Libertarianism isn't anti-collectives.

You must not know the inherent tenets of libertarian thought, then. The big L and little l libertarians both espouse the view that societies and nations are amorphous economic zones completely detached from the people that inhabit them, and those people also demonize any White person from ever collectivizing, for any reason whatsoever, up to and including for mutual survival.

Libertarians are nearly identical to all other right wing normies. They hate race realism, hate any criticism of Israel, label increasing numbers of hedonisms as "rights" and "freedoms", disregard the health of their neighbors from the exposure to those hedonisms, advocate for open borders and mass immigration (so long as it's "legal"), and think everything is perfectly fine so long as the GDP and stock market go up. It's little more than economic and governmental mammonism. They'd sell out their neighbors for money, and they're actively doing it right now, just like all other right wing normies.

Your nice long leftist meme of a wall text amounts to nothing more than statism.

Long form communication has been around for thousands of years. They're called books, and what I wrote is substantially shorter than a book. Just because you've been brainrotted by short form social media that's intentionally designed to keep you hooked and pursuing a never ending stream of dopamine hits, doesn't make my comment a "leftist meme" or a "wall of text". You're not genuine in that criticism, either. If you agreed with my "wall of text", you'd extoll the virtues of it, but merely because you disagree with what I said, you demonize it, and latch onto any criticism you can, applying it to me unfairly, whereas you don't apply it to those you agree with. You're being a hypocrite. Stop it.

Furthermore, I'm absolutely fine with extremely limited government. I only advocate the idea that government is a natural formation for all groups, regardless of size or intent, that some people must invariably create rules and enforce those rules in order to protect that group, otherwise that group will eventually cease to exist. We can absolutely debate the form and magnitude of government, but not the need and nature of it. If you want a specific view of my ideal form of government, it's that it's incrementally less powerful the more people it controls, the farther away it gets from the average citizen, and the less shared commonality the people have under its jurisdiction. This would mean the United States was the ideal form of government when it was initially created, where local and state governments controlled the most (or could control the most, given the option of the citizenry), and the federal government controlled the least, because it oversaw the most people, was far away on average, and the commonality of the people was much less.

Licking the boot in the hopes that when you're in charge, you'll be a just and holy leader through the needed means of subjugation that will lead them to the promised ends of salvation. Just ignore that it's never happened, isn't happening and will never happen.

You must not know me very well. Go read through my comments. I repeatedly express the desire to violently revolt and kill the people in charge. Lick their boots? I wish to see their "boots" dangling from trees.

The problem with "the greater good" is that every ideologue uses it to justify any immorality they rationalise to "need".

See what I mean. You're ideology makes you incapable of understanding that every group must have collective interests. Every group, regardless of size or intent, forms around common interests, goals, and commonality. Marriage, families, tribes, survival, militaries, militias, cities, castles, jobs, hobbies, states, nations, and peoples, they're all groups with collective interests. At some point, someone must enumerate rules/laws for that group, and enforce those rules, for the "greater good" of that group, otherwise that group will inevitably fail in the future.

What are the basic tenets that a group must have for it to continue to exist? The people must have the right to group up in the first place, which also means they must have the right to group up with whom they choose (regardless for what reasons), they must have the right to control who enters that group, they must have the right to protect the borders of that group (or gatekeep, if it's a group without borders, like a hobby), they must have the right to espouse for their collective interests, and the group must have the ability to protect itself and its constituent members from harm, from conquering or subversive forces from without, or from subversive and destructive forces from within. Without those natural rights, all groups, everywhere, would cease to exist. Coincidentally, this denial of basic natural rights is being explicitly denied to White people in the West, because the people in power hate us and are actively replacing and genociding us.

If you'd like a connection to the culture war, just look at what's happened to many of our hobbies and beloved IPs. They've been infiltrated, subverted, and destroyed because the people that enjoyed those hobbies and IPs didn't properly gatekeep, they didn't espouse for their collective interests, they didn't control their borders, they didn't control who entered,. They let in subversive and destructive people, who have decimated what we love.

If you deny the greater good, the collective, the group, you will destroy that group. This is actively taking place, and you're defending it, because you're actively denying people's natural rights to group up and maintain that group.

You've accepted the lie of individualism, that ignores the collective. I'm not arguing in favor of pure rampant collectivism. That too is destructive. Reality meets in the middle, a healthy balance between individualism and collectivism, where the liberties of the individual aren't trampled, or very little, but the collective health is ensured, so that the individual too, is protected. You may argue the evils of such things using modern analogues, but you'd be forced to admit that the modern examples are all being run by malicious people intentionally destroying the groups they oversee. Believe it or not, groups can be overseen by people that love the people they're responsible for, and act in their interests.