I realized there might be some lost leftist, idiot or whatever misunderstanding my last article. When I argue that democracies are doomed to fail, mostly because of idiots and nepotism (say ancient Greeks, 2.500 years ago), and capitalism is doomed to fail, because idiots and nepotim (says the Bible/ Thora, 4.000 years ago), I, imho, am just stating the very evident facts.
Also, I can firmly state that alternatives to capitalism as proposed by, well, Marx (100 million plus dead) as well as alternatives to democracy, as, for example, every dictatorship (almost everybody, ever, dead) aren’t good alternatives.
My point is, rather, that we should reach a point in human civilization, at which, (thank you, Karl Marx, I really, really hope there’s a hell for people like you), instead of focussing on even the best systems humans ever came up with being flawed, we could, just maybe, focus on mitigating the negative consequences of the systems failing, instead of coming up with “new” systems doomed to fail.
Traditionally – that is, for all of human history – failed “Rulers” of any kind were killed, most recently by the very first democratic and civilized people of France, who were ingenious enough to even event the guillotine for just that reason. Now, just guillotining every politician after their (oh look, I’m gender-correct) term is up might seem like an easy solution, but that just solves the nepotism problem. But, there’s also the idiot problem. And there’s a good chance it will worsen the idiot problem. Mostly for stupid nepotists, so – hey, that’s actually a great descriptions for dictators; those ancient Greeks were even more brilliant than I thought.
So, what do I suggest?
I’m not advocating for a revolution, I’m not advocating to vote for populist idiots who promise easy solutions where there are none – but I do strongly advise to not vote for people who use this as an “argument” when there are easy solutions. Neither do I personally advise a revolution; I at least hope we are more civilised than the Islamic State – and if not, I’d personally prefer to have an underage sex slave than be legally punished for that – what am I supposed to be going to war for?
Democracy works quite fine in non-western contries like Japan (who actually do have a democracy), but Asian thinking is vastly different from “western” thinking [values] (easy example: the West has ‘copyright infringement’, in most of Asia, being copied is very honorable).
I am also deeply devoted to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights – if it were stripped of the despicable “except” after almost every paragraph. iIlove the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” of the US constitution, and I duly respect the idea of the enlightenment that all human beings are born equal in dignity, worth and (legal) rights.
The modern interpretation of this, skipping the important “born”, then replacing it with “are”, is simply idoitic. I am sure there are not very many people who don’t think pedophile mass-murderers should be hung (or at least imprisoned for life), but there’s certainly very few who think that all human beings should be hung.
This lack of basic reasoning is also, very much, lacking in modern understanding of religion. “Modern” religions (Scientology, Feminism, the church of Climate Panic, Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple”) are just easy money-grabbing schemes profiting from idiots, but the “old” religions all contain some basic human decency. Just because I mentioned pedophile mass-murderers in the previous paragraph, that doesn’t make Islam a bad religion; it has plenty of essentially universally shared values that are very productive to any society like hospitability, which both Judaism and Christianity are lacking. The Ten Commandments of Judaism are very basic rules of human interaction (like: Communism is bad), Jesus’s Sermon on “turning the other cheek” is essentially bettering people’s lifes – says modern game theory.
The more “modern” religions just “updated” the rules – as was the “state of the art” at the time. “Though shalt not lie” might be a worthy endeavour, but the Muhammedanian “don’t lie, except to infidels” would translate to modern language in “don’t lie, except to complete assholes” – which I consider a far better teaching. Jesus’ “other cheek” involves two cheeks – you English-speaking people even have an idiom for that: fool me once, blame on you, fool me twice….” (you can simulate the efficacy of that on the above-linked game-theory website).
So, religion is good?
No, religion is neither good nor bad; neither are humans. They’re just humans, and religion is a man-made thing (no gender-neutrality here).
But religion is a very, very ancient teaching of how to not be an asshole – if you can’t read ancient Greek or were born in the modern times.
The difference, in our “modern” times, is that we obviously consider” us” so morally righteous and decent people that we forgot that, throughout human written history, everyone who could write was certain that there were elements of “human trash” (not sure if that’s Karl Marx or his buddy Engels) that need to be dealt with. Jesus threw over the tables of the “bankers” in the temple, Muhammad just slaughtered plenty of infidels. But every popular religion in the West is essentially proof of the fact that there will be undesireable elements in society, and all religions advice on handling them.
I like slippery slope arguments, because you essentially have to at least think ideas to the most extreme conclusion (that’s concentration camps [read: death camps] for Nazis and Gulags [read: death camps] for Communists): I’m pretty sure everyone who reads this would agree we shouldn’t randomly kill other human beings.
How, evolution-wise, do you think, we have arrived at this point? It would be moronic to think that there never were peopel who thought it was okay to randomly kill everyone we meet?
So, applying Occam’s Razor: They died out. Which, essentially, means, “we” killed them.
This might totally violate your Kant-inspired ideas of morals, but I think humanity would long-since have extincted itself if it had ever upheld the “modern” moral “standard” to judge total assholes by anything more than their own.
If you, in any way, think that your moral standard is “better” than that of another human being – there’s a quite easy, most certainly pre-written language proof for that: Treat him according to his own moral standards.
Interestingly, people who thought that randomly murdering, stealing, raping… other people is somehow okay – well, those are very rare. How did that come to be?
Sure, in the past 100 years, it’s become unfashionable to even “humanely” kill even obvious murderers. But the important question, here, is: How has that improved society? Murder rates are on the rise in all of the “western” world (maybe not the US; I should have written “civilised”) for (imho) the first time in human history.
We’re also seeing the “reactionary” resistance against this oh-so-enlightened development by, just to paraphrase a random uttering of some ugly feminist on Australian TV
“How many rapists must we kill until men stop raping us?” she said on the program
See… I don’t have any essential or moral reservations to just cut rapist’s dicks off and wait until they very slowly – and painfully – bleed out, but that’s not exactly the position the usual feminist – or other leftist – seems to take on “human rights” when it comes to “execution”, for that matter. My more important problem, though, recurrs to the “human beings unworthy enough to be killed” problem, obviously both opposed and favoured by hypocrite leftists / feminists / the bunch: What’s your burden of proof?
Because, just because I’m a reasonable person, I like concepts like “state of law” and “innocent until proven guilty” – and you’ll probably like that concept, too – because I can’t prove nobody would ever rape you just by knowing I couldn’t ever get my dick hard seeing you, ugly feminist; but this is why I’m asking the question: How many witches do “we” need to burn at the stake for this nonsense to stop?
And, thus, reaching diametically opposed questions, my answer for my question is the same as for yours: there will be no (reasonable) answer (there’s always gonna be some dead stock left at the base). Would you entertain the idea that “people raping you” and “you being a witch” might be, just historically, be the same concept as “you being a prostitute” and – well, let’s use the modern term “Incel” – him having sex with you? Just for arguments’ sake – why was the following age of enlightenment a bad thing? Did it really not justify randomly murdering witches and incels? (Not my opinion; just asking the idiot feminist).
See: My answer to that would be a very, very convinced NO. Those incels could have advanced humanity a lot; just look at Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. The witches… well, I’m still sure we could burn them at the stakes.
This was useless and very, very long
This has gone too far off-topic; so…. let’s concentrate on the topic:
We’re about (according to the bible) 7 years past an economic collapse, and we’re (accoring to reason and economics) about 19 years late for everything going to shit. The 12-year difference – I attribute to the speed of eMails, compared to message pigeons.
As outlined in my last article, the societal/political/economic system of anyone who understands English isn’t a sustainable one: It will go to shit. The more important question here is: when? – Which I simply can’t answer. I also don’t have any really great reccommendations, because, just in case, if you’re a Somali emigrant reading this on your Lutheran-church-supported trip to Europe, you’ve been through far more shit than me – yet. Please, at least give me some advice.
Also, please enjoy the decline. As good as you can, you certainly deserved that, whether you worked your ass off or came here from Shithole country just because here, idiots pay for you.