[Tribbles]

So we are basically going back to the 1500s, where they'll seize your land and rule over you, and then when the people try to survive, survival is deemed illegal and met with ever more draconian punishments?

Maybe they can join an order of beggar-monks or something? Some holy person can give them magical powers, and then they can give divine blessings for change. A inquisition must off course be installed to make sure everything goes according to the teachings of the bible.

[Far-Right Sage]

Are you advocating Fascism or the type of deliberately ignorant Catholic theocracy of the Dark Ages?

It distinctly seems to be the latter.

[Rei Murasame]

Yeah, assuming that his response wasn't him being facetious, he seems to be basically calling for a return to the Dark Ages.

I remember a long time ago, when I was a kid, and there was a movie whose name I can't remember it was that long ago, but there was this one scene that stuck with me, it's a scene where there's this little yellow-haired girl - presumably living a long time ago - and for some reason she's poor and etc etc, where she's in a church trying to get a cleric to do something for her, and the cleric asks for a payment.

And so she reaches into her pocket, and pulls out basically the only coin she has, and shows him that it's the only coin she has. The incredibly fat cleric then takes the coin from her anyway and puts it in his pocket.

That's basically how they really are at heart, that's not just fiction, that's actually what they really do.

You're on the wrong side of this issue, Tribbles, the church doesn't care about the poor, they just like watching people suffer.

[Tribbles]

A part from orders of beggar-monks (which would be great news, because they will occupy a niche currently taken by those evil gypsies, thus pushing them out of the beggar-market and returning them to Romania) and volunteers of different kinds, one might try to make different sorts of communitarian arrangements.

[Rei Murasame]

That idea creates two more problems:

• Marxian socialists will quite succinctly point out that rather than solving the problem of massive poverty, you have simply done a typical capitalist manoeuvre of shifting the problem to somewhere else. What were before poor gypsies begging, become now poor whites begging, and gypsies get deported. You've merely kicked out one underclass and then stood and watched as the bottom drops out of the working class to fill the same niche.
  
  It's such a textbook shifting of the problem (there's a technical English Marxian term for this but I can't remember it, is it called 'displacement'?), that Marxian socialists will be falling all over each other to point it out to you, themselves, the working class, and just about anyone who will hear them.
  
  
• "Making different sorts of communitarian arrangements", will immediately cause you to draw fire from even your own supporters, since they'll recognise immediately that you've just put a bunch of people outside the state and decided to ignore them, as if nothing bad is going happen after that. It's almost Ron Paul -esque.

It's just a bad idea, like from the ground up it's a bad idea.

[Tribbles]

Tax-cuts will help a bit - as the money saved on strangling parts of the social-welfare system remains on private hands, that can help people out. But just in case the adjustments gets painful, it is best if it happens under a dictatorship that does not need to be popular, and that can keep the angry mobs at bay.

I`m not sure how this is supposed to work together with my proposal for corporatism though, what if the tech-func parliament (http://bildr.no/view/992058) don`t like it? A possible solution is to do all the radical stuff first, and then install the "no, this is not a dictatorship we have an alternative system" later, when society i re-molded away from social democracy, and all that remains are adjustments and slight improvements within the new system.

The problem about welfarism is that it often leaves the disabled and sick in a state of social isolation. If we take a more medieval, organic approach to the problem, we might end up with better results - also in the field of minimizing the number of free-loafers and slackers that takes advantage of the system. Within my proposal, the state will help out for any curable disease, and sponsor the treatment that it most likely to work. For those cases were it doesn't work out, other solutions than disability-pensions must be installed in its place, and in order to boost conservative and traditionalist elements such as the church, the state should give them practical tasks within this field.

Here, the state might sponsor religious buildings such as monestaries, and orders of beggar-monks and beggar-nuns might be given a monopoly on begging, thus outlawing other groups of beggars, such as junkies (who might be expelled from the orders in question for not giving up drugs, or refuse to join in the first place) and gypsies, which is a foreign and criminal element anyway.

Pensions for senior-citizens will be a different system, apart from what I describe above.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, before I give a detailed response, I just have to check something. You are aware that what you've done here is pre-planned to undercut your own supposed system so that financiers and big business can slash away as much of the social services as possible, before you bring in your system to put a smiley and patriotic face atop the neoliberalism you've just introduced?

This is basically one of the most anti-fascist statements I've ever read:

But just in case the [fiscal] adjustments get painful, it is best if it happens under a dictatorship that does not need to be popular, and that can keep the angry mobs at bay. [...] A possible solution is to do all the radical [neoliberal] stuff first, and then install the [front-men who will implement a] "no, this is not [really] a [neoliberal] dictatorship we have an alternative [front-end] system [to disguise it]" [kind of edifice] later, when society i[s] re-molded away from [having any of the services that existed under] social democracy [remaining after our extensive cuts], and all that remains are adjustments and slight improvements within the new [stripped-down] system.

...And Kingoro Hashimoto wept and rolled over in his grave. Several times.

Seriously, what the hell? What is going on in Norway? I've noticed that it's not just you, it's the Norwegian far-right in general that is flagrantly missing the point of fascism.

You lot in Norway seem to be misusing this ideology, by stripping out its core and leaving just the edifice, where everyone is expected to say "yes, yes, yes", with an absolutely humongous smile of loyalty as you literally disembowel the society.

Fascists are supposed to be about a vibrant and deep social justice for their people, you are supposed to care about these people that you are now speaking of tossing onto the garbage heap. What happened to that?

[Tribbles]

Well, before I give a detailed response, I just have to check something. You are aware that what you've done here is pre-planned to undercut your own supposed system so that financiers and big business can slash away as much of the social services as possible, before you bring in your system to put a smiley and patriotic face atop the neoliberalism you've just introduced?

Hm. Kind of.

But it is not as neo-liberal as you think. Conservativism involves strict rules on a lot of things, and I want to continue the tradition of centralized wage-negotiations also called class-collaboration, just with environmentalist representation on board. The great gain with my proposed system, is that ecologists will have one quarter of parliament, so we can do a great job at restoring not only our culture to the 1200th century, but also our environment.

But if we install the system right away, my imaginary Technocratic Functionalist government might be opposed by segments of its own Technocratic Functionalist parliament and corporative system (We cant have angry people in the tech-func parliament, everyone must applaud and be happy, like in the Russian grand soviet), so a period of dictatorship is needed first - like it also was in Italy and Portugal. All the important stuff was decided before corporatism was installed, corporatism is just added in order to make small corrections and adjustments within the new system, the new paradigm that has replaced the old.

It is important to think it out clearly though. One needs a good looking plan that is easy to understand, that is well-liked by the fascists of the party in question (not easy, since everyone have their own opinions on syndicalism and corporatism) not too complex, and that does not have so many theoretical holes in it that professor-nerds and other intellectuals laughs at it. (Even if they disagree, the theoretical craftsmanship must be sound, so that they respect it)