My Surrogate Activities.

[Zero_Sum]

[Zero_Sum]

@Zero Sum

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.

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.

The type of national socialism monarchy I support would be isolationist moreover the socialist aspect even though there would be a supreme chancellor at the top there would be society built from the bottom up rather than the top down in that there would be generous socialist policies in place for the general public of all citizens. One thing I believe in is a state run public system of education that is free or accessible to all. I also believe in outdoor philosophical agoras being built everywhere so that people can publicly debate philosophy or get together in writing. I would demand philosophy to be taught in all schools. There would be a generous public social welfare system in place everywhere. Such a government would also serve to protect ethnic interests but unlike others I'm not an absolute purist in that some admixtures are fine so long as the dominant genetic sequence of individuals is largely European. Can't be too extremely picky with small numbers that we already have, I don't care what others say on that. A 75% European woman genetically will breed 85% European children and so on within every generation of reproduction. As long as they submit their love or devotion to European culture I'd welcome them into the fold with certain restrictions on who would be or not accepted. I also believe in environmental friendly policies of land management.

This of course is all ascertained after the violent revolution first, the end justify the means and all that jazz. It's not ascertained now certainly but it could be eventually.

Yeah, there will be those who say this post is full of prejudice but the balkanization or splitting up of our societies/western nations has already begun, it's inevitable at this point. I didn't start all of this but I'll be damned if I end up on the short side of the stick so to speak as a victim.

[Zero_Sum]

[Zero_Sum]

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).

Of course there is no free rides for anybody with exceptions of the elderly or disabled.

Everybody that can work should work as you said.

My vision of society nobody would be homeless as they could either serve in the military or be initiated to where they can get an education to gain meaningful employment. There would also be state run apprentice job programs for employment placing.

There would be no population of homeless like in the United States right now where millions are left wandering outside without any semblance of a purpose in life.

[Zero_Sum]

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.

Exactly, either the benevolent dictator serves the will of the people being beloved by his people or he is strung up hanging on a lamppost replaced by somebody else in a coup.

The difference unlike now is power would be centered in one person's hands instead of several hundreds of bureaucrats that make secret dealings with financial institutions behind closed doors. Under this system the financial institutions serve the nation not themselves where if they get out of line the chancellor sends in a small army to their front doorstep until they either get back in line or find themselves shot in the head of their house's backyard.

Being that the government is socialist its mandatory mission will be to provide for the well being and security of its citizens that not even the chancellor himself would be able to betray. There would be some basic common laws that even the chancellor would not be able to infringe upon even with absolute power. A kind of written charter, oath, or pact so to speak.

[Zero_Sum]

[Zero_Sum]

[Zero_Sum]

With all the children, young adults, and elderly people dying from the flu this year in record numbers, what portion of them got government vaccinations for several years?

I couldn't even trust the government myself to give me a toaster strudel for breakfast let alone inject me with anything. Yum! Get your vaccinations right here!

[Zero_Sum]

Well, shit just got real in the middle east as the Iranians have their own nuclear ballistic capabilities now or how everybody around the world has come to love the bomb.

Just take a look at that......

[Zero_Sum]

[Zero_Sum]

[Zero_Sum]

Where's Turkey in the whole Syrian debacle? Oh that's right, here they are.

[Zero_Sum]

[Zero_Sum]

[Zero_Sum]

Can't believe they're still trying to detain and arrest Julian Assange on bullshit charges in the United Kingdom, the man is a hero or legend much like Edward Snowden.

[Zero_Sum]

Land Of The Free.

[Zero_Sum]

[Gloominary]

@Zero Sum

The type of national socialism monarchy I support would be isolationist

We're both isolationists then.

moreover the socialist aspect even though there would be a supreme chancellor at the top there would be society built from the bottom up rather than the top down in that there would be generous socialist policies in place for the general public of all citizens.

Things would just get worse, in all likelihood, we'd go from being wage slaves to outright slaves, or serfs.
And even if he was a relatively benevolent dictator, sooner or later one of his successors would be a Caligula, Nero or Commodus, but with post-modern tech at their disposal.
A madman with super viruses and nuclear weapons might unleash them upon his own people or the people of other nations, instigating WW3, and since he has absolute power, no one could legally oppose him, and if he's a cunning psychopath, he might be able to quietly kill off, remove or extradite any senator or general who may oppose him.

Or the elite could just agree they don't need 98% of us anymore, and find creative ways to exterminate most of us and more thoroughly enslave the remaining few, until they can be replaced by robots.
The elite already seem to be working on exterminating us, but with absolute political power, it'd make it 10 times easier for them.

No I want more of a say over my government, not less, and even if it's likely we'll have less, I'll still be opposed to it, I'll always be opposed to my own slavery, or servitude, however inevitable it might be.

One thing I believe in is a state run public system of education that is free or accessible to all. I also believe in outdoor philosophical agoras being built everywhere so that people can publicly debate philosophy or get together in writing. I would demand philosophy to be taught in all schools.

The last thing most dictators want is an educated, freethinking pubic.

There would be a generous public social welfare system in place everywhere.

And if he's a Augustus Caesar Or Marcus Aurelius, you might get that, for a while, but conditions for the masses of asses are likely to get worse in the long run.

Such a government would also serve to protect ethnic interests but unlike others I'm not an absolute purist in that some admixtures are fine so long as the dominant genetic sequence of individuals is largely European. Can't be too extremely picky with small numbers that we already have, I don't care what others say on that. A 75% European woman genetically will breed 85% European children and so on within every generation of reproduction. As long as they submit their love or devotion to European culture I'd welcome them into the fold with certain restrictions on who would be or not accepted. I also believe in environmental friendly policies of land management.

I'm also not a racial purist or separatist, but would like to see the overall culture and genetics remain European, in European and postcolonial countries, such as in Canada and the States.
Not necessarily because I think we're superior, but just because I tend to prefer my own.
I have no hatred or extreme dislike of other races, and I think we all have strengths and weaknesses, in fact sometimes our greatest strengths can be our greatest weaknesses, like European industriousness and ingenuity may ultimately be our undoing, we may overproduce and consume ourselves into oblivion, but on the other hand, we may allow hostile peoples or factions within them to take advantage of our generosity, to the point where they attempt to supplant us on our own soil, so we have to be careful about who we let in here.
I'm either for reducing the quantity of immigration and increasing the quality, importing people who're most compatible with us, or eliminating immigration altogether, but the people who're already here, be they Africans or Asians can stay, so long as they're loyal.

[Zero_Sum]

@Zero Sum

The type of national socialism monarchy I support would be isolationist

We're both isolationists then.

moreover the socialist aspect even though there would be a supreme chancellor at the top there would be society built from the bottom up rather than the top down in that there would be generous socialist policies in place for the general public of all citizens.

Things would just get worse, in all likelihood, we'd go from being wage slaves to outright slaves, or serfs.
And even if he was a relatively benevolent dictator, sooner or later one of his successors would be a Caligula, Nero or Commodus, but with post-modern tech at their disposal.
A madman with super viruses and nuclear weapons might unleash them upon his own people or the people of other nations, and since he has absolute power, no one could legally oppose him, and if he's a cunning psychopath, he might be able to quietly kill off, remove or extradite any senator or general who might oppose him.

Or the elite may just agree they don't need 98% of us anymore, and find creative ways to exterminate most of us and more thoroughly enslave the remaining few, until they can be replaced by robots.
The elite are already seem to be working on exterminating us, but with absolute political power, it'd make it 10 times easier.

No I want more of a say over my government, not less, and even if it's likely we'll have less, I'll still be opposed to it, I'll always be opposed to my own slavery, or servitude, however inevitable it might be.

One thing I believe in is a state run public system of education that is free or accessible to all. I also believe in outdoor philosophical agoras being built everywhere so that people can publicly debate philosophy or get together in writing. I would demand philosophy to be taught in all schools.

The last thing most dictators want is an educated, freethinking pubic.

There would be a generous public social welfare system in place everywhere.

And if he's a Augustus Caesar Or Marcus Aurelius, you might get that, for a while, but conditions for the masses of asses are likely to get worse in the long run.

Such a government would also serve to protect ethnic interests but unlike others I'm not an absolute purist in that some admixtures are fine so long as the dominant genetic sequence of individuals is largely European. Can't be too extremely picky with small numbers that we already have, I don't care what others say on that. A 75% European woman genetically will breed 85% European children and so on within every generation of reproduction. As long as they submit their love or devotion to European culture I'd welcome them into the fold with certain restrictions on who would be or not accepted. I also believe in environmental friendly policies of land management.

I'm also not a racial separatist or purist, but I also would like to see the overall culture and genetics remain European, in European and postcolonial countries, such as in Canada and the states.
Not necessarily because I think we're superior, but just because I tend to prefer my own.
I have no hatred or extreme dislike of any other races, and I think we all have strengths and weaknesses, sometimes our greatest strengths can be our weaknesses, like European ingenuity and industriousness may ultimately be our undoing, we may overproduce and consume ourselves into oblivion, or we may allow hostile peoples or factions within them to take advantage of our generosity, to the point where they attempt to supplant us on our own soil.

Yes, a kind of Caesar Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, Frederick The Great, or even Napoleon Bonaparte is what I would think of great chancellors. What part of national socialism do you not understand? The major mission would be to maximize people's economic, social, and individual independence within the wise periphery of the chancellor's overseeing.

If a horrible chancellor comes to power there is simply a violent coup in which they're replaced with somebody else more capable of serving the people. That would only be reinforced in the back of mind of every chancellor serving.

Look at democracy where everybody is said to have a say in their government, do you really feel empowered having a say in anything? Education would be state run and operated education.

I am a racial separatist but not a 100% purist. Agreed with what the rest of you said.

[Gloominary]

Zero Sum

If a horrible chancellor comes to power there is simply a violent coup in which they're replaced with somebody else more capable of serving the people. That would only be reinforced in the back of mind of every chancellor serving.

I was humoring you before.

What's more likely to happen is we'd wind up like Helots and the 'chancellor' and his army like Spartans.
They'd turn up the heat incrementally, working us harder and stripping us of what little rights and freedoms we have left, all in the name of making us and the state safer and more secure.
They'd divide and rule us, quickly quash any attempt to militarily, or intellectually organize ourselves and oppose them.

This is how they did things in Russia, China, North Korea and so on, and that is what your chancellor or his successors will subject us to, but it'll be worse, because the economic and technological disparity between the elite and the masses is accelerating at an alarming rate.
Removing the few armaments, rights and freedoms we have, will allow them to more thoroughly subjugate the masses than any elite ever has before in history, many times over, to the point where we're nothing more than cattle, and cattle have no hope of rebelling against their human overlords.

But the elite won't be enslaving us to consume us, they'll be making preparations to incrementally replace us with machines, machines, that have no agency, that won't complain, cry out or resist, that have an off button.
Maybe a few of us will survive, and be kept as pets, or in zoos.

Perhaps a national socialist dictatorship could've, kind of worked out, at least for a time in previous centuries, but with the economic and technological disparity we have now, it's absolutely paramount we cling to whatever power we have left, and attempt to increase it as much as possible.
No what we need is either anarchy, direct democracy, or perhaps a philosophical oligarchy, with some democratic checks and balances just in case, but I'd rather have the system we have now than the one you propose, which'd be an absolute nightmare of epic proportions.

Look at democracy where everybody is said to have a say in their government, do you really feel empowered having a say in anything? Education would be state run and operated education.

I have some say, I can own a gun, I can say whatever I want, I can work for whomever I please, I can pick up and move from one place to another.
I don't want the government to have the power to imprison or execute me just because it doesn't like me or my politics.

[Gloominary]

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).

Of course there is no free rides for anybody with exceptions of the elderly or disabled.

Everybody that can work should work as you said.

My vision of society nobody would be homeless as they could either serve in the military or be initiated to where they can get an education to gain meaningful employment. There would also be state run apprentice job programs for employment placing.

There would be no population of homeless like in the United States right now where millions are left wandering outside without any semblance of a purpose in life.

To reiterate, I would partly or fully nationalize the food, textile and housing industries, all essential industries (furniture, appliances...), then I'd hire every able bodied unemployed person to work in them, part-full time (15-30 hours a week) for high wages (30-45 dollars an hour), producing cheap (more than halve food, clothing and housing prices), quality (whole foods, cotton/wool clothes) products.
I'd do all this not by taxing the rich, but by government printing its own debt free money, circumventing the central banks.
I think it's stupid education and healthcare have been nationalized, but food, clothing and housing haven't, when the latter are just as, if not more essential.

As for seniors and the disabled, of course they'd be taken care of, better than they are today.
Right, shouldn't be any homeless, every person who can't work should have a decent home and food to eat, and every person who can should have a decent job, no exceptions.
I don't have a problem with drug addicts, so long as their addictions aren't keeping them from working.
If they want help from the government, they'll have to get off the drugs, at least enough so they can work, otherwise, forget it, they can remain homeless.

[Mr Reasonable]

I got a flu shot and I didn't get the flu.

[Zero_Sum]

[Zero_Sum]

[Zero_Sum]