о полит взглядах (поднимите из мусорки)


интерсное мнение:
Libertarianism the ideology of Individualism (not the difference to the natural occidental Individualism) failed and would fail even more so in the future, its not compatible with higher evolved social structures and collective interests on the long run. We reached now a level in which state organisation and government, if the leading and administrating individuals would be chosen carefully, could bring both our groups and the whole mankind much further if organised for the best of the whole, the collective in an utilitarian way. Small communities are not able to reach the same efficiency - they wouldnt even be able to defend themselves, there the government should be made up of the best elements for leading the group and they should lead. Not every individual has the intellectual capacity, nor the muse to know enough about the big picture. We are speaking about people which are neither intelligent nor educated and such which are both but are specialised by profession, which are great doctors but probably no great politicians, leaders, officers at the same time, in fact they must not be as long as the leading elements work for the group.
Nobody can show me a single example of how Liberalcapitalism REALLY WORKED on a bigger scale, in a more complex and socio-economic and technologically advanced society for the better of the majority of the individuals, the whole group, the species and the ecosystem on the long run. Liberalcapitalism has just intrinsic sources of error which will show up again and again. The main reason is that people define themselves too much about themselves AS INDIVIDUALS and about economic-material sides of life, their job, career, income or prestige in a Hedomatic (hedonistic-materialistic) world. Finally individuals perish, what survives is the group, an ideology which focus on individuals must fail because it will become corrupted, short term oriented, unjust, exploitative and disorganised if its about the defence of the (f.e. ethnic) group. Because a liberal society raises its children in an individualistic way, indoctrinates it to defend the structures which defend Liberalcapitalism and the (plutocratic) elite of the system, but thats it - otherwise it can do what it wants, may it be perverted, asocial, destructive, corrupted or totally greedy. Its of secondary interest because the system is defined by the protection of goods and the existing power of the plutocrats, of course the individual is protected by the same rules to a certain degree, but it can hardly benefit from this too much, since freedom and power comes from the capital - in such a society - and obviously those having it dont want to share it nor do they want to change something - they know why they embrace Individualism as an ideology, it makes all people the same, just producers and consumers, and what has no direct, short-term economic value has no value at all - except those rules which protect themselves as well. This short term and individualistic profit-oriented judging of values is a great problem and intrinsic to Liberalcapitalism.

A general problem in the mind of the common people in a Liberal society stamped by the Individualism-Ideology, especially in the USA, is, that they think just small and fear great things. In fact without making any difference, they fear all great things which are bigger than they are. There is no higher, no aristocratic, heroic or collective spirit, that is mostly there, if at all, at a very low and primitive level. It was destroyed by a system, its mentality and related religion, sozioeconomic changes and a highly destructive ideology.
If you talk with such people about something great, bigger than they are, they fear it or dont like it. F.e. alone the idea to have humans better than they are, objectively, even to further such humans and spread better genes, is for them something they can't understand, they are just to simple minded, oftentimes religious or pseudoreligious as well. Oftentimes they dont even understand other approaches, but fight them nevertheless.
Back to what I meant:
A system should be as a whole work for the future, for the bigger whole - in fact I said utilitarian and that doesnt mean something negative for the individual as a rule of thumb, especially if compared with a Liberalcapitalistic and corrupted system which already declines. The opponents of collectivistic ideologies always stress the difference, the antagonism of individual and collective interests, but beginning that way, they already showed their true character.
Because even thinking about people which might act against the group and saying thats no problem is a clear sign for their state of mind. A system working not just for the group as a whole but the individuals which make it up, work for it, must not be bad for the individual, even on the contrary. It will protect the indivdiual which doesnt act against the group from useless and especially private exploitation and suffering as far as it is possible without harming the whole. In a Liberal society a greedy sociopath might be able to exploit and finally destroy whole communities without the government setting any actions, even on the contrary, the right might be, in a Liberalcapitalistic system, on his and not on the peoples side since the peoples opinion is made by the media, the media are in plutocratic hands, and the politicians can only win with both the media and more money from plutocrats as well, it means a plutocratic system, an oligarchy and for sure no aristocracy in the sense of the rule of the best - of the group and for the group in an ideal situation.
What we finally see, in every modern system, is, that the quality of the leadership is crucial and nothing else. It doesnt matter how they come up, might it be inheritance, election of few, of all citizens, in a one party system etc., what finally matters is that the best of the group rule for the best of the group!
So a system must be judged by the quality of its leadership and common people, the abilty to chose good leaders for the best of the whole and what we see is that Liberalcapitalism in a modern state isnt able to function that way. Like Churchill said, there were probably not too much better alternatives some generations ago, and even now we are still developing, but we reach no a state of technology and knowledge from which we can say how people act and why they do so, so we can largely exclude failures if we would just be ready to accept the results and be ready to do what is necessary to improve ourselves and to secure the future of our group and mankind in this world.
The leadership should be chosen by idealists and after that by a strict and clear system which just selects out the best for the job - the best of the group - acting for the group.
In every mass society information is crucial, that means the control of information means control over the people - in a Liberal state you give the control to the capital, the plutocrats, some of them might be members of a real, a true elite, but there is no guarantee, even on the contrary, chances are higher that they just work for their class and profit - short term oriented and egoistic, stamped by the rules of money and economy, not that of the group, since many of them wouldnt have been as successful in the free market otherwise.
Lets assume we have a leadership like it should be and they have the power to control the members of the group, individuals like you and me, they should have two duties: 1. Never endanger the future and possible higher development of the group, the species, the ecosystem.
2. Dont harm, not even let individuals suffer, if it is not absolutely necessary after rule 1.
Somewhat more elaborated the basic rules should be like that:
I would define myself as a Progressive Collectivist.
Maybe I have some affinities to Fascistoid groups, at least they are what is the nearest thing to my conception.
The Collective is something defined in structures hierachically:
F.e. Family/relatives, Tribe, Folk or Subrace (F.e. German/Nordish Ethnic great group/Race (F.e. Europeans or Indoeuropeans/European Europids progressive mankind/races (F.e. all Europids, East Asians, some Amerindian Races many mixed forms Mankind (all of those + the rest Ecosystem (all life on this planet).
-Just what is good for the preservation and progression of collective, species and ecosystem should be morally acceptable.
-From an utilitaristic point of view as many people as possible should live good on the highest standard as possible, everytime thinking on the first rule.
-Individuals got their worth on its own but the collective is usually more important because it is made up by many individuals and it survives individuals.
-Capitalism is better than planned economy, at least so far, but just a controlled Capitalism is good for what I said above.
-I'm Pro-Eugenic and for the preservation of my Race(s).
Progression of mankind on the long run isnt just something happening in technology and culture, it must be something biological too.
-All good Traditions of Europe and of my folk which are NOT AGAINST the other rules should be preserved.
-If it is possible (by all useful means which doesnt threat the whole Species or Ecosystem) the European races should be preserved in their SUBSTANCE.
-Moral and the political system should depend on the needs for the other rules.
Individuals dont have more freedom in a late Liberalcapitalistic system like we can see it in the USA or Europe, they might have the impression, the feeling of being free, but they aren't, because they are totally dependent from material goods for which have to subordinate themselves under capital power. F.e. a woman is now raised to believe she is more free because she works for a sh*t in a supermarket, has no children but works 11 hours, eats cheap crap produced by the same people for which she is working and finally lives in a small flat on her own, because she doesnt want to have a man or children, which would "reduce her freedom". In fact if she earns more money and lives in a better house doesnt matter as long as the basic facts are as they are. She will not reproduce, she is practically a slave of the company, she has no feeling of community, she will do in fact nothing of any significance for the group but still feels great about her "new freedom". In such cases, and there are plenty of them, you see how relative "freedom" is and how stupid individuals can be.
I dont want to blame them alone, since they are just wax in the hands of the corrupted syste, I have to blame the corrupted system which made too much of our kin into Zombies like that!
If freedom is "the freedom to act against the group", than I'm against it and there should be no right of the individual to act against the interests of the majority. That must not lead to "prison state", it just means that the legal system would have another approach to what is right and wrong, and people would know it, would see the benefits of a group oriented system very soon.
I wouldnt take people the freedom, I would give the majority MORE OF IT! Because now they are just wax in the hands of corrupted manipulators and materially totally dependent, thats nothing good for the group, because we need healthy and well educated families, which feel for the group, which live in and for the group, but not "as ants", but like free people in their community. Because I want a leadership which respects the individual! But to respect the individual means for the state to act just if its necessary, with minimal interventions for the best of the majority of the group and the group as a whole.
F.e., Eugenic programs are necessary, every reasonable human being must understand that, but lets think about it. If 90 percent of the families would take part in the program, how important is it if 10 percent doesnt? As long as less than 10 percent dont participate, we have no serious problem - they will lose prestige, money and wouldnt be able to reach certain positions in the state, but they can do what they want. Its simple, I want a state which cares for its people, but only as long as they work for the better of the group as well, if they dont, whats their right as long as it is no mass movement which would harm the group, they can - but they will lose the benefits.
I would give different movements the possibilty to organise themselves on their own, outside the modern state structure, partly in an experimental way, why not if there are enough people which follow, and they would in such a system, and as long as there is enough space - what would be the case as well.
So people would have in fact more freedom than they have now, just the leadership and the framework would be different and that would be enough. People are living like ants now, they have no own interests beside primitive fun and surrogats oftentimes, they are all addicted to consumption goods and primitive life concepts useful for the system - but the system doesnt work for the best of the majority, nor for the group as whole, neither for the ethnic base, nor for the racial, nor for the species and all of mankind and the ecosystem. Its the exploitation of individuals for the short term profits of a few and the destruction of the most important values and ressources for future developments. I hardly realise something like "a great freedom" in such a system, but most likely more something like a propaganda lie.
Democracy must not be Liberal, and Liberalism doesnt mean real individual freedom necessarily, it means freedom on the paper, and even that is doubtful if looking at the laws we have in many countries, and will get in the other Euro-countries soon. We already live in a control state, but the main failure is the purpose - the state itself is necessary on a high leve for the further development, "tribal groups and clans" are not able to achieve what is necessary for the future, therefore they are no alternatives and can never be a better one than a collective, group oriented and rational state structure and leadership.
Why we need more efficiency? More efficiency can mean to have more ressources for further developments and to secure the future, what would a tribal farmer group do if a plague would come, a good organised attack from another, socially higher evolved group or a climatic catastrophy, a meteor? A small community is just helpless then and even if something like that doesnt happen too primitive and helpless in many respects. You can have similar social constructs on a lower level, but, and thats the main point, you need something higher organised as well, a house in which those communities can live, and to build that house and organic structure around should be the purpose of the state.


а куда денех перевести за перевод? Ифигении?


И ваще, Бертран Рассел Жжот(в оригинале, конешно)! Молодец мужик, а ведь считается идеологом либерализма, если я вдуплил, конешно...
Оставить комментарий
Имя или ник: