I told you what would happen if there were only a few of us. RF wouldn't know what hit it.
it's so tempting. think of the power. it's such a turn on.
I love being a bad person.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Third Position and Nationalist subforums?
- Thread starter Saint Frankenstein
- Start date
I told you what would happen if there were only a few of us. RF wouldn't know what hit it.
it's so tempting. think of the power. it's such a turn on.
I love being a bad person.
Lol. Power is an aphrodisiac. Humans just love it. That's why egalitarianism will never work.I told you what would happen if there were only a few of us. RF wouldn't know what hit it.
it's so tempting. think of the power. it's such a turn on.
I love being a bad person.
It's part of human nature to dominate others, especially for males to do so. It's just a biological fact. Just make sure that if you're the one being dominated, you chose your ruler wisely.
Lol. Power is an aphrodisiac. Humans just love it. That's why egalitarianism will never work.
Communists didn't actually subscribe to the idea of "equality of outcome"; it's something of a liberal slander. I think it's actually only cropped up in the very early days and is closely connected with authoritarian and religious interpretations of equality as absolute.The essence of communism was the abolition of social class rather than inequality of talents. The major thrust behind this was abolishing the division of mental and physical labour, and therefore of an elite directing everyone else's activities. but the unequal abilities of the proletariat meant that a vanguard ended up leading it, with the promise of the abolition of class in the future.
The Marquis De Sade is considered by some to be a proto-socialist in the French Revolution and his understanding of the hedonistic nature of power did influence his social views. power is desirable, but power over others is not a biological fact- merely a sociological one.
Do you feel up to a one on one debate to see if we can reconcile our differences? talking about power is addictive.
See, I have to disagree with you about power over others not being a biological fact. We're apes and apes, especially the males, dominant the other males in order to increase their reproductive success. Of course, it's not only an ape thing as it's found throughout nature. Humans are no different. We just take our vying for dominance to larger scales than the other species do: Men Are Like Apes When Competing for StatusCommunists didn't actually subscribe to the idea of "equality of outcome"; it's something of a liberal slander. I think it's actually only cropped up in the very early days and is closely connected with authoritarian and religious interpretations of equality as absolute.The essence of communism was the abolition of social class rather than inequality of talents. The major thrust behind this was abolishing the division of mental and physical labour, and therefore of an elite directing everyone else's activities. but the unequal abilities of the proletariat meant that a vanguard ended up leading it, with the promise of the abolition of class in the future.
The Marquis De Sade is considered by some to be a proto-socialist in the French Revolution and his understanding of the hedonistic nature of power did influence his social views. power is desirable, but power over others is not a biological fact- merely a sociological one.
Do you feel up to a one on one debate to see if we can reconcile our differences? talking about power is addictive.
So hierarchies on all levels of human society are rooted in biology. Sorry, Marxist.
(Scientific facts like those also spell disaster for various strains of feminism as well but that's another topic.)Sure, we can debate. I'll admit that you're more knowledgeable than I am when it comes to the details of ideology, however. Intellectualism is stressed more in leftist ideologies as it is.
That is true yes. The left do favor intellectualism as symptomatic of progress. Should it be a nature/nurture debate about power (you take nature, I take nurture) and just see where it goes? Past experience with WN says it should probably be more specific as I basically ended up going round in circles with him.
Yes, that is fine. I view white nationalists as degenerate, by the way. I admire the Roman Empire as a hint.
Kalibhakta
Jai Maha Kali Ma!
I'd like an anarchist forum honestly.
I'm not a liberal, a capitalist, or a socialist.
I am A-economical, like one is an athiest. I don't think socialism is better or worse then capitalism because both have the same amount of control in our lives, just the locus of control changes.
I'm not a liberal, a capitalist, or a socialist.
I am A-economical, like one is an athiest. I don't think socialism is better or worse then capitalism because both have the same amount of control in our lives, just the locus of control changes.
I was surprised that there's no Anarchist subforum, actually.
Kalibhakta
Jai Maha Kali Ma!
Not all of us are bomb throwing nutjobs. A lot of anarchism is economically conservative. A lot of it blends into Libertarianism.
For me as a Religious person, it boils down too "God is perfect, Man is not. It is arrogant to say that men can chose when people die or live like God can, and all government seems to rest on violence ." (I am very much in the right of self-defense, however)
For me as a Religious person, it boils down too "God is perfect, Man is not. It is arrogant to say that men can chose when people die or live like God can, and all government seems to rest on violence ." (I am very much in the right of self-defense, however)
Oh, I already know the anarchist position. I used to be an anarchist before I had to accept that it's unworkable, no offense.
I'm not sure Third Position is well-defined, and I don't personally see Nationalism as morally defensible, but in either case neither are reasons to lack the subforums IMO.
Ultimatum
Classical Liberal
Capitalism only has a degree of individual autonomical freedom. A laissez faire system would allow successful individuals to thrive!
You can't have just one Nationalist subforum, because there's a stupid number of Nationalisms.Maybe we should have a Third Position subforum for those who do not fit into the Socialist or Capitalist DIRs. Third Positionism is any economic theory that is viewed as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism. So it would include things like distributionism, (national) syndicalism and corporatism.
I mean, I'm not the only one opposed to both capitalism and Marxism, right?
Maybe have a Nationalist subforum, too.
Well, the same goes for all the other restricted political subforums. There's not just one type of liberalism, conservatism or feminism. I think I'm the only neo-Fascist here. I get by in the Conservative forum, though, since I am socially conservative.
I'll be Frank(no pun intended), I am completely and tterly dumbfounded that someone as bright, intelligent & respectable as yourself, willingly proclaims themselves to be both a Fascist and a Nationalist.
That's me - shattering stereotypes all around.
Thanks for the compliment, by the way.If it helps any, I find your particlar conceptions of Fascism to be far, far easier to stomach than...literally everyone else who affiliates in that manner.That's me - shattering stereotypes all around.
Well, there's hardly any actual Fascists around these days. We're overrun with neo-Nazi scumbags who aren't Fascist at all. The closest thing to Fascism in the West today is some of the right-wing populist movements in Europe at the moment. There's some old-school Fascist parties in Italy, too. Other than that, it's mostly a dead movement.