Some people remark that I do not really have an ideology, but just a collection of prejudices. That I act on intuition but could never explain my logic. I admit to not explaining myself well enough.

My worldview has a fundamental building block in the same way that a house may be made of a certain material:
1) I think that man is born a natural animal.
2) I think man must overcome nature for civilian society.
3) fanatical devotion to ideals is required to overcome nature
Part 1 is realism. Part 2 is idealism. Part 3 is means for the second to overcome the first. I believe strongly in setting goals and reaching them.

I acknowledge the existence of nature, but think man can master nature. Hitler had the opposite view and ridiculed the idea that man should overcome nature while Marx believed strongly in material determinism. Religious people believe in unscientific determinism. But I believe man can and should conquer nature.

I believe creating group identification systems – classes, nations, social constructs, gender awareness, race awareness etc. is good rather than bad. Liberalism intentionally trolls the groups which hold society in existence to ruin society, though some liberals believe they are decent people. Part of overcoming nature is group consciousness. Marxists are for using existing classes to destroy society, not for intentionally creating and preserving classes. Hitlerites think that group identification occurs automatically. I do not, I think it has to be programmed, which is rooted in my belief that man must overcome nature. Society can be engineered for improvement, but whoever dictates society must know what he/she is doing. I understand man thinks individualistically, but think man can be made to operate collectively through ideological agreement (Preferable) or through bribery (not as effective).

Because I believe man must overcome nature, I believe that man should create a social contract to preserve order between nations and individuals. But I believe that the contract has its limitations and therefore perpetual peace is not possible or desirable. There is some level of global group identification – we are all humans – but I think we should be broken up into smaller groups too – races, tribes, language groups, sexes etc. That means there are separate nations and separate social contracts. To argue for globalization is like arguing against modularity. The populations of earth should be breakable into smaller pieces. One would not design a house without modularity, and earthly society should not be designed without modularity.

In order to overcome nature, man must first acknowledge nature. Religion is a perversion of this process, a problem for techno-progression and competition for the state worship which I advocate due to the social contract. Man must totally worship collectivism if man wants to overcome individualism. Ideology is a transforming force, but religion is a perversion of ideology which replaces the truth with falsehoods. Man can be programmed (depending on intelligence and open-mindedness), but religion abuses the concept.

Because of all of this, I gravitate towards the bureaucratic state and think that it should be used to push people into nationalism. I believe in big government, but because I am a realist and a conqueror, I believe individual initiative and competition should be an important part of that government. Currency should exist, but Government should be harassing you like big brother. In other words, you can start your own business, but you better use it for the good of the state, not the bad of the state. And the state will watch you.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 26th, 2009 at 8:26 am and is filed under Third Position, philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.