Hey Sup Forums.
I have an essay question for Uni (elective subject) asking what the main threats to Western civilisation are. Examples given are: terrorism, refugees, suppression of freedom of speech, marriage equality, mining and environmentalism etc etc.
Just wondering what you see to be the main threats?
The Jews
is that loss?
The economic system set in place. that works on perpetual debt to pay debt,and the exportation of inflation,pollution to other nations.
What do you mean?
cultural marxism
more specifically it allows islam and communism to thrive which is what is destroying the west
I've been here too long.
FPBP
>refugees, suppression of freedom of speech
This
Yeah, I'm definitely going to be talking about that. Especially with the recent movements in both Australia and Canada relating to 'anti hate speech' legislation
I guess I'm just wondering what Sup Forums believes to be the core 'values' which makes the west, the west - and how these things would ultimately destroy these values.
It's a nonsense meme
Refugees. Hands down. Refugees will bring more terrorism and more freedom of speech suppression.
A civilization is a result of the people who created it. European people created western civilization. Non-European refugees will irrevocably change western civilization.
Read Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail.
Low birthrates are partially what drives immigration, and it doesn't make you look like a sperg for writing about it.
Free speech is a big one
The Jews, obviously
Nihilism is another killer
mainly north korea
china is westernizing themselves, which is funny
Free speech helps us more than them.
We just have to destroy the supports of (((their))) ideology and keep our lemmings from running of the cliff. If we do this we will have set a course to win the race war
it's close, if only someone fell off bottom right
>north korea a threat
North korea is providing a server by creating a economic buffer zone so they do not take complete control of the East asia,
You take NK down no SK need no USA presence,and will slowed turn china.Leaving japan the only USA ally since they are isolated by islands while China takes over
*off
Australian shitposters.
North korea also sells nuclear devices to Iran.
That makes them a threat in my book
Liberalism. Liberalism is societal HIV. It won't kill your society outright itself. But it will destroy your immune systems one by one, so that the smallest disease that infects your society is lethal. So, for example, without liberalism we would easily fight off the muslim menace. But because we have liberalism, we are prevented from getting rid of all the muslims, so they continue to murder and rape with impunity.
...
None of the things you listed would be meaningful threats, OP, if the people who built western civilization were allowed to find solutions and apply them.
The real problem is concentration of wealth and political power into the hanfs of a very few people who refuse to admit the problems exist, much less deal with them.
Either they genuinely believe the threats do not exist or are exaggerated by "racists" and "populists," or they actually profit from making them worse, believing that they will be dead before the consequences start to inconvenience them personally.
Lots of decent answers in this thread, but I think they all fall short of the mark.
Quite simply, our own strengths that helped us build this civilization are being paired too closely with our empathy and destroying us. Any issue mentioned here so far, both yours and your replies, is only able to wedge itself into our society because of this empathy hijacking. Refugees we feel sorry for because we can put ourselves in their shoes mentally and emotionally. Freedom of speed restriction we tolerated the discussion of for too long because we can understand other people have a different view coupled with the fact that we value free speech so deeply. Environmentalism captures our ability to plan ahead and be forward thinking by having us envision disaster and all of its attendant pain and suffering we'd like to alleviate.
It won't do to get rid of our empathy just as it wouldn't be a benefit to get rid of any other trait that has helped us climb to the highest heights of achievement this planet has yet seen. We simply need to understand the hijacking and figure out how to correct it.
There's a fertile idea for an essay. If you should use it and develop it decently well, please return and share it with us.
Not shitposting. Legit have an essay to do on it lol.
I like this. Thanks for your insights.
You could argue suppression of freedom of speech is a stepping stone towards bigger threats.
With no freedom you can't criticize other threads, if you can't criticize them you can't bring the problem to light, if you can't point out the problem you can't stop it.
Suppression of freedom of speech might as well be terrorism. It scares people into staying quiet and scares them of the consequences if they speak up. Isn't that what terrorism is? Oppression by fear?
Real refugees wouldn't be a threat if you forced them to adapt and didn't bend everything to suit their needs. The problem is how governments treat them. They make them permanent residents instead of temporary refugees, they don't make them adapt in any way, they're not held responsible for their actions, they're given large sums of aid in exchange for nothing, and most importantly there isn't a distinction between real refugees with nowhere to go and niggers from 3rd world countries who just want to cash in on the free aid.
The problem today ins't exactly a refugee threat, it's an uncontrolled mass immigration threat.
You're welcome and good luck.
If you do use the empathy idea be careful with the presentation. It becomes easy to sound as if you're trying to say that only white people are strong and powerful enough to destroy white people and that doesn't sound like something that would be well received at a university.
I think it will be okay. We're meant to be writing from the perspective of a neo-conservative, which is basically why I came to ask Sup Forums
Oh, well unless neo-conservative means something different than it does here in the states, that isn't really a neo-con view.
Do you find views of that sort to be foreign to you thus necessitating asking here?
What would you say is more of a neo-con view? I basically was going to present it from a neo-con view, and then critique that view, with basically what you said.
The neo-cons I'm familiar with misunderstand everything and think terrorists abroad and welfare at home are the greatest threats to the country. Also reduction of corporate influence seems to scare the bejeezus out of them. But these people aren't what you'd call idealogically pure so I can't say definitively.
fpbp
I fear the suppression of the first amendment. Should a liberal supreme court be established, or perhaps a democratic majority congress, they will make an effort to make search speech illegal.
I know Aussies are fags and this is a shitpost, but this is a trap writing assignment. I used to get these in high school and college. The only correct answer there is the "etc." option, everything else is so the prof. has an excuse to fail you. Abuse that "etc." like a rented mule.
I'd probably write an essay about how Montezuma and Ghandi are the greatest threat to civilization, particularly in Civ III and IV.
Imagine carefully allocating your resources as an low-level leader, expanding outwards only to discover you are living next to Montezuma. He's a pretty aggressive cunt, intent on expansion and slaughter. You know what's coming; all you can do is force-produce spearmen and archers to protect your cities. He's a fucking mad cunt, building cities as fast as he possibly can, slowly boxing you in. You don't want to start a fight you know will severly weaken you, but he doesn't give a fuck, and declares war on you. You're now in an eternal stalemate with a leader who will literally fight you until you develop nuclear weapons. I'm not joking, I've had multiple games where I just sent out settlers and resettled on an island in the middle of nowhere, just so I didn't have to put up with his shit. And what does he do, but force-build battleships and transports and kill me in the ocean.
Fuckin Civ NPC's.
Solid post m8
Antibiotic resistance and technological automation.
From the viewpoint of Western Civilization technological innovation isn't a threat. Just as always, the western world will incorporate new tech and methods and adapt. It might be painful and accomplished over many decades, but if not felled by the jackals that surround us we will adjust and use it to become even greater.
Niggers
>Just wondering what you see to be the main threats?
Is this a scene from Planet of the Apes?
Is fpbp a person? Because it's always fpbp
Polarisation, debt and hypernormalisation. You could just use hypernormalisation and work polarisation into it as governments attempt to normalise everything to make the world appear simpler. It's a uni assessment and for an elective so you don't want to redpill because it will probably get you a fail.
There is a pretty good documentary around about hypernormalisation, use that as the source then work backwards finding other things which back it up. Plenty to work with, you can talk shit about any country using hypernormalisation as a source. My main advice is don't redpill because it will fuck you over. You finish your degree then redpill people, it also teaches you to argue for something that is wrong/against.
This. We do not control the printing of our own currency.
The artificial poverty caused by central banking.
The federal reserve act was literal treason.
Nice timing.
Suppression of Freedom of Speech, we need a bill of rights in this country, desperately.
Giving up freedom and/or the growth of government. This can subtly be used to talk about (((one world government))).
Keeping guns out of people hands means only criminals have guns. Limiting free speech means only using speech deemed "correct" keeps you safe. Regulating businesses (for environmental protection, consumer protection, etc.) means that only those that can lobby governments will be able to succeed. Forcing workers to pay for social security so they have something to retire on means that money can't be used for other, more productive things. Allowing only the federal reserve and other central banks to print money rather than a decentralized, free market type of system enslaves us to debt. Allowing the government in marriage forces issues like marriage equality (a state issue) with one that detracts from the original intent of marriage.
Maximizing freedoms of people should be what is sought. That's what western civilization was founded upon. But slowly, our rights have been reduced more and more.