Code Rood wrote:We have to make it attractive and do-able for people to start a big family, but the elite simply doesn't want to do it. In fact, they're against family. They promote things that are anti-family. They're deliberately working against us.
It's more the zeitgeist rather than the elite deliberately working in a certain direction. The elite are just responding to the common beliefs that their class and socialisation have taught them in post-modern Western societies. It is a grassroots trajectory that originated from the masses and intelligentsia. It was not produced by the elite, not at least from what I can see from public information.
Code Rood wrote:I mean, have you taken a look at millennials lately? Truly a sad case. Many millennials are barely able to support their own. Many are riddled in debt. Many of us have been indoctrinated with absolute nonsense. I'm afraid that the damage may be irreversable for a lot of millennials. The boomers and Gen-X'ers are also damaged generations, so no surprise that it's going further downhill. So many things have indeed gone terribly wrong in the 60's. Maybe an intelligent silent or boomer can tell us more about it.
We millenials don't know which way is up at this point.
Code Rood wrote:Oh no doubt. And we can't wait for much longer either. The millennials have to make this shift happen. And that is a scary thought considering what state most millennials are in.
All we can do is rediscover romanticism. In many ways the 60s were a dangerous period but we need to go back to flower power sentimentality of the early half of that decade. If we do this then we will have solved a lot of problems. Society is obsessed with money and power. That is the fundmanetal problem. People value money and power, superficial pursuit of happiness rather than looking higher and higher into the clouds. Money and career are not important. Only family and our ideals will free us. The open green fields under serene blue clouds will enrich us more than Beverly Hills ever could.
Politically the solution could not be communalism, either left or right. The only solution is to make a society based on the brotherhood of man where we work for the common good of both our homelands and the world. We must reject the far left and far right and pursue the path of radical centrism. All of these problems cannot be fixed by the Alt-Right or the re-emergence of the left but by nuanced politics of empathy which will allow us to fix all the problems we talk about. Migration, all of this, we can solve this issue while also achieving racial justice if we will walk to the beat of the correct drum. We need central planning and a combination of state capitalism and state socialism, corporatism, anti-imperialism and carefully planned migration policies to ensure that the interests of all functional groups in a society can be accomodated.
Fundamentally this idea would be based on Solidarism. Class warfare would be opposed. The unity and camraderie of the homeland, including all peoples within its borders, irrespective of race or creed would be the precondition for unity of continents and then the world, although while still maintaining sovereignty and national and ethnic distinctions.
This organisation and its ideology are very interesting:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... olidarists
Let's quote them:
The author/s of a 1967 English language NTS pamphlet wrote:Unlike Communism, Solidarism provides a twentieth-century basis for dealing with present day issues. It rejects a purely materialistic approach to social, economic and political problems. It postulates that man, rather than matter, is the chief problem today. It rejects the concept of class warfare and hatred, and seeks to replace this dubious principle with the idea of co-operation (solidarity), brotherhood, Christian tolerance and charity. Solidarism believes in the innate dignity of the individual and seeks to safeguard as inalienable rights his freedom of speech, conscience and political organization. Solidarists in no way claim that their ideas represent the final answer to all problems, but they believe that man who is master of the atom bomb must also become master of himself and his destiny.
The internal divisions within a society, whether these be racial or class based must be opposed. Liberal capitalism failed to do this, as did communism and of course fascism. We need careful central planning to ensure that the intricate details are managed properly so as to ensure the cohesion and accomodation of all interests within society.
There would not be any mass immigration issues or racism, we could reconcile both the rightward and leftward tendencies in our societies if we had proper government.
Donna wrote:I'd say anyone who wishes to reverse the very modernization of immigration (i.e. the Hart-Cellar shift) is qualitatively a white nationalist and a racist. Public discourse on immigration must begin with the rights and social well-being migrants and migrant communities (i.e. it should only be acceptable to restrict immigration in certain specific situations, such as a particular global pandemic or to prevent particular private firms from illegally exploiting migrant labour, such underpaying them or exposing them to unsafe working conditions). If someone wishes to turn immigration into a discourse on culture, they should at the very least be suspect of low key racism.
What about restricting immigration for the sake of internal house keeping? If mass immigration is causing social instability you could restrict it until you sort out the problems first.
Surely structural racism must be sorted out before migration can continue. Otherwise you are inviting migrants into a less than ideal situation knowingly enticing them to settle in a country with communal problems. And racism will not be stopped by immigration. People will continue to be racists even in plural societies, and I am speaking about the white racists in this instance.
North Korea is not a country which experiences much migration, neither is China and the Soviet Union as well as Warsaw Pact countries did not experience much immigration either. In the Soviet Union populations were not allowed to move freely. There were internal passports:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_ ... viet_Union
Wikipedia wrote:A propiska (Russian: пропи́ска, IPA: [prɐˈpʲiskə] (About this soundlisten), plural: propiski) was both a residency permit and a migration-recording tool, used in the Russian Empire before 1917 and in the Soviet Union from the 1930s. Literally, the word propiska means "inscription", alluding to the inscription in a state internal passport permitting a person to reside in a given place. For a state-owned or third-party-owned property, having a propiska meant the inclusion of a person in the rental contract associated with a dwelling. A propiska was documented in local police (Militsiya) registers and certified with a stamp in internal passports. Residing anywhere for longer than a few weeks without a permit was prohibited.
The USSR had both permanent (прописка по месту жительства or постоянная прописка) and temporary (временная прописка) propiskas. A third, intermediate type, the employment propiska (служебная прописка), permitted a person and his or her family to live in an apartment built by an economic entity (factory, ministry) as long as the person worked for the owner of the housing (similar to inclusion of house rent into a labour contract). In the transition period to a market economy in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991, the permanent propiska in municipal apartments was one factor leading to the emergence of private-property rights during privatization (those who built housing at their own expense obtained a permanent propiska there by definition).
Not only was migration into the USSR not easy or on a mass scale but internal migration within the country was also controlled. We could hardly call the Soviet Union a fascist or racist state, especially considering its role in assisting liberation movements in the global south. It was of course the country that defeated Nazism once and for all.
Donald wrote:It has nothing to do with millennials being "self-absorbed". Increasingly people, especially increasingly politically conscious young women, are having legitimate ethical qualms about bringing human life into a world that is going off the rails and is effectively running on borrowed time.
The world has always been going off the rails and been running on borrowed time.
The years 1945 to 2015 were perhaps the most stable time the global north has experienced in the last 400 years. We are now just returning back to normality.
The solution is to keep our chin up and keep going. Not having children because it is getting difficult again is not a solution.
We are condemned to live.