The decline of the West is rooted in the Anglo liberal tradition. Jew dominance is likely more a symptom than the cause.

submitted by JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

In the 19th century the British even wasted their own money and resources to free slaves throughout the world. What we are seeing is late stage pathological altruism. Its roots are in various Protestant sects which also helped form the foundations of liberalism. These issues rooted in Protestant sects then mutated and became even worse with secularization.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Which part of Protestant Liberalism teaches that racism is equality, science is racism, freedom is slavery, whiteness is evil, and gender is a social construct?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

It didn't, that's not the point. What is happening now is its logical progression.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I see no logic in this progression. No connection to any specific version of Protestantism. This madness inevitable happens to all civilizations. Even if you try to design countermeasures, your elites will just become corrupt and ignore them.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's Jew logic, not real logic, but it's "logical" anyway. What, you thought these things happened "naturally" without "guidance"???

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

The Protestantism of Martin Luther and the various early modern Protestant theologians laid the groundwork upon which the Western conception of liberalism developed, even if the ideas exposed are radically different.

Liberalism, or classical liberalism to distinguish it from modern liberalism, owes its formulation to Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704). While they were not theologians like Martin Luther (1483-1546) and Jean Calvin (1509-1564), the ideas expounded by Hobbes and Locke cannot be dissociated from the development of Protestant thought in the post-Reformation Europe. Examined for its moral and spiritual implications, liberalism can indeed be regarded as a natural outgrowth of that individualistic outlook on life that the Protestant Reformation embraced and encouraged. As such, the value system liberalism promotes overlaps with the Protestant value system, which has played an important role in the modernization of the Western world.

http://www.theiiis.org/protestantism-and-classical-liberalism/

And before you say classical liberalism is not related to modern liberalism, classical liberalism was a development of egalitarianism and individualism and ideologies such as socialism, left-liberalism and anarchism are just derivations from the ideas originally exposed by classical liberals.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

And before you say classical liberalism is not related to modern liberalism, classical liberalism was a development of egalitarianism and individualism and ideologies such as socialism, left-liberalism and anarchism are just derivations from the ideas originally exposed by classical liberals.

Is there a single liberty modern liberals don't want to take away? They are just socialists playing with names. Socialism is an ancient disease, it can corrupt all ideologies. The roots of socialism hide within the origin of our mind, not in some historical figures and events. The solution to socialism, is to take control over our biology, not a different type of socialism.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

How do you define and what do you consider as "liberty"? And what exactly are you referring to when you say "socialism"?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

How do you define and what do you consider as "liberty"?

A right to make decisions. Classical liberalism says people should be able to do what they want when they don't infringe on others. Modern liberalism says all decisions need an approval from our betters.

And what exactly are you referring to when you say "socialism"?

All types of collectivism. National, international, doesn't matter. They all end up attacking real citizens in the name of imaginary entities.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

A right to make decisions. Classical liberalism says people should be able to do what they want when they don't infringe on others.

And you cannot see how that devolved into the more decadent modern liberalism?

All types of collectivism

Well, in that case I would disagree that it is a disease. "Collectivism" is the natural state of things, humans are social creatures and seek to interact in plural groups. This ranges from the family, to the tribe, to the village and whatever higher form of grouping. Individualism is a decadence that arises in the comfort formed from "collectivism", when group identity ensures security than an individual may concentrate inwards. And the idea of the "NAP" and voluntaryism for infringement are arbitrary, effects can be more than direct attempts to interfere.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Well, in that case I would disagree that it is a disease. "Collectivism" is the natural state of things, humans are social creatures and seek to interact in plural groups. This ranges from the family, to the tribe, to the village and whatever higher form of grouping. Individualism is a decadence that arises in the comfort formed from "collectivism", when group identity ensures security than an individual may concentrate inwards. And the idea of the "NAP" and voluntaryism for infringement are arbitrary, effects can be more than direct attempts to interfere.

The core idea behind individualism is the acceptance of impermanence. Individualism only became possible thanks to Islam, when repeated waves of philosopher refugees produced an unnatural concentration of knowledge within the West.

It doesn't tell people to avoid groups, it only aims to make this process natural. If your group has become corrupted, you should be able to leave, they shouldn't be able to stop you. If your nature has changed, you should be able to change your group as well. Don't search for an omniscient leader to decide what groups are good or bad, for this leader, too, will be corrupted. Everything keeps changing.

Individualism accepts that all social structures will be corrupted, thus it doesn't rely on permanent structures. Every organization should be replaceable, every transaction should be voluntarily. And when its time has come, it should be allowed to disappear painlessly.

Under individualism, the only institutions the state should control, are army and police. Both should be controlled by replaceable individuals with brains (compassion, reason), not by corruptible brainless laws. Police should be decentralized and citizens should have the ability to replace their sheriff when necessary.

Collectivists keep trying to catch ever-changing world with a set of static laws. And when the world changes again, their society is doomed to collapse. Post-modernists aren't an exception. Despite their liberal handling of knowledge, their structures are as rigid as ever.

And you cannot see how that devolved into the more decadent modern liberalism?

No, can't say I do. They went from maximum freedom to no freedom. There's no development, just socialists in liberal skins.