There are obvious economic implications to this principle. Protective tariffs find natural justification: the nation is stronger if it has a robust industrial base, can provide its own food, etc.; whereas both liberty and equality point in the direction of free trade, offshoring, and the like. The preferred scale of economic activities is also affected: the nation is stronger if individuals are stronger; individuals are stronger if they are economically independent; therefore the preference should be for household-level industry, since this introduces robust antifragility against economic disruption, while eliminating the parasitism of a managerial class doing useless jobs.
Amen. Maybe something like the "Distributism" of G K Chesterton. I liked his rationale for it: if private property is a good (and the 20th-century experiments with socialism showed pretty well that private property rights are absolutely necessary for human flourishing), then that good should be as widely distributed as possible, with policies aimed at fostering household-level and family-level property ownership and production, whilst breaking up concentrations of economic and political power as much as possible. An armed AND economically independent population can be strong enough to maximize its freedom sustainably over the long term.
"Protective tariffs" weaken a nation. Competition with the rest of the world generates strength and gives the consumer the best quality at the lowest price. Tariffs and restrictions of imports have ruined the big three - Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler -who used to compete in the world. They managed to sabotage the Tucker car, but all that meant was that they built the same old shit they had been building until Honda and Toyota and Volkswagen came around and they are still playing catch up. Ditto for Caterpillar. Now you see Komatsu, Daiihatsu, etc., where formerly if it was yellow, it was a Cat. Whatever industry depends on the "government" protection of regulations limiting the competition is doomed. Most legislation spewed out of Congress and state legislatures is written to stifle competition. as most entrepreneurs cannot afford a stable of attorneys to protect them from the regulators. Case in point is internet providers in the US. You get lousy service and have no alternative because there is no competition and the bought off state legislators will not force the ISPs to provide the service they promised in exchange for their monopoly and free acquisition of existing telephone lines. Thankfully StarLink is now an option to escape being in the captive herd of ISP cash cows.
And yet, literally every country that has ever fostered local industry used protective tariffs. The elimination of tariffs in western countries has hollowed out productive industry, giving us Wal-Mart, shit service sector jobs, the gig economy, and FIRE parasitism.
Correct. My point is they all suffered from doing so. No collection of bureaucrats can determine in their impenetrable piles of regulations what people want or need or at what price. Central planning is impossible and the USSR was the final word on socialism. Soviet five year plans and Chinese great leaps forward totally disregarded that people are not and never will be ants or bees content to live in a hive.
There's a huge difference between central planning and tariffs. Tariffs are nothing more than a protective insulating layer, an economic boundary that shields interior from exterior. What happens on the inside can be as free market as you want.
Historically, that's exactly what the US did during its rise in the 19th century: internal free market, external tariffs. Otherwise US industry would never have been able to compete with cheap British goods.
The suffering in the US, and elsewhere, corresponded to the elimination of tariffs, not their formation.
Right, tariffs are not the USSR central planning committee. They come from the USA or UK, etc., government agencies owned and operated by industrial lobbyists who believe "government" can guarantee their profits by restricting competition. They short-sightedly stagnate rather that compete. They amount to government interference in the market with all the attendant distortions. Add a currency printing press by which the demons who call themselves "government" can legislate themselves free currency and here we are.
As I wrote, "protective tariffs" weaken a nation. Historically, the free market either extends to the world or there is no free market, which is exactly the case and pretty much always has been: there never has been a free market except for a very brief localized one in Ethiopia where everything was for sale, RPGs included.
Either you kick the kids out of the house or they are never able to live in the greater world.
This is really simplistic. It's essential to develop an industrial base. How to do that depends on a host of factors, e.g. population, resources, competitors, state of other sectors, alliances.
The devil is in the detail and the state must constantly be adjusting economic policy based on contingencies.
Recommend Freidrich List's work from Imperium Press.
"This is really simplistic. It's essential to develop an industrial base. How to do that depends on a host of factors, e.g. population, resources, competitors, state of other sectors, alliances."
I see you are a statist, i.e., you believe a collection of people who call themselves "government" are essential to order the rest of the people into some sort of productive activity you call "an industrial base". You are absolutley mistaken, as are all socialists, collectivists, whatever term you wish to apply that would organize people as ants and bees are organized to serve the "collective" "state" which is nothing more than a phantasm, a legal fiction, with no life of its own. Rather, productive people need no guidance or "policies" or "help" from a collection of professional parasites who call themselves "government" to "develop an industrial base". The best thing the thugs who call themselves "government" can do is jump off a tall mountain into the ocean and feed the fish.
"The devil is in the detail and the state must constantly be adjusting economic policy based on contingencies."
Again, a vague, undefined appeal to the legal fiction "state" which is nothing more nor less than a collection of parasites who call themselves "the state" and claim a right to the lives and property of productive people. There never has been and never will be a "state", i.e., collection of parasites, that can even possibly benefit people. God - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - is "in the details" not his creature Satan. God alone is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal, sovereign over his creation, and alone has given mankind the law by which his creature mankind can fulfill the purpose of his mortal life upon this earth.
As usual very thought provoking essay. Most of the modern world is designed to make us weak: corporations, processed food, social media, feminism, modern Christianity, lockdowns, veganism, sportsball, and a general culture of victimhood. Even guns make us weak because instead of fighting the opposition our side simply goes shopping for guns to solve all problems in the same way many women shop for shoes.
However that weakness appeals to women because by diminishing the priority of strength and elevating to the top the priority of victimhood, women have an advantage.
It is impossible to have a society based on strength when so much of the leadership is female, homosexual and members of a tiny tribe that fears strength in the masses.
We need to expect strength in ourselves, find women who admire it in us and demand it of would-be leaders.
Excellent essay. Strength is key in any society. A robust strong nationalist ideology that puts the culture and it's majority first is key to the success and survival of any civilization and people. If I had to create a cultural and political program (here's the short list) it would include the following:
1. Reinforce all borders, stop the mass waves with deadly force if necessary. Intern all illegal aliens subject to hearings and deportation. If they return long prison sentence. If they committed crimes while in the country the same penalty.
2. Create a 1/2 % transactional sales tax on all purchases including Wall Street. This would generate so much revenue the Federal income tax could be scraped. State's could decide if they want to keep theirs or abolish it. I would tax heavily anyone with a 100 million net worth or higher nor can they hold office or donate to political campaigns. Barter can be a preferred method of foreign trade example: You send us 1 million in semi conductors we'll send you1 million in oil, gas, or beef.
3. Resign from NATO and close 90% of all military bases abroad. I want the military home to defend the soil and folk.
4. National service all men 18+ must serve either in the military for a minimum of 2 years or in some government area parks department, clerks, schools service, community and civility must be taught and required. Women 18+ can volunteer if they desire.
5. High school curriculums will contain no sexual propaganda of any kind. Boys will be taught home skills, such as basic plumbing, electric work changing car tires and oil. Also exercise yoga and basic boxing. Girls sewing, cooking and baking, boys interested in being tailors or chefs can take those classes too. Most professions should require at most a college associates degree. Further education should be optional.
6. Banks and credit card companies may not charge interest rates over 8% max. Nor could banks file for deficiency claims. Meaning if a home is foreclosed on or sold in a short sale and the former owner losses it. The bank cannot demand more largess from the former owner. Example: A house is a short sale for 200K the mortgage was 300K the bank cannot sue the former owner for the 100K short. The banks gets it's money and the former owner parts company. The bank can write the loss off it's books which it'd do anyway. No other industry gets such a racket only banks and hard money men it must stop. First time home buyers can get interest free loans from the state as can university students with top grades only. Public education will be free if the grade point average is high no remedial classes in college!
7. Medical care overhaul. Citizens can purchase health insurance anywhere in the nation for the best and most affordable plan they can find. Currently states restrict citizens. In NYC for example you can chose from only 4 plans and if you think that's choice and they don't collude you need to change your meds. All personnel graduating in the health care field if they chose to can work in public clinics for 3 years for a small salary that will replace their residency requirements. This would include MD's, DO's, DDS, eye doctor, podiatrists, RN's, LPN's, PA's, x ray techs, lab techs, dental hygienists, massage therapists, PT and OT therapists, acupuncturists, chiropractors, pharmacists and dieticians. In return those that participate will have between 40-50% of their loan debts forgiven. Thus insuring access to quality care for all citizens. Illegal aliens can get treated then arrested and interned until final dispensation. No anchor babies. Free birth control, no abortions unless the mother's life's in jeopardy.
8. NPR can only broadcast pro national and cultural programs same this with PBS. Privately owned media can publish what they wish. Also no bilingual signs except at airports and on public transportation for tourists. Foreign born students must pass an English competency test to get their high school diplomas.
9. Foreign policy based only on what's good for the nation internationally.
10. Rebuilding of infrastructure roads, railways up graded subways and bullet trains, affordable public transportation.
11. No draconian sentencing the punishment should fit the crime. For example a kid caught with some weed shouldn't get 6-8 years as many did in California when the current VP AKA "cackling kurva" was AG. Felonies and repeat felons will get work incarceration for 10 years to life.
12. Finally and for me most important a total and complete overhaul of child protection and adoptive laws. All the above will be useless if we don't protect our children. Children are not property to be used and abused like a pet. They're stand alone human beings. They must be guided, taught, nurtured, disciplined when necessary, and love unconditionally. The only being on earth that deserve unconditional love are our kids. For adults all relationships of any kind have conditions. Predators that prey on kids incarcerated for life no parole. Adoptive laws must be overhauled too. Strict backgrounds check a must, and kids that already have a name or were initiated into a faith cannot have their identities erased and be required or forced to assume the adoptive parents identity. Simply stated, an Irish boy named Tom O'Reilly can not be erased and now called Tony D'Angelo or Sam Goldstein (and in the case of Goldstein forced to adhere to the theology of the "rootless cosmopolitans"). He stays Tom Reilly Irish and Roman Catholic. Once he's reached age 18 he can if he chooses to take or add the adoptive parents last name it is not required. Studies have shown this is more healthy mentally and emotionally for adoptive kids. If a couple want a certain type of kid then they adopt only from their own racial, ethnic or cultural milieu. If the parents try to force their identity on the child the child will be removed from the home the former parents fined and possible jail time and they will be banned form adopting children for 25 years. Any nation culture folk that doesn't protect it's kids isn't worth a bucket of VD infected piss and not worth saving. Let it die on the vine.
There you have it Rolo. I could go on but I think you get it. I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts and anyone else reading my comments. Keep up the good work. Loved the podcast today. Marxism, Bolshevism, Trotskyism even Maoism were used by Jews to build Jewish power never proletariat revolution like they gave a rat's ass about working class "goyim". Really? You believe that I'll sell you oil fields in Asbury Park!
Stalin was a thug a crime boss and also a committed Marxist like so many others, Genrikh Yagoda OGPU chief, Boris and Matevi Berman, Naphtaly Frenkel created the GULAG, NKVD torturers Boris Rodos and Lev Schvatzman, add Vladimir Jabotinsky, Saul Alinsky, George Soros AKA George Schwartz among others. Stalin I believe realized this and gutted them for ideological and personal reasons similar to how Michael Corleone dealt with the 5 families, Moe Greene and Hyman Roth in the Godfather parts I and II.
In China Mao was guided by Israel Epstein, Jacob Rosenfeld and Sidney Rittenberg, or Joe Slovo AKA Yossel Mashel Slovo and Helen Suzman in South Africa. The so called "Lincoln Brigade" during the Spanish civil war was also heavily populated with Jewish "Marxists" many complicit in what would today be called "war crimes" from Europe and the USA. We see the same cast of characters all cut from the same carpet and history has shown us it's a very louse weave.
Your proposals are decent. Populists need to start making an actual platform and start spreading these solution ideas. However, it would help to first outline each problem, explain how it affects people, and then propose a solution. Then it's a complete and cohesive platform. From there, it's a matter of demanding people sign onto the program, or, if they disagree with it, engage in debate.
Thanks I thought you'd concur. Agreed the 12 points I listed are an outline. There would of course be more. I think populism is the only way to go at this point. There's no other solution to the continually spiraling decline of our civilization and culture. Even the so called much anticipated "red wave" in the up coming elections won't do much. It's window dressing. The GOP is just as captured by the oligarchs as the Democrats. A nationalist party is needed the problem is the oligarchs and their puppets will fight it tooth and nail. My concern is that we may end up in a similar situation as Spain in 1936. That only a civil war and a nationalist triumph will change the course. the left wants war they're already chomping at the bit over a Roe vs. Wade overturn.
We need to get the heartland the peasantry as we'd say in Europe on or side. Most are terrified of a populist authoritarian state I believe because they think it will take away their NASCAR, guns, BBQ, booze, weed, C&W music and impose an LGBTQ AKA the eye exam crowd on them. If they could be persuaded that this wouldn't happen under a populist nationalist regime they'd be all in with us. These folk care little about ideology so long as they can root at NASCAR, hunt fish and skit shoot, feast on BBQ, washed down with beer and/or bourbon, enjoy a little weed listen to C&W tunes and screw whom they want. Assure them of this and you've got them. The battle grounds will be the coasts and left controlled metropolis' across the country. Debate yes but as we know the left will never genuinely debate they'll just hurl invectives at you. This is the problem when one side doesn't debate in good faith then it becomes a matter of strength and will. We're at a cross roads what path we'll all travel we will sooner than later find out.
Your concept of a "new" first principle of strength isn't - and I say this respectively - new. What you're describing is fascism in its purest form - in the Etruscan/Roman sense - not the totalitarian fascism commonly associated with Mussolini or Hitler, but rather the ideal principles of fascism as described, more or less, by Julius Evola's "Fascism Viewed From The Right." Although his book is a study of the Fascist Movement in Italy under Mussolini (Italy being, after all, where Roman fascism originated), he comes close to the philosophy of "strength," you describe. Interesting, eh?
I will place The Path of Cinnabar on my reading list; Evola was not - it is safe to say - a fan of the modern world. lol (Although he does come to grips with it, in a sense, in "Ride The Tiger.)
By "Inequality" I assume you are referring to "La donna come cosa," and his 'warrior ethos.' I am not an Evola scholar, but his writings do provoke the mind, N'est-ce pas vrai ?
But before you make the standard 'strength of the nation', you have to define the nation. Scale of modern countries is too large for people to belong organically. Diversity makes it more difficult. Only with propaganda can belonging be inculcated, e.g. anthems. These techniques are becoming less effective.
So the oligarchs are right - we are really a mass of undifferentiated individuals each pursuing maximum liberty and pleasure. Rightists with eusocial tendencies are out of whack.
>Arguing from a principle of "strength" is just discarding a whole bunch of useful principles
Like what?
>They're old ideas that have never turned out well for anyone involved.
Like who?
> "Might makes right"
I'm not arguing for social darwinism or anything like that. But, the political party that does politicking better wins. The army that wars better wins.
Our reality is shaped by the masters of one best practice or another.
Techniques can be used for good or for evil. Only the pursuit of best practice in all things makes any real sense.
>Strength without skill and finesse is the definition of inefficiency,
Strength is inseparable as a concept from skill and finesse and efficiency. Your decision to separate these concepts is arbitrary. Strength is that which makes one stronger. Skill and finesse and efficiency count.
>my sympathy for tribalism can be found when you engage in blaming other tribes for the world's ills
We live in a world of cause and effect. If there is a negative effect evident somewhere, the rational man looks for its cause. Irrational, weak people ideologically constrain themselves and claim that it is immoral to notice that most of the oligarchs pushing for their people's destruction are members of one particular desert tribe.
Cooperation is a form of strength. 2 men working together is stronger than 1 man. Cooperation is often a superior strategy to rational self-interest as the Nash equilibrium proves.
> I like solutions that are going to work, and strength as a first principle won't.
Very few people have gone against the powers that be and won. I don't think that it matters what one's stated principles are. The key factor determining success in any field is competency, not ideology or even first principles, the former of which is simply a propaganda device and the second, a mindset that might lead to preferable outcomes.
>It is a soluble problem, but not if they start popping off, which is what you seem to be pushing for.
I'm not arguing for popping off. I have no real advice to give Westerners other than to prepare for the worst, make friends, and hope for the best. It would be highly illegal for me to advice anything else.
>But I don't disagree with your basic point here, although I would call the relevant virtue "fitness."
I find that word to be too sterile. But, if you agree that "fitness" is just a better word for what I'm trying to convey, then we only really disagree on branding.
It's possible that there's a misunderstanding based on terminology, here. As I read Rolo's argument, "strength" doesn't map purely to raw physical brawn, amoral military force, etc. It also folds in intelligence, skill, health, vitality, economic prosperity, etc.
I don't think it means a return to jungle law. Would that make a society stronger? Obviously not.
What it really means is having a governing elite that asks "Will this policy make the nation stronger or weaker?" rather than the current elite, who ask "Will this advance social equity?" or "Will this enrich me personally?", depending on whether they're true believers or sociopaths. In an American context that's basically just "America First".
Fitness is probably functionally equivalent; it doesn't have the same level of rhetorical punch to it, though, being associated with either a sort of bloodless intellectualism (Darwinian fitness), or corporatism (health & fitness). The advantage of "strength" is precisely that it's a rhetorical rejection of post-modernity, which is "weakness" by contrast.
But then, rhetoric is an aesthetic choice, which can be judged only in relation to its effectiveness with the target audience.
There are obvious economic implications to this principle. Protective tariffs find natural justification: the nation is stronger if it has a robust industrial base, can provide its own food, etc.; whereas both liberty and equality point in the direction of free trade, offshoring, and the like. The preferred scale of economic activities is also affected: the nation is stronger if individuals are stronger; individuals are stronger if they are economically independent; therefore the preference should be for household-level industry, since this introduces robust antifragility against economic disruption, while eliminating the parasitism of a managerial class doing useless jobs.
Amen. Maybe something like the "Distributism" of G K Chesterton. I liked his rationale for it: if private property is a good (and the 20th-century experiments with socialism showed pretty well that private property rights are absolutely necessary for human flourishing), then that good should be as widely distributed as possible, with policies aimed at fostering household-level and family-level property ownership and production, whilst breaking up concentrations of economic and political power as much as possible. An armed AND economically independent population can be strong enough to maximize its freedom sustainably over the long term.
Exactly. An economically independent, prosperous, armed populace is inherently stronger than a servile, defenseless population.
"Protective tariffs" weaken a nation. Competition with the rest of the world generates strength and gives the consumer the best quality at the lowest price. Tariffs and restrictions of imports have ruined the big three - Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler -who used to compete in the world. They managed to sabotage the Tucker car, but all that meant was that they built the same old shit they had been building until Honda and Toyota and Volkswagen came around and they are still playing catch up. Ditto for Caterpillar. Now you see Komatsu, Daiihatsu, etc., where formerly if it was yellow, it was a Cat. Whatever industry depends on the "government" protection of regulations limiting the competition is doomed. Most legislation spewed out of Congress and state legislatures is written to stifle competition. as most entrepreneurs cannot afford a stable of attorneys to protect them from the regulators. Case in point is internet providers in the US. You get lousy service and have no alternative because there is no competition and the bought off state legislators will not force the ISPs to provide the service they promised in exchange for their monopoly and free acquisition of existing telephone lines. Thankfully StarLink is now an option to escape being in the captive herd of ISP cash cows.
And yet, literally every country that has ever fostered local industry used protective tariffs. The elimination of tariffs in western countries has hollowed out productive industry, giving us Wal-Mart, shit service sector jobs, the gig economy, and FIRE parasitism.
Results matter more than spergy theory, fren.
Correct. My point is they all suffered from doing so. No collection of bureaucrats can determine in their impenetrable piles of regulations what people want or need or at what price. Central planning is impossible and the USSR was the final word on socialism. Soviet five year plans and Chinese great leaps forward totally disregarded that people are not and never will be ants or bees content to live in a hive.
Results matter more than spergy theory, fren.
There's a huge difference between central planning and tariffs. Tariffs are nothing more than a protective insulating layer, an economic boundary that shields interior from exterior. What happens on the inside can be as free market as you want.
Historically, that's exactly what the US did during its rise in the 19th century: internal free market, external tariffs. Otherwise US industry would never have been able to compete with cheap British goods.
The suffering in the US, and elsewhere, corresponded to the elimination of tariffs, not their formation.
Right, tariffs are not the USSR central planning committee. They come from the USA or UK, etc., government agencies owned and operated by industrial lobbyists who believe "government" can guarantee their profits by restricting competition. They short-sightedly stagnate rather that compete. They amount to government interference in the market with all the attendant distortions. Add a currency printing press by which the demons who call themselves "government" can legislate themselves free currency and here we are.
As I wrote, "protective tariffs" weaken a nation. Historically, the free market either extends to the world or there is no free market, which is exactly the case and pretty much always has been: there never has been a free market except for a very brief localized one in Ethiopia where everything was for sale, RPGs included.
Either you kick the kids out of the house or they are never able to live in the greater world.
>Either you kick the kids out of the house or they are never able to live in the greater world.
You shouldn't kick the kids out of the house.
This is really simplistic. It's essential to develop an industrial base. How to do that depends on a host of factors, e.g. population, resources, competitors, state of other sectors, alliances.
The devil is in the detail and the state must constantly be adjusting economic policy based on contingencies.
Recommend Freidrich List's work from Imperium Press.
"This is really simplistic. It's essential to develop an industrial base. How to do that depends on a host of factors, e.g. population, resources, competitors, state of other sectors, alliances."
I see you are a statist, i.e., you believe a collection of people who call themselves "government" are essential to order the rest of the people into some sort of productive activity you call "an industrial base". You are absolutley mistaken, as are all socialists, collectivists, whatever term you wish to apply that would organize people as ants and bees are organized to serve the "collective" "state" which is nothing more than a phantasm, a legal fiction, with no life of its own. Rather, productive people need no guidance or "policies" or "help" from a collection of professional parasites who call themselves "government" to "develop an industrial base". The best thing the thugs who call themselves "government" can do is jump off a tall mountain into the ocean and feed the fish.
"The devil is in the detail and the state must constantly be adjusting economic policy based on contingencies."
Again, a vague, undefined appeal to the legal fiction "state" which is nothing more nor less than a collection of parasites who call themselves "the state" and claim a right to the lives and property of productive people. There never has been and never will be a "state", i.e., collection of parasites, that can even possibly benefit people. God - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - is "in the details" not his creature Satan. God alone is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal, sovereign over his creation, and alone has given mankind the law by which his creature mankind can fulfill the purpose of his mortal life upon this earth.
As usual very thought provoking essay. Most of the modern world is designed to make us weak: corporations, processed food, social media, feminism, modern Christianity, lockdowns, veganism, sportsball, and a general culture of victimhood. Even guns make us weak because instead of fighting the opposition our side simply goes shopping for guns to solve all problems in the same way many women shop for shoes.
However that weakness appeals to women because by diminishing the priority of strength and elevating to the top the priority of victimhood, women have an advantage.
It is impossible to have a society based on strength when so much of the leadership is female, homosexual and members of a tiny tribe that fears strength in the masses.
We need to expect strength in ourselves, find women who admire it in us and demand it of would-be leaders.
Excellent essay. Strength is key in any society. A robust strong nationalist ideology that puts the culture and it's majority first is key to the success and survival of any civilization and people. If I had to create a cultural and political program (here's the short list) it would include the following:
1. Reinforce all borders, stop the mass waves with deadly force if necessary. Intern all illegal aliens subject to hearings and deportation. If they return long prison sentence. If they committed crimes while in the country the same penalty.
2. Create a 1/2 % transactional sales tax on all purchases including Wall Street. This would generate so much revenue the Federal income tax could be scraped. State's could decide if they want to keep theirs or abolish it. I would tax heavily anyone with a 100 million net worth or higher nor can they hold office or donate to political campaigns. Barter can be a preferred method of foreign trade example: You send us 1 million in semi conductors we'll send you1 million in oil, gas, or beef.
3. Resign from NATO and close 90% of all military bases abroad. I want the military home to defend the soil and folk.
4. National service all men 18+ must serve either in the military for a minimum of 2 years or in some government area parks department, clerks, schools service, community and civility must be taught and required. Women 18+ can volunteer if they desire.
5. High school curriculums will contain no sexual propaganda of any kind. Boys will be taught home skills, such as basic plumbing, electric work changing car tires and oil. Also exercise yoga and basic boxing. Girls sewing, cooking and baking, boys interested in being tailors or chefs can take those classes too. Most professions should require at most a college associates degree. Further education should be optional.
6. Banks and credit card companies may not charge interest rates over 8% max. Nor could banks file for deficiency claims. Meaning if a home is foreclosed on or sold in a short sale and the former owner losses it. The bank cannot demand more largess from the former owner. Example: A house is a short sale for 200K the mortgage was 300K the bank cannot sue the former owner for the 100K short. The banks gets it's money and the former owner parts company. The bank can write the loss off it's books which it'd do anyway. No other industry gets such a racket only banks and hard money men it must stop. First time home buyers can get interest free loans from the state as can university students with top grades only. Public education will be free if the grade point average is high no remedial classes in college!
7. Medical care overhaul. Citizens can purchase health insurance anywhere in the nation for the best and most affordable plan they can find. Currently states restrict citizens. In NYC for example you can chose from only 4 plans and if you think that's choice and they don't collude you need to change your meds. All personnel graduating in the health care field if they chose to can work in public clinics for 3 years for a small salary that will replace their residency requirements. This would include MD's, DO's, DDS, eye doctor, podiatrists, RN's, LPN's, PA's, x ray techs, lab techs, dental hygienists, massage therapists, PT and OT therapists, acupuncturists, chiropractors, pharmacists and dieticians. In return those that participate will have between 40-50% of their loan debts forgiven. Thus insuring access to quality care for all citizens. Illegal aliens can get treated then arrested and interned until final dispensation. No anchor babies. Free birth control, no abortions unless the mother's life's in jeopardy.
8. NPR can only broadcast pro national and cultural programs same this with PBS. Privately owned media can publish what they wish. Also no bilingual signs except at airports and on public transportation for tourists. Foreign born students must pass an English competency test to get their high school diplomas.
9. Foreign policy based only on what's good for the nation internationally.
10. Rebuilding of infrastructure roads, railways up graded subways and bullet trains, affordable public transportation.
11. No draconian sentencing the punishment should fit the crime. For example a kid caught with some weed shouldn't get 6-8 years as many did in California when the current VP AKA "cackling kurva" was AG. Felonies and repeat felons will get work incarceration for 10 years to life.
12. Finally and for me most important a total and complete overhaul of child protection and adoptive laws. All the above will be useless if we don't protect our children. Children are not property to be used and abused like a pet. They're stand alone human beings. They must be guided, taught, nurtured, disciplined when necessary, and love unconditionally. The only being on earth that deserve unconditional love are our kids. For adults all relationships of any kind have conditions. Predators that prey on kids incarcerated for life no parole. Adoptive laws must be overhauled too. Strict backgrounds check a must, and kids that already have a name or were initiated into a faith cannot have their identities erased and be required or forced to assume the adoptive parents identity. Simply stated, an Irish boy named Tom O'Reilly can not be erased and now called Tony D'Angelo or Sam Goldstein (and in the case of Goldstein forced to adhere to the theology of the "rootless cosmopolitans"). He stays Tom Reilly Irish and Roman Catholic. Once he's reached age 18 he can if he chooses to take or add the adoptive parents last name it is not required. Studies have shown this is more healthy mentally and emotionally for adoptive kids. If a couple want a certain type of kid then they adopt only from their own racial, ethnic or cultural milieu. If the parents try to force their identity on the child the child will be removed from the home the former parents fined and possible jail time and they will be banned form adopting children for 25 years. Any nation culture folk that doesn't protect it's kids isn't worth a bucket of VD infected piss and not worth saving. Let it die on the vine.
There you have it Rolo. I could go on but I think you get it. I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts and anyone else reading my comments. Keep up the good work. Loved the podcast today. Marxism, Bolshevism, Trotskyism even Maoism were used by Jews to build Jewish power never proletariat revolution like they gave a rat's ass about working class "goyim". Really? You believe that I'll sell you oil fields in Asbury Park!
Stalin was a thug a crime boss and also a committed Marxist like so many others, Genrikh Yagoda OGPU chief, Boris and Matevi Berman, Naphtaly Frenkel created the GULAG, NKVD torturers Boris Rodos and Lev Schvatzman, add Vladimir Jabotinsky, Saul Alinsky, George Soros AKA George Schwartz among others. Stalin I believe realized this and gutted them for ideological and personal reasons similar to how Michael Corleone dealt with the 5 families, Moe Greene and Hyman Roth in the Godfather parts I and II.
In China Mao was guided by Israel Epstein, Jacob Rosenfeld and Sidney Rittenberg, or Joe Slovo AKA Yossel Mashel Slovo and Helen Suzman in South Africa. The so called "Lincoln Brigade" during the Spanish civil war was also heavily populated with Jewish "Marxists" many complicit in what would today be called "war crimes" from Europe and the USA. We see the same cast of characters all cut from the same carpet and history has shown us it's a very louse weave.
Your proposals are decent. Populists need to start making an actual platform and start spreading these solution ideas. However, it would help to first outline each problem, explain how it affects people, and then propose a solution. Then it's a complete and cohesive platform. From there, it's a matter of demanding people sign onto the program, or, if they disagree with it, engage in debate.
Thanks I thought you'd concur. Agreed the 12 points I listed are an outline. There would of course be more. I think populism is the only way to go at this point. There's no other solution to the continually spiraling decline of our civilization and culture. Even the so called much anticipated "red wave" in the up coming elections won't do much. It's window dressing. The GOP is just as captured by the oligarchs as the Democrats. A nationalist party is needed the problem is the oligarchs and their puppets will fight it tooth and nail. My concern is that we may end up in a similar situation as Spain in 1936. That only a civil war and a nationalist triumph will change the course. the left wants war they're already chomping at the bit over a Roe vs. Wade overturn.
We need to get the heartland the peasantry as we'd say in Europe on or side. Most are terrified of a populist authoritarian state I believe because they think it will take away their NASCAR, guns, BBQ, booze, weed, C&W music and impose an LGBTQ AKA the eye exam crowd on them. If they could be persuaded that this wouldn't happen under a populist nationalist regime they'd be all in with us. These folk care little about ideology so long as they can root at NASCAR, hunt fish and skit shoot, feast on BBQ, washed down with beer and/or bourbon, enjoy a little weed listen to C&W tunes and screw whom they want. Assure them of this and you've got them. The battle grounds will be the coasts and left controlled metropolis' across the country. Debate yes but as we know the left will never genuinely debate they'll just hurl invectives at you. This is the problem when one side doesn't debate in good faith then it becomes a matter of strength and will. We're at a cross roads what path we'll all travel we will sooner than later find out.
Your concept of a "new" first principle of strength isn't - and I say this respectively - new. What you're describing is fascism in its purest form - in the Etruscan/Roman sense - not the totalitarian fascism commonly associated with Mussolini or Hitler, but rather the ideal principles of fascism as described, more or less, by Julius Evola's "Fascism Viewed From The Right." Although his book is a study of the Fascist Movement in Italy under Mussolini (Italy being, after all, where Roman fascism originated), he comes close to the philosophy of "strength," you describe. Interesting, eh?
I didn't read that particular book, but I did read The Path of Cinnabar.
I always thought Evola's key word was "inequality".
I will place The Path of Cinnabar on my reading list; Evola was not - it is safe to say - a fan of the modern world. lol (Although he does come to grips with it, in a sense, in "Ride The Tiger.)
By "Inequality" I assume you are referring to "La donna come cosa," and his 'warrior ethos.' I am not an Evola scholar, but his writings do provoke the mind, N'est-ce pas vrai ?
Well Evola just wanted a return to mysticism and a sort of shaman/warrior caste running society.
Agree.
But before you make the standard 'strength of the nation', you have to define the nation. Scale of modern countries is too large for people to belong organically. Diversity makes it more difficult. Only with propaganda can belonging be inculcated, e.g. anthems. These techniques are becoming less effective.
So the oligarchs are right - we are really a mass of undifferentiated individuals each pursuing maximum liberty and pleasure. Rightists with eusocial tendencies are out of whack.
SCIENCE! has already delivered a verdict on who is alive and who isn't. SCIENCE! discovered long ago that a woman cannot be partly pregnant.
typo? (please feel free to delete this comment)
building society and so on, need a new first principle
building society and so on, needs a new first principle
Excellent!!! A good way to promote the Well-Being of One's People.
minor typo?:
the principle of strength along allows one to
the principle of strength alone allows one to
Sounds like MAGA to me. In large part anyway.
>Arguing from a principle of "strength" is just discarding a whole bunch of useful principles
Like what?
>They're old ideas that have never turned out well for anyone involved.
Like who?
> "Might makes right"
I'm not arguing for social darwinism or anything like that. But, the political party that does politicking better wins. The army that wars better wins.
Our reality is shaped by the masters of one best practice or another.
Techniques can be used for good or for evil. Only the pursuit of best practice in all things makes any real sense.
>Strength without skill and finesse is the definition of inefficiency,
Strength is inseparable as a concept from skill and finesse and efficiency. Your decision to separate these concepts is arbitrary. Strength is that which makes one stronger. Skill and finesse and efficiency count.
>my sympathy for tribalism can be found when you engage in blaming other tribes for the world's ills
We live in a world of cause and effect. If there is a negative effect evident somewhere, the rational man looks for its cause. Irrational, weak people ideologically constrain themselves and claim that it is immoral to notice that most of the oligarchs pushing for their people's destruction are members of one particular desert tribe.
>How about the ones contained in game theory?
Cooperation is a form of strength. 2 men working together is stronger than 1 man. Cooperation is often a superior strategy to rational self-interest as the Nash equilibrium proves.
> I like solutions that are going to work, and strength as a first principle won't.
Very few people have gone against the powers that be and won. I don't think that it matters what one's stated principles are. The key factor determining success in any field is competency, not ideology or even first principles, the former of which is simply a propaganda device and the second, a mindset that might lead to preferable outcomes.
>It is a soluble problem, but not if they start popping off, which is what you seem to be pushing for.
I'm not arguing for popping off. I have no real advice to give Westerners other than to prepare for the worst, make friends, and hope for the best. It would be highly illegal for me to advice anything else.
>But I don't disagree with your basic point here, although I would call the relevant virtue "fitness."
I find that word to be too sterile. But, if you agree that "fitness" is just a better word for what I'm trying to convey, then we only really disagree on branding.
It's possible that there's a misunderstanding based on terminology, here. As I read Rolo's argument, "strength" doesn't map purely to raw physical brawn, amoral military force, etc. It also folds in intelligence, skill, health, vitality, economic prosperity, etc.
I don't think it means a return to jungle law. Would that make a society stronger? Obviously not.
What it really means is having a governing elite that asks "Will this policy make the nation stronger or weaker?" rather than the current elite, who ask "Will this advance social equity?" or "Will this enrich me personally?", depending on whether they're true believers or sociopaths. In an American context that's basically just "America First".
It's impossible to believe that Jay Rollins could interpret "strength" in such a limited way.
Fitness is probably functionally equivalent; it doesn't have the same level of rhetorical punch to it, though, being associated with either a sort of bloodless intellectualism (Darwinian fitness), or corporatism (health & fitness). The advantage of "strength" is precisely that it's a rhetorical rejection of post-modernity, which is "weakness" by contrast.
But then, rhetoric is an aesthetic choice, which can be judged only in relation to its effectiveness with the target audience.
Are you saying that people associate the concept of "strength" and the word itself with fascism?
Like, does a person who says "i want to be strong" really mean "i want to be a fascist" ?