Can NatSoc and AnCaps coexist?

Can NatSoc and AnCaps coexist?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zhrYY3ocQ5o
youtube.com/watch?v=AyAFqUyNuss
ia902709.us.archive.org/12/items/TheForcedWar/HOGGANForcedWar.pdf
wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html
wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/deathinpoland/dp00.html
danzigfreestate.org/unknownhistory.htm
archive.is/MitYS
archive.is/JauWN
inconvenienthistory.com/5/2/3209
fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Waley_Cohen.html
worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/History/polandbetrayal.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

no

Yep. Just make the Fuhrer the owner of the AnCap's HOA.

Ancaps don't like us. We just think they're funny and dumb

we exist IRL, and ancaps don't, so, no.

If there were no shitskins or jews, Nazis would be ancaps.

Sure why not.
Let's build a space empire together. Travel the universe and find and exterminate all Commie aliens.

Thanks for telling what we think. I didnt remember

No, hippies are disgusting

Just helping out, hail victory

I used to be a national socialist. It was the understanding of the dangerous of authoritarianism and leviathan that broke my adoration of all forms of fascism. I still appreciate and respect fascism as a tool to use to remove degenerate elements of a society and to propel the population towards a more free position, however fascism fails in the same place that monarchies fail: lineage.
I believe a fascist society can work wonderfully for a generation. Every generation after that increases the risk of incompetent or corrupt leadership.
A fascist society is exactly what we need, with strong, legitimate authority and a focus on elevating ourselves to higher and higher standards of being. A fascist state, however, is a dire threat to the life and liberty of the people. A fascist state is dangerously prone to corruption. If it falls to corruption, it is poised to entirely subjugate the people.
Also planned economies never work for long, and they exist exactly as long as the state can perpetuate the fraud that it commits by trying to control prices.
I adore the fascist society and values, however the state apparatus is still one that must be destroyed. Fascist communities, yes, fascist nations, no

I don't see why we can't unite the right together to eliminate the leftist threat and then move on to establish our own societies.

After all, what do we want, some kind of global state? Of course not. Fascist communities could coexist alongside anarcho-capitalist communities, so long as both sides agree to basically respect the values of each other. Political universalism and imperialism shouldn't be the goal.

Yes. Anyone who says otherwise is a leftypol shareblue shill.

Fuck yeah it can.

...

Have you studied Hoppe?

He postulates that the best and most stable "libertarian" society would basically be majority or totally white (possibly East-Asian too), and have conservative cultural values. I think that's basically what many who waver between Snek and NatSoc are looking for - conservative white nationalism, but with a libertarian economy.

In a homogeneous country, yes

Right wing alliance or die

No. I would still be a socialist, economically.

...

And national socialists can have their welfare, so long as they organize it on a voluntary basis without taxation.

Much better

whatever is good for the white man that is fine by me.Is Molymeme still an Ancap

My friend Pinochet has a nice helicopter ride deal this time of year.

Why wouldn't they?
Only groups that advocate interference/destruction of other groups can not coexist. ie Marxists, Muslims, Jews...
Neither ideology does that

Who will win?
>A bunch of basement virgins
>The largest military on earth

My mate Reinhard has a nice summer camp deal this time of the year.

dunno why I used this meme flag

youtube.com/watch?v=zhrYY3ocQ5o

Yes. As long as NatSocs don't invade the free territory, we'll be on good terms, although they'll be poorer than us.

>Have you studied Hoppe?
pic related

there's more than just money and material gain mang. The biggest redpill I've had to swallow over the last year is that what's best for the economy isn't always what's best for the country and what's best for the country is always what's best for the economy.

Countries are more than just their economies. They're a people and a culture.

youtube.com/watch?v=AyAFqUyNuss

digits of truth

I'm willing to as long as ancaps are.

Yes, we can. Basically, the NatSocs will rule over a bunch of territory in their nation-states, whereas the Ancaps will own micro-states. As long as the NatSocs respect the independence of the Ancaps, let their citizens emigrate to Ancapistan, and maintain free trade with the ancaps, and as long as the Ancaps don't try to subvert the NatSoc society, then they can live alongside each other in relative peace.

We still wub u bb ;3 CUTE!

Ancaps are this diidiiuuduu completely harmless cute bunch. Kinda like Amish without community, birthrate and happiness.

But all commies and liberal will get the fucking bullet some day for what they have done I swear on mi mum m8

I agree.

wow. my thoughts exactly. Natsoc is the cleansing mechanism you need in order to establish ancap.
ancap is impossible in a "culturally enriched" society. groups will be vying for preferential treatment and forming their own groups and corporations based on race/ethnicity, always seeking favours from the state, never wanting to abolish it.
in other words, if you want to get ancap, you must first have natsoc to rid yourself of internal groups with their own preference.

We all know what would happen if we were to establish ancap tomorrow with (((them))) still running around with their superiority complex and in-group discrimination.

If the natsocs don't violate the NAP and fairly purchase property and power then I don't see why not

What do you define as "best for the country"? I would take that to mean "best for the citizen", and in that sense a good economy is the goal. A good economy lets a private citizen achieve more of his goals than a bad economy does. I maintain a country with higher spending power is always better than a country with lower spending power, all things being equal.

If you mean "best for the ethnic group", then I think Hoppean ancapism gets the balance of individual vs group interests right. Kinship bonds of all types are weakened by the existence of the state. This is one of the biggest redpills I've swallowed.

yeah, if they don't become anti globalization and anticapitalists they're welcome aboard.
>what NatSoc means by the way?

If there were no more Jewish problem, Natsoc society would naturally come to resemble something perhaps pseudo-libertarian. Perhaps some kind of Republic with certain libertarian principles enshrined. It would never be truly ancap, since ancaps might permit investment banking and usury, but they can have their wasteland pirate utopia to do as they please in as long as commies and kike subversives are dealt with.

...

>Maybe with a small state
No need if you simply use your right to collective voluntary association to establish homogeneous societies based on private property ethics.

This is screencap worthy, perfect summary. I'll go one further and say in European nations the conservative nationalism would be embodied by a traditional monarchy.

Your non aggression bollocks means you will always get raped by Nazis.

>socialism

...

>AnCaps
stop this meme, there is neither Anarcho-Communism, nor Anarcho-Capitalism
If you say NO LAW OR ORDER ᵃᶰᵈ ᵐᵒᶰᵉʸ ʳᵘᶫᵉˢ ᵗʰᵉ ʷᵒʳᶫᵈ or ᵃᶰᵈ ᵉᵛᵉʳʸᵒᶰᵉ ˢʰᵒᵘᶫᵈ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵃᵐᵉ ᵃᵐᵒᵘᶰᵗ ᵒᶠ ᵖʳᵒᵖᵉʳᵗʸ then it's not anarcho anymore because you just added a law.

...

A fundamental point of disagreement between anarchists (of all types) and statists is that there can be no rights without the threat of power to enforce those rights. If human beings were capable of denying their own self-interest to preserve a social order, we would have evolved beyond government long ago. Unless you engineer a new race of super-beings with higher IQ and innate self-discipline, your stateless utopias will never exist except in autistic imaginations. Sounds harsh, but its true.

Shut up commie

Why do they look like betas?

What we're saying is that the entities of protection will be decentralized and pluralistic, not central monopolies like the state now.

Your local anarcho-capitalist commune would simply be a society in which everyone signs a contract to obey a certain way (which is compatible with national socialism social values).

Honestly, as far as anarcho-capitalism is concerned, I think it's closer to an ideal than a reality. All I really want is the right of universal secession so that people can form their own communities according to their own values.

If secession is a universal right, then we can use voluntary segregation to establish the societies we all want to live in, and nobody has to interact with anyone they don't want to.

Whatever you do on your property mate, is fantastic in my book.

>mfw no meme flags on Mimi

Yes but they shouldn't try to assume they are the same. An AnCap nation would have no issue with a NatSoc nation and vice versa but they aren't the same. I think every AnCap would prefer NatSoc to what we have now and vice versa, but they would eventually both be independent but most likely allies. AnCaps aren't looking to dominant the world, they just want a homeland, and this is precisely what NatSoc's want. We all just want a homeland and that's something that all other ideologies are trying to deny us.

cummunism is the complete opposite of the point I just made.

>Roads, Ethnostate, Individual rights.
love it.

Pretty much this. Get me a white ethnostate, and ban usury, and we can go pretty far from there.
Social degeneracy would be dealt with largely by the removal of kikes and leftists.

Ancap is too far for me, though. I'd prefer an agrarian, decentralized state, but with certain exceptions. As in, using the smallest possible government to solve each problem.
So core things like white identity (immigration, too), defense, anti-communism/cultural marxism, and the environment would be nationalized, while pretty much everything else could be local.

Alternatively, we could have loose federation between NatSoc and the sneks, where the sneks would occupy and run the heartland as efficiently as they want, but the state would also have NatSoc border marches, that would be militarized and more capable of dealing with potential intruders. They would each get their own governments, and would be poised for mutual aid. The lolbertarians could send volunteers and supplies in the case of emergencies, while the NatSoc state would preserve the white character of the whole area.

Of course, I realize what ancaps are idealizing; I used to be one. What I'm saying is that the NAP is flawed from a game theoretical perspective: self-imposed laws are still laws, and the moment a rational self-interested actor perceives himself able to exploit his "society" of atomized individuals by "cheating" the rules of the social order, he will. The first ancap to be able to afford to raise an army capable of conquering and taking the wealth of every other ancap, will do so -- thus, ancap society is simply a timer, one counting the days until one ancap can afford to overwhelm and enslave the others. Democracy is similarly flawed: its simply a timer counting the days until each of its rules are broken and oligarchs have consumed every bit of wealth and freedom in their endless competition. Human nature always leads to entropy; unless eugenics creates better humans at some point...

This also. We need to avoid D & C kikes that would deny us both what we need.
Ancaps, I imagine, see a white ethnostate as a practical means of achieving their ideal, while NatSocs see it as an end in itself to preserve the Volk. We cannot afford to split before the enemy is defeated.

I don't agree with the ancap position solely because it would lead to statehood eventually. I agree with the position that the government should stay out of muh economy though but take action against invaders and commies.

Of the two major political parties in the us were a nationalist and libertarian party things would be amazing

Wow this was way more civil than I thought it was going to be. But I agree with pretty much everyone else. Yes, we are all allies against the left and we should act like it.

You don't understand what an ancap is do you?

natsocs and ancaps are bros

We roll together short term and then don't fuck each other's shit up long term? Sold.

AnCaps dont understand what AnCap is

rare

That's because (apart from some dumbshits in both camps) Natsocs and Ancaps tend to be pretty chill people overall. I'd go so far as to say both camps have a basic motto of "Don't fuck with us and we won't fuck with you." When you have two sides who just want to be left alone and live in relative peace, it's not going to be a bloodbath.

Please explain how a capitalist and a hippie are similar.

And the split would have to be peaceful. Most serious AnCaps want to do something similiar to what the Boers did in South Africa. Head to a foreign untamed land and tame it to create our own nation. However if we tried that now we would be bombed into oblivion before we got off the ground. If NatSoc's have their own country let it be. AnCaps just want a chance to start something new without being murdered by the massive power of the current state aparatus. If a group of AnCaps left a NatSoc nation they could use the NatSoc nation as a trading partner and have a military alliance so that they would not have to worry about outside interference. Obviously if the AnCap nation couldn't defend itself it would fail and the NatSoc nation shouldn't defend the AnCap nation to the point that it harms the NatSoc nation, but the two can work out favorable terms in their own interests. Basically the AnCap nation would probably start out as a corporation like the first American colonies and the NatSoc nation would be a stakeholder. This stake could later be bought out as the AnCap nation progresses or the NatSoc nation could always keep its stake, it would depend on the circumstances.

You literally cannot have one without the other. It's either a full government, or no government.

>but muh minarchism
That'll last until something comes up and the majority agrees. Look how that worked for the US.

When you introduce a government, you're introducing a central source of power. When that happens, it swiftly becomes a game of "who can exploit the system fastest (t. Game theory)", then you get lobbyists, you get legislature that allows the government more power, then later down the line it get the Patriot Act, but you don't care because you're already this far down, why not give up your rights in the name of security?

This is my problem with most other political ideologies. You argue over the short game, when your own arguments fall in tatters when time is factored in.

Communism works, in the scale of a household (patriarch/matriarch, dependents (spouse), and children)
Fascism works, in a collapsed post-state, until it is reinvigorated. Then see above.

Ancapism is the only ideology that can sustain itself, because if somebody steps out of line, you get shot or prosecuted by the people who have been wronged, whomever that may be. Could be at a societal level, could be individual.

Non aggression just means don't start shit, once shit is started you have the full right to destroy the aggressors. After all did Nazis striking the first blow save them in WW2?

No. (((Ancap))) is a work of a Jew.

HELL. YES.

What if money didn't rule the world? What if fish ruled the world? What about the fact that anarchy literally means "no rulers"?

So true, Kraft.

ONly until The West actually Completes The Current Right Wing Revolution.
After that they will attempt to do what the big companies in 30s Germany tried to do at the start of Hitler's Reign.
Then they'll need to be whipped into shape.
This is coming from The "most libertarian country in the world" btw so heed my advice

Do you ever imagine that Ancap society would become something like Switzerland or the US down the road? I mean, what would Ancaps do in the long run except become bankers? Ancaps would just become bankers to the Natsocs and launder our gold...

That's why the two should eventually split. Both disagree over the long-term. But the alliance in the short term is necessary because if there is no alliance then everything will be destroyed. They are both similar enough to ally in the short term, then once the short term goals are achieved they should split. As an AnCap myself I would assume the split would begin by having the AnCap nation be a colony of the NatSoc nation until they were capable of complete independence. But to ally in the short term helps both causes so it should occur. If you will only settle for perfection you'll never get it. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will a NatSoc or AnCap nation.

>AnCaps dont understand what AnCap is

Why are you asking me to explain the point i did not make?
But now that you did; Both want freedom of individuals, and are oblivious to a question how to actualy achieve such freedom.
No providers, but they both want something provided.

Don't start the namecalling. You have to understand in which direction you want to move and who your best ally would be to get there.

As an Ancap, I am completely fine with joining hands with the neonazis for a mutually beneficial allience.

Yes. The decentralized (no jew banks), naturally segregated (no jews, dindus, or rapefugees if you don't want them), and anti-communist (jews started the German civil war in 1918 and ran the Bolshevik party, not to mention are behind most sjw pay for niggers bullshit) are totally jewish. How are jews going to control the market without courts to enforce their patents or require people use their fiat currencies?

I do, and my girlfriend does too. I'm also very open about my dislike of left-wing economics to everyone around me and 90% of my peers agree.

Neonazis are just the skinhead degenerates, but yeah.

Ancaps would likely become small and middling sized business owners. Yes, some might become bankers, but charging insane interest rates and the like is tough when literally anyone can start their own competition.

We'll agree to help them gas the Jews and they help us to throw commies from helicopters.

I have no doubt in my mind that the two can coexist (see ), and in fact wholly encourage it. Let's face it, you could have rationality, or pic related.

I don't like to generalize, but this is pretty much the modern left. Extreme tolerance, radical acceptance, Left Wing Love Squads, just don't offend anybody. It's sad.

Really brings to mind the phrase "Hard times make strong men"

Yep, fascism state temporarily to get rid of degenerates and kikes, then a natsoc state for long term. However, we'd have little communities/territories of Ancapistan, where people can move to if they please. Somewhat like the reservations in modern day america, but different obv.

I think he's aiming at marxist constructs like feminism. While it's good for the economy putting women in work and giving them the vote has torn up the family, female happiness and birth-rates across the western world.
Actually the plummeting birth rate is probably gonna make it a overall bad thing for western economies in a few years.
Doesn't matter if both men and women work if they don't make children.

Not to say you're wrong on your second point. This marxist subversion has taken place through help the state and state run media and tax funded organizations.

Explain it to me please, would ya?
What is difference between commie and natsoc?

So you don't understand the difference. Neato. Hippies expect the world to just give them shit. Capitalists want to be allowed to generate as much wealth and acquire as much shit as their hearts desire via work. Did you originally mistake ancap for ancom and now you're backpedaling? Because you haven't given one legitimate answer.
Short answer:
Hippies: "Give me free shit or let me take it for free!"
Capitalists: Fuck off so I can go make some money. No I won't just give you shit. Earn it."

>Nazis striking the first blow
Britain and France declared war on Germany, and Poland began killing ethnic Germans inside it's borders. Hitler made the first, and the most peace offers of anyone before or during the war, even when he was winning and didn't have to offer his enemies peace. Even when he was stronger and didn't have to offer them peace. You should really bother to study the war at some point, instead of being bluepilled normie-tier in your knowledge of it. Not one meme-nation created from the former Austro-Hungarian empire kept the treaty of St. Germain: they persecuted their Germany minorities, and wouldn't let them escape to the Reich. By the time Hitler entered Poland, there were 80,000 Volksdeutsch living in refugee camps in Danzig and along the German border, and 60,000 more were killed by Polish troops, police, and angry mobs in the 2 weeks before a single German soldier set foot in Poland. Hitler heard about this and ordered the invasion -- after repeatedly offering the Polish an alliance.

卐 - HISTORY - WHAT CAUSED THE WAR, WHAT FOLLOWED AFTER?
-------------------------------------------------------
>The Forced War
ia902709.us.archive.org/12/items/TheForcedWar/HOGGANForcedWar.pdf
>Stalin's plans to invade Europe, proving Hitler's invasion of Russia was preemptive:
wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html
>Polish massacres of ethnic Germans
wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/deathinpoland/dp00.html
danzigfreestate.org/unknownhistory.htm
archive.is/MitYS
archive.is/JauWN
>The Jewish lobby, (((Stephen Wise))), (((Morgenthau))), and FDR
inconvenienthistory.com/5/2/3209
>The Jewish lobby, (((Bernard Baruch))) and Churchill's 'The Focus'
fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Waley_Cohen.html
>Britain's promises to Poland
worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/History/polandbetrayal.htm

This is how Communism starts. You people blatantly just don't understand opportunity costs.

I can see it becoming like Switzerland in that regard, but I'm not sure how the analogy works for the U.S. But yes the idea would be that an AnCap nation would stay out of the affairs of others, but always do business with them like Switzerland during the world wars. Obviously if the two started out in alliance the AnCap would give preference to the NatSoc nations, but that is all dependent on the circumstances of the world. AnCaps are all about self-determination so we would violently oppose anyone who tried to oppose our self-determination but other than that we would be neutral in conflicts between nations so long as the conflicts didn't directly concern ourselves. As I stated before the AnCap nation may begin as a colony of a NatSoc nation so that would give us a direct interest in the affairs of the NatSoc nation, but it is all dependent upon the scenario. I don't know if that answered your question as it was sort of vague, but I hope that helps.

I could see it more as Natsoc starts in easy land areas and over time Ancaps buy the tough land areas. Example:
Natsoc: "Fuck Siberia. This place blows and we'll never make enough money to make it worth it."
Ancap: "Shit, I'll buy it."

>Hippies: "Give me free shit or let me take it for free!"
>Capitalists: Fuck off so I can go make some money. No I won't just give you shit. Earn it."

You did not say nothing against my point, fuck.
In case of Hippies; who is going to make sure they get free shit?
In case of AnCaps; who is provide the "fuck off"?

I wrote they are both equally retarded. And that is their similarity.

This whole thread is people who are fundamentally agreeing with each other, yet try to find something, some small thing to keep the thread going. Most civil pol debate I ever saw. The right is coming together, it's beautiful.