Jews are such degenerate people. So attached to their modus operandi.

Each society is free to choose its own rules, at the behest of its people (should they have the power to impose their will).

This can be to ban pornography or accept it.

Or to limit it.

Limits can range from a complete ban, to limits on content allowed, access and so on.

Decent & moral Aryan men (& Aryan women), with intact families and daughters, (& who want the best life outcomes for their sons) are probably going to err more on the side of restrictions.

Other people somewhere else.

If we look at subgroups in our society, those that frown on pornography: i.e. devout Christians, Mennonites etc, have healthy birthrates. The groups that champion pornography, and access it regularly tend not to.

Who is best listened to? The people setting a good example, and living in health, or those who are not?

I don't doubt in Weimar Germany there are those that thought families should have the right to sell their children too.

And as for the Jewish commentator last bread that referenced taxation post Weimar in National Socialist Germany… all economic indicators in terms of employment, household earnings, and GDP (growth) were higher in Germany, than USA, and the tax burden was LOWER than in USA also.

Germany got itself out of the great depression, in advance of its Western cousins.

And the freedom to live in a society that wasn't totally fucked and degenerate was worth it to the citizens had just lived through a period of what "jewish" ruled freedom to be degenerate was like.

And the rest of the White world, is getting the same way too. MORE THAN READY to throw off the freedoms Jews desire, like the freedom to have niggers fucking shiksas on the internet, in return for societies that better look after their needs and the most important of freedoms a people can possess. Not living in a fucked up society that harms their kids.

>>16770169

>Who is that magical "society" that you speak of?

Yawn.

Every word you write was already dealt with.

You reference "my opinion" as if that is a slur, but I did not present it as anything else.

But also note: every view you hold on the issue is also JUST your opinion, and I had already referenced the debate as such.. one between "opinions" and values.

Resolving opposite views on what should happen in matters of opinion & values, as to which should hold sway in society is always a choice imposed by the side with greater POWER in society to project its wishes. As I already noted.

People have a choice. Between a permissive degenerate society headed for the scrapheap, or one where some of the freedoms to self-harm, and harm society are curtailed, but one where society itself is healthy.

A choice between a society that sees White women being treated like degenerate meat online, where people carry on with the belief they have a right to treat White women that way offline… and one that chooses something else.

Every choice connects to a raft of other consequences intended and unintended.

Choosing permissiveness and recreation of the Weimar world, builds opposition to such a world, and the intent to chart a different course.

Pornography is not the kind of speech the Founding Fathers were after protecting, and their notes on the CHARACTER required in the people, for their intent to hold, indicative of their views.

They could see that a people brought morally low, would lose everything, no matter what was written down.

Hard to posit that embrace of the right to create and transmit degenerate pornography isn't an exact example of that.

They would be horrified, I think we can be quite sure, that a person would even hold up pornography as speech.

A Jewish way of thinking through and through.

You can stick to our Jewish beliefs, God knows a man with Jewish beliefs in his brain finds it difficult to get them out.

But don't be surprised if the Aryans in this world move back to orientating towards what works best for them, not Jews.

>>16770169

>Is it good for society when they pay taxes to a corrupt (any) government?

You are an idiot.

For a people to survive they need a mechanism for the organisation of their society, that ensures that the right behaviours are present, and the right sacrifices are made for the good of the group.. for it to sustainably survive and prosper.

These can take various forms, and involve a combination of laws, customs, governmental structure, and so on.

Some of these elements will require financing.

A society that does without these elements, or does not have them structured in a way that is resolute against interference, will have them overturned, and their society harmed.

"just leaving it to the market" results in the people being harmed and dispossessed. (ask yourself why any towns, cities and provinces that operated on such a basis nom longer do so).

The wealthier and more powerful a society is, the longer and larger the deviance from desired behaviours it can survive before it falls into ruin, or is taken over by another force.

But as soon as it is on an unsustainable path, and not enforcing the behaviours it needs to prosper, the question is only when, not if, it falls into ruin, if it does not change its ways.

ALL Western societies that embraced "individual rights" and pooh-poohed the idea of societal or group rights, and so relaxed their societies traditional morality, have been placed on a pathway of destruction.

In history too, we can look back at the Romans and the Greeks, and see that as they reached peak prosperity, they embraced individualism, and degeneracy and were set into a spiral of collapse (with attempts to reverse it too late).

Western societies in their ascendant phase, were more restrictive and prescriptive morally, than they are today.

And the timing of Western collapse matches perfectly its abandonment of its traditional morality.

Our traditional morality was against masturbation, pornography, anti-natalism, LBTQism, racial aliens etc.

The championing of the individual, and all individuals being equal directly connected with allowing the good of the whole, to be sacrificed for "additional freedoms".

Freedoms that will not, do not, and HAVE NOT lasted.

In the end, freedom to be degenerate swapped in, and freedom of association, and free speech swapped out.

You can now freely access & create porn without legal consequence, but cannot speak freely as you could before. Saying "nigger" for instance liable to have you assaulted, and your assailant get off scot free (on top of you losing your job).

Your freedom of association is also gone, alongside your right to live in a functional & safe society.

It is hard to see the trade as worth it.

Increased individual freedoms instrumental in handing control of society over to foreign people, and making it a totally fucked place to live. HEAPS WORSE than when it existed as a White space with restrictions on pornography. Which heaps worse life indicators.

When you abandon enforcing morality X, morality Y can come into play.

The morality has shifted from getting people to be sexually decent, to getting them to accept sexual degeneracy.

From keeping kids away from sex, to getting them involved. This is the outcome of leaving morality "to the market" rather than having society ACT IN ITS INTERESTS to promote and control what is allowed.

You have to be dumb or a Jew to take such a trade. And we know of course which you are.

>>16770252

>Depends if you were part of the Nazi vaccine experiments, or not.

Around 99% percent of what the "Nazis" are said to have done is pure fabrication.

And what remains is no different to wha the Western world did.

And the Jewish controlled nations did, have done, and do much worse, to this day.

>>16770315

>Who defines what's healthy to a society and what's not?

It goes through the process I already described, which is the same for any view including that put forward by you.

Individuals in society form their opinions and orientations, exercise their free will to choose how they carry them forth, and then that which has the greatest power behind it is able to action their views and impose on the rest.

And imposition remain imposition whether it restricts or does not restrict, whether it falls toward approach A, or approach B, as it will always be the view with more power being imposed, and consent will never be uniform.

So, it will always be power being imposed, based on opinion and choice, of those empowered/ascendant, mediating by the degree the environment and other factions, and their own competence affect things.

>Women do that to themselves.

But this is the crux of the debate. It is one of weighing an ideological belief to "always allow X even if it harms, and regardless of the degree of harm caused"..

..against one that says, no, the outcome and the size of the outcome and its negativity count, and should be taken into account.

Both end up as should's.

Just one says "we should treat the issue like X, because IDEOLOGY" and the others says, no we should treat it like Y, because there's no real sense in supporting an approach that is self-defeating and delivers harm.

Whether women do it to themselves or not, is not of critical importance, if the reason for opposing their freedom to descend to such levels is because it fucks society, and leads it to be taken over by alien forces.

>You want to control what people do?

Me choosing not to have society control people for the good of my people, does not make society free from control.

It just means the space is left to those pushing a lack of control that harms my people, or even greater controls that harm my people.

There is no: "I LGTH choose to just let people do what they want" and that becomes the outcome for society.

No, the destiny of society just gets taken more from my people's hands, and more into the hands of people that hate them, and the worst of my kind, unable to stop themselves from being taken down a path that destroys my people.

This is not a path a moral person that cares for his people can allow to go on.

Again the right to free will, and freedom of conscious DICTATES a right to act to chart a different course.

My freedom to pursue what I think is best, is not overruled by your belief I should not. And ditto for others like me.

As I have repeated throughout, it does not come to a contest of intellect and views, but power.

It may be that you get your way, and my people are sent to the scrap heap because they weren't strong enough to stay away from the vices the cabal wished them to take up, and people like me did not gather enough power to prevent it.

Or it might turn out different.

That is all life is, choice and effort, mediated by the surrounding environment, the rules of nature and the universe, circumstance, and the choices of others.

You will choose to maintain boosting temporary freedoms is best, even if it comes with destruction & loss of greater freedoms overall (as an outcome).

And I will err to a view more practical and outcome focussed than ideological.

That is ok, you can embrace temporary freedom (freedom for X now, that leads to losses of freedoms YZ later), destruction and degeneracy, and I something different.

It is a choice. One we are both free to make. Very likely I am making a choice with natural inclination to what is best for my people, and you for what you perceive for yours (consciously or unconsciously).

And that too is fine. The universe sorts it out in the end. (Which one gets to go on, which one does not).

>>16770509

>OK, this is utter bullshit. It was the subversion of institutions that did it.

Their ability to subvert, was proceeded by their freedom to enter, and their freedom to monopolise the media.

(Without the media being monopolised first, the subversive acts they carried out, and people they subverted, could be successfully called out, and so punished, making it unviable. The cabal needed certain freedoms first).

Restricting them from such a path, "would have contravened their individual rights".

As I said, if your position is that all men should be equal in rights, and all individual rights always respected, you can tread no path other than losing to subversion.

Banning Jews from all positions of influence & power (if not society altogether), as well as Islam, and all secret societies, as well as Jesuits and Freemasons.. (along with halal, and kosher food, and circumcisions as extra precautions), is the minimum level a society requires to maintain its safety, security AND freedom.

If you accord to the groups that hate your people, and who have the ability to operate in secret, the same rights and freedoms and ACCESS as your own people, it is a death warrant.

EVERY SINGLE WESTERN SOCIETY IN EXISTENCE TODAY, and the trajectories they are treading is testament to this truth, as is our history as a people.

Gates of Toledo.

Gates of Constantinople.

Hart-Celler Immigration Act.

Federal Reserve Act… and so on.

The functional purpose of society is entirely thwarted and eliminated by allowing equal access and rights to those who are not truly 'of' it, or its stock, nor aligned to their needs.

Like investing in a gigantic set of defensive walls, and then inviting an armed enemy straight through the gates, with your own people totally disarmed.

>>16770526

>So you want to make suicide illegal as well?

It is in most Western nations and always has been.

But it has no real relevance to this discussion.

>Again, you pretend that it's "the people" who have control, while in reality you are trying to push your will on others and then pretend that if that doesn't happen, other people would take control, while in reality your "Jews" didn't force anyone to do anything.

Nope. I outlined the process, and made clear it is definitely not the people have control. I said it was the faction with most power, which hasn't been "the people" for a century plus at least.

And whether force is used or not is not relevant.

I referenced outcomes. From X, Y.

As a matter of reality though, these things tend to work through force and pressure at particular points, and propaganda carrying through the rest.

E.g. a certain figure or figures may need elimination (senators opposed to the establishment of the federal reserve bank) and so this is arranged. Force is used for this purpose.

And then, with those people out of the way, propaganda can work on enough of the rest, to carry the day.

Force AND propaganda are used by Jewry and the cabal. When it delivers its negative consequences in total then, they say "hey we didn't force you to", which of course is true in part, but false in part too.

>>16770526

>You would make a great vaccine pusher too with the same script.

But this is the point. Going your way you end up with even worse people in control, people that actually want to give a vaccine that harms people, and enforce it, and that is what you will get.

Remember, you want society to choose an orientation against restrictions on individual freedom REGARDLESS of what results.

And as I have repeated, that result is the people who want to do bad, able to do so. LOOK AT YOUR SOCIETY. These people are freely operating.

Allowed to because restricting them would have been a breach of "upholding individual freedoms".

You have the society your ideals lead to. And you'll have where it is heading unless enough choose a different path.

That different path: the good of the ETHNIC majority, (deeply connected to the place the rules will be imposed), and their survival and sustainable self-determination, outweigh the needs of racial aliens and those not deeply connected to have total equality and freedom of individual rights.

The freedom to access, create and share pornography is no good to a people, when they no longer exist, and no longer have their own society.

Ensuring existence and (group) self-determination lies above individual rights. The latter in any case, WHOLY DEPENDENT on the former.

Imagine saying to a person you can have the right to live but not to breathe.

Dumb right? One requires another.

To uphold the right to individual freedoms you wish the group to, the group itself must remain in power and in existence.

If those freedoms though are destroying it.. what chance the groups can uphold any freedom at all, and what good to it when it has been same out of existence?!

These are practical matters, not ideological. When you remain solely in the world of theory and ideology boy can you excuse some dodgy outcomes…

>>16770680

>This no more proves 'it's the jews'

Seeing Jews harming your people and promoting the EXACT same propaganda as the Cabal, doesn't prove it is the Jews goy.

Don't do something as ignorant as trusting your own eyes, and ears, and the history of your people and its most upstanding citizens, trust what Jews say instead.

The same Jews who opened the Gates of Toledo, opened the Gates of Constantinople, passed the Federal Reserve Act, introduced the Hart-Celler Immigration act, who oppose Whites having their own land and sustainable group self-determination, and who follow a holy book that calls for the genocide of Amalek (Whites), endorses pedophilia and abuse and enslavement of non-Jews, and says Jesus is burning in hell covered in excrement for all of eternity.

You wouldn't want to lack UNITY with such people would you goy? Remember what Operation Trust (cough) I mean Q said…

>>16770682

>You are always pretending that someone has to be in control.

>Why?

>I want no one in control, because power corrupts.

Oh look, it's a moron. A group of people abstaining from competing to press their own beliefs does not stop beliefs from being pressed, it just makes the job of those pressing their own views even easier as the way is clearer for them.

"everyone can do what they want" allows people that want to undermine the others, the freedom to do so.

This is exactly what has happened in the West, in every Western nation.

Equal rights and individualism give free reign to people against the folk, to undermine them, and REPLACE them.

>You pretend to be a good one, but you are exactly the same as the forces you pretend to be against.

Sure, I advocate a path that directly cuts off their ability to act. You advocate a path that leaves open the path they took to take control, and the path being tread to destruction.

Your "I wont tolerate people acting in their collective interests" the exact football field you let them drive their "cool, we'll use that to take your society away from its rightful heirs" truck through.

If a society is to uphold set of rights X, then the people in society must be able to keep society THEIRS. Otherwise wether set of rights X or another set of rights is upheld, WILL BE OUT OF THEIR HANDS.

Therefore if there are certain rights in set X, that work AGAINST the ability of those people to sustainable control their own society, LIKE IT ALLOWING ITS ENEMIES TO ENTER AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS WITHIN IT.. to put the people on a path to dispossession, AND REPLACEMENT, then the ability to uphold right set X is removed.

All rights and existence end up forfeit, out of an ideological and short sighted reluctance to be practical, and truly understand the position their views led them to.

A dispossessed people uphold no rights, therefore the rights they will uphold must be conducive to keeping them whole, and in power.

Someone, some faction, is always in power. It can be the faction working to keep your people in existence, whose set of rights and their limits work to that angle, or another faction, allowing through idiocy or intent, a set of rights and rules that lead to dispossession.

Where dispossessed you can enforce and uphold NO rights.

Individual rights, where all men are created equal, and no one can inhibit exercise of rights between consenting adults, is a society stripped of all the protections society affords.

First and foremost societies exist to ENSURE SUSTAINED EXISTENCE and empowerment, against outside force.

But if that force can come in and be treated as an equal.. say, the individual right to sell one's house to a foreign business is held above the societal right to reject that right… then there is no longer a functional purpose to that society, or what purpose there is, will be lost, as it is taken over.

To uphold a set of rights, you must first maintain the power to uphold the rights.

That is, keep other factions away from power.

Upholding individual rights, DOES NOT DO THIS.

>>16770718

Freed of their Jews, Aryan people can control the natural level of psychopaths in their society.

High-trust Aryan societies are uniquely capable of this, but their ability to enforce compliance is impossible when overwhelmed by low-trust racial aliens.

First the racial aliens must be disempowered, and their right to be "equal" within the lands of high-trust people, removed. Then the creation of psychopaths falls to a low enough frequency to be dealt with.

This does not fix the problem in jewish societies, or other racial groups… but that is their problem, not ours. We just need to fix our own psychopath problem. How to do so, outlined above (removal/expulsion/assertion of our racial rights)

>>16770747

>Why are you here?

To assist the dispersal of truth, rather than have it slandered and obliterated under unremitting pro-Jewish propaganda. For the good and freedom of the White race and Western civilisation, and all humanity (and ironically Jews themselves, if they could just understand more than their fear, megalomania and greed).

Because TWO unity's are possible, one that leads to White dispossession, and one that does not, and the stage should not be left to the one's progressing happily to the former. As it is inequitable, unjust, unbalanced, and bad for humanity (and a major plank toward total cabal victory).