The Reckoning

[Mr J]

As I've always said, I'm a populist, fiscally center-left, socially center-right, there is no party in the US or Canada that represents me, but paleocons, and libertarians come much closer than neocons.
Neocons are trying to demonize paleocons and libertarians.
It's neocons who're the fascists, but again they're international fascists, bordering on Marxists.
The neocons at the bottom have very little idea what they're supporting, they're misinformed, but again some of them are catching on.
The Biden admin are basically neocons, there's very little difference between neocons and, whatever you want to call them, contemporary 'liberals'.
The US is already in a cold civil war between paleocons and libertarians on the one hand, and neocons and 'liberals' on the other, we'll see if it erupts.

I'm a national socialist, I'm conservative on almost everything but economy to which economic socialism within reason is preferable. My economic socialism would be described as a kind of capitalism that fits the social, cultural, biological, metaphysical, intellectual, traditional, and racial needs of the population collectively. I despise democracy, am very much an autocrat, think voting is entirely a sham, and believe a strong leader should rule until they're dead to which one of their progeny replaces them. There would be no congress or senate in my government, instead there would only be the inner political party structure and some bureaucrats that are constantly watched very closely.

I'm a collectivist not an individualist, and while I respect individual private property I very much believe in the greater general public good.

I believe in a planned economy, embrace nationalism, and think trouble makers overall should just be disappeared.

I'm militaristic believing a strong military is the only way to go forward domestically and internationally.

I very much believe that the only way to a healthy society is having a healthy, prosperous, and happy working class, if the banks give us too much trouble we just send fifty soldiers to the front door of their mansion estate. Same thing with the bank regulators too.

If academia gives us too much problems we simply shut them down, ect and ect.

[iambiguous]

I'm a national socialist, I'm conservative on almost everything but economy to which economic socialism within reason is preferable. My economic socialism would be described as a kind of capitalism that fits the social, cultural, biological, metaphysical, and racial needs of the population collectively. I despise democracy, am very much an autocrat, think voting is a sham, and believe a strong leader should rule until they're dead to which one of their progeny replaces them.

I'm a collectivist not an individualist, and while I respect private property I very much believe in the general public good.

I believe in a planned economy and think trouble makers overall should just disappeared.

Again, a bunch of words that define and defend another bunch of words up in a cloudy intellectual contraction that professes to tell us Who You Are.

Well, who are you in regard to what particular set of circumstances in which those Who Are Something Else would insist that Who You Are is not who, as a rational and virtuous human being, You Ought To Be.

What They Are.

Only in regard to that set of circumstances we explore your own value judgment "here and now" given my own approach to human identity out in the is/ought world:

1] Noting the distinction between a frame of mind that revolves around a Real Me in sync and a set of moral and political values that are said to encompass objectively "the right thing to do", and "I" embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices...in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 .

2] Noting that when someone does change their moral and political frame of mind, they are acknowledging that they were wrong about something in the is/ought world around them. And that, once they acknowledge this, they are acknowledging in turn they may well be wrong about other things. Finally, they are acknowledging that, yes, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, they might be prompted to change their minds again. And again.

3] As a consequence, what I then suggest is that we focus in on a particular moral and political truth of theirs and given a set of circumstances we examine our respective moral and political philosophies.

4] Here, however, I'm less interested in simply articulating what we believe is true in the way of moral and political truths and more focused in how we would go about demonstrating to others that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think and to feel the same.

No, seriously this time.

[Gloominary]

As I've always said, I'm a populist, fiscally center-left, socially center-right, there is no party in the US or Canada that represents me, but paleocons, and libertarians come much closer than neocons.
Neocons are trying to demonize paleocons and libertarians.
It's neocons who're the fascists, but again they're international fascists, bordering on Marxists.
The neocons at the bottom have very little idea what they're supporting, they're misinformed, but again some of them are catching on.
The Biden admin are basically neocons, there's very little difference between neocons and, whatever you want to call them, contemporary 'liberals'.
The US is already in a cold civil war between paleocons and libertarians on the one hand, and neocons and 'liberals' on the other, we'll see if it erupts.

I'm a national socialist, I'm conservative on almost everything but economy to which economic socialism within reason is preferable. My economic socialism would be described as a kind of capitalism that fits the social, cultural, biological, metaphysical, intellectual, traditional, and racial needs of the population collectively. I despise democracy, am very much an autocrat, think voting is entirely a sham, and believe a strong leader should rule until they're dead to which one of their progeny replaces them. There would be no congress or senate in my government, instead there would only be the inner political party structure and some bureaucrats that are constantly watched very closely.

I'm also a national socialist.
Like you, I believe the vast majority of the economy should remain in private hands, but some of the revenue, particularly from the upperclass and big business, should be redistributed to the working class in the form of higher wages, social healthcare, housing and subsidies for small-medium business.
I'm also pro-union.
I believe in reducing, if not eliminating immigration altogether, restricting it to those who're fiscally and at least culturally compatible with us, and in protecting our housing, jobs and natural resources from being exploited by other nations.
Socioculturally, I'm either in favor of libertarianism, or moderate conservatism, promoting health and traditional culture and values, as opposed to sickness and 'progressive' culture and values.
Where you and I differ most, is I'm in favor of constitutional democracy, in free speech, guns, due process, equality before the law, rule of law and so on, whereas you're in favor of authoritarian dictatorship.

I'm a collectivist not an individualist, and while I respect individual private property I very much believe in the greater general public good.

I believe in balancing collectivism, with individualism.

I'm militaristic believing a strong military is the only way to go forward domestically and internationally.

I also believe in having a strong military.
However, I'm not an expansionist.
I don't believe in preemptive or regime change wars.
Our military's sole objective oughta be to protect ourselves and our mutual allies from aggressors.

I very much believe that the only way to a healthy society is having a healthy, prosperous, and happy working class, if the banks give us too much trouble we just send fifty soldiers to the front door of their mansion estate. Same thing with the bank regulators too.

Yea, there should only be one bank, a national, state bank.
It should be able to print money as needed, debt free, and loan it as needed, interest free.

If academia gives us too much problems we simply shut them down, ect and ect.

As I believe in free speech, I wouldn't do that, but I would consider increasing taxes on subversive academia and redistributing the money to, positive academia.

Or if not that, then just giving tax breaks to positive academia.

[Gloominary]

Lastly, while I think climate change is a doomsday cult, I'm all in favor of clean air, food and water, in improving conditions for livestock and some wildlife conservation.
But this idea that we have to eliminate all fossil fuels or the sky will fall is nonsense.

Covid is also a doomsday cult.
I tend to distrust allopathy in general, naturopathic healthcare oughta precede allopathic.

Transhumanism is a cult.
Either we should approach cybergenetic modification with extreme caution and skepticism, or it should be outright banned.

Populism and individualism must precede all forms of oligarchy, including scientism and technocracy.

[Gloominary]

Basically we're both national socialists, but mine is more temperate, harkening back to the Anglosphere during the postwar era, yours is more extreme, harkening back to Italian fascism or German Nazism.

As for Ur and Observr, I'm trying to figure out if they're libertarians or paleoconservatives?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Basically we're both national socialists, but mine is more temperate, harkening back to the Anglosphere during the postwar era, yours is more extreme, harkening back to Italian fascism or German Nazism.

As for Ur and Observr, I'm trying to figure out if they're libertarians or paleoconservatives?

K: here let me help you... they are idiots...

Kropotkin