What the fuck is wrong with liberals

This, basically.

have you looked at wikileaks recently, i agree that the rhetoric seems to be to find explanations for hillarys loss that are directed outwardly instead of focusing on problems on the liberal side, but man, wikileaks is so obviously a shill

reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5lfn6r/trump_spokesman_we_need_to_talk_about_punishing/

I want to die

I can't tell if the CTR hillbots are back in force or if people have literally just been completely brainwashed by the media's diversion campaign.

if you're talking about americans then the whole political landscape is a shit show

both sides of the american political spectrum have almost completely lost touch with reality. it's really frightening

It's alot of both tbqh. The democrats have to keep CTR because its so many fingers in the dike. Without sustained effort maintaining the facade eventually the internet would undo their entire narrative and then they'd really be in the shit.

Because liberals don't control the media, the media controls liberals.

They don't care about economics and they never did. The stuff about "economic justice" was just rhetorical window dressing for them to sound more cuddly.

From a nationalistic perspective they don't even particularly care if the entire US manufacturing base is hollowed out by free trade - in fact I've seen a number of them explicitly shilling for global free trade now.

You're dealing with people whose entire politics rests on their psychological economy, which preaches that the absolute indulgence of the individual, no matter how depraved and negative, is equivalent to a sort of axiomatic divine law.

Anything that contradicts the "right" of an individual to indulge himself in whichever way he pleases is viewed either as pathology or, retrograde (until it catches up). The hatred of Russia is peculiar, but I think it relates back to this image the media built up prior to Sochi of Putin as some sort of vanguard of anti-gay violence. Remember there were calls from the liberal press for a boycott - How many times have you seen such anger and rage demonstrated towards MENA Muslim states for their anti-homosexual laws, which are orders of magnitude more severe than anything in Russia? Liberals really do hold white people and non-white people to different standards, it's not just a meme.

t. Holla Forums

This is bs. They worship economic growth, they worship the modern liberal capitalist economic system based on infinite growth, debt slavery and a post-modern conception of morality that places material gain above all else.

For most of the liberal big wigs, this is especially evident. They claim to give a shit about all these brown people pouring into the West, and they claim to want to let them in to help them, but look how they fucking patronise them. They don't treat them like human beings, they treat them like tools. Some charitable people they are.

Why is this? Mass immigration is to expand the labour pool, it's to stop contracting populations, it's to keep up economic growth. Liberals do care about economics- in a world where morality is increasingly grey and dead, it's all many of them really care about. Multiculti is a facade. It's about growth, it's about money.

The liberals have won the world ideologically, a la Dugin's T4PF. They are the status quo. The two main competitors of liberalism in the modern age, Socialism and Fascism, died in 1991 and 1945 respectively. Do not expect them not to partake in economic fuckery. They are the establishment. They are the economy.

t. would be Holla Forums, but Holla Forums is full of screaming retards.

and by screaming retards, I do not mean you in particular, user, you are being very reasonable here, and I agree with much of what you say.

We live in a liberal world, a world that is very much post-liberal because of this. Liberals are everywhere in the West, the West has replaced its traditional mindset and morality with liberalism. The media, the average joe, the useful idiots, the "conservatives" (yesteryear's liberalism), the "alt-right" (ISLAM IS BAD BECAUSE IT HURTS MUH FAGGOTS AND WOMYN). Who controls liberals is irrelevant, the West IS the embodiment of liberalism and nothing short of dramatic change and conflict will change that.

Also, when I contradictorally say liberal modern capitalists consider morality to be grey and then say they won the world ideologically, what I mean if that they have achieved such an ideological consensus in Western Society that they have no need to actively forward their ethics and morality anymore.

Dugin draws this notion out in his discussion of post-liberalism and post-politics. Liberalism has essentially melted into society; let's be honest, even the "politically apathetic" worker is some shade of liberal these days, and liberalism's focus on ultra-individualism is actually affecting social trends massively right now.

Elaborate.

What I believe this young gentleman was implying, is that the CIA bodyswitched Assange on DAK, and are now pumping out pro-Trump memes via their replaced r/the_donald moderators to try divert attention away from the interagency war between them, the FBI, the NSA, and other factions within the deep state.

I- I think I'm no longer a nationalist. jk, I'm a socdem. I love arbitrarily siding with the far right.

Good points all. I guess what I meant by "don't care" is that there was a popularly held notion that libs held to some more left orientated economic policy until recently. But really all the difference between the two main liberal parties (center left and center right) comes down to is some ever so slight difference in fiscal policy (we want to spend 40pc of GDP on public services and they want to spend 50pc).

But just spending slightly more welfare on underclasses isn't really a paradigm shift or anything. It's a meaningless distinction.

But anyway. There was a popular assumption that center left branches of liberalism were on the side of "economic justice". That myth has been exploded with the recent election. These people are economic as well as social liberals.

To me Trudeau is the best example. Holy shit I hate that man so fucking much.

Is it fair to describe conservatism as a subset of liberalism? I'm definitely not a conservative, but I think it's at least a coherent political philosophy. The question is if free-market capitalism is compatible with its values, however.

Very true. It's quite beautiful to see the myth of economic justice get smashed really- although with globalisation's effects on First World working class people, they've had it coming for a while.

It should also be noted that the whole "spend slightly more welfare on the underclasses" thing is because we live in a consumer society where the plebs spend their money on a bunch of useless consumer goods, which is good for the economy (financial security=consumer confidence=spending=money circulation and good business). It's the reason they won't actually leave the poor to die when shit gets automated, and that universal income is being considered by economic liberals.

I would describe modern Western conservatism, which is basically liberal-conservatism, as a form of liberalism, yes. Especially neocons, who support going on interventionist crusades to spread "democracy" and "western values" (read: liberalism).

If we mean conservatives by actual traditionalists or revolutionary conservatives like the DNVP then no, they are not liberals.

I would say conservatism is more a trend that spans multiple ideologies than an ideology itself, as liberal-conservatism shows. That trend, of course, being the trend of not-totally-all-out reaction.

Let's be real here, how the hell is conservatism a coherent political philosophy? It's very much specific to the time, place and current direction of sociopolitical change. Strains within it are coherent, yes, but if we look at conservatism as a family of ideologies akin to socialism as opposed to a broad phenomenon of ideologies then we get a very disjointed family.

All post 19th century European/European diaspora politics is a subset of liberalism, barring perhaps Fascism and Communism, as the other user has pointed out.

What does liberalism fundamentally believe in? Individualism and Equality.

The points at which these two concepts compete with one another (eg Rawls and positive liberty) is the point at which the left right schism within liberal thought occurs.

Liberalism is a nightmarish cocoon into which we've all become trapped. We are incapable of thinking illiberal thoughts. Our very language exists to serve liberalism as a sort of sycophantic megaphone (see how whenever we call a state "democratic" it is consequently assumed we are praising it, so everyone calls themselves democratic).

this

Not an ancap or a lolberg but I find Hoppe's definition of true, hardcore conservatism to basically be "biologically perennial values" that transcend civilizations and time periods - i.e. family as base unit of society, wider kinship relations as nation, patriarchy etc - to be a useful one.

Worth noting that this really is done for reasons of pure ideology (and Israeli interests). People who think the Iraq War was for "oil" need to actually look at how vociferously the US's own Oil & Gas lobby opposed it and how virtually all of Iraq's biggest oil contracts went to Sinopec.

People give western leaders too much credit, they're not these highly intelligent, machiavellian schemers aiming to game everything to their own national interest.

They are actual kool-aid drinkers now. They believe it. All of it.

There have been times when I've praised non-white states for being "authoritarian" and "paternal" in their outlook and people have assumed I was expressing some sort of "x-phobic" viewpoint.

Sometimes I wonder if we elected socialist to office, that it wouldn't even matter because a military junta would stop them in the end.

If you go with this definition, modern Western conservatives are not really real conservatives. Which kind of makes sense, but hey.

People actively seek out being offended, ultra-individualism has castrated our ability to entertain opposing ideas because everything is Xist and Xophobic.

Seconded and I believe expansionist neoliberalism in combination with the ever encroaching intrusion of the state into cognition itself, is this process in overdrive, repeatedly doubling down on itself and cementing it into place ever more deeply, rewriting what it means to be human in ways we don't even yet have the language to describe, and by then, won't either.

This is birtherism on steroids, this has to be the most embarrassing public tantrum I've ever seen in my life of watching politics. Do they even want to ever win another election or do they unironically believe this is helping them?

To elaborate, language and meaning comes from a linguistic community. Given this, we can't form the concepts to begin to conceive what the outcome of this will be. Dialectic prophecy, all the theory in the world, is fucking useless, it's a total black box, it's not a singularity: it's the event horizon.

When Marx said this famous phrase

He was right, except the last part, he didn't realise that the base material condition of the mind itself would itself be melted and profaned, swept away by the all consuming logic of capital and its technological monstrosity.

So nope, the final stage isn't communism guaranteed, the "contradictions" don't resolve. It's liberalism on an ontological scale, deeper and deeper contradictions written irreversibly into the core of human existence. Are you prepared for that, you fucking retards?

The contradictions may not resolve, not even in a way we may want, but the contradictions do react to one another. When you have opposing forces acting on one another, some outcome is inevitable.

Thanks Sir Isaac but I think we're beyond that now.

1. The substrate of the mind is material
2. The relationship between the material and the mind could be totally inaccessible to science, without any way of knowing
3. All known cognitive science immediately becomes integrated within the corporative state, advertising, media, PR, black ops, it all holistically integrates to form a meta-cognitive system
4. This follows the logic of capital, as everything else material under the current stage of capitalism (neoliberalism)
5. Liberals don't even appear to have a conscience at this stage

And you idiots call me a freak for hitting panic and listening to the right?

It's happening already, user. It's taking the west, it's spreading to places like China and India.
We can only hope for the collapse of industrial civilization or nuclear war before every culture and society becomes a monstrosity entirely alien to the human psyche and to good social cohesion.

That's why I went "fuck", and considered nationalism, in an inversion of my entire life's principles. SJW's aren't triggering me, I've been a troll since I was like 11, I have the thickest skin imaginable, I couldn't give a fuck, it's what they represent, it's what they are a symptom of that makes me think we're going off the edge literally now.

The contradictions can be suppressed for sometime, class struggle and the revolutionary edge of the working class can be blunted for some time, but as history shows us this suppression does not work forever.

A ruling class, no matter how cemented their positions of power may seem, do not rule indefinitely.

There is no ruling class. There's only capital. History is becoming increasingly useless as a guide, we're becoming rudderless unless we can find some kind of anchor.

And he's disappeared up his own asshole. Gross.

There has been a ruling class since the advent of agriculture. What class that specifically has ruled has varied throughout the ages but for about the last 15,000 years there has been a distinct class controlling the means of production.

We've passed the event horizon.

Resource depletion, post-modernity, ontological liberalism, the ill effects of industrial civilization, all of it. we're living in John B. Calhoun's mouse utopia.

If we continue down the current path, we ARE fucked.

Nationalism won't save anything at this point. The fact that it's either civic, "ethnic" skinhead nationalism or some other shit devoid of ethnos and tradition doesn't help.

The only way to fix our planet-wide spiritual and civilization dumpster fire is total collapse of existing structures. Billions of people WILL die and we WILL be sent back to the population and technological level of late antiquity, but it is by a long shot preferable to poisoning the human mind, spirit and earth.

You're a fucking idiot, try and follow my argument above, I'm not denying a bourgeoisie but it's amorphous, contentless, it's not a monarchical dynasty. You're dooming us you liberal piece of shit.

Do you not know what permanent revolution means? Fundamental change. Unprecedented. Marx just looked in the wrong direction, Freud wasn't even around then, and psychoanalysis is garbage anyway. That's where Zizek fucks up. He was so close to the terrible truth.

We don't have to collapse the current structures of our society. That's unnecessary.

And what is this so all terrible truth?

See
I condensed it down as much as humanly possible. Let me know if you need any elaboration. There's a lot left out.

ayy lmao

Ok, cool. That's a nice word salad post but I got to ask, what is the actual point you're trying to make?

kys plz

You too. Are you a chatbot?

You seem like an ass hat that can't compose your post down to a central point. I'm asking you to compose this word salad:

Into one central point.

How else should we fix it then? How can we redeem our current post-modern society?

Go fuck yourself. I'm not dumbing it down for people who cannot grasp the totality of the synthetic, integrating structure of capitalism as it relates to and permeates all society. If you can't do that, what are you doing here? Literally Zizek talks about this shit, you only have to know about 1-2 other fields. How do I get in contact with someone who's not an autistic larper?

Adopting cleaner forms of power, raising the standard of living (which leads to the population ultimately evening out and even declining slightly), abolishing the innately unsustainable economic system of capitalism, and the like.

I would say more, but your other posts in this thread simply point towards the idea that you're retarded. You can't even fucking condense some writing down.

If you want to go back up on your podium and leave us lowly peasants here to bicker, so be it.

Oh right we'll just abolish capitalism. What could be easier? Fucking dreamers. Come up with an actual plan or accept totalitarian capital into your hearts because it's coming for your minds, at the neural architectural level, and there is an infinity of possible ways that could go wrong.

It's about as condensed as it could possibly be, you petulant ignorant wantwit. You have no business entering into discussions such as these. Try Jacobin and reddit, it should be more your speed.

...

...

This is a shit way to spread class conciousness.

yeah, that's a good idea, that won't stop the soil depletion from farming and the finite nature of useful minerals like silver in the earth's crust though

world fertility is already screwed apart from Africa, which will also be sub-replacement by 2100. All civilisations historically that achieved sub-replacement birthrates collapsed.

This is half the problem. If we let our fertility decline like it is now, we're fucked. If we keep breeding, we're fucked. The only solution to our situation is tearing it down sooner rather than later. Nuclear war is a good thing.

Unless this system is explicitly post-growth I'm skeptical at best. And how are you going to establish a system not based on capital? Look at how present capital is in modern economies, give me a plan on how we re-write this shit without creating something worse. Socialism relies on a working proletariat that will be put out of work my automation, we have to look to the future here.

I don't understand capitalism, at all: the post

They are spreading class consciousness for the petit-bourgeoisie, pretty obvious. They see their position as precarious so they visualize themselves as the vanguard, leading the ignorant proles, shaping the future with their minds.

I'm not him but I've been following this convo for a while, are you suggesting that capitalism will alter the very way our biology works, beyond the obvious social changes capitalism implies?

That is easily negated with proper farming techniques and the like. We still have a lot of resources.

All those civilizations achieved it due to issues relating to natural disaster. Famine, disease, war, and such. Modern society is facing a declining birth rate because we have high enough living standards.

Whether or not Socialism is infinitely sustainable I don't think reallys needs to be debated. Because it isn't sustainable. However, it is a fuck ton more sustinable than the profit-above-all, exponential growth for the sake growth economic model of Capitalism.

Socialism combined with sustainable forms of power and modern technology is farming and mining will make way for long term sustainability.

ITT """Marxists""" can't comprehend that the materialism simply didn't go far enough, our minds are based in biology, and that capital is ALREADY in our heads, we are already cybernetic literally right now. But it won't ever slow down. We're already in the transhuman phase. There is still a gulf between phenomenal consciousness and neural circuitry (plus embodiment, culture, language, it's not unitary: so even more complicated) that may never be bridged. Although we definitely can alter what we phenomenally perceive by altering the brain, we may never know what this relationship is. If the "qualia" of experiences are "arbitrary", and they should be, in some sense, if naturalism is true, there's an infinite palette of experiences awaiting us, and by the private language argument of Wittgenstein or others getting at the same point, we'd never even be able to express it to eachother. Infinite colors we haven't seen for the most banal example. But think about what "bad" means: suffering, and "good": happiness or something like it. Suffering is emotional pain or physical. There could be an infinity of things "worse" than pain but we won't even have the frame of reference to call it worse. We don't have to be uploaded into some le matrix futurist jerkoff fantasy for this to begin happening. On the societal level, the total integration of cognitive science, statistical analysis, mass surveillance, etc. is working us on the structural level. It spontaneously configures and coheres. Nothing to worry about though, I'm sure capital engineering every facet of everything will come up with a market solution that will save us while you faggots are still trying to make eachother read books you haven't read.

ITT there's one guy that attempts to feel intellectually superior by mish mashing a chaotic clusterfuck of words while being inept at making a single point.

Fuck off and leave.

You're really mad about being dumb. The other guy gets it.

You really are one of those people who feel smarter by mindlessly dicing together as many syllables into a single sentence as possible, aren't you?

If I say yes will you stop posting along this theme? Yes, you've perfectly psychoanalyzed the situation.

I think leftist intellectuals lack a detailed analysis of what they are looking at and have been lost in obscurities, when the real elephant in the room is right there. The unnatural divide between the arts and the sciences hasn't helped. Scientific analysis of capitalism means incorporating actual science, not stagnating on exegesis and scholasticism. Society and individual are reciprocally co-constituted, and we do not understand this fully, like at all, because it is the domain of language to describe it, and it is within this process that meaning itself is formed. It's just sort of outside of what we are capable of thinking about, the perennial problem of philosophy. But I know enough to say what we don't know, and possibly CAN'T know, is going to be a problem, bigly, I guess.

they are called """moderate rebels""" now

And sorry, to answer your question. And I'm aware I'm rambling, it's just a huge topic and I literally should be writing it all out properly, but we're running out of time lol. My rant was about when you said social changes, what I was saying is our grasp of the "obvious" social changes, is weak at best. And the imposition into biological is interrelated with the social. Look at societal attitudes to aesthetic and reconstructive surgery as it intersects with beauty standards, gender. Look at "social media" and this very forum for one. We are cybernetic by having the internet/devices, it's an extension to memory for one thing. We don't have to remember a ton of trivial facts any more and it seems we are remembering how to locate information rather than memorizing it as we used to, for one of hundreds of examples of how this all interrelates. It's hard to fixate on a particular point, it's more impressionistic, because for the very reason I outlined above, it's difficult to even express in words at all.

Go to bed chomsky

t. nick land

Join me :^)

This is a really old argument from the Phaedrus concerning writing and texts where Socrates says that instead of helping our memory, books hurt our memory. This isn't really a concern caused by Capitalism so much as it is a concern caused by the progression of technology
Please for our sakes, if not for your own, refrain from posting until you can make your point coherently. I was very much enjoying this thread until you overtook it with your "inarticulation"

wew, sorry to thieve that jouissance

I think they do care, but they've been indoctrinated hard by this "Democrats = pro-science, Republicans = anti-science" meme, to the point where they now consider (neoliberal) economics to be settled science, even though economics is more akin to philosophy than physics.

They don't care. They care about social causes. They consider it to be a settled issue partly out of fear, they're obsessed with gadgets and consumer electronics and fear an end to the economic status quo would deprive them of the goods that allow them to delay adolescence in perpetuity.

...

Are we legitimately having Alexander Dugin in this thread?

Actually enjoyed your ramblings, keep it going bro

These are called "minimal demands." Social democrats postulate that minimal demands are likely to become acceptable sooner than maximal demands such as "a complete dismantling of the capitalist class."

Not a Hillary supporter, but what is the ideology displayed here exactly?
Other than of course the bullshit about caring about any potential Russian influence.

The issue AT THE VERY LEAST is that they silence more radical thought thus ensuring the boundaries of debate inevitably favor the right.
If they were merely making shitty watered down deals of their stated agenda there would still be a problem of that you should never inform the person you're haggling with your minimal demands, but there at least wouldn't be as much of a problem as there currently is.

Exactly this is what bothers me the most is that the article doesn't even try to correct it. The US Senate later found that the Bush administration was overhyping the CIA reports. (Yes the CIA report did say that Iraq might have had WMDS but it also said that there were dissenting opinions. Of course this fact was relegated to the footnotes.)
Furthermore several other government agencies disagreed with the report. Other agencies do not disagree with the Russia findings.

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It's not liberals, it is Reddit. Their demographic is the epitome of the bourgeoisie.

This. Their economics subs treat neoliberalism as "economics" and any deviation from their dogma can land your thread/comment in r/badeconomics.

btw the security council was plastered with democrats

the meme of bush is singlehandedly responsible for iraq is one of the greatest liberal propaganda pieces of recent years

You will never kill the spirit, even if it is an illusion. And you will never kill the societal utility of morality.

Man is a spooky animal. Pretty much every man has a little bit of faith in his heart, and although where he puts it is a different question it's almost always a spook. The human race derives purpose, social cohesion, and general nihilism-repellent from spooks.

And by the way, socialist, isn't your equality a spook? Is there anything objectively worth striving for in it? Nature doesn't have equality, it has survival of the fittest. Fuck off and look at your own spooks, you hypocrite.

Mankind lives in a stained glass reality, he lived in a world tainted by his ideology, religion, morality and biases; all of which are abstractions. Man is the abstract animal. Spooks are a part of the human race, human beings evolved spooks.

The extent to which we are submerged in spooks is insane, almost everything around us is ideologically-charged in some way or another (Zizek goes into this well I reckon). The extent to which we live in abstract lalaland every day is, in my eyes, what separates humans most from animals.

Keep in mind that I am not religious myself, I recognise that the progenitor of the universe is not a social animal and thus has had no need to have developed morality as primates have.

I think religious people and religious public figures are essentially "useful idiots" (albeit only as idiot as being human) carrying out their duty of societal stability and furthering the utility of morality.

Anti-russian sentiment online has always been peculiar. I was made aware of it at the start of the war in Donbass, and the annexation of Crimea. I knew Russian Ukrainians, so I probably had a more nuanced view than most, but I was struck by how they refused to even aknowledge basic realities of the situation e.g. The majority Russian Population, the former Russian ownership, and the support of most living there for the Russians.

a new story I'm sure you can still find is when rebels shot down a Military transport, breaking a unilateral ceasefire declared by the Ukranians. so much vitriol towards the rebels, when any objective person would say "Why was a plane flying contesting airspace during what was supposed to be a ceasefire?" The responses were complete denial of any rebel claims on the air above them, because their not a country, all that belongs to Ukraine. I wonder what's even the point of a ceasefire if you aren't going to respect the area they occupy during it.