LGBT degeneracy

[Apollo]

Hmm, at it's core the National Character of the country was shaped by the Russian Slavs who were mostly influenced by other Euros; most notably by the Byzantine/Roman Greeks.

I don't see much Asiatic cultural influence on the Russian Slavs if any.

Not necessarily ''Asiatic'' culture, but the EU seems to have brought a split between Slavs. Even though EU Slavs sound ''based'' and extremely right-wing, they would never go as far as what Belarus or Russia do. There seems to be a massive cultural divergence between ''Europe'' and Russia since the fall of the wall (early 90s).

 

[BobSmoke]

Crimea Ukraine Putin is not a good ruler

Geopolitical reasons for it. He had to take Crimea from that Nato puppet. And he developed that region fast. Western media tryna throw dirt on my nigga. He is not a good leader, he is excellent. The sanctions made Russia a stronger country, thanks to that guy's vision. Somalia needs a leader like him to set the country straight

 

[Apollo]

voting is pointless - its an illusion - you're not in control in anyway.

a real redpilled person doesn't vote

I call bullshit on this.

Just look at South Korea and Japan.

National character and voting patterns do matter in democracies, it is just that the media manipulates the voting public too much, but voting matters and does make a change.

 

[abdullah233]

I have a Russian Jew friend and he looks like he is admixed with Central Asian. Although most Russian Jews are not mixed with Asians (they mostly look like European/North American Jews).

I have an Israeli friend at school they are properly brainwashed about Muslims.

Geopolitical reasons for it. He had to take Crimea from that Nato puppet. And he developed that region fast. Western media tryna throw dirt on my nigga. He is not a good leader, he is excellent. The sanctions made Russia a stronger country, thanks to that guy's vision. Somalia needs a leader like him to set the country straight

Putin is not a great leader he is a dictator esque figure Somalia has tried a dictatorship and it pissed off most people so we won’t try that again

 

[SOMALI GENERAL]

Not necessarily ''Asiatic'' culture, but the EU seems to have brought a split between Slavs. Even though EU Slavs sound ''based'' and extremely right-wing, they would never go as far as what Belarus or Russia do. There seems to be a massive cultural divergence between ''Europe'' and Russia since the fall of the wall (early 90s).

I think the problem is Western Europeans arrogantly trying to reshape what it's means to be a "European" by promoting a non-Ethnic & globalist identity that clashes with the traditional European identity that is centred around Ethnicity/Old Culture & among other things which are still by and large up-held by East Europeans.

 

[Apollo]

I have an Israeli friend at school they are properly brainwashed about Muslims.

Putin is not a great leader he is a dictator esque figure Somalia has tried a dictatorship and it pissed off most people so we won’t try that again

Whenever I see a Russian number plate, the cars I see:

Russians living in Western Europe got a good sense of car style.

 

[BobSmoke]

I have an Israeli friend at school they are properly brainwashed about Muslims.

Putin is not a great leader he is a dictator esque figure Somalia has tried a dictatorship and it pissed off most people so we won’t try that again

Difference between Putin and MSB is the same as being a genius vs being cunning. It all depends on the ruler. Just look at his track record and you'll understand that I'm not just talking straight xaar

 

[Yonis]

I call bullshit on this.

Just look at South Korea and Japan.

National character and voting patterns do matter in democracies, it is just that the media manipulates the voting public too much, but voting matters and does make a change.

If the politicians that are dangled in front of you are themselves controlled then the whole thing becomes a farce.

Opposition is always controlled.

therego any 'choice' is an illusion

 

[Apollo]

If the politicians that are dangled in front of you are themselves controlled then the whole thing becomes a farce.

Opposition is always controlled.

I know what you are talking about, but there is a critical mass that can be reached, especially now in the age of social media. Although since ~2018 with social media censorship this is becoming harder.

Democracy in the West is real, but its main flaw and attack vector is manufactured consent and media manipulation (by a certain Semitic tribe in particular).

 

[Zhang he]

Old school liberalism is quite rightwing. It doesn't help out the poor and is extremely market oriented.

Nowadays, especially in American English, liberalism usually means something close to Social Democracy and not old school (1800s) liberalism.

The left-right dichotomy really is a poor model of explaining politics.

Let me introduce the concepts of the principled and unprincipled exceptions. These account for the variations in the stances of social democracy, classic liberalism, neoliberalism and what not. The unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, which individuals use in order to avoid certain aspects of liberalism. The principled exception is its inversion: a non-liberal value, explicitly identified as non-liberal, which individuals use to avoid certain aspects of liberalism. The movement between principled exception to unprincipled exception helps explain much of the progression of liberalism.

Remember: liberalism's heart is that liberty (freedom) is the ultimate good.

Liberalism emerged in the UK in the 17th century which was marked by the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the Protectorate of Cromwell, the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution. Back then, virtually everyone were Christian. This was to the point that John Locke, major liberal philosopher, advocated for freedom of religion (meaning freedom to be Catholic, Anglican or nonconforming Christian). What was his view on atheism, I wonder?

This is a principled exception. Over time, this stance becomes an unprincipled exception. Generations are brought up being taught that freedom is the ultimate good and also being taught contradictory things like Christianity. This causes cognitive dissonance so they switch to unprincipled exceptions: atheists are bad people, untrustworthy, traitors and so forth. Here is the point: no matter whether their excuses are true or not, they have ceased to argue in the name of their non-liberal beliefs, appealing to common sense or emotion or something like that. This is an unprincipled exception: they have become unwilling to challenge liberalism directly. Their non-liberal beliefs are incompletely passed down to future generations who then largely disregard it. Without the non-liberal foundations, the unprincipled exception is weak and is easily wiped away by the forces of liberalism.

This is the internal dialectic of liberalism: you can trace it to so many different issues. The key is: once an exception becomes unprincipled, liberalism has won (no matter how long it takes).

Social democracy, the extension of democratic control to the economic sphere, was formed by the efforts of many revisionist Marxists, Christian Socialists, Fabian Socialists and more. These people mounted a challenge to the predominant economic liberalism using principled exceptions that drew on things like historical materialism, Christian duty and agape and utopian socialism. Over a few decades, these principled exceptions degenerated to unprincipled exceptions like the poor need help. These sentiments, however nice, have weak foundations. Then, in the 90s, social democratic parties began to reintroduce marketisation, calling card of economic liberalism.

What does this internal dialectic of liberalism mean? Any issue on which a defence cannot proudly be mounted using non-liberal justifications will fall to liberalism. Homosexuality, marketisation of society, dissolution of family ties, loss of tradition, sexual liberation, you name it. This helps explain the sudden turn around on transgenderism over the last 10 years. See if this theory applies in real life: such theories are as truthful as they are explanatorily powerful.

 

[Zhang he]

I know what you are talking about, but there is a critical mass that can be reached, especially now in the age of social media. Although since ~2018 with social media censorship this is becoming harder.

Democracy in the West is real, but its main flaw and attack vector is manufactured consent and media manipulation (by a certain Semitic tribe in particular).

That's not its flaw, that's its nature.

Democracy is often attributed as originating in Athens. This origin story is an example of a categorical rebasing: the redefinition of categories in order to shoehorn something into a desired category which use to contain other phenomena without people catching on.

Athenian democracy, which only had free Athenian men with the right to participate, mostly didn't rely on elections: they relied on something called sortition. Most magistrate positions were chosen by lottery (someone's name was randomly picked) with only a few like generals being elected. It was understood by the Ancient Greeks, most notably Aristotle, that elections were undemocratic. They were oligarchic: they empowered a small group of society, the wealthiest and the aristocrats, undue power as their wealth distorted elections as campaigning cost money as did satisfying your voters.

The Founding Fathers in America and the Abbe Sieyès in France during the French Revolution (the Directory and the First Consulate), being classically trained, knew that. They chose representative government (chosen by election) because they didn't want democracy (chosen by sortition). Over time, more people were given the vote yet a small section of society have great power over government.

This is what they don't tell you: you don't live in democracies (only people in Switzerland live in semi-democracies) according to the understanding of the medieval Arabs, the Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Romans and Europeans before the 19th century. The public have greater power than they did under dictatorships and absolute monarchies but still not that much.

 

[abdullah233]

That's not its flaw, that's its nature.

Democracy is often attributed as originating in Athens. This origin story is an example of a categorical rebasing: the redefinition of categories in order to shoehorn something into a desired category which use to contain other phenomena without people catching on.

Athenian democracy, which only had free Athenian men with the right to participate, mostly didn't rely on elections: they relied on something called sortition. Most magistrate positions were chosen by lottery (someone's name was randomly picked) with only a few like generals being elected. It was understood by the Ancient Greeks, most notably Aristotle, that elections were undemocratic. They were oligarchic: they empowered a small group of society, the wealthiest and the aristocrats, undue power as their wealth distorted elections as campaigning cost money as did satisfying your voters.

View attachment 136459

The Founding Fathers in America and the Abbe Sieyès in France during the French Revolution (the Directory and the First Consulate), being classically trained, knew that. They chose representative government (chosen by election) because they didn't want democracy (chosen by sortition). Over time, more people were given the vote yet a small section of society have great power over government.

This is what they don't tell you: you don't live in democracies (only people in Switzerland live in semi-democracies) according to the understanding of the medieval Arabs, the Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Romans and Europeans before the 19th century. The public have greater power than they did under dictatorships and absolute monarchies but still not that much.

The Athenian model seems flawed in the way that it might cause unfit officials to come into power or were there requirements to be put into the lottery other than owning land and being male

 

[Zhang he]

The Athenian model seems flawed in the way that it might cause unfit officials to come into power or were there requirements to be put into the lottery other than owning land and being male

Correct, there was a risk that unfit officials could come into power. There are some things to consider as to why people didn't care that much:
1) Terms lasted for 1 year so people could not do that much damage.

2) Athenian society was much less complex as it had far less people than our societies: about 40,000-60,000 citizens and potential officials at the peak of Athenian society in the 5th century BC. People didn't need to be that capable.

3)Before taking up their office, officials had to pass dokimasia in front of the Boule (of members from the previous term): an examination of their physical fitness, their abtirsi, their military record and their political ideas (whether they wanted to overthrow democracy).

4) After their 1 year term was up, they had to pass euthyna. Their financial records were examined for embezzlement and bribery and their actions in office were examined by a court of their peers. These peers could be exiled the official if they found their misconduct unacceptable.

5) Laws were passed by separate bodies (the Boule and the Ecclesia) chosen by sortition. Both bodies had to agree: the Boule controlled the agenda of the Ecclesia. There were more opportunities to block dangerous laws.

6) The positions where competence was a life and death matter were elected like the generals.

This system of government was more chaotic but far less corrupt than the oligarchic elected periods of Athens. It is hard to bribe when people only have the ability to serve 2 terms in their lives in separate positions and a large percentage of people (potentially up to a third) serve in their lives. The rich had far less power and income inequality was at its lowest in Athens. However, the rich did overthrow the democratic government twice.

 

[pablo]

Praying for more democratic policies

 

[NinkiYar]

Hold up your nose and vote left wing in the West.

Conservatives do not change cultural things. All they do is be racist, make the rich richer, and slow down immigration. All these things are not to the benefit of diaspora Somalis.

I will rather vote right wing