<2021-12-02T13:38:47.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: hey sorry I'm getting a shit tonne of replies and also kinda busy rn
<2021-12-02T13:38:50.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: can I reply here?
<2021-12-02T13:39:06.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: Sure, go ahead.
<2021-12-02T13:39:27.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: You caught the attention of some e-celebs, dogpiling is inevitable.
<2021-12-02T13:39:51.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: these are e-celebs?
<2021-12-02T13:40:13.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: also wtf I just wanted to express my hatred for the modern mainstream left and how they fuck all this shit up
<2021-12-02T13:40:35.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: do you have any more arguments against my positions?
<2021-12-02T13:40:43.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: you raised some good points that I will respond later to
<2021-12-02T13:41:01.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: Nationalists/traditionalists consider this to be their/our thing. They get upset that others can like it too.
<2021-12-02T13:42:28.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: I don't feel like I know your position well enough to make a certain argument against it.
<2021-12-02T13:42:35.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: Which is why I asked you to elaborate.
<2021-12-02T13:43:06.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: I'd say the closet thing I am is a libertarian socialist
<2021-12-02T13:43:54.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: but my politics aren't really *libertarian* traditionally they're more focused on fostering development 
<2021-12-02T13:44:30.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: Can you define "development" in this case?
<2021-12-02T13:44:43.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: The last question, I basically am talking about Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction 
<2021-12-02T13:45:24.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: I am not that well read, can you summarize it briefly?
<2021-12-02T13:46:10.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: the distinction is not naturalistic or ontological it's a political distinction that develops due to a need to muster national goals and a sense of being in the in group
<2021-12-02T13:46:28.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: It's why he states that whoever uses humanity is wishing to cheat
<2021-12-02T13:47:02.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: not necessarily bc humanitarian concerns can never exist, it's just that they are often used in an attempt to assert a selective humanism and denaturalise the enemy 
<2021-12-02T13:47:15.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: if the enemy is not of the same moral worth, not of imago dei, might as well kill them right?
<2021-12-02T13:47:57.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: >Can you define "development" in this case?Full utilisation of the surrounding material world and lack of alienation with it, as well as strong communal connections
<2021-12-02T13:49:39.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: Antagonizing other collectives, whether they be localized or other nations, is the natural result of (sinful) human emotion such as greed or envy.
<2021-12-02T13:49:54.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: jesus some ppl are really strawmanning me
<2021-12-02T13:50:13.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: I can imagine.
<2021-12-02T13:50:28.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: >Antagonizing other collectives, whether they be localized or other nations, is the natural result of (sinful) human emotion such as greed or envy.and structural incentives that misdirect these natural tendencies 
<2021-12-02T13:51:16.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: Which is why I don't think we should completely abolish markets, markets can sure a useful role in redirecting greed and envy into achieving an specific market equilibrium and help with development 
<2021-12-02T13:51:36.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: I see things in terms of incentives as a lot of Marxists should imo, not necessarily good or bad
<2021-12-02T13:52:00.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: also someone said I was advocating for abolishing borders, which is just silly 
<2021-12-02T13:52:25.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: I greatly support borders, I just don't think they respect community decision when imposed by a westphalian state
<2021-12-02T13:52:44.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: Being against the existence of nations is implied to be the same as being against borders.
<2021-12-02T13:53:03.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: added to that, whenever you get any large community, there will always be the logical infinite regression when it comes to determining who counts as in group for the vote on border control 
<2021-12-02T13:53:15.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: >Being against the existence of nations is implied to be the same as being against borders.private property can have borders, no?
<2021-12-02T13:53:46.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: What I'm largely arguing against it a mindset, I'm not arguing against local self determination. 
<2021-12-02T13:54:40.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: Private property can, but the existence of a people implies collectively "owned" territory. Sure it might on paper belong to the Leader, but he shares it with his people.
<2021-12-02T13:54:49.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: I don't agree with Nozick mostly but here I do, whenever you get someone deciding border policy on the supposed basis of *representing the common good* you're getting into tricky territory and also it violates the self determination of local communities to pick and chose who they let in. 
<2021-12-02T13:57:22.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: I'd say that the policy of open borders takes away the self determination of local communities to decide who they want to share their space with.
<2021-12-02T13:57:35.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: As currently seen in the west.
<2021-12-02T13:58:08.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: >Private property can, but the existence of a people implies collectively "owned" territory. Sure it might on paper belong to the Leader, but he shares it with his people.but how is this currently played out? Does the leader and the supporting RSAs respect the "people's" role? Also how are the people corporatised as a singular entity in a state? The problems of inclusion and representation are same as when it comes to reparations for blacks, the advocation for a centralised corporation that supposedly acts on behalf of the blacks is shifty. 
<2021-12-02T13:59:30.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: >21:54Jens_Rasmussen@poa.stI'd say that the policy of open borders takes away the self determination of local communities to decide who they want to share their space with.how do these open borders work? bc if you're talking about neighborhoods being required to let some massive corporation or hoard of immigrants dump their stuff in there yes that's problematic but why should borders be imposed on by a state we can barely have control over?
<2021-12-02T14:00:01.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: It is currently playing out to the favor of foreigners who have free access to take part in the territory and development of it that the local peoples have spent upwards of centuries to create for themselves and their decedents.
<2021-12-02T14:01:51.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: We can agree that the modern western state doesn't impose rules, borders or otherwise, in the interest of the people it rules over, nor its own wealth and legacy. But that is a problem with the leadership, not with the concept of state itself.
<2021-12-02T14:08:29.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: >It is currently playing out to the favor of foreigners who have free access to take part in the territory and development of it that the local peoples have spent upwards of centuries to create for themselves and their decedents.and who are these foreigners? largely those of the bourgeois or similar class who has the ability to manipulate things in the first place. Added to that, what about places like the US? A lot of it's history was not created by a couple of native Americans but the millions of immigrants after who did the labour necessary to cultivate the place. Hopefully tho you're not a landback larper and recognise this.>We can agree that the modern western state doesn't impose rules, borders or otherwise, in the interest of the people it rules over, nor its own wealth and legacy.We can definitely agree on that, bc often times immigrants who would otherwise be voluntarily permitted to come are refused by RSAs who have little to no actual stake in the given action. Added to that, I'd also argue that actually states do engage in these border policies for their benefit. The demographic replacement from native populations aren't enough in stage 5 countries like Germany and so in order to maintain their economic power necessary to justify themselves immigrants are vital to maintain this. 
<2021-12-02T14:09:45.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: >But that is a problem with the leadership, not with the concept of state itself.in the short term maybe but in the long term should we not be incentivising new types of social organisation? How can states be organic (I'm not talking about powerful groups I'm talking specifically about the westphalian states). 
<2021-12-02T14:10:06.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: also idk if I can continue this, I'm gonna have to say night for now ig
<2021-12-02T14:11:15.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: if I can say anything about the shitshow I just created, it's that a lot of the time ppl are slightly overreacting on my views of the westphalian state and the regular western ethnic centered notion of nationhood 
<2021-12-02T14:12:33.000Z> Parousia@kiwifarms.cc: Things like *even dogs have borders* etc miss the point of what I am saying, I'm not against borders when they are made on a local level but when imposed by smth like a westphalian state that's where I go tiss. 
<2021-12-02T14:18:41.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: >and who are these foreigners? largely those of the bourgeois or similar class who has the ability to manipulate things in the first placeNo. It's poor third worlders who bring with them crime and wage depression.>What about the USThat's the difference between settlers and immigrants. Settlers arrive to undeveloped lands and develop them. Immigrants arrive to developed land to take advantage of the development already in place.>The demographic replacement from native populations aren't enough in stage 5 countries like Germany and so in order to maintain their economic power necessary to justify themselves immigrants are vital to maintain thisFirst worlders are used to a standard of living that isn't possible when the very rich at the top manage to siphon so much wealth from the rest of society and prices on basic necessities rise rapidly. Tax reform that would target the ultra rich (would never happen, why would they do that to themselves?) and a housing crash making family homes affordable would be all it took for population growth in the west to reach stable levels. If population numbers are to actually increase further incentives and cultural changes would be required, but all within the realms of possibility and without foreign peoples getting the land.>in the short term maybe but in the long term should we not be incentivising new types of social organisation?Current social organization has proven itself to work fine under good leadership, so I think correcting that factor should be enough. Besides, Any social organization will fail under bad leadership.
<2021-12-02T14:19:10.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: You should really use Direct Message posts for these messages by the way. They are way too long for the chat function.
<2021-12-02T14:21:30.000Z> Jens_Rasmussen: I also don't get your use of Westphalian rather than simply "western". Westphalia is a region of Germany.