Critiques of liberalism

[Anonymous No.16749060]

Enjoyed pic related, even though it's a very recent book.

One thing I found worthwhile was its attempt to diagnose the problems of liberalism, by stating what it is, and what it ends up doing to populations. The difficulty being that modern liberalism is quite pervasive and harder to detect as an operating ideology.

Any books that do the same, maybe better or from a different angle?

[Anonymous No.16749069]

What, ultimately, is the problem with liberalism though?

[Anonymous No.16749077]

>>16749069
It makes the vast majority of mankind (the 99%) miserable.

[Anonymous No.16749082]

t.

[Anonymous No.16749179]

>>16749069

Technically it's an ideology of death. It rejects traditional ways of life, which the book explains as a historical anomaly. It encourages hyper-individuality and fracturing the social interconnectivity and reliance people had on one another.

Paired with an capitalist free markets, it turns high proportions of the populations into atomized, hedonistic, narcissistic, non reproducing, economic consumption and production units. This is made worse still by the altered perception of time, forgetting the past, and assuming progressive nature of the future, making people only concerned about the short term.

[Anonymous No.16749208]

[Anonymous No.16749215]

>>16749179
>ideology of death
Holy based.

[Anonymous No.16749227]

>>16749060
Pretty much all of Derrida, except liberalism as the contemporary operating ideology of the metaphysics of presence.

[Anonymous No.16749246]

>>16749077
>>16749179
only if you're an incel chud

[Anonymous No.16749256]

>>16749060
The Ego and Its Own by Max Stirner.
Quote:
Political liberty means that the polis, the State, is free; freedom of religion that religion is free, as freedom of conscience signifies that conscience is free; not, therefore, that I am free from the State, from religion, from conscience, or that I am rid of them. It does not mean my liberty, but the liberty of a power that rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my despots, like State, religion, conscience, is free. State, religion, conscience, these despots, make me a slave, and their liberty is my slavery. That in this they necessarily follow the principle, “the end hallows the means,” is self-evident. If the welfare of the State is the end, war is a hallowed means; if justice is the State’s end, homicide is a hallowed means, and is called by its sacred name, “execution”; the sacred State hallows everything that is serviceable to it.

[Anonymous No.16749314]

>>16749077
That doesn't sound like a problem particular to liberalism

[Anonymous No.16749350]

>>16749208

Read this one. Very good.

Poses another problem with liberalism is that it was successful enough to subsume communists that willingly surrendered. It seems to subsume everything else willingly or not i.e. the modern term of "pozzed"

[Anonymous No.16749627]

>>16749256
Based quote. Finally convinced me to read Stirner

[Anonymous No.16749651]

>>16749246
I think polling would indicate that a majority of people have some major problems with the current system.

[Anonymous No.16749701]

>>16749179
How people like Deneen don't see that this "everyone should follow a traditionalist historicity" position is just a veneer for their own vanity is beyond me. Saying that if everyone believes in the same thing then they will have a shared communal spirit is largely circular. Were that a tenable social position, it would still be in place.

[Anonymous No.16750420]

>>16749060
schmitt

[Anonymous No.16750438]

>>16749060
"Post-liberalism" is incel socialists\ trad cath larping. It can't be serious.

New Deal liberalism is the final pill.

[Anonymous No.16750445]

Everyone already knows liberalism and especially neoliberalism has failed miserably and it will only get worse. The problem is that there is no way out. Who is going to convince the Jewish-American World Order that the world they have built is actually a prison akin to meat grinder to the detriment of everyone even themselves? Do you think they would just go ahead and say "sorry guys it didn't work out we are going to try out different political systems" and it will be happily ever after? You could read and write critiques as much as you wish, it's not like it will change anything.

[Anonymous No.16750476]

Deneen is a fucking faggot, at heart he shares most of liberalism's beliefs. He made one of those "liberals are the real racists" type of tweets a while ago, having a real visceral reaction to some BLM guy who was correctly saying that whites aren't absolved of racism just because they adopt colored children. Deneen wrote a really faggy, effeminate moralizing tweet about this, iirc saying the BLM guy and RIchard Spencer would get along just fine or something along those lines. He's a stinking universalist at heart and his localism is solely advocated by him cause that's the only way his faggot catholicism is going to have any future influence in the US. I bet none of these mainstream advocates of localism would support cultures that go against progressive orthodoxy, fucking hucksters

[Anonymous No.16750479]

Anything by Chantal Mouffe, Alasdair MacIntyre or Isaiah Berlin.

[Anonymous No.16750486]

>>16750476
Yes, and he also literally masturbated to Amy Coney Barrett, women who said that "Anything boys do girls can do better!". Is this a power of Catholic traditionalism lol?

[Anonymous No.16750489]

>>16749060
John Gray obviously
Marx's early writings

[Anonymous No.16750491]

>>16750476
>iirc saying the BLM guy and RIchard Spencer
Funny that Spencer voted for Biden so it's not quite a lie.

[Anonymous No.16750496]

>>16749179
Can Liberalism be separated in a meaningful way from Capitalism? Is it possible to have one without the other or do they inevitably go hand in hand?

[Anonymous No.16750498]

>>16750496
CHINA

[Anonymous No.16750517]

>>16749060
god i hate it when philosophers pretend to understand causality.

[Anonymous No.16750565]

>>16750491
Dude who gives a fuck about voting in current year. Besides, my point is he's just as much of an anti-racist universalist as these woke idiots, he's just so full of projection and feminine hysterics he can't see it himself. BLM is all about undermining the post-war liberal/protestant order and its ideas about civic nationalism or whatever, anyone opposed to liberalism should find plenty to agree with here but most of these anti-woke ecelebs are so goddamn fucking stupid and worthless, just pure histrionics and strawmanning. BAP is a faggot as well, just look at his twitter feed post-election and the bitchy effeminate tone of his tweets/retweets. Starting to think his whole masculine persona is just overcompensation

[Anonymous No.16750602]

>>16750565
>BLM is all about undermining the post-war liberal/protestant order
BLM is supported by all major corporations wtf

[Anonymous No.16750604]

>>16749060
Liberalism is the chad ideology. It created the best societies.
Commie and nazi cope is pathetic.

[Anonymous No.16750702]

>>16750496
capitalism is descended from liberalism. you cant disconnect the 2

[Anonymous No.16750717]

>>16750604
t. Retard that fails to acknowledge alienation, emotivism, environmental catastrophe, rampant mental illness, etc. >>16750496
Not really. China is capitalist and not liberal so it doesn't apply to this.

[Anonymous No.16750722]

>>16750717
>China is capitalist
no it isn't

[Anonymous No.16750730]

>>16750722
of course it is dummy

[Anonymous No.16750734]

>>16750730
no, it isn't
midwit

[Anonymous No.16750739]

>>16750734
so what is it then

[Anonymous No.16750772]

we must reject the false dichotomy that we cannot disavow liberalism without sacrifizing our material comfort and technological advance.

[Anonymous No.16750781]

>>16750772
nobody has ever said that

[Anonymous No.16750792]

>>16750602
Yeah, that's why this support should be rejected as it undermines BLM itself.

[Anonymous No.16750807]

>>16750772

How?

[Anonymous No.16750817]

>>16750772
You might strictly speaking be confusing Liberalism with Capitalism, though the two are obviously often mentioned in the same breadth.

[Anonymous No.16751217]

>>16750565

>BLM is all about undermining the post-war liberal/protestant order

Are you on crack? They're the literal foot soldiers of this shit. They're the easiest political group to wield because they've never been in charge and aren't capable of being in charge, but convince them of that and give them the social shield of the racism accusation and they'll do whatever you want them to. They're loyal because they aren't shit without the ruling class.

[Anonymous No.16751264]

>>16750772
>Incidentally, emerging from that same liberal thesis which contends that man is free, it follows that he is always free to say ‘no’, to say this to whomever he will. This, in fact, constitutes the dangerous moment of the philosophy of freedom, which under the aegis of absolute freedom begins to remove the freedom to say ‘no’ to freedom itself. The Western liberal model says: you want to oppose us? Please, you have the right; but, look: you will not want to give your washing machine back, right? The washing machine is the absolute argument of the supporters of progress. After all, everyone wants a washing machine — Black people, native peoples, conservatives and the orthodox. Communists, too, according to a different logic, spoke of the necessity and irreversibility of structural change. They said that socialism would come after capitalism. Socialism came, although we plainly never had capitalism. It stayed around for some time, destroyed quite a lot of people, and then disappeared. It is exactly thus with the washing machine. If one thinks about the metaphysics of the washing machine, to what extent it is coupled with the real values of a philosophical system, one will be able to come to the conclusion that, in general, human life is possible, and perhaps even has the potential to be entirely happy, without the washing machine.
>But for a liberal society, this is a terrifying thing, almost sacrilege. We can understand everything, but life without the washing machine? That’s already a really unscientific saying: life without the washing machine is impossible. There is no such thing. Life is the washing machine. In this resides the effect of the force of the liberal argument, which takes on a totalitarian character. There is always an element of some kind of constraint in liberation — this is the paradox of freedom. At the very least, there are the constraints of having to think that freedom is the highest value. Imagine that one person says, ‘Freedom is the highest value.’ Another responds, ‘No, it isn’t.’ Then the first answers, ‘You’re against freedom? I will kill for freedom!’

[Anonymous No.16751277]

>>16750445

Agree with this. I've also seen others make this evaluation, but additionally, it's very difficult to see why it hasn't collapsed yet. It's obviously showing signs of strain, but fuck, for some reason it keeps going. Maybe it's because it's the best at recruiting willing participants, without having an attack-able core doctrine.

Otherwise, the only way to sidestep the leviathan is to build parallel societies. Not parallel in a way that completely removes oneself from everything, but in a way that doesn't make you totally dependent on it, and susceptible to it's influence, because you have primary or redundant methods of securing food, shelter, security, etc.

[Anonymous No.16751285]

>>16751277
it keeps going because there's no alternative, all countries have either been absorbed by it, or indirectly depend on it

[Anonymous No.16751342]

>>16751277
The collapse is coming with the death of white people. In accordance with their liberal philosophy they opened the borders and they went from 90% of the US population in 1960 to about 60%. It's a similar story throughout Europe as well. The liberal model cannot sustain itself with individualist people.

[Anonymous No.16751379]

>>16749060

[Anonymous No.16751387]

>>16751285

I'm starting to suspect pic related is one of the symptoms of that.

[Anonymous No.16751403]

>>16751264
Where is this from?

[Anonymous No.16751409]

>>16749060
The concept of 'bioleninism' is pretty useful because it contextualizes what we think of as ideologies as, on a larger scale, adaptation strategies for societies by which they can intensify control, production and therefore power.

[Anonymous No.16751411]

>>16749627
get SPOOKED

[Anonymous No.16751418]

>>16751403

[Anonymous No.16751419]

>>16749246
>have sex, incel! the shrieking demons cried at the man who sought his freedom from their hell

[Anonymous No.16751423]

>>16749256
The first part of The Ego and Its Own has an absolutely brutal critique of liberalism.

[Anonymous No.16751427]

>>16751409

Spandrell, is that you?

[Anonymous No.16751450]

>This book assesses the evolutionary sustainability of liberalism. The book’s central claim is that liberal institutions ultimately weaken their social groups in the evolutionary process of inter-group competition. In this sense, institutions relying on the liberal satisfaction of preferences reveal maladaptive tendencies. Based on the model of multilevel selection, this work appraises the capacity of liberal democracy and free markets to satisfy preferences. In particular, the book re-evaluates public choice theory’s classic postulate that free markets are a suitable alternative to the shortcomings of western liberal democracies regarding preference satisfaction. Yet, the book concludes that free markets are not a solution to the problems of liberal democracy because both market and democratic liberal institutions rest on the liberal satisfaction of preferences, an ethic which hurts group evolutionary fitness.

[Anonymous No.16751493]

Ah, everything was much better in Hollywood's version of the Bronze Age!

[Anonymous No.16751507]

>>16751427
No I am not Spandrell. He is too busy running cover for his chink masters on twitter to post here. I just think it is a useful analysis.

[Anonymous No.16751605]

>>16751507

Based

[Anonymous No.16751632]

>>16750772
We must reject the technological system.

[Anonymous No.16751645]

>>16751632
No

[Anonymous No.16751680]

>>16751645
Yes

[Anonymous No.16751703]

Leviathan and its Enemies by Samuel Francis

[Anonymous No.16751709]

>>16751493
>human happiness has increased in direct correlation with time passing
>we are happier than people 100 years ago who were happier than people 100 years before that and so on
>prehistoric man knew depths of misery we cannot comprehend and happiness has done nothing but increase since then

[Anonymous No.16751764]

>>16751709
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.16751778]

>>16751709
People's notion of what it is to be happy has changed throughout time so that's a fairly pointless indicator.

>prehistoric man knew depths of misery we cannot comprehend and happiness has done nothing but increase since then
How do you know prehistoric man was miserable? For all we now he was "happier" than any of us

[Anonymous No.16751787]

>>16751709

Some evidence suggests that humans were happier (at least way healthier) before the invention of agriculture, until pretty recently. Yes, all kinds of modern technologies that make our lives easier but this frantic race seems to lead to transhumanism, or simply, nowhere: resource depletion, ultimate scarcity and chaos.

[Anonymous No.16751792]

>>16751778
Prehistoric man didn't have the latest plastic gadget to watch the latest Jew propaganda, so obviously he was less happy than us.

[Anonymous No.16751795]

>>16751680
how am I gonna play games with friends from overseas then
smoke signals?

[Anonymous No.16751801]

>>16751795
You'll just have to throw out your little electric gizmo toys. Tough shit, anon.

[Anonymous No.16751807]

Capital, The German Ideology, Negative Dialectics, On Contradiction, etc etc etc

"muh tradition" objections are purely external criticisms, arbitrarily presented as being inherently opposed to liberalism as some kind of necessary alternative. Any worthwhile concept of liberalism will attempt at each moment to be adequate to its object through a succession of determinate negations.

This process is the immanent critique. Any non-dialectical critique of liberalism by crudely juxtaposing it with pre-liberal traditionalism is just pointlessly returning to the premises out of which liberalism emerged in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16751813]

>>16751801
what if one of your family members gets cancer

[Anonymous No.16751814]

>>16751813
Then they die.

[Anonymous No.16751818]

>>16751645
Yep. Sorry, dude. The technological system has to go.

[Anonymous No.16751821]

>>16751814
you sound really tough

[Anonymous No.16751827]

>>16749246
You need to talk to people irl more

[Anonymous No.16751830]

>>16751821
I don't like modern medicine. It keeps people alive in all manner of unnatural states of suffering, misery and degradation, and works to prevent them from dying as they should and having their suffering end.

[Anonymous No.16751832]

>>16751778
Progress anon. We are the happiest humans that have ever lived and all those who lived previously were unhappy to the extent their lives differed from ours. The further back, the more miserable

[Anonymous No.16751839]

>>16750734
Yes it is maocel

[Anonymous No.16751844]

>>16751830
so you would let a 20 year old person die from cancer
this person has dreams, friends, aspirations and doesn't want to die

[Anonymous No.16751852]

>>16749060
Who’s to say if capitalism shits the bed again we won’t just get neo-New Deal liberalism?

[Anonymous No.16751855]

>>16749179
Based. Upvoted.

[Anonymous No.16751857]

>>16751844
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16751865]

>>16751844
Do you think someone who is old and dying from cancer inherently has no dreams, friends, aspirations, or doesn't want to die simply due to their age?

>>16751832
I'm not sure about this. It seems to be the case mental-illness is more prevalent then it's ever been -- and continues to increase with more "progress". Unless the progress is to instill a worldwide mental breakdown, in which case, it just might succeed.

[Anonymous No.16751866]

>>16749179
Very based

[Anonymous No.16751877]

>>16751865
>no dreams, aspirations, doesn't want to die simply due to their age
yes, for the most part

[Anonymous No.16751887]

>>16751865
He is being facetious

[Anonymous No.16751892]

>>16751787
Great post anon

[Anonymous No.16751896]

>>16751703
Good book. Also Against His-story, Against Leviathan is another solid read

[Anonymous No.16751899]

Try liberal privilege by trump jr

[Anonymous No.16751906]

Gulag archipelago

[Anonymous No.16751911]

>>16751844
Yes. Our fear of death and trying to conquer it has had disastrous consequences. It takes to much energy and resources to support all this. We as a people must accept death. Yea I would be sad if my mom or someone close to me died at a young age from something like the flu, but this is a natural part of life that we all must face

[Anonymous No.16751920]

>>16751709
>human happiness has increased

[Anonymous No.16751939]

>>16749060
I haven't read it, can you give a quick summary of how the book responds to >>16749314 ?
I tend to agree with that anon and would say that >>16750496 can be done only in small scale human dynamics. The optimal human community would be in a commune of a few thousand where you have the freedom to do what you want (within the bounds of everyone's well being) while also having all of our modern technologies. This seems impossible as liberalism, technologies, and population are all tied together.
>>16751830
You are naive but can't be blamed. People have no clue how amazing modern medicine is until their family member has a stroke or gets cancer and they realize what actually matters in life.

[Anonymous No.16751946]

>>16751939
>People have no clue how amazing modern medicine is until their family member has a stroke or gets cancer and they realize what actually matters in life.
Maybe you'll realize how amazing it is when you get to watch them die in unspeakable agony while a machine does its best to make them continue suffering for as long as possible.

[Anonymous No.16751956]

>>16751217
Honestly, do these guys not stop for a second to wonder why the head and major organizers of BLM are Jewish to the core, as well as left-wing terrorists/bombers

[Anonymous No.16751993]

>>16751946
you're retarded

[Anonymous No.16752000]

>>16751993
It's fine for you to think that. I legitimately hope that you don't ever have to understand what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.16752027]

>>16752000
Nobody should ever want to understand something so retarded, so at least you’ve got your hopes right

[Anonymous No.16752035]

>>16752027
Lol, okay.

[Anonymous No.16752042]

>>16752000
machines are made to alleviate the pain you dumb fuck
what are you even talking about?

[Anonymous No.16752044]

>>16751956

No they’re afraid of thinking about it (semitophobia)

[Anonymous No.16752045]

>>16751264
Before washing machines the elite classes had servants in the place of washing machines. The Greeks even put as a condition of happiness the freedom of the self from external impositions, most importantly having to work to satisfy one’s needs. Not many people from these classes, from the beginning of civilisation until now, would see washing their own clothes as compatible with happiness and saw slavery or servitude of others as wonderful thing. The really wonderful thing about washing machines is not that they’ve freed up our time, but that they’ve freed up some people’s time. I wonder how much of his time he would give up to manual labour before he said “enough!”

[Anonymous No.16752067]

>>16752042
The suffering is caused by being forcibly kept alive in a situation in which you should be dead. You're clueless. Maybe one day you'll see it and know.

[Anonymous No.16752077]

>>16752067
you're saying that like they put the sick person on the machine forcefully
if they are on a machine its because they dont want to die

[Anonymous No.16752082]

>>16752077
Tell them you'd like to be euthanized and see what happens.

[Anonymous No.16752092]

>>16752082
In some countries you would be euthanized if you asked for it.
Or you could kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.16752094]

>>16752092
>In some countries you would be euthanized if you asked for it.
This is good of course.
>Or you could kill yourself.
The state will try to prevent this and keep you alive even if you are a walking corpse.

[Anonymous No.16752098]

>>16749060
>Critiques of liberalism
Only one you'll ever need.

[Anonymous No.16752103]

>>16752094
then just try a really effective way
or far away so that no one finds your body in time to resuscitate you

[Anonymous No.16752145]

>>16749060
Leviathan and Its Enemies for a critique of american liberalism

[Anonymous No.16752150]

>>16751450
>evolutionary anything
fucking cringe. i can guarantee you that the book consists of just so story after just so story.

[Anonymous No.16752163]

>>16751946
I am >>16751939
I do not disagree with euthanasia, and neither do the majority of (sane) people. Most sick people have good lives up until close to their death, but some do suffer. I watched my grandfathers slow decline; it sears an awful picture into your mind. This is not what the majority of medicine does. I've also seen medicine give new chance for life to a 25 y.o. friend with a brain tumour and to my mother. There is nothing noble about letting billions of people die awful and preventable deaths for some Kaczynski wet dream concerning the "natural order" of "how things should be".

[Anonymous No.16752169]

>>16749069
Rejection of metaphysical truth claims which disallows the building of common value systems, thus creating either anemic or highly polarized societies.

[Anonymous No.16752177]

>>16752169
>waaah liberalism rejects my spooky supernaturalism

[Anonymous No.16752212]

>>16752094
Thanks for confirming libertarianism is a suicide pact.

[Anonymous No.16752221]

>>16752163
>There is nothing noble about letting billions of people die awful and preventable deaths for some Kaczynski wet dream concerning the "natural order" of "how things should be".
I don't care about any of that. I want human suffering to end via human extinction.

[Anonymous No.16752222]

>>16752177

[Anonymous No.16752233]

>>16752212
Based libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.16752258]

>>16752177
>noooo nobody knows what the common good is!!!! you heckling naziii!!!!
But in all seriousness, liberals can't even agree among themselves what the common good is, see Republicans versus Democrats in the US.

[Anonymous No.16752293]

>>16751939
>This seems impossible as liberalism, technologies, and population are all tied together.

Just because this is the only way we have found to reach a certain tech level, along with its proliferation, doesn't mean this is the only or best way to attain those.

[Anonymous No.16752436]

>>16752221
>it's depressed anti-natalist anon
sounds like a (you) problem man.

>>16752293
>doesn't mean this is the only way
that's probably true
>or best way
depends on how you define best. Locally fastest for sure. I guess it's really hard to make conclusion based on empirical evidence when we only have this one planet and one system (with minor variations) that took over that planet. Could the European science/liberalism of 1600-1900 have sprung from different institutions?

[Anonymous No.16752445]

>>16752150

It's entirely possible for an ideology to be the product of forces that have filtered out previous and competing ones. Liberalism is today's apex predator.

From what I can tell, communism is effective as a mind virus that survives because it attempts to allow humans to sidestep their constraints, and people that like it are the ones that benefit most from the destructive leveling it imposes, even though they end up getting fucked over anyway. It also isn't economically sustainable, so it really puts a limit on its lifespan.

Modern liberalism is "better", in the sense that it leverages avarice and greed, but gets stronger the more the population resorts to vices and materialism. But that results in a leveling effect, but through a progressive degradation of the populace. Rather than give people a way to say "im equal to you" and have it explicitly imposed by the state as in some type of communist arrangement, liberalism allows people to believe they can do whatever they want, and how dare you try to constrain or limit me from doing whatever I want. I.e. hyper individualism.

[Anonymous No.16752465]

>>16752436
>sounds like a (you) problem man.
It's fine. My side already won. Western civilization is over and will fall gradually back into the muck of nothingness, and so will everyone else.

[Anonymous No.16752467]

>>16750772
based.

The opposite is the case

[Anonymous No.16752574]

>>16751939
you'll realize how amazing it is when we artificially keep increasing numbers of people alive that otherwise wouldn't be, necessarily meaning that more 'unfit' in evolutionary terms people are surviving, using resources, and having kids which furthers the problem. This does not show itself in merely physical terms. Mutational load and poor physical mutations that alter someone beyond health are correlated (obviously) with mental mutations as well. When society is crumbling under the weight of spiteful mutants we will no longer be able to keep using our advanced medicine, you can't run an advanced technological society with 60IQ proles very susceptible to disease and mental illness. When that happens then all these people are screwed anyway.

[Anonymous No.16752582]

>>16752027
lmao, the state of lit hahahaha

[Anonymous No.16752596]

>>16752221
100% cringe. God>Happiness>suffering. stay mad and kill yourself

[Anonymous No.16752660]

>>16752163
>There is nothing noble about letting billions of people die awful and preventable deaths for some Kaczynski wet dream concerning the "natural order" of "how things should be"
Those billions of people are only alive because of the exploitation of natural resources and fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.16752667]

>>16752596
oh a christian larper, yawn

[Anonymous No.16752712]

>>16749060
Ideas Have Consequences by Weaver

[Anonymous No.16752868]

>>16751939

It gives a contrast in the later part to the Amish. As an example, the Amish apparently ban things like insurance, enforcing social reliance on their families and local communities. With modern liberalism, insurance acts as an anonymous way to hedge risk by just paying some money into a pool. There's no requirement for you to know anyone, and therfore no obligation or duty to offer help for your fellow man in his time of need.

It also goes over the Amish concept of Rumspringa, where each young person is made (forced?) to move out of the community to experience modern life for one year, and he claims that 90% return to stay in their community. So in that sense there is an attractiveness to their arrangement and while I couldn't say it makes people more happy, it probably offers more fulfillment and maybe happiness as a side effect of that fulfillment. Essentially, the Amish operate on the idea that if a certain thing will tend to break down their social cohesion, they opt out, hence why they may have a landline phone in a central building, but not in every house, because they alternative means you have to talk to and get along with the people around you.

I wouldn't go so far to say 99% of people are made miserable, at least not at once, or all the time. But modern liberalism tends to create a sort of spiritual rot in society, because it operates on the wrong idea that everyone is (or should act as) an unconnected individual. Basically a rootless, deracinated, homo-economicus that shouldn't be limited by anything regarding the circumstances of their birth. But you can't actually do that IRL, because all the things liberalism tries to make irrelevant are central to a healthy human identity.

Take Canada, where I live (hurr hurr a Leaf). We're liberal as fuck, and most people here have been ideologically taken over by American style liberalism. The CBC routinely complains that few if any people read Canadian authors anymore, for example, but the truth is, it's the perfect example of what liberalism does - it serves up pre-packaged one size fits all cultural junk food that displaces a lot of the organic local culture that can't compete. We don't really have a positive sense of self anymore, aside for rabid anti-Americanism, which means people generally opt for materialism or owning a home for fulfillment, rather than developing and defending our own culture and people. We have lower birth rates, higher use of anti-depressants, but also have higher consumer debt loads. Any time I venture in to the cities, like Toronto, the vibe is creepy AF. Like a aggressive rat race in insane traffic to consume or get to work and just run on a hedonic or status seeking treadmill. I don't get that sense nearly as much in rural areas closer to/in nature. Sorry for the rant, but it's all so tiresome.

[Anonymous No.16752884]

>>16750479
I second Chantal Mouffe, as well as Alain De Benoist obviously

[Anonymous No.16752904]

Really surprised that Alain De Benoist is not posted about here more often. He provides a much better critique of liberalism than Deenen in that it doesn't come from a Catholic (and thus arguably Christian/liberal) standpoint. Niggas gotta GRECE

[Anonymous No.16753339]

>>16751899
What would a spoiled upper class brat know about about this? How could someone who is part of the ruling class tell the working class that they are privileged without coming off as a condescending douche?

[Anonymous No.16753348]

>>16753339
That's some nice cutting edge 19th century political lingo. Workers rise up!

[Anonymous No.16753349]

>>16751387
Why are they making so much babies? They are in the middle of the damn biggest desert in the world!

[Anonymous No.16753409]

>>16752574
I never advocated for increasing numbers of people and I disagree with your pessimist outlook, though stabilizing our current trajectory is going to take serious social changes in the next 100 years. You might be happy to know that as climate change sets in the upper middle class in developing nations who form the basis of our human intelligence capital will be the safest from any sort of “collapse”. Whether that’s any consolation for the millions in developing nations that are going to starve, you be the judge.
>>16752660
And? We can easily sustain our current global population while conserving the rest of the environment if we get our act together on renewables/agriculture and stop wasting so much.
>>16752868
Thanks for the in depth reply. That’s definitely a valid critique, and I wonder if to sustain a community like the Amish you need something like religion.
I think it could still be argued that these are natural symptoms of greater population densities. I’m from Canada also (maritimes), and if you drive across the country you can sort of see the sliding scale of community when going from rural town to mega city. There are deep roots of culture and history in our literature and stories that I don’t see coming out of somewhere like modern day Toronto. The place might as well be another American city. You could compare Montreal and Quebec City also but maybe I’m going a bit off topic here as Quebec has a much different cultural context.

[Anonymous No.16753534]

>>16749060
No one asked but my critique of liberalism is as follows. In no particular order of precedence:

1. It is ignorant of conflict. Liberalism assumes without evidence--in fact in the face of evidence--that every culture and everyone in society can find a way to get along. It refuses to acknowledge that there are irreconcilable differences between people that inevitably lead to conflict. Liberalism is therefore always the victim of conflict which it is blind to and cannot defend itself from.

2. It does not go far enough to solve the fundamental problems. Liberalism is a milquetoast, half in, half out ideology. It seeks compromise and temporary ameliorations. It is the enemy of boldness and radicalism. It favors incrementalism, or in some cases, no action at all. As such, liberalism in its preference for handling every issue with a light touch, is incapable of responding to drastic change or harsh conditions. It collapses in the face of turmoil.

3. It is not above elitism. Liberalism's devotion to equality can become a screen for fundamental differences in status. As when a liberal intelligentsia dictates morals and acceptable conduct to the less educated. Liberalism is a haven for wealth inequality, despite its championing of racial or gender equality.

4. Liberalism does not give meaning. There is nothing rousing or inspiring about the liberal vision. "Do what you want as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others" liberalism says. It is merely permissive. But it does not suggest what you should want. It doesn't believe in universalisms. And so people can be led astray. If one is willing to believe there is an actual notion of degeneracy and it isn't just moralism, then degeneracy is the sinking and deviance into psychologically and physically unhealthy lifestyles permitted by liberalist culture.

[Anonymous No.16753565]

>>16749651
I think polling would indicate that a majority of people have some major problems with basically every large scale political system that has ever existed.

[Anonymous No.16753575]

>>16753409
>We can easily sustain our current global population while conserving the rest of the environment if we get our act together on renewables/agriculture and stop wasting so much
No we can't. Renewable resources are entirely dependent on fossil fuels throughout their life cycles. They also require finite resources and their production destroys the environment as well.

[Anonymous No.16753584]

>>16753565
What is the problem with Monarchism?

VIVE LE ROY !!!!

[Anonymous No.16753591]

>>16749701
If you support liberalism you have no problem with vanity. It's just that the vain pursuits you'll accept are socially corrosive and insipid.

Traditionalism in no way prescribes cultural uniformity.

[Anonymous No.16753610]

>>16753409

What you're saying is true regarding the Maritimes and Quebec, and I left mention of them out to keep the comment shorter.

I haven't spent a lot of time out east, but it was a positive experience when I did go. A lot of the places can be relatively poor, but the people were very hospitable and friendly. My guess is that they have more intensity of culture or identity, which you need to produce the works you're referring to. In other urban places, everything just gets watered down into a multicultural poo, so the only thing people there produce is mass media shit like Drake, or a low brow ratchet patois type of talking. Essentially, you could wipe Toronto off the map today, and culturally nothing would be lost and the impact would be little to nothing.

I do think religion is a big part of what keeps the community together. Probably because it acts like a moral framework giving them a concrete reference point that modern people otherwise have chosen to reject.

[Anonymous No.16753677]

>>16751264
Dugin more or less agrees with Karl Popper that liberal "freedom" is predicated on ruthless suppression of its opposition.

>>16752045
Freedom of the individual has historically been associated with slavery of others. Freedom to command and kill is the ultimate expression of sovereignty.

What is to be done about such contradictions?

>I wonder how much of his time he would give up to manual labour before he said “enough!”
He's merely making a rhetorical point about the structural inflexibility of liberalism. He's not saying labor-saving devices are antithetical to traditionalism. Nor is he advocating anti-tech revolution. There's zero chance Dugin's clothes aren't cleaned by machines.

[Anonymous No.16753678]

>>16753584
Monarchism is the greatest form of government as long as you can find the one right person to rule

[Anonymous No.16753687]

>>16753610
>ratchet
I wonder how many people know this is the same word as "wretched"?

[Anonymous No.16753696]

>>16753678
Yep. That's the problem with any system, however. You can't fix a shitty polis with constitutions.

[Anonymous No.16753745]

>>16753696
>That's the problem with any system, however
True. Any system can work provided people that comprise them are virtuous

[Anonymous No.16753771]

>>16753575
The goal is not to completely eliminate fossil fuels in some fell swoop, see:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148111004599
http://www.oxbridgeresearch.com/docs/renewable%20energy.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032114005656
A big reason why renewables aren't "renewables" right now is that our primary energy sources are fossil fuels! Its like if we were stuck in quick sand and didn't want to get pulled out because we might get rope burn. Energy isn't the only problem, and its not even the biggest problem (that would be biodiversity losses and N/P pollution that are absolutely buttfucking the natural systems we rely on). I would not be surprised if in 200 years our global population stabilizes at ~6-8 bil after some growth and decline (if we even make it to there). At this point we just need to decisively act on the problems in front of us and control for other damages.
>>16753610
You would probably lose a lot of smart mathematicians and rally good classical musicians haha.
If religion is important than I guess that leads us back to the Nietzschean question. I pray this is not the end of history type dilemma that we see it as, and it probably isn't given the ignorance of every generation to its successors problems. Future generations will hopefully have better things to worry about.

[Anonymous No.16753857]

>>16753534

I don't disagree with any of these, but I think it's important to say that liberalism wears two different masks depending on who the group is. If there is any group liberalism prefers, these are the operating rules, particularly if it requires acting illiberally toward a preferred group as a corrective measure, and treats them like spoiled children with unlimited forgiveness, or scapegoating another to explain the behavior. I think that's the only way it can square the idea that "liberalism is true" and having direct evidence that says some people don't think it is, and don't give a fuck about liberal values.

OTOH, like >>16753677 says, if you're a target group that represents some type of oppositional or illiberal group, you swiftly get dealt with, and immediate ruthless suppression is fair game.

It's anarcho tyranny basically.

[Anonymous No.16753895]

>>16753771
Nothing you state here counters my point. All of this is still dependent on finite resources. These finite resources are getting harder and harder to extract, meaning they take more energy. Eventually, you hit an economic roadblock. Take for example oil; Shale oil is in the shithouse and the US depleted its major shale reserves. No one is going to invest in new technology since they never made a profit off shale and oil is under $40 a barrel. Even so, the new technology for drilling will require more energy, be more dangerous to the environment, and require more refinement.
You cannot sustain infinite growth on a finite planet. If your "renewable" resources still require finite energy sources, they are not really renewable.

[Anonymous No.16754127]

>>16749069
It's a utopian ideology that morally projects an eternal "rights of man" (based on outdated anthropology) onto society, resulting in an absurdly propertarian and anarchic society that cares more about preserving the ideals of dead philosophers then meeting the real material needs of the populace. It's a brainrot that's infested every ounce of burgerland, and it'll probably only be exterminated once the economic system crashes so badly that no amount of Keynesian concessions can save it.

[Anonymous No.16754205]

>>16750496
No, because liberalism is simply a cultural reflection of the material transition from feudalism to capitalism. Barring serious humanitarian collapse, we can't hope to permanently revert to feudalism, so the only way out is socialism.

[Anonymous No.16754265]

>>16750739
It's still a socialist society, over half of its economy is public and its private sector is extremely regulated. Its strategy, to survive in the depths of neoliberalism, is to facilitate the transfer of capital to the third world to be invested (via China's vast state programs) into building an indestructible socialism. Read Deng and Xi bro

[Anonymous No.16754302]

>>16750445
>liberalism and especially neoliberalism has failed miserably
Has it? It's serving the elites better than any other system in history.

[Anonymous No.16754329]

>>16751387
>8 babies for every thousand people in China, Russia, Europe, etc

Is this even real?

[Anonymous No.16754408]

>>16753677
Well Karl Popper was also a massive pseud that hung out with Milton-fucking-Friedman, so it's no surprise that his political theory has a thinly-veiled hypocrisy

[Anonymous No.16754713]

>>16753409
Middle class/low level elites may be safe from climate change but they are not in any way safe from declining birthrates and dysgenic population trends, our middle/elite classes will go extinct because we will run out of people who are capable of operating at that level (at this rate).

I should note that I do not think this is how society will actually go, just what would happen if the modern trends and ideas were allowed to continue unhindered. Push-back will happen and even if there is a large scale collapse that just benefits natavist conservative rural people who are more than capable of running a society long term, even if it means less trade and goodies and we can't buy as many funko pops.

[Anonymous No.16754771]

>>16753409
>>16752868
Yo I haven't taken this discussion as seriously as either of you, but I'm also from Canada (Vancouver). Pretty interesting that all 3 of us are.

[Anonymous No.16754788]

>>16749069
There are none, notice how every single response you've garnered so far has been a mixture of nonsense fascistoid drivel, appeals to nature and hyperbolic, baseless polemic.

[Anonymous No.16754829]

>>16749077
speak for yourself, I'm pretty content

[Anonymous No.16754836]

>>16753895
this is cope. The cost to establish space industry is not outside of the reach of most major world powers today. Once done the amount of minerals simply floating around in space is mind-boggling and (once the infrastructure is set up) relatively easy to extract. This is why it is said first businessman to pull of an operation like this will be the world's first trillionaire.

[Anonymous No.16754866]

>>16754829
speak for yourself, I'm pretty discontent

[Anonymous No.16754892]

>>16754788
nice hitler dubs checked and heiled!

[Anonymous No.16754925]

>>16754836
Do you have any idea what EROEI is? There are massive energy investments required for these pie in the sky ideas. Spaceflight is one of the most energy intensive operations that humans have ever designed. How are you going to get the energy it takes to launch a bunch of rockets back from an astroid? They don't have natural gas, coal, or oil. All of these resources are needed to make and maintain rockets as well as the renewable resources mentioned earlier.
>cope
Nigga plz. I'm actually looking at our energy future objectively, you're coping and projecting

[Anonymous No.16754977]

>>16754925
>How are you going to get the energy it takes to launch a bunch of rockets back from an astroid?
The atom.
Google NERVA.
Duh.

[Anonymous No.16754994]

>>16754977
I did and some roman emperor pops up. Quit being a faggot and just send a link

[Anonymous No.16755050]

>>16749069
capitalism
>>16750602
just because corporations coopt progressive symbols doesnt mean a they give the slightest shit about marginalized people, its pure virtue signaling. they'll get support from clueless liberals and continue to profit off of oppression.

[Anonymous No.16755255]

>>16754771

It's interesting. Vancouver is a weird place, because it's both situated in some of the most pristine landscapes, but also completely let itself go to international capital. I used to live on the Island, but when I visited it was incredible to see the intersection of the new money from real estate, NIMBYism, green leftist freaks, and ruthless capitalism.

I'm not really surprised Canadians would show up in this thread. Personal relationships aside, any Leaf I've know who is fully aware of the state of this country is completely disgusted by it.

[Anonymous No.16755314]

>>16754788

>There are none

Right, and liberalism never causes any problems, and even if it did, the solution would be more liberalism, right?

>fascistoid

At this point I would rather live in a fascist state than this clown world with its constant globohomo propaganda and moral decay.

Typical liberal though, thinks pinning the fascist label to everything makes it wrong.

[Anonymous No.16756346]

>>16752258
The common good is maintaining individual rights and property rights while capitalism flourishes, obviously.

[Anonymous No.16756495]

>>16749701
Whole entire societies collapse and their 'social positions' with them. Your argument that traditionalism is untenable because it no longer is adhered to in society proves nothing. Humans don't always do what is best for them and most societies end up steering themselves off a cliff.

[Anonymous No.16756879]

>>16749077
I guess if you live in a shithole country like the US, this would be the case. Live in any decent country and you can live on a part time job, enjoy time to read, play sports, spend time with friends and family, and build a satisfying life. The only real failing of liberalism is it's general hesitancy to incorporate more socialist aspects into society through the taxation of the means of production/technological proliferation of labor. All modern industry of all kinds if based on generations of labor and innovation, thus those gains should go directly towards the betterment of the society as a whole.

[Anonymous No.16756943]

>>16752045
Freeing up the servant's time from washing clothes has just meant the servant has more time now to work in the Amazon warehouse or drive food around. Everyone from John Stuart Mill to Karl Marx noticed the fact that technological advances never actually provide people more free time, it simply pushes them into different lines of work for the gains of the small elite class at the top.

[Anonymous No.16757642]

>>16756346
Rights are only guarantees for the exercise of freedom. They do not give you advice on how to use your freedom. The Greeks also valued freedom but they understood that freedom not spent in the pursuit of the socratic good isn't freedom at all. That's why capitalism breeds fractious identity groups vying for social control. You could argue that it is better to leave questions of identity to civil society but without an imperial overculture, state exploitation and social conflict increase.

[Anonymous No.16758898]

>>16754925
You miss the point. The cost of launching rockets in space is near zero because no gravity. The resources are already in space, water on moon minerals on asteroids. As other poster said nuclear can be used for propulsion which is another benefit and no worrying about radiating the environment when its in middle big open space. It's highly costly to set up but once done, cost pays itself off rapidly as all the infrastructure is built and used in space. You can run the whole thing only sending the results back down to earth which is not costly at all compared to sending things up. You act like it's expensive to such a degree it's out of our reach, again I will mention it is well within our means if we had the political will, we absolutely still have enough energy reserves it's not like we'll run out of fracking oil or coal before this happens we can do it in a few decades. This is neither impossible nor exceptionally difficult. We have solutions you're dooming but I'm telling you there's no need. I remember getting told day in day out about peak oil 8 years ago and having to talk about it in school constantly people thought it was over by 2010 we were energy done. We weren't so I speak to you because I see similar doomer thoughts when we have solutions available.

[Anonymous No.16758903]

>>16755255
That last sentence is spot on. Every Canadian I know, every single one who is not completely tuned out and just living their muh best life thinks the country is a disgrace and things are going badly.

[Anonymous No.16759285]

>>16758903

It's funny, because I started to feel that way after ~2015ish. After the famous John Oliver schtick - everyone clapped like seals. Meanwhile they caught up to him in his office (chamber?) after and he had all these aghast looks on his face "there fucking neanderthals, how can they not understand muh current year, the true progressive way." Same when he sneered at the Pure Laine woman, literally his own people. Pure contempt. It's nauseating, because that really is the mindset of the people in this country. Nothing but hubris.


Some Bong had an article last year saying there's basically no market for populism in this country. I would agree. It's essentially the ruling ideology, zero material opposition. We were never going to vote our way out of the problem, but it would be nice to at least send a "fuck you" to the ruling class, but we can;t even get that.

[Anonymous No.16759306]

>>16751939

A quote from the book, to elaborate:

>The rising generation is indoctrinated to embrace an economic and political system they distinctly fear, filling them with
cynicism toward their future and their participation in maintaining an order they cannot avoid but which they neither believe in nor trust. Far from feeling themselves to constitute the most liberated and autonomous generation in history, young
adults believe less in their task at hand than Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the mountainside. They accede in the duties
demanded of them by their elders, but without joy or love—only with a keen sense of having no other choice. Their overwhelming response to their lot—expressed in countless comments they have offered to me over the years describing their experience and expectations of their own education—is one of entrapment and “no exit,” of being cynical participants in a system that ruthlessly produces winners and losers even as it demands that they understand this system to be a vehicle of “social justice.” One can hardly be surprised that even the “winners” admit during frank moments that they are both swindlers and swindled.

>As one student described the lot of her generation to me: We are meritocrats out of a survivalist instinct. If we do not race to the very top, the only remaining option is a bottomless pit of failure. To simply work hard and get decent grades doesn’t cut it anymore if you believe there are only two options: the very top or rock bottom. It is a classic prisoner’s dilemma: to sit around for 2–3 hours at the dining hall “shooting the breeze,” or to spend time engaged in intellectual conversation in moral and philosophical issues, or to go on a date all detract
from time we could be spending on getting to the top and, thus, will leave us worse off relative to everyone else. . . . Because we view humanity—and thus its institutions—as corrupt and selfish, the only person we can rely upon is our self. The only way we can avoid failure, being let down, and ultimately succumbing to the chaotic world around us, therefore, is to have the means (financial security) to rely only upon ourselves.

>Advanced liberalism is eliminating liberal education with
keen intent and ferocity, finding it impractical both ideologically and economically. Students are taught by most of their
humanities and social science professors that the only remaining political matter at hand is to equalize respect and dignity
accorded to all people, even as those institutions are mills for sifting the economically viable from those who will be mocked for their backward views on trade, immigration, nationhood, and religious beliefs.

[Anonymous No.16759322]

>>16753349
>They are in the middle of the damn biggest desert in the world!
Exactly, they got nothing better to do than have sex.

[Anonymous No.16759330]

>>16749069
>the collective and pragmatic wisdom of thousands upon thousands of years of human history
vs
>an idea some pseuds came up with 400 years ago based on ideals and nothing else

[Anonymous No.16759687]

>>16749069
Teleological Whig History faggotry thanks to Enlightenment Christian "progress" LARPing

M. Moldbug "Letter to Open Minded Progressives" is a nice analysis of the subject

[Anonymous No.16759724]

>>16759687
>Teleological Whig History faggotry
Had some good keks over this at uni. Studying Macaulay and the old victorian Anglo historians with their firm beliefs that history was leading up to the glorious Anglo apotheosis
>of course we can now see how rooted Macaulay was in the discourse of his age, so without any self awareness let's consider how much better things are now we are on the correct moral arc and how things are leading up towards ever greater moral perfection

[Anonymous No.16759747]

Liberalism is dumb because it assumes a government mode leads to virtue and health

[Anonymous No.16759758]

>>16759306
I'm definitely gonna read the book then.

[Anonymous No.16759764]

>>16759724
lel, they can't stop themselves

[Anonymous No.16759783]

this publisher is giving away all their e-books for free and they have some books on this subject
https://www.imperiumpress.org/shop

[Anonymous No.16759808]

>>16758898
>I remember getting told day in day out about peak oil 8 years ago and having to talk about it in school constantly people thought it was over by 2010 we were energy done. We weren't so I speak to you because I see similar doomer thoughts when we have solutions available.
We pulled out of that because of fracking and Shale oil. How are those companies doing now? What is the next technology and why would anyone invest in it after they got burned by Shale companies?
As for the space flight, we said at the onset of the shuttle program that going to space would be like taking a first class flight. It never turned out like that because spaceflight is incredibly complex and costs always run over budget. This still does not solve the issue of energy resources. Spaceflight and renewable energy production is still completely dependent on fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.16759973]

>>16759758

It's a good read, and I plan on going over as many of the references as I can. He uses quite a few examples of the liberal foundation from JS Mill in particular, as well as Hobbes, so the arch of reasoning for their arguments is a lot clearer. In JS Mill's case, parts of the framework of our modern liberal thinking as individuals is ripped almost straight from "On Liberty".

Aside from that, I'm currently reading James Burnham's "Suicide of the West", and it's a nice companion so far. I would even say you should read that before Deneen, because Burnham gives a good outline for liberalism as a sort of faith system which sets up their intentions that I've seen as quite obvious play out in everything they say they want to do via government. So if Burnham outlines thought and intention with religious justification, Deneen shows ideology with different influences as foundation and then what actually happens.

In short, they believe and repeat everything from Burnham, and the quote above from Deneen describes the effects, that are standard feeling IRL even though people never outright say it particularly for young people.

[Anonymous No.16760000]

>>16749060
Let me guess - by "liberalism" he doesn't mean anything specific, such as a political philosophy that is concerned with individual liberty, but instead it's an amalgamation of unrelated things like belief in democracy, mixed economies, equality etc ?

[Anonymous No.16760416]

>>16749069
it destroys its own preconditions for existence by its success, thus rendering itself progessively more impossible

[Anonymous No.16760425]

>>16749701
traditionalism in this sense can be pretty much summed up as "not mortgaging the future to buy the present"

[Anonymous No.16760450]

>>16752045
you know that cleaning the king's undies was an honored position and usually hereditary?

[Anonymous No.16760870]

>>16749701
>Saying that if everyone believes in the same thing then they will have a shared communal spirit is largely circular. Were that a tenable social position, it would still be in place.
Do Liberals are any different in this tho?
Thought I feel the issue of many modern right wingers is that Progressivism is creating a sort of "Liberalism without Liberalism" where dissenters are socially ostracized but still allowed to perform their funtions on society.

[Anonymous No.16761282]

>>16751911
everything beautiful man has made has been to reconcile our creativity and consciousness with a fear of death, I think

[Anonymous No.16761390]

>>16749069
It lets niggers and women talk back to their white male masters

[Anonymous No.16763056]

>>16759285
> it would be nice to at least send a "fuck you" to the ruling class, but we can't even get that.
I know this feel all too well.

[Anonymous No.16763095]

>>16761282
I agree. The very first pieces of literature were about coming to grips with our mortality. It still haunts us today.

[Anonymous No.16763166]

Liberalism : A Counter-History by Domenico Losurdo

[Anonymous No.16763207]

>>16751830
I'm a type 1 diabetic, I guess I should have died when I was 10. You talk like someone who's never had any real hardships in your life

[Anonymous No.16763216]

insane to me there's only one mention of schmitt.

[Anonymous No.16763317]

>>16760416
If you're still here anon, could you elaborate? Or someone else

[Anonymous No.16763729]

>>16750445
Agree but that’s what Deneen concedes in the book as well. There’s literally nothing we can do to stop the Neoliberal world order, the world is digital and globalized and there’s nothing we can do about it. The most we can do is start local and create families in communities that resist the decadence and abyss of nothingness

[Anonymous No.16763733]

>>16763317

Normally society changes organically. You can;t make a change, especially a big one in a short amount of time without serious tradeoffs, and often in liberalism, they don't consider the tradeoffs or costs associated with their choices, mainly because they approach traditional modes of social arrangement as outdated and wrong, simply because they are from the past.

When you ignore how social arrangements were formed in the first place, something has to pay the cost. Either in wealth, social stability, freedoms etc. So an example would be easy divorces, which liberals are OK with. To destroy that social constraint and gain that ability or "freedom" (mostly for women) you make the barrier to nuking a family way lower, and then you get broken homes. This results in less stable conditions for kids as an example, resulting in a whole host of stuff that's hard to sum up.

In the case of slow, organic changes over centuries allow for a moral or social adjustment in people's nature, if that's even possible in the first place. It builds or maintains the social capital, and the high trust of society. Liberalism withdrawls all that social capital and uses it to make everyone temporarily be able to do whatever they want, because the past doesn't exist and is evil anyway, and the short term only matters because we're going to always be progressing closer to utopia in the long run anyway.

That's my take on it.

[Anonymous No.16763778]

>>16752077
from a doctor
>In medical jargon, healthy people are “alert and oriented x 3”, which means oriented to person (you know your name), oriented to time (you know what day/month/year it is), and oriented to place (you know you’re in a hospital). My patients who have the sorts of issues I mentioned ... are generally alert and oriented x0. They don’t remember their own names, they don’t know where they are or what they’re doing there, and they think it’s the 1930s or the 1950s or don’t even have a concept of years at all. When you’re alert and oriented x0, the world becomes this terrifying place where you are stuck in some kind of bed and can’t move and people are sticking you with very large needles and forcing tubes down your throat and you have no idea why or what’s going on.

>Nevertheless, this is the way many of my patients die. Old, limbless, bedridden, ulcerated, in a puddle of waste, gasping for breath, loopy on morphine, hopelessly demented, in a sterile hospital room with someone from a volunteer program who just met them sitting by their bed.

[Anonymous No.16764089]

>>16759724
>has just meant the servant has more time now to work in the Amazon warehouse or drive food around. Everyone from John Stuart Mill to Karl Marx noticed the fact that technological advances never actually provide people more free time, it simply pushes them into different lines of work for the gains of the small elite class at the top.
The more worrying part is that the biggest enemies of Liberalism were...pretty much the same teleological idiots but even more irrational about it.