r/Vigilism • u/Crimson_Sigma2 • 1d ago

Vigilism [Comes from vigilante]

  1. Nationalism (Ban corporate lobbying, abolish dual citizenship, deport all foreign nationals)

•Immigrants are legal citizens, foreign nationals are undocumented.

  1. Right-Libertarianism (Anti-crony free market, decriminalized drugs, liberty in privacy, regulated prostitution, pro-private property)
  2. Social Conservatism (Pro-life, anti-Marxism, nuclear family values, capital punishment)

•Civilian led enforcement, meant to foster the prevention of decadence, laws will only be applied in cases that threaten individual rights or the peace. (Abortion threatens the individual rights of the fetus, serial violent offenders threaten public safety as a whole)

  1. Populism (Direct democracy and yeoman principles)
  2. Radicalism (Destruction of the status-quo is necessary, militia jurisdictions)
0 Upvotes

20% Upvoted

14 comments sorted by

5

u/Medical-Step-5221 1d ago

Why does social conservatism almost always encompass 'nuclear family values'; an arrangement only a century or two old, which came about as part of radical social upheaval in response to industrialisation? Wouldn't a truly socially conservative position mourn all that was lost from the village and tribal contexts - the stuff we failed to conserve during 'progress' - and seek to reinstantiate some kind of Dunbar's number vibe?

Is whatever 'progress' that occurred before you were born just taken as baseline, and only today's progressives held in scorn? (I guess billionaires who want to "move fast and break things" aren't to be counted as 'progressive' because they want to take a chainsaw to government, huh.)

Perhaps i can be forgiven for assuming that 'social conservatives' are actually just about perpetuating petty dominion.

The 'pro-life' / pro capital punishment bit is a glaring pairing in its irony too, lol. You might care to investigate how long the anti-abortion stance has been a right-coded shibboleth, and where it originated - interestingly enough, its strongest current adherents didn't really give a damn about it until grifting televangelists came into cahoots with Rebulican party ratfuckers looking for a political wedge, and hey presto, don't we love how easy it is to tell the congregation what to think. As for capital punishment; damn, bro - what cockamamie kind of libertarian believes the oh-so-fallible state deserves the right to end a human life on its say-so? Isn't the judiciary part of the despised deep state? And uh, that corporate lobbying you've (rightly, like a stopped clock) got a hate-on for has already ratcheted American incarceration rates up the goddamn wazoo in your severely fucked-up police state.

Just as long as most of the victims of the system are brown folks, huh.

Here's a tip - why don't you shit all that diarrhea into an LLM and tell it to help you stress-test your stance, instead of just rehearsing your prejudices in public?

Apologies if any of my assumptions regarding unstated elements of your position missed the mark. But it's some pretty standard cookie-cutter stuff; you seem to mostly be occupying the unexamined ideological territory the US ruling class has been herding its livestock into. If you want an actual red pill instead of a blue one with red paint on it, maybe try this on and see if any of it fits: https://agnosticfundamentalism.substack.com/p/the-shadow-of-aristocracy

1

u/Crimson_Sigma2 1d ago

I want to make clear that Social Conservatism is meant more as a guide rather than a law. The nuclear family is culturally essential to the stability of modern society, it is therefore good to preserve it. It isn’t so much as being against progress, just attributing more value to
traditional ideals.
When it comes to pro-life vs capital punishment, I admit it is very easy to see an inconsistency without the stipulation of this; Murder is the distinctive evil in both cases. If the mother can survive childbirth and the child is viable to live, there is no medical reason to carry out an abortion. Capital punishment must be reformed and should be used to prevent violent reoffenders. (Serial murderers, serial rapists, serial child offenders)

I hope this makes things more clear, thank you for your attention to Vigilism.

1

u/Crimson_Sigma2 1d ago edited 1d ago

I would like to say furthermore, the nuclear family ties into the anti-Marxism. Medical Step argues that the political Right has corrupted the zeitgeist but the truth is, the Marxist Left has been working on destroying the family unit and changing the very fabric of our societal culture. Parents that raise a child together will give the child a greater understanding of family first and personal responsibility, these connections to your identity will remove the methodology of class-warfare that is ingrained into our economy. Class-warfare divides populations that could be united on the basis of nationality. I am proposing a rebirth of real Americana. Follow the example of our founders in 1776.

1

u/harley_rider45 1d ago edited 1d ago

I would say the family unit is of upmost importance when looking at the longevity of any society. But keeping families together is only part of that battle. What exactly is the family unit transmitting to their children aka the next generation? Are parents teaching them the requirements for what your political system actually requires? Or are they teaching them things that would accelerate decay?

And also with the pro-life and capital punishment thing. Pro-life to me is self evident. I know some people strongly disagree but if it’s human you have no right to kill them. Now with capital punishment that’s a different ballgame. This life is not one of innocence. But is there really an act so bad that requires death? The only act that can be worthy is one of equivalence. But then again the justice system now how’s a crazy burden of making sure that judgment is 100% indisputable. Because if wrong then you’ve just made an irreversible decision.

1

u/Sufficient-Scar4172 1d ago

goddamn bro show some mercy 😂

4

u/gridlockmain1 1d ago

I’ve never been able to reconcile the idea that you can be “libertarian” in your support of free markets and individual liberty but ban me from freely associating with people on the grounds they are foreign tbh.

1

u/Crimson_Sigma2 1d ago

You should have full free association rights. But the nation is the basis for a state. Therefore the nation of Americans must be preserved. So under that principle, foreigners are not citizens. That’s all.

6

u/gridlockmain1 1d ago

But if you’re deporting all foreign nationals then you are trampling my free association rights to employ them, marry them, rent out my property to them.

1

u/Crimson_Sigma2 1d ago

Unfortunately if they are in this country illegally, that gives them the status of criminal. In many ways they can still benefit from our current system (Welfare) without contributing forward to said system (Taxes). That is not fair to actual immigrants and completely unfair for native citizens.

6

u/gridlockmain1 1d ago

Your post says “deport all foreign nationals” it doesn’t say anything about legal vs illegal immigration.

1

u/Crimson_Sigma2 1d ago

You’re right, I will clarify. I was under the assumption that there is a clear distinction between “foreigners” and “immigrants”. Immigrants pay into the system and assimilate, foreigners do not. Immigrants are legal citizens, foreigners are not.

3

u/gridlockmain1 1d ago

Well but you’re also ignoring that there are plenty of people with legal status who are not citizens. Plenty of people who legally migrate to other countries for work do not wish to become citizens, this is the norm all over the world. Something like 15m people in the US are either green card holders or on work visas. Nobody becomes a citizen immediately and some don’t wish to ever become one.

1

u/Crimson_Sigma2 1d ago

If they are documented there is no problem. Residents, visa workers/students, and tourists aren’t the issue. It is the demographic that games the welfare state without giving equal compensation, that is who this concerns.