I advocate republicanism;

Not the GOP kind, and not the creepy orwellian "peoples" kind either. Return to an armed to the fucking teeth free republic like our founders intended. Government that serves and fears the people, not the other way around.

But what do I know, I'm one of those silly induvidualist americans...

Iconoclast sez:

Look at the people who advocate for the NWO in politics or wider society:

Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Obama have all made mentions of it. Others have, but I don't know names.

The term originated in Wilsonian times, I believe.

In contact the term came into being around the time of the Federal Reserve, income tax, the league of nations, fiat currency, and whatever else I'm missing. If I am correct.

I believe the NWO is really world government merged with banker fraud... a lot of the conspiracy/theories (some are legit) are really just regarding taking rights away in incrementalism to make people more reliant on the system's fraud.

The higher standard of living was due to both the localism of the US and the more permissive Western states (which has been eroded by the NWO-style politics) and the increase in various technologies.

It's no surprise that we at Corrupt have a few less admirable things to say about the West as it is today. But we're also hopeful and positive about society in general. A contradiction?
> Yes, especially since you don't even seem to offer concrete solutions of any kind on this blog. You've also been continually indifferent the horrific environmental situation.

Europe was a collection of dictatorships, which later transformed into socialist Fascist States.
> 'socialist fascist' is a contradiction in terms. As you yourself stated in an ANUS article on The Tradition of Fascism years ago, fascism entails a national/corporatist economic system, the best one possible.

During that time we saw a lot of tragedy, including economic collapse and genocide. Yeah, democracy sucks, but looking at history, it's no wonder our leaders wanted to abandon the old way of managing government.
> True. Does that excuse the fact that we must now get rid of it before it destroys us further?

Capitalism: Admittedly, capitalism has its problems. Yet we tried out socialism, in different extremes, and we saw that it completely failed wherever it was implemented. What happened when nations around the world, almost exclusively under Anglo-American leadership, began adopting a (mostly) free market principle? They quickly escaped mass poverty and low standard of living.
> Bullshit. CF Chile, Mexico, most of Africa, etc (anything WTO-advised or IMF-loaned). The true successes (CF the Asian tigers, Putinist Russia, modern China, etc) took/take on *nationalist/corporatist* policies. Are you being deliberately manipulative? I find it hard to believe that you're truly this short-sighted.

Today not even hardcore-socialist countries like Russia and China really believe in a planned economy.
> It's not binary. There are systems in between 'Maoist' and 'Rothbardian'. They're not stupid enough to convert to ('neo'-)liberalism either. Neither gives a shit about free trade as much as the Western leadership does; they're NATIONALISTS, the system you're supposed to advocate. What exactly does CORRUPT believe in at all? Why don't you remove your FAQ and Resources sections, since they don't represent your stance anymore?

Multiculturalism: Even the Nazis get this one; we're living in a mass-communication society today. Regardless if you don't believe in bringing in lots of people into your country, your culture cannot avoid being influenced by foreign cultures, rendering cultural patterns dynamic and ever-changing.
> You can't avoid the internet, but you mostly can avoid thousands of Afghans (refugees thanks to the war you support) parasiting off your welfare state; you can also avoid allowing your industry to be systematically destroyed through impossible competition. But democracy and liberalism won't allow for us to expel them. IDEAS are a lot more pleasant than PEOPLE, at least lower-class refugee parasite people.

NWO: Sure, it exists, a New World Order. Why so many people resent it is baffling, because never before has so many people in the world enjoyed such a high standard of living under extremely humane conditions.
> As you've said before, who gives a flying fuck about third-world development? Sure, some might take place, but we don't want it to; the environmental consequences are catastrophic. There's one Earth and not enough resources for every human to own a fridge. Why do you want better living standards? Is money all that counts for CORRUPT nowadays?

Maybe that's a problem in itself, but there's a reason to why the West won the Cold War, and why everyone else suspiciously is trying to emulate its development.
> Yes. is that a good thing, though?

The status quo is understandable but not defendable. So why do you defend it all the time?

Japan seems to have figured the solution to some of these problems:

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm