The Enlightenment brought the West much of its prosperity. Capitalism, technological progress, and individual liberties are all products of the enlightenment. The Enlightenment focused on individuality and reason, but are there things that Enlightenment thinkers overlooked? It seems much of the freedoms we have today are outright destructive to civilization at large. Degeneracy, contraceptives, and usury are plagues to our people. What freedoms need to go in order to maintain civilization? What else should we look at other than reason and the individual when building a civilization? How can we balance civilization with freedom?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 938C4AA6B9F87AE8CE32FD034CC26B54-28911.jpg (28.2 KB, 325x445, 51xgITnpd L._SY445_QL70_.jpg)
>>243625
I don't think it is the ideas that are inherently and absolutely correct or incorrect but the extremism of the application that causes problems. You need capitalism but not anarcho-capitalism. You need social security but not communism. You need rule of law but not fascism. You need freedom but anarcho-primitism.
The extremes do the damage. Not the concepts. The less educated choose extremist actions and reactions which set up oscilations in culture/society/civilizations.
The Pill needs to be confronted by the West as having become an extremism whilst initially actually being a good idea, it now is self-"genocide".
I don't think it is the ideas that are inherently and absolutely correct or incorrect but the extremism of the application that causes problems. You need capitalism but not anarcho-capitalism. You need social security but not communism. You need rule of law but not fascism. You need freedom but anarcho-primitism.
The extremes do the damage. Not the concepts. The less educated choose extremist actions and reactions which set up oscilations in culture/society/civilizations.
The Pill needs to be confronted by the West as having become an extremism whilst initially actually being a good idea, it now is self-"genocide".
>>243625
Scrap the idea of "individual freedom" and repeal the constitution. The founding fathers would have never predicted that soon americans would be placed in front of an electronic boxes, being brainwashed by mass media at an unprecidented scale. The concept of "individualism" served a good purpose during its time, but now we are in a long struggle that doesnt support it. There clearly needs to be more strict laws against degeneracy now.
You can still support "national freedom", instead of "individual freedom". You can still have support for free speech and gun ownership if the demographic is white enough. We dont need to go through the courts, the judges, and all bullshit in the system. Just organize and take action.
Scrap the idea of "individual freedom" and repeal the constitution. The founding fathers would have never predicted that soon americans would be placed in front of an electronic boxes, being brainwashed by mass media at an unprecidented scale. The concept of "individualism" served a good purpose during its time, but now we are in a long struggle that doesnt support it. There clearly needs to be more strict laws against degeneracy now.
You can still support "national freedom", instead of "individual freedom". You can still have support for free speech and gun ownership if the demographic is white enough. We dont need to go through the courts, the judges, and all bullshit in the system. Just organize and take action.
>>243698
Repealing the constitution would be shooting the country in the foot. There's effectively zero chance that anti-degeneracy laws would be passed on a national level (perhaps state level though) but scrapping the constitution would effectively grant every blue state the right to do far worse damage than what has and is being done.
Repealing the constitution would be shooting the country in the foot. There's effectively zero chance that anti-degeneracy laws would be passed on a national level (perhaps state level though) but scrapping the constitution would effectively grant every blue state the right to do far worse damage than what has and is being done.
>>243699
The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper that the government doesnt follow in its context, whats so important about it? They can say whatever they think the constitution means, and it doesnt matter what the constitution really is. The seed has been planted, the future demographic of brown people will not care about the constitution.
I do believe that anti degeneracy laws will have a better chance at a state level, but I think total balkanization is the goal anyway. We can have our own nation
The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper that the government doesnt follow in its context, whats so important about it? They can say whatever they think the constitution means, and it doesnt matter what the constitution really is. The seed has been planted, the future demographic of brown people will not care about the constitution.
I do believe that anti degeneracy laws will have a better chance at a state level, but I think total balkanization is the goal anyway. We can have our own nation
>>243699
In retrospect, it might be better to just ignore the constitution than to repeal it, but that could still place barriers in our way that would be better gone.
In retrospect, it might be better to just ignore the constitution than to repeal it, but that could still place barriers in our way that would be better gone.
>>243701
And yet, the constitution and the support of it is the primary opposition to the massive overreach of the left. Freedom of speech, right to bear arm, due process, protection from unlawful search and seizure; these are all things that the left is trying to undermine and ignore. What benefit is there in following suit?
And yet, the constitution and the support of it is the primary opposition to the massive overreach of the left. Freedom of speech, right to bear arm, due process, protection from unlawful search and seizure; these are all things that the left is trying to undermine and ignore. What benefit is there in following suit?
>>243707
The left doesnt come out as explicitly anti-constitution, because that a stratigic failure for them. They like to call us "right wingers" anti-constitution all the time, when it suits them best. In fact they use the constitution to their political advantage. I disagree that its an effecive tool against the left
The left doesnt come out as explicitly anti-constitution, because that a stratigic failure for them. They like to call us "right wingers" anti-constitution all the time, when it suits them best. In fact they use the constitution to their political advantage. I disagree that its an effecive tool against the left
>>243708
I'll say it again; the constitution and the support of it is the primary opposition. Of course the left calls the right wing 'anti-constitution' (along with a number of other epithets), what difference does that make? The left also regularly seeks to eliminate elements of the constitution, including the electoral college, why do their work for them? You do realize that the constitution is far more than just the bill of rights,... right?
I'll say it again; the constitution and the support of it is the primary opposition. Of course the left calls the right wing 'anti-constitution' (along with a number of other epithets), what difference does that make? The left also regularly seeks to eliminate elements of the constitution, including the electoral college, why do their work for them? You do realize that the constitution is far more than just the bill of rights,... right?
>>243709
Whats the difference between the right calling the left anti constitution, and the left calling the right anti constitution? Nothing really, its arguing over what a piece of paper really stands for. I doubt that the constitution being gone will raise the tyrannical power of the left, Blue states will probably just stagnate.
Repealing the whole constitution is going a little too far, I take back what I said on that. Repealing atleast some the post-bill of rights laws is definitely needed.
Whats the difference between the right calling the left anti constitution, and the left calling the right anti constitution? Nothing really, its arguing over what a piece of paper really stands for. I doubt that the constitution being gone will raise the tyrannical power of the left, Blue states will probably just stagnate.
Repealing the whole constitution is going a little too far, I take back what I said on that. Repealing atleast some the post-bill of rights laws is definitely needed.
The Founding Fathers weren't idiots, and looking at how robust the Bill of Rights is it's clear they were planning for the future and building for the long-term: even today it still holds up, and the freedoms it protects are still just as important as they were back then. The only reason things here in the US aren't as bad as they are in Europe or Oceania, why we're even allowed to discuss these sort of things, is because of those Rights, and just how hard it is to get those Rights changed or rescinded. They were well-educated and well-versed in history, they knew something like this was going to happen some day, that we would succumb to our own degeneracy like many other civilzations before us. They did their best to make sure that when this time came, that we would have as much room as we could to resist and change things for the better, that our corrupted government wouldn't be so totalitarian we couldn't do anything. There are Amendments made after the Bill of Rights that need to be changed or repealed, but aside from a couple of minor things, the Bill of Rights would still serve even in the modern day. And this isn't even getting at how the majority of Americans still support the ideas of Liberty, Freedom, and Justice and this country was founded upon, even if they aren't as vocal as we'd like them to be.
As for the Enlightenment, I would argue it was not so much that in and of itself that resulted in all of this, though the values certain flavors of Enlightenment offered did not help things. I would instead argue everything started because of the Industrial Revolution and the way it changed society. Women in the workforce? Look at those early factories, someone has to be there to work them all. "Family planning"? Look at those Industrial Era medical advancements, take a pill or put a piece of plastic over your dick and don't have to worry about those little shits running around anymore. Rampent degeneracy and unchecked consumerism? Well, someone needs to buy all of these products these new-fanged machines are spitting out. Debt culture? Welcome to modern "banking", where you don't have to save up your money anymore to buy what you need; spend someone else's instead! The reason degeneracy is pushed all around us is because we let the corporations and banks that sprouted up during the 1800s and early 1900s control every facet of our lives, and even penetrate deep into the government that is supposed to be "By the People, For the People" and take control of it like a puppet.
As for the Enlightenment, I would argue it was not so much that in and of itself that resulted in all of this, though the values certain flavors of Enlightenment offered did not help things. I would instead argue everything started because of the Industrial Revolution and the way it changed society. Women in the workforce? Look at those early factories, someone has to be there to work them all. "Family planning"? Look at those Industrial Era medical advancements, take a pill or put a piece of plastic over your dick and don't have to worry about those little shits running around anymore. Rampent degeneracy and unchecked consumerism? Well, someone needs to buy all of these products these new-fanged machines are spitting out. Debt culture? Welcome to modern "banking", where you don't have to save up your money anymore to buy what you need; spend someone else's instead! The reason degeneracy is pushed all around us is because we let the corporations and banks that sprouted up during the 1800s and early 1900s control every facet of our lives, and even penetrate deep into the government that is supposed to be "By the People, For the People" and take control of it like a puppet.
>>243714
The difference is, it is unironic to call the left anti-constitution. That's not to say that there aren't conservatives (RINOs who oppose certain amendments of the bill of rights (namely illegal searches and surveillance) but evidently not nearly to the degree that the left does.
The difference is, it is unironic to call the left anti-constitution. That's not to say that there aren't conservatives (RINOs who oppose certain amendments of the bill of rights (namely illegal searches and surveillance) but evidently not nearly to the degree that the left does.
Additionally, the left liberally misinterprets the constitution with shit like 'the right not to be offended', and a number of other positions that simply aren't supported by the document no matter how one interprets it.
>>243721
I love the Constitution and if it was actually followed we'd be in a better place. Those few presidents and leaders who kept their oath to defend it kept our freedoms limping along a little bit longer. Unfortunately, and I recommend listening to Brion McClanahan, American history has been the story of a slow accumulation of power by stretching and stretching the terms within little by little. Nowadays it's a "she-said-he-said" sort of debate about what it means and if you dare raise the question of original intent you'll get a funny look; hence why the best presidents get ranked as the "worst". The Founders really did a better job than anyone else in modern history but even they couldn't fix human nature and the inexorable creep of government. If society says it's just a scrap of paper, it really is just a scrap of paper.
And no, it wasn't the Industrial Revolution that started it. It may have made some things possible in that escaping the Malthusian trap opened bad opportunities as well as good, but it's not to "blame." Women used to help out on farms, after all, and the only reason they chose to be in the workforce was because they valued it over alternatives. Condoms existed in a primitive state for hundreds of years but modern variants became common because soldiers in the culture-destroying world wars were issued them for dalliances with prostitutes. "Unchecked consumerism" is a term thrown around a lot but it's just a critique that we're having it too good, when in reality it's the valuing of degeneracy that causes degeneracy. "Debt culture" is what you get when you have the lower-IQ end of the population be taught high-time preference behaviors; they pull down actual savers. "Corporations and banks...control every facet of our lives" was it Coca-cola that first taught you to be a faggot, or was it idealists, intellectuals, and social "scientists" who did that?
I love the Constitution and if it was actually followed we'd be in a better place. Those few presidents and leaders who kept their oath to defend it kept our freedoms limping along a little bit longer. Unfortunately, and I recommend listening to Brion McClanahan, American history has been the story of a slow accumulation of power by stretching and stretching the terms within little by little. Nowadays it's a "she-said-he-said" sort of debate about what it means and if you dare raise the question of original intent you'll get a funny look; hence why the best presidents get ranked as the "worst". The Founders really did a better job than anyone else in modern history but even they couldn't fix human nature and the inexorable creep of government. If society says it's just a scrap of paper, it really is just a scrap of paper.
And no, it wasn't the Industrial Revolution that started it. It may have made some things possible in that escaping the Malthusian trap opened bad opportunities as well as good, but it's not to "blame." Women used to help out on farms, after all, and the only reason they chose to be in the workforce was because they valued it over alternatives. Condoms existed in a primitive state for hundreds of years but modern variants became common because soldiers in the culture-destroying world wars were issued them for dalliances with prostitutes. "Unchecked consumerism" is a term thrown around a lot but it's just a critique that we're having it too good, when in reality it's the valuing of degeneracy that causes degeneracy. "Debt culture" is what you get when you have the lower-IQ end of the population be taught high-time preference behaviors; they pull down actual savers. "Corporations and banks...control every facet of our lives" was it Coca-cola that first taught you to be a faggot, or was it idealists, intellectuals, and social "scientists" who did that?
>>243625
The Enlightenment is a godsend for the sciences, and is directly responsible for our prosperity and rapid advancement.
The Enlightenment is poison to belief systems, and is directly responsible for "utopia on Earth" schools of thought.
The Enlightenment is a godsend for the sciences, and is directly responsible for our prosperity and rapid advancement.
The Enlightenment is poison to belief systems, and is directly responsible for "utopia on Earth" schools of thought.
Vrilanon would really like this book. It has some common myths (commerce necessitating large empires and Europeans thinking the earth was flat before Columbus) but it's a good, short read.
1775-2001 was 226 years
Was 9/11 the mark of the end of the American Empire?
1775-2001 was 226 years
Was 9/11 the mark of the end of the American Empire?
16 replies | 3 files | 11 UUIDs | Archived