Proper far right political ideology is one that looks at what government is absolutely essential, and what is needed to maintain it to this absolute minimum. Different far right ideologies (natsoc, natcap, ancap, etc.) simply disagree about what is absolutely needed, and what isn't, and could be left out. It's not about building the perfect society, just about building the foundations from which the best possible society could naturally emerge, built by the people under the watch of the government, not by the state itself. Its not about making sure people can't hurt themselves or each other, but about ensuring that the majority of whatever happens to anyone's person, property, or enterprise, happens voluntarily on the part of their owners, that almost all interactions between people with respect to the things that they own are occurring in a manner where the interaction is mutually consensual, and both sides maintain complete control over what they own for as long as they possess ownership of them. It's not about solving the people's problems, nor about preventing the prople from having any problems, either, but instead about giving them the ample freedom and minimal security to be able to solve their problems for themselves. The successes of the United States came down to how well they approached this model of political design, but they made mistakes, as shown by how they had arrived at where they are currently. A good design is one one does not allow itself to be changed into a bad design, one must take into account the capacity for changes to be made, vigilance towards (((where))) those corrupting changes might come from, and also towards what insidious those changes may take. There were of course other issues with the (initial) designing of the USA, but by far the biggest issue was the idea that even a strictly limited form of representitive democracy was in any way a good idea, people will vote away their own freedoms in a flash, and they will look to government to satisfy their needs or desires without any thought towards the potential dangers of giving that responsibility over to the state. They will see threats where there are not, or wish for the world to be made fair and just by the hand of the state, and cry to the system for them to take these burdens away, even temporarily, but these burdens should not be leveraged by the establishment over their people, and once power is transferred from the people to those who falsely claim to represent their interests, it rarely is given up without a fight against the people from which the power had been snatched away. Furthermore, people are the worst at selecting their leaders, especially during good times, where necessity and stressful vigilance is tossed aside in favor of optimization and blissful ignorance. It is in these times of light where the darkest souls emerge, demagogues with sweet words and skillful tongues promising to solve all the difficulties of the people, and alleviate them from their troubles, with seemingly seemingly cost or risks at all, all they need to do is let them do it for them. The only way to preserve freedom and a self-responsible people is to prevent anyone from weilding the power to take these things away, while on the surface the idea of a rigid set of laws policies and systems that cannot be altered by anyone, even the most powerful people in the country or world, sounds like a bad idea, upon closer inspection it's the best idea, and the worst ideas are actually the opposite. A country who can change their design is a country that always falls into decline, what one should instead focus on is making sure that the design provides everything that is needed, and nothing more than that, which would therefore allow any improvement to come from the contributions of the people as they organize themselves and full any voids which need to be filled with what they can offer to one another within the very bare but solid framework that the government provides, which ensures that ownership and consent are enforced for all and at all times. The hard part for us political designers is being able to hold back from misidentifying things we desire to be a part of the design as being things which must be there, often the idea of making some unnecessary little addition seems so attractive and harmless, especially when our strongest emotional attachments to these ideas makes leaving them out of the design feel unbearable, even admitting that they are not essential is painful. It's like a drug addict in withdrawal, it's real pain. Made worse by the link of our identity and self image issues associated with these things, there's always some feeling that by cutting this one thing out of the design, that we are bad people for doing so, perhaps sone demonizing label with terrible implications pops up in relation to the company you'd keep in admitting that this thing isn't needed and therefore should not be included, the worst fear of many is to be perceived inaccurately by others, we want to be seen in alignment with the best way that we see ourselves, others opinions of us shape our opinion of ourselves even when we know their opinions to not be accurately reflective of who we truly are. The founding father's design of the United States included all sorts of unnecessary shit that should be cut out of the new design, and any form of democracy or lawmaking is definitely at the top of that list, rather than representitives, our leaders must be overseers, whose sole duty is to enforce the laws that had existed since the nation was founded, and they should not be elected in the way they were slated to be under the system created by the founders. Don't get me wrong, my opinion is merely that this is the no important changes to make, not the only ones to be made, there's a lot more that they got wrong which must be corrected after the days of collapse and rebuilding come. Looking for designers, planners, analysts, engineers, critics, researchers, etc. Those who can think ahead and make thoughtful predictions of how things could work out from the way they could reasonably think people would actually respond to a given set of rules and systems. No edgelords looking to earn up votes by showing off how much they hate niggers about kikes, no ideology whores who just care about shilling their favorite team label, or other such morons who cannot think practically or who cannot understand how to predict the aggregate of future human population behaviors from what things would be like at implementation and from past examples. I want those who could distance themselves from the abstract and the cultural to put their minds in the real world for designing the next world superpower, a society that people could rally behind and look forward to, some vision they would would able to fight and die for. Arguments should be made with examples, predictions, and extrapolations, and not with useless statements or the empty minded recitations of slogans, dogmas, platitudes, and dreams. This should be treated like building a machine, based in mechanical factors we know or anticipate, putting together something that works in the real world to serve only the purposes it needs to once we turn it on, we aren't talking in terms of "should", we are talking about what it WILLA do, as best we could figure it from what we know now. The best design is a simple one, everything is there because it has to be, and everything it does is what we need it to, all the parts work together well enough, and it's built with the long term duration in mind, this system will last and be able to stand entirely on its own I'm addition to being able to stand among others who may try to ruin it, it won't be some cheap chink knockoff design that only lasts as long as we could be blamed for its failures. It should be nip tier quality at the very least.