LustfulAngel Posts

The man that acquires you as his woman, will be quite the lucky one then ;)

If she kills herself, you can't be held liable over her decisions. Nor should you worry all that much about her well-being. You've got your own life to live and your own well-being to pursue, if a girl really is suicidal over a guy like that, that's not a girl you want in your life. And as for the girl with a kid, you already rejected her didn't you? And as for the god-fearing chick, just tell her your an athiest and that's the end of that.

Indeed, society standards are different because the reaction is different from people to people. Me, if I'm walking in I wouldn't judge either way, because I wouldn't know if it were sexual or not. And as far as determining if a girl's nasty for wanting sex, I WANT my girl to want to have sex. It can be so tiring to be the aggressor all the time. For me to walk in home one day after work and my girl lunges all over me, sliding her index finger over my chest and going all "Honey~". Yeah, that's quite comfortable at times.

I don't acknowledge the current political status of the homeland as an Empire, namely because an empire is held by a king/queen or a Head of State who makes political decisions in the interest of his people. Given our political and corporate affairs, it's much more suitable to say we're an Aristocracy and that an honorable Empire is preferable to that.

You claim you're debating me but all you're really doing is that "Wow, no one has ever argued that before so there's no way it can possibly make sense." Yes, it can make sense should you read up on some literature and study the history of the position. It's NOT Universal Freedom, because Universal Freedom demands responsibility, it demands the sheep understand logically their position in life. For example, you have failed time and again to understand this position in claiming you have the right to defy universal laws so as long as others have that same right of defiance. Since you can't comprehend this, I don't want to give you universal freedom.

It's as you just said: The "facts" weren't facts, they were blank statements made by the racist. If these facts were true(which they weren't), the media then at the mid-19th century would have clamored at them and used them as legitimate evidence for separatism. No, I wouldn't have therefore used them. It should've been obvious I wouldn't use them when I said I wasn't looking for anything artificial.

Why should I critically examine truism? Why should I critically examine a position that reflects the laws of Nature and Mankind? Take, for example the bees as they organize in a beehive. Do the bees call forth, other flying-type animals to help them? Nonsense, only the bee knows the routine of the hive and only the bee lives in that lifestyle. All others are fiercely opposed.

The birds are the rulers of the skies, and they respect each other as such. Similarly, insects hold the domain of the forests and lions/tigers hold the domain of the deserts along with other large mammals. Through mother nature's course, there is competition and ultimately death, which is to recycle and keep nature itself organized in a timely manner.

All Fascism argues, is that mankind is much the same way. And our ultimate existence comes from when we're one with nature, one with ourselves and our best capabilities. The world you and I live in today, is a world of corporatism, where we believe we're free but really, we're not. With our mental development as frozen as it is, we make the choices that are "obvious" to us through our media and those choices are the ones that our corporate sponsors would like us to make.

Even though they've accomplished major success, corporations are very upset at this political movement of millions of Americans who have refused this corporatist world. Hence, think tanks have thought of ways including paid subscriptions and memberships of trying to firmly tighten the gap. But, it won't work. People cannot be controlled, and really who wants to control an organic, natural existence? To control and to regulate are two different things. To control is to force somebody, to regulate is to guide somebody.

I'm not a controlling person, because I know nature can't be controlled and I see Humans and Nature as one and the same. But, by guiding people to the right path and through setting the standards early we can achieve a high form of life.

There are those who refuse to be guided, and those who are simply can't be a part of our society. What's wrong with eliminating the weeds? Our Ultimate Freedom position is retarded in that we'd eat a poisonous apple just because it also grew in our garden. My position is that if I see a poisonous apple in my garden, I throw it out and I don't bother to look back.

Violent criminals, rapists, serial murderers. These people no longer have rights, much less any dignity. Keeping them in my country, even in a prison-facility is much too indignant. I'd rather ship them off to an unmanned island, give them enough food to live out their pathetic lives and let them kill each other off there.

And who is to complain? Those who rob people of their lives, money and their freedom are shipped off, never to be seen or heard from again. The State returns to an organic, healthy existence. The People are free to exercise economic and social freedoms, the State can thrive in a government capacity. It's perfect, because we didn't hold ourselves to a Ultimate Freedom-Non Organic Position.

Why do I feel as though I'm being ignored? **sighs** A Law is not something that "settles disputes"(though, in the way you outlined it certainly could look that way). A Law governs and regulates society, in the order in which we would like it. Laws are made so that the country, the towns and the people living in them can peacefully co-exist relatively smoothly.

Ironically, for a moment Lundi you argued a Fascist position(though you didn't realize it), in saying that if it were proven that porn produced more rape that you would give up your right to watch porn. Ultimately, I disagree. If we have a society where sexual conduct is openly talked about and encouraged(remember, in the mid-19th century it was something taboo and private. It's through that mindset that we still have a fucked up sexual society today.) Then proper sexual conduct can be taught and then applied.

For example, if grade school children learned that there's no such thing as "coodies" and that the feelings they have for that little 8-9 year old boy/girl crush is love and it's a real symbolic Human experience. And from there on, high school and college there is more sexual and intellectual education as to the why/why not's and the legality. Then, that'll have a much better effect than "let's ban pornography(sexual content) to prevent rape!"

Sounds logical, in fact it's illogical. Through proper education, pornography can possibly be used as an educational asset(as well as a release valve).

I'll argue that most rape and most violent crimes occur because of a society that looks too much at the artificial and not at the sum of the Human Experience. Similarly, the concept of racism is an artificial position(I don't like X, because his race isn't the same as mine). I can't hold the position of racism because it is artificial.

I must have something articulate and in fact in basis before I make an argument for it. My previous arguments before, were from a Nation-State standpoint. We, much like the animals in Nature have different "races"(tribes) of our Human Existence. And these differences can be our strengths, if we experience them through that individual-yet-collective existence.

That's not what we have now, we have a bunch of different individuals FORCED to be collectives. Their differences and their individuality has been negated, we therefore are not receiving the benefits of our diversity.

Diversity is only a strength when we remain diverse, or when we choose to be collective as a unit. WHEN WE CHOOSE.

And even then, in Self-determinism you will still have different groups. But when Group A joins Group B, and Group B joins group C and Group D joins group C. Even though these are individual alliances, they are mutually collective of their own free will.

This is the Fascist position, and it's the ultimate position of freedom. Where we acknowledge our organic existence, and also of the need for self-regulation. The Libertarian doesn't take that decisive stance, and therefore in the face of calamity he will need the support of the citizenry who are simply inept to provide said political support.

He who takes leadership is called upon to provide leadership, you can't ask the sheep to take the role of the hen.

We took care of the Sacramento Kings and we're now 7-2.

PPG: 102 PPG
OPPG: 85 PPG

Point Differential of 17 leads the NBA. If there are any Knicks fans, sorry to say but we're gonna show you tommorow evening that accumulating a bunch of one dimensional scorers doesn't make a good offense or a good team.

And while doing so, he's taken more vacations than any other president in U.S. History! And Bush liked taking those vacations as a political puppet.

We had two of the most pro wall-street politicians in ages in office, which argues for my position. In a Fascist Administration, Wall-street doesn't get this ability if it(wall-street) exists at all.

And who exactly is going to complain about this as it benefits the state and it benefits the people? The age-old argument has been: If it's this secular group, it's bound to be another.

But that's incorrect, Guided Freedom acts on the same principles as Universal Freedom, it just also acts on the understanding that the State is just as alive as we are and hence, just as we have to avoid certain poisons so too does the homeland.

The Founding Fathers, agreed with this position as they made it difficult for people in high places to accumulate the majority of positions for that isn't freedom neither in it's universal or guided form, that's just aristocracy.

But they didn't make it impossible, Fascism would make it impossible and if they bitched and complained their would be no political blackmail or the opportunity to do so, they could only meekly move out of another country and proclaim themselves the next "targeted ones" to which I laugh. There's nothing against them except their anti-America position. Change that and you're more than welcome to do anything.

As a man, I'm 5'11(Waiting for that last minute growth spurt. 6'2, PLEASE). What I want in a woman is someone as tall, or at least tall enough. 5'6-5'8. For the life of me, I couldn't imagine dominating another woman sexually. So a freaking foot's difference to go along with the natural weight differences of a male and a female, is just ugh.

No shorties please lol.

No, no and no.

Barack Obama has warmongered this congress and the parliament into giving him what he wants(Remember: If you don't pass this spending bill(once, the largest spending bill in U.S. History before he decided to spend, more and more!) the economy is gonna tank!

Well, if you believe government numbers the economy didn't tank BUT neither did the unemployment rate drop below 10%. But, several independent economists have our unemployment rate much more(realistically higher) at 20-22%

We've lost our AAA Rating and we're bound to lose even more as military spending still takes up more than half the U.S. Budget, Government bailouts of failing institutions, these same instutitions are robbing the citizenry of their money as they collaspe.

And I am SICK and tired, after four years of hearing this excuse "Well maybe Obama was tied up. Or, there was fierce Republican opposition." For 1 1/2 years, you had a majority Democratic Congress! That's why you got your beloved spending bill in the first place! And of course, the health care bill which violates the Commerce Clause and thereby now state the government can now mandate mandatory spending for individual U.S. Citizens.

At this point, unless the American People are willing to take charge of their Political Destiny and they understand and comprehend that neither the Republicans or Democrats at any juncture are willing anytime soon to defend the American People, you will get More Obamas.

As we've gotten over the past half century.

We're trying to get Lundi to understand the position of Self-Determinism, it's a position that has fallen on his deaf ears. I'll try to simplify the argument in a sentence or less for him:
You do have the "right" to violate other's rights(as in, if no one knew you were going to commit murder, no one could physically stop you from doing so.) But, in the order of law: You do not have that right and so as soon as someone knows of your malicious intent or in response to a murder you've committed, your rights have been taken away(or at least they are now being opposed.)

You can argue that you have rights, but all you really have is the right of opposition. You're neither free nor Human, you're a beast. If you wish to maintain a criminal position, then perhaps one day we'll see you in a prison cell.

Let me make the Libertarian Position on War clear, clear enough so that even you can understand it:

We DO NOT have the right to overthrow governments or regimes, the reason being is that would we rather have the same thing done to us? Furthermore, in the position of Self-Determinism what rights do we have in the affairs of other countries?

So say I were to go into your home, and say that you cannot believe X or Y. I do this, because I believe in Z and O, positions opposite to yours and in my hubris I proclaim these positions are the only positions that can be held.

I do not have this right to infringe on your personal beliefs, nor enforce mine on yours personally. Just as I don't have this social right, neither does our Nation State. Can you comprehend this? Is it simple enough for you to understand?

That means dictators as well! What might seem as dictatorship to us, might be seen as governance by another. Especially when consent was given in the way of an election. France may have helped us in the way of her navy, but she didn't help until we Americans proved we could fight the battle and even then she applied the principles of Self-Determination.

You believe you can use the sword to quell unlawful behavior. The Founding Fathers didn't, and I'll explain it again and again until you can comprehend it: You can ban racism, or you can ban these other activities. You've merely black marketed them and corruption and gangs spring forth. In fact, the modern War on Drugs is a testimony to your fallacy and your ignorance.

To make the point once again, there was at once a ban on whiskey/alchol(1854 if I remember correctly) this was so outrageous in America that they started vandalizing stores and venues until the ban was lifted.

And once again: Banning racism, or murder, etc might seem like a good idea but from these good ideas tyranny spreads. Up until the point where we live in your communistic regime, until we live in Modern day 'America'.

So we'll solve the injustice of the world through more injustice? Through our bombs, through our death squads and our invasions there shall come "peace"! Your a mixture of an atypically ignorant Liberal and a war mongering Neo-Con.

And your argument that because the idea can fall, means you don't have a position is fallacy! You believe these things, whether or not said administration falls or not doesn't change your political position.

At best, international intervention can be best done through embassies and ambassadors attempting to rectify the situation and rescue those civilians being affected by the crimes against them until a diplomatic solution can come forth. Either by government consent or government replacement. And even in the case of the latter, we make sure as to avoid civilian casualties and unlike in Libya we don't bomb civilian infrastructure and homes.

That is the position of Self-Determinism, it is a position you are wholly ignorant of. Despite the fact that Fiery and I are trying our damned best to get it through your thick skull.

To show you your ignorance, you are against laws that prevent segregation because it only further divides the people and yet at the same time you're in support of "laws that prevent segregation in general"

That can only mean one thing: You're in support of legalizing illegal aliens. In your world, these minorities would ideally be "equals", but communism does not WORK for the last time. It neglects the Nation State, it neglects the individual citizens, it makes a minority out of EVERYBODY and it divides every single person on the continent.

Your position is more flawed than swiss cheese. America has become a Communist State, so we can use this nation state as an example of how flawed your position is. The African-Americans, who at once were a minority were granted full individual rights in 1963, as did all minorities in the homeland.

And yet, to this day purportedly "racism" is not solved. That's because this is not Africa, as it's not Mexico or Singapore. You cannot force together a bunch of civilizations into a borg hive and expect them to develop, to merge or otherwise to co-exist. The African-American won't stop proclaiming racism as a crutch for his problems because it exists there for him. The same goes for the other self-dependent minorities.

And what of the Caucasian-American, the English man who once carved this homeland? Well, it's quickly becoming fast spread news but you might be ignorant of it: We ourselves(I am a Caucasian-American) are losing our status in your communist ideal America.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/21/white.persecution/index.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/population.race

This isn't equality, and it is not bettering the Nation State(take a look around without your Communist-led eyeglasses. DOES IT LOOK BETTER TO YOU?) Our Unemployment rate in reality is somewhere between 20-22%. At least 75 million Americans are out of work, 150 million of which are on some kind of Government Benefit to keep them afloat(for now).

And those who aren't, are overseas, worked as government slaves only to come back and join the ranks of the unemployed! This is your Communist/marxist state in action! Whether you believe it or not, your delusional state has gotten a test run for the last half century.

The benefits that come from our diversity, come from these groups as separates from the system. They then, can propose their ideas of living to us, but we don't have to accept these ideas. Likewise, we can propose our ideas to them, but they don't have to accept them.

But a Nation-State must have an identity, America has NONE in your society. Through that identity our education is carved, our national policy is carved and our way of life is carved.

Equality, ultimately is a dream. One cannot become equal through force of the sword. Nor can one truly be representative in a foreign country. It's a shame that African-Americans and Africans overall have given up on Africa. For they are the ones who know their homeland best, and they are the ones who can cultivate it.

I am proclaiming that the English People cannot cultivate Africa, and we haven't. We've taken advantage of her lack of development but never have we focused or could have focused on her development. For we aren't Africans.

Nor can we cultivate Europe, Asia or some of these other countries. A political alliance could occur and even co-existence but if we were to become a majority in Asia, Asia would suffer a political collaspe all the same as our own.

My position then, on immigration and minority rights then are pretty simple: Feel free to add your experiences and even yes, your culture into the homeland. But because of the cultural and political differences, a bound decline is to occur should you attempt to become part of the mainstream. Just the same as if we were to attempt to cultivate Africa.

Protecting Minorities means keeping them in that same stratosphere, for it's from that position where they can employ the most success and where the Nation-State politically thrives.

Communism does not work, ever. Not politically, not socially, not in racial relations and solving that issue. Not because no one has been a "pure communist", but because Communism in it's purity is an anti-human thesis.

Rather than try to force everyone in a borg hive, or violate civil rights in an attempt to shape our culture into the ideal way we would want our culture to be. We should instead focus politically shaping our culture.

That means through our schools, through our actions and through our leadership. It means through a true Head of State and not a Political Figurehead. And it means Balanced Freedom, not Universal Freedom.

I'm a believer in Fascism,the difference between me and Fiery is that while we both believe in Self-Determinism, I am also of the belief of the livelihood of our State.

America is an organic being, just as alive as we are gentlemen. And she needs to be bred and taken care of, and we've neglected that responsibility dearly over the past half century.

Okay, so I successfully downloaded the game and finally got it to work. But I can barely get past the first freaking scene(IE: Kid has a heart attack or something and then the game gets all black and he's apparently in the hospital when it starts to beep and stuff and basically become non-responsive lol.)

We care, we want to help, we want to do things! But I think that the Self-Determinist understands that the best way to help the old, the elderly, the unemployed(etc) is to tell them to rise once again! If we establish our society from the beginning of it's blueprint, then a future will be guaranteed to that generation's elders. And then on and so forth, unless you deviate from it.

We deviated over the past half a century from the Constitutional Republic and hence, we're in this mess today. That's the overlying flaw with returning to the Constitutional Republic, we apathetically deviated away from it once before. Our conscious awareness of the Constitutional Republic is moot amongst even our elders today.

There is not a standing for the new Republic to last any further than Paul's Administration, that is if the Administration is any successful. The new American Government must have this standing, and it must through it's nationalistic valor, call the people to their eternal duty.

That, and the Corporate Element is also a secondary factor which plays into the weakness of a Constitutional Republic restoration. As long as Corporations can partake in any fashion within our political system, we citizens have no political voice.

Freedom, in it's universal sense is a double-edged sword. Freedom, guided by principles and reasons and sound restrictions is long lasting.

[quote="BigLundi"]



It's not an unrealistic thing at all, provided you've some decency and self-respect for the rule of law. If we had respect for the rule of law, respect for ourselves and our country and our institutions(I hope this isn't too big of a concept for you to comprehend) then a Libertarian/Constitutional Republic society would work out just fine.

It sounds less authorizing and less daunting than trying to build a society in which we all become a collective borg hive with no individual Self-Determinism. But believe it or not, that's today's America. Your America.(Not mine, I abhor our political state)

The Current Administration and Parliament has agreed to give up it's constitutional authorities and is therefore little more than a puppet show(if it ever was anything BUT a puppet show to begin with. Hitler once theorized correctly after witnessing these debates first hand that these debates only impede political and thereby social progress and that it's but a self-serving institution.)

I want least of all to be called a "Hitlerlite" or any such junk, so I'll say now that there are obviously several things with which I disagree with heavily on that are obvious in Human Nature. I couldn't support those things and then say that I support Self-Determinism. One of the things that he was correct on, and especially in light of Constitutional Betrayal of the NDAA is this: Parliament is Useless. It serves not the interests of the people or even the state, but it's own interests at the hour and the whim.

Furthermore, the Political Existence of the Democrats and the Republicans is a major problem, as these parties do not preach American Idealism nor do they preach servitude. But rather, these parties are corporations who preach(force down your throat)their self-interested product and through propaganda have made you believe THEY are your only choice.

Because they don't care for our country, and our people there isn't a single Republican or Democrat, without exception that's worth holding office. They're too entrenched in corporate politics as well as their own self-interest.





I'll reference to the Slavery Problem when it existed at the time in the mid 1700's-to-1800's. The Founders regretted the decision to bring the Africans to America in the first place, let alone the slavery system that enslaved them. For it went against our ideals of Self-Determinism and Personal Freedom. And yet, the Founders did not force their beliefs on the people(IE: They did not, through government authority end slavery(Not until Lincoln and the result would be a divided society that would become even more divided at the turn of the end of the Second Civil War(IE: The Civil Rights Movement) and Vietnam.

They did not, precisely because they knew what would(and did happen). They knew that even if it took a long time, the correct decision through Self-Determinism is always better than the correct decision through the sword alone.





You like your hentai don't you? What if I said you're not allowed to read hentai/watch hentai anymore? You're willing to compromise that? Okay, you're not allowed to internationally date anymore. And SO on and so on.

Compromising your individuality IS NOT, can never be an actual "compromise" more than it is a sell-out of your individuality, a sell-out of this state.

Not willing to compromise yourself or your homeland is a sign of Patriotism, I know this might be a shock for you, who blindly followed the state like a sheep but there are times when the State is wrong(what a shock!), more often though it's because of the self-interested parties running the State.

To prevent these self-interested parties from accomplishing what they've accomplished in the last-10 years, we must never compromise ourselves or our state.
Benjamin Franklin himself acknowledged this.

Patrick Henry:Either give me Liberty or give me death!




The same rights that you want to have: Freedom to life, freedom to liberty, freedom to pursue happiness so long as you don't take away from the happiness of others or compromise this State(and this State is our homeland, so I think we should have a pretty good investment in keeping it uncompromised).

Life is not, and should not be as complicated as you would like to believe, and have been led to believe by government-sponsored media. Terrorism has won because of the complication of our lives. The TSA, the bomb threats, etc.

If our Founders faced terrorism(but they faced rebellion, Shay's rebellion in fact) do you know what their response would have been?

We will make whatever adjustments required but we also acknowledge that Self-Determinism, even to the point of Extremism is beneficial in that the people's right to express themselves always remains supreme above all else and they may even be right and we, as the oppressors may even be wrong.

That was their exact response to Shay's rebellion, whilst they quelled the rebellion they also acknowledged that Shay had a good point and hence they held a favorable position towards farmers and workers, which was for the Good of the State.





You cannot be a humanist(that is to say, respect human rights and right to existence) while utterly denying Self-Determinism. I'll agree with Fiery: You don't know WHAT you are. You, like most Americans have been brainwashed by that garbage they call our media and believe you hold a position. No, you hold a corporate position and you support the corporate puppet of your choosing all the meanwhile being blissfully unaware that you're supporting corporatism.




As in the old, "a man cannot be allowed to cry fire where there is none"? As well as Slander? That may very well be out of good intentions, but it's where good intentions start, that corporate statism begins. Free Speech should never be altered in anyway regardless of the circumstances.

But rather, it should be governed in a state of Self-Determinism, along with the understanding that we don't want to erode our Nation-State.





This statement can now convince me and Fiery that you take a media-led position and not one that came from any actual self analysis. We haven't had a free market since the mid-1960's! Like all else, Self-Determinism. With what, Welfare government over-spending from WW2 to the Vietnam days, affirmative action and most importantly Clinton's treasonous NAFTA legislation(this should be the reason for his impeachment, not the Lewinsky affair).

And no one in their right mind can call Bush's Corporate Communism(Trickle-down economics) or Obama's Government-sponsored takeover of GM and Chrysler(or the numerous bailouts and quantitative easings) as free-market anything! Nor can you call the premise of forced universal healthcare free marketing.





In the face of the TSA and the utter decline of the Tourist industry as well as the airway industry both to and from America and you can't possibly tell me we have a tourist economy. We have the theory of transportation now, we could engage in it but why subject ourselves to hell and misery? Who, exactly would want to come to this hell hole?




There is nothing moderate about advocating an Anti-Humanist position, even whilst in your case utterly not knowing how much of an anti-Humanist you are. You made a blanket statement here, which anyone would agree to. But in the context that you made it, I disagree. Changing your ideals and principles to "fit the times", leads you down that path in history you supposedly oppose. You oppose it, without knowing the reasons as to why it even transpired in the first place.





With the state, as the ultimate ginny pig. The People themselves unknowingly also suffer, for you cannot have a Communist Society as long as there is Progress(or in this case, so called "advancing beyond each other"). It would work out great: For the Political Elite Class. That, and for the weak-minded man who hates competition and drive and desires everyone elses labor. It is a slavery system, a true dictatorship system. Whether it was Marx spewing the garbage or Mao.




Oh, how cute the whole "That isn't really Communism" argument, you yourself said that it rejects the existence of both State and Man(or rather, man's potential) that IS what Communism is, there isn't a second or a third communist position. There's only one, a self-interested slavery corporate system. Whether you'd like to acknowledge the facts or not, doesn't change it's existence.





**Laughs**, In your own words my friend you just admitted to the economic corporate slavery system known as Communism. You can look at your individual and the state's weakness as some kind of deluded, sadist utopia but Modern Day America is actually proof of the communist society.

Let's take a look at the fruit's of Communist's labor, namely Welfare: Nice idea right, when you're struggling for the state to help you get back on your feet whilst you find a job. But unfortunately, there's some 300 million people in America and the funds have to be divided, these divided funds are more like the pieces of bread crumbs after the political elite/middle class ate the dinner.

In other words, there's no way in hell Welfare can help you back up. Back when prices weren't too inflationary, it wasn't all that bad(90's era), but in today's day and age Welfare can't even supplement a family for a month!

Not only that, but corporate and political warfare(50% of our infrastructure is sent overseas, we've become mostly an exporting nation and the average CEO makes 500 times the average American) has completely and utterly destroyed the state.




No, you said very specifically that both Libertarianism and Communism were radical ideas that would have to invoke a core change in our thought process in order to work.
Only, Libertarianism is not an idea or a concept, but a way of life. So as to make it firmly clear to even you: Communism rejects life in of itself! I'll agree with you on this: A Ron Paul Administration would likely be met with disappointments. Because there's more versions of you, then there are of me and Fiery. The Paul Revolution is mostly out of economic, not political concerns.

In the advent of a economic rebound, there won't be a massive support of Libertarian/Constitutional Republic philosophies but rather political contentment and disinterest. For, the problem has been solved!

Given the people's political apathy, as well as the utter lack of change in congress and parliament(give or take a few new corporate democratic-republican heads), it will be deemed that the Paul Administration, that Libertarianism failed.

Instead of the truth: The American People failed.






No, I don't get it. I don't subscribe to Anti-Nationalist Propaganda. A Real Nationalist has pride in his Nation-State, while acknowledging the same rights to other Nation-States. A Nationalist Society cannot occur so as long as there are those who reject the People, the Nation-State and the right to a Self-Determined Existence.

I think people already see themselves as Americans, rather than Texans or Pennsylvanians. But, by submerging the states political importance it would have been symbolic and through that symbolic energy, a new American State would have been born to exist for eternity.

A Politician or a Statesman cannot ascribe to Nationalism, for that means his own self-importance is negated, and instead his importance is the same as the homeland or the community. So understand that Political Opposition to Nationalism is a Corporate's attempt to maintain his hold over you, and over our collective citizenry.







This is a blanket statement meant to make me look like an extremist. 'If you believe said bad guy had the ideal form of government, your thoughts are then discredited.'.
If you believe you can deflate me with blanket statements, let me then say that you're sadly mistaken. The Political Revolutionary times of the 30's were so chaotic that decisions were made on a daily/yearly basis. As such, these decisions were not always correct.
No decent Human Being believes in manslaughter, or in discrimination. But what every decent Human Being believes in, if suppressed for the moment is that their fellow man and women are one with them. Every decent Human Being believes in Nationalism and ultimately, being with one who he shares a connection with.

Through our Individual Self-Determinism, there will then come a time where our individual blogs would have come together, whilst remaining separate and maintaining a healthy political union.





Yes, you copied my post slid in communism and once again made the absurd charge that Communism, or an Anti-Humanist thesis is comparable in anyway shape or fashion to a Nationalistic Self-Determinism Position.
For the last time: The "Socialized Economy" maintains that you'll work X number of hours, earn X amount of pay and if you don't like it: TOO BAD. Communism's manifesto is to eliminate Humanism to eliminate Humanity's flaws. Whereas Self-Determinism is to eliminate Humanity's flaws, by enhancing Humanity's strengths.
The difference between Libertarianism and Fascism, is that the Fascist recognizes the State is just as conscious as it's individuals, a pure Lairezz-Faire system dooms the state and inevitably in due time dooms the people(as such has occurred here in America).

The People, as self-evidenced through our own political apathy are not always the best ones to make decisions, if they even make a decision at all! But, once Humanity does make a decision(or a decisions is made for them), we tend to stay to that system steadfastly.
Then, a Centralized form of Government is the ideal government. Where, government is not filled by Political Statesmen or psuedo-experts, but instead government will be led by men and women who have the expertise in the specialized fields but most importantly: The desire to see their Nation-State and their families grow prosperously.
So as to make it clear: I would accept Nationalist-Libertarianism if I believed we had the support system to uphold it's flaws. But we don't have that support from the people here in the homeland, so instead a Pure Nationalism, a Fascist Government is necessary in America to deal with the challenges we face.
To re-awaken the pride in our homeland, to Nationalize our economy and our foreign policy objectives and to face terrorism, extremist threats without a blink of an eye, never yielding and fading and in that spirit we would have dealt our enemies the most crucial and most brutal of blows it ever suffered in this conflict. And to unite the homeland in a spirit of unity that won't be crushed by Corporate Politics.






So as to make myself utterly clear: I'm a firm supporter of the media, to quote John F.Kennedy the media's job is to "inform, arouse and to encourage. To inform us of our mistakes and of our opportunities. To encourage dissent and public debate."
What is wrong with today's media however, is it has been corporatized. CNN, MSNBC, FOX are either "left" or "right" leaning stations and therefore have absolutely no interest in informing the American People.
If we want a favorable outlook from the media, both nationally and abroad both in peace and in wartime, then as a government we must conduct ourselves in an honest fashion. That way the only thing that can be promoted is the truth.







Not exactly, your comments here made me think: How would a Fascist-Nationalist react, how would I react having taken this political philosophy to heart? The answer I came to, is that the Fascist State would have no such unproductive jobs.

Doing away with the min.wage and all low class jobs, these jobs aren't productive to either the economy or to the people instead we might as well call them "Living dead jobs", where you get paycheck to paycheck but you couldn't help yourself, much less others.

Fascism is not Lairezz-Faire and a true Fascist makes no such delusional claims. Instead, his political appeal would be for the people to seek out their strengths and to ignore the temptation of calling the ability to choose their weaknesses as "freedom".

Seriously, you may have the freedom to take that living dead job but does that make you happy? Wouldn't it be ideal if our entire society from top to bottom was prosperous and fulfilled? If our jobs, our homes, if everything in our homeland were elegant and redefined? I want to recreate this country into the glorious empires of old, with our citizens feeling as regal and as elegant as they ever had.





I, specifically don't have all the answers.(Though in my own self best interest I'll be looking for as many of them as I can find.) But what I do know, is that the answers that I don't have, somebody else has them and it will be up to them, to take this task as seriously as their own lives, believing and loving themselves and their people.

I don't have the answers, but I have a strong political conviction, belief and vision and I have the present to back up the reasons against both Lairezz-Faire and Corporate Structural Failure to the extent that trying either again is like hitting one's head on a brick wall.





All things in life are evolutionary and are progressive. Our Nation-States are our homes, are we crucifying the stockholder, who sold his highly profitable stock for value? As we lived in the heart of the North American Continent, were we just going to sit back and watch this continent be devoured by several minor forces? Or were we going to take the opportunity as it presented itself? And in the end, those we "conquered" maintained their habitats and even yes their own lands. Indian-Americans are sacredly protected by law, as is their culture.

Rebellions too, are progressive and evolutionary. They're also often mistaken. Ask Italian historians if in the modern day, they would reject Napoleon Bontaparte or Italian Nationalism? As they've been sucked into the borg hive of the European Union.






How would it tear each other apart? God forbid, our political interest is but to the meek extent as it's reported on the media outlet. Rather, the engaging of the discussion of how the new flag were to be, and how the new anthem would sound would revive the country.

And whether one likes the flag or the anthem is insignificant as compared to the Symbolic Message: We're back, we're taking a National Interest on the World Stage and we're united as one.

It's your opinion and belief that we may, in the end utterly despise our choice but if we maintain a universal belief and a universal statement in our messages, the symbol of the state will stay strong in the court of public opinion and it will stay strong as a symbol.

The flag and the statue of liberty are no longer strong as symbols because of the long standing history and because of the long standing political ignorance to the point of disinterest.

I quoted the parts of your reply to Fiery on Page 2 that I felt was most important as I read it, and take no offense when I say: When I read it, I felt like hitting my head on the desk.

Libertarianism and Communism, you REALLY didn't go there did you? Do you realize you compared the anti-thesis of the other's existence as if they had similarities?
Let me lay it out for you clearly:

Libertarianism: The Political Theory of Self-Determinism, or in other words provided that you follow the law/basic conducts as a Human Being, it doesn't matter whether you're gay or straight, you smoke weed or pot. If a person overdoses and dies, the Libertarian does not all of a sudden make "laws" to prevent this. Because any law that is made does not prevent it from happening, but rather it restricts society and opens up the way for more draconian measures(IE: SOPA, NDAA coming after the Patriot Act). But rather, the Libertarian believes in society, in his fellow human beings.

Likewise, the Libertarian does not believe in compromising his ideals for an "ever-changing world", actually any decent human being would never compromise his ideals because the world around him changed. If his ideals were lawful and if they respected the rights to his fellow man, there's no reason for him to waver from his position.

Lundi: So too, the same must be said for the countrymen. This isn't a Political Theory or Stance as much as it is a stance of Humanism. If we are a country that empathizes free speech for all, and empathizes a free-market economy and active tourism, then even in the face of terrorism this must not wane. In fact, it goes a BILLION times more in this case, then it does for a singular person. For while the damage of a person losing his ideals is great in his personal life, it's even far more damaging if a country loses it's image.

The country that loses it's image is dead, never to return. The People cannot have faith in a homeland with no image, a homeland with no image cannot have a government that's honest and faithful to it's people.


Communism: Communism is an Anti-Humanist/Pro Corporate position, it masquerades under the guise of Liberalism but there's nothing Liberal about it. As we famously know, the Communist believes that if we strip all barriers and become One State then we would have achieved an optimal existence.

Theoretically that is true, but the question becomes: What is the State? Citizens have lost their individuality and their earning potential. So, are we all Americans? Not exactly, while it's made to look that way some of that extra income has GOT to go somewhere.

To the Government, which has become the De-facto state(see Stalin and Mao Mao and even today's Communist China.) As well as the economic lobbying hitmen who've existed throughout time who benefited largely from this system.

The flaw with Communism is that while it attempts to bridge people together, it does so by denying their individuality and thereby their self-determinism.

The flaw with Libertarianism is it's Lairezz-Faire position, while the people maintain their individuality and their self-determination they are not compelled(neither by morals or dignity and least by law) to come together and the State as a whole is fractionalized.

This was true in the advents of America's birth days, for we recall the states issuing different currencies and they didn't have that strong of an interest in working together. It was only when the Founders united the country under a flag and a constitution in 1787 when the Union began to take fold and become the country it could become.

Libertarianism's main flaw of not being about to bring the people together was solved through, yes, wait for it: Nationalism!

Fascism, then is the ideal form of government(and as such, it has been attacked by corporate political pundits). Because those same pundits wouldn't exist in a Fascist Government, neither would the Wall Street Speculators.

A True Fascist(Not a Neo-Nazi or a Skinhead. Someone who actually did research into the theory) understands the economy needs to be Nationalized, as well as everything else. The Nationalized Economy is strong, for his citizens are well employed, the confidence in the homeland is high and hence we could once again become productive consumers.


Those pundits do not enlighten the people, or generally anyone for that matter. They exist to spew government propaganda, they've no talent or capability in any manner. And yet they earn hundreds of thousands of dollars along with their titles, that IS a drain on our economy.

The Speculators, it goes without saying also drain our economy. The Fascist wouldn't have it, the Fascist's micromanagement is not one of Communist Dictatorship but instead it's "Feel free to do as you wish, just make sure it's actually productive".


This isn't just an economic philosophy, but it's the true political philosophy of a Fascist State. Do whatever you wish, just make sure that it's productive for yourselves and thereby for your country.

By focusing on our productivity, on our pride and heritage we can transform America. I was at first a Liberal actually, but then I became disaffected with the Liberal Movement and I was equally as disaffected with the Neo-Cons.

But then through taking a closer look through history, our Founders, Napoleon Bontaparte, the AXIS powers. They all seemed to have a strong National Hold that built their Nation State that IS sorely missing today.

We lack Pride, Intensity and Desire. That's what's wrong with America today. And I'm convinced that we aren't going to establish that pride in the 21st century with our flag, and our statue and our anthem(because all of these things are old-adage and like our country is virtually dead on water anyway)

If we had a New Anthem, a new flag can you imagine the excitement? Our ideals will always remain the same, but a country is like a product. Sometimes it has to be remarketted and repackaged. Especially in the light of corrosion and corruption eroding the first market brand.

Take into account China's strict one child policies as well as it's government censorship and what makes you think the Chinese Government cares about the dissent of it's peasants? The Chinese government enjoys strong economic relations and ties with Iran and Russia, she values them to the extent that she would fight for them. And Iran and Russia also value their relationship similarly.

I'm serious when I say we'd make a serious mistake jepordizing millions of American lives if we attempt to call the bluff of the Eurasian axis, two of which with confirmed nuclear weapons programs(Russia and China).

Charles Darwin was the first to propose the "theory"(what we now know as truism) of evolution and how evolutionary life isn't just in plants or in biotic life but especially in genetic human life. Of course, many would reject Darwinism as it rejects the thesis of Liberalism(the world we live in today), where mediocrity is acceptable. Liberalism has made us complacent, Liberalism has allowed for millions of Americans to be in debt and government dependent. Government itself, on both sides of the aisle have been very pro-liberalism and for good reason: A Liberal Society means duped voters. Duped, passive and uninterested.

I'm a Darwinist and I'm proud of it :D

I'll take responsibility for that and I'll admit to political hyperbole to make my own case stronger. I apologize to you. It's true that political candidates have pandered to some third party positions in the past, but rather than that third party pointing out the fact that this position isn't a political position for them but rather a true party philosophy, the third party would rather surrender the fight. It's easier to walk away then try to climb mount everest.

This is grossly false and misleading, when's the last time a political party has pandered to the citizens of this great nation? Presidents Bush(in 2000) and Obama(in his 08 campaign) pandered to limited government, corruption and a vow to constitutionality, if only to break those promises immediately upon stepping into office.

The real reason you don't see a third party step up to the plate is due to American Political Apathy. You see, all campaigns require money to run. Sad, but that's the way this self-serving contest works. The government sponsors the contest, forces the citizens to devote time, effort and money into it and ultimately neither of the two candidates are the ones you wanted! In fact, maybe 30% of America is satisfied with the general election.

And the losers? It was NEVER their money to begin with, they don't face outstanding debts despite the reports. They can just go back to congress/senate, boost their resumes and try again. Thanks for helping us advance our careers, you get absolutely nothing.

More to the point, is the contests rules. Ever since Ross Perot nearly broke through the system in 1996, the Democratic and Republican political establishments didn't want an independent political power to ever rise again. You see, you have to establish your relevancy, get enough of a percentage vote before even attending ONE debate! And after the debates, you still have to maintain a percentage vote.

Yes, we live in the so-called democracy where you supposedly have free speech. Here's the thing that your teachers never taught you, the little "secret" which isn't really a secret, but an observation you can make:

Yes, you have "free speech" but if we can make it so that no one listens to you, who cares? This is the exact strategy they are attempting to use to deflate the Ron Paul campaign.

The reasons the Paul campaign are taking off is as followed 1) The internet phenemon and 2)the Libertarian base he established in 2007 still grew strong.

The real reason corporations want a limit on the internet, is the discovery that just as it can be used for it's establishment candidates, so too can it be used by geniune Americans wanting real change.

Ultimately however, most Americans are still politically apathetic, and Ron Paul has never touched on this political apathy. Until he does, a return to the Constitutional Republic will be short lived. The people, content with their change man will be silent for a while before the collaspe begins again.

A Ron Paul election isn't a defeat for corporations as long as the people remain silent helpless political sheep. It's just a further delay in corporatism.