> In the future, ideals and culture will rules over methods, mechanisms and tools such as capitalism. This does not mean rejection of capitalism, but putting it in its correct context so that it can do what it does well without interrupting other methods needed in different areas of civilization. While this is too complex for people now, it will soon be seen as commonsense.

How can this not be applied to socialism as well? Why is this not true also?

> In the future, ideals and culture will rules over methods, mechanisms and tools such as socialism. This does not mean rejection of socialism, but putting it in its correct context so that it can do what it does well without interrupting other methods needed in different areas of civilization. While this is too complex for people now, it will soon be seen as commonsense.

CAPITALISM IS PART OF IT, MOSTLY "NOT SOCIALISM"

CAPITALISM IS -- AS THAT EXCERPT NOTES -- A METHOD, NOT A GOAL

eurosocialism already does work, norway is richer GDP-per-capita wise than America is

THOSE COME FROM CULTURE, ARISTOCRACY AND CASTE

EUROSOCIALISM IS BANKRUPT

no it is not

NORWAY AND SWEDEN DEPEND ON OIL MONEY

THIS WILL NOT ALWAYS WORK SO WELL

I dropped a bunch of facts on you yesterday

only about 1/4 of their GDP relies on it actually

1/4 IS SIGNIFICANT

do you want me to get it again?

ALSO THEY CANNOT MEET FUTURE OBLIGATIONS

NO MATTER WHAT THEY CLAIM

yes they can

HENCE THE FANATICISM FOR IMMIGRATION

Exilarch makes a good point. Just minimize the race and Jews aspect of dissident right ideology and it's basically "right-progressivism."

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/norway

I saw a clever post on Facebook about this some time ago.

RIGHT BELIEF IS NOT IDEOLOGY

IT IS REALISM

WHAT WORKS?

AND: WHAT MAKES THE BEST RESULT?

FOR NOT JUST THIS YEAR, BUT THE NEXT TEN THOUSAND

OR SO

MAYBE MORE

"Source: NOTE The Norwegian central government is in a net asset position, i.e. the government’s total financial assets exceed the total debt. They borrow cheap to then re-invest."

NO DOUBT

that is what the wiki page said too

BUT THEY ARE STILL DEPENDENT ON DEBT

everyone is dependent on debt

AND WE HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE FULL EXTENT OF THEIR FUTURE OBLIGATIONS

you are aware of debt-to-income right?

OF COURSE

AND YET

I AM UNCONVINCED THAT HEAVY DEBT IS GOOD

IT IS A LIMITATION

A FORM OF CONTROL

YOU LIKE GLOBALIST CONTROL?

under capitalism a certain debt-to-income ratio is seen as optimal, neither too low nor too high is good