Do you ever look at your own personal individual evolution?

I find it’s interesting that as people our views change overtime upon personal inspection, experiences, or reflection.

Here’s my own personal timeline.

2001-2003: Neo-liberal/social democrat
2003-2005: Communist
2005-2007: Anarcho-communist
2007-2009: Anarcho- primitivist
2009-2016: Anarcho-nihilist
2016-present day: National Socialist/Fascist

It’s been a long bumpy winding road for me concerning self discovery and where I am politically. Like anything our personal life experiences dictates our beliefs and what we come to value living.

It’s the same for religious or existential beliefs as well.

2001-2003: Southern Baptist
2003-2007: Buddhist
2007-2009: Pagan
2009-2017 Atheist
2017 to present: Pagan spiritual mysticism.

Life is a long tedious journey full of many possibilities concerning self discovery.

:laughing: Nice thread, and I have.

Socio-politically:

17-20 Anarcho-collectivist and Utilitarian
20-25 Illegalist and Egoistic Hedonist
25-30 Civic National Democratic Socialist or White National Libertarian (couldn’t make up my mind)
30-Present White National Social Democrat

Spiritually:

17 Christian
18-Present Agnostic, but from time to time I’ve flirted with Buddhism, Daoism and the paranormal.

Before 17 I didn’t give a lot of thought to things.

I’ve been a lot of things, but one thing I’ve never been is a globalist.

Good seeing you again Gloominary, I promise to respond to that other thread at a later point but as usual I struggle with multitasking.

Yeah, amongst everything I’ve never been a globalist, zionist, or internationalist.

I still say you’re wrong about democracy but that is a contentious debate we’ll have at a later date. We both agree on race, identity, conservative cultural values, and nationalism where I think of you as a political ally on that. :wink:

I started out Liberal-Left-Secularist and now I’m pretty far Conservative-Right-Traditionalist.
I like to think of myself as a Centrist though. I’m not willing to give it all up, for Conservatism.
I still believe in many aspects of Freedom, Choice, and Potential for people.

The quote seems to apply to me:
“If you’re young and not a liberal, you’re heartless,
If you’re old and not a conservative, you’re brainless”

Ive always been a libertarian pagan. I don’t believe in anarchism for the same reasons youve recently identified. Its not utilitarian. I believe libertarianism to be the utilitarian approach to the us constitution which I see as the most useful constitution so far except the Roman law.

I can never become a libertarian simply for the fact I’m against extreme individualism and privatization which is why I’m a collectivist.

A single stick by itself is easily breakable but a bundle of sticks held together is unbreakable.

Roman law was built to deal with the realities the US is now experiencing, war between aristocracies within a polity which is strong enough to largely control the known world.

One stark example is that Roman generals were not permitted entry into the city when they were by law in conquering mode. Laws were designed deliberately to constrain power and to distribute it among at least a few hundred factions, which all had their social background. The only problem was, they held slaves. But this was only necessary in the absence of science.

Rome would of been nothing without emperors.

Libertarianism considers the government to be necessary but at the same time as the greatest threat
to that which it guarantees: certain protections from anarchy.

But is more easily burned to the ground.

Well it had at least five centuries of political tradition behind it by the time Caesar was granted his 10 year dictatorship. The time for US emperors is not yet at hand.

People are nothing without the state.

Hence the axe in the figure above ready to strike down anybody that threatens the general well being of the nation state.

The period of total social upheaval and revolution has just begun where a strong figure will emerge from the ruins of the former nation challenging the impotency or ineffectiveness of democracy. This will become repeated all throughout the west.

This Ive always known, I never saw people as being much able to live without authority anyway.
So if you have a state, what is the least intrusive one?
What is the state which leaves everyone in peace and also grants people rights with respect to each other and it, which it will protect?

smalls states are cheap.
I don’t believe in taxes, I believe in altruism by great fortunes, philanthropy for providing bed and breakfast to any soul on the street including stray cats and dogs. But no mice. There are limits.

I don’t believe in taxes on privates. To exist should be free as well as to exert ones own labour.
That we have to pay to the state to be working at all is not good.
But I can see the usefulness of money in the bank so I don’t mind taxing corporations, businesses with a revenue of some certain level, like 20 million a year. So anything producing expensive consumer and industrial items like cars or computers will be forced to remain in the tax paying category, whereas less massive businesses can go about their business in complete prosperity without worrying about the looming shadow of the state.

Limited government is weak, ineffective, and easily corruptible. That’s why I am totalitarian and a centralist.

The moment corruption or decadence shows its face in society it must be eradicated at its root.

Civilization can’t exist without taxation, those that argue against taxation just want to cheat the system for their own self enrichment. They’re no better than anarchists.

There is no such thing as peace, there is only social order of disorder. The later must always be removed from society.

You’re just another looking for tax loopholes.

Government exists because humans aren’t considered competent enough by themselves to govern themselves autonomously adjacent to one another.

it doesn’t matter if we think this is because of excessive power to be violent or excessive weakness in proportionate behaviour, it is not because we are very wise.

Now collectivism goes to the assumption that we are entirely unwise, that only a statistical weighing of voices can bring about wisdom.
But if I see a tennis match I don’t want to know what the average was of the scores of both teams. I want to know the individual stats, I want to be able to deduce the winner.
So Capitalism is more psychologically utilitarian than fascism because it allows for winners and losers within a social fabric and doesn’t consider all winners inside the social fabric and all losers outside of it, which is what fascism is and what women want.

I know you’re not the guy to think something administrative through but give it a try. Think about only taxes for non-human agents, only tax those who don’t enjoy the money or suffer some scarcity in it.

A majority of human beings are irresponsible, unwise, and self destructive, only an iron rod can correct them into something productive. The dumb self destructive herd of animals need to be managed for their own good.

Today’s capitalism is all about the socialism of the very rich and wealthy with fucking over everybody else.

The only cure is nooses around their necks swinging from lampposts or death by firing squad.

More rich and wealthy people shouldn’t have to pay taxes nonsense.