Let me present to you what I call “Bonds/Relationship-theory”. Or “Bonds Are Sacred Entities Doctrine” or “Bonds Are Supremely Essential Doctrine” (B.A.S.E.D.). Aka. “I Fight For My Friends” morality.The “Right” has a problem. There is no unifying doctrine. No codified or shared moral framework or understanding from which we can identify “Friend” from “Enemy”. The “Right” in its current understanding is highly atomic. It does not help Allies, considers self-reliance a virtue and perhaps even more importantly is not even able to distinguish Friend from Enemy.Bonds-theory solves this issue. It attempts to encapsulate the necessary mindset necessary for our time for survival. It is a simple framework easy to understand and apply in almost every context to plot a useful course of action. It includes who is necessary to include and EXCLUDES who is necessary to exclude in a logically consistent and robust manner. It allows for compromises with those whom we want compromises and allows to draw hard lines in the sand and identify who are truly enemies giving the necessary moral fortitude to call out those who break rank or are actively damaging to society.So what are “Bonds”? Bonds literally refers to the bonds between people. There are many kinds of bonds. There are strong bonds. There are weak bonds. Examples include bonds of Love, Friendship, Family, Religion, Nation, Country, Shared history, Shared understanding, Shared mindset, Morality, Language, Culture, Race, Ethnicity and Ideology. Having MANY of these bonds between a group of people is what amounts to strong social cohesion.This might sound obvious to you. This is by design, because “Bonds-doctrine” is meant to include you who intuitively believe in it. Now that you know what Bonds are, “Bonds-doctrine” refers to the concept of giving Bonds a “Sacred” status. This means that Bonds must be protected. If you wonder what is the Right or Wrong, you defer to your Bonds. (1/3)
Bonds-doctrine stands in contrast to the “Doctrine of Diversity”. Ask the modern leftists what they think of Bonds and they will say it is NOT important. And those who say that bonds ARE important, Bonds-doctrine is meant to De-Radicalize and Un-brainwash away from the left into the new Right framework. Ask a typical right-winger who they would save: Their mother, family, child, or some random person they know nothing about in Africa. The most hardcore leftist would say, “That’s an impossible choice.” Bonds-doctrine asks you to defer to your Bonds. You obviously save your family, your friend, your child. Because Bonds are sacred. Bonds make a cohesive, peaceful, harmonious and strong society. Not randoms across the world.It is possible to argue you share a Bond with the random across the world. You are both human after all. You share a planet. Bonds-doctrine accepts this, but asks “How many bonds do you share? Are these weak bonds? Are these really bonds?”. A shared passport is a supremely weak bond bordering on meaningless. If you feel empathy, love or understanding for another person and the other person does not feel same way towards you, then it is NOT a Bond. It is a lose end or worse yet: a LEASH. Mutuality is necessary for a Bond. Does the person across the world understand YOU? Does he care about YOU? Does he prioritize your Bonds? Your family? Your friends? Your Race? Your culture? Your language? Your morality? If he does not then that precludes him from forming any bonds with you or our society. If he is to join your society then Bonds-doctrine gives us the moral fortitude to DEMAND he hold the bonds sacred. Does he really wish to be a part? Then he must become family and blood through marriage, he must learn the language, he must adopt our mindset. Even if he adopts some of these bonds, not adopting enough bonds is enough to exclude someone. Nobody will accept just having a piece of paper saying they are a citizen as a real Bond. (2/3)
>>542424567Importantly, Bonds-doctrine act as a lens to identify who are truly friends and enemies. Bonds-theory does not explicitly endorse a set of economics, but the globalist free-market capitalists who DO NOT CARE about your bonds? They could in the traditional sense be understood as “right-wing”. Bonds-doctrine correctly identifies them as enemies. They would gladly break all Bonds in the name of profit and as such they are the enemy. Bonds-doctrine gives the moral framework with which to shame and resist them. Those capitalists who find that actually they ARE allies and agree with Bond-doctrine that they can view the application of their capital through a Bonds-ideological lens to see that outsourcing to China and importing a bunch of Indians to do the work is obviously not supported by Bonds-doctrine. Instead, it would guide him to identify where he should employ his capital rather than the current guiding star of “maximal profit” or “market principles”. Who gets a job? Who gets donations? Defer to Bonds.Not everyone will agree on which Bonds are *more* or *less* important. Some will say Race is most important. Some will say Family. Some will say Friendship. It does not matter. Bonds-theory includes all of these groups in the same camp. They all agree that these are Bonds. They are real. And that they are significant. And that the more bonds exist between people, the stronger the society. Thus they all undeniably hold some value and must not be neglected.Most importantly, that understanding allows it to resist the radical left, which does NOT believe in Bonds. Routinely one-way “leashes” themselves to the foreign and global and insist everyone else do the same, tries to break bonds between people. Bonds of Duty, Marriage, Loyalty, Mutuality, all these things are concepts the radical left abhor. Bonds-doctrine will form that missing Bond to create a foundation from which the world can truly heal. (3/3)
/pol/ is a Mvslim board kindly fuck off
Well, now you have touched on how all this has occurred. For example, the industrial revolution destroyed local bonds and turned the population into rootless consumers and workers, because a big factory with the latest technology can outproduce all the original economic structures which defined pre industrial relationships.
>>542424930I share no Bonds with your religion.>>542425064By elevating Bonds-doctrine, the idea is that breaking bonds through whatever mechanism is seen as highly evil and mobilize people to action and mobilize would-be-evil-doers to see the error of their ways.For example, the globaly hyper-optimized rootless economy, does it help or corrode our Bonds? It corrodes. On the one hand this gives the moral foundation to demand tariffs, to boycott outsourcers, to support local producers.Traditional "right wing" discourse has been dominated by justifications of "free market principles" and "competitiveness". This is atomizing, inherently corroding to Bonds.
>>542424684Imma give this a 1 (one) Bump cause it's a high-effort post.I should've used an "Is coffee good for you" attention grabber.
>>542424477>>542424567>>542424684this seems rather tailor-made to rationalize exclusion and genocide of jewish people wherever you find uspost-Trump /pol/ wont fall for it
>>542426648It's not proscriptive of genocide. It is inherently a very defensive doctrine. What of Jews who respect the Bonds? What of Jews who make efforts to form Bonds of friendship?Bonds allow for compromises and dialogue through respect mutual nurturing of said Bonds. It does not, like hard-core racists do, supremely privilige ONE bond over all.
>>542426648>this seems rather tailor-made to rationalize exclusion and genocide of jewish peopleYes, I agree it lends credence to his theory. But I still think he needs to work on it a bit more.
Obviously, destroying the Bonds of others and disrupting them is evil according to Bonds-theory. Thus subverting other societies is not OK. But it does not imply that yours and theirs society is compatible. That is dependent on your Bonds.People think Jews are subversive. Bonds theory enables calling out of subversive acts because it's AWARE of its own Bonds. The current paradigm is not keenly aware of its own Bonds and will not call out corrosive activity. The current right wing paradigm is after all, atomic.But it also enables recognition of GENUINE attempts to FORM bonds and genuine respect for bonds. Friendship IS a strong bond. Through genuine mutual friendship and effort one can form bonds regardless of race, but this requires mutuality. This is the compromise the hard-core racists must make. Race as a bond is acknowledged, but is not given supreme authority. All bonds carry some weight, you can all squabble about how much. But ultimately there is some agreement on "most" bonds.However when Isreal is demanding the US attack Iran on their behalf or Isreal is demanding money... is this true Mutuality? Or a leash? This gives the moral fortitude to say "no" to the supposed greatest ally. If there is to be a real friendship, that's possible, but what is currently in place is one-sided.>>542427078This is why I'm posting it on 4chan. No better place for people to scrutinize and take a huge shit on an idea. This is trial by fire. Either it dies, or it survives.
>>542427646>This is why I'm posting it on 4chan. No better place for people to scrutinize and take a huge shit on an idea.You've got something going on, but it needs refinement. I wish I could help more. I am amused that the Mexican jew objects... means you've hit on something important.
>>542427812>I wish I could help more.I appreciate it senpai. Even if this is not the way, the "right" needs get over its brittle fractures or what I call its "Atomicness". I agree self-sufficiency is a virtue, but it's just reality that groups defeat individuals. The "right" needs a unifying framework.If you want to help, copy-paste this and share the idea again sometime in the future, see if it takes. Maybe it can be refined, maybe not. I think there's definitely something to the idea of relationships. It really was hammered home to me when seeing a real believer of leftist globalism willing to sell out his own family or friend for a complete random he knew nothing about in the name of equality. I know I'd stand by my friend in that scenario, and who would even want a friend who would sell one out like that? I think this is a key ideological divide.
>>542424477I like this post.Please keep shilling it every day on this shit site.
you don't need a doctrine to fight for your family, it's instinctual
>>542424477I agree with this Framework.>>>Haha...
>>542429384>you don't need a doctrine to fight for your family, it's instinctualYou'd think so and this is why I think it's a strong unifying foundation. But leftism actually hates this idea. It considers bonds oppressive and largely wants to abolish them. It sees EVERYTHING as a power dynamic of oppressor and oppressee. Parents oppress their children, so they want childrens liberation and childrens rights. Men oppress women so they want womens rights and womens liberation. White oppresses brown etc. etc. etc.It does not consider mutual bonds of trust as good things, they are independent one-way leashes of oppression.But as you say, instinctually, people care about bonds, this is why it's a powerful rallying banner. To de-radicalize leftists who actually are like "You know I just don't like the rich destroying our bonds. I care about bonds." And they can find common ground with even the racists who agree that international capital is destroying our bonds.
So, your theory isn't wrong but the idea that it's gonna be some amorphous set of ideals is silly. It's gonna be clan based warfare
>>542424477Bumping for effort
>>542424477nah i think doctrine is the issuefaith needs deleted from our systemsauthority and the other myths should be recognized for the expedience they are and NEVER taken fully seriously
>>542424477dnr
>>542430600>It's gonna be clan based warfareHow so? The framework opens for compromise and discussions and outlines how trust can be established and what red lines are. It is "just inclusive enough" to have a broad "clan" i.e. "the west and friends". But crucially CLOSES the radical openness and pathological empathy breach we currently have. We can't keep being taken advantage of, we must demand mutuality and have the moral fortitude to do it.I'm seeing right wing youtubers thinking they will bring back Christianity as a unifying doctrine because they desperately need the moral foundation.This is, IMO, ridiculous and like trying to bring back mounted cavalry charges after the invention of the machine gun. Modern times need modern solutions. This doctrine can unify Christians and Atheists as long as they share other strong bonds.>>542431146"I fight for my friends" gives the west the moral courage to justify standing up for itself that it currently desperately needs. It's not superstitious and thus it is a strong foundation for our time.>faith needs deleted from our systemsThis ideology is constructed rationally from axiomatic presupposition that *most people* find it rational to care about their friends and relationships. These are real things unlike religious faith. Explaining the rational basis fully as I'm doing in this thread is, for purposes of enforcement, completely unnecessary. Most people, don't really think too deeply for themselves. This is why ideology is so effective. This doctrine is intended to give people the "shortcut" to understanding right and wrong without having to construct or understand the rational framework outlined in this thread.It's not even complicated, as I said earlier, it's largely:>Bonds make a cohesive, peaceful, harmonious and strong society.If that's what you want then there you go. Seems quite robust to me.>>542431183Based non-reading bumper, ty fren
>>542424477very interesting thoughts
