Your political orientation

[CTALNH]

Libertarianism is a far left ideology. The Nolan Chart absurdly claims that one can simultaneously support and oppose hierarchies at the same time.
What about your views are authoritarian and how do you still feel as though you can identify as a libertarian socialist if you feel your views are authoritarian?

Libertarianism is right wing as it favours freedom.

No. Libertarianism is too broad of an ideology to cram into a single right left wing axis.

[Threlizdun]

Libertarianism is a far left ideology. The Nolan Chart absurdly claims that one can simultaneously support and oppose hierarchies at the same time.
What about your views are authoritarian and how do you still feel as though you can identify as a libertarian socialist if you feel your views are authoritarian?

Libertarianism is right wing as it favours freedom.

Libertarianism does favor freedom, which can be seen in its foundation amongst socialists to represent the liberty and egalitarianism of the left. The right represents hierarchies and subsequently tyranny.

[Fjormark]

My politicial orientation pretty much suits the ideals of nationalism/meritocracy/traditionalism/reactionism/monarchism, maybe fascism might be a good summary of all those things, although association to monarchism might not be inherent to fascism, the idea of a great leader to rule the people is.

[Udinia]

My politicial orientation pretty much suits the ideals of nationalism/meritocracy/traditionalism/reactionism/monarchism, maybe fascism might be a good summary of all those things, although association to monarchism might not be inherent to fascism, the idea of a great leader to rule the people is.

I'd steer clear of fascism if I were you, especially if you truely are comminted to meritocracy. Some form of nationalist syndicalism would suit your purposes better.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

My politicial orientation pretty much suits the ideals of nationalism/meritocracy/traditionalism/reactionism/monarchism, maybe fascism might be a good summary of all those things, although association to monarchism might not be inherent to fascism, the idea of a great leader to rule the people is.

I'd steer clear of fascism if I were you, especially if you truely are comminted to meritocracy. Some form of nationalist syndicalism would suit your purposes better.

I find some purposes for meritocracy.

For instance, I genuinely believe America would do well to adapt exams before any candidate can run which test them on the politics they are trying to run for: local, state, or national.

We have many stupid politicians in congress and in our state and local legislatures and councils as is.

[Fjormark]

I'd steer clear of fascism if I were you, especially if you truely are comminted to meritocracy. Some form of nationalist syndicalism would suit your purposes better.

But the thing is fascism rewards individuals through merit, there is a constant need to prove your worth to your nation through hard work and selflessness which rewards the individuals with merit for their service to their nation. Fascism would be the most ideal political association for meritocracy. I could give you an example of fascist thought where they hold soldiers of the nation as the highest form of selflessness and human value, which they are seen with praise and reward due to the love of their nation.

[Udinia]

I'd steer clear of fascism if I were you, especially if you truely are comminted to meritocracy. Some form of nationalist syndicalism would suit your purposes better.

I find some purposes for meritocracy.

For instance, I genuinely believe America would do well to adapt exams before any candidate can run which test them on the politics they are trying to run for: local, state, or national.

We have many stupid politicians in congress and in our state and local legislatures and councils as is.

I like that idea actually, an exam for politicians. Especially since most of the politicians don't even understand what is going on in the world.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'd steer clear of fascism if I were you, especially if you truely are comminted to meritocracy. Some form of nationalist syndicalism would suit your purposes better.

But the thing is fascism rewards individuals through merit, there is a constant need to prove your worth to your nation through hard work and selflessness which rewards the individuals with merit for their service to their nation. Fascism would be the most ideal political association for meritocracy. I could give you an example of fascist thought where they hold soldiers of the nation as the highest form of selflessness and human value, which they are seen with praise and reward due to the love of their nation.

Not really.

While that's one form of meritocracy, it isn't the best form of meritocracy.

Meritocracy has as an ideal to have highly specialized positions due to their ability/knowledge.

Being patriotic and selfless doesn't prove you actually know anything.

[Fjormark]

Not really.

While that's one form of meritocracy, it isn't the best form of meritocracy.

Meritocracy has as an ideal to have highly specialized positions due to their ability/knowledge.

Being patriotic and selfless doesn't prove you actually know anything.

I guess meritocracy could be subjective in terms of what it means to have merit, in the case of fascism merit is given to those who prove their value through hard work and selflessness to the best of their abilities, regardless if they are knowledgeable; this can be seen through the fascist idea of 'trenchocracy'.

[Udinia]

I'd steer clear of fascism if I were you, especially if you truely are comminted to meritocracy. Some form of nationalist syndicalism would suit your purposes better.

But the thing is fascism rewards individuals through merit, there is a constant need to prove your worth to your nation through hard work and selflessness which rewards the individuals with merit for their service to their nation. Fascism would be the most ideal political association for meritocracy. I could give you an example of fascist thought where they hold soldiers of the nation as the highest form of selflessness and human value, which they are seen with praise and reward due to the love of their nation.

Believe me when I say this, there isn't a thing you can tell me about fascism that I don’t already know. I've done the whole third position thing, it's all lies. Fascists, like anyother capitalists, are mistaken in that they believe their ideological paradigm rewards the people for their loyalty and hard work, when the opposite is the case. Fascism will simply devour the collective spirit of a nation a plunge a dagger in itself.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But the thing is fascism rewards individuals through merit, there is a constant need to prove your worth to your nation through hard work and selflessness which rewards the individuals with merit for their service to their nation. Fascism would be the most ideal political association for meritocracy. I could give you an example of fascist thought where they hold soldiers of the nation as the highest form of selflessness and human value, which they are seen with praise and reward due to the love of their nation.

Believe me when I say this, there isn't a thing you can tell me about fascism that I don’t already know. I've done the whole third position thing, it's all lies. Fascists, like anyother capitalists, are mistaken in that they believe their ideological paradigm rewards the people for their loyalty and hard work, when the opposite is the case. Fascism will simply devour the collective spirit of a nation a plunge a dagger in itself.

Isn't fascism a pretty bland ideology which promotes absolute obedience and loyalty to the state?

[Camelza]

Social liberal(very much so) with center-right keynesian opinions on economics.
I would label myself a liberal centrist.

[Udinia]

Believe me when I say this, there isn't a thing you can tell me about fascism that I don’t already know. I've done the whole third position thing, it's all lies. Fascists, like anyother capitalists, are mistaken in that they believe their ideological paradigm rewards the people for their loyalty and hard work, when the opposite is the case. Fascism will simply devour the collective spirit of a nation a plunge a dagger in itself.

Isn't fascism a pretty bland ideology which promotes absolute obedience and loyalty to the state?

Fascism is anything, but bland, it has a very colorful and poetic body of literature, but it's all for not. While it is a proletarian ideology in theory its very design and raison d'etre make it lose touch with its syndicalist roots such that whenever it is realized in a nation, it allies itself with the bourgeoisie. The fatal flaw of fascism is that it mutates itself to accommodate ethnic nationalism at the expense of all else. It is a creed that is without ethics, without remorse, and relishes savagery and barbarism.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

I'm a National Collectivist, which is a form of modernized National Socialism.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

Isn't fascism a pretty bland ideology which promotes absolute obedience and loyalty to the state?

Fascism is anything, but bland, it has a very colorful and poetic body of literature, but it's all for not. While it is a proletarian ideology in theory its very design and raison d'etre make it lose touch with its syndicalist roots such that whenever it is realized in a nation, it allies itself with the bourgeoisie. The fatal flaw of fascism is that it mutates itself to accommodate ethnic nationalism at the expense of all else. It is a creed that is without ethics, without remorse, and relishes savagery and barbarism.

Bourgeoisie is a tool, and focusing on ethnic nationalism is superior to all else because it defines the in group and out group. "Savagery" and "Barbarism" is subjective, I mean letting foreign hordes into your nations to pilfer your economy and kill people they disagree with seems quite barbarous to me.

[Camelza]

Fascism is anything, but bland, it has a very colorful and poetic body of literature, but it's all for not. While it is a proletarian ideology in theory its very design and raison d'etre make it lose touch with its syndicalist roots such that whenever it is realized in a nation, it allies itself with the bourgeoisie. The fatal flaw of fascism is that it mutates itself to accommodate ethnic nationalism at the expense of all else. It is a creed that is without ethics, without remorse, and relishes savagery and barbarism.

Bourgeoisie is a tool, and focusing on ethnic nationalism is superior to all else because it defines the in group and out group. "Savagery" and "Barbarism" is subjective, I mean letting foreign hordes into your nations to pilfer your economy and kill people they disagree with seems quite barbarous to me.

The majority of modern immigrants are just people with their families that try to make a living to maintain their families, nothing more, nothing less. I haven't heard of any immigrant hordes that ravage and pillage countries.
Yourself being a citizen of a nation that was built by immigrants is quite hilarious.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

Bourgeoisie is a tool, and focusing on ethnic nationalism is superior to all else because it defines the in group and out group. "Savagery" and "Barbarism" is subjective, I mean letting foreign hordes into your nations to pilfer your economy and kill people they disagree with seems quite barbarous to me.

The majority of modern immigrants are just people with their families that try to make a living to maintain their families, nothing more, nothing less. I haven't heard of any immigrant hordes that ravage and pillage countries.
Yourself being a citizen of a nation that was built by immigrants is quite hilarious.

Yet they add nothing to the nation. Why should we take in immigrants, when they refuse to adopt our culture and utilize OUR resources.

Canada was built by colonization by Anglo Saxons (Who are and were the dominant ethnicity and real Canadians). It wasn't founded by "immigrants", it's currently being poisoned by thousands of them now though.

[Camelza]

The majority of modern immigrants are just people with their families that try to make a living to maintain their families, nothing more, nothing less. I haven't heard of any immigrant hordes that ravage and pillage countries.
Yourself being a citizen of a nation that was built by immigrants is quite hilarious.

Yet they add nothing to the nation. Why should we take in immigrants, when they refuse to adopt our culture and utilize OUR resources.

By the moment immigrants step into a country, start working and pay taxes, they automatically become citizens of said country, so it is THEIR resources as well.
Culture is a very vague term.

Canada was built by colonization by Anglo Saxons (Who are and were the dominant ethnicity and real Canadians). It wasn't founded by "immigrants", it's currently being poisoned by thousands of them now though.

Actually it was first built by colonising French as the name of your country would indicate, alongside some far smaller British colonies. Furthermore, colonists are practically immigrants and ever since the 19th century Canada had many immigration waves from all around the world leading to a society quite similar to that of the US.

[Old Tyrannia]

The majority of modern immigrants are just people with their families that try to make a living to maintain their families, nothing more, nothing less. I haven't heard of any immigrant hordes that ravage and pillage countries.
Yourself being a citizen of a nation that was built by immigrants is quite hilarious.

Yet they add nothing to the nation. Why should we take in immigrants, when they refuse to adopt our culture and utilize OUR resources.

Canada was built by colonization by Anglo Saxons (Who are and were the dominant ethnicity and real Canadians). It wasn't founded by "immigrants", it's currently being poisoned by thousands of them now though.

Unless you are from a First Nations background, you have no right to be complaining about foreign immigrants invading your country and failing to adopt your culture while utilising "your" resources.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

Yet they add nothing to the nation. Why should we take in immigrants, when they refuse to adopt our culture and utilize OUR resources.

By the moment immigrants step into a country, start working and pay taxes, they automatically become citizens of said country, so it is THEIR resources as well.
Culture is a very vague term.

Canada was built by colonization by Anglo Saxons (Who are and were the dominant ethnicity and real Canadians). It wasn't founded by "immigrants", it's currently being poisoned by thousands of them now though.

Actually it was first built by colonising French as the name of your country would indicate, alongside some far smaller British colonies. Furthermore, colonists are practically immigrants and ever since the 19th century Canada had many immigration waves from all around the world leading to a society quite similar to that of the US.

They don't pay taxes, especially in France where they live in government provided housing, where they're too low income to pay the heavily lopsided taxes.

Colonists are not immigrants, considering they're basically just moving into the territory of what was an Imperial Power. Native Americans did not operate countries or nation states, therefore Europeans were not immigrants.

Immigrants have no claim to be there, they poison with their inferior culture, and refuse to accept our beliefs. They have no entitlement to be in Europe.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

Yet they add nothing to the nation. Why should we take in immigrants, when they refuse to adopt our culture and utilize OUR resources.

Canada was built by colonization by Anglo Saxons (Who are and were the dominant ethnicity and real Canadians). It wasn't founded by "immigrants", it's currently being poisoned by thousands of them now though.

Unless you are from a First Nations background, you have no right to be complaining about foreign immigrants invading your country and failing to adopt your culture while utilising "your" resources.

"First Nations"

Except, the Native Americans were too savage to actually operate countries, and were too inferior to actually have claim to the land. They didn't even believe you could own the land.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

They don't pay taxes, especially in France where they live in government provided housing, where they're too low income to pay the heavily lopsided taxes.

Colonists are not immigrants, considering they're basically just moving into the territory of what was an Imperial Power. Native Americans did not operate countries or nation states, therefore Europeans were not immigrants.
Immigrants have no claim to be there, they poison with their inferior culture, and refuse to accept our beliefs. They have no entitlement to be in Europe.

Please, go back to stormfront, you're poisoning NS' political culture.

When you're beat an argument, you don't sing "LALALA" you change your views or respond with an argument.

Go to your hug box if you can't stand opposing opinions.

[Camelza]

By the moment immigrants step into a country, start working and pay taxes, they automatically become citizens of said country, so it is THEIR resources as well.
Culture is a very vague term.

Actually it was first built by colonising French as the name of your country would indicate, alongside some far smaller British colonies. Furthermore, colonists are practically immigrants and ever since the 19th century Canada had many immigration waves from all around the world leading to a society quite similar to that of the US.

They don't pay taxes, especially in France where they live in government provided housing, where they're too low income to pay the heavily lopsided taxes.

Source.

Colonists are not immigrants, considering they're basically just moving into the territory of what was an Imperial Power. Native Americans did not operate countries or nation states, therefore Europeans were not immigrants.

Colonists are technically immigrants and even if the first colonists were French, there have been many immigration waves towards your country the last 200 hundred years, as such it is quite possible for you to have an, ie; Russian ancestor that came in a steamboat during the early 20th century.

Immigrants have no claim to be there, they poison with their inferior culture, and refuse to accept our beliefs. They have no entitlement to be in Europe.

I thought you were Canadian?

[Camelza]

Please, go back to stormfront, you're poisoning NS' political culture.

When you're beat an argument, you don't sing "LALALA" you change your views or respond with an argument.

Go to your hug box if you can't stand opposing opinions.

You didn't understand the irony of what I posted, did you?

[Old Tyrannia]

Unless you are from a First Nations background, you have no right to be complaining about foreign immigrants invading your country and failing to adopt your culture while utilising "your" resources.

"First Nations"

Except, the Native Americans were too savage to actually operate countries, and were too inferior to actually have claim to the land. They didn't even believe you could own the land.

So your argument is that your ancestors taking territory from the native peoples was justified because they were more "savage" than Europeans and too "inferior" to rule the land? By this argument, any country with the military superiority necessary to subjugate another has the right to do so, which I suppose is entirely in line with fascism but seems an odd sentiment coming from a citizen of a country with a much more populous and militarily powerful neighbour to the south.

I'm also unsure how you're defining country. You are aware surely that prior to- and for a long time after- the arrival of Europeans in North America, the natives had a complex social and political structure that governed very large numbers of people? Just because their culture was different, doesn't make it inferior.