What political ideology do you identify as?

[NabMex]

I subscribe to the ideology of anarcho-communism-conservatism-Reaganism-Shapiroism with strong support for the free market

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I mean, in the post you quoted (The one on assimilation), I was exaggerating my views for comedic effect. You don't go full Borg, for one should never go full Borg.

Genetic engineering and ai-control is already crossing a pretty big line for me. There's nothing democratic about it either, not that I am one to praise democracy

Then again, you don’t seem to be one to praise civilization, given your previous posts.

[Aleckandor]

As with regard to the notion of growing the citizenry in vats, what are you to propose as an alternative? I find the... traditional method of reproduction to be haphazard and fickle and uncontrollable. And that simply won't do in a proper civilization, you know?

I may be a bit of an authoritarian myself when it comes to what people think they are free to do with their bodies, but to actually go with the Huxleyan (is that how you would spell it?) mode of biological reproduction is what I would consider needless overcentralization and honestly yet another testament to this arrogant human drive to unceasingly find new ways to enslave nature to their will.

Human cultures are capable of abandoning particular traditions which in hindsight don’t make too much sense or seem dysfunctional and disordered, but I can’t think of anything right now where humans willingly cast off something so integral and perennial to their innate physicality that wasn’t the result of natural evolution.

Yes, pregnancy and childbirth are a risky business, the parenting and raising of children maybe even more so. Nobody is denying this. But we are imperfect creatures, so to assume that perfection can be begat by imperfection is - in my view - incorrect. If we are unable to exercise the functions we have as a sexually dimorphic creatures (i.e. male, female, the unity of opposites, the actions needed to be taken to bring forth and sustain new life)...well, then the symbolic and literal sacrifices underpinning parenthood – and ultimately that of the family unit itself, the bedrock of most or all rightly ordered human civilization - will be, at least to me, rendered meaningless.

Actually, now that I think about it, your technocracy + democracy thing makes a lot more sense now when the mandatory test-tube babies are factored in. When the state controls the means of REproduction, they can control what happens to whatever or whoever comes off the conveyor belt. Be ideal for creating a mega under-caste of bipedal drones that are perpetually docile and have no moral agency, huh?

[Kyrinasaj]

Genetic engineering and ai-control is already crossing a pretty big line for me. There's nothing democratic about it either, not that I am one to praise democracy

Then again, you don’t seem to be one to praise civilization, given your previous posts.

Post-industrial civilization. I am not an anprim like some people believe.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

As with regard to the notion of growing the citizenry in vats, what are you to propose as an alternative? I find the... traditional method of reproduction to be haphazard and fickle and uncontrollable. And that simply won't do in a proper civilization, you know?

*snip*

Actually, now that I think about it, your technocracy + democracy thing makes a lot more sense now when the mandatory test-tube babies are factored in. When the state controls the means of REproduction, they can control what happens to whatever or whoever comes off the conveyor belt. Be ideal for creating a mega under-caste of bipedal drones that are perpetually docile and have no moral agency, huh?

Why would I seek an under-caste of drones? This is one of the ways in which I differ from Huxley's "utopia". While the removal of humanity's psychological/neurological tendencies toward cruelty and malevolence and egoism and such is an essential part of "re-engineering the human soul", I nevertheless disagree with the caste system presented in Brave New World. Everyone will be mentally, physically, and most of all morally enhanced within the system I'm proposing. Not to mention that the very purpose of the world-state is be a force of enlightened benevolence, so as to ensure the well-being for all sapient beings (both digital and organic) within its domain.

EDIT: I mean, I consider such enhancements another aspect of the medical field, in that said enhancements are a part of improving quality-of-life/well-being. Why stop at arbitrary limits simply because it's "unnatural"? After all, it's natural that children die of polio, so thus the polio vaccine is immoral. (/s) Nature is neither good, nor bad. Nature is indifferent. Indeed, much as how I see it as a moral duty to improve access to medicine/healthcare across the world, so too do I view it as a moral duty to ensure that, in the near-future, access to genetic/cybernetic augmentation is conducted so as to be of benefit to my fellow persons.

EDIT II: I see it in my mind's eye, a world at peace and in prosperity, like a beautiful chorus in perfect and nigh-eternal harmony. Taking this analogy a tad further, our current world is like billions of dissonant and despairing voices shrieking and wailing and screaming out in suffering, crying out for salvation and a better world, you know?

EDIT III: As usual, I apologize if I've been impolite in any way.

EDIT IV: First paragraph edited slightly for clarity.

[Aleckandor]

Why would I seek an under-caste of drones? This is one of the ways in which I differ from Huxley's "utopia". While the removal of humanity's psychological/neurological tendencies toward cruelty and malevolence and egoism and such is an essential part of "re-engineering the human soul", I nevertheless disagree with the caste system presented in Brave New World. Everyone will be mentally, physically, and most of all morally enhanced within the system I'm proposing. Not to mention that the very purpose of the world-state is be a force of enlightened benevolence, so as to ensure the well-being for all sapient beings (both digital and organic) within its domain.

EDIT: I mean, I consider such enhancements another aspect of the medical field, in that said enhancements are a part of improving quality-of-life/well-being. Why stop at arbitrary limits simply because it's "unnatural"? After all, it's natural that children die of polio, so thus the polio vaccine is immoral. (/s) Nature is neither good, nor bad. Nature is indifferent. Indeed, much as how I see it as a moral duty to improve access to medicine/healthcare across the world, so too do I view it as a moral duty to ensure that, in the near-future, access to genetic/cybernetic augmentation is conducted so as to be of benefit to my fellow persons.

EDIT II: I see it in my mind's eye, a world at peace and in prosperity, like a beautiful chorus in perfect and nigh-eternal harmony. Taking this analogy a tad further, our current world is like billions of dissonant and despairing voices shrieking and wailing and screaming out in suffering, crying out for salvation and a better world, you know?

EDIT III: As usual, I apologize if I've been impolite in any way.

EDIT IV: First paragraph edited slightly for clarity.

Hey man, don't apologize for defending your point! It's a good response. But allow me to respond to said response:

See, the main difference between the development of the polio vaccine and your proposed artificial reproduction method is that the former is designed expressly to protect and prolong life rather than the latter's consequence of radically altering it far beyond a base somatic level. And of course nature is indifferent, I don't think or automatically assume that what is natural is good; however, with that said, since approaching the issue from a normative stance understandably bears little relevance to you, I can at least say that if it isn't fundamentally broken and/or inherently inefficient, I don't really see the point of abandoning the normal reproductive process. At the very least, though I would still have my personal reservations about it, your ideal world-state can have a policy that allows both the normal and artificial processes to coexist — the former being the voluntary choice of monogamous parents (licensed, preferably) wishing to start a family of their own (with some assistance from the state until the pregnancy is carried to term, I'm assuming), with the latter method continuing to be within the world-state's discretion like as originally proposed. On the issue of genetic/cybernetic augmentation, I can't really comment too much on it; I mean, it'd be kinda cool...but as with a lot of things I would find cool to speculate upon, it'd be only cool up until a certain point.

And moving away from that and on to your bigger-picture addendum about a world in eternal peace and harmony? A lofty goal, but I would only justify the unification of world into one continuous collective as opposed to having separate, smaller, more culturally/ideologically unique collectives we call the nations of today if there was some looming cataclysmic threat that intruded into our context and put the survival of all our collectives together in jeopardy. We can do our best to alleviate objective suffering and oppose deliberate villainy that happens in our time just as others have in other points in time before, but until the outside context problem arrives, I don't think we have to do this at the expense of the independent destinies of all the competing national communities that have risen and fallen over the ages. Perhaps, in theory, you can confederate different, disparate peoples into a system that defines them according to their corresponding unique bloc and probably start cooperating as a unit from there (i.e. a consociationalist system), but a true one-world government is off the table until an event comes along that really forces us to make one, otherwise we lose everything.

Who knows? Maybe you can argue that something current like climate change or nuclear proliferation or whatever is a grave enough threat to justify the world-state’s emergence or something.

[Havenburghe]

That's where I am.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Why would I seek an under-caste of drones? This is one of the ways in which I differ from Huxley's "utopia". While the removal of humanity's psychological/neurological tendencies toward cruelty and malevolence and egoism and such is an essential part of "re-engineering the human soul", I nevertheless disagree with the caste system presented in Brave New World. Everyone will be mentally, physically, and most of all morally enhanced within the system I'm proposing. Not to mention that the very purpose of the world-state is be a force of enlightened benevolence, so as to ensure the well-being for all sapient beings (both digital and organic) within its domain.

EDIT: I mean, I consider such enhancements another aspect of the medical field, in that said enhancements are a part of improving quality-of-life/well-being. Why stop at arbitrary limits simply because it's "unnatural"? After all, it's natural that children die of polio, so thus the polio vaccine is immoral. (/s) Nature is neither good, nor bad. Nature is indifferent. Indeed, much as how I see it as a moral duty to improve access to medicine/healthcare across the world, so too do I view it as a moral duty to ensure that, in the near-future, access to genetic/cybernetic augmentation is conducted so as to be of benefit to my fellow persons.

EDIT II: I see it in my mind's eye, a world at peace and in prosperity, like a beautiful chorus in perfect and nigh-eternal harmony. Taking this analogy a tad further, our current world is like billions of dissonant and despairing voices shrieking and wailing and screaming out in suffering, crying out for salvation and a better world, you know?

EDIT III: As usual, I apologize if I've been impolite in any way.

EDIT IV: First paragraph edited slightly for clarity.

Hey man, don't apologize for defending your point! It's a good response. But allow me to respond to said response:

See, the main difference between the development of the polio vaccine and your proposed artificial reproduction method is that the former is designed expressly to protect and prolong life rather than the latter's consequence of radically altering it far beyond a base somatic level. And of course nature is indifferent, I don't think or a[proposal=][/proposal]utomatically assume that what is natural is good; however, with that said, since approaching the issue from a normative stance understandably bears little relevance to you, I can at least say that if it isn't fundamentally broken and/or inherently inefficient, I don't really see the point of abandoning the normal reproductive process. At the very least, though I would still have my personal reservations about it, your ideal world-state can have a policy that allows both the normal and artificial processes to coexist — the former being the voluntary choice of monogamous parents (licensed, preferably) wishing to start a family of their own (with some assistance from the state until the pregnancy is carried to term, I'm assuming), with the latter method continuing to be within the world-state's discretion like as originally proposed. On the issue of genetic/cybernetic augmentation, I can't really comment too much on it; I mean, it'd be kinda cool...but as with a lot of things I would find cool to speculate upon, it'd be only cool up until a certain point.

And moving away from that and on to your bigger-picture addendum about a world in eternal peace and harmony? A lofty goal, but I would only justify the unification of world into one continuous collective as opposed to having separate, smaller, more culturally/ideologically unique collectives we call the nations of today if there was some looming cataclysmic threat intruded into our context and put the survival of all our collectives together in jeopardy. We can do our best to alleviate objective suffering and oppose deliberate villainy that happens in our time as it has in all other points in time before, but until the outside context problem arrives, I don't think we have to do this at the expense of the independent destinies of all the competing national communities that have risen and fallen over the ages. Perhaps, in theory, you can confederate different, disparate peoples into a system that defines them according to their corresponding unique bloc and probably start cooperating as a unit from there (i.e. a consociationalist system), but a true one-world government is off the table until an event comes along that really forces us to make one, otherwise we lose everything.

Who knows? Maybe you can argue that something current like climate change or nuclear proliferation or whatever is a grave enough threat to justify the world-state’s emergence or something.

Thank you for your response, I’ll take your criticisms into account and adjust accordingly. I can’t say much at the moment, since I prefer to go to sleep relatively early, but I understand that I may be thinking too far ahead, and in too too big of a picture, to the point that I’ve unintentionally blinded myself with my grandiose utopian visions and beliefs.

[Tigrexia]

Fascist-Communist

[Kubumba Tribe]

Fascist-Communist

Is this even possible?

[Misthas]

Fascist-Communist

Is this even possible?

They're on completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Havenburghe]

Fascist-Communist

That's not possible... Perhaps your thinking of Stalinism?

[Hatterleigh]

I'm an Alt-right, Anarcho-capitalist, Neo-Confederate with anarcho-transhumanist leanings. So I'm basically a Far-right libertarian, Southern Nationalist with libertarian transhumanist leanings.

You can't be all those at once, I don't think

[Aleckandor]

Fascist-Communist

That's not possible... Perhaps your thinking of Stalinism?

Or the whole NazBol G A N G meme

[Dark Socialism]

Fascist-Communist

Is this even possible?

No, one is based on destroying hiearchy the other about restoring hierarchy

[Lanoraie II]

I'm all over the place, in general, but especially in politics. If there's a such thing as a nationalist liberal, I guess that's me. Very keen on conservation of the ecosystem as well as conservation of the white race/conservation of countries and their people (regardless of race) in general. But not the death of other races. I have to stress this because otherwise I start getting private messages from self-identified nazis. Lately though I've been less into identity politics because I sway between "white people deserve to be protected" and "but does it really matter?" My nationalism is also not fully based on race--mostly is, but, say, immigrants who came to Denmark before the Euro migrant crisis and have lived there for a long time also deserve protection. It's a tricky line that changes depending on the country being discussed. I also am aware that asking people to go back to their war torn country and fix it themselves is not a good idea. I just wish they didn't have to flee from war, and didn't bring their....incompatible religion with them.

[Bestral]

Conservative.

[Major-Tom]

I'm all over the place, in general, but especially in politics. If there's a such thing as a nationalist liberal, I guess that's me. Very keen on conservation of the ecosystem as well as conservation of the white race/conservation of countries and their people (regardless of race) in general. But not the death of other races. I have to stress this because otherwise I start getting private messages from self-identified nazis. Lately though I've been less into identity politics because I sway between "white people deserve to be protected" and "but does it really matter?" My nationalism is also not fully based on race--mostly is, but, say, immigrants who came to Denmark before the Euro migrant crisis and have lived there for a long time also deserve protection. It's a tricky line that changes depending on the country being discussed. I also am aware that asking people to go back to their war torn country and fix it themselves is not a good idea. I just wish they didn't have to flee from war, and didn't bring their....incompatible religion with them.

"Very keen on the ecosystem."

Ok, yeah, cheers.

"Very keen on the conservation of the white race."

Okay, fuck that monstrosity of an idea. Besides, your biggest mistake is saying "well, it's not fully based on preserving race, but it is, but not really, it's a trickly line, it's about incompatible religion..."

No, I don't buy it, since you straight up admitted you want to preserve your race, because the survival of homo sapiens who don't produce enough melanin is clearly as important as saving and preserving the planet for all humans. Jesus Christ.

[New Anderia]

Syndicalist here

[Dark Socialism]

I'm all over the place, in general, but especially in politics. If there's a such thing as a nationalist liberal, I guess that's me. Very keen on conservation of the ecosystem as well as conservation of the white race/conservation of countries and their people (regardless of race) in general. But not the death of other races. I have to stress this because otherwise I start getting private messages from self-identified nazis. Lately though I've been less into identity politics because I sway between "white people deserve to be protected" and "but does it really matter?" My nationalism is also not fully based on race--mostly is, but, say, immigrants who came to Denmark before the Euro migrant crisis and have lived there for a long time also deserve protection. It's a tricky line that changes depending on the country being discussed. I also am aware that asking people to go back to their war torn country and fix it themselves is not a good idea. I just wish they didn't have to flee from war, and didn't bring their....incompatible religion with them.

"Very keen on the ecosystem."

Ok, yeah, cheers.

"Very keen on the conservation of the white race."

Okay, fuck that monstrosity of an idea.

I guess the white race should be wiped off the face of the earth then?

[Major-Tom]

Also holy shitbirds, there are lots of people throughout this thread with some fringe ideas. I'm not surprised that we have a fringe, more surprised about how many are just lurkers on this forum.

[Major-Tom]

"Very keen on the ecosystem."

Ok, yeah, cheers.

"Very keen on the conservation of the white race."

Okay, fuck that monstrosity of an idea.

I guess the white race should be wiped off the face of the earth then?

As a white guy, I fully agree, because that's exactly what I said, I definitely didn't condemn white nationalism, I said white people should be wiped away. I also recognize that once enough dark skinned people come into our precious homelands, George Soros will personally give every white male a vasectomy, preventing us from breeding. And I adore that idea.

Do you listen to yourself type/speak?

[Dark Socialism]

I guess the white race should be wiped off the face of the earth then?

Do you listen to yourself type/speak?

Of course not.

[The South Falls]

I'm all over the place, in general, but especially in politics. If there's a such thing as a nationalist liberal, I guess that's me. Very keen on conservation of the ecosystem as well as conservation of the white race/conservation of countries and their people (regardless of race) in general. But not the death of other races. I have to stress this because otherwise I start getting private messages from self-identified nazis. Lately though I've been less into identity politics because I sway between "white people deserve to be protected" and "but does it really matter?" My nationalism is also not fully based on race--mostly is, but, say, immigrants who came to Denmark before the Euro migrant crisis and have lived there for a long time also deserve protection. It's a tricky line that changes depending on the country being discussed. I also am aware that asking people to go back to their war torn country and fix it themselves is not a good idea. I just wish they didn't have to flee from war, and didn't bring their....incompatible religion with them.

Being a muslim does not make you incompatible with a Christian. And what about white people makes them "deserve" protection more than others?

[The South Falls]

"Very keen on the ecosystem."

Ok, yeah, cheers.

"Very keen on the conservation of the white race."

Okay, fuck that monstrosity of an idea.

I guess the white race should be wiped off the face of the earth then?

I'll take things that nobody said for 2,000, Alex.