Syrians shot down an Israeli fighter jet and now Israel is bombing the western portion of Damascus. Are the Israelis officially going to declare war on Syria now?
Let’s just start World War III and be done with it. I’m so sick and tired of the pretension of normalcy everywhere.
The absolute social political state of American society right now…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmH0D4sdlJ4[/youtube]
While I’m pro-choice, I think it’s pathetic how polarized and simpleminded liberals and conservatives have allowed themselves to become, or rather have been manipulated into becoming by the elite, divide and rule.
What happened to having an opinion, allowing everyone to have theirs, and having a civil discussion about it?
I mean whether the serfs are allowed to have late-term abortions or not, they’re still serfs, and the underlying power structure, the real enemy remains totally unscathed, so let’s reserve our hatred for that.
In my mind both the neo liberals (international/globalist Marxists) and the conservatives conned by neo conservatives (global zionist and capitalist financial class) are a bunch of fucking idiots. Both groups of people to me are a bunch of gibbering knuckle dragging morons. It amuses me to watch them fight each other. It is one of the reasons why I hate both political parties in the United States and day dream of a centrally economic planned nation of national-socialism within the future. Good luck of course convincing the merits of socialism with other Americans that have been weened since birth to love only capitalism, the same system that has been fucking us over since the 1970’s. For me national socialism as an idea created in France not Germany (most do not know that) is simply the best kind of government we can ever hope for. It’s lonely in the United States being a socialist that believes in a center right form of nationalism. A man can dream anyways. I dream that from the future ruins of this dying wasteland something marvelous and grand springing fourth from it.
Really?
I’m kind of surprised to hear you say that, I thought you were an anarchist/egoist, in the vein of Max Stirner?
Do you think national socialism began with Napoleon, and if so, what were the important differences between Napoleonic national socialism and the 3rd Reich, for you?
I haven’t been an anarchist for almost a year now. I’ve seen the error of that thinking after many years of supporting anarchism. I believe I wrote a small segment on my disavowing of anarchism a couple pages back in this thread. I’ve also come to understand the folly of extreme egoism and individualism as well which makes me a firm collectivist now.
Please do, I would like input on that.
The only difference being a national socialist mercantile state of France to an industrial national socialist state of Germany. Other than that both were similar if not the same to each other in many regards.
Rather than ideologically define myself positively, and specifically a this or a that, I’d say more than anything I’m anti-capitalism, anti-humanism, and anti-scientism (not necessarily science), which I think are the three prevailing ideologies of the modern era.
As for what I’d replace capitalism with, I have a few things in mind, one is anarchism/egoism, two is what I call national libertarian ecosocialism, and three is what I will call national philosophical ecosocialism.
I might expound on these ideas soon.
Rather than seeing capitalism and corporatism as closer to egoism than socialism, I see them as closer to altruism, and socialism as closer to egoism…if you’re poor that is, as capitalism and corporatism are both systems that primarily benefit the haves: big business and the megabanks.
And also there’s uncapitalistic ways to do a freemarket, that’d still benefit the poor at the expense of the rich, see Benjamin Tucker for that.
Myself I could only be an elitist if 1. I was a member of the elite, and/or 2. it was a philosophical elite based on temperance, like in Plato’s Republic, and there was still some democracy and rights for the people, in case the elite were to become corrupt.
I could never support an absolute dictatorship, or a corporate oligarchy, which’s essentially what we have today.
And such a philosophical elite could never come out of a corporate oligarchy, it would have to challenge it from outside somehow.
National libertarian ecosocialism? Anarchism cannot and will not work for a majority of the population. A few making up less than one percent of the population of rugged individuals might jump off the reservation independently on their own but that’s all. Beyond that it cannot in any meaningful way exist at all for the majority of the planet.
I am all for a monarchical kind of state concerning a national socialist dictatorship where the heirs of the chancellor become the next chancellor in each succession. Now you might say this will breed a kind of unchecked tyranny overtime but I would say something very closely to Jefferson in that every twenty years or so there needs to be a violent bloody revolution as a counter stop gap measure against any form of internal corruption. A chancellor can be usurped and dethroned which is fine if there is a need for that so long as the chancellorship remains intact in continuance.
As for democracy, fuck democracy! Democracy is the reason why the world is on the path to global destruction right now and why we’re stuck with entitled bureaucratic idiots in charge of everything. In my perfect world they’re rounded up by a secret police and firmly executed, no need for a trial or jury either in the process.
As for the supreme chancellor they would be a philosopher king in that they are somebody extremely educated in all forms of the state, society, and economics but also on existentialism itself. They would be ruthless against enemies of the state both domestic and foreign but also very compassionate or giving to the state’s citizens. They would be trained in the art of war but also wise, intelligent, and knowledgeable in the various disciplines of mind.
There would be no independent states, local governments, or territories as everything would fall under the rule of the chancellor. There would be no congress like the United States has currently. There would be senators, lawmakers, and various heads of council that act as an advisory committee to the chancellor but at the end of the day all decisions are absolute or finalized by the chancellor who has all the power. More importantly all banks, corporations, news outlets, universities, schools, and social media would fall under the state’s control where if anybody threatens the well being or security of the nation once again is either executed or imprisoned. That means if bankers, corporate CEO’s, merchants, or media heads do anything against the nation they’re imprisoned or executed. No pardons, exclusions, or forgiveness, they’re simply done!
Under this style of government there is no out of control aristocracy especially of the financial class which would lower corruption considerably as fear is a powerful motivator of reduction.
Upon the first chancellorship being enacted the national motto would be, “Enemies of the state are either imprisoned, publicly executed, or shot on sight where all lesser offenses will be met with public lashings.”
This is my ideal state of government and society.
Wow man, I’m totally convinced now. We need to roll out the red carpet to Mexico having unlimited chain migration offering them all free healthcare, free food, free education, free housing, and free everything. This sad story that pulls the heart strings has convinced me totally. 
Throw in free I-phones and a free one year subscription of service also. 
If you disagree with any of this you’re UnChristian, a fascist, and obviously racist. 
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hc4zoRIAkg[/youtube]
Don Jr’s wife opened up an envelope with white powder today where she was sent to the hospital as a precaution, are we really doing the whole letters filled with anthrax bit again like what was done after 9/11/2001? It’s been done before deep state, you need new material.
@Zero Sum
Altho the term libertarian socialism is a form of anarchism, that’s not what I meant by it.
By nationalism I meant a nation state with minimal-no immigration, maximum protectionism, maximum political sovereignty and economic self-sufficiency, and minimal-no foreign intervention or aid, or in a word: isolationism.
By libertarian eco-socialism I didn’t mean anarchism, I meant socially libertarian (little-no government interference in the private lives of citizens), as opposed to say socially ‘liberal’ (political correctness, feminism, reverse racism, gun control, government surveillance…), or socially conservative, and economically socialist (government should either partly or wholly nationalize all essential goods and services, such as food and housing, not just healthcare and education, making food and housing cheap, affordable, or it should take food and housing from employers and landlords, and give them to employees and residents, let the people own and manage them, themselves, directly), and environmentally conservationist.
This combination of policies comes closest to how I think society and government should be ran, either this, or a more philosophical form of socialism, based on mitigated asceticism/minimalism.
Ultimately the most realistic form of society and government is the one we have.
Anarchism/egoism, absolute monarchy and the two systems I’m proposing are about equally unrealistic at this time.
While I think it’s important to have ideals, of course we have to adapt to them to the system we’re in, and we all have different ways of doing that.
Yea small groups can sometimes live more in accordance with their ideals by living off the grid, or even in communities on the grid.
However, when things get significantly worse, as long as they’re not so bad civilization completely collapses, the opportunity to reform and revolutionize things, or just live off the grid, will increase.
Altho I’m a socialist, I think everyone who can work, should, just essential mass production and mass housing (apartments) ought to be democratized from the bottom-up (syndicalism and communism) or the top-down (socialism).
Interesting, you went from one extreme to another. every system has its advantages and disadvantages.
An absolute monarchy would definitely be more efficient…no question there.
If the dictator happened to be wise, temperate and just, things would likely be good, and if he wasn’t, at least everyone would know who to blame, and the kings advisors could attempt to assassinate him, or if they failed, the people could attempt to, and crown someone else king, a new dynasty.
In our republic, everyone has a say in our government, many less, a few more, and so everyone can always scapegoat, shift the blame, instead of taking responsibility, but in an absolute monarchy, the king would have all the power, and so all the responsibility.
Whenever disaster struck: warfare, economic crash, hell even a natural disaster like a tsunami or tornado, it’d be the kings fault, and everyone would be clamoring for the royal families heads.
However, these days the government already has too much power, they’re light-years ahead of us technologically, if we were to give them absolute political power now, they might just exterminate 99% of us and make the remaining 1% slaves.
100 Russian soldiers were killed by US Syrian coalition military forces last week where neither Washington D.C. or Moscow is saying much at all on the subject.
I suspect Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence networks know that the end is nigh for the United States where they’re patiently waiting out the global empire’s self inflicted social economic demise.
If this is the case I would say Russia’s tolerance and patience in dealing with United States ISIS led directed forces (created by the C.I.A./ Mossad) in Syria is commendable along with being well played. Well played Putin, well played…
This whole Russia hysteria in the United States the last two years I think is part of a much larger conflict planned by the United States against Russia in the near future, in order to camouflage a collapsed economy or failed political state from the United States a global conflict is being sought out to maintain some kind of relevancy internationally which they hope will be enough to keep global military/economic power intact. The real wild card will be China in watching what side they’ll swing on if such a global conflict emerges. Everybody needs to watch Russian-Chinese foreign relations to understand which way the wind will blow.
Even if China swings in the direction of the United States against Russia China’s ambitions is to eventually replace the United States as the new global power hegemony which means the United States will not favor well with such an arrangement in the aftermath, if however China sides with Russia the United States is finished which I am hoping is the more likely outcome. The west will collapse with the United States destroyed and revolutionaries all throughout the west will finally have free reign to act domestically. We western revolutionaries will have our time under the sun finally, or at least we hope to anyways.
One more thing, if the United States decides to preemptively take on both China or Russia at the same time simultaneously global thermonuclear war is the next stage. Have fun contemplating the outcome of that.