Libertarian Fascism

m.youtube.com/watch?v=l2-jH1vFrW8

What does Sup Forums think of That Guy T and his libertarian-fascist alliance?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=k8M3LnXIgM8&t=99s
youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Every time I watch that guy t I become much less racist.

Every time I read something from a black/ethnic minority SJW or Marxist I become much more racist.

I would say that the ideology that guy t espouses is basically that of Hans Herman Hoppe; maybe with a bit of Troy Southgate's National Anarchism.

As a natsoc ethnic nationalist, I gotta say that I have watched his vids and I really like this guy. He has pretty well-rounded argments for a nigger. I think he is one of those non-whites I would spare in the race war.

Fun fact: I showed my redditor centre-left younger brother his rant on how he hates BLM and it took that single video to redpill him on BLM while previously he vaguely supported it.

There seem to be a lot of different kinds of ways to uphold the 14 words, ranging from Dugin's National Bolshevism to Hans Herman Hoppe's Monarcho-Libertarianism.

If you don't hate all blacks, would it not be wiser to aim for an ultra libertarian property based society with freedom of asscociation?

As Jared Taylor said, most people would rather live amongst people of the same ethnicity. People generally separate on their own when not interfered with.

Also, all socialism is doomed to fail in the long term.

I don't hate blacks, they fully have right to feel proud for their race and culture and I don't mind that, I personally often see blacks as individuals much more than as a collective, I just want races to be separate, and I don't see libertarianism offering solutions to this.

He's actually going to be on Radical Agenda soon.

This is how all the best ideas are formed. Starts out as a shitpost, then becomes serious since everyone keeps bringing it up.

BASED black man
black men arent niggers, niggers can be any race
I want this based black 'pede to breed with my white girlfriend

He deserves to fuck your girlfriend. His IQ is probably higher than yours to be honest you kangaroo fucker.

You need balance. I make sure to watch a Thomas Sowell-video once a day and shitpost in a nigger hate-thread once a week.

Hoppeanism is the future.

Good. At least one e-celeb finally figured out anarcho-fascism based on private property rights and freedom of association is the true patrician ideology.

This Based Black Pede needs to fuck my White girlfriend

Libertarian fascism is an oxymoron.

>Black man creates new perfect brand of fascism

This timeline is so fucked up.

>left wing retards trying to D&C

Not really, it just means property rights + voluntary hierarchy

yes sven, you need balance
one BBC a week and then shitpost about it on Sup Forums

>libertarian fascism
I swear nobody here or in the alt right media at large knows shit about politics and they're just white nationalists meme forcing with their dying breath.
What are we going to have next? Dirty Hippy and 1 Percenter alliance? Heaven and Hell alliance?

>Dirty Hippy and 1 Percenter alliance?
you mean neoliberalism?

Niggers can't into politics

Libertarians are the real fascists now?

He burns chalk.

That Guy T is top dindu, I agree with him on almost everything.

I wouldn't call that an alliance as much as I would call it one side abusing the manpower of the other.
Which is exactly what I would expect to see from "Libertarian Fascism", except I hope most libertarians aren't dumb enough to fall for that.

yeah it's a pretty ridiculous notion. It'd only work as long as there are commies to kill. Once it comes to actually establishing a society, they'd both be better seperate

I can't be assed to watch a 26 minute video, is he arguing in favor of a right wing libertarian/fascist alliance, or is he actually saying that it's a legitimate political ideology?

>muh dik
Also, that's a jew.

he is BASED and he needs to fuck all our women

The bong is being a cuck. No surprise here.

How can't you enforce a hierarchy? Seriously, that seems impossible, I can't figure out the communist mindset.

Why would he want to fuck Pakistani women?

You're missing out on them broteins Achmed.

I am afraid of him. His dick is probably triple the size of mine.

There are based blacks like any other race, problem is purely practical. For every Based Blackman there are 100 not fucking based black men.

What is the solution, allow him to stay in a hypothetical ethnostate. Obvs this would piss off purists but it is practical and just. Also his kids kids would be eventually white anyway.

It's all about practical numbers anyway. If we go rid of 90 percent of non-whites and kept the few based ones we would be fine

>I am not a fascist
>except that one time free market got outta hand

t.Hans Herman Hoppe

Granted it's more of a small scale thing, Orania comes to mind as an example, but it's not as retarded as you think.

top kek

No it isn't. Fascism by definition means that the state has autonomy over you which is the complete opposite of what libertarianism is. It can't be voluntary either, you do what the state tells you or they jail and/or kill you.

Do people actually read Hoppe? Why do they think he's some fascist? There is nothing inherently fascistic about segregation via private property. When Hoppe talks about throwing degenerates out of society it's in the context of private property owners exerting their property rights or using societal pressure to curb undesirable behavior. There is nothing "fascistic" about it, it's all done without coercion. This video is just fucking clickbait.

I'd say yes. Securing a future for white children doesn't mean lynching every brown person you see, it can be making sure demographics trends are on your side so that your children won't be dispossessed by minorities.

If it's voluntary it is by definition not fascistic.

libertarian fascism is literally retarded

good like trying to enforce all your fascist policies with a powerless govt without getting jew'd

lol "beating us"

they OWN capitalism since at least 1913

In a borderline an-cap society, property owners can have rules about hierarchy and who can come on their property.

Essentially, land owners and small towns can have their own mini-fascist states where no Jews, Germans, Homosexuals, Anglos or whatever are allowed.

It's basically Hoppe Libertarianism.

Of course, to maintain order and prevent the communes from spreading out and conquering others there would have to be some state. As Hoppe stated, democracy leads to welfare and big government and removes property rights. Therefore the state would have to be run by a king/national CEO who would protect liberty because it would be i his interest to do so.

>literally "Nice Guy National Socialism"

easily conquered by the first military organized empire which invades you

no loyalty to the collective means everyone runs for their life

even muzzies could conquer an AnCap society

I'm glad they're making an alliance. We'll never beat political correctness without uniting

ITT: fucking cucks who have no idea of collectivism and how many political ideologies can be manipulated to create one that's balanced.

That being said, anarcho-libertarian or facist-libertarian would not work in a modern society due to the simple fact that the state will get involved. Basically he's wanting the bourgeoisie back as means for the middle class to have a grip in an stale economy.

He's speaking out of his ass.

Hmmm this black man gets a B, for being so BASED.

> even muzzies could conquer an AnCap society
You mean a society where everybody has a stake and some skin in the game?

>easily conquered
The entire population has gun rights.

Also, the king/national CEO has a private army loyal to him and to protect liberty in his kingdom.

The king wouldn't use the private army to enforce tyranny else he risks being dethroned by the gun owning population as well as loosing vast amounts of wealth and profit; it is in the kings interest to protect the nation and to protect liberty.

Hoppe isn't a monarchist, he just points out that some monarchist societies have experienced more freedom than some democracies, and that democracy in general is shit.

Social conservatism does not mean fascism. You can maintain it through property rights and social order without coercion. It would only be considered "fascism" if someone were to make someone involuntarily conform.

I don't know where you got the king/ceo thing from, but if he actually had property rights to the land it still wouldn't be fascism.

>Essentially, land owners and small towns can have their own mini-fascist states where no Jews, Germans, Homosexuals, Anglos or whatever are allowed.

Well, that depends. Assuming you have a small town of a thousand people, each with their own property. A house we'll say. What happens if a hundred of those people don't believe in your mini-fascist state? You can't force them off their private property. The only way it could work is if the ENTIRE town was owned by a single individual or a small collective of individuals that enforce their ideology to everyone that lives there. You're whole ideology rests on a single, benevolent dictator which a HUGE bet to make. You either get your dream leader and everything is hunky dory or you get a shitty dictator that fucks everything up until you overthrow him for the next guy that you hope will be your perfect leader until he eventually disappoints and then you just keep violently overthrowing shitty dictators in a long, long cycle.

Ok, what do you do when the jews, through voluntary associatio, set up a multicultural covenant, where they promote and sell "degeneracy" which turns out to be a far more successful business model than your little amish-tier, white, puritan shithole?

Ayyyyy

an armed population is not an army

a modern state controlled military would shit on your 'kingdom' full of feuds

Well, I'll be damned.

You could say the same of any country that isn't the US or doesn't have lots of nukes.

There is always someone bigger than you, you just have to make sure the cost to benefit ratio is in your favor so they choose not to fuck you up.

and when they do choose to invade your ass

will your countrymen fight for you or the country?
or will they fight for money? mmh?

pay not good enough, people deserting.. thats ancap for you

What T needs is integralism (basically fascism without the all-powerfull state).

Just have more money and you won't have that problem

The US and USSR were able to team up against Hitler.

Hitler and Stalin were able to team up to fuck Poland.

Libertarians and Fascists will be able to tea up to end the left.

People defending their shit tend to fight harder than a bunch of conscripts with no stakes in society if that's what you mean.

If a larger country really wants to invade you, then you're fucked either way but why would they bother the cost, risks and effort just to claim some farmland unless you're sitting on a goldmine or something.

>Lazy eye
>Big droopy nose
>eye bags

I found (((one)))

Both.

He started from suggesting that libertarians and fascists have some big common objectives. He then proceded to think about how fascism and libertarianim can be bent to mix with each other. Which ends up being somehting pretty close to Integralism.

if farmland is the only thing which could interest your invaders I don't know how your ancap would evolve beyond feudalism

>Dr Thomas Sowell retires, he's getting old
>Hans Herman Hoppe is getting old too
>Who will replace them? The universities are full of awful commies.....
>THen That Guy T made this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=k8M3LnXIgM8&t=99s

>advocating for P H Y S I C A L R E M O V A L

Seriously though he's reaching Hoppe tier philosophical power level

>Hoppe isn't a monarchist
That's true. Sorry I should have qualified. I am basically a neo-reactionary. I believe that the dark enlightenment is the way forward and, Nick Land explains, a monarchy/National CEO is the only way to preserve property right and minimise the state.

i get your points about liberty and not wanting authority or economic regulation. Its different ways of seeing the world i guess.

Imho the only way your capitalism can work is if you outlaw interest on money, otherwise bank monopolism will form again and slowly buy all corps and the king itself.

Besides, without a state-sponsored moral code and laws your descentralized society will divide itself even further by the huge amount of differing morals/ideologies of the different population groups. It will degenerate.

It would take not many years for corps to start bringing cheap labour (shitskins) to your country, too.

this picture triggers me.

minorities can't be pro-america. just like in indonesia. minorities will always try to turn indonesia into something else they saw on TV and movies.

especially asian american. i hate those people. they never sounded natural or genuine, you can never see their true self, only their 'western persona', and they're not pro-america, they're pro-minority, just like all minorities. muslims in america are pro lgbt, just like how christians in indonesia are pro lgbt. minorities have this thing that i call 'minority solidarity'.

> integralism stresses trade unionism and localism while fascism defends a centralist state; the traditionalist and Catholic foundation of integralist ideas against the often secular and anti-clerical, and modernist philosophical basis of fascism. In addition, integralism lacks the imperialist, violent, and extreme social darwinist narratives of Fascism.
I like it

Action Française was proto-Integralist, before falling in the hads of Vichy and the Nazis.

>Ok, what do you do when the jews, through voluntary associatio, set up a multicultural covenant, where they promote and sell "degeneracy" which turns out to be a far more successful business model than your little amish-tier, white, puritan shithole?

Well frankly if it's a more successful business model then it's not really degenerate and deserves to succeed. But I do not believe it would succeed. Here's why.

Let's put it this way. In a truly fee market society businesses could try to promote obesity to sell fast food. This would work on SOME people but with most national subsidised healthcare they would all die off eventually. Hence, no more degenerate fast food.

If, for some reason, they promote homosexuality then the homosexuals will just spread diseases amongst themselves and not raise stable families. Hence, it can never succeed.


Degenerate things are only replicated because the state props them up. Patriarchal Traditionalism is the only way to survive in a totally NRx free market society.

fpwp

plebbit is that way --->

>outlaw interest
>PAY FOR MY HEALTHCARE
>LOAN ME MONEY FOR FREE
pants on head retarded.

>Imho the only way your capitalism can work is if you outlaw interest on money
How is this feasible? I was thinking of something like that after watching this video: youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0

Essentially the video describes that the reason we have recessions and depressions is because of credit/debt. GDP increases constantly regardless of credit/debt, there's just heights and dips along this line because of credit/debt.

Recessions/depressions cause people to turn to a big government welfare state, so removing credit/debt from the economy may be necessary to keep the government from getting too big.

There's nothing inherently fascist about rounding up all the Jews in a part of a country. After all, you clearly told them beforehand that it would be in their interest to leave the country, as their mere presence would be rendered illegal by unanimity of all non-Jews. The fact they didn't leave just means they are disgusting vile rats who are violating the rights of non-Jews. If they insist on doing, we must not refrain ourselves from resorting to self-defense.

the problem is when you print/lend money faster than the GDP grows, you get inflation.
The money you're printing isn't backed by true wealth, it is 'inflated'.

Besides they don't just lend money, they apply an interest on it. Thats because a private entity is doing it. And you are all about private in capitalism, so how do you prevent banks which literally live off interest without adding true wealth(production) from getting bigger and bigger?

Anarcho-monarchism when?

Sorting through information is creating wealth.

You're basically saying that Google adds 0 wealth to the world.

You don't and you have the smartest survive. Meanwhile the idiots form a poor underclass which works as the bipartisan voter base and tax cows that keep you in power, constantly rotating between the ideologies you tell them they can rotate between in hopes of a tomorrow that will never come until they realize that they need to step outside of the "relying on daddy government game" and make something out of themselves by themselves.

no problem. I've advocated for Libertarian Nationalist Techno-Fascism for years

Its not the same. Google is information.

A banker just lends $X and charges an interest on it. He ends with X+Y$.
Then he does it again, and again, until they own all $. They are leeches

Why would we keep him around? For your benefit or his? Other niggers wont listen to him, they'll call him an uncle tom. So is he the token black guy we keep around to not feel so racist? His doctrine is all fucked up, I think what hes looking for is libertarian nationalist. Like an old Federalist but with all the individual rights. Like every neighbor should lend a cup of sugar to their neighbor IF they ask but it is not expected.

Nah, the logical conclusion is Banks end up owning your ass, same as today's world

It beats New Left libertarians.

How is it leeching? They are lending you their money. It'd be leeching to demand zero interest loans.

Not all ethnic minorities like living among their own kind.

>someone hasn't watched the new Murdoch Murdoch video

If a bank currently owns your ass, YOU fucked up. Banks aren't hiding in bushes waiting to pounce on innocents. You have to walk in, set up an account and act irresponsible in order to be in a position to get bank raped.

Geeze, you sound like a cuck.

Taking loans is the easy way. Hey here's your loan, invest. He is profiting from your business by helping you start it. Your business, that guy's business, everyone's. If you base your economy on taking loans from some fat jew, he WILL end up owning the economy, there is no way around it.
Business create true wealth. They harvest resources, process them and make products. Physical, consumable products.
Banks create paper money, and have a monopoly on this. They charge interest on it. The more they create, the less value each money unit has.
Money + interest = inflation

>Be Ancap

I'm not a big fan of T and his bait tactics. I'm not sure it really helps anyone understand the underlying principles of libertarianism. This unholy Right Wing alliance that has developed in response to the left is another animal entirely. I think it is what is necessary at the moment, but at some point the Nazis will have to be purged before they become no better than the communists themselves.

T is awsome. He used to watch and call in to radical agenda before it got suspended from youtube live streaming. Even though it turned 1488. He actually has a lot of empathy for the "white natonalist".

The system is set up in a way that realistically starting a business without a big loan is impossible.
Who would be the money emitting entity in your non to little goverment society?
A private bank most probably. An economy based on this is doomed to failure.

Because whats to stop them committing usury? My ideal leader is Andrew "shank the bank" Jackson in a white nationalist federal republic that would be considered mega fascistic today. If we dont organize whenever the war drums beat then our little amish communities and fat white wives and 15 children are screwed

Well, Herr Drumpf did say we all have to pitch in and make America great again.

This means more sex with women of black aristocrats (rich niggers), who will have your babies because they more family oriented than the average wigger.