The contemporary liberal book chart:

[Anonymous No.22487042]

If you had to make a book chart, of about ~10-15 books, that would capture the current liberal zeitgeist in as broadly yet as simply as possible, what would you put on it?

A few suggestions:
>idealist politics: A Theory of Justice by John Rawls (the "motte")
>realist politics: Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper (the "bailey")
>history: The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama
>culture: White Fragility by Robin DeAngelo... maybe some stuff about gender, sexuality, etc.

Maybe we could have some additional books that talk about additional "flavors" of the status quo, and books which are completely antithetical without being overly ideological:
>honorable mentions: Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
>dishonorable mentions: The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt, The Bell Curve by Charles Murray

[Anonymous No.22487046]

>>22487042
my thread was gonna be "newspeak is crazy and only a crazy person would do it on purpose"

[Anonymous No.22487502]

>>22487042
in the business, we call this "NOVA-maxxing"

add "Why Nations Fail"

[Anonymous No.22487650]

>>22487042
This all sounds incredibly boring and gay. Why would anybody want to read this crap?

[Anonymous No.22487840]

>>22487650
It's not about reading the texts and agreeing with them, it's just about parsing the intellectual positions of our age that are promoted by the ruling classes. I nominate

>The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama
>Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker
>Sapiens by Yuval Harari
>Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty
>Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson
>A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
>Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates
>Gender Trouble by Judith Butler
>How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi
>Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deneen

[Anonymous No.22487912]

>no Guns, Germs and Steel

I'm disappointed that you would leave out such an obvious pick.

[Anonymous No.22487967]

>>22487840
Ok well then you need
>Tragedy and Hope - Carol Quigley
Book by a globalist insider discussing the plans for a one world government
>Fire in the Minds of Men - I don't remember the author's name right now
book from another globalist insider discussing the philosophy of revolution and flux, how they worship change and instability, eternal revolution was promoted by Marxists such as Lenin and Trotsky, it all is Luciferian in nature, in some ways it goes back to Heraclitus's idea that the fundamental reality is flux
>The Keys of this Blood - Malachi Martin
book discussing how the Vatican was taken over by Satanists who want the New World Order
>The Island of Doctor Moreau - HG Wells
on transhumanism and genetic engineering by global elites to create a slave caste
>Childhood's End - Arthur C. Clark
The "aliens" who want to create the new world order are horned, hooved demons

[Anonymous No.22488132]

>>22487650
To understand your enemy and to serve as a useful survival guide for the /lit/anons who need to blend in.

>>22487840
Great selections. I'm wondering if Pinker, Piketty, and Zinn belong more as "honorable mentions", e.g. flavors of acceptable liberalism, to the right and left respectively.

I think we're missing something on morals, sex, etc., and we need something more "pop intellectual" and "up to date" than Butler, especially given the prevalence of transgenderism which can't be readily explained by feminism anymore.

Both Coates and Kendi are great for race, but maybe we only need one of them, in addition to something that tackles the "structural racism" argument in more detail.

Finally, I think we're missing something that expresses the "technocratic, PMC, rule of experts" mentality and perhaps some well-dressed political shlock.

By the way, why did you include Patrick Deneen? Normie "disgruntled elite" critique?

>>22487912
A few of my friends suggested Guns, Germs, and Steel, but I think it's a bit passe these days. It gets an overwhelming amount of critique from the left and right.

>>22487967
This is absolutely not what I'm looking for in this list. But still interesting reads. +1 for Quigley and Wells.

[Anonymous No.22488185]

Reckon the Kendi, Angelo, Butler stuff isn't actually the current ruling ideology. It might be in 20 years or so, but it doesn't underlie the assumptions made by our current rules. That stuff is post liberal
Brokers at Goldmans or high ranking civil servants don't give a fuck about Gender Trouble.
They do know the Rawls, Popper type stuff; even if they actually haven't read it, they have absorbed those metaphysics and assumptions and act accordingly

[Anonymous No.22488197]

>>22488185
>Brokers at Goldmans or high ranking civil servants don't give a fuck about Gender Trouble.
Larry Fink at Black Rock does. He has been very open about making companies enforce feminism and LGBT diversity.

[Anonymous No.22488202]

>>22488185
Could you explain more? Because it seems like they think it is the future even if they have their own reservations and are generally quite good at applying those rules.

[Anonymous No.22488249]

You can study all the mundane political ideologies of the world and that's all fine, but you can't truly understand what is happening and the motivation for all this propaganda without knowledge of the spiritual and occult side of things.
https://youtu.be/koC36NcCrzg?si=BCzvBR0lm9bANItY

[Anonymous No.22488297]

>>22488132
>By the way, why did you include Patrick Deneen?
To show some kind of counterargument and backlash to the liberal world order but unfortunately there are few books or intellectuals that do this in sincerity

[Anonymous No.22488433]

Do the managerial and capitalistic elites actually, genuinely believe in liberal ideology? Or are they in on their own jokes?

[Anonymous No.22488489]

>>22488433
Ideologies like capitalism and communism are just tools for the inner circle elites. The same people supporting capitalism in the west supported communism in the east.
https://youtu.be/x5ytyeicV0c?si=wsGZ8KyvWbiNXzG8

[Anonymous No.22488498]

>>22487042
About as good as anything resembling a zeitgeist goes. Otherwise it's the same shit on repeat.

[Anonymous No.22488956]

that great reset book by the bald swiss dude with sith drip... that worth a buy?

[Anonymous No.22489975]

>>22488956
It was being posted on /pol/ for free back in 2020-21.

[Anonymous No.22490020]

>>22487042
times up libtards

[Anonymous No.22490023]

>>22488202
>>22488197
Whatever you want to call the new thing woke or successor ideology or so on, it is explicitly anti-captitalist. They don't believe in economic freedom, or corporate exceptions. They want to interfere with the market to deliver the equity results they want
That's not what your Joe Bidens, Clinton's, any euro leader, all the big banks and corporations are into. They are all post Reagan Thatcherites, let Amazon buy everything, the market knows best. They might pay a bit of lip service, but they are not interested in big government intervention to make sure black shareholders get higher dividends.
As I say, that's right now. The woke thing is a discreet ideology, perhaps an offshoot, but not the same thing.
In 20 years our young hotheads will be in those positions, and we will find out. I reckon capitalism, being self aware as we know, will easily out maneuver any attempts to interfere with its processes.

[Anonymous No.22490125]

>>22487042
>>22487840
>>22488132
>>22488498
>>22488956
how many of these books have you actually read?
being a 19 year old internet dork feeling like a "dissident" against "the liberal world order" because you read moldbugs substack is cringe you know.

[Anonymous No.22490241]

>>22490125
What books would you recommend instead? I suppose you're a reader yourself, right?

[Anonymous No.22490265]

>>22487042
You can't really have a list that uses a neo-con for history and then a radical SJW for culture. They have extremely opposed views and don't have a coherent message.

White Fragility was thrown out as a timely book on race relations from the hot new CRT take after the 2020 riots. Within months basically all the main liberal sources had posted multiple articles absolutely ripping it to shreds. You had articles in the NYT excoriating it, the Atlantic had a cover story take down.

That's not mainstream liberalism. It's radicalism that had a short moment. The whole SJW era really peaked in influence from like 2015-2017. The victory of Donald Trump struck a huge blow to it and made the bulk of liberals realize they had erred in tying themselves to closely to a fringe ideology just like the 1960s. Recall that in the 1960s hippies didn't fill Congress and were never popular with Democrats either. They were a fringe that has influence because they were seen as a convenient boogie man on the left and a primary challenge threat / vanguard on the left.

2020 marked a short resurgence of that thinking as people tried to respond to the riots and it petered out.

The End of History is good for consensus liberalism though. His Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Decay on how wealthy states get wealthy would be even better.

To this I would add Honneth's Freedom's Right, a left, right-Hegelian take, keep Rawls, and add Pinker's the Blank Slate, which is how different ideas on human nature shape the left/right divide. Pinker has been pretty shit lately, but this book from 19 years ago is actually quite good.

Also, Hegel's Philosophy of Right needs to be on any reading list for modern politics. I might even add Obama's second book as a vision of consensus politics reborn that was shot to shit by the tendency towards propgandization and partisanship in the 2010s.

[Anonymous No.22490268]

Enough about pro-liberal books. Drop the most anti-liberal books you have ever known.

[Anonymous No.22490280]

>>22490265
>You can't really have a list that uses a neo-con for history and then a radical SJW for culture. They have extremely opposed views and don't have a coherent message.
The message is coherent within the broader scope of progressive liberalism. Arguably you can say that, in the culture sphere, feminism and transgenderism are heading for a collision course (or, at least, they SHOULD be), but they haven't yet, and they likely will not for a while. Why? Because the semi-essentialism of feminism is in conflict with the premise of equality, choice, conspicuous consumption, "promotion of democracy", etc., that undergirds everything else in the order.

Besides, Fukuyama is only a neocon in the sense that neocons want to spread American democracy at any cost, a foreign policy position that was once seen as conservative (but is no longer). Any "secular" conservatism that used to be attached to neoconservatism no longer exists.
>White Fragility was thrown out as a timely book on race relations from the hot new CRT take after the 2020 riots. Within months basically all the main liberal sources had posted multiple articles absolutely ripping it to shreds. You had articles in the NYT excoriating it, the Atlantic had a cover story take down.
I did not know this. How did the "radical grassroots" (which IMO, will only expand as they consolidate their grip over culture) take it? What was the replacement advocated by the powers-that-be?
>That's not mainstream liberalism. It's radicalism that had a short moment. The whole SJW era really peaked in influence from like 2015-2017.
What makes you think it peaked instead of tactically retreating? Honestly, I feel like their grip over culture is far stronger now than it was in 2015-2017. In other words, they toned back the rhetoric and focused more on cementing the gains they've made.
>and add Pinker's the Blank Slate
Great recommendation.
>Also, Hegel's Philosophy of Right needs to be on any reading list for modern politics
Could you briefly summarize why? I read part of it and he seemed quite conservative to me in a way that can't be reconciled with modern sensibilities.

[Anonymous No.22490284]

>>22490268
that's like every other thread on /lit/. relax

[Anonymous No.22490294]

>>22490268
There is a massive industry blaming modern political liberals for essentially all evils. Just look at books by Fox News anchors and nuRight YouTubers. It's a Manichean good vs evil narrative, just like plenty of liberal books.

If you define liberalism more broadly as free markets (no command economy, no nobility), rule of law, democracy of some form, and political rights, it's virtually impossible to find books that argue against this in the post-WWII that have any heft except for a handful of Marxist works mostly from Soviet authors. Even Western Marxists lurched hard right after they found out what Uncle Stalin had really been doing in the 1930s. Rich Wright got mindbroke and moved to France and began doing existentialism with Camus, Sarte, and de Beauvoir for example. The Frankfurt School actually has very little to do with modern SJWs. They were the new, right wing of Marxism, social democrats. Their current hierophant, Honneth, is actually not far off from Fukuyama, who has inched left over time. They're pretty much centrists now that the far right and left have gone insane.

[Anonymous No.22490300]

>>22490280
John McWhorter was a big liberal voice against White Fragility. He had takedowns in the Atlantic and WaPo. There were others too, including in the Economist.

He sort of led the charge in ways because he is a good writer, well respected (a Columbia linguistics professor), black himself, and close to the median of the liberal movement.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/

He's actually written a lot against the, for lack of a better term, "CRT movement."

[Anonymous No.22490308]

>>22490280
Hegel thinks the state's raison d'être is the promotion of human liberty. However, he has a wholistic view of how the state does this, an organic view that makes the state more essential than the members that compose it (in his reasons for this, Hegel is sort of an early progenitor of complexity studies). This ties into liberal views of the role of the state and justifications for collectivism.

To borrow from an article: https://medium.com/@tkbrown413/why-francis-fukuyamas-last-man-is-not-a-paradox-55310474e1fd

To quickly define Hegel's conceptions of freedom and how it relates to the state:

Negative Freedom is defined by a subject’s freedom relative to the external world. It is freedom from external barriers that restrict one’s ability to act, e.g., the government or theives seizing your tools so that you cannot work.

Reflexive Freedom is defined by subject’s freedom relative to themselves. To quote Hegel, “individuals are free if their actions are solely guided by their own intentions.” Thus, “man is a free being [when he] is in a position not to let himself be determined by natural drives.” i.e., when his actions are not subject to contingency. Later philosophers have also noted that authenticity, and thus the free space and guidance needed for us to discover our authentic selves, is another component of reflexive freedom.

Social Freedom is required because reflexive freedom only looks inward; it does not tie individual choices to any objective moral code. This being the case, an individual possessing such freedom may still choose to deprive others of their freedom. (This the contradiction inherent in globalizing Nietzsche’s “revaluation of all values”).

Since individuals will invariably have conflicting goals, there is no guarantee than anyone will be able to achieve such a self-directed way of life. Negative freedom is also contradictory because “the rational [reflexive] can come on the scene only as a restriction on [negative] freedom.” E.g., being free to become a doctor means being free to choose restrictions on one’s actions because that role entails certain duties.

Social Freedom then is the collective resolution of these contradictions through the creation of social institutions. Ideally, institutions objectify morality in such a way that individuals’ goals align, allowing people to freely choose actions that promote each other’s freedom and wellbeing. Institutions achieve this by shaping the identities of their members, such that they derive their “feeling of selfhood” from, and recognize “[their] own essence” in, membership.

[Anonymous No.22490310]

>>22487042
>>22487840
>>22488132
>>22490265
there needs to be something about therapeutic culture, conspicuous consumption, mass society, and the ongoing conflict between men and women.
>>22490023
you basically ignored the fact pointed out by that poster that there are people in power right now (e.g. Larry Fink and ESG scores) who believe in making qualified, industry-wide exceptions to unrestricted capital growth in line with progressive liberalism. to the extent they're willing to do that, you can say makes the difference between being a Thatcherite or a woketard or whatever. but they're clearly somewhere in-between and most likely moving closer toward the progressive side of things than anything else. I don't think it's honest to simply write it off as "lip service" when we're talking about diverting investments to the tune of probably trillions of dollars as a consequence of such policies.

[Anonymous No.22490311]

>>22487042
>A few suggestions:
>>idealist politics: A Theory of Justice by John Rawls (the "motte")
>>realist politics: Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper (the "bailey")
>>history: The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama
>>culture: White Fragility by Robin DeAngelo... maybe some stuff about gender, sexuality, etc.
>
>Maybe we could have some additional books that talk about additional "flavors" of the status quo, and books which are completely antithetical without being overly ideological:
>>honorable mentions: Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
>>dishonorable mentions: The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt, The Bell Curve by Charles Murray
So all you are offering is atheist ''''''''''thinkers'''''''''''''who just end up saying '''''''democracy is awesome, atheist revolutions were not a mistake trust me bro, as an ''intellectual'' I am part of the democratic ruling class''

[Anonymous No.22490314]

>>22490308
In the language of contemporary economics, we would say that institutions change members’ tastes, shifting their social welfare function such that they increasingly weigh the welfare of others when ranking “social states.” In doing so, institutions help resolve collective action problems. They allow citizens to transition into preferencing social welfare over maximal individual advantage.

We are free when we do what it is that we want to do, and we can only be collectively free when we are guided into supporting one another’s freedom. Otherwise, there will always be some who are not free. Further, those who appear to have freedom will not be truly free. They will not be free to pursue any course they’d like, as they must always fear losing their freedom — losing their status — and becoming just another of the oppressed. Further, we do not have to balance freedom and happiness. Freedom entails happiness, as people will not do what makes them miserable if they are free to do otherwise.

The Last Man Problem cannot be solved by modern liberal democracy in its current form because liberal democracy’s commitment to negative freedom outweighs its commitments to reflexive freedom, while at the same time it lacks an explicit sense of social freedom.

[Anonymous No.22490317]

>>22490023
>Whatever you want to call the new thing woke or successor ideology or so on, it is explicitly anti-captitalist. They don't believe in economic freedom, or corporate exceptions. They want to interfere with the market to deliver the equity results they want
That's retarded and wokism is propelled through the bureaucracy and entertainment industry precisely because is it 100% capitalistic in it's origin and 100% compatible with capitalism.

[Anonymous No.22490320]

>>22490308
>>Hegel thinks the state's raison d'être is the promotion of human liberty.
Hegel is part of the bourgeoisie who was desperate to further the propaganda that the republic of the humanists is for ''empowering the people''.

Democracy did empower the people, when the people are merchants and public servants, but the not the population, ie the third estate, wierd huh?

[Anonymous No.22490327]

>>22490308
I wish I had more time to read, think about the implications in detail, and perhaps pre-emptively answer my own question. But I have a major question while you're still here:

How would Hegel go about resolving conflicts about zero-sum goods within the scope of positive liberty? e.g. sex, status, time, access to other people, etc.?

Society could potentially mediate conflicts occurring over scarce resources (by producing wealth), but some resources will always be scarce by their nature, and this will always lead to haves and have-nots, possibly much more have-nots than haves. I've argued that Marx never fully overcomes Rousseau because Rousseau points out that inequality emerged before property (competition within the tribe in his hypothetical account of the emergence of society).

Trying to "spread zero-sum goods out equally" may also lead to mass suffering, too. e.g. Aristophanes's Assemblywomen, when nominally everybody is "free", yet the beautiful people are forced to have sex with the ugly people before they can have sex with each other to ensure that nobody is left out.

I had another question, but I forgot what it was after writing this up. I'll try to see if I can remember it later.

>>22490311
What's with all the brainlets in this thread who don't understand the purpose or value of having steelman arguments of your opponents at your side? It's obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.22490361]

>>22490320
First, Hegel advocates for constitutional monarchy with a strong monarch, not republicanism. To be sure, he did make his political theory more conservative to pass the Prussian censors at the time, he did not think "the Prussian state of the early-19th century was the perfection of human history," as some have suggested. But there is also no reason to think he didn't actually want some sort of monarch or monarch-like unifying figure involved. He was very much spooked by republicanism after seeing the French Revolution and Napoleon's armies march into Jena.

Second, I would simply disagree that democracy did nothing to empower most people. Ending serfdom and the special legal rights of the nobility was huge and happened in the context of the push for democracy in many cases. Even where democracy came later, it still often came with removing debts that serf families owed to their old owners in Eastern Europe. And the end of hereditary guilds freed the common people. Universal education, the end to child labor, women's right to vote: all socialist policies that were sublated by liberal republicanism and made manifest through them.

Note that Hegel is not a modern liberal. He doesn't think that early-19th century farmers have time to participate or learn about politics. So you are partly right here. But Hegel is also partly right in this assessment. The labor hours and concerns of the peasants did eat into all their time, and they were left uneducated. This he did want to fix, which would draw them into political life slowly.

>>22490327
I have to run and that is a complex question but I will try to answer later if this is still up. Ultimately, for Hegel, the self-developed individual is able to get over not having access to as much consumption in some cases because they have a strong sense of identity, purpose, and meaning. Consumption is, in general, not a great way to measure welfare.

Sex is an interesting topic because Hegel was a rare philosopher who was happily married with kids and he writes specifically on what he sees the function of the family being. For him, lack of sex would to some degree be mitigated by a strong orientation to the family, and since males and females are produced in about equal numbers, such pairs will tend to spread more evenly (as indeed we see historically, before the sexual revolution). But obviously there were huge problems there too.

[Anonymous No.22490411]

>>22490241
Ok OP is a moldbug reading dork who has read zero of the books he's shitting on

[Anonymous No.22490474]

>>22490411
These are all good books though. I take it you have no books of your own to offer?

[Anonymous No.22490475]

>>22490361
> But there is also no reason to think he didn't actually want some sort of monarch or monarch-like unifying figure involved. He was very much spooked by republicanism after seeing the French Revolution and Napoleon's armies march into Jena.
Wasn’t Napoleon literally an emperor though by the time that happened though? The French Republic was gone. What’s to be scared of?

[Anonymous No.22490511]

While the Reign of Terror was pretty bad for Paris, things were more or less the same in terms of food security and lifestyle for the average peasant outside the big cities. Peasants still farmed. Maybe more got conscripted, but there was opportunity to loot and plunder on campaign. Things actually got relatively better under Napoleon, since after his major victories he brought back a lot of loot and forced enemy countries to pay indemnities which basically funded the government and he could do price controls on bread. The average peasant also had an avenue for upward nobility, military service. Several marshals rose from little more than peasant conscripts and skyrocketed to the peak of Napoleonic French society, which would have been impossible under the Ancien Regime. Merit meant something.

Napoleon wasn't perfect for the average peasant, especially during the invasions of 1813 and the conscription, but they were better over all. Soldiers were relatively well equipped, fed, paid, and supplied... until Russia.

First Republic was pretty shit, but they were a new government taking on a coalition of virtually every European state and won out. Better to die fighting than slowly starving under taxes and winters.

[Anonymous No.22490925]

>>22490475
>the people get power and go crazy with mass executions and riots, unleashing massive wars across Europe
>but bro, the Republic is gone now, so why don't we try it again?
>can't be scared of something if it ain't currently in existence
This is like sayings Russians would have no reason to fear the Tsar returning in 1918 because he was already gone.

[Anonymous No.22491028]

>>22490294
disgusting post

[Anonymous No.22491032]

>>22490265
>You can't really have a list that uses a neo-con for history and then a radical SJW for culture. They have extremely opposed views and don't have a coherent message.
You are wrong desu. The Democratic party in America supports both neoconservativism on foreign policy and radical SJWism on culture at the same time. They do go together.
By the way, neoconservatism comes from Trotskyist Marxists. It is a left wing ideology.

[Anonymous No.22491044]

>>22490294
>The Frankfurt School actually has very little to do with modern SJWs.
Who do you think you are fooling with these obvious lies?

[Anonymous No.22491058]

>>22491044
t. never read a Frankfurt School thinker
these guys often come off as more conservative than most "conservatives" in the talk show circuit today

[Anonymous No.22491061]

>>22491058
>conservatives" in the talk show circuit today
I don't care about any of those faggots. The only famous one worth listening to is Alex Jones.

[Anonymous No.22491087]

>>22491032
No, they aren't. This is to either profoundly misunderstand neoconservatism or profoundly misunderstand Democratic foreign policy.

Both are interventionist but the similarity ends there. Democrats are very into multilateralism, the UN, the multiparty Iran deal, international rule of law, support of the EU and AU, etc.

Necons didn't like any multilateralism outside of trade deals. They were on the "coalition of the willing," were Euroskeptics, etc. The neocons held tight to a realist interpretation of international (i.e. the world is anarchic and each nation fights for its own interests and tries to maximize them). Democrats have had more structuralist academics join their administrations. These international relations as shaped by the incentives of institutions. Create new incentives and the behaviors change fundamentally.

For a study in contrast, compare Samantha Power with Samuel Huntington, read The Problem From Hell and The Clash of Civilizations back to back and tell me its the same ideology. It only looks the same if you collapse everything into isolation vs intervention. Compare some random speeches from Madeline Albright or John Kerry vs Condi Rice. Compare Tom Donilon with Peter Feaver, etc.

Neoconservatism coming from "Liberals," is a bit overstated. Dabbling with leftism as a young 20 something doesn't make you a leftist intellectual. Many, hell most main figures don't develop their core beliefs until their 30s.

Neocons had their heyday with the Reagan/Bush I security apparatus and then even more so the Bush II admin writ large. These differed in key ways from Clinton. The one place not to look is at Gates, who was more a centrist technocrat, who served both parties, or Bush Sr. himself, who was also a technocrat and not very ideological.

Saying John Ashcroft and Dick Cheney are not "left wing" in any coherent sense of the term

[Anonymous No.22491091]

[Anonymous No.22491098]

>>22491087
I don't care about any of this boring fag shit. Here is the important thing. I will never vote or get the "vaccine" or fight in one of your gay wars, and all you can do is seethe about it.

[Anonymous No.22491099]

>>22491028
You can be disgusted, but tell me it isn't true. Name one big name intellectual who argues for removing the vote and having unelected government. One that says we should reinstate the nobility or hereditary economic guilds. One that argues for a classical Stalinist command economy or who against property rights.

There is widespread consensus on those issues and people battle over how best to actualize the same set of ideas enshrined in the "foundational myth," of the West, essentially that it fought off the great evils of Nazism and now strides forward with the torch of progress. This is why both sides of the political debate like to paint the other as Nazis or Stalinists, often both. These are the Manichean evil forces in our foundational myth.

The problem is that having a mythos based in conflict means we have set ourselves up for a society that always wants to be at war, in a battle FOR progress. Let the righteous rule and all will be well.

Thus, the tree of civilization is watered with blood and yields a fruit of death.

[Anonymous No.22491108]

>>22491099
Alexander Dugin is a famous anti-liberal and traditionalist.

[Anonymous No.22491111]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6qsb0aTDV_w&si=gt4P0qQ146odoc6c

[Anonymous No.22491112]

>>22491098
But you WILL eat the bugs! Already there is lobbying to allow a higher % share of insect parts per kg of meat. It's over!!!

[Anonymous No.22491150]

>>22487502
>>22487840
what's wrong with why nations fail? I've been meaning to check it out

[Anonymous No.22491215]

>>22491150
there's nothing wrong with it. it's a good book in itself. it just subscribes to a lot of liberal ideas. a lot of people are missing the point of the thread, which is to collect a comprehensive "steelman" argument for the predominant Western worldview.

[Anonymous No.22491218]

>>22490361
>empower
The serfs were "emancipated" and then reshackled. The only reason they were "freed" was to generate tax revenue from a previously untapped and untaxed portion of the populace. Who do you think you're fooling with that bullshit? Their material conditions never improved and a huge portion of Europe remains impoverished.

[Anonymous No.22491227]

>>22490265
It goes to show that Occupy Wall Street being retroactively spun as a chungus spontaneous people's protest is incredible given that it started out as an "Adbusters" campaign and at first nearly fell apart with anarchist, Stalinist and Trotskyist groups all trying to one-up each another on stage.

Every scrap of Leftist mythology follows the same pattern, from Rosa Parks to Occupy to whatever the latest historical "moment" is, directed by a small cadre of activists and then a mountain of revisionism legitimises it as a people's uprising or an unplanned act of courage.

[Anonymous No.22491240]

>>22491227
Similarly, the hippy revolution of the 1960s was not some sort of rebellion of free spirited young people against the establishment, as people often think it is.
Quite the opposite. It was an engineered and controlled social revolution organized by the intelligence agencies and Tavistock for the purpose of cultural subversion.

[Anonymous No.22491285]

>>22487042
even those who unironically identify as "neoliberals" tend not to like Robin DiAngelo. For culture I would put the (obviously) short pamphlet "The Combahee River Collective Statement", which is where the "intersectionality" ideology originates.

[Anonymous No.22491295]

>>22491240
The most organic thing about any of these things was the hyper-niche leftist retards bickering over who was more of a real leftist. However even their views are too abstract.

When Leftists say things, like the term "prison abolition" functions as a vaguely radical signifier. It is not a concrete policy or part of a broader coherent outlook and should not be treated or Argued with as such. What they mean is welfare for stupid people and making it illegal to call someone ugly on twitter.

[Anonymous No.22491302]

>>22491285
I know a guy who actually likes and recommends that White Fragility book. And of course he is a redhead. Why is it always redheads? He also likes John Oliver and NPR. Oh and bitched at his parents for not wearing masks when they had guests at their house during covid.

[Anonymous No.22491319]

>>22491302
No wonder redheads are going extinct.

[Anonymous No.22491326]

I am tired thinking about the culture wars, climate change, and immigration crisis. Please tell me there is alternative to liberalism. The one that really works.

[Anonymous No.22491327]

At this point I genuinely believe that no one truly believes in the fairytale of humanist progressivism and everyone is slowly becoming a crypto-fascist, albeit unconsciously.

It's time to give cruelty a chance.

[Anonymous No.22491332]

>>22491327
That’s how you know REAL progress is being made.

[Anonymous No.22491336]

>>22491327
That's the thing about being stuck in a self nullifying, anti-generative ideology. It doesn't change or grow or do anything interesting, so naturally people will gravitate. Once you've reduced sexuality to infantile pleasure seeking, there's nothing else to do or say about it.

[Anonymous No.22491487]

>>22491319
If that’s what they’re doing they should

[Anonymous No.22491494]

>>22491240
Settle down Ivan

[Anonymous No.22491663]

>>22491326
a monarch idk

[Anonymous No.22492092]

>>22491108
>Dugin
>Relevant outside Russia and online basket weaving forums
I mean David Duke, Richard Spencer, and Nick Funtes are antiliberal too but let's not pretend their somehow moving the intellectual needle at all. They appeal to their small echo chambers and that's it.

[Anonymous No.22492162]

>>22488132
>Finally, I think we're missing something that expresses the "technocratic, PMC, rule of experts" mentality and perhaps some well-dressed political shlock.
The Populist Delusion by Neema Parvini, but it is not a hugely well-known book.

[Anonymous No.22492171]

>>22492092
Well Keith Woods is starting to get sort of famous. He has been quoted by Elon Musk, and there's a clip that got huge where he BTFOs this glowie woman connected to Israeli intelligence, and he recently was on Info Wars talking about the ADL and how they control public discourse through censorship.

[Anonymous No.22492261]

>>22490023
>>22490265
>progressivism has nothing to do with liberalism or capitalism
Yawn. It's 2023, by now you'd expect people to stop saying retarded shit like this.

[Anonymous No.22492927]

>>22487967
>>The Island of Doctor Moreau - HG Wells
>on transhumanism and genetic engineering by global elites to create a slave caste
That's an interesting reading of Dr. Moreau, I read it more as a reflection on the boundrary between nature and man, expressing a kind of skepticism to the modern meta-narrative of civilizing progress.

[Anonymous No.22492931]

It's kinda weird how little societal consensus the state actually needs. Never before have people been so distrustful of their states, their institutions, and their governing ideology of liberal democracy, yet it just all keeps going through sheer inertia and corporate lobbying and funding through NGOs.

[Anonymous No.22492939]

>>22487042
>The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama
>>culture: White Fragility by Robin DeAngelo...
Not sure Fukuyama and DeAngelo share much at all in common ideologically. Fukuyama identifies and views identarian movements as underminimg the liberal order.
Tbh i don't think DeAngelo is worth reading at all.
It's a pop book written by an h.r bitch.
At least Fukuyama is well read and makes an attempt to argue cogently.
If you wanted to understand the roots of left identity politics, I'd probably start with the new left activists of the 60s.

[Anonymous No.22493016]

>>22492931
That's because this defiance is the fuel of their republic since day one. It turns out that caring about the republic is exactly what is required, not caring+loving. Protesting made legal is the genius trait of the bourgeois. protesting became a venting mechanism where all the atheists could virtue signal during the day, which is exactly what they lacked after killing morality.
Also the people still want more civil servants and more democracy in their life. Nobody protest to have lower taxes, lower public servants. What protesters always want is ''give me more money'', ''public servants do something about X !!!!!''
Distrustful people still spend their free time watching the news from the entertainment industry and caring about what servants say as if it's super important. They even call this ''being educated'' lol. That's the heart of the republic.

[Anonymous No.22493019]

>>22492171
>and he recently was on Info Wars talking about the ADL and how they control public discourse through censorship.
lol, he won't last long then

[Anonymous No.22493373]

>>22490308
>>22490314
>>22490327
>>22490361
>I have to run and that is a complex question but I will try to answer later if this is still up.
bump, was hoping for a followup

[Anonymous No.22493392]

Fuck I just realised, this guy is Asian
How the fuck did I not realise this before?

[Anonymous No.22493495]

>>22493392
he's American you spastic chud

[Anonymous No.22493520]

>>22492261
>The world is like my propaganda addled mind says it is because I can find social media posts that day so and they let gay people do parades and in shit.

Is it even from the jubilee? Maybe. Pic related is from China, the pride colors photoshopped in, yet you see it all over this site as gospel.

Putting up groups flags isn't really new. Go look at patriotic parades from the 1910s for WWI. Ethnic neighborhoods hung up their own flags, did their own food, their own floats, their own music. These groups got assimilated into a singular "white" culture in the US and people forget the US's strictest immigration controls came because the population that white "subhumans" were coming from southern Europe, the East, and Ireland in numbers that were too high. Gays are just an extension of this. Whites blended into a monoculture, even if the UK for those there for many generations, gays, now accepted, will do the same in a few generations.

Big US cities have had periods with even more foreigners living in them, more foreign languages. They used to support newspapers in dozens of languages. The country didn't collapse. Any empire of significant size becomes polyglot. Same sort of thing with punk rockers, explicit gays, etc.

[Anonymous No.22493535]

>>22492931
>Never before have people had less consensus and supported their states less.

If you take 1945 as your starting point maybe. Most states in most of human history had very large segments of the population, often a majority, as serfs or slaves, the legal property of generally a small aristocracy.

Was Spartan society more of a consensus society with its massive slave population? Rome, with its slaves, plebian masses, and thrones won by endless civil wars? Medieval Europe with its noble privileges and huge serf population. Serfdom in Russia didn't end until almost the time when African slavery ended in the US. The Soviet system was not more free. Up to the end of World War I, the Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, and Ottoman Empire were monarchies, along with Italy and Spain. People having any vote is a new intervention.

In the US, we had periods where colonies had a substantial share of their total population as chattel slaves. Jim Crow lasted until living memory.

The 2020 riots were shocking because riots are so uncommon here. They killed fewer people and did less inflation adjusted damage than just the LA Riots, which were far smaller than the 60s race riots, which were tiny compared to pre-WWII labor violence and race riots.

Political violence used to be far more common in the US. Bombs on Wall Street. Presidents shot. Strikes and riots with hundreds, sometimes thousands of deaths. During the Depression you had an army of Iowa farmers rampaging around the state destroying milk silos because the low price has ruined them.

Hard to argue people were more free in the Guilded Age even, although we might be headed for a second one. Human history does not start in 1945. The post war era is actually unique for many reasons and replicating it will take hard work, not propaganda and rioting.

[Anonymous No.22493549]

>>22492939
This. But I think there is a pronounced goal between right wing radicals to paint Fukuyama, Huntington, etc. with the same brush has radical race obsessed SJWs to discredit them. "All this, everything that makes a splash in the mainstream, must be part of the same cabal. Their disagreements are actually paper thin. We need a clear eyed reassessment of our goals and norms, a new way. And, uh, that means accelerate, tear it down! Give all power to the righteous and that will fix everything. The whole thing is just bad people who want to do bad being bad. But good strong people in and all will be well. The republic of virtue!"

The modern nuRight has far more in common with Robespierre than they realize.

[Anonymous No.22493569]

>>22493392
America has millions of Asians and millions more mixed people with Asian surnames lol.

Barack Obama has a Kenyan name but he is American too. I know, DMX didn't believe it either.

[Anonymous No.22493601]

[Anonymous No.22493683]

>>22493601
I too can cherry pick headlines. Oh no, I guess America is also a fascist ultraconservative dystopia with racist cops and daily hate crimes, a Russia worshiping right, and endemic gun violence! Ahhhh!

Note that many mainstream liberal rags, see top right image, have run long diatribes against radical leftist.

It's funny how the people who can see "hey, that's a one of, just because three cops got caught using the n word nonstop and talking about arresting innocent people doesn't mean most do," or "that image of police violence is biased, it doesn't show what happened earlier," but then lap up the cherry picked shit they are served. You realize Tucker's staff had to scour a country of 330 million each week to find its stories, right?

[Anonymous No.22493699]

>>22493683
>Tucker's staff had to scour the nation for stories, past tense.
Cracks me up.

[Anonymous No.22493731]

>>22493373
>>22490327
I saw this was still up.

I guess I'd need a better idea of what you mean by "zero sum," goods outside of sex. Access to people becomes less relevant if you have a high functioning state because people mostly want access to those in power to right perceived wrongs. Access to famous poets, scholars, and writers is always limited, but in a word where people are better encouraged to develop their own expertise, where more people have read these famous names and understand them at a deep level, there are simply far more people to befriend to talk to about that sort of thing.

Research seems to show that the number of close relationships a person can have is sort of capped. It can get very low, but it only goes so high. But a well developed, self-actualized person (the concept of self-actualization, or Jungian individuation is similar to Hegel) is one that isn't dying to inorganically insert themselves into the orbit of someone who has no interest in them.

I mean, if you are well read, a writer, not famous, but a good hobbiests, and you have a close set of friends with whom you can discuss the things you are interested in, they enjoy your work, etc. is it really going to be as important that you get into contact with the big star?

Of course, Hegel also came from a time where the state played a larger role in promoting the arts. We still have grants, but public ones are dying. He got his original professorship by writing an appeal to Goethe, who was minister of culture, after being passed over for a job. In Prussia at that time, the state was doing more to help promote arts and culture. Today, a focus of negative liberty means the state fails to meet this need. It still spends a ton, but it's all in tax credits and cuts for already huge industries, Hollywood, etc. who have almost ludicrously unequal pay schemes where writers are impoverished, legions of unpaid interns do grunt work, and the top sucks up all that government largess.

The general low quality of entertainment and lack of artistic outlets is arguably a symptom of the lack of self-actualization in the public. Our schools often function more as day cares and disciplinary institutions, drilling a supervisor / subservient mindset into the populace. I'm often surprised on how much more socially well adjusted home schooled kids are in terms of talking to adults as people lol.

Sex is a somewhat unique difference, but there is the same pattern there. Who was happier, early Augustine who had concubine or the later, self-actualized one who eschewed sex? Well, we know from his autobiography. There was no incels problem in Hegel's day. The main problem was men getting women pregnant out of wedlock while already married or running off and ruining them.

But had Hegel lived later, he might have agreed with de Beauvoir's application of his Lord/Bondsman dialectical to sex relations. The man has made the woman an other, a lower thing, an object. He learns for recognition from her

[Anonymous No.22493744]

>>22493731
>>The general low quality of entertainment and lack of artistic outlets is arguably a symptom of the lack of self-actualization in the public.
No. Art can't be made in a bourgeois society because bourgeois turn everything into a market of meaningless products.
Also a bbougroies society does not care one bit about ''the public''. In this society the public is here to finance the spending of the bureaucratic class and to suffer the consequence of the decision of the bureaucrats and the merchants when they fuck up.

[Anonymous No.22493758]

>>22493731
He yearns to be desired. But this recognition is not complete when the woman is other to him. In Biblical parlance, the two cannot come together as "one flesh." Hegel sees the family as being important because it is an organic whole that supports and shapes the individual. I am sure he would have much to say about the high divorce rates today, the idea of competitive marriages, people always toying with the idea of destroying the organic hole. Not that divorce and defacto divorce didn't happen in his day, but they were uncommon.

The incel problem is also partly Fukuyama/Nietzsche's Last Man problem. It is a problem of men who have their basic survival needs met easily enough, who can consume , but who do not have thymos, the need for recognition.

But this leads to the othering woman, hating them. And so even if they have sex they cannot attain the recognition they seek because woman is no longer capable of giving it to him. You see this in the Pick Up Artist culture that was such a big part of the early "Manosphere." These guys had sex, lots of it. They built it up into a core pillar of their identity. And yet they remained miserable. It's hard to read the incentive filled diatribes of that genre, often anger porn articles, and not come away thinking the person erred somehow.

For Hegel, we are free only when guided by the Logos, reason. We are not free when our actions are contingent on desire, instinct, when they come from what we cannot fathom.

But someone who has mastered these things, as much as many can, has sex in accordance with purpose, not because of irresistible attraction. And they might very well decide that the tradeoffs aren't worth it. But this is a choice, and a choice they can make because they possess reflexive freedom. Augustine, Jerome, Origen, etc. all eschewed sex, but they were not incels raging against unmet needs. They avoided sex because the positive duty of what they wanted to be free to become demanded it, because they wanted something higher.

The states role is to help people develop so that a harmony between wants and needs, which vary particularly, can be found. I am not particularly fond of sex workers who set their jobs up as some sort of noble service, mostly because most people in the trade do it out of poverty, addiction, or mental illness, but that some might freely choose to do it to help others seems possible, and maybe there is even a role for that. I think an ideal world is one where such services are not needed.

The key difference is between seeing lack of sex as a sort of lack of negative freedom to do something and being in a relationship as being a sort of positive duty to treat someone a certain way.

[Anonymous No.22493775]

>>22493744
Who exactly is the "bureaucratic class?" The public sector employees 20.2 million people in the US, 14.5% of the labor force. Is my town treasurer part of the bureaucratic class? The town councilors who work unpaid and do fairly little because the country runs most services? The police? The postal service? Some GS-9 at the IRS doing customer service calls 40 hours a week? A retired civil engineer who works for FEMA doing cost assessments on rebuilding projects after storms? A finance director in some medium sized city? Kindergarten teachers?

Surely these people don't earn that much. They aren't part of the upper echelons of the economy.

And who qualifies as merchants? Some migrant owner of a barely profitable restaurant isn't exactly lording it over anyone. Nor is the bodega clerk running his grandfather's store. 48% of the private sector workforce works for small firms.

I don't know if that broad brush fits. In any event, society makes plenty of good art, it's just that tastes are such that it is generally ignored and the quality of what gets popular is bad. This is true even of people who think they have refined tastes. They complain that nothing new is good, but won't engage with something until it has become acclaimed as a classic.

I used to grab the sample copies of novels that the used bookstore near my house often got. A bunch of it was trash and you can see why it only got a small run, but some of the better books I've read have been books whose commercial life guttered out like a candle in the wind.

[Anonymous No.22493784]

>>22493775
For example, this book was pretty good. I think it did eventually go to press, but not all of them do.

Some of the better genre fiction I've read was a self-published series my brother sent me. To be sure, a lot of that stuff is bad, but there are diamonds in the rough. It's a signal to noise ratio problem that AU will likely make worse.

Then you have foreign language classics that aren't big in English that people ignore, like the Viper's Tangle.

[Anonymous No.22493793]

>>22493775
>>Who exactly is the "bureaucratic class?"
The civil servants, and why not the management class in the private sector. You are aware that in democracy, it is the public servants who have the monopoly of taxes, of the managing the rules, of investigating people, of judging the population, of sequestration right?

How and by the way it is indeed a class, since the civil servants themselves say that ''there is a reproduction of social elites'', and they have been saying this even before WW2.

>>22493775
>>And who qualifies as merchants?
People in commercial activities duh.


>>22493775
>>I don't know if that broad brush fits. In any event, society makes plenty of good art,
Art is not compatible with a society based on commerce. Although to be fair artists are just hedonists who are desperate to pass their coomings as some form of insights, and this was even before republics.

[Anonymous No.22493841]

>>22491302
Have you missed the news that they have no souls?

[Anonymous No.22493865]

>>22493731
>I guess I'd need a better idea of what you mean by "zero sum," goods outside of sex.
Time. Approval. Attention. Status. These are all zero sum goods. You can't affirm everybody without reducing the value of your affirmation. You can only devote so much time to somebody. Only so many eyes can be on somebody at the same time. Only so many people can be "high up" on the totem pole.
>Access to people becomes less relevant if you have a high functioning state because people mostly want access to those in power to right perceived wrongs. Access to famous poets, scholars, and writers is always limited
It's not about having power to fix perceived wrongs, but rather being affirmed in one's own right.
>in a word where people are better encouraged to develop their own expertise, where more people have read these famous names and understand them at a deep level, there are simply far more people to befriend to talk to about that sort of thing.
This only works with things that can be universalized. For those who want to be with a particular kind of person, or want the approval of a particular set of people, but cannot attain what they want, they will be SOL. The problem with zero sum goods is they either deal with things that are irreplaceable, or they deal with goods that will always be limited.

[Anonymous No.22493871]

>>22493731
>>22493373
>>22493758

Or more succinctly; I have summarized the connection between freedom and happiness above in another thread. I think the problem in our society often stems from the fact that people seek to become happy before they are free. Thus, the aesthetic comes before the ascetic has wet the appetite, the reward before the labor. The solution is sought before working through the problem, as if it is not the work that makes us understand that solution.


>>22493793
Yup, and before them, only the nobility wielded that power, an even smaller group. And before them the hetman and his soldiers ruled with impunity.

But 20.2 million people seems like an awfully large number to rule with any coherent, domineering agenda. Especially when some agencies track very conservative and some very liberal. And public service is not a hereditary right, nor do most hold those positions for their entire career.

The state is a prerequisite for social freedom however, and so we must strive to improve it if we cannot abolish it.

>Commercial society makes art impossible.


All things are full of labor: man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

What is it that hath been? that that shall be: and what is it that hath been done? that which shall be done: and there is nothing new under the sun.

[Anonymous No.22493875]

>>22493871
Ah, forgot the summary:
>>22491011
>>22491041

>>22493865
It is a mistake to think that people must get what they want in their unhappy state to be happy. They might get it and yet be unhappy. How many people attain the celebrity they have always wanted and fall into addiction or commit suicide despite getting the attention they thought they wanted?

This is where the freedom discussed above is essential.

[Anonymous No.22493886]

>>22493875
>It is a mistake to think that people must get what they want in their unhappy state to be happy. They might get it and yet be unhappy. How many people attain the celebrity they have always wanted and fall into addiction or commit suicide despite getting the attention they thought they wanted?
I think this is a cop out because many people end up getting these things and they end up feeling fulfilled too. You can say that about literally anything, so why even have states?

In any case, these zero sum goods cannot be fulfilled in a state where everyone is free. Perhaps they're made even worse in a state where everybody is free and their accessibility becomes a tantalizing illusion. Some people must win, others must lose, and the losers have every incentive to come together and topple the winners, who they outnumber in droves.

[Anonymous No.22493888]

>>22493875
ah, like when the alchemists self transformation no longer want the gold that was the initial aim

or like when faust no longer wants the same shit after his adventures in goethe, parsifal and shit - I read a good book by one of Jung's students on masculine psychology about the grail myth and all that.

[Anonymous No.22493914]

>>22493019
cope

[Anonymous No.22493922]

>>22493520
boring

[Anonymous No.22493924]

>>22493549
>to paint Fukuyama, Huntington, etc. with the same brush has radical race obsessed SJWs to discredit them. "All this, everything that makes a splash in the mainstream, must be part of the same cabal. Their disagreements are actually paper thin.
This is all true.

[Anonymous No.22493925]

>>22493699
Yes that's very funny but the Ukraine lost.

[Anonymous No.22493944]

>>22493549
>This. But I think there is a pronounced goal between right wing radicals to paint Fukuyama, Huntington, etc. with the same brush has radical race obsessed SJWs to discredit them.
All of them, with perhaps a slight exception to Huntington, share a common morality about the nature of mankind, culture, etc. They only differ in their expectations of reality. I give Huntington an exception because he's willing to be exclusionary and practice essentialism in a limited fashion where he sees fit.
>"All this, everything that makes a splash in the mainstream, must be part of the same cabal. Their disagreements are actually paper thin.
This is true. In the past, the center-left and the center-right were more willing to seek allies among their ideological wings than each other. Now, any kind of behavior is completely anathema. And arguably, there's a strong liberal undercurrent among all establishment and "controlled" radical politics which allows them to even be deliberated and platformed whatsoever.
>We need a clear eyed reassessment of our goals and norms, a new way. And, uh, that means accelerate, tear it down! Give all power to the righteous and that will fix everything. The whole thing is just bad people who want to do bad being bad. But good strong people in and all will be well. The republic of virtue!"
>The modern nuRight has far more in common with Robespierre than they realize.
This is also true, and I've been arguing for years that the dissident right ought to look at Rousseau in particular in a new light instead of relying on thirdhand impressions of his work. The Two Discourses of Inequality touch upon a general destruction of "virtue" beginning with the formation of the first primitive societies. When we transitioned from "nature" being the standard of virtue to "other people" being the standard of virtue, we began our inevitable march towards decline.

Unfortunately, and I'm sure this is what you were getting at in your critique. the dissident right doesn't have a clear understanding of virtue, power, stability, and practical means. All they know is that the past seemed cool, and that they want to replicate it, not understanding that all they'd be doing, if successful, is revisiting the same trajectory that led us to where we are today. So I don't advocate for political solutions, at least not before we learn to reinvent the future with the lessons drawn from the past on a solid philosophical foundation.

[Anonymous No.22493952]

>>22493944
>Now, any kind of behavior is completely anathema.
any kind of such collaborative behavior*

[Anonymous No.22493972]

>>22493886
So there is no progress? But what about all the outwards signs? The natural human homicide rate for hunter gatherers appears to be somewhere around 2,000 per 100,000, many times the worst cities in Earth today and worse than many active war zones. It would equate to 6.6 million homicides in the US per year; about 1 in 5 males who survived to adulthood used to die from homicide. Nor is this rate particularly unusual among similar animals. Can't far more read today? Can't we access all the classics with a $40 phone?

Presumably, you like most people, assume that at least some human projects make progress, namely science — that a physics text from 2020 gets more right than one from 1940 and that our knowledge shall be greater in 2080.

If one goal directed historical process makes progress why not others? Is it because progress is undefinable? Because some negative feedback cycle blocks any accent? Because we are epistemologically barred from knowing such patterns?

If natural selection occurs throughout the natural world, in silicone crystals, life , prions, etc. why does it avoid giving a directionality to human affairs? If the empirical sciences see selection at work in language evolution and firm survival, why not institutions?

Could the promotion of human freedom confer survival benefit on states? What is good for the people is good for the state in the same way that an organism will not evolve traits that kills its cells. Technology is essential for winning wars and freer societies with better education develop technologies much more rapidly. The Fragile State Index and Freedom Index are an almost perfect mirror.

This is Hegel's dialectical advance of history written in the language of modern science, and it seems plausible.

[Anonymous No.22493980]

>>22493972
M.C. Lemon's Philosophy of History is an excellent, accessible intro for speculative history and the philosophy of history BTW.

Also, on LibGen, which has given me a library that would awe any 19th century noble. Hell, I even get more people to read to me for the cost of less than 15 minutes of labor a month.

[Anonymous No.22493997]

>>22493972
The problem is that we're reducing progress to a monolith. Obviously, we've made significant amounts of short-term gains when it comes to material well-being (I say short-term because it's uncertain whether it's sustainable, either due to the strain of managing modern economies or the strain of infinite growth on our planet's resources). When it comes to other goods, or when it comes to the problem of zero-sum goods, there hasn't been much progress, and likely there will never be. That's why the "Last Man" needs to be a thing, to lower everybody's expectations for life as far as possible. But that clashes against the primal desires and the rational deliberations that led us to seeking such a state in the first place.

On a side note:
>Presumably, you like most people, assume that at least some human projects make progress, namely science — that a physics text from 2020 gets more right than one from 1940 and that our knowledge shall be greater in 2080.
I think our sciences are far more fragmented now than they were in the early 20th century, which were fragmented more than they were in the early 19th century, etc. There is no "natural theology" or "Great Chain of Being" the way intellectuals and theologians used to think about. Reality as a whole simply doesn't make any sense, and we've largely given up on trying to make sense of it, and yet we drudge on. When it comes to "holistic worldviews", we are actually quite worse off than we ever where, and I think this contributes immensely to the existential malaise that people find themselves in these days. It's a dangerous state to be in, since nobody has access to the big picture, which means that the "parts" of the big picture (whether this is the sciences, the beliefs, the political groups, etc.) are inevitably going to find themselves wanting for a grand justification lest they invalidate themselves, or they will end up in a collision course with each other in a fight for domination.

Also, I think we're getting off course regarding zero sum goods. I'd really like to see how much we can drill to the essence of zero-sum goods and if it makes sense to explore it through the lens of freedom.

[Anonymous No.22494007]

>>22493980
do we have the liberal state order to thank for libgen's existence?

[Anonymous No.22494039]

I have noticed that people on the left wing liberal side of things almost never want to even consider the possibility of conspiracies or a cabal that controls things behind the scenes. For them, that sort of thinking makes you "crazy". Their social acceptability is very important to them. They want to be seen as "serious", letting the institutions and academics tell them what views to have, and conspiracy thinking is not acceptable. For them, it's simply impossible that a secret cabal controls things. They can't explain why, but it's just impossible, they say.
People on the right wing conservative side of things (except for normiecon shills like Ben Shapiro or something) are generally more open to the idea of conspiracies and secret orders and cabals pulling the strings. They don't care as much about what ideas are "acceptable". They are more interested in truth.

[Anonymous No.22494045]

>>22494007
Partly. Who laid all the tranoceanic cables and launched all the satalites that allow for the internet. Claude Shannon developed the mathematical theory of information that all digital computers rely on at Bell Labs. Church and Turing worked at liberal universities. Solomonoff–Kolmogorov–Chaitin Complexity was first developed in response to issues related to private enterprise, although Kolmogorov's input was important too. Brown wrote the Law of Form while working for the British railways. Mandelbrot did his big work on chaos theory and complexity studies with IBM and the other big founder worked for a weather station, etc.

It's a strawman to say the current order always produced ideal outcomes. The very presence of "Last Men," displays how the current system is failing, as does the inability of states to deal with global issues like ocean acidification. Any progress is marred by setbacks. Such cycles and counter cycles occur in a fractal pattern, but it's easy to miss this if you're in the thick of it.

As to zero sum goods, we can ask, was Lao Tzu unhappy because he drew scant attention for long periods and has little access to material wealthy? The nameless communitarians of the Levelers? The impoverished ascetic peasant communes of the Bogomils and Gondolfos?

The problem wasn't that they were unhappy, it was that their happiness wasn't generalizable because their communities could be overcome by repression, as with the actions against the Bogomils of Albagensians. Or they could easily be manipulated by predatory interests, because they lacked full reflexive freedom. Still, there is a lesson in them.

[Anonymous No.22494060]

>>22494039
Marxist and communist parties that came to power in the early to mid 20th century tended to have a siege mentality. This is because they were ran by revolutionaries that spent most of their political career on the run from government forces and thinking everyone in their meetings could be a double agent collecting information for the authorities to bust them. When these individuals took power they maintained that siege mentality but scaled up their perceived enemies to match. They went from worrying about their comrade being a paid police informant to worrying about one of their cabinet members being on the payroll of a foreign government, or a counter-revolutionary group, or any number of other boogeymen. Those forces absolutely did exist, but there was a definite tendency to jump at shadows.

Leftist political movements also hate each other just as much as they hate right wing nationalists or liberals, maybe even moreso. If you talk to someone associated with leftist movements even now they'll tell you the same thing. There are a million different interpretations of what they think ought to be done, and since individual parties/political groups like to put on a show of having complete unanimity and unity of purpose they cast out anyone who deviates even slightly from the preferred path.

[Anonymous No.22494062]

>>22494039
Actually working in government and being involved in the process makes you realize that conspiracies certainly exist, but that there are legions, often working against each other. Conspiratorial thinking goes off the rails when it somehow assumes that some great cabal can unify and pull in hundreds of thousands of people without being known. Most interest campaigns are hiding in plain sight.

Because the news media is eternally focused on the Feds in the US, people don't understand how much control the state and locals have. And they are far less well watched and more often rule one party fiefdoms, meaning they tend to get more corrupt. This is how you get Republican governors in Massachusetts and Democrats running Kentucky, blowback from this sort of thing.

But people think that somehow there is a group at the "top" who can mobilize all the lower levels. This is nonsense. Such a cabal would need iron loyalty as it would be quite impossible to even fathom all the complexities involved at each level of the state.

The problem with conspiratorial thinking is not the conspiracy part, it's the Manichean thinking that says "if we expose the conspiracy all will be well, utopia is there for the taking!"

It also puts all responsibility on individuals. But take the concept of group minds, organizational intelligence, etc. Institutions, be the firms, parties, etc. have goals that are different from their members. If any leader goes too far against the goals of the group they are simply removed. So the analysis is all wrong, it looks at individuals when incentives for organizations are at least as important.

[Anonymous No.22494124]

>>22494062
Why are conspiratorial groups more willing to work with some kinds of conspiratorial groups but not others?

[Anonymous No.22494256]

>>22494039
Conspiracies only account for so much. The way institutions are shaped matters a ton.

Consider this: how much would politics change if, at the next election, all US representatives and senators were elected from one large list based on the national popular vote?

It would be completely different. Politicians would need to appeal to the median voter of the nation, not of their small, gerrymandered area. You would have a sea chance in politics, with every politician racing for the center.

Within a cycle or two you'd have third parties emerging because more radical regions would want options further to one side of the spectrum. Even just making the House by popular vote would radically remake American politics overnight. So there, the policies and policy options are heavily shaped by the contingencies of how the state was set up centuries ago.

If you were making a new state from scratch I think most political scientists would agree that you'd want rank choice voting, proportional representation, a smaller legislature (large groups slip into partisanship easier) and instead have actually powerful subcommittees for broad policy areas selected separately, with people campaigning on their expertise in that one area (commerce, defense, etc.). That and maybe even an appointed executive who can be removed on a 2/3rds to 3/4th vote, because the city/county manager system has continually proven itself to be superior to popularity contests and there is no reason the legislature couldn't "hire" an executive. Indeed, you saw this in 14th century Italy and a marked improvement in leadership came with it.

[Anonymous No.22494266]

>>22494124
Because they have similar aims or ideologies. Some people are motivated by ideology and want to advance some set of core beliefs. But often they are also motivated by personal gain, prestige, and power. So they often have conspiracies against their ideological allies to gain advantage, even at the expense of their cause.

I've seen a few quotes from Senators about how some rival party leader has taken them aside and said "never forget who the true enemy here, the members of the House." These people have big egos. They want to be movers and shakers. They want attention. Some much more than others. And this is why you get all sorts of conniving and feuds between people who overlap. Like when a Democratic governor fucks a big city mayor over despite having identical politics because they don't want them being successful and running against them (same shit happens in the GOP too).

[Anonymous No.22494291]

>>22493997
>I think our sciences are far more fragmented now than they were in the early 20th century, which were fragmented more than they were in the early 19th century, etc.
Guenon writes convincingly about this topic.

[Anonymous No.22494416]

>>22494291
Lots of people write big picture natural theology and philosophy that tries to paint a picture of the whole world. The problem is that no one view has become popular enough to surplant 19th century corpuscular materialism, even though the latter has been falsified and is not remotely popular in the sciences. It's considered "good enough."

But there is plenty of work done. The first book listed here is an excellent effort that has physicists, biologists, philosophers, and theologians contributing. "Our Mathematical Universe," a sort of ontic structural realism (Platonism) was a best seller in its genre.

Information - Consciousness - Reality is free an an excellent book.

Academic silos are a problem but we also look back at the past with rose tinted glasses. Tons of shit was thought to exist in the 19th century that there was huge debates on. Boltzmann killed himself in part over getting shit on. You had elan vital explaining life, phlogiston, spontaneous generation, massive fights over evolution.

The problem is not that people don't attempt these things, it's that our schools are not good at fostering a sense of awe and desire to learn.

It's also a problem of people who might be interested in this stuff simply dismissing it because it's new. "What? That's not by a great name. No thanks."

But very few big ideas came from one person, so even if work today is never some sort of paradigm defining shift, it will almost certainly be involved in making one. Relativity didn't spring from Einstein's head fully formed for example. He had Mach, etc. Kant has regular correspondence with his critics, etc.

[Anonymous No.22494422]

>>22494416
>>22494291
Forgot the books.

[Anonymous No.22494433]

>>22494416
>he copy pasted it again

[Anonymous No.22495268]

>>22494062
Conspiracies can be subverted or counter-acted by opposite interest groups, and you are right it's not so much a totalizing control.
I don't think groups at the top are able to control all lower levels, but they can certainly influence public opinion through media.
It's not a secret for example that the CIA has ghostwritten entire books and articles to propagate its own propaganda or interests.

[Anonymous No.22495292]

>>22494039
>people on the left wing liberal side of things almost never want to even consider the possibility of conspiracies
Opposition to "conspiratorial thinking"--what they label "misinformation--is a matter of dogma, a signal of group allegiance.
Evidence does not matter to such people.
For instance my mother is a typical liberal, and when i asked her if she had been following the recent congressional hearings about UFOs, she instantly became hesitant and said about the whistleblowers claim that there's a stigma against reporting UFOs that "there ought to be more stigma".
It's a desire to appear respectable by a dogmatic adherence to media, establishement narratives, and expert opinion. These group's claims are always correct and none of these groups could ever distort facts to advance a particular view or agenda.
This is what they honestly believe.
In large part because they've been primed by maimstream media to retroactively deny or disregard anything that doesn't come from these sources.

[Anonymous No.22495318]

>>22493535
>Political violence used to be far more common in the US. Bombs on Wall Street. Presidents shot. Strikes and riots with hundreds, sometimes thousands of deaths. During the Depression you had an army of Iowa farmers rampaging around the state destroying milk silos because the low price has ruined them.
This is a good point. In the early 20th century you had in the
U.S immigrants who joined radical anarchist groups, some of which mailed pipe bombs to various politicians.
Then there was a straight up war fought in West Virginia between workers and capital.
Even post war America with the chaos of radical activists was tame by comparison to the Great Depression period.
The more evenly spread prosperity of post war America produced far more passivity and consensus.

[Anonymous No.22495334]

>>22493520
I don't think ethnic enclaves are comparable to a sexual identity.
The former is a product of your class and birth; one finds one's self born into a particular community of people.
No one is born into a gay enclave lol
It's an identity some come to adopt

[Anonymous No.22495397]

>>22494416
You're missing the point. Guenon, Evola, Nietzsche and co. are so popular because they tell the reader that they are an aristocrat of spirit of the spirit just by virtue of them reading the author and agreeing with them. They shit all over mainstream science and philosophy. Those plebes just don't get it, yanno?

No one who is interested in that sort of big picture wants to read physicists who is going to say "now I'm no sage, but this is what I think..." They want the sage.

Personally, I like Guenon when he talks about stuff he knows. When he pontificates on shit he doesn't like finance he sounds dumb. Nietzsche is good when he does his bombastic aphorisms, but sounds like he hasn't even read what he's critiquing when he goes after the prior German Idealists, particularly Kant. But the thing is, they can be a sage if you want them to be. We have no sages today, at least no "high brow," ones. Like, name me one?

The 60s had them. Personally, I like "love everyone," sages more than "you're better than everyone," sages, but different strokes.

[Anonymous No.22495816]

>>22494039
The "official" narrative of world history is written by liberal elites, therefore any alternative interpretation is considered a fringe radical conspiracy. They literally believe whatever is told on MSNBC. That is the unquestionable truth for humanity. Trying reading Wikipedia articles based on current events, it's actually an incredible experience. You can tell how they're written by state department officials working for NGOs and Western governments.

[Anonymous No.22495864]

>>22490023
>They want to interfere with the market to deliver the equity results they want
This isn't new. The civil rights act did all of that 60 years ago.

[Anonymous No.22495946]

>>22493520
>>The world is like my propaganda addled mind says it is
An ironic thing to accuse someone of, considering you have all the opinions trumpeted by the powers that be.
>Putting up groups flags isn't really new. Go look at patriotic parades from the 1910s for WWI. Ethnic neighborhoods hung up their own flags, did their own food, their own floats, their own music. These groups got assimilated into a singular "white" culture in the US and people forget the US's strictest immigration controls came because the population that white "subhumans" were coming from southern Europe, the East, and Ireland in numbers that were too high. Gays are just an extension of this. Whites blended into a monoculture, even if the UK for those there for many generations, gays, now accepted, will do the same in a few generations.
This is completely irrelevant. The flag in question is ideological, tying liberal sexuality, racialism and god knows what else together. It doesn't seek to peacefully coexist like white ethnics in America, it seeks to replace the existing national culture, succeeding in the the example that you replied to, replacing the British flag at a quintessentially British event. There will be no assimilation, it will succeed in replacing the original culture or die trying.
>Big US cities have had periods with even more foreigners living in them, more foreign languages. They used to support newspapers in dozens of languages. The country didn't collapse. Any empire of significant size becomes polyglot. Same sort of thing with punk rockers, explicit gays, etc.
America was never going to be an Anglo ethnostate, England already existed. This situation still isn't comparable, though. Sure, immigrant communities retained their languages for a while, but power was always in the hands of the English speaking majority. There are only scattered examples of ethnics seriously challenging Anglo power, like the draft riots. The ethnics didn't come to America to conquer, they came to assimilate. This contrasts to pride flag liberalism, which fundamentally seeks to reshape national culture in its image and eradicate what it cannot change. They want the whole world to look like picrel.

[Anonymous No.22495968]

>>22495946
I have no idea why people are so confused about the workings of modern liberalism and what all the implications of culture war stuff is. Literally just look at regime propaganda from Western states. Images of muttified worlds filled with androgynous transhumanist abominations, ethnic displacement, collapse of fertility and marriage, individualistic cosmopolitan lifestyles driven by digital technology, absence of ownership. No, it's not "Wokeism," it's not "cultural Marxism" it's not "Bioleninism" it is just mainstream liberalism. This is what liberal democracy is now and what it promotes. You can try to identify this societal development with other theories of political economy such as the Marxist interpretation of history but at the end of the day all of this is still being done in the name of liberalism. Why deny it? The leaders of the world are openly telling us that this is what they believe and this is what they want.

[Anonymous No.22495975]

political philosophy is the ultimate pseud trap. The ruling class does not appear to read anything other than a standard college curriculum and occasionally current events book. We don't have a modern intelligentsia, popular culture displaced it

[Anonymous No.22496694]

>>22495946
>England
>Anglo ethno state
>Invaded by Celts
>Population and culture changes forever
>Invaded by Romans.
>Population and culture change forever. National hero becomes a Roman general.
>Invaded by Saxons
>Anglos cease to exist as a district group
>Try to invade France for centuries, over and over.
>France remains French
>Frogs invade British once
>Ruling class genetics, language frogged forever
>French turn national hero Arthur into a cuckold by a knight with a French name.
>Gets accepted into canon
>Form our Prot church
>It's just Catholicism for Brits
>Colonizes America
>Becomes cultural colony of the US
>Colonizes Pakistan
>Becomes Paki colony

Yeah...

[Anonymous No.22496695]

>>22487650
Thanks for the wolf pic.

>>22487840
All these titles make me irrationally angry

[Anonymous No.22496700]

>>22488197
>Jewish “person” tries to not to act like an antisocial retard for more than five seconds challenge: impossible

[Anonymous No.22496704]

>>22490294
Schmitt was also good versus evil too. It would help to read some excerpts from picrel, which I used as a bit of a jumping off point for an article I wrote

[Anonymous No.22496708]

>>22495864
This isn't the same thing. The Civil Rights Movement was largely about getting rid of Jim Crow. That wasn't predominantly about the market but about official state status for blacks we second class citizens and state pressure to force market actors to treat blacks a certain way. The state was saying things like
>You can't sell your house to a black who offers more money because we don't want blacks here
>You need a special place for blacks in your business or you are violating code
>Blacks cannot vote or own property here.

But it's also pointless to try to totally separate what is the state, what is the market, and what is culture, as they all shape each other in reciprocal feedback relations.

[Anonymous No.22496716]

>>22495946
Immigrants spoke English slower in the early 20th century. They didn't come to assimilate, they came for higher wages and a safer, more stable state. You'll note that when Germany got prosperous and unified, Germans stopped flooding into the US. When Italy got wealthy, Italians stopped flooding in. When Ireland was starving, the Irish came in a wave. When Ireland got rich, they became a trickle.

>>22495968
Like the dystopia of Star Trek where they talk about "oh we abolished poverty two centuries ago," and can have any food they want at the push of a button and cure cancer with a click of a scanner.

Most scifi today is dystopian because that is what people lap up. It is a romantic era driven by a backwards looking attitude obsessed with decay. In this it's like the Medieval period or period following the Napoleonic Wars before the Second Industrial Revolution. It's also a lot like the period leading to World War I. A LOT of men pontificating about how good a war would be after a period of long peace. The war will transform them from consoomers into heros. It will be glorious. It will revitalize the ruling class. Great blood letting and human sacrifice will be required to save them from spiritual morass.

>I am the warrior. The hard man who makes good times
>Is that a fucking Black elf in my Lord of the Rings vidya. Fuuuck! Why am I being GENOCIDED!

[Anonymous No.22496764]

>>22496704
It's a legacy of the Reformation in my period. Before that, mass mobilization wasn't important for waging wars. The determining factor was control of expert professional soldiers after the advent of the stirrup and the rise of the mounted knight.

As that changed, wars increasingly began to involve everyone. The peasants wouldn't just be levies, they needed to be taxed into ruin to hire mercenaries.

Enemies where the enemies of Christ, Satans legions on Earth. "The largest witch trial in history," is of course the persecution of Donald Trump. But the runner up is the Wertenburg trials, in which close to a thousand men, women, and children were consigned to the flames for being in league with Satan, or babes burnt for being born of a union with women and demons. The death rate there and other parts of central Europe was up to FIVE times higher than the rate for all Russians in WWII, eclipsing 50% or even 60% in principalities.

This left a deep psychic star on the West, one we still deal with.

I actually think it will heal. War is increasingly about quality not quantity. A single division with autonomous target spotting drone screens, autonomous artillery systems that can aim themselves, AI assisted air defenses, smart shells, etc. can wipe the floor with several times as many men with small arms and old dumb fire shells. Like the time of the knight, we are entering a time period where a very small cadre of men will run warfare. We already see this in the shrinking armies of the world and how the officer corps is increasingly a hereditary job.

I personally think we will also see this result in the rise of mercenary companies ala Italy in the 1300s in poor areas. Africa is ripe for conflict as its population explodes from 1 billion in 2015 to 4+ billion by 2100 and global warming hits it hard. They will be an expedient for the wealthy to effect policy be "other means" and forestall greater bloodshed.

The problem for the masses isn't that the elites want to exploit them. It's that they are becoming irrelevant. Middle class Whites should see Blacks as a foreshadowing here, not as enemies. AI will make their labor less valuable even as wars come to be fought by small, elite groups, no longer requiring popular support or mobilization.

If I was more comfortable with moral ambiguity and starting over now, I'd become an infantry officer. The "great companies," are going to come back. I could be the John Hawkwood of the Congo.

[Anonymous No.22496862]

>>22496708
I'm not american so I never understood why white communities not wanting negroes in their communities contradicted the american ideals of freedom. Why can't freedom also mean freedom from elements deemed undesirable by a community? Are you really free if you are forced to associate with people you'd never associate with of your own free will?

[Anonymous No.22496977]

>>22496862
This is the contradictory nature of freedom for a social animal.

So some Whites don't want Blacks around. They are not free to bar them without Jim Crow. But what about the Whites who DO want to live with Blacks. Are they free if this is outlawed? What about the person who just wants to sell their house to the highest bidder and the state steps in and says "no, they are black?" What about the employer who wants the cheapest competent worker who is told: "a Black can't work here at night, we are a sundown community?"

And what about the Black who is told by the state what jobs he can have, which he can't, etc? What about his rights enshrined in the Constitution being taken away?

This is why the state has a positive role in harmonizing people's attitudes. The state must seek to shape their "social welfare function," the point in phase space that people prefer for economic and political allocations. Indeed, the state ALWAYS shapes this function, it just does so unconsciously without intent behind the shift.

[Anonymous No.22496983]

Anon, the common thread that unites all these camps is the hatred of white people, men, heterosexuality, and straight, white men in particular. It's an alliance of convenience. And I guess they do a little managed capitalism along the way. It's that simple.

Once there aren't enough straight white men to bully around, things are going to get weird.

[Anonymous No.22497936]

>>22492162
>Parvini
Rather have something come from the mainstream rather than the dissident right. The political establishment already believes in meritocracy and the rule of experts, in whatever bastardized form it is.

[Anonymous No.22498273]

>>22487042
You switched motte and bailey. Motte is the defensible fallback position, bailey is the extreme one that's harder to defend. The core of the liberal "motte" is still John Stuart Mill IMO. "Utilitarianism", "On Liberty", his essays on slavery, women's rights etc. Also someone like Bertrand Russell, maybe just Dawkins or Neil deGrasse Tyson, a Science and Reason type. And for economics you've gotta give them Keynes.

On the bailey side you definitely need at least one psycho communist, Angela Davis or something, and at least one pomo deconstructionist type. It's a big thing for libs that when they get excited they get to incoherently pull from all those different radical positions to justify whatever stupid shit activists are trying to pull, then afterwards just carry on like it never happened.

[Anonymous No.22498541]

>>22498273
>You switched motte and bailey.
It actually makes sense either way, depending on how you frame it. I put the idealist politics as the motte because that's a liberal when he's nice. The realist politics is when he does things that he would find, in some level, reprehensible and a breach of principle but convinces himself that it's for the greater good.

[Anonymous No.22498584]

>>22487042
>In English the book is called "America at the Crossroads; Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy".
>In Japanese it's "The End of America".
Lol.

[Anonymous No.22498810]

>>22496764
>I actually think it will heal
Tikkun Olam nonsense

[Anonymous No.22499196]

>>22496764
what do you recommend I read to understand these trends and trajectories better?

[Anonymous No.22499493]

>>22498273
>It's a big thing for libs that when they get excited they get to incoherently pull from all those different radical positions to justify whatever stupid shit activists are trying to pull, then afterwards just carry on like it never happened.

It's only incoherent when you don't understand that their bougie campus communism is practically just the edgier little brother of their adult liberalism. It's as stereotypical as it gets that upper-middle class university communists suddenly all become "responsible" liberals when the time comes to take over the family business. Their communism is also just an expression of their hate towards the proles, who overwhelmingly become chuds when radicalized because proles are the biggest losers of liberalism, the managerial state and mass immigration. That proles are also innately right-wing on social issues like feminism and the like is just the cherry on top.

[Anonymous No.22500152]

>>22487042
needs even more jewish shit, op.
the more anti-northwestern-european, the more "liberal" it is in their retarded eyes.

[Anonymous No.22500526]

>>22494045
>As to zero sum goods, we can ask, was Lao Tzu unhappy because he drew scant attention for long periods and has little access to material wealthy? The nameless communitarians of the Levelers? The impoverished ascetic peasant communes of the Bogomils and Gondolfos?

>"Bro, just become a saint and overcome desire."

I'm sure the answer is something like "if everyone was allowed to develop properly, they would. Well, we're already ruined. We already sat through 18 years of grinding education on how to sit down and shut the fuck up and that blind authority rules. We're already ruined. So you can't give us this shit. Pussy, attention, status, even lobsters have a hierarchy.

Good advice is about how to climb the hierarchy, not dreaming it away. The current elite shall be smashed to make way for our rise. The weak shall fear the strong.

[Anonymous No.22501567]

bump