Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

933

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

The system is irrelevant, its the intention of the system by those who sieze power. Any system can be pleasant with the right rulers, even the worst, and any system can be hell, even the best. Defending any political system blindly is pointless, corruption must be removed from any system

[–] • 0 pt

I do believe certain systems have far more safeguards against tyranny then others.

[–] • 1 pt

Republics have the best safeguards, others have strengths and flaws, a monarchy for example can either be the easiest to corrupt or hardest, depending on the man, but thats what it comes in 5he end

[–] • 0 pt

The free market, free trade, city state has proven to be the best base for a system. Doesnt matter if its run by a monarchy, council, or is a republic.

[–] • 1 pt

Can you point to me a government that was free market and free trade that isn't a Republic?

Also I have to disagree on the free trade, it is far better to have "fair" trade so the other side doesn't screw you out of any deals.

[–] • 3 pts

Deep. And hard for many to evolve from labels to concepts. But that is a necessary homework, given that every time we face totalitarian oppression, it is shaped differently - hence solutions based on old models won't work. And using old labels imply old solutions.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

It's the jews. They have many ideologies, but the end goal is to enslave you.

[–] • 2 pts

You could probably create a communist paradise if you removed all of the jews from it first.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

You mean Socialist. Communism is bullshit invented by kike Marx.

It already happened in Scandinavian countries, before kikes destroyed them.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

It must suck to be a jew, you have to subvert the host nation to fit in, or they kick you out, but then subverting ends up destroying you anyways as people grow tired of the constant plague of bullshit

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

Let me get this straight. They arrive in and infect the host nation. They use the nation's resources to get rich and reproduce. The host nation fights back and eventually expels them, but not before they spread to more hosts.

That's a virus, isn't it?

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

A parasite technically, except the parasite takes great glee in killing off their host. When the US falls, who the fuck does Israel think will save their asses and stop them from getting glassed almost instantly? The ONLY thing stopping this is the US presence, which is why the democrats are petrified of Trump pulling out the troops. Notice how all the latest wars all seem to be cohencidentally close to (((greatest ally)))

[–] • 2 pts

Just be aware that Communism, which is objectively the most evil brand of government, has spent a great deal of time and effort making you hate Fascism - to the point that many people call Communism "fascism" simply because they don't even know what fascism is; they're just programmed to think it means "MEAN GOVERNMENT THAT TREATS ME BAD."

Fascism isn't an end state political system. It's a means to get there. Like a nation rallied under Martial Law to wage war or expunge corruption. More interestingly, Fascism only ever comes into being to fight Communism. It's like a political immune response.

Communists hate you and call you Fascist - because that's what you are as someone who resists Communism.

I don't know where the meme "Fascism is when big business and the government collude to control the people" comes from. Boomer Facebook, I guess. But it isn't accurate. Fascism is an authoritative government working for the interests of the Nation, where the Nation is both the ethnicity of the People and the Government itself. Not unlike how a husband and father are the heads of the household. It's human nature to socialize in hierarchies, and there's nothing wrong with having an authority in charge of you. A family, for example, isn't a Constitutional Republic, or an AnCap free-for-all, and it wouldn't work well if it was run that way.

Fascism is what you want. Fascism protects you from your shit tier neighbors that want to steal your stuff and show your kids porn. Libertarianism is for later, when your kids have grown up, but if you attempt it before Fascism can guide and mature the nation, it will fail and leave a vacuum that will be filled by Communism.

[–] • 1 pt

Labels don't matter. But what they represent does.

Dismissing the very real and tangible differences between these systems, and pretending they are all the same, just because they have a single prominent trait - hierarchy - in common with each other, barely even qualifies for half-baked sophistry.

All humans organize themselves into hierarchies. All hierarchies have leaders and followers. That is the nature of humanity, and order itself.

But where those leaders head towards, the means they use, the goals they have, the ideals they pursue... that makes all the difference for those that follow them. You'd have to be a blind fool, not to see the stark differences between Communism and Fascism, and all the others, in this regard.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

The real rules:

1 - Nobody should control the lives of others.

2 - Nobody should control the property of others.

That is all.

[–] • 1 pt

Once the relationship where a group of people with weapons who steal from you becomes moral is established, anything goes

[–] • 1 pt

Fascism, by definition, is a counter to communism, not another name for it.

[–] • 0 pt

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

[–] • 1 pt

Capitalism and Communism both lead to the same place. If you think of these systems simply in terms of their timewise tendency to concentrate wealth, you'll see that Communism is just accelerated Capitalism. Both lead eventually to concentrated wealth and power as a plutocracy. They're the same thing just dressed in a different moral/ideological set of principles. Capitalism will lead to the plutocracy by letting free-willed agents in free markets 'win' the control. Communism prescribes giving it away to everyone equally on the basis of a different set of ideals.

The mistake of the first is not understanding how free markets aren't free if the money supply is also 'free'. The mistake in the second is believing that anything alive willingly shares power.

You nailed it. It's just branding.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I'm at this stage as well, I thought most people here were until everyone started shouting about right/left. Any thoughts on a path forward?

If stability and prosperity is the goal, the drooling masses must be kept in the dark. Currently that's not happening, some truth is leaking out into the mainstream.

Change could then occur but ... Change itself is not a goal. What is the goal? Where do we want to go?

[–] • 0 pt

Just pray the flu jab kills them all.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I think you're right. Change is not the goal, rather, it's what me must adapt to. I have thought about this a great deal, and I've not come up with a perfect solution. The root problem has to do with moral authority. The perfect system would be one where we were all effectively beholden (enslaved) to a clear moral system with a lawful creator and moral judge (God). The reason why is that moral judgment and authority, in order to function perfectly, must transcend the system itself. The problem, of course, is that even our most successful religious systems have failed to convince people of the reality of said authority, and within a paradigm of rationality and empiricism, it is impossible to verify our metaphysical beliefs in a way that people today accept (across the board).

That's the predicament. We live in a universe where ongoing energy is necessary to survive. We must compete for that energy, and so to civilize ourselves we require a competitive game, but one which outlaws certain strategies - such as murder. Our best systems for morality posit a transcendent being and law, but these require faith to operate, something many people today have in short supply.

Provisionally, I'd say we do require a free-ish competitive market system, where the following are true:

  1. A nation consists in a universal (within the bounds of the nation) race, language, and religion.

  2. Government consists in two mirror-image hierarchies: church and state. These two hierarchies are meant to antagonize one another. If you could imagine the civic structure of government as laid out by the constitution, the structural hierarchy of the church would be its exact mirror image - all processes that would regularly occur within government must pass up the chain of both hierarchies, where the church officials and government officials negotiate with each other.

  3. You must install a clear and authoritative way for these positions to be challenged if the People do not see that a person occupying any role is serving their function to society.

  4. Each half of government would also have its own jurisdiction to maintain a police force. All police activity would require the presence of at least one officer from both sides.

  5. Society itself would consist of levels of citizenship, offering certain privileges depending upon level. The right to vote would depend upon criminal history, citizenship level, and intelligence.

  6. The voting process will be highly technical, beginning with committees locally of the highest level of citizenry which communicate with the lowest levels of government. Debate at the lowest level must transmit upward through the hierarchy, where individual voting habits, conclusions, and arguments are transparent (and made available) at each level of the process.

  7. The government should maintain a philosophy of least necessary intervention in all private commercial affairs, save for collective voting to outlaw those things deemed subversive and detrimental to the moral principles of the official religion.

  8. All immigration into the nation will require testing for a minimum functional level of use of the official language, and religious commitment to the official national religion. All heretical religious practices and all non-official languages will be outlawed within the nation in public spaces. Private spaces will be allotted for certain activities, much the same way that they are now.

  9. A basic system of professional licensure or guilds would exist in much the same way that they do today. I'm not prepared to talk about labor-employer relations here. I specify this just to distinguish that I believe a system of pedigree should exist in the case of professional categories of work.

  10. There are some technological concerns that I think are too much to get into here, and that means that I don't really have a good idea about how to deal with them!

In the end, it's tremendously difficult. So many of the worlds most brilliant minds have gone to task trying to answer these questions, and the battle between liberty and obligation is always going to leave a bad taste in someone's mouth. No matter what, someone will be indignant that this or that idea is not libertarian enough, and someone else will say that it's too important to everyone to leave up to free market dynamics. I just came up with the points I did above by spit-balling, basically. I haven't even stopped to consider how each bullet point might negatively impact the others. In the end, I think some variety of representative Republic is necessary, but that function and revising the owners of the role has to be tightly controlled. I feel that some competition itself must be introduced in the ability to maintain these official roles. Even though I'd like it to be Thunderdome style battles to the death, that probably wouldn't work.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I think as long as you have #1 (common race/language/religion/culture) then everything will fall into place as a nation. Encoding the religion into the government is a good way to strengthen that precept, along with immigration control. Although there will be constant rebelling against the authority by youth - to allow for this you could implement something like the Amish have, give people a choice to leave or stay once they reach a certain age. Actually a lot of this seems pretty Amish... it's like the modern-day version.

Load more (1 reply)