Decline of the western society #2

flamming_python wrote:

ArgentinaGuard wrote:The Jews have been a factor of destruction since ancient times. The Semite is a cosmopolitan race and therefore an enemy of tradition and roots.

Every cosmopolitan people becomes the enemy of its own tradition and roots.

Japan, South Korea and China have no Jews yet birthrates in the cities have plummeted to below 1.0 per woman. Half of Japan's population is saying they don't want any kids.

In religious terms, of course, they have an important role, being the murderers of Jesus Christ and the deniers of their own salvation. They have a messianic and supremacist conception that makes them incompatible in societies.

Jesus Christ was not the first or the last man to die due to the outrage of religious fundamentalists. I should say that many more such people died due to the accusations of Christian authorities than Jewish ones, and that in Christ's case it was not accidental - he understood the challenge he was making and was prepared to die to spread his message.
If God had wanted the Jews to accept Christ as the Messiah so then that's what would have happened. Well it didn't. It doesn't seem to me to be God's will that all of humanity worships him or conducts spiritual rites in the same way - and if it's not God's will then I don't see what cause you should have to be much upset either.

Undoubtedly, they are one of those responsible for the dissolution of Western Christianity through the promotion of modern capitalism and banks.

Nope, the Europeans started down that road on their own accord and then those Jews joined in that themselves became Europeans in all but name and adopted European education and thinking.
Again, why didn't the Jews dismantle Islam? They lived in that part of the world for just as long.

All secular and materialist ideologies have Jews at their base: Spinoza, Marx, Freud, Einstein, Butler. ..and the list can go on forever.

The list can go on forever of contributors here that weren't Jewish, and you'd have to start all the way from the Renaissance... if not the Ancient Greeks. Materialist ideologists have Hegel at their base; all of Marx's thesis was developed off of his, and Hegel wasn't Jewish.
And we can throw names here forever. Was Immanuel Kant Jewish? Copernicus?

The decadent cultural industry that is discussed in this section is led by Jews. For example, the Jew has a penchant for sex and the destruction of white women.

You forgot the Negro too

Trouble is that America, even in the 19th century, was even then not exactly known as this guardian of European cultural tradition.
The destruction of white women, as far as I understand the term, in America also didn't really start until the 70s. Which was way later than the Nazis and what they were alleging.

In the Weimar Republic they were in charge of cabarets but today we see it in pedophilia, pornography and degenerate Hollywood cinema.

In Cuba they had the same problem; a heavily corrupt laissez-faire regime who cared little about its own people and became a den of sexual malpractice for visiting tourists and so on.
Part of the reason why Castro managed to lead a rebellion and seize power as it was part of the reason why the Nazis gathered support against the Weimar republic in the 20s.
Thing is though I don't think there were all that many Jews in Cuba. Probably were some.

Russia itself suffered from the Jewish mafia and the white slave trade, in addition to drug trafficking.

Russia suffered from the dissolution of the Soviet Union and all sorts of mafias, ethnic and otherwise, and every other social ill under the sun - was entirely predictable.

There is no people in human history that can be compared to the Jews in dissolution. Investigate, search, you will not find it.
I think. I don't know your country of origin but you're half Anglo-Saxon, that's why you must like Jews.

I'm half Jewish so I have some intimate knowledge already, or perhaps not, but I'm without an Anglo-Saxon bone in my body I'm afraid.

Korea and Japan were traditional societies until World War 2.

Marx's thesis is an inversion of Hegel. Marx introduces materialism into Hegelian idealism.

Freud invented a new discourse. There is nothing prior to it. The same Einstein that breaks with the order of Newton.

All the exponents of gender ideology (which Russia fights) are Jews. What about Judith Butler, for example. have you read it?

Do you compare the renaissance with the influence of the jews? For example, read Wernert Sombart and his thesis that the Jews are the fathers of capitalism.
You can't compare Renaissance Italians or Kant to that. The Renaissance, in many cases, was a continuation of the Middle Ages. Dante himself is an example of that. The profane love, humanist movement is based on Christian and medieval thought, but is not a break like Jewish secular modernity.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote: I would not also fall on the other extreme and idealise american Indians.

Sorry, but It's not an idealisation. It's more like calling out Western exceptionalism, which they deemed other cultures and traditions below them. The global south likes Russians mainly because Russians collectively don't have any superiority complexes. Russians are proud of their culture, but they also respect other cultures. This is why Siberian indigenous tribes still have their traditions—culture, religion, and languages intact, while their brethren in America are totally wiped out of their original existence.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:Korea and Japan were traditional societies until World War 2.

Them and everyone else.

But tell me, why is it that China is following down the same path as it develops and urbanizes? The Chinese look at those K-Pop metrosexuals and lone Asian male playing League of Legends in his apartment all day lifestyles and decide that this is something for them to aspire to too.
China is not under a globalist government yet modernity creates its own pressures even without the perversions being pushed from above by a hedonistic elite. And without any Jews either.
Because assuming your corrupting Jews theory true for a moment, the implication now is that the Jews are no longer neccessary. That the damage is done and Asian societies for instance are perfectly capable of careering off into cultural self-destruction all by themselves.
And that would imply that the Jews cannot really be the culprit at all and to save the situation you'll have to think of something else

Marx's thesis is an inversion of Hegel. Marx introduces materialism into Hegelian idealism.

Well that's true, it was Marx who introduced materialism into the system of reasoning that Hegel developed. But materialism itself was not an invention of Marx.
I'd also reason that the dialectic materialism that Marx penned is in essence a scientific hypothesis about the development of human civilization over time. You can agree with it, or disagree with it, or agree partially but admit that it's incomplete - but it's really not any kind of cultural subversion or whatever. No more so than anyone else who came up with a new theory about how the world or the universe works.

Freud invented a new discourse. There is nothing prior to it. The same Einstein that breaks with the order of Newton.

Einstein proved Newton's calculations wrong in the cases where you have objects traveling close to the speed of light or whose gravity is strong enough to bend space sufficiently for relativistic effects to enter the picture too, by introducing a more complete theory.
And this he didn't do all by himself; he built on the theories of earlier scientists such as Maxwell whose findings had already suggested that Newton's equations must be incomplete. Maxwell BTW wasn't Jewish.

But if this is an example of cultural subversion then surely Copernicus proving the Church wrong and demonstrating that the Earth revolves around the Sun must be too.
Did his theory challenge the social order of the day? Yes it did, but that's okay, because culture survived, the Church adapted and in time everything adjusted to the reality that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. And had Copernicus not done that you might not have the computer you use to type your posts today.

All the exponents of gender ideology (which Russia fights) are Jews. What about Judith Butler, for example. have you read it?

I really am not familiar enough with the history of development of gender theory or critical race theory, and all the names that happened to be behind these dubious IMO branches of science - to be able to say.
But in general psuedosciences being advanced by a specific heretical sect or ideological group are not unknown in history. The woke Western-assimilated Jews you refer to are only a subset of the world's total population of Jews who are quite diverse in their value systems. Maybe that's what's happening.
I can't offer you any other explanation because the alternative explanation as you hint would be some kind of collective group-think or hive-mind among the world's Jews that I know simply does not exist. The Russian Jews I know are all hostile to this woke rubbish no less so than the ex-USSR in general.

Do you compare the renaissance with the influence of the jews? For example, read Wernert Sombart and his thesis that the Jews are the fathers of capitalism.

I haven't read it, but I've read that Holland is the father of capitalism because of its innovation of the stock exchange, I hear from higurashihougi now that England is the actual father of capitalism, while in my mind the Hanseatic League and Venetian city states always seemed like the most likely culprits as that's where the bourgeois as a class first started to form. The fact of Jews being engaged in loaning money at interest rates in Europe I can perfectly accept as a contribution to the development of capitalism too.
In general capitalism is too complicated a system, and encompasses as a term too many things - to have been developed by any one group at any particular moment in time.

You can't compare Renaissance Italians or Kant to that. The Renaissance, in many cases, was a continuation of the Middle Ages. Dante himself is an example of that. The profane love, humanist movement is based on Christian and medieval thought, but is not a break like Jewish secular modernity.

The Renaissance followed the Middle Ages so it makes perfect sense that it intellectually was a continuation of the Middle Ages. And the Enlightenment in turn built upon the Renaissance. And so on. Until we get to the modern-day pseudosciences such as gender theories which are a dead end. But dead end social developments and sects are nothing new in history either. There were always plenty of them and they tend to be swiftly forgotten about after being discarded for good. What's true and proven however will be kept, and in today's post-modernist theories along with the blatant crap, there are a lot of valuable observations too.

flamming_python wrote:I haven't read it, but I've read that Holland is the father of capitalism because of its innovation of the stock exchange, I hear from higurashihougi now that England is the actual father of capitalism, while in my mind the Hanseatic League and Venetian city states always seemed like the most likely culprits as that's where the bourgeois as a class first started to form. The fact of Jews being engaged in loaning money at interest rates in Europe I can perfectly accept as a contribution to the development of capitalism too.
In general capitalism is too complicated a system, and encompasses as a term too many things - to have been developed by any one group at any particular moment in time.

Allow me to elaborate my opinion on that issue, and, if I made mistakes, feel free to correct me.

The forefathers of modern capitalism and bourgeiouse class indeed appeared in the developed cities of both the East and the West. And there have been much academic debates (not that I managed to read through all of it) about whether the merchantile Netherlands was an immature stage of capitalism, or just an extremely developed form of feudal-style mechantilism.

But the first capitalism in its maturity is England, with the all vital elements: a group of ruling class who owned the means of production and used waged labour to extract surplus value, and the rest were appropriated and pauperized working class who lost the control of the means of production and had to sell their labour-force as the only mean to re-access the means of production therefore was completely depends on and had to engage the "free" market for their income and neccessities.

There were quite a lot of factories and waged-worker in European Continental and Chinese cities, but it had never been the dominant form of exploitation like what happened in 17-18th century England, thanked to the widespread and brutal primitive accumulation which turns millions of peasants in to proletariats. That was the reason why the Industrial Revolution could happened first in England in a way it could not in other countries. And the first wave of industrial growth in England began in the cotton manufacture, a young and emerging trades with few ties to the traditional guilds and therefore was quicker to engage in "free" market and modern-type factory using low skill waged workers which can be easily employed from the pauperized peasants.

My hypothesis is this (again if I am wrong, feel free to correct me): at the first stage of their research (about the time of German Ideology and Communist Manifesto), Marx and Engels believed that capitalism was first formed in the most developed medieval cities. But then during further researches about England's primitive accumulation, they discovered that things had been a bit different. The modern capitalism in its fullest form was born from the day English landlords appropriated the common land from peasants and turned them into proletariats, rather than the growth of city burghers.

From my very subjective point of view, bourgeioise Netherlands economy was still immature, with feudal-style landlords in the east, and monopolized productions and trading in the big cities. It was more similar to medieval commerce, which depended on monopoly of the trades, the domination of urban landlords over surrounding peasants, and the comsumers were mostly the aristocrats and city magistrates.

higurashihougi wrote:

flamming_python wrote:I haven't read it, but I've read that Holland is the father of capitalism because of its innovation of the stock exchange, I hear from higurashihougi now that England is the actual father of capitalism, while in my mind the Hanseatic League and Venetian city states always seemed like the most likely culprits as that's where the bourgeois as a class first started to form. The fact of Jews being engaged in loaning money at interest rates in Europe I can perfectly accept as a contribution to the development of capitalism too.
In general capitalism is too complicated a system, and encompasses as a term too many things - to have been developed by any one group at any particular moment in time.

Allow me to elaborate my opinion on that issue, and, if I made mistakes, feel free to correct me.

The forefathers of modern capitalism and bourgeiouse class indeed appeared in the developed cities of both the East and the West. And there have been much academic debates (not that I managed to read through all of it) about whether the merchantile Netherlands was an immature stage of capitalism, or just an extremely developed form of feudal-style mechantilism.

But the first capitalism in its maturity is England, with the all vital elements: a group of ruling class who owned the means of production and used waged labour to extract surplus value, and the rest were appropriated and pauperized working class who lost the control of the means of production and had to sell their labour-force as the only mean to re-access the means of production therefore was completely depends on and had to engage the "free" market for their income and neccessities.

There were quite a lot of factories and waged-worker in European Continental and Chinese cities, but it had never been the dominant form of exploitation like what happened in 17-18th century England, thanked to the widespread and brutal primitive accumulation which turns millions of peasants in to proletariats. That was the reason why the Industrial Revolution could happened first in England in a way it could not in other countries. And the first wave of industrial growth in England began in the cotton manufacture, a young and emerging trades with few ties to the traditional guilds and therefore was quicker to engage in "free" market and modern-type factory using low skill waged workers which can be easily employed from the pauperized peasants.

My hypothesis is this (again if I am wrong, feel free to correct me): at the first stage of their research (about the time of German Ideology and Communist Manifesto), Marx and Engels believed that capitalism was first formed in the most developed medieval cities. But then during further researches about England's primitive accumulation, they discovered that things had been a bit different. The modern capitalism in its fullest form was born from the day English landlords appropriated the common land from peasants and turned them into proletariats, rather than the growth of city burghers.

From my very subjective point of view, bourgeioise Netherlands economy was still immature, with feudal-style landlords in the east, and monopolized productions and trading in the big cities. It was more similar to medieval commerce, which depended on monopoly of the trades, the domination of urban landlords over surrounding peasants, and the comsumers were mostly the aristocrats and city magistrates.

Well as good a postulate as any.

I really am no authority ultimately to judge, more like a curious amateur

flamming_python wrote:

ArgentinaGuard wrote:Korea and Japan were traditional societies until World War 2.

Them and everyone else.

But tell me, why is it that China is following down the same path as it develops and urbanizes? The Chinese look at those K-Pop metrosexuals and lone Asian male playing League of Legends in his apartment all day lifestyles and decide that this is something for them to aspire to too.
China is not under a globalist government yet modernity creates its own pressures even without the perversions being pushed from above by a hedonistic elite. And without any Jews either.
Because assuming your corrupting Jews theory true for a moment, the implication now is that the Jews are no longer neccessary. That the damage is done and Asian societies for instance are perfectly capable of careering off into cultural self-destruction all by themselves.
And that would imply that the Jews cannot really be the culprit at all and to save the situation you'll have to think of something else

Marx's thesis is an inversion of Hegel. Marx introduces materialism into Hegelian idealism.

Well that's true, it was Marx who introduced materialism into the system of reasoning that Hegel developed. But materialism itself was not an invention of Marx.
I'd also reason that the dialectic materialism that Marx penned is in essence a scientific hypothesis about the development of human civilization over time. You can agree with it, or disagree with it, or agree partially but admit that it's incomplete - but it's really not any kind of cultural subversion or whatever. No more so than anyone else who came up with a new theory about how the world or the universe works.

Freud invented a new discourse. There is nothing prior to it. The same Einstein that breaks with the order of Newton.

Einstein proved Newton's calculations wrong in the cases where you have objects traveling close to the speed of light or whose gravity is strong enough to bend space sufficiently for relativistic effects to enter the picture too, by introducing a more complete theory.
And this he didn't do all by himself; he built on the theories of earlier scientists such as Maxwell whose findings had already suggested that Newton's equations must be incomplete. Maxwell BTW wasn't Jewish.

But if this is an example of cultural subversion then surely Copernicus proving the Church wrong and demonstrating that the Earth revolves around the Sun must be too.
Did his theory challenge the social order of the day? Yes it did, but that's okay, because culture survived, the Church adapted and in time everything adjusted to the reality that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. And had Copernicus not done that you might not have the computer you use to type your posts today.

All the exponents of gender ideology (which Russia fights) are Jews. What about Judith Butler, for example. have you read it?

I really am not familiar enough with the history of development of gender theory or critical race theory, and all the names that happened to be behind these dubious IMO branches of science - to be able to say.
But in general psuedosciences being advanced by a specific heretical sect or ideological group are not unknown in history. The woke Western-assimilated Jews you refer to are only a subset of the world's total population of Jews who are quite diverse in their value systems. Maybe that's what's happening.
I can't offer you any other explanation because the alternative explanation as you hint would be some kind of collective group-think or hive-mind among the world's Jews that I know simply does not exist. The Russian Jews I know are all hostile to this woke rubbish no less so than the ex-USSR in general.

Do you compare the renaissance with the influence of the jews? For example, read Wernert Sombart and his thesis that the Jews are the fathers of capitalism.

I haven't read it, but I've read that Holland is the father of capitalism because of its innovation of the stock exchange, I hear from higurashihougi now that England is the actual father of capitalism, while in my mind the Hanseatic League and Venetian city states always seemed like the most likely culprits as that's where the bourgeois as a class first started to form. The fact of Jews being engaged in loaning money at interest rates in Europe I can perfectly accept as a contribution to the development of capitalism too.
In general capitalism is too complicated a system, and encompasses as a term too many things - to have been developed by any one group at any particular moment in time.

You can't compare Renaissance Italians or Kant to that. The Renaissance, in many cases, was a continuation of the Middle Ages. Dante himself is an example of that. The profane love, humanist movement is based on Christian and medieval thought, but is not a break like Jewish secular modernity.

The Renaissance followed the Middle Ages so it makes perfect sense that it intellectually was a continuation of the Middle Ages. And the Enlightenment in turn built upon the Renaissance. And so on. Until we get to the modern-day pseudosciences such as gender theories which are a dead end. But dead end social developments and sects are nothing new in history either. There were always plenty of them and they tend to be swiftly forgotten about after being discarded for good. What's true and proven however will be kept, and in today's post-modernist theories along with the blatant crap, there are a lot of valuable observations too.

Because China is a communist country whose traditional culture was eliminated or misappropriated. Today China is perfectly compatible with globalism. Globalism and communism, inventions of Judaism, are the same. They have the same materialistic and immanent base.

You yourself mention Holland and England, along with Germany. The parents of mercantilism and financial capitalism. Shall I tell you who the merchants and bankers were?

The Enlightenment has nothing to do with the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. It is not the continuity of anything but the product of Freemasonry and a group of libertine and subversive philosophers. Basically the Enlightenment is anti-Christian. It is completely subversive thinking that seeks to destroy the previous divine order.

If it were not for the universities that the Catholic Church financed and supported, Copernicus (a Catholic Pole) would not have developed his theory. Same Galileo. The Church never opposed scientific thought, quite the contrary. He supported the arts and sciences. He supported Michelangelo, he supported Davinci, etc. The same church was in charge of preserving and translating ancient Greco-Roman thought. But one thing is research and another is Jewish speculation that always seeks to subvert the social and political order.

The Church also had to bring order in times of upheaval with the Reformation and witchcraft. In many cases that led to greater vigilance over scientific figures. When talking about the Inquisition you have to take into account the historical context
To answer the other you must read Sombart and minimally read the exponents of gender ideology. What he doesn't understand is why you should participate in the section on the decadence of the West if you don't know anything about feminism and gender ideology, which are one of the biggest scourges that Jewish thought left us.

higurashihougi wrote:

flamming_python wrote:I haven't read it, but I've read that Holland is the father of capitalism because of its innovation of the stock exchange, I hear from higurashihougi now that England is the actual father of capitalism, while in my mind the Hanseatic League and Venetian city states always seemed like the most likely culprits as that's where the bourgeois as a class first started to form. The fact of Jews being engaged in loaning money at interest rates in Europe I can perfectly accept as a contribution to the development of capitalism too.
In general capitalism is too complicated a system, and encompasses as a term too many things - to have been developed by any one group at any particular moment in time.

Allow me to elaborate my opinion on that issue, and, if I made mistakes, feel free to correct me.

The forefathers of modern capitalism and bourgeiouse class indeed appeared in the developed cities of both the East and the West. And there have been much academic debates (not that I managed to read through all of it) about whether the merchantile Netherlands was an immature stage of capitalism, or just an extremely developed form of feudal-style mechantilism.

But the first capitalism in its maturity is England, with the all vital elements: a group of ruling class who owned the means of production and used waged labour to extract surplus value, and the rest were appropriated and pauperized working class who lost the control of the means of production and had to sell their labour-force as the only mean to re-access the means of production therefore was completely depends on and had to engage the "free" market for their income and neccessities.

There were quite a lot of factories and waged-worker in European Continental and Chinese cities, but it had never been the dominant form of exploitation like what happened in 17-18th century England, thanked to the widespread and brutal primitive accumulation which turns millions of peasants in to proletariats. That was the reason why the Industrial Revolution could happened first in England in a way it could not in other countries. And the first wave of industrial growth in England began in the cotton manufacture, a young and emerging trades with few ties to the traditional guilds and therefore was quicker to engage in "free" market and modern-type factory using low skill waged workers which can be easily employed from the pauperized peasants.

My hypothesis is this (again if I am wrong, feel free to correct me): at the first stage of their research (about the time of German Ideology and Communist Manifesto), Marx and Engels believed that capitalism was first formed in the most developed medieval cities. But then during further researches about England's primitive accumulation, they discovered that things had been a bit different. The modern capitalism in its fullest form was born from the day English landlords appropriated the common land from peasants and turned them into proletariats, rather than the growth of city burghers.

From my very subjective point of view, bourgeioise Netherlands economy was still immature, with feudal-style landlords in the east, and monopolized productions and trading in the big cities. It was more similar to medieval commerce, which depended on monopoly of the trades, the domination of urban landlords over surrounding peasants, and the comsumers were mostly the aristocrats and city magistrates.

Marxism seems to me a stupid theory and even surpassed by Weber or Sombart, but I think you know that there is a difference between mercantile capitalism (which was the predominant form until the 18th century and free trade) and industrial capitalism (which has first origin in England). According to the secondary school I went to, the Agricultural Revolution (expropriation of land from the English peasantry and improvements in production techniques) is the previous step for the Industrial Revolution. That was possible because British politics was subordinated to economic interests through Parliament. English landowners do not think as feudal nobles but as bourgeois who impose capitalist logic and wage labor relations. This is a novelty compared to other countries where serfdom and feudalism (Eastern Europe) or small rural property (France) continued to predominate.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:Because China is a communist country whose traditional culture was eliminated or misappropriated. Today China is perfectly compatible with globalism. Globalism and communism, inventions of Judaism, are the same. They have the same materialistic and immanent base.

Stalin had the cultural marxists in the party shot in the 30s. Mao I doubt ever even heard of them. Both the Soviet Union and China were socially conservative societies throughout their existence, although certainly championing concepts such as gender equality, class equality, internationalism and other modernist thinking at home and abroad. But that stuff was of limited relevance for most Soviets and Chinese, as for most of their existence their populations were largely rural and poor which the communist parties in both countries had to expend great energy on even bringing universal literacy to. It was when the populations began to urbanize and achieve high education rates that the social changes happened, not as a result of ideological propaganda.

You yourself mention Holland and England, along with Germany. The parents of mercantilism and financial capitalism. Shall I tell you who the merchants and bankers were?

This is well-known. Jewish traders were prevalent in Muslim North African trade too. They were engaged in trade between the Muslims and the Christians likewise. Shakespeare's play, The Merchant of Venice, is among the most well known of the period. Albeit in that play, the merchant is Italian, only the banker is Jewish you will note.
In many parts of Europe Jews were forbidden from owning land and were subject to restrictions in participating in certain professions too. Conversely the Church forbid Christians from lending with interest, whereas for Jews no such stipulation existed. Thus there was a set of circumstances combined with the clan organization of traditional Jewish families that lent them to seek prosperity in finance or trade.

But you will not argue here that the Jews invented merchants and financial capitalism. Were the Medici Jewish? Or the Knights of Malta? Nor did the Jews invent the port of Venice, or set up the Hanseatic League. Nor were they responsible for the Dutch maritime domination.

What the Jews did is that they integrated into what already existed, and adopted a symbiotic relationship with their host nation or community, fulfilling niches or rising to dominate certain sectors. This generally benefited both sides, hence why so many kingdoms and city states invited Jews in the first place, but when a conflict of interest would later occur the power dynamic was naturally on the side of the hosts, and so they were met with cycles of expulsions too.
But in terms of what the Jews actually innovated - well pretty much just the money-lending and interest side of things. The rest were European inventions that Jews engaged in as participants.

The Enlightenment has nothing to do with the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. It is not the continuity of anything but the product of Freemasonry and a group of libertine and subversive philosophers. Basically the Enlightenment is anti-Christian. It is completely subversive thinking that seeks to destroy the previous divine order.

You make it sound more like a counter-culture to the centuries of religious fundamentalism that had ruled in Europe prior, with over a dozen crusades to the Pope's name and tons of witches burned at the stake no doubt.
Which yeah, is probably what it was. The alternative would be to stay like the Taliban is today.

If it were not for the universities that the Catholic Church financed and supported, Copernicus (a Catholic Pole) would not have developed his theory. Same Galileo. The Church never opposed scientific thought, quite the contrary. He supported the arts and sciences. He supported Michelangelo, he supported Davinci, etc. The same church was in charge of preserving and translating ancient Greco-Roman thought. But one thing is research and another is Jewish speculation that always seeks to subvert the social and political order.
The Church also had to bring order in times of upheaval with the Reformation and witchcraft. In many cases that led to greater vigilance over scientific figures. When talking about the Inquisition you have to take into account the historical context

I'm aware of that. But we're talking about the 16th century by now when tolerance for thinking outside the box had started to broaden and yes the Church itself was responsible for sponsoring a lot of universities in those days. Or rather, it had a monopoly on education still.

To answer the other you must read Sombart and minimally read the exponents of gender ideology. What he doesn't understand is why you should participate in the section on the decadence of the West if you don't know anything about feminism and gender ideology, which are one of the biggest scourges that Jewish thought left us.

I didn't say I don't know anything about it. I have broached the subjects albeit I didn't choose to do so from the point of view another pseudoscience such as Name the Jew.
I scarcely understand the fashion of labeling an idea Jewish by virtue of the fact that the individual who came up with it was a Jew. Surely it can be Jewish only if it was collectively adopted by the Jewish population. Else we get the situation where the New Testament is Jewish too. Shall I tell you who Jesus and his disciples were?

flamming_python wrote:

ArgentinaGuard wrote:Because China is a communist country whose traditional culture was eliminated or misappropriated. Today China is perfectly compatible with globalism. Globalism and communism, inventions of Judaism, are the same. They have the same materialistic and immanent base.

Stalin had the cultural marxists in the party shot in the 30s. Mao I doubt ever even heard of them. Both the Soviet Union and China were socially conservative societies throughout their existence, although certainly championing concepts such as gender equality, class equality, internationalism and other modernist thinking at home and abroad. But that stuff was of limited relevance for most Soviets and Chinese, as for most of their existence their populations were largely rural and poor which the communist parties in both countries had to expend great energy on even bringing universal literacy to. It was when the populations began to urbanize and achieve high education rates that the social changes happened, not as a result of ideological propaganda.

You yourself mention Holland and England, along with Germany. The parents of mercantilism and financial capitalism. Shall I tell you who the merchants and bankers were?

This is well-known. Jewish traders were prevalent in Muslim North African trade too. They were engaged in trade between the Muslims and the Christians likewise. Shakespeare's play, The Merchant of Venice, is among the most well known of the period. Albeit in that play, the merchant is Italian, only the banker is Jewish you will note.
In many parts of Europe Jews were forbidden from owning land and were subject to restrictions in participating in certain professions too. Conversely the Church forbid Christians from lending with interest, whereas for Jews no such stipulation existed. Thus there was a set of circumstances combined with the clan organization of traditional Jewish families that lent them to seek prosperity in finance or trade.

But you will not argue here that the Jews invented merchants and financial capitalism. Were the Medici Jewish? Or the Knights of Malta? Nor did the Jews invent the port of Venice, or set up the Hanseatic League. Nor were they responsible for the Dutch maritime domination.

What the Jews did is that they integrated into what already existed, and adopted a symbiotic relationship with their host nation or community, fulfilling niches or rising to dominate certain sectors. This generally benefited both sides, hence why so many kingdoms and city states invited Jews in the first place, but when a conflict of interest would later occur the power dynamic was naturally on the side of the hosts, and so they were met with cycles of expulsions too.
But in terms of what the Jews actually innovated - well pretty much just the money-lending and interest side of things. The rest were European inventions that Jews engaged in as participants.

The Enlightenment has nothing to do with the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. It is not the continuity of anything but the product of Freemasonry and a group of libertine and subversive philosophers. Basically the Enlightenment is anti-Christian. It is completely subversive thinking that seeks to destroy the previous divine order.

You make it sound more like a counter-culture to the centuries of religious fundamentalism that had ruled in Europe prior, with over a dozen crusades to the Pope's name and tons of witches burned at the stake no doubt.
Which yeah, is probably what it was. The alternative would be to stay like the Taliban is today.

If it were not for the universities that the Catholic Church financed and supported, Copernicus (a Catholic Pole) would not have developed his theory. Same Galileo. The Church never opposed scientific thought, quite the contrary. He supported the arts and sciences. He supported Michelangelo, he supported Davinci, etc. The same church was in charge of preserving and translating ancient Greco-Roman thought. But one thing is research and another is Jewish speculation that always seeks to subvert the social and political order.
The Church also had to bring order in times of upheaval with the Reformation and witchcraft. In many cases that led to greater vigilance over scientific figures. When talking about the Inquisition you have to take into account the historical context

I'm aware of that. But we're talking about the 16th century by now when tolerance for thinking outside the box had started to broaden and yes the Church itself was responsible for sponsoring a lot of universities in those days. Or rather, it had a monopoly on education still.

To answer the other you must read Sombart and minimally read the exponents of gender ideology. What he doesn't understand is why you should participate in the section on the decadence of the West if you don't know anything about feminism and gender ideology, which are one of the biggest scourges that Jewish thought left us.

I didn't say I don't know anything about it. I have broached the subjects albeit I didn't choose to do so from the point of view another pseudoscience such as Name the Jew.
I scarcely understand the fashion of labeling an idea Jewish by virtue of the fact that the individual who came up with it was a Jew. Surely it can be Jewish only if it was collectively adopted by the Jewish population. Else we get the situation where the New Testament is Jewish too. Shall I tell you who Jesus and his disciples were?

Stalin only retracted the process of rottenness to which the Soviet Union was doomed. All that came after Stalin was the inexorable decline of the stupid experiment that is communism.

You talk about the Medici but you forget about the Fugger and the Rotichild. Judaism is not just about names but about a subversive spirit that eats away at humanity. That is why Judaism is a threat that should be fought. Because it is not about names but about a corrupting force. Of course there are white merchants, who behave like Jews in spirit.
For example, today there are women of the white race who profess the ideology of gender, as well as young gay men of the white race who promote that subhumanity. These people do not deserve more consideration than the Jews, who are their ideological parents.

I don't understand the illustration. What do you call fundamentalism? to the defense of Christianity and traditional values? Putin is a fundamentalist for you?
Perhaps you deny that in Europe there was witchcraft, Freemasonry, Protestants destroyers of Christianity. Sixteenth-century witches weren't much different from today's  feminists who promote abortion, astrological superstition, and hedonism.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:Because China is a communist country whose traditional culture was eliminated or misappropriated. Today China is perfectly compatible with globalism. Globalism and communism, inventions of Judaism, are the same. They have the same materialistic and immanent base.

Do you know what does "traditional culture" means ?

That means you had to prostrate in front of the kids of the landlords or government magistrate, called them "Master" and "respcted" them as if they were your fathers or seniors.

Yes a kid might be even younger than your son demanded that you treated him as your father ! Just because he was born into a well-to-do family with money and power. That was how "traditional culture" in China, and in many pre-capitalist society elsewhere, demanded you to do.

I don't know what do you think of it, but me, a Communist sympathizer, will give that kid two slaps in his face and send him back to his parent for moral re-education.

If the magnificent Lu Xun (1881-1936) was ressurected he might tell you how disgusting the "traditional culture" were.

The caste system in India is another example of "traditional culture".

Korean and Japanese workers suffer heavy workload and intense verbal abuse from their superiors, thanks to the element of "traditional culture" incorporated into capitalism exploitation which enforces corporation hierarchy and prevent the workingmen from demanding their human rights.

"Traditional culture" also means superstition, for example the belief eating the blood of executed could treat tuberculosis.

Or gender inequality, such as a man could have multiple wives and extramartial affairs with other womens were seen as a sign of masculinity, while a women pursued her own love could be sentenced to death. "Honor killings" is still prevalent in many region influenced by "traditional culture".

============

Do you want to hear stories of moral decadence in "traditional" society ? I can tell you a few.

A king stole the fiance of his own son and then killed the son in favour of his mistress.

Certain kings lived luxuriously with his huge harem in huge palaces built by imposing heavy taxes and intense forced labour from the farmers. Aristocrats lived luxuriously with "tons rotten and sour meats left uneaten at the banquets" while millions of poor peasants and commoners "died at the street, dried white bones exposed", according to contemporary scholars.

Landlords and families of government magistrate abused their authority to steal the land of independent farmers, turned the farmers into landless tenants. Landless tenants suffered from heavy taxes, land rents, loan with huge interests, had to sell their wives and families to solve the debts. "Rich families with boundless lands and poor peasants without even a piece of soil to throw the bird" - contemporary historical annals said.

A civil magistrate will close connection with a king's favoured concubine, everyday he committed sexual abuse and rape against whatever women he saw in the street, right in front of the local population and no one dared to intervene in fear of retaliation.

In the "traditional culture" pre-communist Tibet, novice monks from the commoner families were conscripted into the monasteries and had to work as a serf to serve the luxurious lives of the head monks and military leaders. They novice monks from serf families were subjected to beaten, verbal abuse, multilation, torture, and were even sexually abused or forced into homosexual relationship with their "seniors" from the aristocrats. The concept of karma was abused to legitimize the torture and exploitation of the aristocrats.

The 5th Dalai Lama and his colleagues used dirty tricks, violence, and political purge to secure the leadership position in Tibet. The 6th Dalai Lama was a lascivious person and wrote many erotic poems under the guise of "Buddism teachings".

In Tsarist Russia the serf was heavily abused by the aristocrats, there were cases that they were sold like animals, they were subjected to beating, whacking, multilation, and a certain madam in a burst of rage killed 72 of her serfs. Guess what, that madam's life was spared by empress Ekaterina !

=======

All these stories had nothing to do with Jews, much of these stories happened in the countries who had no idea who Jews were or had no contact with Jewish communities.

But it had everything to do which what you described as "traditional culture" which reinforce social hierarchy and paved ways for authority abuse amongst the privileged classes.

I would not also fall on the other extreme and idealise american Indians.

Hahahahaha... pretty damn sure no white person has ever even come close to doing that...

And that would imply that the Jews cannot really be the culprit at all and to save the situation you'll have to think of something else

People with jewish names happened to be part of a revolution, if you look you can find a connection to anything.

In the west a common last name is smith and it usually indicates an ancestor was a Blacksmith... does that mean all blacksmiths are evil because the Mr Smith character in the Matrix movies was written by the Cohen brothers?  An end of the world movie written by jews framing blacksmiths for everything... wow that rabbit hole goes deep.

You know what is really funny... I was reading a story on some international media... I think it was British but can't remember, and it mentioned our former Prime Minister John Key and it mentioned he was Jewish. He was our prime minister and I had no idea. I didn't vote for the guy, but his religion never came up all the time he was in office.

I am sure if he was running in the US or Israel then his religion would be critical for a lot of people but everyone I mentioned it to here, first of all, didn't know, but also second of all... didn't care. He was a national party member so pro US pro business... our equivalent of a Republican, but obviously we are not a republic.

In 50 years time they might point out the jewish leader of New Zealand did this or that for globalism because he is jewish, but I don't think there is a valid link.

higurashihougi wrote:

ArgentinaGuard wrote:Because China is a communist country whose traditional culture was eliminated or misappropriated. Today China is perfectly compatible with globalism. Globalism and communism, inventions of Judaism, are the same. They have the same materialistic and immanent base.

Do you know what does "traditional culture" means ?

That means you had to prostrate in front of the kids of the landlords or government magistrate, called them "Master" and "respcted" them as if they were your fathers or seniors.

Yes a kid might be even younger than your son demanded that you treated him as your father ! Just because he was born into a well-to-do family with money and power. That was how "traditional culture" in China, and in many pre-capitalist society elsewhere, demanded you to do.

I don't know what do you think of it, but me, a Communist sympathizer, will give that kid two slaps in his face and send him back to his parent for moral re-education.

If the magnificent Lu Xun (1881-1936) was ressurected he might tell you how disgusting the "traditional culture" were.

The caste system in India is another example of "traditional culture".

Korean and Japanese workers suffer heavy workload and intense verbal abuse from their superiors, thanks to the element of "traditional culture" incorporated into capitalism exploitation which enforces corporation hierarchy and prevent the workingmen from demanding their human rights.

"Traditional culture" also means superstition, for example the belief eating the blood of executed could treat tuberculosis.

Or gender inequality, such as a man could have multiple wives and extramartial affairs with other womens were seen as a sign of masculinity, while a women pursued her own love could be sentenced to death. "Honor killings" is still prevalent in many region influenced by "traditional culture".

============

Do you want to hear stories of moral decadence in "traditional" society ? I can tell you a few.

A king stole the fiance of his own son and then killed the son in favour of his mistress.

Certain kings lived luxuriously with his huge harem in huge palaces built by imposing heavy taxes and intense forced labour from the farmers. Aristocrats lived luxuriously with "tons rotten and sour meats left uneaten at the banquets" while millions of poor peasants and commoners "died at the street, dried white bones exposed", according to contemporary scholars.

Landlords and families of government magistrate abused their authority to steal the land of independent farmers, turned the farmers into landless tenants. Landless tenants suffered from heavy taxes, land rents, loan with huge interests, had to sell their wives and families to solve the debts. "Rich families with boundless lands and poor peasants without even a piece of soil to throw the bird" - contemporary historical annals said.

A civil magistrate will close connection with a king's favoured concubine, everyday he committed sexual abuse and rape against whatever women he saw in the street, right in front of the local population and no one dared to intervene in fear of retaliation.

In the "traditional culture" pre-communist Tibet, novice monks from the commoner families were conscripted into the monasteries and had to work as a serf to serve the luxurious lives of the head monks and military leaders. They novice monks from serf families were subjected to beaten, verbal abuse, multilation, torture, and were even sexually abused or forced into homosexual relationship with their "seniors" from the aristocrats. The concept of karma was abused to legitimize the torture and exploitation of the aristocrats.

The 5th Dalai Lama and his colleagues used dirty tricks, violence, and political purge to secure the leadership position in Tibet. The 6th Dalai Lama was a lascivious person and wrote many erotic poems under the guise of "Buddism teachings".

In Tsarist Russia the serf was heavily abused by the aristocrats, there were cases that they were sold like animals, they were subjected to beating, whacking, multilation, and a certain madam in a burst of rage killed 72 of her serfs. Guess what, that madam's life was spared by empress Ekaterina !

=======

All these stories had nothing to do with Jews, much of these stories happened in the countries who had no idea who Jews were or had no contact with Jewish communities.

But it had everything to do which what you described as "traditional culture" which reinforce social hierarchy and paved ways for authority abuse amongst the privileged classes.

When you want to explain traditional cultures, you only repeat the communist propaganda manual. Also, your ignorance of the Tradition explains why the Soviet Union failed miserably in Afghanistan (like USA), hastening its downfall. You think that "modernity" applies to everyone, it is a necessary step for "liberation", and it is not like that.

There are several examples of how peasants and workers were better protected in the traditional order. Those supposed abuses are nothing more than particular cases, next to the massacres and destruction of the communists or their liberal comrades.
Just look at the "old regime" and its systems of guilds and corporations, dismantled by the French revolutionaries to favor the interests of the liberal bourgeoisie.
In England, the expropriation of land ended the customs and traditions of millions of peasants who were left with nothing but their workforce.
Idiot communists like you tend to celebrate that as progress and a necessary part of the mechanism and dialectic of history.What is presented as "progress" further impoverished those people. He put them under a new master, who was much more terrible.

Then there is a point on which we will not agree and I will explain it to you.
You profess egalitarianism. For you human beings are equal. You aspire to it.
Humanity is a farce. There is a scale of beings. A natural and necessary hierarchy, which is millennial and common to all societies that have existed in history.  The problem with the Jews is that they come to subvert that fundamental principle. It's their nature and I don't blame them for it. They do not do it because they are good, but because subverting that order is the step to impose their own domination on societies. I must admit that they succeeded and we see their fruits. The challenge is to reconstruct that traditional orderInequality is the basis of human history and it will always be so. Not for money (which responds to democratic egalitarianism) but based on spirit. But you are a materialist. You will not understand and the discussion would be vain.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:When you want to explain traditional cultures, you only repeat the communist propaganda manual.

It is not communist propaganda. These are historical facts, recorded in classic history annals and literature works by contemporary scholars and intelligentsias, about what they witnessed or knew at that time.

Don't underestimate the historical knowledge of people in communist countries, especially in Eastern Asia. They are more familiar with the classic annals than you thougt, especially when it has been more available thanks to technological progress.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:Those supposed abuses are nothing more than particular cases

They were sytematic, regularly happened, and relatively widespread, I just named a few notable examples. The full list should be nearly limitless.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:next to the massacres and destruction of the communists or their liberal comrades.

Oh do you know that generals and kings in the time of "traditional society" massacred the whole population of a city as a mean of terrorizing the enemy ? The massacre in Yangzhou in the mid 17th century took about 200000-300000 lives, women and children included and the perpetrators was quite proud of their crimes.

Or do you know the "punishment" of familial exterminations which was the norm of "traditional era" ? In such a case, 873 people of a whole clan and even unrelated students was executed.

Literary inquisition, naming taboo, political repression in the "traditional culture" was 10000000 times more harsh than anything you can imagine today. I am sure that none of the members of our forum can memorize all the "taboo" that the "traditional" scholars had to in order to keep their head on their neck.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:In England, the expropriation of land ended the customs and traditions of millions of peasants who were left with nothing but their workforce. Idiot communists like you tend to celebrate that as progress and a necessary part of the mechanism and dialectic of history.

Which communist celebrate that ? What do you mean "celebrate" ? I am not aware of any communist celebrate that.

Why don't you read the chapter of "Primitive accumulation" in Das Kapital and see for yourself whether Marx celebrated it ?

It was Marx himself said that capital was born with blood and dirt all of its body.

To me it looks more like a capitalist said that to make excuses for his exploitation.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:You profess egalitarianism. For you human beings are equal. You aspire to it.
Humanity is a farce. There is a scale of beings. A natural and necessary hierarchy, which is millennial and common to all societies that have existed in history.

But it is egalitarianism, not social hiearchy, that protect human from moral degeneration.

Social hiearchy means that somebody have domination over others and they tend to abuse that authority at the expense of others, lead to moral degeneration. Historical facts prove that.

From my point of view the sons of aristocrats and magistrates have nothing superior to the sons of peasants except the privileges and wealth inherited from their fathers.

Except for the universally accepted hierarchy between parents and children, old people and young people, I see no merit in the hierarchy of what you call "traditional value".

I respect people for what they do and what they want to do, not for what their father is or what social privileges they have.

The British Holodomor in India cost 30 million Indian lives. The Soviet Holodomor in "Ukraine" is a fabrication. There is a lot of revisionist
rubbish about China, the USSR and the communist world. I hear the number of 100 million deaths from communism. This number is total
fiction (it counts the Ukr Holodomor lie and fluffs up deaths in China, etc.) and in actuality the deaths from western colonialists around the
world since the 1800s are in this ball park.

It is not surprising that the precious west projects its own crimes onto the "other". The precious west is an abomination.

higurashihougi wrote:

But it is egalitarianism, not social hiearchy, that protect human from moral degeneration.

Social hiearchy means that somebody have domination over others and they tend to abuse that authority at the expense of others, lead to moral degeneration. Historical facts prove that.

From my point of view the sons of aristocrats and magistrates have nothing superior to the sons of peasants except the privileges and wealth inherited from their fathers.

Except for the universally accepted hierarchy between parents and children, old people and young people, I see no merit in the hierarchy of what you call "traditional value".

I respect people for what they do and what they want to do, not for what their father is or what social privileges they have.

BULLSHIT!!
Egalitarianism is the litteral delusion thats cuasing most of your "moral degeneraty" to begin with.
Watching the Western world colapse into a woke shitshow is more than enough evidence for anyone.
Or are you gonna tell me that that wasn't real socia..... egalitarianism.
Ideals are just that ideals, reality doesnt give a damn, and what we see in the West today is the end result.

Yes thats the one thing communist cant seem to get, there is no such thing as equality, period
Humans since the begining had to balance their lives with dealing with human societies BS, or natures BS.

Incorrect, there always be people who lead and those who follow, thats why aristocrats and monarchy came to power to begin with.
Its not all about goddamn money.

No matter what you do, their will always a someone or something above you, especially in human society for the very nature of said society demads it in order to even function.
Be it traditoinal or modern is irrelevant.

Respect is earned, but to communists its always damn the rich, no matter what.
So i dont know what you are going on about?

AlfaT8 wrote:Respect is earned, but to communists its always damn the rich, no matter what.
So i dont know what you are going on about?

Where do you get rich from ?

Where do you get your aristocratic title from ?

Do you earn it ?

Or you father pass it to you ?

higurashihougi wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Respect is earned, but to communists its always damn the rich, no matter what.
So i dont know what you are going on about?

Where do you get rich from ?

Where do you get your aristocratic title from ?

Do you earn it ?

Or you father pass it to you ?

Generational wealth, getting real lucky, or conquest.
I know communist love to focus on that last part, the defeated are the defeated, natural selection is a B'tch.

Achievements, leadership or just being competwnt enuegh to keep power.
You want them to lose power, then beat them or shut it.

Yes, becuase if they cant then they lose it.
The Prince, anyone?

Sure, but in the end, its up to the next in line to keep hold of it and no be usurped.

Wheres the rest of your reply?

AlfaT8 wrote:Generational wealth, getting real lucky, or conquest.
I know communist love to focus on that last part, the defeated are the defeated, natural selection is a B'tch.

So that last part does exists and you rich people not because you are talented saint destined to guide people, but because you are sons of filthy rich fathers, or you rob the wealth of other, like the West have been doing for years on the soils of other countries ?

AlfaT8 wrote:Achievements, leadership or just being competwnt enuegh to keep power.
You want them to lose power, then beat them or shut it.

Yes, becuase if they cant then they lose it.
The Prince, anyone?

Sure, but in the end, its up to the next in line to keep hold of it and no be usurped.

Then why don't you just skip the bloodshed part and voluntary give up your wealth to other people more suitable than you ?

For most of the cases you self-proclaimed "talents" only quit when others give you a punch in the face and not because others think they are more talented than you, but they are being sucked dry by the most disgusting monsters sitting on the thrones.

AlfaT8 wrote:Egalitarianism is the litteral delusion thats cuasing most of your "moral degeneraty" to begin with.

Ideals are just that ideals, reality doesnt give a damn, and what we see in the West today is the end result.

What we see in the West today are Western countries using their wealth and military power to intervene in other countries's affair to bloodsucking other nations and get richer during these process... and somehow it is the fault of egalitarianism ?

Why do you people claim to be the warriors against the degenerated West while your own ideology is exactly the thing that the West endorse ?

higurashihougi wrote:

ArgentinaGuard wrote:When you want to explain traditional cultures, you only repeat the communist propaganda manual.

It is not communist propaganda. These are historical facts, recorded in classic history annals and literature works by contemporary scholars and intelligentsias, about what they witnessed or knew at that time.

Don't underestimate the historical knowledge of people in communist countries, especially in Eastern Asia. They are more familiar with the classic annals than you thougt, especially when it has been more available thanks to technological progress.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:Those supposed abuses are nothing more than particular cases

They were sytematic, regularly happened, and relatively widespread, I just named a few notable examples. The full list should be nearly limitless.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:next to the massacres and destruction of the communists or their liberal comrades.

Oh do you know that generals and kings in the time of "traditional society" massacred the whole population of a city as a mean of terrorizing the enemy ? The massacre in Yangzhou in the mid 17th century took about 200000-300000 lives, women and children included and the perpetrators was quite proud of their crimes.

Or do you know the "punishment" of familial exterminations which was the norm of "traditional era" ? In such a case, 873 people of a whole clan and even unrelated students was executed.

Literary inquisition, naming taboo, political repression in the "traditional culture" was 10000000 times more harsh than anything you can imagine today. I am sure that none of the members of our forum can memorize all the "taboo" that the "traditional" scholars had to in order to keep their head on their neck.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:In England, the expropriation of land ended the customs and traditions of millions of peasants who were left with nothing but their workforce. Idiot communists like you tend to celebrate that as progress and a necessary part of the mechanism and dialectic of history.

Which communist celebrate that ? What do you mean "celebrate" ? I am not aware of any communist celebrate that.

Why don't you read the chapter of "Primitive accumulation" in Das Kapital and see for yourself whether Marx celebrated it ?

It was Marx himself said that capital was born with blood and dirt all of its body.

To me it looks more like a capitalist said that to make excuses for his exploitation.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:You profess egalitarianism. For you human beings are equal. You aspire to it.
Humanity is a farce. There is a scale of beings. A natural and necessary hierarchy, which is millennial and common to all societies that have existed in history.

But it is egalitarianism, not social hiearchy, that protect human from moral degeneration.

Social hiearchy means that somebody have domination over others and they tend to abuse that authority at the expense of others, lead to moral degeneration. Historical facts prove that.

From my point of view the sons of aristocrats and magistrates have nothing superior to the sons of peasants except the privileges and wealth inherited from their fathers.

Except for the universally accepted hierarchy between parents and children, old people and young people, I see no merit in the hierarchy of what you call "traditional value".

I respect people for what they do and what they want to do, not for what their father is or what social privileges they have.

You're talking about particular cases again, not a general rule. The sovereigns in ancient times had to fight for the common good. The Church helped the poor and needy.
The inquisition has been overestimated. The Protestants were much more brutal. In addition, in the same way that the inquisition is attacked, the threat of witchcraft is unknown. Obviously, as a good materialist, you are an atheist and are unaware of the existence of evil.

And any slaughter beats next to communism or liberalism.
I REMIND YOU THAT MARX CELEBRATED THE CONQUEST OF INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES INVASION OF MEXICO BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BRING INDUSTRY AND CAPITALIST PROGRESS. You forgot about that, it seems

"The war [against Mexico] will surely be a worthy prelude to the military history of the great country of the Yankees."

Letter to Engels, London, November 30, 1854

“There are in the Yankees feelings of independence and personal value higher than in the Saxons. The Spanish are degenerate beings. The Mexicans have all the vices of the Spaniards: boastfulness and quixotism raised to the third power, without the solidity of the Spaniards. The Mexican guerrilla war is the caricature of the Spanish one and even the regular troops that leave the field appear to be infinitely outmatched”.

Letter to Engels, London, December 2, 1854


The current aristocracy is degenerate because it has given in to modernity and liberalism. But historically the aristocracy is based on war.
The idea of ​​a higher and a lower principle will always exist in human societies, no matter how much communists and liberals like you want to change it.
What will happen to the current society is that it will be annihilated and a new renaissance will come.

kvs wrote:The British Holodomor in India cost 30 million Indian lives.    The Soviet Holodomor in "Ukraine" is a fabrication.    There is a lot of revisionist
rubbish about China, the USSR and the communist world.   I hear the number of 100 million deaths from communism.   This number is total
fiction (it counts the Ukr Holodomor lie and fluffs up deaths in China, etc.) and in actuality the deaths from western colonialists around the
world since the 1800s are in this ball park.

It is not surprising that the precious west projects its own crimes onto the "other".   The precious west is an abomination.

 

Do not say foolishness. the Holocaust in India was a reality, as were the starvation deaths of Slavic peasants. All that stupidity of the communists gave foundations to the Ukrainian nationalists.
Mao did the same in China with the "leap forward", which ended in disaster. Communists seek compulsive modernization to get closer to their liberal peers. That is why they are the same.

It is true that communism killed 100 million people. In fact there was an investigation. The communists are a mess, and idiot animals. Even the Jews realized that it was a fragile skeleton and ended up supporting capitalist globalism, which is an economic and cultural project. They realized that they cannot depend on violence.

higurashihougi wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Generational wealth, getting real lucky, or conquest.
I know communist love to focus on that last part, the defeated are the defeated, natural selection is a B'tch.

So that last part does exists and you rich people not because you are talented saint destined to guide people, but because you are sons of filthy rich fathers, or you rob the wealth of other, like the West have been doing for years on the soils of other countries ?

Yes, we lead, you follow, you wanna lead, defeat me then.
Whats this "rob" nonsense from you communists?
The indigeunis populations werent even doing anything with these resources, some were just giving it away.
It was only after getting colinised did these stupid people understanf the value of what they had and only afterwords had the accuired the know how on how to develop it.
You should thank your conquerers.

AlfaT8 wrote:Achievements, leadership or just being competwnt enuegh to keep power.
You want them to lose power, then beat them or shut it.

Yes, becuase if they cant then they lose it.
The Prince, anyone?

Sure, but in the end, its up to the next in line to keep hold of it and no be usurped.

Then why don't you just skip the bloodshed part and voluntary give up your wealth to other people more suitable than you ?

For most of the cases you self-proclaimed "talents" only quit when others give you a punch in the face and not because others think they are more talented than you, but they are being sucked dry by the most disgusting monsters sitting on the thrones.

Simple, becuase the act of holding and maintaining that power is the demonstration competence and proves who is the most suitible, tis naerly impossible to skip bloodshed.

Then do it then, punch, kick, stab, kill your way to the top.
For that is.the reality of power.
The delusion of socialist equality itself is nothing more than another weapons to seize power.

AlfaT8 wrote:Egalitarianism is the litteral delusion thats cuasing most of your "moral degeneraty" to begin with.

Ideals are just that ideals, reality doesnt give a damn, and what we see in the West today is the end result.

What we see in the West today are Western countries using their wealth and military power to intervene in other countries's affair to bloodsucking other nations and get richer during these process... and somehow it is the fault of egalitarianism ?

Why do you people claim to be the warriors against the degenerated West while your own ideology is exactly the thing that the West endorse ?

[/quote]

You start with moral degeneracy and now you're going  on about western imperialism.
You know why they have to keep bloodsucking other nations, its simple, its to keep their blooted garbage welfare states afloat.
For that is the only way to bribe the people and get into power, or at least it was, since now we have fortified elections.

But they still need it to keep the population complaicent, thats why you have the Right-wing in the West avoiding any real action of force, becuase they arw all worried about their 401Ks, social security and pensions.
Useless trash, all of them.

So yea, there you have it, social democracy directly causing the continuation of imperial colonialism.

AlfaT8 wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Generational wealth, getting real lucky, or conquest.
I know communist love to focus on that last part, the defeated are the defeated, natural selection is a B'tch.

So that last part does exists and you rich people not because you are talented saint destined to guide people, but because you are sons of filthy rich fathers, or you rob the wealth of other, like the West have been doing for years on the soils of other countries ?

Yes, we lead, you follow, you wanna lead, defeat me then.
Whats this "rob" nonsense from you communists?
The indigeunis populations werent even doing anything with these resources, some were just giving it away.
It was only after getting colinised did these stupid people understanf the value of what they had and only afterwords had the accuired the know how on how to develop it.
You should thank your conquerers.

AlfaT8 wrote:Achievements, leadership or just being competwnt enuegh to keep power.
You want them to lose power, then beat them or shut it.

Yes, becuase if they cant then they lose it.
The Prince, anyone?

Sure, but in the end, its up to the next in line to keep hold of it and no be usurped.

Then why don't you just skip the bloodshed part and voluntary give up your wealth to other people more suitable than you ?

For most of the cases you self-proclaimed "talents" only quit when others give you a punch in the face and not because others think they are more talented than you, but they are being sucked dry by the most disgusting monsters sitting on the thrones.

Simple, becuase the act of holding and maintaining that power is the demonstration competence and proves who is the most suitible, tis naerly impossible to skip bloodshed.

Then do it then, punch, kick, stab, kill your way to the top.
For that is.the reality of power.
The delusion of socialist equality itself is nothing more than another weapons to seize power.

AlfaT8 wrote:Egalitarianism is the litteral delusion thats cuasing most of your "moral degeneraty" to begin with.

Ideals are just that ideals, reality doesnt give a damn, and what we see in the West today is the end result.

What we see in the West today are Western countries using their wealth and military power to intervene in other countries's affair to bloodsucking other nations and get richer during these process... and somehow it is the fault of egalitarianism ?

Why do you people claim to be the warriors against the degenerated West while your own ideology is exactly the thing that the West endorse ?

You did a summary of the Soviet revolution. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin would agree.

ArgentinaGuard wrote:Do not say foolishness. the Holocaust in India was a reality, as were the starvation deaths of Slavic peasants. All that stupidity of the communists gave foundations to the Ukrainian nationalists.
Mao did the same in China with the "leap forward", which ended in disaster. Communists seek compulsive modernization to get closer to their liberal peers. That is why they are the same.

Bud, communists sought modernization because without it you will get crushed.

Imagine what a push-over the Soviet Union would have been in WW2 if Stalin hadn't force-industrialized it in the 30s and achieved GDP per year growth rates of up to 15%.
The Holodomor was due to a large part because of the policy of collectivization. That grain was collected and sold to the West in return for machinery, as the US did not take gold for payment at the time. The machinery was used to industrialize the USSR.
Much is made of how many tanks the Red Army lost in the first 6 months of the war. It had over 20,000 and lost 90% of them, even if most of them were obsolete. But if it wasn't for the same Stalin, the Soviet Union would have never had that many tanks to lose - in fact it simply would have been rolled over. And the Soviet Union certainly wouldn't have had the industries to replace those losses

The communists were also aware that they have to bring prosperity to their own people even if short-term sacrifice was necessary, that's on what support is based on to a large extent as we see in China. The people are fed and content with the rapid modernization of their own country and trust the leadership.

You criticize the enlightenment but to witness a society that didn't get affect by it either directly, or indirectly, you will have to go look at some Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Sudan. As a general rule these countries are backwards not only in laws but technological progress too. This is not a coincidence - these issues are linked. And this is what has doomed them to predation at the hands of the countries which did modernize; the same liberals. Who are in fact militaristic and aggressive as all hell, and who could afford such policies as their modernity and forward thinking is what allowed them to gain an advantage and then bulldoze everyone else and keep them down.