Theme: Governance

In about 1980, those of us on the conservative side, understood that progressive state would ‘win’ by de-homogenizing society into factions rather than unifying society, and then buying votes by doing it. 

We also understood that it is economically impossible to construct the democratic socialists state – meaning control over the results of production. They Keynesian proposition is, for very complex reasons, a series of very long term ponzi schemes. (Which I can argue in extraordinary detail but this post isn’t the venue for it.)

As such we saw the progressives (socialists of various ideologies) as succeeding in the destruction of anglo-germanic (protestant, north-sea) civilization, by driving it  into bankruptcy.

So we understood that there were two basic strategies to follow

1 – Since socialism is unscientific, and irrational (a secular religion) we can adopt the same means of opposition to secular religion: throughout history the most effective means of resisting the state is religion. Religions allow populations to establish the terms by which they will be governed.

2 – Since the socialist state is an unsustainable ponzi scheme, we could attempt to bankrupt the state BEFORE it can destroy our civilization. We could bankrupt the state through expansion of the military and private sector, while the left bankrupted the state through the public service and bureaucratic structure.

3 – Since the power of the state is fiat money, and the state requires the financial system to distribute fiat money, we could ‘hire’ the financial sector to compete with the state.

All three of these tactics worked.  Unfortunately we didn’t count on the following:

1 –  The rate of collapse of the family.  The protestant ethic requires the adoption of the absolute nuclear family wherein people cannot reproduce until they can afford their own home.   The feminists have succeeded in destroying the family in the black and hispanic communities, and it has now spread to the white lower classes as well.  By destroying absolute nuclear marriage you destroy the protestant moral intuitions of society.  You destroy male feeling of responsibility for society, destroy female responsibility for controlling her reproduction, and you destroy the economic efficiency of two person households that delay their reproduction until they can afford to pay for it.    At present the ANF is practiced only by white protestants and Catholics who have adopted it.  Basically, family structure determines one’s wealth or poverty, and the economic efficiency of the nation. Feminists succeeded in destroying it, and this was more useful to the socialists than their own polices. 

2 – The rate of immigration.   Immigration of peoples who do not only fail to share the absolute nuclear family as a constraint on reproduction and incentive for economic production, but who do not adopt that family constraint and incentive upon arrival.  As such communities retain not their food and rituals, but also their family structure, moral code and resulting political preferences.  Furthermore they now retain their languages.  As such there is no ‘nation’ of people with similar interests, just a corporation – an empire – over peoples with dissimilar interests.

So, it is no longer possible to sustain the protestant ethic, the high trust society, the rule of law, the common law, private property rights,  the absolute nuclear family, and the constraint on the reproduction of the lower classes that was unique to northern european civilization – and one of its greatest sources of prosperity. 

Conservatives understand this, even if they say it in allegorical rather than such precise terms.

So the purpose now is to create a faction that delegitimizes the state, and drives us to either change, secession or civil war.

If all people have the right to culture and self determination, then so do conservatives – north sea european protestants – have the right to self determination.  As such conservatives will do whatever possible to save their civilization from further conquest and further genocide. It is one thing to say that people have moved to america to take advantage of the northern european political institutions. It is another thing to state that northern european protestants should willingly accept the extermination of their way of life.

So from the conservative position, the options now are to bankrupt the state – delegitimize america as the world’s financial backer –  and force a compromise, or otherwise force rebellion and revolution in an effort at self preservation.

That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

https://www.quora.com/Which-situation-is-more-likely-to-lead-to-progressive-outcomes-a-Republican-Party-that-continues-to-support-extreme-candidates-positions-or-one-that-is-more-mainstream-and-thus-successful-but-also-open-to-compromise

In about 1980, those of us on the conservative side, understood that progressive state would ‘win’ by de-homogenizing society into factions rather than unifying society, and then buying votes by doing it. 

We also understood that it is economically impossible to construct the democratic socialists state – meaning control over the results of production. They Keynesian proposition is, for very complex reasons, a series of very long term ponzi schemes. (Which I can argue in extraordinary detail but this post isn’t the venue for it.)

As such we saw the progressives (socialists of various ideologies) as succeeding in the destruction of anglo-germanic (protestant, north-sea) civilization, by driving it  into bankruptcy.

So we understood that there were two basic strategies to follow

1 – Since socialism is unscientific, and irrational (a secular religion) we can adopt the same means of opposition to secular religion: throughout history the most effective means of resisting the state is religion. Religions allow populations to establish the terms by which they will be governed.

2 – Since the socialist state is an unsustainable ponzi scheme, we could attempt to bankrupt the state BEFORE it can destroy our civilization. We could bankrupt the state through expansion of the military and private sector, while the left bankrupted the state through the public service and bureaucratic structure.

3 – Since the power of the state is fiat money, and the state requires the financial system to distribute fiat money, we could ‘hire’ the financial sector to compete with the state.

All three of these tactics worked.  Unfortunately we didn’t count on the following:

1 –  The rate of collapse of the family.  The protestant ethic requires the adoption of the absolute nuclear family wherein people cannot reproduce until they can afford their own home.   The feminists have succeeded in destroying the family in the black and hispanic communities, and it has now spread to the white lower classes as well.  By destroying absolute nuclear marriage you destroy the protestant moral intuitions of society.  You destroy male feeling of responsibility for society, destroy female responsibility for controlling her reproduction, and you destroy the economic efficiency of two person households that delay their reproduction until they can afford to pay for it.    At present the ANF is practiced only by white protestants and Catholics who have adopted it.  Basically, family structure determines one’s wealth or poverty, and the economic efficiency of the nation. Feminists succeeded in destroying it, and this was more useful to the socialists than their own polices. 

2 – The rate of immigration.   Immigration of peoples who do not only fail to share the absolute nuclear family as a constraint on reproduction and incentive for economic production, but who do not adopt that family constraint and incentive upon arrival.  As such communities retain not their food and rituals, but also their family structure, moral code and resulting political preferences.  Furthermore they now retain their languages.  As such there is no ‘nation’ of people with similar interests, just a corporation – an empire – over peoples with dissimilar interests.

So, it is no longer possible to sustain the protestant ethic, the high trust society, the rule of law, the common law, private property rights,  the absolute nuclear family, and the constraint on the reproduction of the lower classes that was unique to northern european civilization – and one of its greatest sources of prosperity. 

Conservatives understand this, even if they say it in allegorical rather than such precise terms.

So the purpose now is to create a faction that delegitimizes the state, and drives us to either change, secession or civil war.

If all people have the right to culture and self determination, then so do conservatives – north sea european protestants – have the right to self determination.  As such conservatives will do whatever possible to save their civilization from further conquest and further genocide. It is one thing to say that people have moved to america to take advantage of the northern european political institutions. It is another thing to state that northern european protestants should willingly accept the extermination of their way of life.

So from the conservative position, the options now are to bankrupt the state – delegitimize america as the world’s financial backer –  and force a compromise, or otherwise force rebellion and revolution in an effort at self preservation.

That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

https://www.quora.com/Which-situation-is-more-likely-to-lead-to-progressive-outcomes-a-Republican-Party-that-continues-to-support-extreme-candidates-positions-or-one-that-is-more-mainstream-and-thus-successful-but-also-open-to-compromise