Where American Capitalism Fails And Rise Of A Social State.

Hard work is the mantra of today’s capitalists and conservatives in the United States to reach upward social mobility, there’s just one problem though, what work is available when you’ve outsourced all your industry, factories, manufacturing, and production overseas? What pool of jobs are available domestically after all of that? Fucking idiots.

What is capitalism in a service consumerism society or economy? Well?

Also, with zero percent credit rates concerning savings how can anybody save any money to do much of anything about their own personal situation? What little bit of money you’re able to scrap up living in a subsistence lifestyle is also easily ate up by inflation. Well geniuses, what is it that you exactly propose? Don’t tell me to work two or three jobs all at the same time either assholes!

You capitalists and conservatives are a bunch of empty blowhards clinging to a dying economic ideology that besides serving the interests of a minority of people ignores the plight of the majority. You’re all useless, irrelevant, and worthless. Your solutions are not solutions at all but instead benefits those that would damn the rest of us into oblivion. There is a tidal wave on the horizon where communism, capitalism, and democracy will be swept away into nothingness as the useless ideologies that they all are. Either learn to reassess your own beliefs or be prepared yourselves to be swept away also. There is no room for you in the commonwealth future.

There is no room for globalism or internationalism within nationalism!

Perhaps I do see things more in black and white but I am able to see things in grey too depending on the situation. Yes, even my philosopher king would have need of a constitution however where a dictator or chancellor is superior to democracy is they can in effect act on change right away without the deliberation proceedings of a bureaucratic democracy where in effect politicians wait around to see who will grease their palms in money the most to elevate their own self interests first above all else even with the concerns of the state or nation.

A wise dictator or chancellor would transcend and skip through all of that special interests nonsense putting themselves first for the nation as a whole. The safeguards in democracy isn’t safeguards at all where if there are any it is safeguards of the aristocratic oligarchy against the majority of the common man or woman. A nation can only be efficient when the aristocratic oligarchy or special interests is brought under heel to serve the nation where only a strong central leader is capable of doing this. While in the dictatorship a dictator is supreme there are various leaders aiding him in council, not all leadership is limited to the dictator himself.

Any number of horrible dictators you can cite I can in return say the same of many prime ministers and presidents.

Not only is communism or marxism revolving around the cult of individualism but also so does capitalism and conservatism as well. When it concerns the history of communism, marxism, conservatism, and capitalism they were all born out of classical liberal philosophy, they only evolved differently from each other yet their historical origins remain the same.

It is that extreme individualism that corrupts the natural collectivist cultural spirit of nationalism and why the west is the disaster it is today. The west will not be able to resurrect itself until that classically liberal cult of individualism is destroyed for once and all. Individualism is the embodiment of hedonism, materialism, and selfishness where its iconography of worship is the value of money. Collectivism however is the embodiment of transcendence to which its iconography is idealism or an ideal world that can be built together for all. This is where collectivism succeeds and where individualism fails.

You can say whatever you want on them but you know my position all the same, there can be no coexistence with them.

The socialism you describe is like little scraps fed to dogs of social piecemeal. The socialism I speak of is meant to elevate everybody collectively as a whole and humanity’s future.

It is a socialism that serves the needs of people now and their children’s children in the future.

Only an unwise corrupt dictatorship would serve the interests only of those running it, a wise dictatorship concerns itself as a state serving the interests of the people, nation, and its culture.

I made a thread on this subject:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193761

It gets more interesting as it progresses.

While I don’t like your ideas on tolerance or democracy many of your socialist ideas are compatible with mine. I read two pages of your thread and I really enjoyed your articulations of things. We both understand the end game of what will happen to this entire planet if it doesn’t change at a fundamental level, it’s just your views are peaceful where mine are more commanding.

You know what kind of people our opposition are, surely you must know there is no peaceful way to deal with or address them. Armed struggle will be the only way I think.

There are two major points of contention between us so far.
One is over race, the other is over government.
My previous position was Non-Whites can stay, but we’d have next to no immigration, and we’d prioritize White immigration over Non-White immigration.
I admit I was being a little too soft on race.
if the Balkanization of North America we’ve been talking about occurs, I’d commit to a 100% English-White ethno-racial state.
By English I don’t mean racially, but just linguistically, you should speak the language.

However, on the issue of government, I would not join a state that didn’t guarantee me more power over it than I have over Canada now.
Consequently it should be an Aristocracy, with a mix of referendums and representation, where only white men who’re able and willing to fight for it before or during the revolutions occurrence will be extended first class citizenship and the vote.
White men who aren’t able and willing to fight for it before or during the revolutions occurrence (Johnny-come-lately) will be extended second class citizenship and not the vote.

I think you’re being too dismissive of Aristocracy, the three most powerful states in the ancient world: Sparta, Athens and Rome were Aristocracies.
Their governments were more participatory than ours, but more exclusive.
Sparta had a mix of Aristocracy and Monarchy.
Aristocracies are a European tradition, and they have advantages over dictatorship.

One is if a single man is given (nearly) absolute power, his underlings will envy him, and some of them may try to kill him.
Two is hundreds of heads, so long as they’re smart and strong, are better than just one.
Three is if the dictator is assasinated by the enemy, it’ll plunge the state into a chaos it may take decades to recover from, if it ever does, for nearly everything depends on him.
Four is people will be more eager to join if they’re richly rewarded, bit if we’re ultimately all servants or slaves of the dictator, than there’s little incentive, I mean don’t quit your day job.
Five is having a dictator makes everyone else kind of intellectually and spiritually effete.

Aristocracy is part of the reason why 300 Spartans were able to defeat 300 000 Persians at the battle of Thermopylae, the other being Europeans are of course smarter and stronger than Persians, and our (military) tech was superior.
There’s a difference between Aristocracy and Oligarchy, which’s why I’m now using the word Aristocracy.
Oligarchy is practically synonymous with plutocracy, rule by the rich, but Aristocracy is much less about wealth, and much more about merit, and merit will be defined in the constitution.

Speaking of merit, people who’re philosophically educated and trained could be given more power in the aristocracy than people who aren’t.

Also, what to do with religion?
I think Muslims and Jews should be completely banned from the state.
Other religions should keep to themselves, keep their religion private, they shouldn’t be able to build Churches, temples or publically proselytize, or aggressively privately proselytize.
The state should either be officially atheist, or officially a pagan, white spirituality.

I mean how’re we going to decide who the ‘dictator’ is?

Is it me…is it you?

There should be a vote on who’s going to be Consul, and the Consul should have a term, the Roman Consul had a term of just one year.

Or perhaps instead of elections on the one hand, or dictatorship on the other, we could have a meritocracy, where the Consul is appointed by a team of administrators, according to criteria outlined in the constitution.

Some criteria could be: intelligence, self-education, eloquence, charisma, brute strength, combat experience, health…

You could even have a combination of meritocracy, and elections.

There’s different ways to do aristocracy, for example, you can have a small or big aristocracy, you can have an aristocracy of 10, 100, or 1000 members.
Membership can be determined constitutionally by merit, and/or by first come, first serve, for example, the first 100 members could be made aristocrats.
Then aristocrats could hold referendums and elect the representative or representatives including the chief representative.
When an aristocrat dies, if he had foreknowledge, he could pre-appoint a successor, and if he didn’t, another aristocrat or aristocratss could appoint one to replace him constitutionally by merit, and/or on first come, first serve, or on whim.

Right I think we can come to an agreement on racial nationalism and socialism but I’m not sure if we can come to an agreement on government.

You can combine dictatorship with aristocracy too.
You could have the dictator, and say an equally powerful senate.
They can both make constitutionally viable laws for everyone and give constitutionally viable orders to the army, and administrators, as well as veto one another’s actions.
Honestly just having one dude, with near absolute power, and responsibility, seems very, Asiatic and, irrational to me.
It’s the Euroepan way to hold a no holds bar debate, and while perhaps extending the vote to every Tom, Dick and Harry might be equally irrational, that tradition of wise men honestly, openly, brutally and boldly speaking their minds, having a frank, offensive discussion before laws are made, and decisions are finalized, is the essence of what it means to be, European, it’s what separates us from them.
Otherwise, we might as well just have White Sharia and book burnings, virgin births and prophets speaking in tongues.
I find the idea of wise men cowaring and tip toeing around the kings feelings, rather revolting.

If you understand the time of Machiavelli and the merchants of Venice the aristocrats who I don’t really separate from oligarchs(Aristocracy/ oligarchy, same thing) became so wealthy in trading that they threatened the very power of the monarchy or worse would have the means to influence the monarchy financially. You cannot allow powerful independent entities to flourish in any nation in that they become corrupt, decadent, and largely self serving. The only way centralization can work efficiently is by restraining or having total control over them.

Incidentally this isn’t just a problem for a monarchy or autocracy but also is very problematic with democracies that you embrace where the manifestation of this aristocracy or oligarchy is corporatism.

The dictator can also be corrupted by financial interests from within or outside his state, or he can just be plain corrupt, on his own.

Compared to other ethnic nationalists my beliefs are quite mild in that they would say that I’m not extreme enough. Also, me allowing just a little admixture with my 75% rule of traceable genetic lineage is practically heresy to many in that for them the general rule is zero admixture. Yes, I am unwavering in my stances towards an autocracy, that won’t change.

My views on European ethnicity is more in line with Pan-Europeanism in that all European heritage or ethnicities is allowed under my ideal state although being German and French myself I won’t deny my bias more towards each. :wink: Nonetheless, I view all Europeans as being brothers and sisters of a much larger family or community where all would be accepted. For my views on being against both aristocracies and oligarchies see my previous post above.

As for religion I am a secular atheist which is also heretical with a majority of nationalist movements these days as they’re practically all Christian. I am very honest in my disgust with Christianity in that I dislike it very much but nonetheless this is problematic in that a majority of Europeans are Christian. I’m therefore forced to tolerate Christianity despite my own personal dislike of the religion itself. As an atheist I understand religious people very well despite not being such myself. At any rate if it was up to me I would settle for a paganism revival over Christianity any day of the week simply because for me it it is far more aesthetical culturally over Christianity. I suppose for me at least atheism, Christianity, and European paganism would be tolerated where all other religions would not be especially Judaism. Eventually I’d like to see European people reject Christianity as I view it as being particularly damning to us culturally or existentially for numerous reasons but I won’t hold my breath on that one.

Well we have similar ideas in many areas, but very different ideas in a couple of areas.
I believe in dividing powers, that way if one gets corrupted, the others can reign it in.

I’m not fanatical about race either, rather than count percentage points, I would just say, if you look, think and act basically white, you’re white, good enough for me.
Many whites have a few percentage points of this or that Non-White, some of these percentage points going back centuries-millennia, we’d end up excluding half the white race if were to commit to the 100% rule.

Give you an idea of what I am talking about we’ll use Jessica Biel as an example. She is half Dutch and half native American. I would have no problem incorporating people like her in my ideal state so long as they declared loyalty to European identity. [Too bad she is a dumb neo liberal in real life.]

For me she is a great example amongst others of my 75% genetic lineage rule of thumb.

Alicia Silverstone is half White half Jewish, but she could easily pass for White if it weren’t for her liberal thinking:

Well, that and the name Silverstone.

So long as they publicly renounced zionism, Jewishnes,and Judaism I wouldn’t have a problem with previous example. The problem of course comes with those that unlike us have a zero tolerance approach. I still don’t know how to remedy that as it is very problematic with those of us in our world view. It’s a very contentious subject that is still argued back and fourth of who is accepted versus who isn’t. Who can be classified as a white European and who can’t be.

Most people can only think in terms of short term thinking instead of the long term.

No, I’m far too lazy and lackadaisical to be the leading dictator myself. I would settle for being a military general, national spokesman/ philosopher, or manager of the national media myself. :laughing: At this point in my life at least I don’t see myself taking on such a giant undertaking, I don’t have that ambition.

I don’t know, for me I think the philosopher king or dictator will be an individual that is a great victorious soldier and statesman that has yet to come. Such an individual will make themselves worthy of that title to lead and more importantly when they enter the world stage nobody will be able to deny their power. Let us call it destiny…