There is nothing really to debate other than nationalism vs universalism. Kin vs corporation. And the degree to which our options are limited by that choice.

Unless you agree on that premise, then the rest is pointless.

Communism was a universal religion and fascism a nationalist one, and that’s … really all there is to be said. The difference is that communism spread by the underclasses and the talking classes, and fascism spread as defense against them by more developed countries.

For those reasons, communism has a vast pseudo-intellectual pseudoscientific and speudorational base behind it and fascism a romantic one.

In practical terms my work is absolutely positively in accord with fascism, but as rigorous as marxism. It’s just fascism for every subrace and tribe, ours or not.

The …. disease of abrahamism has infected nearly everyone in the west, so its hard for people of ‘weakness’ so to speak, to act as do the japanese any longer. Which is how it’s necessary to act: the polity bears costs of the intertemporal preservation of the polity.

If your people are not enough of a religion then why are you a f—king fascist in the first place?????

The truth is anyone intellectually capable would not make the national socialist argument because it is by definition so inarticulately stated, without institutional prescriptions, without any economic or legal ‘rules’.

It is a sentimental and aesthetic religion by which authority is given to a figurehead to create benefits in times of stress, conflict, competition, and war. I mean the reason no one argues for natsoc other than by analogy is there is no such thought that is not merely romanticism.

Autarkic economy for defense of the kin group by handing power to a General in times of threat, and justifying it with propaganda…. is just …. tediously boring. It’s what anyone and everyone does, and always has done.

Its just the only … example anyone can draw from other than kicking the muslims out of spain, and resisting the muslims in vienna, and resisting the muslims in general. We have been so relatively successful that we haven’t had to have too many such movements as the natsoc.

I want to add to the capitalism vs communism debate by saying it’s a (((Fake))) argument, when the debate is and always will be rule of law that results in markets and arbitrary rule that results in central control.

I think the only argument to have is one of rule of law, and the method by which we take the proceeds of our production of a rule-of-law order, and decide who does what with them.

As far as I can tell kings are far, far, better than anyone else at doing it at their level and civic orders and private orders better at doing it at their levels. Thats absolutely positively impossible to argue with.

Now, we can say that in order to scale the production of commons as the cost of producing commons that produce returns increases, that we must produce a market for the production of commons just as we produce a market for private goods, services, and information.

But the idea that this market should produce monopolies as we do under majoritarian democracy, r ather than produce whatever contracts can be negotiated, by direct economic contribution (even if mandatory), is rather nonsensical – since that is the source of our conflicts.

In other words, I see these discussions as … a bit …. like victorian parlor games. Political models are so imprecise as to be fictional accounts. Either one can describe the means by which commons decided upon and are produced, or one can’t.

And if one can’t then he’s just telling fairy stories.
Advertisements