But what do you get in the end? I mean, you get an all powerful ruling class, that's all, and you think they'll care about your ass? Since when did you start to care about mine? Why would those people of power, turn suddenly morally superior to you or me? Why? Because that aside, moral integrity aside, what is there to prevent them from being corrupted self serving pricks? It happens all the time
I'm not a utopian. I'm perfectly aware that any human system will suffer from corruption... But then, so what? We don't even try? Capitalism and a reasonable degree of liberalism make for a strong society so long as they are subordinated to higher values, but a strong state is necessary to restrain those forces (or we end up with clown world). In my opinion, the best shot is a facist/authoritarian state which explictly declares its purpose to be the well-being of its founding ethnos and does not compromise on that point. In this way, the scope of potential corruption is limited, because there is no ambiguity as to the raison d'etre of the government (sure you'd still get self-serving pricks, but absolute traitorous scum who'd sell out their race would tend to stick out in that environment). I don't believe more laissez-faire national philosphies are realistic, because we can see how powerful/influential big corporations become (even without government favours). It takes a strong hand to restrain capitalism and retard progressive ideological creep.
Now our decline is probably an inevitability as this point, but if somehow we got the chance to start something new it had better be third positional.
I think looking for a perfect system, is a waste of time, so long as your "crew" is just immoral, corrupt, morally bankrupt
Nothing can work with that, and you can't buy that at the super market. I mean, look at all the US politicians, where do they come from? They don't come from a parallel dimension, they don't get their moral values from uranus. The US society shaped them the way they are
And it's not like it's radically different anywhere in the world, few exceptions aside such as iceland, it's only marginally better eventually
Maybe I'm a bit too pessimistic on this one, but I'm not that far off
>In my opinion, the best shot is a facist/authoritarian state which explictly declares its purpose to be the well-being of its founding ethnos and does not compromise on that point.
You mean they don't start to use their tremendous power to rig the game for their own benefit?
...
Come one, I get what you mean, but the problem is deeper, it's not really in the system, it's in the people that run the system, it's in their fucking head where the problem is
for their own benefit
The problem is that they don't just want more than everybody else, they want everything. I'm ok with some people having more than me, what I'm not ok with is people who want everything, take what is not theirs and leave nothing for the rest of us.
If we assume that you're correct for the sake of argument, then the whole game was honked from the start and there's absolutely no solution.
-Attempting to abolish capitalism, technology or the centralized state will ultimately leave you at the mercy of nations which don't. -A state strong enough to restrain those forces will be perverted by corruption, and a state which isn't will be perverted even more rapidly.
Even accepting this hypothetical, it would seem that the only reasonable course of action is to go with the strong state solution and try fend off the inevitable degeneration as long as possible. Again, I'm not a utopian—I don't believe things need to be perfect and/or eternal to be worthwhile.
but a strong state is necessary to restrain those forces (or we end up with clown world).
I don't understand why you think of your government as weak. Do we not already have a powerful, strong state?
You know, biggest military in the world, historically defeating european nationalism. Government working together with the sugar industry. Public schools ( = government) teaching your child about analsex before it even reached puberty.
You bigot, are you assuming my nationality?!
But seriously—your assessment is fair, however it doesn't change the fact that a strong state would be necessary to attempt to restrain capitalism and social liberalism. I don't see how a decentralized 'weak' state could a) resist capitalistic de facto centralization and social liberalism (aka progressivism) or b) compete with major centralized states. So you're implying a false alternative. The only reasonable choice is between 'strong' states with different value paradigms (or 'Cathedrals') and different (((elite))) vs. elite interests.
(post is archived)