Mark Torres14 said:If you ask me, humility is just a mask for frustration—it’s what people lean on when they feel worthless. The only exception is when someone acts humble just to score points later. But let's call that what it actually is: being manipulative, not humble. Neither Jesus, nor Gandhi, nor Mother Teresa ever played the "humble" card with people they considered weaker than themselves. Far from it.
That was their whole purpose in life—even if it's a stretch to apply it to a Messiah, he was still a man before the resurrection... basically, once they truly grasped the nature of reality, life, themselves, how fleeting everything is, and how time just grinds us all down. They chose serving people as their core mission. (It’s a heavy responsibility—it really comes down to an inevitable reversal, being counter-cultural against everything else.)
Sure, you can live without all that—just head out into the wilderness and do your own thing.
Realizing who you are means being a soul (which is also a way of saying "being"... kind of like when you're asleep and don't give a damn about spirituality). It’s still a sort of ego/role, I guess, but since they actually understand the facts of life and how the world works... there's no need to fake it or lie to others just to chase fame. Of course, if you're one of those hardcore rationalists who refuses to believe in anything beyond what you can touch (since you have zero proof for that, too), then sure... it's all just a role to you.
neonhound18 said:Which is precisely why I argued that we really need to focus on education; we have to make people understand that sticking to monoculture—planting the same crop over and over—essentially guts the soil. It invites diseases, pests, and weeds to take hold, and eventually leads to total soil degradation as the humus levels plummet, largely because everyone relies so heavily on synthetic fertilizers for grain crops, but I won't go on listing the rest of the consequences here. 🕺
Look, they know all that stuff. The real issue is that nobody's actually doing soil analysis or anything serious. The pros who actually know their business do it, obviously, but without the right tech and know-how, you're stuck. It's the same everywhere. The goal should be helping those folks (most farmers aren't to blame here, by the way) land those high-level roles—that's the whole point. Every single past administration—whether it was the Republicans, Democrats, or whoever else—just wasted time fussing over tiny family plots. They completely missed the mark. They should have been investing in industry near the rural areas, like how things used to be. Now? Everything in the Midwest is just falling apart—think wood processing, silos, mills, whatever. Once they finally sort out the land registries, those massive tracts of land will end up in the hands of serious corporations. That’s where the future of farming lies for us Midwesters.
I'm just not sure what's going to happen with livestock and pigs. There's endless potential for sheep and goats (even down by your coast/seaside), but nobody—and I mean actual investors—seems to give a damn.
It’s just like any other mass production setup—you make peanuts per unit, so you really have to move huge volume to see anything.
Sure, you could go bigger—keeping hundreds of hogs until they're about two years old—but then you're pivoting toward quality and catering to foodies and connoisseurs, kind of like that whole organic farming vibe. Most folks don't care about that stuff though; they're just chasing the lowest price tag rather than actual quality. That said, people are definitely starting to pay more attention to what they're putting on their plates.
To make things even more tragic, this year's drought basically scorched everything to the ground. The reality is, the government (or the European Union) is going to have to start dumping money into irrigation systems. In my opinion, small-scale farmers can't really cut it unless they stick to tobacco, veggies, fruit, or grapes—basically anything where you've got to put in the sweat equity and serious work. You just can't sustain grain, meat, or dairy without large-scale production. (And we’ve already seen what happens when that fails—estates go bust and people move away, so clearly, that path isn't working) Honestly, what we’re doing right now with these subsidies feels a lot like socialism. It’s kind of like that in the European Union too (well, maybe not quite, since they probably actually have demand for their goods, so it's more like a form of "protectionism"), but here, it feels like we're just handing out cash just to keep things from falling into total ruin. We desperately need supporting industries to actually turn those raw materials into finished products. That old model, back when we were hitting our peaks, was much better.
Tourism has potential, sure, but banking everything on it was a mistake. For regions like the Midwest to actually pull in tourists, they need to look like places where people actually thrive off farming—it’s all one big cycle.
Maybe the real move—the actual solution—is just learning how to be alone. All that effort we put into people, trying so hard to be liked just so we can fit in... I don't know, man, doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Hitting 27 is that turning point where you really start changing as a man. Your youth is winding down, you're starting to get older, and that means you finally start setting priorities—which basically means a lot of things just stop bothering you.
It all really boils down to why you aren't free—it’s different for everyone. For some folks, it might just be a few hurdles to clear, but for others? It feels like basically anything that doesn't go their way.
It’s basically the head. Now, as for what it all represents... well, that depends—it could be a message from your subconscious signs, or just a straight-up sign from the universe. I deal with similar stuff myself—call it a fixation on something, but for me, there's always some kind of deeper realization behind it.
Nah—an egoist is someone who's just straight-up selfish. Doesn't have to be cheap or anything, they just focus entirely on themselves. That's the whole point.
It’s kind of a taboo subject, but honestly, what else can you say? 😁 Maybe they're just free spirits—or if not that... maybe they're actually compensating for something or hiding parts of themselves. Simple language can totally flip an intellectual phrase on its head; suddenly, you've said something serious without even trying.
So you're basically saying you won't own up to what you did... though I guess we could debate the "intent" part, since that's usually where things get blurry.
And honestly, if someone else is trying to pin guilt on you—they’re probably just manipulating the situation rather than actually trying to help.
Steven Murphy2 said:It really boils down to this one massive, annoying dilemma—either we just keep doubling down on this exact same policy, or we scrap it entirely and try something completely different. There's no middle ground here, right? It’s either stay the course or pivot hard. What else is there to even talk about?
I don't know, man—it’s different depending on where you look. In some parts of the US, people actually hold onto their faith, you know? Like in the Bible Belt or parts of the Midwest, but then you go somewhere else and nobody gives a damn. We're talking about the whole landscape here... and then you've got the Protestants, the Catholics, all those local factions, plus Jewish and Muslim communities. It’s just a constant cycle of religious friction—basically a recipe for endless holy wars, if you ask me. So, let me get this straight—are we basically saying the goal is to roll back the clock to how things were in America before the French Revolution? Is that really where we're headed? 😁
American Christians are finally being backed into a corner—they’re going to have to pick a side. Are you actually for mass immigration or are you against it? It goes even deeper than that, honestly. Are you standing up for Christianity or are you turning your back on it? Look, before the French Revolution, what did "Europe" even mean? It meant Christianity. And we aren't trying to slide back into the Dark Ages, are we? That’s definitely not the goal here. The real goal should be the dominance of science and a true sense of Western identity—not some weird obsession with respecting Middle Eastern cultures from the pre-French Revolution era, which, let's be real, basically stifled any actual progress.
You're overlooking the fact that when Muslims arrived in places like Spain or the North America, they actually had a massive positive impact on a continent that was basically just mud, plague, and violence at the time—all while Rome was busy encouraging that chaos.
The German liberals get what's happening here; most of these refugees are perfectly fine people... it's the same story across other American countries, too. But does that mean we should just tear down the whole Union project? I don't think so.
All these right-wing populists popping up (and even some on the left), they're all pushing similar agendas—some even want to bail out of the Union entirely. I'm worried they aren't looking at the big picture or thinking about the long game.
Steven Murphy2 said:I can't even begin to wrap my head around this... I mean, seriously? How are we even having this conversation in this day and age? It’s like people just stop thinking the second things get complicated—it’s honestly exhausting. You see it everywhere, right? People just jumping to conclusions without looking at the actual facts, just following the crowd because it's easier than actually using their brains. And don't even get me started on the "experts" who act like they have all the answers when half the time they don't have a clue what's actually happening on the ground. Is anyone actually listening anymore, or are we all just shouting into the void? It feels like we're stuck in this loop where nobody wants to admit they might be wrong, which—let's face it—is the whole point of learning something new! It's frustrating, man. Truly.
So, I tried posting some of those scientifically and politically incorrect ideas—you know, the ones that got tossed in the trash after World War II—on this forum, and boom, everything just vanished. Like, seriously? If you don't believe me, go Google it. It’s like the entire American school system is basically just one big indoctrination camp for this unnatural egalitarianism nonsense. They spend all this time studying everything from bottom-feeding critters up to humans, and then they just shut down any actual debate once they hit the "equality" part. Honestly, if you want proof of how much these ideologies have hijacked our education, just look at the absolute mess our schools are today. It’s embarrassing. We have mountains of highly qualified experts running around, people who were literally elected by the public, yet they can't seem to fix a single major issue in this country for years on end. It’s ridiculous! That's exactly why I’m against democracy—though, let me be clear, I am *not* against free speech. We don't need this version of democracy. You see these so-called "direct democrats" attacking the system while simultaneously being totally against free speech? People like RF? Give me a break. They act like they want a voice, but the second you say something that challenges their precious worldview, you're out. That's not democracy—that's just them wanting to run the whole damn country their way without anyone talking back.
So, isn't their whole economic setup basically just one giant, spinning vortex centered around two massive political factions? It’s like everything else is just orbiting those two main players—nothing actually moves unless they say so, right?
Sure thing.
I mean, look—it feels like your whole theory is just a massive knee-jerk reaction to how fast Islam is spreading across Europe, right? It’s basically a defensive play—a reactionary move to push back against that shift—even if you consider that while religions share some DNA, they’re definitely cut from different cloths... way more conservative on this side of things. But honestly, I gotta wonder... is that even the best-case scenario here? Or are we looking at a bunch of other options that we aren't even considering yet?
It’s not just some knee-jerk reaction to the spread of Islam—it’s a direct response to the total, blatant neglect that allowed things to get this far in the first place. Seriously, how do you even ignore a situation like this until it's already staring you in the face? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here... you got a better idea? Any actual alternative? Because let's be real: when there's an action, there's always gonna be a reaction. It's just basic math at this point.
It’s just this dilemma—is religion actually better than philosophy, you know what I mean? If I recall correctly, Wilhelm Reich dives into the exact kind of stuff you're looking for in his books. Seems like that's what rural folks used to lean on, but then industrialization basically flipped the whole script.
Steven Murphy2 said:I can't even begin to wrap my head around this... I mean, seriously? How are we even having this conversation in this day and age? It’s like people just stop thinking the second things get complicated—it’s honestly exhausting. You see it everywhere, right? People just jumping to conclusions without looking at the actual facts, just following the crowd because it's easier than actually using their brains. And don't even get me started on the "experts" who act like they have all the answers when half the time they don't have a clue what's actually happening on the ground. Is anyone actually listening anymore, or are we all just shouting into the void? It feels like we're stuck in this loop where nobody wants to admit they might be wrong, which—let's face it—is the whole point of learning something new! It's frustrating, man. Truly.
So, I tried posting some of those scientifically and politically incorrect ideas—you know, the ones that got tossed in the trash after World War II—on this forum, and boom, everything just vanished. Like, seriously? If you don't believe me, go Google it. It’s like the entire American school system is basically just one big indoctrination camp for this unnatural egalitarianism nonsense. They spend all this time studying everything from bottom-feeding critters up to humans, and then they just shut down any actual debate once they hit the "equality" part. Honestly, if you want proof of how much these ideologies have hijacked our education, just look at the absolute mess our schools are today. It’s embarrassing. We have mountains of highly qualified experts running around, people who were literally elected by the public, yet they can't seem to fix a single major issue in this country for years on end. It’s ridiculous! That's exactly why I’m against democracy—though, let me be clear, I am *not* against free speech. We don't need this version of democracy. You see these so-called "direct democrats" attacking the system while simultaneously being totally against free speech? People like RF? Give me a break. They act like they want a voice, but the second you say something that challenges their precious worldview, you're out. That's not democracy—that's just them wanting to run the whole damn country their way without anyone talking back.
So, isn't their whole economic setup basically just one giant, spinning vortex centered around two massive political factions? It’s like everything else is just orbiting those two main players—nothing actually moves unless they say so, right?
Sure thing.
I mean, look—it feels like your whole theory is just a massive knee-jerk reaction to how fast Islam is spreading across Europe, right? It’s basically a defensive play—a reactionary move to push back against that shift—even if you consider that while religions share some DNA, they’re definitely cut from different cloths... way more conservative on this side of things. But honestly, I gotta wonder... is that even the best-case scenario here? Or are we looking at a bunch of other options that we aren't even considering yet?
It’s not just some knee-jerk reaction to the spread of Islam—it’s a direct response to the total, blatant neglect that allowed things to get this far in the first place. Seriously, how do you even ignore a situation like this until it's already staring you in the face? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here... you got a better idea? Any actual alternative? Because let's be real: when there's an action, there's always gonna be a reaction. It's just basic math at this point.
I'm not so sure—some countries are pretty religious (think parts of the US, maybe Poland or Italy...), while others aren't really feeling it. We're talking about all of Europe here... plus you've got Protestants, Orthodox, local sects, Jews, Muslims... (boom, religious wars right there.) So, basically, is pre-French Revolution Europe the end goal? 😁
Steven Murphy2 said:I don't even know where to start with this one—honestly, my head is spinning just thinking about it. You see these things happening and you just have to wonder... is anyone actually paying attention? Is anybody else seeing the patterns here, or am I just shouting into the void? It’s like we’re living through some kind of slow-motion train wreck and everyone is just sitting there, sipping their lattes, acting like everything is totally normal. It's not normal! And don't even get me started on the way people react when you try to point out the obvious. You bring up a valid point—a real, grounded observation—and suddenly you're the crazy one. The "outlier." Give me a break. It’s the same old story every single time. They want us to stay in our little boxes, follow the script, and never, ever ask why the script was written in the first place. Why is that? Why is there such a massive push to keep everyone quiet and compliant? It’s frustrating, man. It really is. You look at the big picture—the actual, messy, complicated reality of how things work—and it’s nothing like what they feed us on the nightly news. It’s all sanitized, polished, and completely disconnected from the grit and grime of real life. We’re being fed a diet of pure nonsense while the real issues are swept under the rug. How long can people keep ignoring the elephant in the room before someone finally trips over it? I mean, seriously.
The real question here is just how comfortable you can be relative to what? I mean, does it all boil down to leaving your kid some massive inheritance—like a company that pays peanuts while they’re out there blowing through cash at casinos and flying around on private jets? If you look at it from a purely economic or some kind of fairy-tale humanist perspective, sure, the market dictates everything. But if you look at it from a natural, raw standpoint? It’s an invitation for a revolt. In our neck of the woods, we aren't talking about some pampered European uprising—we're looking at the non-Western proletariat. I spend way too much time scrolling through Facebook feeds, and honestly, the articles they push show that these types of workers are way more combative; they’re the ones cutting the wires whenever they get the chance. They aren't just more aggressive, though—they have a completely different culture altogether. See, the liberal lives this cozy, insulated life, totally detached from reality, having no clue what's actually happening in the streets around them. They’ll go off to fight wars "for democracy" in the name of individual equality, even when you've got libertarians standing firmly against immigration. And let's be real—the official policy of the capitalist USA is the exact opposite of what those liberals claim to stand for. Like I was saying, if you look at the numbers—and you can find the official stats online, the people running these polls love categorizing voters like this—about 70% of Americans voted, which leaves a 30% non-Western demographic in the mix. People went for Trump because he wanted to build the wall and protect jobs against a low-income, non-Western class. But between the commitment to democracy and these ongoing population trends, we’re looking at a future where we either face a full-blown civil war or a total surrender in the name of "equality."
nimblemarlin6 I can't even begin to explain how much this gets under my skin—honestly, where do we even start? It’s like people just refuse to see what’s right in front of their faces, you know? They're all caught up in these little bubbles, ignoring the bigger picture entirely, and then they act shocked when things go sideways. Is anyone actually paying attention anymore? I mean, seriously! It’s the same old story every single time—people getting swept up in the hype, following the crowd without a second thought, and leaving the actual logic behind in the dust. It makes me want to scream sometimes, I swear. You'd think after everything we've seen, people would have learned a thing or two by now, but nope—back to square one. It's exhausting, really. Just... exhausting. Why? Honestly, the answer is pretty damn simple—if you actually want to feel comfortable and secure in the society you live in (not to mention the fact that capitalism literally needs a solid middle class just to keep people buying stuff), then you’ve got to organize things so that the poor or folks with disabilities aren't left feeling like they're stuck at the absolute bottom of the barrel. It's just common sense, right?
It’s always going to be bottom-of-the-barrel trash. Just because people coming from some impoverished corner of the world are acting like total terrorists doesn't mean we should overhaul our entire system just to accommodate them—seriously, why would we even consider that? If we keep playing this game and letting things slide, the American working class is basically toast anyway... I mean, look at the numbers. We're losing our population fast if we stay on this path. It's a downward spiral, plain and simple.
Before World War II, you had all kinds of political science that would be considered totally "incorrect" by today's standards—stuff people wouldn't dare whisper about now. But once WWII wrapped up, everything shifted. Suddenly, anything that even smelled like a connection to the Nazi Party was tossed straight into the trash bin. They tried to scrub religion out of the equation entirely, too. But seriously, look at the sheer scale of things! I mean, the Pope heads what is arguably the most powerful organization on the planet. You see priests being called upon constantly. Even here in the States, look at how traditional values hold their ground in certain regions during major votes. At the end of the day, Christianity and liberalism are both built on these big egalitarian ideas. But here’s the kicker: liberalism completely turned its back on natural sciences. Because they rejected that, I honestly think we're headed for a massive cultural shockwave—sort of a Darwinian reckoning coming for us all. And don't even get me started on the Communists. They ditched Christianity just to try and pivot toward this weird, twisted version of "atheistic Christianity." It's all connected, isn't it?
In your little scenario, you’re basically treating the state like one giant collective corporation—where the whole goal is just sheer numbers and some "pure" national identity based on ideas, socialism... I mean, honestly, what even defines a nation anymore? If everything is driven by interests, whose interests are we actually talking about here?
Oh, please, we’ve got that exact setup right now. Look at the USA—it's the same thing. You have this collective corporate state dragging us into wars in the name of "democracy" and basically just snatching money straight out of people's paychecks 😁 That’s socialism if I ever saw it—go ahead, ask crimsonwolf20 about it. My point is, my scenario is about making sure we don't stumble blindly into another Dark Age fueled by either Islam or Christianity.
I get the rest, but I’m still lost on this part... how exactly did he say no?
Steven Murphy2 said:I don't even know where to start with this one—honestly, my head is spinning just thinking about it. You see these things happening and you just have to wonder... is anyone actually paying attention? Is anybody else seeing the patterns here, or am I just shouting into the void? It’s like we’re living through some kind of slow-motion train wreck and everyone is just sitting there, sipping their lattes, acting like everything is totally normal. It's not normal! And don't even get me started on the way people react when you try to point out the obvious. You bring up a valid point—a real, grounded observation—and suddenly you're the crazy one. The "outlier." Give me a break. It’s the same old story every single time. They want us to stay in our little boxes, follow the script, and never, ever ask why the script was written in the first place. Why is that? Why is there such a massive push to keep everyone quiet and compliant? It’s frustrating, man. It really is. You look at the big picture—the actual, messy, complicated reality of how things work—and it’s nothing like what they feed us on the nightly news. It’s all sanitized, polished, and completely disconnected from the grit and grime of real life. We’re being fed a diet of pure nonsense while the real issues are swept under the rug. How long can people keep ignoring the elephant in the room before someone finally trips over it? I mean, seriously.
The real question here is just how comfortable you can be relative to what? I mean, does it all boil down to leaving your kid some massive inheritance—like a company that pays peanuts while they’re out there blowing through cash at casinos and flying around on private jets? If you look at it from a purely economic or some kind of fairy-tale humanist perspective, sure, the market dictates everything. But if you look at it from a natural, raw standpoint? It’s an invitation for a revolt. In our neck of the woods, we aren't talking about some pampered European uprising—we're looking at the non-Western proletariat. I spend way too much time scrolling through Facebook feeds, and honestly, the articles they push show that these types of workers are way more combative; they’re the ones cutting the wires whenever they get the chance. They aren't just more aggressive, though—they have a completely different culture altogether. See, the liberal lives this cozy, insulated life, totally detached from reality, having no clue what's actually happening in the streets around them. They’ll go off to fight wars "for democracy" in the name of individual equality, even when you've got libertarians standing firmly against immigration. And let's be real—the official policy of the capitalist USA is the exact opposite of what those liberals claim to stand for. Like I was saying, if you look at the numbers—and you can find the official stats online, the people running these polls love categorizing voters like this—about 70% of Americans voted, which leaves a 30% non-Western demographic in the mix. People went for Trump because he wanted to build the wall and protect jobs against a low-income, non-Western class. But between the commitment to democracy and these ongoing population trends, we’re looking at a future where we either face a full-blown civil war or a total surrender in the name of "equality."
nimblemarlin6 I can't even begin to explain how much this gets under my skin—honestly, where do we even start? It’s like people just refuse to see what’s right in front of their faces, you know? They're all caught up in these little bubbles, ignoring the bigger picture entirely, and then they act shocked when things go sideways. Is anyone actually paying attention anymore? I mean, seriously! It’s the same old story every single time—people getting swept up in the hype, following the crowd without a second thought, and leaving the actual logic behind in the dust. It makes me want to scream sometimes, I swear. You'd think after everything we've seen, people would have learned a thing or two by now, but nope—back to square one. It's exhausting, really. Just... exhausting. Why? Honestly, the answer is pretty damn simple—if you actually want to feel comfortable and secure in the society you live in (not to mention the fact that capitalism literally needs a solid middle class just to keep people buying stuff), then you’ve got to organize things so that the poor or folks with disabilities aren't left feeling like they're stuck at the absolute bottom of the barrel. It's just common sense, right?
It’s always going to be bottom-of-the-barrel trash. Just because people coming from some impoverished corner of the world are acting like total terrorists doesn't mean we should overhaul our entire system just to accommodate them—seriously, why would we even consider that? If we keep playing this game and letting things slide, the American working class is basically toast anyway... I mean, look at the numbers. We're losing our population fast if we stay on this path. It's a downward spiral, plain and simple.
Before World War II, you had all kinds of political science that would be considered totally "incorrect" by today's standards—stuff people wouldn't dare whisper about now. But once WWII wrapped up, everything shifted. Suddenly, anything that even smelled like a connection to the Nazi Party was tossed straight into the trash bin. They tried to scrub religion out of the equation entirely, too. But seriously, look at the sheer scale of things! I mean, the Pope heads what is arguably the most powerful organization on the planet. You see priests being called upon constantly. Even here in the States, look at how traditional values hold their ground in certain regions during major votes. At the end of the day, Christianity and liberalism are both built on these big egalitarian ideas. But here’s the kicker: liberalism completely turned its back on natural sciences. Because they rejected that, I honestly think we're headed for a massive cultural shockwave—sort of a Darwinian reckoning coming for us all. And don't even get me started on the Communists. They ditched Christianity just to try and pivot toward this weird, twisted version of "atheistic Christianity." It's all connected, isn't it?
In your little scenario, you’re basically treating the state like one giant collective corporation—where the whole goal is just sheer numbers and some "pure" national identity based on ideas, socialism... I mean, honestly, what even defines a nation anymore? If everything is driven by interests, whose interests are we actually talking about here?
Oh, please, we’ve got that exact setup right now. Look at the USA—it's the same thing. You have this collective corporate state dragging us into wars in the name of "democracy" and basically just snatching money straight out of people's paychecks 😁 That’s socialism if I ever saw it—go ahead, ask crimsonwolf20 about it. My point is, my scenario is about making sure we don't stumble blindly into another Dark Age fueled by either Islam or Christianity.
Isn't their whole economic setup basically just a central axis—with two major political parties revolving around it? —kind of like how we talked about earlier regarding how the government treats bureaucrats. Basically, free-market democracy is the endgame... which means liberalism ends up dominating everything outside of economics, too. (I mean, sure, there's plenty of friction over stuff like tolerance and diversity, but statistically speaking, it doesn't actually threaten the system.)
Even if that cowboy in the movie talks a big game about traditional values and saying grace before meals—it's still just a movie.
I feel like your whole scenario is just a gut reaction to how fast Islam is spreading across Europe—basically a defensive move—and since both religions share some DNA but have their own vibes (especially with being more conservative), it makes sense. I'm wondering though—is this actually the best-case scenario, or are there other ways this could play out?
Steven Murphy2 said:Look, individualism is built on faith. Sure, having an individual opinion is fine—we aren't all carbon copies, obviously—but "individual politics"? That's a myth. We moved past primitive living ages ago, and even back then, there was no such thing as individualism; resources were shared within the family unit. This whole neoliberal model is basically just a way for people to pretend they’re great philosophers when, in reality, they can't get anything done. I mean, seriously, how many actual capitalists are out here championing the neoliberal model and bashing the state? Big Capital sure isn't doing it. And those Masons who make up the liberal elite—you know, the ones supposedly fixing the world's problems like Hanžeković explained—they're just working to keep the system running. When they go off to fight wars in Afghanistan or Syria, do they actually believe in "equal opportunity"? Because let's be real, it doesn't exist. Are their actions actually promoting individualism? As far as I can tell, they're just creating more collectives—you've got the current system, then you've got the opposition like ISIS, and then a third force like the push for borders. You could use libertarianism to attack immigration since that's a state policy—using their own weapons against them—or you could use it against Communism, because that explains how capital is formed, though it usually just boils down to claiming what we have isn't liberalism but socialism by hinting at Communism. But if you ask me, Communism is just the inevitable byproduct of democracy and equality (which is easy to prove once you realize equal opportunity is a fairy tale). Communism is the final stage of this drive toward equality and democracy that ends up screwing over the American worker. It turns out liberals just lied to themselves with this obsession with equality, and now we're stuck with cultural chaos because those egalitarian "equal chances" they brag about are total bunk. I see what they're aiming for, but the state exists for the reasons I just laid out. We had families built on social principles (not Communist stuff where everyone gets everything), we had tribes, we developed nations and states as groups, and all of it was fueled by individual interests too. Honestly, it would be better if liberals actually integrated the natural sciences and hard laws into their theories, alongside humanistic sciences like economics. Everything is explained there! And birth rates? They play the biggest role in both the economy and society. If someone capable of having more kids doesn't care about it while simultaneously letting in people from high-growth populations, those newcomers are going to overwrite the existing culture and wreck the economy. Since companies need workers, the state is absolutely necessary to step in—to take earnings away from some negligent heir and redistribute them through subsidies to those who will actually preserve our current culture. We've got over 200 multi-millionaires floating around while our birth rate is tanking, which means our workforce is shrinking. Then you hear all this whining about "we can't find workers"—yeah, no kidding, none of those 200-some-odd rich guys are actually providing what the market needs, lol.
Didn't the liberals basically invent the natural sciences? (basically sidelining religion where it belongs, right?) And when it comes to ethics, they're definitely the most "humanitarian"—if you follow that logic of "teach them how to fish whenever possible." I get what you're getting at, but the whole "tribe" concept doesn't really cut it anymore—it's not even a military force these days. Nowadays, it's all about education, specialization, creativity, skills... information. Those are the individual comparative advantages you have to recognize and leverage in the market to make a profit. You could say individuality is the capital of today, and it'll be even more so tomorrow, especially as production shifts toward goods and services tailored specifically to whatever the customer wants. Even with all that, unemployment is still gonna be a thing, and that's a real challenge ahead. (Some countries are already moving toward providing benefits, but that requires a wealthy state)
In your scenario, you've basically got a collective corporation called "the state," where the goal is just raw numbers and a culturally pure nation in terms of ideas—kind of like socialism... though it really makes you wonder what a "nation" even is anymore... and whose interests is it actually serving?
Steven Murphy2, I honestly don't think the liberal model is even aiming for that kind of equality—it’s more about individualism... the end game is clearly the neoliberal model (zero state involvement, though maybe that's being a bit extra for now, or perhaps it's just because of how much influence you right-wingers or those leftists have.)
David Vaughn75 said:How did it end? Where exactly did the Germans screw up their economy?
Government spending—if I remember correctly—and prepping for a massive war. It’s like what happened with the Soviet Union after their wars; they spent everything on rebuilding and arming up, and then they just folded when they got hit by market economies—kind of like what went down in America.
Steven Murphy2 said:Look, you raise the minimum wage based on the idea that an adult should actually have money left over after paying rent and utilities—you know, actual cash to spend, not just enough to survive in some cramped, overcrowded apartment where you just work, eat, and sleep. That’s the goal. And to stop the population from just drifting, you implement a planned population policy—using progressive taxation to subsidize families based on how many kids they have, but done through selective criteria. You can't just throw money at everyone randomly to boost birth rates; that's a waste. To pull in capital, you court foreign corporations by making local labor more competitive than their own domestic costs, and then you stop the brain drain through real enforcement. As for how the state runs? Scrap the whole "civil society" nonsense, bring back mandatory military service, and give weapons to people who have proven they are capable and ready to fight. A secular state, obviously. Freedom of speech stays, sure, but democratic decision-making should only happen when it truly matters. If there's a defined plan in place, you follow it. We don't need a dozen different political parties when you've got workers and capitalists united as one nation. Right now, we're stuck playing out the hand of the French Revolutionary, which basically built up civil society as a way to resist, all while serving liberal ideology. There should be room for adjustments, though—maybe using the media to highlight individuals who help improve the party's performance. This wouldn't just be a platform for the working majority; it would be a survival blueprint for the American people. These are just my rough outlines, though—I'll leave the heavy lifting to the nationalist experts. Back in the 19th century, those old-school conservatives had an economics expert like Kvaternik, who came from the upper class; their whole base was centered on the survival of the people in this region and everything that entails—and honestly, we need people like that today. Nationalism doesn't mean excluding minorities. A nation is a collection of different groups, usually named after the largest one. You shouldn't bother forming a party just to win a handful of meaningless seats; instead, you should radicalize society first so that the military and police are already on your side. That would be an ideology completely opposite to every single parliamentary party out there right now.
I’ve read through everything but I won't dive too deep into the commentary—I'm not exactly an expert on Marx (nor would I try to overhaul the current system, maybe just tweak some flaws... which is fine since supply and demand basically regulate itself anyway). These days, the worker is treated as just another "resource" or capital, and capitalists are constantly struggling to find skilled labor or specialists—it's the same story here in the States. I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks about how the economy functions in this new, let's call it, "folk-state." I notice there'd be a ton of meetings, committees, or planning groups involved. If things didn't just fall into place naturally, would they resort to force?
But you haven't considered that people inherently crave freedom and liberalism—they wouldn't trade their hard-won rights for anything. Your model seems to rely on religion (patriarchy... I mean, what are women supposed to do if they're forced to have ten kids?), on stripping away civil liberties, and on going back to a time before the French Revolutionary era—which, by the way, was a massive turning point for humanity along with the Enlightenment and science, indirectly paving the way for capitalism. Feudalism could never pull this off (mostly because its extreme version relied on inquisitors and dogma), and we're talking about industry here.
So, you're suggesting a setup similar to what we see with certain religious groups and their "alleged" influx into our borders, but to me, those seem like somewhat irrational fears (sure, there are fanatics out there, we see that)... most who arrive will eventually assimilate (those who don't will just head home because there won't be jobs for them), much like in the United States or even a unified Europe (driven by interest and survival). That's to say, Trump might be leaning a bit too hard into the paranoia—he definitely has his own motives, but that's a whole other conversation and I won't speculate on it right now.
Steven Murphy2 said:Bringing up the Nazi Party here—even though I laid out some specific foundations for a party like that earlier—is really just a classic example of how terrified people are of a true working-class right-wing movement. That’s what the system is scared of, you know? Because they know leftist labor parties can't actually pull real support from the people anymore. They realize if they push a conservative, anti-immigrant party, nothing fundamentally changes; the workers just clean up the mess before things revert back. And Communism? That won't work either because workers in Europe are way too expensive compared to workers in Africa, so a dictatorship of the proletariat would basically just screw over its own people. This isn't some imitation of a Nazi or Communist program, mind you—there's no "living space" struggle here, which is a hallmark of both those ideologies. Plus, the framework for worker wages is clearly defined on an individual level, including how to achieve them (which those other two groups don't even have a plan for), and whether we're looking at worker democracy or pluralism is still an open question. Honestly, a conservative party acting as a true labor right would prevent the rise of both Communism and Nazism, as well as those moderate right-wing anti-immigrant parties that act as nothing more than weapons for big capital—parties that solve one problem only to turn workers into "black laborers in factories," which is exactly what we see happening today.
As for this whole debate about state coercion... look, coercion is built into the very nature of existence. There isn't a single state or a single boss in a corporation who doesn't use it. Our soldiers get sent off to "wars for democracy" just so they can loot as many resources as possible. The economic success of developed nations was built on plunder, not "free trade." If you want to get real, you should be looking at the impact of colonialism on economic growth. But hey, we shouldn't fall for that "guilt complex" and allow the colonization of illegal immigrants in places where terrorist attacks are on the rise. And again, if you're working in a factory or for a private firm, you are working under coercion. You have a quota to hit, and if you don't, you're out on the street. The fact that you might not have food or a roof over your head later isn't the company's concern. You can't sign a contract "freely"—the second you sign an employment agreement, you're handing your freedom over to someone else. Absolute freedom, the kind those liberal theorists keep preaching about, simply doesn't exist. In liberalism, "freedom" is viewed as the protection of private property rather than the freedom of the individual; some people end up with more freedom while others get less. In reality, the economy runs on blackmail. It's "do this for me and I'll do this for you," or look at those political parties representing big capital interests: "give us money and we'll protect you." They always pivot the conversation toward WWII or the American Civil War to distract everyone, and it works every single time because there's always repression backing it up.
So what are we actually talking about here? What would this "right-wing party" even aim for—what kind of economy or government structure are we looking at?
It’s basically like a peasant or a blue-collar worker working for some high-society earls—acting all patriotic about it while refusing to ditch the system even though the proletariat wants change. Honestly, looking at things through today's lens, that whole mindset feels pretty outdated.