Anyone that has studied any history or has any knowledge of culture and the arts knows that we are literally living in the age of the Kali Yuga, an age of complete decadence, turmoil and decline, perhaps even the LAST stage of the decline but instead of this resulting in some kind of backlash that will create new cultural forms as perhaps were once created during the advent of Christianity or Islam, this Modern decline will only continue on, ravaging anything with it, forever and forever.
The question then is this one, what do we, the remaining Great men of the world do when confronted by this? Does one commit suicide, knowing there is no end to this modern world? Or do we wait, hesitantly, in the hopes that an opportunity will indeed come?
What do you think?
Brayden Martin
>What do you think? Protip retard: People have been claiming we live in the end times for literally thousands of years.
Jonathan Barnes
t. Neoliberal retard
Nicholas Cox
>the last remaining great men are a bunch of pissbottlers whose hobby consists of moaning about a society they don't even participate in, let alone shape, on the history board of a culturally spent imageboard
Parker Gutierrez
Are you denying the fact that the Veeky Forums spirit is something that has existed throughout history?
Juan Lopez
Ignorance.
Our world is no more fucked up than it was a thousand years ago. We just see it in front of our eyes more. I guarantee a Persian satrap or Han governor forced to not just hear descriptions but SEE barbarians eat eachother out of desperation, mass illness sweep miles upon miles of innocents, witness the depravity of the Siege of Rome, and a number of other shitty things in antiquity would make him gouge his own two eyes out. Hell, can you imagine the depravity of Pre-Neolithic societies?
Our world is on a decline. I do not fight that. But, we can still be saved. We're a long way from the "Kali Yuga".
Aiden Peterson
>Hell, can you imagine the depravity of Pre-Neolithic societies?
Why do you equate violence or death with decline?
Death can be glorious, of course, not when its mass unbridled death.
Brody Cook
I'd say because it's the most readily available form of depravity and it's bare-bones. It's as close to objective as you can get.
Everything else is subjective. Where you see the blind, disgusting stench of industrial sheep where one is fucked over, another sees the rich, fresh odor of new consumers where both benefit. Everything is a matter of perspective, even at its base form.
Even your response is subjection.
>Not when it's mass unbridled death.
Actually, I'd see it that those deaths were useful in the long run, and that's what matters most. Sad for a time, but the excess carbon bags cut off? More compost? They deserved it? You can justify it in a number of ways.
The world is a lot more complicated today. Nothing is simple anymore. You don't even have clear 'good' guys and 'bad' guys like you had in WWII. Everyone has a public opinion and a free speech on the subject.
Similarly, these forms of societal collapse you recognize are more complex too. Not to mention your very first paragraph is awfully presumptuous. Who's to say, if we are at the last stage of decline, that something better WON'T come?
It's just pessimism. I'm an optimist, I try to be a realist. I'm not saying- again- that we aren't a depraved society in some aspects. A majority certainly are too consumerist in nature. But we're pretty far from cutting heads off of babies and gill-fucking goldfish.
Grayson Bell
>Anyone that has studied any history or has any knowledge of culture and the arts knows that we are literally living in the age of the Kali Yuga, an age of complete decadence
Literally every fuckwad since Aristotle has been bemoaning the absolute moral dissolution of the populace compared to the old days. Even before the Romans started bitching about how all their nobles had become merchant dandies, people were anticipating the inevitable collapse of all society under the weight of peoples decadence.
It hasn't happened yet.
Aiden Jones
>think
Henry Gutierrez
Name a single Great individual from the 21st century.
Jaxson Ramirez
Vladimir Putin? Kim Jong-Un? Donald Trump?
They exist right fucking now bruv. Hell, a person doesn't even have to be 'good' to be 'great'.
Jayden Williams
not him, but obviously there's Barack Obama, Edward Snowden, Xi Jing Ping, Elon Musk, etc.
Bentley Kelly
did you mean the 20th century? Because the 21st century just started, we're not even 20 years into it yet.
Ian Wood
Neoliberal mutts, the day of the rope can't come soon enough.
To think you morons equate the figures of Capitalism with the likes of Goethe or Napoleon or Caesar or Virgil.
Absolutely embarrassing, the complete decline is obvious to anyone with any sense of introspection, unfortunately, you all possess none.
On the day of the rope, you WILL be the first to go.
Nicholas Sanders
looking forward to it. I hope Trump doesn't cut your welfare in the meantime.
Oliver Scott
those are literally all memes. NONE of these are great men, except Xi maybe. Musk has yet to show that he can sustain his reputation beyond memery.
Parker Gray
Barack Obama is a great man.
Kevin Cook
Liberate yourself within. It was actually always this way.
Alexander Gutierrez
absolutely NOT. despite his interesting background he really was of middling intelligence and had awful political skills. He was nothing more than an empty suit who sold out American to bankers. I mean ffs African American wealth was absolutely devastated during his presidency because of predatory financial practices that he chose to ignore.
Ryan Garcia
no but seriously the 21st century began 17 years ago. People born in the 21st century aren't even adults yet.
If you meant the 20th century:
Charles De Gaul Winston Churchill Roosevelt Oscar Wilde Tolstoy Ataturk Eisenhower
Benjamin Reyes
not innaccurate, though I prefer the fact that he just ignored it, to actively taking part in it as did both candidates of our last election
Michael Baker
Wilde died in 1900. Hardly a 20th century man
Jaxson Green
>Tolstoy >Ataturk
Probably the only two on that list that come close to 'Great' and even Ataturk is pushing it.
So one person, Tolstoy, who belonged to the 19th century. JUST
Camden Rivera
One has to wonder though why he ignored it. I think it's a sign that he was either in the Banker's pockets, being deceived by those bankers as they held all the big positions in his executives, raising questions about his judgement, or he very aloof and detached or just plain awful at policy making and being an effective executive (think about it, he never really had serious political office, besides a short stint as senator with a paltry legislative record and a bullshit "community organizer". DESU, his whole life leading up to the presidency was pure "easy mode" in large part because his skin color gave him outsider and underdog status, despite having been raised by his white mom. I say this as a leftist)
Adam Bell
Barack Obama is a great man
Luis King
He underestimated partisan difficulties, oversold himself as a leftist even though he was actually more centrist, and didn't get serious about pushing through policy until his second term. He just wasn't stern enough.
Julian Miller
No, user. The H*ndus believe each Yuga to be serveral millennia long. If we use the dating used by most brahmins today, we've been in the "Kali Yuga" for most of our history. Then again, what is to be learned from Oriental """"philosophy""" and """theology"""?
Me
John James
Not even a neoliberal dumbfuck
Stay in your basement m8. When the 'day of the rope' comes, I'll be happy to drag you out
Cameron Taylor
>He underestimated partisan difficulties Yes, in some sense it was a determinism. There was no way he was going to bridge the divide between the two parties because the operate on entirely different of agendas and assumptions. The problem was that he failed to hold his party together when it was clear from the beginning that the other party wasn't intent on playing ball with him. In that regard he utterly failed and from 2010 onward, he was essentially powerless legislatively because he failed to use his time wisely on issues that would raise democratic electability, namely aggressively tackling the recession. His own party played a part in this failure to pass effective legislation but he failed to take executive measures that were within his power to take, and just as importantly his inexperience in politicking made him fail to unite his party to his perspective. The so-called Blue Dog democrats, who got annihilated in 2010, were not shown that their efforts to posture as conservative were counterproductive and fatal to their own position.
>oversold himself as a leftist even though he was actually more centrist Yes, and I think part of the problem was that he himself didn't really know what he stood for outside of vague sloganeering.
>and didn't get serious about pushing through policy until his second term. That's false. ACA was the achievement of his presidency and that was achieved in the first year to the detriment of everything else, most notably recession fighting. Once he lost his senate super majority and house majority in 2010, there was no way he was going to pass anything else for the next 6 years because he failed at party organization. Republicans have a fundamentally different agenda than democrats. In our era "bipartisanship" does not exist and it's foolish idealism to think it's ever coming back for the foreseeable future.
Jason Nguyen
>He just wasn't stern enough. It's tempting to say it's just a matter of moral and character failings. But if we are to take up this perspective with Obama, this proves definitively that he is absolutely not a Great Man. As it is, it was more than just a matter of being a bully to succeed. Besides the lack of temperament, he also lacked the social, organizational and communicative skills to make for a successful executive. He was, as people pointed out at the time, a guy who posed as this owlish law professor (despite, from accounts I've read, his unremarkable academic career and record). He used that as a crutch imo. Of course, in retrospect he looks like a genius compared to Trump, who is utterly inept at governance, but Obama as far as I'm concerned was all around mediocre as a politician and statesman. He was similar to a Kennedy in that the two of them were more effective as telegenic cult of personalities that won allegiance, but had nothing to show as actual governors.
Lucas Murphy
>What do you think? It is a pure nonsense for impressionable brainlets. Many western countries are declining, and there are all kinds of crises in the world. Not because of esoteric nonsence, but because of natural forces and law at play, and because all societies go through different stages all the time.
Now, you pathetic pussy. Be thankful that you live in those comfy times, and not during the Great Depression, no to mention real tough shit in history, like Little Ice age, Third century, Russian Times of Troubles, 100 year wars, Deluge and so much more.
Carson Parker
There are plenty of greats, hell you only need 3, and the world would solve all its problems
Nikola Tesla Jiddu krishnamurti Ludwig von mises
My place from a western city seems fine. People are fine. And mostly entertain themselves, and live their lives.
Jaxson Lopez
>Naming a scientist as a great man
Good God, it really is over isn't it
Christopher Jenkins
>humanities majors >great men god damn you people are hilarious. you cannot produce a single fucking thing anyone wants to buy. you discipline is in complete postmodern shambles. none of you will ever be employed. yet you still consider yourselves above other people. the delusion is amazing.
Mason Turner
>Goethe or Napoleon or Caesar or Virgil so people who wrote fantasies about their accomplishments?
Nolan Price
wow! this post is spicy! and true. and i am using "pissbottl3rs" in a sentence tomorrow.
