Page 4 of 7 « First<23456>Last »
Topic Options
#37453 - 04/08/10 12:11 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Why is it necessary to fullfill the need of the dross? Why just not let them die?

And how will you decide a particular individual needs control and an other one doesn't.

What are the objective criterii to distinguish the dross from the others ?

And finally how do you avoid the risk of cronyism inherent to any for of government ?

Top
#37454 - 04/08/10 04:01 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think you are confused because I wasn't talking about fulfilling the need of the dross as much as eliminating them from the gene pool. Do not confuse the mass with the dross.

The second question I find rather strange. Why would anyone need to decide whether an individual needs control or not if that very individual can be perfectly capable deciding that himself?

About objective criteria; objective criteria are for people that desire affirmation.

About cronyism; why would I need to be bothered about it?

D.

Top
#37456 - 04/08/10 05:14 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Ooops, you're right, I made a confusion.

So for the dross, do you think a government is necessary to eliminate them? I mean, don’t you think vengeance of victims (or victim friends) would not do the work? For instance, suppose such a dross would hurt or rape my beloved, do you think I need a government for killing him? They’re the more unfitted; they would not be long to survive…

For the mass, the sheeps, why is needed to fulfill their need of control?

About cronyism, if you don’t bother, then it’ll not be a meritocracy anymore. It’ll not be the one who merit it who will get the reward, it’ll not be the most competent who will get the job…

Top
#37458 - 04/08/10 07:00 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I think Diavolo may be talking about a form of Fascism where society is highly stratified from top to bottom – from the most intelligent and creative right down through to the producers or followers and finally to the so called dross, or those who contribute nothing and survive by criminal actions or other forms of parasitism?

I dislike the Fuhrer principle as I have stated above. The only way something like this could ever work (as far as I am concerned) is if power is invested in an elite party or aristocracy of some sort and if the members of that party or aristocracy are not compelled to regard a single individual as the all powerful instrument of the will of the people. I do not trust a single individual to determine policy, particularly during wartime. This has been borne out by the experience of World War Two.

Ideally a Fascist system of this sort would involve the party or aristocracy ordering the society from top to bottom along military lines and than determining the quality and utility of those in the society and than either eliminating or locking up the so called dross; and than subjecting the producers to thorough forms of regimentation and control; and allowing the elite at the top to enjoy all the black magic, magnificence and luxury, super cool sex and adulation and power that they want.

Sounds good for those at the top – problem is that such a society will never be put in place, merely imperfect copies now and then.

Those producers and consumers, who are the backbone of every society, will not accept such an arrangement even if you are trying to run a permanent war economy; are engaging in constant foreign entanglements and propaganda, and are running an empire.

I like the opposition to established overwhelming power.

Top
#37459 - 04/08/10 07:27 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
I always thought one of LaVey's best writings was "Control, religious or political, must exist because the populace demands to be enslaved. Only when it feels sufficiently enslaved can the dissenters produce their collective grunt. Dissension is a weak form of assertion. Assertion is a weak form of creation."

I think to maintain order and progress a government has only to give the illusion of authority and control. And illusion of authority is the only tool a government not willing to harm it's own people really has. As long as the majority buys into the illusion it's real in practicality.

I think the people have to be misled and deceived just enough to keep followers productive but let it be transparent to the intelligent and give them an unspoken but obvious path to success and fulfillment. It's a dead end to try and educate sheep so let them produce resources while the goats progress the civilization.

I remember as a child reading a book that mentioned putting a mouse in a maze. The mouse was smart enough to see there was no ceiling to the maze so instead of trying to navigate it the mouse simply hopped up on top of the walls and walked a straight line to the cheese. My idea is to put all the mice in the maze and tell them climbing the walls is morally wrong... but place the cheese outside the maze. (The realization that I was just speaking of satanic mice just gave me a chuckle)

Punishing the weak followers is just pointless to me. You'll never win. They'll never change. They're always going to breed more than the intelligent. Just give them what they want (it's easy to tell them what that is) and let them work. Give them no power but let them be satisfied and productive while you enjoy your naughty success.

Top
#37464 - 04/09/10 11:24 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Vengeance is nice but how many are really up to it? I know; when we're daydreaming, we all are up to anything but out there it is something completely different. Let me tell you a story I heard last week. A guy's son gets stabbed and dies. The attacker gets convicted and spends four years in jail. The father patiently waits four years until the guy is released, buys a gun and shoots him. He is sentenced to seven years. He didn't care. For who or what are you prepared to go to the monastery for seven years? You don't need to answer me, answer it to yourself.

The mass needs control because it is essential for them in order to function. Those people need someone to give them direction and set up the rules to make them feel safe and comfortable. Hierarchy is about leaders and followers. It doesn't imply I promote a brute force sort of fascism. You can treat people in a honorable manner and still lead them into a certain direction. If you create something sacred for them; a shiny star to follow and at the same time influence their culture to such an extent that you provide the opportunities for quality to rise out of the raw material. Make the mass feel safe and comfortable and at the same time make them aspire the very direction you provide.

I am not too bothered about cronyism. What I see as the leading class, and you shouldn't solely interpret leading as in governing a State, is a class which bases their living upon honor. Imagine it somewhat the likes of dignitas during the Roman Empire. In such an environment cronyism isn't a problem because you don't have friends who have no honor and you certainly don't reward those.

D.

Top
#37473 - 04/09/10 05:44 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Well, first let me precise my position for avoiding misunderstanding:
- I'm not for egalitarism and stratification is just a fact - we're not all equal!
- The mass it too massive, I think a drastic reduction of the world population would fix many issues we face.
- Life is not sacred. The current main stream idea about that is the every life must be saved. If we go on like that we'll have to eat 1 bowl of rice a day because there'll not be enough for everybody. Shitty view! I prefer privileging lives of better quality than saving each and every miserable life.

My point is just and simply, why do we need an authority, a government?

For instance, that vengeance story demonstrates how a ruler can cause problems. Without jail the father would have killed the stabber – end of the story… I should add that I would surely not wait the murdered in front of jail the day he’s out for killing him. There are cleverer ways… And punishing more the father is obviously unjust. Where’s the cause of that injustice?

For the mass, why do you need to have them to function? We just do not need them. Perhaps in the past the mass was to be ruled because we could get the resource only by using manual work. But nowadays, and it’ll be a tendency that will go on; more and more is produced by machines. I don’t need masses for producing; I just need intelligence for designing better machines!
It’s a dream man pursues since man is man: living without needing to work. For realizing his dream man invented progress. From Stone Age through Bronze and Iron ages we’re now in the information era. We’re now close of realizing this dream but who is ready to accept the consequences? Surely not the mass!

And Diavolo, I’m not against leadership ;\) But as you said, it’s about leaders and followers. Something happening quite naturally. Why is it necessary to institutionalize that? I like your “vision” and share it but to which extend isn’t it and ideal? How am I sure your sense of honor is not an utopy?
And are you sure you need a government for implementing that vision?

About cronyism I do not think it’s the same as friendship or networking. I know I must have a social network to make it and choosing the right individuals matters. Is not a friend of me who wants but who merit it. For sure I have honor and I exchange my friendship as a reward for the valor of my friends. All of my friends are not leaders, there are followers having honor. I offer them my friendship and my guidance.
Cronyism is giving a job to your friend even if he’s not the more competent to do the job. It’s an issue an in a governmental environment I think it can become a big issue…

As a conclusion, if a leading class naturally emerges, why do we need institutionalizing it?

Top
#37492 - 04/10/10 01:51 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Oh but I agree; egalitarianism is a rather silly idea, "all men are equal" is a Leftist continuation of the religious "all men are equal… before god" idea. There is no basis for this idea in nature and even at an abstract level it is pretty funky at the least.

I also think there are too many of us but I don't think a drastic reduction will happen any soon. Unless, for the first time, the 2012 doom happens to be an accurate prediction. Even when a drastic reduction would happen, remember it will most likely be a blind process. Blind in the sense that there will be no selection in what will be reduced. In such a scenario it is probable the only survivors are those in some remote mental institution, to give a radical example. On the grand scale of things; as in the continuation of life, it matters little but I personally rather not see us drop from the first steps of space exploration into having to reinvent the wheel again. Survival of the fittest might very well be survival of the luckiest, which in some sense is probably more accurate. So a catastrophe is maybe not that grand for reduction and the last time some partook in the artificial reduction of our species, they were not received that well either. Yes there are indeed too many of us but I fear that it is a problem not that easy to solve.

Life is indeed not sacred. Nor is it precious. I fully agree.

I think the idea that we can create enough intelligent machines that can do all labor for us so we don't have to do anything but live happily our lives is close to impossible. I don't think that machines will ever be capable of fulfilling all requirements that are needed for us to leech of their labor. And I certainly think we should not even aspire that direction. It's worse enough as it is seeing how people turn into helpless creatures when their technology fails. A computer crashing, a dead cell phone battery, a broken calculator or a navigation system that fails is enough to trigger a nervous breakdown in many. If we'd fully deliver us into the care of machines, we'd not only grant full control to someone, we'd likely also turn into a despicable fat, lazy and mind numb species. I'd prefer a nuclear holocaust above that scenario. It's worse enough as it is, the last thing we need is even more reason for people to do nothing.

So we need the mass. If you prefer to wipe your ass with toilet paper instead of leaves, you need people fabricating that very toilet paper. What we don't need is to waste a lot of energy and potential at trivial or plain idiotic things and to accomplish this, one needs to direct the mass. Therefore we need government. My idea of government might be utopian but that does matter very little to me. I do not aspire things to come as much as I prefer to act now.

I see the path towards realizing fascism somewhat like gardening. First you prepare the soil, you let it grow, wait for the gardener to come and harvest what has been planted; Pontifex, Vindex, Imperator.

The very problem we are facing today is that ridiculous concept of an egalitarian democracy. It is quite irrelevant to concern ourselves with things to come or if they will ever come when what we despise is in the here and now in front of our noses. This is the stage which I call Pontifex. We build paths and bridges. You abandon the isolation and seek common ground with others. Fascists, neo-Nazis, radicals; you name it. It's a means to an end and a source to discover others which are more alike us but are stuck in "the next best thing". It's not important that it might not accomplish a great change or the big contra-revolution. What you do is prepare the soil, change the probabilities; create a wave. One should not be concerned about result as much as that one should act against that what one despises. The main area to act is in your very culture, your town, your neighborhood. That is your realm, your universe and that is where you prepare the soil.

What the question should be is "if weakness disgusts me that much, why not do something about it?”

D.

Top
#37511 - 04/11/10 11:13 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Mmmmmmh, I’m still amused but it finally might be not the waste of time I thought. Thanks Diavolo \:\)

I don't think a drastic reduction will happen any soon.

I don’t believe in accurate predictions.

I didn’t follow the mass for watching the 2012 movie. And if a catastrophe would arise, whoever will die; after that it will just results in harder conditions raising the pressure of natural selection for those who survive.

Creating enough intelligent machines that can do all labor for us so we don't have to do anything but live happily our lives is impossible as it’s a dream man pursues since man is man: living without needing to work. But we should aspire to progress. If you fear to be dependent on you GPS, buy a paper map, if you fear to be dependent on calculators, buy an abacus and if you fear being dependent on a paper map, limit your travels to the little area you know, if you fear being dependent on an abacus, enhance you capability of mental calculus. But then you also have to accept to lose all the benefits brought by GPS, calculators, computers…! It’s regression, not progression. You continue in that direction and you’ll finish with schools teaching kids how to shape flint!

There must be a clear distinction between the dream we pursue and the reality which emerged from mankind's pursuance of this dream. As a result of this pursuance, we’re now close being able to do without manual work (that’s a fact, a reality that cannot be denied) and this enable us to spend more time to think. It’s a twisted view to believe stopping working will make us happy, a misconception of reality, a kind of unreal paradise. But on the other hand, the more we progress the less we have to spend time on dumb activities and the more time we have for noblest activities: thinking, creating, inventing (note there are interesting manual activities such as painting, sculpting…).

Look, in the pre-industrial period most of the men were in agricultural sector. There had to hard work much more than 8 hours a day for having what we consider now as the vital minimum. Once the day was over, man was just too exhausted for being able to do anything else than sleeping. Then came the industrial revolution, at the beginning the agricultural labor power was used for doing the dumb repetitive tasks machines were not able to do yet. But quickly, reality demonstrated that because of industrialization, the total amount of necessary manual labor decreased. As it decreased, there was free time available and instead of willing to do noblest activities, the mass, through the unions, claimed for leisure. And indeed, few of those who gained this free time used it in a constructive way. What most are doing on their free time now? Thinking, learning and reading as we’re doing it right here? No they kill their time at passive activities like watching TV. There are movies which could eventually make them think. But thinking is requiring effort so the mass believing in his lazy dream prefers to watch stupid people doing stupid think seeking comfort in the reassurance that they’re not so stupid themselves: this is called reality show.

You say you need the mass, do you really believe TUC engraving is manual work? \:D

About the ridiculous concept of egalitarian democracy, I do believe it’s more a question of egalitarianism than a question of democracy. It’s more a question of culture and main stream ideas than a question of a form of government. If the values promoted by our culture were more in excellence and competition rather than in mediocrity and equality, I’m convinced things would be better whatever the form of government would be.
You see Diavolo, I think we share more than it seems. I think we share this view about the mass and we share more values we could think. We probably share similar ideals but we just diverge on the mean: you propose to control the mass and I propose to let them die. What’s the best, I don’t know for sure but I think it’s less difficult controlling machines than controlling people and it causes fewer problems…
May be the mass is still useful for a while and during this time but when (and I don’t say if) we’ll have machines able to do almost all dumb tasks; you’ll control the mass for making them doing what? Useless things because they need a work? Or just entertaining them because if you don’t entertain them they risk to do stupid things and causing problems??? I’m not a clown; I don’t want spending my time in entertaining the mass!
May be I’m a little in advance on my time but the you’re in late: panem et circenses time is over. We can make our bread ourselves! Soon we won’t need the mass anymore and thus we won’t need a government. Why do you want to keep them alive?

About the means to realize the “vision” there are many options amongst which totalitarianism and anarchy.

About the “vision” it’s about controlling this


or that

Top
#37527 - 04/11/10 07:54 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



The below quote is from Hitler:

“National socialism is the determination to create a new man. There will no longer exist any individual arbitrary will, nor realms in which the individual belongs to himself. The time of happiness as a private matter is over.”

Quoted in Joachim C. Fest, Hitler. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974, p. 533.

The below quote is from Ernst Huber:

“The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich. There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state. The member of the people, organically connected with the whole community, has replaced the isolated individual; he is included in the totality of the political people and is drawn into the collective action. There can no longer be any question of a private sphere, free of state influence, which is sacred and untouchable before the political unity. The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual.”

Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939), in Raymond E. Murphy, et al., ed., National Socialism, reprinted in Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, selected by Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado. Athens, OH: Swallow Press, 1952, p. 90.

The below quote is from Hitler:

“The State must act as the guardian of a millennial future in the face of which the wishes and the selfishness of the individual must appear as nothing and submit.”

Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim. Houghton Mifflin: 1971, p. 404.

“THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST.”
—NDSAP Program, Point 24, 1920

The below quote is from Alfredo Rocco:

“For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.”

Rocco, “The Political Doctrine of Fascism” (address delivered at Perugia, August 30, 1925), reprinted in Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, selected by Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado. Athens, OH: Swallow Press, 1952, p. 35.

Can somebody explain to me how Satanism, which values individualism above all else can be reconciled with Fascism?

How can a character or symbol such as Satan, who I see as the opposition to established power be related to a Fascist outlook on the world?

If the so called “Fascism” being promoted here in this thread is different than the Fascism advocated by people such as Hitler, Mussolini, Huber, Gentile, Rocco, Rosenberg etc. etc. than maybe some other word or term should be used to define it. Maybe a better definition of this strange new doctrine needs to be articulated as well.

I can understand that Satanism naturally is a philosophy which privileges elitism and social Darwinism of some sort and to some degree, but does the Fascism as defined above by Hitler, Huber and Rocco really sound attractive to Satanists. Keep in mind that everybody submits, not just the so called masses.

Are you prepared to submit as instructed?

Top
#37540 - 04/12/10 11:36 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You can reread my posts but as far as I know, I didn't use the S-word in them when talking about fascism. Maybe some interpreted my use of the word us with the idea I might have concluded them too but I can assure you, in most cases, I didn't.

As I explained before, fascism is there for them. We (don't get confused ;\) ) don't need government. We can govern ourselves. It is not because we live amongst them that we live like them. If you are afraid you will have to submit under fascism, you already identify yourself with them. I don't, so what is the difference between us? We probably live different lives.

I find it amusing you dislike the word fascism because of the common interpretation. It amuses me to use it for that very reason. I could easily speak of an organic state, to soften the concept but why would I? Isn't it a common thing in Satanism to use words according their own definition instead of the general interpretation? The S-word itself directly comes to mind, ironic isn't it?

To Fabiano; I'd not mind debating the technological system you dream about but I don't think this is the thread to go into a long debate whether a system of techno-slavery is a desired direction or not. Maybe create a post about your views and I'll happily smash them to pieces. ;\)

D.

Top
#37543 - 04/12/10 01:36 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Diavolo, don't misunderstand me. I don't have a dream, mankind has one...

And I still don't have an answer to my question (which is not off topic) : why do you need a government/state ?

About S-word, I know Satanists like to be "shocking" but if you call this

a dragon, don't be surprise it causes some confusion and misundertanding. If you could give a definition of an organic state (or Fascism) it would clarify. \:\)


Edited by Fabiano (04/12/10 02:00 PM)

Top
#37547 - 04/12/10 04:39 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
Government is a naturally forming entity. Government is just another piece of the social darwinist clockwork. In an anarchy you'll inevitably get a group of power hungry people that get together and start calling themselves revolutionaries. They'll talk to the people and tell them all the problems in their life are from the lack of order. They'll write laws, their followers will enforce the laws they wright. Who the hell's going to stop them? Nobody but other gangs looking for the same thing.

Anarchy just turned into a government. A weak government is just asking for a stronger gang to take over. No government is just begging to be controlled by the first gang that wants it.

The closest thing to a lasting anarchy is when multiple gangs are fighting over power and nobody is clearly in control. Places like that aren't known for their extraordinary living conditions.

Top
#37548 - 04/12/10 05:04 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think I answered the question before but to give a short and sweet answer; I prefer a State because it is effective where I am not. I think that sums it up pretty good.

Now to explain my fascism, I think it is handy if you first read this book. Yeah goddamn, effort required, don't we all hate that. ;\)

Julius Evola - Men Among the Ruins

If you make an account there, you can download it in several formats. Or you can buy it and read the real thing. They got a shipload of other quite interesting books too, that is, if you search a bit. Mind you, Evola isn't the easiest read and he can get lost into mysticism but his views upon fascism are quite interesting. Also keep in mind that the book is written quite some time ago.
I know most will quickly google or wiki some basic info but not until you struggle through this, you'll have a fair idea of the basics of an organic state. Of course you are free to not read it and continue the very ideas our brothers of the Left have been spoonfeeding for decades.

D.

Top
#37550 - 04/12/10 05:34 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
to TV: You're right, nothing is eternal. This applies to everything...

To Diavolo: I just finished reading the last sentence of "Atlas Shrugged", right now. Wasn't really an effort, I would rather say a pleasure \:\) Ca tombe à pic, I just need another book now. ;\)

Knowledge is never bad...

Top
Page 4 of 7 « First<23456>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.035 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.