[Tribbles]

You think that the present order will just hand power to you because you asked them?

Yes, off course they will. As the radical wing of the establishment, fascism can be elected to power, or it can be given to a fascist leader without an election - like the way Antonio Salazar was given the position of prime-minister by his predecessor. And even without any plans for taking power, conformity is still pretty cool. One of the reasons for why the far-right is so active in internet-debates, is because we are in desperate need for it.

On Sorel: Corporativism is not anarchy-syndicalism. Corporativism is a mixed economy, pro-establishment thing, like the tripartite-ism of social democracy, only more complex and byraucratic. Tech-Func too, suggests a form of corporativism which is simpler than the original model (nobody liked the complexity of the original blueprint, and I agree. Everyone ended up disliking the original fascist form of corporativsm it in practice as well), while also more authoritarian than the social-democratic model.

The anarchy-syndicalists will do their own stuff, without caring much for any form of authoritarian-center project. Sorel was a bigger fan of Lenin than Mussolini by the way, and he would definitely have come to dislike Mussolini, had he lived past 1922.

A little excuse for answering only one tiny bit of your post:
On the occultism: Its way outside my field, all I know is rudimentary Sith-philosophy, and I think I want it to stay that way. As long as occultism is not forced down the throats of normal people (defined as the overwhelming majority of people), Im quite happy.

[Rei Murasame]

Yes, off course they will.

What, in 2012? Why would they give power to a movement if it has no leverage? If you have no rival base of economic power, they are free to ignore your demands.

On Sorel: Corporativism is not anarchy-syndicalism. Corporativism is a mixed economy, pro-establishment thing, like the tripartite-ism of social democracy, only more complex and byraucratic.

Okay, my response is just this:

Primary phenomenon will always take revenge against any attempt to narrowly alter their derivative phenomenon.

Mass migration is a derivative phenomenon, meaning that the ethnic contradictions are secondary to the primary contradiction which is the contradiction between:

• The middle class whose interest is to be nationally hegemonic by arranging a unity of purpose between territorially-coincident capital and labour so that it can carry out its social goals,
  
  VS
  
  
• Finance capital, whose interest is to most rapidly engage in wealth-accumulation and knock down any inconvenient barriers to that accumulation.

What this means for us is that in order to credibly address any of the social goals, such as halting the mass immigration process, we must criticise liberal-capitalism and highlight the actual centrality of capitalist logic in the re-production of a scenario where this mass immigration (and whatever else we don't like) is occurring. That must happen openly and it must accompany a complete divorce from any centre-right organisations - that line must be drawn firmly in the sand.

Another pitfall that we must avoid is the misuse of the word 'greed'. Greed is not the problem. It is not greed which perpetuates capitalism, it is capitalism which perpetuates capitalism; it is capitalism which penetrates and shapes society in such a way that the use of capitalist logic becomes the path of least resistance [to surviving] in that society.

What is needed is for nationalists to kick against that logic and call for an ethnic solidarity in which we become comfortable with co-operating with and working alongside people of differing social statuses in our business-lives, so that capitalism can [be strongly attacked] and the experience of real community would be a practice and not just a word.

This solidarited 'real community' effect must be actualised through 'the path of national-labour', a struggle in which the middle class would reach out to the working class and establish a rival base of economic power using a labour movement to facilitate the dispersal of economic power into national guilds and co-determinate corporations, and co-operatives. That is the only way to challenge finance. That material condition must be satisfied in order to attain the power to act; that is the only way that a Far Right party would ever be able to reach power while maintaining its integrity.

And it is only then, that the potential would exist for the state to be actually commandeered by our new political class, a new political class which is interested in social justice and spiritual advancement of the indigenous people of Europe; that commitment being bolstered and encouraged by the aforementioned solid material incentives, in a civil society in which our community-oriented ideology would have already displaced liberalism and would be triumphant and total.

The desires of our new political class could then be fashioned into a coherent corporatist institutional arrangement which - through consensus-building - would develop those desires into a workable methodology and therefore totalitarian action.

The anarchy-syndicalists will do their own stuff, without caring much for any form of authoritarian-center project. Sorel was a bigger fan of Lenin than Mussolini by the way, and he would definitely have come to dislike Mussolini, had he lived past 1922.

National-syndicalist inspiration is indeed from Sorel though, I thought that meaning was implied.

As long as occultism is not forced down the throats of normal people (defined as the overwhelming majority of people), Im quite happy.

Well, everyone would have to be living in a society shaped by the values of the people who brought it about, so it would simply be what it is.

[Tribbles]

Well, its a nice idea - even though it is very complex.

Good luck on it.

[Rei Murasame]

I know I'm pressing this, guys, but I just have to say it shouldn't be seen as 'complicated', really, because it's been said in a number of ways that this is the way it is supposed to be built. If you do class analysis on the situation we've faced since 2007, it all becomes clear.

I'm going to sound like a broken record when I say this yet again, but basically getting things done is a process, and the process requires that certain social conditions be met. No one is ever just handed the sceptre of power and asked to just implement a blueprint.

There had to be a methodology or social action programme for actually creating a situation where people will be inclined to do what we want them to do.

We often hear people of all stripes saying things like, "Oh I support the death penalty", "I oppose the death penalty", "I support licorice allsorts being handed out for free to kids in preschool", "I oppose the bill called CMD6758", "I support national self-determination", "I support your mother". No, no one can be said to actually support anything if no one can see how anyone plans to get there.

So what I do is start with a very simple list. KISS can be a kiss, but it also means 'keep it simple surely':

• 1. A clear narrative about the current crisis based on some socio-economic class analysis.
  
  
• 2. Fundamental principles on which actions are based.
  
  
• 3. A path for community organisation which leads to a framework in which a programme may develop to address the contradictions at the root of the crisis.

The three 'answers' to those three 'questions' form the bedrock of anything else I say. So I'll immediately show those.

First the summary of the narrative:

I would say that the upper-middle class has been locketing away an astonishingly high proportion of the growing wealth. They are even now using the liberal-capitalist state which they created, as an implement to further facilitate that.

The working class have been facing an offensive from the upper-middle class, which has really been intensifying over the last few years. It is an offensive against public services, incomes, living standards and unions in order to short-sightedly boost the returns for multinational companies led by international finance. Not contented with the banks receiving the biggest bailout in the history of capitalism - a bailout that they themselves engineered - international finance apparently wants to continue to make the national community skirt closer to destruction to serve the narrow interests of financial institutions.

We in the middle-middle class have been asked to co-operate with this disastrous development, but we should not co-operate with it, since it poses an existential threat to the national community. It's about time to seriously get a desire to take our countries back. If the present system is incapable of adequately allocating wealth to fulfil our policy preferences and foster social harmony - and now there is no doubt that it is incapable - then it ought to be sublated or abolished.

Then a summary of the principles, the aim being to foster full employment, growth, social inclusion, sustainability, health, and defence of a specific ancestral breeding group and its dominance of a civic space:

We can seize the chance to build a new social order, in a new historic bloc. We can find meaning and reward in serving some cause higher than ourselves, a glimmering purpose, the warm glow of a thousand points of light, illuminating every child in the nation. Aren't we all gazing up at the same stars, are our feet not planted firmly on the same Land?

We have to remember what that higher purpose is, the defence and maintenance of our population group. The nation is a project under renovation and construction, it should accept new parts and incorporate them appropriately, nurturing and developing them in accordance with our climate and what the new environment requires, while at the same time also continuing to conserve what has been passed down to us, if it is good, vetted and purified from among our people since the most ancient times.

We have to act in the interests of those who came before us, those who are presently alive, and those who will come after us. This is so that we can safeguard our existence as a distinct people indefinitely/forever, and along the way possibly discover the Reason/Truth that lies behind our existence and explore the unexplained laws of nature and the special powers latent in humans*.


* Hey, isn't that the line at the bottom of my signature? That's on purpose!

Then thirdly a summary of the path:

[...]What this means for us is that in order to credibly address any of the social goals, such as halting the mass immigration process, we must criticise liberal-capitalism and highlight the actual centrality of capitalist logic in the re-production of a scenario where this mass immigration (and whatever else we don't like) is occurring. That must happen openly and it must accompany a complete divorce from any centre-right organisations - that line must be drawn firmly in the sand.

Another pitfall that we must avoid is the misuse of the word 'greed'. Greed is not the problem. It is not greed which perpetuates capitalism, it is capitalism which perpetuates capitalism; it is capitalism which penetrates and shapes society in such a way that the use of capitalist logic becomes the path of least resistance [to surviving] in that society.

What is needed is for nationalists to kick against that logic and call for an ethnic solidarity in which we become comfortable with co-operating with and working alongside people of differing social statuses in our business-lives, so that capitalism can be dealt a strong blow and the experience of real community would be a practice and not just a word.

This solidarited 'real community' effect must be actualised through 'the path of national-labour', a struggle in which the middle class would reach out to the working class and establish a rival base of economic power using a labour movement to facilitate the dispersal of economic power into national guilds and co-determinate corporations, and co-operatives. That is the only way to challenge finance. That material condition must be satisfied in order to attain the power to act; that is the only way that a Far Right party would ever be able to reach power while maintaining its integrity.

And it is only then, that the potential would exist for the state to be actually commandeered by our new political class, a new political class which is interested in social justice and spiritual advancement of the indigenous people of Europe; that commitment being bolstered and encouraged by the aforementioned solid material incentives, in a civil society in which our community-oriented ideology would have already displaced liberalism and would be triumphant and total.

The desires of our new political class could then be fashioned into a coherent corporatist institutional arrangement which - through consensus-building - would develop those desires into a workable methodology and therefore totalitarian action.

You see the last part there is essentially the part that I showed you in my previous post. The reason that it has to be done this way is because simply promulgating a blueprint will not actually cause anyone to obey it, nor will it get you into power. So it must be built, that rival base of power must be built.

Now, why corporatism? Well let's take two views:

[...] economic power precedes and dominates political action [...] It is permanently true in that statesmanship must possess the material means to encompass its ends, precisely as one must have the fare and sustenance before proceeding on a journey. [...] Economic power is not finally found in wealth but in the control of its abundance or scarcity.

If I possessed the control of the water supply, my economic power would be stupendous; but with equal access to water by the whole body of citizens, that economic power is dispersed and the community may erect swimming-baths or fountains or artificial lakes without my permission. Not only so; but the abundance of water, which economically considered is of boundless value, grows less serious as a practical issue the more abundant it becomes.

The dominance of economic power depends, therefore, upon two main considerations artificially, by the private control of wealth; fundamentally, by a natural scarcity.

And:

There is no doubt that any attempt to realize the corporativist utopia would in a very short time lead to violent conflicts, if the government did not interfere when the vital industries abused their privileged position. What the doctrinaires envisage only as an exceptional measure—the interference of the government—will become the rule. Guild socialism and corporativism will turn into full government control of all production activities. They will develop into that system of Prussian Zwangswirtschaft [compulsory economy - permanent state of exception and other scary things] which they were designed to avoid.

The Hobson quote is what we do and the Mises quote is the criticism of it, the Mises quote to which I respond by saying that it is something that we acknowledge is real, since the power to strangle resources is what gives fascist guilds their power, and is what allows them to take the government away from liberals in the first place. Yes.

But this is a feature, not a flaw, the potential for conflict is part of the balance of powers, so we also are open to the possibility that fascist guilds might need to actually turn and shut down the very same fascist government they helped inaugurate by using that power, and we are also open to the possibility that a fascist government may need to mediate to prevent a breakdown caused by inter-guild squabbling.

So in other words, there is a deliberate kill-switch built into this which can be triggered not by by some wishful thinking or law on a piece of paper, but by actual class motives coupled with a concrete ability to control resources. Guilds are after all comprised of people who have particular interests which are not the same as the state bureaucracy or the employers groups.

At any rate, once you finally have the country, then you can get into what institutional corporatism roughly looks like. I'll borrow (and adjust!) some cute theory from the South Koreans illustrate it, since they have really simplified their explanation of it, to the point where I will not have to bring out a 100 page PDF on labour-industry relations:

Super short summary:

Submission of Agenda

• All members of committees may propose and submit an agenda.

Deliberation of Agenda

• Committees by agenda and industry deliberate agenda.
• The Standing Committee deliberates and reviews agenda.

Decision of Agenda

• The Plenary Committee decides agenda after review and co-ordination of the Standing Committee.
• The decision shall require consent of two-thirds or more members who are present.
• The consent has condition that the presence of half or more representatives of labour, management and the government.

Notification of Discussion Result

• In the event that the resolution is not possible due to the absence of either all labour or management members, the Plenary Committee can start the deliberation with the attendance of the majority of the registered members and decide to notify the government of the discussion results up to the time, with the approval of the majority of the attending members.

Okay.

Why are we doing this? Because:

• 1. A mature guild movement coupled with transparent and rational management mediated by an ascendant State can cooperate for:
  
  • quality improvement and
  • raising productivity in an industrial economy.
  
  
• 2. Full employment policies create:
  
  • employment opportunities and
  • foster social integration.
  
  
• 3. Welfare of the employees is promoted, which:
  
  • protects their health and safety,
  • addresses the problem of plateauing wages by allowing wage-negotiation and
  • enhances national competitiveness.

If this sounds like I've just gone and described "the chamber of fasces and corporations" from the fascist theory, it's because it is. Simple, yes?

[Tribbles]

Allright! System-analyst Rei strikes back with some really good corporatism

But:

The reason that it has to be done this way is because simply promulgating a blueprint will not actually cause anyone to obey it, nor will it get you into power. So it must be built, that rival base of power must be built.

Isn't is best to have a very clear plan you can show people when running for election? One will off course need a political program one can work for within a parliamentary framework as well. A fascist party would have to struggle with that system, as all the others must. One will have to scream out stuff like "more gym in school!" "less immigration!" "better looking uniforms for the police!" (Well, that would be a more norwegian issue. British police-officers are dressed well, ours look like crap) while wrestling with the parliamentary system. And then, one day, victory arrives, and then the plan that the party has agreed upon (it should have a really good plan that they don't have to change), can be implemented.

And I am still worried about creating byraucratic mazes of complexity, and I feel that environmentalist-representation must be added to the system (all those plants and trees and birds are not able to get involved in any form of organized class-struggle against us humans) and I also feel your head is a bit off when you suggest creating a new religion of occultism and asian mysticism that would be married to the party (In England?! Wont you even let those poor englishmen warm up with some standardized easy-going buddhism before moving to the heavy and exotic stuff?) - if I got you right.

But it is also good to have newer examples to show to than Mussolini and Salazar. Saying stuff like "This is how they do it in Korea!" - that definitely brings cred.

[Rei Murasame]

Isn't is best to have a very clear plan you can show people when running for election? One will off course need a political program one can work for within a parliamentary framework as well. A fascist party would have to struggle with that system, as all the others must. One will have to scream out stuff like "more gym in school!" "less immigration!" "better looking uniforms for the police!" (Well, that would be a more norwegian issue. British police-officers are dressed well, ours look like crap) while wrestling with the parliamentary system. And then, one day, victory arrives, and then the plan that the party has agreed upon (it should have a really good plan that they don't have to change), can be implemented.

Oh, yes, but all those policy issues would be different depending on what country you are in and what the pressing issues at the time are. That's really the easiest thing to do out of all of it, so of course it can go unsaid that there should be a manifesto and that it should have interesting opinions in it.

And I am still worried about creating byraucratic mazes of complexity, and I feel that environmentalist-representation must be added to the system (all those plants and trees and birds are not able to get involved in any form of organized class-struggle against us humans)

Wouldn't the state itself be the representative for the environment? In the UK there is a minister for environment position already in existence.

and I also feel your head is a bit off when you suggest creating a new religion of occultism and asian mysticism that would be married to the party (In England?!

Well, don't forget that one of the good things about Britain is that it was one of the countries that really led the way on these issues from the time of the Renaissance until even the present day. It's just that it's a not-so-popular history and is rarely talked about in the open.

The UK has among nations one of the highest potentials to become - spiritually - what Alexandria used to be in the ancient world. I'm often so busy criticising the UK that I rarely get a chance to praise it, but on this issue, there is no doubt that so many adepts have been British that the world must acknowledge these contributions.

And now with Christianity finally in retreat and 40% of the country claiming to believe in 'the supernatural but not monotheism', the time may soon come when we can do what we are supposed to do.

I'd love to get into the hidden history of Europe at some point, but that will have to be in another thread, I think.

But it is also good to have newer examples to show to than Mussolini and Salazar. Saying stuff like "This is how they do it in Korea!" - that definitely brings cred.

Thank you.

___________________________

Laughable that the same people whose only accomplishments are running around town with pickaxes, yelling Fascist slogans, and scaring pensioners have the audacity to criticize Jonathan Bowden, an intellectual giant who has given hundreds of speeches on subjects ranging from Feminism to the Hulk to Heidegger's conception of death, a man with an excellent (and markedly British) sense of humor, and with remarkable analysis of cultural currents.

Bowden was an intellectual with an interest in political ideas, not a politician.

Can one of you two link me to where they criticised him? I of course do believe you, but I just want to see what it was that they said.

[Tribbles]

Oh, yes, but all those policy issues would be different depending on what country you are in and what the pressing issues at the time are. That's really the easiest thing to do out of all of it, so of course it can go unsaid that there should be a manifesto and that it should have interesting opinions in it.

I find corporatism very intellectually challenging, and yet we need it - because neither me nor popular opinion believes in one-man-rule, even though it would go very well with the other ideals of fascism.

Wouldn't the state itself be the representative for the environment? In the UK there is a minister for environment position already in existence.

We have a minister for environmental issues in Norway as well, but it usually goes to very politically relaxed females in their late 30s who are given that job as a step on the career-ladder to higher posts, and because it helps fill the quota for female ministers. The social-democrats wants 50/50, which is OK, but I would feel much safer if environmental NGOs had a hand on the wheel. As it is now, its all the politics of symbols, pretending to do something - and the angry NGOs who call the bluff, and who also deserve more power within their field. It is great if the environmental-ministry of Great Britain does a better job, but as long as NGOs does not have direct influence, there is still highly possible that it will become relaxed and decadent over time - not protecting the environment in a good way. Such influence must off course be balanced with other issues, which is why I propose merging environmental-representation into the corporative layout.

, don't forget that one of the good things about Britain is that it was one of the countries that really led the way on these issues from the time of the Renaissance until even the present day. It's just that it's a not-so-popular history and is rarely talked about in the open.

Allright, I will be openminded about it. But why the sudden urge for a head-on confrontation with the church? If you are looking for some sort of underground-spirituality, Im sure you can find inspiration within Christianity as well. Didn't the spanish inquisition hunt mostly other christians? I have even heard that early christians believed in reincarnation and karma and such. And as earlier mentioned, the pope and many other priests and bishops are very critical to NATO and a lot of other elements of modern social-democracy/social-liberalism.

But again, this is way outside my field-of-knowledge. I will definitely read it carefully, if you make a thread on your opinions regarding spiritual concerns.

[Rei Murasame]

I'll respond to Tribbles first, before I respond to anyone else:

I find corporatism very intellectually challenging, and yet we need it - because neither me nor popular opinion believes in one-man-rule, even though it would go very well with the other ideals of fascism.

Well, I don't think that fascism has ever really been about one person rule, it has been about one party rule.

We have a minister for environmental issues in Norway as well, but it usually goes to very politically relaxed females in their late 30s who are given that job as a step on the career-ladder to higher posts, and because it helps fill the quota for female ministers. The social-democrats wants 50/50, which is OK, but I would feel much safer if environmental NGOs had a hand on the wheel. As it is now, its all the politics of symbols, pretending to do something - and the angry NGOs who call the bluff, and who also deserve more power within their field. It is great if the environmental-ministry of Great Britain does a better job, but as long as NGOs does not have direct influence, there is still highly possible that it will become relaxed and decadent over time - not protecting the environment in a good way. Such influence must off course be balanced with other issues, which is why I propose merging environmental-representation into the corporative layout.

But none of this is even a problem once corporatism is actually in place. People will defend their own need to live in a country that isn't a toxic waste dump, and the state can form any number of non-ministerial organisations it wants to get advise on the issue if it wants, from anyone from NGOs, academics, researchers, religion, whoever.

I'm not sure why this would be a worry to you.

But why the sudden urge for a head-on confrontation with the church?

It's obviously not a sudden urge though.

If you are looking for some sort of underground-spirituality, Im sure you can find inspiration within Christianity as well. Didn't the spanish inquisition hunt mostly other christians? I have even heard that early christians believed in reincarnation and karma and such.

You're missing the point behind this. As I said earlier, we actually believe and have for generations, and so this is not a tactic, it is not 'looking for inspiration' or some kind of 'underground-spirituality'. The only reason that our world view, our morals, our doctrines, and our dogma have had to be underground in Europe for so long, was because to act too early and too openly would have caused our people to be hunted down and exterminated.

And establishing nominally 'Christian' organisations or attending them, is a tactic that was embraced many times, but even that was a risk because then they would just inquisition your whole family and take your estate, your servants, and all your land holdings. Because of obvious 'heresies' that would have to promulgated in the process of that game.

Thankfully, Britain was one of the first countries to become an overt haven for our type of people, and so there is a long history of openly established organisations that have been able to crop up.

I would instead spin the question back onto you now - what would be the point of managing to guard and communicate our ways and our knowledge for so long, only to now officially capitulate to Christianity, a Christianity that is weak and no longer has any power to coerce us? Why? Surely this is our time, to do what we want and to carry out our agenda.

And as earlier mentioned, the pope and many other priests and bishops are very critical to NATO and a lot of other elements of modern social-democracy/social-liberalism.

The so-called enemy of my enemy is not my friend. The same applies to communists, they are also critical of the present order - should we all just join the communists, then? Of course not! They have an agenda that is different from ours.

It's almost as if you are suggesting that we can't stand alone and ride this situation out to the end, without walking meekly into someone else's pocket.

Again, as I said earlier, Christendom is weak, and it is in fact now so weak that Europeans are worried that lots of the next generation of children are going to be 'searching' and that other religions will 'poach' them. The media has been of much help in causing this, along with the Church being out of touch with the needs of modern people, and its inability to offer hope or any sense of purpose to anyone. This is fantastic.

We need to assist wherever we can to ensure that they get 'poached' by the correct people and the correct religious and youth organisations. After all, we are not here to shore up the present world order, we are here to bring in a new world order. We are fundamentally different in our outlook from any mere reactionary political group.

[Tribbles]

the state can form any number of non-ministerial organisations it wants to get advise on the issue if it wants, from anyone from NGOs, academics, researchers, religion, whoever.

Advisory power is not real power.

all, we are not here to shore up the present world order, we are here to bring in a new world order. We are fundamentally different in our outlook from any mere reactionary political group.

You sound like some sort of devilish illuminati-lizard, or whatever it is that those conspiracy-theorist warns about

Anyway, I have come to a personal conclusion regarding all this:

Remember talking about the need for a cooperation between the working-class and the middle-class to establish a labour-centered/union-based power-base against finance-capital? This is actually what the Norwegian mainstream-left is all about. The thing that makes them better than your stuff, is actually the absence of a religious X-factor, there is no leap into the great unknown in that camp.

And since you you didn't come up with any devastating criticism of Technocratic Functionalism, I will hold on to the blueprint as it is, go with the flow of the mainstream-left, and perhaps present it as a polite suggestion at some time and place that I feel is the right time and place.

Does this religion of yours have a name, by the way?

Oh, come on! The inquisition demands an answer before evening prayers!
(Kidding )

Final edit:
Allright, from this moment on I will consider all of you as bisexual furries, devil-worshipers and Breivik-fans.
Mussolini would be so proud!

[Rei Murasame]

Advisory power is not real power.

Why would I want NGOs to have real power?

You sound like some sort of devilish illuminati-lizard, or whatever it is that those conspiracy-theorist warns about

Why are you taking conspiracy theorists seriously?

Remember talking about the need for a cooperation between the working-class and the middle-class to establish a labour-centered/union-based power-base against finance-capital?

I do remember that, since I do after all spend 70% of my time talking about that!

This is actually what the Norwegian mainstream-left is all about.

Pity they never accomplish it.

And since you you didn't come up with any devastating criticism of Technocratic Functionalism, I will hold on to the blueprint as it is, go with the flow of the mainstream-left, and perhaps present it as a polite suggestion at some time and place that I feel is the right time and place.

And you would be either ignored or immediately co-opted by international finance capital.

Does this religion of yours have a name, by the way?

Theosophy.

devil-worshipers

Wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of 'worshipping Lucifer'. It's what every Christard comes out with as soon as they are challenged by the opposition.

[Tribbles]

Why would I want NGOs to have real power?

Because you are a fascist and a corporativist - labour-unions/syndicates are NGOs too. The reason why social democracy (that other form of third-wayism, which we for various reasons stay away from) fails to have a radical environmentalist agenda is because environmentalist NGOs are not included into their form of corporativism, or even the parliamentary system.

are you taking conspiracy theorists seriously?

Some times conspiracy-theorists are right, other times they are wrong. But to use popular and well-known conspiracy-phrases like "new world order" together with a unknown form of religion that you want to use a political party (and perhaps even the state) to promote in an aggressive manner, is complete insanity.

they never accomplish it.

Oh, but they have. In countries like Italy and Portugal, the workers were never convinced that their third-way was real, but instead leaned towards the communist viewpoint, that the fascist regimes were the regimes of capital-interest only. Norwegian social democracy have done a much better job, but there are also problems - off course. After all, I am not a social democrat. They are too soft, too multicultural, too academic, too liberal, etc.

you would be either ignored or immediately co-opted by international finance capital.

We will see. The point is that financial-capital is kind of weak at the moment. Allan Greenspan abandoned his belief in the free market at the beginning of the crisis, and some of the really big sharks within the world of finance go around taking public self-criticism about how they have been to greedy. They are on the defense, but since we behave like shit and go around flirting with occultism and and all sort of dubious shit, the social democrats and the mainstream left are the only ones who can profit from it. We simply don't deserve to have any popular support.

Theosophy.

Or it could be something completely different, after all you used more than a day to cough up that word. So its a religious X-factor, and a proper fascist party would use the party-whip on you and force you to either keep your religious viewpoint to yourself and your cult or congregation, or quit the party.

[Rei Murasame]

Because you are a fascist and a corporativist - labour-unions/syndicates are NGOs too. The reason why social democracy (that other form of third-wayism, which we for various reasons stay away from) fails to have a radical environmentalist agenda is because environmentalist NGOs are not included into their form of corporativism, or even the parliamentary system.

It's already in the system.

Some times conspiracy-theorists are right, other times they are wrong.

Well, it's your choice whether to believe what they say, not my problem.

But to use popular and well-known conspiracy-phrases like "new world order"

A term used by almost every revolutionary group since forever, and most recently by Gordon Brown, George H.W. Bush, and who else?

What's the problem? You seriously think that we should omit to use such an obviously normal piece of terminology, just to satisfy the demands of conspiracy theorists?

Norwegian social democracy have done a much better job, but there are also problems - off course. After all, I am not a social democrat. They are too soft, too multicultural, too academic, too liberal, etc.

You almost sound like a social-democrat, if your gripes with the system are only that there is too much 'softness' (what is softness?), too much academia (why are you against this?!) and too 'liberal' (yet you praise them?).

We will see. The point is that financial-capital is kind of weak at the moment.

You are fucking kidding, right?

Allan Greenspan abandoned his belief in the free market at the beginning of the crisis

Who gives a fuck what Alan Greenspan does?

and some of the really big sharks within the world of finance go around taking public self-criticism about how they have been to greedy.

Oh, and that really makes them weak right now?

They are on the defense, but since we behave like shit and go around flirting with occultism and and all sort of dubious shit, the social democrats and the mainstream left are the only ones who can profit from it.

Which is interesting, since you didn't know any of my religious beliefs until I told you. (Shows that you don't read my posts outside this section of the forum, seeing as my religious views should be completely obvious to anyone by now.)

Or it could be something completely different, after all you used more than a day to cough up that word.

No, since my profile has carried "Theosophy" in it for as long as I've been registered on PoFo, so you should've seen it from far off.

[...] Shinto, Theosophy [...]

So when I happen to openly present a religious viewpoint, you should pretty much know what you're going to get. If you think that only Christianity can be conceptualised as supportable in the west, then you might as well go and join up with the conservatives and see how far they'll take you.

I'm not going to give lipservice to Christianity just to please the minority of losers who still believe in it. If they want to disqualify me from making in input because I'm being anti-Christian, they'll have already disqualified me for much simpler reasons such as say, promoting nationalist views, and oh, say, being half-Japanese.

The difference between us is that you want to bend over backwards to please an electorate that doesn't even know what they themselves believe. I instead suggest to shape that electorate so that it will agree with us, and then have it shove us into power.

Because I'm actually a fascist and not a reactionary.

__________________

I've provided earlier my assessment of the financial crisis. If you'd like to claim that a lack of Christianity will somehow cause it to fall on deaf ears, then we are simply not living in the same Europe. Taking Holy Communion will not magically make something more acceptable to people.

[Tribbles]

A term used by almost every revolutionary group since forever, and most recently by Gordon Brown, George H.W. Bush, and who else?

All radical groups who want to improve the world are against NATO and Al-Qaida, everyone except retarded people like George Bush, Barrack Obama, and Gordon Brown wants to continue the war on terror. There is no support what so ever, in favor of abandoning it, and ally with the enemy (Al-Qaida)

Are these people revolutionary in your eyes?! You disappoint me.

Japanese or half-japanese should have no interest in supporting Al-Qaida and NATO.

The campaign to strengthen Al-Qaida must be stopped, and a new campaign that instead seeks to support the enemies of Al-Qaida and NATO (Libyan Jamahyria and Pan-Arabian Baath) must be implemented, if possible by UN-ressolution by the huge Anti Al-Qaida and anti-NATO block, Which consist of BRICS with supporters (almost the entire world).

[Rei Murasame]

Are these people revolutionary in your eyes?! You disappoint me.

You can see the comma separating the two groups, right?

The meaning of the sentence was to show that everyone uses the term to describe whatever it is that they want to do, the obvious meaning of it being, "used by almost every revolutionary group since forever, and most recently [used even by establishment politicians such as] Gordon Brown, George H.W. Bush, and who else?"

That should've been obvious, unless you were really just trying to come up with the most ridiculous meaning in my words that you could find?!

[Tribbles]

I think I will end my debate with Rei at this point.

It is cool that you know your way around corporativism (even though it would have been even better had I managed to convert you to Technocratic Functionalism)

And I feel that your idea of merging british fascism with japanese shintoism is very unrealistic. The same goes for what a lot of fascist says and does.

It seems like we are all living in our individual little fantasy-bubbles, everyone have their own form of fascism that they defend vigorously. - I my self am no exception from this rule.

[Rei Murasame]

And I feel that your idea of merging british fascism with japanese shintoism is very unrealistic.

Well, I never said that. I was saying this:

Occult science is the systematic research into or formulation of occult concepts in a manner that follows - in its method or presentation - the way natural science researches or describes phenomena of the physical world.

The idea of Occult Science appears in 19th century occultism, especially Theosophy, including:

• Blavatsky (who distinguished it from the "true Occultism" of Theosophy);
• Rudolf Steiner, whose Occult Science, a sequel to his earlier work Theosophy, deals with the evolution of the human being and the cosmos, as well as referring to the attainment of supersensible knowledge;
• Alice Bailey, who brought the idea of occult science into association with esoteric astrology; and in
• The 20th century New Age movement.
• Harold W. Percival joined the Theosophical Society in 1892. After the death of William Q. Judge in 1896, he organized the Theosophical Society Independent and then wrote Thinking and Destiny which covers in plain terms the purpose of the universe and occult meanings.

It seems like we are all living in our individual little fantasy-bubbles, everyone have their own form of fascism that they defend vigorously.

For me it is not a bubble though, since I cannot defend a process, I can only call for or strongly suggest how we should organise to ensure that process unfolds, and how we should seed our ideas into the public sphere so that they will grow later for harvest.

[Fasces]

Moderator Note: Thoughtcrime purged.