I caught a thread just as it was ending. It posed the question of whether we think that liberal democracy will remain the dominant form of government in the future. Why or why not? And if not, what will replace it and why?
Also, it shared a totally unrelated meme which I would also like to discuss.
Here are some alternative takes on the meme:
Also,
I think the original image is good from a liberal-progressive perspective, and the image on this post is good from a socialist-leftist perspective. I don't really like the other two. I think a better liberal-conservative image would imagine each person as being the same (average) height, so their boxes would not allow the person on the left to see because his box was taken away so the person on the right can sit and still have a good view.
As for the main question, I think that liberal democracy is still the best system that we have and won't be replaced until our moral education advances beyond the need for legal rights and we can achieve a socialist democracy, or until we have the technology for central planning to work better than the market.
Here is a better question, do you guys see yourself as the tall person or the short person?
Because I don't want to see poor white people voting for Trump and then thinking they are the tall people in these images.
>not seeing yourself as the middle person
Snowflakes.
Middle people can still see above the fence in most of these. So they count as 'tall people'.
I think there should be ~10 people of the same height. They are sharing 10 boxes: 2-4 get one each and can see, while all the other boxes go to one guy who sits like a king. The other 5-7 get no boxes and can't see. The ideal world would give everyone each one box so that the only way you couldn't see is if you were sitting.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
I bet you spent all day coming up with that old quip.
About two seconds actually, b/c apparently my brain operates at supersonic speed.
Liberal Democracy is unlikely to go anywhere in name for the foreseeable future, for the same reason that the early Roman Emperors kept pretending like the Republic was still a thing.
What's instead going to happen is the same thing that has been happening, in a general trendline. More and more power will flow into the upper classes, more and more power will flow to international organizations and corporations, democracy will be denied in the name of democracy, and rights will be chipped away more and more in the service of ideology.
This is the likely future. A world that retains the superficial appearance of the modern western world, a cleaned up multiracial multicultural transnational civilization, a walking UN, but which in reality is an oligarchy ruled by business moguls, political elites, and mass media, supported by the shiftless, ignorant, poor masses who continue to support the interests of this oligarchy in the name of cosmopolitanism.
Now a point I want to make very clear is that I am not criticizing either multiracialism, multiculturalism, or internationalism here. I think all those things are trash, but that is not the business of this question or analysis. My point is entirely who is pushing these things, and why. And the people pushing for greater diversity and internationalism, are primarily people who benefit from larger government programs to support more poor, and people who benefit from free trade and cheaper labor. IE big government and big business.
I've started to notice this whole equity thing starting to take off
It's not a matter of whether I see myself as tall or short in this moment. The tallest of all people can become short in an instant. It's a matter of my fear at how far one can fall. All that separates me from the fallen is one unfortunate day at work, and all that separates the fallen from the hungry and homeless is social welfare. That's why I'm a thorough advocate for social welfare. Yes, all kinds, at any cost. For as much as I care about my fellow man, it's a nickel compared to how much I care about myself.
unfortunately this, until a better alternative can be presented I don't see democracy going anywhere
It will continue its decline but it won't be replaced by any sort of totalitarian system. We're probably looking at a future of cyberpunk Singapore-esque society as East Asia (which is capitalist without the liberalism) ascends.
Adding to this: both true dictatorships and true democracies have been declining in number for a while. The future is in kleptocratic hybrid systems along the lines of Russia, Turkey, or Singapore.
>the moral of the story is that short people are to blame for all the ills of the world
WHEN
WILL
THEY
LEARN
Depends. Democracy is definitely going to stay, but whether they stay "liberal" is the question, especially when things like free speech and freedom of religion get tore down in the name of progress.
>ywn live in a post-scarcity society where everyone has as many fucking boxes as they want
Well said
>the world
More like the western world, merged with Africa and SW Asia. China is not going to institute multiculturalism or racial diversity. The Koreans would kill if someone told them Seoul would be majority non-Korean. Japan will keep being...Japan, and doing whatever weird shit they've been doing or the last 2000 years.
I think China is waiting for the west to reach a threshold in its terminal decline and to become sufficiently weak. Then the Han are going to colonize Africa for real--I mean hundreds of millions of people moving to Sub-Saharan countries, and taking over. The same is going to happen in Nusantara once the west is too weak to stop them.
Only white Europeans think the world should operate on principles that placate Muslims, and provide Africans with infinite sustaining aid. Those two institutions will spell the death of all civilizations if they go on forever. The remnants of human barbarism have to be eradicated, or they're going to demographically transform the currently nuclear armed states until 85 IQ populations control nuclear arsenals, and destroy the world. The logic of liberalism was constructed in the context of Christian metaphysics. Liberal democracy ends with the death of the west.
Trump won the majority of votes from every income group except those earning under $50,000 per year. Don't necessarily fall for the false memes.
>This is the likely future. A world that retains the superficial appearance of the modern western world, a cleaned up multiracial multicultural transnational civilization, a walking UN, but which in reality is an oligarchy ruled by business moguls, political elites, and mass media, supported by the shiftless, ignorant, poor masses who continue to support the interests of this oligarchy in the name of cosmopolitanism
You made me feel sick, thanks. I hooe I die before the world becomes a grey, brown, cultureless shithole full of ghettoes.
So you're admitting that some people are inherently inferior/short?
...
>Because I don't want to see poor white people voting for Trump and then thinking they are the tall people in these images.
We are the short people, academics, movie stars, career politicians and journalists are the tall people
Melayu? Orang Indon?
They're all tall people, or rather soon to be tall people who will become millioniares once tax on the rich are removed.
>Slave morality
>Because I don't want to see poor white people voting for Trump and then thinking they are the tall people in these images.
I voted for Trump because I don't want some fucking condescending NY Times journalist to tell me what my political opinion should be.
The green is due to natural variation and the pareto princple (en.wikipedia.org
What the world needs is a new philosophy to replace liberalism's false egalitarianism based on the untenable Christian metaphysics out of which is was originally reasoned. We need a philosophy that starts with material inequality as a ineradicable reality and a good, and then construct a generally compassionate, sustainable, and peaceful system based on the acceptance of that fundamental reality. Liberals are incapable of constructing a liberal response to the reality of (NON contingent) human inequality, because it still refuses to accept it outside of a 'liberation' conception of historical progress. It's actually exciting because the end of history hasn't arrived, and there are still arguments to be made, and new, and better ways of doing things to be conceived.
Remember, genetics is only going to accelerate in the coming years. These things are going to become as undeniable as gravity. Liberalism is modernity reasoned from pre-modern axioms. It has one food in the far past, and one food in the haze of early modernity. It cannot survive a robust late-modern scientific understanding of Man.
Liberal democracy isn't sustainable because capitalism isn't sustainable. There are really no more foreign markets to broach and the capitalist class is becoming smaller yet more powerful.
Social control of industry is most likely inevitable, but I have no idea what it will take for us to get there. I expect that legitimate fascist governments will emerge to protect business interests from socialist revolt, and these horrific autocracies will be propped up by all the friendly Silicon Valley CEOs who champion progressive causes today.
Is this a real thing or just some pseudo-intellectual bullshit a /pol/itician came up with?
Yeah, I voted for Trump for pretty much entirely non-economic reasons (although out of the two I still think he'd be better for the economy)
Okay Marx, I seem to remember similar predictions like that being made before and all failing.
That's so retarded
Literally when?
Pic related
Democracy will end as soon as immigration is consistently voted against. Free speech is already proving problematic.
Crypto fascism backed by a bureaucratic behemoth like China is the ultimate future. Stability at all costs and a system with enough redundancy to withstand purges.
Isn't the liberal solution to inequality creating social safety nets and promoting liberal ideals? Social security, food stamps, homeless shelters, socialized medicine, free education, etc.
Seems its largely kept the US from going total medieval. The nordic countries have even stronger social safety nets and they're going strong.
So it seems like liberal solution would work fine to human inequality.
I'd ask in converse what the conservative solution would be? Remove those safety nets, create class divisions, racial divisions, gender divisions? Doesn't sound like those would work out. Apartheid have been tried and tested. And it fails.
>What were the Great Depression and Recession?
New Deal and Obama's stimulus is the only reason why capitalism didn't failed then and in 08
Sure, whatever you say pal.
...
The future of the West is undeniably Islam.Demographics are destiny.
Whether China inherents the Earth or not depends on if the west pulls a South Africa and remove it's nukes before surrendering power to it's new rulers.
But yes, OP. Democracy as an experiment is over, because it leads to universal suffrage and that leads to what we have today.
You've left out that the liberal solution also includes the eradication of national distinctions because, after all, we're all equal. Increase diversity from unequal populations exacerbates inequality, necessitating every stronger socialist remedies, promoting ideologies that promote more demographic transformation, necessitating stronger socialist remedies....and so on...
The social safety net in Sweden is being tested by mass low IQ East African migration. They've even had to tap into the Sovereign Wealth Fund, which is essentially a heresy of Nordic socialism, and an admission of the sustainability of the situation.
You can have socialism in a national context, but that called NATIONAL SOCIALISM, and when it's advertised as such, all of the liberals suddenly understand the dark side of their Pollyannish ideas about simple redistribution.
Socialism and the free movement of labor (people), go hand and hand with modern Progressive liberalism. You can't separate them, because to do so is either to admit that individuals are not equal, human populations are not actually equal, and/or socialism only works in a particularistic, or nationalistic context.
I'd ask in converse what the conservative solution would be?
Firstly, you have to understand that Conservatism is just Conservative Liberalism. It's just as irrational, contradictory, and solutionless as Progressive Liberalism. All of it operates on the axiom of human equality. So when you see the liberty conservatives in the west appealing to individualism, and economic freedom, they are doing so at the same time as they are saying things like "it doesn't matter what race the population is, our ideas work with any composition of people", which is demonstrably not true (again, see: Sweden). Conservatism is just the slow, retarded twin of Progressivism, and only succeeds in slowing down Progressive programs, but never stopping them.
cont...
Nonsense.
>demographics
Muslim migrants have more children than Europeans, but it will change in the future. We are not talking about Africa level of fertility rates, but 1.3 vs 2.1.
youtu.be
>Peter Zeihan argues that the US will be preeminent for the foreseeable future
The Solution is anti-globalism, nationalism, and a patchwork of different systems for different peoples that organically align with their respective histories, characters, and circumstances.
Liberalism was an organic outgrowth of Western European civilization, but to other societies with different historical trajectories, it is an clunky foreign ideology that operates on alien religious axioms. I personally don't think the West can be "fixed". It's going to cling to liberalism to the bitter end, or make an early dive into anarchotyranny. The end result in the west is simply going to be 90 IQ, low-productive, socialist states that don't have enough money for much more than subsistence. The Americas and Western Europe are going to be one giant Brazilifornia, while East Asia maintains its demographic integrity and productivity, and inherits the dominant position on the planet as a result.
>nonsense
Christian Lebanon said the same thing a few decades ago. It's a common delusion that the way things are now is they way they will always be. When they stop breeding, then the globalist ideologues will switch to Sub-Saharan migrants. Even if it's not Islam, the transformation will never ever end, there's not point at which it's "enough".
The Chinese are fucking merciless, whatever is left of the West will just watch in horror as the Chinese take over Africa and shit on all the "work" they did in the past century.
At this point, the only way Europe could possibly save itself is through a hard reset, a return to center, a system restore to an earlier date but I doubt that will happen, it appears that many safeguards were set in place to make sure such a thing couldn't happen again
>Christian Lebanon
Things that never happened. Lebanon was never fully Christian, half of the country was Muslim even before WW2.
>The Solution is anti-globalism, nationalism, and a patchwork of different systems for different peoples that organically align with their respective histories, characters, and circumstances.
The solution is creation of authoritarian regimes similar to modern day Russia?
"The future" is pretty broad. and its pointless to even speculate since history seems to be pretty unpredictable. But just for fun:
Some form of Democracy is definitely a mainstay, there's no better system i can think of and i doubt anyone but the most retarded would want to regress.
As the world becomes more educated and inequality is reduced it'll move closer to a direct democracy.
Otherwise if the current trend of wealth inequality continues then we'll have a "democracy" in name but more accurately a plutocracy with two distinct classes of the masses which are "adequately" provided for but kept in a state of permanent dependence on wages and a separate class of wealthy that own the means to produce jobs that pay wages. It'll be a more extreme widespread version of our current situation.
>Even if it's not Islam, the transformation will never ever end, there's not point at which it's "enough".
Why should transformation end? A static society is a stagnant society.
What about Liberal-conservatism, huh?
Not all changes are good
But none the less change is necessary. What you propose is a society that can't effectively change, because it's because it's ruled under the hand of a despotic autocrat that intentionally cuts off foreign influences.
These obvious are more accurate than OP's pic.
A country has never benefited from unchecked nationalism. Its no surprise that times of difficulty always breed extreme nationalism while stable countries have markedly less.
Any form of anti-globalism, nationalism and any similar cry for division is pointless and impossible, diversity is and globalization is inevitable unless you plan to destroy the internet, mass communication and all forms of global travel. Usually such cry's for nationalism are simply racism and xenophobia by another name.
1. liberal police PC state
2. Authoritarian nationalist police state
Peak your poison and enjoy your censorship.
>he solution is creation of authoritarian regimes similar to modern day Russia?
In Russia, yes. Other societies have different populations, and circumstances. Japan is not cosmopolitan by western standards. It's perfectly legal to deny service to a foreigner, just like in the old Jim Crow US South. But people generally don't think of Japan as a barbarous,
Racially "stagnant" Japan became the #2 economy on the planet with only a few rocky volcanic islands as a natural resource. Racially "stagnant" China is going to out-compete the dumbing, browning, west this century.
Why do you equate genetic integrity with stagnation? Surely a societies economic advancement is not intrinsically linked to whether or not it imports low IQ 3rd world migrants? What the hell does that have to do with preventing "stagnation"? Not everything is an economic calculus either.
Did you ever consider that if the status quo of you society is peace and safety, you might want "stagnation" with respect to at least those two areas?
I'd like do hear your definition of "extreme nationalism" and just "nationalism". No such distinction is made in modern liberalism as far as I can tell. There shouldn't even be a word that politicizes nations maintaining their nationhood. Liberals beg the question when they accuse people of essentially being Nazis for seeing trade and immigration as separate issues. The only reason white leftists don't rag on China, Korea, and Japan as much is because of lingering white guilt, and a hesitance to lecture non-whites.
Chinese have a term for people like that: 白左
Your "regressive liberalism/socialism" ideology is the main reason the cultural/racial/sexual conflicts worldwide are become more and more rampant, your "regressive liberalism/socialism" leaders such as Obama are also the main reason ISIS is rising up nowadays. Open your fucking eyes and leave your safespace for once.
>I'd like do hear your definition of "extreme nationalism" and just "nationalism". No such distinction is made in modern liberalism as far as I can tell.
Meant for
How did you figure out that Trump being President would stop that? Like, I don't even see how the two even relate.
>Racially "stagnant" Japan became the #2 economy on the planet with only a few rocky volcanic islands as a natural resource. Racially "stagnant" China is going to out-compete the dumbing, browning, west this century.
They only became as such due to extensive foreign influence and both of them have severe internal problems.
>Why do you equate genetic integrity with stagnation?
>muh debunked colonial pseudo-science
Fuck off with your racialist nonsense.
>not everything is an economic calculus either
So long as we are trapped in a material world it is.
And no, I do not want stagnation in regards to those things, because I want my country endeavouring to find new ways to ensure that the continually changing conditions of peace and safety are maintained. Even these are best kept locked in a continual flux, you fucking idiot.
The expansion of Western capitalism into former "socialist" states was a huge boon for the global capitalist economy. It led to a surge of growth that didn't peter out until the mid 2000s
Nationalism, distinct from patriotism demotes a certain extreme feeling of absurd superiority.
But yes, feeling xenophobia and hatred simply because you happened to be born or live in a certain country is wrong and illogical and historically leads to human misery.
>diversity is and globalization is inevitable
Only for Europe, Canada, the USA and Australia...
Or, you know, you can just not read the ny times. lol.
China isn't fascist, it's just authoritarian. Fascism requires mass mobilization of the population and the enshrinement of hierarchy. China has neither.
Lebanon lost its Christian majority because a war broke out and all the Christians with enough money to the US, Brazil, or Mexico. Nothing to do with birthrates.
>voting for Trump will stop other peoples opinions.
Salt isn't magical, user.
I voted Trump precisely because the cunty besserwisser said I shouldn't.
>It's perfectly legal to deny service to a foreigner, just like in the old Jim Crow US South.
Are you sure about that? I'm sure it's just harder to become Japanese citizen or obtain a visa. There is no racial component to this.
China is practical Brazil tier in its genetic diversity, difference is that its people divide themselves by language rather than appearance.
Han Chinese individuals can pass for Kazakh, Japanese, Cambodian, and Filipino. There's an enormous range of skin colors and facial features within China, yet due to their history this isn't a big deal.
You got any direct evidence that the West is becoming dumber?
What if cunty besserwisser told you to vote for Trump?
I don't know who "cunty besserwisser" is because I don't read the NYT nor do I get triggered by them.
No it lost its majority when the French annexed Muslim majority reigions to it.
I hope it sticks around, specifically the U.S. system that pits the metropolitan "elite" against the rural hicks so that neither broad group can seize total control. When everyone is a fucking moron, the best you can do is minimize the damage vis forced compromise, not letting one band of retards run roughshod over the others.
>You got any direct evidence that the West is becoming dumber?
this thread? Veeky Forums in general?
But seriously, you cant argue with nationalism or xenophobia. Its something that can only go away with meaningful human contact or good teaching through things like decent literature.
>Han Chinese can pas for Kazakhs/Japanese/Cambodian/Filipino
If you're blind or white (all asians rook arike XD).
Any of these group of people can pretty accurately tell whether or not someone is their ingroup. Unless the Han chinese guy is fluent in those language/customs/culture/etiquete/social norms, its very hard to fool them.
Basically every news outlet hammered their opinion down my throat as the absolute truth. I showed the finger to all of thel. It was sweet watching the squirm like maggots on November 9th.
>Fuck off with your racialist nonsense.
Fuck off with you white universalist nonsense. Enjoy your failed societies. I'll enjoy watching your bubble burst.
>absurd superiority
One can wish to remain distinct without believing one to be superior.
>Xenophobia
Inventing psychometric labels is a cute leftist tactic. Not wanting foreigners to overtake an indigenous population is a fundamental human instinct, not a pathology.
Racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, sexism, they're all just linguistic tricks to pathologize and disarm political position to leftist initiatives.
Would the Native American have been xenophobic for being concerned about the encroachment of whites on their lands? Or are only white the unique genetic threat to foreign populations, while all other peoples are benign diversifier and enrichers of "stagnant" cultures. I have zero sympathy for white people anymore. In response to your perceived history of outward destruction, you've simply turned those impulses inward.
Yes. I suggest you visit. It's a lovely place, just try not to get triggered when you see a sign on a business or a bathhouse that says "Japanese Only".
sciencedirect.com
researchgate.net
Maybe if enough progressives call it a social construct, the problem will go away.
>I showed the finger to all of thel. It was sweet watching the squirm like maggots on November 9th.
hey dude, I hear ya there. I myself have been having a fun time watching American politics this whole time. Its been pretty funny all things considered.
America loosing influence, respect, and leadership abroad has been a rather somber thing though, that's a tough pill to swallow.
>Enjoy your failed societies
These "failed societies" are currently the most successful.
dude lmao somebody doesn't have money in the family
If the Chinese wanted to conquer Africa they'd have done so by now.
China just wants to be a mini USA with its own corporate empire. The Chinese government is not anywhere near as xenophobic as Japan or Korea and actually accepts substantial numbers of Indian and African workers and students. This will increase in the future as China becomes more developed than the third world.
Lebanon didn't exist until that event. Certain regions of modern-day Lebanon were primarily Christian and remain primarily Christian today. Throughout the 20th century, many Lebanese Christians emigrated to the Americas. Muslims would have done this too, but were both poorer and often encumbered by immigration quotas that Christians didn't deal with.
I should know, my great grandparents moved from Lebanon to Brazil in the 1920s and then to America. If they weren't Catholic, Brazil wouldn't have let them in.
>currently
I guess you have nothing to worry about since you're probably childless, and you'll be dead one day.
The reason for that is NOT because they import third worlders, you dumb cunt.
I'm strictly talking about appearance. The Chinese identity is basically a construction or an imposition. China has the same diversity of phenotype as India, yet 90% of Chinese are part of a single ethnic group.
2200 years of political unity allowed for the Han identity to become universal.
>I don't know what a social construct means
They're all still mongoloid
Their diversity is more akin to native ethnic diversity in Europe and India rather than racial diversity 'melting pot' of Brasil or America
You utter dolt
I wish a new European rivalry will spark off based on nationalism stuff so everyone online will stop bitching constantly.
Go on Spain, I know you want to take on Britain for Gibraltar, go block all overland travel and shipments to Gibraltar again. Please?
Under capitalism, if your economies don't grow they collapse. Places like Germany don't give a shit about Syrians, but recognise that more poor workers can boost their GDP and prevent a devastating recession.
Population decline means fewer spenders which makes a depression inevitable.
Mongoloid isn't a genetic categorization. An Indonesian and a Kazakh are enormously distant genetically despite the skull shape meme
>Not wanting foreigners to overtake an indigenous population is a fundamental human instinct
>Racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, sexism, they're all just linguistic tricks to pathologize and disarm political position to leftist initiatives.
Linguistic tricks? All i said was its wrong to hate or mistrust others because of arbitrary labels of nationality or race. That's not "leftist propaganda", its just being a decent person and a necessary part of living with others. Your so high on your own corrosive points of views that anyone who suggests you might just be an unhappy racist is a "leftist"
I dont get you guys, we all choose our paths in life but who the fucks wants to be a garden variety nationalist and racist, the literal scum of the earth?
>more poor workers can boost their GDP and prevent a devastating recession.
the thridird worlders arre proftiitable consumers until the gibs paid by the state run dry. Stockholm has a huge housing bubble precisely because house owners ask for outrageous sums from the local welfare office so that the welfare office can house the illegals.
But that's the problem with general migrant policies. In the UK Nigerians have higher IQ on average than Whites.
I think most people agree that unrestrained mass immigration can be disadvantageous.
So is a Croat and a Spanish
You're not getting it at all do you? you can't compare the native diversity of China with Brasil Hispanic-Amerindian-nigger mix diversity
Literally you.
>gypsies steal, litter, shit and piss on the streets
>arabs blow up, deal drugs and commit violent attacks in groups against lone individuals
>somalis do robberies and gang up on lone ATM users
>sub-saharans do any combination of above
>all of the above have employment levels below 50% so they don't pull their weight when it comes to welfare even though that's the main point why people support immigration
LOL DON'T BE A RACIST ANYONE CAN BE SWEDISH, BEING SWEDISH ISN'T DETERMINED BY WHERE YOU WERE BORN YOU FUCKING XENOPHOBE
So you voted purely out of 'muh feels'?
You do realize the world doesn't end with the Trump presidency, and a bad republican president is a godsend to the dems once the next election cycle hits?