PDA

View Full Version : What is Your Political Orientation?


Pages : [1] 2

Prussian
Tuesday, February 1st, 2005, 01:26 PM
....this poll is designed to be an ongoing means to get an idea of Skadi member's Political Orientation since there has not been such a poll since the change in forum orientation (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=27334), this is just a revision of earlier styled polls from days of old.

Please conduct your vote & if you have anything to add please feel free to expand on your political beliefs.

Marius
Tuesday, February 1st, 2005, 02:02 PM
Conservative Christian. It is somehow related to Christian-Democracy.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/CCFHUB/EUROCDEM.HTM

Oskorei
Tuesday, February 1st, 2005, 02:03 PM
I changed from Anarchist to Fascist since the last poll (not that the change was that dramatic, it's more a change of emphasis from a more Anarchist National Syndicalism to a slightly more State-oriented National Syndicalism/Falangism). The components of Cultural and Biological Nationalism, individual and local freedom, social justice, and the Order idea are still there.

Japetos
Tuesday, February 1st, 2005, 04:52 PM
Non-Antiracist Communist.

Prussian
Tuesday, February 1st, 2005, 05:13 PM
Non-Antiracist Communist....in otherwords if rephrased a Racially aware Communist.

...of course in this case it depends on the individual. Given to the fact of differing variations of Ethnocentric or Eurocentric ideological base within the framework of Communism.

Thanks for participating, it is appreciated.

Nordraserei
Tuesday, February 1st, 2005, 05:13 PM
Nationalist. :)

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, February 1st, 2005, 05:29 PM
National Socialist.

Huzar
Tuesday, February 1st, 2005, 05:56 PM
Pan Aryanism

Dr. Solar Wolff
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 05:45 AM
In a way I have changed my political orientation. This is because there is one problem so great and overriding that it deserves immediate action. It is the unchecked and unrestrained agressive power of my country, the USA, and its leader. I posted something like this at another forum and it wasn't well received so I am going to preempt criticism.

In the past the agressive power of the USA has been held in check, in a balance of power. Right now, that is not the case. The Russians are not actively countering the growing power that George W. Bush lusts for. Neither are the Chinese, neither are the Europeans. This is allowing the Bush Administration, and we all know who they really work for, to run wild, unopposed through the world at their whim.

Behind this power, disguised as democratization, capitalism, freedom, liberty and probably any number of other code-words, there follows a new from of imperialism and gun-boat diplomacy.

Bush is talking about Syria and Iran. Bush is telling Europe how to think and even dividing it according to his likes and dislikes--Old and New Europe. Russia is doing little or nothing although I hope they are selling Syria Sunburn missiles---this is the single greatest weapon which can be fielded against Israel ---which is hitting the core of American influence.

To stop this mad dog, a wave of solid public opinion is needed--a stone wall. This is the most important thing we can do right now in my mind--unless you guys want to live on a fu----g diet of McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Exon/Mobil, Boeing and like smiling at GIs coming to new American military bases in your country.

Frans_Jozef
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 08:46 AM
Anarchist bc I regard every religious, political and economic advancement since the Metal Ages as abhorrent decandence and suppression of spontanious and untainted virtues, character and ethics which lived among our mesolithic ancestors, aristocrats of the soul , socialist gentry, ecologic custodians.

Conservative, not reactionary, to uphold what belongs to Eternity and will always be there even if we're dead and sepulchred. That which is unnamed but guides and mould us, unperishable and the umbellic chord that binds us to our fate and destinity, to our people and their times, but too unruly..or rather...dignified to grasp with caliphers and rulers, locked for the rational and kynetic mind,... the Dame that bestows us an unique solemn existence that makes us what we are and which we never would betray ever.

Mistress Klaus
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 09:50 AM
hmmm...Environment first....then the feasibility and balance of human population added to it. I can't change the rather tragic state of things (being of over population & immigration) but at least I can be at peace with my contribution to the earth with my trees & providing the natural world with some reverence. ;)

Odin Biggles
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 11:55 AM
I voted "I am quite unsure about what defines my political orientation to tell you the truth" because really, I am to young to take an orientation and call it "whats right & what I believe in".

I have strong views on racial preservation but politics ?, I am undecided.

Lidvick
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 12:25 PM
I call myself a Humanist or Humanitarian if you will because I believe what is best for civilization and the world.

Or perhaps a racially aware Humanitarian lol I wonder if I am a first.

:)

Siegmund
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 12:30 PM
I call myself a Humanist or Humanitarian if you will because I believe what is best for civilization and the world.

Or perhaps a racially aware Humanitarian lol I wonder if I am a first.

:)
There were and are many. Goethe springs to mind immediately. :)

Mistress Klaus
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 03:21 PM
Frankly I couldn't care less about humanity,
Even if the perfect race could be created (speaking as a Creator)...well formed/good looking, muscular, perfect health, brave, morals, artistic,...in general lovely people to behold and a paradise world...they would all end up finding some way to destroy one another. Fighting & bickering over the most simple things. :D Greed & hormones is far too prevalant in the human psyche.

Theobald
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 04:04 PM
I'm French Nationalist/Fascist. And of course a Frankish preservationnist. :D

Odin Biggles
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 05:14 PM
Frankly I couldn't care less about humanity,
Even if the perfect race could be created (speaking as a Creator)...well formed/good looking, muscular, perfect health, brave, morals, artistic,...in general lovely people to behold and a paradise world...they would all end up finding some way to destroy one another. Fighting & bickering over the most simple things. :D Greed & hormones is far too prevalant in the human psyche.
Ive always preferred animals/nature to.

Appalachian
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 07:56 PM
Wow! Such misanthropy...

I love people -- especially my people -- warts and all.

I love "white trash." I love "rednecks." I love barefooted, snot-nosed little kids and toothless, shriveled old men. I love old women who smoke corn-cob pipes and need help getting their groceries up the hill. I love young ladies who normally dance to pop music, but still break out their clogging shoes to 'hit a lick' to the old tunes once or twice a year. I love people who have never been much further than a few miles from the holler where they were born. I love grizzled, cynical, one-armed old gents who still snap to attention and render a salute when their flag passes by. I love people who may sometimes do the wrong thing, but do it because their hearts are in the right place.

I love people -- especially my people -- warts and all.

Lidvick
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 11:02 PM
To Siegmund , Excellent I am not the only one I will have to look more into the name you posted earlier.





To Skadi Ju87,



The Perfect race is simply impossible and I laugh at such notions in people who think it is for human nature has always dictated flaws of human behavior.

Roughly translated there will always be flaws in human beings it is the way of our creation however we can always choose to better ourselves and the world and our surroundings.

The perfect race in my opinion is the dream of all perfectionist, though even perfectionism is impossible as well. :)

Prussian
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 06:25 PM
The dialogue that was developing & beginning to move away from the topic of the thread has been moved to here (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=30954).

green nationalist
Friday, February 4th, 2005, 09:08 PM
National Socialist, in a purely Irish perspective. It would be impossible to be Truly national Socialist as it is a Political idea exclusive to germans, Ive tailored it to Ireland though and it sits easy that way in my Worldview.

Thusnelda
Sunday, February 6th, 2005, 07:38 PM
I´m rightconservative democratic. You know FPÖ in Austria? Thats nearly my line. ;)

CountBloodSpawn
Friday, September 2nd, 2005, 05:47 PM
I'm National Socialist, I also incorperate ecology,corporatism,anti-Usury and eugenics in my idealogy, as well I'm a radical traditionalist,philosophy based on Julius Evola's writings(mix of esotericism/pan-aryan nationalism/fascism) as well as the anti-capitalist doctrines of conservative revolution

Mjölnir
Friday, September 2nd, 2005, 05:51 PM
Ah i see the vote and already 17 has voted for NS.
Great Friday evening. The Swastika Banner will fly in the near future.

M.,:D

NS: Okay i am back from my daydreaming!;)

Skeletor
Friday, September 2nd, 2005, 09:45 PM
Democratic Patriot

Jack
Saturday, September 3rd, 2005, 07:46 AM
Ha, about time I answered this thread.

My political ideology?

Ethnocultural Republicanism. A strong focus on virtue ethics based on the common good, patriarchy as the political structure, emphasis on strength, honour and freedom, a political structure based on a confederation of city states united as a republic for each ethnoculture.

maskedhate
Thursday, October 6th, 2005, 06:09 PM
NS!, I am perfectionist, so i fight for the more perfect society for my Country...very inspired by Nietzche

Almogaver
Wednesday, October 12th, 2005, 01:52 PM
Catalan Nationalist.

Monkshood
Monday, November 28th, 2005, 03:06 AM
Ethnocultural Socialist. Anti global cultural imperialism.

Ascension
Wednesday, December 21st, 2005, 07:33 AM
No specific label, just a collection of principles. Nationalism for all groups, deep ecology and naturalism, just a political system that is mostly similar to that of the Indo-Europeans.

Sigurd Volsung
Saturday, December 24th, 2005, 12:37 AM
Pure and simple: Nationalist.

Prince Eugen
Sunday, April 2nd, 2006, 06:36 PM
A National Socialist with many influences!Traditionalism(Evola,Yockey,S pengler,S.Devi etc),left wing fascism of RSI,left wing N.S.(Strasser bros and Rehm),to avoid misunderstandings i like their ideas not their personalities,Conservative Revolution,New Right and National Syndicalism(Ramiro Ledesma).I try also to understand and Eurasianism (i agree with some ideas but with many i disagree strongly).

Matts
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006, 12:16 PM
Liberal, influenced by libertarianism, capitalism, nationalism and free religion.

some_one_number_one
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006, 02:46 PM
Conservative nationalist - National Radicalist

zS-tz
Friday, January 26th, 2007, 02:21 PM
National-anarchist or national-syndicalist, because i dont believe in political power, only freedom a no totalitarizm!and only White freedom)));)

Mac Seafraidh
Friday, January 26th, 2007, 11:49 PM
I guess my political views are mainly based upon Greater German National Socialism and Mussolini's 1938 revised state of Fascism except when Greece was attacked. I could care less about Albania though. Mussolini's early Fascist gov't I am against too because he was quite anti-German and forced the people of Tirol to embrace Italian culture. Kinda reminds me of forced diversity these days ... Other than those issues, I think he was agreat leader. With the American movements and the people who belong to them who call themselves National Socialist and see Hitler as a white saviour obviously did not read their history books. Hitler was not pan-European. It was extremely funny when the group called the NSM marched in defense of a Polish neighborhood with those very cheaply made replicas of uniforms they have while they think the are honoring Hitler by defending Poles. LMAO I really am against all American racialist movements and pretty much the average American that is supposed to be my countryman, but all of that just leads me to be an anti-American American. Now, this does not mean I would leave my country because I do not want to mix up a more congenious nation to have some European mutt. I am totally against the mixing of ethnicities too because it just leads to assimilation. When I find a woman, I hope she is multi-European like myself so I do not tarnish ones purity. Anyway, that's bascially it.

karolvs
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 01:04 PM
Monarchy, not in the British sense though, the strong should rule as my ancestral grandfather did, William the conqueror

Dutch Dennis
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 01:31 PM
Strong in what way?

Physically? Morally? Ethically? Militarily? Financially?

And as for monarchy. Do you mean a hereditary system of titles and state positions not based on individual character and quality but rather ones familial history?

The quality of a previous generation is no guarantee of future greatness.

karolvs
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Strong in what way?

Physically? Morally? Ethically? Militarily? Financially?

And as for monarchy. Do you mean a hereditary system of titles and state positions not based on individual character and quality but rather ones familial history?

The quality of a previous generation is no guarantee of future greatness.

Strong in all those sense, if one is weak all will fail, although I agree it is flawed and I probably spoke too quickly without thinking it out thoroughly, and no hereditary would be a bad idea, i would hate to think of Britain under Prince Charles, but a good leader is a good leader and I don't agree with the 2 term system of the American President, I have to change my opinion, I believe a republic works good at first but becomes too corrupt, and a Communist government takes ot the ability for a man to rise up and gain anything, so I am at a loss....perhaps we need a new system, one that takes the best of certain systems and leaves the faulty behind

Dutch Dennis
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 02:37 PM
perhaps we need a new system, one that takes the best of certain systems and leaves the faulty behind

I thoroughly agree.

Monarchy doesn't work in the long term. The strength of character and moral guidance of Great men and women of the past areculturally vital but they are not a solid foundation upon which to rest the future of the state via a hereditary system of monarchic rule.

Democracy is detrimental in the long term. By pandering to the masses, appealing to their base instincts and moral vices you gain political power. By exploiting the few to reward the many you secure your position. This is no way to build a solid culture of upstanding citizens that consider their civic duty and rights as sacred.

I think that a decentralised federalist system with authority and responsibility at the most suitable level is a better system of government. Ideally, the highest level of the such a federation would only have a few issues to deal with. e.g. Securing the collective external border of all federal regions, providing a means for common defense against foreign aggression, serve as a nexus for interaction with foreign states, act as intermediary in dispute resolution amongst federal regions.

I am open to comments. :thumbup

SuuT
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 04:23 PM
I am for a MeritAristocracy: like this fellow ultimately wanted.



http://forums.skadi.net/image.php?u=14683&dateline=1171372096
copyright Pervitinist: all rights reserved.


Hereditary title is ideal in my opinion, so long as each successive Noble is checked and balanced by a council that must object to any one decision by a majority of 70 (or so) percent. This would then be the 'cabinet' if you will of each Nobleman. As we move 'up' the chain, the number of individuals who would be able to trump the decision of any given Nobleman (the Nobleman's 'cabinet') decreases - until we reach a number of 10 (or so) individuals that are empowered to trump the decision of a King by a slightly smaller margin of 60 (or so) percent.

Each 'cabinet' would be vote-in the cabinet of the Nobleman directly superseding them in the order of Rank - this would control (as much as possible) for special interests, and would make sure that all voices that need to be heard, are.

Clearly, this does not involve the mass. Who should, however, be allowed to vote-in individuals up to and including regional majestrates. Which deals with the idea that 'everyone should have their say' without leading to a placating parliamentary element.


A King can be executed by a majority vote of all Noblemen in any percentage over 50; and can be executed with a 90% majority vote of commoners.

CaptainHook
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 04:31 PM
I'm a liberal collectivist anarchist.

Dutch Dennis
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 05:20 PM
Hereditary title is ideal in my opinion.

Why hereditary? I just cannot comprehend why anyone could have so much faith in genetics to produce a constant familial line of 'good' people. Does up bringing not play any part?

Would a non-aristocrat not be permitted to take a leadership role? And if they are permitted, how likely do you suppose it would be that hereditary aristocratic class would allow such an outsider to progress?

I think that as some level you have to have an influence of the Mass population. I would suggest that the influence of the mass would be best at the lowest level, namely, the town or rural area mayoralty.

The key to selecting the best and most suitable individuals for leadership and decision making roles is the criteria which candidate must abide by. And those criteria is something that I think a population as a whole must discuss and debate and ultimately set down as part of a constitution type document.

The selection procedure for the higher levels of government are up for debate. My favoured process is to leave the selection of each higher level of government leadership up to the collective decision of the combined body of the leaders of each subordinate governing area.

For example:

- Municipality: Mayor, elected by popular election
- District: Governor, selected by subordinate Municipal Mayors
- Region: Governor, selected by combined subordinate District Governors and Municipal Mayors
- Nation: President, selected by combined national Congress consisting of all Regional and District Governors and Municipal Mayors

How much weight each particular vote carries is up for debate though. e.g. Regional Governor's vote for a president counts for 5 votes of a District Governor or 15 votes of a Municipal Mayor, etc

Debate and commentary requested.

SuuT
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 06:50 PM
Why hereditary? I just cannot comprehend why anyone could have so much faith in genetics to produce a constant familial line of 'good' people. Does up bringing not play any part?

Admittedly, I think my ideas are posthumous. The extreme generalities I posted below assume either a consciensious Eugenic programme, and concentrated Euthenics; or, a massive shift in cultural (Read: racial) consciousness that result in a nearly self-eveident caste system. Will there be bad apples in the batch no matter what? Absolutely. And it would be the responsibility of a hereditary system to toss-out these anomalies. Which was a traditional intra-caste measure until the enlightenment opened the flood gates to the world of possibility, and gave birth to formalised 'anti-exceptional beings' doctrines and political systems e.g. you name the Anarchy.

Would a non-aristocrat not be permitted to take a leadership role? And if they are permitted, how likely do you suppose it would be that hereditary aristocratic class would allow such an outsider to progress?

If they merited inclusion, sure: it is a standard misconception of the Aristocratic principle that there never was/is a any way to cross caste lines. I further qualify my notion of Aristocracy with merit: meaning, specifically, that there are also ways out of the higher caste - and it should, in my opinion, be death at a certain point of ascendency. Other gradations of exclusionary measures should follow, and be consistent with, this extreme measure. In short: "Heavy is the head that wears the crown" - He who does not, or is unable, to take the responsibility of Nobility once honoured, would have more severe measures taken against him than would a commoner who failed to meet his obligations in the order of rank. You tell me: is that fair?

I think that as some level you have to have an influence of the Mass population. I would suggest that the influence of the mass would be best at the lowest level, namely, the town or rural area mayoralty.

If that is how you wish to define "region", I have no objection. You do place the "mass" at the lowest level though (by implication), which is, itself, Aristocratic in so far as responsibility increases with ascendency within caste order.

The key to selecting the best and most suitable individuals for leadership and decision making roles is the criteria which candidate must abide by. And those criteria is something that I think a population as a whole must discuss and debate and ultimately set down as part of a constitution type document.

Democracy is an experiment. Aristocracy is an ethos.

However, and to admit once again, my ideas are posthmous: the West cannot go from Democratic Socialism/Welfare states to MeritAristocracy even inside of several generations. Trust must be earned. So, yes, I think that such constitutions are necessary. But still, those who draft such a document will - more likely than not - be the Aristos of any given population, especially if the document be truly revolutionary.

Either way, Nobility will be as such - as it has always been.

The selection procedure for the higher levels of government are up for debate. My favoured process is to leave the selection of each higher level of government leadership up to the collective decision of the combined body of the leaders of each subordinate governing area.

We agree.

Each successive Noble is checked and balanced by a council that must object to any one decision by a majority of 70 (or so) percent. This would then be the 'cabinet' if you will of each Nobleman. As we move 'up' the chain, the number of individuals who would be able to trump the decision of any given Nobleman (the Nobleman's 'cabinet') decreases - until we reach a number of 10 (or so) individuals that are empowered to trump the decision of a King by a slightly smaller margin of 60 (or so) percent.

Each 'cabinet' would be vote-in the cabinet of the Nobleman directly superseding them in the order of Rank - this would control (as much as possible) for special interests, and would make sure that all voices that need to be heard, are.



For example:

- Municipality: Mayor, elected by popular election
- District: Governor, selected by subordinate Municipal Mayors
- Region: Governor, selected by combined subordinate District Governors and Municipal Mayors
- Nation: President, selected by combined national Congress consisting of all Regional and District Governors and Municipal Mayors

We say the same thing but use different words, essentially. I think that this is too many people, though: below your regional governor, I would place appointees with only as much power allocated necessary to provide services, administrate, and manage areas as dictated by the Regional Nobleman. And these individuals would hold a high, yet common standing i.e. riding a caste line: too many voices making noise in your system, methinks.

How much weight each particular vote carries is up for debate though. e.g. Regional Governor's vote for a president counts for 5 votes of a District Governor or 15 votes of a Municipal Mayor, etc

Too many votes!

MeritAristocracy can be representative without robbing the exceptional of their gifts; also, it may well be that very thing that quells the tyranny of the majority.

Fundamentally, it is an issue of quality vs. quantity.

I actually have a hard time understanding how there are people out there who believe, in their heart of hearts, that there is no one man, no potential Noble, whose most ruminated decision is capable of being superior, to hundreds of thousands of people's capricious prurience.

The greatest good for the greatest number, has always eluded the minds of the overwhelming majority.

Ahti
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 07:19 PM
I guess you could best describe me as a race preservationist with National Socialist tendencies. I believe each and every race and nation has every right to exist and live in it's own natural place, and the silent (or not even so silent) genocide of Europeans and European culture that is happening all around the world is the biggest threat that the world is facing right now.

I deeply care for all European nations, and also believe there is some kind of a bond between us all... However this bond does not mean Europeans should mix with each other to large extent - I believe all European nations are unique, and that their culture and folk should be preserved as well as possible. I'm all up for co-operation and won't loose any sleep if for example a Finn marries a German, but at the same time I think mixing should not be encouraged too much. I love my nation and everything in it, and I want it to stay as it. Guess I'm also a bit of a traditional nationalist then. :thumbup

One thing I'm also concerned about is the preservation of different white subraces. Some (read=the nordic) subraces are indeed under the threat of totally disappearing more than others, and they especially should be protected. What way, I don't know, but something must be done.

Dutch Dennis
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 08:00 PM
In short: "Heavy is the head that wears the crown" - He who does not, or is unable, to take the responsibility of Nobility once honoured, would have more severe measures taken against him than would a commoner who failed to meet his obligations in the order of rank. You tell me: is that fair?

Corruptio Optimi Pessima - Corruption of the Best is the Worst

You do place the "mass" at the lowest level though (by implication), which is, itself, Aristocratic in so far as responsibility increases with ascendency within caste order.

I am a proponent of decentralisation in government. I think that leaving authority in the hands of those that are best placed to make decisions on specific issues is a good way to go. I am not sure, but judging what you have written I suspect you may favour a unitary form of state.

...until we reach a number of 10 (or so) individuals that are empowered to trump the decision of a King by a slightly smaller margin of 60 (or so) percent.

Now, depending on your reply to my above comments regarding the form of the state I think that 10 or so people will be much too small a number to fully advise the holder of the highest government office. In a unitary state system the national-level of government basically makes all the decisions and the results of such decisions then filter down to subordinate levels.

In a federalist state system most decisions are made at the community level or one level higher. Issues like education, health care, roads, employment, police, courts, etc are dealt with by the people whose lives those decisions effect. A Mayor makes decisions on behalf of the community. Issues that go beyond the territorial sphere of any single authority then become the responsibility of the next highest level of the government. e.g. maintenance of the inter-state highway system, environment and parks, court of appeals, etc

Eventually, when you get to the highest level of the state there are very few issues left to deal with. Mainly, national defence, border security, foreign relations and a supreme court.

I actually have a hard time understanding how there are people out there who believe, in their heart of hearts, that there is no one man, no potential Noble, whose most ruminated decision is capable of being superior, to hundreds of thousands of people's capricious prurience.

But what do you do in the mean time whilst that perfect leader, that benevolent dictator, is being searched for but not yet found?

The greatest good for the greatest number, has always eluded the minds of the overwhelming majority.

Indeed. :thumbup

SuuT
Thursday, February 15th, 2007, 01:42 PM
Corruptio Optimi Pessima - Corruption of the Best is the Worst

That's exactly right!:)

I am a proponent of decentralisation in government. I think that leaving authority in the hands of those that are best placed to make decisions on specific issues is a good way to go.

The problem with the idea of decentralisation is that its like squeezing a ballon filled with water: squeeze one portion, and the volume of water displaces and exagerates another part of the ballon, depending upon where the presure is applied. In short, (more often than not) causing an imbalanced and exagerated centralisation in an effort to decentralise! - The new imbalance created always depends upon who is doing the squeezing: who stands to gain power; who stands to loose it. Further, it is a power play: 'decentralisation' from the hands of one group is 'centralisation' into the hands of another group.

Again, quality vs. quantity.

The lables "centralised" and "unitary" whilst having neat and clean delineation from one another in theory, result in nothing more than a shift of power dynamics, in practice. In the end, having little effect on the type of government that actuates.

I am not sure, but judging what you have written I suspect you may favour a unitary form of state.

All goverments and aspects within any given government end up in a 'practical' Unitary federation. That may sound counter-intuitive; however, if government is understood as a means of distributing power (forget resources), motive becomes apparent. I favour an open order of rank that distributes powers each according to his gifts. Therefore, some will be in a position to allocate (and therefore remove powers); some will be in a position to remove, but not allocate; some will be in a position to allocate, but not remove - and every other possible permutation.

I don't think we have the right any longer to mull-over essentially antiquated Political Science constructs - unless(!) it is in an effort to piece together the day after tomorrow.

If we don't get on it, and get on it soon - we're all going to die (read: go extinct).

Now, depending on your reply to my above comments regarding the form of the state I think that 10 or so people will be much too small a number to fully advise the holder of the highest government office. In a unitary state system the national-level of government basically makes all the decisions and the results of such decisions then filter down to subordinate levels.

But you and I have agreed on an essential check/balance to this by empowering the immediate lessors of any caste level to choose/elect/vote-in/whatever, the 'cabinet' of the individual above them in the order of rank. Is this measure insufficient? If so, why?

The "filter down" of decisions are the trusted results of the accepted caste-order within a MeritAristocracy: here imparts the royal "we" - a decision made by (to a certain point in the caste-order) a Noble is as if a decision is made by the King, himself; a decision made by the King, himself, is a decision made by his lessors.

In a federalist state system most decisions are made at the community level or one level higher. Issues like education, health care, roads, employment, police, courts, etc are dealt with by the people whose lives those decisions effect. A Mayor makes decisions on behalf of the community. Issues that go beyond the territorial sphere of any single authority then become the responsibility of the next highest level of the government. e.g. maintenance of the inter-state highway system, environment and parks, court of appeals, etc

One of the problems with modernity is that it seems obvious to people that enormous numbers of people are required to make these decisions; and that a geometrically smaller number of people would simply be unable to have all of these things on their plate, as it were. I say that this democratic imprint has its very origins in disorder, and borderline chaos: if I am correct, how can all of these voices making noise do a better job than very few serene and adept minds?

Quality vs. quantity.

Appointees of the Regional Nobleman will be advisors; however, the buck stops with the Nobleman. And, as I have stated, the consequenses of Noble responsibility can be grave. Equally, he will partake of the greatest accolades. I think that that is fair, too.

Eventually, when you get to the highest level of the state there are very few issues left to deal with. Mainly, national defence, border security, foreign relations and a supreme court.

If only it were so simple! If it were, I would be an Anarchist.

But what do you do in the mean time whilst that perfect leader, that benevolent dictator, is being searched for but not yet found?

I'm not talking about Autocracy (at all), so there is no per se "dictator".

Define "found": do a specific quantity need to be aware of his existence; or, do a certain quality?

Dutch Dennis
Thursday, February 15th, 2007, 05:44 PM
Further, it is a power play: 'decentralisation' from the hands of one group is 'centralisation' into the hands of another group.

Again, quality vs. quantity.

What can I say, i'm a freedom-loving libertarian at heart and resent excessive government intrusion and depersonalisation where it isn't needed.

I think that 10 mayors can make better decisions about local school planning in their 10 particular communities than 1 governor from any single community.

Also, I think that numerous diverse communities working on their own small-scale issues have a greater chance at finding better solutions, which can then be mimicked by other communities. Diversity in approaching problems.

The lables "centralised" and "unitary" whilst having neat and clean delineation from one another in theory, result in nothing more than a shift of power dynamics, in practice. In the end, having little effect on the type of government that actuates.

I my ideal form of government the various vertical layers of authority would not over lap. What I mean is, you wouldn't have an office dealing with education at one level and then an office dealing with education in the level above over-riding local decisions.

I don't see the need for centralising all power in the centre, only to be dished out in small bits and pieces by the National Leader.

All goverments and aspects within any given government end up in a 'practical' Unitary federation.

Indeed, historically speaking, many states which started as a joining of independent states into a federation eventually morphed into a unitary state with all rights and authority reserved by the centre. Rather than all rights and authority being reserved by the constituent states unless specifically granted to the central authority.

however, if government is understood as a means of distributing power , motive becomes apparent.

Ah, but I don't consider government to be the means of power/authority distribution. Rather, I consider government to be execution of the collective will of a people.

I would like to see an evolution in the ability of European peoples to be civilised. By having an opportunity to put their choices and decision-making process into action I believe such an evolution can take place.

A community's values, cultural development, history, etc all influence the choices they make. By allowing a community to follow their own developmental path to a large extent an evolutionary process will take place. A community that does not value environmental conservation will likely exploit their natural environment. Communities that under-appreciate academics will likely under-fund higher education institutions, etc

I think people should be able to make choices as well as experience the repurcussion of those choices. Rather than concentrating authority at higher levels in the hands of individuals that are proven to be reliable.

I favour an open order of rank that distributes powers each according to his gifts. Therefore, some will be in a position to allocate (and therefore remove powers); some will be in a position to remove, but not allocate; some will be in a position to allocate, but not remove - and every other possible permutation.

I think that this idea will result in the retardation of evolutionary processes. By only putting authority in the hands of those that 'rock the boat' you ensure that the 'show will go on' as it has in the past. Corret me if I am wrong though. I might have completely the wrong idea here.

I don't think we have the right any longer to mull-over essentially antiquated Political Science constructs - unless(!) it is in an effort to piece together the day after tomorrow.

I only explore ideas on political systems in relation to formulating a suitable foundation for a future system of governing.

But you and I have agreed on an essential check/balance to this by empowering the immediate lessors of any caste level to choose/elect/vote-in/whatever, the 'cabinet' of the individual above them in the order of rank. Is this measure insufficient? If so, why?

As I mentioned above, I consider it necessary for a state to be a living, evolving structure. By only adopting measures that ensure the stability of a system it retards the evolutionary aspect of the state. A wise man once said "The State is only the vessel and the race is what it contains. The vessel can have a meaning only if it preserves and safeguards the contents. Otherwise it is worthless."

One of the problems with modernity is that it seems obvious to people that enormous numbers of people are required to make these decisions; and that a geometrically smaller number of people would simply be unable to have all of these things on their plate, as it were. I say that this democratic imprint has its very origins in disorder, and borderline chaos: if I am correct, how can all of these voices making noise do a better job than very few serene and adept minds?

Quality vs. quantity.

I am in favour of the 'Leadership Principle'. I think ultimate responsibility should be invested in a nexus individual. Decisions should be made by one person, after having sought council from those with specialised knowledge on the issue at hand.

how can all of these voices making noise do a better job than very few serene and adept minds?

I think I may not have been very clear on my stance. I kind of expanded on my view above, about the different levels being seperated in terms of authority.

Authority should be compartmentalised. What I mean is, one person responsible for one geographical area and only the portfolios of that level of the state. e.g. a District Governor would only be responsible for the decision making on issues in his district and only those portfolios assigned to the district level of the state.

However, perhaps I am being a little too idealistic. :-O I am talking about the ideal scenario, though. At least, the ideal as I consider it to be.

I'm not talking about Autocracy (at all), so there is no per se "dictator".

I am pleased you pointed that out.

Define "found": do a specific quantity need to be aware of his existence; or, do a certain quality?

A secret leader? What about all the accolades that the best man or woman of the state rightly deserves? Why would they remain so secretive?:P

SuuT
Thursday, February 15th, 2007, 08:14 PM
Great dialogue D.D.: thank you.

What can I say, i'm a freedom-loving libertarian at heart and resent excessive government intrusion and depersonalisation where it isn't needed.

As am I. And it is exactly excessive goverment and depersonalisation that is the net result of every system of goverment that has hitherto been put into practice - with the singular exception of healthy Aristocracies. Yes! - they had their problems, and you bring up a huge one with the traditional motif and schema of hereditary title, which, as Aristocracies became unhealthy,began to abuse.

I think that 10 mayors can make better decisions about local school planning in their 10 particular communities than 1 governor from any single community.

And you may well be right. 'What's in a name?": I say much. My concern is the honouring of individuals as Noble who are nothing of the sort (which saw the end of the English Monarchy, for example, into its figure head status of today): when one starts tossing around honourary title and lands and money etc. as kick-backs and favours for a vulgar centralisation of of corruptive power higher up the chain, nothing is any longer occuring that can be called Noble. Therefore, in strict accordance with the principia of caste, we draw a line of Nobleman and commoner. I would call mayoral responsibilities common; and, any mayor (should we ultimately use this term) must merit his inclusion - in a clear and distict way - into the next order of rank if that is an end he pursues. In this manner we get the 'cream' rising to the top, and not the bouyant chunks of curd grown fat off of the blood sweat and tears of a peasant; who, while he be a peasant, can share my bread any day of the week before I would allow some corrupt nominally Noble rat, crumbs from my floor.

MeritAristocracy requires a re-education as to what is Noble.

Also, I think that numerous diverse communities working on their own small-scale issues have a greater chance at finding better solutions, which can then be mimicked by other communities. Diversity in approaching problems.

Operative terms emboldended!

In my ideal form of government the various vertical layers of authority would not over lap. What I mean is, you wouldn't have an office dealing with education at one level and then an office dealing with education in the level above over-riding local decisions.

I would be for a 'National Chancellor' (what have you) of education to develop, implement and ensure uniformity of standard, rubric, and curricula: local decisions as to educational measures create vast chasms and a relativism with respect to the terms such as 'passing', 'excellent', 'average', etc. that ultimately fracture a nation, as they border on the edge of nihilism exactly for lack of a uniform standard. If I get an 'A' student from Alabama in one of my classes, he or she is quite different than the 'A' student I receive from Maine: there must be lines, as you acknowledge - and I say they are at the National level. (Here we see one of the many overlaps of MeritAristocracy with Nationalism/National Socialism).

I don't see the need for centralising all power in the centre, only to be dished out in small bits and pieces by the National Leader.

Well, I don't either. Perhaps we might particularise the reponsibilities of our hypothetical King/National Leader?

Indeed, historically speaking, many states which started as a joining of independent states into a federation eventually morphed into a unitary state with all rights and authority reserved by the centre. Rather than all rights and authority being reserved by the constituent states unless specifically granted to the central authority.

And this is exactly why Anarchy - any form of Anarchy - is pragmatically impossible, however wonderful it may look on paper and in pie charts.

Ah, but I don't consider government to be the means of power/authority distribution.

I might not want to consider snow to be white... but it is! - That goverment is the means by which power is distributed is the manifest truth of any govermental system: ideas are easy enough to idealise...

Rather, I consider government to be execution of the collective will of a people.

This is the greatest sight-of-hand of Democracy.

Again, the greatest good for the greatest number, has always eluded the minds of the overwhelming majority. Have you changed your mind?

I would like to see an evolution in the ability of European peoples to be civilised. By having an opportunity to put their choices and decision-making process into action I believe such an evolution can take place.

How is this best achieved? And, can "the people" do this on 'their' own...?

A community's values, cultural development, history, etc all influence the choices they make. By allowing a community to follow their own developmental path to a large extent an evolutionary process will take place.

Who is it that establishes a community's values and cultural development? What is the essence of a people's history? The community? The culture? The people? - That sounds very circular and amorphous to me.

Developmental paths and (especially) cultural evolutionary paths are sparked to glorious blaze by Men that make these things happen. "The people" are, almost, an incidental. It is such men that have the genious to recognise ripedness, when revolution is ripe for the taking, that make the quantum leaps, with the mass en train. I want to give credit where it is due. This is not to belittle the common man; but, and rather, to allow the exceptional man to stand, and be recognised.

I think people should be able to make choices as well as experience the repurcussion of those choices. Rather than concentrating authority at higher levels in the hands of individuals that are proven to be reliable.

Can you provide a particular example?

I think that this idea will result in the retardation of evolutionary processes.

Would you compare and contrast your idea of evolution with what I have provided above?

By only putting authority in the hands of those that 'rock the boat' you ensure that the 'show will go on' as it has in the past. Corret me if I am wrong though. I might have completely the wrong idea here.

I would need a definition of "authority" to comment intelligently; however, I agree with the Machiavellian principle of duration contra type.

I am in favour of the 'Leadership Principle'. I think ultimate responsibility should be invested in a nexus individual. Decisions should be made by one person, after having sought council from those with specialised knowledge on the issue at hand.

Would you expand on this(?), because as written, you seem to be contradicting yourself - and/or are itterating an Aristocratic principle.

Authority should be compartmentalised. What I mean is, one person responsible for one geographical area and only the portfolios of that level of the state. e.g. a District Governor would only be responsible for the decision making on issues in his district and only those portfolios assigned to the district level of the state.

That can work, too.

A secret leader? What about all the accolades that the best man or woman of the state rightly deserves? Why would they remain so secretive?:P

Well, yes - a bit too cryptic. It's allegorical: the mass wouldn't know him if he fell from the sky.

Yet.

Papa Koos
Thursday, February 15th, 2007, 08:14 PM
I envision a monarchy in which the clan chieftains gather and choose the strongest, brightest, most noble man amongst them and then swear allegiance to him, and when he dies repeat the process. I believe the early Kelts did this with no thought to an heriditary succession.

Klaus

Hrafn
Saturday, March 31st, 2007, 06:44 PM
Odalism

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b/Odalrune2.png

Odalism (from the Proto-Germanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic) word ôþalan which roughly means 'heritage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditions),') is a Teutonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic) Folkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkish) movement based on pride in one's own ancient cultural and religious traditions, rather than adopting those of outside cultures. The boundary of cultural practice is conceived as residing within racial or ethnic lineages, representative of family branches. Following such culture as latently one's own, as it is founded upon atavisms of one's own inherited traits, excluding cultural inceptions originating presumably from different human ancestries for the reasons of it not belonging to ones own human archetype; the archetype which presupposes the structure of the individuality in the person. Its symbol is the Odal rune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odal_rune) (sometimes called othala).
- from Wikipedia

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odalism)
anus.com (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/alexis/odalism/)
V. Vikernes on Odalism (http://www.burzum.org/eng/library/a_burzum_story07.shtml/)

Hrafn
Saturday, March 31st, 2007, 06:45 PM
Sorry for Double-Post, please delete.

Torquil
Saturday, March 31st, 2007, 07:19 PM
I'm both a nationalist and a libertarian but voted Nationalist. Different circumstances call for different kinds of government but folkism is always relevant.

SubGnostic
Saturday, March 31st, 2007, 07:27 PM
SuuT's MeritAristocracy harnessed to utilize and promote transhumanistic principles would describe my political orientation the best, perhaps.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 03:46 PM
State your ideology. Please give some more information besides filling in the poll... especially when your choice is "other".

Chakravartin
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 04:31 PM
NS of course. The Third Reich, Hitler, and the Swastika have interested and fascinated me since childhood. The rest is history.

sophia
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 04:35 PM
I voted other, but mostly because although I do have strong views I don't have much in the way of practical views or social contact politically.

I also can't claim to have consistent opinions (must be my age). I have been strongly influenced by romantic nationalism, by the new right and national anarchism, by the life and work of Giovanni Gentile and by the philosophy of Hegel (two people who's philosophies are not that dissimilar - even though notionally Gentile attempted to refute and move on from Hegel).
The most recent change in my political views has come from a reexamination of Nietzsche which realigned my worldview generally. The first influence on my adult self (rather then adolescent convulsions) was Discourses on Livy by Machiavelli.

I am not dogmatic about politics. I think that most people need and want structure and most people need and want responsibility. I think ritual is much neglected and should be given a much bigger role than it currently gets. I think that we should stop all this neophillia nonsense and try to evaluate things on how much they fulfill the needs of society rather than on how "progressive" they are.
I am in mixed feelings about (classical) liberalism. On the one hand I believe liberalism basically just devolves the power of the state to (specific) private groups - and my attitude is dependent on what those private groups will do with that power and who they are and what sort of motives in society are there to encourage them to be responsible and wise with that power. On the other hand the specific groups the power is devolved to at the moment I do not like having that power, but then for a liberal its the principle of the thing not the practical consequences that matter, whereas what bothers me is the consequences not just the immediately perceptible ones but how it influences all the little details that can turn one society slowly into another. I really want to understand that process and how what seems like a simple legal privilage can eventually effect upon the wider culture of society.

I think generally society should aim for something where law is almost invisible and it appears that custom is the strongest control, but that when need be law is there to protect. I also think that the purpose of government should be the production of the best possible conditions for the development of virtue.

I believe very strongly in the principle of subsidiarity, of course its a wonderful concept until you start contemplating the specifics of it when it gets mind numbingly complicated. Needless to say I disagree with the EU's views on what it means.

I think within my lifetime there will be quite big changes to what "politics" talks about which will open avenues to ideologies that would seem absurd to take seriously right now.

I have a lot of ideological thoughts swimming in my head, but not at all sorted out or clear. But I figure I'll know more what I think in a decade or so. I am a terrible syncretist:(

Cuchulain
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 04:47 PM
I voted other.

I don't think political systems are as relevant to successful society as are the people running them.

I think that competition is natural between people.

I think it naturally leads to consolidating of power, and less but larger states.

I think the larger a state is, the more corruptible it is, and that competition ensures that corruption will take place.

I think that states eventually reach a critical point of size (beuraucracy) and corruption, where they fall. competition then leads to the cycle starting over, hence the term revolution, as in running around in circles like a vinyl record.

The really scary thing is what happens when technology and competition meet each other. technology tends to be more linear than cyclical, and I think that man's ability to develop more and more powerful technology is his fatal flaw.

So I guess you could say that I think if we all reverted to pre-paleo-aboriginal-paleo-sanid tribal nomads that although our quality of life would suffer, our species might be better off.

Æmeric
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 04:55 PM
Paleo-Conservatism. I favor a federal form of governance, with the states retaining most powers. Limited taxation, a laissez faire economy. Civil laws should reflect traditional values - that is no official support for feminism or the homosexual agenda or other nutty social engineering schemes, let alone special preferences for non-Europid minorities. There should be no establish religion, but that wouldn't mean that Christianity would have to be pushed out of the public forum - for example the push to marginalize Christmas or preventing non-profit religious groups from using public property on the same terms as secular non-profit groups. The military should be used for defensive purposes, not waging wars on behalf of big corporations or special interest groups on the other side of the world. A laissez faire economy, does not mean a laissez faire immigration policy. There should be a racial requirement for immigration & full citizenship, based on the ethnic composition of the Euro-American population circa 1880. And instead of a fiat currency, we should return the gold standard.

SineNomine
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 05:14 PM
Anarchist libertarianism, in the vein of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the Austrian School more generally. I accept the nightwatchman state, i.e. minarchism, as a second-best though - at least along the lines that Americ outlined it,- preferably in the form of a minimal monarchy, or loosely affiliated princely city-states. I am against the EU in its current instance.

Gefjon
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 06:10 PM
I lean mostly towards NS/fascism. I think we need an authoritarian regime to kick some sense into our folk.

Loftor
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 07:12 PM
this sounds alright.

National-Anarchist Troy Southgate has stated: "Our concept of the word ‘national’ relates not to territory but to the racial identity which is a natural facet of all peoples" and that "We simply want our own space in which to live according to our own principles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_anarchism

Leof
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 07:25 PM
I voted National-Anarchism although I refer to myself as a primitivist or a tribalist properly. I just hate always having to choose "other" in polls cause I am such an abberant in opinions. I feel the structure our ancestors lived by was ideal and it is only through narrow minded skepticism that it has been stereotyped as "backwards".

The Lawspeaker
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 07:26 PM
I am a social democrat with a green outlook: I believe in the neccesity of bringing our economy in order through regulation and that collective bargaining and a welfare state are vital for the interests of the Volk. I also sense a neccesity for direct state intervention if it comes to preserving our environment. I am quite internationalist if it comes to the EU: I believe in a single European market, currency and enviromental and social policies as well as the dream of a United Europe., but not one for big business but a Europe "of the nations" (paraphrasing Charles de Gaulle), which means that there will be effort to preserve each nations cultural and lingual identity.

If it comes to foreigners I am not too welcoming: those that had to flee for their lives are welcome (and so are other Europeans and people from other Germanic countries in the world.), those that came just to mooch of our welfare state deserve a ticket home.

Soldier of Wodann
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 08:27 PM
LMAO, why did you put Zionist as an option? :p

NordicPower
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 09:37 PM
National Socialism is the means to the end.

The end being a perfect synthesis of highly advanced, ecologically sound technological and spiritual development and relatively small tribally structured societies in which castes relegate who does what.

Each tribe will be able to decide how to govern themselves according to their nature. With the upper castes having their work load dramatically lightened, there will be more time for pursuing knowledge and enlightenment to the benefit of all.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 09:51 PM
LMAO, why did you put Zionist as an option? :p

I just wanted to cover the entire political spectrum and figured that zionism was inherently different enough from all the others not to get a specific mention. It's not that I figured there'd be any zionists here, but you never know :D

Huzar
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 10:13 PM
For me..............a persoanl mix of Paleo-conservative, National-socialist and. echologism......

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 10:18 PM
For me..............a persoanl mix of Paleo-conservative, National-socialist and. echologism......

Correct me if I'm wrong (that's addressed to only the national-socialists out there), but isn't national-socialism ecologist by default? Doesn't the very nature of national-socialism imply that man is but tiny cog in the natural machine and therefore has to take care of the other cogs?

Rassenpapst
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 10:23 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong (that's addressed to only the national-socialists out there), but isn't national-socialism ecologist by default? Doesn't the very nature of national-socialism imply that man is but tiny cog in the natural machine and therefore has to take care of the other cogs?
At least Heydrich and Goebbels were against ecologism because they thought that it might lead to inefficient use of resources and damage the economy.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 10:25 PM
At least Heydrich and Goebbels were against ecologism because they thought that it might lead to inefficient use of resources and damage the economy.

Source? Darré, for example, pretty much said the exact oposite. His doctrine of blood and soil was based on the very idea that man and nature were connected.

Huzar
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 10:32 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong (that's addressed to only the national-socialists out there), but isn't national-socialism ecologist by default? Doesn't the very nature of national-socialism imply that man is but tiny cog in the natural machine and therefore has to take care of the other cogs?


Yes indeed.

Effectively i think they're so compatible we could consider them as a single thing.

however since in the poll are separated.......




Source? Darré, for example, pretty much said the exact oposite. His doctrine of blood and soil was based on the very idea that man and nature were connected.


I thought about DARRE' indeed.

Rassenpapst
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 10:34 PM
Source?
Sodan ekologia. Nykyaikaisen sodankäynnin ympäristöhistoriaa. Simo Laakkonen ja Timo Vuorisalo. SKS. 775 s. 35 e. :D

"The ecology of war": Environmental history of modern warfare.

AFAIK, it is not available in English/German.

Darré, for example, pretty much said the exact oposite. His doctrine of blood and soil was based on the very idea that man and nature were connected.
Yes, there was a power struggle between these two factions in the 1930s. And because of the demands of the war economy in the 1940s environmental concerns became secondary for a good reason.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 10:43 PM
Effectively i think they're so compatible we could consider them as a single thing.

however since in the poll are separated.......

I seperated national-socialism from left wing ecologism. Right wing ecologism was included in the national-socialism label :D

I thought about DARRE' indeed.

IMO he's one of the most important national-socialist theorists, because he understood more than anyone else how man and nature could interact with another in a healthy way without ignoring modern technology.

Sodan ekologia. Nykyaikaisen sodankäynnin ympäristöhistoriaa. Simo Laakkonen ja Timo Vuorisalo. SKS. 775 s. 35 e. :D

"The ecology of war": Environmental history of modern warfare.

AFAIK, it is not available in English/German.

I guess the author wasn't a national-socialist either, was he? In that case, that says it all.

Yes, there was a power struggle between these two factions in the 1930s. And because of the demands of the war economy in the 1940s environmental concerns became secondary for a good reason.

That's not the impression I get hen reading Signal or Germanische Leithefte. Both popular literature and SS literature continued to promote Darré's ideas of seeking harmony with nature during the war in order to advance as a people.

DarwinsChampion
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 11:03 PM
I believe in natural law. I think that whoever is calling the shots at any given time deserves to be calling the shots, because noone is/can stop him/her. I find it silly to sit around and argue what could or should be. If you think that you are right, put yourself in a position to impose your will, don't try to convince me. Like everyone who complains about the Jews running the world. Come stop us if you don't like it. If you can't, well then that there is our justification. Hitler at least backed up what he said with actions. He wasn't good enough however.

The weak justify the strong, thats how it works for every other living thing, what makes you think human beings are different.

Death and the Sun
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 11:08 PM
Transhumanism, to a small extent combined with non-Christian/Biblical Satanism and paleo-Finnish anti-Judeo-Christianity.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 11:26 PM
Transhumanism, to a small extent combined with non-Christian/Biblical Satanism and paleo-Finnish anti-Judeo-Christianity.

Now, could you please explain your views in plain English for us. You use a lot of fancy labels, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't have a clue what you're talking about.

sophia
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 11:26 PM
I believe in natural law. I think that whoever is calling the shots at any given time deserves to be calling the shots, because noone is/can stop him/her. I find it silly to sit around and argue what could or should be. If you think that you are right, put yourself in a position to impose your will, don't try to convince me. Like everyone who complains about the Jews running the world. Come stop us if you don't like it. If you can't, well then that there is our justification. Hitler at least backed up what he said with actions. He wasn't good enough however.

The weak justify the strong, thats how it works for every other living thing, what makes you think human beings are different.

Well that may be but there are more than one kinds of strength and really its not that there is a lack of power to impose peoples will (well if by that we are talking Germanics) so much as a lack of (even vaguely) unified will to be imposed and a poverty of shared consciousness.

If you mean my (the readers) will specifically well haha, well see how it goes :p:rolleyes:

Death and the Sun
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 01:17 PM
Now, could you please explain your views in plain English for us. You use a lot of fancy labels, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't have a clue what you're talking about.

Partly my post was meant to be a minor barb directed at some of the people who hang around these forums, each with a fancier term for their beliefs than the next. Irony without the risk of being misunderstood is pointless.

However, on a more general level, why am I responsible for your lack of knowledge or understanding? There used to be a time when people, when encountering something they were at pains to understand, would actually make an effort to educate themselves about it. The absolute minimum I would have expected from you is to ask specific questions, instead of aimless crotch-grabbing.

Gefjon
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 01:28 PM
Well isn't it expected to have to elaborate on your ideology if you post in this thread? :confused:

Death and the Sun
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 01:33 PM
Well isn't it expected to have to elaborate on your ideology if you post in this thread? :confused:

Assuming you are referring to me, I have stated everything in as clear and transparent terms as I possibly can. For anyone who is confused, I will gladly answer your questions.

Rassenpapst
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 01:56 PM
I guess the author wasn't a national-socialist either, was he? In that case, that says it all.
:rolleyes:

The books of non-NS authors certainly have valuable and correct information about the Third Reich. You just need to separate the facts from political propaganda.


That's not the impression I get hen reading Signal or Germanische Leithefte. Both popular literature and SS literature continued to promote Darré's ideas of seeking harmony with nature during the war in order to advance as a people.
Of course. But those were only words. Darré and Fritz Todt implemented some progressive environmental legislation in the 1930s but this had many opponents in the NSDAP (Hjalmar Schacht, Heydrich, Goebbels, Speer).

During the war there were no possibilities to hug trees. After Fritz Todt died and Darré resigned in 1942 the environmentalist faction effectively lost its influence. The German industry had to achieve maximal production and no compromises were made because of environmental considerations.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, November 4th, 2007, 06:09 PM
I'm a Distributist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Thusnelda
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 12:21 AM
Paleo-conservatism. Democratic-rightwing paleoconservatism, to be specific. :)

Americ´s point of view is pretty much mine. Traditonal cultural values and ethnical integrity are vital for a healthy country.
The only point I oppose of Americ´s view is the "laissez-faire economy-policy". If the economy has no rules, the country will suffer on globalisation. I think globalisation need rules. And the government has the duty to defend its people from the hardships of negative globalistic influences (f.e. jobs going to foreign countries, wage-dumping, etc.).

I think national economies are in need of some preservationism. Otherwise, companies from China or other countries may watering down our economy further.

Viriathus
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 12:50 AM
I pick "Other". A free-minded character with tightened opinions from the left to the right. In terms of religion i believe in the "God" in our brain.

Æmeric
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 02:29 AM
The only point I oppose of Americ´s view is the "laissez-faire economy-policy". If the economy has no rules, the country will suffer on globalisation. I think globalisation need rules. And the government has the duty to defend its people from the hardships of negative globalistic influences (f.e. jobs going to foreign countries, wage-dumping, etc.).

The "free trade" that exist in the current global system is not really free trade, it is managed trade. It is not a laissez-faire system of trade on the Adam Smith model of comparable advantage - where nations specialized in goods & services that they are best at instead of subsidizing through subsidies or tariff protection those they are poor at. What we currently have is a system based more on mercantile capitalism. It is designed to make a few elites very wealthy. A major problem with this system is the need of a large military to safeguard the overseas interests/investments of the mercantile empire.

Much of the US trade deficit is because of offshoring of manufacturing, another problem with the current trade systems. Obviously we shouldn't practiced laissez-faire free trade with countries that are not willing to do the same with us.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 06:32 AM
I picked 'Liberterian', though really if you are going to combine that with anything it should be 'Paleo-Conservatism' which is pretty much the same thing with a few differences regarding religious/traditional morality. Most of the people who call themselves 'anarchists' are just commies with another name.

IlluSionSxxx
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 08:58 AM
Partly my post was meant to be a minor barb directed at some of the people who hang around these forums, each with a fancier term for their beliefs than the next. Irony without the risk of being misunderstood is pointless.

However, on a more general level, why am I responsible for your lack of knowledge or understanding? There used to be a time when people, when encountering something they were at pains to understand, would actually make an effort to educate themselves about it. The absolute minimum I would have expected from you is to ask specific questions, instead of aimless crotch-grabbing.

I guess I was lazy. Considering the fact that I do most of my forum visits at work because I have little time in the evening, that should be forgivable.

The books of non-NS authors certainly have valuable and correct information about the Third Reich. You just need to separate the facts from political propaganda.

I haven't encountered a single post-war book by someone who's not a national-socialist that's even remotely accurate with regards to national-socialist theory. :rolleyes:

That's not the impression I get hen reading Signal or Germanische Leithefte. Both popular literature and SS literature continued to promote Darré's ideas of seeking harmony with nature during the war in order to advance as a people. Of course. But those were only words. Darré and Fritz Todt implemented some progressive environmental legislation in the 1930s but this had many opponents in the NSDAP (Hjalmar Schacht, Heydrich, Goebbels, Speer).

Then why haven't I read this in a single national-socialist publication thuswar? Can you please mention orriginal national-socialist sources that illustrate this oposition?

During the war there were no possibilities to hug trees. After Fritz Todt died and Darré resigned in 1942 the environmentalist faction effectively lost its influence. The German industry had to achieve maximal production and no compromises were made because of environmental considerations.

I wouldn't say the environmentalist faction lost its influence during the war. The war just NEEDED a fully developed industry to even get a remote chance of winning. There was no choice and the environmentalists knew that as well as anyone else.

Beornulf
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 05:19 PM
I voted other.

Mainly because I'm not really into the dogmatism of others politics, were something to come it will have my support as long as it's similar to my views.

Personally, I like to think my ideals are basically my own. I came to my own conclusions a while ago and have been articulating them ever since, possibly into my own form of politics.

I would say my main influences would be aspects of Nationalsocialism and philosophy like Evola.

skyhawk
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 06:20 PM
My political views/loyalties lie within the realms of traditional anarchist/libertarian (europe) socialism.

So those who send me the nasty pro russian communist messages/reps have been barking up the wrong tree if they are intended to insult me ;)

They are quite funny though it must be said :D

Elysium
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 07:03 PM
I voted Other.

I prefer both Fascism and National-Socialism.

I like National-Socialism because of the idea that the nation must unite and act as one for their own prosperity.

I like the militarism, discipline, and strength of Fascism.

Soldier of Wodann
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 08:19 PM
My political views/loyalties lie within the realms of traditional anarchist/libertarian (europe) socialism.



Libertarian Socialism, eh? Now you are just contradicting yourself. :rolleyes:

skyhawk
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 10:32 PM
Libertarian Socialism, eh? Now you are just contradicting yourself. :rolleyes:

How so ?

Janus
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 10:53 PM
Libertarian Socialism, eh? Now you are just contradicting yourself. :rolleyes:

Well, it's not really not really a contradiction but not a really probably idea either. I guess he meant giving people all freedoms but trying to make them acting socially on a volountary level.

skyhawk
Saturday, November 17th, 2007, 12:47 AM
Libertarian Socialism, eh? Now you are just contradicting yourself. :rolleyes:

The silence is deafening :)

Wikipedia mustn't have much to say on the matter :D

So , with that in mind I thought the following quote , which mentions some of the better known names in anarchist/libertarian socialism thinking , would give some sort of idea of where on the political scale my loyalties lie .It was written before the fall of the Soviet Union , hence the references to two major propaganda systems. ;)

I have much respect for the author of the quote and the people cited within it
Rudolph Rocker , Rosa Luxemburg , Mikhail Bakunin etc Other influences not included consist of Daniel Guerin , Antonie Pannekoek , Errico Malatesta , Noam Chomsky etc




As for socialism , the anarchist insists , again in Rocker's words , that " socialism will be free or it will not be at all . In its recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification for the existence of anarchism. " In taking this proper stand , anarchists set themselves in opposition to the currents called " socialism " in the modern world. The world's two greatest propaganda systems are united in the doctrine that the society created by Lennin and Trotsky and moulded further by Stalin and his successors , and others that draw from that experience , are " socialist ." The reason for this unusual convergence in the Agitprop of the superpowers and colonized intellectuals elsewhere are plain enough. For leadership of the so-called " socialist states , " the pretense serves to legitimate their rule , allowing them to exploit the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them to conceal their own often brutal practise as they destroy every vestige of genuine socialism. For the world's second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and others who adopted the Lenninist model serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the state capitalist institutions , the only perceived alternative to the " socialist " dungeon

In reality , the Bolsheviks set out at once , on achieving the state power , to destroy the rich potential of the instruments of the popular struggle and liberation created in revolutionary Russia , the Soviets and factory councils in particular , establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and is Maximal Leaders exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier , as Rosa Luxemburg and other left Marxists warned at the time , and as the anarchists had always understood. Lennin called for " unquestioning submission to a single will " and demanded that " in the interests of socialism " the leadership must assume " dictatorial powers " over the workers who must " unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the process, " proceeding to transform the society into a labour army , eliminating any vestige of workers control and the " factionalism " that could permit free expression, independent thought and meaningful organization. None of this would have surprised Bakunin , who long before , had warned that the " red bureaucracy " would prove to be " the most vile and terrible lie that our century created ."

Bakunin's insights were developed in the context of a perceptive critique of the intelligentsia of the modern era , a " new class , a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars, " who will seek to create " the reign of scientific intelligence , the most aristocratic , despotic , arrogant and elitist of all regimes ." They will seek to assume the reigns of state power, he warned , exploiting popular struggles for their own ends , and in the name of " science " and their alleged superior understanding will drive the " ignorant masses " to a form of " socialism " that will " serve to conceal the domination of the masses by a handful of privileged elite. " And where popular struggle fails , they will become the masters of the increasingly centralized state capitalist systems, the managers of the corporate economy , of state power , of the ideological institutions, while " the people will feel no better if the stick with which they are being beaten is labeled the people's stick."

Soldier of Wodann
Saturday, November 17th, 2007, 03:32 AM
Post as many obscure articles as you want, doesn't change the fact they are contradictory. Socialism is based on collectivization and Libertarianism is based on Individualism. They really don't work together, rabid opponents of each other, I might add.

skyhawk
Saturday, November 17th, 2007, 05:52 PM
Post as many obscure articles as you want, doesn't change the fact they are contradictory. Socialism is based on collectivization and Libertarianism is based on Individualism. They really don't work together, rabid opponents of each other, I might add.

Because you think it, that doesn't make it a " fact. "

Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, raw materials, etc agreed

Libertarian seems to have a slightly different meaning to Europeans than it does for Americans. But whichever definition you choose the basis of Libertarianism is the right to individual freedom/choice , the sovereign self . Individualism is something that rejects any interference from outside influences. Thus , it could be said that individualism is averse to any kind of political ideology.

Socialism and Libertarianism worked together ( and were not " rabid opponents " :D ) in the early period of the Spanish Civil War. It is noticable that the fascists and Russian communists both took care of the very real libertarian nature of the Spanish uprising before they slugged it out between themselves

Infact , your own political bent is very similar to the Lenninist Bolshevik vision of " socialism "

I have also encountered American " Libertarians " who advocate the murder of those of a different political outlook.

NorthernDawn
Saturday, November 17th, 2007, 06:07 PM
I picked "New Right" because while I feel simpathies with almost all the catagories offered, the simple truth is that most of the catagories offered do not best represent the totality of how I feel. Under the banner of "New Right" (especially European New Right) the beliefs that I most adhere to, and believe in are well represented....(blood & soil, anti-globalization, agrarian tradition, cultural self determination, radical traditionalism, warrior ethos, spiritual rebirth, etc)......without falling prey to restrictive classifications and dogmatic interpretations.

æþeling
Monday, November 26th, 2007, 06:44 PM
Don't really define mine much beyond English Nationalist. I like a lot of the writtings of J. S Mill and I generally don't take kindly to the state sticking it's nose into my affairs. I pay tax beyond that keep your nose out, insular, free thinking, independent English man.

Galloglaich
Monday, November 26th, 2007, 07:18 PM
The only thing that stands between myself and complete anarcho-capitalism right now is the U.S. Constitution. If we could whittle the government here back down to the constraints imposed by the Constitution, I would be OK with it. I see minarchy as preferable step towards A-C anyway, if possible. I don't know how much of a possibility that is nowadays, given the current social and political climate of the U.S. Ron Paul is what's keeping me on political "life support". I've just about given up. Even if he wins, the bastards in power will find some way to try steal it from us. Maybe that would be for the best, It would certainly air things out.

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, April 3rd, 2008, 12:31 AM
Like an old poster goes,

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/2015/1_rf_ger_pc_20.jpg

It translates to "I do not know political parties, I know only Germans". That's how I feel. When I am able I vote for the Democratic Forum of Germans in Romania (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FDemocratic_Forum_of_Ge rmans_in_Romania) because it represents me as a German Minority but I don't have any Ideology especially. I am an Ethno-Culturalist maybe, if it really needs a Name.

Oski
Thursday, April 3rd, 2008, 06:00 AM
I voted NS. I also have "green tendencies" because I believe that our folk need healthy natural living space with clean air. To be brutally honest if the majority of germanic (and similar european) whites had this same world-view, I could care less who was disposed of to make the world ours.

Thats my opinion and I'm not sorry.

Berrocscir
Thursday, April 3rd, 2008, 05:23 PM
I actually voted national-anarchist - it seems to best sum up my current thinking, although I'm influenced by many other trends, particlurly green ideology.

Othalric
Thursday, April 10th, 2008, 02:00 PM
I could not pick any of the alternatives easy. Politically I am a nationaldemocrat wich puts me in the position close to national/socialconservatism (Close to paleoconservatism I guess) with sympathies for corporatist reforms. I am also an ethnopluralist wich puts me in the same spectre as New Right, though from my view, ethnopluralism has for me been the same as just nationalism.

I beleve that ideology and strategy must be looked at from at pragmatic view. Maybe today nationalanarchism sound rather funny and out of realistic context. But in maybe 100 years such a kind of nationalist stance may be the only alternative to preserve and defend nordic/germanic heritage againt multiculture and globalism. Or maybe fascism will be the only future choice. From my view european traditions of freedom, civil rights, traditional values, moral order and "folkish" democracy should be defended, just as the monarchy. Europe and our germanic heritage is not just some small parts of a little bit here and there i history, but a livning heritage of both ancient, trancendent and more modern values of civilisation. I don´t see it like tradition/heritage/ancient VS modernity/civilisation, but nationalisms greatest goal is the create a synthezis of both ancient and modern: Not reactionairy or futurist but both. A harmony of mans both faustic and cultural nature. Maybe this would be expressed by Guilliame Fayes concept of "archeo-futurism", but I differ here on the point that I, in difference from most New Rightists, are nationalist and don´t see any problem with the nationstate or a nation organized under a state (nationalism simply). The nationstate is not the problem and don´t se the more logic in "communitarian-imperial Europe". The problem is modernism, globalism and multiculture. The nationstate is not perfect and several nationstates should be reformed but not abolished.

Guntwachar
Thursday, April 10th, 2008, 02:15 PM
I choose other as i am a Nationalist meaning that i can take any aspect of any political ideology wich benefits me and my Nation, Choosing a certain ideology can only limit you in finding ways to improve your Nation.

Aptrgangr
Thursday, April 10th, 2008, 03:03 PM
I AM interested in politics, but have no ideology. I typed some lines what I stand for:

I am in favour of a strong national-democratic and authoritaire governed state. I distrust the idea of an entirely state controlled economy, in my opinion business should be enabled freely, only vital companies dealing with resources like water or energy should be controlled by authorities. Neither foreign companies may be controlled by Germans, nor may German corporations be controlled by foreigners. No free trade of stocks.
Domestic policy must pursue the benefit and welfare of German people, foreigners of non-European origins (exceptions for colonials) are to be repatriated to the countries they came from. This includes mixed couples and their offsprings. Strict restrictions for immi- and emigration. Those coming here must adopt to culture and customs. Germans coming from overseas are allowed to settle here, for those e.g. coming from America special language and integration courses are obligatory. I am in favour of a strict law and order policy to crack down crime. Crimes like murder, manslaughter and rape will be punished with the death penalty, furthermore drug and sex-slave trafficking als can be punished with capital punishment. Islam and Judaism will be outlawed like the practicing of all other satanist sects, Christianity is to be restricted. Freemasonry will be outlawed for once and all times, same goes for liberalism, socialism and communism and other anti-patriotic movements. Noone in favour of one ore more of these ideologies may leave Germany, they are to be sent into a work camp.There they learn to live a regular life, discipline, industriousness, order and cleanliness are taught. After work they are taught how to shower, brush teethe and the use of monthly hygienic items. This is the way to make responsible citizens out of sloppy liberals.
Education is crucial, that's why schools and universities must teach toppics that are beneficial to a healthy society. Anti patriotic re-education must be a subject in order to prevent this pestilence to come back, in a healthy society the benefits stand plain to see, so noone must fear to mention how e.g. liberalism works and what it did to European societies. Those wanting to found a family will be granted any support they need to maintain a healthy family.
There are several regions within Germany, any region pursues the specific regional heritage along with the standard German culture, this means eg. the Swabian/Alamanni language/dialect and culture is taught in Swabia, Saxon language and culture in Saxony etc.pp. Ideally all Germans live in Germany, his means Austria is free to join a free and sovereign German state, same goes for Swiss-Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Low Germany, if they do not want to join fully a federation would be favourable. Furthermore strong links are to be established with Germans living in foreign lands like Alsatians and Lorrainers. A crack up of France is unlikely, but at least these regions should be autonomous. Should Belarus and Ukraine agree to hand over former Polish territories back, by granting economic benfits for example, I am sure former German territories under Polish occupation will be handed over to Germany.
Foreign policy includes a pan-Germanic agenda as well as an active participation in an Europe of sovereign fatherlands. This cooperation is needed to fight $ imperialism and other foreign threats.

Bärin
Friday, April 25th, 2008, 02:36 PM
There is no option for socialism :( so I voted communism. However, I support the model similar to the DDR, i.e. nationalistic tendencies. Socialist economy, controlled immigration and emigration, national pride, anti-war approach.

P.S. I wonder who the other communist here is. :p

skyhawk
Saturday, April 26th, 2008, 12:26 AM
There is no option for socialism :( so I voted communism. However, I support the model similar to the DDR, i.e. nationalistic tendencies. Socialist economy, controlled immigration and emigration, national pride, anti-war approach.

P.S. I wonder who the other communist here is. :p

I was surprised too not to see plain , good old fashioned , socialism there.

In the main I swing to the left of Marxism because of my reservations about the power conceded to State ruling elites. I accept the need for a vanguard structure/movement/party, due to the world hostility to the switch to a socialist model ( via revolution , more later), but think that there is a real danger of the vanguard becoming the same as what we hoped to escape by making the switch in the first place. :( I agree with Rudolph Rocker when he said " Socialism will be free or it will not be at all." :)
The dangers of a Stalinist type regime were well known and expressed by many great socialist thinkers ( Bakunin , Rosa Luxemberg amongst others ) long before the revolution in Russia.

In stark contrast to socialism via revolution are the remarkable goings on in Venezuela. The change to a socialist system there , Chavezs ultimate and stated goal , is taking a very original/refreshing path. His use of direct democracy has scared the pants off the western democracies and is giving grassroots organisations there constitutional protection. Even the indigenous indians , forgotten and abused for over two centuries since the Jesuit priests left , have gained real and consitutionally protected rights concerning land ownership/preservation , governmental representation , etc

Another refreshing difference is that the Chavez government does not enjoy the support of all Left Wing (?) factions/organisations. He has no supporters in the Venezuelan Communist Party and the biggest/oldest trades unions ( the " yellow unions " as Chavez has aptly relabelled them :D ) are also in the opposite camp. Champagne socialists , as I know from personal experience and no little study , are too often found to be at the head of the trade union movements. Self servers and managerial apologists. He is wise in giving them shove , imo.

Anyone who has a serious interest in socialism, or democracy for that matter , should make themselves familiar with what is happening in Venezuela, imho.

It is a very fragile situation and may not last too long so now is the best time to study it. Most people in the West will only hear about it when the Western democracies have had enough of the meaningful democracy on display there and give their reasons to destroy it. So what most people in the west will see is a total misrepresentation of what has, and what is going on there .

It is a nationalist and a socialist movement . And I agree with you that the best is brought out in both socialism and nationalism ( I don't see any conflict ) when the two combine. Throw in a democratic political culture and I think there is something strong to work with in the 21st Century Socialism as proclaimed by Mr Chavez and Co.

If you , or anyone else here is interested they have their own site at......

www.venezuelanalysis.com

......... there are interesting articles on communal regeneration , co-operatives , Health and education initiatives etc as well as articles on how the people and the army interact and socialize/participate. It is fascinating and inventive stuff.

In the fight to stop the New World Order of Neoliberalism as defined in Washington , it is much more than a struggle between socialist and capitalist , it is a struggle for the nationalist against the Corporations and Multinationals of the world who have made their bid for control and domination over national sovereignty. Iraq is the glaring example and any nationalist worth his salt should be able to spot the difference between a insurgent and a freedom fighter, imo.
Venezuelan nationalists , or the vast majority of them , have a song in their hearts today , I wonder how many nationalists in the West can say the same thing ;) and that's food for thought.

DanseMacabre
Saturday, April 26th, 2008, 05:23 AM
I consider myself NS. I think it is the best system for Germanic Preservation.

Korpimaa
Saturday, April 26th, 2008, 08:03 AM
I see no reason to put myself in a box ideologically, and quite frankly no ideology in its pure form / the form majority practices it appeals to me. I also believe that the most dogmatic ideologies have the tendendy to turn against themselves and won't eventually be able to match the needs of a currently changing society.

Despite all this I of course can't say that my world view isn't in any way effected by any ideologies, as all individual thoughts always mirror the surroundings you live in, and you always accept certain ideas and concepts through introduction by the outside world and the different parties working in it, one way or another.

Acknowledging this I'd say my world view has been affected the most by thinkers such as the Strasser brothers, Pentti Linkola and various thinkers of the European New Right. My life philosophy could be described as a mishmash of ecologically aware ethnically oriented socialism and positive eugenics. The preservation and bettering of the various European ethnicities, the protection of the environment, and quaranteeing equal chances for everyone to make something of themselves and eventually diluting the remains of the artificial social classes caused by capitalism and replacing them with natural classes based on the worth of the individual are the things I strife for.

As an ethnonationalist my number one concern at the moment of course is the preservation and blossoming of the Finnic and other various ethnicities of the Northern side of Europe, and everything else including the way this goal is achieved is completely irrelevant. I personally believe there is more than one succesful way to secure our peoples existance and well-being, and whatever works best at the time ought to be used.

Dagna
Sunday, April 27th, 2008, 11:23 AM
(Classic) liberalism. I cannot understand how people calling themselves "pro-Germanic" or "Germanic preservationists" can support anti-Germanic, oppressive, anti-freedom, totalitarian, racist ideologies like National Socialism and Communism. They are an antithesis of the old Germanic values. They are the most anti-Germanic ideologies one could conceive.

Bärin
Sunday, April 27th, 2008, 12:49 PM
(Classic) liberalism. I cannot understand how people calling themselves "pro-Germanic" or "Germanic preservationists" can support anti-Germanic, oppressive, anti-freedom, totalitarian, racist ideologies like National Socialism and Communism. They are an antithesis of the old Germanic values. They are the most anti-Germanic ideologies one could conceive.
Both these regimes were nationalist in Germany and did more for German nationalism than your "classic liberalism" which destroys the German ethnos and race. :rolleyes:

ChaosLord
Sunday, April 27th, 2008, 04:31 PM
I chose 'other' because my political ideology is a mix of libertarianism, national socialism, paleo-conservatism, and isolationism.

Eccardus Teutonicus
Sunday, April 27th, 2008, 08:00 PM
Ever since reading Alain de Benoist essay Democracy Revisited: The Ancients and the Moderns I have associated myself with Nouvelle Droite. I dabbled in National Socialism, but I really find their brand of anti-Semitism to be repulsive.

DanseMacabre
Monday, April 28th, 2008, 07:13 AM
(Classic) liberalism. I cannot understand how people calling themselves "pro-Germanic" or "Germanic preservationists" can support anti-Germanic, oppressive, anti-freedom, totalitarian, racist ideologies like National Socialism and Communism. They are an antithesis of the old Germanic values. They are the most anti-Germanic ideologies one could conceive.

The only one of those ideologies that is "anti-Germanic, oppressive, anti-freedom, and totalitarian" is Communism. The heart of NS is preservation. The Third Reich was the embodiment of Germanic values such as Honor, Loyalty and Sacrifice. Hitler did not have to hold guns to the head of Germans like Stalin did his people. They defended their fatherland against liberal-communist aggression voluntarily. The NSDAP was freely elected, they did not overthrow, then slaughter, the previous leaders as the communists did. As for classic Liberalism, where did that ideology get our people with its egoistic indivdualism and focus on greed? In the situation we're in now that's where.

Dagna
Monday, April 28th, 2008, 11:17 AM
The only one of those ideologies that is "anti-Germanic, oppressive, anti-freedom, and totalitarian" is Communism. The heart of NS is preservation. The Third Reich was the embodiment of Germanic values such as Honor, Loyalty and Sacrifice. Hitler did not have to hold guns to the head of Germans like Stalin did his people. They defended their fatherland against liberal-communist aggression voluntarily. The NSDAP was freely elected, they did not overthrow, then slaughter, the previous leaders as the communists did. As for classic Liberalism, where did that ideology get our people with its egoistic indivdualism and focus on greed? In the situation we're in now that's where.
I believe this deserves its own topic.

National Socialism and Communism, a Parallel (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=6672)

Heiliger Tod
Tuesday, June 17th, 2008, 11:48 AM
I am not too fond of the idea of a nation state and perhaps in this respect I am a national anarchist. Chose New Right, but honestly I'm still not entirely certain.

I suppose one idea I had was the idea of a local government which is in close contact with the local population and an authority of sorts. If he does the job well then the person in charge stays in power. However, if the person in power is corrupt, then he must be removed and replaced with someone else. Our complaints are heard and there is little room for corruption, rather than having an impersonal leader where we have to wait for the next election which even then, when elected is not what we wanted because we don't have proportional representation, however in a local smaller population that may be easier.

However this ideaology is not really deeply thought through, it was just an idea I've had that COULD work...

Jörmungandr
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008, 12:21 AM
I'm a National Socialist and a dedicated Hitlerian. National Socialism is my way of life and my political viewpoint and Hitler is the one person I look up to, he inspires me to be a better person.

Aethelwulf
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008, 04:51 AM
I said other as I don't want to really "pigeon hole" myself.

In many ways I'm a Racial Nationalist. I believe that all races have the right to self-determination. In many ways I'm also Pan-European but I'm against the European Union and want to preserve the identity of different European tribes or Ethnic groups. To be a German, Serbian, Croatian, French (etc) Nationalist is absolutely fine as you have the right and the duty to preserve your culture and your way of life. By combining all of Europe into one massive White "Empire" would simply not work because we have too many ancient bitter rivalries and we do not want to lose the uniqueness of various European cultures. However, I do believe that Europeans need to form a kind of coalition against various threats (e.g. immigration, Islam, Zionism, multiculturalism/multiracialism etc) as constant bickering and old-hatreds that exist will only cause more harm than good.


Here in Australia and other colonial/settler nations (such as Canada, the USA and New Zealand) it is a lot different. In these countries we need to all stick together as people who are of "White" European heritage, while at the same time preserving our individual Ethnic identity. Something which I understand is very challenging. For that reason and because I would be considered a "White" Australian person and I have to also identify with White Nationalism in some respect.

While on the other hand I have strong sympathies towards; National Anarchism, Pan-Nationalism (Nationalism as an international ideology), and the views expressed by the New Right. There are also still parts of me that like some aspects of National Socialism and Neo-Fascism but I do not consider myself to be a supremacist or a racist in any way. If anything I prefer the term "racialist" which I believe to be different.

Nevertheless, I didn't really want to give myself a label of any type so I could be stereotyped but as I had to call myself "something" I thought Racial Nationalist was the most suitable to use.

Out of Germania
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008, 11:43 AM
Nationalsocialism is my ideology but I'm not really a Hitlerian. I think Nationalsocialism of the 21st century needs a new leader. I don't really understand why so many people view Nationalsocialism as an evil ideology. Nationalsocialists care about their folk and race, we are not about hating others. In fact, the anti-Nationalsocialists and anti-racists are more hateful than us.

Guntwachar
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008, 11:54 AM
In fact, the anti-Nationalsocialists and anti-racists are more hateful than us.

So i am more hatefull then nationalsocialists?

I dislike the the ideology of NS and what it did to my country i dont hate the people that like it because well thats politics people have different views otherwise politics wouldnt even be fun to do.

In my eyes NS can never work again since it ruind its image in other countries no actual nationalist would want to have that back in there country and be under foreign rulers.

And well racism i dont have a problem with that, but i believe every race has as much rights to live on this world only not in my country.

Dagna
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008, 12:07 PM
Nationalsocialism is my ideology but I'm not really a Hitlerian. I think Nationalsocialism of the 21st century needs a new leader. I don't really understand why so many people view Nationalsocialism as an evil ideology. Nationalsocialists care about their folk and race, we are not about hating others. In fact, the anti-Nationalsocialists and anti-racists are more hateful than us.
I despise National Socialism because it is an ungermanic ideology. Despising an ideology and despising a race are very different concepts. A person can choose his ideology and therefore be held responsible for it, but not his race. National Socialists are very low, they also euthanized handicapped for being handicapped, something they had no choice about. Wanting non-Germanic immigrants out is one thing, I believe immigrating was their choice, preaching hatred based on race is another. That is what National Socialism does. I am pretty sure that you have read Mein Kampf and all the hate propaganda Hitler instigated.

Carl
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008, 12:40 PM
I don't really understand why so many people view Nationalsocialism as an evil ideology. Nationalsocialists care about their folk and race, we are not about hating others. In fact, the anti-Nationalsocialists and anti-racists are more hateful than us.

It might have something to do with "not caring" about everyone :D - and seeking then to mix them all up. But I imagine that many sorts of people would think - and not only neo-NSists - that mixing people up in this way was itself unnatural and uncaring of the future ! - thats certainly the way it seems to be unfolding.....

Nordanblod
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 06:17 PM
I'm a national democrat. I think that local communities should have more autonomy, and all important issues, local and national, should be decided directly by the people through binding referenda.

Ulf
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 07:08 PM
Jeffersonian Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy)

In its core ideals it is characterized by the following elements, which the Jeffersonians expressed in their speeches and legislation:

* The core political value of America is representative democracy; citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy.

* The yeoman farmer best exemplifies virtue and independence from corrupting city influences; government policy should be for his benefit. Financiers, bankers and industrialists make cities the cesspools of corruption, and should be avoided.

* Americans had a duty to spread what Jefferson called the "Empire of Liberty" to the world, but should avoid "entangling alliances."

* The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers. Most Anti-Federalists from 1787-88 joined the Jeffersonians.

* Republicanism, also known as representative democracy, is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny by the majority, as Madison explained in Federalist No. 10.

* The wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from intervention by the federal government, government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.

* The federal government must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme.

* The federal government must not violate the rights of the states. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (written secretly by Jefferson and Madison) proclaim these principles.

* Freedom of speech and the press is the best method to prevent the tyranny of the people by their own government. The Federalists' violation of this idea through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 became a major issue.

* A standing army and navy are dangerous to liberty and should be avoided; much better was to use economic coercion such as the embargo.

* The United States Constitution was written in order to ensure the freedom of the people. A strict view of how the constitution was written is kept.

Chlodovech
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 08:12 PM
National Socialists are very low, they also euthanized handicapped for being handicapped, something they had no choice about.


Far from saying that national socialism was perfect, I must nonetheless add that the euthanizing of the handicapped soon stopped after the German christians made it clear they opposed it. I don't condone this fact (nor was the ethnic cleansing of Slavs as a result of operation Barbarossa the knightly thing to do), but I prefer a national socialist state to this kingdom of fools we're stuck with. I wouldn't say that NS fundamentally stands for racial hatred, but in our day and age history is being perceived through contemporary glasses - and Western civilization becomes re-evaluated with set of 'universal' ideas and the 'human rights doctrine" that never were a part of it until recently. According to this perception the American civil war was waged for the abolishment of slavery, WW2 to save the jews, the reconquista of Spain was a racist enterprise, ... - all of which is incorrect. If the struggle for American independence was waged right now instead of the 18th century, the American freedom fighters would be labeled as authoritarian racists, who want to cleanse their nation of foreigners (in this case, the Brits).

Historical National Socialism (that of the 30s) was even more about socialism than racial hatred - an ideological component that many self-acclaimed neonazis have no absolutely no interest in - about the Germans being the victim of the Versailles treaty, leaving them with a political system they didn't want either. About being stuck with an aging economy and social status quo whilst other nations were in the process of modernization.

The biggest surviving achievement of national socialism is the modernization of Germany, and to a lesser extent the introducing of the welfare state in the countries it occupied, and also the invention of ecologism.


In my eyes NS can never work again since it ruind its image in other countries no actual nationalist would want to have that back in there country and be under foreign rulers.

Many nationalists seem to have no problem with foreign EU-rule whatsoever, and others still have a certain 'imperial idea' of some European unity, or siding up with this or that region or bloc of countries.

I voted for third positionism/national anarchism, btw.

Patrioten
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 08:34 PM
Many nationalists seem to have no problem with foreign EU-rule whatsoever, and others still have a certain 'imperial idea' of some European unity, or siding up with this or that region or bloc of countries.Is that attitude common among Nationalists in Flanders? Because I have a hard time thinking of any nationalist organisation in Europe which is pro-EU and EU rule. If anything, EU-critizism seems to be a corner stone of Nationalist rethoric, at least in Sweden. "Brussels" does not evoke positive feelings among either Nationalists or common folks here (and rightfully so).

Soldier of Wodann
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 09:00 PM
So i am more hatefull then nationalsocialists?

I dislike the the ideology of NS and what it did to my country i dont hate the people that like it because well thats politics people have different views otherwise politics wouldnt even be fun to do.

In my eyes NS can never work again since it ruind its image in other countries no actual nationalist would want to have that back in there country and be under foreign rulers.

And well racism i dont have a problem with that, but i believe every race has as much rights to live on this world only not in my country.

Maybe your country, like every other European one, would've have 'suffered' under NS if it wasn't so multicultural, imperialistic, democratic, secular and liberal? Notice how they never had to occupy Italy, Spain, Finnland, Vichy France, Bulgaria or Romania? Just a thought.

Keep in mind, the only reason the Germans had to rule foreigners is because the foreigners were, quite frankly, too stupid to rule themselves. I'd rather be ruled by a foreigner with a brain and authority than some democratic loser with no spine.

The only reason NS failed in the end is because of other Europeans (be it Dutch rebels or the English bombers), don't blame it on the ideology.

And to 'every race having rights', that is exactly the mindset that let them crawl out of their deserts and into our cities. If your colonial officials had a spine or some morals, they wouldn't have been bringing Mongoloids in en masse. Now lets think, why didn't they have spines? Maybe the little democratic and tolerant tradition your country is so proud of, since you rebelled against authentic Imperial authority all those centuries ago?

Yeah, what a worthy rebellion. What a nation.

Carl
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 09:04 PM
Is that attitude common among Nationalists in Flanders? Because I have a hard time thinking of any nationalist organisation in Europe which is pro-EU and EU rule. If anything, EU-critizism seems to be a corner stone of Nationalist rethoric, at least in Sweden. "Brussels" does not evoke positive feelings among either Nationalists or common folks here (and rightfully so).

That is certainly my impression too. The EU stands for anti-national centralization and harmonization of law. In the end the Mandarins of the EU decide on everything and local nationals progressively loose all their powers and rights. When the British even think of tightening up their hopeless immigration record , there is always someone in the EU ready to say that that would be contrary to existing European laws or "agreements" . There are enough threads detailing some of this in the archive.

The latest move is to force Ireland to Vote again on their rejection of the recent European Treaty. I hope they find the strength to resist....they will get a lot of support.

Chlodovech
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 10:40 PM
Is that attitude common among Nationalists in Flanders? Because I have a hard time thinking of any nationalist organisation in Europe which is pro-EU and EU rule. If anything, EU-critizism seems to be a corner stone of Nationalist rethoric, at least in Sweden. "Brussels" does not evoke positive feelings among either Nationalists or common folks here (and rightfully so).

Alas, there are nationalists like that in Flanders - who view the EU as a positive thing, and just want the Belgian state to vaporize over time. :| The NVA party, Nationale Vlaamse Alliantie, believes just that - and mildly Flemish nationalists within the socialist and green parties share the same view. There is a lot of Euro-scepticism among the Vlaams Belang politicians and voters, though, and of course within conservative circles.

That is certainly my impression too. The EU stands for anti-national centralization and harmonization of law. In the end the Mandarins of the EU decide on everything and local nationals progressively loose all their powers and rights. When the British even think of tightening up their hopeless immigration record , there is always someone in the EU ready to say that that would be contrary to existing European laws or "agreements" . There are enough threads detailing some of this in the archive.

England has a long history of Euro-scepticism, something that you won't find over here. :)

But I also referred to the 'imperial idea', which is defended by pan-Slavists, pan-Germanicists, or Eurasianists - more often than not liberal nationalists will favor trans-atlanticism - and what to think about FN in France? To me, that's a clear case of a party with an imperial worldview, because of its defence of the centralist state in a country inhabited by many nations.

Patrioten
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 11:14 PM
Alas, there are nationalists like that in Flanders - who view the EU as a positive thing, and just want the Belgian state to vaporize over time. :| The NVA party, Nationale Vlaamse Alliantie, believes just that - and mildly Flemish nationalists within the socialist and green parties share the same view. There is a lot of Euro-scepticism among the Vlaams Belang politicians and voters, though, and of course within conservative circles.It definately sounds as though you have a somewhat different political culture compared to other countries, to do with your history and strong connections to the EU project.

heathen_warlord
Thursday, September 25th, 2008, 05:24 PM
Ethnic Nationalist.
As in, I hold the belief that ALL people should return to their homelands.

Dodenknoop
Friday, September 26th, 2008, 07:02 PM
Fascism/corporatism/solidarism

http://nsalternatief.wordpress.com

Ocelot
Sunday, November 9th, 2008, 09:41 PM
Fascism and corporatism. (Spanish) falangism also appeals to me.

British and Proud
Monday, November 10th, 2008, 06:27 PM
I'd say I am an ethno-nationalist in favour of a distributionist economic policy.

Psychonaut
Monday, November 10th, 2008, 10:13 PM
I'd say I am an ethno-nationalist in favour of a distributionist economic policy.

Distributionism! Very nice, you don't hear about that school of thought very often at all. My imaginary country, Psychtopia, would have a variant of distributism in place, but on in concert with monarchism. I don't think that it could coexist with any type of democracy.

Viking King
Sunday, January 4th, 2009, 05:55 PM
Anarchist/libertarian here.

Though I'm disturbed by the number of national socialists here...

Out of Germania
Sunday, January 4th, 2009, 06:10 PM
Anarchist/libertarian here.

Though I'm disturbed by the number of national socialists here...
You make it sound like we are that many... What's so disturbing about us anyway? Skadi is a free speech forum, that means open to many ideologies, including nationalsocialism. The politically correct, suppressive society doesn't allow freedom of speech and association. Here you're welcome to debate us anytime if you disagree on something. It's better than supressing opinions because they're not popular. ;)

Viking King
Sunday, January 4th, 2009, 06:44 PM
Alright could you post, what positions you hold on social, economic and political issues?

I may have a warped view of national socialists, thanks to the media.

I just tend oppose view points that either extreme left or extreme right.

Patrioten
Monday, January 5th, 2009, 06:27 PM
Alright could you post, what positions you hold on social, economic and political issues?

I may have a warped view of national socialists, thanks to the media.

I just tend oppose view points that either extreme left or extreme right.Extreme is in the eye of the beholder ;). It is hard these days to be right wing and not be "extreme", if by extreme you mean holding opinions that differ from what is considered PC/kosher/acceptable, by the ruling socialist and liberal elites. None of the ideas I hold would have been considered extreme a hundred years ago by the Conservative right. And I am a Conservative, not a liberal, not a socialist. The society of today is their creation, the fact that they have been running the show for so long does not make my views and opinions any less valid than theirs, we're simply on opposite ends politically.

You look at it from your perspective, I get that, but it gets to be a bit old hearing the extreme label being used in a way that boxes off everything which deviates from mainstream-PC-thought. Open your mind a bit, you're a libertarian for Christ's sake :P.

Viking King
Monday, January 5th, 2009, 07:19 PM
You look at it from your perspective, I get that, but it gets to be a bit old hearing the extreme label being used in a way that boxes off everything which deviates from mainstream-PC-thought. Open your mind a bit, you're a libertarian for Christ's sake.

I have no problem with conservatives like you mate. It's just national socialists (i.e. Nazis) that scare me. I think you'll understand why.

Neophyte
Monday, January 5th, 2009, 11:25 PM
Alright could you post, what positions you hold on social, economic and political issues?

I may have a warped view of national socialists, thanks to the media.

I just tend oppose view points that either extreme left or extreme right.

I noticed, in a parallel thread, that you contrasted your views to "hate based" views such as National Socialism. So yes, I think that you have a warped view of National Socialism if you believe that it is based on hate and/or that National Socialists "join" just because they hate something or in order to hate something.

If something is hated, it is beacuse it threatens or destroys something that is highly valued and loved.

Viking King
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009, 12:24 AM
Well it's just from my current understanding when it comes to social issues they are usually:

Racist
Anti-Semite
Homophobic
Anti-equality between men and women
Anti-mentally ill
Anti-disabled/handicapped
Anti-intellectual
Ethnocentric
Statist/totalitarian
Pro-eugenics etc...

That's practically almost everything I firmly stand against.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Haereticus
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009, 02:09 AM
Anarchist/libertarian here.

Though I'm disturbed by the number of national socialists here...

... I may have a warped view of national socialists, thanks to the media.

I just tend oppose view points that either extreme left or extreme right.

'Extreme' is really subjective. I would have thought that, from an anarchist perspective, Conservatives, Christian Democrats or plain old vanilla Socialists could be described as 'extreme'. Whilst I couldn't describe myself as a National Socialist, more of an ethnocentric pan-European Nationalist, they certainly have many positive policies and attitudes. To say the Nazi's were given a bad press by the Allied and Soviet propaganda machines during WWII and since, would be a bit of an understatement. The vast majority of people who supported (support) the National Socialist ideology did so for positive reasons, not out of 'hate'. The word 'hate' has been so overused by the MSM that it has become meaningless to any open-minded person.

Well it's just from my current understanding when it comes to social issues they are usually:

Racist
Anti-Semite
Homophobic
Anti-equality between men and women
Anti-mentally ill
Anti-disabled/handicapped
Anti-intellectual
Ethnocentric
Statist/totalitarian
Pro-eugenics etc...

That's practically almost everything I firmly stand against.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Could you define 'Racist' and explain exactly why that's a bad thing, and why you 'stand against' it?

I'm assuming you're calling an 'anti-semite' anybody who might question the degree to which Jewish control and influence of our education, news, entertainment, publishing and broadcasting might be disproportionate, and not necessarily beneficial to society as a whole?

Seeing homosexuality and it's vices as socially undesirable is not a phobia.

Women can be accepted as 100% as important and valuable as men, as we value and respect our mothers, wives and daughters and sisters, without imposing artificial, trendy politically correct notions of'equality' whereby women are made to feel they must earn money and pursue a career ahead of everything, ashamed for caring for and raising their own children. Look what capitalist and socialist notions of 'feminism' have done to women and families.

What exactly is wrong with the belief that mental illness is a bad thing? Very few, if any, people describing themselves as National Socialists would be inclined to exterminate everybody with a psychological disorder. Likewise those with physical handicaps.

Anti-intellectualism, in some cases could be argued to be a good thing. That would depend on your definition of an 'intellectual'.

Not all National Socialists are eugenicists. Though I'm not pro-eugenics, I will listen to the arguments in favour of it and dispute where necessary.

I can understand somebody being against notions of totalitarianism but I'm sure many National Socialists would argue that a one party National Socialist state can be at least as benevolent and democratic as the virtual two party oligarchies we live in now.

Ethnocentrism (ethnic preservation) is what this forum is about. If you 'firmly stand against' the preservation of ethnic diversity, i.e. you're more of a miscegenator, you may well be in the wrong place.

Rasvalg
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009, 06:39 AM
Nationalist....What ever is best for my country and my people then I shall fight for it.

Viking King
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009, 07:37 PM
Could you define 'Racist' and explain exactly why that's a bad thing, and why you 'stand against' it?


Because I believe it is immoral, unhumanitarian and unjustified to hate or discriminate someone simply because of their race and ethnicity.

I'm assuming you're calling an 'anti-semite' anybody who might question the degree to which Jewish control and influence of our education, news, entertainment, publishing and broadcasting might be disproportionate, and not necessarily beneficial to society as a whole?

I'm very sceptical of these "Jews and Zionists" controlling the media conspiracy theories. In my opinion they are as dubious and subjective as all the 9/11 theories.

Seeing homosexuality and it's vices as socially undesirable is not a phobia.

Sorry if I used the wrong nomenclature. Homophobia - despite the unscientific nature of the term, is a general catch all term for hatred, fear or opposition to homosexuality or homosexuals.


Women can be accepted as 100% as important and valuable as men, as we value and respect our mothers, wives and daughters and sisters, without imposing artificial, trendy politically correct notions of'equality' whereby women are made to feel they must earn money and pursue a career ahead of everything, ashamed for caring for and raising their own children. Look what capitalist and socialist notions of 'feminism' have done to women and families.

I agree with you here. What I mean, is feminism or gender egalitarianism in it's most basic sense - equal rights and opportunities for women. Feminism does have many flaws and adverse effects on women and men.

What exactly is wrong with the belief that mental illness is a bad thing? Very few, if any, people describing themselves as National Socialists would be inclined to exterminate everybody with a psychological disorder. Likewise those with physical handicaps.

As a sufferer of bipolar disorder, I'd agree that mental illness is bad or even terrible thing, just as parkinson’s or leukaemia is. Though I don't agree that it's a character fault, or that mentally ill (not including psychopaths or the criminally insane) are bad people by default.


Anti-intellectualism, in some cases could be argued to be a good thing. That would depend on your definition of an 'intellectual'.

I would describe an intellectual - as a rational thinker - Richard Dawkins would be an example of this (whatever your view of him is).


Not all National Socialists are eugenicists. Though I'm not pro-eugenics, I will listen to the arguments in favour of it and dispute where necessary.

Exactly, it's good to be open minded to all possibilities, but also expose pseudo-science when necessary.


Ethnocentrism (ethnic preservation) is what this forum is about. If you 'firmly stand against' the preservation of ethnic diversity, i.e. you're more of a miscegenator, you may well be in the wrong place.

I don't fully support - miscegenation - but I oppose ethnocentrism and preservation of ethnic traits standing in the way of two people (whatever their race) falling in love. In this area, it's more of a "live and let live" attitude, though I'm only like that with certain issues.

Haereticus
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009, 12:10 AM
Because I believe it is immoral, unhumanitarian and unjustified to hate or discriminate someone simply because of their race and ethnicity.

I agree absolutely that it's immoral, inhuman and unjustified to hate someone solely because of their race or ethnicity. It's not about 'hate' (there's that word popping up again) but if that race or ethnicity represents a clear and identifiable threat discrimination would very likely be necessary. That doesn't mean 'hating' anybody, but it might mean restricting entry or even deportation. Unfortunately for the North (and South) American 'Indians' they were not in a position to exercise the sort of 'discrimination' that might have saved them.

I'm very sceptical of these "Jews and Zionists" controlling the media conspiracy theories. In my opinion they are as dubious and subjective as all the 9/11 theories.
I was dubious too: I always regarded those complaining of excessive Jewish influence as crazy obsessive Christian fundamentalists and 'anti-semites'. anybody criticising, in any way, 'the chosen' must be either a bible bashing retard or just plain evil. The idea of a Jewish conspiracy seemed idiotic. I had never, to my knowledge, met a Jewish person nor had any dealings with them. It's ironic that these stereo types and this way of thinking was entirely the product of the mass media. I began to notice that the number of Jewish names in credits for films seemed quite disproportionate. A little research revealed some quite incredible facts. Many of our national newspapers were Jewish owned. The heads of most of the TV stations were Jewish. A hugely disproportionate number of producers and directors were Jewish. Still, I didn't have any problem with this. As far as I was concerned, if they were the careers those people chose, or if this was where they chose to invest their money; that was up to them.

It was only later, when I was aware of who the media owners, producers, directors, presenters and actors were, that I started to listen more closely to what they were saying and how they were saying it. In these days of political correctness, when we're supposed to treat everybody equally and not discriminate, I became aware that certain groups were being constantly stereotyped. In Hollywood and American and British TV productions, Arabs and Europeans (Germans in particular) are almost always negatively portrayed. Jews and Africans are always wise and compassionate. The newspapers and news channels similarly put their biased slant on every story.

The effect on our people afforded by this level of media control is so effective that anybody even expressing concern at this level of Jewish control and influence is instantly deemed anti-semitic, even criminal.

In short, Hollywood seems very very Jewish to me. Certainly more than it should be in the 'representative democracies' they like to pretend we have.
Some interesting facts and figures here: http://www.heretical.com/British/mindbend/index.html

Sorry if I used the wrong nomenclature. Homophobia - despite the unscientific nature of the term, is a general catch all term for hatred, fear or opposition to homosexuality or homosexuals.
It's entirely possible to have reservations about certain public displays of homosexual behaviour without hating homosexuals in the slightest. I believe homosexuals are, with very few exceptions, born that way and have no choice in the matter. I have no desire to hurt them, they should be able to lead full, productive and happy lives to the extent that their condition permits. I'd 'discriminate against them' to the same extent that I'd 'discriminate against' any heterosexual who exhibited inappropriate sexual behaviour in public.

I agree with you here. What I mean, is feminism or gender egalitarianism in it's most basic sense - equal rights and opportunities for women. Feminism does have many flaws and adverse effects on women and men.
So absolute 'equality' isn't always a prerequisite to a 'fair' and civil society.

Effects of Feminism and Destruction of the Family (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=110134)

As a sufferer of bipolar disorder, I'd agree that mental illness is bad or even terrible thing, just as parkinson’s or leukaemia is. Though I don't agree that it's a character fault, or that mentally ill (not including psychopaths or the criminally insane) are bad people by default.
I agree. I couldn't defend any 'Nazi' or anybody else who would 'euthanise' (murder) a sick person, even if some dispassionate bastard might decide it's for the 'greater good'. I do believe in the absolute concepts of 'good' and 'evil', whether a person is mentally ill or plain evil is sometimes difficult to diagnose.

I would describe an intellectual - as a rational thinker - Richard Dawkins would be an example of this (whatever your view of him is).
I've got lots of opinions of Richard Dawkins, that's another thread :) The sort of 'intellectual' I have no time whatsoever for would be the sort of whining non-productive parasite who listens to jazz and sneers at the working man whose sweat allows the idler the luxury to indulge his 'intellectual' lifestyle and fantasies.

Exactly, it's good to be open minded to all possibilities, but also expose pseudo-science when necessary.
You'd have to argue with the pseudo-scientists on that one.

I don't fully support - miscegenation - but I oppose ethnocentrism and preservation of ethnic traits standing in the way of two people (whatever their race) falling in love. In this area, it's more of a "live and let live" attitude, though I'm only like that with certain issues.

So you don't 'fully' support it?

Rapid Rise in Number of Mixed Race Britons (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=110917)

Males of African descent in particular seem unable to help themselves, often fathering several children by various women who couldn't help "falling in love". Check out your local high street to see the mess that results.

Do you really think we need more and more of this: 'I love my mixed race baby - but why does she feel so alien?' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-467787/I-love-mixed-race-baby--does-feel-alien.html)

If this was something that happened on a small scale it could, arguably, be tolerated, we're supposed to be 'tolerant' after all, but it is happening on a mass scale which represents a very real, not so long term, threat to ethnic and cultural diversity in Europe. It has been estimated that indigenous white Britons will become a minority in their own country within a few generations. This has already happened in British cities including Leicester and Birmingham. It's probably already happened in London, if you look around there, but not yet officially. If trends continue we will effectively cease to exist, assimilated into a grey multicultural mass a few generations after that. This scenario, which is being forced on a nation who never asked for this, is quite unacceptable to many people, myself included.

Patrioten
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009, 12:28 AM
Because I believe it is immoral, unhumanitarian and unjustified to hate or discriminate someone simply because of their race and ethnicity.I doubt that there are many individuals who hate people because of their race or ethnicity or whatever.

Imagine a skinhead, the very symbol of racial hatred. Put this skinhead infront of an immigrant in the skinhead's own backyard and notice his reactions.

Then take the same skinhead and place him infront of a tv and the immigrant back in his own country with a tv monitor infront of him which allows him to speak to the skinhead and for the skinhead to see the ex-immigrant. Notice his reactions.

Then give that same skinhead the opportunity to make a two week vacation trip to anywhere in the world where the inhabitants are of a different race than his. Follow him on the trip and notice his reactions.

What is the most likely result of such an experiment? Most likely, the level of irritation that the skinhead is experiencing will be at its highest in the first test, much lower bordering to non-existant in the second and non-existant in the third. In all three situations, the skinhead is exposed to foreigners of a different race, but the reactions differ, why? Because the circumstances and situations differ. In the first scenario the immigrant is inside the skinhead's own territory and represents a unwelcomed threat, in the second, both the skinhead and the immigrant are in their own territory and are not intruding on one anothers space. In the third, the skinhead voluntarily visits the territory of a foreign people of a foreign race or culture knowing that his own territory is safe back home (in a better world at least) and that he will return to it once the trip is over. The host population also knows that he is only visiting and can therefor treat the skinhead as is befitting of a guest.

Then take into account that very few people, even in here, are raging skinheads.

When you force foreign people together, you create antagonism and conflicts. When people come together voluntarily under positive and relaxing circumstances, the end result is almost always a positive one. The reactions of people differ according to the situation and the circumstances that they find themselves in.

Again, you wont find many people who hate people simply because of their race, that is not what we are about, and that is not what the critique against multi racial societies is about.

Viking King
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009, 02:10 AM
I agree absolutely that it's immoral, inhuman and unjustified to hate someone solely because of their race or ethnicity. It's not about 'hate' (there's that word popping up again) but if that race or ethnicity represents a clear and identifiable threat discrimination would very likely be necessary. That doesn't mean 'hating' anybody, but it might mean restricting entry or even deportation. Unfortunately for the North (and South) American 'Indians' they were not in a position to exercise the sort of 'discrimination' that might have saved them.

I agree with your point. But it's perfectly possible that a leader or group someone with obvious paranoid or delusional tendencies (i.e. Hitler) could make it seem to the general public through propaganda, media brainwashing, that this group is threat, when in reality they're not. Wasn't it Hitler who said: "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed?"
Like I said before, you need to be sceptical about what messages, any form of authority or the media, are telling you.


I've got lots of opinions of Richard Dawkins, that's another thread The sort of 'intellectual' I have no time whatsoever for would be the sort of whining non-productive parasite who listens to jazz and sneers at the working man whose sweat allows the idler the luxury to indulge his 'intellectual' lifestyle and fantasies.

Yeah - yuppie scum ;). I was thinking more along the line of Greek Philosophers such as Plato.


So absolute 'equality' isn't always a prerequisite to a 'fair' and civil society.

Effects of Feminism and Destruction of the Family

I think that depends entirely on your definition of equality.

So you don't 'fully' support it?

Rapid Rise in Number of Mixed Race Britons

Males of African descent in particular seem unable to help themselves, often fathering several children by various women who couldn't help "falling in love". Check out your local high street to see the mess that results.

You've got to remember, that a lot of this results from social conditioning and doing what you're parents did before you - a common feature in impoverished urban communities.
No doubt that there are some genetic and evolutionary factors possibly playing here. Particularly males of African descent (and females too) being more "testosteronized" than the average Caucasian male or female. Resulting in promiscuity, increased libido - and therefore likely to keep "spreading the seed".

Do you really think we need more and more of this: 'I love my mixed race baby - but why does she feel so alien?'

If this was something that happened on a small scale it could, arguably, be tolerated, we're supposed to be 'tolerant' after all, but it is happening on a mass scale which represents a very real, not so long term, threat to ethnic and cultural diversity in Europe. It has been estimated that indigenous white Britons will become a minority in their own country within a few generations. This has already happened in British cities including Leicester and Birmingham. It's probably already happened in London, if you look around there, but not yet officially. If trends continue we will effectively cease to exist, assimilated into a grey multicultural mass a few generations after that. This scenario, which is being forced on a nation who never asked for this, is quite unacceptable to many people, myself included.

I agree with you here, in Hackney (in East London) - where I live (and grew up) when not on my Campus, it's almost like driving into Syria, then into Kenya, then into Bangladesh, then into Pakistan, then back to England - all in half an hour.

By the word "fully" was a mistake, sorry about complicating things over that.

Patrioten: I'm with you. I now understand where you're all coming from now.

Rozenstorm
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009, 06:22 AM
My viewpoint are most similar to national-conservatism, paleo-conservativism and Nouvelle Droite of Alain de Benoist. The translation of that is New Right, but in the Anglo-Saxon world it mostly indicates neo-conservatism which is, far from the same. Since both neo-conservatism and New Right are represented in the topic, would the author explain what his New Right indicates? Nouvelle Droite or neo-conservatism?

Anyway, I choose paleo-conservatism.

Haereticus
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009, 11:34 AM
...Wasn't it Hitler who said: "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed?" ...

That quote attributed to Hitler has also beeen attributed to Joseph Goebbels, amongst others by this authoritative source (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbelslie.html).

However, don't believe everything you read. Joseph Goebbels wasn't very popular with the Soviet, British and American authorities at the time and wasn't likely to get a 'good press'.

The false Goebbels quotation above is actually a take-off on Hitler's familiar statement in Mein Kampf, which is often misunderstood. Hitler stated:

“In this they [the Jews] proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.…” (p. 231 of the Manheim translation)

Hitler is accusing the Jews the Vienna press of this strategy. It is often taken as evidence that Hitler advocated the "Big Lie." He is, in fact, accusing his enemies of lying. source (http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/falsenaziquotations.htm)

Neophyte
Thursday, January 8th, 2009, 10:46 PM
Well it's just from my current understanding when it comes to social issues they are usually:

Racist
Anti-SemiteHomophobic
Anti-equality between men and women
Anti-mentally ill
Anti-disabled/handicapped
Anti-intellectual
Ethnocentric
Statist/totalitarian
Pro-eugenics etc...

That's practically almost everything I firmly stand against.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

These are my somewhat random thoughts in the matter:

Those are not necessarily bad things if you—as we all here do— believe in the preservation of the racial integrity of your society. Racism and anti-Semitism is simply the enemy’s terms for the attitudes and behaviors that result from such a conviction, but it is not really a question of ‘hating’ Jews or people of other nationalities, simply the desire to exclude them from our cultural, social and biological processes.

It all rests on the conviction that there is a close connection between culture and biology. Ethically and genetically homogenous societies function better than heterogeneous ones, and there is much scientific evidence to support that view. And there is the understanding that we as Germanics benefit more from certain forms of social organization than from others and that the biological composition of society over time will have a major impact on its organization.

You must also understand that the National Socialist view of the world is not based on the same concepts as the Judeo-Christian one. It places less weight on the value of the individual human life than the Christian, and more on behavior contra conviction. Christianity comes from the multicultural and racially mixed Hellenistic world of serfs, slaves and proletarians, an environment in which—see above—there would have been a rather low measure of internal cohesion and mutual commitment whereas the National Socialist worldview is that of a nation state, of a people united in blood, spirit and soil. In such a more cohesive and united society there would naturally be a larger focus on the survival and well being of the group rather than on the individual, and from that perspective eugenics would seem a wholly sound and natural idea.

In such an environment you would also see a different attitude towards the state than you would in the Jewish and Christian antiquity. In the case of the Jew Jesus and the early Christians the state would have been represented by the most foreign Roman state with which they would have found very little common ground. In the case of the modern national state the identification between the individual and the state is much stronger as there exists a mutual bond of blood and spirit between the individual and the state, the modern state being nothing more than the political expression of the nation. Thus a National Socialist would identify more strongly with his own state—or the concept thereof—than would a random citizen of a multicultural state.

Viking King
Thursday, January 8th, 2009, 11:58 PM
Christianity comes from the multicultural and racially mixed Hellenistic world of serfs, slaves and proletarians, an environment in which—see above—there would have been a rather low measure of internal cohesion and mutual commitment whereas the National Socialist worldview is that of a nation state, of a people united in blood, spirit and soil. In such a more cohesive and united society there would naturally be a larger focus on the survival and well being of the group rather than on the individual, and from that perspective eugenics would seem a wholly sound and natural idea.

But that type of society never has worked, look at communist countries, the soviet union and its satellite states, when these collectivist societies do exist, they usually (and fortunately) don't for long, and typically result in tremendous human suffering. It seems to me what you're talking about is more along the lines of wishful thinking.
Human beings are not ants or sheep, unlike socialist views would hold. Human beings (at least smart ones) are usually indepent, autonomous and free thinking (to a certain degree), and will resist being treated in a hive mentality.

It all rests on the conviction that there is a close connection between culture and biology. Ethically and genetically homogenous societies function better than heterogeneous ones, and there is much scientific evidence to support that view. And there is the understanding that we as Germanics benefit more from certain forms of social organization than from others and that the biological composition of society over time will have a major impact on its organization.

To me that's simply racial or ethnic discrimination (grounded on a pseudo-scientific level), something that I detest.

Thus a National Socialist would identify more strongly with his own state—or the concept thereof—than would a random citizen of a multicultural state.

A person from a multicultural state would be more likely to fight for his/her loved ones, not his state. Which I fully agree with. I don't believe in "for the good of Germany or for the good of Britain". To me it's just a mass of land. A more appropriate phrase would be to die "my loved ones" or maybe “for the German people”, though they’d be a lot of people there that you wouldn’t fight for, which is why I’d stick with the “loved ones” one, at least to me from an individualist perspective makes more sence.

Neophyte
Friday, January 9th, 2009, 12:54 AM
But that type of society never has worked, look at communist countries, the soviet union and its satellite states, when these collectivist societies do exist, they usually (and fortunately) don't for long, and typically result in tremendous human suffering. It seems to me what you're talking about is more along the lines of wishful thinking.
Human beings are not ants or sheep, unlike socialist views would hold. Human beings (at least smart ones) are usually indepent, autonomous and free thinking (to a certain degree), and will resist being treated in a hive mentality.

There is a huge difference between Communism and National Socialism. As I see it, NS is is focused on building a society for the people as it is whereas Communism is intent on building a people to fit the society dictated by its political theory, a theory which, incidentally, seems to have been put together by a group of Jews (from Marx to Adorno) in order to destroy Western civilisation.

But no, human beings are not ants, but nor are they clams. We do intend to interact in a structured and organised manner, something we call society. And the continuation of that structure is something which transcendes us as individuals. I could also point to the virtual absence of Libertarian states, or something that comes close to fulfil even the less exacting Libertarian standards. Such a society is simply neither appealing to most people or able to sustain itself politically.

To me that's simply racial or ethnic discrimination (grounded on a pseudo-scientific level), something that I detest.

"Pseudo-scientific" is a term that comes in very handy when one does not like to discuss the real merits of an idea. Google for "Putam" and "diversity" and see what you find. There you have a liberal who simply could not explain away his own findings but who, characteristically, managed to come to the wrong conclusions in the end anyway. Now, if everything that scientists like J.P. Rushton says is wrong, why do Putnam's results confirm it so clearly?

The fact of the matter is that a genetically, culturally and etnically homogenous society funtions better than a multicultural one. In order to keep the society that way, or to transform it into such a society, foreign elements must be excluded.

A person from a multicultural state would be more likely to fight for his/her loved ones, not his state. Which I fully agree with. I don't believe in "for the good of Germany or for the good of Britain". To me it's just a mass of land. A more appropriate phrase would be to die "my loved ones" or maybe “for the German people”, though they’d be a lot of people there that you wouldn’t fight for, which is why I’d stick with the “loved ones” one, at least to me from an individualist perspective makes more sence.

And that is why a multicultural state such as the USA will lose against a homogenous national state such as China. The first test of a political entity is its ability to sustain and defend itself, and when it fails that test it will cease to exist. Fill your army with foreigners and the army will be loyal not the the people but to the army itself.

And again, you represent the opposite world view when you talk about Britain and Germany as pieces of land. The National Socialist world view does not concern itself so much with geography as with people. When we talk about Germany it is not the piece of land currently known as the BRD we talk about but about the German nation as in the sum of all people German by descent. This is something that runs counter to the modern, late Roman concept of the nation as an administrative unite, as a piece of land.

Viking King
Friday, January 9th, 2009, 11:56 AM
"Pseudo-scientific" is a term that comes in very handy when one does not like to discuss the real merits of an idea. Google for "Putam" and "diversity" and see what you find. There you have a liberal who simply could not explain away his own findings but who, characteristically, managed to come to the wrong conclusions in the end anyway. Now, if everything that scientists like J.P. Rushton says is wrong, why do Putnam's results confirm it so clearly?

The fact of the matter is that a genetically, culturally and etnically homogenous society funtions better than a multicultural one. In order to keep the society that way, or to transform it into such a society, foreign elements must be excluded.

I'm not sure if you're aware about this, but Robert Putnam (the political scientist you're talking about) also agrees that you need a balance. He's decrees that there are two types of social capital - social bonding (where you socialize with people of the same race, ethnicity, class) and social bridging (where you socialize with people from a different race, ethnicity, class) - now he believes that these two working together strengthen each other, and ultimately strengthen a society. What you arguing for - more bonding and less bridging, and at the same time arguing against – more bridging and less bonding, would weaken a society – under his theory.

But no, human beings are not ants, but nor are they clams. We do intend to interact in a structured and organised manner, something we call society. And the continuation of that structure is something which transcendes us as individuals. I could also point to the virtual absence of Libertarian states, or something that comes close to fulfil even the less exacting Libertarian standards. Such a society is simply neither appealing to most people or able to sustain itself politically.

I agree, and most libertarians would probably agree too. Only the hardcore anarchists would agree that we don't any form of government or state what so ever, and human beings can operate by themselves sufficiently. Unfortunately that's not the case, and we do need some kind of small hierarchal government (however localized) to govern and give aid to it's citizens.

Rozenstorm
Friday, January 9th, 2009, 01:17 PM
I agree absolutely that it's immoral, inhuman and unjustified to hate someone solely because of their race or ethnicity. It's not about 'hate' (there's that word popping up again) but if that race or ethnicity represents a clear and identifiable threat discrimination would very likely be necessary. That doesn't mean 'hating' anybody, but it might mean restricting entry or even deportation. Unfortunately for the North (and South) American 'Indians' they were not in a position to exercise the sort of 'discrimination' that might have saved them.

Exactly! Most of the time 'racism' is abused. It's used as a stop to every discussion, thereby avoiding the subject of multiculturalism. We're not about hate.

http://absinthehussard.hautetfort.com/media/02/02/942cf1faae65e77d9c1ddc3aba8b27ad.jpg

Erhard Grund
Saturday, January 10th, 2009, 08:11 PM
I'm a Socialist. Equality and Welfare have to be spread around the world so that all people can live in social security and welfare.
Only a worldwide system on socialist nations will ensure that there is no overimmigration and negative competition between countries and ethnical groups.
A fair market with realistic prices has to be set up in place of a mostprofit market that only favors those with the lowest bidding. Competition is good but only under the preferences of the human needs. fair payment and secure working conditions plus medical care are a must. profits gained should be transferred into welfare. all burocracy should be broken down to real simple rules and laws - that way you can put away with unnecessary hinderings of economic growth + lowering cost etc. and there are no loopholes. there shouldn't be a 5 year plan - the economy should be run by private interest but under national control. the private part has to have its share to ensure innovation and progress. but the economy has to serve the society not otherwise.
private gain should still be allowed but only to a certain limit. wealth is okay but millionaires - no. every country should be partly dependent on all other countries to ensure a willing to cooperate.
that system under a democratic nations should turn out fine.
basicly this is a reformed socialism which most socalled hardcore communist parties support today - the label communist is only used by those who fear that new socialism - they try to provoke fear of oppression and loss of freedom - the opposite is true. socialists are not here to take away your freedom - they are here to free you from those corrupt economy that degraded people to mere tools. capitalism spits on the human needs and capitalism is the death of nations - money knows no fatherland.

Born in the GDR and proud of it.

Rozenstorm
Saturday, January 10th, 2009, 11:10 PM
How do you stand to corporatism?

lambert
Saturday, January 10th, 2009, 11:50 PM
I like thoughtful people who think before they speak. Recently I read a quote of Desmond Tutu: "I have heard you all, and this is our mind." People who speak from an ideological position, in the sense that they try to form their expression from an ideological framework often are more disciplined intellectually than ordinary folk, and their views may have a pleasant sharpness that is readily apparent, like sour milk or pickles. On the other hand, the structure of their belief may hide lines of thinking that might bear fruit, were they more open to unusual or contrary ideas. When I hear someone state his ideology, like a brand, I am suspicious. I would rather see the evidence of that person's beliefs in actions and in the corpus of that person's expression, and draw my own conclusions from that who they are. Part of our problem in the United States now is that we have been "led" for too long by intellectually dishonest ideologues who identify with popular, or populist positions, but whose actions don't measure up to their claims, by any measure.

Erhard Grund
Sunday, January 11th, 2009, 08:51 AM
Corporatism worked relativly well in the past. However it has the tendency to transfer itself into a classical capitalism. The lack of organisation within the workig class and the private ownership of key elements of the economy often lead to the betrayal of the state.
the idea of having a commom national interesst works as long there is growth , but more often then not the opportunity of more profit will slowly degrade that idea.
My country went through that at least 3 times. And its beginning again.
Corporatism within an isolated or protectionist nation can be dangerous as well. Germany went through that in the years before Worldwar 2. While having great economic growth , that growth was based on dept. an alot of that dept was because of private companys within the system took the lionshare of the profit and saw even more profit to promote and support the war.
they hid behind national interesst when in trouth they followed private interessts. there is a reasen why companys like krupp rheinmetall messerschmidt etc are still around albeit under different names (messerschmidt and focke wulf for example are now parts of eads).
Corporatism can work out once a state i fully autark and has to fear no economic competition from outside. To the day there is only one country in the world that could be autark and thats russia.
Corporatism could work out there now that they can acces their natural recources on a profitable level.
However this is going to take a while. I guess well see how this turns out.

Maelstrom
Sunday, January 11th, 2009, 10:42 AM
Currently I am leaning towards Peronism.

Rozenstorm
Sunday, January 11th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Currently I am leaning towards Peronism.

I have never heard of it. Care to elaborate?

vikingur
Saturday, January 17th, 2009, 04:20 PM
I'm a national-liberalist, so I agree with many points if other political movements.

CordeliaforLear
Saturday, January 17th, 2009, 06:25 PM
Radical Traditionalism.

Rozenstorm
Saturday, January 17th, 2009, 06:28 PM
Evola ;)

Berrocscir
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 03:28 PM
I have never heard of it. Care to elaborate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism ;)

Galather
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 06:31 PM
National Socialist here.

Rozenstorm
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 06:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism ;)

So, you mean, corporatism? =)

Le Tour-Noir
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 03:33 AM
I am a National Socialist. So in essence, I believe in an ethnic nationalist state, in which the welfare of the said people is the first and foremost subject on the agenda.

Rightpath
Monday, September 28th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Hello forum,

I am a National Socialist and proud. What a releif it is to be able to come to a forum and be able to express these views without fear of re-crimination and backlash. Freedom of speech has been eroded to such a degree in this country I have been in the wilderness for a long time.

Destroy.To.Create
Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009, 10:41 PM
i voted other
i can call myself a nationalistic anti-capitalism liberal with a touch of real human conservatism.

i love my country, my people, my culture. much more than other countries
therefore the nationalistic side.

i'm also anti-capitalistic
since everyone lives to make profit, there's no such a thing as real truth or real justice. there's always the media, the customers, your network. and it makes me sick.
we consume, that's what we believe which makes us happy. invented by the media to let us even consume more, and we'll never consume enough because there'salway more...
to consume we need money, much money. therefore people are greedy and disappointed.
i prefer to live for my basic needs, and for things which make you happy that are much older than the consuming society: love, pride, my people, my country. if we showed a little more love and pride, and a little less greed and coldness, the world would be a better place :thumbup

i'm also liberal. i want the freedom to fill in my own life, instead of giving all i have to ill elders who are only weakening the society. if you would want be social to ill elder people, it should be completely your own deccision, instead of a presciption. isn't it reasonable you take care of your own granny?!
i don't want to work all my life for weak or lazy people and criminals, i want to work to feed myself and my family in the future, and so i can do things that make me happy, like buying a beautiful house in a forest instead of a build by the dozens apartment.
and i want freedom. the government interferes to much, talking about those oh so dangerous terrorists. but when the terrorists are there, you don't even have the freedom to defend yourself without being illegal:thumbdown

and i support real human conservatism. it's about how we, the human-beings, are in a natural way.
yes, we are a barbarian, slaughtering, egoistic, aggressive nation that dislikes other races. that's how nature made us, so it would be in balance. but since we must be political correct we can't act like ourselves.
fact: when you murder someone, it's illegal. when you send an army to murder someone, you're a hero.

i'm also anti-democratic, i prefer natuaraly chosen leaders over the democratic system. it's a media/propaganda based vote for the people who are found reasonable by the secret circle of rich people who really have the powers in this world. that's why there never changes anything.
call me paranoid, but this is how it works :|

Blod og Jord
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009, 03:56 AM
I'm surprised nationalism wasn't included in this poll.
I voted other. I'm ethnic nationalist or folkish nationalist I could say, with a strong leaning towards heathenism.

Anlef
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009, 11:00 AM
Although I prefer to describe myself as a traditionalist (conservative), I voted paleoconservative, which is the next best thing. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism):
Traditionalist conservatism, also known as "Toryism," "traditional conservatism," "traditionalism," and Burkean conservatism is a political philosophy which emphasizes the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order (especially High Church Christianity), tradition and custom, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, and patriotism, localism, and regionalism.

I should add that with regard to the economy, I'm much interested in distributism. Wikipedia again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism):
Distributism, also known as distributionism and distributivism, is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Roman Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of Catholic Social Teaching articulated by the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum[1] and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno[2] According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (indirect socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton's statement: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."

But of course I have my own personal additions and reservations concerning these two philosophies.

Afrikanermag
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 10:45 AM
Afrikaner Nationalism :thumbup

Wilhelm I.
Sunday, February 14th, 2010, 12:33 AM
something like reactionary-nationalist

Curator
Sunday, February 14th, 2010, 07:03 AM
Based on the definition Anlef provided, I'm comfortable with labeling myself a paleo-conservative.

frippardthree
Sunday, February 14th, 2010, 09:03 AM
I'm too disgusted with politics anymore, to even care!

Petervalhalla
Sunday, February 14th, 2010, 11:01 AM
I am a National Socialist. No apologies, no compromises, no excuses, no mercy. That's IT!

Zogbot
Monday, February 15th, 2010, 04:03 PM
Radical Traditionalism.

What an oxymoron... ugh, my head.

I am a Nationalsocialist™ (remember, it was trademarked...) a-la Rosenberg.

Thorodinssohn
Thursday, May 27th, 2010, 05:31 PM
I cannot subscribe to any form of socialism, hence my aversion to the national socialist movement.

I am inclined toward traditional conservatism, with a nationalistic twist. Compare it to a glass of scotch, no rocks, but a twist of lemon. The conservatism holds up by itself, but is reinforced by nationalism.

BlueEyedBeast
Friday, June 4th, 2010, 01:03 AM
Radical Traditionalism.

What an oxymoron... ugh, my head.

This is an excerpt from Týr: Myth, Culture, Tradition. Or at least, from WolfTyr Productions product description of Týr: Myth, Culture, Tradition (haven't read it yet. I just ordered it.)

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A RADICAL TRADITIONALIST?

It means to reject the modern, materialist reign of "quantity over quality," the absence of any meaningful spiritual values, environmental devastation, the mechanization and over-specialization of urban life, and the imperialism of corporate mono-culture, with its vulgar "values" of progress and efficiency. It means to yearn for the small, homogeneous tribal societies that flourished before Christianity -- societies in which every aspect of life was integrated into a holistic system.

WHAT WE REPRESENT:

Resacralization of the world versus materialism; folk/traditional culture versus mass culture; natural social order versus an artificial hierarchy based on wealth; the tribal community versus the nation-state; stewardship of the earth versus the "maximization of resources"; a harmonious relationship between men and women versus the "war between the sexes"; handicrafts and artisanship versus Industrial mass-production.

That being said, many such labels can be attached to my political views;

Radical Traditionalism, Tribal/National Anarchism, Libertarianism, Odalism, etc.

Tribal Anarchism is what is listed in my profile stats. I voted for Libertarianism on this poll. You can make of that what you will..

VikingManx
Sunday, June 6th, 2010, 06:29 AM
Radical Traditionalism is the ANSWER. I have only recently been enlightened to this political ideology.

It fits Anglo-Saxon traditions perfectly. Anything "Democrat" or "Republican" are just two sides of the same Jewish coin.


They (along with their ignorant, white-guilt laden, ass-backwards liberal-caucasian accomplices) want to demolish everything about our traditional Germanic society(s) as quickly as possible in order to dominate the entire world.

Germanics are the only ethnicity on earth they cannot control. They must destroy our traditions before they can integrate/control us along with the rest of humanity.

Move to the hinterlands, buy a farm, marry well, teach your numerous children, and wait it out.

Ruralism = Germanic Preservation:thumbup

DominionsWolf
Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 06:20 AM
Libertarian constitutional republic.

Then all of you can buy land and form traditonalist, or NS or whatever sort of colony you so desire:thumbup

And I would like said republic to be more of a merit-based system, than a democratic one. That is, if you are found fit to rule, you are placed in the senate, or congress, or whatever.

FranzFed
Friday, June 11th, 2010, 12:21 AM
I feel National Socialism is a very noble ideology and is the best solution for European unity. With that said, in the current disastrous political climate I would go for anything that would move our societies even slightly to the right. These laughable republics we have do nothing to serve the majority and is leading to the slow demise of our culture.

Direct democracy is also an interesting system I'd go for.

Ylva
Friday, June 11th, 2010, 02:37 PM
I'm neither right nor left - I'm a national socialist.

National socialism is the only ideology that truly contains everything. It's my belief, my politics, my philosophy, my world view, my religion, my way of living, the truth. And most important - it's in total harmony with mother nature. No man can set himself above the laws of nature, simple as that.

This isn't a game or something fun - this is life and death, just the way mother nature intended it to be. We are set to this world to live after her rules, and if we don't she'll erase us from the face of the earth.

:)

Irby
Saturday, June 12th, 2010, 12:34 PM
I'm neither right nor left - I'm a national socialist.

National socialism is the only ideology that truly contains everything. It's my belief, my politics, my philosophy, my world view, my religion, my way of living, the truth. And most important - it's in total harmony with mother nature. No man can set himself above the laws of nature, simple as that.

This isn't a game or something fun - this is life and death, just the way mother nature intended it to be. We are set to this world to live after her rules, and if we don't she'll erase us from the face of the earth.

:)

NSDP, I would like to second what Enya said, could not have but it better my self!!!

Þoreiðar
Saturday, June 12th, 2010, 02:31 PM
National/Green-Anarchist.

it's in total harmony with mother nature.Can you elaborate on why you think this?

Cuchullain
Saturday, June 12th, 2010, 03:21 PM
Radical Traditionalism is the ANSWER. I have only recently been enlightened to this political ideology.

Move to the hinterlands, buy a farm, marry well, teach your numerous children, and wait it out.

Ruralism = Germanic Preservation:thumbup

I agree with these sentiments. The idea of setting up a rural homeland was something that we in the HF used to promote.

Sigurd
Saturday, June 12th, 2010, 08:21 PM
I'm neither right nor left - I'm a national socialist.

If you don't mind me asking... ;)

Any "historical" interpretation, and if so, more inspired by Hitler or more inspired by Strasser? Perhaps a more pragmatic, modern approach which isn't opposed to Querfront initiatives? Do you see your National Socialism as a derivation from the German term Nationaler Sozialismus or rather from the German term Nationalsozialismus, which is particularly German and by extension Germanic in its historically caused dimension?

(For the distinction as I understand it, and for the problems befalling the movement, especially those two strands in their opposition, in respect to "National Socialism", this (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=964413&postcount=34) post of mine from last August will be of interest. :))

Or simply basically as a definition for the timeless wisdom any nature-based all-encompassing worldview will have that started long before it was defined as National Socialism and long beyond the point where it will be defined as National Socialism? I.e. as an explication for the natural order which is most beneficial to precisely Germanics?

Either way, since it is something I see as a type of natural order thing, to me the term "National Socialism" (or even the German term Nationalsozialismus) is just one of many terms one can use. It doesn't actually matter what you call it, IMO it is more important that one is following a natural order predestined for our folk. Which is why I generally prefer to use the term "Völkisch", also a traditional term, because since our folk and its wisdom is timeless, the danger of a semantic change in the lexical elements that make up the term used for an ideology is less.

PS: Out of curiosity, whilst we are at it, where do you stand on the question as to whether the "revolution" should come from above or from below? ;)

Bernhard
Saturday, June 12th, 2010, 09:12 PM
Either way, since it is something I see as a type of natural order thing, to me the term "National Socialism" (or even the German term Nationalsozialismus) is just one of many terms one can use. It doesn't actually matter what you call it, IMO it is more important that one is following a natural order predestined for our folk.

Personally I think it is important to use a term to describe this natural order, since there have been many ideologies which claim to be based on how nature intends things to be. Nationalsocialism is one of them, but so are the ideas of the philosophes which led to the French revolution, or the economic theory of Adam Smith or other physiocrats. (Not to mention the "green" parties.) Although there is only one natural way in my view, there have been many ideologies claiming to represent this way, although there were great differences between them. So a term to describe a particular view of what the natural order is really comes in handy.

Ylva
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 05:12 PM
Can you elaborate on why you think this?

I'll give it a try. :)

National socialism doesn't compromise like most other religions or world veiws has done in time. Capitalism, communism and therefore materialism has had a lot of impact on religions that once claimed to cover all existential aspects. Most religions will not survive for long since they are based on blind faith and not reality. To keep the spiritual power over the people religions need to step into politics and when starting parties they eventually loose their ground in whatever faith they believe in. They have compromised.

Unlike all these other philosophys national socialism has never been invented, it has come from Nature's eternal laws, which have existed as long as Universe and which have governed all life since the first primitive organism. Savitri Devi has put this to word in her book "The Lightning and the Sun", it's very interesting, do read it!

In other words, national socialism wasn't invented by Adolf Hitler or any other human being. It's based on endless love to the creation in all its diversity, a deep unconditional respect for Natures wisdome and an intense wish to maintain life as Nature intended it to be.
The only way to achieve this goal is to organize the human society in accordance with these fundamental laws. Thus, it is equally absurd and illogical to be against national socialism as it would be to oppose the law of gravity or the fact that the earth is round.

National socialism is in fact nothing more than the application of physical and biological laws in the political, economic, social and religious areas in the same way as they apply in todays technology. Therefor is national socialism true scientific - unlike all other world views. It doesn't desire to adapt reality to preconceived theories, but instead adapt these theories to fit reality. So, new scientific achievements would immediately be reflected in a national socialist society's practical life.

Needless to say that we sometimes wish that these laws had been a little different, but we must necessarily accept that it's impossible to change them. Nature's laws can not be abolished or amended by vote of the United Nations General Assembly, the U.S. Congress or in any national parliament!
Perhaps everything would have been easier if all human beings and all races were created equal and if there were no hereditary factors that controlled and limited our individual development.
But, this is not the case, and there is absolutely no possibility to change it, no possibility to act like these laws didn't existed. To build a society in such wishful thinking is a deadly sin that can only have disastrous consequences!

I hope I make myself understood. I will not debate very much in English, so please don't expect me to give you answers right away. I'm having a hard time with other languages than Swedish, but I do feel that I have to try in order to learn. I may have some difficulties in understanding and writing sometimes, so please be patient.

Ellaelie
Monday, June 14th, 2010, 02:24 AM
My political beliefs: Paleo-conservatism-Libertarianism.
I support smaller government and states' rights.
I wish my country would shift its focus on itself, rather
than on other countries abroad. The interest in other
countries is costing our taxpayers too much money.

SaxonCeorl
Thursday, June 17th, 2010, 10:47 PM
My political beliefs: Paleo-conservatism-Libertarianism.
I support smaller government and states' rights.
I wish my country would shift its focus on itself, rather
than on other countries abroad. The interest in other
countries is costing our taxpayers too much money.

I'm Libertarian as well. I've explained my views in another thread, so I'll keep myself simple here. To me, Libertarianism is the best pragmatic path to success for our people because in a Libertarian society free of government-enforced minority preference, our people would naturally prosper.

My issue with National Socialism is that it is ultimately coercive. We needn't use government coercion to ensure our success; all we need is a level playing field and we would naturally prosper.

If I'm understanding National Socialism correctly, even fellow white/Germanic people would be punished for refusing to go along with the status quo of the NS agenda. I personally cannot support any violent or coercive action against our own people.

svennio
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 02:35 AM
National Socialist all the way

EQ Fighter
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 03:55 AM
I'll give it a try. :)

National socialism doesn't compromise like most other religions or world veiws has done in time. Capitalism, communism and therefore materialism has had a lot of impact on religions that once claimed to cover all existential aspects.

Sorry that is the first time I have heard National Socialism described as a Religion.

As far a communism and capitalism go, I would say they are flip sides of the same coin. They were; and are, two different ways of distributing resources to societies. And both were built on the industrialist age. But nether that I know, were very religious although the US did prompt religious freedom that the USSR did not.



I hope I make myself understood. I will not debate very much in English, so please don't expect me to give you answers right away. I'm having a hard time with other languages than Swedish, but I do feel that I have to try in order to learn. I may have some difficulties in understanding and writing sometimes, so please be patient.

I would not worry about being linguistically correct here.
It is just a message board.
Just say it and people will figure it out or not.
No big deal!

Irby
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 06:36 AM
Sorry that is the first time I have heard National Socialism described as a Religion.

Naturally, Hitler was an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu. He was sent as a messenger to lead the Germanic people from the chains of Semitic slavery.

Ylva
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 07:50 AM
Sorry that is the first time I have heard National Socialism described as a Religion.
I believe in National Socialism to the extend that it becomes a religion to me. I need no gods in order to find my belief since my belief is based upon the eternal laws of Nature, something you can never disregard or stop believe in, something that wasn't invented. If it's hard for anyone to understand how to indulge in a religion without gods you may say that Mother Nature is a Godess of ours. Her will is always the will that rule the world, if you mess with her she will take you down boy. ;)

There's a new era rising. As Savitri Devi put it, Adolf Hitler was just the predecessor of the One that'll bring this struggle to an end and bring victory to our people. I'll never lose my faith in this.

Irby
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 08:21 AM
There's a new era rising. As Savitri Devi put it, Adolf Hitler was just the predecessor of the One that'll bring this struggle to an end and bring victory to our people. I'll never lose my faith in this.

That is the problem with most people, they see national socialism simply as the events of 1933-1945, but in reality that was the start and not the end of the struggle.

Naturally, you have to understand 'religion' more in an Aryan sense, than in a Semitic sense. The root of religion is 'to bind' 'to bring the people together' and that what is (and will be) necessary in the future.

I like to think of Hitler as a 'Christ' like figure, Jesus's message, I think, has been corrupted, Christ was the Son of God, but so is everyone else. We are all a manifestation of the Divine will of nature, we are all part of it.

As within, so without.

Both Christ and Hitler, were send to save us from Jewish slavery, but they both had to be Crucified in order that we may live.

I am making a comparison not with the corrupt religion of 'Christianity' in its modern sense, and its fake Jesus, but the real man who suffered on the cross, at hands of the Rabbis. And Like Jesus, Hitler will rise again

A strange comparison from someone with a picture of Nietzsche, but he was attacking the religion of Chrisitianity and not Christ

Sigurd
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 09:16 AM
Sorry that is the first time I have heard National Socialism described as a Religion.

You'd be surprised what I've seen described as a religion. ;) She has explained already herself, what she means by that: I.e. the adherence by natural laws and the beauty of nature.

What we Heathens call Orlog and Mother North, I suppose can be seen in a more rational context as well; a different interpretation, a more "non-theistic" derivation, of the natural energies at play, may be equally valid and can take the position of "religion".

When we think of our Heathen ancestors, we often think that they were all Gothis and all sacrificed a tenth of their food to Odin before they ate it. This is of course nonsense, much as the "all-Christian" picture is distorted. There have always been those more secular and those more religious, which doesn't however mean that the more secular need be less spiritually aware. :)

As far a communism and capitalism go, I would say they are flip sides of the same coin. They were; and are, two different ways of distributing resources to societies.

Well, one certainly needs a way of distributing resources to societies. Unless we were going back to direct village society and a barter-and-exchange type
model where I give you a woollen sweater for half a cow, it will need such a method. And since our countries are arguably too over-populated to completely re-ruralise, some method of redistribution will stick with us for a while, essentially also to stay in competition with surrounding powers.

"Controlled capitalism" where the well-earning are encouraged to invest in projects that benefit the entirety of the folk is possible, but highly impracticable. It would perhaps work for a while, but at some point it wouldn't be too feasible any longer, as one will feel like he is being exploited whilst the other will feel he is being pampered anyway. Breeding a work moral into either of them will be fairly important after they're through with it.

Personally, I would favour a more "syndicalist" approach, much akin to a functioning guild system; based on local co-operatives that have their representation in national co-operatives. This way, it is possible to both gear the economy on a regional level AND a national level, with one village/town co-operating between its folk, but also all blacksmiths or all lumberjacks or all builders represented also by a national instance to ensure that all trades are in good repair.

Sounds a bit Strasserist perhaps, but I staunchly refuse that label, since unlike the Strasser brothers I derive a Führer principle based on Platonic philosopher-kingship and that goes in direct opposition to what the Strasser brothers intended. ;)

I would not worry about being linguistically correct here.
It is just a message board.
Just say it and people will figure it out or not.
No big deal!

I think you should not take such an egalitarian viewpoint upon this. Instead, you should be flattered that she considers it important to be able to converse at a high level in your language. She obviously considers speech and writing as an important instrument not to be neglected and places much priority in making herself understood rather than misunderstood.

Perhaps if you Americans were less arrogant about everybody speaking your language anyway, instead of learning your fellow Germanic's language. In fact, if it weren't for this Anglo-American language arrogance about how everyone speaks English anyway, we could just as well be conversing in German; most Dutch and Scandinavians speak it fairly fluently. ;)

That includes the English - I actually have a lengthy article here about how foreign language tuition in schools was cut down in the past two decades! ... If we compare this with NS rule in Germany in the 1933-1945 period we actually learn how important foreign language tuition was considered, especially in terms of knowing about other cultures and thus for the common German to accurately judge world politics.

Whilst not everything was gold during the 1933-1945 period and whilst certain high personalities began corrupting everything that NS in its fundaments stood for (Göring, to name one. Himmler to some extent, to name another) during the last 3-4 years in their secret power struggle after Hess as the unquestioned "beta-wolf" had been lost to British imprisonment, we do learn a number of things our enemies are not wont to admit. The abundance of foreign language teaching in Third Reich schools is one of them. ;)

Þoreiðar
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 02:17 PM
[...] we could just as well be conversing in German; most Dutch and Scandinavians speak it fairly fluently. ;)Maybe the Dutch, but most Scandianavians do not speak nor understand German well enough to be able to have a discussion in that language.

Sigurd
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 03:28 PM
Maybe the Dutch, but most Scandianavians do not speak nor understand German well enough to be able to have a discussion in that language.

This must be a fairly recently, and actually relatively alarming phenomenon then. My grandparents both worked for Scandinavian firms: My grandfather for a Danish firm, my grandmother for a Swedish firm. The first memory I have of either nationality is these work colleagues visiting down here and playing tennis.

They all spoke very fluent German, my grandfather remarked this was common, especially with Swedes. That it should take a few decades, or a single generation alone that English has taken that place to the extent that most indigenous Scandinavians have not even basic command of German would be fairly alarming, and I would mind every Scandinavian to take initiative and teach it to their children as well.

My children will grow up at least with a book on a Scandinavian language (and the odd holiday), likely Swedish since that's the one I have at least basic knowledge of myself, it would be delightful for intra-Germanic communication if such happened up north as well. Surely at least being able to converse with Germanics in other countries in their native language is a more favourable state than English as as a de-facto lingua franca for our entire Germanic area. ;)

arcticdoctor
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 05:15 PM
I'll give it a try. :)

National socialism doesn't compromise like most other religions or world veiws has done in time. Capitalism, communism and therefore materialism has had a lot of impact on religions that once claimed to cover all existential aspects. Most religions will not survive for long since they are based on blind faith and not reality. To keep the spiritual power over the people religions need to step into politics and when starting parties they eventually loose their ground in whatever faith they believe in. They have compromised.

Unlike all these other philosophys national socialism has never been invented, it has come from Nature's eternal laws, which have existed as long as Universe and which have governed all life since the first primitive organism. Savitri Devi has put this to word in her book "The Lightning and the Sun", it's very interesting, do read it!

In other words, national socialism wasn't invented by Adolf Hitler or any other human being. It's based on endless love to the creation in all its diversity, a deep unconditional respect for Natures wisdome and an intense wish to maintain life as Nature intended it to be.
The only way to achieve this goal is to organize the human society in accordance with these fundamental laws. Thus, it is equally absurd and illogical to be against national socialism as it would be to oppose the law of gravity or the fact that the earth is round.

National socialism is in fact nothing more than the application of physical and biological laws in the political, economic, social and religious areas in the same way as they apply in todays technology. Therefor is national socialism true scientific - unlike all other world views. It doesn't desire to adapt reality to preconceived theories, but instead adapt these theories to fit reality. So, new scientific achievements would immediately be reflected in a national socialist society's practical life.

Needless to say that we sometimes wish that these laws had been a little different, but we must necessarily accept that it's impossible to change them. Nature's laws can not be abolished or amended by vote of the United Nations General Assembly, the U.S. Congress or in any national parliament!
Perhaps everything would have been easier if all human beings and all races were created equal and if there were no hereditary factors that controlled and limited our individual development.
But, this is not the case, and there is absolutely no possibility to change it, no possibility to act like these laws didn't existed. To build a society in such wishful thinking is a deadly sin that can only have disastrous consequences!

I hope I make myself understood. I will not debate very much in English, so please don't expect me to give you answers right away. I'm having a hard time with other languages than Swedish, but I do feel that I have to try in order to learn. I may have some difficulties in understanding and writing sometimes, so please be patient.

Enya: That is the best, most concise exposition of National Socialism
that I have ever read. I wish I had as good a command of the English
language as you.



My own personal Hajj:
1) Sachsenhain. 2) Externsteine, Solstice. 3) Beryl, Solstice. 4)Birth of a Nation.
5) Communing with the spirits of the Berghof. 6) Herman. 6) Dietrich Eckart.

arcticdoctor
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 06:55 PM
I'm Libertarian as well. I've explained my views in another thread, so I'll keep myself simple here. To me, Libertarianism is the best pragmatic path to success for our people because in a Libertarian society free of government-enforced minority preference, our people would naturally prosper.

My issue with National Socialism is that it is ultimately coercive. We needn't use government coercion to ensure our success; all we need is a level playing field and we would naturally prosper.

If I'm understanding National Socialism correctly, even fellow white/Germanic people would be punished for refusing to go along with the status quo of the NS agenda. I personally cannot support any violent or coercive action against our own people.

Unfortunately, Libertarianism has failed in its practical test in the US.
Mainly because libertarians don't seem to understand the actual power
structure of a capitalist controlled society. And they don't seem to be able
to grasp the concept that "communism" is simply a "stalking horse"
created and financed by the "capitalists".

National Socialism is not coercive to the people, its coercive to the rapacious elements of society. Capitalists and communists love Libertarianism, because with the laissez faire economic theories espoused by libertarians,
along with the libertarians' "virtual reality" version of a "level playing field,"the Capitalist Corporations have bought up this country lock, stock, and barrel. And they didn't do it with any level playing field either. They did it
with massive accumulation of capital by fraud, bribery, monopolies, violent
strike breaking, cartels, "cost plus" government contracts, importing cheap labor, war profiteering, murder, extortion, racketeering, insider trading,
stock manipulation, stock swindles, selling defective goods, dumping toxic chemicals, false advertising, and, the most telling crime of all, bankrolling
both candidates for political office up to and including the two candidates
for the "President of the United States". Obviously , I know its obvious but since libertarians are adept at missing the obvious I will state it anyway,
obviously to control the Presidency no matter which dog wins.

National Socialism is coercive to the criminals, sociopaths, and other
deviant elements of society. Which is why the Capitalists of the US,
when they realized the true nature of National Socialism,joined
ranks with their co-criminals in the Soviet Union to smash NS Germany.

And I apologize in advance if I sounded snippy, but, really, I have
witnessed 50 years of failure of libertarian ideology. And my further contention is that libertarianism is not just non-productive, but it is actually
counter-productive. Capitalists promote Libertarianism just because of its
giant "blind spot" with the true nature of Capitalism.

Þoreiðar
Monday, June 21st, 2010, 02:35 AM
This must be a fairly recently, and actually relatively alarming phenomenon then. My grandparents both worked for Scandinavian firms: My grandfather for a Danish firm, my grandmother for a Swedish firm. The first memory I have of either nationality is these work colleagues visiting down here and playing tennis.I believe there is no mandatory education of German in elementary schools in Scandinavia, except some in Denmark. In Norway, some pupils choose it voluntarily as a subject in elementary school or as a "side-language" as a part of later "common education". But it is not as popular as Spanish (and neither French I believe). And even most people who go through such "side-language classes" only learn what they need to pass the next test or exam, which is then forgotten when school is over.

German language is more or less completely absent in modern-day Scandinavia, so it is both hard and unnecessary to maintain the knowledge of the language once the classes are gone.

SaxonCeorl
Monday, June 21st, 2010, 03:32 AM
National Socialism is not coercive to the people, its coercive to the rapacious elements of society. The Capitalist Corporations have bought up this country lock, stock, and barrel. And they didn't do it with any level playing field either. They did it with massive accumulation of capital by fraud, bribery, monopolies, violent strike breaking, cartels, "cost plus" government contracts, importing cheap labor, war profiteering, murder, extortion, racketeering, insider trading,
stock manipulation, stock swindles, selling defective goods, dumping toxic chemicals, false advertising, and, the most telling crime of all, bankrolling
both candidates for political office up to and including the two candidates
for the "President of the United States".

Hmmm...fraud, importing cheap (or slave) labor, war profiteering, murder (or mass genocides)...don't National Socialists like that kind of thing? ;)

And I apologize in advance if I sounded snippy, but, really, I have witnessed 50 years of failure of libertarian ideology.

You have not seen 50 years of a failed libertarian ideology because our country has not even been nominally libertarian for over 100 years. The past 50 years have seen our country slip further and further into minority-pandering socialism.

It's really just a comparison of private capitalist control of society with Libertarianism and government control of society with National Socialism. Private capitalism is easier for society to control via freedom of competition and consumer pressure. National Socialism, at least based on the 1930s/40s German model, leaves virtually no options for society to control them (no legitimate elections or freedom of speech. In fact, NS allows no aspect of society to remain free of government supervision. Absolutely none.) I'd much prefer the former 'tyranny', thanks.

arcticdoctor
Monday, June 21st, 2010, 03:53 AM
"I'd much prefer the former 'tyranny', thanks."

Well, the good news is you got what you prefer.

" Hmmm...fraud, importing cheap (or slave) labor, war profiteering, murder (or mass genocides)...don't National Socialists like that kind of thing? "

Me thinks you have been watching way too much History Channel.

blackoak
Monday, June 21st, 2010, 03:58 AM
Ideally, tribal anarchism.

On a more realistic level...
Libertarian.

SaxonCeorl
Monday, June 21st, 2010, 04:35 AM
"I'd much prefer the former 'tyranny', thanks."

Well, the good news is you got what you prefer.

" Hmmm...fraud, importing cheap (or slave) labor, war profiteering, murder (or mass genocides)...don't National Socialists like that kind of thing? "

Me thinks you have been watching way too much History Channel.

Sir, I guarantee you that I see nothing whatsoever about our current government that I prefer. We might as well have the hammer and sickle on our flag.

And I don't really care for UFO's and Big Foot, so I don't watch much History Channel anymore.

Nature's laws can not be abolished or amended by vote of the United Nations General Assembly, the U.S. Congress or in any national parliament! Perhaps everything would have been easier if all human beings and all races were created equal and if there were no hereditary factors that controlled and limited our individual development. But, this is not the case, and there is absolutely no possibility to change it, no possibility to act like these laws didn't existed. To build a society in such wishful thinking is a deadly sin that can only have disastrous consequences!

Indeed, Enya! This is absolutely true. My view of true Libertarianism is no different; left unprotected without any affirmative action schemes and other such social engineering that goes against the laws of nature, the strongest people will prosper and the weaker ones will struggle and eventually wither away. Social Darwinism at its best. Furthermore, Libertarian 'social Darwinism' gives us the moral satisfaction of knowing that we simply allowed nature to take its course without any blood on our hands.

Vindefense
Monday, June 21st, 2010, 10:34 PM
You have not seen 50 years of a failed libertarian ideology because our country has not even been nominally libertarian for over 100 years. The past 50 years have seen our country slip further and further into minority-pandering socialism.

This and the fact that more and more, government must implement protectionist policies such as the 'bailouts' and the ever growing mountain of laws and regulations. In fact we almost live in an age where the effects of idiocy is universally shielded. The word of the day is insurance. OSHA, EPA, FDA, FDIC, ect. all these organizations exist to limit the effects of bad decisions and irresponsibility yet what they achieve for the moment pales in comparison to the bigger disaster looming.

left unprotected without any affirmative action schemes and other such social engineering that goes against the laws of nature, the strongest people will prosper and the weaker ones will struggle and eventually wither away. Social Darwinism at its best.

True, libertarianism is ultimately meritocratic. However many will not like this because it destroys the ability to preserve power and status among any one group.

Furthermore, Libertarian 'social Darwinism' gives us the moral satisfaction of knowing that we simply allowed nature to take its course without any blood on our hands.

But what becomes of the lowly and the unworthy? You infer that they will wither away but it seems unlikely.

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010, 12:05 AM
Sigurd
"Controlled capitalism" where the well-earning are encouraged to invest in projects that benefit the entirety of the folk is possible, but highly impracticable. It would perhaps work for a while, but at some point it wouldn't be too feasible any longer, as one will feel like he is being exploited whilst the other will feel he is being pampered anyway. Breeding a work moral into either of them will be fairly important after they're through with it.

“Controlled Capitalism” is more or less what we have, the method of control being the Corporation.

Sigurd
Personally, I would favour a more "syndicalist" approach, much akin to a functioning guild system; based on local co-operatives that have their representation in national co-operatives.

This way, it is possible to both gear the economy on a regional level AND a national level, with one village/town co-operating between its folk, but also all blacksmiths or all lumberjacks or all builders represented also by a national instance to ensure that all trades are in good repair.

Why don’t you elaborate more fully on exactly how this would work?

Sigurd
Perhaps if you Americans were less arrogant about everybody speaking your language anyway, instead of learning your fellow Germanic's language. In fact, if it weren't for this Anglo-American language arrogance about how everyone speaks English anyway, we could just as well be conversing in German; most Dutch and Scandinavians speak it fairly fluently.

Well as a general historical rule, the dominant language goes to the dominant empire of the time, and for now that happens to be the US Anglo/ English aligned countries. If in another ten years the dominant empire is china then the dominant language will be Chinese. Do you think they will be less arrogant ? ;)


Enya

If it's hard for anyone to understand how to indulge in a religion without gods you may say that Mother Nature is a Godess of ours. Her will is always the will that rule the world, if you mess with her she will take you down boy.
Well lucky for me I don’t own a major Corporation, and I try to obey natural law, so right now I think me an Mother Nature are cool! ;)

SaxonCeorl
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010, 03:59 AM
But what becomes of the lowly and the unworthy? You infer that they will wither away but it seems unlikely.

I was trying to explain how Libertarianism is in accord with the laws of nature (based on Enya's points). To be perfectly honest, it makes me feel bad to think of groups and races of people suffering and 'withering away' and, morally, I don't relish that at all or wish for it to happen. I'd like to see a middle path that avoids great violence and human destruction while also bringing societal success more in line with ability without as much social subsidization.

LadyFirehawk
Monday, June 28th, 2010, 10:49 PM
I have not fully formed my political beliefs yet, but Libertarian is probably about as close as any of the major US labels get. I really don't care what people do at home, as long as they're not stepping on anyone else's toes. No government interference in my daily life, thank you very much-- if I wanted that, I would have stayed in the military! (I don't regret having served, but I really was not cut out for a military career.)

In a nutshell, government hands OFF-- and yes, to me this includes what goes on in the bedroom. Let the gays marry, and let them have deal with divorce laws. The grass isn't always greener! :P

Myrkwid
Tuesday, June 29th, 2010, 08:25 PM
social-aristocratic basic democratic national conservative revolutionary

KasparHauser
Monday, July 26th, 2010, 08:41 AM
Fascist with National Socialist sympathies.

Lone Rebel
Sunday, August 22nd, 2010, 10:46 PM
White Nationalist/Constitutionalist.

arcticdoctor
Monday, August 23rd, 2010, 05:41 AM
I have not fully formed my political beliefs yet, but Libertarian is probably about as close as any of the major US labels get. I really don't care what people do at home, as long as they're not stepping on anyone else's toes. No government interference in my daily life, thank you very much-- if I wanted that, I would have stayed in the military! (I don't regret having served, but I really was not cut out for a military career.)

In a nutshell, government hands OFF-- and yes, to me this includes what goes on in the bedroom. Let the gays marry, and let them have deal with divorce laws. The grass isn't always greener! :P

"Let the gays marry, and let them have deal with divorce laws. The grass isn't always greener! "

Ha ha, now that would be poetic justice!

Witta
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010, 10:12 AM
English Nationalism allied to other Germanic nations.

Thorwolf
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010, 01:15 AM
I am an ethnocentric tribalist!

I used to call myself a National socialist, but in my old age I have learned to see the flaws!

I do not hate anyone because of their race, but that does not mean that i will invite them to my house for tea.

I will be civil to anyone who is civil to me, but that does not mean that we are all equals.

nordfrisk
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010, 04:09 AM
i do think i would lie as a supporter of a republic form of democracy, capitalism when it comes to economics. however socially i am very conservative. social issues and economic issues are very different to me politically.

AlecEinWindir
Saturday, October 16th, 2010, 09:11 AM
Racially aware/ethnic nationalist, Communist Marxist-Leninist.

I am disgusted by the infiltration into Socialism and Communism in the past decades by reformist pigs and liberal idiots.

Socialism is merely workers controlling the means of production, they have a say in how what they produce goes towards. Soviets are workers councils which gather all wage laborers and allow them to voice their concerns and rights within their enterprise.

Socialism is an economic theory. This tolerance crap disgusts me.

Silesian
Tuesday, October 19th, 2010, 10:16 PM
"Socialism is an economic theory" and only works in theory

Caledonian
Tuesday, October 19th, 2010, 11:29 PM
I consider myself a individualist anarchist where although I support capitalism I do like some ideas of syndicalism but on a more competitive base.

( A sort of admixture in that I flirt with both ideas.)

I'm a firm believer that the government is the biggest threat to our race, culture, and individuality where there is only independence where there is no centralized government at all where instead there is only local rule where communities rule themselves on a local regional scale.

I'm also against centralized institutionalism and I'm somewhat of a anti intellectual when it concerns that subject as that is just a expression of defaming it's opposition.

Rev. Jupiter
Tuesday, October 19th, 2010, 11:45 PM
I wish there was an option between "Other" and "Not interested in politics".

Modern political systems are based on the egalitarian nonsense of the Enlightenment Era, and as such I find it hard to take any of them seriously.
If I had my way we would return to a caste-based theocratic monarchy, but since my preferred system is so beyond the reach of the modern political paradigm I tend to avoid political thinking or action.

Also, since I see my ideal political system as being impossible to implement in this day and age, my political orientation is largely situational. That is, in some situations I support National Anarchism, in other situations Fascism, and so forth.

NatRev
Wednesday, October 27th, 2010, 08:50 PM
How can you call ecologism 'left wing' when 'left wing' really means 'pro-state' as opposed to 'pro-market' 'right wing'?

I'm very GREEN but also BROWN with a dash of RED, but to be perfectly honest I dislike Capitalism yet I also distrust the State.

If I had to give my beliefs a name they'd be ECOVOLKIST
;)

Joe McCarthy
Wednesday, October 27th, 2010, 08:55 PM
I'm a Comtean, which is to say I'm a Scientific Nationalist or anticipatory conservative. Above all I'm a realist and am very anti-idealistic.

Elessar
Wednesday, October 27th, 2010, 09:20 PM
Aryanist.
The only hope for this world.

Thorodinssohn
Thursday, October 28th, 2010, 02:15 PM
Aryanist.
The only hope for this world.

Could I ask you to elaborate on what Aryanists stand for? When I hear the phrase, I think along the lines of National Socialism or something similar. I would assume a core principle of racial preservation, but is there anything else you would associate with it? I'm genuinely interested in what it means, so any enlightenment you might provide would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Thorodinssohn

Elessar
Thursday, October 28th, 2010, 04:58 PM
Could I ask you to elaborate on what Aryanists stand for? When I hear the phrase, I think along the lines of National Socialism or something similar. I would assume a core principle of racial preservation, but is there anything else you would associate with it? I'm genuinely interested in what it means, so any enlightenment you might provide would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Thorodinssohn

You can visit us at our website, aryanism.net, where you'll find a multitude of articles outlining the Aryanist culture, philosophy, political & economical standpoint, and religious views. I recommend you read the FAQ.

Regards.

Elessar
Thursday, October 28th, 2010, 05:02 PM
You can visit us at our website, aryanism.net, where you'll find a multitude of pages outlining the Aryanist culture, philosophy, political & economical standpoint, and religious views. I recommend you read the FAQ.

Regards.

Caledonian
Friday, October 29th, 2010, 05:16 AM
My politics have been changing a bit this month as I've been branching out studying various forms of politics and economics in my personal time often enough to the point of self disillusionment.

I still consider myself a anarchist individualist one that supports anarchist individualism where I still support nationalism.

However I'm not so sure if I would call myself a anarchist capitalist anymore because recently I've been coming to the the conclusion that capitalism has harmed the west where indeed capitalism may be the reasoning behind our collective downfall.

I still like some aspirations of capitalism because some of it's ideas and perspectives are useful where indeed I do view competition to be a very critical emblem of human nature that cannot be ignored if one wants to base themselves in reality.

More and more I've been embracing the ideas of anarchist syndicalism where I have come to conclusion that added with collectivism I think is a effective independent model for anarchism.

[Then add that with my sense of localism, regionalism, and nationalism where bingo you have a effective coordinated form of anarchism for the modern anarchist.]

I'm beginning to flirt with concepts of collective socialism but I don't believe in government centralized versions of socialism due to their habit of evolving into centralized socialist forms of government fascism somthing which as a anarchist I extremely oppose.

[ Amongst all of this culturally I still consider myself a traditional conservative with a strong sense leaning to male patriarchy.]

Das Ubertarian
Friday, November 5th, 2010, 03:34 AM
Anarcho-Capitalist. The Germanic people must be free, and the Totalitarianism of the NS's will not accomplish this. On the contrary, it will serve to enslave them to the state allegedly designed to protect them. We can protect ourselves.

Caledonian
Sunday, November 7th, 2010, 01:16 AM
Anarcho-Capitalist. The Germanic people must be free, and the Totalitarianism of the NS's will not accomplish this. On the contrary, it will serve to enslave them to the state allegedly designed to protect them. We can protect ourselves.

I used to be anarchist capitalist myself until I've recently come to the perspective that excess capitalism is actually one of the many things that is eroding our sense of identity and being.

Excessive capitalism I think is disconnecting ourselves from each other with it's over hyped inflated sense of individual competition that tears away at our sense of social collectivity.

There are certainly some ideas that I like of capitalism that I wish to retain but overall I think it interferes with social collectivity with it's emphasis on individual competition which tends to isolate each of us from each other and it also allows a minority of the population to control the rest which leads to dictative oppression.

That's why I've moved to anarchist syndicalism and a more socialist model in favor over anarchist capitalist ones.

Competition is great but once it becomes over excessive it disconnects each of us from each other which can be devestating socially to any form of collectivity on our part.

When it comes to our movement we want as much inter connectivity that is possible for us all to be unified.

When monetary value is the highest value and sense to individuals as it is now it tends to make any level of connectivity on our part that much harder to achieve I think.

[This is why recently I have changed my political orientation a bit.]

Caledonian
Sunday, November 7th, 2010, 01:55 AM
We have zionists on board??!!:-O

If only the poll was a public one we could see who......

Das Ubertarian
Thursday, November 11th, 2010, 05:45 AM
I used to be anarchist capitalist myself until I've recently come to the perspective that excess capitalism is actually one of the many things that is eroding our sense of identity and being.

Excessive capitalism I think is disconnecting ourselves from each other with it's over hyped inflated sense of individual competition that tears away at our sense of social collectivity.

There are certainly some ideas that I like of capitalism that I wish to retain but overall I think it interferes with social collectivity with it's emphasis on individual competition which tends to isolate each of us from each other and it also allows a minority of the population to control the rest which leads to dictative oppression.

That's why I've moved to anarchist syndicalism and a more socialist model in favor over anarchist capitalist ones.

Competition is great but once it becomes over excessive it disconnects each of us from each other which can be devestating socially to any form of collectivity on our part.

When it comes to our movement we want as much inter connectivity that is possible for us all to be unified.

When monetary value is the highest value and sense to individuals as it is now it tends to make any level of connectivity on our part that much harder to achieve I think.

[This is why recently I have changed my political orientation a bit.]
There is nothing in an An-Cap society preventing you and like-minded people from practicing your beliefs, so long as all others are left in peace.

Caledonian
Thursday, November 11th, 2010, 11:28 PM
There is nothing in an An-Cap society preventing you and like-minded people from practicing your beliefs, so long as all others are left in peace.

In a world where blackmail coercion and violence rules over societies there will never be any peace.

[Peace is fantasy.]

Das Ubertarian
Saturday, November 13th, 2010, 01:13 AM
In a world where blackmail coercion and violence rules over societies there will never be any peace.

[Peace is fantasy.]
In a world bereft of private property, there will never be plenty.

The very founding principle of an AnCap society is the absence of coercion. I am not seeing how a society based entirely on voluntary exchange and cooperation is one based on blackmail and violence.

NatRev
Saturday, November 13th, 2010, 09:07 AM
sometimes it's hard to express political views without being stereotyped and I'd rather people just be themselves and find their own beliefs that way rather than just say 'oh I'm a Republican' and every thought they have is 'a Republican thought' etc...

Culturally I'm BROWN (Nationalist)
Economically I'm RED (Socialist) (Strasserism)
Environmentally I'm GREEN (erm... Green)

But I'm also probably possibly BLACK (Anarchist)

However I'm probably leaning more towards National Anarchism as an ideal.

A self contained eco society of no more than a few hundred like minded people prepared to work together for a common good.

I had a contact with a Dutch Green National Anarchist group a few years back but they seemed to fizzle out or lost contact.

But I'd call myself ECO-VOLKIST for short. :D

Caledonian
Saturday, November 13th, 2010, 03:36 PM
In a world bereft of private property, there will never be plenty.

The very founding principle of an AnCap society is the absence of coercion. I am not seeing how a society based entirely on voluntary exchange and cooperation is one based on blackmail and violence.

The problem with capitalism is excessive hyper individual competition which in turn damages social collectivity and cohesion.

Even in a existence of anarchy under a capitalistic economical system that would still be a problem although probally less of a one without centralization of government that we have now.

I don't seek to get rid of private property or competition.

I merely seek to make both a less dominant force in our lives by replacing them with other aspirations that in turn will make us more socially collective.

The very founding principle of an AnCap society is the absence of coercion. I am not seeing how a society based entirely on voluntary exchange and cooperation is one based on blackmail and violence.

In a existence of anarchy under capitalist principles it wouldn't be unheard of for individuals to form groups by competing amongst others and wandering individuals for sense of profit or power.

In a existence of anarchist capitalism there certainly wouldn't be anything that would state that such individuals wouldn't be able to do so elsewise either.

In a existence of anarchist syndicalism or anarchist socialism there would be specific intervals in place that wouldn't allow such instances to take place in comparison because in socialism excessive individual competition would be opted out for a more socially collective expirience of living so that no threat to social cohesion would be allowed in being established that would be counter conducive.

Das Ubertarian
Saturday, November 13th, 2010, 09:12 PM
The problem with capitalism is excessive hyper individual competition which in turn damages social collectivity and cohesion.

Even in a existence of anarchy under a capitalistic economical system that would still be a problem although probally less of a one without centralization of government that we have now.

I don't seek to get rid of private property or competition.

I merely seek to make both a less dominant force in our lives by replacing them with other aspirations that in turn will make us more socially collective.



In a existence of anarchy under capitalist principles it wouldn't be unheard of for individuals to form groups by competing amongst others and wandering individuals for sense of profit or power.

In a existence of anarchist capitalism there certainly wouldn't be anything that would state that such individuals wouldn't be able to do so elsewise either.

In a existence of anarchist syndicalism or anarchist socialism there would be specific intervals in place that wouldn't allow such instances to take place in comparison because in socialism excessive individual competition would be opted out for a more socially collective expirience of living so that no threat to social cohesion would be allowed in being established that would be counter conducive.
There is nothing that suggests that removing the State will somehow make men into hyper-individualists and make them ultra competitive against everyone else. Capitalism, rather than being an engine to promote 'destructive' 'cutthroat' competition, drives ever increasing cooperation and abundance through the division of labour.
Economic interdependence through specialization will more than suffice to make society both more collectively concerned and vastly more prosperous.
After the first section, your post becomes highly incoherent to the point that I'm having trouble interpreting it without thinking I'm straw-manning your positions. If you could clarify the second section, it would be much appreciated.

Guntwachar
Saturday, November 13th, 2010, 09:48 PM
I call myself a Free-Thinker, my ideology combines elements of Social Darwinism, National Anarchism, Anti-Monarchism & Green politics.

Caledonian
Saturday, November 13th, 2010, 10:43 PM
There is nothing that suggests that removing the State will somehow make men into hyper-individualists and make them ultra competitive against everyone else. Capitalism, rather than being an engine to promote 'destructive' 'cutthroat' competition, drives ever increasing cooperation and abundance through the division of labour.
Economic interdependence through specialization will more than suffice to make society both more collectively concerned and vastly more prosperous.
After the first section, your post becomes highly incoherent to the point that I'm having trouble interpreting it without thinking I'm straw-manning your positions. If you could clarify the second section, it would be much appreciated.

There is nothing that suggests that removing the State will somehow make men into hyper-individualists and make them ultra competitive against everyone else.

What I was trying to say is that such activity is a consequence of capitalism where even with the removal of state operated capitalism in a existence of anarchy operated by capitalistic principles you would still have the same consequential outputs because instead you would have self autonomous individuals forming capitalist enterprising groups that would seek out similar mechanisms only without a centralized state or government in comparison being only the real difference in such a scenario.

Capitalism, rather than being an engine to promote 'destructive' 'cutthroat' competition, drives ever increasing cooperation and abundance through the division of labour.

Really? ......Because I only see examples of it's opposite under capitalistic economical and social conditions derived from......


Capitalist globalization produces poverty, ill-health, shortened life-spans, reduced quality of life, and ecological collapse...Humanity's well-being does not guide the process, but is instead sacrificed on behalf of private profit.



"Capitalism revolves around private ownership of the means of production, market allocation, and corporate divisions of labor. It remunerates property, power, and to a limited extent contribution to output. Class divisions arise from differences in property ownership, and differential access to empowered work versus subservient work. Class divisions induce huge differences in decision-making influence and quality of life."

Michael Albert
Parecon: Life After Capitalism





1. Capitalism tends to degrade the conditions of its own production.
2. Capitalism must expand without end in order to exist
3. Capital leads to a chaotic world-system, increasingly polarized between rich and poor, which cannot adequately address the ecological crisis.
The combination makes an ever-growing ecological crisis an iron necessity so long as capital rules, no matter what measures are taken to tidy up one corner or another.

Joel Kovel
The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World?





"The rules of chess make it immaterial who plays with white and who with black; the rules of the game that make up society, however, generally confer systematic advantage on one group or another...The asymmetry of the games is the key to our understanding of domination."

Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis
Democracy and Capitalism:
Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought

A market arena of self-interested and anonymous interaction might reduce not only the need for compassion, but also the sentiment itself. In this respect, the economy produces people as well as things, and the capitalist economy produces people that are not ideally equipped with the democratic sentiments and capacities.







Economic interdependence through specialization will more than suffice to make society both more collectively concerned and vastly more prosperous.


Capitalism is the legalization [of] greed. Greed has been with human beings forever. We have a number of things in our species that you would call the dark side, and greed is one of them. If you don't put certain structures in place or restrictions on those parts of our being that come from that dark place, then it gets out of control. Capitalism does the opposite of that. It not only doesn't really put any structure or restriction on it. It encourages it, it rewards it."

Naomi Klein


After the first section, your post becomes highly incoherent to the point that I'm having trouble interpreting it without thinking I'm straw-manning your positions. If you could clarify the second section, it would be much appreciated.

Where exactly am I straw manning my positions?

I admit that I've been falling asleep a couple of times over today where my thinking may not entirely be completely astute as usual but by having gone over what I have said previously I see nothing incorrect that warrants such descriptions of what I have previously said.

What must I clarify?

Das Ubertarian
Sunday, November 14th, 2010, 12:33 AM
You want a quote war, now do ya?
The characteristic mark of economic history under capitalism is unceasing economic progress, a steady increase in the quantity of capital goods available, and a continuous trend toward an improvement in the general standard of living.
Capitalism is essentially a system of mass production for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses. It pours a horn of plenty upon the common man. It has raised the average standard of living to a height never dreamed of in earlier ages. It has made accessible to millions of people enjoyments which a few generations ago were only within the reach of a small elite.
Many pioneers of these industrial changes, it is true, became rich. But they acquired their wealth by supplying the public with motor cars, airplanes, radio sets, refrigerators, moving and talking pictures, and variety of less spectacular but no less useful innovations. These new products were certainly not an achievement of offices and bureaucrats.
The development of capitalism consists in everyone having the right to serve the consumer better and/or more cheaply.
There is no western, capitalistic country in which the conditions of the masses have not improved in an unprecedented way.
It is inherent in the nature of the capitalistic economy that, in the final analysis, the employment of the factors of production is aimed only toward serving the wishes of consumers.
The capitalistic social order, therefore, is an economic democracy in the strictest sense of the word. In the last analysis, all decisions are dependent on the will of the people as consumers. Thus, whenever there is a conflict between the consumers views and those of the business managers, market pressures assure that the views of the consumers win out eventually.
Grumblers may blame Western civilization for its materialism and may assert that it gratified nobody but a small class of rugged exploiters. But their laments cannot wipe out the facts. Millions of mothers have been made happier by the drop in infant mortality. Famines have disappeared and epidemics have been curbed.
Capitalism gave the world what it needed, a higher standard of living for a steadily increasing number of people.
In the capitalist society there is a place and bread for all. Its ability to expand provides sustenance for every worker. Permanent unemployment is not a feature of free capitalism.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.
Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts.
Individualism resulted in the fall of autocratic government, the establishment of democracy, the evolution of capitalism, technical improvements, and an unprecedented rise in standards of living. It substituted enlightenment for old superstitions, scientific methods of research for inveterate prejudices.
Under the division of labor, the structure of society rests on the shoulders of all men and women.
Every expansion of the personal division of labor brings advantages to all who take part in it.
The greater productivity of work under the division of labor is a unifying influence. It leads men to regard each other as comrades in a joint struggle for welfare, rather than as competitors in a struggle for existence. It makes friends out of enemies, peace out of war, society out of individuals.
Originally confined to the narrowest circles of people, to immediate neighbors, the division of labor gradually becomes more general until eventually it includes all mankind.
Now the greatest accomplishment of reason is the discovery of the advantages of social cooperation, and its corollary, the division of labor.
It is by virtue of the division of labor that man is distinguished from the animals. It is the division of labor that has made feeble man, far inferior to most animals in physical strength, the lord of the earth and the creator of the marvels of technology.
Competitors aim at excellence and preeminence in accomplishments within a system of mutual cooperation. The function of competition is to assign to every member of the social system that position in which he can best serve the whole of society and all its members.
The sharper the competition, the better it serves its social function to improve economic production.
It is not mankind, the state, or the corporative unit that acts, but individual men and groups of men, and their valuations and their action are decisive, not those of abstract collectivities.
Collectivism is a doctrine of war, intolerance, and persecution. If any of the collectivist creeds should succeed in its endeavors, all people but the great dictator would be deprived of their essential human quality. They would become mere soulless pawns in the hands of a monster.
The collectivists idolize only the one true church, only the great nation . . . only the true state; everything else they condemn. For that reason all collectivists doctrines are harbingers of irreconcilable hatred and war to the death.
There is no kind of freedom and liberty other than the kind which the market economy brings about. In a totalitarian hegemonic society the only freedom that is left to the individual, because it cannot be denied to him, is the freedom to commit suicide.
-Ludwig von Mises

What I asked you to clarify were the last two paragraphs of twisting sentences that obscured the meaning of what you were trying to say.

Caledonian
Sunday, November 14th, 2010, 03:25 AM
It was not my intention here to have a quotation parade in seeing who is all the wiser however if you must divulge I shall entertain as well.

Robert Tressell, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists (1914)

"Money is the real cause of poverty," said Owen.

"Prove it," repeated Crass.

"Money is the cause of poverty because it is the device by which those who are too lazy to work are enabled to rob the workers of the fruits of their labour."

"Prove it," said Crass.

Owen slowly folded up the piece of newspaper he had been reading and put it into his pocket.

"'All right,' he replied. 'I'll show you how the Great Money Trick is worked."

Owen opened his dinner basket and took from it two slices of bread but as these were not sufficient, he requested that anyone who had some bread left would give it to him. They gave him several pieces, which he placed in a heap on a clean piece of paper, and, having borrowed the pocket knives they used to cut and eat their dinners with from Easton, Harlow and Philpot, he addressed them as follows:

"These pieces of bread represent the raw materials which exist naturally in and on the earth for the use of mankind; they were not made by any human being, but were created by the Great Spirit for the benefit and sustenance of all, the same as were the air and the light of the sun."

"You're about as fair-speakin' a man as I've met for some time," said Harlow, winking at the others.

"Yes, mate," said Philpot. "Anyone would agree to that much! It's as clear as mud."

"Now," continued Owen, "I am a capitalist; or, rather, I represent the landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present argument how I obtained possession of them, or whether I have any real right to them; the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the necessaries of life are now the property of the Landlord and Capitalist class. I am that class: all these raw materials belong to me."

"Good enough!" agreed Philpot.

"Now you three represent the Working Class: you have nothing - and for my part, although I have all these raw materials, they are of no use to me - what I need is - the things that can be made out of these raw materials by Work: but as I am too lazy to work myself, I have invented the Money Trick to make you work for me. But first I must explain that I possess something else beside the raw materials. These three knives represent - all the machinery of production; the factories, tools, railways, and so forth, without which the necessaries of life cannot be produced in abundance. And these three coins' - taking three halfpennies from his pocket - 'represent my Money Capital."

"But before we go any further," said Owen, interrupting himself, "it is most important that you remember that I am not supposed to be merely "a" capitalist. I represent the whole Capitalist Class. You are not supposed to be just three workers - you represent the whole Working Class."

"All right, all right," said Crass, impatiently, "we all understand that. Git on with it."

Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of little square blocks.

"These represent the things which are produced by labour, aided by machinery, from the raw materials. We will suppose that three of these blocks represent - a week's work. We will suppose that a week's work is worth - one pound: and we will suppose that each of these ha'pennies is a sovereign. We'd be able to do the trick better if we had real sovereigns, but I forgot to bring any with me."

"I'd lend you some," said Philpot, regretfully, "but I left me purse on our grand pianner."

As by a strange coincidence nobody happened to have any gold with them, it was decided to make shift with the halfpence.

"Now this is the way the trick works"

"Before you goes on with it," interrupted Philpot, apprehensively, "don't you think we'd better have someone to keep watch at the gate in case a Slop comes along? We don't want to get runned in, you know."

"I don't think there's any need for that," replied Owen, "there's only one slop who'd interfere with us for playing this game, and that's Police Constable Socialism."

"Never mind about Socialism," said Crass, irritably. "Get along with the bloody trick."

Owen now addressed himself to the working classes as represented by Philpot, Harlow and Easton.

"You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in various industries, so as to give you Plenty of Work. I shall pay each of you one pound per week, and a week's work is - you must each produce three of these square blocks. For doing this work you will each receive your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like with, and the things you produce will of course be mine,to do as I like with. You will each take one of these machines and as soon as you have done a week's work, you shall have your money.'

The Working Classes accordingly set to work, and the Capitalist class sat down and watched them. As soon as they had finished, they passed the nine little blocks to Owen, who placed them on a piece of paper by his side and paid the workers their wages.

"These blocks represent the necessaries of life. You can't live without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is - one pound each."

As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were compelled to agree to the kind Capitalist's terms. They each bought back and at once consumed one- third of the produce of their labour. The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so the net result of the week's work was that the kind capitalist had consumed two pounds worth of the things produced by the labour of the others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of one pound each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed the three pounds in money and in addition four pounds worth of goods. As for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each consumed the pound's worth of necessaries they had bought with their wages, they were again in precisely the same condition as when they started work - they had nothing.

This process was repeated several times: for each week's work the producers were paid their wages. They kept on working and spending all their earnings. The kindhearted capitalist consumed twice as much as any one of them and his pile of wealth continually increased. In a little while - reckoning the little squares at their market I value of one pound each - he was worth about one hundred pounds, and the working classes were still in the same condition as when they began, and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended upon it.

After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their merriment increased when the kindhearted capitalist, just after having sold a pound's worth of necessaries to each of his workers, suddenly took their tools - the Machinery of Production - the knives away from them, and informed them that as owing to Over Production all his store-houses were glutted with the necessaries of life, he had decided to close down the works.

"Well, and what the bloody 'ell are we to do now?" demanded Philpot.

"That's not my business," replied the kindhearted capitalist. "I've paid you your wages, and provided you with Plenty of Work for a long time past. I have no more work for you to do at present. Come round again in a few months' time and I'll see what I can do for you."

"But what about the necessaries of life?" demanded Harlow. "We must have something to eat."

"Of course you must," replied the capitalist, affably; "and I shall be very pleased to sell you some."

"But we ain't got no bloody money!"

"Well, you can't expect me to give you my goods for nothing! You didn't work for me for nothing, you know. I paid you for your work and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like me. Look how I have got on by being thrifty!"

The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kindhearted Capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kindhearted Capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast.

"Of course," continued the kindhearted capitalist, "if it were not for foreign competition I should be able to sell these things that you have made, and then I should be able to give you Plenty of Work again: but until I have used them myself, you will have to remain idle."


Brooke Foss Westcott, Bishop of Durham, speech as President of the Christian Social Union (1890)

Socialism is co-operation, the method of Individualism is competition. The one regards man as working with man for a common end, the other regards man as working against man for private gain. The aim of Socialism is the fulfillment of service, the aim of Individualism is the attainment of some personal advantage, riches, or place of fame. socialism seeks such an organisation of life as shall secure for every one the most complete development of his power. Individualism seeks primarily the satisfaction of the particular wants of each one in the hope that the pursuit of private interests will in the end secure public welfare.


Social positivism only accepts duties, for all and towards all. Its constant social viewpoint cannot include any notion of rights, for such notion always rests on individuality. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. These obligations then increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service. ... Any human right is therefore as absurd as immoral. Since there are no divine rights anymore, this concept must therefore disappear completely as related only to the preliminary regime and totally inconsistent with the final state where there are only duties based on functions.


-Auguste Comte





Robert Blatchford, Merrie England (1894)

Socialists do not propose by a single Act of Parliament, nor by a sudden revolution, to put all men on an equality, and
compel them to remain so. Socialism is not a wild dream of a happy land, where the apples will drop off the trees into our open mouths, the fish come out ot the rivers and fry themselves for dinner, and the looms turn out ready-made suits of velvet with gold buttons, without the trouble of coaling the engine. Neither is it a dream of a nation of stained-glass angels, who always love their neighbours better than themselves, and who never need to work unless they wish.

Socialism is a scientific scheme of national organization, entirely wise, just, and practical. It is a kind of national cooperation. Its programme consists, essentially, of one demand, that the land, and all other instruments of production and exchange, shall be the common property of the nation, and shall be used and managed by the nation for the nation.



Now to your quotes which shall receive my special attention.........

The characteristic mark of economic history under capitalism is unceasing economic progress, a steady increase in the quantity of capital goods available, and a continuous trend toward an improvement in the general standard of living.

That statement is only true to that which benefits the ruling class in that those specific gains can only be afforded by them.


Capitalism is essentially a system of mass production for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses. It pours a horn of plenty upon the common man. It has raised the average standard of living to a height never dreamed of in earlier ages. It has made accessible to millions of people enjoyments which a few generations ago were only within the reach of a small elite.

The common man receives no horn of plenty within capitalism but instead is merely reduced to a tool or instument of the ruling class where he is left to merely subsist in existing only in the most minimum of means but everything short of actually living.

The standard of living is only enjoyed and partaked in by the ruling class where all other peoples of class or distincted incomes lag far behind.

Many enjoyments are still only allocated by a small circle of any given population that hold the most influence and power within a state capitalist society.


The development of capitalism consists in everyone having the right to serve the consumer better and/or more cheaply.
And what better way of selling things more cheaply than outsourcing jobs under the shield of free marketism all the while by inviting massive waves of immigration from the four corners of the earth in order to have cheap labor as well in which amongst all of that only the profiteering capitalist can say that everything is succesful even when for everybody else collectively it is not.


There is no western, capitalistic country in which the conditions of the masses have not improved in an unprecedented way.
Yet not everybody benefits therefore your statement is empty.


It is inherent in the nature of the capitalistic economy that, in the final analysis, the employment of the factors of production is aimed only toward serving the wishes of consumers.

It's not the wishes of public collective welfare when it concerns the consumer that the capitalist is concerned with but rather the capitalist is only concerned about the private sector of which he individually profits off of.

The capitalist is only concerned with the general collective public when it benefits him to be so and in many instances he is not especially when there is no profit to be made.

Therefore the captalist is only concerned with collective public welfare only when it pleases him to do so.



Grumblers may blame Western civilization for its materialism and may assert that it gratified nobody but a small class of rugged exploiters. But their laments cannot wipe out the facts. Millions of mothers have been made happier by the drop in infant mortality. Famines have disappeared and epidemics have been curbed.

And yet many young women remain childless is the excess of capitalism where divorce or broken families are rampant.

Famines might have disappeared but many famines of consciousness still exist where that particular famine is growing at a large pace.


Capitalism gave the world what it needed, a higher standard of living for a steadily increasing number of people.

Not everybody enjoys that standard of living.


In the capitalist society there is a place and bread for all. Its ability to expand provides sustenance for every worker. Permanent unemployment is not a feature of free capitalism.

I'll remember that when I look at some states close to 15% unemployment or when I see another example of a man who lost his job due to free marketism that outsourced his job to Mexico under the guise of free trade.

If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
And as a anarchist I do.


A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.
Capitalism isn't concerned with cooperation as it is opposed to mutualist economical policies and principles.

Socialism in contrast is all about mutualism and social cohesion where individuals derive a sense of independence as individual members within a well cohesive social collective since even individuals by themselves are social given that they cannot exist alone like a island in that there is constant interaction with others.

Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts.

The elimination of emotion might as well be called the elimination of social interaction being that social bonds are built upon emotions.


Individualism resulted in the fall of autocratic government, the establishment of democracy, the evolution of capitalism, technical improvements, and an unprecedented rise in standards of living. It substituted enlightenment for old superstitions, scientific methods of research for inveterate prejudices.

Individuals divided by interest, greed, and selfhood in a narcissistic manner are of no benefit towards collective social society.

[Neither when they focus on private sectors of economy or of themselves over the mechanisms of the general collective public welfare in that by doing so they ignore the duty of social cohesion by only fully indulging in themselves.]

Such individuals are only the antithesis of any functioning well cohesive social collective.

For any coordinated social cohesive collective to exists it becomes necessary to mold such individuals into a collective unit and to make all private interests more concerned with greater collective public interests therefore transforming all private interests into a general public one.


Every expansion of the personal division of labor brings advantages to all who take part in it.

Not when the workers don't control the means of production nor when they are not allowed to enjoy fully that which they produce in being entitled to higher allowances.


Competitors aim at excellence and preeminence in accomplishments within a system of mutual cooperation. The function of competition is to assign to every member of the social system that position in which he can best serve the whole of society and all its members.

Excessive competition leads to social disunity and chaos therefore it's necessary to limit competition as much as possible.

If everybody becomes only consumed with their own private interests within a society that society collectively then becomes doomed.


Collectivism is a doctrine of war, intolerance, and persecution. If any of the collectivist creeds should succeed in its endeavors, all people but the great dictator would be deprived of their essential human quality. They would become mere soulless pawns in the hands of a monster.

That's funny considering I would say that towards excessive competing forms of capitalism that is usually only concerned with expansion instead of preserving quality of life which undoubtedly leads to a great deal of conflict.

At any rate capitalism globally has dominated the world over economically presently where we are now seeing a increase of war and conflict in the world.

[Making your quote nonsensical.]



There is no kind of freedom and liberty other than the kind which the market economy brings about. In a totalitarian hegemonic society the only freedom that is left to the individual, because it cannot be denied to him, is the freedom to commit suicide.

In capitalism freedom is purely a monetary concept where only those wealthy enough can afford it where those poor in income are bereft of it completely.

Ardito
Thursday, November 25th, 2010, 07:56 PM
Feudalism, as the expression of the natural hierarchy of, and the just bonds of loyalty between, men, is the only political system which makes sense. Every argument which I have heard to the contrary is the result of either a degenerate fixation on material conditions as opposed to paying attention to who menare, and/or a misplaced sense of egalitarianism (egalitarianism for the in-group, as is the case with, for example, National Socialism, is still egalitarianism).

Caledonian
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 12:11 AM
Feudalism, as the expression of the natural hierarchy of, and the just bonds of loyalty between, men, is the only political system which makes sense. Every argument which I have heard to the contrary is the result of either a degenerate fixation on material conditions as opposed to paying attention to who menare, and/or a misplaced sense of egalitarianism (egalitarianism for the in-group, as is the case with, for example, National Socialism, is still egalitarianism).

What would modern feudalism look like?

I think it would be a pretty neat idea if initiated.

Berrocscir
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 05:20 PM
Presumably a resurgent feudalism will be based on an agrarian economy and cottage industry. So in that sense it appeals to me. That said I'll not be keen on folk being tied to estates against their will. It'll need to be a feudalism with the enlightenment idea of justice. I certainly think it will be more inclined to nurture tribal loyalty than industrial society.

Ardito
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 11:26 PM
What would modern feudalism look like?

I think it would be a pretty neat idea if initiated.

Feudalism is fundamentally incompatible with modern modes of economic activity, which means it's also, for the most part, incompatible with modern technology (though if someone comes up with a way to make microchips by hand, I'd like to see it). Thus, the only way I can see feudalism coming about is in the wake of total societal collapse, and even that probably wouldn't do it, as the modern mind-set would be mostly retained even in the absence of modern civilisation.

A possible scenario would be that in the inevitable small-scale warfare which would erupt in the ruins of the former civilisation after some great catastrophe (nuclear war, for example), it would become necessary to swear loyalty to particularly powerful men for stability and protection, and if this system solidified, we might see a state of affairs similar to medieval Europe emerge.

Presumably a resurgent feudalism will be based on an agrarian economy and cottage industry. So in that sense it appeals to me. That said I'll not be keen on folk being tied to estates against their will. It'll need to be a feudalism with the enlightenment idea of justice. I certainly think it will be more inclined to nurture tribal loyalty than industrial society.

Well, there's a problem there. Feudal society is pre-Enlightenment. The philosophy behind it is anti-Enlightenment. Enlightenment ideas of individual liberty and rights are simply incompatible with pre-Enlightenment society and philosophy. They're directly contradictory.

And indeed, on your first point, pre-industrial revolution economic activity was almost all agriculture and cottage industry. Families worked in their homes, rather than in factories, in whatever craft in which they specialised. Due to factory production being far more efficient, damn-near no one performs a specialised craft from their home any more, other than people who make novelty products whose perceived value comes from their having been hand-made on a small scale. Feudal modes of economics, as with feudal social and political relations, will only come about when the modern mode is no longer tenable, as the modern mode is far more comfortable. Thus, the only way I can see cottage industry becoming the dominant form of production again is if modern society simply collapses.

We're going off topic here; perhaps we should make a new thread devoted to the topic of feudalism.

ulfrik
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 09:06 AM
I am folkish.
I believe in individual freedom and the right to own weapons.
I believe that revolution is needed.
I believe that there should be a homeland or homelands for the folk.
I believe that the revolution is more important than any government authority. (and that when the revolution comes the folk will be the guardians of the revolution. so that the revolution is forever.)

What Political Orientation would you consider me?????

Neophyte
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 01:19 PM
I am folkish.
I believe in individual freedom and the right to own weapons.
I believe that revolution is needed.
I believe that there should be a homeland or homelands for the folk.
I believe that the revolution is more important than any government authority. (and that when the revolution comes the folk will be the guardians of the revolution. so that the revolution is forever.)

What Political Orientation would you consider me?????

Utopian. ;) Individual freedom is by necessity a negative goal, i.e. freedom from something, and not a positive or social goal. Good luck keeping a political system based on 'freedom'.

Caledonian
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 03:24 PM
Ardito
We're going off topic here; perhaps we should make a new thread devoted to the topic of feudalism.

Sounds like a good idea to me. :)