[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 20 KB, 334x499, 41v-ad5z0AL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13602842 No.13602842 [Reply] [Original]

Thoughts on this? If Liberalism is over, what does that mean for us?

>> No.13602863

It's not over, and it hasn't failed. All problems would be fixed if we (1) switch to green/nuclear energy (2) end the meat industry (3) sterilise low IQ people and have IQ tests as an immigration requirement. Only over 100 gets let in.

>> No.13602871

Yes! if we abandon liberalism until all problems are gone we can reimplement liberalism and hope those very same problems don't arise again!

>> No.13602886

What is in this book

>> No.13602919

liberalism can only work when the state is crafted in a way that ensures freedom of commerce and of association. it cannot have any higher value.

>> No.13602928


>> No.13602934

What do you think liberalism is? It isn't unhinged capitalism or anything like that. Government intervention in markets and civil affairs, if done reasonably, is compatible with liberalism.

>> No.13602968

Basically, liberalism has failed to provide a common sense of purpose for families and individuals of the West.

We are economically left to be poor, our social circles are gone, and liberalism has failed to give us a sense of direction in our lives. Where as in the past we were servants to some greater good - nation, culture, family, church - we are now so independent that we feel totally isolated. And this causes the liberal project to fail, leaving room for the rise of populists like Trump or Borris Johnson.

>> No.13603045

interesting and well put
but someone could present the church as antinatalist too, no?

>> No.13603046

Important to mention that the philosophical system Deneen is targeting is not "liberalism" narrowly defined as progressivism, but the entire classically liberal tradition beginning with Locke. For Deneen and other postliberals, the American experiment is a failed one precisely because it rests upon misguided foundations and the sudden turn towards a totalizing, clownish left-wing progressivism is the inevitable consequence of constructing a society along ideals that prize materialism, atomistic individualism, unconstrained consumption and hedonism. Doesn't really sketch out a prescription beyond a vague benedict option-type retreat to communitarian localities. Frankly I would prefer Vermeule's "long march through the institutions" and co-optation of the administrative state in the service of traditionalist ends, but this is a step in the right direction nonetheless.

>> No.13603096

Ah ok, that makes sense. The misguided foundations being the liberal support of enterprise, right?

>> No.13603156

So the basis is that the family has lost its place as the primary context for the individual, and what is to blame is the recruitment of means of production for humanism, leading to an explosion of material wealth without the moral counterweight to manage it.

>> No.13603167

>Why liberalism failed
>Failure is when you hold an iron grip over the majority of the world such that you can start coups against other philosophies.

>> No.13603168

More the atomistic individualism. I wouldn't stay he is overtly antagonistic towards local enterprise or even private property writ large, but he is certainly skeptical of the rhetoric that is often used in the name of that ethic to justify certain lassiez-faire type policy programs (deregulation, corporate consolidation, free trade, immigration, globalization of capital and the unhampered solicitation of pornography, tech, and drugs) that have not produced the outcomes that were once promised. He seems to be more of a distributist than anything else, which makes sense given his catholicism and sympathy for integralism.

>> No.13603191

Sorry, I mean to inply that the recruitment of means of production is traditionally family oriented, as it is the original source of production. Not covering new ground, just thinking aloud.

>> No.13603237
File: 100 KB, 800x1230, 2A13168D-08B2-435B-A65D-4A7E7D3D4313.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Is the author Non-American?

>> No.13603240

This is a much better summary. Thanks.

>> No.13603241

liberal man me no likey

>> No.13603256

So, people are weak and needs to be told their purpose/meaning? Gotcha.

>> No.13603260

>For Deneen and other postliberals, the American experiment is a failed one precisely because it rests upon misguided foundations and the sudden turn towards a totalizing, clownish left-wing progressivism is the inevitable consequence of constructing a society along ideals that prize materialism, atomistic individualism, unconstrained consumption and hedonism.
Isn't that the sort of thing Alexandr de Tocqueville warned us about?

>> No.13603266

Certainly he is concerned that the family has lost its prized position as the fundamental unit and organizing basis of the nation-state and he believes that the individualism ingrained in the founding of bourgeosie nations like America and Britain have entailed its self-destruction at the hand of impersonal social and economic forces and policy decisions that are misguided at best and overtly malicious at worst

>> No.13603280

Butterwhore, is this book appropriate for reactionaries?

>> No.13603301

>Where as in the past we were servants to some greater good - nation, culture, family and FAITH - we are now so independent that we feel totally isolated
Faith and religious conviction are a must, institutional churches aren't absolutely necessary, people can worship in small groups or a their homes.

>> No.13603426


>> No.13603460

Cool, thanks for taking the time to explain. His analysis seems pretty tight but there should be attention towards individualism from a phenomenological perspective. Does he get into that too? For example, the individual responsible for the dictation of the family unit may invest in a family oriented institution, but these institutions are inevitably maintained by the solitude of the individual. That is to say, the proto-legal constructs are inspired by an image of morality that must inevitably be conceived from the spiritual, and it follows that the emotional factors which promote the family are valid to the individual as well, in the manner of the prodigal son.

This calls for root cause analysis. But your welcome point of citing Vermeule may be weakened to this too. I get this from Mann who decontextualizes the individual due to the dimensionless present.

>> No.13603463

Not to disagree with you outright, I really appreciate what you have said thus far. The thought is welcomd

>> No.13603465

And why would reactionary want to learn anything?

>> No.13603512

It's a rather short book, so there isn't much space devoted to the kind of analysis you're looking for. I doubt he would much disagree with the notion that there must be a kind of self-moving impetus within the individual that compels them to invest in and value the familial unit, as that seems more like a trivial truism to me. Those who see value in the family will be incentivized to promote it both within the private space and within the public square. Haven't read Mann so maybe I'm talking past you but he's definitely on my backlist.

>> No.13603541

That's no what he's saying.
He's saying that the state has taken the role as the father and the mother and that this has slowly eroded the foundations of society and left people aimless and without hope.

>> No.13603614

Cool, what you say is valid. The solution that Deneen offers is good guidance and I’m glad to get insight into something that could form the basis of community-centric political theory. You would benefit greatly from reading Magic Mountain because of your interest in benefiting society, but the book can only encourage skepticism.

>> No.13603629

Literally how new are you?

>> No.13603650

Yes. Is that disputable? I'm not sure where you would get the idea that people in general are capable of generating their own purpose and meaning. Some are but the majority are not.

>> No.13603711

"Liberalism" is only over if you define it in the narrowest possible way. Most people, even those on the "far-right" and "far-left", are technically liberals. Most self-described "socialists" are basically social democrats who favor a mixed economy (i.e., the "Nordic model", not the Soviet Union), and most self-described "nationalists" favor stricter immigration controls alongside producerist or even sometimes social democratic economic policies (the more worker class and non-American they are, the more "left" they'll be on economics, the wealthier and more American they are, the more "right" they'll be). Obviously, there are legit Marxists/anarchists/fascists/etc., but broadly speaking, any ostensibly "radical" political ideology that has any change of being implemented exists within the confines of liberalism.

>> No.13603731

Liberalism has "failed" but it isn't over yet. The liberal age was tested in the 2010s since social media gave so much unprecedented momentum to populist backlash that the entire world wasn't prepared for after globalization. Liberalism isn't going away any time soon, but we may finally reach a point within the next 50 years when people stop treating it as the status quo and truly question its effectiveness. The Western monoculture can't survive for the rest of the century, every issue with liberalism will explode in the coming years.

>> No.13603738

Cesarism obviously

>> No.13603759

Nice (and rare) lit summary anon.
Also a pretty spot on critique of modernity.

Will look into the author and the book.

>> No.13603771

The plot thickens.
So is Deneen a neo-reactionary? What's his perscription?

>> No.13603783

>here's iPhones
>but your country has to have Gay Pride parades
It overreached and it was a pill most world nations won't swallow; especially countries like Russia, China, India, and any Muslim country.

We'll still have globalization, just not in the mode of Globalism.

>> No.13603814

Liberalism in its current form may be over, but I don't see markets or private property disappearing.

>> No.13603820 [DELETED] 
File: 18 KB, 532x483, 1512504307897.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.13603921

I'm not sure for how much longer it can go on. I think it depends on America for the most part. If you actually want to watch the liberal world deteriorate more then 4 more years of Donald Trump is the way to go even though he's still just a neoliberal. The widespread political chaos and division in America has to reach a peak at some point, I just don't know when. Globalization is almost certainly here to stay however. Even if China becomes dominant they will still effectively be a "liberal" nation -- the materialism, the lack of religion, the technocratic rule, etc.

>> No.13603998

Read Dugin
Read zizek
Read land

Liberalism is over or will be soon and it has only itself to blame

>> No.13604015

Great post!

>> No.13604021

You can,have literally both of those without liberalism you fucking retarded lolbert

>> No.13604023 [DELETED] 
File: 146 KB, 1200x630, 173462.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

#20190807 lmao - Inter ya consiguió al 9 que quería y Mauro Icardi queda aún más relegado - CLARIN

>> No.13604064

"Liberal" has a lot of meanings these days. Has China "liberalized" it's economy and culture compared to Mao times? Sure.
But it still has wholesale rejected the West's hyperliberalization and often refers to its adherent's as "baizuo" (White Left). So the synthesis will not be all or nothing obviously, but there will be a reckoning and reformation sometime in the near future as the reaction is strong enough globally to resist it. It's not uncommon for an ideological shakeout to occur and the wheat will get separated from the chaff.

>> No.13604084

If you are a person not a spambot then fuck off man

>> No.13604851

Plebs can't cope with the death of god.

>> No.13604942

that's just a description of postmodernism. nothing special about it, this can be said about any -ism nowadays.

>> No.13605373

It's over

>> No.13605573

OP if you enjoyed this book you should read The Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges. Don't read his other books tho cuz he evolved into a weird anti-porn Christian socialist over time

>> No.13605847

What of the claim an individual cannot exist independently of their culture? There is no independent individual to consider, because such a thing cannot exist. Further, to design a society under the veil of ignorance is impossible, one must modify the society they already have. Even to claim an indepent view is impossible because one will always be working from within their framework.

>> No.13605858



>> No.13605923
File: 28 KB, 354x486, f434d196-ce95-405a-b880-813e9acc008e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

None of you can refute this:
>"Here we encounter the basic paradox of liberalism. An anti-ideological and anti-utopian stance is inscribed into the very core of the liberal vision: liberalism conceives itself as a "politics of the lesser evil" It's ambition is to bring about the "least worst society possible" thus preventing greater evil, since it considers any attempt to directly impose a positive good as the ultimate source of all evil. Churchill's quip about democracy being the worst of all possible systems with the exception of all others holds even better for liberalism. Such a view is sustained by a profound pessimism about human nature; man is a selfish and envious animal and if one attempts to build a political system appealing to his goodness and altruism the result will be the worst kind of terror(both the Stalinists and Jacobins presupposed human virtue). However the liberal critique of the "tyranny of the Good" comes at a price: the more the program permeates society the more it turns into its opposite. The claim to want nothing but the lesser evil, once asserted as the principle of the new global order gradually replicates the very features of the enemy it claims to be fighting against. The global liberal order clearly presents itself as the best of all possible worlds; its modest rejection of utopias ends with the imposition of its own market liberal utopia which will supposedly become reality when we subject ourselves fully to the mechanisms of the markets universal human rights. Behind this lurks the ultimate totalitarian nightmare; the vision of a New Man who has left behind all the old ideological baggage."

>> No.13605987

i was confused for a second and thought I was in a zizek thread, then the content of your post seemed to be a valid critique of his stance, that he'd seemingly written himself.
But now I get it, it's from OP's book. I agree, a valid critique.

>> No.13605988

logically only a small number of sociopaths can thrive in society, if you can call it that, where individualism and competitiveness rule

>> No.13606006

This is something I agree with as well. A purely individualist society isn't a society. They're mutually exclusive

>> No.13606011

>along ideals that prize materialism, atomistic individualism, unconstrained consumption and hedonism
Durkheim as well, he developed the entire concept of "anomie" to deal with atomization of individual because he was interested in suicide

>> No.13606026

>but someone could present the church as antinatalist too, no?
Not really, anti-humanist certainly, but not antinatalist.

>> No.13606036

All my self-driven goals have been banned by the state.

>> No.13606037

Peak onions: the post.

>> No.13606102
File: 100 KB, 1566x880, 1563946839959.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Number 3 is extremely racist.

>> No.13606126

that seems like a useless abstraction. Of course there's no such thing as pure individualism. Rather, individualism can be the ruling ideology within a society. Money will still have to pass around, people will still have to interact. The individuals composing it just want have a shared, common interest. They merely sustain eachother's survival, whilst all living secluded in their own bubble.

>> No.13606236


Sure, the lack of a traditional core to coalesce around is rough, but liberalism allows for a greater diversity of cores to emerge. It's similar to capitalism: postmodernism, which is what you're describing, is a description of the cultural effects of accelerated economic liberalism. No project ought last forever, a self-aware project capable of terminating itself for its children is a better model.

This isn't a good description of liberalism. I think one of the main problems of modern politics/thoughtspace is the conflation of political liberalism, which has a long history, with postmodernism and economic liberalism both, each of which is distinct and describe or prescribe different, but interrelated, things.

Doesn't this critique fail to realize where the need for liberalism arose: that each of these institutions is dominated by individuals which can pervert the institutions to individual purpose, subverting the nation, culture, family, church, while binding people more closely to these perversions of their ideal, raising warped generations? That the capacities for exit from such institutions are important, that the ability for the voice to be heard in each institution is important, that individual wellbeing, as well as institutional wellbeing is important?

Sounds like it condemns as failed without recognizing the important place liberalism held and holds, and that it's more a power or the description of a nouminal force than a simple movement which arose ex nihilo and must be abandoned as a complete failure and wholly replaced.

>> No.13606263

It is from zizek tho it's from living in the end times

>> No.13606281

well, whoever wrote it, it's a solid argument against modern liberalism. I can't refute it in any case.

>> No.13606291

so basically, he heavily opposes any form of ideology, but doesn't think liberalism is the answer either?

>> No.13606311

Westerners. I know there are a tonne of spics here but we generally assume everyone here is from a civlised country or from the U.S.A.

>> No.13606468

So basically if we go full technofash we can save liberalism. How about we do the ecofash and skip the whole saving liberalism bit?

>> No.13606492

That claim is both true in a literal sense and pedantic masturbation in a real sense. Individuals are their culture regardless of whether they like it, culture is the product of blood (which we have no control over) interacting with the environment (which is simultaneously controlled by the blood and complex to the point of being effectively random). There is no separation of the black individual from black culture not because he is shaped by black culture but because black culture is integrally shaped by him as an organic being. It is this backwards orientation that is the mistake at the heart of liberalism. It is a question of blood and soil and nothing more.

>> No.13606626

The fact that individuals can live and be happy outside of their ancestors lands is enough proof that there is no "culture is integrally shaped by him as an organic being"

>> No.13606679

But anon, humans can only be happy in africa, where primordial innocence reigns.

>> No.13606738
File: 219 KB, 570x522, sq-liberalism-lecture-deneen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Deneen is based, all his articles in First Things have been A++ and I hope I can go to one of his speaking events one day if he does a tour for his next book

>> No.13607084

I don't think you understand that the way Zizek and other Marxists use ideology is different from the usual definition of the word

>> No.13607098

plant based diets result in mentally illness

>> No.13607099

Are you going to elaborate?

>> No.13607120

As in Marxism is the only "correct" viewpoint and is totally not an ideology but every other view is.

>> No.13607132

>mentally illness
So we're to assume you're vegan?

>> No.13607137

And whatever you eat results in retardation, apparently.

As much as people seem to hate a moderate approach, such that it feels it's becoming radical, everything really points to people being a product of many different forces, nature and nurture and all the many elements each word entails.


Alright. Inbreed for a few generations then watch your people get replaced by the new influx. As though change isn't the constant.

>> No.13607155

Straw man and historian's fallacy.

>> No.13607156

Neoreactionaries (in the Moldbuggian formulation at least) are essentially classical liberals without the humanism. I think a state run as a joint-stock corporation is the exact opposite of what Deneen is looking for. Again, this book is more description than prescription, and he even says at the book's conclusion that such a task should be taken up by a younger and more versatile writer up to the challenge of writing the necessary tome, but he does seem to advocate for a kind of communitarian localism, in which communities insulate themselves from the liberalism of the state. The problem of course, which Vermeule brings up in his essay, is that there is no reason for the liberal state to tolerate internal ideological challenges and should move to crush such projects.

Read this: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/02/integration-from-within/

>> No.13607164

It's based on the incorrect assumption that history is a result of cause and effect, that everything follows and nothing is original. Marxism is incredibly outdated and is a product of the 19th century materialist zeitgeist. The Will as formulated by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spengler, and the metaphysically transcendent (or lack thereof) theory of history from the likes of Guenon and Evola are much better at explaining history and making accurate predictions for the future. History has nothing to do with cause and effect, it's what people will it to be.

>> No.13607172
File: 137 KB, 840x485, wgl05.19-greta-thurnberg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Based and greenandyellow-pilled

>> No.13607189

>if you took as much LSD as Paul McCartney

>> No.13607216

>Behind this lurks the ultimate totalitarian nightmare; the vision of a New Man who has left behind all the old ideological baggage

Isn't this what Nietzsche was talking about?

>> No.13607222

It's what Stalin was talking about

>> No.13607347

The Retreat of Western Liberalism by Edward Luce has a similar thesis, but it's basically an inventory of symptoms of the decline of liberalism. It's worth reading nonetheless.

Based on >>13603046's description, I'd also genuinely recommend a podcast called Dungee State Unvirsity, which covers the same themes from the same perspective: that is, classical political theory. It's basically a political science professor from a smaller school rambling about Hobbes, Locke, and the death of liberalism while his handler desperately attempts to keep him on track.

>> No.13607370

>liberalism is dead
>long live liberalism
Let them eat soi biscuits.

>> No.13607380
File: 1.44 MB, 1695x1203, 9719b54365179dcca0ed46c6419b9dcac5b074bd1b602eed21445dc4b6f15560.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So the very same fascism that's being decried on Twitter by every leftist politician, but you change the name, just like you call neoliberalism "sociialism".
Or, or, how about you take your ideas to their logical conclusion and act accordingly?

>> No.13607387

So replace shit with more shit.

>> No.13607402

Have children, moron.

>> No.13607417
File: 35 KB, 720x540, 1563881989735.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Now he gonna say was just pretending being retarded

>> No.13607542

Point 3 is literally a liberal notion that was openly state as so during the early 20th. The modern neoleftist clusterfuck is ironically more of a fascism spinoff than a direct decedent of the tradicional liberalism thought.

>> No.13607590

Poor argument on inbreeding lol you can entirely avoid its negative effects as long as you have a population of over 300 unrelated individuals. You could cut each European nation into its constituent states and impose restrictions on breeding to members within each state and avoid inbreeding entirely. Could even do the same with most towns

>> No.13607617

No, it's not. People over 100IQ, regardless of race, would be allowed and encouraged to procreate.
It's not fascism. My plan has nothing to do with race or national identity or totalitarianism or any of the hallmarks of fascism. I don't think you know what fascism or liberalism is.
Vegan diets are totally healthy. You just need to take b12, calcium, and iron pills, or eat foods specially made to include those nutrients. Not only will ending the meat industry stop the brutal holocaust of trillions of animals and drastically reduce CO2 emissions, it will also result in higher food production (thus more humanitarian aid to poorer countries) and a healthier population. These are facts.
I don't call neoliberalism socialism, nor is my plan fascist in any way. I have no idea what the fuck those Guardian articles are supposed to tell me; maybe you need to be reminded that you are responding to me, and not your personal caricature of the left.
>Or, or, how about you take your ideas to their logical conclusion and act accordingly?
What are the logical conclusions of my ideas? My ideas are not incomplete in any way. I am a liberal/social democrat eugenicist. That's it.

>> No.13607649

People are confused by you because progressive eugenicists (of which you seem to be a descendant) have been extinct since the 30s. Also hereditarian IQ denialism is a core component of modern left-liberal thought so people can’t think of any contemporary examples of someone like you, hence the fascism label you are getting

>> No.13607838

You literally don't know what you're talking about.

>> No.13607890

>Veganism is totally viable and natural. All you need are vitamins and pills produced with the help of modern technology lol

>> No.13607895

"Liberalism" isn't materialist policy proposals.

When people say "Liberalism is over" they're referring to things like individualism, democracy, free markets, "rights" and the pursuit of a "free society".

>> No.13607903

>History has nothing to do with cause and effect, it's what people will it to be.
Is this what postmodernism does to the brain?

>> No.13607936

And the genetic pool would still diverge over time.

>> No.13608061

>only 100+ get in
Ever heard of a statistical principle called regression to the mean? It means nothing if you have smart Negro parents; the kids will have close to average Negro IQ. Anything above 0 immigration is bad. In fact we desperately repatriation.

>> No.13608134

Neoliberalism is failing. Liberalism is not.

>> No.13608207

>totally viable
Yes, it's viable, if by that you mean it is possible to implement without any loss in health. In fact it would result in a healthier population.
Nobody gives a shit about being natural.
>All you need are vitamins and pills produced with the help of modern technology lol
Do you think you're making a point?
All the data I've seen shows an at least 40-80% heritability of IQ. Smart parents generally have smart kids, and it's no different for Negroes..

>> No.13608257

The problem with liberalism is that for liberalism to work, you need an educated and virtuous population. It would work with a populace that reads Plato, the Stoics, Cicero, etc

And liberalism is not really producing that. Take a look at Netflix, for example.

>> No.13608272

>Isn't that the sort of thing Alexandr de Tocqueville warned us about?
I really need to read Tocqueville one of these days.
I remember studying a little bit about him in university and he was amazing at making predictions.

>> No.13608287

All those still alive and are, at least on theory, explicitly supported by basically all significative political and intelectual groups in the West.

>> No.13608415

Liberalism, or whatever that means, didn't fail. Capitalism is destined to collapse due to it's internal contradictions.
The west will become one big Detroit. The black man will become the true master of the Euro-Atlantic area.
Rejoice people, for you have all wanted this.

>> No.13608491

You say that, but do these outliers really disprove the rule or are they rather evidence of it? Yes, not everyone feels entirely at home in whatever culture they are originally born into, but the people who truly leave the culture (rather than just seeking to geographically relocate it as most immigrants to the first world are doing today) are an incredibly small minority of the population. Even most expatriates (and the city I live in is notable for expats from all over the world) still are instinctually driven to replicate their culture in their new land to the largest extent that they personally can. The amount of people from any population group that truly rejects their culture to the point of moving to a new land and adoption of an alien culture is miniscule to the point of ridiculousness.

If your standard is that the world is defined by the radical individual rather than the actually existing picture of normalcy for any given group, than you will likely continue to be confused with what is to come (as well as the bulk of human history where this really wasn't the way most people viewed the world or acted, including in the early stages of liberalism).

>> No.13608493

>All those still alive and are, at least on theory, explicitly supported by basically all significative political and intelectual groups in the West.

Which intellectuals? The only people who are still attempting to argue for liberalism are employed by liberal institutions.

The entire reason that the west is in chaos is because of the death of liberalism. All serious intellectuals acknowledge this, the only question is what do we replace it with

>> No.13608525

>It's not fascism, it's just severe and artificial restrictions on freedom including forced sterilization based upon arbitrary conditions which can be open to manipulation

Sure man, you can claim your illiberalism isn't fascist (which by the letter it doesn't necessarily need to be) but the outcomes will largely be the same as if you directly let white nationalists take the wheel. You say you don't care about race, but when you talk about sterilization of those below 100 IQ and restrictions on immigration below that threshold you're essentially being a racialist whether you like it or not. That basically leaves you three options for the majority population, whites, the whiter half of the middle eastern/Indus population, and the northern chunk of East Asia. Sure you won't be explicitly excluding Blacks or Hispanics but you're talking at effectively 97% sterilization rate for Sub-Saharan blacks and ~80% sterilization rate for American blacks (which wouldn't be a bad idea tbqh).

>> No.13608538

>Sure man, you can claim your illiberalism isn't fascist (which by the letter it doesn't necessarily need to be) but the outcomes will largely be the same as if you directly let white nationalists take the wheel.

Fascism, white nationalism, and exterminationism have nothing to do with each other. Most governments around the world have an absolutist system, like China or Russia. These systems are working better than liberal democracies.

>> No.13608570

>China and Russia are illiberal and working better than the liberal countries in the west

You're right in some ways and wrong in others. I'm not so tied to liberalism that I'm willing to throw my people off a cliff in order to be ideologically consistent with it. I'm also not interested in pretending that Russia and China aren't explicitly racialist in the way many of their policies work. I think that illiberalism is needed in the west, but I'm not interested in pretending that this illiberalism will not also need to contain racialist policies to function. Illiberalism fundamentally becomes racialist whether you like it or not, and I'm saying that I'm fine with it, just don't lie to yourself about it.

>> No.13608596

>severe and artificial restrictions on freedom including forced sterilization based upon arbitrary conditions which can be open to manipulation
It's not severe to not allow someone to reproduce. I'm not advocating to kill their babies or have them genocided or mistreated (which btw is what we're doing to animals but nobody cares). I'm just speeding up the natural selection process. As to it being "arbitrary" and "open to manipulation", I think IQ tests are pretty objective. I wouldn't be opposed to using some different measure if a superior one were to be invented though.
>You're racist because your policy disproportionately targets blacks
I dont care about your definition of racism, or race in general. To me, racism is irrational hatred of individuals based on the characteristics of the race they belong to; believing a person is inherently inferior because they are black, for example. I don't believe that, and I have no interest in allying myself with people who do. Nazis also presumably want clean water and electricity, and so do I, but that doesn't make me a Nazi.
>But your utopia would be majority white and Asian!
So? That's incidental.
>97% sterilization rate for Sub-Saharan blacks
That's a very good idea, it would improve Africa by a huge margin. What's your point?
>~80% sterilization rate for American blacks
Yes, and about 40-50% for whites.

>> No.13608641

You might literally have autism friend.

>It's not severe to not allow someone to reproduce. I'm not advocating to kill their babies or have them mistreated (which btw is what we're doing to animals but nobody cares). I'm just speeding up natural selection.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but you're unironically going to be received as a genocidal maniac if you publicly talk this way. I get that in your autistic world of pure ideology saying that you "don't care about race" and that "it's just happenstance" that your ideas would largely target the black and browns sounds fine but to most people this sounds just like a cover up for being racist. You may in your heart of hearts not believe your ideas have anything to do with race, but I'm telling you they do, and not out of some bullshit privilege plus power nonsense but in the objective ways in which racial groups differ in terms of their intelligence and behavioral tendencies when interacting with the world. You say that you don't irrationally hate black people, and I'm sure you don't but if I were to wager a guess nobody does. "Irrational hatred" is a myth, and these "Nazis" you'd say you'd have such a hard time allying with, are not any more irrational in their approach than you.

>> No.13608727

I think the distinction is pretty clear. If tomorrow I go up on a roof with a sniper rifle and start picking off all of the tall people, it wouldn't be accurate to run headlines saying "SHOOTER TARGETS NORDIC PEOPLE." just because Nordic people tend to be taller on average than other people. Similarly just because my ideal eugenics program would target low-IQ people, and blacks tend to be low-IQ on average, it's not accurate to call me a racist/white nationalist.
It would be racist and white nationalist if I were to target people for being nonwhite, regardless of characteristics, like white nationalists do, but I don't.

>> No.13608795

Neoliberalism is just the most recent incarnation of the liberal project and any "return" to whatever your ideal utopian version of liberalism is would eventually return itself to neoliberalism.

>> No.13609033

As if that inaccuracy matters to normalfags, contemporary journalism or even your friends and relatives.

>> No.13609115

Asian Institutionalism

>> No.13609354

It means the rest of history that we get to witness will be Western nations trying to hop over to Chinese-flavored authoritarianism and failing to stick the landing.

>> No.13610033

Sure, but if you stood on the roof shooting Low IQ people they would most certainly say that you were targeting blacks. I'm not saying you ARE racist in any meaningful way, only that your views are effectively racial exterminationism disguised in your pure ideology.

>> No.13610069

thats mostly post hoc, its racist in its conclusion by coincidence

>> No.13610084

Demographics is destiny. Liberalism is basically done.

>> No.13610090

The rise of progressivism and the 3rd world invasion of the west has completely undone all universalist philosophies from the 19th century and has proved liberalism wrong.

>> No.13610095

I wish you the best of luck explaining that to iced coffee thots on Facebook friend.

>> No.13610119

its soft genocide by mostly genetic precept, not cultural, ethnic or racial, there are a lot more on the nose genetic or otherwise determiners than IQ

>> No.13610799

>undone all universalist philosophies from the 19th century
Not Marxism

>> No.13611029

No true Marxism!

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.