of many races

BUT

those races are to be assimiliated

under one banner

things went shit wrong since the 60's

America was founded based on the enlightenment values of equality between men so USA was founded on a failed and untrue premise.

any of these groups IMO advance the agenda

this is true

all men are not created equal

Dude, shir went wrong waaaayyy before WW2, kikes took over according to the laws of constitution, fair and square, and used their influence to push America to destroy Europe and kill their fellow whites and the only power capable of overthrowing jewish tyranny.

I see the communists moving in hard in the 60s. That was capstone on a long battle of Jews to take over our government

Too moderate groups are holding people back, when they could be fully redpilled, and sapping strenght from the more hardcore organizations that are in the right. Patriotic and conservative groups aren't a gateway to Nazism, despite of what the jews claim.

This is actually a theoretical question I've been wondering for long, does a more moderate organization sap strenght from the more hardcore organization and thus push the window to the left, or would the people attracted by the cuck version do anything at all without the lighter version?

depends on the person.

Heres my stance. Paul taught in the New Testament that we are all ' members of the body of Christ'. When I was trained to be a pastor, I was taught that it takes different types of churches to reach different types of people. I see nothing wrong with the same message being promoted with different types of optics to attract more people to the movement.

it think its a symbiotic existence.

I have to disagree. A lot of people used the alt-lite as a stepping stone to becoming an ethnic nationalist

I agree James

For example, does NRM attract people who would have otherwise gone to cuck groups if we had any, or do the people who would be attracted to alt light do anything right now, due to the lack of an organization moderate enough for them? It's a genuinely good question. I've talked with patriotards who take part in our demos despite of them being out and out nazi even though they're more moderate, but we're the only ones doing anything and doing it right, so they're on board for that, and become radicalized later. I've only had a few people telling they're unable to take part due to us being "too nazi". There's several types of recruit, one is, unideological, but feels something is wrong, and seeks a strong group to change that. I feel this particular type doesn't really care about ideological or presentation, but thinks purely in the terms of what is being achieved and done right now.

Libertarianism, although slowly, allowed me to embrace National Socialism over time.

@Arcturus good point, I came this position starting out as MERICA fuk yea person

I did the same to some degree, though differently than that exactly, I didn't just wake up one day and think hitler was a good person

lol me neither, the red pill has taken time to fully hit me

I woke up one day realizing Hitler was right, pretty much. I was apolitical, but I was surrounded by degenerates and subhumans, I read Mein Kampf and realized that he was on point about everything, and joined NS organization as soon as I could.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're the exception and not the rule tbh

A lot of people need to take baby steps to getting here

Yeah I passed through normie conservative, left-libertarian, Hoppean, and I-swear-I'm-not-a-Nazi on my way here

Not really. I know many ex-communists turned nazis. If you think about it, libertarian turned nazi is even weirder.

Both believe in equality, but libertarians don't even believe in a state.

I'd say a communist turned NS is weirder

that would be a huge switch out....or even a RINO to NS lol

Libertarians believe in hierarchy, right ones at least, communists do not

Not necessarily. An caps don't believe in a state, Libs believed in the smallest state possible.

Going from a private hierarchy to state hierarchy isn't as large of a leap. You at least acknowledge some are more fit to lead

Nah, they're aware there's an international class of capitalists stealing the wealth of nations, while libertarian would refer to that as commie talk. They're more on point on geopolitical issues as well, they're considerably more anti Israel and pro Iran than libertarians. They just haven't achieved race consciousness yet.

And libertarianism allowed me to embrace that people are different and should be treated as such while also disavowing faith in the cult of 'equality'.

https://dailystormer.hk/libertarianism-and-marxism-the-twin-offspring-of-liberalism/

Good one, recommended reading.

"The central underlying assumption of Marxism (and by extension, of all the SJW nonsense that is plaguing us today) is the notion that humans are fundamentally equal in their abilities (talent, potential, intelligence, etc). This is the logic behind the uplifting of Third World primitives to our level, the abolishing of gender roles, and all the other ills of the modern experience.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on the notion that men are morally equal, which is to say that all men are selfish and self-interested. Thus giving any man power over others will lead to corruption, as he uses this power for selfish ends. But the ideology does recognize that there is a wide difference in abilities between men. From this dichotomy we get ideas like abolishing governments, or preventing state monopolies.

Marxism and Libertarianism, when presented this way, seem diametrically opposed; one believes in equality of ability but a moral hierarchy, while the other believes in moral equality but a hierarchy of ability. But both are still based on the liberal lie of equality—they just apply it differently. To the weak-minded emotional thinker, it is easier to accept the victim mentality that comes with Marxism, while to the rugged individualist it’s easier to accept the idea that everyone is selfish and that all authority is evil."
"The enemies of our people want us weak. With Marxism, they make us weak individually so that it matters not if we unite our forces. Through libertarianism, they insure that the strong among us stay isolated rather than uniting their powers and posing a threat.

We must abandon foolish notions of “objectivity” if those lead to our destruction. “Freedom” is no different from “tolerance”. We all understand now that tolerance is not a virtue if the thing being tolerated is evil (bad for our people and against the natural order). Likewise, freedom to commit evil cannot be considered desirable. All that matters is freedom to do good. Today, we are not free to do good, because all laws are inverted by our enemies. Wishful thinkers long for freedom, thinking ‘well, if we were totally free at least I could do the right thing’. This is a compromise. Instead, we should long for total victory, where the only freedom is freedom to do good (meaning, what is good for our people). Our enemies certainly don’t cheer for the freedom to do what they don’t like, and neither should we."

I was just listening to Anglin today in a debate with Vox Day on 'Is NS a right wing or left wing movement?' Vox' argument was that the Right is concerned with the individual while Anglin argued the Right is concerned with tradition and the family unit.