A non-religious country is nearly as bad as multiculti

Usually it predicts multiculturalism, anyway

They arent western, though. They have a cultural religion known as confucionism

Its a complete worldview of non-natural ideas, which is characteristic of religion

It goes without saying that commies and crypto commies are a cancer

Well

One stat that will make you think

Is

Self reported views were recently conducted in usa and eu

And the self reported nonreligious in the usa had strongly related viewpoints as the very religious in the eu

If thats not a blackpill on europe, i dont know what is

I can try to find a source, im at a festival one sec

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/560936/

This seems to reference the study i saw

Well, i take it that Christianity is a dead religion in europe, which is painful for me since visiting european Cathedrals in my early 20s directly led to a Christian awakening for me

Yes. The existence of true sublime beauty to me refutes the basics of secular humanism. I cant get deeper than that right now though because as i said im at a festival

I revisited this summer. I highly recommend the cathedral of chartres, bayeux and the saint chapelle in paris. On my first trip though i found the cathedral in seville was exceptional in its scale. Havent felt such a humbling magnitude except when i visited the grand canyon

Lots of beef jerky is pumped full of soy, and incidentally msg as well

Individualism is a cancer, with that said i oppose any government mandates to enforce anti-individualism. People should organize themselves into hierarchies, and it should be voluntary.

The bundle is stronger than the stick, etc

Mb, was reading yesterdays q and thought it was for today

Honestly though, part of me sees corporate censorship as an opportunity for conservatives to launch alternative media sources, and some have already been launched

But in do think designating certain ones as public sphere could work, as long as the criteria for becoming one was pretty strict

Well, its the same impulse that allows people to think stealing farms in sa is correcting “injustice” and that black americans “deserve” reparations for actions done by people over a century ago, probably not many grandsons around even to be punished by the sins of the grandfather

yeah

individualism is the cancer that afflicts the west

so i would say always authoritarians is required

however, historically the "wrong" people have had the power

excepting monarchy times

never, democracy is whats wrong with it, mate

the only way that such a system wouldnt self-implode is if the suffrage is severely limited, and then what definition of modern day democracy does that even fit

what about absolute monarchy municipalitanism

where instead of serfdoms, you give the princes a city and they are mayor

but, yeah, authoritarianism typically wont work anymore since the "wrong" people will usually be in charge

and then everything will go to absolute more shit than today

peterson is good tier, at best

thats how many tiers from God tier? quite a few, i reckon

does being a senior citizen entitle you to a Life-Alert?

Never justified? So, there shouldnt be a final say from anyone? No final authority like judges and so on? So, Ancap?

yeah, but for the purposes of this question it says any authoritarianism of any kind. So, you have to break it down on the continuum. Basically this is the mirror continuum to liberty. So, whats the "healthy" amount of authority in a society? This would run the gamut from the government being powerless to stop a mass murderer, to having the government decide what you eat for every meal and at what time. Essentially ancap to totalitarian. Where do you cut it off, and why?

no, this is talking about enforceable final authority, not some imagined world where every law is policed completely

so, for the purpose of the exercise, imagine that of course people can rebel and get away with it, but if the hammer comes down it would come down as hard as you imagine it should

So, you are okay with someone owning a business specifically designed to manufacture firearms, imagining its a conglomerate this business too has a media department that agitates for the overthrow of the current government. So, this business is arming antigovernment elements, and agitating for more of them and more intense elements. This is okay for you? Government should not step in?

Is there any form of non-violent cultural or government subversion that you are uncomfortable with. Any speech whatsoever that doesnt explicitly advocate violence that you think should be revoked or prevented?

I think one of the bigger problems of democracy and the system you are suggesting is that when there are "bad actors" in the ecosystem of market economy or whatever else, the government is essentially powerless to stop them. Whether its an anti-social message, an anti-government message or so on. As long as they dont advocate violence they are within the "laws" and thus able to act with impunity.

Also, personally i think that the myth of democracy itself is damaging to a society. In reality, people do not have control over outcomes politically in a democracy, and yet we are all fed the lie that we need to do our "civic duty" to go vote. Have you ever once cast the deciding vote? Have you ever once swayed a politician with power on an issue? All the time we spend thinking and deliberating over who to vote for and what policies to go with and so on and so forth, the collective energy expended and in my opinion truly wasted is a travesty unto itself.

I honestly wouldnt mind a society set up where there is a justice system for the market economy, and rules and laws very similar to how it is in america, but that at the top there is a class of elites who are not voted in and not truly beholden to the public except the pitchfork public, and remove the lie of democracy i just described. I think it would once and for all unleash the collective energy of america to focus on real problems in their life. Real problems that overlap their circle of influence. Honestly i think thats important for everyone on a small scale, but just look at how much time america spends on their circle of concern, especially when it lies outside of their ability to influence it

a bit, but more so just dysfunctional

because of the election cycle, politicians cannot do long term planning

they can never make tough decisions that are unpopular

the "occams razor" of politics is: Is this popular? Will it get me elected?

How many important decisions overlap with such thinking?

give it to them for life, and then give it to their first son

and voila, hereditary representative constitutional republic

in the old days if a regions representative was being a douche, the citizens got their pitchforks and worked out arrangements with someone new

the ultimate vote, if you will

oh absolutely, i guess the point i was making is that even rome had its praetorian guard to murder the emperor when he was being a douche

but yeah, more and more ive been noticing how lacking democracy is for a country. Pits individual against individual. No clear societal goal other than make money for oneself. Just kind of a sad system when you look at outcome

i mean

look how dysfunctional, objectively, america is right now. You had one dude (obama) who came to the stage and says that everything america had been doing is wrong, and now we are doing something else. 8 years later another dude comes along says yeah no that dude was wrong, now we do it differently. And on it goes every 4-8 years

doing something different

but why? can anyone really prove why? i surmise its just to pad a different set of buddies pockets

a literal kleptocracy

sad waste of potential

1. protect citizens. 2. establish a societal goal, whether it be patronage of the arts, exploration, science, etc. 3. foster a healthy cultural environment that allows family, religion, and community to be fully integrated into the society at large. 4. Create a healthy environment of educational competition, where achievement is not discouraged and the brightest minds are allowed to shine.

I absolutely do not believe in equality, for the record. IMO its one of the chief thought-cancers that effect the west

yep. If you make a wrong turn in the forest, its progress to turn backwards to find your way back to the correct path

wrong

environment has an effect on the development of culture, but its not a primary cause

possibly a tertiary cause

is @Alice Redacted a libtard? wtf is this nonsense

Culture, like anything, must be built on a strong foundation of stone. Questioning the traditions and customs is akin to dissolving the foundations of society, and will naturally lead to collective identity crisis and possibly madness

read culture of critique

yeah

thats when the west started to go south

you pinned it exactly

whats wrong with that period?

Best art, best music, best architecture?

whats wrong with that period?

the romance and expressionism movements were especially regressive

but still retained the form of tradition and classicism

but modernism spate on the west entirely

to say it was regressive is a bold understatement

yeah. we understand less of the human soul now than we did then

we think its good for humans to live in concrete apartment blocks

eating sterile flavorless grub from a can

we think naked women gyrating on tv is the height of progress. When its no different than what we saw nearby straw-huts in africa 500 years ago

we have absolutely moved backwards in so many ways

because of (((who)))

not really

european cultures have always followed a similar path

some what

but they havent been significant contributors

to use an economic analogy, they are price takers instead of price setters

yes

joeys

lovely joeys

they are an extension of great britain

they dont need to produce something on their own

not sure what point you are aiming at. critiquing a convenient label?