Decadence followed by extremism which causes major loss in lives. Then things fix themselves, then decadence sets in again. I believe we're seeing this in Western world right now. I could be wrong though.
You are wrong. Every cultures like to see its own era as degenerate and decadent, protip: you're not special. Even Romans during their golden age thought that they were living in a time of moral bankruptcy.
>>44659 I'm aware of other reasons, but you can't deny decadence of it's citizens played part. I mean, they pretty much handed over their defense to barbarians. It's clear civic virtues of earlier Romans were pretty much gone by then.
>>44462 How is this a "reoccurring mistake in history"? Even if you truly believe women's rights is a mistake, it's certainly not reoccurring. This era is the first in history where a significant portion of the world is more or less gender-equal.
>>44314 The transition from nationalism to cosmopolitanism among a society's elite/ruling class.
It happens to every great civilization sooner or later, but because most of the world still operates on the basis of nationalism, it puts them at a massive disadvantage and ends up destroying them or rendering them irrelevant in the long run.
>>44665 Hitler hated Communism, and he also hated Slavs more than any other ethnic group aside from Jews. That was his whole idea of lebensraum. Genocide/assimilate all the Slavs and resettle the land with Germans.
>>44698 >but you can't deny decadence of it's citizens played part.
Yes I can. The citizens of Rome were always pathetic cunts throughout their entire existence. Before the rise of nationalism in the 1700s nobody gave two shits about fighting for "their" country. It was policy on the part of the emperors to hire barbarian troops instead of Roman ones since they usually had a shit ton of experience from fighting beyond the frontiers, plus local aristocrats did not want to give up essential manpower on their farms by letting their workers become soldiers.
>It's clear civic virtues of earlier Romans were pretty much gone by then.
You sound like a Roman author. Stop buying into their mentality. People fought for gold and rape only in the ancient world.
>>45279 Not those guys but coming from /lit/ I expected blatant naziboo shitposting and all that, so far it hasn't been too bad actually, compared to my expectations. I have no problem with /pol/ generally though I admit I've never as much as visited it, if you guys keep your shitposting and derailing to a minimum I don't mind sharing a history board with you.
>>45279 I do think some of the viewpoints held on /pol/ are stupid and/or unsupported and/or not sufficiently nuanced (so obviously I disagree with those), but that alone would not make me go instigate stuff (as opposed to normally debating). It's the constant shitposting and lack of an atmosphere conducting to actual discussion that makes me do that sometimes.
>>45279 /pol/ bitches about hugboxes and is ironically a hugbox themselves. Their theories about jews and shit are absolutely insane and if you're not 100% white supremacist gas the kikes race war now you're a "kek."
Thanks for the mini-survey lads. I'm looking forward to the future discussion we can all have, and personally I think /pol/ provides a refreshing view on the now widely accepted left-wing ideology. It's just a nice place to express contrarian views without being labelled.
That being said it is fucking hilariously toxic and most times retarded.
>>45436 I wish it was still that interesting. Nowadays they're all just generic conservatives who spend all day complaining about liberals and is probably one of the most "blue pilled" communities there is.
>>45510 I'm all for different viewpoints, but I have to say something when there's blatant, extreme /pol/posting and/or /pol/-shitposting when the sticky outright advises against it. But anyway, back to the thread
>>45510 >I think /pol/ provides a refreshing view on the now widely accepted left-wing ideology. Expressing a non-mainstream view is fine. But usually /pol/ does so in a LOL MUDSLIMES ARE EVIL AND DESERVE DEATH / KEK KIKES ARE THE ETERNAL SWINDLERS / EUROPEANS ARE INHERENT SUPERIOR. THERE ARE NO COMPLICATED/MULTIVARIATE REASONS FOR THEM PULLING AHEAD HISTORICALLY etc etc etc and so on and so forth manner
>>45021 That's a pretty radical view man. Care to back it up with something? From shit I read, it really seemed Romans, at least Roman citizens, were rather ''nationalistic''. I mean of course gold and rape was big motive, but you can't really deny they didn't have some sense of ''Romanness''.
>>45767 >From shit I read, it really seemed Romans, at least Roman citizens, were rather ''nationalistic''.
Not to the extent of actually doing something about it. Notice how nobody revolted against barbarian takeover? It didn't matter who your landlord was, hell, Roman taxes were considered incredibly demanding.
There was a sense of Roman-ness but nobody was willing to die for it, or even to put their lives on the line. People just wanted to get through the day.
>>45805 >You have massive misconceptions about a board you barely go on and instead create generalizations about. Are you seriously telling me that, on /pol/, there is not commonly expressed sentiments like "the jews did this / the jews are ruining Europe / etc" and "Muslims are shit / expell all sandniggers from my country / nuke the middle east and Mecca / Muslims are all hateful and the quran commands them to be in a constant state of war / Muslims ruin every country they form a large percentage of" and "europeans are based, unlike them niggers / europeans have made all of the important advances that matter / africa literally has contributed nothing to the world/ etc"?
Even if you were to believe such things, at least seriously explain why you think so. /pol/ usually doesn't even do that. You are inane to think otherwise.
>>45938 Overpopulation is more about resource consumption than physical space.
Basically, find the scarcest resource used in a commodity that most people use, and that's the limiting factor for your population. Today, that might be oil or that might be rare-Earth elements used in computers and mobile phones. In any case, there is a limit, and it's pretty inflexible. Once you pass the limit, quality of life takes a nose dive as things that were previously universally available become expensive luxuries.
>>46016 >commonly expressed >/pol/ is one person If you ask a nationalist what his ideal world would be, it would be for all races to have countries of their own exclusively. Genocide doesn't even come into it until people like you begin making wild assumptions.
>>46075 Explain how "commonly expressed" means "/pol/ is one person". Because it doesn't and that is obvious. Just because a view is commonly said on /pol/ doesn't mean /pol/ is one person.
>If you ask a nationalist what his ideal world would be, it would be for all races to have countries of their own exclusively. What is the point of this statement?
>Genocide doesn't even come into it until people like you begin making wild assumptions. Improve your reading comprehension and stop putting words in my mouth. When did I claim that a nationalist expression the view you randomly posited above means that he advocates genocide? On /pol/, I literally can find quite easily explicit mentions of things such as "Kick all the muslims out of europe / bomb mecca". If you haven't seen these, you are the one not looking at /pol/ often enough.
Are you seriously arguing that /pol/ does not have a atmosphere that is toxic for serious debate?
>>46108 I think it's much more like a general apathy towards religious rituals that are generally associated with keeping the community together and less about people donning their fedoras and actively rejecting all aspects of religion in general. Like for example I was still raised as a Catholic and did all of the coming of age stuff but I don't practice it at all as an adult and don't really believe any of it. I know far more people like that than active atheists.
>>46322 >I can find someone saying "nuke Mecca" >everyone on /pol/ literally wants this to happen This is what you sound like. If you want a forum where you're only allowed to hold opinions that are neutral or antagonistic towards the preservation of the White race, then perhaps reddit will be more to your liking.
>>45907 >>46016 First off, /pol/ is a big board. You can't deny that there isn't a large and diverse userbase there, just look at the flags. Secondly, /pol/ is a rather unique community on 4chan with its own memes and board culture. It is up to you to discern wether you are being memed at or if people are genuinely involving you in a conversation. Yes, that's counter intuitive to getting people to learn new things, but just look at /a/. If you ask for a favorite anime or say certain things you will get memed out of existence. That is how they preserve their identity and congruence on the board.
I can never vouch for the entirety of views expressed on /pol/, there are too many people with their own reasons for holding their beliefs. Often times these beliefs are boiled down to easy to spread memes that lose the original knowledge and intent of the idea. Take the Jews meme for example. It's funny to think that these ugly looking imp creatures are causing all your problems through subversion. However, it is undeniable that despite their small population, many jews hold a massively disproportionate amount of power over people and society. So despite the meme being racist and wrong, there is some truth inside of it that is revealed to people who don't automatically reject the offensive things shown to them.
/pol/ is not one person. /pol/ also does not like to spoonfeed. /pol/ likes even less to engage in sophisms with people who clearly look down on them of find their ideas insane. Create unbiased threads with the intent of learning, foster discussion and use intelligent questioning. You will be amazed at how much people are willing to teach you and what you can learn.
>>46426 >Well yeah, in 5th century. That's kinda my point. >By then, Roman culture slowly degenerated.
My comments are applicable from the 2nd century BC to the 18th century. Despite what Roman authors will tell you, people didn't fight "for Rome", they fought because soldier prior to the 4th century was a good career which stopped you becoming a pauper begging for scraps and allowed you to fuck foreign sluts and have a donative every so often.
Romans never lost their cultural bloodthirstiness though.
>>46379 It was easier to be seminal in many fields back then, as there was less to know.
Franklin, Tesla, Jefferson, Feynman, Edison, and Pauling are examples of incredibly significant American figures (as significant as any Greek or Roman in their respective fields). I suppose the familiarity of those names reduces the mystic aura of greatness that great people are supposed to have.
In terms of writers, America has no shortage of talents past and present. Emerson, Thoreau, Joyce, Hemingway, Faulkner, Poe, Twain, Steinbeck, etc, although I'm not entirely sure how comparable they are to ancient writers.
>>46139 Firstly, communism and socialism are different things. Socialism seeks for the state to provide welfare to the people. Communism seeks for the bourgeoisie to be eliminated, so that the working class can control the state, which would also control the economy to prevent capitalists from gaining control, as well as welfare for the people. Although they share some ideals and have the same origins, they have differences.
Anyway, Hitler didn't like most forms of socialism, or communism at all, because they promoted a globalist, cultural marxist view.
Hitler supported socialism in a nationalist way, he believed that the German people should help each other with welfare, but not those he saw as inferior, like the Slavs or Jews.
This is at odds with Communist and most Socialist perspectives, that the money should go to the poor regardless of their nationality or race, as they believed that class divided people more than ethnically or culture. That a poor Russian and a poor Kazakh were more similar to each other than a poor Russian was to a rich Russian. Of course, that ideology didn't always apply to actual Soviet policies, but Hitler didn't care about that.
>>46493 >I can find someone saying "nuke Mecca" I can find several people who say this or who express agreement. More so other common sentements than this particular one ("the muslims ruin everything" is much more common for example), but still, I can find such without much issue.
>everyone on /pol/ literally wants this to happen Again, you are putting words in my mouth. When did I claim this?
>If you want a forum where you're only allowed to hold opinions that are neutral or antagonistic towards the preservation of the White race, then perhaps reddit will be more to your liking. Guy, if you want to put words in people mouths and for some reason assume that someone who want actual debates rather than "lol mudslimes" is an anti-white, I would say debates are not for you. You can have some view that, for instance, "Jews have negatively contributed to development", but if so, actually give a serious effort to explain why you think so. My issue with /pol/ is not that they have views I disagree with, it's that they don't actually debate, and if you hold a different view than whatever one is prevalent in the thread, you don't get serious counterarguments, you get shitposting. That you don't acknowledge that /pol/ is like that is a lack of sight on your part. It's not their views, it's their attitude that is insufferable. I am personally starting to believe they maybe you are one of them, and that maybe you actually think your shitposting might actually be "debating", which it is not. Again, I am not sure, but your constant misrepresentation of my words is leading me to think so.
Complacency of the victorious. Whether it's huge empires or individuals, when someone reaches the top they very quickly become complacent, they "won" after all. Then before they know it, the rug's been pulled out from under their feet.
>>46833 >they don't actually debate You've never been on /pol/. >if you hold a different view than whatever one is prevalent in the thread, you don't get serious counterarguments, you get shitposting. That's weird. I got links to evidence for why my view was wrong and I changed it accordingly. >their attitude that is insufferable Applying memes to real life phenomena is apparently troubling to you. >you actually think your shitposting might actually be "debating" You literally haven't given me a single thing to provide evidence for.
>>46816 Communism existed long before Marx. You have no idea what you're talking about. It's true that Marxism is a type of Communism, and the only one that anyone cares about these days, but this sort of wilful ignorance really is unexcusable.
>>46833 You have to respect other posters and their views. Some people genuinely think that nuking Mecca would be a positive event. Why would they think that? What information do they have that you dont?
Memes and board culture get in the way of discussion on all boards, /pol/ is no different. The buffer is in place to prevent spoonfeeding and entertaining people who clearly want to make a spectacle on the board. Yes, there will be trolls and children, just like anyone else. It is your duty to keep a cool head and educate those with less and learn from those with more.
>>46937 Collectivist communities aren't exactly relevant to the wider history of the world because they were always too small to affect anything meaningfully after agriculture came about. Back in the days of hunter-gatherers, sure. A form of communism was practiced because everyone could apply their skills and be provided for equally, but that's impossible on a wider scale as we've seen over and over again.
>>46926 >You've never been on /pol/. (not him) So /pol/ is a regular good board for debating stuff and you won't get automemed on if talking about a serious topic with a view that is against the prevalent one? Should I go on /pol/ literally right now and show you how many threads are doing that?
>>47010 Yes. Engage the board in an unbiased way and genuinely try to foster discussion and education.
Don't just make a shit thread saying "there's nothing wrong with being jewish, prove me wrong" or "communism is the future of society you cant deny this". Lurk the board, learn the culture, and become someone who can engage them on their level, as an equal who wants to learn.
>>46998 Yes, I fully agree, I'm not arguing in favor of Communism in any way. It's just silly to conflate all of it with Marxist theory, which is a very specific ideological system. Eh, guess I should stop being autistic now.
What people don't seem to realize is that /pol/ is just acting the way the rest of 4chan does with respect to the individual board interests. The difference is, you're not going to get morally outraged at a Sonic the Hedgehog meme on /v/ or a GURPS meme on /tg/ or a K-ON meme on /a/ (unless you're autistic). >>47135 It's alright, bro.
>all these /pol/acks using this thread to push their shit ideologies
If you genuinely think that letting people with political beliefs different to you is a bigger mistake than some of the most common recurring mistakes in history, many of which have resulted in millions of pointless deaths.
>>46108 A weakening of religion means the weakening of the core values that form the morality and even legality of the society. It is when the ideals a religion endorses become disregarded as religion turns into a tool for gaining power and wealth. This is what happened with the catholic church and what sparked protestantism, a movement of revival of the original purpose of christianity in the face of growing corruption and sinning amongst the high priests.
Contrary to what you might intuitively think, religion is weakening in the US. And not because the percentage of atheists is on the rise, but because of the transformation religion has made. It went from a set of ideals and principles that guided a person in being a moral subject of a society into a huge money making tool in the form of megachurches and a propaganda tool for the politicians. So, although you may notice religious arguments become louder and more obnoxious than ever before, ultimately it is the symptom of the demise of the religion and not its rise.
>>46926 >You've never been on /pol/. Serious debates that don't have autoshitposting in response to contrarian views to the majority are rare. /pol/ doesn't have a reputation for it for nothing.
>That's weird. I got links to evidence for why my view was wrong and I changed it accordingly. I never claimed it doesn't ever happen that you get good debates. And also, you seem to be on the "mainstream /pol/" side of things, so you getting shit on would be rare compared to some guy for instance saying "Muslims aren't actually inferior and jews aren't that controling and in power"
>Applying memes to real life phenomena is apparently troubling to you. Are you agreeing then that often the debates are not serious? since you are seemingly acknowledging at the very least that meme response are common? Or am I misrepresentation your position here? (notice that I actually make sure if I am or not, rather than go ad hominem)
>You literally haven't given me a single thing to provide evidence for. I can go on /pol/ right now if you would like. It would be very easy to find many instances of the "toxic atmosphere" I was referring to.
I am serious though. You must know that /pol/ has such a reputation and that, at the very least, there is some truth to it.
>>47242 >I am serious though. You must know that /pol/ has such a reputation and that, at the very least, there is some truth to it. So you agree that stereotypes are accurate. Good, you're well on your way to being a full-fledged /pol/ack.
>>46984 >Some people genuinely think that nuking Mecca would be a positive event. Why would they think that? What information do they have that you dont? As I said before, that is fine. I would disagree with them, but I don't consider it "toxic" if they serious explain their point. For this specific example for instance, I can assure you that they very commonly just say the phrase and say no more.
>Memes and board culture get in the way of discussion on all boards, /pol/ is no different....It is your duty to keep a cool head and educate those with less and learn from those with more. This is a true point. Although I think that /pol/ is among the boards where this gets (somewhat) excessive.
>>47242 If you are aware of the reputation and memes of the board, why don't you alter your posting style to suit the sensibilities of the board? That would be far more effective than expecting an entire board to fit your idea of a non-toxic atmosphere.
>>46941 All of these big 'We're this' or 'Xyz is good or bad' discussions are meritless. There is no real standard for anything so just sit back and enjoy... In many ways Iron Man and Hulk are masterpieces in their own right.
>>47347 You will find people all over that only state their memes and don't back them up. Similarly, people don't like to spoonfeed others on what they consider common info. Clearly they're either ignorant or considered you not worth educating.
>>47433 It wouldn't change anything. Religion rarely stood in the way of progress.
You have to realize religion in itself is neither good nor bad. Nor is an ideology either good nor bad. All of it are the manifestations of how humans think collectively, and this has been taken advantage of by those who have the power to manipulate ideas and beliefs into serving their own interests.
If you think Islam is the reason why the Middle East is so shit you're gravely mistaken.
The world's so shit because that's literally what people are. The wars and genocides and whatnot are not the result of some misunderstandings or misconceptions. They are literally a natural part of what humans do. It lies deeper in our minds than any abstract political idea or preach given by a priest.
>>44363 Considering that we are in an age of decadence, I feel like we will descend into another dark age in the near future after America falls, us and Europe for the last 20 years will be remembered as like the second Rome/Greece, hell, we even copied their architecture in D.C. like they did with each other.
With shitty socialist societies being the only other places of refuge, the progress of civilization will slow to a crawl and many Communist states and dictatorships will come about and nobody will bother to stop them because nobody has a military anymore. Russia will most likely rise as the next superpower but only because of their military and not their civilization's achievements, China might also be a second super power but it's unlikely they'll try to to conquer other places. Middle East will continue pointless infighting like they've been doing for 3000 years now and Japan, the only quality capitalist country left, will also collapse to decadence which is the cause of their birthrate problems, with no support from the U.S. economy, they will fall apart.
Also, without the U.S., the internet itself might be lost and no longer able to be accessed due to no one keeping control of the satellites and networks. It will be remembered as a great phenomenon of our period, a golden age of historical knowledge may emerge when the next great civilization finds the remnants of the internet and remakes it but it won't matter because it will also fall from the mistakes of the past and general ignorance.
America might end up as a multitude of smaller countries, or anarchic for a period of time. All North and South American countries will fall to shit and be taken over by mafias/drug cartels and the like without the support of the U.S., except for Canada, which will just deteriorate or turn to Communism like all the other Socialist countries.
I have no idea who might end up being the next truly great civilization.
>>46919 >It often is just banter, not debating And it often is not. I've read some of the most insightful posts on 4chan on /pol/. I've also had some of the most fun I've ever had in /pol/ riot stream threads. Welcome to 4chan.
For someone who's going on about quality posts you sure seem to meta shitpost alot.
>>47296 What I said does not say that stereotypes are accurate. What it means that that it was not for nothing that the notion of /pol/ being "cancerous" or whatever you may have heard is the case. In this case, I feel that I can look through the archive or even todays /pol/ and show that very commonly a serious debate originating from a "contrarian view" is mangled.
>>47431 >No, no you really can't. You're a gigantic hypocrite for condemning generalizations and yet making your own in the very same breath. What do you mean "No, no you really can't"? My claim was "I can assure you that they very commonly just say the phrase [nuke Mecca] and say no more." I can objectively support my claim simply by going through the archive and looking through the instances of "nuke Mecca" / 'bomb Mecca" / "nuke the kaaba" / etc
The problem with generalization is that usually they are not based in facts. This is not that. I can literal check the /pol/ archive to support my point. My statement is not baseless. Would you like to to go through the archive and show you, for the "nuke mecca" case, how often there is no serious explanation as to why that should happen?
>>47469 >It can't be worse than the Safe Space you're trying to create here on /his/. >>47626 >Given how he seems to look down his nose at any opinion that could possibly be a threat to his worldview, What exactly do you think my viewpoint is?
>>47626 >You are all evil racist bigoted sexist homophobic Nazis! Prove me wrong, /pol/!" No, that is an example of shitposting. How you think I would consider that a serious debate topic is beyond me
>>47776 >For someone who's going on about quality posts you sure seem to meta shitpost alot Huh? "a lot"? I only posted that one post; your response of "And it often is not" does not indicate you think "It often is just banter, not debating" is an invalid point, and you say it's a lot of meta shitposts? How?
>>47780 You being able to cherrypick posts from a board that has thousands of individual users monthly isn't proof any more than one Black person killing a White person is evidence of all Blacks being murderous. You don't seem to understand that you aren't using your logic- you're using pure emotion.
>>44475 I honest to god think we need a mayor catastrophe, "Mars wants our women" tier. We need, as a culture, to learn that being a meany mean in facebook and sending all of the dislikes won't help. Activism is about signs and persistence, not about twitter.
You disagree with the idea that there are any prevalent opinions on /pol/. Is that your viewpoint?
Furthermore, you disagree with that idea that /pol/ is in any notable degree more inclined to non-serious debates and/or "shitposting" than most other boards? Is this correct?
And in addition, you also are of the opinion that when there are any prevalent views, more often than not, when a post or thread is made positing a contrarian view, it is rare to find a non-debate emerge. Usually, there is a regular enviroment that allows for serious debate and usually you don't find instances in such threads of opinions being shit upon en masse. Is this a correct representation of your views?
>>46322 /pol/-tards do not even realize /pol/ is a hugbox extraordinaire and actually think 100 different posters writing monologues on the same theme is discussion. Come to think of it, /pol/ literally is Hitler as he behaved the same.
I'm right wing myself but fuck me if I can stand that shit board.
>>48053 >you disagree with that idea that /pol/ is in any notable degree more inclined to non-serious debates and/or "shitposting" than most other boards? Is this correct? They are as shitposty as any other high-population board. >when there are any prevalent views, more often than not, when a post or thread is made positing a contrarian view, it is rare to find a non-debate emerge When you come seeking actual proof for some of the "prevalent" views on that board without insulting people and coming off like a complete faggot, you're very likely to get people who will give it to you in short order. If you act antagonistic and dismissive, they will do the same. You can't expect to be given respect where you don't give it in turn. Again, have you tried asking for evidence?
>>47780 I don't even know WHAT you're arguing against! You say that because users post meme answers and don't back them up, /pol/ is somehow devoid of value or intelligent discussion? How is that any different from /a/ bombarding newfags with boku no pico?
>>47780 You realize that when people say "nuke Mecca," they're not shitting up the latest Bernie shill thread, right? They're responding to yet another instance of Islam being compatible with Western civilization. Instead of going on writing entire paragraphs that nobody will read (for the umpteenth time), they'll show their support to poster they've replied to with a simple, concise message.
Context is important, and your purposefully ignoring it.
>>47864 >I only posted that one post you and your ideological butt buddies wont stop whining about /pol/ and it's tiresome. /lit/ is leftypol anyways.
>"It often is just banter, not debating" is an invalid point You're right because it's not an invalid point. There's a lot of shitposting on /pol/ but there's also insightful quality posts, and that's why I go there. Of course, if you're an easily butthurt libcucк I can see why that wouldn't appeal. I have no doubt /his/ is going to be exactly the same, so if you can't cut through the chaff you should just leave now.
>>48137 I'm not sure what parts of /pol/ you're looking at, but whenever I drop in, people are usually at each others throats. The only threads that are almost completely single-minded are the ones about tumblr-esque cultural things like the new wave of feminism or controversy over the transgenders or new psychotic racial politics. When topics relating to women or trannies come up, it's basically unilateral, but in most other threads, a lot of what I see are vicious insults being hurled back and forth.
I think the reason a lot of people get frustrated with /pol/ is that the whole place is kind of a shock to your system the first time you go there. You see a lot of things like Holocaust denial, racial interpretations of history, worldviews that can go as far back as the Middle Ages, and plenty of other opinions that generally oppose a lot of what is accepted in the mainstream. What makes it seem hugbox-y is that these ideas get way more representation on /pol/ than any normal person is used to. When ideas that are fringe in the mainstream are accepted by a much larger percentage of people in another environment, you notice them more, and it gives the false impression that everyone on the board believes those fringe ideas. It looks like it's full of Nazis because there are way more Nazis there than anywhere else. It looks like it's full of conspiracy theories rivaled only by /x/ in insanity, but that's because there are way more conspiracy theorists on /pol/ than what the average person is used to. The idea that everyone on /pol/ believes the same thing or adheres to the same philosophy is, in my experience, not an accurate one, so characterizing it as a "hugbox" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I understand why it seems that way, but I don't think it really is one.
Our civilization is facing a gradually intensifying disaster in the form of mass immigration from the third world, cultural disintegration by the mass media, social collapse by feminism and general decline of moral integrity. And while the outlook seemed bleak for quite some time, there is a clear current of resistance mounting world-wide.
In Europe, those who reject the modern paradigm typically take up the mantle of nationalism and socialism, inspired by the fascist movements of the 20th century. Golden dawn and Casapound come to mind.
But there is a uniquely American phenomenon and ideology which is perhaps the main current of thought in north American resistance movements, which is "libertarianism". For Americans, libertarianism is a logical extension of the conservative or republican mindset. It appeals to "traditional" American values like liberty, self reliance, small (or no) government, free enterprise, and so on, which explains in part its popularity with former conservatives.
However libertarianism is a false opposition. It's my contention that Marxism and libertarianism are two sides of the same liberal coin. Bear with me here, I'll explain.
The central underlying assumption of Marxism (and by extension, of all the SJW nonsense that is plaguing us today) is the notion that humans are fundamentally equal in their abilities (talent, potential, intelligence, etc). This is the logic behind the uplifting of third world primitives to our level, the abolishing of gender roles, and all the other ills of the modern experience.
>>48865 However, in the realm of moral quality, Marxists do not believe in equality at all. Old school communists would classify people as being bourgeois (evil, corrupt), workers (fundamentally good or neutral) and communists (saintly, selfless people). Today, we're all equal, but whites are evil and greedy, men are pigs and exploiters, while women and non-whites are various shades of innocent victims or blessings upon mankind. We're all aware of the SJW "hierarchy of victim-hood", where different people have higher or lower moral authority depending on their level of "oppression".
Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on the notion that men are morally equal, which is to say that all men are selfish and self-interested. Thus giving any man power over others will lead to corruption, as he uses this power for selfish ends. But the ideology does recognize that there is a wide difference in abilities between men. From this dichotomy we get ideas like abolishing governments, or preventing state monopolies.
Marxism and Libertarianism, when presented this way, seem diametrically opposed; one believes in equality of ability but a moral hierarchy, while the other believes in moral equality but a hierarchy of ability. But both are still based on the liberal lie of equality - they just apply it differently. To the weak minded emotional thinker, it is easier to accept the victim mentality that comes with Marxism, while to the rugged individualist it's easier to accept the idea that everyone is selfish and that all authority is evil.
The problem, of course, is that there is no such thing as equality in this world. I don't need to press this point to this audience; we all know that some people are smart, some are stupid, some are strong, some are weak, and so on. But the concept that there is a moral hierarchy as well will seem blasphemous to many. It shouldn't be.
>>48876 Humans are social animals. Our individual survival depends on the group. No human can survive and prosper alone in the forest. For social animals like us (and others like ants and bees), survival of the fittest means first and foremost the survival and welfare of the group, not of the individual. And like other social animals, we have instincts for self-sacrifice in cases where the group benefits. However, those instincts are not as powerful in everyone. And whether those instincts kick in in a group depends primarily on genetic similarity, which is to say family and nation.
Thus reality DOES have a moral hierarchy, but a very different one from the one concocted by Marxist ideologues. Even if you adopt a cynical attitude, you can still distinguish that some people are more likely to help you if you're in need, while others are more likely to steal from you. Moral value (at least, from a social standpoint) is based around someone's solidarity on family and ethnic lines.
So what's the problem with libertarianism? The problem is that if you put two groups one against another, the one who is best able to work together will overcome the group of individualists. And the group governed by the best and brightest will overcome the group where the best and brightest do their own thing.
It follows that no one concerned with the survival and fitness of his group will benefit from promoting a libertarian attitude... at least, not within his own group.
The point that libertarianism is jewish in origin has already been discussed extensively before, and I won't rehash that here. Needless to say, ethnic minorities who occupy white countries (like the jews) do not adopt a libertarian ethic, quite the opposite. Ethnic favoritism is at the core of their success.
>>48901 Ultimately, the state is a tool. Whether it is good or bad depends on who is using it and for what purpose. The American government isn't evil because it's big and bloated. Imagine what this monstrously large institution could do in the hands of good men who care about the future of white people. Practically all of our ills could be cured in record time.
Individualism is a loser's strategy in life's game of survival of the fittest. Even for a cynical observer, it is indisputable that teamwork (and thus cooperation and empathy) are superior to individual effort: if might makes right, two men with sticks are mightier than one man alone.
The enemies of our people want us weak. With Marxism, they make us weak individually so that it matters not if we unite our forces. Through libertarianism, they insure that the strong among us stay isolated rather than uniting their powers and pose a threat.
>>48911 We must abandon foolish notions of "objectivity" if those lead to our destruction. "Freedom" is no different from "tolerance". We all understand now that tolerance is not a virtue, if the thing being tolerated is evil (bad for our people and against the natural order). Likewise, freedom to commit evil cannot be considered desirable. All that matters is freedom to do good. Today, we are not free to do good, because all laws are inverted by our enemies. Wishful thinkers long for freedom, thinking 'well, if we were totally free at least I could do the right thing'. This is a compromise. Instead, we should long for total victory, where the only freedom is freedom to do good (meaning, what is good for our people). Our enemies certainly don't cheer for the freedom to do what they don't like, and neither should we.
Libertarianism, even if it is designed to appeal to the strong minded conservative type, is still a product of liberal values like equality ('equality of opportunity' and 'don't thread on me'), liberty (freedom of speech for your enemies) and universalism ('judge the individual, rather than his race'). We can't get bogged down with this old ideological baggage. Liberalism must be purged from every crevice of our minds and souls before we are free and empowered to be truly just - which is to say, to dedicate ourselves fully to protecting our family, our nation and our race.
>>48175 >I don't even know WHAT you're arguing against! I am arguing that, more so than other boards, /pol/ is not a good place to have a serious debate on a topic, at least for views that are contrary to the prevalent view, which, as per the meaning of /pol/, is often politically correct. I am not arguing for "politically correct" sentiments to be discouraged and posited in debate. I am arguing that if they are made, the poster of it should seriously make the arguments for it, rather than, what I perceive, is too common a practice on /pol/.
> You say that because users post meme answers and don't back them up, /pol/ is somehow devoid of value or intelligent discussion? I never said "devoid". There are many cases where I can find a good debate. My issue is that, from what I can see (and what I beleive I could show with the archive as a general trend), is that good debates are rarer to find on /pol/ and that shitposting, memeing, and serious claims that are not accompanied by serious support.
>How is that any different from /a/ bombarding newfags with boku no pico? It's not different, but I would say people are not usually "seriously" trying to make argument for something that they find as important and then get memed on or whatever. You can get stuff like "Snake is best girl (an unpopular opinion), here's why" and you usually can debate about it. Even if you get response like "snake a shit, monkey a best", you at least usually aren't really invested in debating such a topic, so getting a answer that doesn't actually give supports isn't so much of a issue there (since this is just anime, not real life). I would also argue that /a/ for the most part only has a sort of automatic response across all threads for the topic of requesting a source, where then everyone says "Don't spoonfeed him".
>>48175 >>48997 For the first part, I meant "make the arguments for it, rather than give no evidence or support with any serious investment, which, as I perceive,"
And for the last paragraph of my post, I just want to add a feeling I have that on /a/, if I seriously want to have a debate about something, I actually can get one (even if in the beginning my post gets autoresponded to) if I push for it, whereas I feel that with /pol/, once the autoresponses conmence, it is difficult to get a good discussion going even if I push for it. There are several cases where I've seen someone succeed in breaking this pattern, but from what I have seen, more often than not, they are unable, where other boards would actually go into debate mode if the poster earnest expresses a desire to do so, regardless of his posited opinion,
>>48997 >I am arguing that, more so than other boards, /pol/ is not a good place to have a serious debate on a topic, at least for views that are contrary to the prevalent view, which, as per the meaning of /pol/, is often politically correct.
You are correct to an extent. However, you have some misconceptions about what a good place for debate is. I would argue that there is NO good place for debate, at all, ever! For a place to be good for debate it would need a well educated userbase, aware and wary of its biases, that are willing to entertain topics they don't believe in, and are knowledgable about proper argumentation and fallacies. There is no such space on 4chan, let alone the world. I think if you were to find such a group, they would likely already be in agreement with one another, because they would all come to same rational conclusions.
>>49205 I have no real, objective way to convince you otherwise of your opinion. I know that /pol/ is a good place for debate and discussion because I, myself, have created several threads that were full of intelligent debate, despite being against /pol/'s interests. I managed to do that because I learned the culture of the board and it's posters and respected the responses I got. I know not everyone is capable of this, so yeah, /pol/ can be a very hostile, toxic place. I still contend that if /pol/ were not as offensive as it is, it wouldn't be home to the knowledge I see first hand there.
>>48248 >Instead of going on writing entire paragraphs that nobody will read (for the umpteenth time), they'll show their support to poster they've replied to with a simple, concise message. Not that guy, but I think the issue might be that a person with opposite views does not take the assuptions you are making as proven and thus sees your claims as unsupported. So like in this case, you have claimed that Islam is not compatible with Western civilization, which is literally a /pol/ (politically incorrect) belief. The belief that Islam is incompatible may be dominant in /pol/, but a contrarian poster does not believe so. So if the contrarian was like "What would Muslims need to do to advance themselves?", you might get a response like "They can't until they renounce Islam, which is contrary to the progressive values of Western civilization". /Poster on pol/ might have a negative view of Islam as well, and thus they automatically agree with that point, but maybe the poster does not automatically believe so, and thus see such a statement as unsupported, since you did not give any evidence that explains what about Islam is incompatible. Or maybe he could take issue with the perceived notion the responder is making that Islam is monolithic or that it cannot evolve, which are also assumption the poster might not hold and thus sees as unsupported by the responder.
one possible way out is modern instant communication via the inetrnet in the hands of "everyman" can help them see the multifaceted nature of truth. however, it also can (and does) merely give humans a way to be shitty towards each other, and faster.
humans a shit. weather the storm as best you can, try to chip away at ignorance when you safely can, and hope for the best.
>>49792 I think we have more potential to adapt our viewpoints now rather than then I think. Not to mention of course more knowledge. We aren't significantly "smarter", but we are creeping up I think/would hope.
>>49699 Yes. Nations won't rise and fall like they did in the past, countries won't collapse. It's just a change an endless change of rule. It's not like anybody is turning into something we don't already have or have experienced anymore. My point is civilization isn't going anywhere short of a nuclear war.
>>47684 Holy fucking shit my intellectual brother where have you been all my life. Finally someone who gets it. I'm so sick of people blaming religions or ideologies instead of just realising its all a product of the humans situation. I try to explain how every single time humans go through strife and suffering extremist ideologists pop up but they never listen and insist its because the people are genetically inferior etc.
>>49924 (not him) It's trying to get there that is important. Approximating it as close as possible should be a goal (once we decide what is the theoretically ideal level and distribution of wealth equality I mean)
>>50173 Hierarchy and equality don't necessarily conflict. It could be that hierarchies of responsibility, power, and privilege keep a society stable, and that all men are equal in a set of basic rights and opportunity to climb the hierarchy.
>>47583 >Aquinas >it were best that Jews would be made to work hard But they were literally outlawed from doing so. In the areas where they weren't, Jews weren't really a problem (but still persecuted for refusing to assimilate).
>>48921 This whole sales pitch for fascism seems deeply flawed. You mention the need for an abandonment of objectivity and then claim that there are objectively superior people with objectively superior values who ought to impose those objectively superior values on individuals holding objectively inferior ones. Libertarianism, which you seem to despise, is the closest thing humanly possible to the abolition of objectivity that you claim to seek, in that it firmly states that no individual or group is able to arbitrarily impose something onto another individual or group, no matter how "right" they think they are. We absolutely SHOULD cheer for the freedom to do what we don't like, because ultimately, what we do and don't like is not the business of anyone else. One can do whatever they please, as long as it does not impede on another person's desire to do whatever they please. The difference between "freedom" and "tolerance" is that "tolerance" is strictly non-active; you ought to tolerate what is going on around you, regardless of common sense or rationality (see Europe's current immigration crisis). "Freedom", on the other hand, states that you are perfectly within your rights to, say, shoot someone who is attempting to burn down your house. You do not have a right, however, to shoot someone who says something you didn't like, or kill your neighbors because they follow a different ideology than you. I trust I don't have to explain the difference.
Fascism, which is what you are advocating, is essentially no different from Marxist imposition in practice. Under the guise of what YOU believe to be "just", YOU are the only one free to impose YOUR opinion on everyone else, for no real, rational reason. That is tyranny. Your fantasy of a fully ideologically united family, nation, and race forbidding freedom to even speak of dissenting viewpoints sounds like an absolute nightmare.
>>50381 That's kinda what I mean, I didn't realize that the conversation had to do with active wealth redistribution rather than a basic set of rights and the govt. responsibility to minimize negative externalities.
>>50332 Rising above our nature makes us something different. To be apart from the cycle would be to eliminate ambition and joy. We can spread across the universe, across separate realities external and internal, and become part of the very fabric of reality, but for as long as we can be said to be human this cycle will rule us.
>>50109 That doesn't answer the question. You are saying that if people acknowledge they are made up, there would be no (biggest) mistake. You still have not stated how believing in them, even if they are imaginary, is the biggest mistake.
>Accepting the metaphysics of the world as an antromorphed will stops people from thinking outside the box. What is about thinking the metaphysics of the world are affected by some sentient being inherently prevents creative thinking, as opposed to thinking that there is no such being?
>>50664 >Because everything in reality - including morality - is objective. (Not the other guy) How do you know what the objective morals are, assuming they do exist? How do you demonstrate one moral is true as opposed to another one?
> Nature, of the Cosmic Order - the expression of the values held in Classical Antiquity, from Plato to Marcus Aurelius. How do you know that is the correct set of values, assuming there even is a objectively correct set?
>>50443 Not him but fascism is different from marxism in that it promotes being better than others, while marxism looks down upon it. Like marxism, there's a guy who one day decides he's going to decide everything, what differs is people's opinion on which one of the two is doing it in good faith
It's not tyranny if the people agree with what is being said
>>50664 If the entire world believed that rape was good, including the rapist and his rape victim, then it wouldn't really be rape, would it? And why are you anyone to decide what it means to be a "degenerate"? Socrates believed that there are indeed such things as absolute virtue, absolute truth, absolute justice, etc., but he himself proved that specific definitions of these absolutes cannot be attained by humanity, and differences of these imperfect opinions would certainly not warrant oppression or murder. Libertarianism is a thousand times closer to a natural order, in that your obligation is to your own survival and arbitrary injuries or injustices towards your fellow man are met with organic consequence, just like kindnesses are met with organic rewards.
>>50628 You said that equality is an important goal to be reached, despite it being physically impossible from other anon's view. You see equality as moral.
In order for equality to be reached, people must be changed. You could either change the lesser peoples or change the people with more. Either way, you force people to change in order to fit your conception of eqality.
Is it moral to force people to change? Is it moral to take from others to benefit those you feel need it?
>>50970 >but he himself proved that specific definitions of these absolutes cannot be attained by humanity He was wrong.
>And why are you anyone to decide what it means to be a "degenerate"? Not him, but degenerate is an objective term. It means that which degenerates society. You can chart this. Proliferation of pornography, for example is degenerate. Capitalism is degenerate because it encourages the rich to socially engineer everyone else for their own short-sighted aims. Etc.
>>50988 Are you saying debate is stunted on /pol/ because someone says "JIDF"? God, you're exactly the sort of whiny bitch /pol/ doesn't need. If you can't hold your own on /pol/ it's because your opinion is weak, not because of a right-wing conspiracy. I swear to god, you crybabies are exactly as bad as you CLAIM /pol/ is. The only thing that stifles debate on /pol/ is the constant shit thread spamming (HURR IS X WHITE? HURR HOW CAN WHITE MEN COMPETE WITH THIS? HURR I HATE WOMEN AND I MADE A THREAD! HURR BATTLESTATION THREAD) and the plethora of literally paid shills on that board. /pol/ basically just became another shitty /b/ after gg.
>>51138 >You can chart this. What measures are you using in your definition of "degenerating" a society? Crime rates?
>Capitalism...encourages the rich to socially engineer everyone else for their own short-sighted aims. I'm not sure where you live, but I live in America, the most famously capitalist country on the planet, and I can't say I've ever been "socially engineered". I have certainly been encouraged plenty of times to buy things I didn't need, but at no point was I forced to do so. Capitalism lives and dies based on the desires of the consumer, and as much as they scheme and advertise, ultimately it comes down to what the society wants. If the consumers allow themselves to be conned into an agreement that provides them with no real benefit, I find it difficult to believe that the con will continue for much longer. If they buy into the notion that the most important things in life are expensive clothes or flashy jewelry, and continue to receive no real benefit despite doing so, they have no one but themselves to blame when they can't afford rent that month.
>>51102 >You see equality as moral. To be more specific, I think there there is a (or a set of) optimal distribuations of wealth that could exist and that we should seek to reach as best we can. To say that in another way, I think that first of all, there is a base level of wealth (and a corresponding level of standard of living) that we ideally should get everyone to reach, and once that is met, we can let the market do the rest (although I personally also think we shouldn't have people with 30 gojillion dollars all to themselves too, but that is a secondary opinion of mine).
>In order for equality to be reached, people must be changed. You could either change the lesser peoples or change the people with more. Either way, you force people to change in order to fit your conception of eqality. I am speaking as an idealist here. As people are now, life won't get better much. I am hoping that over time people will become more sensitive to the issue of poverty and huge disparities in wealth and the economy will reallocate accordingly.
>Is it moral to force people to change? Is it moral to take from others to benefit those you feel need it? In some case, I guess. To give an hypothetical example, is it so immoral to ask every person with more than 100000 million dollars to donate 1million or 100000 or even 10000 for assisting with poverty issues and such? Am I just imagining that really poor people need an additional dollar more than a multimillionaire? I'd say they actually do need it; it's not just a perceived need. Anyways, this is a more direct case, but I don't mean just this. I was just arguing that there is, I think, a ideal (or more ideal) state or wealth distribution, and that we are nowhere close to it. Doesn't have to be as direct as what I said.
>>51138 >Are you saying debate is stunted on /pol/ because someone says "JIDF"? God, you're exactly the sort of ... another shitty /b/ after gg. Damn, you went off. I didn't mean what you are claiming, so calm it down.
>>51351 >What measures are you using in your definition of "degenerating" a society? Crime rates? Mostly social collapse, since that's the core of human civilization. Everything else like technology are secondary concerns when it comes to civilization.
>I'm not sure where you live, but I live in America Yeah, I live in America too and it's a corrupt as fuck bloody hellhole where corporations own the government and have reduced the population to drooling idiocy.
>I can't say I've ever been "socially engineered" Kek. Yes, because I'm sure most Americans know they've been socially engineered. That must be proof it doesn't exist, right?
>Capitalism lives and dies based on the desires of the consumer That's the problem. Socialism and democracy both operate on the same flawed principle: sociopaths using the base urges of the masses to manipulate society for their own ends and inevitably turning culture down to the basest, sickest urges of the species until civilization becomes a parody of itself.
>they have no one but themselves to blame Oh welp, I guess that'll fix everything then. Nevermind.
>>51522 It's exactly as I said. You're shit and because of it humanity will be extinct inside of 200k years, your delusions of space gods notwithstanding.
>>51960 >social collapse But I'm asking how you define that, in objective measurements.
>Yes, because I'm sure most Americans know they've been socially engineered. >sociopaths using the base urges of the masses to manipulate society for their own ends and inevitably turning culture down to the bases, sickest urges of the species This is a narrative that I see repeated very frequently, and it's one that I think is deeply insulting to both parties. It implies that everyone involved in the business of selling something is a Saturday morning cartoon villain, fiendishly rubbing his hands as he endlessly swindles his fellow man. It also implies that consumers are nothing more than mindless cattle, easily led to perpetually undermine and harm themselves without any hope of self-control. The difference is that human beings are capable of a level of critical thinking and analysis that, for example, sheep are incapable of. I wouldn't think badly of a sheep if it allowed itself to be herded by a sheepdog, because it lacks the fundamental capacity (not to mention the desire) to do anything else. It's a sheep. It's dumb. Human beings are not sheep. We are capable of enough rational thought to not work against our own interests, and if we want to buy some crap, then we can buy whatever crap we want. Just don't buy crap you can't afford and then expect someone else to make up for it.
>that'll fix everything then. What exactly are you trying to fix? Should I be forced to pay for the mistakes of someone else? Some people will just make terrible decisions. Imposing absolute authority over everyone to prevent that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.