n werd

Yeah, I agree they're always going to fight for something, even if that something changes or their paradigm on how changes, because if they didn't struggle they wouldn't be the left. But those changes should not be underestimated.

Indeed, I would say that with the proper adjustments, it's almost Nietzschen, almost fascistic in the continual pursuit of improvement regardless of how things are; that Evolan riding of the tiger. In fact, I find it interesting the similarities between this description of the left and various critiques I have heard of fascism; the claims that when we get power we end up running in circles continually purifying ourselves and that we're fundamentally unstable when in charge. Perhaps we share that innate ideological righteousness with left.

@yThos We're arguing about how based leftist theory is or can be.

Poop

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/08/south-carolina-white-restaurant-manager-sentenced-jail-enslaving-black-man/2527814001/

Free him

He did nothing wrong

Nonetheless if we proclaim to desire to achieve X, we will not turn around and say X is now a reactionary relic, and then move on to achieve Y, and then turn around and proclaim that a reactionary relic, and the move on to achieve Z. We proclaim our ideals, and really the only things that change is how radical they need to be or how radically we need to act based off of our surroundings and the problems of the present, but we do not strive for perpetual revolutionary conflict against ourselves for the sake of having eternal progress.

Bruh gordon ramsay on drugs @OrthoNinten

Perhaps perhaps. We certainly wouldn't disregard our past, but I like to think we wouldn't grow complacent. We are not the left, but nor are we the right. I like to think each of us would like the next generation be more based than the last, regardless of if that's unrealistic. We just wouldn't put ourselves in continual revolutionary conflict to do so.

I mean I guess we would kind of get into a Catch 22 if we achieve total success. We would have to avoid conflict for the sake of conflict because that is stupid, and is fundamentally what is driving the left to what it has become, but we also cannot reject all conflict for that is how people grow complacent and decadent, but if we achieved total victory, there would be no need for conflict...

So I see what you mean I guess

That Catch 22 about our total victory is like one or two things I actually would agree with when it comes to critiques of us.

Maybe that should be a poll. Considering conflict is how we grow, what do we do if we win? The classical answer is that we let ourselves promptly fail so the cycle can continue, but that seems rather rarted.

Exactly

Yeah honestly I have no idea what the solution would be

I guess one way to look at it is if total victory is achieved when we'd finally grow decadent again, it would be nowhere near as bad as what decadence has been experienced historically and a recover would also be easier given the conditions we'd create.

Nietzsche outright rejected goal based thinking in favor of amore fati for issues like this.

@The State Would it though? People like Evola would say we started in that near perfect state, yet over the centuries we still managed to reach the decadence we have now.

However he was not incorrect for centuries past we had reactionary systems that while certainly better than modern liberalism were far from perfect.

Reactionary systems last for thousands of years. Liberal systems, on the other hand, only last for a few centuries tops before being replaced with a reactionary system. How did we get to the decadence we have now? We deviated from our societal foundations, starting with the Reformation and snowballing from there. The thing is, when you tolerate even the slightest bit of modernist philosophy, it will turn into the shit we have now because one revolution always fuels another.

So the problem is delayed then, not gone?

Wdym @HadrianEtAntinous

The only way to get rid of the problem is to fully embrace the West's foundations. That means accepting all the logos and rejecting all the anti-logos:

@HadrianEtAntinous sorry for my ignorance, but what is Catch 22?

The decay would just be slow, not gone. @The State

We only started having problems when we embraced modernism.

Catch 22. An example is:

In needing experience to get a job..."How can I get any experience until I get a job that gives me experience?"

We had problems as soon as the Enl*ghtenment hit

@HadrianEtAntinous The decay would be impossible to eliminate, the only solution is for when we achieve total victory that we implement a system and pursue policies where the decay is as slow and as not bad as possible.

If we started to completely reject modernism and instead completely embrace the logos, society would be thriving once again.

@IliasSpook No, we had problems as soon as the Reformation hit. Without the Reformation, the Enlightenment would've never been able to happen.

ah, i see

Well done @Quantum, you just advanced to level 1!

You can see the slippery slope here. ^

Like I said, one revolution always fuels another.

The reformation was the catholic church's failures coming back to haunt them
It was well deserved karma that backfired on everything

U do know logos is a pagan concept

Right?

@Cвятогор It's not a pagan concept, it's a Greek philosophical concept.