Right now, avoiding demoralization seems very difficult considering how almost nothing can be done in real life without the ZOG knowing.
The Jews have cameras on every street corner, spyware in your computers, internet routers and phones, can take control of your automobile's computer system and cause it to crash, can send people to your home to plant bugs or even use remote controlled robotic "bugs" with microphones and cameras.
Soon getting microchip implants will likely be mainstream. Just how are we supposed to do anything in real life when the CIA can pre-empt any and every act of resistance?
Maybe the time for revolt is now before they decide to kill every right wing dissident, before they force everyone to take a microchip which monitors thoughts and kills you instantly if you commit wrongthink.
>>1979 I know, I have been very privacy-aware since at least 2011 or so.
It has completely paralyzed me, severely limited me in what actions I've taken, and given me a huge amount of (in hindsight) unnecessary stress.
>Maybe the time for revolt is now before they decide to kill every right wing dissident
Yes, but what should be done?
The only option seems to be violence and self-sacrifice.
To ensure a future for the white race, it is necessary to expend our lives hoping that results from these acts will destroy ZOG. Our enemies are enormously powerful and control most means of information transmission, so our number one force equalizer is determined violent resistance.
Read Mein Kampf. Anyone who claims to be a National Socialist is a liar if they haven't already read the book. And be willing to trade your life for the survival of your people.
>avoiding technological control
Live far away from the cities and you'll be ok. Cities radiate poz and corruption, while in the countryside people have less access to (((mainstream media))) and their minds are less corrupted. It's also way, way harder for the government to spy on people when they are spread apart.
Living densely packed in cities is unnatural. It allows disease, both physical and mental, to spread among the populace.
>in the countryside people have less access to (((mainstream media))) and their minds are less corrupted
Are you fucking kidding me? All rural whiteniggers do is watch Fox News and fuck their sisters.
>Just how are we supposed to do anything in real life when the CIA can pre-empt any and every act of resistance?
Privacy is an issue but it's impossible for any government agency to completely shut down a well organized group.Secret societies work and survive through the fact that most members do not know each other.Key members are not involved in any suspicious behavior or known to many and are as such never suspected or caught in the act.I am sure there are many small organized groups secretly fighting world governments but we will never hear about them because their actions would inspire copy-cats.
>Maybe the time for revolt is now before they decide to kill every right wing dissident, before they force everyone to take a microchip which monitors thoughts and kills you instantly if you commit wrongthink.
>>1979 White Men are above any law. Unite, organize, mobilize and kill.
There is no need to seek a "permission" to act. Kill anyone that you don't like. You have the right for doing so. They don't. You are above all of them. We are above all of them.
Always kill your enemies.Kill them for existing. Kill them for being different. Kill them for opposing your views. The fact that you exist already gives you the right to kill all of your enemies, above any law from any country in the whole world.
The world is for White people only.
>White Men are above any law. Unite, organize, mobilize and kill.
>There is no need to seek a "permission" to act. Kill anyone that you don't like. You have the right for doing so. They don't. You are above all of them. We are above all of them.
>Always kill your enemies.Kill them for existing. Kill them for being different. Kill them for opposing your views. The fact that you exist already gives you the right to kill all of your enemies, above any law from any country in the whole world.
>The world is for White people only.
There's plans out there for RFID zappers, bet they'd work on microchips. They send out a EM pulse that fries them.
Be a shame in this futuristic hellscape if some anon built one that fit in a knapsack that just discharged every 15 seconds or so, and took a stroll through a city.
>>5555 but how would you stop crime without the microchip?
someone will do a crime, and retard masses will demand solution or overthrow the government. even without that, the retard leaders still want to stop a bunch of shit like
>muh cp
>muh piracy
>muh terrorism
so they will eventually implant microchips in everyone to get the lowest possible number of crimes
>>5558 >how would you stop crime without the microchip?
There are enemies, and the enemies are leftism and kikes. As long as they are here, every action is justified and stability ensured.
>>5555 It's always the right that pushes this kind of thing for muh safety, the left is a new player and started pushing this kind of things only in recent years.
>>5559 And then one day since you're already halfway you start putting it on everybody, cause they are not "aryan enough" or they are against some new law or caue they are activists, this muh aryan superior everybody else slave is the same exact kind of thinking that jews adopt and you're all so fucking brainwashed that you don't realize it.
It seems that the cycle of history repeats itself every time and people don't learn anything from the past, really sad.
The question whether someone is giving power to the government should be decided, by whether the government and its power grows as a result of someones policies. The biggest and most powerful governments ever existing were leftwing governments, while extreme rightwingers like pinochet rather tended to bring government shrinkage with them. Its also leftwingers, who let government grow in financial terms. In most western countries the social budget dwarfs any other budget or industry. I believe, even the US pays more in redistribution, than in its military maintainance, and even their social budget dwarf the turnover of their top industries.
You might consider hitler to be a right wing counterexample, and it's true, that back then the german state had nearly absolute power. But it's kinda stupid to consider nationalsocialism to be rightwing, because of the socialistic half of that ideology. It's really socialism around a nationalistic con-game. I know, /pol/ will hate me for this, but in reality the nationalsocialist state budget consisted of first the wehrmacht, and second redistribution on a scale that would make you puke. Aside from that, private ownership of the means of production only existed on paper - in reality the state gave you a title of ownership, but ordained you to do produce exactly what the state wants, and you'd have lost your title of property, if you refused. IN any case, you got paid in paper money, which was worth absolutely nothing outside of germany, and which was nearly hyperinflating all the time, even before the war. What hitler did had all symptoms of modern left wing politics, with the exceptions, that he loudly said fuck you to the powers that were. Todays leftists are much more elitist, than hitler was.
Another thing you might consider is, that left-wing concepts don't tend to work outside of theory. You don't need some kind of abstract human beings for marxism to work, and humans are not abstract, but flesh-and-blood-monkeys. The difference between the abstract ideal and the real monkey tends to let socialist systems fail catastrophically, and socialists tend to prevent this failure by increasing state measures, so the monkeys either become more like the ideal, or the breaking points can be glued together by state force.
So: No, the state is no right-wing concept. The state is an authoritarian concept, which some people consider being a neccessity.
>>5562 >It's always the right that pushes this kind of thing for muh safety, the left is a new player and started pushing this kind of things only in recent years.
the left wants to (((solve))) problems just as much as the right
as long as the slightest injustice exists, the left will make some shit rule/policy/mechanism against it, and eventually this leads to the microchip
>there are too many gun deaths! ban guns
>there are too many knife deaths! ban knifes, you dont need to make your own food
>there are too many vehicle deaths! ban cars, markoff chain "AI" vehicles only
>there are too many train derailments! ban going near traintracks!
>there are too many deaths by beatings! ban going outside of your car/home!
>child porn is ruining people's lives! ban child porn
>there are too many people being suicided by online bullying! check all online posts before letting them through
>there are still too many crimes! we need a chip to make sure noone can do a crime
and the right is the same, except they just have a slightly different list (for example child porn is banned because "pedoscum", instead of "muh PTSD", and guns arent banned until later)
>>5563 nope
>>5564 >So: No, the state is no right-wing concept. The state is an authoritarian concept
correct
>>5564 >stalin
Yes, he was, but everything marxists can talk about is owning private property. Of course it's anti-freedom. That's where possession comes into question. In order to preserve individual as building unit you can't own what you can't, naturally, own if it wasn't for collectivism or collective enforcing its own slavery, dependence.
The problem is, and the problem will probably last until there's anarchist insurrection, private property and the means of enforcing ownership of private property, authority, which, if ever should there be any, is ought to act only to dismantle "natural" hierarchy.
As for the distinction between left and right, right doesn't respect individual just like marxists don't and I really dislike you bundling traditional marxists with left where there are distinctions and generally left, while I don't agree with collectivism and mere existence of private property, at least thinks it's doing good thing, while right is, at any point of its existence, "slavery is voluntary, you can also die". Right is inherently authoritarian while left can be about empowering individual.
A society without ownership, aka. control over stuff you control, is impossible. Even bacteriae "own" the stuff, that's inside them. Should we ever meet, remind me, that you don't believe in ownership of stuff, so I can cut your heart out, so we can share it. I always wanted to have a pickled human heart, and you don't own yours, so I can take it.
The natural state of things is ownership of stuff, and the natural enforcement of ownership is violence. If you take stuff I claim as mine, I will use much more violence, to keep you from succeeding, than I would use to acquire the thing in question. Even animals do this with their territorial behaviour.
The only form of anarchism, which could even remotely work, is anarchocapitalism, aka. everything becomes private property, and all conflicts are either solved along the lines of preferably private property. Even though anarchocapitalism would look in practice much more like feudalism than like libertopia, it would still be anarchism.
And I don't even mean, what you mean with dismantling hierarchy. People are not equal. Someone always is better at something, so there always will be some kind of hierarchy. Even if you try to dissolve the natural hierarchy, you a thing, which has enough power, to make things equal, e.g. a thing, that's hierarchically on top of people, e.g. an hierarchy. And there is good reason to believe, that the problems such an artificial thing causes, in order to destroy the natural hierarchy, are worse than the natural hierarchy. Things formed by evolution tend to be rather efficient.
>>5574 First personal property doesn't mean what you think, personal property(movable) is the opposite of real property(immovable).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property Second private property is just defined as the opposite of public property, it doesn't mean if its your body, a piece of land or an automobile, if its not public its private.
Ancap by eliminating or reducing the goverment power, would pretty much make the term private and public property obsolete since everything would be private.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property So the example of cutting of your heart cause its not yours makes sense if you don't believe in private property or in other words you actually believe in private property and don't want to admit it to yourself.
(i'm not >>5573)
>>5578 <it doesn't mean if its your body, a piece of land or an automobile, if its not public its private.
>it doesn't matter if its your body, a piece of land or an automobile, if its not public its private.
>>5578 >Personal property includes "items intended for personal use" (e.g., one's toothbrush, clothes, homes, and vehicles, and sometimes money) and the owner has a distributive right to exclude others.
I certainly do believe in private property, but as far as I understood the anon, he doesn't.
>personal property vs. private property
>In political/economic theory, notably socialist, Marxist, and most anarchist philosophies, the distinction between private and personal property is extremely important. Which items of property constitute which is open to debate. In some economic systems, such as capitalism, private and personal property are considered to be exactly equivalent.
Seems arbitrary, and impossible to establish without a supreme authority, e.g. a state, to decide, whether stuff is "personal" and "in a socially acceptable manner acquired", if it's open to debate. If I were this supreme authority, I'd decide, that your heart is my personally owned good and cut it out, because I want to have my pickled human heart in my livingroom. With public property, you'd always have a slippery slope towards totalitarianism in place. It would be just a matter of time, until the supreme authority uses its control over the "public goods" as a way to increase its power, and there would be nothing you couldn do about it. In order to be effective, the supreme authority would have to be able to hinder you from seceeding his anarchy, should you at some point decide, that you want to open up your own anarchy with all your stuff, and your rules. You'd be a slave just as you are now.
Everything being private property makes much more sense and lets no wiggleroom for powergrabs. With everything being privately owned, every powergrab would infringe upon the propertyrights of others, and would therefore be theft, and a prelude for a war against the perpetrator, should it happen on a larger scale.
>Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived, i.e. not a relationship between person and thing. Private property may include artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure[...]
This definition is absolutely bullshit. If I use my stuff to build a fabric on my land, nobody is deprived of anything. There would be no fabric, if I wouldn't have built it. Adding something, that wouldn't exist otherwise, is the exact opposite of deprivation. Even "the worker" gets something, namely an additional choice, he wouldn't have otherwise.
Quite often child prostitution is what children have to do to survive, if no sweatshop-building capitalist is around. Calling this "deprivation" is quite sick, frankly.
>>5583 What's arbitrary about personal property? As long as you individual occupy and use said land and property as in live and cultivate for your needs which are those you as an individual can accomplish with said property by yourself, then it's your possession or personal property if you want.
I think there needs to be compromise between possession and personal property though as some people want to travel but don't wanna live elsewhere indefinitely as they please. Possession allows this immense living flexibility while personal property does not and relies either on short goodness of neighbors or sign that you are going to return, which wouldn't be scarce unless you are crack-smoking shithead or poltard sperging in gibberish, or currency. I myslef think of property other than movable-on-person as obstacle and temporal, so I wouldn't know.
>public property
That's marxism.
>>5584 >This definition is absolutely bullshit. If I use my stuff to build a fabric on my land, nobody is deprived of anything.
Yes that definition is bullshit, they see it as deprivation cause for communists the world is a zero sum game, or in other words if i have something it automatically means i stole it from someone else(le "people").
>What's arbitrary about personal property? As long as you individual occupy and use said land and property as in live and cultivate for your needs which are those you as an individual can accomplish with said property by yourself, then it's your possession or personal property if you want.
So a large bunker complex with a nuclear stockpile to fulfill my personal sense of security in the presence of the force of a potentially overwhelming collective would be considered my "personal property"? I'd live in said bunker, and would only nuke the collective if it trespasses upon my land, which I would consider to be self defense. I beliefe, even marx would have granted me the right of self defense, so I should be on the safe side with this.
But okay, you'll say, that's not a real answer. According to wikipedia, the various theoreticians are disagreeing about what exactly amounts to personal property. I'm not an expert on this topic, but this statement suggests to me, that no clear line has been drawn yet, and that whatever is agreed upon today, may be invalid tomorrow. It might happen, that I get into debt, to build my nuclear bunker, so I can live there, and later on it's decided, that nuclear bunkers belong to everyone, so I have to live in a cheap favela building. For me this would be like the life of a slave, and for you it would make sure, that nobody will ever build another nuclear bunker, even, if you'd be in desperate need of many of them, because the unimaginable powerful islamic caliphallective is invading in the name of the prophet, so they can take your women as sexslaves.
"I think there needs to be compromise between possession and personal property though as some people want to travel but don't wanna live elsewhere indefinitely as they please."
Then you might have travel-toothbrushes, but nobody would ever build a hotel for travellers just out of the goodness of his heart. Without hotels being private property, no new hotels would be built, because there would be no incentive to build them. And the old ones would decay, because it's easier for everyone to not maintain them. Look at the difference between public toilets and private toilets, if you don't know what I mean. Everyone who uses a public toiled, could clean other peoples feces, but nobody does, and they often don't even wipe away their own shit.
>public property
>That's marxism.
public property existed before marx. The great and holy count vlad "the impaler" (great man) built a fountain for public usage. If someone polluted the fountain, of stole the golden scoop, he got impaled (as I said, great man) with a rounded and oiled stick (yeah, great man). The story goes, that this fountain was always very well maintained.
>>5590 >Anarchism is pipe dream
Of-course it is. However it's probably the only way forward to reestablish any society whether the result will be break-away militant enclaves or a even more fascist state that actually respects property rights (anti-'civilrights' and anti-forced association).
We need to reverse this technological eugenics program if anything. It tames and breeds economic slaves that will eventually out number all dissidents. We must reverse it back onto the evil parasites very soon. To make sure they can't live or reproduce in or around our lands ever again.
People keep forgetting that the main component that is being technologically stratified (datamining age, immigration n' racemixin', and tinder artificially breeds the best slaves) is also reinforcing this acceptance and compliance of this neo-feudalism, it's a genetic effect to this societal conditioning which is the real reason for all the datamining and pushing us all in an undesirable direction but can never agree on anything, especially rebellion. Hence why you should call the modern data-age society a 'Eugenics Program' but for breeding tame psychometric traits i.e. wageslaves, cuckholds, and the average liberal doormat. The normal white people might understand or suspect why they or society needs muh vidya, Netflux, tinder, fagbook, and all other niggercattle pacifiers to sedate them against rebellion, as long as you steal the enemies word 'Eugenics' and incorporate it as your own.
While it may have different methods compared to the Atlantic Slave Trade creating stronger and more admixed blacks, or Capital Punishment of the Middle Ages creating less violent and criminal whites, this technological manipulation grid will still have affects by lowering some and increasing other peoples chances into the genepool and supporting themselves. Sometimes by downright murder and imprisonment of themselves and their families.
>>1979 >Demoralization and technological control mechanisms.
We can talk about all the tech and toys that the enforcers use that will be outdated next year... but that is pointless unless you act. Why with all the manpower and firepower of the civilian population does no one even try to rebel? Genes are instructions and act as a societal mechanism. We have to address to the genetic component if we are to understand how to reverse and solve this control mechanism and the answer to why Western society is folding. The latest schizo techtoy, political sophistry, state systems and metal masturbation without any science is no answer at all.
>>5562 >The right is about giving power to the government as opposed to the left who gives power to the people
This is pretty bogus considering any political identities will exploit and use power to promote their own interests. At this point what is the point of modern political identities than other identities that have higher statistical power like race and ethnicity?
>>5587 I don't know what's bad about that.
>>5588 As was surely said in some other thread, whatever you can defend on your own against another single person should be considered yours. Max magix I think.
The only thing which makes it almost obsolete is technology, imagine exoskeletons and shit.
>nobody would ever build a hotel for travellers just out of the goodness of his heart
Why hotel? I'm talking about homes, not hotels, why would you want world to become tourist resort?
>there would be no incentive to build them
? There's one, to live in them. Who would build them? Folks like me.
>public property existed before marx
Yes, but in leftism I'd say it can be called marxism; why would I consider something I can't own someone's property? Either it's mine, yours or noone's, not-property.
Right now, avoiding demoralization seems very difficult considering how almost nothing can be done in real life without the ZOG knowing.
The Jews have cameras on every street corner, spyware in your computers, internet routers and phones, can take control of your automobile's computer system and cause it to crash, can send people to your home to plant bugs or even use remote controlled robotic "bugs" with microphones and cameras.
Soon getting microchip implants will likely be mainstream. Just how are we supposed to do anything in real life when the CIA can pre-empt any and every act of resistance?
Maybe the time for revolt is now before they decide to kill every right wing dissident, before they force everyone to take a microchip which monitors thoughts and kills you instantly if you commit wrongthink.