The National Collaborativist Thread

[Minister of Truth]

I think the fact that AHZ hasn't been guillotined yet is proof that he is wrong on all accounts...

 

[gonzojournals]

I think the fact that AHZ hasn't been guillotined yet is proof that he is wrong on all accounts...

The greatest defense that we do not live in a fascist society is the fact that people can freely and publicly call our government fascist.

 

[Litmus]

Certainly...that a strong (basically totalitarian government) is the next step for government to take in order to preserve domestic interests, while using the former democratic process as a tool to achieve civil liberty...however, once that civil liberty is achieved the government is able to assume a sort of benevolent dictatorship that strives both to uphold the State as the supreme entity while allowing the individual the same freedoms (and more) that would be allowed under a traditional democratic government structure.

A. Why is totallitarianism necessary to preserve domestic interests.
b. Why is democracy needed to ensure civil liberties, if you believe totalitarianism can protect civil liberties? These seem to be at odds with each other.

No, they ease the tensions by accepting the fact that the elite will be elite and that dragging the elite down to the same level as the poor will make no one happy; instead, the lower classes are protected by the government instead of labour unions and other Marxist garbage, while the opportunity for upward mobility is still maintained.

This assumes people are elite for good reasons. They're not. Especially in this time when selling out your fellow man is considered good business. Plus, schemes like this do end upward mobility. As it IS necessary to kill hope of a better life when you seek to create a permanent hierarchical regime.

You are a scary sick as fuck nazi.

So I am to expect that in a few years we will both adopt Monarchy as our system of government and that the populace will be divided into feudal lords that have sworn fealty to said Monarch, while the population as a whole will revert to serfdom? You should lay off the peyote, my friend.

That seems to be exactlly what you're looking for.

If you want an example of the reality that feudalism is a concept alien to the modern era, simply look to Russian history--- Russia maintained a feudal society longer than any other country on Earth (several hundred years longer than most) and the result was a bloody revolution that allowed the Marxists to seize power.

And the people were still serfs, the elites just called themselves something else.

 

[Litmus]

Jesus h. Do any of you allegedly non-fascist liberals have any commentary on gonzo's dark vision?

 

[gonzojournals]

A. Why is totallitarianism necessary to preserve domestic interests.

Because the failures and inadequacies of the democratic system grow more apparent with each passing year, as does the abuse of the people and their resulting anger.

b. Why is democracy needed to ensure civil liberties, if you believe totalitarianism can protect civil liberties? These seem to be at odds with each other.

Democracy's vote is an important tool in the creation of civil liberty...by giving an increasingly large portion of the population the right to vote, the despots of feudalism were slowly forced to grant the people basic rights instead of having absolute power. However, once society progresses to a point where these rights have become widely accepted as being owed to every man, woman, and child, there is no longer any need for the vote or democracy--- especially since voter turn-out shows us that the populace doesn't actually value the elections in the first place.

This assumes people are elite for good reasons. They're not. Especially in this time when selling out your fellow man is considered good business. Plus, schemes like this do end upward mobility. As it IS necessary to kill hope of a better life when you seek to create a permanent hierarchical regime.

No, this assumes that living in a capitalist society (so far the most reliable system of economics) will have the effect of creating an elite class--- however, we must realise that these individuals have done nothing wrong for pursuing the American dream that was promised to all of us. In the end, no "permanent hierarchical regime" is created...only the tensions between the haves and have-nots decreased....upward mobility is maintained.

You are a scary sick as fuck nazi.

No, I am a scary sick as fuck National Collaborativist

That seems to be exactlly what you're looking for.

Yeah, that is clearly what I said....try some reading comprehension. Nothing about this even resembles feudalism.

And the people were still serfs, the elites just called themselves something else.

Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of a serf--- serfdom is the lowest level of feudal society, and serfs are basically slaves. They had no rights, could not move from the land they were born on, and basically worked for the noble they served simply because he would (maybe) keep them from getting murdered and pillaged by a neighbouring noble.

Now, if you word you are looking for is peasant, that might be slightly more accurate--- poverty-stricken would be even better. Serf, however, comes from you trying to use a word you think sounds cool (even if you are using it incorrectly) or your complete lack of any sort of understanding of feudalism and modern government.

 

[Litmus]

Because the failures and inadequacies of the democratic system grow more apparent with each passing year, as does the abuse of the people and their resulting anger.

But the inadequacies of democracy are due to totalitarian tendencies. You're going in the wrong direction with your brainless solution.

Democracy's vote is an important tool in the creation of civil liberty...by giving an increasingly large portion of the population the right to vote, the despots of feudalism were slowly forced to grant the people basic rights instead of having absolute power.

If you're already totalitarian, just put the civil liberties as unbending tenets of the state. Why must people vote for them? So they can be voted away over time?

However, once society progresses to a point where these rights have become widely accepted as being owed to every man, woman, and child, there is no longer any need for the vote or democracy--- especially since voter turn-out shows us that the populace doesn't actually value the elections in the first place.

But in a dictatorship, why wait?

No, this assumes that living in a capitalist society (so far the most reliable system of economics) will have the effect of creating an elite class--- however, we must realise that these individuals have done nothing wrong for pursuing the American dream that was promised to all of us. In the end, no "permanent hierarchical regime" is created...only the tensions between the haves and have-nots decreased....upward mobility is maintained.

The corporate, and currency system are inherently elitist and they do create an elite class . Corporations borrow money to gain control of others to implement a plan, if the plans fail, they fold the company and start over. Individuals are not afforded this same luxury, anymore. there are some business people who deserve wealth. I do not considering laying off americans to ship jobs overseas to be an activity which should be considered "good" or "moral". It's not innovation.

how do you lessen tension between the classes? What does that mean? It's a nice thought. I just think you have no fucking clue how to implement it, or wtf you're talking about.

No, I am a scary sick as fuck National Collaborativist

More like an inconsistent, morally atrocious sicko.

Yeah, that is clearly what I said....try some reading comprehension. Nothing about this even resembles feudalism.

it sounds exactly like it.

Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of a serf--- serfdom is the lowest level of feudal society, and serfs are basically slaves. They had no rights, could not move from the land they were born on, and basically worked for the noble they served simply because he would (maybe) keep them from getting murdered and pillaged by a neighbouring noble.

Now, if you word you are looking for is peasant, that might be slightly more accurate--- poverty-stricken would be even better. Serf, however, comes from you trying to use a word you think sounds cool (even if you are using it incorrectly) or your complete lack of any sort of understanding of feudalism and modern government.

peasant, serf, whatever, don't play word games you dink.

 

[gonzojournals]

But the inadequacies of democracy are due to totalitarian tendencies. You're going in the wrong direction with your brainless solution.

No, the inadequacies of democracy come from it being both an out-dated system of government and one that eventually leads to corruption and, inevitably, a totalitarian government. You will not find a democracy in history that has not reverted to authoritarianism within a few hundred years--- as a result, why not try to preserve the thing that people actually enjoy about democracy--- the freedom.

No one really cares about voting, it is the fact that democracies tend to have more liberty (although just look to Africa or South America to see this is not always the case).

If you're already totalitarian, just put the civil liberties as unbending tenets of the state. Why must people vote for them? So they can be voted away over time?

First of all, because up until this point in history dictators have been threatened by basic human liberty. Secondly, because the vote provided people with both a goal and a voice...what I'm saying is that democracy is an important part in the process of the evolution of the State, but a means rather than an ends.

But in a dictatorship, why wait?

Because in a dictatorship created without the necessary time spent in a democratic frame of mind, these things will not be valued...democracy, as I have said, is an important tool in the development of the State, but not the final stage of the State's existence.

The corporate, and currency system are inherently elitist and they do create an elite class . Corporations borrow money to gain control of others to implement a plan, if the plans fail, they fold the company and start over. Individuals are not afforded this same luxury, anymore. there are some business people who deserve wealth. I do not considering laying off americans to ship jobs overseas to be an activity which should be considered "good" or "moral". It's not innovation.

You're right-- obviously the solution to a business elite (don't forget a solid middle class, either) being created by our "evil" corporations is to drag everyone down to the level of peasant-- then everyone can be miserable! Oh wait, I think the USSR already tried that...

how do you lessen tension between the classes? What does that mean? It's a nice thought. I just think you have no fucking clue how to implement it, or wtf you're talking about.

Through Corporatism. dirigisme (while maintaining liberty, of course), the abolition of trade unions, the implementation of laws protecting the workers instead of trade unions, and by getting both the upper and lower classes (especially the lower ones) to accept that fact that their station is their station, and that instead of resenting those with more they should poor their energy into bettering their own position.

More like an inconsistent, morally atrocious sicko.

What have I said that is immoral or inconsistent?

it sounds exactly like it.

No, it doesn't. But of course, this is from the man who calls liberals "fascists"...what a complete contradiction of terms that is...

peasant, serf, whatever, don't play word games you dink.

I'm not playing word games, I'm actually using the correct word to express the idea I am attempting to convey--whereas you are reaching for the thesaurus and using what you think is a synonym (but isn't).

 

[Litmus]

No, the inadequacies of democracy come from it being both an out-dated system of government and one that eventually leads to corruption and, inevitably, a totalitarian government.

It doesn't have to. Why skip straight to totalitarianism if you think totalitariansim is bad?

You will not find a democracy in history that has not reverted to authoritarianism within a few hundred years--- as a result, why not try to preserve the thing that people actually enjoy about democracy--- the freedom.

But.... that's the part you wanted to leave democratic, which you said leads to totalitarianism? See? You're all pretzeled up.

First of all, because up until this point in history dictators have been threatened by basic human liberty.

they're still threatened by it. If you consider it a right to be free of enslaving or detrimental treaties (which I do) then the dictators today are threatened by basic human liberty.

Secondly, because the vote provided people with both a goal and a voice...what I'm saying is that democracy is an important part in the process of the evolution of the State, but a means rather than an ends.

You're insane and retarded.

Because in a dictatorship created without the necessary time spent in a democratic frame of mind, these things will not be valued...democracy, as I have said, is an important tool in the development of the State, but not the final stage of the State's existence.

Totalitarianism is but a break between periods of freedom. There is no "final stage" to a state.

You're right-- obviously the solution to a business elite (don't forget a solid middle class, either) being created by our "evil" corporations is to drag everyone down to the level of peasant-- then everyone can be miserable! Oh wait, I think the USSR already tried that...

But if the "heights" they achieve are based on hostility toward others, atrocious personal debt of the majority, and the intentional cultivation of bad habits in others, the HEIGHTS achieved aren't so noble.

Through Corporatism. dirigisme (while maintaining liberty, of course), the abolition of trade unions, the implementation of laws protecting the workers instead of trade unions, and by getting both the upper and lower classes (especially the lower ones) to accept that fact that their station is their station, and that instead of resenting those with more they should poor their energy into bettering their own position.

But if their station is their station, how can they better their position?


You're inconsistent and shitminded on many points, as I've pointed out above.

 

[Battleborne]

Good Lord.............

This whole thread smacks of the movies 'The Running Man,Soilent Green,and The Omega Man(the original to the new movie 'I Am Legend') I smell a Script in here somewhere!

 

[gonzojournals]

It doesn't have to. Why skip straight to totalitarianism if you think totalitariansim is bad?

Totalitarianism, like any system, can be "bad" through its implementation...thus the new brand.

But.... that's the part you wanted to leave democratic, which you said leads to totalitarianism? See? You're all pretzeled up.

No, the difference is that totalitarianism, given the proper measures and lead in, can be a benevolent and sustainable government, whereas democracy must inevitably collapse and turn to corruption.

they're still threatened by it. If you consider it a right to be free of enslaving or detrimental treaties (which I do) then the dictators today are threatened by basic human liberty.

Again, thus the new brand.

You're insane and retarded.

You must have studied at Harvard or Yale to be able to articulate points so eloquently.

Totalitarianism is but a break between periods of freedom. There is no "final stage" to a state.

Then by the same notion democracy is but a break between periods of totalitarianism--- however, you are equating freedom to democracy, which is an unfair comparison-- I concede that democracy is often a very necessary step in achieving freedom, but I do not see democracy as the only government type that can support freedom.

But if the "heights" they achieve are based on hostility toward others, atrocious personal debt of the majority, and the intentional cultivation of bad habits in others, the HEIGHTS achieved aren't so noble.

No one forces anyone else in this country to use corporate services, or one corporation over another. Corporations are dependent on the public to support their products-- if you are so opposed to corporations, I advise you to return your computer and cancel your internet service, as well as start growing your own food.

But if their station is their station, how can they better their position?

The point I was trying to make is that there should be an effort to cease class envy, that the lower class should focus solely on what it can do to no longer be the lower class rather than resent the upper class (as that wastes the time of both).

You're inconsistent and shitminded on many points, as I've pointed out above.

No, you have used whatever mescaline logic you think applies in the real world, and I have gotten right through it.

 

[Litmus]

Totalitarianism, like any system, can be "bad" through its implementation...thus the new brand.

The new brand? You're fucking deluded.

No, the difference is that totalitarianism, given the proper measures and lead in, can be a benevolent and sustainable government, whereas democracy must inevitably collapse and turn to corruption.

This is bullshit. Democracy doesn't have to become totalitarianism. that's a bunch of wishful thinking on the part of totalitarians.

Again, thus the new brand.

Again, your criminal insanity.

You must have studied at Harvard or Yale to be able to articulate points so eloquently.

All I know is I keep beating your ass.

Then by the same notion democracy is but a break between periods of totalitarianism--- however, you are equating freedom to democracy, which is an unfair comparison-- I concede that democracy is often a very necessary step in achieving freedom, but I do not see democracy as the only government type that can support freedom.

I don't either. But the people who want totalitarianism now do not have freedom in mind for anyone but themselves.

No one forces anyone else in this country to use corporate services, or one corporation over another. Corporations are dependent on the public to support their products-- if you are so opposed to corporations, I advise you to return your computer and cancel your internet service, as well as start growing your own food.

We need things. We get them from corporations. that doesn't mean society should be completely subservient to the whims of corporate greed.

The point I was trying to make is that there should be an effort to cease class envy, that the lower class should focus solely on what it can do to no longer be the lower class rather than resent the upper class (as that wastes the time of both).

HOW?

I was pointing out that traditionally this is achieved by putting a patina of god dust on the ruling class. You want a theocracy?

No, you have used whatever mescaline logic you think applies in the real world, and I have gotten right through it.

No you haven't. You're a dimwit.

 

[gonzojournals]

The new brand? You're fucking deluded.

Dreamers often are.

This is bullshit. Democracy doesn't have to become totalitarianism. that's a bunch of wishful thinking on the part of totalitarians.

Yes, it does. People speak about the merits of democracy so freely, yet modern democracy is so new that it is impossible to proclaim it the ideal government type.

Again, your criminal insanity.

Again, my vision.

All I know is I keep beating your ass.

You have trouble with sarcasm...I get it.

I don't either. But the people who want totalitarianism now do not have freedom in mind for anyone but themselves.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

We need things. We get them from corporations. that doesn't mean society should be completely subservient to the whims of corporate greed.

Nor is it.

HOW?

I was pointing out that traditionally this is achieved by putting a patina of god dust on the ruling class. You want a theocracy?

I have already answered how--- nor do I see how theocracy enters into my answers.

No you haven't. You're a dimwit.

Coming from you, that is a high compliment.

 

[Litmus]

Tell us more about your dreams of totalitarianism.

What will your reeducation program be like to convince people to be happy with their station in life?

 

[Minister of Truth]

AHZ - isn't it you who constantly agitates for fascism in order to combat globalization? Why suddenly criticize totalitarianism now?

 

[Litmus]

AHZ - isn't it you who constantly agitates for fascism in order to combat globalization? Why suddenly criticize totalitarianism now?

No. I'm against fascism. I am also against trade which detrimental in the long term to americans. I'm not a fascist, i'm not a isolationist, I'm not a globalist.

 

[Litmus]

3d, show me where I've agitate for fascism, or improve your reading comprehension skills.

 

[gonzojournals]

3d, show me where I've agitate for fascism, or improve your reading comprehension skills.

Why hello Mr. Pot, where is your friend Kettle?

 

[Litmus]

Why hello Mr. Pot, where is your friend Kettle?

You show me then.

 

[gonzojournals]

You show me then.

Show you your horrible reading comprehension skills? Just look at this thread.

 

[Litmus]

Show you your horrible reading comprehension skills? Just look at this thread.

Follow along. Show me where i've advocated fascism, as threedee asserts I have.


As for this thread, it's more evidence of being quite superior.