National socialism: NGMI Libertarianism: NGMI Anarchism: NGMI Fascism: NGMI
It is time to grow up and use your knowledge for good. We need to create a new political system now.
So far we are learning towards ethno-nationalism via voluntary segregation encouraged by the state. Each nation would be focused on the prosperity of their people, with particular emphasis on agriculture and manufacturing, ideally this would be applied internationally. How to deal with the muttmerica issue (both north and south) would be to encourage general nationalism based on established and traditional culture within the nation. Monarchies have been proposed, but most are constitutional monarchs meaning non-absolute monarchism could be applied to the current model.
Topics at hand:
Basic rights that are protected by the state State's main goal/mission statement Social Programs Economic Regulation Currency
Previous threads: Interesting posts: >Take current government departments/agencies and "whittle them down" to a more efficient form
Rule by committee, this is all we are good at, hammering out details as a collective. With no real credit to inflate the ego, the idea has to shine itself. I just typed that entire thing naked and that entire conversation would have gone differently in person, for point and example
Isaiah Price
What do you do when the gooberment no longer follows it's own rules? What is the recourse? A "committee of presidents"? Something like that? I've heard something similar long ago.
>What do you do when the gooberment no longer follows it's own rules? What is the recourse? We will need to have certain rights: freedom of speech, press, ability to bear arms, ability to amend the constitution, ability to communicate with decision makers.
Andrew Jenkins
Needless to say, the core of rights should not be the individual. Such rights are based on subjetive morality, baggage of christianity. Wether or not you are a christian, it's irrelevant: rights currently concieved don't work because even the Pope himself can't bring the back of their head to thinking of others as having a soul without a doubt. And besides, we know men of different races are not equal: a cursory glance at history tells us our souls are of an immensely greater brightness. And don't get me wrong, spirituality should be part of the new Kampf, but not religion, maybe more on that later.
The cryux of this post is that rights should be rights of the family. The family doesen't benefit from the woman working - look at picrel - and the family is the building block of culture and the nation to be protected. Boom, two hundread years of subversion and libraries of feminist text fall down, just like that. This is objective morality. A practical example is giving the dead a proper burial: we should not think of the dead as an individual with this elusive "right" to a proper ceremony, but rather we should think performing the ceremony is the right thing to do. As a rule of thumb, all our values should be interpreted this way.
That is the idea of a senate, which most modern nations have. The problem is that outside influences and classified information govern their actions more than the will of the people. I'm not sure if this is a side-effect of the structure, or just the blatant selfishness of those who run for public office, but it obviously does not work as intended. I think if you're a republic and each state government is structured to have something resembling a king or dictator, the national structure could be the tempering device for the state structure and the state structure would temper the national structure. And people could move about freely as they do now: if the king of your state doesn't protect the people, facilitate their prosperity, etc., people move. The state loses power. Interstate travel has to be one of the protected rights in the constitution.
Nathan Ross
That way if your idea is good, gets built on. Anyone with a brain can contribute and self serving bleeding heart statements like live, laugh, love, is not constructive. Ideas need depth that can spark a light bulb in someone else and transform it further. The issue would be redditors trying to be smart interrupting actual discourse with quantity of braindead statements not quality. The next policy should be something most people are trained on, like internet communication, Any Forums is my preferred method
Christopher Carter
The rights of an individual are not a christian ideology. Christianity pushes collectivism. If anything its influence is in general morality which is also found in many other religions.
As for feminism getting rid of it is a tough sell, but what they push is illogical. Women do not want to be put on the draft list for example. You would need to have a cultural even combined with information to push women into more traditional roles.
Jonathan Moore
The US has that now. They've been widdling away at it since the Federalist Papers; though the federalists specifically said they wouldn't. No kings. No popes. Open and free communication is key to free thought. >Any Forums is my preferred method Probably for the reason stated above. I like it here too, fren.
On spirituality, we must first ask ourselves, what do we mean exactly? It's often said religion is an element of Tradition, but boiling it down to its most essential properties, what does a religion with its spirituality, dogmas and rituals do? It creates a monopoly of the sacred. And the sacred is what's really necessary. A religion that didn't do this was paganism. The average pagan knew of how different and contradditory the whims of the gods were, but reality itself is aleatory and inconsistent, so what does it matter? Besides, the power of the gods was held as certain, and anyone that studied the ancients knows they weren't idiots, something was indeed there. But then again, our tradition has many different esoteric teachings, all in contraddiciton with one another, some losing their origins in the sand of time, others being more recent then they seem. I hold again that contraddicion is irrelevant because anything can become sacred, and its being sacred is what matters. I define sacred as an activity or thing with a quality that is not immanent and material. Prayer is sacred. The issue is, if a religion and its institutions have a monopoly on what is or isn't sacred, then whoever controls the religion can send the civilization down a spiral with a miniscule mistake. (1/2)
You are right on the collectivist angle, but the two things are more connected then they seem. Communist works from the basis of all individuals being equal, and all men are equal in the sight of god. All morals that claim to be individualistic always start with the assumption of men having "equal dignity", a result of the christian conception of the soul. Pre-christian morality was entirely different because of this, and that's the return to form we need.
Juan Ward
>Open and free communication is key to free thought.
Serious question that I cannot believe I am asking: can a nation of red-pilled people exist? I say yes, but there a some caveats for example defense and military issues (we dont want other nations to know everything), terrorism (acknowledging terrorism makes it more effective), and there is a lot of time needed to gather all the information to make proper decisions
Daniel Gutierrez
we should probably separate church and state as there is no perfect religious institution or collective consciousness
Isaac Myers
>Interstate travel has to be one of the protected rights in the constitution. I never thought about it but you are right, however wouldnt this just encourage an open national border?
Alexander Cooper
There are a few traps it's easy to fall into. Firstly, gnosticism and similar doctrines are to be avoided. In general, all doctrines that promote a certain mindset I'll call "the big door". You know the good old christian parable about the big door leading to hell, the small one to heaven? It beutifully illustrates a pitfall in our thinking. Most of us want things to change, but we are more or less compelled to act in a certain way that doesen't put us directly against our environment. In essence, we want things to change, but subconciously want to keep acting as though nothing was different. Gnosticism allows us by first giving context to existence, explaining why we feel so out of place etc., but then, since the world is seen by them as evil, turn "somewhere else", and use the sacred as a way to escape. If this rings a bell with the concept of heaven, it's because it does the same things.
The spirituality we adopt should then not be a rigid religion, not get anyone into a "big door" mindset. We are getting into the small door, we care about what is now, and we hold sacred anything that connects us more deeply with the world. Ritualistic use of psychedelics could be a part of this, at any rate there should be a public, more surface level spirituality, and one of initiatic character destined to the elite. (2/)
Yes, but as I said individuals at high level of control should share a version of the public's spirituality, but "higher", more refined and with a greater emphasis on staying in touch with the land.
>defense and military issues Don't forget copyright. We gotta protect that IP. We should also label everyone as schizoid who disagrees with common social narratives, because collectivism isn't just for hive insects. Do you see what I'm doing here? I'm fairly certain this "top secret in the interest of national security; run this story instead" crap is part of the problem.
>Yes, but as I said individuals at high level of control should share a version of the public's spirituality, but "higher", more refined and with a greater emphasis on staying in touch with the land. Except for religious simpletons who would think religious "branding" would equate to better governance. The way I see it the religions of the rulers would be a natural consequence of its people and reflect religious demographics naturally. You wouldnt need to do anything.
I dont see where you are going with that. can you spell it out like i am in kindergarten?
