I would like to address a few aspects of my Hraftzer philosophy here:
1. If you have a very strong belief that the government should enact a certain policy (let's say maybe they should get rid of the federal reserve! or abolish the income tax!) here's what I have to say to you:
If you truly are interested in economics go to college and get a degree in economics. Then apply for a job with the government as an economic adviser and you can write economic policy. You may also run for office on your credentials. If you were educated and spent your life learning about the issues you would probably hold a different stance than you do now.
I know the problem is that the American media and government like to create an illusion of "power" for the people. So they encourage ignorant and half assed understanding of the issues and encourage ignorant people to debate and feel important. The fact is, it would take a lifetime to be an expert on foreign policy alone, or economics alone, or social planning alone! I have a few rudimentary opinions but why waste time pretending to be an expert on something when I don't know anything! Why would anyone else do the same?
Overall society must run on a certain level of checks and balances and trust. Frankly I don't trust other people too much. That's why I advocate for decentralized power and minimal government wherever possible.
Yet overall we should be concerning ourselves with how we will survive if the government collapses (plan b) and how we will survive if the government flourishes (plan a) and all the other possibilities (plan c) rather than concerning ourselves with "what the president should do". If you are worried about what the president should do then run for office or become an adviser. You really drain your own power by spending countless energy on such futile acts.
2. White Nationalism
I originally thought this ideology was about higher standards, elitism, fair treatment etc. but scratch below the surface and it is nothing but racial marxism (national socialism). These people want to live in a non-competitive world and be valued because of their skin color or race rather than their ability or contributions. Any talk of success, achievement etc. leaves them running. Next talk of mutual respect, a competitive environment etc. also they don't like.
Even though I agree with most of their complaints about anti-white social policy, anti-accomplishment policy etc. their entire approach is totally incompatible with anything that reaks of success.
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.
I know there are many good points to Marxism. However in practice it is always a destructive philosophy. In fact it has come to call itself "critical theory" meaning that it is critical- desires to criticize and destroy. The underlying idea of "to each according to his needs from each according to his ability" implies robbing the strong and rewarding the weak. This is so illogical on the surface that it need not even be addressed. Obviously self responsibility leads to prosperity, not hating those who produce more than you.
Someone can tell me, for example, that workers are exploited and that a means to take back power is violence (or protest). Okay yes in some cases workers are exploited. But in the society we live in they can go to college and get a better job, find some way to start up their own business etc. Or we can set up programs which give poor people opportunities to become educated, gives them opportunities to work at better paying jobs etc. We do not need to attack the successful, or throw money at criminals and degenerates and rarely is there any need for violence. I know that is not always an option but usually there is some way to improve one's situation. There exists social mobility, opportunity, welfare programs etc.
In a similar way one might say this group or that group is oppressed so we need to justify it by destroying the "white man" or taking down the rich etc.
Here's the problem I have with Marxism: sure in some off the wall scenario I might act out violently against someone. Maybe if I'm in a war zone and I need to for survival. Yes in an extremely oppressive environment I will lash out in anyway possible in order to empower myself and this is all part of Hraftzer philosophy.
Yet I don't make a philosophy out of robbing people. Even though maybe in some absurdly extreme condition I may steal, at my heart I'm not a thief. Therefore my philosophy reflects honesty and trustworthiness. In the same way perhaps in some extreme situation I may need to act violently. But in my heart I am a civil person so I have a philosophy that believes in being strong, but cooperative. Likewise I may feel a group of people are being oppressed and may lash out against the oppressor in some extreme circumstance, but in my heart I'm fair, honest and good so I make a philosophy of loving people and treating all people equally- not a philosophy of destruction.
And this is where I part ways with Marxism. The whole basis of Marxism is "we must destroy" society, we must act out violently, we must break the law, we must topple the system and take down the man, we need to enact vengeance on whites we must be critical of our culture etc. It is so absurd sounding yet people are often indoctrinated in the so called merits of Marxism through the college classroom, social workers, "liberal" organizations etc.
People might say "well Marxism isn't about being violent" yes it is! Read the books and look at the actions of Marxist. Read the quote above by Karl Marx. Modern Marxism has evolved a bit into getting elected and destroying the system from the inside out but its the same destructive goals. Everywhere I see critical theory and marxism I see talk about hurting people, doing crimes and destroying society.
They always point out to some suffering person as an excuse to do crime. All people have stinky farts. Any society has some person in it who suffers. Using a suffering person as excuse to do crime doesn't float in my book.
Marxism is also anti-intellectual in nature (yet curiously taught in colleges). It seeks to use made up stories, emotional feelings, propaganda, brainwashing, indoctrination etc. to spread its ideas rather than use rational discussion, logical policy etc. As my college textbook "teachers schools and society" taught me we need to brainwash young kids as "agents of social change". Umm, I don't think so.
All the complaints of Marxism are addressed through what we call "social democracies" or rather a "regulated capitalism". This means we have labor laws, minimal wage laws, a progressive taxation structure and so on. We also guarantee equal treatment under the law and anybody has a chance to be anything they want to be through guaranteed personal freedoms and liberties.
In this system there will always be winners and losers. There will always be murderers, mentally retarded people etc. It makes no sense to use this as justification to hate the system or destroy or to commit a crime.
Equally to the libertarians I must say I agree with classical liberalism and small government, however if you understood the system you would understand the neccessity for a progressive taxation system, for labor laws and so on.
For example: if someone understood the banking system one could realize that he could easily leverage his wealth given half the opportunity and buy up massive amounts of real estate and then use renters as more or less "serfs" buying the property for him. Especially with our current fiat and central banking system there is a lot of possibility to exploit people. Thus it makes sense, for example, for the government to help low income people own their own home and for charities to do the same. This acts as a counter balance to the economic forces which may enslave such people.
At the same time some individuals are irresponsible and can never own a home, no matter how much we help them. There are always winners and losers and those people who are unfit. So obviously we need social measures.
The idea of extreme Marxism, libertarianism etc. is more or less an illusion or the rantings of uneducated morons. The pervasive ignorance in our culture is alarming and it seems mainly only certain highly educated people or those running in elite secret society circles really understand the system (or a few that can figure it out themselves).
Yet I suppose there must be an illusion of debate, of winning some and losing some in order to contempt people's petty needs and desire to feel important.