Are we at the end of History? Are we the Last Man? Or is Fukuyama's thesis, as Derrida says, a gospel for the death of Marxism?>The protocol of our conference evokes the example of the book by Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man. Is not what we have here a new gospel, the noisiest, the most mediatized [médiatique], the most “successful” one on the subject of the death of Marxism as the end of history? This work frequently resembles, it is true, the disconcerting and tardy by-product of a “footnote”: nota bene for a certain Kojève who deserved better. Yet the book is not as bad or as naive as one might be led to think by the frenzied exploitation that exhibits it as the finest ideo-logical showcase of victorious capitalism in a liberal democracy which has finally arrived at the plenitude of its ideal, if not of its reality. In fact, although it remains essentially, in the tradition of Leo Strauss relayed by Allan Bloom, the grammar school exercise of a young, industrious, but come-lately reader of Kojève (and a few others), one must recognize that here or there this book goes beyond nuance and is sometimes suspensive to the point of indecision. To the questions elaborated in its own fashion, it on occasion ingenuously adds, so as to cover all the bases, what it calls “two broad responses, from the Left and the Right, respectively” (p. xxii). It would thus merit a very close analysis. This evening we will have to limit ourselves to what concerns the general structure of a thesis indispensable, precisely in the very structure of its logic, in the formulation of its formula, to the anti-Marxist conjuration. It is by design, of course, that we called it a moment ago a “gospel.” Why a gospel? Why would the formula here be neotestamentary? This book claims to bring a “positive response” to a question whose formation and formulation are never interrogated in themselves.
>>24910839>It is the question of whether a “coherent and directional History of mankind” will eventually lead “the greater part of humanity,” as Fukuyama calmly, enigmatically, and in a fashion at once modest and impudent calls it, toward “liberal democracy” (p. xii). Of course, while answering “yes” to this question in this form, Fukuyama admits, on the same page, to an awareness of everything that allows one to have one’s doubts: the two world wars, the horrors of totalitarianism—Nazi, fascist, Stalinist—the massacres of Pol Pot, and so forth. One can assume that he would have agreed to extend this disastrous list. He does not do so, one wonders why and whether this limitation is contingent or insignificant. But according to a schema that organizes the argumentation of this strange plea from one end to the other, all these cataclysms (terror, oppression, repression, extermination, genocide, and so on), these “events” or these “facts” would belong to empiricity, to the “empirical flow of events in the second half of the century” (p. 70), they would remain “empirical” phenomena accredited by “empirical evidence” (p. xx). Their accumulation would in no way refute the ideal orientation of the greater part of humanity toward liberal democracy. As such, as telos of a progress, this orientation would have the form of an ideal finality. Everything that appears to contradict it would belong to historical empiricity, however massive and catastrophic and global and multiple and recurrent it might be. Even if one admitted the simplicity of this summary distinction between empirical reality and ideal finality, one would still not know how this absolute orientation, this anhistoric telos of history gives rise, very precisely in our day, in these days, in our time, to an event which Fukuyama speaks of as “good news” and that he dates very explicitly from “The most remarkable evolution of the last quarter of the twentieth century” (p. xiii). To be sure, he recognizes that what he describes as the collapse of the worldwide dictatorships of the right or the left has not always “given way . . . to stable liberal democracies” (ibid.). But he believes he can assert that, as of this date, and this is the good news, a dated news, “liberal democracy remains the only coherent political aspiration that spans different regions and cultures around the globe.” This “move toward political freedom around the globe,” according to Fukuyama, would have been everywhere accompanied, “sometimes followed, sometimes preceded,” he writes, by “a liberal revolution in economic thought.” The alliance of liberal democracy and of the “free market,” there’s the “good news” of this last quarter century. This evangelistic figure is remarkably insistent. Since it prevails or claims to prevail on a geopolitical scale, it deserves to be at least underscored.
>>24910839yes the system that shits itself in crisis every few years definitely going to last until the heat death of universe
>>24910968But we've never achieved communism, socialism, or fascism. Capitalism is eternal.
>>24910839I haven't read Fukuyama, so maybe understand him wrong. But does he think that the people under capitalism live forever? Does he see history of cultures as linear? The more liberal and the more rational a culture gets, the less 'meaning' they have. They become nihilistic. This doesn't lead to a plateau, it leads to pessimism. The people will start to ask themselves why they should breed. In the whole materialistic and rationalistic perspective they will find, that it is mostly irrational. For some pessimistic or some climate change shitty reason. The culture will start to disappear. Other cultures will appear. But they still have a culture-soul and thus a meaning. But the state will be more on the authoritarian side. Over time they relive the same cycle. Would Fukuyama agree with this? Where not?
>>24911034>But does he think that the people under capitalism live forever?No, he thinks that History (the progress of political development) ends not in communism or socialism, as Marx predicted, but with liberal democracy which was supposed to die off last century (according to communists).>Does he see history of cultures as linear? No. He borrows from Marx and Hegel who sees History as a flux and flow of abstraction, negation, and concretisation. >Does he see history of cultures as linear? That might be so. But it is the best system we have, in the sense it cannot be replaced with communism or fascism.
>>24911053>liberal democracyIf we mean freedom and power in the hands of the masses any global system isn't that since freedom and power needs local autonomy.A world of real liberal democracies would be diverse, with very different countries with very distinct ethnicities and sub-ideologies of "liberal democracy" living in relative isolation compared to the globalist world we're in now.
>>24911083It's still got class-based society. Capitalism is built by the capitalist class, the bourgeoisie. And they might believe in institutions that are embedded in equality of opportunity and diversity, but that is just the institution that works in lieu of class society. There are still economic and social divisions.
as long as they continue to prosper, liberalism is a failure
>>24910839Liberal democracy is already failing.It turns out that Jesus's Parable of the Dishonest Steward was a prescient description of the problems of our times. Politicians elected for fixed terms of a few years have no real incentive to care about the long-term good of the country, especially when facing a likely loss in the next election. Hired corporate CEOs are in a similar situation with their own interests and the interests of the company distinct and often opposed.The root of the problem is that when someone gets to control a lot of power and money that aren't really his own, there is a conflict of interest that breeds intentional mismanagement for the controller's personal advantage. Politicians aren't legally required to adhere to their election promises either, so a lot of the time they just don't and openly betray the promises at the first possible opportunity, as the promises were only ever meant as a lie to get elected. This phenomenon has only become more brazen in the recent times because of the lack of real negative consequences beyond people complaining.
>>24911053How is liberal democracy supposed to create a static condition? Any democracy grows like a cancer. State employed people become depending on it. Guys on some sort of welfare become dependent on it. Everyone of them wants to prevent the state from shrinking. People stop producing, because they are able to get income, if they just start to turn the democracy socialist. They get the money from working people. At some point they shift their economic socialism to social socialism too. Thousands of people from different cultures are migrated, which obviously have different goals. This changes the culture-soul.I think its pretty much impossible to have a more or less static condition and a appropriate form of state for that condition. Things change. That changes the people. That changes the culture-soul. The form of state always needs to adjust to the current culture-soul.
>liberalism is the final stage as we walk into a future of techno feudalism and china being the number one economic power
>>24910839>is global imperialis-I mean capitalism and gay buttsex till the heat death of the universe the ultimate telos and end point political development for mankind?Obviously not.Koejeve, within his decades long correspondence with Strauss, says clearly that he held that the homogeneous and universal state would be the *last* political order, NOT the *best* political order. Strauss retorted that it would enable a final tyranny with the means to snuff out all philosophy/philosophers and thusly wisdom and the good life forever. Also, two things. The USSR collapsing was the result of Russia being Russian, and even at that socialism turned this backwater feudal shithole into a superpower before collapsing. And guess what, when it collapsed, it wasn’t alone! In fact, around the same time the End of a history was first published as a book the CCP in China resorted to open totalitarian state terrorism via massacring hundreds of civilians (by even their own admitted estimates) in the streets of Beijing. This didn’t stop western powers from integrating it further into the world economy, hollowing out Americas industrial core and creating another superpower that didn’t democratize (lol). Consequently, we are right back to where we are when Kojeve and Strauss were developing their ideas.Furthermore and most essential, is Strauss’s striking prophecy of the final tyranny, a tyranny premised upon the conquest of nature by advancing scientific and technological powers, powers that would turn inwards and conquer human nature itself! This insight fleshed across the works of Strauss between the 1940s/50s/60s potentially builds upon Carl Schmitt capturing of this dynamic back in the 1920s towards the end of his Concept of the Political, which Strauss took critical notes on that Schmitt revised the work over. Schmitt in turn potentially builds upon Heideggers concept of enframing; that Hannah Arendt completely neglects the matter of science and technology within her thesis on Totalitarianism is striking as she was a student and notorious lover of Heidegger.This latter point from Strauss to Arendt circles back to Fukuyama: He opens the End of History declaring that we are now fully post-totalitarianism, while socialist China used tanks to turn protestors into mulch capable of being sprayed down sewer drains and while greater minds generations before saw where the wind was going. He had to cope with this so hard that he wrote his entire Posthuman Future book to grapple with it.Ultimately, history never ended and is being driven primarily by the Baconian-Faustian engine of scientific, technological, and industrial advances that will probably end up in either in omnicidal Armageddon or a posthuman world dominating regime with the capacity to escape earth and venture out into the wider cosmos.
>>24911144Excuse rushed phone posting typos
>>24911118For example, the administration of Finland has reached the stage of Budget Cuts on the lifecycle of a bureaucracy and is demonstrating no capability for reversing the course. Implosion is next on the chart. This kind of state of affairs cannot go on forever like Fukuyama would have it.
>>24910839>>24910840Let us leave that philosophising aside and look at what is.The world's most developed countries have organised their political system along the lines of liberal democracy. The only exception to this is the small state of Singapore which is not fully democratic but is still very liberal in many aspects.This political system appears to be incredibly durable in higher income countries. As Pzeworski observed a quarter century ago, not a single democratic regime has failed in a country with the income level above $6000 1990 USD per capita (equivalent to $15000 today.Meanwhile alternative regimes, being overall poorer, remain subject to occasional revolutions. Only the wealthy monarchies of the middle east seem to be immune from such turmoil due to their generous distribution of oil wealth among the citizenry.These attempted revolutions are generally in support of more liberal principles such as freedom of speech, free elections, rule of law, political accountability etc.From these observations we conclude that we live in a world that tends towards liberal democracy and we will live in such a world as long as the most advanced countries remain committed to this political system. Even so, there is no reason to believe that this is a final stage and that it won't be surpassed by something newer.
>>24911201You can't rely on a country remaining rich when elected politicians make money vanish somewhere. Back in 1980 the Soviet Union would by similar analysis have been found an eternal fact of politics too, and indeed many people thought so.
>>24911262I might want to add that the CIA and similar outfits were surprised when the Berlin Wall fell. They really had come to think that the then-current status quo was capable of lasting indefinitely.
>>24911089why is the thread still going after this post? china disproves fukuyama's entire thesis, full stop, end of story
>>24910839I hate liberalism purely because liberals are retarded normies who don’t understand how history works and think it’s a linear line of constant forward progression, let alone having an “end”. Which is funny too considering how many articles exist today about the rise of the far right or far left that very blatantly contradict this viewpoint, yet they still hold onto this idea
>>24911841>poorer than mexicans
Imagine subscribing to a fatalistic and totalistic grand narrative of history
>>24911201liberal democracy hasn't existed for long enough to show the full cycle. Every middle class in history was eroded and destroyed and this one is no different. Democracy only works with a significant literate land owning middle class. Both of these things are sharply declining and in fact we are towards the end of the cycle. I don't think we have seen this happen yet in liberal democracy so we can't be sure what will happen. I think we will become a virtual oligarchy where we all larp as people that are free in a democracy but in reality most people will be surfs with very little to no social power. There probably won't be a revolution. Just a few isolated acts of violence that become normalized due to people being pumped full of chemicals and entertainment. The pendulum will swing back but probably not in our lifetimes. I wouldn't be surprised if the next great society is not on Earth.
>guys isn't x, which happens to be my worldview, the best and most smartest thing ever guys???
>>24912002Most 'liberal countries' are inherently corrupt. They are democracies on paper, the peoples have no real power other than protesting on the streets, but nowadays even that is a non-issue politicians will willingly let happen just to get gibs from the government.Democracy is lynch democracy, like it was in the US, where in many instances the peoples used their rightful power to take matters into own hands when the government does a poor job (or overthrowing the government, like happened in California during the 1920s).
>>24911841As a counter to the Marxist idea of the inevitability of communism China demonstrates "liberalism" is more inevitable. The pressures of material conditions don't lead to a runaway class struggle, they lead to regulated market economies with public train systems and Pizza Hut.
>>24911962holy fucking retard cope
>>24910839His picture looks like a high school year book photo
>>24912031>Most 'liberal countries' are inherently corruptSo are most other governments, thats not a novel concept. I agree with Fukuyama's thesis but not in an optimistic manner. I realize he doesn't much either but I think he's not aware of the glaring elephant in the room, which is the restoration of Rome as a central power.
>>24912240> are most other governmentsYou don't get it do you. The 'liberal countries' aren't liberal if they are corrupt. It's like calling a country a democracy even if it's citizens no longer even vote. Things like the 3rd amendment, democracy, freedom of speech, these were implemented to provide power to the people, that's what liberalism was all about. My problem with the argument 'liberalism has won' is that most Western countries are no longer liberal by any real metric. If there's nothing liberal about them other than their names, then WHAT THE HELL do you even mean when saying that it's the final system?
>>24912257Oh ok, so countries that rest upon basic concepts like rule of law, accountability and openness are no longer liberal if the leaders end up hiring their families and paying their debts for them? You do know its very possible for it be both ways. Current America is a very good example, we have all of that but because the fat cats in Washington keep hiring their cousins third parties can't get a foot in the door. However we have a general concept of free association, enterprise and most forms of speech. Your turn, schmuck.
>>24912275> rule of law, accountability and opennessWhat... the... fuck... Is this the point brainwash by corrupt politicians has reached in pseudo-liberal countries? I don't want to make those retards look smart, but you just confounded the basic requirements for a legal state with the liberal state - from libere, free, one in wich citizens can make actual choices and are able to participate in society as independant individuals rather than as vassals.> Current America is a very good example, we have all of that but because the fat cats in Washington keep hiring their cousins third parties can't get a foot in the doorThat's the whole point behind democracy. And I don't mean votes, but the folks being the sovereign of the country (as it says in the American constitution) and having the right to overthrow a corrupt government rather than the elected politicians becoming the sovereigns at power. ALL politicians, hell, all individuals have anti-democratic tendencies, the only way to mitigate them is by providing as much power as possible to the absolute or relative majority of the folks body - doing less creates corrupt governments that in turn monopolize said governments for the interests of particular minority groups. If said government still has a democratic veil, like in most 'liberal' countries of our day - politics becomes a question of wich particular interest group you want to take gibs from the government - the choice being provided between rich pigs and corrupt bureaucrats who pretend to govern on behalf of the people. To put it simply, 'the majority of the people is righteous and just', Socrates, xxx BC
>>24911144Marcuse also came to these conclusions about technology and scientific knowledge, along with Adorno. The positivist mode of thought/ideology is geared towards control, nature and our biology must be managed and administered thoroughly. The result is an endless compulsion to make everything positive and transparent, but for what end? If we're talking posthuman interplanetary colonialism then you are leaving the human individual behind to be extracted as mere resource. And that's just an ideal situation. What likely happens is that 'the posthuman dream' is a slogan sold to people, used as a pretense to grab more power, whilst never fully realised. What frustrates the search for alternatives is that the overproduction of positives has dissolved all referents into the cloud of speculation. They hold no weight or substance and are easily exchangable. All 'dangerous' ideas are neutered and reassimilated into the intestines of reproduction. Big History hasn't ended, it's just in a corpse form that is picked at whenever Power needs a snack. There are other histories, also dormant ones like dessicated seeds that are yet to be materialised. They're hidden under the weight of the current 'transparency'. There is still negativity and forgetfulness and death lurking underneath the political hegemon
>>24912053china isn't adopting liberalism for the sake of liberalism, it's only using liberalism, as well as capitalism, purely as building blocks to stabilize the state structure. see: whole-process people's democracy. all they are doing is following the socio-political route envisioned by marx to achieve communism but are doing it in a characteristically chinese way. as far as i know, there isn't really any sort of hard evidence that points to them becoming more "liberal" or democratic for the sake of itit's worth noting that marx believed that communism would only be successfully achieved if the nations around the world united together to embrace it, so that nobody could interfere and throw a spanner in the works. with recent economic reports regarding china, they are swallowing up entire foreign competitors' industries whole and the only thing left to dominate for them are semiconductors, software, commercial aircraft and some of the most state of the art production machines but they will eventually dominate those too just like they've come to dominate everything else, and what do you think will happen when china dominates the entire globe in industry and trade and no other country has any way of fighting back or anything worth offering other than natural resources?just food for thought
>>24912002I personally think we'll eventually see the return of de jure aristocracy. Barons, dukes, that sort of thing. Maybe not with the same trappings as the old aristocracy but functionally equivalent.Sooner or later somebody is going to give themself a title that they start to pass on to their children, and that will be that. Fukuyama's talk of "political development" has never made sense to me; I confess I need to read more of him. I suppose it's Hegelian, but then again, Hegel has never made sense to me, either. To me there is a fundamental cyclical element to history that is only occasionally broken. Laurus, one of my favorite books, describes history as a spiral, and that image has gradually come to feel like the most accurate one to me. We repeat, over and over, on time scales both small and large, but occasionally, there is a great revolution, and we move forward amid the repetition.We repeatedly see that broadly-shared prosperity is only a temporary thing, and concentrations of wealth and power into the hands of a few is the default position of civilization for most of history. It's happening again as we speak. We already have a de facto aristocracy, it becoming de jure again is the next logical step.
>>24912380>it's worth noting that marx believed that communism would only be successfully achieved if the nations around the world united together to embrace it, so that nobody could interfere and throw a spanner in the works.It's worth noting that this combined with thinking communism is inevitable is completely batshit insane.
>>24911262>>24911268I am not at all implying that the status quo is an eternal fact of politics. I only wanted to say that it is a current fact and liberal democracy remains dominant in the world system and as an ideological framework for now. Rival systems are grossly overrated and the most severe internal challenges like populism are inherently democratic.My only bold claim is that we are more likely to move towards something new rather than revert to other old systems.
>>24911089People thought the Soviets were winning the Cold War as late the 70s, then a few decades passed and...
>>24912380We're already seeing industry flee towards Vietnam, India, and others as China modernizes and wages increase. The idea that they will permanently dominate all the industry of the whole world is ludicrous.
>>24912468lollmao
>>24912468and now russia is making all of europe look like cowards that belong in a retirement home, what's your point?
>>24912355Great response, my only exposure to these critical theory thinkers was via Leiss’s Domination of Nature, whose accounting was hermetically sealed off from Strauss but overlapped in their shared pinpointing of this issue in Francis Bacon. Leiss’s coverage of IIRC Husserl was very interesting and I know he has correspondence with Voegelin, who had a massive correspondence with Strauss, so it begs the question of how much if any correspondence Strauss had with any of them on these very matters. What works are most recommended on them that cover this?
>>24910839Liberalism is the death of human development.It's a bit like those animals that graze the grass too closely and end up extincting themselves.
Liberalism is the political ideology of gooners.
>>24910839Neither. Liberalism and Marxism combined forces to murder Fascism, which was the actual next step in dialectical history.This murder resulted in a period of confused stagnation in which both of the surviving ideologies, now sharing a mythology, were unable to meaningfully advance their own designs because they had simply stopped the dialectic. Only now, a century later, is it starting back up again. The Nationalists, predictably, immediately started dominating it because they're the only ones who can meaningfully critique the current paradigm, having been excluded from it for decades.Liberalism is dead though, make no mistake of that. There's no future for an ideology that cannot say no to social "progress," and Liberalism has decisively proven itself incapable of doing that. Marxism however has no role to play in this, being since WWII the bitchboy of Capitalism, disrobing in parts to do a little bit of liberal democracy or economic freedom as a tease, while keeping only the most superficial elements of itself true. There is no Marxism anymore, outside of the sniveling of academics and the tantrums of children.
>>24911144When it comes down to it, I am utterly unconvinced that liberal democracy is capable of dealing with the challenges that are emerging in the 21st century in regards to our demographic changes, technological innovation and convergence of international capital. Fukuyama himself is clearly not as convinced as he claims to be either considering he wrote an entire book about how transhumanism could easily nuke liberalism and how much he kvetches about Trump even though technically Trump is still working within the confines of liberal democracy. The symptoms we find in liberal democracy will always exist in every modern society because many of them are accelerated by our technological and economic climate such as homosexuality or transgenderism. The key difference is that liberalism explicitly endorses such behaviors and sees them as the rightful demonstration of peak human achievement -- all of history as progress to the Pride Parade. This is just ridiculously morbid and unhealthy. It's inconceivable to me that it'll be able to handle the issues produced from its individualism without sacrificing its own political structure to suppress opposition. I don't see how liberals are going to capably resist the right-wing for example from its increasing obsession with ethnic cleansing as the solution to all the West's problems, to the point where conservatives side with technocrats like Elon Musk who promotes the same solution despite himself being far more responsible for our problems today. How do you reason with such people under a liberal framework, how do you expect the whole thing not to eventually implode like it did in the interwar era?
>>24912773Caesarism is inevitable, it will only be a matter of where it will falls on the technology question above all other issues.
>>24912798The whole premise of liberalism is that people need to stop fighting and dying for higher causes like religion, national identity, etc. It achieves this by making people so comfortable in their secular material conditions that they'll never want to fight for those things or reject the state which provides for them. So really, The End of History must be created first in order for liberalism to survive, not the other way around. If the conditions deteriorate and if people actually do start to care about things like national identity, biological supremacy or religion, then liberalism ceases to exist. This is why all the discussion about liberal democracy being "the end of history" makes no sense to me. It's an ideology entirely contingent on the success of its material conditions, material conditions that can in fact be replicated in other illiberal systems and societies like China, Singapore, Saudi Arabia etc. Even Japan is a borderline one-party state. If those material conditions begin to falter or change, why should we not expect liberalism to also undergo major deformities and transformations --- why are we to believe that it has fully completed the Hegelian dialectic?
>>24912822There's also the fact that higher causes have a way of bypassing material conditions in certain individuals. Numerous Catholic saints came from a life of privilege and wealth and rejected it all in favor of becoming monks and hermits and living a life of poverty.There's also the fact that Liberalism IS the enemy of religion and so people who are devotedly religious have a direct interest in killing it. Islam has wanted to kill Liberalism for decades. Catholicism now seems to want to kill it, too. If, one by one, the religions all gang up on Liberalism, and wage war against it, can it survive? The Liberal man may not be willing to fight like the Religious man.
>>24912477those industries aren't "fleeing", all it is is low-medium skill labouring and manufacturing jobs but this is the kicker: they're intentionally being offshored to less wealthy asian nations to 1. free up local labour and expertise to focus on the more important industries that will bolster their own sovereignty (as every major nation is now also realising), and 2. essentially control them as they still command most of the supply chain, which allows them to dictate the terms from an industrial and socio-political point of view. this is not just happening in developing countries but also in highly developed countries. just recently china flashed its rare earth metal trade restrictions, which the entire global automotive supply chain relies on. if they wanted to, they could essentially crush the automotive industry of every car-producing country outside of china overnight, this is the sort of power play that they are capable of unleashing in many areas that a lot of people aren't even aware ofjust about every single thing that the chinese state does has been calculated with precision to achieve well-planned objectives decades in the making and there seems to be no end in sight to the actions of their demolition machinewe need to remove and replace our "leaders" as soon as possible before we all meet our doom
>>24912959I think the ship has sailed for that. Religions have been thoroughly neutralized by liberalism. When the few remaining groups like Hamas do fight in the name of religion, liberalism doesn’t even hesitate to respond with genocide. There’s just no alternative to it yet. The challenges to liberalism will come from within
>>24911089>>24911089>>24911089>>24911089>>24911089>>24911089
Bump
>>24911034>I haven't read Fukuyama, so maybe understand him wrong.Based. Never change, king.
>>24910839Spend an hour browsing through the twitter pages of people in other countries and you realize all our worries here in the West about the waning of liberal democracy is unfounded. Everyone in this countries is utterly and pathetically desperate to be liberal. They resent their own cultures to the point of being actively seditious. They want to be American, they want to spit on the graves of all their conservative grandparents when they die, they all mutually see gays and trannies as the hallmark of human progress, etc. It's a total American and liberal cultural victory and no one acknowledges that this exists -- that the youth of the world in the 21st century are the most liberal people in human history and would not hesitate to sell out their national borders and cultures for a Vogue Magazine or a Starbucks in their city. Understand that after Trump, this conservative wave will go away and everyone will look back at our current moment as a strange quick before we return to the usual trajectory of liberal globohomo.
>>24910839It's not a stage of development.
>>24910839Obviously not. The actual telos of human history is the creation of anti-humanity in the form of advanced technology. Which will then end history of course. The form is naturally unclear, could be nuclear technology or artificial life. But the end is certain and it is nigh. We are the last gasp on the S curve before it flattens off into nothingness. A team of half a dozen highly motivated bioengineers and virologists could end humanity right now. Roll the dice a few times and humanity could have ended in 1962 or 1983. It was over the moment we left the caves and starting sowing grains. It just took a bit. We're privileged to be the ones to witness it. Hundred thousand years and a hundred billion lives and (you) get to see how it all ends. Isn't it grand?
>>24915236why 1983?
>>24910839"Liberalism" doesn't describe what you think it does.
The truth is that the majority of people today accept their conditions even as they are unsatisfied with them. They are disillusioned and frustrated to an increasingly hostile degree but are resolutely opposed to interrogating their own systems which produce this discontent. The final answers for them will always come from pointing the fingers at others. In the end they will say "well, at least I'm not like those other people." The entire political spectrum at the end of the day is thus united around a consensus believing that we don't have ENOUGH liberal democracy and everything would be all fine if we sorted it out better. The issue for them is that they don't have enough freedom, enough equality, enough stability -- because it has been taken away from them by capitalism or Islam or immigrants or whatever. ALL of our politics today amounts to this and it effectively presumes that liberalism is the ultimate truth regardless of anything that these so-called critics of liberalism claim today. The big mistake that all these political scientists and politicians are making post-Trump is that they view the current disorders in liberal democracies as an external assault on their system rather than a product of it. And this is because they're all working one way or another to protect it, from the most racist diehard MAGA chud to the wokest millennial leftist. In that sense Fukuyama IS correct. It doesn't matter if liberalism won't eventually politically dominate the world (though it still does), all that matters is if people will think of something beyond liberalism as a philosophy or system. And they do not. And so whatever problems that come from liberalism will keep gnawing at us until it's too late because we're busy complaining about other systems instead, all a result of our implicit recognition that liberalism is indeed the end of history and the objective truth.
>>24911089More liberal and successful today than they where 30 years ago. China is supporting evidence of Fukuyama's thesis desu
>>24915362How so? They aren’t liberal. China is a one-party Marxist-Leninist state. The actual Chinese liberals were mercilessly gunned down in the 90s. If you’re talking in terms of China’s economy or degree of individual freedoms then those are things that can be achieved regardless of liberalism, it’s not it invented the idea of free markets or sex or whatever.
>>24914091Like the religious people who live within Liberal states, perhaps?It was a Pope from within communism who helped bring down the Soviet Union.
>>24915381Its an annoying sematic thing that "liberalism" means multiple related things. Fukuyama means liberalism as the collection of capitalism, liberalism (individual freedoms), and democracy. And per that definition china (to my knowledge) is more liberal, due to its economy if nothing else. I dont really know how china has changed regarding personal freedom, but surely its freer than the days of Mao's cultural revolution? I also suspect it will shift more liberals over time, people in china put up with a lot of shit from their government because china has had rapid growth and people still remember how awful things where in the past, but over time that will fade and China will find itself in the same position as western countries did where granting near-symbolic concessions of power to the people (and capitalists) is worth avoiding further unrest, and over time those concessions will add up to an increasingly free and democratised state.
>>24915401That's quite a bold prediction considering there's no indication that people in China are interested in regime change
>>24915401This entire line of though underpinned the entire globalist gambit to even welcome China into the wider world economy in the first place. And guess what, it didn’t lead to its democratization, and technological powers are just going to repress and reinforce state communist power more and more, especially as more of chinas population become fatter and fatter Last Men who won’t budge a finger.
>>24912530I am curious as well.
>>24915442you ever think that some cultures are just hard-wired to be that way?
>>24911034When capital exists, there is capitalism. No one lives under it, everyone lives inside of it.
>>24915401Meanwhile the West is restricting individual freedoms, and elections are becoming increasingly meaningless in that no matter which party is elected to power, somehow the will of the people is ignored time and again in favor of the wishes of the financial backers.
>>24915289https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
>>24914091>>24912959I have one caveat:What do you do, if the Mormons working within the confines of the system do take the steps to become the majority?What if the right to breeding and family life is enough to entice people? As a true rejection of modernity?>>24911155My problem with Fukuyama is that he is ignorant of how economy works.What happens if only 30-40% of the population is actually working real jobs, and the rest is in government bureaucracies? You start having inflation, entering the job market starts becoming impossible, and there is always the risk that the host country of your textile production could just steal the entire production line.But Fukuyama could always retort by saying something like "oh, so the state implodes? Guess who is coming back after a civil war or even a dictatorship??">>24912399I can buy the idea.My parents generation saw a large tobacco family buy out all the Tideman's last name, to start a dynasti. And a lot of Euro countries are already on their 3rd or 4th if not 6th or 7th generation of politician families. And I think while its not that bad yet, there is always the Soviet joke of "oh, you want your son to be a general? Well, the general wants his son to be a general"
>>24916101It is really beyond me how anyone at this point thinks that democracy is real in any sense in the West
>>24911089China proved Fukuyama right the moment Deng took power.
Liberalism really is the final political order, in the sense that every individual has their own will and desires to execute it, which necessitates that the minimal amount of restraint be placed upon his ability to execute that will - which simply isn't possible in the authoritarian state, nor is it possible in the complete absence of the state given the lack of security from no means to enforce the necessary social contract. This also naturally means that states which do not enforce the necessary social contract (that is what some would call "anarcho-tyrannies") will also inevitably fall, as they do not adhere to the needs of man. Attempts to deprive the liberties of man in the service of arbitrary particular wills on behalf of the ruler (be it a monarch, an aristocracy, the nomenklatura, or any other form of managerial class) will only result in civic frustration and inevitable conflict until regime change occurs, at which point the cycle either continues, or equillibrium reached with a liberal republic established.The real question is, how many cycles of violence and regime change does a given polity need to go through until they reach equillibrium?
>>24911089>>24916670This is still actively debated. If you go by the original assertions he made then China is currently proving Fukuyama wrong. Fukuyama does enjoy 2 benefits on the China question though, the first is that he can also just revert to Hegel. He has and has used this option, he can basically just say human political activities are non-economic and it's just a recognition process, this gives him the ability to use Kojeve's assertions scientific advances happen regardless, and I mean universally regardless of any sort of political or governmental arrangement or lack thereof. When he has opted for this he is limited to saying that the methods by which the Chinese government derive authority are recognized there but can't be exported. This forces his opponents to write more arguments than he ever did in order to gain equity with him but he has to acknowledge his market based ideas don't matter which entails he has thrown a significant amount of material into the trash. When Fukuyama has attempted to make an argument that even Chinese models still outpower irrational recognition he has been successfully rebutted by both Kissinger style arguments and also other western powers. Fukuyama has to admit capitalism devoured itself and rational options are for state planning, so he basically is forced into advocating for China in an odd way. He stopped doing the later at some point, likely since Xi Jinping, he most likely is of the opinion it's safer to stick to Kojeve and see what happens with Xi. If Xi is successful and his ideas are continued then Fukuyama is stuck where he is, if Xi fails or is reversed then he might change his routine, if the Chinese model becomes normative in other countries then history continues without Fukuyama.
>>24910839>Is Liberalism the Final Stage of Human Development?No, it is not. Liberalism is only a political doctrine, it has nothing to do with the final stage of human development. The final stage of human development depends on faith and circumstances. The final stage of human development means that it will be the final stage, that humanity ends there. The situation when humanity stops developing and gives way to another intelligent species can happen if humanity becomes so bad, not only in terms of morality, but in terms of qualities, that it loses a battle for life to another intelligent species. Whether this other intelligent species will be a consequence of a mutation applied to one of humanity parts or whether the other intelligent species will be an invader of the Earth's planet who sailed from another planet, or will they be androids with A.I. is still unknown.In fact, humanity should strive to have ideals, develop and become better than its previous versions, rather than thinking about the finale, about a final form of humanity. because after achievement the final form of humanity, humanity will die and give way to another intelligent species.
>>24916742>IranWill collapse within a decade >RussiaA total joke country that had to start a war to survive and only saved by virtue of Europeans being pussies>North KoreaLol>Venezuela Might not even survive the year>CubaIrrelevant and poor>ChinaHas not exported its government model anywhere, no one has imitated itThere is no real indication yet that we're in a multipolar and illiberal world. All of its opponents are nowhere close to matching the West. It is better to understand that challenges will emerge from within liberalism's own contradictions
>>24917213You can always return to Kojeve too Fukuyama-anon.
>>24916758So then what the fuck is the point of liberalism if all it leads to in the end is humans being replaced by robots and white people, the creators of liberalism, being replaced in their own countries by other races
>>24917510The way to save the West is to hang both Elon Musk and George Soros
>>24910839The most obvious indication that liberalism is both a fraudulent ideological system and a very fragile one is the fact that the West is now commanded by a cabal of technocrats who are betting our entire civilization on their AI companies creating Skynet. The fact that these people are allowed to have so much power is an absurdity that laughs in the face of everything this system preaches about equality and democracy. If our current economic configuration turns out to be a failure, which people like Elon Musk are extremely paranoid about, then it seems beyond obvious to me that our politics will shift left for good after a major economic collapse. This scenario would actually be better than if AI does actually lead to skynet.
>>24916101>>24916561Fukuyama would never make this argument, but I think democracy being a shame is a feature, not a bug in the liberal system. The point of democracy is to keep the masses compliant and give a safe pressure release valve. If people think they have even a small hope of changing things peacefully rather than risking their necks in civil war or coup than they will choose to grin and bear it for "two more weeks".But the risk of elections having real results (theoretically people could vote in a real agent of change, like Germans did with Hitler) also helps keep the ruling class from getting too retarded. Censorship as a means of asserting control and order was seen as a proven failure, liberals in spite being censored overthrew the king in France and kicked out the English king in America and because of this they probably figured they needed a different way to control things. Democracy means the people actually in charge have to make an effort to propagandize the masses to at least be indifferent to the things the elites want, they cant just do whatever they want and censor dissent while pretending everything is fine right until when the powderkeg finally explodes on them.
>>24910839Yes, insofar that it stops development and starts going to the opposite end.
>>24917617No I don't think Fukuyama would disagree that this is how democracy actually works (mass social engineering) but he does that most people are oblivious to it or don't care in modern times, so democracy is less at risk than liberalism is. Probably the reason Trump scares him so much is because Trump openly doesn't care about democracy which is far more intimidating than criticizing liberalism, something a million failed dictators have already done
>>24910976>the system that has only existed for 200 years is eternallol>>24910839>>24910840>liberal democracy remains the only coherent political aspiration that spans different regions and cultures around the globe.this dismisses a hell of a lot of coherent political ideologies that are confined to one region or culture
>>24917658Right, and Trump has thereby opened the door to an entire cohort that doesn't care about democracy, mostly on the Right but to a certain extent on the Left as well. The entire "postliberal" scene, the Neoreactionaries, the new fascists, even the new Marxists, they're all downstream of Trump basically giving Americans permission to view democracy as optional. It opens the door to simply using force and violence to enact a political agenda, which at least for a long time was largely unheard-of in North America.The United States was basically immune to the forces that ran wild in Europe in the 19th Century, but now, all of a sudden, they seem to be here, 200 years later.
>>24917583>we are very possibly living in the timeline where an AI super-intelligence doesn’t come into existence after every country gambles on it and the global economy crashes in 2028 leading to Elon becoming blackpilled, Sam Altman being lynched by hungry mobs and Trump discrediting conservatism for the rest of history
>>24912773All that needs to be said honestly. It doesn’t matter at all if the normies are still libtards or not, they have no power, who cares. What matters is who’s in charge and what all the top people believe. And when it comes down to it liberal democracy is not going to survive a right-wing spectrum of politics increasingly unified around the idea of ethnic cleansing in the West, or a bunch of technocratic transhumanists having the most power, or leftist woke cattle revolting against basic human institutions like family and procreation. Liberal democracy won’t survive the demons it has spawned. In our race to become the Last Men we will destroy ourselves in a battle against what we believe is holding us back from this goal, this horribly stupid misled goal.
>>24911088>>It's still got class-based society.So? Every utopia does, including the actual Utopia and Plato's Republic.
>>24917830And now Europe is the one looking at us in horror while they desperately cling to their distinctly Fukuyaman End-of-History consensus. He’s always been European at heart after all, he claims Denmark is the ideal state and Americans are too crude and chaotic to ever truly be a “last men” kind of people like Europeans are. He even mentions Donald Trump himself in his book as a strongman type of mythic figure who will resist the mediocrity of liberalism. How right he was.
>>24917984Do you think Anders Breivik is aware that the current technocratic elite of America have pretty much embraced his ideology all these years later? except instead of killing white leftists who import immigrants they’re bombing people in Gaza and putting them under cyberpunk AI slavery
>>24911268>>I might want to add that the CIA and similar outfits were surprised when the Berlin Wall fell.LOL
>>24912257You're stupid and you only read the words and not their meanings. Why wouldn't you call it a nice name?
>>24911089China is a geopolitical threat only because of its large population and industrial capacity. Their standard of living is extremely low, with GDP per capita being on the level of a Balkan state like Serbia. The Chinese Dream is to teach your children English, get them into a good university, and then send them off to start a life in America. No Americans are moving to China with a similar dream.
>>24912293Sorry you have a shit family lmfao?
>>24912477>>We're already seeing industry flee towardsTard missed the entire 50 year of Amerishit history? Didn't even read the Jew Naomi Klein or Gnomo Chomo?
>>24914091>Religions have been thoroughly neutralized by liberalism.Yeah that's why I'm being woken up 24 times per day by the WALLALALALALA from the mosque in my previously 99% White working class borough.
>>24918049That isn’t genuine political power. Their own countries are useless and can’t even lift a finger for Gaza. The ability for Muslims to migrate to the West and create their own ethno-religious cleavages is a privilege conferred to them by the liberal constitutions of the West and they must live under that framework. Even when they seek political power they assimilate into Western strands of leftism that developed decades before they migrated to the West in the first place. Insofar that Muslims are subordinate to these ideologies in this way, they aren’t actually a threat to them. On the contrary their presence in these countries is a direct product of liberalism. It is the intended consequence of our system, not a defect or challenge to it. But of course no one in the West wants to admit this so liberalism will instead be defended against the “invading hoards” as you people characterize it so that it can continue to live another day and utterly fuck up your societies all the same.
>>24917658>Trump openly doesn't care about democracyWhat is this referencing? Why would anyone say something like this?
>>24918072Trump is not an ideologue. He’s a unique megalomaniac charismatic figure who only cares about himself. Liberal democracy is pretty superfluous to his interests which are to assert his power over others and thereby asserting America’s power over others. He denies the legitimacy of the 2020 election, he talks all the time about becoming president again for a 3rd term, he led an insurrection in the capitol after refusing to concede his loss. This is all unprecedented in American politics.
>>24918083>He denies the legitimacy of the 2020 election, he talks all the time about becoming president again for a 3rd term, he led an insurrection in the capitol after refusing to concede his loss. This is all unprecedented in American politics.Your brain is mush. Every single statement I quoted is in some way rooted in dishonesty and media propaganda with nothing anyone can say to dissuade you of any of it. Anyone as easily manipulated as you should just try to find the humility to shut up about politics and focus on manual labour or whatever.>This is all unprecedented in American politics.This is the most deranged part.
>>24918024>No Americans are moving to China with a similar dream.No, they are instead aiming to grab senior positions in various industries that is outsourced. And most of them just network, and give up, and then go home to be a designer instead of a worker. Or they aim to get a position as the senior member who speaks several languages, just like back in Europe. And a lot of people go because the job market back in Europe is even more fucked. 3-9 years of CCP is a pretty good look on that CV. Same if you manage to live in Japan or any very foreign country. >The Chinese DreamDoesn't exist because the periods has been different.Escaping the civil war was good enough, followed by escaping hte starvation for the following generation. Then at some point from Deng into Winnie you got the idea of getting rich.But that brings another problem: The CCP runs the country and the local government, and you don't just get that power if you are just rich. In some ways its worse than being a average citizens, because the rich knibby nail that sticks out WILL get hammered down, while the normal people might not.>>24918049>>24918059>privilege conferred to them by the liberal constitutions of the West and they must live under that frameworkAnd its interesting. Some of them eventually develop the balls to tell their parents to fuck off for trying to marry them of to their cuz. Some double down due seeing western degeneracy at close hand.Some of them get to live without interacting with other Muslims long enough to get genuinely redpilled, even if they culturally submit to Allah. What remains the most stark, is that the children will often go completely native and fall below replacement birth rate.
>>24918049Have you considered doing an ethnic cleansing?
>>24918619I mean the right wing is becoming quite intent on this and sooner or later they’re going to realize it’s liberalism that stands in the way
>>24918668The most humane thing to do is to round up all foreigners and airdrop them Warzone style over their home countries. Also need to airdrop their leftist enablers and the politicians who let this happen for good measure.
>>24918619Against an armed majority supported by the government, police, and army?
>>24910839China won, FaFu.
>>24912822In my opinion it's really that "ideology" substituted for religion in the 20th century following the "death of God." Ideology became like a secular religion and that is dying in the 21st century and it's not clear what is replacing it. There's also the phenomenon of algorithmic/personalized media as opposed to genuinely "mass media" of the 20th century.>>24918083Well, I see a "businessman" mentality in Trump. Doesn't really strike me as an "ideological" figure. >>24912959Probably one of the most robust ideologies in the world today is Islam (as in getting cadres of fanatics to sacrifice themselves for it), but you look at Syria, the Al Qaeda president trimmed his beard and put on a suit. In Iraq, the political parties there are not really defined by ideologies but by individual personalities and vibes, a lot like in the West. There are certain taboos like not insulting the Ayatollah Al-Sistani but Netflix culture has taken over the culture there as much as anywhere else. Saudi Arabia? It's not a liberal democracy, however:https://youtu.be/C_BZQkU5Cds>>24912380I think China has more problems than they're letting on. Also a lot of propaganda shows buildings, trains, etc. but I would look up Max Weber's concept of the "iron cage of instrumental rationality." What they've experienced is rapid industrialization which is a process that more developed countries went through 100 years ago, so they've been doing that with new technology. Of course that's big / impressive / waow (of course it is, because it's China, everything they do is big) but now they also get all the problems that come with that and still have hundreds of millions of people living in the countryside in dilapidated homes constructed during the Cultural Revolution surrounded by literal toxic waste.>>24912741That's not how dialectics work. It's not, you take a bit of X and a bit of Y and mash them together and that's the next step in ~history~. It's more like inner developments and self-movemnt leading to transformation like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly (or a wasp...).>>24915049Lady Gaga in Brazil in front of 2 million Global South zoomers was my 2025 Hegelian "history on horseback" moment:https://www.youtube.com/shorts/T0RsPSUQY_E
>>24918933>armed majorityIn Europe? Lmfao, get off the internet, retard
>>24919167so true anon. fukuyaman patriots are still in control. trust the plan
>>24919204Somali warlords don't really care about the laws, dumb American.
>>24910839my favorite /lit/ weekly threadand no, liberalism isn't the telos for humanity.The need for recognition isn't any different than any other need, like feeding yourself, and is dependant on culture. Chinese don't give a fuck about representation because they've been educated to not give a fuck and to let things happen. The west is extremely liberal because it exhibits the opposite. In reality, there is a certain amount of standards that you have to fulfill to be actually "perfect" for man, and those are ultimatly dependant on external factors and cultural appreciation.Fukuyama also ignores the marxist critiques of property. This creates a problem for him because it either has to make him posit that property rights in capitalism allow for political and social recognition, which isn't true, or that another system could potentially emerge with the same political and social rights, but with a different property system.>>24916694>in the sense that every individual has their own will and desires to execute it, which necessitates that the minimal amount of restraint be placed upon his ability to execute that willdesu the critiques made by marxists>The real question is, how many cycles of violence and regime change does a given polity need to go through until they reach equillibrium?Until we master nature to the very least, or break free from it. Which is why you can't have an actual "last man system" until you've actually come up with a way to negate potential externalities.>>24915358>And they do notBut then this only becomes a matter of when people stop believing. I mean, you could aswell have made the argument for the Soviet Union, but people stopped believing too.>>24915401Except this implies that the Chinese would want more "liberalism", which isn't the case.Xi is more authoritative and more communist than his predecessors, and he appears to be more popular.>>24917213>All of its opponents are nowhere close to matching the WestThey've ideologically won. Most people in Africa, in the middle east, or in India don't admire the west's liberalism. In fact, they vividly oppose it at the expense of remaining poor to some degree.The mere fact that opposition regimes like Singapore, the Saudis, Afghanistan, China, Cuba etc exist implies that people don't actually seek recognition as much as Fukuyama seems to believe. It _maybe_ points to the fact that recognition is contingent on culture, and is subject to ideology.>>24919167>There are certain taboos like not insulting the Ayatollah Al-Sistani but Netflix culture has taken over the culture there as much as anywhere elseDoesn't that indicate that people don't care though ? Or at least until their needs aren't questionned
>>24919288You vastly underestimate how many people in the world wish they could be liberal and democratic but are unable to because the dictatorships which rule them have sucked the will out of them. You think a regime like Iran's is gonna last forever when liberalism so blatantly outmatches it?
Fukashima even acknowledged that he couldn't explain National Socialism and that other illiberal societies like Spain and Portugal only changed due to massive external pressure. He doesn't sound all that convinced of his own theory.
>>24919523>>You vastly underestimate how many people in the world wish they could be liberal and democratic but are unable to because the dictatorships which rule them have sucked the will out of them.Why don't they just democratically overthrow them if they're the majority?
>third worlders going to a Lady Gaga concert is proof my ideology hasn't failedIt's so satisfying seeing libshits latch on to increasingly desperate copes in order to deny that no one really believes in their bullshit anymore
>>24919167Yeah, liberalism works so well that the entire right-wing is currently trying to instigate a Muslim Holocaust. Definitely not a system prone to failure and collapse without aggressive suppression of ideological challengers even the point of triggering global wars for it. Have you forgotten the 20th century already?
>>24919847How is that the fault of liberalism instead of a retarded religion that is going to conquer the world and shit down everyone's necks?
>>24919866Another example of liberalism's fragility is that fact that, even after actually conquering the world through decades of war and looting, everyone in these countries is still a retarded fucking paranoid crybaby who thinks the Armageddon is coming because someone opens a halal restaurant near their house, so clearly people are not as confident and happy with the results of liberalism as it claims
>>24910839yes, because charlie kirk was the rapture and were in the wrath before Christ returns in the clouds
>>24910976the banks that are the government own everything and tell companies what to do and especially how to be politically correct, this is communism
>>24911155the transition from honor culture to izzat culture comes when accountability is lost
>>24917658>>24917830>Trump scares him so much is because Trump openly doesn't care about democracyI dont think this is accurate. You could argue Trump himself doesn't care about democracy, but I am not even going to try and guess or understand whats going on in his head. But to say he is Openly against democracy feels incorrect. The Jan 6thers and all the people/events around that where framed around the idea that Trump won the election fair and square and everyone traying to make him stay president are merely saving democracy from those who cheater. You can question the narrative or the sincerity of the people making the argument, but the fact is the whole movement still leaned on democracy as the source of its legitimacy. Fukuyama had a point on this, about how even dictatorships frame things around how they are doing things in the peoples interest or are "more democratic" than the west and so on.When things would get interesting is if a president comes out and says he doesn't care that he lost the re-election, he is staying in power anyways because his policies are morally/ideologic better than the winners and the democratic process can go fuck itself
>>24919880>Armageddon is coming because someone opens a halal restaurant near their housethe Bible commands Christians not to eat food sacrificed to idols, not because the food is magically cursed, but because it gives scandal, and not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers as if Christ has a concordat with allah the moon goddess where we eat allahs food and Christ gets to fuck allahs pussy like Christ is a human king like solomon. but if the government demands you eat at the halal restaurant then you Romans 13 have to
>>24911133agreed with this. you could technically build and map millions of future world models and in none of them the world would turn out to be a static liberal democracy. challenging its premises, I'd argue that liberal democracy is a sweet ground for radicals and extremists to create tension and blaming the current macro issues on the system that they're in. The one secret that most communists keep from other people, while gathering together as a "secret society" doing esoteric stuff, is that the people in the communist system realize that the system does not work, and people outside of the system usually long for such system because it feels utopian and achievable with low friction. However, as a result of the 20th century, we could easily point out to this fallacy and explain why any revolution that attempted to overthrow the government and establish a communist regime ever ended doing so with 'low friction'. Not only that, but the people under the Soviet Regime not the Chinese, or Cuban regime liked communism either.can, liberal democracy, in any way, shape or form, be static? No, highly unlikelywould it most likely be overthrown by some other utopian regime that offers a panacea for the issues rising from liberal democracy? yes, as this is what we are currently seeing in the modern West> Fukuyama was wrong
>>24919880>everyone in these countries is still a retarded fucking paranoid crybaby who thinks the Armageddon is coming because someone opens a halal restaurant near their house,Sure, but what would have happened if someone opened a halal restaurant in the west 100 years ago? Pretty sure the people impotently bitching on the the web would have done far more 100 years ago about said restaurant. >clearly people are not as confident and happy with the results of liberalism as it claimsLiberalism as a self propagating meme (in the original Dawkins sense of the word) doesn't require people to be happy with it or confident in it. Arguably confidence in asystem would be a determent, since confidence leads to complacency, which leads to being more at risk from internal and external threats. Similarly with happiness. Ideally from the systems selfish "point of view" it would want people to be unhappy, but believe they can become happy by getting more of the system. "If only things where more liberal, then I will finally be happy". It makes a self reinforcing mechanism
>>24919939For the record, if you told any liberal in the past how the world would turn out after the dominance of liberal democracy, they would blow their brains out and recant their ideology immediately. Only Marquis de Sade would enjoy the 21st century.
>>24919965One of the beautiful horrors of life to be honest. You do not need to understand your role in the universe to properly fulfill it. In fact often your ignorance to your role makes you better at carrying it out.
>>24919523>but are unable to because the dictatorships which rule them have sucked the will out of themNot true. If that were to be the case, many democratic third world countries would be voting for more and more liberal candidates at each election. And this isn't the case.>You think a regime like Iran's is gonna last forever when liberalism so blatantly outmatches it?Ironic given that Afghanistan is now in the hands of the Taliban. Iran will probably fall because it's unable to properly adress the needs of its citizens, but a new regime will show up and I'm not quite sure it'll be liberalI mean, it's somewhat like Irak. And despite intervening in it and investing ressources, it's still an illiberal shithole.
>>24919523>wish they could be liberal and democraticNo, they don't.A big redpill is to read a book like the Kite Runner, but from the Islamist POV. The uncle character do not care one bit for his fellow citizens, instead its a butthurt over the fact the local religious community outreach him, and as a result he has to show moderation in social gatherings in order to not be a second class citizen. He then decides fleeing the country is a sensible decision. With such a reading you are not reading about a honorary visionary who wants to absorb the nicer sider of the cold war, but about a 2nd class citizen unable to do his civic duty because he isn't willing. To some degree i don't think any of the South American hellholes or many of the Russian resource extraction villagers are any different. Its all just envy.
>>24920595Very good point that most people overlook. The average 3rd worlder is much, much more interested in abdicated altogether instead of fighting for what they care for. Why is Syria run by an Al-Qaeda offshoot government? Because they were the only ones willing to fight. Islamists are the only ones picking up the guns. Where are these loud and proud secularists who hate how their societies are run? They're in the bars and nightclubs. They're not the ones who want to run things. It's the same story for Iran and how they handed all their grievances produced from the Shah's rule to the Mullahs, because naturally all that these liberals want to do is wear miniskirts and fuck, they don't want to run a government regime These 3rd world liberals don't deserve praise from anyone. They aren't unfortunate victims oppressed by strong regimes. They're not loud voices silenced by overwhelming forces. They're fucking cowards who don't want to fight for what they believe in because what they believe in is inherently an ideology that endorses the very same castration, passivity and complacency that they demonstrate.
Liberalism is an ex girlfriend we romanticized because we liked her pizza but really she was always a toxic lying bitch.
>>24918024Your talking about an average across 1.4 billion people. China has more people as wealthy as Germans than Germany or France combined. It may soon have more people of average American wealth than Americans, if they haven't already reached that goal (the last numbers I've seen are old). They could remain as poor as Russia and STILL have 400,000,000 people with average incomes above the USA.
I think Fukuyama is just too entangled with cold war mentality and he just has too many stakes on liberalism succeeding and being better than every alternative, so he must make his theory conform to his idea that Liberalism is everlasting, eternal and the final stage of human development. He and most of the people here can't even conceive of an alternative that isn't communist/fascism, just like a 14th philosopher wouldn't be able to conceive of anything other than feudalism or some crazy millenarian chrsitian bullshit alternative. History and human development changes things in unprecedented ways that we cannot predict and just because a retarded millenarian cult (marxism) was a total embarassing failure doesn't mean your pet ideology is perfect and eternal.
>>24922712Boomers who got to experience meteoric economic growth, easily secure their spot at the top of the system, and lived during an era where the shared legacy of Christendom was so holding together shared culture and values are just incapable of understanding the degree to which neoliberalism has created a dystopian hellscape.This is why they are perplexed that young people, particularly young men, are rebelling against it and want to see it dead.
Nukes will fly during the secular age
Liberal democracy survives because of huge amounts of cheap slop on the shelves, and it’s already struggling to provide that, let alone when the non renewable resources start to run out.
>>24923095It's true, Boomers still use the term "meritocracy" as if it is a good thing and likely to inspire anything but revulsion in the young.
>>24923156Why would it be a bad thing?
>>24912002Our Greatest Allies who we're told are the most essential pillar of Western Civilization weigh in on the current debate on decline
>>24923616>that picoh look, the nazis were right, how about that
>>24923156>nooo u can't judge me by my merits and competencyGod will, you subhuman parasite.
>>24919288>desu the critiques made by marxistsHonestly, Marxists are just liberals with a proletarian tint. If your political ideology centers around the expansion of liberty, you must be a liberal, or some off-shoot thereof. I think the staunchly capitalist types would baulk at the idea, but it's true.>Until we master nature to the very least, or break free from it. Which is why you can't have an actual "last man system" until you've actually come up with a way to negate potential externalities.True, but man outside of nature is no longer man. That's another species entirely.
>>24923616Liberalism doesn't account for Israel. This is a genuine problem. We're symbiotically attached to a state and an ethnic group that is willing to abandon liberal democracy to protect itself. Zionists are embedded within every major institution of the Western world and steer our foreign policy, domestic culture, etc. When Israel eventually goes into full fascist Kahanist mode, which is not unlikely considering their government is already full of them, how is liberalism going to account for it given that Jews will refuse to condemn it because they value their people more than anything? What happens to the liberal West when Israel, the country that propagates itself as the "center of Western civilization" and is upheld as such by the global elite, becomes a technocratic fascist state and actually finds success being one? It's so fucking absurd how much of a blind spot Israel is for liberals Here's Yuval Harari acknowledging that the real threat of Israel becoming fascist as per its current trajectory isn't that it will be a failure for the Jews, but that it will actually work and prove that kind of government can be successful contrary to our post-WW2 end-of-history mythos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp-g8dpOrP4
>>24910839Fukuyama is wrong because his whole starting premise is wrong. There’s no reason to believe modern history even operates as an ideological project. There’s no reason to think that these technocrats, capitalists, scientists, etc are working for the sake of creating a distinctly liberal society internationally. The technological development and material advance occurs first and foremost, and ideology is an afterthought. This means liberalism is not even necessary for the aims of technology hence why these technocrats like Thiel, Musk, Karp, etc are increasingly critical of liberalism and loathe the Democratic Party, seeing liberalism as a roadblock to their aims. In the end, technocrats will have no issue conquering liberal society then shedding this regime type entirely. Fukuyama wrote a whole fucking book about how this could happen with transhumanism but he just pretends it doesn’t exist. It is perfectly conceivable that a techno-fascist America will come into existence, countries like Israel are already eager to get there with the aid of other illiberal countries like the UAE and even China to some extent. Look around you today — endless AI slop, rampant financial corruption, increased racism and hostility, demographic displacement, widespread gambling, genocides and surveillance states, the return of territorial wars. Where do you think this is all headed, exactly? Liberal democracy making a firm rebound and creating a more peaceful world? Give me a fucking break.
>>24924529>There’s no reason to think that these technocrats, capitalists, scientists, etc are working for the sake of creating a distinctly liberal society internationally.Except them being well documented as doing so for hundreds of years?
>>24910839We will end the same way we began: in abject barbarism.
I do think the idea that Liberalism could fall from within is very compelling, but I also think it can be intertwined with the idea that religion can challenge Liberalism in a major way.I say this because it sure does look like a decent chunk of prominent Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike, are currently behaving like 5th Columns and trying to bring about the downfall of the American government. Prots like Stephen Wolfe, Catholics like Deneen and Vermeule. They all seem to have some kind of dictatorship or monarchy in mind, but instead of fighting against the Liberal state from without, they're working to subvert it from within, getting into its innards to pull apart and disarm the things that would prevent their vision from coming to pass.We'll see if they succeed, but I think they are a rebuttal to the idea that religion no longer poses a challenge to Liberalism. Maybe religion, or at least Christianity, has just changed its tactics.
>>24923545>>24923883Because it's rigged as fuck and just a rat race to force everyone, even elites, to grind towards "growth" (which is just growth in consooming, courting ecological disaster and leaving everyone miserable).The era of meritocracy in neoliberalism saw a massive REDUCTION in economic mobility. Explain that one.
Liberalism is fine in theory, but the way it was implemented involved people pretending that racial, national and gender identities didn’t exist, rather than acknowledging that some people genuinely identify with these labels. This is how you get the “melting pot” mentality where you make people from different groups share a space, which results in chaos, since it’s like making people share a garden without fences. People from different groups can get along fine as long as they have their own spaces, but the fact that a lot of modern liberalism sought to destroy these individual spaces to create one big shared space just creates conflict and resentment. For liberalism to work, it needs to respect people’s rights to have their own in-groups. Otherwise, it becomes no different from Communism.
>>24924683I feel religion in many ways got the last laugh over atheism. Gen Z seems to be turning towards spirituality in one form or another, which is an obvious reaction against the secular nihilism popular over the last few decades.
>>24924701>The era of meritocracy in neoliberalism saw a massive REDUCTION in economic mobility.It's better at maintaining internal coherence because it's more efficient at distributing resources in a just way.
>>24923950Kinda, marx was Hegelian, and Hegel was as liberal as one could get. Really, Marx is just Fukuyama but with a material explanation of recognition rather than a purely right-based one.
>>24910976"Capitalism" doesn't exist. The way it is usually deployed is as a theological concept of everything going on right now. For the liberals, it is distinguished from the past as some epochal change that justifies social inequality in a way that it wasn't justified before. For its self-proclaimed opponents (and it more or less has always been a pejorative term), it identifies the present as something distinct to be overcome. Nobody has a great sense of what the hell it is. The best attempt at a definition I've heard is it is the regime that turns government debt into a risk free asset. THAT is a very distinct historical political order, government debt has only ever been a risky investment until the modern era. But every other definition is very muddy. The main point of the word for its users is either to politically legitimize the present order by claiming there is a particular socio-economic "system" they are the architects of that is producing abundance, or to attempt to politically delegitimize the ruling class by suggesting they are in some way restraining abundance.
>>24924800Efficient at what, maximizing suicides and other 'deaths of despair' and 'muh GDP number go up?' Making sure that most income comes from simply owning capital rather than working? Maximizing the number of billionaires paying a lower marginal tax rate than teachers? Maximizing the chances that the children of elites remain elites no matter how stupid they are, while also maximizing the amount of grind everyone below needs to grab on of the remaining spots on the ladder above the abyss? Maximizing degeneracy and genial mutilation? Maximizing obesity and sexlessness? Yeah, it's been pretty great at that.
i think you guys will enjoy this
>>24924885Everyone knows what capitalism means, it means that people are free to trade, choose their jobs and create businesses. This may seem too "vague" to you but only because you take those things for granted. In Soviet Union you were not free to create a business or choose your job.
>>24924999Good lord
>>24925003What a childish understanding of capitalism. Grow out of your Reagan-thatcher brainwashing already.
>>24924683So long as these gambling companies like Polymarket and Kalshi are allowed to thrive and not be snuffed out of existence by the current conservative ruling class then there is simply no reason to believe any spectrum of politics is serious about anything at all but cashing out before the ship sinks which all the top people can probably foresee. That’s my bare minimum. Confiscate the wealth of these piece of shit zoomer gambler degenerates or watch your civilization crumble. If you can’t do such a basic thing like that, then you can’t do anything.
>>24924999If I remember correctly on top of my head, there has been several assassinations inside of the Russian state leadership. But no oligarchs yet. >damage to populistslmao. Some of them even doubled down on the anti Russian angle
>>24924546Really? Those Nazi scientists who eventually worked for the U.S. were working on behalf of liberalism? No, they were working for themselves, they were working to demonstrate the possibilities of science that they understood better than everyone else. What this science and technology was used for didn’t matter to them and it won’t matter to the technocrat class right now that’s looting the world
liberalism is the final stage of the problematic of political ideology but that doesnt make it a genuine solution to the paradoxes of sociological knowledge
>>24925003That isn't a qualitative difference from the past and extremely vague. The Soviet Union established its political legitimacy on not being "capitalism", so even supposing that the state ideology of the USSR was "we don't want people to freely create businesses", it wouldn't be evidence of anything except that that is what the soviets thought would distinguish them from the "capitalism" in their heads. The question is what qualitatively changed between the past and the epoch that is organized in a way people have come to call "capitalism". There have been academics who have made arguments about what those changes were, probably most notably Robert Brenner. But I don't find them convincing, partly because they tend to rest on really broad and inaccurate descriptions of what the past was. The other key clue to the fact that capitalism is largely a concept to struggle over modern political legitimacy is that insofar as historians have tried to figure out when capitalism started, it tends to be because they are already familiar with the word and they're trying to figure out what it is. So we inherit the word as a point of political and philosophical struggle, and then academics go looking for some object to fit the word to. But the word started as a pejorative one anyways. Ironically it was first used by French royalists who were decrying the financiers of the state because they believed it disrupted the sovereignty of the crown. They called the financiers "capitalists". Later, socialists took a similar sense of the word as restraining political freedom, but instead of using it in support of the king's sovereign power they suggested that there was a "capitalism" that restrained the freedom of laborers.
>>24925003>people are free to trade, choose their jobs and create businesses.but thats just a republic, you could still have price controls, economic planning, collusion, and mafia activity, and all that could easily tend to interrupt and contract the effective sphere of pure capital circulation as a habitus for the social
>>24919911It's such an insult to our intelligence that they expect us to believe some random tranny chaser faggot killed Charlie Kirk in broad daylight and then never reveal any deeper motives besides "he didn't like him" and while Trump's base is slowly fragmenting Erika Kirk is doing conferences with Bari Weiss. What a fucking joke.
>>24925897>But the word started as a pejorative one anyways. Ironically it was first used by French royalists who were decrying the financiers of the state because they believed it disrupted the sovereignty of the crown. They called the financiers "capitalists". Later, socialists took a similar sense of the word as restraining political freedom, but instead of using it in support of the king's sovereign power they suggested that there was a "capitalism" that restrained the freedom of laborers.another of the many cases of contradiction between the historical development of capital, originating at the outskirts and crossroads as a parasitism on exchanges, and the theoretical view of marxism, as an exchange of souls forged in factory.
the actual question is whether commodity fetishism as an analogy for intellectual activity sufficiently equips to achieve self-consciousness about ideology (a self-consciousness tested solely on the sociological rigor of the notion of "mode of production"), or whether the dialectical scheme itself is not a representative of the dominion of phantasms, servitude and ignorance.
>>24912725it's all just a big club
>>24925998And no one really cares. Our current president was always one the biggest members of this club and a known associate of these depraved freaks, and he has been enshrined in history by his supporters as a rebel, an outside, a conqueror. It means nothing to anyone that we're ruled by corrupt pedophiles, rapists, con artists, etc. We just sit back and accept it as the goycattle ramble on about how people like Trump are gonna save the West by pardoning financial criminals and Mossad agents
>>24920227>And despite intervening in it and investing ressources, it's still an illiberal shithole.Iraq was beautiful and the most developed country in the Middle East before it was raped and left as a shadow of its former self by the US and now you say the problem is that it wasn't liberal enough. lmao. If only you knew the extent of the retardation in your statement. Investing a few billion doesn't do shit to a destabilized nation and almost a million or more lives lost.
>>24925406Say something retard.
>>24919167Hate to break it you but zoomers are just as willing to shake their ass to pop stars in illiberal countries too and they'd never revolt against the kings that rule them. Liberal democracy is not synonymous with moral degeneracy, it just actively endorses it
>>24923954Nationalism and Liberalism went together from at least ~1848-1945, if not earlier. Left-Liberalism has sort of progressed from skepticism of monarchy and opposition to arbitrary power -> skepticism of big business and opposition to robber barons -> skepticism of the nation and trying to prevent different groups in society from oppressing each other. It's easy to see how the third stage here is fundamentally a response to Nazism, since so much of Liberalism's legitimacy is derived from victory in WW2. Israel is problematic from a post-war perspective, sure - doubly so because the Jewish experience is meant to serve as the moral foundation for skepticism towards the nation - but I don't see how it's fundamentally different from, say, 19th century America in its conflict with the Indians, unless you want to argue that Liberal Democracy didn't exist until after WW2.
>>24917213>Irantwo more weeks>Russiatwo more weeks>North Koreashape of things to come>VenezuelaMeme country>Cubait's still around>ChinaVietnam is literally operating like mini China
I still think the United States as we know it is going to end in our lifetimes and Liberalism will end with it. It will either become a thoroughly illiberal state, and no longer a democracy, or the government in Washington will collapse and North America will balkanize.When the USA as we know it goes, that's it for Liberalism, because America IS the Liberal nation-state par excellence. It is the nation that put the Enlightenmente into practice, that digested the ideas of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and others into an ethos that governs the nation to this day, even as the founding stock of Americans has diminished as a share of the overall population. Absolute personal liberty is what drives the United States and makes it tick, and this is what it exports around the world through its hegemony.Without America, Liberalism dies.
>>24926979I hope it doesn't so people like you continue to whine.
does anybody actually know a person under 30 who likes democracy or liberalism
>The classical philosophers – Plato and Aristotle, the Stoics and the Epicureans – took for granted that no more than a few would ever live the good life. In mystery religions such as Mithraism, only an elite of initiates could hope for salvation. Enlightenment thinkers like to see themselves as modern pagans, but they are really latter-day Christians: they too aim to save mankind. The ancient pagans did not believe that the mass of mankind could be saved. Or, for that matter, that it was worth saving. Believing that one way of life is best for all of mankind and viewing history as a struggle to achieve it, Marxism and neo-liberalism are post-Christian cults. Beyond Christendom, no one has ever imagined that ‘world communism’ or ‘global capitalism’ could be ‘the end of history’. The Positivists believed that with the advance of knowledge humanity would come to share the same values; but that is because they had inherited from Christianity the belief that history is working to a finale in which all are saved. Take away this residue of faith, and you will see that while science makes progress, humanity does not.The whole thesis of history having an end or an objective seems like a retarded non-starter. The life-cycle view of history doesn't make sense, nor the idea that historical periods exist. These are just pedagogical and verbal conveniences that people started randomly using as a principle of historical interpretation
>>24927154All women and about 50% of men.
>>24927154Almost any supposed critic or anti-liberal you can name will base a lot of their ideas on appeals to liberal ideals.Putin, China, Iran, Trump, Hitler, Mussolini all did this. They're all basically liberal. We have to go back to the 1800s to find any significant remnant of real anti-liberal sentiment. Nicholas of Russia was liberal, his dad was not.
>>24927169I really don't think it is about convenience. These are political-theological constructs that work to support or undermine the regime. In a way I think it is often reflexively in our nature to think this way, it is a part of our social behavior. We tell stories to try to influence each other and reduce our own anxieties about being socially dependent. So stories about periodization in history and what history is "moving towards" are means of convincing other people about what the world is factually like, in order to influence them to behave in predictable and hopefully beneficial ways. In that way, liberal stories about modernity that embrace fairly Hegelian or German Idealist concepts of history being the unfolding of human freedom or something like that are just directly theological stories that claim what justifies the current regime is that they defeated the past, which was much more nasty and brutish. The story they tell is that the immediate past was "feudal", it was built on arbitrary authority and was opposed to freedom, and so even if there is still arbitrary authority and lack of freedom it is only because it is the price we pay to enjoy the abundance of the liberal world order. Unlike the "feudal" past, the liberal world order wants maximum freedom and abundance, so insofar as it isn't fulfilling its promises it is merely because it hasn't achieved its goals of total freedom and abundance yet. This is much more legitimate than the "feudal" order, which actively opposed these things. So modernity (or "capitalism" in other terms) is justified. And of course the left opponents of the regime just periodize "capitalism" as something insufficient for freedom and abundance, and an era waiting to be put into the past.But in reality the past is much more complex than this simple story, and the simple story influences how we investigate the past and what we find important in it. And the present moment is even more complex than we can often imagine, because we are always busy trying to construct the future.
>>24927343>>24927169Though I did want to ask where the excerpt is from. Is that Fukuyama? I haven't actually read him, I always hear people saying he is misrepresented. If that passage is Fukuyama I'd say I largely agree with what he is saying there. Although I'm still trying to distinguish how much I just project Christian eschatology on things and how much it is actually important to understanding them. I think there is a very monotheistic theology in the modern western philosophical tradition, and in some ways it is obviously in congruence with Christianity but in others it feels genuinely independent. What it seems to imagine isn't just the path to salvation, sometimes it isn't even really about salvation per se. It seems to place an emphasis on the rationality of assimilation, that there is one true metaphysics and it can be apprehended by anyone. This also provides a justification for excluding or punishing infidels, because once the true metaphysics has been demonstrated to them they can't plead ignorance. They've denied their own human reason, and so put themselves outside of history and the world. But while this monotheistic streak seems typical among western philosophers, the nature of the monotheism is variable. Liberalism and communism can't be entirely reconciled, they can only tolerate each other and defer an existential conflict.
>>24924969More efficient at maintaining internal coherence, meaning there's less economic mobility because people get settled into income brackets that suit their capabilities in relation to the system. What you're talking about is part result of industrialization, part result of unnatural population numbers and densities running on for way too long.
>>24927368Why would the passage be Fukushima when it's a direct critique of that gook's thesis? No, I won't tell you where it's from
>>24927154Yes, women and faggots love it but young men are now skeptical of this whole arrangement of “your civilization should be destroyed for the sake of the stock market and pride parades”
>>24925905Just because you believe in an Utopia it doesn't mean everybody does.
>>24926106The middle east was better before islam.
>>24926769If Israel is problematic from a post-war perspective then that's all that matters, because the whole post-war perspective is that everything pre-war was a horrific age of barbarism that humanity progressed against. We are actively taught to resent our countries, our nations and our cultures. Even the post-war era isn't good enough anymore considering the 50s and 60s were demonized too. It's as if liberalism believes the world prior to 2015 should be abolished and we should permanently remain in that year
>>24927757actually you dont know what my beliefs are from that statement, it being a criticism of yours rather than a statement of ideology in its own right. what you proposed are the conditons by which a republic could at least allow citizens to conduct free market capitalism but which would do nothing in itself to prevent buyers and sellers from colluding to obstruct capitalistic dynamics.
>>24927341>Almost any supposed critic or anti-liberal you can name will base a lot of their ideas on appeals to liberal ideals.really? personally, i've seen a surprising number of guys claim support for a monarchy
>>24928524Ask them why and they'll use the same appeals as everyone else. They'll say monarchy is better at giving citizens divine personal sovereignty etc, appeals to modern liberal religious dogma derived from Christianity.Being pro-monarchy, pro-Hitler etc is a reaction to the fact that "democracy" in practice is the most anti-human, illiberal, oppressive and demonic system ever devised. The same guys will post don't step on snek memes while begging to be ruled by a king.
>>24929062But that state of affairs is sufficient to refute liberal democracy. This is literally Deneen's entire point in Why Liberalism Failed. That men were, ironically, freer, and at more liberty, when Liberalism WASN'T all-powerful, and that "Liberalism" is itself a sham label for our current state of affairs.
>>24929078If you use the word to reference both the original, classical ideal and the Machiavellian subversion of it of course that will be confusing.As an ideologically motivated propagandist Fukuyama has incentives to conflate the two and contribute to the subversion of the word.The entire world now agrees x is desirable. He and the vast military machines he aligns with want to frame it as if x is only achievable through their methods. Given that's true then you have to forgive their failures.
>>24929096Is it any wonder, then, that the barbarians are at the gates? That the Zoomers are out for blood? They're right to be so.Fukuyama has the feel of an old maid in her bed these days. He's comfortable with liberal democracy and neoliberal capitalism, it's treated HIM well, and he fears a deviation from it. But why not deviate from it, if you're young right now and can't afford a house, can't get a good job? Why not rise up and destroy the United States, destroy the EU, destroy NATO? It's either that or be a slave to the system that has become increasingly solidified and oppressive.I would be perfectly happy utterly destroying American hegemony and the entire postwar order, even if the result is another dark age. I'd rather take my chances in the abyss, than live in THIS fake and gay world any longer. And I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. I think we are many, actually.
>>24929101>at the gatesBy which you mean having all important government positions and being the majority of kids in schools?
>>24929101A violent reaction to any authority involved is understandable and inevitable to some degree but history says that almost always only makes things worse. When the barbarians are ravaging the lands the ones who survive and reclaim power after are the ones with fortified positions. In the demographic and food security game that's the Amish types even if they don't stockpile any weapons.
>>24929101>Why not rise up and destroy the United States, destroy the EU, destroy NATO?Yeah bro just destroy everything without having a plan on how to fix it, engulf our society in a storm of aimless tard rage that'll make us all poorer and more retarded, that'll fix things.
>>24929101The whole reason this mass uprising you fantasize about doesn’t happen is because the conditions of life under liberal democracy are so good and so hypnotic that no one cares to do anything. All their disillusionment is instead siphoned onto figures like Trump who claim to rebel against the system even while he currently runs it and has always been a part of it. Good luck convincing anyone to deviate from our fake and gay political situation
On today’s episode of “liberalism is totally going to survive the 21st century and those parasitical oligarchs are actually cool people who are evidence of liberalism’s superiority”
>>24930646Most things that right-wingers don't like about the EU are derived from the ECHR and related treaties, and dubious judicial interpretations of it at that. It would remain the law of the land even if the EU dissolved.
>>24930865Do you think they're smart enough to understand this
>>24931134Sure, once they know that the law in in fact due to an interpretation of the ECHR and not a law passed by the EU. The EU loves to regulate things, so it's not unreasonable to assume that an overly left-wing policy being implemented in multiple countries is in fact due to an EU regulation, as opposed to a treaty. The bigger issue is that it's hard to leave the ECHR morally speaking, since it's so tied up with WW2.
>>24929592I'm partially convinced that everyone who espouses this viewpoint, along with related viewpoints ("don't go to college or join the military or work in the government or work in corporations because they're all pozzed and zogged and DEI and woke"), are some kind of psyop by an adversary nation, as they encourage people to just check out of the system entirely and/or deliberately burn everything down in a fit of vague anti-system anger rather than take meaningful action, enter the corridors of power, or work to improve the country.
>>24930646The EU would be awesome if it wasn’t so gay and if Europe hadn’t committed democide TWICE before forming it
>>24931172Yes I'm going to ruin my life just to "improve" something (which can't be improved because there's 1000 "New European" browns flooding it for every 1 "improver").
>>24930865It's the same project with the same motivations and justifications, the most practical label for the project as a whole including EFTA etc is usually "EU" unless you're getting into specific details.Shengen is worse than ECHR. In Britain hostile subversives can somehow use the ECHR to block anti-immigration actions while in Denmark that doesn't work. That means it's about how the local system uses appeals to treaties instead of the treaties themselves.
>>24931236>while in Denmark that doesn't workYeah that's why you don't have any Jeets or Arabs or Somali machete gangs right?
>>24931246https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/62576/denmark-unprecedented-measures-to-signal-to-migrants-they-are-not-welcome
>>24930646You don't get it. This chimpout proves Fukuyama CORRECT, because technocrats like Musk are essentially saying "The EU is not liberal ENOUGH, they are not democratic ENOUGH, they aren't truly elected officials but an overbearing bureaucracy" etc etc. Running in circles within the issues of liberal democracy still stalls us within liberal democracy. We have completely lost ourselves within it and use its language, ethics and worldview without end. That's what the "end of history" actually looks like. Fukuyama never said it would be peaceful or pretty. It's quite frustrating, because that's the point of liberalism -- to frustrate and retard society forever.
>>24929062iirc the most common feature that appealed to them was the idea that a monarch, at least a good one, was beholden to his people and would therefore produce good results for society in the form of the standard of living, culture, etc.
>>24931172it's nice that you point that out because a lot of that is irrefutably true. a lot of people don't realise it right now but some researchers (like nel bonilla) believe that we are in some sort of a spanish civil war equivalent prior to world war two right now. it shouldn't have to be said but the scale of non-militaristic warfare being waged against the west right now by china and russia mostly is so enormous that it's difficult to fathom. they have actively been engaged in it for decades with things like active measures or china's united front enacting the three warfares philosophy. i seriously recommend everybody in this thread learn about what russia and china are doing to sabotage the western world in virtually every way possiblewe really are in a prelude to another world war right now
>>24931373They don't even need to try very hard, since the government tries its hardest to sabotage our future as it is. Russian shilling amounts to little more than "Hey, your government is of lying to you... maybe they are lying to you about Russia too and Russia is not so bad after all, hmm? Did you know we have TIGERS?"
>>24931382That's what's so devious about it though. In the West we have no problem criticizing our governments and societies, and these people specialize in doing so to make their alternatives seem appealing (even though, for all the problems the West has, the other options are way shittier).
>>24910839Is it uncoof to write a sequel to someone else's book?I feel like he is unwilling to follow some of his thoughts to their natural conclusions For example he clearly thinks egalitarianism is shit and genetics are real but seems to want to avoid get into it. Also I feel like it be more appropriate to take a more neutral tone and view the topic of Liberalism as a "self propagating system" to us Kaczynski term, or "Meme" to use Dawkins's, rather than the "aww shucks, ain't it just good and great' style Fukuyama uses in his book. He also treats capitalism, democracy, and liberalism as independent concepts that just so happen to work nicely with each other, but it seems to me to be more that liberalism is downstream of capitalism, and democracy is down stream of both. Which is to say the higher stream principles take priority in a seeming conflict of interests between the principles. Something that can explain away the paradoxes of "what if the people vote away democracy" or "the paradox of tolerance", because the answer become its not in the interest of capitalism and therefore not permitted. I wonder if he would genuinely disagree on that assessment, or if he simply again avoided it because its not a great talking point propaganda wise. I really need to read Hegal and more philosophy in general (and more history) before I write like I know anything about anything though..
People seem to think this is the first time liberalism has ever happened.It's just one side of history's oscillation.The timeline of every civilization basically goes something like this:90% conservative (builds everything) -> 10% liberal (destroys everything) -> *dies* -> repeatWhat people call "conservatism" is simply the acceptance of the hard biological reality of humans as animals. "Liberalism" is the desperate attempt to escape such a reality which by nature cannot succeed for at least who knows maybe another million years.
>>24931934Oh and the writing is already on the wall it ain't gonna happen this time so don't get any ideas
>>24931353FALSENVKE. This is just the good old divide and conquer strategy. Governments of smaller nations are weaker and easier to coerce, while the EU is hard to coerce. It is the wet dream of oligarchs and technocrats to fragment the EU, because then they will be able to do anything to its member nations.
>>24931373>nel bonillaThanka for the rabbit hole.
>>24931934The building of the American empire into a global hegemonic power happened under the rather progressive new deal and its decline is currently happening under an increasingly dumb "conservative" America that insists things like cheap education is woke and bad. I dont think this model, which rests on a paperthin analysis of the roman empire really makes any sense.
>>24931373Yes, Russia and China are trying to sabotage the west. But it is also true that the Elites of the weat have stopped working for the people (if they ever were). Flooded with immigration, suffering a huge housing crisis, decreasing quality of life across the board and a grim forecast for kids and young adults, what do you expect the people to do? They are trapped between two swords.
>>24931967>do anythingLike destroy their culture, language and genetics?This is the worst horseshit ever. To fight against imaginary Romans you want to build Rome and force it to enslave you.>oligarchs and technocratsHave *all* proven to be more competent and trustworthy than the EU. The most insanely corrupt, murderous examples you can mention are humanist saints compared to the EU.
>>24910968The earth is not going to last until the heat death of the universe. Listen, I know that all hegelianism is just meaningless nonsense when seen in the light of physiscs and reality in general, but Fukuyama's point is ultimately hegelian and therefore belongs to the fictional realm of history. Liberalism best satisfies people's deepest desires for recognition.
>>24911089I like how tankie retards who bitch and moan about "neoliberalism" eeverywhere but clap and squeel like drooling seals at China post-Deng. Truly the weakest people on this planet. One could turn you into paste and it would be about as ethically inconsequential as putting bread dough in an oven and thereby killing the yeast.
>>24932003>Like destroy their culture, language and genetics?This is precisely what capitalist elites are doing. Less culture means more consumer drones, a stronger casino-gulag. Language is an economic-internet globalization issue, regardless of who is in power (as long as the internet exists, language will simplify and decay). Genetics can be interpreted as cultural roots (see point on culture again) or biological genetics, in which case weaker nations mean it's easier to coerce them to import foreign human-cattle workers.>>24932003>Have *all* proven to be more competent and trustworthy than the EUSaid no one ever. These technocrats belong to no culture and respect nothing. They live in a power fantasy, the world is their sandbox and they are the kings, who see themselves over "small and petty" things like culture, tradition, customs, wisdom of the ages or values. Yes, many european elites are traitorous, with alleigances to america, russia, china or straight up criminal syndicates and mafia-corporations. But an united europe remains stronger (economically and gepolitically) than separated. Without Europe we would still be flooded with immigrants, because the ones mandating their import is not politicians themselves, but the economic elites that cobtrol them. In a Just world the people will rise up and execute the whole everyone belonging to the high class, but this is not a just world, so we will keep sucking foreign (american, muslim, etc) cock.
>>24912380It's also worth noting that Marx talks about communism as much as christians talk about heaven. That is, very little.
>>24919167Ideology has always been a religion. Just try to define religion and you will understand that it's not so simple.
>>24923950>Marxists are just liberals with a proletarian tint.Yeah. The only actual alternative to liberalism is something like reactionary theocracies or buddhism. An empire that preaches self-abnegation and dispassionate striving instead of endless passionate struggle is the only real antithesis to liberalism. But Humans are probably just incapable of doing this on a biological level. The Will has tge race to firmly in its jaws.
>>24932014You are the absolute worst, far worse than any of the boogeymen in your evil fantasies.
>>24932041Good goy
>>24911034>For some pessimistic or some climate change shitty reasonYou should care even about climate change even more if you have kids anon. The summers have gotten worse in my lifetime. You don't even need the IPCC predictions. It's palpable. Also it'll make more niggers into refugees.
>>24931934Having rights AND citizenship merely for living in a state is a thing that has only happened since the Napolic Wars and Industrial revolution.Please, for the love of god get off your doom horse and argue against it.
We are on the cusp of a world war that will be centered around the ongoing technological paradigm shift and the grand prize will be world domination. Really surprising more people aren catching on to this.
>>24931350And? You have fucking anti-tank barriers at all Christmas markets lmfao retard.
>>24932247Because WW1 didn't lead to thatWW2 led to that, but it also lead to the victors splitting their shares, meaning no true monopoly.
>>24932247right now the entire western world and east asia are about to sync up and have a sovereign debt crisis all at the same time.this is what will lead to the collapse and new world being born
>>24932440debt is made up. Rather that going into a global war over debt, the big players will meet one day at a nice hotel, perhaps a villa, and settle their differences, all while drinking some 1968 Gran Reserva champagne. They will later enjoy a ball at a ballroom and will go home the next day. Wagies will wake up and will keep slaving away.
>>24931373
>>24932003Until you get it through your fucking heads that no one out there to be subvert you through infiltration and foreign meddling, and realize ALL of the West's problems are downstream from its liberalism and desire to spread this ideology around the world through capitalist enterprise, you are just NGMI. Nothing is going to be achieved. If you don't want to see Elon Musk's head on a pike just as much as George Soros, you fundamentally don't get what is wrong with your society
>>24910839the bourgeoisie wants you to believe thisevery post-marxist or neo-marxist or whatever is a filthy opportunist falsifier
>>24931366>iirc the most common feature that appealed to them was the idea that a monarch, at least a good one, was beholden to his people and would therefore produce good results for society in the form of the standard of living, culture, etc.The other issue is that monarchy didn't give you 100% control over every single person 100% of the time. It was a combination of "big government for the important things" such as defense of the country, and "fuck off and pay taxes" for most of your daily life.The Prussians of course changed this, and with modern technology, it would be 200% control, so it's just nostalgia baiting really. Any system is shit with today's technology.
>>24931989>that insists things like cheap education is woke and bad.How is it not?
>>24931387>In the West we have no problem criticizing our governments and societies, and these people specialize in doing so to make their alternatives seem appealingwell said. notice that whenever a shill says something negative about your (western) country, if you reply with something that highlights that their country is even worse about it, they'll just stop replying or they'll immediately resort to whataboutism. they have a literal instruction manual that they just read from>>24931382>>24931999as far as i know of it, the western world suffered immensely with the defeat of napoleon - similarly to rome's defeat of caesar - as it ensured for good that wealthy bankers would finally have control of most major western institutions. if you keep following their footsteps from that point on, you'll slowly start to see the extent of their control over essentially every major social and private organisation and movement and even some minor ones, too. the wars, the feminist movement, the long march through the institutions, mid 20th century art movements, the list is seemingly endless and every other month i'm learning about a newly published book which is a re-print of one that went out of print decades ago which had startling information on the topic. academic agent sometimes talks about these. make no mistake, there is no such thing as a coincidence in politicswhile it's true that western ruling class would rather destroy the entire civilisation than relinquish power willingly, it's up to us to sift the propaganda foreign or domestic from what must be done to allow us to achieve freedom and success once more. something must be done about them and at this point nobody is coming to save us
>>24933619> art movements, the list is seemingly endless and every other month i'm learning about a newly published book which is a re-print of one that went out of print decades ago which had startling information on the topic.Such as? One of the things I hate most about this topic is that you cannot bring up the fact that bankers dominate the west without libtards screeching about anti-semeitism.
>>24932247The United States will face extreme hardships and then the antichrist will rise from the new nationAll the fools who wish upon America's demise have no idea what will follow
>>24933722>imperial obituary by hilton>western technology and soviet economic development by suttonare just two examples that i've learned about recently but the more i learn about this thing, the more forgotten and once-respected authors i discover. can't have too many people knowing about them these days, for obvious reasons
>>24933619>from what must be done to allow us to achieve freedom and success once morewe all know what this means, but who will be the one to start doing it?
>>24934229Ty anon, always appreciate new recs on this topic. If you somehow haven’t heard and come across it, Quigleys Tragedy and Hope deals with the Anglo banking cabal in some detail as well.
>>24930646Anders Breivik won
What am I if I believe that liberalism is good and desirable, but only works if the state is in some way culturally homogenous and that culture actively shames defectors and free-riders?
>>24910968>heat death of the universeThis isn't real.
>>24936040nazi
>>24936065retard
>>24936096asked
