The final red pill

Every aspect of acceptable political thought in the western world is some derivation of the liberalism that was born in the enlightenment.

Every last bit of it:

- Social democracy
- Socialism
- Marxism
- Capitalism
- Conservatism
- Libertarianism

Even Trump is a liberal. Even Le Pen is.

The ultimate goal should be the destruction of liberalism itself, as an idea. And I honestly see very little of that on Sup Forums. The more you talk about concepts like "individual liberty", "democracy", "capitalism" and "equality" as good things, the more you play into their hands.

Individualism isn't inherently good. When it deracinates people and turns them into atomized consumers, it is bad.

Egalitarianism isn't inherently good. Hierarchy is what is preserves order and stability, so it should be hierarchy and authority that is moral - not equality.

Death to liberalism and death to liberal democracy.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sYMbyneRer4
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Might aswell go live in middle east then fucking moslim

Hurr yeah fuck Islam! We're not against Muslims because they're shit skinned apes who pollute our race and lebensraum but because they don't support fag rights like we do, hurr durr!

If I was rich I'd build a house like that in the middle of 3 acres in rural Pennsylvania

>you will never ski down mount fuji

Looks nice from the outside but the interiors of traditional asian architecture just looks like a boring barn.

Flat Earth and the implications of it is the final red pill. Note: God isn't humanities friend.

Not the concave earth?

I'm not joking. We live in a terrarium for some unknown reason. I think our captors are alien, and I think they possibly want to see the evolution of our technology. I don't think they made us.

Liberalism and individualism have won. Too bad honestly. It was because of absolutism and hierarchy that Europe started exploring and colonizing the world. Those expeditions costed small fortunes that nobody was willing to pay except the king who was able to pay for them.

>Liberalism and individualism have won.

They can only subsist in wealthy societies though. That was one of the realizations that got me questioning our politics in the first place. A good political system should be able to subsist in any society regardless of wealth.

What the hell are you implying with that pic? We should be like insect chinks?

When are countries considered wealthy? When a huge majority has a roof, 3 meals a day and a good night of sleep?

continue pls

Binary dichotomies. Always more binary dichotomies.

Yeah, when people are free to distract themselves with entertainment enough to the point that the grim realities of nature become obscured to them.

bump too i guess

What do you mean by, "God isn't humanities friend?"

But isn't it that a good thing that we're wealthy? What's your reason we should return to absolutism and a sort of dictatorship?
I want it because vast sums of money will be disposable for the dictator who would use it for space exploration and possibly colonization of space.

You're preaching to the choir here mate, Trump and Le Pen are the best of a bad situation IMHO. >I support them out of necessity, not by choice

Electing them will hopefully give us more time to convert people to our side before we are overrun.

youtube.com/watch?v=sYMbyneRer4

Liberalism's legitimacy rests upon the fact it draws consent from the broad masses, either through apathy ("there's nothing better") or proactive support ("hope not hate!")

But beneath this veneer of popular support rests an uncomfortable reality: Liberalism is built upon a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. It takes credit for the technological growth of the past two centuries by either implying or explicitly claiming that social liberalism and growth in living standards through this technology are inseparable parts of one another.

What happens when this understanding of the world is undone by the existence of illiberal, wealthy nations with explicitly counter-liberal ideologies though?

That remains to be seen.

There is nothing wrong with enlightenment liberalism. Rational, empirical based policy is the only hope. Enlightenment values don't preclude hierarchy, just thinks it should be based on merit.

You're missing the point. I'm not making a value judgment about our material conditions, I'm talking about how it is telling that liberalism can only subsist in a world where people can completely isolate and escape from reality in a way never before thought possible.

In poorer societies, you are more rooted to the reality of nature: If you don't work, you don't eat. If you commit heinous crimes, either the lynch mob will get you or the state will. And so on.

Liberalism is the result of comfort allowing people to abstract themselves away from reality. Read Rousseau - Nothing the man says is congruent with a natural understanding of man. In spite of his ostensible anti-theism he holds supernatural views about what man is - many liberals do this.

what do you mean "even trump"? trumphas been a liberal since always. just because he said "el muslims are evil" doesn't make him right wing. hating muslims is a popular culture in america. it doesn't give you any wings. perhaps if he was against jews then he would've been right wing

Once you start out with the position "equality is inherently good", you inexorably end up where we are now.

I know what you're getting at - It's good in many ways that the Napoleonic/Revolutionary state embedded meritocratic routes to success like examination systems, but the problem is, is that because of the laws of heritability you'd still end up with de facto blood based hierarchies because of the way close kinship groups like families and inter-marriage generally within socio-economic status work.

Then you'd have an ideology which axiomatically maintains equality is a priori good with a reality where heritability and endogamy maintain blood based hierarchies, broadly speaking. At which point you'd get what we had a few decades ago - Libtards pointing this apparent contradiction in terms out and engineering policies to reverse it.

So what do you care if there's enlightment? You'd prefer countries to be poor so they'd be closer to nature. What does it matter what type of society we live in? Or is it that you believe enlightment can't succeed i poorer countries?

>he holds supernatural views about what man is
But isn't man superior to other animals? We're on the top of the food chain and can alter natural enviroments for our own gain.

>red pilled indian

What the fuck.

And disliking Islam is fairly beyond the pale in most western metropolitan cities.

>You'd prefer countries to be poor so they'd be closer to nature.

No? How did you get this from?

>What does it matter what type of society we live in?

Because it affects our lives and the lives of our families and descendants. You may as well ask why care about anything full stop.

>Or is it that you believe enlightment can't succeed i poorer countries?

I don't recognize the idea of a universal political philosophy to begin with. Different things for different peoples, as de Maistre said.

>But isn't man superior to other animals? We're on the top of the food chain and can alter natural enviroments for our own gain.

Ok, but that's just a belief in our own biological superiority as an apex predator. It's not the same as claiming that you believe in supernatural concepts like "unalienable human rights" or the "sacredness of all human life". The latter two are not related to what you said at all - in fact the concept of humans as the apex mammal species goes against it.

Classical liberalism does not hold that "equality is inherently good". That is not one of its tenets and never was. That's more a of a bleeding-heart neo-liberal invention.

There is nothing wrong with equality of opportunity. The modern progressives are seeking quality of outcome which is not based on reality.
>Libtards pointing this apparent contradiction in terms out and engineering policies to reverse it.
this is what cultural marxism looks like desu
Meritocracy and empiricism are good. Fuck the new left and their word games.

>"we hold this truth to be self evident...."

The founders were classical liberals were they not?

And it's more of a psychological tendency innate to the liberal mindset:

>"Kings are bad"
>"Aristocrats are bad"
>"The Catholic Church is bad"
>"Hierarchies are bad"

One sentiment lends itself to another.

I agree with OP, though I think the FR is what started it. Equality, Humanism and Universalism should be burnt out of history without mercy.

>in poorer societies, you are more rooted to the reality of nature
>your talking bad about enlightment the whole thread now

What if people can be egalitarianist or individualist and still live in a poor society.

>Because it affects our lives and the lives of our families and descendants. You may as well ask why care about anything full stop.
I'm trying to find out what you prefer wealthy nations based enlightment ideologies or poor nations based on absolutism of the past.

>Ok, but that's just a belief in our own biological superiority as an apex predator. It's not the same as claiming that you believe in supernatural concepts like "unalienable human rights" or the "sacredness of all human life". The latter two are not related to what you said at all - in fact the concept of humans as the apex mammal species goes against it.
Agree

Anyway I feel like you're more well read than me and I've got some reading to do. What books did you read to get these conclusions?

Fortunately we're towards the end of this degenerate period, it's possible that we'll soon see another 'dark age' (i.e. golden age) in which Christianity ascends once again; of course this means the end of America as we know it

So what kind of system would be best? Kind of meritocratic oligarchy or straight monarchy? Then again you need some checks and balances to keep ruler/rulers from not abusing their position...

>Benevolent AI overlord when?

meritocratic oligarchy/technocracy sounds peachy to me

>checks and balances

once we physically remove the traitors, shitskinds and spineless cucks the citizenry would become the de facto check on governement
>as it should be
The problem currently is my mongrel neighbors would rather scream at white people and collect gibbs, than perform their duty as good citizens and hold the government to account.

>Individualism isn't inherently good.
Neither is collectivism, monarchy, or whatever other ' true conservative ' meme you are pushing. Nice strawman, too bad it got demolished in one sentence.

>Vanilla is not inherently good
B...but neither is chocolate! Hah btfo!!!

He never claimed that it was, shit argument retard.

Neocameralism + Patchwork

>There is nothing wrong with equality of opportunity.

The problem is that your ideology considers an inequality of outcome to be an a priori demonstration of an inequality of opportunity.

>What if people can be egalitarianist or individualist and still live in a poor society.

Sure you can. But let's see a tribe adopt a universalist egalitarian outlook in a poor, hunter-gatherer society and see how long they last. The test of an idea's validity is its long term adaptivity.

>I'm trying to find out what you prefer wealthy nations based enlightment ideologies or poor nations based on absolutism of the past.

I think the notion of absolutism is a meme to begin with.

>What books did you read to get these conclusions?

Start with Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed. I'm not lolberg but its very good.