What is the best ideology and why?

What is the best ideology and why?

libertarian/ancap in a 100% white world, natsoc otherwise.

>implying Weimerica isn't run by Commies
FTFY

...

baitism

this

fascism because you can kill commies

all girls and money to me

nothing to you

>this axis

>100% white world
can't you practice libertarianism just inside a 100% white country? Like libertarian economic and goverment policies,only exception is no non white immigrants

you cant because libertarianism is individualistic and therefore will always lead to open borders and accepting any kind of behavior as long as they accept yours

>will always lead to open borders and accepting any kind of behavior
shit ideology. next

Why is monarchism all the way on the left?

>an.-cap.
>capitalism
>implying "capitalism" exists
user....

holy shit this image is fucking retarded.

open borders and individualism are fine in a homogenous world

are you thick? were talking theoretical champ

Because this political spectrum is completely retarded. These usually are but this one is extra retarded

A variant of National Socialism adjusted to the culture of the people in question.
>why?
It focuses on the improvement of the people according to a standard, it focuses on fulfilling public needs before private greed, and it unifies the people of a nation around a purpose; making sure nobody in the nation is suffering.

"Our social welfare system is so much more than just charity. Because we do not say to the rich people: Please, give something to the poor. Instead we say: German people, help yourself! Everyone must help, whether you are rich or poor! Everyone must have the belief that there's always someone in a much worse situation than I am, and this person I want to help as a comrade." - Hitler
A 100% white world will not stop the poor from voting to take money from the rich, it will not end class conflict.

...

>he doesn't know that the idea of "capitalism" was invented by mr karl marx as a way to advance his pet idea of communism as a "solution"
...But I'm the thick one. :3

It doesn't exist yet. Every ideology is just memes from the 19th and 20th centuries. In the coming years we're going to make a new ideology from the ruins of the failed ones

ancap there is not government bud, theres not voting, its the end goal of the libertarian right, just like communism is the end goal of the authoritarian left and monarchy is the end goal of the authoritarian right

this is terrible fucking bait, your an idiot and probably a dumb tranny or woman

>homogenous world
this is impossible. we're talking theoretical but stay somewhat realistic,lets say white countries are 100% white. what ideology should they follow

This

Doesn't change my point that class conflict will exist in an ancap society.
Ancap doesn't make sense because capitalism will itself lead to a dominance hierarchy, and many will view this as unjust because they view capitalism as exploitation of workers.

Only somebody as feeble minded as a woman, like yourself, believes that "capitalism" is anything but a strawman used to advance the idea of communism as a solution, user.

>implying "capitalism" exists
It doesn't exist, user. See

If you don't want to use labels or names for ideas than there is no way to discuss an issue.
What would you prefer to call the current economic system?

ancap

you are, painfully obvious to all third parties reading this

there is no utopia, ancap simply reinstates natural selection, which is the most fair.

Why is "natural selection" fair? Seems like a naturalistic fallacy to me, just because something is does not mean it ought to be.

None of them. You take the parts that work and toss the parts that don't. Make your own system with your own symbols instead of latching onto history's failures.

Economics is a conspiracy theory.

Do you really believe there is any legitimacy to a concept based on so much dishonesty, user.? Any so-called economist who speculates as to why all white countries are rich countries while all dark-skinned countries are poor third-worlds will lose his job, therefore it's a field of deliberate pseudo-science as every "economist" must lie, and lie consciously and consciously in order to keep his job.

Libertarian. Small government is the only way to go. Lower taxes because the government is smaller and doesn’t cost as much, and they stay out your fucking business.

>he doesn't know that "capitalism" is an concept that mr karl marx came up with in order to advance a "solution" of his pet idea of communism
But, somehow, you think it's my perspective is wrong. Right?

survival of the fittest is objectively the most fair

you are wrong, embarrassingly so. Dont reply to my posts anymore

*consciously and constantly

Saying that "capitalism" exists, and that it wasn't invented as a concept by Marx in order to advance a "solution" of communism is flat-out incorrect, user.

Lol why is conservatism and fascism on the same plane? They are not even close.

Conservatism is closer to Libertarian (which you decided to leave out.) Conservatism is smaller and less government control of personal property and limited jurisdiction on those things. LESS GOVERNMENT. Fascism is definitely Not that.

;tldr

Suicide, it's the best for you.

The mix of Communism and Facism known as Autism.

>Economics is a conspiracy theory.
???
>Do you really believe there is any legitimacy to a concept based on so much dishonesty, user.?
Having studies some economics, yeah, I think some of the rational ideas underlying economic theory have some truth in them. A good liar mixes lies with the truth.
>Any so-called economist who speculates as to why all white countries are rich countries while all dark-skinned countries are poor third-worlds will lose his job, therefore it's a field of deliberate pseudo-science as every "economist" must lie, and lie consciously and consciously in order to keep his job.
Primarily because such a viewpoint conflicts with their moraity; If everyone believed that blacks were inferior it would lead to a world they do not want.
I do not deny that economists are slaves to their ideology, but that doesn't mean all of economics is trash.
>survival of the fittest is objectively the most fair
Why not survival of the noblest instead of the fittest? The fittest are never the noblest, as avoiding death by accepting slavery is the essence of fitness. Survival of the fittest encourages self-serving, cowardly behavior rather than compassion, empathy, asceticism, etc.

Gets opened up to
walking pigs. Regardless of the system, checks and balances are needed outside of families in close contact.

>Why not survival of the noblest instead of the fittest?
who defines noblest?

>The fittest are never the noblest, as avoiding death by accepting slavery is the essence of fitness.
for some that will be a valid mating strategy in ancap, but they wont be the most successful by becoming slaves

> Survival of the fittest encourages self-serving,
as it should

> cowardly behavior
for the dregs maybe, but not for the fittest. Harems are natural and good, betas should not be able to breed, the world would be a much better place if alphas get to breed 30 women while the virgin betas get to provide for them in exchange for not being killed.

> rather than compassion, empathy, asceticism, etc.
useless side quests that weak men pursue

>that pic
Is this peak boomer liberalism?

literally my dream ideology right there
white ethnostate with the population being afforded tons of freedoms while the government exists to stop threats of national security, like nonwhites entering the country.

anything that isn't a police state from the start or doesn't eventually lead into a police state

>noblest
define it according to objective metamoral values that can be applied by any individual; My proposal is on the basis of the refusal to tolerate slavery or enslavement of oneself or others or of being a slavemaster.
>for some that will be a valid mating strategy in ancap, but they wont be the most successful by becoming slaves
Some would argue that not opposing capitalism in an ancap society is accepting slavery
>for the dregs maybe, but not for the fittest. Harems are natural and good, betas should not be able to breed, the world would be a much better place if alphas get to breed 30 women while the virgin betas get to provide for them in exchange for not being killed.
Survival of the fittest precludes sacrifice for others.
>the world would be a much better place if alphas get to breed 30 women while the virgin betas get to provide for them in exchange for not being killed
t. doesn't understand male psychology and wants to impose slavery on most of the population
>useless side quests that weak men pursue
Is the person who gives the weak one or the strong one? The subhuman confuses the two, thinking that a person who takes from someone else is "strong" while the person who gives is "weak," when he doesn't realize that the person who gives is not dependent on the one who takes, while the one who takes is dependent on the one who gives.
The major value that would be promoted is the refusal to accept slavery of oneself or others. Is that a "weak" quality?

Good question. I don't even know anymore.

At this point, it seems like everything is falling apart.

>objective metamoral values
those are subjective

>slavery
i support slavery, as did millions of men in the past

>Survival of the fittest precludes sacrifice for others
as it should, if you choose to give up something to help someone else a third party shouldnt reward you for it

>t. doesn't understand male psychology and wants to impose slavery on most of the population
that is male psychology, historically there was as much as 56 women breeding for everyone one man that got to. 40% of men in the last century did not breed, its normal and natural for betas to not pass on their genes

>thinking that a person who takes from someone else is "strong" while the person who gives is "weak
objectively true

>Is the person who gives the weak one or the strong one?
makes no sense, rephrase

>while the one who takes is dependent on the one who gives.
take =/= give, he lost it by being weak and that doesnt mean he could afford to lose it

>Is that a "weak" quality?
yes, forming an entire society based on not making slaves is silly and unnatural. Blacks law dictionary (of united states law and therefore western law) defines "citizen" as "economic slave" in the united states you are a slave to the government legally speaking. There is no society with slaves, hierarchies always form where the strong control the weak, its not possible for things to be any different.

>those are subjective
Morality is subjective, metamorality is objective.
>i support slavery, as did millions of men in the past
And I oppose you, as did millions of men in the past
>as it should...
And someone who has as their highest aim survival of the self will commit immeasurable cruelties if it ensures their survival. People such as you live because of the sacrifices of others.
>that is male psychology, historically there was as much as 56 women breeding for everyone one man that got to. 40% of men in the last century did not breed, its normal and natural for betas to not pass on their genes
And many men will not accept it, and 1 beta guy with a gun can overcome any alpha, we don't live in caves with rocks and sticks any more.
>objectively true
You are revealing your subhumanity
>makes no sense, rephrase
Read orgyofthewill.net
I disagree somewhat with it, as he also proclaims slavery as acceptable (my claim would be that a slavemaster is himself a slave to his compulsion to enslave others, someone who frees slaves is not a slave to their compulsions because their compulsion ends once slaves are freed), but at least he understands who is the master and who is the slave, who is the strong, and who is the weak in a give/take relationship. Read at least 49 and 50, though more will be necessary to fully understand his perspective.
>take =/= give, he lost it by being weak and that doesnt mean he could afford to lose it
Read the above
>yes, forming an entire society based on not making slaves is silly
How so?
>and unnatural
of course, I understand that nature is brutish, disgusting, vicious, and self-serving. That does not mean that I want to be like nature.
>There is no society with slaves
Does not mean it is not an ideal worth striving for, hmm?
>hierarchies
And the strong should also be the noble.
>its not possible for things to be any different.
you have limited yourself, you are a well-trained slave

Don't be sad! Remember three words, comrade: (The) Guard goes forward... via the Communist Party