Did secular liberalism fail or is it failing? If it fails, what will take its place?

So tell us about your culture

This but unironically
There are a few problems that could be fixed but things are actually really great. People forget how bad things were even a 100 years ago. Humanity has made great progress in that time and we’re most certainly living in the safest and most free society in all of history.

there would not be any marxism without brutal capitalism

Things were much better for my family 100 years ago so speak for yourself faggot

It's like the old conservative culture, but secular and bit more liberal.

The first world war was pretty fucked up for most families though

so?
not like your specific family mattered at all
GENERALLY, people lived worse 100 yeras ago

It's been failing since the 60s. Also nothing will take its place from within the Western civilization. Western civilization will crumble and another civilization with altogether different values will rise.

>gets mowed down by machine guns and blown up by shrapnel to go home crippled so I can work my 12 hour shift at the factory
A-At least there aren’t as many SJWs...

>we’re most certainly living in the safest
Absolutely not. While perhaps violent crime may have gone down somewhat, the omnipresent threat of a humanity-ending nuclear exchange is one of the only things holding us back from making WW2 look like a fucking joke since the 1950s. No deadly disease or conventional war can threaten to be as apocalyptic as the nuclear option.
>and free
politically, perhaps, but already the world of the current year is less free than the world of, say, ten years ago, in regards to what can and can't be said in countries that accept "freedom of speech", especially in the online domain.

>working in a factory
Like I said speak for yourself

And this is bad because? Yes the nuclear option is scary but it keeps conventional war in check.

The online domain is fine and freedom of speech is as free as it's ever been. The fuck are you even on about?

I think religion may make a comeback.

I'm not OP. The problem is not liberalism. The problem is that alongside liberalism, another kind of ideology glued itself into it. For liberalism to work, you need morals. You need people who can self manage themselves. Liberalism works better in a society where people read Epictetus, Epicurus, etc. Christianity does give this, as well. But what we have in Western society is not this. People are mostly aimless. They basically follow pleasure. Which ends up leading to problems.

One example is family structure. The percentage of children born out of wedlock has increased in the last few decades (take a look at this graph, for example). Which leads to a few problems for those children. Another is that it leads to self destructive lifestyles.

I'm >You need people who can self manage themselves

Take that as You need people who can manage themselves

The issue of family structure certainly is tied to morals partly but legal (no fault divorce, etc...) and material conditions (welfare) also play a major role.

It’s less violent until nuclear bombs actually drop. Until then it’s merely a possibility

Assuming you're talking about christianity here it already had one back in the early 2000s, it ended when they lost the gay marriage fight. Conservatism is becoming increasingly secular as we speak, someone like Trump would never have been elected in the GOP primary not even 8 years ago. I really can't see this trend reversing within the foreseeable future. Now, if some set of non-abrahamic faiths becomes popular? I dunno, maybe?

Euro here, you're wrong

German here, he is right.

You can't give any real, objective reason why liberalism is bad. All you can do is spout meme shit you heard on the retard containment board like muh degeneracy.

>I think religion may make a comeback.
All statistics say that religion is losing turf in the 1st world, and that that trend accelerates. meaning every year more and more people get irreligious and the importance of religion in daily life decreases.

Everything you said is true, except the 1st world isn't the people making babies, the 3rd world is, so while the 1st world is quite irreligious and only becoming less religious as time goes on, the total population of the Earth continues to grow in religious population compared to atheistic population.

Attached: whiteshields_by_erica1940-d9mrwqg.jpg (1024x724, 151K)

Yes, like 6 million dirtpoor goatfuckers and 2 billion rich irreligious folks that run the planet on a completely secular basis.

>You can't give any real, objective reason why liberalism is bad.
No, but I can prove that all of Its effects are horrendous and that there are many much more advanced political doctrines and systems.

Also nothing can be objectively bad, you idiot, especially when you are not even recognizing that the popular defintion of bad and evil are of Christian origin, like most liberal shits do.
Also:
>Atheism

...

>I can prove that ... there are many much more advanced political doctrines and systems.
Good luck with that son, you'll need it.

No. The absolute number of religious people may be growing. The proportion of non religious peoples has never been higer than within the last 40 years.

Attached: World Population.jpg (1425x808, 94K)

name 3 much more advanced political doctrines and systems

>2 billion rich irreligious folks that run the planet on a completely secular basis.

And despite the memes about life extension those 2 billion rich irreligious folks will eventually die - and who's going to replace them? The dirtpoor goatfuckers that had seven kids, instead of seven cats

>You can't give any real, objective reason why liberalism is bad

Liberalism is the end result of social alienation/atomisation produced by mass society, and is ultimately unsustainable because you can't build a cohesive, healthy society on "Dude just do whatever, like who cares bro"

Attached: 41GF24JM6ZL._SX308_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (310x474, 20K)

Thats not how it works mate, you don't get from goat hearder to industrial engineer just like that. There's a couple generations, hard work, universitary education and secularization in the process.
The more educated and prosper, the less religious a society is, So even if weights should shift, which I seriously don't think they do, then you still end up with a secularized society. Apparently religion and modern times don't go that well.

that's still liberalism. Peterson and Shapiro are both very much liberals.

>and is ultimately unsustainable
So far it works pretty well, much better than all the other systems we tried. and it does so for over 150 years now.

>While perhaps violent crime may have gone down somewhat, the omnipresent threat of a humanity-ending nuclear exchange is one of the only things holding us back from making WW2 look like a fucking joke since the 1950s.

nukes and an overwhelming powerful global hegemon.

>Thats not how it works mate, you don't get from goat hearder to industrial engineer just like that

When your own government admits that the only way to sustain the current population (and more importantly economic growth) is by endless importation of people from impoverished countries where religion is actually important, that's where it happens.

On the plus side, despite having the ability to nuke each others, we haven't done so in 70+ years. If this doesn't reinvigorate your faith in mankind then I don't know what will.

>So far it works pretty well

Famous last words of every empire

>Liberalism is the end result of social alienation/atomisation produced by mass society, and is ultimately unsustainable because you can't build a cohesive, healthy society on "Dude just do whatever, like who cares bro"

can you think of a non-liberal system that has a healthier civil society than a country like Denmark or Canada?

Yes, and this people spend 2-3 generations doing either nothing at all or shit jobs, once the reach the top half of society, like university education, good job etc. they are irreligious and liberal at the same rate as everybody else.

Yeah ok, start a thread when the world revolution actually happens.

>liberalism

Attached: 2259020.jpg (1346x674, 318K)

you know it does user, thanks. :)

Attached: 1515112699435.jpg (3264x2448, 974K)

plus pretty much every prosperous society in history has relied on cheap migrant labor to do the shit jobs.

Roman citizens weren't cleaning up those poop sponges.

not at all but liberalism really only shines when it's competing with a rival system (monarchism, fascism, communism)...we're just fat and bored right now.

Islam or Fascism. I wouldn't mind either desu
>reeee we have to defend our BASED gays and wethtern cithilizathun of cafeteria catholicism mixed with degenerate consumer capitalism MAGA

Attached: 1519974241489.jpg (1024x1024, 52K)

>working in a factory
>in 1918
I'm sure they had a jolly good time.

>Islam or Fascism. I wouldn't mind either desu

both systems are utter garbage unless your family runs the country.

Compared to living in neo-liberal states? No
At least Fascism and Islam openly declare they're authoritarian and don't lie to their people about 'freedumb' and other nebulous terms. European liberal states mouth the slogans but imprison indigenous dissidents who oppose mass immigration, for example. Free speech is a fundamental liberal principle, but is trampled when the liberal state suspects unrest. Enlightenment ideas are just dishonest and hypocritical. America and France practiced imperialism, America still does.

I seriously wonder why they neo liberal authoritarians let you post your dangerous ideas on this imperialistic american board and don't imprison you as the dissident you are and trample on your right of free speech right now!
But yeah, a totalitarian fascist dictatorship likely would be much better.

liberalism is aggressive as fuck, always has been...also free speech is still very much alive and well in the United States and France.

also if free-expression is your thing you can't do worse than picking a theocratic or fascist system to live under.

You sound really confused and upset friend.

heh...the irony is the basement dwellers do even worse under the other 2 a fore mentioned systems.

There'd be some knocks on your door right about now if you lived in a modern day Fascist state and wrote such criticism of the regime.

No, the real irony is that such guys are forced to live trough the better part of the 21st century and their life is gonna be a perfect no hitter.

yeah ok, your irony is more ironical.

Confucianism with Socialist Characteristics

Attached: confucian-harmonious-society.jpg (672x372, 61K)

I think it's falling, and it will give place to "technocracy". We will be ruled by those who have dedicated their entire life for studies or simply, "smart people", not necessarily from a /stem/ field.

Imagine a little country with a president and a bunch of senators, but all of them have a massive brain because they're smart cookies that studied hard their entire life. That'd be cool.

And it would happen again today if there were a power like old Germany in Europe.

AI won't let the smart cookies run anything.

Why liberalism in the USA is related to left-wing ideologies?

AI is something smart, isn't it? With the end of "liberalism", some old deterministic beliefs about society and culture will come back with everything, with things like "we must civilize other cultures" and "some people are smarter than others, get over it".

If some are smarter and more intelligent than others, then let them rule. If AI is smarter than us all, then let them rule. If robots finally surpasses humans in everything, then let them take our place.

Attached: 1516153510572.jpg (1920x1200, 442K)

>Conservatism
>Reactionism
>Constitutional Monarchism
>Athenian Democracy
>Enlightened Aristocracy
>Confederalism
>Roman Republicanism
>Epistocracy
>Market-Socialism
And the best one:
>Anti-Liberalism

Also for you libshit:

half of those aren't even political systems you dumb fuck, the other ones failed so hard no one ever tried them again.

Problem is that none of le great leaps forward is a fruit of complete liberalism. They are fruits of capitalism and the economic, cultural and military supremacy of certain relatively benevolent powers (USA, EU, etc) with pretty moral populations.

Liberalism may actually prove to be what tends to diminish cohesion in these powers. None of the first world countries has a true “center,” not even Japan. And their institutions never seem to approach reality, even remotely. In fact, they eagerly flout all the most obvious scientific truths in favor of patent falsehood.

Attached: 1514212829077.png (601x508, 127K)

You dont want people who are just 'smart', you need the to have the relevent experitse to do their job. You wouldn't want a physiscist doing heart surgery. How you'd asses that that abilitly isopens a whole other can of worms too.

AI is only smart in a narrow sense, It can crunch numder far beyond any human but it lack the ability to make value judgements based on the data it processes.

Stop beeing a moron.
Please answer this question:
Would you expect of a liberalist to follow reason and become anti-Liberalist when he is beaten on the battlefield of argumentation and proven that his beliefs are wrong or that he would recognize that Liberalism does more damage to society when it is applied there, than it could ever help it and leave Liberalism, if again proven that this is a fact?

>Imagine a little country with a president and a bunch of senators, but all of them have a massive brain because they're smart cookies that studied hard their entire life.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

>liberalist

it's just liberal my friend. Liberalism is the greatest system humanity has yet devised, you'd probably have to defeat it on some real battle-fields to prove otherwise.

>be diligent civilization
>adopt liberalism
>remain diligent civilization
>bugbrainwojak.jpg

Conservatism in many liberal societies (US, UK, Canada) is liberalism.

>secular
a 21st century religion based on technology.

Attached: artificial-intellegence.png (691x800, 402K)

Yews, I guess that the reason why first world countries are so unproductive, lazy and poor.

liberalism is a capitalistic system that tends to be cultural and militarily supreme. it's why it wins.

>half of those aren't even political systems you dumb fuck,
>name 3 much more advanced political doctrines and systems
>political doctrines and systems
>political doctrines
>name 3 much more advanced political doctrines
>and systems
If I haven't already mentioned, half of them are political doctrines/philosophies/ideologies.

>the other ones failed so hard no one ever tried them again.
We can imrove them and use them again, please first tell me what of those you mean and prove me that they failed because they were inefffective and not because other systems were fighting them, which is a natural political process. Are you implicating a system like Democracy is superior because it replaced other ones and became popular?
Are you perhaps a Globalist?
I'm pragmatic and I would still like you to get fucked by third-world-migrants, no problem right-there.
In what world is there place for the schizophrenic liberal animal, it's slightly superior, but as well primitive natural rivals, like the libertarian is ripping out its guts. At the end of the day evolution will all swallow them, as they don't even know what to do with their puny existance and how to use ones own principles for the greater good, but for that especially the liberal animal is too underdeveloped, finally its a matter of fact that they will end up not as food on the plate as animals were supposed to end up when beeing beneficial for humans, it will simply rott and be eaten up by the own dirt it produced, theliberal animal might be resisting but it can't flee after defeat, which will be ultimate. Yet the liberal animal will not be in a position to understand its fate and position, it can't believe in it, it can't seperate itself from its hull that it thinks it can see the whole world through, even though it is limited just like every other animal, its arrogance will come at a cost.
>This kills the liberalist

Damn, I want you so bad to be my Fuhrer so I finally can stop thinking myself.

>dies of staph infection

As a conservative person I think abortion should be made possible after the infant reached the age of 12.
>Conservatism in many liberal societies (US, UK, Canada) is liberalism.
Which means they interpretate it wrong and don't have actual Conservatism, also I'm refering to the classical definition of it, in a very right-wing manner as well, which you can't know.
>Conservatism in many liberal societies is liberalism.
>Conservatism(in many liberal societies) is liberalism.
>[In many liberal societies]conservatism is liberalism
>Conservatism is liberalism
>Coservatism=liberalism
>HahaIhadenough.jpg

Reason, as well as instinct tell me not to accept that offer, but perhaps you are seriously interested and can convince me to do otherwise.

Attached: 1280x720-Afn.jpg (1280x720, 73K)

>You can't be a conservative in a liberal democracy, this is absolutely unthinkable
>REEEEEEE, fascism or bust!

Attached: 92d.jpg (211x239, 5K)

>sub-protestant
uh?

Why do some people (mostly American) try so fucking hard to make it seem like it's somekind of grand marxist conspiracy behind the problems of liberalim?

No one cares about your fetishes my man

Same reason Marxists claim that Liberals are in bed with Fascists all the time, you have to paint the current society as bad and degenerate so you can propagate your own little utopia.

>As a conservative person I think abortion should be made possible after the infant reached the age of 12.

that's not a very conservative position.

nailed it.

>He has to post brainlet.jpgs in order to seem to have a pointLol I never said, implied nor thought anything like that and I can really not understand how you would actually come to even have that idea.
This is low-level b8 desu.
>>You can't be a conservative in a liberal democracy, this is absolutely unthinkable
No, you just can't take liberalism and say its conservatism. Stop pretending to be stupid, I just felt emberassed about how you make such a ridiculous point.

>>REEEEEEE, fascism or bust!
>fascism
>Using the "ure uh nahzee"-argument as someone who is not an SJW or Islamist
Damn the skeptic community surely has some problems.
U mad bro?
youtube.com/watch?v=igNhVwf_Gz8
philosopher>intellectual
Intellectuals are really just closett-commies, gtfo.

What is the liberal utopia?

Right, I should rather try to enforce death penalties for the most atrocious crimes, complete idiocy should be considered as such.

Attached: 1518016612691s.jpg (124x125, 3K)