Mussolini was a civic nationalist if I'm not mistaken.

I am not on vpn, and I tried Firefox, and chrome. DNS server not found.

The governed cannot always consent to what is in their best interests, and if we were in a position to legislate the nation into a better spot, people or "the governed" would fight us as we tore away their gay orgies, or Jewish loans, or opioids, or generally not give consent.

My problem is that government tends to attract the worst kinds of people to power (the aforementioned fags). Once in power their faggotry is used to ruin the citizenry.

Thats why fascism is great.

Because it eliminates that.

A democratic govt allows certain people to gain footholds where other systems do not offer the same incentive.

Thomas, yes, people's preferences change. But, that doesn't change the nature of the law enforced, i.e. is it universal or not? Is it of sound moral theory, or not? If you have a grievence (i.e. valid moral objection), then it is an imperative that this objection be considered or else you've created an environment for tyranny.

Elaborate on what you mean by laws being universal. And moral theory, or what people think is right and wrong, is as contentious and fluid topic as there can be.

Even interpretations of natural law are just that. Interpretations. Ultimately the best way to oppose tyranny or immoral force, is by overcoming the State, via moral force.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5036717/Multiple-injured-shooting-downtown-Manhattan.html?ITO=applenews

Truck of peace in NYC in case anyone missed it. This myster meat guy did better than the last one I think.

@Thomas Ryan Natural law is built upon the observation that there is a natural order to things — which is to say that nothing is random (not to imply that every event has purpose).

If you accept that there is a natural order to things (i.e. chaos theory), then it’s safe to assume that there is a natural order to human behavior, i.e. it’s not random.
Thus, if that is accepted, then it is safe to assume that there are particular actions that lead to particular outcomes. Meaning: The human experience is not random.
So, that said, if it is sound to hold that no outcome is random (i.e. no such thing as true random), then there must be a natural law governing our experiences regardless of how ignorant we are of its influence on events as well as to what degree. In the past, this force — and all natural forces for that matter — were commonly referred to as ‘god’. Thus, prior to secularism, in the hierarchy of law, god was supreme. We have the same centralized institution today, except now there is no deity. The state is the new fictional entity most hold as being supreme.

More importantly, if there is a goal like justice (a description of a particular experience), then there must be *laws* (i.e. principles) affecting events that lead to such outcomes. And, so, the discovery of such principles is the pursuit of the rule of law. Or, better said, the pursuit of justice.

Anyone that demands justice is by default acknowledging there are natural laws, otherwise ‘justice’ is a meaningless word, i.e. it’s not objective.

If what I say is sound, then these ‘laws’ should not be confused with edicts — which are decrees granted the force of law by the bonds created among men, i.e. contracts, so long as there is consent. More so, since all legal rights are the product of contract, what are natural rights?

The absence of consent is slavery.

I agree that humans are bound by their nature to certain experiences, but how is the State a fictional entity? Do you deny the possibility of someone being made to do something they don't consent to that is ultimately good for them?

The one giving consent can be wrong, and the one receiving it, or otherwise, can be right.

In America we have an order of common law in order to protest the discoveries we made. In contrast, some jurisdiction in the world have civil law which allows for any law to be interpreted in anyway the arbiter sees fit.

The way in which one system overcomes the other, and the right usually ends up winning is because systems that do not adhere to, or seek to dismantle human nature, of which heirarchy is an important part, those societies fail because the nature of people's laws conflict with the laws of the govt, making them dysfunctional and contradictory.

The use of force in self-defense or thrid-party defense is justified. Anything outside of that scope begins to get into acts of conquest or acts of aggression against others.

Our nation was founded on conquest and aggression on a civilizational scale, and the primary natural currency of all societies is ultimately violence, or the threat of it.

From a natural and very broadly historical perspective, Rule A does better than Rule B because the person or people behind Rule A commit successful aggression or conquest against the person or people behind Rule B, or that Rule B is so flawed by means of contradicting natural laws that it fails on its own.

We're getting into tribalism there. I thought the scope of the discussion was limited to governance of our people.

I don't think even Americans are a singular mass that all fall into a category of being able to be governed with a feather light hand. Not at this stage, and likely not for a long time.

To quote Mosley: "By giving Government the power to act, Fascism brings not the end of freedom but the beginning of freedom"

https://gab.ai/AndrewAnglin/posts/14008224

@Smiter-IL DS is down confirmed.

I don't think anyone is making the claim, "governed with a feather light hand." The measures that leads to the emergence of the rule of law are very strict. So, neither light nor hard, but rather firm. i.e. Walking the fine line between order and chaos.

The whole point of this all is that any man has the right to invoke the law thereby giving us the ability as a collective to consider all possible angles available to us at a given time. Omniscience is impossible, right? But this methodology gives us the closest we can to come to governing with the benevolence of god.

I get you. Everyone has the right to be a critic.

As long as by critic you mean a right to express a grievance, then I think we found agreement

I meant to criticize, or offer an opinion that is different from another's. So yeah, same thing.

On a lighter note, it is my personal opinion that in the ethnostate all men should have a right to have a toilet where his balls do not dip into the water while taking a shit because all balls do not swing equally.

No toilet can hold these

All balls should dangle freely. http://media1.giphy.com/media/m12GiqBQywgbS/giphy.gif

https://gab.ai/AndrewAnglin/posts/14010584

Anglin and the 2nd in command (I think, around that) in TWP are duking it out on Gab, publicly. I think Gab actually allows DMs that could make this less... well, public.

Anglin makes solid points. But I wish he didn't have to make them

allow me to clarify. I think he is doing what is needed. I simply wish it wasn't.

How many guys did we have at Shelbysville?

0

I thought we had one guy there. I thought wrong apparently.

Nope, we didn't send anyone.