You have to list your policies and pitch them to a normie. What do you say?

submitted by NeoRail from self.debatealtright

Good political platforms offer compelling, popular, effective and persuasive policies to their supporters. What are those policies? How would you sell them to an apolitical normie? You do not need long and elaborate explanations for the policies you list, but you should briefly state what your political solution is and why it is a good solution. Preferably, you should think broadly with your response and not stop at single-issue stuff.

Hard mode: write something coherent instead of just vomiting rhetoric in the comment section.

Ultra hard mode: contribute something new and insightful to the thread instead of just repeating and rephrasing other comments. With that said, you should still list policies that you personally believe are good.

all 81 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]NeoRail[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

/u/Markimus

I would also be interested in seeing your thoughts here, if possible. You have written some pretty detailed posts on political strategy and populist economics in the past, but I do not think you have ever given a blueprint for your vision of an ideal state or how you'd pitch it to others.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

In terms of getting people to support a one party state I think could be difficult. For me I was always instinctually against parties and I found it absolutely absurd that there were multiple parties that are in the government and working against each other, enacting their own party-lines against their own local voters. I remember finding out something like 2/3rds of labour constituencies voted Brexit but only 1/4 of labour MPs supported it, something like that. How is it democracy if they're not serving their constituents, but instead manipulating them for votes and then enacting someone else's (MONEY'S) agenda? I think Mosley-esque critiques are probably the best route to go for convincing people to move away from the multiple party system and into a one-party state.

Before I was fascist, or knew anything about politics, I thought of my own kind of (admittedly kinda dumb) direct democracy. Essentially there would be 'parties' for each major policy category say environmental policy, economic policy, foreign policy etc and the people could vote for each of them. I was prolly like 14 or something when I had this idea but it always made more sense to me than just voting for the 'lesser evil' even though they're trash in multiple policy areas. I don't think this is even a good idea to be honest, but it's still somehow better than the kind of parliamentarism we have today which is extremely anti-democratic. I always say that an actual direct democracy with a bunch of referendums and such would resemble fascism more than any other system because all of the elements of fascism are popular on their own.

In order to sell a one party state though I would emphasise the anti-democratic element of the liberal parliamentary system, how the will of the people never gets done. I was convinced that fascism was democracy par excellence through listening to Mosley's speeches, an of course seeing how much membership all fascist organisations got. Later on of course I've read Schmitt, Gentile etc but I think the basic "True democracy begins when the will of the people is enacted" style critiques are the way to go. Call out the current system for always trying to thwart the will of the people. Also talk a lot about how the government will have referendums for issues important to the people and actually enact them swiftly unlike the current anti-democratic system cough cough Brexit cough cough.

I don't think the issue is really trying to convince people of our ideas, I think all of them sell themselves. I know that I could convert anyone who is open minded and inquisitive to being fascist given enough time. I've redpilled everyone I've known in real life who has the potential to actually have independent thought and is being intellectually honest. The issue is that most people just don't really think deeply enough for discussing politics with them to even matter, I think the real hurdle is figuring out how to politicise and motivate people who don't really think. This is something I think Hitler wrote about, he said something about how X% (most) of people read nothing, Y% (smaller number) read only 1 newspaper and blindly trust them, and Z% (tiny amount) read multiple newspapers and make up their own mind. Then Goebbels also wrote something along the lines of he prefers people who hate him to the people who are apathetic, because those that hate him can be converted but the apathetic will never be motivated to do anything. These 2 sentiments basically summarise my feelings towards trying to convince people of our ideas to be honest, I find that people who even talk about politics are kind of just pretending to be thoughtful people and are actually just unthinking/apathetic in most cases.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

MEIN KAMPF VOLUME 2

10.11 THREE GROUPS OF NEWSPAPER READERS

I will take only a few examples from the large number of existing cases: In journalistic circles, they like to speak of the press as a 'great power' within the state. As a matter of fact, its importance is immense. One cannot easily overestimate it, for the press continues the work of adult education.

Generally, readers can be divided into three groups:

First, those who believe everything they read;

Second, those who no longer believe anything;

Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly.

Numerically, the first group is by far the largest. It consists of the broad masses of the people, and therefore, intellectually, it forms the simplest part of the nation.

It cannot be classified according to occupation but only by grades of intelligence. Under this category fall all those who haven't been born to think for themselves or who haven't learned to do so, and who—partly through incompetence and partly through ignorance—believe everything they read. This group includes that type of lazy individual who, although capable of thinking for himself, absorbs what others have thought, assuming that they must have put some effort into it.

The influence of the press on all these people is therefore enormous; they are, after all, the broad masses of a nation. They aren't willing or able to personally sift through what is being served up to them, and so their whole attitude towards daily problems is almost solely the result of outside influence. All this can be advantageous where public enlightenment is provided by serious lovers of the truth, but is catastrophic when done at the hand of scoundrels and liars.

The second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those who were formerly in the first group, but after a series of bitter disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they read. They hate all newspapers. Either they don't read them at all or they become very annoyed at their contents, which they hold to be nothing but lies and falsehoods. These people are difficult to handle; they will always be skeptical of the truth. Consequently, they are useless for any form of positive work.

The third group is easily the smallest. It's composed of real intellectuals, who have the natural aptitude and education to think for themselves. In all things, they try to form their own judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting through what they read. They won't read any newspaper without using their own intelligence to challenge the writer, and naturally this makes things difficult. Journalists 'appreciate' this type of reader only with a large degree of caution.

For members of this third group, the nonsense served up by the newspapers isn't very dangerous or even very important. In the majority of cases, these readers have learned to regard every journalist as fundamentally a rogue who only rarely speaks the truth. Unfortunately, the value of these readers lies in their intelligence and not in their numbers—a misfortune, in a period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities for everything! Nowadays, when the ballots of the masses are the deciding factor, the decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group-which is to say, the first group: the crowd of simpletons and the credulous.

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

In terms of getting people to support a one party state I think could be difficult.

It depends on how you pitch it and how far it goes. I think at least a plurality of people across the political spectrum today would be open to something like this, so long as their party doesn't explicitly state that it is going to establish a one party state. Grug-brained tribalism is the secret ingredient. Just take a look at American politics - even basically apolitical centrist boomers are foaming at the mouth at the sight of "the other side" and are willing to support any measures to see their "team" win. In terms of political structure, I think Orban has achieved something similar, although far more orderly, in Hungary. The Democratic Party could pull off a left-wing version of that. It is just that with bourgeois regimes run for the purpose of money-making, it is more convenient to retain the illusion of multi-party democracy than to govern in the open.

I think that given the increasing polarisation, unless non-leftists and normies just entirely give up and decide to accept the new status quo in the full, there will be a lot of people who will be desperate to see someone that can take a stand for the people and actually do something to advance their political interests. A really effective and ambitious leader would rally his base and push even further than his own supporters could have expected, whereas a really ineffectual leader, on the contrary, would act very much like Trump, by appeasing and demoralising his base, while radicalising his opponents.

As to apathetic people, it's a tough problem. There's a lot of people who are just completely disillusioned and demoralised, I think. I am not sure how large this group is, though. If it is a large group, it would be easier to make an electorally successful populist party. At the same time, a lot of people just don't care, and if that group predominates, then the electoral pool to draw from shrinks further.

I find that people who even talk about politics are kind of just pretending to be thoughtful people and are actually just unthinking/apathetic in most cases.

Yeah, this type of people often just take up whatever ideology is popular in their social circle.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

1) Yep. The multi-party system is just another liberal obfuscation trick in the power hot potato game they play. Like all 'checks and balances', these things exist solely to obscure power and deflect blame until it's ultimately diffused because blame can never be pinned onto anyone in particular. This is the main strength of liberalism, it can only be gotten rid of once an organisation comes around that just says to get rid of everything rather than trying to pin down a specific element to blame. This is what the fascists did ultimately, not sure how we can replicate that today though. They didn't have postmodern hypertechnological society to grapple with, back then the most sophisticated propaganda was written and speeches. Now we have 24/7 entertainment media that fries people's dopamine with propaganda and programming, a massive hurdle for us.

2) Yep I think there is hope because we see fake populists are popular all over Europe and Trump in America. Even despite the aforementioned issue with hyperreality. But then comes our even bigger hurdle, how do we compete with the fake populists and the mainstream right? (An influential theory of why fascists got power was the relative inexistence/weakness of the gayop right parties in Germany and Italy, today they're extremely strong) The funding gap is astronomical and gets bigger every minute as the wealth inequality between the masses and the elite increases, billionaires can outfund an organisation with tens of thousands of genuinely committed people with ease. Bloomberg dropped over $500 MILLION on his primary campaign that obviously was going nowhere from the start because all of his issues were unpopular and he knew that but he could just drop this sum like it's nothing. The difference between the bourgeois financiers, and the international financiers behind communism and capitalism vs the mass funding of the NSDAP is probably 1/10th or even less relative to the gap between the system parties and our potential pool of resources today. The NSDAP was struggling financially throughout its entire existence until like 1932 when Hitler got into the government, our POTENTIAL resources are a fraction of theirs comparatively so even if we do by some act of god manage to build a mass organisation of millions of people the fundraising potential of them will still have issues competing with power. I think if we ever do get a large organisation the tactics pursued will need to focus on organising specific economic sectors and performing #WhiteStrikes to shut down particular areas of the economy. With automation and the ability of the system to just wipe out these workers and replace them with foreigners though even these kinds of tactics are becoming increasingly less viable. I can't really see a clear path to power with today's conditions, the fascists of a century ago just about made it and we have many extra hurdles: wealth inequality, media/propaganda, less social capital, less people willing to organise, etc.

3) Yeah I think unconscious, inactive, demoralised etc are more along the line of what I meant by apathetic because a lot of these people I'm describing are people who do vote and they are partisan, it's just that they don't really think about it they're just programmed with counterintuitive shit. People do care about things that will improve their lives, it's just that most people don't think deeply enough and have the ability to analyse what's going on. Hitler mentioned it in the page I copy pasted, if we have media apparatus that actually tried to inform them they would be able to think more clearly, but instead we just have endless gayops. People with pro-social tendencies get gayopped into dumb lolbert anti-government stuff and shit like this. People will listen to guys like Rush Limbaugh and conclude that the solution to the problems of the liberal capitalist world is individualism, small government etc. Then what happens? You have Mike Pence voted into Indiana and he slashes your social programs fucking everyone over, then makes you pay federal taxes for people who are wealthier than you to enjoy social programs. It's disgusting what these kike republicans do to people, it's the same in the UK with the tories and shit too. But we simply have no way of reaching people in a mass-consciousness way; 1-1 speaking to people is massively inefficient compared to mass programming, it's impossible to compete with the television/radio; they get narratives repeated to them for hours daily and they trust the people who are telling them this more than they trust you. Our only similar media are podcasts, but these have to be actively sought out so they serve more as an infotainment source for people who agree than they do as a mass-programming tool like they can be used on the mainstream channels of media.

4) Yep, it's really cringe. I have been tricked into trying to discuss politics with a couple of people who are socialist presenting only to find that they're not at all serious lol. When you talk to them it's they don't understand what you're saying, it's a really weird feeling. I try to keep things simple online, but I still use a bit more like 'jargon' online than I do irl because I expect ourguys here to be familiar with things. Irl I'm talking to them in extremely basic terms and it's still like they've never heard English before when you try to talk to them about anything more substantial than 'omg Tories are so mean, like, we need to, uh, fund the NHS, and like, get more diversity and inclusion for the lgbt community', the most depth you get from them is the word 'austerity' which they like to use a lot.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sorry, I am a bit late in responding to your comments. I have been taking my time thinking about them and writing bits and pieces throughout the day.

Now we have 24/7 entertainment media that fries people's dopamine with propaganda and programming, a massive hurdle for us.

Whenever I see my movie buff friends watching something and ask them to tell me more about it, it's always some sort of fictional reframing of the same old liberal narratives, lol. It's insane. The culture industry is a monster.

Funding and media access

I do not know how well money translates into political power or how much is needed to have the bare minimum to compete, but I think the liberal camp has plenty of disadvantages to offset their financial power. It may be possible to defeat them well without anything approaching resource parity. Money can't buy back the fading popularity of TV news, nor can it buy the loyalty of their own paid shills. The increasing social atomisation also undermines the social institutions they lean on for support, like left-liberal churches etc. Their propaganda is also becoming increasingly crude, repulsive and low quality - I can't say for sure, since people love their entertainment, but I think this could massively weaken the culture industry too. It could go either way. Their policies are already unpopular garbage and will probably become even worse, due to capitalist greed, as well as internal division and competition with the radlib "anarcho-communists" that act as their activists. They have a lot of problems. The issue is building an alternative, which could be very hard.

For a real alternative, I think you will need a core of activists and popular support which is funnelled directly in support of these activists. There are plenty of people suitable for activism right now, but the first issue will be to get them all behind a unified political platform and strategy. This will take some time. With a dedicated core of activists, you could form something like a vanguard party that can cheaply produce newspapers, journals, pamphlets. infrographics, etc. - digital or otherwise. Technology has advanced enough to make the transfer of images and even clips (webm format) incredibly trivial. These are very easy to make and distribute in bulk. It is not a very sophisticated form of activism - nothing that can be compared with the advanced media work done today - but it has been effective in the past. With some effort, you could produce more complex media too.

Here we arrive at the next issue, which, as you mentioned, is trust. We briefly touched on the constant bombardment of liberal narratives earlier. As a result of that state of affairs, people try to fit their understanding of politics into the grand liberal mythology of everything, so as soon as they detect what seems to be wrongthink, they put up a barrier and shut off their brains. The problem at this stage consists in bypassing that barrier. There are two approaches to this issue - attacking liberal mythology itself in the hope of overcoming it across the entirety of society and replacing it with a new consensus ("low optics") or trying to sneak information past the barrier without triggering it at all ("high optics"). I must admit that I am more partial to the latter, partly because most (though not all) of the proponents of the former seem to be vulgar edgelords. I have other reservations about the effectiveness of "low optics" as well - I am not sure it is possible to replace such a powerful mythology without taking control of the institutions used to spread it, or at least having institutions of your own. The issue with "high optics" on the other hand consists in making sure that the politics look entirely different from anything that can be slotted into the liberal mythology, while remaining 100% pure and independent from the entire framework in spirit. I have been thinking about that a lot lately. An anti-establishment movement would encounter massive controversy and would be slandered either way, but I feel that it is possible to at least make the slander a very hard sell and significantly reduce its effectiveness. None of this may necessarily work, but I still feel that a public-facing element that can draw popular support is crucial for the success of any movement in the long-term. It can't be the only element or even the main element, but it has its part to play.

it's still like they've never heard English before when you try to talk to them about anything more substantial than 'omg Tories are so mean, like, we need to, uh, fund the NHS, and like, get more diversity and inclusion for the lgbt community', the most depth you get from them is the word 'austerity' which they like to use a lot.

If you are speaking to a PMC or some sort of upper-ish class person this is pretty much the default response. Most of these people have no understanding of politics, but feel that they have to have an opinion as a matter of moral duty and social standing, so they go to "respectable" sources of public opinion like journalists for their views and form their politics on journalistic or government slogans. Comparatively inoffensive stuff like "radical" social democratic positions usually cut it for them. A very specific form of environmentalism is also very popular with these people.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I do not know how well money translates into political power or how much is needed to have the bare minimum to compete, but I think the liberal camp has plenty of disadvantages to offset their financial power. It may be possible to defeat them well without anything approaching resource parity. Money can't buy back the fading popularity of TV news, nor can it buy the loyalty of their own paid shills. The increasing social atomisation also undermines the social institutions they lean on for support, like left-liberal churches etc. Their propaganda is also becoming increasingly crude, repulsive and low quality - I can't say for sure, since people love their entertainment, but I think this could massively weaken the culture industry too. It could go either way. Their policies are already unpopular garbage and will probably become even worse, due to capitalist greed, as well as internal division and competition with the radlib "anarcho-communists" that act as their activists. They have a lot of problems. The issue is building an alternative, which could be very hard.

Yep another thing I've been thinking about recently is the potential Gamergate V2 happening with sports. It seems jews, for some reason, have such a seething hatred of white people that they are trying to destroy the bread and circus/escapism avenues. This to me seems like an example of Chesterton's fence in action, surely gaming and sports, which are quite obviously goyfeed, should be left alone so the goys getting annoyed at politics can just continue being apolitical in these spaces? But we've seen since about 2015 that these escapist outlets are being relentlessly pursued by POZ. I can't see this going any other way but redpilling more people, there's a lot of guys who are political dissidents today simply because of the Gamergate stuff so we've already seen the outcome of them doing this. I really can't wrap my head around this, maybe they have calculated it and concluded that people won't ever do shit and they just get some sadistic joy out of taking away something white people like or maybe they're just blinded by this sadism and don't care about the potential consequences of them taking away the pressure release valves?

I think about the optics thing it simply needs to be honest and intelligent. I don't think there's a 'good optics' or 'bad optics', obviously there's stupid shit like 'gas the kikes race war now', but if we're just talking about serious people who are respectable what we're really debating is whether they dare to criticise jewish power, debunk the holocaust, and whether they are willing to advocate for white people. This is about substance rather than form, there's no 'optical' way to do either of these things because our jewish rulers have them off the table regardless. Other than that I more or less just agree with what you said.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My explanation for the wokification of everything is that we are currently in the middle of our equivalent to the Cultural Revolution. Everything has to conform with ideology. I am not sure to what extent this stuff is planned top-down and to what extent it is just low level leftist activists running amok, but in either case, the tacit endorsement of the elite is what permits these changes to happen and the ground-level activists make them happen. From a social engineering perspective it is probably just seen as a short term versus long term cost kind of issue. I was actually surprised to see something oddly similar recently, when I ended up reading on the history of the late Roman Empire. Initially, Christians only had majorities in a handful of urban centres, but they would form large mobs and smash, desecrate or convert pagan temples, pull down statues, expel clergy, proselytise, they even extinguished the Eternal Fire of the Vestals. None of this was deliberate state policy, but the Christian Roman Emperors supported it and refused to do anything to stop it, despite constant pleas for tolerance and equality - in fact, they promulgated sets upon sets of anti-pagan laws instead. Administrators complained about widespread social tension, chaos, demoralisation, depression, ennui - no one cared. It worked magnificently. In a couple of generations, regions that had been almost exclusively pagan became homogeneously Christian. Without any means to consult their own autonomous institutions when forming their values, people will default to the institutions of the central authority.

On a topical note, the Christians also banned gladiator games, which were basically the Ancient Roman equivalent of sportsball, lol.

As to the optics stuff, I take a bunch of special reservations on the concept, so this terminology was probably a poor fit for what I was trying to describe given some of its polemical background.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That example is harrowing. We see whites suffering in SA worse than Europe and America with seemingly no escape for them. It's entirely possible that whites continue converting to anti-white libtardism and being anti-natalist and racemixing themselves out of existence voluntarily.

I'd like to hope people are more resistant to total racial physical genocide than religious cultural genocide but I doubt it.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

My ideal state is just National Socialism, almost all of my economic and social policy ideas are just policies the Third Reich implemented or things that were discussed. I do think the German Labour Front should have evolved into being fully Corporatist/Syndicalist though, but I don't really believe in worker management much, I think the vast majority of workers don't care about running the business. I'd incorporate a profit sharing model rather than worker management, but also only allowing those who work at a business to have ownership stakes, every year a % of the business' shares are 'taxed' into the Syndicate/Corporation and those who are engaged and invested in the business could buy these shares in order to have more leverage in their particular business, this would start as a higher percentage and gradually decrease and stabilise, in order to take all of the ownership from the current speculative/silent partner owners and transition all ownership stakes to only being internal IE in the hands of people directly involved in the business. To the normie it seems pretty easy to get them on board, they will be getting paid more by default and if they are actually engaged in the business they can buy a stake in it to increase their share of the profits even further.

Outside of that the main goal of third position economics to me is the elimination of unproductive wealth, and every single element of this benefits the ordinary person at the expense of parasitical people.

Rentseeking eliminated - now you either rent from the government, or you own your own home. Renting from the government will be cheaper and housing prices will be cheaper due to less speculation. Everyone except l*ndlords and dumb lolberts (neither of these are apolitical normies) would be in favour of this, easy sell imo.

Speculation eliminated - close the stock markets, don't allow people to buy and sell property speculatively etc. I'd like to introduce policy where people can only own 1 house and housing prices are indexed to inflation, if you buy a house for £250,000 and try to sell it 5 years later, with inflation it might be worth £300,000 but the area has developed and now the house is worth £350,000, the government would simply heavily tax the profit or have a cap on prices to not exceed a certain % of profit. People who are honestly selling their homes to move to another one would be pretty much unaffected but speculators wouldn't be able to make profit. This might be a difficult sell to a homeowner that might want to make a bunch of profit on their house but to 99% of people they will see that houses will be much more affordable so it is in their own interest to support this stuff.

Then you have things like people no longer being able to buy and sell stocks and stuff, the temporarily embarrassed billionaires and wannabe wolf of wall street crypto fags and shit would be mad at this but I think most people would be in support. When you explain to someone how the currency will be stable, their jobs won't just randomly disappear over night, the boom and bust cycle won't exist anymore etc I think most people would come around. People aren't very big fans of recessions, losing their job etc and those things are driven solely by speculation. I remember seeing some pajeet on TV doing an interview and he was sticking up for workers losing their jobs at an airline company saying the billionaires should take the losses rather than the workers when they fuck up their speculation, this is of course logical and everyone agrees with it. But further than that we should just not allow them to speculate and I think this is very easy sell.

Usury eliminated - I don't think I've ever met a person who isn't against debt and interest. Is there anyone who doesn't hate credit card companies, insurance, banks, payday loans, buy now pay later businesses etc? All interest enslaves people and pretty much everyone hates them already, 99% of people don't have an articulated critique or something but the instinct is there.

Profit sharing and elimination of 'silent partners' - Only those who actively work at a business could be eligible to have ownership stakes, and the business has to have a % percentage of its profit shared with the workers. Quite easy to sell this to a normie because it's simply that their wages will be going up, the business they work for is going to be a lot more stable and less liable to randomly get fucked by a vulture capitalist like Paul Singer etc. It also gives the average worker the opportunity to buy into their business if they are someone who actually does care about that stuff, which gives them a payrise by default so it eliminates part of the dicksucking office politics stuff. When a worker is buying more shares and putting in more work it's going to be clear they can take on more responsibility, it allows for more upwards mobility.

Outside of economic stuff, mostly focused on unproductive wealth, most the policies I'd be pursuing for domestic politics is just stuff people here are mentioning already. I do have a novel take though: we should mandate that businesses have to pay extra in order to hire non-indigenous (or 'heritage' in new world countries). Since diversity is such a strength, surely businesses will be willing to pay the extra 5% or 10% for this intangible good. In reality, of course, we know non-whites are only hired because businesses are exploiting them for cheaper labour, this policy would accelerate repatriation because non-whites all of a sudden wouldn't be able to get a job. This policy could easily get massive popular support because you can trick the shitlibs by saying it's some like anti-white/CRT, reparations, affirmative action thing and you can tell everyone else the truth that it's to stop capitalist exploitation. Epic and redpilled moment.😎👍

This is kinda memey and to be honest it wouldn't even be needed in my economic system anyway because there would be no reason to hire foreigners as businesses wouldn't be able to fuck the workers over because collective bargaining would exist.

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

My issue with dealing with finance is that it's such a complicated, byzantine field that it's basically impossible to figure out what's going on without sinking countless of hours into research, which is in every other way completely useless to the average person. Things like debt and credit have obviously played a very destructive role over the past century, but what if they are necessary to run a modern economy? It's thoughts like this which keep me from forming a more decisive opinion on finance. In terms of approaching the economic issue, my perspective would be closer to just nationalising the assets of all megacorporations, as well as heavy industry, powerful big business, banks, natural resources, land, housing etc. The property of people who are middle class or below would be basically completely untouched, but corporatocratic power would be crippled. Then you can use the seized assets to create a productive economy, provide welfare and housing and so forth - all in harmony with small businesses and local communities. Reforms like this address more tangible things and seem simpler to ponder, whereas with stuff like the stock market, even though I have put some research into it, I couldn't possibly tell you what its full role in the economy is or give you an exhaustive list of its functions. Consequently, my thinking is more biased towards industry than finance. There might be an economist poster on Reddit that I could contact over this though. I will have to keep that in mind for the near future. I haven't logged in in a long while.

This policy could easily get massive popular support because you can trick the shitlibs by saying it's some like anti-white/CRT, reparations, affirmative action thing

As soon as you described it, I actually thought to myself that the liberals would probably support something like that by reflex if it was framed as reparations that go into a "minority development fund" or something like that, lol.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Things like debt and credit have obviously played a very destructive role over the past century, but what if they are necessary to run a modern economy? It's thoughts like this which keep me from forming a more decisive opinion on finance

Eh not really. Hitler figured out MMT and states still use it today. The only reason it's debt-based today is because they want to enslave the people, if we nationalised the banks and just did it Hitler style it could work fine.

Islamic banking has a lot of solutions to anti-usury finance, the Knights Templar were a financial organisation too. I'm sure there's a book somewhere that describes the kind of ethical lending they did, I'm not informed on their specifics though. (I just googled this and apparently they were usurious, not entirely sure about that.)

In terms of approaching the economic issue, my perspective would be closer to just nationalising the assets of all megacorporations, as well as heavy industry, powerful big business, banks, natural resources, land, housing etc. The property of people who are middle class or below would be basically completely untouched, but corporatocratic power would be crippled.

Same. I'd nationalise the primary sector except most food production. I'd use the above described method to take unproductive ownership out of the secondary and tertiary sectors and into the hands of the productive elements. I'd also nationalise public goods like energy, infrastructure, water, gas etc. I just don't think these policies are as important to a normal person because they don't directly impact them as much, they'd get cheaper public transport, and bills but it's not as impactful as their housing costs and wages improving. But yeah I agree 100% on these things.

Reforms like this address more tangible things and seem simpler to ponder, whereas with stuff like the stock market, even though I have put some research into it, I couldn't possibly tell you what its full role in the economy is or give you an exhaustive list of its functions.

Nobody can, there is no purpose. The conceit is that it's about investment but we won't have a private-interest based economy, we will have a common-good based economy. If it's in the interest of the people and the state for a certain sector or business to get investment it can come organically from the workers and the state. There's no need for speculation it's just a tool for rich people to manipulate the economy to steal unimaginable amounts of wealth from the productive masses who toil in the actual businesses. Look at what Paul Singer did to that town in Nebraska (Tucker's Vulture Capitalism segment), this is what speculation is with the mask off.

One thing I forgot to mention is the right to work, I would have constant public works programs going on so everyone who wants to work has the ability to work, instead of today's condition where there's too many people and not enough jobs which is intentionally created by capitalists to keep wages down.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Eh not really. Hitler figured out MMT and states still use it today. The only reason it's debt-based today is because they want to enslave the people, if we nationalised the banks and just did it Hitler style it could work fine.

What would that consist in?

Islamic banking has a lot of solutions to anti-usury finance

I am not familiar with Islamic banking. Is there anything in particular that caught your attention?

Look at what Paul Singer did to that town in Nebraska (Tucker's Vulture Capitalism segment), this is what speculation is with the mask off.

Some of that stuff is downright unbelievable. It's hard for me to imagine what you could call a "functioning economy" - by any definition - that can include this type of behaviour.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I dont know the ins and outs of MMT im not much of a moneyfag but im familiar with what hitler did and people refer to it as MMT. Basically was just quantitative easing, labour backed currency, public works programs. Currently private banks print the money and put it into the economy, and i think the government 'borrows' this from the bank so the people at large have to pay interest on the economic stimulus essentially creating 2 inflationary factors (usury + more volume of currency). Kerry Bolton's article on German Big Business mentions the monetary policy hitler pursued in a little bit of detail, it's hosted on a site called inconvenienthistory.

I can't find the article i usually link and im not on my pc, i can send it to you tomorrow. Essentially there is no interest, instead they have like shared liability and such. So instead of receiving a loan the bank will become a partner and share in profits and losses, you can eventually buy out their share too. Stuff like that, there are a few different approaches they take to different kinds of loans though. I'll search my comment archive and get you the link to the article tomorrow.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Can you tell me what the effects and purpose of a labour-backed currency are?

Essentially there is no interest, instead they have like shared liability and such. So instead of receiving a loan the bank will become a partner and share in profits and losses, you can eventually buy out their share too.

This sounds really interesting.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Kerry Bolton wrote a relevant article that talks about some of the financial/monetary side of Germany

Can you tell me what the effects and purpose of a labour-backed currency are?

"We were not foolish enough to try to make a currency backed by gold of which we had none, but for every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done or goods produced. . . .we laugh at the time our national financiers held the view that the value of a currency is regulated by the gold and securities lying in the vaults of a state bank."

In Germany it was pretty much done by necessity because they had no gold. The value of the currency is tied to the productive economy itself rather than FIAT or metal speculation, for me it's moreso of a philosophy thing rather than thinking the backing of a currency has some real world effect as if by magic. There's the sperg arguments about FIAT vs gold and shit but these are ultimately meaningless, the value of your currency is about how much power the state has not the arbitrary distinction between a tangible good and abstract FIAT. Simply because both of them become abstracted by speculation anyway and we are in the era of MMT and stuff so the actual backing of currency is actually just irrelevant.

With that said I prefer this method because it embodies the anti-speculation, pro-work philosophy of a folkish/nationalist/socialist state. Instead of the value of the currency changing depending on speculators on a market it is non-inflationary and how much is printed is directly related to the productive capacity of the Folk. Something like the classic George Soros currency crash destroying economies wouldn't be possible in a non-speculative economy.

An article on the topic

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Can you clarify a couple of things for me? Should I assume that a labour-backed currency would work with single-use banknotes, so that each labour hour can only be redeemed once? If you are familiar with Richard Wolff's work, is it like labour credits that you can "use up" or do these notes remain in circulation? If they remain in circulation, would that not cause inflation, since you would presumably need to print more banknotes to match each hour of labour?

Entirely circumventing the use of currency in foreign trade seems pretty clear.

The second article also referred to this system as a type of FIAT currency, which I find a bit confusing. Transferring control of fiscal policy (like printing money, determining value etc) from a private bank (like the Federal Reserve) to the government seems pretty intuitive to me, but I always thought of that as a FIAT approach and not something necessarily related to backing up currency with labour. I just thought of it as "nationalised" modern fiscal policy, I suppose. I feel like this might differ from what you are describing in some way, though.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Can you clarify a couple of things for me? Should I assume that a labour-backed currency would work with single-use banknotes, so that each labour hour can only be redeemed once? If you are familiar with Richard Wolff's work, is it like labour credits that you can "use up" or do these notes remain in circulation? If they remain in circulation, would that not cause inflation, since you would presumably need to print more banknotes to match each hour of labour?

They remain in circulation and are only issued with public works programs with a predetermined value for each project. Hitler determined that 1 billion Reichsmarks would be put into circulation for his public works programs initially for example.

The second article also referred to this system as a type of FIAT currency, which I find a bit confusing.

Yeah that was my bad. I usually think of FIAT as inherently tied to fractional reserve banking and that kinda stuff but I just googled it and it seems like it refers to any currency that is not tied to commodity reserves. So labour backed currency would be included under that definition which is why the author said that, Kerry Bolton also refers to the Third Reich's currencies as FIAT. So yeah it was just me not knowing the precise definition of FIAT (I got zogged by lolberts in all actuality)

Transferring control of fiscal policy (like printing money, determining value etc) from a private bank (like the Federal Reserve) to the government seems pretty intuitive to me, but I always thought of that as a FIAT approach and not something necessarily related to backing up currency with labour. I just thought of it as "nationalised" modern fiscal policy, I suppose. I feel like this might differ from what you are describing in some way, though.

I don't think it differs, this is pretty much exactly what should be done imo.

Another short Kerry Bolton article on the topic of anti-usury/non-inflationary currency. A Russian villager made his own currency for farmers because they were too poor with rubles to exchange anything, he made his own currency with determined values to simple farm products and the local economy was flourishing. The Russian government ended up shutting his currency down and he came back with a cryptocurrency lol. Pretty interesting stuff.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Can you clarify a couple of things for me? Should I assume that a labour-backed currency would work with single-use banknotes, so that each labour hour can only be redeemed once? If you are familiar with Richard Wolff's work, is it like labour credits that you can "use up" or do these notes remain in circulation? If they remain in circulation, would that not cause inflation, since you would presumably need to print more banknotes to match each hour of labour?

Ok I read about it again. When Hitler did the infrastructure projects he issued the MEFO bills (Labour Treasury Certificates) which were 1:1 with Reichsmarks, they could exchange them for a reichsmark and it would be a 1 time use thing like you said. So it wasn't printing new money it was just making 1 billion reichsmarks that were dormant and getting them active in the economy again. Increasing the velocity of the currency rather than the total amount.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The Islamic banking link is now behind a paywall.

You can use this chrome (works on brave if you use that) extension to bypass paywalls

The relevant part:

How does Islamic finance work?

The overarching principle of Islamic finance is that all forms of interest are forbidden.

The Islamic financial model works on the basis of risk sharing. The customer and the bank share the risk of any investment on agreed terms, and divide any profits between them.

The main categories within Islamic finance are: Ijara, Ijara-wa-iqtina, Mudaraba, Murabaha and Musharaka.

  • Ijara is a leasing agreement whereby the bank buys an item for a customer and then leases it back over a specific period.

  • Ijara-wa-Iqtina is a similar arrangement, except that the customer is able to buy the item at the end of the contract.

  • Mudaraba offers specialist investment by a financial expert in which the bank and the customer shares any profits. Customers risks losing their money if the investment is unsuccessful, although the bank will not charge a handling fee unless it turns a profit.

  • Murabaha is a form of credit which enables customers to make a purchase without having to take out an interest bearing loan. The bank buys an item and then sells it on to the customer on a deferred basis.

  • Musharaka is a investment partnership in which profit sharing terms are agreed in advance, and losses are pegged to the amount invested.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have never seen such a model before, but all of this seems pretty intuitive and common sense. It would make banking less profitable and riskier, but a lot more pro-social, in my opinion. Investment also appears more worthwhile on the whole than credit, which is probably a good thing.

Do you know if Catholics had an equivalent system too?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They had guidelines but not an exact prescription like Sharia banking to my knowledge, obviously the Catholic anti-usury laws meant that all the banks before the jews took over banking had to operate according to the principles but I can't find an articulated specific system. When you google it you just find a bunch of articles talking about medieval banks employing similar practices to Islamic banking to make profit but not be usurious and them describing them as if they're unethical workarounds lol. I'm sure you could apply that logic to Islamic banking practices too. Seems a bit cynical, as if lending money to a business then them giving you discounts in return is the moral equivalent of enslaving a person to compound interest debt and 'repossessing' their house or something.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know that there were some powerful Italian banking dynasties like the Medici and such who were Catholic, but I have no idea how they ran their businesses. The Dutch were also prominent bankers, although that might have been an exclusively post-Reformation phenomenon.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't know what else to say without being repetitive, I agree with Markimus' stuff the most, but I'd also put emphasis on social stuff which are more visible in day to day lives.

That includes:

  • reformed voting system, would be digital and you could vote every day, if public official reaches certain treshold, he's out
  • renewing the infrastructure, like train tracks
  • nationalization of some services which are objectively public good (bus companies, telecoms)
  • organize national competitions for various sports competitions at amateur level and invest in health propaganda more
  • pro-natal policies similar to what NS Germany has (all debt paid off after Xth child)
  • government-owned payment system, alternative to PayPal
  • every worker has guaranteed three days off, he chooses to use them as he wishes
  • promotion of high culture

[–]NeoRail[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Interesting. I don't get to hear about three day weekends very often.

[–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This mirrors argumentation found in Thomson's 'The Coming Corporate State':

The effect of solving the problem of abundance and finding means for the distribution of plenty will be a temporary solution of the unemployment problem. But as Science endows us with ever-increasing powers of production, we are bound to be faced once more with a superfluity of labour, as the machine displaces man. In a properly organised state this will not involve any return to the scourge of unemployment, for a superfluity of labour will be met by shortened hours, lengthened education and earlier retirement. The problem of unemployment becomes transformed into a problem of leisure.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Policies

  1. Start enforcing immigration laws. Get pulled over for a broken tail-light? No papers? Back to mexico. Hire an illegal alien or help them? Go to jail.

  2. Declare gay propaganda and gay celebrations to be obscenity. Shut down pride month with extreme prejudice. Send trendy trans people to cult deprograming centers. Make gay adoption and gay marriage illegal.

  3. Declare black lives matter and antifa to be domestic terror groups. Throw any organizers in federal prison using the same laws they use to put white nationalist activists in prison. Make an example of a few corporate executives caught supporting BLM.

  4. Shut down all social media. It's cancer and used by elites as the most dangerous propaganda machine in human history. Send Mark Zuckerberg to prison for life to make an example of him.

  5. Offer blacks money to move to Africa. Offer mexicans money to move back to mexico.

  6. Declare english to be the national language. Ban speaking spanish in most places or displaying ads or signs.

  7. Defend the border. Sanction mexico for every single person that gets caught crossing our border illegally.

  8. Restore freedom of association. Allow people to rent their apartment, lend, or do business with whoever they want or DONT want. Include allowing white private schools.

  9. Sanction large corporations for spreading racist diversity propaganda or conspiring to promote "diversity." Sanction media/television for disparaging anyone for racism.

  10. Make sterilization a requirement for long-term welfare.

[–]ShalomEveryone✡️ 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Declare gay propaganda and gay celebrations to be obscenity. Shut down pride month with extreme prejudice.

You will be eliminating the first amendment? Publicizing and promoting homosexuality is not obscene. People have the right to express themselves within the bounds of the law.

Send trendy trans people to cult deprograming centers.

lol, that's what China is supposedly doing right now to Uyghurs in concentration camps. Trump's friend, Kim Jung Un also like sending people to reeducation camps.

Declare black lives matter and antifa to be domestic terror groups.

Another attack on the first amendment. Altrighters like to false flag as ANTIFA when they destroy property and engage in violence in protests and riots. Will anything happen to altrighters who false flag as ANTIFA?

Make an example of a few corporate executives caught supporting BLM.

You'll be throwing company executives in prison? Confiscating and nationalizing their companies?

Shut down all social media.

Another attack on the first amendment. Unless you plan on getting rid of the first amendment.

It's cancer and used by elites as the most dangerous propaganda machine in human history.

Nothing is stopping the altright from creating their own social media platforms to compete.

Send Mark Zuckerberg to prison for life to make an example of him.

For breaking which laws? Or will this be a sham trial like what went on in Germany before World War 2 started?

Offer blacks money to move to Africa.

Why would they want to leave the only country they have ever known? People are creatures of habit, no rational black person would go back to Africa. Africa is a dump, African nations are ran by incompetents. The standard of living in America is infinitely higher than the standard of living in every African nation. Blacks are here to stay, the true fatal mistake of slavery, America is their home now.

Offer mexicans money to move back to mexico.

They wont be going back either, Mexico is a violent narco state. In Mexico poverty is rampant.

Declare english to be the national language.

You'll get no debate from me on that one.

Ban speaking spanish in most places or displaying ads or signs.

First amendment protection baby.

Defend the border.

No debate from me on this one too.

Sanction mexico for every single person that gets caught crossing our border illegally.

That'll never happen, conservative businessmen love a constant flow of cheap labor from Mexico to work in construction, hospitality, agticulture and other business sectors. America also enjoys being cheap produce from Mexico, America also enjoys having Mexico manufacture products like washers/dryers, televisions and so on.

Restore freedom of association.

Just as long as it's not LGBT?

Make sterilization a requirement for long-term welfare.

You can thrown them in the reeducation camps you mentioned earlier. Have them programmed to stop being lazy. Sterilization sounds like it could lead to ethnic cleansing, possible genocide.

Shalom

✡️

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You'll be throwing company executives in prison? Confiscating and nationalizing their companies?

Prison yes, but only a few to get the others to fall in line. Nationalizing, no I dont think this is necessary.

[–]Node 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I have no policies that wouldn't prompt a normie to flip out. Same goes for practically everyone who believes there's a political solution.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Have you tried not being an out of touch extremely online sperg? Every single nationalist policy is extremely popular, Trump got elected because he was pretending to be a fascist and he lost his position because he didn't follow up any of his promises of fascism.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The issue is that most people just don't really think deeply enough for discussing politics with them to even matter

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People don't need to think deeply to support populist policies, the issue is they get gayopped by a bunch of media and don't think their way out of it.

[–]NeoRail[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Really? Not even a single policy? There is absolutely nothing in your political platform that the average person could find appealing or compelling, to any extent?

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Correct. As the joke goes, 9 out of 10 people enjoy a good gang rape.

A casual observation of our civilization and societies will reveal that far more than 9 out of 10 are either supporting or tolerating the current state of affairs. Rectifying this situation is more of an ideal than a policy, but it needs to happen.

Misanthropy may be motivated by contempt for the prevailing characteristics of humanity. ♔

Is it OK to be a misanthrope?

Misanthropy isn't an unhealthy way to look at humanity and society in general, it's by far the most realistic. Misanthropy is wanting to like your fellow humans but them making it nearly impossible.

Even among those claiming to be unhappy with the evil that pervades our species, very, very few are sitting on the edge of their seats just waiting for someone else to go first. It is this embodiment of toleration, and worse, that needs to go.

Engaging in 'politics' in this situation is like trying to use something that's completely broken. Then seeing it's completely broken, but trying again.

My guess is that this would be pretty close to the very definition of 'unpopular policy'.

[–]NeoRail[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

A casual observation of our civilization and societies will reveal that far more than 9 out of 10 are either supporting or tolerating the current state of affairs.

Unless you are living in a hut in the forest, you are "tolerating" the system too. Modern life occurs within the system, so naturally modern people necessarily have to "tolerate" it. Yours is an impossibly high bar to impose on the broad mass of people. Not to mention that barring the past three hundred years, for the entire rest of world history it was perfectly normal and healthy for at least a good 95% of the people to be completely apolitical. The amount of intelligence, education, time and effort necessary to understand politics successfully is far beyond the reach of the average person. Do not be too demanding.

Engaging in 'politics' in this situation is like trying to use something that's completely broken. Then seeing it's completely broken, but trying again.

Being able to articulate yourself on a political level does not imply throwing all of your efforts into lost causes.

My guess is that this would be pretty close to the very definition of 'unpopular policy'.

None of this is policy, you are just talking rheoric right now, so you would be wrong. "Unpopular rhetoric" may be a more accurate description.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I find myself severely chastened by your correction, and you are right.

Yours is an impossibly high bar to impose on the broad mass of people.

And yet I do. Hence my disquiet and disparagement. How did the quality of our species become so 'god-awful'? And what are we going to do about it? (rhetorical questions)

it was perfectly normal and healthy for at least a good 95% of the people to be completely apolitical.

That was probably fine as long as they weren't willingly or stupidly joining the human botnets used to attack the rest of us. In current year, huge numbers of those people vote, as they're told, and even after they're dead. Even our putative 'legislators' vote on multi-thousand page legislation, without even reading, knowing what it is, or how it works.

It's not just the masses who fall far below a normal standard.

Unless you are living in a hut in the forest, you are "tolerating" the system too.

True, there is some hypocrisy, but it's required to continue living. I would designate a nonlinear divide somewhere between those who literally support (financially or otherwise) our overlords, versus those who simply continue existing, or even work to bring them down.

But as you say, and if my points have any validity, this is all pointless rhetoric.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Look, if you are buying food and water, you are "financially supporting the overlords" - not just with your purchases, but also with the taxes you pay on them. Your thinking is too binary, which is why you have reached the conclusions that you have. Very few people can attain anything even vaguely resembling the basically unilateral independence that you are promoting as a universal standard. If you insist on maintaining this impossible standard, you will always be disappointed, and it will be your fault, because you are deliberately refusing to accept a more realistic view. If you are really interested in improving the moral condition of society, then start with yourself, since when it comes to your own person, you have full control. If you are interested in doing this, then do your best in developing accurate views of reality and abandon inaccurate ones. Be rational and objective. Look up virtue ethics if you need a basis for your personal conduct. Getting that far is already plenty.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Very few people can attain anything even vaguely resembling the basically unilateral independence that you are promoting as a universal standard.

Agreed.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Our countries and institutions have become so pluralistic and leftward oriented that it's pretty hard to have a nationalistic policy proposal that isn't strongly opposed.

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How about an end to offshoring? Not even that?

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You'd probably get strong opposition from corporations (and thus the MSM) since our governments have stopped caring about enacting laws beneficial to the citizenry, and possibly a "you're hurting the poor" by not letting poor people on the other side of the world manufacture our goods for next to nothing.

I don't disagree with your suggestion(s), I just don't see any real solutions coming into existence under the current regime. Everything has gotten so out of control.

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You'd probably get strong opposition from corporations (and thus the MSM) since our governments have stopped caring about enacting laws beneficial to the citizenry, and possibly a "you're hurting the poor" by not letting poor people on the other side of the world manufacture our goods for next to nothing.

When I said "popular policies", I meant popular with the people, more specifically apolitical normies.

I don't disagree with your suggestion(s), I just don't see any real solutions coming into existence under the current regime. Everything has gotten so out of control.

I am not proposing anything, I am just curious as to what policies people are considering important and how they would justify them to the common people.

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

  1. Diversity is not playing out as if it were a strength. For example, it is blazingly obvious that nobody cares when a white person is killed by police, or when a black person is killed by a black cop, but only when a black person is killed by a white cop, a situation that would not happen if not for diversity. Towards the goal of preventing race riots, we should as much as possible arrange to have blacks policed by other blacks. One way this could done rather easily would be to allow sufficiently black/white/etc areas (neighborhood, districts, towns, whatever) to request that they be policed only by blacks/whites/etcs and require police to respect that decision. I'm not sure that many places would make that deal, but they should at least have the freedom to do so. The long-term goal here is to make blacks more responsible for running their own affairs in order to make future separation easier.

  2. Media portrayals of people and events affect public opinion and therefore affect who wins elections. This means that the media has (indirect) political power, and as such the general public should be way more cynical about media people than they currently are. Rather than mandate something impractical like "journalists shall always report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", I think it would be enough to require that journalists identify themselves as whatever political orientation they align with. No more of this "our whole newsroom is left-wing, but we're an unbiased publication!" - at the very least, your readership will know that your whole newsroom is left-wing and can make their own judgments about the significance of that. We can tell the journalists it's like listing their pronouns.

  3. Ultra-wealthy people also have more political influence than is probably healthy. I propose that political donations be allowed only in one's capacity as a private citizen (i.e. no corporate donations), and donations per person per year be capped at a dollar amount pegged to the national median income.

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There is a lot of talk these days about the role of the government as it relates to the media - generally, not even just in regards to journalists - but little concrete discussion and no mention of specific, practical measures that can be taken. It's certainly an interesting topic to think about.

Ultra-wealthy people also have more political influence than is probably healthy. I propose that political donations be allowed only in one's capacity as a private citizen (i.e. no corporate donations), and donations per person per year be capped at a dollar amount pegged to the national median income.

This is pretty smart. I imagine something along these lines would be very popular with many people today, although I think in this case the rich would just funnel their donations through NGOs and other types of "non-partisan" organisations. To an extent, this is already the model they are using.

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think in this case the rich would just funnel their donations through NGOs and other types of "non-partisan" organisations. To an extent, this is already the model they are using.

My thinking is that "non-partisan" should count for nothing; no organization, period, gets to donate to political campaigns or organizations. So no NGO shell games, though you're probably right that there will be some whack-a-mole to enforce it. That shouldn't dissuade us from placing serious obstacles between wealth and power though.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The main issue would be that a lot of these de facto political organisations masquerade as "social" organisations. A lot of "charities" that are run by far left activists really don't look the part if you are just going off of the name. With that said, if you can draw the boundaries of what constitutes political activity, it may be possible to have this type of crackdown.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Diversity is not playing out as if it were a strength. For example, it is blazingly obvious that nobody cares when a white person is killed by police, or when a black person is killed by a black cop, but only when a black person is killed by a white cop, a situation that would not happen if not for diversity. Towards the goal of preventing race riots, we should as much as possible arrange to have blacks policed by other blacks. One way this could done rather easily would be to allow sufficiently black/white/etc areas (neighborhood, districts, towns, whatever) to request that they be policed only by blacks/whites/etcs and require police to respect that decision. I'm not sure that many places would make that deal, but they should at least have the freedom to do so. The long-term goal here is to make blacks more responsible for running their own affairs in order to make future separation easier.

Despite making perfect sense, can you imagine the headlines when a bunch of black cops end up being a bit too reluctant and refusing to police those areas.

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

can you imagine the headlines when a bunch of black cops end up being a bit too reluctant and refusing to police those areas.

I think that would enlighten a lot of normal people, which would be good for us.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

MSM would just spin it as White cops not stepping up, or underfunding, or one of a million other excuses they'll cook up instead of naming the most contributory variable.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Race, Science, Education, Birth Rate. In that order.

  1. Race has to be recognized by the state. No exception. All laws are literally governed that take genetic realities into account.

  2. Science is treated as a culture. Forget about sportsball or gay parades. The state is responsible for allocating most resources towards advancing humanity. That means building cutting edge robots or coming up with break through solutions to preserve the environment.

  3. Education is taken seriously. And by that, I mean every child cannot be allowed to graduate school unless they achieve 90% or more in all classes. If, for IQ reasons, a child is retarded or fails, I would actually be fine with putting them on welfare because they had no control over their intelligence. However, they are banned from holding public office or any other administrative function.

  4. It is against the law to be childless. Whatever money that's not spent on sciences, will be put towards creating families instead. The first consequences of failing to have children is paying higher taxes, but if there's a crisis, then the threat of jail time or forced deportation will be considered.

Normies would hate all four, but it doesn't matter. I rather have a society that functions perfectly, then let it get corrupted by capitalism or fall into social dysgenics.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Regarding number 3 and 4 on your list: why in the hell would you enforce idiots to procreate? Your obsession with the birthrates is pretty gross, man.

Normies would hate all four, but it doesn't matter.

I think that nearly everything you've posted has been extremely normalfilth-centric. Outside of the blatant racial-driven autism outbursts, which glow about as brightly as a neon sign.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Look at the bell curve. Idiots will always exist. And that's fine as long as they're not given the levers of power.

And it's not just idiots procreating. EVERYONE, must have a child. Just by sheer numbers, it will always balance out to prevent some kind of retard uprising (lol).

That, and regression to the mean will bring the average IQ back up.

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Education is taken seriously. And by that, I mean every child cannot be allowed to graduate school unless they achieve 90% or more in all classes.

I feel like you have not thought about the practical aspects of such a policy at all. There are a million ways this could go wrong.

It is against the law to be childless.

This is extremely coercive, arguably far more coercive than all the anti-natalist policies that revolutionary communist regimes have enacted in the past.

Normies would hate all four, but it doesn't matter.

It does matter, because only the elite have the political power to apply completely unpopular policies. Any other group would need to build support with the people first.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I feel like you have not thought about the practical aspects of such a policy at all. There are a million ways this could go wrong.

Last time I was in school, I remember who the kids were that failed, and unless they were truly sorry (i.e retook the class again with higher expectations) then they were never fit for most positions in life that require a higher level of understanding. This is actually my favorite position. Throwing stupid and superstitious people in power has always been a miserable experience, especially as it can get many innocents killed. I rather they go skateboarding or watch TV all day, then attempt to dictate what a national healthcare policy should be like.

This is extremely coercive, arguably far more coercive than all the anti-natalist policies that revolutionary communist regimes have enacted in the past.

Sounds like I'm ahead of the curve. People can be paid to have a child. If after the State literally buys you a House, Car and even infant formula but you refuse to do your part, then it's not my ideal society if there's a lack of cohesion.

It does matter, because only the elite have the political power to apply completely unpopular policies. Any other group would need to build support with the people first.

Yeah, and anyone who gets elected still has to follow what these elites do. I rather bypass this step entirely and tell the world the truth, then bore us with fairy tales that "if I'm elected President, I'll "probably" do one of those things I said if I'm lucky".

[–]NeoRail[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Last time I was in school, I remember who the kids were that failed, and unless they were truly sorry (i.e retook the class again with higher expectations) then they were never fit for most positions in life that require a higher level of understanding. This is actually my favorite position. Throwing stupid and superstitious people in power has always been a miserable experience, especially as it can get many innocents killed. I rather they go skateboarding or watch TV all day, then attempt to dictate what a national healthcare policy should be like.

What if teachers start handing out grades because of a sense of pity, or because of corruption? Have you considered that? What about highly intelligent people who are just lazy or hate school? What about people who change later on in life? What about people who deliberately choose to fail in order to spend their life on welfare? What about smart and hard working students who may have been unable to secure such a high grade as a result of stress or some other reason? What about teachers who grade down students for political reasons or out of a personal grudge?

I think such a policy would be very deeply flawed.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm going to be real with you dude. Many of these arguments sound the exact as when Black people dismiss their own incompetence or try and argue for "equality of outcomes". But there's many compelling reasons why this system isn't corruptible.

It's not just about passing grades, people who can demonstrate their own intelligence usually go above and beyond what the curriculum teaches. Think about kids who volunteer after school, or learn to start their own business before the age 18. Those things cannot be faked, because it requires commitment. Now, for the rest of your concrerns,

What about highly intelligent people who are just lazy or hate school?

I treat this as an oxymoron. Laziness is a trait of bad time management.

What about people who change later on in life?

They can retake school as I mentioned earlier. In fact, post secondary adult learning is a real thing. But that's of course, if they're actually serious about it...

What about people who deliberately choose to fail in order to spend their life on welfare?

You can apply to Mcdonalds and deliberately burn yourself with the deepfryers. Will you get disability checks for it? Most likely. But did you also throw your life away in the process? Yes.

Welfare only exists as a safety net. It would provide only the bear minimum needed for survival, but it offers no other rewards that lets you have luxury on par with say... a millionaire. They can also forget about volunteering for any leadership opportunities that require a certificate.

What about smart and hard working students who may have been unable to secure such a high grade as a result of stress or some other reason?

Japan was attacked by nukes and it put a lot of stress on them. But why did Japan still recover? They still worked hard towards rebuilding themselves. The same should apply to any student who is an obstacle you they think is temporary.

What about teachers who grade down students for political reasons or out of a personal grudge?

Launch an investigation. Especially by finding another other pupils who actually failed [for real] and compare the results. Such obvious bias should be easy to filter out.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Your thinking is too one-dimensional and simplistic. You should scrutinise your statements more rigorously and confirm that your conclusions are sensible, inevitable, contextually appropriate and universal before you settle on them. Take this for example:

I treat this as an oxymoron. Laziness is a trait of bad time management.

What could possibly lead you to conclude that all highly intelligent people are diligent or love school? I have met many brilliant people who were lazy. I have also met intelligent people who hated school. Not to mention that good time management is by no means inherent to high intelligence either. High intelligence is not always necessarily accompanied by the will and capacity to use it effectively. I suspect that you did well in school, liked it, and are now assuming that everyone who is intelligent must have the same experience. That which would be incorrect.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What could possibly lead you to conclude that all highly intelligent people are diligent or love school?

It's not about loving school. Hell, I hated most of mine growing up. But that hatred came from a place of indifference, rather than refusing to do assignments because I couldn't time manage them.

I have met many brilliant people who were lazy. I have also met intelligent people who hated school. Not to mention that good time management is by no means inherent to high intelligence either. High intelligence is not always necessarily accompanied by the will and capacity to use it effectively.

Think back to my original example of Black people propping up the exact same excuses but still end up failing. Giving everyone the benefit of the doubt without any real results to show for it leads to an unproductive society since everyone can make claims that "I'm smart, but I wont show you any proof of it!".

I suspect that you did well in school, liked it, and are now assuming that everyone who is intelligent must have the same experience. That which would be incorrect.

Unironically, I was closer to an average student. Like getting mid 70s in every class. In many scenarios, I could have retaken classes and gotten up to a high 80s or 90s average but I did choose to waste those hours playing video games after school.

And see? That's the point. The smarter you are, the more you actually take your own craft seriously, instead of trying to avoid it. I definitely wish I had a higher IQ so studying to become an Astronaut or Politician would never have felt like a boring career, when every second of it demands thinking on your feet at all times.

At best, I do consider myself smart enough to write these pseudo-thesis and post discussions on Debate Alt-right but lets be real. Even posting on a message board lacks the mental qualities of actual Alt-right leaders like Nick Fuentes or George Lincoln Rockwell, who are out there making a difference in the real world. If all they did was post on debate forums like us, there would be nobody to take seriously as a political activist since they would all be stuck indoors playing video games or smoking weed. And that's ok.

We need certain people in life who are mental workhorses and know how to reach audiences far larger than most of us here can. Nature literally gifted them with that talent, so they have to use it.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Number 3 is bad because it will be used by communists to remove right wingers from office.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Getting a High School diploma shouldn't be a difficult task. Japan is still a Conservative society despite having low drop-out rates.

If anything, setting the bar low on education is sad, and probably explains why the world is so dysfunctional...

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

why the world is so dysfunctional...

The world itself is working just fine. It's the human species being a cancer that's the problem.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Industry

  • Start an organization that is created to bring back industry that went overseas and create national businesses to fill the demand for manufactured goods or companies that only hire American workers.

  • Nationalize every industry that is related to natural resources.

  • Nationalize all utilities and make the internet and cellphone towers a utility. Cell phone providers and internet service providers will have to go for brighter pastures in Israel.

  • Political opinions are protected from censorship as long as they are not advocating for a foreign nation or is not inciting harm and hatred of heritage Americans.

  • Mandatory E-Verify for all employees.

  • Companies that are caught hiring illegals for contract labor or full time labor are fined based on percentage that grows exponentially based on the number of illegals hired.

  • Companies that advocate for terrorist organizations like BLM and anti-fa will be banned and executives will face prison time.

Social Media

  • All social media companies that use real life identification are banned. The government will create it's own social media company that is tied toward your real identity. All politicians will have to use this platform to meet their supporters online. This platform is protected by freedom of speech and the only people that will know your identity is people on your friends list which will be your family and friends. Political discussions on the platform will be anonymous and not tracked. It will still have a code of conduct to prevent 4chan posting. Politicians are the only type of person on the platform where they have no anonymous identity.

  • Private social media companies like Facebook, Instagram, etc. are banned as foreign entities interfering with Us elections and public life.

  • Selling racy photos or posting elicit photos is banned from the internet. This will fall under the violation of obscenity laws that will be reinstated by the supreme court. It will be legal because the people on the bench will say because it is in the spirit of the constitution and the founding fathers.

Lobbying

  • All foreign lobbying is banned. Politicians that lobby for a foreign country, appear at foreign conferences or take funding from foreign NGOS will go to prison for treason. Foreigners that lobby must go through the ambassador or other official channels.

  • After all politicians and Jews go to jail, the government will be filled with patriotic nationalists. America would be saved because if you have power, thinking about policies to sneak past Jews does not matter.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Mandatory E-Verify for all employees.

What do you mean here?

Private social media companies like Facebook, Instagram, etc. are banned

I am seeing some mention of banning social media, which seems interesting. I think there is certainly some demand for this, but at the same time a lot of people would be inconvenienced too. It's an interesting policy to think about. I do not think your vision of a government-run social media platform is a good alternative, though.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

E-Verify is a web based service that verifies eligibility to work in the United States. This system can be used to prevent illegal aliens from working in the United States. The core issue in the United States is they don't enforce it on all states which also companies to hire illegals.

I am seeing some mention of banning social media, which seems interesting. I think there is certainly some demand for this, but at the same time a lot of people would be inconvenienced too. It's an interesting policy to think about. I do not think your vision of a government-run social media platform is a good alternative, though.

It might see overbearing and inconvenient but social media has been the tool used by globalists to create color revolutions and overthrow regimes that are not down with the global homo program. I think it is better for the government to have control of social media for the long term stability of a nation and if demand for world communication is needed there should be ways to open up channels to other countries social networks or a way for foreigners to enter the network to communicate with natives. Also I think it is better when power is out in the open and not decentralized like our current system. If the government is abusing the power, there is no exploring down a rabbi hole to figure out which secret organization or NGO is actually pulling the strings.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To clarify, I am not against government control of social media generally. I just think that the specifics of your idea sound impractical.

[–]WorldSharp 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Something similar: "Reasonable"/optical policies that could be passed to fix America that aren't explicitly racial or discriminatory

  • Outlawing dual citizenship
  • Replacing 1965 Hart-(((Celler))) Immigration and Nationality Act in favor of meritocratic (read: eugenic) immigration
  • Making English the official national language
  • Outlawing affirmative action and other anti-white policies
  • Cut taxes for families with children rather than giving them more welfare (whites pay taxes, blacks use welfare)
  • Abortion restrictions
  • Border security and anti-illegal immigration measures
  • End birthright citizenship
  • Voter ID
  • Non-interventionist foreign policy with slashed military budgets and zero foreign aid (probably the biggest difference between us and neocon inc.)
  • Laws against usury
  • Ending corporate lobbying
  • Focusing on self-reliance rather than foreign trade with an emphasis on American workers (honestly not that sure about economic policy)
  • Strong STEM education focused on meritocracy (white Americans perform higher than any European country besides Estonia)
  • Humanities education focused on Western history and culture
  • Physical education classes with gym, martial arts training, maybe even firearms and survival training (adopting Boy Scouts shit but for everyone)
  • Zoning laws favoring classical, Art Deco, etc. buildings rather than soulless modernist, brutalist, etc. architecture
  • Free birth control to certain "urban" communities

This one is a bit far-fetched but:

  • Promoting Africa to black communities and then sending them one-way plane tickets with moderate cash payments (would go a long way in whatever country they end up in and would save us money given how much welfare costs), partnering with African countries to accept them as citizens (Ghana has already advocated for this). Frame this policy as woke and progressive and helping our black kangs and kweens escaping systemic oppression and white supremacy and returning to their homeland

Obviously this would have to be edited for normies

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lot of things specific to the US here, but that is an interesting list. It seems very suited to the American situation. You might want to consider addressing the university system as well, since you have already touched on education reform.

Zoning laws favoring classical, Art Deco, etc. buildings rather than soulless modernist, brutalist, etc. architecture

Art Deco is modernist, by the way.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Most people don't give a shit about platform. They just get a sense that you care for them and care about the nation or you don't.

Most of my rhetoric toward normies we look like an expose on betrayal. There's nothing that animates people more then revenge against a formerly trusted party.

Nobody wants to listen to a complicated list of fixes if they don't have a clear cut enemy that created the problems in the first place. The core of all politics is the friend enemy distinction.

[–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Indeed, the masses are easily swayed by emotion and do not care for complex minutiae. Fascism never came to power through "facts and logic".

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Didn't get to power through media manipulation either, kind of a moot point.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Most people don't give a shit about platform. They just get a sense that you care for them and care about the nation or you don't.

Sure, but it's easier to show you care if you are promoting popular policies rather than neocon stuff, don't you agree?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Of course.