Red vs. Blue

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

Our political system works backwards. A sensible form of leadership would look at the situation at hand, formulate a plan, and then explain it to the people. Instead, we ask the people what should be done; there is no premium placed on expertise, or even study of the problem as a whole. We let the popularity of ideas lead us farther from solutions, because solutions require sacrifice, and that is never popular. In order to keep from losing the show, we collectively indulge in a number of denial-behaviors, including limiting our focus to issues that pale in comparison to the significance of what we do not mention.

 

The distractions that are presented to us are legion. For example, there is abortion, which although an important issue, generates interest nowhere near in proportion to its actual relevance to our future. It is a classic scenario of focusing on details while the big picture runs away from us. Another case in point, and one most germane to this article, is the divisions of our country into right and left, and "red" and "blue" states. This obsolete distinction is no longer a positive correlation between individuals and beliefs, but a silly form of identity politics which divides us and thus distracts us from the issues to which attention should be paid.

 

Look at the situation objectively: what, besides token "hot button" issues, really divides the right and the left? The right seems unlikely to bring about traditional values, and the left is content to fight for the underdog without winning. What changes between rightist and leftist administrations in America? The answer: nothing of a structural nature. Each side throws in its pet programs when it gains power, and will sabotage the other, but the basics of government do not change. We can have a highly contested election in which both sides accuse the other of cheating, but nowhere do we hear calls for election reform. The voices are too busy screaming about which side was wrong, and how their own side is better.

 

Even further, with the rise of neo-conservatism, is there even a conservative voice in the United States? Our "conservatives" today argue for more immigration, more benefit-related programs and further distant ideological wars in the name of justice. Neoconservatives are not conservatives. They are a hybrid between conservatives and liberals, which is only possible when there is no actual underlying belief: there is only a desire to manipulate. Similarly, most of today's genteel liberals will vote for exactly the same programs, make some inconsequential noise about the environment or civil rights, and then go back to the real process of government: making profit for those behind the scenes.

 

"Red" and "blue" states are part of this illusion. Thanks to a massive media campaign, we are expected to believe that some states are inherently liberal and educated, and the rest are down to earth rural types who favor conventional, masculine approaches to government. Neither side of the political equation contests these blatant stereotypes. As it turns out, they're convenient, because they give each state an identity and a reason to feel itself superior to its supposed opposite. But, given that both "sides" are very close in actual belief, how real is this enmity? The answer is unsurprisingly that it is about as real as anything else you see in the media. It starts from a grain of truth, and then expands into a Broadway production which carries us all away from reality toward a stylized, marketable vision of our future.

 

Among those who are not professional politicians, it is common to find a mixture of beliefs which are confused further by notions of how they should be carried out. For example, it's not uncommon to find concern about the environment in Republican-voting homes, although those voters will not endorse environmental action through another sterile, industry-hampering federal agency. They agree on the value (protect environment) but not the method (bureaucracy). Further, many who have been voting democratic have a predilection toward traditional values, but refuse to endorse the Republican party because they see it as too much of a servant of big business. And what does the two-party identity political systems really do? It splits their vote, and ensures that nothing gets done.

 

It is more accurate, instead of dividing America into "left" and "right," to divide it into two basic impulses: traditional values and cosmopolitan values. Those who are traditional value family, local community, and social systems that reward the best among us so that we're always improving. They recognize that a community has to pick a values system, and that multiple value systems cannot exist in the same place. Traditional values reflect the suburbs and countryside of America, where survival requires keeping one's wits about and nature is a constant companion. Cosmopolitan values reflect the makeup of the city. They favor including disparate people into a culture formed from the transactions of the city, and de-emphasize family and community in favor of the individual and a cult of its comfort and desires.

 

Given this division instead of our current narrow political outlook, we can see that "red" and "blue" states don't exist; values follow the type of society in which one lives. Traditional society favors survival outside of the city, and the cities recognize their own law. It is unlikely that the values of either type would work well in the territory of the other.

 

When we see the political system this way, we can recognize the truth: large industry and the media industry and the popular vote of many newly-enfranchised groups, together, hold the average person hostage to their agenda. The traditional outlook finds favor in the voters, but the right has abandoned it; the left is healthier, but instead of endorsing cosmopolitan values for the cities, hopes to impose it upon all of us equally. The result is an empire of confusion which prevents us from addressing the actual problems of society, namely the cultural and ethnic suicide of the West, the destruction of our natural habitat, overpopulation and a soon-to-be-bankrupt economy based on easy growth from fossil fuels.

 

Those serious issues mentioned above receive little coverage in our press and politics. They are destined to be forever unpopular, and unprofitable, and therefore are ignored as much as possible. As traditional values disappear from politics, those who hold such beliefs are forced to vote for the "next best thing," the Republican Party, but as we have seen in the last election, that party espouses tradition only as a justification and operates for its own wealth. At this point, our rightists are closer than ever before to their theoretical opposite - the cosmopolitan worldview.

 

Recognizing this cosmopolitan drift empowers us to see a final division in American politics. Where we once saw two sides, based on territory, we can now see two societies, namely an older traditional one and a newer, metropolitan one. The newer society has only come to exist thanks to cheap fossil fuels and reckless growth in our cities and it aims to perpetuate itself by importing more people and continuing the denial of serious problems which face us as a species. If anything will reverse our decline, it is a restoration of the traditional view, as it is the only values system that recognizes the real problems which face humanity. Those real problems determine our survival. To address them requires we reverse our broken leadership, and instead of trying to be popular, focus on reality.

 

http://www.nationalistpartyusa.com/VP/RedVBlue.htm

[Art Sandusky 0]

Probably the only couple of things I agree with this party about are getting rid of guns and having a balanced budget. One of their "core principles" is the equality of cultures and races, but they devote a page to how black people statistically commit more crimes than white people. Can't argue with numbers, but they're just there with no "we like this" or "we dislike this" other than noting over and over again how white people are apparently harmless.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I have a personal theory that many people in the US would vote for some type of nationalist party, because they're sick of illegal immigration, among other things. I feel that the longer the situation with illegal immigrants goes unchecked, the greater the chance of some kind of _fascist_ nationalist party to gain ground in the US.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Illegal immigration, pro-lifers, terrorists, people trying to wage the WAR ON CHRISTMAS~, whoever it may be, those looking to manipulate and rule with an iron fist will create scapegoats at will. It was way easier when they could use communism.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

oh

[Art Sandusky 0]

Remember when health care costs were skyrocketing because of malpractice suits and we had to keep these awful people from driving up the cost of medicine produced by unrelated corporations even more? Oh yeah, and then there was that time that gay marriage was going to destroy the fabric of civilization. And how could I forget when all those horrid poor black people without food or water in New Orleans had the nerve to loot businesses?

 

This world can be so unpleasant sometimes.

[David Blazenwing 0]

I thought this was going to be about the Halo web-series.

 

Now I'm sad.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

So what's a matter with a gun, Patrick?

[SuperJerk 0]

I have a personal theory that many people in the US would vote for some type of nationalist party, because they're sick of illegal immigration, among other things. I feel that the longer the situation with illegal immigrants goes unchecked, the greater the chance of some kind of _fascist_ nationalist party to gain ground in the US.

I don't think illegal immigration is a big enough of a problem that you can get a big national movement against it, especially when the business lobby can spend a big pile of money on persuading Congress to do nothing.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I don't know. Polls have shown that a good majority of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration. President Bush has shown repeatedly he won't do anything about it, and I think the average American is going to get more and more angry about it, especially when Hispanic culture becomes more and more predominant in this country. Most people don't want to learn Spanish, or pay for children of illegal immigrants to go to public schools.

 

Besides, the borders aren't just about Mexicans coming across to work. It's about Arabs and Chinese coming in as well. Are they all just honest people who want to make money for their families?

[SuperJerk 0]

Polls have shown that a good majority of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration.

Of course they are. But are they so opposed to it that they are willing to actually educate themselves about what candidates are going to do about it, and then vote accordingly? Or to make it a more important issue than gay marriage, abortion, or prayer in schools?

[Ravenbomb 0]

I like the "Real Life vs. The Internet" one

[Art Sandusky 0]

So what's a matter with a gun, Patrick?

It helps foster a culture of fear and distrust, and I don't see these 2nd Amendment advocates arguing over the state militia part. Other developed nations don't need them, so what makes us need them, besides worrying about the other guy possibly having one? The other guy wouldn't even have one in the first place, so there'd be no need for a person to arm themselves for defense. Also, this is a rare case when I'll pull the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" card. Yes, there are people who are responsible with them, but it's still setting an awfully violent model for kids to follow. I mean, we've got friggin' metal detectors in schools these days. Doesn't that alone show that it isn't a good example to set? Am I the only one that remembers when the worst you'd hear happening at a school was a stabbing or particularly violent schoolyard brawl? With time, we've become less and less responsible about guns while they're becoming all the more efficient and easy to use.

[Guest The Pit]

Kotzenjunge has just made my own point for me: that he is, in fact, an idiot.

 

Guns are perfectly safe. Children wouldn't take guns to school. Do you want to be like Britain, with its balls chopped off? America was built the three Gs: God, grain, and guns. And I don't think anyone is trying to stop our nation from providing wheat.

[Skywarp! 0]

The most distressing thing about this country that everyone should be concerned with is the rise of the American Taliban.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Guns are perfectly safe. Children wouldn't take guns to school.

 

....lol?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Guns are perfectly safe. Children wouldn't take guns to school.

 

....lol?

 

He's the Pit.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

We have a right to bear arms, any sane country would.

 

Any person that is willing to give up a little bit of freedom, for a little bit of security, deserves neither.

--Benjamin Franklin.

 

Eh, I dislike the nationalists. However, the above analysis on the current American democratic system is correct. We're basically moving towards entropy and the collapse of the system. More and more districts are uncontested, the differences between political parties is mainly an "us vs. them" where their actual impact is well, not very different. Government gets bigger...

 

Though, it must be said that occasionally, someone in government gets it right. Thank you US Senate, for getting rid of the damn Patriot Act.

 

I dunno. The libertarian critique of government basically tells me that America will befall the same fate as Rome at some point, when our representational system falls into the shambles of political greed.

[Art Sandusky 0]

So now owning a gun is analogous with freedom. Okay then.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I dunno. The libertarian critique of government basically tells me that America will befall the same fate as Rome at some point, when our representational system falls into the shambles of political greed.

 

I don't know if there's much chance of barbarians sacking Washington, D.C....

 

unless we count terrorists as the new barbarians.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

The thing that gets me about the gun argument is that any attempt to even introduce some moderate regulations on the sale of firearms is usually met with "we have the right to bear arms! The bill of rights says so!" etc. I am fine with responsible law abiding citizens owning firearms. I consider hunting in certain parts of the country to be necessary. I don't think kids and others should be able to get firearms as easily as they do now. I think most rational people would come to that conclusion.

 

As far as the Nationalist Party quoted in the original post, I was disappointed to see some borderline racist information and quotes on their website. I think that is a huge issue...the fact that nationalism is often scene as also being racism, and sites like that don't disspell the notion in the least.

[Justice 0]

So now owning a gun is analogous with freedom. Okay then.

 

Well legal gun ownership, when you look at the FBI Crime Statistics, is analogous with less crime. I suppose that's an advantage. The big problem with 'no guns' or 'incredibly restrictive gun laws' is that criminals will still get guns, regardless of laws. If you're gonna commit robbery, the little 60 day/$500 fine isn't gonna be too worrisome. Look at Australia, where crime has gone up on average, especially crimes like mugging, grand theft auto, and armed robbery: Why worry about carjacking someone when you know they won't have a gun? The difference in our gun crimes and murder rates isn't the availibility of guns, but rather a difference in culture: I'm not sure, but I don't know too many other countries that have such a violent inner-city culture. We need to fix that somehow rather than simply taking away guns from people who apply for them legally.

 

Not that I'm against regulation: I'm fully for complete registration and stuff like that. I want to be able to trace guns to people. But what you're talking about is just childish.

[EricMM 0]

so what about extensive waiting periods for guns, all guns?

 

You go to buy a gun, and in a month, you get your gun. All guns.

 

You WILL eventually get your gun...

 

 

Also, about the original topic, some of their views are craziness, but the writing above is sound.

[Art Sandusky 0]

All I said there was that it was silly to make it sound like gun ownership is some inalienable right on par with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's also pretty inarguable that the world would be a better place without firearms.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

All I said there was that it was silly to make it sound like gun ownership is some inalienable right on par with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Well, it is the second amendment--so you could argue that it's on par with free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

 

It's also pretty inarguable that the world would be a better place without firearms.

 

Guns are a tool--nothing more, nothing less. They can be used for good or bad. Getting rid of them is a very Pollyanna-ish idea.

 

The difference in our gun crimes and murder rates isn't the availibility of guns, but rather a difference in culture: I'm not sure, but I don't know too many other countries that have such a violent inner-city culture. We need to fix that somehow rather than simply taking away guns from people who apply for them legally.

 

This is the problem, I think, with the pro-gun lobby. They have aligned themselves politically with segments that ignore these socio-cultural and economic problems that lead to gun violence.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Well, holy, I agree with BOS. Guns are a tool. Its people that are the issue.

 

The ability to protect oneself and one's property IS directly related to freedom. Today, because of technology, a gun is the most direct method. It's an equalizer, because one needs not be ripped with muscles, big, or whatever to operate it. The right to bear arms = the right to protect your property, no quetions asked.

 

Oh yeah, and it is a part of the bill of rights...thanks smitty for point THAT out.

 

I love how the gun part was attacked, but the rest wasn't. No talking points for the demise of an ever expanding government ? And no barbarians won't get us, our own slovenly asses will.

[gWIL 0]

Thread derailment time...

 

PLATFORM of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

 

Concept

 

Environment: Transfer all funds from public welfare system and extraneous government into environmental cleanup. Restrict the amount of land that can be used. Redevelop inner cities. Reward with tax breaks those with few electrical appliances. End frivolous and pointless industries, and force widespread recycling in detail.

Culture: By localizing, we give each area a chance to define its own values and policies and way of life. Localization requires that we reduce outside economic pressure, and slacken central government on most things. The advantage is that local communities handle their own upkeep for the most part.

Race: End all anti-discrimination laws in medicine, hiring, housing and government service. Each ethnocultural group will have its own space, its own laws and customs, and leaders.

Crime: We will concentrate city areas and make land use more efficient, and deploy more street cops to patrol. No record database or DNA database will be kept. Those who commit repeated crimes will be exiled.

Origins

Libertarian originates in our belief in the autonomy of the individual. An individual without a world would have no way to even form the concept of caring about anything but itself. So avoiding that extreme we favor a world where the individual would have relatively few experiences of authority, unless it was doing something truly out of line. The nickel and dime stuff in government, chasing down kids with drugs and the like, crushes a system. A sparse and responsive government is better than a comprehensive but sluggish one.

National Socialist is the concept behind governments such as the NSDAP in Germany and the current government in Israel. The society is owned, collectively, by the people, and it acts in their interest. Unfortunately most of these are democratic, insuring that the lowest elements of reason prevail.

 

Green is a fraction of the National Socialist view on land. "Blood and Soil" is our doctrine of homeland, or origin to each person, and thus which ground is sacred to them and they upkeep for generations. Each ethnic group should have a homeland, because in a consensus group one can declare poisoning the earth to be a great offense.

 

Platform for Jump-Starting Western Nations

1. Tax cuts for environmental objectives

Closing the chapter of environmental disaster in human history is our first objective. A simple mandate for change will not achieve its goal, as business is an ecosystem unto itself, and must be given a chance to transition gracefully to a new way of doing things, much as it absorbs any new cost or technology. Over a seven-year period, we will increase taxes while offering large tax cuts for those businesses that achieve environmental objectives; only those businesses which do not produce tangible goods or services, such as pornography and media producers, will remain at the higher tax rate. These tax cuts will be sizable enough to allow businesses to invest most of their income into adapting to environmental requirements, and at the same time, building up infrastructure and becoming more competitive.

 

The same program will be applied to individuals. Those households which own fewer objects, use less power and produce less waste, will be given a larger break than those who do. Television use will be a means of measuring a family's excess time and wealth. This will not be used excessively into pressuring individuals into a spartan existence, but to encourage limits on the excessive consumption of families as currently seen in the industrialized west.

 

2. Removal of normative objectives

 

In all western states, we will remove normative regulation including all governmental moral intervention with the population. There will be no laws regulating speech, or that punish some for excelling in any field; further, all affirmative action and compensatory civil rights legislation will be abolished. Governments will be prohibited for makign suggestions for "progressive" social reform, and will be limited to functional duties and to funding cultural organizations for the upkeep of traditional culture. In public education, independent groups without profit motive will establish what is in textbooks, excluding all propaganda previously emitting from government sources.

 

Further, welfare systems will be replaced with workfare programs, and all shelters for the disadvantaged will be moved away from functional areas of the city and given an institutional nature. All laws which regulate scholarships and hiring outside of strict meritocracy will be banished, and will be replaced by a system of promoting the most able. All anti-discrimination legislation in housing, hiring and education will be stricken from the books.

 

3. Restore autonomy to the states

 

In countries such a the United States, which are composed of independent state entities, these will be granted again their autonomy: the authority of the federal government will prevail in matters of international politics and that which is related to it, including the trafficking of dangerous weapons, but otherwise each state must define its own laws and crimes. There will be no interstate police agency; all issues of national security will be handled by each nation's equivalent of the CIA.

 

4. Reduction of legal complexity

 

Law will be written in plain English, barring the need for it to express logical construction, and lawmakers will be encouraged to reduce the amount of law on the books to a few simple principles per topic, or as close as is possible. Clearly corporate tort law will never be as simple as legislation regarding homicide, but the proliferation of laws built upon previous laws with no thought of a system of law as whole will end.

 

5. Repatriation of non-Germanic populations

 

In countries of Indo-European heritage, all non-Germanic populations and their offspring and possessions will be re-patriated to the appropriate area: Asians to Asia, African-Americans to Africa. Mixed Indo-European populations will be repatriated to Eastern Europe; mixed racial populations will be sent to Northern Africa or the Middle East, which are traditionally the areas for racial mixing. It will be acknowledged that this is not discriminatory, and no public scorn or retribution against these people will be permitted; they will be allowed to keep whatever wealth they have accrued, and will be treated honorably.

 

6. Create cultural center to oversee media

 

Between academia and government, leaders will be elected to a new cultural center, which receives funding from government and is administered by the people of the leadership caste. Government cannot withhold funding because it disagrees with the choices of this organization, which will be responsible for creating public media, textbooks and other methods of passing on learning from the past and present. This organization is responsible only to itself.

 

7. Reputable international politics

 

Outside of regulation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), all National Socialist governments will withdraw from international politics. Tariffs will be fixed, and no longer a bargaining chip with which one pacifies local industry; high tariffs will be considered correct for every nation. All foreign aid programs will be disbanded.

 

8. All undeveloped land is purchased by government

 

Any land that is presently undeveloped, or in semi-natural state (open cleared fields), will be purchased by the government at market rates, and preserved as natural space. We have more than enough land for human use. Further, any land for which taxes have not been paid for three years, or which is derelict and empty, becomes property of the government and is preserved as natural space, or used in exchange for land which will become natural space. This will reintroduce money into the cities, and provide for the renovation of rotted inner city slums.

 

9. Tax incentives for inner city development

 

To further help inner city residents, taxes will be raised in the inner city and large breaks provided for those who develop properties in those areas. This will encourage an end to the large numbers of unused and collapsing buildings, which result in no-mans-land neighborhoods which are too violent for any person to live in.

 

10. Repeal of laws limiting citizen autonomy

 

Laws forbidding drug use, sodomy and rough personal conduct will be replaced by laws directing people who wish to engage in such behaviors toward specialized areas of each major city, chosen from derelict neighborhoods, where alone such things are permitted.

 

11. Return to strict meritocracy in hiring and education

 

All hiring and scholarships and educational admittance policies will return to a strict meritocracy: the most capable candidate is selected, regardless of his or her wealth or advantages.

 

12. Any area more than 50% concreted must begin planting

 

Localities will be charged to plant natural space in any area in which more than 50% of the available surface is covered with concrete or asphalt. Tax advantages will be offered to those who are renting or have bought in areas that are less than 50% concrete; higher taxes await those who wish to live on an unending slab of grey.

 

13. End tax-free status of religious organizations

 

Religion will be recognized as a business, and subject to the same taxes as any other business, with the ability to deduct any public works or environmental actions.

 

14. Certain destructive things banned

 

Banned, upon pain of death, will be: genetically modified foods; dumping of toxic waste; child molestation or possession of child pornography; possession of nerve toxins.

 

[Justice 0]

so what about extensive waiting periods for guns, all guns?

 

You go to buy a gun, and in a month, you get your gun. All guns.

 

You WILL eventually get your gun...

 

 

Also, about the original topic, some of their views are craziness, but the writing above is sound.

 

 

 

... A month? No offense, but a month is absolutely ludicrous. Would you agree to legislation on free speech that basically said "Well, you'll get to print your article... in a month."? No, of course not. Same argument here. I don't know of many (If any) products that you have to wait a month for.

 

A waiting period that long only encourages people to get guns illegally, thus negating the idea of registration. Secondly, it still only hinders LEGAL GUN OWNERS. I don't see a reason why someone should wait any longer than a day or two on a certain class of gun (Assault rifles and maybe handguns). But not much longer than a few days. Full registration and better tracking is a better solution, as it promotes legal and responsible gun ownership, while adding a way to punish people who misuse them. That, and adding a larger penalty for committing a crime with a gun might be desirable.

 

And thank you Smit and SJ for understanding the real crux of the argument for guns. I'm glad other people honestly "get it".

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Hey don't get me wrong, I still loathe the NRA.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party?

 

They dont even know WHAT THEY ARE!

 

Ugh, the LP needs to sue them to get our good name back...