PDA

View Full Version : What Is Your Ideal Form of Government?



Northern Paladin
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:57 PM
What Is Your Ideal Form of Government?
Mine would be a Monarchy ruled by an "Enlightened Despot".

JoeDas
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 09:50 PM
Democracy is the most noble and the fairest form of government. Despots, no matter how enlightened, tend to oppress the people and be corrupt. Enlightened Despotism will only result in another Napoleon or another Stalin

Stew
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 12:47 AM
A white nationalist libertarian government. Minimal tax and government involvment on all issues except race and NATIONAL defence. Decentralized power.

To attain this however a Despot dictatorship will likely be required which I am defintly in favor of, but plans must be made to maintain the new government indefinetly (learning from the mistakes of the past).

Jack
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 09:56 AM
Autocracy, probably. Some form of firm, well disciplined Monarchial government.

Prussian
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 01:01 PM
For me either a National Socialist or Kaiserreich style culturally based bismarckian form of government works in my mind.:)

Northern Paladin
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 09:29 PM
Democracy is the most noble and the fairest form of government. Despots, no matter how enlightened, tend to oppress the people and be corrupt. Enlightened Despotism will only result in another Napoleon or another Stalin

American Democracy is anything but Noble or Fair. Anyone who knows anything about American History would not hold such a Naive view.
Democracy in America is nothing more than a decadent Plutocracy which puts Money ahead of everything.

Democracy like Communism are just different forms of the same Idealism. Democracy is just a hypothetical possiblity not a "Realistic" one.
So Democracy in America is not oppressing the people?
It is just under a different guise...under the guise of the almighty Dollar.
The Individual American is nothing but a miniscule and replaceable cog in a Giant Economic Machine.

Aristotle
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 03:39 PM
ΕΥΤΥΧΕΙΤΕ!

Dear JoeDas, to be young is very nice but it is against political experience.
I think that the only you would like to define is your will for a more free and polite life!
This is the common mistake of those people aiming to improve life. And the guilty are those who set the rules of the "game" in order to rule over the ignorant.
Study,if you please, PLATO's "The State" (the translation "The Republic" is not correct) and after reding 8th book of it you will obtain the best image concerning Democracy.
Same anti-Democrats were all ancient Greek Philosophers despite the lies of modern "Authors" about Democracy "in"...Greece!
Kindest Regards!

Democracy is the most noble and the fairest form of government. Despots, no matter how enlightened, tend to oppress the people and be corrupt. Enlightened Despotism will only result in another Napoleon or another Stalin

George
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 09:04 PM
We don't have democracies, we have crypto-pluto-oligarchies. We ought to have a monarchy. We need to extirpate our current government and replace it with army officers and big businessmen. Indeed, until we have dug ourselves out of the big hole we are in, it will need to be a hardcore Totalitarian Dictatorship, but hopefully later we can relax it to a more Libertarian Agrarian format.

Sigrun Christianson
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 09:34 PM
I would be Queen with unchecked power and privledge. Nothing else suits me.

JoeDas
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 09:54 PM
ΕΥΤΥΧΕΙΤΕ!

Dear JoeDas, to be young is very nice but it is against political experience.
I think that the only you would like to define is your will for a more free and polite life!
This is the common mistake of those people aiming to improve life. And the guilty are those who set the rules of the "game" in order to rule over the ignorant.
Study,if you please, PLATO's "The State" (the translation "The Republic" is not correct) and after reding 8th book of it you will obtain the best image concerning Democracy.
Same anti-Democrats were all ancient Greek Philosophers despite the lies of modern "Authors" about Democracy "in"...Greece!
Kindest Regards!ARISTOTLE, which form of government do you think is best? Democracy may not be perfect, but I think it is better than a corrupt monarchy or a despotism



it will need to be a hardcore Totalitarian Dictatorship, but hopefully later we can relax it to a more Libertarian Agrarian formatGeorge, is your last name Orwell? Because that sounds like Big Brother talking..."We need complete and total tyranny over the populace for their own good"

Aristotle
Friday, August 13th, 2004, 10:53 PM
EYTYXEITE!

Dear JoeDas, have a look to your post: you wrote about a comparisson between 'Democracy' and 'corrupt monarchy or a despotism'.
According all ancient Greek Philosophers, democracy was corrupt! In Plato's "State" as well as in Aristoteles' books you will read the term 'Democracy" as the system producing anarchy and tyranny!
But if you use the word "corrupt" ( refering to monarchy or a despotism ) you have to make an equalization using same term for Democracy as well in order to be right, and then???
According myself, the best system is the spiritual aristocracy founded by Plato. It is a very Nationalsosialistic aspect of the natural reality in all fields of the life. if you have enough time you are kindly suggested to study Plato's " "THE STATE" ( or "THE REPUBLIC" )
Kindest Regards!

ARISTOTLE, which form of government do you think is best? Democracy may not be perfect, but I think it is better than a corrupt monarchy or a despotism


George, is your last name Orwell? Because that sounds like Big Brother talking..."We need complete and total tyranny over the populace for their own good"

Licht
Friday, August 13th, 2004, 11:39 PM
Me as absolute Ruler (with a title like King,Leader,Emperor) ofcourse :D!

Licht
Friday, August 13th, 2004, 11:46 PM
I would be Queen with unchecked power and privledge. Nothing else suits me.Join me and we will rule the galaxy like father and son!
I mean rule the world like man and wife?Room mates?Colleagues?Partners?Boy and girl friend?Stand up comedians?Irish bar dancers (ofcourse skip that if you are a smoker)?

Evolved
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 12:10 AM
Definitely a 'People's Republic' with 'The People's Government', a society without class distinctions, accomplished by revolutionary seizure of political power by the working class.

Abby Normal
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 01:29 AM
Definitely a 'People's Republic' with 'The People's Government', a society without class distinctions, accomplished by revolutionary seizure of political power by the working class.Agreed to some degree - a socialist, or 'planned' economy with 100% taxation, no 'private property' or 'free enterprise' would be ideal, but I still like the idea of a single leader or a small controlling group (a 'dicktatorship', heh.), possibly with hereditary rule.

Stríbog
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 01:45 AM
Definitely a 'People's Republic' with 'The People's Government', a society without class distinctions, accomplished by revolutionary seizure of political power by the working class.

LOL the working class can't even run their own lives effectively, let alone a nation. Class distinctions, properly applied, are essential; they force people to either better themselves or remain in squalor, and they give people something to which to aspire.

dazed&confused
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 02:10 AM
Definitely a 'People's Republic' with 'The People's Government', a society without class distinctions, accomplished by revolutionary seizure of political power by the working class.http://www.hicksville.co.nz/Commie%20red.GIF



Agreed to some degree - a socialist, or 'planned' economy with 100% taxation, no 'private property' or 'free enterprise' would be ideal, but I still like the idea of a single leader or a small controlling group (a 'dicktatorship', heh.), possibly with hereditary rule. You urgently need this:

http://www.wacky-packs.com/smimages/commie.jpg

Evolved
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 02:24 AM
I don't aspire to be a social climber. :)

Vestmannr
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 03:15 AM
Tolkien once described himself as a philosophical anarchist. But he believed that true anarchy would ultimately result in a natural monarchy. - 'JRR Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth', 2003


I think that is basically my position .. the sort of peaceful anarchy normative to clan/tribe based systems, and that such systems naturally grow into true monarchy. Monarchies by their nature are far more benevolent than rule of the masses. Family, Sept, Clan, Tribe, Nation, Race, Church. Pretty simple and natural system to me.

Is not a lynching Democracy in its purest form? Democracy is the rule of the 'mob'. In Revolutionary America, the Reverend Mather Byles said, "Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" - I think he was a prophet.
:~(

TisaAnne
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 03:22 AM
Democracy is the most noble and the fairest form of government. Despots, no matter how enlightened, tend to oppress the people and be corrupt. Enlightened Despotism will only result in another Napoleon or another Stalin
I agree. Atleast, in a Democracy, "the people" have a choice....whether or not the candidates are worthy of a position as leader is always debatable, but I still prefer having a choice in the matter. :|

Jack
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 04:32 AM
I agree. Atleast, in a Democracy, "the people" have a choice....whether or not the candidates are worthy of a position as leader is always debatable, but I still prefer having a choice in the matter. :|

And be held down to the mean level of stupidity by the hordes of other voters. Stupid people have never determined anything except for the outcomes of battles which require human waves. What choice? Do you see a choice where Bush and Kerry outline exactly the same policies? Do you think there's a hope in hell of Rep. Ron Paul being President? Your 'vote', whether you have an IQ of 200 or not, is still on an equal level with Mrs. Crack Whore with her fourteen children living off welfare. Yes... 'choice'. (:o

TisaAnne
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 05:14 AM
And be held down to the mean level of stupidity by the hordes of other voters. Stupid people have never determined anything except for the outcomes of battles which require human waves. What choice? Do you see a choice where Bush and Kerry outline exactly the same policies? Do you think there's a hope in hell of Rep. Ron Paul being President? Your 'vote', whether you have an IQ of 200 or not, is still on an equal level with Mrs. Crack Whore with her fourteen children living off welfare. Yes... 'choice'. (:o
I simply stated that Democracy provides a choice...It's not always the best choice or the right choice, but atleast it is a choice. IMO, politicians are sleazes anyway, so if I am going to be "ruled" by one person, I would like to be able to say "this is the man I choose". If the guy turns out to be a bastard, and does a bad job of being president, well...in 4 years I have the option of voting him out, not just waiting for him to die or be ovethrown.

Every decision regarding my money, rights and freedom has been made for me already by people with deep pockets and high societal influence...I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight for the one actual choice that I have...no one is going to take that away from me because it is MY RIGHT.

Vestmannr
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 05:19 AM
Every decision regarding my money, rights and freedom has been made for me already by people with deep pockets and high societal influence...I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight for the one actual choice that I have...no one is going to take that away from me because it is MY RIGHT.

Your right which you don't have. In five states of the USA one is not allowed to even place a third party candidate on the ballots. Those five and others also no longer allow write-in candidates. The election will actually happen with a college of people hand-picked by the two major parties. The popular election itself is that of Coke or Pepsi - no water, no juice, not even any alcohol. IOW, even that decision is being made for you by people with money, power, and influence - your 'choice' there is no different than a lab-rat in a maze experiment. I've lived in the same country for over 30 years. 'My choice' has never won, and I sure won't own up to anyone that has been elected over that period of time. If you claim responsibility for Bush and Kerry - then *you* sure have something to answer for! ;)

TisaAnne
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 05:24 AM
If you claim responsibility for Bush and Kerry - then *you* sure have something to answer for! ;)
It's simply a case of choosing the lesser of two evils...and it's quite obvious which choice that is. :D

Stríbog
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 05:31 AM
Democracy is ochlocracy. The vote of an intelligent Ph.D should not count equally with the vote of a Negress on welfare, as Jack said. If one is going to allow meaningful elections at all, the vote must be limited to adult citizens with a minimum educational status, and a possible property requirement as well.

Vestmannr
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 05:32 AM
It's simply a case of choosing the lesser of two evils...and it's quite obvious which choice that is. :D

Not, it isn't obvious. And a choice with the same outcome either way is no choice. We have a saying for that you know: "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." In this case can one really measure the lesser of two evils? Do we know what Kerry will do with the next four years? Likely the same as Bush. The only distinction otherwise is one of political rhetoric - which is about as far from reality one can get in a genre (Politics in and of themselves operate outside of reality.) Otherwise, what one who 'votes and accepts' is doing is simply assenting to recognize the choice made for them as being in their best interest. Not a choice, but resignation to fate. How far from the original American system is that? So far gone as to demand a whole different categorization for such a government. (EDIT: I noticed Stribog did provide the categorization, and pointed out part of the original system: landed 'White' male citizens voted.)


A choice made for evil, even when given 'no choice' (ie, murder your mother or murder your country) is a choice for evil. If one frees themself from the unreal mind of politics, one can see there is no simple and diabolical 'this evil or that evil' choice. There are many other options as well, that at the least can leave one with a clear conscience, the moral high-ground, and God willing a clean 'karma'. If one assents to the evil, they accept judgement and guilt for that evil upon themselves as well.

Awar
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 05:41 AM
Democracy is a sham. It can never work, it never worked.
The only system that ever worked was oligarchy. Everything else is just allowed illusion of choice and freedom.

Whatever a pHd, the 200IQ guy, the truckdriver, the negress on crack and the elderly do, decide, vote etc. it makes no real difference. Only the choices of the few powerful make a difference.

Call it communism, national-socialism, democracy or feudalism, it's all the same.
Few rule, everyone else bows, whether with or without being aware of the reality.

Or is someone trying to say that Stalin was a real communist, and that Bill Gates has the same one vote as the average US citizen..

JoeDas
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 07:30 AM
Anybody can badmouth democracy, and much of the time there seems to be good reason to. But the simple fact is that democracy is far superior to any other system that humans have come up with. The right for the people to change rulers and have a say in government, as well as the basic rights that are associated with democracy (life, liberty, property, "the pursuit of happiness", and the US bill of Rights)...these things make democracy superior to the others, since none of the other systems of government guarantee any of those things.

Let me summarize why I think democracy is best with these quotes:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be" -Sydney Harris (American Journalist 1917-1986)
"The basis of a democratic state is liberty" -Aristotle
"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." -Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, 1863

Northern Paladin
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 07:53 AM
Anybody can badmouth democracy, and much of the time there seems to be good reason to. But the simple fact is that democracy is far superior to any other system that humans have come up with. The right for the people to change rulers and have a say in government, as well as the basic rights that are associated with democracy (life, liberty, property, "the pursuit of happiness", and the US bill of Rights)...these things make democracy superior to the others, since none of the other systems of government guarantee any of those things.

Let me summarize why I think democracy is best with these quotes:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be" -Sydney Harris (American Journalist 1917-1986)
"The basis of a democratic state is liberty" -Aristotle
"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." -Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, 1863

Yet what has Democracy done for America? How many American truely have life, liberty, property, and happiness?

America is one of the most dsyfunctional Societies in the world. We've got the highest crime rate of any developed country. No true sense of Culture,Unity,or Pride.

America is Plutocracy not a Democracy LMAO. Their are millions of Poor who don't have health care,3 meals a day, or a descent roof over their heads. Is this why you think Democracy is Superior?

If you believe in Democracy than you believe must also believe in the "Wisdom" of the Masses. And since when have the masses become Wise?

Why are you quoting Abe Lincoln anyways? Abe Lincoln was never for the people(He was for the Niggers). Unless fighting the Civil War where 100's of thousands of Whites died just to set free a bunch of Niggers makes him of the people, by the people, and for the people. :halo

Abe Lincoln could have sent all those Niggers back to Africa. Instead through the Magic of Democracy he set them free and gave them "rights" at the expense of Whites. :|

JoeDas
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 08:14 AM
America is one of the most dsyfunctional Societies in the world. We've got the highest crime rate of any developed country. No true sense of Culture,Unity,or Pride.Look at the list of the best countries in the world to live in put out by the UN. They are all liberal democracies. Not one of them is a despotism.


If you believe in Democracy than you believe must also believe in the "Wisdom" of the Masses. And since when have the masses become Wise?Since when have despots been wise? I say better the foolishness of the people than the foolishness of a tyrant with absolute power!


Why are you quoting Abe Lincoln anyways? Abe Lincoln was never for the people(He was for the Niggers). Unless fighting the Civil War where 100's of thousands of Whites died just to set free a bunch of Niggers makes him of the people, by the people, and for the people. :halo The Civil War was about more than freeing slaves, and that particular quote didn't really have much of anything do with slavery. But either way, slavery was a terrible practice that had to go.


Abe Lincoln could have sent all those Niggers back to Africa. Instead through the Magic of Democracy he set them free and gave them "rights" at the expense of Whites. :|Lincoln was killed by a fanatic before he could do much of anything after the war, so I don't know why you think he could have easily sent all Blacks back to Africa. He never had the chance to do such a thing, not that he would have anyway, since the Blacks in America were more American than African, so sending them back to Africa would not have made any sense.

Vestmannr
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 08:36 AM
Lincoln was killed by a fanatic before he could do much of anything after the war, so I don't know why you think he could have easily sent all Blacks back to Africa. He never had the chance to do such a thing, not that he would have anyway, since the Blacks in America were more American than African, so sending them back to Africa would not have made any sense.

Regarding Lincoln, I'd suggest 'The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.' by Thomas DiLorenzo. Might help explain just how 'Democratic' Lincoln was: if you consider suspending the Constitution, throwing hundreds of elected Representatives, journalists, and anyone else with criticisms into prison contrary to the writ of habeus corpus. I could go on, but it better to simply read.

After all, Lincoln was elected by the upstart Republican party which had its roots in the recent German-Marxist immigration following the failed Revolution of 1848 in Germany. Carl Schurz and crew might be another bunch to consider researching.

Lest you think it is 'Neo-Confederate' drivel, here is the bio on the author:

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is a professor of economics in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola college in Maryland. Specializing in economic history and political economy, he is the author of 11 books and over 70 articles in academic journals, and he is also widely published in such popular outlets as the Wall Street Journal, Reader's Digest, USA Today, National Review, Barron's, and numerous other national publications. He lives in Clarksville, Maryland.

Stríbog
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 01:03 PM
There have been plenty of exposés of Lincoln, most of them very well-researched and supported. The only thing keeping his image afloat is the multiculti propaganda of the mass media and public education system. The greatest tragedy is that he wasn't shot through the head sooner, before he destroyed the Republic.

JoeDas
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 01:32 PM
You guys are missing the point about Lincoln, it's not about the man, it's what he said. The Gettysburg address was probably the most eloquent speech ever delivered by an American president, and the part that I quoted is one of the best and most concise definitions of democracy going.


by the way, I don't see how Lincoln destroyed the Republic by preventing half of it from breaking away! He didn't destory the Republic, he saved the Republic! As far as Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and his other actions, well it was a war, and not just that, a civil war. Many countries have taken far more drastic actions than Lincoln did during periods of national crisis

Eric34
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 01:58 PM
I want a new one, NationalSocialist Democracy. :) :P

Chevalier
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 04:13 PM
Monarchy - it is unreal, it is a product of Christianity which already for a long time does not work as a religion.

There are three real ways

State owns, state rules - Communism
Owners own and rule - Capitalism
Owners own, state rules - National Socialism

Make your choice

Abby Normal
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 06:24 PM
Monarchy - it is unreal, it is a product of Christianity which already for a long time does not work as a religion.
What could you be thinking? Monarchy existed in Asia, Africa and Europe long before the advent of Christianity and, ironically enough, exists today in its purest form only in areas untouched by Christianity!



There are three real ways

State owns, state rules - Communism
Owners own and rule - Capitalism
Owners own, state rules - National Socialism

Make your choiceCommunism and capitalism are economic systems, and National Socialism is a combined economic and political system.


Ay CARUMBA, your fonts screwed mine up completely!

Prince Eugen
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 07:27 PM
National Socialism/Fasmism combination is the ideal for me!

Awar
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 08:14 PM
Democracy has a tendency to degenerate into crowd-pleasing promises and rich-pleasing actions.

Grimr
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Government and political systems aren’t necessary; they are simply ideological concepts like the rules of chess.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 11:34 PM
by the way, I don't see how Lincoln destroyed the Republic by preventing half of it from breaking away! He didn't destory the Republic, he saved the Republic! As far as Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and his other actions, well it was a war, and not just that, a civil war. Many countries have taken far more drastic actions than Lincoln did during periods of national crisis


The Confederates had a better system they knew how to make the right kinda of disticintions. If America was under the Confederate system we probably wouldn't be in this Multicultural Mess. Setting the Slaves free set in motion the chain events that have led to America's current Racial Mess.

Eric34
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 01:33 AM
Democracy has a tendency to degenerate into crowd-pleasing promises and rich-pleasing actions.

Exactly. I hate this jewish-liar-democracy. :)

But a NatinalSocialist Democracy is maybe invert, as the NacionalSocialism vs. Socialism. :)

I don't know really. :) But who cares, the NationalSocialism good without Democracy too. Best for me! :D :P

PS:. This smiley :P showing his tongue, or just happy? :P

:)

JoeDas
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:26 AM
The Confederates had a better system they knew how to make the right kinda of disticintions. If America was under the Confederate system we probably wouldn't be in this Multicultural Mess. Setting the Slaves free set in motion the chain events that have led to America's current Racial Mess.So the reason America is multicultural today is because Jeff Davis' government was defeated by U.S. Grant 140 years ago? Hmm...well this might seem ironic, but even the Confederate army was "multicultural", they had Whites of various nationalities and ancestries fighting for them, a few Blacks fought for them (although more fought for the North), and even thousands and thousands of Indians fought for the Confederacy in the Western Theater. The Northern armies were also multicultural, as their soldiers were of a wide variety of ancestries. There were recruitment posters in New York City that had literally a half dozen languages printed on them urging men to sign up...Germans constituted the largest ethnic group in the Northern army...the famous First Minnesota Regiment was made up of mostly Scandinavian volunteers...there were quite a few Colored regiments on the Northern side made up of free Blacks (including one which was famously depicted in the movie "Glory")...I can go on. America was already multicultural even before Jeff Davis and the rest of the boys down South decided to secede.

JoeDas
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:29 AM
Democracy has a tendency to degenerate into crowd-pleasing promises and rich-pleasing actions.Better to have crowd-pleasing empty promises than to have a "the King can do no wrong" type of system

Vestmannr
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:35 AM
America was already multicultural even before Jeff Davis and the rest of the boys down South decided to secede.

I think you are failing to distinguish between having a territory inhabited by multiple cultures/races and the modern political philosophy of 'multi-culturalism' (called the 'Multi-Kult' popularly.) The existence of the former does not automatically imply the existence of the latter.

JoeDas
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:39 AM
I think you are failing to distinguish between having a territory inhabited by multiple cultures/races and the modern political philosophy of 'multi-culturalism' (called the 'Multi-Kult' popularly.) The existence of the former does not automatically imply the existence of the latter.Maybe you're right. What is Multiculturalism? Is it the co-existence of people of different cultures in the same place? What would you define it as? Using my definition there, I think it's safe to say that America was multicultural for most of its history, although not neccessarily multi-cultural in the way that many people use the word in common usage

Awar
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:51 AM
Better to have crowd-pleasing empty promises than to have a "the King can do no wrong" type of system

Let's not kid ourselves. The voice of the many is heavily influenced ( by the media ) and often ignored and manipulated. How is that any less absolutistic?
The corporations do whatever they want, they shape the politics and our future.

Vestmannr
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:56 AM
Maybe you're right. What is Multiculturalism? Is it the co-existence of people of different cultures in the same place? What would you define it as? Using my definition there, I think it's safe to say that America was multicultural for most of its history, although not neccessarily multi-cultural in the way that many people use the word in common usage

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Multiculturalism

'Peaceful coexistence' I think is more precise to the way most dictionaries describe the usage. However, if one can consider the interaction of various cultures in America as 'peaceful coexistence', I'd consider them to be pretty violent people. America and the Balkans are more likely the opposites of Multi-culturalism: multiple cultures in a coexistence that is not peaceful, but full of suspicion, cross-cultural crime, acts of war and extreme violence, etc.

JoeDas
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 05:04 AM
Let's not kid ourselves. The voice of the many is heavily influenced ( by the media ) and often ignored and manipulated. How is that any less absolutistic?
The corporations do whatever they want, they shape the politics and our future.Who, then, is the media influenced by? This is the key difference. In a democracy, the media is influenced by the people and somewhat influenced by the government. In totalitarian and absolutist states, the media isn't influenced by the people at all and isn't really influenced by government, since the media is the government in those states

Vestmannr
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 05:28 AM
Who, then, is the media influenced by? ... since the media is the government in those states

Well, that has been the charge in this country for a long time. That the media is the government (watch Fox News?) Before that it was how the Media was the 'Liberal lap-dog'. The Media is not democratic in any sense of the word: it has owners just like any business, and they guide the biases of their businesses as sure as any restaurant owner decides the type of cuisine his restaurant will serve. So, the Media owners are a sort of plutocracy, again. The closest one can get to 'Democratic' media is with the pseudo-subversive 'Zines', or on the internet. A bit of experience with the internet and its denizens should be the greatest argument against a democratic system. If the majority are neurological/psychological wrecks ... then you get what they want you to get, no matter what. With the Media, you get what the Media Moguls want you to get ... not what the 'people' want.

JoeDas
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 05:49 AM
The important thing is that, in a democracy, the media is independent of the government (Fox News notwithstanding); whereas in a non-democracy, the media is usually state-run. Thus, a balance of powers of sorts exists that prevents the government from dominating things. After all, it was Nietzsche who said, "Democratic institutions form a system of quarantine for tyrannical desires"


The Media is not democratic in any sense of the word: it has owners just like any business, and they guide the biases of their businesses as sure as any restaurant owner decides the type of cuisine his restaurant will serve. So, the Media owners are a sort of plutocracy, again. To extend the analogy a bit, Restaurant owners serve the types of food that people want to eat, not what the government wants the people to eat. In other words Restaurant owners are independent of the government. Same thing with the media in democractic states

Vestmannr
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 06:26 AM
The important thing is that, in a democracy, the media is independent of the government (Fox News notwithstanding); whereas in a non-democracy, the media is usually state-run. Thus, a balance of powers of sorts exists that prevents the government from dominating things. After all, it was Nietzsche who said, "Democratic institutions form a system of quarantine for tyrannical desires"

Well, that is nice idealism - but it is not the reality of democracies. In a perfect world with perfect people, one would have a perfect democracy. However, here in the real world democracies are corrupt and often 'democracy' only in name. There is no 'balance of powers' as concerns the media.

And, quoting Nietzsche doesn't get anywhere with me. He was about as far from being his 'Ubermensche' as a man can get. To write and not achieve is a damnable offense. In any case, the popular Nietschze is much more likely his sister in all actuality, and not the little love-sick humpback weakling. ;) In my profession we consider those who quote Niteschze often to be fops: they think it makes them look intellectual, like claiming Atheism without having a clue about what all that actually leads to.


To extend the analogy a bit, Restaurant owners serve the types of food that people want to eat, not what the government wants the people to eat. In other words Restaurant owners are independent of the government. Same thing with the media in democractic states

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. That isn't extending the analogy. The media is *not* independent of the government as the government is not independent of the media. Both are controlled by Corporate interests.

JoeDas
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 07:44 AM
I think you are being overly cynical here. Saying the media is not independent of the government merely because both the media and the government are influenced by corporations is like saying the Judicial branch is not independent of the Executive branch merely because the members of both the Judicial and Executive branches are influenced by Christianity

If the media wasn't independent of the government, stories like Watergate and and Monica Lewinsky and the stories about the dead soldiers in Iraq would never have been published
...

As far as the Nietzsche quote, the important thing is the words, not the man who said them. It wouldn't matter if Zippy the Pinhead had said them, the words would still be the same. And they would be equally as true

Stríbog
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 01:25 AM
I think you are being overly cynical here. Saying the media is not independent of the government merely because both the media and the government are influenced by corporations is like saying the Judicial branch is not independent of the Executive branch merely because the members of both the Judicial and Executive branches are influenced by Christianity


The media controls the government, not vice versa, and the Judicial and Executive branches aren't independent of one another.



If the media wasn't independent of the government, stories like Watergate and and Monica Lewinsky and the stories about the dead soldiers in Iraq would never have been published


Stories about dead soldiers in Iraq? I haven't seen any. As for Watergate, it was a case of the media taking down a president who they personally disliked and with whom they strongly disagreed. The Lewinsky crap was just more sleaze to entertain the masses, the media never passed judgement on Clinton. They actually defended him at times, allowed him to air his speech on every national network, and his impeachment trial failed. They were certainly willing to make money off of his public embarrassment, but they found him politically agreeable and thus weren't able to turn him out of office. They could broadcast every moronic statement that W issues, but they downplay them because he has been politically useful thus far.

TisaAnne
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 01:42 AM
Stories about dead soldiers in Iraq? I haven't seen any.The only stories that anyone get's to see are the ones that make the dead soldier look like a hero, or ones that make Iraqi's look like beasts...U.S. soldiers are dying over there everyday, but in terms of media and the war, the only news that we are fed is highly propagandized. The American public is certainly not told of how many Iraqi children our soldiers have slaughtered, or any of the other senseless acts act of war committed by our forces...that would be bad publicity.

Northern Paladin
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 02:42 AM
So the reason America is multicultural today is because Jeff Davis' government was defeated by U.S. Grant 140 years ago? Hmm...well this might seem ironic, but even the Confederate army was "multicultural", they had Whites of various nationalities and ancestries fighting for them, a few Blacks fought for them (although more fought for the North), and even thousands and thousands of Indians fought for the Confederacy in the Western Theater. The Northern armies were also multicultural, as their soldiers were of a wide variety of ancestries. There were recruitment posters in New York City that had literally a half dozen languages printed on them urging men to sign up...Germans constituted the largest ethnic group in the Northern army...the famous First Minnesota Regiment was made up of mostly Scandinavian volunteers...there were quite a few Colored regiments on the Northern side made up of free Blacks (including one which was famously depicted in the movie "Glory")...I can go on. America was already multicultural even before Jeff Davis and the rest of the boys down South decided to secede.

What I mean by "Multicultural" and what it is supposed to mean is the Promotion of Ethnic(non-white) cultures to the detriment of White European Culture. The North by freeing slaves and giving them rights took the first steps towards Multiculturalism.

The South on the other hand though they may have worked or fought with Muds never viewed them as equals. They were very adamant about the Superiority of the White Race and White Culture.

Multiculturalism doesn't refer to bledning of different European Cultures LMAO. It refers to the blending of Non-White Cultures with European Culture.

Awar
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 05:06 AM
yet, most of the negroid DNA among whites exists in the South.

JoeDas
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 07:14 AM
What I mean by "Multicultural" and what it is supposed to mean is the Promotion of Ethnic(non-white) cultures to the detriment of White European Culture. The North by freeing slaves and giving them rights took the first steps towards Multiculturalism.Multiculturalism is broadly defined as two or more cultures existing together in one place. As such, it can be said that America was multicultural before Congress passed the 13th amendment, and it got more multicultural as the years went on, not because of Blacks, but because of Whites! The various White immigrant groups that came to America between the late 1840s and WWI brought their cultures with them, making for a very "multicultural" country, whereas Blacks were essentially members of American culture, and therefore did not contribute to the multiculturalism. An average White American in 1885 would've fit in much better culturally with Black freedmen than he would've with Italian immigrants. So freeing the slaves wasn't really a step towards multiculturalism at all.

Multiculturalism about about culture, not race


Multiculturalism doesn't refer to bledning of different European Cultures LMAO. It refers to the blending of Non-White Cultures with European Culture.the term "Multiculturalism" was coined in Canada years ago to describe the co-existance of the English-speaking and the French-speaking cultures there. Both of those were White cultures.

Northern Paladin
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 09:28 AM
yet, most of the negroid DNA among whites exists in the South.

There is probably about the same amount of Negroid DNA in Southerns as there are in Balkanoids. 2-3% Negroid DNA isn't much. It's not by any means present throughout the entire population either.

Northern Paladin
Monday, August 16th, 2004, 09:31 AM
Multiculturalism is broadly defined as two or more cultures existing together in one place. As such, it can be said that America was multicultural before Congress passed the 13th amendment, and it got more multicultural as the years went on, not because of Blacks, but because of Whites! The various White immigrant groups that came to America between the late 1840s and WWI brought their cultures with them, making for a very "multicultural" country, whereas Blacks were essentially members of American culture, and therefore did not contribute to the multiculturalism. An average White American in 1885 would've fit in much better culturally with Black freedmen than he would've with Italian immigrants. So freeing the slaves wasn't really a step towards multiculturalism at all.

Multiculturalism about about culture, not race

the term "Multiculturalism" was coined in Canada years ago to describe the co-existance of the English-speaking and the French-speaking cultures there. Both of those were White cultures.

What WN's/Racialists mean by "Multiculturalism" is applied only to Non-European Cultures. That's rather obvious to anyone who isn't brain dead!

"An average White American in 1885 would've fit in much better culturally with Black freedmen than he would've with Italian immigrants."

Don't be ridiculous. :|

Vestmannr
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 07:04 PM
yet, most of the negroid DNA among whites exists in the South.

That is a common assumption, yet: what evidence do we have for such being the case? What little genetic work has been done on the 'South' or the USA has shown 'Whites' across America to be typically unmixed, esp. with Africans. And, the most 'European' are those in the South (TX and VA esp.) The charge of 'negroid DNA' amongst Southern Whites seems to be a common accusation, but one without factual basis.

Aistulf
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 07:17 PM
What Is Your Ideal Form of Government?
Mine would be a Monarchy ruled by an "Enlightened Despot".As long as it is Pan-European in nature and Eurocentric it's fine with me :)

Übersoldat
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 08:28 PM
Nationalist, ethnocentric.http://www.3dflags.com/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/c/3dflagsdotcom_croat_2fawm.gif

Oskorei
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 08:30 PM
The ideal would be an Aryan Anarchism. Small-scale ownership combined with communal ownership (syndicalism/guild-socialism for industries and banks, private-capitalism for farms, artisans and such). Voluntary associations instead of the ever-interferring State. No taxes. Militias and gunownership for all adults instead of police. No laws except when behaviour hurts other people. There could be a sacred King, but with no real power. More of a uniting symbol. In war a Warlord would be chosen with limited powers. A Natural Aristocracy would not have any trouble rising to positions of influence and power in such a society.

I think this is the socio-political system that suits Germanics and Aryans best.

In reality however, this system would have to be partially Fascist. So I guess I'm an Aryan Anarcho-Fascist.

Stríbog
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Nationalist, ethnocentric.http://www.3dflags.com/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/c/3dflagsdotcom_croat_2fawm.gif

Since when are those political systems?

Übersoldat
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 12:13 AM
Ethnocracy would be more suitable expression

"Ethnocracy is a political regime which, in contrast to democracy, is instituted on the basis of qualified rights to citizenship, and with ethnic affiliation (defined in terms of race, descent, religion, or language) as the distinguishing principle. The raison d'être of the ethnocracy is to secure that the most important instruments of state power are controlled by a specific ethnic collectivity. All other considerations concerning the distribution of power are ultimately subordinated to this basic intention.

Ethnocracies are characterised by their control system - the legal, institutional, and physical instruments of power deemed necessary to secure ethnic dominance..."

http://www.statsvitenskap.uio.no/ansatte/serie/notat/fulltekst/0193/Ethnocr-2.html

Stríbog
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 12:14 AM
So would it be accurate to describe ethnocracy as ethnic fascism?

Übersoldat
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 12:22 AM
So would it be accurate to describe ethnocracy as ethnic fascism?

Much like in national socialism ethnocratic state is a tool, while in fascism state is a purpose to it self.