I think this is a net positive, though as a married gay man he himself has benefited quite a bit from secular classical liberalism; so it will be interesting to see what sacrifices he is willing to make in service to his newfound convictions.
If a shift away from secular classical liberalism means he loses marriage rights to his husband (which would have been the norm even in secular classical liberal societies for all but the past 10 years or so), would he find that acceptable? Would he support such a move? If not why not?
So, along with the "it failed because it wasn't true communism" crowd are we going to have growing "-wasn't true theocracy" and "-wasn't true facism" groups now? Is human history is just raring for a fucking encore?
We only had secular liberalism because the non-secular societies preceding it collapsed too. All those authoritarian paradigms eventually collapsed because they simply don't work if your leaders are selfish pieces of shit, and competitive leadership positions strongly select for selfish pieces of shit, especially over the long term. And human nature has not changed significantly enough in the last millennium that there don't exist new POS to ruin new authoritarian systems, so frankly I think only an idiot thinks we should have another go at any of those as-is and expect it to turn out any different. It might work out very briefly if the first or second leader turns out to have good intentions, but the second a bad one backstabs their way to the top it's game over, the system will never work as intended again, and have fun tearing down a system you've empowered with the means to unilaterally control the people.
Hell if you wanted to gamble on a benevolent dictator you'd have more luck with some really oldschool bullshit like a monarchy or ancient Greek style democracy where you pick some random shmuck off the street and give him power for a while. At least then it's just down to dumb bad luck when you get an asshole, rather that setting up a prize to attract the schemes of every ambitious asshole in the country.
If we're playing the "not true X" game you can argue any secular liberalism that lets wokeism take over and dictate terms to the masses is some pussy version and not true liberalism. Practical liberalism that hopes to survive should be more than just "everyone has maximal personal liberty and is free to hold their own beliefs" it should also have the caveat "but the one single thing 95% of us agree on is to band together and BTFO anyone who even looks like they mean to change that".
It's slightly facetious but whatever, the point is you can always make excuses for a failed social order. There's always the potential to improve on previous ideas and maybe find a way to make it work, but if you're going to make excuses for just one but not the others then you're probably going to end up with the wrong answer, and there's no reason to be certain the best option isn't actually something new either.
It's not strawmanning to ask a question, and "secular" is glaringly conspicuous in it's inclusion alongside a criticism liberalism.
Complaining about 'non-theocratic liberalism' smells funny in the same way someone complaining about the flaws of 'non-communist socialism' sure sounds a lot like someone trying to warm the room up for some tankie bullshit.
Classical Liberalism failed because it lost solidarity. Even now you will have people of all stripes and colors saying "Don't use identity politics!" and even I (and many others here I imagine) fell for it for a long time. This is because politics based on your identity is the only way to create a human organization with significant longevity.
Depends on what you mean by identity, if you mean immutable characteristics as is usually implied by the 'identity politics' then I disagree. There's plenty of other keystones of solidarity that can and have been used, even explicitly nationalist states generally allowed outsiders to become citizens if they jumped through enough hoops, and plenty of those secured multigenerational longevity.
If you just meant identity as a more general shared core views and values, then I agree for the most part. Western liberalism is dying because, after a moment of comfortable cultural supremacy, it forgot how to reinforce it's core values or even protect itself from antagonistic evangelism, and that solidarity eroded to the point that the majority can't clearly agree that protecting freedom is important anymore.
"National" means people group, with the Latin root specifically referring to being born. Every identity is ultimately traced back to genetics in some way. To try and avoid genetics and look at simply a shared "spirit" will erode the foundations by which it was made. Culture and society are ultimately expressions of biology, because the brain is an organ.
The main issue I see for those who look at a shared "spirit" is they don't want to enforce that spirit.
America is a nation built on common values!
So does that mean the government can test for those values and deny/strip citizenship from people who don't have them?
...no of course not!
So you're left in a situation where you can't even attempt to ensure the continuation of the basis upon which you're claiming your nation is built. It's like starting a business making widgets and being unable to hire and fire people based on their ability or desire to make widgets. Assuming such a business survives at all, you'll have no way of knowing whether or not it'll still be making widgets in the long-term.
Being born somewhere geographically doesn't determine your genetics, it just broadly correlates (or rather, corellated, now that transport infrastructure has reached a global scale it will become less and less specific), nationality is not an immutable identity, it is a soft one, it's semi-permanant enough to have some meaning but you can still change it with enough effort.
But if you really want to go the 100% biologically deterministic route, then wokeism must apparently be an expression of superior genetic connection, given that it is currently in the process of supplanting family units and other traditional identities.
Nature and nurture both exist, trying to build a society entirely around nature is just as narrow-minded as trying to build one entirely around nurture.
Nationality does not mean citizenship. You are born into your nationality, you cannot change it. Your children can have a different nationality depending on who you have them with.
Everything that is "nurture" always has it's roots based in biology, because once again the brain is a biological organ.
That's all well and good if you want to define it that way, but all those empires that defined nationality by citizenship still existed and disprove the claim that soft identity societies can't survive.
I'm not convinced that the CCP is the force behind all this. I'm sure they benefit and aid it happening, but the force behind it seems more...grassroots.
I don't believe it to be a coincidence that every single woke piece of shit ideology ends up leading back to some kind of declaration of female superiority.
BLM used to openly declare it before they got exposed.
Climate cult let it slip via cult leader Greta, plus Extinction Rebellion.
Well, if you don't want to be secular, you have to have a national religion. I doubt it'll be Islam (because there's so much wrong with that religion) so all that's left is various forms of tradcucked crap.
Most of BLM's funding came from the Women's March 2020 that was canceled. It was leaked in an Italian state media report about BLM activities in their country.
I already said what will save us. People are too passive about the rise of feminist power. They need to know what comes when all the pieces are in the correct position.
Your solution hinges on people not failing for their propaganda.
No amount of revealing what the globalists want, what the feminists want, what the CCP wants and what BLM wants will change the minds of the millions of idiots who are already indoctrinated.
Your proposed "solution" hinges on using logical reasoning to change minds.
A large portion of the U.S. is indoctrinated into positions solely based on the left's emotional manipulation skills. You cannot reason these people out of foolish positions that they support solely based on feelings.
This is one of the reasons why classical secular liberalism has failed us. You still think that logical reasoning can change minds of those who only feel their way into positions.
Even many men today are so cucked that they desperately play along with wokeism for crumbs of diseased pussy.
Not exactly. The reason we aren't believed now is because the "authoritative sources" are saying we're crazy.
The best time to do this was when Trump was still in office, because it needed to be an emergency broadcast to all US citizens. He should have broadcasted very clearly the official stances of his opponents, without any editorial of their words.
We don't need to convert the indoctrinated. When you know your life is at risk, you act differently. It can override the weak emotional arguments by playing to base instincts.
That is because he is either a Jew himself or a Shabos Goy. I'm 85% sure that this is the case since he gets super cagey when you start hovering over the target.
I think this is a net positive, though as a married gay man he himself has benefited quite a bit from secular classical liberalism; so it will be interesting to see what sacrifices he is willing to make in service to his newfound convictions.
If a shift away from secular classical liberalism means he loses marriage rights to his husband (which would have been the norm even in secular classical liberal societies for all but the past 10 years or so), would he find that acceptable? Would he support such a move? If not why not?
Based on a glimpse of his recent Twitter replies, it seems the woke cultists really despise Dave Rubin.
I think Dave would even give up his gay marriage rights to avoid being attacked physically by leftists.
So, along with the "it failed because it wasn't true communism" crowd are we going to have growing "-wasn't true theocracy" and "-wasn't true facism" groups now? Is human history is just raring for a fucking encore?
We only had secular liberalism because the non-secular societies preceding it collapsed too. All those authoritarian paradigms eventually collapsed because they simply don't work if your leaders are selfish pieces of shit, and competitive leadership positions strongly select for selfish pieces of shit, especially over the long term. And human nature has not changed significantly enough in the last millennium that there don't exist new POS to ruin new authoritarian systems, so frankly I think only an idiot thinks we should have another go at any of those as-is and expect it to turn out any different. It might work out very briefly if the first or second leader turns out to have good intentions, but the second a bad one backstabs their way to the top it's game over, the system will never work as intended again, and have fun tearing down a system you've empowered with the means to unilaterally control the people.
Hell if you wanted to gamble on a benevolent dictator you'd have more luck with some really oldschool bullshit like a monarchy or ancient Greek style democracy where you pick some random shmuck off the street and give him power for a while. At least then it's just down to dumb bad luck when you get an asshole, rather that setting up a prize to attract the schemes of every ambitious asshole in the country.
If we're playing the "not true X" game you can argue any secular liberalism that lets wokeism take over and dictate terms to the masses is some pussy version and not true liberalism. Practical liberalism that hopes to survive should be more than just "everyone has maximal personal liberty and is free to hold their own beliefs" it should also have the caveat "but the one single thing 95% of us agree on is to band together and BTFO anyone who even looks like they mean to change that".
It's slightly facetious but whatever, the point is you can always make excuses for a failed social order. There's always the potential to improve on previous ideas and maybe find a way to make it work, but if you're going to make excuses for just one but not the others then you're probably going to end up with the wrong answer, and there's no reason to be certain the best option isn't actually something new either.
My only point is that classical liberalism has failed because it has allowed for the woke to capitalize on the populace's empathy and tolerance.
I haven't proposed any other form of rule as the solution so why are you strawmanning here with theocracy and fascism?
I think that the wokeism problem is very difficult to solve.
All I am saying is that classical liberalism is what got us here to this current stage of wokeism.
It's not strawmanning to ask a question, and "secular" is glaringly conspicuous in it's inclusion alongside a criticism liberalism.
Complaining about 'non-theocratic liberalism' smells funny in the same way someone complaining about the flaws of 'non-communist socialism' sure sounds a lot like someone trying to warm the room up for some tankie bullshit.
The only point I am making is that classical liberalism has failed and has allowed wokeism to take over.
What is a good solution? I don't think there is any easy solution to any of this.
Feel free to ask questions. I always advocate for more critical thinking from everyone.
We will return the House of Stuart to the throne.
Classical Liberalism failed because it lost solidarity. Even now you will have people of all stripes and colors saying "Don't use identity politics!" and even I (and many others here I imagine) fell for it for a long time. This is because politics based on your identity is the only way to create a human organization with significant longevity.
Depends on what you mean by identity, if you mean immutable characteristics as is usually implied by the 'identity politics' then I disagree. There's plenty of other keystones of solidarity that can and have been used, even explicitly nationalist states generally allowed outsiders to become citizens if they jumped through enough hoops, and plenty of those secured multigenerational longevity.
If you just meant identity as a more general shared core views and values, then I agree for the most part. Western liberalism is dying because, after a moment of comfortable cultural supremacy, it forgot how to reinforce it's core values or even protect itself from antagonistic evangelism, and that solidarity eroded to the point that the majority can't clearly agree that protecting freedom is important anymore.
"National" means people group, with the Latin root specifically referring to being born. Every identity is ultimately traced back to genetics in some way. To try and avoid genetics and look at simply a shared "spirit" will erode the foundations by which it was made. Culture and society are ultimately expressions of biology, because the brain is an organ.
The main issue I see for those who look at a shared "spirit" is they don't want to enforce that spirit.
So you're left in a situation where you can't even attempt to ensure the continuation of the basis upon which you're claiming your nation is built. It's like starting a business making widgets and being unable to hire and fire people based on their ability or desire to make widgets. Assuming such a business survives at all, you'll have no way of knowing whether or not it'll still be making widgets in the long-term.
Being born somewhere geographically doesn't determine your genetics, it just broadly correlates (or rather, corellated, now that transport infrastructure has reached a global scale it will become less and less specific), nationality is not an immutable identity, it is a soft one, it's semi-permanant enough to have some meaning but you can still change it with enough effort.
But if you really want to go the 100% biologically deterministic route, then wokeism must apparently be an expression of superior genetic connection, given that it is currently in the process of supplanting family units and other traditional identities.
Nature and nurture both exist, trying to build a society entirely around nature is just as narrow-minded as trying to build one entirely around nurture.
Nationality does not mean citizenship. You are born into your nationality, you cannot change it. Your children can have a different nationality depending on who you have them with.
Everything that is "nurture" always has it's roots based in biology, because once again the brain is a biological organ.
That's all well and good if you want to define it that way, but all those empires that defined nationality by citizenship still existed and disprove the claim that soft identity societies can't survive.
How's that British Empire looking?
Not quite as long lived as the Roman one, but about 10x more enduring than the last explicitly Aryan one.
Yeah, going back to tradcuckery and giving your oppressors more unearned value will definitely help.
You want to know what would defeat wokeism?
Expose the genocidal plot. Expose who is really creating all the division, who runs BLM, who controls the useful idiots.
The male population must be reduced to 10% of current levels and power restored to women.
Every. Single. Human. Should. Know. This. Line.
They. Want. You. Dead.
Man you keep mistaking the globalists' loudest useful idiots for who really runs the show.
The main point I make is that secular liberalism has failed us completely.
The woke have weaponized the empathy and tolerance fostered by secular liberalism.
Why are you assuming that I am pushing tradcuckery?
All I am saying is that secular liberalism is not the solution to wokeism.
I'm not convinced that the CCP is the force behind all this. I'm sure they benefit and aid it happening, but the force behind it seems more...grassroots.
I don't believe it to be a coincidence that every single woke piece of shit ideology ends up leading back to some kind of declaration of female superiority.
BLM used to openly declare it before they got exposed.
Climate cult let it slip via cult leader Greta, plus Extinction Rebellion.
Well, if you don't want to be secular, you have to have a national religion. I doubt it'll be Islam (because there's so much wrong with that religion) so all that's left is various forms of tradcucked crap.
The CCP is merely one powerful wing of the globalists.
Bruh have you seen how both Rihanna and Greta Thunberg were paid to influence the India farmer riots?
There is nothing grassroots about any of these fucking protests or activists.
Go look at who funds BLM. Go look at who funds these climate advocacy groups.
Secular liberalism caused wokeism, more of it is not going to save us.
I don't advocate any mandated tradcuckery either.
I don't think there is an easy solution to this problem.
Their funding isn't, but their support is.
Most of BLM's funding came from the Women's March 2020 that was canceled. It was leaked in an Italian state media report about BLM activities in their country.
I already said what will save us. People are too passive about the rise of feminist power. They need to know what comes when all the pieces are in the correct position.
Your solution hinges on people not failing for their propaganda.
No amount of revealing what the globalists want, what the feminists want, what the CCP wants and what BLM wants will change the minds of the millions of idiots who are already indoctrinated.
Your proposed "solution" hinges on using logical reasoning to change minds.
A large portion of the U.S. is indoctrinated into positions solely based on the left's emotional manipulation skills. You cannot reason these people out of foolish positions that they support solely based on feelings.
This is one of the reasons why classical secular liberalism has failed us. You still think that logical reasoning can change minds of those who only feel their way into positions.
Even many men today are so cucked that they desperately play along with wokeism for crumbs of diseased pussy.
The solution to this hell is anything but simple.
Not exactly. The reason we aren't believed now is because the "authoritative sources" are saying we're crazy.
The best time to do this was when Trump was still in office, because it needed to be an emergency broadcast to all US citizens. He should have broadcasted very clearly the official stances of his opponents, without any editorial of their words.
We don't need to convert the indoctrinated. When you know your life is at risk, you act differently. It can override the weak emotional arguments by playing to base instincts.
Too many people in this nation only believe authoritative/mainstream media sources.
Also too many have a downright crippling level of TDS.
Anything coming from Trump is automatically opposed vehemently by sadly atleast 60 million people.
Add in constant propaganda of the mainstream media and thus no emergency broadcast will mean dick.
Feminism is pure evil and it was invented by Jews. You aren't paying attention if you think women are the final boss.
That is because he is either a Jew himself or a Shabos Goy. I'm 85% sure that this is the case since he gets super cagey when you start hovering over the target.
I don't get cagey, I think it's moronic. I find it absolutely hilarious when people blame Jews for things that are clearly the work of women.