On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby fuse » Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:58 pm

gib wrote:That's right. It's about the psychology of liberals and conservatives.

Ahh, for some reason I was thinking this was supposed to be about liberalism and conservatism.

gib wrote:And? How else you gonna characterize a group than by the lowest common denominator? Most kids in the classroom fall somewhere in the middle of the bell curve--neither wimps nor bullies--but the same is true of politics--most people fall somewhere in the middle between liberals and conservatives.

Ehh seems like just another way to stereotype liberals and conservatives without really explaining much or being very useful. I mean, it's more interesting and more useful to look at liberals and conservatives in their strongest light - see what the virtues of each are etc. It's like if you looked into some debate in philosophy, you'll find loads of dumb arguments/proponents on each side, right? Some people spend all their time re-hashing the common errors. All I'm saying is, wouldn't it be more interesting, don't we stand to learn more by focusing on the strongest arguments and the mind boggling crux of an issue?

gib wrote:
fuse wrote:Here's one I find intriguing: the omnivore's dilemma as applied to general human motivation - i.e. let's say there are two main competing motivations in political life: the conservative desire for order and well-defined boundaries (b/c experimentation with new foods, or ideas, can risk exposure to contamination and potentially deleterious effects) vs. the liberal desire to seek out diversity and push boundaries (b/c new food sources, or ideas, mitigate the the potentially fatal risk of strains that go bad or become depleted) -- both historically necessary for a balanced survival strategy.

Well, you can conceptualize liberals and conservatives any way you like--seems there are as many different conceptualizations as there are people--but I'm sticking with the classical definitions: conservatives are those who want to minimize government in order to maximize individual freedom whereas liberals are those who want to maximize government in order to maximize security and equality.

Heh, okay. I don't think those are the "classical" definitions.

gib wrote:Teacher represents the government in my analogy. The nerds and the wimps want teacher to be present, and go to teacher whenever they're being harassed, because they know teacher is an authority and has the power to keep the bullies and rowdies in line. The bullies and rowdies, on the other hand, want teacher to leave the classroom so that they can be rowdie or pick on the nerds and wimps.

A teacher is basically a dictator, of course, in the context of the classroom. Maybe you can clarify the analogy?

Are we talking about some kind of representative government with separate and empowered branches that must share power, or are we talking about a dictatorship? Are you saying that conservatives are really anarchists who want to get rid of government so they can be "rowdy" and go around picking on people?
These aren't directed at your analogy, but discussing these would help me make more sense of it: why are liberals the ones who care more about security and equality vs freedom if the word liberal shares its root with liberty, or freedom? Has the meaning of liberalism and conservatism changed over time? What makes someone a liberal or conservative (besides self-declaration) ?
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby gib » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:25 am

Zero_Sum wrote:It's an interesting opinion or perspective to be sure but in the end this would all be addressed as mere over-generalizations of all people politically.


I know, because I omitted words like "most" or "on average".

Zero_Sum wrote:How would you classify national socialist autocratic supporters like me? :)


A nazi I guess. Aren't you guys far-right?

fuse wrote:Ahh, for some reason I was thinking this was supposed to be about liberalism and conservatism.


Oh, no, no, no. Why would I eeever want to touch on conservatism and liberalism by bringing up the psychology of conservatives and liberals.

fuse wrote:Ehh seems like just another way to stereotype liberals and conservatives without really explaining much or being very useful.


Makes no difference to me whether you think it's a stereotype or you find it useful. If you don't think it explains anything, you don't get the analogy (TBH, I'm kinda shocked how few people are getting it). It's meant to highlight what I think is a fundamental truth about human nature.

fuse wrote:I mean, it's more interesting and more useful to look at liberals and conservatives in their strongest light - see what the virtues of each are etc.


They have virtues?

fuse wrote:All I'm saying is, wouldn't it be more interesting, don't we stand to learn more by focusing on the strongest arguments and the mind boggling crux of an issue?


No.

fuse wrote:Heh, okay. I don't think those are the "classical" definitions.


It's what I learnt in school.

fuse wrote:A teacher is basically a dictator, of course, in the context of the classroom. Maybe you can clarify the analogy?


The teacher represents government. She has enough authority to come down on the bullies and the rowdies when she catches them bullying or being rowdie. This is true even in democracies or republics. The government has enough authority to come down on those breaking the law (rowdies) or abusing others (bullies); and liberals will often go to government in order to legislate new laws in order to control behaviors they don't like (smoking bans for example).

fuse wrote:Are we talking about some kind of representative government with separate and empowered branches that must share power, or are we talking about a dictatorship?


We're talking about human nature. In any society, there will be those who want freedom from government in order to do what they want, and those who want a more powerful government in order to provide security against the latter... and of course, there's everyone in between. The analogy is more than an analogy. Bullies, rowdies, nerds, and wimps are real people. Just go to any high school and you will find them (...and everyone in between). They are real because this is a real phenomenon. And it doesn't stop once they graduate... it just moves into politics.

fuse wrote:Are you saying that conservatives are really anarchists who want to get rid of government so they can be "rowdy" and go around picking on people?


Conservatists call those guys "libertarians" (at least Ucci did). You can consider them radical conservatists. But the moderate conservatists (from what they tell me) only want to minimize government (to its proper roll), not get rid of it (that would be silly :-? ).

fuse wrote:why are liberals the ones who care more about security and equality vs freedom if the word liberal shares its root with liberty, or freedom? Has the meaning of liberalism and conservatism changed over time?


Don't be fooled by the names. They don't mean anything. The only answer I have is from what a few conservatives told me: that the conservatives used to call themselves liberals but then the other guys appropriated the name just to make themselves sound like they're all about freedom... or so I'm told. I'm also told liberals do this all the time: borrow terms for window dressing, like calling themselves "progressive" in order to make it sound like the liberal agenda equals progress. But "isms" are just a label for identifying a group of people. I'm constantly amazed at how little a group's actually ideology and value system matches the "ism" they attach to themselves. And I really shouldn't be amazed. It's to be expected. A group's ideology and values will go wherever group-think takes them. A group's ideology/values might start out at a certain position but then over the years migrate to a completely different position. It's like a herd of "northerners" who migrate to the south and still call themselves "northerners". And why shouldn't they? No one really cares about changing the name until it starts to become detrimental.

fuse wrote:What makes someone a liberal or conservative (besides self-declaration)?


Somebody else's declaration.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez

That's earth therapy. You might as well ask a horse to fix a merry-go-round. I mean, he'll try his best, but mostly, he's just gonna get horrified.
- Rick Sanchez

You're young, you have your whole life ahead of you, and your anal cavity is still taut yet malleable.
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Zero_Sum » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:10 am

To Gib:

Well, it is good that you know what over generalizing is, nazi is a derogatory term by the way.

It depends what you mean with your definition of far right. We prefer to call ourselves socialist or social conservatives. Another way to describe ourselves would be paternal conservatives.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:42 am

Zero_Sum wrote:To Gib:

Well, it is good that you know what over generalizing is, nazi is a derogatory term by the way.

It depends what you mean with your definition of far right. We prefer to call ourselves socialist or social conservatives. Another way to describe ourselves would be paternal conservatives.

A national socialist is a fascist, right? I know, another derogatory term, but it's an authoritarian dictatorship, which I suppose is another derogatory term. Everything is done for the good of the people as per the judgement of a benevolent leader who favors strong borders and division of people by tribe, strong family values for building a strong population, and elimination of democratic ignorant opinions from decision making processes. It doesn't seem so bad when I say it that way, but the risk is having a tyrannical maniac at the helm which I think explains the derogation of the former nomenclature as per history. Monarchies and dictatorships never seem to work that well and it was that impetus that formed the US.

Why did George Washington turn down an offer to become a king?

Washington once said "I didn't fight George III to become George I." He didn't believe the office of the president should resemble a European monarchy. He became president with some vision of what the country and the office of president should and shouldn't be. He set one precedent even before becoming president when he resigned his commission as General instead of turning it into a springboard for political power.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Zero_Sum » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:48 am

Serendipper wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:To Gib:

Well, it is good that you know what over generalizing is, nazi is a derogatory term by the way.

It depends what you mean with your definition of far right. We prefer to call ourselves socialist or social conservatives. Another way to describe ourselves would be paternal conservatives.

A national socialist is a fascist, right? I know, another derogatory term, but it's an authoritarian dictatorship, which I suppose is another derogatory term. Everything is done for the good of the people as per the judgement of a benevolent leader who favors strong borders and division of people by tribe, strong family values for building a strong population, and elimination of democratic ignorant opinions from decision making processes. It doesn't seem so bad when I say it that way, but the risk is having a tyrannical maniac at the helm which I think explains the derogation of the former nomenclature as per history. Monarchies and dictatorships never seem to work that well and it was that impetus that formed the US.

Why did George Washington turn down an offer to become a king?

Washington once said "I didn't fight George III to become George I." He didn't believe the office of the president should resemble a European monarchy. He became president with some vision of what the country and the office of president should and shouldn't be. He set one precedent even before becoming president when he resigned his commission as General instead of turning it into a springboard for political power.


Democracy is run by the mob and a majority of uneducated idiots or bozos that should have no power to make political decisions for everybody else. To hell with democracy, the constitution, and the founding fathers. The modern United States is a sick decadent nation that needs to simply die which is why I am a crash enthusiast. You could call us fascist but I prefer the term authoritarian in that fascism is more in line with Italian corporatism and I don't consider myself a corporatist either. No, I define myself as an authoritarian. Yes, there is the threat of maniacal dictators but the same could be said about maniacal presidents or prime ministers also. I am very aware of the abuse of power and believe it should be avoided at all costs.

At any rate I'm a firm believer in a benevolent dictatorship through a nation state.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby gib » Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:18 am

Zero_Sum wrote:To Gib:

Well, it is good that you know what over generalizing is, nazi is a derogatory term by the way.


Oh, excuse me Mr. Fascist Prick.

(kidding! kidding! kidding! :D )

Zero_Sum wrote:It depends what you mean with your definition of far right. We prefer to call ourselves socialist or social conservatives. Another way to describe ourselves would be paternal conservatives.


With all the different terms people like to use, it's hard to keep track of what one really is. Now I need to know what you mean by social conservative.

Paint me a picture of your perfect world, and then I will see where you stand.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez

That's earth therapy. You might as well ask a horse to fix a merry-go-round. I mean, he'll try his best, but mostly, he's just gonna get horrified.
- Rick Sanchez

You're young, you have your whole life ahead of you, and your anal cavity is still taut yet malleable.
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Zero_Sum » Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:26 am

gib wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:To Gib:

Well, it is good that you know what over generalizing is, nazi is a derogatory term by the way.


Oh, excuse me Mr. Fascist Prick.

(kidding! kidding! kidding! :D )

Zero_Sum wrote:It depends what you mean with your definition of far right. We prefer to call ourselves socialist or social conservatives. Another way to describe ourselves would be paternal conservatives.


With all the different terms people like to use, it's hard to keep track of what one really is. Now I need to know what you mean by social conservative.

Paint me a picture of your perfect world, and then I will see where you stand.


Well technically I admit being a prick so that is actually a factual statement.

A socialist conservative merely means I am a conservative that is a socialist that believes economically and socially that socialism should prevail over society.

A big part of my conservatism of course is ethnocentrism and ethnic nationalism.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby URUZ » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:25 pm

Representative Republic with separate branches of tiered government slows the progress of mob rule. Then tying the system to a Constitution rooted absolutely philosophically is a further necessity. America did all that. But of course any system is subject to entropy and decay.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:03 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:Yes, there is the threat of maniacal dictators but the same could be said about maniacal presidents or prime ministers also. I am very aware of the abuse of power and believe it should be avoided at all costs.

Then how does a dictatorship avoid the perils of mania? Presidents and prime ministers can be thrown out or not re-elected, but what can be done when a dictator abuses power? That was precisely what the founding fathers wanted to avoid by having lots of checks n balances in government. They also recognized the idiocracy of a democracy which is why the US is a republic.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the **Republic** for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Benjamin Franklin saying, "I have often looked at that behind the president without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now I... know that it is a rising...sun."

Image

Were the Victorians cleverer than us?

Using psychometric meta-analysis we computed the true correlation between simple reaction time and g, yielding a decline of − 1.16 IQ points per decade or − 13.35 IQ points since Victorian times. These findings strongly indicate that with respect to g the Victorians were substantially cleverer than modern Western populations.

It's likely that what they conceived is the best possible.

As Ben Franklin said: http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_finalspeech.html

Mr. President:
I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig'd, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment, and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others.


Snip

In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with Confidence to hear that our Councils are confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet hereafter for the Purpose of cutting one another's throats.

Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby gib » Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:30 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:A socialist conservative merely means I am a conservative that is a socialist <-- Really?!?! :o that believes economically and socially that socialism should prevail over society.


You gotta stop using "isms" to explain your position. Most conservatists I've met seem to be against socialism (they lump it together with liberalism, communism, being Canadian, etc.), which suggests you think of "socialism" and "conservatism" in different ways from most.

What I need is a picture. Paint me a picture of how you think the perfect society would be structured (politically, economically, culturally, etc.).

Your ethnocentrism helps--it tells me you believe in racial segragation (or religious, or familial, or something along those lines); or perhaps the domination and subjugation of one race/ethnicity over another.

Here's what I understand of the terms "socialism" and "conservatism":

Socialism: the view that one of the primary functions of government is to take care of the people, to make life better, more comfortable, safer, happier, etc. and this is done through social services (ex. health care) paid for by taxes--typcially without any kind of social segregation (i.e. everyone gets equal access to these services and everyone gets taxed equally).

Conservatism: the view that the roll of government should not stray from its original intent as laid out in its constitution (as opposed to the view that government should heed to the whims of the people or the sway of the social tides). This of course means that a conservatist's values may differ from another's depending on his country of origin and the constitution therein, but generally it means honoring tradition and resisting change unless it's necessary.

UrGod wrote:Representative Republic with separate branches of tiered government slows the progress of mob rule. Then tying the system to a Constitution rooted absolutely philosophically is a further necessity. America did all that. But of course any system is subject to entropy and decay.


Very well said. =D>
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez

That's earth therapy. You might as well ask a horse to fix a merry-go-round. I mean, he'll try his best, but mostly, he's just gonna get horrified.
- Rick Sanchez

You're young, you have your whole life ahead of you, and your anal cavity is still taut yet malleable.
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Zero_Sum » Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:24 pm

UrGod wrote:Representative Republic with separate branches of tiered government slows the progress of mob rule. Then tying the system to a Constitution rooted absolutely philosophically is a further necessity. America did all that. But of course any system is subject to entropy and decay.

No, it doesn't. Republican parliamentarianism also revolves around voting which is why democracy is its bastard child. Democracy was born out of the ideals that is republicanism and both are equally flawed. I want to make it clear that I neither favor a democracy or republic equally, both are terrible as a whole. Both were born out of philosophical liberalist ambitions.
Last edited by Zero_Sum on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Zero_Sum » Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:32 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:Yes, there is the threat of maniacal dictators but the same could be said about maniacal presidents or prime ministers also. I am very aware of the abuse of power and believe it should be avoided at all costs.

Then how does a dictatorship avoid the perils of mania? Presidents and prime ministers can be thrown out or not re-elected, but what can be done when a dictator abuses power? That was precisely what the founding fathers wanted to avoid by having lots of checks n balances in government. They also recognized the idiocracy of a democracy which is why the US is a republic.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the **Republic** for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Benjamin Franklin saying, "I have often looked at that behind the president without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now I... know that it is a rising...sun."

Image

Were the Victorians cleverer than us?

Using psychometric meta-analysis we computed the true correlation between simple reaction time and g, yielding a decline of − 1.16 IQ points per decade or − 13.35 IQ points since Victorian times. These findings strongly indicate that with respect to g the Victorians were substantially cleverer than modern Western populations.

It's likely that what they conceived is the best possible.

As Ben Franklin said: http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_finalspeech.html

Mr. President:
I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig'd, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment, and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others.


Snip

In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with Confidence to hear that our Councils are confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet hereafter for the Purpose of cutting one another's throats.

Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.


Yes, the ideals of a democratic republic are so great that is why we find ourselves in the sick decadent environment that we live in now. If anything the history of democratic republics or republics in general is their lack of efficiency which is why we live in the world we have today.

None of their so called safeguards of political power has amounted to much of anything at all and today's environment only illustrates that historical point.

An abusive dictator can be thrown out of power by either a coup or violent uprising. Was it not one writer in American literature that said the tree of liberty must constantly renew itself in blood and revolution every so often?

Presidents are not so easy to be voted out of office especially if they're in the pockets of the wealthy establishment. As a whole especially with modern democracies the general population has very little control and influence over its leadership where voting is just a symbolic act of the illusion of freedom or political choice. A dictatorship on the other hand sees little need of maintaining such delusions. No, it's clear if anything democracy is a system of division controlled by oligarchs and enticed by a majority of slavish idiots who think themselves as being free. None are more slaves that those that delude themselves as being free.
Last edited by Zero_Sum on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Zero_Sum » Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:46 pm

gib wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:A socialist conservative merely means I am a conservative that is a socialist <-- Really?!?! :o that believes economically and socially that socialism should prevail over society.


You gotta stop using "isms" to explain your position. Most conservatists I've met seem to be against socialism (they lump it together with liberalism, communism, being Canadian, etc.), which suggests you think of "socialism" and "conservatism" in different ways from most.

What I need is a picture. Paint me a picture of how you think the perfect society would be structured (politically, economically, culturally, etc.).

Your ethnocentrism helps--it tells me you believe in racial segragation (or religious, or familial, or something along those lines); or perhaps the domination and subjugation of one race/ethnicity over another.

Here's what I understand of the terms "socialism" and "conservatism":

Socialism: the view that one of the primary functions of government is to take care of the people, to make life better, more comfortable, safer, happier, etc. and this is done through social services (ex. health care) paid for by taxes--typcially without any kind of social segregation (i.e. everyone gets equal access to these services and everyone gets taxed equally).

Conservatism: the view that the roll of government should not stray from its original intent as laid out in its constitution (as opposed to the view that government should heed to the whims of the people or the sway of the social tides). This of course means that a conservatist's values may differ from another's depending on his country of origin and the constitution therein, but generally it means honoring tradition and resisting change unless it's necessary.

UrGod wrote:Representative Republic with separate branches of tiered government slows the progress of mob rule. Then tying the system to a Constitution rooted absolutely philosophically is a further necessity. America did all that. But of course any system is subject to entropy and decay.


Very well said. =D>



What's the problem utilizing isms? As long as one understands what those isms convey it makes conversation a lot easier in articulation.

Segregation isn't enough, I'm a full blown separatist. Europe use to be a very socialist conservative area of the world until globalist democracy became a thing but yes few people in Canada, Australia, and the United States know what social conservatism means.

It is a view unfortunately that only a few seem to embrace although I would like to change that overtime.

I don't know how well I can explain my views to you in depth however if you have questions I'll gladly do my best in answering them.

The most basic definition of what I believe in is a conservative ethnocentric nationalist state whose political economy is both socialist and autocratic in leadership. This isn't to say I would get rid of all market forces being socialist in that I support a mixed economy but where instead is more socialist leaning overall.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:27 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:Yes, the ideals of a democratic republic are so great that is why we find ourselves in the sick decadent environment that we live in now. If anything the history of democratic republics or republics in general is their lack of efficiency which is why we live in the world we have today.

I suspect that is going to be true of any system. The problem is: humans. I wonder if an AI bot possibly could be a benevolent dictator :-k

None of their so called safeguards of political power has amounted to much of anything at all and today's environment only illustrates that historical point.

I'm not sure I see the illustration. We're 250 years out and life isn't so bad. I can say what I want to say and mostly do what I want.

An abusive dictator can be thrown out of power by either a coup or violent uprising. Was it not one writer in American literature that said the tree of liberty must constantly renew itself in blood and revolution every so often?

If no writer said it, then they should have. I'm not sure it's so easy to overthrow a dictator. It took the US military to remove Saddam and it took the entire world to remove Hitler. Dictators spend all their time figuring ways to cement their power. Saddam said "A dead friend is better than a live enemy." If he even smelled insubordination, he'd kill you just to be sure. Every monarch and dictator sends the gestapo to root-out dissidence to prevent exactly what you're suggesting as a check n balance.

Presidents are not so easy to be voted out of office especially if they're in the pockets of the wealthy establishment.

Hence the term limits. Anyway, what about the coup?

As a whole especially with modern democracies the general population has very little control and influence over its leadership where voting is just a symbolic act of the illusion of freedom or political choice. A dictatorship on the other hand sees little need of maintaining such delusions. No, it's clear if anything democracy is a system of division controlled by oligarchs and enticed by a majority of slavish idiots who think themselves as being free. None are more slaves that those that delude themselves as being free.

There is a lot of truth to that, but it may be the least of all evils. If the conservative party would go extinct, the oligarchs would disappear since big business wouldn't be favored, but big gov instead, which is ruled by the constitution. We're just waiting for the Baby Boomers to pass before making advancement.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby URUZ » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:56 pm

Many people do not really want freedom because freedom means self responsibility. This is a problem.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby gib » Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:15 am

Zero_Sum wrote:What's the problem utilizing isms? As long as one understands what those isms convey it makes conversation a lot easier in articulation.


Both have to understand... otherwise you're just talking passed each other. And I think that's what happens half the time in political arguments. I think all these terms--liberalism, socialism, conservatism, authoritarianism--have as many meanings as there are people (bit of an exaggeration but you get the point). And the worst part is everyone thinks we all share the same meanings--so we end up just talking past each other.

When I hear, for example, socialist conservative, I can't help but to think it's a contradiction in terms. Usually, socialism is what conservatives are against. So I have to pry into what you mean by "socialism" and "conservatism" in order to understand how they're compatible. <-- This is why I ask you to paint a picture of the world as you, a socialist conservative, would have it. If I understand the state of affairs in the world that such terms denote for you, then I've got it.

Zero_Sum wrote:Segregation isn't enough, I'm a full blown separatist. So different countries for different races? Europe use to be a very socialist conservative area of the world until globalist democracy <-- What's that? became a thing but yes few people in Canada, Australia, and the United States know what social conservatism means.


Zero_Sum wrote:It is a view unfortunately that only a few seem to embrace although I would like to change that overtime.


Do you see it being anything like Hitler's Third Reich?

Zero_Sum wrote:I don't know how well I can explain my views to you in depth however if you have questions I'll gladly do my best in answering them.


Well, let's just start with my definitions of socialism and conservatism. You tell me: do those come close to the mark for you?

Zero_Sum wrote:The most basic definition of what I believe in is a conservative ethnocentric nationalist state whose political economy is both socialist and autocratic in leadership. This isn't to say I would get rid of all market forces being socialist in that I support a mixed economy but where instead is more socialist leaning overall.


Ok, so much like most Western nations today, except with an autocrat instead of a president or prime minister, a dictatorship instead of a republic/democracy.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez

That's earth therapy. You might as well ask a horse to fix a merry-go-round. I mean, he'll try his best, but mostly, he's just gonna get horrified.
- Rick Sanchez

You're young, you have your whole life ahead of you, and your anal cavity is still taut yet malleable.
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Zero_Sum » Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:08 pm

gib wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:What's the problem utilizing isms? As long as one understands what those isms convey it makes conversation a lot easier in articulation.


Both have to understand... otherwise you're just talking passed each other. And I think that's what happens half the time in political arguments. I think all these terms--liberalism, socialism, conservatism, authoritarianism--have as many meanings as there are people (bit of an exaggeration but you get the point). And the worst part is everyone thinks we all share the same meanings--so we end up just talking past each other.

When I hear, for example, socialist conservative, I can't help but to think it's a contradiction in terms. Usually, socialism is what conservatives are against. So I have to pry into what you mean by "socialism" and "conservatism" in order to understand how they're compatible. <-- This is why I ask you to paint a picture of the world as you, a socialist conservative, would have it. If I understand the state of affairs in the world that such terms denote for you, then I've got it.

Zero_Sum wrote:Segregation isn't enough, I'm a full blown separatist. So different countries for different races? Europe use to be a very socialist conservative area of the world until globalist democracy <-- What's that? became a thing but yes few people in Canada, Australia, and the United States know what social conservatism means.


Zero_Sum wrote:It is a view unfortunately that only a few seem to embrace although I would like to change that overtime.


Do you see it being anything like Hitler's Third Reich?

Zero_Sum wrote:I don't know how well I can explain my views to you in depth however if you have questions I'll gladly do my best in answering them.


Well, let's just start with my definitions of socialism and conservatism. You tell me: do those come close to the mark for you?

Zero_Sum wrote:The most basic definition of what I believe in is a conservative ethnocentric nationalist state whose political economy is both socialist and autocratic in leadership. This isn't to say I would get rid of all market forces being socialist in that I support a mixed economy but where instead is more socialist leaning overall.


Ok, so much like most Western nations today, except with an autocrat instead of a president or prime minister, a dictatorship instead of a republic/democracy.


If you study Strasserism it is one of the main proponents of conservative national socialism. There really isn't anything contradictory of having a political ideology that is both conservative and socialist where I would challenge anybody that says there is. Yes, it is a relatively unheard of ideology because of the dominance of neo liberal capitalism here in the west that overshadows such a notion into relative obscurity. Again I am not sure how to specifically describe what conservative socialism is until you give me some specific questions which I will be more than willing to answer the best that I can. Give me all the questions that you have.

Globalist democracy I mean democratic political structures that revolve around global civicism.

Yes, different nations for different races and at this rate of ethnic or racial balkanization here in the west nations are going to splinter splitting themselves apart eventually.

There would be some commonalities with Hitler's Third Reich yes, but it wouldn't be entirely the same thing either. Otto Strasser under Strasserism and who was the original architect of German national socialism had many disagreements with Adolf Hitler for instance ideologically.

He didn't think Adolf Hitler was socialist enough.

Come close to the mark? What?!

Except most western nations are not even remotely socialist enough where capitalism pervades everything. Total destruction of capitalism and marxism is the maximum ideal of a conservative national socialist. Yes autocracy would be the norm, fuck this democratic shit show that promotes the illusion of free choice.
Last edited by Zero_Sum on Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Zero_Sum » Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:17 pm

UrGod wrote:Many people do not really want freedom because freedom means self responsibility. This is a problem.

No man or woman is an island. Radical individualism is a poisonous ideology that sets people against each other. It divides people and does nothing in uniting them collectively or socially.

We need to stop looking at society in terms of class and economic output where instead we look at all of society as one whole or one biological super organism. We need to stop looking at the rights of individuals and be more concerned with the rights of society as a whole that encompasses all individuals.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby gib » Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:12 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:If you study Strasserism it is one of the main proponents of conservative national socialism. There really isn't anything contradictory of having a political ideology that is both conservative and socialist where I would challenge anybody that says there is. This may be true, but when most people toss around the words "conservative" and "socialist", they're talking about opposing camps. But in principle, you're right, there's no necessary contradiction. Yes, it is a relatively unheard of ideology because of the dominance of neo liberal capitalism <-- What's that? here in the west that overshadows such a notion into relative obscurity. Again I am not sure how to specifically describe what conservative socialism is until you give me some specific questions which I will be more than willing to answer the best that I can. Give me all the questions that you have.


Got none at the moment. But just to linger a bit more on your conservative socialism--would you describe that as a balance between conservative values and socialist values? Like a mixed market?

Zero_Sum wrote:Globalist democracy I mean democratic political structures that revolve around global civicism. <-- What's that?


Zero_Sum wrote:Yes, different nations for different races and at this rate of ethnic or racial balkanization here in the west nations are going to splinter splitting themselves apart eventually.


Yeah... probably... so who gets Alabama?

Zero_Sum wrote:There would be some commonalities with Hitler's Third Reich yes, but it wouldn't be entirely the same thing either. Otto Strasser under Strasserism and who was the original architect of German national socialism had many disagreements with Adolf Hitler for instance ideologically.

He didn't think Adolf Hitler was socialist enough.


Ok. Could we say that Hitler is to Strasser as Stalin was to Marx? A lot of people believe that Marxism could still work, that Stalin just misapplied it, and that it should be given another chance. The same argument, I suppose, could stand for Strasser, that Hitler just misapplied it, and it should be given another chance.

Zero_Sum wrote:Come close to the mark? What?!


Never mind.

Zero_Sum wrote:Except most western nations are not even remotely socialist enough where capitalism pervades everything. Total destruction of capitalism and marxism is the maximum ideal of a conservative national socialist. Yes autocracy would be the norm, fuck this democratic shit show that promotes the illusion of free choice.


Yeah, fuck it!!! :character-beavisbutthead:
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez

That's earth therapy. You might as well ask a horse to fix a merry-go-round. I mean, he'll try his best, but mostly, he's just gonna get horrified.
- Rick Sanchez

You're young, you have your whole life ahead of you, and your anal cavity is still taut yet malleable.
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Zero_Sum » Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:39 pm

gib wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:If you study Strasserism it is one of the main proponents of conservative national socialism. There really isn't anything contradictory of having a political ideology that is both conservative and socialist where I would challenge anybody that says there is. This may be true, but when most people toss around the words "conservative" and "socialist", they're talking about opposing camps. But in principle, you're right, there's no necessary contradiction. Yes, it is a relatively unheard of ideology because of the dominance of neo liberal capitalism <-- What's that? here in the west that overshadows such a notion into relative obscurity. Again I am not sure how to specifically describe what conservative socialism is until you give me some specific questions which I will be more than willing to answer the best that I can. Give me all the questions that you have.


Got none at the moment. But just to linger a bit more on your conservative socialism--would you describe that as a balance between conservative values and socialist values? Like a mixed market?

Zero_Sum wrote:Globalist democracy I mean democratic political structures that revolve around global civicism. <-- What's that?


Zero_Sum wrote:Yes, different nations for different races and at this rate of ethnic or racial balkanization here in the west nations are going to splinter splitting themselves apart eventually.


Yeah... probably... so who gets Alabama?

Zero_Sum wrote:There would be some commonalities with Hitler's Third Reich yes, but it wouldn't be entirely the same thing either. Otto Strasser under Strasserism and who was the original architect of German national socialism had many disagreements with Adolf Hitler for instance ideologically.

He didn't think Adolf Hitler was socialist enough.


Ok. Could we say that Hitler is to Strasser as Stalin was to Marx? A lot of people believe that Marxism could still work, that Stalin just misapplied it, and that it should be given another chance. The same argument, I suppose, could stand for Strasser, that Hitler just misapplied it, and it should be given another chance.

Zero_Sum wrote:Come close to the mark? What?!


Never mind.

Zero_Sum wrote:Except most western nations are not even remotely socialist enough where capitalism pervades everything. Total destruction of capitalism and marxism is the maximum ideal of a conservative national socialist. Yes autocracy would be the norm, fuck this democratic shit show that promotes the illusion of free choice.


Yeah, fuck it!!! :character-beavisbutthead:



Neo liberal capitalism essentially is what dominates all western nations these days. Political conservative movements are effectively dead despite what their supporters might say because essentially conservatives have become too moderate where they act or behave much like their liberal counterparts. Any more there is very little difference between conservatives and neo liberals anymore where they act much like the same party with feigned pretend cosmetic differences for public consumption of their political bases. There use to be fiscal financial conservatives for instance but anymore all parties agree upon on reckless unlimited amounts of government spending where fiscal conservatism has become a sort of laughing stock of an ideal. What exactly anymore are conservatives conserving? The answer to that question is nothing. Neo liberalism dominates western civilization now and conservative political movements has been absorbed or co-opted by that. In the west essentially all political affiliations are being controlled or co-opted by the oligarchy that directs and controls everything where it is abundantly clear that neo liberalism is their preferred ideology for mass public consumption.

For me the reason that not many people have heard about conservative socialism is because much of the political process in the west is controlled by the economic power structure and because of that dominance they don't want the public at large to know about any kind of social political alternatives out there that might threaten their tightly knitted system of control.

Democratic movements in the west are effectively globalist and anti nationalism, they're entirely international in scope. The west has become all about internationalism, unlimited foreign immigration, military imperialism, economic exploitation, and anti nationalism to its very root.

Yes, I am a promoter of a mixed market economy but one of which leans more towards a socialist economy.

I have somewhat of an idea what's going to happen when balkanization eventually fractures and splinters entire nations a part. At some point I am going to write more on this subject. There are two options when this occurs. A.) Go through a very violent and horrendous civil war revolving around total war ethnically.

B.) Transitional secession with minimal conflict in which all ethnic groups compromise or negotiate separation amongst themselves something that all can agree upon.

At this point I am not sure which will happen but I do have a basic rudimentary understanding of both in terms of possibility.

Hitler was to Strasser what Stalin was to Marx? In some ways we could say that, yes. I would say that I have a frustrating understanding of Adolf Hitler revolving around admiration but also harsh criticism. Many of the things he did and said I like however there is also some things that he did that was disastrous that I don't like which ultimately cost the Germans to lose the war in World War II. Adolf Hitler had many faults and certainly wasn't perfect where he made many mistakes but I don't think this in any way detracts his importance in history or the national socialist movement. There wouldn't be much of a movement without him to his credit.

I aspire towards a more evolved, rejuvenated, and well adapted model of national socialism. The one I have in mind doesn't revolve around a bunch of skinhead swastika brandishing individuals or people wearing world war II regalia shouting seig heil everywhere. The movement I support is an intellectual one with individuals wearing suits and ties, dresses, or just casual wear. It is is a movement that is philosophical, intellectual, social, political, and economic.

It is a movement of ideas, justice, social order, nationalism, and permeates the idea that we as Europeans have the right to exist.

I am serious about my comment on democracy in the west as I view it to be rotten and corrupt to its core. I don't see how anybody but the naive and stupid can deny this.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby gib » Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:22 am

Zero_Sum wrote:Neo liberal capitalism essentially is what dominates all western nations these days. Political conservative movements are effectively dead despite what their supporters might say because essentially conservatives have become too moderate where they act or behave much like their liberal counterparts. Any more there is very little difference between conservatives and neo liberals anymore where they act much like the same party with feigned pretend cosmetic differences for public consumption of their political bases. The extremists become more extreme and the rest kinda, sorta just congeal into a gross disgusting blob in the middle, very little in the way of understanding their own position. There use to be fiscal financial conservatives for instance but anymore all parties agree upon on reckless unlimited amounts of government spending where fiscal conservatism has become a sort of laughing stock of an ideal. How much are you guys in debt? What exactly anymore are conservatives conserving? Are you assuming conservatism means conserving money? The answer to that question is nothing. Neo liberalism dominates western civilization now and conservative political movements has been absorbed or co-opted by that. In the west essentially all political affiliations are being controlled or co-opted by the oligarchy that directs and controls everything where it is abundantly clear that neo liberalism is their preferred ideology for mass public consumption.


I believe that in the case of California.

Zero_Sum wrote:For me the reason that not many people have heard about conservative socialism is because much of the political process in the west is controlled by the economic power structure and because of that dominance they don't want the public at large to know about any kind of social political alternatives out there that might threaten their tightly knitted system of control.


Well, that probably could be said of any power structure that happens to dominate a particular state.

Zero_Sum wrote:Democratic movements in the west are effectively globalist and anti nationalism, they're entirely international in scope. The west has become all about internationalism, unlimited foreign immigration, military imperialism, economic exploitation, and anti nationalism to its very root.


Unlimited foreign immigration is a Democratic move to gain more votes.

Military imperialism is a quintessential American thing (until my son builds his Canadian warship! :D)

Economic exploitation? That's unrestrained capitalism

Anti-nationalism and internationalism go hand-in-hand... don't they?

So tell me, ZS, are you against internationalism because nations in today's world don't seem to be able to get along in the first place? I mean, let's take your ethnic segregationism for example. What if you lived in a nation that had an extremely long history of people living amongst different races and ethnicities, and it was that way since before they could remember. Everybody seems to be able to get along and race antagonisms doesn't seem to crop up any more than antagonism between any other groups. Would you still say there would be a need to separate the different races and ethnicities into different nation states? In other words, do you believe in segregation because, as things stand in the present day, different races in American seem irrevocably incapable of getting along in the first place? Or do you believe in segregation regardless?

Zero_Sum wrote:Yes, I am a promoter of a mixed market economy but one of which leans more towards a socialist economy.


You come dangerously close to liberalism here. Liberals are the ultimate socialists.

Zero_Sum wrote:I have somewhat of an idea what's going to happen when balkanization eventually fractures and splinters entire nations a part. At some point I am going to write more on this subject. There are two options when this occurs. A.) Go through a very violent and horrendous civil war revolving around total war ethnically.


Most likely.

Zero_Sum wrote:B.) Transitional secession with minimal conflict in which all ethnic groups compromise or negotiate separation amongst themselves something that all can agree upon.


:laughing-rolling:

Zero_Sum wrote:At this point I am not sure which will happen but I do have a basic rudimentary understanding of both in terms of possibility.


It's a shock, ZS, you have more faith in humanity than I do (when did this happen? :lol:). I give it a 0/100 chance. 0 chance of a peaceful settlement, 100% of out right bloody war! <-- Because I'm a complete fucking pessimist. :D

Zero_Sum wrote:Hitler was to Strasser what Stalin was to Marx? In some ways we could say that, yes. I would say that I have a frustrating understanding of Adolf Hitler revolving around admiration but also harsh criticism. Many of the things he did and said I like however there is also some things that he did that was disastrous that I don't like which ultimately cost the Germans to lose the war in World War II. Adolf Hitler had many faults and certainly wasn't perfect where he made many mistakes but I don't think this in any way detracts his importance in history or the national socialist movement. There wouldn't be much of a movement without him to his credit.


Oh, he was definitely important as a historical figure, and yeah, you *might* say he had a few faults (just a few), but no one is 100% evil (wait, I'm supposed to be a pessimist). He was a genius and I'm sure one could extract a few virtues and good ideas from a mind now considered the world over to be a vortex of madness.

Zero_Sum wrote:I aspire towards a more evolved, rejuvenated, and well adapted model of national socialism. The one I have in mind doesn't revolve around a bunch of skinhead swastika brandishing individuals or people wearing world war II regalia shouting seig heil everywhere. Strictly from a public relations point of view, I'm happy to hear that. The movement I support is an intellectual one with individuals wearing suits and ties, dresses, or just casual wear. It is is a movement that is philosophical, intellectual, social, political, and economic.


In my not so humble opinion, I think any movement that capitalizes on philosophy and intellectualism stands a far better chance of surviving than a movement that doesn't. It invites smart people. But I think more than that, it needs openness to new and risky idea, ideas that challenge the status quo. Part of what it is to survive is to be flexible and adapt to change.

Zero_Sum wrote:It is a movement of ideas, justice, social order, nationalism, and permeates the idea that we as Europeans have the right to exist.


Everybody does.

Zero_Sum wrote:I am serious about my comment on democracy <-- what's that? in the west as I view it to be rotten and corrupt to its core. I don't see how anybody but the naive and stupid can deny this.


By democracy, do you mean public voting for officials or the original meaning: majority rule?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez

That's earth therapy. You might as well ask a horse to fix a merry-go-round. I mean, he'll try his best, but mostly, he's just gonna get horrified.
- Rick Sanchez

You're young, you have your whole life ahead of you, and your anal cavity is still taut yet malleable.
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Zero_Sum » Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:04 pm

For Gib:

A very powerful, inspiring, and thorough analysis of social economics or the economy of national socialism. It explains the dynamics of third positionism very well. A bit of a warning though, this documentary is almost three hours long.

When I first watched this video I imagined to myself what society could be once again.

The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby gib » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:54 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:For Gib:

A very powerful, inspiring, and thorough analysis of social economics or the economy of national socialism. It explains the dynamics of third positionism very well. A bit of a warning though, this documentary is almost three hours long.

When I first watched this video I imagined to myself what society could be once again.



Three hours, eh? Good to know this video's available, but I don't think I'll get through it anytime soon. I might come back to it from time to time, but if you want to carry on this discuss, we might have to put it aside at least in the short run.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez

That's earth therapy. You might as well ask a horse to fix a merry-go-round. I mean, he'll try his best, but mostly, he's just gonna get horrified.
- Rick Sanchez

You're young, you have your whole life ahead of you, and your anal cavity is still taut yet malleable.
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Zero_Sum » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:08 am

gib wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:Neo liberal capitalism essentially is what dominates all western nations these days. Political conservative movements are effectively dead despite what their supporters might say because essentially conservatives have become too moderate where they act or behave much like their liberal counterparts. Any more there is very little difference between conservatives and neo liberals anymore where they act much like the same party with feigned pretend cosmetic differences for public consumption of their political bases. The extremists become more extreme and the rest kinda, sorta just congeal into a gross disgusting blob in the middle, very little in the way of understanding their own position. There use to be fiscal financial conservatives for instance but anymore all parties agree upon on reckless unlimited amounts of government spending where fiscal conservatism has become a sort of laughing stock of an ideal. How much are you guys in debt? What exactly anymore are conservatives conserving? Are you assuming conservatism means conserving money? The answer to that question is nothing. Neo liberalism dominates western civilization now and conservative political movements has been absorbed or co-opted by that. In the west essentially all political affiliations are being controlled or co-opted by the oligarchy that directs and controls everything where it is abundantly clear that neo liberalism is their preferred ideology for mass public consumption.


I believe that in the case of California.

Zero_Sum wrote:For me the reason that not many people have heard about conservative socialism is because much of the political process in the west is controlled by the economic power structure and because of that dominance they don't want the public at large to know about any kind of social political alternatives out there that might threaten their tightly knitted system of control.


Well, that probably could be said of any power structure that happens to dominate a particular state.

Zero_Sum wrote:Democratic movements in the west are effectively globalist and anti nationalism, they're entirely international in scope. The west has become all about internationalism, unlimited foreign immigration, military imperialism, economic exploitation, and anti nationalism to its very root.


Unlimited foreign immigration is a Democratic move to gain more votes.

Military imperialism is a quintessential American thing (until my son builds his Canadian warship! :D)

Economic exploitation? That's unrestrained capitalism

Anti-nationalism and internationalism go hand-in-hand... don't they?

So tell me, ZS, are you against internationalism because nations in today's world don't seem to be able to get along in the first place? I mean, let's take your ethnic segregationism for example. What if you lived in a nation that had an extremely long history of people living amongst different races and ethnicities, and it was that way since before they could remember. Everybody seems to be able to get along and race antagonisms doesn't seem to crop up any more than antagonism between any other groups. Would you still say there would be a need to separate the different races and ethnicities into different nation states? In other words, do you believe in segregation because, as things stand in the present day, different races in American seem irrevocably incapable of getting along in the first place? Or do you believe in segregation regardless?

Zero_Sum wrote:Yes, I am a promoter of a mixed market economy but one of which leans more towards a socialist economy.


You come dangerously close to liberalism here. Liberals are the ultimate socialists.

Zero_Sum wrote:I have somewhat of an idea what's going to happen when balkanization eventually fractures and splinters entire nations a part. At some point I am going to write more on this subject. There are two options when this occurs. A.) Go through a very violent and horrendous civil war revolving around total war ethnically.


Most likely.

Zero_Sum wrote:B.) Transitional secession with minimal conflict in which all ethnic groups compromise or negotiate separation amongst themselves something that all can agree upon.


:laughing-rolling:

Zero_Sum wrote:At this point I am not sure which will happen but I do have a basic rudimentary understanding of both in terms of possibility.


It's a shock, ZS, you have more faith in humanity than I do (when did this happen? :lol:). I give it a 0/100 chance. 0 chance of a peaceful settlement, 100% of out right bloody war! <-- Because I'm a complete fucking pessimist. :D

Zero_Sum wrote:Hitler was to Strasser what Stalin was to Marx? In some ways we could say that, yes. I would say that I have a frustrating understanding of Adolf Hitler revolving around admiration but also harsh criticism. Many of the things he did and said I like however there is also some things that he did that was disastrous that I don't like which ultimately cost the Germans to lose the war in World War II. Adolf Hitler had many faults and certainly wasn't perfect where he made many mistakes but I don't think this in any way detracts his importance in history or the national socialist movement. There wouldn't be much of a movement without him to his credit.


Oh, he was definitely important as a historical figure, and yeah, you *might* say he had a few faults (just a few), but no one is 100% evil (wait, I'm supposed to be a pessimist). He was a genius and I'm sure one could extract a few virtues and good ideas from a mind now considered the world over to be a vortex of madness.

Zero_Sum wrote:I aspire towards a more evolved, rejuvenated, and well adapted model of national socialism. The one I have in mind doesn't revolve around a bunch of skinhead swastika brandishing individuals or people wearing world war II regalia shouting seig heil everywhere. Strictly from a public relations point of view, I'm happy to hear that. The movement I support is an intellectual one with individuals wearing suits and ties, dresses, or just casual wear. It is is a movement that is philosophical, intellectual, social, political, and economic.


In my not so humble opinion, I think any movement that capitalizes on philosophy and intellectualism stands a far better chance of surviving than a movement that doesn't. It invites smart people. But I think more than that, it needs openness to new and risky idea, ideas that challenge the status quo. Part of what it is to survive is to be flexible and adapt to change.

Zero_Sum wrote:It is a movement of ideas, justice, social order, nationalism, and permeates the idea that we as Europeans have the right to exist.


Everybody does.

Zero_Sum wrote:I am serious about my comment on democracy <-- what's that? in the west as I view it to be rotten and corrupt to its core. I don't see how anybody but the naive and stupid can deny this.


By democracy, do you mean public voting for officials or the original meaning: majority rule?


Well technically conservatives are supposed to be conserving a lot of things like culture, nationhood, and so on besides mere fiscal oversight but looking at the world I see all of that as abysmal failure on their part since it would appear they all lack a consensual political will.

How much is the United States in debt? Simple answer: Way too much! A ridiculous and absurd amount that can never be paid back. (It grows exponentially every year of course.)


What the United States and much of the west has is unrestrained capitalism. There is no other way to describe it and that is the least mild way of describing it. (It is a predatory economy and equally predatory in terms of the representative government that enforces it onto everybody else.)

So tell me, ZS, are you against internationalism because nations in today's world don't seem to be able to get along in the first place? I mean, let's take your ethnic segregationism for example. What if you lived in a nation that had an extremely long history of people living amongst different races and ethnicities, and it was that way since before they could remember. Everybody seems to be able to get along and race antagonisms doesn't seem to crop up any more than antagonism between any other groups. Would you still say there would be a need to separate the different races and ethnicities into different nation states? In other words, do you believe in segregation because, as things stand in the present day, different races in American seem irrevocably incapable of getting along in the first place? Or do you believe in segregation regardless?


I believe in racial segregation regardless. There are certainly some nations that are naturally multicultural and multiracial but they developed that kind of identity over hundreds if not thousands of years.[Indonesia, India, and Malaysia as examples]

In the European west however all of this is done by coercion and the enforcement of the state overnight [eighty something years now] where since its very beginnings was never wanted to begin with.

There's a big difference between liberal or communist socialism compared to the socialism I advocate especially in terms of government, laws, and general economy. Similarities? Maybe, but nonetheless radically different.

It's a shock, ZS, you have more faith in humanity than I do (when did this happen? :lol:). I give it a 0/100 chance. 0 chance of a peaceful settlement, 100% of out right bloody war! <-- Because I'm a complete fucking pessimist.


It could also be a manifestation of both instances. A prolonged ethnic conflict that is an extremely violent that afterwards amongst the devastation it causes forces people from all ethnic or cultural backgrounds to negotiate with one another. In my youth I somewhat glorified violence but now that I'm older having witnessed, experienced, and seen a lot of it I don't anymore. Violence should never be glorified or encouraged as it is something that should be avoided if possible. If there is a way to avoid violence I'm all for it but as you say there probably isn't a way to do so going fourth into the future. I'm definitely not a pacifist and understand that in some instances there is no way to avoid violence or war however I do sincerely believe that nonviolent methods in anything should be pursued first. Violence, death, and war takes its toll on all those it involves. This is what I've learned over the years that is a much different stance compared to my younger years where consequences of such things never was even a thought for me.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: On Liberals and Conservatives: An Analogy

Postby Serendipper » Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:08 am

Zero_Sum wrote:How much is the United States in debt? Simple answer: Way too much! A ridiculous and absurd amount that can never be paid back.

Money is loaned into existence. To pay the debt down is to reduce the money supply and to eliminate debt is to have no money.



Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users