All paradigms shift forever, and the paradigm of liberal democracy has had a pretty good run.
But it is increasingly obvious that its own internal contradictions and dysfunctions can't be resolved at this point.
So when does Veeky Forums think it will die and what deliver the coup de grace?
People will never accept being put under someone, just because of who they are.
Neoliberalism is the final stage of human ideological evolution.
I believe radical centrism is the endgame
Liberalism doesn't actually have much brand value outside of the west these days, this is what a lot of white people don't understand. The final nail in the coffin was the migrant crisis and Merkel's insanity. Most Asians were just dumbstruck at the stupidity of whites.
Jesus fuck, what kind of retard made that image?
Conservatives oppose equality and liberals value equality of the left pic.
>radical centrism
He's a liberal.
The problem with you is that you're conceptualizing things within a liberal framework still.
OP is talking about that entire framework disappearing, well, entirely. "Radical centrism" would mean something vastly different in say, KSA or the DPRK.
>tfw the National Socialist DPRK will unironically outlive liberalism
Libfags absolutely BTFO'd.
You do realise in that pic the liberal position is clearly better, don't you? And that would be more a progressive position than liberal anyway.
>He's a liberal.
So is Trump.
Not even meme'ing by the way. Virtually every single western politician is a liberal. Even Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders.
Liberalism exists in the ether in western societies. It is so dominant that is has ceased to be seen as political and ideological.
>But it is increasingly obvious that its own internal contradictions and dysfunctions can't be resolved at this point.
Since when? Crime is at a low, famine is a distant memory in liberal democracies, and we are presiding over the single most peaceful period in human history. Whats more is that the worst we have to fear in liberal democracies is our presidents/prime ministers being idiots which is pretty good compared to the complete despots we would have had in most other systems. Say what you will about Trump, at least we will never hear of him crucifying an army's worth of slaves on the Appian Way, executing anybody who wears glasses as intelligentsia counterrevolutionaries, or burning the libraries of Baghdad to the ground while making the rivers run red with the blood of scholars.
Liberal democracy only looks dysfunctional because we have long forgotten what true dysfunction looks like.
>national socialist DPRK
You're spending to much time on /pol/
Not him, but North Korea basically is national socialism, down to fuhrerprinzip.
for you
The picture is using a false equivalency that doesn't even represent "the ideologies" correctly. Unless you believe modern conservatives are 19th century monarchists.
Soon. It already started.
>muh inevitable revolution
>muh the people cry out for freedom
Daily reminder that every revolution was started by a lack of food.
Read some BR Myers idiot.
Also, anyone else getting tired of the "YOU MUST BE FROM /pol/!" shitposting? It's as bad as the constant holocaust threads.
>Crime is at a low
There isn't a single major western city that is safer now than it was in the 1950s
>Liberal democracy only looks dysfunctional because we have long forgotten what true dysfunction looks like.
You're conflating liberal democracy with technology, which is what all liberals do to make their point.
I guess Chinese style government is the wave of the future...
That or de facto one party states (Singapore, Turkey, Russia).
People want stability more than freedumbs. One thing Napoleon correctly analyzed was that this intellectual obsession with an abstract idea of liberty was only really the preserve of a small number of people in a society. The rest will pay lip service to it maybe, but ultimately just want good governance.
and I guess the free exchange of ideas that liberal democracy promotes has nothing to do with technology at all.
>and I guess the free exchange of ideas that liberal democracy promotes has nothing to do with technology at all.
It doesn't. The Chinese government is quite happy to push for a "free exchange of ideas" in terms of academic papers in engineering and sciences and what have you - that doesn't make them a liberal democracy.
Liberals claiming credit for modern technology off of the back of social policy and cultural policy is like Kings and Emperors who claimed it was their good grace that made rain fall from the skies to water crops.
>The Chinese government is quite happy to push for a "free exchange of ideas" in terms of academic papers in engineering and sciences and what have you - that doesn't make them a liberal democracy.
They're actually not.
They jealously guard the areas of technology where they are ahead (crystals in solid state tech like lasers, genetic engineering etc), but are quite happy to take advantage of dumb westerners who believe in muh free exchange of ideas.
The stupidity and arrogance of liberalism in projecting their own psychology onto everyone else is astonishing.
>There isn't a single major western city that is safer now than it was in the 1950s
That's only the USA. Crime rate in other Western countries is pretty much the same as it was in 1950s.
North Korea is basically the closest thing to Nazis that has ever happened. Its almost completely the same system but with Koreans instead of Germans.
They don't even call themselves communists. They are straight up ethno-nationalist totalitarians.
Do you have any substantial proof of the chinese being far ahead in genetic engineering?
China is too totalitarian. Russia-style "democracy" is more likely.
>paradigms shift forever
How is this supposed to make sense? Might be just the incoherent rambling of a butthurt conservacuck though.
Not true.
Bear in mind it is even worse than it looks in this picture because medical technology has played a part in reducing homicide rates in recent times, not reflecting an actual decrease in violence itself.
They're already trialing embryo selection for one thing.
Westerners won't do that because muh equality.
that image is bullshit
to a liberal the two little guys would each get one more box than they have so they are higher than the tall guy.
I can't speak for genetic engineering but some aspects of high technology they are ahead on. I know NASA has to import some of their industrial testing equipment from China now. They're also ahead in terms of supercomputers and 3d printing (they can do proper laser forming titanium alloy stuff).
Do you know what a paradigm is?
Glad you think affirmative action is bullshit
What proof do you need? The Chinese don't give a shit about human rights and don't let idiot liberals tell them that they can't research fetuses. They are probably light years ahead
>1997
That was 20 years ago. And the difference isn't even that big.
>0.6
>1.4
Fukuyama is such a fucking hack
>says that religion has no appeal anymore
>acknowledges that islamic societies pretty much totally refute his point but callously disregards them as dying
>probably shitting himself silly when he sees how wrong he is
>not only is Islam the fastest growing religion in its homeland, but due to mass immigration is even spreading to the Christian heartland of Europe
>"b-but western societies will never accept Islam!"
>he's fucking wrong again because even Great Fucking Britain, the home of the god damn Magna Carta has adopted portions of Sharia Law, and as more immigrants flood in this will likely continue
I hate this fucker and the elitists who think he is infallible
It's also not as bad as people claim.
>china
>totalitarian
You're looking for "authoritarian" champ
My mistake, it' s 0.9 now.
Did you miss the second part of my post though?
Homicide rates in modern times have been substantially reduced by medical technology, so their reduction isn't necessarily reflective of falling crime.
>has adopted portions of Sharia Law
What?
This pisses me off.
Fuck illiberal states. Honestly. China even banned one night stands and gay couples on TV. So fucked up and messed up and gross.
They did for literally all of human history from the founding of the first civilizations up until the end of the 18th century.
I think you're greatly overestimating the rebellious spirit of people in general.
Do you? If they shifted how could it be forever??
They even banned cleavage!
edition.cnn.com
It's still hardly the end of the world. It was more dangerous in the past.
Good thing I believe in the inevitable global collapse. Reset the clock. I don't want to live in the dystopian future where democracy and human rights don't exist.
I like city states.
>not being classical liberal in 2017
>It was more dangerous in the past.
Except that the UK had a lower murder rate in the 1950s with vastly inferior medical technology.
Who are you trying to convince here anyway, me or yourself?
>I don't want to live in the dystopian future where democracy and human rights don't exist.
Good thing the future has no space for useless cuckolds such as yourself then.
>There isn't a single major western city that is safer now than it was in the 1950s
why is the 50s the gold standard of crime? whats more important is that crime is nothing like it was in the 1980s and 1970s.
what does that have to do with their advancements in genetic testing?
It was more dangerous in the 1990s. Which means it's actually getting better, not worse.
>wahhh gays can't hold hands on TV. this is truly a dystopia!
lol
There is no room for any of us, friend.
And global collapse is inevitable, I'm not just memeing here.
>neoreactionaries think their lives will be any better in an authoritarian society
The biggest meme t b h
>why is the 50s the gold standard of crime? whats more important is that crime is nothing like it was in the 1980s and 1970s.
It's not, but it's the period when systematic record-keeping for crime actually began.
I'm personally fairly certain the 1930s and before were safer, and from my recollection violent muggings used to make front page news in 1870s London. That's all less certain though.
So history begins in 1990 for you? Anything before that is just a write-off?
lol.
the 50s is great for america because they weren't the only first world country that had been bombed to shit during the war.
Canada doesn't count.
>neoreactionaries
Is this the left's newest buzzword?
Funny how even suggesting that liberalism won't last forever is enough to trigger morons like this.
They'll be the first on reddit to scoff at the "fundie idiots" who oppose abortion and the theory of evolution though. But muh ideology is destined to last forever, muh star trek socialism.
>and from my recollection violent muggings used to make front page news in 1870s London.
>mfw jack the ripper posts on Veeky Forums
>A government which has a stranglehold on all media isn't bad because they restrict things which I don't like.
Conservatives everybody.
Look at all of these non-arguments.
>oppose a scientific theory.
ebic.
What if people like conservatism because of what it does to others, and other people like liberalism because of what it does to themselves?
probably some clickbait article he read on /pol/
That's just it though, my conception of Victorian London was that it was this horrible, crime and rape ridden place but apparently that's an exaggeration. After the met were formed especially it became very safe.
All medias restrict things they don't like. All media is in service to some idea or ideology. There is no such thing as true pluralism and never was.
doesn't the UK allow for personal religious laws for any religion?
I know that jews have some specific laws that apply to themselves.
...
>And global collapse is inevitable
Don't kid yourself. Non-western countries are doing fairly well, especially the ones in the Far East. Western countries are the ones who decided to invite tens of millions of sub-90 IQ primitives to live among the natives.
They are right though in regards to abortion and stuff. The non liberal governments will have no room for religion or right wing emotions.
Some people in this thread don't seem to get right wing ideologies are not liberalism ideologies and that getting rid of liberalism will make everything rightwing approved.
I'm not conservative. But it wasn't common to have gay people on TV until recently here in the West. Clearly, society didn't collapse in the 50s and 60s because no gays were on TV. You're everything wrong with the identity politics.
I wasn't trying to present an argument, I was merely curious about your choice of words and asked you a question.
I've always wondered, given that libs say mass immigration is necessary in order to make the supply for low wage jobs as high as possible, what exactly is going to happen when things like driverless cars and other forms of automation render a lot of these jobs, e.g. in logistics, obsolete?
What are all these low-wage immigrants who have been given citizenship going to do? They're obviously not all going to become robotics engineers or low-level programmers.
Perhaps the economic logic of "inflating your country's population is always good" wasn't actually such a good idea after all.
I would say it's pretty accurate. Modern conservatives would say that the pic on the right is discriminatory in that the tall guy wasn't given any boxes.
They have this shitty tarded view of equality of opportunity.
Heroin and crack addiction caused much of the increase of crime in the 1980s to 2000s in the UK. Crime recording has consistently improved as time has gone on, so the rates shown don't show the full picture.
Also, why stop in 1997, 20 years ago?
They don't stop shifting.
nah dude
Sharia courts are legally recognized under British Law.
More and more of these courts will be established as the years go on and more migrants enter.
I am not making a judgement as to whether or not immigration is a good thing just saying that Fukuyama was dead fucking wrong about Islams appeal outside the middle east.
Again you miss the point of the implications of a government which directly censors the media because it is currently acting in opposition to what you refer to as "identity politics".
You are thinking too highly of yourself if you think that you can predict what industries will and will not exist in 50 years.
Rule of thumb: it's better to have too much population than too little.
>we are presiding over the single most peaceful period in human history
That is thanks to Nuclear weapons and Pax Americana. Don't even delude yourself that the Current Global peace is thanks to Liberalism.
>especially the ones in the Far East
Not with their fertility rate.
>pax americana.
>middle east is a tinderbox
Consumers. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme that needs more people each generation to sell stuff to. Its how the economy stays afloat.
A sudden decrease in jobs would require a lot of welfare of some sort. If nobody has money to buy food then all business related to agriculture and food transportation dies which takes more jobs away and kills more of the middle class and everyone they hire and negatively effect the businesses that they buy stuff from and so on and so forth.
A persons ability to make money is less important than a persons ability to spend money.
It amazes me that an atheist state is more Christian than most Christian-majority Western countries nowadays.
as that other user says, media is ALWAYS censored in one way or another. If its government owned, it will report in the government's favor. If it's privately owned, the stockholders and CEOs make sure that nothing gets reported on that doesn't touch on their interest or those of their rich friends.
I live in the UK, most commercial banks offer sharia banking (no interest) and sharia arbitration courts exist freely so he's not wrong.
>equality of opportunity.
It's a stupid phrase. For leftists the evidence that there is inequality of opportunity is inequality of outcome. They believe any inequality of outcome is a priori evidence of an inequality of opportunity.
>Crime recording has consistently improved as time has gone on
Really? Because a lot of the criticism from all sides in the UK at least has been that the Police purposefully fudge the numbers.
Again, not him but all media is in service to some idea/ideology or state.
Western media is in service to liberalism. Chinese media is in service to the Chinese state.
The thing is, the Chinese people KNOW the Chinese media is in service to the State, and regularly mock xinwen lianbo for this. Westerners actually believe BBC, CNN and MSNBC are about as impartial as it gets.
The solution to this imo is for media to be MORE partisan, so people actually know what they're consuming has a bias, can consume all of it and make their mind up from there.
>Rule of thumb: it's better to have too much population than too little.
Depends on the quality of the population. 9,000,000 Ashkenazi Jews have quite literally achieved more than the entire population of sub-saharan Africa several times over.
The fertility rate of say, Japanese, is about equal to that of white people in western countries (1.5 or so).
And no, in the case of Japan it's not desirable that their population increases. Industries are becoming less labor intensive across the board. Moreover Japan itself is a landmass smaller than CA with 130,000,000 people in it. A reduction in the population helps to make real estate and consequently, family formation, more economical and affordable anyway.
en.wikipedia.org
>The council has no legal authority in the United Kingdom,[3] and cannot enforce any penalties; many Muslims would appear voluntarily to accept the rulings made by the ISC.[4]
>Sharia courts are legally recognized under British Law.
Yeah, just like Halakhic courts.
yeah fukuyama has said as much as "the end of history was a mistake"
>China even banned one night stands and gay couples on TV
Based China.
>basically a judge judy show for ahmed.
k
Therein lies the rub, I have no issue with shariah per se (Muslims clearly seem to not want liberal democracy and want Islamism instead), back in their own countries, but the voluntary acceptance is something hotly debated, since it is believed and was the subject of a channel 4 documentary that many people, particularly women, are coerced into accepting the rulings.
>tfw knowingly watching society decay and thinking to your classical liberal self smugly, "perfect"
Who says they are fudging the numbers?
Crime recording became standardised within the last 10 years in the UK, meaning that the statistics are more accurate.
Islamic banking is the same thing as Christian banking anyway.
Well put.
It's amazing how many leftists will turn around and actively endorse hyper-capitalist/neo-liberal rhetoric about immigration.
en.wikipedia.org
This? Sounds pretty harmless.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Here's the relevant research about medical technology and murder rates:
>Murder rates would be up to five times higher than they are but for medical developments over the past 40 years.
>According to new research, doctors are saving the lives of thousands of victims of attack who four decades ago would have died and become murder statistics.
>Although the study is based on US data, the researchers say the principle applies to other countries too: “There is reason to expect a similar trend overall in Britain,” said Dr Anthony Harris, the lead author of the study.
>In the research he and a team from Massachusetts University and Harvard Medical School found that technological developments had helped to significantly depress today's murder rates, converting homicides into aggravated assaults.
seems i was mistaken. my bad
I dont think it disproves the point that Islam has significant appeal outside the middle east though
Automation in a field starts once it's cheaper than the corresponding human labour. And if you have durka durka not giving a shit about minimum wage, your automation won't happen for a really long time - in particular, long enough for the people in charge who are only interested in short-time and medium-time (up to 20 years) profits to not give a fuck about it.
Also, good luck getting a machine to do things like changinge kellies or doing the job of a production engineer or a field geologist.