gay, gender-role and race-centrist stances turn me off quite a bit. I'm no feminist, yet I still think that the extent that Right-Wingers think females are different that males is just incorrect.

>>184826
Yes, this is true. Capitalism locates resources better and works better in the short-run, yet in the long-run it gets corrupted and dominated. As I mentioned before, like in the Weimar Republic, small groups of people that aren't even part of the nation's culture or not even in the damn nation can dominate the economy. This is one of my largest problems with capitalism.

>>184838
You are right. I am just saying that when people say "Communism always fails lul" the same can basically be said of fascist nations.

>>184981
What fascist nations failed due to their policies and economy, not outside issues such as war though?

>>184736

If you like science and efficiency, you would LOVE meritocracy. It's basically the American Dream on steroids, with all people (irrespective of race, religion, sex, etc...) afforded an equal chance to climb in society... but with how high they are able to climb being something which is entirely determined by how talented they are, and how hard they work. Having a moral character that fits well into whatever profession you are aiming for also helps.

Welcome to the penultimate center-right science directorate, my friend!

If you need a pony-related example... regarding The Cutie Map episodes, the reason why the communist village fails is because its member-ponies are neither enabled nor encouraged to pursue what they are good at. Instead, they are arbitrarily forced into roles based on the village's needs, and their individual talents are suppressed for the sake of preserving the ponies' collective feelings, as well as the leader's power. Consequently, the Elements of Harmony (a meritocratic group) are able to succeed so consistently because their group consists of capable, hard-working experts that are all individually passionate about what they do, thereby creating an efficient mechanism for solving problems.

>>185030
Spain
Portugal
Argentina

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Fascism, I just dislike the argument from any side that says "it failed lul" as an argument that it could never, ever work.

When it comes to social issues, we aren't talking about economic models anymore. We are talking about culture.

It's a question of authority vs freedom.

The best model for a society is one with the maximum freedom, while maintaining minimal government - but you must endow that government with maximum authority. The idea being that a small government can only wield its authority in areas that don't infringe on the will of its citizens.

Take the small town sheriff of the past. He can enter any house and kill a man if he deems it necessary, but a wise sheriff would rather focus his energy on maintaining order. Trying to exert absolute authority is impossible, but effectively keeping peace is. This is why governments must be small, and the population able to counter that authority en mass if it's necessary.

All the problems with the US have to do with overreaching authority and a weak population that relies too much on the system -this isn't accidental.

We are raised to rely on the state.

>>185070

A few points of clarity in case I did not make them clear enough in this post: Gays (or bisexuals,) women, and blacks can still have a place in society, even if science has proven them 'inferior' in a sense, just as long as they are as skilled as anybody else. In an ideal mertiocracy, parasites do not get handouts. Milo Yiannopoulos, for instance, is a great public speaker, even if he is a raging faggot.

Furthermore, regarding capitalism, seeing as wealth and power ought to be the rewards for the most skilled in society, it is absolutely compatible with meritocracy.

Also: Stay away from "the Meritocracy Party." It is a thinly-veiled SJW communist collective that primarily advocates for wealth distribution upon death.

>>184748
>This thread
more discussion and less shilling that I've seen in /pol/ in months if not years.

>>184981
The issue you have with capitalism, is cronyism. When government invests too much authority in regulation, it creates a system that can be subverted and turned against free market ideals.

You need a state that can intervene absolutely, when necessary, but doesn't create beurocracies that contaminate the market. The real answer is to have the state hold large scale crimes accountable to the people who commit them.

The state should have the power of life and death, and administration of justice. Justice for product adulterers and financial criminals should involve death and dissolution. Not fines.

>>184838
>It's intellectually dishonest to label something that was forcibly crushed a "failed system"
If we're talking WWII, fascism was the aggressor. A system that picks fights and loses them disastrously is a failed system.

File: MAC02_EZRALEVANT02_210x313.jpg (45KB, 210x313px)

45KB, 210x313px

>>184313
>SUN News

You do realize that the owner is a Zionist?

>>185191
>parasites do not get handouts
>inheritance

Pick one.

>>185312
If a father gives his son money right before he dies then his son gets to keep it, but if he has a contract to give it to his son after his death then the son gets nothing?

>>185273
The history of WW2 is just the resolution of 18th and 19th century History.

Germany wasn't always Germany. Ever heard of Bismarck? There's a reason Hitler aggressively expanded West and then attacked Russia almost simultaneously. Look into the history of the royal families, and the ties between France and Russia. The French, American, and Bolshevik revolution are all tied up in this story.

You are oversimplying the story into something you may have read in 8th grade civics class

File: 1480126762610.gif (1MB, 800x667px)

1MB, 800x667px

>>183488

>>185387
The factitious nature of Germany was also a big reason why Bavaria was the wayward communist child.

File: Rare Pence1.jpg (65KB, 600x450px)

65KB, 600x450px

>>185312

>implying the child of a CEO will *necessarily* become a talentless parasite.
>implying that the CEO would not, by default, attempt to raise his child well and endow him with the necessary leadership skills to take over his company.

The problem with you "meritocracy" party proto-Marxists is that you assume the negative by default, therefore, you believe the state MUST redistribute all inheritance upon death. Firstly, these things do not even follow each other. Even if the former were the case, is it not a working man's liberty to provide his child with the essentials to live a decent, or perhaps even a slightly luxurious life? Secondly, in a functioning meritocracy, money would not buy political power-- talent would, so any inheritance of money would not pose a political problem to begin with. And thirdly, it is completely incorrect to assume the worst case scenario 100% of the time! That is not a proper justification to hand so much power over to the state, which exists to serve the people, rather than to kneecap their children and arbitrarily redistribute their well-deserved wealth to welfare queens and worthless social programs.

MARXISTS GET OUT!

File: ivanka-trump-maxim-magazine-may-2009-01.jpg (175KB, 980x1326px)

175KB, 980x1326px

Incidentally, I was just about to post this picture >>185913 with this post >>185949 but I hadn't refreshed quickly enough to see that you already had.

Here's an even better picture than my rare Pence: A woman that DESERVES every cent of her inheritance. Yet dumbasses like this >>185312 would say it should all go to people who deserve it even less.

Kindly fuck off.

if it were just you and your land, you'd need to work that land, so you get people to help you work it in exchange for you helping with them.
Money, is debt.
a band of three people can make 3 songs faster and more effectively then a band of two people making two songs. in theory they should both get done at the same time, but even though the band of three has one more song two make then the band of two, it gets done a bit faster because the more people there are, the more little bits of speed there are that pick up, making the product that much easier to produce, beyond the proportion of one to one.a threshold though where there gets to a point that the amount of people won't count as much.this is the maximum capacity of a business. At this point any expansion would be too much for the sole proprietor to properly attend to. in a capitalist society, such expansions would fall victim to their own incapacity,and smaller type businesses would be more effective to the consumer.BUT we live in a world where top down systems can stretch with technology, and power sacrifices to franchises and smaller sub-districts are given up in exchange to keep the name, and still have half the power from the top, to some,this is depressing: a system traditionally like this would split into smaller parts, but the massive center of these systems lingers enough to make someone dizzy. But one should not fear, as they pay as much taxes as individuals as the commoner, and their business the same. The only advantage they have is consumer trust. Without that, the entire thing fails. Take pepsi for example: notice how their diet is now aspartame free? Or how there are more certain natural selections and grocers these days? This was because the consumer had seen nuance in the product selection, and in order to stay in business, they had to adjust. It was just lethargically slowww because of the top down situation I mentioned earlier...
for more on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kusAX4Th4N8

>>183488

Honestly, if you actually do some homework into culture like I have when I studied Culutrual Psychology along with Psychologocial Research and Analysis you learn to realize (obviously) that culture cannot and will never co-exist on a truly "peaceful" level.

For example China is largely a "collectivist" society and their personality traits are much different than Americans. The American culture is an "Indicidualistic one", the majority of society here that is. A collectivist culture doesn't give a fuck about the individual needs or wants. China is a shit hole and this just goes to prove it's a horrible trait. This is why China pumps out so many beta faggots but since they feel a sense to conform to the will of the group they work hard or face shame. Americans couldn't give a shit about the group and focus of self gain, self satisfaction, and self image. We want to be employee of the month, center of the room, or if you're a fucking badass like Trump; POTUS. We work, push, and overcome for fear of looking weak. We are built on thinking our idea is better than the others; the American way.

This is why cultures need to stay the fuck away. America is a culture and the globalist a Jewish cunts are trying to tame the lion, tame the King. They are mixing race to weaken our resolve, make us work "together"... To put it simply they are trying to change the "personality" of America. But America is just one puzzle piece to the larger picture of globalists obtaining global submission.

We can't let America become weak and other countries need to figure their shit out.

File: CglK-XWWYAE_olW.jpg (47KB, 491x490px)

47KB, 491x490px

>>183590
Pretty much this.

Stresserism is the gateway from going hard left towards the right. Too lefty for me, but the modern kids have a good head on their shoulders. Strap on a brownshirt before the redpill kicks in and you go full fash.