Your Political Philosophy is Wrong - Change My Mind

Debates: 7

Posts: 1,018

3

2

6

08.10.2018 07:46PM

3

2

6

08.10.2018 07:46PM

-->

@JusticeWept

Hard paleoconservatism as opposed to neoconservatism, which in many respects is too liberal and which wrongly worships laissez-faire capitalism as the highest good for a nation.

Race is a very powerful idea: it causes you to perceive certain people as "your people" to the exclusion of everybody else. It causes you to perceive those on the outside as a potential threat and perhaps eternal enemy. The idea has in modern times especially captured the imaginations of people of color, who all perceive themselves as being threatened by and victims of the white majority. People hate what they fear and resent, usually. So that means "white" Americans (those of European, non-Hispanic, non-Jewish, non-Roma descent) are regularly scapegoated for all the problems faced by these groups, and will accordingly be punished if they lose the majority needed to stave these people off.

White Americans post-Civil Rights Era largely stopped thinking about race. This was kind of coarse in that it caused them to fail to acknowledge the inequalities and injustices faced by, say, Black Americans, but on the flip side it meant that they regarded their identity as Americans as being more important than their identities as Whites. Before this, in the age of White Supremacy, they were generally powerful enough a majority that they could afford to make race less of a concern than, say, foreign policy and the economy. Hence, these white people who made up the majority have always been Americans first.

But what will happen if that majority is lost? What if People of Color become the majority? Well, they're still fixated on their status as victims and marginalized peoples, so that identity naturally comes first to them, their identities as Americans coming second. They will always flock to vote in monolithic blocs for whatever party panders to their demographic, and post-1968 that's been the Democratic Party. So once they become the majority, the end result will be a one-party state for the rest of time, like we've seen in Mexico. As these groups are much poorer than their white counterparts on average, they're always going to vote for the left-wing populists who promise to redistribute the wealth. Latin Americans are especially vulnerable to the siren's call of demagogues, as history has shown. Rule of law will be eroded, a cycle of dictatorships will take the place of our 200+ year old democracy. The economy will stagnate and decline.

For the above reason, I regard it as imperative that a comfortable white majority (say, 70%) be sustained in these lands, at least until the present mentality of non-whites (of course I'm speaking in generalizations, not on the level of every non-white individual living in the US) can be broken. Once this majority is ensured, I would support greater measures to combat racial inequality, though NOT the welfare state as we have it now, as this only perpetuates poverty in the long term.

In the America that I'd like to see, our economy would consist of untold millions of highly skilled workers, able to compete in the international market, and against the machines, ready to export our goods to a world ready to consume those goods. These skilled workers would get together to form business syndicates and share the responsibilities, workload, and profits of their enterprises. The vast majority of hardworking Americans could afford to own their home, get married, have kids. We would not be a wasteful people but all the byproducts of industry and consumption would be readily recycled. We would primarily rely upon renewable energies, especially nuclear, solar, and ethanol.

Most Americans would be religious, that religion being Christianity (and especially Protestant Christianity). Most children would be raised in a somewhat religious home, and would stay away from vices like drugs and promiscuity, but at the same time most people would not really start taking religion seriously until, say, their 20s or 30s. They'd enjoy happy childhoods, playing outside and hanging out with friends; most parents would limit the use of electronics in their households and especially for younger children. Most kids would attend public schools, as a way of ensuring social cohesion. English would be the undisputed national language, and all second-generation immigrants would end up becoming fluent in it. Most people would trust in the government, and for good reason, and they would be able to trust that when they turned on the news they wouldn't be fed a bunch of propaganda. We would be a democracy in which voter turnout was high in most elections, and especially in presidential elections. There would be two parties, one center-left and one center-right, to ensure a balance.

#35

Debates: 7

Posts: 1,018

3

2

6

08.10.2018 07:53PM

3

2

6

08.10.2018 07:53PM

The white birth rate could be increased via implementing paid maternity leave, abolishing social security (for white people under the age of 30 at the time of implementation with the understanding that their only security rested in either saving up a butt ton of money or having children to support them in their old age), and incentivizing people of color to undergo sterilizations or to otherwise not have children. These birth control measures would not include abortion, as that is murder in my opinion and thus should not be legal.

#36

Debates: 4

Posts: 2,355

3

4

8

08.10.2018 07:59PM

3

4

8

08.10.2018 07:59PM

To increase white births, you first must increase America's standard of living.

#37

Debates: 7

Posts: 1,018

3

2

6

08.10.2018 08:02PM

3

2

6

08.10.2018 08:02PM

-->

@Earth

Not necessarily. You just have to make having a family affordable, and to make it easier to find a spouse. That's the big kicker. Even I of all people would like to have kids one day.

#38

Debates: 4

Posts: 3,178

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:03PM

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:03PM

-->

@Earth

Or make people less intelligent overall. Don't birthrates correlate highly with intelligence? The higher intelligence goes, the lower birth rates seem to drop? 🤔

#39

Debates: 7

Posts: 1,018

3

2

6

08.10.2018 08:03PM

3

2

6

08.10.2018 08:03PM

That is to say, I think even those people who are like "Nah kids sound like a lot of trouble I love being a bachelor" will eventually reach a point where they'd like to have kids. It's part of who we are, and modern hedonism can't take that away from us entirely.

#40

Debates: 7

Posts: 1,018

3

2

6

08.10.2018 08:05PM

3

2

6

08.10.2018 08:05PM

-->

@Buddamoose

As I've said before (not here necessarily but perhaps on DDO), IQ doesn't matter as much as environment. We can cultivate an environment where people are able to put their full potential to use. Being intellectually stimulated as a child (or lack thereof) will do a lot to determine how well you manage later in life.

#41

Debates: 4

Posts: 2,355

3

4

8

08.10.2018 08:10PM

3

4

8

08.10.2018 08:10PM

-->

@Buddamoose

@Swagnarok

50s America was pretty smart. Though making raising a family affordable is the main thing, which is what I meant

#42

Debates: 7

Posts: 1,018

3

2

6

08.10.2018 08:13PM

3

2

6

08.10.2018 08:13PM

A lot of men in my generation (and perhaps myself as well) are stuck in a rut where they don't really know what to do with their lives and they end up just doing nothing. They indulge in pleasures like video games (along with near-constantly sitting down) and eating junk food. They get fat, fail to develop vital social skills, and ultimately fail find a wife. This is a big problem that has to be resolved. Military service is really something that could correct this problem, but we have far more young people than the number of soldiers that we need. So something else would have to be found to take its place.

#43

Debates: 4

Posts: 3,178

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:19PM

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:19PM

This is true, environment also plays a large factor. Wasn't trying to say it didn't, just that lowering intelligence purposefully should see at minimum a slight corresponding rise to birthrates 🤔.

A much more effective measure would be making having a family more affordable, incentivizing dual parent households, and I would say also, perhaps offering additional tax credits for children, but keeping the credit lower for single parent homes.

Money is after all, quite the incentive

#44

Debates: 4

Posts: 3,178

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:20PM

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:20PM

-->

@Swagnarok

The military would have little issue filling its ranks if it relaxed intelligence standards for gruntwork. As it stands the US military arbitrarily sets it at what, 80 I think, when its like, no, you don't need to be that smart to clean latrines, transport equipment, and other similar grunt work positions.

#45

Debates: 4

Posts: 2,355

3

4

8

08.10.2018 08:21PM

3

4

8

08.10.2018 08:21PM

-->

@Buddamoose

Then we have the problem of college. I'm sure a lot of parents fear for their children's future if they can't pay for their children's college.

#46

Debates: 4

Posts: 3,178

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:23PM

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:23PM

I would even go so far as to say only non-combat work. You absolutely do need intelligence in combat. Plus, using the dumb as bullet fodder is just reprehensible morally fmpov, even if actually not that bad strategically 🤔

#47

Debates: 4

Posts: 3,178

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:27PM

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:27PM

-->

@Earth

This is true, but universities are really losing their stranglehold on higher education. Some smartest people ive met are High School educated but they just consume all kinds of knowledge. Like i met this Truck Driver once, who just talked for hours specifically about Napoleonic Warfare and different battles, strategies, etc. and i was like, "holy shit, you should write a book 😮"

Theres a great thirst for knowledge out there, and the internet and other forms of media are really starting to allow those who cant afford to go, to continue educating themselves to a really fine extent 🤔

#48

Debates: 4

Posts: 3,178

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:30PM

2

3

6

08.10.2018 08:30PM

Which is just grand imho. Like, as days go by ive noticed I'm encountering less and less people that couldnt give an expert level opinion on at least one field of study regardless of whether they have a degree or not. That's beautiful AF to me and makes me super hopeful about the future in terms of when I'm already dead and gone

#49

Debates: 4

Posts: 2,355

3

4

8

08.10.2018 08:34PM

3

4

8

08.10.2018 08:34PM

-->

@Buddamoose

Sadly, more and more jobs require a degree. And they pay less too. Weee.

#50

Debates: 4

Posts: 3,178

2

3

6

08.10.2018 09:29PM

2

3

6

08.10.2018 09:29PM

-->

@Earth

Yeah, credentials are still important. I cant help but feel the system could be tweaked to where its not as expensive to obtain those credentials. Like for example, it may be preferable someone to have gone through 4-8 years taking approved courses so you get a good foundation to build a specialization on.

But i cant help but think, if someone can come in and drop an amazing thesis paper down on a specific field of study and could verify they have shit down pat through testing, we should reasonably do away with the process and give them the recognition of credentials as they have proved they are deserving of them 🤔

#51

Debates: 4

Posts: 3,178

2

3

6

08.10.2018 09:30PM

2

3

6

08.10.2018 09:30PM

And not have it be an "honorary degree" but an actual one 🤔

#52

Analgesic.Spectre

Debates: 1

Posts: 468

1

6

Analgesic.Spectre

08.10.2018 11:06PM

1

6

08.10.2018 11:06PM

-->

@JusticeWept

I think a reasonable definition of morality is, "the answer to the question, 'what ought I (not) do?'"...

I see this is a reversal of cause and effect. Whilst I agree that people *may* ask this question, I don't think it's the first thing they do in order to determine morality. It's how, as you referred to earlier, people are against homosexual marriage because it is "gross". This is not a response that is retrieved from cerebral essence. It's a visceral reaction, one in which the subconscious brain is expressed by the conscious. It's only after this visceral reaction occurs that people then attempt to justify it. Again, if it was the other way around, "gross" would never be part of a morality discussion.

Sure, morality might be expressed this way for a reason (pro-social behaviour enforced by evolutionary instincts, of which came to be due to real reasons), *but* no one is going to articulate this *before* they feel what they think is moral.

That aside, I take issue with your assertion that political thought is more "empirical". What do you mean by that?

We can use statistics to make cases for political comments. For example, if I wanted to make the claim 'Muslims are violent', we can check crime statistics worldwide, compare them with other groups (Christians, Jews etc.), and then make empirical conclusions. We can also go into the genetic composition of a random sample of Muslims (if that data existed), and perform similar comparisons to reach similar conclusions.

As expressed earlier, morality is a feel first, rationalise later venture -- empirical data would be hard pressed to enter accompany such a venture.

Conviction in your philosophical beliefs is perfectly fine; that's what a belief is, as you can't believe something you hold no conviction in. But, being unwilling to entertain a differing view is (in most cases) counterproductive and makes you worse at thinking.

There are two wildly different interests at play. If your conviction is so low that you are willing to change your view, then is it a conviction at all? In order to make use of a conviction, in order to fight for say free speech or an Islamic Caliphate, can you afford to harbour seeds of doubt? Does the insanity of conviction outweigh the benefits of a firm resolve?

people are bad at political philosophy because they aren't cautious and self-questioning enough

I think that's part of the reason; I've already expressed what I see to be the other parts.

"Identity" is an abstract concept, so please elaborate.

Where one non-physically positions oneself in existence, by attempting to recognise the differences between oneself and others (the perceptions of others forms your true self).

What is the role of government in a society?

Ideally, to benefit society. But that depends entirely on the people it wishes to govern, seeing that no group is the same. As Joseph de Maistre once wrote, "I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him."

To briefly illustrate, a Muslim dominated society such as Saudi Arabia would prefer the fusion of religion and government. However, a white nationalist society might prefer separation of church and state, because it doesn't deem the religious infighting that results as worth it.

A government designed for all is designed for none.

#53

Debates: 0

Posts: 18

0

2

08.10.2018 11:18PM

0

2

08.10.2018 11:18PM

-->

@JusticeWept

I am an anti-corporate, pro labor, environmentalist, nationalist, luddite.

Change my mind

#54

Debates: 0

Posts: 18

0

2

08.10.2018 11:19PM

0

2

08.10.2018 11:19PM

-->

@Swagnarok

Yas King

#55

Debates: 0

Posts: 18

0

2