[Elect G-Max]

Individuals predate states. Individuals created states because doing so provided benefits to the majority of individuals; states provided a method for collective decision-making in those rare situations where the best outcome for everyone was not necessarily the sum of the outcomes of decisions made by individuals doing what is best for themselves (like the "prisoner's dilemma"). Where is the justification for ideologies that benefit the state at the expense of its individual constituents? Where is the justification for collective decision-making in the more common situations where the best outcome for everyone IS the sum of the outcomes of decisions made by individuals doing what is best for themselves? How do you even figure out, objectively, whether a particular authoritarian policy falls into the former category or the latter? The War on Drugs is a perfect example of a policy that has made the state stronger at the expense of the society that it governs.

[Fasces]

Do not double post or spam this forum with off-topic banter.

The lack of response is probably due to a combination of the little esteem many on this forum hold for you individually, and the fact that your fundamental assumptions, while absurd, will not be sufficiently challenged by another as that would require you to shift your entire world view.

If you must have an answer, however, I will give it to you.

The state is political arrangement that governs over a social group, which for our purpose will be called the nation (though not all states are nation-states). A nation is not a the sum of every individual within that social system, any more than a human could reasonably be called nothing more than a clump of cells. While literally true, it stands in the way of sufficient analysis. Individuals have a multiplicative effect on one another, with human potential for creativity growing exponentially as more individuals are in the system.

Individuals, furthermore, are the product of the social system in which they are born. Human beings are social creatures, and everything they think is the construct of the generations that came before. The language they use limits their capacity for thought and introduces philosophical concepts. The Anglo world was the bringer of liberalism and individualism - it is not a coincidence that it is only in the English language that the personal pronoun "I" is deemed important enough to merit capitalization in all cases. This is just one example - the religion you grow up with (even if you come to reject it), the cultural practices you encounter (even if you detest them), the tropes, memes, archetypes, and stories you are told as a child each leave an imprint in your mind - unique, perhaps, on an individual basis in how they are blended together, but coming from a single source - the larger social organism.

The social organism, thus, is the contextual framework in which individual cells like yourself or myself are born, live through, and die. It lasts longer than we do, and our individual identity is a product of it. You would not be Elect G-Max if you had not been born where you born, when you were born, and to whom you were born. To say otherwise is patently absurd. Even your genetic identity is informed by the limitations of society. Individuals who cannot speak the same language are unlikely to breed together. Individuals who do not practice the same faith, or who lived on opposite corners of the world were, until recently, unlikely to breed together. Everything you are is the genetic or environmental product of the social organism to which you were born.

You experience things in an egocentric way - this is a fundamental constraint of nature. The only thoughts and emotions you will ever think or feel are your own. Yet, your experiences do not come from one single source, and neither will you influence others in isolation from the organism of which you are a part.

As individuals are nothing but physical manifestations of the environment to which they are born, they are less important than the environment itself. Given all the same genetic and environmental factors, an identical copy of yourself could have also been born. This being the case, what the social environment actually is the only determinant factor of what human beings are currently on this planet.

The state is the mechanism individuals collectively use in order to influence the social organism in which they reside. Obviously, it is limited in its capacity to do so - but just as a brain can make you feel tired by sending out singles of melatonin, so can a state influence the shape of the society in which new individuals are born, and in that way, shape what new individuals populate this Earth.

If the aim is to create authentic individuals, which for fascists it is, then the state, as one of the entities which governs the system which produces individuals, is more important than the individuals which already exist. The state is, of course, not the only such entity. This reality is recognized by fascism, which is why it is totalitarian. Fascism hopes to expand the direct influence made possible by state action into the realms of culture, art, religion, and others. This is easiest done through the state that already exists, because the state has a monopoly over the use of force which it can use to shape society with or without the consent of the individuals within. And because the individuals within are often at odds with one another, and disagree on what the ideal shape of the organism may be, force is the only realistic way to make such change occur in a directed process.

Your critique will be that by what right does the state claim to supersede the "rights" of other individuals to live in the way they want. This is a misunderstanding. We cannot destroy who you already are, because you already exist. This is about shaping the individual born tomorrow, the individual which does not yet exist - and his rights cannot be violated until the moment he is born. Ideally, the totalitarian fascist state shapes the social organism to produce individuals which are totalitarian fascists. They will be born into a system which reinforces the values consistent with that system. They will not be oppressed because they cannot be oppressed.

The philosophical question then, is not why do fascists value the state over the individual (because we all do, you simply promote a state institution that refrains from influencing the "natural" evolution of the social organism (though while I agree with such a view in a broad sense, you fail to correct for the influence of alien social organisms)) but whether the fascist vision for society is itself good. There are plenty of threads on that in this subforum for you to peruse.

The gist of it, though, is that recognizing that human beings have a multiplicative effect for creativity when working together (in optimal conditions, of course), society should be organized in such a way to take advantage of this fact - favoring collectivism over individualism. Furthermore, recognizing that organizational hierarchy is necessary to minimize the multiplication of negative traits (fighting, greed, etc) in order to promote positive ones (problem-solving, art, etc) fascism is inspired by the organization which does so best in our present society - the military (which incorporates diverse individuals working toward a single aim in single action).

[Suska]

Off topic banter? I addressed his post directly, quite being a fasci... Oh...

Again, my link was on topic.

edited to add:

So this multiplicative effect has advantages and disadvantages, you suggest the former outweigh the latter, and somehow therefore the aggregates have a unity in organization with authority over the individual? The aggregate of individuals is itself an individual? My argument is that the critical issue is the experience of life and that aggregates have no experience but the sum of individual experience. Marx takes a similar position. Frankly I don't believe in nation, from an existentialist position it is nothing but me and others and the deals we make. It strikes me the great example is the American Civil War, that the Union overruled the people, it did this by killing them, and that's the only way it can operate as such. The concept of nation is an abstracted version of monarch which is a refined version of deity. Now we don't even pretend there is a god called America, but you propose we act as if that were the case. In my example Lincoln is the avatar of the god America who may be offended and hurt like any other person - and this for the sake of the benefits of organizing - organizing, mind you, increasingly drone-like and tyrannized (therefore rebellious and discontent) citizens. What your suggesting is that a nation can run better on slaves than free men and I think you rationalize it is a matter of defense against competitors who are likewise transfixed by this system and therefore embroiled in a nation-god relationship equally onerous. It's just tyrants and slaves everywhere and the names of nations and their hegemonic element is the only beneficiary, and not only that - not benefiting from the arrangement you'd be ridiculous to assume this works better than voluntary association.

[Soixante-Retard]

Why is the state more important?

It isn't and this world would have been a better place if Plato had not existed.

The individuals who run the apparatus of the state are of the same clay as the rest of us; they are not any more nobler, wiser or benevolent than the rest of us. John Dalberg-Acton put it best when he said:

The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.

I share the opinion that the perennial question of politics is not who should rule or who is to have power but what power is the government to have and how is it to use this power.

Fascists buy into the myth that there exists men who are simply more than men, and it is with these men, with their superior intellect and beneficence, that we are to entrust to rule over us. State über alles.

In fact, Fasces gives the reason why this myth is bought:

the aim is to create better individuals

They believe in the perfectibility of man. How similar is this to some modern ideologies who claim to be vehemently anti-Fascist?

Another quote to finish, from Adam Smith:

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.

[Fasces]

The individuals who run the apparatus of the state are of the same clay as the rest of us; they are not any more nobler, wiser or benevolent than the rest of us. John Dalberg-Acton put it best when he said:

The people in the state apparatus are not important, as you say. What is important is the institution itself, and ensuring that the mechanism is being used justly, because it is the most effective mechanism by which the social organism can be influenced by individuals in a concrete and directed way. Ideas govern the state, not individuals. The individual is the product of the idea, and ideas themselves are manifestations of the social organism - because no idea is the product of an individual.

Fascists buy into the myth that there exists men who are simply more than men, and it is with these men, with their superior intellect and beneficence, that we are to entrust to rule over us. State über alles.

If you had actually read what I wrote, you would see I said nothing about this.

They believe in the perfectibility of man.

No, they believe that men can, by acknowledging the truth of the power of their collective will and through awareness of the existence of the social organism, be brought together and organized in such a way so that their efforts do not fight each other, but work together, to turn the vision of what the social organism should be into a reality.

For fascists, this means the state becomes a tool to create an authentic national society where the social organism can evolve free of external influence - other social organisms or environmental constraints.

Suska, I would respond to you but you seem to have read past my words entirely. Men would not be enslaved, because they are the product of the social organism as it exists - men born of a fascist organism would be perfect fascists. They would not be oppressed because they literally would be unable to conceive of living in any other way, and would be, by their own choice, opposed to it.

[Suska]

you seem to have read past my words entirely

I didn't but I'm not sure how to respond to the idea.

"product of the social organism..." Not nature, you're saying culture builds minds, that the artifice of word games creates the (entire) context of people's lives. I don't believe that, I don't see how that could even be possible. Remember, I'm an artist, I should be on board with this notion - I don't think it's ridiculous to say that artists create gods. I just don't think of that as more than a faction commanding context, and I think that there's a truth level of reality that is impossible to persuade.

[Fasces]

No matter where you stand on the issue of nature vs. nurture, culture always has a role to play. Even if the mind is entirely genetic in origin, a laughable notion, the practices which govern courtship, marriage, and breeding are themselves culturally determined - a high caste Indian would never produce children with an untouchable - and thus affect the type of minds which are produced. The social organism is thus the primary determinant of what minds are born.

[Suska]

Every culture developed with the character of their environment. The modern environment is highly artificial and therefore the modern mind is out of balance and uncoordinated. The correction is not ever going to be increasing degrees of artificiality, and better artifice means practices which accord with nature. Pretending we're all the same and there's just one answer is like hunting rabbits with a pair of scissors and fascism is just the resulting frustration.

[Elect G-Max]

Individuals, furthermore, are the product of the social system in which they are born.

Partially, yes. They are also the product of their DNA, and of environmental factors that have nothing to do with any "social system", and so on.

everything they think is the construct of the generations that came before.

Wrong. If this were true, there would be no original thought.

The language they use limits their capacity for thought

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is bullshit. If it were true, those who do not know any languages would be incapable of thought... but if nobody can think, then where did language come from? Also, have you ever had an idea that you had difficulty communicating because you couldn't find the right words? Maybe you haven't, but others have.

it is not a coincidence that it is only in the English language that the personal pronoun "I" is deemed important enough to merit capitalization in all cases.

Yes, it is. Would you like to know why? Because...

- Not all languages have "capital" and "lowercase" characters
- Not all languages have pronouns
- Back when liberalism was new, words in English were capitalized more or less at random. Spelling was also horribly non-standardized. Rules about when words get capitalized and when they don't were first laid down by the Oxford English Dictionary, the first snippets of which weren't published until 1884

the religion you grow up with (even if you come to reject it), the cultural practices you encounter (even if you detest them), the tropes, memes, archetypes, and stories you are told as a child each leave an imprint in your mind - unique, perhaps, on an individual basis in how they are blended together, but coming from a single source - the larger social organism.

Really? I thought they came from numerous different sources, and that those sources had names like Orson Scott Card and James Cameron.

Even your genetic identity is informed by the limitations of society. Individuals who cannot speak the same language are unlikely to breed together. Individuals who do not practice the same faith, or who lived on opposite corners of the world were, until recently, unlikely to breed together.

I strongly recomment that you do some research on the history of rape, and especially its use as a tool of war. From biblical passages about Israelites abducting their non-Jewish female neighbors to keep as "wives" (sex slaves) to the rise of the Mongol empire to the Red Army's march toward Germany in the last years of World War II, people from different countries have been fucking each other long before eHarmony.

individuals are nothing but physical manifestations of the environment to which they are born

And thus we come to the illogical conclusion of a half-dozen or so fallacies. Even if everything that you had said up until now is true, "product" is not the same thing as "physical manifestation".

Given all the same genetic and environmental factors, an identical copy of yourself could have also been born.

No. This person would not be a "copy" of me, but someone separate from me, who just happens to have the same DNA and similar life experiences.

If the aim is to create better individuals, which for fascists it is, then the state, as one of the entities which governs the system which produces individuals, is more important than the individuals which already exist.

The latter does not logically follow from the former. One can create "better" individuals without compromising the interests of the people who already exist, so long as you're willing to do so as a parent or teacher, rather than as a jailor. Of course, "better" is largely a matter of opinion, as we'll soon see.

Your critique will be that by what right does the state claim to supersede the "rights" of other individuals to live in the way they want.

Actually, my critique so far has been that your premises are all factually wrong and your conclusions do not logically follow from them, but yeah, let's roll with the superseding thing.

This is a misunderstanding. We cannot destroy who you already are, because you already exist.

Never minding the fact that you totally CAN do so by killing me, "destroy who you already are" is not synonymous with "totally ruin your life".

This is about shaping the individual born tomorrow, the individual which does not yet exist - and his rights cannot be violated until the moment he is born.

So you're willing to screw up people's lives today in a GAMBLE that it will improve the lives of people who don't actually exist. That doesn't sound dumb at all.

Ideally, the totalitarian fascist state shapes the social organism to produce individuals which are totalitarian fascists.

Really? I thought the aim was to create better people, not worse ones

They will be born into a system which reinforces the values consistent with that system. They will not be oppressed because they cannot be oppressed.

This plan is full of fail. As long as humans make mistakes and governments are staffed by humans, governments will make mistakes, and everyone will see those mistakes. There will always be people who see that something about The System isn't quite right, even if nobody tells them so. A person's worldview is not fixed. The more you lie to people, the less they believe you.

The philosophical question then, is not why do fascists value the state over the individual (because we all do

I do? Since when?

though while I agree with such a view in a broad sense, you fail to correct for the influence of alien social organisms

I do not believe that the influence of alien social organisms is something that needs to be "corrected for", as it would imply that the influence itself is "incorrect" somehow. Sometimes, it is this alien influence that corrects us (insert "in Soviet Russia" joke here).

human beings have a multiplicative effect for creativity when working together (in optimal conditions, of course), society should be organized in such a way to take advantage of this fact - favoring collectivism over individualism.

Humans also have a multiplicative effect when working alone, so long as we are still exposed to "alien influences", which often get us thinking in new directions and lead us to ideas that we otherwise would not have. In short, humans have a multiplicative effect when they are allowed to pursue their own interests instead of being locked up in jail for stupid shit that wasn't hurting anybody.

recognizing that organizational hierarchy is necessary to minimize the multiplication of negative traits (fighting, greed, etc) in order to promote positive ones (problem-solving, art, etc) fascism is inspired by the organization which does so best in our present society - the military

I think the parts in bold are worth re-reading.

The military minimizes fighting? Really?

[Fasces]

Partially, yes. They are also the product of their DNA, and of environmental factors that have nothing to do with any "social system", and so on.

Which I accounted for in my response. The social system influenced which human breeding pairs met at which time and under what circumstances, resulting in your genetic history.

Human society, furthermore, straddles a line between control and mitigation of our environment. Fascism advocates similar control over the evolution of the social organism as the state currently exercises over nature.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is bullshit. If it were true, those who do not know any languages would be incapable of thought... but if nobody can think, then where did language come from? Also, have you ever had an idea that you had difficulty communicating because you couldn't find the right words? Maybe you haven't, but others have.

I am not saying certain thoughts cannot be thought. I am saying that ideas are harder to discuss within the confines of certain languages, a phenonemon you yourself have described, and this difficulty makes their memetic adoption on a society-wide scale difficult if not outright impossible (without external influences). China was a civilization for 6,000 years, and it was not until external contact with Europe occurred on a sufficiently significant scale that anything approaching individualism emerged in the social consciousness.

Back when liberalism was new, words in English were capitalized more or less at random. Spelling was also horribly non-standardized. Rules about when words get capitalized and when they don't were first laid down by the Oxford English Dictionary, the first snippets of which weren't published until 1884

The capitalization of the letter I is dated to the 14th century, and appeared in the first edition of "Canterbury Tales". English is the only language in the world that places such importance on the first person personal (and I can think of no language which does not have this verb tense, please point me to one such society that does not have it and has a developed sense of individualism).

Really? I thought they came from numerous different sources, and that those sources had names like Orson Scott Card and James Cameron.

What character archetypes or plot tropes were developed by these individuals and never before seen?

I strongly recomment that you do some research on the history of rape, and especially its use as a tool of war. From biblical passages about Israelites abducting their non-Jewish female neighbors to keep as "wives" (sex slaves) to the rise of the Mongol empire to the Red Army's march toward Germany in the last years of World War II, people from different countries have been fucking each other long before eHarmony.

This is not comparable to the current era of mass immigration and air travel. You are pointing to the stream to deny existence of the river. It is nonsense.

And thus we come to the illogical conclusion of a half-dozen or so fallacies. Even if everything that you had said up until now is true, "product" is not the same thing as "physical manifestation".

It is in the sense that human beings' worldviews are a walking collection of social constructs, and that human actions are informed by that worldview - what they consider moral, what they consider ethical, what they consider valuable, what they consider interesting, etc.

No. This person would not be a "copy" of me, but someone separate from me, who just happens to have the same DNA and similar life experiences.

The same DNA and the same experiences in the same environment at the same time. Not similar - identical. In what measure would this hypothetical person be any different from yourself? Short of a "soul" concept, which I do not believe in, I cannot see where the difference would emerge.

The latter does not logically follow from the former. One can create "better" individuals without compromising the interests of the people who already exist, so long as you're willing to do so as a parent or teacher, rather than as a jailor. Of course, "better" is largely a matter of opinion, as we'll soon see.

That is precisely what is advocated by fascism - the state becoming that parent. You are in a forum marked 'Paternalism'. You decry statism as the "nanny state". How can you be arguing in favor of a state/parent role when you decry it at every available opportunity?

There is no desire to jail the social organism on our part. This is not to say that the state shouldn't act in self-defense against actors who are actively acting against the interests of the state, through violent or non-violent means.

Never minding the fact that you totally CAN do so by killing me, "destroy who you already are" is not synonymous with "totally ruin your life".

Ending your existence does not end the influence your existence had on the evolution of the social organism, and thus you are never truly "dead".

So you're willing to screw up people's lives today in a GAMBLE that it will improve the lives of people who don't actually exist.

I wouldn't call our over-medicated, depressed, anxious youth today to be healthy. I am advocating aiding the sick today and preventing the sickness from recurring tomorrow, in the interest of creating a healthy, comprehensive, and beautiful society.

Really? I thought the aim was to create better people, not worse ones

If you do want to have a discussion, I would ask that you approach the question in good faith, and not assume malice, nor superiority.

I do not believe that the influence of alien social organisms is something that needs to be "corrected for", as it would imply that the influence itself is "incorrect" somehow.

There is no right or wrong independent of cultural context, so the idea that "we can correct others" or "others can correct us" is flawed - there is nothing to correct. The issue of alien influence is that it impedes or influences the natural evolution of the social organism, eroding the capacity to erect an authentic national society - whatever that may mean for each people being unique, of course.

Humans also have a multiplicative effect when working alone, so long as we are still exposed to "alien influences", which often get us thinking in new directions and lead us to ideas that we otherwise would not have.

If they are exposed in the way you say, they are not working alone by any definition of the word. This statement is oxymoronic.

The military minimizes fighting? Really?

I was referencing the organizational institution of the military, which can be replicated without replication of the function - as PoFoers like Carteronian, a medical officer, can attest too.

[Elect G-Max]

I had an epiphany last night and realized that the only way Fascists can actually believe any of this shit is if they're not sentient. In a multicellular organism like a human, the collective is self-aware and capable of suffering, but its component cells are not; in a "social organism", it is the component individuals who are self-aware and capable of suffering, and the collective which is not. That's where the "social organism" concept breaks down. Only a person who is truly not sentient, like a robot made of human flesh, could fail to grasp this fundamental difference and its implications.

Which I accounted for in my response. The social system influenced which human breeding pairs met at which time and under what circumstances, resulting in your genetic history.

Regardless, you have absolutely no way to determine how much influence it had, or what that influence was. You do not have any way to take a given social system as input and predict genotypes as output, barring outright genocide or other mass population-screening measures.

I am not saying certain thoughts cannot be thought. I am saying that ideas are harder to discuss within the confines of certain languages, a phenonemon you yourself have described, and this difficulty makes their memetic adoption on a society-wide scale difficult if not outright impossible (without external influences).

No, it just means that language evolves to compensate. Where do you think Spam and gaydar came from?

China was a civilization for 6,000 years, and it was not until external contact with Europe occurred on a sufficiently significant scale that anything approaching individualism emerged in the social consciousness.

Would this be the same Europe that was still a few centuries away from Enlightenment-era classical liberalism?

The capitalization of the letter I is dated to the 14th century

Back when we capitalized the first letter of every goddamn word?

English is the only language in the world that places such importance on the first person personal

Capitalization has nothing to do with importance.

This is not comparable to the current era of mass immigration and air travel.

Yes, it is, dude. It totally is.

You are pointing to the stream to deny existence of the river.

What? No I'm not!

It is in the sense that human beings' worldviews are a walking collection of social constructs, and that human actions are informed by that worldview - what they consider moral, what they consider ethical, what they consider valuable, what they consider interesting, etc.

This would only make sense if a human was nothing more than his/her worldview.

The same DNA and the same experiences in the same environment at the same time. Not similar - identical. In what measure would this hypothetical person be any different from yourself?

He and I could high-five each other, or go on a double date with the Olsen Twins. If you punch him in the face, I wouldn't feel it.

That is precisely what is advocated by fascism - the state becoming that parent. You are in a forum marked 'Paternalism'. You decry statism as the "nanny state". How can you be arguing in favor of a state/parent role when you decry it at every available opportunity?

I'm in favor of being a parent to people who are actually in need of parents. Adults do not normally fit into that category. Kids who already have parents do not normally fit into that category.

actors who are actively acting

"...we believe in our beliefs more than they believe in theirs." - the ice queen from the Last Airbender movie

Ending your existence does not end the influence your existence had on the evolution of the social organism, and thus you are never truly "dead".

I haven't had any influence on the evolution of the social organism thus far, but even if I had, it would be irrelevant. I am more than just my influence on other people.

I wouldn't call our over-medicated, depressed, anxious youth today to be healthy. I am advocating aiding the sick today and preventing the sickness from recurring tomorrow, in the interest of creating a healthy, comprehensive, and beautiful society.

In that, we are in total agreement. You just haven't explained how hurting the sick today will help them, or prevent the sickness from recurring tomorrow.

There is no right or wrong independent of cultural context

"The earth is more or less spherical" - right
"The earth is a flat circle" - wrong

I don't see any cultural context there.

so the idea that "we can correct others" or "others can correct us" is flawed - there is nothing to correct.

Well, there goes your dream of building better people.

The issue of alien influence is that it impedes or influences the natural evolution of the social organism, eroding the capacity to erect an authentic national society

Whatever the hell THAT means

If they are exposed in the way you say, they are not working alone by any definition of the word. This statement is oxymoronic.

Let's clarify some terms here.

"Working together" = collaboration, often involving division of labor and an exchange of ideas
"working alone" = flying solo, but not ignoring the works of others, nor barring others from looking at your own work

[Fasces]

This is a serious subforum, and I have already had to delete your image macros. If you keep putting them into your posts, I will issue warnings.

I had an epiphany last night and realized that the only way Fascists can actually believe any of this shit is if they're not sentient. In a multicellular organism like a human, the collective is self-aware and capable of suffering, but its component cells are not; in a "social organism", it is the component individuals who are self-aware and capable of suffering, and the collective which is not. That's where the "social organism" concept breaks down. Only a person who is truly not sentient, like a robot made of human flesh, could fail to grasp this fundamental difference and its implications.

The "social organism" is an abstraction used to illustrate a concept, similar to the "invisible hand" of market economics. There is no literal organism, and there is no literal hand. I had hoped you would be sufficiently intelligent to recognize this, though you seem to have proven me wrong.

Regardless, you have absolutely no way to determine how much influence it had, or what that influence was. You do not have any way to take a given social system as input and predict genotypes as output, barring outright genocide or other mass population-screening measures.

Irrelevant. It has influence, and thus it is a factor that merits control by the state entity.

No, it just means that language evolves to compensate. Where do you think Spam and gaydar came from?

English is unique in its ability to evolve to the extent that it does. Many languages have much greater difficulty, and regardless, it is self-evident that the lack of ability of clearly communicate an idea hinders its expansion.

Would this be the same Europe that was still a few centuries away from Enlightenment-era classical liberalism?

The division of China into European spheres of influences occurred well past the Enlightenment. Once again, your lack of even an elementary grasp of history shows.

Back when we capitalized the first letter of every goddamn word?

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Capitalization has nothing to do with importance.

You are wrong. Consider the implied difference between the term "the lord reigns" and "the Lord reigns".

Yes, it is, dude. It totally is.

No. It did not even begin to approach the same scale.

This would only make sense if a human was nothing more than his/her worldview

They largely are not.

If you punch him in the face, I wouldn't feel it.

I meant in terms of thoughts, desires, ambitions, tastes, etc.

I haven't had any influence on the evolution of the social organism thus far, but even if I had, it would be irrelevant. I am more than just my influence on other people.

False. You began to influence those around you the very moment you were concieved. Your ideas, as soon as you were capable of articulating them.

You just haven't explained how hurting the sick today will help them, or prevent the sickness from recurring tomorrow

My entire first post answered that question.

"The earth is more or less spherical" - right
"The earth is a flat circle" - wrong

I don't see any cultural context there.

You are being obtuse. The context makes it clear that I was discussing questions of morality.

Well, there goes your dream of building better people.

I never said we aimed to build better people. You two said that.

The aims of fascism are to build an authentic national society.

"Working together" = collaboration, often involving division of labor and an exchange of ideas
"working alone" = flying solo, but not ignoring the works of others, nor barring others from looking at your own work

Nonsense. Both of the definitions you give are different degrees of collaboration.

[Jay Ranger]

Most philosophers believe that the improvement of an individual is stifled by the state- could a liberal state improve a populace or does it have to be a fascist one? Surely multiculturalism offers more information from which this objectively improving individual can be conceived from? Why the fascist obsession with nationalism if it's all about the perfectibility of man in general and not men from certain cultural backgrounds?

[Fasces]

Most philosophers believe that the improvement of an individual is stifled by the state

I do not believe this is so. Some philosophers do. Some do not. To say most is dishonest.

could a liberal state improve a populace or does it have to be a fascist one?

You cannot "improve" a populace. You can only create authentic societies. Liberalism cannot be used to create perfectly authentic societies because it is internationalist. This is not to say that liberalism cannot be used to improve a nation, but it will never be used to fully realize the creation of an authentic nationalist state because it does not aim to do so.

Why the fascist obsession with nationalism if it's all about the perfectibility of man in general and not men from certain cultural backgrounds?

It is not about the perfectibility of man. That is what Suska and Elect claim I have said, but if you read my post, you will see I said no such thing. It is about creating authentic social organisms.

[Soixante-Retard]

It is not about the perfectibility of man.

I believe I remember reading Maurice Bardèche say something, in his Qu'est-ce que le fascisme ?, along the lines that the sine qua non of Fascism is its new image of man. However, since I can't find the original quote, a similar quote from Bardèche conveys a similar meaning:

[Fascism] does not believe in fate; on the contrary it denies fate, opposing it instead with the will of men and believing that man forges his own destiny... Fascism judges events and men in relation to a certain idea of man which is its own.

In other words, fascism has its own idea of what the "perfect man" is; the "new man".

Man's "perfectibility" (in fascism's own sense) is a necessary element to what is called "fascism".

Source: The Nature of Fascism in France, p 50-53.

[Fasces]

Saying that the perfect man is the one who acts according to his national self-image and values is different from trying to create a "perfect" man. Since each national community has a different system of values, the perfect German man is wildly different from the perfect French man is wildly different from the perfect Saudi man.

[Soixante-Retard]

There is no difference and I wouldn't consider you a fascist if you don't concede that a central tenet of fascism is, according to Bardèche, "'to form men according to a certain model".

[Fasces]

Yes, I agree with that - I would not call that "perfection". I prefer the term "authentic".

[Elect G-Max]

Fasces' entire argument has boiled down to playing word games and ignoring basic reality. I'm done with him.

Can we get someone other than Fasces to answer my question?

[Fasces]

The eternal words of Buzz Lightyear ring true here.