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 →

[–][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.

[–][deleted]  (8 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    How are drag queen story hour, gay marriage or the right to have an abortion socialism?

    Pronouns and hate speech, forced participation for everyone everywhere, selective justice.

    Here is a quick example: 300 years ago, everyone was member of the church and the church decided, who could marry, when a divorce was possible, etc. Once you introduce religious freedom in contrast to state religion, people are no longer bound by the rules of the church. Thus some other institution, the state, has to make the rules.

    You criticize bureaucracy, but fail to see, that bureaucracy is a product of freedom. Like I showed with the religious example above, freedom creates a void. Thus the state has to make some rules.

    The government should be allowed to create private non-profit organization without granting them a monopoly. There could be a marriage contract agency created by the state, and when its rules become impractical, it can be replaced by a competitor. This way, when people don't act, the state can act, and when the state become oppressive, people can replace its agency without a war.

    [–][deleted]  (6 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      Pedophiles might start an organisation, that allows marriage with 2 year olds.

      Whatever protects minors from other unreasonable contracts, can protect them from an early marriage.

      The next problem is, that the average person does not know what is good for him. The average person today supports marriage for LGBT people, no-fault divorce, etc. A high divorce rate, low birth rates and record-high opioid abuse indicate, that this is a worse system, than literally every other marriage model, which was tried in history. So my question is, why should a worse system be allowed? Why would I allow my fellow people to suffer under this worse system than traditional 1850s marriage?

      An average person, at worst, wants some free stuff and to harm his enemy. Compared to what the elites want, an average person seems pretty wise.

      Divorce is common, because it's profitable. Without a monopoly, such situation wouldn't be possible. They even cancel prenups.

      If that 1850 version is good, why not revive it? Expel transgressors, introduce obligatory marriage education and consulting. You aren't the state, you don't have to keep neutrality. People will flock to the happiest community.

      Decadence is inevitable, but it doesn't have to be universal.

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

      [deleted]