Tfw went trough all extreme ideologies, left and right

>tfw went trough all extreme ideologies, left and right
>realize liberal democracy is the only thing that works

congratulayshins u took the final redbull

You have seen the light.

Welcome. We were waiting for you.

>tfw recently found enlightment in meritocracy
>realized that it won't be implemented in my lifetime

>the richest people (literally the most smart and hard working) rule the world
>not a meritocracy

>being rich automatically means you're smart
>implying that meritocracy is possible with a democracy

Welcome to the Enlightenment my friend. Always remember that you check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.

I was left-centre and I remained left-centre.
This place or /pol/ didn't teach me anything that would change my beliefs.

welcome to the club my dude. Catch the waiter for some complementary accessories of the petit-bourgeois and rosettes

This. If anything Veeky Forums made reject the right-wing even more.

the place is kind of boring tho.

What are you talking about? You have both nazis and tankies to defend the world against.

>tfw realized the USA is in essence a monarchy.
feelsgoodman

>tfw social democracy is better

Even the best liberal democracies (like America) look like a third world shithole. Social Democracy tend to be pretty well done as a whole.

>tfw "going through an extreme ideology" to an American means reading a couple of books and shitposting on reddit rather than actually working to bring your ideology about

How does it feel to be on the wrong side of thistory?

Is that so? Then why it disappeared from Europe?

It's clearly not the only thing that works since it didn't exist for most of history, but it is the thing that works best of what's been tried so far.

because they let a bunch of third world Balkan countries into the EU fucking their economy

if they just kept it western everything would be great right now. Wouldn't have to worry about refugees or anything.

Too bad liberal democracy is boring and has a terrible aesthetic

These posters are the right people to listen to, anons.

>Fighting Nazi's
>Fighting Commies
>Fighting cunts around the world
It's like you don't want to be the underdog in an insane society and save the world?

Social democracy is basically a form of liberal democracy.
>underdog
Not really, we are the establishment not the underdogs nowadays. That means no cool, edgy revolutions or raging against machine. No glorious monarchist restorations.

>the pinnacle of the right wing lasted 12 years and ended with the obliteration of their empire and the rape of their women at the hands of the lefties

Don't think you ever were in the right side of history

>looking to the government to dictate your aesthetics
cuck

If you never experience both sides of the spectrum then you haven't learned anything.

Let me rephrase that then, the aesthetics of societies which follow liberal democracy tend to be bad.

The pinnacle of the right wing was the Victorian Era. Fascism was just a beta uprising

>not liking this capitalist flo.
you are commie fascist trash.

That picture is more of the exception than the rule. I should have added that. Also though, that picture was taken before liberal democracy fully developed.

>realize liberal democracy is the only thing that works
And yet China is going to be the foremost superpower in 15 years. Really makes you think

the world already is a meritocracy, you just don't understand.

okay but then you have to get into economic theory

maybe they chose something in between liberal fantasy land and 1984 tier communism, and came out better for it, maybe the world is not a fantasy land that you can categorize in black and white slots.

>>And yet China is going to be the foremost superpower in 15 years.
Aha no. They might wind up being a regional power but they aren't suddenly going to magic up the ability to reliably project power over seas while keeping the shambles that is their own economy from collapsing inwards.

>350 million people living under the best ideology are unable to outpace 1.3 BILLION people living under a worse ideology slowly shifting to be more like the best ideology
Wow this really fires up the neurons

>while keeping the shambles that is their own economy from collapsing inwards
I feel like people have been parroting the claim that China's economy is about to have an economic downturn since the late 90s. One day they'll finally be right I suppose.

...

>Autistic commies support liberal democracy
You know they use "liberal" as an insult right? To them we're classcucks because we don't hate capitalism

Do you have the picture of the posts circulating KKK and Neo-Nazi forums years ago saying almost the exact same thing?

>>tfw "going through an extreme ideology" to an American means reading a couple of books and shitposting on reddit rather than actually working to bring your ideology about

>Implying that doesn't apply to every westerner or first worlder in general.

>other guy does the same thing so it doesn't matter.
Why is this argument so common.

Accusing threads you don't personally agree with of being instigated by communist or nazi astroturfers is part of Veeky Forums culture you insensitive shitlord

>pot meet kettle.

Safety and peace tend to do that. But most people wouldn't trade it for the thrill of war or unrest.

Is that why Deng moved the country away from Marx?

Liberal democracy works if you live in a civilized country. In a shithole filled with violent niggers like Brazil, the "rule of law" means that criminals will never be punished accordingly because of human rights and they will remain free to terrorize the population.

Look, I'm not against liberal democracy in principle, but sometimes you have to go beyond the "Rechtsstaat". Sometimes you need to go full Duterte, or full Fujimori. Because otherwise the commies and the gangs will take over.

the edge in this post is astounding.

You will never understand if you are not Latin American. It's easy to be a sheltered first worlder and defend human rights, while the FARC and the Sendero Luminoso terrorize the Andes and UN dance with them at parties.

You can be a liberal democrat and still kill commies you know

>acts like a edgy lil shit
>but i have criminals, cartels, and killers, and commies in my country so its justified.
you do know that thats most of the world , you do know you dont live in a special situation dont you.

I don't know of any other country in the world where judges read Foucault and let criminals go free because according to their understand, people who rob and kill are just victims of society, and the people they murdered are the real assholes who were rightly punished.

But this is the normal in Brazilian judiciary.

>But this is the normal in Brazilian judiciary.
Fucking knew it was a Brazilian just the way you sounded.

Since when does liberal democracy promote letting criminals free? You can be tough on crime and also still follow liberal democracy. Most of Brazil's problems are due to corruption though anyway. If the country was rich, crime would we far lower

>Country that was completely untouched during WW2 and used the manufacturing capacity it developed to springboard itself to being the strongest country in the world managed to outpace every other country that was building itself back up from the war
Really makes you think. China had a civil war going on at the same time they were invaded by the Japanese. You think the fact they had to establish a new regime and build themselves back up might've had more to do with it than any inherent superiority of liberal democracy?

how does complaining on Veeky Forums help your country in any way.
plus you do know the usa, the poster child of liberal democracy has put tons of people to death right?

>tfw I'm a liberal democrat and a socialist

>No glorious monarchist restorations.
They were never glorious.

I think the fact they have developed at all is because they tossed away their silly communist manifestos for a liberalized market economy.

Elaborate. Do you not believe in property rights or free trade? If so, how can you possibly be a liberal?
Right, they were garbage, but they had a cool aesthetic

>tfw you realise that a Merchant Republic is the only proper from of government
This is the final stage of enlightenment

>tfw you learn that anarcho-fascism is the finally enlightenment

get fucked liberals

Love this "wrong side of history" meme that right wing cucks love to spout so much. Remember, there's no point in history that hasn't been ultimately progressive. The progressive left ALWAYS won.

>property rights
These can exist under a socialist economy as long as the means of production are socially owned

>free trade
Free trade is considered essential of economic liberalism but not liberalism generally. I'd consider economic liberalism an ideological outgrowth of the general tenants of liberalism summarized most effectively in Mill.

You know, some version of the harm principle, a strong defense of the 1st amendment, a world in which everybody is encouraged to engage in free and open rational discourse.

But still under a socialist economic system and a representational democracy. Obviously you'd need a strong, effective bureaucracy to reign in corruption, but you need that in every society.

An ideal society would be what was just described, with a constitutional focus on education, technology, and environmental stability.

So your a democratic market socialist then? Why do imagine that such a system would be better than welfare capitalism? Also, why do you dislike capitalism to begin with?

You do realise that phrase was literally stolen from liberals?

PURE IDEOLOGY

Right, but it makes sense when liberals say it. Today's conservatives were yesterday's liberals.

Pretty sure when people say it they're just memeing.

But really, you are on the wrong side of history lmao

>"The Chinese economy will collapse any day now" says increasingly nervous man for sixth time this decade

>Why do imagine that such a system would be better than welfare capitalism?
For reasons John Rawls has already outlined. Welfare capitalism creates a dependent class and creates an economic environment in which everyone is worse off, including the poorest in society. It also, while helping to solve capitalism's "equality of opportunity" issues a little bit, doesn't solve other issues with capitalism. You still would have technology being held back by society in order to leave room for people to have jobs, you'd still have an incentive structure that encourages environmental destruction and anti-social behavior, and you'd still the monopolizing tendencies of capitalism, regulation of which would create an unhealthy discord between government and business (or an unhealthy and corrupt partnership)

I am open to a mixed economy as well (as was Rawls), because capitalism does a great job of identifying need (although it also promotes the use of marketing which disguises genuine need among superfluous wants), but I think a socialist ownership of the means of production would probably be preferable.

>Today's conservatives were yesterday's liberals

Actually today's socialists were yesterday's liberals (in that yesterdays liberals were the Left)

As long as inheritance exists wealth does not guarantee ability

Foucault never said shit about criminals being victims of society you ignorant fuck.

I was left-center and now I'm just center
I still have one notable leftist view and possibly some other smaller ones but I'm sick of all the bullshit
I'm sick of the doublespeak and the false compassion and the exaggeration and the hypocrisy and the pre-judging and the flat-out lies
every side fucking does it and there is no side based around not doing those things so I'm not picking a side

>why is China shitty
my money goes on Mao, for obvious reasons
t. different guy

I've seen people on 8/pol/ talking about "taking back Veeky Forums"
it's always shot down before it goes anywhere, apparently we're beyond saving

>every side fucking does it
and every side doesn't do it. There is no such thing as this mythical "center" you claim to operate in. There is an idiot for every possible view, but that doesn't invalidate the view itself

Don't worry about if being left makes you an idiot by association or if being right does, nothing makes you an idiot except being unwilling to change your opinion in the face of logic and failing to be self-critical

3/4ths of their population is about to retire and there aren't enough young people to man the factories, and damage control through immigration is impossible since the people wouldn't accept an immigrant as a legitimate Chinese

>every side doesn't do it
bullshit
I defy you to name one political stance that does not contain loads of people that do all those things.
>There is no such thing as this mythical "center" you claim to operate in.
why not?
>There is an idiot for every possible view, but that doesn't invalidate the view itself
It doesn't just make them idiots by association, it means you have to associate with idiots, as in talk to them. I'm tired of talking to them.
I know that bad practitioners don't necessarily follow from bad practices but I've seen maybe 5 good practitioners of *anything* in the last decade. If you're not going to uphold all the principles of the thing you claim to subscribe to, and if in fact no one is going to uphold even almost all of them, then it makes no difference. They're just about as fucked up as the other side, if not more so because they actually know what they should do and fail to do it.
>nothing makes you an idiot except being unwilling to change your opinion in the face of logic and failing to be self-critical
That's actually just about the crux of the whole thing. They're not. Nobody fucking is. Who is?

Who is willing to change their mind?
What man is brave enough to accept defeat?

What person is humble enough to be wrong?
What person is humble at all?

No, humanity is basically good, but at the same time it's rotten to the fucking core.
I would trust a random person with my life. I would, I'd let them decide if I live or die. My wallet though? Keys, phone, ID? No way in the world.

>3/4ths of their population is about to retire
Why would someone lie like this? The median age in China is younger than in the US
>and damage control through immigration is impossible since the people wouldn't accept an immigrant as a legitimate Chinese
wut? This is China not Japan, China already has Vietnamese immigrants illegally crossing the border and working in factories

>>every side doesn't do it
>bullshit
I said "and every side doesn't do it" in response to every side does it. My point is that some people on every side are stupid, but some people on every side aren't, also.

>why not?
Because for one, political and economic views aren't on some simple dichotomy of "left" and "right". There are monarchists, liberals, anarchists, authoritarians, communists, fascists, theologians, plutarchs, etc. and they all intersect. Many Americans who claim to be "center" are capitalist and liberal, a distinct, dirty position just like all of the rest of them. There is not a clean center where one can claim purity and objectivity. It's a completely culturally couched word with a subjective meaning, and it's a view that has no value in itself.

In always trying to find a middle-ground a person is subject to the changing winds of political discourse. The big rise in neoliberal economics pushed the world to the right in that aspect, but the country has been moving to the left on social issues. The two major parties moving to the right since Reagan has caused centrists to move to the right.

Hypothetically, if a centrist is dedicated to being in the middle, then in a world where the left is supporting mass genocide and the right is supporting simply drone-striking select groups of civilians, the centrist would be forced to argue for simply having enough drone strikes to have a small-scale genocide.

My point is that the is nothing inherently valuable with being in the center ideologically, and there is nothing inherently wrong with being on the far-right or far-left. What matters is being able to justify where you do stand with logic, being completely willing to discard your view in the presence of a good argument, and trying your best not to make your view become your identity.

>taking back Veeky Forums

What does that even mean? Take back from who? Do they think that Veeky Forums used to be a bastion of traditional values and conservatism?

>hey actually know what they should do and fail to do it
In my opinion the political and the everyday moral don't intersect to the degree you are making them. Want a socialist economy? Want equal rights for women and minorities? Cool, but that doesn't mean you are promising to be moral in the day-to-day. And just because someone is a dick, it doesn't invalidate their political convictions.

On one hand, one needs to study political theory and recognize their fallibility. Change your views in the face of logic. But, once you are advocating for political change in public, you need to put a different, more self-assured proverbial hat on to advocate for effective change.

But, on the other hand, you also need to study moral philosophy and make sure you are logically consistent with yourself and your actions. At the same time, we have a general idea of right and wrong, and we go out with a choice to be a good person every day.

But that is separate from the political. It just sounds like you need to find a group of good people, regardless of political opinion. True friendship entails honesty, respect, and being a good person to each other. I don't see it as a political issue.

>Who is willing to change their mind?
Philosophers (of the analytic variety)

They're the most autistic of natsoc larpers, they see Veeky Forums /pol/ as too cucked.

If only boards could be nuked

>tfw was an extreme fascist 3 years ago
>started seriously studying history

>now an advocate for liberal democracy

I feel ya user.

We already tried that with /new/. moot gave in to whiners and put it back up as /pol/.

>tfw was an extreme fascist 3 years ago

Just wondering, how did that happen? What made you be an extreme fascist?

>richest
>not strongest

And this is why you get limp wristed faggots complaining about first world problems.

>the richest aren't by definition the strongest
lel

>extreme fascist

Being a skin-head isn't fascist.

Either that, or you invested so much in the modern system, you have capitulated to it for pragmatic reasons and not out of any genuine reasoning for it.

Liberal Democracy has been so utterly destroyed in the alternative scene, only those who wish to benefit from its continued existence support whatever life it has left in it, it will die, as all unnatural ideals do.

>My point is that some people on every side are stupid, but some people on every side aren't, also.
fair enough
>Because for one, political and economic views aren't on some simple dichotomy of "left" and "right".
oh I'm aware
I try to be at the center of all of them, or at least flexible on all of them.
>In always trying to find a middle-ground a person is subject to the changing winds of political discourse.
>[...]
>Hypothetically, if a centrist is dedicated to being in the middle...
I'm aware of that too. I would advocate for neither in all likelihood. Still, sometimes you can't get the right thing done. You just can't. I would settle for the less-bad or the middle ground in a situation like that. In your case, it would be the one that kills the least people, because-- are you ready for this?-- I have this radical view that dying is bad and so is making people mad at you.
You can probably pick out a liberal-ish or even libertarian-ish viewpoint from that (I certainly have one when it comes to human life), but it's one of the few concrete views I still hold to, and I'm willing to compromise even on that view. I think war is horrible and it should never happen, but I accept that sometimes, you just kinda have to kill some people, lots of them even.
>My point is that the is nothing inherently valuable with being in the center ideologically,
There is, to me. If there was a better name, I'd use that, but "centrist" is the best term I have for "I reject your bullshit and your bullshit and your bullshit, but I'll accept a little of it".
>and there is nothing inherently wrong with being on the far-right or far-left.
There is. No one should be that sure and that passionate and that energetic about a fucking abstract construct like the law unless it's literally getting people killed or ruining their careers. There is no reason to be an extremist, and extremists make life worse for nearly everyone.
The less extremist the better; that's my last reason for centrism.

>I can seduce people with my social intelligence
>strong

Seduction is a feminine quality, not masculine.

Your ideal of strength Jewish at its core.

The Pagan/Hellenic ideal of strength is a balance, an environment that allows for both the masculine and feminine survival strategies to be used.

The "strongest" in the modern world is about who can suck the most dick and seduce numbers. Its effective yes, and i could engage in it myself if it didnt make me feel disgusted for engaging in such an easy road to power.

Being a whore is easy, being a man is not.

...

I can be witty too.

>unnatural ideals
By what metric do you define something as natural or unnatural? Why can't something unnatural outlast something natural? Why do you hate a system which has heralded in an era of peace and wealth and instead advocate for fascism (a beta uprsing)?

user, they are lying about their economic growth as we speak, and even they admit that they're growth has slowed significantly. Furthermore, since their government is not well liked and is only really tolerated due to economic growth a regular recession, or even worse a japanese style lost decade would fucking destroy the communist party's grip on power and send China into another period of civil war.

What is unnatural is that which changes an organism more than the initial effect an organism has on an environment.

A beaver building a dam changes the environment, but this environment doesn't relatively change the beaver's behavior.

A human building civilization changes the environment and this environment does change the human's behavior and makes him forget about the natural world to the point where he believes himself to be free from it. A civilization which produces pollution both physical and mental in order to maintain itself.

The old tribes were balanced in their relation to nature but higher society is not.

Nature cannot be denied for long, she always has her way in the end.

how can you have raw if you don't already have cooked?

think about it