[Aksu]

A million of these threads already, but I'd appreciate some help here!

Economic Issues:

In short, I think the current system of Corporatocracy, which has no regard for the average worker, should be annihilated. I'd support the nationalization of major utilities, a nationalized credit supply, and most definitely profit-sharing in large corporations. Free education, healthcare and an extensive network of roads, telecommunications etc. is vital to a Nation and should be controlled by the state to achieve maximum utility. Those who refuse to work should not automatically expect society's help. A Nation should expect its population to be hard-working, patient and noble and work towards goals that will help everyone. I reject the dichotomy between individualism and collectivism as a mere illusion created by bourgeois-liberals. Support protectionism, and in a sense mercantilism and most definitely an end-goal of autarky, and broad syndicalism; policies should be created with the intention of benefiting the working people.

National Issues:

A focus should be on maintaining strong national security, through an expansion of the military and a compulsive military draft for all persons at age 18; men serving three years and woman two years. Afterwards, men should serve 1 week per year until retirement in the military. Men should also be given extensive arms-lessons from a young age (similar to the Swiss model). This would solve the problem of complete decadence and crime that plagues our current system as youth are left free to roam and act however they want. Nationalism and cultural identity should be encouraged and reinforced at schools through the government controlling the content of education; national identity is the glue that keeps a nation together and as such heritage, social & cultural pride and teamwork must be encouraged. I support the death penalty for murderers and life sentences for rapists, and much harsher punishments for even the pettiest of crimes. Criminals should serve the full length of their crimes; committing crime means relinquishing your "rights" - you are no longer worthy of a noble existence and should be treated as such. Such an approach, defying the liberal fixation with the "rights" of criminals, would actually stop and prevent crime.

Moral Issues:

Christian morality and ethics to be encouraged through education. Strongly oppose mass immigration; any immigration should only be allowed for highly skilled doctors, engineers, etc and should be very limited and only used to achieve the State's short-term goals. Oppose gay marriage, abortion (unless when the woman's life is threatened) and I feel that alcohol consumption and smoking should be actively discouraged from the ground (schooling) upwards. Impose large taxation on alcohol. Physical fitness should be actively encouraged, with national sport glorified as well as exercise.

Defence & Foreign Issues:

Largely non-interventionist, however strategic alliances should be formed with those who share the same values as us.

[fuser]

You will come under the umbrella of Fascism.

[Aksu]

You will come under the umbrella of Fascism.

thanks for the input. To clarify I don't believe in race supremacy of any stripe, rather that national identity's a right every nation deserves. I'm not fixated on which race is smarter or better. What I am vehemently against is forced integration as well as cosmopolitanism as it leads to bad results and degradation of local culture.

[fuser]

Fascism doesn't necessarily means having faith in some sort of racial supremacy.

Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. ... National pride has no need of the delirium of race.

[Pants-of-dog]

Fasces is another poster here who also has similar beliefs about the nation without being racist. He has said that he is somewhat Integralist, however I may not be remembering correctly. I would ask him. He seems intelligent.

[Rei Murasame]

Looking just at the 'economic issues' and 'national issues' section of your post, you are probably a fascist. I'd need you to expand on that section more so that I can see what your ideas are in more depth.

I'm deliberately leaving aside the 'moral issues' part and not considering that part of your post, since I don't want to question you on that yet.

[Aksu]

I'd need you to expand on that section more so that I can see what your ideas are in more depth.

Okay, I will.

I definitely think that a society divided into confederates (syndicalism) and a system designed and run through co-operative confederations and mutual aid - this would increase utility and the livelihood of the average citizen, the two aims of my ideology. The economy should be highly protectionist to achieve these aims to maintain and develop local industries and ensure full employment. Negotiation of contracts between trade unions / government / syndicates, councils and confederates who organize production locally - the State must maintain control of major utilities however. And it goes without saying that in order to increase public utility and work towards any sort of telos, the State must make sure every intelligent person has the opportunity to contribute to society. And similarly every citizen should be healthy and fit and strong public healthcare enforces this. A big public effort to maintain a creative society through extensive theatres, music and arts based on common heritage and identity would do wonders too.

So in a nutshell, an economy structured to achieve autarky, a high standard of living, but not abolishing social classes. That would contradict the laws of Nature which are immutable.

If the State owned every utility and corporations were worker-owned, and education enforced national identity and culture, and crime was harshly punished, then any telos, furthering of civilization could be achieved. But of course such a society would be a target - hence a strong military. But military and political life isn't too separate and shouldn't be. I'd support training at a really young age, really.

I'm not sure if I've done a good enough job on the economy, I'm no economist and only a beginner to corporatism/syndicalism. I'm vehemently opposed to capitalism and communism (in general, greed) though and a lot of Keynesianism.

I'm deliberately leaving aside the 'moral issues' part and not considering that part of your post, since I don't want to question you on that yet.

But why? national heritage and identity is embodied most in religion, as a nation we cannot abandon God and Morality, no matter how we try to fool ourselves. I consider myself extremely reactionary here, openly using that label.

[Rei Murasame]

I definitely think that a society divided into confederates (syndicalism) and a system designed and run through co-operative confederations and mutual aid - this would increase utility and the livelihood of the average citizen, the two aims of my ideology. The economy should be highly protectionist to achieve these aims to maintain and develop local industries and ensure full employment. Negotiation of contracts between trade unions / government / syndicates, councils and confederates who organize production locally - the State must maintain control of major utilities however.

I agree with you completely on those goals.

However, what method would you support using to establish a society like that? After all, you have to describe the process and the justification for that process, since clearly we both know that the presently-existing governments will never just get up an enact something like that, someone else would have to organise the people to do it.

Don't worry if you can't answer it by the way, since I have an answer pre-prepared for you anyway - however I want to see your answer first.

But why?

Well, I don't know what country you are from or what the traditional religion in your country is, but it seems odd to me that you would see Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in Christianity as being a figure you'd want to follow. That person doesn't agree with you on anything.

Also, that stuff about respecting the life of foetuses (why?) that you've included, just one paragraph below you supporting expansion of the military, death penalty, and harsh punishments for offenders. So that doesn't mesh either.

Your Christianity-based moral positions inexplicably seem to be clashing with what you're trying to do. Especially the school part, you'd be teaching them Christian ethics, which they would then turn around and use to criticise the underlying principles of the state that you'd have created.

I'm not asking you why you've included a religion, I'm just asking you why you chose that particular one.

[Aksu]

However, what method would you support using to establish a society like that? After all, you have to describe the process and the justification for that process, since clearly we both know that the presently-existing governments will never just get up an enact something like that, someone else would have to organise the people to do it.

Good question, hard question. A revolutionary syndicalist program is the only way as no reforms by mainstream parties could create such a society. As capitalism crumbles and hard times hit Europe, for example in my country Romania, I think nationalism gains traction. Right-wing populist rhetoric and a vanguard would ultimately topple the system but if you said this was far-fetched I wouldnt disagree.

Well, I don't know what country you are from or what the traditional religion in your country is

Romania, Eastern orthodox.

That person doesn't agree with you on anything.

Interesting, i'd like to hear your thoughts here. Nationalism respects cultural identity and religion is inseparable from my identity and my community's.

Also, that stuff about respecting the life of foetuses (why?) that you've included, just one paragraph below you supporting expansion of the military, death penalty, and harsh punishments for offenders. So that doesn't mesh either.

Death penalty = convicted guilty
Offenders = convicted guilty
Militarism = preservation of the nation
Abortion = killing an innocent human not obstructing the Nationalist cause or goals of the Nation. that foetus was a potential soldier, a rightful inhabitant of our blood and soil and our struggle. A future worker and loyal citizen.

Your Christianity-based moral positions inexplicably seem to be clashing with what you're trying to do. Especially the school part, you'd be teaching them Christian ethics, which they would then turn around and use to criticise the underlying principles of the state that you'd have created.

How can you instil national pride and morality without religion that your people have used as a compass for centuries? Abandoning it would be like integrating with cultures opposed to yours.

I'm not asking you why you've included a religion, I'm just asking you why you chose that particular one.

History of my people. Tradition, culture, identity.

[Rei Murasame]

Good question, hard question. A revolutionary syndicalist program is the only way as no reforms by mainstream parties could create such a society.

Full agreement, and I don't think it's far-fetched at all. Since you gave that response, it means that I don't have to actually have to give the bullet-point list that I had on hand after all.

Usually I like to make a big post based around three steps (click the embedded link for overview):

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

But since you already get this and we agree, then we only need to talk about some of the things we disagree on.

Romania, Eastern orthodox.

Okay, that helps a lot.

I'm Anglo-Japanese, so you can understand that from my perspective, that is something I've not experienced. For me, abortion is fine, homosexuality is fine, and so on, Japan has never been against these things so even an appeal to tradition for me would not cause a problem.

For you however, I can see how it would be a moral prohibition for Romanians, since Christianity does not support those things.

However, it seems to come with more complications, which I'll try to point out below:

Interesting, i'd like to hear your thoughts here. Nationalism respects cultural identity and religion is inseparable from my identity and my community's.

Well, I do know about the Iron Guard and how Codreanu tried to draw on the power and martial spirit of the Angel Michael, since I've read his book actually. He is one of the more well known Axis figures, he was very good at organising people and had a lot of good merits.

So, in the present day, my questions to you would be like this:

• If Jesus of Nazareth is at the centre of your religion, isn't he usually associated with pacifistic and yielding behaviours? For example, he says in Matthew 5:1-12, that 'blessed are the meek', and 'blessed are the merciful'. Can anyone who has a fighting spirit really believe that kind of leader?
  
  
• If Michael the Angel is at the centre of the religion instead, then how do you prevent other Christians from telling you that you can't ignore Jesus of Nazareth?

To me, that seems like a big doctrinal problem you might walk into.

[Fasces]

Jesus of Nazereth being the center of the Christian faith has not stopped the existence of theological justifications for militant Christianity.

[Rei Murasame]

Indeed, but I'm asking it like that because it's better to question him on his own terms and see what he says, than to simply draw a line and say that "we are from different religions and have hit an impasse". I'm basically being nice to new posters, I can be sweet sometimes, you know.

There is probably a justification that he has, I just want to know what it is and whether he thinks that the Romanian population would accept it.

[Fasces]

I think he has already answered your question (though you do not seem to have accepted it) - if he's anything like me the strategic or tactical merits of the Christian faith come completely secondary to the fact that Christianity is inexorably linked with the Romanian people, and that the practice of Christianity is necessary to realize an authentic Romanian society. That, by some interpretations, some elements of these beliefs may contradict each other is completely irrelevant to that fact and has nothing to do with the reasoning behind his support for it. This is especially true if he, like Mussolini, Marraus, or myself don't actually believe in the dogma or theology of the church, and only recognizes it as an important social institution.

Your own interest in cosmology and your beliefs that society should advance a certain cosmological position or goal seems to be leaving you unable to take his answer at face value - that the only reason he supports Christianity is because his people are Christian. If they had been Muslim, he'd support Islam. Jewish, and he'd support Yahweh. It is a completely reactionary position, which justifies itself by establishing a social continuity.

[Aksu]

I think he has already answered your question (though you do not seem to have accepted it) - if he's anything like me the strategic or tactical merits of the Christian faith come completely secondary to the fact that Christianity is inexorably linked with the Romanian people, and that the practice of Christianity is necessary to realize an authentic Romanian society. That, by some interpretations, some elements of these beliefs may contradict each other is completely irrelevant to that fact and has nothing to do with the reasoning behind his support for it. This is especially true if he, like Mussolini, Marraus, or myself don't actually believe in the dogma or theology of the church, and only recognizes it as an important social institution.

Very, very well said Sir. Kinda sums up my position but very eloquently too. Romania is probably a more unusual case compared to the National struggle elsewhere - it's a very homogeneous society, religious and close-knit.

For you however, I can see how it would be a moral prohibition for Romanians, since Christianity does not support those things.

Just to write a little here, I think the beautiful thing about Nationalism is that it recognizes that each culture and group of people can decide for itself what is right and what isn't. There's no Liberal agenda compelling groups hostile to certain ideas to suddenly embrace them. If Japan can accept abortion then that's fine - that nation has every right to steer itself in its own desired direction. As a Romanian who can trace his family back clearly at least 400 or so years, the idea of importing Western Liberal ideas like that is just unthinkable.

Well, I do know about the Iron Guard and how Codreanu tried to draw on the power and martial spirit of the Angel Michael, since I've read his book actually. He is one of the more well known Axis figures, he was very good at organising people and had a lot of good merits.

Căpitanul

I think that fasces addressed this very well, but I'll respond as I disagree that Jesus is a pacifist of any sort.

If Jesus of Nazareth is at the centre of your religion, isn't he usually associated with pacifistic and yielding behaviours? For example, he says in Matthew 5:1-12, that 'blessed are the meek', and 'blessed are the merciful'. Can anyone who has a fighting spirit really believe that kind of leader?

He never directly addressed such issues as war, so a logical inference is the only way to decide here. I think the evidence is against him being a pacifist.

• Since the people of God had been involved in political and military life throughout history (Abraham, Joshua and Daniel, for example), the fact that Jesus never once told His disciples that they could no longer be involved in those spheres of life is significant.
  
• Jesus spoke with obvious approval of a king who waged a just war to punish a wicked people by putting them to death (Matt. 21:33-41). While Jesus was not discussing war per se, His use of a just-war model for this parable is possible only if Jesus accepted the Old Testament concept of the just use of force.
  
• Jesus said in John 18:36 that if His church were an earthly kingdom, it would be perfectly proper for His disciples to take up weapons and fight for Him.While Jesus is clearly, in this passage, forbidding the church as an institution to use physical force in its discipline or defense, He clearly states here that an earthly kingdom can and should fight when necessary.
• In His parables, Jesus often pictured rulers using valid force to punish wrongdoers (Matt. 18:23-35; 21:38-41; 22:13, etc.). While this is compatible with the teaching of the Old Testament on the just use of force, Jesus would never have given such parables if He were a pacifist. This logically implies that Jesus carried on the teaching of the Old Testament.

Just some off the top of my head.

I'm gonna post this again from Fasces as it's so fantastic and is all that needs to be said

I think he has already answered your question (though you do not seem to have accepted it) - if he's anything like me the strategic or tactical merits of the Christian faith come completely secondary to the fact that Christianity is inexorably linked with the Romanian people, and that the practice of Christianity is necessary to realize an authentic Romanian society

[Technology]

Christianity is pretty malleable, really.

[Aksu]

Christianity is pretty malleable, really.

I'm not sure I get your point

[Technology]

I'm not sure I get your point

It contains lots of different messages which can be appropriated by lots of different causes. This has actually happened. There are ideologies such as Liberation Theology which tie Catholicism to an almost alt-Marxist political outlook, and there are ideologies which tie Christian sects to Capitalism such as US Republican Party conservatism. Social liberal Christians see Christ as being a very different more "hippy socialist" forgiving kind of character, than the sword and fire Jesus preached in conservative heartlands.

Of course, there are also more consistent things which have maintained momentum like the battle against abortion, but even these things change over time. The Christian battle against homosexuality is now confined to the fundamentalist sector in Western society, rather than a feature of mass Christianity as it once was.

So Christianity can conform to new outcomes. Some will be more difficult than others. The hardest are those that outright deny consistent messages of the Bible, but there are plenty of more philosophically vague parts of the Bible that can be tailored to particular worldviews.

A lot of religion is just a mirror.

[Aksu]

The hardest are those that outright deny consistent messages of the Bible, but there are plenty of more philosophically vague parts of the Bible that can be tailored to particular worldviews.

Oh, that was your point.

So you're telling me a text open to interpretation... has different interpretations?

[Aksu]

Oh and

Usually I like to make a big post based around three steps (click the embedded link for overview):

Thanks Rei, that was an excellent read.

[Technology]

So you're telling me a text open to interpretation... has different interpretations?

Well, it might seem obvious, but Rei is arguing that the nature of Christianity will tend to undermine fascist goals, whereas I think populaces tailor Christianity more to their other beliefs than the other way around.