Do attacks on Liberal Icons Herald Doom of Democracy?

[Page]

Wait I’m confused, why are statues of people dead for centuries vital to the existence of democracy?

No more than statues of Lenin are necessary for Communism, but I must ridicule the performative outrage of both sides on these kinds of red herring cultural war issues.

The left has its culture war crap but for the most part, what is described as the culture war today consists of reactionaries making life worse and leftists being like "hey can we not?"

Example, bathroom bills. That all started with right-wingers to solve a non-existent problem, all the left said was "dude, this is bullshit." But because the left sucks at framing, reactionaries successfully deceived people into accepting the narrative "they're trying to force men into women's bathrooms" when all we really wanted as the status quo to be left alone.

[Nolo gap]

attacks on diversity of thought and belief do. attacks on logic and honesty itself certainly do.

and yes, that is what is being attacked, that is the slow moving anti-democratic coup.

nothing to do with personalities, or even ideologies, other then that of fascism itself,
which seeks the dominance of aggressiveness, which is the opposite of civilization.

[Galiantus III]

Just saw this topic and I have to express my complete and total support for it. Liberalism is the best and most moral political philosophy in human history. Yet so many people - including many who call themselves, or get labeled "liberal" - are rejecting it in favor of variants of totalitarianism. (Quick PSA: "Anarcho"-anything is implicit support for totalitarian rule. If you create a power vacuum, someone will attempt to fill it, and the vast majority of people who would take power in such a system are barbaric monsters).

[Kaczynskisatva]

Yes.

A country needs some sort of unifying mythos and culture, in order to function. Legal principles do not enforce themselves, they are enforced by people, who run on culture, not on laws. Culture is prior to law, and without a stable culture, there can be no stable law.

Within the United States specifically, the breakdown of law is tangible in the recent rise of censorship, the use of State security services against political dissidents, the torture of said dissidents, the use of the media apparatus to incite riots and looting, and the cultural licensing of, and legal inaction towards these incited conflicts - as well as violations of the Nuremberg code against medical experimentation against the entire population, and the older concept of basic bodily autonomy, also being carried out against children.

As far as cultural revolutions go, the American Cultural Revolution is uniquely mindless and destructive, because no new idols are being erected for people to unify around. The Chinese Cultural Revolution, by comparison, offered a clear example of the new mainstream culture they were offering, to match the new, industrial society they were creating, as a replacement for the old culture which they were attempting to erase through violence, censorship and property destruction.

For reference, the Chinese Cultural Revolution was also a failure in the long term. The philosophy of the State has reverted to neo-Confucianism - back where they started - and the cultural void created by the process of transition and reversion has been filled in by a massive rise of Christianity, a foreign religion, throughout the mainland, alongside crass, consumptive materialism. This also opened the door to further encroachment of Liberalism, another foreign religion, in Hong Kong and in Taiwan, as well as strengthening native Buddhist and Muslim sentiments in Tibet and Xinjiang respectively. This weakened position could have been avoided in theory if they had taken the short road to neo-Confucianism - just staying there.

However, it may have been historically inevitable, as this dysfunctional cultural component of the Communist Revolutionary Model was naturally attached to the more functional components of industrialization and economic centralization which, after adopting market elements from the Singapore model, has been serving them much better than the Western economic model. This model is responsible for their current dominance of all strategically significant sectors of the global economy (with the exception of hypersonic nuclear missile technology, which they simply purchase from Russia, their client state in this domain) instead of the Americanesque decomposition into a consumer economy powered by speculation and the frivolous consumption of adult toys and entertainment services. There was no path to their current structure, along revolutionary models known at the time, that would not incur this sort of collateral damage. In retrospect, someone should have thought of a new model, since it wouldn't have cost much to do so, but that is a past issue.

In America, however, the same process of Cultural Revolution is not being accompanied by any new ideology or any attempt to reform the fundamentals of the Western system. Instead, it has simply promoted the rise of crass, consumptive materialism as the dominant proletarian culture. In this new paradigm, the proletariat are kept from forming or reverting to any other culture with any concept of their own human rights by inciting them as much as possible to revert to the primitive psychological mechanisms of tribal conflict, both by aggravating tensions between existing groups, and inventing new, ideological tribes so as to aggravate their conflict.

While the proletariat suckle and gag on this new force-fed diet of retrograde barbarism, the ruling class has apparently developed a breakaway culture centered around Transhumanism, and seems to think that they will be able to merge with machines and live forever. This new, bourgeois culture is more or less transparently deluded, the sort of god-delusion that would previously be associated with occultism and alchemy, but is now centered on technologies which are still too primitive to achieve their narcissistic delusions of grandeur. Because, unlike in all previous known stable states of civilization, the bourgeois culture has been separated from the proletarian culture, its pathological incoherence has gone largely unexamined by the public, which mostly examines the divide-and-conquer rhetorics which their masters have offered them, both on this forum and in other places.

The Doom of Democracy was actually heralded by the conception of its idea, that political power could be turned over to people who largely prefer to be psychologically programmed by flickering screen devices which induce them into a hypnotic state, and who do not have adequate decision-making faculties so as to decide when to stop eating packaged cattle feed. The American voting public wears its decision-making prowess around its midsection.

[Ifreann]

...violations of the Nuremberg code against medical experimentation against the entire population...

Found the anti-vaxxer.

[Vassenor]

...violations of the Nuremberg code against medical experimentation against the entire population...

Found the anti-vaxxer.

Also I think they believe the Capitol Coup rioters are being totured?

[Haganham]

Found the anti-vaxxer.

Also I think they believe the Capitol Coup rioters are being totured?

The courts believe so as well. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/13/10456969 ... -riot-case

[Ifreann]

Found the anti-vaxxer.

Also I think they believe the Capitol Coup rioters are being totured?

I mean, knowing America that one isn't impossible.

[Vassenor]

Also I think they believe the Capitol Coup rioters are being totured?

The courts believe so as well. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/13/10456969 ... -riot-case

Reminder: There's a difference between civil rights abuses and outright torture.

[Kaczynskisatva]

Found the anti-vaxxer.

I think, you should read this entry again:

In this new paradigm, the proletariat are kept from forming or reverting to any other culture with any concept of their own human rights by inciting them as much as possible to revert to the primitive psychological mechanisms of tribal conflict

This is, more or less, the response to your attempt at feedback. What you are doing here, is conflating the notion of whether or not I think any given medical product or other product is something that everyone should consume, and whether or not people have a fundamental human right to make decisions about what goes into their own bodies, and the bodies of their children. While articulating a tribal label of a synthetic, ideological group, "pro-X, anti-X" this feedback is used more or less interchangeably against either argument, which demonstrates, within your rhetorical mode (which is the only proven measure of your alleged inner mind) a failure to differentiate between "X is good" and "people should be forced to use X." It reflects, in essence, your non-verbalized assumption that the goodness of a given thing is sufficient grounds for the use of force, that people have no general right to be free of coercion, and so a deferral to discuss what is and is not good, since we have already agreed, as a culture, that people do not have a right to bodily autonomy.

You will be awestruck by the constellation of abominations which grow out of the non-adherence to this principle.

[Vassenor]

Found the anti-vaxxer.

I think, you should read this entry again:

In this new paradigm, the proletariat are kept from forming or reverting to any other culture with any concept of their own human rights by inciting them as much as possible to revert to the primitive psychological mechanisms of tribal conflict

This is, more or less, the response to your attempt at feedback. What you are doing here, is conflating the notion of whether or not I think any given medical product or other product is something that everyone should consume, and whether or not people have a fundamental human right to make decisions about what goes into their own bodies, and the bodies of their children. While articulating a tribal label of a synthetic, ideological group, "pro-X, anti-X" this feedback is used more or less interchangeably against either argument, which demonstrates, within your rhetorical mode (which is the only proven measure of your alleged inner mind) a failure to differentiate between "X is good" and "people should be forced to use X." It reflects, in essence, your non-verbalized assumption that the goodness of a given thing is sufficient grounds for the use of force, that people have no general right to be free of coercion, and so a deferral to discuss what is and is not good, since we have already agreed, as a culture, that people do not have a right to bodily autonomy.

You will be awestruck by the constellation of abominations which grow out of the non-adherence to this principle.

So what acts are violating the "Nuremburg Code"? Without the barrage of buzzwords intended to make your argument look like it has more substance than it actually does, please.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Imagine not letting people getting smallpox in the name of FREEDOM^tm.

[Kaczynskisatva]

Also I think they believe the Capitol Coup rioters are being totured?

This is pretty well documented, but someone beat me to that, so I will try to stay in my lane of providing encompassing insights on the modes of civilization, and let other people do what is mostly "your homework." There is this letter, though -

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/1 ... ocent-man/

I would broadly reflect that it is a generally accepted fact that criminal justice in the United States involves anal gang rape, solitary confinement, and all sorts of capricious abuses and discrimination by the staff. Strangely, proponents of State doctrine will jump upon this reflection when it's made in the context of some part of the population they personally identify with, but sneer at it when the same reflection is made with regards to ideological tribes they see in opposition to them. There is no longer in mainstream Western culture the spectre of "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will die for your right to say it" - there are only these regurgitated notions of "Censorship is fine, as long as you only censor people I disagree with" which leads directly to "Torture is fine, as long as you only torture people I disagree with."

Historically speaking, these points of view do not end well for anyone, or for you specifically. For you specifically, they end with you also getting censored and tortured, unless you go along with whatever the State ideology is on that particular day.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Also comparing a vaccine that has killed magnitudes less people than what it's targeted disease has culled from the human species to outright Nazism is really a good measure of someone's character and morals.

[Gallia-]

What if he kept the plantation not out of personal gain, but out of a societal requirement to do so? If Jefferson was not powerful enough to transcend the limitations Southern society placed on him, should he be to blame?

Jefferson was a wealthy guy. That he chose to continue keeping slaves was just that, a choice. He could have divested himself of them and moved his wealth to other things. He chose not to. He chose to value his cushy slave plantations and station in Virginia society more than the lives of the slaves he brutalized. That is unforgivable. Death to his memory.

You make it sound like evading taxes, keeping cushy slave plantations, and living past death as deified heroes of a new nation wasn't the point of the American Revolution, though.

I'd imagine the founding fathers would disagree with that assessment, although they might not state it so bluntly.

[Haganham]

The courts believe so as well. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/13/10456969 ... -riot-case

Reminder: There's a difference between civil rights abuses and outright torture.

The civil right being violated is the right not to be tortured. Both the infliction of injuries and the withholding of medical treatment are torture

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Jefferson was a wealthy guy. That he chose to continue keeping slaves was just that, a choice. He could have divested himself of them and moved his wealth to other things. He chose not to. He chose to value his cushy slave plantations and station in Virginia society more than the lives of the slaves he brutalized. That is unforgivable. Death to his memory.

You make it sound like evading taxes, keeping cushy slave plantations, and living past death as deified heroes of a new nation wasn't the point of the American Revolution, though.

I'd imagine the founding fathers would disagree with that assessment, although they might not state it so bluntly.

I keep saying that the American Revolution was a civil war caused by the American aristocracy rebelling against their dues to pay taxes. <.<

[Kerwa]

Found the anti-vaxxer.

Also I think they believe the Capitol Coup rioters are being totured?

I do actually believe being kept in solitary in a freezing concrete cell for 60 days without a bail hearing torture; especially when the individual was released without trial because them charge was bogus. I consider that torture whatever the case.

But that’s just narrow minded me.

[The Military State of the Galapagos]

Imagine not letting people getting smallpox in the name of FREEDOM^tm.

The title literally says it worked

[Kaczynskisatva]

So what acts are violating the "Nuremburg Code"? Without the barrage of buzzwords intended to make your argument look like it has more substance than it actually does, please.

Forced medical experimentation.

As an aside note, there is really no precedent in the Western notion of basic human rights for the concept forcing people to add or remove anything to or from their own bodies. It was previously assumed that a person had a natural right to do whatever they want to their own body, because it was their property. This is, for example, the theory of human rights which allows you to be transgender - even though arguments could be made that it is not wise for you to alter your own body in this way, it is accepted in the Western notion of human rights and bodily autonomy that it is your right to do so, because your body is your own property.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Imagine not letting people getting smallpox in the name of FREEDOM^tm.

The title literally says it worked

Yes, because smallpox, a disease that has culled countless numbers of people and maimed countless others since the development of agriculture was eradicated from the United States.
Surprisingly pathogens are incapable of giving fucks about human concepts like freedom, and cannot be fought using any other means than those that would kill them. It's a kill or be killed world down there and the world would be much better off if they had this understanding of diseases.

[Kaczynskisatva]

Also comparing a vaccine that has killed magnitudes less people than what it's targeted disease has culled from the human species to outright Nazism is really a good measure of someone's character and morals.

People have the right to refuse chemotherapy, kidney dialysis, or any other generally accepted treatment for any terminal illness they may have, and die. This is, again, because of the Western concept of a basic human right to bodily autonomy, which lasted about as long as the Thomas Jefferson statues which it represented.

[Gallia-]

You make it sound like evading taxes, keeping cushy slave plantations, and living past death as deified heroes of a new nation wasn't the point of the American Revolution, though.

I'd imagine the founding fathers would disagree with that assessment, although they might not state it so bluntly.

I keep saying that the American Revolution was a civil war caused by the American aristocracy rebelling against their dues to pay taxes. <.<

It isn't wrong. The US revolution, and by extension America, or whatever it believes it is, is founded on the rights of wealthy to lord over the proles and chattel slaves, in the same manner as a duke rules over his serfs and villeins. This was increasingly unpopular with Parliament and the British Empire at large, but American landowners looooved it because it was cheap and easy and gave them lots of money. Then Parliament said "hey you fought the 7 Years' War so now we need to levy taxes to pay back that stuff" and this affected their bottom line for a few years.

So they had a war about it.

Saying otherwise is just a modern delusion that doesn't hold a lot of historical water given that the US Founders all but admit it in their various arguments, once you peel back the pandering language and bizarre Enlightenment-era schlock, you can sort of see it laid bare. Naturally this is difficult to swallow for a lot of the US because its entire education system since the late 19th century has been "founders good", which was fine when it was majority Western Europeans or whatever who plainly benefited from being told that they were beneficiaries of a slave state's successful separatist bid, but now not so fine given the increasing demographic plurality. The end outcome will probably be the USA splintering into a bunch of a little countries squabbling over what it really means to be American, like how Rome splintered into a bunch of little countries squabbling over what it really means to be Christian, and probably sooner rather than later. It might result in despotism winning over the US continent, or at the very least (if we're lucky) Soviet Leninism at the end of the day as opposed to rather more disorderly...whatever it currently is, but that's probably too optimistic.

It's probably more likely that someone will rediscover the actual reasons the USA was founded and turn it into a racialist, pseudo-Maoist oligarchy that enforces slave plantations or something for pigeonholed groups, sticks to its own continent, and barely interacts with the rest of the world, in imitation of the Founders' original vision for the USA. That's the bad ending I guess: an American Nazi-esque state.

Well, bad if you're one of the groups that's enslaved, anyway. It'd be objectively good for people who are doing the enslaving, so that's gonna depend on where you fall in some hypothetical discussion of a return of chattel slavery in America.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Also comparing a vaccine that has killed magnitudes less people than what it's targeted disease has culled from the human species to outright Nazism is really a good measure of someone's character and morals.

People have the right to refuse chemotherapy, kidney dialysis, or any other generally accepted treatment for any terminal illness they may have, and die. This is, again, because of the Western concept of a basic human right to bodily autonomy, which lasted about as long as the Thomas Jefferson statues which it represented.

Then pereat mundus.

[Ifreann]

Found the anti-vaxxer.

I think, you should read this entry again:

Oh, I didn't read your post.

---

thegatewaypundit

Lol, and also, lmao.