PDA

View Full Version : Is it Possible to Achieve an Utopian Society?



Hanna
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 04:38 PM
I want to know if it's possible to achieve utopian society?

http://i39.tinypic.com/33y5e0n.jpg

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 04:44 PM
I'm voting no, because if it's achieved it isn't utopian anymore. Utopian means impractical, improbable, impossible to achieve, doesn't it?

Hanna
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 04:55 PM
I'm voting no, because if it's achieved it isn't utopian anymore. Utopian means impractical, improbable, impossible to achieve, doesn't it?

Well it's how you look at it... suppose I could define it, then the answer would be yes, but also to achieve the utopian state is not that easy or simple neither straightforward. And of cause if you can't define the notion of ideal society so I guess it's a No.

velvet
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 04:58 PM
Utopia is the dream of something highly unlikely and build on an almost endless list of fullfilled conditions.
Unlikely, but not impossible ;)

When the picture should implicate that this utopian society is like that (paradise and even lions dont eat the tasty rabbits that are jumbing into their mouth and stuff), then a categorical no.

But democracy once was considered utopian too (not that is would run very smoothly, nonetheless it is reality and there are still people believing in this utopia), so the question is quite unspecific, it would highly depend on the concrete look & feel of this utopian society (almost everything can be 'utopian' in the sense that it would reflect an ideal society, and Marx and Hitler surely had quite other ideas about how it would/should be).

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 05:00 PM
Hmm, after repondering a little bit, I suppose the answer could also be "possible but without humans". Because humans aren't perfect, but there are higher beings that are perfect like divinities, and so they can achieve the utopian society, which is impossible for the humans. But that's a question of belief. ;)

Blod og Jord
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 05:24 PM
But democracy once was considered utopian too (not that is would run very smoothly, nonetheless it is reality and there are still people believing in this utopia), so the question is quite unspecific, it would highly depend on the concrete look & feel of this utopian society (almost everything can be 'utopian' in the sense that it would reflect an ideal society, and Marx and Hitler surely had quite other ideas about how it would/should be).
Isn't democracy still utopian today,
at least in the absolute sense?

Hanna
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 05:35 PM
Isn't democracy still utopian today,
at least in the absolute sense?

Maybe, because even in a democratic state there's an order and control. Since we could control our actions and thoughts its possible to achieve the utopian state. Well I guess it's how you look at it....

velvet
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 06:05 PM
Isn't democracy still utopian today,
at least in the absolute sense?

Hehe, well, yes, that's why I said people still 'believe' in it ;)
I guess reality has prooven that democracy depends on so many fullfilled conditions that it just doesnt work with humans. But in the end, that counts for every artificial created states system (which would be everything above/beyond the folkway I guess).

Matrix
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 09:39 PM
It would help if you would define what kind of utopian society you mean.
General, I think it's highly unlikely, but not impossible.

Sturmbaon
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 10:13 PM
If you mean utopia as an idyllic state, my opinion is yes, it's possible.
Not in the sense of the Garden of Eden, but as a really good place to live.

Ward
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 10:17 PM
All of nature inevitably ends in tragedy, as I see it.

Patrioten
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 10:45 PM
Utopia for who? The society most people today seem to want to live in is nothing short of hell in my opinion, whilst the kind of society I want to live in would be nothing short of hell to most people living today. Conservatives are by their nature more inclined to accept some imperfections and flaws in a society as long as the foundation stays the same, they are generally (unless they find themselves in a society hijacked by radicals) content with the way things were in the past, are in the present, and are looking at what once was as a guide for how things should be moving forward rather than day dreaming about the future. Liberals/socialists/progressives on the other hand, who are unhappy with the way things are now, have been in the past, and are instead using future-yet-to-be-realized dream scenarios as their mark for societal success, will never become satisfied and for them utopia will always remain just that, an unattainable state with no bearing in reality, history or humanity.

Ward
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 11:15 PM
Utopia for who? The society most people today seem to want to live in is nothing short of hell in my opinion, whilst the kind of society I want to live in would be nothing short of hell to most people living today. Conservatives are by their nature more inclined to accept some imperfections and flaws in a society as long as the foundation stays the same, they are generally (unless they find themselves in a society hijacked by radicals) content with the way things were in the past, are in the present, and are looking at what once was as a guide for how things should be moving forward rather than day dreaming about the future.

Indeed, unlike the others, conservatives a have a realistic view of human nature and the dangers of social engineering.


Liberals/socialists/progressives on the other hand, who are unhappy with the way things are now, have been in the past, and are instead using future-yet-to-be-realized dream scenarios as their mark for societal success, will never become satisfied and for them utopia will always remain just that, an unattainable state with no bearing in reality, history or humanity.

These people also show a marked willingness to sacrifice present generations to achieve their absurd vision of the future.

The cultural Marxist intellectuals and politicians in our present societies obviously don't give a damn about all the rapes, murder and criminal activities brought by immigration, because in their eyes it is worth it for us to suffer so future generations can enjoy "heaven on earth."

Naturally, most of these pro-multicultural elites rearrange the social furniture of our societies from safe, gated communities, far away from the mayhem they are inflicting upon us. It's truly infuriating.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 12:14 AM
Utopia for who? The society most people today seem to want to live in is nothing short of hell in my opinion, whilst the kind of society I want to live in would be nothing short of hell to most people living today. Conservatives are by their nature more inclined to accept some imperfections and flaws in a society as long as the foundation stays the same, they are generally (unless they find themselves in a society hijacked by radicals) content with the way things were in the past, are in the present, and are looking at what once was as a guide for how things should be moving forward rather than day dreaming about the future. Liberals/socialists/progressives on the other hand, who are unhappy with the way things are now, have been in the past, and are instead using future-yet-to-be-realized dream scenarios as their mark for societal success, will never become satisfied and for them utopia will always remain just that, an unattainable state with no bearing in reality, history or humanity.
Conservation belongs in museums. Our race should be heading towards progress, attained through science and technology. That is the future.

I don't think utopias exist, only what we make happen exists.

Patrioten
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 12:39 AM
Conservation belongs in museums. Our race should be heading towards progress, attained through science and technology. That is the future.Don't worry, you will have your "progress". I am nothing more than a harmless dinosaur, my words hold no sway and my ideas are hopelessly outdated. The future belongs to the radicals, that much is clear. Whether you will be satisfied with the end result is a different matter, all I know is I wont be leaving any children behind to experience your creation.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 12:48 AM
Don't worry, you will have your "progress". I am nothing more than a harmless dinosaur, my words hold no sway and my ideas are hopelessly outdated. The future belongs to the radicals, that much is clear. Whether you will be satisfied with the end result is a different matter, all I know is I wont be leaving any children behind to experience your creation.
As I said before, culture is not static, it's dynamic. Any rudimentary study of history should tell you that. Our ancestors from the primitive age had a different kind of lifestyle, so it is logical that our descendants will have a different one too. We cannot stop evolution. We can only manipulate the direction it goes in. As a racist and nationalist, I want it to go in a racial and national direction. In a simple example, "conservatives" would refuse to leave planet Earth in future, and risk to become extinct like the dinosaurs. As the superior race, we must use our intelligence unlike the dinosaurs, to find a new environment for our kind when planet Earth disappears. This is not a futuristic utopia, it can easily become reality. We placed a man on the moon, and in future we will be able to colonize it and other planets with some effort.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 02:38 AM
I wonder if we work as hard teaching as trying to leave the planet would we want to leave?;)

Siebenbürgerin
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 06:37 PM
Utopia is the dream of something highly unlikely and build on an almost endless list of fullfilled conditions.
Unlikely, but not impossible ;)
Hmm, in the literal sense utopia (Gk. ou "not" + topos "place") means "nowhere". That's the equivalent of inexistent, so strictly impossible in my view. When we say something is utopian, we mean it's unrealistic, only possible in the fiction, on paper, but not in the reality. Otherwise the meaning isn't the same anymore. Sometime in the past human flying was considered utopian, but because it became possible, it can't be utopian anymore, that's what I meant in my original post.

velvet
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 09:08 PM
Hmm, in the literal sense utopia (Gk. ou "not" + topos "place") means "nowhere". That's the equivalent of inexistent, so strictly impossible in my view. When we say something is utopian, we mean it's unrealistic, only possible in the fiction, on paper, but not in the reality. Otherwise the meaning isn't the same anymore. Sometime in the past human flying was considered utopian, but because it became possible, it can't be utopian anymore, that's what I meant in my original post.

I dont disagree with that, basically.
But when you take 'utopian' literally, then that would mean 'inexistent society' (as the thread question was utopian society). And the meaning has lost its literality, specially when you attach it as an attribute to something else, e.g. society, then it would be a self-answering question, a nonexistent society cannot exist. It would be a paradox.

So I took the question as for an ideal society. In theory, an ideal society can exist, if all and every member would have the very same opinions, wishes, goals, perceptions of right and wrong etc. and behave accordingly. In reality this though refers to the 'almost endless list of fullfilled conditions', that simply cant be fullfilled in a society context, because you wont even find two humans who agree on half of their opinions, let alone the complete set agreed to by a whole bunch of humans. So society means basically compromise, and a compromise can never be 'ideal' or perfect.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 09:41 PM
I wonder if we work as hard teaching as trying to leave the planet would we want to leave?;)
If we wanted to preserve the existence of our race in future, we will want to. We can teach our race as much as we want about preservation, but that can't stop nature from taking its course. Earth will be destroyed billions of years from now. A responsible racialist thinks in terms of billions of years, not only about his existence. Isn't that why we have children, to ensure that our race continues to be preserved? In the same tone, without embracing science and technology, we will not be able to achieve perpetuation if we remain caught in the (ignorant) past.

SpearBrave
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 11:28 AM
If we do not start turning things around now and start teaching people the wrongs of multicultureism and political correctness we will not have much time left. Also not knowing history you are failed to repeat it.

exit
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 05:57 PM
Hmm, in the literal sense utopia (Gk. ou "not" + topos "place") means "nowhere". That's the equivalent of inexistent, so strictly impossible in my view. When we say something is utopian, we mean it's unrealistic, only possible in the fiction, on paper, but not in the reality.

In that case, heaven and hell are fictions since they aren't spatial places. In other words, are spiritual centers possible? Must everyone experience them equally?

Siebenbürgerin
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 08:16 PM
In that case, heaven and hell are fictions since they aren't spatial places. In other words, are spiritual centers possible? Must everyone experience them equally?
They exist in the spiritual world, an utopia exists only the imagination. Heaven and hell aren't utopian places because they are where we go when we die.

exit
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 01:21 AM
They exist in the spiritual world, an utopia exists only the imagination. Heaven and hell aren't utopian places because they are where we go when we die.

So in other words you don't believe in spiritual centers established on earth like Eden/Jerusalem, etc.

I believe that heaven and hell are not just for after death, because many people have experienced them while in life, which is the only way we'd know about them.

Ultimately, More's Utopia was inspired by Mithraism and Platonism, and is in line with the flood tales. Utopia refers more to the divine conquerer than to a place. More writes that "this was no island at first, but a part of the continent. Utopus that conquered it (whose name it still carries, for Abraxa was its first name) brought the rude and uncivilized inhabitants into such a good government, and to that measure of politeness, that they now far excel all the rest of mankind; having soon subdued them, he designed to separate them from the continent, and to bring the sea quite round them."

The terrestrial paradise is really at the end of the world and at the same time the center of the world, always above the waters. The inhabitants participate in it according to their own abilities, stages, or stations in life.

If you read Utopia you'll see that everyone there was not perfect, but there were some basic laws that were followed by all.

exit
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 05:04 PM
For further understanding of More's Utopia, how it is quite symbolic, one can relate it to any of several ancient texts; here I will use the Satapatha Brahmana from which to quote:

11.1.6.24, “They (the gods) then beheld the northern quarter, and made it the waters. ‘Let us improve it from here!’ they said, and made it (to represent) the law, for the waters are the law: hence whenever the waters come (down) to this (terrestrial) world everything here comes to be in accordance with the law.”

12.3.4.11, “’All the worlds have I (Prajapati) placed within mine own self, and mine own self have I placed within all the worlds; all the gods have I placed within mine own self, and mine own self have I placed within all the gods; all the Vedas have I placed within mine own self, and mine own self have I placed within all the Vedas; all the vital airs have I placed within mine own self, and mine own self have I placed within the vital airs.’ For imperishable, indeed, are the worlds, imperishable the gods, imperishable the Vedas, imperishable the vital airs, imperishable is the All: and, verily, whosoever thus knows this, passes from the imperishable unto the imperishable, conquers recurrent death, and attains the full measure of life.”

13.6.1.1, “Purusha Nârâyana desired, ‘Would that I overcome all beings! would that I alone were everything here (the three worlds)!’ He beheld this five-day sacrificial performance, the Purushamedha, and took it, and performed offering therewith; and having performed offering therewith, he overcame all beings, and became everything here. And, verily, he who, knowing this, performs the Purushamedha, or who even knows this, overcomes all beings, and becomes everything here.”

14.1.4.2, “’The child of the gods,’ in truth, is he that shines yonder (otherworld), for he possesses everything here, and by him everything here is possessed.”

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 06:21 PM
So in other words you don't believe in spiritual centers established on earth like Eden/Jerusalem, etc.
A spiritual centre (like a church or a prayer place) isn't the same as a spiritual world. A spiritual world is an unseen world by the mortal, to put it in other words. We can communicate with God and be closer to him in the spiritual centres, but they aren't heaven.


I believe that heaven and hell are not just for after death, because many people have experienced them while in life, which is the only way we'd know about them.
Hmm I'm not sure what you're meaning here, something like the expression "hell on earth", a lot of suffering? I'm talking about the Christian heaven and hell which aren't present on earth. We can only reach them in the afterlife, and we know about them from the word of God and his disciples.


If you read Utopia you'll see that everyone there was not perfect, but there were some basic laws that were followed by all.
I've already read Utopia and I know it wasn't perfect. There was slavery for example and there were some laws. But some things like private property didn't exist, and peoples could take what they want at their own will. Utopia as in Thomas Morus' fiction didn't exist in the reality. Some socialists tried to create societies based on the model in Utopia, but they weren't successful.

exit
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 11:49 PM
A spiritual centre (like a church or a prayer place) isn't the same as a spiritual world.

I don't mean simply a church, however churches and temples symbolize a meeting of heaven and earth; this is obvious in that the roof itself is heaven and many temples have a central pillar which is the World Axis that ties all worlds together. A spiritual center (whether an island or temple) must be founded by a spiritual master and must always have the presence of the spirit. Once these spiritual masters are no longer produced so the spiritual influence withdraws from that land or church or tradition. This is why it depends more on the conqueor Utopus than an actual land.


A spiritual world is an unseen world by the mortal, to put it in other words. We can communicate with God and be closer to him in the spiritual centres, but they aren't heaven.

There isn't simply two worlds but an indefinite number of worlds all of which are a part of the cosmos. An earthly paradise like Thule or Eden was in the golden age is metaphysically at the summit of being. All of these worlds are states of consciousness and can be seen or experienced. The gods were originally mortal and only became immortal through their sacrifices (sacred rites/formulas).

I'm talking about the Christian heaven and hell which aren't present on earth. We can only reach them in the afterlife, and we know about them from the word of God and his disciples.

They could not know this without personal experience. God only talks to those who are in the paradisiacal state which is symbolized by "atop the mountain" (or island).


I've already read Utopia and I know it wasn't perfect. There was slavery for example and there were some laws. But some things like private property didn't exist, and peoples could take what they want at their own will.

They had possessions but they did not desire to rob and quarrel, they helped each other out.


Utopia as in Thomas Morus' fiction didn't exist in the reality

I don't believe he was writing literature, but rather being the learned poet he was wrote a symbolic tale not unlike the Greek classics.


Some socialists tried to create societies based on the model in Utopia, but they weren't successful

Socialists are foolish spiritists who take everything literally and don't have a clue about the symbolism in the texts they read. See Guenon's The Spiritist Fallacy for more on this.

Furthermore, Coomaraswamy in his "Who is Satan and Where is Hell" writes, "We have, in fact, ourselves postponed the 'kingdom of heaven on earth' by thinking of it as a material Utopia to be realized...The doctrine to be faced, however, is that 'the kingdom of heaven is within you,' here and now, and that, as Jacob Boehme, amongst others, so often said, 'heaven and hell are everywhere, being universally extended.... Thou art accordingly in heaven or hell.... The soul hath heaven or hell within itself,' and cannot be said to 'go to' either when the body dies."

http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/satan.html

Nachtengel
Friday, July 3rd, 2009, 01:19 AM
If we do not start turning things around now and start teaching people the wrongs of multicultureism and political correctness we will not have much time left.
We do both. Why does it have to be only this or that, why can't it be this and that? Are racialists so simplistic? I'd like to think we aren't.


Also not knowing history you are failed to repeat it.
I didn't say anything about not knowing history. I said we shouldn't repeat it. Obviously there was something wrong with our past since we got in the situation we are today. I'm a nationalsocialist, but I am not for preserving the precise way this ideology was applied in the Third Reich. Conservation is for museums, like I said. We need to adapt it to the 2000's.

Freigeistige
Friday, July 3rd, 2009, 03:41 AM
I feel that language is ever-changing and therefore allows for many different perspectives of the meanings of words. I am going to define Utopia as "the perfect societal organization". Since everyone's idea of a perfect societal organization is different, there can only be subjective utopia. In fact, there are most likely societies in existence right now that are subjectively regarded as utopia.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, July 3rd, 2009, 04:06 AM
I don't mean simply a church, however churches and temples symbolize a meeting of heaven and earth; this is obvious in that the roof itself is heaven and many temples have a central pillar which is the World Axis that ties all worlds together. A spiritual center (whether an island or temple) must be founded by a spiritual master and must always have the presence of the spirit. Once these spiritual masters are no longer produced so the spiritual influence withdraws from that land or church or tradition. This is why it depends more on the conqueor Utopus than an actual land.
To symbolise and to be are different concepts.


There isn't simply two worlds but an indefinite number of worlds all of which are a part of the cosmos. An earthly paradise like Thule or Eden was in the golden age is metaphysically at the summit of being. All of these worlds are states of consciousness and can be seen or experienced. The gods were originally mortal and only became immortal through their sacrifices (sacred rites/formulas).
To me there is only one God, and he wasn't a mortal. Even Jesus was born as the son of God from the beginning, although he had a mortal side. The ones who were simple mortals first were the saints. But I don't want to get into lengthy religious discussions because the theme will be off-topic, and because as I've said, it's a matter of belief. If you've different religious beliefs than mine, we can't view things from the same spectrum and have a discussion with a common denominator.


They had possessions but they did not desire to rob and quarrel, they helped each other out.
But is this possible in reality? I've doubts, that's why it's utopian. In the real world robbery and quarrels always exist, because there are bad humans with negative character, who don't want to help out.

exit
Friday, July 3rd, 2009, 01:21 PM
To symbolise and to be are different concepts.

Not really, just different interpretations. A symbol represents something real just as a sign marks something real.


To me there is only one God, and he wasn't a mortal. Even Jesus was born as the son of God from the beginning, although he had a mortal side.

As I explained, the gods became immortal by their sacrifices just like Jesus.


If you've different religious beliefs than mine, we can't view things from the same spectrum and have a discussion with a common denominator.

But I am talking about More's Utopia which was based on Mithraism and Platonism. The text states plainly that the "one god" over all the others was Mithras. No one can deny the initiatic character of Mithraism.


But is this possible in reality?

In a community which is organized around a spiritual center and traditional affiliation.

It is said of all the spiritual centers or paradises like Atlantis, Thule, etc., that those who go looking for them on land or sea will not find them because it is only through spiritual means that they may be attained. Socialist or economic utopias are nothing more than parodies of utopia.


In the real world robbery and quarrels always exist, because there are bad humans with negative character, who don't want to help out

Quarrels may still exist, but they must be dealt with justly. Major offenders are expelled or banished.

exit
Friday, July 3rd, 2009, 06:22 PM
More’s Utopia had nothing to do with socialism or feminism. Utopia was a monarchy, but one in which the priests and princes were chosen by the people for their merits, which is to say for their inherent qualities. Thus we see an observance of castes where “the same trade generally passes down from father to son, inclinations often following descent.” Distinction of the sexes was observed where “women, for the most part, deal in wool and flax, which suit best with their weakness, leaving the ruder trades to the men”; and having children was considered a duty or debt that everyone owed.

And “though no man has anything, yet they are all rich,” distribution of necessities was just and modeled after ideal feudal times. Other corrupt governments were “a conspiracy of the rich, who on pretence of managing the public only pursue their private ends, and devise all the ways and arts they can find out; first, that they may, without danger, preserve all that they have so ill acquired, and then that they may engage the poor to toil and labor for them at as low rates as possible, and oppress them as much as they please.” Thus Utopian “magistrates never engage the people in unnecessary labor, since the chief end of the constitution is to regulate labor by the necessities of the public, and to allow all the people as much time as is necessary for the improvement of their minds, in which they think the happiness of life consists.” Moreover, there were no idlers, for “what justice is there in this, that a nobleman, a goldsmith, a banker, or any other man, that either does nothing at all, or at best is employed in things that are of no use to the public, should live in great luxury and splendor, upon what is so ill acquired; and a common man, a carter, a smith, or a ploughman, that works harder even than the beasts themselves, and is employed in labors so necessary, that no commonwealth could hold out a year without them, can only earn so poor a livelihood, and must lead so miserable a life, that the condition of the beasts is much better than theirs?”

Having “rooted out of the minds of their people all the seeds both of ambition and faction, there [was] no danger of any commotion at home” and “the use as well as the desire of money being extinguished, much anxiety and great occasions of mischief [were] cut off with it.” An example is given where thousands have needlessly died of hunger due to the government closing off the storehouses at the least sign of trouble so as to hoard their money, yet which results in ruining the workforce and economy of the nation.

The Utopian attitude was made possible by their religious worldview, which had nothing in common with the socialists’ spiritism. “They despise and laugh at auguries, and the other vain and superstitious ways of divination, so much observed among other nations; but have great reverence for such miracles as cannot flow from any of the powers of nature, and look on them as effects and indications of the presence of the Supreme Being, of which they say many instances have occurred among them.”

Most wise of Utopians “adore one eternal, invisible, infinite, and incomprehensible Deity; as a being that is far above all our apprehensions, that is spread over the whole universe, not by His bulk, but by His power and virtue; Him they call the Father of All, and acknowledge that the beginnings, the increase, the progress, the vicissitudes, and the end of all things come only from Him; nor do they offer divine honors to any but to Him alone.”

“There are no images for God in their temples, so that everyone may represent Him to his thoughts, according to the way of his religion; nor do they call this one God by any other name than that of Mithras, which is the common name by which they all express the Divine Essence, whatsoever otherwise they think it to be.”

Far from the anti-clerical attitudes of neospiritualism, not only did conservation of the spiritual doctrine and the education of the youth belong to the priests but “none of the magistrates [had] greater honor paid him than to the priests; and if they [happened] to commit any crime, they [were] not questioned for it.” Moreover, the chief concern of the priests was to teach man how to think and act, for “there is no doubt to be made that a man who is afraid of nothing but the law, and apprehends nothing after death, will not scruple to break through all the laws of his country, either by fraud or force, when by this means he may satisfy his appetites. They (Utopians) never raise any that hold these maxims, either to honors or offices, nor employ them in any public trust, but despise them, as men of base and sordid minds: yet they do not punish them, because they lay this down as a maxim that a man cannot make himself believe anything he pleases; nor do they drive any to dissemble their thoughts by threats, so that men are not tempted to lie or disguise their opinions; which being a sort of fraud, is abhorred by the Utopians.”

Ediruc
Thursday, February 4th, 2010, 04:48 AM
Yes, I absolutely believe a Utopian society can be achieved, but the most drastic and extreme conditions must be taken up to achieve this. This is one reason why I am so fascinated and even at times envious of the Puritan society. They were, to the farthest extent Humanity, I think, has ever gotten, a utopia.

They maintained a strict religious law, though copying the Judaic Law from the Old Testament and creating for themselves a synthetic way-of-life, they were essentially living in total agreement and harmony. This utopia can only be perfected by the Anglo-Saxon race, every member of our family in agreement that they will live by strict ethics and morals. A religious or totalitarian regime plays its own key role, while the other important roles are filled in by race factor, seeing as only the Anglo-Saxon could rightly agree to live in utter harmony, because we are so far the highest in biological and spiritual development among the Germanic tribes.

But sadly the liberal agenda has sought to destroy the pureness of the Anglo-Saxon race. We need to take even more extreme measures to ensure that we will live in a utopia once again.

frippardthree
Thursday, February 4th, 2010, 05:42 AM
I believe it's possible, but only on a local scale. I could not see this idea ever being feasible on a global scale.

Old Winter
Thursday, February 4th, 2010, 06:10 AM
I see small conservative villages with full privacy in your own house as something that is close to a utopia, and in everyway closer to a utopia then any city.