1. "Murdered for their political beliefs". First, citation needed. Second, the idea that you would go "boo hoo, this man's rights were infringed on!" when, if your party was in power, there would have been no stand-off to be begin with because he and his wife would be shot dead on bar one is quite rich.
That's my point, and you knew that, you're just weaseling around it as you have done throughout this entire argument. I freely admit that National Socialism would take forceful action against its enemies, but you disingenuously pretend that the existing system and the conservatism that helps uphold it have some kind of moral superiority when they also take forceful action against dissidents. How is what the American state already does to those it dislikes any different, besides targeting decent white people instead of kikes and traitors?
he explicitly said"Go out and kill non-whites in the name of the White Race".
Citation needed
3. And who defines the race and what the race wants? Certainly not the people that make up the race. And tradition? The Nazi party dressed itself in the trappings of tradition, but rejected most traditional German positions outright, including encouraging women to have children with anonymous men out of wedlock, eroding the influence of the Church in the public sphere, and obsessively controlling virtually every aspect of public and private life to a degree that even the most tyrannical and paranoid noble could scarcely have dreamed of. The real oath of National Socialism is "For tradition- until Tradition threatens our stranglehold on the People." The ideology of National Socialism is anti-human on first principles, because it holds free thought, free expression, and free action as total anathema.
The race is the white race. What most white people want, when freed from Jewish capitalist propaganda, is to be allowed to exist, have opportunities, form healthy families and be free from debt slavery - and you can say "well here are examples of National Socialism disregarding tradition" but that doesn't actually refute my point, that
more tradition is preserved by authoritarian nationalist ideology, particularly National Socialism, than is preserved by conservatism. Conservatism only exists to preserve the standing order as established by those who actually changed it with proactive measures, which is why it's a toothless, gutless ideology.
4. I tried to effortpost because this is DT now and I decided to try and take your ideas seriously.
Looks more like you got butthurt and couldn't bear to leave the argument you claimed wasn't happening to me, but ok lmfao
if anything, I'm a Catholic techno-anarchist
As if you actually typed this out with a straight face
I'll point this out: what would it take for you to be convinced that deliberate terrorism in an attempt to plunge the entire West into anarchy in the hopes that a white supremacist authoritarian state will rise from the ashes is wrong?
For the government to implement policies that preserved the white race, provided opportunity for white workers, deported non-whites, and cracked down on the moral degeneracy in the west
legally. This is never going to happen, largely because of the cowardice of conservatives, so it's a moot point.
So what would it take for you to be convinced that conservatism has completely failed to conserve anything save for a few abstract principles that conservatives themselves only pretend to care about as a means to excuse their cowardice and inaction? You know, besides the myriad examples you've refused to acknowledge in this thread?
