Control the global money supply, control the world… 
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_b-zpSnoHs[/youtube]
I’m going to go out on a limb, and just guess, that Gloom would want you two to stick to the topic.
Right, so for you, conservatism is capitalism and reinvesting most of your surplus rather than splurging, liberalism is socialism and splurging.
Right, more intelligent minds are multidimensional.
You’ve explained what you mean by liberalism-conservatism, the X-axis, can you explain what you mean by the Y and Z-axes?
I’m guessing authoritarianism is granting more positive (liberal) and/or negative (conservative) rights to minorities and/or the elite than the majority (the white proletariat and middle class) and populism is the reverse.
Does progressivism mean social, political and economic globalization and modernization, and conversely does regressivism mean social, political and economic localization and antiquation?
If so, these three axes come close to how I think about things, it’s just I would use a bit different terminology.
X-axis: Libertarianism (negative rights) vs Authoritarianism (positive rights).
Y-axis: Unpopulism (more rights for the underclass, noncitizens, minorities and/or the elite and their culture) vs Populism (more rights for the proletariat, citizens, the majority, the middle class and their culture).
Z-axis: Progressivism vs Regressivism.
I’ve talked quite a bit about what I mean by libertarianism-authoritarianism and unpopulism-populism, but not much about progressivism-regressivism.
For me, regressivism means favoring more localization and antiquation, favoring more wilderness, ruralism and new urbanism, favoring greener tech, traditional cultural values, trad science, trad medicine and cutting back on unnecessary production-consumption.
I think there is such a thing as quantitatively too progressive and qualitatively the wrong kinds of progression.
If I could, I’d turn back the clock several decades in some ways.
More globalization, modernization, urbanization, production-consumption and so on isn’t necessarily better.
Man needs to find the right balance between nature and traditionalism on the one hand and artifice and modernity on the other.
You could replace regressivism with conservationism and conservatism in the Z-axis.
The way I see it, capitalism, reinvesting (materialism) and libertarianism aren’t conservatism, they’re their own ideologies.
Or conservationism and conservatism (staying put) could be placed in between progressivism (moving forward) and regressivism (moving backward) in the Z-axis.
"On science and medicine, I’m in favor of more alternative and DIY science and medicine.
I think science and government are hiding a lot of things about health and the nature of reality from us.
They want to keep us dumbed down, misinformed and sick, that way we’re easier to manage and profit off of.
On technology, I think we’ve picked all the low hanging fruit sort of speak, what’s left is either presently out of reach, unripe or poisonous.
I think tech should help preserve and protect what we are and evolve naturally, rather than transform us into something we’re not.
It should enhance and supplement our lives, rather than substitute or replace them.
Tech exists to serve humanity, not the other way around.
We have to be more careful with how we proceed technologically, not try to fix what’s not broken.
We got the wrong idea about tech.
That being said, I’m in favor of CO2 and global warming, the globe isn’t warm enough, but as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m against 5G, geo and genetic engineering, nanotech and apprehensive about Ai.
CO2 is a nutrient, it’s either a boon, not a concern or the least of them, but I am concerned about unnecessarily dumping toxic chemicals, the endangerment of species, unnecessary deforestation and scientific meddling."
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=195313&start=75
But conservatives have been against those forms of sexual hedonism you listed, at least in rhetoric, except for perhaps men being promiscuous with unmarried women, whereas liberals have been for them.
For conservatives, moral sex is heterosexual sex within marriage, whether the marriage was consensual or arranged, coerced, for libertarians and liberals, moral sex is consensual sex, but for libertarians consent is narrow and straightforward (yes means yes), whereas for liberals broad and convoluted (yes may mean no, if the woman was inebriated or felt economically or psychosocially manipulated or pressured).
For radical liberals, all (heterosexual) sex is rape.
For conservatives, sexual purity is what counts, whereas for libertarians and liberals narrow and broad consent respectively is what counts.
Right, green vegan-vegetarianism vs fine dining.
I’ll watch this in a bit.
Both hedonism and “Rewards and Excess” are intrinsically good, but what’s intrinsically good, can still be extrinsically bad if the subsequences are sufficiently intrinsically bad.
All good points.
Ultimately they’re going after us simply because they hate us and they can, we let them.
Morality has to have some impartiality and consistency.
They have no impartiality or consistency other than ‘white people bad’ and so no morality, what they have are excuses.
I think people should be ascetic and minimalistic in poverty and moderately hedonistic and materialistic in affluence.
Just because you’re spending within your means, doesn’t mean you’re not harming yourself and, depending on what you’re doing, others, the economy and the environment we all share in the process, which’s when the state, community and/or mob if necessary, ought to intervene, when your hedonism and materialism coercively physically harms others and their property, financially harms the economy and trashes the environment we all share.
I’m not a libertarian, not on ecological and economic issues, I believe in balancing liberty and authority, altho if I had to choose between two extremes, I’d select libertarianism over totalitarianism.
I don’t think people owe it to themselves or others not to harm themselves or to help themselves or others, but they do owe it to others not to coercively physically harm them or their property, financially harm the economy and trash the environment we all share.
I’m not worried about psychological and self-harm, except for when it comes to children, people should keep their debauchery (hard drinking, drugs, LGBT, etcetera) away from children or places where children gather, keep it private or restricted.
We can decide what constitutes harm and when it crosses the line democratically.
We don’t all have to agree with what we’ve decided democratically, I believe in free thought-speech, but we do have to comply.
While capitalism tends to be meritocratic (luck can also play a role in success) when it isn’t crony (fractional reserve banking, unsocial corporatism, usury), vulture capitalism and similar practices can damage and destroy families, communities and entire nations.
I don’t see anything wrong with forbidding fractional reserve banking, unsocial corporatism, usury, vulture capitalism and stripping the swindlers of their wealth and redistributing it to the families and communities they swindled.
In my view, the right balance of capitalism, social democracy and social corporatism will lead to the greatest meritocracy.
Of course we can’t prevent or reverse every swindling that happens in capitalism, but we can prevent and reverse extreme cases, where hundreds or thousands of people have been financially terrorized.
Right, some hedonism, and materialism is good.
I agree, as the chasm between the proletariat and the bourgeois deepens, as we continue to diversify; decline, collapse, balkanization and revolution become an inevitability.
Agree with all these points.
The way I see it, while Donald Trump is mostly a fraud, he’s at least a representation, a symbol of the coming new order, along with Brexit in the UK and the rise of V4 (the Visegrad Group) in central Europe.
The age of the left, of social, political and economic unpopulism, egalitarianism, pseudo-egalitarianism, globalization, progression, urbanization and unbridled, unchecked production-consumption is at end, while the age of the right, of elitism, populism, nationalization, conservation, ruralisation and traditionalism is upon us.
Additionally, white civilization is increasingly going to look to Eastern Europe and Russia rather than America and Western Europe for leadership.
And the 3rd world is increasingly going to look to China rather than America and Western Europe, as it continues to play catch-up with the west, altho with the exception of China perhaps, I don’t think the rest of the 3rd world is capable of reaching the heights of peace and prosperity we did.
We’re going to enter a long period of stagnation and/or decline, followed by more decline.
It’s probably not going to happen overnight tho, these things usually take decades if not centuries.
Just as the social, political and economic expansion of the Roman Republic gave way to the stagnation of the Roman Dictatorship followed by decline a few centuries later, so too does our civilization have a life span.
Stagnation and decline are inevitable, the only question is, how deep and steep will it be?
It’s a question that partly depends on us, on how willing we are to adapt and roll with the punches rather than futilely attempt to delay the inevitable.
We can only speculate as to when, if ever, white civilization and humanity as a whole will begin advancing again, but this idea that civilization was going to continue ascending forever without pause was in my estimation, a complete fantasy.
There’re limits to growth, and there’re repercussions and such a thing as bad growth.
Some limits are impossible to transcend, others it can take centuries or longer to transcend them.
Growth is something we need to approach with some degree of apprehension and caution, because it can lead to our demise.
Conversely stagnation and even recession are not necessarily bad things, they can help us purge the excess and pollution.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PR2_jO2Go[/youtube]
Ann Coulter is good at pointing out how feminism, migrants and minorities fuck us over, but not how banksters, vulture capitalists and white collar criminals fuck us over.
That’s why I like Tucker Carlson, he’s more of a proper populist, he points out how we’re being fucked over by all sides.
It’s the upperclass who’re responsible for opening the floodgates and bringing them here, bureaucrats and businessmen enticing them with benefits, housing and jobs.
Damn Johnny Cash just laid that shit down, diddint he, Ur?
Some high-grade plutonium material there
No can do, bub. Coulter is where I draw the line. I’ll take a lesbian feminist leftist who wears tennis shoes to work, if you got one. Got any Rachel maddow?
I used to hate Coulter too, but I converted to the Center position. She’s also been tamed in her older age now, and makes some good points nowadays.
I’m just going through these Frontline interviews. They’re really good.
I like Ann Coulter, I like on her foreign policy, immigration and protectionism, I like her on free speech and guns.
She’s an unhypocritical capitalist, like Rand Paul and unlike Trump, she opposes corporate bailouts, subsidies and welfare.
She wasn’t afraid to support Trump when he was a fringe candidate, and she isn’t afraid to criticize him since he’s become president and betrayed his base.
So, what’re you American conservatives going to do, now that you know Trump is another conman?
In fact I borrowed her book Adios America from the library.
She makes good points about the need to eliminate and reduce illegal and legal immigration respectively.
Trump is de-establishing Washington, regardless of his personal motivations. You have to keep-in-mind, he’s not a “politician”, and he is moving on important decisions, such as killing the Iranian general, imposing tariffs on China, opening dialogue with Kim Jong, etc. He’s not perfect, by any stretch.
I only hope that he’s not the last of De-establishment. I fear once Trump is gone, that the US public may not get another chance anytime soon. The DNC has stuck their heads in the sand, and have not learned a damn thing. So I hope they are further disestablished. Republicans, at least, have the common sense to understand the power of these new messages and actions. The American populace is fed-up with partisan political bullshit, lies, and working against the interest of the American public.
In my view, the US has absolutely no right to meddle in Iranian affairs.
It has no right to sanction Iran, let alone arm terrorists, assassinate its people and invade.
Iran has every right to arm itself with nuclear weapons to deter its enemies from undermining its sovereignty, and it has many powerful enemies.
I want no part of the neolibcon, neofeudalist agenda.
My world is a multipolar world where every nation has the right to conduct its internal affairs how it sees fit, and where regional conflicts are solved regionally, not globally or by nations from the other side of the globe.
Of course my world doesn’t and probably never will exist, but something like it ought to.
I disagree, I don’t want other nations to have nuclear arms. Smaller and weaker nations have less or nothing to use, and would inevitably use them.
It is the responsibility of Russia, NATO, and the USA to prevent this. Unfortunately, they all force USA into action, because they drag their feet.
So it leaves USA in the #1 spot, wasting lots of time and energy, military force, preventing such.
While Iran has less to lose than the US, it still has a ton to lose.
It’s not like it’s a little shithole country somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, where 98% of its citizens live in abject poverty and there’s a coup every few years, countries that’re that messed up don’t have the resources to build and launch a nuke in the first place.
Iran has quite a sophisticated economy and society.
It’s a 3000 year old civilization with a rich culture.
Also, the US is an empire, while making sure no country in West Asia has nuclear weapons besides Israel is probably one of its strategic objectives, that’s no guarantee it won’t invade you, install a puppet state and steal your resources.
I believe the US cannot relinquish its hold on Middle Eastern oil, as a strategic resource, along with regulating Nuclear Arms worldwide. There’s no point giving these matters up to foreigners and enemies. Why would the US do that? It would threaten the Economy, Military, and then directly, the US itself. Was 9-11 a result of blowback? Yes, but, the world has become Globalist. Nationalism is demonized. So you have a long, uphill battle, for Isolationism.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxfGhaZxyRE[/youtube]
It seems that your positions are strongly aligned with Steve Bannon’s populism and anti-elitism. However Bannon is a capitalist, which I presume you disagree with?
I’d never invade another country to keep the price of a commodity low, unless our economy would implode if we didn’t and there were no peaceful alternatives.
I wouldn’t spend trillions of our dollars, kill thousands of our young men, create conditions that would lead to the deaths of millions of foreign women and children, further destabilize the global economy, give terrorists more reason to hate us and risk WW3, I’d much rather spend those trillions on education, healthcare, housing and wages, invest in greener techs and in the meantime, pay a little more at the pump, assuming we’re actually financially benefitting from these wars in any way at all.
If you put Tulsi Gabbard in charge of economic issues, Rand Paul in charge of social issues, both of them in charge of foreign policy and Jared Taylor in charge of immigration, you’d have something like my politics.