/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19733067]

I agree with everything this book says from a moral standpoint, but is it really practical? He says liberalism and its constant pursuit of technological progress will eventually be defeated by sheer demographics. Religious, family-oriented, community-oriented people will outbreed bugmen, and liberalism will fall organically without the need for revolution.

I sincerely doubt this will be the case though. Now that we have tasted the fruits of technology and hedonism, will we really go back? He cites the example of the Amish, where 90% of them choose to stay with their communities instead of going out into the modern world, but this seems rather an extreme example. Plus, if the whole of the US went Amish, then surely China or some other hostile power could simply conquer and enslave them?

[Anonymous No.19733092]

>>19733067
Liberalism in the sense of people having individual liberties and a decent amount of material wealth is over, yes. But that hardly means there will be a RETVRN to tradition. More likely we will see and are seeing a brutal proletarianization of people and culture much like China. No one will have much of anything, be that goods or ideas. A horrible time to be alive.

[Anonymous No.19733093]

>>19733067
It's literally happening as we speak: Mormons in America, Muslims in Europe, etc. Barring immigration, the only factions of society that are growing are the religious ones. Over time, these factions will become the majority, especially as populations worldwide and thus immigration fades.

China is not special in this regard. Despite the CCP's efforts, its population is falling. Note that they are mostly atheist. Once Africa develops, you'll see them experience this as well.

[Anonymous No.19733094]

>>19733067
He’s a brainlet, you’re never going to see the kind of social change he’s talking about without drastic economic change. The reason why we don’t see as many multi-generational households and more women in the work force is due to economic factors and it doesn’t matter if you’re socially conservative when you’ll still be compelled to dissolve the family anyway effectively by force. You won’t see many stay at home mothers until single income households are economically feasible and instead of doing something about that Deneen is titling at windmills complaining about culture because he can’t question economic liberalism

[Anonymous No.19733100]

>>19733067
>really practical?
it doesn't have to be. it doesn't have to be a "natural' demographic phenomenon either. liberalism is not the end of human political organization, of course, and being unable to think of an alternative doesn't make it impossible.
>Now that we have tasted the fruits of technology and hedonism, will we really go back?
precisely. i don't think so. we won't go back because we will want to, we will go back because we will have to, although I wouldn't call it "back," necessarily. it won't be a return to the past, properly. the woman question won't allow for too many retrogresses - as in marital rape, violence and so on - for example. the statute of the family in general - rights of children and so on - will likely remain. And don't forget that, even when your individual rights aren't being actively eroded through legislative and judicial means, the state is amassing more power each day, just by utilizing new command and control and surveillance technologies.
The Amish example is bullshit. Their lands are limited. Unless they start buying up land fast, they'll have an overpopulation problem and people will have to leave their settlements.

[Anonymous No.19733114]

>>19733094
Religious communities act as support networks, that’s what allows religious couples to have many children even in times of economic hardship.
Of course if you’re an atomized secular bugman you have neither the money nor the community to help you support a family, which is precisely why atheists will be bred out.

[Anonymous No.19733127]

>>19733094
I understand that in places like Hungary and Poland they offer economic incentives for couples to get married and have many children but despite this the birth rate has not grown drastically. Not only this, but in Africa, for example, where people are much poorer, the birth rates are higher than anywhere in the world. It's clearly not poverty but rather ideology that has dissolved the family.

[Anonymous No.19733129]

Liberalism is a scam.

[Anonymous No.19733141]

>>19733114
That’s true of fewer and fewer religious groups as they’re secularized, the vast amount of Christians in the U.S do not do what you’re describing having already been atomized. The same will happen to the Amish in time as long as the same economic pressures persist

[Anonymous No.19733150]

>>19733093
Right but where's the guarantee that the children of these religious people won't also become bugmen? Self-control is hard when there's a massive panoply of hedonism and temptation that is technology and hookup-culture and all that.

[Anonymous No.19733152]

>>19733141
That's because they are Christian. No offense to any Christians reading this, but other religions like Islam are not as easily eroded by materialism. Such religions will outlast the current economic paradigm.

[Anonymous No.19733159]

>>19733150
They haven't. Look at Europe. The children of Muslim immigrants are far more fundamentalist than their parents.

[Anonymous No.19733161]

>>19733141
That just means that secular churches will die out, the truly religious will survive.
Individualism, secularism, capitalism are dysgenic.
People in the past lived with far less resources than you and yet they survived. Like the guy says about Africans, it’s not economics as much as it is about dysgenic trends.

[Anonymous No.19733172]

>>19733127
It’s not specifically poverty, the reason why you’d leave your community and promote the atomization of society to travel across the continental U.S for example is because you were offered or your employer demanded that you take up a position away from your community, uprooting you. You don’t see something like this in most African countries because that’s just not how their economy works and so people are incentivized to stay in their communities. Similarly if you’ve ever been around the American working class you’d notice all their women work, not because of any feminist BS but because they need the income for survival

[Anonymous No.19733173]

>>19733159
So what about this argument?
If demographics is so supreme in determining politics and culture then liberalism and hedonism would never have arisen in the first place, because in every generation the hedonists would be outbred.

[Anonymous No.19733175]

>>19733127
>It's clearly not poverty but rather ideology that has dissolved the family.
it was never poverty. the issue is about women getting an education, working outside of home and having access to birth control.
south american women are also fucked in economic terms, but the younger women have access to all of that. that's why their birth rates are plummeting too

[Anonymous No.19733179]

>>19733161
People are secularized by their material conditions. You’re looking to much at culture instead of the conditions that create it

[Anonymous No.19733182]

>>19733172
Interesting. Which books explain this in more detail?

[Anonymous No.19733193]

>>19733173
>because in every generation the hedonists would be outbred.
Not necessarily true. In the pre-contraceptive era, I doubt that hedonist birthrates were lower than none-hedonist ones. In fact, given that liberalism won, they were probably higher than non-hedonist birthrates.

Demographics determines a society's cultures and politics. You can see this with the rise of Hispanic culture and the Spanish language in the US, the ascension of Islam in Europe, and in the changes to Chinese culture resulting from their planning policies. Everything is downstream of demographics.

[Anonymous No.19733201]

>>19733179
Mormons are wealthy.
They understand that cooperation > competition, this is why they donate to the church, and the church redistributes the money to help its members start businesses, giving out loans, helping out members get on their feet, etc.
You think religious people share the same values as secularists?
Religious people lean towards socialism, and if they become a majority their voting power will make reforms possible.

[Anonymous No.19733205]

>>19733182
This seems to mostly be a take among Nazbols and Tradcaths, fiscally left leaning socially conservative types. Most of this is me just looking at Marx’s description of the atomizing effects of capitalism and instead of saying that’s the one good part pointing to it as an issue reactionaries need to consider going forward though. You also might want to read up on the labor history around women in the workforce since iirc working class women had jobs way before the rest of women did acting as maids for other families for example and an analysis of why things changed would tell you a lot

[Anonymous No.19733216]

>>19733127
in africa the economic situation favors cranking out as many children as possible so that you can a) increase the chances that a few survive childhood and b) you can put them to work as soon as you're able. just as children on family farms were essentially unpaid labor, your family size directly correlates with income. it's only workers in developed countries who are punished economically for having large families unless they're willing to live as wards of the state

[Anonymous No.19733226]

>>19733201
You can have these bubbles of social conservatism in our current society but if they ever expand too far a bunch of them will become wagies and end up secularized without the support system of the community

[Anonymous No.19733230]

>>19733201
mormons also have the capital accumulation advantage for being the first into utah, they were able to buy large amounts of land for cheap and sell/lease it for an extraordinary markup to successive waves of migrants. same reason why episcopal churches on the east coast don't really need members anymore since they essentially function as real estate trusts

[Anonymous No.19733238]

>>19733193
But the pre-contraceptive era was way more conservative than the post. You couldn't have pre-marital sex or get divorced without being criticised. In fact the introduction of contraception seems to be one of the biggest causes of family dissolution and feminism.
>>19733205
Unfortunately this is not the case in America and Western Europe. There the conservatives have a paradoxical alliance with the free-marketeerists.

[Anonymous No.19733242]

>>19733150
Genes are the answer. Some of them will become bugmen, most of them won’t. Those who do become big men will not breed and die out. It’s basic evolution theory.

[Anonymous No.19733257]

>>19733238
>But the pre-contraceptive era was way more conservative than the post.
Give it time. It takes time for demographics to reflect technological advances. The West (and probably East Asia) will be markedly more religious in 2100 than it is now.

[Anonymous No.19733284]

>>19733100
>The Amish example is bullshit. Their lands are limited. Unless they start buying up land fast, they'll have an overpopulation problem and people will have to leave their settlements.
Oh no, they'll have to buy even more land if they keep having 8 kids each.

[Anonymous No.19733300]

If you actually want to do something about liberalism you should help develop reactionary politics and build up its capacity to wield power. Conditions are going to get worse, at least In the west, and at a certain point people will no longer fear the consequences of taking actions because the alternative would be a slow death under the heel of an ever more cruel and merciless society. When this time comes the people will need to be lead if anything productive come of it and an organized and robust reactionary movement would be able to do something where a bunch of disparate twitter conservatives wouldn’t. It’s time to actually do politics instead of larping

[Anonymous No.19733301]

>>19733284
they'll begin to run up against a limit too as they're forced to bid for agricultural land against property developers and industrial agribusiness. the future amish will either be reduced to farming brownfields and suffering from the health consequences or (hopefully) developing techniques for pollution remediation and soil development

[Anonymous No.19733312]

>>19733300
But they like the comfort of their room.

[Anonymous No.19733316]

>>19733300
nah i think i'd rather brag about my house in the woods and tell others it's their own fault

[Anonymous No.19733321]

>>19733300
>Conditions are going to get worse, at least In the west
Sure, but that’s because of climate change, which is beyond any ideology’s ability to solve.
>and at a certain point people will no longer fear the consequences of taking actions because the alternative would be a slow death under the heel of an ever more cruel and merciless society.
If this was MENA or Africa, maybe. But not in the West. Westerners are too weak to fight back even in the direst of situations. They’ll fade out, quietly.

[Anonymous No.19733322]

>>19733316
It will soon be your fault as well

[Anonymous No.19733334]

>>19733301
Yes, theoretically there is a hard limit to the population that the Amish can reach, but lucky for them most other demographics are declining so they can just occupy their land. Maybe they can reverse colonise Europe.

[Anonymous No.19733352]

>>19733334
not when the african migration wave picks up

[Anonymous No.19733380]

>>19733352
This has been in my mind. The imminent African conquest of Europe is the clearest example of a superior civilization, a superior race maybe, replacing an inferior one I can think of. On one hand we have the Africans, vibrant, with a high birth rate, a steadfast faith, and a desire to grow and conquer and spread. On the other we have the Europeans, a weak people who hate themselves, have a secular mind, and celebrate their own ethnic replacement. I find it insane that people see modern Europeans as being superior to modern Africans when it’s literally the other way around. My only hope is that the African spirit can be learned and that its not genetic, because if it is I was not lucky enough to be born an African.

[Anonymous No.19733388]

>>19733067
Deneen (and the bugmen) were retroactively refuted by Plato

[Anonymous No.19733390]

>>19733182
are you that out of touch that women having to work to survive is so novel to you?

[Anonymous No.19733412]

>>19733172
>Similarly if you’ve ever been around the American working class you’d notice all their women work, not because of any feminist BS but because they need the income for survival
this is why Hitler was so popular among German women. he promised them fulfilling, honorable careers as mothers in service of the Fatherland. for most working-class women, that was a dream come true. looks like tradition, but is actually modernism (given the way class works usually).

[Anonymous No.19733433]

>>19733412
Women nowadays think it is degrading for them to be housewives. The feminist narrative has been pushed so far down their throat hat they actually think working in some office and shagging 20 men before "settling down" to a one-child-soon-to-be-divorced marriage is more dignified than raising a beautiful family on the principles of virtue ethics and Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19733446]

>>19733433
Given how badly German woman suffered at the hands of Soviet soldiers, keeping ones head down and embracing liberalism is the safer option.

[Anonymous No.19733451]

>>19733446
I don't get what you're saying. Soldiers rape so liberalism is good?

[Anonymous No.19733460]

>>19733446
non sequitur, the Nazi state didn't collapse because they employed women as mothers. they collapsed because they were unstable kleptocrats who bit off far more than they could chew.

[Anonymous No.19733470]

>>19733451
>Women who support “conservative” lifestyles like being mothers are raped and brutalized
>Women who support liberalism are given material pleasures, community support, and enjoy life
Women are not dumb. They will support that which doesn’t hurt them.

[Anonymous No.19733493]

>>19733470
What fucking clown world did you bounce out of where you think anything you said makes sense? Show me these women being violently reprised against for having children

[Anonymous No.19733533]

>>19733470
You can't argue this from the example of the war though. That is a very special historical circumstance, so you can't form any general principles from it.
I would argue that conservativism provides a better option for women than liberalism does. Rape culture and male pigheadedness are largely products of the dissolution of traditional sexual values. It would not be possible for a man, before the 1960s, to simply abandon his wife and leave her to the care of her children, like what regularly happens today. "Dating" would be taken more seriously, with a view towards marriage, rather than the pump-and-dump artifice it is today. It is true that there could be no women prime ministers and CEOs in this world, but is that really such a tragedy?

[Anonymous No.19733546]

>>19733493
There are plenty of examples of societies where women are/were allowed to take up “traditional roles” being cast as bad. Islamic society, for example, is one shown as being brutal towards women, even as they allow women to be mothers. Or how about the older example of German women being mass raped in the end of WWII? A conservative regime led to misery for its women, who supported it. When this is contrasted with liberal society as an apparent paradise for women…. Is it really odd that women choose the latter?

[Anonymous No.19733551]

>>19733533
>It would not be possible for a man, before the 1960s, to simply abandon his wife and leave her to the care of her children
Imagine believing this

[Anonymous No.19733559]

>>19733551
Yes anon I know it's physically possible but it did not happen except for extremely rare cases.

[Anonymous No.19733564]

>>19733546
No woman is thinking, "if I have too many children, a foreign country will invade and its soldiers will rape me". This is some weird sperg cope you have for your political ideology being unpopular with career women on contraceptives. You are probably unwell if that sounds like a reasonable explanation to you.

[Anonymous No.19733574]

>>19733284
points on a map are useless. give me acreage and population size.
and yes, they'll need to buy a lot more land if they plan on keep having 8 kids each,

[Anonymous No.19733581]

>>19733559
There have always been fathers who abandoned their families, children out of wedlock, etc. Are there more events like this now? Yes. Was there a time where there were none? No. If you want to sound unserious and retarded that's up to you. It's as if you've learned sociology from Norman Rockwell paintings

[Anonymous No.19733586]

>>19733559
>it did not happen except for extremely rare cases
Imagine believing this

[Anonymous No.19733592]

>>19733581
Look up "hyperbole". Obviously I didn't mean it never happened or wasn't physically possible. You agree that it's a lot more common now, which is what I was asserting. I think you're just trying to nitpick mate.

[Anonymous No.19733595]

>>19733546
Am I debating with a 12-year old?

[Anonymous No.19733599]

>>19733564
You aren’t listening. Here, I’ll simplify it for you:
>Women are told again and again that societies where they are in traditional roles are ones which they are brutalized or are ones which end in their brutalization
>In contrast, liberal society depicts itself as being perfect for women, or at least the best choice
>Women choose the best choice for them based on the (incorrect) information they have

[Anonymous No.19733602]

>>19733546
Russians raped everybody during WW2 you retard.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Soviet_occupation_of_Poland

[Anonymous No.19733613]

>>19733574
I don't know why you are all focused on the Amish so much, because the exact issue of property values and political control of towns you are wondering about is dealt with pretty efficiently by the Ultra-Orthodox neo-shtetls in suburban New York and New Jersey. So it can be done. You expand and take at the expense of everyone who didn't have eight kids. That's how the system works. You are all complaining in this thread about fertility but the government will pay you to breed, so if you want children the only obstacle is being unattractive, autistic, greedy etc. You just need the right accountant and willingness to do family business instead of chasing a corporate title and regular salary

[Anonymous No.19733634]

>>19733446
>keeping ones head down and embracing liberalism is the safer option.
DId it work out as well for the women of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan?

[Anonymous No.19733637]

>>19733599
You don't understand how this works. No one is even considering being a broodmare. It's not even a desire to be negated by nefarious forces and scary messaging about brutality. (That's some kind of fetish material you have, idk). The "problem" is that if you want to be a mother, you aren't going to be able to live a high consumption lifestyle of travel, entertainment, fashion, the latest tech, etc. It's not possible. You need a high income job. Very few women are both high-income and mothers of multiple small children. It cannot be done. Even if you managed to keep the income, the lifestyle would suffer because the children require care. You can outsource this to another woman, childcare as an industry is becoming enormous, but the present market forces present an enormous opportunity cost to having kids. That's the threat. Not brutalization, but that you will be unhappy. And we can't be unhappy, oh no no no. There are pills for that.

[Anonymous No.19733659]

>>19733634
I don’t follow. These societies suffered terribly from opposing liberalism. Their women did as well. Yes, keeping their heads down and embracing liberalism would have been the better option.

>>19733637
Like I said, liberalism provides a carrot (of being the best society for women, pleasure wise) as well as a stick.

[Anonymous No.19733692]

The current form of neoliberalism is easily dominated by pro-reproductive cultures that ban contraception and homosexuality. Liberalism creates an arbitrage opportunity for anyone that's willing to sacrifice liberal values to reproduce their own ideas a little more. Not to say this is a good thing, it's just reality.

But a technological future is the end game, not traditionalism. Technology works better than anything else. In fact, you could describe technological innovation as the process of finding out what works best for any arbitrary goal. The future gene pool won't be dominated by mormons, but probably by the most prolific sperm donors.

[Anonymous No.19733700]

>>19733659
There's no stick in the sense of a violent military/political sexual reprisal though, that's just you being delusional and/or horny

[Anonymous No.19733726]

>>19733380
but the sole reason for the horde is advanced agricultural tech invented, built, and maintained by europeans. africans are still entirely dependent on another population to survive, it's not like they're staking land claims and setting up farms like english colonists in america

[Anonymous No.19733728]

>>19733700
You aren’t posting in good faith. Again, look at what I said. (Leave the WWII example aside for a moment if it distracts you so much).

Societies where women perform traditional roles are depicted as being ones where women are miserable. In these societies women are depicted as being constantly abused, raped, harassed, etc. if you don’t agree with this spend ten minutes exploring how American popular culture sees women in the Middle East and North Africa and what they think the lives of these women are like. That is the stick.

[Anonymous No.19733735]

>>19733726
At the end of the day, Africans are thriving and expanding and Europeans are dying out. Africans might have used European technology to pull it off, but they are very much the winners here.

[Anonymous No.19733737]

>>19733692
>The future gene pool won't be dominated by mormons, but probably by the most prolific sperm donors.
Holy shit this is a scary thought.

[Anonymous No.19733738]

"liberalism and its pursuit of technological progress"
is this what you meant to write? were you trying to say "liberalism and its pursuit of technological espionage?"
all significant technological progress has originated from individuals that were either unconcerned with the politics of their period, or were artifacts of previous, more conservative era

[Anonymous No.19733742]

>>19733728
It has never occurred to economically infertile middle class western women that they would become people of color for having children. They don't even think about children. Or women in other countries. And yes your example sucks. I can't imagine the girls in HR even know about the conquest of Berlin, let alone view it as a threat to having children (children are more expensive and riskier than raising puppies, and prevent you from going out after work, booking vacations, etc.). They aren't afraid of becoming Afghans. They are afraid of not becoming successful.

[Anonymous No.19733769]

>>19733067
Liberal civilization will eventually fail for the same reason that all civilizations eventually fail. Simply put:

1. People build a civilization
2. People forget why they built a civilization
3. People forget HOW they built a civilization
4. Eventually everything stops working and nobody knows how to fix it

It's true enough that modern people are probably not going to simply abandon technology and hedonism, and I don't consider it likely that the Amish are going to outbreed everyone any time soon. However, just because people are accustomed to technology and a particular level of life, it doesn't mean that the current level of technology is going to exist in perpetuity.

Most people don't have the slightest idea how any of the technology that they use works. I'm not just talking about normies either; people who actually work in tech are generally less knowledgeable about tech than the people who worked in tech 25 years ago. If you don't believe me, get a job in tech and see for yourself. Imo technology has already peaked and is in decline; even though computers are getting consistently smaller, faster, better graphics, etc, all of it is built on stuff that was already invented a long time ago. At this point people are just refining it and building applications for it, and the people doing this have been getting consistently dumber for a long time now. The current push to emphasize diversity and representation over talent is only accelerating things.

Basically, a few decades ago, a bunch of really smart people figured out the most difficult problems, which meant the people who came after could carry the technology further. However, paradoxically, it also meant that the bar was lowered, because the problems that needed to be solved were less complex and required a lower threshold of intelligence. Nowadays, you have programmers who can make some pretty impressive things provided they have access to modern machines running modern operating systems with a modern IDE installed, but who couldn't write their own kernel from scratch if they had to. This isn't a big deal so long as you can keep building on whatever exists; there's no need to reinvent the wheel, right? But, if suddenly something in the world changes, maybe the supply chain breaks down and you can't get materials you need, or something like that, you might HAVE to reinvent the wheel, or figure something else out. If you don't have people who understand how any of this shit actually works below the level that their applications run on, you can't solve these kinds of problems.

Everything degrades over time, and if nobody knows how to fix it or to rebuild it, it's like it never existed. At that point, the Amish and groups like that, who never adapted to technology but also never needed it, are going to be the better adapted group.

[Anonymous No.19733800]

>>19733613
All I'm saying is that the Amish won't ever become a political majority in the U.S. They'll go through the same demographic decline as other groups once there's no more land.
A demographic comparison between the Amish and Orthodox Jews is completely out of line too. Just look at the proportion of both populations in their respective countries.

Willingness to start a family is waning, anon. If you think we've reached the belly of the beast in terms of hedonism and degeneracy, you'll be surprised. There's a long way of decline still.

[Anonymous No.19733839]

>>19733800
Simple answer is that raising children is now a lifestyle choice rather than a norm in highly developed economies among the most drone-like members of the managerial caste. The elite still have kids, as do the very poor. It is questionable how sustainable this is, but so long as people aspire to consume more, that managerial caste does not need to actually reproduce. It is job that is necessary and not the person or community needed to produce the job-holder. And so long as that holds, you can acquire such replacements through education and immigration, which is what happens now.

[Anonymous No.19733868]

>>19733769
What about AI? That technological development solves the problem of people not knowing stuff, it can simply learn it all. This does result in other risks, but it solves the problem and is a rebuttal to the idea that technological progress has stagnated.

[Anonymous No.19733906]

>>19733067
You only have guranteed freedom inside your mind.

[Anonymous No.19733915]

>>19733800
>They'll go through the same demographic decline as other groups once there's no more land.
There's this thing people do called "War, Conquest and Genocide" when the land runs out.

[Anonymous No.19733930]

>>19733915
>Dude the Amish are gonna conquer America
This is not the 1800s and no White, be they Amish or otherwise, is capable of “war, conquest, or genocide”. They simply don’t have the stomach for that. If they were Black or Asian or whatnot it’d be another story.

[Anonymous No.19733934]

>>19733769
A global supply chain itself is by nature highly fragile. The world is built on extremely flimsy foundations by people (jews) who just wanted to make as much money as they could as fast as they could without a single regard for future consequences, just look at the fiat system and the use of debt for one example out of many innumerable ones. The modern world is pretty much built to have a catastrophic collapse. And its very comforting to always keep that fact in the back of your mind, knowing that its logistically impossible to sustain this deeply unnatural state of affairs for very long. I give it 2-3 decades at most.

[Anonymous No.19733943]

>>19733930
Amish are literally pacifists anyway

[Anonymous No.19733953]

>>19733930
Nah. Viet Cong and Taliban proved you don't beat America with force you outlast it by preserving yourself and waiting for the right guy to get in power who hands you the country because he cares more about his own internal affairs.

[Anonymous No.19733957]

>>19733934
What makes you think what will come after will be better

[Anonymous No.19733966]

>>19733930
Here's your (You)

[Anonymous No.19733969]

>>19733934
https://thirdworldtraveler.com/Banks/Tragedy_Hope_excerpt.html

Pg. 51: The merchant bankers of London had already at hand in 1810-1850 the Stock Exchange, the Bank of England, and the London money market when the needs of advancing industrialism called all of these into the industrial world which they had hitherto ignored. In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other. The men who did this, looking backward toward the period of dynastic monarchy in which they had their own roots, aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers. The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendants of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfort, whose male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. Rothschild's five sons, established at branches in Vienna, London, Naples, and Paris, as well as Frankfort, cooperated together in ways which other international banking dynasties copied but rarely excelled.

Pg. 52: The names of some of these banking families are familiar to all of us and should be more so. They include Raring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, and above all Rothschild and Morgan. Even after these banking families became fully involved in domestic industry by the emergence of financial capitalism, they remained different from ordinary bankers in distinctive ways: (1) they were cosmopolitan and international; (2) they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with questions of government debts, including foreign government debts, even in areas which seemed, at first glance, poor risks, like Egypt, Persia, Ottoman Turkey, Imperial China, and Latin America; (3) their interests were almost exclusively in bonds and very rarely in goods, since they admired "liquidity" and regarded commitments in commodities or even real estate as the first step toward bankruptcy; (4) they were, accordingly, fanatical devotees of deflation (which they called "sound" money from its close associations with high interest rates and a high value of money) and of the gold standard, which, in their eyes, symbolized and ensured these values; and (5) they were almost equally devoted to secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in political life.

[Anonymous No.19733974]

>>19733957
He never said things would get better, only that a collapse is inevitable

[Anonymous No.19733975]

>>19733969
Pg. 53: The influence of financial capitalism and of the international bankers who created it was exercised both on business and on governments, but could have done neither if it had not been able to persuade both these to accept two "axioms" of its own ideology. Both of these were based on the assumption that politicians were too weak and too subject to temporary popular pressures to be trusted with control of the money system; accordingly, the sanctity of all values and the soundness of money must be protected in two ways: by basing the value of money on gold and by allowing bankers to control the supply of money. To do this it was necessary to conceal, or even to mislead, both governments and people about the nature of money and its methods of operation.

Pg. 62: In addition to their power over government based on government financing and personal influence, bankers could steer governments in ways they wished them to go by other pressures. Since most government officials felt ignorant of finance, they sought advice from bankers whom they considered to be experts in the field. The history of the last century shows, as we shall see later, that the advice given to governments by bankers, like the advice they gave to industrialists, was consistently good for bankers, but was often disastrous for governments, businessmen, and the people generally. Such advice could be enforced if necessary by manipulation of exchanges, gold flows, discount rates, and even levels of business activity.

Pg. 324: the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.

[Anonymous No.19734008]

>>19733957
The adjustment period will obviously be very bad but things will inevitably get better because civilization works in cycles, and hard times create strong men etc.

[Anonymous No.19734019]

>>19733957
>>19733974
For one you won’t live in a behavioral sink anymore and your debts will be forgiven. Who’s gonna come after you to pay them back after the whole thing blows?

[Anonymous No.19734088]

>>19733915
yeah... not gonna happen. their children will just become landless urbanites

[Anonymous No.19734141]

>>19734008
>because civilization works in cycles, and hard times create strong men etc
anon, you know that's just a meme, right? things might just be bad forever. that is an option too.

[Anonymous No.19734152]

> family-oriented, community-oriented people

I find it utterly bizarre this should be a dichotomy.

I am a community oriented ethnic nationalist who thinks corporations are a threat but I am also an atheist libertarian, why are so few people skeptical of the state without selling out their people for globalist nonsense?

I just want everyone to live in their own homeland with a small government that protects their rights and guards against external threats.

[Anonymous No.19734163]

>>19734141
No that's literally impossible. People will naturally work to fix things and make life worth-living if technological hedonism no longer saps the creative energies from mankind. Its human nature to strive towards a good life.

[Anonymous No.19734179]

>>19734152
>I am a community oriented ethnic nationalist who thinks corporations are a threat but I am also an atheist libertarian
That's your own individualist aesthetic that flatters your vanity. The truth is that its impossible to give a shit about your community if you don't communally worship the same God and have hope for life hereafter. You would just default to hedonism and betrayal at the first opportunity if you saw that it would yield an advantage to you.

[Anonymous No.19734197]

>>19734152
This is dumb. One of your small countries will invariably have more surplus than the others and commit to some form of expenditure, such as conquest or domination. Same problems as libertarianism just writ large. What works at the interpersonal level does not work at higher levels of societal organization. You have lots of reasons to cooperate with your neighbors and not shit on their lawns. A bunch of nominally small countries don't. They aren't persons. They are troops of chimpanzees. Come back with your bananas or on them.

[Anonymous No.19734203]

>>19734163
well, modern humans have been around for at least 200k years and for 195k of those, they were mostly just hanging out.

[Anonymous No.19734206]

>>19734179
>can't get along with people of other creeds
How absolutely abrahamoid of you

[Anonymous No.19734220]

>>19733868
>le AI meme
you have to be 18 to post here.

[Anonymous No.19734270]

>>19734179
>The truth is that its impossible to give a shit about your community if you don't communally worship the same God and have hope for life hereafter. You would just default to hedonism and betrayal at the first opportunity if you saw that it would yield an advantage to you.

Nonsense, I reject hedonism and aim for a simple life. I don't believe in an afterlife but think each member of my nation has a duty to protect its members and its homeland. I donate to my local food bank and volunteer at local historical sites.

[Anonymous No.19734289]

>>19733114
religious people are the literal definition of bugmen, talk about projection.
> that’s what allows religious couples to have many children even in times of economic hardship.
No. They do it because the religion commands them to regardless of whether having a child is feasible. Usually because social pressure from the community, rather than the support of said community.

[Anonymous No.19734374]

>>19733769
Computer science is the worst example of tech stagnation though, it's the first technology I expect to be re-booted if it ever "disappears" for some reason.

Mechanical/material sciences are at a higher dangers of being btfo by educational/genetic IQ decline.

[Anonymous No.19734376]

>>19734270
Community is more than a checklist of items that you do which classifies you as a "good member".

>>19734289
Support is pressure. They're the same thing. People like you who default to performative outrage wouldn't be able to understand this because you've already been spiritually and mentally poisoned by modern dialectic. In other words, you are worthless dead weight who's opinion means nothing.

[Anonymous No.19735885]

>>19733067
How long until our bullshit work culture dies?

[Anonymous No.19735932]

>>19733067
yeah idk sounds like cope

[Anonymous No.19735952]

>>19733152
>other religions like Islam are not as easily eroded by materialism. Such religions will outlast the current economic paradigm.
lmao they are already getting eroded like the christcucks

[Anonymous No.19736104]

>>19733067
That's the problem with this book. It successfully shows why Liberalism is a contradictory and stupid ideology but he doesn't provide an alternative to it. That's not inherently a bad thing, but the problem is that he treats Liberalism as more than an ideology. It doesn't matter if Liberalism has any truth to it. As long as the masses and elites still believe in liberal democracy, it will not go away. Fukuyama was more right than people are willing to admit. We may encounter political upheavals and decadence but it's not like the entire system of international capitalism, constitutionalism, rule of law, Enlightenment philosophy, etc will be replaced. Liberalism could go on forever.

[Anonymous No.19736139]

>>19736104
No, Toqueville was right: People learned they could vote to give themselves largesse from the treasury. Now collapse starts quickly.

[Anonymous No.19736160]

>>19733159
>>19733193
>>19733238
>>19733352
>>19733172
>>19733380
An entire thread about Liberalism by people who don't understand anything about Liberalism. Liberal democracy does not give a FUCK about ethnic demographics. It does not matter. How the fuck is immigration in America a threat to liberal democracy when liberalism is what imports them to begin with? The entire point of Liberalism is that it establishes itself as a universal hegemony that includes everyone. The West becoming less white is entirely compatible with this, it's the entire reason that identity politics are so widespread. They serve to enable integration of other minority groups into liberal democracy while ignoring the white ethnic groups that are declining in number (by their own doing by the way, they refuse to have kids, oh well). As long as people become homogenized into the same values of individualism, liberation, equality and freedom, then they all participate in liberal democracy regardless of what their culture is. Again, this is how Liberalism works by its design. Look no further than Muslims in America who vote for the Democratic Party and whine about being oppressed minorities meanwhile that same political party is bombing their countries and killing their people. It's basically cuckoldry.

[Anonymous No.19736170]

>>19736160
Most of those posts you quoted had nothing to do with the West becoming less white and this being a threat to liberalism. We're talking about religious demographics, white or not.

[Anonymous No.19736187]

>>19736170
When people complain about fiction like the "Muslim Conquest of Europe" then yes that's all about the West becoming less white. That's what most people on this site are concerned about. The real concern is that Liberalism is so hegemonic that not even Muslims will be able to make a dent in it. They have no institutional power. Their countries are dogshit and they're incompetent minorities in Europe. Even if they grow in number it's not like Islam will be a viable alternative to liberal democracy. As for Christians, they're already a lost cause.

[Anonymous No.19736211]

>>19735885
since capitalism has won the war for global hegemony, you won't see the end of work culture until its inevitable collapse. sorry bro

[Anonymous No.19736242]

>>19736187

>liberalism hegemonic

You confuse the process for the product.

Liberalism cannot be hegemonic. A uniformity of difference is not uniformity. Preserving difference is not sameness.
One is the process, the other is the result. Just because a process is uniform does not mean it produces uniform products.
One is the management, the other is the managed.
Conservatism is the definition of a uniform product. Conservatism has no process other than the removal of what is not hegemonic.
Liberalism is the process of preserving the individual choice. That that process of preservation is static does not mean that it produces static people.

The mistake you are making is by ignoring the individual completely. You equivocate the individual with the group, and so everyone has to hate the same things, and must do the same things. Conservatism has no individual, only group.
Because you see this way, you cannot see that liberalism is a process by which NO group identity forms at all. That is what you are mistakenly taking for an identity.

I do not expect you to be able to even understand this, but others reading might see the flaw in your bot like behavior, and can understand why you cannot.

[Anonymous No.19736273]

>>19736187
how can liberalism continue to be hegemonic if the things that make it so appealing are erroding over time?

[Anonymous No.19736296]

>>19736273
It's still the dominant system in the world. Everything is in some way subordinate to the liberal West and their flow of capital. The chaos emerging in liberal societies is a feature of liberalism itself. As bad as it seems there still isn't a direct alternative to this system that most people are willing to accept. China is the best bet we have but they're not exporting socialism with Chinese characteristics to the rest of the world the way the West exports liberalism. I think people make the mistake of thinking that just because liberalism's values of democracy, freedom and equality are not happening in the real world means it's failing, when the whole point is that these ideals are never meant to be realized in the first place. Liberalism's entire function is to conceal how power actually works by placating the masses. So you'll get 20 million people protest for BLM like you did for 2020 using slogans of liberation and equality, but nothing actually changed from those protests since the actual power behind liberalism was never addressed.

[Anonymous No.19736510]

>>19736242
>Because you see this way, you cannot see that liberalism is a process by which NO group identity forms at all.
I mean that is what liberals implicitly believe, but are you really supposed to come out and say it? That you can somehow abolish all social structures, cultures and traditions which *provide* people with identity, and then everyone will reveal their unique and glittering individuality? No idiot, we've seen that it doesn't work that way. The group identity is "liberal", all liberals everywhere are the same, and all exceptions are unprincipled.

[Anonymous No.19736529]

>>19733067
>He says liberalism and its constant pursuit of technological progress will eventually be defeated by sheer demographics. Religious, family-oriented, community-oriented people will outbreed bugmen, and liberalism will fall organically without the need for revolution.
I don't remember Deneen making this point but as someone who also agrees with all his observations, I think that prediction is utterly retarded. There would obviously need to be some kind of massive societal or at least governmental upheaval to replace the political system of, "do whatever the fuck you want maaaan"
If Deneen does make this argument its probably because the reality of the situation bears a logical conclusion that is too close to Populist Fascism for the modern publishing industry to handle and so the final analysis needed to be sugarcoated.

[Anonymous No.19736721]

>>19736529
He doesn't make that argument. He says that he personally wants that to occur, but it obviously won't.

[Anonymous No.19737364]

>>19733159
Evidence? Best as I can tell they just become secularized "easter-christian" types who behave like generalized American blacks.

[Anonymous No.19737397]

>>19737364
https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/muslims-europe-radicalism-immigrants-children-jihad/
>A new paper examines “victimization by proxy” and finds European-born Muslims more likely than their immigrant parents to endorse radical ideology or violence.
I don't want to be singling out Islam as some special cause when it's the norm. All non-Christians are similar in terms of dedication to their faith. The reality is that liberalism in the West is coddled. It never had to deal with people who had strong religious convictions, because at the end of the day Christianity is not a very strong religion. Liberalism has never succeeded in an Islamic nation, or a Hindu nation, or even Buddhist nations. These faiths have adherents who are much stronger and steadfast in their faith than Christians and as they become the majority in the West, liberalism will die.

>>19736187
>fiction like the "Muslim Conquest of Europe"
Demographics are destiny, anon. Immigration and birthrates have already ensured that will happen.
>that's all about the West becoming less white.
Not really. Arab Christians are just as weak as their European counterparts. It's deeper than race.

[Anonymous No.19737474]

>>19733067
It failed because leftists have stolen the term and started doing their social experiments under this name.