Forget the political compass this is where it’s at

Yea, man, but think about it: you are sitting in one of these 3 corners.
Other people are in other corners.
Behold: the others who "face" you, you see them as enemies.

For example, i am an individualist.
So, before, i tougth thaty both fascists and commies were the same, and bad.

Nowdays, im nore mixed between individualism and Autoritarianism, so the "persons" that im facing are the commies, so i hate them.

Not the libertarian part, but the left part.
And, if you really think about it, the bottom left quadrant, doesn't exists.
They are the same.
They both believe to end competition.
You cannot prove this wrong.

link faggot

Darwinism is a left-wing ideology. It's neither opposed to nor contradictory with communism. Why do you think communists invariably murder millions of their own citizens? Unfit to reproduce in the worker's paradise.

Paleoconservative is the best.

natural selection supports nationalism. suck a dick rabbi

>the natural order is left wing

Attached: 1474232952265.jpg (763x757, 74K)

yeah pepe hitler, he is retarded

Uncle Adolf would be pretty sad to see how many Neo-Nazis think they're right wing. You say you care about the volk, but you are only willing to fight for the volk. You have to build up the volk, care for the volk, and help the volk thrive if you want to call yourself a National Socialist.

>Darwinism
>Left-wing
Yeah, I'm going to go with no.
They reject biological differences between races and genders and are opposed to the survival of the fittest.

>doesn't differentiate economics from social policy
It's garbage, user.

You also have to look at the actual economic policies of the Third Reich. Then you have to go "Oh shit, this isn't Marxist at all."

>They reject biological differences between races
Heh, no they don't. Don't buy their propaganda.
>and genders
They redefined sex to mean gender and gender to mean gender identity. Politely test them on their beliefs and they still very much believe men and women are different. It's why so many of them hate white men, they think white men are born wrong and will be driven to extinction by natural selection.

>neo nazi
>not a degenerate
pick one

Does anyone think it was Marxist? The left is more than just Marxism and authoritarianism is more than just Marxism and nationalism is more than just Stalinism.

You think it was Marxist. You're over here telling us that we need aggressive welfare to be National Socialist, ignoring the actual economic policies of the Third Reich.

>Stalinism is nationalism
no, stalinism is monarchism. he was a monarch in the practical sense, kind of like kim jong un. they just call themselves by different names to justify their rule to the people

Nope. True spectrum:
> Satan with meme ideologies
or
> Jesus

this image is retarded. the compass is much more comprehensive as it has both the basics of economic policy (cooperative - competitive) and the basics of social policy (authoritarian - libertarian). literally any political position ever can be placed on this compass. the same cant be said about this triangle.

Attached: 1547501736582.jpg (600x699, 36K)

Darwinism should be called ethnostate or something else, it's confusing when you equate that word with things like totalitarianism or communism.

China has it correct.

Drop the silly dialectical thinking. Your half baked thesis is saying a thing is left wing is the same as saying it is Marxist. My antithesis is that the left wing, as half of a spectrum, is all the things contained in its set, not just its most extreme set. Uncle Adolf enjoyed debating rival thinkers. You just shove your dick in your ears to drown out the truth.
The practical sense of monarch being a sole ruler? Stalinism was nationalist communism, as opposed to Trotskyism, internationalism communism. I could recommend some books if you want to know more.

No. All you're doing is attributing Marxist policies to the Third Reich then saying "W-Well since the Nazis did it, that means it wasn't Marxist..." It's pure circular reasoning. Leave it to faggots thinking they're master debaters to make fallacious arguments in the same breath.

I would accept anything on this triangle as long as it goes along with white nationalism.

Where does monarchy and anprim go?

>All you're doing is attributing Marxist policies to the Third Reich
Where on the when now?

You've been saying that you have to enact welfare policies to "nurture the volk" in order to be a National Socialist. Total lie. You then say that, since Nazism totally advocates welfare, you can't call welfare Marxist. You don't know what you're talking about.

yes, in that sense. I would love any books you would recommend

The original definition of right-wing was hierarchy.
And Darwinism & nature is most definitely heirarchal.
I don't know how the fuck you can come to the other conclusion, that the left-wing ideologies of equality and welfare statism are Darwinist.

>monarchy
outdated political system no longer in use anywhere. it is as authoritarian as you can get on the social spectrum and the economic spectrum requires more detail to make a distinction. how would a modern-day monarchy function economically?
>anprim
no idea what this is, after an internet search i can tell that this is literally a joke

Attached: 1541754322805m.jpg (1024x1024, 67K)

>You've been saying that you have to enact welfare policies
I don't recall doing so, nor can I find anywhere that I wrote a potentially ambiguous sentence that could be read to say so.

However, for the record, there were in fact various forms of welfare in Nazi Germany.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_People's_Welfare
Just as an example.

>monarchism is not in use
no, it is, just usually not called monarchism right now because of the post ww2 humanist bullshit storm. For example, North Korea is a monarchy, so is Cuba. 'Communists' tend to go for monarchism because the revolution tends to favour the strong seizing power absolutely and solely

well in that case its far-left economically as the state has absolute control over the economy. so monarchism is as authoritarian and as left as you can get on the compass

>I don't know how the fuck you can come to the other conclusion, that the left-wing ideologies of equality and welfare statism are Darwinist.
I've read a lot of early 20th and late 19th Century Progressive and Communist literature. These are people who advocated for racial segregation, special schools for gifted children, abortion of minority pregnancies, sterilization of the feeble minded, and a permanent, unelected ruling class of the most intelligent. It's not really reading between the lines when the hierarchical goals are on the lines themselves.

The left has long been aware that their social welfare programs may degenerate mankind's intelligence. That's why they were uniformly eugenicists. They wanted to counteract the downsides of welfare. They saw welfare as lifting up those among the poor who, under better circumstances, would be the elite.

Seriously user, know your enemy.

Maybe you suffer from short-term memory loss. You alleged that Nazism has to be left wing because you have to "help the volk thrive" at . There was welfare in Nazi Germany, but it was absolutely not to the extent of leftist economics. Welfare was not for the purpose of wealth redistribution, nor was it carried out as a means of "correcting" the wealth of the rich. It was purely for the sake of maintaining the community and its people. Meanwhile, the Reich supported private business and implemented a low tax rate. Anybody calling National Socialism economically left doesn't have a clue what National Socialism really is.

so its political compass but better, because bottom left doesnt make any sense

It's true that "libertarian left" doesn't make any sense, but this political triangle is still trash. It doesn't hold economic policies and social policies separately, which drastically limits its accuracy.

>Seriously user, know your enemy.
Those people are long dead.

And I guess this argument highlights the limits of the 'left vs right' model.
The people you describe are probably best described nowadays as socially right wing but economically left wing

if youre saying bottom left on the compass doesnt make any sense then you dont understand what bottom left means

bottom left is social liberal - individual rights but higher taxes to account for a social safety net. literally what the nordic countries are

Not liberal. Libertarian. As in small government. So a high-taxation libertarian government. So literally nothing.

libertarian on the compass is not big L Libertarian. important distinction. libertarian on the compass simply means individual rights.

I always interpreted bottom left as like degenerate libertarianism.
So like trannies and antifa and homeless people and drug addicts and shit like that.
The freedom to whatever you want, and low tax so not that much social security.
Nordic countries are probably some where in the middle of the compass

> libertarian on the compass simply means individual rights
which is the opposite of authoritarian which means group rights. hopefully this will make you understand it better. libertarian the social policy and Libertarian the ideology are not the same thing

>You alleged..."help the volk thrive"
>Meanwhile, the Reich supported private business
I was specifically thinking of the economic recovery plans implemented by Hitler, done with close cooperation between the state and major corporations, state funded stimulus programs, and labor law reforms. If you want to call that Marxism, I...don't know what to say.

antifa are left-wing authoritarian. they use violence. they believe in group rights. they do not believe in individual rights.

>Libertarian doesn't mean Libertarian
As if. And how can you have individual rights if you have left-wing economics?

Antifa are anarchists.

you still have access to the fruits of your labour. unless you think there should be literally zero tax, higher taxes can still fall on the libertarian spectrum. once again libertarian on the compass and Libertarian the ideology are different things.

Are you trying to allege that those actions made Nazi Germany economically left? Meanwhile its tax policy and business policy don't matter?

user, it's okay to admit that you didn't know what you were talking about.

>You still have access to 50% of the fruits of your labor, goy.
Oh boy. How libertarian.

no they are not. anarchists dont believe in any authority. antifa believes in their own authority. they will impose their will onto others through force which is as authoritatian as you can get.

once again libertarian on the compass and Libertarian the ideology are different things.

If a man puts a gun to your head and says "Give me that. Okay, now have a third of it back." do you then say "Wow! I have so many rights!"?

>they will impose their will onto others through force which is as authoritatian as you can get.
But that's what Anarchism is about as well.
Authoritarians imposed their will on others through the authority of the state, Anarchists imposed their will on others but their own strength, ie by the strength of them as individuals.
Antifa don't believe in a state, they don't believe in the police, just because they are violent doesn't automatically make them Authoritarian.

once again libertarian on the compass and Libertarian the ideology are different things.

Do you have a quiz system for this?

I want to try it.

That's beside the point. You're talking about individual rights. How respected are your individual rights in a system in which you're not allowed to avoid having most of your money taken away?

Not at home, so just some that come to mind
Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader
The Revolution Betrayed
Pragmatism by John James
The Grinding Mill by Prince Lobanov
Socialism for the South
Conversations with Stalin by Milovan Djilas
Mao's Little Red Book
The State by Woodrow Wilson

antifa are not anarchists. they are communist revolutionaries that are not against the state but against the current power structure. theyd make their own commie power structure if given the chance. anarcho-capitalists do not act like this nor do real anarcho-communists
>most of your money
no social liberal country has income tax higher than 49%. and once again like i said previously if you think there should be zero tax then you obviously think taxation is infringing on your individual rights but majority of people dont see it that way. besides, like i also said previously the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum on the compass refers to social policy. not economic policy.

You're pretty exhausting, user, in that you're using some bizarre revisionist history that is both pro-Nazi and somehow also anti-Nazism. Honestly, you sound a bit like those JIDF guys who pretend to be racist American neo-Nazis for Trump.

This is bullshit because it forgets the whole left-libertarian tradition.
I mean, where does anarchism or libertarian socialism fit in here?

Having the state say "If you don't give me half your money you'll be thrown into jail" is the opposite of libertarian. The majority's opinion on that matter is irrelevant.

As much as I remember communists in the USSR were more right-wing than actual right wingers
>everyone who's jobless gets imprisoned
>gays and other degenerates were considered mentally ill
>patriotic and traditional values were important
The only thing that made them left-wing was being socialistic... but so were nazis ''national SOCIALISM''

>Having the state say "If you don't give me half your money you'll be thrown into jail" is the opposite of libertarian.
once again libertarian on the compass and Libertarian the ideology are different things.

How about you actually respond to what I said instead of giving me that ad hominem.

Even with your definition of libertarian, it's still not libertarian.

its not my definition, its the political compass definition, and the political compass definition of libertarian is ONLY concerning social policy. and taxation is NOT a social policy. im done with your fucking retarded ass.

Sure thing, burger. I guess all those leftie kikes seeking to discredit darwinism (Boas is the most prominent example) were just having a laugh, right?
>burger education
I would laugh if it wasn't fucking tragic.

Libertatem is a Latin word and means freedom
Nowadays liberals are against freedom... which is fucking illogical
>DON'T TALK ANYTHING BAD ABOUT GAYS, YOU HOMOPHOBE!1!!!
>GIB YOUR MONI, MUH SOCIALISM!!!!
They're liars, not liberals. Real liberals support 100% capitalism and hate gays as they have the right to do so.

t. Turd Flinging Monkey (or one of his viewers)

those people are not and have never been liberal. just because they call themselves liberal doesnt make it so. youve bought into their subversion good job.

>This policy that you'll be imprisoned for not complying with isn't a social policy, so this is a libertarian government
So if the government institutes a transgender tax, where money is taken from the rich and given to trannies, that's still a libertarian government since taxation isn't a social policy.

once again libertarian on the compass and Libertarian the ideology are different things.

also, a libertarian social safety net doesnt discriminate based on gender identity. if it only benefits certain people regardless of wealth that is a socially authoritarian policy. great job with your straw man lmao.

lol.

Most hardcore Libertarians would be against taxes without representation and the most extreme ones are against all taxes.

once again libertarian on the compass and Libertarian the ideology are different things.

>The word libertarian means whatever the fuck I want it to mean
I'll be dwelling out here in the real world, meanwhile.

Look up the Grid-Group typography, it's a much cooler compass.

Basically, if you bother to survey (or extrapolate) 1st world people's fundamental views about risk, nature/nurture, freedom, etc., you quickly find there's a very strong correlation between answers. These correlations are classified as four "mindsets".
You can find these mindsets both in the psyche of individual people and in the official ideologies of institutions, even supposedly apolitical individuals and institutions.
Politics involves individuals going against the official mindset of institutions.

What's cool about this system is that it goes slightly deeper than simple stated ideology. It classifies people's basic political instincts. This creates some interesting results. For examples, liberals and communists end up both being Hierarchists (which explains the "The God That Failed" phenomena and the commie->social-democrat->neoliberal pipeline), while fascists and right-libertarians are both usually Individualists (which is why there's a strong flow between Nazis and right-libertarians, supposedly opposite ideologies).
It's also good because unlike many other compasses it accounts for the politically apathetic.

Attached: GRID-GROUP.png (1200x1287, 171K)

so youre conceding that you do not understand the political compass. thats nice.

>I difine my views with a point on some type of shape
I practice my convictions by doing something about it
I've been jailed multiple times

Taxation *is* a social policy on some level, and politicalcompass.org is not an accurate political gauge by any means.

Nordic countries are not left-libertarian. If you want to find out more about what left-libertarianism actually encompasses, read up on mutualism, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, or anything that isn't bourgeoisie bullshit.

Also, you keep on saying "once again libertarian on the compass and Libertarian the ideology are different things." If you really think he's going by the big L standard, you have no authority to speak on the topic of libertarianism.

actually im gonna give you this final last bit of information as i think your tiny mind might need it to comprehend what is going on, libertarian is naturally the opposite of authoritarian which is why the compass uses this term. it could as well use the term individualism. maybe that will get your nogging jogging.

>anarchists dont believe in any authority. antifa believes in their own authority
That's retarded. By that logic, it's literally impossible to be an anarchist, because the concept is self-defeating.

>Nordic countries are not left-libertarian
They are compared to more nakedly capitalist societies. Politics is a gradient.

Oh please. You're just changing the definition of the word "libertarian" to mean whatever your argument needs it to mean. You've dismissed everything I've said about how forcing people to do things goes against individualism by saying "Well, ackshually, doing that falls in the definition of libertarianism." You haven't given any reasons as to why. Cheater.

rationalization of the weakest faggots of society to socially shame the naturally strongest unless they adapt to become equals

This post should be printed, framed and hung on the Jow Forums wall of fame.
It perfectly encapsulates everything about this board post-Trump.

Fucking cluck of the jew.

I mean, when you speak in relative terms, sure. However, that's akin to saying China is libertarian because it's more libertarian than North Korea.

No, it's a fair comparison.
In modern history, there have been no prominent and stable societies more left-libertarian than nordic social-democracies.