Post: #1

Whenever I try to explain my political beliefs to an American, they give me an odd face and try to align me to a party, but somehow I dictate a belief that contradicts this part. I am neither democrat nor republican, nor am I independent, but after reading literature (both leftist and rightist) I have come to the fundamental conclusion that social conservatism and economic liberalism (A.K.A. Keynesianism) is compatible.

Why am I economically liberal you ask? I believe that unfettered capitalism is just as destructive as socialism, as both are prone to human error. If there are established rules and regulations to playing the game, the game is much fairer. I've also seen what it did to Eastern Europe (in person). Also I believe that governments must invest in programs which are not immediately profitable such as massive public works programs, the healthcare industry and high technology that is not for the frivolities and pleasure of the individual (Saturn V rockets vs. IPhones, seriously). I know the burden extra taxation can place on an individual. I have worked low paying jobs. Yet people seem to overlook the fact that they pay way more for frivolous pleasures such as extra data on their phones, a car with extra features, a house with a pool. Instead of buying these, give maybe 3% more on your income and have a better road system and a government to be proud of.

A culture of selfishness also perpetrates the social sphere, where everyone believes that they have entitlements to equality. Feminists also spout the 77% pay gap figure whenever they bring up gender parity, not realizing that their own sex betrays them when it comes to the corporate workforce by having children, settling because of their family, etc. They demand more without looking at the facts, spouting these figures because they are inherently selfish, creating a rift between the sexes. Mending this rift also remakes family structure. Family structure is the key to creating a harmonious society, as relations at home dictate how we act in public. If we create a society where males are allowed to fall through the cracks and be miserable via divorce, we create a class that is lower than the abject poor in the cities.

This is the government sponsored poor. These draconian divorce laws must be amended, along with these equlity laws that do nothing but alienate people and create enemies.

So, in summary, I believe in government to be proud of, along with a life to be proud of, with a family to be proud of, and a healthy relationship between the sexes, your neighbors, and yourself.


I guess my political belief is utopian and anti-selfish, but fuck it, I believe what I believe.

Post: #2

(06-12-2014 11:40 AM)Aer Wrote:  Whenever I try to explain my political beliefs to an American, they give me an odd face and try to align me to a party, but somehow I dictate a belief that contradicts this part.

So am I correct in assuming that you are not American yourself?

Just a guess on my part but...are you French? I've always had the impression of the French being very socially conservative despite the fact we stereotype them otherwise here in the USA.

Post: #3

I am the exact opposite of you (Socially liberal and economically conservative). This means that I believe that the government's role should be limited, whereas you believe the government's role should be increased.

Essentially what you're doing is putting more faith in the benevolence of government that of human nature, which I disagree with.

As for selfishness, humans are inherently selfish. We look out for our own good and image. Yes, that is harmful, but when you try to punish human nature things usually go sour.

As for the government interfering with divorce, that would only make the problem worse. If governments stopped regulating marriage, divorce would be left to religious organizations where they would have no power to take half of a mans stuff and force him to pay alimony. Also, there would be no gay marriage debate as it would be left of to religion.

Post: #4

Regulating capitalism might not always be "liberal" or "socialist". There is a conservative argument for it as well.

For example: stores closed on Sundays. I see this more often in Europe than in the US, although the US used to have more of it. Is it socialist (i.e. to give the workers a day off) or conservative (give people time to be with family, worship, tradition...)?

Europeans are conservative in a certain way: they will put the breaks on commerce to protect a way of living. In the US, it's more Calvin Coolidge: "The business of America is business."

Post: #5

The government should have zero say on social issues and should do its best to approach these problems by changing either calling it something different or send it down the line to the states.

Abortion? State's issue. Period.

Gay marriage? Marriage is a religious construct which violates the separation of church and state. Call marriage a "union of two" for legal purposes and let the gays have the same legal protections. Let the "promise before God" be relegated to the churches.

Gun Control? The constitution calls for a "well regulated militia". Require a class and a license. Problem solved.

Post: #6

I think the correct term for this is...
National Socialism?

Post: #7

(06-12-2014 12:46 PM)kerouac Wrote:  I think the correct term for this is...
National Socialism?

Yeah I was afraid that was going to be the next logical step. I'd say a more moderate version of that without that kind of "leader" would be best.

The only thing that will make people less selfish and more apt to cooperate is war and collective suffering, sadly. That too is in our nature.

Post: #8

(06-12-2014 11:47 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 11:40 AM)Aer Wrote:  Whenever I try to explain my political beliefs to an American, they give me an odd face and try to align me to a party, but somehow I dictate a belief that contradicts this part.

So am I correct in assuming that you are not American yourself?

Just a guess on my part but...are you French? I've always had the impression of the French being very socially conservative despite the fact we stereotype them otherwise here in the USA.

Also, no, I'm American but I spend a ton of time abroad and have lived in Finland for about a year so I've seen the other side.

Post: #9

(06-12-2014 11:40 AM)Aer Wrote:  Why am I economically liberal you ask? I believe that unfettered capitalism is just as destructive as socialism, as both are prone to human error. If there are established rules and regulations to playing the game, the game is much fairer. I've also seen what it did to Eastern Europe (in person). Also I believe that governments must invest in programs which are not immediately profitable such as massive public works programs, the healthcare industry and high technology that is not for the frivolities and pleasure of the individual (Saturn V rockets vs. IPhones, seriously). I know the burden extra taxation can place on an individual. I have worked low paying jobs. Yet people seem to overlook the fact that they pay way more for frivolous pleasures such as extra data on their phones, a car with extra features, a house with a pool. Instead of buying these, give maybe 3% more on your income and have a better road system and a government to be proud of.

You're an Eisenhower Republican. This kind of thing is exactly what Eisenhower presided over - the interstate highway system, the beginning of the space program. He created ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency), which most famously created ARPANET & Packet Radio Network, which created the most basic technologies behind the Internet and cell phones, but also created Multics, which was the first time sharing operating system (Windows, Linux and OSX all use concepts pioneered there) and NavSat, which was a predecessor to the modern GPS system. Eisenhower is somewhat controversial with the libertarian types because they believe he overreached his authority, but I disagree. Public works are a legitimate government function (except for the infamous bridge to nowhere & that kind of project - you have to balance out the cost with the number of people benefiting).

Eisenhower Republicanism died with Nixon unfortunately. Nixon created some serious damage trying to mitigate the damage the Vietnam war did to the US economy with wage & price controls and some of the crazier welfare policies (and some would argue that he also took us off the Gold standard and created the fiat money system we use today). The whole practice of employers buying health insurance for their employees started when wage controls kicked in and it was a new way for employers to offer economic benefits without raising wages. Now we have a health care system that is almost completely broken, and you can blame that on federal policy to intervene in a free market. I think Nixon represents what happens when you combine activist policies with a President who doesn't have a clear vision.

Post: #10

What we need is some good old fascism.



Wald

Post: #11

(06-12-2014 12:46 PM)kerouac Wrote:  I think the correct term for this is...
National Socialism?

Other than the fact that Hilter gave it a bad name, is National Socialism in and of itself a bad idea? Because I find myself often in the same position as the OP. I believe in things like enforcing immigration, people learning English and assimilating, I'm against things like feminism and political correctness and hypersensitivity. But I also don't like libertarian economics and think wealth needs to be better distributed. Unfortunately most people that believe in the latter are far out leftists. And then some of the cultural conservatives IMO are whacked out on things like the environment and religion.

Post: #12

We call it "right on values, left on labor," and I have no problem with it.

The "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" rubric never works. The people will either force the government to recognize their values or the government will define values contrary to the people, and fiscal irresponsibility will be at the top of the list.

A people that have yet retained the moral integrity to force government to recognize their moral values, on the other hand, are a people that mean business. They will bind their government with a Constitution and any government or demographic group that tries to screw with them will be quickly dealt with.

Fiscal solvency and responsibility is a natural offshoot and benefit of social conservatism, in life and in government. Debt, waste and destruction are the natural offshoot of social liberalism.

"Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" is straight out of 1984. Put it right next to "War is Peace" and "Freedom is Slavery."

Post: #13

(06-12-2014 01:24 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 12:46 PM)kerouac Wrote:  I think the correct term for this is...
National Socialism?

Other than the fact that Hilter gave it a bad name, is National Socialism in and of itself a bad idea? Because I find myself often in the same position as the OP. I believe in things like enforcing immigration, people learning English and assimilating, I'm against things like feminism and political correctness and hypersensitivity. But I also don't like libertarian economics and think wealth needs to be better distributed. Unfortunately most people that believe in the latter are far out leftists. And then some of the cultural conservatives IMO are whacked out on things like the environment and religion.

This is why I don't agree with Republicans on immigration. They are opposed to amnesty, yet they don't realize that these people could be contributing, taxpaying American citizens if they did this instead of sending their money overseas. The debate is over if these people belong here. They're here. They learned English already, yet they're sending half their paycheck overseas.

Economically, it has to stop. America did fuck up by not preventing this, but we have to own up to it and prevent the influx of cheap labor from happening in the future since our birthrates aren't as low as other developed nations (e.g. Sweden and Germany).

Post: #14

(06-12-2014 01:14 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  What we need is some good old fascism.



Wald

Ha! According to that website, pretty much every member here is a fascist. I like.

Post: #15

(06-12-2014 02:09 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 01:14 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  What we need is some good old fascism.



Wald

Ha! According to that website, pretty much every member here is a fascist. I like.

When one first encounters the red pill - one quickly realizes that everything he thought he knew about women was wrong. Lies.

It's not too much of a stretch to think the same with government, no?

After all, who's been pushing these lies and allowing them to flourish?



Wald

Post: #16

(06-12-2014 02:28 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 02:09 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 01:14 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  What we need is some good old fascism.



Wald

Ha! According to that website, pretty much every member here is a fascist. I like.

When one first encounters the red pill - one quickly realizes that everything he thought he knew about women was wrong. Lies.

It's not too much of a stretch to think the same with government, no?

After all, who's been pushing these lies and allowing them to flourish?



Wald

I knew there was more to fascism, but I was too dumb to pick up on it. Thanks for posting that link.

Post: #17

(06-12-2014 02:28 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 02:09 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 01:14 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  What we need is some good old fascism.



Wald

Ha! According to that website, pretty much every member here is a fascist. I like.

When one first encounters the red pill - one quickly realizes that everything he thought he knew about women was wrong. Lies.

It's not too much of a stretch to think the same with government, no?

After all, who's been pushing these lies and allowing them to flourish?



Wald

Fascism itself is not evil. Its what allowed Spain to become relatively wealthy after a brutal Civil War. Its what made Italy and Germany rich.

The inherent problem with fascism is it treats the nation like one big family. So you can't advance yourself unless its a win-win for the nation and for yourself.

So you have Government regulating each and every small aspect of your life. Pickup would likely be illegal in a fascist country because its inherently bad for the nation (80/20 sex split). Doing business would be a pain in the ass.

So fascism is good for a nation. But bad for the individual. Its antithetical to why many people came to America and built it. Its antithetical to the dream of going out, hustling and getting your own.

Post: #18

(06-12-2014 02:39 PM)xpatplayer Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 02:28 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 02:09 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 01:14 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  What we need is some good old fascism.



Wald

Ha! According to that website, pretty much every member here is a fascist. I like.

When one first encounters the red pill - one quickly realizes that everything he thought he knew about women was wrong. Lies.

It's not too much of a stretch to think the same with government, no?

After all, who's been pushing these lies and allowing them to flourish?



Wald

Fascism itself is not evil. Its what allowed Spain to become relatively wealthy after a brutal Civil War. Its what made Italy and Germany rich.

The inherent problem with fascism is it treats the nation like one big family. So you can't advance yourself unless its a win-win for the nation and for yourself.

So you have Government regulating each and every small aspect of your life. Pickup would likely be illegal in a fascist country because its inherently bad for the nation (80/20 sex split). Doing business would be a pain in the ass.

So fascism is good for a nation. But bad for the individual. Its antithetical to why many people came to America and built it. Its antithetical to the dream of going out, hustling and getting your own.

It's a workable system. A little bit of capitalism and fascism can get this country back on track. We don't need to go full blown.

You can't control every aspect of people's lives and business like outlawing pickup and game. Doing so is superfluous and causes the government to waste money on useless things. An example of such, was it really necessary to kill a ton of Jews in Germany? Broken window argument here.

A primary focus on families all the while shaming (yet tacitly allowing) certain non-productive things to occur will do a more effective job at keeping the populace in line and productive. Why bother using your government to waste money on forcing people to do things when the cultural unity forces people to act as one?

No need to outlaw or limit anything. Just use culture to shame it. People are crabs and sheep.

Post: #19

What sucks about Hitler is that he gave a lot of great ideas really bad names:

- Eugenics (promoting the creation of healthy, responsible families, instead of welfare mom trash)
- Nationalism (Strict boarder control)
- Protectionism and Tariffs (Protecting native industries over foreign industries with slave labor)

Post: #20

I'm a little surprised to see so many here sympathetic to fascism and state control in general.

I don't think you can argue that a) we need stronger males and masculinity and b) we need a stronger centralized state. The two ideas seem to be mutually exclusive. Many people forget, but the modern nation state is a relatively new construct of the last 100 years or so and only became widespread after WWI. It should be no surprise that it arose in the decline of the family and destruction of masculine values. Fascism was the most blatant in ripping off traditional family power and substituting a powerful state instead, but it wasn't the only one; all modern states are a substitute for the traditional family system. Your family and heritage and lineage lose importance to the great State family, State heritage, and State lineage. It's a transfer of power from individuals and communities to faceless organizations that rule over you.

Post: #21

(06-12-2014 03:59 PM)dog Wrote:  I'm a little surprised to see so many here sympathetic to fascism and state control in general.

I don't think you can argue that a) we need stronger males and masculinity and b) we need a stronger centralized state. The two ideas seem to be mutually exclusive. Many people forget, but the modern nation state is a relatively new construct of the last 100 years or so and only became widespread after WWI. It should be no surprise that it arose in the decline of the family and destruction of masculine values. Fascism was the most blatant in ripping off traditional family power and substituting a powerful state instead, but it wasn't the only one; all modern states are a substitute for the traditional family system. Your family and heritage and lineage lose importance to the great State family, State heritage, and State lineage. It's a transfer of power from individuals and communities to faceless organizations that rule over you.

This is a great objection, but it seems like having a strong family in today's world is impossible in the face of ever larger globalized corporations outsourcing all means of jobs and production.

Thus the only way to compete is to have a strong state.

That said, I believe there should be free-markets WITHIN a state, but not necessarily outside of the state.

Post: #22

(06-12-2014 03:59 PM)dog Wrote:  I'm a little surprised to see so many here sympathetic to fascism and state control in general.

I don't think you can argue that a) we need stronger males and masculinity and b) we need a stronger centralized state. The two ideas seem to be mutually exclusive. Many people forget, but the modern nation state is a relatively new construct of the last 100 years or so and only became widespread after WWI. It should be no surprise that it arose in the decline of the family and destruction of masculine values. Fascism was the most blatant in ripping off traditional family power and substituting a powerful state instead, but it wasn't the only one; all modern states are a substitute for the traditional family system. Your family and heritage and lineage lose importance to the great State family, State heritage, and State lineage. It's a transfer of power from individuals and communities to faceless organizations that rule over you.

These ideals aren't mutually exclusive so long as the Government doesn't overreach. As I was saying earlier, fascism is taking economic control too far (over-regulation, over-centralization) but if regulation and centralization are practiced in moderation, it wouldn't be fascist. Nationalist but not fascist.

Under fascism, the state controls all aspects of social and economic life for the welfare of society. Under libertarianism, the individual controls all aspects of social and economic life. This leads to stronger families under libertarianism since people need a larger support system. Under fascism, its all one big family under the state. Both systems encourage strong gender-roles. Men are encouraged to be men under both systems.

But when you take the middle path, the state is encouraged to be the provider while lightly regulating business and not following what may be best for the state and people in the long-run. Such a system provides for women and minimizes the utility of traditional gender-roles, thereby emasculating men and masculinizing women.

Post: #23

(06-12-2014 11:40 AM)Aer Wrote:  I have come to the fundamental conclusion that social conservatism and economic liberalism (A.K.A. Keynesianism) is compatible.

Sounds like you are a run-of-the-mill Republican.

They tend to be socially conservative and they too believe that a central bank and government spending can be used to successfully centrally plan the economy.

Post: #24

I don't agree with the OP in the main, but I don't think it's a weird position to hold. It's actually common in far more countries than a lot of people think. One of the benefits of travel is seeing that other people have their own ways of doing things. Sometimes they're better, sometimes worse, usually a mix of both. The Anglosphere is fairly insular in its ideas in this way and we tend to think we have it all figured out. The U.S. and U.K. in particular are not doing too well right now (not that Europe or Japan are either though), and I think the sheen is going to come off a lot of the political status quo in the Anglosphere in coming decades.

Post: #25

(06-12-2014 06:00 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  I think the sheen is going to come off a lot of the political status quo in the Anglosphere in coming decades.

Maybe, but how will things ever change if people are becoming more and more detached? People seem to be more impressed with the amount of likes they get on instagram & facebook than anything else that might be more "real."

Or perhaps, these are the same people that wouldn't have participated anyway and we should completely disregard them altogether?

The thing I wish I had the most was an incredible amount of wisdom, because it is true, history repeats itself. Maybe the same people talking about Kanye West and Kim Kardashian are the same (type of) people who would have been talking about their neighbor down the street. I'm sure political figures would have disregarded them (or manipulated them) then as they do today.

The thing about history that I don't see repeating itself (at least in modern times) is the submission of men. Men used to be the ones that brought about change. Now that men are becoming more pacified, there is no change.

I doubt our time is the time we will see a massive revolution (or any sort of major ideological shift). Maybe when we're grand parents (if we ever will be, because a lot of us don't seem to be procreating)?