Is it possible for liberal societies to be successful in the long term?
successful societies didn't exist until liberalism.
No because liberal individual societies take a lot of effort to maintain and liberal societies are just as susceptible to the natural decadence phase of civilizations, we’re seeing it right now
>>15629805I always thought of liberal individualism to be the spoiled rich frat kids of ideologies.
>>15629805Bourgeois liberalism is a good thing. True liberalism is not the same thing as totalitarian cultural marxism.
>>15629808So, all the kingdoms before the late 18th century were failures?
liberal individualism is fine as long as its within boundariesgood individualism: being innovativebad individualism: dying your hair purple
>>15629805Liberalism won long term against monarchism, communism and fascism. Will also win against whatever Putin and Xi doing too.
>>15629805ask where all the absolute monarchs went and you'll have your answer>n-no i'm talking specifically about nu lbtqiafbi+ liberalism thats the only one that exists!!
Selfish societies aren't destined to live long.
>>15629805>Like Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians are liberal, constitutional republicans, but Hamiltonians have believed from the beginning that both individual liberty and constitutional government are easier to secure in a strong nation-state with a stable government and a diversified economy than in a weak, decentralized, economically backward confederacy which, pursuing utopian schemes in foreign policy and domestic governance, would inevitably be dominated, in fact, by parochial politicians and foreign powers.-- Michael Lind>>15629810I think the liberals in the U.S. should steal "family" from the Religious Right and make it work as a secularized ethic of civil familism and friendship. "To have strong families means good-paying jobs and that's why we need to support unions" which are also like "families" and this is all knitted together in an ideology of intergenerational obligation (rather than unadulterated individual self-fulfillment / decadence). Also if the right attacks the left on LGBT issues, the left can just shoot back with that being an attack on "LGBT families." That's why I'd do.
>>15629808>>15630912*history of Japanese, Chinese and Persian civilizations exists*
>>15630862It beat Stalinism and ML but lost to Trotskyism and Frankfurtism.
>>15630862Richard "Hoste" Hanania has argued this point as well.
>>15629808Reddit moment
I don't know if I can give a good answer to that as an American. American liberalism is a twisted, soulless thing. It's forgotten all the stuff about common virtue, civic duty, sacrifice for your countrymen. We're a nation of selfish wasteful hedonists now. We've lost the plot. I'm sure that isn't the case in all liberal societies. I can imagine a community-oriented liberal society with high levels of conscientiousness, where people act as responsible citizens as the norm. It's just not here.
>>15629805Liberal societies are literally being overrun by third world immigrants so it’s doubtful to say the least.
If liberalism can prove that it is a universal idea and not an expression of enlightenment era Western European thought then yes. If it is just an expression of that particular ethnos it will not survive that ethnos ceasing to exist and it will probably be replaced something akin to Capitalism 2 coming out of China
The only thing that matters is the demography. If your birthrate is shit your system is flawed.
>>15630862*cough in white demographics*
>>15631060much success, so civilization
>>15630424Yeah
>>15629805What's wrong with individualism?
>>15631104Yes, because of artificial manipulation against "third world" countries. But we have a right to make yourselves successful in the countries that bring us in.
>>15631060>JapaneseLmaoAn isolationist military dictatorship that couldn't even beat Korea? Get fucking real, weeb>ChineseConstantly collapsing into civil wars and eating itself and breaking into pieces every time some Chinaman trips down the stairs>PersianLmao some carpets and foot stools in a desert don't make an empire
>>15631232>the Chinese of all people are going to slow the spread of one world globalism Lmao
>>15630862>whatever Putin and Xi doing too.turdworldism?>>15631129>not survive that ethnos ceasing to existthat's why we'll have tnd first>>15631498it makes >le based strongman type nonwhites mad
>>15631498We are meant to live in communities as a body politic, no man is an island. The paradox of individualism is that when you abandon undesired responsibilities, you wind up with a more powerful state that has to take on those responsibilities (or force you to take them back on)
>>15631519>no man is an island.Every man is an island, why should I look out for you or your cum stained blankets?
>>15629805Liberal societies are the most successful. The United States and Western Europe consist of the richest countries in history. You think they are unstable because you’re insanely privileged and have boneheaded ideas that you can run society better if you were in charge of everything.
>>15631537shut up materialistRich =/= Successful
>>15631541so you care about your soul but you let your fellow souls down on the material plane
>>15631525Because we cannot survive on our own, we need a group of people to survive with. That's what a society is.
>>15631541>Rich =/= successful Ok, than give up your material possessions including the device you’re using to post on the internet, and go live in your example of a successful community. What’s that? You won’t do it? Why is that? Is it because you innately understand there’s no actual nobility in poverty? Thought so.
>>15631547We can still help others but understand that each of us plays a unique part in our lives. We are not the same. Therefore, individualism.
>>15631557But if I live with a group of other people, I owe my rear end to that group. Without them I'm nothing. Hence, collectivism.
>>15631553Your argument is full of fallacies and ad hominem attacks. You seriously can't grasp the fact that someone's success isn't solely based on their income? Instead, you come back with irrelevant and baseless claims like "give up all your stuff" and "there's no nobility in being poor" which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.Excuse me, but I don't need to prove my beliefs by giving up my possessions. That's such a stupid idea and has nothing to do with the argument. Plus, just because I have a smartphone doesn't automatically mean I'm ballin' out of control financially - it could just be convenient technology.
>>15631561>But if I live with a group of other people, I owe my rear end to that group.Define "live" you mean roommates? Or community? Even if I'm part of a community most people won't look out for my interests unless they are related to me. I still need to do for myself.
>>15631571>Your argument is full of fallacies and ad hominem attacksAnon he didn't insult your character whatsoever, you're repeating a script lol >You seriously can't grasp the fact that someone's success isn't solely based on their income?People are not empires and liberal empires have been fabulously wealthy in comparison to even the most majestic despots>Instead, you come back with irrelevant and baseless claims like "give up all your stuff" Thats not a claim, its a demand>"there's no nobility in being poor" There isn't >which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.It has everything to do with the topic at hand you're just too fucking dense to understand it
>>15631571>Plus, just because I have a smartphone doesn't automatically mean I'm ballin' out of control financiallyIn comparison to the majority of the human race, it does Thank liberalism for that computerized brick
>>15631060all got btfo by liberal societies
>>15631604>that pic related I felt that
>>15631596The poorest liberal society is richer than the richest despot. Now, let me ask you something: are you a white nationalist?
>>15631624>are you a white nationalist?No, I actually have sex.
>>15630424Well they all failed so yes.
>>15631553No it's because my idea of a successful community is an all white nation that vigilantly defends its borders.
>>15631624> poorest liberal societyBotswana --- 6 805 GDP/capita> the richest despotBrunei --- 31 449 GDP/capita
the answer is clearly no. The moment liberal social trends took over fertility dropped below replacement. And we can't really separate stages at this point since one clearly bled into the other
>>15632034Brunei has centuries of inherited wealth and Botswana is fresh from being raped by colonists, having existed for less time than the USA
>>15632033Ok Uncle Tobey, go post about it on Facebook lol
>>15632042Fertility will return when chad generation will be born after all incels are filtered.
Liberal society lasted from the beginning of the industrial revolution until the 60s, it could theoretically be preserved in the long run, but only with high trust high IQ communities that maintain trad values.
>>15632076you don't believe that and the fact that you type in memes suggests you're suffering from brain damage
>>15632100It just makes sense. Attractive people, mentally healthy, adapted to a liberal world with whoremongers, have more and more attractive children... Who will have no problem having more children. This is bottleneck effect 101.
>>15632118the numbers have been in decline since at least the 1920's. The problem is female led sexual selection not genetic stock. As much as I want to believe evolution will find a way for the past 100 years it hasn't
How come no one else has pointed out the complete collapse of individualism in America?Try to strike out on your own 2023 and see how quickly you get BTFO
>>15630424If you’re gonna tell me with a straight face you’d rather live in 18th century Russia or Ireland or Greece, then you’re either retarded or a liar
>>15632127> The problem is female led sexual selection not genetic stock. It will stop being a problem wthen genetic stock is good enought, hence The Chad Rebound.
>>15632118This makes sense on paper but it's just not what we're observing. It makes sense to think that intelligent, successful people will reproduce more, but that isn't the case. In fact those traits negatively correlate with fertility. Dumb, unemployed losers seem to be the most reproductively successful and since intelligence and attractiveness are correlated we can presume that unattractiveness is also being selected for.
>>15631513>globalism is bad>I hate low cost of living and high standards of life
>>15632178>these people are all depressed and going to hell but they have high standards of life because uhhh...
>>15630424How many are still around?
>>15632178globalism lowered standards of living by outsourcing the supply chain. But it's great that we have a bunch of tacky junk products instead!
>>15632131Individualism has been a meme for the average American for most of America's history. The Old West required the government to give away dozens of acres of free land a piece, and at any given time only maybe 1% of Americans actually lived on the frontier. Everybody else was in the wagie cagie literally burning to death in factory fires because they couldn't get the cages unlocked fast enough.
>>15631429>reddit: the post
>>15631525The entire sucess story of the humanity is based on collective. Retard.
>>15629808this but unironically
>>15631513>Lmao
>>15631553The unfortunate thing is that due to property taxes and regulations, you really can't. Want to build a house out of stone and clay mortar. Illegal. A lot of the very old ways of doing things are stright up illegal now.
>>15632178>low cost of living I live in a mid sized city and my studio being 800 bucks with utilities included is considered shockingly low, even without spending 2 hundred on groceries The cost of living is pretty high these days
>>15629805If they're ethnically homogenous, maybe.
>>15629805yes but not neoliberalneoliberalism leads to mass revolts from the workers
>>15631232Birth rate is a overrated meme in the era of automation and even so Chinese and Russians have it worse than western Europeans. If birth rate determined it all the future would be Indian and African, but that's obviously a ridiculous idea.
>>15633267>Birth rate is a overrated meme in the era of automationChat GPT wont pay grandmas pension>Chinese and Russians have it worse than western EuropeansChina has it bad, but its splitting hairs comparing rates within Europe>If birth rate determined it all the future would be Indian and African, but that's obviously a ridiculous idea.5 billion Africans vs. Liberal Western governments ran by women and minorities. Who wins?
>>15632098>Liberal society lasted from the beginning of the industrial revolution until the 60sThat was just the transition period where the West shed Christianity and replaced it with Liberalism, the values that society at large currently holds are the logical conclusions of Liberal principles.
>>15633437>Chat GPT wont pay grandmas pensionNo but AI has the potential to bring prices so far down that pensions can be paid with inflation without causing much harm. This is probably the better outcome over AI causing mass unemployment if the birthrate wasn't falling. >5 billion Africans vs. Liberal Western governments ran by women and minorities. Who wins? This is the actual threat. None of the problems we're facing be it population decline or climate change can be solved while subhumans invade our countries.
>>15633528>subhumans invade our countries.Invasion is what white did. Immigration isn't invasion. If you don't want immigration, stop your corporates from doing it for cheap labour. But ofcourse you don't have the balls to do that and would rather blame it on jews.
>>15630964You must not know any lgbt if you think that you can use the term lgbt family in any way other than mockingly. They are the most degenerate people that will backstab each other at a moment's notice. There is no unity or cohesion in their "families".
>>15633536I don't think you understand the dictionary definition of invasion.
>>15633536>If you don't want immigration, stop your corporates from doing it for cheap labourI'm trying to by voting for politicians who want strong borders and strict immigration and spreading my message online. What else do you suggest I do? >But ofcourse you don't have the balls to do that This fucking glows. I'm not going to kill anybody.>and would rather blame it on jews. We're very explicitly blaming liberals and women.
>>15629805No. Individualism completely depends on continuous expansion and destruction. Once it runs out of places to exploit it inevitably dies. Notice the anger of individualists that there are no more too many working people at home to exploit, and nonwestern countries begin to say no to the exploutation. The only resort now is war, which is near certainly impossible, as individualists are always cowards, and normal people have nothing to fight for.
>>15631508>that couldn't even beat KoreaWhat alternate history cocaine have you been snorting? Or did you casually mix up Ming China with Korea? Here's your (You) for casually implying that "Korea" is a synonym of China.
>>15629805No. And also it's a very new thing. The West was never "individualist", this is what 80s capatalists and literal Jews started shilling they could get away with stealing the wealth of White Christian America. Sad that idiots fall for it while paying insanely high tax rates.
>>15633267>in the era of automation>children working 16 hours a day are still around
>>15629805
