Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archive.moe / rbt ]

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 56 KB, 300x400, oswald-spengler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
4570057 No.4570057 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

The French Revolution was an event in which urban intellectuals, jealous of the Aristocracy used the masses to grasp control. They govern society with theory instead of principle, substitute quantity for quality. Just as the military need well trained leadership, so does society. Irreligious, Rational, Materialistic men sterilize everything by analyzing it; including themselves. Children are considered in terms of "pros" and "cons". Art, architecture, clothing, furniture, music lose their form, becoming ever changing popular fads.

Lacking discipline to reform themselves, intellectual "world improvers" constantly propose theories on how to govern society. All forms of social distinction, good manners, honor, authority, rank are ceaselessly attacked and deconstructed. This process will continue until the idea exhausts itself-- Nihilism and Chaos.

Destiny has put us in this era of decay. We can face our fate with courage, or be cowardly optimists.

Every culture has gone through its own form of Nihilism and Skepsis, where skeptics question everything. How long then, does a Culture survive? After a certain number of generations, each culture transforms into civilization. What was formerly alive, becomes rigid and cold. Expansiveness of mind and spirit is replaced with a lust for expansion in the MATERIAL world. Life guided by ideals is replaced by life guided by politics and economics. The power of these ideas becomes strong, so much that it leads to Imperialism. A sign of transformation: is a Socrates, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Rousseau. They enunciate ultimate, but Earthly ideals with practical and terminal ideas. The materialistic ideas of mass and number begin to dominate the culture, governments try to appeal to the most, plebeian catchwords are used "equality" "the common good" "the working man".

In this era of transition, a man like Alexander the Great emerges (for the west it is Napoleon). His immense military success is due to ignoring Chivalric military traditions. Materialist thought guides military strategy. Technology and Mass are used to win. Armies shrink in size soon after, into voluntary professional armies, most join for money or love of combat. Armies gradually become privatized, Pacifism becomes popular in reaction, Society becomes increasingly litigious, Money is an Idea, which slowly becomes more abstract, until it itself becomes a power. It buys state power, and over time, the lines separating Politics and Commerce slowly fade away. Business and government combine, forming an Imperial Government.

There are men who desire power, who cannot be stopped.

>> No.4570733

But that's wrong

>> No.4570734

>>4570733
Of course it's wrong, it's Oswald Spengler

>> No.4570738

>Spergler
Topkek

>> No.4570742

But its true. Traditional values have been mocked and deconstructed. Art has lost its form. Business HAS bought out the state, and we are entering an imperial era. Hes pretty much spot on.

>> No.4570746

>expansiveness of the mind and spirit is replaced with a lust for material possession

Interesting point, but how did this not exist in the so called golden age of the west (middle ages)?

>> No.4570749

So who will be Caesar?

>> No.4570752

>no actual historical investigation
>no historical evidence
>psychological projection

/pol/ pls go

>> No.4570753

Tfw finance capitalism will eventually exhaust itself
Tfw money will be replaced by blood

>> No.4570757
File: 18 KB, 300x453, up.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
4570757

>>4570752
>no historical investigation
Riight..

>> No.4570760

>>4570752
>no historical evidence
>except all the civilizations that have been born, matured, and concluded with Imperialism like Egypt, Rome, China, Middle East

>> No.4570770

I don't know why the socialists of /lit/ are so angry. I don't see how his theory is incompatible with your hatred of capitalism.

Is it because he used the T word?

>> No.4570781

>>4570757
>>4570760

>dreaming up narratives about the past to suit your contemporary political fantasies
>real historical evidence/investigation

pick 1

>> No.4570783

spengler is a fuckin fag, nuff said

>> No.4570798

>2014
>being a fatalist

Just kill yourselves losers.

>> No.4570836

>>4570783
>>4570798
>>4570738
>>4570734
>>4570733

Look at all this appeal to emotion, and panic

/lit/ hates Spengler because he correctly nailed down exactly what the Enlightenment was, a sign of regression and not one of evolution

>> No.4570846

There's a good, *gasp* mature thread on /pol/ with an intelligent Spenglerian discussing with a polite and equally intelligent liberal, check it out

>>26561478

I was shocked to find it in that den of retardation

>> No.4570851

>>4570742
All of this could be true, and Oswald Spengler would still be a wrong idiot

>>4570770
It has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. His theories are clearly wrong-headed. You can talk about taking information from the broad strokes, but any attempt to seriously engage with Spengler almost immediately results in tortured logical justifications to fit actual facts and events into a structure that they just don't have anything to do with.

>>4570836
You could be completely correct about the Enlightenment and Spengler would still be not worth listening to.

>> No.4570852

>>4570851
Please, elaborate how so?

I'm genuinely curious

>> No.4570853

>>4570836
>Enlightenment was, a sign of regression and not one of evolution

Provide some falsifiable evidence for this. Also by what measure we are sure more technologically evolved than ever unless you are an ancient alienfag you can't deny this. You are just retarded and blind to the painfully obvious. Fatalists are fucking retarded as they don't understand that they can't predict the future, because they can't think.

>> No.4570863

>>4570853
How stupid can you be?

Reassess your post and find the glaring mistake you make.

>> No.4570864

>>4570863
That I want falsifiable evidence?

>> No.4570876

>>4570864
No one said anything about technological advancement. Your assumption that he was talking about that, when the reactionary point of view very loudly and repeatedly screams the mantra "technological progress masks social decay" leads me to believe you don't even know what's being argued here. You're entirely unfamiliar with your opponent's point of view.

>> No.4570877

Has anyone here read The Rise of the West? It was written as a response to Spengler, that history is better defined by transformations than a series of declines. It's been mentioned here a few times.

>> No.4570880

>>4570851
Calling someone an idiot repeatedly does not make them an idiot, you'll have to try better

>>4570853
>Provide some falsifiable evidence for this. Also by what measure we are sure more technologically evolved than ever unless you are an ancient alienfag you can't deny this. You are just retarded and blind to the painfully obvious. Fatalists are fucking retarded as they don't understand that they can't predict the future, because they can't think.

Are you legitimately asking for falsifiable evidence when talking about human society? Jesus christ.

Can you stop with the hostility? I don't understand why you people are always so emotional about these things. I was under the impression that /lit/ was filled with more than just angsty teens, but it's apparent that even /pol/ can act more mature and less hostile to ideas that they detract from.

Liberalism is not required for technological growth, as you claim, or seem to believe.

What gave us western civilization as we know wasn't the political ideas of the Enlightenment, but the work of the scientific revolution which, though concurrent with the Enlightenment, didn't actually exchange ideas with it, quite the contrary. Isaac Newton was a royalist reactionary who condemned counterfeiters to death, Leonhard Euler personally dispised Diderot, Carl Friedrich Gauss supported the monarchy and Lavoisier actually lost his head to the jacobins.

The Enlightenment trying to claim the advancements of the scientific revolution is just another step in their never-ending perfidy.

Technological progress preceded and MADE POSSIBLE the enlightenment and French Revolution, not vice - versa. Please check history and don't get wrapped up in a false narrative, population shifts and increasing urbanization were prompted by industrializaiton and technological growth.

Spengler and others like Ibn Khaldun and Durant repeatedly touch on patterns and cycles made apparent in history for the most basic historian/sscholar.

cont

>> No.4570888

>>4570876
Not necessarily. Again, technological progress and societal decay are not, in a reactionaries/traditionalist mindset, mutual things - I'll point out the existence of "reactionary/illiberal" mass-action philosophy like Italian fascism (futurists), Nazism and Imperial Japan that showcase how technology is not political, nor does it require liberalism to exist or evolve.

However, I will admit to the fact that Evola and other traditionalists do inspire within me a degree of contempt - not for technology, but because Enlightenment derived ideology obtains from mass society a replacement for the Christian God - material goods, and judges human society and human beings by the basis of material possessions. To me, this represents a fundamental reduction of "humanity" by all forms of right and left liberalism

>> No.4570892

>>4570888
Guilliame Faye for example, is a traditionalist who synthesizes technological progresss with traditionalist thought in his self-style political philosophy "Archeofuturism". Traditionalist and Reactionary though should not fundamentally be associated with a lack of technological progress just because individuals like Evola criticize modernity, from my perspective as a "modern man" I decry societal degeneration post liberalism, whilst technology and urbanization definitely have a role in this - I do not think that technology is inherently "anti-traditionalist". I think the reduction of man, rather, to the slave of his tools rather than the master of them, is an issue within the Western-liberal framework

>> No.4570896

>>4570876
That's exactly why I chose that argument. Fatalists are eager to point out anything evolving as evidence of involution which is moronic and evidence of their grasping for straws.

Q: but we surely are wealthier than ever before
A: Decadence!

Q: but we have better health than ever in terms of life span and infant mortality?
A: decadence! this makes the weak (by arbitrary aesthetic definition) survive and furthers decadence.

Q: we sure have more advanced technology?
A: decadence! Technology is for the weak! Don't mind I'm a fat bald armchair historian!

You see how it goes they are just reframing any evidence to the contrary to decadence and proof of involution pointing to non comparable technologies in the past to make an impossible generalization.

>> No.4570898

>>4570880
>I don't understand why you people are always so emotional about these things. I was under the impression that /lit/ was filled with more than just angsty teens, but it's apparent that even /pol/ can act more mature and less hostile to ideas that they detract from.

Nice projection there. Sperglord.

>> No.4570901

>>4570880
>Please check history and don't get wrapped up in a false narrative, population shifts and increasing urbanization were prompted by industrializaiton and technological growth.

Says the Spengler fag who does this without demanding evidence.

>> No.4570902

>>4570896
You're conflating reactionaries with fatalists.


Most reactionaries would identify all of those things as positive consequences of technological progress that progressives falsely attribute to the enlightenment.

Those points you made are valid though, a comfortable lifestyle can have damaging externalities not immediately forseeable. As Bane says in TDKR:
>Victory has defeated you!

>> No.4570905

>>4570057
yet another right wing shit thread
pls leave

>> No.4570912

>>4570734
>>4570738
>>4570752
>>4570783
>>4570798
>>4570905

This is hilarious. Keep going you open minded, intellectual progressives you.

>> No.4570913

>>4570896
Congratulations on constructing three strawmen. I'm not going to even bother engaging them until you show some maturity.

Now, provide causative evidence that shows me how liberalism and the Enlightenment was responsible for the technological progress of the West or the Industrial Revolution.

You've attributed a period of history and implied that correlation is causation, when it's patently untrue that liberalism is required for scientific growth or "evolution" as you say.

I've pointed out various illiberal societies in modern history that have managed to advance scientifically without any recourse to liberalism or Enlightenment era philosophy, not withstanding the fact that the entire industrial revolution itself was only possible via the wealth-accumulation of societies through colonial acquistions and slave labor.

Your reduction of human beings to nothing more than organisms measured by their toolmaking process fundamentally cheapens humanity, something I am happy to criticize you on.

As for the dogmatic adherence to science, see Against Method by Feyerabend.

In addition to that, for all your claims of falsifiable evidence, can you please happily provide to me falsifiable evidence justifying the existence of liberalism and Enlightenment-era morality as the ONE TRUE system? Your religious faith in it is quite disturbing, and indicative of the Christian roots that are buried at the very core of Liberalism and the Enlightenment

>> No.4570926

>>4570902
>Victory has defeated you!

Yes, the thing is we are not defeated and has not been victorious yet. There's no "end of history" that has been reached. This is what makes these claims so retarded. You ground theory on observation you don't ground observation in theory, this is the cardinal sin of sperglerites, but of course this is unimportant as enlightenment and science is wrong.

>> No.4570929

>>4570913
>I've pointed out various illiberal societies in modern history that have managed to advance scientifically without any recourse to liberalism or Enlightenment era philosophy,

You mean the science if creationism? Are you seriously claiming the enlightenment ideal of free education of the masses have no bearing on the rapid increase in development and technological achievement? This praxis has been copied by or forced through colonialism to all the "unliberal" societies you are referencing. Do a google search friend I have the convenience of consensus on my side. You on the other hand only have an old bald man and some Hindu scripture.

>> No.4570932

Stop reading fags like Spengler and Evola. They are right to criticize the French Revolution but they don't really understand it.

http://www.kingshipofchrist.org/dl/Kingship-of-Christ-Rev-Denis-Fahey-Dublin.pdf

This Catholic account will tell you what the French Revolution (and every revolution thereafter) is really about. Remember that what was being overthrown in the French Revolution was CATHOLIC Europe. The aristocracy of Europe rested upon the Catholic Church.

spoilers: it's largely the Jews + Freemasons.

This book is extremely informative: http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/dillon/

Enjoy.

>> No.4570934

>>4570932
>stop reading at least sensible historical claims and instead embrace my crackpot Christian conspiracy theory.

Shitlord.

>> No.4570937

>>4570926
You are yet to provide basis for the causative nature of science and the Enlightenment, something I keep asking, and something you keep refusing to provide

>>4570929
> Are you seriously claiming the enlightenment ideal of free education of the masses have no bearing on the rapid increase in development and technological achievement?

You've yet to provide a causative basis that it has, yet you keep blabbing on about how "unscientific" we are and adhering to the secular Christian-rooted dogma of liberalism and treating it like a universal law of nature rather than the fallible man-made construct it is.

>This praxis has been copied by or forced through colonialism to all the "unliberal" societies you are referencing

Oh? It was copied to NSDAP Germany? It was copied to Fascist Italy? It was copied to Imperial Japan? It was copied to Stalinist USSR?

How is it possible all these illiberal societies that rejected fundamental ideas of the Enlightenment outright - either in principle or in practice (USSR)?

Your panic and constant strawmen that you have to resort to are quite amusing to see though.

>>4570934
You sound like a Something Awful goon, this would explain the pent-up unresolved anger.

>> No.4570938

>>4570913
>Your religious faith in it is quite disturbing, and indicative of the Christian roots that are buried at the very core of Liberalism and the Enlightenment

Nope, Liberalism and the Enlightenment were reactions against Christianity, not outgrowths of it. You could argue that they were outgrowths of Protestantism, but not Catholicism, i.e. true Christianity/Christendom.

That's one of the things I've noticed about pagan reactionaries: they act like Christianity itself was decadent. No, Paganism is decadent; Christianity was the best thing to ever happen to Europe (and the world).

>> No.4570939

>>4570937
>You've yet to provide a causative basis that it has,

E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N of the masses it's a fact look it up.

>> No.4570940

>>4570934
>sensible historical claims

Spengler and Evola amount to saying, "boo hoo, these liberals are soft; we need a big strong man like Caesar to save us."
You fail to notice what was decadent about Hitler's regime (his paganism; parading naked blonde women in the street because "muh aryan race").

>Nietzsche and the Bow Bells Novelettes have both obviously the same fundamental character; they both worship the tall man with curling moustaches and herculean bodily power, and they both worship him in a manner which is somewhat feminine and hysterical. Even here, however, the Novelette easily maintains its philosophical superiority, because it does attribute to the strong man those virtues which do commonly belong to him, such virtues as laziness and kindliness and a rather reckless benevolence, and a great dislike of hurting the weak. Nietzsche, on the other hand, attributes to the strong man that scorn against weakness which only exists among invalids.
- Chesterton.

Worship of the Strong Man is itself a sign of decadence.

>> No.4570943

>>4570937
>How is it possible all these illiberal societies that rejected fundamental ideas of the Enlightenment outright - either in principle or in practice (USSR)?

As they applied it, they in fact didn't reject it sperger. Actions are more important than words. I'm starting to see why you can't understand this.

You are in fact the only one claiming liberal democracy = enlightenment here and are in fact the only one attacking strawman positions you think I hold because you get all your information on 4chan, kiddo.

>> No.4570944

>>4570937
>secular Christian-rooted dogma of liberalism

Liberalism is not Christian-rooted.
Here is just one Papal Encyclical that denounces liberalism: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm
Educate yourself. The main target of Liberalism has always been the Catholic Church; not some pagan idea of "the strong man" or "the heroic man" or "Caesar".

>> No.4570945

>>4570938
>Nope, Liberalism and the Enlightenment were reactions against Christianity, not outgrowths of it. You could argue that they were outgrowths of Protestantism, but not Catholicism, i.e. true Christianity/Christendom.

Only if you see Christianity as a monolithic entity, which it is assuredly not.

Reformism stripped away the "structure" and authority of the "Catholic Church" (Catholicism itself being the fusion of Graeco-Roman imperial ruling apparatus with Christian scripture), and Reformism is the return to true Christianity independent from the Romanic influences Catholicism that permeate Catholicism). Reformism rejected the structure, dogma and ritual of the Catholic Church in exchange for the true egalitarian Christian message.

In this regard, Liberalism and the Enlightenment are intensley influenced by Christian scripture

>>4570940
Actually, Spengler does not pass political judgement in the decline of the West apart from a reference to blood, he is distinctly fatalistic in this regard and his works are observations rather than calls to arms or action.

There is no request "for big strong men"

>> No.4570948

>>4570929
>Are you seriously claiming the enlightenment ideal of free education of the masses

That is not an enlightenment ideal. That was invented in the tyrannical Prussian State as an indoctrination system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system

>The Prussian education system was a system of mandatory education dating to the early 19th century. Parts of the Prussian education system have served as models for the education systems in a number of other countries, including Japan and the United States.
>A series of edicts made clear for the first time that education was a task of the state. This evolution finally culminated in 1763, when Frederick II made schooling compulsory for all children between ages five through 13.
>Seeking to replace the controlling functions of the local aristocracy, the Prussian court attempted to instill social obedience in the citizens through indoctrination. Every individual had to become convinced, in the core of his being, that the King was just, his decisions always right, and the need for obedience paramount.

>> No.4570951

>>4570939
Where is mass education mentioned in "egalitatie, libertie or fraternity?

Mass education began in a distinctly traditionalist society - you guessed it, Prussia!

Again, you continue to attribute things to liberalism and the Enlightenment that it has not created.

Again, you are yet to provide causative basis for the enlightenment spurring technological growth instead of vice versa.

>As they applied it, they in fact didn't reject it sperger. Actions are more important than words. I'm starting to see why you can't understand this

Heee heee hee, you are now arguing that fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Japan all adopted principles of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment?

Really, the mental gymnastics you have to go through are astounding

>You are in fact the only one claiming liberal democracy = enlightenment here and are in fact the only one attacking strawman positions you think I hold because you get all your information on 4chan, kiddo.

Tell me then, in your own words, what constitutes the principles of "enlightenment" other than the ones that were actualized in the French Revolution?

I'm :allears:

>> No.4570952

>>4570944
>The main target of Liberalism has always been the Catholic Church

>Muh ilerminerty!

Shitlord

>> No.4570953

>>4570948
>Prussia implemented a modern compulsory system in 1763 which was widely recognised and copied. It was introduced by decree of Frederick the Great in 1763-5[4] and was later expanded in the 19th century. This provided a working model for other states to copy; the clearest example of direct copying is probably Japan in the period of the Meiji Restoration.[5] Prussia introduced this model of education so as to produce more obedient soldiers and serfs[citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education

>> No.4570956

>>4570948
>The Prussian education system was a system of mandatory education dating to the early 19th century.
>Adam Smith wrote about compulsory education for the masses in the 18th C

>> No.4570958

>>4570952
The main conservative force in Europe was the Catholic Church. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why it was the Liberal's prime target.

>> No.4570961

progressive faggots getting destroyed up in here

how sad. you guys outnumber the reactionaries 10 to 1 too.

>> No.4570962

>>4570951
>Mass education began in a distinctly traditionalist society - you guessed it, Prussia!

Proto liberal democracy you are bending history to fit your agenda why were there no education of the masses in medieval Europe? Perhaps because it was unnecessary for keeping the aristocrat degenerates fat and happy? It rose with enlightenment, bourgeois rule and the beginning of humanism. Now the project is getting rid of the bourgeois rule, so we are left with humanism and enlightenment after that the project might be to get rid of utilitarian humanism.

>> No.4570963

>>4570962
Prussia is proto liberal democracy! Did anyone remember to tell the Kaiser or the Junkers?!

Perhaps the reason there was no mass education during Medieval Europe was because society was unable to simply magick up the resources to provide for ALL children for 13 (or 18) living a non-productive existence?

Have you considered that perhaps mass-education only became a prospect as technological progress and human society advanced to the point where it could be a reality?

> It rose with enlightenment, bourgeois rule and the beginning of humanism
Except that's patently untrue. Advances in industrialization and technology -( both which you still have not established a causative role for liberalism in still), allowed for society to enable mass-education of Children as an economically viable prospect.

I'd like a response to this as well, considering your >muh science as a political philosophy! arguments

In addition to that, for all your claims of falsifiable evidence, can you please happily provide to me falsifiable evidence justifying the existence of liberalism and Enlightenment-era morality as the ONE TRUE system? Your religious faith in it is quite disturbing, and indicative of the Christian roots that are buried at the very core of Liberalism and the Enlightenment

>> No.4570965

The Enlightenment did have something to do with technological progress, but it's difficult to see whether Enlightenment principles caused technological progress or whether technological progress caused Enlightenment principles.
It's not like technological progress has been universally beneficial either. You can't just take into account the advances in medicine, transportation, etc.; you also have to take into account how technological progress has aided tyranny (mass surveillance, the Media/Press being a monolithic indoctrination system, etc.) The people who worked in the early industrial factories had an awful life. Really, we are less free today than people were in the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages people in a town mostly managed their own affairs through a Mayor; in the Modern Age we've seen the rise of the gigantic State equipped with secret intelligence agencies and a standing army (in the Middle Ages you didn't really have a trained, standing army like we have today). The nobles used to be the ones that did the fighting; now the "nobles" are oligarchs who sit on their pile of gold and manage the populace like cattle. These are the fruits of The Enlightenment, not just better medicine and "Free Speech". Free Speech is itself a false ideal; all it means is the tyranny of the people who control the Printing Press, instead of the tyranny of the people who control the Church. At least the Church tries to be moral; the Printing Press has always been extremely liberal, i.e. immoral.

>> No.4570976

>>4570963
>Enlightenment-era morality as the ONE TRUE system?
>Enlightenment
>ONE TRUE system

There's nothing enlightened about a fantasy of a one true way, that's historically the logic of fascists, reactionaries and traditionalists.

I don't think you understand the interests of the bourgeois. The evidence you seem to lack is your inability to acknowledge that the moment a new ideology gets recognized it has already been latent under the surface for years. Read a history book. You look at history like an autist.

>> No.4570978

>>4570965
>The nobles used to be the ones that did the fighting; now the "nobles" are oligarchs who sit on their pile of gold and manage the populace like cattle.

Lel

>> No.4570979

>>4570962
>Now the project is getting rid of the bourgeois rule, so we are left with humanism and enlightenment after that the project might be to get rid of utilitarian humanism.

See, this is the disease of Liberalism: it can never tolerate authority.
You get rid of the European aristocracy and the Bourgeoisie takes their place . . . and then you claim we need to overthrow the Bourgeoisie! The Revolution swallows its own people. Revolutionaries are nothing but murderous cowards. Society didn't become more free after the French Revolution, it became less so. And when the Bourgeoisie is overthrown and replaced by the Communist Party society will be even less free (as history as shown).
Liberals and Socialists are useful idiots. They can't see that behind the cry of "Liberty! Overthrow your oppressors!" there is an even greater tyrannical force waiting to take over.
The Old Kings of Europe at least had a modicum of sympathy for their subjects, because they knew that their subjects were immortal souls like themselves and that they would be judged more harshly by God because of their greater responsibility (look it up, this is the universal teaching of the Church). Now, the masters that have replaced the Kings of Europe with their "Enlightenment ideals" only look as humans as cattle who are to be placated with vain entertainment and food so as to keep them docile. THAT is the Enlightenment: the gradual reduction of human dignity from Sons of God to Dumb Apes that need to be brainwashed (look it up; read Walter Lippman's "Public Opinion" or Edward Bernays' "Propaganda", for example).
It was no accident that the Bolshevik Communists slaughtered Christians and persecuted the Russian Orthodox Church: Communism/Socialism is inherently godless; it views humanity as just another animal that needs to be effectively managed and farmed.
Such Enlightenment. Such Illumination.

>> No.4570981

>>4570965
Most "rational" people acknowledge science, and technology as amoral (and arguably, biology as immoral within a liberal/enlightenment framework), and do not attempt to apply a political basis or implication for it, it's apolitical.

I'd argue that this thread here is evidence of a need to keep science to the aristocracy itself, and that the mass exposure to science results in situations like this where people treat science as a dogmatic faith, rather than for what it is. (I'm joking, don't split a blood vessel mein freund)

But seriously, I'd be interested in an explanation without emotional appeals as to why liberalism is considered "rational"or has any actual "falsifiable" (as you love to throw around a lot) scientific basis.

Arguably a society not founded on falsifiable science/evidence is one that does not deserve to exist, is what I'm getting from your implications here iTT.

>>4570976

>There's nothing enlightened about a fantasy of a one true way, that's historically the logic of fascists, reactionaries and traditionalists

If that's the case, then why are you opposed to fascist, reactionary and traditionalist society?

Facists, reactionaries and traditionalists do not have a belief in a universal "one true way" for all people, they believe in a society organized around organic principles and with basis in tradition, religion and family, unique to different cultures around the globe.

A traditionalist in India will not be a traditionalist in China, or Britain.

Liberalism has always been a system of one-size fits all universality, that rejects the existence of competeing systems, and does not broke their tolerance.

Cont.

>> No.4570983

>>4570979
>Society didn't become more free after the French Revolution, it became less so.
>The Old Kings of Europe at least had a modicum of sympathy for their subjects, because they knew that their subjects were immortal souls like themselves and that they would be judged more harshly by God because of their greater responsibility

how do you go on believing those things you believe?

>> No.4570984

>>4570976
>I don't think you understand the interests of the bourgeois. The evidence you seem to lack is your inability to acknowledge that the moment a new ideology gets recognized it has already been latent under the surface for years. Read a history book. You look at history like an autist

Why can you not provide actual proof for all this sophistry? Why is it that you are fundamentally unable to prove the causative link between liberalism, the enlightenment, the french revolution and technological progress?

The burden of proof is on you, not me, for providing evidence for these grandiose claims

I've pointed out the numerous times you've tried to attribute science and technology to liberalism, and how it's been incorrect or unnecessary for scientific or technological growth.

Again, all you seem to be able to do is respond with incessant ad-hominems.

>> No.4570985

>>4570965
>At least the Church tries to be moral; the Printing Press has always been extremely liberal, i.e. immoral.

Not fedora here but its bullshit.
Church was the same thing the press is today, only that in cases of countries occupied by people of different religion (Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Poland etc etc) it naturally opposed the occupant and actively helped with forming national identity (on the basis of relgion, mostly, in Poland for one archetype of a Pole- catholic is still persistant, even though many great poles in past was protestant)

I would say that it was the same thing like press, but with more autonomy (from parish to parish), less centralised and with more diversity of opinion.

To fight progressivist taking church as an ally isnt the best way, as it has strong progressive current withing itself (jesuits for one)

>> No.4570986

>>4570983
How do you? Where is your "rational" scientific, falsifiable basis for the BELIEF in liberalism?

How do you go on believing those things you believe?

>> No.4570988

>>4570979
>The Old Kings of Europe at least had a modicum of sympathy for their subjects, because they knew that their subjects were immortal souls like themselves and that they would be judged more harshly by God because of their greater responsibility

I sure hope you don't believe in this medieval rationalizations of power relations that is just pure propaganda, kings were despotic tyrants.

While you are true that the liberal spirit can't acknowledge the rare authority of the wise. Though history has shown that giving authority on ANY other rationale than merit produces degenerate rulers.

>> No.4570991

>>4570986
I don't believe in liberalism, which doesn't necessarily make me a conservative or a reactionary. And I don't need to make utterly groundless claims such as "peasants were more free under the Old Regime". How the fuck do you back that up? Are you gonna say next that the slaves were freer than people nowadays?
you are a lunatic

>> No.4570993

>>4570981
>Facists, reactionaries and traditionalists do not have a belief in a universal "one true way" for all people, they believe in a society organized around organic principles and with basis in tradition, religion and family, unique to different cultures around the globe.

They have NO respect for any variance in tradition, family and religion within a society. That's why it's about the one true way you hypocrite. Read some Mill for an expose on the value of the heretic (in current society; YOU)

>> No.4570994

lmao spenglerfags are so pathetic. 'history is cyclical!" lmfao. see this chart on wikipedia where we grabbed the parts of eras that are convenient for our theory and represented them as if they stand for the entire era.

>> No.4570996

>>4570984
>Why can you not provide actual proof for all this sophistry?

Read an actual history book that doesn't deal with generalizations about all history in one go, for once. You clearly haven't read anything on the movements you claim to know the history of.

>> No.4570998

>>4570985
That's essentially because Christianity has been a split religion.

I mentioned it earlier, and Evola has expounded on it, how Christianity is the fusion of the bureaucratic illiberal Roman Empire (s) and the fundamentally egalitarian spirit of Christian theology. The Pagan represents the "order" of Catholicism, and it has suppressed the egalitarianism of the scripture. Only today, the Orthodox Church is the last bastion of "order" within Christianity, as even Catholicism is assaulted from within and without by the forces of progressivism

>>4570991
So what are you? A deconstructivist postmodernist? In which case there would be no benefit of discussing anything with you

In addition, I am not the one who has brought up measuring nebuolous concepts such as freedom.

I will say this though, under the current neoliberal world order, a worker in China is about as free as a slave in Ancient rome, the Chinese worker is only allowed to exist in his condition because in liberal societies does the demand for his "labor" originate.

>>4570993
And? Why is this a bad thing? I say "One True Path" for liberalism because it is a system that demands a "One True Path" for all peoples across the world - whereas reactionaryism is regionalism and organic growth. It's hard for you to grasp this isn't it?

>Read an actual history book that doesn't deal with generalizations about all history in one go, for once. You clearly haven't read anything on the movements you claim to know the history of.
If you are so knowledgeable about my lack of knowledge in history, it should not be hard for you to disprove me. The burden of proof is on you, making the point, not me. I've happily given you my proof that science and liberalism have no relationship evidenced by the ability for illiberal societies to engage in technological growth.

>> No.4570999

>>4570994
If we are so "pathetic" why is it so hard for any of you to provide evidence of the supposed rational basis for your societies?

Why is it so hard for you to disprove the inherent religious, dogmatic nature of your belief system that finds within it passionate fanatical fervor that constantly sees you ignore history and fact and treat belief like it is truth?

I await eagerly, a liberal to step up and defend the Enlightenment and justify it from his own material basis, providing causative proof of the role that liberalism has in technological growth, and providing rational basis for liberalism itself to exist as a political philosophy which has the "God given right" to domineer and oppress all other forms of collective human society.

>> No.4571002
File: 6 KB, 206x244, paintedsamuel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
4571002

>>4570998
>So what are you? A deconstructivist postmodernist?
What do you think? You have the same taint as the marxists, and you don't even recognise the fact that you have borrowed every critical tool from the far left. It is because of people like you that discussing politics has become profoundly distasteful. Can you imagine that some activities in life are outside of the sphere of politics? Most probably not, your mind is so very skimpy.

>a worker in China is about as free as a slave in Ancient rome
This is not true. I have been to China, have you? Do you make those generalisations out of youtube videos you watch, while in your home, and philosophise complacently about the new world order?

>the Chinese worker is only allowed to exist in his condition because in liberal societies does the demand for his "labor" originate.
Cut this bullshit crap. You know nothing of Chinese society and its intrinsic materialism, there nothing "liberal bourgeois" in the Chinese work ethic, but that would blow your mind, since you seemingly cannot escape your manichean views.

>> No.4571003

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm
Harold Wallace Rosenthal interview:
http://iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rosenthal.html

These are dubbed anti-semitic hoaxes, but they are key to understanding the political situation of today.

The intellectuals of today are mainly Jews. The owners of Media and Press are mainly Jews. The owners of major Banks and Corporations are largely Jews. The Jews exert a massive influence on US and International Politics through organizations like AIPAC and the ADL.
I've already posted a book that explains why this is so: http://www.kingshipofchrist.org/dl/Kingship-of-Christ-Rev-Denis-Fahey-Dublin.pdf

This is the reason; in short, there are two main spiritual and social plans for a global community: Catholicism and Judaism. Why is this so? Because both of these systems have the concept of the Messiah, the Saviour. The Catholic Church claims its right to govern all nations because it has been endowed with that authority by Jesus Christ. The Jewish People claims its right to govern all nations because it is the Chosen People; this is recorded in their holy book, the Talmud, where non-Jews are referred to in extremely impolite terms, and it is said that the Jews have every right to take the property of non-Jews. Marxism is re-branded Talmudism (Judaism). Marx came from a long line of Rabbis and he was largely guided by his own Rabbi, Moses Hess. If you aren't working towards the Catholic World Order you are working towards the Jewish World Order. Liberal Democracies are a step towards Jewish Control, because they undermine the power of the Catholic Church which was the most effective bulwark against Jewish global ambition.
The Jews control the Media through Hegelian Dialectic. They fund both sides of an argument: Pro-choice vs. Pro-life; Communism vs. Capitalism; Homosexuality vs. Homophobia. They limit the terms of the debate and manage people by keeping them on either side of the Hegelian Dialectic: they control the Thesis and the Anti-thesis, and so they control the Synthesis.
Europe is based in Christianity. With the Jews destruction of Christianity Europe has given way to nihilism, apathy, extreme liberalism / immorality, etc.
Hitler did not fight the Jews properly at all. The Catholic Church fights the Jews on an IDEOLOGICAL level; it is the only force that has ever challenged the Jews intellectual capacity because it pits their Messianic claims with its own Messiah, Jesus Christ. Hitler fought the Jews on a crude political/physical level, and that is totally ineffective because the Jews do not derive their power from their strength, but through their cunning, intelligence, and perseverance. Hitler has helped the Jews massively by giving them the Holocaust story which has made the Jews the Eternal Innocent Victim in our culture (the Jewish People have replaced Jesus Christ as the perfectly innocent sacrifice).

>> No.4571006

>>4571003
here we go, the compulsory anti-semitic high point of every right-wing thread has been reached

move on, people!

>> No.4571009

>>4570998
>I mentioned it earlier, and Evola has expounded on it, how Christianity is the fusion of the bureaucratic illiberal Roman Empire (s) and the fundamentally egalitarian spirit of Christian theology.

Evola did not understand Christianity at all.

>> No.4571010

>>4571002
>What do you think? You have the same taint as the marxists, and you don't even recognise the fact that you have borrowed every critical tool from the far left. It is because of people like you that discussing politics has become profoundly distasteful. Can you imagine that some activities in life are outside of the sphere of politics? Most probably not, your mind is so very skimpy.
Interesting, a string of total ad-hominems. This is not a particularly new tactic of liberals.

>This is not true. I have been to China, have you? Do you make those generalisations out of youtube videos you watch, while in your home, and philosophise complacently about the new world order?
I have actually been to Shanghai and the surrounding city of Kunshan, in addition to seeing a factory that I have invested in.

>Cut this bullshit crap. You know nothing of Chinese society and its intrinsic materialism, there nothing "liberal bourgeois" in the Chinese work ethic, but that would blow your mind, since you seemingly cannot escape your manichean views.
More ad-hominems, appeal to emotions and implications that I apparently "do not know" anything.

Not a single liberal ITT has still managed to respond to me with regards to proving anything on "scientific" grounds, or providing any historical basis for their ramblings

Why are you so hostile and angry, I'm curious. Is it a natural reaction you have towards someone who politically, does not have similar beliefs to you? Why are you so fundamentally intolerant

>>4571006
You are acting like he is an actual reactionary and not a panicking progressive who seeks to discredit what I am saying with an underhanded attempt to paint us all reactionaries as believers in Okhrana propaganda.

>> No.4571011

>>4570999
sorry what do you need evidence for? that matter develops along a non-cyclical path? i think a physics text book will take care of that.

>> No.4571013

>>4570998
>whereas reactionaryism is regionalism and organic growth. It's hard for you to grasp this isn't it?

What growth? Look, are you in prison for being as retarded as you are? Have you been lined up and shit for being the degenerate heretic that you are? Do you know why you haven't? Its because enlightenment ideals protects you from this faith that your equivalent would have faced in your utopian pipedream. That would be a travesty because then a conformist like me wouldn't be able to speak with you and temper my views with the tiny bit of distorted truth your view posses. That would be a real tragedy. This is the strength of liberal democracy that we can have this conversation without you fearing for your life. You simply take too much for granted in your historical obliviousness.

>> No.4571015

>>4571011
Provide a causative link between "liberalism", the "Enlightenment", the "French Revolution" and scientific and technological growth and development

Provide a actual rational, "falsifiable" scientific basis for why liberalism as an ideology should be held up as the sole universal political system by which all humans should be governed.

It's really not that hard. You've continued to dodge the point for about 5 responses already. The one time you attempted to make a point - mass education, it fell flat on your head.

>> No.4571017

>>4571010
>labelling everyone disagreeing with you "liberal"
>calling others out for ad hominems
the irony

As expect, you can't see life outside of politics, you are nothing more but a bland marxist. It must be so very sad being you.

>> No.4571020

>>4571015
i'm a different person, dude. i came in this thread, responding to nobody, mocking spenglertards and you're demanding super specific evidence about shit i never said.

>> No.4571029

>>4571006
IMO, the Jews are the central political problem. In the early 20th century intellectuals had no qualms about discussing the "Jewish Problem"; everybody understood that it was an important issue. But now, through propaganda, anybody that questions Jewish hegemony is "anti-semitic".
Your understanding of politics is based upon your understanding of the Jews. If you use the term "anti-semitic" you are no-nothing goy, a goy golem serving the interests of the hyper-intelligent Jews without knowing it.
Then there is the next step in understanding the Jews which is the /pol/ & Hitlerian view, where you view the Jews as just another political force that needs to be understood purely in terms of power.
Then there is the true understanding of the Jews, which is understanding them spiritually, understanding their souls, their desires, their ambitions.

I'm not an "anti-semite", IMO the Jews are the greatest people to have ever lived. The Bible is the greatest achievement of mankind and it was written wholly by Jews. I consider myself a Jewish patriot; which is why it saddens me so much to see how corrupt Jews have become since they rejected Christ as Messiah. This is the key to understanding the Jews: the Jews though that the Messiah would make them the rulers of all nations, would make them rulers over the Gentiles. Jesus Christ as Messiah means that the Jews aren't special, that the Gentiles are going to inherit the Kingdom of God as well as the Jews. The Jews could not stand this; they wanted to be special, they wanted to rule. They HATE the Gentiles. This is why when a Jew rejects Christ a darkness enters his soul. A Gentile can reject Christ and still remain more or less innocuous, because the search for the Messiah isn't ingrained in the Gentile spirit the way it is in the Jewish spirit. But when a Jew rejects Christ, they become ravening wolves with a frothing hatred for "the goyim".

>> No.4571032
File: 151 KB, 468x348, golem.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
4571032

>>4571029
>no-nothing goy, a goy golem

know-nothing

pic related

>> No.4571035

>>4571013
>What growth? Look, are you in prison for being as retarded as you are? Have you been lined up and shit for being the degenerate heretic that you are? Do you know why you haven't? Its because enlightenment ideals protects you from this faith that your equivalent would have faced in your utopian pipedream. That would be a travesty because then a conformist like me wouldn't be able to speak with you and temper my views with the tiny bit of distorted truth your view posses. That would be a real tragedy. This is the strength of liberal democracy that we can have this conversation without you fearing for your life. You simply take too much for granted in your historical obliviousness.

Actually if I was to speak about terrorism or anything of that sort I would be bundled into a modern day lubyanka at the very least. The freedom is limited to a very few things

Were the situations reversed I have no problem whatsoever doing what you described, but the fact remains that even in the systems you decry, people were allowed to propagate their ideology. How do you think the French Revolution was possible if like you allege, the individuals were lined up and shot for believing something else?

The Reign of Terror shows us liberalisms true tolerance for opposing viewpoints, the Bolshevik revolution, the American Civil war, and various other things.

Modern liberal regimes likewise, do not tolerate threats to their integrity or stability. Individuals advocating illiberal societies are tarred and feathered in public via a variety of means

>>4571017
A person who disagrees with a reactionary is by definition, a liberal.

I am also not particularly sad, nor am I an embittered person constantly retorting with venom-laced ad-hominems, I happen to be a pretty happy person who doesn't feel the need to degrade or insult those with alternate viewpoints. The same cannot be said of you though, sadly

>>4571029
Why are people this desperate that they resort to this sort of posting?

>> No.4571037

>>4571029
>IMO, the Jews are the central political problem
I'm glad in my country your opinions would be considered illegal

>> No.4571040

>>4571010
>You are acting like he is an actual reactionary and not a panicking progressive who seeks to discredit what I am saying with an underhanded attempt to paint us all reactionaries as believers in Okhrana propaganda.

If you aren't a Catholic you aren't a Reactionary. Evola and Spengler are not reactionaries; they are degenerates. If you don't serve Christ you serve the Jews: this is because Jews are just damn well more organized and more intelligent than Gentiles, and unless you accept Jesus Christ's claim to be Messiah you will never be able to oppose the Jews effectively.

>> No.4571041

>>4571035
>A person who disagrees with a reactionary is by definition, a liberal.
No.

>> No.4571044

Oswald really hit the nail in the head. This is EXACTLY what has been happening the past 200 years and continues to happen.

How can /lit/ be so blind and not see this?

>> No.4571045

>>4571041
Then elucidate, what are you?

If you are objecting to a reactionary view of the world, that makes you sympathetic to liberal philosophy and belief

>> No.4571048

I don't mind Spengler, he isn't political at all, he thinks everything that has and will happen is set in stone.

There is no reason to knee jerk against him, I personally think his writings are bullshit but he did predict that Nazis will be ded in 10 years (they were gone exactly 10 years after he said this) and that the EU will emerge.

>> No.4571050

>>4571037
>I'm glad that my country is so controlled by Jews that we gladly revoke our blessed Freedom of Speech for the sake of our Jewish masters.

>> No.4571053

>>4571017

How is "liberal" a slur?

>> No.4571055

>>4571048
You are making the mistake of viewing Spenglers theories as cyclical when instead they are an upward spiral that superficially resembles a "cycle"/circle.

>>4571050
Why are you so desperate to shit up an interesting thread with the cheap recourse to dumping anti-semitic material in this thread?

Spengler rejected the concept of biological basis for ethnicity or "uniting" blood

>> No.4571058
File: 8 KB, 172x256, proust.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
4571058

>>4571045
I have no interest in politics, precisely because it is polluted by all the dichotomies you people have forced upon it. There is no single world view that can exhaust the complexity of the world, and certainly not some fanciful reactionary constructs.

I find you, as any other dogmatic political theorist, tiny.

>> No.4571064

>>4571050
>Freedom of Speech
more like freedom of being f- dumb

>> No.4571065

>>4571035
>The Reign of Terror shows us liberalisms true tolerance for opposing viewpoints, the Bolshevik revolution, the American Civil war, and various other things.

So you are saying modern society are just like the regime of terror? You are fucking retarded unless you live in a country that are just recovering from civil war or revolution.

The regime of terror was the bloody birth of democracy but shows nothing inherent in democracy. It just shows the aftermath of civil war and political paradigm changes.

The lamest thing about you is that you seem to think that we should tolerate violence and intolerance in a civil society. Besides the fact that you are saying that fascism is tolerant by saying its "organic" which is just a meaningless term as any society can be interpreted as being organic.

You are a hypocrite that's mad that your word isn't law; pure hubris.

>> No.4571066

>>4571058

>look at my dick it's bigger than yours

>> No.4571068

>>4571058
dat's p. cool

>> No.4571069

Evola is a charlatan, sorry if you are engulfed by his writings but he already has his politics made up and used his "philosophy" to fuel his wishes and wants instead of a tool to uncover truths.

>> No.4571070

>>4571055
Spengler only half-understood the problem.
The crisis of the Modern Age is the crisis of Christianity being undermined by Jewish money power and Jewish intellectual power. If you can't see this you are blind.

>> No.4571074

>>4571058
Essentially, a nihilist and an eternal contrarian who believes in nothing, and uses this as a basisto criticise constantly whilst having immunity to being criticized in turn.

Never mind that your critcisms are not even rooted in political philosophy, let alone science, they are rooted in wishy-washy abstract ideas that only you are privy to conceive.

Truly, nothing is more disgusting than an individual without any set of beliefs but an license to criticize as he sees fit.

>>4571069
Calling a charlatan, a charlatan does not make them a charlatan. You'll have to go deeper than that, I'm afraid

Why is the ad-hominem such a popular thing around here?

>> No.4571076

>>4571070
>muh joos
Not an argument

>> No.4571077

Read these two books that I have already posted:
http://www.kingshipofchrist.org/dl/Kingship-of-Christ-Rev-Denis-Fahey-Dublin.pdf
http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/dillon/

These are worth more than Spengler and Evola put together.

>> No.4571078

>>4571074
>Truly, nothing is more disgusting than an individual without any set of beliefs but an license to criticize as he sees fit.
Nope, this is my ideal state of being, an empty vessel floating around tearing other peoples opinions and beliefs to shreds while holding nothing of my own.

It's liberating and puts you above the common rabble.
>Calling a charlatan, a charlatan does not make them a charlatan. You'll have to go deeper than that, I'm afraid

I told you, he uses his philosophy as something to push his already set political beliefs. His politics did not evolve from his philosophy, it was the other way around, the later being the tool to push his agenda with.

>> No.4571079

>>4571076
That isn't my argument; your brain programming is simply making you wince at the idea that Jews are not angelic beings that can do no wrong.

>> No.4571082

>>4571065
>So you are saying modern society are just like the regime of terror?
It isn't? I can name the ills and butchers bill of all liberalism-spawned philosophy if you want me to. Soviet Russia, Maoist China, DPRK, American military adventurism, Colonial crimes against humanity, the list goes on and on.

>The regime of terror was the bloody birth of democracy but shows nothing inherent in democracy. It just shows the aftermath of civil war and political paradigm changes
It shows that they do not stick to their fundamental beliefs of egality, liberty and fraternity for one. The violent acts of repression represent the truth of what the revolutions are - the desire to control, to rule. It was the jealously of the bourgeoise of the Ancien regime.

> Besides the fact that you are saying that fascism is tolerant by saying its "organic" which is just a meaningless term as any society can be interpreted as being organic.
Not at all, because enlightenment ideals have been spread forcefully, at the barrel of a gun throughout the world. It is inorganic to numerous nations.

>You are a hypocrite that's mad that your word isn't law; pure hubris.
How am I hypocritical? Also, I am not angered, I've remained quite calm ITT.

>>4571078
There's no need for us to engage in discourse, since you haven't "torn" anything to shreds, you've failed to provide factual basis without appeals to emotions to discredit my viewpoint, about the only succesful thing you have done thus far is show to readers your propensity for attacking the individual rather than the point

>> No.4571085

>>4571079
My brain programming tells me that there is no zerg hivemind such as "the evil Jews" and that while certain "Jewish" and "Anglo Saxon" people who rule the finances are trash that I can't extend this to the common Jewish and English man.

>> No.4571087

>>4571082
>There's no need for us to engage in discourse, since you haven't "torn" anything to shreds, you've failed to provide factual basis without appeals to emotions to discredit my viewpoint, about the only succesful thing you have done thus far is show to readers your propensity for attacking the individual rather than the point

Apparently I have torn ur butthole to shreds because you are so butthurt :^)

>> No.4571089

>>4571087
>Apparently I have torn ur butthole to shreds because you are so butthurt :^)

The pinnacle of liberalism, ladies and gentlemen. Pseudointellectualism and sophistry.

>> No.4571091

>>4571089
>Never claimed of being a liberal
>Uses a buzzword found on /pol/ anyway

The reading skills of hick conservatives ladies and gentleman.

>> No.4571092

>>4571091
Notice how I refer to the ideology of liberalism with an ism, and not to refer to you as a liberal, when you have explicitly denied being one. I wouldn't denigrate actual liberals who hold belief, no matter how misguided, and conflate them with you.

Comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit :)

>> No.4571094

>>4571085
>there is no zerg hivemind such as "the evil Jews"

But there is. You just don't want to hear the evidence of it because you've been taught that "anti-semitism" is disgraceful.

>> No.4571095
File: 4 KB, 290x174, proustforeplay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
4571095

>>4571074
These
>>4571068
>>4571078 wasn't me. But thanks bro.

I am not a nihilist or an eternal contrarian. I don't feel the need to label myself, nor do I feel the need to hold desperately -as you do- to some sort of imaginary roots.
>>4571082
Yes, I value the individuals over their ideas, which always turn out to be so stereotypical and bland. Like your reactionary ideas, for one. I am much more intrigued by your childlike belief in some sort of totalising narrative that could have the strength to save us all. Do you need a sofa, would you like to talk about it, my friend?

captcha: ckiend arrogance

>> No.4571096

>>4571092
>getting taken for a ruse cruise this hard

>> No.4571097

>>4571082
>It was the jealously of the bourgeoise of the Ancien regime.

No it was a matter of fact that the aristocracy was useless eaters. They held the power but did no work, work was a dirty word to them. Why don't you defend welfare recipients, you seem to respect them.

>It shows that they do not stick to their fundamental beliefs of egality, liberty and fraternity for one.

Go outside. Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it isn't the less bad. Again your ignorance is astounding.

>Not at all, because enlightenment ideals have been spread forcefully, at the barrel of a gun throughout the world. It is inorganic to numerous nations.

It really hasn't. Most states implemented it by popular vote after the French Revolution.

>How am I hypocritical?

You attack liberal democracy for being intolerant while wanting to replace it with something that has intolerance at its basic principles. Which is why you are a joke as you even recognize the importance of tolerance in a healthy society.

>> No.4571098

>>4571092
Stop trying to weasel yourself out of your failure, liberalism and liberal have absolutely nothing to do with my replies to you, it's something you force upon the subjects in discussion because "le epic /pol/ memes :D".

Next time at least be semi-serious in your posts.

>> No.4571100

>>4571085
not that faggot, but i doubt that when he says "j00s" he means your average shlomo.
Its about these who influence politics

>> No.4571102

>>4571100
If he said "Jewish elites" then that stops being a n epic /pol/ may may and his game is over.

>> No.4571106

>>4571095
>I don't feel the need to label myself
I'm asking you to provide a anchoring for your basis of your criticism of reactionary thought. This is not a great ask.

>Yes, I value the individuals over their ideas, which always turn out to be so stereotypical and bland. Like your reactionary ideas, for one. I am much more intrigued by your childlike belief in some sort of totalising narrative that could have the strength to save us all. Do you need a sofa, would you like to talk about it, my friend?

Totalising narrative? Save us all? Have you not read the OP of spengler, which is apolitical and is a series of observances?

There is nothing to "save", there is simply the organic nature of civilizations and history, I'm not sure why you don't grasp the fact that I reject agency.

>>4571097
>No it was a matter of fact that the aristocracy was useless eaters. They held the power but did no work, work was a dirty word to them. Why don't you defend welfare recipients, you seem to respect them.
If they did no work then society would not have technological progressed past agrarian feudalism, but it did. This is fundamentally incorrect, again.

>Go outside. Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it isn't the less bad. Again your ignorance is astounding.
Go visit the third world, or anywhere else that has had the joy of recieving various forms of (neo)liberalism at the barrel of a gun. I'm sure they will agree with your "less bad" belief. Just because you have outsourced the "suffering" via the division of labor to other humans does not mean it ceases to exist. The implication that liberalism and its variants as a system is less "horrible" than others is patently false

cont.

>> No.4571108

>>4571097
>You attack liberal democracy for being intolerant while wanting to replace it with something that has intolerance at its basic principles. Which is why you are a joke as you even recognize the importance of tolerance in a healthy society.

Of course I do. I reject tolerance within societies. I attack liberalism and liberal democracy for espousing values of tolerance and claiming to live up to said principles whilst in reality and action, doing something entirely else.

If liberalism was honest about what it did, I would have no objection to.

I'm definitely not a "hypocrite" for pointing out the hypocritical "do as I say and not as I act" nature of all liberalism

>> No.4571109

>>4571106
Reactionary narratives are by essence "totalising". This has been the basis of my criticism throughout the discussion, if you haven't got it yet.

>> No.4571111

>>4571106
>Totalising narrative? Save us all? Have you not read the OP of spengler, which is apolitical and is a series of observances?

>There is nothing to "save", there is simply the organic nature of civilizations and history, I'm not sure why you don't grasp the fact that I reject agency.

I fully agree, that is why I mentioned earlier that Spergler is not a political writer and that people using him as some sort of reinforcements of their political beliefs are missing the point.

>> No.4571117

>>4571082
>It was the jealously of the bourgeoise of the Ancien regime.

No it was a matter of fact that the aristocracy was useless eaters. They held the power but did no work, work was a dirty word to them. Why don't you defend welfare recipients, you seem to respect them.

>It shows that they do not stick to their fundamental beliefs of egality, liberty and fraternity for one.

Go outside. Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it isn't the less bad. Again your ignorance is astounding.

>Not at all, because enlightenment ideals have been spread forcefully, at the barrel of a gun throughout the world. It is inorganic to numerous nations.

It really hasn't. Most states implemented it by popular vote after the French Revolution.

>How am I hypocritical?

You attack liberal democracy for being intolerant while wanting to replace it with something that has intolerance at its basic principles. Which is why you are a joke as you even recognize the importance of tolerance in a healthy society.>>4571106
>If they did no work then society would not have technological progressed past agrarian feudalism, but it did. This is fundamentally incorrect, again.

Are you attributing technological progress to nobility, because they were the only ones with access to education? Do you read your history books with only one eye open?

>Go visit the third world, or anywhere else that has had the joy of recieving various forms of (neo)liberalism at the barrel of a gun. I'm sure they will agree with your "less bad" belief.

Just because the world isn't perfect doesn't mean that it was better back when it was objectively worse for everyone, as Spengler believes. You have more comfort than the 13th century nobility you just don't have the power which makes you angry.

Yes neo liberalism has its flaws but at least we are allowed to be aware of them in the hope we might learn how to fix these immensely complex problems.

>> No.4571120

>>4571108
>If liberalism was honest about what it did, I would have no objection to

So liberalism is a good idea. Why would you want to replace it with something worse then?

>> No.4571121

>>4570749
Alea Jaca Est

>> No.4571128

>>4570877
Transformations only come from declines.

Boom.
Looks like I just destroyed a book in one sentence. Care to try again?

>> No.4571129

>>4571111
>I fully agree, that is why I mentioned earlier that Spergler is not a political writer and that people using him as some sort of reinforcements of their political beliefs are missing the point

Well within a Spenglerian construct,what you consider reactionaries are essentially proto-Ceasarists who want to tear down the rule of money (democracy) and replace it with something else.

A reactionary in his/her truest sense adheres to public apoliteia as Junger would say, because they recognize that the clock cannot be wound back, and that future ideology is palingenetic - it moves beyond the present and the past, whilst adopting elements of both.

This is why Evola rejected elements of fascism - because it was Ceasarism.

>>4571117
>It really hasn't. Most states implemented it by popular vote after the French Revolution
Got proof? America had a war. Germany was brought to her knees by liberal nations and forced into at gunpoint. Giuseppe Garbaldi did it through war for Italy. Russia had the Bolshevists. I can go on and on and on.

Lets see the "most states" part.

>Are you attributing technological progress to nobility, because they were the only ones with access to education? Do you read your history books with only one eye open?
The nobility are one element of the "ancien regime" which is something you still cannot seem to recognize.

>Just because the world isn't perfect doesn't mean that it was better back when it was objectively worse for everyone, as Spengler believes.
When was the world objectively "worse" for everyone? What objective standards are being used to measure what is better or "worse"? The world is better now that we have used the technology to eliminate hundreds of thousands in the blink of an eye? Because we have the ability to wage war unlike ever seen before? The ability to liquidate entire peoples in a short amount of time?

Technology is amoral and most importantly, still not linked to liberalism, something no one has proven yet

>> No.4571136

>>4571120
Because the moment liberalism admits the lie it is built upon, the collective-self delusion, it comes crashing down.

Get institutions of liberalism to admit that their actions are not reconciled with their beliefs, and abandon the false beliefs they pay lip service to.

Watch the entire structure be destroyed by the power of words.

>> No.4571146

>>4571129

>Russia had the Bolshevists.

They implemented their interpretation of socialism it contradicted liberal democracy?

It was implemented in most European states by popular currents it wasn't forced over people, is there one aspect of history that escapes your revisionism?

>When was the world objectively "worse" for everyone? What objective standards are being used to measure what is better or "worse"? The world is better now that we have used the technology to eliminate hundreds of thousands in the blink of an eye? Because we have the ability to wage war unlike ever seen before? The ability to liquidate entire peoples in a short amount of time?

Health, wealth, comfort , technology, work, equality, freedom, love, education.

>Technology is amoral and most importantly, still not linked to liberalism, something no one has proven yet

Technology is in bourgeois interest as it maximizes efficiency, productivity and profit in its rationality which is the enlightenment mantra, liberalism is a bourgeois construct.

Your fatalism of old just led to stagnate societies this is why you are retarded, they were objectively fucking stupid back then.

>> No.4571148

>>4571136
>Because the moment liberalism admits the lie it is built upon,

What lie? There's no lies all the architects are all revered philosophers whose work you can freely read. You are stupid as fuck, you are delusional in how you think the world works.

>> No.4571149

>>4571148
liberalism is based on the lie of the idea that people should matter

>> No.4571151

>>4570057

Spengler mixes some good observations based on gutfeeling with historical denial and vague concepts.

I think I'm going to stick to the Frankfurt school criticism of enlightenment.

>> No.4571152

>>4571151
look at all you delusional faggots who think mankind is a proud and virtuous creation full of greatness.
hahah
humans are shit

>> No.4571158

>>4571152

wut?

>> No.4571160

>>4571146
>They implemented their interpretation of socialism it contradicted liberal democracy?
Socialism is progressive liberalism taken to an extreme. The one thing you conveniently ignore about the Bolsheviks is how much more "directly" democratic they were than European "democracies" which were presided over by bourgeois that emulated the nobility of old in everything but name

>It was implemented in most European states by popular currents it wasn't forced over people, is there one aspect of history that escapes your revisionism?
I've named the major continental powers

-England - Glorious revolution - violent
-France - self explanatory
-Germany - forced from the end of a gun
-Italy - likewise
-Spain - Carlist wars
-Austro Hungarian empire - barrel of a gun

I've mentioned the major continental powers. Your turn to provide your "majority"

Lets not forget Napolean leading the march of liberalism throughout Europe at the end of a gun.

>Technology is in bourgeois interest as it maximizes efficiency, productivity and profit in its rationality which is the enlightenment mantra, liberalism is a bourgeois construct.
How does this explain technological growth and development in non-bourgeoise run illiberal socities?

Provide a causative link between liberalism and technological growth or keep quiet. You've given me a wishwashy theory about supposed "bourgeois interest" that you haven't established any consensus or basis for.

Oh, liberalism is not about rationality. It's egalitarian Christian theology overlaid with materialism to compensate for the destruction of God in the minds of the masses

>>4571148
>"There's no lie"
The hypocrisy between the ideals espoused by liberals and their actions towards other humans, namely.

The architects can be morally pure, the people who put into action are anything but.

You are the only one being delusional here friend, your pseudoreligious dogmatic belief is disturbing

>> No.4571164

>>4571158
I think he's criticizing the hopelessly optimistic belief that liberals have towards man as anything other than a ruthless, exploitative, domineernig, violent organism that has only ascended to where he is on the backs of a thousand other dead corpses of various other organisms and lifeforms.

Oh, and Western man has ascended to his pyramid of hubris on the collected charnel and human suffering of the continents of Asia, Africa, and the Indian subcontinent, and the continued exploitation right up to today - which still is going on.

Humans are beasts, they are animals, they are nothing more than animals playing with extremely powerful tools.

Liberals that claim we are "enlightened" or different from the beasts are ignorant to the nature of reality - cocooned in an urbane existence that separates them from the misery and suffering of the neoliberal order.

When one is flying a plane for his lifetime, he can be forgiven for thinking that there lies anything under the clouds.

>> No.4571174

you guys think too deeply - bound to fail

>> No.4571175

>>4571174
>you guys think too deeply - bound to fail
Why is thinking deeply considered a negative thing?

>> No.4571177

>>4571136
>Because the moment liberalism admits the lie it is built upon,

What lie? There's no lies all the architects are all revered philosophers whose work you can freely read. You are stupid as fuck, you are delusional in how you think the world works.>>4571160
>How does this explain technological growth and development in non-bourgeoise run illiberal socities?

Crtl+C Crtl+V

>> No.4571181

>>4571160
>How does this explain technological growth and development in non-bourgeoise run illiberal socities?

Ctrl+C Ctrl+V

>> No.4571187

>>4571160
>liberalism is based on the lie of the idea that people should matter

That's humanism which is not liberalism.

>The hypocrisy between the ideals espoused by liberals and their actions towards other humans, namely.

That's not lying you are the one doing a grand generalization here.

>> No.4571189

>>4571160
>England - Glorious revolution - violent
>-France - self explanatory
>-Germany - forced from the end of a gun
>-Italy - likewise
>-Spain - Carlist wars
>-Austro Hungarian empire - barrel of a gun

Open both your eyes. Can you only read history from the perspective of who was in charge?

>> No.4571191

>>4571160
>Oh, liberalism is not about rationality. It's egalitarian Christian theology overlaid with materialism to compensate for the destruction of God in the minds of the masses

Wat? Read Locke and Adam Smith again.

>> No.4571192

>>4571189
*Allegedly in charge

>> No.4571199

>>4571160
>Socialism is progressive liberalism taken to an extreme. The one thing you conveniently ignore about the Bolsheviks is how much more "directly" democratic they were than European "democracies" which were presided over by bourgeois that emulated the nobility of old in everything but name

This is pure made up hugbox bullshit trying to rationalize a American notion of "liberal" which is embarrassing to espouse on a global media.

>> No.4571200

>>4571181
Which would explain things like Operation Paperclip and how certain illiberal societies managed to have technological advances ahead of liberal ones, correct?

Your premise that liberalism is required for technological growth is fundamentally wrong when industrial development and technological growth predated the French Revolution, for one.

Again, correlation= causation

Provide proof of causation, something I have been asking a lot

>>4571187
Humanist boy isn't me

>That's not lying you are the one doing a grand generalization here.

How so? Point out to me the clean hands of the the bastions of neoliberalism and liberalism in modern Western society. I'll be here waiting.

The new "ancien regime" acknowledges the fact that nations, societies and worlds cannot be run without fundamentally violating the principles of the "enlightenment" and does not act in accordance with its "beliefs"

>>4571189
You said popular vote. Where is it. I see violent revolution in all cases. Liberalism is an ideology built upon a bedrock of violence whilst denying the selfsame violence it commits as "wrong".

Why do you liberals wish to deny history because it doesn't suit your narrative?

>>4571191
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

Reformism(calvinist and lutheranism) spurred on the growth of liberalism as an ideology as it divorced Christianity from the monopoly that the Catholic Church had. The roots of liberalism are in these movements.

>> No.4571202

>>4571199
Erm, progressive liberals and classical liberals are both born from liberalism, something you are unable to grasp. They differ on positive and negative rights.

Unlike you, I know my enemy because I was formerly a socialist and formerly a Misesian Anarcho-capitalist/classical liberal

Are you going to tell me that the Soviet(councils) and the communes were not democratic?

Continue

>> No.4571203

>>4571200
>correlation=/=causation

You seem to imply that we could have a high tech medieval societal structure which is ridiculous. We all know the emperor has no clothes today.

>> No.4571205

>>4571202
> I was formerly a socialist and formerly a Misesian Anarcho-capitalist/classical liberal
so many labels
is it like collecting badges?

>> No.4571206

>>4571203
>You seem to imply that we could have a high tech medieval societal structure which is ridiculous. We all know the emperor has no clothes today.

What is Russia? What was Korea and Taiwan when run by dictatorships? What is modern China? What is Singapore?

Are you really this blinded to reality?

>> No.4571209

>>4571205
Are you capable of any criticism rooted in fact, history or some semblance of knowledge, or are all of you smoke and mirrors lacking any factual basis for your utterly ignorant, hypocritical ideology?

>> No.4571211

>>4571200

>How so?
By claiming no one ever really adheres to liberalism. Which is evidently false. Read a newspaper on politics read about court rulings etc. you're lying now.

>The new "ancien regime" acknowledges the fact that nations, societies and worlds cannot be run without fundamentally violating the principles of the "enlightenment" and does not act in accordance with its "beliefs"

As if those in power has ever done this, again at least in liberal democracy we can point out the flaws and there are actual checks and balances.

>> No.4571212

>>4571202
>Erm, progressive liberals and classical liberals are both born from liberalism, something you are unable to grasp. They differ on positive and negative rights.

Traditional liberalism is about negative rights. You are retarded for one claiming to have knowledge of tradition.

>> No.4571216

>>4571206
They still copy our mode of production you're the one retarded here. They are only successful because they are producing for the western consumer.

>> No.4571217

>>4571209
>i was a socialist anarchocapitalist classic liberalist miserabilist from west dakoka leaning crypto-progressist tendencies
are you able to speak with words that are not hollow, that actually convey something, or do you need the warmth of pathetic conventions?

>> No.4571218

>>4571211
>By claiming no one ever really adheres to liberalism. Which is evidently false. Read a newspaper on politics read about court rulings etc. you're lying now.
Am I lying about Iraq war 1,2, Vietnam, Korea, Iraqi Freedom, Afghanistan, colonial occupation of India, Africa etc etc? Am I lying about corporate exploitation of workers in the developing and third world? Am I lying about the segregated nature of even American society until recently?

Read a basic history book, even the most biased one will acknowledge the crimes of liberalism that have been perpetuated and are continuing to be perpetuated

>>4571212
Traditionalism is illiberal.. how are you this dense? Reactionary movements and traditionalism believes in pre-Enlightenment society,

traditional liberalism is LIBERALISM, not tradition, jesus christ

A reactionary is a believer in the Ancien Regime - THAT tradition, not the 200 year old tradition of liberalism.

>> No.4571221

>>4571216
>They still copy our mode of production you're the one retarded here. They are only successful because they are producing for the western consumer.

How is production a political ideology? Do factories have political beliefs? Production is production, like all technology, independent of political philosophy. I'm waiting for the causative link between liberalism, the enlightenment and technological growth

>They are only successful because they are producing for the western consumer.
And this makes their society liberal exactly how?

>> No.4571224

>>4571218
>Am I lying about Iraq war 1,2, Vietnam, Korea, Iraqi Freedom, Afghanistan, colonial occupation of India, Africa etc etc? Am I lying about corporate exploitation of workers in the developing and third world? Am I lying about the segregated nature of even American society until recently?

What does any of this has to do with the tenets of liberal democracy. You are proposing despotic rule which is even worse in this regard as you can read from every history book ever made.

>> No.4571230

>>4571217
>mommy look how enlightened and non-mainstream I am by my refusal to apply "labels' to myself

The toppest of keks. I'll be sure to tell people who actually believe in political philosophies that have basis in some sembelance of logic that they are intellectually inferior to formless, baseless critics with no opinions other than criticism without basis

>>4571224
Because these crimes have been perpetuated by "liberal" democracies that supposedly are adhereing to "egaltiarian principles" and "Enlightenment" morality

The alternative is not worse in the regard because the crimes of liberal-spawned ideology (including holy Gommunism) are comparable, if not exceeding that of illiberal systems. Liberalism is not up high on some moral pillar, it's down in the gutter with the rest of every bloodstained human ideology that there is, something that seems to elude your grasp

>> No.4571231

>>4571218
>Traditionalism is illiberal.. how are you this dense?

Liberals have a tradition, socialists have traditions, religious people have traditions. Fuck man, you are really creating your worldview from hollow labels.

No one has patent on tradition, tradition is something everyone has, it's the collective habits of a category of people.

>> No.4571233

>>4571221
>And this makes their society liberal exactly how?

It's the root of their success. Pick up a newspaper once in a while dummy.

>> No.4571235

>>4571231
>Liberals have a tradition, socialists have traditions, religious people have traditions. Fuck man, you are really creating your worldview from hollow labels.

Yes.. and I'm referring to the Ancien regime traditionalism and illiberal reactionary thought process, how are you not capable of seeing the context of discussion of my posts?

Note how I distinguished between my tradition by referring to "traditional" liberals as classical liberals

>> No.4571237

>>4571233
>It's the root of their success. Pick up a newspaper once in a while dummy.

How so? Please point out to me exactly where Enlightenment ideology is responsible for the technological advancements made by dictatorships

Why is no one still able to establish a causative link between Liberalism and technological progress?

Can it be because technology and science are amoral and independent of morality? Can it really be so simple?

Liberals don't have a monopoly on technological growth or science - the fact that human society has managed to technological progress prior to liberalism should be evidence of that fact.

Why are you people so blind to reality?

>> No.4571240

>>4571230
>Because these crimes have been perpetuated by "liberal" democracies that supposedly are adhereing to "egaltiarian principles" and "Enlightenment" morality

How does this make the ideals wrong again? You are basically arguing that we should do as we say, which is what every liberal I have met ever is saying.

>> No.4571245

>>4571237
>How so? Please point out to me exactly where Enlightenment ideology is responsible for the technological advancements made by dictatorships

Because they produce for us. If western markets weren't there they would have no need to be "successful" and develop technology.

>> No.4571246

Traditionalism an the good/bad morality crap is good if you are a sociopath but most human beans developed empathy and want to see good living maximized for as much of humanity as possible.

How can that /pol/tard ITT not see this ? Having a ruling class indulgent in flamboyant arts and perverse sexual games does not benefit the peasant working the land trying to feed his family in any way.

>> No.4571249

>>4571240
>How does this make the ideals wrong again? You are basically arguing that we should do as we say, which is what every liberal I have met ever is saying.

Because they don't hold up to reality and never have, right from the Reign of Terror? Liberal ideals can only exist in a vaccuum, not in the real world.

Murdering in the name of RIGHTS of all humans to egalitarianism, freedom, liberty fundamentally violates those rights, I'm sure you can grasp the irony of this

Either do as you say, or drop all pretences altogether. Either solution works perfectly fine for me

Notice how when every liberal(right or left) gets into a position of power, his/her actions markedly deviate from liberal ideology?

>> No.4571252

>>4571245
>Because they produce for us. If western markets weren't there they would have no need to be "successful" and develop technology.

Oh, and how does this explain autarkic illiberal authoritarian nations like the USSR and NSDAP Germany that had no interaction with Western markets and still manage to progress technologically?

>>4571246
> but most human beans developed empathy and want to see good living maximized for as much of humanity as possible.
Notice a correlation between the fact that these "empathetic" human beings almost often never up in any position of power? Notice the amount of crimes committed in the name of "the good of humanity" or the "common man"?

Me too.

>Having a ruling class indulgent in flamboyant arts and perverse sexual games does not benefit the peasant working the land trying to feed his family in any way.

Have you had a look at what your own political and corporate "bourgeoise" liberal leaders are doing right now?

>> No.4571255

>>4571237
>Can it be because technology and science are amoral and independent of morality? Can it really be so simple?

Someone doesn't know what he is talking about.

Read:

Kant - what is enlightenment
John Stuart Mill - on liberty
Thomas Payne - the age of reason

You have no idea what influence the enlightenment held.

>> No.4571258

>>4571252
>Notice a correlation between the fact that these "empathetic" human beings almost often never up in any position of power? Notice the amount of crimes committed in the name of "the good of humanity" or the "common man"?

I do notice it however I would argue that the current Pope truly is the right type of empathetic person and he has some sort of power.
I would gladly subvert the Catholic nations to his rule but the danger here is after he goes away that the next Pope will be a destructive maniac.

>> No.4571259

>>4571249
>Because they don't hold up to reality and never have, right from the Reign of Terror? Liberal ideals can only exist in a vaccuum, not in the real world.
>Hurrr I'm a sperglord perfectionist durrr

Come back when you've discovered realism

>Either do as you say, or drop all pretences altogether. Either solution works perfectly fine for me

Implying this wasn't worse in medieval times
>appointed by god
Lol

>Notice how when every liberal(right or left) gets into a position of power, his/her actions markedly deviate from liberal ideology?

This says something about why liberals are right in being critical of power doesn't it?

>> No.4571261

>>4571200
>Liberalism is an ideology built upon a bedrock of violence

Because all empires and monarchies you seem so attached to were completely peaceful entities, right?

>> No.4571264

>>4571261
there

>> No.4571266

>>4571252
>Oh, and how does this explain autarkic illiberal authoritarian nations like the USSR and NSDAP Germany that had no interaction with Western markets and still manage to progress technologically?

Patently false.

>Notice a correlation between the fact that these "empathetic" human beings almost often never up in any position of power? Notice the amount of crimes committed in the name of "the good of humanity" or the "common man"?

This is evidently false plenty of good things are done every day and plenty of empathetic people are in power.

>Have you had a look at what your own political and corporate "bourgeoise" liberal leaders are doing right now?

Atleast they contribute in contrary to the clergy and nobility of old.

>> No.4571272

>>4571255
You are giving me philosophers, not scientists.

Was it Newton or Kant who developed theories on how gravity works?

Was it Mill or Lavoisier the nobleman who was central to the "chemical revolution?

Was it Payne or was it Gauss and Euler who developed complex mathematical theories?

Notice what all these individual scientists had in common? They were reactionaries and supporters of the Ancien Regime, or part of it.

Please again, prove to me exactly how the French Revo/Enlightenment were responsible for technological progress experienced in the period. Some causative links my friend, pronto!

>I do notice it however I would argue that the current Pope truly is the right type of empathetic person and he has some sort of power.
I would gladly subvert the Catholic nations to his rule but the danger here is after he goes away that the next Pope will be a destructive maniac.

So what you want is a benign dictator?

Welcome to the reactionary world.

>Implying this wasn't worse in medieval times
I don't recall nuclear holocausts, wide scale industrialized war, biological and chemical terror weaponry, or targetting civilian populations specifically in pre-liberal times.

>This says something about why liberals are right in being critical of power doesn't it?
Doesn't stop them committing crimes against humanity when it suits them

>>4571261
Except they weren't hypocritical or deluded as to what they did?

You preach one thing and act like them and pretend like you have moral superiority when you don't.

>> No.4571273

>>4571252
>Have you had a look at what your own political and corporate "bourgeoise" liberal leaders are doing right now?

So if you already admit we were pretty much as bad back then as the liberal burgoise leaders are now, why are you arguing for a reversal to that instead for something completely new?

You know as well as I do that even in the pinnacle of every empire or nation there's been shit men and usually got there only through bloodshed and conquest and extreme ruthlessness either towards foreigners or their own local enemies.

>> No.4571276

>>4571272
>You are giving me philosophers, not scientists.

Their attitudes were the dominant attitudes of the time read their works you are seriously underread if you think you can hand wave these guys and expect to be taken seriously on a matter of what enlightenment is. You clearly have no idea.

>> No.4571277

>>4571272
>Except they weren't hypocritical or deluded as to what they did?
wat
yes they were. you are acting as though modern politics invented cynicism, what are you, 12?

>Notice what all these individual scientists had in common? They were reactionaries and supporters of the Ancien Regime, or part of it.
this has to be the lamest argument ever
Philosophers were mathematicians; Descartes invented modern subjectivity (which led to the Enlightenment) and redesigned the sciences, Hume paved the way to the scientific methods. Are you this thick to believe in a divide between thoughts and sciences?

>> No.4571280

>>4571272
>Except they weren't hypocritical or deluded as to what they did?

But they were. They claimed they were either bringing civilization when they mostly just brought bloodshed in order to then occupy the land for themselves or claimed that they were acting on the word of god or gods with the same results, when it was all ultimately a bid for power and wealth.

They were every bit as deluded as we are now, only with different reasons.

I'm not pretending to do one thing and act differently, I'm not a burgoise leader. All I'm saying is that the people in power have always been shit, wether in time of decadence or in times of glory, wether in empires, monarchies or empires. You're the one looking back at history with a tinted view and that's why no one will take you seriously.

>> No.4571282

>>4571272
Oh look a reactionary scientism spouting illiterate.

This is fedora extravaganza.

>> No.4571284

>>4571003

You lost the argument the moment when you posted the Protocols. It is no wonder people don't take Spenglerites ever seriously. It's pseudo-spiritualism, with a soft coated derivative romanticism and with retaarded conspirac theories at the top. Way to go, kid.

>> No.4571285

>>4571266
>Patently false.

>saying something is false makes it false

H'okay mate. As far as I know factories in NSDAP Germany and USSR didn't produce goods for American or British consumers

>This is evidently false plenty of good things are done every day and plenty of empathetic people are in power.

>Saying something is false makes it so

Go explain the foreign policy of Western liberal nations for the last 200 years.

>Atleast they contribute in contrary to the clergy and nobility of old.

Francis Bacon was the forefather of scientific method. Religious monasteries were central to the preservation of knowledge from the Roman era through the dark ages and into the Renaissance.

Above, see nobilities role in science, and nobility which has traditionally played an integral role in war and defense of the nation.

Nobles that don't live up to their duties soon find themselves nobles in name only.

>So if you already admit we were pretty much as bad back then as the liberal burgoise leaders are now, why are you arguing for a reversal to that instead for something completely new?
Because I want to embrace a society that revels in hierarchy and not pays lip service to egalitarianism?

Because I recognize the fundamental base nature of man as an animal and seek to acknowledge, rather than reject it?

Because I recognize that the moment liberalisms lie is unearthed for what it is, the entire rotten structure comes crashing down and the people at the top who ascended on a lie are brought low where they belong?

>You know as well as I do that even in the pinnacle of every empire or nation there's been shit men and usually got there only through bloodshed and conquest and extreme ruthlessness either towards foreigners or their own local enemies.
Yes, so what makes liberalism a superior universal ideology that is somehow better than everything else, including traditionalism?

cont.

>> No.4571288

>>4571272
>Except they weren't hypocritical or deluded as to what they did?

If you had bothered to read any history for yourself instead of just taking his word for it, you would've found a lot of examples for this.

Even the roman historians display a lot of escepticism for some reasons their own emperors used for invading certain places and condemn the greed that was the true cause behind it.

>> No.4571289

>>4571285
>Go explain the foreign policy of Western liberal nations for the last 200 years.

There has been plenty of good intentions in foreign policy you are having a seriously biased view.

>Above, see nobilities role in science, and nobility which has traditionally played an integral role in war and defense of the nation.

Nobility was the only one with access to education sillytits. Yes their contribution to war was that they showed up with the subjects they owned to fight for them you seriously need to read a basic history book.

>> No.4571295

>>4571285
>Because I want to embrace a society that revels in hierarchy
>Because I recognize that the moment liberalisms lie is unearthed for what it is, the entire rotten structure comes crashing down and the people at the top

"I want to crash hierarchies To make room for new hierarchies! Based on my arbitrary whim of what an animal is."

You are fucking stupid.

>> No.4571299

>>4571276
>Their attitudes were the dominant attitudes of the time
[citation needed]

If they were dominant why weren't those attitudes prevalent in so many scientists?

>wat
yes they were. you are acting as though modern politics invented cynicism, what are you, 12?

You serious? Really kid? Kingdoms didn't make war for power and control? They made it to free the oppressed masses from tyranny? Toppest of keks.

>this has to be the lamest argument ever
Philosophers were mathematicians; Descartes invented modern subjectivity (which led to the Enlightenment) and redesigned the sciences, Hume paved the way to the scientific methods. Are you this thick to believe in a divide between thoughts and sciences?

The fact continues to remain that the scientific revolution predates the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. This is indisputable fact. Liberalism was born after the Scientific revolution started. How can you claim that liberalism is responsible for the scientific revolution?

>>4571280
>They were every bit as deluded as we are now, only with different reasons.
Err, no. When Rome went to war against Carthage she did not want to liberate Carthage, she set out with the goal of destruction.

Likewise, I can point out to numerous examples in European continental history the times that kingdoms have gone to war over base greed.

>>4571282
Ad hominem, intellectual midget detected. Can't handle my gigantic reactionary brain taking on all of you peasants at once!

>>4571284
Actually, I'm the dude who posted the fact that the Protocols were an Okhrana fabrication, nice try though


>>4571289
> good intentions in foreign policy
Intentions =/= actions, the great lie of liberalism

cont.

Any more liberals wanting a good ol' fashioned buttblasting?

Must be annoying to have someone disturb your comfortable echo-chamber

>> No.4571301

>>4571295
>"I want to crash hierarchies To make room for new hierarchies! Based on my arbitrary whim of what an animal is."

You are fucking stupid.

So you acknowledge the fundamental lie of liberalism then as lipservice to egalitarianism, liberty and fraternity?

Good, that's one step closer to accepting a proper hierarchy and society ruled by organic traditions rather than alien political philosophy imposed upon it from the barrel of a gun.

Western liberalism has no place in China, India, Asia, Russia, the Middle East or Africa. Keep it to your own corrupt societies and stop moralizing to the world

>> No.4571305

>>4571299
>The fact continues to remain that the scientific revolution predates the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. This is indisputable fact. Liberalism was born after the Scientific revolution started. How can you claim that liberalism is responsible for the scientific revolution?
You don't know what 'fact' means
I just pointed out Descartes, who was at the same time responsible for the French Revolution AND Newton. What do you have to say about that? Nothing? I bet you don't know Descartes at all, as you discarded Kant and others just by saying that they were "merely" philosophers; shows how unread you are.

Why do you ever try to keep up the argument, when clearly there's a mental defect to be dealt with first?

>> No.4571306

>>4571299
>Err, no. When Rome went to war against Carthage she did not want to liberate Carthage, she set out with the goal of destruction.

The war started for the control of Sicily that had vast lands for the growth of produce. The initial cause for the Punic wars was essentially economic, and Sicily was a much needed starting point for Rome if it wanted to pursue its dream of empire, that produce was very necessary, so it wasn't not just out of honor or boredom they decided to fight.

Then it became a matter of survival as Carthage threatened Rome's existance.

>> No.4571311

>>4571305
>You don't know what 'fact' means
I just pointed out Descartes, who was at the same time responsible for the French Revolution AND Newton. What do you have to say about that? Nothing? I bet you don't know Descartes at all, as you discarded Kant and others just by saying that they were "merely" philosophers; shows how unread you are.

Descartes repsonsible for Newton?

I pointed out Lavoiser, Newton, Gauss, Euler.

What do you have to say about THAT!?

You've highlighted one philosopher my friend, who happens to be a mathematician. Congratulations. We are at an impasse. You are still yet to prove the casual link between liberalism and the growth of "science" - something you can never prove because scientific revolution and development began centuries before liberalism even existed, or the philosophers you mentioned walked the world.

I suggest you start here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution

Of course I know descartes, every pleb philosopher like yourself constantly never fails to spout his I think therefore I am pop philosophy rubbish

>Why do you ever try to keep up the argument, when clearly there's a mental defect to be dealt with first?
Why do you try to assert that 19th century political philosophy was responsible for 16th century scientific development?

>> No.4571312
File: 29 KB, 243x153, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
4571312

>>4571299
You are not disturbing anything I'm sure a lot of lurkers are having a good laugh with us.

You have been making false claims.

Your views are inconsistent.

The only thing that's consistent is your loathing of hypocrisy which all people share.

You have only demonstrated that power corrupts, yet you want to implement an easily exploitable power structure.

You have demonstrated illiteracy and stupidity by handwaving all the architects of the things you oppose which demonstrates you have no actual knowledge of what you oppose

You have not demonstrated any relation between medieval times and advanced technology

You have not made any convincing argument that mass education and freedom of thought haven't been the drive force of technological advancement that has evidently accelerated since enlightenment.

/pol/ 0
/lit 500

>> No.4571313

>>4571311
>Descartes
>19th cent. philosophy

>> No.4571317

>>4571312
>You have been making false claims.
Only one who is providing proof

>Your views are inconsistent.
Your advocacy of the hypocritical is

>You have only demonstrated that power corrupts, yet you want to implement an easily exploitable power structure.
Because I recognize that a regulated oligarchy is superior to one that pretends to be anything but. Iron law of oligarchy, live it, learn it, love it

>You have demonstrated illiteracy and stupidity by handwaving all the architects of the things you oppose which demonstrates you have no actual knowledge of what you oppose
As is demonstrated by your fundamental ignorance of scientific development in pre-enlightenment Medieval europe

>You have not made any convincing argument that mass education and freedom of thought haven't been the drive force of technological advancement that has evidently accelerated since enlightenment.

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence showcasing the casual link between liberalism (mass educaiton being a concept derived from a illiberal Prussian state) the enlightenment and "supposed "Freedom of thought" as the drivers of scientific growth.

>You have not demonstrated any relation between medieval times and advanced technology

Oh? Are you denying the technological development that occured between 12th century and 18th century as nonexistent? Have you perhaps looked at the evolution of military arms to see evidence of this technological evolution? Firearms perhaps (derived from another illiberal philosophy)

>>4571313
>liberalism
>16th century

Try again

>> No.4571319

>>4571301
>So you acknowledge the fundamental lie of liberalism then as lipservice to egalitarianism, liberty and fraternity?

No you fucking autist. This is no lie. The world immensely complex your constant name dropping of 4 scientists suggests that you might have a clue about this.

There's no lie. You are trying to make it seem that liberalism is a concerted effort and not a shared attitude and set of principles to build from.

You are fucking stupid. Do you even have an education.

>> No.4571322

>>4571317
>medieval development
toplel

>16th century liberalism
>what is habeas corpus?

>> No.4571323

>>4571319
Keep continuing to swear and resort to ad-homs, it's more evidence of your frustrated inability to face reality, I understand, it's fine

>There's no lie. You are trying to make it seem that liberalism is a concerted effort and not a shared attitude and set of principles to build from.
Because it isn't. It's not universal in the slightest, expressed by the resistance to liberalism in multiple societies (European and otherwise) that have been corrected through the coercive use of warfare.

It seems you lack an ability to objectively view history independent from the propagandistic narrative of a liberal viewpoint

>> No.4571327
File: 227 KB, 700x1090, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
4571327

>>4571323

>> No.4571330

>>4571327
>avoid addressing the point yet again

Try again, this time with less ebic 9gag maymay

>> No.4571331

>>4571323
>Because it isn't. It's not universal in the slightest, expressed by the resistance to liberalism in multiple societies (European and otherwise) that have been corrected through the coercive use of warfare.

Why do you argue that it is then? Are you mentally impaired what are your education level?

>> No.4571338

>>4571331
Because of continued attempts to enforce it as the ultimate universal morality?

Because of continued insistence to think it superior to other forms of political philosophy from a moral basis?

Can you not grasp these things?

I'm trying to educate you people, where other societies will simply overpower a weakened liberal one through force of arms eventually. illiberalism > liberalism - just look within your own society to find proof of this in those who rule you

>>4571322
Next you'll be telling me the Magna Carta is the basis for liberalism

>what is habeas corpus?
Check the dates on the act brodinsky, 1679

>> No.4571339

>>4571317
>Because I recognize that a regulated oligarchy is superior to one that pretends to be anything but. Iron law of oligarchy, live it, learn it, love it

you want iron law and not less hypocrisy.

>The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence showcasing the casual link between liberalism (mass educaiton being a concept derived from a illiberal Prussian state) the enlightenment and "supposed "Freedom of thought" as the drivers of scientific growth.

The correlation between enlightenment , liberal democracy and humanism and pace of technological development.

You haven't provided any counterpoint that has been done by anyone not copying the west.

>> No.4571340

>>4571299
>Err, no. When Rome went to war against Carthage she did not want to liberate Carthage, she set out with the goal of destruction.

Rome went down to Sicily to "aid" a city against another city and then occupied everything as a result just so they could have rich Sicily in their grasp, which caused Carthage to intervene for the same in its stead.

So no, they weren't going to "liberate" Carthage, that was only a result of their "liberating" Sicily.

>> No.4571342

>>4571317
>Oh? Are you denying the technological development that occured between 12th century and 18th

No I'm saying it was slower. which is fact read a history book.

>> No.4571347

>>4571338
Because of continued attempts to enforce it as the ultimate universal morality?

Pls explain your alternative in detail.

>> No.4571356

>>4571339
I want iron law because it is less hypocrisy? I want an open, codified hierarchy and not a nebulous shadow one that is unanswerable to the people?

If you think nobles did not have responsibilities and roles to uphold you are sadly mistaken, same with the King.

The bureaucrats, corporates and oligarchs of modern society are unanswerable to anyone and are often above the law.

>The correlation between enlightenment , liberal democracy and humanism and pace of technological development.

Correlation =/= causation.

>
You haven't provided any counterpoint that has been done by anyone not copying the west.
Because NSDAP Germany, Fascist Italy, USSR, Imperial Japan, Middle Eastern Dictatorships, CPC run China post-Deng Xiaoping, Singapore, Taiwan and SKorea under their dictators all co-opted Western "enlightenment" values during their periods of industrialization, correct?

Humanism has absolutely nothing to do with technological progress, until you can establish a causative link to your hand-wavy pseudoChristian mumbo jumbo and actual technological progress, go home

>No I'm saying it was slower. which is fact read a history book.
Industrial Revolution. Learn it..

This caused the population boom which massively enhanced the productive capabilities of civilizaiton by virtue of increasing agricultural output and freeing labor, increased industrial population = greater wealth generation,greater wealth = more widespread education greater population = greater rate of technological innovation

For ex
Tull's seed drill invented in 1701 was a mechanical seeder which distributed seeds efficiently across a plot of land. This was important because the yield of seeds harvested to seeds planted at that time was around four or five. Foljambe's Rotherham plough of 1730, was the first commercially successful iron plough.The threshing machine, invented by Meikle in 1784, displaced hand threshing with a flail, job that took about one-quarter of agricultural labor

cont.

>> No.4571361

>>4571356
cont.

Thomas Saverys steam engine in 1698 and Thomas Newcomens Steam power plant in 1712, were these motivated by the still unheard of french revolution, or "enlightenment"?

You going to tell me those men were motivated by "liberalism" to design what they did?

Check the population boom pre and post industrial revolution.

Its akin to the human population boom pre-agrarian civilization in fertile crescent and post.

I really feel sorry for your ignorance of what drove "liberalism" and population shift into urban centres that promoted mass-action political philosophy - the industrial and scientific revolution took place far before the political one, linking the former to the latter is pure dishonesty.

>>4571347
Organic development of national society free from external political influence. Simple as that. Each society creates its own system of governance rooted in its history, religion and culture. There is no universal one size fits all bandaid. Is this too much to ask for? Let organic society develop on its own

>> No.4571366

>>4571356
>I don't want tyranny that I cannot see, I want tyranny I can actually see!

Why not just not want tyranny at all?
I know it's impossible, but since we're all pipedreaming here.

>> No.4571370

>>4571356
>I want iron law because it is less hypocrisy? I want an open, codified hierarchy and not a nebulous shadow one that is unanswerable to the people?
>If you think nobles did not have responsibilities and roles to uphold you are sadly mistaken, same with the King.

They were despots you romantic faggot. NOW we have checks and balances

>Correlation =/= causation.
>u can't know nuthin'

>co-opted Western "enlightenment" values during their periods of industrialization, correct?

No they copied what modes that worked that were developed by us under influence of these values.

You can't provide causative links to anything read Hume. Your own claims are especially bullshit by your own standards since none of them are grounded in demonstrable causality. You are undermining your own ideas.

>This caused the population boom which massively enhanced the productive capabilities of civilizaiton by virtue of increasing agricultural output and freeing labor, increased industrial population = greater wealth generation,greater wealth = more widespread education greater population = greater rate of technological innovation

Yes this aligns great with bourgeois ideology and interest. As I've always claimed

>> No.4571372

>>4571361
>he industrial and scientific revolution took place far before the political one, linking the former to the latter is pure dishonesty.

You have no idea what enlightenment is and the popular undercurrents from whence it came I have already suggested some literature. Do you get your ideas from blogs or something?

>> No.4571375

>>4571361
>Organic development of national society free from external political influence. Simple as that. Each society creates its own system of governance rooted in its history, religion and culture. There is no universal one size fits all bandaid. Is this too much to ask for? Let organic society develop on its own

How isn't this happening you just want it to be like it's always been? What do you mean by organic? How is it enforced? How does it differ from liberalism?

>> No.4571379

>>4571361
a traditionalist in India is different from one in China, from one in Britain, from one in Russia. Each traditionalist has his own forms of thought as to how his society should be organized, and specific cultural/historical cues for it.

>>4571366
Because clearly codified and structured violence is superior to a violent shadow oligarchy

Case in point: professional armies > angry mobs ruled by demagogues.

One is stable, the other is not. Both are capable of violence.

>They were despots you romantic faggot. NOW we have checks and balances
Hahahaha, no you don't. Your checks and balances don't stop extrajudicial murder in America, they don't stop violation of privacy or civil rights, they don't stop the raping of the middle class by transnational interest and th e control of foreign policy by institutes other than the Western populace

>No they copied what modes that worked that were developed by us under influence of these values.
But the industrial revolution and scientific revolution occured before the French and liberalism

>You can't provide causative links to anything
I don't have to because I'm not linking a political philosophy to scientific and technical growth. You are the one doing that.

>Yes this aligns great with bourgeois ideology and interest. As I've always claimed
Explain to me exactly how technological development made possible by the siphoning wealth from African, Indian, Asian colonies and accrueing of capital in this process has a political "ideology" or vast bourgeois conspiracy behind it. You are starting to sound like stormfaggots talking about Jews.

There is no political goal ascribed to improvement in technology - the musket was not a politically motivated development, forging steel was not, advances in industry and agriculture are neither either.

Technological advancement is amoral, jesus christ.

>>4571372
I doubt professional historians spend time on 4chan, no appeal to authority please, you lack any authority whatsoever

>> No.4571381

>>4571379
>Case in point: professional armies > angry mobs ruled by demagogues.
>One is stable, the other is not. Both are capable of violence.

I'd much rather it was angry mobs and not professional armies that were in charge if I was the one they were after.

Why would you promote a professional army to take the place of the mob? It makes actual despotism a lot easier for the ruling classes.

>> No.4571384

>>4571375
Because neoliberalism is an alien internationalist ideology being jammed down the throats of various countries?

I mean by organic - national, or regional self-determination versus Western attempts to enforce their bandaid of liberal democracy universally.

How is it enforced? Simple. People sticking within their own countries and self-governing.

How is it assured? Nuclear weapons that make redundant the ability for countries to wantonly force their ideology on others through force of arms.

How does it differ from liberalism?
True self-determination free of influence and interference from foreign cultures that demand change

Each society should be able to grow in a natural, organic fashion, not choked into following a singular Pax Americana/neoliberal hellhole that promotes class conflict

>> No.4571386

>>4571379
>I doubt professional historians spend time on 4chan, no appeal to authority please, you lack any authority whatsoever

Yeah you seem to revel in sophism so this suits you perfectly doesn't it.

>> No.4571388

>>4571381
>Why would you promote a professional army to take the place of the mob? It makes actual despotism a lot easier for the ruling classes.

The analogy was to explain how for fulfilling a rule - institutionalized violence codified is better than uninstitutionalized violence ruled by emotion. It was an analogy to a nation ruled along strict autocratic lines openly available for view and a nation ruled by oligarchies hidden from public eye.

Make sense?

>>4571386
Got credentials?

Otherwise your word is no more reliable than mine when it comes to calling me "stupid" or "ignorant"

>> No.4571391

>>4571388
the professional army is far more capable of accomplishing its job (whatever that may be) than a mob ruled by emotion and demagoguery

Insitutionalized, public hierarchy is a two way street, Ancien Regime was not absent of checks and balances as many people seem to imply, one only has to look to British feudal history to see the truth of this

>> No.4571393

>>4571384
But an empire at this time would be a lot worse than that it wouldn't be subtle, it wouldn't be a Pax Americana, because there would be just war and a claim to power.

The lack of communication between nations would quickly lead to desintegration of diplomacy and as each nation develops by itself, it grows wary and estranged of those that surround it, eventually causing wars due to different views on issues, etc.

There'd be a lot less shadowplay, but the violence would be massive and direct.

>> No.4571398

>>4571384
>Because neoliberalism is an alien internationalist ideology being jammed down the throats of various countries?

It's developed for the west by the west. You are the alien here bud.

>People sticking within their own countries and self-governing.

Didn't you want a dictator to rule them? Aren't you pressing your morals down my throat.

>How does it differ from liberalism?
True self-determination free of influence and interference from foreign cultures that demand change

Self determination by the despot? What if I disagree with my ruler? What if I were a heretic like you in your society? I should be forced into submission shouldn't I? You are early not contradicting yourself here.

You are such a fool. In everything you write you are only focusing on the negative of liberalism and are ascribing to liberalism things that are alien to its tenets?

Can't you see how stupid you are?

>> No.4571399

>>4571388
>institutionalized violence codified is better than uninstitutionalized violence ruled by emotion.

Give an example of this in a western country. You sound autistic again.

>> No.4571401

>>4571356
>>4571361
all those inventors were working in the wake of Locke and other early Anglo liberals tho
idk what's going on in this thread

>> No.4571412

>>4571393
>But an empire at this time would be a lot worse than that it wouldn't be subtle, it wouldn't be a Pax Americana, because there would be just war and a claim to power.

Ask yourself if you can get much worse than this current situation of constant foreign military adventurism?

Why are you assuming that autocracy/hierarchy = war? They act in national self interest as well. Singapore for example is an example of an illiberal state that has been extremely peaceful.

Nuclear weapons proliferation as time goes on only serves to make peace a far far more appealing prospect than war.

>The lack of communication between nations would quickly lead to desintegration of diplomacy and as each nation develops by itself, it grows wary and estranged of those that surround it, eventually causing wars due to different views on issues, etc.

Independent civilizations don't tear off diplomatic contact - various parts of the globe pre-European colonialism were in contact and conducted small amounts of trade.

>It's developed for the west by the west. You are the alien here bud
Cool, keep it in the West then? Western Neoliberalism continues to enforce its subjective viewpoints globally, and continues to interfere within states.

>Didn't you want a dictator to rule them? Aren't you pressing your morals down my throat.
You are missing the entire point of organic self-determination. There's nothing that says that a society cannot or should not choose a path that isn't liberal democratic since we've established the violent nature of liberal democracies as being no different from autocracies.

>Self determination by the despot? What if I disagree with my ruler? What if I were a heretic like you in your society? I should be forced into submission shouldn't I? You are early not contradicting yourself here.
These are issues not for you to decide? Involve yourself with the political affairs of only your country, leave all others be.

>ive an example of this in a western country. You sound autistic again.
Military and Police forces, happy?

>> No.4571415

>>4571412
cont. under such a system, a hierarchy is tied to their country. They act in its best interest because it is in their best interest.

In a neoliberal system, the hidden hierarchy is set free from its "host" nation - and becomes a transnational/supranational entity. Now, I hope you can see exactly what is wrong with this because when an oligarchy/hierarchys interest diverges from that of its nation, it has no issues going against its nation for its own self-interest.

Again, codified hierarchies >>> hidden hierarchies that exist based on a lie

>> No.4571416

>>4571412
>were in contact and conducted small amounts of trade.

You need to read up on history of commerce modern technology have made all markets global. You are uneducated and underread. There's no going back because it's a loser strategy.

>> No.4571423

>>4571412
>since we've established the violent nature of liberal democracies as being no different from autocracies.

Lol who has established this. We've only established that nothing is perfect which should make you wary about your "solution".

>> No.4571427

>>4571415
>In a neoliberal system, the hidden hierarchy is set free from its "host" nation - and becomes a transnational/supranational entity.

Where did any neoliberal claim that we ought to construct a shadow hierarchy?

>> No.4571430

>>4571412
>Military and Police forces

lol wut. Those are emotionally driven and not by discipline and strict command structures? Have you served?

>> No.4571437

>>4571416
>You need to read up on history of commerce modern technology have made all markets global. You are uneducated and underread. There's no going back because it's a loser strategy.

Shoot me, I'm arguing for sustainable, real growth rather than one based on breakneck juggling of debt and mass scale population/capital movements that are socially destabilizing to all involved for the benefit of a few.

>>4571423
>Lol who has established this. We've only established that nothing is perfect which should make you wary about your "solution".
The last 200 years of history from the day go of the French Revolution and its associated Reign of Terror up to American occupation of Afghanistan today?

>We've only established that nothing is perfect which should make you wary about your "solution".
Funny, since this "solution" has been the stable form of human society for centuries prior to the Enlightenment.

How is openly admitting to wanting autocracy and hierarchy an acknowledgement of anything perfect in human nature or the nature of life? It's a fundamental admission that we are animals at our core that respect big sticks.

>>4571427
Are you blind to the nature of what drives political and economic decisions in the 21st century?

The power of nation-states is being eroded as neoliberalism is being embraced in full, this is fact. Transnational corporations have the ability to influence and change governmental policy in various states.

>>4571430
Are you reading what I am writing? I am arguing how the military and police are an example of institutionalized violence is considered superior in Western society to that of emotionally-laden mob justice/ military prosecution.

>> No.4571441

>>4571437
>reakneck juggling of debt and mass scale population/capital movements that are socially destabilizing to all involved for the benefit of a few.

Welcome to the real world.

>> No.4571444

>>4571437
>The last 200 years of history from the day go of the French Revolution and its associated Reign of Terror up to American occupation of Afghanistan today?

The world have objectively never been better

>> No.4571445

>>4571020
Then, anything you write is to be dismissed.

>> No.4571447

>>4571437
>Funny, since this "solution" has been the stable form of human society for centuries prior to the Enlightenment.

There are fewer wars now than ever before. There hasn't been a war between two liberal democracies ever.

>> No.4571448

>>4571437
>Are you blind to the nature of what drives political and economic decisions in the 21st century?

What does this have to do with liberal ideology?

>> No.4571450

>>4571430
>Western society to that of emotionally-laden mob justice/ military prosecution.

Give an example of this

>> No.4571458

>>4571444
And how is scientific technological growth related in any way to liberalism? Go above and read the posts I've made, not a single person yet has established a causative basis for it and the burden of proof is on them to do so, conflating population booms and industrialization with "liberalism", when it's apparent that it's impossible for society to experience exponential demographic, technological and productive because of a political ideology - they experience it due to a convergence of apolitical factors.

>>4571447
>There are fewer wars now than ever before. There hasn't been a war between two liberal democracies ever.
Are you saying this with a straight face?

Why would neoliberal democracies fight each other? The oligarchies in both systems are exploiting the population for maximum benefit, a war BETWEEN neoliberal democracies would endanger the paraistism. War/destabilization is prosecuted against states that refuse to accept neoliberalism.

>>4571448
Neoliberalism allows an environment for said individuals and organizaitons to thrive, prosper and proliferate?

>>4571450
Ugh, the fact that you have a professional army and a fucking professional police force is evidence that your society values instiutionalized, codified violence OVER mob justice.

How can you not grasp that?

Do I have to spell it out even further to you?

>> No.4571460

>>4571441
>Welcome to the real world.

I've never not rejected that it is the real world. However the growth, the development is illusory. Structural financial problems within the West have emerged and are not being corrected, only postponed. The fact of the matter is once people lose faith in the lie of liberalism, it collapses. Spengler provides for us the historical basis for democracy(rule of money) to be superseded by that of "Ceasarism". Even the bastion of Enlightenment, America, will eventually approach that precipice.

No matter how politically opposed to me you are, you won't deny the inherently unstable nature of the current trajectory of Western civilization and it's structural flaws. The writing is on the wall for all to see, should they choose to look at it.

>> No.4571475

>>4571458
>Go above and read the posts I've made, not a single person yet has established a causative basis for it and the burden of proof is on them to do so

Correlation is fine, Hume. There's a strong correlation that you refuse to acknowledge because you are being facetious

>Why would neoliberal democracies fight each other? The oligarchies in both systems are exploiting the population for maximum benefit, a war BETWEEN neoliberal democracies would endanger the paraistism. War/destabilization is prosecuted against states that refuse to accept neoliberalism.

Cool rationalization read on a blog there bud. You can't square the fact that we are not ruled by anything else but a representative democracy.

That's the fun thing your whole construct comes crashing if there isn't a grand conspiracy. For someone so concerned with name dropping scientists, this is embarrassing display.

>Ugh, the fact that you have a professional army and a fucking professional police force is evidence that your society values instiutionalized, codified violence OVER mob justice.

It's an extension of the will of the people in a democracy, that's how it's legitimized. You need a stick, but not one based on arbitrary whim of a despot that you want in your BDSM fantasies.

>> No.4571487

>>4571475
>
Correlation is fine, Hume. There's a strong correlation that you refuse to acknowledge because you are being facetious

Correlation isn't fine broskiy, that's not how rationality works, you can't establish causative basis and you know it, handwaving your inability to furnish justification for your point isn't going to pass that easily.

>That's the fun thing your whole construct comes crashing if there isn't a grand conspiracy. For someone so concerned with name dropping scientists, this is embarrassing display.
Your wilful naievete and inability to acknowledge the motivation of transnational groups behind your domestic and foreign policy when it comes to economic matters is amusing.

Have you forgotten the causes of the most recent recession? Have you forgottten the manufacturing crisis and Rust Belt in America? There's no grand conspiracy, it's wide out in the open. American taxpayers were robbed to pay for private interests, plain and simple, private interests who are connected via public lobbies to american representatives.

Hardly a "grand" conspiracy when two minutes of research unearths it, no?

>It's an extension of the will of the people in a democracy, that's how it's legitimized. You need a stick, but not one based on arbitrary whim of a despot that you want in your BDSM fantasies.
All these beautiful projections 8)

It being an "extension" of the State (not the people, the state which is supposed to represent the people in theory) doesn't change the fundamental fact that I was making when I brought up the analogy - people and even liberal societies VALUE codified, institutionalized violence over uncodified, random emotionally-organized violence/justice.

>> No.4571493

Baby hit me with your best shot! Fire awaaaaay!

>> No.4571501

>>4571487
>Correlation isn't fine broskiy, that's not how rationality works, you can't establish causative basis and you know it, handwaving your inability to furnish justification for your point isn't going to pass that easily.

Correlation is a fine requirement for truth value not as strong as proven causality, but it's still fine. Beware autist you might end up parroting "u can't know nothin'" if you follow that strain of thought to its logical conclusion.

>> No.4571504

>>4571501
>Correlation is a fine requirement for truth value not as strong as proven causality, but it's still fine

Except how I've established how major technological and scientific "revolutions" and periods of growth occurred before the political philosophy of liberalism has spawned.

It's hard to correlate things when your political philosophy is 100 to 300 years later than some of the technological evolutions and industrial revolutions it was responsible for chump

>> No.4571508

>>4571504
>Except how I've established how major technological and scientific "revolutions" and periods of growth occurred before the political philosophy of liberalism has spawned.

You haven't done this it has been pointed out again and again that those movements go further back than your naive readings of history suggests, cognitive dissonance?

>> No.4571527

>>4571508
>You haven't done this it has been pointed out again and again that those movements go further back than your naive readings of history suggests,

Err yes I have, the fact that technological progress and growth occurred under the Ancien Regime itself should be indicative of the fact that a liberalism-based political society is not necessary for technological development, something your drug-addled brain is incapable of processing since Ancien Regime would not have survived in said period if it did not have the consent of the population to rule.

A bunch of philosophers expounding on Enlightenment ideas doesn't indicate that those ideas ever reached mass-popularity in said period - the fact that it took centuries after for them to gain social currency should be evident to you that liberalism as a political philosophy only entered mainstream discourse far after the important advances of the industrial revolution had occured under the Ancien Regime.

Your entire argument rests on the correlation of liberalism as a political philosophy erupting onto Europe some 80 years after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution proper and attribution the correlation in growth created by the society under Ancien Regime to liberalism, which is shoddy dishonesty at its finest. How the fuck a modern mass-action political philosophy travels back in time and manages to influence specific inventors is fundamentally beyond me and escapes me.

Never mind that I have actual causative proof that trumps your retarded correlation pointing out how illiberal societies enjoy technological growth when they have zero meainingful economic affiliation with liberal democracies.

My actual proof >>> your circumstancial "correlation", which is as laughable as your entire line of argument resting on Descartes somehow being responsible for all technological and industrial growth because of a few sentences he said.

Fundamentally, how do you wrap your head around your silly beliefs?

>> No.4571528

>>4571527
Damn, I really love how I scroll through my posts and its me addressing everything you bring up, and you ignoring every single time I anally ravage you and your terrible arguments. Truly, a liberal intellectual is the secular reincarnation of retarded fundamentalist Christians

>> No.4571533

>>4570057
>Aristocracy creates through violence a social system that harms all except themselves
>People overthrow this artificial system through violence
>hur dur omg teh plebs so violent tewwible powah hungry

Go back to where you came from.

>> No.4571537

>>4571533
>>Aristocracy creates through violence a social system that harms all except themselves

Funny, I only encounter mass liquidation and slavery of kulaks, indians, chinese, "reactionaries" and "counterrevolutionaries" under distinctly liberal and liberalism spawned ideologies. Funny that.

Are you capable of framing your arguments in any other way but strawmen?

Why are all of you so intellectually unable to compete with us reactionaries?

Is that why you rush to behead and kill us? Truly, amusing.

>> No.4571541

>>4571537
>Funny, I only encounter mass liquidation and slavery of kulaks, indians, chinese, "reactionaries" and "counterrevolutionaries" under distinctly liberal and liberalism spawned ideologies.
Wow.

>> No.4571550

>>4571541
See how terrible and untrue your argument that implies only DA EVUL REACTIONARIES are the source of all evil is?

Grow up kiddo, quit living in ivory towers, step outside into the third world and have a firsthand appreciation of your neoliberal ideology

>> No.4571560

>>4571070
Spengler was against antisemitism because he knew that Jews are Magian not Faustian; their culture matured and concluded long long ago.

>> No.4571563

Anyway babes, have fun, I'm tired, it's getting late and I'm going off to bed, try reading Spengler, Evola, Junger and understanding your enemy for once okay? The cultivated knee jerky responses displayed ITT are a sign you guys need to improve your tolerance quotas and receptiveness to critical debate without having such a great emotional investment

>> No.4571565

>>4571533
It wasnt create via violence. First it was simply the division of tasks. Somebody had to protect the farmers and herders.
Its only later when aristocracy forgot about its obligations torwards their subjects and went FULL EXPLOITATION

>> No.4571566
File: 58 KB, 520x363, where.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
4571566

>>4571550
I don't

>> No.4571578

>>4570057
>>4571563
Nothing worse than pretentious 14 year olds.

>> No.4571580

>>4571563
go fuck yourself you stupid bigoted shithead, I hope you catch aids you fucking retard

>> No.4571589

>>4571580
>>4571578
that butthurt

>> No.4571602
File: 118 KB, 861x498, up.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
4571602

Like it or not, Spenglers predictions have all come true.

>philosophy becomes fully skeptic, with postmodernism and post structuralism
>The EU formed
>money and government are working together
>society is getting increasingly litigious
>myriad of laws, rules, and regulations are creating childlike nations beholden to the state
> politicians gain power by appealing to the lowest common denominater of plebs, trying to get "victim groups" (see obama)
> increasing militarization of the police force is creating the framework for a Caesaristic takeover
> mercenary armies are on the rise
>the US is trying to expand its material lust by starting wars and maintaining the petrodollar
>fertility is declining

In short, its habbening!

>> No.4571614

The dichotomy which Spengler presents us is apolitical. He coffees with the notion of Country life vs. City life. The countryside is a cultures fortress for its beliefs, traditions, and customs. Cities are all about money and intellect. As society develops more and more scientifically, urban intellectuals begin to interpret the world as opposed to the aristocrats who interpreted life for the masses, and gave somewhat of a respect for the unkown. But a person like Rousseau or Schopenhaur comes along, and points out that life is a "problem" which requires a solution. It is this irreligious, nihilistic, materialistic mode of thinking that leads to decadence and cultural decline.

>> No.4571617

i dont get whats so bad about caesarism compared to aristocracy or whatever

>> No.4571622

>>4571602
lol bullshit, sperglers continuing to push their loony theories, gtfo

>> No.4571636

>>4570057
could you please stop posting far right garbage on our clean board? you must learn how to behave

>> No.4571640

>>4571636
Don't even focus on the "far right" connotations, just deal with the ultimately silly theory that societies rise and fall in the overly generalized patterns that Spengler came up with.

>> No.4571643

>>4571640
the propensity for wilful delusion and neurosis by liberals is quite amusing

history doesn't lie, spengler doesn't lie

>> No.4571646

>>4571643
>spengler doesn't lie
cultist spotted

>> No.4571647

>>4571643
pretty much, the hubris of people thinking their civilization is immortal. Fukuyama-syndrome affects them to the point of myopia

>> No.4571648

>>4571643
get the fuck out of our board you ignorant "reactionary" fedorashit

>> No.4571652

>>4571643
I'm not a liberal. And I do think Spengler's work is interesting and even potentially a useful framework. I don't take it literally, though.

>> No.4571653

>>4571617
He never made any value judgements. Caesarism is simply a shadow of the former culture. It is the slow but constant process by which a man of Will consolidates power by cult of personality. Know this, in times of chaos and disorder, the people will demand a strongman to bring order. So long as western civilization exists, the tendency will be for power to fall into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

>> No.4571661

>>4571528
I don't want to address your obvious insane arguments that doesn't need address as I'm reading while browsing.

You are the one getting ravaged here mate you have not demonstrated a simple thing ITT as I have demonstrated your castle in the sand crumbles if there's no conspiracy. Which make your line of argument the weakest ITT which was one of my first arguments.

>> No.4571665

>implying this stuff isn't interesting

Seriously. Wrong or right, Spengler forces us to view history from a transcient perspective. For once, were told to view history not in relation to ourselves, not from the point of our petty short lifetimes, but from a Higher more meta position.

>> No.4571667

>>4571661
Not that guy, but what conspiracy is he alluding to?

>> No.4571671

>>4571665
>For once, were told to view history not in relation to ourselvelves

This is what every 19th century historian does if you have a anachronistic bias you are deemed as a bad historian. Spengler is exceptionally bad at this as he tries to make history conform to his theory.

>> No.4571672

>>4571661
Pretty sure you are the one that's being ravaged buddy, he addressed all your issues and you cherry pick and ignore when it suits you, and when you complain about a "Conspiracy" he points out the fact that there no such conspiracy because it exists in the fucking open

Anyone who has a brain knows what the bailouts were, or how corporations have outsourced local jobs for cheaper labor overseas

I hardly see any conspiracy,I see reality here, my dad lost his job in the auto industry because of it, whilst the hotshots got bailed out with golden parachutes..

>> No.4571676

>>4571671
where is he altering facts to "Conform" to his theory?

He's being observational the entire time. He's providing a framework to explore the concept of civilizations as organic entities, and he does a pretty damn good job of showcasing the rise and fall of civilizations in a cylical, repeated manner.

The one thing anyone should take from it is the fact that no civilization truly stands the test of time, and acting like yours is any different from the past 6-7 is arrogance

>> No.4571679

>>4571665
>For once

lol read some vico.

>> No.4571682

>>4571533
>Aristocracy creates through violence a social system that harms all except themselves

"artificial system", Violence is perhaps the most natural and primordial way of achieving power among all species on earth...

Democracy is a system, democracy IS de facto unnatural, if you look at any civilization that has experienced violent uprising they will usually "default" back to despotic regimes - democracy does not come from revolutions, they usually grow from reformations.

>> No.4571684

>>4571672
>he points out the fact that there no such conspiracy because it exists in the fucking open
>Anyone who has a brain knows what the bailouts were, or how corporations have outsourced local jobs for cheaper labor overseas

This is not a conspiracy that is politics. Yes I cherry pick because I don't really want to spend my time on debating a loon I just got caught up in it. You are falling for cheap rhetorics he only invokes labels and showing a retarded reading of history that is designed to fit a fantasy narrative of glorious monarchies which is demonstrably false.

He then makes retarded claims that representative democracy is a shadow oligarchy which is evidently false it is a gross oversimplification and a display of sheer demagoguery.

That you can't see this makes it clear you are brainless too.

>> No.4571690

>>4571682
>Democracy is a system, democracy IS de facto unnatural

Please explain the assumptions behind this claim.

>> No.4571691

>>4571682
And that is why Spengler is some what right when he says that an Alexander or a Napoleon will come forth from the violent uprising of a "decaying" civilization.

PS. I'm not the other guy here, I'm not even conservative.

>> No.4571693

>>4571684
So your essential inability to address his points makes him, and now me, brainless, and not you the one incapable of debate?

I think I've read enough here, I don't necessarily agree with such a brutal view of history but your "arguing" on my "side" as a liberal, me being a classical liberal, is detrimental.

You fucking have the balls to lecture me on how my society isn't an oligarchy after corporate businesses fuck over my family and get away with it WITH MY taxpayer money? How the fuck can you say it with a straight face

>> No.4571695

>>4571690
Because it is built on the beautiful but flawed assumption that everyone is created equal, and in the case of US that there are natural rights granted to all men and women.

>> No.4571696

>>4571676
>where is he altering facts to "Conform" to his theory?

All the huge swaths of history he forgets to mention in his dissertation on how ALL civilizations rise and fall. No his readings of the stages are highly simplified and contradicts lots of history from those times.

>> No.4571699

>>4571695
But also that all species are biologically programmed to project dominance over others to acquire status in order to secure reproduction rights.

>> No.4571701

>>4571695
the only rights granted to any life at all are the ones they can defend themselves with violence. All life is essentially one unceasing, unending war and struggle for special genocide and domination.

Egalitarianism is an utterly alien and retarded concept, its evidence of civilization decline because any society that values egalitarianism will rot away from within and without as societies more in tune with the primal, violent nature of life prosper and take advantage of misguided egality

>> No.4571702

>>4571693
>So your essential inability to address his points makes him

Not inability, refusal. Big difference yes you are retarded

Exhibit A
>You fucking have the balls to lecture me on how my society isn't an oligarchy after corporate businesses fuck over my family and get away with it WITH MY taxpayer money?

And you believe a church taking tithe and a landlord owning your produce is any better? Read a fucking history book of the system you are defending. You are not nobility and you will not be nobility.

>> No.4571706

>>4571695
>Because it is built on the beautiful but flawed assumption that everyone is created equal,

It says so in the bible, retard. And no secular democracy doesn't say this, it says all are equal under the law. 1 man 1 vote doesn't mean all have the same power it just means everyone has a voice.

You are retarded.

>> No.4571707

>>4571690
>>4571691
>>4571695
>>4571699

However just because something is a system, doesn't mean it is wrong. We are humans and are unique in the sense that we manage complex systems like that, that are unnatural. It is essentially what separates us from animals.

>> No.4571708

>>4571696
which huge swathes?

He addresses Egyptian, Greco-Roman,Arabian Chinese, Indian, and touches on the Mexican and Babylonian.

Is he forgetting any major "Civilizations", or "huge swathes of history"?

All of you people talk about how he is so wrong but you can't actually provide any hard facts to run contrary to his narrative or examples that disprove what he fundamentally says

"Hes wrong because he's wrong!!!"

>> No.4571712

>>4571701
>Egalitarianism is an utterly alien and retarded concept, its evidence of civilization decline because any society that values egalitarianism will rot away from within and without as societies more in tune with the primal, violent nature of life prosper and take advantage of misguided egality

Yeah herds of cows or deer are constantly killing each other and your cells are all killing each other.

You are also retarded. Simplifying nature itself to conform with your personal aesthetics and then claiming universality. You are a special kind of hideous.

>> No.4571713

>>4571702
>Big difference yes you are retarded
Yeah go fuck yourself you utter shitstain. I've got no problems calling you out for what you are, a blowhard faggot who's only recourse is to insult and belittle other people whenever they disagree with your inbred pompousity that gives you the right to look down on others without any justificaiton. Eat a fucking dick shitter

>And you believe a church taking tithe and a landlord owning your produce is any better? Read a fucking history book of the system you are defending. You are not nobility and you will not be nobility.
Where the fuck have I defended any of those beliefs? I'm a fucking classical liberal you ignorant shitbrain

You are the definition of a pseudointellectual autist who is incapable of actually creating anything novel or detracting from something without a fucking emotional appeal

>> No.4571717

>>4571712
>Yeah herds of cows or deer are constantly killing each other and your cells are all killing each other.

You know that they consume grass and foliage to live correct, and that those things are also living organisms?

Is your biology this bad? You fucking literary inbreds should stick to reading about Naborokov and fantasizing about fucking little pre-pubscent girls

>> No.4571719

>>4571712
>cows, deer, and cells are comparable to human beings
yeah ok bud

>> No.4571720

>>4571708
>He addresses Egyptian, Greco-Roman,Arabian Chinese, Indian, and touches on the Mexican and Babylonian.

Yes that's limited. Common sense should inform you that anyone could pull this shit out his arse. Wake up moron.

>> No.4571721

>>4571713
u mad bro? lol

>> No.4571723

>>4571717
>You know that they consume grass and foliage to live correct, and that those things are also living organisms?

That's not war? Are you insane?

>> No.4571725

>>4571720
what other fucking major civilizations are there my friend, please tell me

>> No.4571726

>>4571723
when a species reaches the stage where it dominates everything else that competes with it and proliferates it starts intra-species competition.

But this would escape you since your knowledge of biology is limited to fucking high school grade philosophy of science

>> No.4571731

>>4571713
Exhibit B

>Where the fuck have I defended any of those beliefs

ITT the guy you are defended argued this position.

>> No.4571732

>>4571719
what do humans possess that separate them from animal life?

a mystical large brain? perhaps a soul in the appendix? What makes us different from them?

>> No.4571734

I just don't understand the mentality of reading a book and thinking "omg everything in this is 100% right and I'm going to stubbornly defend its contents without doubting them forever!"

>> No.4571735

>>4571725
Define "major"

>> No.4571740

>>4571726
>when a species reaches the stage where it dominates everything else that competes with it and proliferates it starts intra-species competition.

And you know this how? You are claiming absolute knowledge on laws of biology. How do you know it's true?

>> No.4571742

>>4571731
Can you show me where? You've got a habit of making strawman and calling people retards who disagree with you, I don't really trust your statements of what other people believe

I don't give a shit if he argued what the church did, I give a shit because you are telling me my society is not fundamentally corrupt WHEN I HAVE EXPERIENCED HOW ROTTEN IT IS TO THE CORE.

Go fuck yourself, you want to shape events and reality to suit your ownf ucking political narrative you ignorant fuckstain

>> No.4571744

>>4571742
>WHEN I HAVE EXPERIENCED HOW ROTTEN IT IS TO THE CORE.

Anecdotal shitstain. Tell me about the ufos you have seen.

>> No.4571746

>>4571740
historical precedent

see: dinosaurs, mammals

>>4571735
as having significant technological or cultural growth

major

>> No.4571747

>>4571712
Cows and Deers are actually constantly killing each other, what are you talking about?

>> No.4571749

>>4571746
>historical precedent
>because I say so!

>> No.4571750

>>4571744
fucking little faggot, you are lucky I can't reach out and strangle you from the internet

The fact that fucking entire communities in the state I live in have been devastated by it makes it more than fucking anecdotal

>> No.4571751

>>4571747
What are you talking about? Have you ever been outside?

>> No.4571752

>>4571749
>not understanding fossil records

stay scientifically illiterate plebshit

(science is cool till it disproves my jesus theories of equality,fairies and human onenesss)

>> No.4571755

>>4571751
Yes, and I doubt you have.

Bucks duel each other to death all the time.
Cows (and I assume you are talking about the tamed variant, doesn't because of human selectively breeding them that way) but if you look in nature and see the animals they came from you'll soon notice that they are quite violent as well.

http://www.earthlyhappenings.com/2009/06/where-do-modern-cows-come-from.html

>> No.4571756

lol @ all of the personal attacks and general defensiveness. you guys really are incapable of discussion.

>> No.4571758

>>4571752
Fossil records show you what give me the evidence that all of nature ever behaves in only one way other than reproducing and how this is related to an ought of human society or history in totality and not just one limited perspective?

>> No.4571760

>>4571756
no shit, we are on /lit/, home to angsty special snowflakes who think they are gods gift to humanity, philosophy and society, is it any surprise they get so touchy and butthurt when someone calls them wrong?

This is probably the most knee-jerky board in existence

>> No.4571762

>>4571755
>Bucks duel each other to death all the time.

>there are no male deer. Haven't you observed a herd with more than one buck?

>> No.4571767

>>4571750
>The fact that fucking entire communities in the state I live in have been devastated by it makes it more than fucking anecdotal

By what? Politics or inability to compete?

>> No.4571768

>>4571758
what the fuck are you saying you illiterate fucking peasant, I can't even make sense of this fundamentally fucked up bit of linguistics, for a board based on literature you sure seem incapable of making a sentence

Fossil records show us dinosaurs descended from a single ancestor.

SAID ancestor was so fucking sucessful that it spawned an entire bunch of dinosaurids that competed amongst themselves for 200 million years.

Same thing with mammals

And now same thing with humans

You really are fucking retarded arent you?

>> No.4571770

>>4571762
Is that actually your retort?

>> No.4571772

>>4571760
This is /pol/ not /lit/ faggot. Read the posts.

>> No.4571773

>>4571767
Inability to work for 1 dollar a day so that corporations can enjoy their sweet, sweet kickbacks?

Or the fact that we get laid off by the thousands when "recession" hits, and our tax money goes to compensate the fucking corporations that then decide to pack up shop and head overseas after reciving govt assistance, whilst we are left penniless?

>> No.4571776

>>4571768
>implying humans aren't mammals or apes

You surely are retarded for someone making such grandiose claims.

>> No.4571778

>>4571773
Then stop being so needy and get a job. Or make your own business.

>> No.4571780

>>4571776
What fucking bit of evolution do you find hard to grasp, that certain organisms will be so successful in their niche that they outcompete everything else and eventually through internal competition and regional differences spawn their own species over time as genetic drift increases?

>>4571778
So let me get this straight, a corporation that grew fat and successful off american labor now when it decides we suddenly aren't worth paying anymore they can pack up and go overseas WITH taxpayer assistance?

you are a sociopathic shitter, i hope for your sake whatever industry your community and family work in never have to face the corruption and scum that mine had to

>> No.4571781

>>4571768
Implying there weren't insects besides dinosaurs.

>> No.4571785

>>4571781
im certain everyone agrees that yesterday gigantic mosquitos were the dominant lifeform in global ecosystems, much like today cockroaches are the dominant lfiefofrms of ours

>> No.4571787

The reactionary in this thread single handedly dismantled and folded away every man, woman and child who came at him. 10/10 would read again.

>> No.4571791

>>4571780
>What fucking bit of evolution do you find hard to grasp, that certain organisms will be so successful in their niche that they outcompete everything else and eventually through internal competition and regional differences spawn their own species over time as genetic drift increases?

This relates to humans how? Did dinosaurs live in cities? Making grand generalizations is retarded are humans dinosaurs? are we rats or dogs? Are we birds? Why do you want us to conform to the rules of birds or apes or dogs?

>> No.4571794

>>4571787
>I can totally identify with this guy!

>> No.4571796

>>4571791
How the fuck is living in cities or caves separating us from animals or rats or birds?

We eat, we drink, we shit, we reproduce and we die. We are fucking animals

Take away our ability to eat, shit, drink or reproduce we generally get fucking angry and tear down or steal/rob/murder our way back into an existence where we can eat,shit,drink and fuck in peace, even if it means taking it from some other human

What the fuck do you think history of humanity is, at every stage of resource competition we sing kumbaya and share everything around a communal fire with our enemies?

Fuck no, we butcher, rape murder, pillage and steal and the strongest barbarian stands on top of the ashes, plants his flag there and calls it civilization

you fuckers read too much goddamn enlightenment era bullshit and think its reality

Go serve in combat and come back and preach to me the virtues of enlightened man after you've seen a man shit himself as he shoots a kid in the name of his country because thats what they demanded he do

>> No.4571801

>>4571796
I knew you were a simpleminded guy, who thinks he has it all figured out. It must be so dull.

>> No.4571813

>>4571801
if you think reality is "dull" its fucking ugly and brutal and shying away from it in your pseudointellectual constructs and fancy book clubs or nerd anime meetings doesn't make it any less real.

I've seen about enough of reality as i can stomach.

When the fucking barbarians come knocking at your door I hope to fucking god that the policemen don't come to save your ass because in that moment of terror when you shit yourself you realize how fucking FAKE everything you think is real actually is.

just because other people do the dirty business in society for you, the garbagemen of human flesh and blood doesn't mean your privlieged existence is the status quo

>> No.4571832

At the end of the day, the Reactionaries are right, because the only thing that truly matters in life is self-preservation.

The West has aged, it is now docile and weak. People chase after Utopian dreams because they cannot face the cruel reality of life- that is Heirarchy. If Western Man does not insist on his own existence, then no one else will. He will consequently be usurped by the far more numerous peoples of the world.

Today, Western Man is suicidal. He preaches "tolerance", "multiculturalism", "equality", "feminism" "welfare" and so on and so forth. He does not realize that his materialistic pursuits will be the death of him.

>> No.4571845

>>4571832
I say good riddance. The Western man is not fit to lead humanity into the stars. Let him provide his back as a stepping stone for those Asian people who are proud, and still have a culture and tradition and some modicum of self-worth left in their collective being

The Western man needs to crawl up and die, his time is gone

>> No.4571847

>>4571695
>implying people even know about natural rights anymore

Nope were going full socialism mode nao guys. And its not the nice socialism, its globalist socialism

>> No.4572140

>>4571787
this 100%, was absolutely glorious

>> No.4572205

>>4571813
>muh privilege

Maximum pleb

>> No.4572292

>>4571787
lmao, so much this. I haven't seen a greater collection of more butthurt plebs in my entire time alive

>> No.4573332

>>4570934
>shitlord

What the fuck? Are you doing this ironically?

>> No.4573406

>>4571327
>he gives argument
>you insult him without discrediting it
>repeat several times
>he calls you on this bullshit
>you post this

Goddamn,I've expected something more from /lit/. I want you to defeat him, from the bottom of my heart. Because if he's right then it opens up a huge can of worms. It shits on everything I've learned. But you can't destroy him on purely logical basis.

His rhetoric and ability to keep cool will sway people to his side, and we DO NOT want that to happen. Get your shit together /lit/.

>> No.4573442

>>4571772
I'm reading then and wow, "liberalism" really is at odds with freedom. The fact that most of attacks on his ideology have been emotion based is something disturbing. But then again group-based extremization is a real thing.

>> No.4573457

>>4573406
All I read was damage control.
Is this a podium debate? Then speak to the thread or people in it, not as if you were commenting on history or events beyond your control.

>> No.4573546

>>4570905
Yet another useless turd.
>Right wing
>Left wing
You can't fly with only one wing brother.

>> No.4573621

When left with such depressing views on how society is run, what else is there to do? I feel like I wish to contribute to the greater society at large, improve things in some measurable aspect.

In a reactionary society, can I still have sex with who I please or wear what I wish or read what I want?

>> No.4573629

>>4570938
>Christianity was the best thing to ever happen to Europe(and the world)

That's a hell of a statement to throw out there without evidence.

>> No.4573642

>>4573457
Damage control? The posters of /lit/ attacked him when he gave well-thought argument. He kept his cool and called out on your ad hominems.

>Argument
>it's wrong you shitlord
>why
>you're a shitlord back to /pol/ you're wrong
>why
>argumentation, but you're still shitlord wrong

Is all I read. Later posts were more constructed and more to the point, but there was still sentiment of prejudice to his ideas. Something I notice from time to time is that religions (or derivations of) tolerance define something as intolerant and then proceed to hate it with burning passion. It was so with Christianity, it is so with this modern liberalism.

I do not subscribe to his ideology, nor to the one he considers liberalism, I don't browse /lit/ for philosophical or political discussion. I'd consider myself politically immature and see philosophy as an interesting hobby at most (you can consider me fully intellectually immature at this point). I don't even belong to cultures that came up within this thread. I'm here as an accidental bystander. He wrecked shit.

>Is this a podium debate
Do you see a podium?
>Speak to the thread or people in it
This is anonymous board, I can hardly identify (aside from few obvious differences) people in it and I can't really speak to the thread (what the fuck does that even mean), I can only give out my opinions and let other posters have a go at them.

>commenting on history or events beyond my control

I don't quite understand this. I am commenting on history because the debate pretty much settled down. And this events are beyond my control - I fail to see how I could control what was said.

Your post is pure nonsense.

>> No.4573752

/lit/ JUST GOT BTFO!!!!

B

T

F

O

!
!
!
!
!
!

>> No.4573752,1 [INTERNAL] 

>>4571128
>Science is my rifle, intellect is my blade. Care to do battle?
>I thought not.

>> No.4573752,2 [INTERNAL] 

Hahahah, shitlibs BTFO'd!

>> No.4573752,3 [INTERNAL] 

Oh my gosh, liberals and such scum are truly self-styled autists living in their own world. Muahahahaha, what a bunch of pussies.

>> No.4573752,4 [INTERNAL] 

Wow, there's almost no retort to OP that doesn't employ "autistic", "you know nothing but i won't explain myself", or "shitlord/ other shit-variant".

/lit/ is actually even more poisonous to discussing new ideas than /pol/. Why does this keep happening on more "liberal" forums?

>> No.4573752,5 [INTERNAL] 

Wow Libs have been utterly destroyed and shut down beyond any comprehension by OP. This is the end result of Liberalism? Intellectual impotence? RIP in peace cultural Marxists.

>> No.4573752,6 [INTERNAL] 

lol rekt

>> No.4573752,7 [INTERNAL] 

How in the hell do I make a new thread on this website?

>> No.4573752,8 [INTERNAL] 

I need to reconsider Liberalism

>> No.4573752,9 [INTERNAL] 

Too much of this is too general to refute. Spengler says that ___ is like ___ and will result in ____, but until any of those are concretely defined, this is impossible to truly engage with.

If I understand: your problem is that our elites are unaccountable, and your solution is to give them absolute power and define it as coming from God.

I don't think that will help.

>> No.4573752,10 [INTERNAL] 

>>4573752,9
Also, Reaction authoritarianism looks a lot like Maoist authoritarianism minus the Christ-shaming.

>> No.4573752,11 [INTERNAL] 

I want to have sex with krautchan bernds

btw this is the shittiest thread in the world

>> No.4573752,12 [INTERNAL] 

>urban intellectuals
Sure, Shlomo.

>> No.4573752,13 [INTERNAL] 

Amazing

>> No.4573752,14 [INTERNAL] 

>>4573752,11
>an unelaborated opinion-grunt lit only by a single opaque reference

100% confirmed for twitter full of agonized, angry rambling, drug-use anecdotes, and 'ironic' anime

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action