 |
Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent Cyber7878's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission. |
Organization
Formalism: Democracy (and republican dictatorship) doesn't work. The disconnect between actual power and recognised power (i.e. people in government don't have a stake in the country) leads to demagogic crooks taking power by promising to help people, only for them to use their power to sack the wealth of productive citizens and/or give special privileges to lobbyists in exchange for large sums of money in the form of "campaign donations" and/or a high ranking position in one of the lobbyist companies, precisely because they have no stake in the country and are accountable to no one, unlike a monarch, who technically owns the country and therefore has the biggest possible stake in it, or a board of directors and its appointees (CEOs, CFOs, CTOs etc.), who are accountable to shareholders who do. As such, i support the establishment of city-states ruled by both. Citizenship (and therefore the right to elect and be elected) would be tied to ownership of stock in the company and residence within its jurisdiction. A Board of Directors (or BoD for short) elected by citizen-shareholders would supervise the activities of the corporation and act as a legislative branch, while a semi-constitutional monarch would be in charge of the activities that the BoD supervises, and would have strong executive powers.
Confederacies: If left to their own devices, city-states almost always get conquered by larger countries, so it would be logical for them to form confederacies to protect their independence and advance their foreign policy interests, similar to the Old Swiss Confederacy. These confederacies would be controlled by confederal BoDs, elected by the state BoDs, which would manage matters concerning foreign policy.
Economics
Regulation: History has shown that minimal regulation is the key to a prosperous economy and wealthy populous. Markets are a pretty good method of economic organization, and regulating them too much leads to inefficiencies, misaligned incentives and barriers to entry that benefit business cartels, but some regulations are necessary to protect the rights of workers and consumers, similar to how some state and some laws are required to protect the rights of citizens.
Monetary policy: History has also shown that free banking is the most beneficial monetary policy, because private banks have strong incentive against subprime lending, which is responsible for the speculative bubbles that caused most of the economic crises in the last 120 years. No subprime lending=no speculative bubbles=way less economic crises. Also free banking gives people the freedom to choose their currency, which is also good.
Georgism: I support Georgism, as it is unfair that people profit off things they didn't create, like land, the commons (natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable Earth) and natural resources, often times only being able to do so through improvements created by other people, and thus profits from these should be "taxed" (though it could be argued that LVT and Pigouvian Taxes are not actually taxes, but rather reappropriation of stolen investment value and compensation for damages to the commons and extraction of resources which belong to us all, respectively). The advantages to these are the following:
- Incentivizing efficient land usage.
- Turning rent from a form of extortion into just another race to the bottom to provide a service for the lowest price while still turning a profit, as well as incentivize landlords to make money through additional services like protection, cleaning and repairs.
- Increasing urban density, which has a large slew of benefits such as reduced urban sprawl (which protects the environment), less obesity, lower crime rates, shorter commutes and stronger local businesses.
- Lowering the tax burden on improved property and agricultural soil, and increasing it on unused land, thereby making land speculation unprofitable.
- Giving back to the productive members of society who made the land valuable in the first place, and compensating them for pollution of the commons and resource exploitation, through a
Citizen's Dividend.
LVT and Pigouvian Taxes: Because of all the benefits i listed above (and the fact that they could be argued to not even be taxes), i support LVT and Pigouvian taxes. A portion of the revenue would go to the state (as it too, like productive members of society, creates improvements without which many wouldn't be able to profit off of land, the commons and natural resources, is impacted by the pollution of the commons and is part-owner of the natural resources of the country) while the rest would be distributed to all citizen-shareholders and non-citizen residents who are still employed by the end of the fiscal year or were employed for a majority of it (a total of 183 days or more) through a Citizen's Dividend.
(Mostly) Private Welfare: I, outside of the 
Citizen's Dividend (which technically isn't welfare but compensation for a variety of different things, as i explained in the Georgism section), oppose government welfare, and instead support private fraternal benefit societies, which were very widespread and extremely effective until governments regulated them out of existence. And the way they work prevents freeloading, as only those who've paid into the system would be allowed to cash out, thereby solving the main problem of open borders i.e. 
useless sand niggers coming in droves to the Yurop to leech off of welfare, refuse to integrate and form ethnic enclaves.
Neomercantilism: Tariffs and protectionism are a double-edged sword, it protects local industries, but also makes them less competitive, and the price increase the tariffs cause to imports has negative effects on domestic prices. The solution? Neomercantilism, reduce barriers to entry and increase incentives as much as possible, that will make domestic industries stay and attract foreign investment.
Foreign Policy
Neomedievalism: The world system and modern nation-states are two sides of the same coin, the latter is the former on a local scale and only only makes its job easier, because centralized authority on a national scale paves the way to centralized authority on a global scale. The apparently hypocritical move of siding with the world system, which many "nationalist" heads of state have done in recent years makes total sense once you realize this. Most "nationalist" leaders do not have their nations' best interest in mind, they're bureaucrats who only care about power, that's why when push comes to shove (like in our era of instability) they side with those who will help them maintain their power, the world system. The fascists were on point when they spoke about national palingenesis, because they too realized that the modern nation-state was just an instrument of power for the bureaucrats, the one ruling class archetype most defined by power, and would therefore be the most likely to sell out their nations to the world system, as opposed to the other 3 archetypes:
Merchants, who are most loyal to money, and would be very reluctant to sell out their country to the world system, as that would destroy its economic potential. As a matter of fact, the rise of the world system and its puppets, the modern nation-states, coincides with the bureaucrats overtaking the merchants as the ruling class of the west in the 20th century.
Priests, who are most loyal to their religion.
Warriors, who are most loyal to their fellow warriors.
Real nationalism can only come from these 3, not from the bureaucrats. Luckily for us, the very structures they built to keep themselves in power, the world system and modern nation-states, are both collapsing, and we're seeing a return to an international order analogous to that of europe during the high middle ages, where the lack of centralized power created a power vacuum that was filled by decentralized feudal states, merchant republics, peasants' republics, religious military orders and nomadic barbarians, which was basically the other 3 archetypes collectively dogpiling on the bureaucrats for ~400 years because everyone got to be the ruling class somewhere at some point, EXCEPT for the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats fear a return to this based order, they're rushing the "Great Reset" because they know that the pendulum is swinging in every direction except theirs, and they need to fully establish their order lest everything they had worked on collapses and allows the other 3 archetypes to carve out places for themselves in that new and chaotic world, so i, for one, welcome the collapse.
Culture
Total Free Association: Property owners should have right to exclude anyone from their property, for any reason. This right, by extension, also applies to covenant communities, who have the right to exclude anyone from territory within their jurisdiction. This would be the only method through which conservative morality (or any morality for that matter) could be legally enforced, because enforcing it through the government, either on the state or confederal level, would not only infringe upon people's rights and freedoms, but would also create a legal precedent that could be exploited by cultural marxists in the off-chance that they still take over despite the defensive measures my ideal government would take.
International Interculturalism (in Eastern Europe): I support co-existence, cross-cultural dialogue and interactions between the different cultures of Eastern Europe, we're not very different, after all, there's no point in constantly squabbling over our not-significant differences, and we have much bigger problems to deal with, like sand niggers.
Peri-urbanism: As 
TIIKKETMASTER has pointed out, the worst-off poors are the ones in urban areas, because you can't hunt, forage or farm in those areas, which means your survival is inevitably going to depend upon precarious jobs/government handouts/goodwill of passerbys. I support deurbanization, and the scattering of the population into peri-urban settlements (small town/village-sized settlements with urban infrastructure and amenities), because having the local clinic, grocery shop, bar, train station, countryside and wilderness all within the same walking distance from your house is pretty fucking cool, and so is being able to have a vegetable garden in your backyard.
Philosophy
Scientific Mysticism: A metaphysical theory based 2 profound scientific discoveries:
- In physics we've realized that reality can only exist if it's being perceived. Reality clearly exists even when we're not there to perceive it, so there's a high chance that our reality exists as a dream inside the mind of a higher being, thus proving idealistic monism.
- Research on psychedelics has proven they are indeed a window into a spirit world.
Stoic Virtue Ethics: Stoicism is the moral philosophy most fit for a european people, unlike abrahamic slave morality, which may very well be a psyop to destroy the west, as many of the ideological aberrations are downstream from secular humanism, which is simply the moral component of christianity (meekness, compassion, egalitarianism and universalism). Not much needs to be said about the moral philosophy itself, besides the fact that it is a virtue ethicist moral philosophy, which means it prioritizes moral character and action, as opposed to deontological ones which prioritize conformity; and its 4 virtues of Wisdom, Temperance, Justice and Courage. I won't really go into the specifics of it because at that point i'd just be copy-pasting the stoicism page on the Philosophyball Wiki, so i instead i invite you to go read that.
Right-Wing Progressivism: What is social progress? Most people will tell you that social progress is inherently left-wing, it's a moving of the moral circle to include those who leftists consider "oppressed" and "marginalized" and exclude those they consider "oppressors"; a "flattening of the hierarchy" that brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator for the sake of "equality (of outcomes)", which is inherently dysgenic and has catastrophic consequences, which might write about in greater detail on a subpage once i'm done here. This conception of social progress is downstream from humanist beliefs in the inherent goodness of human nature and blank slatism, both of which are disproven by science; human nature is, in most cases, neutral, and we all have different physical and intellectual potentials, which are 50 to 80% genetically determined. Downstream from these facts is a more darwinian definition of social progress: a one-directional, intergenerational change of a society towards improvement, an increase in evolutionary fitness. This progress is to be achieved through voluntary eugenics, high culture (such as stoicism), governance by those with a stake in the country, open society, education reform, and the market mechanism.
Burkeanism: Rights not grounded in tradition lead to chaos, that is a constant across history; every revolution that sought to completely dismantle a traditional order in favor of some abstract right led to chaos and sometimes bloodbath, a few examples would be the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Russian Revolution (and every other violent event that resulted in the rise of a communist regime), the Zimbabwean Civil War and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa. Revolution is only legitimate when it serves to reinstate a traditional order that enshrines the rights of free citizens, or to put into power people who, through gradual reform, would create one where it does not yet exist.
Public Relations
- Relations Page: Coming Soon
- Ask to be added/Comments: